action research in language education

19
This article was downloaded by: [University Of South Australia Library] On: 11 January 2014, At: 14:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Educational Action Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20 Exploring constructivist social learning practices in aiding Russian-speaking teachers to learn Estonian: an action research approach Tatjana Kiilo a & Dagmar Kutsar a a Faculty of Social Sciences & Education, University of Tartu , Tartu , Estonia Published online: 29 Nov 2012. To cite this article: Tatjana Kiilo & Dagmar Kutsar (2012) Exploring constructivist social learning practices in aiding Russian-speaking teachers to learn Estonian: an action research approach, Educational Action Research, 20:4, 587-604, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2012.727649 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.727649 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Upload: hesty-wulandari

Post on 29-Nov-2014

240 views

Category:

Education


0 download

DESCRIPTION

This is an e-book for action reasearch

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Action Research in language education

This article was downloaded by: [University Of South Australia Library]On: 11 January 2014, At: 14:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Exploring constructivist social learningpractices in aiding Russian-speakingteachers to learn Estonian: an actionresearch approachTatjana Kiilo a & Dagmar Kutsar aa Faculty of Social Sciences & Education, University of Tartu ,Tartu , EstoniaPublished online: 29 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Tatjana Kiilo & Dagmar Kutsar (2012) Exploring constructivist social learningpractices in aiding Russian-speaking teachers to learn Estonian: an action research approach,Educational Action Research, 20:4, 587-604, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2012.727649

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.727649

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Action Research in language education

Exploring constructivist social learning practices in aidingRussian-speaking teachers to learn Estonian: an action researchapproach

Tatjana Kiilo* and Dagmar Kutsar

Faculty of Social Sciences & Education, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

(Received 4 October 2011; final version received 22 May 2012)

Based on appreciative inquiry and threshold concepts from an interculturallearning perspective, the article makes insights into the constructivist sociallearning practice of Estonian language learning amongst Russian-speaking teach-ers in Estonia. The application of educational action research methodology,more specifically that of Bridget Somekh’s eight methodological principles ofinclusive action research, demonstrates the ways in which Estonian languagelearning in mentoring dyads can better empower foreign-speaking teachers’agency compared with traditional language classes.

Keywords: Estonia; action research; appreciative inquiry; thresholds concepts;intercultural learning; constructivist social learning

Introduction

Educational researchers have long been concerned to understand how teachers canbest adapt to changes in policy. Very often policy changes happen via edict, andthere are various kinds of efforts made to ensure that appropriate professional devel-opment is used. Action researchers have argued that action research is a usefulapproach since it works with teachers’ extant knowledge, while building new peda-gogical approaches and understandings. There are a range of examples of actionresearch as a means of adjusting to policy shifts, and this paper adds to this bodyof research. It focuses on a case much less reported in English-language journals –that of Estonia and the changes brought about in the wake of the collapse of theSoviet Union.

In 1991 Estonia regained independent statehood from the collapsing SovietUnion and declared the Estonian language to be the only official state language, thusdemoting the Russian language from its former, pre-eminent position. After severalimportant language-political decisions had been taken by the state, the Russian-speaking teachers in Russian-medium schools, namely those without the requiredEstonian language proficiency, found themselves in a double-bind situation: on theone hand, they were formally obliged to provide their pupils with access to theofficial language within the school system in Estonia; but on the other hand, theywere not actually able to do this due to several contextual factors and struggles

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Educational Action ResearchVol. 20, No. 4, December 2012, 587–604

ISSN 0965-0792 print/ISSN 1747-5074 online� 2012 Educational Action Researchhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.727649http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 3: Action Research in language education

within their own personal and professional identities. The government’s primarysolution in assisting the Russian-speaking teachers in Estonia was to invest inlanguage classes – also without any notable success. Arising from this, and havingbeen inspired by recent research on the complexity of language-in-education issues(Lin and Martin 2005; Phipps and Guilherme 2004; Guilherme 2002; Hadi-Tabas-sum 2006), a constructivist social learning theory was operationalised into the designfor intervention by the authors of the present article, as an alternative to traditionalsecond-language learning classes. As a result, a language learning mentoringprogramme was developed and launched in 2008 by a partnership of the EstonianIntegration Foundation, the Open Estonia Foundation, The British Council Estonia,and Inscape Baltic – the ‘operational actors’. The aim was to bring the Russian-speaking teachers up to the level required and provide them with new personal andprofessional resources, of which they were expected to take ownership.

The two-year programme was carried out in close cooperation with researchers,following the design of the action research. Action research was chosen as the pri-mary research methodology because it ‘bridges the divide between theory and prac-tice […]’ and ‘its aim is to deepen practitioners’ understanding of the complexsituations in which they live and work […]’ (Somekh 1995, 340–1). In designingthe action research we followed Bridget Somekh’s (2006, 12) eight methodologicalprinciples of the inclusive definition of action research: (1) the integrative nature ofresearch and action in a series of flexible cycles; (2) the collaborative partnership ofparticipants and researchers; (3) the development of knowledge and understandingof a unique kind; (4) a vision of social transformation and aspirations for greatersocial justice for all, underlying the design of action research; (5) a high level ofreflexivity and sensitivity to the role of the self in mediating the research process;(6) explanatory engagement with a wide variety of existing knowledge; (7) engen-dering powerful learning for participants; and (8) placing the inquiry in an under-standing of broader social contexts.

The present article is aimed at introducing the theoretical framework of theintervention from a constructivist social language learning perspective and providingthe preliminary findings from the study. We are interested in highlighting the chal-lenges of official language learning by the means of the mentoring programme fol-lowing constructivist social learning principles, and by applying action research as amethodological tool.

Socio-political context of the action research: Russian-speaking teachers inEstonia

Estonia is a multi-ethnic society, where in total 417,729 people, or 31.1% of thepopulation, belong to various ethnic groups other than Estonian (data as of 2010;Eesti statistika 2011). The majority of non-Estonians speak Russian as their mothertongue. Out of 545 general education schools, the language of instruction is Russianin 58 schools and in 28 schools both Estonian and Russian are used (data for the2010/11 academic year; Estonian Ministry of Education and Research 2011).

