RESEARCH PAPER
The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for
Supporting Collaborative Reflection
Mathew Porter, Fukuoka Jo Gakuin Nursing University
Scott Hilton, Kure Miyahara High School
Reflection and metacognition in second language learning, particularly in the context of learner development, areimportant and yet challenging to introduce successfully in the classroom. Aiming to address this challenge, theauthors identified two tools to support students as they begin practicing reflection: a collaborative reflection protocol developed by Degeling and Prilla (2011) for use in the workplace and adapted by the authors for use in theclassroom, and The Strategy Tree (Abe, Yoshimuta, and Davies, 2014)—a visual metaphor representing a learner’s
evaluation of their language abilities, experiences, and attitudes. In this paper, the authors describe a classroom
activity using the The Language Learning Tree, a modified version of The Strategy Tree, to aid learners in beginning
meaningful reflective practice. They also discuss how classroom teachers can support improved metacognition via
collaborative reflection in a first-year nursing university setting (Porter) and a first-year high school setting (Hilton).
Learner artifacts from the authors’ respective contexts are presented and analyzed. The authors conclude by engaging in a reflective dialogue that explores their collaborative journey as researchers, as well as understandingsthat emerged from both their learners and their mutual work. Foremost among these is the recognition that, while
no single activity will transform a learner’s metacognitive capabilities, their experiences with the collaborativereflection protocol and The Language Learning Tree provide several indications that they are effective catalysts forreflective practice.
第二言語学習における内省とメタ認知は、特に学習者ディベロプメントを考える上では重要であり、教室内での導入を試みるべき価値がある。これを実現すべく、筆者らは学習者の内省をサポートするためのツールとして以下の２つのものを用いた。まず一つ目は学習者が内省の練習をするため、職場での利用を目的として Degeling and Prilla (2011)によって作られた協働的内省プロトコルを教室場面に応用し利用した。もう一つはAbe, Yoshimuta, and Davies s (2014)が提唱した ストラテジーツリーで、これは言語能力や経験、態度についての学習者自身による評価を図式化するものである。本稿では、学習者の初期段階の意味あるリフレクティブ・プラクティスを支援するストラ
テジーツリーの修正版であるランゲージ ラーニング ツリーを使った教室活動を記述する。そして、看護学校の１年生（Porter）と高校の１年生（Hilton）のクラスにおいて実施した協働的な内省活動を通して、教師がいかにメタ認知能力の育成をサポートすることができるのかについて議論する。それぞれの調査校で得られた学習者の成果物を分析した結果、内省的な対話に従事することで、教師である筆者らは研究者としての協働的な道のりを切り開くと同時に、学習者と彼らの相互作用から理解が生まれることが明らかになった。また、この中で最も重要なのは、単独での活動は学習者のメタ認知能力を変化させない一方で、協働的内省プロトコルやランゲージ ラーニング ツリーを通した経験はリフレクティブ・プラクティス効果的に誘発することが示された。

Keywords
reflection, metacognition, collaborative reflection, peer-/self-assessment, scaffolding learner assessment

キーワード
内省、メタ認知、協働的内省、ピア／自己評価、学習者評価のスキャホールディングAny teacher who has used reflective activities with learners understands how challenging it can be Using a simple prompt or two, teachers expect learners to be able to describe their efforts in detail, relate new insights to previous learning, and examine
attitudes about learning. Welch (1999), writing about reflection in service learning, describes
a “clumsy” approach to reflection which fails to engage learners and results in blank stares
and shallow written reflections. This can be true with diaries as well, where students may
only provide a general narrative of what they did and comment on how hard they worked
or what they liked (Little, 2001). Additionally, reflection can seem contrived when it is part
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201725

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflectionof graded coursework, especially when it requires some sort of confession or fails to meeta teacher’s expectation in terms of depth or quality. The problem may be that reflection is
ill-defined and therefore difficult to characterize and teach (Jay & Johnson, 2002), so why
should teachers bother including reflective activities in a course curriculum? In the domainof second language acquisition, reflection is considered by many to be an essential skill for
language learners. Benson (2011) has provided an overview of reflection and its relationship tolanguage learner autonomy. He explains how reflection on language itself, the learning process, and one’s existing beliefs and practices has been promoted within the field as a way tosupport learner autonomy. Little (2004) included learner reflection as one of three pedagogical principles governing the development of autonomy in language learning, stressing thatlearners must be able to “think about their learning both at a macro level (for example, reviewing what has been achieved in a school year) and at a micro level (for example, trying towork out why a particular learning activity was or was not successful)” (p. 22). Ridley (1997)
identified four interrelated areas that can make up the content of classroom learners’ reflections:i) the target language, its structures and rules, ii) the long-term process of their language learning, both past experiences and expectations for the future; iii) themselves
as language learners, and how they measure up to the demands of the course; and iv)
the various tasks, activities, or longer-term projects which they undertake (p. 6).
This focus on the learning process often highlights being able to diagnose one’s needs,
setting one’s own learning objectives, choosing one’s learning resources and strategies, andevaluating one’s learning—skills synonymous with practicing metacognition.
Metacognition refers to the concept of thinking about one’s thoughts (Hacker, 1998). As originally described by Flavell (1979), it refers to both “one’s own knowledge concerning one’s own
cognitive process and products or anything associated with them” and “the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to the cognitive
objects or data on which they bear, usually in the service of some concrete goal or objective”(p. 232). The object of metacognition can be “what one knows (i.e., metacognitive knowledge),what one is currently doing (i.e., metacognitive skill), and one’s current cognitive or affective state (i.e., metacognitive experience)” (Hacker, 1998, p. 3). A recent review of research on
metacognition highlights that “metacognition improves with both age and appropriate instruction, with substantial empirical evidence supporting the notion that learners can be taught toreflect on their own thinking” (Lai, 2011). For this reason, it is important for teachers to findways to effectively use reflection activities in their courses. Lin (2001) identified two basic approaches to supporting metacognition in the classroom: strategy training and the creation of a
supportive social environment where learners aren’t afraid to struggle, fail, or question

