Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: Lessons from a University Setting 9781800415591

Citation preview

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editors: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland and Professor Simone E. Pfenninger, University of Zurich, Switzerland This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes final-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers, teachers and policymakers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. All books in this series are externally peer reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: 163

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning Lessons from a University Setting

Edited by Neil Curry, Phoebe Lyon and Jo Mynard

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Jackson

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/CURRY5584 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Curry, Neil, editor. | Lyon, Phoebe, editor. | Mynard, Jo, editor. Title: Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: Lessons from a University Setting/ Edited by Neil Curry, Phoebe Lyon and Jo Mynard. Description: Bristol; Jackson: Multilingual Matters, [2023] | Series: Second Language Acquisition: 163 | Includes bibliographical references. | Summary: ‘This book presents the collaborative efforts of a team of academics at a university in Japan to promote learner reflection. It includes studies, practical applications and reflective accounts, and demonstrates how reflection can be effectively integrated into language learning activities with significant benefits to the learners’ – Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2023010364 (print) | LCCN 2023010365 (ebook) | ISBN 9781800415584 (hardback) | ISBN 9781800410022 (paperback) | ISBN 9781800415607 (epub) | ISBN 9781800415591 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages – Study nd teaching (Higher) – Japan. | Reflective learning. Classification: LCC P57.J3 P76 2023 (print) | LCC P57.J3 (ebook) | DDC 418.0071/152 – dc23/eng/20230503 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023010364 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023010365 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-80041-558-4 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-80041-002-2 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK. USA: Ingram, Jackson, TN, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2023 Neil Curry, Phoebe Lyon, Jo Mynard and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Riverside Publishing Solutions.

Contents

Contributorsix Foreword Hayo Reinders

xiii

Part 1: Setting the Scene 1 Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: Introduction Jo Mynard, Neil Curry and Phoebe Lyon 2 Overview of the Institutional and Educational Context  Neil Curry

3 13

Part 2: Theoretical Constructs  3 Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature  Jo Mynard

23

4 Reflecting through Dialogue  38 Satoko Kato Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies 5 Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started  53 Phoebe Lyon, Amanda J. Yoshida, Heather Yoder, Ewen MacDonald, Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa and Neil Curry 6 Developing Instruments and Tools to Examine Reflection in Our Context  Neil Curry, Phoebe Lyon, Amanda J. Yoshida, Heather Yoder, Ewen MacDonald and Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa 7 Encouraging Introspection on Speaking Performance in Class: Findings from Student Reflections  Ross Sampson v

68

81

vi  Promoting Reflection on Language Learning

Part 4: Intervention Studies 8 Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use in the Classroom  Ewen MacDonald 9 A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa and Ewen MacDonald 10 Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  Amanda J. Yoshida

93

112 132

11 Promoting and Evaluating Students’ Development of Self-Directed Language Learning and Reflective Abilities  Christine Pemberton and Jo Mynard

150

12 Understanding the Effectiveness of Reflection on Fluency Writing and Grammar Logs  Allen Ying and Haruka Ubukata

167



Part 5: Reflection and Technology

13 Considerations for Promoting Reflection on Language Learning with Technology: Insights from Stakeholders  Charlotte Lin and Jo Mynard

189

14 Incorporating Reflective Practices into a Class about Learning English through Video Games  Jared R. Baierschmidt

206

15 Facilitating Student Reflection Using an Online Platform  Prateek Sharma 16 Reflective Practice for Transformative Learning in a MOOC Course Robert Stevenson and Phillip A. Bennett

221

236

Part 6: Tools and Activities for Promoting Reflection in Practice 

17 Promoting Reflective Dialogue through Introductory Self-Directed Learning Courses Yuri Imamura and Isra Wongsarnpigoon

253

18 Training Reflective Learners: Designing, Implementing and Evaluating Reflective Activities in a Self-Study Module  Huw Davies and Amelia Yarwood

272

Contents   vii

19 Fostering Interactive Reflection on Language Learning through the Use of Advising Tools  Malgorzata Polczynska, Jeffrey Goncalves and Eduardo Castro

291

Part 7: Retrospective Reflections

20 Reflective Action Logging: Well-Becoming and Learning Haruka Ubukata and Tim Murphey

309

21 A Teacher Learns How to Advise  Amanda J. Yoshida

323

22 Practice What You Teach: Supporting from Student Perspectives  Phillip A. Bennett

336

Part 8: Conclusions 

23 Conclusions: How Can We Promote Reflection on Language Learning?  Phoebe Lyon

349

Index

359

Contributors

Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa is a learning advisor and lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba, Japan. She holds a PhD in applied linguistics (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand) and a Master of Education in TESOL (State University of New York at Buffalo, US). Her research interests include learner autonomy, advising in language learning and positive psychology in education. Jared Richard Baierschmidt is a former senior lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies. He obtained his PhD in Education, with a specialisation in ESL, from Northcentral University. His research interests include self-directed learning, computer-assisted language learning and the role of individual differences in second language acquisition.   Phillip A. Bennett is a learning advisor and lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies and a member of the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education (RILAE). Holding a BA in sociology from Stony Brook University and an MA in TESOL from Kanda University of International Studies, he has over 20 years of experience in an array of educational contexts between Japan and the United States.  Eduardo Castro is a learning advisor and lecturer in the Self-Access Learning Center at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. He holds an MSc in Applied Linguistics from the Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil. He has worked as a language teacher, learning advisor and language teacher educator in different contexts in Brazil and Japan. His research interests include learner autonomy, advising in language learning and the psychology of language learning and teaching.  Neil Curry has been a learning advisor in the Self-Access Learning Center at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan since 2013. As well as being responsible for the department’s curriculum development, his primary interests include learner autonomy, selfdirected learning, foreign language anxiety and reflection on learning. ix

x  Promoting Reflection on Language Learning

Huw Davies has worked in language education in New Zealand and Japan since 2007. He holds an MEd in applied linguistics from the Open University and an MRes in educational research from Lancaster University. His research interests include learner autonomy, multilingualism and international student migration. Jeffrey Goncalves is a lecturer at the English Language Institute (ELI) at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. He holds an MA in Teaching English as a Second or Other Language (TESOL) from LaSalle University, United States. Jeffrey started working as an English language teacher in the United States, serving immigrants and refugees.  Yuri Imamura has an MA in TEFL at the University of Birmingham, UK. She teaches in the Advisor Education Programme for teachers working at secondary schools and universities as a member of the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education (RILAE). Her research interests include learner autonomy, learner motivation, translanguaging in the Japanese context and language learning spaces.  Satoko Kato is an associate professor at the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) in Japan. She is also a lecturer at the Graduate School at KUIS (MA TESOL program). She holds a PhD in education from Hiroshima University, and a Master’s in TESOL from Teachers College, Columbia University, NY.  Charlotte Lin has an MSc in applied linguistics (University of Stirling, Scotland) specialising in computer assisted language learning. She has subsequently gained further professional certificates specialising in career and academic advising. Charlotte is currently the head coach at Green Growth Coaching, offering career development services for sustainability leaders worldwide. Phoebe Lyon is an associate professor and senior coordinator for Curriculum and Assessment in the English language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. Her research interests include learner autonomy, learner identity, curriculum and materials development and assessment. She has experience in teaching and teacher training in Japan, the USA, Hong Kong, Turkey and Australia. Ewen MacDonald is a lecturer in the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies where he also gained his MA TESOL degree. He has worked in a variety of educational contexts in New Zealand, China and Japan since 2011. His research interests include pragmatics, teacher cognition, learner autonomy and student reflection on learning.

Contributors xi

Tim Murphey has studied and taught for 15 years in Europe and 30 in Asia. He most recently retired to an Oregon farm for horses, River Quest, to study equine therapy and our reconnections with nature. Jo Mynard is a professor, Director of the Self-Access Learning Center, and Director of the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. She has an MPhil in applied linguistics (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland) and an EdD in TEFL (University of Exeter, UK).  Christine Pemberton was a lecturer in the English Language Institute and is now a learning advisor in the Self-Access Learning Center at Kanda University of International Studies. She holds a master’s degree in TESOL from the University of Birmingham, a RILAE advisor certification and has more than a decade of teaching experience. Her research interests are learner autonomy, self-directed language learning, reflection, mindfulness in language learning and advisor emotions. Malgorzata Polczynska is a lecturer in the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. She holds an MA in cultural studies from the University of Silesia, Poland, an MA in translation and interpreting from the University of Westminster, UK, and an MSc in applied positive psychology and coaching psychology from the University of East London, UK. Her research interests include applications of positive psychology and coaching in education. Hayo Reinders is TESOL professor and Director of Research at Anaheim University, USA, and professor of applied linguistics at KMUTT in Thailand. His interests are in teacher leadership, technology in education and learning beyond the classroom. Ross Sampson was previously a lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies where he developed himself as a researcher. His research interests include reflection, learner autonomy, learner identity and self-access learning. Now, he works in the International Tourism Management department at Toyo University in Tokyo. He holds an MEd in TESOL from the University of Glasgow and has worked in the TESOL field since 2009, in Japan, South Korea and Thailand, and also on board a cruise ship. Prateek Sharma is an English language lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies. He holds a Master’s degree in TESOL from Soka University, Japan. He has taught learners from diverse backgrounds and age groups in India and Japan for 10 years. His research interests include learner autonomy, intercultural communication, mindfulness in EFL

xii  Promoting Reflection on Language Learning

contexts and Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences. He holds a RILAE advisor certificate and is an active member of the JALT community. Robert Stevenson is an assistant professor at Tamagawa University’s Center for English as a Lingua Franca and previously worked as a learning advisor at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. He holds an MEd in curriculum and design from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Currently he is working on his EDD from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Haruka Ubukata is a learning advisor at the Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS). She holds an undergraduate degree from KUIS, having spent one academic year at Aarhus University in Denmark as an exchange student. She completed an MSEd in TESOL at Temple University Japan Campus.  Isra Wongsarnpigoon is a learning advisor at the Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan and a researcher at the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education. He holds an MSEd in TESOL from Temple University, Japan Campus. He has previously taught English in Japanese secondary education. His research interests include multilingualism in language learning, learning spaces and environments and learner autonomy. Amelia Yarwood is a visiting lecturer at the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. She has worked in education across multiple levels in both Australian and Japanese contexts. She is currently researching EFL learner identity, emotion and experience as part of her doctoral studies at Kansai University. Allen Ying is an English lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS). He received his MSEd in TESOL from Temple University, Japan Campus, and he has a background in graphic design with a BA in studio arts from the University of California, Irvine.  Heather Yoder is a lecturer in the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies. She holds a Master of Arts in TESOL from Eastern Michigan University.  Amanda J. Yoshida is a lecturer in the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies. She has been working as a teacher in Japan since 2002, first in secondary education and currently in tertiary education. She obtained her MA TESOL from Anaheim University in 2013. 

Foreword

Reflection is the heart and soul of language learning. Reflection on what we do and how, but also on who we are, who we want to be and all the others that we meet on our journey. Reflection has been investigated from many angles. At the psychological level, as a manifestation of metacognitive development; at the neurological level, as energy; as evidence of the divine spark of what makes us human; and at the pedagogical level, as an instrument, a toolkit, a well of inspiration, a site of meditation or indeed a meeting point for coming together with others in a socially constructed practice informing and supporting our learning. Teachers and educational researchers have long attempted to harness this perennial source of learning, with varying degrees of success. One of the barriers that has held the field back is its fragmentation. Investigating phenomena in isolation and without recourse to different viewpoints and insights from others is like the blindfolded touching the elephant, never truly knowing what they are experiencing. What sets this book apart is its holistic approach to the topic. It brings together a wide range of perspectives on reflection (theoretical, experimental, applied), all from one context (Kanda University of International Studies in Japan). This allows the various authors to paint a truly detailed and fascinating picture of reflection as it is ‘lived’ in practice at all its levels. Only by investigating a challenging topic such as this one in an integrated manner, giving insight not just into the individual phenomena but also into how they interrelate, can we truly appreciate the complexity of educational innovation and practice. The result, like any good painting, raises more questions than it answers. It invites the reader to engage in their own reflection. Professor Hayo Reinders, Auckland, New Zealand

xiii

Part 1 Setting the Scene

1 Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: Introduction Jo Mynard, Neil Curry and Phoebe Lyon

Reflection is an essential part of the language learning process. When language learners engage in reflection on their learning, they become more aware of how they best learn and how to take charge of the process. In other words, language learners become more aware of their abilities, strategy use and task performance by thinking deeply about their linguistic knowledge and self-regulatory skills (Huang, 2021). When conceiving the idea for this book, we had fellow educators in mind. For many years, we have been interested in supporting language learners in developing an awareness and ability to reflect meaningfully on their learning. Having spent years engaging in research and practice in this area, we hope that this book will inspire and support others to integrate reflection into their own practice both inside and outside the classroom. Although there has been no shortage of books aimed at supporting language teacher reflection, this book is aimed at language educators who are interested in understanding, researching and promoting learner reflection on their language learning. We have worked closely with the contributors to this book – all of them our colleagues – to bring together a series of engaging and accessible chapters. Collectively, the chapters explore how learner reflection is being promoted at one institution both within and outside language classes. The ultimate goal of the volume is to help researchers and teachers get to grips with the following questions:  • • • •

What is reflection on language learning?  Why is it important?  How can it be promoted inside and outside the classroom?  How do we know if the process is working? 

Each of the chapter authors, who are themselves experienced, practising language educators, explores these questions through their research, practice and reflections on their practice. 3

4  Part 1: Setting the Scene

What is Reflection on Language Learning?

Modern definitions of reflection have evolved from Dewey’s original (1933) conceptualisation, as we will see in Chapters 3 and 4 of this volume. Still, essentially, we perceive reflection on language learning to be both individual and collaborative. It is the process of thinking deeply about one’s language learning in order to understand the processes to take informed and self-regulated action towards language outcomes. The process is necessary to develop metacognitive awareness, which is ‘the foundation for learning and success’ (Fleming, 2014). In general, reflection is widely accepted as a necessary component of learning to enhance experiences and outcomes (Richards & Lockhard, 1996; Schön, 1984). Research in general education has shown the importance of supporting students in developing the ability to understand and articulate their thinking processes (Silver, 2013).  What Has Already Been Published on Language Learner Reflection?

Several landmark volumes and studies on this topic have been applied to education more broadly (e.g. Boud et al., 1985; Hacker et al., 1998, 2009; Lyons, 2010; Moon, 1999; Yancey, 1998). There have also been several significant works on language teacher reflection (e.g. Farrell, 2019, 2021). However, there are fewer published works about language learner reflection despite its importance in the language learning process. Language learning requires people to develop a deep understanding of their learning processes to regulate cognitive, social, motivational and affective factors associated with learning to persevere and thrive (Oxford, 2015). Hence, it is surprising that there are so few works with this focus. However, it is encouraging to see the recent emergence of interest in this area. Recent books focusing on learner reflection have provided theoretical explorations on language learner reflection (Huang, 2021) and language learner metacognition (Carson, 2021; Haukås et al., 2020). In addition, there has been a specific practical focus on advising dialogue (Kato & Mynard, 2016) and activities designed for teachers to use in classrooms (Farrell, 2021, 2022). The present edited volume fills a gap in the literature as we focus specifically on research and associated practical applications of promoting reflection on language learning at an institutional level. How Prepared Are Language Teachers to Promote Reflection on Learning?

Although language educators would largely agree on the importance of engaging learners in reflection and helping them develop selfregulation strategies, in practice, teachers may not necessarily be well

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: Introduction  5

equipped to promote reflection on learning. In our experience, this has been due to a host of reasons, such as (1) being put off by the technical terms (Silver, 2013); (2) lacking sufficient awareness of the field of reflection; (3) lacking training in how to promote reflection on learning adequately; (4) lacking time or opportunities to dedicate to reflection in class due to curriculum constraints; or (5) receiving no institutional support for reflection activities. Students themselves cannot reasonably be expected to understand the potential benefits of reflection on learning or to be able to engage in reflection without clear guidance on what the process involves. They may not know how to reflect effectively beyond the surface level and will require training and guidance to develop their thoughts and act upon the conclusions they reach. What Does This Book Aim to Do?

In this volume, we aim to address the first four challenges and provide insights into research and practices for promoting learner reflection. We have included a series of studies and practical applications, all dealing with integrating reflection on language learning into practice. In addition, the volume contains three reflective accounts by colleagues who themselves experienced transformation in their own professional lives triggered by their focus on promoting reflection with their learners. We hope that the collection of chapters will make a compelling and convincing case that not only is promoting reflection possible but it can also be effectively integrated into language learning activities with significant benefits to the learners. We encourage readers to try or adapt the practical tools and activities for their own learners and to replicate the studies to see the results for themselves. They will be able to experience first-hand how to facilitate student success and satisfaction. We also hope that through this work, program administrators will appreciate how such practices can be applied at an institutional level. Research Approaches

Many of the studies, ideas and interventions presented in this volume are experimental or developmental in nature. In fact, we encouraged our contributing authors to share their ongoing research processes, methods, tools, artefacts and research instruments, even if they were speculative or developmental. We invited them to discuss not only research successes and significant or positive outcomes but also challenges, inconsistencies and failures. The rationale for this approach is that readers can benefit from our work, which might help them build on it and develop their own methods and instruments. Research journals often omit the various iterations that lead to the final published study. As this book is intended for practising educators and early-career researchers, we feel that sharing

6  Part 1: Setting the Scene

the whole process will benefit people wishing to investigate reflection in their contexts and help them avoid some of the pitfalls if possible. Our general philosophical stance toward research throughout the volume is interpretative in nature, which is ‘built on the idea that knowledge is actively constructed, usually through human interpretation of experience’ (McKinley, 2020: 2). The contributing authors are working with both qualitative and quantitative data, often from various sources, while working closely with learners in situ. They interpret the qualitative data collaboratively to derive meaning for our context (Hatch, 2002). Many of the studies are small-scale, and due to the nature of the studies, this is not a limitation. Small-scale studies have the benefit of allowing the researcher to investigate a phenomenon in greater depth. Over time, many small-scale studies can help us build a picture of the role of reflection in language learning more generally. How is the Book Organised?

In terms of organisation, although there are multiple contributing authors and a large number of chapters, developing the content has been collaborative. Each chapter could stand alone, but we have paid close attention to how the various parts of the volume are complementary and fit together to address the four challenges stated above.  Part 1: Setting the Scene

Part 1 will provide an overview of the book and a summary of how the idea for the project was created. It will also give an introduction to the university context and the educational context of Japan. Our context, which is explained in more depth in Chapter 2, is a mediumsized university in Japan. In this chapter, Neil Curry summarises the educational setting for all of the subsequent chapters. This chapter provides some contextual information relevant to the project. It explains how one of the university’s objectives is to produce graduates who can learn autonomously, having acquired the skills and knowledge to do so while taking their four-year undergraduate degree. Therefore, students need reflective abilities that enable them to enjoy a deeper understanding of their learning as to how and why they are making progress, what they can do to improve, why difficulties with learning occur and how they can be resolved. The author explores not only the features of the institution but also the Japanese educational context.  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs 

Part 2 provides the theoretical underpinnings. It will cover what reflection is, why it is a necessary and integral part of the learning

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: Introduction  7

process and some key models and approaches to practice. This section will also explain the relevance to language learning and outline the main models and approaches used. In Chapter 3, Jo Mynard answers two main questions: What is reflection? And why is reflection important for language learning? The author provides the theoretical background for subsequent chapters, which means that the other chapters do not contain extensive literature reviews related to reflection. The chapter includes an overview of some key theories and research related to reflection in general and an exploration of theories that have been applied specifically to language learning. It cites relevant research and highlights the need for further work that helps us understand how to promote reflective processes in learners and evaluate whether this goal is succeeding. In Chapter 4, Satoko Kato asks, ‘Why is reflection through dialogue important?’. The author points out that although learners can reflect by themselves, this process has its limits as observing oneself critically is not easy. Dialogue with other people, in contrast, offers possibilities to restructure one’s established assumptions and beliefs, which can lead one to develop further (Brockbank & McGill, 2006). This chapter unpacks studies and definitions of reflective dialogue and shows how it is practised.  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Part 3 builds on these theoretical foundations and explores how reflection has been addressed at our institution. It presents an overview of some of the initial research studies that either identified gaps in knowledge, deficiencies in applications to practice or issues with the research design. The results of these initial studies were instrumental in designing subsequent projects – many of which are included in Parts 4 to 6 of this book. In Chapter 5, Phoebe Lyon, Amanda J. Yoshida, Heather Yoder, Ewen MacDonald, Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa and Neil Curry provide details about the original action research project that inspired the subsequent projects in many of the other chapters of the book. The authors explain the decision to integrate reflective skills into the main English curriculum. The goals of the project were to investigate which reflective activities worked well with students and were successful at not only being enjoyable and motivating but also in prompting depth of reflection, indicating that learners understand their learning processes. Following on from Chapter 5, in Chapter 6, Neil Curry, Phoebe Lyon, Amanda J. Yoshida, Heather Yoder, Ewen MacDonald and Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa provide an analysis of student responses to the reflection activities introduced in English language classes (described in Chapter 5). One of the outcomes of this process was to develop a rubric that can be used to analyse language learner reflections.

8  Part 1: Setting the Scene

In Chapter 7, Ross Sampson describes another initial study that was instrumental in informing subsequent projects. In this case, student participants were encouraged to think back on their thought processes (Schön, 1984) when speaking English to understand how those thoughts could have led to the outcomes of their speaking performance. After describing the findings and some of the challenges, the author suggests that explicit training is needed for students to be able to understand how to reflect on their learning to a deeper and more effective level and there are examples of interventions in other chapters in this book that aim to address this. Part 4: Intervention Studies 

Part 4 will present several intervention studies that aid our understanding of how reflection activities might be applied in practice and with what outcomes. Each of the chapters will have applications for practice and tools that readers can apply to their own contexts. Based on the findings of the studies, each chapter includes recommendations for applications to future practice in the promotion of reflection. In Chapter 8, Ewen MacDonald involves learners in reflection dialogues with peers while using a visual reflective tool. The author explores how the students monitored and reflected on their English use in the classroom. In Chapter 9, Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa and Ewen MacDonald introduce a ‘reflection intervention’ (RI) study aiming to raise students’ awareness of the importance of reflection on their language learning. In addition, the authors show ways of giving learners support and guidance to reflect to help them take charge of their own learning and develop autonomy. They also investigated the effectiveness of the RI on the students’ development of reflection and their perceptions of RI.  In Chapter 10, Amanda J. Yoshida explores what learners focus on when reflecting on their experiences as leaders in group work. The main goal of this action research project was to understand how a studentcentred, organic approach to leadership skill training would allow learners to take responsibility for their leadership development. The research investigated what aspects learners focus on when reflecting on their own experiences as leaders in group work, whether there are any improvements and whether teacher input appeared to play a role in the process. In Chapter 11, Christine Pemberton and Jo Mynard explore how second-year students majoring in English language manage and reflect on their self-directed language learning. Participating students wrote goals (along with proposed strategies and resources) and their ongoing reflections for a one-semester period and discussed them with classmates. The authors draw on multiple data sources (surveys, interviews, learner reflection journals and student self-evaluations of reflective skills and self-directed learning skills) to make observations about how the reflective activities influenced decisions and outcomes related to

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: Introduction  9

self-directed study where students exhibited an increase in the depth of the reflections over time.  In Chapter 12, Allen Ying and Haruka Ubukata explore the effectiveness of reflection on fluency writing as a language learner autonomy tool. The goal was to provide language learners with a means for developing their language learning through writing with opportunities to notice their common grammatical errors and increase their ability to reflect on their language learning.  Part 5: Reflection and Technology

Part 5 will focus on how technology can support reflective processes through examples of theory, research and practice. In Chapter 13, Charlotte Lin and Jo Mynard explore how language educators viewed and approached the use of technology to promote reflection in learners. The authors propose some recommendations for how educators can draw on technology to support reflection on language learning.  In Chapter 14, Jared R. Baierschmidt notes that commercial video games are an often-overlooked resource as content for second language learning classes and explains how reflective practices were incorporated into an elective Japanese university class that used commercial video games as the primary English-language content of the course. The author describes how reflective practices were used to draw learners’ attention back from the game to language learning. In addition, the author provides thoughts on the success and failure of these activities in promoting reflection among the students. In Chapter 15, Prateek Sharma describes a qualitative research project and reports on the findings from an EFL reading class study where students used an online platform as a means to reflect on their extensive reading. The author investigated students’ views on using the tool for reflection (in terms of usefulness and interest) and the suitability of the app for promoting reflection.  In Chapter 16, Robert Stevenson and Phillip A. Bennett examine students’ reflective journals in an elective course from the perspective of transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 2012). The course allowed students to learn the content of their choice using authentic English by accessing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). By analysing student reflective journals over 15 weeks, the authors discovered how reflection and peer discussion played a role in helping learners improve their online learning.  Part 6: Tools and Activities for Promoting Reflection in Practice 

Part 6 will present some tools and activities designed for facilitating reflection, along with descriptions and reflections from teachers using

10  Part 1: Setting the Scene

them. In Chapter 17, Yuri Imamura and Isra Wongsarnpigoon describe the practice in an elective independent module and a classroom-based course that both serve as one-semester introductory courses in a selfaccess centre’s self-directed learning curriculum (Mynard & Stevenson, 2017). They present examples of reflective thinking that emerge from the activities and the learner–advisor dialogue resulting from those interactions. This chapter will benefit teachers or advisors hoping to promote reflection with learners who may be unaccustomed to the reflective process. In Chapter 18, Huw Davies and Amelia Yarwood describe some activities that learning advisors created to encourage deeper reflection in self-directed learning modules. The authors suggest three characteristics present in the activities that made them successful in fostering learner autonomy and reflective writing. In Chapter 19, Malgorzata Polczynska, Jeffrey Goncalves and Eduardo Castro investigate three visual tools in a classroom context and their roles in fostering interactive reflection on learning. The authors share preliminary findings indicating that the tools can help learners deepen their understanding of their learning process when they reflect in collaboration with their peers. Part 7: Retrospective Reflections

In Part 7, the authors, who are reflective practitioners, look back on an element of their practice in order to identify critical incidents that shaped their practice in supporting reflection in language learners. In Chapter 20, Haruka Ubukata and Tim Murphey explore the reflective elements of student ‘action logs’, originally a way for students to keep notes for their teachers, giving them feedback so that they could make better classes (Murphey, 1993). The authors discuss the expanding role of the action logs and their retroactive reflections on how they have been used in their own practice as a learner (Ubukata), a teacher (Murphey) and a learning advisor (Ubukata) In Chapter 21, Amanda J. Yoshida explores her growth as an educator through developing an awareness of advising in language learning. Throughout the process, the author continually asked herself reflective questions similar to those that were given to her students and reflected on her own experiences. Partnering with a learning advisor was integral to her success. The guidance and feedback received during this process pushed her to become a more empathetic teacher who values learner autonomy.  In Chapter 22, Phillip A. Bennett shares how he supported students by taking an approach influenced by the sociological approach of verstehen (Max Weber). The author reflects on his own learning experiences and then deliberately seeks out experiences related to

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: Introduction  11

language learning that his current learners undergo to develop a more empathetic understanding of their worlds. Part 8: Conclusions and Future directions

To conclude, in Chapter 23, Phoebe Lyon summarises some of the main themes and key insights gleaned from the various interventions and activities shared in this volume. The chapter will include (1) a summary of all of the tools that have been referred to and the key affordances and drawbacks, (2) what the research has told us about the effectiveness of reflection interventions in the language classroom and (3) what are the most effective ways of promoting reflection outside the classroom. The author makes recommendations for integrating reflection on learning at the institutional level based on the research, comments on future directions and makes suggestions for further research. References Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. New York: Routledge. Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (2006) Facilitating Reflective Learning Through Mentoring and Coaching. London: Kogan Page. Carson, L. (2021) Metacognition and its Interactions with Cognition, Affect, Physicality and Off-Task Thought: Inside the Independent Learning Experience. New York: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Washington, DC: Heath & Co Publishers. Farrell, T.S.C. (2019) Reflective Practice in ELT. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Limited. Farrell, T.S.C. (2021) Reflective Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2022) Doing Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching: 120 Activities for Effective Classroom Management, Lesson Planning, and Professional Development. New York: Routledge. Fleming, S. (2014) The power of reflection. Scientific American Mind 25, 30–37. Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J. and Graesser, A.C. (eds) (1998) Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J. and Graesser, A.C. (eds) (2009) Handbook of Metacognition in Education. New York: Routledge. Hatch, J.A. (2002) Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Haukås, A., Bjørke, C. and Magne Dypedahl, M. (2020) Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Routledge. Huang, L.-S. (2021) Improving Learner Reflection for TESOL: Pedagogical Strategies to Support Reflective Learning. New York: Routledge. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Lyons, N. (ed.) (2010) Handbook of Reflection and Reflective Enquiry: Mapping a Way of Knowing for Professional Reflective Inquiry. New York: Springer. McKinley, J. (2020) Introduction: Theorizing research methods in the ‘golden age’ of applied linguistics research. In J. McKinley and H. Rose (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–12). New York: Routledge.

12  Part 1: Setting the Scene

Mezirow, J. (2012) Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformative learning theory. In E.W. Taylor and P. Cranton (eds) Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 73–96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moon, J.A. (1999) Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Murphey, T. (1993) Why don’t teachers learn what learners learn? Taking the guesswork out with action logging. English Teaching Forum 31 (1), 6–10. Mynard, J. and Stevenson, R. (2017) Promoting learner autonomy and self-directed learning: The evolution of a SALC curriculum. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 8 (2), 169–182. Oxford, R.L. (2015) Emotion as the amplifier and the primary motive: Some theories of emotion with relevance to language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5 (3), 371–393. Richards, J.C. and Lockhard, C. (1996) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schön, D. (1984) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Silver, N. (2013) Reflective pedagogies and the metacognitive turn in college teaching. In M. Kaplan, N. Silver, D. LaVaque-Manty and D. Meizlish (eds) Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy (pp. 1–17). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Yancey, K.B. (1998) Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

2 Overview of the Institutional and Educational Context Neil Curry

In this chapter, I give a summary of the educational setting for all of the subsequent chapters. This chapter provides some contextual information relevant to the project and explains how one of the objectives of the university is to produce graduates who can learn autonomously, having acquired the skills and knowledge to do so while taking their four-year undergraduate degree. Students need reflective abilities that enable them to enjoy a deeper understanding of their learning as to how and why they are making progress, what they can do to improve and why difficulties with learning occur and how they can be resolved. After giving some background on our learners and their educational and language learning experiences, I will describe how our courses instruct and assist them with autonomous learning. The University

The chapters in this volume are all based on research and practice at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS), a mediumsized university in Chiba, Japan, that specialises in foreign languages and cultures. Founded in 1987, its mission is to help spread global cooperation through communication, and so learning languages is an integral part of the degree course of the almost 4000 undergraduates, particularly in their first two years. Most of the students enrolled in the university are Japanese nationals, aged 18 to 22, with a mother tongue of Japanese, who are studying one or more languages, including Chinese, English, Indonesian, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Thai and Vietnamese. As a result, in contrast to many Japanese universities, the teaching staff is very diverse in terms of linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Instructors are required to possess at least a Master’s degree in a subject related to language learning or teaching.

