Running head: REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

Reflective Collaboration in ELT:

An Analysis of Outcomes in a Summer Program
Michael Edwards
Thongsook College

Author Note
To my colleagues, without whose work this research would not be possible: a sincere
thanks for your tireless efforts throughout the 2015 summer. Your collaboration was invaluable. I
also owe an additional debt of gratitude to Frank Castronova, PhD, PStat and CStat at Wayne
State University for his expert guidance in the statistical analyses.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

Abstract
Due to recent trends favoring the concept of teachers-as-researchers in ELT literature, a large
body of information is now available on the topic for purposes of professional development. The
most popular of these are the concepts of reflective teaching, and action research, both of which
are explored throughout the analyses herein. As the topics coincide with learning outcomes in
educational settings, the literature is limited to qualitative studies. Therefore, a quantitative
analysis of the connection between reflective teaching and pedagogy is further examined in this
research. The literature review covers several concepts and criticisms in reflective teaching
before an addition to theoretical frameworks in action research is presented. In addition, the
effects of using reflective teaching journals is weighed against learning outcomes in a summer
program for English language learners. Data taken from diagnostic and summative test scores is
analyzed between two groups over the span of one month. An experimental groups data
covering teachers use of reflective journals is weighed against data within a control group. The
results show no significant differences between the groups.

Keywords: Action Research, Reflective Teaching, English Language Teaching

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

Reflective Collaboration in ELT:

An Analysis of Outcomes in a Summer Program
Reasoning upon ones practice is the precondition of a dedicated effort in language
teaching. Before pedagogical issues of any kind may be addressed, they must be identified by
teachers who intend to work through them. This involves questioning, and even interrogating the
ways in which underlying assumptions influence the formulation of methodology into pedagogy.
As such, this often implies a cycle of reflective teaching that avoids taking comfortable beliefs
and common biases for granted (Ribiero, 2003). In addition, as teacher-reflection becomes action
research, a number of educational practices seem to turn empirical inquiry into a more sensible
process that more accurately addresses the reality of each learning context.1
By the same token, situation analyses are taken into account through collaborative efforts
as the roles of students, teachers and stakeholders are reconsidered. Families of learners notice
strengths and weaknesses in their childrens development and intellectual growth, and work with
schools and other institutions to accommodate these considerations. From the top, governmental
departments and ministries set standards on a broad analysis of the state of affairs in international
settings, and the entire process becomes a vast dialogic exchange. Thus, it is reasonable to begin
by assuming that an approach to teaching that reflects on these factors would be a collective
process, as stated by Florez: It can be constructed as an individual or group process, although,
because good reflective practice draws upon the input of learners, colleagues, and others, it is by
nature collective (p.4, 2001). Such an effort quickly becomes action research as educational
issues are confronted as a team, through logically identifying contributing factors, and
deliberately attempting resolution.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

Behind the Method

There is plenty in the literature on reflective teaching as it relates to professional
development (Jarvis, 1992; Richards & Lockhart 1996; Zeichner, 2003; Zeichner and Liston,
1987). Anything on reflective methods, from the use of pedagogical documentation to action
research can be seen in articles and textbooks on language teaching and general education.
Therefore, a further analysis should consider its effects on language teachers personal
methodology, the fluidity of classroom pedagogy, as well as quantitative data covering any
effects reflective teaching has on student performance. Not only should this inquiry reveal
positive benefits for teachers professional development, but there should be significant evidence
that these ongoing changes are also positively impacting student learning.
Literature Review
Defining Reflective Practice
Farrel identifies several types of reflective practice in education, and contrasts them with
habits developed implicitly through exposure to routines (2003). He cites Dewey, Zeichner and
Liston in stating that routines are manifest of tradition, and authority, while any results are taken
as a given (p. 15). Reflection entails the opposite: analytical and critical thoughts intended to
question any assumption that may or may not inhibit the success of an action. In addition, five
more reflective approaches in education are considered, all of which are relevant to language
teaching. These are listed as follows: technical rationality, reflection in action, reflection on
action, reflection for action, and action research (p. 15).
Schulmans technical rationality is a relatively straight-forward application of
theoretical knowledge to assess skills and behaviors. This is an idea that is common in any
discipline. It is especially pervasive within the norms of university studies, and the market for

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

professional employment where a technician is expected to put her/his knowledge to work.