Language-in-education issues in Estonia are influenced by the ethnic politicsimplemented during the period of the Soviet occupation. During 1940–1991, as aresult of Soviet policy in major functional domains, Estonian was replaced byRussian, the corollary to a large influx of mainly Russian-speaking newcomers,including teachers from the other Soviet Republics of the Soviet Union. Within the

588 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 4: Action Research in language education

educational system the Estonian language remained, alongside Russian, a language ofinstruction during the period of the Soviet occupation. A network of general educationschools using Russian-medium instruction was created and Russian-medium schools(located mainly in the Ida-Viru region and the capital, Tallinn) operated in parallelwith Estonian-medium education institutions. The majority of teachers working atRussian-medium schools were Russian-speaking newcomers. As the status of theRussian language was quite high and a knowledge of Russian highly valued, Russian-speaking teachers furthermore did not experience any need to learn Estonian andremained monolingual (Rannut 2004). The status of Estonian as an official languagewas only restored in 1991, after the re-establishment of independence.

Since 1991 several language policy decisions have been taken that are aimed atthe legitimisation of the Estonian language within the educational system. The mostsignificant of these was to implement the transition of Russian-medium generalupper secondary schools into instruction in Estonian (regulated by the Basic Schooland Upper Secondary School Act in 1993, with the deadline fixed for 2000; subse-quently the commencement of the transition period was postponed to the 2007/08academic year). Since 1995 requirements for proficiency in the Estonian languagefor teachers have been introduced, and the State Language Office and a system oflanguage inspection were established to test language proficiency (both regulated bythe Language Act 1995).

To interpret these decisions following Pierre Bourdieu’s (1982) elaborations onlanguage as an instrument of symbolic power and action, one of the aims of theschool system in Estonia is to create the conditions necessary for the mediation andvaluation of the official language in society. The municipal schools are perceived asthe main context in which the official language can be acquired by non-Estonianpupils. A Russian-speaking teacher is expected to provide her/his students with thenecessary access to the correct official language – its grammar, structure and usage –by means of bilingual or Estonian-medium teaching, thus becoming responsible forthe ‘legitimization’ (after Bourdieu) of the Estonian language. The main measuresprovided by the state to increase the Estonian language proficiency of foreign-speaking teachers during the years 2000–2007 were both short-term and long-termlanguage courses. In 2008 the state’s activities in respect of language-in-educationissues and the situation of Russian-speaking teachers were assessed by Lauristinet al. (2008). The researchers focused on the contextual factors and stressed that thelinguistic situation of the Russian-speaking teachers had not significantly changed:

Notwithstanding extensive language instruction the teachers have had, many of themhave not become high-level bilingual speakers. The Russian speaking teachers in Esto-nia feel they are incapable of setting examples for students because of their insufficientcommand of the Estonian language […]. (Lauristin et al. 2008, 57)

Teaching some subjects in Estonian has had a negative impact on the number of teach-ers in schools. Teachers having problems in mastering the language and facing a psy-chological barrier feel humiliated and are forced to quit working in schools. (Lauristinet al. 2008, 66)

These assessments demonstrate the teachers’ failure in responding to the newconditions and requirements. Lauristin et al. (2008, 65) have come to the conclu-sion that the transition to Estonian-medium instruction is interpreted by theRussian-speaking community as a threat to minority schools and cultural

Educational Action Research 589

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 5: Action Research in language education

institutions, and to the maintenance of the Russian culture and language inEstonia. Furthermore, the requirements of proficiency in the Estonian language forRussian-speaking teachers are perceived by the Russian-speaking community asirrelevant not only politically, but also with respect to their everyday linguisticneeds. However, Ülle Rannut’s research has revealed that, ‘attitudes and languagebehaviour depend on the share of immigrants in the region concerned, as well ason the school choice and the need for communication with Estonians’ (Rannut2005, 181). According to Rannut, over 80% of parents from the Ida-Viru regiondid not consider a knowledge of Estonian to be important, and 40% found no fur-ther need for it. Rannut has proved that a high concentration of Russian-speakersand the consequent formation of a segregated environment (as in the case of theIda-Viru region and to some extent Tallinn) have led to the domination of instru-mental motivation in learning the Estonian language and, conversely, hindered thedevelopment of integrative motivation.

To summarise what has been previously outlined, the Russian-speaking teachersare put in a double-bind situation. On the one hand, belonging to the Russian-speaking community they share a common cultural environment and thus, in a man-ner similar to the widespread community attitude, they may lack integrative motiva-tion to learn Estonian and to commence lessons in Estonian. The attitudes of theRussian-speaking parents and pupils who oppose the Estonian-medium teachinghardly serve to motivate teachers to make an effort in either learning or teaching inEstonian. On the other hand, as educational professionals, they are granted by thestate both the authority and the obligation for the legitimisation of the Estonian lan-guage in Russian-medium schools. Moreover, their professional career depends ontheir performance in the official language proficiency test and on their efficacy inexecuting their power in the domain of language-in-education. These factors incombination create tensions in the teachers’ professional identity and contribute totheir low performance in language acquisition by means of traditional languagecourses provided by the state. Pursuant to this point we can assume that languagecourses, if implemented in traditional language learning settings (monolingual learn-ers’ groups in a monolingual language environment), and based on instrumentalgoals of language learning (i.e. preparing teachers to pass the language test asrequired by the state), are not effective in providing support to Russian-speakingteachers in Estonia. This is because they: do not take into account the contextualfactors and cultural background of Russian-speaking teachers (i.e. do not help toresolve the troublesome personal and professional identity issues of the learners);do not address the problem of instrumental motivation in learning Estonian andplace the responsibility for learning with the learner (i.e. Estonian language learningis seen by teachers as an ‘uncomfortable obligation’ imposed by the state); and donothing to reduce the social distance between Estonian and Russian teachers’ com-munities or provide ‘space’ for Russian teachers as learners, with regular communi-cation with native speakers of Estonian (especially in the Ida-Viru region andTallinn, where the majority of Russian-speaking schools are located). There is there-fore a need to explore further, ‘[…] the complex relationships among languagepolicies, cultural politics, curriculum, educational practice, and the modes of surveil-lance of the liberal state’ (Pennycook 2002, 108) in Estonia and develop a practicalsolution to the Russian-speaking teachers’ problems.