Group Reflection
The learner’s social context has a pronounced effect on metacognition and reflection, andthe use of collaborative and cooperative learning methods can help to create a supportive
social environment. Consider the example of a group discussion. Bandura (1977) suggeststhat greater interpersonal interaction can improve reflection by enhancing motivation andincreasing engagement towards the activity We see this when one learner is inspired by apeer’s contribution to join the discussion, or rethink a position. When this learner connectsthat classmate’s experience to her own it is illustrative of social context and interaction shaping self-concept, as “knowledge about the self-as-learner is usually developed using social
modeling provided by other people” (Lin 2001, p. 27). This may lead to new insights about her
learning experience, demonstrating that collaborative and cooperative learning methods sup-26

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

port learners’ metacognitive development (Lai 2011). Little describes his principle of learnerreflection in terms of social interaction, explaining that it is “implemented interactively: theindividual learner’s capacity to evaluate his or her learning grows out of the group’s ongoing
discussion of the learning process” (2004, p. 22). But how is a teacher to orchestrate a collaborative reflection activity?
Degeling and Prilla (2011) have developed tools to support collaborative reflection for the
informal learning of skills in the workplace. Within their context, collaborative reflection is atechnique for thinking about mutual experiences and the common meaning that participants
find in collective work. They have found that successful collaborative reflection demands anability to articulate understanding of personal experiences, link those experiences and perspectives to those of others, and reflect together on differences in individual experiences. The
result of this is skill development through social practice. They describe three tasks requiringsupport for collaborative reflection to be successful: articulation, scaffolding, and synergizing.
First, articulation calls for the use of formal or informal text, such as stories, notes, or evenannotations on another document, to help trigger reflection during the reflection session.
In the classroom, this could be extended to any learning artifact that the learner wants toshare with the group. Next, scaffolding is a structure imposed on the reflective discussion to
guide it and the participants Finally, synergizing describes the process of connecting insights
gained from collaborative reflection to outcomes (Degeling & Prilla, 2011, pp. 3-4). Degelingand Prilla recommend providing support to facilitate and maintain a sustained shared context and move the reflection forward. We believe that the approach they have developed may
translate well to the context of language learning classrooms

Objectives
Our project has two objectives: first, to design a classroom activity for learners to gain experience with meaningful reflective practice, and second, to improve our understanding of how
we, as classroom teachers, can support improved metacognition in our contexts To achieve
our first objective, we designed an activity for collaborative reflection on language learning following the tasks described by Degeling and Prilla. Our second objective was achieved
through the process of regular teleconferencing and correspondence while designing materials and writing this account. The remainder of this paper is divided into five sections. In thefirst and second sections, we introduce our contexts and present the three stages of the collaborative reflection activity. In the third section, we share some artifacts and responses fromlearners, as well as our observations of learners engaged in the activity, in order to provide arepresentative impression of the activity from the learner’s perspective Then, in the fourth
section, we reflect separately on both the activity and this project, followed by a commentaryon each other’s reflection. In the final section of the paper, we offer an assessment of the activity and recommendations for its adaptation by other educators We hope this account may
act as a helpful roadmap for other language educators looking to explore reflection and introduce it to their learners

Our Contexts
Scott
I am an assistant language teacher on the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme, aninternational cultural exchange program operated by the Japanese government I team-teachapproximately 500 high school students enrolled at two public high schools in a small city inwestern Japan. I see most learners once in two weeks. Class size ranges from 16 to 40, and I
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201727

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflection

team teach with 10 different Japanese teachers of English. Our syllabus follows a Ministry of
Education-approved textbook, and the lessons I teach are generally supplemental to that text.
My lessons focus on a target language ability and key expressions that support that ability.
Learners engage in a culminating project at the end of each term beginning with a conversation test in the first term, an essay in the second, and an original speech contest in the final
third term
In my previous teaching position at a K-8 public Montessori school in California, learner
metacognition, application of inquiry-based strategies, and regular reflection had been given
institution-wide importance. In my work in Japan, after determining that my desire to replicate these goals was supported by the Japanese English teachers I work with, I began working
to design an introduction to reflection. It was my hope that by engaging learners in reflective
practice they could gain a deeper metacognitive awareness of themselves as learners I hoped
this would lead them to develop better understanding of the learning process and greater
control of their own learning

Mathew
I currently teach around 220 first- and second-year Japanese university students majoringin nursing in southern Japan My classes are made up of 50-60 learners of varying ability,
and meet once a week for 90 minutes over a 15-week semester. The learners are required totake just three semesters of English, finishing required English courses at the end of the firstsemester of their second year, just as they experience their first clinical training. The threerequired courses follow a situational syllabus based on oral interactions with patients Thesesituations are expressed through “can-do” statements that are shared with the learners Eachsemester consists of 3-4 assessment tasks (e.g., “conducting a physical assessment on a patient”) targeting one or more can-do statements (e.g., “I can describe what I am going to do
to a patient using simple words spoken slowly without looking at anything”).
I incorporate reflective activities into these three semesters. For example, learners record
themselves completing the assessment tasks and upload their videos to Google Classroom sothat they can be shared and self- or peer-evaluated and reflected upon. Learners also complete a mid-term and end-of-semester reflection in which they evaluate their ability to accomplish the can-do statements that were practiced in the tasks and reflect on their overall
performance in class My goal is to help my learners see that they have a role in managing
their language learning to prepare them for continued learning once they enter the workforce
and experience caring for patients who lack Japanese skills, a growing concern as the numberof foreign tourists and short- and long-term residents in Japan continues to rise