Conversely, Schons idea of reflection-in-action is a more contemporaneous attempt to work
with issues at the moment they occur. This is often more quickly paced, and requires some
combination of intuitive ability and creativity. On the other hand, the more well-known
epistemological approach to Schons theory is detailed in his concept of reflection-on-action.
This is a practice that is quite common in reflective teaching, and it amounts to recalling an
experience, and stating its purpose, for example: writing a journal entry about a particular
segment of class time, and detailing the connections between a specific technique used in that
time period, and its purpose. The next logical step in that process would be Killon and Todnews
idea of reflection-for-action: the idea that reflection may be used to construct plans for a later
time (as cited in Farrel, 2013).
At face-value, the types of reflection mentioned have a mostly practical focus. However,
another dimension in any of these approaches might take the form of critical self-reflection: an
analysis of the beliefs and ideas that teachers presume in their own work (Orlova, 2009). For
instance, teachers sometimes expect students to respond to their methods in a way that
presupposes an effort that is culturally derived (such as a style of reasoning that is specific to
their own social, and educational settings). Depending on the student population, this application
of cultural normativity, often a product of subconscious bias, may run counterintuitive to the
learning process. In order to minimize the likelihood of such circumstances, critically selfreflecting may improve awareness of these biases by bringing them to the surface of ones
thought processes.
Of course, a combination of the typologies mentioned may be found in the more
systematic approach of action research (Farrel, 2003, p. 15). In practice, action research is often

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

utilized in order to come up with authentic solutions to issues that are specific to local
communities. Although it involves the use of reflection in order to solve problems in social
settings, such as classroom management issues; Bailey states that there is a theoretical difference
between action research and reflective teaching (1997). She elaborates in drawing a distinction
that shows reflective teaching stopping after making initial documentations, and thinking about
them personally. On the other hand, action research involves intentionally finding the source of a
problem, and attempting to solve it by testing a hypothesis based on reflections about the
information gathered in the initial steps. Since reflection is a necessary part of action research,
this distinction might not be entirely necessary in language pedagogy. Many of its essential
practices already involve reflection and testing of ideas, such as constructing lesson plans, as
well as the organization of professional discussions, and use of formative assessments. As
mentioned earlier, reflective teaching is a collective process, so whether any group of
professionals efforts make up reflective teaching or action research may depend on the context,
time and a number of other demands involved in the learning process.
Reflection in Teacher-Education and Intuition
In the same article, Bailey provides several anecdotes that exemplify common
circumstances in the field of language teaching. She mentions teaching before having any
credentials in TESOL while experiencing frustration with many of her classroom experiences.
Her beliefs and presuppositions about teaching at this point were not challenged in discussions
with other teachers (p.3). In fact, her experiences were validated by her colleagues,
demonstrating a common type of cognitive dissonance in group-think (Benabou, 2012). Her
methodology went unquestioned until committing to an intentional practice of reflection that put
normal intuition aside.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

For reasons similar to this, Richards recommends a more substantive theoretical approach
to language teacher training that cuts through an education based exclusively on intuition and
common sense (1990). He posits a need for mindfulness of high-inference and lowinference behaviors among teacher trainers in order to promote a sense of personal direction in
ones teaching, combined with a repertoire of common techniques. The term low inference
refers to categories that are easily quantifiable, and thus, operationalized as mechanisms that may
be taught as foundational concepts. The high-inference category may involve the use of
intuition more often since it implies a more ambiguous list of behaviors. Discussion settings
might prove to be appropriate avenues for this category. As low-inference behaviors are debated
less; the inclusion of high-inference behaviors may appear to be more organized, and could
provide for more reliable material of which to reflect during training.
Jeffrey and Hadley suggest the popular reflective method of writing diaries as a way to
balance intuition with insight in ones learning context (2002). In studying qualitative data
taken from Jeffreys journals, the authors case study reveals a less pessimistic set of
circumstances than expected before writing the journal. Jeffrey notes that that the learners in his
oral communication course seem to perceive his methods of facilitating more negatively than
that of the studys conclusions. To sum up their study, the authors suggest keeping teaching
diaries for short-term studies, not only for purposes of professional development, but to better
understand the learners. This approach to studying the interaction between reflective teaching
and methodology is in line with the aims of this study, and should be explored to a greater
degree.
Any approach to reflective practice may be geared toward questioning pedagogy, to a
more cognitive focus on teachers beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. Reflective teaching could

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

entail a range of efforts, from group brainstorming, and explicit research geared for learning, to
writing journal entries for the personal development of ones career in teaching. More broadly,
these practices are the result of a movement in ELT that seeks to move teachers away from being
mere technicians, to becoming active researchers whose efforts are worthy of the same standing
as that of the academic community.
Criticisms
In an essay arguing in favor of a need for pedagogical tact, van Maren attempts to
surmount concepts of reflective teaching:

Usually, the teacher does not have time to distance himself or herself from the particular
moment in order to deliberate (rationally, morally, or critically) what he or she should do
or say next. This temporal dimension of direct or immediate action parallels the close
quality of relationality that the interactive dimension of teaching seems to require. The
normal teacher-student relation does not allow (artificial or critical reflective) social
distancing. Practicing teachers know this all too well. Only aloof and detached
teachers may be able to adopt a more or less calculating or rationally deliberative
relational approach to their minute to minute interactions with children. (1995, p. 8).