For this purpose, a two-year mentoring programme for Russian-speaking teach-ers was developed, starting in 2008. The programme was not meant to be a

590 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 6: Action Research in language education

substitute for the traditional second-language classes as such, but rather to exploreways of overcoming the resistance to language learning conditioned by the contex-tual factors and of contributing to the performance of Russian-speaking teachers inlanguage acquisition. The target group of the programme constituted 50 minority-group teachers working at Russian-medium schools in Estonia and 39 mentors,together forming the mentoring pairs (dyads). The Russian-speaking teachers’ groupwas diverse with regard to initial levels of knowledge of the Estonian language,types of previous intercultural experiences and competencies in bilingual teaching.The majority of the teachers had experienced difficulties in passing the requiredEstonian language proficiency test. The mentors were mostly teachers from Esto-nian-medium schools; few represented other occupations. The participants workedin their dyads for 13 months and enjoyed plenty of autonomy in deciding on thelanguage learning individual working plans and the desired outcomes.

Design of the mentoring programme

The mentoring programme was designed within the constructivist social learningparadigm, according to which a teacher is ‘a facilitator’ guiding students throughthe learning process, at the same time being an active, social and creative learnerby herself/himself (after Perkins 2006). Perkins (2006, citing Phillips 1995) claimsthat an active learner in social constructivist epistemology explores, debates andinvestigates actively new information while constructing new meanings and under-standings. The role of a ‘social learner’ refers to the co-construction of new knowl-edge in interaction with others; creativity means that the knowledge is constantlycreated and recreated by a learner. According to Perkins (2006, 35), constructivismin teaching and learning can lead to a deeper understanding and ‘active use ofknowledge’. At the same time, constructivist practices require more time, they aremore cognitively demanding for learners, and in some cases are perceived as decep-tive or manipulative, when learners ‘adopt a surface approach, motivated by fear offailure and extrinsic concerns, focused on minimal coping, and accomplished bymemorisation and procedural learning’ (Perkins 2006, 35–6). Constructivist sociallanguage learning practices could be meaningful in preventing and addressing therisk of the marginalisation and disempowerment of Russian-speaking teachers inthe context of the Estonian educational system, as according to Wertsch (1989) thepractices are sensitive to the cultural background of the learner, develop the motiva-tion to learn and place the responsibility for learning with the learner.

Action research was chosen as a primary method of idiographic scientific analy-sis and evaluation of the mentoring programme, through its essence of ‘allowingfor a social-constructivist approach’ (Burns 2005, 251, cited in Ahmadian andTavakoli 2011, 134) and therefore linking the constructivist social learning methodsand practices into a logical process oriented at stimulating a developmental transfor-mative process and social change.

A cyclical analytical process of action research was followed both at the globalmacro level of the two-year mentoring programme design, and at the micro level,while developing the agendas for research conferences, joint seminars and otherinteractive events supporting the process of knowledge and skills generation.Figure 1 describes the main stages of the integrative approach to action andresearch in the mentoring programme.

Educational Action Research 591

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 7: Action Research in language education

Figure 1. Main stages of the integrative approach to action and research in the project.Notes: aAI, appreciative inquiry; TC, threshold concepts; IL, intercultural learning. Expertgroup comprised operating organisations’ representatives, researchers and representatives ofthe Estonian Ministry of Education and Research.

592 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 8: Action Research in language education

In stage 1, the problem was analysed by the researchers and representatives ofthe operational actors. A group of mentors was formed and was provided with thenecessary training. A detailed conception, including methods for intervention andan action plan for the whole project, was elaborated and reviewed at the end of thisstage.

In stage 2, the mentoring dyads were formed. During the joint seminar the pairsanalysed and discussed the visions, aims, objectives and preliminary action plansfor the whole mentoring period. These action plans were updated periodicallyduring the programme based on the outcomes of the reflection procedures.

Stages 3–5 were structured in a similar way. The actions were primarily imple-mented by mentors and mentees in pairs following the individual action plans. Theyincluded different forms of interaction within the pairs; for example, cultural andhistorical explorations (visits to theatres, museums, etc.), study visits to the mentors’and mentees’ schools, in-service training and conferences for teachers, discoveringthe relevant media channels and teachers’ professional materials in Estonian, obser-vations in the classrooms, and so forth. The experiences gained through the actionsundertaken in dyads were then brought up for reflection at the research conferences,which served as an input for the planning of the sixth stage of the mentoringprogramme – the finalisation.

At an operational and methodological level the content of the actions found inthe action research was based on the elements of three theoretical and practicalapproaches based on constructivist social learning principles: the appreciativeinquiry method (Cooperrider et al. 2003; Preskill and Catsambas 2006; Fry et al.2002), the threshold concepts theoretical perspective (Meyer and Land 2003, 2005;Meyer, Land, and Baillie 2010), and the intercultural learning tool (Hofstede 2001;Bennett 1986, 1993).

Appreciative inquiry is a strength-based method, directing the participants toexplore and value positive past experiences, envision the future, design theprocesses and methods that could work well, and execute the proposed design.Appreciative inquiry as a method of intervention was implemented in the mentoringprogramme through dialoguing and interaction – mentors and researchers facilitatedthe process of learning during the research conferences through asking questions,giving positive feedback and creating a supportive environment for the learners.The appreciative inquiry’s orientation towards social action is in line with Somekh’selaboration on the mission of the action researcher to promote social justice and, ‘tomove the change process forward as positively as possible while increasing under-standing of whatever limitations may arise’ (Somekh 2006, 7); it can also be linkedto Habermas’ theory of communicative action (Grant and Humphries 2006). Despitean increased number of applications and a large number of academic and practicalpublications, appreciative inquiry remains ‘a method with little self-reflection or cri-tique to evaluate the process as an action research method’ (Grant and Humphries2006, 401).