The Activity
In the following section we will introduce the activity we designed to support collaborativereflection. In the first stage, the articulation stage, learners prepared an artifact to support
personal reflection on their English learning experiences. In the second stage, the scaffolding
stage, learners participated in a group reflection session guided by a worksheet comprised offour tasks. In the final stage, the synergy stage, learners identified a goal and created a learning plan in collaboration with their peers, based on insights from the first two stages.

Stage 1: Articulating Content for Reflection Using The Language Learning TreeAs described by Degeling and Prilla (2011), articulation is a means of triggering the reflective process that is supported by an artifact, and we believed that an activity called The Lan-

28

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

guage Learning Tree could serve as a suitable artifact for this purpose The Language Learning
Tree is based on The Strategy Tree (Yoshimuta, Davies, & Abe, 2015), an activity designed to be
used by teachers and language learning advisors to help their learners “see the whole pictureof language learning, raise their awareness of learning strategies, and consequently develop self-regulation to proceed with their learning autonomously” (Abe, Yoshimuta, & Davies,
2014, p. 278). Whereas elements of The Strategy Tree and its ecosystem represent different
categories of learning strategies taken from Rebecca Oxford’s Strategic Self-Regulated Model (2011), The Language Tree has been adapted to emphasize the metacognitive knowledge andskills encountered in the self-directed learning process (Wenden, 1998).
In The Language Learning Tree activity the four skills (speaking, writing, listening, and reading) and three systems (grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation) of language are represented as the leaves and trunk, respectively, of the tree. The tree’s growth is supported by its
roots and sources of nutrients such as water, fertilizer, and the sun Here, the roots represent
the specific affective factors of motivation, confidence, interest, and activeness (or initiative). Water and fertilizer represent learning resources and strategies used by the learner, andthe sun represents the learner’s language goals This results in a metaphor representing thelearner’s current language ability as a living, changing tree This representation of language
ability as a tree creates a simple, yet powerful model learners can apply to their own language
learning experiences as they work to improve their foreign language abilities. The model isaccessible to learners via the metaphor because they know water (resources) and fertilizer(strategies) and sunlight (goals) help trees grow stronger and taller, just as their corollaries in
the metaphor help language ability flourish.
A model of The Language Learning Tree can be found in Figure 1 To determine the shapeand size of their trees, a well as other elements of the drawing, learners complete an awareness-raising survey with a mix of Likert-style and open-ended questions, which can befound in Appendix A

Figure 1. The Language Learning TreeOur sequence of activities begins by introducing learners to The Language Learning Tree
There are two goals that should be accomplished at the beginning of this stage First, learnLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201729

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflection

ers should understand that the tree is a metaphor for their current level of language ability
Second, they should understand that the size of the different parts of the tree are relative toeach other, not to an external standard In other words, the tree is a tool for comparing yourlanguage skills and knowledge to each other, not to the skills and knowledge of other individuals. The resulting personalized drawings make it easy for learners to articulate their English
learning experiences to others

Stage 2: Scaffolding With the Collaborative Reflection Worksheet
The visual representation of the self-as-learner provided by the language learning trees makethem particularly well suited to sharing with others, and that is what learners will use themfor in stage two. In Degeling and Prilla’s (2011) model, scaffolding provides a common context
and direction for reflection. Scaffolding can also help learners take on different roles during
the reflection and draw their attention to rich data to reflect upon as a group.
With this in mind, we designed a four-task worksheet (see Appendix B) to guide learners
through a discussion about their trees. In task 1, the worksheet directs groups of 3-4 learners
to compare their trees and find similarities and differences. This is intended to provide learners with a common context, and lead them to insights about themselves as learners in relation to their peers. In tasks 2a-b, learners are directed to discuss the parts of their trees thatstood out for being particularly developed or undeveloped, focusing on the underlying reasonsfor these assessments based on their language learning experiences. Task 2c asks learners toshare the goal that they most want to achieve and the reasons for selecting that goal This
prompt provides an opportunity for learners to discover they have similar goals or alreadyhave experience pursuing similar goals. The final task, 2d, requires learners to share learning
strategies and resources that they have found to be effective. Together, tasks 2c and 2d set
the stage for a content-rich discussion that can help learners in the final stage of the activity
where they will identify a goal and create a learning plan
The collaborative reflection was designed to support learners in sharing their language
learning experiences with a community of peers pursuing the same overall goal—improved
English language proficiency. In doing so, learners find a point of reference for themselves
as learners by listening to the experiences of their peers They also are exposed to a variety ofstrategies and resources used by peers, as well as their peers’ attitudes to language learning
These personal aspects of individual learners’ experience rarely find their way into standard
classroom activities. Throughout these steps, learners take on a variety of roles, from advisor
to neophyte, as they reflect on the value of their groups’ diverse experience as learners of English During these conversations, learners were expected to note the content of their discussions There was also a highlighted box where learners wrote down the goal they chose andeffective learning strategies and/or resources introduced during the discussion.

