Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 25 (2): Free Space(pp. 127-145). Tokyo: The Japan Association for
Language Teaching (JALT) Learner Development SIG.
Stewart, A., & Miyahara, M. (2016). Language teacher
associations in Japan: Knowledge producers and/or
knowledge disseminators. ELT Journal, 70(2),137-149.

The Learner Development
Journal (LDJ):
Problematising Practices
Tim Ashwell, Andy Barfield, Huw Davies, Darren
Elliott, Hugh Nicoll, Alison Stewart, & Koki Tomita
The following discussion between members of
the LD SIG committee focuses on publicly
documenting the ongoing development of The
Learner Development Journal (LDJ) and shedding
light on important questions about the future
direction of the journal.
Launched in November 2017, the LDJ is the
Learner Development SIG’s online, open-accessjournal. It is published once a year and is devoted
to practitioner-driven research, reviews andinterviews exploring learner development issues insecond language education. The inaugural issue of
the The Learner Development Journal on“Visualising Learner Development” (issue editors:
Darren Elliott & Hugh Nicoll) appeared in November
2017. A year later the second issue on “Qualitative
Research into Learner Development” (issue editors:
Chika Hayashi, Masuko Miyahara, & Patrick Kiernan)
is approaching publication, while writers for Issue 3of the LDJ on “Learner Identities andTransitions” (issue editors: Christina Gkonou, Jim
Ronald, & Yoshio Nakai) are currently sharing firstdrafts with the journal’s editors and Review
Network members for open or blind peer review.
Looking ahead, the first Call for Papers for Issue
4 on “Exploring the Supervision Process AcrossDiverse Contexts: Collaborative Approaches” (issue
editors: Sabine Little and Michelle Golledge) wentout in September 2018, and in early 2019 theJournal Steering Group (JSG) will be appealing for
editors to tender proposals for Issue 5 and to bring

together a group of contributors to explore adifferent learner development theme.
Unlike most other journals, the LDJ iscommitted to group-based professional
development and shared exploration where
members of the SIG and others can inquire into
specific learner development themes in acollaborative and supportive environment. Not
unsurprisingly, this shared commitment does notcome without a bewildering array of challenges—
and opportunities—for writers, reviewers, andeditors, as well as the Journal Steering Group (JSG)that oversees each issue.
We hope that this discussion—which took place
online between July and October 2018—helps
readers of Learning Learning and all the membersof the Learner Development SIG become morefamiliar with the range of concerns that people
working on the LDJ currently have, and why.
We warmly encourage you to share yourthoughts and questions in response to this
discussion (in the next issue of Learning Learning).
We hope too that SIG members will step forward
and take part in future issues of the LDJ as writers,
reviewers, editors, or steering group members.
We’re looking forward to hearing from you!
Discussion
Alison (founding member of the Journal
Steering Group): We wanted to let you know that
the Call for Proposals for Issue 4 of the Learner
Development Journal resulted in 4 proposals, all ofthem from outside Japan. We have now accepted a
proposal by Sabine Little and Michelle Golledge at
the University of Sheffield on Learner Developmentin Supervisor/Supervisee Relationships, and arelooking forward to meeting them on Skype in thenext week or so. We have also invited the authorsof another proposal to send in their proposal again
next spring for consideration for Issue 5.
Meanwhile, Issue 2 is coming on apace and we havejust received copies of all the articles for
proofreading.

Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG <http://ld-sig.org>

52

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 25 (2): Free SpaceIn our discussions with each other and other
SIG members, we've come up against some issues
that we feel merit some wider discussion by the
SIG. We wonder what your views are on thefollowing:
1. Should we be trying to give priority to SIG
members in choosing editors? In fact, for Issue
4, there were no LD or Japan-based proposers,
but we wondered whether we should try to
promote grass-roots proposals from themembership in general and from the gettogethers in particular? Or is the LDJ a more"international" publication, where the main
criteria for acceptance are the quality of the
proposal and likeliness of the editorial team to
attract good researchers and to manage theproject to completion in accordance with thecollaborative principles that we haveestablished?
2. Where we do accept non-LD members as
editors, should we ask that the editors join the
SIG for the duration of the project (since it's
possible to join a SIG without joining JALT)?
Should this include editors in teams where one
or two of the other editors are in fact LD
members?
3. Should we ensure that all steering groupmembers are always SIG members? Could thisrole be opened up to previous editors who are
not members of the SIG?
Basically, what is at issue here is to what
extent we see the new journal as an independent
publication, albeit one that promotes LD SIG values
and collaborative practices, or as a publicationthat benefits members of the SIG first andforemost.
Koki (SIG co-coordinator): Thanks for thequestions!
1. I personally do not know the history behindthe start of LDJ, so my contribution to this topic is
minimal. From PR and administrative perspective, I
feel that the promotion of the journal can be donein both domestically and internationally. JALT has
been facing the decline of members and failing to
explore new members for the past few years. This,

