INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The landscape of language instruction has significantly evolved at the turn of the 21st century, requiring high school language teachers (HETs) to take on multifaceted roles beyond mere knowledge delivery and classroom management (Kubanyiova & Crookes, 2016) In response, teacher education programs have adapted to equip HETs with the skills needed for these new responsibilities, including the expectation to engage in research (Borg, 2013) Proponents of integrating teacher research into ongoing professional development argue that such involvement strengthens the connection between theory and practice (Johnson, 2015) while enhancing the overall quality of language instruction (Burns & Richards, 2009; Edge, 2001; Johnson & Golombek, 2011) Among various research methods available to educators, action research (AR) stands out as a particularly empowering form of professional development for teachers (Borg, 2010; 2013; Nunan & Bailey, 2009).
Action Research (AR) encourages educators to critically examine and reflect on their teaching practices, leading to a deeper understanding of their students, classroom dynamics, and their own teaching methods (Le, 2018) This reflective process not only addresses classroom challenges but also enhances instructional quality (Edwards & Burns, 2016) Ultimately, engaging in AR serves as a continuous professional development (PD) tool, equipping teachers with essential knowledge and skills for their growth (Han, 2012; Kumaravadivelu, 2006; McNiff & Whitehead, 2010; Mertler, 2009; Wang & Zhang, 2012).
In recent years, action research (AR) as a defining feature of competent HETs has gained currency in practice, especially in the Vietnamese context of secondary
The Vietnamese government's Decision 1400 emphasizes the significance of teachers' reflective practice in foreign language education, highlighting the crucial role of Action Research (AR) in transforming secondary education AR empowers teachers to move beyond being mere consumers of knowledge, enabling them to critically evaluate teaching resources and enhance their professional development The current framework for language teacher competence underscores the importance of self-investigation to address classroom challenges Additionally, language educators are tasked with creating assessment plans based on both quantitative and qualitative data from the learning process Despite the growing interest in AR over the past decade, its actual implementation in language instruction remains relatively limited.
Current understanding of Action Research (AR) in Vietnamese upper-secondary education is limited, highlighting the need for further investigation into teachers' competencies and challenges in implementing AR Research indicates that understanding teachers' perceptions of research and their foundational skills is crucial for enhancing AR usage and reducing passivity in teacher engagement This study aims to analyze the perspectives of Vietnamese Higher Education Teachers (HETs) regarding AR, focusing on the competencies required for conducting AR and the difficulties they face in the process.
Statement of the Research Problem and Research Questions
The current study seeks to address the capacity of HETs to conduct AR Therefore, the aims of this study are twofold: to report on baseline research
3 competencies and to generalize the challenges to doing AR of the HETs Consequently, the researcher sought answers to the two following questions:
(i) How do Vietnamese HETs self-assess their competence to do in doing action research?
(ii) What are the obstacles to Vietnamese HETs’ conduct of action research?
Scope of the Study
This research investigates the competencies and challenges faced by Vietnamese high school English teachers (HETs) in conducting Action Research (AR) The study focuses on the AR competencies of teachers and the obstacles they encounter while engaging in this process Participants include HETs from diverse teaching environments, including specialized, public, and private high schools in Northern Vietnam The research was conducted during the academic year 2020-2021.
Research design
This study utilized a quantitative mixed methods approach to assess high school English teachers' research competence and the challenges they face in conducting action research A preliminary focus group discussion was conducted to gather qualitative data that informed the development of the questionnaire Following the data collection through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews were carried out to gain deeper insights into the teachers' responses and to identify additional relevant themes for the research.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it enhances the understanding of English teachers' engagement with Augmented Reality (AR) in Vietnam Despite extensive prior research, there remains a lack of consensus on the conceptualization of AR, necessary research skills, and the challenges associated with its implementation A thorough review of the existing literature in this study will provide a clearer understanding of these issues Additionally, the data collected will offer teachers and policymakers a detailed overview of the current state of teacher engagement with AR.
Research in language instruction is essential for developing teacher education programs that meet the needs of high school educators Understanding the barriers to teacher action research (AR) can assist school administrators and educational leaders in evaluating existing policies and making informed decisions to improve environments that may hinder teacher research Additionally, a thorough analysis of the findings can enhance teachers' awareness of AR practices, encouraging them to engage in their own research or reflect on potential shortcomings in their research skills Ultimately, this study will provide valuable insights for future research, highlighting both its methodological strengths and limitations.
Organization of the Study
This paper is structured to enhance understanding of the current study, beginning with Chapter 1, which outlines the background information and presents the research problems and questions Chapter 2 delves into the epistemology of the key phrases under investigation.
This article explores Action Research (AR) and its characteristics, particularly focusing on the innovation derived from experience, akin to Sáng kiến kinh nghiệm It examines the research competencies of Higher Education Teachers (HETs) and the challenges faced in conducting AR, alongside previous studies in the field Chapter 3 will detail and justify the methodological choices made, while Chapter 4 will discuss the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data collected The final chapter summarizes the findings, outlines the implications and limitations of the study, and proposes directions for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Action Research
AR has recently been widely regarded as a component of the modern teacher’s
Action Research (AR) has gained significant traction in language teaching over the past two decades, despite its origins in the humanities and social sciences (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Creswell, 2012; Burns, 2019).
The term action research was coined by Lewin (1948) to denote studies that
Action Research (AR) has evolved from a niche topic in social relations and interest groups to a significant focus in social science and educational research (Adleman, 1993) Challenging traditional perspectives, AR emphasizes the integration of investigation and action as essential for addressing problems (McFarland & Stansell, 1993) Corey (1954) advocates that all professionals must engage in active interventions to enhance their practice and identify areas for improvement (p 375) This philosophy has gained traction among educators, leading to its application in studies that explore classroom practices and theoretical development (Stenhouse).
1975), teacher identity and liberation of the self in democracy and against oppression (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005)
Despite years of development, the conceptualization of AR retained its two comprehensive aims: to improve and involve (Carr & Kemmis, as cited in Burns,
Improvement involves enhancing both the practice itself and the understanding of the context in which it occurs Effective involvement requires that all participants engage actively in the cyclical phases of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, as highlighted by Burns (2019, p 168).