Stage 3: Setting Goals and Planning Language Study
During the first two stages, learners should have gained insight about themselves and language learning through creating their individual trees and working through the collaborativereflection with their peers. The third stage of this activity is aimed at linking those insights
to the learners’ desired outcomes and identifying appropriate actions suggested by the reflective process, which Degeling and Prilla call synergizing mechanisms As Degeling and Prilla
explain, “Learning by collaborative reflection may then occur when an individual links her
knowledge to the experience of others or when a group combines different viewpoints stemming from its members’ experience and reflects on them collaboratively” (Degeling & Prilla,
2012, p. 135). Synergy is supported by the last question on the reflection worksheet in stage

30

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

two, which asks learners to set a goal and create a learning plan for achieving that goal by theend of the school year Then, groups discuss each learner’s goal and peers give advice about
how to achieve the goal

The Learners
At the conclusion of stage 3, learners completed a reflection assessment survey about theexperience of making their trees and participating in the collaborative reflection. This survey
can be found in Appendix C Their responses revealed some interesting points about how they
viewed the value of making the language trees and the discussions that followed. In the following section, we present a few representative samples of our learners’ trees and summarize
learners’ responses to the activity

Stage 1: Learners’ Trees
We carried out this activity with over 300 learners and examined the trees that they produced
The articulation artifacts produced in stage 1 showed a wide variety of learner engagementwith the metaphor of language ability as a tree whose growth is supported by water, soil, andsunlight In Figure 2, the ways in which learners interpreted the activity and their generalenthusiasm for the project of creating their own language learning trees is evident. Figure 2
shows four examples of learners’ trees It is notable that the learners interpreted the activity
in distinct ways and also that the project of creating their own language learning trees generated a great deal of enthusiasm. In looking at these samples, we hope to demonstrate theimages learners have of themselves as English language learners, the diversity of those images, and the power of the tree as a tool for articulation and self-assessment
A

B

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201731

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflection

C

D

Figure 2. A Representative Sample of Learners’ Language Learning Trees
The trees show that the learners were successful in using the metaphor to represent how
they perceive their L2 knowledge, abilities, and attitudes. Looking at Figure 2, you can seethat there are clear differences in the relative size of the foliage (representing ability in thefour language skills). Tree D clearly shows reading as the largest, and therefore strongest in
the eyes of its author, while speaking is the smallest (weakest). In contrast to this is TreeA, in which speaking and reading are nearly equal in size while writing is clearly the smallest. These variations continue as we move down the tree to the trunk, representing language
knowledge. Here we can see in Trees B and D that the learners feel weakest in pronunciation,
while Tree A shows vocabulary as the slimmest portion of the trunk. These areas of learners
L2 learning are often assessed in other ways, which allows instructors to compare the learners’ self assessments with more traditional metrics. However, the socio-affective componentsthat are represented by the roots are less readily measured by standard assessments, whichmakes them of particular interest.
The socio-affective components of the tree—motivation, interest, confidence, and activeness (initiative)—are presented as the foundation of learners’ language study that supports thegrowth of knowledge and skill. Though learners are likely aware of these aspects, the role, value, and influence of socio-affective factors on learning as represented by the tree, makes theirfoundational importance explicit. In looking at this portion of the trees in our sample set, A
and D both clearly differentiate between the different socio-affective components of their trees,with both trees indicating a strong interest (longer, deeper, broader root) and comparative lackof confidence (shorter, more shallow, narrower root). This type of difference is less clear intrees B and C, which could indicate less confidence from their creators about their self assessment of these factors, but could also be the result of a different stylistic approach or because
those learners didn’t feel there was a significant difference between these factors for them.
A common theme that emerges from looking at the learner responses to the survey is that32

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

making the tree was an act of self-discovery for most learners. Learner comments often
express new understanding of their own language learning capabilities, needs, and desires
The new perspective offered by these realizations appears to be one that learners are positive
about, expressing optimism about their increased understanding and motivation to take advantage of what they have learned moving forward Many note that, though the informationin the tree came from them, the way the tree provided a framework for organizing this information allowed them to understand, at a glance, insights about themselves as learners

Stage 2: Scaffolding With the Collaborative Reflection Worksheet
Using the trees in Figure 2 and the prompts from the scaffolding worksheet, we will describe an
idealized conversation based on notes taken while observing learners engaged in the activity.

