Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Challenging the Conventions ofLearner Development Research
Table of Contents
Introduction

Introduction to The Learner Development Journal Issue 7: Challenging the Conventions ofLearner Development Research�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������2
Ellen Head, Aya Hayasaki, & Ryo Moriya

ArticlesTracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning
Module: A Short Story Approach �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
Amelia Yarwood
Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems
Theory Lens: An Indonesian Context ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32
Ratna Yunita
The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom ����������59
Misako Kawasaki
The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers:
A Retrospective Case Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������78
Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami
Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of GroupWork �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������96
Takaaki Morioka
Why I Utilize Autoethnography to Promote Learner Development: A Reflexive Narrative ofEnglish Teacher Development�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������118
Marlen Elliot Harrison
Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, andIssues���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 128
Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama
Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider
View on Learner Development���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157
Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

Commentary

Concluding Commentary: Reflect, Write, and Share���������������������������������������������������������������� 180
Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

1

INTRODUCTION
Introduction to The Learner Development Journal
Issue 7: Challenging the Conventions ofLearner Development Research
Ellen Head, Miyazaki International College, Japan<ehead(at)sky(dot)miyazaki-mic(dot)ac(dot)jp>
Aya Hayasaki, Waseda University, Japan<hayasakiaya(at)gmail(dot)com>
Ryo Moriya, Waseda University, Japan<ryo(dot)m6bell(dot)a(at)gmail(dot)com>
Why “Challenging the Conventions”?

Ellen: The shared global story of 2020-23 challenged many assumptions about teaching
and learning, as the pandemic forced us to embrace online teaching under emergency
remote conditions, study abroad was cancelled, Brexit, the Black Lives Matter protests,
and the January 6 assault on the Capitol all acted together to undermine the pristine
image of hegemonic English-speaking countries. Meanwhile, AI resources for translationand text creation were developing in ways that would change students’ perceived needs
and profoundly impact the way we do teaching and learning. Back in 2020, it felt, for me
at least, as if the era was challenging us. In ELT, there have been numerous attempts
to identify trends such as “the multilingual turn” or “the narrative turn,” but it was very
hard to say which way things would turn at the time in November 2020 when I first met
Aya in a Learner Development SIG forum online. Recently I’ve been jokingly referring tothis as the “Everything-Everywhere-All-At-Once Turn” (after the 2022 movie by Daniel
Kwan and Daniel Scheinert) to express something of the confusion and complexityof that moment, when we could see “everything” online, but we could not actually go
anywhere nor predict when that moment would be over. Now in December 2023, it
might seem to be business as usual in many contexts, but it’s probably true to say thatthe experience of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) has affectedteaching and learning in profound ways, even if we don’t fully realise it yet.

How we met each other and discovered the theme for LDJ7

Ellen: When I heard Aya’s presentation about dilemmas and trajectories in adolescents’language learning, at the Learner Development Forum at JALT2020, I was fascinated by
the new questions she was asking and her lightning-quick way of making connections
between theory and practice. So in the summer of 2021, I approached her to ask if
she would be interested in putting forward a proposal for Issue 7 of The Learner
Development Journal (LDJ7). Aya asked Ryo Moriya to join us, as Ryo was also curious
about emotions, life trajectories, and research methods which attempt to capture boththe subtleties of individual experience and the connection to a larger picture. All of us
2

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ellen Head, Aya Hayasaki, & Ryo Moriya

had written for LDJ at different times, and enjoyed the engagement with writing for asmall audience, sharing multiple drafts, and continuing to work on the same piece overan extended time period. We started talking about themes and the idea of “challenging
the conventions” emerged.

Previous conventions challenged and room for further exploration

Aya: In my view, one of the most important previous studies in our field that “challenged
the conventions” is Firth & Wagner (1997). The authors overturned the hidden assumptionthat many people might have had as second language teachers/learners, namely thenative speaker ideology. I myself, as an L2 English user, felt empowered by theirargument that we should reconsider the conception that non-native speakers/second
language learners are a “deficit” model. They also touched on the issue of what
constitutes success, arguing that we should learn not only from failures but also fromsuccesses in language learning and use. What is considered deficit from one theoreticallens can be considered full of resources and potentials from another. Another important
example that “challenged the conventions” would be how positive psychology was
introduced to general psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and eventuallyto psychology of language learners (Mercer & MacIntyre, 2014). Positive psychology
has challenged conventional psychology by shifting the focus from what is wrong towhat is right in human life. While psychology has generally aimed to study and treat
problems, positive psychology seeks ways to understand and enhance the positive
aspects of human functioning such as wellbeing and strengths, as well as embrace andharness negativity.
While Firth & Wagner’s arguments and positive psychology developed from completely
different histories of research, these perspectives have commonality in that they bothbrought fresh insights into learner development research. For instance, in my ongoing
PhD research, I am exploring the potential role of English learning experience in the(trans)formation of career perspectives in women from rural Japan; I try to revisit thisseemingly resource-limited context from both critical and hopeful perspectives bytaking a transdisciplinary approach (Douglas Fir Group, 2016; see also Edsall et al., 2023,
this issue). My suggestion here is not just to look at the bright side; we need to lookat both sides, or multiple sides of learners–multiple and complex emotions, identities,
and contexts within each individual (see also Ryo’s story below). Of course, this kind ofholistic approach is not new in itself. However, what both fascinates and challenges meis the dilemmas, ambivalence, and contradictions in individuals’ lived experience, andthese still seem to leave a lot of room for further exploration.
Looking back, I feel this room for exploration was what brought us LDJ7 editors andcontributors together as well. We (Ellen, Aya, and Ryo) started by sharing what it meant
to challenge conventions in our respective studies, which naturally made us curious
about how practitioners and researchers in other contexts and from more diverse
backgrounds might, could, and should be looking at learner development from new
angles, and how we could learn from one another. Distanced from our normal lives
because of the pandemic, we were somehow given more time and space than ever torethink what we have done and what we have taken for granted in language education.
One positive outcome of the pandemic, if any, was that it allowed us to explore suchroom for exploration and discussion together without being in the same room physically.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

3

Introduction to The Learner Development Journal Issue 7

Historia: From person-in-context to context-in-person?

Ryo: Regarding “challenging the conventions,” I am working on sociocultural theory(hereafter SCT) based on Vygotsky’s ideas. Specifically, I am interested in praxis (thefusion of theory and practice), combining SCT and advising in language learning, tolongitudinally investigate perezhivanie (a Russian term that represents the dialecticalunity of both “cognition and emotion” and “individual agent and environment”) inadvising settings that encourage learners to be autonomous/agentive and provide
individualized and optimal support (e.g., Moriya, 2022, 2023). One of Vygotsky’s ideasthat greatly impacted my thinking about my research L2 topics was that learning cannot
be achieved only by individuals or certain targeted variables, but, in reality, involves amyriad of mediating interactants (including artifacts and interlocutors).
Vygotsky critically examined the dualism (e.g., subjective or behavioral psychology),
common in psychology at the time, and theorized anew about the relationship between
childhood development and education (see Vygotsky, 1997). Although he did not directly
mention L2 learning, sociocultural theorists have incorporated his ideas into L2 learning/teaching as praxis (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014), and we can identify glimpses of them inmany of the LDJ7 articles. For example, the analysis of peer interaction in Kawasaki’s
paper (Kawasaki, 2023) owes much to Vygotsky’s ideas. In this issue, too,the idea of
linguistic abilities growing through interaction with a whole group emerges in Takagi,
Tanaka and Minami’s study of an autonomy-fostering teacher (Takagi et al., 2023). It
might not be an exaggeration to say that none of the LDJ7 articles would be written inquite the same way without the influence of Vygotsky, albeit indirectly. Among the SCTrelated terms (e.g., sociocultural interaction, mediation, and longitudinal development),
one of the well-known concepts in the theory Vygotsky systematized is the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD). ZPD is a concept he created because of his dialectical viewof relationships with others beyond the individual. It may sound paradoxical, but the
ZPD reflects his idea that it is not enough to look only at the individual in order to face
the individual. That is why the futuristic and collective aspect of what we will be able to dois crucial in the ZPD.
Vygotsky also incorporated dialectical materialism into his theory and emphasizedhistoria (i.e., four different geneses; see Lantolf et al., 2018). In English, story and history
are different words, but etymologically, historia is the Latin word for both. In fact, past
events can be described as stories about something/someone. Like the ZPD, anotherparadox is at work: to understand the future, we need to face more about the pastrather than only the future. Vygotskian sociocultural theorists have long stressed theimportance of context since the 1980s, or rather, it has been a fundamental premise of
their works (e.g., Frawley & Lantolf, 1985). There is no denying that looking at contextin-person is essential now in exploring learner development. Context-in-person truly
represents a person’s historia (or history-in-person, according to Holland & Lave, 2001).
Just as Vygotsky challenged the conventions of his time with dialectical ideas, we hope
the works of LDJ7 contributors who have faced learner/teacher historia will become
cornerstones for the reader’s future, which will be your historia afterward.

4

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ellen Head, Aya Hayasaki, & Ryo Moriya

Developing LDJ7

Ellen: During the process of talking with writers and reading their early drafts, it became
clear that as learners, teachers, and practitioner researchers, we need conventions
as a place to start from, even if we do decide to challenge them. In this context,“conventions” mean both ways of writing, and awareness of what others have done in
the past – practices they did and the theories that they had.
As each issue of the LDJ has a two-year gestation period, LDJ7 writers and editors had
a unique opportunity to work with an audience with whom they had a social relationship,
to track our own and each other’s changes, and notice when and how these show up
in writing. During the meetings which we had online with contributors, there was an
atmosphere of discovery and challenge as authors and editors asked questions andsometimes prodded each other to discover new aspects of the historia represented.
As a result, LDJ7 authors took up a variety of inter/transdisciplinary approaches to gain
fresh insights into the dynamic nature of learner development. In this issue, our authors
focused particularly on the minutiae of relationships, emotions, and events related tolearning at the most intimate level.
Such richness of interaction leads to tough decisions for the editors, as we have thetask of setting boundaries which inevitably result in losses - of the evanescent insights
in a marginal comment or a Zoom discussion, and of brilliant ideas that inadvertently
spiralled away from the main theme. Along with setting boundaries, we also had thegreat pleasure of walking alongside the authors as they developed and explicated theirresearch, as well as situated their stories in relation to their lived experiences of teaching
and learning.

Challenging the Convention of Linear Reading

To provide an overview of this issue, the following map offers a visual representation ofsome of the themes which connect the articles in LDJ7. The three large circles correspondto the themes of the three groups which the LDJ7 contributors were divided into for the
purpose of discussing their nascent research projects, sharing their developing drafts, andoffering feedback on each others’ work. One group focused on learner’s emotions andidentities, the second group on classroom practice for developing learner autonomy.
The third group were drawn together by an interest in exploring the nature of writing asa practitioner-researcher, in terms of genre. In the map, we have labelled their focus as“reflecting on life-trajectories as teachers and learners” in order to bring out the themes
they have in common with the other groups.
For those who prefer a linear outline, we have arranged the articles by starting withthe focus on a single learner, broadening out to look at learner’s emotions in groups,
classrooms and finally teachers’ life trajectories. However, we hope you will discover
many resonances between the articles. Ideally, we would make this map into a threedimensional, interactive game in which you, the reader, could move various articles
around in accordance with the resonances that you notice.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

5

Introduction to The Learner Development Journal Issue 7

Y axis: Making sense with narrative approaches

LDJ7: Challenging the Conventions of Learner Development Research: Thematic Connections
Each colored circle represents one article, with author name(s) and a short summary. The
map can be imagined as a three-dimensional, interactive game in which you, the reader,can jump from place to place and also move various articles around in accordance with theresonances that you notice.

Reflecting onlife-trajectories asteachers (and learners)
Barfield, Andy &Nakayama, Akiko:
Collegial story sharing &Harrison, Marlen:
discussion about teacher
autonomy, PBL, andA teacher reflecting
meaningful engaged
on their use oflearning
autoethnography in
Reflecting on
exploring self and as aclassroom practicegenre for students towrite
Takagi, Akiko,
Tanaka Takeo &Minami, Yuki:
Three researchers
Yarwood, Amelia:interviewing a teacher about
A learning advisor
his classroom practicefinding out about
and practitioner
Morioka,a learner’s identity
research
Takaaki:through analysing his
A teacher’s classroom
stories
Kawasaki,research: Did writing
Misako:reflections about
A teacher’s survey ofgroup work improvestudents’ emotions in the
Ratna, Yunita:
participation inclassroom and how they
A teacher’s analysis
group work?
learn to regulate theirof the autonomy
emotions in groupdevelopment of twowork by working
university students
with peers
over a year

Focusing on learners’
identities
X axis: Investigating learner development by using surveys, models, analytical approaches

More about this mind map: Articles which are closer to the bottom part of the pageused more quantitative and analytic approaches. Articles closer to the left hand side of
the page used qualitative approaches. The larger circles represent thematic connections
between articles.
Figure 1. Thematic connections across LDJ7
6

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ellen Head, Aya Hayasaki, & Ryo Moriya

Amelia Yarwood, “Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL
Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module: A Short Story Approach”
Amelia Yarwood’s exploration of the emotions and learner identity of a single language
learner reveals the dramatic shifts the learner experienced while he was studying on a selfdirected learning course. The author analyses the stories which he told in interviews sometime after the course had ended when he had had time to reflect. Amelia combines threedifferent analytical methods – a short story analysis, using Barkhuizen (2016), together withemotional qualities analysis and identity analysis using narrative re-writing – resulting in astudy which challenges the conventions of learner development research in terms of detail,priority given to emotions, and learner-centeredness.

Ratna Yunita, “Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through aComplex Dynamic Systems Theory View: An Indonesian Context”

Ratna Yunita looks at the development of learner autonomy in Indonesia in a longitudinal
study focusing on two students. She contextualizes her research by looking at her own
story of autonomy and Indonesian educational policy. Her in-depth study then focuseson the dynamic fluctuations of autonomy development experienced by her students
during 2020-21. Carrying out retrospective interviews, Ratna identifies four factors which
operate as part of a complex, dynamic system, including the learners’ affect, behaviouralchange, restrictions, and external push and support. The compelling interplay between
these factors over time provides valuable insights into how students may be supported in
becoming more autonomous in different local contexts.

Misako Kawasaki, “The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulationin the English Classroom”
Misako Kawasaki describes a semester-long study of the emotion regulation which developed
between peers in her class. Initially, she surveyed the students about the emotions which
they experienced in class. Repeating the survey in the middle and at the end of the semester,Misako provided opportunities for the students to reflect and share reflection on the strategies
they used to regulate emotions in negative situations. Peer interaction had a significant effecton their emotion regulation, generally promoting positive emotions. This innovative study
suggests that classroom teachers can help students improve emotion regulation by specificallyintroducing discussion of emotions in the language learning classroom.

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami, “The Role of Practitioner
Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers: A
Retrospective Case Study”

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, and Yuki Minami collaborate with a junior high school teacher,
Naoya Miyazaki, to find out more about the development of autonomous learning in theclassroom. The three authors wanted to learn more about how Naoya did this throughpractitioner research over a two-year period. Interviewing him retrospectively about anarticle that he had written and that included teacher journal reflections on his practices,
Akiko, Takeo, and Minami analysed themes from the multiple sources of data to build up a
more sophisticated understanding of Naoya’s learner autonomy-fostering perspectives inthis multi-layered study.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

7

Introduction to The Learner Development Journal Issue 7

Takaaki Morioka, “Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities
on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work”

Takaaki Morioka reports on the effect of mandatory reflection as a follow-up to grouplearning activities with first-year students aged 15 to 16 at a technical college in Japan. He
carried out a comparative study in which one group participated in cooperative learning
activities and wrote regular reflections, while the other group participated in cooperative
learning without writing any reflections. All the students were somewhat positive aboutgroup learning, but the group which wrote reflections were not as positive about theirlearning experiences. The study thus leads Takaaki to challenge his assumption thatreflection would result in enhanced learner engagement.

Marlen Harrison, “Why I Utilize Autoethnography to Promote Learner
Development: A Reflexive Narrative of English Teacher Development”

Marlen Harrison argues for the practice of autoethnography as a mode of self-development
which can bring insight to both teachers and learners. He describes his own innovativeuse of autoethnography for self-exploration and his experiments with autoethnography
as an assignment for students in university English writing classrooms in Japan, Finland,
and the USA. Reflecting on his journey as an autoethnography instructor, Marlen makes
original connections between identity, self-awareness, and autonomy, as well as provides
practical suggestions for using autoethnography with learners.

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama, “Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful
Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues”

Andy Barfield and Akiko Nakayama’s piece challenges conventions in multiple ways,
building up a patchwork of parallel stories and reflexive dialogue, ranging over themes
which include teacher socialization, learner and teacher autonomy, project-based learning(PBL), and other non-conventional approaches to learning. Akiko and Andy’s article,
co-written in a process which included regular collaborative meetings on Zoom, captures
the flavour of collegial dialogue, and as such it stands to remind us of the special, dialogic
nature of LDJ.

Dominic Edsall, with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki, “Towards Complexity in
Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on
Learner Development”

We (Ellen, Aya, and Ryo) asked Dominic to write a piece for LDJ7 which would provide
a theoretical underpinning and rationale for our intuitive feeling that both qualitativeand quantitative research could have a place side by side in LDJ. In this paper, Dominic
focuses on making connections between various different research perspectives, drawing
on the work of Bhaskar, a critical realist philosopher, and the Douglas Fir group, to ask
directly “What are the conventions of learner autonomy research, and why should they
be challenged?” The writing was further enriched by continuous dialogue and questioning
by Aya and Ellen with Dominic; however, the authorial voice, knowledge, and overall
perspective remain Dominic’s.

8

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ellen Head, Aya Hayasaki, & Ryo Moriya

Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa, “Concluding Commentary: Reflect, Write, and Share”
Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa offers a thoughtful critique of each article, together witha strong endorsement of reflective writing as practitioner research. In this concluding
piece, Vola exhorts us to engage in reflective writing and collegial sharing, reminding us
how close the process of writing is to reading. If you would like more orientation before
jumping into LDJ7, then this commentary might be the best place to start. But you arewarmly invited to find your own route.

Acknowledgements

The editors express our heart-felt thanks to each and every contributor for creating andsharing these journeys of discovery together with us. We would also like to say a giant
thank you to the reviewers and, above all, to the steering group for their tireless work andattention to detail without which LDJ7 could not be produced at all. Their hard work has
resulted in the illusion that the issue came together effortlessly, when in fact much of thework was done behind the scenes by the STG. We also want to offer our sincere thanks toIvan Lombardi for working on the layout of LDJ7 with amazing speed, insight, and goodhumoured replies to our demanding requests. In the beginning stages, Gareth Barnes andTakaaki Morioka joined us and contributed their ideas to the Call for Proposals, helping toshape our thinking and collaboration. It is a great privilege to be part of LDJ and, although
all three of us started out intending to “give back” to the LDJ community, it is probably true
to say that we have received more than we have given, many times over.
— Ellen Head, Aya Hayasaki, & Ryo Moriya

December 2023

References

Barkhuizen, G. (2016). Narrative approaches to exploring language, identity and power in language
teacher education. RELC Journal, 47(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631222
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world.
The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
Edsall, D. G., with Head, E., & Hayasaki, A. (2023). Towards complexity in challenging
learner autonomy research conventions: A wider view on learner development. The
Learner Development Journal, 7, 157–179. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-9
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. https://doi.
org/10.2307/329302
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskian perspective.
Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.1.19
Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2001). History in person: Enduring struggles, contentious practice,intimate identities. School for Advanced Research Press.
Kawasaki, M. (2023). The influence of peer interaction on emotion regulation in the English
classroom. The Learner Development Journal, 7, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.
LDJ7-4
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in
L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203813850
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

9

Introduction to The Learner Development Journal Issue 7

Lantolf, J. P., Poehner, M., & Swain, M. (Eds.) (2018). The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory
and second language development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624747
Mercer, S., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Introducing positive psychology to SLA. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.2
Moriya, R. (2022). Exploring the collective aspects of perezhivanie through classroombased peer advising sessions. JASAL Journal, 3(2), 42–65. https://jasalorg.com/
exploring-the-collective-aspects-of-perezhivanie-through-classroom-based-peeradvising-sessions/
Moriya, R. (2023). Learner perezhivanie and mutual advisor-advisee development throughadvising: A longitudinal case study of JSL learner. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal,
14(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.37237/140304
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Takagi, A., Tanaka, T., & Minami, Y. (2023). The role of practitioner research in exploring
learner autonomy for in-service teachers: A retrospective case study. The Learner
Development Journal, 7, 78–95. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-5
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis of psychology. In R. W. Rieber& J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 3: Problems of the theory andhistory of psychology (pp. 233–344). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-46155893-4

LDJ7 Reviewers

Paul Collett, Shimonoseki City University, Japan
Nathan Ducker, Miyazaki Municipal University, Japan
Dominic Edsall, University College London, Institute of Education, UK, & Kyoto Prefectural
University of Medicine, Japan
Tomoko Hashimoto, Tokyo Future University, Japan
Shu Hua Kao, Chihlee University of Technology, Taiwan
Jo Mynard, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan
Colin Rundle, Soka University, Japan
Saki Suemori, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Katherine Thornton, Otemon Gakuin University, Japan
Stacey Vye, Saitama University, JapanLDJ Steering Group, May 2021 to December 2023

Tim Ashwell, Komazawa University, Japan (January 2015 to November 2021)
Andy Barfield, Chuo University, Japan (from December 2021)
Oana Cusen, Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan (May 2022 to May 2023)
Dominic Edsall, University College London, Institute of Education, UK, & Kyoto Prefectural
University of Medicine, Japan (November 2019 to April 2022)
Yuri Imamura, Shukutoku University, Japan (from June 2023)
Tanya McCarthy, Kyoto University, Japan (from December 2020, LDJ7 liaison)

Layout and Design

Ivan Lombardi, University of Fukui, Japan
10

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

ARTICLE
Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an
EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning
Module: A Short Story Approach
Amelia Yarwood, Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education,
Kanda University of International Studies, Japan<yarwood-a(at)kanda(dot)kuis(dot)ac(dot)jp>
This paper explores the stories told by Hiroto, an EFL learner enrolled in a semester-long self-directedlanguage learning (SDLL) module to understand how the emotional qualities found in the stories interact
with Hiroto’s identity (re)construction. Barkhuizen’s (2016b) short story approach was used in conjunction
with emotion-based codes to analyse data extracts from interviews, constructed identity statements, anda visual language learning history. The findings reveal that Hiroto experiences a constant flux of emotions
throughout his SDLL journey that interact in different ways with micro, meso, and macro-level factors
such as an existing desired identity, academic obligations, cultural influences, and TOEIC examinations.

本論文は、1学期にわたる自己主導型言語学習（SDLL）
モジュールに在籍するEFL学習者ヒロトの物語を探求し、彼の物語に見られる感情の性質がヒロトのアイデンティティ（再）構築とどのように相互作用するかを理解する。
Barkhuizen（2016）のショートストーリーア
プローチは、
インタビュー、構築されたアイデンティティステートメント、視覚化した言語学習史から抽出したデータを分析するために、感情に基づくコードと組み合わせて使用された。
その結果、ヒロトはSDLLの旅路によって、既存の望ましいアイデンティティ、学業上の義務、文化的影響、TOEIC試験などのミクロ、
メゾ、
マクロレベルの要因とさまざまな形で相互作用する、持続的な感情の流動を経験していることが明らかになった。

Keywords

learner emotions, emotional qualities, EFL learner, identity construction, narrative case study
学習者感情、感情の性質、外国語としての英語学習者、
アイデンティティの構築、
ナラティブによる事例研究

Introduction

Stories of language learning are at the core of my personal, professional, and researchlife. It is through stories that learners can make sense of their multiple, dynamic identities,
each of which is grounded in different places, spaces, and times. In my role as a Learning
Advisor (LA), a language and self-directed learning specialist, I became fascinated by how
the emotions in the stories my students shared mediated their actions; either facilitatingor hindering their learning, or influencing who they identified as language learners.
However, when consulting the literature, I found that little attention had been paid toemotions due to preferences for cognitive approaches (Swain, 2013; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015)
and an unfamiliarity with how to conduct emotion research (Swain, 2013). Connections
between self-directed learning, learner identity, and emotions were even fewer. With
this gap in mind, I set out to adopt a “person-centred” approach (Benson, 2019, p. 65)
that would shed light on how learning experiences and emotions interact with the way
in which self-directed language learning identities are constructed, deconstructed, andreconstructed anew through storytelling. Storytelling, it seemed, was the perfect vehicle
to understand the sociocultural and psychological experiences of a learner and how they
influence, inform, and are integrated into their perception of who they are as a learner.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

11

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

Using stories as both process and product was a challenge. Just as my participant had tomake decisions about language choice, structure, presentation, and the interpretations
offered, I also had to make decisions about how I gave meaning to another person’s
experiences, emotions, and identities. The difficulty was only increased by the uncertainty,
bewilderment, and frustration I encountered when attempting to combine the multiple
threads of related stories in a way that would resonate with the reader. I have done mybest to explore the relational processes that occur in the development of self-directedlanguage learning identities; however, I invite readers to be active participants in thestorytelling process - interpret what you read with an awareness of your own language
learning experiences, emotions, and sense of self.

Self-Directed Language Learning

Self-directed language learners, those willing to be responsible for their own learning
processes, are likely to be engaged, focused, and maintain effective study habits(Thornton, 2010). These benefits are desirable for life-long learning and personal growth.
Consistent self-directed language learning (SDLL), while ideal, is not the reality. In reality,
SDLL is relational. It is a tapestry of coloured threads that represents any number ofinteracting variables, including learner’s beliefs, values, personalities, lived experiences,and situational factors within their personal, social, and wider socio-political worlds. Inan effort to better understand and regulate some of these variables, educating learners
in the use of practical and reflective self-directed learning skills has been advocated byleading researchers (Nunan, 1999; Oxford, 1990, 2017). The approach taken to SDLL in mycontext, a self-access learning centre near Tokyo, seeks to actively address the dynamic
nature of language learning. Thus, considerable efforts are made to work with learners toco-construct a narrative that makes explicit the personal, interpersonal, and contextual
variables that influence self-directed learning.
Practically, this is achieved by employing Learning Advisors (LAs), foreign language
teaching and learning specialists trained in reflective dialogue tools and practices (Kato& Mynard, 2016). Advising sessions are open to all students who wish to explore theirlearning processes alongside an advisor. The sessions are voluntary, often conducted in
the students’ target language, and are a unique feature of the self-access centre.
Training in SDLL through modules collectively known as the Effective Learning
Module (ELM) is also offered. Delivered as two separate modules, the introductory ELM
1 module covers practical SDLL skills such as goal setting, language learning strategies,
resources, and overcoming barriers (e.g., motivation, confidence) and is a prerequisite forenrolment in the more self-directed and reflective ELM 2. Practical and reflective skills areinterwoven in each module, albeit to different degrees. For example, practical SDLL skills
are introduced and explored across six weekly units in ELM 1 before a personal learning
plan is developed, implemented, and reflected upon by the student. LAs provide written
feedback each week, but advising sessions are not built into the schedule (although
they can, and are requested). In contrast, ELM 2 includes intermittent reflective training
activities which are designed to deepen the weekly reflections module takers write basedon what they notice about the process of implementing their personal learning plans.
Several advising sessions are embedded in the ELM 2 schedule. (For a full explanation of
the modules, see Davies & Yarwood, 2023; Imamura & Wongsarnpigoon, 2023.)

12

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

SDLL and Language Learner Identity

Characterised as volitional action and the genuine self-endorsement of a learning task
(Mynard et al., 2022), autonomy is at the heart of the SDLL modules. Learners enrolled
in these modules are thus required to reflect on who they are as language learners andmake self-endorsed decisions about the what, where, why, and how of their learning.
However, not all learners are willing to take responsibility for their own learning due topreferences for learning styles that are passive and teacher centred (Wong & Nunan,
2011) or uncertainty in adjusting their approaches to make the most of new, autonomous
learning environments (Curry et al., 2017; Victori & Lockhart, 1995). For others, thevariables outlined earlier (e.g., personal, interpersonal, and situational) may facilitate orhinder self-directed learning. Learners thus operate at, and maneuver between, different
stages of autonomous thinking and behaviour (i.e., from other-directed to completely
self-directed) for a number of reasons (Kato & Mynard, 2016).
In the experience of many advisors, changes in autonomy and self-directed learning
behaviours take time, are supported by the advisor-advisee bond, and may not always
be immediately visible (Davis et al., 2019; Edlin & Yarwood, 2019). Anecdotal evidence
from experienced advisors, myself included, highlights the complex and lengthy process
involved in developing an autonomous, self-directed learner identity. Frequently,
the changes in learners’ beliefs and affective realities that signal a transformation inautonomy development are not immediately recognisable (Chong & Reinders, 2022).
Without understanding the processes, affordances, and obstacles that shape thedevelopment of self-directed learner identities over time and, in the context of SDLL
experiences, educators may inadvertently underestimate the impact of SDLL teaching
and learning pedagogies. Thus I aim to provide an example of how language advisors,classroom teachers, and those developing self-directed learning materials could
holistically explore ways in which SDLL experiences influence, inform, and are integrated
into individual language learners’ identities.

Stories of Who Am I?

Learner identity is grounded in past experiences and exerts considerable influence on
current and future goals, values, and concerns (Miyahara, 2014, 2017). The temporal,
goal- and value-oriented nature of identity is reaffirmed in Norton’s often cited definitionof identity as, “the way a person understands [their] relationship to the world, howthat relationship is structured across time and space, and how the person understands
possibilities for the future” (Norton, 2013, p. 4). It appears then that there is no betterway to understand, maintain, or modify language learning behaviours than to untangle
the subjective values interwoven with a learner’s understanding of their L2 learning
experiences and their ongoing identity work (i.e., renegotiating an identity). As perceptionsof experiences, values, goals, and identity are unique to the individual, a “person-centred”
approach (Benson, 2019, p. 65) that gives prominence to an individual’s experiences in andconceptions of social contexts rather than the social context itself are most appropriate to
the task (Benson, 2019; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Ushioda, 2011, 2016).
Narratives, or more specifically, elicited storytelling is one method that can be used
to gain access to the subjective experiences inherent in learner identity research(Barkhuizen, 2016b, 2017; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Hiver et al., 2020; McAdams & McLean,
2013), while also creating a space for learners to exercise their agency in defining andrenegotiating their identities. In other words, through the process of the self-reflection
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

13

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Modulethat takes place in elicited storytelling situations, learners develop a greater awarenessof their individual processes (Kato & Mynard, 2016). Meanwhile, agency is demonstrated
when learners construct, evaluate and ultimately share the stories they feel are
relevant to their identity as language learners (Barkhuizen 2016b; Prior, 2016, 2019). The
constructed nature of elicited stories often encounters questions of representation andtrustworthiness. However, in working with narratives, it is important to remember that
we do not seek to find “faithful representations of a reality independent of the knower”(Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007, p. 39). Instead, how learners choose to represent themselves isat the core of narratives and narrative inquiry. In utilising narratives, we aim to consider
the rich tapestry of what is told, how it is told, and how stories are co-constructed by,
and resonate with, the narrator, the audience, and existing social, political, and cultural
narratives. Exploring learner identity from a person-centred, narrative approach offers
researchers, educators, and the learners themselves an opportunity to look at the
tapestry of experience through an iterative lens; each time uncovering the different
representations that have been woven together. Each time gaining a different insight into
their experience as a whole.
Learners enrolled in formal SDLL modules like the one in this study are familiar withthe act of elicited storytelling through embedded reflective activities. Self-reflection occurs
internally. Meanwhile, the written and oral reflections in SDLL modules or with LAs aresocial activities. SDLL modules thus provide a supportive, dialogic space in which learners
can share stories about their perceptions of and responses to their far- and recent-pastlearning experiences in multimodal and collaborative ways. In terms of understanding
SDLL-related identity work, subjectivity or how individuals perceive an experience is afoundational concept. The emotional tones learners colour their stories of SDLL withcan provide an insight into how they are negotiating their experiences, their relationshipwith their emerging learner identity, and any obstacles they face in developing a more
self-directed identity. I explore this in more detail in the next section where I highlight theconnections between subjective experiences in SDLL, emotion, and identity work.

Emotions behind Who am I?

Emotions have traditionally been defined as purely cognitive phenomena (Barcelos, 2015;
Pavlenko, 2013). Such definitions disassociate emotions from their dynamic and situatednature and their relationship to power relations, ideologies and cultural norms (Pavlenko,
2013; Prior, 2019; Swain, 2013). Traditional definitions of emotions are also problematic
to our understanding of SDLL. To do justice to the complex relationship emotions havewith SDLL, holistic approaches that take into account the interplay of a broad range ofemotions, cognition and action (Imai, 2010), language use (Prior, 2019; Dewaele, 2021),
and beliefs and identities (Barcelos, 2015) are essential. One view of emotions that gives
salience to its cognitive and social dimensions comes from the psychologist Nico Frijda.
By characterising emotions as a motivation state which, “push the individual to change
his relationship with an object, a state of the world, or a state of self, or to maintainan existing relationship despite obstacles or interferences” (Frijda, 2008, p. 16), SDLL,
learner identity, and emotions should be explored holistically. In this view of emotions,the priority given to emotional concerns (e.g., the desire to succeed) is dependent on theindividual or culture, as well as any potential threats to a particular emotional concern.
As a result, there can be a range of potential meanings attached to each concern (Frijda,
1988; Mesquita & Frijda, 2011). To provide a concrete example, a learner who is ambitious
14

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

may aspire to convey their familiarity with complex concepts during a conversation. For
the learner, maintaining their credibility as an ambitious, intelligent individual is theirfocal emotional concern. If the learner lacks the appropriate vocabulary to maintain their
credibility, then their identity as knowledgeable becomes threatened, generating fearor shame, which may result in avoidance behaviours such as ending the conversation.
Concurrently, ending the conversation may also undermine their credibility as ambitious
since they are unable to prove their ambition-related hard work. So, desire may winout over fear and shame and propel the learner to look up the necessary vocabulary inorder to fulfil their goal. Emotions are thus feelings that evoke reactions and have thepotential for action (MacIntyre & Gergerson, 2012). When engaging with SDLL knowledge
and abilities, emotions can be considered an “essential resource” (Yamashita, 2015, p. 79).
In other words, by identifying the emotions being experienced, the learner can develop
an awareness of what is happening to them, why it is happening, and its effect on theirperceptions, beliefs, and language learning behaviours. From there, the learner can thenmake an informed decision about their learning.

The Study

My aim was to take a closer look at the SDLL identity work undertaken by English language
learners by providing a case study of an undergraduate enrolled in a SDLL module at aforeign language university in Japan. To focus the study on the negotiation of a self-directed
learner identity vis-à-vis the learner’s subjective perception of their SDLL experience, I givepriority to the learner’s identity work and not the specific activities (for readers interested in
activity details, see Curry et al., 2017; Davies & Yarwood, 2023; Imamura & Wongsarnpigoon,
2023). To guide my analysis and interpretation, the following research questions were
explored:
1. What elicited narratives does a single Japanese undergraduate share of their English
learning experience during a semester-long SDLL module?
2.	 How do the emotional qualities in the learner’s elicited narratives function in
relation to their SDLL learner identity?

Methodology

Introducing Hiroto

Hiroto (pseudonym) was a first-year student enrolled in the International Communications
department. To obtain a longitudinal understanding of identity work during SDLL, I
contacted participants who had enrolled in both SDLL modules during the 2021-22
academic year. A total of six students were invited to participate in the study, but only
Hiroto expressed an interest in sharing his stories.
Despite joining his mother at a local English community centre to sing English songs
from a young age, Hiroto did not begin seriously learning English until the end of juniorhigh school when he found enjoyment in doing well on school-based English exams. His
decision to enrol at the university was based on his desire to “study English with English.”With an ambitious attitude, Hiroto initially enrolled in the SDLL module to “learn how to
study and so something new in university.” His motivation to take the second SDLL module
emerged from the realisation that his earlier study plans were “not realistic,” so he “made adecision to make a realistic plan.”

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

15

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

Collecting and analysing stories

As a narrative researcher, I aim to move beyond a description of phenomena to focus
on understanding how lived experiences are co-created, understood, performed, andtransformed. Narrative inquiry, in contrast to other forms of research, accepts findings
in terms of authenticity, resonance, and/or trustworthiness (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000;
Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). To ensure that Hiroto’s voice was clearly represented in a waythat ensures authenticity and trustworthiness, I followed a rigorous process that included
reiterative readings, extensive note-taking, and active discussions of (re)interpretations.
These discussions took place with both a colleague familiar with emotions and learner
identity research, and Hiroto. To address the matter of resonance, which seeks to makesure findings are understandable, relatable, and worthwhile, I decided to present theanalysis of narratives alongside the interpretation. By demonstrating what different
elements in Hiroto’s narrative experience signify, the threads of Hiroto’s experience,emotions, and SDLL identity work become tightly woven to present a holistic image.

Summarising the procedures

The ethics, data collection, and analysis procedures I followed for this study took place
between February and March 2022 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Flow of Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
16

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

The consent procedures for this project included approval from the university ethics
committee and providing Hiroto with both a bilingual, plain language statement andconsent form. After Hiroto consented, I emailed him with instructions on how to create
a visual language learning history (LLH) (Appendix A) and requested an online interview
to explore his LLH experiences in further detail. In the interview, Hiroto was keen to use
English and only used Japanese when he could not find the words to express himself
as desired. My own Japanese abilities facilitated an environment in which Hiroto could
express himself in both languages. The audio data was transcribed verbatim withJapanese utterances first translated by myself before being checked by a bilingualcolleague for accuracy. The data was then uploaded to an Excel spreadsheet and analysed
sentence by sentence. Three forms of analysis were conducted in iterative rounds toarrive at a comprehensive understanding of Hiroto’s experiences: a short story analysis(Barkhuizen, 2016a; 2016b), an analysis of the emotional qualities contained within the
narratives (Hiver et al., 2019; McAdams et al., 2004, 2006), and narrative writing foranalysis (Bakhuizen, 2014; Benson, 2013).

Short story analysis

When conducting the short story analysis, I examined the larger data set for smaller
extracts that took on the form of a fully contained story (Barkhuizen, 2016a; 2016b). These
typically included reflective elements (Labov, 1997) and narrated a past experience orimagined future. In doing so, detailed attention could be given to the content (i.e., who,
where, and when) and context (i.e., micro, meso, and macro scales of interaction) of thenarratives. To differentiate between the different scales of contexts, I defined micro as
interactions that took place within Hiroto. These include interactions between his personal
thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and the emotions he experienced. The meso level often occurs ininstitutional and social spaces. The conversations that take place in advising sessions areexamples of interactions at this level. Finally, macro refers to interactions representativeof the broader ideological, discursive, and cultural contexts in which Hiroto’s learning andidentity work take place. A relevant example would be the values and discourse attachedto standardised English proficiency examinations in Japan.

Analysis of Emotional Qualities

Once the interview data had been broken into short stories and analysed, the emotional
qualities of each narrative were thematically analysed using inductive and deductive
coding (Saldaña, 2015) (Appendix B). Inductive coding took place when interpreting theemotions experienced and their genesis, whereas the emotional tone and sequencing wascoded based on prior studies from psychology and language learning that dealt with theemotional qualities of narratives (Hiver et al., 2019; McAdams et al., 2004, 2006):
Emotional tone. Used to rate the overall positivity on a 5-point scale with a rating of 1 fora very unhappy story, very negative emotional tone to a rating of 5 for very happy story, very
positive emotional tone. These codes were used to understand the valency or strength ofthe emotions experienced in the narratives told.
Sequencing. Used to rate the emotional trajectory on a 4-point scale with a rating of 1
for No change, 2 for PosgNeg, 3 for PosgNeg and 4 for Constant state of flux. Emotionalchanges in Hiroto’s stories were explored using these codes.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 202317

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

Narrative writing for analysis

The understandings and interpretations developed from the short story and emotional
qualities analysis were fundamental to my approach to narrative writing for analysis(Benson, 2013; Consoli, 2021). I used them to help generate a coherent story byreconfiguring the dynamic elements found in the narrative (Polkinghorne, 1995). The story
that resulted from this process focused on Hiroto’s emotions and how they interactedwith events to form distinct identities within the context of his SDLL experiences. A
total of two narratives (i.e., identity statements) were composed (Appendix C) by using
Hiroto’s own words and my interpretations. In line with the co-constructed, collaborative
nature of the study, Hiroto was invited to comment on these identity statements prior
to the member check interview. During this step in the procedure, Hiroto confirmed theauthenticity of the researcher’s interpretations, elaborated on his earlier stories, andrequested some modifications to the language used.

Hiroto’s Stories

In this section, I have chosen to present analysis procedures, my interpretations andconclusions together, with the aim of establishing resonance and trustworthiness. I will
focus mainly on presenting a detailed narrative of Hiroto’s subjective, lived experiences.
As the SDLL module content is secondary to Hiroto’s perspective of his learning situation,
it will not be explained unless necessary for making sense of his stories.

Investigating the stories shared

My intentions from the start of this study were to understand the elicited narratives
shared by Hiroto about his English learning experiences during the SDLL module and how
the emotional qualities in the stories shared interact with his SDLL identity. From the LLH
interview, 6 self-contained stories emerged. Identified with a number (e.g., S1 for Story 1)
and a representative title taken from Hiroto’s own words, I have summarised these stories
in Table 1 in relation to categories characterised by emotional qualities found in andacross Hiroto’s stories.
Table 1. Narratives Produced by Hiroto
Category
Motivation stories(characterised byexcitement)

18

Short story title
S2. I was エネルギッシュ[energetic]

Summary
Proud of his idea to combine TOEIC study with acredit-bearing course, Hiroto started the modulein a state of excitement.
S5. Talking with English Unlike speaking with his classmates where hespeaker was so fun
felt judged, Hiroto gained a little confidence
when speaking to a fluent English speaker.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

Category
Short story title
Conflict stories
S1. I had to take ELM(characterised by a
mixture of positive
and negative
S3. Sorry, it tough so I
emotions)
will postpone it

S5. My feeling was solike complicatedSelf-awarenessstories(characterised by
pride, regret, andappreciation)

S6. ELM makes me
realise my weak point

Summary
After hearing the module was easier than regularclasses and needing to fulfill credit requirements,
Hiroto decided to enrol in the module.
Getting through assignments from regularclasses became a priority for Hiroto during
the first five weeks of university. He stopped
submitting the work without telling his advisor.
Despite feeling guilty and expecting the advisor
to be angry at him, he was relieved to receive an
empathetic response.
In the final week of semester, Hiroto was
exhausted. He didn’t want to complete themodule but after talking to his advisor, he wasable to clear his mind and move forward.
Hiroto realised through the module that he hadoverestimated his capabilities.

Motivation stories generally focused on Hiroto’s positive perception of his choices and thefun, motivating consequences that derived from his decisions. In both stories, undesirable
elements were implied but Hiroto’s decision to combine unpleasant, compulsory activities(i.e., TOEIC and classroom activities) with ones that were enjoyable (e.g., conversing withhighly proficient speakers), ultimately reduced the potential for intense negative emotions
to be experienced. The emotional tone and sequence of these stories were happy andpositive and followed a stable positive trajectory.
Conflict stories resulted from Hiroto’s duties as a university student and timemanagement factors. These stories fluctuated between positive and negative emotions,tone, and trajectories to underline the struggle Hiroto faced in trying to accomplish his
personal and academic goals, fulfill his responsibilities, and manage his time and energy.
Positive emotions such as appreciation and relief were found in Hiroto’s interactions
with his advisor. Meanwhile, the negative emotions highlighted the apprehension, guilt,
and exhaustion that came from trying hard to be a good student. The final category is
coincidentally also the final story Hiroto shared.
Reflective in nature, this self-awareness category exemplifies the ways in which
emotions are a resource for greater metacognitive awareness (Yamashita, 2015). Hiroto
experienced a constant flux of emotions throughout his SDLL journey but in narrating his
experiences to his advisor and then to me, he eventually came to evaluate the experiences
in a positive light. As Hiroto shared in S6 (ELM makes me realise my weak point):
Hiroto: “I’m a bad boy, but I realise my weak point. So I can use my experience for next
semester. I can know my capability.”
While Hiroto may regret not achieving his goals in the way he had intended at the startof the module, he demonstrated an appreciation of the module and conversations withhis advisor as opportunities to become aware of how he was feeling. From there he was
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

19

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

able to use his emotions as indicators of his personal limits. When he had exhausted his
capacity for juggling different forms of study, the emotions seen in his conflict stories
arose. However, the value Hiroto places on overcoming hardship and gaining a newfoundunderstanding of himself is worthy of the pride he portrays.

Hiroto’s SDLL Identity

In this section, I aim to explore in greater detail, the role of emotions in the negotiationof a single SDLL identity using a short story approach. When asked how he felt about theidentity statements in the member check interview, Hiroto identified the following SDLL
identity statement as being accurate, albeit embarrassing to acknowledge:
SDLLI1. The Overestimator
I do my best to kill two birds with one stone whenever I can. I know I need to get therequired test scores and credits but my personal life is busy so I want to make myuniversity life easier. I chose my courses based on how easy I think they will be, or ifthey can be combined with other goals. Sometimes I overestimate my abilities anddo too much though. This makes me feel overwhelmed and stressed out. When thishappens, I want to run away from non-compulsory study.
My decision to focus on this identity statement is not to further embarrass Hiroto but
because this identity statement resulted from four short stories that were groundedin the Motivation and Conflict categories. Secondly, this identity appears significant toHiroto’s SDLL experience as a contributing factor in his growing self-awareness. Finally,
this identity and the stories incorporated within, have implications that are beneficial for
those involved in SDLL. For Hiroto, this identity was one he needed to experience in orderto grow and develop as a learner. For other language learners it can serve as a reminderthat difficulties are part of the journey and they do not need to reprimand themselves
as Hiroto did when he read this identity statement, asking, “What did you do?...Be careful!”
Instead, they can learn from the experience. Of the four short stories, only one from the
Motivation category (S2. I was エネルギッシュ) and Conflict category (S3. Sorry, it tough so I will
postpone it) will be introduced here.

Hiroto’s Short Stories: I was エネルギッシュ (energetic)

The title “I was エネルギッシュ (energetic)” came from Hiroto’s own use of the Japanese phrase(line 5 and line 7) to describe the vigour inherent in his identity at the time. The central
focus of this short story is Hiroto’s decision to combine the module with TOEIC preparation.
Hiroto’s desired identity appears to be that of an ambitious International Business andCommunication (IBC) student intent on making a good start on his university career.
Extract 1. I was エネルギッシュ (energetic)
Note: Hiroto (H); Amelia (A)Codes: Excitement (Exc.); Apprehension (Appre.); Determination (Det.); Emotional Tone (ET); Very
happy, very positive tone (PT5); Mixed tone (ET3); Emotional sequence (ES); No change - positive
tone (ES1(P))

20

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

Emotion1

H Okay. Firstly, I will talk about red block.

2

So it was a like first... the beginning section.

3

Like, [Weeks] one, two, four or five.

4

Then I was, as I wrote, I was excited.

5

It was a beginning of university life.

6
7
8
9

ET

ES

ET 5

ES1 (P)

Exc.

So I was so エネルギッシュ [energetic], excited.

Then, ah, so I did, I took module each of week,
for my schedule, for my plan.

Then the first week, I was エネルギッシュ [energetic] I did.

10 A So everything went well in the first week?

11 H Yeah, then I study and I thought studying TOEIC,
12

ah no, studying TOEIC with using the module.

13

It’s a match.

14

It was a match because studying TOEIC then,15

studying TOEIC following ELM.

16

Then I thought I can get the credit also at the same time.

Pride

17 A So, TOEIC was your big goal.
18

Why did you decide to focus on TOEIC though?

19 H Because, like, I’m a student.
20
I am a IBC [International Business Communication] student
21

then requirement TOEIC score is 630.

22

Then I really focus on TOEIC score.

ET 3
Appre.
Det.

Following Barkhuizen’s (2017) process in short story analysis, I will begin by focusing
on the who to understand the characters of the story, what actions they take, and theirinteractions. The narrator, and main character of this story, is Hiroto (who, “I”, line 4). Ona micro time scale, Hiroto is at the “beginning” stage of his university career (when, line 5)
which fills him with excitement and energy (line 6). This excitement transforms into pride
when he finds a way to achieve his desired TOEIC score while simultaneously earning acredit (lines 14-16). The emotional tone in this section of Hiroto’s story is very happy andpositive (ET5) as suggested by the repeated use of “excited” and “エネルギッシュ [energetic]” inlines 4, 6, and 9. This highly positive tone (ET5) continues as Hiroto’s aims come to light when
he backtracks to clarify that his priority was not the module, but rather “studying TOEIC withusing the module” (line 12) in order to “get the credit also at the same time” (line 16) and at the
micro level we get the sense Hiroto was proud of this decision. Although an examination,“TOEIC” becomes a secondary character (who) at the meso level in Hiroto’s narrative since
he intermittently engages with TOEIC throughout the semester via his study materials
and SDLL goals. Hiroto’s main objective was to study TOEIC “using the module” (line 12);
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

21

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

ultimately perceiving the module as a space to achieve his goals while gaining someconvenient credits “at the same time” (when, line 16). On a macro scale, TOEIC in Japanis a social and corporate monolith often performing the role of gatekeeper to manyeducational opportunities and careers. High TOEIC scores provide social capital and createa hard-working public image to those who can obtain them.
During the member check, Hiroto confirms the importance of cultivating his own hardworking public image by emphasising his desire to be seen by readers of this researchas someone who is “向上心 [ambitious]” and “always moving forward the future. He don’tstop, he don’t stay.” The influence of TOEIC pervades all three scales (micro, meso, macro)with institutional decision-makers whose policies and mandates (unidentified but stillpresent at the meso level) impose upon Hiroto a significant need to interact with thiscorporate entity. This interactional relationship with TOEIC is cemented through Hiroto’s
affiliation with his undergraduate department (where, “IBC,” line 20). On the meso scale,this affiliation carries with it specific graduation requirements (“requirement TOEIC score is630,” line 21). Although all students have four years in which to achieve the required TOEIC
score, fear of potential failure appears to instil within Hiroto a sense of apprehension
and determination. These emotions are indicated by both his decision to combine TOEIC
study with his module work, and his use of the adverb “really” (line 22) to portray thenecessity of fulfilling the graduation requirements. Regardless of the mixed tone (ET3,lines 19-22), the initial week of the SDLL module had a consistently positive trajectory (ES1(P)) characterised by enjoyment, pride and determination.

Hiroto’s Short Stories: Sorry, it tough so I will postpone it

The Overestimator facet of Hiroto’s identity was largely coloured by feelings ofapprehension, guilt, and exhaustion. On a positive note, although not visible in The
Overestimator identity statement, these negative feelings were transformed into relief
as a result of the advisor’s support. In this extract from the third short story “Sorry, it
tough so I will postpone it,” Hiroto relates an unanticipated outcome following his decision
to not complete his SDLL reflections each week. Although phrased as “postponing” (line9), there was no indication prior to this meeting that Hiroto was planning to catch up
on work missed. It was also the advisor, not Hiroto, who requested the meeting. Hiroto
sets the scene by detailing the reaction he anticipated a teacher (who, line 2) would havetowards a student opting out of course work. On a micro scale, it is in his own imagination(when, “if I talk,” line 2) that Hiroto feels apprehensive because he anticipates anger andto “be scold[ed]” (line 3) by the advisor (who, lines 2, 4, & 6). However, in reality, Hiroto
experiences relief when his advisor is empathetic (line 6) and accepts his choice (line 7).
Extract 2. Sorry, it tough so I will postpone it
Codes: Apprehension (Appre.); Exhaustion (Exhau.); Emotional Tone (ET); Happy, positive tone(ET4); Unhappy, negative tone (ET2); Emotional sequence (ES); Constant state of flux (ES4)22

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

1 H my thought was when I...
2
if I talk to my teacher “Sorry, it is too tough for me” then3
my prediction[of the teacher’s answer] was “Why?!”4
And teacher became angry and I would be scold[ed]..
5
But it was not true.
6
My advisor sympathize with me.
7
She said, “maybe I also know your feeling”
8
because she was a student here before.
9“If you are postponing, I accept your decision.”
10
And like when I talk with her, I [was] impressed.
11
So this is my positive impression.
12
Negative impression was like “sorry, sorry advisor...”Yeah, it is also the amount of assignment makes me
13
14
decreasing my motivation.

EmotionET

ES

Appre.

ET 2

ES 4

Relief

ET 4

Guilt
Exhau.

ET 2

In this short story, the advisor plays an integral role in the maintenance or transformationof Hiroto’s Overestimator identity. At a meso scale, the advisor has the authority to not
only pass or fail students, but to negotiate alternative pathways towards the completion of
SDLL module tasks. Depending on the advisor’s educational philosophy, postponing tasks
may not have been permitted. Should this have happened, or the advisor scolded Hiroto
as he had anticipated, the unhappy and negative tone (ET2, lines 1-4) felt by Hiroto on the
micro scale is likely to have continued. It is possible that the overestimation of his abilities
could have resulted in not just temporarily running away from non-compulsory study but
in actual failure. The combination of who and when becomes significant in this short story
in terms of how emotion functions in the (re)construction of English identity. Without the
happy and positive experience (ET4, lines 5-11) that derived from the conversation with
an empathetic advisor (who, line 6) who had been through similar experiences to Hiroto
during her own undergraduate career (who and when, “she was a student here,” line 8),
Hiroto may have remained overwhelmed and failed to complete the module. However,with encouragement from his advisor, Hiroto did complete his work. Reflecting back on his
experience, he communicated that the satisfaction he felt at the end of the SDLL module
largely came from his development as a more self-aware individual capable of overcoming
his organisational weaknesses.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to understand the narratives constructed by Hiroto about his
SDLL experience and how the emotional qualities of those stories relate to his English L2
identity work. Even before he enrolled in the SDLL module, Hiroto had a desired identity.
Influenced by the macro level factors (TOEIC, duty of students) and micro level ambitions(to be perceived as ambitious), the emotions associated with Hiroto’s desired identity
acted as a motivation state (Frijda, 2008). Excitement and apprehension operating on
respective current and future timescales pushed Hiroto to act in order to maintain his
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

23

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

desired image. It was during this period that stories of motivation were found. However,
the act of maintaining this desired identity despite changes at the meso level (increased
workload) resulted in exhaustion and became a catalyst for Conflict stories to take place. As
suggested by Kato and Mynard (2016), learners function at different stages of autonomous
thinking and behaviour based on factors such as energy levels and prior knowledge. The
unfamiliarity of university life and SDLL approaches, exhaustion, and a desire to maintainhis desired self played a role in Hiroto’s uncertain approach to adapting his SDLL plans
to suit his present-time reality. In informal SDLL situations, structured support such asadvising services are rare. In Hiroto’s case, the SDLL approach he was undertaking wasformalised and included a dedicated advisor who was partially responsible for his growth.
At the meso/micro level, advising enhanced the SDLL experience (Victori, 2007; Victori &Lockhart, 1995) by giving Hiroto the opportunity to co-construct with the advisor a verbal
account of events, confront assumptions, identify his emotions, and understand what theymean for his past, present, and future self. The negative emotions shared during advising
functioned as a resource for Hiroto to realise he had overestimated his abilities and to act
in a manner that was congruent with his desired self; failing a course by running away fromthe work would have been incongruent with who Hiroto wanted to be, but working with theadvisor to develop a more appropriate plan allowed him to maintain his self-concept.
The mismatch between Hiroto’s desired identity and The Overestimator identity
constructed during the SDLL module could have culminated in the negative valuing of
the whole SDLL experience. However, coloured by his ambition, Hiroto understands his
relationship with the world at the micro level as one of trial and error. As such, it is in his
stories of self-awareness that he is able to tell (first to his advisor), retell (to me as theresearcher), and further assimilate these narratives of growth into his personal senseof self (Pasupathi et al., 2007). In this way, Hiroto was able to develop his desired selfconcept by generating positive emotions towards, and positively evaluating the hardshiphe endured. This interpretation adds support to the notion that negative stories give way
to positive tonality under the right conditions (Hiver et al., 2019; Pasupathi et al., 2007). In
Hiroto’s case, it was his micro level desired identity and meso level interactions with theadvisor which seemed to generate the conditions necessary for the positive re-evaluationof a negative experience.

