MAKING THE CASE FOR EXPLORATORY PRACTICE FORTESOL IN THE JAPANESE UNIVERSITY CONTEXTKevin Garvey & Matthew Miner
Kanda University of International Studies
ABSTRACTThe following paper presents an analysis of two studies of Exploratory Practice (EP)in the field of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) and argues
for the implementation of EP in the context of English language learning at Kanda
University of International Studies (KUIS) and in the broader Japanese university
context. We establish the definition of EP, an application of critical theory to Action
Research (AR), and explore examples of AR applied through EP in the field of TESOL
in recent history, keeping in mind the demands and limitations intrinsic to theteacher-researcher nexus. We then discuss potential benefits of student
involvement in research as practiced in EP. Published EP within the field of TESOL
is limited; nevertheless, we end with suggestions for implementing EP into TESOL
course design and methodology.
DEFINING EXPLORATORY PRACTICE
Exploratory Practice (EP) was born out of practitioner research, which, in the language-teachingprofession, is research conducted by the teachers themselves in an effort to better understandtheir own practice (Allwright, 2005). Dick Allwright (2003, 2005), one of the founders of EP, felt
disillusionment with traditional academic research models and the ways they impacted
teachers, students, and the classroom, considering them to be “parasitic” rather than
supportive, prescriptive rather than integrated, and burdensome rather than self-contained
within an acceptable teacher workload. There was also the concern that when doing research,teachers were prioritizing academic practices and dialogue between academics over classroom
pedagogy and involvement of students in the process (Allwright, 2005).
At the same time, a certain practitioner research movement called Action Research (AR) was
gaining popularity as a counterpoint to conventional research models. AR “involves a selfreflective, systematic and critical approach to enquiry by participants who are at the same timemembers of the research community” (Burns, 2003, p. 29)—in this case, teachers who seek tocritically and reflectively analyze their own classroom “in order to bring about critically informedchanges in practice” (Burns, 2003, p. 35).
However, Allwright felt that despite its broad intentions, AR still maintained the rigorous
academic demands of developing research skills and conducting research in a “technicist
framework” of isolating problems and finding solutions (Allwright, 2005, p. 355). While Allwrightfelt that such an approach was feasible for teachers with additional time and resources such as