Action Research (AR) plays a significant role in educational research, particularly in English language teaching, as highlighted by Roulston et al (2005) It is one of several academic inquiry methods employed by teachers, alongside practitioner research, collaborative inquiry, critical inquiry, self-study, and teacher-research Although this study does not aim to analyze the epistemologies of these diverse research approaches, it will emphasize a range of eclectic research varieties.
The terms Action Research (AR), classroom research, and teacher research are frequently confused, despite their distinct meanings AR is specifically defined as an academic inquiry aimed at addressing educational challenges, such as issues related to classroom management (Ahmadian & Tavakoli).
Teacher autonomy is often hindered by factors such as inadequate support and strict language policies, as noted in various studies (Dikilitas & Griffiths, 2017; Miller, 1981) Action Research (AR) encourages teacher-researchers to critically reflect on their teaching practices to foster improvement However, it is important to understand that mere reflection does not equate to conducting teacher research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
Teacher research, as defined by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990, 1993, 2009), encompasses systematic, intentional, and self-critical inquiry into one's educational practices across various settings, including K-12 and higher education This approach is not limited to action research (AR) but is integral to the broader practice of educator inquiry Importantly, the definition of teacher research excludes general reflection or thoughtful consideration that lacks a systematic or intentional framework (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p 22).
In reviewing definitions of AR, Aga (2016) summarized the eight characteristics of AR, which are “empowerment of participants”, “self-reflective practice”, “collaboration through participation”, “acquisition of knowledge”,
“change orientation”, “a critical dimension involving reflection on practices and
Action Research (AR) is characterized by its focus on context-specific issues within local communities, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data to tackle problems effectively It emphasizes collaboration among participants, treating them as equal partners throughout the research process This approach is viewed as a continuous, cyclical, or spiral journey that fosters ongoing improvement and adaptation in educational settings (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998; Mills, 2011).
When conceptualizing AR, it is worth discussing the topic of publications By definition, all educational research is “systematic enquiry made public” (Stenhouse,
1975, p 142), its objective being the development of thoughtful reflection in order to strengthen the professional judgment of teachers (Stenhouse, 1983) Crookes
(1993) went further to assert that “research is not research unless communicated” (p
Language teachers have both the right and responsibility to engage in discussions and research within the field of language education, as emphasized by Barkhuizen (2009) Teacher research can be disseminated through various formats, including oral and written reports, and can take on both formal and informal styles (Borg, 2010) Therefore, while publishing action research (AR) in academic journals is significant, it is not limited to traditional academic writing and can encompass a broader range of dissemination methods.
In this study, Action Research (AR) is defined as a type of teacher research aimed at addressing classroom challenges through empirical investigation A thorough review of existing studies was essential in shaping this definition Furthermore, while sharing the findings of AR is crucial, it does not have to be limited to academic journals as the primary platform for dissemination.
Innovation from Experience (“Sáng kiến kinh nghiệm”) as a Form of AR
In Vietnam, higher education teachers (HET) play a vital role in research by serving as knowledge counselors for students' projects at the Science and Engineering Fair, collaborating with researchers, and leading their own research initiatives.
The Innovation from Experience contest (IFE) serves as a platform promoting action research (AR) for educators, organized by institutional managerial boards Official contest documents are distributed to schools at the academic year's beginning, where managerial staff propose innovations in micro- and macro-management, while teachers share their experiences with instructional innovations in the classroom (Ben Tre DOET, 2018) Participation is voluntary, but interested practitioners must register to submit their reports by the designated deadline (MOET, 2013) Table 1 presents projects completed by HETs, sourced from a free-access database and other internal resources It is important to note that access to this database does not guarantee comprehensive information on all IFEs or high-award recipients, and the inclusion of the following ten projects is for representation purposes only, not reflecting the full scope of the investigation.
Table 1.Innovations from Experience by the English teachers
Project title Author(s) Year Field
Classifying of teaching and studying English writing skill based on the new Tieng Anh 10 textbook
Application of Project-based Learning to improve English skills
Warm-up activities for Listening lessons -
Teaching vowels in Tieng Anh 10 via visual aids
Applying graphic organizers in teaching reading new textbook - Tieng Anh 10
Applying creative learning experience and integrative teaching in Writing skill of Unit 10 for the students in class 11A5 at Phan Dang
Difficulties in teaching and learning pronunciation in language focus periods -
Helping the grade 12 students improve their sense of responsibility to themselves, their families and society through post-reading activities
Non-finite verbs, Gerunds, and related forms of exercise
Some activities for Post-listening sessions in
In many ways, Instructional Focused Evaluations (IFEs) can be regarded as a form of Action Research (AR), as they address practical issues such as instructional methods and classroom management (BT DOET, 2018; Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998; Mills, 2011) An analysis of IFEs in upper secondary English instruction for grades 10-12 reveals a predominant focus on skill instruction and teaching methodologies, while also highlighting the importance of ethics and learning motivation Additionally, like AR, IFE projects stem from teachers' commitment to innovate and improve their practices (MOET, 2018; Allwright & Hanks, 2009), exemplified by recent adjustments made by English teachers in response to new national textbook designs Furthermore, IFE projects involve teachers critically examining their own practices to identify local educational challenges (Hammersley, 2004a; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), and they incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods (MOET, 2018; Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998; Mills).
Investigative cycles with a scientific approach underpin Individualized Faculty Evaluations (IFEs) in education (BT DOET, 2018; Wallace, 1998; Burns, 2005b, 2010) English teachers typically conduct exploratory micro-level IFEs, utilizing experiments presented in exercise excerpts or PowerPoint presentations to test new teaching techniques or lesson modifications In their final reports, most educators opt to include descriptive statistics to illustrate the effectiveness of their teaching innovations.
10 reports are structured with flexibility, in either formal research format or whichever way appropriate Therefore, homogeneity is by and large a missing feature
While IFE shares similarities with AR, it falls short as a rigorous academic inquiry Primarily, IFEs are often derived from teachers' intuitive and anecdotal experiences rather than a thorough analysis of existing literature to support their objectives and methodologies Even in research reports, Higher Education Teachers (HETs) may list literature without conducting adequate critical evaluations This lack of theoretical foundation in data collection tools and sampling techniques suggests that Vietnamese teacher research tends to "abuse the positivist paradigm to dominate empirical design and practice" (Scott et al., 2006, p ).