13

14  Part 1: Setting the Scene

All of the students at the university need to achieve a high level of English proficiency both as a graduation requirement and to take specialist courses. The TOEFL ITP (Test of English as a Foreign Language – Institutional Testing Program) and TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) tests are used as a means of assessment for these purposes. They are required to take English language classes in the English Language Institute (ELI) for at least two years. There are two 15-week semesters, with class sizes averaging 20 students. Currently, students are required to use tablet devices for their learning, although they will transition to personal computers in the near future. Additionally, support in the form of advising and self-access is provided to the learners. The purpose of the Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) is to promote language learner autonomy, the ability to take charge of one’s language learning. In addition to providing other learning support services, the SALC runs self-directed learning courses that students can take in order to develop self-directed learning skills. These courses have a strong focus on developing reflective skills. Based on a needs analysis at KUIS (Lammons, 2013; Takahashi et al., 2013), we identified that the self-directed learning skills that students need in order to take charge of their learning are goal setting, selecting and evaluating learning resources and strategies, designing, implementing and reviewing a learning plan and evaluating the linguistic gains achieved.  The Learners

Although our learners have particular experiences and motivations that shape their individual outlooks towards their language study, the majority of them have gone through the Japanese public education system, which can have a major impact on both their beliefs about language learning and the ways that they study. Understanding these formal experiences while also understanding how they have learned through and been motivated by their informal experiences, has been crucial in how we have developed our self-directed learning courses and approaches to advising at KUIS. Since 2011, with the implementation of guidelines for English language education in elementary, junior high and high schools, a lot more emphasis is now placed on developing communicative skills (Tahira, 2012). In contrast, the prior focus had been on grammar translation and vocabulary acquisition. However, due to various issues, such as a lack of suitable teacher training and a mixed understanding of what communicative language teaching actually entails (Tahira, 2012), institutional resistance to utilising new communicative approaches to teaching (Cook, 2009) and a lack of confidence from Japanese teachers of English in their own communicative skills (Suzuki & Roger, 2014),

Overview of the Institutional and Educational Context  15

progress has been lacking. Additionally, it is still necessary to prepare students for university entrance tests (Mitchell, 2017), which do not necessarily utilise any communicative component, and concentration on grammar and vocabulary is still paramount (Burke & Hooper, 2020; Underwood, 2012). As a result, students typically share similar formal language learning experiences, which can be quite unlike the communicative approach used in KUIS classes. They are often not used to planning and organising in pursuit of their own learning goals. Internal annual surveys and daily interactions indicate, however, that the students are generally motivated; they are often seeking careers where they can use foreign languages and are interested in travel and making social connections with people from other countries. They also often enjoy aspects of foreign popular culture, such as music and cinema and are active on social media, which are all in fact important sources of new language. SALC Support

Recognising that so much language learning takes place outside of the classroom and looking to help students become autonomous life-long language learners, we also support students in their optional self-directed study in various ways. The large SALC provides resources, spaces, events and communities and a professional language advising service. Students also have opportunities to practice using their target languages with teachers, teaching assistants, peer advisors and other students either in the SALC or in other facilities in the university.  In addition to self-access opportunities, students can enrol in optional one-credit courses of self-directed language study (see Chapters 18 and 19 of this volume). These courses are facilitated by learning advisors (LAs) and help students to take charge of their language learning by developing an awareness of the learning process as they create and implement their own personalised learning plans. These courses embed reflection into every task. LAs, who are also trained language teachers, intentionally promote reflection and learner responsibility (rather than teach language per se). Although research indicates that these courses promote self-directed learning skills effectively (Curry et al., 2017), only a relatively small number of students (around 450 per year) are actually able to take these courses due to the limited number of LAs available. The English Language Institute (ELI)

The English Language Institute (ELI) was created in 1989 as a separate entity from the main departments, which at that time consisted only of an English language department. The newly formed ELI’s role

16  Part 1: Setting the Scene

was to advocate a more communicative approach (Kushida et al., 2018). It started with initially only four teachers in 1989, 29 in 2001, 38 in 2003 and 61 in 2011 (ELI Handbook, 2012-2013), all key dates which will be mentioned in this chapter. As the university continues to evolve, instructors currently teach English proficiency courses to first- and second-year students in two faculties: The Faculty of Global Liberal Arts and the Faculty of Foreign Languages. The latter contains four departments: the Department of English, the Department of International Communication (IC), the Department of Spanish and Portuguese and the Department of Asian Languages. Since its inception, the ELI has always been defined by the interconnecting relationships between teaching/advising, curriculum development, research and assessment. It has also always promoted self-awareness and autonomy in language learning. The focus on self-awareness and autonomy can be seen in the first of the three overarching constructs that guide and shape the ELI curriculum: Awareness, Interaction and Multiliteracies (AIM) (Johnson et al., 2015). Awareness is operationalised as awareness of self-as-learner, and awareness of language and other semiotic ways to make meaning. The second construct is Interaction, whereby in addition to the notion of communicative competence being important, so are intercultural and symbolic competences and capacities. Being understood goes beyond grammatical accuracy (Bourdieu, 1991). It requires interlocutors to have ‘the ability not only to approximate or appropriate for oneself someone else’s language, but to shape the very context in which the language is learned and used’ (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008: 664). This shows they are able to navigate the complexity of power relations in a language. Finally, Multiliteracies is the importance of helping learners successfully communicate in our ‘culturally and linguistically diverse and increasingly globalised societies’ (New London Group, 1996: 60); students need to be multiliterate, which requires going beyond interpreting and producing only the traditional printed texts and essays. The AIM framework provides skills and proficiencies that KUIS hopes to develop in its learners as they engage with the ELI program in their first and second years. These are reflected in eight course outcomes, which are expressed in ways particular to each of the six core courses. These will be described in more detail later in the chapter. Furthermore, the framework, with a focus on awareness of self as a learner, has helped to form a close working relationship between the SALC and the ELI. Collaboration between the SALC and the ELI

Since its foundation in 2001, SALC staff have worked closely with ELI teachers. One of the first projects was a combined effort to develop autonomous learning skills within a classroom-based context (Cooker &

Overview of the Institutional and Educational Context  17

Torpey, 2004). In 2003, a five-week unit was embedded into an ELI course taught in the first year. The unit covered everyday language, language for discussions and presentation, and language/skills deemed necessary for building students’ communicative skills. However, an emphasis was placed on learning strategies, teacher-centred versus learner-centred approaches and activities that helped learners think about not only the process of learning but how to approach their own learning more effectively. The course also included self-evaluation and feedback on activities they encountered during the unit (Cooker & Torpey, 2004). Over the years, many ELI instructors have continued to implement and adapt similar activities into their classes. The original ELI course was developed and expanded between 1996 and 2010 (Johnson et al., 2016), and had the goal of creating a social and interactive environment that promoted discoursal competence, and emphasised communicative rather than analytical use of language (Ford & Torpey, 1998). However, as time went by, the original theoretical vision seemed to get lost and had become little more than a somewhat disorganised set of communicative language teaching-oriented materials that teachers found ineffective and difficult to navigate (Johnson et al., 2015).  The year 2011 saw the beginnings of a program-wide reconsideration of what language education could mean, as Johnson et al. (2015) felt that the existing approach to the curriculum was no longer appropriate for the ever-changing Japanese tertiary educational and social context. Part of this curriculum review involved reimagining the Freshman English (FE) course. The push was to move from the skills-based communicative approach (Johnson, 2002), to a process-based framework, maximising individualisation in the learning process and incorporating a strong focus on self-analysis and reflection. In 2013, there was a push to reform the curriculum further based on the findings of an ELI satisfaction report that was conducted in July 2013 by management among ELI instructors (Johnson, 2013). The revised ELI curriculum is now made up of six core classes, condensed down from what was ultimately 26 separate courses. See Table 2.1. These changes were deemed necessary to develop stronger courses with a more coherent curriculum as well as increase the opportunities Table 2.1  List of ELI courses from 2017 and the year they are taught in First year

Second year

Freshman English

Media English

Foundational Literacies

Academic Literacies: Reading Academic Literacies: Writing English for International Communication 2 Sophomore English (The same content as Foundational Literacies)

18  Part 1: Setting the Scene

1. Awareness of self as learner

Students will understand their own strengths and weaknesses in English spoken interaction and in textual analysis/production. They will be able to take control over their own learning with strategies and resources for measuring success in implementing those strategies.

Figure 2.1  An example of an ELI curriculum learning outcome: Awareness of self as learner

for collaboration both within and across the different departments (Kushida et al., 2018). The first of the eight outcomes for each of these courses relate to ‘awareness of self as learner’ (Figure 2.1), once again highlighting the importance for KUIS students in taking an active role in their learning process. In the 2017 academic year, different stakeholders (course instructors, course coordinators and the two ELI Principal Lecturers of Curriculum and Assessment) were responsible for revising the course outcome descriptions for each course. A review of course materials also took place. It became evident at this time that there needed to be more clarity about Outcome 1 in terms of how to address effectively or understand what reflection activities entailed across many of the courses. Many teachers felt they needed more knowledge about how to get students to reflect successfully. Furthermore, it was found that there was some overlap between activities that were being conducted in the different courses. This resulted in unequal experiences for learners across the courses and across year levels. It was also noticed through observation of teaching materials that many of the materials teachers were using lacked appropriate training and scaffolding for their learners, a situation that was similar to what King (2013) and Hutchinson (2014) found many years earlier. After much discussion between the SALC Principal Lecturer of Curriculum and one of the ELI Principal Lecturers of Curriculum, it was clear that it was time to overhaul reflection activities in the ELI classrooms. This would be a way to provide a more uniform experience to learners at KUIS while at the same time targeting all students with what they previously were only exposed to if they enrolled in one of the self-directed learning courses offered by the SALC. The main question was what would be the best system to introduce and to which classes.  Conclusion

The subsequent attempts to develop effective reflection activities can be seen in the other chapters of this volume. We have attempted to draw upon our institution’s experience developed through our advising services (Chapter 4) and self-directed learning courses (Chapters 17 and 18) and through the focus on promoting self-awareness described above. Chapters 5 and 6 of this volume describe the next stage, outlining the

Overview of the Institutional and Educational Context  19

beginning of our collaborative efforts, while Chapters 8, 9, 11, 12 and 19 document further developments. While not all of the chapters are directly related to this overall project, much of the research described included direct collaboration between LAs and teachers to share how to aid students in reflecting on their learning. References Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power (trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson). Cambridge: Polity Press. Burke, M. and Hooper, D. (2020) The Japanese educational context. In J. Mynard, M. Burke, D. Hooper, B. Kushida, P. Lyon, R. Sampson and P. Taw Dynamics of a Social Language Learning Community: Beliefs, Membership and Identity (pp. 29–36). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cook, M. (2009) Factors inhibiting and facilitating Japanese teachers of English in adopting communicative language teaching methodologies. K@ta: A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature 11, 99–116. Cooker, L. and Torpey, M. (2004) ​​From the classroom to the self-access centre: A chronicle of learner-centred curriculum development. The Language Teacher 28 (6), 11–16. Curry, N., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J. and Watkins, S. (2017) Evaluating a self-directed language learning course in a Japanese university. International Journal of SelfDirected Learning 14 (1), 37–57. Ford, K. and Torpey, M. (1998) Principles and practice of materials design for promoting interaction and interdependence in the EFL classroom. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies 10, 397–436. Hutchinson, C. (2014) Redesigning an independent learning course component: Recognizing the role of instructor as guide. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 5 (4), 389–393. Johnson, F. (2002) An overview of “the Kanda experiment”. Paper presented at the 13th AILA International Congress of Applied Linguistics, December, Singapore. Johnson, N. (2013) Eli-g:709 news 131221 Sat, 21 Dec 2013. [Email] Johnson, N.H., Lyddon, P.A., Nelson, M.E., Selman, A. and Worth, A. (2015) JALT Forum: Reimagining contemporary EFL Curricula. In P. Clements, A. Krause and H. Brown (eds) JALT2014 Conference Proceedings (pp. 102–118). Tokyo: JALT.  Johnson, N.H., Selman, A. and Lyddon, P.A. (2016) Redesigning the Freshman English syllabus: A pedagogy of process and transformation. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies 28, 355–376. Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) (2012–2013) The ELI handbook. Tokyo: KUIS English Language Institute. King, R. (2013) Supporting independent study in the classroom. Working Papers in Language Education and Research 1 (1), 30–42. Kramsch, C. and Whiteside, A. (2008) Language ecology in multilingual settings: Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics 29 (4), 645–671. Kushida, B., Lege, R., Lyon, P., Murphy, P., Nguyen, A., Owens, J. and Roloff Rothman, J. (2018) The evolution of the English language institute: Curriculum and structural reform. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies 30, 471–492. Lammons, E. (2013) Principles: Establishing the foundation for a self-access curriculum. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 4 (4), 353–366. Mitchell, C. (2017) Language education pressures in Japanese high schools. Shiken 21 (1), 1–11. New London Group (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66, 60–93. Suzuki, H. and Roger, P. (2014) Foreign language anxiety in teachers. JALT Journal 36 (2), 175–199.

20  Part 1: Setting the Scene

Tahira, M. (2012) Behind MEXT’s new course of study guidelines. The Language Teacher 36 (3), 3–8. Takahashi, K., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J., Sakai, A., Thornton, K. and Yamaguchi, A. (2013) Needs analysis: Investigating students’ self-directed learning needs using multiple data sources. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 4 (3), 208–218. Underwood, P. (2012) Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A theory of planned behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 28, 911–925.

Part 2 Theoretical Constructs

3 Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature Jo Mynard

Reflection is widely accepted to be a necessary component of language learning in order to enhance both the experience and the outcome of learning (Schön, 1984; Strampel & Oliver, 2007). Specifically, language learning requires people to develop a deep understanding of their learning processes to regulate cognitive, social, motivational and affective factors associated with learning to persevere and thrive (Oxford, 2015). However, although language educators would largely agree on the importance of engaging learners in reflection and developing strategies for self-regulation, in practice, the application of reflective practice in the field of language education remains peripheral (Huang, 2021). Teachers may not necessarily be well equipped to promote reflection on learning. This may be due to a host of reasons, such as having insufficient depth of awareness of the field of reflection, lacking training in how to promote reflection on learning and lacking time or opportunities to dedicate to reflection in class due to curriculum or institutional constraints. This chapter provides the theoretical background for subsequent chapters. It includes an overview of some of the key theories related to reflection and an exploration of theories that have been applied specifically to language learning.  What is Reflection?

Broadly speaking, reflection is ‘a form of mental processing that we use to fulfil a purpose or to achieve some anticipated outcome’ (Moon, 2005: 1). For the purposes of this volume, we use the following working definition: reflection is the intentional examination of experiences, thoughts and actions in order to learn about oneself and inform change 23

24  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

or personal growth. We can make a distinction between ‘common sense reflecting’ (Moon, 2004), ‘reflective thinking’ (Dewey, 1933) and ‘reflective practice’ (Schön, 1983). ‘Common sense reflecting’ tends to be vague or unstructured and occurs at a superficial level. This kind of ad hoc reflection does not necessarily result in any conceptual change (Malthouse & Roffey-Barentsen, 2013). Alternatively, ‘reflective thinking’ is normally intentionally employed, for example, to solve a problem, and is the ‘active, persistent, and careful consideration’ of beliefs or knowledge (Dewey, 1933: 118). Finally, ‘reflective practice’ could be considered the outcome of the human capacity for reflection and is defined by Schön (1983) as a willingness to reflect on action, for example, to learn from our experiences. However, there are tensions between Schön’s and Dewey’s interpretations. Schön’s interpretation tends to lend itself to participant intuition, whereas Dewey’s interpretation is more systematic and scientific and can be a form of action research (Anderson, 2020). The view that has been applied most often to language learner reflection tends to be Schönerian.  Schön (1983) identified two types of reflective practice: reflectionin-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action is a conscious process occurring while we are engaging in a task (i.e. actually as it is occurring). In contrast, reflection-on-action is a retrospective process (i.e. looking back on something that has been completed). Researchers from the business world, Killion and Todnem (1991), later added reflection-foraction, which involves implementing some form of intervention based on evidence and reflection of previous outcomes. This has also been applied in the field of language teacher reflection (e.g. Farrell, 2012). Although all of these processes are essential for language learning, unfortunately, many language-teaching situations provide few opportunities for learners to engage in intentional reflection, which is necessary for a deep understanding of their language-learning processes. Specifically, the literature indicates that reflection is necessary in learning in order to (1) redefine understanding, (2) develop self-awareness, (3) evaluate action, (4) enhance the quality of action and (5) increase accountability. I will briefly review some of the main models that have been applied to language education in the next section. Models of Reflective Learning

Reflective learning is ‘the process of internally examining and exploring an issue of concern, triggered by an experience, which creates and clarifies meaning in terms of self, and which results in a changed conceptual perspective’ (Boyd & Fales, 1983: 99). Several models of reflective learning draw on a cyclical formation, and a summary of these can be seen in Table 3.1 (p. 28). For example, Kolb’s (1984) well-known experiential learning cycle (Figure 3.1) has influenced a number of

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature  25

Figure 3.1  Visual representation of elements in Kolb’s (1984, 2015) experiential learning cycle

fields, including language teacher reflection (e.g. Farrell, 2015) and language learner reflection (e.g. Kohonen, 1992, 2001; Siefker et al., 2020). The cycle has four phases and begins with ‘immediate or concrete experiences’ (Kolb, 2015: 51) and these experiences become the basis for reflective observations. The observations and reflections are reanalysed as abstract concepts in order for implications to be drawn, which in turn guide the creation of new experiences in the form of active experimentation. Kolb (2015) describes experiential learning theory as a dynamic view of learning. The learning cycle, which contains the dual dialectics of action/reflection and experience/abstraction, interact to transform experience into knowledge. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle has been specifically applied to the field of language learning by Kohonen (2001), who first contextualised the model by drawing on three levels of values: (1) individual: personal self-discovery and ethical views, (2) society: mutuality within a moral order and (3) general principles of participatory democracy. Kohonen’s (2001) research shows how three types of awareness play a role in the reflective processes – personal awareness, process and situational awareness and task awareness. Awareness is developed by learners participating in experiential and interactive learning techniques where ‘the participants have opportunities to learn from each other’s experiences, being actively and personally engaged in the process’ (Kohonen, 2001: 23). In practical terms, a learner has a concrete experience related to their language learning, such as having a conversation with a target

26  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

language user; following this, they review the experience to uncover what went well and also what did not go so well; next, they conceptualise what actual learning took place and why. During this phase, language learners might review grammar or vocabulary they needed but could not access at the time; after that, they make a plan to follow for next time they have a conversation with a target language user; finally, they repeat the experience with the benefit of the reflection and purposeful action.  Kolb’s (1984) model forms the basis of effective learning modules that are offered at KUIS (see Chapters 17 and 18 for details) and offers a way for learners to develop self-regulation skills through experience combined with reflection (Curry, 2019; Curry et al., 2017; Mynard & Stevenson, 2017; Shelton-Strong & Mynard, 2018; Watkins, 2015). Another widely used cyclical model is Gibbs’ (1988) reflective cycle. Again, this model is based on Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle but instead has six stages of reflection: description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion and action plan, which incorporates key questions that can be seen in Figure 3.2. In terms of language learning, one important addition that is not explicitly stated in Kolb’s (1984) model is the specific focus on feelings. We know from psychology and applied linguistics research that the affective side of learning influences cognition and motivation (Forgas, 2000; Oxford, 2015; Schunk et al., 2008), so this is a welcome addition. In the institution described in this volume, affective factors are acknowledged to be a key part of awareness-raising

Figure 3.2  Elements contained within Gibbs’ (1998) reflective cycle

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature  27

and self-regulation for language learners (Shelton-Strong & Mynard, 2018, 2020). The Careers Service’s Employability Consultancy at the University of Edinburgh (2022) has produced a reflection toolkit for ‘reflectors’ and facilitators. One of the models that they present in an easy-tounderstand way for nonexperts is Gibbs’ (1988) model. Their website lists reflective questions associated with each stage in the model. Also, it gives examples of reflections that learners might write, which could be useful for training students on how to reflect. Other models explored in a similar way, which all take a cyclical approach, are summarised in Table 3.1. (For a more detailed summary of these and other models, see Huang, 2021.) Reflection, Metacognition and Self-regulation

The terms reflection and metacognition are often used inter­ changeably in the nonspecialist literature, but it might be useful to explore the distinctions. So far, the interpretations of reflection presented here relate to how someone can draw on experience in order to take subsequent action based on purposeful inner thinking. Another interpretation of reflection focuses more on the exploration of thoughts, assumptions and approaches that might not necessarily be based on experience or taking action. This line of inquiry is more akin to what is generally termed metacognition, and, from this perspective, thinking about one’s thinking forms part of the reflection process (see Huang, 2021, and Chapter 3 for summaries of various published definitions of metacognition). In other words, metacognition is a specific form of reflection and is concerned with awareness and control of one’s higherorder thinking processes. In adult education, e.g. Knowles (1975), the reflective problem-solving process is the premise that a student engages in metacognition and takes responsibility for learning rather than being a passive recipient of knowledge. Mezirow (1991) argues for an understanding of the content and origins of a problem in addition to the problem-solving process itself, i.e. thinking about thinking or metacognition. Later work by Mezirow (1998) involves critically reflecting on assumptions (either in general or linked to a particular practice) in order to challenge conflicting ideas and make appropriate decisions systematically. A similar approach could be used to challenge power structures and societal norms (e.g. see Freire, 1970).  Another term often associated with reflection is self-regulation. Self-regulation is a volitional process involving the use of strategies in order to monitor and control one’s behaviour and associated environments, thoughts, motivations and emotions in the pursuit of a goal (Zimmerman, 2000). Being able to self-regulate learning relies on a person’s ability to reflect intentionally so that they can learn from

28  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

Table 3.1  A summary of reflective models Model

Developed by

Field

Components

Model of Reflective Thought and Action

Dewey (1938)

Philosophy of education

Six: Encountering a problem, Intellectualising and defining, Studying conditions and forming a hypothesis, Reasoning, Hypothesis testing, Solving the problem/ Having a new idea  

Experiential Learning Model

Kolb (1984)

Psychology

Four: Concrete experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract conceptualisation, Active experimentation

Reflective Cycle

Gibbs (1988)

Psychology and Sociology

Six: Description, Feelings, Evaluation, Analysis, Conclusion, Action plan

Critical Reflectivity Model

Mezirow (1991)

Education

Three: Habitual action, Thoughtful action, Introspection

Types of reflection

Van Manen (1991)

Teaching

Three: Anticipatory, Active/ Interactive, Recollective

The What? So What? Now What? Model

Driscoll (1994) based on work by Borton (1970) 

Nursing

Three: What? So What? Now What? 

Model for Reflection

Zeichner & Liston (adapted from Zeichner & Liston, 1996)

Teaching

Five: Rapid reaction, Repair, Review, Research, Retheorise and Reformulate

Reviewing by Doing

Greenaway (1992)

Adventure education and leadership

Four: Experience, Express, Examine, Explore

The 5R Framework

Bain et al. (2002)

Teacher education

Five: Reporting, Responding, Relating, Reasoning, Reconstructing

The Four F’s of Active Reviewing

Greenaway (2002)

Adventure education and leadership

Four: Facts, Feelings, Findings, Futures

Quality of Students’ reflections

Leijen et al. (2012) drawing on Tsangaridou & O’Sullivan (1994), McCollum (1997) and Moon (1999) 

Dance education

Four: Description, Justification, Critique and Discussion

The Integrated Reflective Cycle

Bassot (2013)

Personal and professional development

Four: The Experience, Reflection on Action, Theory, Preparation

REFLECT Model

Taylor (2014)

Nursing

Seven: Readiness, Exercising thought, Following a systematic process, Leaving oneself open to answers, Enfolding insights, Changing awareness, Tenacity in maintaining reflection

The CARL Framework

BlueSteps career services (2022)

Career services

Four: Context, Action, Results, Learning

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature  29

experiences in order to monitor and control their learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Reflection and metacognition are integral parts of Zimmerman’s (2000) cyclical model, which comprises three phases: forethought, performance and self-reflection, emphasising the close relationship between thinking, monitoring and successful learning. Ways of Promoting Reflection

As we have seen, reflection in education is a necessary process, but it is not necessarily easy for people to do. It is often the case that students wait for an evaluation from the teacher rather than attempt it themselves (Leijen et al., 2009). There are several reported ways of guiding students to reflect. Examples of learning activities listed by Kohonen (2001) include, for example, writing journals and reflections; engaging in games, drama and simulations; and creating stories, visualisations and models. Moon (1999) also provides an account of ways in which reflection might be promoted through activities such as using reflective questions, techniques for facilitating dialogue or discussion, actively encouraging participants to review materials or events and using selfevaluation activities. Other methods include asking students to keep reflective blogs (e.g. Mynard, 2007), videotaping a performance or action to look at later (Leijen et al., 2009), having students consider feedback from peers to discover alternative perspectives (Chen et al., 2009) and through intentional reflective dialogue between a learner and a professional listener such as a learning advisor (Carson & Mynard, 2012; Kato & Mynard, 2016).  Some authors caution against ‘mechanical or thoughtless’ reflection (Thejll-Madsen, 2018: 11) where there may be a possibility of facilitators including reflection for no discernible purpose or without adequate training for teachers (Boud & Walker, 1998; Brookfield, 1995). Reflection ‘for the sake of it’ might take the form of standard questions or a checklist that does not allow for creative thinking or personalised engagement with the process. Although guided questions can be helpful as one opportunity for learners to reflect, this should coincide with training or awareness-raising for students about the purpose, process and benefits of reflection so that they see the value. Degrees of Reflection

Depth of reflection can be considered a matter of degree. Earlier work by Farrell (2012) drew on different conceptions of reflection, namely ‘descriptive reflection’ (i.e. describing what happened), ‘comparative reflection’ (i.e. thinking about the situation from different perspectives and questioning existing values and beliefs) and ‘critical reflection’ (i.e. looking at all the different perspectives of a situation and

30  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

Figure 3.3  Visual representation of Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s (2010) levels of reflection (image credit: Amelia Yarwood)

everyone involved). Although Farrell’s (2015) work mainly focuses on teacher reflection, the same approach can be applied to learner reflection, and reflective practice is seen as holistic. Using descriptors to identify the type or depth of reflection that is being demonstrated is a helpful way to see whether learners are indeed engaging in reflective processes and whether learners are developing deeper reflective abilities through engagement. Fleck and Fitzpatrick (2010) developed a model that incorporates five levels of reflection (visualised in Figure 3.3) that can be used to identify the degree to which someone might be reflecting on their learning. The R0 level indicates that no reflection is occurring, but it might include a description of events. The R1 level provides a limited analysis of events which might include justifications or reasons. The R2 level shows evidence of interpretation and making connections. In the R3 level, we start to see a fundamental change where someone challenges previously held assumptions, leading to shifts in understanding or practices. Finally, the R4 level takes a much wider account of issues beyond the immediate context, including moral or ethical issues. Sampson et al. (2020) applied Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s (2010) levels of reflection to written reflections on learning made by over 100 Japanese learners of English in a university context in Japan over a two-year

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature  31

period. They found that although learners perceived the process of reflecting on learning as useful and interesting, the analysis of the actual reflections revealed that learners mainly reflected at the R0 or R1 level. Ideally, the researchers noted that it would be beneficial if the learners were able to reflect at the transformative or R3 level. Several chapters in this volume have used Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s model to examine the depth of reflection exhibited by learners in their studies (see Chapters 7, 9 and 18). Transformative Learning

So far, the models of reflection we have reviewed have not explicitly acknowledged the role of others in the reflective process. Brockbank and McGill (2006) note that ‘while intrapersonal reflection is effective and may offer opportunities for deep learning, which may or may not be shared with another, it is ultimately not enough to promote transformatory learning’. Kato and Mynard (2016) developed a learning trajectory (Figure 3.4) which aims to specifically promote depth of reflection through intentional reflective dialogue (Kato, 2012). Kato and Mynard (2016) emphasise the role of dialogic reflection with others: ‘Reflection with others is more challenging and offers opportunities to discover different perspectives compared with self-reflection. To make the reflective dialogue even more powerful, it needs to be structured “intentionally”’ (Kato & Mynard, 2016: 6). The role of a learning advisor (or teacher or interested ‘other’ taking on this kind of role) in the process is crucial as someone who will focus on helping a learner to reflect deeply, turn their awareness into action and eventually experience fundamental shifts in beliefs which inform their continued practices (much like the R3 phase of Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s (2010) framework). For more details of reflective dialogue, see Chapter 4 of this volume.

Figure 3.4  The learning trajectory (Kato & Mynard, 2016: 13)

32  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

Research in Reflection: Providing Evidence that Reflection ‘Works’

Reflection is not easy to research because it is concerned with the development of mental processes which are only generally observable to researchers with specialised equipment and training in neuroscience. This means that much of the research relies on observations of performance on tasks (implying the development of reflective thinking), analysis of written reflections, self-reports or a combination of these methods. One of the most common tools for examining learner reflection in educational contexts is a written journal or diary (Huang, 2021). Research shows that learners can mediate their reflective processes and learning and develop metacognition through such writing. However, the ways in which reflection is defined can affect the research outcomes; what exactly is being examined? Also, increasing one’s depth of reflection does not necessarily improve performance; it is a process that affects different individuals in different ways at different rates. This means that ‘measuring’ the observable benefits in a ‘cause-andeffect’-type study is not a valid research approach (see Prince, 2004, for a discussion of other challenges of researching what they refer to as ‘active learning’).  Much of the empirical research related to reflection takes the form of case studies and qualitative studies, particularly in the fields of social and health sciences, for example, medicine, nursing and psychotherapy. Research in reflection is also present in teaching and teacher education (e.g. Brookfield, 1995). These fields lend themselves particularly well to the processes normally associated with reflective practice as they involve mentorship or supervision, and engaging in reflection helps novice or trainee practitioners to make the most of the learning opportunities. Although case studies and small context-specific qualitative studies in isolation do not add substantial support in favour of incorporating reflection into teaching, each one of these studies contributes to a body of research, and we might draw some generalisations through meta-analyses.  In terms of exploring whether reflection affects academic achievement, Prince (2004) suggests that the best way to research reflection is to introduce specific classroom activities into a regular course and to research the outcomes specific to the task and the context. For example, Wegner et al. (2015) integrated in-class discussions and self-reflection-based assignments drawing on Kolb’s experiential model in an engineering course. The researchers found that these reflective activities helped undergraduate students to understand technical aspects of engineering design more fully, effectively contribute to teamwork and gain an understanding of themselves as competent professionals. The researchers analysed a final reflective assignment where the participants identified critical developmental milestones and common

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature  33

themes. These themes were related to classroom-based work, laboratory projects, cocurricular projects, mentorship and internship experiences. Participants were able to identify professional skills and competencies such as communication skills, navigating group dynamics and organisational skills. These results show the benefits of experiential learning for engineering students. In a study of 690 first-year applied science students at a polytechnic in Singapore, Lew and Schmidt (2011) evaluated whether reflection journal writing promoted self-reflection and learning and whether students become better at self-reflection through continuous journal writing. The journals were coded at the beginning and again near the end of an academic year, and the results showed that students reflected on the content and process of learning. The participants critically reviewed previous learning experiences and learning strategies as part of the process. The researchers found some correlation between some categories in the journal and knowledge acquisition indicated through test scores, suggesting that reflecting on experience can lead to increased academic performance.  Similarly, in a study by McCrindle and Christensen (1995), 40 first-year biology students in Australia were asked to keep a learning journal (a control group did not keep a learning journal). The students keeping a learning journal kept a written record of their learning processes throughout the course. After the intervention, students participated in an interview and a learning strategies task. The researchers found that students keeping the journal demonstrated greater metacognitive awareness and control over their learning processes as well as a range of cognitive strategies. They also performed well in the final exam, demonstrating a superior structuring of knowledge. In another study in Estonia, Kori et al. (2014) designed prompts that facilitated guided reflection in lower-secondary biology students. When the students’ reflection and inquiry skills were evaluated, the researchers found significant improvements, for example, in formulating research questions, making inferences and planning experiments. There was a significant correlation between students’ inquiry skills and the quality of their reflections.  Finally, in a study conducted in the United Kingdom, understanding of concepts and improvements in achievement were also seen in MSc students in a Water and Environmental Management course when students were asked to produce reflective learning logs (Feest & Iwugo, 2006). However, the authors noted that whereas the process of introducing the students to the concept of reflection was time consuming, it was seen as a worthwhile investment. Studies such as these that largely measure understanding of course content may not necessarily be suitable for understanding the development of language proficiency as many other social, psychological,

34  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

individual and contextual factors will affect this highly complex process. However, interventions could be introduced with the specific purpose of understanding how a reflective task can affect language development in specific ways, as this volume is attempting to demonstrate. For example, in Chapter 12, Ying and Ubukata show the effects of reflection on writing fluency. In Chapter 11, Pemberton and Mynard show that incorporating regular opportunities to set goals and reflect on those goals with peers during class time resulted in a greater awareness of self-­ directed language learning. Conclusions

As we have seen in this chapter and as we will see throughout this book, there are benefits to promoting reflection and putting students themselves ‘at the centre of the reflective prism, and in doing so transferring to them the control of learning and ownership of the reflective process’ (Huang, 2021: 2). However, this is seldom a simple process: students themselves may question the value of doing reflection in class time and whether this is integral to learning. It may be challenging for learners (and educators) to see the immediate benefit or relevance. As we will see in all of the research and practice chapters in this volume, generally, students value and enjoy the opportunity to reflect on their language learning and discuss it with peers, teachers and learning advisors. We will see how the various authors have implemented reflection into their practice, all suggesting that at least a small amount of learner training or awareness raising is necessary to maximise the potential benefits. References Anderson, J. (2020) Key concepts in ELT: Reflection. ELT Journal 74 (4), 1–4.  Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C. and Lester, N.C. (2002) Reflecting on Practice: Student Teachers’ Perspectives. Flaxland: Post Pressed. Bassot, B. (2013) The Reflective Journal. Basingstoke: Palgrave. BlueSteps Career Services (2022) The CAR interview technique: The key to landing your next executive job. See https://www.bluesteps.com/blog/car-interview-technique-keylanding-your-next-executive-job (accessed November 2022). Borton. T. (1970) Reach Touch and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Boud, D. and Walker, D. (1998) Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education 23 (2), 191–206. Boyd, E.M. and Fales, A.W. (1983) Reflective learning: Key to learning from experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 23 (2), 99–117.  Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (2006) Facilitating Reflective Learning Through Mentoring and Coaching. London: Kogan Page. Brookfield, S. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Carson, L. and Mynard, J. (2012) Introduction. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 3–25). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature  35

Chen, N.-S., Wei, C.-W., Wua K.-T. and Uden, L. (2009) Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education 52, 283–291. Curry, N. (2019) A new direction: Developing a curriculum for self-directed learning skills. Relay Journal 2 (1), 75–85.  Curry, N., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J. and Watkins, S. (2017) Evaluating a self-directed language learning course in a Japanese university. International Journal of SelfDirected Learning 14 (1), 37–57. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Washington, DC: Heath & Co Publishers. Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan Company. Driscoll, J. (1994) Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse 13, 47–50. Farrell, T.S.C. (2012) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. New York: Routledge. Feest, A. and Iwugo, K. (2006) Making reflection count. Engineering Education 1 (1), 25–31. Fleck, R. and Fitzpatrick, G. (2010) Reflecting on reflection: Framing a design landscape. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 216–223). New York: ACM.  Forgas, J. (2000) The role of affect in social cognition. In J. Forgas (ed.) Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition (pp. 1–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freire, P. (1996/1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed [trans. M. Bergman Ramos]. London: Penguin.  Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic. Greenaway, R. (1992) The active reviewing cycle. See https://reviewing.co.uk/learning-cycle/ the-active-reviewing-cycle.htm (accessed April 2023). Greenaway, R. (2002) Reviewing by doing. Journal of the Institute of Training and Occupational Learning 3 (1), 47–53. Huang, L.-S. (2021) Improving Learner Reflection for TESOL: Pedagogical Strategies to Support Reflective Learning. New York: Routledge. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Killion, J.P. and Todnem, G.R. (1991) A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership 48 (6), 14–16. Knowles, M.S. (1975) Self-Directed Learning. New York: Association Press. Kohonen, V. (1992) Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (ed.) Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 14–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohonen, V. (2001) Towards experiential foreign language education. In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen and J. Lehtovaara (eds) Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education (pp. 8–60). London: Pearson Education. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D.A. (2015) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (2nd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Kori, K., Mäeots, M. and Pedaste, M. (2014) Guided reflection to support quality of reflection and inquiry in web-based learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112, 242–251. Leijen, Ä., Lam, I., Wildschut, L., Simons, P.R.-J. and Admiraal, W. (2009) Streaming video to enhance students’ reflection in dance education. Computers & Education 52 (1), 169–176.