22

those in teacher training courses with academic advisors, Allwright sought to integrate theinquisitive process of AR into standard classroom practice rather than overburden practitioners
with new training and techniques. These factors inspired Allwright to propose a research
approach he called “Exploratory Practice,” which prioritizes a mutual understanding of “qualityof life” in the language classroom over “instructional efficiency” or enhanced teaching through“the latest pedagogical ideas” (Allwright, 2003, p. 119).
In practice, EP involves teachers and students conducting research together to develop anunderstanding of classroom quality of life issues based on the participants’ own goals (whether
or not that understanding inspires change). The process should contribute to language teaching
and learning as well as professional development for all participants in a way “that does not leadto ‘burn-out’, but that is indefinitely sustainable” (Allwright, 2003, p. 127). To ensure thesustainability of EP, it is conducted using “normal pedagogic practices as investigative tools,”
such as group discussions and poster presentations, as contrasted with “devised questionnaires”
or other “sophisticated classroom research tools,” including those introduced from third-party
researchers conducting or controlling classroom research (Allwright, 2003, p. 118). In otherwords, EP research processes are part of the course curriculum and include student-conductedlanguage learning activities rather than extra or adapted sets of research practices applied fromoutside of the classroom. “EP, then, offers an exciting proposition: one which aims to integrate
learning, teaching, and research. It promotes empowerment and in doing so, it challenges
existing assumptions of performativity” (Hanks, 2015, p. 24). That is to say, by empoweringteachers and students to research their own language teaching and learning puzzles as part ofstandard coursework, EP is a useful process for understanding life in the classroom; in turn, that
understanding may provide for better long-term goals for course development compared toshort-term measurements of how well or how poor teachers are instructing and/or how well or
how poor students are performing tasks.
FRAMING EP IN CONTEMPORARY TESOL IN THE JAPANESE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT(BACKGROUND)
The affordances of EP and its fundamental principles could offer the chance for KUIS
practitioners to better understand the quality of life in the English Language Institute (ELI)
classrooms. Brooks’ (2016) presentation on the differences in expectations of university culture
and academic rigor between non-Japanese English language lecturers and their Japanese
students highlights one of the areas in which problems might be collaboratively discussed andidentified, rather than decided solely by teacher-researchers who may be in conflict with socialand cultural differences. Brooks’ qualitative excerpts highlight significant differences between
students’ and teachers’ characterization of university life, experiences of time management andwork-life balance, and priorities as full-time students. Many of the topics brought up by teacherinterviewees were directly related to day-to-day life decisions (e.g. commuting, part-time work,
sleep schedules, extra-curricular activities), that influenced the classroom “quality of life.”
Likewise, student-interviewees brought up the difficulties of balancing academically rigorous
English-language courses with non-academic commitments, such as clubs, socializing, family
time, and work (Brooks, 2016). Additionally, McVeigh (2002) offers an in-depth analysis of the23challenges Japanese university students face, particularly when negotiating the expectations ofteachers from different cultural backgrounds. One example is the expectation of many
American teachers that students readily employ first-person opinion and experience in debate
or argumentative essays, an approach many Japanese students are inexperienced with. Anotherissue is related to seken, or “the official gaze” of a classroom authority (usually a teacher)directed at the students. McVeigh (2002) suggests Japanese students learn to avoid seken by
blending in with their classmates and becoming virtually anonymous in larger classes. This
strategy is challenged by small-size language courses (such as in the ELI) in which non-Japanese
instructors may specifically call on individual students to answer questions. These two examples
of clashing expectations related to classroom culture are often treated as impediments or
impasses in conventional language instruction. Efforts towards understanding differingclassroom expectations as part of an EP approach to classroom-centered research can help
overcome such obstacles.
EP’s process of collaborative exploration between students and teachers offers a method forbridging cultural and social expectations, though it is not without limitations. On one hand,
Allwright (2005) addresses one criticism of EP as being difficult or impossible to generalize toother socio-cultural environments. Specifically, Allwright suggests that EP offers a deep look
into the human interactions between teacher and student and seeks to capture the simplicity ofa person’s experience in the classroom; and yet a deep understanding of the human experience
may be inexplicable (in this case, ESL students may struggle to express their quality of life in theclassroom in the target language) or it may be inapplicable (what works in a Japanese university
ESL class may not work in an American graduate ESL program), thus complicating EP’s
contribution to the collective discourse of language teaching and learning (Allwright, 2005).
However, Allwright reframes this shortcoming as a potential advantage for the specificclassroom in which it is employed: while the results of EP might be “largely incommunicable”
across contexts, they may be “directly usable” to their context of origin (2005, p. 359). In otherwords, solutions borne of the EP process may be idiosyncratic to their context (and thus not
generalizable to other classes, let alone schools or countries), but this signals that the process is
responding directly to the site-specific issues and that students are being “seen in their
particularity as individuals...and interacted with according to their needs” (hooks, 1994, p. 7).
Allwright borrowed the term “think globally, act locally” to describe this process in EP:
identifying fundamental language learning principles, contextualizing them to meet immediateneeds, then re-envisioning those principles to either challenge them or inform “global” thinking(2003, p. 115). Collaboration between a teacher and their students generates “deepunderstanding” that cannot be replicated in another classroom environment. This
understanding is indefinitely sustainable as teacher-student collaborators “recognize eachclassroom as different” and that “strategies must be constantly changed...to address each newteaching experience” (hooks, 1994, p. 10).
Framing teachers and students as cooperative “understanders” as opposed to culturally andsocially separate actors, as in the case of Brooks’ and McVeigh’s lecturers and students, opens
the door to bridging understanding and closing gaps in expectations and priorities.