IFEs frequently lack originality, relying on tired ideas and derivative content, often neglecting the necessary adaptations and modifications This raises concerns about plagiarism due to superficial efforts Additionally, IFEs fail to provide intelligent data analyses, with experiments dominating the design yet lacking essential elements such as control groups, ANOVA analysis, and coefficients Instead, descriptive statistics are presented in a disorganized manner rather than through structured inspection Consequently, IFE projects struggle to make significant contributions to the field of AR, primarily showcasing new exercises or realia without offering comprehensive insights or methodological implications for future research.
While Institutional Framework Evaluations (IFEs) may not fully align with standard Academic Research (AR) expectations, their characteristics are closely related to AR Despite the lack of strict adherence to academic norms in IFE reports, engaging in IFEs can contribute to Higher Education Teachers' (HETs) research-related experiences (Hu et al., 2007) Therefore, participating in this academic pursuit can lead to a valuable accumulation of research knowledge As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the perspectives of Vietnamese HETs on research are likely grounded in legitimate experiences rather than unfounded beliefs.
11 assumptions The choice to examine AR, rather than the broader field teacher research, stems from this specific culture of HET research.
Skill Sets and Competencies for Action Research
Borg (2006) emphasized the importance of knowledge and skills, particularly in research methods, for producing sound research in education Competence is a key term when discussing effective research capabilities According to the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET, 2020), staying updated with current knowledge and conducting relevant research are essential competencies that enhance language teaching values and professionalism Competence is typically defined through a triadic model that includes knowledge, skills, and attitude (Baartman & Rujis, 2011; Braun, Sheikh, & Hannover, 2011; Weinert, 2001; Westera, 2011), although the distinctions among these components can sometimes be unclear (Cucos, 2002; Manolescu, 2010; Weinert, 2001).
Research competence can be broken down into various capacity areas, as highlighted by Olehnovica, Bolgzda, and Kravale-Paulina (2014), who identified informative competence, which involves analyzing research topics from multiple viewpoints and connecting theory to practice; communicative competence, which reflects adaptability in challenging research environments; and instrumental competence, focusing on strategic data processing Additionally, Potolea (2013) approached the topic from a social-humanistic perspective, categorizing key research competences into professional competence, encompassing knowledge and functional-action competencies, and transversal competence, which includes role competencies and personal development These competencies are further defined by behavioral descriptors across three levels.
Appendix B) The two models by Olehnovica et al (2014) and Potolea (2013) clarify the areas where certain research skills can be activated through close observations of
12 the participants Therefore, they pertain to a more objective assessment of the competencies, rather than a self-report approach that the current study would emulate
Untrained high school teachers may struggle to differentiate between various competencies due to their idealistic perspectives Therefore, a model that clearly outlines the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for conducting research would be more appropriate for this study.
In their exploratory study, Bromley, Boran, and Myddelton (2007) examined how postgraduates perceive their PhD-related skills, focusing on seven key research competencies: Research skills and techniques, Research environment, Research management, Personal effectiveness, Communicative skills, Networking and Team Working, and Career Management Utilizing the Joint Statements of Skills (RCUK, 2011), their research identified competencies that align with previous studies but were specifically tailored to the context of research and academic progression The model proposed by Bromley et al (2007) effectively distinguishes research competencies from transferable and idealistic skills, emphasizing the importance of specialized research abilities in postgraduate education.
The current research investigates higher education teachers' (HETs) self-assessment of their research competence, based on the classic triadic definition that includes knowledge, skills, and attitudes The questionnaire items were developed through a synthesis of findings from three relevant studies.
Challenges to High School Teachers’ Research
Action research (AR) plays a crucial role in professional development and reflective practice; however, in upper secondary education, it frequently fails to meet expectations This shortfall is attributed to various inhibiting factors that range from policy implementation to practical application, as well as challenges at both individual and institutional levels (Aga, 2016, p 1).
Research indicates that political factors contribute to the stagnation of teacher research, particularly in institutions with low engagement in research In these environments, teachers often avoid adopting research practices due to fears of isolation as teacher-researchers Furthermore, a lack of collaboration from colleagues and students can further deter teachers from pursuing action research.
13 the conflict of interests between research-engaged and non-research-engaged factions of staff was alluded to as a reason why teachers deflect from the practice to avoid tension (Borg, 2009a)
The lack of support in facilities and human resources contributes to ESL teachers' reluctance to engage in research, as they often view their role as primarily focused on imparting knowledge rather than generating it This perception leads to a belief in their limited research competence (Barkhuizen, 2009; Borg, 2007a; McDonough & McDonough, 1990; Khanh & An, as cited in Farrell, 2006) Additionally, the notion that research is a complex, large-scale, and technical endeavor further exacerbates their insecurity (Allwright, 1991; Borg, 2009a).
Amidst a climate of uncertainty, teaching staff often seek collaboration to alleviate the burden of research, yet there is little indication of a unified effort (Borg, 2009) Additionally, Yuan et al (2016) highlight students' skepticism towards collaborative practices, which negatively impacts teachers' motivation In the context of Vietnamese high school education, the concept of action research (AR) seems far removed from reality, as the primary focus remains on national university exam scores, reflecting the pragmatic goals of upper secondary education (Le, 2018; Hiep, 2006).
Inactivity in teacher research can also be associated with a lack of drive
Many teachers perceive the pursuit of academic engagement as impractical due to the challenges of scientific investigations and the lack of recognition from colleagues and management, which fails to compensate for limited financial rewards and promotion opportunities (Allison & Carey, 2007; McKay, 2009) Additionally, those with significant research outcomes often lack appropriate platforms to share their findings (Freeman, 1996) In the context of Vietnamese high school teachers, the ambiguity surrounding research activity guidelines further discourages them from embarking on research endeavors, as they fear potential violations of institutional rules.