36  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

Leijen, Ä., Valtna, K., Leijen, D.A.J. and Pedaste, M. (2012) How to determine the quality of students’ reflections? Studies in Higher Education 37 (2), 203–217. Lew, M.D.N. and Schmidt, H.G. (2011) Self-reflection and academic performance: Is there a relationship? Advances in Health and Science Education 16, 529–545. Malthouse, R. and Roffey-Barentsen, J. (2013) Reflective Practice in Education and Training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McCollum, S. (1997) Insights into the process of guiding reflection during an early field experience of preservice teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University McCrindle, A.R. and Christensen, C.A. (1995) The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction 5 (2), 167–185. Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (1998) On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly 48 (3), 185–198. Moon, J.A. (1999) Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Moon, J.A. (2004) A Handbook of Reflective and Experimental Learning Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Moon, J.A. (2005) Guide for Busy Academics no. 4: Learning Through Reflection. Exeter: The University of Exeter. Mynard, J. (2007) A blog as a tool for reflection for English language learners. Asian EFL Journal: Professional Teaching Articles 24, 1–10. Mynard, J. and Stevenson, R. (2017) Promoting learner autonomy and self-directed learning: The evolution of a SALC curriculum. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 8 (2), 169–182. Oxford, R.L. (2015) Emotion as the amplifier and the primary motive: Some theories of emotion with relevance to language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5 (3), 371–393. Prince, M. (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93 (3), 223–231. Sampson, R., Curry, N. and Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) SALC Integration: Self-evaluation/ reflection project. Presentation at a project meeting: Capitalising on the potentials of technology integration to promote students’ self-regulation (2020-2022). KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, February 11–13. Schön, D. (1984). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Schunk, D.H. and Zimmerman, B.J. (eds) (1998) Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice. New York: Guilford Publications. Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R. and Meece, J.L. (2008) Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications (3rd edn). Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall. Siefker, D., Hu, L. and Borkovska, N. (2020) The application of Kolb’s experiential learning model in a business English program. CONTACT Magazine, 31 March, pp. 26–31. Shelton-Strong, S.J. and Mynard, J. (2018) Affective factors in self-access learning. Relay Journal 1 (2), 275–292. Shelton-Strong, S.J. and Mynard, J. (2020) Promoting positive feelings and motivation for language learning: The role of a confidence-building diary. Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning 15 (5), 458–472. Strampel, K. and Oliver, R.G. (2007) Using technology to foster reflection in higher education: Providing choices for learners and learning. In R.J. Atkinson, C. McBeath, S.K.A. Soong and C. Cheers (eds) ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 973–981). https://www.ascilite.org/conferences/ singapore07/procs/. Taylor, B.J. (2014) Walking my talk: Applying the REFLECT model to personal-professional intersections while re-signing in academia. Reflective Practice 15 (2), 240–251.

Promoting Reflection on Language Learning: A Brief Summary of the Literature  37

Thejll-Madsen, T. (2018) The Reflection Toolkit: Literature Review. Edinburgh: Employability Consultancy, University of Edinburgh. Tsangaridou, N. and O’Sullivan, M. (1994) Using pedagogical reflective strategies to enhance reflection among preservice physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 14 (1), 13–33. The University of Edinburgh Careers Service’s Employability Consultancy (2022) Reflection toolkit. See https://www.ed.ac.uk/reflection (accessed November 2022). Van Manen, M. (1991) Reflectivity and the pedagogical moment: The normativity of pedagogical thinking and acting. Journal of Curriculum Studies 23, 507–536. Watkins, S. (2015) Enhanced awareness and its translation into action: A case study of one learner’s self-directed language learning experience. Language Learning in Higher Education 6 (2), 441–446. Wegner, J., Turcic II, S.M. and Hohner, G. (2015) Learning from experiences: Examining self-reflection in engineering design courses. Paper presented at the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 14–17, Seattle, WA. Zeichner, K.M. and Liston, D.P. (1996) Reflective Teaching: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Zimmerman, B. (2000) Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice 41 (2), 64–70.

4 Reflecting through Dialogue Satoko Kato

‘Did I do the right thing?’ ‘Why did I feel like that?’ ‘What is holding me back?’ We reflect on ourselves on a daily basis, and in general, most reflection relates to the questioning of experience. The term reflection originates in the Latin word ‘reflectere’, which consists of the prefix ‘re’ and ‘flectere’, meaning ‘back’ and ‘to bend’, referring to becoming more aware of the past. However, reflection is different from contemplation. Reflection generally means ‘conscious thinking about what we are doing and why we are doing it’ (Farrell, 2015: 8). According to Dewey (1933), reflection is the exploration of a state of perplexity, hesitation and doubt, whereas Mezirow (1991) refers to it as ‘disorienting dilemmas’, Schön (1983) as ‘surprise puzzlement’ or confusion in an uncertain or unique situation. As we saw in Chapter 3, the definition of reflection applied in this volume is ‘reflection is the intentional examination of experiences, thoughts and actions in order to learn about oneself and inform change or personal growth’. The present chapter will build on this definition, particularly focusing on reflection in dialogue. Dialogue naturally occurs between people for various reasons. In this chapter, I would like to distinguish between dialogue, characterised by one-way talk, where the speaker intends to convey their message to the listener, and dialogue, where the intention is to guide the participants into a more profound learning experience. The dialogue discussed in this chapter is an integral part of reflection with the potential to bring about transformation in learning and to establish a mutual relationship between the participants. The process of self-reflection has the benefit of offering opportunities for deep learning, but one’s insights are limited as observing oneself critically is often not very easy when one reflects. Dialogue with other people, in contrast, offers possibilities to restructure one’s established assumptions and beliefs, which can lead us to develop further (Brockbank & McGill, 2006). One of the most original thinkers who put forward the practice of ‘dialogue’ is David Bohm (1917–1992), a renowned physicist and theorist 38

Reflecting through Dialogue  39

in the 20th century who became interested in applying his scientific perspectives to human communication (Bohm, 1996). His approach is known as Bohmian dialogue, which is an approach to group interaction that puts emphasis on listening and observation. In this approach, the practice of suspension is when the participants of the dialogue agree to suspend judgement in order to create an attitude of openness and mindful perception. Bohm noticed dialogue as quite distinct from other modes of communication, such as discussion and defined dialogue as being where meaning is ‘not static’ (Bohm, 1996). One of the other original thinkers of dialogue is William Isaacs (1994), a businessman. Isaacs emphasised the necessity of establishing trust and safety for learning by mentioning the difficulties of engaging in the process of honest inquiry. As stated by both Bohm and Isaacs, dialogue with others has the potential to maximise opportunities for transformative learning. Reflective Dialogue 

What differentiates reflective dialogue from other types of reflection is that reflection is done through communication, whereby people access each other’s thoughts and feelings by asking questions. This process helps the participants gain new perspectives by enriching their experiences (Morrison, 1996). Reflective dialogue in learning leads to switching viewpoints on one’s perception of how things are done. It helps someone understand what emotions are attached and how things could be different. It sometimes serves as a turning point that can drastically change the nature of learning. In order to facilitate reflective learning effectively, reflective dialogue needs to be constructed intentionally (Brockbank et al., 2002; Kato & Mynard, 2016).  The process of self-reflection has the benefit of offering opportunities for deep learning. However, as Brockbank and McGill (2006: 53) point out, ‘while intrapersonal reflection is effective and may offer opportunities for deep learning, which may or may not be shared with another, it is ultimately not enough to promote transformatory learning’. In other words, self-reflection is insufficient to promote transformation in learning because learning is limited to the insight of individuals, and observing oneself critically is difficult. Dialogue with other people offers possibilities to restructure one’s established assumptions and beliefs that can further develop.  We have used the term ‘reflective dialogue’ in this volume, but the concept has also been referred to as ‘dialogic reflection’ (Hatton & Smith, 1995) and ‘reflective discourse’ (Mezirow, 2000). Hatton and Smith (1994: 42) note that dialogic reflection ‘involves stepping back from, mulling over, or tentatively exploring reasons’. In their research, a conversation that was ‘personal, tentative, exploratory, and at times indecisive’ was considered ‘dialogic’. Similarly, Isaacs (1999) emphasises

40  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

that reflective dialogue is a process or place to think about one’s reasons for thoughts and actions, and states, ‘reflective dialogue can then give rise to generative dialogue, in which we begin to create entirely new possibilities and create new levels of interaction’ (Isaacs, 1999: 38). At the same time, Isaacs indicates that the practice of dialogue is intended to change the way we think, and the way we think about the way we think. Such dialogue does not occur often, and special attention needs to be paid to the four practices: listening, respecting, suspending and voicing. Reflective discourse, according to Mezirow (2000), refers to the specialised use of dialogue devoted to searching for a shared understanding and assessment of the justification of an interpretation or belief. Reflective discourse involves a critical assessment of assumptions. It leads toward a more precise understanding by tapping collective experience to arrive at a tentative best judgement. According to Marsick and Mezirow (2002), transformative learning differentiates between instrumental and communicative learning.  Brockbank et al. (2002) used the term ‘reflective dialogue’ for transformation as an activity that is intentional and interpersonal, that emphasises the affective domain, acknowledges the subjective and social context of the learner, includes support as well as challenge and, potentially, involves transformation for both individuals and their organisation. As the previous studies indicate, the approach of reflective dialogue is widely used in a variety of contexts, such as learning, teaching and professional development (Brockbank & McGill, 2006; Marsick & Mezirow, 2002; Mezirow, 2000; Morrison, 1996; Van Gyn, 1996; Webb, 2000). The definition of reflective dialogue that applies throughout this volume is ‘a collaborative conversation where the participants cocreate the dialogue to reflect their experiences, thoughts and affect, to broaden their perspectives, transform their learning, and feel satisfied and fulfilled about their personal growth’. This chapter will especially illustrate the practice of advising in language learning (ALL) by introducing intentional reflective dialogue (IRD), where the abovementioned ‘reflective dialogue’ is intentionally structured by focusing on the learner’s learning trajectory, using advising strategies/approaches and building rapport and trust with learners to guide learners into transformative learning processes (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Mynard & Kato, 2022). Reflective Dialogue and Teacher Professional Development

Reflective dialogue is also an important focus of teacher professional development. For example, Farrell (2015) describes the importance of teachers reflecting on their teaching performance, strategies, classroom management skills and their feelings after the class with their colleagues.

Reflecting through Dialogue  41

By undergoing this process, teachers can consider adjusting their practice for future improvement. Webb (2000) posits that dialogic reflection allows teachers to understand their beliefs by interacting with other teachers and understanding different beliefs. Van Gyn (1996) states that reflection with others enhances professional growth and increases the probability of success in one’s professional life rather than reflecting alone. Through dialogue in reflection, teachers are likely to examine their teaching practices, learn more about themselves, gain knowledge that might not have been available to them if they did not have the opportunity to reflect with their colleagues and thus be able to transform their existing values. Reflective Dialogue in Advising in Language Learning

Reflection is necessary to promote deeper learning, and dialogue plays a vital role in facilitating transformation in learning. In this section, I will look at dialogue which especially aims at promoting learning through one-on-one reflective dialogue. Previous studies and practice in reflective dialogue emphasise the importance of reflection in learning through dialogue (Brockbank et al., 2002; Isaacs, 1999; Kato & Mynard, 2016; Marsick & Mezirow, 2002; Mezirow, 2000).  Dialogue has been promoted in education as a teaching model, especially reflecting on the learning process in order to promote paradigmatic shifts in learning. Wegerif (2008) examined the vital roles that dialogue plays in education, describing how meaning is created out of the interaction between different voices and perspectives. Wegerif noted that the dialogical models could be used to open up reflection and creativity in teaching and transformational learning. Green and Chandler (1990: 215) state dialogue can be used to ‘extend our current knowledge and understanding of educational phenomena’. In dialogue with others, learners’ current experience, their feelings about that experience and their worldviews will be heard. This process itself offers both support and challenge, particularly the inclusion in the dialogue of advanced empathy and immediacy (Brockbank & McGill, 2006).  To return to the field of language education, ALL is an educational service provided by professional educators – learning advisors – who are dedicated to promoting learner autonomy, usually in self-access centres (Gremmo & Castillo, 2006; Riley, 1998). In recent years, ALL has developed into a specialised professional area of language education. ALL focuses on supporting language learners in becoming more autonomous, effective, aware and reflective in their learning (Benson, 2011; Mozzon-McPherson & Vismans, 2001; Mynard & Carson, 2012). Learning advisors empower learners through coconstructed one-to-one dialogue to help learners reflect upon themselves and broaden their perspectives so that they become more capable of taking charge of their

42  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

own language learning. The process of such transformation can only be achieved by establishing trustful and empathetic relationships with learners where learners feel safe to explore themselves (Kato & Mynard, 2016). Advisors do not try to give direct suggestions but ask reflective questions, which are purposefully formed for each learner based on careful observation, to let learners find their way towards transformation in their learning (Mozzon-Mcpherson, 2012; Mozzon-Mcpherson & Tassinari, 2020). Supporting learners by raising their awareness of cognitive and metacognitive learning processes involves a set of unique skills and knowledge from a broader background, such as in the fields of counselling, life coaching, mentoring and teaching (Kelly, 1996; Mynard & Carson, 2012; Mynard et al., 2018; Riley, 1998). Similar to coaching and humanistic counselling, the relationship between an advisor and a learner involves respect and genuineness. Advisors help learners through deep reflection to induce transformation in their learning rather than by directing them. The dialogue in ALL is intentionally structured to follow a learning trajectory (see Chapter 3, this volume) to support learners to make a fundamental change in their learning (Kato & Mynard, 2016). Kato (2012) and Mynard and Kato (2022) referred to such coconstructed dialogue used in advising intentional reflective dialogue (IRD), where advisors need to intentionally adapt their practice according to where learners are on the learning trajectory, intentionally apply the advising strategies/approaches at appropriate times and intentionally focus on building rapport and trust to guide learners into transformative learning processes. However, the question is ‘how’ can we conduct reflective dialogue? We can learn the basic practical strategies from IRDs conducted by professionals working in the field of ALL. When learning advisors engage in IRD, a unique set of discursive strategies (also known as skills) is employed. The advising strategies are derived from many sources, such as humanistic counselling and life coaching, and some strategies have been developed specifically for ALL. There have been several attempts to explore the features of an effective reflective dialogue (e.g. Kato & Mynard, 2016; Kelly, 1996; Mynard, 2011; Mynard & Thornton, 2012; Pemberton et al., 2001). Kato and Mynard (2016) suggest that focusing on 12 basic advising strategies is beneficial for initial advisor education in order to learn the basics of advising. The 12 strategies are roughly divided into two categories as follows. Category 1 consists of five strategies used when accepting and acknowledging learners and for creating rapport and trust in relationships. Category 2 consists of seven strategies that facilitate deeper reflection where learners broaden their perspectives to transform their learning. McCarthy (2010) classified 31 advising skills into 14 macro-skills and 17 microskills, building on discursive skills previously identified by Kato and

Reflecting through Dialogue  43

Sugawara (2009), Kelly (1996) and Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Macro skills include acknowledging, encouraging, rapport building, goalsetting, modelling, guiding and concluding and are used to manage key stages in the advising process. McCarthy (2010) identified the four components of opening the session, unravelling the problem, establishing a plan of action and closing the session. Micro-skills include restating, summarising, empathising, active questioning and challenging, and are general discursive strategies used by a learning advisor when interacting with a learner. Mozzon-Mcpherson and Tassinari (2020) identified 44 advising skills from the ALL literature. They suggested that the quality of dialogue relies on the process of the advisors’ understanding of the skills and competences of advising and the impact of the intentional use of language and its outcome. This is because the intentional use of dialogue is central to inducing transformative learning (Kelly, 1996).  Although a good understanding of advising strategies is vital, advising is not just a matter of mastering set strategies. Reflective dialogue in advising is much more complex as language learning is a dynamic process where learners are influenced by various factors. Complex dynamic systems theory (CDST), which was heavily influenced by Larsen-Freeman’s (1997) seminal work, shows that language learning is dynamic, complex, nonlinear, chaotic, unpredictable, sensitive to initial conditions, open, self-organising, feedback sensitive and adaptive. Castro (2019) conducted a case study in advising by focusing on the complex and dynamic character of motivation and investigating the learner’s and the advisor’s perceptions of the learner’s motivational trajectory. Castro notes that learners’ fluctuations in motivation can be caused by multiple factors (physical environment, task complexity, tiredness, sense of competence, teachers and peers). Considering such complexity of motivation in learning, Yamashita (2015), in her case study, posits that in order to guide learners to achieve their goals autonomously, learners have to learn to ‘connect their feelings with their learning experiences in an authentic dialogic interaction with an advisor’ (Yamashita, 2015: 77–78). Mozzon-McPherson (2019) notes that advisors face learners’ multiple selves, such as their habits, beliefs, feelings and emotions, in order to address their immediate and long-term learning issues. At the same time, advisors themselves need to be carefully and mindfully aware of their own multiple selves as they engage in the dialogue. MozzonMcPherson identifies the potential merits of linking mindfulness and advising practices by focusing on the following aspects of dialogue. These characteristics show the multifaceted nature of the reflective dialogue in advising (Mozzon-McPherson, 2019: 101–102): • Advising is a person-centred approach. • It has an emphasis on intentionality.

44  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

• • • • •

It pays attention to emotions. It places a strong heuristic value on understanding and making choices. It has an explicit focus on awareness. It makes use of active listening techniques. It implies a suspension of judgement.

Examples of reflective dialogue

Considering learning processes are dynamic and complex, where learners explore their multiple selves, learners might come up with a variety of questions. ‘Where shall I start?’ ‘How much should I do?’ ‘Can you tell me which one is good?’ As educators, we may feel that our responsibility is to provide the correct answers to learners. We may even feel irresponsible or vulnerable when we do not have answers for the learners. However, such feelings could get in the way of promoting the learner’s reflection in dialogue. To conduct IRD, we need to understand the process of dialogue and experience it ourselves so that we can understand the powerful influence it can bring about.  Providing direct answers to learners’ questions might not be the best way to promote reflection. This section introduces actual examples to highlight the differences between a regular dialogue and an IRD. Try to compare the following two example dialogues between an advisor and a learner and see how the quality of the dialogue differs. The examples from the teaching materials used in the Advisor Education Program (provided by the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education, Kanda University of International Studies).   Dialogue 1 

Learner: I am working on this grammar book. I don’t know if what I am doing is right. Where should I start? How much do I need to study?  Advisor: (Looks at the book that the learner has and says) Oh, that book does not seem suitable for your level. Why don’t you try this one? (­suggests a different grammar book).  Starting from the verb tense chapter is easy (gives a practical suggestion).  Try to finish one chapter a week (proposes an action plan). Learner: Okay, I will. 

In Dialogue 1, the advisor gives the learner practical suggestions by using her expertise as a professional educator. She noticed that the learner’s grammar book was not suitable for the learner’s level. Therefore, she introduced a different book that best fits the learner’s proficiency level. She also presented a study plan. It seems that the advisor has done an excellent job by telling the learner what to do, and

Reflecting through Dialogue  45

the learner must be satisfied by receiving her advice. However, from the perspective of promoting reflection in learning, the interaction of Dialogue 1 is not an effective one as the dialogue is one-way, and there is not enough space for the learner to stop and reflect.  Dialogue 2

Learner: I am working on this grammar book. I don’t know if what I am doing is right. Where should I start? How much do I need to study?  Advisor: I see. You don’t know if you are doing it right (repeats). Learner: Yeah… I have only finished one chapter so far. I was planning to do more. Advisor: Can you tell me more? (asks an open-ended question) Learner: Even when my motivation is high, I cannot work on it… Advisor: Why do you think you cannot study as you want even if your motivation is high? Learner: Hmm… (reflection starts). Maybe it is because…

In Dialogue 2, the advisor is not suggesting anything practical. Instead, she repeats the key point and asks questions so that the learner can consider them for herself. In Dialogue 1, the advisor focuses on the grammar book and tries to fix the problem herself, whereas the advisor in Dialogue 2 attempts to understand the learner’s emotions. The advisor in Dialogue 2 decided to focus not on the grammar book but instead on the learner’s expression of ‘I don’t know if what I am doing is right’. The advisor intuitively noticed that this utterance contained clues to the learner’s anxiety. So, she decided to repeat the learner’s statement without asking any questions or making any suggestions. The advisor just repeated and waited. This process is very simple yet powerful in promoting reflection through dialogue. By repeating the core emotion, the learner notices that the advisor is listening to her attentively, creating a safe space to reflect on herself and her experiences. The advisor does not force the learner to answer questions or make any suggestions but continues the conversation at the learner’s pace. This process guides the learner into a deeper level of reflection. By applying the approach from Dialogue 2, how could an advisor respond to the following question asked by a student in order to promote reflection?  Learner: I am worried about my speaking skill. What should I do? 

The advisor might be tempted to answer the questions by saying, ‘You don’t have to worry. It’s okay. Why don’t you try….’. to help the

46  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

learner right away by using their experience and expertise. However, if the advisor would like the learner to engage in reflective dialogue, the advisor should avoid making a judgement or giving direct suggestions. In that case, the advisor’s possible responses could be as follows:  Advisor: I see. You are worried about your speaking skill (repeats). What makes you worried? What do you think you should do? 

Advisors have to keep in mind that reflective dialogue starts with accepting learners and asking reflective questions to help learners learn more about themselves. If advisors jump into fixing the issues and giving direct suggestions, advisors may easily prevent learners from entering the reflective process.  Affect, Well-Being and Dialogue

When guiding learners into a deeper level of awareness raising by conducting reflective dialogue, we cannot avoid dealing with learners’ emotions, in other words, ‘affect’, which is considered to be one of the most influential factors in language learning (Dörnyei, 2010). Affect refers to aspects of emotion, feelings, moods or attitudes that condition behaviour (Arnold & Brown, 1999). Literature on emotions and feelings has provided different definitions. Damasio (2002) describes emotions as observable, neurophysiological, transitory reactions to a stimulus, whereas feelings are a nonobservable, private experience of emotions. Ekman (2003) identifies six basic emotions: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise. Plutchik (1980), based on Ekman’s biological perspective, elaborates on eight primary emotions in the wheel of emotions. Plutchik classifies a wide range of primary and secondary emotions in opposite pairs, such as joy versus sadness, anger versus fear, trust versus disgust and surprise versus anticipation. Affect influences cognition, and therefore, positive affect can empower learners, whereas negative affect can easily prevent meaningful learning. These different types of affects appear in language learning, and therefore, affect is viewed as an ‘essential resource’ to implement learning in a self-fulfilling way (Gkonou & Miller, 2020; Mynard, 2019; Tassinari, 2016; Yamashita, 2015).  Tassinari (2016) examined expressions of emotions such as embarrassment, shame, gratitude or trust relating to advising in language learning discourse with three different learners at a university in Berlin by applying Plutchik’s (1980) wheel of emotion. Tassinari (2016) found that emotions are relevant when learners are reporting on learning activities, reflecting on their learning experience, evaluating learning progress or failure or planning for the future, and thus, it is inevitable for learners that advisors face learners’ emotions in language learning processes. 

Reflecting through Dialogue  47

The value of well-being and ALL have much in common, as ALL aims to promote learner autonomy by supporting learners in becoming more aware and self-satisfied in learning through one-on-one reflective dialogue. During the process of reflective dialogue, advisors encourage learners to share their values in learning and their lives because such value-sharing creates a foundation for a relationship based on trust and promotes learner autonomy (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Karlsson, 2012). During this process, advisors listen to learners’ stories by applying various advising strategies to establish rapport and trust in the limited amount of time available in the sessions.  Well-being is also a feature of self-determination theory (SDT), which claims that all individuals require satisfaction of the basic psychological needs to flourish and grow (Ryan & Deci, 2017). The three basic psychological needs are: ‘autonomy’ (i.e. to feel free and selfdirected), ‘competence’ (i.e. to feel effective) and ‘relatedness’ (i.e. to be closely connected with others). SDT posits that the basic psychological need for relatedness drives the desire to seek and maintain high-quality relationships. Shelton-Strong and Tassinari (2022) examine ALL from an SDT perspective and classified 18 advising behaviours supportive of basic psychological needs (e.g. taking an interest in the learner and exercising unconditional regard, empathetic and mindful listening: displaying patience, facilitating reflection on past and present limitations and success, etc.). Research by Shelton-Strong (2022a, 2022b) has indicated a connection between ALL and basic needs satisfaction, including a mixed-methods study (Shelton-Strong, 2022b) that shows that ALL plays an important role in enhancing learner well-being. In this chapter, I have taken an in-depth look at the importance of dialogue in the development of reflection in language learning. We will see examples of the benefits of dialogue between teachers and learners, learning advisors and learners and between learner peers in other chapters of the book. I have attempted to provide the supporting theory and research that sheds light on why these activities tend to be successful at helping learners to reflect deeply and take charge of their learning, as evidenced in some of the other chapters. References Arnold, J. and Brown, H.D. (1999) A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning (pp. 1–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benson, P. (2011) Teaching and Researching Autonomy (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman Pearson. Bohm, D. (1996) On Dialogue. New York: Routledge. Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (2006) Facilitating Reflective Learning Through Mentoring and Coaching. London: Kogan Page. Brockbank, A., McGill, I. and Beech, N. (2002) Reflective Learning in Practice. Aldershot: Gower.

48  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

Castro, E. (2019) Motivational dynamics in language advising sessions: A case study. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 10 (1), 5–20.  Damasio, A.R. (2002) A note on the neurobiology of emotions. In S.G. Post, L.G. Underwood, J.P. Schloss and W.B. Hurlbut (eds) Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue (pp. 264–271). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. New York: D.C. Heath. Dörnyei, Z. (2010) The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation: Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspective. In E. Macaro (ed.) Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 247–267). London: Continuum. Ekman, P. (2003) Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life. New York: Times Books/Henry Holt and Co. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. New York: Routledge. Gkonou, C. and Miller, E. (2020) An exploration of language teacher reflection, emotion labor, and emotional capital. TESOL Quarterly 55 (1), 134–155. Green, J. and Chandler, S. (1990) Toward a dialog about implementation in a conceptual cycle of inquiry. In E. Guba (ed.) The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 202–215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gremmo, M.J. and Castillo, D. (2006) Advising in a multilingual setting: New perspectives for the role of the advisor. In T. Lamb and H. Reinders (eds) Supporting Independent Language Learning: Issues and Options (pp. 21–35). Bern: Peter Lang. Hatton, N. and Smith, D. (1995) Reflection in teacher education: Towards a definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education 11, 33–49. Isaacs, W. (1994) Team learning. In P. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R.B. Ross and B.J. Smith (eds) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organisation (pp. 357–444). New York: Doubleday. Isaacs, W.N. (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking. New York: Doubleday. Karlsson, L. (2012) Sharing stories: Autobiographical narratives in advising. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 185–203). Harlow: Pearson Education. Kato, S. (2012) Professional development for learning advisors: Facilitating the intentional reflective dialogue. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 3 (1), 74–92.  Kato, S. and Sugawara, H. (2009) Action-oriented language learning advising: A new approach to promote independent language learning. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies 21, 455–475. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Kelly, R. (1996) Language counselling for learner autonomy: The skilled helper in selfaccess language learning. In R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or and H. Pierson (eds) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 93–113). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18 (2), 141–165. Marsick, V. and Mezirow, J. (2002) New work on transformative learning. Teachers College Record, 25 January. McCarthy, T. (2010) Breaking down the dialogue: Building a framework of advising discourse. Studies in Linguistics and Language Teaching 21, 39–79. Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Mezirow, J. (2000) Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (eds) Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress (pp. 3–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Reflecting through Dialogue  49

Morrison, M. (1996) An examination of the development of teachers’ reflective practice. Education Today 46 (2), 43–47. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2012) The skills of counselling in advising: language as a pedagogic tool. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 43–64). Harlow: Pearson. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2019) Mindfulness and advising in language learning: An alternative theoretical perspective. Mélanges CRAPEL 40 (1), 87–113. Mozzon-McPherson, M. and Vismans, R. (eds) (2001) Beyond Language Teaching Towards Language Advising. London: CILT Publications. Mozzon-McPherson, M. and Tassinari, M.G. (2020) From teachers to advisors. A journey map. Philologia Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning Hispalensis 34 (1), 121–139. Mynard, J. (2011) The role of the learning advisor in promoting autonomy. Learner Autonomy in Language Learning. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261672847_The_ role_of_the_learning_advisor_in_promoting_autonomy. Mynard, J. (2019) Emotional dimensions of language learning: A new era of self-access. Paper presented at Encuentro de Centros de Autoacceso [Self-Access Conference] at University of Veracruz, Mexico, 21–22 October 2019. See https://youtu.be/ ScBfONNHewg (accessed April 2023). Mynard, J. and Carson, L. (2012) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context. Harlow: Pearson Education. Mynard, J. and Thornton, K. (2012) The degree of directiveness in written advising: A preliminary investigation. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 3 (1), 41–58. Mynard, J. and Kato, S. (2022) Enhancing language learning beyond the classroom through advising. In H. Reinders, C. Lai and P. Sundqvist (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom (pp. 244–270). New York: Routledge. Mynard, J., Kato, S. and Yamamoto, K. (2018) Reflective practice in advising: Introduction to the column. Relay Journal 1 (1), 55–64.  Pemberton, R., Toogood, S., Ho, S. and Lam, J. (2001) Approaches to advising for selfdirected language learning. AILA Review 15, 16–25. Plutchik, R. (1980) Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. New York: Harper & Row. Riley, P. (1998) Counsellor training for self-access: Problems, objectives and techniques. Independence 21, 3–11. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: The Guilford Press. Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2022a) Advising in language learning and the support of learners’ basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective. Language Teaching Research 26 (5), 963–985 Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2022b) Sustaining language learner well-being and flourishing: A mixed-methods study exploring advising in language learning and basic psychological need support. Psychology of Language and Communication 26 (1), 415–449. Shelton-Strong, S.J. and Tassinari, M.G. (2022) Facilitating an autonomy-supportive learning climate: Advising in language learning and basic psychological needs. In J. Mynard and S.J. Shelton-Strong (eds) Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective (pp. 185–205). Bristol: Multilingual Matters Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tassinari, M.G. (2016) Emotions and feelings in language advising discourse. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl and S. Mercer (eds) New Directions in Language Learning Psychology (pp. 71–96). Basel: Springer International Publishing.

50  Part 2: Theoretical Constructs

Van Gyn, G.H. (1996) Reflective practice: The needs of professions and the promise of cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education 31 (Winter/Spring), 103–131. Webb, P.T. (2000) The use of language in reflective teaching: Implications for selfunderstanding. Journal of Educational Thought 34 (3), 223–238. Wegerif, R. (2008) Reason and dialogue in education. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers and R. van der Veer (eds) The Transformation of Learning: Advances in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (pp. 273–288). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yamashita, H. (2015) Affect and the development of learner autonomy through advising. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 6 (1), 62–85.

