Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

Learning Learning
LOOKING BACK íß

Starting a New Conversation: Using Innovative Approaches to Ensure New
LearningJoël Laurier
University of Tsukuba
Alison Stewart
Gakushuin University
Katherine Thornton
Otemon Gakuin University

Debjani Ray
Tokyo University of Science
Hiroyo Nakagawa
Kansai Gaidai College
Greg Rouault
Tezukayama Gakuin University

New Conversations to Help Shape the Future of EducationJoël LaurierAs educators, we are continually innovating to keep pace with our students’ needs in today’s
rapidly changing world. From materials usage to materials creation, to lesson content andteaching style, teachers in a wide variety of contexts develop innovative practices to suit theever-changing dynamics of our creation studios, commonly known as classrooms. At the same time, as
we innovate, we need to be keenly aware of the effects of innovations on our students. Maintaining
critical and constructive dialogues or conversations with our learners and with other teachers is essential
for gauging the worth of these innovations. These new conversations, in all their varied forms, bringabout initiatives that help shape the future of education and help educators be agents of change. For the
Pan-SIG 2016 Conference in Okinawa, the Learner Development Special Interest Group (LD SIG)
Forum showcased a variety of innovative practices. This article presents summaries of the five posters
that were shown at the Forum, each of which reflects different perspectives on what innovation means
and what kind of innovation might benefit learners and teachers. The article starts off with Alison
Stewart offering a critical look at the place of autonomy as an innovative language learning approachthrough a comparative overview of theories of learning and language learning pedagogy. Katherine
Thornton provides a perspective of one university’s initiative to foster autonomous language learning
practices among its students. Debjani Ray provides a reflection of an English Lounge and its effects on
her students. Hiroyo Nakagawa introduces a new approach to develop reflective writers. Greg Rouault
ends the article with an account of his mentoring of his undergraduate teacher trainees. This initiative
enabled his students to attend language-teaching conferences with the support of an LD SIG Outreach
Grant.
Joël Laurier is an associate professor in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Universityof Tsukuba. He is co-editor of The Language Teacher’s SIG Focus column and JALT’s Regional
Professional Activities Committee Chair. He is a cooperative learning practitioner and trainer whose
current research interests are in the domain of mind, brain and education.
Author correspondence: waldolaurier@gmail.com

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |14

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

Learning Learning

Changing Paradigms: Evolving Theories About Language Learning and Learner
Development
Alison StewartThe aim of this poster presentation was to consider learner autonomy as an idea and to explore
how and where it might fit in a historical scheme of innovative ideas about language learning andlearner development. I have been thinking about this for some time, most recently in the courseof collaborating with other Learner Development SIG members to define or explain learner autonomy
for book chapters (Stewart & Irie, 2011; Stewart & Ashwell, 2014; Stewart, Ashwell, Miyahara & Paydon,2014), and in a lecture course “Introduction to Applied Linguistics and TESOL” at Gakushuin
University. Although these attempts to clarify learner autonomy have given me some insights, they havealso raised new questions about learner autonomy, what we mean by it, and what that means for our
teaching practice and research, and I wanted to discuss these questions with other participants at the LD
SIG Forum at PanSIG.
Although language learner autonomy is sometimes regarded as an innovative approach to language
learning, the idea of autonomy in learning is far from new, with its antecedents in the teachings of Platoand Socrates, Confucius, and the Hindu Upanishads. What we tend to now think of as “traditional”
education methods—teacher-fronted classrooms and rote memorization—were also “innovative” at one
time. Reflecting on the role education was called upon to play in the creation of modern nation-states ineighteenth-century Europe reminds us that innovative methods of teaching and learning are introduced
to respond to social conditions and challenges.
Turning more specifically to ideas regarding language learning, the following table of language learning
approaches highlights contrasts in their pedagogical focus, the teaching/learning practices they promote,and the ideologies or theories on which they are based. Learner autonomy is included in this table as alanguage learning approach, but, unlike the other approaches listed, there is no clearly defined theoreticalframework with which it can be associated.
Table 1. A Comparison of Language Learning Approaches
Language Learning Reason for Learning
ApproachGrammar-Translation Translation/reading/writing

Practices

Theories

Translation

Nationalist

Audio Lingual

Speaking/listening

Drills, chants

Behaviorist

Communicative
Language Teaching

Communicative competence,
SLA

Interaction

Cognitive

Content-Based
Learning (incl. CLIL)

Discourse alignment

EAP, ESP

Socio

Learner Autonomy

Learner development

Self-regulated learning,reflective practice?