24

In the case of the (primarily) Japanese young adult English language learners studying at ELI in
KUIS, where their English proficiency lecturers (primarily) hail from various countries andcultures outside of Japan and are operating with different backgrounds, experiences, andteaching philosophies, EP affords both parties the chance to connect through a mutual
investigation into language learning and teaching puzzlements. If teachers unfamiliar with thelocal culture wonder about student performance issues, and if students familiar with local
teaching methodologies are confused by new approaches to language learning, collaborative
research can begin to answer some of those questions in immediate and meaningful ways.
THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT INRESEARCH
Both teachers and students struggle with complications in the classroom that EP can help
mitigate. One ongoing issue for teachers in TESL/TEFL pedagogy and research is the balancing
act that many must perform between their role as a teacher and their role as a researcher. In
addition to potential administrative pressure to conduct, publish, and present research inprofessional settings, teacher-researchers may also feel a disconnect between their research
work and their classroom practice. According to Mehrani (2014), “Reflections on the relationshipbetween researchers and practitioners suggest that [the] research-practice divide has been an
endemic feature of modern language education” (p. 21). Mehrani suggests that, despite efforts
to bridge the gap such as the advent of the “teacher-researcher movement” as part of an overall
critique of an imbalanced teacher-researcher relationship, there is still a divide between
research and practice (2014, p. 22). One reason for this gap is the “lack of time and access to
educational research” (Mehrani, 2014, p. 24). A participant study conducted by Allison and Carey(2007) supports this finding, suggesting that ESL teachers felt there was not enough time tocarry out research and publishing, nor were there enough external motivators such as university
support and/or mandates for ESL instructors to publish. To add to this, teachers may detect a
gap between findings in professional articles and the issues their students face as learners of asecond language, what Mehrani classifies as the “complexity and impracticality of researchfindings” (Mehrani, 2014, p. 24). For example, Borg (2009) found in his analysis of responses
from English teachers around the world that “a recurrent view was that research had little tooffer them,” with some respondents seeing no practical application or doubting the quality,
validity, or relevance of research conducted with “small samples and limited generalizability” (p.
13 ). Ultimately, decades of literature suggests that many ESL teachers feel a disconnect
between classroom practice and academic research, whether because they lack the time andresources or because they cannot see the application. For such teachers, EP offers mitigation forsuch research concerns: as a collaborative, integrated research process, EP melds withclassroom practice, using the tools that teachers may already be employing rather than adding
additional components (and thus additional work). In addition, EP connects research practice toclassroom experience, making the research relevant and the application evident.
EP also responds to ESL student issues, one being their relationship with the second language(L2). Ownership of a learner’s second language is a persistent concern: while students may
display high levels of motivation within class time and perform well on formalized language

25

assessment (TOEIC, TOEFL, IELTs, etc.), this motivation might not extend beyond specificallydefined academic goals (Berwick & Ross, 1989; Yoneyama, 2012). EP has the potential to create
an environment where learners co-construct their goals alongside guiding teachers. Whether
these goals replicate conventional academic goals or move beyond them, the student is shownthat they are an equal stakeholder in the outcome of the classroom. This co-construction can bea vehicle for the development of intrinsic motivation. EP highlights the role of the teacher as
guide and mentor; it also highlights the role of the student as stakeholder and their goals as themain focus (as opposed to the goals of the teacher). Such empowerment may grant a new
relationship between learner and language.
Despite the benefits of EP for teachers and students, not all learning environments afford theopportunity for teachers to employ exploratory practices, and it is important to recognize thevariety of resources and goals available to teachers in the diverse field of TESL/TEFL. However,the basic principles of EP require the willingness and autonomy of an instructor, as well as anunderstanding amongst students that they are real stakeholders in their education. Such
conditions align comfortably at KUIS, where learner autonomy is a critical component of the ELI
philosophy and pedagogy, emphasized in the Self Access Learning Center (SALC), wherestudents develop skills necessary to recognize their own language learning needs and develop
strategies to meet them (About the SALC, 2020).
One hesitation present amongst teacher-researchers in employing EP is that the classroom roleof the teacher becomes diminished (Hanks, 2015, p. 13; Pinter et al., 2015, pp. 24) or that theblending of researching and teaching roles is inappropriate for the classroom (Pinter et al., 2015,p. 24-25). The next section of this article will present two case studies in which EP researchers
confronted these issues and explored solutions. These case studies present convincing
arguments that EP highlights how important the teacher is for structuring an environment for
students to practice self-discovery rather than “erasing” the role of the teacher.
FOCUS OF THIS CASE STUDY REVIEWIn the following section, this review will focus on two case studies that explore recent
interpretations of EP. In each of these case studies, a different approach to EP was taken, andthe results illustrate the strengths of EP in empowering learners and teachers, as well as thevariety of ways in which EP can be deployed. We hope to show that EP can be applied to a wide
variety of cultural and linguistic environments, and that EP is naturally responsive to diversity instakeholders, resources, and the learning goals of a learner population. This suggests that EP
can be adapted to the culturally diverse and student-centered ELI and aid KUIS practitioners intheir own professional development.
CASE STUDIES OF EXPLORATORY PRACTICE
Case Study One: Exploratory Practice in Primary Schools Across India
Case Study Summary26