Part 3 Insights from Initial Studies

5 Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started Phoebe Lyon, Amanda J. Yoshida, Heather Yoder, Ewen MacDonald, Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa and Neil Curry

In this chapter, we explain the rationale for introducing standardised reflective activities at KUIS, describe the actual classroom practices and share the teacher, learning advisor and students’ impressions of the initial trial activities. The process began in 2018 and is still ongoing at the time of writing. One of the stated objectives of KUIS is to produce graduates who can act autonomously in their learning, having acquired the skills and knowledge to do so while studying at the university. This is so they are able to discover and develop an effective way to learn languages on their own terms, which suits their own strengths, characteristics and preferences. Developing autonomy in learning is beneficial both while they are students and subsequently when they graduate and continue their life-long learning. Therefore, students need to reflect on their studies and on themselves as learners. They benefit from reflective activities which encourage a deeper understanding of their learning in matters such as how and why they are making progress, what they can do to improve, why difficulties with learning occur and how they can resolve them. Background

The focus on developing students’ abilities to reflect on their learning described in this chapter originally stemmed from efforts to introduce self-directed learning (SDL) skills into the compulsory first and second-year English classes students take in the English Language Institute (ELI). Currently, SDL skills and reflective activities 53

54  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

for autonomous learning are introduced through Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) courses (see Chapters 17 and 18, this volume). However, as these courses are voluntary and only reach a limited number of students, it is more effective if they can be integrated into compulsory classes (Curry, 2019; Mynard & Shelton-Strong, 2020). By 2017, it was becoming clear to Phoebe Lyon, one of the authors of this chapter and one of the Principal Lecturers of Curriculum and Assessment in the ELI, that students were getting an unequal experience in their classes with respect to reflection. Some teachers were doing a lot of reflection and some teachers thought the activities they were doing promoted reflection but, in reality, only had students reporting. Other teachers were not doing any reflection at all, believing that this was the job of learning advisors (LAs). Thus began a discussion between the Principal Learner Advisor of Curriculum for the SALC (Neil Curry, also one of the authors of this chapter) and Phoebe on how our respective departments could work more closely together. The aim of the collaboration is to enhance and encourage autonomy, and it was important to decide what activities might be best and into which classes they should be introduced. This would be a way to provide students with a more consistent experience at the same time.  Therefore, we began developing an integration project in the spring semester of 2018 between the SALC and the ELI, with a call going out to teachers and LAs to be involved. The response was positive, and many colleagues became coauthors of this chapter or contributors to this book. As a rule, LAs are paired with teachers to assist them and their students with out-of-class learning opportunities and affective issues such as confidence and motivation, and so were already best placed to be able to offer support on how SDL skills might be integrated into existing classroom activities. We chose this integrative approach because, as the ELI curriculum is already quite full, embedding skills into class routines and existing activities would eliminate the need to add additional activities. It could also help to make the SDL skills ‘appear to become a more “natural” way of thinking about individual study, with the students encouraged by reflective activities to connect the SDL knowledge to other learning goals’ (Curry, 2019: 81), an example being time management techniques embedded into a presentation assignment (Arnott et al., 2019). However, it soon became apparent from initial studies (e.g. Sampson, Chapter 7 in this volume) that for students to fully realise how to apply the knowledge of SDL, we would have to begin by developing their metacognitive skills, so that they could learn how to reflect effectively and: (1) Understand the impact that the SDL skills have on them. (2) Make better use of SDL skills.

Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started  55

(3) Understand their own characteristics and beliefs as learners. (4) Make better choices regarding how they manage their learning. (5) Think beyond how the skills are used in the classroom to their other courses and their daily lives.  Thus, the focus shifted, beginning several of the studies contained within this volume. Reflection Activities

We decided to introduce the new activities into courses that all students take in their first year (Freshman English) and that nearly all of them take in their second year (Media English). Both courses have a conversational focus that we felt would facilitate discussion-based reflection. We also wanted to make this a long-term activity that would see the progression and development of reflective abilities over more than one year. Our final consideration was to have reflective activities confined to set courses to prevent overlapping and overloading. When considering what the activities would contain, we felt that they should accord to certain principles that would help maximise student benefits. These principles would also serve as factors for analysis when reviewing the activities’ effectiveness. The principles are as follows: • The activities should be enjoyable, meaningful and motivational. • They should prompt depth of reflection so that students are able to show some understanding of their learning processes. • They should enable reflection to be progressive and goal-oriented. Activities should be enjoyable, meaningful and motivating

We feel that language learning should be a pleasurable activity with learners gaining a sense of achievement as their skills improve, increasing their intrinsic motivation. Activities must be meaningful in the sense that they help to create agency – a feeling of control over one’s learning through reflection and transformation by ‘optimising conditions for one’s own learning’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2019: 62). Gao (2013: 227) proposes that for learners, agency is ‘a precondition to their efforts to take control of the learning process and proposes reflexive/reflective thinking as a means to examine how agency enables learners to exercise their autonomy’. The University of Edinburgh, in their Reflection Toolkit (2022), advises that the promotion of reflection should be positive and that the value of the activity should be stated to those doing the reflecting. As students have related to one of the authors over the years, some reflection activities, for example, reflecting on class as a homework activity, can feel like tasks set without real purpose; the students are unable to see the rationale for

56  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

the activity and are unsure of what they are supposed to gain through it. There are several possible reasons for this. Sometimes, students may not really be aware of what exactly reflecting entails, including what they are supposed to reflect about, and thus are unsure about what they are supposed to do. Language learners may also lack sufficient vocabulary to adequately explain their thoughts if asked to write in the target language. Lastly, some people are not comfortable talking about themselves and describing personal thoughts. Some students may be concerned that any honest appraisals of classes and their learning may not be well received by teachers if critical in any way. Therefore, the value and purpose of reflecting need to be made clear, and students may need instruction on how to do it effectively. Activities should prompt depth of reflection

Some people are perhaps naturally or, through training, more reflective than others. They may also be more selective about what aspects of their lives they choose to reflect on or share. Students also may not be in the habit of actively reflecting on their learning due to their lack of agency. Therefore, we can expect to see that much reflection on learning is at a surface level, namely simple descriptions of events and activities, with little examination into reasons or solutions to problems, or connections being made to other aspects of learning. This is sometimes because the reflection task itself does not prompt such deeper thinking, and also because deeper reflection can often be better facilitated by a ‘reflective dialogue’, such as that described by Kato and Mynard (2016) and Kato in Chapter 4 of this volume. Thus, we hoped to produce activities that would allow students to engage in this dialogue, making them much more able to understand their own characters as learners. Activities should enable reflection to be progressive and goal-oriented

In tandem with creating a reflective dialogue, we feel that our students’ reflections should not be seen as ‘one offs’, but part of a larger, holistic experience in which they can make connections between different class content. As the student is improving their language skills, which can be seen as a progression of knowledge and competence, they should be aware of how and why such progress occurs (or possibly does not). Having particular goals or knowledge of what linguistic skills need to be improved enables reflections to be specifically targeted. This makes the process easier as there are so many aspects of learning that a student needs to consider; for example, affective matters and strategies, for which reflection can be ‘a unique and useful mediational tool to deal with their thoughts and emotions related to language learning’ (Huang, 2021: 54).

Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started  57

Other Considerations

As reflection activities would be a compulsory activity integrated into the curriculum, we also wanted to gain an idea of how much time it would take for teachers to conduct the activities and to respond to student reflections. One consideration was the possible future reaction of the teachers who might have to begin implementing reflection activities. We were concerned about the increased workload that the activities might create for an already busy teacher, which would obviously lessen their appeal. One other concern a project member raised was that she felt she lacked the knowledge and experience to engage in an effective reflective dialogue with students. See Chapter 21 (Yoshida) in this volume to read more about her development. To help with these concerns, the LAs, who routinely use reflective dialogue in their courses and daily practice, were available to help design the activities, work with their assigned ELI teacher to implement the activities and engage with the students in reflective dialogue.  Descriptions of the Classes and Class Activities

In this section, each teacher involved in the first stage (authors Phoebe, Ewen, Amanda and Heather) describes how the reflection activities were implemented in their classroom. Each round of reflection consisted of three basic activities. First, students answered written questions relating to how much they felt they had improved in various aspects of English, such as writing or speaking, and what their successes or struggles were. Next, students talked together in class about their answers to the questions and were prompted to discuss them in more depth. Finally, students wrote a summary of what they had talked about. Phoebe’s class

This class was a first-year class of 21 mixed-level students, in the department of International Communication. After the first unit of the course, I asked students to complete a questionnaire for homework that asked them to reflect on their language and learning skills. This was to help prepare them for the following in-class activity in which I placed students into small groups and asked them to discuss the answers to the prompts. Students began by discussing their ideas for section 1. At this stage, both my LA and I monitored the groups, commenting and asking follow-up questions to promote deeper thinking and discussion. After each of the four sections, we regrouped as a class, with the LA and I giving general feedback based on our observations. For homework, students completed a written reflection to summarise their thoughts. This procedure was repeated one more time in the first

58  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

semester and thrice in the second semester. While the students were required to complete the written reflection in the first four cycles, for the fifth one, we allowed students to choose whether to complete it or not. This was because we felt that some students were not putting much effort into writing these later reflections since we were getting similar responses time and again from some of them. Additionally, some students were not replying to our feedback and questions. Each reflection activity corresponded with the completion of a unit taught in the course. It should be noted, however, that in semester two, the process was modified slightly in that a Google Docs document was used rather than a Google Form (survey). This was to enable the students to access their ideas more easily during the discussion part of the class. (Appendix 5.1) Once submitted, the LA and I would each read through the students’ written reflections, making comments and posing questions. We would review several together, discussing what feedback would be most useful for each student, and then continue to work through the rest of them on our own. When students replied to our comments and questions, we would respond once more. When it came time for students to complete each new written reflection, they continued to respond on the original document so that both they and we could see the history of thoughts and actions. Ewen’s class

I incorporated reflection activities with a mid-tier first-year class of 18 students in the English Department. Like Phoebe and her LA, at the end of each course unit, students completed a Google Form questionnaire for homework in which they reflected on their use and development of different language and learning skills, their struggles and successes and their feelings related to these. This was followed up with in-class discussions in which students shared their reflections in small groups, and I encouraged them to respond to and support one another. Students then completed written reflections on their discussions during class time. This process was repeated twice each semester. I made a modification to the written reflections in the second semester. In addition to summarising their discussions, I asked students to look back at their previous written reflections to make comparisons for further reflection. For example, whether their feelings were similar or had changed, whether they had taken the actions for their learning that they had previously planned to do and in the case of students who had not, what they could do in order to take these actions.  My LA (Vola) and I would then read through students’ written reflections, discuss what feedback to give, write comments and ask questions to promote further reflection for students. While not compulsory,

Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started  59

students were encouraged to read and respond to our comments, which the majority did. We would then respond to them again. These written reflections, feedback from us, and students’ responses were all added to the same document across the year, so it was easy for both them and us to look back on their thoughts, actions and experiences.  Amanda’s classes

I taught one high-tier and one mid-tier Media English class. Toward the end of the first unit, I explained the purpose of the project and introduced the Google Form survey. Students were given one week to complete the surveys. After Unit 1 was completed, my LA visited the class for the first time and conducted the discussion activities. We used slides to introduce the questions and allowed time for students to discuss them freely in small groups. After each set of questions, we invited them to share their reflections with the class, and my LA provided verbal feedback in the form of powerful questions, encouragement and helpful resources. After this, we introduced a document and asked students to reflect on the day’s discussions as well as their Google Form responses, and we gave them one week to write a reflection summary. We promised to read each student’s reflection and write a written response. We repeated this basic reflection activity at the midpoint of the semester and twice more in the fall semester, at the midpoint and again at the end of the semester. After the students had submitted their reflection summaries, my LA and I skimmed them and discussed how to respond. He suggested some common features to watch out for, such as worries or self-doubt, and he gave suggestions for how to provide written feedback in the form of powerful questions, such as ‘Why do you think…?’ and ‘How will you…?’. Additionally, he suggested that I try to pick one or two points to focus on rather than try to address every sentence in their reflection so that I could save time. I wrote responses to each student and let my LA know when I had completed them, and then I notified the students that we were finished responding to each reflection so they could read them. In the fall semester, my LA and I made some small adaptations. For one, we altered some of the discussion questions to make them more relevant to the second-year classes, and we added example reflections. We also created a document that included all of the prediscussion questions, the in-class discussion question sets and the postdiscussion reflection summaries so that everything was in one place, as we felt that switching between Google Forms, slides and documents was cumbersome. Finally, I wanted to encourage students to read my written responses and perhaps respond to them, so I added a space for them to respond if they chose to do so.

60  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Heather’s classes

I did the reflection activities with two second-year classes of non-English majors, a total of about 30 students. The classes focused on reading and writing, so the reflection activities were a good way for students to synthesise what they had learned and to think of how they could use it in other contexts. We did the reflection activities twice each semester, for a total of four times over the year. Our LA joined us for the first reflection to explain the activities and answer any questions the students had. We allocated a large portion of time to do each of the three sections in class. However, as we repeated the activities later, we were able to streamline the process, and students were able to complete sections 1 and 3 on their own, so that we could focus on section 2, the discussion part, together. Section 1 consisted of a series of questions related to their learning that students thought about and wrote answers for. Then, in section 2, I reframed the questions and topics students thought about for section 1 in a way that elicited deeper thoughts about them. Rather than talking about all of the questions in the same groups, students moved through a series of three groups to talk about their difficulties, successes and future goals. Finally, in section 3, students had an opportunity to write anything they wanted about what they had talked about. Some students wrote a summary, some expanded on what they had discussed, and some wrote point-by-point answers for the questions they had discussed. Teacher and LA Impressions of the Activities

Here, we describe some of the group’s reflections on our experiences of the activities, paying particular attention to the kind of interactions initiated and the workload generated to make necessary changes for future activities. Vola’s insights

As stated above, in Ewen’s class, we asked the students to write a brief summary of their reflections after the in-class discussions, to which we gave feedback. Our feedback consisted of encouragement, praise (when appropriate) and especially questions to help them reflect deeper or to ask for accountability (e.g. if they wrote, ‘I will practise speaking more’, we would ask how, how often and with whom they will practise). When the students responded, we gave them feedback again, mainly to encourage them to do their planned actions. By doing so, we built a dialogue with each student throughout the year. As an LA, I believe that dialogue can effectively raise students’ awareness of their learning processes and, thus, helps them self-evaluate and make decisions about their learning. That is why we made sure to keep the dialogue in the same documents for each student. 

Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started  61

Despite the importance of dialogue, I have to mention that responding to students’ written reflections is time consuming. For this project, we had only one class of 18 students, which made it feasible for us to attend to each student individually. However, in the case of having more than one class, finding the time for writing feedback can be difficult with all the other responsibilities teachers and LAs already have. Therefore, I suggest promoting dialogue among peers, reflecting on learning processes twice a semester and reflecting on regular tasks students have completed (on a weekly basis, for instance). For their dialogue to be reflective, they should first know the importance of reflection. Then, they should know how to express themselves when reflecting and responding to others’ reflections. Thus, scaffolding involving why reflection is important, how to reflect, and what expressions to use from the teacher and an LA will be necessary before any reflection activity; and this is what we tried to do in the 2021–2022 academic year (please see Chapter 9). Ewen’s insights

My thoughts are essentially the same as Vola’s. We were able to build a dialogue between the students and us during the year but responding to their comments was time consuming and mentally taxing. For this reason, we usually did not complete our feedback in one session; rather, we would meet for 60–90 minutes twice a week to do this. It would not have been possible to do this for all of my classes. I agree with promoting reflective dialogue among the students – of course, some ‘training’ needs to be done to make this effective, as Vola mentioned. See Chapter 9 (Ambinintsoa & MacDonald) in this volume for details of the reflection workshops and the introduction of expressions to help students to reflect. Phoebe’s insights

Working with my LA was an invaluable learning experience. Initially, I felt very unsure of how to respond to my learners’ reflections. However, replying to the first set of reflections together with my LA gave me the confidence to continue on my own later. Furthermore, it was comforting that my LA was giving feedback as I knew his experience would allow him to probe into areas I might miss. Finally, his help alleviated some of the workload that came with introducing these activities. Replying to the students took much more time than I had anticipated. Also, as some of these reflections were coming in at the end of a semester, it was sometimes overwhelming knowing that I needed to respond to them on top of all the other required grading. My LA was very supportive and, at times, took the lead when I was feeling under pressure so that students

62  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

received responses in a timely manner. In the second semester, I decided to cut some of my usual classroom reflection activities. I felt this would help reduce redundancy, prevent ‘reflection overload’ and allow me to focus better on this task. Considering the time both the LA and I spent reading and responding to the reflections, it was disappointing to find that even with direct questions and encouragement for students to respond, very few did. I wonder if students might have been more likely to respond if they were using paper rather than a digital document. We made the fifth and last written reflection of the year optional as it did not seem like the best use of anyone’s time to force the activity onto those students who did not appear to be interested in having a dialogue. Students’ Perspectives on Reflection Activities

To better understand what students thought about reflecting on their learning and to complement our own insights, we administered a short questionnaire to Phoebe and Ewen’s classes towards the end of the second semester after the second reflection session. We administered the questionnaire with an online survey, using a fivepoint Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A total of 36 students completed the form, 18 students from Phoebe’s class and 18 from Ewen’s. We hoped that the questionnaire would help confirm some of our impressions of the reflective activities and give a good indication of the students’ attitudes and preferences. Collection of this data had not been part of our original thinking for the project, but after noting that our hopes for generating dialogues did not often come to fruition, we needed to know a little more about the students’ behaviours in regard to reflecting in order for us to make improvements. Regarding the questionnaire, including options for the students to give their reasons would have provided some valuable data; for instance, asking why students perhaps do not like to reflect and what they find difficult about reflecting would really help to improve activities. However, at this stage, late in the semester when they are busy with assignments, we did not want to overload them with yet more reflective tasks, so the questionnaire was limited to a Likert scale and only administered to two classes. It is clear from Table 5.1 that the majority of the students are reflective regarding important events in their lives, which is probably unsurprising, but slightly less so in regard to reflecting on their learning. Of course, the students have been engaging in reflection activities in class, which may contribute to their answers. Nonetheless it is clear that the majority of students found the activity useful, even if a small proportion did not engage in it very often. It is also good to see that reflection aids in problem-solving.

Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started  63

Table 5.1  Student thoughts on reflecting Item

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Reflecting on important events in my life is something I often do

6

24

3

3

0

Reflecting on my learning is something I often do

3

19

9

5

0

13

19

4

0

0

8

25

2

1

0

I think reflecting on my learning is a useful activity I am able to find solutions to my learning problems by reflecting on them

Table 5.2  Perceived difficulty and value of reflections Item

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Reflecting on my learning is something I find easy to do

2

9

12

13

0

Writing reflections is something I find easy to do

0

6

11

18

1

I value writing the reflection summary

5

12

13

6

0

The responses given in Table 5.2 are an indication of what future activities need to address. The majority of students disagree or are neutral about finding reflection easy, which is particularly true for written reflections. Although here we can only speculate as to the reasons, it further reinforces the notion that students need support to reflect and that written reflections may not be the most productive means. However, despite the difficulty, most of the students valued writing reflections. When observing classes, it appears that students are quite willing to communicate their thoughts about their learning, but the results presented in Table 5.3 hint that it may not be such a popular activity. This reinforces the idea that we will further need to investigate students’ attitudes towards reflecting, especially regarding group activities. Two likely reasons for students not following up on their plans were a lack of motivation and a lack of available time (Table 5.4). Dealing with motivation and learning how to manage time, both important aspects of self-directed learning, are worth introducing into a classroombased course. Often, curriculums based on the acquisition of language skills concentrate on linguistic aspects; the affective side of learning should not be ignored as it is essential to remember that for a lot of Table 5.3  Enjoyment in discussing reflections Item I enjoy discussing my learning experiences with classmates

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

4

13

11

5

3

64  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Table 5.4  Possible reasons for the lack of student follow ups Item

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don’t have the motivation to do more to improve my learning skills

1

12

7

13

3

I don’t have the time to do more on my own to improve my learning skills

1

10

9

13

3

students, language learning continues outside of class, often centring around a learner’s own requirements and interests. Conclusions

To conclude, we consider what we learned from our initial trial implementation. Despite some disappointment in not being able to generate effective reflective written dialogues with many of the students, we still learned some valuable information. The initial implementation was very useful in terms of the insights provided to us, which enabled us to gain a good idea of how the project should proceed. Many students value reflecting on their studies and are able to gain valuable insights into what their learning needs were and how to go about improving their skills. However, the activities we used in the format described above were not the best means to encourage reflection. Responding to students individually in order to create a reflective written dialogue is time consuming for educators and does not seem to generate much dialogue with students. Additionally, knowing how to respond in a way that prompts even further reflection and encourages the student to take action is not easy. It can take time and practice on the part of the educator to develop this skill to their own level of satisfaction. It was also clear that for the activities to be more effective, more instruction on how to reflect is needed. The purpose of reflection was explained, but students might be able to express their thinking if we could provide linguistic scaffolding, enabling them to realise the shape in which their thoughts should be expressed.  The implementation was also useful in that it encouraged deeper cooperation between the English teachers of the ELI and the LAs of the SALC. Teachers were able to gain a good understanding of the techniques LAs use to interact and talk with students to encourage their autonomy.  Another outcome was increased interest in the integration project from teachers, and the numbers involved grew, allowing us to expand the scope of the next part of the project. New participants brought new ideas, which enabled us to experiment with different approaches, such as visual tools and more emphasis on discussion, which will be described in subsequent chapters.

Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started  65

Appendix 5.1  Trial Classroom-Based Reflection and Discussion Activities used in the Initial Stages of the Project 1st Reflection Semester 2

Please read and answer the questions below. Remember, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer, just write your ideas. There are 4 sections. Section 1: Language and Learning Skills

(1) Think about this unit and mark (X) all of the language and learning skills you have used in class since the beginning of this semester. I used...

Yes!

reading writing communication critical thinking/thinking deeply speaking listening confidence time management collaboration (working together) technology motivation creativity vocabulary

(2) Write about how you used some of these skills in class. You do not have to explain everything, but choose your important ones.

(3) What are some other situations where you can use these skills? You can choose more than one. Situation other classes on campus daily life (part-time job, with friends or family and so forth) other

I can use these skills

66  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

(4) Write a specific example of when/where you can use these skills. Example: ‘On campus I can use my confidence and communication skills to speak positively at the learning communities!’

Section 2: Personal Development Skills

How much did you improve each skill? Put an ‘X’ in the relevant column. I improved my ______ skill.

no

a little

some 

a lot

reading writing speaking listening vocabulary collaboration* communication confidence creativity critical thinking motivation time management technology

Section 3: Your successes

(1) What are you most proud of doing in this unit?

(2) What did you learn about HOW you learn? In other words, what are some good ways for you to study? or, what is important for you to learn? For example: ‘I learn by talking about the problem with my friends’.

(3) What other comment or question do you have for your teacher or learning advisor?

Fostering Learner Development through Reflection: How the Project Started  67

Section 4: Your struggles

(1) Pick ONE thing that was hard for you in this unit. technology

reading

communication

time management

writing

collaboration

motivation

speaking

confidence

critical thinking

listening

vocabulary

creativity

(2) Why was it hard? Give a reason or example from class. 

(3) What will you do to overcome these struggles during the next unit?

(4) How will you measure your progress? (choose ONE and mark it with an ‘X’) Make a written record Make a record on an app Other (please explain)

References Arnott, C., Curry, N., Lyon, P. and Mynard, J. (2019) Measuring the effectiveness of time management training in EFL classes: Phase 1 of a mixed methods study. Relay Journal 2 (1), 86–101.  Curry, N. (2019) A new direction: Developing a curriculum for self-directed learning skills. Relay Journal 2 (1), 75–85.  Gao, X. (2013) Reflexive and reflective thinking: A crucial link between agency and autonomy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 7 (3), 226–237. Huang, L.S. (2021) Improving Learner Reflection for TESOL: Pedagogical Strategies to Support Reflective Learning. New York: Routledge. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019) On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal 103, 61–79. Mynard, J. and Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) Investigating the autonomy-supportive nature of a self-access environment: A self-determination theory approach. In J. Mynard, M. Tamala and W. Peeters (eds) Supporting Learners and Educators in Developing Language Learner Autonomy (pp. 77–117). Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard. The University of Edinburgh Careers Service’s Employability Consultancy (2022) Reflection toolkit. See https://www.ed.ac.uk/reflection (accessed May 2020).

6 Developing Instruments and Tools to Examine Reflection in Our Context Neil Curry, Phoebe Lyon, Amanda J. Yoshida, Heather Yoder, Ewen MacDonald and Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa

In this chapter, we provide an analysis of the student responses to the reflection activities introduced to students in first- and secondyear English language classes (see Chapter 5, this volume for details). Additionally, we describe the development of a rubric used for the analysis. We wanted the activities to enable reflection at a deeper level, moving beyond a pure description of activities to an understanding of one’s learning processes. Additionally, we felt that reflections should not be seen as ‘one-off’ activities based solely upon recent individual classroom experiences but allow the learner to make connections to other related learning experiences and wider goals. At this point, our research was exploratory in nature, with the purpose of making initial observations from which we would be able to refine the activities further and undertake additional research. Methods

Our focus of the investigation was, therefore, to examine whether the reflection activities: • Prompted depth of reflection so that students were able to show some understanding of their learning processes, and • enabled reflection to be progressive and goal oriented. In order to conduct our analysis, we determined to design our own criteria, suitable for our particular context. In the knowledge that further research into reflection is more than likely at our institution, we wanted an analytical tool which was focused on reflection specifically for 68

Developing Instruments and Tools to Examine Reflection in Our Context  69

Table 6.1  Participants Teacher

Number of students

Major

Approx. CEFR level

Year

Phoebe

21

International Communication

A2-B1

1st

Ewen

18

English

A2-B1

1st

Amanda A

21

English

B1

2nd

Amanda B

19

English

B1-C1

2nd

Heather A

15

Modern Languages

A1-A2

2nd

Heather B

14

Modern Languages

A1-A2

2nd

Total

108

language learning, and so another intention of this research was to pilot the tool and refine it accordingly. Participants

The study was undertaken with five classes, the details of which can be seen in Table 6.1. The majority of the 108 students were native Japanese speakers who were graduates of the Japanese secondary education system. First-year students tend to be aged 18–19, while second years are 19–20. All students completed a consent form to allow their reflections to be used for analysis, on the condition of anonymity. Data collection methods

The data used in this study were the students’ responses to the reflection activities described in Chapter 5. Table 6.2 lists when the activities were conducted, and when the data was collected. Each set of reflections was coded using the reflection criteria discussed in more detail below. Students’ responses were coded according to the depth of their reflections. Neil (the project coordinator) worked with each individual teacher on the analysis of their class’s reflections. To familiarise the teachers with the analysis tool, Neil and each individual teacher looked at several of the students’ responses together to help Table 6.2  Data collection 2020 Teacher/class

Reflection 1

Reflection 2

Reflection 3

Reflection 4

Phoebe

June

July

October

December

Ewen

June

July

November

December

Amanda A

June

July

November

January

Amanda B

June

July

November

January

Heather A

May

July

October

January

Heather B

May

July

October

January

70  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

them become confident in their assessments. After reading through what were sometimes lengthy written reflections, smaller excerpts that we felt captured the depth of the reflections were transferred to a new document. This reduced the amount of text, making it easier to see the most relevant text at a glance, especially for the next step when the reflections were divided up for analysis. Neil and each teacher coded a sample of the data as part of a norming process, and analysed the data in pairs, discussing each case until we reached an agreement. Once we were satisfied that everyone was able to code consistently, each teacher analysed the remainder of the data themselves. Once completed, Neil and each teacher then reviewed each other’s evaluations and made comments if we disagreed. By moderating together initially and then peer reviewing each other’s work, we hoped to avoid producing anomalous judgments once we continued individually (Hammond & Wellington, 2013). Reflection criteria and tools

To adequately analyse the reflections produced by the activities in the classes, we required a tool to assess their depth. The most relevant and useful tool for determining the depth of reflection up to this point has been the ‘levels of reflection’ created by Fleck and Fitzpatrick (2010: 217) in order to determine ‘technology support opportunities from which higher levels of reflection may follow’. It has five levels: R0 Description: Revisiting – basic description with no analysis. R1 Reflective Description: Revisiting with explanation. R2 Dialogic Reflection: Exploring relationships. R3 Transformative Reflection: Fundamental change. R4 Critical Reflection: Wider implications.

The levels of reflection were of particular interest to us as they are suitable for use in a situation where we might see the depth and volume of reflection increase over time and through experience, exactly the situation we seek to create through the use of ‘reflective dialogue’ (Kato & Mynard, 2016). Our courses and our advising (see Chapters 4, 17 and 18 in this volume) introduce reflection by means of this dialogue as we expect students to become much more conscious of how and why they are making decisions regarding their learning as the course progresses. It is typical to see a student move from a level approximating R0 to R2 over a semester; for example, moving from simply reporting on what they did to commenting on why various activities suit or do not suit their learning styles. 

Developing Instruments and Tools to Examine Reflection in Our Context  71

Table 6.3  Learning trajectory (adapted from Kato & Mynard, 2016: 14) Stage 1: Getting started

Stage 2: Going deeper

Stage 3: Becoming aware

Stage 4: Transformation

Mostly unaware of learning processes; not very aware of language learning needs; little use of metalanguage

Becoming more aware of learning processes and reasons for problems; clearer vision; can reflect deeply with support

Able to reflect on own learning processes; feel more confident about own learning; some support still necessary; more used to using metalanguage

Largely aware of learning processes; can find alternative strategies by themselves; more control over learning process; natural use of metalanguage

However, while the levels of reflection model is a very valuable tool, we felt that we needed something similar which would be a better match for our context. So we decided to develop our own rubric which could focus specifically on language learning. In order to create this, we also turned to Kato and Mynard’s (2016: 14) Learning Trajectory (Table 6.3); although it only contains four stages compared to the reflection level’s five, the criteria are somewhat similar in terms of using progressive levels of depth. The Learning Trajectory describes the metacognitive progression of a student, which we hope they will achieve through the benefit of engaging in a reflective dialogue with a learning advisor. Although the Learning Trajectory would work well for analysing student reflections, we wanted something which could more closely account for whatever actions a student might take as the result of their reflections; for example, if they suggest a solution to a difficulty they are facing, to what degree do they act on the solution? Additionally, we wanted to understand how much students might be thinking holistically and applying the skills they might be learning in the class to other aspects of their learning. We hoped that we might be able to see whether the students who completed the reflection activities were able to demonstrate some transformation in their thinking and analysis of their own learning practices and issues and we needed a tool to be able to show this in our context. By using two systems as models – combining the more generalised criteria of Fleck and Fitzpatrick (2010) with its focus on making connections, and Kato and Mynard’s (2016) specific focus on learning, we developed our own reflection levels, which were used to analyse the student reflections included in this chapter. The descriptors were based upon patterns of thought and behaviour that language students taking SALC courses can often be seen to progress through. Examples of authentic reflections were provided as samples to help researchers identify levels during analysis; it must be noted that we could not find a suitable example for level 5 at the time the rubric was used for this study.

72  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Table 6.4  Revised tool for identifying reflection levels with examples Level

Description

Examples

1

• Mostly only descriptive with no or only some basic reasoning • Little awareness of language learning needs • Little attempt at problem solving • Little or no use of metalanguage

‘This week, I learned vocabularies which I could use in daily life as much as possible. It was difficult to learn vocabularies which are useful in daily life. But, I could learn some vocabularies which are useful in daily life.’

• Can explain reasons, but not examined in detail (often single sentence, occasionally two)   • Can clearly identify problems, but lacks specificity or deeper thought • No solutions suggested

‘The material I used was a movie so that I spent more time to watch movies than talk to someone. I was worried because my goal was speaking but surprisingly watching movies was helpful for my speaking. By watching the same movie many times, I got used to English. Then I easily tried to imitate the pronunciation or use the words I learned in the movie.’

3

• Can identify problems with some specificity, and suggest courses of action, but may not attempt • Still needs support   • Metalanguage occurs • Considers viewpoints of others

‘I think that each activities I did match for my learning goal this week. The reason why I think it is that these activities make my speaking skill better and expand my vocabulary. Especially, I noticed that making example sentences is a good way to learn vocabulary because I can not only learn meaning but also how to use and when I can use. However, I cannot use 3 phrases in discussion. So, I will learn 5 phrases and try to use at least 3 phrases in discussion. If I can do it, I will raise the number of phrases next time.’

4

• Can identify course of action through internal dialogue • Can take action without support • Natural use of metalanguage • Can act on the transformation of previous beliefs/behaviours • Can make connections to other learning/classes/previous SALC courses

‘I like making a perfect study plan and goals, but I always ended up with giving up on that goals because I couldn’t keep my motivation till I make it. I realised that my goal setting and learning plan was not appropriate. Sometimes it was unrealistic, sometimes it was too vague. I’ve been writing individual learning journal and group learning journal every week this semester and that activity helped me to understand my progress and future tasks clearly. Every week, I achieved a small goal and it gave me a small success and a failure. This process maintained and enhanced my motivation for learning to the end of this semester. In week 4-5, I realised that my skills stopped improving. Therefore, I was losing my motivation. So I reviewed my learning journal and reconsidered my plan again. I found out that was because I spent too much time on passive learning. So, I gradually reduced the time of learning and used the time for using and reviewing. As a result, I could use my resources practically by sufficient active learning.’

