CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter is a general introduction to the study in the following order: significance of the study, the research questions, research assumptions, the definition of key terms, and the background and setting.

Significance of Study
There are three main purposes of this study: 1. To improve classroom instruction through inquiry and understanding; 2. To merge classroom instruction with Design-Based Research; 3. To encourage student participation and classroom intersubjectivity. In the current post-method era of Language Pedagogy, there exist gaps between theory and teaching practice in the classroom (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). It is becoming more apparent that improving the language classroom will rely on the pro-active efforts of both teacher and students. Such a process essentially requires teacher practitioner research which encourages students to participate reflectively along with the teacher as they attempt to merge theory and practice in a contextual setting (Brown, 1992; Schon, 1987; Wells, 1999). In this study, the research process involves collecting data that can be analyzed interpretively during the instructional activities. Using Allwrights Exploratory Practice as Design-based Research, this study will focus on improving the classroom environment through reflection and analysis in a natural setting where classroom activities are used to generate data (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Brown, 1992). The purpose is to merge research into the classroom setting without interfering or impinging on normal classroom activities. The significance of such an approach is evident in the need for teachers to conduct their own classroom research so as to improve their own classroom practice. It is generally accepted that language teaching has entered a post-method period characterized by theories which are abstract and difficult to conceptualize in the classroom (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Johnson, 2004; Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Another reason for the divide between theory and practice relates to the nature of

2 positivistic and rationalistic research that has dominated Second Language Acquisition (SLA), and the importance on separating language competence and language performance (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova, 2005). In this study, language competence and language performance are viewed from a relativistic point of view, where competence and performance are variables that should not be separated, and analysis or assessment is performed dynamically by the instructor as researcher (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011). Classroom research conducted by teachers is becoming a necessary requirement for professional development, but more importantly such research can be shared with colleagues in a manner which has never been done before. While quantitative data may be suitable for school administrators, classroom teachers are in need of qualitative data that examines classroom practice from the view of the participants. For example, teachers may view standardized tests scores and discover that one particular school is achieving consistently higher marks, and be inclined to rationalize that the particular school is doing something significantly different, only to discover qualitatively that students at the particular school were involved in language learning activities outside the school which had little to do with their classroom setting. It is a common practice in Thailand, for teachers to visit schools which are performing well, but those visits are usually characterized by tours of the facilities and a quick glance into the classrooms. Significant substantive examination does not take place, but if teachers had their own qualitative research available to share with visiting colleagues, better understanding would lead to improvement in the classrooms. Obviously there is clear significance to teacher generated qualitative research that can be easily accessed. This researcher is not suggesting that quantitative studies have no value or purpose, but there is a significant need for interpretive based teacher driven research that can uncover the reality behind the numbers. When talking to students and their parents, teachers are able to learn fascinating anecdotes that aid them in understanding the unique characteristics that are helping or hindering their students progress. Making that data available to other teachers who are experiencing the same kinds of problems are what make this study significant. Instead of English competitions

3 highlighting a schools accomplishments, these gatherings can be used for collaboration, where teacher generated research can be easily passed on to other teachers. Imagine being able to share experiences with other teachers from other schools. This is the significance of teacher driven research, an outgrowth of phenomenological or heuristic research that allows us to link practice with research. Even if collaboration isnt accomplished, the significance of research into the experiences and beliefs of those in the classroom is immediately discernible to the participants. During the pilot phase of this study, the researcher uncovered the story of a second year student from a bicultural family where English was not spoken in the home. This student had learned English along with her Thai classmates, yet her English skills advanced through primary and secondary while her classmates struggled with English. When she was asked if she could explain how she was able to speak English fluently and her Thai classmates couldnt, she matter-of-factly said that her friends were Thai, and werent expected to speak English. Sure, they had all done the grammar exercises in class, but no one spoke during class, but because the others assumed she was speaking English at home, she took on the persona. Her university classmates, as well as the instructor has always assumed that she spoke English at home, but only she spoke English in her family, and this bit of information encouraged the others to view language acquisition differently. The more often teachers speak to students about their prior English learning experiences, the closer they get to understanding the complications associated with language learning, and the more obvious the correlations become between speaking skills and time spent with expert speakers. This inquiry in itself is research, the kinds of research teachers should be conducting in their classrooms. The significance in such research becomes clearly obvious, but gaining this type of data takes hours of time. The need to find a research model that combined class time with instructional activities led this instructor to Dick Allwrights Exploratory Practitioner research, along with other forms of classroom based inquiry, which allows instructors to use classroom time to conduct research. While some may consider this research to be insignificant because of its contextual nature, together with other similar explorations into local settings the research can be collected and used for theorizing.

4 After identifying the puzzle, Allwright suggests reflecting on the puzzle (see Table 5) which will be completed in chapter twos literature review.

Research Questions
1. In what ways can Exploratory Practice and Problem-posing encourage student participation? 2. In what ways can Exploratory Practice and Problem-posing encourage classroom intersubjectivity?

Research Assumptions
This study is intended to be fluid with a flexible structure that suits the researchers assumptions which support an inductive style with a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situation (adapted from Creswell, 2007). M. Crotty, in The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, identifies three constructivist assumptions: 1. Meanings are constructed by human beings as they engage with the world they are interpreting. 2. Humans engage with their world and make sense of it based on their historical and social perspectives. 3. The basic generation of meaning is always social, arising in and out of interaction with a human community (Crotty, 1998). The researcher in this study accepts a Social Constructivist and Pragmatic world view, and intends to answer the research questions qualitatively. Specifically, the researcher holds assumptions that exploring and understanding the actions and experiences of the participants in a contextual classroom, with collaboration and reflection will lead to the improvement of instructional design. It is inevitable that the participants will develop their own meanings, and draw their own conclusions. The goal of the research is to rely as much as possible on the participants world views of the situation being studied (Creswell, 2009, p. 9). A social constructivist perspective then views the instructor as a facilitator of knowledge, and puts emphasis

5 on the learner and participation. While traditional language pedagogy has produced various methods based on popular learning theories, few of those theories or methods are based on constructivist views of learning and meaning. In this case, classroom activities are viewed for their role in getting students to participate meaningful activities. Pragmatically, the researcher is concerned with understanding the issues contextually, and the actions and experiences that are involved in a situated classroom. Design-based studies that focus on improving instructional activities by examining the activity in context are needed. To improve practice, Design-Based Research (DBR), the classroom environment can be improved upon. It is also assumed that many academic based language classrooms that focus on tasks, projects and problem-solving do so at the expense of meaning. In other words, teachers assume that by completing a task-based project the students will reach the proper outcomes, but this researcher is making the assumption that making and constructing meaning must be part of the task which takes place through dialogue with More Knowledgeable Others (MKO). Learning in groups is a necessary means of collaboration, but there must be someone available, who can facilitate meaningful dialogue. Along with the assumptions related to ontology, this study holds assumptions related to language learning as well: 1. Language is acquired through meaningful participation; 2. Learning everyday knowledge and academic knowledge is significantly different; 3. Student-Teacher relationships are vital to language acquisition. In this study limited English proficient students are required to learn academic content in the target language, with little or no emphasis on language structure or grammar. Few of these students have had the opportunity to use English in a social setting where meaningful situations occur, and creating activities which are authentic is proving to be more difficult to accomplish. While Task-based approaches have tried to create meaningful learning, they tend to be focused on the task with meaning as a byproduct. This is problematic for both teacher and student, and solving the dilemma requires an understanding between the participants. In most language

6 classrooms where a native English speaker is with non-native speakers, the cultural divides create significant misunderstandings which must be overcome in order for learning to take place. It is the general assumption of the researcher then, that because English Language Teaching (ELT) and Language Pedagogy are outgrowths of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Psychology, Anthropology, Cognitive science and a host of others fields, traditional research is not directly applicable to a contextualized classroom. Within Language Pedagogy there is no methodical consensus or approach, and ELT professionals are dependent on research that has a non-Education focus, but it doesnt take a scientist to explain that few language learners, if given the choice would choose to learn a language in a classroom. This is the dilemma that English language learners and English language teachers face, a task with no clear theory or direction. Kumaravadivelu and others suggest that the ELT profession has entered a post-method era, and that theory and practice dont mesh (Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Allwright and others take the predicament further and suggest that research based on traditional views of science dont mesh with the classroom (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Johnson 2004; Wells, 1999). Regardless, Kumaravadivelu suggests that ELT look to research in the areas of Language, Learning and Teaching to guide our instructional activities (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Having been fortunate to teach in Thailand for nearly 20 years, this researcher has recognized a few trends, and it is this researchers makes the assumption that qualitative data is more reliable than quantitative as they relate to the classroom. During a teaching assignment in an English Programme at a primary school, the researcher noticed a proclivity for his students language abilities to resemble the bell curve: a small percentage being productive users; a majority as occasional users, while another lesser percentage as limited users, but he wasnt sure why. The notion of conducting research to find the underlying reasons seemed excessive, when getting to know the students and their parents were the first step. The teacher discovered that the three levels directly corresponded to the time students spent in after school tutorials. Intrigued, the teacher met with his students first-grade and subsequent teachers to discover that those groupings were accurate groupings that described that class since their first day of school. That process was research.

7 While the assessment was not intended to be scientific, it illustrates the importance of qualitative data, an area that has been neglected in the field of Language Pedagogy and ELT research. If it wasnt for the extensive time the teacher spent talking to students and parents, he would not have discovered that the fluent speaking students had been participating in authentic target language dialogues with native speakers since they were small children. Until then, teachers had assumed that student skills were developed after subsequent years in the English-only classroom, and those who couldnt use English must have learning deficiencies. Once the learning phenomenon was uncovered, there was little need to consult a scientific theory on second language acquisition to affirm the suspension that language learners need to have meaningful interactions with expert speakers. Those bilingual students had gained their skills outside the classroom and brought their skills inside the classroom, and those learners who did not spend time with native English speakers, remained limited proficient speakers from one subsequent grade level to the next. As a teacher practitioner in the field of Education, this instructor began to see the importance of viewing the classroom socially.

