RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Participant Motivation

Nine 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 motivated.

Depth of Reflection

Hatton and Smith’s (1995, cited by Moon 2006:40) framework was adopted for this study, as it appeared applicable to experience generally, and not only classroom events. Their scale operates as follows:

• 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)

In practice, 12 out of 15 students achieved only levels 1 and 2. 3 students achieved level 3 (although only one did so consistently). No one achieved level 4 – but one should bear in mind that reflective writing will have been quite new to these first-year students.

Focus Group feedback

Feedback from the focus groups was, however, striking:

 “Culture shock” and personal language anxiety lessened (Q1).

 Critical, objective thinking was supported (Q2).

 Participants felt able to “take care of each other”, and share insights into learner classroom behaviour (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).

Fully 13 out of 14 participants strongly approved of using Edmodo for reflection.

Course Organizer’s view

In the course organizer’s view, face-to-face discussions about teaching practice experiences did not continue too much once students had received feedback online. She opined that the whole Edmodo experience was “very new to students from this particular cultural background. Talking openly about failures isn’t too common in Japan”. Hence, discussion was rather general, and “not too specific or personal”. Some trainees might have become more open, but for this to become widespread “would have required a much longer period of blended learning”.

Nevertheless, her evaluation of the approach taken was extremely positive. In her opinion, blended learning makes reflection much easier, as well as granting the trainer added control.

Asynchronicity means that people can participate in their own time and at their own pace;

“lurking” is still acceptable. In her view, Edmodo achieves the perfect balance between openness and safety; the project enriched the course to the benefit of all involved.

104

5. ANALYSIS

Student Teacher and Course Organizer feedback

Participants’ for the most part strong endorsement of “sharing” reflections on Edmodo was a significant finding. They 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.

In view of the course organizer’s positive feedback, it also seems safe to assume that the blended learning methods adopted during this study were more than repeatable.

Methodology: can it be improved?

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. The manner of question posed to an extent determines the response from participants: this could also be investigated.

In addition, face-to-face, whole-class feedback responding to posts collectively might also serve a useful purpose. A tighter integration of online and face-to-face training might possibly yield superior results.

6. CONCLUSION

The project lasted only six weeks, and only limited gains in reflective depth were observed. It might be the case that 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?

Overall, doubts persist: but the methods used here are surely relevant to short courses everywhere. The case for further research appears strong.

REFERENCES

Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. London: D.C.Heath & Company.

Farrell, T. (2007). 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, N. (2013). Providing “the spark” for reflection from a digital platform. In:

Edge, J. & S.Mann (eds.) Innovations in Pre-Service Education and Training for English Language Teachers. British Council 2013.

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. Routledge.

105

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 (2^nd edition).

Roberts, J. (1998). Language Teacher Education. London: Arnold.

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking. In: Teacher College Record Vol. 104 no. 4, June 2002.

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.

106

Nagyné Dr. Csák Éva Szolnoki Főiskola

csak@szolf.hu