The last characterization carries the unfortunate fallacy of poisoning the well, and sets up
a weak argument that strips teachers of the balance between being rationally deliberative, as
well as tactful. Yet, the emphasis on tactfulness is worth consideration. More important than
establishing methodology is a teachers sense of being approachable, and sensitive to the wide
array of educational experiences that consider learners needs. Due to the often contradictory

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

values between individuals, this sort of tact should not merely be defined by fostering a virtuous
atmosphere. To a greater degree, one should arrive at confidence in responsiveness though a
combined repertoire of pedagogical insights, relatability, and reasonable communication skills.
Kumaravadivelu further states that the reflective teaching movement has not, in reality,
ushered in any meaningful changes to the field of education (2003). His premise begins with the
assertion that the movement behind reflective teaching is primarily focused on the teacher as an
individual, and ignores the roles of other professionals, and the sociopolitical dynamic outside
the classroom (p.12-13). To that extent, he may be correct. Merely thinking about teaching on
ones own, without the consideration of relevant contextual factors, and other affected
communities, should not qualify as a truly reflective practice. In that case, perhaps the term
reflective-teaching should be reclaimed by those who promote critical self-reflection and action
research. Furthermore, effective reflection implies at least two criteria outside a professionals
immediate state of being:
1. Questioning values and beliefs related to ones engagement in the practice
2. Considering contextual factors, including professional relationships, and situation
analyses
The first may include reflecting on any differences between styles of reasoning, either
between teachers and students, or their respective societies. This sometimes involves actively
changing ones approach to communicating through a more accommodating intercultural
dialogue. Similarly, teachers may find it necessary to question the values attached to an assumed
method. For example, if a teacher attempts to facilitate activities that assume an individualistic
set of norms, then confusion is likely to ensue where collectivist group dynamics prevail. Critical
self-reflection would be necessary to address these issues as they arise.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

10

As for considering contextual factors, it is not enough to end ones reflection on a single
application of teaching techniques, or changes in communication. Maintaining rapport with
students is an ongoing process. Thus, it is necessary to contemplate student-teacher issues
consistently in order to make ones reflections meaningful in the long term. Moreover, collegial
involvement is mutually beneficial in the teachers need to understand circumstances
surrounding the educational situation. To this point, a relevant situation analysis would involve
reflecting on sociocultural norms, as well as engaging in professional relationships. Situation
analyses may also call for a deeper understanding of the sociopolitical dynamic as it relates back
to previously mentioned issues regarding communication and the learning environment
(Richards, 2001).
More on Action Research
As with many terms in language teaching methodology, how one interprets the meaning
of action research is largely left to semantics. Baileys description mentioned earlier shows her
own understanding of how it contrasts with the normal process of reflective teaching. In the
second edition of Browns Teaching by Principles, the term, indexed as action research, may
initially lead one to the heading classroom research (2001, p.431). In fact, both terms are
defined synonymously in later sections (pp.437 & 442). To Brown, much like scientific research,
action research involves hypothesizing on questions related to teaching, and determining the
effectiveness of those ideas after putting them into practice (p. 437). Nunan states that action
research may only qualify as research in that it is available to the public (2006). Hopkins defines
action research more simply: logical action based on disciplined reflection (2014).

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

11

The Action Research Cycle

If action research implies action as essential to the process, and neither every-day
classroom research, nor typical research methods, then one could assume that it involves a cycle.
It would not need definitive data, but more conclusive results that suggest ongoing efforts in the
teaching-learning process. Figure 1 outlines a model of the action research cycle that represents
the requisite steps in this process.
From this point of view, action research is a non-linear procedure that involves one of
several steps in the beginning stages. As seen in the model below, reevaluating solutions, and
identifying problems in an educational setting may happen during the beginning or end stages of
ones inquiry. Thus, a number of methods may be used to carry out the analysis in language
learning contexts. For theoretical purposes, one may begin with identifying problems:

Educative and Alternative Assessments. An educative assessment may be used to

identify potential motivational factors (e.g. Students appear bored with the
materials today. Thus, a note is made to further reflect on whether it is the
materials, methods or other factors that remove broader incentives for overall
learning.) Alternative assessments, such as portfolio reviews, may also be used to
assess progress in itemized language usage, or schematic knowledge over the
allotted time.

Auditive Assessments. An auditive assessment may be used to identify issues

related to learning that is measurable. Both formative and summative assessments
can be used as quantifiable measurements for reflecting more accurately on
individual performance.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

12

Identify
Problems
Reflect &
Revise

(Re)evaluate
Solutions

Reflect &
Plan

Action
Research

Reflect &
Revise

Hypothesize
Solutions

Reflect &
Plan
Act on
Solutions

Figure 1. A model of the action research cycle in education.

Needs Analyses and Situation Analyses. A needs analysis or situation analysis may
be conducted in order to gather information related to students interests,
backgrounds, and other social factors that influence the educational experience.

Hypothesizing on solutions involves a more literal focus on reflective teaching:

Reflective Journals. Reflective journals can be used to posit what could be done in
order to improve outcomes, and how this weighs out with the intended terminal
objectives.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

13

Pedagogical Documentation. Anecdotal notes3 or other methods of pedagogical

documentation may be used to hypothesize on immediate solutions in order to reflect
in action (Ontario Ministry of Education Resources, 2012).

