【Teaching Practice Report】

Toward Student Autonomy in the English Discussion Classroom:
A Consideration of Non-Visible Timer Use in Discussions
Andrew Tyner
Abstract
In this paper, I reflect on a small but impactful change to my lesson practice, namely, that I no longer display a timer
visible to students during either of the 12–20+ minute discussion portions of my English discussion lessons. My
focus is largely on the effectiveness of this practice in remedying certain shortcomings observed while using ahighly visible timer during discussions. I find that removing the timer from students’ view apparently improves
motivation and performance in the discussion (production) phase of the lesson. I explore relevant literature tobetter understand the effects observed, particularly in light of metacognition and student motivation, and conclude
that the use of a non-visible timer during discussion (production) phases is of significant benefit. I finally suggest
an avenue for additional research with regard to the effects I have informally observed, suggesting a connection torecent neurocognitive research.
Keywords: English discussion, student motivation, timing, metacognition

Introduction
In this paper, I shall focus on a small alteration to my classroom practice for English discussion
class. Namely, while I carefully monitor the timing of all parts of the lesson, I no longer display atimer that is visible to students during the two production, or discussion, phases of the lesson. At myworkplace, Rikkyo University, English discussion classes are 100-minute, once per week classes.
Each class has, on average, ten students. The lessons present students with skills (i.e., asking forreasons, giving opinions, giving different points of view, etc.), provide for skill practice, and allow for
production of skills during two extended discussion sections, each being multi-person and 12–20 ormore minutes in length. Each discussion is punctuated by periods of feedback1.
In all sections of the lesson, the expectations of what students should do are clear, through bothverbal and written instructions. Students have a specific time limit2 in most sections of the lesson.
Commonly, students hurry, say, to practice a given language skill as many times as possible in a shortperiod. However, in the longer discussions, the total time for which students are expected to speak issomewhat more flexible, with definite minimums, but with maximums defined more by available
class time and student skill level. Though the actual speaking time in discussions for any given class
may vary little from week to week, as both total class time and general lesson structure are more-orless fixed, from the Spring 2022 semester, I have made one very small but impactful change to theway in which expectations are communicated regarding the multi-person discussions. I have stopped
1 I have written on this feedback in detail elsewhere. Tyner, A. (2020) Self and Group: Dynamics of Reflection in Student-toStudent Feedback. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 8, 65-70. In short, feedback in this context
consists of students self-assessing their discussion performance using a provided general framework, reporting that assessment
to their discussion partners, and receiving brief instructor feedback to reinforce their assessments or direct their attention to
any major deficits in skill use. The general intention is to foster students’ self-awareness regarding language use so that they
may be more self-sufficient, more autonomous in their process of improvement and growth as language users.
2 This limit is tracked using a timer visible to all students in the room.

8

TOWARD STUDENT AUTONOMY IN THE ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASSROOM:
A CONSIDERATION OF NON-VISIBLE TIMER USE IN DISCUSSIONS