Conclusion

In this paper I have used narratives as both process and product to understand Hiroto’s
SDLL identity and English learning experiences. I employed narrative writing for analysis
to weave a rich, multi-coloured tapestry to illustrate how emotions can act as motivation
states and a metacognitive resource when interacting with experience and aspects of alearner’s identity. Untangling, closely examining, and reweaving narratives was a messy
process. As I battled with presenting a coherent, cohesive narrative, I found that story
threads dealing with the who, what, and where were criss-crossed in complex patterns oflayers of Hiroto’s micro, meso, and macro worlds. Each thread that I followed was dyedwith the colours of Hiroto’s emotions; colours that changed in hue with each re-telling ofan experience and interpretation of past-felt emotions. Thus, questions of authenticity,resonance, and trustworthiness arose with each draft I wrote.
Ultimately, the unconventional decision to present my analysis and interpretation
side-by-side, was so that those interested in narratives, emotions, and identity, could be
inspired, as I was by Barkuizen’s own work with narratives.
24

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

Working with Hiroto’s stories has added support to the possibility that SDLL can, for some,have less to do with language learning and more to do with understanding experience
in relation to the self. As an LA, this has significant implications for my practice. Namely,that stories should be embraced as a method of developing practical and reflective skills
within, and outside the context of SDLL modules. If we give our students the space tocollaboratively construct evolving stories of learning, then we are providing opportunities
to raise metacognitive awareness and support autonomy development. This is especiallytrue if we encourage our learners to place their identities as learners at the heart of thesestories. The narrative interpretation of Hiroto’s experience offers an example of how thisopportunity could be structured. More explicitly, learners could be invited to use the LLH
to identify highly emotional experiences. In conversation with the teacher, peers, or anadvisor, they could then begin to explore the content (who, where, and when) and levelsof context (micro, meso, and macro) in relation to the emotions they experience and whothey want to be or identify as at the time.

Review ProcessThis article was open peer-reviewed by Shu Hua Vivien Kao and Nathan Ducker of the Learner
Development Journal Review Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind peer
review.)

Author Bio

Amelia Yarwood has been an educator and learning advisor in Japan and Australia forover 10 years. She is currently a Visiting Lecturer for the Research Institute for Learner
Autonomy Education (RILAE) where she mentors the next generation of Learning Advisors.
Her research interests include curriculum development, learner autonomy, emotions, andidentity through a narrative lens.

Amelia Yarwoodは10年以上日本とオーストラリアで教育者・ラーニングアドバイザーをしている。
現在はtheResearch Institute for Learner Autonomy Education (RILAE) の外部講師として、未来の学習アドバイザーを指導している。
研究分野はカリキュラムディベロップメント、学習者オートノミー、感情、
ナラティブのレンズを通したア
イデンティティである。

References

Barcelos, A. (2015). Unveiling the relationship between language learning beliefs, emotions
and identities. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.2.6
Barkhuizen, G. (2014). Narrative research in language teaching and learning. Language
Teaching, 47(4), 450-466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000172
Barkhuizen, G. (2016a). A short story approach to analyzing teacher (imagined) identities
over time. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 655-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.311
Barkhuizen, G. (2016b). Narrative approaches to exploring language, identity and power in language
teacher education. RELC Journal, 47(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631222
Barkhuizen, G. (2017). Investigating multilingual identity in study abroad contexts:
A short story analysis approach. System, 71, 102-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2017.09.014

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

25

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

Benson, P. (2013). Narrative writing as method: Second language identity development instudy abroad. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Narrative research in applied linguistics (pp. 244263). Cambridge University Press.
Benson, P. (2019). Ways of seeing: The individual and the social in applied linguistics
research methodologies. Language Teaching, 52(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444817000234
Chong, S., & Reinders, H. (2022). Autonomy of English language learners: A scoping
review of research and practice. Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 1-26. https://doi.
org/10.1177/13621688221075812
Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M. F. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative
research. Jossey-Bass.
Clandinin, J. D., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: Borderland
spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping amethodology (pp. 35-75). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226552
Consoli, S. (2021). Uncovering the hidden face of narrative analysis: A reflexive perspective
through MAXQDA. System, 102, 102611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102611
Curry, N., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J., & Watkins, S. (2017). Evaluating a self-directed language
learning course in a Japanese university. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning,
14(1),17-36.
Davies, H., Stevenson, R., & Wongsarnpigoon, I. (2019). Shifting roles in continuous
advising sessions. Relay Journal, 2(1), 69-72.
Davies, H., & Yarwood, A. (2023). Training reflective learners: Designing, implementing andevaluating reflective activities in a self-study module. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J, Mynard(Eds.), Promoting learning on language learning: Lessons from a university setting (pp.
272-290). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415591-020
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Sage.
Dewaele, J. (2021). Research into multilingualism and emotions. In G. L. Schiewer, J.
Altarriba, & B. Chin Ng (Eds.), Language and emotion. An international handbook. Mouton
De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110670851-026
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315779553
Edlin, C., & Yarwood, A. (2019). Advisor as an empowerer. Relay Journal, 2(1), 63-65. https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/020108
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349-358. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.5.349
Frijda, N. H. (2008). The psychologists’ point of view. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L.
Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 68-87). Guilford.
Hiver, P., Obando, G., Sang, Y., Tahmouresi, S., Zhou, A., & Zhou, Y. (2019). Reframing theL2 learning experience as narrative reconstructions of classroom learning. Studies
in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 83-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/
ssllt.2019.9.1.5

26

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404781.2010.01021.x
Imamura, Y., & Wongsarnpigoon, I. (2023). Promoting reflective dialogue throughintroductory self-directed learning courses. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J, Mynard (Eds.),
Promoting learning on language learning: Lessons from a university setting (pp. 253-271).
Multilingual Matters.
Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2016). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739649
Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life
History, 7(1-4), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.49som
MacIntyre, P., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The
positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning andTeaching, 2(2), 193-213. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2012.2.2.4
McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 22(3), 233-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413475622
McAdams, D. P., Anyidoho, N., Brown, C., Huang, Y., Kaplan, B., & Machado, M. (2004).
Traits and stories: Links between dispositional and narrative features of personality.
Journal of Personality, 72, 761-784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00279.x
McAdams, D. P., Bauer, J., Sakaeda, A., Anyidoho, N., Machado, M., Magrino-Failla, K.,
White, K., & Pals, J. L. (2006). Continuity and change in the life story: A longitudinal
study of elicited memories in emerging adulthood. Journal of Personality, 74, 1371-1400.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00412.x
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. (2011) An emotion perspective on emotion regulation. Cognition& Emotion, 25(5), 782-784. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.586824
Miyahara, M. (2014). Emerging self-identities of second language learners. In K. Csizer & M.
Magid (Eds.), The impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 206-232). Multilingual
Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092383
Miyahara, M. (2017). Narratives in language learning research: Developing a reflexive
framework. 教育研究 [Education Research], 59, 87-104.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.).
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090563
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Heinle.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury
House.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation incontext (2nd ed). Routledge.
Pasupathi, M., Mansour, E., Brubaker, J. R. (2007). Developing a life story: Constructing
relations between self and experience in autobiographical narratives. Human
Development, 50, 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1159/000100939
Pavlenko, A. (2013). The affective turn in SLA: From ‘affective factors’ to ‘language desire’and ‘commodification of affect’. In D. Gabryś-Barker & J. Bielska (Eds.), The affective
dimension in second language acquisition (pp. 3-28). Multilingual Matters.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

27

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis, International Journalof Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5-23. http://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080103
Prior, M. T. (2016). Emotion and discourse in L2 narrative research. Multilingual Matters.
Prior, M. T. (2019). Elephants in the room: An “affective turn,” or just feeling our way?
The Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 516-527. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12573
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning.
Language Teaching, 46(2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000486
Thornton, K. (2010). Supporting self-directed learning: A framework for teachers. Language
Education in Asia, 1(1), 158-170. https://leia.org/LEiA/LEiA%20VOLUMES/Download/
LEiA_V1_2010/LEiA_V1_14_Thornton_Supporting_Self_Directed_Learning_A_Framework_
for_Teachers.pdf
Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray, X. Gao,
& T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 11–24).
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847693747-003
Ushioda, E. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda.
Language Teaching, 49(4), 564–577. https://doi.org.10.1017/S0261444816000173
Victori, M. (2007). The development of learners’ support mechanisms in a self-accesscenter and their implementation in a credit-based self-directed learning program.
System, 35, 10-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.10.005
Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language
learning. System, 23(2), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00010-H
Wong, L. C., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language
learners. System, 39(2), 144-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.004
Yamashita, H. (2015). Affect and the development of learner autonomy through advising.
Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 6(1), 62-85.

28

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

Appendix A

Visual Learning History (Exemplar and Hiroto’s submission)

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

29

Tracing Emotion in the (Re)Construction of an EFL Identity During a Self-Directed Learning Module

Appendix B

Categories used when coding Hiroto’s interview data
Sub-categories
Emotional tone
1
2
3
4
5

Descriptors
Very unhappy story, very negative emotional tone
Unhappy, negative emotional tone
Mixed or neutral emotional tone
Happy, positive emotional tone
Very happy story, very positive emotional tone

Emotional Trajectory/Sequence1
No change in emotional tone
2
Positive to negative transition
3
Negative to positive transition
4
Constant state of flux
Positive Emotions
Pride
A heightened sense of satisfaction about one’s own actions/skills
Excitement
A heightened sense of joy and energy
Mixed Emotions
Determination
Desire to accomplish something (elements of pressure)
ReliefMoving from tension to a sense of peace
Negative Emotions
Apprehension
A sense of unease at an event that has not happened yet
Physical and mental tiredness resulting in an inability to focus or act
Exhaustion
as desired/usual
Guilt
Responding to an outcome with self-directed blame

30

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Amelia Yarwood

Appendix C

Hiroto’s self-directed language learning identity statements
SDLL Identity Statements
SDLLI1. The Overestimator
I do my best to kill two birds with one stone whenever I can. I know I need to get the required
credits to successfully graduate from university but my personal life is busy so I want to makemy university life easier. I chose my courses based on how easy I think they will be, or if they
can be combined with other goals. Sometimes I overestimate my abilities and do too muchthough. This makes me feel overwhelmed and stressed out. When this happens, I want to run
away from non-compulsory study.
SDLLI2. The Communicative Learner
Rather than studying by myself or completing worksheets, I prefer to learn about myself
through English conversations with fluent English speakers. By talking to others I can organise
my thoughts, and make realistic decisions about what I need to do to improve my English
abilities. It is through conversations with people I trust and respect that I can feel motivatedwhen I am a little or very stressed out.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

31

ARTICLE
Investigating Learner Autonomy Development
Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory
Lens: An Indonesian Context
Ratna Yunita, State Islamic Institute of Ponorogo, Indonesia<ratnayunita(dot)iainponorogo(dot)ac(dot)id>
This research explores the development of learner autonomy in Indonesia. After tracing the author’s learningjourney as a pro-autonomy teacher, and sketching in some of the recent initiatives regarding autonomy inIndonesian education policy, the study focuses on two university students’ autonomy development during
2020-21. I employ Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) to analyse focal autonomy factors among
non-English majors, using a qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews and triangulated data. The
participants were two college students taking an English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) course in
their first year at university. The findings show that four key factors—learners’ affective state and regulation,
behavioural change, restrictions, and external push and support—are connected to the development oflearner autonomy. The following necessary conditions for achieving learner autonomy were discovered in thiscase study: creating opportunities to experience a sense of achievement within and beyond the classroom, as
well as the teacher’s significant role in introducing autonomy and supporting students’ learning progress.

本研究はインドネシアにおける学習者オートノミーの発達を探索的に調査する。
著者自身のプロの自律的な教師として学びの軌跡を巡り、インドネシアの教育政策におけるオートノミーに関する近年の取り組みを描いた後に、本研究は2020年から21年における大学生2名のオートノミーの発達に焦点を当てる。
半構造化インタビューとトライアンギュレーションされたデータによる質的アプローチを採用し、英語専攻でない学生のオートノミー要因を分析するために複雑系理論（Complex Dynamic Systems Theory、CDST）を用いる。
参加者は、1年時にESAP（English for Specific Academic Purposes）
コースを受講した大学生2名である。
知見としては、学習者の感情状態と調整、行動の変化、制限、外部からの後押しとサポートという4つの主要因が学習者オートノミーの発展に関連している
ことが得られた。
この事例研究で明らかとなった学習者オートノミーを実現するための必要条件は、学生へのオートノミーの導入及び学習が進むのを支援する教師の重大な役割、そして、教室内外で達成感を経験する機会を設けることである。

Keywords

learner autonomy, complex dynamic systems theory, Indonesian context, affective state and regulation,
external support
学習者オートノミー、複雑系理論、
インドネシアの文脈、感情状態と調整、外部サポート

Introduction: Is learner autonomy a universal goal?

Although learner autonomy has been said to be a central aim of education (Benson,
2001, 2009; Waterhouse, 1990), controversy over that claim still exists. Some question its
feasibility and desirability in educational practice (Cuypers, 1992; Hand, 2006; Pennycook,1997). Concerning Asian situations, the question of whether autonomy, which has beenheavily advocated by Western academics and instructors, might not be compatible withall cultures started to be brought up in the 1990s (Aoki & Smith, 1999). Cultural differences
between “the West” and other communities are occasionally cited as the cause of
adoption initiatives elsewhere running into difficulties (Ertürk, 2016; Palfreyman, 2003).
Many claims have been made about autonomous learning in Asian contexts, but specificcultural contexts and their significant impact on the development of autonomy (Halabi,2018) need to be understood more finely. In what follows, I present my personal journeyof encountering learner autonomy, beginning from my bachelor’s degree and culminating
in my current role as an English instructor at the university level. I will then provide an
32

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

overview of the socio-cultural context of learner autonomy in Indonesia, before I focus
on the many factors involved in how two learners from my classes become autonomous
learners. In this investigation I use a complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) frameworkas the main research tool, with the intention of challenging conventional notions
surrounding the development of learner autonomy.

My Story: The word “autonomy” was not used until university

What is autonomous learning? I was introduced to this term while a student in the
English department at an Indonesian university. Since elementary school, I had studied
English in and outside the classroom. In Indonesia, it is relatively typical for highly driven
students with parental financial support to spend more time studying subjects outside
the classroom that are part of the national exam, such as English, Math, and Science.
Being forced to spend my weekends studying and having a long commute to the course
location was initially exhausting. However, after outperforming my friends on English
tests, I continued the program through senior high school. Even in college, when I could
not enrol in additional courses outside the classroom, I tried other alternatives to sharpen
my English, like joining a debate association.
Later, the development of my autonomy was accelerated by the academic milieu in
my UK master’s programme. In every aspect of my studies, from lectures to informal
gatherings in the cafe or garden, my professors and lecturers were there to support andguide me, and I owe them a great deal in helping me to find my path towards autonomy.
I organised my classes, set academic goals for myself, took a course in academic writing,had an article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and even went to Japanto present my research at a conference. Because of this, I was able to thrive in theclassroom, and I am now committed to becoming a pro-autonomy teacher who can
encourage my pupils to become active participants in their education and realise their fullpotential.
When I was in college, a friend of mine from another department talked about theirdifficulty in learning and using English. They struggled to understand the lecturer, but
speaking English was even harder. Despite understanding the speaker’s point, responding
was difficult. When teaching English to non-English department students, I realise they
may face the same problems. There are many challenges in teaching English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) for non-English department students in Indonesian universities. One isstudents’ preferences in learning style despite their level of English. It is a contradictory
picture, students depend on their teacher to learn English although they tend to preferautonomous learning to teacher-centred learning (Daflizar & Petraki, 2022). From myperspective as an English teacher, this seems particularly true for first-year university
students in Indonesia who frequently rely heavily on teachers for their education.

The Socio-Cultural Background to Autonomy in Indonesia

Even though government policy has required the implementation of autonomous
learning since 2013, various constraints such as socio-cultural values, education practices,
textbooks, and curriculum (Fidyati, 2017) limit promoting autonomous learning in EFL
classrooms in Indonesia. Additional challenges include concentrating on academic
outcomes, having huge classes, and adhering to traditional teacher authority. It is difficult
for students to talk to the teacher since it is still a very hierarchical society, making
autonomy more challenging to achieve. The absence of autonomous learning experiences,
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

33

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

the overemphasis on national exams, and students’ inadequate English proficiency aresome of the barriers that Indonesian teachers have identified (Lengkanawati, 2017) asmaking it difficult to build learner autonomy with Indonesian students.
Moreover, autonomy is something that EFL learners may be unused to. It is consequently
difficult to explain and achieve learner autonomy with students in Indonesia. This might be
why Indonesian educational discourse did not use the term “learner autonomy” or “otonomi
pembelajar” in Bahasa Indonesia, in their earlier documents. Government publications
excluded explicit reference to the idea or replaced it with synonyms. They used terms
such as “think and act critically, productively, independently, and collaboratively” (Ministryof Education and Culture, 2016, p. 1). In contrast, in a more recent publication (Ministryof Education and Culture, 2020, p. 2), the term “autonomous” is explicitly used whenintroducing the concept of fostering a learning environment characterized by flexibility andinnovation. This document focuses on the need to establish a pedagogical atmosphere“according to student needs” that encourages “autonomous and flexible learning,” while
avoiding restrictions. Although there are tensions due to a lack of resources and know-how
for supporting autonomous learning (Hasbullah, 2022), the fact that learner autonomy
exists conceptually and that initiatives are being taken to promote learner autonomy in theclassroom signals positive progress.
Indeed, the most up-to-date programme, Independent Learning-Independent Campus
or Merdeka Belajar-Kampus Merdeka (MBKM), implemented in the last two years by the
Ministry of Education and Culture (2022), emphasises that learning autonomy should
be encouraged in university students. Students should be free to learn based on theirinterests and talents (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2022). However, despite having afavourable opinion of their abilities regarding autonomous English learning activities both
inside and outside the classroom, in a recent large-scale of Indonesian students (Daflizar& Petraki, 2022) respondents generally agreed that the teacher should be in charge ofcurriculum-related learning that takes place inside the classroom, while students should
be in charge of non-curriculum-related learning that occurs outside of the classroom. I
have also found that my first-year Indonesian Islamic Banking students favour teachercentred learning above student-centred learning (Yunita, 2022). It is not surprisingthen that the ability to work independently of teachers tends to be how Indonesian EFL
students conceptualise learner autonomy (Cirocki et al., 2019).
In Indonesia higher education, every university student, including non-English
department students, learns English as a Foreign Language (EFL) from a compulsory
module as part of the curriculum. The goal of this module is to make the students masterboth receptive (listening and reading) and productive (speaking and writing) skills anduse them in their academic worlds and future working lives. With a choice of general or
specific course modules, teachers can choose the format and content of this module toa great extent. I chose to have an English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) lesson.
From my observation of EFL students in ESAP courses, there is a tendency for students
who show more autonomous learner traits and habits to achieve better results on theirEnglish tests. Additionally, their learning outcomes improved during their first year oflearning English. Such observations are supported by Boud (1981) and Phuong & Vo (2019)
who claim that autonomous learners make more effective learners and employees. I
became increasingly interested in knowing how autonomous my students are, theirlearning experiences, and whether and how their learning experiences contribute to theirlearner autonomy development, and this led me to complex dynamic systems theory.
34

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

Complex Dynamic Systems Theory: A paradigm which challenges conventional
ideas about learner autonomy

After four years of teaching at university, I was drawn to researching learner autonomy
as a complex dynamic system to understand better the relationships between the many
components involved that I have mentioned above. Complex dynamic systems theory(CDST), introduced into the field of language learning by Larsen-Freeman (1997), hasrecently been applied to address a dynamic and complex language learning process
in which different factors and variables constantly interact (Xie & Derakhshan, 2021).
When language learning is viewed in combination with psychology, emotions, andcommunication skills, researchers may gain new understanding of the complexity within
one individual. Studies utilising the CDST perspective differ from the typical quantitativeand qualitative methods used to study teacher-learner psychology. There are unique CDST
research properties: evolving and dynamically rephrasing research questions, a processoriented approach to understanding events considering one’s cognition, emotion, social
context, culture, and interaction, focus on individual experiences rather than generalisable
patterns of behaviour, different analytical tools, and favouring opaque, longitudinal,and personal data instead of a large sample (Yang, 2021). CDST looks at the decline anddisintegration of factors and processes as a whole.
I decided to adopt the operational model of learner autonomy development of Tungand Huang (2022) because it suited my longitudinal analysis of two learners. Tung andHuang (2022) identify four factors which they find to be focal for learner autonomy
development and use the CDST perspective to explore the interaction between them.
The focal factors are: (a) the learner’s affective state and regulation, (b) the learner’s
behavioural change, (c) the learner’s constraints, and (d) external push and support.
For my own study, I included classroom and non-classroom learning contexts to form abroader understanding of my students’ development of learner autonomy.
Using CDST as my theoretical framework, I intended to find out how these factors
would interact in the development of learner autonomy with my students learning English
at a university in Indonesia. These were my two research questions:
1. What are the focal factors of learner autonomy development for non-English major
students within and beyond the classroom in an Indonesian context?
2.	 How does the complex interplay of learner autonomy factors contribute to learnerautonomy development of non-English major students within and beyond theclassroom in the context of Indonesia?

Research Methodology
Participants

The participants were two EFL tertiary students, Hana and Kei (pseudonyms), enrolled
in an Islamic Banking ESAP course. They took ESAP courses in the first two semesters of
their four-year study, right when the COVID-19 pandemic happened, so they experienced
online learning in the first semester and started face-to-face learning in the second. Keiand Hana attended different classes. Hana and I often communicated as she preparedfor my suggested English competition. On the other hand, Kei and I did not talk muchoutside of class, and he mostly kept quiet during class. Despite his passive participation in
the teaching and learning process, I became aware of his presence in the class when heperformed well on the writing assignment in the second semester.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

35

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

I purposely selected these two students because they had contrasting test results on their
mid-semester and end-of-semester exams (see Table 1). These exams were part of theevaluation described in more detail in the following paragraphs and required students to
use English. The two students also had contrasting learning attitudes.
Table 1. Hana’s and Kei’s Exam Scores
Participant
HanaFirst Semester
Mid-term Exam
Score
88

Kei

66

First Semester
Second Semester Second Semester
Final Exam Score Mid-term Exam
Final Exam Score
Score
98
100
84
60

95

100

Hana represented students who tended to be more active within and beyond theclassroom (i.e., answering questions in the class and asking for more information outside
the class). In contrast, Kei represented students who tended to be passive within andbeyond the classroom (i.e., silent in the class and not contacting the teacher).
In the first year, the Islamic banking students have 12 weekly classes; about one-thirdof the overall are general courses required by the institute, including English, Arabic, andBahasa Indonesia. The majority are specific courses such as Islamic Banking Funding
Accounting and Islamic Banking Micro Practice. Graduates of the Islamic Banking programme
are expected to work in the Islamic banking industry; therefore, the curriculum focuseson preparing the students to be banking practitioners with academic qualifications andexpertise in managing Bank Financial Institutions under sharia principles. The main objectiveof the ESAP course is to make the students master knowledge and steps to communicate
both orally and in writing using English for both academic and professional purposes.
For their English classes students were evaluated through several methods: attendance,
which included the students’ participation in classroom activities (40%), speaking or
writing projects (20%), mid-term exam (20%), and final exam (20%). In the first semester,
the mid-term exam consisted of multiple-choice questions to assess the students’listening skills and language knowledge, such as vocabulary and grammar (i.e., partsof speech, tenses). The final exam included multiple-choice questions to evaluate thestudents’ language knowledge. The mid-term and final exams in the second semester
contained multiple-choice questions to examine the student’s reading skills and language
knowledge. The first semester’s assignment was a speaking project, and in the second
semester the students completed a writing project.

Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative methods used in this study involved interviews about the participants’ English
learning experiences, speaking, and writing products. The data were collected throughsemi-structured interviews at the end of their ESAP course after the students had finishedtheir assignments (7 & 8 June 2022). An in-depth retrospective interview was chosen toelicit events and ask for specific examples with the aim of understanding nuances in theirbeliefs and attitude changes over time.
The interview guide (see Appendix) was adapted from Tung and Huang (2022) withsome modifications. Modifications included adding more detailed parts about factors
36

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

of learner autonomy development. The questions had five sections: introduction about
students’ English learning experiences, habits, and possible selves; learners’ affective state
and regulation covering learners’ beliefs, emotions, motivation, self-reflection, and selfevaluation; learners’ behavioural change covering problem-solving strategies and learning
attitudes; learners’ constraints covering physical, psychological, and social constraints; andexternal push and support covering significant others, learning (extracurricular) activities,
and learners’ environment and interaction.
The interview guide was prepared in the participants’ first language, Bahasa Indonesia.
After collecting the data, I transcribed and translated the interviews into English, thenused NVivo 12 (NVivo, 2018) to code categories. To match the concepts from Tung andHuang (2022), keywords in English were used, such as Hana’s extracurricular activities(teaching English in an orphanage) and Kei’s friends who supported him. After carefully
reading the transcripts, I could identify factors leading to these participants’ learnerautonomy development and how these factors interacted to develop learner autonomy.

Findings

In this section, I first introduce the four focal factors of learner autonomy development,
accompanied by several excerpts for each factor. Second, I present the operationalmodel: how the four focal factors interact to develop learner autonomy concerning three
time-points: before the start of the university, during the first semester, and finally inthe second semester, together with the detailed descriptions. Next, I report on the three
periods, with each focal factor explained in each period.

The Operational Model: How Focal Factors Interact in the Development of Learner
Autonomy

Figure 1 shows the four focal factors of learner autonomy development represented by
LA1, LA2, LA3, and LA4. The factors are affective state and regulation; behavioural change
in the direction of becoming more autonomous; constraints, in the sense of becoming
able to overcome constraints; and external push and support, in terms of having effective,
autonomy-supporting events and people. The darkness of shading represents how wellthat factor was helping the student to realize autonomy, with completely black nodes
representing fully realised autonomy based on the word counts of autonomy-related
words in the recorded interview data. As seen in the learners’ affective state andregulation continuum in Figure 1, the darker the filling, the more positive; the lighter, themore negative.
LA1: Learner’s Affective State and Regulation

negative“English can be learnt and is easy to study likesomeone on YouTube who looks cool.” (Hana)“I believe I can do it.” (Kei)positive

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

37

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

LA2: Learners’ Behavioural Change
reactive

proactive“I attempted to participate in an essay
competition.” (Hana)“Also, I work with my friend to teach mostly
sixth-grade students at an orphanage close to
my home.” (Hana)“I inquired about what was lacking, fixed what
was incorrect, and did revisions according to
the teacher’s suggestions.” (Kei)LA3: Learners’ Constraints
uncontrolledcontrolled“I was afraid when communicating andfrustrated when I did not find a way to study.”(Hana)“The materials are new, so I have difficulty
understanding materials.” (Kei)“When face-to-face, learning together is veryfun. When online, it was okay.” (Kei)LA4: External Push and Support
unresponsive

responsive“With the teacher’s help, I can understand thevaluable stuff.” (Hana)“When there is a presentation, I will continue
to learn. The interaction with classmates isquite excellent and fascinating.” (Kei)Figure 1. The Four Focal Factors of Learner Autonomy Development
I adopted Tung and Huang’s operational model of learner autonomy development (2022)
to illustrate the development of learner autonomy in Hana and Kei concerning three timepoints. The diagrams in Figure 2 were produced using CorelDRAW (CorelDRAW, 2021) to show
how learner autonomy is aided or hindered. The width of the lines connecting the nodes
indicates how closely they are connected: the darker the lines, the stronger the connection.
The stronger the component’s disposition (i.e., positivity or negativity) is within each node, thehigher the node’s filling is. The status of the component on a continuum is indicated for thefilling using a scale of greyness.
Preparing a visual representation using CorelDRAW lets us see the relative variationof the four factors over time. The variations in shading allow us to represent slight shifts
which occur gradually along a continuum. The following four phenomena were observed
when Hana’s and Kei’s learning states were perturbed under external stimuli, for instance,
learning online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. First, Hana and Kei’s affective states,
through regulation, became positive or negative. Second, in the spectrum of learner
behavioural change, Hana and Kei either became proactive or stayed reactive in theirlearning in various contexts over time. Third, Hana and Kei either used a positive strategy
to lessen the effects of the limitations or adopted a neutral-to-negative strategy and madelittle effort to lessen the effects. They were heading towards the regulated or uncontrolled
ends of the continuum of learners’ restrictions based on their methods. Fourth, and most38

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

importantly, all the activities and alterations were connected to the presence of external
stimuli and support in the environment and how much Hana and Kei were responsive tothem. Hana and Kei interacted with the surroundings and other people, and they wereprepared to take on difficulties. Their reactions to the stimulus and support were either
positive or negative on a continuum of external push and support.
Hana’s Learner Autonomy Development

Before starting university

First semester

Second semester

Kei’s Learner Autonomy Development

Before starting university

First semester

Second semester

Figure 2. Hana and Kei’s Learner Autonomy Development Across Three Time-Points

1. Before Starting University

In this section, I focus on Hana’s and Kei’s learner autonomy state of development prior
to university. According to my intuitive observation, I predicted that Hana would haveachieved a higher level of learner autonomy before starting university than Kei had at
the time of the June 2022 interview. The interview results showed that Kei was moreautonomous than Hana in all three of the four focal factors, especially the first andfourth (Figure 3). The discussion which follows explains the complex interplay of learnerautonomy development for Hana and Kei in the four factors: LA1-LA4.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

39

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

Hana

Kei

Figure 3. Hana and Kei’s Learner Autonomy Before Starting University

LA1: Hana and Kei’s Affective State and Regulation

This focal factor involves four components: the learner’s beliefs, emotions, motivation,and self-reflection. Hana’s affective state was initially marked by disappointment. Before
starting her tertiary education, Hana happened to experience a failure in learning English
during her senior high school, in which she got 30 out of 100 on her English test. Hana felt
hopeless. She believed that it was because of her teacher because there was no problem
learning English when she moved to a new class with a different English teacher. During
her hardship in learning English with her former teacher, she overcame this by finding an
intelligent friend who liked English to boost her enthusiasm for learning English. Hana’s
initial feeling of hopelessness was shown to be altered under the influence of anotherfocal factor, external support, which was from her friend and a new, better teacher.
In contrast, the original condition in Kei’s system had an entirely positive affective
state. Kei showed more positive emotions in senior high school. He recalled his successful
English experience when he became the only student in his class who could answer a
vocabulary quiz. He was thrilled. This event encouraged him to study harder. The interplay
between the four focal factors was dynamic under Kei’s original conditions because of theopportunity to experience a sense of accomplishment during his senior high school years.

LA2: Hana and Kei’s Behavioural Changes

For Hana and Kei, the main focus was changing or adapting learners’ behaviours, whichalters their attitudes and facilitates better problem-solving. Supportive people around
Hana, such as her teacher and a friend, influenced her to learn English. Her high school
teacher, who had given her that low score of 30 out of 100 on a test, was a negative
influence because the teacher had first led her to believe that English was challenging.
However, she maintained a reactive approach to her learning endeavours, refraining fromproactively seeking strategies to enhance her learning efficacy. Kei, who derived pleasurefrom learning English, engaged in more effective study practices. He harboured a desire to
avoid falling behind his peers.

LA3: Hana and Kei’s Constraints

This focal point’s operational definition is anything that hinders learning. In significant
part, Hana and Kei were restricted by their psychological circumstances. Hana’s mood40

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

primarily influenced her ability to learn. She reported that her interest in learning varied
depending on her feelings:
Hana: When I am in the mood, I become enthusiastic about learning and vice versa.
The interview revealed that her melancholy and overanalyses hindered her learning:
Hana: (My psychological condition hindering learning was) when I am sad andoverthinking.
Hana’s enthusiasm for learning English waned due to her high school teacher’s negative
influence; however, with the support of her friend during high school, her enthusiasm wasrekindled.
Kei’s stage fright, fear of being incorrect, and insecurity made it difficult for him tointeract socially and learn English before and during university studies. As a high school
and university student, he had never participated in extracurricular activities related toEnglish learning. Both before and after college, Kei felt the need to learn English eventhough he had previously claimed he did not feel pressured to do so. As a result, in
addition to fearing public speaking, he occasionally lacked motivation, making learning
English difficult. When asked about the obstacle of learning English in the interview, hesaid:
Kei: Sometimes I am lazy.
Before embarking on their university journey, Kei and Hana found themselves unable tosurmount those limitations.
Their perceptions of their inadequacy and incapability also limited Hana and Kei. Hanamentioned it in the interview five times, less than Kei (seven times). When Hana was asked
about her English competency, she said:
Hana: I still have many deficiencies that should be improved.
She mentioned that English communication was challenging. She was not confident inlearning and lacked grammar. In addition, her perception of inadequacy can also beinterpreted from the interview when she said that her short-term goal was to be more
fluent in English and her long-term goal was to improve in English day by day. She also
highlighted the areas in which she thought she was inadequate:
Hana: (The biggest challenge for me when learning English is) grammar andpronunciation.
On the other hand, the areas in which Kei thought he was inadequate were vocabulary
and materials.
Kei: My ability is 7 out of 10. My ability is still lacking in vocabulary and materials, so I
must keep learning independently.

LA4: External Push and Support for Hana and Kei

External push is defined as the motivation that comes from meeting the demands of thecourse or meeting the expectations of others, and external support is the help received
from others, including peers, items, internet resources, and other people who can help
(Tung & Huang, 2022, p. 234). The critical element is linked to significant individuals in
learners’ lives and learning activities. In high school, Kei excelled in class participation andwas the best student at responding to the teacher’s questions.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

41

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

Kei: When I was in high school, and the teacher asked us each a question, I was
overjoyed that I was the only one who could answer it.
In this instance, the quiz administered by Kei’s high school teacher significantly contributed
to fostering Kei’s autonomy. However, Hana’s friend, serving as her external support
following her teacher’s discouragement, was unable to significantly influence her adoptionof effective learning strategies to excel in her studies.

2. First Semester

This section allows us to see the complex interplay of learner autonomy development for
Hana and Kei during the first semester of their university education, specifically from August
to December 2021. The interview data were used to determine the shade, consideringHana’s achievement in an essay competition and Kei’s challenges comprehending newmaterials when learning online during the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which I will discuss inmore detail later. In Figure 4, you can see that Hana exhibited a greater level of autonomy incomparison to Kei across four focal factors.

Hana

Kei

Figure 4. Hana and Kei’s Learner Autonomy in the First Semester

LA1: Hana and Kei’s Affective State and Regulation

Hana generally displayed more positive emotions and stronger motivation once sheentered college. Hana reported that during their first semester of study in higher
education, she experienced a sense of achievement when she became the first winner inan essay competition. Although she felt frustrated while preparing for the competition,
when she won, she felt relieved and thought all her hard work had paid off. Because ofthis experience, she believed everything is possible if one always tries and never gives up.
When asked what she learnt from her English learning experience, she said:
Hana: Don’t give up. You can if you want to try.
On the other hand, Kei was not enjoying his online English class in the first semester.
His affective state became negative because of the emotional difficulties brought on by
the stimuli of learning online. He was regretful when he felt left behind in learning, eventhough he had tried hard to study English. He was discouraged because everyone in hisclass seemed to understand the materials except him. Kei also claimed that he identified
his fear of public speaking through self-reflection. Kei’s lack of motivation was evident
in his first semester exam scores (66 and 60 out of 100). He struggled to comprehend
42

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

the course materials and lacked accessible peers for seeking assistance or engaging inacademic discourse.

LA2: Hana and Kei’s Behavioural Changes

Hana and Kei changed their learning behaviours and attitudes toward solving problems.
After being inspired by her friend and encouraged by me to enter an English competitionin the first semester, Hana positively altered her attitude to learning English. Hana listened
to me, her teacher, about language strategies and consulted with me when she faceddifficulties in learning. For example, she asked for her essay and speech feedback via
WhatsApp when preparing for a competition. She also revised the draft and confirmed theresult to ensure everything was perfect. However, Kei refrained from seeking assistance
while grappling with comprehension difficulties, compounded by the absence of in-person
interaction due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered his progress in learning English.

LA3: Hana and Kei’s Constraints

Overall, Kei mentioned negative mental states in the interview 15 times, for instance:
Kei: I can’t. I always can’t. I can’t yet.
I thought why I can’t. How come I can’t when my friends can?
I worried I couldn’t do like (my parents) their expectation.
However, Kei made little effort to lessen the effects of limitations when he took an online
class at home during the COVID-19 pandemic. He described his online learning as ‘okay’
instead of ‘very fun’, in which he portrayed the learning atmosphere of learning English in
the classroom in the second semester.
Kei: When face-to-face, learning together is very fun. When online, it was okay.
Hana mentioned the negative mental states in the interview seven times, for instance:
Hana: I was afraid when communicating and frustrated when I did not find a way to
study.
Learning English has been challenging and strange since I was a kid.
I was so hopeless.
Her limitation was controlled by her friend and me, who were resources Hana tapped.

LA4: External Push and Support for Hana and Kei

As part of my efforts to build learner autonomy, when I am teaching, I always talk tostudents about setting learning goals, solving their own learning issues, and evaluating theresults at the beginning of every semester. I also allow students to collaborate on groupprojects, push them to participate in English competitions, and provide support whenrequired. Those meetings with me must have been part of the support which helped Hanaand Kei become more autonomous.
External stimuli disrupted the four fundamental parts of the system, but the effectsof the disruption vanished after external support. In the first semester, Hana appeared
to challenge herself to join an English competition while being exposed to the stimuli
since she was open to feedback. The four essential elements consequently began to(inter)act, and their interactions became more dynamic after Hana experienced a sense ofaccomplishment after winning the competition.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

43

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

Hana responded to external push. Because various alterations in her affective,
cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioural domains were seen, Hana had been in an active
state from the standpoint of CDST. Hana was driven to improve her English and evendreamed of studying or travelling abroad. She looked at the score in her online Academic
Information System to keep track of her development. If Hana received a poor score,
she would use learning techniques to raise it, such as reading scholarly papers. Hana
explained in the interview.
Hana: When I had unpleasant experiences, I learnt. I’ll work harder.
Her grades improved in the first semester, and she received a perfect score on the midsemester test in the second semester. Because of her previous flawless score, she may
not have studied as diligently as she should have, as her final exam score dropped.
In Kei’s case, the four major components interacted less when exposed to external
stimuli like online learning activities. Kei had been less responsive to external support.
Two semesters of English learning at university forced him to receive different knowledge
inputs and learning methods. Kei’s response to the English class was dynamic. During
online learning in the first semester, he mentioned that English learning was just okay.
He prepared and learnt before presenting in front of the class. The instructional activities
in the first semester facilitated Kei’s English learning adequately, albeit not attaining theremarkable standards observed in the second semester.

3. Second Semester

This section focuses on how Hana’s and Kei’s learner autonomy was aided or hinderedduring the second semester of their university education, from January to June 2022.
Based on the recorded interview, while Hana’s lack of cooperative group members limited
her ability to learn English, Kei’s classmates supported his learner autonomy, as I will
explain in this section. Kei outperformed Hana in terms of autonomy, especially when it
came to the second and fourth focal factors (see Figure 5).

Hana

Kei

Figure 5. Hana and Kei’s Learner Autonomy in the Second Semester

44

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

LA1: Hana and Kei’s Affective State and Regulation

Hana’s self-reflective belief affected her language development inside and outside theclassroom. When she got scores, she reflected on herself, evaluated her learning, andsucceeded in improving them in the next exam, except for her final score in the second
semester, which dropped markedly. Her sense of accomplishment from winning thetournament seemed to help sustain her motivation over time. Hana’s belief in English alsochanged from what was thought difficult to something that could be achieved with effort.
Hana: In my mindset, English was challenging and strange. After I knew the strategies,
it changed.
According to Hana, the ideal English learning is learning slowly, depending on the skill
level. She also mentioned that because of me, she finally understood how to study.
Besides trying to compete in an English contest, Hana followed her friend, whose study
programme was English, to teach English to 20 orphaned elementary school students.
Kei held on to the belief to keep learning even when encountering challenges incomprehending the materials. He struggled to understand the materials in the first andsecond semesters as he was unfamiliar with the materials being studied. Finally, as thefollowing excerpt demonstrates, he recognised his progress in this area at the end of thesecond semester:Kei: My knowledge is more open and abundant. The materials are new, so I havedifficulty understanding materials. So far, the learning is quite good, but I have not fully
understood the materials. There are things I can do and things I cannot.
Kei was utterly convinced that he would be successful in his endeavours. Therefore, even
if he encountered dissatisfaction when learning English, he would try to find a solution to
the problem and move forward. As an illustration, Kei made an additional effort to recall thematerials by rereading the materials that were delivered to him. He started paying closer
attention because he did not want to make the same error twice while learning. He studied
on his initiative and with greater diligence. In addition, he attempted the arduous task ofasking for assistance from other people. Kei mentioned this point in the interview when he
was asked to reflect on his interaction with his peers and me:
Kei: I’m still unsure and not confident when communicating with Mrs Ratna. If it’s withfriends, sometimes I hesitate, and sometimes I don’t. I’m not confident (communicatingwith foreigners), I’m afraid.
I hesitated when I had an assignment if I asked the wrong question and it was not right.
I was confident working in groups, especially when I fit the job.
Unfortunately, from high school until his first year of college, Kei had never planned
his studies because he was not motivated to learn English and merely wanted to pass
the exam. However, he was compelled to alter his approach since he did not want to fallbehind his classmates. It was discovered that he generated motivation to overcome hisconstraints due to the influence of another focal factor—external push and support. I lookat external push and support in more detail below under “LA4: External Push and Supportfor Hana and Kei.”

LA2: Hana and Kei’s Behavioural Changes

From Hana’s self-evaluation at the end of the second semester, the negative learning
experience was due to strategy ignorance and other external factors. In contrast, theLearner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

45

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

reason for the positive learning experience was an inspiring friend and supportive
teacher. Believing these reasons, in the second semester, she still asked me for advice if
she was having difficulty learning English. However, after Hana ran into a problem—a lackof a supportive companions to learn English— she began independent learning: reading
English journals, viewing English instructional videos, reading quotations (a short piece ofwriting taken from a book and repeated because it is interesting or useful) from YouTube,and watching movies with English subtitles.
Kei changed from isolated independent learning to interdependent learning withpeers to address his learning issues. At first, he would engage in self study by gatheringresources and references from journals and publications. Still, he began collaboratingwith others by asking what was missing from his work, fixing any errors, and rewriting it inlight of my feedback. The development was evidenced from the interview when I asked his
opinion on the second semester of learning English, as revealed in the following excerpt:
Kei: It’s more fun because it’s face-to-face and easier to understand. Moreover, I could
exchange ideas with friends. We could discuss it together.
The interview revealed Kei’s uneasiness and a lack of confidence in his ability tocommunicate with his friends, me, and even a foreigner, which was a massive change
for him. The most frequent and typical techniques utilised by Kei were discovered to begathering resources. When composing an assignment to generate an article, for instance,
he stated:
Kei: I explore for information that suits the title and references from experts’ articles
to arrange them in the essay.
His preferred methods of learning included reading textbooks and watching Englishlanguage videos. Although he never made a study plan, he anticipated the materials
and reviewed the ones delivered from me to him. He also looked for materials related
to English knowledge skills that he had not yet mastered (i.e., part of speech, how toconstruct a grammatically correct sentence). Over time, he generally displayed positive
behavioural change, especially in collaborative learning. In the interview, he mentionedthat his interaction motivated him to learn English:
Kei: The interaction with classmates is quite excellent and fascinating.

LA3: Hana and Kei’s Constraints

Their perceptions of their inadequacy and incapability continued to limit Hana and Kei inthe second semester. Hana mentioned it in the interview five times, and Kei seven times.
When Hana was asked about her English competency, she said:
Hana: I still have many deficiencies that should be improved.
She mentioned that English communication was challenging. She was not confident inlearning and lacked grammar. In addition, her perception of inadequacy can also beinterpreted from the interview when she said that her short-term goal was to be more
fluent in English and her long-term goal was to improve in English day by day. Hana also
highlighted the areas in which she thought she was inadequate:
Hana: (The biggest challenge for me when learning English is) grammar and pronunciation.
On the other hand, the areas in which Kei thought he was inadequate were mastering
vocabulary and understanding class materials.
46

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

Kei: My ability is 7 out of 10. My ability is still lacking in vocabulary and materials, so I
must keep learning independently.
Fortunately, Kei could overcome his limitations in the second semester when he became
comfortable with the classroom activities and interactions.
Hana’s motivation eventually lessened her limitations. First, Hana was inspired toimitate her friend who hitherto won a storytelling competition. Even though she lacked
confidence in writing and speaking, she entered an essay competition. She admitted it wasdifficult due to her hectic schedule and numerous tasks, but she grew accustomed to it.
Second, a YouTube English language expert inspired her to learn English more effectively.
Hana mentioned her habit of learning English:
Hana: I often take one minute to study from YouTube, such as the English class andthe quotations.
In the class, she read, while outside the class, she and her friend, an English student, spent
their free time teaching English to 20 elementary school students in an orphanage.
Despite her constraints, Hana’s beliefs could motivate her to act or improve herlearning. She believed it was her responsibility to learn English, so she went online tosocial platforms like YouTube to access English class channels or to read quotations.
Classroom observations also showed her participation in educational activities andon-time assignment submissions. In the second semester, she acknowledged that it waschallenging to discover a supportive practice partner for English communication. She
anticipated having a study partner and peer mentor that she could call on. The reason
was that perhaps the group project focused on writing, which might not give opportunities
to speak English. Moreover, the members of her group might not have been cooperative
as they often skipped the class (more than two meetings), and their score was lower thanHana’s: Their mid-term exam scores (out of 100) were 81 and 63, while Hana achieved 100.
Kei’s motivation and belief likewise helped him to manage his limitations. Kei claimed
in the interview that he was driven to learn English better than others and to become abetter person. This motivation likely resulted from his positive learning experience in highschool. Also, Kei believed in himself and acted when he ran into a problem.
Kei: I believe I can do it. I also have to learn more independently, even though there aremany ways to get distracted while learning, such as games.
Additionally, he stated in the interview that he wanted to perform well on the test because
the grade had a negative impact on his confidence and motivation. He said that as a resultof his limitations he was preparing hard for the exam:
Kei: I need confidence and study independently, repeatedly reviewing the material.
The second semester was when Kei finally started to feel more comfortable wheninteracting in class. Kei grew more open to interacting with his friends as his belief forced
him to alter his learning attitude, as doing so helped him gain the strength he needed to
face his limitations eventually. At long last, he started behaving differently, and his mood
improved. Despite his phobia of public speaking, he became more adventurous wheninteracting with friends and using language in conversation. Kei’s learner autonomy was
assisted in specific ways as the value of each of the four parts changed over time, andtheir interactions grew more dynamic.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

47

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

LA4: External Push and Support for Hana and Kei

After the COVID-19 pandemic, Kei returned to face-to-face learning in the second semester,and the dynamic interaction of the four focal factors was more present. Regarding theexternal push, the requirement to interact with his classmates in the learning activities(i.e., making a presentation in a group and sharing the result in front of the class) andgroup project (i.e., making an essay) forced Kei to be more socially interactive and engage
more in classroom discussions. As for external support, unlike Hana, Kei had never taken
part in extracurricular activities related to English. Nevertheless, the external support wasevidenced in the interview when he said his friends helped him with an assignment and told
him the answer. At the same time, I, his teacher, guided and provided him with knowledge
and materials. Moreover, the learning activities and interaction within the classroom madehim motivated to learn English. He mentioned in the interview:
Kei: When there is a presentation, I will continue to learn. The interaction withclassmates is quite good, so it is fascinating.
Thus, with his friends’ support, Kei improved his comprehension of learning materials
and social interactions. He initially thought that the materials were difficult to understand,but he successfully conquered them more than before. Because it was face-to-face learning,
it was easier to understand and more fun; he could exchange ideas and discuss themwith his friends. Though he had psychological constraints such as stage fright, he enjoyedinteracting with his friends during classroom activities. Finally, his writing project result was
impressive and among the best essays, and his score improved in the final exam.
In the second semester, Hana had issues, such as a lack of encouraging people topractise with her, as she resumed her studies in the second semester. She changed her
attitude from tapping into resources such as her friend and teacher to believing in herself.
Hana’s behavioural change was more proactive in the first semester but shifted to areactive stance after achieving a perfect mid-term exam score in the second semester,though not as reactive as before starting university. The end outcome was an obstructionof Hana’s developing learner autonomy.

Discussion

The findings of this study suggest that four focal factors impacted the development ofHana and Kei’s learner autonomy. The results are similar to those of Tung and Huang’s(2022), even though the dynamic interaction between the components is distinctivefor Hana and Kei. In the first affective regulation Kei experienced a bad affective state
and regulations in the first semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic and online study.
However, his friends and teacher helped him improve in the second semester when they
had face-to-face classes and interaction. Due to her behaviour modification and instructor
assistance, Hana’s affective state and regulation increased from the first semester until
the middle of the second semester. Conversely, it declined at the end of the second
semester due to several conditions, including a lack of friends to support her in learning
English. Hana’s first-year college learner autonomy state of development demonstrated
the complexity of non-linear autonomy trajectories. While Hana’s autonomy did not seemto be severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, Kei’s autonomy was influenced by itas a constraint.
As a teacher I realised how important it is for me to assist pupils in comprehending
the various factors involved in overcoming their academic difficulties. The model utilised
48

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

in this study, similar to the one created by Tassinari (2012), can offer guidance on how to
overcome learner limitations. If students believe that the external push or support theyreceive is insufficient, they can recall times when they got more outside encouragement
and made better progress. In this instance, Hana learnt that her friend was essential fromher experience. When Kei was in a tight spot, he looked for an appropriate resource.
Their relationship with me as a teacher was significant for both Hana and Kei, as seenby their reflections from the interview. In the first meeting, I encouraged them to be
independent learners and explained why. I then gave them comments on their workthroughout the meetings. If they had problems studying, I told them to contact me
via WhatsApp. Our comfortable relationship may make them listen to me and use myencouragement to take greater responsibility for their learning.
Hana: With the teacher’s help, I can understand the valuable stuff.
Kei: I inquired about what was lacking, fixed what was incorrect, and did revisions
according to the teacher’s suggestions.
Examining Hana’s and Kei’s cases, a foremost requisite of learner autonomy development
is offering opportunities for students to feel accomplished in learning English both within
and outside the classroom. The data analysis revealed that Hana and Kei experienced asense of achievement in learning English, which formed positive learners’ beliefs sustained
over time to facilitate the development of learner autonomy. It has been demonstrated thatthe learner’s affective state, a factor in autonomous learning (Tassinari, 2016), unlocks theinteractions of the other three variables, potentially causing behavioural changes, lessening
restrictions, and sparking responses to the stimuli. Thanks to their positive beliefs, Hana andKei were encouraged to solve learning problems independently and seize chances provided
by others (behavioral engagement) and by themselves (agentic engagement). This agentic
engagement could lead to more autonomy support, which would increase autonomy
satisfaction (Reeve, 2022).
Hana: “English can be learnt and is easy to study like someone on YouTube who looks
cool.”
Kei: “I believe that I can do it. I also must learn more independently even though there
are many distractions in learning, such as games.”
In addition to their beliefs, learners’ intrinsic motivation is crucial. Since the beginning of
the semester, when I questioned Hana and Kei about their motivation in learning English,
they showed awareness of the relevance of English to their banking studies and even theirlong-term goals.
Hana: I wish to travel overseas if there is a chance in the next five years.
Hana desired to either study or go abroad. As a result, starting in the first semester, Hana
kept studying English outside the classroom despite having a busy schedule. She tutored
20 orphan elementary school pupils in the language while competing in English-speaking
events. I gave Hana performance feedback, motivated, and reassured her. When she
finally succeeded, she was happy and believed her efforts had been worthwhile. Until
she achieved the perfect score on the mid-term exam in the second semester, she also
constantly watched her test results and worked harder to enhance them. During thesecond semester, she struggled to find a study partner, which affected her motivation andreduced her grade. In the interview, she spoke about her friend’s significant contribution:

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

49

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

Hana: Having a companion to study with and receive feedback from increases mymotivation.
Kei’s long-term, more abstract aim of improving in five years and his short-term, exampassing English learning goals gave him the drive to do well in class. In the first semester,
he was shocked when he learnt that everyone in his class seemed to understand thematerials except him, even though he had tried hard to study. Due to unfamiliar materials,
online learning distractions, and the inability to ask questions, several of my students,
including Kei, had trouble understanding the lesson. Along with group learning activities
that allowed them to support one another and share problem-solving techniques, I also
gave them a list of activities they could do independently, including watching educational
videos on YouTube or reading a reference book. In the second semester, Kei gained thecourage to approach his friends and received a profound sense of encouragement fromthem. As a result, his grade considerably increased from 60s in the first semester to 90s
and a perfect score in the second.