Definition of Terms
Design-based research examines complex social interactions in practice leading to improved praxis (Brown, 1992). Praxis is the process practitioners go through when trying to merge theory and practice. In the field of Education, as in other public service industries, there is a need for research to be conducted from a first-person point of view. Third-person classroom research has a tendency to alter the classroom setting, suggesting theory that cannot be conceptualized in the classroom, causing a gap between theory and practice. In the field of language learning, this gap is enormous, and those with a Relativistic worldview are merging research, theory and practice in hopes of creating praxis. Social Activity theory suggests more than collaboration, it implies a relationship between language, culture, identity and learning that is interdependent. Based on the views of Vygotsky, learning is mediated through cultural artifacts with language being the most essential of all. Cultural artifacts are anything developed in

8 a culture from pens to computers, and Vygotsky examined how individuals use these artifacts to develop as learners. The theory contends that learning or development can be divided into spontaneous learning which occurs between the learner and object being learned, and higher cognitive learning which requires a cultural element which mediates the learning. In this sense learning should be viewed contextually and socially, and in these moments during meaningful interactions learning takes place. In other words, the learner is not like a computer that processes information on its own, but is constructing their own knowledge based on the contextual interaction. Whether a student is interacting with a text, or watching a video, or speaking with a teacher, learning takes place because the learners mind engages with another object (Bernat, 2008). This focus on the interaction and not on the learners mind is what separates cognitive scientists but is beyond the scope of this study. Regardless, the emphasis on interaction allows teachers to become involved in the research process (Johnson, 2004; Wells, 1999). Heteroglossia is a reaction to formalist views of Language which viewed language in a closed-system; Bakhtin viewed Language as contextual utterances between individuals which relied on historical and cultural meanings (Marchenkova, 2005). Formalists see language as a fixed and closed structure that has certain parameters. The term heteroglossia refers to Language as an open-system that includes many different voices as in any typical daily conversation. To view language, like an isolated sentence without reference to people speaking was unusable to Bakhtin. In other words, a formalist will analyze a random sentence with disregard for the participants. For example, Chomsky stated that language could only be analyzed by separating competence and performance, creating a closed-system that could be analyzed; Chomsky had no interest in dialogue, and in the social setting (Chomsky, 2006). Bakhtin, on the other hand analyzed language in its natural state, as an opensystem, with actual speakers in constant dialogue and interaction in different contexts, or what he referred to as heteroglossia (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova, 2005). This is a significant departure from positivist or rationalist views of language as a closedsystem with important research implications. Dialogue, on its surface is simply interaction between participants, but on a deeper level dialogue involves intent, relationships, and cultural idiosyncrasies.

9 Intersubjectivity and Dialogue: When viewing language as heteroglossia, researchers must consider the dynamic relationships in a classroom which are contingent on intersubjectivity and dialogue. Intersubjectivity suggests a mutual understanding or acceptance between people, which are difficult to develop or obtain in the standard classroom where the teacher is regarded as the lead authority, and where there are large classrooms. Without intersubjectivity within a classroom, dialogue can become limited and strained and restrict development (Wells, 1999). Dynamic Assessment: If teaching practitioners are going to conduct research in their own classes, a suitable form of assessment should be used. Dynamic Assessment is a process-oriented form of assessment that accepts the values and beliefs of the context as a social activity (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011). The instructor or assessor can mediate the process to encourage certain outcomes which becomes a suitable tool for teachers as researchers. In this study, dynamic assessment takes place lesson as part of the instruction.

Background
The interest in learning a second language has become a worldwide phenomenon. In Thailand, which is a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), students learn English as a second (ESL) or foreign (EFL) language on a compulsory basis. Many hope to use English in their future employment as ASEAN has adopted English as its official lingua-franca, but most of those students will never use English in a meaningful context in or out of the classroom while others may even become bilingual. There are disagreements as to why this occurs, and how to approach the dilemma. In relation to this, Thai International colleges are experiencing a unique contextual setting in which limited English proficient learners must learn academic content in English; some students become proficient while others do not. How researchers approach this dilemma is varied, but unless teachers and students are involved in the research process, society may never uncover the discrepancies. Whether in Thailand, California, or around the world, learning and teaching a language directly relates to the contextual setting, and the intersubjectivity or mutual understanding between participants.

10 In dealing with contextual issues, Language pedagogy has evolved significantly, and will continue to, but for the fraught teacher and learner in the classroom, language pedagogy exhibits a huge gap between theory and practice. For the struggling language learner, there are significant differences between learning a Language and learning Academic content, theoretical concepts formulated and discussed extensively by both Halliday and Cummins (Schleppegrell, 2004). The implications being that instructional activities must be significantly varied to accommodate the differences between, what Cummins labeled Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS), and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). This is especially true for learners in a non-English speaking environment where learners lack language opportunities, and seldom acquire BICS that will help them construct knowledge and succeed at an International college. The significance in the two distinctions has drawn the interest of Krashen and Brown (2007), who analyzed and presented a framework for studying CALP by categorizing it with having two components: 1. Academic language: complex syntax, academic vocabulary, & complex discourse. 2. Academic content: subjects such as algebra, history, literature & etc. Their paper, while intended to deepen understanding of academic proficiency, and to encourage research and discussion, is silent about classroom intersubjectivity. Many in the field of Language Pedagogy such as Allwright, Johnson, Kumaravadivelu, Marchenkova, and Wells all suggest that the ELT profession has entered a post-method era, where there has been a gap between theory and practice. The gap exists in part, due to ontological preferences that influence the nature of research designs which traditionally view language in a closed system, rather than in an open system like a classroom. Regardless, Kumaravadivelu acknowledges three distinct categories of methods that teachers will inevitably employ in a language classroom: Language-Centered, Learner-Centered and Learning-Centered methods. As he explains, Language-Centered methods focus on the quality and aspects of the target language; Learner-Centered approaches focus on the needs of the learner as in an English for Specific Purposes course; but in a Learning-Centered approach the learning process is the focus, which includes all the

11 dynamics of a classroom including the atmosphere of the class to the relationship between teacher and students (Kumaravadivelu, 2003; 2006). In this study, the teacher as researcher takes a Learning-Centered approach to examine and reflect on the process to improve classroom practice by means of Design-Based Research (DBR) (Brown, 1992). Within the DBR model, research guides the development of the classroom activities (Pardo-Ballester & Rodrguez, 2009). A main instrument in the research process is reflection which is conducted by the participants, in this case instructor and students, to include the researcher as instructor (Schon, 1987). This study is a snap-shop of the instructors efforts to improve classroom practice by means of DBR, using a specific approach designed for M.A. TESL candidates. Known as Exploratory Practice (EP), EP is a principle-based research model that practicing teachers can follow to conduct their own classroom research (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Of utmost concern in EP is not the research or its design but improving the quality of life of the students (Table 5). This is a major distinction between EP and Action Research (AR) (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). AR is more concerned with gathering data which leads towards answers to perplexing problems. EP works to improve the process of learning through understanding, by encouraging learners to develop their own learning. This is achieved, according to Allwright by regarding learners as capable individuals (see Table 3). To generate data, the researcher used Paulo Freires Problem-posing process as classroom activities to encourage student involvement and development (see Table 6). This process was used because of its emphasis on dialogue and co-construction of meaning between teacher and student in the learning process (Freire, 1970; Schleppegrell & Bowman, 1995). This process is detailed in the 1982 book, Language and Culture in Conflict: Problem-Posing in the ESL Classroom, by Nina Wallerstein, which chronicles the commitment to develop students critical thinking skills (Schleppegrell & Bowman, 1995). It was unfortunate that this researcher could not find a copy. For student assessment and data analysis, the instructor looked to Vygotskys and Bakhtins views on language which places emphasis on the relationship between the participants. In this regard, practice becomes a reflective

12 process that continues towards refinement (Schon, 1987). When language pedagogy synthesizes teacher and student agency, with reflective practice, in a contextual setting, it allows activities to be directly applicable to the situated classroom.

Setting
Students who attend Burapha University International College (BUUIC) are generally affluent, ESL speakers predominantly from Thailand and China, with exchange students from all parts of the world, who are attending BUUIC for English language development in preparation for the business influx from ASEAN. The college maintains a business curriculum with majors in Marketing, Human Resource Development, Logistics, Management and Business Administration. While the courses are delivered in English, it is generally accepted that the dominant community characteristics are Thai, and it is common for even native English speaking students to use Thai if they stay longer than one year. ESL students who arrive at BUUIC generally fall into four different unofficial English levels which correspond to their prior English experiences; The College does not confer official levels, and the levels in Table 1 are based on the instructors experience during the past four years. The instructor noticed students with similar prior experiences, demonstrated similar speaking skills. Those students at level one, who had studied English in primary and secondary schools, yet were unable to speak. Level two students were able to speak a few words but had no ability to converse. Students at level three could maintain a basic conversation concerning every day social skills, while level four students could discuss a number of topics related to academic content. This distinction becomes important for learners, especially lower level speakers to realize that it is not their intellect that interferes with their language acquisition but lack of speaking opportunities. When students arrive at the university, the lower level students have a tendency to feel incapable, and that they dont have the ability to learn English as the higher level students. Getting lower level students to understand that they would improve speaking when they participated became a major emphasis during the study.

13 Table 1 Speaking Scale

Level 1

Prior English Experience Studied English in local school never seldom used English in a social setting with non-fluent instructors

Studied English in local school Seldom - Occasionally used English in a social setting with non-fluent instructors

Studied English in local school Occasionally Often used English in social settings with fluent English instructors

Studied English in local and abroad English only context with fluent English instructors

All BUUIC students, other than native English speakers are required to take an Intensive English summer course, along with English for Academic Purposes, English for Specific Purposes and Academic Writing within their first year. These courses are all taught by native speaking instructors with bachelors, masters and PhDs. Courses are conducted in three hour blocked sessions, once a week for sixteen weeks.

14

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter examines literature related to classroom research & Praxis Inquiry, Language Pedagogy, Language and its different conceptualizations, Learner Agency and Teacher Agency.