Figure 2. Language Learning Trees for a Group Discussion

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201733

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflection

First, the learners look for their similarities and differences. Examining the canopies ofeach other’s trees, the learners realize they all believe they have poor writing ability, but arestrong at reading. C says she feels speaking and reading are her strongest skills, whereas A,
B, and D say their listening skills are strongest. D wonders out loud why everyone is so different. Looking at the roots, our four learners notice that they all lack confidence in theirEnglish, but they are all quite interested and motivated to learn English A and D declare thatthey are fairly active in their English language study and give some examples of their study
habits. The group then talk about their goals, with C and D both talking about how they want
to be able to sing in English and how much they like Taylor Swift. A talks about how much
she wants to go to the United States, and B shares her experience homestaying with a familyin Illinois
Next, learners spend 10 minutes talking about the parts of their trees that stood out forbeing particularly undeveloped or developed, focusing on the underlying reasons from theirlanguage learning experiences. C starts off complaining about how she can’t catch the lyrics in songs despite her love of English music. Prompted by this, A and D talk about what
they have done to improve their listening ability. A starts off explaining how she watches TV
shows with the closed captioning turned on so she can see what’s being said. D talks about
how she looks up lyrics using Google and finds videos with embedded lyrics to help her learn
the song and listen for the lyrics. Although the final step is to talk about effective strategies
and inspiring goals, in many discussions, one learner’s goal was tied to a weakness, and, asthat learner spoke about that weakness/goal, peers responded by sharing effective strategies
that were tied to their strengths
Looking at the survey responses relating directly to the scaffolded collaborative reflection, it
is clear that learners benefited in several distinct ways. First, they gained a broader perspective on how to study L2 by reflecting on their peers’ approaches. Many learners characterized
the experience of talking about their trees as providing them with new ideas about how to
study and new information about study resources Second, they became part of an explicitly
recognized community of learners, discovering how their classmates were facing the challenges of learning a foreign language and imagining ways to support each other One common
sentiment was that their relative strengths and weaknesses could complement each other,and that when they faced a common challenge it would be easier to overcome it together
Finally, they also noted several changes to their socio-affective perception of English as a
subject. These were most commonly related to motivation, with many learners expressing
renewed desire to tackle the challenges of learning another language. There were also a number of learners who felt that the collaborative reflection had given them a chance to have theirstruggles and worries validated, which helped them feel relieved and find empathy.

Stage 3: Signs of Learner Synergy
In the final stage, learners reported on their goals and learning plans. Learners’ goals could
be described as general or specific. General goals addressed skills, systems, and socio-affective factors, such as speaking better, improving vocabulary, or having more confidence.
Specific goals identified a function or task that learners wanted to achieve, such as being able
to give directions in English Learning plans consisted of lists of strategies, which were either specifically connected to a skill, system, or socio-affective factor, or generally related
to study. Specific strategies that were frequently reported include writing a certain number
of English sentences per day or studying a certain number of new words per week. General strategies included using a dictionary or creating a daily study habit Survey responses
showed some evidence that the collaborative reflection played a role in this final stage. For

34

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

example, some learners indicated that they were able to clarify their goals as a result of the
discussion or were interested in using a strategy introduced during the reflection.
Based on our learners’ artifacts and their responses to our survey, as well as our observations of the learners engaged in the reflective activity, it appears to us that the basic structure of this activity is effective in providing meaningful reflective experience to learners, that
The Language Learning Tree is an effective tool for helping learners examine and express theirconception of themselves as language learners, and that scaffolded group discussions provide
learners with a valuable opportunity to develop the socio-affective elements of the self-aslearner. In the next section, we offer our individual reflections on the activity and our collaboration followed by responses to each other’s reflections.

The Teacher-Researchers
Scott’s Reflection
I met Mathew at a local teaching conference where he was presenting The Language Learning
Tree. I was seeking new ideas to inspire the learners I worked with to reframe their conception of themselves as learners in a more growth-oriented way. Carol Dweck developed theidea of the growth mindset as the understanding that learners’ skills and attributes growand change in response to their belief that effort and strategy are the factors that determine
intelligence and learning success. Specifically, she found that when learners are taught thatlearning a new idea changes the physical structure of the brain in a way analogous to exercise
changing the body, this changes their beliefs and related behaviors to promote resiliency andlearning (Dweck, 2010). Though I had no particular insight into my learners’ view of themselves, I had noticed little change in their facility with English over the course of each term
I believed this was the result of their perception of themselves as learners, or of English as a
subject, and I was looking for ways to help them reevaluate these ideas.
Creating my own language learning tree as an intermediate Japanese learner was exactly thekind of experience I was hoping to provide. It forced me to consider the current state of mylanguage ability, my feelings about that state, my hopes for the future, and my ideas about
how I could attain them I’ll give one example I have always struggled with kanji (Chinesecharacters in the Japanese writing system), and as a result, with reading and writing Japanese. The process of making my tree highlighted this weakness in the structure and appearance of my tree, but, as I analyzed the goals and practices I employed as a language learner, I
noticed that much of what I do and aspire to relates to in-person communication, not reading
or writing. This gave me pause, as I considered the possibility that my difficulty with kanji may be the result of my goals and approach, not anything inherent in kanji or myself The
reflective process of creating my language learning tree had given me new ideas about how
to tackle an old problem, and unlike journaling or writing reflections, activities I always felt
were artificial and cumbersome, I had enjoyed creating my language tree.
Creating their trees, learners invested focused effort based on conscious choices about how
to depict their learning, leading to unique and beautiful trees A sense of ownership and autonomy developed from the freedom to choose how to represent their ideas The trees proved
to be a powerful tool for learners to assert their individuality, opening my eyes to the diversity within the groups I work with. This served as a timely reminder that the 55 minutes aweek I spend with them provides only a glimpse into the kaleidoscope of their varied experience. My presumption that mindset would be a one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges
of second language acquisition seems quaint and misplaced in the face of their individuality
However, based on the generic nature of their survey responses, it seems that they do share a
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201735

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflectionneed for continued support as they develop their metacognitive skills. My aspiration to alter
the view they had of English and their relation to it was not achieved by this one activity
The Language Learning Tree is an ideal tool for helping learners contemplate their autonomy as language learners, and for encouraging them to develop a growth mindset The tree’s
focus on metacognitive strategy assessment, its usefulness as a tool for collaboration between
peers, and the growth implied by the tree metaphor closely mirror the main components ofeffective mindset interventions outlined by Yeager and Dweck (2012). The sole element that islacking is explicit instruction in the idea of neural plasticity; that struggling to accomplish achallenging task grows new neural connections, changing the physical structure of the brain.
My experience with The Language Tree convinced me that it can contribute to a shift in learners’ attribution of the source of their successes and failures away from a fixed, innate aptitude-based understanding and towards an incremental, growth-as-a-result-of-effort-based
understanding However, it cannot do so overnight