In 2015, a team of English teachers working at various English language programs in different
schools across India implemented an EP research project wherein the teachers involved theirstudents, who were children of varying ages, as co-researchers. The project was inspired byliterature (Kellett, 2004) suggesting that there are four ways to carry out research on childparticipants: research on, for, with, or by children. This project opted for the third option—
research with children—thus involving students as co-researchers. “This involves a perspective
shift whereby adults acknowledge that they need to consult children to be able to access theirviews and acknowledge them as ‘experts’ of their own lives” (Pinter et al., 2016, p. 13). Kellet(2004) suggests that students can become partners in research with their teachers and be given
responsibility for some of the decision making as well as partial ownership of the research
processes. From Kellet, Pinter et al. (2016) interpret that children enjoy their roles as coresearchers and find motivation; additionally, student researchers provide new insight intoclassroom practices and complement teacher points of view. They also developed transferable
skills such as collaboration, critical thinking, and predictions, all of which are essential in laterstages of education and crucial for functioning in society (Pinter et al., 2016).
Pinter et al.’s study involved over 800 students, aged 6 to 16, in over 25 various classrooms in
different schools (e.g. rural, urban, and compulsory English classrooms and ESL classrooms).
The participant teachers understood that the process should be flexible, based on each group’s
needs, and not prescribed. Additionally, a number of the teachers incorporated the research
project into their “everyday teaching” in line with EP principles.
The unifying goal across classes was to uncover how the teachers and learners felt about “qualityof life” issues (which, according to the author, are under-researched) in the classroom as well as
the students’ views on learning English (Pinter et al., 2016). “Quality of life” issues may include
how and when decisions are made, how much time is allotted for separate activities, or howtransparent the connection between learner tasks and goals is made, among others.
What forms the research projects took were also flexible and left to interpretation, dependingon each classroom. One common approach was for teachers to elicit input from the students,
asking for their feedback and giving them a say in the decisions being made for the project. For
example, students were given a choice on what their holiday homework would entail, and they
opted for topics that they found interesting, such as interviewing family members. Anotherapproach was to give student co-researchers a more active role in designing and implementing
materials, such as questionnaires, and then collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. In
classes where students were given more active and creative roles in the co-research, students
incorporated materials and activities that they found engaging and that they wanted to do. As
a result, they were aware of their project, understood the processes, and appreciated the added
autonomy and responsibility. For example, one class collaborated to discuss and revise specificgrammar lessons in order to incorporate realia into the lessons (menus from local restaurants is
one example) and thus give the grammar exercises more meaningful context. As a result, theteacher of this class observed an increase in student autonomy and effort.