Praxis Inquiry
To amend the mismatch between theory and practice, SLA researchers are encouraging teachers to become actively involved in researching their own classrooms using Action Research or other models of teacher practitioner research, also known as Design-Based Research (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Johnson, 2004; Brown, 1992). While Action Research (AR) is designed for reflection and collaboration among colleagues, the focus of exploratory inquiry is designed for the individual teacher practitioner on improving their own instructional activities, without interfering with class time. The concept of Dialogical inquiry is an exciting new path in teacher inquiry research which is believed to help teachers with some of the problems associated with learning in a language classroom (Wells, 1999). Another form of teacher research referred to as Exploratory Practice, or Freierian Empowering research denote other forms of participatory action research that emphasize the participants active and reflective role in the data collection process (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Problems in the classroom are universal, and it is up to teachers along with students to search for remedies. A starting point is to find mutuality, intersubjectivity, a point in which teachers and students recognize the others agency. As mention, some scholars suggest using dialogical inquiry, a time consuming process in which teachers must embrace (Schleppegrell, 1997; Wells, 1999). Design-based Research such as Allwrights version of teacher research, EP addresses complex classroom problems in real, authentic contexts in collaboration with practitioners (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Allwright suggests teachers start by trying to better understand their classrooms, and considering students as potential researchers. He also suggests that there be a shift

15 from prescribing what should happen in the language classroom to simply describing and understanding what is happening, a shift from quantitative to qualitative research. To do this the researcher cannot ignore the social aspects of the classroom in hopes of controlling variables, when human behavior cannot be controlled. What Allwright sees are teachers trying out their own methodological ideas and reporting descriptively on their experiences (Allwright & Hanks, 2009, p. 114). Allwright encourages teachers to consider contributing descriptive and qualitative classroom to better understand classroom language learning by establishing essentially social nature of classroom language learning. EP encourages the novice practitioner to consider seven principles (see Table 2). Table 2 Exploratory Practice Principles No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exploratory Practice Quality of Life Understanding the context Everybody needs to be involved the work for understanding. The work needs to serve to bring people together. The work needs to be conducted in a spirit of mutual development. Working for understanding is a continuous enterprise. Integrating research into existing curriculum practices.

Source: Adapted from Allwright and Hanks (2009) Few researchers in SLA stress the importance of Allwrights first principle, Quality of Life. In pursuit of improving the classroom, teachers are essentially trying to improve the quality of students lives, as well as their own. Teachers are stirred to make improvements because they witness the issues associated with learning a language in a classroom, therefore, seeking to improve the quality of life in a classroom is the first principle. The second principle encourages to instructor to seek Understanding, and is a reminder that research cannot impinge on the first principle. If it does, then the research needs to be changed, demonstrating the importance of

16 allowing the research to be flexible and fluid. Principles three, four and five suggests that everyone get involved in the process of understanding, and if so it will bring people together and mutual development will take place. Principle six reminds us that the process never stops, and principal seven suggests that the research not interfere with the content delivery but merge with the instructional activities.

Language Pedagogy
For language teachers wanting to improve their classroom practice Kumaravadevelu, suggests pedagogy that focuses on Language, Learning, and Teaching (Kumaravadevelu, 2009). Traditional language pedagogy has had a distinct positivistic and rationalistic influence from earlier views which considered language to be a closed-system. This view of language rendered classroom activities focused on the learner who could practice grammar or practice speaking. Language pedagogy has continued to evolve from Behaviorist perspectives through various Cognitive approaches including Chomskys, Hallidays, Hymes and Longs influence (Kumaravdevelu, 2009). The following review briefly discusses the pedagogical changes and the significant influence of Vygotsky and Bakhtin towards a contextual view of language and learning, and the importance of classroom intersubjectivity, the first step in improving classroom practice. Language pedagogy relies on the ideas, theories, and research from the field of second language acquisition (SLA), a multidimensional and interdisciplinary field with numerous approaches from the areas of applied linguistics, psychology, cognition and education. Due to SLAs broad scope, there is limited agreement among researchers concerning objectives, methods design and data collection, even within similar disciplines, generating a dilemma for language instructors and those involved in English Language Teaching (ELT). Current literature suggests that there is a schism within the field of SLA based on worldviews, the rupture due to ontological differences between positivist, rationalist and relativist approaches to research which will be discussed in this review. SLA researchers such as Johnson, Marchenkova, Zuengler & Miller, believe the divide can be healed through Vygotskys social activity theory, and Bakhtins views on dialogue (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova, 2005; Zuengler, Madison, & Miller, 2006).

17 While there has never been a unified approach to SLA research, it wasnt until the appearance of contextual perspectives in SLA research that many believed it was time for a paradigm shift (Zuengler et al., 2006). Referring to Thomas Kuhns suggestion that science has a tendency to enter periods where changes in perspectives create doubt, scientists must transform their ideas to accommodate this change and many researchers believe it is time for a paradigm shift in SLA research (Walliman, 2001). Many of these individuals have personally shifted their views to a contextual perspective and believe a paradigm shift is necessary if SLA research is develop beyond its stagnant situation (Zuengler et al., 2006). Ontological debates between positivists and relativist on how to construct SLA theory have fueled divisions in the field, but this is no different than when interpretivism was first introduced to the social sciences (Walliman, 2001). The positivist-rationalist world views have dominated second language research, but relativism has become an alternative paradigm. Some in the field of second language research regard relativism or interpretivism as unscientific, lacking rigor and validity, and would prefer research studies which include data that is quantifiable with inferential statistics, and controlled variables. But others believe what is missing are the authentic voices of the participants who have been marginalized and ignored by traditional approaches, and support a paradigm shift away from the traditional positivist-rationalist design (Sammel, 2003). They also point out that such research has resulted in teaching methods that are outdated, and lend to false expectations, which has setback the field of English Language Teaching (ELT). Such debates are due in part to researchers recent use of Vygotskys sociocultural theory, and Bakhtins views on dialogue (Johnson, 2004). Since the 1993 publication in Applied Linguistics, entitled Theory Construction in SLA, from the 1991 Conference Theory construction and Methodology in Second Language Research, the divisions between SLA theorists have become well known, and while those involved debate and divide, teachers remain committed to designing classroom activities that are not just suitable for language learners, but are constructed on established theory (Zuengler et al., 2006). Yet, most of the research available to teachers is based on scientific studies that have

18 little to do with the classroom setting, especially in an EFL setting as most research is conducted in an ESL setting. As is the case of SLA, different worldviews or perspectives seek to find meanings based on their own particular view of the world, with no agreed upon model (Johnson, 2004; Wells, 1999). Allwright suggests, and to some extent Kumaravadivelu, that this has caused ELTs inability to establish a reliable method, leading to the Post-method era (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Others suggest SLA research based on positivist and rationalist views of the world, which dont directly apply to the classroom setting, are ambiguous and misrepresentative (Johnson, 2004). Some researchers suggest that teachers perspectives, as well as students voices are missing from the research. In their book, all you need to know about Action Research, the authors write: A shift took place in some quarters, away from a positivist view towards an interpretive view. Positivism held that the world was a thing, separate from an observer. It was a possible to observe and comment on the world in an objective, value-free way. In the same way, knowledge was a thing, separate from a knower, so it was possible also to comment on knowledge in an objective, value-free way (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006, p. 10).

The emerging relativistic perspective sees situated reality as created by the participants, establishing a shift from viewing not only the participants but their relationship to their environment; the two being indistinguishable. Such shifts in beliefs and perspectives influence how research is conducted and applied, suggesting that new approaches or inquiries into the language classroom will dramatically improve the situation (Wells, 1999). Teachers then, are in need of research that can be applied directly to their classrooms, such research has to consider the nature of Language, Learning and Teaching as it pertains to the classroom, and all aspects of the classroom. A positivistic approach looks at behavior and how students respond to the teacher in limited situations (Cobb, 1996). A rationalistic approach tries to discover the underlying truth, the reality of learning with a disregard of feelings and opinions, but a relativistic approach views reality as the classroom, as social with multiple constructions where science embraces human ambiguities (Walliman, 2001).

19 Walliman goes on to describe non-positivistic research that is developed to produce a more holistic or discursive examination of situations and phenomena, mostly focusing on humans and human activities in society (Walliman, 2001, p. 19). Walliman continues to state that while positivists see the researcher and what is being researched as separate, interpretivists see them as inseparable, and traditional research is bound up without life experience (Walliman, 2001). In effect, Relativistic research is distinguished by its setting, which is natural, uncontrived, where little is changed.

Language
Applied linguistics has attempted to understand the fundamental concepts of language and how they can be applied to language pedagogy (Kumaravadivelu, 2006), but there are general disagreements about the nature of language and how it is acquired that divides the field (Tomosello, 2003; Everett, 2012). The positions are extremely technical and conceptual, beyond the grasp of most language teachers, and each theory corresponds to positivist/rationalist relativist world views. It is not the researchers purpose to decide which is correct, but to consider theory and how it relates to classroom instruction. What language is, and how teachers view language is significant in relation to instructional design. How studies regarding language are designed may or may not be applicable to a language classroom. Kumaravadivelu divides language into three sections: system, discourse and ideology with system referring to its organizing characteristics and views of Noam Chomsky, with discourse referring to its meaning potential and the work of Halliday, and with ideology to the importance of social relations (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). If we are to teach language, we must have our own view of what language is, but this simple task is difficult. Even among cognitive scientists, one may claim that language is innate, while another defines language as an emerging cultural tool (Pinker, 1994; Tomasello, 2008). Both cognitive scientists, having devoted their lives to the study of language, yet neither view the world the same. On the surface, these positions may not seem significant to language pedagogy, as they are highly conceptual and theoretical, but the essence of language and what it is actually influences and determines the types of activities to be used in class. Two different cognitive positions on language will be briefly examined.

20

Language as Form
Language or the faculty of language (Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002) is not easy to define, and no straightforward, acceptable definition of language is available even though the function of language is a common characteristic of being human. Researchers, linguists among them, cant seem to agree on the basic nature of language, due in part to the previous mentioned worldview schisms. Due to Noam Chomskys scathing attack on Skinners behaviorist views of language, few consider a Behaviorist approach to Language, but in broad spectrum, behaviorists and cognitivists still view language from similar vantage points, as scientists believing the can discover reality. But the greatness of their thoughts is masked from the classroom. Still, teachers formulated conceptions of language are essential for teachers designing activities with language learners in mind. As is the case with SLA research, the science of language involves interdisciplinary fields such as linguistics, anthropology, and cognitive science, and for many who are familiar with Noam Chomsky, the science of language is more about personalities and conflicts rather than empirical knowledge and consensus. In the field of linguistics, division is common, and beliefs are religious in nature, dealing with theories that can be neither disproved nor proved (Harris, 1993). From the fields of linguistics and psycholinguistics, scholars see language as form, a self-contained system with fixed structures and components that can be viewed from outside their context. Pedagogically, such a view identifies second language learning activities in accordance to their first language, as in the Interlanguage approach. Some teachers, in the field of Second Language teaching are familiar with the linguistic views of Noam Chomsky, that language is generative, biological and innate, that development occurs naturally as children, cued from the outside begin forming meanings based on the cognitive processes inside their minds, but in essence, Chomsky believes that in order to discover the basic nature of language, we must view its basic nature or form: The faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) and in the narrow sense (FLN). FLB includes a sensory-motor system, a conceptual-intentional system, and the computational mechanisms for recursion, providing the capacity to generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of

21 elements. We hypothesize that FLN only includes recursion and is the only uniquely human component of the faculty of language (Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002, p. 1).

