1. A Teacher-Researcher Journey in an
Exploratory Practice Collaborative
Project 2014-16
Chris Banister
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Lecturer
Regent’s University London
Contact: banisterc@regents.ac.uk

2. My puzzle and teaching context
 Learners: Business English modules for exchange
students.
 Course: Language and business content, student-led
components, blended aspects.
 Puzzle: “Why don’t I get sufficient high quality, usable
feedback and evaluation of course content from
students?”
 Puzzle origins: limited contact, modular format, stuffed
syllabus, limitations of formal instruments.
 To shed light on: materials, activities, methodology,
pacing, interaction and feedback.

3. Approaching the puzzle
 Considerations: Survey fatigue, duplication, power
assymetry (Richardson 2005), projection of teacher insecurity,
the anonymity-actionability trade-off.)
 Tools
1. Needs Analysis: reconceived as a dialogue - “the best way
to learn from information.” (Mortiboys 2010:125).
2. Mid-module: post-it activity, traffic light survey, tutorials,
reflective writing slots.
3. End of module: Review collage activity, official Student
Evaluation of Module forms.
(for examples of the above activities please feel free to contact me directly:
banisterc@regents.ac.uk)

4. Understanding Phase 1
 Transferability, wider applicability: …this experience influenced…other
presentations in this university incredibly positively.”
 Peer participation/motivation: “This activity could be improved if participants
were more motivated.” (peer participation)
 Topic, lesson focus: “The materials used during the lecture were nice even
though I would have preferred something regarding more business and
economic area.” (topic, lesson focus)
(Mid-module and end of module student feedback 2013/14)
Overall Phase 1: Learners’ thoughts
 more explicit focus on business vocabulary, more of a language focus
 mismatch between student expectations of roles of teacher and students
regarding the business content/language balance of the module
My thoughts
 revealing, access to the view through the students’ lens,
 Need for management of expectations
 Frame the role of the module in the wider Exchange context.

5. Understanding: Phase 2
Phase 2
 Honing of tools, need for feedback on evaluations (Mortiboys 2010).
 Overcoming doubts about the potential of the learner as a co-
researcher-realisation that everyday classroom activities can
achieve this.
 Introduction of new components-vocabulary cards, boost language
feedback component.
Preliminary indications
 “I have learnt many new and useful business words.”
 “The vocabulary card quiz’s. It makes you be ready and updated.”
(end of module student feedback Dec 2015)
Upcoming phase
 Discuss research about 2nd language vocabulary learning with students

6. Reflections and insights
Impact on my learners, on me the teacher-researcher and our mutual relationship.
 EP Provided mutual access to understanding for both myself and my learners via
unpacking of misconceptions (e.g. module role and aims), shedding light on issues
surrounding engagement, giving learners a greater voice.
 Impetus for concrete improvements to classroom quality of life (Allwright 2009)
through enhanced dialogue and collaboration.
 Added the role of researcher to my practitioner identity.
My teaching
 Transformative for the teaching-research relationship. Classroom events are a
“legitimate source of research knowledge about teaching and learning” (Borg
2010:418)
 Facilitated the marrying of teaching and research to explore the world of the
classroom (Slimani-Rolls 2003) in a way that represents a worthwhile investment
and sustainable (Allwright 2009)
My continuing professional development (CPD)
 Informed CPD decisions, promoting a degree of confidence and autonomy.
 Access to teacher-researcher Communities of Practice (COP) (Wenger 2004)
within my institution and beyond.
 Feeling that I have something to contribute and to say (e.g. today!)