A presentation given at the 17th Association of University Language Centres Conference on 7th-8th January 2016.

1. “Accessibility to professional development to enable language
teachers to develop a better understanding
of their classroom practice”
A Collaborative Research Project
Regent’s University London & Greenwich University
Dr A. Rolls, C. Banister, A. Costantino,
M. Goral, J. Houghton
Collaborative Research Project
Regent’s University London & Greenwich University
Dr A. Rolls, C. Banister, A. Costantino,
M. Goral, J. Houghton
AULC Conference 2016
07-08 January 2016 Cardiff University
1

2. Engagement with research is acknowledged
by many as having a potentially powerful
transformative force in the professional
development of teachers.
2

3. Exploratory Practice (EP) is highlighted as
“a particular conceptualisation of teacher
research that merits attention”.
(Borg, 2010:397)
3

4. Exploratory Practice involves
4
A. Practitioners working to understand
a. what they want to understand, following their own agendas;
b. not necessarily in order to bring about change;
d. But by using normal pedagogic practices as investigative tools, so
that working for understanding is part of L &T, not extra to it;
e. in a way that does not lead to ‘burn-out’, but that is indefinitely
sustainable
c. Not primarily by changing

5. 5
B. In order to contribute to
f. teaching and learning themselves;
g. professional development, both individual and
collective.
Allwright 2003:127-8

6. 6
Key principles of EP
• put ‘quality of life’ first
• work primarily to understand classroom life
• work to bring people together (collegiality)
• work for mutual development (inclusivity)
• integrate the work for understanding into classroom practice (use
of normal pedagogic activities as investigative approaches)
• make the work a continuous enterprise (sustainability)

7. Methodology
(a) Peer observation of teaching;
(b) Teachers videotape themselves and watch in their own time
the teaching episodes they wish to focus upon;
(c ) Workshops & group discussions to scaffold the work of the
teachers as well as individual discussions;
(d) Questionnaires and class discussion with learners.
7

8. 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

9. 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.

10. Approaching the puzzle
 Considerations: Survey fatigue, duplication, power
assymetry (Richardson 2005), projection of teacher insecurity,
the anonymity-actionability trade-off.)
 Tools
• Needs Analysis: reconceived as a dialogue - “the best way to
learn from information.” (Mortiboys 2010:125).
• Mid-module: post-it activity, traffic light survey, tutorials,
reflective writing slots.
• 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)

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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!)

14. John Houghton – Reflections on
implementing EP into my teaching
practice
Lead Researcher –Dr Assia Rolls

15. My Puzzle
Original Puzzle:
Why do I feel less able to develop learners’
speaking skills in the same way I feel I am
able to with writing?

16. Reasons behind the puzzle
• Learners’ progression in writing can be
tracked/assessed/developed because there
are data to refer to. How can this be done
with speaking skills?

17. Progression and pitfalls
• Transcripts of learners’ recorded spoken output: time
consuming, inauthentic, can inhibit performance, limited
interaction types (i.e. mostly presentational) pronunciation,
intonation could not be assessed by the teacher
• Video recordings of classes: highlight classroom
interactions (T-S & Ss-Ss), provide insight into what we think
happens and what actually occurs however, time consuming
• Learner audio recordings and follow-up
questionnaires/written reflections: involves the learner,
enhances learner autonomy & reflection, can be set as
homework and marked in the same way as written
assignments,

18. Adapting to & Learning from EP
• There was a natural reluctance for me to hand over/involve
the learner in the research as there is sometimes this attitude
‘teacher knows best’.
• Finding ways of obtaining/recording data via commonplace
pedagogical activities seamlessly and with limited amount of
labour proved to be challenging
• Initial phase, I spent much time analysing transcripts and
video recorded sessions. I realised that I was trying to be a
researcher and a teacher at the same time rather than
researching through teaching.

19. Benefits of EP
• Helps become + inquisitive & reflective this framework
provides the context to more formally consolidate those
intuitions, post-class reflections and doubts that teachers
naturally have
• The tacit understanding that we have as teachers regarding
teaching and learning can be made more explicit via
recording reflections and having structured discussions with
other tutors
• Encourages teachers to re-engage with actual teaching,
search for info from consultants, colleagues others (AR &
Colleagues) academic research it’s strange that we don’t
• Teaching no longer has to be a solo endeavour- involving
students in the planning and decision-making of teaching and
learning can be rewarding and help develop your teaching

20. When do student presentations and
discussion boards work well?
A work in Progress: A
Language Teacher Research
Project
Marianna Goral – EAP Lecturer at Regent’s University
London
7th
January, AULC Conference 2016 – Cardiff University

21. My Puzzle
(Sandiegoed.com, 2015)
(umkc.edu, 2015)
When do student presentations and
discussion boards work well?
(freecoloringpages.c.uk, 2015)

22. My Groups
• Business English for Exchange Students module
• Number of students: between 8 – 16 to a class.
• Undergraduate exchange students - non-native speakers of
English.
• Language Level: Upper-intermediate and Advanced level
classes.
• English is the medium of instruction
• 5 groups of students observed over a period of three
semesters.