A host of problems specifically concerning resources for AR were discussed at length by previous researchers Limited time was time and again cited as majorly
Teachers face significant barriers to conducting research, including limited personal time due to on-school hours and home preparation for teaching (Allison & Carey, 2007; Barkhuizen, 2009) Financial constraints and insufficient funding hinder the realization of their academic ideas (Barkhuizen, 2009) Furthermore, a lack of research competence often leads teachers to seek guidance from specialists, who may not be readily available (Barkhuizen, 2009) Additionally, upper secondary schools often lack the necessary facilities and access to literature or research tools to support action research activities (McNamara, 2002b; Shkedi, 1998).
Reviewing constraints to overcome in teachers’ conduct of research, Borg
In 2010, eight categories of challenges for teacher research were identified, including non-collaborative school culture, limitations in teachers' awareness, beliefs, skills, and knowledge, as well as limited resources, demotivators, economic factors, leadership attributes, and political issues While there is substantial literature addressing the challenges of conducting action research (AR), there is a notable lack of studies focusing on these issues in Vietnam, particularly within the context of Vietnamese upper secondary education This study acknowledges these challenges as significant obstacles faced by higher education teachers (HETs) in conducting AR.
Studies into Teachers’ Research Competence and Opinions about Action
Validating a universal model to appraise research competence has been an elusive task, as there is no perfect tool to measure its effectiveness (Khan et al., 2016)
To address limitations in measuring research skills growth, various interventions such as workshops, collaborative teacher research projects, and training programs have been implemented A notable study by Yayli (2011) involved four in-service English Language Teaching (ELT) teachers participating in a Materials Development and Evaluation course within a Master’s program These teachers worked alongside a supervisor to conduct an action research (AR) project, resulting in the collection of reflection papers, field notes, and interview transcriptions for thematic analysis.
Data analysis indicated that teachers faced challenges in qualitative data analysis and interpretations, influenced by a power imbalance between supervisors and mentees While the study minimized recall bias through methods triangulation to enhance data objectivity, it may still have been affected by social desirability bias (Grimm, 2010), potentially impacting teachers' opinions Furthermore, the small sample size of four participants from a Master’s degree program may limit the representativeness of the findings.
Toquero’s (2019) study can be considered an improvement upon Yayli’s
In a 2011 study involving 133 randomly selected pre-service teachers, researchers examined the participants' research competence and challenges in conducting action research (AR) The analysis of observations, feedback sessions, presentations, and follow-up interviews revealed that the training program significantly enhanced their novice research skills, particularly in critical thinking, information competencies, and educational competencies, thereby improving their overall pedagogical capacity Although the diverse data sources contributed to the study's validity, it would have benefited from consistency checks by an impartial third-party coder (Thomas, 2003) Similar to Yayli’s (2011) findings, this study faced time constraints, limiting the intervention to the proposal writing stage.
In a study on Vietnamese language instruction, Le (2018) examined an AR training project involving 33 secondary school English teachers Initially, a ten-item questionnaire was used to assess teachers' awareness of AR, revealing that many lacked the necessary understanding, knowledge, and practical skills (Le, 2018, p 116) Consequently, a process-oriented training program was developed, extending the intervention to encompass the entire AR process, from formulating research questions to presenting findings at a provincial seminar Reflecting on their experiences, most teachers expressed increased confidence in their teaching and research abilities, a stronger connection with their students, and a willingness to engage more deeply in research activities.
Like previous studies, this study may have been subjected to researcher bias (Chenail,
In 2011, a lack of documented consultation with a third party highlighted the challenges of a hands-on research design that required significant time and financial resources, which were unavailable for the current study While a qualitative approach effectively identified key areas for growth in teachers' research competencies through their narratives, it may lack generalizability and comprehensive data Therefore, this study advocates for the inclusion of quantitative data to provide a broader understanding of teachers' research capabilities.
Bromley et al (2007) proposed a fusion methodology that combines a competence model with needs analysis theory to evaluate research competencies Their approach utilized the Joint Skills Statement (RCUK, 2011), which outlines the skills expected of Ph.D candidates, as a reference to create a list of behavioral indicators These indicators detail the specific tasks required for each competency, including effective communication.
= write a research report of varying lengths for different audiences) For each of the
36 skills, the default description was at level 3 out of 4 (1 = good first degree; 2 = a
A study involving 201 PhD students assessed their research skills by ranking themselves on a scale from 1 to 4, with 3 indicating an experienced student The initial results highlighted how effectively research skills can be quantified, enhancing self-assessment accuracy However, the custom data collection tool requires adjustments for this research context The author emphasized the importance of addressing the gap between self-perception and actual abilities, as identified by Kruger & Dunning (1999) and Ackerman et al (2002), suggesting that interviews or observations could provide more reliable data Additionally, the arrangement of similarly phrased questions may have led to habituation and question-order biases, as noted by Weinstein & Roediger (2012).
Regarding research into the difficulties and support in AR, both qualitative and quantitative designs were employed to plumb depths of teachers’ opinions In
Aga's 2016 study explored the motivating and demoralizing environments for action research (AR) projects using a triangulation approach that included surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions The research focused on a purposive sample of 58 university lecturers, differing from previous studies that targeted school teachers Findings indicated that while classroom challenges, lack of research opportunities, and insufficient financial and promotional incentives were rare stimulants for AR, unfavorable conditions were prevalent and complex Despite minor instances of self-citation, the triangulation of methods enhanced the reliability and validity of the research design, although the author's dual role as coder and theme analyst may have slightly compromised data validity.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study utilized a sequential explanatory multi-method design, as described by Creswell et al (2003), involving the collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by qualitative data A survey was conducted using a questionnaire developed from literature reviews and focus group discussions Subsequently, a sub-sample of interested teachers participated in follow-up interviews (Bryman, 2006a) The integration of mixed methods was crucial, as qualitative insights enriched the understanding of beliefs, thoughts, and perceptions (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001), while the quantitative approach facilitated the generalization of findings (Polit & Beck, 2010) Given that the research topic was relatively under-explored, preliminary qualitative data through focus group discussions was deemed necessary (Jamshed).