5

• Can look beyond learning, reflecting on place in wider society   • Knows how knowledge and learning are applied to moral and ethical issues (learning outside the realm of language)

We have yet to find suitable examples!

2

‘I know I’m not good at part 7, but I made a lot of mistakes. I will keep studying, and I believe myself.’ ‘In this week I found I’m not good at time management. So next week I will pay attention that.’

‘I think conversation practice was good for improving my speaking skill. In addition, “bilingual baby” channel introduced useful phrase and so fun. The reason why I got sick was strong stress to speaking English. So enjoyable contents was very important.’

Developing Instruments and Tools to Examine Reflection in Our Context  73

Data analysis

We (the authors of this chapter) analysed the students’ reflections using the above rubric in order to: (1) Discover if it was possible to see any progress in terms of depth of reflection through successive activities in accordance with the scale, and (2) determine what issues could be observed in the reflections. A qualitative analysis was conducted by one LA (Neil) together with the teachers of the individual classes, around the end of October 2020 to examine the first set of two reflections from the first semester and then again in December and January for the second set from the second semester, using the adapted tool described above.  To determine the direction of the depth of the four reflections, we compared them sequentially. If the final number was greater than the former, then we could determine that the depth of reflection had increased or vice versa. ‘Deeper’ indicates greater depth, ‘More Shallow’ indicates that reflections became less detailed or more superficial and ‘Same’ indicates that the student finished the last reflection task with about the same level of depth as they completed the first. If students only completed one reflection (i.e. because of absence), they have not been included in the data. It must be noted that there were several instances of fluctuations; some students, for example, began with quite deep and detailed reflections for the first task, only for subsequent tasks to become more shallow, yet the final task was considered ‘deep’ again. This factor suggests that we are possibly errant in our assumption that reflections might deepen in a linear fashion, at least over the short term, and that future attempts at this kind of analysis will have to take this into account; reflections analysed over a longer time-span might provide better evidence. Results and Discussion  Depth of reflection

In terms of overall patterns, many of the students (almost 42%) increased their depth of reflection between the first and the final reflections, but the majority (just over 58%) did not, as can be seen in Table 6.5.  Our interpretations of the students’ reflections showed us that students do not necessarily develop their reflective abilities in a linear way. There are many factors which can affect the quality or depth of a reflection, for example, the student’s interest or engagement with the

74  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Table 6.5  Overall changes in depth of reflections Direction

Total

Deeper

45 (41.67%)

More Shallow

27 (25%)

Same

36 (33.33%)

Total

108 (100%)

subject they are reflecting about, their physical or emotional state at the time of reflecting or their linguistic abilities are just a few possibilities, and these reasons could also explain why some students’ reflections became more shallow. Perhaps more important is the value they attach to the process itself and how useful they determine it to be, which was later researched and described by Ambinintsoa and MacDonald (Chapter 9, this volume). We also cannot discount factors such as the extent to which some students already reflect on their learning, and also how the activities might act as ‘awareness raising’, encouraging the students to be reflective as they further develop their language skills and make new goals for their learning, meaning that the results of these activities may not be apparent for some time to come. Learners’ responses to teacher and LA feedback

Although it is probably too optimistic to expect improvement for every participant, it is necessary to explore further options for viable and effective reflection activities, as perhaps the questionnaire/writing/guided reflection format is not as effective as we had hoped. This thought is further reinforced when we look at the frequency of responses to teacher/ LA feedback (Table 6.6) and attempts to create a reflective dialogue. Only two of the classes, Phoebe’s (13 of 21 students) and Ewen’s (17 of 18 students), saw direct responses to the feedback. The larger number for Ewen’s class is likely because students were strongly encouraged to respond and felt that comments were a requirement, not an option, as was the case in Phoebe’s class. Table 6.6  Frequency of responses to teacher/LA feedback Phoebe’s class

Ewen’s class

Response frequency

Number of responses

Number of responses

1 time

8

5

2 times

1

6

3 times

1

1

4 times

0

3

5 times

1

2

Developing Instruments and Tools to Examine Reflection in Our Context  75

Attempting to engender a reflective dialogue between the teacher/LA and the students can be helpful in extending the reflective process, but because of the amount of time it can take for teachers to determine an appropriate response which will help the students to reflect further on the issue is a nondirect way, while also trying to extend the dialogue, the follow-up studies described later in this volume no longer use this approach. Reflection behaviours

The first author (Neil) conducted the second part of the analysis to examine what kinds of behaviours students were showing as part of their reflective process and at what frequency. At this point, we were not aiming to look at what issues (e.g. time management, motivation etc.) the students were raising but to see if the activities were having their intended effects on their thinking and behaviour, as described according to the levels of reflection presented in Table 6.4. Neil read each of the students’ reflections, specifically looking for evidence of reflection indicating the levels in Table 6.4. He soon discovered that there were, in fact, more patterns of behaviour/thinking that he would need to account for than the Reflection Levels criteria allowed, so as the themes emerged, he developed the codes described in the table below. This method also made it easier to analyse the students’ writing, as typically, several themes emerged in each reflection. Neil identified 317 codable units, and the frequency and details are shown in Table 6.7. Reflection activities are supposed to increase awareness of what learning issues a student faces, how they understand these issues and how they act accordingly. Clearly, we can see that G (Identifies problem, makes plan/suggests solution) shows that the activities allow students to address what they feel they need to do more of regarding their learning. Still, the frequency of E (vague plan) and low frequency of J (enacts plan) might well indicate that students need more support in order to work towards their solutions. This perhaps is to be expected, as many of the students had not received any instruction in self-directed learning and could not easily determine an effective learning strategy. However, some of the value of this kind of activity is that it can focus the student’s attention on an aspect of their learning which needs improvement and encourage them to seek support or advice. The frequency of deeper thinking (items H, I, K and L) is unfortunately relatively low. However, again, perhaps it is reasonable to expect this as students often have little experience with reflecting on their learning at this point. It is interesting to note the high frequency occurring in Amanda’s classes (19 in mid-tier and 26 in high tier overall): these are second-year classes, and so students are slightly older; it is likely that they are much more aware of their own learning processes due

76  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Table 6.7  Reflection behaviours codes and frequencies Code

Frequency

A. Identifies problem/issue, no solution – the student states what the issue is, but provides no suggestions on how they might deal with it

39 (12%)

B. Not identifying causes – there is no description of why the issue with their learning happens

13 (4%)

C. Unclear if plan enacted – the student does not give an indication of whether they tried out their solution in subsequent reflections

21 (7%)

D. Description only – the student simply writes about what they did, with no analysis

48 (15%)

E. Vague plan – the solution is not described in detail, and may have not been given much consideration as to its viability

29 (9%)

F. Responded to teacher – this is described in more detail earlier

30 (9%)

G. Identifies problem, makes plan/suggests solution – the solution may or may not be detailed, but some thought has been given as to what course of action to take

57 (18%)

H. Builds on previous reflection – the student refers back to an earlier reflection

5 (2%)

I. Metalanguage – the student is thinking deeply, considering such factors as their learning processes or their feelings

27 (9%)

J. Enacts plan – the student describes carrying out their solution presented in an earlier reflection

16 (5%)

K. Thinking of other points of view – the student mentions taking into consideration or acting on the advice of others

19 (6%)

L. Connecting to other classes/learning/contexts – the student makes connections to other learning contexts, including future situations

13 (4%)

Total

317 (100%)

to their experiences, and this can provide some justification in training students to become reflective when they begin their learning journeys with us. They had also done some reflection activities in the previous year. Case study

Owing to the amount of data and restrictions on space in this volume, instead of showing the progression of each participant, we will focus on one case study to illustrate an individual student from Amanda’s class A, reflecting at different levels. By our estimation, the student begins at level 3 (Table 6.4), subsequently becoming deeper with the next reflection, but then moving back to level 2 before reaching deeper insights for the last activity. The first reflection was determined to be level 3, as the student clearly identified a problem with her reading activities, before offering a solution. She also shows that she understands the reason for her problem, that of lack of interest in the resource. I have to read the texts I don’t really like, but I will have to read many kinds of texts including text I’m not really interested in. To improve this

Developing Instruments and Tools to Examine Reflection in Our Context  77

struggle, after reading texts I’m not interested in or I don’t have enough background information about it, I’m going to research the contents with Wikipedia and other news articles. By the information I got from something being involving in background, I can learn English not only phrases and words but also backgrounds information. I mean that I can memorize things better.

The student moves to level 4 for the next reflection, which makes use of metalanguage to describe her thinking processes regarding her problem and solution. In order to overcome my struggles, I think it is necessary to look back on my failure. I mean I have to think of why I didn’t want to do that and how to overcome it. I understand what is wrong with me and what to do for that. I will start working on what I need to do as soon as possible to avoid repeating the same thing next time. This might be thing everyone can do, but it is a big challenge for me. So I will start with a small plan and then a big plan, and achieve one by one during summer vacation. To evaluate that I improve my struggle, I will write a small goal on paper and do it every day. If I can achieve that, I will mark it each day, and if all of them are marked, it will prove that one of my struggles is improved.

The next reflections show a lower level of thinking; although she identified her problem (lack of vocabulary), her solution is vague and her thinking is obviously shallower. She does not examine why she was unable to use what she learned, and is not questioning why she is using the learning strategy of reading a lot if it is not leading to the required results. I feel negative about my vocabulary because when I come up with some ideas and want to share them with others, but I don’t have enough vocabulary to explain my thoughts, so I cannot explain that to others. In order to increase my vocabulary, I have been reading a lot of English texts in daily life, but I don’t really use what I learned in a conversation.

For the last reflection, though, she moves away again from just simple descriptions of activities to a deeper level, considering her own thought processes. I think I did my best in every class, and I learned a lot about myself, some of which are my weak points, strong points, and how to improve them for next time. Especially I knew the bad side of myself. Think about it, but I can’t overcome it perfectly. I understand that and will continue to live with them. Also, I always think I feel bad about myself because I failed a lot and regretted a lot about them. But this year made me much more mature. I gained enough mental strength to keep up with every little trouble.

78  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Limitations

One observation from using our reflective criteria was that we found it quite difficult at times to determine whether a reflection was at level 2 or 3, according to the reflection levels scale. The original criteria state that reflections showing that some kind of plan or idea to address a learning issue was being considered would qualify for level 3. Still, we found a wide variation in the depth of detail concerning such ideas, with some reflections containing only a very basic description with perhaps no consideration of whether or not the plan was actually practical. The following example illustrates this issue. In the first reflection, the student identified his problem of lacking confidence: For instance, coffee talks and the final project were needed a confidence, but I did not know how to be confident.

The student was able to draw upon the perspectives of others, which brought the reflection up to level 3: In the lesson, Scott who is our learning advisor said that experiences are very important to have a confidence and helping each other is also significant.

From this, he could identify a course of action to resolve his problem: From this comment, I realized that I have to experience a lot of things. For example, I can use Academic Support Area to practice conversations, and I can practice explaining my thoughts with teachers in English. Thus, I would like to practice conversations at ASA with the teachers to become confident.

However, at no point did the student attempt to examine the underlying reasons for his lack of confidence, which may prevent him from actually undertaking his strategy. This example is an illustration of a common issue we found among the reflections – that of being able to identify problems and solutions, but not trying to understand why they occur. Accordingly, we gave this a score of level 2, even though it contains elements of level 3. For this reason, we will have to redefine the existing levels, and most likely introduce a new level to account for this and make the criteria more robust. Conclusions and Recommendations

Analysing the reflections was worthwhile as it allowed us to deter­mine the areas in which students need more support in their reflections, for

Developing Instruments and Tools to Examine Reflection in Our Context  79

example, in making suitable plans or for determining the root causes of their learning issues. The reflection levels proved to be an adequate tool, but as described above, they were not without shortcomings. We will undoubtedly be engaging in further studies on reflection in the future, however, so the criteria will be amended based on the lessons learned during this project. While the activities were not wholly effective in developing progressively deeper thinking for most of the students, they were not entirely unsuccessful, and the study gave us a good idea of what direction the project should proceed in. It is clear that for many students reflecting is directly beneficial; it allows them to gain valuable insights into what their learning needs are and how to go about improving their skills. The activities in their current form may not be the best means to encourage reflection, however. Responding to students individually in order to create a reflective dialogue is time consuming for educators and does not seem to generate many replies from students. A benefit of reducing or eliminating the written reflections is a reduction in the teacher and LA’s workloads, especially when the response rate from students is quite low. Instead, monitoring while the students reflect together through discussion in class can provide ample opportunity for LAs and teachers to provide oral feedback in real-time, and also allows for more than one person to hear it. Owing to the fact that the majority of students in the project did not display progressively deeper thinking on their learning demonstrated that different approaches should be attempted. Whether it is possible to develop progressively deeper reflection without the reliance on individual reflective dialogues as in the SALC self-directed learning courses (see Chapters 17 and 18, this volume for details) is another point we have to consider. There often appear to be fluctuations in depth of thinking for many students, and there could be several reasons to account for this, as mentioned above. While we may not be able to expect progressive depth, we should still be encouraging students to make connections between reflections, and not treat them as a ‘one-off’. We should definitely encourage students to incorporate past reflections and think about what may have changed for them since, and what new perspectives might have resulted. Perhaps a more effective approach to reflection is to think of it as an awareness-raising activity. It gives learners an opportunity to consider how they approach their studies, determine their strengths and weaknesses, think about what they value and appreciate about their learning, and attempt to evaluate their progress. As this kind of thinking activity is introduced and repeated, it should hopefully become more habitual for our learners, helping them to become more autonomous throughout their time with us and after they graduate.

80  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

References Fleck, R. and Fitzpatrick, G. (2010) Reflecting on reflection: Framing a design landscape. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 216–223). New York: ACM. Hammond, M. and Wellington, J. (2013) Research Methods: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York: Routledge.

7 Encouraging Introspection on Speaking Performance in Class: Findings from Student Reflections Ross Sampson

This chapter describes one of the first projects at the university to trial the systematic integration of reflection into a required English course. The research study aimed to integrate the self-directed learning (SDL) skill of reflection into three low-level English (roughly CEFR A2) firstyear university classes to introduce students to the idea of autonomous learning. The three classes involved student participants who were taking a required English course but majoring in languages other than English (Chinese, Spanish and Korean). This study was led by me (the class English language teacher) and supported by two learning advisors (LAs) who were well versed in learner autonomy.  Background

The aim of this research was to find out how positively students evaluated their spoken abilities in English and determine the extent to which students could benefit from reflection on this. We (my consulting LAs and I) wanted students to be able to self-evaluate their speaking performance in class through reflective classroom activities and therefore learn the ability to judge their spoken English progress for themselves, thus developing autonomy through reflection. We were interested to discover if students reflecting on their speaking abilities influenced their comfort (i.e. feeling relaxed, at ease, not worried about mistakes, feeling safe) and competence (i.e. a feeling of having the abilities or tools to do a job), and whether they found it of value to themselves. The skill of reflection is important yet complex. Each individual may have a different way of thinking about how and why language is acquired; thus being able to reflect effectively is crucial to language 81

82  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

learning (Dörnyei​& Ryan, 2015). However, knowing how to reflect is not always easy. In language learning, the term reflection can be understood in a number of different ways. In this research study, I focus on one of Schön’s (1987) concepts of reflection, ‘reflectionon-action’. Reflection-on-action means looking back at what you have done to understand and improve upon it. In this study, I wanted students to continually reflect-on-action related to their spoken English. The student participants were encouraged to reflect on their thought processes about speaking English in class to understand how those thoughts could have led to the outcomes of their speaking performances. In this chapter, I share the two research cycles, the results and what can be learnt from this study. A brief description of the prestudy and the main study it informs follows. Prestudy (pilot) 

Participants in this study were 50 first-year students majoring in Chinese, Korean or Spanish who were also required to take English classes. They were in one of the three ‘Freshman English’ classes I taught. The classes met twice per week (each meeting was 90 minutes long) and had the main goal of improving students’ communicative confidence and competence in English. These three classes were chosen as they were first-year students, essentially all with the same English level. Also, the same content was delivered in each class, which provided a larger participant group than if only one class was used. The prestudy investigated the impact on students’ perceptions of their own speaking abilities and their opinions of the benefits of reflection. The purpose of the prestudy was to observe how students reacted to initial iterations of reflection activities, discover what worked and did not work in the implementation of the research, and identify what further interventions or actions might be necessary to improve the research process. The study focused on students assessing their own speaking performance, and more specifically, their performance in one speaking activity during class time. My consulting LAs and I designed a regular reflection task as a classroom activity for students, which we administered in the digital formats Google Docs and later Google Forms. We also used a final reflection task at the end of the semester as a classroom activity; however, we administered this in pen-and-paper form. We originally thought administering the task in a digital format would work most effectively for students to be able to reflect regularly while also having the ability to look back on previous reflections to reflect on how they may have changed. However, we later discovered the pen-andpaper format worked better as students could more easily look back on previous reflections and make comparisons. 

Encouraging Introspection on Speaking Performance in Class  83

Of the three classes, one class completed the regular reflection task once per week, another three times in a semester (approximately once a month) and one class only completed the final reflection task. This was to compare students’ responses and attitudes to the form administered at different times to discern an optimal time interval between reflections. The regular reflection task consisted of students indicating on a Likert scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements relating to their spoken usage of English and their own perceived confidence and competence for a chosen speaking activity in class. There was also a final question related to their opinion on the applicability of reflection on their major language of study. The statements were all translated into Japanese and displayed on classroom projector screens during each reflection time to ensure the student participants had no trouble understanding their meanings. After completing their individual written responses about their reflections on speaking, students also shared their opinions about their reflections with one other classmate in English for approximately five minutes. During this time, I monitored students and occasionally prompted them to produce deeper reflective responses.  Based on the observations of the pilot phase over one semester, we made several adjustments to the research, for example, the time intervals for reflection, the specific activities students were asked to reflect on, and the format of the reflections (i.e. Google vs paper-and-pen). We also revised the research questions to align more closely with the research aims. Methods

The purpose of the study was (1) to find out the extent to which students perceived their speaking performance positively, (2) to understand students’ views on reflection and its possible benefits and (3) to determine the depth of their reflections observed according to a scale developed by Fleck and Fitzpatrick (2010, see Chapter 3 for an overview of this model). Through a constructivist methodological lens and utilising both quantitative and qualitative data, we refined the study from the prestudy cycle. The research questions devised for the study were: Research question 1: How positively did students evaluate their speaking performance? Research question 2: How beneficial did participants view reflecting on their speaking performance? Research question 3: What can be observed about the depth of the students’ reflections?

84  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Participants and background

This study lasted two semesters and consisted of student participants with the same demographics as described in the prestudy. Here, 50 first-year students of low-level English ability (CEFR A2 level), non-English majors met twice weekly for 90 minutes and were in three separate classes. This time, for all three classes, I set the time interval of two weeks between reflections and, based on the prestudy observations, I had determined this to be the optimal time spacing between reflections. My consulting LAs and I decided to create a paper-based selfevaluation booklet for each student, which would be used for written reflections every two weeks, and students could easily look back on their previous reflective responses. Also, instead of students reflecting on just one speaking activity of their choice, we decided it would be easier for them to reflect on their speaking performance overall for each two-week period. 

Data collection and analysis (1) Regular reflection form 

Every two weeks, students responded to five prompts about their spoken English. They responded on a Likert scale between 1 and 6 to show the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each statement (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 6 = ‘strongly agree’).  Prompts from the regular reflection form: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

I only spoke English during class time. Communicating in English felt comfortable for me. I had enough chances to speak in English during class time. I think I could express what I wanted to say. I think my classmates understood my English.

After that, they wrote a reason for each numbered response. We allowed them to write their responses in English or Japanese (which we translated). After reflecting by themselves on paper, they orally shared and compared their reflections with a classmate for five minutes.  At the end of each semester, I calculated an average score for each student from their five self-evaluation entries. In addition, to present a complete picture, I incorporated the open-ended written reflections, which I coded with my consulting LAs. We determined whether students’ overall perceptions (drawing on both the Likert scale values and written statements) were positive, negative or mixed. We coded the open-ended responses as ‘1’ or ‘2’ for a negative self-evaluation, ‘4’ or ‘5’ for a positive self-evaluation and ‘3’ for a mixed self-evaluation. 

Encouraging Introspection on Speaking Performance in Class  85

(2) Final questionnaire

At the end of each semester, we administered one final reflection task to all participants. The aim of the final form was to determine the extent to which students found the regular reflection activities to be beneficial. This task also contained a Likert scale to indicate levels of agreement (1 = I strongly disagree, 2 = I disagree, 3 = I am not sure, 4 = I agree, 5 = I strongly agree) and a space for a short, elaborated response. As before, my consulting LA and I coded the open-ended written data and the Likert-scale responses together to determine whether the overall responses were positive, negative or mixed in order to answer research question 2. Prompts from the final questionnaire:  (1) When I evaluate my own speaking performance, I can reflect on what I am doing now, and that helps me to keep improving as a language learner. (2) By reflecting on my speaking performance and self-evaluating my abilities and progress, I have become more aware of my strengths and weaknesses when speaking English. (3) Taking time to reflect on my speaking performance in class has helped me to feel more comfortable about myself as a speaker of English. (4) I think it was a useful activity to evaluate my own speaking performance in class. (5) Doing the self-evaluation activity has helped me to understand myself better. (6) After thinking back on my speaking performance in class and evaluating how I feel about it, I now feel like it has helped me improve on my speaking skills. (7) After doing the self-evaluation activity several times, now I think it is important to reflect on my learning and I believe it is a good activity for me to do. (8) Doing the self-evaluation activity has helped me to become more confident about my speaking abilities. (9) In my opinion, evaluating my performance in our class speaking activities was helpful. (10) Are there any other activities in your life that you evaluate yourself like this one? Please give details.  (3) Evaluation of depth of reflection

In order to evaluate the depth of the students’ reflections from the reflection task, we used Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s (2010) levels of reflection framework (see Table 7.1). This framework aligned well with our project; the statements defining each reflective level were clear and easy to understand and identify within the data. 

86  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Table 7.1  Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s (2010) levels of reflection framework Rating code

Description

R0 Revisiting

Descriptive only; no explanation

R1 Revisiting with explanation

Reasons given but often superficially with analysis limited; no exploration of courses of action to be undertaken

R2 Exploring relationships

Relationships between experience and knowledge explored, events interpreted, questions raised, consideration of other points of view

R3 Fundamental change

Action; intent to reorganise and change, challenging assumptions, proposing change in behaviour and thought

R4 Wider implications

Wider social and ethical issues considered

In the framework, a student can be given a rating from R0 when their reflection is judged merely descriptive. This is something Sinclair (1999) terms ‘largely unaware’, while Kato and Mynard (2016) refer to this as ‘getting started’, meaning a student has not yet developed the ability to reflect deeply. On the other end of the scale is R4; this is a demonstration that they possess the ability to question and challenge themselves and make positive changes in their actions. This is ‘largely aware’ according to Sinclair (1999) and the ‘transformation’ phase, according to Kato and Mynard (2016). At this stage, a student shifts their way of thinking and becomes much more autonomous in their learning behaviour. My consulting LAs and I began by analysing the reflections from one of the three classes together to agree on what level of reflection each student demonstrated. It was a relatively straightforward process to be able to identify which level of reflection each student was demonstrating, as the majority of the participant responses did not show a high level of reflection. Once we understood how to identify each reflective level, we analysed the remaining two classes.  Results and Discussion Research question 1: How positively did students evaluate their speaking performance?

The students completing the reflection tasks described their abilities in spoken English and their feelings about English in a variety of ways. The findings (shown in Table 7.2) indicate that many students in this study self-evaluated their speaking performance in a ‘positive’ or ‘very positive’ way (32% in semester 1 and 48% of students in semester 2). Some example open-ended comments were: ‘I could speak English in front of classmates more than before’ and ‘Compared with my English before, I think I could express’. However, 14 students (28%) in semester 1 and nine (18%) in semester two perceived themselves and their spoken abilities in English negatively or very negatively. They provided comments such as ‘I couldn’t speak and describe my opinion well’ and ‘I don’t like English. It’s painful because I can’t speak well’. Finally, 38% of participants in

Encouraging Introspection on Speaking Performance in Class  87

Table 7.2  How positively did students evaluate their speaking performance? Semester 1 (Scale: 1-very negative, 2-negative, 3-mixed, 4-positive, 5-very positive) Scale

Number of students

% of students

1

0

0

2

14

28%

3

19

38%

4

13

26%

5

3

6%

Semester 2 Scale

Number of students

% of students

1

1

2%

2

8

16%

3

17

34%

4

19

38%

5

5

10%

semester 1 and 34% of students in semester 2 viewed themselves and their English both positively and negatively (mixed). Examples are: ‘I spoke English much more than last two weeks but I sometimes spoke Japanese’ and ‘I think my classmates understood my English but sometimes I don’t know English words’. In sum, the number of positive self-evaluations increased from semester 1 to semester 2 and the number of negative self-evaluations decreased. However, there may have been a myriad of other factors affecting how students felt and perceived their own spoken English at the time of each particular reflection. This may account for the mixed results on individual and overall levels. Research question 2: How beneficial did participants view reflecting on their speaking performance?

The findings indicate that students in this study generally found reflecting on their speaking performance beneficial, and it helped them understand themselves more in terms of their strengths and weaknesses, as these were often mentioned on the final questionnaires. Students could also identify areas of their spoken English they wanted to improve. As Table 7.3 shows, 56% of students in semester 1 and more than 60% of students in semester 2 felt reflecting on speaking was beneficial and provided supporting explanations, such as ‘By doing it (reflection form), I became have English study plan’ and ‘By doing this activity I could know myself deeply’. On the other hand, there were students who either did not see value in reflection activities such as this, or it seemed these activities made students feel negative about their spoken English. As Table 7.3 shows,

88  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

Table 7.3  Did students perceive that reflecting on learning was beneficial? Semester 1 (Scale: 1-very negative, 2-negative, 3-mixed 4-positive, 5-very positive) Scale

Number of students

%

1

0

0%

2

11

22%

3

11

22%

4

19

38%

5

9

18%

Number of students

%

Semester 2 Scale 1

3

6%

2

3

6%

3

14

28%

4

22

44%

5

8

16%

22% of participants in semester 1 and just over 12% of participants in semester 2 did not find reflecting on speaking beneficial, and provided supporting statements such as ‘I don’t feel more confident by selfevaluation activity’ and ‘I think this self-evaluation is not for me’. Also, some students had mixed opinions about whether these kinds of reflection activities had a positive effect on their spoken English performance (22% in semester 1 and 28% of students in semester 2), which may be due to their fluctuating feelings towards this kind of reflection coupled with their changing feelings towards their spoken English abilities. An example openended response is ‘I can reflect on what I am doing now, but I didn’t think that helps me to keep improving’ and ‘I think it is important to reflect on my learning but I can do it by myself. It doesn’t have to be in the class’. In sum, the reflection activities were perceived as beneficial for many students, and the percentage of positive perceptions grew from semester 1 to semester 2. However, it may be the case that if students do not fully understand the skill of reflection and its potential benefits, and have not been trained to understand how to reflect well, the activities may not be as effective for them as they could be. Research question 3: What can be observed about the depth of the students’ reflections?

The findings indicate that none of the students in this research study reflected at a deep and significant level (Table 7.4). The students’ reflections were regularly superficial and lacked depth. There were some outlying responses from one or two students who demonstrated reflection at a slightly deeper level. However, this kind of reflection was

Encouraging Introspection on Speaking Performance in Class  89

Table 7.4  Analysis of depth of reflections using Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s (2010) scale Number of students who reflected to each level Reflection activity*

R0

R1

R2

R3

R4

1

22 (47%)

25 (53%)

0

0

0

2

24 (48%)

26 (52%)

0

0

0

3

18 (37%)

31 (63%)

0

0

0

4

21 (42%)

29 (58%)

0

0

0

5

22 (48%)

24 (52%)

0

0

0

Final questionnaire

13 (26%)

35 (70%)

2 (4%)

0

0

*Some students were absent for some of the tasks so some data is missing.

not consistent for them. Students sometimes gave written responses which were not relevant to the reflective statement prompts in the booklet, and almost all students consistently gave R0 descriptive responses which lacked reasons conducive to reflective thought processes, for example, ‘I didn’t feel comfortable, sometimes I used Japanese’ and ‘I was shy and couldn’t tell my opinion’. There were consistent R1 level responses from students; however, the identification of reasons for weaknesses in spoken English, comfort level when using English or ability in English, did not lead to proposed changes from students, and thus R2 was never reached in the reflection forms. Examples of R1 reflections from the study are: ‘It is difficult to communicate in English because I do not have enough vocabulary’ and ‘I can’t make long sentences when I speak that is my bad point’. The following example coded as R2 is one of two from the final questionnaire: ‘I set my own goals and reflect on what I could or could not do’. Lastly, even when participants wrote their responses in Japanese, there was rarely any difference in the depth of their reflections. Limitations 

This study is limited due to its short duration of two semesters. This research was, in essence, an exploratory study which was constantly evolving. The researchers involved were trying to refine the scope and direction of the study, which meant that even though we learned a lot from the prestudy research cycle, the planning and administration of the study still requires much work in order to make it more robust and reliable.  Students reported that they enjoyed sharing their reflections with their classmates orally. Despite my own anecdotal evidence being positive, we could not effectively ascertain the depth of participants’ spoken reflections as we did not collect or analyse this data.  In the reflection booklet, after each reflective statement prompt, the word ‘reason’ was given (with some space to write the reason); this may be why students were only able to provide reasons for their descriptive responses. It may be the case that if we had provided additional space for written

90  Part 3: Insights from Initial Studies

responses or an additional prompt such as ‘action I will take’, students might have been able to further develop their reflections with additional scaffolding.  Conclusions and Recommendations 

In this study, we found that the majority of the participants perceived the reflection activities to be beneficial to themselves as learners, even if they were not able to reflect well or take action when they recognised weaknesses. However, after analysing their written responses according to Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s (2010) scale, we concluded that the depth and detail of reflections were not deep enough to be able to take more autonomous charge of themselves as language learners. As seen in the results, all the written reflections analysed were only judged to be of an ‘R0’ or ‘R1’ level. Therefore, for the learner’s reflections to be more beneficial for their ongoing learning, we propose explicit training for students to be able to understand how to reflect on their learning to a deeper and more effective level. Since this study was conducted, several other interventions at the university have included training for reflection (for example, see Chapter 9 of this volume). Reflection activities such as the ones in this study give students an opportunity to monitor their own language learning and assess their own progress regularly. Reflection activities can allow students to reflect on their satisfaction with their performance in class and understand their effort and participation in a bid to improve their learning habits for future success. These activities should be preceded and paired with ongoing training and assistance in order for students to be able to reflect on themselves and reach an R3 level. If students could reflect at an R3 level, then they would be able to challenge their thinking and change their behaviour positively, as they would be able to self-assess how to continually improve upon their learning methods by understanding the extent to which they are effective. If they could do this, then they would hopefully be able to apply these reflective abilities to any aspect of their life and become more autonomous in their learning endeavours. Having autonomous decision-making abilities would, in theory, equip students to be more competent in their future careers and lives after university. References Dörnyei, Z. and Ryan, S. (2015) The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. New York: Routledge. Fleck, R. and Fitzpatrick, G. (2010) Reflecting on reflection: Framing a design landscape. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 216–223). New York: ACM.  Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Sinclair, B. (1999) More than an act of faith? Evaluating learner autonomy. In C. Kennedy (ed.) Innovation and Best Practice in British ELT (pp. 96–107). London: Harlow Longman, in association with the British Council.

