Creating a Thinking Environment.

Creating a Thinking Environment for English Language Learners. A Model for Staff Development Training . WBIS Award Title: MA Coaching in Higher Education

Student Name:

Michelle Hunter

Student Number:

1126521

Assessment Number:

J30068

Module Code:

IS7020

Module Tutor:

Dr Neil Moore

Word Count:

15,080

Hand in date:

31st October, 2017

Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 0

Module IS7020: “Creating a Thinking Environment.”

Acknowledgements First and foremost, thanks go to my students for generously and unstintingly agreeing to be part of this research project. Their empathy for me as a fellow student was warmly appreciated. For his support and co-operation, I thank Prof. Dr. Michael Nagel, International Business course leader at the DHBW-Stuttgart. To my own professor, Neil Moore, extensive thanks for the guidance and ever encouraging motivation to keep moving forward. We were mostly lucky with our skype connection during the long-distance conversations! I take my hat off to you and Tony Wall for the quick turnaround of feedback on all my assignments. I sincerely hope we get the opportunity to meet in person in Chester again one day. As is ever the case, support and patience on the home front can make or break a lone student. Thanks to Ian, Rachel and Ethan for giving me the time and space to get on with my studies. Taking the entire journey into consideration, it’s been quite a long six years. Good practice for the possibly next six years to PhD! From the world of ELT, thanks to the teachers who offered insights and support and wisdom. From the world of coaching, especially Nancy Kline, thank you for constantly helping to shape my understanding of what goes on with people. Finally, a special thanks to my one-time teaching partner, Michael Cook. Your interest in my research and willingness to read through repeatedly is more appreciated than I can express. Your comments and feedback have helped me stretch my thinking and make my writing better.


Page 1


Declaration The author declares that this work is original and has not been previously submitted for any other academic purpose. All secondary sources within this paper have been referenced accordingly.

Signed: Date: 30th October, 2017


Page 2


Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 1 Declaration ................................................................................................................. 2 Table of Figures and Tables ....................................................................................... 5 Research Project Report ............................................................................................ 6 1.

List of ELT Acronyms .......................................................................................... 6

2.

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 7

3.

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 9 3.1

4.

5.

6.

Supporting Statistics ..................................................................................... 9

3.1.1

Wait Time ............................................................................................... 9

3.1.2

Teacher Talking Time ............................................................................. 9

3.1.3

Time to Think ........................................................................................ 10

3.2

Research Focus .......................................................................................... 11

3.3

Research Aims ............................................................................................ 12

3.4

Research Purpose ...................................................................................... 12

Framing the Research....................................................................................... 13 4.1

Section Introduction .................................................................................... 13

4.2

Review of my professional context .............................................................. 13

4.3

Review of relevant literature ........................................................................ 15

4.3.1

What makes an effective teacher? ....................................................... 15

4.3.2

Where coaching is used in education ................................................... 18

4.3.3

Silence in the ELT classroom ............................................................... 20

4.3.4

The Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® ............................. 21

4.4

Research Questions.................................................................................... 22

4.5

Section Summary ........................................................................................ 23

Research Methodology ..................................................................................... 23 5.1


5.2

Research Approach .................................................................................... 23

5.3

Research Sampling ..................................................................................... 24

5.4

Research Methods ...................................................................................... 25

5.5

Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................... 26

5.6

Ethics .......................................................................................................... 26

5.7

Section Summary ........................................................................................ 26

Data Findings and Analysis ............................................................................... 27


Page 3


7.

8.

6.1


6.2

Findings, Analysis and Evaluation............................................................... 27

6.3

Model for Teacher Development Framework – Part 1 and Part 2 ............... 37

6.4

Section Summary ........................................................................................ 39

Project Conclusions, Recommendations, Achievements and Limitations ......... 39 7.1

Project Conclusion ...................................................................................... 39

7.2

Recommendations ...................................................................................... 43

7.3

Achievement of Project Aims ...................................................................... 44

7.4

General Limitations to the Study ................................................................. 45

References ........................................................................................................ 46

Part C: Reflective Essay........................................................................................... 51 1.

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 51

2.

Critical Reflection .............................................................................................. 52

3.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 58

4.

Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 59

5.

References ........................................................................................................ 60

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 61 Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................. 61 Comparative list of teacher and coach skills & behaviours ................................... 61 Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................... 62 Robert Stahl’s Eight Categories of Periods of Silence .......................................... 62 Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................... 64 The Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® ............................................. 64 Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................... 67 Participant Information Document ........................................................................ 67 Appendix 5 ............................................................................................................... 69 Semi-Structured Interview Questions ................................................................... 69 Appendix 6 ............................................................................................................... 70 Preliminary Plan for Staff Development Programme ............................................ 70


Page 4


Table of Figures and Tables Table of Figures Fig.1. A sample of possible influences on student achievement.

p.22

Fig.2. Five major dimensions of excellent teachers Fig.3 Part 1. How Bain’s questions fit within the Thinking Environment, underpinned by Kline’s “Positive Philosophical Choice” Fig.4 Part 2. How the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® form the foundation for what occurs before, during and after class, and where Bain’s questions apply Fig.5 Single-, double-, and triple-loop learning and feedback model for reflective evaluation.

p.23 p.43 p.44 p.58

Table of Tables Table 1. List of ELT Acronyms

p.12

Table 2. Average Wait Times in Four Different Cases

p.15

Table 3. Breakdown of Who is Talking in Class and How Often

p.15

Table 4. Average Length of Speaking Practice in Two Different Situations

p.16

Table 5. Word Search Query 1

p.34

Table 6. Word Search Query 2

p.34


Page 5


Research Project Report 1. List of ELT Acronyms BE

Business English

CEFR

Common European Framework of Reference

CLT

Communicative Language Teaching

DHBW

Dual Hochschule of Baden-Württemburg

EAR

Exploratory Action Research

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ELF

English as a Lingua Franca

ELT

English Language Teaching

ESB

ESB Business School, Reutlingen University

ESP

English for Specific Purposes

EMI

English as the Medium of Instruction

FL

Foreign Language

HE

Higher Education

IATEFL

International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language

L1

First Language

L2

Second language

LLP

Learning Language Psychology

SL

Second Language

SLA

Second Language Acquisition

TEFL

Teach English as a Foreign Language

TTT

Teacher Talk Time

WT

Wait Time

Table 1: English Language Teaching Acronym List


Page 6


2. Executive Summary Purpose To investigate the efficacy of a coaching-based teaching model in a business English university undergraduate class, with a view to developing a staff development training programme. Problem In many teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) classes, teacher talk tends to dominate. Combine this lengthy Teacher Talk Time (TTT) with minimal Wait Time (WT) after posing questions, and students have limited opportunity to practise their oral fluency, or indeed think clearly. Evidence shows the positive impact on the brain of giving more time and space to think. Applying a coach mindset focuses a teacher’s attention on her learner’s needs and reduces the desire to interrupt and “help” too much. Project Aims 

To research theories and published evidence of what factors influence successful learning outcomes for SL learners in HE.



To conduct classroom-based teacher research and collect data on how my students respond to coaching-based teaching.



To investigate directly with my students their thoughts, feelings and impressions of this method of teaching.