Collaborative Brainstorming. Teachers may also participate in collaborative

brainstorming to hypothesize solutions by analyzing any of the methods mentioned,
or others such as:
a. Video or audio recordings
b. Lesson plans or evaluative materials

Acting on solutions requires the application of new ideas through facilitating in real-time. This
step represents the most essential part of the cycle:

Altering Methodology. With knowledge of a potential solution, teachers may alter

their approach to facilitating through using a variety of other methods, techniques,
and activities.

A Negotiated Syllabus. Having some idea of students needs and backgrounds,

teachers may negotiate the construction of syllabi. In theory, students would have an
opportunity to actively take responsibility for their own learning (Nation, 2013).
Teachers may also adapt the syllabus in a given class in order to provide for more
familiarity and deeper learning.

Responsiveness. In managing a classroom, teachers may change their communication

style to be more culturally responsive, and tactful in their approach. This may also
entail a change in the enabling objectives intended for a given class.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

14

Lastly, evaluating solutions avoids taking ones ideas for granted. The process may
overlap with assessment practices detailed in examples related to identifying problems, as well as
the collaborative practices mentioned under hypothesizing solutions. However, it may also
begin with a reevaluation of the teachers own solutions in materials development, methodology,
and responsiveness through questioning those solutions and considering any evidence of
learning:

Outcomes. Did the change of methods produce significant results in both educative
and auditive terms? If a specific language function is used more accurately in studentcommunication, then the respective solutions might be working.

Relevance. Did the change in materials promote a meaningful learning experience?

For example: If a pedagogical material is put aside for one that is authentic, then one
should be sure that its authenticity serves a meaningful purpose that could not be
provided in the case of instruction using pedagogical materials and vice versa. Or

Appropriateness. Was my instructional delivery contextually appropriate, and did it

serve to maintain positive rapport with students?

Again, documentation of these changes is important to keep on record for the extent that
the information stays relevant to matters of instruction in a specific learning environment. Since
these matters are both collaborative, and empirical, the information could be highly beneficial to
other educators in the setting in which data is collected. Unlike typical academic research, action
research is not intended for making generalizations, but producing effective provisional data. Its

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

15

process and applicability are localized in order to come up with results that are less inconclusive
for purposes of facilitating with particular student populations. Furthermore, language learning
relies on a base of knowledge that is practical in the immediate set of circumstances. Therefore,
academic research that endures in producing dubious results is likely to remain undependable to
many language teachers. Action research is intended to fill the gap between those results, and the
act of teaching itself.
Method
The following analysis contains elements of reflective teaching, action research, as well
as academic research. The aim of this study is to uncover potential evidence of improved
learning outcomes during periods of intentional, reflective teaching: specifically, teachers use
reflective journals during an English language course. The analysis follows others confirming the
benefits of using reflective journals for both data collection, and short term use (Fatemipour,
2013; Jeffrey & Hadley, 2002). Other reflective methods used throughout the period studied are
also mentioned in the analysis.
Students, Teachers and Setting
One hundred and sixty eight students from Japan, Turkey, and China took part in a
residential, English language program on the site of a well-known university in The U.S. The age
group ranges from twelve to twenty years old. Courses range from one week to three weeks in
length, and classes are held for three hours per morning before students participate in other
scheduled activities and excursions throughout the day. Students begin the course by taking an
entry test, while exit tests are taken before graduation. In conjunction with entry testing, students
are placed in classes of overlapping levels that refer to The Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2011).

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

16

In addition, nine teachers conduct all classes onsite, and participate in team discussions
every morning over a one month period. Over the last two weeks of the course, teachers use
reflective journals to report back to a head teacher who directs the program of studies. Journal
entries are written daily, and used for further discussion between the head teacher and individual
teachers. . Figure 2 shows an example of a teachers journal entry after a class with students of
the A2/B1 level. Teachers state their learning objectives for each class, as well as their methods
of facilitation. They also include a recap of events, as well as their reasoning with regard to how
those classes could be better facilitated.
Design and Tools Used in Analysis
The three tools mentioned are used to collect data for the remainder of the analysis:
teaching journals, entry test scores, and exit test scores. The content in both entry and exit tests is
similar in that both contain a sixty item multiple choice section, two essay segments, and a
speaking segment. The multiple choice section accounts for sixty out of one hundred points in
total, and covers lexical, grammatical and functional items. The essay segment accounts for
twenty points in total, ten points per essay, and elicits an emergent sample of writing. The
speaking examination covers the remaining twenty points. A standard list of leveled questions is
used to conduct the speaking examination, while scores are marked according to criteria detailed
in a rubric used by each examiner. Speaking descriptors cover fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation
and grammar, while an additional rubric is used to grade essays on the quality of discourse,
grammar and vocabulary.
A series of t-tests are used to compare the results of all exit and entry assessments
between a control group (seen in the results of the first two weeks of studies), and an
experimental group (in the results of the last two weeks) with a null hypothesis predicting no