His mention of recursion as the only uniquely human component, refers to an individuals actions, and has no contextual reference. For Chomsky it didnt matter if a person was alone, talking to their selves, language is biologically a part of us. Such a view is based in part on language developing from a poverty of stimulus, which is often referred to as Platos problem. The problem being that knowledge must come from some place, and if it doesnt originate from outside the brain, it must come from within. Chomsky wanted to strip language of its human frailties so he could discover its essence. To do this he focused on competence and ignored performance, explaining that he was less interested in language and more interested in the workings of the mind (McGivray & Chomsky, 2012). For Chomsky, the outside or environment only triggers what is inside and that performance, which is error ridden, is of little concern in developing a generative, biologically based view of language. Chomsky wants to look at language as a biologist looks at other organs of the body, as a bodily function, not as a tool for communication, and in so doing, he considers language less of an agent of communication, and more of an internalizing mechanism. This focus on competence, while perhaps not its intention, led to language curriculums that focused on grammar or form as a method of teaching a language. Krashen also believed that with enough comprehensible input, the language acquisition device (LAD) that Chomsky espoused would allow second language learners to acquire language subconsciously (Krashen, 1982). Chomskys focus has gone through an evolution of its own, as cognitive science has opened up new understandings of how the brain functions. While Chomsky first focused his attention to language with its deep structure, he now focuses on language as an evolutionary mutation that happened suddenly; in a single human who looked within, firing new neurons that precipitously multiplied. Such a focus on the internal mechanism of language excludes the importance of social interactions, and falls outside the necessities of language pedagogy.

22

Language as Usage-Based
Other cognitive scientists have attempted to view language contextually, believing that language performance and humans desire to interact will tell us much more about language than pure competence and form. A number of these related theories are referred to as cognitive-functional or usage-based linguistics (Tomasello, 2003). From this perspective we see a different view of language that is dependent on the outside as much as from the inside, as language merges from usage. The environment not only triggers language growth but it is the reason for development, out of a human desire to interact. This being the predominate reason why humans have language and it naturally developed and evolved as humans began to socialize and depend on one another (Tomasello, 2008; Everett, 2012). This view holds that language is a product of genes and the environment which is dependent on both influences. What divides this group from the bio-linguists is their belief that language is a cultural invention, a tool which grows out of usage, from the outside, not from within. The proposition that language is a humanly invented tool begins with the belief that pointing and pantomiming are the precursors to language, and that joint attention is a uniquely human function (Wittgenstein, 1953; Bruner, 1983; Tomasello, 2008). Language is a natural extension from our desire to experience common conceptual understandings which leads to communication. Communication is about cooperation, and creating meaning. It is striking that somewhere near 80% of the world does not understand English (Tomasello, 2003). This suggests that local social groupings are more important than universals. The language as usage-based suggests a language curriculum based on usage and meaning, where language is used in functional situations, and can only be obtained through social interaction. Of course this has significant implications for language teaching, which suggests that any attempts at teaching out of context and meaningless will do little towards language acquisition. Even a CLT approach that is not contextual and meaningful has little chance of producing language transformation. These two views of language give us two completely different perspectives on language and on language acquisition. While it is generally agreed that there are differences between first and second language acquisition, some believe that

23 regardless of first or second language acquisition, the two distinct views of language present very different models of language acquisition, one being more dependent on the individual, and the other more dependent on society. Such models of language acquisition will inevitably influence the types of activities used in a language classroom. Some regard the functional view of language acquisition as truly revolutionary, forming the assumption that the cognitive and social learning skills that learners bring to the acquisition process should be utilized in a much more learnerfriendly approach to language acquisition without the universal grammar hypothesis, (Tomasello, 2003).

Language as Mediation
While viewing language contextually as an open-system, both Vygotsky and Bakhtin, focused on the interactions between speakers. Vygotsky saw the relationship between language, critical thinking and culture, in which language mediated a persons internalization and externalization (Bernat, 2008). This approach is significantly different from traditional approaches which separated language from its natural setting to accommodate positivist and rationalist views. Bakhtin explained language in terms of identity and culture. Two important concepts of Bakhtin are important to teaching, the idea of responsivity in which utterances are always in response to an utterance, and his view of multi-voicedness, that thoughts and ideas are seldom original, but are based on many voices, and are essentially borrowed (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova, 2005; Wells, 1999). Like Vygotsky, Bakhtin saw language as speech, not as an abstract form of deep structure. While rationalists look for meaning in the structure of language, relativists see meaning in the interaction between language, minds and culture. Such an outlook allows us to concentrate on the relationships in classroom between students, teachers, culture and course content which offers teachers new approaches to instructional design.

Language as Heteroglossia
In response to early Russian formalists, Mikhail Bakhtin developed his views of language which were tied to historical and social contexts (Marchenkova,

24 2005). Somewhat related to Vygotskys social activity theory, Bakhtin scrutinized the complex dialogues in literary works to conceptualize language as social acts. For Bakhtin, an utterance was actually a two-sided exchange that implied a past, a present and future. His purpose was to discount the distinctions between form and function in the process of dialogue, to view meaning-making (Marchenkova, 2005). For the researcher, such a view transformed his perspective on language teaching. In his mind, the years of frustration trying to focus on forms, then to be replaced by functions, were only precursory for possible advances. Such an approach, to see language as utterance, not form, not function allows teaching possibilities that go beyond the formal attempts to direct meaning.

Learner Agency
Agency is a psychological term that relates to many factors associated with a persons identity. Learner Agency reminds us that as a learner must be willing to learn. Learning takes place at all times, in all situations, and literature on learning is vast and complex, but in order to stay within the theme of this study, Learning will be limited to learners in a contextual classroom, and how theory can be used to design instructional activities for EFL learners. Using a contextual approach to learning, Allwright describes second language learners as developing language practitioners using five propositions: Table 3 Learner Propositions No 1 Allwrights Learner Propositions Learners are unique individual who learn and develop best in their own idiosyncratic ways. 2 Learners are social beings who learn and develop best in a mutually supportive environment. 3 4 5 Learners are capable of taking learning seriously. Learners are capable of independent decision-making. Learners are capable of developing as practitioners of learning.

Source: Adapted from Allwright and Hanks (2009)

25 From these propositions, (Allwright & Hanks, 2009) believed that teachers could conduct classroom research along with students as co-participants in which classroom activities could generate research data. The significance of these propositions cannot be overlooked. If teachers consider their students unable to learn, then learning will not take place. In the first proposition, teachers should accept that students are unique and learn in their own way. This does not mean that teachers should focus on each learners learning style, but be reminded that students learn differently. Proposition two, comes directly from Vygotsky, and that humans learn in an active, social and supportive environment. Propositions three, four and five state that learners are capable of taking learning seriously can be independent and develop as language learners.

Teacher Agency
Purely from a historical perspective, Kumaravadivelu identified three types of language teachers: the passive technician, the reflective practitioner, and the transformative intellectual (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Most experienced teachers can relate to the three distinctions, and understand that each role is due in part to a specific setting. While professional teachers are responsible to their employee and the established school curriculum, using current methods and course materials, especially in large EFL classrooms leads towards frustration. Few language teachers in these situations remain passive technicians, and begin to look both inward and outward for answers. Issues concerning teacher dissatisfaction have been discussed in mainstream settings for years. Praxis pedagogy conceptualizes teachers as proactive, creative, and dialogically involved with their students. Dialogic instruction concerns the relationship between teacher, students and content (Guilar, 2006). Under the theoretical framework of prominent scholars including John Dewey and Paulo Freire, dialogical instruction finds its roots in Greece with Socrates. Both John Dewey and Paulo Freire imply student-teacher intersubjectivity that emerges from democratic values (Dewey, 2009; Friere, 1970). In Dialogic education, students, teachers and content become entwined intersubjectively (Guilar, 2006). In a dialogical approach, communication and meaning are established between participants with content as the

26 basis of the relationship. The focus is not necessarily on the one or the other, but on the mutual and interdependent relationship of the three. Whether a student likes a teacher or vice versa, is irrelevant, the content and their agency is what bind them together. Neither authority nor custom are the focus, but the relationship. With this in mind, a dialogical approach is considered critical, or even radical, especially in a setting such as in Thailand. Guilar identifies three prevalent teaching styles to help illustrate the types of teacher agency.

Table 4 Teaching Styles

No. Teaching Styles 1. 2. 3. Autocratic Instruction (Imposing); Dialogic Enabling Instruction (The narrow ridge of dialogue); Overly Permissive Instruction (Soft relativism),

Source: Adapted from Guilar (2006)

In an era of Post-methodology, teachers must take the initial step towards improving their classroom through a logical approach by attempting to connect theory and practice in their own classrooms. By conducting their own Praxis Inquiry, teachers can begin to better understand their students and the local context. For language teachers, being familiar with Language Pedagogy is necessary to help guide their decisions as they examine the process their students go through to use the target language in both social and academic settings.

27

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
In this chapter the Design, Population, Data Collection, and Data Analysis of the research will be discussed.

Research Design
The purpose of this research was to improve classroom instruction through a reflective process while generating data during regular classroom activities. Allwrights Exploratory Practice (EP), a type of Design-Based research was used as a guideline for conducting the research contextually, in an EFL academic classroom where the teacher and students participated together. While Allwright recommends not using guidelines, but to follow principles, the teacher as novice researcher, followed suggested steps (see Table 5) (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).

Table 5 Exploratory Practice Steps

No.