Sampling
During the questionnaire development phase, a focus group of four female ESL teachers, selected through convenience and availability sampling, collaborated to create content based on themes identified in the literature review These teachers had varying levels of experience, ranging from four to 15 years Subsequently, 101 Vietnamese high school English teachers, with an average age of 37 and an average of eight years of teaching experience, participated in the study by completing the questionnaires This phase utilized convenience and snowball sampling methods From this group, eight teachers were later invited for semi-structured interviews, and the entire study was conducted over eight months.
During the academic year 2020-2021 in Northern Vietnam, a study was conducted involving 19 participants who either had prior research experience or participated in the IFE contest, ensuring the validity of the data collected.
Data Collection Instruments
Focus group interviews extend beyond traditional research applications, serving multiple purposes, including the development of questionnaires They facilitate dynamic interactions among participants, enabling the collection of valuable insights into the attitudes, beliefs, and opinions of higher education teachers (HETs).
The application of focus groups was essential for this study due to the lack of literature and tools in similar contexts Developing the questionnaire required insights from in-service high school teachers, whose expertise helped bridge theoretical concepts with real-world social dynamics (Hughes & DuMont, 1993) The group included two teachers from a specialized high school, a head teacher from a key institution, and an experienced language teacher in action research (AR) Guided by a facilitator, they discussed issues related to AR found in the literature, focusing on their perceptions of research competence and the barriers to engaging in AR Given the novelty of AR in Vietnamese education, these in-depth discussions were crucial for fostering collaborative idea exchange among teachers and administrators.
The discussion lasted about an hour and a half, during which teachers amicably exchanged ideas and opinions While exploring the identified issues, they did not propose additional challenges but had differing views on certain behavioral indicators of research competencies For those items lacking consensus, the research team decided to include them, with plans for careful analysis of their item-total statistics later on.
The questionnaire was designed based on qualitative data gathered from focus group discussions and a thorough literature review It included demographic questions regarding participants' highest level of education and current workplace, as well as personal information, with the option to remain anonymous Additionally, teachers had the opportunity to express their willingness to participate in follow-up interviews by sharing their contact information.
The questionnaire, based on the work of Bromley et al (2007), underwent several modifications to its content and response scale Notably, the categories of Research Environment and Career Management were eliminated, as the conceptualization of AR is limited to the classroom vicinity (refer to Chapter 2).
Recent changes in communicative skills have shifted the focus away from academic writing, aiming to clarify competencies for ESL teachers The initial use of listing devices, such as the ability to write a research proposal or acknowledge weaknesses in findings, may have confused untrained educators While some competencies remain unchanged due to their multifaceted nature, necessary adjustments were made, like improving time management skills To assist teachers in evaluating the 45 revised skills, a six-point semantic differential scale was created, with detailed descriptions of competence corresponding to each level.
The NIH Proficiency Scale, as outlined by Garcia (2020), categorizes skill levels into six distinct stages: Fundamental Knowledge, Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior, and Expert In adapting this scale, the researcher replaced the original behavioral indicators with simplified descriptions for each level, as detailed in Appendix F This simplification involved omitting gradable adjectives and adverbs, such as "professionally" and "carefully," to maintain the scale's efficiency and effectiveness.
To explore the challenges faced in conducting teacher research, a five-point Likert scale was employed, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) Minor adjustments to the wording were made for enhanced clarity.
21 indicating their attitudes towards the statements, teachers could reveal which was and was not hostile to their conduct of AR
The questionnaire underwent a pilot test with focus group members, leading to final adjustments based on their feedback regarding content and structure (See Appendix F) The analysis revealed high internal consistency across all sections of the questionnaire (refer to Table 2 & Table 3), and Item-Total statistics indicated that removing any items would decrease the Cronbach's Alpha, confirming the reliability of the instrument.
Table 2 Reliability statistics for first part of the questionnaire
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
Table 3 Reliability statistics for second part of the questionnaire
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
While questionnaires are efficient for generalizing data, they often yield superficial responses, prompting the need for qualitative insights (Dornyei, 2003; Borg, 2006c) Teachers willing to participate in further research were invited to semi-structured interviews, conducted in Vietnamese and lasting 20-40 minutes These interviews provided a deeper understanding of teacher research within specific contexts and institutions Although the interviews followed similar themes identified in focus group discussions, they allowed for more in-depth exploration of particular issues This qualitative approach was essential, as the accuracy of self-reports may be influenced by the Vietnamese cultural context of face (Nguyen).
In 2015, participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity; however, expressing dissatisfaction with their research skills or institutional culture could be sensitive To address this, a more tactful approach was employed to engage participants, ensuring the legitimacy of their questionnaire responses was also considered.
The questionnaire includes technical and conceptual items that may challenge less research-engaged teachers, potentially compromising data validity due to possible misinterpretations The interview schedules are structured to facilitate a clear understanding of the results.
Part I: Background - Participants were asked about their research experience, activities and contest in teacher research, experiences at the current institutions
Part II: Skills and competencies - Teachers were asked to rate the highest and lowest skill/competency group, then the highest and lowest individual skills/competencies, and elaborated the reasons for their grading
Part III: Challenges in conducting research in the high school context
Part IV: Suggestions - Teachers proposed solutions they thought would help promote teacher research in the high school setting
The researcher employed narrative analysis to complement the quantitative data with qualitative insights To reduce potential bias, a separate coder was engaged to analyze the qualitative data independently.
Data Analysis
The analysis of quantitative data was conducted using SPSS software, incorporating descriptive statistics such as mean, mode, and standard deviation For qualitative data, thematic and narrative analyses were applied, as outlined by Braun & Clarke (2012), with both types of data being examined in a complementary way to address the second research question.
Ethical Issues
This research was conducted in strict adherence to high ethical standards, ensuring that the purpose of the study was clearly communicated to teachers throughout the data collection process Formal consent was obtained prior to any treatment, and participation was entirely voluntary Each participant was assigned a pseudonym for anonymity, and they retained the right to withdraw from the study at any time All collected data will be securely stored in password-protected folders to ensure confidentiality.
RESULTS
Results
4.1.1 Action Research Competence of the High school English Teachers
The adapted framework for Augmented Reality (AR) competence encompasses 45 essential skills and competencies, as detailed in Appendix E These competency groups maintain their original names from the JSS (RCUK, 2011), such as A for Research Skills & Techniques Figure 1 illustrates the score distribution across all competencies.