To collate both secondary and primary research for analysis and evaluation so that I can create a coach-based teaching model and produce a set of recommendations on how to use the model.



To use the recommendations to attract employers interested in working with me to implement staff development and coaching measures.

Approach and Research As this was a teacher (practitioner) research project, an ‘exploratory action research’ approach from the field of ELT was adopted. In broader terms, this equates to an inductive, qualitative interpretivist approach. The primary data was collected from a convenience sampling of 18 undergraduate international business students. Two focus groups were held as well as two individual semi-structured interviews.


Page 7


Observations were noted during and after class in the teacher’s journal. The data was analysed via NVivo 11 and evaluated in light of the literature reviewed. Findings Over the course of the semester, the students demonstrated an openness and willingness to co-operate and participate in the study. The calm and relaxed atmosphere in the English class was attributed to the small groups and lack of exam pressure. This was welcomed as a change in pace from other subject classes. All students said they felt able to freely contribute their opinions and thoughts, and were happy to have built a more cohesive group. While they appreciated the opportunity to learn soft skills and develop themselves personally and professionally, five said they wanted more grammar and vocabulary input. One student in particular voiced his need for more teacher input and simultaneous error correction. From the teacher’s point of view, her focus on a coaching-mindset helped to maintain attention on students’ needs, especially to speak more, and to speak less herself. Conclusion Concluding this project to investigate how students might respond to a coachingbased teaching model has resulted in the realisation of how much more there is to develop and research. One thing is certain: to operate with a coach mindset in the foreign language classroom helps the teacher. Having a heightened awareness of one’s own conceptions and behaviours, and understanding how to tune into students’ needs, enables the teacher to better create a generative learning environment. The model developed in the course of this research project could provide guidance for trainee and experienced teachers alike. Recommendations 1. Introduce EFL teachers to basic coaching principles and where they coincide with teaching and how they differ from teaching. 2. Offer developmental coaching for teachers interested in their CPD 3. Work with a Thinking Environment coach to create peer-coaching groups to explore the application of coaching-based teaching methods 4. Use the coaching-based teaching model presented here to form the basis of a staff development programme 5. Conduct more research into the applicability of coaching-based EFL teaching.


Page 8


3. Introduction 3.1

Supporting Statistics

3.1.1 Wait Time The pioneering research by Mary Budd Rowe (Rowe, 1972) provides evidence of how long teachers typically give for students to respond to a question. She also measured the average wait time before the same teacher reacted to their students’ answer. These two periods she called Wait Time I and Wait Time II. Subsequent studies support Rowe’s findings (Stahl, 1994; Tobin 1987; Ingram & Elliot, 2015): Duration

Average Wait Time

in seconds

for student response to a teacher’s question (wait time I)

1

before teacher comments on response (wait time II)

0.9

threshold above which marked consequences for both teacher and 2.7 students are seen for pronounced improvements in student use of language & logic, and 3 in student & teacher attitudes & expectations Table 2: Average Wait Times in four different cases Source: Rowe (1986).

3.1.2 Teacher Talking Time Closely linked to Wait Time, or the lack thereof, is the amount of talking done by teachers. The fact that teachers tend to speak more than their students in ELT classrooms is widely recognised (Flanders,1961; Long & Porter, 1985; Thornbury, 1996). For example, Flanders (1961) identified a “rule of two thirds” breakdown of talking time in an average classroom setting: Talker / Type of Talking

Ratio of talking time

Someone is talking in class

2/3s of total class time

The person talking is the teacher

2 out of 3 cases

Teacher is lecturing, directing or criticising

2/3s of teacher talk time

Table 3: Break down of who is talking in class and how often Source: Flanders (1961).


Page 9


In second language learning classrooms, Long and Porter (1985) estimated the following average speaking practice times:

Type of class

Average individual speaking practice time

Class of 30 secondary school learners

30 seconds per student per lesson

15 adult ESL students on an intensive course

1.5 hours per 6 weeks

Table 4: Average length of speaking practice in two different situations Source: Long and Porter (1985).

With the increased use of communicative language teaching (CLT) methods, the value of quality teacher talk has been recognised (Nunan 1987; Cullen 1998). Acknowledging the fact that learners benefit from listening to good English from their teachers reinforces the point that what the teacher says must be both considered and considerate. As the arguments in this project develop, it will become clear how the teacher development model will aid in this very goal.

3.1.3 Time to Think Evidence from the field of neuroscience supports Nancy Kline’s (1999) assertion that giving a person time to think enables them to come up with higher quality responses (Brown & Brown, 2012). A “brain-based” coach, like David Rock (2006), knows and understands this. Rock brings together many pieces of neuroscientific research in support of his “Four Faces of Insight” model. He argues in favour of allowing a person to identify their problem, have their own insights, find illumination and then support them in taking action to realise their ideas. This four-stage process can only occur successfully when the coach remains attentive and does not interrupt the reflective thinking process. If we break the alpha-waves1 created just as an insight is being reached, how can that insight ever be fully shaped? “Alpha waves correlate with people shutting down inputs from their external senses and focusing on internal stimuli.” (Rock, 2006:11)

1

Alpha waves (8 to 12 Hz) are present when your brain is in an idling default-state typically created when you're daydreaming or consciously practicing mindfulness or meditation. (Bergland, 2015)


Page 10


Equally, if the coach jumps in right at the moment when the thinker’s brain is making new sets of connections, creating a super-map linking many parts of the brain and enabling illumination, what damage might she cause? The links might never form properly and the moment of illumination becomes dulled. Rock (2006) acknowledges how difficult it is to control our thoughts. However, based on a study by Libet and Associates (1983), he insists that we are able to decide which thoughts we ultimately act upon. “... the brain sends us a desire or urge to act, about five tenths of a second before acting, a long time in neuroscience terms. ... the control we had over ‘voluntary’ behaviour was only in the last two tenths of a second before we moved.” (Libet et al,1983 in Rock, 2006) Rock further argues that the power we have to “veto” actioning a thought, to exercise our self-control, can be developed through systematically concentrating our attention and building a mindful awareness of this momentary choice. We can learn to curb our impulse to jump in with “helpful” advice and suggestions before we interrupt someone’s thinking time, empowering them “to respond rationally to emotionally stressful stimuli.” (Rock, 2006: 6) With this in mind, it will be argued here that teachers who want to reduce their talking time and build the confidence to give more Wait Time can achieve their goals by learning to work with the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment®. This will help nurture the necessary mindful awareness of their own thinking, behaviours and intentions, as well as of students’ needs as whole people, not only as learners in the classroom. As Nancy Kline writes: “The quality of everything we do depends on the quality of the thinking we do first. ... The quality of our thinking depends on the way we treat each other while we are thinking.” (Kline, 1999)

3.2

Research Focus

In light of the statistics presented above, the research project focus is on designing a coaching-based teacher training model which will support university teachers who want to change their habits in respect of TTT and Wait Time in EFL/ESP/EAP


Page 11


classes. Such behavioural changes are expected to have a positive effect on students’ learning outcomes.