Grant and Humphries suggest that a critical appreciative process integrating theuse of appreciative inquiry and critical theory could deepen the insight into andrecognition of the complexity in human endeavours. Thus the threshold conceptstheory developed by Meyer and Land (2003, 2005) was added as a critical approachto facilitate the learning process. According to this theory, learning is both affectiveand cognitive and it involves identity shifts (‘we are what we know’): ‘A thresholdconcept can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously

Educational Action Research 593

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 9: Action Research in language education

inaccessible way of thinking about something’ (Meyer and Land 2003, 1); it istransformative, irreversible, integrative, bounded and potentially troublesome(Meyer and Land 2005, 373–7). Timmermans (2010, 10) states that the troublesomenature of the threshold concepts ‘may be the very quality that reveals their develop-mental potential’ and the task of an educator is ‘to acknowledge the difficult jour-ney’ (2010, 11) of a learner. The transformative nature of threshold conceptssuggests that learning also involves the transformation of the learner’s own identity.According to Timmermans this kind of change in ‘how they know’ makes thethreshold concepts irreversible. The power of threshold concepts is in their integra-tive potential, and with reference to the analysis of Timmermans the integration isnot only about discovering the epistemological interconnectedness of differentaspects of the subject, but also involves a reconstruction and reintegration of iden-tity. Boundedness refers to the contextualisation of the threshold concepts, as ‘anyconceptual space will have terminal frontiers, bordering with thresholds into newconceptual areas’ (Meyer and Land 2003, 6). In our opinion, threshold conceptstheory contributes to the development of a high level of reflexivity among research-ers and participants in the action research process. We share Somekh’s (2006, 7)views that, ‘… individuals can position themselves politically and strategicallywithin a social situation and construct themselves as relatively more, rather thanless, powerful’. We argue that the official language learning within the contextualsettings analysed in the previous section is a process involving not only ‘powerfulpersonal–professional learning’ (2005, 8), but also a reconstruction and reintegrationof foreign-teachers’ personal and professional identities.

While constructivist social learning theory emphasises the role of the learningenvironment, intercultural learning tools were introduced into the interventiondesign, aimed at contributing to the formation of the appropriate social learning set-tings. Facilitating intercultural interactions between the participants, supporting thedevelopment of intercultural competences of the participants on both personal andprofessional levels, and later on expanding the knowledge to the Estonian and Rus-sian communities was one of the main tasks of the mentors. Bringing together andintegrating the approaches and tools presented above into action research corre-sponds to the multidisciplinary approach recommended by Somekh (2006, 8) andallows testing them in the original contextual settings.

Observations and reflections took place regularly in three main modalities: aresearch conference at the end of each stage; by means of a structured evaluationprocess followed by each mentoring pair at the end of each month – the outcomesof the reflections were documented in dyads as structured self-evaluation reportssubmitted monthly to the operational organisations; and reflections during thecourse of the preparation for the research conferences based on the observationsfrom the previous research conferences and mentoring pairs’ self-evaluation reports.The structured self-evaluation reports provided us with a substantial overview aboutthe aims, objectives, activities, successes, difficulties and results in Estonian lan-guage learning as documented by the mentoring pairs. The participants were alsoasked to evaluate the cooperation within their dyads and consider how positiveexperience could be transferred while planning their future activities. Altogetherthere were 13 open-ended questions in the self-evaluation report form; from thesethe Russian-speaking teachers (i.e. the mentees) were expected to give answers per-sonally to 10 questions. These documents are not uncontroversial as a source ofempirical data, taking into account the limitations resulting from the communication

594 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 10: Action Research in language education

model, the formality of the situation of asking questions and other specificcircumstances, including the language used in the reporting, which was supposed tobe Estonian for both parties.

The researchers’ involvement in the programme took place as a second-levelintervention and included participation in the design of the general framework forthe mentoring process, facilitation of the training and supervision sessions formentors (stage 1), and design and facilitation of the research conferences togetherwith the other partners (stages 2–6). We admit that we had limited access to theinformation on everyday actions undertaken by the mentoring pairs. This informa-tion was made available via participants’ (self-)reflections during the research con-ferences, and the monthly submitted self-evaluation reports. Informed consent topublish the mentoring pairs’ self-reports was acquired from 10 pairs – reports werealso used as empirical material for the present analysis.

Findings

Based on the input–output–outcome conceptual model (Figure 2), an idiographicmethod of data analysis was designed, which included the elements of discourseanalysis aimed at, ‘reading of texts and contexts that are warranted by careful atten-tion to detail and that lend coherence to the discourse being studied’ (Gill 2009,181), to highlight the preliminary findings of the action research. We were lookingfor the answer to the question: how can constructivist social learning practicescontribute to enhancing the agency of Russian-speaking teachers as professionals?

The focus of the research is on the relation between the official language learn-ing process (inputs 1 and 2) and the teachers’ personal and professional develop-ment (output) mediated by constructivist social learning practices. Constructivistsocial learning practices are considered in order to explain how language learning

INPUT1: Appreciative Inquiry (AI); Threshold Concepts (TC); Intercultural learning (IL) INPUT2: Support by traditional language learning

OUTPUT: Personal and professional growth of teachers

OUTCOME: reflexive teacher with integrative motivation, positive identity, and taking social action

MEDIATING FACTORS: Mentoring practices based on constructivist social learning methods

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS: Language market situation; community reactions; reaction from ‘significant others’; school support

PRACTICAL ARRANGEMENTS:research conferences; mobility grants; scholarships, etc.

Figure 2. Input–output–outcome relationship model.