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |15

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

The final part of the poster traced some recent “turns” that have occurred in the field of applied
linguistics. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research evolved out of Chomsky’s (1959) rejection of a
Behaviorist view that emphasized conformity to social norms and ignored the role of autonomy andcreativity in the learner. A subsequent “social turn” (Block 2005) saw researchers looking more closely at
issues of structure and agency in learning. Finally, a “spatial turn” now sees learning as a complex
dynamic system (e.g., van Lier, 2000; Larsen-Freeman, 2015) that develops as a result of interaction withand upon the environment (people, places and things).
Learner autonomy research and practice have followed all these turns, although this does not mean that
researchers or practitioners have necessarily rejected previous theoretical perspectives. Quite different
theoretical frameworks continue to underpin new research: SLA (individual differences), social(collaboration, interdependence), and spatial (learning spaces, linguistic landscapes), to the point that aleading figure in the field has questioned whether applied linguistics can even be called a field at all(Cook, 2015).
Does it matter? Is it helpful to think of learner autonomy as an “approach” or a “paradigm”, or doesthat push us to become dogmatic in our decisions about how we should go about conceptualizing it in
our classes or curriculums and in our research? There may not be any clear answers to these questions,but this should not be a reason not to ask them, nor to continue to seek answers.
Alison Stewart teaches in the Department of English Language and Cultures at Gakushuin
University. She has a doctorate in Applied Linguistics focusing on teacher identity and is the co-authorof a recent article in ELT Journal on Language Teaching Associations in Japan (one of which is
JALT).

Reflective Dialogue for Language Learning: A New Conversation?
Katherine Thornton

M

astery of a foreign language requires that students engage in learning beyond the classroom.
The growing movement towards learner autonomy in language learning (Benson, 2011) has
emphasized the role of the language teacher as a facilitator in this process and the importanceof providing sufficient support for learners to successfully negotiate their own pathways to effective
language learning. As Stewart (this paper) rightly points out, the development of learner autonomy canbe approached from many perspectives. In this section, I focus on a course I developed at a foreign
languages university in Japan, the aims of which were to develop the self-directed language learning skillsof the students. Reflective dialogue is a major component of the course, in both written and spoken
form.
The one-semester course for third- and fourth-year students, was held twice a week and taught by myself,
a learning advisor. While a teacher’s main focus is usually to support a learner to develop proficiency in alanguage, an advisor focuses primarily on metacognitive skills for learning, through engaging in an
intentional reflective dialogue with the learner (Kato, 2012). In this course, I employed several modes of

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |16

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

instruction to help develop these skills: classroom activities, face-to-face advising sessions, and written
reflection through journals. The course included the following phases: awareness raising, planning, andtwo self-directed learning cycles.
Awareness raising
Learners’ prior learning experiences can have a significant impact on beliefs about learning, which inturn influence decisions made about language learning (Cotterall, 1995). In the initial weeks, students
completed the following activities to analyse their existing beliefs: including beliefs surveys and language
learning histories. I also introduced important self-directed learning skills that would be necessary to
successfully complete the course goals: planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating (after Wenden,
1998), with an emphasis on implementing (Thornton, 2010), as experience showed that students
struggled most with issues such as time management and maintaining motivation, in other words theimplementation of their plans.
Planning
After considering their prior learning experiences and critically analysing their beliefs, learners engaged ina process of needs analysis, resulting in the formation of concrete learning goals. They then conducted adiagnostic, to identify their strengths and weaknesses and focus their goals, and decided on materials andstrategies to use. This process was supported by individual advising sessions to help each learner toexplore this plan critically through supportive questioning. I also gave suggestions for materials andstrategies where appropriate, which the learner was free to incorporate or ignore. Learners thenembarked on two separate learning cycles.
Learning Cycles
Each cycle lasted three weeks. One class per week was given over to self-directed learning, with students
completing at least 3 hours of self-directed language learning by following their plans. Each week theywrote a learning journal reflecting on their activities that was uploaded to a shared platform where it
could be read by peers, and was commented on privately by the advisor. In the remaining class, students
discussed their learning experiences in small groups, sharing ideas and encouraging each other.
At the end of each cycle, learners repeated their diagnostic activities as a form of evaluation to measure
their progress towards their goals.
Reflection Through “New Conversations”
Reflection was a main tenet of the course, and incorporated in a number of ways. Firstly, the language
learning beliefs activities were designed as reflective activities to encourage students to critically analyse
their previous experiences. Secondly, students attended three advising sessions throughout the course, inwhich reflective dialogue helped the learner to think more deeply about their learning (Kato & Mynard,2016). The same process took place in written format in the learning journals, and students were also
given the opportunities to reflect with peers in class discussions. Finally, on completing the two learning
cycles, learners used a reflective tool called the wheel of language learning (Yamashita & Kato, 2012), in
REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |17