3.3

Research Aims

The original proposal for this research project listed the first research aim as: “To research and evaluate other ‘alternative’ pedagogies to identify where there are crossovers between teaching and coaching.” However, it became clear that such an investigation would detract from the main focus of the study. Initially, the idea had been to investigate alternative pedagogies to the coach-approach methods carried out by the teacher-researcher herself. In practice, this aim was superseded by an investigation into where and how coaching is used within higher education. So the final list of research aims was: 1. To research theories and published evidence of what factors influence successful learning outcomes for SL learners in HE. 2. To conduct classroom-based teacher research and collect data on how my students respond to coaching-based teaching. 3. To investigate directly with my students their thoughts, feelings, impressions of this method of teaching. 4. To collate both secondary and primary research for analysis and evaluation so that I can create a coaching-based teaching model and produce a set of recommendations on how to use the model. 5. To use the recommendations to attract employers interested in working with me to implement staff development and coaching measures.

3.4

Research Purpose

The purpose of the research project is to develop a coaching model for use on EFL teacher training development programmes.


Page 12


4. Framing the Research 4.1

Section Introduction

In this section, an overview of my professional context and career development will demonstrate why the project is important and how the ideas for a potential staff development programme came about. Part 4.3 offers an extensive review of literature pertaining to four specific areas covering coaching, education, SL learning and, most significantly, the Thinking Environment. Part 4.4 lists the research questions to help contextualise the research itself. The section summary draws these elements together with concluding comments.

4.2

Review of my professional context

I have worked as a freelance English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher since 1999, having moved to Southern Germany in 1995. Within the broad field of TEFL, I specialise in teaching Business English (BE). Initially, I only worked with in-service learners in larger companies, many automobile engineering firms as well as a variety of non-engineering German companies across many sectors. Through my network, I was asked to cover business English courses at a state-run co-operative university in Stuttgart (DHBW-Stuttgart). Now, ten years down the line, I work regularly at two state universities (DHBW-Stuttgart and Reutlingen University) on Bachelor and Masters programmes, teaching business English communication courses. I have also taught English for Academic Purposes (EAP) on three consecutive pre-sessional summer courses at Bristol University. This is of particular relevance as the personal learning I gained over those summers has directly fed into this project. The other relevant aspect for my professional context is the coach training I undertook in 2010, which culminated in a Post Graduate Certificate (WBIS) in Coaching in 2013. What I learned during this time, in particular from the work of Nancy Kline (Kline, 1999; Kline 2009), impacted my teaching practice and has now informed the ideas behind the coaching-based teaching model I am developing here. My initial motive was to gain tools and knowledge to support a women’s development programme I was running, not to become “A Coach”. Today I do not consider myself a practising coach in the usual sense, but rather a teacher who


Page 13


works with deeply embedded coaching principles. Through the process of studying towards this WBIS Masters, I established that I am a “teacher-coach”. (Broughton & Beere, 2013). By the end of this research project, it will become clear how I have come to prefer the moniker “learner-coach”. (Barber, & Foord, 2014; Wright, 2017) Teaching English as a foreign language is globally a multimillion pound industry. It is in the interest of all stakeholders to ensure that teaching staff are well equipped to teach to the highest standards, to ensure maximum learning outcomes and learner (customer) satisfaction. In the UK alone, the total economic impact of the TEFL sector is estimated at £2.4 billion (ICEF Monitor, 2016). Export revenues for the UK’s TEFL activities in 2014 were estimated at £1.2 billion. Across Europe, 90% of all European pupils studied English at some point in their schooling in the period 20062007 (European Commission, 2008) At German universities, there are nearly 200 EMI (English as the Medium of Instruction) bachelor’s degrees. Many of them are free of charge but a good number incur fees of up to 20,000 Euros per academic year (Tucker, 2017). On the two programmes where I currently work, at least two other courses per semester are taught in English. It is for me personally, a very exciting time in ELT as interest is increasingly focused on the psychology of language learning, and in particular on teacher beliefs and mindset. During a conference in 2012, I was struck by the investment in researching learner psychology, while the role of teachers was barely acknowledged (for example Mercer et al., 2012). Now in 2017 the ideas outlined here pertaining to Teacher Talking Time (TTT) and Wait Time coincide with discussions around teacher well-being, and emotional and social intelligence within the broader context of Language Learning Psychology (LLP) (e.g.: Mercer, 2017; Mercer & Gkonou, 2017). The coaching perspective and its focus on psychological well-being support arguments in favour of the psychological impact of talking less and listening more in the classroom. From personal experience and talking with many colleagues, I know there is a genuine desire to facilitate useful, meaningful language learning and maximise opportunities to communicate fluently. TEFL experts expound the importance of learners speaking as much as possible to language acquisition. Teacher training


Page 14


manuals expound the perils of too much TTT and provide lesson plan ideas to help reduce it. (Thornbury, 1996; Ur,1996; Harmer, 1998). Talking less and listening more may seem two small elements within the cornucopia of action in a lesson or course of study, but they have a huge impact on the learning environment. Realistically, few teachers can honestly say they spoke minimally over the course of a lesson or entire semester. Reducing TTT and increasing Wait Time seem an elusive goal for many EFL teachers, myself included. With this research and the resultant recommendations, it will be argued that teachers’ habits can be changed positively.

4.3

Review of relevant literature

In view of the stated learning outcomes and research aims of this project, the following themes were focused upon: what makes an effective teacher; where coaching is used in education; silence in the ELT classroom; and the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment®. Overall, the literature reviewed affirmed the positive impact of coaching-style teaching on successful learning outcomes for foreign language learners. What remains elusive is practical ways to get teachers to change unhelpful behaviours in the long-term. The coach-approach teaching model presented in section 6 of the report will offer a framework which is then used to design a staff development workshop (see Appendix 6). This provides the practical steps towards achieving behavioural change and stems directly from the following literature review.

4.3.1 What makes an effective teacher? There is little doubt that teachers factor highly in students’ learning success (see e.g. Hattie, 2003; Dörnyei, 2001; Kember, 1997), and the present study will not challenge this assumption. The aim is to look more closely at what precisely teachers do to qualify as “good” or effective. The following paragraphs briefly summarise relevant points from the above mentioned researchers as well as work from Ken Bain, and ELT instructional input from Jeremy Harmer. Ultimately, comparisons will be drawn between these factors and a teacher working within a thinking environment. When it comes to classroom motivational tools, the teacher’s own behaviour was considered to be the most important tool, according to research conducted by


