NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM

The Benefits of Self-reflection Tools for Foreign Language Learners
JESSICA ZONI UPTON
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
MINA HIRANO
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
Abstract
Self-reflection, defined as “a conscious mental process relying on thinking, reasoning, andexamining one’s own thoughts, feelings, and ideas” (Gläser-Zikuda, 2012), has over the years
been assimilated in education through tools such as diaries, logs, and journals (Bailey &Ochsner, 1983; Bailey, 1991; Gardner, 2000; Moon, 2003; Absalom & De Saint Léger, 2011;
Litzler, 2014a) as a way to record, reflect, or assess learning. This mixed-method study
conducted at university level from April 2020 to January 2022, explores the effects of two tools,
the Self-Learning Log and the Independent Study, on over 100 English majors. Results showthat participants perceived numerous benefits through self-reflection, such as improved
motivation and skills. Moreover, the findings reveal (online and HyFlex) did not impact
students’ perceptions as much as the tools’ designs did, suggesting that the self-reflection tools
can be adapted to various educational settings.
Introduction
With the sudden wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has brought a fundamental change in
how education is being delivered, more pressure has been placed on learners in higher education
to regulate their own learning. As educators, we believe that it is our responsibility to provide
tools to support learners who were suddenly set on a voyage as independent learners. Somethingthat helps them to be successful learners is self-reflection, a metacognitive process throughwhich learners are able to be “aware of their own learning processes, their weaknesses andstrengths” (Ertmer and Newby, 1996, as cited in Moon, 2004, p.7). This mixed-method study
focused on the learners’ perceived benefits of two self-reflection tools which were employed atuniversity level during two academic years, from 2020 to 2022, under different learning settingsfrom complete online classes to HyFlex due to the challenging situation of the pandemic.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Literature Review
Self-reflection and Self-Regulated Learning
It has been considered that self-reflection, or simply reflection, plays a crucial role in learning in
general. Moon (2004) describes reflection not only as “part of learning” but as a mental processor “secondary learning” that brings learning as a result (p.3). Reflection is activated in a learner’s
trial of making (new) sense of one’s previous knowledge or new material which can often bringnew ideas and understandings. In addition, Rogers (1969) points out that learners can develop “asense of ownership of the material of learning” (as cited in Moon, 2004, p.9). There are various
possible outcomes of reflection, such as critical thinking, personal and professional development,
theory building, decision making, problem solving, empowerment, emotional development andother beneficial results (Based on Moon 1999, as cited in Moon, 2004).
Reflection is strongly involved in the theory of Self-Regulated Learning. Self-Regulated
Learning, or SRL, has its roots in research of metacognition and social cognition of individual
learners in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Zimmerman, 2002). Researchers found that individual
differences in learning were associated with a lack of metacognitive or self-awareness of one’s
own limitations and incapability of dealing with such weaknesses. Such findings encouraged
educators to promote learners’ self-awareness, goal setting, and self-monitoring. Zimmerman(2002) defines self-regulation as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that areoriented to attaining goals” and describes self-regulated learners as “proactive in their efforts tolearn because they are aware of their strengths and limitations and because they are guided bypersonally set goals and task-related strategies” (pp.65-66).
There are three cyclical phases in SRL - Forethought Phase, Performance Phase, andSelf-Reflection Phase (See Figure 1, next page). The third cyclical phase, ‘self-reflection’, has
two major components: self-judgment or self-evaluation, and self-reaction. The first component
shows that learners evaluate their own process or performance in learning by using some kind of
standard or their own (or others’) previous performance. This evaluation is also possible by selfbelief of the causes of success or failure (for instance, by simply looking at the score) that iscalled causal attribution (Zimmerman, 2002). One type of self-reaction, the second component of
the self-reflection phase, is feelings of self-satisfaction about one's own performance and its
effects. The increase of self-satisfaction will enhance learners’ motivation while the decrease in

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
self-satisfaction will slow down the effort towards learning. The other types are ‘adaptive
reaction’, when learners try to protect themselves by withdrawing or avoiding learning, and‘defensive reactions’, which refers to learners trying to adjust ineffective learning styles for
improvement. Thus, the self-reflection process in learning is essential for learners and enables
them to step forward for further learning goals with increased motivation, leading them to abetter performance by effective self-control.
Figure 1
Phases and Subprocesses of Self-Regulation. From Zimmerman, 2002, p.67

Self-reflection in Second or Foreign Language Acquisition
In recent years, studies on reflections or reflective learning have been looked at with growinginterest among researchers in education. Glaser-Zikuda (2012), who defined self-reflection as“self-observation and report of one’s thoughts, desires, and feelings'', designates such attention as
due to “the paradigm shift from teaching to learning” and the role of educational institutions is
no longer for “knowledge transfer” but rather as “a well-prepared learning environment tosupport individual learning processes” (pp.100-101). In this sense, there has been an increased

