ACTION RESEARCH COMPETENCE AND CHALLENGES IN DOING ACTION RESEARCH FACING HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS IN NORTHERN VIETNAM

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

ACTION RESEARCH COMPETENCE AND
CHALLENGES IN DOING ACTION RESEARCH
FACING HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS IN
NORTHERN VIETNAM

Supervisor: Nguyễn Huy Hoàng
Student: Nguyễn Tuấn Hưng
Course: QH2017.F1.E1

HÀ NỘI – 2021


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

NĂNG LỰC NGHIÊN CỨU HÀNH ĐỘNG VÀ KHÓ
KHĂN TRONG LÀM NGHIÊN CỨU HÀNH ĐỘNG
CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TIẾNG ANH TẠI CÁC TRƯỜNG
TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG MIỀN BẮC VIỆT NAM
Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Nguyễn Huy Hoàng
Sinh viên: Nguyễn Tuấn Hưng
Khóa: QH2017.F1.E1

HÀ NỘI – 2021


ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Nguyễn Tuấn Hưng, class: QH2017.F1.E1, being
a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements
of the University relating to retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper
deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited
in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal condition established by the librarian for the care,
loan or reproduction of the paper.
Signature

Nguyễn Tuấn Hưng
Hanoi, May 2nd 2021


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Hoang
Nguyen for his continuous support, tolerance, and reassurance. It has been
a great three years working with him as a mentee, a student, and a friend.
Beyond the grandiose words of gratitude that I know for a fact he does not
appreciate; I would like to thank him for making the time doing this
dissertation lighter and more enjoyable.
Secondly, I want to extend my thanks to all each of the 105
participants in this study. Without their assistance, I would have never been
able to afford to undertake this endeavor.
Thirdly, my sincere thanks are due to my family and friends, who

have been an unstinting source of support, who always make time to help
and support me, who have nurtured the researcher in me. They have been
readily available for emotional support more times than I can count, despite
my selfish grudge against them in times of stress.
Last but not least, my warmest thanks go to myself, for having been
resilient through the vagaries of emotional turmoil for the last four years.
Your accumulation of knowledge, skills, and attitude made this academic
quest possible and I am beyond proud of you.

i


ABSTRACT
There is a growing need for Vietnamese high school teachers to become
research-engaged as their roles are being redefined by the advances in education.
While several studies (Potolea, 2013; Toquero, 2019; Yayli, 2011)have
documented the potential growth in research competence among language
teachers, little empirical research has focused on exploring the baseline research
competencies and difficulties facing high school English teachers (HETs). This
study, thus, set out to examine such information, assuming a quantitatively
driven approach to mixed methods, which included focus group discussions,
scaling questionnaires, and interview schedules. Participants comprised 105
teachers from six public and private schools located in Vietnam. Research
questions focused on two specific issues, namely research and research-related
competencies for action research, and factors that impede action research in high
school institutes. Descriptive data suggested that teachers were conscious of their
inadequacy in discipline methodologies, problem-solving skills, and original
critical thinking faculty, albeit assured of their capability for collaboration and
self-sufficiency. The study implies that a culture of active teacher research, from
education to engagement, should be established to increase teachers’ competence

in doing action research, and that school authorities should attempt to
accommodate the practice of action research by reducing the amount of
paperwork and teaching hours, establishing clearer guidelines for research
activities, and providing necessary specialist help through modes of
collaboration with higher learning institutes. Suggestions for further research
were also included.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACCEPTANCE .................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ................................................................... v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Research Problem and Research Questions ....................... 2
1.3 Scope of the Study ......................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research design ............................................................................................. 3
1.5 Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 3
1.6 Organization of the Study .............................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 5
2.1 Action Research............................................................................................. 5
2.2 Innovation from Experience (“Sáng kiến kinh nghiệm”) as a Form of AR .. 7
2.3 Skill Sets and Competencies for Action Research ...................................... 11
2.4 Challenges to High School Teachers’ Research.......................................... 12
2.5 Studies into Teachers’ Research Competence and Opinions about Action