27

Case Study Results
The results of this project focused on student and teacher feedback regarding their roles as coresearchers. The results indicate that “students tended to be deeply engaged in the work they
did because it interested them; it interested them because they were part of the decisionmaking process about what they should do and how they should do it” (Pinter et al., 2016, p. 19).
This cycle of engagement and interest represents an ideal outcome of an EP process.
The students responded positively to changes from “dull, bookish activities” to “real, meaningfultasks that they were consulted on and had a choice to engage with” (Pinter et al., 2016, p. 20).
“Children enjoyed working with texts that were important in terms of their own identity andtheir own choices. Doing meaningful work in groups, based on their own choices, seemed tomotivate them to learn English” (Pinter et al., 2016, p. 21). Other results include a change instudent awareness of social issues based on their roles as interviewers, an appreciation forcollaboration and participation, more active learning, and more independence and autonomy.
Overall, students felt that research was a positive feature of the classroom.
Feedback from the teachers echoed that provided by the children: they noticed that theirstudents gained confidence and often improved their ability as English learners as well as
increased their motivation, engagement, participation, and independence. There was also astrong, shared desire for a continuation of EP rather than a return to conventional teaching andlearning methods. Teachers also reported better relationships with their students. Finally, all of
the teachers found the experience to be highly beneficial to their professional development.
Connection and Analysis
Pinter et al.’s (2016) study demonstrates that young learners can be effectively included in the
EP research method as collaborators and illustrates how their views of the quality of life in theclassroom are significant. The EP method considers student-collaborators as learners first
without neglecting the facts of their context and background. As evidence of the effectivenessof EP in this case study, one of the project groups realized that they often had issues turning in
assignments on time; as a result, the students in that class researched causes and solutions to
missing deadlines and then held a poster presentation with their findings. This example
demonstrates that students appreciate the responsibility of making meaningful decisions in theclassroom and can successfully collaborate with teachers to produce novel solutions to sharedproblems. This study helps to define and differentiate EP by demonstrating the process as being
a self-contained part of the classroom curriculum. There is not an effort to unilaterally identify
and solve problems or uncover classroom practice at the expense of language learning,
student/teacher experiences, or well-being: on the contrary, this study stresses that students“not only enjoyed what they did but learnt a great deal from it” (Pinter et al., 2016, p. 20).
Additionally, this case study suggested that children as co-researchers would develop“transferable skills.” Indeed, the students learned how to work together, support each other,think critically, and make predictions. The primary purpose of the classes in this case study was
the facilitation of English learning, and the students were “learning lots of English” during the
research project (Pinter et al., 2016, p. 20). Finally, this project stresses that research into the28quality of life for ESL students is inadequate and that teacher-student collaboration in making
decisions about pedagogic methodologies for English-learning environments is crucial.
Some concerns about EP include the disbelief that students (in this case, children) can beeffective co-researchers, and that research must be a process conducted exclusively by experts
who have time, training, experience, and education behind them. Indeed, in this case study,
many teachers approached the process with preconceptions of research being academic andnarrow (Pinter et al., 2016); some struggled with “the concept of children and co-researchers”
and worried that they would opt for playing over studying (Pinter et al., 2016, p.25). However,teachers reported positive results despite their apprehensions, claiming that “children DO want
to study English” and that EP and AR offer unique and immediate classroom benefits compared
to traditional academic research (Pinter et al., 2016, p.25).
There was also a widespread belief that students should be adhering to a prescribed classroom
experience and that children should be learning about their place in the world from figures ofauthority, in this case, teachers, whose authority could potentially be diminished during theopen-ended process of EP or AR. In regards to Pinter et al.’s study, there was some resistance tothe project from parties including head teachers, colleagues, and administrators, some of whom“questioned the value of [the project]” (Pinter et al., 2016, p. 24). The unease of allowing student
stakeholders to be co-researchers demonstrates that EP requires a shift in teacher-researcher
thinking and a commitment to student involvement as collaborators. Allwright (2003) statesthat the processes in EP “are of course subject to change with experience. And this meanschange by anyone who cares to try them [...] it might also prompt a rethink of underlying
principles” (p. 126). This means a teacher who feels pressured by external factors to back awayfrom EP processes can nevertheless influence classroom practice and pedagogy by changing
their principles as a first but meaningful step. However, Allwright (2003) also warns, “there isalways the danger, of course, that someone may mistake the practice for the principles anddecide that they are ‘doing’ EP just because they are making use of one or more of thecomponent processes, without regard for the principles” (p. 126). A genuine, principled shift inthinking is a potential challenge for teachers who have worked hard to earn their students’ trust
as an authority in a more conventional mold. EP changes but does not eliminate the basis forstudent trust in the teacher. As collaborators, students become aware of the teacher’s expertisein designing tasks and decision-making. The basis for student trust in teacher authority involves
understanding what it means to teach and organize class time effectively.
In addition to concerns raised by teachers, some parents doubted the efficacy or validity ofchildren as co-researchers and thus as decision-makers. As children took more consequential
roles in their classroom activities, parents expressed reservations about veering off course froma prescribed syllabus. However, students embraced the responsibility of explaining their roles totheir parents, rationalizing what they were doing, why they were doing it, and how it benefitedthem. As for student perception of teacher roles, the children considered the teacher “rolemodel, as inspiration and as a caring educator” (Pinter et al., 2016, p.21). They appreciated theefforts that teachers put in rather than seeing them in diminished or ineffective positions. The
results can be extrapolated for ELI teachers, KUIS administrators, or other stakeholders who