Conclusion

The interplay of students’ affective states and regulation, behavioural changes, theconstraints they face, and the push as well as support they receive from externalsources collectively play a major role in the development of learner autonomy. While thisstudy has offered valuable insights through its in-depth examination of Hana and Kei’s
experiences, it is important to acknowledge its qualitative nature and limited sample
size. This research serves as a foundational exploration, paving the way for future, morecomprehensive investigations that can delve deeper into the intricate dynamics of learnerautonomy in diverse educational settings.
Having gained a profound understanding of Hana and Kei’s learner autonomy
trajectories, this study has provided me, as a teacher, with actionable insights to bettersupport my students’ autonomy development. I now recognize the importance of creating
opportunities for my students to taste success both within and beyond the classroom,
fostering peer interactions, and encouraging their active engagement in extracurricular
activities. Moreover, the significance of providing social and academic support to mitigate
learning constraints and address cognitive and emotional challenges arising from external
factors is evident. Grounded in complex dynamic systems theory in Indonesia, thisresearch highlights central factors such as affective regulation, external circumstances,teacher-student relationships, achievement, and intrinsic motivation, offering practicalguidance and possible directions for educators to cultivate learner autonomy effectively
with their own learners in the local contexts where they work.

Review ProcessThis article was open peer-reviewed by Tomoko Hashimoto and Colin Rundle of the
Learner Development Journal Review Network. (Contributors have the option of open or
blind peer review.)

Author Bio

Ratna Yunita is an assistant professor at the State Islamic Institute of Ponorogo, Indonesia.
She holds an MA in Education (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) from the Universityof Birmingham, UK. Her teaching and research interests are in the areas of English for50

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

academic/specific purposes, second language acquisition, and computer-assisted language
learning.

Ratna Yunitaはインドネシア the State Islamic Institute of Ponorogoの助教である。
英国バーミンガム大学大学
院で教育学修士（TEFL）を取得した。
教育実践と研究ではEAP・ESP、第二言語習得、CALLといった分野に関心がある。

References

Aoki, N., & Smith, R. A. (1999). Learner autonomy in cultural context: The case of Japan. In
S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner autonomy in language learning: Defining the fieldand effecting change (pp. 19-28). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02293-3
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman.
Benson, P. (2009). Making sense of autonomy in language learning. In S. Toogood, R.
Pemberton & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning (pp.
13–26). Hong Kong University Press.
Boud, D. (1981). Developing student autonomy in learning. Kogan Page.
Cirocki, A., Anam, S., & Retnaningdyah, P. (2019). Readiness for autonomy in English
language learning: The case of Indonesian high school students. Iranian Journal of
Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 1-18. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1220734.pdf
CorelDRAW (2021). CorelDRAW Standard 2021 [Software]. https://www.coreldraw.com/en/
product/coreldraw/standard/
Cuypers, S. E. (1992). Is personal autonomy the first principle of education? Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 26(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9752.1992.TB00260.X
Daflizar, D. & Petraki, E. (2022). Readiness for autonomous English language learning: Thecase of Indonesian undergraduate students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
11(3), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i3.34259
Ertürk, N. O. (2016). Language learner autonomy: Is it really possible? Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 232, 650-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.089
Fidyati, F. (2017). Learning autonomy and its significance for Indonesian EFL learners.
Gestempana English Education Journal, 4(1), 1–16. https://ejournal.bbg.ac.id/geej/article/
view/718/671
Halabi, N. S. (2018). Exploring learner autonomy in a Saudi Arabian EFL context [Doctoral
dissertation, University of York]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/226756089.pdf
Hand, M. (2006). Against autonomy as an educational aim. Oxford Review of Education,32(4), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980600884250
Hasbullah, M. A. (2022). Legal policy of independent learning independent campus(MBKM) program in Indonesia: Tracing the literature. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(1),853-864. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i1.1585
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/18.2.141
Lengkanawati, N. S. (2017). Learner autonomy in the Indonesian EFL settings. Indonesian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4847
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2016). Permendikbud no. 20/2016 tentang standarkompetensi lulusan sekolah dasar dan menengah [Ministry of Education and Culture

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

51

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

regulation 20/2016 on the competency standards for primary and secondary school
graduates]. Kemdikbud.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2020). Buku panduan merdeka belajar – kampus merdeka[Independent learning guidebook – independent campus]. Kemdikbud.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2022). Kampus merdeka [Independent campus].
Kemdikbud. https://kampusmerdeka.kemdikbud.go.id/
NVivo (2018). NVivo 12 [Software]. https://support.qsrinternational.com/s/article/NV12WinNVivo-Product-editions
Palfreyman, D. (2003). Introduction: Culture and learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R.
C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures (pp. 1-19). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788929059-004
Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.),
Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 35–53). Longman.
Phuong, H. Y., & Vo, P. Q. (2019). Students’ learning autonomy, involvement andmotivation towards their English proficiency. EduLite Journal of English Education
Literature and Culture, 4(1), 1-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.30659/e.4.1.1-12
Reeve, J. (2022). What it means to ‘take ownership over one’s own learning’ in a self-determination
theory analysis. In J. Mynard & S. J. Shelton-Strong (Eds.), Autonomy support beyond
the language learning classroom: A self-determination theory perspective (pp. 31–43).
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788929059-005
Tassinari, M. G. (2012). Evaluating learner autonomy: A dynamic model with descriptors.
Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(1), 24-40. https://doi.org/10.37237/030103
Tassinari, M. G. (2016). Emotions and feelings in language advising discourse. In C.
Gkonou, D. Tatzl, & S. Mercer (Eds.), New directions in language learning psychology (pp.
71–96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23491-5
Tung, C-A. J., & Huang, S. C. (2022). Exploring four EFL writers’ development of learnerautonomy through the lens of complex dynamic systems theory. English Teaching and
Learning, 46, 321–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-021-00098-y
Waterhouse, P. (1990). Supported self-study across the curriculum. In I. Gathercole (Ed.),
Autonomy in language learning: papers from a conference held in January 1990 (pp. 4–6).
Centre for Information on Language Teaching & Research.
Xie, F., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). A conceptual review of positive teacher interpersonalcommunication behaviors in the instructional context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12,708490. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708490
Yang, J. (2021). Revisiting research methods in language learning psychology from acomplexity dynamic system theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 741045.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.741045
Yunita, R. (2022). Islamic banking students’ needs for EAP online learning in Indonesia.
Exposure: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 11(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.26618/
EXPOSURE.V11I1.7645

52

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

Appendix

Interview Guide

Interview Questions in Bahasa Indonesia

English Translation

English Learning Experiences
1.
1. Ceritakan secara mendalam (kapan,
dimana, bagaimana, kenapa)
pengalaman suksesmu dalam belajar
bahasa Inggris (contoh: yang paling
2.	
menyenangkan)?
2.	 Ketika kamu mengingat pengalaman
itu, apakah kamu menggunakan suatu
strategi dalam proses pembelajaran
bahasa Inggris? Bagaimana
3.	
perasaanmu saat itu? Apa yang kamu
pelajari dari pengalaman itu?
3.	 Ceritakan secara mendalam (kapan,
4.
dimana, bagaimana, kenapa)
pengalaman tidak suksesmu dalambelajar bahasa Inggris (contoh: yangpaling menantang)?
4. Ketika kamu mengingat pengalaman
5.	
itu, apakah kamu menggunakan suatu
strategi dalam proses pembelajaran
bahasa Inggris? Bagaimana
perasaanmu saat itu? Apa yang kamu
6.	
pelajari dari pengalaman itu?
5.	 Menurut kamu faktor apa yang bisa
menyebabkan pengalaman baik atau
buruk tersebut? Setelah pengalaman
7.	
tersebut apa yang kamu lakukan?
6.	 Apakah tantangan terbesarmu ketika
8.	
mempelajari bahasa Inggris? Pernahkahkamu mengatasi kesulitan? Bagaimana
9.	
perasaanmu saat itu?
7.	 Apa pengalamanmu dalam belajar
10.
sehingga membuat hasil yang negatif?
8.	 Apa pengalamanmu dalam belajar
sehingga membuat hasil yang positif?
9.	 Apa pendapatmu tentang pembelajaran
satu tahun ini?
10. Apa pendapatmu tentang pembelajaran
satu semester ini?

Tell in depth (when, where, how, why)your successful experience in learning
English (e.g., the most enjoyable)?
When you remember that experience,
did you use a strategy in the processof learning English? How did you feelthen? What did you learn from thatexperience?
Tell in depth (when, where, how, why)your experience of failure in learning
English (e.g., the most challenging)?
When you remember that experience,
did you use a strategy in the processof learning English? How did you feelthen? What did you learn from thatexperience?
What do you think are the factorsthat can lead to such a good or bad
experience? After that experience,
what are you doing?
What’s your biggest challenge inlearning English? Have you everovercome any difficulties? How did you
feel then?
What experience do you have in
learning to produce negative results?
What experience do you have in
learning to produce positive results?
What do you think of this one-year
study?
What do you think of this one-semester
study?

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

53

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

Interview Questions in Bahasa Indonesia

English Translation

Learning Habits
1. Ceritakan mengenai kebiasaan
1. Tell me about your learning habits?
belajarmu?
2.	 What do you usually do in class or
2.	 Apa yang kamu biasanya lakukan diat home? Do you like to plan what’s
coming?
kelas atau di rumah? Apakah kamu suka
merencanakan apa yang akan datang?
Possible L2 Selves, Ought-To L2 Selves
1. Bagaimana kamu melihat dirimu
sekarang? Diri apa yang kamu inginkan
dua tahun lagi? 5 tahun lagi? 10 tahunlagi?
2.	 Apakah itu merupakan apa yangkeluargamu harapkan? Bagaimana
perasaanmu ketika mereka
mengatakaan ekspektasi/harapan
mereka?
3.	 Apa yang kamu inginkan atau harapkan
sebelum lulus?
4. Apa yang kamu inginkan atau harapkan
setelah lulus?
5.	 Apa yang kamu inginkan atau harapkan
dalam pembelajaran bahasa Inggris?
6.	 Bagaimana kamu melihat dirimu
sebagai pelajar bahasa Inggris ketika
berkomunikasi dengan teman, guru,
atau orang asing?
7.	 Menurutmu, pelajar bahasa Inggris
yang ideal itu seperti apa?

1. How do you see yourself now? Whatdo you want in two years? 5 years? 10
years?
2.	 Is that what your family expects? How
do you feel when they attack their
expectations?
3.	 What do you want or expect before you
graduate?
4. What do you want or expect after you
graduate?
5.	 What do you want or expect in learning
English?
6.	 How do you see yourself as an English
student when communicating withfriends, teachers, or strangers?
7.	 What do you think the ideal English
student is like?

LA1: Learner’s Affective State and Regulation
Learner’s Beliefs
1. Berdasarkan pengalaman belajar yangkamu sampaikan, apa yang kamu
percayai waktu itu? Apa yang kamu
percayai sekarang? (Contoh: semua
usaha akan terbayarkan) Dapatkahkamu menjelaskannya?

1. Based on your learning experience, what
did you believe in at that time? Whatdo you believe now? (For example: allefforts will pay off) Can you explain it?

Emotion
1. Apakah kamu memiliki pengalaman
menarik atau tidak terlupakan dalambelajar bahasa Inggris?

54

1. Do you have an interesting or
unforgettable experience in learning
English?

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

Interview Questions in Bahasa Indonesia
2.	 Apa perasaanmu saat belajar
bahasa Inggris? Apakah perasaan
itu berpengaruh dalam mempelajaribahasa Inggris? Bagaimana?
3.	 Pernahkah kamu merasa frustasi,
takut, cemas, atau malu dalam belajar
bahasa Inggris? Kapan? Bisakah kamu
ceritakan?
4. Pernahkah kamu merasa bahagia,senang, bersemangat, atau bangga
dalam belajar bahasa Inggris? Kapan?
Bisakah kamu ceritakan?

English Translation
2.	 What do you feel about learning
English? Does that feeling influencelearning English? How?
3.	 Have you ever felt frustrated, afraid,
anxious, or ashamed in learning
English? When? Can you tell me?
4. Have you ever felt happy, happy,
excited, or proud of learning English?
When? Can you tell me?

Motivation
1. What is your motivation in learning
1. Apa motivasimu dalam belajar bahasa
English?
Inggris?
2.	 What is your motivation in doing your
2.	 Apa motivasimu dalam mengerjakan
English assignment?
tugas bahasa Inggris?
3.	 Apakah kamu percaya diri dalam belajar 3.	 Are you confident in learning English?
bahasa Inggris?
4. ow did you feel about learning English?
4. Bagaimana perasaanmu dalam belajar 5.	 Are you motivated to be better thanbahasa Inggris?
others in learning English?
5.	 Apakah kamu termotivasi untuk
6.	 Are you motivated to get a good scoremenjadi lebih baik dari yang lain dalamin the test? Why?
mempelajari bahasa Inggris?
7.	 Have you ever felt doing something
6.	 Apakah kamu termotivasi untuk
meaningful in learning English?
mendapatkan nilai bagus dalam tes?
8.	 Do you have any desire to learn
Kenapa?
English? What’s that?
7.	 Apakah kamu pernah merasa
melakukan sesuatu yang berarti dalambelajar bahasa Inggris?
8.	 Apakah kamu mempunyai sesuatu
keinginan dalam mempelajari bahasa
Inggris? Apa aitu?
Self-Reflection (Metacognition and Reflection)
Problem/Self-awareness
1. Apa kekuatanmu dalam belajar bahasa 1. What are your strengths in learning
Inggris?
English?
2.	 Apa kekuranganmu dalam belajar
2.	 What are your shortcomings in studying
bahasa Inggris?
English?
3.	 Apa tantanganmu dalam belajar bahasa 3.	 What are your challenges in learning
Inggris?
English?
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

55

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

Interview Questions in Bahasa Indonesia
Self-Evaluation
1. Bagaimana pendapatmu mengenai
pengetahuan/kemampuan bahasa
Inggrismu?

English Translation
1. What do you think about yourknowledge of English?

LA2: Learner’s Behavioral Change
Problem-Solving Strategies
1. Ceritakan bagaimana kamu
menyelesaikan masalah ketika belajar
bahasa Inggris?
2.	 Langkah apa yang kamu lakukan untuk
meningkatkan pembelajaran bahasa
Inggris?
3.	 Langkah apa yang kamu lakukan untuk
mengatasi kurangnya pengetahuan
dan meneruskan percakapan bahasa
Inggris?
4. Langkah apa yang kamu lakukan
untuk mendapatkan informasi relevan
mengenai tugas bahasa Inggris?
5.	 Langkah apa yang kamu lakukan untuk
mereview, mengingat, dan memperoleh
informasi mengenai bahasa Inggris?
6.	 Langkah apa yang kamu lakukan
untuk berinteraksi dengan orang lain,menyelesaikan masalah, atau bekerja
sama dengan mereka?
7.	 Apakah kamu merencanakan
penyelesaian suatu tugas/projek? Jika
iya, bagaimana?
Learning Attitudes
1. Apa perasaan atau pikiran negatifmu
mengenai belajar bahasa Inggris?
2.	 Apa perasaan atau pikiran positifmu
mengenai belajar bahasa Inggris?

1. Tell me how you solve problems whenlearning English?
2.	 What steps have you taken to improve
English learning?
3.	 What steps do you take to overcome
your lack of knowledge and continue
your English conversation?
4. What steps are you taking to get
relevant information about your English
assignments?
5.	 What steps have you taken to review,
remember, and acquire information
about English?
6.	 What steps will you take to interact withothers, solve problems, or collaborate
with them?
7.	 Are you planning on completing a task/
project? If so, how?

1. What are your negative feelings or
thoughts about learning English?
2.	 What are your positive feelings or
thoughts about learning English?

LA3: Learner’s Contraints
1. Adakah kondisi (fisik/psikologis/
sosial) yang mencegah kamu dalammempelajari sesuatu? (contoh: kondisi
fisik tidak memungkinkan untuk
bermain basket, demam panggung,keluarga tidak mendukung/percaya
kemampuanmu)
56

1. Is there a condition (physical/
psychological/social) that prevents you
from learning something? (Examples:
physical condition not allowed to playbasketball, stage fever, family does notsupport/believe your abilities)

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Ratna Yunita

Interview Questions in Bahasa Indonesia

English Translation

Physical Constraints
1.

Adakah kondisi fisik yang mempengaruhi/ 1. Do you have any physical conditions
menghambat kamu dalam belajar bahasathat prevent you from learning English?
Inggris?

Psychological Constraints
1. Adakah kondisi psikologis yangmempengaruhi/menghambat kamu
dalam belajar bahasa Inggris?
2.	 Apakah kamu merasa ada yangmenghambat dalam belajar bahasa
Inggris?
3.	 Apakah kamu merasa dipaksa dalambelajar bahasa Inggris?

1. Do you have a psychological condition
that prevents you from learning
English?
2.	 Do you feel any obstacles to learning
English?
3.	 Do you feel compelled to learn English?

Social Constraints (Parental Expectations)
1. Apakah kamu merasa kurang
memiliki keterampilan sosial sehingga
menghambat dalam belajar bahasa
Inggris? Apa itu?
2.	 Apakah kamu merasa ekspektasi darikeluarga menghambat dalam belajar
bahasa?

1. Do you feel that you lack social skills
so that it prevents you from learning
English? What is it?
2.	 Do you feel the expectations of thefamily hinder language learning?

LA4: External Push and Support
Significant Others
1. In learning English, is there anyone else
Dalam mempelajari bahasa Inggris,
who has more experience or knowledge
adakah orang lain yang mempunyai
than you know or even helps you?
pengalaman atau pengetahuan lebihyang kamu tahu atau bahkan membantu 2.	 Is anyone in your family involved in
kamu?
learning English? What’s the role?
2.	 Dalam keluargamu, apakah ada yang
3.	 What is your friend’s role in learningberperan dalam pembelajaran bahasa
English?
Inggris? Apa perannya?
4. What is the role of the teacher/lecturer
3.	 Apa peran temanmu dalam mempelajariin learning English?
bahasa Inggris?
4. Apa peran guru/dosen dalammempelajari bahasa Inggris?
1.

Learning (/Extracurricular) Activities
1.

Apakah kamu ikut dalam kegiatan yangberhubungan dengan pembelajaran
bahasa Inggris (contoh: ekstra bahasa
Inggris, komunitas debat)? Dapatkahkamu bercerita tentang itu?

1. Do you participate in activities related
to learning English (e.g., extra English,
debate community)? Can you tell me
about that?

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

57

Investigating Learner Autonomy Development Through a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Lens

Interview Questions in Bahasa Indonesia

English Translation

Learner’s Environment (and Interaction)
1. How’s the English learning atmosphereBagaimana atmosfer pembelajaran
bahasa Inggris di kelas?
in the classroom?
2.	 Bagaimana stimulus pembelajaran
2.	 How is the stimulation of learning(contoh: tugas/aktivitas pembelajaran,(e.g., tasks/learning activities, use of
penggunaan teknologi) bahasa Inggris ditechnology) English in the classroom?
kelas?
3.	 How do you interact with classmates in
3.	 Bagaimana interaksi dengan teman
learning English?
sekelas dalam pembelajaran bahasa
Inggris?
1.

58

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

ARTICLE
The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion
Regulation in the English Classroom
Misako Kawasaki, Waseda University, Japan<misako(dot)k(at)akane(dot)waseda(dot)jp>
This article reports on a classroom-based case study on emotion regulation (ER) in the English as a foreign
language (EFL) classroom. In order to clarify the influence of peer interaction on ER, this study aimed to:(a) identify the types of emotions that the students experience in the EFL classroom, (b) determine thesituations in English classes that elicit these emotions, (c) explore ER strategies employed by the students,and (d) examine the influence of peer interaction on ER. The participants were 26 non-English major
first-year Japanese university students who attended my English class in the spring semester of 2022.
They answered two open-ended questionnaires and the results were analyzed both quantitatively andqualitatively. The students experienced a variety of negative and positive emotions and regulated theiremotions using different ER strategies in various specific situations in the English classroom. They also
apprehended the positive effects of peer interaction on emotion regulation (ER), such as a decrease innegative emotions and an increase in positive emotions. This study highlights the potential benefits ofpeer interaction in ER, and the findings contribute to ongoing discussions on the role of interaction and theimportance of ER for learners in an EFL classroom.

本研究は、外国語としての英語の授業内における感情調節に関する事例研究である。
本研究の目的は次の4つである。
（a）生徒が英語の授業において経験する感情の種類を明らかにすること、（b）英語の授業のどのような状況で、そのような感情が引き起こされるかを明らかにすること、（c）生徒が用いる感情調整戦略を探ること、（d）感情調整に及ぼす仲間の相互作用（ピア・インタラクション）の影
響を検討することである。
本研究の参加者は、2022年春学期に筆者の英語の授業に出席した、英語専攻でない日本人の大学1年生26名である。
学生たちは2つの自由記述式質問表に回答し、その結果を量的・質的に分析した。
その結果、学生たちは様々なネガティブな感情とポジティブな感情を経験し、授業内の様々な具体的な状況において異なるER戦略を用いて感情を調節していた。
また、学生たちは、否定的感情の減少や肯定的感情の増加といった、
ピア・インタラクションが感情調節に及ぼす肯定的な効果を認識していた。
本
研究は、感情調整におけるピア・インタラクションの潜在的利点を明らかにすることによって、外国語教室におけるインタラクションの役割と学習者にとっての感情調整についての研究に貢献するものである。

Keywords
classroom-based case study, learner emotions, emotion regulation, self-emotion regulation, peer interaction
授業内事例研究、学習者の感情、感情調整、自己感情調整、
ピア・インタラクション

Introduction

Throughout more than 20 years of teaching experience, I have seen that my students
experience a variety of emotions in my English classes. Some students seem to feel
negative emotions such as anxiety and shame during speaking activities and try their best
to overcome them. Other students develop interest and confidence in English through theenjoyment of working together with their peers in group activities. In addition, throughthe many group activities in my classes, the students experience a lot of positive emotions
and peer interaction also seems to have a positive impact on the students’ emotions andemotion regulation (ER). Learners need to regulate their emotions appropriately throughinteractions with others (self-emotion regulation) in order to enhance their autonomy(Kato & Mynard, 2015). Emotion regulation can be defined as any attempt to modify
negative and positive emotions (Gross, 2015) and learners often use various ER strategies
in foreign language learning (Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2020). Prior research hasemphasized the necessity for learners to appropriately regulate their emotions throughLearner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

59

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

interaction for enhancing their autonomy (Kato & Mynard, 2015). Kato and Yamashita(2021) point out the importance of interaction with peers in the English classroom because
it presents learners with opportunities to reflect on, and become aware of their individual
learning experiences, and share them with peers. This implies that peer interaction
may also have a positive impact on learners’ ER. The English as a foreign language (EFL)
classroom is an effective learning space in which learners can be trained to regulate theiremotions appropriately through peer interaction.
Although various studies on learners’ ER and ER strategy use (Bielak & MystkowskaWiertelak, 2020; Oxford, 2017) and peer interaction in language learning (Donato, 1994;
Ohta, 2001; Swain, 2000; van Lier, 2004) have been conducted, there have been few
studies on the influence of peer interaction on ER in the EFL classroom. As a teacher, I
need to know more about my students’ emotions and the influence of peers on theiremotions in order to better support them in the classroom. I believe that with appropriate
support from teachers, students can better regulate their emotions by themselves andthrough peer interactions, which may provide an opportunity to develop their autonomy.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of peer interaction on
students’ ER.

Literature Review
Learner Emotions

Past research on learner emotions and ER has reported that the emotions experienced
while learning a foreign language are a major factor in individual differences. Foreign
language anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986) has positive aspects that promote learning aswell as negative aspects that inhibit learning (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). Regarding
the negative aspects, foreign language anxiety has been shown to negatively affect four
language skills (Cheng et al., 1999; Lu & Liu, 2011). Many researchers have proposed
approaches to reduce learners’ anxiety. These include, for example, building a
comfortable learning environment (Matsuda & Gobel, 2004), reducing ambiguity in theclassroom (Dewaele & Ip, 2013), developing learning strategies, and enhancing learnerconfidence by increasing opportunities for output (Lu & Liu, 2015). On the other hand,
although anxiety is typically a negative trait, studies have also shown positive aspects inthat learners with high anxiety tend to listen more attentively to teacher’s instructions(Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; Oxford, 1999) and that anxiety helps learners maintain theirmotivation (Lu & Liu, 2011). Other studies have also examined the relationship between
foreign language anxiety and other variables, such as motivation, gender, self-efficacy,
and self-confidence, and found that anxiety is closely related to them (Dewaele & Ip, 2013;
Piniel & Csizér, 2015; Ueki & Takeuchi, 2012).
In addition to studies focused on anxiety, Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014) identified apositive aspect called “foreign language enjoyment (FLE).” FLE is a positive emotion thathas a positive effect on foreign language learning. Dewaele and Alfawzan (2018) argue
that anxiety and enjoyment can productively interact with each other though they are
independent emotions and that it is more important to increase enjoyment than todiminish anxiety in language learning. It has also been noted that FLE is related to theteacher’s personality, teaching skills, and the frequency of the teacher’s use of the target
language in class (Dewaele & Dewaele, 2020; Dewaele et al., 2019). These findings indicatethat both teacher and peers are a major influence on learners’ emotions.

60

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Misako Kawasaki

Although teachers’ support for learners’ emotions is of course necessary, I also believethat learners themselves need to regulate their own emotions in order to improve theirautonomy. Therefore, it is important to consider what kind of support teachers should
provide to learners in order to enable them to regulate their own emotions.

Emotion Regulation

ER is a crucial factor in promoting learner autonomy (Tassinari, 2016). ER refers tocontrolling the emotions that one experiences, when they occur, and how they are felt or
expressed (Gross, 1998) and also to any attempt to modify negative and positive emotions
that a person experiences (Gross, 2015). Gross considers ER as a cognitive process andclassifies five types of emotion regulation strategies that human beings use in their daily
lives: (a) Situation Selection (modifying emotions by approaching or avoiding stimuli
or persons that are expected to elicit desirable or undesirable emotions), (b) Situation
Modification (changing the situation itself), (c) Attentional Development (changing thedirection of attention such as distraction), (d) Cognitive Change (changing the way ofperceiving emotions or thoughts), and (e) Response Modulation (controlling emotional
reactions). Gross (2015) also claims that ER has both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects,
defining “intrinsic emotion regulation” as attempts to regulate one’s own emotions and“extrinsic emotion regulation” as an interest in regulating others’ emotions, for instance,
parent-child interaction. In foreign language learning, previous studies have also shownthat learners use a variety of strategies for ER, such as distraction, acceptance, breathing
deeply, and seeking social support (Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2020; Oxford, 2015;
Webster & Hadwin, 2015). Bielak and Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2020) investigated the ER
strategies of their Polish students, with the vignette methodology of “Managing Your
Emotions for Language Learning (MYE)” developed by Gkonou and Oxford (2016). They
found that the students sometimes experienced both positive and negative emotions
simultaneously. The ER strategy which students most used was “acceptance” (classified
as a “cognitive change”). The next most popular strategy was to get on with the task,“task enactment,” classified as “situation modification.” The choice of ER strategies
was influenced primarily by the specific situation, learning context, and participants’characteristics. One limitation of Bielak and Mystkowska-Wiertelak’s study (2020) is thatthe situations were scenario-based and hypothetical, so it is likely that learner’s emotions
and ER in actual situations would be different. To investigate their emotions and ER
strategies, I devised an intervention which involved talking with students about theemotions they may have experienced in my English class and asking them to write down
their emotions twice during the spring semester. I hoped that I would be able to support
students better in class by investigating their emotions. By conducting this study, I thoughtthat I might be able to increase my students’ awareness of ER in real time in the classroom
and even help them learn ER strategies from each other.

Peer Interaction

The importance of interaction was proposed by Vygotsky and his colleagues. They argue
that learning takes place firstly through interaction in the learner’s “Zone of Proximal
Development” (ZPD; as cited in van Compernolle, 2015). Bruner (1985) suggested
that scaffolding occurring through interaction within the ZPD is essential in cognitive
development. Although Vygotsky’s ideas especially focused on children’s educational
potential, his ideas have been also applied in the field of L2 development. According to
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

61

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

sociocultural theory, which developed from Vygotsky’s ideas, the development of humancognitive functions derives from social interactions and that through participation in social
activities, individuals are drawn into the use of these functions (VanPatten et al., 2020). In
foreign language education, the positive impact of peer interaction and scaffolding has been
demonstrated by some researchers (Ohta, 2001; Swain, 2000). In general, scaffolding refers
to support from the educator or more competent peers (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). “Collective
scaffolding,” however, has also been found to occur between students with similar proficiency
levels (Donato, 1994). Furthermore, some studies have shown that collective scaffolding
can result in proficiency development even when a learner’s peers have a lower level ofproficiency (van Lier, 2004).
Peer interaction provides scaffolding not only in learning but also in psychological aspects.
Donato (1994) found that peer-mediated exercises help learners manage frustration and risk
and interaction might relieve their stress and anxiety. This finding is a good example of peerinteraction as a tool for scaffolding ER. It has been noted that language classes providing
learners with substantial peer interaction are suitable for helping them develop autonomy(Kato & Mynard, 2015; Kato & Yamashita, 2021; Mynard & Carson, 2012; Shelton-Strong, 2018).
As mentioned above, peer interaction provides learners with the opportunity to reflect on,
share, and become aware of their learning experiences (Kato & Yamashita., 2021). Learners
can have the opportunity to assess themselves through reflection, sharing, and awareness of
their experiences (Shelton-Strong, 2018).
Although the influence of peer interaction on aspects other than language learning has
been highlighted, there have been few empirical studies of the influence of peer interaction
on ER. Examining the influence of peer interaction on ER could contribute to expanding
the role of interaction. In addition, by investigating the influence of peer interaction on ER,
I hope to expand or deepen our understanding of the significant role that peer interaction
can play in language learning to promote autonomy.

Research Questions

For this study, I set the following four research questions:
1. What types of emotions did students experience in English classes during the springsemester?
2.	 When or in what situations did the students experience those types of emotions?
3.	 How did the students regulate their emotions?
4. What influence does peer interaction have on emotion regulation?

Methods

Participants

The participants were 26 non-English major first-year Japanese university students (11male and 15 female students) in a required English class. The class was conducted by me
once a week, for a total of 15 lessons. The student’s proficiency level in English varies from
A1 to B1 on the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Language) scale.
This required first-year English class has in-class activities which provide the students
with many opportunities to interact with each other. In groups, they engaged in speaking
activities, group writing, group presentation, and discussion. In this study, the students
were divided into four groups of 4 and two groups of 5 for interactive activities. The
groups were changed twice in the spring semester by drawing lots.
62

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Misako Kawasaki

Materials

I created and used two bilingual, open-ended questionnaires in Japanese and English
as shown in Table 1. The questionnaires consisted of the following six questions that
correspond to the research questions (RQ) 1 through 4. (The specific research question
is noted in parentheses.)
Table 1. Questions in Questionnaires 1 and 2
Questions in Questionnaires 1 and 2
1. What types of emotions have you experienced in this English class? (RQ 1)
2. Is that emotion that you experienced in the situation negative, positive, or both? (RQ 2)
3. When or in which situations in this class did you feel that emotion strongly? (RQ 1)
4. How did you manage or control that emotion (ER)? (RQ 3)
5. How did that emotion that you experienced in the situation change through peerinteraction or did peer interaction help or influence ER? (RQ 4)
6. Do you think that peer interaction helped with ER? (RQ 4)
Regarding Question 1, a list of the types of basic and applied emotions in Plutchik’s“Wheel of Emotions” (Semeraro et al., 2021) was included on the questionnaire sheet forreference (See Appendix). The students provided descriptive responses from Questions
1 to 5 freely in Japanese. The only difference between Questionnaire 1 and 2 is Question
6. The answer choices for Question 6 of Questionnaire 1 were “Yes” or “No”. In Question 6of Questionnaire 2, a four-point Likert scale was used: “Very helpful,” “Helpful,” “Not very
helpful,” “Not at all helpful,” without a neutral point in order to prevent students fromgiving a neutral response.
These open-ended questionnaires were conducted as a part of an in-class activity tohelp the students reflect on their emotions in English learning. The students were asked
to complete a consent form for the use of their responses in these questionnaires after I
explained the purpose of this study to them.

Procedures

The participants completed Questionnaire 1 in week 7 and Questionnaire 2 in week 14.
I used the following procedure in Table 2. The figures in parentheses indicate the timerequired for the task.
Table 2. Questionnaire Procedure
Procedures
In Lesson 7 of the spring semester
1. I explained the relationship between English learning and emotions, ER, and peer interaction.
(5 min)2. The students completed Questionnaire 1 reflecting on Lesson 1 through Lesson 7. (20 min)3. I collected Questionnaire 1 and commented on it.
In Lesson 14 of the spring semester
1. I returned Questionnaire 1 to the students and distributed Questionnaire 2.
2. The students completed Questionnaire 2 referring to Questionnaire 1 and reflecting on
Lesson 8 through Lesson 14. (15 min)3. I collected both Questionnaire 1 and 2 in order to analyze them.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

63

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

As for the emotions, I asked the students to reflect on Lesson 1 through Lesson 7
and write down at least the four or five most memorable emotions, whether these
emotions were positive or negative, and the situations in which they experienced them.
In Questionnaire 2 administered at the end of semester, I asked the students to reflect
on Lesson 8 through Lesson 14 and write down any new emotions and any situations inwhich they experienced those emotions in Questionnaire 1. I added verbal instruction to
the students to refer to the types of basic and applied emotions in Plutchik’s “Wheel of
Emotions” on the sheets of Questionnaire 1 and 2 and to describe any other emotions
that they might have. After collecting Questionnaire 1, I read the students’ responses andcommented on the questionnaire if there was anything that I wanted to know more about,for example, the details of the influence of peer interaction and changes in negativeand positive emotions. In Lesson 14, the students were asked to reflect on Lesson 8through Lesson 14, to add new emotions to Questionnaire 2, if any, and to respond to mycomments in Questionnaire 1.

Analysis

I used a mixed-methods approach in order to analyze the students’ responses. I first
tabulated and presented as numerical values the data obtained from Questions 1, 2, 3,
and 6 of Questionnaire 1 and 2. Next, I categorically analyzed the qualitative data in thestudents’ descriptive responses to Questions 3, 4, and 5 of Questionnaire 1 and 2. In orderto do this, I coded the responses and made a thematic analysis, arranging the themes
primarily in tables. For Question 4, I referred to Gross’s (2015) taxonomy of ER strategies
for the major categories, and the detailed classification of ER strategies by Bielak andMystkowska-Wiertelak (2020) was used as subcategories. I analyzed their responses andcompiled them into tables. The students’ comments in Japanese have been translated into
English by me.

Results and Discussion
Types of Emotions

According to the responses to Question 1 and 3 in both Questionnaires, the students (N=26)
experienced various types of emotions over the 14-week semester as shown in Table 3. The
numbers indicate how many students experienced the emotion.
Table 3. Types of Emotions Experienced by Students
Types of emotions: 32 types
Negative emotions: 17 types Positive emotions: 15 types
Anxiety15
Joy
17
Apprehension
9
Trust
9
Shame
9
Anticipation
6
Boredom
3Interest
5
Distraction
3
Aggressiveness
4
Guilt
3
Surprise
4
Disgust2
Serenity
3
Sadness
2
Delight2
64

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Misako Kawasaki

Types of emotions: 32 types
Negative emotions: 17 types Positive emotions: 15 types
Terror
2
Hope
2
Fear
1
Pride
2
Tension1
Admiration
1
Anger
Annoyance
Disappointment
Despair
Envy
Remorse
Total

1
1
1
1
1
1
56

Amazement
Curiosity
Love
Optimism

1
1
1
1

59

As for Research Question 1 corresponding to Questions 1 and 3: “What types of emotion
did students experience in English classes during the spring semester?,” the students
reported experiencing a total of 32 types of emotions, 17 types of negative emotions
and 15 types of positive emotions. Overall students recorded slightly more instances of
positive than negative emotions. The most common negative emotion experienced by
the 16 students was “anxiety,” which many researchers have identified as the emotionthat is commonly experienced by learners in foreign language learning (Dewaele &MacIntyre, 2014; Horwitz, 2001). All the students in my English class perceived anxiety asa negative factor that hinders learning. A certain number of the students experienced
the emotions of “apprehension” and “shame,” which are also familiar in foreign language
learning.
In terms of positive emotions, although Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014) mentioned“foreign language enjoyment” as a representative of such emotions, the emotion of joy
was the most frequently experienced and no students mentioned “enjoyment.” This wasprobably because “enjoyment” was not listed in the guideline set of positive emotions(see Appendix) and most students responded by referring to Plutchik’s emotions eventhough I verbally explained to the students that they could write any emotion other thanthose listed. However, some students indicated in their responses to Question 5 of bothquestionnaires about the influence of peer interaction on ER that they felt “enjoyment” inlearning English through interaction with their peers. The following are some examples.

Examples of students’ comments
Student I: During the group activity, there were things that I did not know, and when
I said I did not know, the group member gave me more information about it than I
expected, which surprised me much more. At the same time, I felt enjoyment.
Student H: (In group activities) enabled me to have more diverse perspectives andmade learning more enjoyable. I like English class more.
Student R: It was interesting to hear other groups’ opinions, which were different
from our own. I enjoyed sharing these ideas with our group members and making useof them next time.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

65

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

These comments highlight how students experienced “enjoyment” through peerinteraction in group activities. The students’ responses revealed that, as Imai (2010) also
pointed out, they experience a variety of emotions in the classroom including enjoyment.

Specific Situations

Tables 4 and 5 summarize in which situations in the English classes from Lesson 1 throughLesson 14 the students experienced the emotions listed in Table 3. The specific situations
in which the students experienced the negative emotions were categorized into 12
situations and are presented in order of number from highest to lowest in Table 4 and thesituations in which they experienced the positive ones are shown in Table 5.
Table 4. Specific Situations and Negative Emotions Experienced by the Students
Situations
When failing,making a
mistake, notdoing well (19)When there
was somethingthat they
did not
understand/know (12)During group
activities (11)Whenspeaking
up, giving apresentation inclass (8)When asked
a question by
the teacher (8)When given
assignments,
homework (5)Before class,activities,
assignments,
and tests (5)When noticing
classmates’
high/ low
Englishproficiency (3)66Negative emotions experienced by the students in the situation(The horizontal axis lists the negative emotions in alphabetical order)
Anxiety (2)Apprehension Despair Disappointment Distraction (1)Guilt (5)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Shame (7)Terror (1)Anxiety (3)Shame (2)Apprehension Despair(2)(1)
Remorse (1)Anxiety (4)Apprehension Guilty (2)(5)
Apprehension Fear (1)Shame (1)(2)

Anxiety (3)Guilty (2)Anxiety (4)Apprehension Fear (1)(1)

Disgust (1)Anger (1)Annoyance (1)Disappointment(1)

Anxiety (3)Apprehension Disgust(1)(1)

Apprehension Distraction (1)(1)

Anxiety(2)

Envy (1)

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Sad (1)

Tension (1)Distraction (1)Misako Kawasaki

Situations

Negative emotions experienced by the students in the situation(The horizontal axis lists the negative emotions in alphabetical order)
Guilty (1)Shame (1)When noticing
the lack of theirown English
skills (2)When working Boredom (2)alone (2)When scolded Terror (1)by the teacher(1)
Shame (1)For the factthat I am
the only
sophomore in
the freshmanclass (1)Table 4 shows that the students experienced different types of negative emotions invarious situations. The most frequently mentioned situations were those in which theyfelt that they failed, made mistakes, and did not do well, for instance, when they could
not listen to English, when they made a mistake in English, or when their answer was
wrong. The next situation that caused the negative emotions most was “when there
was something that they do not understand and know, for example, when they could
not understand English while listening, when there were English words or expressions
that they did not know, or when they did not know what to say in English.” In terms of
the situation of “during group activity,” the students had negative emotions about theirinterpersonal skills. For example, the students doubted whether they could communicate
well, get along with other classmates, or cooperate with other classmates well.
Table 5. Specific Situations and Positive Emotions Experienced by the Students
Situations
During group
activities (38)When feelingsuccessful,
improvement,
doing well (14)When learning,
gaining new
knowledge (7)Positive emotions experienced by the students in the situation(The horizontal axis lists the positive emotions in alphabetical order)
Aggressiveness Anticipation
Delight (1)Interest (4)Joy (11)(2)(3)
Pride (1)
Serenity (2) Surprise (1)Love (1)Optimism (1)Trust (11)Aggressiveness Delight (1)Hope (1)Joy (9)Optimism (1)(1)
Pride (1)Admiration (1)Surprise (1)Amazement(1)

Curiosity (1)Interest (2)Joy (1)

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

67

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

Situations
During English
class (7)Positive emotions experienced by the students in the situation(The horizontal axis lists the positive emotions in alphabetical order)
Aggressiveness Anticipation
Curiosity (1)Joy (1)
Serenity (1)(1)(2)
Serenity (1)Anticipation (1) Delight (1)Joy (2)

When praisedby teacher (4)When having
Aggressiveness Joy (1)friends (2)(1)
When
Anticipation (1) Delight (1)expecting theimprovement (2)When noticing
Admiration (1)Surprise (1)classmates’ highEnglish skills (2)Regarding the specific situations when the students experienced positive emotions,the most positive emotions were experienced “during group activities.” Example group
activities included having dialogue and exchanging ideas with group members, working
together, and helping each other. As Table 5 shows, the students experienced mosttypes of positive emotions during group activities. This indicates that group activities,
that is peer interactions, have an important role in increasing positive emotions. As for“Aggressiveness,” it was translated in Japanese as the meaning of “very motivated tobe successful and eager to achieve what they want”, so it is likely that students chose
this word with the image of “active, proactive, or positive attitude” in mind, rather than“attack” or “threatening attitude.” It is also clear from the students’ descriptions that they
consider “Aggressiveness” to be a positive emotion and that students are using it in thatsense. For example, Student D reflected in the “Aggressiveness” section, “I learned that it
is important to express my opinion actively and decided to try harder to be more positive.”
With regard to Research Question 2 (“When or in what situations did the students
experience those types of emotions?”), the students experienced various negative andpositive emotions in different situations in English classes. While some students felt avariety of positive emotions “during group activities”, other students simultaneously
reported different emotions in the same situation, for example,” I experienced anxiety
and distraction when the teacher picked me to answer the question” and “I experienced
both fear and shame when speaking up in front of the class.” From these comments, thestudents seem to face multiple emotions in a particular situation rather than a single
emotion. Even in similar situations, the emotions experienced by different individuals
varied. For example, “when noticing a classmate’s high English skills,” one student
recorded “envy” as a negative emotion (see Table 4) while another student noted“surprise” as a positive emotion (see Table 5). However, it was not possible to determine
what caused this difference in emotion, for example, whether it was due to personality,
family background, or educational environment. It would be good in future studies toexpand on students’ answers by doing follow-up interviews.

68

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Misako Kawasaki

Students’ Emotion Regulation

The students’ responses to Question 4, which corresponds to Research Question 3: “Howdid the students regulate their emotions?”, are categorized in Table 6 based on Gross’s ER
strategy taxonomy (2015) and the classification of ER strategy by Bielak and MystkowskaWiertelak (2020). The students utilized the ER strategy of “cognitive change” followed by“situation modification”. This result was identical to the results in Bielak and MystkowskaWiertelak’s study (2020).
Table 6. Students’ Emotion Regulation Strategies
Students’ emotion regulation strategies
Strategy Categories
Subcategories
COGNITIVE CHANGE (48)Intrinsic ER• Acceptance (5)• Reassurance (6)• Effort-oriented decision (17)• Wishful thinking (13)• Self-consequating and goal-orienting (5)SITUATION MODIFICATION (28)Intrinsic ER• Task enactment (9)Intrinsic/ Extrinsic ER• Seeking help (8)• Social sharing (11)RESPONSE MODULATION (3)Intrinsic ER• Simple meditation (1)• Resting (1)• Doing another thing (1)Intrinsic ER
Intrinsic ER
Intrinsic ER

GIVING UP (1)ENDURING THE SITUATION (1)
DOING NOTHING (1)Note. Numbers in parentheses are the number of people who used the strategy.
Under the strategy of “cognitive change” (Gross, 2015), 17 students made an “effort-oriented
decision” (Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2020, p. 10), such as making more effort andstudying harder. Thirteen students chose the means of “wishful thinking,” which is “similar
to reassurance in projecting a favorable future outcome, but it relied on luck rather than
one’s abilities” (Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2020, p. 10), and switched from negative
to positive thinking. Six students told themselves that they could do it (reassurance). Fivestudents accepted their emotions as they are. The other five students’ ER strategies wererelated to “self-consequating and goal-orienting” (Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2020, p.
10) whereby they took what happened as a positive and decided to apply it to their future.
The second ER strategy most experienced by the students was “situation modification”(Gross, 2015). Regarding “task enactment” (Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2020, p. 10)
the students who made a mistake and felt shame looked up the word in dictionaries or
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

69

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

apps in order to overcome their negative emotion of shame. Some students searched
for information on the internet and took notes when they did not understood something
and felt anxious. Eleven students’ use of ER strategy was related to “social sharing” (Bielak& Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2020, p. 10) such as working and discussing with classmates, orgroup activities, that is, peer interaction. Eight students sought help or advice from theirclassmates in order to regulate negative emotions. The results indicate that many students
used extrinsic ER strategies. This suggests that peer interaction is involved in ER and also
has a positive impact.
Overall, these results show that the students used a variety of ER strategies to regulate
their negative emotions in specific situations in this English class. Most students used
“cognitive change” and intrinsic ER, for example, “effort-oriented decision,” “wishful
thinking,” and “task enactment.” “Social sharing,” such as peer interaction in English class,is considered extrinsic ER that Gross (2015) likened to parent-child interaction. I also
found that peer interaction such as working with classmates had some positive impact
on student ER. This suggests that they genuinely enjoyed engaging in group activities. In
particular, the strategy of “seeking help” from peers produced positive emotions for the
students who were asked. Thus, negative emotions were positively transformed throughpeer interaction. “I began to enjoy doing assignments to teach my friends when I was asked
and boredom turned into enjoyment,” was one perspective that students offered (StudentE), indicating that ER strategy of seeking help can be connected to the ER of the person
to whom help is offered. Student peer interaction in the group activity itself brought
about some positive changes to their ER. Therefore, for extrinsic ER to be successful, therelationship with others, that is peer interaction in the classroom, can be considered toplay an important role in the classroom.

Note. Numbers in parentheses are the number of people who perceived these changes.
Figure 1. Changes in Negative Emotions through Peer Interaction
70

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Misako Kawasaki

Influence of Peer Interaction on ER

As summarized in Table 4, the students generally used a variety of adjustment methods
to regulate their negative emotions. With the exception of “seeking help” and “social
sharing,” the students regulated their emotions by themselves. In this class, where group
activities were common, many students used the strategies of “seeking help” and “social
sharing.” This suggests that peer interaction plays an important role in students’ ER. In
order to see the influence of peer interaction on ER, the students were asked if they felt
any change in their negative and positive emotions through peer interaction (Question 5
in Questionnaire 1 and 2 corresponding to Research Question 4: “How did peer interaction
help or influence ER?”). The changes in the emotions that the students felt through peerinteraction are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
According to the students’ responses to Question 5, three patterns of change wereobserved in negative emotions through peer interaction: positive changes (e.g., decreased
negative emotion, increased positive emotions), negative changes (e.g., increased negative
emotions), and no change. As for positive changes, 26 students perceived positive changes
about their negative emotions through peer interaction. Examples are:Student E: As we got to know each other, we began to voice our opinions to eachother, which led to more lively discussions, and I felt like I was getting to know the boysin the same group, so my anxiety gradually turned to joy.
Student C: I was able to make friends with others in the same group and enjoyed thesense of cooperation and togetherness, so I have less apprehension.
Student K: Classmates in my group gave me advice on what I didn’t understand, so I
felt a little more confident.
However, depending on the type of negative emotion, three students did not perceive anychange and two students perceived a negative change, for example:
Student B: I lost confidence in my English when I was being taught English by groupmembers.
Student P: No one blamed me for forgetting the assignment, but I was concerned that
I was disturbing harmony.
In addition to the above, most students noted a decrease in negative emotions such as“tension,” “shame,” as well as “fear” and an increase in positive emotions such as “ease,”“anticipation,” and “optimism,” Increases in “courage” and raised “aspiration” were also
reported. Negative emotional effects, for example, losing confidence, and having concern
were reported by some students too, as noted in the comments above.
In response to Question 3 of both Questionnaires (When or in which situations inthis class did you feel that emotion strongly?) which was a review of the 14 classes, thestudents did not point to negative emotions during the group activity (see Table 4), but
two students noted that they had negative emotions through peer interaction whenreflecting on the influence of peer interaction. From the holistic perspective of 14 classes,
the negative emotions that two students experienced through peer interaction may
not have been strong enough emotions to impress the students because they did not
point them out in Question 3. However, in Question 5, these students stated that theyexperienced these negative feelings through peer interaction. This means that from theLearner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

71

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

micro perspective of peer interaction, the emotions that the students experienced varied.
This shows that the students’ emotions are constantly changing depending on the timeand situation. Thus, a more in-depth analysis of students’ emotions would require a more
micro-level investigation, such as at each class or the level of individual activities. This
could be done, for example, through learners’ journaling about their emotional lives withlearning and using English both inside and outside the classroom.
As for changes in positive emotions through peer interaction, 25 students noted positivechanges in some positive emotions and only one student recorded no change in a positive
emotion through peer interaction.

Note. Numbers in parentheses are the number of people who perceived these changes.
Figure 2. Changes in Positive Emotions through Peer Interaction
From the students’ comments, positive emotions changed more positively (e.g. increased
positive emotions) or did not change. As for the positive changes:
Student M: I was able to tell my opinions to my classmates, which changed my
expectations to more positivity.
Student N: I was happy to see that the atmosphere of the group was improved bypeople actively speaking up. Although I was not good at expressing my own opinions, I
wanted to be helpful to the members by speaking up. Increased expectations.
Student O: I felt that I could come up with many more ideas than I could alone andthat it was more fun to work together to create them. Increased confidence.
Student E: I think that we created a relationship of trust and through sharing opinions
that we had not considered, we eventually came to respect each other. Respecting
each other also gave us confidence.
As noted in the students’ comments, many of them perceived an increase in the same
positive emotion. Student M realized that her expectations became more positive duringgroup activities. Some students perceived the occurrence of new emotions such as respect
and confidence through peer interaction with respect to the positive emotional change. ER,
therefore involves not only the regulation of negative emotions, but also the regulation of
positive emotions, in order to make them more effective for language learning.
As for Question 6 (Do you think that peer interaction helped with ER?), nearly all students
indicated that peer interaction had a positive impact on their ER (see Table 7).
72

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Misako Kawasaki

Table 7. Students’ Perception of Whether Peer Interaction Helped ER
Very helpful
9

Whether peer interaction helped ER
HelpfulNot very helpful
16
1

Not at all helpful0

In addition, the students’ responses to Question 5 (How did that emotion that you
experienced in the situation change through peer interaction or did peer interaction help
or influence ER?) were analyzed using thematic analysis to determine what elements or
characteristics of peer interaction positively or negatively affected the students’ emotions.
Based on the student’s descriptive responses, 10 different elements or characteristics ofpeer interaction emerged as a result of coding based on the words that characterizedpeer interaction (see Table 8).
Table 8. Elements of Peer Interaction That Changed the Emotions
List of elements and characteristics of peer interaction
1. Attentive listening
2. Collaborative work 3. Dialogue
4. Empathy
5. Feedback
6. Fellowship
7. Good atmosphere
8. Help each other
9. Intimate relation
10. Sharing
Note. Elements and characteristics of peer interaction are listed in alphabetical order.
In particular, the words “dialogue,” which includes discussion and communication, and“collaborative work” were often used in the students’ comments. For example:
Student G: We shared unclear things through communication so I felt less anxious.
Student V: We teach and help each other and I enjoy collaborative work.
Student A: In this class, we had a lot of speaking and reading activities (collaborativework) and group discussions, which helped me gain confidence.
Student W: Everyone in the group consoled me that this problem was difficult (Sharing/
Empathy), which made me less fearful.
Student I: The group members not only gave me the correct answers but also explained
why they were correct (Feedback/ Help each other). That helped me understand better.
As can be seen from these comment examples, the elements of peer interaction also had
a positive impact on English learning as well as emotions.
The fact that the students commented that they felt some positive changes in their
negative emotions suggests that peer interaction primarily affected “cognitive changes” inthe students’ ER. The students mentioned that the elements and characteristics of peerinteraction, such as dialogue, collaborative work, and empathy, had a positive change indecreasing their negative emotions and increasing their positive emotions. However, thisdoes not mean that their negative emotions had completely disappeared. Dewaele and
MacIntyre (2014) argued that learners have anxiety and enjoyment in learning a foreign
language, but that the two exist independently. The presence of different emotions inthe same situation and the fact that some students experienced both a decrease innegative emotions along with an increase in positive emotions show that each emotion
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

73

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

exists independently. It is not that students’ negative emotions disappeared throughpeer interaction, but rather that positive emotions became more dominant than negative
emotions due to the positive influence of peer interaction. Moreover, most students notedsome changes in positive emotions as well as in negative emotions. The positive changes
through peer interaction, for example, increasing positive emotions such as “joy” and“confidence,” can lead to cognitive changes brought about by peer interaction. This is oneof the notable positive influences of peer interaction.
Not all of the students noted only positive influences of peer interaction in their ER.
However, from their descriptions in the questionnaires, it is possible to say that peerinteraction contributed positively to the students’ ER. As 25 out of 26 students said thatpeer interaction was beneficial for ER, even if peer interaction caused students to havenegative emotions, it may have helped them regulate those negative emotions again
depending on the quality of peer interaction. As in previous studies (Donato, 1994; Kato &Yamashita, 2021), this research confirms that peer interaction provides a positive influence
as a scaffolding for the psychological aspect of learner emotions as well.
It is not possible to accurately identify every change in emotion because students’emotions are fluid and dynamic. This study is just a case study based on my classroom.
Types of emotions, situations, ER strategies, and the influence of peer interaction canvary from context to context. The relationship between ER and peer interaction should
be further investigated. However, making an effort to notice and respond to fluctuationsin learners’ emotions can help teachers provide appropriate support for their learners’
psychology as well as their English learning. In addition, teachers also need to create agood learning environment in which students can appropriately regulate their emotions
through peer interaction. Only in such an environment can students increase their agency
and autonomy. In order to provide them with appropriate support and a good learning
environment, it is important that teachers seek to understand individual students andtheir emotions through dialogue.