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
demand for learners to develop SRL processes including self-reflection. Furthermore, a numberof studies (Halbach, 2000; Platt and Brooks, 2002; Lai, Zhu and Gong, 2015; Litzer and Bakieva,2017) have reported that self-reflection is effective in the field of Second or Foreign Language
Acquisition (SLA/FLA) from various benefits such as developing learner confidence andmotivation, effective performance, and enjoyment of learning. To summarize, self-reflection has
been a key element in learning, especially in terms of SRL and its effectiveness has been appliedin the area of SLA/FLA. Nevertheless, as Moon (2004) points out, we can never make a learnerreflect; rather, it is important to create situations or environments where reflection is able tooccur. Learning reflection tools such as learning journals, reflective diaries, and logs contributeto setting up such conditions for learners’ “meaningful and good-quality learning” (Moon, 2004,
p.9)
Self-reflection Tools
Over the years, self-reflection tools have been applied to the field of educational science and
SLA/FLA (Bailey & Ochsner, 1983; Bailey, 1991; Gardner, 2000; Moon, 2003; Absalom & De
Saint Léger, 2011; Litzler, 2014a) as a way to record, reflect, or assess learning. Moon (2003)
explains slightly different purposes for each of the major tools of self-reflection: learningjournals as “making explicit and recording the learning that occurs”, reflective diaries as“demonstrating reflection on an experience”, and logs as a “record of events that have happened”(p.2). Although the naming and the styles of tools that have been used for such studies aredifferent, it is included in the bigger frame of Diary Studies (Bailey & Ochsner, 1983; Bailey
1990; Curtis and Bailey 2009). The content of learning diaries can focus either or both onreflections of in-class learning (Ruso, 2007; Christensen, Lindom, Orten, Rigbolt & VeraBatista, 1990; Dam & Thomson, 1990) or outside of class learning (Halbach, 2000; Hyland,
2004; Lai, Zhu & Gong, 2015). The periods for such studies vary from whole semesters to a
week (i.e. Hyland, 2004) and often are part of the courses in higher education (Huang, 2005;
Absalom & De Saint Léger, 2011; Debreli, 2011). Studies using self-reflection tools in
SLA/FLA have been actively done in various areas and countries such as Spain (Halbach, 2000;
Litzler and Bakieva, 2017a and 2017b),), Hong Kong (Hyland, 2004), China (Huang 2005; Lai,
Zhu & Gong, 2015), Australia (Absalom & De Saint Léger, 2011), Indonesia (Maharsi, 2018),
Sweden (Ringmar, 2021), and Japan (Hirano and Zoni Upton, 2022).

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Research Questions
Two different types of self-learning logs, which will be further described in the method section,
were created and used for this research. In this study, two research questions were explored:
RQ1. How did participants perceive the two self-reflection tools used in this study?
RQ2. Did the learning environment affect students’ perceptions of the self-reflection tools?
MethodParticipantsParticipants were 117 second-year university students majoring in British and American Studies
and English Communication at a private foreign language university in central Japan. All
participants were taking an EFL communicative and content-based English class called “CORE
English 3-4” twice a week from seven EFL lecturers from the Department of British andAmerican Studies. Participant’s biographical data was not collected because it is not relevant tothis research.
Tools
In this study, the following two self-reflection tools were used:
Self-Learning Log (SLL). The first self-reflection log called Self-Learning Log (SLL) was
created as a Google document, during the academic year between April 2020 and January 2021
which was online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were three main purposes to this tool:
to give students a chance to reflect on learning both inside and outside of the classroom, to give
students a chance to be self-regulated or autonomous, and to encourage students to stay
motivated during the online academic year. In the log, there were three categories to fill in(Appendix A): week number, reflection of in-class learning of the target class previously
mentioned, and reflection of out-of-class learning or how they practiced English outside of class.
In order to encourage participants’ reflective process, samples were created and explained at the
beginning of the semester (Appendix A). Participants updated the log every week and submitted
through Google Classroom once a month at the end of every unit of the textbook. Participants
did not receive any credit or letter grade for writing this log since this was an ungradedassignment. An example of participants’ use of the tool is shown in Appendix B.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Independent Study (IS). The second self-reflection tool called Independent Study (IS) was
created in a Google document format, during the HyFlex academic year from April 2021 till
January 2022. After the online academic year of 2020, the university introduced a studentalternation system where, in turns, only half of the students of each class would join the face-toface class while the other half did self-study at home. There were three main purposes for thesecond tool: to assign students some learning activity for self-study weeks, to see how selfreflection tools could be adapted to an online environment versus a HyFlex one or studentalternation environment, and to compare the perceived impacts of two different styles ofreflection tools. There are three sections in the IS: the home study week number, a reflection on
how they used English during home study weeks (except homework), and a learning goal for thefollowing home study week (Appendix C). The second and third categories were followed by thequestions How did you use English during your home study week except homework? and do you
want to do or learn during your next home study week? Each of us authors created both goodand bad samples to help participants have a clearer understanding of how to fill in their reflection(Appendix C). Unlike the first self-reflection tool, the second tool was a graded assignment withpoints out of 100 during the first semester. Then, from the second semester of academic year
2021, it was changed to an ungraded, optional assignment due to the change from studentalternation system to face-to-face with the exception of a few students who chose HyFlex
participation. During the first semester, participants wrote reflections every other week during
their home studying week. Then, reflections were submitted through Google Classroom once amonth at the end of every unit of the textbook. An example of participants’ use of the tool isshown in Appendix D.
Since the IS was a graded assignment during the first semester, a rubric was created andcarefully explained at the beginning of the semester (Appendix E). There were four evaluation
items in the rubric, each with a weighting of 25 points. Each evaluation item was described by asimple question: (1) Are all sections complete? (2) Does the reflection answer the question? (3)Does it answer the question in detail? (4) Is the goal for the following home study week updated
and realistic? As Moon (2004b) points out, it is crucial to decide whether focus of the criteria is“the content of the reflection learning” or “the reflective process itself” (p.13). Although both areimportant parts of the reflection, the rubric used in this study weighs slightly more toward thelatter. By making sure to answer the two questions with details on the IS (“How did you use

