Trainees on short-format language teaching courses often complain about being rushed when it comes to having their teaching practice observed and getting feedback on it. In this talk, I describe research I did at Warwick University in 2014 - which strongly suggests that inviting students to reflect on their teaching online (and what is more, openly) can pay real dividends.

1. Baring one’s soul, online:
can it be good for trainee teachers?
Presenter: Philip Saxon
(Corvinus University)

2. Reflective Practice?

3. Teacher training?

4. 1) Introduction
Short courses for language teachers typically
involve observed teaching practice.
The feedback on this is valuable but the process
can easily be rushed. Often trainees complain
about lacking time to reflect.
So what if reflecting online – and openly – offers
a solution to this problem? Let’s see.

5. Contents
1) Introduction
2) Reflection: what is it?
3) Rationale
4) The study
5) Results
6) Analysis
7) Conclusions

6. 2) Reflection: what is it?
True reflection involves a critical examination of
our assumptions (Dewey 1910:6).
We are prompted to reflect when real life does
not conform to our expectations. We are
confronted by a dilemma or “forked road”
situation (ibid. 1910:11).

7. What happens when we reflect?
If we want to solve the problem, we have to take a step back
and examine our assumptions. Were we on the wrong track?
A critical incident could be a learning opportunity. We need to
ask questions of ourselves and our students.
Feedback can validate or disprove our hypotheses, and give us a
basis for action. We are not alone (Farrell 2008).
If the action we take works, we adopt it as personal knowledge
(Dewey 1910, cited by Roberts 1998:48).

8. Learning from experience?
Kolb (1984)

9. Not entirely!
In truth, we often “learn” from our perceptions of
experience (Moon 1999:32).
Trainers must therefore draw trainees’ attention to
what is most salient!
That’s why scaffolding, and structured questioning
are so important.
(Usher 1985, cited by Moon 1999:33-4).

10. 3) Rationale
So why go online?
And why ask trainees to “bare their souls” in
front of peers? Won’t they feel EXPOSED?
Good questions – but I had my reasons…

11. Openness can lead to growth!

12. Face-to-face: obvious merits?
It can be good to talk!
And mutual support is commendable.
And afterwards?
Individuals may take things further privately.
(Mann & Walsh 2011)

13. But let’s not disrespect online!
It has certain advantages:
– 24/7 availability = flexibility.
– Take your time! No-one minds.
– Post any time! No permission required.
– No faces = no face issues! It’s SAFER for some.
– Want to edit? Fine. Want a record? You got it.
– Considered, constructive feedback? Students love
that.
(Salmon 2011:15-16).

14. Time to investigate!
An ePortfolio approach can scaffold reflection, it seems
(Kurtoğlu-Hooton 2013). But is privacy paramount?
What if students saw benefits to openness? I wanted to
see for myself!

15. 4) The study
Participants: 15 trainee English language teachers from Japan.
Their task: to reflect on their practice experiences of teaching
Japanese to secondary school pupils over a six-week period.
The learners: these were drawn from years 7, 8 and 9 of a
secondary school in Coventry, UK.
The online platform: Edmodo (a virtual learning environment).
Triangulation: Focus group interviews were scheduled to take
place once the teaching practice phase was over.

16. Project start-up
Participants were first introduced to reflective practice. They were
told that for Dewey, reflective people have three attributes:
• Open-mindedness
• Responsibility
• Whole-heartedness
(Farrell 2008:2)
All 15 participants afterwards signed the ethics forms and we were off!

17. Project schedule
Date Activity
30 May Presentation: Reflective Practice
Post 1: Settling In
6 June Post 2: The learner experience
15 June Post 3: Implementing activities (1)
28 June Post 4: Implementing activities (2)
1 July Presentation: Classroom
Management
2 July Post 5: Classroom Management
11 July Focus group interviews
18 July Interview with course organiser

18. Structured questions
Each week, I posed a different set of structured
questions on Edmodo.
These aimed to elicit a personal response...
...as well as to scaffold reflection by gradually
encouraging greater specificity.

19. Focus Groups
Participants were divided into three groups for this. 14 out of
15 students were available on the day.
Sessions each lasted 20 minutes. Discussions were recorded.

20. 5) Results: Motivation
9 students completed all five posts. Four were
keen, regularly posting first!
Of the other six, four failed to post more than
once – they were not so keen.