23. Module component: Student presentations for VLE
Discussion boards
2 – 3 students per group per week deliver a presentation on a current business
topic (socio-political, environmental, financial etc.)
At the end of the presentation the students must provide a set of questions for
the audience and try to generate an in-class discussion. They facilitate the
group discussions by acting as ‘topical experts’
After the seminar the students become ‘Discussion Board administrators’ for a
week and continue the in-class discussion on the VLE, they provide extra
links, videos and updates about the topic, continue to generate interest and a
discussion about the presented topic.
One of the 7 topics is chosen as the question for the final in-class written report
assessment. (SGM for assessment)

24. What ‘we’ve’ understood so far?
• Shift in class dynamic creates a better
learning environment - “ [it feels] it’s not
like teaching, it’s more about sharing
[knowledge with others]”
• Students as contributors to classroom
discourse - student generated content is a
valid learning resource - “I think my
material is really interesting and my
classmates will be interested too.”
• Student engagement continues outside
the classroom environment with the aid
of VLE tools i.e. the discussion board
• Students said they preferred working
alongside their teacher rather than for the
teacher – collaborative effort - “I really
like this format of learning. The teaching
role doesn’t scare me and from my point
of view is very useful for learning”
• A better understanding of what is going on in my
classes – becoming more aware of my local
knowledge
• Questioning my tacit knowledge – critical
evaluation of my belief system
• Enhancing the quality of the learning experience
for students i.e. quality of classroom life - students
are happy with what they are doing.
• Impressed by student behaviour –rising to the
challenge “We are equals, as I’m learning from my
students too”.
• Benefits of student feedback – looking into student
needs with an open and honest dialogue. Students
thoroughly enjoyed giving suggestions on how to
improve in class activities.
• More of an understanding of student life outside
the classroom. I feel I know them as people not
just ‘bodies’ I feed with my knowledge.
Learner Practitioner: Research Practitioner:

25. Thank you for your attention!
Any questions, insight or personal
reflections?

26. 26
• Allwright, D & J. Hanks. 2009 Exploratory Practice- The Developing
Language Learner. Palgrave MacMillan.
• Allwright, D. 2003. ‘A brief guide to Exploratory Practice: rethinking
practitioners research in language teaching’. Language Teaching
Research. Vol 7, no2. pp.109-11
• Allwright, D. and K. bailey. (1991) Focus on the Language
Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language
Teachers. CUP.
• Borg, S. (2010). ‘Language Teacher Research Engagement’. 43:4,
391-429. CUP.
• Burns, A. (2011). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A guide
for practioners. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching And Research Press.
• Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher Educators as researchers: multiple
perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 219-225.
• Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner
research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.
• Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education.
Review of educational research, 83(1), 70-120.
REFERENCES

27. 27
• Ferrell, L., Gray, L. (2013). Feedback and feed forward Using technology to
support learner longitudinal development.
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/feedback-and-feed-forward
• Gieve S. and Miller, IK. (2006). Understanding the language classroom.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: investigating the
concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education,
37(4), 543-560.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational
research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1990). Learning from Teacher Research: A
Working Typology. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 83-103.
• Perpignan, H. (2003). Exploring the written feedback dialogue: a research,
learning and teaching practice. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 259-278.
• Pitt, E. (2013). Understanding Student’s Conceptions of Feedback to Improve the
Student Learning Experience.

28. 28
• Rowland, L. (2011). Lessons about learning: Comparing learner experiences with
language research. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 254-267.
• Mortiboys, A. (2010) How to be an effective teacher in higher education: answers
to lecturers' questions. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press
• Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-
regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice.
Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.
• Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) ‘Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of
the literature.’ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (4):387-415.
• Slimani-Rolls, A. & R. Kiely. (2014) ‘We are the change that we seek: Developing
Teachers’ Understanding of classroom Practice. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International. The Journal of the SEDA. Routledge
• Slimani-Rolls, A. (2003) ‘Exploring a world of paradoxes: an investigation of group
work.’ Language Teaching Research, 7 (2): 215-233.
• Wenger, E. (2004) Knowledge Management as a Doughnut. Ivey Business Journal.
January/February 2004. (Online) Available at:
http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/knowledge-
management-as-a-doughnut (Last accessed 5 Jan 2016)

29. 29
Images
• Freecoloringpages.co.uk (2015?) Image of puzzle piece.
[Online image]. Available at: http://freecoloringpages.co.uk/?
q=puzzle+pieces [Accessed 12/04/2015]
• Sandiego.edu (2015?) Image of female student giving an
presentation.[Online image]. Available at:
https://www.sandiego.edu/business/images/undergraduate_
student.jpg [Accessed 12/04/2015]
• Umkc.edu (2015?) Blackboard logo image. [Online image].
Available at: http://online.umkc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/Blackboard_Logo.png [Accessed
12/04/2015]

30. Staff email addresses:
rollsa@regents.ac.uk
goralm@regents.ac.uk
houghtonj@regent.ac.uk
banisterc@regents.ac.uk
A.Costantino@greenwich.ac.uk
30