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

17

significant difference between the groups. Alternatively, there should be a significant

improvement in scores represented in the experimental group. During the weeks allocated to the
control group, teachers routines did not change. Although reflective practices (i.e. team
discussions and observations) are used during this time, reflective journals are not used for
submitting data until the last two weeks in which that data is used for analyzing experimental
variables. Out of the four statistical analyses conducted, the first compares entry scores between
both groups, while the second compares exit scores. The second and third compare entry and exit
scores within groups.
Findings
In the control group, seventy six students entry and exit assessment scores are analyzed,
while eighty six of the same sets of scores are analyzed in the experimental group. Both data sets
are listed in Figure 3 and Figure 4. In the control group, fifteen entry and exit (for a total of 30)
scores reflect studies over a one week period, and sixty one (122 in total) reflect studies over the
span of two weeks. In the experimental group, twenty nine entry and exit (for a total of 58)
scores reflect studies over a one week period, while fifty seven (114 in total) reflect studies over
the span of two weeks. The charts below show the population distribution according to
proficiency levels in both groups. The increase in the B1/2 population listed in Figure 7 is
attributed to the increase in student population in week three, most of which fall into that range.
Outlying data (listed in Figure 5) is also found in three students test scores as their studies span
over the course of three weeks.
With that considered, a t-test for independent samples is used to make the first
comparison of entry scores. Table 1 documents these findings below. The results show (with a p
value 0.05) that no significant difference is found between the mean entry variables in both the

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

18

control and experimental groups. The analysis suggests that the extracted baseline data shows a
similar threshold for both groups. Thus, similar overall proficiency levels among students are
demonstrated at the beginning of their respective courses.

Students and Class Levels: Group 1

25
20
20
16

17

17

15
10
6
5
0
A1/A2

A2/B1

B1/2

B2/C1

C1/2

Figure 6. Student population by level for control group

Students and Class Levels: Group 2

35
31
30
25

22

20
16
15
10
10

5
0
A1/2

A2/B1

B1/2

B2/C1

C1/2

Figure 7. Student population by level for experimental group.

For comparing exit scores, the t-test for independent samples (shown in Figure 2) is used
for a second analysis with Ha predicting a significant difference in the experimental variable. Yet

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

19

again (with p 0.05), there is no significant difference found between both groups scores.
Therefore, H0 stands after the analysis. These findings are more surprising given the expectation
that teachers use of reflective journals would result in improved test scores. On the contrary,
they do not seem to reveal improvements when weighed against these particular variables.
If these analyses are not enough, two more tests reveal additional information that is
relevant to the overall results. Potential improvements between entry and exit variables are also
tested within the control and experimental groups. This test is weighed against a separate null
hypothesis predicting no significant differences within the groups. This time, two students
paired t-tests are used to make the calculations, and the results show similar improvements on
both sides, simultaneously rejecting H0 in this particular test, and upholding that of the prior
tests. In the control group, a significant difference is found between the entry and exit variables
(based on a computed p value of 4.50738E-05), while the exit variable is statistically larger than
the entry variable (based on a computed p value of 2.25369E-05). In the experimental group, a
significant difference is found between the entry and exit variables (based on the computed p
value of 9.51293E-14), while the exit variable is statistically larger (based on a computed p value
of 4.75647E-14). There is less than a two percent difference between the two groups improved
scores, and due to the population size, this is also insignificant.
The outlying data listed in Figure 4 show the entry and exit scores for three students who
participated in classes over a three week period. The analysis assigns the first of these two weeks
to the control group, and the last to the experimental group. The average entry score for the
outlying group is 78.3, and the average exit score is 83. Hence, the scores appear to be in the
upper range. The 4.7 point difference falls between the improvements seen in the control and

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

20

experimental groups. No significant difference is to be found by dividing this data among the
control and experimental group. Hence, the initial null hypothesis stands.
More on the Findings
The final results are telling of the use of reflective journals in short term studies.
Although the literature approaches the topic from varying perspectives, and claims they are
beneficial for other purposes (i.e. data collection and professional development), this analysis
reveals that they are not (always) indicative of improved learning outcomes in the short term.
This could be due to a number of reasons.
Firstly, language teachers maintain a busy schedule in these programs, as well as many
others.4 Teachers already begin their work with a list of demands, including lesson planning,
facilitating, grading, as well as any data entry and extra communication that is involved. In most
summer language programs, a tight schedule is run, and includes teachers in after-class activities
and off-campus events on top of their classroom hours. The addition of other requirements may
exhaust teachers, and limit the capacity for improving their practice. In this case, the journals are
intended to assist in improving pedagogy through an intentional and consistent system of query
into teachers practice. However, the increased workload may impede their ability to implement
potential solutions.
Secondly, the process is more individualized than other methods used throughout the
period of study, such as observations and team discussions. Collaboration is limited to private
discussions and feedback with the head teacher. Thus, the process of reporting to the head
teacher excludes the full team from collective brainstorming, and offering any constructive
criticism that may prove to streamline observable changes. This is similar to the example listed
under hypothesizing solutions in the action research cycle.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

