International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2020, Vol. 15(2) 322-334

Foreign Language Teachers’ Views on Pedagogic Research

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

pp. 322 - 334   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2003-09-0001.R3

Published online: June 20, 2020  |   Number of Views: 93  |  Number of Download: 616


Pedagogic research may be called insider action research that has several objectives. The research conducted by teachers in educational settings may result in furthering the already existing knowledge on a particular pedagogic approach, increasing the efficiency of learning, or contributing to the development of policy and practice within the related contexts. A question whether teachers should engage in research hereof appears. In order to probe the issue, the current phenomenologic study utilized a scale (N= 118) and a semi-structured interview (N= 20) directed to EFL teachers working at state schools in the disadvantaged areas in Turkey. The findings suggested that having no available time, resources, and institutional support, but having high level of stress or related psychological barriers as a result of working at disadvantaged areas, teachers lacked both psychological and physical accessibility to research. Further, the study put forward precious advice to authorities in promoting ways to develop the conditions of EFL teachers working in disadvantaged areas.

Keywords: Scientific Research, Action Research, Foreign Language, English as a Foreign Language

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ulum, O.G. (2020). Foreign Language Teachers’ Views on Pedagogic Research . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(2), 322-334. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.251.18

Ulum, O. (2020). Foreign Language Teachers’ Views on Pedagogic Research . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(2), pp. 322-334.

Chicago 16th edition
Ulum, Omer Gokhan (2020). "Foreign Language Teachers’ Views on Pedagogic Research ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 15 (2):322-334. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.251.18.

  1. Acharya, A. S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P., & Nigam, A. (2013). Sampling: Why and how of it. Indian Journal of Medical Specialties, 4(2), 330-333. [Google Scholar]
  2. Annells, M. (1996). Hermeneutic phenomenology: Philosophical perspectives and current use in nursing research. Journal of advanced nursing, 23(4), 705-713.  [Google Scholar]
  3. Bani-Khaled, T. A. A. D. (2013). Learning English in difficult circumstances: The case of north Badiah disadvantaged schools in Jordan. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(8), 269-284. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bassey, M. (1983). Pedagogic research into singularities: case‐studies, probes and curriculum innovations. Oxford Review of Education, 9(2), 109-121. [Google Scholar]
  5. Benson, J. (1983). The bureaucratic nature of schools and teacher job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 21(2), 137-148.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Brew, A. (2010). Imperatives and challenges in integrating teaching and research. Higher Education Research and Development, 29 (2): 139–150. [Google Scholar]
  7. Britten, D. (1985). Teacher training in ELT (part I). Language Teaching, 18(2), 112-128.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Bull, I. H. F. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment amongst high school teachers in disadvantaged areas in the Western Cape. [Doctoral dissertation, University of the Western Cape].  [Google Scholar]
  9. Darder, A., & Baltodano, M. (2003). The critical pedagogy reader. England: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dennett, D. C. (2007). Heterophenomenology reconsidered. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6 (1-2), 247-270.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Eggleston, J. (1979) The characteristics of educational research: mapping the domain. British Educational Research Journal, 5, 1-12.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, R. (1989). Understanding second language acquisition. England: Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Elton, L. (2001). Research and teaching: conditions for a positive link. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 43-56. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eryaman, M. Y. (2007). From reflective practice to practical wisdom: Toward a post-foundational teacher education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 3(1), 87-107. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gao, Y., Li, L., & Lü, J. (2001). Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and the West. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 1-14. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gazioğlu, S., & Pesen, C. (2012). Development of a scale to measure teacher candidates’ attitudes toward research. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 105-121. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gebhard, J. G. (2005). Awareness of teaching through action research: Examples, benefits, limitations. JALT Journal, 27(1), 53-69. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gurung, R. A., & Schwartz, B. M. (2011). Optimizing teaching and learning: Practicing pedagogical research. USA: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  20. Haberman, B., Lev, E., & Langley, D. (2003). Action research as a tool for promoting teacher awareness of students' conceptual understanding. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3), 144-148. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hamid, M. O., & Baldauf Jr, R. B. (2011). English and socio-economic disadvantage: Learner voices from rural Bangladesh. Language Learning Journal, 39(2), 201-217.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Hardré, P. L., Beesley, A. D., Miller, R. L., & Pace, T. M. (2011). Faculty motivation to do research: Across disciplines in research-extensive universities. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(1), 35-69. [Google Scholar]
  23. Henning, J. E., Stone, J. M., & Kelly, J. L. (2009). Using action research to improve instruction: An interactive guide for teachers. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. USA: Sage Publications Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ko, J. Y. O. (2010). Consistency and variation in classroom practice: a mixed-method investigation based on case studies of four EFL teachers of a disadvantaged secondary school in Hong Kong. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham]. [Google Scholar]
  26. Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21-35.  [Google Scholar]
  27. Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a holistic view. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179-193.  [Google Scholar]
  28. Loannidou-Koutselini, M., & Patsalidou, F. (2015). Engaging school teachers and school principals in an action research in-service development as a means of pedagogical self-awareness. Educational Action Research, 23(2), 124-139. [Google Scholar]
  29. MacFarlane, B. (2011). Prizes, pedagogic research and teaching professors: lowering the status of teaching and learning through bifurcation. Teaching in Higher Education, 16 (1), 127-130. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mac Naughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2008). Doing action research in early childhood studies: A step by-step guide. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar]
  31. Maton, K. 2013. Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24 (1), 8–22. [Google Scholar]
  32. McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2012). Materials and methods in ELT. USA: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  33. McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (2014). Research methods for English language teachers. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  34. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research. USA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nind, M., & Lewthwaite, S. (2018). Methods that teach: developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(4), 398-410. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nisbet, J. (1980). Educational research: The state of the art. Retrieved on the 7th of April, 2020 from [Google Scholar]
  38. Norton, L. (2018). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogicalresearch in universities. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  39. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. USA: SAGE Publications, inc. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385-407. [Google Scholar]
  41. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. USA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  42. Regan, J. A. (2013). Risks to informed consent in pedagogic research. Retrieved on the 8th of March, 2020 from [Google Scholar]
  43. Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. Tesol Quarterly, 30(3), 401-427. [Google Scholar]
  44. Richardson, J. T. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of educational research, 69(1), 53-82. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rienties, B., Brouwer, N. & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on higher education teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 122–131.  [Google Scholar]
  46. Rivers, D. J. (2011). Strategies and struggles in the ELT classroom: Language policy, learner autonomy, and innovative practice. Language Awareness, 20(1), 31-43. [Google Scholar]
  47. Shkedi, A. (1998). Teachers' attitudes towards research: A challenge for qualitative researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(4), 559-577. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stenhouse, L. (1980) The study of samples and the study of cases. British Educational Research Journal, 6, 1. [Google Scholar]
  49. Stierer, B &  Antoniou, M. (2004). Are there distinctive methodologies for pedagogic research in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 275-285. [Google Scholar]
  50. Vogt, W. P. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  51. Zainuddin, H., & Moore, R. A. (2005). Engaging pre-service teachers in action research to enhance awareness of second language learning and teaching. The Journal of the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching, 17(3), 311-342. [Google Scholar]