Mathew’s Response
This collaboration has been rewarding on so many levels Scott mentions his desire to support the development of a growth mindset in his learners and the suitability of the metaphorof The Language Learning Tree to illustrate this mindset through the relationship between theroots and nutrients and the size of the trunk and canopy. My interest in the tree focusedmore on its ability to represent how the learner saw her language learning experience at the
moment she created her tree and relating this image to the process of self-directed learning, which I explain in my reflection below. Although it is easy to see how learning a complex
system such as language can be represented by a growing tree, discussing how the tree could
be used to introduce a growth mindset added a new dimension to my understanding of themetaphor Incidentally, Abe, one of the designers of the original Strategy Tree, commented onan earlier draft of this paper that they envisaged the tree metaphor as a way to support thenotion of a growth mindset. I hope to find a way to make this connection more explicit when
I use The Language Learning Tree in the future
Scott and I first met during a workshop where I was introducing The Language Learning Tree
Working together as partners, we shared our trees with each other and discussed our learning experiences. During that conversation, Scott realized his efforts to study Japanese did notalign with his goals Furthermore, he realized he had misattributed his failures with kanji andwas able to see how he might address this. These are the kinds of insights we would ideallylike our students to experience too, but Scott and I are both experienced users of our second
languages as well as seasoned educators. I think these two factors give us an advantage whenanalyzing and discussing our trees, and could be a reason why the original tree is such a goodtool for language advisors or in discussions where one participant is a teacher A question thatremains for me is how capable our learners are at making similar observations working withpeers and near-peers

Mathew’s Reflection
Commenting on an earlier draft, one of our readers reminded us to consider this activity as
one step on the learners’ journeys to developing reflective ability and encouraged us to focus more on that journey. In this reflection, I would like to locate this project within my own
journey as a teacher who has tried to support the development of his learners’ metacognitive
abilities through reflection. My interest in reflection began when I became a language learning advisor at a self-access center in 2012 In this capacity, I taught a class on self-directed

36

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

learning in which learners were expected to reflect on themselves as learners and use insightsfrom reflection when identifying needs, setting goals, choosing strategies and resources, andevaluating their progress. I struggled to understand why the learners I was working with hadsuch a difficult time reflecting on themselves and the self-directed learning process. At first,
I thought these learners just needed a framework for reflection, or an illustrative analogy, or
examples of “good” reflection.
It was at this time that I saw a poster presentation by Davies, Abe, and Yoshimuta (2013)
reporting on The Strategy Tree, and I enthusiastically introduced it to my colleagues We adapted it for our context and used it as a tool to help learners integrate and visually represent reflections about their language learning experiences. However, my earlier use of The Language
Learning Tree was limited to stage 1 of this project, after which learners would introduce theirtrees in groups and then reflect on what they noticed about themselves by looking at others’
trees. Although this seemed to help them to recognize their individual differences and common struggles, my learners’ were still struggling to be insightful and connect their insights
to changes in their learning habits. I began to consider how my age could be influencing mybeliefs about my learners’ abilities to use reflection effectively in their learning. Was I able toeffortlessly reflect on my learning and take appropriate action when I was their age? Dynamic
Skill Theory (Fischer & Yan, 2002) seemed to suggest otherwise. Fischer and his colleagues
examined the development of cognitive functions and concluded that we move through predictable stages as we develop, but the expression of our cognitive skills is variable. Normally
we perform at a functional level appropriate to our developmental stage, but we can performbeyond this functional level with contextual and environmental support There are two implications of this theory that teachers working with teens should take note of: first, high ordercognitive functions are still developing in our learners, even if they are university students,and second, much as Vygotsky suggested with his Zone of Proximal Development, the development of learners’ abilities can be optimized when working in collaboration with stronger
learners or supportive materials
Around this time, I began collaborating with colleagues on a project to support collaborative learning groups. Groups of learners were given bespoke TOEIC study packets, which they
completed together Then they collaborated to identify resources and strategies, and create astudy plan for additional practice (Porter, 2015). This helped me see that it is not enough tojust get learners to reflect and share ideas. If they could be guided through a process of applying insights to a learning plan, perhaps they could improve their learning Although learners
collaborating on a learning plan might be able to produce a better learning plan than doing so
alone, those learners would certainly gain practice thinking about themselves as learners andthe learning process as they negotiate the creation of the learning plan with peers. This project left me open to experimenting more with collaboration and metacognition
At the beginning of this project, I had just read Degeling and Prilla (2011) and their recommendations for supporting collaborative reflection resonated with me. As Lin (2001) summarized, metacognition grows in supportive environments, where learners feel safe to questionand experiment, and can benefit from peer support. The tree, itself, is an effective activity forlearners to examine themselves and their learning, but the ensuing discussions go further tosupport the development of metacognitive abilities These abilities are important to my learners, not just because I believe that greater metacognitive ability will help them to improvetheir English, but because self-reflection and learner autonomy are valuable skills in nursing.
I hope this attention on reflection in English classes helps my learners to strengthen theiroverall metacognitive capacity

