Teacher reflections on implementing a learning cycle in EFL writing classes
An action research study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.34062Keywords:
action research, reflective practice, learning cycles, process writing, teacher reflections, can do statements, illustrative descriptorsAbstract
This action research study began with classroom observations of a learning cycle informed English as a Foreign Language writing class (referred to as the first learning context) for the purposes of creating a general how-to guide for implementing a learning cycle within a writing course. The guide was then implemented in a writing skills class in a different educational context (referred to as the second learning context). A learning cycle was introduced to help learners become more accustomed to peer-editing, giving peer feedback, performing self-assessments and being more critical of their own work. It was found that the learning cycle functioned very differently in the second learning context and not entirely as intended, despite modifications that were made to account for differences between the two learning contexts. Teacher reflections revealed that differences between the reasons for using a learning cycle, assumptions about the similarities between learning contexts (the two courses and their content), decisions regarding changes to the second contexts’ learning materials, differences in student population and other unforeseen differences affected how the learning cycle operated. Critical interactions with sample performance writing texts, the provision or collaborative development of assessment criteria and feedback prompts for peer-editing, materials which support reflection on each task and at the end of the course, and additional class time spent on reflective discussion are all identified as key components of a learning cycle when used in an EFL writing class. The reflections also revealed that learning cycles can have utility when applied to contexts vastly different to those from where they were developed. Recommendations and suggested supporting resources for teachers interested in implementing learning cycles within their own contexts are provided.
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Retrieved from: www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English Language Teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863466
Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in education and teaching international, 44(1), 57–66.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2013). National placement guidelines. Retrieved from
www.language.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/National_Placement_Guidelines_2014-1.pdf
Council of Europe. (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. and Hedgcock, J. (2011). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice (2nd edition). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Gu, M. (2013). [Review of the book Curriculum reform in China: Changes and challenges, H-B. Yin and J. C-K. Lee (Eds)]. Frontiers of Education in China, 8(4), 631–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396995
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. (2018). JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research in Japan. Retrieved from https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-summer/
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kohonen V. (2007). Learning to learn through reflection – An experiential learning perspective. Retrieved from http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/DM_layout/00_10/05/Supplementary%20text%20E.pdf.
Kühn, B. and Cavana, M. L. P. (Eds). (2012). Perspectives from the European language portfolio learner autonomy and self-assessment. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809426
Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing, 22(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt311oa
Little, D. (2010). The European language portfolio and self-assessment: Using ‘I can’ checklists to plan, monitor and evaluate language learning. In M. G. Schmidt, N. Naganuma, F. O’Dwyer, A. Imig, and K. Sakai (Eds), Can do statements in language education in Japan and beyond, 157–166. Tokyo: Asahi Press.
Little, D. and Perclová, R. (2001). The European language portfolio: A guide for teachers and teacher trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio/?L=E&M=/main_pages/documents.html
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2010). You and your action research project (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203871553
Mesana-Alais, C. (2004). An integrated approach to foreign language writing instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.27.1.04mes
Murray, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not product. The Leaflet, 71(3), 11–14.
O’Dwyer, F. (2010). Can do statements at the centre of involving learners in the self-assessment, goal-setting and reflection learning cycle. In M. G. Schmidt, N. Naganuma, F. O’Dwyer, A. Imig, and K. Sakai (Eds), Can do statements in language education in Japan and beyond, 218–234. Tokyo: Asahi Press.
O’Dwyer, F., Imig, A., and Nagai, N. (2013). Connectedness through a strong form of TBLT, classroom implementation of the CEFR, cyclical learning, and learning-oriented assessment. Language
Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 231–253.
O’Dwyer, F. and Runnels, J. (2014). Bringing learner self-regulation practices forward. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(4), 404–422. https://doi.org/10.37237/050408
Pritchard, R. J. and Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction: Examining its effectiveness. Handbook of writing research, 275–290. New York: Guilford Press.
Smith, A.F. (2012). Progressive adaptive learning assistant – PALA, and what she can do for teachers, learners and curriculum planners and administrators in language programs using the Common European Framework. Journal of Anglo-American Studies, 35, 112–140.
Stanley, G. (2003). Approaches to process writing. Barcelona: British Council. Retrieved from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/approaches-process-writing
Zemack, D. and Stafford-Yilmaz, L. (2008). Writers at work: The essay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586647
Zeng, D. (2005). The process-oriented approach to ESL/EFL writing instruction and research. Teaching English in China, 28(5), 66–77.