Educational Action Research 595

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 11: Action Research in language education

processes relate to the personal and professional development of teachers. If themediating factors were to be removed, the relation between input and output couldbecome weaker or disappear; that is, the language learning process might have notransformative effect or even lead to the disempowerment of teachers (as in casesof traditional language learning in the classroom). However, in cases of favourablecontextual factors, the language learning process could result in the professionaland personal development of teachers even if the mediating variables are not intro-duced (input 2). The mediating factors could compensate for the negative effects ofthe contextual factors, and transformative change could lead to changes within thecontextual factors. The outcome of the process as formulated is inspired by con-structs that characterise the outcomes of personal empowerment, which entailsdeveloping critical consciousness, positive identity, and taking social action (by Carr2003 and Gutierrez 1995, referred to by Hipolito-Delgado and Lee 2007).

The following data analysis has been carried out on two levels. The first levelof the analysis is formed from the participants’ observations and (self-)reflectionson variable ‘repertoires’ within the mentoring practices focusing on the needs andexpectations of teachers in official language learning, the factors and methodssupporting language learning, the internal and external sources of resistance, andthe conditions leading to sustainability of transformational change. The second levelof the analysis uncovers critical insights and reflections of the researchers, focusingon the contexts of the ‘repertoires’ identified during the first-level analysis.

Needs and expectations of foreign-speaking teachers in official language learning

Let us start by presenting the main conclusions from the analyses of the self-evalua-tion reports and open discussions during the research conferences. The participants inthe mentoring programme admitted that learning the official language requires strongself-regulatory effort based on the following constructs: professional instrumentalmotivation, including the need to protect the work position, meet the qualificationrequirements, and pass the language proficiency test; personal integrative motivation,including encouraging family members’ engagement in learning Estonian, familiarisa-tion with Estonian culture, conducive feelings when communicating in Estonian, andexperiencing mutually enriching relations in mentoring dyads; and professional inte-grative motivation, including the opportunity to use Estonian-medium study materials,develop bilingual teaching, and find partners for joint actions. In general, as one ofthe participants admitted during the first research conference, the ‘process [of lan-guage learning in mentoring pairs] should be more important than results’; it shouldrespect the participants’ needs, and be based on dialoguing and communication.

To conclude, in cases of Russian-speaking teachers a distinction between profes-sional and individual integrative motivation in official language learning can bemade. We would not set integrative motivation against instrumental motivation. Inthe contextual settings (structure) for a teacher’s profession in Estonia, both typesof motivation should be addressed in language teaching and learning aiming atdecreasing the importance of professional instrumental motivation and stipulatingthe development of integrative motivation. Issues related to professional instrumen-tal motivation have low potential for the empowerment of teachers’ agency as inthe longer run these could become a source of low self-esteem (i.e. repeated failureto pass language tests or losing a job) and troublesome personal and professionalidentity.

596 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 12: Action Research in language education

The effects supporting the language learning

According to the participants’ evaluations, the mentoring practices not only signifi-cantly contributed to the development of Estonian language skills (the participants’estimations at the end of stage 6), but also facilitated changes in the attitudes of theparticipants towards the Estonian language, culture and society in general; shiftingpatterns from instrumental language learning motivation to integrative motivationwere observed. Some snapshots are as follows:

[Estonian language learning has changed into a pleasant activity]

[There is a desire to attend perfomances in the Estonian language]

[I have started to read in Estonian with pleasure]

A number of mentoring pairs reported the learners’ emerging readiness to under-take social actions, as they had begun with small intercultural activities involvingcolleagues, pupils and their families, and progressed up to editing the Estonian-medium Wikipedia and participation in nationwide education policy decision-mak-ing and implementation processes. A snapshot is:

[Coping independently with writing an Estonian language article gave a very positiveexperience […]. I have helped also my colleagues in learning the Estonian language].

One more observation is as follows:

[Previously, before this project, I had a feeling that in Estonia there were two separatesocieties (Estonians and Russians) with their problems; after communicating withEstonians, new feelings and an understanding that we have common problems andjoys occurred, and also a wish to bring Estonians and Russians closer to each other].

According to some self-evaluations, the learners had coped successfully withtheir own internal resistance and as a result they witnessed an increase in bothprofessional and personal self-efficacy. The following is a snapshot from a self-evaluation report of a Russian-speaking teacher after she had delivered a lesson forthe Estonian-native students:

[I stood in front of the Estonian class and just had to manage […] for me the verypositive aspect was the attitude of the Estonian students towards me as a teacher, theywere very warm and helpful and supported me in every respect].

The change in the perception of the role of a foreign-speaking teacher with respectto teaching in Estonian was recorded in one of the self-evaluation forms as follows:

[At work one should use more exercise forms, working materials in Estonian in orderto learn by oneself and to make Estonian language learning easier for students, for thisI need more good materials (the CLIL [Content and language integrated learning] text-book is very good)].

Based on the analyses of the participants in the research conferences, sevengroups of factors were revealed as contributing to the development of critical

Educational Action Research 597

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 13: Action Research in language education

consciousness and readiness to undertake social actions among the language learn-ers as follows: firstly, positive dynamics of the mentoring dyads, referred to by theparticipants as development of mutual trust, ‘finding commonalities despite of dif-ferent language environments’, ‘mutually broadening outlook’, ‘noticing helpful-ness’, ‘mutual understanding’, involving other family members; and secondly,noticing and encouraging the improvements in language skills of the learner by thementor. They also valued, thirdly, noticing and reflecting on changes in learners’attitudes and ‘emotional mode’ while learning Estonian: ‘emergence of an internalwill [to learn Estonian]’, ‘joy from getting over yourself’, ‘courage to communicate[in Estonian]’, ‘confidence, trust, will and interest’, ‘positive stress’; and found,fourthly, (inter)cultural explorations – mutual interest towards the other commu-nity’s culture – helpful and supportive. A positive change in the language learninghas occurred if, according to the participants’ reflections, the learner is ready to,fifthly, take responsibility for creating an Estonian language environment on a dailyroutine basis (watching television, reading newspapers, attending language classes,using web-based facilities such as blogs, Skype, and taking part in sports or hobbyactivities in an Estonian-medium environment); and, furthermore, has an ability toaddress, sixthly, her/his professional needs and celebrate positive developments inthe professional domain. The following social actions were specified in this respect:participating in Estonian-medium in-service training, implementing bilingual teach-ing, positive feedback from colleagues and pupils, building up professional net-works, participating in the elaboration of the school’s development plans and earlyreports in Estonian. Lastly, also significant was the fact that the programme partici-pants stressed the importance of the mentoring programme administrative arrange-ments: community-based approach, addressing each learner’s individual needs,long-term cooperation in mentor dyads (‘it was from the bottom of mentors’ andmentees’ hearts’), ‘scholarship for a learner, which motivates and appreciatesmentor’s and learner’s time and efforts’, and so forth.