Figure 1 Distribution of Scores for all Competencies Table 4 Frequency analysis of scores for all research competencies
*1 = Fundamental knowledge, 2 = Novice, 3 = Intermediate, 4 = Advanced, 5 = Superior, 6
= Expert This applies to Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10
A total of 101 Vietnamese Higher Education Teachers (HETs) participated in the study, resulting in a comprehensive dataset of 4,590 scores The grand mean score was recorded at 2.83 with a standard deviation of 1.25, indicating that the self-assessed AR competence of ESL teachers falls within the high-Novice range.
Rating of competencies at Novice and Intermediate (55.3%) proves to be a major feature of the data set, with the mode being 3 (Intermediate) Interestingly, from the
Intermediate scale upwards, fewer and fewer teachers described their competencies as such, and merely 2.1% of the responses indicated expertise in any competency
Table 5 Summary of self-assessed competency group (descending order of means)
Table 5 illustrates the self-assessment of skills by competency group, revealing that Personal Effectiveness emerged as the highest-rated competency at a mid-Intermediate level (M = 3.56, SD = 1.13) Teams/Networking followed closely with a score of (M = 3.36, SD = 1.45) In contrast, the remaining skill sets were rated within the Novice range, with Research Skills and Techniques receiving the lowest rating at a low-Novice level (M = 2.40), accompanied by minimal variation (SD).
Teachers exhibited comparable mean scores in general communication skills (M = 2.92) and research management skills (M = 2.93) Notably, the difference between the highest and lowest group means was 1.16, indicating a significant variation despite the differing number of variables in each group.
Table 6 Teachers' self-assessment of "Research skills and techniques" competencies
No Competencies/skills Category * Means SD Score distribution (Percentage) **
1 Defining research problems from research gap A1 1.54 0.61 52 42.2 5.9 - - -
2 Identifying areas for new research A1 2.67 0.91 12.7 24.5 46.1 16.7 - -
4 Formulating hypotheses and/or research questions A2 1.70 0.66 41.2 48.0 10.8 - - -
7 Communicating about research topic to peers and supervisor A3 1.99 0.74 27.5 46.1 26.5 - - -
8 Writing literature review of publication standard A3 3.34 0.67 - 10.8 44.1 45.1 - -
9 Prioritizing a range of methodologies for a research question A4 1.60 0.68 51.0 38.2 10.8 - - -
10 Awareness of research techniques and their applications A4 1.79 0.69 36.3 48.0 15.7 - - -
11 Acknowledging weaknesses and assumptions in own findings A5 3.05 0.89 5.9 19.6 38.2 36.3 - -
12 Acknowledging weaknesses and assumptions in others’ findings A5 2.30 1.12 26.5 35.3 25.5 6.9 5.9 -
13 Awareness of methods for testing conjectures and tentative conclusions A5 2.25 1.03 29.4 29.4 27.5 13.7 - -
14 Using IT for data collection, analysis and presentation A5 3.52 0.88 - 11.8 38.2 36.3 13.7 -
15 Verbally summarizing research problems to different audiences A6 2.61 0.83 8.8 35.3 42.2 13.7 - -
16 Criticizing own research and defining future work A6 3.25 0.80 - 22.5 30.4 47.1 - -
* 1, Fundamental knowledge; 2, Novice; 3, Intermediate; 4, Advanced; 5, Superior; 6, Expert This applies to 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10
** A1, Problem solving; A2, Original critical thinking; A3, Discipline knowledge; A4, Discipline methodologies; A5, Critical literature review; A6, Progress summaries
17 Writing summaries of varying lengths to serve different purposes A6 3.32 0.68 - 11.8 44.1 44.1 - -
18 Writing progress reports of appropriate standards A6 2.11 0.93 29.4 39.2 22.5 8.8 - -
4.1.1.1 Teachers’ Self-assessed Research Skills and Techniques
Table 6 presents descriptive statistics for research skills and techniques competencies Notably, teachers generally rated their abilities below the Intermediate scale, with the exception of acknowledging limitations in their research and utilizing IT for data collection, analysis, and presentation The group's mean score in this area was 2.40 (SD = 1.04), which is significantly lower than the overall grand mean.
The study reveals a mean score of 2.83 (SD = 1.25) in self-awareness among teachers, indicating a tendency to recognize their own weaknesses and assumptions in research findings (M = 3.05, SD = 0.89) Additionally, teachers displayed a capacity for self-critique regarding their research and the identification of future work (M = 3.25, SD = 0.80) This suggests that educators are quick to acknowledge flaws in their research, potentially stemming from a self-perceived lack of fundamental research skills.
Teachers rated their ability to draft written summaries and tailor lengths of summaries relatively high, with average scores of 3.34 and 3.32, respectively However, their confidence in drafting progress reports was notably lower, averaging only 2.11, indicating a novice level of skill Additionally, competencies in problem-solving, original critical thinking, and discipline methodologies were rated particularly low, with no intermediate ratings observed Over half of the participants (52%) reported only a rudimentary understanding of identifying research problems from gaps in research Overall, these findings suggest that higher education teachers (HETs) lack confidence in their fundamental research skills, including forming hypotheses and understanding testing techniques.