Conclusion

In this study, I tried to investigate the emotions that the students experience, the specificsituations in which they experience those emotions, and the influence of peer interaction
on ER in my English class. The students experienced a wide range of negative and positive
emotions. In terms of ER, peer interaction as an example of “social sharing,” with its
function of extrinsic emotion regulation, seemed to bring about mainly some cognitivechange. It was observed that there were both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects to learners’
emotion regulation, but most importantly, almost all students indicated that interaction
with peers was helpful in ER. However, peer interaction does not always work wellbecause it can elicit negative emotions in some students. What difficulties the students
have in peer interaction is not clear, and this is perhaps a limitation in this study that canbe further explored. It is necessary to investigate how to make peer interaction positiveand healthy in order for ER to work well. In addition, the influence of teacher intervention
on peer interaction can also be further investigated. In future research, I will use advising
as a means to make peer interaction healthier and more comfortable, including teacher
intervention, and investigate the influence on ER of peer interaction that incorporates
peer advising.
In order to experience positive emotions, one must also know negative emotions.
Both negative and positive emotions are necessary for learners. What is important is to74

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Misako Kawasaki

regulate the emotions well. In my opinion, it is my role as a teacher to support students
in developing the ability to regulate their emotions well on their own and among theirpeers, even in the absence of a teacher, and I believe that this will help students develop
autonomy.

Review ProcessThis article was open peer-reviewed by Paul Collet and Shu Hua Vivien Kao of the Learner
Development Journal Review Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind peer
review.)

Author Bio

Misako Kawasaki is a PhD student at the Faculty of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Waseda
University, Japan. She holds an M.S. Ed. in TESOL from Temple University, Japan Campus.
Her research interests include peer interaction and peer advising in language learning andpersonal development.
川﨑美佐子は早稲田大学文学学術院博士課程在籍している。テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパスにてTESOLの修士号を取得。研究テーマは、言語学習と自己開発におけるピア・インタラクション、ピア・アドバイジングである。

References

Bielak, J., & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2020). Investigating language learners’ emotionregulation strategies with the help of the vignette methodology. System, 90, 102208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102208
Bruner, J. (1985). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Child Language Teaching andTherapy, 1(1), 111-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/026565908500100113
Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating
writing and speaking components. Language learning, 49(3), 417-446. https://doi.
org/10.1111/0023-8333.00095
Dewaele, J. M., & Alfawzan, M. (2018). Does the effect of enjoyment outweigh that ofanxiety in foreign language performance? Studies in Second Language Learning andTeaching, 8(1), 237-274. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.1.2
Dewaele, J. M., & Dewaele, L. (2020). Are foreign language learners’ enjoyment and anxiety
specific to the teacher? An investigation into the dynamics of learners’ classroom
emotions. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 45-65. https://doi.
org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.1.3
Dewaele, J. M., & Ip, T. S. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety,second language tolerance of ambiguity and self-rated English proficiency among
Chinese learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.1.3
Dewaele, J. M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in
the foreign language classroom. Studies in second language learning and teaching, 4(2).
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5
Dewaele, J. M., Magdalena, A. F., & Saito, K. (2019). The effect of perception of teacher
characteristics on Spanish EFL learners’ anxiety and enjoyment. The Modern Language
Journal, 103(2), 412-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12555

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

75

The Influence of Peer Interaction on Emotion Regulation in the English Classroom

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in a second language. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel(Eds.), Vygostkian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Ablex.
Gkonou, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2016). Questionnaire: Managing your emotions for Language
learning. University of Essex.
Gross, J. (1998). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences
for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1),224-237. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224
Gross, J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. PsychologicalInquiry, 26(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21,
112-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.2307/327317
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404781.2010.01021.x
Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2015). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739649
Kato, S., & Yamashita, N. (2021). 英語教師のための自律学習者育成ガイドブック [Self-directed learnerdevelopment guidebook for English teachers.] Kanda University of International Studies
Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language
development. Oxford University Press.
Lu, Z., & Liu, M. (2011). Foreign language anxiety and strategy use: A study with Chinese
undergraduate EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(6), 1298-1305.
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.6.1298-1305
Lu, Z., & Liu, M. (2015). An investigation of Chinese university EFL learner’s foreign language
reading anxiety, reading strategy use and reading comprehension performance.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 65-85. https://doi.org/10.14746/
ssllt.2015.5.1.4
Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign
language classroom. System, 32(1), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.08.002
Mynard, J., & Carson, L. (2012). Advising in language learning. Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315833040
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604712
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affectin language learning (pp. 58–67). Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation incontext (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Piniel, K., & Csizér, K. (2015). Changes in motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy during thecourse of an academic writing seminar. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre & A. Henry,
Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 164-194). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092574-015
76

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Misako Kawasaki

Semeraro, A., Vilella, S., & Ruffo, G. (2021). PyPlutchik: Visualising and comparing
emotion-annotated corpora. Plos one, 16(9), e0256503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0256503
Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2018). Fostering the development of language learner autonomy throughpeer and self-assessment. Relay Journal, 1(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/010103
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition throughcollaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University Press.
Tassinari, M. G. (2016). Emotions and feelings in language advising discourse. In C. Gkonou,
S. Mercer, & D. Tatzl (Eds.), New directions in language learning psychology (pp. 71-96).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23491-5
Ueki, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2012). Validating the L2 motivational self system in a Japanese
EFL context: The interplay of L2 motivation, L2 anxiety, self-efficacy, and the perceived
amount of information. Language Education & Technology, 49, 1-22. https://doi.org/
10.24539/let.49.0_1
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian
perspective (Vol. 44). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.44
van Lier, L. (Ed.). (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural
perspective. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7912-5
VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.). (2020). Theories in second language
acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986
Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Emotions and emotion regulation inundergraduate studying: Examining students’ reports from a self-regulated learningperspective. Educational Psychology, 35(7), 794-818. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2
014.895292

Appendix Plutchik’s Types of Emotions
Basic Emotions
喜び (Joy)
信頼 (Trust)
恐れ (Fear)
驚き (Surprise)
悲しみ (Sadness)
憎悪 (Loathing)
煩さ (Annoyance)

平穏 (Serenity)		
容認 (Acceptance)
心配 (Apprehension)
動揺 (Distraction)
憂い (Pensiveness)
信頼 (Trust)		
興味 (Interest)

悲しみ (Sadness)
嫌悪 (Disgust)
怒り (Anger)
期待 (Anticipation)
嫌悪 (Disgust)
激怒 (Rage)

楽観 (Optimism)
失望 (Disappointment) 希望 (Hope)		
不安 (Anxiety)
憤慨 (Outrage)
愛 (Love)		
罪悪感 (Guilt)
羨望 (Envy)		
歓喜 (Delight)
服従 (Submission)
軽蔑 (Contempt)
好奇心 (Curiosity)
感傷 (Sentimentality) 畏敬 (Awe)
恥 (Shame)		
積極性 (Aggressiveness) 絶望 (Despair)
誇り (Pride)

不信 (Unbelief)
自責 (Remorse)
悲観 (Pessimism)
冷笑 (Cynicism)
優位 (Dominance)

Dyad Emotions

恍惚 (Ecstasy)		
感嘆 (Admiration)
恐怖 (Terror)		
驚嘆 (Amazement)
悲痛 (Grief)
退屈 (Boredom)
予期 (Anticipation)

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

77

ARTICLE
The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring
Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers:
A Retrospective Case Study

Akiko Takagi, Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan<atakagi(at)ephs(dot)aoyama(dot)ac(dot)jp>
Takeo Tanaka, University of Yamanashi, Japan<taketak(at)yamanashi(dot)ac(dot)jp>
Yuki Minami, Kobe City College of Technology, Japan<lex(dot)minami(at)gmail(dot)com>

This retrospective case study investigated the role of practitioner research in nurturing learner autonomy
among in-service teachers, with a focus on a junior high school English teacher. In the context of English
language education in Japan, where traditional academic research often overshadows practitioner research,
this study challenges conventional perceptions and highlights the value of teacher-initiated practitioner
research in professional development. Over two years, the teacher engaged in practitioner research,emphasizing self-expression and creativity in his classes. His practice aligns with sociocultural theories oflanguage learning by fostering autonomy through social interaction and student collaboration. The study
reveals how creative tasks played a pivotal role in developing learner autonomy. Students embraced
autonomy as communicators, learners, and individuals. The study also showcases the significance of teacher
autonomy in supporting learner autonomy. The teacher’s ability to exercise discretion within curriculum
constraints exemplifies the potential for teacher-initiated change. The teacher’s two-year period of doing
practitioner research and supporting his students’ self-expression and creativity journey can serve as amodel for teachers aspiring to promote learner autonomy and development.

本事例研究は、中学校の英語教師に焦点を当て、教師が学習者の自律をどのように促すかを、現職教師によって行われた実践研究を一事例として振り返る形で探究した。
実践研究が伝統的な学術研究の影に隠れがちな日本の英語教育の文脈において、本研究は従来の認識に疑問を呈し、教師の成長を促す意味での教師主導の実践研究の価値を強調するものである。
対象となる英語教師は、2年間にわたり、授業における自己表現と創造性を重視しながら実践研究に取り組んだ。
彼の実践は、社会的相互作用と生徒間の協力を通して自律性を育むことにより、言語学習の社会文化理論に沿ったものである。
本研究では、授業中と創造的な課題が、学習者の自律性を育む上で極めて重要な役割を果たしており、生徒たちは、
コミュニケーター、学習者、そして個人としての自律性を育んでいることが明らかとなった。
本研究では、学習者の自律性を支える教師の自律性の重要性も示している。
カリキュラムの制約の中で裁量権を行使する教師の能力は、教師主導の変化の可能性を示している。
彼の2年間にわたる実践研究と生徒の自己表現と創造性を支援する歩
みは、学習者の自律と成長を促す教師のモデルとなるだろう。

Keywords

practitioner research, learner autonomy, teacher autonomy, creativity, professional development
実践研究、学習者の自律、教師の自律、創造性、専門能力開発

Introduction: Challenging Conventions by Doing Practitioner
Research

A positivist paradigm emphasizing the objective and quantifiable pursuit of knowledge
is predominant in the English language education field in Japan. As a result, practitioner
research by school teachers is sometimes perceived by Japanese scholars to be lessvaluable compared to typical academic quantitative research. This perception stems fromthe view that such research is not considered scientific and is of poor methodologicalquality. On the contrary, in this retrospective case study, we explore the empowering role78

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

of practitioner research in enhancing learner and teacher autonomy over time in one
teacher’s sustained engagement with autonomy-building practice.
Since 2014 we have been involved in a research project focused on promoting practitioner
research, collaborating with several school teachers and teacher educators. Our engagementwith practitioner research is driven by a shared fascination with its nature, specifically its
focus on understanding and improving teachers’ practices. This diverges from the objectivesof academic research, which is fundamentally oriented towards advancing academic
disciplines. Our interest was fueled by a project initiated by the Chubu English Language
Education Society, an organization in which we are active members. The purpose of thisproject is to identify how practitioner research by English as a foreign language (EFL)
teachers can be conducted and supported. One of the integral members of this project is
Naoya Miyazaki, who is the central focus of this article. We (Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, andYuki Minami) decided to collaborate in writing this paper because Naoya’s practice stands
out in terms of promoting learner autonomy through practitioner research. We believe that
depicting his two-year journey will serve as an excellent model for secondary teachers who
aspire to foster autonomy in their classrooms.
Two of the authors, Akiko and Takeo, have been research group members from thestart of the project in 2014. We have both been involved in pre- and in-service teacher
education and have supported practitioner research for the past nine years. However,
we have different backgrounds and interests as researchers and educators. While Naoya
was carrying out his own research into promoting learner autonomy, we sometimes had
an opportunity to discuss his research progress, his views on his class and students, andhis beliefs about teaching in face-to-face meetings with the other project members. Yuki,
who joined the team three years ago, has been engaged in reflective practice as a teacherresearcher.
Naoya is an English teacher at a public junior high school. After obtaining a master’s
degree in English education, he taught for 13 years in three public schools, and he has
worked as a supervisor on a city board of education in Shizuoka since 2021. He started
his practitioner research in 2014. We chose Naoya as the participant for this case study
because he has been engaged in practitioner research over an extended period of time.
Furthermore, without overloading himself in his work, he has carefully analyzed andreflected on his students’ development based on data collected from his daily practice.
Naoya has published three articles in The Chubu English Language Education Society Journal,
one of which, “Student and teacher growth observed during two years of continuous
expressive activities” (Miyazaki, 2018), focused on students’ growth through creative
expressive activities for over two years. Although he did not use the term “autonomy”
explicitly in his paper, his study vividly depicts the students’ development of learnerautonomy with the support of the teacher. After two years of practitioner research with
first- and second-year students, Naoya reflected on how he now saw his role as teacher:“I have changed my view about my role. I now care more about bringing the students toa level at which they can express themselves freely and how to scaffold them to do so”(Miyazaki, 2018, p. 187).

Practitioner Research and Purpose of the Study

Practitioner research (PR), is a type of research conducted by teachers with the purpose ofhelping themselves and other educators better understand their practice and/or improvetheir teaching. It enables teachers to explore issues related to learner development,
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

79

The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers

including learner autonomy, in their specific teaching contexts and to examine theirprofessional development. Action research, exploratory practice, reflective practice, andnarrative inquiry are well-known forms of PR, as shown in Hanks’s (2017) family tree of
PR. Despite the meaningfulness of PR, it is poorly valued by some academic researchers
not only in Japan but also elsewhere. As Borg (2010) lamented: “The common criticism
of teacher research that it is of poor quality, methodologically-speaking, is also often
underpinned by conventional scientific notions of research (e.g., large-scale, replicable,
quantitative)” (p. 405). Furthermore, some school teachers may find the theories andmethodologies associated with established PR frameworks overwhelming because theylack sufficient time and opportunity to engage in PR and apply the knowledge to theirteaching practices.
Nunan (1997) argued that PR, even if it is contextualized and focused on specificmatters, should meet the standards that apply to other types of empirical research. We
do not support this assertion; rather, we believe that teachers should be encouraged
to explore puzzles and questions in class without being subjected to academic research
criteria, which would simply add another burden in their busy environments. As shownin Hanks (2017), PR can take many forms and contribute to teacher development. We
believe teachers should be made aware that PR is feasible in their teaching practice, andits results should be meaningfully shared with their colleagues to facilitate professional
development. In fact, in their daily routines as practitioners, teachers regularly observe
their classes, check students’ assignments, as well as record, and also share, theirpractices.
Considering PR to be a powerful tool for practitioners to understand and improvetheir practice, this study qualitatively explored how a junior high school English
teacher supported students’ autonomous learning and what factors he considered forautonomous learning. By looking at his practice from multiple perspectives, we cameto understand how the teacher emphasized the development of learner autonomy forhis junior high school students. In our exploration, we analyzed the 2018 article andused a follow-up interview with Naoya to investigate his perceptions of his practiceand determine how he promoted learner autonomy. To guide our investigation, we
formulated the following two research questions (RQs):
RQ 1. What were the practitioner’s perceptions of the roles of the students and theteacher in English language classes?
RQ 2. How did the practitioner promote his students’ autonomous learning?

Naoya’s PracticeIn this section, we provide an overview of Miyazaki’s (2018) paper. In his study, heinvestigated how he and the students in his English class developed as a teacher and as
learners, respectively, for a period of over two years, placing emphasis on self-expression
activities. The participants comprised four classes (about 32 students per class) of firstyear students in their first year of junior high school and second-year students (the samecohort of first-year students). The students’ English proficiency ranged from Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels A1 to A2, which is typical for Japanesepublic junior high school students. Referring to the Course of Study (Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2008), Naoya defined “self-expression” as“students’ expressions of their feelings and thoughts in English without worrying about
particular grammatical rules” (Miyazaki, 2018, p. 183).
80

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

Naoya divided his practice and the students’ growth into the following six phases: (1) theteacher explores class policies and decides to place expression activities at the center of theclass; (2) changes are observed in the students in the class; (3) the students start enjoying
cooperative activities in English; (4) the students start to care about the audience; (5) the
students begin to enjoy their self-expression freely; and (6) the students reflect on what has
influenced them and convey their thoughts to their classmates. Phases 1–3 occurred during
the first year, whereas Phases 4–6 took place during the second year. Table 1 shows theself-expression activities that Naoya created over these six phases with his students with the
textbook content, all of which required creative writing by the students.
Table 1. Summary of Student Activities
Timeline
Phase 1 (April–July 2015)
Phase 2 (August–December 2015)
Phase 3 (January–March 2016)
Phase 4 (April–July 2016)
Phase 5 (October–December 2016)
Phase 6 (January–March 2017)

Example student activities
Creating a poem
Writing a composition about “My dream school” with a picture
Writing a composition about “My dream tool” with a picture
Creating original text for a textbook
Writing a continuation of the story “Red Demon and Blue
Demon,” which the students read in the textbook; the story is
set 10 years in the future
Writing a composition about things that shaped or influenced
who they had become

In his 2018 paper, Naoya reviewed two years of practice based on the following: (a) the
students’ English compositions, (b) video and audio recordings during interactive speaking
practice and small group activities, (c) student statements that he had recorded, and (d)his teaching journal.
In his teaching Naoya placed expressive activities such as writing and speaking at thecenter of the syllabus, but, at the beginning of his two-year practitioner research project,he was not completely sure how he would manage his class. He consolidated his teachingpolicy through the process of reconciling the actual situations of the students with thewishes of the teacher.

Learner Autonomy and Teacher Autonomy

Learner autonomy is popularly defined as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”(Holec, 1981, p. 3), but it has since been defined in various other ways. It is now generally
accepted that learner autonomy must be viewed from multiple points of view. Naoya’spractice is special in that it involved extensive interaction between the teacher and thestudents, as well as between the students themselves during classroom activities, which
enhanced students’ creativity. Therefore, in this study, we focused on the affective, cognitive,
and sociocultural dimensions of learner autonomy (Benson, 2007) in relation to learnercreativity and teacher autonomy.
One of the two sociocultural perspectives proposed by Oxford (2003) involves sociallymediated learning, heavily relying on Vygotsky’s (Cole et al., 1978) work. According to
Vygotsky, learner development progresses from other-regulation to self-regulation throughinteraction with others, eventually leading to autonomy. Vygotsky introduced the conceptof the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as a theoretical framework for learning and
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

81

The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachersdevelopment. In the ZPD, learners collaborate with others to bridge the gap between theircurrent abilities and their potential, with the help of guidance. Initially, learners receive
support from more knowledgeable individuals, gradually enabling them to perform tasks
independently. To bridge the gap between learner autonomy and self-regulation, the tasks
that learners can do on their own should align with their self-regulation abilities (Murray,2014). Applying Vygotsky’s work to L2 learning, Lantolf (2000) emphasized the point that, insociocultural theory, the relationship between people and the world is mediated throughlanguage as a tool for thought, rather than the acquisition of cognitive knowledge at anindividual level. A key concept in sociocultural theory for language learning is “participation”(Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). To become competent language speakers, learners benefit fromcollaborative interaction with others to negotiate meaning and problem-solve in the ZPD. In
this sense, task-based learning is considered to promote learner autonomy, as learners are
viewed as language users and social communicators, with teachers serving as facilitatorsof communication and mediators in students’ language development in a cooperative andself-directed learning environment (Vieira, 2017).
Next, we would like to emphasize the significance of creativity in relation to autonomy, as
creativity plays a pivotal role in Naoya’s practice. Littlewood (1996) proposed that autonomy
comprises three types: autonomy as a communicator, autonomy as a learner, and autonomy
as a person. Following Littlewood’s definition, Tin (2018) regarded the first type as a microlevel of autonomy, where learners take charge and make choices regarding the creativeuse of language in language learning tasks. Tin saw the other two types as macro levels of
autonomy, where learners make decisions and choices about their learning. She argued
that creativity, defined as the production of new ideas through creative thinking, plays acrucial role in promoting learner autonomy through communication. She further pointed
out that creativity empowers learners to take control and transform their language. Drawing
on sociocultural theory, Chappell (2016) viewed creativity as a social activity rather than an
individual one in a language classroom. He asserted that an essential part of learning is
the intervention or mediation of others, namely a teacher or peers, between the learnerand the knowledge and skills to be acquired. In conclusion, it is evident that creativity not
only enriches learner autonomy but also supports the role of social interaction in nurturing
students’ development as autonomous learners.
Teacher autonomy is closely interconnected with the development of learner autonomy(Manzano Vázquez, 2018). Benson (2007) referred to teacher autonomy as primarily to thefreedom of the teacher to exercise discretion in the implementation of the curriculum.
Expanding on this, Dikilitas (2020) further explored the concept of teacher autonomy
by surveying 15 language teachers. He identified four major themes: teachers beingreflective, developing learner autonomy, being self-directed, and cultivating freedom forthemselves and learners. The fourth theme related to the ability of teachers to cultivate
freedom in terms of what they can teach beyond the curriculum and their decision to use
methods beyond those prescribed by schools. Especially in secondary school settings,
teacher autonomy tends to be constrained by English language curriculum guidelines,
syllabi, exams within schools, and educational policies and regulations. However, teacher
autonomy can be cultivated depending on the interests and internal capacities ofindividual teachers (Benson, 2010). Dikilitaş (2020) furthermore argues that, in order toovercome contextual constraints, teacher autonomy should be developed in sustainable
ways. To this end, PR may help teachers explore answers to their questions in their own
classroom contexts.
82

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

So, what are typical qualities that pro-learner autonomy teachers exhibit, and how haslearner autonomy been typically investigated until now? According to Breen and Mann
(1997), teachers who seek to promote learner autonomy in the classroom possess thefollowing characteristics: a clear perception of themselves as learners, a belief and trustin their learners’ ability to learn and act autonomously, and a genuine desire to foster
learner autonomy in the classroom. To determine how the autonomy of English language
learners has been studied, Chong and Reinders (2022) conducted a literature review of
61 empirical studies on learner autonomy (some of them in Japanese EFL settings) witha focus on English language learning. They reported that most of the studies had been
conducted in higher education institutions and language schools and were quantitative,
often using questionnaires. Notably, few studies have qualitatively explored how
language teachers perceive learner autonomy and how they support learners in Japanese
secondary classrooms. Therefore, our study was aimed at filling this gap in the literature.

Research Design

We employed a retrospective case study as the research design. A retrospective casestudy is “a type of longitudinal case study design in which all data, including first-person
accounts, are collected after the fact” (Street & Ward, 2010, p. 825). Although we had
not directly observed Naoya’s practice, by examining his article and interviewing theauthor, we were able to investigate his longitudinal PR from a new perspective: learnerautonomy. Additionally, given the limited length of the paper (eight pages), we aimed togain a more detailed understanding of his practice as well as of his underlying beliefs andthoughts that were not fully articulated in what he had written. There was a four-year gap
between Naoya’s publication of PR and our interview with him. However, it was still worthinterviewing him based on the article because it marked a turning point in his practicethrough PR. We were able to delve into his practice by referencing the concrete written
evidence that reflected his beliefs and thoughts, and Naoya vividly remembered his practicebased on his own writing. We believed that the passage of time would allow him to reflect
more objectively on his practice. Moreover, we could gain insights into how he continued
his practice after this period, even though it was not the primary focus of our study. We feltthat this methodology would be suitable for clarifying how the practitioner nurtured learnerautonomy in his English language classes for a prolonged period. The interview, based on
his paper (Miyazaki, 2018), provided rich data, which we used to thoroughly explore theparticipant’s experiences and perceptions. This methodology enabled us to gain a deeper
understanding of Naoya’ practices by metacognitively investigating his practices, without
placing an overly large burden on him.

Data Collection and Analysis

We conducted a semi-structured in-depth interview with Naoya via Zoom in July 2022 to
explore his perspectives regarding the roles of teachers and students in English classes aswell as his perceptions of the development of his students’ autonomy through expressive
activities. Toward this end, we asked him to reflect on his experiences while completing
his study, based on the article (Miyazaki, 2018) that he had written. The interview, whichlasted for about 1 hour and 45 minutes, was audio-recorded and transcribed. Naoya
mainly talked about his experiences during his study, and to a lesser extent before andafter it. The interview questions (see the Appendix for details) included his beliefs aboutteaching, perceptions and ways of supporting his students’ learning and development,
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

83

The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers

and the role of PR in understanding and improving his practice. In terms of ethics, Naoya
fully understood the purpose of this study and was happy to share his thoughts andreflections on his practice based on his published article and beyond. In addition, we hadbuilt trust through our project, which aims to support the professional development ofbusy school teachers.
We used Naoya’s article and the interview data in the analysis. For the data analysis,
we employed a reflexive thematic analysis (TA) following the six steps prescribed byBraun and Clarke (2022). A reflexive TA fully embraces qualitative research values (Braun& Clarke, 2021). In a reflexive TA, coding is open and organic, and theme generation isregarded as a creative and active process. Codes capture at least one facet, but themes
need to capture multiple facets of shared meanings in the data.
Akiko began by examining the data, followed by a discussion of the results among us,which allowed for the data to be assessed from multiple perspectives. As the first step,
Akiko familiarized herself with the data and inductively coded Naoya’s paper and theinterview transcription by using a software package for qualitative data analysis (MAXQDA,2022). She then transferred the coded data into Excel and collated the codes into potential
themes to search for patterns. After reviewing all the themes, Akiko defined and named
them, then modified, deleted, or combined the identified themes where necessary.
She moved back and forth between the stages of analysis recursively to obtain the final
themes. After the analysis was finished, Akiko shared the data with Takeo and Yuki tocheck the appropriateness of the themes and the process of theme development and toenhance dependability (Koch, 2006). Some themes were revised at this stage. We thendiscussed our interpretations of the data. We shared our thoughts on the potential of
PR for investigating the relationships among autonomy, creativity, and other aspects oflearner development. Our intent was to deepen our analysis and interpretation as well as
to enhance our own reflections on the issues that would emerge during our discussions
through our different positionalities. Using member checking (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), we
also asked Naoya to confirm whether our analysis and interpretation were convincing andcredible. Finally, we translated the Japanese data into English so as to report the results in
the Findings section.

Findings

RQ1: Naoya’s Perceptions on the Roles of the Students and the Teacher

We report two overarching themes developed through the analytical process for RQ 1,
namely the students as the main actors in the class and the teacher as facilitator.

Students as the Main Actors in the Class

Naoya had been teaching third-year students for several years at schools in Shizuoka,
so it was quite refreshing for him to start with first-year students without really knowing
how they were doing. He assumed that they would be able to express themselves inEnglish to some extent. However, he realized that first-year students struggled to express
themselves in English even if they wanted to do so. Despite their struggles, he believed intheir inherent capability to learn and express themselves, and he regarded his students
as proactive learners. Naoya said, “I thought that if I let the students try, they would be
able to do it, as long as I gave them the support they needed and hints to help them think”(Interview, 17 July 2022).
84

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

According to his article, Naoya had a clear vision of his students’ learning from the start ofhis practice. He wanted his students to be able to communicate their thoughts with eachother in class. At the same time, he hoped to nurture the students’ empathetic attitude sothat they would listen to and accept others’ stories and thoughts. As his ultimate goal, hewanted each student to find an answer to the reason for their learning English for three
years in junior high school. In the following part of the interview, Naoya describes how heviewed the meaning of learning English for his students:
Unlike in Tokyo or Osaka, there are very few students who go abroad, and most of themspend their entire lives in the local community or come back after leaving. There aremany students who work hard on their English but will not use it in the future. I thinkthat’s fine, but it would be nice if they had some kind of experience of being exposed
to a foreign country or something gained from their foreign language experience. They
don’t live in an international city, and they don’t have many opportunities to actually
use foreign languages in their daily lives. However, I hope that in English class, they will
be able to think in different ways and have the opportunity to interact with each other.
(Interview, 17 July 2022)
To enhance the students’ learning, sharing ideas was a necessary element. However, atthe beginning, Naoya confessed his worry about the students’ situation: “I want to change
the situation wherein the students only talk to certain people. How can I make them feelsafe and involved?” (Teaching journal, May 1, 2015, in Miyazaki, 2018, p. 183).

Teacher as Facilitator

Regarding the teacher’s role, Naoya stated in the interview that he would like to step backwith a slightly detached perspective and become involved only when necessary. His ideal
as a teacher was to provide support to his students while engaging in learner-centeredactivities. Accordingly, he regarded his role of supporting the students as essential sothat the students would express what they really wanted to say. The students could lookup vocabulary and expressions in a dictionary, but some words were too difficult, andthe students could not convey their thoughts clearly. Thus, Naoya supported individual
students in the following way: “I was most concerned about making sure that the students
could really say exactly what they wanted to say and be as honest as possible in what theywanted to say” (Interview, 17 July 2022).
In the interview, Naoya revealed why he put emphasis on self-expression in his practice:
In my previous school, I emphasized vocabulary and grammar to equip students withthe skills needed to pass the high school entrance exams. All the students consistently
scored high on so-called formal tests, with very few errors. However, one day when I
asked a simple question, “What do you want to do during summer vacation?” no one
answered. I was shocked that these highly capable students couldn’t respond. That
year, I realized that my teaching approach was flawed, so I stopped using the authorized
textbook. Instead, I created original teaching materials that covered vocabulary andgrammar comprehensively, as used in the textbook. When I used these materials andengaged the students in activities, they underwent a remarkable transformation. They
became more capable of expressing themselves freely and began to read texts more
attentively. (Interview, 17 July 2022)
This experience convinced him that encouraging students to express themselves as much as
possible leads to fluency. He strongly believed that fluency should come first, not accuracy.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

85

The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers

RQ2: How Naoya Promoted Learner Autonomy

In this section, we report on how Naoya promoted his students’ autonomy in learning. First let
us relate the six phases to changes in the students’ behaviors and reactions (see Table 2).
Table 2. Summary of the Six Phases
Timeline
Phase 1 (April–July 2015)

Naoya’s practice and his students’ growth
The teacher explores class policies and decides to place
expression activities at the center of the class.
Phase 2 (August–December 2015) Changes are observed in the students in the class.
Phase 3 (January–March 2016)
The students start enjoying cooperative activities in English.
Phase 4 (April–July 2016)
The students start to care about the audience.
Phase 5 (October–December 2016) The students begin to enjoy their self-expression freely.
Phase 6 (January–March 2017)
The students reflect on what has influenced them andconvey their thoughts to their classmates.
Across these six phases five themes were developed: two themes for RQ 1, and three for
RQ 2 as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Five Themes Identified••

Students as main actors
Involving students in class management •Having students share their work••

Teacher as facilitator
Setting scaffolding activities
Supporting individual students
Observing students carefully

For the students as the main actors in the class, the key themes centered on students’participation in managing the class and sharing their work with each other. For the teacher
as facilitator, the three underlying themes were scaffolding, individual support, and carefulobservation of the students. The retrospective analysis that follows explores these fivethemes in more depth.

Involving Students in Class Management

From the start of the two-year period, Naoya invited students to participate in classmanagement. At the beginning of each school year, he would present his plans for the
English class and ask the students for their opinions about the approach that shouldbe implemented in the class. With the second- and third-year students, he wanted tohear from them how the previous year had gone and what they had learned. During his
study, at the beginning of every unit, he would instruct the students to take a look at the
textbook and see what they were interested in doing. Thereafter, they would decide on
activities together. For example, in the following part of the interview, he described how
he let the students decide on the activities in Phase 4:
They looked a little unsatisfied with the activities in the textbook. When I asked thestudents what they wanted to do, they came up with various ideas. Then, I wrote theunit plan on the blackboard and worked on it with them. (Interview, 17 July 2022)
In Phase 1, Naoya let the students think of an alternative activity for part of a unit. However,from Phase 2, he let the students brainstorm ideas on the activities for the whole unit. One
86

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

unit, for example, contained the activity of reading information on the website of an American
school. Instead of that, the students decided to write about their ideal school, accompany
it with a picture, and perform a poster presentation. In the interview, Naoya told us that forthe second- and third-year students, he had them decide the criteria for how they would beassessed for every unit. The students were eager to share their ideas with the teacher; in fact,according to Naoya, “Some highly motivated students even brought ideas for activities theywould like to do three or four months ahead” (Interview, 17 July 2022).

Having Students Share Their WorkIn every expressive activity, the students shared their work with their peers. In Phase 1,
Naoya had the students share their poems and comments with each other. The students
enjoyed reading and wanted to read to their classmates, so he ended up allocating twohours for sharing. For the later phases, he put the students’ work on the wall outside of
the class, thus providing opportunities for it to be read by students from other classes.
He observed that, while reading works in the hallway, “Some students took notes. Others
read work with their classmates and discussed the meanings or even asked the author toclarify some points” (Interview, 17 July 2022).
For some time, the students were worried about understanding the literal meaningof a text. Naoya reflected: “The students were concerned about understanding themeaning of their classmates’ work when they translated it into Japanese, so they checked
the meaning of unknown words” (Interview, 17 July 2022). However, when the students
shared their compositions on “My dream tool” in Phase 3, Naoya encouraged them to pay
more attention to the messages the authors wished to convey, and ask their classmatesquestions or request more information on aspects that they were curious about. It was amemorable transition, and the students started to focus on the meanings of the messages
first. In the second year, linguistic errors and accuracy were the last things the students
attended to. They would begin by writing what they wanted to say freely, then they would
review what they had written to see if it was accurate.
In Phase 4, the students created an original text for a textbook. The students were
eager to carefully read as much of their classmates’ work as possible, so this took moretime than the teacher had expected. At the end of the class, Naoya asked his students
which piece of writing was the most impressive. The chosen work was “You are you. You
will change. You are you. Just the way you are” (Miyazaki, 2018, p. 185). Naoya recalled
during the interview that the student whose work was selected was not good at English
and other subjects. However, his work was chosen because of its strong message.
In Phase 6, Naoya found that the students, as readers, had become capable ofunderstanding what the other person was trying to convey. They wrote comments on
their classmates’ work voluntarily without being instructed to do so by the teacher.

Setting Scaffolding Activities

According to Naoya, the final goal that the students aimed to achieve for each unit wasoften grandiose, but he did not lower it. He said, “If I had lowered the goal, judging that
it is too much work for the students, it would have resulted in a piece of English writingthat lacked depth” (Miyazaki, 2018, p. 187). He understood that activities for acquiringand retaining grammatical knowledge should be meaningful for his students. However,he thought that it would have been more effective if he had set other tasks, including
improvised oral activities, to help the students develop the ability to express themselves
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

87

The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers

so they could write English compositions rather than spending most of the class on
grammar exercises.
Naoya set several activities for his students to achieve their goals. For example, if thestudents wanted to create a poster and have a poster session at the end of the unit, hewould first have them work in pairs to brainstorm and communicate their ideas to eachother in English. Next, he had the students share ideas in English in groups of four. In each
unit, he usually assigned five to six activities, such as brainstorming and sharing ideas
in pairs or in groups and reading each other’s drafts. He stated: “I decided the activities
based on the difficulty of the final activity and the present level of the students. My mainrole as the teacher was to think of activities” (Interview, 17 July 2022).

Supporting Individual Students

In both speaking and writing activities, Naoya spent more time supporting individual
students by using a mixture of English and Japanese than giving feedback to the wholeclass. He often went around the students working in groups and asked individual ones
what they were struggling with. He recalled:
At first, I listened to what the student wanted to say, and then I gave them several
options for how they might say it. If they didn’t use them, that was fine. At the beginningof the practice, they used them, but later on, they did not. (Interview, 17 July 2022)
He spent a lot of time supporting individual students who were struggling to express
themselves.
The lower the grade level, the more questions I received about how to say somethingin English. Their questions were often ambiguous. The students didn’t really know what
they wanted to say, so I had to dig into what they wanted to say through a dialogue.
The process of gradually translating it into English took a long time—at first, five toseven minutes per student. (Interview, 17 July 2022)
In the process, Naoya focused less on accuracy and more on appropriateness. In otherwords, he put more emphasis on conveying what the students intended to mean rather
than having them use grammatically correct expressions. While the teacher was supportinga student, the rest of the group members would listen to the dialogue and collaboratively
brainstorm to help the student. At first, many students needed the teacher’s assistance, but
gradually, they began to solve problems among themselves. Naoya commented:
In the end, the students seemed most convinced when they were thinking together
with their peers. They came up with several possible expressions and asked theirclassmates which one would be best. After discussing it for a couple of minutes, theychose the best expression. (Interview, 17 July 2022)

Observing Students Carefully

During his practice, Naoya would always carefully observe the cognitive, emotional, and social
aspects of the students’ learning and performance. He utilized the observed information toassess his teaching or alter his lesson goal and plan flexibly. He established a goal and a final
self-expression activity at the beginning of each unit. For example, in Phase 5, he set the goal
“The students use their English knowledge and enjoy free expression without a right or wrong
answer.” He then began to incorporate students’ opinions into the decision-making process
for lesson goals and activities in the second year.
88

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

As a rule, Naoya devoted a quarter of the class to textbook activities, while the remaining
time was spent on the activities developed to enhance the textbook content. He used the
textbook as a resource or dictionary:
When the students express themselves, the range of expression expands in a good
sense, but at the same time, the expression scatters or spreads in various directions. I
used the textbooks to narrow down the range of expressions. (Interview, 17 July 2022)
As the first self-expression activity in Phase 1, Naoya introduced a poem. He had experience
with a similar activity for third-year students in the past, which had been successful. Although
he doubted if the activity would work for the first-year students, he noticed that the students
worked hard on creating a poem. Some students anxiously brought him their first poems; heconfirmed that they were fine and posted their work on the blackboard or wall. The students
then started to work on the second and third poems. The students read their classmates’
work enthusiastically, and their facial expressions became brighter. The students’ reactions
and the warm class atmosphere, based on his observations, made him confident in his
practice, so he decided to place expression activities at the center of the class.
Another aspect of the way that Naoya nurtured his learners’ self-expression was theemphasis he placed on fluency rather than accuracy. Although he did this from the
beginning, he was still concerned about the students developing grammatical skills in
the first three phases. As he observed their growth, his awareness gradually changed.
In Phase 2, even students who were not good at English tried to express their ideas withthe support of a dictionary and their classmates. Although the students previously had
a strong sense of memorizing English, their attitudes changed to learning grammar andvocabulary in order to express themselves. In learning grammar, they began to thinkcarefully about the context in which it was used. In addition, he noticed the following:More students started to take notes from the blackboard or what I said. The students
who only did the assigned activities (even though they had the ability to do them) were
enthusiastic about the activity. They seemed to look for expressions that would better
fit their feelings. They faced the language without cutting corners. (Teaching journal,
December 7, 2015, in Miyazaki, 2018, p. 184)
During this phase, the students worked on the poster of their dream school. They concentrated
on this activity and did not have time to work on the textbook. However, after the activity, when
the students read the textbook, they understood it easily without spending too much time on it.
In Phase 3, Naoya observed that the students had changed in terms of being readers. They
seemed to understand the main ideas of English texts without translating them into Japanese.
Their requests for the teacher to explain in Japanese decreased, and they responded more
quickly after reading texts.
In Phase 4, when the students had become more aware of the audience, they started tothink more deeply about how they could convey their ideas to their classmates. While they
were sharing their work, some students would ask their classmates if they understood themeaning of the text. This observation made Naoya rethink his role as a teacher and plan hisclass more carefully to help the students express their thoughts.
I used to think that I had to help students develop their grammatical skills, but I now
think about how I can help them express what they want to express more faithfully
according to their ideas. I now look more deeply at the students and try to envision thelesson in terms of whether they lack the vocabulary or the ability to structure the story.
(Miyazaki, 2018, pp. 184–185)
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

89

The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers

In this phase, some students even worked on their writing of “My dream school” voluntarily,
although Naoya did not give them homework. The activity of writing and sharing their work
took longer than he expected, so he changed the syllabus.
In Phase 5, the students wrote a continuation of the story in the textbook “Red Demonand Blue Demon,” originally from an old Japanese tale (Hamada, 1965), set 10 years in the
future. Some students wrote happy stories, while others crafted sad ones. Naoya noticed
that the students reflected on themselves in their writing. The following is an example of
the work:
10 years later, Red Demon couldn’t play with friends. He couldn’t eat well. Then hereceived a letter. When he saw it, he was surprised. So it was Blue Demon’s letter. The
message was “Don’t cry. Please play with your friends. It’s my last wish.” Red Demon
was troubled for a long time. But one day he went out his house. He said to children“I’m home!” Children didn’t understand. He get smile again. He never cry. He shouted“Thank you!” at blue sky. The he saw blue shadow, maybe. (sic) (Miyazaki, 2018, pp.
185–186)
By the time Phase 6 came around, in Naoya’s view, the students, as expressive individuals,
had shifted from the stage of just wanting to convey their thoughts and feelings in English
to the stage of thinking and devising English statements to convey their thoughts andfeelings to the reader.

Discussion

Our interpretations suggest that Naoya views the classroom as a place where social interaction
is an essential element for students’ learning. In their classes, he and the students frequently
interacted with each other to think, share, and co-construct meaning. This view resonates withthe sociocultural perspective on language learning, wherein individual cognitive development
is achieved as a result of interaction with others (Lantolf, 2000). At first, Naoya provided ample
scaffolding to encourage the students to express themselves, but they gradually became more
independent with the help of their peers without the need for the teacher’s scaffolding. Whenteachers step back and allow students to use the language to express what they would like to
put into words, students can experiment with the language with creative ideas (Rosenberg,2010). This brings an element of fun into the classroom and cultivates students’ ability andinterest in expressing themselves creatively.
In Naoya’s class, repeated creative writing activities played a key role. Tin (2013) notedthat one aspect of a creative task is “the focus is on the constructing unknown meaning or‘meaning new to self’” (p. 395), in comparison with that of a communicative task. In addition,
while a communicative task promotes students’ communicative desire, a creative task canenhance their creative desire. Because of this creative desire, we assume that the creative
expression activities in Naoya’s class encouraged students to craft their individual works inearnest, regardless of their different levels of English proficiency. Such creative expression
also contributed to promoting their autonomy as communicators at the micro level. For
example, in the activity of writing a poem, the students used language creatively and madelinguistic choices to express what they wanted to convey in a constrained activity. The
students discovered what they could do with the language rather than only learning about
the language.
Through the creative expression activities, the students expressed their personal meaning
beyond mere language learning, which makes a direct contribution to “autonomy as a person”
at the macro level, as mentioned by Littlewood (1996). “Autonomy as a learner,” the third
90

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

type of autonomy (Littlewood, 1996), was also promoted in Naoya’s class. The students were
engaged in deciding on the learning goals and activities with the teacher. In other words, they
were able to make choices about what and how they wanted to learn. Naoya adapted theauthorized textbook audaciously to enhance students’ creativity and autonomy. As a result,the students were able to take control of their learning, and their feeling of achievement ineach writing activity—because of its creative nature—might have increased their intrinsic
motivation.
Naoya wanted his students not only to be able to communicate their ideas but also todevelop their empathetic attitude so that they would listen and be open to others. This
was achieved by the end of his study. Just setting creative activities does not guarantee
students’ active engagement with creative thinking and sharing their work comfortably.
An empathetic attitude creates a safe environment in the classroom for students toshare their thoughts and work, which becomes the basis for supporting each other in
the ZPD. The analysis of the data indicated that Naoya was aware of the need to createa safe space for sharing and follow a step-by-step approach to autonomy building fromthe beginning. Therefore, he consistently encouraged and supported students, valuing
their creative thoughts. This reduced their anxiety of contributing new ideas and fearof being negatively judged by others (Henriksen et al., 2020). Vargas and Madrigal(2018) suggest that teachers should consider particular components to enhance bothstudents’ creativity and empathetic feelings and establish their connection for students’
wellness in the classroom. One component is partnership. In Naoya’s case, the students
had connected empathetically while collaborating on various activities in pairs andgroups and they also engaged in the opportunity to listen to and read classmates’ ideas
attentively without criticism and judgment. This developed a sense of community. Anothercomponent is time and patience. The teacher provided the students extended time in
the process of generating and sharing written work. This allowed the students to explore
and understand each other’s ideas and learn to care for each other. In terms of acquiring
English proficiency, the abundant opportunities for both output and input throughsharing their ideas and written works and reading their classmates’ compositions helped
students recognize their potential to become competent English users. This also seemed
to enhance students’ motivation to engage in the various activities Naoya had established.
With regard to teacher autonomy, the findings indicate that Naoya is an autonomousteacher because he exercised his discretion in the implementation of the curriculum(Benson, 2007). This enabled him to overcome the constraints of the curriculum and theuse of the textbook approved by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology.
Through his practice, he would constantly observe the students’ learning and performanceacross various aspects and patiently support individual students with a strong trust in theircapability of learning autonomously. To provide appropriate scaffolding and alter his lessonplan and class management flexibly, he constantly reflected on and analyzed his practice,using his teaching journal for his PR. He empowered his learners by creating safe learningspaces and developing their capacity for autonomy (Lamb, 2008) by implementing activities
that stimulated their creativity.
Reflecting on his two-year practice, Naoya stated in the interview that what had changed
most was that the students were learning more on their own, both in and out of class. In
addition, the depth of the students’ relationships and comfort in being with others changed
immensely.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

91

The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers

Conclusion

This retrospective case study has explored how a junior high school teacher enhanced
learner autonomy over a two-year period of PR. Naoya’s practice is exemplary in termsof his skillful way of devising tasks, paying attention to individual students, and steppingback from a teacher-centered classroom. He trusted the potential of his students’ ability
to express their ideas creatively while collaborating autonomously; therefore, he had aprecise focus on meaning and did not compromise. The research methodology that weused enabled us to revisit his practice from a new perspective and analyze it in termsof learner autonomy. We were able to jointly understand the meaning of his practice,
the process of his teaching, and learner development from a sociocultural perspective.
For busy Japanese secondary school teachers, it is not an easy task to overcome theconstraints imposed by English language curriculum guidelines, prescribed syllabi, andexaminations, and to exercise autonomy. However, this study has shown that individual
teachers can cultivate their autonomy and create an environment that promotes learnerautonomy in the classroom. In Naoya’s case, creativity played an important role inpromoting learners’ autonomy as communicators with appropriate scaffolding by theteacher, so creativity can be a key element for secondary school teachers in overcoming
diverse constraints. Finally, we would like to emphasize that PR on teachers’ own initiative
enables them to engage in self-initiated reflection and professional development without
too large a burden and can help them promote learner autonomy through trial and error.
According to Naoya, maintaining a daily journal is a regular practice that lets him record
his subjective observations of his teaching. He added that reflecting on his practice withthe aid of journal entries, as a form of PR, allowed him to objectively assess his teaching
and gain new insights for students he will instruct in the future. We hope that more school
teachers will engage in PR to understand and improve their practice in terms of learnerdevelopment in the classroom and beyond.

Review ProcessThis paper was blind peer-reviewed by members of the Learner Development Journal Review
Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind peer review.)

Author Bios

Akiko Takagi is a professor in the College of Education, Psychology and Human Studies at
Aoyama Gakuin University, as well as the director of the Aoyama Gakuin Research Center
for English Language Teaching. She received her EdD from the University of Exeter. She has
been involved in pre- and in-service education for 17 years. Her scholarly interests include
language teacher education, practitioner research, and qualitative research methodology.

髙木亜希子は、青山学院大学教育人間学部の教授で、青山学院英語教育研究センターの所長も務めている。
エク
セター大学で教育学博士を取得した。
教員養成と教師教育に17年間携わってきた。
研究分野は、言語教師教育、実践研究、および質的研究方法論である 。

Takeo Tanaka is a professor in the Department of Education at the University of Yamanashi.
He received his EdD from Hyogo University of Teacher Education. He has been involvedin teacher education for 22 years. His research focuses on second language acquisition,
methods of teaching English as a foreign language, and practitioner research.
田中武夫は、山梨大学教育学部の教授である。
兵庫教育大学において学校教育学博士を取得した。
教員養成に22
年間携わってきた。
専門は、第二言語習得、外国語としての英語教授法、および実践研究である。

92

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

Yuki Minami is an associate professor in the Department of General Studies at Kobe City
College of Technology. He holds a master’s degree in education from Kyoto University of
Education. He previously taught for six years in high schools before he started his current
position. His research interests include language teacher education, practitioner research,and second language vocabulary learning and teaching.

南侑樹は、神戸市立工業高等専門学校一般科准教授である。
京都教育大学大学院教育学研究科修士課程修了。
現職以前は、高校で6年間教鞭をとる。
研究分野は、言語教師教育、実践研究、第二言語における語彙学習・指導である。

References

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40,
21–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003958
Benson, P. (2010). Teacher education and teacher autonomy: Creating spaces forexperimentation in secondary school English language teaching. Language Teaching
Research, 14(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810365236
Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43(4), 391–429.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000170
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive)
thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
Breen, M. P., & Mann, S. (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy
for autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language
learning (pp. 132–149). Longman.
Chappell, P. (2016). Creativity through inquiry dialogue. In R. H. Jones & J. C. Richards (Eds.),
Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 130–145).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730936
Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (2022). Autonomy of English language learners: A scoping
review of research and practice. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221075812
Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (Eds.). (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes. L. S. Vygotsky. Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Dikilitaş, K. (2020). Teacher autonomy and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z.
Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 54–66). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774390
Hamada, Y. (1965). ないたあかおに [Red demon and blue demon]. Kaiseisha.
Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching: Puzzling about principles and practices.
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-45344-0
Henriksen, D., & Richardson, C., & Shack, K. (2020). Mindfulness and creativity: Implications
for thinking and learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tsc.2020.100689
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon. (Original work
published 1979)

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

93

The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers

Koch, T. (2006). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 53, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03681.x
Lamb, T. (2008). Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy: Synthesising an agenda. In
T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, andresponses (pp. 269–284). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.1
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24, 427–435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00039-5
Manzano Vázquez, B. (2018). Teacher development for autonomy: An exploratory review oflanguage teacher education for learner and teacher autonomy. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 387-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1235171
MAXQDA (2022). MAXQDA [Qualitative data analysis software]. https://www.maxqda.com/
new-maxqda-2022#
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation(4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2008). 小学校学習指導要領解説
外国語活動編 [Elementary school course of study explanation: Foreign language activities].
https://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/
afieldfile/2009/06/16/1234931_012.pdf
Miyazaki, N. (2018). 2年間の表現活動の継続で見られた生徒と教師の成長 [Student and teacher growthobserved during two years of continuous expressive activities]. The Chubu English Language
Education Society Journal, 47, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.20713/celes.47.0_181
Murray, G. (2014). The social dimensions of learner autonomy and self-regulated learning.
Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5, 320–341. https://sisaljournal.org/archives/
dec14/murray/
Nunan, D. (1997). Developing standards for teacher-research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,31(2), 365–367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588053
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D.
Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education
perspectives (pp. 75–91). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504684
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and thereconstruction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (2010). The learner as a creative resource. In A. Maley & N. Peachey (Eds.),
Creativity in the English classroom (pp. 123–133). British Council. https://www.teachingenglish.
org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_F004_ELT_Creativity_FINAL_v2%20WEB.pdf
Street, C., & Ward, K. (2010). Retrospective case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe(Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 824–827). Sage. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781412957397
Tin, T. B. (2013). Towards creativity in ELT: The need to say something new. ELT Journal,
67(4), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct022
Tin, T. B. (2018). Promoting autonomy through creative tasks: Broadening possibilities
within constraints. In D. Bao (Ed.), Creativity and innovations in ELT materials
94

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka, & Yuki Minami

development: Looking beyond the current design (pp. 96–106). Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783099702
Vargas, V. B., & Madrigal, V. V. (2018). The empathetic EFL classroom: A path to creative
thinking. Revista de Lenguas Modernas, 29, 161–173. https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/
rlm/article/view/36548
Vieira, F. (2017). Task-based instruction for autonomy: Connections with contexts of practice,conceptions of teaching, and professional development strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3),693–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.384

Appendix
Example Interview Questions

What is your ideal teacher image?
What was important to you in your practice?
What did you see as your role as a teacher in the practice?
What were your thoughts on learner development during the practice?
What specific support did you provide to facilitate learner development?
What kind of feedback did you give on student expression?
What elements during the practice do you think influenced the students’ change?
How do you think practitioner research has helped you support learners?

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

95

ARTICLE
Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection
Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work
Takaaki Morioka, National Institute of Technology, Kagawa College,Japan<morioka-t(at)dg(dot)kagawa-nct(dot)ac(dot)jp>
In this research, I investigate the efficacy of mandatory reflection activities in raising students’ awarenessregarding the significance of group work for effective communication. Although simply enhancing language
skills is inadequate for communicating with others, incorporating group work in classrooms can facilitate
both human relationships and communication skills. One approach to promote engagement in group
work is to introduce reflection activities and offer opportunities for students to enhance their group work.
However, as students may perceive reflection activities as imposed tasks rather than valuable tasks, towhat extent might such mandatory reflection influence students’ perceptions of group activities? In thisstudy, I employed a Cooperative Work Awareness Scale questionnaire to compare students in classes
with and without reflection activities. The findings indicate that the group with reflection activities had alower awareness of the importance of group work. Thus, in certain circumstances, incorporating reflection
activities may not effectively enhance group work.