Research ............................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 18
3.1 Research Design .......................................................................................... 18
3.2 Sampling ...................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Data Collection Instruments ........................................................................ 19
3.3.1 Focus Group Discussion .......................................................................... 19
3.3.2 Questionnaires .......................................................................................... 19
3.3.3 Interviews ................................................................................................. 21
3.4 Data Analysis............................................................................................... 22
3.5 Ethical Issues ............................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ................................................................................ 23
4.1 Results ......................................................................................................... 23
iii


4.1.1 Action Research Competence of the High school English Teachers ....... 23
4.1.2 Teachers’ Self-reported Challenges towards Conducting AR ................. 31
4.2 Discussion.................................................................................................... 37
4.2.1 Highschool Language Teachers’ Strengths and Weaknesses in doing AR
........................................................................................................................... 37
4.2.2. Challenges Faced by Highschool Language Teachers in Doing Action
Research ............................................................................................................ 39
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 42
5.1 Summary of Findings .................................................................................. 42
5.2 Implications ................................................................................................. 43
5.2.1 How to Improve Teacher Research Competence ..................................... 43
5.2.2 How to Accommodate Teacher Research Activity ................................... 44
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research ..................................... 46
REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 48
APPENDICES.................................................................................................. 60

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................... 60
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................... 61
APPENDIX C .................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX D ................................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX E .................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX F .................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX G ................................................................................................... 85

iv


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 Innovations from Experience by the English teachers .......................... 8
Table 2 Reliability statistics for first part of the questionnaire ........................ 21
Table 3 Reliability statistics for second part of the questionnaire .................... 21
Table 4 Frequency analysis of scores for all research competencies ............... 23
Table 5 Summary of self-assessed competency group (descending order of means) 24
Table 6 Teachers' self-assessment of "Research skills and techniques" competencies 25
Table 7 Teachers' self-assessment of "Research management" competencies. 28
Table 8 Teachers’ self-assessment of “Personal effectiveness” competencies 28
Table 9 Teachers’ self-assessment of “Communication skills” competencies 29
Table 10 Teachers’ self-assessment of “Teams/Networking skills” competencies . 29
Table 11 Challenges to HETs’ action research (arranged by group) ............... 31
Table 12 Challenges to HETs’ action research (descending order of means) .. 32

v


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AR = Action Research

ELT = English Language Teaching
HET = High-school English Teachers
IFE = Innovation From Experience
IT = Information Technology
MOET = Ministry of Education and Training

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The first chapter presents the background information relevant to the current
research, primarily the importance of Action Research to the high school language
teachers and their professional development. The research questions, scope of the
study and significance of the study will also be elaborated. Finally, an outline of the
study is given at the end of the chapter.
1.1 Background of the Study
The practice of language instruction has undergone major transformations at
the turn of the 21st century, in which the highschool language teachers (HET) are
required to assume more roles other than just to impart knowledge and manage
classrooms (Kubanyiova & Crookes, 2016). Correspondingly, teacher education
programs have evolved to prepare the HETs for new responsibilities, one of which
is the demand to become research-engaged (Borg, 2013). Advocates of teacher
research activities as part of continuous teacher professional development (PD)
emphasize that participation in academic inquiries not only cements the link between
theory and practice (Johnson, 2015), but also improves the quality of language
instruction (Burns & Richards, 2009; Edge, 2001; Johnson & Golombek, 2011).
Among the range of academic inquiries that teachers can take on within the extents
of their profession, action research (AR) is recognized as an empowering form of PD
for teachers (Borg, 2010; 2013; Nunan & Bailey, 2009). By allowing HETs to
“investigate and problematize” their instructional practice (Le, 2018, p. 1) and reflect

upon it, AR broadens teachers’ understanding of the students, the classroom
problems, and themselves, thereby enhancing instruction standards (Edwards &
Burns, 2016). Ultimately, the process of doing AR can be considered a means of
continuous PD (Han, 2012; Kumaravadivelu, 2006; McNiff & Whitehead, 2010;
Mertler, 2009; Wang & Zhang, 2012) as afterwards, teachers gain invaluable
knowledge and skills.
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