Part 4 Intervention Studies

8 Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use in the Classroom Ewen MacDonald

While learners of a second language are aware of the importance of speaking in the target language (TL) in order to make progress, it can often be a challenge for teachers to keep them ‘in the TL’. This chapter combines the use of a visual reflective tool, along with activities involving self-reflection and reflective dialogue with peers, to explore how first-year students majoring in English language at the university monitored and reflected on their English use in the classroom across a 15-week semester. It shows how, through the facilitation of reflection, students’ awareness of and responsibility for their classroom TL use can be raised. Background

The necessity of reflection for language learners to develop a greater awareness of their learning processes, and to be able to take responsibility for and evaluate their own learning, has been well established (see Chapter 3, this volume). Self-reflection is known to be effective and provides chances for deeper learning while engaging in reflective dialogue with others offers opportunities to discover different perspectives, restructure one’s beliefs and broaden one’s insights (see Chapter 4, this volume).  Whether through internal or external dialogue, reflective processes can be facilitated through the use of cognitive tools, defined as ‘any tool that supports learning and cognitive development’ (Kato & Mynard, 2016: 29). Examples include learning logs, journals, questionnaires, 93

94  Part 4: Intervention Studies

applications, graphs and other visual aids. Yamashita and Kato (2012: 167) note an advantage of visual cognitive tools for reflection is that ‘graphical representations of knowledge have been shown to be very powerful learning tools for all learners’. Facilitating Students’ use of the Target Language in the Classroom

A contentious issue in second language (L2) education is students’ use of their first language (L1) versus the use of the target language (TL) in the classroom. On one hand, students’ L1 can be considered a powerful cognitive resource that can help them manage complex cognitive tasks (Brooks & Donato, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). On the other hand, it can be argued that students’ TL output should be maximised as it provides affordances for incidental learning and linguistic development (Little et al., 2017; Mori, 2004), and that a classroom environment where students view the TL as a language for authentic, ‘real’ communication, not only for completing classroom tasks, should be established (Ford, 2009; Lowe, 2011). When students revert to their L1 in the classroom, it can result in disappointment for the teacher (Bassano, 2003). This is especially the case when the teacher believes students have the ability and language resources to perform the task or conversation in the TL. Simple reminders from the teacher to use the TL when students unnecessarily use their L1 may have a brief short-term effect but may be ineffective (Lowe, 2011; McLaughlin, 2014). To counter this issue, a variety of techniques have been proposed to keep students in the TL. In the case of L2 English learners, some of these include penalising students for non-English use, such as a public points-and-reward system that affects students’ participation scores (McLaughlin, 2014), while other suggested methods put the responsibility of staying in English on students themselves. These include delegating a peer monitor within groups (Lowe, 2011), having students decide how much English and L1 they will use for an activity before comparing it in the postactivity (Wiltshire & Helgesen, 2019), or having students voluntarily sign contracts to commit to using English during group work (Bassano, 2003). In addition to these techniques, to help maximise students’ target language use, teachers have a significant role to play in supporting the development of students’ communicative competence (Jones, 2021). This can incorporate teaching communication strategies including: (1) cognitive strategies (e.g. paraphrasing, circumlocution) for when students face limitations in language knowledge, (2) interaction strategies (e.g. checking comprehension) to prevent or repair breakdown in communication (Burns, 2019) and (3) conversation strategies (e.g. backchanneling to show listenership and understanding) for managing turn-taking and

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  95

the conversation in general (Jones, 2021). Careful scaffolding of activities can also help ensure students only need the TL to complete them.  Additionally, students should have opportunities to monitor and evaluate their speaking performance (Burns, 2019). This could involve assessing their own performance and reflecting on it, identifying areas of development and making plans to address desired areas of improvement. Common principles in the practice of teacher reflection (e.g. Burns, 2010; Farrell, 2018), such as collecting data and taking action through a reflective cycle of planning, observing, monitoring and reflecting in order to make an improvement, can hence be applied to learner reflection on their use of the TL. Purpose of the research

The main purpose of this study is to understand how student reflection on their target language use in the classroom can be facilitated through the use of a visual reflective tool. The tool encouraged students to monitor their classroom English use, self-reflection and reflective dialogue with peers. The author does not advocate a 100% English-only classroom as the L1 arguably has potential pedagogical value. However, due to the nature of the course students were taking (see Methods section), consideration was given to a method that would positively encourage students to use English in the classroom while giving them the responsibility to manage and reflect on this themselves. In addition, they could consider what actions to take, therefore fostering greater learner autonomy. Observations are made on whether the tool and reflection activities appeared to have a positive influence on students and whether they viewed them as useful. The research questions (RQs) were: RQ1: What influence, if any, did the reflection tool and activities have on students’ awareness of and attitude towards their English use in the classroom? RQ2: What were students’ perceptions of the usefulness of the reflection tool and activities? Methods

Participants in the study were 18 first-year students majoring in English in a required English language course called Freshman English. The focus of this course is on the development of interactive, spoken capacity in English, with core learning processes including the acquisition of communication strategies and the ability to engage in extended interactions. The use of English in the classroom is therefore highly encouraged by the teacher/researcher, which also reflects the wider ‘English-only’ institutional policy for English language classes.

96  Part 4: Intervention Studies

An additional course goal is for students to develop self-awareness as language learners. Hence, self-analysis of their own strengths and weaknesses and the development of their ability to critically reflect on their learning journey are considered key elements in achieving this outcome. Procedure and research instruments (1) Reflective visual tool

The reflective tool utilised an iPad application called Numbers. This was chosen as, at the time of the study, all students at the university used iPads in class and had the application preinstalled. At the beginning of each class, after being informed by the teacher of the planned activities and lesson goals, students added the date and their target English use percentage for the class to a spreadsheet in Numbers (see Figure 8.1). At the end of the class, students added the approximate percentage of English they actually used with the data automatically charted in a line graph (see Figure 8.2). The rationale was to encourage students to monitor and reflect on their English use over time using the spreadsheet and line graph as a readily accessible visual tool. (2) Self-analysis reflections

During the semester, as a way of reflecting on their English use and as a basis for reflective dialogue, students twice completed written reflections as homework (see Appendix 8.1). Question prompts encouraged students to (a) analyse what they noticed when looking at their graph, (b) reflect on their feelings about their English use,

Figure 8.1  Example of a spreadsheet with data in Numbers application

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  97

Figure 8.2  An example line graph of English target vs English used in Numbers application

(c) consider what influenced their English target and use and (d) decide on any steps they could take to increase their English use. (3) In-class discussions

In the classes following the self-analysis reflection tasks, students shared and discussed what they noticed from their reflections in small groups. Students were encouraged to actively listen, respond to and comment on each other’s reflections. Students did this twice in each class – new groups were made after the first discussion to enable students to speak with additional classmates and hear a variety of perspectives. (4) Postdiscussion reflections (PDRs)

Following each discussion, students wrote postdiscussion reflections (PDRs) in class, which aimed to help them (a) reflect on their feelings from the discussions, (b) identify whether they learned anything from their peers, (c) consider their satisfaction about their English use and (d) decide whether they had any goals for the future. Students were free to write anything they wanted, but example questions were provided, which students could choose to answer (see Appendix 8.2). This process was repeated twice in the semester so students could notice their progress (or lack of), identify any changes in their feelings, reflect on whether they had taken any steps they had previously planned to increase their English use and consider their future goals for the following semester. An overview of the timing of the activities is given in Table 8.1.

98  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Table 8.1  Timeline of the reflection activities Week(s)

Activity

2

Teacher introduced the reflection tool to students and explained the purpose and rationale for using it. 

2~15

Students added their English target % at the start of each class, and the English % they estimated they used at the end of each class.

7 + 14

As homework, students completed self-analysis reflection with questions that prompted them to analyse their graphs and reflect on their English use (Appendix 8.1).

8 + 15

Students shared their reflections in small groups and wrote postdiscussion reflections in class (Appendix 8.2).

15

Students completed an online survey about the reflection tool and activities.

To understand the influence the tool and activities had on participants’ awareness of and attitude towards their English use (RQ1), a grounded theory approach was used (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) in which categories emerge from the data as it is coded, and more than one category can emerge from a single student’s response. The author conducted this approach on the content of each student’s two PDRs. To ascertain participants’ perceptions of the reflection tool and activities (RQ2), students anonymously completed an online survey in a Google Form at the end of the research period, and a category analysis was performed for each aspect of the survey. Results and Discussion RQ1: What influence, if any, did the reflection tool and activities have on students’ awareness of and attitude towards their English use in the classroom?

From the analysis of the two PDRs, completed by 18 students and 14 students respectively, the following nine categories emerged: connecting with peers, taking action, new realisations, goal-setting, motivation, the influence of reflection, change of perspective, learning strategies and helping peers. Table 8.2 shows a summary of the categories and codes. Connecting with peers

Across both PDRs, there were 22 instances of students who were able to connect with their classmates by sharing their reflections. In 17 cases, students realised they shared similar feelings, opinions, experiences, successes and difficulties regarding their English use, which enabled them to empathise with one another on various points. Student 5: ...And I said ‘my goal depended on my feelings’ then we agreed, so I think we have the same thought.

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  99

Table 8.2  Summary from analysis of students’ postdiscussion reflections Category

Code

Frequency Total

PDR 1

PDR 2

17

9

8

5

3

2

10

6

4

Taking action outside class

9

1

8

Individual differences

4

2

2

Cause of not reaching target

2

2

0

Speaking without worrying about grammar

1

0

1

Setting one’s own target

1

1

0

Importance of circumlocution

1

0

1

Related to English target

7

3

4

Courage to speak English

2

0

2

Motivated by others to set higher goals

5

4

1

Sustaining motivation through discussion

1

1

0

Influence of reflection (6)

Influence of reflection

6

3

3

Change of perspective (3)

Change of perspective

3

3

0

Learning strategies (3)

Strategies to increase English use

3

2

1

Helping peers (2)

Desire to assist classmates

1

1

0

Advised classmates

1

0

1

Connecting with peers (22)

Sharing similar feelings

Taking action (19)

Taking action in class

New realisations (9)

Goal-setting (9)

Motivation (6)

Agreeing on steps to take

Student 15: Some people talked about using Japanese in the class. They don’t want to use Japanese actually, but when someone uses Japanese, they also tend to use Japanese. They think it’s a big distraction when they speak English. I agree with this opinion. Student 16: Everyone feels progress. In particular, being able to use more circumlocution instead of using Japanese. Also, we have the same experiences that we tried to explain something in English but we couldn’t convey well, we used Japanese eventually.

In five cases, students appeared to have discussed ways to increase their English use and agreed together on steps they would take, such as setting realistic and achievable goals, using the communication strategies practised in class and speaking in English outside the classroom. Student 18: Also we thought about how to avoid using Japanese. There were 2 tips. One is asking how to say something when I don’t know the

100  Part 4: Intervention Studies

words in English. For example, we can say ‘how to say XX in English?’ Second one is that we can say the words using other words such as the circumlocution activity. It also helps to avoid using Japanese. Taking action

There were 19 examples of students who expressed a desire to take action to increase or maintain their English use, ten inside the classroom and nine outside of class. In class, particularly in PDR 1, actions students planned to take were (a) continue using English even when others used Japanese, (b) not give up when struggling to express themselves and (c) use more communication strategies such as circumlocution or using English to ask the meaning of unknown words. Student 1: I thought I should ask the meanings of words I don’t know whenever because sometimes, I tend to just look them up in Japanese and it is the way that I can learn English words quickly but I feel like I should try to know the meanings in English first by asking teachers. By doing that, I can explain in English to someone later as well and it can be connected to my English skills.

Outside the classroom, students wanted to (a) expand their knowledge of conversational phrases or vocabulary, which they identified as necessary to increase their English use, and (b) create more opportunities in their daily life to use English with the belief that regular speaking practice is important. Most of these students wrote about their plans in PDR 2 prior to the semester vacation. Student 13: In addition, I think it is important to practice and get opportunities to speak English. So I want to use English as much as possible. For example, I can speak English at the SALC with the teacher and I can talk with classmates outside of class in English. New realisations

There were nine cases of students alluding to new realisations they made through the discussions. Three students noticed differences between individuals in how each person sets goals and keeps their motivation compared to themselves. Student 11: I realized that it was important to set your own English target, not comparing others… I thought it is efficient for me to decide English target by looking at the previous value, and if I couldn’t reach my target, I usually change my target a little bit lower or the same value. However, one of my classmates set his value higher than the last class. I felt that there are many ways to keep our motivation.

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  101

Two students stated they discovered the causes that resulted in them speaking Japanese or sometimes prevented them from achieving their English target. Student 4: I sometimes could achieve the target but sometimes I couldn’t. I found the cause of this by discussion. The topic is different depending on the class. There are topics that I am familiar and unfamiliar.

Among other new realisations, including the importance of circumlocution and in setting one’s own target without comparing with their classmates, one student realised the importance of speaking English without thinking too much about grammar after hearing her classmate’s advice. Student 3: I realized that it is important to just try to speak English without really thinking about grammar again after one of my group said that. I also think its good that speaking English while we are thinking about grammar surely, but if we always think about grammar and can’t speak it a lot, that isn’t related to speaking it smoothly. Goal-setting

There were nine instances of students, six of whom were in PDR 2, setting goals for themselves. One student, despite sometimes feeling pressure, wanted to maintain her 100% English use. In contrast, six students aimed to either (a) set a higher English target, (b) continue making an effort to reach their target despite not always achieving it or (c) have a purpose when deciding their target. Student 18: I’ve used the Numbers app without having particular goals so far. I want to change how to decide the target % and use the app with having purposes. For example, I want to set the target % considering how much I used English last time. And I usually set a target % 90%. I think I was conservative about setting them. I want to try to use English in class 100%.

Two students in PDR 2 indicated nervousness when speaking English, and one when her classmates spoke in Japanese to her, which both were determined to resolve in the following semester.  Student 3: ...So, I want to have the courage to speak English even if others speak Japanese in next semester. Motivation

Six students indicated their motivation was influenced by reflecting with their classmates with five of these comments in PDR 1. Five students aspired to increase their English target percentage when they

102  Part 4: Intervention Studies

discovered other classmates were setting higher targets than them or using a higher percentage of English. Additionally, one student could sustain her motivation by sharing her feelings with classmates. Student 2: Some people set higher goals such as using 100% English every class. I respected them. As they did, I should set a higher goal from now on. Student 5: set a high goal in her graph, and she said ‘the higher my goal, the better my motivation’, so I want to set higher. Influence of reflection

There were six examples in the PDRs where students directly indicated the tool and/or reflective activities had a positive influence on them. This included (a) gaining motivation through noticing their progress from the graph, (b) the opportunity for reflection, pushing them to make a greater effort to increase their English use and (c) for one student, the tool was an effective means to help her decide her English target in each class.  Student 2: Thanks to the last reflection activity, I have been able to make an effort not to use Japanese in class more than before and at the same time, my English target % and my English used % have gone up. Student 11: I thought it is efficient for me to decide English target by looking at the previous value, and if I couldn’t reach my target, I usually change my target a little bit lower or the same value. Change of perspective

In PDR 1, three students implied a change of perspective in relation to the English target they set for themselves after talking to their classmates. The first student decided he would no longer be concerned if he could not reach his English target after hearing his classmate’s opinion. Student 16: I thought I overestimated myself because I usually can’t reach the target. A person said that the target is challenging for me. I changed my mind after hearing that and I don’t care if I can reach it or not.

On the other hand, two students decided they would change how they set their target based on the method their classmates used. The first student felt she should set a target more appropriate for herself rather than a challenging target she could not always achieve. In contrast, the second student, as shown below, decided to set her target depending on how much English she used in the previous class.

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  103

Student 7: On my graph, I can’t see big step. But one classmate graph, I can see steady steps. I think it is because he can set an appropriate target but I set a challenging target for me. So I could not reach my English target. I thought that it is important not to set very high targets. So next time I want to set a target that is not very high but necessary to make an effort. Learning strategies

There were three examples of students who indicated learning ways to increase their English use through the discussions. For example, the student below found out her classmates used gestures as a strategy when they could not express themselves in English. Student 8: Through this lesson, I felt that everyone was working hard to achieve their goals. When I don’t understand how to say in English, I immediately say it in Japanese, but everyone says they use gestures, and I wanted to learn from them. I don’t think it would make sense if I said it in Japanese even though I was learning English. Helping peers

One student, who indicated she already only used English in class, expressed a desire to help her classmates more and gave advice to them in the discussion. In PDR 2, she wrote about advising her classmate not to worry about grammar or making perfect sentences when speaking. Student 1: asked are there any ideas for not using Japanese when they speak English so I answered don’t worry about your grammar first because Japanese people try to make perfect sentences when they speak but if they keep doing that, that’s the cause of losing their confidence. I know it’s good to care about their grammar for classes but just for until they get confident and then they can start working on their grammar afterwards.

Overall, evidence from the analysis of the PDRs suggests the tool and reflective activities positively influence participants’ awareness of and attitude towards their English use. Through using the tool and selfreflecting, students appeared to become more aware of their progress, difficulties, feelings and possible steps they could take, which they could then share with their classmates, and in many cases, they realised that others had similar feelings or beliefs as them. The in-class discussions seemed to be particularly beneficial in increasing students’ motivation to use English, and in some cases, caused students to have new realisations, influenced their goal-setting and even reshaped a few students’ beliefs.

104  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Students also appeared motivated and positive about taking action to increase their English use. While many codes emerging from the analysis were similar in frequency across both PDRs, there were a few notable differences. In particular, in PDR 1, conducted mid-semester, several students’ motivation or their way of thinking, was influenced by their classmates, with comments suggesting sharing reflections had an influence on them and resulted in some change being made for the remainder of the semester. Additionally, in PDR 1, a higher number of students identified in-class actions to take to increase their English use, in contrast with PDR 2 where most comments on taking actions focused on outside the classroom prevacation. This could suggest that most students may have been satisfied with their in-class actions by the end of the semester. Several codes emerged only in PDR 1 and PDR 2 respectively. These differences demonstrate that repeating the process twice in the semester was optimal, as some students’ feelings and beliefs may have changed between the two reflections. RQ2: What were students’ perceptions of the usefulness of the reflection tool and activities?

Participants who attended class the day the postsurvey was administered (n = 17) responded to several statements on a five-item Likert scale from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’ followed by open-ended questions for them to explain their answers. Table 8.3 summarises the responses to each statement. Table 8.4 shows that among participants who found it useful to monitor their English use by adding their target and use percentages, common reasons were that it enabled them to notice their growth, with an increase in motivation or confidence often mentioned in the same response, and that it created an opportunity for reflection. Participant 16: I could compare now with the beginning of the semester and feel progress. That increased my confidence.

The only student who disagreed stated they were ‘not conscious’ of monitoring their percentages. When asked how often they checked the visual information in Numbers, Table 8.5 shows that over half of the students reported doing this regularly, either in every class or at least once a week. On the other hand, just under half reported checking once per month or twice in the semester. Although students were asked to add their target and English use percentages in each class, it was left up to them to check their data or graph without being reminded by the teacher. Therefore, it appeared that while some students checked regularly without instruction, others only

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  105

Table 8.3  Summary of participants’ responses in the postsurvey Number of students Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

**Mean

***SD

Q1: Monitoring my English use by adding my English target % and English use % for each class was useful. 

7

7

2

1

0

4.18

0.88

Q2: Reflecting on my English use by analysing the line graph and answering the questions was useful.

6

8

3

0

0

4.18

0.73

*Q3: Sharing and discussing my English use reflection with classmates was useful. 

3

9

3

1

0

3.88

0.81

Q4: The activities related to reflecting on English use have raised my awareness of my English use in the classroom. 

5

9

3

0

0

4.19

0.66

Postsurvey statement

*n = 16 (one student stated they were absent from the discussions without any other comment; hence their answer was removed). **1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree (rounded to 2 decimal places). ***Rounded to 2 decimal places.

Table 8.4  Summary of coded open-ended follow-up questions for participants who agreed with the following statement: ‘Monitoring my English use by adding my English target % and English use % for each class was useful’ Category

Code

Self-awareness (8)

Noticed progress

6

Realised problem(s)

2

Increased motivation

5

Increased confidence

1

Opportunity for reflection

4

Visual reflection

1

Enabled goal-setting

1

Emotions (6)

Aided reflection (5)

Goal-setting (1)

Frequency

Table 8.5  Participant responses to the following question: ‘How often did you check your English target vs English use during the semester?’ How often

No. of students

Every class

5

Weekly (once or twice)

5

Twice in the semester

4

Once a month

3

106  Part 4: Intervention Studies

checked when directed by the teacher to analyse their graphs for the selfreflection activity. Participant 6: When I entering the goal before the class, I always check my last score. Participant 5: I didn’t check it by myself. I did it only twice in the class.

As shown in Table 8.6, nearly half of the students indicated that completing the self-analysis reflections aided them in reflecting on their English use. Two stated that the graph was a useful visual tool for reflection. Participant 14: I think it was good to use a graph because by doing that, I could see the transition of my English target and my English use. Thanks to that, I could keep having the motivation. Table 8.6  Summary of coded open-ended follow-up questions for participants who agreed with the following statement: ‘Reflecting on my English use by analysing the line graph and answering the questions was useful’ Category

Code

Aided reflection (8)

Aided reflection

5

Visual reflection

2

Opportunity for reflection

1

Noticed progress

2

Self-awareness (4)

Frequency

Realised problem(s)

2

Learning strategies (2)

Discovered strategies to increase English use

2

Emotions (2)

Increased motivation

2

Goal-setting (2)

Enabled goal-setting

2

Connecting with peers (1)

Sharing reflections

1

Table 8.7 shows the in-class discussions helped several students find new strategies to achieve their English target or increase their English use, and increased some students’ motivation. As mentioned in the RQ1 analysis, some students were given additional motivation to increase their own English use when discovering that their classmates’ English use was higher than their own. Participant 4: By sharing it with classmates, I could find new strategies to achieve my English target. Participant 9: At first, classmates’s graph was higher than me. So, I felt nervous and I used English more and more.

The one student who felt the discussions were not useful believed sharing reflections was unnecessary as their own English use was unrelated to that of their classmates.

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  107

Table 8.7  Summary of coded open-ended follow-up questions for participants who agreed with the following statement: ‘Sharing and discussing my English use ­reflection with classmates was useful’ Category

Code

Learning strategies (5)

Discovered strategies to achieve target or increase English use

Frequency 5

Emotions (5)

Increased motivation to use English

3

Kept motivation

2

Connecting with peers (3)

Connecting with peers

3

Self-awareness (1) 

Noticed problem(s)

1

Participant 15: After each reflection, I learned that the English target or the English use are different in each person and they show their each characteristics, so I thought we didn’t have to talk about them and it is good to reflect in myself.

As seen in Table 8.8, for those who believed the reflective activities helped raise their awareness of their English use, nearly half of the students indicated an increase in their motivation to use English, particularly due to the discussions with their classmates. Participant 16: After sharing our reflection, we sympathized and encouraged each other. By doing this, I could relieved and obtained motivation. Table 8.8  Summary of coded open-ended follow-up questions for participants who agreed with the following statement: ‘The activities related to reflecting on English use have raised my awareness of my English use in the classroom’ Category

Code

Frequency

Emotions (8)

Increased motivation to use English after discussion

4

Motivated through reflection

2

Motivated by connecting with classmates

1

Enjoyed discussing with classmates

1

Aided reflection (3)

Aided reflection on English use

3

Connecting with classmates (2)

Connected with classmates

2

Learning strategies (1)

Discovered strategies to increase English use from discussion

1

Language ability (1)

Improved communication skill

1

Overall, responses from the postsurvey demonstrate that the majority of participants perceived the reflective tool and activities as useful for monitoring and reflecting on their English use, and in turn, gave them greater self-awareness of their progress and challenges, and enabled them to gain motivation and find strategies to increase their English use.

108  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Conclusions and Recommendations

The findings of this study provide evidence that the visual tool and related reflection activities successfully raised participants’ awareness of their classroom English use. In addition, the majority believed the tool and opportunities for reflection were useful, with students showing a positive attitude towards actively using English and taking action to increase their English use. The tool was also a simple and practical means for students to monitor their English use, facilitate self-reflection and went hand in hand with the group discussions, as it provided a basis for students to engage in reflective dialogue with their peers which is known to provide additional benefits (see Chapter 4 of this volume). Therefore, the author highly recommends utilising a reflection-based method that combines opportunities for self-reflection and discussion with peers, enhanced through the use of a reflective tool, to promote students’ active use of English in the classroom. Limitations

This study is limited as the duration was a single 15-week semester with a small number of participants. Additionally, students’ ability to engage in self- and peer-reflection as part of this study was likely positively enhanced by other concurrent reflection-based activities they undertook, both on the same course and in other classes. Suggestions for educators for promoting target language use

For educators who wish to promote learners’ active use of the TL through classroom reflection, the following suggestions are made based on the findings of this study:  • Regular encouragement and opportunities for all learners to reflect are essential. While some participants in this study took the initiative to reflect regularly, others appeared to do so less often or only when prompted by the teacher.  • Learners can do further self-reflection on TL use at the end of a class. For example, students can share what they could do, or could not do, in the TL successfully.  • Learners’ use of the TL should be directly connected with the curriculum and class content. For example, students could preplan expressions they may need for an activity which they can then reflect on later. Practical advice for using the visual reflective tool

The reflective tool for this study could be adapted with pen-andpaper if students do not have regular access to an electronic device in the

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  109

classroom, for example, by keeping the data in a notebook and adding new points to a printed or hand-drawn line graph. If students can utilise a spreadsheet application, preparation work is necessary for the teacher and students to familiarise themselves with it. Based on the author’s experience, if the tool for this study is replicated, it is important to pay attention to the following points: • It is advisable that the teacher first learns how to use the chosen application to be able to assist students as the process of creating a line graph differs between spreadsheet applications (e.g. Numbers, Google Sheets, Microsoft Excel). • It may be beneficial to give students a pre-existing spreadsheet template and graph which they can then edit and update. • Depending on the application, the ‘data range’ for the line graph (rows and columns in the spreadsheet containing the data) may need to be regularly updated to include the most recent data. • Ensure that the scale of the Y-axis of the graph (percentage of TL) is consistent, such as in increments of 5% or 10%.  • Consider what the minimum value of the Y-axis is set to. For example, if a student’s target and use percentages are always above 50%, then this could be the minimum value, rather than 0%.

110  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Appendix 8.1  Example question prompts for self-reflection

• What do you notice about your English use from the graph? • Have you usually been able to reach your English target %? Why not? • What influences you when you set your English target in each class? (i.e. How do you decide?) • What influences your English use in each class? (i.e. What affects your %?) • On a scale of 1 – 4 (1 = completely unsatisfied, 2 = unsatisfied, 3 = satisfied, 4 = completely satisfied), how satisfied are you with your English use %? Why? • Are there any steps you can take to increase your English use %? Appendix 8.2  Example question prompts for the postdiscussion reflection

• How did you feel about the discussion? Did you learn anything from your classmates? Did they have any similar feelings or different feelings?  • Has your way of thinking changed in any way? • Are you satisfied with your English use? Do you want to change anything?  • Do you have any goals from now on? References Bassano, S. (2003) Helping ESL students remember to speak English during group work. TESOL Journal 12 (1), 35–36. Brooks, F.B. and Donato, R. (1994) Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77 (2), 262–274. Burns, A. (2010) Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: Routledge. Burns, A. (2019) Concepts for teaching speaking in the English language classroom. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network Journal 12 (1), 1–12. Farrell, T.S.C. (2018) Reflective Language Teaching: Practical Applications for TESOL Teachers (2nd edn). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Ford, K. (2009) Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese university EFL classroom. JALT Journal 31 (1), 63–80.  Jones, C. (2021) Conversation Strategies and Communicative Competence. Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard ePublishing Limited.  Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Little, D., Dam, L. and Legenhausen, L. (2017) Language Learner Autonomy: Theory, Practice and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lowe, R. (2011) Promoting L2 metalanguage in the ESL classroom. Bulletin of Ningen Bunka Kenkyu-jo (Human Culture Research Institute) 5, 60–68. McLaughlin, M. (2014) Effective ways to reduce L1 usage and raise L2 usage. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 2, 115–121. Mori, M. (2004) Staying-in-English rule revisited. System 32 (2), 225–236.

Tools and Techniques for Helping Language Learners Manage their Target Language Use  111

Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2000) Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4 (3), 251–274.  Wiltshier, J. and Helgesen, M. (2019) Tearing down the wall of silence: Constructing the English conversation class at a Japanese university. In P. Wadden and C.C. Hale (eds) Teaching English at Japanese Universities: A New Handbook (pp. 43–53). New York: Routledge. Yamashita, H. and Kato, S. (2012) The wheel of language learning: A tool to facilitate learner awareness, reflection and action. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 164–169). New York: Routledge.

9 A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa and Ewen MacDonald

In this chapter, we report on a study using what we refer to as ‘reflection intervention’ (RI), aiming to raise students’ awareness of the importance of reflection on their language learning and to give them support and guidance to reflect so that they can eventually take charge of their own learning and develop autonomy. We investigated the effectiveness of RI on students’ depth of reflection and their perceptions of RI during the 2021 academic year. Background

Our RI was adapted from an existing set of reflection activities used with first-year and second-year students at KUIS. In the 2020 academic year, we used the original reflection activities (see Chapter 5 in this volume for details), which consisted of end-of-unit reflection questionnaires, discussions with peers and written reflections on the discussions. We analysed our students’ reflections at that time using the reflection levels instrument then in development (see Chapter 6 in this volume for details), with findings indicating many students did not go beyond level 1 (mostly just descriptive). Therefore, we decided to improve the reflection activities for our first-year students the following year by adding workshops before each reflection questionnaire and making modifications to the questionnaires. We refer to the combination of workshops, reflection questionnaires (with modifications), in-class discussions and reflections on the discussions as RI. Reflection has been acknowledged as an essential tool in language learning for decades (see Chapter 3 for details about the benefits of reflection on learning). In brief, reflection develops metacognitive awareness and learner involvement in their learning (Cotterall, 2017; 112

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  113

Tassinari, 2015). It is, therefore, often viewed as an effective tool to foster learner autonomy. While reflection by oneself is crucial and may result in deep learning, it is not always easy to observe oneself critically, hence, the importance of reflecting with others (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Chapter 4, this volume). Sharing knowledge or experience with others can prompt further explanation (Fleck & Fitzpatrick, 2010) and, therefore, further reflection and better self-understanding (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). It also provides opportunities to discover different perspectives and, therefore, to challenge one’s beliefs (Kato & Mynard, 2016). That is why the in-class discussions were essential in our RI. Purpose of the research

The main purpose of our research was to understand how educators can help students reflect deeply on their learning experiences so that they become more autonomous and to make students aware of the benefits of reflecting. Prior to entering university, Japanese students tend to be accustomed to teacher-controlled learning in their secondary school English classes. They may have had little experience reflecting on or evaluating their own learning and hence may not be sufficiently prepared for the autonomous learning required at university (Sakata & Fukuda, 2018). RI is what we believed would be the adequate support we could give our students for developing their reflection skills and autonomy. We provided rationale and guidance about reflection from a learning advisor (LA) (the first author) and a teacher (the second author), opportunities for students to reflect on their learning individually in writing, to share their reflections with peers orally and to reflect on the benefits and challenges of reflection. Also, as students are the main stakeholders, it is important to have their views, feedback and values on the activities they are given. Our research was guided by the following research questions (RQs): Research question 1: To what extent did RI influence students’ depth of reflection?  Research question 2: What were students’ perceptions of RI?

From our research findings, we will give implications, including practical ways, for better promotion of reflection in the classroom in tertiary education.  Methods

Participants were 18 Japanese students majoring in English in their first year at the university, taking a course taught by the second author.

114  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Table 9.1  Overview of RI Semester 1 Week

Activity

Participants

Place

7

Workshop 1

LA and teacher Student participation

Class

7

End-of-unit reflection 1

Individual students

Home

8

In-class discussion 1

Students in small groups Facilitated by LA and teacher

Class

8

Reflection on discussion 1

Individual students

Class

15

Workshop 2

LA and teacher Student participation

Class

15

End-of-unit reflection 2

Individual students

Class or home

15

In-class discussion 2

Students in small groups Facilitated by LA and teacher

Class

15

Reflection on discussion 2

Individual students

Class

15

Postsurvey

Individual students

Home

7

Workshop 3

LA and teacher Student participation

Class

8

End-of-unit reflection 3

Individual students

Class or home

8

Reflection on discussion 3

Individual students

Class

14

Workshop 4

LA and teacher Student participation

Class

14

End-of-unit reflection 4

Individual students

Class or home

14

Reflection on discussion 4

Individual students

Class

15

Postsurvey

Individual students

Class

Semester 2

Across two 15-week semesters, we prepared and conducted RI together with the class, as shown in Table 9.1. The aims of each RI activity, as well as changes made to some activities during the year based on analyses of students’ reflections and postsurvey responses, are outlined below. Postsurveys about students’ perceptions and experiences of reflection

We gave students a five-point Likert scale postsurvey, with options to explain their answers after RI each semester to solicit their opinions on each RI component: what they found useful, enjoyable and difficult. Having their perceptions and opinions was an important step toward the improvement of RI in the second semester and in the future.

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  115

Reflection intervention (RI) (1)  The workshops

The first workshop we gave before the first end-of-unit reflection aimed to: • Help students see the relevance of reflection in life in general and for their learning.  • Introduce them to the importance of individual written reflection and spoken reflection with peers.  • Give them samples of written reflections to evaluate (so they could see differences in levels of reflection).  • Provide examples of expressions they could use while doing written reflection. The second workshop content, decided based on our initial analysis of students’ first written reflections, intended to: • Review what reflection is and its importance for language learning. • Have students look back at their plans to overcome their struggles (which they mentioned in the first end-of-unit reflection questionnaire) to check whether or not they were able to follow them. • Have them reflect on the usefulness of the activities they had planned and on how they measured that usefulness. • For those who could not follow their plans, have them reflect on what prevented them from doing so. In the third workshop, we shared some findings from our analysis of the semester 1 postsurvey responses with students, for example, the percentage of those who found each RI activity useful. We explained that as a result of taking the findings into account, we would give them options in terms of time to do the reflection, ways to reflect and topics for in-class discussions. Additionally, we had students complete a group activity in which they (1) measured the depth of fictitious reflection extracts using a simplified version of Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s reflection levels (2010) (see Table 9.3 in Section 3), and (2) brainstormed questions they would like to ask the fictitious students about their reflections. The aim was to help students see the differences in levels of reflection and that asking themselves questions is a way that can help them reflect more deeply. In the fourth workshop, we asked students to use the aforementioned reflection levels to (1) decide the level of their own reflection from their previous end-of-unit reflection, (2) think of a question they would like to ask themselves about it and (3) consider how they would answer the question now, before sharing in small groups. The aim of this activity was the same as that in the previous workshop. 