この研究では、授業で義務付けられた振り返り活動が、
コミュニケーションを図るためのグループ活動の重要性に対する学生の認識を高める効果があるかどうかを調査する。
コミュニケーション能力を高めるためには、単に言語スキルを向上させるだけでは不十分
であるが、グループワークを取り入れることで、人間関係とコミュニケーション能力の両方を高めることができる。
そして、グループワー
クへの参与を高める方法として振り返り活動がある。
しかしながら、義務付けられた振り返り活動は、グループワークの重要性に対する認識にどの程度の影響を与えるのだろうか。
なぜなら、学生はリフレクション活動が価値のある活動ではなく、強制された活動ととらえる可能性があるからである。
この研究では、協同活動の認識スケールの質問紙を使用して、振り返りの活動があるクラスとないクラスの学生を比較した。
調査結果は、振り返りの活動があるグループの方が、グループワークの重要性に対する認識が低いことを示した。
したがって、特定の状況では、振り返り活動はグループワークの認識を高める効果がない可能性がある。

Keywords

cooperative learning, group work, reflection activities, English communication skills, learners’ enjoyment oflearning and using English
協同学習、
グループ活動、
リフレクション活動、英語コミュニケーションスキル、学習者の英語学習および英語使用の楽しさ

The majority of my students are preparing to pursue careers as engineers. As they enter
the workforce, they may encounter situations where they are transferred overseas
as expatriates or trainees, or have opportunities to collaborate with non-Japanesecolleagues using English. Therefore, it is essential for them to acquire effective English
communication skills. To communicate proficiently in English, they need to enhance theirlanguage abilities and build strong interpersonal relationships. In this respect, Sekita
et al. (2001) highlight the effectiveness of cooperative learning in cultivating positive
relationships among students. However, many Japanese English learners, particularlyadolescents who feel uneasy expressing their opinions in English within a group, tend to
avoid pair or group work (Morioka et al., 2015). While lecture-style classes may alleviate
psychological stress by minimizing the need for interpersonal communication, engaging
students in pair or group work provides valuable opportunities for developing both
English conversation skills and meaningful connections with others. So, what are some
practical ways to do this?
One approach to promoting a sense of collaboration is the integration of reflection
activities in the classroom. Reflection activities can help learners to become more
96

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

self-directed in pair or group work (Boud et al., 1985). As a result, the significance ofreflection activities has been increasing in the field of English education in Japan (Okazaki& Kano, 2018; Shimo, 2003; Takagi, 2003). By providing students with opportunities toreflect on their group activities, it is anticipated that their engagement with the tasks will
increase because their awareness of the importance of cooperative work will also beenhanced. However, it is crucial to recognize that teachers should use reflection activities
with a commitment to respecting student autonomy and exploring how they perceive
the value of such activities. If reflection activities are included in the curriculum, students
who harbor a dislike for English or struggle with group activities may perceive them asburdensome obligations, diminishing their intrinsic motivation. In fact, while Tsuchimochi(2015) advocates for the effectiveness of reflection sheets with junior college students,
she also acknowledges that some students may find the task of writing reflection sheetsfor every class overly tedious. Therefore, it is necessary to explore in what ways reflection
activities can enhance student group activities.

Research Questions

In this study, I wanted to examine the effectiveness of incorporating reflection activities inenhancing students’ perception of cooperative learning. Consequently, I formulated thefirst research question as:(1) To what extent do reflection activities contribute to improving learners’ perceptionsof group work?
As I needed to develop further my understanding of Research Question 1, I added two
further questions:(2) What insights can be derived from learners’ feedback regarding English learning andgroup work?
(3) What insights can be derived from learners’ feedback regarding reflection activities?

MethodParticipantsThis study involved first-year students aged 15 to 16 who were enrolled in a technical college
in Japan commonly known as Kosen (National Institute of Technology, n.d.). Kosen is anational educational institution, with 51 Kosen campuses located throughout Japan. Thesestudents aim to be engineers in the future and display a particular interest in mathematics
and science as well as their specialized subjects. Typically, students at Kosen select their
specialized areas of study during high school, focusing on experimental work and researchin science-related fields, which is similar to university-level engineering studies. However, as
they specialize, many Kosen students tend to neglect their English studies.
At the Kosen where this research was conducted, English classes were held twice aweek for 90 minutes. I taught once a week, and another English teacher taught once aweek, from the first year to the third year. In the fourth year, students could take English
as an elective subject.
To assess the student’s English proficiency at the beginning of the study, I used an
online tool called English Grade Easy Measurement (Eigo navi, n.d.). This test, basedon the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), evaluates
students’ lexical and grammatical competence. The results indicated that 37% of thestudents were at A1 level or below, 41% of the students were A2 level, 18% B level, and 4%
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

97

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work

B2 level. According to a recent Ministry of Education survey (MEXT, 2022), approximately
70% of Japanese junior high school third-year students have not reached the A1 level.
This suggests that Kosen students generally possess a relatively higher level of English
proficiency.

Class Formats (How do they learn English in the class?)

The English class I taught took place once a week for 90 minutes. The textbook used for
instruction was MY WAY English Communication I (Morizumi et al., 2017), one of theapproved textbooks designated by the Ministry of Education. During the class, the students
had the objective of not only comprehending the content of each unit but also expressing
their opinions based on the vocabulary and phrases introduced in the textbook.
Drawing on the suggestions of Higuchi et al. (2019), I incorporated in my lesson plans
various communicative activities for students to apply what they learned from the
textbook. In the general structure of the lesson described below, the students focused on
Lesson 2-2 (Appendix A).
Mins. Activities
10 Review of the previous unit: Students engage in paired reading aloud of the textbook,using the Japanese translation as a reference. For example, Student A reads aJapanese sentence, followed by Student B reading the corresponding English
sentence, until they complete all the sentences. Afterward, they switch roles, reading
both the Japanese and English sentences. (Appendices B: 1.音読しましょう!（前回の復習）)
5
Activate schema: The teacher shares a personal story using the same vocabulary andphrases related to the lesson’s topic to help the students understand the textbook
more easily. For instance, the teacher tells them about his real-life hero, using the new
vocabulary. “My real hero is my brother. When we were children, my parents worked
late, so my brother cooked meals for me. Even when he was busy with his homework,
he devoted himself to taking care of me. We never fought against each other because
he is kind.”5
Grasp the big picture of the content: Students listen to the textbook content andanswer true or false questions. For example, the teacher states, “Heroes destroy towns
and forests when they fight against monsters.” Students raise their right hand if they
believe it is true or their left hand if they believe it is false.
10 Learn new vocabulary: Students practice pronouncing new words with the teacher’s
guidance. Then, they work in pairs, assisting each other in memorizing the vocabulary.
Afterward, students use the new vocabulary to create their sentences by replacing
familiar events. For instance, they might construct sentences using the phrase “devote
oneself to.” Next, several students are asked to share their written sentences in order tocheck their use of new vocabulary (Appendix B: 2. Vocabulary).
15 Comprehend the text: Students listen to the topic and solve related problems orquestions (Appendix A: Q&A and Read Again).
15 Understand the grammar necessary to comprehend the text: The teacher explains thegrammar concepts in Japanese and guides students in solving grammatical problems.
Following that, the teacher provides opportunities for students to use the grammar to
express themselves. (Appendix A: TRY)98

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

15

10

Read aloud: Students listen to the text once more, practicing reading aloud by
repeating after the teacher. They then work in pairs, using the handout (Appendix B: 3.
音読) to further practice their reading-aloud skills. (Practicing reading aloud is essential
for becoming proficient in pronunciation, comprehending the meaning in the order ofEnglish sentences, and expressing one’s opinions about the learned content.)
Exchange opinions: Students first write their answers to the questions and share themwith their partners or groups. Then, they ask questions to encourage deeper thinking
and engage in conversation. This activity aims to stimulate discussion and allow
students to share their opinions with others (Appendix B: 4. 考えてみよう！).

Reflection Activities

The same teaching method was employed for both Group 1 and Group 2, with the
exception that only Group 1 students participated in regular reflection activities (Appendix
C) towards the end of each class session. Here Group 1 students were asked to self-assessthemselves. The first part of the self-assessment consists of five statements that students
were asked to agree with on a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree):
1. I prepared to contribute to the group.
2.	 I worked on the tasks set.
3.	 I listened carefully to what my peers said.
4. I participated in discussions.
5.	 Overall, I was able to participate well in the group activities.
These statements, adapted from Barkley et al. (2005) and translated into Japanese by
Yasunaga (2009), aimed at encouraging students to reflect on the quality of their group
activities. The second section of the weekly self-assessment form (“What should you donext time to contribute more to the group?”) prompted students to consider how they
could contribute better to future group activities. In this section, instead of the teacher
providing feedback, students also had the opportunity to write comments to each otherso that they could foster stronger bonds within their pair or group.
The reflection activity was typically conducted at the end of each class session.
However, in cases where time constraints prevented completion, students were instructedto complete the activity as homework.
To avoid bias toward agreement in the students’ responses, the teacher explicitlyemphasized to the students that their responses to the reflection sheet (Appendix C)
had no bearing on their grades. This was in accordance with suggested practice aimed at
avoiding bias towards agreement in the students’ responses.
The data obtained from the reflection activity during the study was not utilized foranalysis. As I was aiming to compare the differences in cooperative learning perceptions
between the class that engaged in the reflection activity and the class that did not, I
decided that using the reflection activity sheets from only one class would not be suitable
for the comparative analysis I was interested in achieving in this study.

Instruments

A questionnaire was administered to the students to judge their awareness of cooperative
learning (Appendix D). This instrument, the Cooperative Work Awareness Scale, wasdeveloped by Nagahama et al. (2009) to measure changes in student perceptions
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

99

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Workof cooperative learning in terms of three factors: cooperative effect, preference forindividuality, and mutual benefit concern. The term “cooperative effect” focuses on theeffectiveness of working alongside peers. On the other hand, “preference for individuality”
seeks to probe students’ tendency to avoid cooperation and a preference for working
alone, while “mutual benefit concern” addresses various benefits that individuals canderive from cooperative work.
Nagahama et al. (2009) conducted reliability and validity tests on this scale andperformed factor analysis using 2 to 18 questions on a sample of 1020 students. The
results revealed three factors: cooperative effect (α=.83), preference for individuality(α=.72), and mutual benefit (α=.64). Although the mutual benefit factor showed slightly
lower than acceptable reliability, all three factors were relevant for what I was interested
in understanding about my students. Hence I decided to use the Cooperative Work
Awareness Scale.
This scale is well-suited for identifying differences in perceptions of cooperative learning
between two groups: one group was introduced to reflection activities and the othergroup was not. Additionally, to complement the Likert-scale items in the Cooperative Work
Awareness Scale, I included a new section to assess students’ English learning preferences.
Three open-ended questions were incorporated: “What do you think about learning
English?”, “How do you feel about working in pairs or groups in English class?”, and “How doyou feel about the activity of reflecting on pair or group work?” The questions were used tounderstand the differences in free-text responses between students who like and dislike
English.

Procedures

The participants in this study were 84 first-year Kosen students, divided into two groups:
Group 1 (42 students: 33 males, and 9 females) who participated in regular reflection
activities, and Group 2 (42 students: 33 males, and 9 females) who did not do any
such activities regularly. The students were requested to complete the questionnaires(Appendix D) twice during the semester: first from the latter half of April to the first halfof May, and then again in January, after completing a semester of classes. By the time thesecond survey was conducted, both students had multiple experiences of group work,
but only students from Group 1 were asked to respond to the question, “How do you feel
about the activity of reflecting on pair or group work?”

Differences between the two groups of students

To compare the differences between the two classes, an unpaired two-sample t-test(independent t-test) was employed. The independent t-test is suitable here for comparing
the means of two unrelated groups on the dependent variable of use or absence of thereflection activities.
According to Takeuchi and Mizumoto (2014), three conditions must be met to apply thet-test: first, ensuring normality; second, using a non-nominal scale; and third, avoiding
sample size bias between the compared groups. They also suggest that the number ofsamples should not be fewer than 20 to satisfy the normality condition. These three
conditions were satisfied.
I also decided to conduct a supplementary factor analysis, and since the results alignedwith the same three factors as Nagahama et al. (2009), I used all three factors as they were.

100

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

Results and Analysis of Perceptions of Collaborative Learning AwarenessIn this section, I will present four tables. I will provide explanations for each table insequence and conduct the analysis.
Table 1 presents the results of the initial descriptive statistics. In Table 1, n represents
the number, M signifies the mean, and SD stands for standard deviation, which is used tomeasure the extent to which numerical values are dispersed. Smaller standard deviations
indicate greater homogeneity within the population, meaning that the groups exhibit
similar tendencies. Since all standard deviations are very close to zero, it can be concluded
that there is minimal variability and a considerable degree of consistency.
Table 1. 1st Time Results Descriptive Statistics
Cooperative
EffectPreference for
Individuality
Mutual Benefit
Concern

Group
1
2
1
2
1
2

n
42
42
42
42
42
42

M
3.26
3.36
2.5
2.65
3.26
3.25

SD
0.516
0.408
0.601
0.428
0.648
0.637

Table 2 presents the initial results of the initial independent t-test. The result obtained
from Levene’s test guides the subsequent course of action: if the calculated p-value equals
or exceeds 5% (0.05), we may conclude that the variances are equal and proceed to review
the “Equal variances assumed” row. Conversely, if the p-value falls below 5% (0.05), thevariances differ, prompting a look at the “Equal variances not assumed” row.
Table 2. 1st Time Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Sig
F
Sig.
t
df
Interval of the(2-tailed)
Difference
Lower Upper
cooperative
effectEqual variances
assumedEqual variances
not assumed
preference for Equal variancesindividuality
assumedEqual variances
not assumed
mutual benefit Equal variances
concernassumedEqual variances
not assumed

3.085-1.01682.312- .305.099-1.01677.818.313- .305.099-1.32582.189- .377.076-1.325 74.086.189- .378

.076

0.057

82

.955

- .271

.287

0.057

81.974.955- .271.287

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

101

2.447

.011

.083

.122

.917

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work

The p-values resulting from Levene’s test in Table 2 are as follows: 0.083 for the Cooperative
Effect (abbreviated as CE), 0.122 for Preference for Individuality (abbreviated as PI), and 0.917
for Mutual Benefit Concern (abbreviated as MBC). The three p-values are all higher than the
0.05 level of significance, so it is necessary to conduct a two-tailed test to determine if themean is significantly greater or less than 0.05. The values for CE (0.312), PI (0.189), and MBC(0.955) all exceed 0.05, indicating that there is no significant difference.
Table 3 displays the findings from the second set of Descriptive Statistics. The numberof students in Group 2 is two less than in Group 1. However, as there was no significant
difference in the number of students between these two groups, a t-test was conducted.
Regarding the mean of CE, you can see that the mean value between groups is larger thanthat of PI and MC.
Table 3. 2nd Time Results Descriptive Statistics
Cooperative
EffectPreference for
Individuality
Mutual Benefit
Concern

Group
1
2
1
2
1
2

n
42
40
42
40
42
40

M
2.97
3.31
2.44
2.46
3.16
3.29

SD
0.67
0.5
0.511
0.508
0.711
0.641

Table 4 shows the results of the second independent t-test. Significant difference becomes
evident for CE, with a p-value of 0.011. The mean value (M) associated with CE in Table 3 ishigher for Group 2 (3.31) compared to Group 1 (2.97), indicating a stronger perception of
the cooperative effect within Group 2. On the other hand, no substantial differences are
identifiable for PI, given a p-value of 0.873, as well as for MBC, with a p-value of 0.377 (asthey are both higher than a 0.05 level of significance).
Table 4. 2nd Time Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Sig
F
Sig.
t
df
Interval of the(2-tailed)
Difference
Lower Upper
cooperative
effectEqual variances
assumedEqual variances
not assumed
preference for Equal variancesindividuality
assumedEqual variances
not assumed
mutual benefit Equal variances
concernassumed
102

1.352

.029

.53

0.248

0.864

0.469

-2.59480

0.011-0.601-0.079-2.613 75.708

0.011-0.599-0.081

-0.16

80

0.873

-0.2420.206-0.16 79.842

0.873-0.242

0.206

0.377

-0.4310.165-0.888

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

80

Takaaki Morioka

Equal variances
not assumed-0.89 79.773

0.376

-0.43

0.164

We have looked at the quantitative differences between the students in the two classes,
and next, I will focus on their written comments about the cooperative work they did.

Student comments about liking/disliking English: Analysis

Below is a summary of the results of the descriptive responses (Appendix D). First, thestudents were divided into two types by the first question item, “I like English.” The first
type is “EL,” which means the students who like English (3: Agree 4: Strongly agree), andthe second type is “EN,” which means the students who do not like English (1: Strongly
disagree 2: Disagree). Afterward, I sorted the students’ comments for each question
into those that could be interpreted “positively” and those that could be interpreted“negatively.”
Next, I extracted responses that could be summarized into three or more descriptivecomments. However, I did not include simple answers that were difficult to analyze, suchas “I think it is good,” and “I don’t like it.” I however counted these comments as positive or
negative.
In relation to the question “What do you think about learning English?” Table 5 displays
the results for the number of comments in response to the first survey, conducted at the
beginning of the course, while Table 6 shows the results for the number of comments in
response to the second survey conducted later in the academic year.
Table 5. First Survey: What do you think about learning English?
Group

EL Positive

EN Positive

EL Negative

EN Negative

1
2

15
15

9
10

4
1

1
5

Table 6. Second Survey: What do you think about learning English?
Group

EL Positive

EN Positive

EL Negative

EN Negative

1
2

18
13

11
14

3
2

1
3

Student viewpoints at the start of the course (first survey)

Regarding the students’ attitudes toward learning English, the most common responsein each of Group 1 and Group 2, EL Positive and EL Negative was “the recognition of
the need for English in the future,” for example, “I think it’s a good idea to study English
because it will be necessary for the future” and “I want to study English diligently because
I will need it in the future.” Six students from Group 1, EL Positive, 8 from Group 2, EL
Positive, 5 from Group 1 EN Positive, and 5 from Group 2 EN Positive had commented
as mentioned above. Additionally, four participants in Group 2 EL Positive expressed“enjoyment in learning English,” for example, “Learning English and different cultures is
enjoyable.” Negative comments regarding English proficiency were fewer for both Group
1 and Group 2 students who liked and disliked English. However, among students who
liked English, 4 mentioned that English was difficult. For instance, one student stated,“English is too challenging, so I prefer not to study it, if possible,” while another student
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

103

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Workwrote, “I dislike English because it is difficult to master.” Among students who disliked English,
2 respondents mentioned that English was difficult, but no further negative comments werereported.

Student viewpoints towards the end of the course (second survey)

In the second survey on English learning, similar to Table 5 first survey, students in Group
1 EL Positive (seven respondents), Group 1 EN Positive (four respondents), and Group 1 EL
Positive (six respondents) provided comments on “the recognition of the need for English
in the future.” On the other hand, in Group 2 EN Positive, unlike the first survey, the mostfrequent responses were related to “the enjoyment of learning English” with 6 students,
while “the recognition of the need for English in the future” was mentioned by 3 students.
Although there were no responses that could be considered unanimously identicalamong students in both EL Negative and EN Negative groups 1 and 2, a student wrote,“I felt that my English didn’t improve in this class.” On the other hand, negative commentsfrom those who disliked English mentioned a preference for a class where the teacher
explained without asking students to engage in any group activities.

Student viewpoints about working with others in their English class

Regarding the question “How do you feel about working in pairs or groups in English class?”
Table 7 summarizes the responses from the first survey, and Table 8 from the second.
Table 7. First Survey: How do you feel about working in pairs or groups in English class?
Group
1
2

EL Positive
14
12

EN Positive
12
17

EL Negative
3
2

EN Negative
5
4

Table 8. Second Survey: How do you feel about working in pairs or groups in English class?
Group
1
2

EL Positive
17
14

EN Positive
10
17

EL Negative
10
1

EN Negative
5
6

Working with others at the start of the course (first survey)

In the initial survey on pair or group activities, the most commonly expressed commentsin each of the groups, Group 1 EL Positive (10 respondents), Group 2 EL Positive (5respondents), Group 1 EN Positive (9 respondents), Group 2 EL Positive (5 respondents),
Group 2 EN Positive (5 respondents), was “learning from others,” for example, “I can
increase my knowledge through learning from others.” On the other hand, Group 2 EN
Positive (3 respondents) also extracted responses of “the joy of learning with others.” Forexample, studying in a group makes learning English fun.
Although there were no responses that were identical in meaning from the students in
EL Negative and EN Negative Groups 1 and 2, the students responded as follows. Students
in Group 1 EL Negative expressed concerns about their own proficiency, stating that they
were not good at English and felt they might inconvenience others during group work.
Students in Group 2 EL Negative mentioned their discomfort with group activities andexpressed a desire to minimize their involvement. Among Group 1 EN Negative comments
indicated a reluctance to adapt to the group dynamic, perceiving it as too bothersome.
104

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

Likewise, students in Group 2 EN Negative expressed feeling highly uncomfortable incertain group settings.

Working with others towards the end of the course (second survey)

In the second survey, as with the initial survey in both Group 1 EL Positive (7 students) andGroup 2 EN Positive (4 students), “learning from others” was the most common response.
On the other hand, in Group 2, EL Positive, the most frequent response was “joy oflearning with others” from seven students, followed by “learning from others” from four.
In the first survey, the most frequent response was “learning from others” followed by“joy of learning with others,” but in the second survey, the order of these responses had
reversed.
Among Group 2, EN Positive, the most common response was “learning from others,”
with four students mentioning it. Additionally, “helping others” (3 students) and “the joy oflearning together” (3 students) were also mentioned. Specific examples related to “helping
others” included statements such as “Learning in groups allows us to assist one another” and“Group activities are important as they foster mutual learning.”
The number of Group 1 EL Negative increased from 3 to 10 compared to the first survey.
The most common negative comment among Group 1, EL Negative, was the “difficulty
in working together with others,” with 9 out of 10 expressing this concern. For example,“Working in a group can be difficult because I have to accommodate others”, “I can’t always
do things the way I want to in the group“ and the other one commented, “I don’t like it.”
However, in Group 2 EL Negative, only one student wrote a comment (no comments fromstudents that were identical in meaning could be extracted from them). Similarly, students
in both Groups 1 and 2 EN Negative also frequently mentioned the “difficulty in working
together with others.” This aligned with the negative comments from Group 1 EL Negative.
Examples of comments included statements like “I don’t find group activities necessary” and“Group activities consume too much time.”

Student views about reflection activities

The question posed in Table 9, “How do you feel about the activity of reflecting on pairor group work?” was administered exclusively to Group 1 during the latter part of theacademic year. As Group 2 did not engage in reflection activities, they were not surveyed
about this.
Table 9. Group 1 Task: How do you feel about the activity of reflecting on pair or group work?
Group
1

EL Positive20

EN Positive4

EL Negative2

EN Negative
1

Among EL Positive, the most common positive comment was related to “Finding areas for
improvement,” with 7 respondents expressing this view. They appreciated being able toassess not only their strengths but also their weaknesses. One student mentioned thatthe reflection activities led to new discoveries. On the other hand, although the numberof positive comments from EN Positive was small, some of them also acknowledged thebenefit of identifying areas for improvement. For example, one student mentioned thatthe reflection activities helped them see what they needed to fix. However, there were
negative comments as well, with some students finding the reflection activities tedious or
expressing a lack of perceived need for them.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

105

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work

Discussion

With the first research question, “To what extent do reflection activities contribute toimproving learners’ perceptions of group work?” I aimed to determine the effectiveness ofreflection activities in enhancing learners’ perceptions of cooperative learning. Surprisingly,
the results showed significant differences in the “cooperative effect factor” between thegroup that did reflection activities and the group that did not. This result indicates that there
was a more significant effect on the cooperative factor in Group 2, which did not do any
reflection activities, compared to Group 1, which did. Contrary to previous studies (Kaneda,
2022; Kobayashi, 2020) indicating that reflection activities enhance learners’ learning
outcomes and awareness, the group without these particular reflection activities. Althoughreflection activities are widely used in English education, it appears that incorporatingreflection activities into lessons can sometimes diminish the enthusiasm for cooperative
engagement among learners. For example, in the class where I conducted reflection
activities, some students appeared to be rushing to complete the reflection sheets during
the lesson, possibly because they did not want to do it as homework. Additionally, sincesome students had not completed the reflection activity as homework, they seemed to betrying to finish it in the last few seconds before submission. This is because, for students
who do not enjoy English or hold a sense of difficulty toward it, reflective activities seem tobe somewhat coercively conducted in class against their will. This suggests that, according to
the specific learning context, reflection activities should be voluntary rather than imposed.
The second research question was, “What insights can be derived from learners’
feedback regarding English learning and group work?” In the first survey on English
learning, both groups of students frequently mentioned the “need for English in the
future.” However, in the second survey, Group 2, which did not engage in reflection
activities, emphasized both the “need for English in the future,” and “enjoyment oflearning English.” These comments suggest that Group 1 perceived English learning andgroup work as essential, while Group 2 primarily focused on the pleasure derived fromthe learning process. According to self-determination theory, “enjoyment of learning
English” is considered to be the most favorable among the five factors of motivation:
external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, andintrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In fact, enjoyment of English
can be regarded as a stronger motivator than identified regulation, which is understoodas the “need for English in the future.” Thus, the increased joy in learning English could
have positively influenced the cooperative effect, which goes some way to explaining theresults of Research Question 1.
In the initial survey of pair and group activities, both Group 1’s EL Positive and EN
Positive, as well as Group 2’s EL Positive and EN Positive, featured numerous comments
related to “learning from others.” However, by the second round, Group 2 also showed anincrease in comments related to the “joy of learning with others.” This suggests that, as
mentioned earlier, not implementing reflection activities may lead to an enhancement in
students’ intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, in the second survey, the number of negative
EL Positive comments in Group 1 increased from 3 to 10, with “difficulty in working
together with others” as a commonly cited reason. This recalls Shaules et al.’s (2020)
observation that while students may have the willingness to learn, some students also
face internal resistance when it comes to the psychological demands of learning. In otherwords, reflection activities might potentially pose a psychological burden for students inthe context of group learning in certain circumstances.
106

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

Finally, the third research question was, “What insights can be derived from learners’
feedback regarding reflection activities?” A larger number of students made positive
comments compared to negative comments, indicating they positively recognized
the value of reflection activities. Although results showed that students’ cooperativeawareness tended to increase more without reflection activities in this research, it would
be incorrect to claim that reflection activities necessarily harm cooperative learningawareness because, as confirmed in Table 9, the open-ended responses from Group 1,
who conducted did reflection activities, showed more positive answers than negative
ones. Furthermore, some students found value in implementing reflection activities.
Considering the significant number of positive comments from students, it becomes
clear that qualitative aspects should be taken into account when assessing the impact ofreflection activities. The reason for this is that, through listening to students’ voices andappreciating their diverse viewpoints, it may be possible to understand better which of
our learners may benefit from engaging in reflection activities to enhance their awarenessof the value of group work, as well as those for whom it may not be effective.

Conclusion

My purpose in doing this research was to investigate the effectiveness of continuous
implementation of reflection activities on improving learners’ awareness of cooperative
learning. Two groups were formed, one with reflection activities and one without. The
results indicated significant differences in the “cooperative effect factor” with Group 2(without reflection activities) showing higher awareness of cooperative learning. To gain
further insights, students’ comments on English language learning and pair or group
work were analyzed. Group 1 tended to emphasize “the recognition of the need forEnglish in the future English,” and “learning from others for pair or group learning,” while
Group 2 focused more on “the enjoyment of learning English for English, and the joyof learning together for pair or group work.” This suggests that the intrinsic motivation
towards Group 2 English language learning and pair or group work influenced the resultsof the research question. Additionally, a larger number of students expressed positive
comments about the reflection activities compared to negative comments. These findings
indicate that the reflection activities did not diminish the sense of group work.
In reflecting on this inquiry research, two ongoing questions have come up for me: Why
did incorporating reflection activities not improve students’ awareness of cooperative
learning? and Why might reflection activities become burdensome for students? Oneof my teaching goals is to have students believe in their ability to convey their opinions
orally to others regarding the content they are learning. Expressing their opinions
orally appears to be a challenging goal for them, which might have contributed to themperceiving reflective activities related to work as burdensome. However, in order toenhance students’ awareness of cooperative learning, I made an effort to have students
provide feedback on their insights and impressions in each other’s reflection sheets rather
than having the teacher do it so that they would work harder to be able to express theiropinions to others. This approach made reflection an activity where students took the
initiative and deepened their engagement within pairs or groups. Despite my best efforts
to ensure that students could do the reflection activities without feeling burdened or
taking too much time, this did not lead them to increase their awareness of group work.
In the future, I would like to organize my classes where students reduce the burden of
expressing their opinions orally by writing them down for others to understand. Also, I
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

107

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work

must clearly define the goal setting for these students to conduct reflection activities. It would
then be worthwhile to examine whether reflection activities, under such circumstances, would
effectively contribute to improving students’ awareness of cooperative learning.

Review ProcessThis article was open peer-reviewed by Paul Collet and Nathan Ducker of the Learner
Development Journal Review Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind
peer review.)

Author Bio

Takaaki Morioka teaches at National Institute of Technology, Kagawa College. He holds a
Master of Education in TESOL (Temple University). His research interests include learnerautonomy, learner development, cooperative learning, and motivation. He is currently
interested in how English learners self-regulate while acquiring English proficiency within
a Japanese educational context.

盛岡貴昭は、香川工業高等専門学校で教鞭を執っている。
テンプル大学では、教育学TESOL修士号を取得した。
関
心のある研究テーマは、学習者の自律性、学習者の成長、協同学習、
および動機付けである。
現在、日本の学習者が自国の環境で英語力を身に着ける際に、どのように自己調整をおこなっているのかについて特に関心がある。

References

Barkley, C., Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques:
A handbook for college faculty. Jossey Bass.
Boud, D., Keough, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan
Page. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315059051
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Eigo navi [English navigator]. (n.d.). English grade easy measurement. Eiken Foundationof Japan & The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement. https://gm.ei-navi.jp/
measurement/general
Higuchi, T., Takahashi, K., Izumi, E., Kagata, T., & Kubono, M. (2019). Q&A 高校英語指導法事
典 現場の悩み１３３に答える [Q&A encyclopedia of high school English teaching methods.
Answers to 133 problems in the field]. Kyoiku-Shuppan.
Kaneda, S. (2022). Fostering learner autonomy of EFL students at a Japanese high school:
Logbook research. Language Education & Technology, 59, 1-30. https://www.jstage.jst.
go.jp/article/let/59/0/59_1/pdf/-char/ja
Kobayashi, A. (2020). Fostering learner autonomy in an EFL classroom through an action
research by adapting extensive listening activities. Language Education & Technology, 57,
91–120. https://doi.org/10.24539/let.57.0_91
MEXT. (2022). 令和3年度「英語教育実施状況調査」概要 [Summary of the 2021 English language
education status survey]. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20220516-mxt_kyoiku01000022559_2.pdf
Morioka, T., Tsumura, S., & Fukuhara, A. (2015). 学習意欲に乏しい大学生の協同学習と音読に対する態
度 [Slow learners’ attitude to reading aloud and group work]. In P. Clements, A. Krause &H. Brown (Eds.), JALT2014 - Conversations across borders: Conference proceedings (pp. 264271). https://jalt-publications.org/sites/default/files/pdf-article/jalt2014proc_027.pdf
108

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

Morizumi, M., Iino, A., Ito, M., Johnson, H., Tajima, M., Sotoyama, K., Nakai, H., Wistner, B.,
Yokoyama, H., Yoda, R., & Kitagawa, T. (2017). My Way English communication. Sanseido.
Nagahama, F., Yasunaga, S., Sekita, K., & Kouhara, S. (2009). 共同作業認識尺度の開発[Development of a collaborative work recognition scale]. Japanese Journal of Educational
Psychology, 57, 24-37.
National Institute of Technology. (n.d.). https://www.kosen-k.go.jp/english/
Okazaki, H., & Kano, M. (2018). A study of English teachers improving their lessons throughreflection. 中部地区英語教育学会紀要 [Bulletin of the Chubu Area English Education Society],
47, 41-48.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.55.1.68
Sekita, K., Sugie, S., & Simizu, T. (2001, September 7-9). 協同学習の導入の効果に関する事例的検討 [Case study on the effects of implementing cooperative learning] [Conference
presentation summary]. In 43rd Japanese Education Psychology Association Annual
General Meeting, Aichi University of Education, Japan (p. 467). https://doi.org/10.20587/
pamjaep.43.0_467
Shaules, J., Fritz, R., & Miyafusa, S. (2020). Measuring resistance and engagement: The
linguaculture motivation profiler. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & R. Gentry (Eds.), JALT 2019
Teacher efficacy, learner agency (pp. 92-99). Japan Association for Language Teaching.
https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTPCP2019-12
Shimo, E. (2003). Learners’ perceptions of portfolio assessment and autonomous learning.
In A. Barfield and M. Nix (Eds.), Autonomy you ask! (pp. 175-186). Japan Association for
Language Teaching Learner Development Special Interest Group. https://ld-sig.org/
wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Shimo.pdf
Takagi, A. (2003). Learner autonomy and motivation in a cooperative learning class. In
A. Barfield & M. Nix (Eds.), Autonomy you ask! (pp. 129-142). Japan Association for
Language Teaching Learner Development Special Interest Group. https://ld-sig.org/
wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Takagi.pdf
Takeuchi, O., & Mizumoto, A. (2014). 外国語教育研究ハンドブック－研究手法のより良い理解のために[Handbook of research on foreign language teaching. For a better understanding ofresearch methods]. Shohakusha.
Tsuchimochi, K. (2015). ポートフォリオ学習を取り入れた英語授業の試み [An attempt to incorporate
portfolio learning into English classes]. 鹿児島県立短期大学陣/Kagoshima Prefectural JuniorCollege.
Yasunaga, S. (2009). Translator’s preface. In E. F. Barkley, K. P. Cross, & C. H. Major (Eds.,
supervised by S. Yasunaga), 協同学習の技法: 大学教育の手引き [Cooperative learningtechniques. Guide to university education]. Nakanishiya.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

109

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work

Appendix A Problem Exercises

Messages from Yanase Takashi: Lesson 2 Section 2● やなせさんが考えるヒーローとはどのようなものでしょうか。

Yanase had a question about the typical image of “heroes.” When they fight againstmonsters, they usually destroy towns and forests.
Yanase thought that real heroes helped people in trouble. Real heroes do not always fight.
They give food to hungry people even when they themselves are hungry. This thought camefrom his experience in World WarⅡ. He learned that food was truly important in this world.
For Yanase, real heroes devote themselves to others at any time and at any place. He put
this message in the series of Anpanman.

Q&A
1. Did Yanase have a question about the typical image of “heroes?”
2. Do real heroes always fight?
3. What did Yanase learn from his experience in the war?

2 fight against ～ ～と戦う
5 not always～ いつも～とは限らない I’m not always free on Sundays.
6 even when ～ ～のときでさえ6 they themselves かれらは自分自身が8 World War Ⅱ = World War Two 第二次世界大戦
10 devote oneself to ～ ～に身をささげる
11 at any time どんなときでもRead Again

与えられた文字から始まる適切な語を（）内に入れて、対話をしてみましょう。
A: What do real heroes do in Yanase’s idea?
B: Real heroes give (① f
) to (② h) people even when they
themselves are hungry.
A: Why do real heroes do so?
B: Because they (③ d) themselves to others.
Grammar●SVO（O＝that節）●「～ということを…する」＝［S（主語）＋V（動詞）＋ that ～ ］

Yanase thought that real heroes helped people in trouble.
(S） （V）（S’）（V） （O）◆の部分をthat節と呼びます。
（→p.9 句と節）◆動詞（V）には、think以外にbelieve「～を信じる」、say「～と言う」、realize「～と気づく」、know「～と知っている」なども同じように使えます。
例）I believe that he is honest.
She said（that）the movie was fun.
110

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

TRY
意味がとおるように（）内の語を並べかえて、対話をしてみましょう。
1. A: What did your teacher say?
B: ( that / she / said ) the class was canceled.
2. A: Why did you go to the repair shop?
B: Because ( realized / I / that ) my watch was slow.
3. A: What do you think of your new classmates?
B: ( think / I / are / they ) nice.

cancel(ed) ～を中止する repair 修理realize(d) ～に気づく slow（時計が）遅れている

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

111

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work

Appendix B Class Worksheet
Lesson 2-2 L2-2
Class

NumberPartner’s nameName

1. 音読しましょう！
（前回の復習）Yanase Takashi wrote many picture books.
やなせたかしさんは多くの絵本を書きました。
Anpanman is one of them.
『アンパンマン』はそのうちのひとつです。
He made a very interesting hero in the story. 彼はその作品の中で、とても興味深い主人公を作りました。
He named the hero Anpanman.
彼はその主人公をアンパンマンと名付けました。

The hero’s head is anpan, or a sweet beanpaste bun.
The story of Anpanman was originally for
adults.
It was not so popular at first.
However, it became popular among little
children later.
Yanase did not change the essence of thestory.
He believed in children’s potential.
He has a belief: children understand deep
themes and messages.

その主人公の顔はあんパン、言い換えると甘い
アンパンの形をしているのです。
『アンパンマン』のお話は、もともとは大人向けでした。
当初はあまり人気はありませんでした。
しかし、後に小さな子供たちの間で人気が出ました。
やなせさんは物語の本質を変えませんでした。
彼は子供たちの潜在能力を信じていました。
彼には、子供たちは深いテーマもメッセージも理解するとういう信念がありました。

2. Vocabulary ペアと協力し単語を覚えましょう。
単語を言えるようになったら空欄に〇をつけましょう。
英語
fight against～
Destroy
not always～
even when～
they themselves
devote oneself to～at any time

日本語
～と戦う
破壊する
いつも～とは限らない～のときでさえかれら自身が～に身をささげる
どんなときでも

英→日

日→英

3. 音読 意味を考えながら、（）語・語句を補って音読しましょう。
（）には何も書かないように！
Yanase had a question about the typical image of (“h ”). When they fight against monsters,
they usually destroy (t ) and forests. Yanase thought that real heroes (h ) people introuble. Real heroes do not always (f ). They give food to hungry people even when they
themselves are (h ). This thought came from his experience in World War II. He learned
112

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

that (f ) was truly important in this world. For Yanase, real (h ) devote themselves toothers at any time and at any place. He put this (m ) in the series of Anpanman.

4. 考えてみよう！
Yanase thought that real heroes helped people in trouble. For example, they give food tohungry people even when they themselves are hungry. For you, what kind of people arereal heroes?

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

113

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work

Appendix C Weekly Self-Assessment Form (original in Japanese)
自己評価表
月

日

曜日

クラス・名前：________________________________________
グループの仲間：______________________________________
グループを改善していくためにグループ活動を評価しましょう！
Ⅰ. 次の質問に番号で答えましょう。
1:そう思わない

2:あまりそう思わない

3: まあ、
そう思う

4: そう思う

1. グループに貢献するために準備をおこなった。
			

（

）

2. 課題に取り組んだ。
							（）

3. 仲間の発言をよく聞いた。
						（）

4. 話し合いに参加した。
						（）

5. 全体的に考えて、グループ活動にうまく参加できた。
			

（

）

Ⅱ. グループにより貢献するためには次回はどうすべきですか？
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

114

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Takaaki Morioka

Appendix C Weekly Self-Assessment Form (English translation)
Self-Assessment
Day, Month__________Class・Name: ___________________________________Classmate’s name: _______________________________________
Evaluate your group’s activities to improve your group!
I. Answer the following questions with a number.
1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Agree 4: Strongly agree
1. I prepared to contribute to the group.				

（）

2. I worked on the assignment.						（

）

3. I listened carefully to what my peers said.				

（）

4. I participated in discussions.						（

）

5. Overall, I was able to participate well in the group activities.	

（）

II. What should you do next time to contribute more to the group?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

115

Exploring the Impact of Mandatory Reflection Activities on Students’ Perceptions of Group Work

Appendix D The Cooperative Work Awareness Scale (original in
Japanese)
協同認識尺度このアンケートは授業改善を目的としており、成績とは全く関係ありません。
ご協力お願いします。
当てはまる
数字に○を付けて回答してください。
クラス：＿＿＿＿＿ 番号：＿＿＿＿＿
氏名：＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

1

英語を学習するのが好きだ

1. そう思わない 2. あまりそう思わない 3. まあそう思う 4. そう思う

2

たくさんの仕事でも、みんなと一緒にやればできる気がする。

4

みんなで色々な意見を出し合うことは有益である。

6

グループ活動ならば、他の人の意見を聞くことができるので自分の知識も増える。

8

一人でやるよりも協同したほうが良い成果を得られる。

3

5

7

9

10
11

協同することで、優秀な人はより優秀な成績を得ることができる。

個性は多様な人間関係の中で磨かれていく。

協同はチームメートへの信頼が基本だ。

１

１

２

２

２

２

３

３

３

３

３

２

３

人に指図されて仕事はしたくない。

失敗したときに連帯責任を問われるくらいなら、一人でやるほうが良い。

15

みんなで話し合っていると時間がかかる。

17

協同は仕事のできない人たちのためにある。

19

弱いものは群れて助け合うが、強いものにはその必要はない。

16 グループでやると必ず手抜きをする人がいる。
優秀な人たちがわざわざ協同する必要はない。

英語学習についてどう思いますか。

英語の授業でのペアやグループでの作業についてどう感じますか。

振り返り活動についてどう思いますか。

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

１
１
１
１
１
１
１

２
２
２
２
２
２
２
２

４
４

４

４

１
１

４

４

３

周りに気づかいしながらやるより一人でやるほうが、やりがいがある。

２

４

４

３

１

４

３

２

14

116

１

１

２

２

３

３

１

能力が高くない人たちでも団結すれば良い成果を出せる。

みんなで一緒に作業すると、自分の思うようにできない。

18

１

１

２

２

グループのために自分の力（才能や技能）を使うのは楽しい。

12
13

１

１

３
３
３
３
３
３
３
３

４
４
４
４
４
４
４
４
４
４

Takaaki Morioka

Appendix D The Cooperative Work Awareness Scale (English
translation)
The Cooperative Work Awareness Scale
The survey is for class improvement, and it has nothing to do with grades. I appreciate
your cooperation. Please circle the number(s) that apply.
Class ＿＿＿＿＿ Number ＿＿＿＿＿Name ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Agree 4: Strongly agree
1

I like learning English.

2

I feel I can do a lot of work, but only if I do it with others.

3

By working together, smart people can get better grades.

4

It is beneficial for everyone to have a variety of opinions.

5

Individuality is improved in diverse relationships.

6
7

１

２

３

４

１

２

３

４

１

１

１

Group activities allow people to hear other people’s opinions and increase their knowledge. １
Cooperation is based on trust in teammates.

8

Cooperation produces better results than working alone.

9

It is fun to use your strengths such as talents and skills for the good of the group.

10 Even people who are not highly skilled can achieve good results if they work together.
11 It is more rewarding to work alone than to work with others.
12 When we work together, we cannot do things the way we want to do them.
13 I would rather work alone than be held jointly and severally liable when making a mistake.
14 I don’t want to work under the direction of others.
15 It takes too much time to discuss things with everyone.
16 When we work in groups, there are always people who cut corners.
17 Cooperation is for people who can’t do the work.
18 There is no need for excellent people to cooperate.
19 Weak people will flock together to help each other, but there is no need for strong people to do so.

１

１

１

１

１

１

１

１

１

１

１

１

１

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

２

３

３

３

３

３

３

３

３

４

４

４

４

４

４

４
４

３

４

３

４

３

３

３

４

４

４

３

４

３

４

３

３

４

４

What do you think about learning English?

How do you feel about working in pairs or groups in English class?

How do you feel about the activity of reflecting on pair or group work?

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

117

ARTICLE
Why I Utilize Autoethnography to Promote
Learner Development: A Reflexive Narrative ofEnglish Teacher Development
Marlen Elliot Harrison, PhD, Southern New Hampshire University, US<drmarlenharrison(at)gmail(dot)com>
The last two decades of learner development scholarship have seen an expansion in applications ofautoethnography, a qualitative research method that “seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal
experience in order to understand cultural experience” (Ellis et al., 2010). This article traces the evolution of
my understanding of autoethnography, from my first exposure to autoethnography as a reader, throughutilization of this genre as a research tool, to a position of advocacy of the value of autoethnographic writing
as a practice for both teachers and learners in writing classrooms around the world. Through a series ofwritten vignettes, I utilize narrative inquiry to highlight my openness to cultural exploration in the English
language classroom, explore my tendency to utilize lived experience in academic contexts, and illustrate
how this manifested in a critical expressivist curriculum for my university English writing classrooms inJapan, Finland, and the United States.

過去20年間の学習者の成長に関する研究において、「文化的経験を理解するために個人の経験を記述し、体系的に分析しようとする」（Ellis et al., 2011）質的研究の一手法であるオートエスノグラフィーの活用が拡がりを見せている。
そのため、この教師の成長に関す
る自省的なオートエスノグラフィーは、ある英語ライティングの指導者が世界中のライティング教室でオートエスノグラフィーに触れ、活用してきた変遷を辿るものである。
一連のヴィネットを通して、
ナラティブ的探求を活用し、英語教室における文化探訪に対する私の開放性を強調し、
アカデミックな文脈で生きた経験を活用する私の傾向を探り、そしてこのことが、日本、フィンランド、
アメリカにおける私の大学英語ライティングの授業で、批判的表現主義カリキュラムにどのように顕れたかを説明する。

Keywords

autoethnography, learner development, teacher development, narrative inquiry, research writing

オートエスノグラフィー、学習者の成長、教師の成長、ナラティブ的探究、
リサーチライティング

Introduction
Teachers’ professional knowledge is said to be storied. This means that teachers havestories of particular students, classes, and classroom events in their memory and thatthese stories are thought to form a network. Faced with a new situation, teachers
search for similar stories in this network and decide on a course of action based on thestories in their repertoire. If this is the nature of teachers’ knowledge, telling stories of
their own experience and listening to other teachers’ stories should facilitate teacher
development. (Aoki, 2012, p. 36)
The last two decades of learner development scholarship have seen an expansion inapplications of autoethnography, a qualitative research method that “seeks to describe
and systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cultural experience.
This approach challenges canonical ways of doing research and representing others
and treats research as a political, socially-just and socially-conscious act” (Ellis et al.,2010). The education field, specifically, has seen a shift in the focus of this method fromlargely professional development purposes for educators (Bayne et al., 2005; Lee et al.,2020; Long, 2008; Spenceley, 2011) to inquiry around learner development. For example,
Mynard (2020) recommends autoethnography as a method to investigate student
118

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Marlen Elliot Harrison

self-access language learning; Alm & Ohashi (2020) use autoethnography to analyze
the interrelationship of their experiences as foreign language learners, educators, andresearchers; and Sah’s (2019) critical autoethnographic study explores his English language
learning and adjustment difficulties in the UK.
Aoki (2012) explains above that a teacher’s professional knowledge is said to be storied.
In this case, it can be beneficial for instructors to share their own lived experiences, definedby Chandler and Munday as “personal knowledge gained through direct, first-handinvolvement in everyday events rather than through representations constructed by otherpeople” (Chandler & Munday, 2020, p. 594). As a published writer and English language
instructor with two decades of classroom experience, I would like to invite you now into
my own lived stories of teacher development for they also double as stories of learnerdevelopment. I encourage the reader to reflect on their own experiences while readingthese stories, and consider how they might inform their teaching practices.

Journeys of Self-Inquiry

I first encountered autoethnography in 2006 when I served as a graduate teachingassistant in an ESL section of College Writing at a North American university. The
instructor intended for students to experiment with language and expression via thecreation of a collection of poetry. That poetry was then used as the evidence for an endof term, self-reflexive autoethnography (the research paper) about the student’s cultural
identity and experiences. By reflexive, McCarthy explains this kind of narrative as a“journey of self-inquiry toward self-realization…looking back at something in order tosee oneself emerging. The unfolding narrative connects the researcher to their world”(McCarthy, quoted in Johns, 2019, p. 19).
Having also trained as an expressive arts therapist in my 20s just prior to thebeginning of my teaching career in English, I was impressed by the utilization of bothcreativity and reflexive narrative as valid academic practices in this ESL writing course.
And as a proponent of bibliotherapies and scriptotherapies (Moy, 2017), or reading andwriting practices for therapeutic purposes, I felt inspired to achieve similar self-reflexive
experiences and outcomes with my own students. For example, I have been routinely
drawn to storytelling as a way of exploring challenging or difficult experiences, both asa client in therapy and as a practitioner. For a good 15 years, a pen and writing journal
helped me better process and explore the world around me and my place within it;
writing became a way to make connections and glimpse possibilities. As such, that end ofterm paper was the closest I had come to experiencing an intersection of my backgroundas therapist, instructor, and writer, and it had occurred to me that language students
could enjoy the same kind of transformational learning epiphanies (Yacek & Gary, 2020)
through writing that can typically occur in more introspective, self-analytical contexts suchas talk therapy settings. Interestingly, epiphanies, or “remembered moments perceived tohave significantly impacted the trajectory of a person’s life” (Ellis et al., 2010) are often thesubject of many autobiographies and autoethnographies.
Since that time, as I have continued to present the autoethnographic research paper
as an option across a range of teaching contexts, I have begun to develop a keener
understanding of why this approach to qualitative inquiry resonates so strongly, andwith multilingual writers in particular. A focus on one’s lived experiences and how
those experiences connect in meaningful ways can also allow for experimentation
with expression, language, audience, and form. For example, in this self-reflexive
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

119

Why I Utilize Autoethnography to Promote Learner Development

autoethnography of teacher development I will trace the evolution of my own exposure
to and utilization of autoethnography in English writing classrooms. In essence, this is
my own learner narrative of how I came to adopt this method. As such, this paper willproceed as a series of written vignettes where I highlight my own discursive orientation tocreative expression, explore my tendency to utilize lived experience in academic contexts,
and illustrate how this manifested in my own process expressivist curricula (Roeder &Gatto, 2014) for my English writing classrooms in Japan, Finland, and the United States.

Japan: The Birth of My Writing Pedagogy

The first time I taught English writing was in Osaka in 2003 to a classroom of two advanced
Japanese university students who had just returned from studying abroad. Despite myown Spanish and French foreign language education in the 1980s and 1990s South Florida
public school system, I never enjoyed an oral or written proficiency of the kind that thesestudents displayed. At this time in my English teaching career (year two in Japan), I had
only a developing knowledge of language acquisition, second language writing, andcomposition pedagogy theories. When it came to teaching writing, a textbook would haveto be my first teacher. But I remember wondering, “So what exactly is the purpose ofthis Academic English writing course? Am I meant to teach language? Expository writing?
Creative writing? Professional writing?”
A popular practice for part-time English teachers at that time in Japan was to set thesyllabus on the first day of class together with the students (see Clarke, 1991, on the“negotiated syllabus”). This was partially a practical choice as one could never really guess
who might show up as a student or what their proficiency levels might be, and partiallybecause often one never knew what they might be teaching until a week before the term
began. About those two students: Naoko had just returned from a year in Ohio and Toshi
from a year in Toronto (pseudonyms). They could both read, write, speak, and listen at anadvanced level, and both desired to return to their English-speaking contexts in the future.
“What would you like to learn?” I inquired.
Together, we agreed to focus on practical documents such as resumes, emails, andapplication letters for summer educational programs requiring mission statements andpersonal narratives. The textbook I selected provided writing exercises and activities suchas writing movie reviews and personal success stories that would scaffold the eventual
practical documents, while I relied heavily on my own writing practices as a student andpublished journalist to emphasize writing as a process of invention, drafting, feedback,and revision. I enjoyed the teaching, and began to understand the value of personalconnection to learning activities.
The following semester, I was assigned “Reading and Writing” courses with two large
groups of first-year English majors. My first awakening was to the proficiency differencesof these 50 students compared to Naoko and Toshi. I crafted a reading syllabus focusedon graded readers of classic popular texts (Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Phantom of
the Opera) along with reading comprehension and reader response activities utilizing
newspaper and magazine articles. The corresponding writing portion of this 2-term
progression then had students move to developing their own printed class magazine
working in teams based on everyday cultural interests (e.g., sports, food, book, andentertainment reviews).
Looking back now, as a journalist and former therapist, I’m not at all surprised that I
would lean so heavily into process expressivist and phenomenological approaches, or that120

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Marlen Elliot Harrison

I would select a magazine filled with experience-based reviews as a thematic frame for thecourse; I can see how my own literacy experiences and preferences directly influenced myideas about English language learning and pedagogy.

USA: My Introduction to Autoethnography

My introduction to autoethnography happened just a few years later in 2006 when I
began my doctoral studies in English Composition and TESOL as I noted above. After thatfirst ESL writing course experience, I understood that autoethnography could legitimize afirst-person narrative approach in academic inquiry while still fulfilling the requirementsof a traditional research paper genre. After all, autoethnography utilizes aspects ofautobiography (writing about oneself and one’s history) and ethnography (writing about
cultural experience, beliefs, and practices), and the self-reflective process is often justas significant as the final product (Ellis et al., 2010). But as I had only seen it used byinternational students to examine their language and poetry, I was curious about otherapplications. I needed to use it myself.
My first experience writing an autoethnography was for an independent study
exploring the semiotics and performance of naming and identity; I had been a “perfume
critic,” or beauty writer, and explored the evolution of this identity via short stories
reflective of my cultural experiences growing up around fragrance and then later,
professionally as an online journalist (Harrison, 2021, October 3). Next, in my doctoral
ESL Teaching seminar, I used autoethnographic storytelling to explore my experiences
teaching English in Japan as a self-identified queer man, and the challenges I faced
positioning myself and identifying queer-inclusive teaching materials (Harrison, 2022, May26). In both cases I was writing both autobiography (stories from my life) and ethnography(cultural exploration), and indeed, the processes of self-exploration and self-discovery
were just as significant as the finished papers.
I was smitten. It was as if I had found a form of academic research that doubled as
personal and therapeutic inquiry. In my other doctoral courses, I was still performing the
traditional, hegemonic, author-evacuated, pseudo-objective academic research papers,
and the difference between the two approaches in terms of my personal investment andemotional experience was striking. My next challenge was to consider how I might use
autoethnography with my own students.
In the fall of 2007, I taught my first US-based “Freshman Composition” college
course to a classroom of local English-speaking writers, now having had the benefit ofpreviously teaching in Japan, my ESL assistantship in the USA, and coursework in theory
and pedagogy. The result was a phenomenological journey using the five senses as
writing prompts where students could experiment with genre, rhetoric, language, andaudience. This culminated in a self-reflexive autoethnography that used their coursework
as evidence to explore the significance of culture in their lives (see Messekher et al.,2010 to learn more about this humanizing pedagogy). In this paper, students pursued
the question “What is I?” by using their written coursework as evidence to support theirassertions. Students were pleasantly surprised by the invitation to be present in theircollege-level writing, and their final course paper at that. Feedback suggested that they
were eager to write about their own lived experiences and previous writing; not just write
about them, but also make sense of them.
In early 2008, I drafted my dissertation proposal to examine the crossroads of humansexuality and linguistic proficiency, responding to a Japanese acquaintance’s claim that
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

121

Why I Utilize Autoethnography to Promote Learner Development

he was “gay in English, but not in Japanese.” I had used that summer of 2008 to do someguest lecturing and preliminary interviews with potential participants in Japan. By the endof that summer, I had concluded in a post on my research blog that autoethnography
could be an appropriate method for my study:
During the first two interviews that took place as an attempt at preliminary information
gathering, I began to imagine that instead of quantitative research it might be moreinteresting to focus on the qualitative, that is, to focus on the conversations that ensue
with the participants. However, I also noticed that the information being gathered
during these conversations, whether or not the intention of my interviews, took theform of stories. As I tried to understand the stories, I thought that perhaps it would bemuch more useful to counsel the participants in self-reflection than to simply interpretthe stories myself. After all, if I am the lone interpreter, what might be missing fromthe research and analyses? This leads me to a consideration of autoethnographic
approaches to collecting data whereby the participants share their own stories andreflect on both the content and process. This approach of situating oneself and one’s
behavior within a specific cultural context in order to answer a question or address a
specific phenomenon now seems appropriate considering my own experiences writing
autoethnography, my freshman composition curriculum, and the fact that it mightallow me to weave a narrative of my own second language experiences throughout
the dissertation. (Harrison, 2008, July 2)
In the above, we can clearly see how my past experiences and identification as a potential
member of the research community lead me once again to autoethnography. By autumn I
had changed my research methodology to autoethnography. I added:
I would like to ask my participants to complete their own autoethnographies – totell their stories and to reflect on the meanings inherent in the stories. Afterall, I findsignificant my interviewee’s own surprise at how “interesting” the questions I’ve posed
have been, and even more significant that they felt as if they were “learning” about
themselves through the interview process. Reflection itself should be a key tool in
examining the significance of English experiences in the lives of queer Japaneseand may reveal more than the stories themselves. (Harrison, 2008, July 2; emphasis
added in bold)
I now find that final sentence to be quite profound. I began to understand how reflexivity(as mentioned earlier; see McCarthy in Johns, 2013), or metacognition, can be a powerfulstep in autoethnography, especially analytical autoethnography where evidence is not justcreated but analyzed (Anderson, 2006); such contextualizing and self-analysis creates asense of investment for writers as well as an opportunity for increased awareness (Aoki& Hamakawa, 2003). I feel fortunate that all 10 of my participants successfully composed
English-language autoethnographies, sometimes integrating their native tongue andsometimes writing first in Japanese and then translating to English, that reflected their lived
experiences as queer men and women as well as bilingual English and Japanese users.
Moreover, I included in my thesis my own stories of navigating my sexuality in a second
language setting into the dissertation, becoming a participating member of the researchcommunity rather than a silent outsider. I had observed and mentored autoethnography,taught autoethnography, and written personal autoethnography, but this was my firsttime participating both as researcher and as a part of a research community.