Step Analyzed current courses

Action

1 Identify a puzzle 2 Reflect on the puzzle 3 Monitor 4 Generate data

Examined literature on Language Pedagogy Made changes to the classroom and kept reflective journal Used Freires Problem-posing as instructional activity

5 Consider the outcomes Booklets, Follow-ups, Midterm & Final exam 6 Move on 7 Go public Discussion with students, make adjustments; move on Published article and presented at conference

To identify a puzzle, the instructor viewed issues concerning his students at Burapha University International College (BUUIC). The limited English-proficient learners were having difficulty communicating in English on a number of levels. Not only were their Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) low, but they were having difficulty grasping the academic content, and trying to maneuver cultural

28 differences with their native English speaking instructor. Upon reflecting on this puzzle the instructor performed additional research into Vygotskys views on spontaneous and scientific concepts, and the process learners go through to make meaning of concepts using higher cognitive functions during interactions with More Knowledgeable Others (MKO). The instructor decided to observe and participate in dialogues in which students constructed meanings, within Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD). During the study the instructor began to examine student collaborations to determine if or who students relied on as MKOs, but to accomplish this, a critical change had to take place in the classroom atmosphere that would encourage studentteacher dialogue. The instructor researched views on language and dialogue by Bakhtin and the realm of Intersubjectivity, and Freires views on authoritative teaching, and the need for democracy in the classroom. The instructor decided to use Freires problem-posing approach to participatory teaching and learning to encourage intersubjectivity and as a means to collect research data. The process encouraged students to construct their own knowledge by collaboration and reflection. While the purpose was to improve classroom instruction the entire process lent a greater understanding of the classroom. The instructor identified students lack of BICS as interfering with their ability to learn the difficult abstract concepts. After reflecting on the puzzle and monitoring the puzzle during class time, the instructor decided to use dialogic instruction to generate data. Freires problem-posing approach was used as a classroom activity (Schleppegrell & Bowman, 1995).

Population
Burapha University International College has approximately 900 undergraduates with some 600 Thai students and nearly 300 Chinese students. Twenty two students from the Faculty of Human Resource Development enrolled in course: 951122 Humans and Politics: Course Description: This course will examine human involvement in politics. To cover: everyday politics, knowledge of governments, political beliefs, political processes and political institutions.

29 The instructor introduced the problem-posing approach to students, and all twenty-two with mixed levels, male and female, agreed to participate as developing learners (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). The class met once a week, three hours a day for 18 weeks. Each week students were asked to follow the problem-posing process, and record their responses (see Table 6). Students were asked to collect their own individual data, upload, and share it online. This process was performed using www.blogger.com and www.plus.google. com. Students were encouraged to work together, and consult the teacher daily, but all data was recorded individually.

Table 6 Problem-posing

No.

Step

Purpose

Student action/skills Individual reading/writing

1 Describe the content Access prior knowledge

2 Define the problem Analytical (high cognitive) Voice opinion, listen, react 3 Personalize the problem 4 Discuss the problem Critical thinking 5 Discuss alternatives Internalize/ZPD Discuss society & culture Discuss solutions Intrinsic Motivation Consider personal experiences.

Data Collection
Each week students were introduced to a political concept using a prompt; video, photo, or text (see Table 7). Students were given booklets (see Appendix A) with the course outline and pages for students to record their thoughts during each of the problem-posing steps. They were asked to rate their prior knowledge based on the knowledge criteria (see Table 8). Working in groups, students were asked to proceed through the problem-posing steps, but were required to record their own thoughts in writing. During the reflection period students were again asked to rank their knowledge, and to reflect on their learning process.

30 Table 7 Weekly Prompts

Wk

Abstract political concepts

Prompt

1 Politics: everyday life (family, school, work) Excerpt from Dead Poets Society 2 Political Concepts: Justice 3 Systems: Elected, Bureaucracy, Military, Judicial 4 Ideologies: Liberalism vs. Conservatism 5 Processes: Making a law 6 The State: NGOs, Multinational, Globalization 7-8 Review: Mind maps and Midterm Tony Buzan video/Mid term Photo of Thai Red &Yellow shirts Schoolhouse Rock Bills to Laws Photo of IMF protests in Thailand Photo of lady justice Photo of Thai post-coup junta

Table 8 Knowledge Criteria

No. 1 2 3 4

Knowledge Criteria Minimal/Marginal grasp and insight Essential/Partial grasp and insight Substantial/Significant grasp and insight Exceptional/Comprehensive grasp and insight

The above procedure was followed for six weeks, the seventh week was used for review and students created mind maps (see Appendix B) of the concepts that were covered; mind maps could be used on the exam. On the eighth week a written exam was given on the weekly concepts. Weeks nine through fifteen students considered the same political concepts by viewing related in-depth prompts; films and texts. During these sessions students were asked to analyze the film or text and explain in a one-on-one interview with the instructor, how the in-depth prompts related to the political concepts they had been introduced to in the first part of the course. The booklets counted as 25% of their grade; the corresponding blogs, 15% (required only typing); the midterm exam, 20%; the interviews, 20%; the final, 20%.

31 Using these assessments the instructor gave final grades using the knowledge criteria (see Table 9).

Table 9 Course Requirements

Course Requirements Attendance Classwork; Booklet, blogs Midterm Final Total

% 20 40 20 20 100%

Data Analysis
Much of the data was analyzed during classroom activities by both students and teacher. Table 10 illustrates the various instruments that were used to assess student participation. Dynamic assessment was used to examine and interpret the data based on the learning process, while some considerations were given to outcomes. The learning process and the relationships between participants was the focus of the data analysis which included student reflections and student-teacher interviews, with additional analysis on exams. Essentially the participants and researcher were looking for improvements in classroom practice and students academic proficiency based on the interactions during class. Using Vygotskian and Bakhtian concepts allowed for assessment in participation. Data analysis usually took place in the last hour of class, when students participated in the follow-up interviews. The sessions lasted from 5 to 15 minutes, depending on the needs of the student. During this time the instructor reviewed the student writing, and asked them questions regarding their written responses. If the written answers showed gaps or a lack of understanding, the instructor scaffolded the discussion to lead students to a better understanding in-line with the required outcomes.

32 Table 10 Research Instruments

Instrument Problem-posing

Type Dynamic

Action Individual writings of collaborations on problemposing steps.

Follow-ups

Dynamic

Interview with instructor upon completing problemposing booklet.

Student reflections Dynamic

Individual reflections on their understanding explaining self-grades

Teacher reflections Dynamic Exams

Weekly reflective journal immediately after class.

Traditional/ Midterm (week 8); short written answers Dynamic Final (week 16); Multiple choice, Interview

33

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section of the study the researcher will examine the problem-posing booklets, student collaboration, the follow-up interviews and the student reflections.

Results and Discussion

Data collection and analysis took place simultaneously during classroom instruction. While the students performed the Problem-posing steps, the instructor assessed students dynamically as he walked through the classroom. During this time the instructor reacted to students collaboration and assisted students with the steps. Initially four conclusions were determined: 1. Student writing was substantial due to the booklets. 2. English speaking was peripheral. 3. Collaboration took place mostly in native language. 4. Minimal student-teacher interaction. In view of the data analysis and in accordance with Allwrights suggestion to Move On, the instructor discussed the four conclusions with the classroom in an effort to improve the classroom instruction. Students were satisfied with the problemposing process, and expressed their thoughts: 1. Their writing was improving (satisfied with booklets) 2. Confused at times concerning the political concepts; 3. How participating related to the midterm/final; 4. Questioning was better than solving-problems. In response, the instructor reminded the students of Table 9, the course requirements, that participating was 40% of their grade. While the students were satisfied with this, they were still unsure of their own understanding of the concepts. They expressed the concern that understanding the concepts in English was difficult, as the political concepts were new to them. The students suggested using their target language with each other at times in order to support their learning. The teacher agreed to this, reminding the students that their goal was to use the concepts in

34 English as much as possible, and it was agreed that English discussions would be recorded and collected as data to assure that the students were participating in English. Still, students were not sure if they were understanding the concepts at which time it was agreed that the students needed to spend more one-on-one time with the instructor to both facilitate their understanding and practice speaking with a native speaker; the Follow-up session was instigated.

Booklets
Upon examining the problem-posing booklets, it was clearly obvious that students were diligently considering the political concepts and going through the problem-posing steps. This in itself was a major change from previous courses in which students were reluctant to engage the political content, and any assessment took place during exams. The booklets also demonstrated that steps one, two and three were more significant for both participating in English and understanding the concepts. Personalizing the concepts to their lives was motivating and engaged the students (see Appendix B-E). To illustrate the process, the work of four students will be displayed. These four booklets were chosen randomly from students receiving final grades above 90%, between 86-90%, between 80-85%, and 75-79%. Describe what you see Identify any issues, problems or questions. Consider society and culture. Personalize (past, present, future). Lady Justice What can be done? In the picture is about the woman that she have sword in lift her hand and hold the balance scale in right her hand and she blindfold her eye and stand on ear of rice. I think she want to have Student 1: Thai Male, (describes self as fairly for everyone. I think the problems is the different of people about justice of society.

35 transgender); year 3, Table 1: 2 Because some people rich and some people poor. In my life sometimes I go shopping and wear clothes that look like poor people the sales will give a bad service to me but when I wear clothes that good, wear brand name they will service me very good service. I think we should have the seminar about justice for people. And we should have justice subject in school for children get knowledge about justice. I saw a woman she blind. Carry sword right hand and balance scale on left hand. She wear a long dress and stand on leaf. I think this picture is the symbol about judge, she carry balance Student 2: Thai Female, year 3, Table 1: 1 scale about law, sword as power to protect law. She blind because she dont want to see different thing about people. I think society people they interesting and judge other by look of outside. People have to adapt them self to live for big opportunity. Everybody I know and my friends they told me in the first time they see me Im like a very good girl, quiet, very shy because I do not talk with stranger but after they know me they told Im a bad girl and talkative. I should be fun and start to talk to others for make relationship, I have to show my character more. I think the symbol about feminism. I see black and white picture and I see old women wear Roman clothes. She hold balance in the left hand and hold sword in the right hand. Student 3: Thai-Chinese, Female, year 3, Table 1: 2 She stand on reef. I think she want to see justice for women because the world have problem about men and women dont get opportunity same. The most of people believe in men more than women. Most of people in the world give opportunity for men more than women and think men is better than women. In Thailand many

36 people think if you want to choose leader must choose men because men like leader and have power more than women. That is a society problem. My family come from China that everyone love boy more than girl and want to get son more than daughter. I have one younger sister and younger brother. That I see my family love younger brother more than younger sister and it make my sister feel bad and sad. I think it difficult to change when you believe but we must use the law for support about this problem and try to teach about equal between men and women as same kind. I saw one woman who was blindfolded. Her right hand carried sword. Her left hand carried balance scale. She wore a long dress. She stood above the reef. Student 4: Thai-Dutch, Female, year 3, Table 1: 3 I think sword and balance scale is the representative of power. The woman is blindfolded which means she has power in her hand, but she dont know or dont make a judgment. I think people are wrong because many people in society tend to judge people from outside, so that make the whole society be like that. No every people in the society are the same. Almost every time I go outside with my dad, Thai people always think that I am daddys wife. They eyes look at us like a disgust or strange thing walking in the town. I dont know how to solve this problem. I cannot tell everyone who see daddy and I walk together that I am his daughter not his wife. I think the best solution is let they think what they want to think.