1


education. The government-issued Decision 1400 entitled “The Teaching and
Learning of Foreign Languages in the National Education System Project, 20082020”, for instance, attach importance to teachers’ reflective practice (Vietnamese
Government, 2008). Specifically, the role of AR in educational reform at the
secondary education level is preponderant because it helps teachers transcend their
role as passive consumers of knowledge to generators who critically examine
teaching resources (MOET, 2011b; MOET, 2014e). In the current frame of reference
for language teacher competence (MOET, 2020, p. 22), it is clear that the task of
investigating their own practice to resolve classroom problems is a part of PD. Even
in assessment in language classes (MOET, 2014), the HETs are expected to devise
assessment plans from the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data collected from
the learning process. The great traction that AR has gained in the last decade or more,
however, belies the relative insignificance of AR in the general practice of language
instruction.
For its importance in both theory and practice, present understanding of AR
and especially in the context of Vietnamese upper-secondary education, is limited.
Specifically, issues such as teachers’ competence in doing AR, or their difficulties in
carrying out such academic quests, merit further investigation (Rochsantiningsih,
2004; Ulvik, 2014). It was suggested that comprehending how teachers perceive the

concept of research (Everton et al., 2000; McNamara, 2002b; Shkedi, 1998) and their
baseline skills for conducting research (Le, 2018) was instrumental in promoting the
use of AR and counteracting passiveness in teacher research engagement. Therefore,
in an attempt to glean information about AR in Vietnamese upper secondary
education, the present study was conducted to analyze Vietnamese HETs’
perspectives. Specifically, the paper would discuss the types of competencies that
teachers need for conducting AR and their problems in doing AR.
1.2 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

2


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?
1.3 Scope of the Study
The present research would examine the two important aspects concerning
Vietnamese HETs’ potentials for conducting AR: competencies and challenges.
Therefore, the subjects of this study are teachers’ AR competence and challenges in
doing AR. Participants of the study are HETs, from varied teaching backgrounds
such as specialized high schools, public and private high schools in Northern
Vietnam. As regarding the setting, the study took place during the academic year
2020-2021.
1.4 Research design
A quantitative approach to mixed methods was used to examine the high
school English teachers’ research competence and challenges to their conduct of

action research. Specifically, this sequential explanatory multi-method study
employed a preliminary focus group discussion to generate qualitative data to
complement the literature in questionnaire content development. Following data
collection via the use of questionnaires was a series of semi-structured interviews,
where the researcher attempted to glean deeper information into the teachers’
responses, as well as to uncover other themes relevant to the current research.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The study is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it contributes
tounderstanding on English teachers’ engagement with AR in a Vietnamese context.
Despite the abundance of previous research, researchers have not fully reached
consensus regarding conceptualization of AR, research skills, and challenges to AR.
Careful investigation of literature in the current study will be helpful towards a
concrete understanding of the subject. Secondly, the data will give teachers and
policy makers alike a comprehensive picture of the current landscape of teacher
3


research in language instruction, laying the ground work for constructing teacher
education programs that suit the needs of high school teachers. Simultaneously,
information regarding hindrances to teacher AR would help school administrators
and educational leaders reflect on the policies concerning teacher research already in
practice. As a result, informed decisions to, for instance, alleviate environments
hostile to teacher research could be made. Thirdly, from the teachers’ perspective, it
is likely that careful analysis of the results might raise awareness of the practice of
teacher research, motivating them into administering AR, or reflecting on their own
the possible inadequacies that might hinder their own research competences. Finally,
future research would benefit from this study in both its methodological advantages
and limitations.
1.6 Organization of the Study
The organization of the paper is as follows. Chapter 1 provides background

information for the current study, proposing research problems and research
questions. The second chapter focuses on dissecting the epistemology of the phrases
AR, characteristics of Innovation from Experience (Sáng kiến kinh nghiệm) – a nearequivalent of AR, research competence of the HETs, challenges to conducting AR,
and previous studies in the field. In chapter 3, methodological choices would be
elaborated and justified. Following data collection, analysis of quantitative and
qualitative data would be discussed in Chapter 4. The last chapter presents a
summary of findings, as well as implications and limitations of the study, suggesting
directions for future research.