tracking the discussion length with a timer visible to the students. Instead, I use a small stopwatchthat is visible only to me. This change, while minor in many respects, bears further discussion as its
effects have been both positive and significant.
In the past, prior to the start of the students’ lengthier discussion, I would announce specifically
how much time would be allotted for the discussion and, subsequently, track this time on a highly
visible timer. In many cases, this had a markedly negative effect, specifically, that of continuing thediscussions only to a point somewhat close to the end of the allotted time. If there were, for instance,
only a minute or two left, students would often hesitate to venture into a new idea or area ofconsideration, thinking, perhaps, that there was not enough time to do so effectively. Other times,
students might exhaust their initial ideas after only about half the time had elapsed and would thenseem demotivated by what they may have perceived as an overwhelming amount of remaining
discussion time.
In response to these issues, I continue to track the discussion times and ensure that they always
meet the minimum lengths set forth in the class syllabus as before; however, I remind students onlyof the minimum discussion time, and I use a stopwatch that is generally only visible to me. This has
the effect of virtually eliminating the first problem, encouraging students to continue sharing theirideas freely until we proceed to the next part of the lesson. The second problem, that of students
being demotivated by what they may perceive as an overwhelming amount of remaining discussiontime, has also, somewhat surprisingly, been much improved as well.
As encouraging as these observations may be, I must note a concern that I had prior to switching
to a non-visible timer for discussions. I pose this concern as a question: Is it possible, or even more
likely than in the past, that students’ more freely structured discussions (at least in consideration of
the fact that they are not actively working toward a definite ending of the discussion) may beinterrupted? Yes. In my experience, when using a non-visible timer, the discussions often areinterrupted, but they are interrupted as the students are actively engaged, as opposed to a beeping
timer that signals merely the official end to a discussion that has more-or-less ended already. So, in
so far as the period of meaningful engagement in discussion has been extended, I am comfortablewith the resultant need to interrupt discussions that might otherwise continue indefinitely. Further,while it may be argued that ending a discussion is a discrete skill unto itself, I would counter that
ending a discussion at the cost of not engaging as deeply or extensively in the discussion in the firstplace is not a reasonable exchange.
While I could speculate on the causes of the improvements noted above, the modification to my
instructional methodology was not conducted in an experimental context. My observations of theeffectiveness of the improvement are subjective and informal. Perhaps, by turning to relevant
literature, we might explore some theoretical underpinning to the methodology I have employed andof the beneficial effects I have observed.

Discussion
The teacher’s role in managing student discussion may have profound quantitative andqualitative effects on the resultant discussion. In quantitative terms, at least within the scope of ourpresent discussion, I have already noted the limiting effect of a countdown timer. Qualitative
differences may be subtler.
One qualitative difference of note is that of the role of the listener. As Lee highlights, “nonvocal
conduct, rather than talk, plays a crucial role in the organization and regulation of coordinating
9

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

speakership.” (p. 673) Citing Goodwin, Lee further notes that, “hearers, just like speakers, areco-participants in a temporally unfolding interactional event, actively displaying their participation
through local projection.” Even the silent listener is participating, and meaningfully so, as the“Organization and regulation of coordinating speakership” is an undeniably important component
not only of a discussion but also of one’s competence and ability in using any language. If students
stop carrying out these tasks, silently or otherwise, because the end of the discussion is known to be
only a minute or two away, they are no longer participating in the discussion as they otherwise might.
They are no longer playing their role as a language user; they are no longer actively participating,
vocally and non-vocally, in a genuine discussion. A meaningful silence becomes merely empty.
Perhaps then, by encouraging the active continuation of both listener and speaker roles, the absenceof a visible timer allows not only for lengthier periods of language production but also higher-quality
discussion considering time spent by students meaningfully filling different roles in the discussion.
To explore this difference more thoroughly, we might consider the meaningful continuation of
the discussion not simply as an end in itself but as a sign of student motivation. Indeed, this motivation
is not limited to the listener even if it is in the listener’s largely silent role that one might most easily
observe a meaningful difference of the sort noted above after switching to the use of a non-visible
timer. Kelen notes that while “language used in the classroom, measured in terms of the ‘real’ usageof native speakers…is one index of a classroom’s level of motivation…motivation more broadly
conceived is a better measure of the reality of the target language for…students” (p.233). In so far as
students can use language to accomplish something, in our case communication within a discussion,
English becomes more real, more meaningful to them. The longer they are engaged, both as active
speakers and listeners, the more English becomes real to them, the more it becomes a genuine
language, a vehicle for the receipt and expression of ideas. To carry this consideration of autonomy
and ownership of language still further, one might consider how students conceptualize theparameters of a discussion as they carry it out.
Metacognition is an area much researched and discussed in relation to many types of instruction,
including ESL. We shall define metacognition3, in our restrictive case, as one being actively aware ofand guided by a given task’s parameters, requisite skills, and strategies for effective completion while
one is engaged in the completion of said task. It is one thing to be aware that a language task must
be completed and to, perhaps, react to the questions or prompts of others. It is very much anotherthing to work actively toward the completion of a discussion task while holding in mind the language
skills to be used by both one’s self and one’s partners (so one may not only use said skills but cue
their use in others), simultaneously being mindful of the requisite strategies to begin and maintain a
discussion in which all members may actively participate, and successfully communicating one’s
ideas and responding to those of others.
Fostering metacognition within the L2 classroom can, in the words of Maftoon & Alamdari, “helpteach... [students] how to regulate their own comprehension and learning” (p.2). Citing Anderson(2002), Maftoon & Alamdari note that students’ metacognitive awareness “can not only guide themto plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning process…but also…[enhance] the development ofcognitive skills.” (p.4) Further, they note the opinion from Wenden (1998) that “metacognitiveawareness is regarded as the self-direction necessary for L2 performance and learning” (p.4). So,
metacognition is, depending on one’s viewpoint, either beneficial or requisite for learning in thelanguage classroom. How then does this very large concept of metacognition tie-in with the use of a
3 Our definition of metacognition is a simplification of the concept in order to highlight its relevance to the discussion at hand.
Metacognition, as it is more broadly studied, encompasses far more than task parameters.