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
English during your home study week except homework?” and “What do you want to do or learn
during your next home study week?”) participants are able to go through a reflection process. The
third question on the rubric connects the Forethought Phase of the SRL mentioned in the
Literature Review section. By setting a realistic and updated goal for the following home study
week, participants are encouraged to better perform in self-study.
It was an important part of learning that in both cases the reflection was written in
English as Little (2007) claims that when reflections are kept in the target language, thereflections, journals, diaries, or logs will “move to the very centre of the learning process” andthose will become “the story of the individual’s language learning…illustrating the gradualexpansion of identity that comes with developing proficiency in a second or foreign language”(p. 26). In addition, every time participants submitted the reflection, most teachers returned withcomments and suggestions by using the Commenting function of Google document. Litzler andBakieva (2017a) indicate the importance of teacher guidance for learners in starting to keep
reflective tasks especially if learners are from “an education system that encourages dependence
on the instructor” (p. 68) which clearly applies in the case of traditional education systems injunior or high schools in Japan. Therefore, careful explanations with samples and feedback were
given throughout this study to support the participants.
Research Design
As the purpose of this study was to uncover students’ perceptions of the two self-reflection tools
as well as checking whether any perceived similarities or differences were influenced by theirrespective learning environments, we decided to adopt a Mixed Methods Research (MMR)
approach with a sequential explanatory design and nested sampling (Collins, et al., 2007). MMR
is commonly defined as “collecting, analyzing, and mixing quantitative and qualitative data at
some stage of the research process within a single study” (Creswell, 2008, as cited in Ivankova &Creswell, 2009, p.137) or “in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying
phenomenon” (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008). While multi-methods research also allows for thecollection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data, the main difference lies inwhether the different data sets are being mixed or integrated together. According to Sandelowski(2003), one of the goals of MMR is, in fact, to combine two or more data sets of quantitative andqualitative nature in order to gain a thorough understanding of what is being analyzed. The
mixing of the two different types of data can enrich the interpretive validity of the overall data

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
set. Moreover, as Dӧrnyei (2007) points out, MMR has the potential to reach a multitude ofaudiences, quantitative and qualitative researchers, hence our choice to use MMR for this study.
Data Collection
Data were collected entirely through questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires for the SLL
and for the IS respectively (Appendices F & G) were administered online as Google Forms andshared with students on the Google Classroom platform. Both questionnaires were first piloted
with a small group of EFL teachers, then adjusted based on their feedback. Moreover, the ISquestionnaire was further revised after analyzing the shortcomings of the SLL questionnaire. For
the part of the study that took place during the online academic year, the questionnaire wasadministered to four classes, two classes for each of us authors. On the other hand, thequestionnaire for the IS was administered to 14 classes, two for each of the seven teachers,
including us, who used the tool during the HyFlex academic year. Both questionnaires were
written in English and Japanese because the target audience were Japanese learners of English,
and contained an explanation of the research, a consent form (those who did not wish to proceed
could close the page without submitting), closed questions on a Likert Scale, and open-ended
questions for clarification (Dӧrnyei, 2007, pp.105-107). The questions aimed to measure
students’ experience and opinions on the self-reflection tool being used at the time of eachsurvey. For each questionnaire, a question was included to ask for volunteers for follow-up
interviews and draw a smaller sample for the following data collection. Whilst conducting
interviews during the online year was not possible due to time constraints, interviews during the
HyFlex academic year were arranged shortly following the second questionnaire data collection.
One-on-one interviews were conducted with students who had volunteered. In order to avoid
overlap between survey and interview answers but still allow for a follow-up on interesting ideas
and suggestions, we decided to choose the format of semi-structured interviews (Dӧrnyei, 2007;
Saunders, et al., 2009). Each volunteer was emailed the interview questions (Appendix H) and an
explanation of the interview format ahead of the interview day. Volunteers could then choose
whether to have the interview on Zoom or in person, and whether to use English or Japanese.
Furthermore, we chose interview participants who had never used a self-reflection tool before
and had been taught by different teachers, in order to minimize selection bias.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Data Analysis
As mentioned above, the different data from questionnaires and interviews were administeredand analyzed at different times before being mixed in the final stage of the data analysis. The
sequential timing of the data collection and the integrating nature of the mixing of the data sets,
defines this study as mixed methods research with explanatory design (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2007). The ordinal data from the Likert-Scale questions in the two questionnaires were analyzed
first and organized in graphical summaries (bar charts) that would help provide descriptive
validity to the qualitative data. Qualitative data from questionnaires were then analyzed using
inductive coding (Given, 2008; Saldana, 2009). In other words, all codes derived from finding
common keywords and patterns from students’ written comments. Once the first phase of data
analysis was concluded, the student sample for semi-structured interviews was chosen from thelist of volunteers. Once all interviews had taken place, the interview recordings were manuallytranscribed. As the purpose of the transcriptions was exclusively to analyze the interviewees’
discourse for additional codes, we did not deem it necessary to conduct a phonetic transcription.
All codes and qualitative data were then shown to a fellow researcher in-person to confirm thevalidity of the codes we had discovered.
Finally, questionnaire and interview data were integrated and analyzed together in orderto answer the research questions.
Results and Discussion
In order to better answer the research questions, results have been organized according to three
focal points: 1) Were the self-reflection tools perceived as beneficial by the participants toimprove as learners? 2) If so, in what ways were the two tools perceived as beneficial by theparticipants? 3) Would participants voluntarily continue using these tools independently in the
future? Why/why not?
Were the self-reflection tools perceived as beneficial by the participants to improve as
learners?
The simple answer to the first question is: yes. As shown in Figure 2 below, both the SLL andthe IS were considered useful by the majority of participants.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Figure 2
Reported usefulness of self-reflection tools