122

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Marlen Elliot Harrison

Finland: Autoethnography and Advanced English Learners

In 2010, I completed my doctoral program and took a position at a language centerat a Finnish university. With autoethnography now serving as one of my academic
specializations, I was offered an opportunity to lead a workshop for advanced researchersand faculty while concurrently teaching English academic communication courses tointernational undergraduate and master’s students. I had taught English language
learners and I had taught research courses, but I had never taught research courses toadvanced English language learners. “Could autoethnography help?” I wondered.
I envisioned the majority of my courses as independent research experiences.
Depending on the level and course, they were more or less geared to the basics ofresearch writing in English-language academic contexts, and an exploration of related
professional and academic communications such as abstracts, conference presentations,and so forth. Following the strong investment that I had witnessed with both myprevious students and dissertation participants, I reasoned that my new students – halfof whom were Finnish and the other half a diverse array of international students –might also enjoy connecting lived experience to English writing assignments and thatsuch connection would support investment in their language learning. I envisioned
my pedagogy as a “bridging approach,” connecting students’ personal passions andexperiences with their professional interests (Harrison et al., 2013). For example, a student
who was interested in counseling psychology and photography explored her photography
as a way of understanding how she sees herself. Utilizing her own photographs, personalreflections, and peer-reviewed scholarship, Maria (pseudonym) discovered that she had
unintentionally developed an art therapy process to support her self-esteem aroundphysical appearance.
What these new student autoethnographers routinely reported was first and foremosta sense of surprise regarding the legitimization of first-person voice in Western academic
scholarship, much like my US-based international college writers earlier. For many thiswas a challenging linguistic and stylistic departure from the kinds of third-person, authorevacuated writing (Knowles & Gilbourne, 2010) they had been previously taught.
Moreover, students reported a level of investment in their projects that transcended
anxieties about language use itself. I’d like to further explore this, but perhaps
autoethnography also served as a tool to promote a more positive learning mindset. One
Finnish autoethnographer, an undergraduate psychology student, explained:
Because of the bridging approach, investment and agency both grew. It started when I
decided my research topic. When personal issue was connected to learning academic
English, I started to invest on it … Because [my] study became so close to me in different
areas in life, investment was important. I started to be an agent of my own learninginstead of a receiver. (Harrison et al., 2013, p. 13)
In the same article, I go on to explain how numerous other writers mentioned theirsurprise at how their English language acquisition, improvement, confidence, andrepertoire increased throughout the project. Moreover, these writers noted theiradditional surprise that they actually forgot they were studying English because the focus
was on the project, not the language. For example, Reetta explains:
I was pregnant during the course, so I decided to do an autoethnography about
identity transformation and pregnancy. This kind of approach was brilliant, because
my personal and professional interests were combined. I got so excited about myLearner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

123

Why I Utilize Autoethnography to Promote Learner Development

own project that I didn’t realize I was studying English. (Harrison et al., 2013, p. 17,
emphasis added in bold)
I think Reeta’s conclusion gets to the heart of my assertion in this manuscript: Connecting
oneself to one’s writing activities, especially in academia, can be an enjoyable way tosupport language acquisition and practice. Perhaps that was why this approach was so
successful with the other international students I had worked with; autoethnography
gave them the chance to write reflexively, to make sense of themselves as poets, writers,
communicators, and most importantly, as culturally-embedded performers, actors ona stage with an audience (see Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, 1956).
It seems sense of purpose and engagement with the writing eclipsed anxieties about
ability or language use. Additionally, being able to write themselves into their work andacknowledge that yes, their experience matters, also serves as a validation of the various
identities being explored.

Conclusion

At this project’s inception, I had initially intended to examine some of the theoreticalorientations of instructors who use autoethnography in language learning settings to
support learner development. However, workshopping this manuscript with experienced
colleagues from the Learner Development special interest group and a reconsidering of
my own writerly goals have led me to crafting an autoethnographic reflexive narrativeof teacher development, a “looking back at something in order to see oneself emerging”(Johns, 2019, p. 19), and as an opportunity to answer Aoki’s (2012) call for teachers to share
their stories.
I had previously understood that I enjoy and embrace autoethnography due to my own
penchant for narrative storytelling and analysis, a preference that was born during myown student experiences in adolescence and reinforced throughout my professional life
as a journalist and therapist. I had a hunch that students appreciated autoethnography
due to the ability to write in first-person and explore their own lived experiences andexpertise. But this paper has presented an opportunity to more deeply explore myjourney as an autoethnography instructor and some of the reasons why I have beendrawn to the method, as well as deepen my understanding of why advanced language
learning students have embraced this method.
Autoethnography as a method legitimizes my ability as a writer to both utilize mypersonal lived experience and to write in first-person. It capitalizes on my insider
knowledge to inform others about the cultures of teaching and learning that I haveparticipated in. Rather than forcing an impossible objectivity, autoethnography allows
for an examination of my subjectivities as a member of the global culture of English
education. It allows me to not only make sense of cultural experience, but personal
experience as well, for one informs the other. This supports a better understanding of
how and why I utilize autoethnography to promote learner development in my English
writing and research classrooms. And as one who has been learning how to teach, how
to connect to students, and how to find my strengths as a writing instructor throughout
these last 20 years, this autoethnography has allowed me to share my journey of selfinquiry towards self-realization, connecting my various experiences as writer, therapist,
instructor, and researcher.
After many months of conceptualizing, developing, workshopping, and revising thismanuscript, I now can see that as a product it highlights how instructors inherit discourses
124

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Marlen Elliot Harrisonof education while being presented with opportunities to question, challenge, subvert,
and personalize their curriculum and pedagogical approaches. And in my case, at least,
my personalization is strongly aligned with my literacy history and interests in creative
expression, self-analysis, and cultural inquiry.
In a sense, the creation of this manuscript, along with the discursive workshoppingthat participating in LDJ7 has involved (author-to-author discussion, proofreading,and provision of feedback), has served as an opportunity for exploring the creative
processes of autoethnographic reflective practice and narrative inquiry in my own teacher
development. In the words of my Learner Development colleague Andrew Barfield,
perhaps this manuscript is an example of a new kind of “critical inclusive practitioner
research.” Future scholarship might continue exploring the uses of autoethnography
and narrative inquiry as methods for critical professional reflection and development inlearner and teacher development contexts. How do we use these methods individuallyand collaboratively? What professional and critical insights might such self-reflexive
writing offer? What can we gain when instructors take to the keyboard to carry out thekinds of activities required of their learners?

Review ProcessThis article was open peer-reviewed by Dominic Edsall and Stacey Vye of the Learner
Development Review Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind peer review.)

Author Bio

Dr. Marlen Elliot Harrison is an instructor in the fields of English and Education Research,and the founder and Editor-in-chief of the award-winning The AutoEthnographer Literaryand Arts Magazine. Marlen’s autoethnographic writing has appeared in a variety of outlets
including Writing on the Edge, The Qualitative Report, and Qualitative Research in Psychology.
As a journalist, Marlen was the managing editor of the international beauty website,
Fragrantica, and contributor to numerous popular publications. As an academic andcultural researcher, Marlen has worked with the Smithsonian, the Japan Association for
Language Teaching, and universities worldwide. Marlen is currently pursuing a Master ofFine Arts (MFA) in Creative Writing from Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), New
Hampshire, USA. After calling Japan, UK, Malta, and Finland home, he now lives in Florida
with his husband and dog. Learn more at https://marlenharrison.com.

Dr. Marlen Elliot Harrisonは英語・教育研究分野の講師、The AutoEthnographer Literary and Arts
Magazineの創設者・編集長である。
MarlenのオートエスノグラフィーはWriting on the Edge、The Qualitative
Report、Qualitative Research in Psychologyをはじめとする様々な媒体で掲載されている。
ジャーナリストとして国際的な美容のウェブサイトFragranticaの編集を手がけ、数多くの著名な出版誌への寄稿経験があるほか、学術・文化の研究者として、Smithsonian、the Japan Association for Language Teachingや世界各国の大学での経歴を持つ。
現在、米国ニューハンプシャー州のSouthern New Hampshire Universityにて芸術修士を取得中。
日本、英国、
マルタ、祖国フィンランドを経て、現在は夫・犬とフロリダに在住。
詳細はこちらから：https://marlenharrison.com

References

Alm, A., & Ohashi, L. (2020). From self-study to studying the self: a collaborative
autoethnography of language educators as informal language learners. In K.-M.
Frederiksen, S. Larsen, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL for widening participation:

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

125

Why I Utilize Autoethnography to Promote Learner Development

Short papers from EUROCALL 2020 (pp. 1-6). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.
org/10.14705/rpnet.2020.48.9782490057818
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4),373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449
Aoki, N. (2012). The role of stories in teacher development. In W. M. Chan, K. N. Chin, S. K.
Bhatt, & I. Walker (Eds.), Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language
education (pp. 241-254). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510932
Aoki, N., & Hamakawa, Y. (2003). Asserting our culture from a feminist perspective. In D.
Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education
perspectives (pp. 240-253). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504684
Bayne, S., Land, R., & Oliver, M. (2005). Editorial. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(4), 314–316.
https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.4.3
Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (2020). Dictionary of media and communications (3rd ed.). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198841838.001.0001
Clarke, D. (1991). The negotiated syllabus: What is it and how is it likely to work? Applied
Linguistics, 12(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.1.13
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2010). Autoethnography: An overview [40paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1),Art. 10. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-12.1.1589
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor.
Harrison, M. (2008, July 2). Re-thinking research: Autoethnographies. Discovering Voices.
https://discoveringvoices.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/re-thinking-researchautoethnographie
Harrison, M. (2021, October 3). Fragrance cultures: The making of a perfume critic, Part 1.
The AutoEthnographer, 1(2). https://theautoethnographer.com/fragrance-cultures-themaking-of-a-perfume-critic-part-1
Harrison, M. (2022, May 26). The closet in the classroom. The AutoEthnographer, 1(1).
https://theautoethnographer.com/the-closet-in-the-classroom/
Harrison, M., Ussipaika, M., Karinen, M., Räsänen, T., Raitala, D., Ellonen, R., Huumonen,
H., & Tuomela, O. (2013). Bridging passion and profession. Supporting agency andinvestment in multilingual university writers. Language Learning in Higher Education, 3(1),1-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2013-0001
Johns, C. (2019). Reflexive narrative. Self-inquiry toward self-realization and its performance.
Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878668
Knowles, Z., & Gilbourne, D. (2010). Aspiration, inspiration and illustration: Initiating
debate on reflective practice writing. The Sport Psychologist, 24(4), 504-520.
Lee, S., Fogaça, J., & Harrison, M. (2020). Can writing be wrong? Collaborative
autoethnography as critical reflective practice in sport, exercise, and performance
psychology. The Qualitative Report, 25(10), 3562-3582. https://doi.org/10.46743/21603715/2020.4357
Long, L. (2008). Narrative autoethnography and the promotion of spiritual well-being inteacher research and practice. Pastoral Care in Education, 26(3), 187–196. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02643940802246575

126

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Marlen Elliot Harrison

Messekher, H., Reilly, J., & Harrison, M. (2010). Humanizing pedagogy in action:
Observations of an English composition classroom. In G. Park (Ed.), Observation ofteaching: Bridging theory and practice through research and teaching (pp. 109-122).
Lincom.
Moy, J. D. (2017). Reading and writing one’s way to wellness: The history of bibliotherapy
and scriptotherapy. In S. Hilger (Ed.), New directions in literature and medicine studies(pp. 15-30). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51988-7_2
Mynard, J. (2020). Ethnographies of self-access language learning. Studies in Self-Access
Learning Journal, 11(2), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.37237/110203
Roeder, T., & Gatto, R. (2014). Critical expressivism: Theory and practice in the composition
classroom. The WAC Clearinghouse. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2014.0575
Sah, P. K. (2019). Academic discourse socialization, scaler politics of English, andracialization in study abroad: A critical autoethnography. The Qualitative Report, 24(1),174-192. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.2948
Spenceley, L. (2011). Breaking the wall? Autoethnography and the transition from subject
specialist to professional educator in FE. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 35(3),409–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.569015
Yacek, D. W., & Gary, K. (2020). Transformative experience and epiphany in education. Theory
and Research in Education, 18(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878520957276

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

127

ARTICLE
Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning:
Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues
Andy Barfield, Chuo University, Japan<abarfield001f(at)g(dot)chuo-u(dot)ac(dot)jp>
Akiko Nakayama, Hiroshima University, Japan<akknkym(at)gmail(dot)com>
In this article we (two university teachers in Japan) collaboratively reflect on our teaching experiences andpractitioner research to do with what we have come to call “engaged meaningful learning” approaches suchas Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Learning through Discussion (LTD). We use autobiographical stories,
our responses to each other’s stories, different teacher and learner voices, as well as a reflexive dialogue,
to develop personal and local perspectives about what engaged meaningful learning means for ourselves
and our learners. Akiko shares her story of becoming socialized as a Japanese teacher and examines
why she found that LTD promoted students’ engagement and critical understanding, whereas she had
mixed experiences with using PBL. This led Akiko to puzzle long and hard over what successful practicemeans for her. Andy reflects on project work in his own education and past teaching, as well as in a recent
curriculum reform process introducing PBL classes in which students research global issues and look at
how such issues impact local communities and people that they know. He presents the story of one learnerdoing a project into ethical consumerism to illuminate the complex interplay between learner creativity,
learner criticality, and learners’ translingual practices in PBL. In this unconventional patchwork multivocalic
reflection we (Akiko and Andy) come to recognise the importance of acknowledging internal and external
ideological constraints and of creating new discourses to foster critical awareness and agency in students
for engaged meaningful learning.

この論文では、
プロジェクト型学習（PBL）やディスカッションを通した学習（LTD）のような、私たち（日本の大学教員2名）が「関与ある学習方法」と呼ぶアプローチに関する自身の教育経験と実践研究を共同で振り返る。
私たちは、自伝的な物語、互いの物語への応答、
教師と学習者のさまざまな声、そしてリフレクシブな対話を用いて、私たち自身と学習者にとって意味あり関与ある学習とは何かについて、個人的かつローカルな視点を発展させた。
中山は、日本語教師として社会化するまでのストーリーを語り、PBLを使った経験が彼女にとっては評価が分かれるものであったのに対し、なぜLTDが学生の関与と批判的理解を促進することがわかったのかを考察する。
そして、中山にとっての実践の成功とはなんだったのかという問いを投げかける。
バーフィールドは、自身の教育や過去の指導におけるプロジェクトワークの経験とともに、学習者が国際的な問題について調査し、それらの問題がいかに学習者の身の回りの共同体や人びとに影響を与えているのかを考察するPBL授業を導入した最近のカリキュラム改革の過程について振り返る。
PBLにおける
学習者の創造性、学習者の批評性、学習者のトランスリンガルな実践の間の複雑な相互作用を明らかにするのに役立つ、倫理的消費主義についてのプロジェクトを行った一人の学習者の話を紹介する。
この型破りでパッチワークのような多声的な内省の中で、私たち（中山とバーフィールド）は、内面化されたもの、外的なもの双方のイデオロギー的制約を認識することの大切さと、意味あり関与ある学習に取り組む学生らに批判的意識と主体性（agency)を育み、そのための新しい言説を創造する重要性を認識するようになった。

Keywords

teacher narrative, teacher socialization, local context, Project Based Learning (PBL), engaged meaningful learning
教師のナラティブ、教師の社会化、ローカルな文脈、
プロジェクト型学習（PBL）、意味あり関与ある学習

128

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama*****
Representations and especially academic representations came to be criticizedbecause, in and through the context where they appeared, they laid claims to truth. In
the wake of this critique, representations were recognized to be context-dependent,
always embodying interests, politics, and power. Yet much of the postmodern, feminist,and constructivist literature continued to employ genres characteristic of modernism.
That is the critiques, lacking self-reflexivity, merely wrote new truths.
… These attempts used a variety of means to break the voice of the dominant narrative
to the point that the different voices intersect, overlap, resist, and contrast one another.
It is a form of writing that resists language, all the while making use of it. (Roth, 2005,
p. 13)

I. Introduction

HIROSHIMA & TOKYO March-August 2023 – We each work in different parts of Japan,
Akiko in Hiroshima, Andy in Tokyo, and have different areas of work and disciplinaryinterests. Akiko’s background is History and Japanese Language Education, and she used
to teach international undergraduate and exchange students. Andy’s disciplinary areas
are Applied Linguistics and English Language Education and he teaches mostly Japanese
undergraduate students. Despite these differences, we share interests to do with learnerdevelopment, which we discovered by chance a few years ago when we were in the same
response community for Issue 5 of the Learner Development Journal (LDJ). With its themeof challenging the conventions in researching and writing about learner development,
Issue 7 of the LDJ offered an interesting opportunity for us to collaborate further. In the
beginning we had no fixed idea about what we might explore and write about together.
Over time, through our collegial dialogues and discussions every few months or so, ourfocus shifted towards how we and our learners understand and engage with ProjectBased Learning (PBL) and other non-conventional approaches to learning, and whatquestions come up for us about this. We also became interested in writing our accountin a non-conventional way by co-authoring a personalised, reflective, and interactive
exploration of our practitioner concerns with engaged meaningful learning.
The two of us believe that practitioner research is highly personal, subjective, and that
it is driven by teachers’ own puzzles and interests within their practices with their learners(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Hanks, 2017; Jarvis, 1999; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Our
practitioner inquiries often spring from our inner conversations with ourselves, as well asfrom our spontaneous interactions with learners, colleagues, and close others with whom
we talk and reflect about our work. We find that our practices are deeply embedded in
our own biographical trajectories (past, present, and future), as well as in the very local
contexts of our lives and work, including the institutional discourses, affordances, andconstraints that impact our daily work. These fundamentally important contours ofpractitioner research figure strongly as we delve into our experiences of being socialised
as teachers, working with PBL in our own local ways, and reflecting on what meaningful
engaged learning signifies for us and our students in our particular contexts.
It is however difficult to reconcile writing from these personal and local positions withthe distancing, objectifying, de-voiced writing that much conventional academic writing
and publishing mandates. Although there is no commonly agreed way to write reflexive
practitioner research accounts, we try to write here in a context-dependent, personally
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

129

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

voiced fashion. Rather than starting with an extensive literature review and adopting a
conventional universalizing stance, we each begin with an opening autobiographical story
about significant experiences to do with PBL that we have had in the past. We then sharereflections about each other’s stories before focusing on particular puzzles that we eachhave around PBL and other non-conventional approaches to learning in our different
contexts. Looking at how some of our learners have responded to these approaches, weconsider what we have gained from contemplating our learners’ activity and work. We do
this in a dialogue, before raising, in the final part, questions for further consideration andinquiry.
This way of writing includes multiple voices, stories, and student artefacts. We have tried
to do this in such a way that these intersect and overlap, and also resist and contrast, with
one another, as Roth proposes in the opening quotation to this article. What follows, then, is
not a conventional piece of academic writing: It is more a patchwork multivocalic reflectionthat narratively—and in places contradictorily—explores engaged meaningful learning fromseveral different perspectives. We begin with our two autobiographical stories side by side.
As they are parallel, please read them in any order that you choose. We then briefly respondto each other’s stories, before continuing our narratives sequentially, with Akiko looking foralternatives to a prescriptivist approach to language education, and Andy navigating new
PBL discourses in a collaborative curriculum reform process.

II. Starting Autobiographical Stories
Akiko: Setback in Becoming a Conventional
Japanese Language Teacher

Andy: Recovering the Themes of ProjectBased Learning

HIROSHIMA June 12th, 2022 – “I would
like to share an old story from my early days
as a new Japanese language teacher, which
eventually led me to graduate school as akind of escape. Back then, I cherished themoments of laughter with my students in theclassroom, despite the daily struggles of classpreparation. Narrative is the way I can convey
my voice and context in all its complexity.

TOKYO June 6th, 2022 – Apart from one
spectacularly hazy memory of a project on
Roman roads in primary school, I don’t recall
project-based learning (PBL) in my own
school years. Now, in conversation with Akiko,recollecting bygone experiences of school anduniversity learning helps me puzzle over what
PBL means in my present work.

My socialization as a Japanese language
teacher started in Korea in the 90s. I met basic
language teacher knowledge and skills forthe first time and learnt them over there. It
was exactly like the “Practice makes perfect”
experience. I learnt the differences between
grammar syllabus and situational syllabus,
and basic Japanese verb conjugation from theteacher’s guide attached with the textbook.

At the same time in Korea, I was also learning
Korean without any formal classes. I learnt
Korean through reading grammar books andtalking with Koreans in my daily life. I tried
to understand announcements on the bus,
130

An art teacher in secondary school
encouraging us to express ourselves freely,
and who was never anything less than
accepting and enthusiastic about our ideas
and artistic work. An inspiring German teacher
who would discuss and laugh with us inclass and always invited us to use our basic
German to express our ideas as best we could.
Newspaper articles, current affairs magazines,
radio recordings, films, and later a wide
range of German literary works, all helping
us make connections with new worlds, bothcontemporary and historical. Such moments ofeducational freedom, empathy, and connection
seem almost subliminal and enduring

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

advertisements in the newspaper or the shop
windows. I listened carefully to what mystudents said and copied them. I can give you
the moment I understood “뭐라고? (mweora-go) What did you say?” as an example.

It was in May or June a couple of months afterI came to Korea. Two junior female students
were sitting on a big stone near my officebuilding. It was early afternoon, so I asked
them “Have you had lunch?” in Japanese,
which is a very common “How are you?” inKorean. Then two girls looked at each otherwith confused expressions and said, “뭐라고?
(mweo-ra-go).” At that moment, I understoodthat it meant “What did she say?” Wow, I can’ttell you how excited I was.
I had so many experiences picking up words
and phrases in my daily life. I also studied
very hard at home with grammar books. The
more phrases and vocabulary I could study,
the more my world in Korea expanded. I
enjoyed studying a foreign language for the
first time in my life.
But I could not integrate those very exciting
experiences in my classroom.

After I came back to Japan, I was lucky
enough to teach at two different institutions.
One was following a strict grammar andsentence-pattern syllabus from beginner
to intermediate. Another one was using asituational functional syllabus and was more
open-minded for experimental teaching. In
the former one, I was shocked about thevolume of knowledge other teachers had.
They seemed to know everything written
in the textbook; the vocabularies, elementsof grammar, and the order of submissions.
They used their knowledge and their senseof “native speakers” to check students’
written homework. At first, the grammarcentered textbook was very new to me
and I realized my lack of knowledge, bothabout the textbook and the grammar. Even
though I prepared a lot for the class, students
sometimes got confused or I could not answer
students’ questions. What I could do was

influences on me as I look back.
As an undergraduate, no “project-like” learning
experiences spring to mind, either. Yet, a few
years later, in postgraduate teacher training,a drama teacher using drama projects in aworkshop approach to teacher education
had a lasting impact on me: It was a new andmuch deeper way of learning than I had everexperienced before, and it made profoundsense.
Soon afterwards I tried extra-curricular drama
workshop projects in Yugoslavia at Novi Sad
and Belgrade universities where I taught
in the early part of my teaching career. At
Belgrade University, over several months, thedrama workshop had 30 to 40 first- throughfourth-year students of English Language
and Literature and met once a week for 2-3
hours. The students created together throughimprovisation, discussion, and reflection two
plays, each about an hour long. The workshops
featured minimal frames for improvised work,with students discussing their improvisations
and feeding ideas back into the scaffolded
development of each play week by week.
Never scripted, the evolving plays wereconstantly re-negotiated, then performedin public, and shared with a wider audience(initially inspired by Dorothy Heathcote’s
educational drama work (Farmer, n.d.), later
Boal’s (2004) Theatre of the Oppressed).
Some years later I worked with students at
the University of Tsukuba on what I came tocall “drama-mentary.” An early conversation
with Akiko led me to start searching for more
concrete connections: Where were thosephotocopies of student work from that class?
Finding a long untouched folder of notes andstudent writing, I started recollecting more
sharply how this advanced class had involved
students from different faculties in exploring
contemporary issues in society. For one
project we had decided to take the theme ofraising public awareness of HIV/AIDS. Using“drama across the curriculum” methods, I
then guided the students to do improvisations

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

131

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

blindly follow what was written in textbooks
so that class went a little bit smoothly.

After teaching there for a few years, I becamefamiliar with their strict prescriptivism andI could gradually afford to include sentencesthat seemed relevant to students’ lives andcomposed sentences on topics that I wasinterested in talking about in my handouts.

In the latter one, I had a chance to teachintermediate exchange students with anotherfull-time teacher. The course consisted of asituational syllabus, and, for different lessons,
I made handouts reorganizing the text bookand had students practice sentence patterns
and dialogues. Sometimes I and anotherfull-time teacher invited Japanese students
who were interested in exchange withinternational students and organized someevents which were related with themes inthe textbook like introducing Japanese New
Year’s games or doing some sports together.
We planned those events in the hope thatexchange students could get off the “English
island,” in the university where Japanese was
the mainstream. Exchange students camefrom all over the world, and they were lively
and frank. I felt like they were my younger
friends.
When I look back on myself, I was learningand teaching in a conventional way, at thesame time, looking for a chance to give
students an opportunity to use Japanese in
an authentic situation like I had in Korea.
Moreover, I learnt the joy of chit-chatting
and even making jokes with my students
with their limited vocabulary and phrases.
When I had a laugh and a good time withmy students, I felt teaching Japanese was
rewarding, and finally I could admit tomyself that I am a language teacher.

Slowly I began to accept offers for otherclasses, and just as I was gaining a little
confidence in my ability to teach through trial
and error, I hit a wall. Some students did notunderstand, no matter how well I explained
the grammar and vocabulary in the textbook.
132

around particular situations to do with HIV/
AIDS, before they reflected through discussion
and writing about what they had experienced.
Next, in pairs and small groups, the students
created their own drama-mentaries. These
were public awareness dramas in which
they acted out different situations (drama),
in addition to freeze-framing or interrupting
scenes at certain points to present information,
contradictory perspectives, and commentary
about HIV/AIDS (commentary) to let the(imagined) audience step back and reflect.
One particular set of notes stood out as I
delved through the folder. These handwritten
reflections picked up on the fieldworkinterviews the student had done at two nurseryschools in her local area about school policies
for accepting an HIV positive child: “I wasreally surprised these two had different pointof view towards accepting of HIV positive
child. One thinks it is the privacy right. The
other says it is the responsibility to tell toeverybody that there is HIV positive child.”She further reflected: “But it was really goodchance to deepen my knowledge. I talked a lot
with my friends of other classes and especiallywith my boyfriend. I will be a doctor someday
and when I become doctor I would be the one
who tell about the disease.” I am struck by
how talking with others outside of the class
was meaningful for this student, as well as
how creativity and criticality dovetailed for the
students in what they did.
Reflecting on these past project learning
experiences, I grasp more clearly key
leitmotivs of dialogue, creative commitment,
and a quest for critical engagement andconnection with a wider audience outside of
the class. Working with others, solo activity,and later sharing also come into view, together
with self-directed individual and group action.
In a recent blog post about project-basedlearning, a writer (Aida, 2017) refers to a key
dimension of such learning as “この「夢中になった経験」” / “kono「muchū ni natta keiken」”/ “this‘engaging/engrossing experience’.”Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

And also, some university students, perhaps
tired from their part-time jobs, gave me a cold
look as I explained how to write an academic
report using the academic Japanese textbooks
that had just been published. “Oh, come onteacher, we are fed up with your meaninglessinstructions. It is no use learning those poshphrases.” I felt as if they said that to me.
I started to question myself. “Is a prescriptive
approach to language education truly
beneficial for learners?” There were many
ways to blame them: They were unmotivated,
they didn’t have enough experience reading
and writing in their own country or studying
foreign languages, they came to Japan toearn money. I didn’t want to accuse themusing those phrases, but I could not find analternative way of teaching. I started to feel
my students were the enemy to be defeated.
Fortunately, only one or two classes gave methat feeling, but that was enough to break my
joy and confidence for teaching.

As if bad things happen to bad people/悪い時に悪いことは起こるもので/waruitokini waruikotoha
okorumonode/, right around that time, things
were going wrong with the international andJapanese student events which I organized
in a situational syllabus course as well. Even
though those were small events, it required adecent amount of coordination with a full-timeteacher who was in charge of the courses orJapanese students who saw the call for event
participants. Despite our efforts, it seemed
like my students didn’t use Japanese as
much as we expected or their relationshipwith Japanese students was just on the site.
Compared to the amount of preparationand coordination, the fruit I got was quite
small. I was running around behind thescenes and felt I did not get much of a chance
to see what the students were doing, how
they were feeling, or what they were talking
about. The students were the guests. Whatbroke my heart was the time of cleaning.
After the events, a few girl students from
Asian countries helped me clean, but otherstudents left the site without saying thankThe complete involvement of learners in what
they do in project-based learning is often
highlighted, as are individual creativity andpersonal engagement, in the way that PBL
gets discoursed. These elements certainly
feature in the past experiences of PBL thathave come back into focus for me. Yet,
something is absent in that picture, and themissing link for me is the theme of developing
a critical relationship to the world, exploringthat critical understanding with others, and,in some way, raising others’ awareness of
the issue at hand. Trying to develop criticality
was undoubtedly salient in the drama projectwork in Yugoslavia and, later, at the Universityof Tsukuba with drama-mentary projects. It
is also a key concern in my current teaching
and has been an important part of curriculum
reform discussions with colleagues in the past
few years, as well as with teachers at otheruniversities interested in PBL. The criticaldimension is a significant interest in my current
PBL work—a puzzle and a challenge that I
keep coming back to.
My students continually teach me that neither“the local” nor “the global” has any fixed
senses. Their perspectives, positions, andunderstandings are constantly shifting as they
develop a project. For one student the local
may start with doing visual research in theirneighbourhood, observing and taking photos,
for example, of recycling points. For another,
the local may have a stronger transnational
sense and involve talking to people they know
online and discussing what a particular issue
such as overconsumption means for thoseindividuals where they live, whether they are
in Japan, South Africa, Thailand, or the USA.
For another student it may mean first findingout basic information about gender (in)equality
at a global level or in other local contexts, andthen considering which people close to them
they might discuss their lived experiences ofgender inequality with.
Just how the mediation of the personal, thelocal, and the global might be realised inpractice is something that I continue to be

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

133

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

you. Eventually I withdrew from these events
because I felt like a servant. I decided toget a PhD which seemed necessary to geta full-time job and I wanted to pursue themystery of why my different selves emerged
when I spoke different languages. Starting a
PhD was empowering for me, and at the sametime I used my PhD studies as an excuse to
reduce my teaching load and stop making myteaching practice the center of my life.

puzzled by. In what ways do students makeconnections between global issues and theirown lives and local communities? Why? How
do they go about developing their criticalawareness? And do they see doing theirprojects as a creative process or not? Why?

III. Responding to Each Other’s Autobiographical Stories
TOKYO October 2022/March 2023 – Hi Akiko,That initial period of prescriptive thinking
and action as a teacher reminded me of how
like you I looked for basic secure pedagogic
routines when I started as a teacher (and still
do when I take on new types of courses)—andof the endless hours of lesson-planning that
I would do in my early years of teaching. I
can remember too the sense of authority thatteachers’ textbooks conveyed, and how linearlycertain teaching needed to be before any
ostensible learning was thought to take place.
Perhaps for early-career Akiko, fixed methods(and textbooks and teacher manuals) let youteach in an explicit and predictable way, so
you inevitably reached a point where youneeded to find out how you wanted to teach inyour own way. You started experimenting andfocusing on your learners and using language
in different spontaneous ways. And then you
hit a wall. An image of four walls comes into
my mind, without any ceiling or roof. It could
literally be an exercise yard (!) that you returnto and are trapped in. The image makes me
notice that prescriptivism is so difficult toquestion and see beyond. At the same time,
opting for more open(-minded) learner-centred
pedagogies brought with it its own risks andchallenges for you.
You mention that in some classes you felt
like you wanted to blame your students andreproach them, although you didn’t want to.
As teachers we don’t often write about how
we relate emotionally to our learners and to134

HIROSHIMA July/October 2022 – Hi
Andy, Reading your short opening story,
which gives a picture of what you have been
pursuing as a teacher, I was struck by thejoy of learning that young Andy felt. It was
one of the roots and the compass of yourteaching.

And I thought it was so awesome thatthat experience led you to pursue creative
learning, using collaboration with others,
drama acting, and improvisational dialogue,rather than focusing on “knowledge” thatcan be measured by tests. I was amazedbecause I can imagine how difficult runninga classroom without the tests and theteacher’s authority is, and it requires
teachers to carefully listen to their students’voices and learn from them also.

What you wrote made me reflect on my own
experiences. Did I have a learning experience
like Andy’s in any classroom? I grew up
in a Japanese educational environment
dominated by scores, pecking orders, andentrance exams. And what was my goalin teaching? After World War II, Japanese
language education resumed focus on
language skills, not learner development,
as a reflection of the use of the Japanese
language as a symbol of national unity
during the prewar colonialist era. I feelthat we are now faced with the challenge ofovercoming the ghosts of a belief that covers
the teaching of Japanese: Language is just askill, and there is a right way to use the skill.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

ourselves as teachers, although we may welltalk about this with workplace colleagues
or close others. For me those feelings offrustration come up for different various
reasons when I am teaching. My learners
are “present but not engaged” (for whateverreasons) in what I want them to focus on (orthey want me to focus on!), or I don’t see
clearly where each of them is, or even: They
are not being the learners I want (or imagine)them to be.

One more thing: only native speakers know
the right way to use it. And create a newgoal of teaching and learning language.
In reflecting on my history as a teacher,I reaffirm that I, too, have been attracted
by the collaboration and creativity of mystudents.

You have given me homework trying to fit
student creative learning into the history ofJapanese language education. I hope I can
submit my summer homework, like my son
drawing pictures for the new semester.

That sense of “not seeing” the learners andnot connecting with them came through for mevery strongly when you described coordinating Sincerely,
the different events and being rushed off yourAkiko
feet in serving the students and making surethings ran successfully. And then your priorities
moved from teaching to your PhD studies.
What happened next?
Best
Andy

IV. Continuing Our Stories
Akiko: Looking for alternatives

HIROSHIMA March - August 2023 – In my opening story I wrote about the first decade of
my life as a language teacher. As a Japanese language teacher, my socialized environment
was filled with traditional teacher-centered prescriptivism, but when I referred to my own
language learning experiences as my standpoint for teaching, I realized I wanted to pursue
an alternative way of teaching. So I organized some events where international students
and Japanese students participated together. They gave me a sense of excitement alongwith the feeling of “I am doing a new thing,” but I was not sure that was what I wanted todo. After completing my PhD, I realized that I had been longing to have a teaching practicewhere I could encourage my students to have a positive Japanese speaking self, like my
Korean speaking self. To continue my story, I would like to share two of my practices in
the following decade.
After completing my PhD, I was fortunate enough to be offered a full-time teachingposition at a local university in the Kyushu area. Initially, I was assigned to a class ofundergraduate international students. The class was for non-native Japanese students
who had chosen it as an alternative to English or as a second foreign language. Most of
the international undergraduates had studied Japanese for one or two years at a Japanese
language school and had obtained JLPT N1, but their Japanese language skills were notprecise enough to be considered effective when writing academic reports or participating
actively in university classes. On the other hand, they had spent a lot of time studying
standard Japanese at a Japanese language school, and I did not want to impose more
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

135

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues“correct” Japanese on them because they were already highly proficient Japanese users tomake their lives on their own.

Learning through Discussion

There were three classes, and it was my job to coordinate with the other teachers. As was
decided before I came, the first semester would focus on reading comprehension andthe second semester on presentations, leaving it up to each teacher in charge to decideon which materials to use. From the second year, I decided to use for the first semestera collaborative learning method I had learned at a workshop held in a nearby university.
The method was called LTD (Learning through Discussion). I chose reading materials
from several anthologies published on the subject of 大学活用法/ How to Make the Most of
University (e.g., Iwanami Shoten Editorial Department, 2000). I had in mind the students
who had given me those cold looks before I joined the PhD course, and, in particular,a student from China who dropped out because he could not find a purpose or goal inuniversity life. I wanted them to spend their four years of college in the most meaningful
way possible, because if they did not find their own purpose, the time would go byaimlessly.
In the original LTD textbook (Yasunaga, 2006), students were supposed to read one
whole paper whatever the length, before the class and follow designated steps, like“definition of terms and concepts” or “integration of material with other knowledge.” In
the classroom, students should break into small groups to discuss the reading materials
following the same steps they had done as preparation. I was attracted to LTD becausethrough those steps the teacher could make sure students had read the materials
before the class. Also, using one of those steps, each student needed to articulate how
the reading materials related to them personally. In short, by using LTD, students aresupposed to read deeply and personally engage with the texts, key ideas in the texts, andthe challenging questions that they raised.
As I hoped that reading about college life would give students a chance to reflect on
their own lives, I specifically arranged LTD with the hope that reading would give students
a chance to reflect on their own lives. I decided that students would read only two essays
per semester, and I also created a simple worksheet and assigned it as homework.
There was one class that still remains in my memory: it was a small class of about 10
students, all Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean. They were not “model” students at all. They
took Japanese courses as the easiest choice. Some of them told me, “No more studying
language!” At least, they were very frank and honest to tell me that without hesitation. For
this class, I chose to read an essay that argued that university students should spend timemaking the best choices for their future, so that students should not take on part-time jobs
or club activities. The argument was clear; the author recommended dedicating yourself toyour studies and finding a specialty, thus, “Don’t optimize now, optimize in the future. If you canfind your favorite speciality while you are in university, you will have a better life in the future.”
However, agreeing with this perspective in the Japanese context was somewhat difficult.
Many Japanese university students had a limited understanding of society prior to entering
university. As a result, taking on a part-time job was often viewed as a way to “learn aboutsociety” rather than just a means of earning money. Similarly, I believed that participating inclub activities could be an effective means to make friends and have a more active university
life. This was especially true for international students who needed part-time jobs in order
to finance their studies and enhance their understanding of Japanese culture. If things went
well, they might make lifelong Japanese friends.
136

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

As the week progressed, their discussion grew more heated. How quiet and yet
passionate their discussion was over the single word “最適化/ saitekika/ optimization.” I
was impressed that they could be so serious in class and respond to their classmatesin such a non-superficial way. I was almost moved as I watched the discussion and feltthat although it was a “Japanese” class, learning was involved in their lives. In otherwords, they engaged meaningfully in their learning; then, their engagement lead themto critical understanding of the word “最適化/ saitekika/ optimization,” rather than simply
memorizing the dictionary meaning of the word. I felt I witnessed them giving their own
meaning to the word, trying to express it to classmates, and negotiating the meaning witheach other. I heard their voices echo in Japanese.
To this day, this remains one of my most unforgettable teaching experiences. Even after
my Japanese course ended, these students visited my office from time to time and fondly
reported on their recent activities when we met on campus.

Try PBL again

However, the number of full-time international undergraduate students entering theuniversity began to decline, and instead, a large number of exchange students, staying forat least one semester/6 months, enrolled in Japanese language classes. (Undergraduates
here means students who graduate from the university over a four-year period, whereas
exchange students refers to students who come to Japan from partner institutions tostudy for six months or one year.) I then began to feel that this method using LTD was notsuitable for the many exchange students who were majoring in Japanese in their homecountries, because they were more the type of student who cared about test scores. They
preferred to avoid classroom discussions where there were no definitive answers. Before
I could explore other options, there was a curriculum reform and I stopped teaching thiscourse. I suspect that this curriculum reform, ostensibly designed to introduce active
learning into general education, was in fact intended to reduce the number of foreign
language courses which hired many part-time instructors and put pressure on thebudget. As a full-time Japanese faculty member, it was necessary to create an attractive
program to attract international students to choose this university in order to protect theemployment of the teachers.
Due to the curriculum reform around 2013, I and another teacher were required tomake a class for short-term international students and Japanese students’ project work.
Although we did not know much about how to conduct project work, we were aware thatthe short-term exchange international students had a hard time finding opportunities
to use Japanese in their lives. Also, the Japanese students had never spoken withinternational students before, even though they were interested in foreign countries. I
wanted to give international exchange students chances to interact with local people inJapanese since they had spent at least a couple of years studying Japanese in their home
university. I also wanted to puncture the small comfortable cocoons that local Japanese
students lived in.
The area where the university was located, like other regional cities in Japan, wassuffering from an exodus of young people and the hollowing out of its industries.
The local government was hoping that foreign students would bring an international
perspective to the area, and provide some ideas about bringing international tourists tothe area. My colleague and I worked together to organize the projects for the students.
I was in charge of this project work for several years, and we organized groups with half
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

137

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

international students and half undergraduates as much as possible because we expectedthat would create continuous interaction in the groups.
In the first year, there were 4 groups and, two or three years later, 5 or 6 groups due tomore students enrolling in the course. We set the goal of the project as making brochures
to attract domestic and international tourists to the local area where the university was
located. For each project, students visited sites related to their chosen theme. In thefirst year, they chose themes and explored bike-friendly locations, including the best
restaurants and spots with beautiful autumn leaves. One year later, students were more
ambitious and tried to go farther looking for interesting places such as hot spring areasand power spots (places where people believe you can feel a spiritual or healing energy
and come away refreshed and rejuvenated). We didn’t set any limits or frame what they
had to do other than making a brochure. Since we could not get any funds for theseprojects, they had to use their own money to visit the sites in a group. We printed out thebrochures they made and distributed them at the international student center office ormunicipal international exchange associations.
In reviewing past materials, I noticed that the quality of the brochures varied fromyear to year and group to group. I can still feel their passion and energy from somebrochures even now, but I could not help but think at the time that some were just copies
of municipal pamphlets or websites. The differences probably came from the themes,leadership, and/or ideas. Some groups chose interesting themes, and the cooperationin the group worked very well, while others were, even though they tried very hard,suffering. When I had the chance, I was curious and asked them “How is it going?” Some ofthem confessed to me, with sad, tired faces, that they didn’t have any idea what to write or
they could not find anything interesting.
This is my experience with PBL, if you can call it that. I know every teaching is always“trial and error,” but something didn’t sit right with me. I still can’t find the reason why
I couldn’t be satisfied with my PBL compared to the reading-discussion class which I
had. Why did it seem like it didn’t work for me? Was it because I did not have a chance
to observe students’ conversations and discussions? Or was it because I could not see
how much students developed by doing projects? Perhaps I had passed too much
responsibility to students? PBL is like a black box. You can read many reports which write
about how wonderful PBL is, but there must be many hidden tips and structures. One
reason I can identify is that I didn’t try to make a dialogue with students. Rather, I was
focused on trying to respond to the local needs of the university. I didn’t conceive carefully
who they were, what they needed, and what I wanted them to be. Maybe I also felt someexternal pressure to create a good program to make the university more attractive, somore international exchange students would choose the university for their studies. That
distracted me from thinking about the students in front of me. I needed to think about
who is the most important person for me as the teacher.

138

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

Artefact 1. Student Brochures
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

139

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

Andy: New Discourses & Learner Story about PBL
New PBL discourses

TOKYO July/August 2023 – Like you, learning from my students and trying to follow theirdevelopment has long been important for me, and, at a time of curriculum reform, thatprovides some kind of counter-balance to dominant institutional discourses of teachercentred, exam-oriented, non-interactive classes. In the past, as my opening story about
doing drama workshops and drama-mentary highlights, I did projects with students by myown choice, and that was strongly connected to the creative potential that PBL involved
for me. The development of critical awareness was also a significant theme in that earlier
work, following through for me now, years later, around the driving question of how
students make connections between global issues, local communities they belong to or
identify with, and their own lives.
Three years ago in 2020, with a forthcoming curriculum reform on the not-too
distant horizon, I was part of a working group of several colleagues responsible forconceptualising and introducing PBL, for the 2023 academic year, into the English
curriculum that my colleagues and I teach in and co-coordinate.
As a general observation, I find it tempting to think of a pedagogic change as a“new” approach, so it is humbling to keep in mind that PBL was originally proposed by
Kilpatrick (1918) and others for new progressive education in the early twentieth century
in the United States. Kilpatrick put “project” in these terms, “If …we think of a project as
a pro-ject, something pro-jected, the reason for adopting the term may better appear”(Kilpatrick, 1918, p. 4). He argued that projects involve “wholehearted purposeful activity
in a social situation” to solve a problem through “purposing, planning, executing, andjudging” (Kilpatrick, 1918, pp. 17-18). Soon after the Second World War, project work figured
in contemporary school education in Japan and was explicitly promoted within official
guidelines. At other times it slipped out of official view (Nomura, 2017). Nomura points
out that PBL was incorporated in the “New Education” period (1946-1957) as 自由研究/
Independent Research, “where each individual student was expected to find his or her
own problems and inquire them proactively” (Nomura, 2017 p. 632).
The reform process that I took part in alsoCollegial reflections on creating new PBL courses
had a major impact on my thinking about
what PBL means. In this continuing story,
Mike: ... We (the Working Group) initially hit on theidea of projects in a kind of brainstorm of possibilities
I will include quotes from members of thefor making the new course different from the existingworking group (see the box opposite) andcourses based on cycles of (individual) researchfrom guideline documents to bring out theand presentation/writing, as we felt students would
multivocalic evolution of this new institutional appreciate and benefit from a different kind of
discourse about PBL. Where I represent theprocess/engagement with content in the third sectionof the curriculum. I recall we weren't really very sureworking group’s collective thinking, I use aourselves for a while what "projects" meant or what“we” voice. When members of the groupthey would include, but the idea opened up space toshare their own perspectives, they are
imagine things in a new way, and within that spaceindividually named (with their agreement).
we were able to consider and further brainstorm theTo give my own views about different PBL
kinds of 'principles' and practices we wanted to baseprinciples and practices that I identify strongly PBL on (both new approaches and ones taken fromemerging practice in existing courses) …
with, I switch to “I” in certain places.
Although the working group had no initial (M. Nix, personal communication, August 12, 2023)
template for deciding what new PBL courses
140

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

would involve, we were clear that any new
Peter: … For myself, my concern with the old English
content-based learning course needed tocurriculum for Kokki (International Business andLaw) students was that they were doing almost all of
have a distinct profile from other required
their research online, and it was very difficult to get
English courses that students would take inthe new curriculum. This point is taken up by them away from the mindset that "issues" exist "outmy colleagues Mike Nix and Peter Thornton there" in society and not in their own lives. …
in their recollections of how the reform(P. Thornton, personal communication, August 5,
process evolved. Over time, the overall
2023)
aim became more distinctly articulated as
students carrying out projects, individually, in pairs, or small groups, into global issues andproblems that interest them, and how the issues impact local communities and people
they know; then planning and doing (different kinds of) research into those issues orproblems, before “creating some kind of product at the end of each project cycle to reporton their research to others” (Chuo University Faculty of Law 3.4 Working Group, 2021, p.
1); see also Appendix A for the generic PBL course description that we later created). We
imagined that these products might include different real-world genres such as blog posts,
campaign proposals, opinion pieces, and project narratives, or multimodal products, forexample, webpages, videos, visual narratives, as many of these genres were already partof existing Research & Writing (R&W) courses.
Discussing these principles with full-time and part-time colleagues in January 2022
helped us frame the idea of local research more explicitly. We had originally called this“fieldwork,” but we found that some teachers (both full- and part-time) almost exclusively
associated PBL fieldwork with students contacting and visiting NGOs to do interviews.
Would we be providing a list of appropriate NGOs and organisations for students to contact?
What kind of protocols would be appropriate for students in arranging formal interviews?
Would teachers need to check and keep track of students’ email correspondence with different
organisations? We realised that, if fieldwork became predominantly concerned withstudents seeking out expert opinions from staff working in civil society and other types oforganisations, this would encourage students (and teachers) to see issues as “out there”
and disassociated from their own lives. So, we came to put much greater explicit emphasis
on students talking with those around them in their own lives, local communities, andnetworks.
One other important part of this story concerns re-thinking the prevailing view ofacademic literacy within the wider English curriculum. For a good many years, this had
been expressed as becoming “able to engage with content and to use English to learn
about social, political, legal and global issues” (Chuo University Faculty of Law Taughtin-English Program, 2012). That was now changing through the collaborative dialogic
curriculum reform process among full-timers and around 25 part-time teachers: Academic
literacy was becoming more focused on students’ participation in society throughbeing engaged with the world around them, talking with people as well as gathering
information, and making a critical analysis. I found this both exciting and intriguing. PBL
was pushing us all to break further away from conventional understandings of academic
literacy. Within the new PBL framework, this was now being constructed as “active
informed citizenship literacy,” closely echoing a critical language pedagogy position as“teaching for social justice, in ways that support the development of active, engaged
citizens …” (Crookes, 2013, p. 8):

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

141

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues… the kind of citizenship literacy that you need to:••••

be an active informed member of society
be engaged with the world around you
talk with people, gather information, and analyse it criticallyshare it in many different ways just as people do in the real world, rather than theliteracy you need to do conventional academic studies ... (Chuo University Facultyof Law 3.4 Working Group, 2022, p. 5).

To reach towards this, students (and teachers) would need to seek out new ways tolink what they learnt in their projects to their lives and participation in society, or, as mycolleague Peter Thornton put it, to gain some “sense of ‘projecting’ new ideas into the world,of thinking about what is possible, and hopefully feeling more invested and confident about
participating in society” (P. Thornton, personal communication, August 5, 2023).
As I look back at the reform process, I notice how this made me, as well as otherteachers, consider more specifically how to guide students to mediate personal, local,
and global connections and “understand the issues in their own lives in terms of wider
conditions and factors in society” (Chuo University Faculty of Law 3.4 Working Group,2022, p. 3). We had no set pathways to follow here. We would each experiment withputting this into action. Other aspects such as student translingualism and creativity inproject work (particularly in making final products) were also coming to have greater
salience for me than in the previous R&W classes. This is highlighted in the following
story of Fumi, as she carried out a local-global project within the broad parameters of theunfolding reform.

One learner’s experiences with PBL

TOKYO March-July 2022 – I had known Fumi (pseudonym) since the beginning of thepandemic when she joined my second-year seminar that year. In the spring semester ofthe 2022 academic year, I talked with Fumi outside of class as she carried out a one-off
individual project in May and June 2022. I wanted to step back from partially experimenting
with PBL elements in my transitional R&W class, and see how a relatively experienced nearpeer learner (similar in age, experience, and other ways; Murphey, 1996) would organise awhole project. Talking with Fumi in weekly/fortnightly Zoom discussions over 8 weeks or
so would, I hope, let me see things differently than would otherwise be possible within thebusyness of the R&W class itself. The box on the right gives a brief summary of how I tried toshadow Fumi as she organised her project. On the left I continue the narrative by presenting
Fumi’s experiences with PBL.
Following Fumi as she organised herFumi was interested in looking at ethicalindividual project
consumerism in her own life. She began bylooking at her everyday consumption habits Andy: In the first discussion I asked Fumi about
her experiences of project work and about her
and consumer products that she couldn’t
ideas for her project. It turned out that Fumi had
help buying, like loose-leaf paper for making no direct experience of doing any project-likenotes, and fast-fashion clothes. Although
work in her earlier school education, so the main
she tried to recycle her used clothes, sheconnection that she made about doing a project
often ended up throwing them away. Fumi
was to half-day and whole-day “internships” thatnext had conversation-discussions withshe had been recently doing in her third year
while job-hunting. These group-work sessions
other people she knew to develop her
understanding. Active on social media, Fumi involved several undergraduates from different
142

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

talked in English with several Instagram
universities working together on a set task underfriends in different localities around thea time limit, such as creating a new product, orworld (in South Africa, Thailand, and thecoming up with a new business plan.
USA) about their views on consumerism,
For this pilot project, I explained that she should
before looking at YouTube videos andaim to understand the issue that she chose in
TEDTalks to learn about minimalism. She
her own everyday life and also develop a more
quickly gathered multiple perspectives and global interconnected view. Making clear thatstarted thinking about the end-product
Fumi could withdraw from the project at any
that she would make from her project. Her point, I talked through further information about
the research and asked if she had any questions.
first idea was to make a video commercial
Fumi then signed an informed consent sheet. In
to encourage people to consume less. The
audience, she imagined, would be Japanese. the following discussions I invited her to share
She would share stories from her project to what she had done for her project since ourprevious meeting, then followed up with further
raise their awareness of overconsumption.
questions to understand different points in more
This took her to finding out about consumer depth. As it was my intention to follow Fumi as
advertising, and thinking about how she
she developed her project, I held back on making
would design the video.
specific suggestions to her. Towards the end of
The key question that Fumi became
each session, Fumi would outline her next steps
focused on was: What can I do to be a more
and actions.
sustainable consumer? She next foundThe story of her project that is shown to the left isout about environmental impacts andreconstructed from her online project notes, notes
widespread labour rights violations inthat I kept, and video-recordings of the Zoom
fast-fashion global supply chains. In a “bad- discussions that we had.
things-happen-to-bad-people” moment,
Fumi had a crisis of confidence: She felt that she was doing bad as a consumer and blamed
herself. After this crisis she started to understand her own consumer footprint in new
ways. First, she mindmapped her growing understanding of the web of local and global
factors around her personal consumption (as shown in Artefact 2).