Page 15


Dörnyei (2001) in his book “Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom.” Zoltan Dörnyei is one of the most recognised academics in the field of motivation studies within ELT. He and his fellow researchers highlight the importance of selfefficacy (a person’s judgement of their ability to perform) and self-confidence (the belief that one’s ability will produce results) when it comes to wanting to learn (Dörnyei, 1994; Clement, Dörnyei & Noels, 1994). Where some students may intrinsically have high degrees of both, more often it is the extrinsic motivation provided by teachers that will nurture higher levels of both self-efficacy and selfconfidence. How can teachers best do this? By creating learning environments born of their personal beliefs and behaviours where students can flourish. David Kember has written about teacher conception – a culmination of values, attitudes, beliefs and intentions towards teaching – and how it relates to measures of the quality of student learning, learning approaches and learning outcomes (Kember, 1997). Which values, attitudes and beliefs are the helpful ones that ensure the positive learning outcome? Carol Dweck (2015) convincingly argues the case for growth mindset over fixed mindset, particularly when it comes to learning and teaching: “This one adjustment of students’ beliefs seemed to unleash their brain power and inspire them to work and achieve.” (Dweck, 2015). Kember (1997) concludes that where a faculty genuinely wants to see real changes in teaching quality, it is conceptions rather than approaches that need to be focused on. In other words, teachers’ values, attitudes, beliefs and intentions, collectively labelled as “mindset”, rather than what they “do” are key to creating an effective learning environment. So changing mindset and behaviours requires deep reflection and a shift in thinking patterns. Changing our actions can be implemented more immediately, and according to Cuddy (2012), can ultimately lead to change in mindset. How can teachers identify which behaviours are desirable? John Hattie’s (2003) research data provides a comprehensive list of influences on learning, see Fig.1. Looking at this sample from the top of Hattie’s list, we see that in 11 out of 14 cases it is the teacher who is the source of influence behind students’ achievements. How well these things are done inherently depends on teacher conception, and upon a growth mindset. For example, if a teacher did not believe that a student can learn from their mistakes, why would they bother giving feedback?


Page 16


Influence

Effect Size

Feedback Students’ prior cognitive ability Instructional quality Direct instruction Remediation/feedback Students’ disposition to learn Class environment Challenge of goals Peer tutoring Mastery learning Parent involvement Homework Teacher style Questioning

1.13 1.04 1.00 .82 .65 .61 .56 .52 .50 .50 .46 .43 .42 .41

Source of Influence Teacher Student Teacher Teacher Teacher Student Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Home Teacher Teacher

Fig.1: A sample of possible influences on student achievement. Source: Hattie (2003).

From the field of ELT, Jeremy Harmer outlines a clear picture of what constitutes a good EFL teacher in his teacher training manual, “How To Teach English” (Harmer, 1998). His points focus on the relationship between teacher and student. They also map well with the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® (components in brackets). He writes that the teacher must 

be approachable (create ease; be encouraging)



be able to identify with students’ hopes and aspirations (pay attention)



include quiet students too (accept diversity; equality)



must offer correction appropriately (offer information; encouragement)



needs to manage classroom without shouting (create ease and a safe place)



demonstrate interest in students, i.e.: remember names (offer attention and appreciation)

A long-range study conducted by Ken Bain helps shed further light on what it takes to be an outstanding college teacher (Bain, 2004). His aim was to ascertain what the best college teachers do in order to foster “remarkable feats of student learning.” (Bain, 2004:15). He posed six broad questions to the selected research interview candidates, four of which (in bold below) contribute to the coach-approach teaching model presented in section 6.3.


Page 17


1. What do the best teachers know and understand? 2. How do they prepare to teach? 3. What do they expect of their students? 4. What do they do when they teach? 5. How do they treat students? 6. How do they check their progress and evaluate their efforts? There are similarities between these broad questions and the five dimensions of excellent teachers presented in Hattie’s work, (Hattie, 2003).

Expert teachers can 

identify essential representations of their subject,



guide learning through classroom interactions,



monitor learning and provide feedback,



attend to affective attributes, and



influence student outcomes

Fig.2: Five major dimensions of excellent teachers. Source: Hattie (2003).

The evidence points to many of the skills and behaviours seen in the best teachers, reflected in what is expected of professional coaches. (See Appendix 1 for a comparative list). There is a strong case for saying that teacher values, attitudes, beliefs and intentions; how they behave; the mindset they have as well as what they actually do, all impact learner motivation. Teachers keen on emulating the “best” teachers could benefit from being coached; or at least learning about coaching. They will be rewarded with motivated students demonstrating high levels of self-efficacy and self-confidence, enjoying successful language learning outcomes.

4.3.2 Where coaching is used in education Coaching is being increasingly applied in schools as a CPD measure for teachers. (Fletcher & Mullen, 2012; van Nieuwerburgh & Campbell, 2015). It is recognised by educational authorities as a valuable way of supporting teachers’ endeavours to improve teaching practice and consequently student learning. (Carnell et al, 2006; NCSL, 2017; CUREE, 2005).


Page 18


Many US school districts hire developmental or instructional coaches whose role is to proactively support staff as collaborative partners. They engage in reflective dialogue and classroom observation which is strictly non-judgemental or evaluative. Confidentiality is key; communication is respectful, clear, thought-provoking, encouraging, practical and honest (Knight, 2009). Where school leadership is fully committed and includes coaching in staff development measurements, evidence from one study showed a 95% transfer of learned skills to the classrooms (Bush, 1984 in Knight 2009). In an EFL / ELT setting, coaching is currently a buzzword in Business English teaching circles (Hunter, 2017) but a hazy concept in wider circles. It is certainly not yet used in the ways mentioned above. So while “good” teaching practice, habits and behaviours are widely recognised as essential for facilitating language learning (see previous discussion in 4.3.1), the connection with coaching behaviours and principles remains tenuous among the majority of EFL teachers. That is not to say there is no awareness of how coaching can be implemented in language learning classes. Many experienced EFL teachers have developed themselves along the coaching path and offer examples of how to do coach-based teaching, or language coaching as is the preferred label (e.g. Kovacs, 2017; Williams, 2016; Haill, 2012). In the last few years, with the increased awareness and understanding of neuroscience, neurolanguage training is becoming popular, (e.g.: Paling, 2017). The term “language coach” has been controversial within the ELT community, with expensively coach-qualified teachers resenting untrained colleagues using the title. Similar complaints are heard in the unregulated world of coaching itself (e.g.: LinkedIn article by Dussault, 2017). Albeit an unqualified source, Dussault is a certified professional coach and highlights some important practitioner related issues. Unearned rights to certain titles aside, what exactly is it that a “language coach” does? Taking a purely pedagogical approach, a teacher who uses coaching techniques and maintains a coaching mindset is using a powerful and cost-effective way of improving students’ progress. (Higgins et al, 2011 in Broughton & Beere, 2013). As a business English teacher, facilitating the language learner’s progress to a desired level of proficiency, I presuppose that the student has “all the resources and hidden strengths” needed to achieve their goal; I encourage independence and critical thinking; I ask powerful questions and facilitate learning and self-responsibility


Page 19


(Broughton & Beere, 2013:29). The focus is more on the learner than the language. Consequently, the better term would be “learner coach” as adopted by Duncan Foord and Dan Barber in the innovative “From English Teacher to Learner Coach” (Foord & Barber, 2014).