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 underscores the importance of AR in teacher development and the
practice of English instruction by highlighting the abundance of benefits AR offers.
In order to help answer the research questions, conceptualization of AR, its
epistemologies and ontology was also provided. A review of previous studies also
helped the author establish the content for data collection tool and methodological
standpoint, which will be presented in the Chapter 3.
2.1 Action Research
AR has recently been widely regarded as a component of the modern teacher’s
PD (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Creswell, 2012). Despite its roots in the broad
area of humanities and social sciences, AR has gained momentum in the field of
language teaching in the past 20 years (Burns, 2019).
The term action research was coined by Lewin (1948) to denote studies that
“will help the practitioner” (p. 1). From its modest position in research on social
relations and interest groups, AR grew to become an overarching theme for social
science studies and later, gained traction in educational research (Adleman, 1993).
Defying the conservative school of thoughts, the ideology of AR postulates that
investigation and action are inseparable in solving the problem (McFarland &

Stansell, 1993). Corey (1954) strongly subscribes to the belief that irrespective of
professions, practitioners are obliged to “learn to improve their practice” (p. 375)
through active interventions in a problematic situation to investigate the viable areas
for changes. Soon, the idea resonated among educators and teachers alike, with
accounts of AR in studies on classroom practice and theory 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,
2019).

5


Improvement relates to improvement in practice, understanding of the practice, and
of the situation in which the action takes place. Involvement means that the actors
in the situation should be involved in all the cyclical phases of planning, acting,
observing, and reflecting (Burns, 2019, p. 168)

This orientation held true to AR in education research. According to Roulston
et al. (2005), AR is among the forms of academic inquiries that the English teacher
conduct within the classroom settings, others being practitioner research,
collaborative inquiry, critical inquiry, self-study, and teacher-research. While it is
beyond the purport of the present study to dissect the epistemologies of the
aforementioned array of academic studies, an eclectic variety of research assortments
would be highlighted.
The terms AR, classroom research, and teacher research are much too often
used interchangeably. There are, in fact, distinctive variations in the usage of these
terms. AR is defined as an academic inquiry intended to resolve an educational
enigma, which may arise from poor classroom management (Ahmadian & Tavakoli,

2011), lack of teacher autonomy (Dikilitas & Griffiths, 2017), or enforcement of
language policy (Miller, 1981). The conduct of AR requires teacher-researchers to
reflect upon their practice and ways to improve it. However, reflection as a separate
practice does not “constitute teacher research” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 22).
It is also worth asserting that these characteristics do not pertain exclusively to AR,
but to the practice of ‘teacher research’ as well (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, 1993,
2009; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1990, 1994). As defined, teacher research
encompass all forms of practitioner inquiry that involve the systematic, intentional,
and self-critical inquiry about one’s work in K-12, higher education, or continuing
education classrooms, schools, programs, and other formal educational settings.
This definition does not necessarily include reflection or other terms that refer to
being thoughtful about one’s educational work in ways that are not necessarily
systematic or intentional (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

6


social milieus that surround classrooms”, “context specific”, and “a continuous
cyclical or spiral process” (p. 2). Similarly, true AR is also believed to involve a
focus on issues in practice or in the local community, multiple sources of data
(qualitative and quantitative) to address the problem, collaboration during the study
to arrive at the optimal solutions, and respect for collaborators as equal partners in
the AR process (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.
137). Beyond the scope of educational decision-making, generation of knowledge
and washback effects on knowledge contexts (Allwright & Hanks, 2009), it is the
right and responsibility of the language teachers to “contribute to discussions and
debates in the field of language education” through the means of research
(Barkhuizen, 2009, p. 124). Teacher research boasts a variety of manners of
disseminations, from oral and written reports, formal or less formal, to formative or
summative accounts (Borg, 2010). Then, it is reasonable to deduce that publication
of AR, while being a defining feature, do not confine itself to the platform of journals
and articles, and the genre of academic writing.
Meticulous scrutiny of previous studies was critical in establishing the
definition of AR in the current study. As such, AR here is conceptualized as a form
of teacher research, with focus on resolving classroom problems from empirical
investigation. Additionally, while dissemination of AR is necessary by definition,
the platform to promote AR is not necessarily academic journal.
2.2 Innovation from Experience (“Sáng kiến kinh nghiệm”) as a Form of AR
A Vietnamese HET can engage in research through three major roles: as a
knowledge counselor for students’ projects at the Science and Engineering Fair (Bui,
2015; MOET, 2013), as a collaborator in partnership with researchers (CochranSmith, 2005), or as owner of their own research project. In the Vietnamese secondary

