This study intended to investigate the extent to which EFL teachers in Ethiopian publicrnuniversities know and practice act jon research to bring change and betterment of theirrnpractices and the quality of student learning. To this end, EFL teachers' action researchrnknowledge, practice, change, environment; and perceived roles of action research forrnquality teaching have been addressed. lnasmuch as the English language is the medium ofrninSlnlction at uni versit ies in Ethiopia, and action research is catalyst for enhancing qualityrnteaching and learning; linking and addressing the two epitomize the pragmatic assumption that it is whatever actually happens in the classroom that really makes a difference to the quality of student learning. The assumption is lUlderpinned by the perspective of reflectivernrationality, which supports the notion of empowering and committing the frontlinernimplementers -teachers.rnin addressing the issue. a blend of both qualitative and quantitative methods was usedrnfollowing dominantly descriptive approach (at the reconnaissance stage), somewhatrndescriptive and more of exploratory approach (at the pilot stage), and both exploratory andrnexplanatory approaches (during the main study). Data fo r the reconnaissance wererncollected through a questionnaire from 25 language instructors at AAU. The pilot studyrndata were collected through questionnaires from 33 instructors and 104 students atrnHawassa and Jimma Universities; through focused group discussions (FODs) with six EFLrnteachers at the two universities; and through interviews with three people at the Ministry ofrnEducation (MoE). Data fo r the main study were generated through questionnaires from 57rnteachers and 214 students at Addis Ababa University (AAU), Bahir Dar University (BDU),rnand Haranlaya Univrsity (HarU); through interviews with eight persons (two each from thernthree universities and from MoE); and through FODs with 20 persons (7 each at AAU andrnBDU, and 6 at 1-larU)_rnWhereas the data collected during the reconnaissance and the pilot study were analyzed by interspersing the qualitative data with the quantitative data, during the main study thernanalyses and interpretations were made separately both for the quantitative and thernqualitative data. By way of mixing the results of the two in the Discussions Chapter, twornpurposes were achieved: producing more comprehensive answers to tbe research questionsrnthan they might appear separately, and triangulating the different data or results forrnva lidation purpose. Apart from this, a validation group of 7 EFL teachers at AAUrnparticipated in scrutinizing the research work right from the start and mai nly at cri ticalrnstages (at proposal. pi lot, and main study).rnIt has, therefore, been learnt that even though EFL teachers claimed to have highrntheoretical knowledge and medium practical skills of action research, their actual practicernof it was little. Similarly. whereas the teachers' knowledge of action research coincidedwith the perspectives of reflective rationality as opposed to that of technical rationalityrn(see Chapter Three Table 2), their laci/ knowing was the lowest rated in comparison withrntheir reflection-on-action (Raa) and reflection-in-action (Ria). Similarly, whereas thernpower of action research for change and betterment was highly valued (pragmatic validity),rna number of internal and external environmental facto rs have limited EFL teachers'rnpractice of it. Equally in the journey of the research work, some doubts and debates hadrninspired me for further readings, explorations, and lessons. As a result. I have revitalizedrnmy earlier beliefs and perspectives that action research has got credibility, visibility,rnrecognition, rigor and acceptance. My earlier over expectation of the practices of actionrnresearch by EFL teachers, nonetheless, were abated. Equally, it has been learnt that thern