Research and reflective practice in the EFL classroom: Voices from Armenia

Abstract

A sociocultural perspective of teacher development honours the rich knowledge base that teachers work

from as they strive to connect theory (“expert” knowledge) to practice (“experiential” knowledge). The

present paper explores classroom research and reflective practice as forms of teacher-led inquiry for the

EFL context. In particular, this study explores the extent to which Armenian EFL teachers engage in

classroom research, the challenges they face therein, and whether or not they consider themselves to be

reflective practitioners. The findings are presented against the backdrop of the Armenian context with

recommendations for cultivating teacher-led inquiry to promote teacher development in a range of EFL settings.

Keywords

• Classroom research; professional development; reflection; reflective practice; teacherresearcher

Kaynakça

1. Adey, P., G. Hewitt, J. Hewitt, & N. Landau. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. Allison, D. & Carey, J. (2007). What do university language teachers say about language teaching research? TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 61-81.
3. Anderson, G. (1990). Fundamentals of educational research. New York, NY: Falmer.
4. Anderson, J. (2003). Expanding the paradigm: Students as researchers in service-learning. In S. H. Billig & A. S. Waterman (Eds.), Studying service learning: Innovations in education research methodology (pp.167–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Anderson, S. E. (Ed.). (2002). Improving schools through teacher development. Case studies of the Aga Khan foundation projects in East Africa. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
6. Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Topics, aims, and constraints in English teacher research: A Chinese case study. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 113-125. http://doi.org/bcqh
7. Berdie, D. R., Anderson, J. F., & Niebuhr, M. A. (1986). Questionnaires: Design and use. London, UK: The Scarecrow Press.
8. Bernhardt, V. L. (2013). The school portfolio. A comprehensive framework for school improvement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Eye On Education.

9. Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 358-388. http://doi.org/d9cvzt
10. Borg, S. & Liu, Y. (2013). Chinese college English teachers’ research engagement. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 270-299. http://doi.org/bcqj
11. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker. (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp.18–40). New York, NY: Nichols.
12. Bullough, R. V., & Gitlin, A. D. (2001). Becoming a student of teaching: Linking knowledge production and practice. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
13. Burns, A. (2009). Doing action research in ELT. A guide for practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.
14. Calfee, R., & Perfumo, P. (Eds.). (1996). Writing portfolios in the classroom. Policy and practice, promise and peril. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Castle, K. (2012). Early childhood teacher research. From questions to results. New York, NY: Routledge.
16. Çelik, S. & Dikilitaş, K. (2015). Action research as a professional development strategy. In S. Borg and H. S. Sanchez (Eds.), International perspectives on teacher research (pp. 125-138). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Churchill, R., Ferguson, P., Godinho, S., Johnson, N. F., Keddie, A., Letts, W., Mackay, J., McGill, M., Moss, J., Nagel, M. C., Nicholson, P., & Vick, M. (2011). Teaching: Making a difference. Milton, Australia: Wiley and Sons.
18. Cirocki, A. (2013a). Conducting research in the EFL classroom. Modern English Teacher, 22(1), 76-81.
19. Cirocki, A. (2013b). Conducting research in the classroom: Collecting qualitative and quantitative data. Modern English Teacher, 22(2), 63-69.
20. Cirocki, A., Tennekoon, S., & Peña Calvo, A. (2014). Research and reflective practice in the ESL classroom: Voices from Sri Lanka. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 24-44. http://doi.org/bcqk
21. Cottrell, R. R., & McKenzie, J. F. (2011). Health promotion and education research methods: Using the five chapter thesis/dissertation model. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
22. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London, UK: Sage.
24. Denny, H. G. (2006). Can busy classroom teachers really do action research? An action research study in an EAL tertiary setting. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 59-73.
25. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London, UK: Continuum.
27. Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education. New York, NY: Routledge.
28. Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2010). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education, volume 3, international perspectives. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
29. Fichtman Dana, N., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research. Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
30. Gao, X. & Chow, A. W. K. (2012). Primary school English teachers’ research engagement. ELT Journal, 66(2), 224-232. http://doi.org/dbm449
31. Gardner, F. (2014). Being critically reflective: Engaging in holistic practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
32. General Teaching Council for Wales. (2002). Continuing professional development: An entitlement for all. Retrieved from
33. http://www.gtcw.org.uk/gtcw/images/stories/downloads/cpd/CPD_AdviceE.pdf
34. Gregory, I. (2003). Ethics in research. London, UK: Continuum.
35. Hopkins, D. (2008). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
36. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
37. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. (2011). A sociocultural theoretical perspective on teacher professional development. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Routledge.
38. Khachatryan, S., Petrosyan, S., & Terzyan, G. (2013). Assessment of teacher professional development and educational content in the context of general education reforms in Armenia. Retrieved from
39. http://www.osf.am/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FinalENGAssessmentPDEC.pdf
40. Kemmis, S. (1985). Action research and the politics of reflection. In D. Boyd, D. Keogh & D. Walber (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp.139–164). London, UK: Kogan Page.
41. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research reader (3rd ed.). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
42. Keyes, C. (2000). The early childhood teacher’s voice in the research community. International Journal of Early Years Education, 8(1), 3–13. http://doi.org/fjzkzs
43. Killion, J., & Todnem, G. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14–16.
44. Kim, E. (2011). Ten years of CLT curricular reform efforts in South Korea: An activity theory analysis of a teacher’s experience. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development (pp. 225-238). New York, NY: Routledge.
45. Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. London, UK: FalmerPress.
46. Klassen, A. C., Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V. L., Clegg Smith, K., & Meissner, H. I. (2012). Best practices in mixed-methods for quality of life research. Qual Life Res, 21, 377–380. http://doi.org/bcqm
47. Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American Education. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7–45.
48. Lyons, N. (2010). Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry. New York, NY: Springer.
49. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York, NY: Routledge.
50. Mertler, C. A. (2012). Action research. Improving schools and empowering educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
52. Mistretta, R. M. (2008). Teachers engaging parents and children in mathematical learning: Nurturing productive collaboration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
53. Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning. A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. New York, NY: Routledge.
54. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55. O’Donnell, A. M., Reeve, J., & Smith, J. K. (2012). Educational psychology. Reflection for action. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
56. Pappas C. C., & Raymond, E. T. (2011). Becoming a teacher researcher in literacy teaching and learning strategies and tools for the inquiry process. New York, NY: Routledge.
57. Pisapia, J. R. (2009). The strategic leader. New tactics for a globalizing world. Charlotte, NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing.
58. Pollard, A., Collins, J., Maddock, M., Simco, N., Swaffield, S., Warin, J., & Warwick, P. (2005). Reflective teaching (2nd ed). London, UK: Continuum.
59. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60. Rust, F. O. (2007). Action research in early childhood contexts. In J. A. Hatch (Ed.), Early childhood qualitative research (pp. 95–108). New York, NY: Routledge.
61. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
62. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York, NY: Doubleday.
63. Shulman, L. S. (1988). The dangers of dichotomous thinking in education. In P. P. Grimmett & G. L. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 31–46). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
64. Smith, R., Connelly, T., & Rebolledo, P. (2014). Teacher research as continuing professional development: A project with Chilean secondary schools. In D. Hayes (Ed.), Innovations in the continuing professional development of English language teachers (pp. 111-128). London: The British Council.
65. Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 271–288). New York, NY: Springer.
66. Stahmer, A. C., Suhrheinrich, J., Reed, S., Schreibman, L., & C. Bolduc. (2011). Classroom pivotal response teaching for children with autism. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
67. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London, UK: Heinemann.
68. Tadevosyan, A. (2008). The parallel worlds of NGOs, multilateral aid, and development banks: The case of community schools in Armenia. In I. Silova & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), How NGOs react: Globalization and education reform in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Mongolia (pp. 81–101). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
69. Terzian, S. M. (2010). Curriculum reform in post-Soviet Armenia: Balancing local and global contexts in Armenian secondary schools. Retrieved from
70. http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=luc_diss
71. Weathington, B., Cunningham, C., & Pittenger, D. (2010). Research methods for the behavioral and social sciences. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
72. Winslow, E. H. (1996). Failure to publish research: A form of scientific misconduct. Heart and Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, 25, 169–171. http://doi.org/c9n2bt
73. Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research as professional development P-12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301–328. http://doi.org/fchx66