7


education, the Innovation from Experience contest (Sáng kiến kinh nghiệm; IFE) is a
platform that promotes AR for educator held by institutional managerial boards.
Official documents regarding the contest are sent to schools at the start of the
academic year. The managerial staff proposes innovations regarding micro- and
macro-management, while teachers normally report their experience trialing an

instructional novelty in classroom practice (Ben Tre DOET, 2018). While
participation is at will, practitioners intending to join the contest would have to
register to be eligible for submission of reports at the designated time (MOET, 2013).
Table 1 lists the projects done by HETs, retrieved from the free-access database and
other internal sources. It is necessary to preface the following analysis by clarifying
that entry into the database guarantees neither access to all IFEs ever made or granted
high awards nor full information regarding uploaded IFEs, hence the missing
information. Moreover, the inclusion of ten following projects was for representation
purposes rather than implied that the extent of investigation limited itself to these
reports.
Table 1. Innovations from Experience by the English teachers
Project title

Author(s)

Classifying of teaching and studying English
writing skill based on the new Tieng Anh 10
textbook

Tuan
Nguyen

Application of Project-based Learning to
improve English skills

Year

Field

2015 Skills instruction

Binh Thang 2017 Project-based
Learning

Warm-up activities for Listening lessons English for Grade 10

Tram
Nguyen

2010 Classroom
management

Teaching vowels in Tieng Anh 10 via visual
aids

N/A

2018 Pronunciation

Applying graphic organizers in teaching
reading new textbook - Tieng Anh 10

N/A

2020 Skills instruction

Applying creative learning experience and
integrative teaching in Writing skill of Unit 10
for the students in class 11A5 at Phan Dang
Luu High School

N/A

2019 Skills instruction

8


Difficulties in teaching and learning
pronunciation in language focus periods English 11 and some solutions

Thanh
Nguyen

2020 Creative learning
experience

Helping the grade 12 students improve their
sense of responsibility to themselves, their
families and society through post-reading
activities

Phuong
Nguyen

2020 Social
constructivism

Non-finite verbs, Gerunds, and related forms
of exercise

N/A

2020 Vocabulary
learning

Some activities for Post-listening sessions in
Tieng Anh 11 - standard program

N/A

2015 Skills instruction

In many manners, IFEs can be considered a form of AR. Firstly, they focus
on an issue in practice, ranging from instructional to classroom management
problems (BT DOET, 2018, Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998, Mills, 2011). Analysis of
IFEs in the upper secondary instruction of English, grade 10-12 category indicates
that, while dominating are IFEs on skill instruction or teaching methodology, ethics
teaching or learning motivation also receives great attention. Secondly, like AR, IFE
projects are rooted in teachers’ determination to change or introduce innovation
(MOET, 2018; Allwright & Hanks, 2009). One example could be how IFEs by the
English teachers in recent years have centered around adjustments to teaching
practice following changes in the national textbook design, suggesting topicality in
IFEs. Thirdly, IFE projects are conducted by the teacherswho are scrutinizing their
own practice to localize educational issues (Hammersley, 2004a, Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999). Fourthly, the conduct of IFEs involves the collection of both
quantitative and qualitative data (MOET, 2018; Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998; Mills,
2011). Finally, IFEs are based upon investigative cycles with a scientific approach
(BT DOET, 2018; Wallace, 1998; Burns, 2005b, 2010). Their nature being
exploratory at micro-level, English teachers’ IFEs normally incorporate experiments,

laid out in exercise excerpts or PPT presentationsto trial teaching techniques or
lesson modifications. In the final reports, the majority of teachers choose to include
descriptive statistics to describe effectiveness of their teaching innovations. These