Figure 1 Booklet Examples

At various times throughout the semester students collaborated in groups or with partners to discuss the five problem-posing steps and record their discussions.

37 The students gathered this data on-their-own, and upload the audio recordings to the internet. In the following example, two students discuss Justice. As can be seen, the speakers have a relationship, and they are focused on the each other, assuming a significant level of intersubjectivity. Meaning is created throughout the conversation and they go back and forth in discussion. In this particular case, student 4 who had many English speaking experiences, kept the dialogue moving with student two who was still struggling with BICS. The conclusion based on the transcript demonstrates two students not only participating in the target language, but engaged with the political concepts. This type of exchange is what any language teacher would hope for from limited English-proficient students who are trying to use new vocabulary.

Table 11 Student-Student Collaboration

Collaboration on the concept Justice between Student 1 and Student 4

4 2

What do you see in the picture? I saw a woman wear a long dress and she carry a balance scale and sword she blinds and uhmm stand under reef and what do you see? Actually I see the same as you. I see the woman who is blindfolded and she carry sword and .. balance scale and she stand above the reef. And and what do you think about the picture? Arrr I think that is a symbol about justice. Balance scale its mean arr law and sword mean a power of protection. What protection? Protect Protect yourself from the bad power? (fluent speaker scaffolding) Yes Arrr. Student Discuss in Thai language.

38 Table 11 (Continued)

Collaboration on the concept Justice between Student 1 and Student 4

And what do you think about this picture? Errr I think of the sword is the representative of power and the balance scale is the uhmm like uhmm fair and truth and and she is blindfold because she dont see anything like bad or something like that. HAHAHA Arr why does this happen? I think we have the same idea why this happen why do you think this happens? (Fluent speaker was encouraging friend to try) I think because in the society people they view other people just only the outside Dress! Because arr I think because society many people look at the only outside of people so err people they have to adapt themselves in this society and they have to arrr Dress and make yourself to look good. For many people to think at. Too see yourself as good? Yes Ohhh yeah yeah, I understand that And that will make they have a big opportunity to anything And you? Errr yeah I have aaerrr the same idea as you that many people in society look at outside, look at appearance. How do you dress. Are you dark or light, some think like that. So people go judge people by outside like you are dark you are bad. You are white yeahh you are good people like that. Yeahhh and number four And has this situation happen with you?

39 Table 11 (Continued)

Collaboration on the concept Justice between Student 1 and Student 4

Yes, it happens with me. How? Everybody and my friends at first time they told me Im a very good girl. Oh same as me! Hahaha Hahaha after that they told me Im a very bad girl Hahaha Why why you are bad? Back to back to talk about a good girl. Arrr they think and see Im quite and shy. Yes. But in fact Im very talkative. I dont shy in something. I know you like to tease other other friends such as me! Hahaha I do only good thing. Oh your problem, what can be done? Hahaha Number five, what can be done? What can be done? I think I have to start talk with stranger people for make a relationship and I have to show my character more. To make them know how you really are? Yeah and you? For me this happen almost always and all the time when I walk out with my dad. Two of us me arr my dad and I and emmm almost Thai people will think Im my daddys wife so I look auwwww how can you think like that. They are looking me like eeeew bad like young girl with a very old man walk together. I think because your face is not like your father.

40 Table 11 (Continued) Collaboration on the concept Justice between Student 1 and Student 4

Noooo Maybe you look like your mother more than. But but almost of people think and say that my face really look like my dad not even my mom. You know we are in Chonburi area and Pattaya, you know? Hahaha oh yes I know. Okay thank you

Follow-ups
The follow-up interviews were conducted between the instructor and individual students once they completed the problem-posing process and felt comfortable discussing the material. These interviews usually lasted between five and ten minutes depending on the needs of the students. At first the instructor recorded the sessions, and tried to keep notes, but in many cases the recorder inhibited the discussions, and taking notes interfered with any intersubjectivity. The following is an example of the student responses; the teacher responses were difficult to hear, as he was mostly allowing the students to talk. The instructor decided for the sake of learning, no notes or recordings would be collected, and once this happened the discussions became more productive and meaningful. The follow-up interviews were an illustration of Allwrights first principle of Quality of Life. It became clear that the research was interfering with the students quality of life. The students wanted to talk and express their opinions in an open discussion, and not be subjected to recordings and note taking. Without the recordings, students spoke freely about their families, friends and their critiques of current politics and society. It was finally decided that the instructor would simply score the interview session based on Table 4. The purpose of the follow-up sessions was intended to help the students asses their own learning, and give the instructor an idea of what they were understanding in relations to the outcomes.

41
General open-ended Interview Questions were based on their written responses in the booklet, and the intended outcomes. Only this session was recorded. The students voices are clear, but the instructors voice is illegible. I never talk about justice in English, but I talk about justice a lot in Thai my friends understand me they know my feeling about justice because they know I dont like the problem about transgender. Thai society dont Student 1: want someone like me to put female on the id. For me this is not justice. I want the people to be blind like the lady justice. Sometimes we talk in English, but mostly Thai, but when I write I must write in Thai, this is good for me. I enjoy, I enjoy learn about my problem. I never think about justice, at first I think she blind because she dont want to see, I dont understand why she dont want to see, but in class you explain about skin color, and I understand. I have the very white skin, so Thai people think Im very good, but they dont know me I must to be the Student 2: perfect girl, all the time. I boring this very much. I enjoy, but I think too much. I think about this a lot, because my sister. My family do many thing for my brother, and not care about my sister, Im the oldest and I must worry about her, because no one in the family think about her, only me. So I think no Student 3: balance in my family, only sword from my father, and no blindfold. Not really, maybe with dad in Dutch, and I listen to my mother talk to my aunt in Thai about Red shirts and Yellow shirts well, the sword is her power, but she uses the balance so she doesnt judge someone my friends Student 4: think about the same, we dont disagree face to face, only to the back I enjoy talking with my Thai friends in English, but they dont like to, but I think this time she likes.

Figure 2 Follow-up Interviews

Student Reflections
Concerning the student reflections, the data demonstrated a lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the students, at the beginning of the term, but they began

42 to improve as the term developed. At the beginning of the term, the student reflections tended to be the teacher did this, the teacher did that and lacked critical reflection, but they improved weekly. Students were given instruction on reflective models, but inward examination was something these students were not accustomed to. Due to this gap, instruction was given on the reflective process, and the instructor modeled various typed of reflection. In order to make the reflections more critical of their individual knowledge, and help them to better understand the reflection process, the instructor asked the students to rate their knowledge based on the Knowledge criteria in Table 8. The instructor did no regard the ratings as significant data, only as a tool to increased better understanding.

Student Reflections In this week I know about the justice of my opinion and the problem of me is some word that I dont know and some word I cant to spell it. I will practice my skill of English more than now. Student 1: This week I saw a picture and exchange the idea with my partner. I know about the idea from my partner and that is same what I think, I understand more about the meaning of balance scale, sword, a women blind in the picture. After that I and my partner record about idea for upload on my blog. Student 2: Today I learn about Justice that I saw a picture that this picture about women. In this picture I think she try to make people understand about justices for women because she close her eyes that it mean she doesnt want to see something wrong and she hold the sword in the right hand that it mean is has something not fair she will destroy it and she hold balance scale that mean she want to make everything fair for women. Today we started the class with a picture of a woman who is blindfolded. Her right hand carry sword and her left hand carry balance scale. She wear a long dress. She stand above the reef. My partner and I started to discuss about this picture. I think sword is a sign of power and balance scale is a sign of truth and fairness. She is blindfolded because she dont want to see judgment.

Student 3:

Student 4:

Figure 3 Student Reflections

43 The Final weeks preceding the final were an important moment during the research process. As the class drew to an end, it was evident that the business oriented students were tired of examining political concepts, and relating them to their lives, and on a rainy day, with a few weeks left in the course only a few students showed up. With the few students in attendance, due to scheduling conflicts a discussion was started concerning the timing of the final exam. Instead of discussing an exam day, the students were expressing anxiety about the exam. This surprised the instructor, because up until then the students seemed to be relaxed concerning the final, but the rainy day revealed that the students were exhausted. Together as a class, they decided to hold the exam at that session, bearing in mind the instructor could be used as a consultant. In other words, if a student was not sure of an answer they could consult the instructor. The instructor gave the students time to prepare, phone calls were made, and the final exam took place with 100% attendance. The final became one of the most memorable teaching experiences for the instructor. Students lined up to consult. Answers were not given, but students were prodded in a direction that enabled them to construct meanings on their own.

Table 12 Administrative Requirements

Students Student 1: Student 2: Student 3: Student 4:

Attendance 89% 98% 89% 91%

Classwork 80% 75% 86% 86%

Midterm 71% 71% 80% 71%

Final exam 80% 85% 85% 85%

Final Grade 83% 86% 87% 87%

44

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

One of language teachers most pressing challenges is getting limited English proficient learners to use English in a meaningful context, especially young adults who have never used a second language in typical social settings. In this study Exploratory Practice as Design-based Research was used to explore the issue in an Introductory Political science course. The research process allowed the researcher to make adjustments to the classroom instruction based on the data collection and analysis. Using a fluid research process, the purpose of the study was to improve classroom practice through reflection and change. In general the researcher sought to answer the following questions: 1. In what ways can Exploratory Practice and Problem-posing encourage student participation? 2. In what ways can Exploratory Practice and Problem-posing encourage classroom intersubjectivity?