Table 7 Teachers' self-assessment of "Research management" competencies
No Competencies/skills Category * Means SD Score distribution (Percentage)
1 Making plans for research project B1 3.81 0.78 - - 41.2 36.3 22.5 -
3 Prioritizing immediate goals in research project B1 2.67 1.09 18.6 25.5 26.5 29.4 - -
4 Storing information in an organized and professional manner B2 2.11 0.74 22.5 44.1 33.3 - - -
5 Conducting searches via online and offline resources B2 2.79 0.93 9.8 25.5 40.2 24.5 - -
6 Awareness of relevant sources for subject area B3 3.58 0.84 - 8.8 38.2 39.2 13.7 -
7 Referencing sources and awareness of referencing styles B4 2.35 0.92 20.6 33.3 36.3 9.8 - -
* B1, Project management; B2, Library skills; B3, Bibliography skills; B4, IT skills
Table 8 Teachers’ self-assessment of “Personal effectiveness” competencies
No Competencies/skills Category * Means SD Score distribution (Percentage)
3 Self-evaluation of skills during conduct of research C2 4.13 1.09 - 4.9 23.5 31.4 34.3 5.9
4 Defining areas for improvement from self-evaluation C2 3.74 0.74 - 5.9 42.2 27.5 21.6 2.9
5 Executing research plans with only specialist help needed C3 2.86 0.93 14.7 26.5 22.5 30.4 5.9 -
*C1, Self-discipline; C2, Self-assessment skills; C3, Self-reliance
Table 9 Teachers’ self-assessment of “Communication skills” competencies
No Competencies/skills Category * Means SD Score distribution (Percentage)
1 Producing well-written and well-structured reports of substantial length D1 2.29 0.98 24.5 34.3 28.4 12.7 - -
2 Expressing ideas with conciseness and clarity D1 2.84 1.09 11.8 29.4 24.5 31.4 2.9 -
4 Using slides and Powerpoint for oral presentations D2 4.39 1.46 7.8 3.9 8.8 25.5 28.4 25.5
5 Writing and presenting for research subject D2 3.41 1.47 10.8 20.6 20.6 18.6 23.5 5.9
6 Presenting work at seminars and conferences D3 1.99 0.71 25.5 50.0 24.5 - - -
7 Responding to questions and comments at seminars and conferences D3 2.75 1.12 15.7 27.5 27.5 25.5 3.9 -
8 Writing and presenting research for both specialist and lay audience D4 3.03 1.10 5.9 21.6 52.0 8.8 7.8 3.9
*D1, Academic writing; D2, Critical writing; D3, Research presentation skills; D4, Promote public understanding
Table 10 Teachers’ self-assessment of “Teams/Networking skills” competencies
No Competencies/skills Category * Means SD Score distribution (Percentage)
1 Attending conferences and meetings regularly F1 1.85 1.32 57.8 24.5 2.0 7.8 5.9 2.0
2 Awareness of other researchers in the field F1 2.56 0.64 7.8 28.4 63.7 - - -
3 Working collaboratively on complex projects F2 3.59 1.25 2.0 23.5 20.6 24.5 26.5 2.9
*F1, Networking; F2, Team-working; F3, Feedback skills
4.1.1.2 Teachers’ Self-assessed Research Management Competency Research management includes seven skills, whose descriptive statistics are presented in Table 7 Superficially at least, this set is graded higher than
Teachers generally rated their research skills as high-intermediate, particularly in planning research projects (M = 3.81, SD = 0.78) and awareness of relevant sources (M = 3.58, SD = 0.84) However, they struggled with utilizing computer programs for information organization (M = 2.11, SD = 0.74) and managing references (M = 2.35, SD = 0.92), receiving the lowest ratings in these areas, which were classified as novice competencies.
4.1.1.3 Teachers’ Self-assessed Personal Effectiveness
Table 8 illustrates how Higher Education Teachers (HETs) assessed various dimensions of their self-efficacy The findings reveal that teachers exhibited a notable level of confidence in their self-management abilities, achieving an average competence score of 3.56 (SD = 1.13), which is significantly above the overall benchmark.
The study revealed an average competency score of 2.83 (SD = 1.25) Participants particularly excelled in self-assessment of their skills during the research process, achieving a high mean score of 4.13 (SD = 1.00) Additionally, they demonstrated a strong ability to create a self-improvement plan based on their evaluations, with a mean score of 3.74.
The findings indicate that teachers possess a high capacity for self-criticism (M = 0.96), suggesting a strong awareness of their own teaching practices However, their ability to implement research plans independently, with minimal specialist assistance (M = 2.86), falls below the group average This suggests that while teachers excel in self-reflection, they still rely on expert guidance to effectively manage their research initiatives.
4.1.1.4 Teachers’ Self-assessed Communication Skills
Communication skills in research, conceptualized as excellence in both written and spoken interactions, was generally rated at high-Novice (M = 2.92,
A significant variation in skill ratings was observed, with a standard deviation of 1.35 and a notable 2.4-point difference between the highest and lowest-rated skills The top-rated skill was teachers' proficiency in utilizing information technology for oral research presentations, achieving a mean score of 4.39.
The study revealed that participants rated their academic writing skills between novice and high-intermediate levels, with a mean score of 2.29 (SD = 0.98) indicating a need for improved understanding of research report structuring Additionally, teachers reported limited experience in presenting their work at academic gatherings, with a mean score of 1.99 (SD = 0.71), which may hinder their ability to effectively respond to questions and comments during these events, reflected in a mean score of 2.75 (SD = 1.12).
4.1.1.5 Teachers’ Self-assessed Teams/Networking
Table 10 displays teachers' ratings for Teams/Networking competencies, which received the highest average rating among the five competency groups at a mid-Intermediate level (M = 3.56, SD = 1.13) Notably, many teachers identified their skills in this area as Superior or Expert The standout skill within this group is the Awareness of feedback techniques, achieving the highest rating overall (M = 4.48, SD = 0.83) Additionally, teachers demonstrated a strong capacity for collaboration, with ratings for project partnership (M = 3.59, SD = 1.25), resolving teamwork problems (M = 3.82, SD = 1.33), and understanding their teammates.
The study indicates that participants demonstrated a mid- to high-intermediate proficiency level (M = 3.83, SD = 1.34) in their abilities, yet they appeared to be less engaged in academic meetings (M = 1.85, SD = 1.32) This lack of involvement may account for their presentation skills and their awareness of other researchers in the field of English Language Teaching (M = 2.56, SD = 0.64).
4.1.2 Teachers’ Self-reported Challenges towards Conducting AR
Discussion
4.2.1 Highschool Language Teachers’ Strengths and Weaknesses in doing AR
This research focuses on the practice of Action Research (AR) in Vietnamese high schools, emphasizing its significance in enhancing educational practices Given that AR is an extension of teacher research, exploring its application can provide valuable insights into the broader field of teacher research Consequently, the researcher may interchangeably refer to teacher research when relevant to highlight these implications.