9


reports are structured with flexibility, in either formal research format or whichever
way appropriate. Therefore, homogeneity is by and large a missing feature.
Much as IFE is similar to AR, they leave much to be desired as an academic
enquiry. Firstly, IFEs are often carved out of teachers’ intuitive and anecdotal
experiences rather than based upon comprehensive analysis of literature to
rationalize their aims and methods. Even in reports delineating research history,
HETs might plainly jot down literature without sufficient critical appraisals. The
resulting inadequacy in theorization in data collection tools or sampling techniques,
to name but a few, contributes the idea that Vietnamese teacher research “abuse the
positivist paradigm to dominate empirical design and practice (Scott et al., 2006, p.
31). Secondly, IFEs often fall short of originality, harshing upon exhausted ideas or
derivative of previous IFEs. Adaptations might be necessary, but more often than not,
IFEs gloss over the modification process. In this respect, the controversy of rampant
plagiarism that results from perfunctory effort is also noteworthy. Thirdly, IFEs lack
intelligent data analyses to render their contribution worthwhile. Table 1 suggests
that experiments are the primary design, but virtually no control groups, ANOVA
analysis, or coefficients are reported in IFEs. Descriptive statistics are abused in a
listing manner rather than structured inspection. Finally, IFE projects cannot claim
great contributions to the field as AR, as they mostly highlight new exercises or realia
in hope that fellow teachers could also test and report their experience with the
proposed innovations. Therefore, these projects are often incomprehensive and
inconclusive, not likely to arrive at methodological implications for further research.
Ultimately, IFEs fail to meet the expectations of standard AR, however their

nature identifies with that of AR. Nonetheless, although strict adherence to academic
norms is missing from IFE reports, doing their shares of IFEs can count rowards
HETs’ AR-related experiences (Hu et al., 2007). Therefore, involvement in this
academic endeavor warrants, to certain extent, accumulation of knowledge in
research. Consequently, it stands to reason that Vietnamese HETs’ opinion on
research might at least be based on valid experiences rather than groundless

10


assumptions. The choice to examine AR, rather than the broader field teacher
research, stems from this specific culture of HET research.
2.3 Skill Sets and Competencies for Action Research
Borg (2006) asserted that in teacher research, or all research for that matter,
knowledge and skills – for instance, the knowledge of research methods and their
applications – was critical in producing research that is, at least, not “methodological
flawed” (p. 4). When addressing the ability to conduct research effectively, the
ubiquitous term competence is commonly used. To exemplify, in the frame of teacher
competence (MOET, 2020, p. 22), the ability to keep abreast of current knowledge
and conduct relevant research was recognized as a competence in the promotion of
language teaching values and professionalism. Definitions of competence usually
rely on a triadic model of expression, comprising knowledge, skills, and attitude
(Baartman & Rujis, 2011; Braun, Sheikh, & Hannover, 2011; Weinert, 2001;
Westera, 2011), although the line might seem blurred (Cucos, 2002; Manolescu,
2010; Weinert, 2001).
Apart from the triadic interpretation of the term competence, several breakdowns of research competence into different capacity area are also found in literature.
Examining doctoral candidates’ academic prowress, Olehnovica, Bolgzda, and
Kravale-Paulina (2014), noted the importance of informative competence – the
ability to view research topics from varied perspectives, to link theory and practice,
to devise research structure, etc.; communicative competence – the cooperative

ability and adaptive mindset when faced with unfavorable research environment; and
instrumental competence – the ability to strategize data processing intelligently, in
doing research. Similarly, Potolea (2013) carried ou a study from a social-humanistic
perspective, proposing that key research competences are professional competence –
including knowledge competencies and functional-action competencies – and
transversal competence – including role competences and personal & PD. These
competencies are accompanied by behavioral descriptors in three levels (See
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