Some of the mentors purposefully introduced their mentees to controversial top-ics in Estonian political and social life, and addressed the troublesome issues forthe Russian-speaking community (e.g. the period of the Soviet occupation inEstonia; the language policy issues). One of the pairs had recorded their visit to theMuseum of Occupation in Tallinn; the reflection on this experience from a Russian-speaking teacher was as follows:

[I have learnt more about Estonian history and we (with my mentor) compared ourrecollections from the Soviet times. I have studied in the Russian higher educationinstitution. […] My vocabulary on the history of Estonia has been significantlyenlarged, and this is very important for me as a History teacher].

Participants’ insights into language learning experiences correspond to our ownexpectations as the researchers into the effects of constructivist social learning prac-tices. To sum up, language learning became both an affective and a cognitive expe-rience, which involved changes in attitudes towards the Estonian language,Estonian culture and society in general and the emotional standing associated withEstonian language learning. The appreciative inquiry method helped with noticingeven small successes and building up learners’ confidence and motivation based onpositive experiences. Interpersonal relations with the mentor contributed to placingresponsibility for learning with the learner and developing integrative motivation

598 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 14: Action Research in language education

based on ‘confidence, trust, will and interest’. Positive feedback from pupils andcolleagues contributed to the development of professional integrative motivation.Constant (self-)observations and (self-)reflections during language learningprocesses are very important and should be focused not only on measurable pro-gress in grammar, reading or listening skills, but also on the changes in the learner’sattitudes towards the language learning, and changes in the language environmentof the learner. It is important to observe how improved language skills address andreconstruct professional and personal needs, including (inter)cultural explorationsand developing a feeling of belonging to the Estonian-medium (professional) com-munity. We believe that improved Estonian language skills could have an empower-ing effect in the professional domain, where a knowledge of Estonian broadens theRussian-speaking teacher’s access to decision-making.

Internal and external sources of resistance to official language learning andbilingual teaching

The participants admitted that the main threshold in (social) learning during the pro-gramme was connected to the lack of understanding of the rationale behind theEstonian-medium instruction in the Russian-medium schools, including the respec-tive political decisions and public policy measures; that is, ‘stressful language tests’(external contextual settings). These factors were articulated in the ‘fear of losing ajob, which disturbed and paralyzed motivation and the will to learn’. Deficient lan-guage environments in schools and at the community level were also discussed sev-eral times during the research conferences and in mentoring dyads. Externalcontextual settings served as the bases for individual resistance to official languagelearning and initiation of bilingual teaching. Some snapshots illustrating theindividual resistance patterns are as follows:

[Lack of energy and motivation].

[Feeling tired of work and school].

[Fear of making a mistake, speak Estonian and taking Estonian language test].

[Fear of misunderstanding pupils’ questions or answers].

[Fear of being unable to express oneself due to limited vocabulary].

[Fear of seeming ridiculous and incompetent].

In mentoring dyads, the following two problematic issues were named: lack of ‘top-ics of common interest’ and placing responsibility for language learning with thementor.

Participants’ observations and reflections confirm our main conclusions on thedouble-bind situation of the Russian-speaking teachers in Estonia. It seems to us thatindividual resistance (articulated in the form of ‘fear’ and lack of confidence) at leastpartly derives from socio-political contextual settings. Non-supportive language envi-ronments and inconvenient political decisions in the domain of language-in-educa-tion result in low self-efficacy in learning Estonian and introducing bilingual

Educational Action Research 599

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 15: Action Research in language education

instruction. In general, teachers believe that their pupils have a better command ofEstonian than they do and therefore they are ‘facing a psychological barrier’(Lauristin et al. 2008, 66) when speaking Estonian to pupils and/or deliveringlessons in Estonian. Instrumental motivation (‘obligation’) to learn Estonian and passthe Estonian proficiency tests is ‘paralyzing’ professional integrative motivation.

The social constructivist approach to language learning has proved to be effec-tive in stipulating the development of integrative motivation. Questions of the valid-ity of the change arise as follows: will the integrative motivation remain stabilisedor even develop further after the end of the program and the mentoring relation-ships? Is the transformation of professional and personal identity irreversible and‘immune’ to the influence of the contextual settings? Will the change lead to theempowerment of teachers’ effectiveness in the longer run?

Conditions leading to sustainability of change achieved during the mentoringprogramme

Changes in career perspectives, a successful transition to Estonian-medium instruc-tion and participation in Estonian-medium in-service training were all documentedin the self-evaluation reports and mentioned during the research conferences aspositive outcomes. The following three groups of conditions leading to sustainabil-ity of changes were identified by the participants in the course of the research con-ferences. Firstly, the possible changes in the institutional settings: a day off fromwork every week for language learners, language clubs to compensate for defi-ciency of the language environment, availability of psychological help for learners,promotion and dissemination of the mentoring programme and its results, and onementor in each Russian-medium school to provide individual support to teachers.Secondly, the possible changes on the school level: to facilitate changes in teachers’attitudes and ways of thinking, change the school system of teachers’ in-servicetraining, create a system of knowledge management, establish cooperation betweenRussian-speaking and Estonian teachers, networking and initiating integrative pro-jects. Thirdly, the activities at an individual level: cooperation with Estonian subjectteachers, observation of Estonian-medium lessons, searching for possibilities to useactively the Estonian language in the professional domain and reducing workloadsat school to reserve time for language learning.