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

which they visually represented their level of satisfaction with being able to use self-directed learning
skills in a wheel, which formed the basis for the final advising session, and was then written up in a final
reflective report. In this way, in both spoken and written formats, learners engaged in a “newconversation” with the advisor in order to reach a deeper understanding of their learning processes.
Katherine Thornton has an MA in TESOL from the University of Leeds and is associate professor
at Otemon Gakuin University and is the Program Director of the self-access centre there. She is aformer president of the Japan Association of Self-Access Learning (JASAL) and a column editor of
the Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal.

English Lounge: A New Perspective to Enhance Learning
Debjani RayL

earning is “a journey through landscapes of practices” and “through engagements” (Wenger,2010) and to enforce student motivation, engagement is extremely vital (Schilling & Schilling,1999). Non-classroom language learning spaces are a relatively new approach to enhancing
language learning but the rationale for them is based on concepts of self-directed learning, learnercentered learning, autonomous learning, and collaborative learning. In self-access learning centers,
students choose from different available resources to study independently (Klassen, Detaramani, Lui,
Patri, & Wu, 1998) and their active participation is the key (Gibbs, 1995, Carter, 1999). Brent and Felder(2008) say learning through activities engages students in meaningful tasks through which they learn.
This way it becomes an efficient way for learning as it encourages and engages students and through it
they can connect to the real world with their newly gained knowledge. In the English Lounge describedin this article, that was the focus, not just memorizing and storing of the information but using it in realcontext.
I started an English Lounge once a week five years ago at the university campus where I used to teach.
The idea was to give the students an opportunity to practice the language they were learning in theclassroom. As General English classes are non-communicative, some students protested vocally when aspecial communication class taught by me for advanced students got cancelled to make room for someother class. That gave me the idea that there was a need for it. I initiated the plan for an English Lounge
and the idea was supported by my supervisor but there was no financial support available. I gathered oldEnglish books and newspapers, some games that I owned, e.g., English Karuta, Checkers, Scrabbles etc.
for the Lounge. I also bought poster paper, pencil set, markers, glue, tape etc., as well as light snacks andtea and coffee with my own money. We managed to continue the English Lounge despite a number ofchanges in venues and times with all sessions lasting for about an hour and a half to two hours. Studying
at a science university, the students were all from diverse fields of science and technology. They chosefrom the available resources and did different kinds of activities, such as reading books/the newspaper,playing games, having conversation/discussion. Here I will discuss the group projects of a group ofArchitecture students who developed a project on different architectural landmarks.
At first, even though they were motivated enough to visit the English Lounge, the students were at a loss
as to what to do as it was not a class, nor was it a course to be followed. They were 13 second-year