Although to various degrees, an overwhelming majority of participants, 86.7% (SLL) and 93.6%(IS) respectively, agreed that the self-reflection tool which they had used had proved to bebeneficial to them.
In what ways were the two tools perceived as beneficial by the participants?
In order to answer the question above, one must first consider the initial purpose of each selfreflection tool. As previously explained, the SLL focused on students’ conscious reflection onlearning both inside and outside of the classroom, while the IS focused on learning after school
hours and on setting goals. As a consequence, it is not surprising to see that participants had
considerably different impressions on how the two tools helped their review and in-class learningreflection process (Figure 3, next page) compared to how they helped their outside-of-classlearning reflection process (Figure 4, next page).
Whilst 100% of participants agreed that the SLL was beneficial for reviewing orinternalizing in-class learning, the IS was instead deemed as non-beneficial by a vast majority ofparticipants (78%). Said result appears to suggest that there is a connection between the tool
design and the consequences for users. This rationale is confirmed by the results depicted in
Figure 4 below.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Figure 3
Helpfulness of each self-reflection tool for reviewing/internalizing in-class learning

Figure 4
Helpfulness of each self-reflection tool for aiding autonomous learning outside of class

As shown above, both self-reflection tools were positively perceived by the majority ofparticipants in terms of their usefulness for aiding autonomous learning outside of the classroom.
Since both tools included a focus on outside-of-class learning, one can interpret the comparisonof the results of Figures 3 and 4 and conclude that the design of each tool might be a potential
determinant of the perceived outcomes.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
For a more exhaustive inspection of the usefulness of the two tools, one must look atparticipants’ qualitative data. Tables 1 and 2 below list the codes found for each tool, and thefrequency (f) with which each code appeared in students’ questionnaire comments. It is
important to note that not all students who participated in the surveys replied to open questions,
therefore the numbers shown below are lower than the number of participants.
Table 1
Self-Learning Log codes and frequency

Table 2
Independent Study Codes and frequency

As shown in the two tables 1 and 2, both tools were considered beneficial for ‘increasing/maintaining motivation’ and ‘improving or gaining new skills’.
Below are student comments on how each of the tools aided their motivation:

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM“It gave me the motivation to do something outside of class.” (SLL User)“⾃分に⾜りないものは何か、伸ばしたい点は何かを考えることで⾃分の英語に対する意欲を再確認することができました” (I could confirm my motivation towards
English by thinking what I lack and what I want to improve) (IS User)
The use of the tools helped many participants maintain motivation to continue learning outside of
the regular class time. The second comment illustrates how the process of reflection inherent to
the tools and be useful to reaffirm and maintain learner motivation. Another common reason for
the tools’ aiding motivation was discovered to be teachers’ comments and feedback, as shown in
the example comments below:“I was motivated to study because I was given feedback on my independent study”(Anonymous)“If my teacher’s comments are good, they will make me happy, and I can keep trying.”(Anonymous)
The following comment, on the other hand, focuses on how the independent aspect of a selfreflection tool (choosing how to practice outside of class) can not only enhance learnermotivation but could also possibly lead to skills development:“I had chances to study english I am interested in, and that study enhances mymotivation. So, I think I could improve.” (IS User)
Below are some of the reported comments related specifically to students’ perceived skills
development:“When I did not know how to express, I used an electric dictionary and check the words.
I think this process is useful for English learners.” (SLL User)“I learned a lot of new words because I made tests for spelling and pronunciation.
Moreover, I made it a habit of watching dramas and movies in English with Japanesesubtitles. My English skills improved thanks to the Independent Study” (IS User)NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Once again, the comments confirm that the freedom of learning style given by the tools can aid
skills development. Indeed, Absalom and De Saint Leger (2011) declare that “learners need totake ownership of their own learning in order for learning to take place” (p.190). For future
research, this theory could be tested by comparing perceived improvements to students’
TOEIC/TOEFL scores or to their grades in EFL classes.
It is, however, curious to see that although there are two common codes, the other codes
are not only different, but have a different focus. In fact, users of the SLL mainly reported on theimportance of reviewing and reflecting:“When I looked back, I was able to look back on the study methods I did, and I was
writing down what I had learned there, so it was also a review.” (Anonymous)“We were able to review our class, what we learn, how was my attitude in class, etc..So,it can help well.” (Anonymous)“When I looked back, I was able to look back on the study methods I did, and I was
writing down what I had learned there, so it was also a review.” (Anonymous)
On the other hand, users of the IS commented on the importance of being active and independent
learners, trying different learning styles and reflecting on their intrinsic or extrinsic motivations.
“Independent Study があったおかげで、自主的に英語を勉強する機会が増えた。