Pursuant to the participants’ reflections, our recommendation to the decision-makers is to address the following four elements in the design of the next phase ofthe intervention: involvement of the teachers’ schools as learning organisations toguarantee the sustainability of change and dissemination of the results at the teach-ers’ community level; involvement of participants’ ‘significant others’ (i.e. using theresources of social networking); promotion of structured follow-up activities (i.e.counselling, follow-up meetings, language clubs available for Russian-speakingteachers after the programme ends); and creation of more opportunities to participatein political decision-making at local, regional and state levels by providing the nec-essary training and involving decision-makers in the programme activities.

Discussion and critical reflection

Brian Morgan (2004, 80–2) has elaborated on the identity formation of foreign-speaker teachers and on how the experience of bilingual teaching influences both

600 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 16: Action Research in language education

their professional and personal identity within the systems of ‘power/knowledge’.Morgan argues that teaching, learning and identity formation are tied up with powerrelations (2004, 83, citing Cummins 2000, 2001). The domain of language andpower in education is characterised by the interconnectedness of policies, practices,institutional discourses, and so forth. Encounters between different actors withineducational systems are never neutral and uncover the potential of disempowermentor empowerment of both minority educators and culturally diverse students. Morganmentions the risk of marginalisation and disempowerment of teachers in bilingualeducational systems. Action research implemented with Russian-speaking teachersin Estonia has also revealed a number of contextual factors in the domain of lan-guage-in-education contributing to low self-efficacy, a troubled identity and the dis-empowerment of Russian-speaking educators. Low self-efficacy is embodied in alack of energy and motivation to learn the Estonian language and commence theEstonian-medium instruction pursuant to the political decision. Russian-speakingteachers can experience a constant fear of failing in the required Estonian languageproficiency tests and losing their jobs, and the fear of seeming incompetent andridiculous while teaching in Estonian.

Action research explored the constructivist social learning practices necessary tohelp Russian-speaking teachers in their learning Estonian, aimed at addressing therisk of disempowerment of the teachers’ agency. The results of the 13-month men-toring process are promising. The constructivist approach helped to develop motiva-tion based on integrative needs, and the responsibility for learning was placed withthe learner in his or her own right, thus also stipulating taking social actions.

Despite positive results we still have some critical issues to rise to in respect ofpower relations in the language-in-education domain. According to Giddens (1984,14–16), power relations are of a dual nature and reflect both the structure (alloca-tion of power; power that derives from the hierarchy and organisation of the socialdomain) and the capacity of individuals to influence the structure (i.e. changing thehierarchy, institutions, rules, regulations, etc.). Therefore structure and agencyare complementary, and individuals or collectivities are perfectly capable, and pos-sess the power to change the social structures they are embedded in. Will the re-positioning of the agents between language and power take place according toincreasing proficiency in the official language? Will an improved knowledge of theEstonian language result in the increased capacity of Russian-speaking teachers tobring social change to their schools, communities and educational system as awhole? A constructivist approach to official language learning shifts the motivationpattern from instrumental to integrative and makes it easier for learners to find innerresources and overcome resistance to learning. Constructivist approach focuses onthe learner as an individual and fosters his/her competitiveness within the existingopportunity structure and power relations, but does it ‘unlock [the] agency of indi-viduals’ (Somekh 2006, 21) and empower the participants in action research or justserve the purposes of social control and domination? We share the concerns ofSomekh (2006, 23) that collaboration in action research and in mentoring pairs,‘should not aim to “empower” the teachers by introducing them into newunderstandings of our world’, but rather be based on mutual engagement and‘commitment to doing things together’ (Somekh 2006, 24).

The participants of the research conferences have strongly emphasised mutuallyenriching interpersonal relations in mentoring dyads. This was the issue the partici-pants valued most of all throughout the whole programme. It seems to us that the

Educational Action Research 601

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 17: Action Research in language education

official language has become a tool (and a purpose) in the construction of a ‘produc-tive community of practice’ (Somekh 2006, 24). The mentoring programme as a sub-ject for action research has attached a new, positive meaning to the Estonian languageand to language learning as an ‘act of doing’. It was not only the progress in languagelearning, but also collaboration within the action research around the official languagelearning that served as an impetus for the personal and professional growth of theteachers and empowerment of the teachers’ agency. Language learning was a mediat-ing process for putting together social actions, including (inter)cultural explorations.In our opinion, interpersonal relations constituted a ‘powerful’ layer in the mentoringprogramme, and its potential was reinforced by the constructivist social learningapproach and the respective micro-level structural settings of the programme.

The second issue we are concerned about is the essence of new knowledge andskills generated in the action research and the sustainability of the change – wouldthe ‘productive community of change’ preserve and develop further its potential?Pursuant to our observations during the research conferences, the actionable knowl-edge generated during the research included both the ‘“intellectual” and “emotionalmode”’ (Elliott 2004, 21–3, cited in Somekh 2006, 29). The ‘emotional mode’served as a foundation for further exploration by means of social language learning.We expect that the actionable knowledge acquired by Russian-speaking educatorswill be transferred through teaching practices and social actions (being embedded inthe teachers’ everyday professional activities) to the broader minority teachers’ andpupils’ communities. We also believe that the ‘emotional mode’ of the actionableknowledge will also be mediated to bilingual classrooms, bringing on transforma-tional change to Russian-speaking schools.

Conclusion

The local conclusion to be drawn based on the educational action research is that aRussian-speaking teacher in Estonia would benefit greatly from a constructivistsocial official language learning approach. Within the contextual settings analysed inthe article, a constructivist social learning mentoring programme based on apprecia-tive inquiry, threshold concepts and intercultural learning has proved to be effective.This conclusion is based on the objective factors documented by the teachers andtheir mentors – that is, their career progress, the passing of Estonian language exam-inations successfully, the commencement of delivering their subjects in Estonian,teachers beginning to write articles in Estonian and participating in Estonian-mediumin-service training – but it is also based on examining the methods by which theteachers have established a positive self-identity and managed to overcome any inter-nal resistance and develop a positive attitude towards Estonian language learning.

