THE LEARNER DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
学習者ディベロップメント研究部会誌
ISSN: 2433-5401
https://ldjournal.ld-sig.org

The Learner Development Journal Issue 7:
Challenging the Conventions of Learner Development Research
Authors: Akiko Takagi, Takeo Tanaka & Yuki Minami
Title: The Role of Practitioner Research in Exploring Learner Autonomy for In-Service Teachers:
A Retrospective Case Study
Date of publication online: 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-5
Author contact: <atakagi(at)ephs(dot)aoyama(dot)ac(dot)jp>, <taketak(at)yamanashi(dot)ac(dot)jp>, <lex(dot)minami(at)gmail(dot)com>
Published by the Japan Association for Language Teaching
Learner Development Special Interest Group, Tokyo
https://ld-sig.org/
Copyright 2023 each respective author
This article can be cited as:
Takagi, A., Tanaka, T., & Minami, Y. (2023). Role of practitioner research in exploring learnerautonomy for in-service teachers: A retrospective case study. The Learner Development
Journal, 7, 78–95. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.LDJ7-5

This article is part of a collection of practitioner research on the theme of “Challenging theConventions in Learner Development Research” for Issue 7 of the Learner Development
Journal (LDJ7), edited by Ellen Head, Aya Hayasaki, and Ryo Moriya. Published once a year,
each issue of the Learner Development Journal follows a Community of Practices approachover a period of approximately 18 months in which contributors work together, under theguidance of the editors, to share, respond to, and develop their research and writing.
Articles are published in the Learner Development Journal under a Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY), of which CC BY 4.0 is the most recent version. Under this agreement, authors
grant users the right to unrestricted dissemination and re-use of the work. They ask only thatproper attribution is given to the work.

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