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201737

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflection

Scott’s Response
Mathew’s reflection resonated with me in several ways. When he described his past experiences teaching reflection, I couldn’t help but identify with the challenges that he describedin trying to encourage learner reflection that was insightful, deep, or even simply accurate.
Mathew writes about his search for a “good” example that would help learners achieve hisgoals for their reflection, and of how The Strategy Tree fulfilled this need. I couldn’t agree morewith his assessment of the tree as a game-changing tool for enabling reflection about language learning
I am also struck by the fact that we both seem to have arrived at the beginning of this project with the needs of young adult learners in mind. Though the learners that I have worked
with (11-16) are younger than Mathew’s (18-19), the need to approach all learners with anunderstanding of where they are in their cognitive development, particularly with regards
to executive function and the relative importance of social connections, is equally importantin both age groups. The Montessori philosophy that framed my approach to working withlearners aged 11-14 was predicated largely on the understanding that a learner’s successful
comprehension of any given material is dependent on her developmental readiness for thatmaterial and the possession of tools necessary to engage with it This sensitivity to learners’
cognitive development is something that we did not address explicitly in our collaboration,
yet it can be seen throughout
Finally, Mathew and I seem both to have arrived at our interest in pursuing reflection andmetacognition as necessary skills for our learners out of a belief that the ability to reflect on
and therefore influence one’s ideas about the self-as-learner are fundamentally about morethan learning a language. Reflection and metacognitive awareness are more than study orlearning tools. They are fundamental skills for self-understanding and their practice has thepotential to alter every facet of our lives, and the lives of the learners we reach Though thisexperience may not have been transformative, it could mark the beginning of a journey that
leads learners to destinations they couldn’t previously have imagined

Conclusion
We designed The Language Learning Tree activity to encourage metacognition through reflective
practice. It was envisioned as a first experience with reflective practice on foreign language
learning for learners who have a diversity of past experiences and aspirations As the learners went through the activity, they had a wide range of responses to it, and were supported
in different ways at different points in the activity. The Language Learning Tree showed itself
to be a tool of remarkable explanatory power for our learners to reflect on their language
learning experiences The metaphor of the tree, sun, and water provided a wonderful starting
point for exploring the needs of each learner, and the clarity of the metaphor allows learners
to access its benefits. The structure provided by Degeling and Prilla for this reflection activity
was an effective way for learners to move through the reflection, and, although not all participants reached the goal we set for their reflective journey, the journey itself was of value, as
was sharing it with peers
A strength of the metaphor of the tree is that trees grow and change. Ideally, reflecting on
the tree could be incorporated into a syllabus at regular intervals to show learners how they
are growing, allowing them to assess the effectiveness of their current practices. In the third
stage of our activity, setting a goal based on the insights achieved during reflection, learners
needed support beyond what was provided by the reflection worksheet and survey. Specifically, they needed support identifying elements of their trees that were significant, and with
applying the self-knowledge gained to the task of goal setting. However, goal setting is a skill

38

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

all its own that we did not address Additionally, the activity does not provide follow throughon the goals that learners developed, nor did we create an expectation that the learners would
follow up on their own. Teachers hoping to capitalize on the benefits of reflection should consider adopting an approach that addresses goal setting explicitly, or engages learners individually
Collaborating on this activity has made us more aware that reflection is a skill that develops
over time in conjunction with metacognitive awareness and as a result of repeated practiceand refinement. It cannot be forced to proceed at a predetermined pace or in accordance withthe artificial requirements set by teachers. Looking back on this experience, we hope the story
we have shared communicates to the reader the value of introducing reflection as a metacognitive practice and that our experience provides a useful guide to those who are interested indoing the same We can unreservedly promote the use of The Language Learning Tree as a tool
to help learners develop and express their understanding of themselves in the context of theirlanguage learning It is our belief that this type of understanding is vital to learners’ longterm success, and that the benefits of reflective practice extend beyond the language classroom. Although our learners’ experience with reflection is just beginning, we hope that we’vesown seeds that, with the right combination of sunlight, water, and nutrients, will grow into
towering trees bearing the fruit of carefully cultivated goals and targeted study practices

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the Administration and English Department at Kure Miyahara High School,and especially Kumamoto Chiemi (熊本 智恵美), Mizuno Mise (水野 みせ), Nomiya Misuzu (野宮三鈴), Takegawa Shinichi (武川 伸一), and Yamane Nobuyuki (山根 伸之) for their support andcollaboration. Without them this project would not have been possible.

References
Abe, M., Yoshimuta, S., & Davies, H. (2014). Now maybe I feel like trying: Engaging learners
using a visual tool Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(3), 277-293.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. London: Pearson Longman
Davies, H., Abe, M., & Yoshimuta, S. (2013, June). Learning advice to foster self-regulation.
Poster presented at LD20: Exploring Learner Development Conference, Tokyo.
Degeling, M., & Prilla, M. (2011). Modes of collaborative reflection. Retrieved from https://telearn archives-ouvertes fr/hal-00836670
Degeling M., & Prilla, M. (2012). Improving social practice: Enhancing learning experienceswith support for collaborative reflection. In A. Moore, V. Pammer, & L. Pannese (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Awareness and Reflection in Technology-Enhanced Learning(ARTEL 2012) at EC-℡ 2012. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (pp 133–146). Retrieved from http://
ceur-ws org/Vol-931/
Dweck, C. S. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16-20.
Fischer, K., & Yan, Z. (2002). The development of dynamic skill theory. In R. Lickliter & D.
Lewkowicz (Eds.), Conceptions of development: Lessons from the laboratory (pp. 279-312).
Hove: Psychology Press
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive
developmental inquiry American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