116  Part 4: Intervention Studies

(2) The end-of-unit reflections

In the first semester, after completing a course unit, we twice used the end-of-unit reflection questionnaire (in a Google Form) designed for all English department students with some adaptations. The aim was to help students reflect on (1) language skills and learning skills they had learned and their personal development of these, including how they used them in class and outside class, (2) their struggles related to these skills and how to overcome them, (3) their successes and (4) their feelings related to the struggles and successes. In other words, completing the questionnaire enabled students to self-evaluate their learning from both linguistic and affective aspects. We assigned this to students to do in their own time. For the second end-of-unit reflection questionnaire, we had students complete this during class time as we felt some may not have spent sufficient time reflecting at home the first time due to other assignments. Furthermore, to assist students in expressing themselves and to prompt more explanations and justifications, we included expressions given during the workshops in the questionnaire itself. We give an example of this change in Table 9.2, in which, after identifying their biggest struggle with the language and learning skills, students can use the expressions to explain why they believed they had this struggle and to provide an example of an action they can take to overcome it. Table 9.2  Examples of changes between the first and second end-of-unit ­questionnaires First end-of-unit questionnaire, example questions 1. Why do you think you struggle with ________? Give a reason or example from the unit activities/assignments/project. 2. What will you do to challenge yourself to overcome this struggle suring the next unit? Second end-of-unit questionnaire, example questions 1. Why do you think you struggle with ________? Give a reason or example from the unit activities or project. You can use some of the following example expressions: • I found it difficult to………….. when…………..because………….. . • At the beginning of the semester, I couldn’t ………….. and now, I feel that I cannot still ………….. because ………….. . • I really want to ………….. but I can’t/don’t ………….. because ………….. . • I feel that ………….. is very difficult for me because ………….. . 2. What can you do to challenge yourself to overcome this struggle(s)? How might this help you overcome your struggle(s)? You can use some of the following example expressions • One solution might be to ………….. . I think this would help me because ………….. . • Perhaps I could ………….. . I think this would help me because ………….. . • I think I should ………….. . I think this will help me because ………….. .

For the third and fourth end-of-unit reflections, based on feedback from the first postsurvey in which some students indicated a preference to reflect in their own time or using their own method (see Section 4.3), we made the following two changes: • Although we still gave students class time to complete the reflections, they could choose to do it in their own time before class.

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  117

• We gave students choices about the way they reflected and provided alternatives to completing the questionnaire, such as free writing, creating presentation slides or recording themselves speaking. (3) The in-class discussions

In the discussions, we asked students to talk about what they had written in their end-of-unit reflections in small groups and react to one another’s experiences. The aim was to give them opportunities to share their reflections and support one another.  In semester 1, we gave question prompts that matched what students were directed to reflect on: their development and use of language and learning skills, struggles and successes and their feelings towards these. However, in semester 2, based on postsurvey feedback that indicated a small number of students were uncomfortable speaking about particular topics (e.g. struggles and weaknesses), we suggested to students that they focus on discussing topics they felt comfortable sharing. We provided other possible topics (e.g. learning strategies, motivation, confidence) with example questions. We encouraged groups to choose two or three topics they wanted to talk about the most. (4) Reflections on discussions (RD1 and RD2)

The reflections on discussions (referred to as ‘discussion summaries’ in class) were intended to enable students to express their opinions and feelings about the in-class discussions, have them consider what they had learned about themselves or their classmates through the discussions and think about their learning goals. The ultimate goal was to raise their awareness of the importance of reflecting with peers. We asked them to write a brief summary of the discussion and gave examples of questions they could answer and language they could use (see Appendix 9.1). Data analysis

To answer RQ1, we analysed each student’s answers to the questions about their struggles and successes in the end-of-unit reflections using Fleck and Fitzpatrick’s (2010) five levels of reflection (see Table 9.3). We chose this level of measurement because its design was based on the literature on reflective practice and learning from experience. To have interrater reliability, we asked a colleague who had previously used the same level of measurement to rate random samples of students’ reflections. We then compared the levels of reflection that we each believed the samples represented and discussed a few subjects of disagreement with the colleague before coming to an agreement on all samples. To answer RQ2, we analysed each student’s postsurvey responses using a thematic analysis. This enables easier perceptions of similarities

118  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Table 9.3  Levels of reflection (Fleck & Fitzpatrick, 2010) Level of reflection

Description

R0 – Description or revisiting

Purely describing events without further elaboration or explanation.

R1 – Reflective description or revisiting with explanation

Describing events with justification or reasons for action or interpretation, but without exploration of alternate explanations or change of perspective.

R2 – Dialogic reflection or exploring relationships

Seeking relationships between ideas and experiences, involving cycles of interpreting and questioning and a change of perspective, reaching a different level of understanding and considering alternate explanations.

R3 – Transformative reflection or fundamental change

Revisiting an experience or knowledge with the intention of doing something different, asking fundamental questions, challenging personal assumptions, making changes in action or understanding.

R4 – Critical reflection or wider implications

Considering a much wider picture, including moral, social and ethical issues. Very rare.

and differences across the data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We had meetings in which we read each student’s statements together and classified these into initial codes (e.g. a feeling of developing selfconfidence through the in-class discussions), which we then classified into bigger themes (e.g. a realisation of the importance of reflection through discussions). We discussed each code and theme until we reached an agreement. Results and Discussion Research question 1: To what extent did RI influence students’ depth of reflection?

The extent to which RI influenced students’ depth of reflection across the four end-of-unit reflections is shown in Figure 9.1, while a comparison of individual students can be seen in Table 9.4. We will refer to these in the sections that follow. (1) First end-of-unit reflection

For the first end-of-unit reflection, as it was the first time students completed the questionnaire, it is understandable that half did not go beyond R0. As Little et al. (2017) state, most learners find it difficult to evaluate themselves at the early stages as they are not accustomed to expressing what they think of their own learning. (2) Second end-of-unit reflection

For the second end-of-unit reflection, the increased depth of reflection by seven students may have been due to using the expressions given in the workshops, which were included in the second questionnaire (see Table 9.2). The goal of including the expressions in this

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  119

Figure 9.1  Number of students at each level of reflection

Table 9.4  Comparison of depth of reflections S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 1st reflection

R0 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R0 R2 R0 R0

R0

R1

R1

R1

R0

R0

R0

R0

2nd reflection R1 R0 R2 R1 R0 R2 R1 R1 R0 R0

R1

R1

R1

R1

R1

R1

R0

R0

3rd reflection R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R2 R2 R1 R1

R2

R2

R1

R2

R1

R1

R2

R0

4th reflection R2 R0 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1

R2

R2

R1

R1

R0

R1

R1

R2

questionnaire seemed to be achieved for these students, as it resulted in deeper thinking about reasons or justifications for the struggles and successes and about what actions could be taken, as exemplified in the excerpts given by one student in Table 9.5. However, using Table 9.5  Example excerpts from one student (S3) showing an increased depth of reflection in the second questionnaire (bolded words were included in the expressions given in the survey) Questions in the reflection questionnaire

First end-ofunit reflection questionnaire

Second end-of-unit reflection questionnaire

Why do you think you struggle with ________?

I’m not confident in myself yet.

I found it difficult to have a confidence in myself when speaking in English such as in conversation with my classmates or in some presentation because it’s far from my ideal. My ideal is speaking in English smoothly, but I don’t think it’s done yet.

What will you do to challenge yourself to overcome this struggle(s)?

I’ll try not to hesitate to make mistakes.

I think I should increase more opportunities to use English in the out of classes, so I want to try to make an appointment to talk with native speakers on online.

How will you measure your progress?

By getting comments from classmates on Flipgrid.

I think I should record how many times I could make an appointment to talk with native speakers.

120  Part 4: Intervention Studies

the expressions did not necessarily result in deeper reflections for all students. For example, although three students wrote longer reflections, these did not go beyond pure descriptions. This indicates that difficulty in reflecting may be due to reasons other than a lack of vocabulary, discussed later in this chapter. (3) Third end-of-unit reflection

In the third end-of-unit reflection, a greater number of students showed an increased depth of reflection. As students could choose between the questionnaire and other alternatives, two chose to use presentation slides, two used free writing and the rest used the questionnaire. One student who used slides was among those whose reflections deepened as she was able to identify her struggles and their causes, and her successes and how she managed to achieve them. Additionally, she wrote a few questions she asked herself for further improvement, e.g. ‘How can I make my presentation look more interesting and professional?’, which in itself is a sign of taking charge of her own evaluation, and, thus, her own learning (Little et al., 2017). This might have been influenced by the fact that during the third workshop, students were encouraged to ask questions to the fictitious learners about their reflections and to ask questions to themselves when they wrote their own reflections. Likewise, the depth of reflection of the two students who used free writing also increased. Though neither used our example expressions, they could articulate their thoughts on their struggles and successes. Both answered the questions we gave but structured their writing in their own ways, with one even bolding what she wanted to emphasise: My biggest success is to speak English without scripts in the final presentation. I had used scripts while having presentations so far. And I was really afraid of making grammar mistakes so I didn’t have the confidence to speak English on the spot. But this time, I could do it not only without scripts but also I added some information on the spot. This is very important for learning English. Because if I don’t have confidence in speaking, I couldn’t make an appointment to talk with teachers and I would lose motivation. (S12)

Another student (S17) stated when asked in the postsurvey at the end of the semester which mode of reflection was the most helpful: ‘Free writing. Because I could arrange thinking or feeling while writing it’. The freedom to structure their own writing may, therefore, make it easier for students to organise their thoughts and to go deeper in their reflection. All other students (14) who used the questionnaire used the example expressions we gave, which may have contributed to the increase in the number of students who reflected more deeply. Another possible contributing factor was their experience in analysing the fictitious students’ reflections in the third workshop, as mentioned above. Also, as it was

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  121

their third time completing the questionnaire, along with other possible reflective activities in other classes, they were likely to have built stronger reflective skills. (4) Fourth end-of-unit reflection

In the fourth end-of-unit reflection, a general decrease in the depth of reflections was observed. The use of the example expressions and the experience of analysing their own reflections in the fourth workshop did not seem to make a positive difference. Only one student (S12) among the students demonstrating R2 chose to use free writing. Data from the semester 2 postsurvey indicated that a few students lost interest in answering the same end-of-unit reflection questions, which might explain the decrease in the levels of reflection. If possible, it would be more interesting to change questions depends on the unit and semester. (S12)

From these findings, we can conclude that RI helped students reflect more deeply. The comparison between the first and the third end-of-unit reflections clearly indicates most students were able to go beyond simply describing what they thought their successes and struggles were (see S12’s excerpt above about her biggest success). They were able to elaborate on those points and come up with possible solutions to overcome their struggles (see Table 9.5). Though the highest level did not go beyond R2, we believe being able to identify and explain successes and struggles and then finding one’s own solutions is already a significant step towards autonomy. The decrease in levels in the fourth end-of-unit reflections may not be due to students’ lack of ability to reflect deeper. Rather, it may be a result of a lack of interest in answering the same reflection questions for the fourth time. Students’ depth of reflection can, thus, be influenced by other external factors. That is why we believe it is highly important to ask them for their perceptions. Research question 2: What were students’ perceptions of the reflection intervention?

In this section, we discuss the findings from the two postsurveys about students’ perceptions of each component of RI and their opinions on their best reflection method. Eighteen students completed the survey in semester 1 and 17 in semester 2. (1) The workshops

As shown in Table 9.6, most students perceived the reflection workshops to be useful and helpful for completing their end-of-unit reflections. In semester 2, there was an increase in the number of students who selected ‘strongly agree’ for both statements. This suggests

122  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Table 9.6  Students’ perceptions of the reflection workshops Number of students Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I found the reflection workshops useful

Semester 1

1

13

3

1

0

Semester 2

5

8

3

1

0

The reflection workshops helped me with my unit reflections

Semester 1

1

11

5

1

0

Semester 2

3

11

3

0

0

that the workshop activities in which students measured the depth of reflections and brainstormed questions as a method to help themselves reflect more deeply may have been seen as particularly useful. Common responses were that the workshops provided an additional opportunity for reflection and self-evaluation and for students to share their thoughts and experiences with classmates. In some cases, this also led to an increase in motivation. It gave me an opportunity to think about my English skills and the process of learning. (S12, semester 1) Reflection workshops were good opportunities to do what I didn’t do often such as looking back on my past or formulating my thoughts. (S8, semester 2)

Around one third of students stated the workshops helped them learn reflection skills that assisted them with their written reflection activities and reflection in general, and according to one student, it gave them confidence due to their improvement. I was happy and confident that I was able to improve steadily after being taught how to do it. (S11, semester 2)

Among students who were neutral or did not find the workshops useful, reasons included being able to reflect on their own without the need for workshops or a preference to choose the time for reflection themselves. In contrast, one student believed reflection was important but felt there were too many workshops. I think reflection is important thing but 4 times a year is too many. Because my mind and English skills don’t often change so much. (S12, semester 2) (2) End-of-unit reflections

As seen in Table 9.7, most students agreed that completing the end-of-unit reflections was useful. This was primarily due to the opportunity for self-evaluation through looking back and noticing their

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  123

Table 9.7  Students’ perceptions of the end-of-unit reflections Number of students Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Completing the unit reflections was useful

Semester 1

4

12

2

0

0

Semester 2

5

11

0

1

0

I enjoyed completing the unit reflections

Semester 1

2

10

3

2

1

Semester 2

1

9

5

2

0

It was difficult to complete the unit reflections

Semester 1

0

9

5

2

2

Semester 2

0

7

4

6

0

Semester 2

7

8

2

0

0

I liked having the choice of ways to reflect when completing my unit reflections

struggles and successes. For some students, it was also a useful chance to find solutions or set future goals to improve their English. It was particularly useful that I could find my struggles and successes by actually writing out. (S6, semester 1)

Over half of the students indicated that they enjoyed the unit reflections. Some enjoyed the process of self-evaluation and noticing their own development, while around a third mentioned enjoyment in being able to share their reflections with classmates after writing them. What I thought, what I did, thinking about on weeks and I had to think what things I should do. And these things were fun! (S16, semester 1)

Among students who did not enjoy these, this was generally due to the difficulty of self-evaluation (see paragraph below) or in writing a reflection. A couple of students also indicated a lack of interest in the activity, while one had mixed feelings when reflecting on her struggles and successes. …it was a little hard for me to consider my actions and write about them a lot. (S6, semester 1) I was able to be positive about my success, but I had to face my weakness when I wrote my struggle. (S14, semester 1)

Half of the students indicated difficulty in completing the unit reflection in the first semester, while this number dropped slightly in the second semester. The main cause was the reflection process, such as thinking deeply to identify what was behind their struggles and successes or finding solutions for their struggles. It was difficult to think more deeper about my reflection. For example, why is this my struggle? Or why did I succeed in this? (S1, semester 2)

124  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Finally, 15 students indicated they liked having the choice of reflection method in semester 2. While most still used the Google Forms, they believed it was important for everyone to choose the method most suitable for them. Not everyone wanted to do it in Google Forms, so I think everyone was able to reflect in their own way because of the different types. (S1, semester 2) (3) In-class discussions

The majority of students, particularly in semester 2, found the in-class discussions useful and enjoyable (see Table 9.8). The discussions enabled students to relate to and sympathise with one another, share solutions to their struggles and discover new learning strategies. This was a source of motivation for several students. When I found someone who struggled with the same thing, we were able to share with each other what solutions we had. (S1, semester 2) Everyone was worried about various things and was known to be successful, which gave me courage and helped me maintain my motivation. (S11, semester 2)

Only one student (S3) did not enjoy the discussions in either semester, as she felt uncomfortable sharing her struggles with others. I have a personality not to want to show my weakness points to others, so I hated to talk about my struggles many times. (S3, semester 2)

Students generally felt it was easy to share with their peers, but there was an increase in semester 2 in the number of students who Table 9.8  Students’ perceptions of the in-class discussions Number of students Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Discussing my unit reflections with classmates was useful

Semester 1

5

9

2

1

1

Semester 2

7

9

0

1

0

I enjoyed discussing my unit reflections with classmates

Semester 1

3

12

1

2

0

Semester 2

5

11

0

1

0

It was difficult for me to discuss my unit reflections with classmates

Semester 1

0

2

7

8

1

Semester 2

2

3

5

6

1

Semester 2

8

5

4

0

0

I liked having the choice of discussion topics when discussing my unit reflections

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  125

found the discussions to be difficult. One student stated their answers were generally the same each time, while another felt it was sometimes difficult to give advice to others. ...there were times when I didn’t know how to give advice on struggle. (S11, semester 2)

While two students indicated their group struggled when choosing what topics to discuss, most believed it was beneficial to have choices for their discussion topics or felt more comfortable about the discussion because of this.  To be honest, there were some topics that were difficult to talk about, so it was good to be able to choose the topics ourselves. (S1, semester 2) (4) Reflections on discussions

As seen in Table 9.9, the majority of students believed the written reflections on discussions were useful, although there was a slight decrease in semester 2. Some students said writing this helped them reflect on the future actions they should take for their learning, while others mentioned they gained a deeper understanding of their own feelings and experiences. The summary means my next goal or improvement. So it was useful. (S15, semester 2)

The students who disagreed believed having discussions with classmates was sufficient without needing to write an additional reflection. I think talking is enough because we found useful things when we talked. (S12, semester 2) Table 9.9  Students’ perceptions of the reflections on discussions Number of students Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Writing the discussion summaries was useful

Semester 1

3

13

1

1

0

Semester 2

1

12

2

2

0

I enjoyed writing the discussion summaries

Semester 1

1

10

5

1

1

Semester 2

0

8

8

1

0

Writing the discussion summaries was difficult

Semester 1

1

5

6

4

2

Semester 2

0

5

3

9

0

126  Part 4: Intervention Studies

In semester 1, 11 students enjoyed writing the reflections on discussions, but this decreased to less than half in semester 2. Reasons for enjoyment included being able to reconfirm their improvements or struggles, gaining a deeper understanding of themselves, being able to compare each summary or simply enjoying writing. After writing it, I compared the summary with the last one. I could notice some difference between now and then. (S8, semester 1)

For those students who chose a neutral position or did not enjoy it, this was due to a lack of interest, a lack of enjoyment towards writing or difficulty in summarising. A change in feeling can be seen in Student 8’s quotation below. Just writing was an individual work so it was not enjoyable as well as boring. (S8, semester 2)

At the same time, some students felt that it was useful despite being uninteresting or difficult. I don’t think that it was a sense of enjoyment, but it was helpful in that practicing writing skills. (S3, semester 2)

Some students continued to find writing these reflections challenging throughout the year, although more students found them easier in semester 2 when compared with semester 1. Half of the students in semester 2 said they had no difficulty with the writing, with a few stating they had acquired summarising skills through regular practice. It was a good time to get a higher summarizing skills and also practice English writing skills. Actually, I think I could improve my English writing skills thanks to the method. (S3, semester 2) (5) Methods of reflection

In the semester 2 RI postsurvey, we asked students which reflection method(s) they found most helpful, with the frequency of methods referred to shown in Table 9.10. Ten students mentioned the end-of-unit reflection questionnaire, with comments indicating some students appreciated the scaffolding that the questionnaire provided for reflection through the question prompts and example expressions given. Google Forms. Because there were reference sentences and examples on how to write it. (S1, semester 2)

Six students referred to discussing their reflections with classmates, with reasons including being able to get advice from peers, realising

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  127

Table 9.10  Methods of reflection students found most helpful Reflection method

Frequency

End-of-unit reflection questionnaire (Google Form)

10

Discussion with classmates

6

Free writing

1

Written reflection while questioning oneself

1

that others shared similar feelings and simply being a more enjoyable reflection method. I liked talking with classmates. Because just writing is boring for some people and talking is more fun and free. We could discuss what we want to talk about after reflecting and I liked it. (S12, semester 2)

Finally, one student chose free writing while another appeared to be influenced by the semester 2 workshops in which asking oneself a question was emphasised as a technique to reflect more deeply. A method of writing reflection while asking yourself a question. It was easy to understand when I looked back because I could write it concretely. (S11, semester 2)

Overall, through our analysis of postsurvey responses, we can conclude that all students believe reflection on their learning is useful and essential. The majority of students found the workshops helped them with the completion of the end-of-unit reflections. Though not all students found the end-of-unit reflections and the reflections on discussions enjoyable, most seemed to understand the usefulness of such reflections. In particular, the majority appreciated the opportunity to reflect with their peers, which was often mentioned even when they were asked questions about other RI activities. That seems to confirm the usefulness and enjoyment of sharing ideas and experiences with others. While all students can see the value of reflection, some have preferences for the reflection methods, and some prefer to reflect on their own or at their own pace. Though most students still chose to use the Google Form questionnaire in semester 2, they appreciated the fact that they were offered different options. We can say that what students firstly gained from RI was an awareness of the importance of reflection on their learning. At the same time, they also became aware of how to reflect and, more importantly, what ways work best for them. The scaffolding in the workshops and the practice over time appeared to make it easier for students to reflect. That is indicated by the decrease in the number of students who disagreed that doing the written RI activities was difficult (see Table 9.7 and Table 9.9).

128  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Conclusions and Recommendations

As language learning educators, our first aim with RI was to help our students reflect on their learning so they could become more aware of their successes and struggles and eventually take charge of their learning. This study showed that RI, including the modifications introduced, was helpful in that students’ depth of reflection increased in general. Our second aim was to investigate students’ perceptions of reflection through their experiences of RI. The results demonstrated that the students knew the usefulness of reflection and generally appreciated the different RI components. Taking into account the students’ reflections on their learning and reflections on RI, we would like to note the following implications for educators who want to promote reflection in their classes. Firstly, giving students more options in terms of the following points may improve students’ quality of reflections. • Though students may find reflection useful, they may not find it enjoyable. Therefore, having them choose among different reflection formats may increase their motivation to reflect. If forced to reflect in a particular way, they may feel pressured and unable to really express themselves. • As two of our students expressed their reticence in talking about their struggles during the in-class discussions, it would be fair to allow students to focus on aspects of their learning they are comfortable discussing. We can provide them with examples of questions related to different aspects of learning (successes, struggles, learning strategies, motivation, confidence), and they can choose the topics they want to discuss.  • Two students indicated their preference in choosing when to reflect or having more time to reflect, hence the importance of giving them time options: in class or outside class in their own time. At the same time, the option of using class time may be necessary if students have many assignments and other responsibilities outside class. Asking them to do the reflection as a homework assignment can affect the quality of the reflections. Secondly, it is important to: • Help students understand the usefulness of reflecting on their learning (before asking them to do any reflection) by means of workshops involving their participation and having them share their prior experiences with reflection. That would enable them to connect their knowledge and experiences with the purposes of what they are going to do. This connection would make reflection meaningful to them.

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  129

• Give students examples of vocabulary to help them not only express themselves but also to scaffold deeper reflections. • Give students opportunities to share their reflections together. As demonstrated in this study, most students appreciated the in-class discussions, as these allowed them to share their ideas, feelings and experiences, which led to mutual support and reassurance. • Ask for their views and feedback on any reflection intervention or activities they are given to improve the promotion of reflection further.

130  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Appendix 9.1 Example of ‘reflection on discussion’ activity

Write a brief summary of today’s discussion. For example: How did you feel about the discussion? Did you learn anything from your classmates’ reflections or from sharing your own reflection? Did they have any similar or different feelings? Do you have any goals for next semester? You can use some of the following expressions: • • • • • • • • • •

Reflecting with my classmates was helpful/not helpful because… I think reflecting (with my classmates) was useful because… I was satisfied with… because… I was glad that… because … I realised that… because… I was disappointed with… because… What I learned from my classmates reflections was… What I learned from sharing my reflections was… What I liked/didn’t like with reflecting was… What I found difficult when reflecting was…

References Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2), 77–101. Cotterall, S. (2017) The pedagogy of learner autonomy: Lessons from the classroom. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 8 (2), 102–115. Fleck, R. and Fitzpatrick, G. (2010) Reflecting on reflection: Framing a design landscape. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 216–223). New York: ACM. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Lawrence, L. and Lowe, R.J. (2020) An introduction to duoethnography. In R.J. Lowe and L. Lawrence (eds) Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection and Classroom Application (pp. 1–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

A Reflection Intervention: Investigating Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions  131

Little, D., Dam, L. and Legenhausen, L. (2017) Language Learner Autonomy: Theory, Practice and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sakata, H. and Fukuda, S. (2018) Advising language learners in large classes to promote learner autonomy. In C. Ludwig and J. Mynard (eds) Autonomy in Language Learning: Advising in Action (pp. 57–81). Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard ePublishing Limited.  Tassinari, M.G. (2015) Assessing learner autonomy: A dynamic model. In C.J.M. Everhard and L. Murphy (eds) Assessment and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 64–88). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

10 Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills Amanda J. Yoshida

This chapter reports on the findings of an action research (AR) project involving group work and leadership skills at Kanda University of International Studies. The main goal of this AR project was to understand how a student-centred, organic approach to leadership skill training would allow learners to take responsibility for their leadership development. An overview of this project was published in Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice (Yoshida, 2021). In this chapter, I will delve deeper into the reflections of the learners and their noted self-improvement of their leadership skills.

Background

In educational environments, particularly language classrooms, when examining the inner workings of group dynamics and the development of leadership skills, it can be helpful for teachers to encourage self-­ development in the students’ second language. Teachers can help students to experience leadership first hand by assigning some of the following roles to students in class activities: facilitating tasks, encouraging participation of group members, recording information, time keeping, communicating with the teacher or other groups, summarising and reporting to the class (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003). However, to be clear, Dörnyei and Murphey suggest that these roles be assigned separately to avoid ‘role strain’ (2003: 123). The consideration of group dynamics and focusing on roles is common in language classrooms. According to Dörnyei and Murphey (2003: 119), ‘roles may not match the students’ natural tendencies to lead or follow quietly, but they do encourage more interpersonal management and adjusting to one another’. I believe that reflecting on such leadership skills can help students prepare for their future careers

132

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  133

as leadership and management skills are desired in business environments. According to Cottrell (2015), employers look for graduates who can demonstrate intellectual skills (finding solutions and using a creative approach), interpersonal skills (encouraging others to complete tasks effectively and efficiently), operational skills (using various resources and paying attention to detail) and intrapersonal skills (managing multiple tasks and working well under pressure). It would be useful to consider conscious ways to practice such skills in educational contexts. One way is to focus on how reflection can play a part in the self-development of leadership skills and group dynamics. In communicative language classes, Nunan and Lamb (1996) encourage various approaches to self-directed teaching, including group work as an ‘effective way to develop interactional skills in the target language’ (1996: 143). The authors point out that monitoring and evaluating the group dynamics is an important part of class management so that teachers can determine if the group atmosphere is ‘positive, negative, or neutral, whether members are actively involved in the group task, or whether they are simply going through the motions’ (Nunan & Lamb, 1996: 146). Scrivener (2012: 219) provides practical advice about class management and indicates that ‘groups often acquire leaders, whether appointed by [the teacher] or by group members’ and that ‘having a leader may help in areas such as structuring and planning what to do, role defining and role allocation, interaction managing, consensus building, decision making, summarizing, and so on’. Scrivener suggests that, as teachers consider ways to ensure that various students have the opportunity to be group leaders, one approach would be to rotate leaders on a schedule or to allocate roles for longer periods of time, which ‘allows students to become familiar with one way of working and to get better at it. The familiarity may be comforting and motivating to some learners’ (2012: 222). While it is true that teachers might determine which leadership skills to focus on, they can also choose to get students to notice and decide which skills to focus on through a process of reflection. One way to attempt a bottom-up approach to applying and practising leadership skills is through AR. Burns (2009) defines AR as an approach to research that involves teachers researching their own contexts, identifying an issue, making a slight change and examining data that allows them to consider whether the change improved the situation or not. AR can serve to inform the teacher about the progress students are making in specific areas. One recommended AR model is that of Kemmis and McTaggart (1986), which describes four phases of AR: planning, action, observation and reflection. The phases may be repeated, with small changes called iterations, over a period of time, and the teacher can determine if the iterations are effective.

134  Part 4: Intervention Studies

My discoveries from an initial AR project

Several years ago, I began doing AR regarding leadership skills in my classes and observed the students’ responses and development informally. In 2020, I collected survey data each time students acted in the role of group leader. This AR project enabled the challenges and strategies of group leadership to emerge organically from the students’ experiences rather than following the advice of ‘a textbook or an authoritative figure (me) slightly outside of their circle’ (Yoshida, 2021: 88). As their teacher, this form of leadership reflection provided me with a window into the group dynamics and leadership issues so that I could address emergent issues individually and in whole-class feedback.  Methods

This iteration of the AR cycle was conducted in the first semester of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020; therefore, all classes were conducted on a video-conferencing application called Zoom, an institution-wide mandate that meant all students were participating in classes from their own homes. The participants comprised 41 members across two English classes, a required course for second-year students. Both classes consisted of English majors, but they were tiered so that one group was called ‘high tier’ (CEFR B1 or 2 - C1), and one group was called ‘midtier’ (B2). As part of the university’s research guidelines, all students completed and signed a bilingual consent form via Google Forms. They were reassured that not consenting to inclusion in the data results would not affect their grades for the course. Any data used in the case studies will hide students’ identities. Current action research cycle

This AR project, in its fifth iteration (see Yoshida, 2021, for an explanation of past iterations), I applied the following actions to both groups of students: (1) I assigned students to groups for each thematic unit of the English language course, which lasted about three to five weeks. (2) In each lesson, I designated group leaders so that students took turns evenly. (3) At the end of each lesson, I requested the leaders to fill out a threequestion survey. (4) I responded to each student’s survey via email within a week. (5) I examined the survey responses and my emailed responses for emerging themes and identified three to five themes to put on a slide, which was incorporated into the following week’s lessons and framed

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  135

Figure 10.1  The current action research cycle

as ‘advice’ from past leaders and the teacher for the subsequent group leaders. (6) I repeated this set of actions each week for the 13-week semester. Figure 10.1 illustrates the AR cycle in its current iteration. Procedure

To examine the data both quantitatively and qualitatively, I posed the following research questions: (1) What aspects do learners focus on when reflecting on their own experiences as leaders in group work? (2) What kinds of improvements do learners notice in themselves as a leader over a semester? To investigate these questions, I drew on the following tools: (1) data from a three-question survey that leaders completed after classes each week, and (2) emerging themes from the survey data, which were used to create slides used in subsequent classes. The weekly Google Forms survey for group leaders consisted of a summary and two questions: (1) How did you feel during the group work/discussion time today? (Likert Scale: Not good ←→ Great)  (2) Please summarise your discussion/group activities in today’s class. (3) How might you improve your discussion/group work the next time you are the leader of your group?

136  Part 4: Intervention Studies

The classes were conducted twice a week with Google Classroom as the LMS and Google products (email, documents, slides, etc.) were used as tools for communication and assignments. At the beginning of the semester, I disseminated a schedule for groups and leader roles. I asked leaders to lead all group work discussions and tasks for their respective lessons for three to four lessons per semester. They would lead their groups during group work time and be expected to verbally summarise their groups’ answers during whole-class discussions. After importing each student’s survey response to the spreadsheet, I noted the sub-themes and added my response to the next columns. Finally, I copied and pasted my responses into individual emails for each leader. Additionally, I copied and pasted the extracted sub-themes to create a slide for the following week’s class for a short whole-class feedback session at the beginning of the lesson. Usually, I attempted to phrase the sub-themes in the form of a question to help students consider the issues that were emerging for the leaders. Data analysis

I reorganised the data according to the tiers (mid-tier and high tier) and separated them into three groups: student responses, teacher responses and whole-class themes. I coded the whole-class themes, and five overarching themes emerged: challenges, language gaps, strategies, leadership skills and growth/development. I opted to keep the second and third survey questions together but separated them into shorter lines of data by sentence or portions of the sentence. For example, a survey response would be separated into several lines of data, as shown in Table 10.1. I analysed each line of data qualitatively, and found 55 sub-themes, many of which are listed in Table 10.1. I categorised the sub-themes into the above-mentioned five overarching themes. An excerpt from the data in Figure 10.2 shows the data from one student in Week 6 followed by the sub-themes I used to create slides for wholeclass feedback for that week, a slide for whole-class discussion and the overarching themes I used later to categorise all the sub-themes. After coding all of the data myself, I prepared sample portions of all data sets. A colleague coded them using my master list of sub-themes and overarching themes to check for interrater reliability. Fortunately, 90% of the codes matched, and we agreed that the coding system was reliable. Additionally, I used both the overarching and sub-themes to quantitatively analyse the frequency and the relationships between certain variables using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Reviewing frequencies and relationships between variables shed light on RQ1, ‘What aspects do learners focus on when reflecting on their own experiences as leaders in group work?’ and shed light on RQ2, ‘What kinds of improvements do learners notice in themselves?’