11


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.
It might also be difficult to the untrained high school teachers to discern among
different competencies, seeing how idealistic they are. Ultimately, a model with clear
layout of knowledge, skills and attitudes involved in doing research might be more
suitable for the present study.
Finally, in an exploratory study examining how postgraduates perceive their
skills as PhDs, Bromley, Boran, and Myddelton (2007) investigated research
competences in seven of its skill sets, namely Research skills and techniques,
Research environment, Research management, Personal effectiveness, Communicative
skills, Networking and Team Working and Career Management (See Appendix C).
Adopting the Joint Statements of Skills (RCUK, 2011), thematization of the research
competencies emcompassed similar skills and traits in previous studies, but their
nomenclature was strictly built around research and the steps leading to academic
studies. Thus, the strength of this model (Bromley et al., 2007) is that it helps separate
research competencies from transferrable and idealistic area of competences.
All in all, the current research aimed to examine HETs’ self-assessment of

research competence, which follows the classic triadic definition of competences as
comprising knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The content of questionnaire items was
established from a synthesis of three aforementioned studies.
2.4 Challenges to High School Teachers’ Research
Despite its importance in PD and reflective practice, AR in the context of
upper secondary education often falls short of expectation due to inhibiting factors
that span from “policy to practice, internal to external, and from individual to
institutional” (Aga, 2016, p. 1).
Research points out the role politics play in stagnating teacher research. In
less research-engaged institutes, teachers usually turn their back on the practice in
fear of being isolated as teacher-researchers (Allison & Carey, 2007; Borg, 2009).
Similarly, insufficient cooperation from colleagues and students might also
discourage teachers from doing AR (Gao, Barkhuizen, & Chow, 2010). Additionally,

12


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 facility and human resources is also associated with the
reluctance to be research-engaged. The foreground critique against AR is that ESL
teacher’s roles center around imparting knowledge, not generating it. Thus, they
normally perceive their competence for research as lacking (Barkhuizen, 2009; Borg,
2007a; McDonough & McDonough, 1990; Khanh & An, as cited in Farrell, 2006).
This insecurity is further exacerbated by the conception that research is an academic,
large-scale, statistical and technical difficult activity (Allwright, 1991; Borg, 2009a).
At the height of inconfidence, teaching staff might seek collaboration to ease the
encumbrance of doing research, but there is little sign that a concerted effort is in
order (Borg, 2009). Similarly, Yuan et al. (2016) notes students’ skepticism over the

practice, which dampens teachers’ motivation. In the context of Vietnamese high
school education especially, the idea of AR could not be further divorced from reality,
where the focus is solely on the national university exam scores – the more pragmatic
goal of upper secondary education (Le, 2018; Hiep, 2006).
Inactivity in teacher research can also be associated with a lack of drive.
Weighing the expansion of knowledge and skills against the daunting task of
scientific investigations, most teachers tended to agree that becoming academically
engaged was not very sensible (Allison & Carey, 2007; McKay, 2009). The scant
recognition by colleagues and managers, apparently, does nothing to offset the
meager financial rewards and promotion incentives. In other cases, teachers with
research outcomes of substance are deprived of appropriate platforms to disseminate
their findings (Freeman, 1996). Relevant to the Vietnamese high school teachers is
the obscurity in directions for teacher research activities. Without clarity in
instructions, teachers might not commence research quests in fear of violating
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

13


responsible for teachers’ inability to do research (Borg, 2007a, 2007b; Shkedi, 1998).
On-school hours and teaching preparation at home, doing AR projects might come
at the expense of teachers’ personal time. (Allison & Carey, 2007; Barkhuizen, 2009).
Limitations in expenditure and lack of funding (Barkhuizen, 2009) might bar
teachers from realizing their academic ideas. Additionally, wanting in research
competence, teachers tended to resort to specialist or authorities on the field, which
was not immediately available (Barkhuizen, 2009). Facility to accommodate AR
activity is largely subpar in upper secondary schools, evident in the lack of access to
literature or other research tools (McNamara, 2002b; Shkedi, 1998).