また、新聞を読んでみたり You Tube を見てみるなど、学習方法の幅が広がった
ため” (Thanks to Independent Study, there were more opportunities to study English on
my own. Also, my ways of learning has expanded by trying things like reading
newspapers and watching YouTube) (Anonymous)“It makes me realize that even my interests can be learning material. So I would like tokeep learning English from my interests.” (Anonymous)“I was able to create some new ways to learn English in addition to my own routine”(Anonymous)NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM“⾃分から積極的に英語に触れようと⾏動するきっかけとなったから”(It has
become an opportunity to take an action to use English actively from my own initiative)(Anonymous)Once again, we can deduce from the results above that the design of the tools affected the ways
in which the users were impacted. Nonetheless, many of the perceived benefits of these twotools, such as increase in motivation and gaining new skills, correspond to commonly reported
benefits of using self-reflection tools (Halbach, 2000; Platt and Brooks, 2002; Lai, Zhu andGong, 2015; Litzler and Bakieva, 2017).
Would participants voluntarily continue using these tools independently in the future?
Why/why not?
Surprisingly, a majority of about 60% of users of each tool agreed that they would continue to
use the tool in the future (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Choice of independent continuation of the use of each self-reflection tool

In order to acquire a more extensive understanding of participants’ reasons, we analyzed
students’ answers from the surveys and interviews for both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses. Below aresome reported comments on why students would not continue using the self-reflection tool:“I think I would not do that spontaneously” (SLL User)“I’m too lazy to continue” (SLL User)NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM“It is very hard and troublesome” (SLL User)“I think it is a good way to remember what I learned, but I think I cannot continue when
it is not an assignment” (SLL User)“ 書くことが⽬的になりそうだし、⾃主的に勉強習慣がついたならシートに書く必要はないと思うため”(I'm afraid that writing the sheet itself would become thepurpose. Also, I think I don't need to write if I've come to develop a study habit
independently.) (IS User)“It's lazy for me to do it” (IS User)“Writing takes up a lot of time” (IS User)
Clearly, a variety of reasons can be found in participants’ comments, such as not needing theactivity if one has developed autonomous learning skills, or the time-consuming aspect of theactivity. However, the most commonly reported reasons for not continuing either tool werelaziness, and not feeling motivated to continue if it is no longer an assignment. The last reason isparticularly interesting to find since the activity was given as an assignment for three out of foursemesters, yet was only graded for one semester out of four. By taking that and students’comments about teacher feedback into consideration, we could therefore consider that it is not
the weighting of the activity on their overall grade which drove most students to continue, butrather the encouragement which they received from teachers which helped maintain motivationand helped find value in continuing. A study by Hoge, Smith, and Hanson (1990, as cited byPark & Lee, 1996) explained that feedback from teachers is one important factor to improvestudent’s self-efficacy. In the context of self-reflection, a study by Absalom and De-Saint Léger(2011) considers that through the use of logs and journals, “the teacher–learner relationship isreconfigured so that the task becomes a modified dialogue between the student and the teacher ina way that other tasks are not” (p.191). The perceived value of teachers’ feedback in selfreflection tools is something that necessitates further investigation, especially when suchinteraction is taking place in the context of remote learning. This will be further explored bydiscussion of interviewees’ comments.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
On the other hand, commonly reported reasons for continuing to use the self-reflection
tool were as follows:“I feel log with English is very useful way to improve my English, so I try continue to thiscustom” (SLL User)“⾃分が学んだことが⽬に⾒えて⾃信になると思うので時間が作れれば続けたいです” (Because what I learned becomes apparent, I believe I become more confident.
Therefore, I’d like to continue if I can make time) (SLL User)“Because I could remember what I did last week when I look backed my reflection. And
writing will also be remembered” (SLL User)“It makes me to continue studying English”(SLL User)“It's good to keep a record, and I think I can grow by seeing it” (IS User)“I want to get into the habit of learning outside of the classroom” (IS User)“⽇々の⽇記というか成⻑記みたいに使えるのでいいと思う” (I think it's a goodidea because it could be used as diary or the log of self-improvement) (IS User)
Interestingly, there is little difference in comments by users of each of the two tools. Both SLL
users and IS users commented that it would be beneficial to continue using it as a record forreview and self-growth. Likewise, users from both groups commented on continuing using thetools as a way to keep motivation to learn English.
Finally, it is important to hear from users who actually continued to use reflection tools when
they ceased to be an assignment. When asking interview participants the reasons why they choseto continue using the tool, these varied from using it as a way to stay active during remoteclasses, a study method, a way to practice another foreign language for the first time, a way torecover/maintain motivation, and an opportunity. One interview participant discussed theconnection between the teacher feedback on self-reflection tools and the experience of remotelearning:
P: sometimes I feel happy

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
I: When did you feel happy?
P: Ah~ because the first semester was remote so..I.. sometimes I feel “it is OK…?.. can I
submit correctly?” but if the teacher have the comments or suggestions, I can feel happy or..
“My job is OK”
I: Relieved?
P: Relieved? Yes.
I: Especially because some of the classes were remote.
From the interview excerpt we can see that the participant felt uncertainty in their experience of
remote learning. As a result, the self-reflection tool was an opportunity for them to have a
student-teacher dialogue and find confirmation or reassurance in their learning. Indeed, teacher
feedback and student-teacher interaction have been positively connected with students’ perceived
improvements in self-reflection (Hoge, Smith, and Hanson (1990, as cited by Park & Lee, 1996)
and online education (Bordelon, 2011; Eom & Ashill, 2016). Finally, another interview
participant concluded that “With assignments, I feel like I’ve been forced to study but it [the IS]
gives me an opportunity to study English. So, that’s why I’d like to continue” (Interview
Participant), highlighting the role of self-reflection tools as an opportunity, not a task.
Conclusion and Future Study
The self-reflection tools proved to be a valuable way for participants to self-reflect. The majorityof participants reported improvements through self-reflection in terms of motivation, reflection
on learning styles, content review, second language skills improvement, and autonomous
learning skills. Unexpectedly, more than half of participants reported wanting to continue using
the tools independently. The study is of relevance to educators in all environments as it showsthat the learning environment, such as online or HyFlex, was not a determinant factor of whether
or how learners benefit from using self-reflection tools.
This study also has some limitations as it used a sample of participants from the samedepartment and therefore included a certain degree of selection bias. However, since the two
self-reflection tools were designed to suit different learning environments, the results are intheory applicable to other contexts. Limitations in time to follow-up also narrowed the amount of