Artefact 2. Fumi Mapping her Understanding
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

143

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

Mapping let Fumi look beyond her own individual consumption and locate herself locallyin a chain of interlocking actors that reproduce the wasteful consumerism that she wasalso part of. Second, she looked for ways to make a critical appraisal of certain brandsneaker companies. She checked their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports
in Japanese, and also found a citizen network, Citizens’ Network to Build a Sustainable
Society through Responsible Consumption (SSRC) / 消費から持続可能な社会をつくる市民ネットワーク (n. d.), which surveys and evaluates companies in terms of sustainability so that it canissue ethical report cards. In this stage of her project, Fumi developed a simplified set of
evaluation criteria (environment, work environment, inclusiveness, and contribution to
local communities) for three leading sneaker companies (see Artefact 3).
Artefact 3. Fumi’s Evaluation of 3 Brand Clothing and Sportswear Companies

Evaluating specific brand companies enabled Fumi to re-work in a more critical way her
understanding of how she might become a more ethical consumer.
The final part of Fumi’s project involved the design and production of a short video (3min, 23 s). She first wrote the script in Japanese, then translated it into English, and edited
it over three further drafts in English. To protect identities, Fumi digitised her voice andthe voices of other people whose views she includes from talking with close others at thestart of her project.

Artefact 4. Fumi’s Digitized Video
144

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

The slides in the final published video present strong visual images with concise summary
points in Japanese, while the digitised voice-over in English elaborates each slide (Chuo
University Faculty of Law PBL Resources, 2023).
Looking back over her whole project, Fumi saw PBL in these terms:
PBL definitely expanded my interests and broadened my horizons. For this reason, it
was difficult to focus on and I easily jumped on different topics. In that sense, I neededa guide. However, it was fascinating to explore an issue while looking for a way to
improve my PBL. Since I was free to decide what I research, how to research, as well as
how I end this project, I could deepen my understanding about the issue from a varietyof perspectives and how I can cultivate a better understanding of the world. (Fumi’s
project notes, 4 July 2022)
While Fumi drew satisfaction from freely deciding the focus for her project, she foundthe open choice challenging and felt she needed some guidance to carry out her projectsuccessfully.

Understand PBL again

TOKYO August 2023 – Fumi’s experiences helped me understand PBL from new perspectives.
Her sense of the local was strongly influenced by her use of social media: Talking withclose others did not necessarily mean those in her immediate community and networks
in Tokyo. For this project Fumi drew on an internationally dispersed set of close othersfor her local research. Second, Fumi’s project was initially driven by her personal interestin sustainable consumerism rather than by a “central driving question” which different
accounts of PBL (e.g., Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Condliffe, 2016; Mikouchi et al., 2018;
Thomas, 2000) tend to propose as a defining criterion that should guide projects from thestart. In Fumi’s case, the issue of sustainable consumerism had strong personal interestand value, but was also challenging (features emphasised by Blumenfeld et al., 1991, pp.
375-378). She struggled to find a specific focus in the initial weeks of her project. Once
she did, Fumi could begin to formulate a guiding question, which helped her imagine
her project through to the video that she planned to produce at the end. Another salient
moment in Fumi’s PBL experiences was the crisis of awareness that she had as she
located her own everyday consumption in relation to inequalities in the global flows of
consumerism that she is part of. Mapping the network of consumerism actors let her
position herself in a new personal-local-global way to the issue that she was researching.
This re-positioning seemed to act as a reflexive prelude to Fumi developing a more criticalview. In turn, her critical awareness grew as she worked translingually in Japanese andEnglish on creating and finalising her bilingual video.
From this I understood that creativity and criticality were running in parallel in Fumi’s
project. Their interaction was closely related to her translanguaging practices in producing
a bilingual product for a near-peer audience of young adults. Following Fumi as she
developed her project also let me appreciate the need for flexible scaffolding with PBL in
two particular ways. First, I now explicitly guide students in the first weeks of a project toplan their projects in a global-local frame and imagine how they might make personalised
connections through (a) conversation-discussions with close others and (b) choice overtheir project products (see Appendix B for an example of such framing). Second, I havecome to use a minimal set of guidelines for students to narratively journal the development

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

145

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issuesof their projects week by week (see Appendix C). My intention here is to open up spaces
for students to document their projects in their own self-directed ways. Both of thesepractices were strongly influenced by the pilot project with Fumi.

V. A Dialogue: Akiko and Andy August 2023

Akiko: After reading Fumi’s PBL, I realized that your PBL is very similar to the image I
have of a bachelor’s thesis (卒論/sotsuron). It is new to me and great that you can
do individual PBL instead of group activity, which can open up more spaces forindividual choice and agency. But one thing I am curious about is how much andwhat kind of feedback you gave to Fumi. Did you find it difficult to understand herEnglish? How did you deal with that? How long did it take to give feedback? I thinkthese constraints and workloads determine the quality of teaching. It seems like
Fumi is very positive about her PBL. How about other students? Did your students
enjoy the PBL?
Andy: I prefer to start with students working on individual projects, often in pairs. Laterthe students work in different collaborative formations, although I don’t go forlarge groups. Working individually with Fumi on that pilot project was an ongoing
conversation-discussion with her as I wanted to understand her decision-making
and actions, and how she was making sense of doing a local-global project, so ourinteractions were more exploratory than evaluative. We talked, I kept notes, but
I didn’t provide any written feedback. The project was definitely challenging for
Fumi, but it was driven by her interests, and she was able to engage with what itmeans to become a sustainable consumer. She could also connect the personal,
the local, and the global in her understanding. So, if students can do that in theirprojects, documenting their work in reflections and mindmaps, and bring those
three perspectives meaningfully together, then create and share final productswith others, I think they can enjoy this kind of PBL a great deal, but it takes time
and their development gathers over time.
I want to add that very few of my students have done project work in their previous
education. They may sometimes mention projects they did in elementary school
such as finding out about local food production or environmental issues. A handfulof students in each class may have done individual or group-based inquiries or
projects in high school, but they are still the exception.
Akiko: I see. I think it is great that the students can exercise their agency, not just as
homework for class without teachers. And I like the way you find student creativity inthe process of learning. That is a very important theme for you which I don’t have.
Andy: In your story the contrasting experiences that you highlight and reflect on reallycaught my interest. The way you learnt Korean for yourself was completely atodds with the prescriptive teaching methods that you encountered early on inyour career. At the same time, I was struck by how those constraints eventuallypropelled you towards exploring more learner-centred creative pedagogies,
including LTD and PBL, and to puzzling over why you still feel that PBL didn’t workfor you. Looking back, was there anything positive you gained from PBL?
Akiko: On this point, I felt that the PBL I wrote about here was a kind of failure because I
couldn’t feel my students’ sense of accomplishment. I want to make clear for theirhonor that the students who did PBL in my class worked very hard, but something146

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

was missing. Of course, not all groups did. Maybe I didn’t appreciate my students’creativity enough compared to you. Or maybe I failed to guide them to see theworld differently, to be critical.
Andy: You say you couldn’t feel their sense of achievement. Did the students keep
learning diaries or reflections about what they were doing in their projects, so you
could follow their activity?
Akiko: No, I didn’t. I could not find their feedback on the projects from my old files, but
most of them were positive as far as I remember. Maybe it was not their senseof achievement but mine. In this dialogue with you for this article, I have noticed
the reason why I could not be satisfied with PBL. I wanted to see my students
find something new and meaningful in the world, thus I wanted them to see theworld differently through their activity. Finding something new means creative andcritical maybe for me.
Andy: I’m constantly pondering how the two processes of creativity and criticality interact
and work together for learners, and what I can do as a teacher to bring them into
interaction. Take your experiences with “Learning through Discussion”: LTD created
new possibilities for you about teaching and learning. It became a significant pointof reference for you. That’s what the drama workshops in Yugoslavia and the classat the University of Tsukuba let me see too. They almost prototypically embody
meaningful student engagement, creativity, and criticality for me: Important
landmarks, not always visible, yet pointing the way at different times: Am I close tothis or moving away from it? How might I/we get closer to that? What might I/we dodifferently? Why?
Akiko: I had been wondering what criticality is. It’s intriguing that you’ve highlighted theinterplay between criticality and creativity. In your PBL experiences and my LTD
practice, we both appreciated learners’ engagement to learning and that led
them to create their own views of the world. As teachers we could perceive theircreativity and criticality as they did this, in your case especially the connection
between global and local. If the native speakerism and prescriptivism are still
pervasive in language learning teaching, as I think is still the case, we need to think
about how to nurture teachers who have an ability to find and appreciate thelearner’s creativity and criticality.
Andy: Yes, guiding students to develop their critical awareness about their views of
the world is an ongoing challenge for me. In the PBL frame I’m working with,interrelating the local, the global, and the personal is central. As I must also do,
my students have to break through the cocoons of habituated thinking andassumptions about the world that have become normalised for them. I noticethat students might articulate the local in a binary contrast to “the global” as if
the global is some disconnected other, outside of their personal lived experience(Appadurai, 1996) in which a process of othering (powell & Menendian, 2016) is
common. Students might, for example, scale up the local to seeing this in terms of“Japan” in relation to other societies in the world, so that they take a generalised
nation-state perspective on connections between the local and the global (“Japanis …/We are … but X country is …/They are …”). At other times they might frame
the local in terms of a problem that stereotypical groups or minorities within
Japanese society have, i.e., the problem becomes essentialised as a property of
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

147

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

the group or minority, and disconnected from particular unequal conditions,systems, or structures within society that underlie and reproduce the issue inpeople’s lives, by, for example, assuming that poverty in Japan is limited to thehomeless and/or immigrant workers and refugees, whereas “real” poverty can befound only in “Africa” or is not an issue for “us” in Japanese society. I find that “we/they” categorical views of the world run through these global-local entanglements,
making it difficult for students to connect issues to their personal lives and wider
conditions and factors in society. I’m still trying to understand how to help students
get beyond those normalised binaries, so to speak.
Akiko: I would also like to emphasize the importance of the teacher’s criticality in being
aware of the constraints under which our practices are carried out. Without anawareness of these constraints, it’s all too easy to fall into the misconception thatour practices are occurring in a vacuum, not in the real world with economic,
political, and cultural constraints. I realize now, recognizing and understanding
these constraints is an important aspect of criticality, isn’t it? As before I
mentioned, the absence of this critical perspective can inadvertently lead teachers
to unwittingly reproduce and prolong oppressive conventional discourses andpractices. I am sure that I’ve likely fallen into this trap multiple times in the past.
Andy: Yes me too, and I still do. Although native speakerism didn’t come up for me somuch in my thinking about PBL, Fumi’s story helped me notice translanguaging
from new perspectives. It’s interesting that in our collaboration you and I havenearly always discussed in English, and we’ve written this article in English too.
Beyond these overtly English-centric practices, we have used translation software
to work with Japanese and English—you for writing and also reading our article
at different points, and me for reading some blog posts and articles in Japanese
about PBL. Did we address language and power questions in our collaboration?
Akiko: You encouraged me to write in Japanese a couple of times, but I didn’t choose to.
Probably because each language has particular readers… And no one can escape
the issue of language and power, and it’s not fun to think about. But you can see
the power and ideology that each language has in our stories. In my example, I
suddenly had a university teaching position with no training as a language teacher,or in your case, all the students had the ability to do PBL in English before they
entered the university. And behind these episodes, there was native speakerism
or language imperialism, and also many non-native teachers who are not working
under the same conditions.
Andy: Yes and no ... We could have examined more explicitly our use of Japanese andEnglish, and our experiences of power around this. We did at times, but it was nota constant theme for us. Questioning that more might push me to explore further
how my learners can translanguage in different ways for their own purposes. What
we are thinking through together here makes me reflect about the complexityof co-constructing and creating alternative norms and discourses, not just in acurriculum and among the teachers who enact that curriculum, but with each class,and with the individual students in each class, too. Questioning our internal andexternal ideological constraints is part of becoming a critically minded teacher. It
is a never-ending struggle. But it is not everything. Creating alternative norms anddiscourses is important too.
148

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

Akiko: I think so too. It is necessary to create new discourses for them and for us …
Andy: On this I’d like to come back again to the theme of criticality in PBL. When we weretalking online about PBL, you mentioned that you were struck by the emphasis on
critical, informed citizenship in the new discourse around PBL. The frame was notjust about learners or students in the classroom, but explicitly connected to their
participation in society. That caught for you the sense of agency that learners mightdevelop through PBL, and/or the potential for learners to exercise their agency
in PBL, and to understand themselves and what’s happening in society in new
ways. From this perspective the curriculum reform was as much about enabling/empowering PBL practices and principles as putting forward a political aim for sucheducation. Bringing this back to our collaboration, I find that, through our stories anddialogues, we have been pointing towards a critical view of education that aims toempower and help students become conscious and critical of multiple inequalities insociety around them or in their lives. That political emphasis is important for both ofus.
Akiko: Through your words, I can have a glimpse of your educational ideals. I hadn’t
directly addressed controversial issues in my classroom before, but that also
reflects my stance on education, which is a matter of politics. I might need toponder this aspect a bit more.
You may not want to go back to this point, but I still can’t shake the suspicion
that PBL and LTD are appropriate for people who already have competency. You
have told me that there are great practices that have been adapted for beginning
students, and I have seen examples of very old critical applied linguistics practices
such as literacy workshops. But I wonder how it can be done.
Andy: It’s a great question that you are raising about content, skills, and language proficiency.
I guess part of my response is that it can be addressed in different ways—I see it
as trying to imagine/imagining ways, appropriate for the learners that I work with,
where I can involve them more in what they are doing, around topics and issues they
are interested in, and where they/we work collaboratively in the classroom, makedecisions about their learning, and bring in their “content” to what they are focusing
on in a class, take ownership of it, so to speak, as well as reflect on their progress,
and plan their next steps. To some extent I am more focused on content and learners
using language rather than explicitly teaching language. For me “it” starts from there,
whatever proficiency level(s) the students have.
Another part of my response is that a significant point of reference is the work ofLeni Dam, who is probably the most-recognized and widely published classroom
practitioner of learner autonomy. Much of her work is concerned with Danish
learners of English at beginner level, where they work from the start on different
kinds of projects. Dam’s work is very strong on the teacher’s role in structuring andscaffolding learner activity, and on the learner’s role in being pushed into action
and taking ever greater responsibility for their learning (Dam, 1995, 2018). I’m notclaiming that you or I need to slavishly follow Leni’s Dam approach. What stands
out for me is that her work involves practice-driven theorisation about a particularapproach to meaningful engaged learning (i.e., learner autonomy), so it frankly
provokes the reader to reflect on their own practices in unexpected ways.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

149

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

Akiko: Wow, that sounds interesting. But one thing that caught my eye or ear in what you
said is Dam’s emphasis on the teacher’s role in structuring learner activity. For along time PBL was like a black box to me. There must be some trick or format, orI don’t know how to say it, but you can’t leave everything to the students, is thatwhat Dam said?
Andy: Absolutely. For Leni Dam the teacher’s role is crucial. It changes as the teacher
progressively lets go, and learners take greater hold of their learning in becoming
more autonomous. She is very clear about this.
Akiko: In LTD there are strict steps on what students should do. Although this made me
suspicious about restricting the students’ freedom when I first heard it, the steps
made the format and gave direction to the students. The format also conveys the
purpose of this discussion to the students. Now I’m going back to the beginningof our dialogue. Creativity. Appreciating learners’ creativity is very important forteachers who want to do PBL. If you think your student project is very ordinary, you
can’t appreciate their effort. You have to find value in the learner’s products, whichis still a challenge for me, and I feel like it takes skill, like appreciating an art form.
So that quality of teacher is very important for the successful PBL.
Andy: I guess what we are saying is that the ongoing dialogues and quality of appreciation
is important in our interactions with learners as they engage in discussions,
undertake projects, and create products. Even if it’s about something very ordinary,
it is all part of trying to follow learners and support them in what they do, andraise different options for them about what they can do further. Seeing examplesof other students’ work can be a great support here as it may let them imagine
how they can apply their own creativity.
But what do we mean by learnercreativity? Within the specific
Another view of the creativityapproach to PBL that I have been
criticality nexus
exploring here learner creativity
Ellen: These stages are really interesting.
involves re-working different
It seems different from the usual meaning
artifacts of a project (e.g., notesof creativity, as these stages involvefrom conversation-discussions
patience, the ability to take an overview,
with close others, images fromthe ability to work methodically. I have
local research, journaling, notes
had a question in the back of my mind
from web resources, mapping,as to whether academic creativity isnotes from in-class discussions),
different from artistic creativity and I
and re-constructing them inthink the answer is to some extent yes.
new ways to create an original
When you were writing about creativity
product for a particular audienceand criticality I thought that criticality
in society (based on Janks, 2010).
creates a kind of limiting condition which
Fumi, for example, does this withkeeps academic creativity under control.
her digitized video. She creates
Artistic creativity has more options, toher own personalised and criticalcontrol itself using tradition, or not tounderstanding of sustainable
control itself.
consumerism.
(Ellen Head, editor, 6th September 2023,
In our stories another reallypersonal communication)
important consideration is theaudience that students have in
150

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

mind for the products that they create. For Fumi this was other young Japanesepeople, like her.
Akiko: … producing something to present to others?
Andy: … yes, creating and producing for an outside world, a non-classroom world,right? As students focus on the end-product, that’s when criticality starts to comeinto play … and interacts with creativity much more. That has been a key partin all the projects that we have been exploring: some kind of public display andsharing of work within the class, as well as to an audience beyond the class itself,and something that most practical accounts and theorisations of PBL strongly
recommend (Alan & Stoller, 2005; Anderson, 2021; Güven, & Valais, 2014; Mikouchi
et al., 2018; Sheppard & Stoller, 1995; Stoller & Chandel Myers, 2020). Oddly
enough, the outside world is more often than not an imaginary audience, isn’t it?
In your projects the audience was specific and definite—the International Student
Center Office and Municipal International Exchange Association. How did thestudents see this?
Akiko: The students in my projects? I’m thinking about a group who tried to do that famous
hot spring brochure. For them the audience would be an abstract tourist. They
wanted to make it very, very professional, like a brochure that some professionals
make. So that’s the one reason they had a hard time, but the teams who didn’t
have so much abstract audience in mind — for example, they imagined otherinternational students coming to the university next year as their audience — they
enjoyed their projects more, I think. Yeah, they were more …
Andy: … focused on people close to them, an audience who was familiar to them?
Akiko: Yes, that’s one possibility. … Through writing this article we want to convey what welearnt from our practices and learners. At this point I think I have said everything I
wanted to say.
Andy: Let’s move on.
*****

VI. Our Concluding Thoughts & Questions

In this article we have attempted to write in experimental narrative-dialogic ways that areclose to how practitioner-researchers talk, question, and reflect about their work withlearners, colleagues, and others in their local contexts. We have also made connections
to work in the wider field as we have theorised from practice and drawn on key works
that have impacted our thinking and evolving understandings. To do this, we have been
on a long collaborative journey over the last 18 months. At times we found it difficult tocontinue, but then we would talk again and start seeing our stories, practices, and puzzles
in new ways. What is important, it seems to us now, is that, on purpose, we did not set out
to find common ground. We wanted to talk about our different practices, but we did notforce ourselves to focus on a common theme from the beginning. Rather, we each shared
our interests, practices, and puzzles, then our stories and reflections.
As we did this, over time, we realised that we were in many ways talking about the same
phenomenon, “engaged meaningful learning,” and what that means for us and the students
that we work with. Engaged meaningful learning emerged from our collaboration anddirected us to a fundamental rethinking of what matters to each of us with our students.
As we look back together, we now see that our collaboration has led us towards three new
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

151

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

discourses about (a) what engaged meaningful learning means for us and our students,(b) how we may understand our practices through talking and writing collaboratively, and(c) how we can write about our learners, local contexts, and practices in new ways, andwhy. And at this point we think we have now said everything that we wanted to say, so
we turn again to you, the reader: What do you make of this? What intersections, overlaps,
resistances, and contrasts do you find with different themes and issues that we havecovered in this article? Which ones are engaging and meaningful for you? Why?

Review ProcessThis paper was open peer-reviewed by Katherine Thornton and the Learner Development
Journal 7 editors. (Contributors have the option of open or blind peer review.)

Author Bios

Andy Barfield PhD teaches in the Faculty of Law at Chuo University, Tokyo, where hehelps to coordinate an English curriculum in which students do self-directed research
projects into social, political, legal, and global issues. His current research interests include
multilingual issues in society, critical literacy, and Project-Based Learning (PBL).

アンディ・バーフィールド(博士)。
東京の中央大学法学部で教鞭を執っており、学生たちが自己指導型の研究プロジ
ェクトを通じて社会、政治、法律、
グローバルな問題に取り組む英語カリキュラムの調整をサポートしてる。
彼の現在の研究関心は、社会における多言語の問題、批判的リテラシー、
プロジェクトベースの学習（PBL）など。

Akiko Nakayama PhD is an associate professor in the Teaching Japanese as a Second
Language program at Hiroshima University, Japan. She is currently interested in learners’
stories, L2 learner identities, and teacher development.

中山亜紀子(博士)。
広島大学人間社会科学研究科日本語教育学プログラム准教授。
学習者の物語，学習者のア イ
デンティティ，教師教育などに関心がある。

References

Aida, D. (2017, March 30). 夢中になる経験をつくる「プロジェクト型学習」とは？ ― 野生のクリエイティビテ
ィを育む：第１回 [What is “project-based learning” to create an engrossing experience?
- Fostering creativity in the wild: Part 1]. Fasu. https://fasu.jp/series/alternativeeducation/vol0-1/#2
Anderson, J. (2021). A framework for project-based learning in TESOL. Modern English
Teacher, 30(2), 45-49.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Public Worlds
Volume 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.
Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
Boal, A. (2004). Theatre of the oppressed. Social arts across borders. ImaginAction. https://
imaginaction.org/media/our-methods/theatre-of-the-oppressed-2
Chuo University Faculty of Law Taught in English Program. (2012). The main aim of the curriculum.
[Teachers information pack]. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-9_5LMvzCD4KxbAJo5BFRAfOlOKyjeA/view
Chuo University Faculty of Law 3.4 Working Group. (5 March 2021). PBL classes: Pedagogic
152

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

principles [Curriculum document]. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hWEIMWr6Uz1k0iq
fosAhkV5TBdi6BOe7/view
Chuo University Faculty of Law 3.4 Working Group. (March 2022). Some initial questions
about Project-Based Learning (PBL) classes [Curriculum reform document]. https://drive.
google.com/file/d/18AeRlFpZ1UwfZ2QbHT3IYsi_DFhfUHBO/view
Chuo University Faculty of Law PBL Resources. (2023). Video reports: Exploring ethicalconsumption. My story of project-based learning [Video]. https://sites.google.com/g.
chuo-u.ac.jp/resources-for-pbl/student-products-from-long-projects/video-reports
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative
research. John Wiley & Sons; Jossey-Bass.
Condliffe, B. (2016). Project-based learning: A literature review. Lucas Education
Research. http://1stmakerspace.com.s3.amazonaws.com/Resources/
MDRC%2BPBL%2BLiterature%2BReview.pdf
Crookes, G. V. (2013). Critical ELT in action: Foundations, promises, praxis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844250
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Authentik.
Dam, L. (2018). Learners as researchers of their own language learning: Examples from anautonomy classroom. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 9(3), 262-279. https://doi.
org/10.37237/090303
Farmer, D. (n.d.). Dorothy Heathcote – pioneer of educational drama. Drama resource. https://dramaresource.com/dorothy-heathcote-pioneer-of-educational-drama/Frankl, P. (2000). トンネルを掘るモグラのように [Like a mole digging a tunnel]. In Iwanami Shoten
Editorial Department (Ed.), 大学活用法 [How to make the most of university] (pp. 101-118).
Iwanami Shoten.
Güven, Z. Z., & Valais, T. H. (2014). Project based learning: a constructive way toward learnerautonomy. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 2(3), 182-193.
https://ijlet.com/index.jsp?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=59775184_13.%20
182-193%20Zeliha%20Zühal%20GÜVEN.pdf&key=11520
Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching: Puzzling about principles andpractices. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-45344-0
Iwanami Shoten Editorial Department (2000). 大学活用法 [How to make the most of
university]. Iwanami Shoten.
Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203869956
Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher. Developing theory from practice. Jossey-Bass.
Kilpatrick, P. (1918). The project method: The use of the purposeful act in the educative process.
Education in the UK. (Original work published in Teachers College Record, 19(4), 2-8.)
https://education-uk.org/documents/kilpatrick1918/index.html
Mikouchi, A. K., Akita, K., & Komura, S. (2018). A critical review on project-based learning inJapanese secondary education. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, University ofTokyo, 58, 373-385.
Murphey, T. (l996). Near peer role models. Teacher Talking to Teacher, 4(3), 21-22.
JALT Teacher Development SIG. https://td.jalt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/
V04_03_1996.pdf

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

153

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues

Nomura, K. (2017). Project-based learning in post-WWII Japanese school curriculum: ananalysis via curriculum orientations. The Curriculum Journal, 28(4), 626-641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1340170
powell, J.A., & Menendian, S. (2016). The problem of othering: Towards inclusiveness andbelonging. Othering & Belonging, 1, 14-39. https://www.otheringandbelonging.org/theproblem-of-othering/Roth, W-M. (2005). Auto/biography and auto/ethnography: Finding the generalized otherin the self. In W-M Roth (Ed.), Auto/biography and auto/ethnography: Praxis of researchmethod (pp. 3-16). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460911408_002
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. University of Geneva,
Switzerland. https://tecfa.unige.ch/proj/eteach-net/Thomas_researchreview_PBL.pdf
Yasunaga, S. (2006). 実践・LTD話し合い学習法 [Practical/LTD discussion learning method].
Nakanishiya Shoten.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298-332). American Educational Research Association.

Appendix A

PBL Course Description

In this course you will carry out projects, individually, in pairs or small groups, into global
issues and problems that interest you, and how they impact local communities and people
you know. Problems might include investigating fairtrade products in local businesses,
exploring local government support for minorities, looking at people’s attitudes andconcerns about artificial intelligence in daily life, finding out how local organisations
are putting into action Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and so on. You will do aminimum of 3 projects in one year (at least two in the spring semester and one in the fall),with journaling a key continuous process in each project.
Your research will include gathering information and making notes from both material(e.g., books, library, documents, audio-visual materials) and online sources (e.g., web
searches, databases, other e-sources, including online videos and podcasts) in order todevelop your understanding. You will also talk with “close others” (other students, family
members, people in local communities, or local networks that you belong to). At the endof each project, you will create a product (e.g., an academic essay, blog posts, an opinion
piece, visual report, or webpage) that can reach an audience beyond your class (e.g.,with other classes, in public spaces, and/or in web-based products) so that you can shareresults from your project with other people.

この科目では、個々の学生が関心を持ったグローバルな諸問題に関してプロジェクトを遂行し、それらが身近なコ
ミュニティや周囲の人々にどのような影響を与えるかについて、ペアやグループワークを通して探究します。
プロジ
ェクトの例として、地域に根差したビジネスとフェア・トレード製品をテーマに調査したり、地方自治体とマイノリテ
ィ支援策、日々の生活におけるA I活用の課題、地方自治体が主導する持続可能な目標の実践例など、他にも様々なテーマが考えられます。
１年間のコースでは、３つ以上のプロジェクトを遂行し（春学期２つ秋学期１つ、以上）、調査の過程や結果などを逐次記録することが求められます。
調査では、資料（書籍、図書館、文書、視聴覚資料）やオンライン（検索、
データベース、
ビデオやポッドキャストな
どのその他電子資料）を活用した情報収集とノートテイキングを行います。
加えて、「身近な他者」（学生友達、家族、近隣住民、や所属する地域ネットワーク）へのインタビューも行うことになります。
プロジェクトの終盤では、調査結果を成果物（学術論文、
ブログ、意見書、
ヴィジュアルレポートや、
ウェブページ）にまとめ、教室の外の人々（他クラスの学生や、公共の場、ウェブなど）に向けて調査結果を広く発信します。

154

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Andy Barfield & Akiko Nakayama

Appendix B

Two Example Global-Local Frames for Initial Project Planning(Outline – Problem – My question – Project goals)
Presented and discussed with students at the start of Project 3 in the 2023 academic year.
Students are guided to develop a similar overall frame for their own projects.
Example Guideline Frame 1 for a project on “Making Connections Between Local Groups orCommunities in Japan & Other Countries on the Right to Education for Foreign Children”
Human rights -> The right to education -> foreign children in local communities
The problem —> Education of Children with Diverse Backgrounds (n.d.): “An estimateof over 700 foreign children in Hamamatsu are not going to school.” Hamamatsu aims fora “zero out-of-school rate (or a 100% enrolment rate) of foreign children and promotionof the enrolment of children of foreign residents …” (Hamamatsu Voluntary Local Review
Report, 2019, p. 13)
My question: How can the right to education for foreign children be locally protected andpromoted?

Project goals

1. Find out more about the situation in Hamamatsu, and research the policies andactions that are being taken to support foreign children’s right to education there.
What? Which actors are involved? What is working? Why? What are the problems? Why?
2. Find out about the approach taken in a local community in another society, forexample support for refugee children in Australia. Local community view => Adelaide:
Women’s group supporting refugee children (ABC, 2023 April 9)
3. Conversation-discussions: Share my research with people in my local community/
network, and find out what they think about the right of foreign children to education,
and what their ideas and views are.
Project product: Advocacy Letter? Campaign Proposal? Opinion Piece? Video?
Example Guideline Frame 2 for a project on “Making Connections Between Local Groups
or Communities in Japan & Other Countries on Local Food Production”
Biodiversity / Food Supply and Waste -> Sustainable living -> Local organic food production
My question: Who and what makes local organic food production possible? What isworking? What are the problems? Why?

Project goals
1. Find out about the cultivation and consumption of organic vegetables and food in
my local community: Who? What? Where? When and how did this start? What is working?
What are the problems? Why?
2. Search for information about growing organic food in a local community outside
Japan => Example: Making cities organic food gardens (Deutsche Welle, 2018 February
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

155

Collegially Exploring Engaged Meaningful Learning: Stories, Perspectives, Dialogue, and Issues16): How does this work? Which actors are involved? What is working? Why? What are theproblems? Why?
3. Conversation-discussions: Share my research with people in my local community/
network, and find out what people in my local community think about organic food,and whether this matters to them or not.
Project product: Campaign Proposal? Magazine article? Video?

Appendix C

Minimalist Frame for a Project Narrative

Presented and discussed with students at the start of Project 3 in the 2023 academic year:
Students are required to create individually their Project Narratives for a 6-7 week project in a
Google Doc within a Shared Drive for the PBL class.

Build Your Project Narrative Week by Week
1. In this document week by week be sure to:• write the narrative of your project• add JPEGs of your notes• build your reference list.
2.	 Document your work by putting the date each time you add to your Project
Narrative, for example:• 2023/09/26 Project Narrative• 2023/10/01 Project Notes• 2023/10/01 References
3. Write in English, and use Japanese or other languages when it helps you to express
your thinking and ideas, then continue writing in English.
4. Write at least 180 words each week, but please feel free to write more, & put theword total at the end of your project narrative each week, e.g., (Total: XXX words)
5. Add the sources of information to References week by week to build yourReference list.
6. Include the following details for each one: Author, Date, Title, Organisation/
Publisher, URL etc.

References
*****

156

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

ARTICLE
Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner
Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider
View on Learner Development
Dominic Edsall, University College London, Institute of Education, UK,& Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Japan<dominic(dot)edsall(dot)15(at)ucl(dot)ac(dot)uk>
Ellen Head, Miyazaki International College, Japan<ehead(at)sky(dot)miyazaki-mic(dot)ac(dot)jp>
Aya Hayasaki, Waseda University, Japan<hayasakiaya(at)gmail(dot)com>
Learner autonomy is a complex concept that can be viewed from the perspective of human agency andidentity within a continually changing, multilingual ecology. In this article, I address three of the conventionsof learner autonomy that have solidified in the research literature highlighting how these conventions
are challenged by the research in Learner Development Journal 7. I also address some of the challenges
created by the trend towards complex dynamics systems theory in learner autonomy research. Adopting acomplexity perspective (Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007) with critical realism (Bhaskar, 2016) as a metatheoretical framework, I argue that practitioner research should continue to deepen our understanding oflearner autonomy and change by flexibly combining perspectives together.

学習者オートノミー（自律学習）は、絶えず変化する多言語エコロジーの中で、人間の主体性とアイデンティティの観点から考えることができる複雑な概念である。
本論文では、学習者オートノミー（自律学習）に関する3つの定説を取り上げ、これらの定説がLDJの本号の研究によってどのような挑戦を受けているのかを明らかにする。
また、学習者オートノミー（自律学習）の研究において、複雑動的システム理論への流れが生み出すいくつかの課題についても言及する。
複雑性の視点（Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007）と批判的実在論（Bhaskar, 2016）をメタ理論的枠組みとして採用することで、実践者研究が、相反する視点を柔軟に組み合わせながら自律学
習と変化に関する理解を深めていくべきだと主張する。

Keywords

learner autonomy, agency, complexity, practitioner research, critical realism
学習者オートノミー（自律学習）、主体性、複雑性、実践研究、批判的実在論

While the main author of this paper is Dominic Edsall, the writing was collaboratively developed by continuous
dialogue and questioning by Aya Hayasaki and Ellen Head with Dominic. The authorial voice, knowledge, andoverall perspective remain Dominic’s.

Introduction

Conventions have a good side – we know where we are – and a negative side as theytend to lead to inertia and resistance to change. To challenge conventions you need toknow what those conventions are. Building consensus on what the conventions shouldbe, has been a fundamental issue in learner autonomy research (LA) for the last 40 years(Edsall, 2020) because there has been little agreement on what conventions are held tobe true within the wider language teaching field (Block, 2021; Douglas Fir Group, 2016). I
define “convention” here as a norm or rule that provides reason for action or evaluative
judgement (Mamor, 1996; Rescorla, 2008). Conventions are both normative and arbitrary(Mamor, 1996; Ravenscroft, 2015), so the validity of learner autonomy (hereafter, LA)
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

157

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

conventions depends on their impact within the LA field. Something – for example, a
belief in communication gap activities as the best way to follow a grammar presentation- may be a convention even if you and I as teachers do not slavishly follow such a norm.
The problem occurs when conventions solidify into prescriptive rules which limit newunderstanding. In this article, I am going to identify three of the conventions of learnerautonomy that have solidified in the literature before reviewing how LDJ7 challenges
these conventions. Adopting a critical realist (CR) perspective on LA and ideas frompositioning theory (PT), I then argue that to go beyond these conventions we must flexibly
combine perspectives together. In some cases, seemingly opposed perspectives can be
combined to overcome the limitations of those conventions. Throughout this article, I
will ask questions that challenge the reader to think about their own teaching practices.
Challenging a convention should be a creative rather than destructive process.
This article does not fit the mould of typical practitioner-driven research as found in
the Learner Development Journal (LDJ). The positioning of this article within the LDJ isitself a challenge to the conventions of LDJ, which has a focus on practitioner research(e.g., Ashwell et al., 2021; Jarvis, 1999; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). You, the reader, may haveexperience of practitioner research from teacher training or continuing professional
development (Hanks, 2017; Menter et al., 2011). Menter et al. (2011) define ‘practitioner
research’ as follows:
Practitioner research in education is systematic enquiry in an educational setting
carried out by someone working in that setting, the outcomes of which are sharedwith other practitioners. (Menter et al., 2011, p. 3)
Practitioner research can provide a valuable contribution to both practitioner understanding
and academic understanding of teaching and learning (Hanks, 2017; Menter et al., 2011). The
aim of this article is to address some of the LA conventions found at the nexus of theoreticaland practitioner research, and upon which much LA practitioner research is based.
A core element to practitioner research is “systematic enquiry” (Menter et al., 2011).
I argue that CR helps support systematic enquiry within LA practitioner research byallowing the combination of different theoretical research paradigms. I was invited towrite this article by the LDJ editors to give a theoretical overview that would tie together
the other articles in a meaningful way. It has developed through discussion with theeditors and steering group over several drafts. I hope this article provides a creative
challenge to the view that the philosophy of science that provides the basis for CR has noplace in qualitative enquiry (Bhaskar, 2013). In the spirit of challenging the conventions,questions are interspersed with the sections of the article inviting the reader to reflect andapply the ideas to their experience.

Reflection Questions 1

When you think about your experience of language learning and language teaching up tonow, do you have a sense of “conventions” in the sense of “accepted truths” regarding learnerautonomy? What conventions appear to you to be helpful, and what conventions might needchanging or challenging?

My Position as Author

I have been a teacher for nearly 20 years, but I first qualified as a science teacher specialisingin chemistry before re-training in TESOL. Having studied chemistry, I learned about complexity
theory through the mathematics of chemical reactions. Discovering that adoption of a158

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

complexity theory perspective is becoming a convention in second language acquisition(SLA) and learner autonomy (LA) was not a surprise, but the misguided enthusiasm ofsome language teachers and SLA academics (e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2018) was a shock.
As a chemistry student learning statistical mechanics, quantum chemistry, and various
combinations thereof, I could console myself that at least complexity in chemistry wasusually a closed system with known variables. In SLA, a complexity theory perspective
encompasses a wide open system of known and unknown variables, such as thoughts
or future outcomes, which may remain completely inaccessible and difficult to analyse
mathematically. When the inherent and unknown errors in a system may be orders ofmagnitude bigger than any number of Likert scales can cope with, how do you begin
to model and run a mathematical simulation of learner autonomy? I came to thisfundamental quandary in the course of my PhD research into teachers, learners, andviews of LA in Japan. Only after I discovered critical realism (CR) as a meta-framework
for understanding epistemology during my doctoral studies did complexity becomeless intimidating. My qualitative study of 35 students and 52 teachers at 12 different
universities across Japan, exploring their views of LA and developing an ecologicalmodel of LA and identity, is inherently complex. It has demanded of me a fundamental
re-examination of my own understanding of what knowledge is and how it is created.
And CR helped me get a much better handle on this complexity.

Critical Realism as a Framework for Understanding Learner Autonomy

Critical realism (CR) is a meta-framework for bringing together different theories andframeworks. One of its implications is that there are limits to what we as teachers andresearchers can know about LA (Edsall, 2020). CR is based on the philosophy of scienceand social science through the work of Archer (1995) and Bhaskar (2013, 2016).1 Its
perspective on reality as having layers helps explain the limits of empirical evidence in acomplex world: one layer of all real possibilities, one layer of actualized possibilities drawn
from the real, and one layer of empirical evidence drawn from the actual (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Bhaskar’s CR layered reality (Hoddy, 2019 based on Bhaskar, 2008)
1

The Roy Bhaskar Centre website has a number of useful resources that are free to access here.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

159

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

Bhaskar’s map helps explain research complexity in a way that satisfies the need for a
simplified map of complexity perspectives (Pallotti, 2021), without being too reductionist.
This map could also inform our readings of LDJ7. The complex lived experiences
documented in each article, are drawn from an open number of possibilities in the real
layer passing through the actual layer to the empirical layer. One way to think about
this is that the real layer is all the possibilities that could happen while you’re asleep, theactual layer is everything that does happen while you’re asleep, and the empirical layer
is everything that did happen and that you learn about the next day, although some ofwhat happened may always remain hidden from your awareness. This explanation issomewhat of a simplification, but the empirical is always a subset of the actual, which isalways a subset of the real. You may never empirically find out everything that happened,i.e., the actual, and the full scale of the real layer will always be obscured. Figure 1 thus
shows a simplified representation of critical realism’s layered reality that could form thebasis of such a map and help explain the sensitivities of complex dynamic systems.
Complexity’s sensitivity to initial conditions is rooted in the differences between eachlayer: Over time different real possibilities become actual at different points but either ofthese may not happen or may not be empirically observed: past layers of reality provide
the initial conditions for future layers of reality, but the connections between different
factors across layers may not be observed, so the completeness of our understanding
starts to break down. This goes to the fundamental reason for doing practitioner research- deeper, richer understandings can be developed other than by pure academic researchalone. I argue that any examination of LA must adopt an open-ended approach: Looking
at a student, we do not know the initial conditions of their LA and we cannot confirm thetotality of LA after an arbitrary amount of time. Recognizing the complexity of learnerautonomy development, we can only hope for a richer understanding (Edsall, 2020) andnot a complete representative understanding. Research efforts that hanker after narrowly
defined “best practices” are doomed.
Even the choice of time frame that helps decide when a set of “initial conditions”
are observed is arbitrary and problematic within social research (Bhaskar, 2016).
This raises the question of whether LA is even researchable (Edsall, 2020). Given thatsome practitioner-researchers have found students faking autonomy in an attempt
to manipulate teachers or the system (Rivers, 2015) and that some teachers recognise“fauxtonomy,” an inherent contradiction between their pedagogic beliefs and practices(Mullen et al., 2016; Rivers, 2002, 2015), it might be difficult to differentiate between
what is and what is not LA. If we want to regard LA as a researchable construct, then theimportant philosophy of science (and social science) question is whether LA conventions
can provide a “falsifiable” definition (Popper, 1963) of LA, because that would at least
provide some explanatory power over empirical observations. At the same time, it isbeneficial as a teacher, learner, or researcher to maintain a constructive creativity aboutthe LA of individuals with different identities, perspectives and social positions.

Reflection Questions 2

As a teacher, do you ever come across situations in which it is difficult to be sure whether the
students are genuinely autonomous? As a teacher, what would a constructive creative reaction
be when students are apparently passive during a class?

160

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

Positioning and Identity as Aspects of Autonomy

Identity work is an ongoing process seen through sociolinguistic interactions, and it
is vital to LA. Block’s (2021) combination of CR and positioning theory (PT; Block, 2021;
Harré & Langenhove, 1991; Langehove & Harré, 1994) provides an approach to analysing
identity within the context of sociolinguistic interactions. Block’s (2021) adaptation of
PT is based on both the philosophy of science as well as philosophy more generally,
bringing in socioeconomic factors, ideas about the distribution of power, as well as the
cognitive and neurological perspectives in a transdisciplinary framework. This criticalrealist map of complexity that is not too reductionist (Pallotti, 2021) brings together theperspectives of TESOL, with its background of cognitively oriented SLA studies, and themore socially oriented field of education. As teachers, we need some heuristic systemwith sufficient explanatory power to inform our decisions: We need a rule of thumb - anexperience- or preference-based decision model in complexity theory terminology (An,2012). One way of understanding these rules of thumb for language teaching has been
proposed by the Douglas Fir Group (2016) based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979, 2009)
ecological model of human development as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Douglas Fir Group’s (2016) Transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

161

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

In this framework, conventions from opposing cognitive and social perspectives on SLA
are arranged within different spheres extending out from the learner, representing thedifferent spaces that influence language acquisition (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). Contextualising
this framework around teaching and teacher identity, De Costa and Norton (2017) note that
this allows teachers to navigate dominant ideologies, institutional constraints, and classroom
challenges as they construct and reconstruct their professional identities.
Taking a look at this framework, we can already see that it has explanatory power tobring together all the studies in LDJ7 and give us a fresh sense of various alignments andresonances between them. For example, it connects with Takagi et al. (2023, this issue),
who show that teacher autonomy is important in order to foster autonomous learning
communities within the classroom. De Costa and Norton (2017) make the argument thatteacher identity work creates a unique, personal experience across the macro-meso-microlevels for each teacher. This means the rule of thumb will actually be different for eachteacher. There might be some superficial consensus between teachers working in the sameor similar institutions, but actually each teacher will create their own unique rules of thumb
through their own identity work.

Reflection Questions 3

What kind of “rules of thumb” are you aware of in your own learning and teaching? Do you
have different “rules of thumb” in different contexts?
In my teaching context, the Douglas Fir Group framework provides a helpful way tounderstand why students make choices that I might consider irrational as the teacher. In
my doctoral studies, it helps explain the dispositions that teachers adopt towards learnerautonomy and the related goals of their institutions, exploring how the social field of theclassroom is affected by the individuals within, the institutional power structures above,
and wider global influences. No model exists in isolation. An important precursor to the
Douglas Fir Group model, Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 2009) ecology of human development
offered a map of the impact of global realities, institutional power structures, classroom
social realities, and cognitive resources. Since the publication of the Douglas Fir Groupmodel, Block (2021) has worked with its implications for social identity. These have been
indispensable in my own research into teachers’ views of learner autonomy in Japan.
Finally, the scalability, rigour, and philosophical depth of both CR and PT appeal to
my identity as a science teacher who has converted to TESOL, even if there are somemethodological problems that need to be ironed out (Head, 2022). I want my scientificunderstanding of the world to be reconcilable with my understanding of teaching.
Identifying what the conventions are within LA research might offer new insights into how
to bridge the research-practice divide. This might then be the first step back from theconcrete minutiae to the bigger abstract picture for me as an author, and indeed as anobserver, researcher, interpreter, and so on. Having explored how positioning and identity
might be viewed from a broader perspective as connected to learner autonomy, in thenext part of the article I will discuss three conventions of learner development researchwhich I feel need to be challenged.

Reflection Questions 4

Looking back at the diagram of the Douglas Fir Group model, which area of the model do you
feel is the most approachable and interesting? Why?
162

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

Convention 1: Defining Learner Autonomy

It’s over 40 years since Holec (1981, p. 3) provided his influential definition of learnerautonomy. It has since gained recognition within the language teaching community as
the conventional definition of learner autonomy, namely “the capacity to take charge of
one’s own learning.” (Benson, 2011; Jiménez Raya et al., 2017; Palfreyman, 2021). Manyinterpretations of this definition adopt a cognitive perspective (Little, 1991), making a
psychological judgement of the learner by linking the capacity for responsibility only toobservable behaviours (Edsall, 2020). While Holec’s was not the first definition of learnerautonomy, as evidenced by the much earlier work of Dewey (1938/1998), Piaget (1959),
and Dearden (1975), it became widely adopted and gained convention status throughinclusion in the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages Project (Holec, 1981; Jiménez
Raya & Vieira, 2021). Palfreyman (2021) argues that Holec’s conceptualisation of LA
was not intended to be so narrow, but as this definition has become convention overthe 40 years since its publication, the knowledge claims within Holec’s work became
codified symbols in a research literature mainly concerned with practical applications(Leydesdorff et al., 2016; Palfreyman, 2021). As Palfreyman (2021) also argues, Holec’s
intentions have since been reinterpreted or even misunderstood. Discourse within
the professional TESOL community split around the conceptualisation of learnerautonomy as a cognitive capacity (Benson, 2011; Benson, 2013; Little, 1991) - an allegedly
quantifiable neurological limit on students’ abilities that is somehow separate fromagency, a social capacity. This separation of autonomy and agency into the cognitive
and the social in the TESOL community (Benson, 2013) matched a split in the wider
educational field between cognitive and social understandings (Block, 2021; Douglas
Fir Group, 2016; Moore, 2004, 2013); between positivist (quantitative) and interpretivist(qualitative) knowledge claims (Moore & Müller, 2002). The conventions of research
and academic publication have also tended to favour a singular focus on quantitative(positivist) or qualitative (interpretivist) research methods, with mixed methods
hampered by limited time and more limited research funding compared with othermethods (Wisdom & Fetters, 2015) and a bias of particular universities or researchcommunities to one or the other and a feeling that mixing the two is not a correct way
to do research. This bifurcation between ways of understanding the world, researchmethods, funding, and communities was something that the Douglas Fir Group (2016)
were hoping to overcome by encapsulating a much wider array of theories and researchlenses.
In the intervening period since 2016, there has been a proliferation of work drawing
on the idea of complex dynamic systems that is both academic and practitioner based.
Mercer (2019) reinterprets autonomy as a cognitive need for learners to feel “an active
sense of being able to influence their learning experiences” (p. 651), but makes theargument that relatedness and agency must be involved if students are to engage withlanguage learning. Reeve (2022) links autonomy and agency through self-determination
theory (Reeve et al., 2004), categorising autonomy as the motivational need for ownershipof learning, and agency as motivation. However, Reeve (2022) does not resolve the gap
between the idea of autonomy as a cognitive capacity and agency as motivation leading
to agentive engagement. While there are the beginnings of a shift towards interconnected
frameworks, such as the Douglas Fir Group framework, autonomy remains separated
from agency in much of the literature, creating one of the first conventions of learner

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

163

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

autonomy: Autonomy is a cognitive competence, while agency is a separate socio-affective
capacity for action.
Rarely has conventional separation of autonomy and agency been challenged in theliterature (Chong & Reinders, 2022; Edsall, 2020; Little, 2020; Palfreyman, 2021) until recently
when researchers have started to attempt to study specific contexts that are supportive oflearner autonomy, such as university self-access centres (e.g., Reeve, 2022). Much of thiswork has grown out of the recent development of self-access learning culture, stimulated
within the Japanese context by educators like Cotterall and Murray at Akita International
University, Murray later at Okayama University, and Mynard at Kanda University ofInternational Studies. Learning advisors have access to do one-to-one research in a very
natural way and develop insights into longitudinal patterns of development as part of theirjob. For example, Mynard (2020) adopts sociocultural concepts on agency, dialogue, andinteraction to explain how advising can support the development of the metacognitive
skills and self-determination necessary for autonomous learning. In examining learnerengagement through self-determination theory, Mercer (2019) argues that learners havegenuine learner agency within the classroom. There is an implicit acceptance of agency andthe social within recent literature while still retaining a focus on the individual psychologyof learning. This contrasts with early attempts to explain the effects of socialisation onlearner autonomy, such as Benson (1991), that maintained that socialisation was a primarily
oppressive force restricting individual metacognitive skills, such as critical reflection.
Examples of the interplay between socialisation and critical reflection can be seen in
Morioka (2023, this issue) and Barfield and Nakayama (2023, this issue), both highlighting
positive and negative outcomes, raising questions about the role of reflection.

Reflection Questions 5

How different is the social field of the classroom in which you teach, from the other social fields inwhich your students participate? How do you negotiate or navigate the different understandings
about the respective roles of teachers and students, if their understandings are different fromyours?

Convention 2: Democratising Learner Autonomy

The second convention that I would like to challenge is that learner autonomy is always themost rational choice because it is in the best interests of the student in a democratic society(Dearden, 1975; Jiménez Raya et al., 2017); therefore, a failure to be autonomous during alanguage class must be a learner’s failure to make a rational choice. Overt expression oflearning engagement is considered essential in some frameworks for learner autonomy,such as Jiménez Raya et. al. (2017). This creates and maintains a deficit model of learnerautonomy - if a learner is not autonomous, then it is the learner’s cognitive deficit that is
to blame. Problematic individual differences in a learner’s psychology are criticised for alack of observed autonomy rather than other social factors, which are dismissed as due
to unregulated affective or emotional factors (Jiménez Raya et al., 2017). This contrasts
with Reeve’s (2022) work that accepts that learner engagement is not directly linked withcognitive capacity. In Reeve’s model, students may become disengaged due to social orenvironmental factors. Unfortunately, many scholars until now have adopted a stanceresembling rational choice theory (Archer, 2000), which assumes that human behaviour isa series of rational choices. The assumption that autonomy is always an outwardly rational
choice can be found in much of the learner autonomy literature (Benson, 2011; Benson &164

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

Voller, 2014; Dam, 1995; Little, 1991; Littlewood, 1996; Murray, 2021; Reinders, 2021). Thisidea ignores the fact that classrooms do not always provide much freedom and autonomy
might not be perceived as being in that individual’s best interests at a specific time or place(Archer, 2013; Mullen et al., 2016; Rivers, 2002, 2015), especially if the classroom is not seen
as democratic by the students (Head, 2006a, 2006b) or if the teacher does not value thestudents’ identities (Norton, 2014). Under such a frame of mind, the rationality of autonomy
choices is judged by the teacher rather than the learner making those choices, whichraises further questions about the empirical reliability of such judgements (Edsall, 2020).
Non-participation, for example, is often seen as the most logical choice by students (Norton,
2014), even though it may appear to be irrational to the teacher.
Like most authors and teachers, I would argue that learner autonomy is beneficial tostudents, but I equally believe that it is wrong to assume that students’ choices aroundautonomy are insulated from the rest of their lived experiences. Little (2020) points outthat Holec’s definition of learner autonomy was developed in the context of organisational
choices in adult education. More social definitions of learner autonomy, such as Dam’s(1995), where a rational choice is also a socially responsible choice within the secondaryclassroom, reflect the wider context in which education aims to develop teenagers into
responsible adults. Of course, all modern education systems aim to develop responsible
adults, but the difference is in how the term, “responsible adults” is defined and who
creates/enforces that definition. For example, Japan’s 1998-2003 policy failure that was
yutori kyouiku, relaxed education (Sakurai, 2016), could be seen as an example of where a
new definition of “responsible adult” failed due to insufficient support.
For me as a teacher, finding a rational cause-and-effect relationship can be a relief
because it makes teaching simpler, but very few people are always rational. The
role of affect or emotions on learner autonomy is comparatively under-described in
the literature (Aoki, 1999; Swain, 2011). Chong and Reinders (2022) found only a few
references in autonomy-related literature to affect within specific self-regulatory
learning frameworks. This focus on learner self-regulation can be seen in the second
convention that displaying learner autonomy in the classroom is always the mostrational choice for students. Such an assumption allows researchers to ignore the messy
reality of emotions, akin to Krashen’s (1985) “affective filter” hypothesis of much older
SLA literature (Swain, 2011; VanPatten & Williams, 2014). Approaching emotions andaffect from the individual differences’ perspective, much of the research that looks at
the effects of affect on autonomy is concerned with supposed irrational choices thatblock or hinder autonomous study, which conveniently - but misleadingly - bundles
together factors that are difficult to tease apart.