21

Thirdly, any methodological change is likely to happen gradually as teachers begin

reflecting more critically. The time frame in this study limits this effect by inquiring into the
effects of immediate changes in practice. Given the results, these changes are not as substantial
as expected.
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies
Data are reevaluated after the course of events, so experimentation is limited in that it
excludes the act of collecting it in the setting. One factor that is missing is the average age within
each group. This information could explain more about cognitive and affective conditions in
each subset of the student population. However, since the range is included (between twelve and
twenty years), these dimensions are also limited, and are not likely to contribute to significant
changes.
The improvements seen in both groups test scores suggests that there are potential
benefits in using all of the methods mentioned (i.e. team discussions, observations, and journals).
Each method could be beneficial, and are suggested for further study. Though, in this context,
methods that streamline the process of reflection, such as video observations and team
discussions, seem more suitable to the busy pace. The head teacher could also use these
observations to talk across the data that is derived from them (Salas & Mercado, 2010). A
study of the effectiveness of reflecting in action through anecdotal notes may also produce
interesting results if the connection with language development is considered. Moreover, due to
the time required in writing reflective journals, allowing teachers an interval to deliberate on
each corresponding scheme is also recommended.
Since the findings do not necessarily show any adverse effects of using reflective journals
in the short term; longitudinal studies are also recommended for future analyses. These studies

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

22

should consider the interaction between reflection and practice, as well as the evidence found in
learning outcomes. Thus, more quantitative studies are needed in order to complement existing
research. However, as a supplement to action research, teachers themselves may find use of
reflective journals for varying purposes. In order for this to be mutually effective, it is suggested
that they be accurately substantiated in order to properly evaluate potential solutions.
Collaborative involvement and critical reflection are also recommended to promote a meaningful
experience, while avoiding any inclinations toward complacency in reflective teaching.

In Retrospect
The balance between collaboration and individual practice is important in reflection in
that routines of group-convention and egocentricity are both questioned to an equal extent.
Throughout this study, it is found that careful planning is necessary in reflective teaching if it is
to produce effective results. Reflective teaching should not merely entail documenting classroom
recaps, but it should consider an action research cycle, if not another that cuts through the
common reliance on intuition alone. This would shift a larger portion of the focus toward the
implications of teachers values and beliefs not only for professional purposes, but in light of
the evidence. In doing so, teachers would be empowered to question the very framework on
which these ideas rest.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

23

References
Bailey, K. (1997). Reflective teaching: Situating our stories. Asian Journal of English Language
Teaching. (7) 1-19. CUHK English Language Teaching Unit. The Chinese University
of Hong Kong. Monterey Institute of Language Education.
Benabou, R. (2012). Groupthink: Collective delusions in organizations and markets. Review of
Economic Studies. 429-462. Oxford University Press. Princeton University.
Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.
(pp. 437 & 442). (2nd ed.). White Plains, New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Farrell, T. (2003). Reflective teaching: The principles and practices. English Teaching Forum.
Hamidreza, F. (2013). The efficiency of tools used for reflective teaching in ESL contexts.
ScienceDirect. Islamic Azad University, Roudehen, Iran: Elsevier Ltd.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.051.
Florez, M. C. (2001). Reflective teaching practice in adult ESL settings. Eric Digest. National
Center for ESL Literacy Education. Washington D.C.
Hopkins, D. (2014). Developing teaching. Thongsook College International Programs.
Jarvis, J. (1992). Using diaries for teacher reflection on in-service courses. English Language
Teaching Journal.
Jeffrey, D. & Hadley G. (2002). Balancing intuition with insight: Reflective teaching through
diary studies. Niigata, Japan: Niigata University of International and Information Studies.
Retrieved from http://www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/jeffreyhadjalt/jeffreyhadj
alt.htm.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

24

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching.

(pp.12-13). New Haven, USA & London, UK: Yale University Press.
Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2010). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language
Teaching. Viva-Delta Edition. Delta Publishing.
Nation, P. (2013). What should every ESL teacher know? 16. Compass Publishing.
Nunan, D. (2006). Action research and professional growth. TESOL Symposium on English
Teacher Development in EFL Contexts. Guangdong, China. Alexandria, VA, USA:
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Inc. (TESOL).
Ontario Ministry of Education Resources. (2012). Pedagogical documentation: Leading
Learning in the early years and beyond. Capacity Building Series. (30) 1-8.Ontario.
Orlova, N. (2009). Video recording as a stimulus for reflection in pre-service EFL teacher
training. English Teaching Forum. 2. Jan Evangelista Purkyne University.
Czech Republic.
Ribiero, S. A. (2003). The reflective cycle. In G. Hadley (Ed.), Action Research in Action
(pp.1-8), Niigata University of International and Information Studies, Singapore.
REALC Portfolio Series 8. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Richards, J. C. (1990). The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching. Nunan,
D & Richards, J. C. (Ed.). Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