29share these concerns. The SALC demonstrates an institutional commitment to student
autonomy: trusting students to engage with research when they see the personal benefit means
respecting their ownership of their language learning (About the SALC, 2020). Additionally,
Pinter et al.’s (2016) research suggests that students did not think less of their teachers, butrather found a new respect for them as caring role models who can provide guidance to students
practicing autonomous learning.
Based on this case study, ELI teachers would do well to consider how EP will be received by
students, peers, administrators, and other stakeholders. Adapting the principles of EP—of
working towards an understanding of the quality of life in the classroom with student input—
may serve as a step towards EP practice for educators unsure of committing to joint researchwith student collaborators. Ultimately, this case study demonstrates that the benefits of EP for
participants are numerous and the call for more such research is explicit.
Case Study Two: Exploratory Practice in a British University EAP Course
Case Study Summary
The second case study was piloted in an “English for Academic Purposes” (EAP) class taught in
the UK. The participants in the pilot were 15 students from various countries as well as two
experienced EAP teachers. One teacher participated with her students as a co-researcher in aclass project while the other engaged with the act of “puzzlement” over her own language
teaching inquiries.
To prepare the participants for EP, the primary researcher introduced the concept during thefirst week of class. The introduction of EP coincided with functional English usage—taking notes
and listening to lectures—thus ensuring EP involved “exploitable pedagogic activity” and was
not an additional, superfluous research task (Hanks, 2015, p. 7). After the introduction of EP,
students and teachers were then asked to consider puzzles they had about their own language
learning and teaching experiences. “The learners did have questions that puzzled them about
language learning. They seemed pleased to have been asked and expressed interest in thepossibility of investigating further” (Hanks, 2015, p. 14).
When the EP session next met, students participated in a mingling activity and spoke together
about their own puzzlements. They then formed small groups of three to four students whoshared similar topics, such as a group investigating issues related to writing in English or anotherfocused on learning new vocabulary. This led to a lengthy EP term project in which the student
groups refined and investigated their language learning puzzles through standard researchmethodologies such as conducting interviews with peers and drafting questionnaires for peers,
tutors, and/or teachers. By the seventh week, student groups shared poster presentations about
their findings followed by written research reports.
As students participated in the aforementioned research projects, teachers concurrently
analyzed their own language teaching puzzles (investigations into their own teaching styles):
one teacher acted as co-researcher with her students and provided classroom time andresources for them to conduct their research while the other teacher discussed her puzzle with30

both her class and her peers and conducted her own research. The primary researcher stressedthat all of the activities related to the project were standard classroom practices: “nothing new
was added” (a key tenet of EP); rather, the course topic was changed from something standard
such as global issues to learning about and practicing EP in order to understand their own
pedagogic practices. In other words, “existing classroom activities were used as tools forinvestigation, thus combining research and pedagogy in sustainable and relevant ways” (Hanks,
2015, p. 8). The result was that all researchers—teachers and students—investigated personal
puzzles related to language-learning, discussed and collaborated to create investigative tools
such as interview questions, surveys, and reflective writings, analyzed their findings, andpresented to the class.
Case Study Results
Based on primary researcher observations, students engaged sincerely in EP because they felt
empowered and saw the value of exploring their own questions related to language learning
rather than predetermined or generic topics: “giving space to learners to set their own agendas
raised levels of interest, because they could talk about something new, and entirely relevant”(Hanks, 2015, p. 23). Initially, the teachers who participated in EP with the students expressed
reservations or began the pilot with preconceived notions about student participation(reservations similar to those expressed by teachers in Pinter et al.’s (2016) study). However,Hanks reports that “the learners in the study took the work extremely seriously, thus
confounding the doubts their teachers had expressed when planning the innovation” (2015, p.
15). Furthermore, during the EP projects, teachers “reported unusually high levels of student
engagement, particularly during the poster presentations,” where students shared their quality
work and listened intently to each other (Hanks, 2015, p. 16). Students impressed teachers byworking autonomously and carefully to conduct inquiries and share the results. As a result of theclassroom experience with EP, the case study’s course teacher changed her opinion about her
students’ maturity, responsibility, and ability: she reported, “I think [EP] makes them realize
what they’re capable of [...] and I think it helped me view them in a much more adult kind ofway” (Hanks, 2015, p. 17). This shift in thinking was not limited to one teacher: “Significantly,
both teachers and learners in the study reported higher levels of motivation throughout the
study” (Hanks, 2015, p. 22). Similar to the first case study, EP produced a self-reinforcing positive
cycle of engagement and interest. The cycle in this case was not limited to students, but also
included participating teachers who explored and became interested in their own “teaching”
puzzles.
Connection and Analysis
Echoing some concerns about EP from the first case study, the researchers in Hanks’ study
acknowledged that such an approach may be seen as “a radical agenda of learnerempowerment” and they concede that “perhaps not all teachers would feel comfortable withthe ambiguity” (Hanks, 2015, p. 13). Indeed, by leveling out the power dynamic of the traditionalclassroom, the teacher’s role may become “less clearly defined”: teachers may have tosignificantly adjust standard practices such as lesson planning, the development of lesson
outcomes, and lecturing; additionally, teachers may come to find that the power redistribution
will assign them a different role, one of co-researcher and mentor rather than authority figure31