as a result, put us into debt for the last fiscal year.
So, I found that appealing to the world is awonderful idea to keep the standard andexpectations of the journal high (Hopefully they
will become a JALT and LD SIG member in the
future). In the meantime, we need to think about
ways to energize our local members and encourage
their contributions to the SIG in any shape or form.
I believe that writing articles to the journal is partof their contributions to the SIG, which might leadthem to be more involved in JALT and SIG
administration. Local members’ articles/proposals
might get rejected in the screening process, butthey can re-submit them to other journals or the
JALT international conference or Pan SIG.
2 & 3. Just a quick question, can non-JALT
member join a SIG? As far as I know, SIGs are madeof JALT members. Please go to the URL for yourreference https://jalt.org/main/sigs.
Sounds like we are facing a tricky situation. Do
non-LD members want to pay and join the SIG
temporally for their volunteer work? Maybe only afew. Should we pay their membership fee to join
the editorial team? I don’t find any particular riskof paying their fees from our budget. Any thoughts?
Huw (SIG treasurer): To be a member of the
SIG, a person needs to be a member of JALT.
However, we can sell an annual subscription which
is a way to satisfy what Alison suggests (see p. 13of the new treasurer handbook). The only problem
with doing this from overseas is that they would
need to pay from a Japanese bank account or in
cash, which makes it quite an annoying process.
Andy (founding member of the Journal SteeringGroup, SIG publications co-chair): Alison, thank you
for raising these questions. I've been trying toimagine how the LDJ would work if its anchors to
the LD SIG were cut. I guess it might become
something like Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/
rill20/current or The JALTCALL Journal https://
jcj.jaltcall.org/index.php?journal=JALTCALL, eachwith an editorial board and standardised editorial
procedures - but little linkage to local practices
and members of a SIG investing their interests,

学習者ディベロプメント研究部会 <http://ld-sig.org>

53

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 25 (2): Free Space
time, and efforts to explore particular themes andissues together.
Looking at, for example, at (a) the aims andscope of the LDJ, (b) the LDJ peer review process,and (c) and the explanation to potential editors,
we have something different from most otherjournals, but it's also an approach that needs
further commitment from members of the SIG to
make it sustainable. So, although it's not without
its own challenges and difficulties, my initial
response would be that it's worth talking together
more about what can be done to make the LDJ
work better as originally intended, rather thanraising the anchor and setting sail for theapparently glistening seas of globalised academic
publishing ...
Darren (co-editor of Issue 1 and Journal
Steering Group member): Let me join with mythoughts on the main three questions.
1. Should we be trying to give priority to SIG
members in choosing editors?
Yes, but practically speaking we have to go
outside. The SIG has 200 (?) members, many ofwhom do not play an active role. The editors job isfairly demanding, and although we want to support
less experienced editors through the steeringgroup, it is inevitable that there will be a limited
number of SIG members who want to take on theposition.

positive and inclusive practice. However, in sending
our message outside Japan, does the use ofJapanese become alienating or limiting? To someextent we are positioning ourselves as a regional
journal, as opposed to an international journal.
This is a difficult question, and I am not entirely
comfortable with it, but I feel I should ask.
Looking back at the aims and scope, none ofthose ideas necessitate any connection to the SIG.
That doesn’t mean we should ‘cut anchor’, but I do
think we should allow ourselves to be open. It is
not the fact that the journal is an LD SIG
publication that makes it special. It is that it
follows LD SIG principles of collaboration,
supportiveness, and community.
2. Where we do accept non-LD members as
editors, should we ask that the editors join the
SIG for the duration of the project (since it's
possible to join a SIG without joining JALT)?
3. Should we ensure that all steering groupmembers are always SIG members? Could thisrole be opened up to previous editors who are
not members of the SIG
Practically speaking, Huw has alreadyaddressed the difficulties in temporary SIG
membership.