10

TOWARD STUDENT AUTONOMY IN THE ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASSROOM:
A CONSIDERATION OF NON-VISIBLE TIMER USE IN DISCUSSIONS

non-visible timer? What is the connection?
In so far as students are managing all aspects of a discussion in the metacognitive sense noted
above, metacognition is possible. However, in so far as a teacher, excess scaffolding, a timer, or otherfactor imposes artificial limits upon the task of discussion, the student loses the autonomy, thecapacity for free decision making and self-management, that is requisite for the sort of metacognition
discussed here.
In a somewhat more extreme but illustrative case, Maftoon & Alamdari (2020) note a study
conducted by Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari (p.5) in which students of French as a second language,
in the control group or their experiment, were given a detailed lesson plan, including elements suchas evaluating, problem solving, and planning, to aid in their completion of a listening task. The
experimental group was given no lesson plan. The experimental group significantly outperformed
the control group in the final measure of comprehension. Certainly, completing a listening task andbeing an active participant in a discussion are two different things, but the suggestion remains thatproviding a strict framework for task management is not only not always necessary, but may, indeed,
be harmful rather than beneficial regarding student performance. We might acknowledge that atimer is perhaps not as restrictive as a detailed lesson plan, but to the extent that it influences
decisions about time management in the manner discussed previously, it is a limiting factor. It is only
through removal of as many such limiting factors as possible that a space for metacognition may befostered. If students are cognizant of the criteria for successful completion of a task, it may indeed bethat they could benefit from less ‘help’ in the task’s completion.

Conclusion
While the theoretical underpinnings may be numerous and varied, and largely beyond the scopeof our present considerations, the effectiveness of using a non-visible timer in the discussion sectionof an English discussion lesson is, I believe, clear. Far from being a discouragement, as a visible timer
may sometimes be, an unseen timer acts as a tool for motivation. One might argue that the removalof the timer from the students’ view removes some of the contrivance and artificiality of discussion in
the context of a discussion class. Both speakers and listeners continue in their roles indefinitely(even if the limits of class time are definite). The idea that the timer or arbitrary time limit itself is thearbiter of the scale and scope of a discussion is at least mitigated through the use of a non-visible
timer, and the concomitant drive in the presence of a visible timer to ‘watch the clock,’ is done awaywith entirely.
While the results of using a non-visible timer have been quite positive in my experience, myexperiences have been, as I have noted, subjective, non-scientific. I have simply reflected on myteaching practices. Considering how a more thorough examination might be undertaken, an avenueof academic consideration somewhat beyond the scope of this paper occurs to me. Generally, it may
be worth considering the neurocognitive effect of lesson design and delivery choices. Morespecifically, considering the small lesson design change focused upon in this paper, recent research
into variability of what is called “the readiness potential” (Travers, et al., 2021) comes to mind. The
readiness potential is a form of brain activity measurable by electroencephalogram that precedes anaction (Travers, et al., 2021, p.14). Study of this readiness potential is of great interest in considerationof the neural processes that underly decision making. Citing Brass & Haggard (2008), Travers notes,“stronger… [brain]4 activation for free actions than cued actions.” It may be that an action decided
4 I use “brain” as a simplification to make a point. The original notes “SMA activation” (Travers, et al., 2021, p.15). ‘SMA’ here11