25

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. 90. Southeast Asian

Ministers of Education Organization, Regional Language Centre, Singapore: Cambridge
University Press.
Salas, S. & Mercado, L. (2010). Looking for the big picture: Macrostrategies for L2 teacher
observation and feedback. English Teaching Forum. 4. 20-21.
Schn, D. (1983). The reflective practictioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Stefano, G. D., Gino, F., Pisano, G. & Staats, B. (2014). Learning by thinking: How reflection
improves performance. Harvard Business School. President and Fellows of Harvard
College. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7498.html.
Ur, P. (1992). Teacher learning. ELT Journal. 46. Oxford University Press.
van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching:
On the Epistemology of Reflective Practice. (1)1, 33-50. University of Alberta.
Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research as professional development: P-12 educators in the USA.
Educational Action Research.
Zeichner, K. & Liston D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational
Review.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

26

Footnotes
1

This might be included ironically. Penny Ur states that applying agricultural

botanical methods of research to educational issues shows no utility for practitioners

(1992).
2

In analyzing the efficiency of reflective teaching tools, a study in India uses ANOVA to
find that the Teacher Diary, among others, is best for producing useful data
(Fatemipour, 2013).

Meddings and Thornbury suggest similar activities for retrieving and reformulating
emergent language during lessons (2010 p. 20).

This is also mentioned as a limitation in Jeffrey and Hadleys case study (2002).

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

27
Tables

Table 1
A Comparison of Entry Test Scores in Groups 1 and 2

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Diagnostic 1
Diagnostic 2
67.49342105 66.1744186
189.0366228 131.4045144
76
86
0
147
0.658244891
0.255705179
1.655285437
0.511410359
1.976233277

Note: No significant difference is found. This test is conducted at a 0.05 level of significance.
The computed p value for the test is 0.511410359.
Table 2
A Comparison of Exit Test Scores in Groups 1 and 2

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Exit 1
Exit 2
71.83552632 72.4244186
212.2825877 138.9618673
76
86
0
144
0.280455821
0.389765165
1.655504178
0.77953033
1.976575034

Note: No significant difference is found. The test is conducted at a 0.05 level of significance.
The computed p value for the test is 0.77953033.

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

28

Table 3
Results of Comparing Diagnostic and Exit Scores: Group 1

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Diagnostic
Exit
67.49342105 71.83552632
189.0366228 212.2825877
76
76
0.811169036
0
75
4.332763685
2.25369E-05
1.665425374
4.50738E-05
1.992102124

Note: A statistically significant difference is found between the Diagnostic and Exit variable for
Group #1 based on the computed p value of 4.50738E-05. It is also found that the Exit variable is
statistically larger than the Diagnostic variable, based on a computed p value of 2.25369E-05.
Table 4
Results of Comparing Diagnostic and Exit Scores: Group 2

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Diagnostic
Exit
66.1744186 72.4244186
131.4045144 138.9618673
86
86
0.84270548
0
85
8.878549123
4.75647E-14
1.6629785
9.51293E-14
1.988267868

Note: A statistically significant difference is found between the Diagnostic and Exit variable for
Group #2, based on the computed p value of 9.51293E-14. It was also found that the Exit

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

variable is statistically larger than the Diagnostic variable, based on a computed p value of
4.75647E-14.

29

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

30
Figures

Friday July 24, 2015:

Class Description:
Fridays lesson was an all English Physical Education (PE) lesson. I chose to do a PE lesson plan
because it was the last day for my entire class and I decided to have a little fun while learning. The
objective of my class was to get a firsthand experience on American sports and to provide a space for the
students to receive English instruction in a more natural environment.
At the beginning of the lesson another teacher challenged my class to dodgeball. The students
were explained the rules and were to answer my question to review their understanding. After the game
we sat down to talk about the differences and similarities of games in their home country. Following the
dodgeball game we started class with stretches where students, in pairs demonstrated a stretch for the
class to follow. We had conversations about why it is important to stretch. After this we practice jump
roping and I taught them how to correctly throw and catch a Frisbee. After every activity I made sure to
sit down with them to review terms they heard me say and give them time to ask questions and talk about
games in their culture. Though, later another teacher challenge my class to a game of Ultimate Frisbee.
I took a few minutes to instruct my students on the rules of how the game was played. Students
took the opportunity to clarify everything I was saying and were extremely enthusiastic about the whole
event. I stood on the sideline shouting instructions like: rune, block, relax, pass, he is open, line up. The
students responded really well and worked together to score points.
Reflection:
For this exercise I followed a standard PE lesson by introducing an activity and trying to activate prior
knowledge of the activity. I tried to make this class strictly a speaking class upon the requests of made
earlier in the week. I believe that this class went really well because of the feedback from the students and
the group leaders. When I asked the students what they learned they repeated the lines I said like, stay in
front of the line and Defense! Block him! They were able to rename parts of the body that were
involved in each activity. Later I was speaking with the Japanese group leaders who seemed to be excited
by how their students described the days class. This class seemed to flow well and I dont think perhaps I
could have provided students with rhymes to say for jump rope or something more to get the students
using as much English as possible.