Encouraging Student Participation

There are a number of ways that EP and Problem-posing encourage student participation. By viewing learners as developing practitioners, teachers are encouraged to regard students as participants in a process. It is generally assumed that in this process the participants will advance from a lower stage of development to a higher stage of development just by participating. In other words, participation is embedded within the system, so in this sense both EP and PP encourage student participation. In this study, EP and PP encouraged student participation in the following ways: 1. As target language users. 2. As critical thinkers. 3. As collaborators. 4. As reflective practitioners.

45

Encouraging Classroom Intersubjectivity

It was a research assumption that student-teacher relationships affected language learning acquisition, making intersubjectivity a central theme to the research. Neither EP nor PP make any claims concerning intersubjectivity, but both are based on the premise that the lives of the participants are of utmost concern, and while intersubjectivity was not immediate, classroom intersubjectivity using EP and PP was improved in the following ways: 1. Student Teacher as co-participants. 2. Teacher as More Knowledgeable Other. 3. Participation as target or standard. Overall, in regards to merging research and instruction using the Problemposing process as long as the instructor followed Allwrights insistence that quality of life remains the most significant principle, the integrity of the study could be maintained.

Participation and Intersubjectivity

Often in a language learning environment, young adults fill uncomfortable by their inability to speak in the target language, with the added pressure of using academic content, students can be overwhelmed during assessment. During this study while using Dynamic assessment, students were encouraged to participate and they discovered that participation was the benchmark. This focus on participation was instrumental in creating an atmosphere that was conducive to language learning. Once students felt comfortable with the material they participated in follow-up interviews in which the instructor listened to the students explain their responses to the problem-posing steps. It was during this time that the instructor gagged the understanding of the concepts, and assisted their learning. Once students realized they were not being graded on their speaking, they were eager to use the time to construct their own knowledge and build on their English usage. This became a major factor in improving teacher-student intersubjectivity. The follow-up interviews were added to the problem-posing process as a means of gaging student understanding, to make changes and improvements in the

46 instruction design, and to improve teacher-student intersubjectivity. The researcher was able to analyze the outcomes and make adjustments while viewing each students performance during the problem-posing steps, and ask the students general questions to gage their understanding. Throughout the term significant changes were made to the original problem-posing steps that were more suitable for the local Thai students. Three conclusions were made concerning the problem-posing process: 1. Exploratory practice was effective approach for classroom improvement. 2. Problem-posing was effective at engaging student participation and improving intersubjectivity. 3. Collaboration in native and target language allowed students to construct their own meanings. 4. Follow-ups allowed for both student-teacher dynamic assessment and improved intersubjectivity through ZPD. In Thailand, as in other parts of the world, learning English in a classroom is a phenomenon that has potential rewards and setbacks. It is common to find classrooms with both struggling teachers and students, focusing on form and function, with little regard for contextual settings. When this instructor first arrived at BUUIC he was met with students who were reluctant to speak English not only in class but in social settings as well. The instructor, having just come from a primary school where the students used English regularly, was extremely puzzled. It became apparent after a few semesters that not only couldnt students discuss the academic content, they had difficulty with social speaking skills as well. Language learning in a classroom is problematic and involves numerous issues that deal with the nature of language, learner agency and teacher agency. To confront these issues the researcher sought to improve classroom practice through a design-based research process. Such a process viewed the classroom contextually, and involved the participants in the process of improving. Exploratory Practice was used by the instructor in an introductory political science course for business majors at a Thai International College. The instructor chose to improve his classroom through research that emphasized a reflective process in which data was collected using problem-posing activities based on the work of Paulo Freire.

47 In this case, the data was used for two purposes; administratively, as with the course curriculum and requirements, and as it related to the research questions. The following table (see Table 12) shows the administrative requirements. As with EP, the emphasis is on the process of understanding the classroom environment by reflecting and adapting to the outcomes in the classroom with Quality of Life first in mind. In regard to question one, the instructor and the students considered the process much more enjoyable to other approaches to content learning. Firstly, Students commented throughout their reflections, and in discussions that they were not burdened with trying to understand University level academic texts that were not applicable to their lives. Secondly, students were not dependent on listening to lectures that were well above their listening levels. Thirdly, students were not encouraged to memorize definitions, but to use the concepts as much as possible, and finally, students indicated that they were able to consider their own prior knowledge and experiences, and how the concepts related and affected them. The Problem-posing steps significantly improved the interactions between teacher and students. It was clearly evident that using the follow-up interviews (see Figure 2) as classroom activities increased the interaction between teacher and students. While group discussions were minimal, and English discussions between language learners limited, the dialogue between the instructor and the students increased significantly from previous courses, and during the course. It was during this time that the instructor was able to discover their grasp of the concepts, and help them towards a better understanding. One student in particular, a Thai male, regularly explained the concepts as they related to his family business. Another Thai female, explained the struggles she had in regards to the Red and Yellow shirt. Another Thai male, who consider himself transgender discussed and applied the various political concepts to his own situation. But in all these situations, students were using the concepts as they related to their own lives, and this was a motivating factor. Chinese students spoke of Chinese issues, the Indonesian student considered her culture, and the Thais considered theirs. A final point on follow-up interviews: Table 13 is a transcript of the interviews, but the recordings are limited due to the fluid situation in the classroom. During classroom instruction, students were free to move around the classroom,

48 and discuss issues at any time with anyone, which meant that not all dialogues could be recorded. Table 13 is a transcript of recording use through the students mobile phones, but using any recording devise changed the atmosphere of the interaction. At times the instructor walked through the class and started a conversation with a student by looking at their responses; this led to lively discussions which were not recorded. At times, discussions took place after class, in the instructors office. Traditional assessment as in tests scores is becoming less and less suitable to classes that mainly use collaboration and problem-solving. As was mentioned in Chapter 3, dynamic assessment, or evaluating the learning process can be a better tool than considering test scores. In this case the student booklets demonstrated the level of participating and the intense student engagement. The examples in Chapter 3, and the appendices demonstrate the student effort in the process. The value in EP or in problem-posing is directly related to Vygotskys views that learning develops through participation. interviews, with additional analysis on exams. Essentially the improvements in the classroom would take place if classroom activities encourage participation and interaction, and that is what they encouraged. The entire process was intended to improve the teachers classroom practice, and to get a better understanding of the issues involved with students of limited English-proficiency learning academic content. The data itself was only a small part of the evaluation during this DBR research. In this case, the researcher followed the suggestions of Allwrights EP. Referring to Allwrights steps as suggested by Kumaravadivelu, (see Table 5), step five suggests teachers consider the outcomes reached during the process, add deciding what to do. As each week presented its self, the data, including the problem-posing booklets, the follow-up interviews, and the reflections all indicated that students were participating, using language in meaningful interactions, and constructing their own knowledge. It should be pointed out that students had never used the political concepts or terms in English, and this was not an English for Specific Purposes course which generally introduces students to academic terms through vocabulary lists and paper exercises. Students considered abstract academic content by first describing the situation. This allowed students to examine their prior knowledge of the concept, and their ability to express their knowledge. In the second step, students attempted to

49 identify issues or problems. This became the initial critical thinking stage towards understanding the concept. This step was followed by examining society and culture towards a deeper understanding of the cultural implications associated with the concept. Next the students personalized their knowledge which was instrumental in motivating and creating meaning. Students were then asked to discuss possible alternatives, or solutions to the problems with their classmates. Learning academic content requires students to use higher cognitive thinking skills in order to understand the various abstract concepts that are used. There has been extensive research in this area, some of it reviewed in Chapter 2, most of it based on the work of Lev Vygotsky, and it is generally agreed that students must: 1. Construct new knowledge based on prior knowledge; 2. Consider social and cultural implications; 3. Relate the concept to their life experiences; 4. Collaborate with others; 5. Think critically and reflect. Krashen and Brown, outside the Vygotsky framework suggest two hypotheses, The Comprehension and Problem-Solving Hypotheses, which are similar to the five points listed above (Krashen & Brown, 2007, p. 2). Together the theories state: We acquire language and develop literacy by understanding messages, not by consciously learning about language and not by deliberate memorization of rules of grammar and vocabulary; that we do not learn subject matter and new concepts by study, but that they emerge as a by-product of problem solving.

Students at BUUIC are accustomed to using some form of content-based approach to learning, whether Task-Based or Problem-Based, but none had followed the Freire steps. The researcher believes, based on the entire study, that asking students to relate the concepts to their lives was a significant step that kept the students engaged and motivated. There were some changes that were made throughout the term based on the data. At first the instructor asked students to speak in English while in groups,

50 but discussing the academic content was difficult do to with their limited English. After discussing this with the students, they all agreed it would be beneficial to use their native language to check their prior and common knowledge. A change was also made to the problem-posing booklets which at first were designed to be completed as group work. A number of students indicated that it would be better if they could write out their own answers instead of coming up with a group response. It has been previously mentioned concerning the changes to the follow-up interviews. Step six suggests making changes or moving, and after a few weeks of using the approach, the instructor held an open class forum for students to discuss the process. It was generally agreed that the problem-posing was helping them, and their comments reflected genuine enthusiasm and interest in political affairs. But it was also during this session that some students were not all together sure if they understood the concepts exactly, and some said it was tiring to consider problems so often, but that they were using English more than any other class. Together the students and instructor reviewed the process, and students were reminded that the process was developed so students could obtain knowledge directly from the instructor, but they were to construct their own knowledge by participating. It was agreed that they would continue to use the process up until week 8, and discus the process again after the mid-term exam. As mentioned, the process was intended to get students to participate, to try, not to depend on the instructor for their learning, but to explore on their own. It was a huge accomplishment to get students to hold discussion in class. Here, t must be pointed out again, that these are limited English-proficient students who seldom speak in English during class, and seldom if ever in a social context. The students agreed that the dialogical approach was helping them form basic understandings of the political concepts in their native language, which allowed them to answer the problem-posing steps on their own and feel confident during the follow-up interviews. Each step of the process brought the students to a higher level of learning. The problem-posing approach encouraged the students to reflect on their prior knowledge, to think critically, and to apply the new knowledge to their lives. The data shows that the students enjoyed the process and showed considerable progress in their language skills; speaking and writing especially.