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  137

Figure 10.2  Excerpt of data showing emerging sub-themes, slide for class and ­overarching themes

Results and Discussion

In this section, I will introduce three themes that provide some insights into the data that emerged and help to answer the research questions. Theme 1: A list of emergent leadership skills

The pie chart (Figure 10.3) shows that the most frequently occurring theme was challenges (43%), followed by growth and development (27%). The most frequent challenges were managing silence and managing time. An example of managing silence is when group members are silent for some time during a group discussion, and the leader is challenged with attempting to encourage interaction. An example of managing time is when groups are unable to complete a task or a set of discussion questions within the allotted time, and the leader is confronted with rushing through certain tasks or leaving them undone. In these cases, leaders may be expected to reflect on their group work and consider some strategies to use next time, but few strategies were reported. An example of a strategy is when a leader notices their previous challenge with time management and attempts to resolve the

138  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Figure 10.3  Occurrence of overarching themes

issue by using a timer. The growth and development theme emerged 98 times and included two sub-themes. One example of the highly reported ‘self-praise’ is when a leader noticed their own effectiveness as a leader or on their group’s success in completing a task. The other sub-theme, selfreflection, was demonstrated when leaders noticed their own developing leadership skills. I will examine several extracts from the data in themes 2 and 3 below. See Figure 10.3 for a pie chart that shows the percentage of occurrences for overarching themes. I calculated the frequency that sub-themes emerged in leaders’ survey responses for question #2 (Please summarise your discussion/ group activities in today’s class) and question #3 (How might you improve your discussion/group work the next time you are the leader of your group?). For the sake of brevity, I have included sub-themes that occurred five times or more in Table 10.1; however, see Appendix 10.1 for a list of sub-themes that occurred four times or less. The sub-themes were created as they emerged from the data and were separated into the overarching themes: challenges, language gaps, strategies, leadership skills and growth and development.  Theme 2: The trajectories of challenges and strategies are dynamic

Although I expected that the number of reported challenges would decrease and the reported strategies would increase, Figure 10.4

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  139

Table 10.1  Frequency of sub-themes that emerged five times or more Overarching Theme

Sub-theme

Challenges

Managing time

# of occurrences 30

Managing silence

20

Asking follow-up questions

19

Encouraging participation

12

Understanding instructions/task/content

10

Summarising for whole class

9

Listening and notetaking

9

Keeping the conversation going

7

Managing equal participation

7

Deepening conversation

6

Confirming instructions/pace with group

5

Language Gaps

Useful phrases

7

Strategies

Managing time

17

Making time for free talk

13

Leadership

Summarising for whole class

9

Using members’ names

6

Asking follow-up questions

7

Creating a positive atmosphere

6

Moving discussion along

5

Encouraging members to be more active

5

Keeping the conversation going Growth and Development

5

Praising oneself and/or group members

75

Self-reflection

23

demonstrates the trajectory of both challenges and strategies throughout the semester. Challenges

My expectation about the trajectory of reported challenges throughout the 13-week semester was that the numbers would decrease. I had predicted that students would experience many challenges initially, but they would gradually begin experimenting with strategies, and the reported number of challenges would decrease with time. However, the line graph in Figure 10.4 appears to be volatile in that challenges peaked in weeks 4 and 5 and then increased again in weeks 8 and 10. In week 13, the reported number of challenges was almost the same as in week 2. Following are some survey extracts from the weeks in question.

140  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Figure 10.4  Trajectory of overarching themes (challenges and strategies) over a 13-week period

Excerpt 1: Week 2

We could keep discussion going in English and I asked all of members in my group their opinions. But phrases I used in discussion was almost same and my vocabulary of reaction was so poor. I want to get more various phrases to keep conversations going and asking opinions. Moreover, I hope I can react to what someone said more. Excerpt 2: Week 4

In today’s activities, I think I could talk as a leader. In order to talk smoothly and a lot, I decided the order who gonna talk. I asked ­follow-up questions to make our group activities good and I tried everyone can talk equal. Honestly, I think I could do more. Sometime one member could not talk a lot when the everyone were talking. Excerpt 3: Week 4

I think my time management was terrible. And it’s hard for me to do both hear my teammates’ idea and take a note.  Excerpt 4: Week 5

When we discussed easy questions, we could keep talking. However, when we discussed a little difficult questions, we became silent. Also, in a question, there were some words we didn’t know, and understanding the question took a few minutes. So we didn’t have enough time to discuss the question. 

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  141

Excerpt 5: Week 8

The first time of today class, I thought our conversation was not good. Sometimes there were silent moments. But the latter, we could had a nice conversation. As I wrote before, one group member could not participate conversation sometimes I mean she could not speak a lot like other members. Also, while we were doing worksheets, some members did not make sure which question we are doing now. Because my explanation was not enough, some members did not make sure what we were doing now. Excerpt 6: Week 10

Although one of our members had wifi troubles, we could communicate with him with the chat. We could discuss the homework on the worksheet 4, and we could enjoy the free conversation when we finished the discussion early. However, I had a mistake of the time management, so we could not finish the discussion related to worksheet 5. Excerpt 7: Week 10

I couldn’t comment enough on each person’s idea. Because hesitated to ask why the person said that, I couldn’t think of what question or comment to ask.

Leaders experienced various strategies throughout the semester, ranging from silence, managing time, encouraging quieter members and asking follow-up questions. As students gained more experience with the leader role, they demonstrated a willingness to consider future actions and report on strategies that they had experimented with, as illustrated in the following section. Strategies

As implied in my prediction about the decrease in challenges, I had expected to see the number of reported strategies increase gradually throughout the semester. While there is a slight increase, the number of reported strategies never reaches higher than the lowest number of challenges (10). Additionally, the number of strategies peaks at weeks 6, 10 and 11. It is interesting to note that the weeks in question do not overlap for challenges and strategies. The following extracts will illustrate what was happening during those weeks in question. Excerpt 8: Week 6

Today’s discussion was great because I took a time to think at beginning of the discussion, so everyone has their own opinions and it finished on time. Sometimes some people speak at the same time. Therefore I want to call their name so that the conversation is smooth.

142  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Excerpt 9: Week 6

Everyone in our group could speak and had a nice discussion. I could ask follow-up questions like ‘why do you think so?’ more than last time, and when the conversation was broken off, I could start another topic. Excerpt 10: Week 10

In this time, I could use time well. When we have one minute left, I summarized the opinions given in the conversation. Excerpt 11: Week 10

I called on my group members today which is something that I don’t do very often because I think some people don’t like to be called on but I think that calling names makes the conversation go more smoothly so I want to continue doing it. Excerpt 12: Week 11

I make sure to call my member’s name and check the left time. In second discussion, my group were outed from the meeting for some reason on Zoom and we had only a few minutes to talk, however, we overcame the trouble and shared opinion in short time. This time, I use the function of chat besides communicating so that everyone in group can tell opinion and know others’ thoughts easily.

A variety of strategies emerged in relation to leaders’ past experiences in earlier weeks or from feedback they had received in the whole-class discussion at the start of classes. For example, using group members’ names to call on them seemed awkward for some leaders to do at first, but after experimenting with this strategy, leaders reported that it helped to make the conversation smoother, alleviating silent periods. Theme 3: The trajectories for leadership and growth/development are dynamic

Again, I had predicted that evidence of leadership skills and growth/ development would gradually increase as students experienced leading group activities. However, Figure 10.5 demonstrates that students did not necessarily notice or report on their own improvement. In the same way that I expected the number of reported strategies to increase steadily throughout the semester, I also expected leadership skills and growth and development indicators to increase steadily. However, the line graph (Figure 10.5) indicates that growth/development factors may be dynamic and that leadership factors are fairly steady. Leadership

In terms of leadership development, the numbers peaked in week 2 and then peaked again in weeks 5, 9 and 13. This line seems stable,

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  143

Figure 10.5  Trajectory of overarching themes (leadership and growth and ­development) over a 13-week period

except that in week 11, no reports indicated leadership development. The following excerpts will illustrate what was happening at those times. Excerpt 13: Week 9

I think it was better group work than before because we discussed a lot. Each member was able to speak their opinion and we could share it clearly. Sometimes there are the opposite opinion in the group but we talked about it politely and solved it. Excerpt 14: Week 9

Today I could manage the time and ask each person to say their opinions so it goes really smooth. In some difficult question or task, I thought it may be the good way to take time first to think about it and start discussion. Excerpt 15: Week 9

I think I could make everyone talk equally in the discussion. Especially, to make conversation smooth, I talked my opinions first and pointed each person. And also I tried to ask questions about what they say and the subjects. Excerpt 16: Week 11

Today, I raised my hand and decided to be CT leader because I want to improve myself. All my members cooperated with me and it was a great discussion time. I was also careful about the time management, so I could take enough time for discussion.

144  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Students noted leadership skills that they seemed to be internalising, either by getting more comfortable with the strategies or by stating what leaders should or should not do. For instance, in Excerpt 17, the leader mentioned the importance of balance and that leaders should avoid talking too much.  Growth and Development

As for growth and development, I expected the numbers to steadily increase as more strategies were employed and more leadership skills were internalised, but the trajectory shown in the line graph is more volatile than I expected. My expectation about the trajectory of reported challenges throughout the 13-week semester was that the numbers would decrease. I had predicted that students would experience many challenges in the beginning, but they would gradually begin experimenting with strategies, and the reported number of challenges would decrease with time. However, the line graph in Figure 10.4 appears to be volatile in that growth and development peaked in weeks 4 and 5, but then increased again in weeks 8 and 10. In week 13, the reported number of challenges was almost the same as in week 2. Following are some survey extracts from the weeks in question. Excerpt 18: Week 5

I think it is the most important to be positive while we are discussing. I really enjoyed discussing with my group members because they have interesting ideas and we also enjoyed free conversations when we had extra time but it was hard for me to take memos and summaries our opinions while continuing to talk. I should be more careful about that everyone in my group have a chance to speak. Excerpt 19: Week 8

I will write down the reflection of every discussion on my notebook even I’m not leader because it will make the tasks of both roles clear and it can be good opportunity to think what I can do to help the leader or other members. Excerpt 20: Week 13

In every discussion, I always try to think about balance. Of course leader has to push members to talk, but I don’t want to talk too much because discussion is not made by only leader, so I’ll care about that next time too.

Leadership skills and growth/development are two sub-themes that seem quite similar and often emerge in the same sentence. For example, in week 5, the leader reflects on the importance of exhibiting a positive

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  145

attitude and their enjoyment of discussing both class content and personal topics with their group members but then notes one of their challenges. They do not offer a possible strategy for this challenge. Still, they do offer a strategy for an unrelated challenge (encouraging equal participation), which is implied rather than reported on explicitly. In general, this is an example of a reflective response because the leader explains their latest discovery in leadership (positive attitude) and why/ how discussions are enjoyable for them. Returning to the research questions

In this section, I will revisit the research questions and attempt to answer them in light of the above findings. RQ #1 What aspects do learners focus on when reflecting on their own experiences as leaders in group work?

Throughout the semester, students focused on their weak points and their struggles. From mid-semester, leaders focused on possible strategies they were trying. During the semester, they focused on their developing leadership skills, and some even showed evidence of their growth and development. A number of students seemed more at ease in their leadership roles, as evidenced by their use of various strategies, reports on their developing leadership skills and reflections on their growth and development. Meanwhile, other students seemed to struggle with various challenges but attempted strategies they had picked up from their own experiences or whole-class discussions, and reported on their experiences, both positive and negative. Language gaps were reported least often. Other than requesting information about useful discussion phrases, language gaps did not seem to be a focus in leadership skills development. RQ #2 What kinds of improvements do learners notice in themselves as a leader for a semester?

References to developing leadership skills began to emerge after week 4. The most common skills that leaders reported on were encouraging group members, moving the discussion along and encouraging particularly quiet members to talk. Students also began to demonstrate growth and development by the end of the semester, as shown in their reflections about their ability to create a positive atmosphere or lead the group through the tasks in a timely manner. Many students praised themselves for having done a good job. I surmise that students would have continued to develop their leadership skills if given more opportunities to lead and reflect on their progress.

146  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Conclusions and Recommendations

A student-centred, organic focus on leadership skills can increase motivation and autonomy (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003). Before undertaking this project, I expected that students would report on having used or were hoping to use various strategies to face their challenges in group work. I wanted to find out how they would demonstrate their development as group leaders by employing new strategies and reflecting on their development. The data show that in the first half of the semester, students mainly reported on the various challenges. However, after experiencing the leader role one or two times, some students reported on implementing new strategies that would help group work to progress more smoothly. Many of the leaders experimented with various strategies, but certain leaders showed more willingness to take risks and try out ideas they thought of themselves through observation and reflection, suggestions from me in individual feedback or advice from whole-class feedback.  Limitations

This AR project has some limitations that may or may not be addressed in subsequent iterations. It is normal for AR projects to be focused on one teacher and their class, so the number of students (41) could not be helped. Additionally, the difference between mid-tier and high-tier English majors may be questionable. The second-year students are placed into tiers at the end of their first year by combining the results of their Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores (75%) and an in-house extended discussion test (25%). Even with such a placement test, it is common to have a few students who have been placed in tiers that do not match their speaking abilities. Finally, in the 2020 school year, all classes were conducted online using Zoom for the first time. Due to time and technical constraints, I could not simultaneously monitor all group discussions as one would in a classroom setting. Thoughts on future iterations

AR projects usually continue for several cycles with the aim of making minor improvements. Now that I understand the issues that second-year students majoring in English will face, I plan to focus on helping them reflect more deeply and consider actions they can take to improve. In the next iteration, I plan to alter the survey by asking the following questions: (1) What, if anything, was successful in your group work tasks this week? Why?

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  147

(2) What, if anything, was challenging about your group work tasks this week? Why? (3) What would you like to do differently next time when you are the group leader? After completing the surveys, I will ask leaders to prepare short oral reports about their reflections as leaders in the following week’s class. Writing one group email to all group leaders will remove some of my burden in writing individual emails to each leader and preparing whole-class feedback slides. This new action will ‘take out the middleman’ by giving students the responsibility to report on their reflections and ask the class for feedback and advice. I feel that both changes will help their development in learner reflection to reflect more deeply and consider some actions to take in the future, and it will provide more opportunities for autonomy. The oral reports will allow students to share their experiences with the class directly and receive feedback rather than be filtered through me.

148  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Appendix 10.1  Sub-themes that emerged four times or fewer Overarching theme

Sub-theme

Challenges

Leader sharing own opinions/ideas

4

Managing turn-taking

4

Keeping a positive atmosphere

4

Leader adding to members’ ideas

3

Staying on task/topic

3

Managing technical issues

3

Listening actively

3

Making suggestions

2

Using body language

2

Risk taking (trying something new)

1

Encouraging group cooperation

1

Making explanations/summaries more concise

1

Turn taking

1

Expressing opinions

1

Allowing more time to think before starting task

4

Using functions in Zoom to facilitate discussion

4

Managing silence

2

Leader provides example answer/idea first

2

Confirming information and tasks with members

1

Active listening

4

Managing turn taking

4

Delegating tasks

3

Expanding on the topic

2

Answering members’ questions or teacher’s questions

1

Making suggestions

1

Requests more time for task (from teacher)

1

Requests clarification from teacher

1

When discussions turn into debates

1

Finding opportunities to discuss outside of class

1

Having feelings of group synergy

1

Notetaking and listening successfully

1

Setting goals

1

Language

Strategies

Leadership

Growth & Development

# of occurrences

Learner Reflection on Group Work and Leadership Skills  149

Appendix 10.2  Frequency of overarching themes Challenges

Language*

Strategies

Leadership

Growth and development

Week 2

15

2

0

7

9

Week 3

14

1

2

3

2

Week 4

21

0

4

3

8

Week 5

20

1

1

5

4

Week 6

11

0

8

3

15

Week 7

10

0

5

3

13

Week 8

16

0

6

3

9

Week 9

9

2

5

5

11

Week 10

16

2

8

2

7

Week 11

10

0

9

0

8

Week 12

13

1

6

3

7

Week 13

14

2

4

5

7

*The Language theme has been omitted from the line graphs due to low numbers.

References Burns, A. (2009) Action research. In J. Heigham and R.A. Croker (eds) Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics (pp. 112–134). London: Palgrave McMillan.  Cottrell, S. (2015) Study Skills for Success, Personal Development, and Employability (3rd edn). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Dornyei, Z. and Murphey, T. (2003) Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1986) The Action Research Planner. Melbourne: Deakin University Press. Nunan, D. and Lamb, C. (1996) The Self-Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scrivener, J. (2012) Classroom Management Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoshida, A. (2021) Action research: Development of leadership skills in group work. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice Autumn, 78−91.

11 Promoting and Evaluating Students’ Development of Self-Directed Language Learning and Reflective Abilities Christine Pemberton and Jo Mynard

In this chapter, we explore how second-year students majoring in English language at the university manage and reflect on their self-­ directed ­language learning (SDLL). SDLL and reflection are concepts that teachers generally agree are important to support students in the language classroom but, for a host of reasons, may find difficult to implement effectively in practice. This chapter aims to show how reflection and awareness of SDLL were embedded into a language course. In ­addition, we share the results of some research that provide evidence that it is a worthwhile endeavour for learners. The two researchers/authors are Christine, the class teacher, and Jo, the learning advisor (LA) assigned to the classes described in this chapter. (For more details about the role of an LA, please refer to Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 in this volume.) Background Self-directed language learning (SDLL)

SDLL is an understanding of the knowledge and skills that are necessary for being able to undertake a course of language study without the direct supervision of a teacher (Curry et al., 2017; Dickinson, 1987, 1995; Morrison, 2013; Murray, 2004; Mynard & Stevenson, 2017). The necessary skills fall within the cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social domains. Mastery is often manifested as observable 150

Promoting and Evaluating Students’ Development of Self-Directed Language Learning   151

(and teachable) skills such as goal setting, making a learning plan, implementing the plan, monitoring progress, selecting and applying appropriate resources and strategies, evaluating the learning process and measuring language proficiency improvements. At our institution, a previous study established learning outcomes that guide several courses related to SDLL (Takahashi et al., 2013). Briefly, these institutional learning outcomes for SDLL are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Knowing what support and learning opportunities exist outside class. Setting and reviewing language-related goals. Selecting, using and evaluating resources. Identifying, using and evaluating strategies.  Making, implementing and evaluating a learning plan. Evaluating linguistic and learning gains.

Although we are focusing on language learning in this chapter, we draw on the established field of self-directed learning (SDL), which stems from earlier work on general adult education by researchers such as Knowles (1975) and Hiemstra (1994, 2013). Hiemstra writes that SDL is ‘designed to help adults learn how to make their own decisions in accomplishing personal learning goals’ (Hiemstra, 2013: 24). In addition to helping students direct their learning in personally meaningful ways, having SDL skills has also been found to support lifelong learning (Aşkin Tekkol & Demirel, 2018; Candy et al., 1994). Although its benefits have been widely reported, showing evidence of the effectiveness of SDL can be challenging as it is difficult to show developments in inner processes. Most researchers draw on qualitative methods investigating personal developments such as observations, self-reflections, self-reports and interviews (Robinson & Persky, 2020).  Facilitating reflection

To develop the higher-order skills necessary for directing one’s language learning, it is essential that learners engage in ongoing reflection (Cotterall & Murray, 2009; Curry et al., 2017). This can be done informally by oneself before, during or after tasks. Still, the reflection will be deeper and more effective if it is facilitated and supported through dialogue with others (see Kato, Chapter 4 in this volume). In this study, we mainly used reflective questions, written advising and peer advising to support students’ reflection as they engaged in SDLL.  To a certain extent, a student’s ability to engage in SDLL is evidence of their developing reflective abilities, as these tasks require a high degree of understanding of oneself and one’s learning processes. However, we wanted to separately examine whether students’ reflective abilities and their awareness of SDLL deepened over a semester. Reflective ability can

152  Part 4: Intervention Studies

be evaluated by examining reflective journals, interviews, observations and self-reports facilitated by instruments or tools. We used all of these methods for our study. (See Chapter 3 in this volume for details of previous research in reflection.) The purpose of the research

The project aimed to understand how to integrate SDLL and reflection into a language course and how learners can be supported through dialogue. Working within a constructivist methodological paradigm and drawing on mixed methods, we designed the study to observe whether the reflective activities appeared to influence decisions and outcomes related to SDLL. In addition, we wanted to see whether students exhibited any increase in the depth of their reflective abilities over time. The research questions were: Research question 1: What could be observed about the students’ development of awareness of SDLL over time?  Research question 2: What could be observed about the depth of students’ reflective abilities over time? Methods

Participants in the study were 35 English majors in their second year at the university in two separate English classes that Christine (the first author) taught. Jo (the second author) was assigned as a learning advisor (LA) to the class and visited periodically to familiarise students with the benefits of SDLL and reflection, build their reflective abilities and facilitate reflection tasks. The course, called Media English, is a required class that meets twice a week and primarily focuses on developing media literacy in conjunction with speaking and listening skills. We chose the Media English course for the intervention and research because reflection activities were due to become a required class component the following academic year, and we could gather valuable data before activities were integrated into all classes. The two classes were similar in student composition and language level (on average, between C1 and B2 on the CEFR), and both completed the same activities. For the purposes of the research, data collected from the classes were treated as one group. Table 11.1 summarises the activities related to SDLL and reflection that were embedded into the course over the 15-week semester.  Procedure

Table 11.1 indicates all the activities that were relevant to this study, i.e. ones that focused on reflection and SDLL. Most of the classes proceeded as normal with no particular intervention or focus on

Promoting and Evaluating Students’ Development of Self-Directed Language Learning   153

Table 11.1  Overview of classroom activities related to reflection and SDLL for one 15-week semester Week

Activities

1

Students completed a consent form and a presurvey The LA facilitated a workshop on making an SDLL plan  Students wrote an SDLL plan (Appendix 11.1) Small group discussions 

3

Small groups discussed learning goals

4

Students reviewed their SDLL plans Students wrote a reflection

7

The LA facilitated a workshop on reflection  Students wrote responses to guided reflection questions (Appendix 11.2) Small group discussions

10

Students reviewed SDLL plan Students wrote a reflection

11

Small groups discussed learning goals

14

The LA facilitated a workshop reviewing the purpose of reflection Students wrote responses to guided reflection questions (Appendix 11.2) Small group discussion

15

Students evaluated the depth of their reflections Students analysed their reflective abilities using a learning trajectory Postintervention survey

reflection or self-directed learning. The students and teacher focused on the core curriculum for Media English classes without any visits or interventions by the LA.  In week 1, Jo visited the class and introduced the project and gave an overview of the purpose of SDLL and reflection. Students reflected on previous learning and set meaningful language-related learning goals (along with proposed strategies and resources). Guidance was given with this process, as well as a real example provided by Jo. Students discussed their plans in small groups. One of us (Christine or Jo) wrote individualised comments on their plans within one week. To make this feedback manageable, we divided up the task; one of us wrote to half of the students, and the other wrote to the other half. We alternated each time we gave feedback and always signed the comments ‘from Jo and Chrissy’. (See Appendix 11.1 for the guided reflection questions we used.) In week 3, the students discussed their goals with classmates in groups. Christine gave them some guided questions to facilitate this process. Referring to Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Cycle (see Chapter 3 for an overview), these questions would be part of the first two components, ‘Concrete experience’ and ‘Reflective observation’: (1) What learning goal are you working on right now? (2) How is that going?

154  Part 4: Intervention Studies

(3) How motivated do you feel, from 1 (not motivated) to 5 (very motivated)? (4) Have you found any new strategies, study methods or materials (apps, websites, books, etc.) that are useful? In weeks 4, 10 and 11, students reviewed the progress of their goals and discussed them with classmates. They wrote reflections, which we responded to. They were welcome to write anything, and there were no guided questions this time.  In weeks 7 and 14, Jo visited the class to facilitate a workshop on reflection. Students wrote responses to guided reflection questions (see Appendix 11.2) and discussed them in small groups. Again, one of us wrote individualised comments on their reflections. In these individualised comments, we encouraged students to think more deeply. The written comments we used would be considered examples of ‘Abstract conceptualisation’ and ‘Active experimentation’ in Kolb’s (1984) model. This included encouraging reactions to what the students had written, questions and suggestions and modelling of resources and strategies as appropriate, all intended to prompt further reflection and promote learner autonomy (see Kato, Chapter 4 in this volume). However, we personalised these comments for each learner depending on the stage they appeared to be at with their SDLL and reflective abilities. In week 15, students completed a self-evaluation of their journals and a self-analysis of their reflective abilities. At the end of the class, they completed a postsurvey. Details of these instruments are given next. Instruments and data collection (1) Presurvey

To ascertain students’ level of awareness of SDLL before implementing the activities, we asked students to complete one short bilingual online survey at the beginning of the semester. The ‘presurvey’ contained nine questions about students’ familiarity with SDLL skills. The items were based on SDLL elements outlined in the institutional learning outcomes listed earlier in this chapter (Takahashi et al., 2013). The questionnaire was a slightly modified version of the validated instrument used in a previous study (Curry et al., 2017). We piloted the revised instrument before using student volunteers (from other classes) outside of class time. Cronbach’s Alpha internal reliability scale was calculated using IBM SPSS to be 0.645, indicating moderate to acceptable internal reliability for instruments with fewer than 10 items (Taber, 2018). (2) Postsurvey

The ‘postsurvey’ contained similar questions to the presurvey but was designed to measure students’ familiarity with SDLL at the end of the semester. The questionnaire contained both Likert scale

Promoting and Evaluating Students’ Development of Self-Directed Language Learning   155

and open-ended questions and was again administered online. The questionnaire was bilingual and was piloted before we asked the participants to complete it. The Cronbach’s Alpha internal reliability was calculated using IBM SPSS to be 0.648, indicating moderate to acceptable internal reliability for fewer than 10 items (Taber, 2018). (3) Self-analysis of reflective abilities questionnaire

The ‘self-analysis questionnaire’ was designed for students to rate their own reflective abilities based on a 10-point trajectory (following Kato & Mynard, 2016) from ‘1 – getting started’ to ‘10 – transformation’. To complete the questionnaire, we first showed the students a simplified version of the Learner Trajectory (Figure 11.1). We asked them to indicate their perceived place on the Learner Trajectory at the beginning and the end of the semester on a scale from 1 to 10. Kato and Mynard (2016) originally designed the learner trajectory as a tool to help learning advisors identify learners’ degree of awareness about their learning process. To our knowledge, it has not been used as a research instrument before. Still, after several rounds of piloting and modifying, we decided it had the potential to be used not only as a self-reflection tool for learners but could also offer insights as a research instrument. (4) Self-evaluation of journals

The students kept guided reflective journals for one semester, but instead of us analysing these as ‘researchers’, we asked students to analyse the journals themselves. In addition to this being a potentially beneficial reflective activity, it was also a research method. We hoped that students would be able to reflect deeply to identify whether they noticed any changes in their SDLL and reflective abilities. To help students perform this analysis, they completed two five-item selfevaluation online questionnaires at the end of the semester. On these self-evaluation questionnaires, students compared and rated the depth of their own written reflections at the beginning versus the end of the semester using a multiple-choice questionnaire which prompted students to comment on their ability to describe their learning experiences and their understanding of their learning needs. We developed and piloted these instruments ourselves for the study.  (5) Interviews

We conducted four semi-structured interviews with participating students at the end of the semester. We selected the interviewees using stratified sampling, i.e. two students who felt that they had moved significantly along the Learner Trajectory (Figure 11.1) and two students who felt they had only progressed by one or two points. Interviewees were asked mainly about their progress on the Learner Trajectory and their perceptions of the reflection activities.

156  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Results and Discussion Research question 1: Students’ perceptions of their development of SDLL

To understand whether students developed awareness of SDLL throughout the research period, we analysed data from the pre- and postsurveys.  Presurvey

Students were asked to indicate how familiar they were with SDLL skills before taking this class in the presurvey. The results ranged from 1 (I couldn’t do this at all) to 4 (I could do this well). Table 11.2 shows that the means for each question range from 2.6 to 2.97. Most students selected 2 or 3 on the scale for most questions, indicating little to some experience with SDLL skills. Students had the most experience with identifying their own strengths and weaknesses and the least experience with knowing about learning strategies. Postsurvey

The mean scores on the postsurvey range from 2.91 to 3.38 on a scale of 1 (Strong ‘no’ – I couldn’t do this at all) to 4 (Strong ‘yes’ – I could do this well) (Table 11.3). Nobody chose ‘4’ to describe how they used SDLL skills despite providing evidence that they could do this in their reflective journals. We did not statistically compare the results of the Table 11.2  Presurvey. Students’ self-perceived self-directed language learning skills before taking the class  Before the start of this semester, how comfortable did you feel with being able to do the following:

*1

2

3

4

**Mean

**SD

1. Finding the strengths and weaknesses of my language skills.

0

6

24

5

2.97

0.56

2. Setting realistic goals after thinking about what I want to do, what I am interested in and what I have to do.

1

14

15

5

2.67

0.76

3. Making a study plan that suits me based on my past experience and the knowledge I gained from it.

0

14

16

5

2.74

0.7

4. Finding resources that help me with the goals I set.

2

15

12

6

2.66

0.68

5. Knowing about different learning strategies.

0

14

17

4

2.63

0.84

6. Evaluating myself to see if my language skills improve. 

1

14

15

5

2.71

0.67

7. Discussing my learning goals with peers.

1

15

14

5

2.6

0.65

8. Discussing my learning goals with teachers and learning advisors.

9

22

2

2

2.67

0.76

*1 – I couldn’t do this at all; 2 – I could do this a little; 3 – I could do this somewhat; 4 – I could do this well. **Rounded to 2 decimal places. SD = Standard deviation.

Promoting and Evaluating Students’ Development of Self-Directed Language Learning   157

Table 11.3  Postsurvey. Students’ self-perceived self-directed language learning skills after taking the class (means) Specifically, what skills did you develop after doing the goal setting and reflection activities in this class?

*1

2

3

4

**Mean

SD

1. I learned how to find the strengths and weaknesses of my language skills.

1

1

16

16

3.38

0.7

2. I learned how to set realistic goals after thinking about what I want to do, what I am interested in and what I have to do.

0

3

17

14

3.32

0.64

3. I learned how to make a study plan that suits me based on my past experience and the knowledge I gained from it.

0

1

24

9

3.24

0.5

4. I learned how to find resources that help me with the goals I set. 

0

6

19

9

3.09

0.67

5. I discovered learning strategies that I didn’t know about.

0

3

15

16

3.38

0.65

6. I was able to try out new resources and evaluate if they fit my learning goals. 

0

8

18

8

3

0.7

7. I was able to try out a new learning strategy and evaluate whether it met my learning goals. 

1

5

20

8

3.03

0.72

8. I was able to evaluate myself to see if my language skills improved. 

0

3

15

16

3.38

0.65

9. I became more comfortable discussing my learning goals with peers.

1

3

16

14

3.26

0.75

10. I became more comfortable discussing my learning goals with my teacher or advisor. 

1

8

18

7

2.91

0.75

*1 – Strong no; 2 – no; 3 – yes; 4 – strong yes. **Rounded to 2 decimal places. SD = Standard deviation

presurvey and the postsurvey to see if the differences were significant, as the questions were worded differently and were not intended to be statistically compared. The postsurvey was mainly designed to be a tool for reflection. Nevertheless, an analysis of the descriptive statistics of the postsurvey shows higher means for each item at the end of the semester compared with the beginning (i.e. the presurvey), indicating that students perceived that their SDLL skills had improved. Reflective journal self-evaluation

In addition to self-perceived SDLL abilities gathered from the surveys, it is helpful to analyse evidence of the actual use of SDLL skills at different times. This was done by asking participants to evaluate two of their reflective journals (i.e. the first one from week 1 of the semester, and the most recent reflection in week 15, the final week of the semester). In an online survey, students were asked to rate their abilities for several self-directed learning skills from 1 (low mastery of the skill) to 4 (high mastery of the skill). The data were compared using a paired t-test. Results show statistically significant improvement based on the mean responses for the questions ‘How well could you describe

158  Part 4: Intervention Studies

Table 11.4  Students’ self-evaluation of reflection journals *Question

Reflective journal

Mean

N

**Std. deviation

**Std. error mean

How well could you describe your learning experiences?

Week 1

2.32

34

0.59

0.10

Week 15

2.85

34

0.70

0.12

How much did you understand about your language needs?

Week 1

2.50

34

0.66

0.11

Week 15

2.68

34

0.64

0.11

How much could you deal with your own problems?

Week 1

2.68

34

0.88

0.15

Week 15

2.91

34

0.79

0.14

How well could you create a plan for your own learning?

Week 1

2.38

34

0.60

0.10

Week 15

2.74

34

0.71

0.12

t

p

–4.662