39

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflection

Hacker, D. J. (1998). Metacognition: Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J.
Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-23).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice forteacher education Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85
Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review research report. Research Reports. New
York, NY: Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.datec.org.uk/CHAT/chatmeta1.htm
Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 49(2), 23–40.
Little, D. (2001). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (2004). Constructing a theory of learner autonomy: Some steps along the way.
In K. Mäkinen, P. Kaikkonen, & V. Kohonen (Eds.), Future perspectives in foreign language
Education (pp. 15-25). Oulu: Oulu University Press
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies Edinburgh: Pearson
Education
Porter, M. (2015). Evaluating in-house materials for collaborative learning. In T. Ashwell, M.
Miyahara, S. Paydon, & A. Stewart (Eds.), Collaborative learning in learner development (pp127-147). Tokyo: JALT Learner Development SIG.
Ridley, J. (1997). Reflection and strategies in foreign language learning: A study of four universitylevel ‘ab initio’ learners of German. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When learners believethat personal characteristics can be developed Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.
Yoshimuta, S., Davies, H., & Abe, M. (2015). Promoting self-reflection and strategy use with
the Strategy Tree Learning Learning, 22(2), 49-58.
Welch, M. (1999). The ABCs of reflection: A template for students and instructors to
implement written reflection in service-learning. NSEE Quarterly, 25(2), 123-125.
Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4),515-537

Review ProcessThis paper was open-reviewed by the following Review Network members: Chika Hayashi,
Ann Mayeda, and Ted O’Neill (Contributors have the option of open or blind review).

Author Bios
Mathew Porter became interested in reflection and collaborative learning while a language
learning advisor at a university self-access center In 2015, he was appointed assistant professor of English at Fukuoka Jo Gakuin Nursing University. Mathew is a co-founder of theJapan Association for Nursing English Teaching, an organization devoted to improving thequality of teaching, learning, and research of English for Nursing Email: portermathew@
hotmail com
Scott J. Hilton, M A , is a California public school teacher with credentials in foundational
level science and K-12 general education He is currently an instructor in the Japan Exchange
and Teaching Program, where he has worked for six years as an Assistant Language Teacher
in Mie and Hiroshima prefectures Scott’s research interests include mindset, guided inquiry,peer- and self-assessment, and blended learning Email: scottjhilton@gmail.com

40

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

Appendix A
Self-Assessment Survey and Instructions
Each learner is different. This activity will help you realize how you are different from yourclassmates and how much you’ve already accomplished in your study of English Read the
topics below and circle the answer that is most appropriate for you
LeavesLow

High

Listening

1

2

3

4

Reading

1

2

3

4

Speaking

1

2

3

4

Writing

1

2

3

4

Trunk

Low

High

Grammar

1

2

3

4

Vocabulary

1

2

3

4

Pronunciation

1

2

3

4

Roots

Low/Small

High/Large

Confidence

1

2

3

4

Interest

1

2

3

4

Motivation

1

2

3

4

Activeness

1

2

3

4

The SunWhat would you like to be able to do in English? Write 3-5 things.
Water & Fertilizer
What strategies and methods have you used to study English? Write as many as you can

How to Draw Your Tree
LeavesDraw your canopy with four areas to represent the four skills. Fill each area with leaves basedon how high or low you rated your ability for that skill. If your skill level is high, draw many
big leaves. Conversely, if your skill level is low, fill your canopy with less leaves.
Trunk
Vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation support the four skills of English. The trunk is madeup of these three. Make your trunk fatter when the skill level is high and thinner when the
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201741

The Language Learning Tree: A Tool for Supporting Collaborative Reflection

skill level is low.
Roots
The roots of the tree are made up of affective factors. If your confidence, interest, motivation,or activeness (initiative) is high, draw a root that is long and fat. If one of these factors is low,draw a root that is short and thin
The SunThe sun is a source of energy, and here its rays represents your goals Draw the sun’s rays
and write your goals on themWater & Fertilizer
Water and fertilizer provide the tree with nutrients so it can grow big and strong Similarly,
your learning strategies and resources play an important role in improving your English abilities
Draw enough water/fertilizer to represent your different learning strategies and resources.

Appendix B
Reflection Worksheet
1

Look at each other’s Language Learning Trees. Everyone’s tree has similarities and differences. Talk about A and B in your group for a total of 5 minutes.
A What are two ways that your trees are the same?
B. What are two ways that your trees are different?

2

Next, introduce your tree. Talk about A-D in your group for a total of 10 minutes.
A Which part of your tree is the biggest? Why?
B. Which part of your tree is the smallest? Why?
C Which goal from your sun do you feel the most strongly about? Why?
D. Which practice from your water and fertilizer do you think is the most useful? Why?
* This is a goal a feel strongly about* This is a practice from my water/fertilizer that is very useful for me

3

42

Talk about your goal with classmates. Work together to think of ways to achieve thisgoal You have 10 minutes* Looking at my tree, I hope I can improve _________________ by the end of
this school year
I can do this by: _________________________________________
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mathew Porter & Scott Hilton

Appendix C
Reflection Assessment Survey
Directions: Read the question and circle the most appropriate answer from the four choices:
strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree
1A. After making this tree and talking about it, I have ideas about how I can be a better
English learnerstrongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree
1B. Explain in detail.
2A. Making the language tree and/or talking about it helped me learn something.
a About myself

strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree

b About my classmatesstrongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree

c About language learningstrongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree

d About English

strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree

2B. Explain in detail.
3. Making this tree and talking about it with classmates was useful.
strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree
4

I would recommend these activities for future students
strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201743