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |18

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

Architecture students with intermediate level of English and great interest in architecture. As a facilitatorof the group, I suggested they discuss some buildings or objects of architectural importance, in line with
their major, in English. This developed into group projects, which the students presented over a twoweek period.
The students formed groups consisting of 3 to 5 students and smoothly chose their themes of interest:
different landmarks in Tokyo. They visited the English Lounge once almost every week and worked
together on their projects there. They did extensive research on them both in and outside the English
Lounge. The students were assisted when they needed help, particularly with the language. I monitored
and kept notes on their progress throughout the process. It took about 8 weeks to research and prepare
and they kept the English Lounge as their common place to meet and work. Finally, the students
presented their work in both printed and electronic formats, speaking in front of many students whomthey had invited to attend.
Through conducting the English Lounge, I was able to see the benefits of a wholly student-centeredlearning approach in which students took part actively and engaged in activities that they chose
independently. Among the benefits of the English Lounge the most prominent ones might be:opportunities for using English, improvement of communication in English, self-motivation, developing
independent learning skills and self-management, improvement of student performance and selfconfidence. In the English Lounge, the Japanese students communicated with each other in English
without any hesitation, although they sometimes used Japanese to negotiate. Away from any course or
syllabus, they felt free to choose what they were interested in and used English to discuss what theyknew with each other. Through this process their knowledge and skills of the language became deeper
and broader and, at the same time, the content knowledge improved.
It can be safely interpreted that students try to work wholeheartedly for the projects when they are at thecenter of the task and they learn by doing. The students in the English Lounge were actively engaged ininvestigating the themes that they had chosen, and that helped them in gathering content knowledge andin enhancing their language skills as well.
Debjani Ray has been teaching at universities in Japan for more than 20 years. She teaches
communication skills to students science and engineering students at the Tokyo University of Science,
Kanamachi Campus. She teaches communication skills to Science and Engineering students. Her
primary interest is teaching communication in context. One of her research interests is social impact on
education.

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |19

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

An Assisted-Writing Approach for Japanese College Students
Hiroyo Nakagawa

W

ith growing globalization, written communication is becoming more important for Japanese
students. However, since communicative language teaching has dominated English classes inJapan since the 1990s, there has been insufficient research on teaching writing. Recently,
educators have been conducting more research into the teaching of writing, but there is still a need to
improve teaching materials and approaches specifically for Japanese students. Educators should look
into teaching methods for students who have difficulty in writing even a single paragraph (Hirose, 2003;
Nakashini, 2006). The purpose of the present study is to examine how Japanese college students canimprove paragraph-writing skills with an assisted writing approach that encourages learner development
through reflective writing. In other words, students can engage in paragraph-writing activities to becomereflective writers capable of thinking about their own writing to reduce errors, improve organization andcontent. An assisted writing approach involves the teacher’s intervention in two aspects: giving explicit
instructions on paragraph structures and providing corrective feedback in a classroom where students
can discuss their ideas. I conclude by considering how such an approach can reduce students’ anxiety
about writing, achieve self-esteem, and build their confidence.
Based on the ideas above, I presented a practical research report entitled “Assisted paragraph writing forJapanese college students” in the LD Forum. In the research, 25 junior college second-year students,
whose TOEIC scores were about 440, wrote their thoughts and impressions on social issues they had
read in reading classes. They failed a compulsory writing class taught by native speakers of English when
they were in their first year, which made them discouraged regarding writing. Some expressed that they
did not follow those teachers’ guidelines; others had too many absences. Therefore, I believed that giving
the target students explicit instruction as well as encouragement was imperative.
At the beginning of the semester, a pre-writing test, and at the end, a post-writing test were administeredfor 30 minutes. During the semester, after providing explicit paragraph writing structures, such as topic
sentences, supporting sentences, and concluding sentences, the students practiced writing paragraphs ineach class twice a week for one semester. During those writing activities, they had to engage in prewriting exercises such as planning, mapping, brainstorming, and making outlines. Afterwards, during thein-writing stage they worked on drafting their paragraphs, reviewing, and revising. Once they figured out
how to do paragraph writing activities, they were assigned to practice over and over.
Preliminary findings indicate that these writing activities may be effective in enabling learners to develop
their fluency, understand basic paragraph structure, and be aware of controversial issues. Out of 25
students, 16 increased the range of their vocabulary and 24 increased the number of connectors they
could recognize. It seems that those students were able to understand at least what the paragraphorganization should be. Overall, their paragraphs became more logical with increased use of connectors.
Overall, the pilot study implies that paragraph writing activities helped their learner development.
Student feedback suggested that paragraph writing activities such as mind mapping are helpful ingenerating new ideas. Additionally, others mentioned that they were able to write a lot of supporting
details through making outlines. It may be true that planning is very important to reduce writing

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |20

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

anxieties and develop fluency. Planning stages can provide students with opportunities to share theirown thoughts and can activate in-class discussion. Pre-writing discussions played a key role indeveloping their creativity and organizing their ideas. However, some of them still had writing
shortcomings in vocabulary, grammatical competence and writing experiences, which are issues to besolved in the future.
Hiroyo Nakagawa is an associate professor at Kansai Gaidai College and is interested in Japanese
EFL students’ writing and learner autonomy. She has written several TOEIC textbooks.