51 Each week, at the beginning of class students were asked to brainstorm any knowledge the student had regarding the weekly concept, and nearly every case, students were unfamiliar with the terms. As the course progressed, students who had little interest in political concepts were able to discuss the concepts and rationalize their own opinions while being critical thinkers. Above all, the teacher enjoyed the process and felt comfortable in the role of facilitator 45 minute lectures where students looked-on and didnt participate were substituted for problem-posing activities where the students were active participants. Another important point that the researcher discovered was that he could become a leaner along with his students, and that would not diminish his role as instructor. When discussing local politics with students, he often took a submissive role which allowed the students to assert their beliefs and positions. At times the students were reluctant to express their opinions, especially in group discussions, and so the follow up interviews were lively discussions about local politics. During these follow ups, the teacher learned a great deal about local socio-political happenings from the students which changed the atmosphere in the class from authoritative to democratic. On the negative side, the focus on problems and issues in the students lives was tedious, and at times exhausting for all involved. The reflective process can be burdensome, and a conscientious effort was made to create a relaxed atmosphere in the class. The reflective process is something new in many students lives, and the process was difficult for them to learn. At first, the students reflections tended to explain what the teacher did in class, but over time they evolved into selfexaminations. Towards the end of the course, the instructor steered the learning away from the students lives to a more global outlook by viewing popular movies which addressed the political concepts. At times, the students werent sure of the requirements, when participation was the requirement. Group work and collaboration at times tended to slow the process, and create confusion, so it became common for students to ask, what should we learn? when in many instances the learning involved critical thinking and expressing their opinions. Students were fixed on memorizing statements and definitions, for example, at the beginning of class students wanted a definition for

52 politics; the instructor gave them five, and encouraged them to choose one, or make up their own. In essence students had a difficult time differentiating between learning and participating, when the instructor viewed the two concepts as the same process.

Recommendations
1. To improve a particular classroom through inquiry and understanding; 2. To merge classroom instruction with Design-Based Research; 3. To improve classroom participation. This Independent Study was the researchers first venture into research, and in this role the researcher had specific responsibilities that were not related to research; curriculum and administrative based. The teacher/researcher was responsible to the content and the objectives of the course, and to maintaining the proper administrative duties such as midterms, finals and grades. The researcher discovered that the data generating activities were suitable for in-class activities, and the collection process performed by the students using the internet was efficient and easy to manage. Data analysis, on the other-hand was more difficult to determine, as the various concepts related to research, second language acquisition, sociocultural, and cognitive seemed to overwhelm. In those cases the teacher/researcher stepped back and focused Design-based research is intended to help practitioners improve their own practice by conducting their own research which means the practitioner must identify issues or problems in their practice. Few practitioners, especially teachers want to admit there are problems in their classrooms, so Allwright suggests considering puzzles. He states, For EP, the ethical and epistemological dimensions are the most critical, with the emphasis on understanding rather than problem-solving. I find the common emphases on practical problem-solving and making measurable improvements in student achievement not only unhelpfully shortsighted but also potentially counterproductive. I argue instead for a return to the traditional research aim of understanding, and for focusing our work for understanding on quality of life (rather than quality of output) as the ultimate value (Allwright, 2005, p. 353).

53 His emphasis then is on the relationship between the participants and not on the technical aspects. There are a number of puzzles within in the context of limited English-proficient learners confronting academic content, and many in the field of education are asking how children or learners learn abstract concepts. While some suggest that peer-to-peer learning can be an appropriate form of learning this researcher questions whether peer to peer collaboration is suitable for ESL/EFL students learning abstract concepts without a More Knowledgeable Other (MKO). It may be true that language learners can search for meanings together in collaborative projects, but constructing meaning may require, as Vygotsky suggested, assurance from an MKO (Swain, 2011). Vygotsky separated concepts into everyday and scientific, and theorized that learning scientific concepts involved an MKO, and he placed huge emphasis on what he referred to as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which Bruner referred to as scaffolding (Wells, 1999; Bruner, 1983). In a situation where a learner is with an MKO, the MKO can determine what the learner knows and doesnt know, and with their help, as in scaffolding, the learner can reach the ZPD. It is suggested that the learner, on their own cannot make or reach the proximal development. Currently, there are a number of Content-based approaches that encourage student-student interaction (which is a good thing), while instructors facilitate information, but teachers must be willing to ask how much learning is actually taking place in group collaborations. In many cases, some teachers would say very little learning is taking place, but until teachers actually examine these moments, we many never know. Some teachers observe that in group collaboration, the target language is set aside, and little interaction is taking place in the target language. If students have basic speaking skills, how are they to discuss abstract concepts when they have never used the target language to converse? The whole notion of putting limited Englishproficient learners in groups with each other to learn abstract concepts seems inadequate, yet the practice is taking place at a regular basis. Learning abstract concepts comprises using critical or higher level cognitive skills that learners can accomplish in their native tongue, but have difficulties in a second language (Schleppegrell, 2004). How then can teachers examine student-student collaborations or modify them to improve their practice?

54 As a reflective practitioner, puzzles and questions abound, questions the researcher may or may not be able to answer from a traditional positivist or rationalistic approach to research that doesnt allow for experiences. Following local practice, this instructor has delivered academic content in various forms, using collaboration projects, videos, and texts, with formative and summative exams. Should he then test each activity? That would be time consuming, and the results may or may not be reliable. What actually works and doesnt work is a lifelong pursuit that changes with each context. Using the traditional scientific approach to research which controls variables, is ineffective in an open classroom where variables cant be controlled. DBR approaches look to improving practice through a reflective, trial and error process in an effort to bridge the gap between theory and practice (Pardo-Ballester & Rodrguez, 2009). When using EP, Allwright does not suggest developing questions, but encourages teachers to focus on understanding the classroom environment (Allwright, 2005). This relates to Allwrights position concerning Action Research, that its emphasis on the scientific method or what he called technicist research which focused too heavily on output to actually help teachers improve their classroom (Allwright, 2005). To improve classroom instruction Allwright suggests teachers involves a number of questions that may change during the research as process unfolds, so what becomes important is the process itself, not the question, and not the outcomes. A broad stroke question, such as, how can teaching practices be improved to meet the needs of language learners, is a definite starting point. The focus of this research is on improving classroom practice which may seem vague to the scientific mind, but until teachers begin to research their classrooms, specific questions may not yet be formulated. Asking specific questions may not lead to improving classroom practice, this is the essential dilemma with Design-based research, it does not follow the traditional scientific approach. This researcher spent nearly six months revising questions to fit a positivistic approach to research, only to discover that changing questions was part of the reflective process. In keeping within the requirements of this Independent Study, three questions were finally determined: Learning a second language is a worldwide phenomenon that is being maintained in the classroom. This is not the ideal situation, and language pedagogy

55 has constantly evolved in an attempt at keeping up with current research trends. Positivistic approaches tended to leave students on their own to learn through repetition and practice; Rational approaches suggested that internal mechanisms would allow students to acquire through usage; Relativists assert that learners should participate in contextual or intersubjective settings. Teacher must decide how language is acquired, and what approach works best for their context. When Behaviorists seek to understand language by observation; psycholinguists want to rationalize possibilities; sociolinguists examine discourse, and social constructivists look for cues in society for answers, this creates a dilemma for practicing teachers (Watson-Gregeo, 2003). Design-based research models such as EP are readily available for the acute teacher who wishes to improve their practice, but blending research with instructional activities needs to regard a number of factors in order to be successful. In an era of post-methodology, traditional Language Pedagogy has provided teachers with a starting point, but unless they view their classes contextually, they may not reach the levels of satisfaction they are hoping for. Teachers must view their classrooms contextually and approach instruction through a Praxis pedagogy (see Figure 4) which considers suitable language pedagogy, teacher and student agency, and praxis inquiry. There are no guarantees in teaching, but if teachers approach their students dialogically towards intersubjectivity, chances of understanding, and improved classroom practice are achievable. By the end of this research, the researcher used a formula with four components which allowed him to design classroom activities suitable for both a contextual classroomand for data collection as well. Referring to this model as the Praxis Instructional Design Model, having the four following components: 1. Praxis Inquiry 2. Language Pedagogy 3. Teacher Agency 4. Learner Agency In this study, discovering Praxis pedagogy, the instructor viewed the class contextually, looked for suitable theory, and approached the students dialogically. Instructional activities were designed to enable students to consider their prior

56 knowledge, to think critically about their society and culture, and to reflect both individually and collaboratively. The process which included all four language skills led to better classroom intersubjectivity, productive interaction, and better academic proficiency.

Figure 4 Praxis Instructional Design Model

Dynamic assessment, regardless of the results, is about the process of learning, not the outcomes. While there may have been setbacks during the semester, the research principles kept the process focused on the participants quality of life and towards better classroom understanding. In Education as in other service driven industries where individual lives are involved, practitioners must reflect and continually look for improvement. To do this, language pedagogy must evolve into practice that is contextual and reflective, and this can only be done if teachers are proactive in their own classroom research. While the instructor considered using quantitative descriptors throughout this study, those descriptions seemed to mask the learning process which was taking place, not expand it. At other times the research process interfered with learning, and at one point the instructor became frustrated with the students progress, but he was reminded of Allwrights principles; Quality of Life comes first. This reminder was crucial towards the end of the research during a reflective journal writing session. The instructor had realized that group work was not achieving

57 meaning, and in some cases it created confusion. The researcher could have concluded that group work was ineffective, but he decided to determine what the value of group work was. In other words, group work was not creating English speaking opportunities for learners, but it was allowing students to realize that they must engage the instructor more to find out what is required. Thai students must navigate and maneuver within their own intercultural complexities before they are able to learn from one another, and in effect, turned to the instructor for knowledge construction which was one of the main aims of the study. At one point during this research, while the researcher was reading literature by the great Jacques Derrida, he was reminded of an incident when he was as a Political Science undergraduate working at the performing arts center at the University of California, Irvine. At that time Mr. Derrida was a visiting lecturer at UCI, and one evening the researcher as ticket clerk handed Mr. Derrida an admission ticket, and implored him to enjoy the show, to which the deconstructionist replied, it depends on what you mean by enjoy. Some 25 years later, and the researcher is somewhat able to grasp the complexities surrounding language and language learning, and at each phase throughout this research, the researcher has had to reexamine his own beliefs about teacher, learning, and second language learning. And in many instances, he has realized that language and meaning are contextually linked with society and culture.