4.3.3 Silence in the ELT classroom Any mention of “silence” in the language learning classroom may conjure up images of a silent teacher using “Cuisenaire rods” in the manner of Caleb Gattegno (Gattegno, 1972). However, Gattegno’s complex, theory-based technique (Stevick, 1980:43) bears little relation to the silence under discussion here. Complete silence can be unhelpful, as Stevick reports from students he interviewed: “Most troublesome was the feeling of not knowing in advance what the linguistic goal of a particular sequence of activity was going to be.” (Stevick, 1980:63). Key to this project is how coaching-style listening, as opposed to the “Silent Way” silence, can be adopted in the ELT classroom in order to reduce TTT. The basic premise is that when a teacher learns to offer generative attention and listen without interruption or judgement, the learning space can be held; students can truly think, knowing they are free from rush and urgency (Kline, 1999). As discussed previously, Mary Rowe’s work highlighted the positive impact of increased wait times (from 1 second to 3-5 seconds) on students’ positive learning outcomes. She also noted that teachers’ characteristics changed with increased waiting. “There is an increased flexibility of teacher responses, the questioning pattern becomes more variable, teacher expectations for performance of students rated as ‘slow’ may change.” (Rowe, 1972) A decade later, Robert Stahl took Rowe’s work further and developed the concept of “think time” (Stahl, 1994). His version of wait time was consciously focused on deliberate moments of silence in order to allow concentrated thinking. He designated eight categories of silence, according to the primary function or when the silence occurs in a conversation. (See Appendix 2 for the 8 categories). Stahl’s “think time” take on Rowe’s “wait time” fits well with the main focus of this project. These two researchers’ work is supported by ELT specialist Scott Thornbury, who also


Page 20


advocates proactive silence in the classroom (Thornbury, 2012). Consequently, there are strong arguments for teacher practitioners to consider adopting more silence and think time.

4.3.4 The Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® The starting point for the ideas behind this project was learning about Nancy Kline’s Thinking Environment on the Barefoot Coaching course in 2012. It did not take long to recognise the applicability to TEFL classrooms. Indeed, Kline began her research into what contributes to effective learning while running a Quaker school: “...my colleagues and I wanted to help teenagers to think for themselves. ... for several years we observed what was going on when our students thought clearly for themselves, and what was going on when they did not.” (Kline, 1999:16) As mentioned above in 4.3.1, a lot of what is required of language teachers can be equated with the components of a thinking environment. These components are built upon “The Positive Philosophical Choice.” This fundamental, underlying belief shapes how a Thinking Environment coach operates and can equally be used by any teacher: “The work of the Thinking Environment is based on the chosen philosophical view that human beings by nature have choice, are intelligent, loving, powerful, multitalented, emotional, assertive, imaginative, logical and are able to think through anything.” (Kline, 2015) In an educational research paper, Kwan and Wong provide a literature review in which parallels can be seen between this way of thinking and the principles of constructivist theory of instruction (Kwan & Wong, 2014). They cite a number of sources which consistently highlight learner autonomy, e.g. four principles outlined by Krause et al. 2007, p.183, and also Gatlin’s view that “a constructivist learning environment is an environment facilitating learning by developing the learner’s own active cognitive abilities” (Gatlin, 1998, in Kwan et al, 2007). Kwan and Wong explore constructivist theories specifically in relation to critical thinking abilities. This reflects the notion that the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® all work towards a coachee being able to think (critically?) for themselves. Both learner autonomy and critical thinking are highly topical in EFL teaching today.


Page 21


While many EFL teachers are naturally caring and have their students’ best interests at heart (Mercer & Gkonou, 2017), their actions do not always match their intentions (Nunan 1987; Gao 2015:45). Anecdotal evidence from colleagues adds weight to the impression that teachers know they need to speak less; they want to offer their students maximum speaking practice time, and yet they consistently fail to do so. Creating an optimal classroom climate for learning seems to be something ‘expert’ teachers are more capable of. “They build climates where error is welcomed, where student questioning is high, where engagement is the norm, and where students can gain reputations as effective learners.” (Hattie 2003). There are similarities here, where coaches “hold the space” for their clients to do their learning safely, without judgment. The key element is “building a climate”, ideally in the shape of a thinking environment. Where some teachers seem to do this intuitively, or in the case of Hattie’s ‘expert’ teachers, based on experience, the ideal would be for all teachers to feel they could create effective learning environments at will.

4.4

Research Questions

At the start of this study, the questions to be answered by the research were as follows: 

How aware are students of the impact of increased think time on their ability and willingness to participate in class?



How do students respond within a Thinking Environment framework – to the application of each of the ten components, and how does this impact their language learning?



What methods or techniques help me, as teacher, to foster a Thinking Environment in class?



What might block use of any of the ten components in a classroom, and how can such blocks be overcome?



What specific recommendations could be made to leverage evidence of improved student learning experience in light of this research?


Page 22


4.5

Section Summary

In framing this research project, an outline of “my professional context” demonstrates extensive experience in, and knowledge of the ELT market in southern Germany. Brief mention was made regarding the global value of ELT as an industry. My career development from teacher to coach was outlined. Reviewing the literature offered an insight into the theories informing the ideas behind the study, and met one of the learning aims of the project. Additionally, the review gave rise to the observation of a disparity in academic research. Wait time and silence in classrooms have been studied extensively. Teacher beliefs, conceptions and mindset are being explored within the relatively new field of language learner psychology. However, when it comes to applying coaching methods and mindset to EFL teaching, academic sources are lacking. Here is an opportunity for researching what happens when language teachers proactively adopt a coach mindset in their classrooms. The Model in section 6.4 below is derived from some of the literature, and offers a framework for how teachers can develop such a mindset.

5.

Research Methodology

5.1


The aim of this section is to describe the approaches underpinning the research, from both an ELT as well as a more general action research perspective. The sampling and ethics section touch on issues of possible bias. In the former, the emphasis is on an awareness of possible confirmation bias, and the latter focuses on how ethical issues were dealt with in light of course and lesson objectives. The two sections looking at research methods and analysis provide details of what was done during and after data collection. Limitations were minimal and warrant only brief mention.

5.2

Research Approach

Teacher research is typically classroom-based. It is ‘action research’ “conducted in teachers’ own professional context and with the purpose of enhancing their understanding of some aspect of their work.” (Borg 2013:8 in Xerri 2016). ‘Action research’ is carried out with the clear intention of solving a problem and improving a situation (Moran 2017). Another version of classroom research is ‘exploratory


Page 23


practice’ which aims to explore an issue directly with the students. Combining both approaches gives us ‘exploratory action research’, which is where a “...deep exploration of a particular area of concern precedes coming up with a plan for change and evaluating a new intervention.” (Smith 2015:42 in Moran 2017). For a novice teacher-researcher keen on listening to, and involving, her students, exploratory action research offers the wide scope inherent in an “inductive qualitative interpretivist” approach. That is to say, the modus operandi is to inductively “make specific observations, detect patterns, formulate hypotheses and draw conclusions” (Thornbury, 2015). The resulting data consists of qualitative narrative input from observation, journaling, reflection and interviews. Finally, being all about people and how they react in a social setting, the whole research study is firmly situated within an interpretivist frame. However, as will be shown, having a carefully thought-out approach does not guarantee a smoothly run field study. While the aim may be to achieve a seamless, holistic switch between researcher and teacher roles (Xerri, 2016), balancing focus between different tasks can cause difficulties. On recognising this conflict between roles, a more heuristic attitude was taken. Letting go and staying with the “not knowing” principle of coaching (Morgan, 2011), reduced the feeling of hecticness. This is also consistent with an inductive approach and the nature of exploratory practice, as mentioned above. “The object of knowledge is an object of co-investigation. Knowledge is therefore not something possessed by the educator which he or she transfers to the learner but is something both educator and learner co-investigate, explore together.” (Mayo, 2013) Additionally, as part of the experimental nature of this exploratory teacher research project, the researcher wanted to test out “values-based action inquiry” (Underhill, 2006). While time did not permit such inquiry during classroom lessons, it is returned to in the reflective essay accompanying this report.