(Hanks, 2015). With that in mind, both case studies demonstrate that the teachers who madethese adjustments and redefined their teacher roles in spite of uncertainty were rewarded withhigher student motivation and more student autonomy, qualities encouraged for students
studying foreign language at KUIS. Likewise, as the gap between teacher and student
mentioned by Hanks (2015), Pinter et al. (2016), and McVeigh (2002) closes due to meaningful
collaboration, students may develop a respect for the teacher arising from mutual
understanding rather than a forced respect from subordinate to authority figure.
Other concerns may arise from teachers who are used to meticulously planning a complete classroutine or term syllabus and who may feel discomfiture with a more fluid course:
The fear of emptiness in the lesson, where the teacher feels obliged to fill the gap iscommon, perhaps stemming from initial teacher training, where teachers are exhorted
to plan every minute, with extra activities ‘up the sleeve’ ready for any who finish the task
early. (Hanks, 2015, p. 14)
The desire or demand for order and routine need not preclude a teacher from adapting principles
of EP: it is important to reiterate that EP is not an “all or nothing” practice, as Allwright implied
when he said “there is no ‘copyright’ on such things” and that EP is “subject to change withexperience” (2003, p. 127). A limited approach to the processes of EP may allow the teacher or
institution to ensure comprehensive lesson plans while still encouraging autonomous
exploration of student language learning. Indeed, Hanks’s (2015) application of EP principles in
the context of an intensive and rigid EAP course shows that the flexibility of EP is a strength
rather than a shortcoming. Ultimately, a complete EP paradigm shift is not required: Farrell’s(2015) methods for teacher self-reflection offer ways for instructors to begin to re-assess and reimagine their role in the classroom. Indeed, a large portion of EP, varying in scope and approach,relies upon active reflection by both teachers and students as participants in constructing aclassroom community.
In addition to the possible change of “role” that teachers must negotiate when they adapt to an
EP approach, there is also the questionable practicality of EP, depending on the environment inwhich a teacher wishes to implement such an approach. Ideally EP is partially defined by its
sustainability: it is meant to be an unobtrusive and integrated part of teacher and student course
load rather than an added responsibility or additional project. This ideal form of EP is not always
feasible or understood: one of the teachers in Hanks’ study expressed concern about anadditional workload related to the project:
Trying not to add to the teacher’s burden (by integrating teaching, learning, andresearch) is one of the principles of EP, so [one teacher’s] response is significant – lack oftime seemed to be a challenge for a teacher implementing EP as part of her own practice.
(Hanks, 2015, p. 17)
An EP approach repositions reflection as an active part of coursework, rather than a separate
domain of labor. Farrell’s (2015) categories of reflection-in-action (in the classroom), reflection-32

on-action (after the class) and reflection-for-action (planning for the future, outside of classtime), represent one possible introductory step towards an EP approach for instructors.
The standard classroom issues found in the ELI environment still apply with an EP approach:cultural differences and complicated group dynamics add uncertainty when teachers andstudents form groups, collaborate, and discuss and conduct research. Hanks emphasizes that
“integrating research and pedagogy is a complex activity, which involves conflict as well as
harmony” (2015, p. 23). Successfully making “room” for EP in classroom practice requires asignificant commitment to change and adaptability on the part of the teacher.
Despite potential issues with EP reported in Hank’s study, students appreciated the chance todelve into personal and relatable inquiries rather than generic or unrelatable topics that arecommon in educational settings. For example, one student found motivation to study why
students learn slang easily; he contrasted that with a prescribed theme like recycling, which
would not have energized him and would have felt pointless and routine (Hanks, 2015). As
McVeigh (2002) details, motivation for English language learning in Japan is often limited toacademic goals (e.g. attaining high TOEIC scores or entering a top university through high testscores). Japanese university students often report disliking their English courses as rote and dull,and do not make connections between issues within the classroom to their lives outside classtime. Students are often made to feel as though they study in order to pass tests, so that they
may study again later, for another test (McVeigh, 2002). We can then draw parallels between
the students in Hanks’s (2015) study and those at KUIS taking courses such as Academic
Literacies: Writing, who may find more engagement and benefit if their essay themes connect
with their personal lives.
Teachers, likewise, expressed “a new sense of intrigued inquiry as an equal alongside thelearners” (Hanks, 2015, p. 16), moving away from everyday topics and instead investigating theirown learning experiences, resulting in mutual development and a reactivation of the teachers’
own interests in teaching and learning. Ultimately, this case study thus shows how a wellimplemented EP approach is in tune with the classroom quality of life by considering theinterests and needs of both students and teachers. While a “pure” EP approach may be infeasible
for many ELI instructors, it is a practice that can be applied in stages, with methods of reflective
practice and AR constituting meaningful reimaginings that approach an EP methodology.
OUR SUGGESTED ACTIONS
For students taking courses in the ELI, varying degrees of an EP approach can integrate learnerautonomy into the classroom, anchor and reaffirm student self-reflection, and personalize
curricula. Likewise, for teachers, EP affords opportunities for flexible course development whilestill allowing for adherence to departmental requirements and student needs such as academic
reading and writing skills development, genre awareness, and critical media literacy. In Pinter etal.’s and Hank’s studies, EP demonstrates a capacity for adaptability and adjustment that has
the potential to empower students and open channels of communication between teachers andlearners. The benefits of this approach require a shift in mentality on the part of those involved,