Mentoring for Professional Development: A Case Study of Undergraduates
Seeking Teaching Licenses
Greg RouaultM

entoring is generally accepted as a relationship in which a more experienced or more
knowledgeable person helps to guide a less experienced or less knowledgeable person. Farren(2006) elaborates further by describing mentoring as a learning and development partnership
between someone with vast experience and someone who wants to learn. Drawing largely from business
contexts, Kouzes and Posner (1993) have suggested that mentors look for “teachable moments” in order
to expand or realize the potentialities of the people in the organizations they lead.
Personal experience has shown that recommendations from respected people who I perceived as
mentors, even informally, can be very valuable. For example, the advice I have received to get involved
with professional development by attending conferences and taking on roles in academic societies has
fostered several career related opportunities. These suggestions created openings for networking andexperiential learning, which Silberman (2006) has called “learning by doing.” I decided to provide similar
guidance to support my seminar students in beginning their own careers as novice teachers. The goal forthis short term, situational mentoring (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) was to introduce the learners tochances for further education and examples from practicing teachers, as well as to offer moral supportand inspiration.
While mentoring is certainly not a new concept, a scan of the index in popular teaching methodology
texts for ESL/EFL teaching did not reveal the term. Various forms of professional development andteacher training/education are listed, but not specifically mentoring. However, if the role of teachers infostering autonomy is as a facilitator or counsellor, then, the psycho-social support that is provided must
include raising awareness and motivating learners, as well as technical support for learners to plan, carryout, and evaluate learning (Aoki, 1999).
Considering this underpinning and my personal experience, I wanted to act as a formal mentor, even fora very short term, and recommend that my students take part in academic conferences. I believed this
could have a positive impact on their engagement in present learning as pre-service teachers and on theirapproach toward professional development in the future. I submitted a proposal to the LD SIG for an
REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |21

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

Outreach Grant to support senior undergraduate students in attending local teacher education
conferences. This section reports briefly on the initial outcomes of that project relating specifically to the
Pan-SIG LD Forum theme.
Two students in the teacher training program at a private university in Osaka were selected and agreed totake part in this case study into mentoring for professional development. I provided them with a survey
to be completed in two parts: (a) prior to and (b) after attending the teacher training conferences. Openended questions were used specifically to raise awareness, to focus planning, and to capture learning andreflections from this first-time, unfamiliar experience. The teacher training events proposed forparticipation included (a) the Spring Conference for JACET Kansai, (b) Pearson Education “Days”, and(c) the English Teachers in Japan Kansai event. Each student attended two of these, on their own,
without my involvement, and with only the survey questions as a guide.
In terms of contributing to the affective and behavioral goals as well as skill development for thesestudent teachers, there is hope to be seen in one subject’s answer to, “Whatdoesteacher/faculty
development mean to you?”
In current Japanese education, the teaching style where the teacher teaches students one-sidedly is no longer
accepted, so teachers are searching for various ways. I think this [training/workshop] is a good way to
study, acquire, and verify new ways of teaching that are different from conventional ones. [Translationfrom Japanese original]
While some may suggest that communicative language teaching has permeated English language classes
in Japan since even before these university students were born, when asked, “How has attending thisfirst set of conference presentations and workshops changed your thinking about professional
development or lifelong learning?” one subject responded:
I was surprised because the ways of teaching presented in the workshops were completely different from theones I have experienced … we should study new ways of lessons because the times are changing …
teachers should put the new ways into practice and whether the result is good or bad, they should takeactions against the challenges that they find. [Translation from Japanese original]
Mentoring as a concept is not new and may even be included under other terms in ESL/EFL language
teaching methods instruction. However, for the future teachers in this case study, the mentoring
nurtured to promote attending teacher training conferences opened a conversation for a new approachfor new learning.
Greg Rouault is an associate professor at Tezukayama Gakuin University who has taught in a wide
range of contexts in Japan for the past 18 years. He has a Master of Applied Linguistics and a
Graduate Certificate in Sustainable Business Management. His research interests include ESP,
experiential learning, and literacy.