Reviewing constraints to overcome in teachers’ conduct of research, Borg
(2010) summarized the eight groups of challenges (See Appendix D). In his
definitions, indicators of hostile environments for teacher research can be grouped
categories: Non-collaborative school culture, Limitations in teachers’ awareness,
beliefs, skills, and knowledge, Limited resources, Demotivators, Economic matters,
Leadership attributes, and Political issues. Conclusively, while a good amount of
literature was dedicated to examining challenges of conducting AR, there has been
few studies that dealt with the issue in Vietnam, much fewer in the context of
Vietnamese upper secondary education. Temporarily, the study accepted the listed
issues as challenges to HETs’ conduct of AR.
2.5 Studies into Teachers’ Research Competence and Opinions about Action Research
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 circumvent such a limitation, attempts were made to document growths in
research skills following an intervention procedure via either subjective or objective
methods of data collection. Interventions take the forms of workshops, collaborative
teacher research projects, or teacher training programs. Such a study was conducted
by Yayli (2011) on four in-service ELT teachers during a Materials Development
and Evaluation course in a Master’s degree program. Four teachers collaborated with
a supervisor – the author – to conduct an AR project, following which reflection
papers, author’s field notes, and interview transcriptions were collected. Thematic

14


data analysis revealed that qualitative data analysis and interpretations were areas
teachers struggled with, and that a supervisor-mentee power imbalance was at play.
Although the study managed to avoid recall bias by adopting methods triangulation
to improve data objectiveness, it might have suffered from the social desirability bias
(Grimm, 2010). Specifically, the mentioned power dynamics might have had an

effect on the teachers’ opinions. Additionally, a small sample size of four participants
from a Master’s degree course might not be representative.
Toquero’s (2019) study can be considered an improvement upon Yayli’s
(2011), where 133 randomly selected pre-service teachers in a teacher education
program were investigated for research competence and difficulties in doing AR.
Analysis of observations, feedback sessions, presentations, and follow-up written
interview indicates that the training program facilitated growth in their previously
novice research skills. Particularly, a consolidation of critical thinking skills, as well
as information competencies and educational competencies, was recorded, affirming
overall enhancement in pedagogical capacity. While richness in data sources to was
valuable in ensuring validity, the study could have included consistency checks with
an impartial, third-party coder (Thomas, 2003). Similar to Yayli’s (2011), this study
suffered from time restrictions and thus, intervention was limited to the proposal
writing stage.
In the context of Vietnamese language instruction, Le (2018) observed in
close proximity an AR training project with 33 secondary school English teachers as
attendees. In the preliminary stage, a ten-item questionnaire was administered to help
glean baseline information about teachers’ awareness of AR. Responses to the 5point Likert scale survey indicated that “teachers did not have the appropriate
understanding, knowledge or practical skills” (Le, 2018, p. 116) to perform AR. A
process-oriented training project was established afterwards, protracting the
intervention period to cover the full proceedings of an AR, from research question
formation to research presentations at the province seminar. Upon reflection, most
teachers reported higher levels of confidence in both teaching and research skills,
deeper connection with students, and openness to becoming more research-engaged.

15


Like previous studies, this study may have been subjected to researcher bias (Chenail,
2011) as consultation with a third party was not documented. Furthermore, this type

of research design involved high degrees of hands-on engagement with the teachers,
time and financial resources that was not available in the current research. Qualitative
approach to examining teacher research competence, while successfully highlighting
salient areas of growth among varied competencies through teachers’ accounts, may
not offer generalizability and data comprehensiveness. The current study, consequently,
proposes the introduction of quantitative data to get a ‘big picture’ of teachers’
research capacity.
In the neighborhood of evaluating research competences, Bromley et al. (2007)
postulated a fusion methodology of competence model and needs analysis theory. In
their approach, the Joint Skills Statement (RCUK, 2011) – a comprehensive description
skills expected of a Ph.D. candidates – was used as reference to establish a list of
behavioral indicators, or the level of accomplishment for each competency. These
behavioral indicators illustrated the specific tasks to be fulfilled (i.e 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
PhD student with some experience; 3 = an experienced Ph.D. student; 4 = a
particularly able PhD student). The 201 postgraduates were asked to measure their
skills by ranking above, same, or below the default level 3. For an initial attempt, the
model demonstrated clearly how research skills can be manifested into qualifiable
action and thus, increasing the degree of accuracy in self-assessment. Since the data
collection tool was tailor-made to investigate Ph.D. degree holders, the response
scale needs adjustment for the current research. Additionally, due to discrepancy
between perceptions and reality of their ability (Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Ackerman
et al., 2002), the author noted the need to qualify data through interviews or
observations. Moreover, the positioning of similarly worded questions might have
induced habituation bias and question-order bias (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

16