5.3

Research Sampling

The data were collected from a convenience sample of 18, second semester Bachelor degree students. The sample group was largely homogenous in terms of age, educational background and experience. The fact that they were enrolled on the International Business degree programme meant they had succeeded where many


Page 24


had not. Students on this programme typically come with top grades from school: they are high achievers usually with high expectations of their teachers. The majority of the group were native German-speakers with English as their second foreign language; two were Chinese natives, and one Romanian. They were aged between twenty and twenty four. In order to offset any potential risk of confirmation bias arising from the pre-existing relationship between students and teacher-research, and “unwitting selectivity in the acquisition and use of evidence” (Nickerson, 1998), the researcher aimed for mindful awareness. Similarly, to safeguard against possible power differential disturbance, a coach mindset was adopted. Being consistent with Thinking Environment principles helped reinforce these aims. In particular the component Equality served as a reminder of the exploratory action research premise that all parties in the study are on an equal footing. To help reinforce this message, it was pointed out that everyone was a student – they at the DHBW, their teacher-researcher at Chester University.

5.4

Research Methods

As can be expected with an inductive qualitative interpretivist approach, the research was carried out via in-class observation, personal journaling and semi-structured interviews. Transcriptions of video and audio recordings of the focus groups were used in the analysis phase. For the two 1-to-1 interviews, audio recordings were made and subsequently transcribed. Being socially situated and constructed from the interactions between students and teacher, the nature of the study lent itself to purely qualitative research methods. Collecting quantitative demographic information of participants would have been necessary if a comparative analysis were to have been done. In this case, it was felt classifications such as age and gender would distract from the main focus of the study. In the future, it would be interesting to conduct a more in-depth study to investigate age and / or gender correlations with students’ successful application of the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment®. Similarly, comparing levels of language proficiency with learning in a thinking environment would also prove an interesting line of enquiry in the future.


Page 25


5.5

Data Analysis Methods

The analysis of the focus group and 1-to-1 interview transcriptions was done with NVivo 11. The tool offered some helpful collating options. Themes were identified in the group interview transcripts and “Nodes” set, into which related comments were placed. This led to a large number of thematic nodes which helped cluster respondents’ comments. Word frequency counts yielded interesting results which enabled effective analysis. Two significant themes stood out: calmness and group size. Review of the personal journals involved a more reflective reading and evaluation in light of the outcome of the interviews and literature review.

5.6

Ethics

The ethical aspects of conducting this in-class teacher-research project were uppermost during the entire study. The issues of confirmation bias and power imbalance have already been raised. Additionally, any negative impact on student learning outcomes was taken very seriously. While there was no exam at the end of this semester, the course had to be as rigorous and learning-rich as at any other time. It was critical for this researcher to maintain a healthy and fair balance of study outcomes with positive student experience. From analysis of the data, it seems this was successfully achieved. All students had been informed about the impending study at the end of the previous semester. They were contacted again prior to the start of the target semester, with a copy of the study outline and consent form attached to the email (see Appendix 4.) It was made clear that their grades were not connected in any way to their participation or non-participation. By the start of the first lesson, all had signed a consent form and had heartily agreed to be part of the research.

5.7

Section Summary

In summary, the research methodology can be described on the one hand as an inductive qualitative and interpretive approach, and on the other within the context of ELT practitioner research, as exploratory action research. Data collection methods were consistent with this approach and the resultant analyses were aided with the use of Nvivo 11. Underpinning this activity was a set of beliefs informed by coaching, and especially the Thinking Environment principles.


Page 26


6.

Data Findings and Analysis

6.1


With this section, we come to the crux of the study. The following questions reflect the initial research questions listed in section 4.4. They have been condensed for the purposes of efficient evaluation. Final comments in the Conclusion section 7.1 will summarise the findings with reference to the original research questions: 

How did the students react to being taught in a thinking environment? (Research question 1)



What was their understanding of the ten components? (Research question 2)



How well did their teacher exemplify her stated belief in the positive philosophical choice, the nature of generative listening, and learner autonomy? (Research question 3)

As described in section 5 above, qualitative data was collected via two focus groups, two 1-to-1 interviews and teacher note-taking in class and journaling. The classroom video recordings were not directly used as part of this analysis. They do, however, support the collective feedback from the students and show a lot of the positive classroom atmosphere mentioned during the interviews.

6.2

Findings, Analysis and Evaluation

The evaluation and analysis of the students’ comments is from the researcher’s perspective. Every effort was made to minimise cognitive bias and to aim for a fair and balanced evaluation. Ultimately, the value inherent in teachers researching their professional situations and creating critical communities of inquiry outweighs concerns about possible personal bias. (Campbell, Philips & Gilroy, 2004) 6.2.1 How did the students react to being taught in a thinking environment? Overall, this group of students responded well to the thinking environment teaching approach and methods. They attended all classes, contributed to discussions and participated in activities. Their in-class reflections indicated a genuine interest in the topics and thoughtful consideration of how they had benefited from the lesson. While this is the teacher’s view partly based on memory, feeling and impressions, and in light of many years’ experience, the data will provide objective corroboration.


Page 27


Two main themes stand out from the data: small group size and a calm atmosphere. Four transcripts were analysed in Nvivo 11. The following word frequency queries were run with the resultant outcomes: Query search “small group”, “small groups”

1-to-1 (student K)

1

1-to-1 (student C)

2

Group A1

3

Group A2

5

All interviews

11

Query search “calm”, “no pressure”, “relaxed”, “relaxing”, “calming”

1-to-1 (student K)

-

1-to-1 (student C)

-

Group A1

3

Group A2

16

All interviews

19

Table 5: Word search query 1 Table 6: Word search query 2

The debate on the effects of class size on student achievement is ongoing. What seems most relevant is how teachers and students interact with each other in differing class sizes (Blatchford, Bassett & Brown, 2011), and how “teachers modify instructional practices to take advantage of smaller classes” (Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran & Willms, 2001). The eighteen students in this study described their experience of small groups overwhelmingly positively. They were happy that each person was able to speak more, receive personal feedback, and that even shy students could not escape the limelight. (Note: quotes are direct from students and are uncorrected). “...having lessons in such small groups were really helpful.” “...everyone has a chance to really speak.” “We are such a small group. We can all talk a lot without others being bored.” “Here it is not possible to not speak out loud in front of all the people.” One student mentioned another variable similar to that raised by Ehrenberg et al (2001), related to the relevance of personal background and degrees of motivation, as well as group size, on student learning: “It’s a little bit easier here in the small groups, but it’s depending how we can motivate ourselves.”