Probably the best way of addressing this is totake a more proactive stance in recruiting by
approaching potential editors directly. (That’s how
I became editor of issue one!) Whilst I don’t wantto cut ties with the SIG, I do believe that opening
up to the outside world is very healthy. We cancertainly gain new insights into our own beliefs andpractices by explaining them to a reader /reviewer / editor who is not familiar with ourcontext.

As for the SIG membership and the steeringgroup, emphatically yes. This is how we maintainties to the SIG, and maintain some institutional
memory and consistency. The three of us (me,Alison, and Tim) are still learning, but I think eachissue is benefitting from the mistakes we havemade previously. However, I feel that there is adanger we end up operating in a bubble. I’m notsure how well most of the SIG understands us andwhat we are doing. Sadly, I have to say that part ofthat is probably down to lack of interest. But wealso have to take responsibility for notcommunicating loudly and clearly enough.

This is slightly tangential, but I think related.
As I have mentioned, I find the necessity forJapanese abstracts a little limiting - I know that
the SIG was founded with the bilingual principle ascentral, and in general SIG business (“Learning
Learning” and so on) I believe it is still a very

Tim and I were talking about “jumping off theroundabout” at some point. At the moment wehave three issues in progress at different stages,
and that will be the norm now we are up andrunning. So where is the line of succession. The SIG
has always been very good at bringing people inNewsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG <http://ld-sig.org>

54

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 25 (2): Free Spaceand keeping the organisation fresh (without losing
sight of the ways things have been done). Who is
up next for the Steering Group?
Hugh (co-editor of LDJ, volume 1, and Review
Network member): I'm going to have a go atanswering Alison's 3 questions regarding therelationship of editor and steering committee roles
to SIG membership all in one go, as I see them assomewhat overlapping.
A first principle for me is that SIG members
have some role in editing all issues of the journal,
though I would add the caveat that I see no
problem in having editors and/or steeringcommittee members from outside the SIG (mostlikely from "outside Japan") participate as equal
partners, so long as we maintain a primarycommitment to a dialogic and/or inclusive practiceas the key aspect of the journal's identity/agency/
founding principles and praxis.
Alison concludes the primary questions section
on what is now page 2 with the summative
exploration "to what extent we see the new journal
as an independent publication, albeit one that
promotes LD SIG values and collaborative
practices, or as a publication that benefits
members of the SIG first and foremost." Having
read ahead, I think Darren's notion that we "haveto" go outside the SIG in recruiting editors isgermane here as both a practical and philosophicalframing of what "benefits members of the SIG firstand foremost." The answer/perspective that seems
most useful to me here is that our publications
should simultaneously encourage/support SIG
members' development as writers but also
(inevitably, perhaps) and simultaneously help SIG
members connect with the discourses on
autonomous learning and teaching, criticalpedagogies, reflective practice, exploratory
practice, etc. in non-Japanese or moreinternational settings.
Andy: On the language question that Darren
raises, I’d like to refer back to a discussion withthe editors of LDJ1 and LDJ2 in August and
September 2017. At that time, both editorial teams
recognised the value of having a third language

option (English + Japanese or a third language), butraised practical concerns about how an editorial
team would be able to check the quality of
abstracts and key words written in a third languagethat they were not academically proficient inthemselves.
From this, we thought that abstracts andkeywords should be written in English and Japaneseas the default option, with writers having the
choice of writing the abstract and keywords in athird language, if they wish. We felt it is probably
unlikely that many writers would choose the thirdlanguage option, so it would be interesting if andwhen writers did do that. Our position, in the end,
was that it's important to have the “thirdlanguage” option there, rather than completely
excluding it.
My sense would be that, as a number of people
involved in LD publications are willing to help withtranslation from English into Japanese andJapanese into English, having bilingual keywords
and abstracts remains very much do-able. I guess
you and I see things differently here, Darren, andthat’s quite OK. I find discussing the question of
language(s) really central to the imagined identity
and readership of the LDJ that we each have.
Hugh: The language question is always
somewhat vexing, but my nutshell take is in 2
parts: (1) As we are based in Japan, it is bothpractical and politic (realpolitik?) to continue tooffer abstracts in Japanese, as that may help inindexing, getting LDJ noticed in Japanese
university settings, and may (yes I know this is astretch) but just may help the journal contribute toeducation policy discussions that have some weightin the broader community. Such abstracts, forexample, just might help progressive Japaneseteachers of English share the SIG's narratives withteachers that might not ordinarily pay attention to
the arguments we have to contribute.
And, (2) an anecdote: a month ago I enjoyed apost ILA lunch and chat with Jo Mynard, Christian
Ludwig, and Giovanna Tassanari. They are planningon publishing a multilingual collection of papers onlearner autonomy in part to honor the readers/