33

something that may be a challenge for all parties, including parents and administrators who
have separate goals and expectations related to the classroom experience. A nuanced approach
to EP is a good way to start, partially introducing the principles of EP through student
involvement in analyzing their own language learning questions. This could be a comfortabletransition for students familiar with the SALC and learner autonomy as they may be practicing
self-reflection as part of their self-guided learner modules. Such reflection is a good first step forteachers as well: adopting methods of reflective practice as detailed by Farrell (2015), and rebalancing the teaching-research divide through AR methodology represent practical steps
instructors can take towards acclimating themselves to the integrated, open-ended EP
approach. A successful adjustment to EP requires a practical understanding of specificclassroom contexts and receptiveness to student input on desirable learner outcomes.
In the context of L2 learning, teachers and learners constantly negotiate barriers tounderstanding that originate in differing cultural, linguistic, and social structures. In this way,teachers and learners in the L2 classroom are already experienced with various teacher models,
student roles, and expectations. Therefore, we argue that EP offers a valuable approach towards
the language-learning environment at KUIS and in the ELI where cultural and social differences
are present, and teachers and students must find common ground in their goals andexpectations of the classroom experience. EP offers a theoretical framework to guide the kindof open-ended negotiation L2 teachers and learners are already conducting as well as encouragelearner autonomy that the SALC promotes.
Language learners have a variety of goals; the ELI classroom should be equipped to assess andrespond to these goals. EP expands the roles of teachers and learners to include “inquisitive
collaborators” with common goals: assessing and improving the learning environment in an
unspecified, yet-to-be-discovered way.

REFERENCES
Allison, D., & Carey, J. (2007). What do university language teachers say about language
teaching research?. TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 61 - 81. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v24i2.139
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language
teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803lr118oa
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory
practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404781.2005.00310.x
Berwick, R., & Ross, S. (1989). Motivation after matriculation: Are Japanese learners of English
still alive after exam hell? JALT Journal, 11(2), 193-210.

34

Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers' conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3),358-388. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp007
Brooks., S. (2016, December 12). The impact of differing academic cultures in Japan and theWest on an EAP course at a Japanese university [Presentation]. Kanda University ofInternational Studies, Chiba, Japan.
Burns, A. (2003). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge
University Press.
Farrell, T. S. (2015). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Hanks, J. (2015). Language teachers making sense of Exploratory Practice. Language Teaching
Research, 19(5), 612–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814567805
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress education as the practice of freedom. Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group.
Kellett, M., Forrest, R., Dent, N., & Ward, S. (2004). ‘Just teach us the skills please, we’ll do therest’: Empowering 10-year-olds as active researchers. Children and Society, 18, 329–343.
https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.807
McVeigh, B. J. (2002). Japanese higher education as myth. M.E. Sharpe.
Mehrani. (2014). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Voice of mediators. Journalof Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 21-38.
Pinter, A., Mathew, R., & Smith, R. (2016). Children and teachers as co-researchers in Indian
primary classrooms: ELT research papers 16.03. British Council.
Self-Access Learning Center (n.d.). About the SALC. Retrieved July 7, 2020, fromhttps://www.kandagaigo.ac.jp/kuis/salc/aboutthesalc/aboutthesalc.html
Yoneyama, S. (2012). The Japanese high school: Silence and resistance. Routledge, Taylor andFrancis Group.

35