Page 28


This point was taken up by another student who observed that the group worked well together because “...we are all grown-ups and we’re all well-mannered.” Compounding the “well-mannered” and motivated group dynamic was another factor afforded by the smaller number of people: the chance to get to know each other better. This seemed to be in contrast with other classes on their study programme where there is little time for social interaction. “With the English lessons we know about ourselves more than before.” This leads to the second main identified theme: calm atmosphere. It could well be that the small number of people in the class automatically lead to a calmer atmosphere: fewer differing personalities to clash; fewer differing opinions to lead to conflict; fewer voices to be raised and increase the overall classroom noise, and therefore stress levels. Or simply, it was the case that everyone was well-mannered, as mentioned above. Other comments point to another contributing factor to calmness in class: teacher behaviour. “You’re a really calm person and that’s why in English course every week, I really relax.” “You as a teacher, you were calm. I don’t know how to explain, but we were reflecting this.” When discussing the ten components during the focus group interviews, ease was mentioned, which equates well with calm, for example: “Ease is an important component of our lessons because – there was ease – not the whole time but it was kinda relaxing and – we were calmed down.” This was particularly rewarding to hear, as creating an easeful atmosphere is key to a thinking environment. The students seemed to respond well to the slower pace: “We can do our own steps in our own tempo.” “It’s not fast, now this and this and this, now let’s go to the next topic. So it’s very calm.” Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 29


They indicated how much pressure they feel under in other subjects: “Compared with the other courses that are really stressful and, um, yeah, we always have to pay attention and maybe it’s just more relaxing when learning here. But we’re learning while relaxing, so that’s perfect.” The “soft” nature of language learning is, of course, completely different from having to learn “hard” subjects. Additionally, there was no English exam at the end of this semester which immediately reduced the pressure the students felt under. They acknowledged this fact as being part of the reason the English classes were calmer and more relaxing. However, it was a very insightful comment from one person which added another twist to this debate: “We don’t have the pressure that there’s an exam soon, so we can focus on that what we are doing right now.” (Author emphasis in bold) How significant lack of exam pressure was to creating a calmer learning environment will be tested in the next semester when these students are taking exams. Then a truer picture should evolve as to how much the teacher’s own calm behaviour impacts the learners and the classroom atmosphere. Four students raised a third important point: lack of teacher input. One student in particular returned to this theme in his 1-to-1 interview. He wanted to receive more “expertise” and “tips and tricks” relating to the “fancy styles (of business English) you should use.” Some other students commented on a lack of grammar and vocabulary teaching, as well as writing focus. There was a definite hunger for higher level input and a keenness to learn more. “I don’t feel I have used a lot of new vocabulary just the ones I already knew.” This spoke to the aforementioned concerns about the research focus detracting from course learning objectives. However, looking at the broader context, this was only the second of six semesters; we had had only eighteen teaching hours per semester together. Interestingly, it was an older student with previous work experience who offered insightful and encouraging comments, for example:


Page 30


“I had the feeling that everything was set up very good. ... it took a long time for the preparation and I felt the meaning of the topics were – the lessons were deep.” Returning to the input-focused student, he described at length how speaking with native speakers of English is the best way of improving fluency – a possible contradiction to his insistence on more teacher input in class? “I think the most important experiences I made when it comes to learning English, is when I was in situations where I talked to natives.” Coming from a “no-interruption” perspective, the researcher found it interesting to listen to how adamant this student was about the value of teacher interruption. His school teacher had successfully trained his grammar by regular and constant correction, a fact he mentioned on numerous occasions, not only in the research interviews. “...in school, my teacher always interrupted me if I, for example, if I build up a wrong if clause.... but I’m one of those person who was really thankful for something like that because you directly realise what you did wrong.” (1-to-1 interview transcript) A little later, he addressed our opposing views and appeared to understand the point behind not interrupting, while offering a balanced solution: “And what you are doing right now, for example, not interrupting me. That is very good because people are talking and talking, and they are not stopping ... But on the other side, earlier I said, that it’s good if you to interrupt because grammar reasons. ... you can do both. You can create an open learning culture, combining it with some hints that you give the students on the side...” This showed insight and is an important aspect to consider with the thinking environment approach to teaching. Adhering religiously to the “no interruption rule” needs to be tempered with a requirement to correct faulty language. While the underlying premise of not interrupting is giving full, focused attention so as to “ignite the mind” (Kline, 1999), if that mind is producing incorrect language, it is going to Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 31


need help at some point. Once an attitude of attention-first, interruption-whennecessary has been successfully established by the teacher, and adopted by the students, perhaps language correction will feel less like an interruption. Indeed, one could argue that it demonstrates attention has been paid to the student’s efforts at language production. Whether the students’ positive reaction to being taught in a thinking environment was down to a homogenous group of well-behaved, polite people or the teaching method, cannot be categorically proven. The comments about wanting more grammar and vocabulary teacher-input-style lessons could stem from habitual learning methods. Contradictorily, there was a definite appreciation for the non-school-like approach to lessons, the future-work-related topics and variety of exercises covered in class. Group size was perhaps most significant in enabling maximum speaking time. Whether they consciously noticed the teacher’s deliberate attempt to not interrupt remains unknown. Ultimately, the aim of more student than teacher talking time was achieved. “I appreciate a lot that we were interacting and that we were speaking ourselves.” This, above all else, is the most encouraging sign of success for the thinking environment approach to teaching. 6.2.2 What was their take on the ten components? On being asked, students eventually recalled all ten components with some encouragement. This precipitated a discussion which demonstrated recognition of how the classes reflected the components and the groups’ understanding of them: “I think equality is quite important in our situation because I have the feeling that when we discuss about something, you don’t treat us like kids. Like we are equal and you totally respect what we’ve said.” Not being treated “like kids”, or infantilising someone is a core aspect of the thinking environment. At university level, it is essential that students have the feeling that their thoughts and ideas are welcomed if they are to then go on and think critically and innovatively. Teachers who keep in mind that “seeing people as thinking equals Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 32


... makes them functionally more clever” (Kline, 1999:60) will reduce any infantilising behaviour. “You infantilize when you want the well-being of another person intensely but you also intensely want to be seen as the expert, indispensable and brilliant.” Kline, 1999 Being “allowed to have your own opinion” (Student in Focus Group A1) and feeling respected was repeatedly mentioned. This further affirms that teacher behaviour was consistent with a thinking environment approach and offered appreciative attention. Modelling such behaviours provided students with a consistent example of how to be with each other: “...the attention thing, we listen to each other, respect the feelings of each other, the way we worked and said something was encouraging the others to be motivated.” “We also pay attention here but no one pushes us to pay attention.” Modelling behaviour in class is one good way of creating a desired environment. Priming is another. Listening during the focus group interviews, and reflecting subsequently, it was clear that the students had taken on aspects of the thinking environment they had been introduced to in the previous semester. One young woman had been struck by the notion of “ease”; she mentioned it a number of times. In-class, she was also “appreciative” of the exercises we were doing. As quoted above, the older student frequently referred to the depth of meaning he gleaned from the lessons. He mentioned frequently his interest in personal development. Would they have been so receptive to this teaching approach if they had not been exposed to the ideas introduced in language exercises in the previous semester? 6.2.3 How well did their teacher exemplify her stated belief in the positive philosophical choice, the nature of generative listening, and learner autonomy? Reflecting on personal journal entries, a mixed picture emerges. A teacher adhering to the positive philosophical choice as redefined by Nancy Kline in 2016, believes that we have “the choice to focus on the human being’s dominant inherent capacity and need for good’ (i.e.: fine thinking, connection, choice, creativity and joy)” (Kline, Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 33