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
data, which could have provided information on whether and how participants used the tools
after the end of the course.
Future research may explore the use of these self-reflection tools in different contexts,
such as university students not majoring in foreign languages, to confirm whether the outcomes
would not differ if the design of the tools remains unchanged. Further research should also be
conducted to explore the impact of teacher feedback on the benefits of self-reflection. It would
be effective to have control and comparison groups to compare their perceptions on
improvements related to teacher-student interaction in self-reflections. Finally, this study will be
replicated with a longer research term to confirm the independent use of the tools.
BIO DATA
Jessica Zoni Upton has been teaching at universities in Japan for seven years, holds a MA
TESOL degree from Nagoya University of Foreign Studies and a BA in Japanese Studies. Her
main research interests include Intercultural Communication and Gender Studies.
Mina Hirano has been a lecturer for five years and currently teaches at Nagoya University ofForeign Studies. She holds an MA in Linguistic Science (English Education) from Nanzan
University. Her research interests are scaffolding, learner autonomy, and Interculturalcommunication.

References
Absalom, M., & De Saint Léger, D. (2011). Reflecting on reflection. Arts and Humanities inHigher Education, 10(2), 189–211. doi:10.1177/1474022210389141
Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking
at and through the diary studies. In H.W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented
research in second language acquisition (pp. 67-102). Newbury House.
Bailey, K. M. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J.C. Richards &D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 215-226). Cambridge University
Press.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Bailey, K. M. (1991). Diary studies of classroom language learning: The doubting game and thebelieving game. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language acquisition and the second/foreign
language classroom. Anthology Series 28 (pp.60-102). SEAMEO Regional Language
Centre. http://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED367161
Bailey, K. M., & Ochsner, R. (1983). A methodological review of the diary studies: Windmill
tilting or social science? In K. M. Bailey, M. H. Long, & S. Peck (Eds.), Second language
acquisition studies (pp. 188-198). Heinle & Heinle/Newbury House.
Bordelon, K. L. (2011). Perceptions of Achievement and Satisfaction as Related to Interactionsin Online Courses [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University, California].
https://www.proquest.com/openview/f3ca2a5339ee3074363fdb6530601d75/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
Christensen, A. L., Lindum, A., Orten, P., Rigbolt, U., & Vera-Batista, J. L. (1990). The use ofdiaries and case studies. In T. Trebbi (Ed.), Third Nordic workshop on developing
autonomous learning in the FL classroom (pp. 103-107). Institutt for praktisk pedagogikk.
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of
mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(3), 267-294.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Guttman, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed
methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Sage.
Curtis, A., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Diary studies. OnCue Journal, 3(1), 67-85.
https://jaltcue.org/files/OnCUE/OCJ3-1articles/OCJ3-1-Curtis-Bailey-pp67-85.pdf
Dam, L. & Thomsen, H. (1990). Learning how to learn: Awareness in the classroom and inworkshops. In T. Trebbi (Ed.), Third Nordic workshop on developing autonomous learningin the FL classroom (pp. 33-52). Institutt for praktisk pedagogikk.
Debreli, E. (2011). Use of diaries to investigate and track pre-service teachers’ beliefs aboutteaching and learning English as a foreign language throughout a pre-service training
Program. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 60-65. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.051.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The Determinants of Students’ Perceived Learning Outcomes
and Satisfaction in University Online Education: An Update. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education, 14(2), 185-215. doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097.
Gardner, D. (2000). Self-assessment for autonomous language learners. Links & Letters, 7, 4960.
Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage.
Gläser-Zikuda (2012). Self-Reflecting Methods of Learning Research. In N. H., Seel (Ed).
Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp.99-103). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-44191428-6_821
Halbach, A. (2000). Finding out about students’ learning strategies by looking at their diaries: A
case study, System, 28, 85-96. doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00062-7
Hirano, M.,& Zoni Upton, J. (2022). The self-learning log: A tool for aiding learners’sautonomy, confidence, and motivation. Bulletin of Nagoya University of Foreign Studies,
10, 277-299.
Huang, J. (2005). A diary study of difficulties and constraints in EFL learning. System, 33, 609621. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.04.001.
Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualising out-of-class English language
learning. Language Awareness, 13(3), 180-202.
Ivankova, N. V., & Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed Methods. In J. Heigham & R. A. Crocker(Eds.). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 135-161).
Palgrave.
Lai, Zhu and Gong. (2015). Understanding the quality of out-of-class English learning. TESOL,
49(2). doi.org/10.1002/tesq.171
Leech, N., Onwuegbuzie, A. (2008). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and
Quantity, 43(2), 265-275.
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14-29.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Litzler, M.F. (2014a). Independent Study Logs: Guiding and Encouraging Students in theProcess of Language Learning, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5 (5), 994998. doi:10.4304/jltr.5.5.994-998.
Litzler, M.F. (2014b). Student Satisfaction with Using Independent Study Logs as Part ofEnglish Classes”, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4 (8), 1527-1535. doi:
10.4304/tpls.1527-1535
Litzer, M. F., & Bakieva, M. (2017a). Learning logs in foreign language study: student views on
their usefulness for learner autonomy. Didáctica, 29, 65-80, doi:
doi.org/10.5209/DIDA.57130.
Litzer, M. F. ,& Bakieva, M. (2017b). Students’ out-of-class activities for practicing English as aforeign language: A log study. International Journal of Scientific Study, 5(8), 1019. .doi:10.17354/ijssNov/2017/2
Maharsi, I. (2018). Developing EFL students’ learning reflection and self-regulated learning
through Google Classroom. ICIEI 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 The 3rd International
Conference on Information and Education Innovations. 62-66.
doi:10.1145/3234825.3234841
Moon, J. (1999a). Reflection in learning and professional development. Kogan Page.
Moon, J. (1999b). Learning journals: A handbook for academics, students and professional
development. Kogan Page.
Moon, J. (2003). Learning Journals and Logs, Reflective Diaries. Good Practice in Teaching and
Learning, University College Dublin.
Moon, J. (2004a). A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning Theory and Practice.
London Routledge Falmer.
Moon, J. (2004b). Reflection and employability. In M.Yorke (Ed.), Learning and Employability(1-16). Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN).
Park, O-C., and Lee, J. (1996). Adaptive instructional systems. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 138–153).
Macmillan.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Pickard, N. (1996). Out-of-class language learning strategies. ELT Journal, 50(2), 150-159.
Platt, E., and Brooks, F. B. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign language
development. Language Learning, 52(2), 365-400. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00187
Ringmar, G. C. (2021). Designing for students’ self-reflection in online learning settings: A
mixed method study [Published dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,School ofElectrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS)].
Ruso, N. (2007). The influence of task based learning on EFL classrooms. Asian EFL Journal,
18, 1-23. http://asian-efl-journal.com/pta_February_2007_nr.php
Saldana, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students (5thed). Pearson Education.
Sundqvist, P. (2011) A possible path to progress: Out-of-school English language learners in
Sweden. In P, Benson & H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom (pp. 106118). Palgrave Macmillan.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journalof Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P .R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39).
Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. THEORY INTO
PRACTICE, 41(2), 64-70. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
APPENDIX ASLL Sample
Name:_______________________ Student#________________
&🌱
%
$
#
"
🌱
&Please keep a record of your learning inside and outside of class time.
%$#"