21. Results: Levels of Reflection
Hatton & Smith (1995, cited by Moon 2006:40) have a scale for this:
• Level 1 – Description (essentially non-reflective)
• Level 2 – Descriptive Reflection (mostly only from one perspective)
• Level 3 – Dialogic Reflection (engages other perspectives)
• Level 4 – Critical Reflection (socio-political context is considered)
12 out of 15 students achieved only levels 1 and 2.
3 students achieved level 3 (only one was consistent).
No one achieved level 4 – but this was not expected!

22. Results: focus group feedback
“Culture shock” and personal language anxiety lessened (Q1).
Critical, objective thinking was supported (Q2).
They were helped to “take care of each other” (Q3).
They became aware of alternative possibilities (Q4).
It became easier to discuss problems with peers/UK teachers
(Q4).
“Sharing” reflections on Edmodo was no embarrassment (Q5).
They could respond in their own time, in a considered way (Q6).
13 out of 14 participants strongly approved of using Edmodo for
reflection.

23. Course organizer’s view (1)
Did discussions about teaching practice continue, post-online
feedback?
•Not so much – but the whole Edmodo experience was “very
new to students from this particular cultural background. Talking
openly about failures isn’t too common in Japan”.
•Face-to-face discussions were rather general, and “not too
specific or personal”. Maybe some trainees became more open,
but for openness to become classroom-wide “would require a
much longer period of blended learning”.

24. Course organizer’s view (2)
Would you do it again? What is your overall evaluation?
•Definitely! It makes reflection so much easier.
•You have more control as a trainer, too!
•People can participate in their own time and at their own pace.
Lurking is still okay. Asynchronicity is a virtue.
•The project enriched the course – everyone benefited.
•Openness and safety – Edmodo achieves the perfect balance.

25. 6) Analysis
Strong endorsement of “sharing” = a significant finding!
Participants saw community benefits to openness.
The method was also viewed as time-efficient and effective!
Peer accounts were seen as reassuring – and this made it easier
for motivated participants to self-disclose.
These appear to be powerful findings.

26. 7) Conclusion (1)
Better methods might have yielded greater depth of
reflection:
•Routinely asking what could be done better as a final
structured question might have achieved results.
•Face-to-face, whole-class feedback responding to
posts collectively might also serve a useful purpose.
A more tightly integrated “blend” of online and face-to-
face training might just yield optimal results.

27. Conclusion (2)
The project lasted only six weeks – we saw only limited gains in
reflective depth! Did the students just need more time?
Maybe. Individual journals kept over an extended period in the past
have achieved this (Samuels & Betts 2007; Harland & Wondra 2011).
However, whether a spirit of “community reflection” could be
sustained this long is open to question.
Also, Japanese are very community-oriented. Would students from
more individualistic cultures feel the same way about openness?
Doubts persist: but the methods used here are surely relevant to short
courses everywhere. The case for further research appears strong.

28. References (1)
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. London: D.C.Heath & Company.
Farrell, T. (2008). Reflective Language Teaching: From Research To
Practice. London: Continuum.
Harland, D.J. & Wondra, J.D. (2011). Preservice Teachers’ Reflection
on Clinical Experiences: A Comparison of Blog and Final Paper
Assignments. In: Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, Vol.
27 No. 4: International Society for Technology in Education, 2011.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of
learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall.
Kurtoğlu-Hooton (2013). Providing the “spark” for reflection from a
digital platform. In: Edge, J. & Mann, S. (eds.) Innovations in Pre-
Service Education and Training for English Language Teachers. British
Council 2013.

29. References (2)
Mann, S. & Walsh, S. (2011). Shaping Reflective Tools To Context. Paper
presented at the Reflection in the Round: Discourses and Practices of
Reflection at the BAAL/CUP seminar (Oxford Brookes University).
Available online at
https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/RIR/June+24+BAAL_CUP+Seminar.
Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development:
Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis.
Moon, J. (2006). Learning Journals: A Handbook for Reflective Practice
and Professional Development. Routledge (2nd edition).
Roberts, J. (1998). Language Teacher Education. London: Arnold.
Samuels, M. & Betts, J. (2007). Crossing the threshold from description to
deconstruction and reconstruction: using self-assessment to deepen
reflection. Reflective Practice 8(2), pp. 269-283.
Salmon, G. (2011). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning
Online (3rd edition). Routledge.