High school teachers (HET) generally rated their research competencies low, showing confidence in personal effectiveness but uncertainty in research skills and techniques While they felt more assured in non-research skills such as autonomy and public speaking, their average ratings for research management, communication, and teamwork hovered around intermediate levels This disparity may stem from the transferable nature of managerial and communication skills developed through other experiences, as opposed to limited research exposure, which hampers their development in specific research skills Consequently, there is a critical need to enhance HET's research skills and techniques to achieve a more balanced competency profile.
Higher ratings for specific skills among HETs reflect the responsibilities they hold as upper secondary educators Three key competencies are essential and socially constructed within their roles Feedback in language classrooms has enhanced their proficiency in feedback techniques, while group assignments, such as fieldwork and collaborative teaching, have significantly contributed to their development in coordinating various tasks Additionally, information technology for oral presentations has also received high ratings from HETs, underscoring the impact of the ICE movement initiated by the MOET over the past decade, which focuses on teachers' professional growth.
IT proficiency, particularly in using PowerPoint presentations, is crucial for higher education teachers (HET) in Vietnam, as mandated by MOET (2008) and Long (2016) This requirement reflects a broader trend where self-evaluation and identifying areas for improvement received higher ratings, indicating teachers' active engagement in reflective practices Year-end reflection sessions allow educators to assess their achievements and shortcomings, which may enhance their inclination towards critical reflection Ultimately, the competencies rated highly align with the essential skills outlined in MOET’s (2020) framework for teacher competence, providing reassurance about the quality of teaching in high schools.
At the other end of the spectrum, high school language teachers largely identified Research skills and techniques as most lacking in their AR competence
Quantitative data suggests that teachers were unsure of their discipline methodologies, original critical thinking, and problem-solving skills The most
Vietnamese higher education teachers (HETs) exhibit a low level of research engagement, often favoring ideological over empirical approaches in their projects, particularly in policy analysis (Hiep, 2006; Le, 2018) This trend is not surprising, as action research (AR) was only integrated into the professional development agenda for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers in 2008 (Government of Vietnam, 2008) Despite efforts to foster a culture of teacher research, many HETs lack essential classroom-based research techniques and data analysis skills (Nunan, 1991) This deficiency in action research competence suggests a broader absence of a robust teacher research culture (Borg, 2013; Le, 2018).
The findings align with previous studies, such as Le and Nguyen (2013), who identified planning for research activities as the highest-rated competency among young lecturers, while applying research methods was viewed as their weakest area This lack of methodological discipline was also noted in Gilmore and Feldon (2010), where teaching graduates recognized methodological knowledge as their most deficient skill Additionally, research by Borg (2009) and Mehrani (2017) highlighted that language teachers often avoid action research due to insufficient knowledge and skills.
4.2.2 Challenges Faced by Highschool Language Teachers in Doing Action Research
The analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data indicated that a significant barrier to developing a teacher research culture was widespread apathy among educators Many teachers believed that their job descriptions, as outlined in their labor contracts, did not include research responsibilities This perspective implies that financial incentives may drive teachers, leading them to view research as lacking monetary value.
The relationship between responsibility and compensation in academic research is complex, as highlighted by Lauermann (2014) The lack of clear guidelines regarding action research (AR) has further complicated teachers' understanding of how their research contributions fit into their working hours Vietnamese educators, known for their adherence to Ministry regulations (Saito et al., 2008), may avoid AR out of concern for inadvertently breaching institutional rules Additionally, teachers perceive minimal practical benefits from engaging in AR, with Le (2018) noting that the current acknowledgment of AR achievements does not effectively incentivize participation in academic research for career advancement.
Funding challenges in AR are significant, with many interviewees highlighting a lack of awareness about the application procedures Those familiar with the bureaucratic process often hesitate to pursue funding opportunities Securing financial support for Higher Education Teachers (HETs) requires legitimizing transactions, which can lead to diminished enthusiasm for projects by the time funding is received In contrast, private school teachers noted that funding could be obtained if proposals for financial aid were well-justified However, this often results in teacher research being overlooked in budget planning across both school types Some HETs have benefited from sponsorship for professional development programs or short training workshops, indicating a potential avenue for support.
In 2020, it was observed that the primary focus of programs aimed at developing teacher research capacity is not solely on this aspect, especially in higher education institutions where substantial financial incentives are provided for published work (Pham & Hayden, 2019) In contrast, action research (AR) at upper-secondary education levels by higher education teachers (HETs) offers limited financial rewards, with even prestigious IFE awards providing minimal monetary recognition Notably, previous studies have shown that teachers are willing to invest in learning resources, which are typically the responsibility of schools, if they believe it will enhance instructional quality (Lauermann, 2014) Therefore, teachers' reluctance to engage in AR, despite facing financial disadvantages, may reflect their broader concerns regarding the value and impact of such initiatives.
41 not perceiving AR as integral to both the teaching practice and progress of teacher education
Teachers in Vietnam face significant challenges in action research (AR) due to a lack of funding, inadequate facilities, and insufficient expert assistance The limited access to academic journals and departmental symposiums highlights the neglect of AR, as noted by Hiep (2006) This absence of support contributes to teachers' feelings of insecurity regarding their research capabilities Most Inquiry for Education (IFE) initiatives, which are similar to AR, tend to be experiential and lack a solid methodological foundation Additionally, while teacher-research collaboration is common in English-speaking countries, such partnerships are rare in Vietnam, where teachers often serve merely as informants rather than actively engaging with professional researchers Vietnamese higher education teachers (HETs) typically receive expert advice only during their pursuit of advanced degrees or through participation in experimental AR training workshops, as indicated by previous research (Le, 2018; Yayli, 2012) However, these experiences are often limited in sustainability (Edwards & Burns, 2016).
Time constraints significantly impact Higher Education Teachers' (HET) ability to conduct Action Research (AR), as they already juggle core responsibilities like lesson planning and classroom management alongside additional departmental duties and off-school tasks The expectation to integrate research into this demanding workload appears unreasonable, often forcing teachers to sacrifice personal time and jeopardize their work-life balance Moreover, the extensive paperwork required for research documentation adds to the time burden, a concern echoed in various studies (Borg, 2009; Gao et al., 2010; Mehrani, 2017).