学習者ディベロプメント研究部会 <http://ld-sig.org>

55

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 25 (2): Free Space
speakers of non-English as L1 researcher/writers byencouraging them to publish in their own first
languages. When Christian asked what I thought of
the idea, I gave my support immediately. While
English is the dominant lingua franca in our
globalizing world, I am grateful for every chance topuzzle over non-English texts for the learning
experience on offer, and feel that given the easy
access we have to online dictionaries, translations
engines, etc. that we should be as open to puzzling
and learning together as possible.
Andy: That’s a great project that Christian,
Giovanna and Jo are planning to do. Looking to the
future with the LDJ, what practices (writing,editing, reviewing, and “steering” practices) doyou each see as important to focus on with Issues/
Volumes 3 and 4, and why?
Tim (founding member of the Journal SteeringGroup): I am a little late to the party here, but Ivery much concur with what has been written so
far regarding what the Journal is, what it does, andwhat is should be. Personally, I would very much
like the LDJ to retain strong and clear links to the
SIG and for editors to principally come from amongits membership although I fully recognize Darren’s
point that a limited number of people are likely to
step forward. One of the main parts of the ethos of
the LDJ, and something that distinguishes it fromother journals, is that it actively seeks to nurture
people as writers and editors and we hope to beable to provide a framework in which people new
to writing and editing feel they can hone theirskills. Without a strong Steering Group of SIG
members, I fear this direction might be lost and we
end up with a journal which is every bit as remoteas all those other journals out there.
Darren and I discussed whether it might be agood idea, as a rule of thumb, to try to ensure
that, if we continue to get more proposals for issue
editorship from overseas than we do from within
Japan, we at least alternate between an issueedited by overseas editors and an issue edited by
SIG members. At the same time, I think we need tostrongly encourage as many SIG members as
possible to consider contributing as writers and totarget SIG members who could be persuaded into
editing an issue.
On a very practical note, and resulting fromexperience with Issues 1 and 2, I think that theSteering Group (SG) members really need to see
the first drafts of papers as soon as they aresubmitted to the editors and at the same time as
the Review Network (RN) members so that we cancheck that there are no major problems withpapers at that early stage. We would then be able
to nip these problems in the bud and iron them out
with still 10 or 11 months until publication (asopposed to the 4 months or so we presently get).
Another thing we can do is to go back andrevise the guidelines for reviewers. I have thefeeling that our advice to them is a little too
idealistic and that we need to strongly urge themto take a robust, critical stance when reviewing
papers in the interests of pushing the writers to up
their game. Of course. we want the feedback to besupportive and constructive and, if possible, to beoffered in a collaborative way, but if it doesn't holdthe writers and editors to account, it isn't, in myview, doing its job.
Darren: I agree with Tim in regard to tightening
up the reviewers’ guidelines. One problem is thatthe reviewers are not operating on the usual“accept/accept with changes/reject” system. All
these papers will be published, so earlierintervention would be better for both writers andeditors. Hopefully, getting the steering groupinvolved sooner will help us to guide authors more
effectively. Late rewrites are too stressful foreveryone….
Alison: It’s very helpful to talk openly about
these problems. As Tim and Darren have said, sometweaking of the process, such as earlier
involvement of the SG and tightening up of thereviewer guidelines would be some good practicalmeasures we can adopt from the next issue. Andy,
you bring up the identity of the journal: it seems tobe that this involves not only the finished productthat we send out into the world, but also the roles
and identities of people involved at every stage ofthe production process. At present, I would say

Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG <http://ld-sig.org>

56

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 25 (2): Free Space
that the names we have given these roles are
actually misnomers. In particular, the Journal
Steering Group has been doing a lot more than juststeering up to this point; the journal’s reviewers
are not gatekeepers, as they would be in a
traditional journal. I’m sure that people come into
the journal with beliefs and expectations about
their roles that are mainly formed by their previous
experiences. This might help explain why, evenwith clear written principles and procedures, we
still find it difficult to keep reviewers and editors(and sometimes authors too!) on track. Hopefully,building up a community of practice is the answer,
as I think we may have said in the past. But I
wonder if it’s also worth considering changing thename of the role “reviewer” to something that’s
closer to what we intend? Mentors, perhaps?
Darren: But is that the intended role? I see thereviewers as ‘outside eyes’ who offer a fresh
perspective. Asking any more of them is unfair. The
editors are the mentors, ideally… but this hasn’t
been working. Expecting less experienced editors
to mentor less experienced writers is unrealistic…..
Hugh: I would hope that the intended role ofeditor for the Journal could include the concept ofsaid editors as peers/collaborators – perhaps
extending almost to co-author to the extent that amentor is like a midwife in the learnerdevelopment/writer developing process and/or
practices. There will always be tension between
what Andy is referring to below as a conventionallyorganised academic journal and the more
improvisational processes/practices of what
Pennycook frames as “a cultural alternative.” This,it seems to me, is a principle of learnerdevelopment, of what we do when we learn
together with our students as well as with our
fellow researchers -- messy, yes, but inspiring in
the ways that dance, music, and theatre are inboth practice and performance.
Andy: Yes, the way we label what people do
and what happens with the LDJ is really important
for thinking about the questions that come up andunderstanding what can be done. It strikes me thatin this discussion we are perhaps focusing on gaps
in what we imagined would happen (i.e., what

editors, reviewers, writers, the journal steeringgroup would be doing) as we created “a cultural
alternative” (to use Pennycook’s phrase) to how an
academic journal usually functions and isconventionally organised.
While everyone is committed to creating aviable cultural alternative, we are realising all thetime just how complex it is to create and sustain it
when so many different “actors” are involved, eachwith their own understanding of what they are
doing within the general framework that has been
set up for the LDJ. Without some minimal andongoing dialogue with all the different parties, I
guess gaps are likely to continue to come up
between what is planned/imagined and what
happens, in any case.
Is there some way for the journal steeringgroup to have a set of interactions with each groupof actors for each issue at particular points in the
production of an issue (with the editors for therespective issue cc-eed on the interactions thattake place)? For example:●

Year One May: with writers?

●

Year One July/August: with editors?

●

Year One October: with members of the
Review Network?

●or ... Year One July-October: with all three(see further below)?

Alison, you mentioned finding a different namefor what Review Network members do—yes, you’reright, the label needs to have a better fit, but theidea of mentoring may be putting an extra layer onthings, as Darren points out. Would calling this key
process something like “Reader Responding/Engaging with the Writer” help? Isn’t that whatbasically “[alternative] reviewing” involves in apeer-equal, collaborative community of practicewith writers and readers? The assumption is thatthe reader’s primary goal is to engage with what
the writer is saying, make sense of it, respond as
fully as possible with the development of thewriter’s writing, for example:

学習者ディベロプメント研究部会 <http://ld-sig.org>

57

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 25 (2): Free Space●

What is the writer trying to say here?

●

How is this engaging me (or not) as areader?

●What responses and questions are coming
up for me as I read this?

●How can I share those responses andquestions with the writer in a criticallyminded/supportive, empathetic way?

●

What questions do I have for the writerabout the further development of theirresearch and writing?

Perhaps these kinds of question help to frame astance and position where a reviewer might
concretely achieve an appropriate quality of reader
responding and engagement with the writer?
Would that go some way to “holding toaccount”, as Tim mentioned, reviewers and editorswith writers, as well as to setting a direction for
dialogue with writers, reviewers and editors about
how to engage with writers about their texts? If so,a primary process for the Journal Steering Groupwould be then not to focus first on identifying“problems”, but rather on talking with writers,
editors, and reviewers about responding andengagement. That may be the kind of common
meta-process that we are missing as a sharedpractice, as an area of mutual interest, activity,and negotiation, if you will, and which it might begood to bring more into focus?
One other thing that strikes me is that it may
be helpful to question the expectation that writers
should produce a full-first draft by the end of Julyof the first year. It could be that requiring writers
to do so at that point is in some ways counterproductive. I wonder whether it would be better tolimit the length here and say “an incomplete firstdraft of 2000-2,500 words that you will then sharewith (a) other contributors to the same issue, (b)the editors, and (c) members of the Review
Network, during the period August to October, anddevelop into a full draft by the end of December ofthe first year.” Might that help to (a) underline anincremental developmental process of writing,responding and engagement, (b) guard against