Please take a look at the example reflection below.
Week

e.g.
Week
1

Week
2

In-class learning

Out-of-class learning

Reflect on what you learned during today/thisweek’s class.

Reflect on what you did outsideof class to practice English.

Today we learned about nurture VS nature. I
On Monday, I had a zoom chatdidn’t know that in Japan people connect blood in English with my classmate.
types to personality.
Then, on Thursday, I watched a
I couldn’t participate well in group
Hollywood movie in English
conversation, but I enjoyed pair conversation.
with Japanese subtitles. Next
Next time I want to participate more actively in time, I want to try watching ita group, maybe ask more questions.
again without subtitles.
Today we discussed how to cope with workstress through reading. I could relate myself toit because I used to have so much stress at aworkplace where I worked part time. I could
share my experience with my classmate so I
felt happy. However, I couldn’t concentrate on
the class so much. I felt tired. I should haveenough sleep everyday.

On Monday,I watched YouTube
about how to exercise at home. I
really enjoyed learning
something new in English but
sometimes it was so difficult forme to understand what the
speaker was saying.
New Expressions:-stay fit and active-burn calories
Next time I want to learn how tocook in English.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
APPENDIX BSLL Student Sample

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
APPENDIX CIS Sample

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
APPENDIX D
IS Student Sample

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
APPENDIX E
IS RubricNUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
APPENDIX FSLL Questionnaire
Throughout the academic year, you have kept writing “Self-Learning Log”. I’d like to know how
it has been helpful for your learning and how it can be improved for future use. Your answers
will NOT affect your grades so please let me know your honest feelings and ideas about the log.
The results of this questionnaire might be introduced in a journal or a presentation for
educational purposes; however, it is only limited to the anonymous answers of this questionnaire.
Your actual self-learning logs will NOT be used in any type of research unless you give me
permissions.
After you read the explanation above and consent to answer the questions, please go to the next
page. If after you read the explanation above, you feel uncomfortable with answering thequestions, you do NOT have to answer the questions at all.
Thank you in advance for your time and sharing your ideas and experiences with me.
Part 1: Please tell me about how you see yourself as a learner.
1. Do you think you are an autonomous learner? (NOTE: Autonomous learner means a learner
who takes control of one's own learning both inside and outside of the classroom)(Strongly agree/Agree/Somewhat Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree)
Why do you think so?

2. Compared to yourself in April, do you think you have improved as a learner? (Yes/No)
Why？

3. Do you think writing a Self-Learning Log helped you be a good learner?
(Strongly agree/Agree/Somewhat Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree)
Why?

4. In the future, what kind of learner would you like to be? Please describe your ideal learner.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
5. To be the learner you described above, what is one thing you can do from today?

Part 2: Please tell me how you kept writing the Self-Learning Log and how you felt aboutit.
1.

How often did you write your log?
(Every after the class/Once a week/Once in two weeks/Just before the submission deadline)2.