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |22

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017ConclusionJoël LaurierAs society continuously changes, learning needs and methods of learning also change, bringing
about innovations and “new conversations.” The necessity to regularly re-tool, re-formulate,and revamp the educational process keeps educators challenging their students and themselves
for better pedagogical results. The innovative processes have endless possibilities. This article brings tolight but a few of them. From self-learning management to engaging students in reflective decisionmaking, these five presenters have shown that innovation is an important part of the process, if not the
key point. Whether it be opening doors for students to answer the questions or making special courses
to help sustain autonomous learning, the innovative practices described in this article bring an interesting
dimension to the forefront. With these new conversations arising, what will the future of education bringus?
References
Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner autonomy. In J. Arnold(Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 142-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (2nd edition). Harlow: Pearson.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Brent, R., & Felder, R. M. (2008). A professional development program for graduate students at North
Carolina State University. 2008 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2008.
Carter, B. A. (1999). Begin with beliefs: Exploring the relationship between beliefs and learner autonomy
among advanced students. Texas Papers in Foreign and Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 1–20.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED467863)
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.
Cook, G. (2015). Birds out of dinosaurs: The death and life of applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 36(4),425-433.
Cotterall, S.(1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 191-205.
Farren, C. (2006). Eight types of mentor: Which ones do you need? Retrieved fromhttp://www.masteryworks.com/newsite/downloads/Article3_EightTypesofMentorsWhichOnesdoyouNeed.pdf
Gibbs, G. (1995). Assessing student centered courses. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Learning andDevelopment.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training & Development
Journal, 36(5), 50-52.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing ofJapanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181-209.
Kato, S. (2012). Professional development for learning advisors: Facilitating the intentional reflective
dialogue. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(1), 74-92.
Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2015). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Klassen, J., Detaramani, C., Lui, E., Patri, M., & Wu, J. (1998). Does self-access language learning at thetertiary level really work? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 55–80.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |23

Learning Learning

Volume 24 Issue 3
Winter 2017

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Complexity theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition (pp. 227-244). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mulvey, B. (2016). Writing instruction: What is being taught in Japanese high schools, why, and why itmatters. The Language Teacher, 40(3), 3-8.
Nakanishi, C. (2006). A teaching approach to Japanese college students’ EFL writing. Tokyo: Keio University
Press.
Raimes, A. (1992). Exploring through writing. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Schilling, K. M., & Schilling, K. L. (1999). Increasing expectations for student effort. About Campus, 4(2),
4–10.
Silberman, M. (2006). Active training. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Stewart, A., & Ashwell, T. (2014). Clarifying terms. In T. Ashwell, M. Miyahara, S. Paydon, & A. Stewart(Eds.), Collaborative learning in learner development. Tokyo: JALT. Retrieved fromhttps://www.smashwords.com/books/view/503846.
Stewart, A., Miyahara, M., Paydon, S., & Ashwell, T. (2014). Theoretical underpinnings of collaborative
learning. In T. Ashwell, M. Miyahara, S. Paydon, & A. Stewart (Eds.), Collaborative Learning in Learner
Development. Tokyo: JALT. Available at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/503846.
Stewart, A., & Irie, K. (2011). Realizing autonomy: Contradictions in practice and context. In K. Irie & A.
Stewart (Eds.), Realizing autonomy: Practice and reflection in language education contexts (pp. 1-17).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thornton, K. (2010). Supporting self-directed learning: A framework for teachers. Language Education in
Asia, I(1), 158-170.
Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective.
In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 245-259).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515-537.
Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In C.
Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179- 198). London: SpringerVerlag.
Yamashita, H., & Kato, S. (2012). The wheel of language learning: A tool to facilitate learner awareness,reflection and action. In J. Mynard & L. Carson (Eds.), Advising in language learning: Dialogue tools andcontext (pp. 164-169). Harlow: Longman.
JALT PanSIG Conference May 19-20, 2018
Toyo Gakuen University, Hongo, Tokyo
Call for Proposals deadline: 15 January 2018
For more information <pansig.org>

REFLECTIONS ON PANSIG 2016

LOOKING BACK |24