writers following conventional genres too narrowly
and prematurely in the writing process, and (c)encourage experimentation with genre by writers?
That might be another way to help create astronger sense of community of practice, dialogue,
responding, and engagement for all the parties
concerned, which I feel this discussion is trying tograpple with.
Darren: It has been very difficult to get fulldrafts from the writers at the same time due to thenature of the journal. Some of our moreexperienced writers, and those who have beenworking on a topic which happens to match thetheme, have submitted well-developed papers oncompleted research at the very first stage.
However, we have also been encouraging people tosubmit more speculative works in progress, andthese writer-researchers have often required a lot
more support. This is not something I think weshould change, but it is something that we (aseditors and ‘steerers’) need to work around. Andy,
your suggested process makes sense in that regard.
Tim: Apologies for using the dreaded word
“problem” above. What I perhaps should have said
was that it would really help if the Steering Group(SG) can see the writing in its early stages (forexample, when it is sent out to the Review
Network) so that they can provide comments to theeditors when necessary if they feel the writing
lacks clarity, coherence, or direction, for example,
because the piece of research has not been fully
conceptualized. I think it is difficult for editors
sometimes to be able to step back and look at thewriting dispassionately when they have spent along time developing a relationship with thewriters working on their Issue. At one step
removed, the SG can offer supportive feedback
which it might be difficult for the editors
themselves to provide.
To add one more idea that has come up in our
various discussions, it may be better for us to think
about inviting more people to join the Journal
Steering Group (JSG) so that more of their work as
secondary reviewers and proofreaders can beshared around.

Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG <http://ld-sig.org>

58

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 25 (2): Free Space
Andy: One other idea for the mix is creating on
the LD website some “publication resources” withlinks to different kinds of exploratory writing about
learner development - within different SIG
publications and in the wider field. Those kind ofnear-peer role models could be a useful reference
for helping writers to break into new kinds ofwriting. “Developing (multi-interactive)
communities of exploratory writing, responding andediting practices” seems a rich area for ongoing
discussions - and feels closely connected to moving
beyond reifying “full-length papers” as therequirement for first drafts by LDJ contributors.
Hugh: (not feeling sure if he wants to give theappearance of having the last word) . . . but as I
read/scroll through this lengthening text, am
grateful for the wide-ranging scope of the
discussion, and the fact that after several weeks ofdevelopment, this document has grown more andmore dialogic. We have, for example, Darren
pointing out the practical difficulties for editors as
writers with different experiences and histories of‘academic’ writing contribute to the journal, andthe challenges that are the inevitable result. This
perspective, considered in relation to Tim’s andAndy’s observations (above), suggest to me thatsome practice/perspective of expansion (ofinclusiveness?) is the key to meeting the ideals weare struggling to articulate and realise as we work
towards the publication of volume 2 and focus on
the necessary next steps in bringing volume 3
towards completion. Though it remains difficult for
all of us to allocate time and energy – and tocoordinate the efforts our SIG projects require, themodels of co-operation (of “working in teams”)
both in the SIG as a whole, and on finalizing
individual publications, offer the best models ofpractice for the future. Perhaps the Google Docsmodel we’re using to work on Learning Learning
offers one simple solution to the “near-peer rolemodels” approach Andy describes as a practicalway forward in the development of “multiinteractive communities of interactive writing (andediting).”

Tokyo July 2018 Get-together
Reflections and Plans for2019
Andy Barfield, Martin Cater, Ken Ikeda, Kio Iwai, &Koki Tomita
Note: These reflections focus on discussions at the July
get-together about learners’ linguistic repertoires andplans for the get-togethers in 2019.

Koki: I joined the Get-together a half hour late.
The members had already started their discussions
about Andy’s ongoing research. It was pleasant to
see that the research has evolved since Andy
shared it with us during the April Get Together. The
main topic was Andy’s student research
participant’s language identity and her perceptionsof standard Japanese and her Japanese dialect.
Here, Lee talked about the hard time he had in hischildhood in formulating his identity in the U.S. asa son of an Australian mother and an American
father. This involved selecting “appropriate”
lexicon and avoiding deviating from social norms toblend into the culture and the society. Ken also
shared a story from his childhood where his teacher
in the U.S. told his parents to use only English intheir household to improve Ken’s English
competency because Ken was not linguisticallyfunctioning well at school at that time. Both cases
exemplify how much the standard language(s)pushes off other politically, socially andeconomically weak dialects or deviated languages
in a society.
In the second half of the meeting, we talked
about the continuity of future Tokyo Get-Togethers
and CCLT4. We agreed that we need morecommunication and a different way to attract moremembers to come to the get-togethers. One of theways to achieve the goal is dividing the meeting
into the input and discussion parts. In the input
part, we will have a few presenters and get themto share their research-oriented or practical handson presentations to the audience, and discuss thecontent with more depth.

学習者ディベロプメント研究部会 <http://ld-sig.org>

59