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

upon by oneself is what one might call, unscientifically, a more genuine choice. Further, Travers
finds that readiness potential signals are stronger5 if one learns through their own experience howlong to wait in each circumstance before taking whatever action, in other words, if one learns tomanage one’s own timing and actions. The same source notes that this has the effect of actions
becoming “less random, more preplanned” (p.21). This ties directly back in with the earlier notes on
metacognition in that students who are more self-sufficient and self-aware in completing tasks
improve more readily at completing those tasks. If we, in the language classroom, intend to equip
students to engage, at least ultimately, in the unguided, unaided use of a language, providing
circumstances more conducive to genuine decision-making regarding language must be consideredinvaluable. Regarding the readiness potential itself, its examination specifically with regard tolanguage as opposed to discrete physical action seems an area open to further exploration both in the
medical and academic fields.
Returning to our immediate scope of concern, if teachers wish to empower students to use alanguage, we must ultimately take a step back. We must, to take Kaur (2015) slightly out of originalcontext, “give…[students] the space to experiment with language so that learners may develop asense of ownership for their [use of the language]” (p.374). We must allow for genuine engagementwith the roles of speaker and listener. We must trust in students’ abilities to be cognizant not only oftask parameters but also of themselves as speakers and listeners. Certainly, there is space for
guidance. As I have noted, the periods of discussion in my class are punctuated by feedback.
However, just as they may be ‘on their own’ in the future when called upon to use their English
language ability, I try to let students be as autonomous as possible within the periods of discussions.
Removing the timer from view during discussions is simply one more way to allow students thisfreedom.

refers to portions of the brain known as the Supplementary Motor Areas, “which…receive strong drive from the subcorticalcircuitry of the basal ganglia” (Travers, et al., 2021, p.14).
5 Specifically, “[readiness potential] amplitude increases as participants learn through experience how long to wait before
acting…their actions become less random, more preplanned and more predictable” (Travers, et al., 2021, p.21).

12

TOWARD STUDENT AUTONOMY IN THE ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASSROOM:
A CONSIDERATION OF NON-VISIBLE TIMER USE IN DISCUSSIONS

References
Kaur, K. (2015) The emergent nature of strategic mediation in ESL teacher education. Language
Teaching Research, 19(3) 374-388. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362168814547074
Kelen, C. (2002) Language and Learning Orthodoxy in the English Classroom in China. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 34(2), 223-237. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.14695812.2002.tb00299.x
Lee, J. (2017) Multimodal turn allocation in ESL peer group discussions. Social Semiotics, 27(5),671-692. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1207353
Maftoon, P. & Alamdari, E.F. (2020) Exploring the Effect of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction on
Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Performance Through a Process-Based Approach.
International Journal of Listening, 34, 1-20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10
904018.2016.1250632
Travers, E., Friedemann, M., & Haggard, P. (2021) The Readiness Potential reflects planning-based
expectation, not uncertainty, in the timing of action. Cognitive Neuroscience 12(1), 14-27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1824176
Tyner, A. (2020) Self and Group: Dynamics of Reflection in Student-to-Student Feedback. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 8, 65-70.

13