Figure 2. Reflective journal entry written by teacher of A2/B1 class

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

Entry
Exit
Weeks Level
85.5
96
2 C1/2
58
78
2 A2/B1
68.5
76
2 B1/2
83
83
2 C1/2
78
84
2 B2/C1
89
92
2 C1/2
71.5
74.5
2 B2/C1
75
82.5
2 B2/C1
60.5
70
2 B1/2
75
83.5
2 B2/C1
77.5
79
2 B2/C1
59
52
2 A2/B1
61
68
2 B1/2
51
63
2 A2/B1
76
72.5
2 B2/C1
80
77.5
2 C1/2
76
81
2 B2/C1
79
85
2 C1/2
70.5
63.5
2 B2/C1
71
52
2 B2/C1
65
79
2 B1/2
80
83
2 C1/2
57.5
68
2 A2/B1
42
17
2 A1/A2
69
63
2 B1/2
54
53
2 A2/B1
70
79.5
2 B2/C1
89
89
2 C1/2
64
69
2 B1/2
68
49
2 B1/2
68
73
2 B1/2
56
67
2 A2/B1
66
64
2 B1/2
64
70
2 B1/2
75
71
2 B2/C1
73.5
69
2 B2/C1
49
59
2 A2/B1
46
56
2 A1/A2

Figure 3. Data set for the control group

31
Entry
Exit
Weeks Level
56.5
71
2 A2/B1
72
83
2 B2/C1
55
58
2 A2/B1
62
48
2 B1/2
51.5
59
2 A2/B1
73
84
2 B2/C1
64
69
2 B1/2
55
44
2 A2/B1
83
88.5
2 C1/2
56
61
1 A2/B1
46
48
1 A1/A2
51
70
1 A2/B1
40
59
1 A1/A2
60
62
1 B1/2
86
88
1 C1/2
84
83.5
1 C1/2
77
86.5
2 B2/C1
77
87.5
2 B2/C1
79.5
82.5
2 C1/2
74
73.5
2 B2/C1
73
75
2 B2/C1
70
87.5
2 B2/C1
83.5
89
2 C1/2
87
89
2 C1/2
94
97
2 C1/2
79.5
91
2 C1/2
88
88
2 C1/2
87.5
92
2 C1/2
67
73
2 B1/2
26
56
2 A1/A2
38
46
1 A1/A2
53
65
1 A2/B1
66
73.5
1 B1/2
63.5
70
1 B1/2
59.5
63.5
1 B1/2
57
62
1 A2/B1
57
62.5
1 A2/B1
76.5
82
1 B2/C1

REFLECTIVE COLLABORATION IN ELT

Entry
67
71
45
64
67
85
64
75.5
66
70
67
71
54
68
78.5
81
87
87
96
81
48.5
64
69
56
56
75
79
80

Exit
72
71
72
75
77
83.5
70.5
79
76
70
78.5
78.5
46
79
81
85
88
89
97
88
58
71
74
69
59
80
84
84

Weeks Level
1 B1/2
1 B2/C1
1 A1/2
1 B1/2
1 B1/2
1 C1/2
1 B1/2
1 B2/C1
1 B1/2
1 B2/C1
1 B1/2
1 B2/C1
1 A2/B1
1 B1/2
1 B2/C1
1 C1/2
1 C1/2
2 C1/2
2 C1/2
2 C1/2
2 A1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 A2/B1
2 A2/B1
2 B2/C1
2 C1/2
2 C1/2

Entry

Exit

78
69.5
67
53
66
64
52
52
58
52
46
75
72.5
76.5
74.5
68
73
68.5
68
66
66
65.5
65
65
65
63
61.5
55.5
54.5

Figure 4. Data set for the experimental group

Entry
Exit
78.5
74
82.5

Weeks
88 3 weeks
81 3 weeks
92 3 weeks

Class
C1
B2
C1

Figure 5. The outlying data set

32
Weeks Level
84
74
81
61
60
75
79
69.5
60.5
47
53
81.5
73.5
84
83
77
77
84
73
75
69
69
77.5
69
69
75
73.5
67
60

2 B2/C1
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 A2/B1
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 A2/B1
2 A2/B1
2 A2/B1
2 A2/B1
2 A1/2
2 B2/C1
2 B2/C1
2 B2/C1
2 B2/C1
2 B1/2
2 B2/C1
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 B1/2
2 A2/B1
2 A2/B1

Entry
58
83
74
76.5
75.5
76
68.5
70
72
69.5
73
81.5
56
62.5
59
69
70.5
76
71
64.5
64.5
64
55
55
52.5
47.5
47
34
32.5

Exit

Weeks Level
69.5
80.5
81
86.5
85
83
67.5
80
85
82
70
86
64
72
50
73
76
83
69
75
64.5
79
62
61.5
54
38
42
46.5
47

2 A2/B1
2 C1/2
2 B2/C1
2 B2/C1
2 B2/C1
2 B2/C1
2 B1/2
2 B2/C1
2 B2/C1
2 B1/2
2 B2/C1
2 C1/2
2 A2/B1
2 B1/2
2 A2/B1
2 B1/2
1 B2/C1
1 B2/C1
1 B2/C1
1 B1/2
1 B1/2
1 B1/2
1 A2/B1
1 A2/B1
1 A2/B1
1 A1/2
1 A1/2
1 A1/2
1 A1/2