Reflection Questions 6

As a teacher, do you think that the learners’ emotions are important? How do positive andnegative emotions function in motivating your students in your classroom?

Convention 3: Insulating Learner Autonomy

The third convention in the learner autonomy literature that I will challenge is based on
the first and second conventions, and it is that learner autonomy does not vary over timeor between contexts. This convention is being increasingly challenged as researchers
examine learner autonomy from a complexity perspective (Larsen-Freeman et al., 2012;
Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Paiva & Braga, 2008). Many works in the literature
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

165

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

clearly delineate this insulation of autonomy by arbitrating that “autonomy” is separate
from “learner autonomy,” which in turn is separate from “language learner autonomy”(Benson, 2011); and that LA can be separated from politics and everything else beyond theclassroom walls (Benson, 2014). An alternative view proposes that learner autonomy is aWestern concept bundled up within linguistic imperialism (Humphreys, 2014; Humphreys& Wyatt, 2013). Some researchers have put forward the view that learner autonomy canbe studied in isolation from time and life events (Bei et al., 2019; Dixon, 2011; Macaskill &Taylor, 2010; Murase, 2015; Yen & Liu, 2009). Many of these delineations are the result of
the underlying research epistemologies - the specific researcher’s theory of knowledge,
where more positivist epistemologies require more isolation of learner autonomy
conceptually (Edsall, 2020), resulting in differing degrees of insulation of learner autonomy
from other factors. This can be seen in Jiménez Raya, Lamb and Vieira’s (2017) positioningof learner autonomy on a spectrum of definitions, requiring the separation of agency
and autonomy as per the first learner autonomy convention. This creates conceptual
insulation between agency and autonomy.
Adopting a complexity perspective on learner autonomy (Paiva & Braga, 2008), we cansee critically that much of this conceptual insulation is for practical expediency, enablinga specific research method at the cost of banal results (Edsall, 2020). We can also seethat some of this insulation is the result of structure within the wider fields of education
and applied linguistics, and the different subfields of language teaching (Block, 2021;
Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Edsall, 2020), which much of the learner autonomy literatureignores (see Figure 3 in the following section). Where the literature does not ignore such
structures (Benson, 2000, 2008; Lamb, 2008; Little, 1995; Nakata, 2011), it is usually in
relation to teacher autonomy, but the obvious link with learner autonomy via agency isoften ignored. One danger of considering autonomy in isolation from other factors is thatthe presentation of autonomy in pre-service and in-service teaching programmes can
produce a double-bind for teachers in which they “have” to incorporate certain kinds ofmethodology due to a government policy, imposed from the top, supposedly in favourof learner autonomy, but without the resources or a complete understanding of how
to do so. As mentioned earlier, the implementation of Japanese yutori kyouiku [relaxededucation] was just one example of an attempt to introduce autonomy which had limited
success for such reasons (Head, 2006b). To overcome such structural constraints on
observable autonomy, adoption of a complex dynamic systems perspective highlights
the interconnectedness of various factors, while allowing practitioners to focus on a small
area available to them for research (Dörnyei, 2014; Larsen-Freeman et al., 2012; Paiva &Braga, 2008).

Reflection Questions 7

What links have you established between learner autonomy and the agency of your students?
What kind of observable behaviour makes you feel that your students are agentive or autonomous?

The Complex Effects of Change and Affect

Above I have described how many learner autonomy studies have come to be insulated
from time or contexts. The insulation of autonomy from research on emotions is equallyproblematic. Emotions do influence our choices (Swain, 2011) and, as an important factor
in our choices, emotions are an inseparable facet of our humanity and the empiricalscience that we do (Bhaskar, 2016). Emotions also form an important aspect of learner
166

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

identity development (Hiver et al., 2021; Miyahara, 2015). This is quite perplexing whenstudying learner autonomy because it creates a complex nexus of different factorsthat we can only hope to understand partially (Borges, 2022; Edsall, 2020). Barfield andNakayama (2023), for example, discuss their own struggles as teachers to understand
student approaches to Project-Based Learning and the different factors they encounter.
Morioka (2023, this issue) finds that reflective activities with teenage students may
actually discourage engagement with group work in some circumstances. Kawasaki(2023, this issue) grapples with this notion directly by looking at how peer interaction
influences emotional regulation. All three articles challenge much current researchwhich fails to account for the complexities of affect.
What we can state is that many important choices occur at points of change and that
we all react differently to change (Williams, 1999). At each point of change, our reaction isgoing to be based on whether we individually see the event as positive or negative, which
involves an evaluation that is based on both rational and irrational responses to thatchange. In my doctoral work, I adopted Williams’ (1999) template for human responses
to change; the model was intended to identify successful strategies for recoveringfrom change induced crisis - a practical purpose that bridges both cognitive and social
perspectives. How each individual responds to the same change may be different or thesame, and an outside observer may not see any response or even notice that there has
been a change (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. William’s (1999, p. 611) template for human responses to change
In Williams’ (1999) model, a crisis point is where dramatic change and responses are most
likely to be empirically observable to an outside researcher. Unexpected success in a major
speaking test or an embarrassing mistake can bring about change through responses tothat event. However, we can envision similar but less dramatic points of change that
influence the learner and create both diversity of choice and diversity of change with learnerautonomy and learners. In this connection, Barfield and Nakayama (2023) highlight theirown struggles and diverse crisis points as teachers trying to manage both students andcurriculum change. Yunita (2023, this issue) adopts a complexity perspective by focusing
on the two learner’s behavioural changes given their affective state and regulation within
individual constraints and the external context. This external context is depicted in terms
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

167

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Developmentof events which push learners towards autonomy and people and things2 which support
autonomy, but remains an open complex system, of which some aspects are accepted as
being unknown.
Adapting William’s model to include points of change as well as crisis, we can trace
how a learner’s journey passes through points of change, where those points of change
emerge from events at different levels of the Douglas Fir Group framework. Throughuse of a learner narrative approach (Barkhuizen, 2016, 2017a, 2017b), Yarwood (2023,
this issue) traces Hiroto’s emotions through three different levels from the micro level
representing individual thoughts, emotions, and beliefs; to the macro level representing
institutional and social spaces; and to the meso level representing the ideological andcultural contexts. This narrative approach allows Yarwood (2023) to trace salient variables
across these different levels to illustrate how emotions impact motivation and provide
metacognitive resources. We can see that this challenges the second convention thatlearner autonomy is always a rational choice because learner autonomy could also be theirrational choice: In Yarwood’s (2023) study, Hiroto re-evaluated negative experiences ofself-directed learning at an emotional level through positive interactions with an empathic
advisor and increased self-awareness. This demonstrates that autonomy is involved in
the constant process of learner re-construction of identity (Darvin & Norton, 2015; De
Costa & Norton, 2017; Huang & Benson, 2013; Murray et al., 2011). Yarwood’s researchalso demonstrates that we can get a better picture of learner autonomy by examining thedifferent complex layers in which we do identity work as learners and teachers and tracing
our unique trajectories through these spaces. This idea of complexities will be further
discussed in the following section, but I would first like you to pause and think about yourown teacher identity.

Reflection Question 8

How has your autonomy as a teacher and learner been involved in the (re-)construction of yourown teacher identity?

A Critical Stance on Complex Perspectives in Language Learning
and Autonomy

At this point, we need to look more closely at what we mean by adopting a complex dynamic
systems theory perspective. It is self-evident that language learning and by extension learnerautonomy are complex and should be viewed from a complex dynamics system perspective(Atkinson et al., 2016; De Bot et al., 2007; Hiver et al., 2022; Larsen-Freeman et al., 2012;
Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Ushioda, 2021). The real danger in adopting a complex
dynamics system perspective is that we might get carried away with the word “perspective”
encouraging us to make unsupported assumptions and misuse CDST terminology. Thereis also the temptation to give up on other social methods even where it might be possibleor useful not to do so (Pallotti, 2021). To avoid this danger, I propose to adopt a criticalrealist stance: I use the word approach here to denote a scientific methodology or set ofprocedures that are agreed within the literature. In a complex dynamics system approach,such as meteorology, most of the underlying connections between factors are reasonably
well known allowing an approximation of the errors involved in trillions of calculations
using billions of data snapshots taken every minute across and through the earth’s
atmosphere (Huba et al., 2014). As language teachers we cannot possibly hope to replicate
2 I use ‘things’ here to encompass the vast array of supports for learner development (e.g., Barfield, 2014).

168

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

that level of explanatory power and weather forecasts are not even that accurate or precise,
yet the words “complexity” and “complex dynamic systems,” and the abstruse terminology
used in the field (Sampson & Pinner, 2021; Ushioda, 2021), convey a greater sense of legitimacy
to truth claims than the word “perspective” alone can really support. Critical realism allows us
to work with the incomplete nature of such perspectives (Edsall, 2020, 2022).
While many recognise that as language teachers we must adopt a perspective rather
than an approach (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), there are many examples in theliterature where researchers have unwittingly made insufficiently supported claims to truthand empirical evidence, with Hiver et al. (2022), for example, finding 63 research papers ina scoping review of 20 years of CDST research. There is a danger in research that confuses
perspective with approach basking in undeserved scientific legitimacy and misleading future
researchers - scientism (Lerner, 2020) without the actual scientific evidence to support
such rhetoric. A claim to have found an attractor state, for example (Whiteside, 2013), isa statement that carries with it a specific mathematical meaning that can be supported
only by a complex dynamics systems approach and not a mere perspective. That is not to
say that language teachers must abandon the ideas of complexity. We need to be mindfulthat the very nature of complexity that is the source of such a perspective’s explanatory
power, namely the concepts of complete interconnectedness between data snapshots (therelational principle), emergent behaviour, and sensitivity to initial conditions (the adaptive
principle, highlighting the importance of time) (Hiver et al., 2022; Lerner, 2020), can also
obscure our understanding and place hard limits on the truthfulness of any insight itprovides (Alemi et al., 2011; An, 2012; Edsall, 2020, 2022). We also need to be mindful that
imprecise adoption of complexity perspectives may provide the frustrated positivist with apragmatic excuse not to engage with a more holistic approach that encompasses qualitative
as well as quantitative research. For example, in a recent scoping literature review, Hiveret al. (2022) highlight a number of studies whose methodologies were incompatible with
explaining the dynamics of change that were claimed to be the focus of study.

Reflection Questions 9

With those caveats in mind, are you interested in adopting a complex dynamic systems perspective
to better understand learner autonomy? Which of the approaches, if any, which you have readabout in LDJ7 attract you as a means of developing your own understanding of autonomy?

Identity, Autonomy, and Ecological Perspectives

Language is both a linguistic system and a social practice, where identity is negotiatedin a complex context of unequal social relations (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton, 2013,2016, 2021). Norton (2013, p. 4) defines identity as “the way a person understands his or
her relationship to the world, how that relationship is structured across time and space,and how the X’s understands possibilities for the future.” As teacher-researchers, weshould be concerned with the social structure of our classrooms as they give us specifictime-dependent snapshots of different communities of practice (Brouwer et al., 2012;
Burgess, 2010; Lave & Wenger, 1991, 1998; Leander & Sheehy, 2004,; Lemke, 2009). Froma complexity perspective, we should be thinking about when, the amount of time, andthe zeitgeist3 as possible temporal factors (An, 2012; Castellani & Hafferty, 2009; Lemke,
3 The prevailing ideas, attitudes, and beliefs within a social field may impact the strength of connections
between when, the amount of time, the speed at which events happen, and other factors, and may also
impact empirical observability.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

169

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

2009; O’Sullivan, 2004). A learner’s negotiations of their own identity will inform theirunderstanding of learning and their conception of the future possibilities of learning later,which matches well with Bourdieu’s (1977) concept of habitus - another possible lens in the
CR toolkit that we can use. The concept, habitus can be defined as a transposable system ofdispositions towards agency that enable individuals to negotiate different situations basedon past experience (Block, 2021). Traces of this idea can be seen in how Nakayama (Barfield& Nakayama, 2023) wants to make her students “break through the cocoons of habituatedthinking and assumptions” (p. 19). Nakayama (Barfield & Nakayama, 2023) gives an exampleof how this “breaking through the cocoon by students” came about by intercultural contact,
while in Barfield’s case, it happened when his seminar student adopted a critical perspective
on her own consumption habits and the practices of different fast fashion actors. Adoptinga Critical Realism stance (Bhaskar, 2016), we can see that such knowledge production
transforms our social identities as the diversity of unique experiences gives rise to adiversity of social, political, and cultural identities (Bhaskar, 2008, 2016). As both a part and a
result of such negotiations, the results of any agency exercised in the pursuit of autonomy
will constantly re-inform the learner’s understanding of agency and autonomy and thefuture possibilities thereof within and beyond the classroom setting. This can be seen in allof Harrison (2023, this issue), Kawasaki (2023), and Takagi et al. (2023) where learning aboutboth EFL and LA happens in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1998, 2002; Tassinari,
2017; Wenger, 1998, 2000) fostered by the teacher.
Adopting a complexity perspective can bridge the gap between social and cognitive
perspectives and the gap between the concepts of societal, institutional and personalautonomy (Benson, 2019; Block, 2021). So, negotiations of identity within a classroom will
have an impact on the amount of learner autonomy observed or unobserved: Learnerautonomy plays a role in the identity negotiations within a classroom because of theinherently complex, social nature of such a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1998;
Wenger, 1998, 2000) and vice versa: Identity as social struggle (Darvin & Norton, 2015) will
feedback to learner autonomy. Thus, Kawasaki (2023) found that a classroom learning
community can increase the likelihood that students will express their identity openly
enabling more successful language learning. Similarly, Takagi et al. (2023) also discoveredthat when a teacher had the autonomy to create such a learning community, the students’learning and creativity flourished.
Practitioner research often has a profound impact on identity. We can see this process
at work in many of the articles in LDJ7, for example in Harrison’s paper, which uses thegenre of autoethnography to explore the interpretation of public and private identities(Harrison, 2023). Practitioner research often involves classroom interventions aimed atcreating occasions when learners can exercise agency and develop autonomy. Kawasaki’s
experiments with peer support (Kawasaki, 2023) and Morioka’s trials with group reflection(Morioka, 2023) offer relevant examples here.
No matter a learner’s cognitive capacity for taking responsibility (Holec, 1981), wecannot see learner autonomy unless there are spaces within the other spheres that aresupportive of learner autonomy and agency. Ahearn (2001, p. 112) defined agency as the“socioculturally mediated capacity to act,” and so our observations of learner autonomy
via agency must be socioculturally mediated in some way.

170

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

The Critical Realist Challenge to Conventional Understandings ofLearner Autonomy

In this article I have set out to frame what some of the conventions of learner autonomy
are and how these three presented conventions are challenged from a complex systems
perspective. The first convention that autonomy and agency are separate, unconnectedconcepts continues to be challenged by a growing body of literature that examines
autonomy within wider social contexts that are supportive of autonomous learning. The
work of the Douglas Fir Group (2016) brings together social and cognitive perspectives
on language learning, further questioning the methodological separation of autonomy
and agency. Adopting a complexity perspective (Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007) withcritical realism (Bhaskar, 2016) as a meta-theoretical framework, I argue that learnerautonomy and agency are intrinsically linked.
Challenging a convention should be a creative rather than destructive process as
the authors in this issue have shown. Yarwood (2023) and Yunita (2023) demonstrate
the importance of understanding learners’ histories, and the role of affect in how theirtrajectories through learning change. Harrison (2023) demonstrates the importance ofunderstanding ourselves deeply and holistically as teachers as a way to support learnerdevelopment. Kawasaki (2023), Morioka (2023), and Barfield and Nakayama (2023)
explore aspects of learner autonomy as a social rather than purely cognitive capacity, andhow learner autonomy must be viewed as connected to the wider context rather than inisolation. Takagi et al. (2023) focus on a situation in which a teacher has the autonomy
within their institution to foster a creative and supportive learning community.
I hope that this article has shown that the deep understanding that practitioner research
can provide is strengthened by adopting a CR stance within a complex dynamic systems
theory perspective. Combining social and cognitive perspectives creates possibilities forteacher-researchers to better understand both themselves and their students from theperspective of human agency and identity within a multilingual ecology. My article has
focused on the meso and micro levels of the Douglas Fir Group (2016) framework (see Figure2). On the way it has created a number of questions for myself and other teachers, and also
hopefully for you, the reader. Adopting a critical realist stance in a complex dynamic systemperspective will allow further exploration of these important questions.

Author Bios

Dominic Edsall is an Assistant Professor of Medical Communication, at Kyoto Prefectural
University of Medicine, and a doctoral candidate at UCL Institute of Education in Curriculum,
Pedagogy and Assessment. His doctoral research focuses on teacher identity and thenegotiation of learner autonomy. He also teaches education courses part time at Nara
Women’s University. His research interests include learner autonomy, agency, identity inlanguage learning, critical realism, CLIL, pedagogy, teacher development, and curriculum.

エデソル・ドミニクは京都府立医科大学の医療コミュニケーション学助教であり、UCL Institute of Educationのカ
リキュラム・教育学・評価学の博士課程に在籍している。
博士課程では、教師のアイデンティティと学習者オートノミーの交渉について研究している。
奈良女子大学非常勤講師として教育方法論も教えている。
研究テーマは、学習者
オートノミー（自律学習）、主体性、言語学習におけるアイデンティティ、批判的実在論、CLIL、教育学、教師開発、
カリキュラムなど。

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

171

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

Ellen Head works as an associate professor at Miyazaki International University, Japan.
She has been involved with many Learner Development SIG projects, from the Autonomy
You Ask! anthology, to the most recent conference, LD 30. Her research has included
applications of the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) to Content andLanguage Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs at her university.

エレン・ヘッドは宮崎国際大学で准教授として勤務している。
Autonomy You Ask！選集から最近ではLD30カンファレンスまで、多くのLearner Development SIGプロジェクトに関わる。
これまでの研究には、CEFR（Common
European Framework of Reference）のCLILプログラムへの応用も含まれている。

Aya Hayasaki is a research associate at the Research Institute for Letters, Arts and Sciences
at Waseda University. She is also a PhD student at Waseda University and a part-time
lecturer of Self-Directed Learning at Gakushuin University, Japan. Aya holds a Master ofArts in Teaching English as a Foreign Language from the University of Birmingham, UK. Her
main research interests include L2 learner and teacher well-being, learning beyond theclassroom, and transformative learning, especially in rural contexts.

早﨑綾は、早稲田大学総合人文科学研究センター助手である。
同大学大学院文学研究科博士後期課程に在籍し、学習院大学非常勤講師として自己主導型学習の講義も担当している。
英国バーミンガム大学にて教育学修士（TEFL）を取得。
研究の主な関心は、L2学習者と教師のウェルビーイング、教室を超えた学習、特に地方における変容的学習。

References

Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 109–137.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109
Alemi, M., Daftarifard, P., & Patrut, B. (2011). The implication of chaos/complexity theory
into second language acquisition. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and
Neuroscience, 2(2), 34–40.
An, L. (2012). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review
of agent-based models. Ecological Modelling, 229, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ECOLMODEL.2011.07.010
Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner autonomy. In
J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 142–154). Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge
University Press.
Archer, M. (2000). Homo economicus, homo sociologicus and homo sentiens. In M. Archer& J. Tritter (Eds.), Rational choice theory: Resisting colonisation (pp. 36–56). Routledge.
Ashwell, T., Barfield, A., & Stewart, A. (2021). Talking of breaking with the third-party
paradigm in writing about inclusive practitioner research. Learning Learning, 28(2),13–18. https://ld-sig.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/28.2free-space.pdf
Barfield, A. (2014). Local engagements enhancing practitioner action and knowledge forlearner development and autonomy within a collaborative teachers’ network. In G.
Murray (Ed.), Social dimensions of autonomy in language learning (pp. 211-229). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137290243_12
Barfield, A., & Nakayama, A. (2023). Collegially exploring engaged meaningful learning:
Stories, perspectives, dialogue, and issues. The Learner Development Journal, 7, 128–156.
https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-8

172

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

Barkhuizen, G. (2016). Narrative approaches to exploring language, identity and power in language
teacher education. RELC Journal, 47(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631222
Barkhuizen, G. (2017a). Investigating language tutor social inclusion identities. The Modern
Language Journal, 101(S1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/MODL.12369
Barkhuizen, G. (2017b). Investigating multilingual identity in study abroad contexts:
A short story analysis approach. System, 71, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SYSTEM.2017.09.014
Bei, E., Mavroidis, I., & Giossos, Y. (2019). Development of a scale for measuring thelearner autonomy of distance education students. European Journal of Open, Distanceand E-Learning (EURODL), 22(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2019-0015
Benson, P. (1991). Autonomy and oppressive socialization. Social Theory and Practice, 17(3),385–408. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract199117319
Benson, P. (2000). Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath,& T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: future directions (pp. 111–117).
Longman.
Benson, P. (2008). Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy. In T. Lamb & H.
Reinders (Eds.) Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses (pp.
15–32). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.1
Benson, P. (2011). What’s new in autonomy? The Language Teacher, 35(4), 15–18 https://doi.
org/10.37546/JALTTLT35.4-4
Benson, P. (1997/2014). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson &P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 18-34). Routledge.
Benson, P. (2019). Ways of seeing: The individual and the social in applied linguistics
research methodologies. Language Teaching, 52(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444817000234
Benson, P. (2021). Language learning environments: Spatial perspectives on SLA. Multilingual
Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788924917
Benson, P. & Cooker, L. (2013). The social and the individual in applied linguistics research.
In P. Benson & L. Cooker (Eds.), The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural approaches to
identity, agency and autonomy (pp. 1-16). Equinox Publishing.
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (1997/2014). Autonomy and independence in language learning.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842172
Bhaskar, R. (2008/2013). A realist theory of science. Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203090732
Bhaskar, R. (2016). Enlightened common sense: The philosophy of critical realism. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315542942
Block, D. (2021). Innovations and challenges in identity research. Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780429356186
Borges, L. (2022). A complex dynamic model of autonomy development. Studies in SelfAccess Learning Journal, 13(2), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.37237/130203
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.; Vol. 16). Cambridge University
Press. (Original work published 1972) https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

173

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2009). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature anddesign. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26071r6
Brouwer, P., Brekelmans, M., Nieuwenhuis, A. F. M., & Simons, R-J. (2012). Community
development in the school workplace. International Journal of Educational Management,
26(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211227809
Burgess, A. (2010). The use of space-time to construct identity and context. Ethnography
and Education, 5(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457821003768422
Cameron, L., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 226–239. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00148.x
Castellani, B., & Hafferty, F. W. (2009). Sociology and complexity science. Springer Science &Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88462-0
Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (2022). Autonomy of English language learners: A scoping
review of research and practice. Language Teaching Research, 0(0). https://doi.
org/10.1177/13621688221075812
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Authentik.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000191
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach tosecond language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(01), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732
De Costa, P. I., & Norton, B. (2017). Introduction: Identity, transdisciplinarity, and the goodlanguage teacher. The Modern Language Journal, 101(S1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/
modl.12368
Dearden, R. F. (1975). Autonomy as an educational ideal I. In S. C. Brown (Ed.), Philosophers
discuss education (pp. 3–18). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-34902562-6
Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education (60th anniversary edition). Kappa Delta Pi.
(Original work published 1938)
Dixon, D. (2011). Measuring language learner autonomy in tertiary-level learners of English.
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick] University of Warwick Publications
Service & WRAP. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/58287/
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444811000516
Douglas Fir Group, T. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world.
The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
Edsall, D. G. (2020). How much can we really know about learner autonomy? In J. Mynard,
M. Tamala, & W. Peeters (Eds.) Supporting learners and educators in developing language
learner autonomy (pp. 8–39). Candlin & Mynard. https://doi.org/10.47908/8/1
Edsall, D. G. (2022, November 7). Understanding learner autonomy better with critical realism[Presentation]. JALT Chapter, Kyoto, Japan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jogFGNgJFko
Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.
org/10.1057/978-1-137-45344-0
174

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

Harré, R., & Langenhove, L. van. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory ofSocial Behaviour, 21(4), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-5914.1991.TB00203.X
Harrison, M. E. (2023). Why I utilize autoethnography to promote learner development: A
reflexive narrative of English teacher development. The Learner Development Journal, 7,
118–127. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-7
Head, E. (2006a). Learner autonomy and education reform in Japan: Asking the students.
In M. Kohyama & E. Skier (Eds.), More Autonomy You Ask! (pp. 9–29). Japan Association
for Language Teaching Learner Development SIG. https://ld-sig.org/wp-content/
uploads/2023/01/Head.pdf
Head, E. (2006b). Yutori kyo-iku and the crisis of motivation: Social change and Japanese
educational reform 1984-2006. プール学院大学研究紀要 [Bulletin of Poole Gakuin College],46, 41–53.
Head, E. (2022). Positioning students of English communication as knowers in researchinterviews. Centre for Applied Linguistics Research Linguistics Journal, 13. https://doi.
org/10.60149/GRFB2442
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Evans, R. (2022). Complex dynamic systems theory in language
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(4), 913–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263121000553
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., Vitta, J. P., & Wu, J. (2021). Engagement in language learning: A
scoping review of 25 years of research. Language Teaching Research, 0(0). https://doi.
org/10.1177/13621688211001289
Hoddy, E. T. (2019). Critical realism in empirical research: Employing techniques fromgrounded theory methodology. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
22(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1503400
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon Press. ​​(First published
1979, Council of Europe)
Huang, J., & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy, agency and identity in foreign and second language
education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal2013-0002
Humphreys, G. (2014). Learner autonomy among university EFL learners in Japan: Defining
the concept and addressing cultural challenges. 崇城大学紀要 [Bulletin of Sojo University],
39, 133–140.
Humphreys, G., & Wyatt, M. (2013). Helping Vietnamese university learners to become
more autonomous. ELT Journal, 68(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct056
Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice. Jossey-Bass.
Jiménez Raya, M., Lamb, T., & Vieira, F. (2017). Mapping autonomy in language education:
A framework for learner and teacher development. Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/
B11095
Jiménez Raya, M., & Vieira, F. (2021). Autonomy in language education: Theory, research andpractice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429261336
Kawasaki, M. (2023). The influence of peer interaction on emotion regulation in the English
classroom. The Learner Development Journal, 7, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-4
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

175

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

Lamb, T. (2008). Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy: Synthesising an agenda. In T.
Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses(pp. 269–284). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.1
Langenhove, L. van, & Harré, R. (1994). Cultural stereotypes and positioning theory. Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 24(4), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-5914.1994.
TB00260.X
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018, November 24). Including all students: A complex systems perspective[Conference plenary]. JALT2018 International Conference, Shizuoka, Japan. https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=pX6UZNQXL_w
Larsen-Freeman, D., Aerts, D., Edmonds, B., & Morin, E. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems:
A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45(2),202–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000061
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language developmentfrom a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Leander, K. M., & Sheehy, M. (2004). Spatializing literacy research and practice (Vol. 15).
Peter Lang.
Lemke, J. L. (2009). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings inecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327884MCA0704_03
Lerner, A. B. (2020). Social science and the problem of interpretation: A pragmatic dual(ist)approach. Critical Review, 32(1–3), 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2020.184
0856
Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Comins, J. A., & Milojević, S. (2016). Citations: Indicators ofquality? The impact fallacy. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 1, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2016.00001
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher
autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00006-6
Little, D. (2020). The future of language learner autonomy: Theory, practice, research. In
K. Sedláčková, B. Chovancová, & Š. Bilová (Eds.), The teacher’s role in developing learnerautonomy (pp. 9–27). Candlin and Mynard.
Littlewood, W. (1996). ‘Autonomy’: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427–435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00039-5
Macaskill, A., & Taylor, E. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner autonomy
in university students. Studies in Higher Education, 35(3), 351–359. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03075070903502703
Marmor, A. (1996). On convention. Synthese, 107(3), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00413841

176

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

Menter, I., Elliot, D., Hulme, M., Lewin, J., Lowden, K., & Hall, J. R. (2011). A guide to practitioner
research in education. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957770
Mercer, S. (2019). Language learner engagement: Setting the scene. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second
handbook of English language teaching (pp. 643–660). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-58542-0_40-1
Miyahara, M. (2015). Emerging self-identities and emotion in foreign language learning: A narrativeoriented approach. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093823
Moore, R. (2004). Education and society: Issues and explanations in the sociology of education.
Polity.
Moore, R. (2013). Basil Bernstein: The thinker and the field. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203818251
Moore, R., & Muller, J. (2002). The growth of knowledge and the discursive gap. British Journalof Sociology of Education, 23(4), 627–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569022000038477
Morioka, T. (2023). Exploring the impact of mandatory reflection activities on students’
perceptions of group work. The Learner Development Journal, 7, 96–117. https://doi.
org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-6
Mullen, M., Fitzgerald, C., Crook, P., Benson, P., & Hennessy, M. (2016). Autonomy orfauxtonomy: Co-constructing roles in a learner autonomy course. In A. Barfield & A.
Minematsu (Eds.), Learner development working papers: Different cases, different interests(pp. 20–32). JALT Learner Development SIG. https://ldworkingpapers.wixsite.com/
ld-working-papers
Murase, F. (2015). Measuring language learner autonomy: Problems and possibilities. In
C. J. Everhard & L. Murphy (Eds.), Assessment and autonomy in language learning (pp.
35–63). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137414380_3
Murray, G., Gao, X., & Lamb, T. (2011). Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning.
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847693747
Murray, J. (2021). How do children build knowledge in early childhood education? Susan
Isaacs, young children are researchers and what happens next. Early Child Development
and Care, 191(7–8), 1230–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1854242
Mynard, J. (2020). Advising for language learner autonomy: Theory, practice, and future
directions. In M. Jiménez Raya & F. Vieira (Eds.), Autonomy in language education: Theory,
research and practice (pp. 46–62). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429261336
Nakata, Y. (2011). Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study ofJapanese EFL high school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 900–910.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.001
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Multilingual
Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090563
Norton, B. (2014). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom.
In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 159–171). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838465
Norton, B. (2016). Identity and language learning: Back to the future. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2),475–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.293

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

177

Towards Complexity in Challenging Learner Autonomy Research Conventions: A Wider View on Learner Development

Norton, B. (2021). Identity in language learning and teaching. In H. Mohebbi & C. Coombe(Eds.), Research questions in language education and applied linguistics: A reference guide(pp. 81–85). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79143-8_15
O’Sullivan, D. (2004). Complexity science and human geography. Transactions of the Instituteof British Geographers, 29(3), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.0020-2754.2004.00321.X
Paiva, V. L. M. de O., & Braga, J. de C. F. (2008). The complex nature of autonomy. DELTA:
Documentação de Estudos Em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 24, 441–468. https://doi.
org/10.1590/S0102-44502008000300004
Palfreyman, D. M. (2021). The discourse of Holec’s autonomy and foreign language
learning. In M. Jiménez Raya & F. Vieira (Eds.), Autonomy in language education: Theory,
research and practice (pp. 13–21). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429261336
Pallotti, G. (2021). Cratylus’ silence: On the philosophy and methodology of complex
dynamic systems theory in SLA. Second Language Research, 38(3), 689–701. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0267658321992451
Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). Routledge. (Original work
published 1926)
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge.
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ravenscroft, I. (2015). The natural origins of convention. Philosophia, 43(3), 731–739.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S11406-015-9617-3
Reeve, J. (2022). What it means to ‘take ownership over one’s own learning’ in a selfdetermination theory perspective. In J. Mynard & S. Sheldon-Strong (Eds.), Autonomy
support beyond the language classroom (pp. 31–46). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.
org/10.21832/9781788929059
Reinders, H. (2021). A framework for learning beyond the classroom. In M. Jiménez Raya &F. Vieira (Eds.), Autonomy in language education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 63–73).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429261336
Rescorla, M. (2008). Convention. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. The
Metaphysics Research Lab Philosophy Department, Stanford University.
Rivers, W. P. (2002). Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment
and self-management among experienced language learners. The Modern Language
Journal, 85(2), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00109
Rivers, D. J. (2015). The authorities of autonomy and English only: Serving whose interests?.
In Resistance to the known: Counter-conduct in language education (pp. 94-118). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sakurai, R. (2016). Impacts of recent education reforms in Japan: Voices from junior highschools in Japan. CICE Hiroshima University, Journal of International Cooperation in
Education, 18(2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.15027/43797
Sampson, R. J., & Pinner, R. S. (Eds.) (2021). Complexity perspectives on researching language learnerand teacher psychology. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923569
Swain, M. (2011). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning.
Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000486

178

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominic Edsall with Ellen Head & Aya Hayasaki

Takagi, A., Tanaka, T., & Minami, Y. (2023). The role of practitioner research in exploring
learner autonomy for in-service teachers: A retrospective case study. The Learner
Development Journal, 7, 78–95 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-5
Tassinari, M. G. (2017). Encouraging autonomy through a community of practice: The roleof a self-access centre. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 8(2), 157–168. https://doi.
org/10.37237/080208
Ushioda, E. (2021). Doing c​ omplexity ​research in the l​anguage c​ lassroom: A c​ ommentary.
In R. J. Sampson & R. S. Pinner (Eds.), Complexity perspectives on researching language
learner and teacher psychology​(pp. 269–283). Multilingual Matters.​https://doi.
org/10.21832/9781788923569
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2014). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction(2nd. ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203628942
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2),225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002
Whiteside, A. (2013). Using complexity theory in linguistic data analysis: A language ecology
approach to the study of individual and social process. In P. Benson & L. Cooker (Eds.),
The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural approaches to identity, agency and autonomy(pp. 152–163). Equinox.
Williams, D. (1999). Human responses to change. Futures, 31(6), 609–616. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00017-8
Wisdom, J. P., & Fetters, M. D. (2015). Funding for mixed methods research: Sources
and strategies. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook ofmultimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 314–332). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.11
Yarwood, A. (2023). Tracing emotion in the (re)construction of an EFL identity during aself-directed learning module: A short story approach. The Learner Development Journal,
7, 11–31. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-2
Yen, C. J., & Liu, S. (2009). Learner autonomy as a predictor of course success and final
grades in community college online courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
41(3), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.3.E
Yunita, R. (2023). Investigating learner autonomy development through a complex
dynamic systems theory lens: An Indonesian context. The Learner Development Journal,
7, 32–58. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-3
Zeichner, K., & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (pp. 298–332, 4th ed.). American Educational Research Association.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

179

COMMENTARY
Concluding Commentary: Reflect, Write, and Share
Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa, Kanda University of International
Studies, Japan<razafindratsimba-d(at)kanda(dot)kuis(dot)ac(dot)jp>
It is a privilege for me to write this commentary for Learner Development Journal Issue
7 (LDJ7), Challenging the Conventions in Learner Development Research. Since I started
researching on learner autonomy a few years ago, I have realized the importance of“unconventional” ways of learning. By “unconventional,” I mean opportunities to explore
what and how learners would like to learn according to their goals and interests. Forme, that is what is referred to as “taking charge of one’s own learning,” the common
definition of learner autonomy. Similarly, I think it is also important that teachers
and researchers are allowed to be unconventional in their teaching and researchrespectively and exercise their teacher autonomy and research autonomy.
The main theme that I found in common in the articles is reflection, defined as “theintentional examination of experiences, thoughts and actions in order to learn about
oneself and inform change or personal growth” (Mynard, 2023, pp. 23-24). All the articles
discuss and/or involve the use and importance of reflection to a certain extent. Edsall’s
paper, by giving a theoretical overview, invites us (teachers) to reflect on conventions
about learner autonomy before suggesting the adoption of a complexity perspective
and Critical Realism (Edsall et al., 2023). While some authors focus on learners’ reflection
using narratives, interviews, and questionnaires, others share their reflection on teachingpractices and journeys by means of interviews, autoethnography, autobiographicalstories, and written dialogue. Based on these themes and the findings from each article,
I will divide this commentary into two main parts: reflection on learning and reflection onteaching. I will conclude by giving some suggestions for learner development and teacher
development based on what I have learned from the work in LDJ7.

Reflection on learning

Reflection is said to be a necessary part of the language learning process (Mynard et al.,2023) and is indispensable for the development of learner autonomy (Little et al., 2017), as
it enhances metacognitive awareness and learner involvement (Cotterall, 2017). According
to Reinders (2023), “Reflection is the heart and soul of language learning” (p. xiii).
From my observations as a learning advisor and my research on learner autonomy, theresults of the use of reflection have been quite positive. For instance, I found that reflecting
on their learning raises students’ awareness of their capacity and responsibility to takecharge of their learning (Ambinintsoa, 2020), and some students even initiated reflection
in other courses at the university and beyond the classroom, as they valued the benefits ofreflection they gained in my class (Ambinintsoa, 2023). Although some students may findreflection not easy or enjoyable, they still view it as useful (Ambinintsoa & MacDonald, 2023).
Having those positive findings in mind, reading Morioka’s article was rather an eye-opener
for me, as he shows that reflection activities may not always be as effective as is often
180

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa

thought. If students consider reflection as a mere requirement rather than an opportunity
to evaluate themselves or aspects of their learning, reflection can be seen as a tedioustask and is not as valuable as it should be (Morioka, 2023). As Morioka’s students are notmajoring in English, like most of the participants in my research above were, I understandthat reflecting in English can be challenging for them. In his conclusion, Morioka highlights
two important points. The first is about the necessity to give students (especially the ones
with low proficiency) time to write their opinions before having them discuss in groups.
The second is about students’ completing the reflection sheet as a mere requirement. If
students know that they will need to discuss their reflections with their peers, they may
answer the questions in a more personal way. Furthermore, discussing their reflections
may be more motivating for them, as that gives them the opportunity to share their ideas,
feelings, and experiences; for that to be done smoothly, it will be necessary to provide
them with useful vocabulary helping them to reflect deeper (Ambinintsoa & MacDonald,2023). Additionally, reflecting with other people can generate new themes for reflection,
as demonstrated in both Barfield and Nakayama’s and Yarwood’s articles.
Yarwood uses “narrative as both process and product” (Yarwood, 2023, p. 12). This
enabled her student, Hiroto, to retell his story related to his self-directed language
learning (SDLL) experience including his flux of emotions. From that story retelling, thestudent gained a metacognitive self-awareness, which according to Yarwood, helped
him grow as a learner. As a learning advisor in the institution where Yarwood’s research
took place, I am very familiar with SDLL and the issues students commonly have when
taking it, such as “postponing” the assignment due to lack of time management andbeing “overestimators.” I have witnessed the excitement of freshman students at the
beginning of the SDLL module, then being overwhelmed due to assignments andpart-time jobs three or four weeks later, and finally dropping out. It is reassuring to seethat the student in Yarwood’s research was able to complete the SDLL module despite
his “overestimator” identity and to finish it with satisfaction, which he connected tothe development of his self-awareness. Also, it was clear from the research that his
advising session with his learning advisor played an important part in his becoming
more positive. That validates how learning advisors can play the role of listeners andmotivators by using empathy (Kato & Mynard, 2015). This sheds light on how powerfuladvising, which is still less conventional in language learning, can be in transforming
students’ experience at a fundamental level. Using a narrative as a product, Yarwood
conveys to the readers a message advocating that (re)telling one’s own story can be a
powerful tool enabling self-reflection and discovery of one’s identity, which is in line withwhat Harrison demonstrates in his paper on autoethnography (described in the next
section).
Like Yarwood, Kawasaki’s research is similarly related to emotions. In her article, sheinvestigates the impact of peer interaction on students’ emotion regulation (ER). Her
findings show that peer interaction can positively influence ER in a way that students’positive emotions increased thanks to the dialogue and collaboration emanating from thepeer interaction. I especially appreciate her emphasis that “it is not that students’ negative
emotions disappeared through peer interaction, but rather that positive emotions became
more dominant than negative emotions due to the positive influence of peer interaction”(Kawasaki, 2023, p. 74). Her insights seem to be in agreement with what is often statedin literature related to positive psychology (e.g., Gregersen, 2019; Oxford, 2014; Seligman,2011): negative emotions are part of an individual (whether they are a language learner or
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

181

Concluding Commentary: Reflect, Write, and Sharenot); the aim is not to eradicate such emotions but to face them using one’s strengths andto be more aware of the positives. The positive effects of peer interaction on ER shownin Kawasaki’s research also connects with recent research findings about motivation
and reflection with peers, which show that students gain reassurance, self-confidence,motivation, and more knowledge about learning strategies (e.g., Ambinintsoa &MacDonald, 2023; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2021; Mercer et al., 2018).
Peer interaction resulting in motivation due to the opportunity to exchange ideas andhelp one another, is also mentioned in Yunita’s paper. It is alluded to twice by her student,
Kei, who struggled when his classes were online, and then really appreciated when they
were back face to face. Kei felt that interaction with his classmates was important for him
though he was not confident enough in his ability to communicate with them. He needed
what Yunita refers to as “external support,” which is one of the key factors related to thedevelopment of learner autonomy. Like Kei, Yunita’s other student, Hana, also attributes
her positive learning experience to external support: an inspiring friend and a supportive
teacher, which further backs the concept that learner autonomy is fostered through andinvolves working with others (Dam et al., 1990; Little et al., 2017; Palfreyman, 2018). What
I found interesting in Yunita’s paper is the Indonesian context and the place of learnerautonomy in it. From a country where learner autonomy is still an unfamiliar concept for
language teachers, I am happy to know that positive progress has been made regarding
autonomy: The word “autonomy” exists at the university and the word “autonomous” ismentioned in the Ministry of Education’s publications (Yunita, 2023, p. 34). Though theimplementation of autonomous learning may not be done yet, using those terms canalready be considered as a significant step.

Reflection on teaching

I find it fascinating and refreshing when teachers conduct research about themselves andother teachers, as shown in three of the articles in this issue. Barfield and Nakayama’s“patchwork multivocalic reflection” (Barfield & Nakayama, 2023, p. 130) demonstrates how
research can be done and written in an unconventional way. First, the subjects of theirresearch include themselves, that is, their learning and teaching experiences, as well as
setbacks and inspirations that resulted in the desire for both to find ways to engage theirstudents in their learning in a meaningful way. They begin with their autobiographicalstories placed in parallel to each other. The two authors then respond to each other’s
stories in a form of letters, thereby opening their communication to the readers, before
continuing their stories with more details about their respective practitioner research.
They end the article with a dialogue in which they give feedback to each other’s continued
stories and ask questions about each other’s experiences, prompting both to deeply
reflect on those experiences and to come to the conclusion that learners’ creativity andcriticality are crucial aspects to develop in learners to facilitate engaged meaningfullearning. Throughout the paper, the two authors talk about their students’ experiences,which is powerful in itself. Nevertheless, what I consider as the most intriguing aspectof the article is the way the paper is written. By including several different forms ofcommunication in their writing, the authors display the creative process of sharing stories
and engaging in dialogue before our eyes.
Like Barfield and Nakayama, Harrison also discusses his own teacher development.
Using autoethnography, he reflects on his own encounter with autoethnography as a
research method, his experience using it for himself, and his experience using it in his
182

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa

classes. He emphasises the power of telling one’s own story, and he especially focuses
on writing as a process. In doing so, he is practising what he preaches, which is very
inspiring for me. Harrison explains that the process of writing triggers self-understanding,self-exploration, and self-discovery in relation to the context where a person is. His
statement, “a pen and writing journal helped me better process and explore the world
around me and my place within it; writing became a way to make connections andglimpse possibilities” (Harrison, 2023, p. 119) struck me, although I have been aware of
the importance of journal writing through my own experience with it, through a numberof research studies that I have conducted myself (e.g., Ambinintsoa & MacDonald, 2023),
through my role as a learning advisor, and through the reiteration in the field of learnerautonomy that written reflection is vital in the development of autonomy. That statement
reminds me of what Little et al. (2017) say about writing:Writing things down [...] is a necessary precondition for the reflection that lies at theheart of autonomous learning. [...] Writing also allows individual learners to express
their autonomy in and through the TL, and it is the means by which the learning
community is made visible, the learning process is documented, and relatedness - thecollaborative interdependence of all members of the class - is given its due. (p. 27)
Though the focuses are different in the two statements, both describe how revealing
writing about oneself can be. In addition to self-exploration and self-discovery, writing
one’s own story is also a way to use the target language in a meaningful way. As
exemplified by one of Harrison’s student’s statements: “I got so excited about my own
project that I didn’t realize I was studying English” (Harrison, 2023, pp. 123–124).
The student’s statement above is closely related to what Takagi et al. wrote in theirarticle about one of their research findings on a teacher’s (Naoya) practitioner research:“The students discovered what they could do with the language rather than only
learning about the language” (Takagi et al., 2023, p. 90). As teachers, isn’t it our goal
to help students see how relevant the target language can be in their lives, especiallyin EFL settings? How many of our students do not see any point in learning a foreign
language, but still do it only because of some external pressure or some superficial
future goals? Naoya’s students surpassed that superficiality and found meaning intheir language learning thanks to his commitment to promoting creativity to develop
learner autonomy. Naoya did not reject the imposed textbook in his school. Rather,what he did was to not only adapt it but also involve his students in decision-making
regarding class activities based on the units in the textbook. He made his students
aware of the curriculum requirements, and gave them choice, as well as opportunities towork together, which are all aspects of what Little et al. (2017) refer to as “handing overcontrol to the learners” (p. 76). I am glad that Takagi et al. decided to conduct research
about Naoya and his practitioner research, as Naoya’s class is an excellent example ofan autonomous classroom; and the article demonstrates how practitioner research issuch an appropriate way to promote learner autonomy, and how learner autonomy
and teacher autonomy (e.g., Naoya’s adaptation of and negotiation about the textbook)are interconnected. Also, it is important to point out that Naoya’s practitioner research
was conducted in a junior high school, where the pressure on teachers to conform to
traditional practices can be considerable.

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

183

Concluding Commentary: Reflect, Write, and Share

Conclusions and recommendations

The work in this journal issue has enabled me to learn more about learner autonomy.
Before reading Edsall et al.’s paper, I did not even think that there are conventions oflearner autonomy that can be challenged. Digging deeper into different theories andtrying to adapt and combining them are complicated, and the complexity of such fusion
and adaptation, can be difficult to digest (at least for me). However, the reflection
questions after each section were really helpful, as they allowed me to relate those
discussed theories to my own teaching and learning experiences (Edsall et al., 2023).
The other seven articles taught me about research methods on how to investigate
the development of learner autonomy and to analyze emotions and identity among
other things. They have also reinforced my belief in the effectiveness of reflection,reflective dialogue, autoethnography, and practitioner research on learner and teacher
development. Based on the new knowledge and the reinforcement that I gained, I willconclude this commentary with suggestions about engaging in meaningful learning,
telling one’s own story, and promoting practitioner research.
Helping students find meaning in language learning should be our aim as teachers,
and for that, they need to be able to take charge of their learning. As Williams et al.
(2021) say, “[to] achieve success, learners need to feel that they are in control of theirlearning. They need to feel they are capable of learning the language and able tomanage their language learning. [...] they need to see value in it” (p. 137). One way togive students control of their learning is by involving them in making decisions withregard to activities to do in class as demonstrated in Takagi, Tanaka, and Minami(2023). It may not be easy the first time, but they will gradually become accustomed toit with the teacher’s support. As the authors demonstrate, support for and trust in thestudents are crucial. Another way to help students find meaning in language learning
is to give them opportunities to tell and/or write their own stories, including language
learning histories (LLHs), which is also recommended by Yarwood. As explained earlier,writing one’s own stories can be really powerful, as it enables self-discovery. Writing
LLHs can raise language students’ awareness of strategies they have been using, theirstrengths, efforts, improvements, and successes in their language learning (Ambinintsoa
et al., 2022), which they might not notice otherwise. Seeing all those positive aspects
enable them to recognize their capabilities and see that their efforts have paid off, andthat is likely to motivate them. Teachers can also write their own autoethnography or
autobiographical stories. The benefits from writing LLHs described above can also be
gained from such stories, and that has been demonstrated in different articles in thisissue. Reading such stories can inspire and motivate other teachers.
My final suggestion is related to research for teachers. Takagi, Tanaka, and Minami
show how practitioner research is an appropriate method to promote learner autonomy
in a classroom setting. As stated by Benson (2011), the best way for teachers to researchautonomy is through their in-class practice. Teachers know not only their learners
but also the context including the curricula, and required materials (or absence ofmaterials). They can use that knowledge to explore ways to help their learners find themeaning of their language learning and to exercise their teacher autonomy. Then, they
can share the results of their research with other teachers, which can trigger reflective
dialogue and collaborations.
Last but not least, as I am concluding this commentary, this issue has helped merealize the power of writing again. Had I only read the articles in LDJ7, I would not have184

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa

come up with all the ideas I have stated here. For instance, by writing, I was able toinstantly think of the suggestions I made above as well as the one I had for the casewhere reflective activities might not be beneficial in certain contexts, which is addressedin Morioka’s article. It might be obvious, but writing does help a great deal. Therefore,
what I would like to suggest to teachers, as I close this commentary, is to write whenever
you have opportunities. Reflect, write, and share when possible, and the Learner
Development Journal is a good place for that.

Author bio

Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa is a learning advisor and lecturer at Kanda University ofInternational Studies, Japan. She holds a PhD in applied linguistics (Victoria University
Wellington, New Zealand) and a Master of Education in TESOL (SUNY Buffalo, USA). She isa co-managing editor of the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education’s Relay
Journal. She has a particular interest in learner autonomy, self-access language learning,
advising in language learning, and positive psychology in education.

Dominique Vola Ambinintsoaは、神田外語大学ラーニングアドバイザー・講師、同大学院講師である。
応用言語学博士（Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand）およびTESOL 修士（State University of New York at
Buffalo, USA）を取得。
The Research Institute for Learner Autonomy EducationにおいてRelay Journalの運営に携わっている。
学習者オートノミー、セルフアクセス言語学習、言語学習アドバイジング、教育におけるポジティブ
心理学に関心がある。

References

Ambinintsoa, D. V. (2020). Fostering learner autonomy in an EFL Malagasy context [Doctoral
dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand]. http://researcharchive.vuw.
ac.nz/handle/10063/9389
Ambinintsoa, D. V. (2023, July 17-21). Promoting self-regulated learning in an EFL Malagasy
context. In C. O’Leary & C. Nicolaides, Inclusive pedagogies for learner autonomy[Symposium], 20th AILA World Congress, Lyon, France.
Ambinintsoa, D. V., & MacDonald, E. (2023). A reflection intervention: Investigating
effectiveness and students’ perceptions. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J. Mynard (Eds.),
Promoting reflection on language learning: Lessons from a university setting (pp. 112-131).
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415591-011
Ambinintsoa, D. V., Rajaonaritiana, H. F., & Rasoanindrina, V. O (2022). Learning beyond
the classroom in an EFL Malagasy setting - two learners’ experiences. The Learner
Development Journal, 6, 97-113. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ6-7
Barfield, A., & Nakayama, A. (2023). Collegially exploring engaged meaningful learning:
Stories, perspectives, dialogue, and issues. The Learner Development Journal, 7, 128–156.
https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-8
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning (2nd ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833767
Cotterall, S. (2017). The pedagogy of learner autonomy: Lessons from the classroom.
Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 8(2), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.37237/080204
Dam, L., Eriksson, R., Gabrielsen, G., Little, D., Miliander, J., & Trebbi, T. (1990). Group
II: Autonomy–steps towards a definition. In T. Trebbi (Ed.), Report on the third Nordic
workshop on developing autonomous learning in the FL classroom (pp. 96-103). Bergen
University Institute for Pedagogic Practice.
Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

185

Concluding Commentary: Reflect, Write, and Share

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2021). Teaching and researching motivation (3rd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351006743
Edsall, D. G., with Head, E., & Hayasaki, A. (2023). Towards complexity in challenging
learner autonomy research conventions: A wider view on learner development. The
Learner Development Journal, 7, 157–179. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-9
Gregersen, T. (2019). Aligning positive psychology with language learning motivation. In
M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for
language learning (pp. 139–161). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-283803_30
Harrison, M. E. (2023). Why I utilize autoethnography to promote learner development: A
reflexive narrative of English teacher development. The Learner Development Journal, 7,
157–179. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-7
Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2015). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739649
Kawasaki, M. (2023). The influence of peer interaction on emotion regulation in the English
classroom. The Learner Development Journal, 7, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.
LDJ7-4
Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language learner autonomy: Theory, practiceand research. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783098606
Mercer, S., MacIntyre, P., Gregersen, T., & Talbot, K. (2018). Positive language education:
Combining positive education and language education. Theory and Practice of Second
Language Acquisition, 4(2), 11-31.
Morioka, T. (2023). Exploring the impact of mandatory reflection activities on students’
perceptions of group work. The Learner Development Journal, 7, 96–117. https://doi.
org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-6
Mynard, J. (2023). Promoting reflection on language learning: A brief summary of theliterature. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J. Mynard (Eds.), Promoting reflection on language
learning: Lessons from a university setting (pp. 23-37). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.
org/10.21832/9781800415591-005
Mynard, J., Curry, N., & Lyon, P. (2023). Promoting reflection on language learning:
Introduction. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J. Mynard (Eds.), Promoting reflection on language
learning: Lessons from a university setting (pp. 3-20). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.
org/10.21832/9781800415591-003
Oxford, R. L. (2014). Toward a psychology of well-being for language learners: The ‘EMPATHICS’vision. In P. D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA(pp.10-87). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095360-003
Palfreyman, D. M. (2018). Learner autonomy and groups. In A. Chik, N. Aoki, & R. Smith(Eds.), Autonomy in language learning and teaching (pp. 51-72). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1057/978-1-137-52998-5
Reinders, H. (2023). Foreword. Promoting reflection on language learning: A briefsummary of the literature. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J. Mynard (Eds.), Promoting reflection
on language learning: Lessons from a University setting (p. xiii). Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415591-002

186

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

Dominique Vola Ambinintsoa

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and wellbeing. Simon and Schuster.
Takagi, A., Tanaka, T., & Minami, Y. (2023). The role of practitioner research in exploring
learner autonomy for in-service teachers: A retrospective case study. The Learner
Development Journal, 7, 78–95. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-5
Williams, M., Puchta, H., & Mercer, S. (2021). Psychology in practice: A wealth of practicalideas to put students in the best frame of mind of learning Helbling Languages.
Yarwood, A. (2023). Tracing emotion in the (re)construction of an EFL identity during aself-directed learning module: A short story approach. The Learner Development Journal,
7, 11–31. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-2
Yunita, R. (2023). Investigating learner autonomy development through a complex
dynamic systems theory lens: An Indonesian context. The Learner Development Journal,
7, 32–58. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-3

Learner Development Journal • Issue 7 • December 2023

187