How long did it take you to write your log (for one week)?
(Within 15 minutes/Within 30 minutes/Within an hour/More than an hour)3.

Do you think writing the log helped you remember what you learned in the class?
(Yes/No)

4.

Do you think writing the log helped you use/practice English outside of the classroom?
(Yes/No)

5.

Would you keep writing this kind of log in the future?
(Yes/No)
Why/Why not?

Part 3: Please let me know your ideas for improvements of the Self-Learning Log in the
future.
1.

Which type of the log do you prefer?
(Google Document/Word/Paper)2.

How often would you like to submit?
(Every week/Every after the Unit/Twice in a semester/Three times in a semester/I do notwish to submit. I want to keep it personal)

3.

Do you prefer to receive some comments from the teacher? (Yes/No)

4.

If you have any suggestions or comments about the log, please feel free to write below.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
5.

Is it OK with you to use some part of your log as an anonymous example in my research
paper/presentation in the future? If it's OK with you, can you write down your student
number below?

6. If you are willing to answer a short online interview about your self-learning experiences,
can you write down your email address below?

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
APPENDIX G
IS Questionnaire
Throughout the semester, you have been using the Independent Study sheet as part of your CE3
assignments. The purpose of this survey is to find out how helpful it has been for your learningand how it can be improved for future use. The results of this survey might be used for academic
research purposes, but your answer will be anonymous so please write your honest feelings andideas. IF you feel uncomfortable with completing the questionnaire after reading this
explanation, you can close this page anytime. Thank you in advance for your time and forsharing your ideas and experiences with us.
Core English 3 の課題の⼀部として、今学期中 Independent Study sheet を使⽤してきました。この調査の⽬的は、この Independent Study sheet があなたの学びにどのように助けとなったか、また、将来的にどのように改善することができるかを調べることです。本
調査の結果は学術的研究の⽬的で使⽤される可能性がありますが、匿名の回答となるので、正直な気持ちや考えを書いてください。もしも、この説明を読んだ後、本調査に回答するのを不快に感じた場合、回答する必要はありません。また、いつでも回答をやめてページを閉じても構いません。あなたの貴重な時間と、考え、経験を私たちと分かち合ってくれることに、感謝します。
1 Do you think you are an autonomous learner? （あなたは⾃分が autonomous learner だと思いますか？）(Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
2. Why do you think so? (なぜそう思いますか？）____________________________________________________________________________

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
3. Do you think doing the Independent Study sheet helped you improve as a learner compared toApril? （４⽉と⽐べて、Independent Study Sheet をやることで⾃分が learner として成⻑したと思いますか？）(Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
4. Why? (なぜですか？）______________________________________________________________________________
5. What kind of learner would you like to be?（あなたはどのような learner になりたいですか？）______________________________________________________________________________
6. To be the learner you described above, what is something you can do from today? （上記の質問に答えた learner になるために、あなたが今⽇からできることは何だと思いますか？）______________________________________________________________________________
7. How long did it take you to write your Independent Study sheet each time?

(Independent

Study sheet を書くのに毎回どのくらい時間がかかりましたか？）(Within 15 minutes, within 30 minutes, within an hour, more than an hour)
8. How often would you like to write it? (どのくらいの頻度で書きたいですか？）(Once a week, once every other week, once per unit, once a semester, I do not wish to submit. I
want to keep it to myself)
9. Do you think writing the Independent Study sheet helped you internalize what you learned in
the class? （Independent Study sheet を書くことは授業内容を⾝に着けることに役⽴ちま
したか？）(Yes/No)NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
10. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, please explain. （９の質問に Yes と答えた
場合、なぜそう思ったか教えてください）______________________________________________________________________________
11. Do you think writing the Independent Study sheet helped you use/practice English outside of
the classroom more than usual? (あなたは Independent Study sheet を書くことが、通常よりも、教室外で英語を使⽤したり練習したりすることにつながったと思いますか？）(Yes/No)
12. Why do you think so? (なぜそう思いますか？）______________________________________________________________________________
13. Do you prefer to receive some comments from the teacher? (あなたは教員からIndependent Study sheet にコメントがほしいですか？）(Yes/No)
14. Why? （なぜですか？）______________________________________________________________________________
15. Would you keep writing this kind of Independent Study sheet in the future? (あなたはこのようなタイプの Independent Study sheet を書くことを将来も続けたいですか？）(Yes/No)
16. Why/Why not? （なぜ続けたい／続けたくないですか？）______________________________________________________________________________
18. If you have any suggestions or comments on how to improve the Independent Study sheet,please feel free to write below. ( Independent Study sheet の改善⽅法について助⾔やコメン
トがあれば教えてください）NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM______________________________________________________________________________
19. Some Independent Study sheet student samples might be used anonymously (name andstudent number will be removed) for research. If you DON'T WANT your Independent Study
sheet being used as a sample, please write your student number here. ( Independent Study sheetの⼀部をサンプルとして、匿名（個⼈の名前及び学⽣番号等を削除する）にした上で研究に使⽤する場合があります。もしも、それを望まない場合、ここに、あなたの学⽣番
号を書いてください。）______________________________________________________________________________
20. If you are willing to join a short online interview about your experience with the Independent
Study sheet in the future, please write your student number here. Thank you! (将来的に、このIndependent Study sheet におけるあなたの経験について、短いオンラインインタビューに協⼒してもよい場合、あなたの学⽣番号をここに書いてください。ご協⼒に感謝します。）______________________________________________________________________________

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
APPENDIX HInterview Questions