More generally, the case supports the advocacy by action researchers of the via-bility of action research as a means of professional development, and it shows par-ticularly its value in situations where policy shifts are aligned to changes innational identity as well as pedagogy.

AcknowledgementsThe action research was based on the two-year mentoring programme co-financed fromthe European Social Fund: Mentori toel individuaalse keeleõppe projekt (‘Keeleõppearendamine 2007–2010’ tegevuse 5.7. ‘Vene õppekeelega haridusasutuste pedagoogide jajuhtide eesti keele õpe’) [Project on individual language learning with the assistance of

602 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 18: Action Research in language education

mentors (‘Development of language learning 2007–2010’ Action 5.7. ‘Estonian languagelearning for teachers and administrators of the education institutions, with Russian as thelanguage of instruction’)].

ReferencesAhmadian, M.J., and M. Tavakoli. 2011. Exploring the utility of action research to

investigate second-language classrooms as complex systems. Educational ActionResearch 19, no. 2: 121–36.

Bennett, M.J. 1986. A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity.International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10, no. 2: 179–95.

Bennett, M.J. 1993. Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensi-tivity. In Education for the intercultural experience, ed. R.M. Paige, 21–71. Yarmouth,ME: Intercultural Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1982. La production et la reproduction de la langue légitime [Production andreproduction of legitimate language]. In Ce que Parler Veut Dire. L’économie desÉchanges Linguistiques [The economics of linguistic exchanges], 23–58. Paris: Fayard.

Carr, E.S. 2003. Rethinking empowerment theory using a feminist lens: The importance ofprocess. Affilia 18, no. 1: 8–20.

Cooperrider, D.L., D. Whitney, J.M. Stavros, and R. Fry. 2003. Appreciative inquiry hand-book: The first in a series of AI workbooks for leaders of change. Bedford Heights:Lakeshore Communications and San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Eesti statistika [Estonian Statistics]. 2011. Statistikaamet [Statistics Estonia]. http://www.stat.ee/ (accessed May 7, 2011).

Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. 2011. Kõigi valdkondade statistilised andmed[Statistical data in all fields]. http://www.hm.ee/index.php?048055/ (accessed May 7, 2011).

Fry, R., D. Whitney, J. Seiling, and F. Barrett. 2002. Appreciative inquiry and organizationaltransformation: Reports from the field. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Gill, R. 2009. Discourse analysis. In Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: Apractical handbook, ed. M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 172–90. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Grant, S., and M. Humphries. 2006. Critical evaluation of appreciative inquiry. ActionResearch 4, no. 4: 401–18.

Guilherme, M. 2002. Languages for intercultural communication and education, 3: Criticalcitizens for an intercultural world: Foreign language education as cultural politics.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gutierrez, L.M. 1995. Understanding the empowerment process: Does consciousness make adifference? Social Work Research 19, no. 4: 229–37.

Hadi-Tabassum, S. 2006. Language, space and power: A critical look at bilingual education.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hipolito-Delgado, C.P., and C.C. Lee. 2007. Empowerment theory for the professionalschool counselor: A manifesto for what really matters. Professional School Counseling10, no. 4: 327–33.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences, comparing values, behaviours, institutions, andorganizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lauristin, M., S. Anspal, K. Kallas, L. Kirss, K. Korts, V. Sepp, and A. Trumm. 2008. StateIntegration Programme 2008–2013. Final report on needs and feasibility research. Tallinn-Tartu. http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_9871_841431476.pdf (accessedAugust 20, 2010).

Lin, A.M.Y., and P.W. Martin, eds. 2005. Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-educa-tion policy and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Meyer, J.H.F., and R. Land. 2003. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (I): Link-ages to ways of thinking and practising. In Improving student learning – ten years on,ed. C. Rust, 412–24. Oxford: OCSLD. http://ww2.dkit.ie/content/download/14622/88534/file/Threshold%20Concepts%20%20and%20Troublesome%20Knowledge%20by%20Professor%20Ray%20Land.pdf/ (accessed May 20, 2011).

Educational Action Research 603

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014

Page 19: Action Research in language education

Meyer, J.H.F., and R. Land. 2005. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2):Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning.Higher Education 49, no. 3: 373–88.

Meyer, J.H.F., R. Land, and C. Baillie. 2010. Threshold concepts and transformationallearning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Morgan, B. 2004. Teacher identity as pedagogy: Towards a field internal conceptualisationin bilingual and second language education. In Bilingualism and language pedagogy, ed.J. Brutt-Griffler and M. Varghese, 80–96. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Pennycook, A. 2002. Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and governmentality.In Language policies in education: Critical issues, ed. J.W. Tollefson, 91–110. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perkins, D. 2006. Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In Overcoming barriers tostudent understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge, ed. J.H.F. Meyerand R. Land, 33–46. Abingdon: Routledge.

Phillips, D.C. 1995. The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.Educational Researcher 24, no. 7: 5–12.

Phipps, A.M., and M. Guilherme, eds. 2004. Critical pedagogy: Political approaches tolanguage and intercultural communication. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Preskill, H., and T.T. Catsambas. 2006. Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rannut, M. 2004. Language planning in Estonia: Past and present. Working Paper 16. Mer-cator-Working Papers: CIEMEN. http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/wp16-def-ang.PDF(accessed August 20, 2010).

Rannut, Ü. 2005. Keelekeskkonna mõju vene õpilaste eesti keele omandamisele ja integrat-sioonile Eestis [Impact of the language environment on the integration and Estonian lan-guage acquisition of Russian-speaking children in Estonia]. Tallinn: TLÜ kirjastus.

Somekh, B. 1995. The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours:A position paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal21, no. 3: 339–56.

Somekh, B. 2006. Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maiden-head: McGraw-Hill Education.

Timmermans, J.A. 2010. Changing our minds: The developmental potential of thresholdconcepts. In Threshold concepts and transformational learning, ed. J.H.F. Meyer, R.Land, and C. Baillie, 3–20. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Wertsch, J.V. 1989. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

604 T. Kiilo and D. Kutsar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:16

11

Janu

ary

2014