2016). During the research interviews, there was a genuine desire to live this belief by handing the conversation over to the students with minimal interference from the interviewer. Similarly, during class, the amount of responsibility given to students to manage their tasks reflected the belief that each person is capable of their own “fine thinking”. There were, however, exceptions. The following are notes taken directly from the teacher’s journal: “Roleplay exercise. I interrupted mid-roleplay thinking to create a second round for group viewing. Feedback (from group): they wanted to continue where they had left off from.” “How damaging was it to break their flow?” “Previous experience showed me how popular this negotiation roleplay is! Thinking about timing – need enough to hold focus group in second half of lesson after break.” This entry offers an example of when the teacher went against her no-interruption principle because she bowed to the pressure of time-keeping instead of staying with the learning in the moment. There could have been a moment of “veto power”, and the urge to action the time-pressure thought could have been curtailed with conscious awareness that the students were in full flow and did not need to be interrupted. It is also an example of research needs compromising learner aims. The time pressure arose from having included the focus group in the lesson. Gathering data was given precedence over allowing enough time for the lesson itself. However, scheduling the mutually agreed-to focus group outside lessons would have potentially caused more inconvenience for all concerned. On a positive note, the journal entry does show an awareness of having strayed from thinking environment principles. As stated in the introduction, in striving for behavioural change, mindful awareness of our thinking and intention is key, and enables us to adapt behaviours.


Page 34


Another entry notes a further instance of straying away from thinking environment intentions: “I spoke too much! Friday P.M. = low energy & motivation.” “Tried to compensate for time of day and adjust to their frame of minds.” Whether the low energy and motivation referred to students or teacher is unclear, but the subsequent compensatory admission suggests it was the students who were in need of boosting. Is taking responsibility for “boosting” the mood a form of infantilising? Why not allow the group to simply feel tired and deal with it in their own way? However, as a teacher, the expectation is that group energy levels need to be managed for maximum learning. Old habits are hard to break. The following comment confirms a fall back into the habitual comfort zone of TTT: “Without any recording equipment I was more relaxed and fell back into old, comfort habits – TTT.” The recording equipment in class was noted numerous times. It created a barrier between teacher and students, but for the teacher only, it seems. “Recorded snippets – it’s going to get distracting for me more than the students. They didn’t seem bothered.” After the first two lessons for each group, it became clear that the recording equipment detracted from the teacher giving full attention. It was only used for the interviews. “Realisation: in-class research with tech and trying to record action = reduces ease, certainly in my demeanour!” Reviewing lesson plans and notes from the journal, and listening to the recorded feedback from students, there is a clear sense that generative listening was consistently offered by the teacher. Also, the nature of the lessons devised meant students were required to work autonomously, which lends itself to coaching principles and thinking environment components alike. Learner autonomy is about scaffolding instruction “to provide guidance without assuming control of learners’ decision-making” (Cotterall, 2000). Coaching enables “the learner to take Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 35


responsibility for his/her learning, develop an awareness of his/her situation and increase his/her skills” (Tolhurst, 2006 in Beere & Brought, 2013). The Thinking Environment components help a teacher to remember how capable her students are, and that there is no need to infantilise them by tightly controlling the lesson. The focus is on the learner and facilitating – or coaching – their autonomous learning. This brings us back to the concepts of “teacher coach” and “learner coach” mentioned at the start of the report. The former title implies coaching from a teacher’s perspective, the latter is coaching with the learner in the forefront. According to much of the literature pertaining to what facilitates successful learning outcomes (e.g.: Hattie, 2009; Dörnyei, 2001; Kember, 1997; Gkonou & Mercer 2017), a student-focused teacher is key. The evidence in this report supports the view that the teacher was highly student-focused. This can also be interpreted as she exemplified her belief in the positive philosophical choice as well as the guiding principles of the ten components. It is perhaps this modelling of the principles, combined with a strong belief in the veracity of a thinking environment-based coach approach - of being a learner coach - which is of most importance. The model in the following section is the culmination of the literature review combined with what has been learned from this inductive research project. It forms the basis of a potential coaching-approach staff development and training programme, which can be seen in Appendix 6.


Page 36


6.3

Model for Teacher Development Framework – Part 1 and Part 2

Positive Philosophical Choice: Teacher Beliefs, Attitudes, Values and Intentions How do I prepare to teach?

What do I expect of my students?

The Thinking Environment Classroom: generates independent thinking What do I do in class?

How do I treat my students?

Fig.3: Part 1. How Bain’s questions fit within the Thinking Environment, underpinned by Kline’s “Positive Philosophical Choice”

The graphic shows that underpinning the whole teaching process is the Positive Philosophical Choice. Belief in, and adherence to, this sets the teacher up for everything else that she does with her students. Before a lesson begins, the teacher will have considered two of the four questions taken from Ken Bain’s research into what the best college teachers do (Bain, 2012). Thinking about how to prepare to teach and what is expected of the students creates a clear picture in the teacher’s mind of the ensuing lesson. Once in class, the teacher works on maintaining an environment conducive to thinking and generative learning. To help her do this, she reflects on what she is doing and how she is treating her students during the lesson – similar to Schon’s (1987) “reflection-in-action”.


Page 37


The Thinking Environment - 10 Components Attention Ease

During Class

Appreciation Equality Diversity Feelings

What do I do (how do I behave)?

Before & After Class

Information Place Incisive Question

How do I treat my students (how do I show what I feel about them?)

How do I prepare my class (and myself)?

What do I expect of my students (and myself)?

Encouragement

Fig.4: Part 2. How the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® form the foundation for what occurs before, during and after class, and where Bain’s questions apply

Going to a more detailed level, this graphic shows the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment®, which inform a teacher’s mindset before, during and after class. Adhering to the ten principles as much as possible, and being acutely selfaware (reflecting-in-action) enables the teacher to behave more in accordance with the coaching mindset as discussed previously. Referring to Bain’s questions at the different phases of the teaching process helps with the meta-level awareness checking and reflection, before and after class being as valuable as during (reflection-on-action). For a detailed explanation of each of the ten components, refer to Appendix 3. 6.3.1 Evaluation of teacher performance in light of the Model There is evidence in the data that the teacher strove to embody the ten components and to create an environment of independent thinking and autonomous learning. To measure exactly to what degree each was present would need to be objectively viewed by a trained observer, i.e.: a researcher knowledgeable in the Thinking Environment and with the observation skills of a teacher trainer. Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 38


Bain’s four questions are perhaps more straight forward to self-monitor. In the case of this study, there was not a deliberate adherence to each question. Rather, basedon coach training and Thinking Environment awareness, the teacher felt she generally operates with these questions in mind. Again, this might not be the reality if measured by an objective third party. As a Model, however, it presents a useful guide and self-reflective framework. As a means of increasing behavioural awareness and encouraging intention-driven teaching, it offers a strategy for continuous professional development. The workshop plan outlined in Appendix 6 provides one way of applying and utilising the model for practical CPD training.

6.4

Section Summary

The preceding sub-sections offer an evaluation of the data collected from the inductive, qualitative research conducted during the second semester of 18 international business Bachelor students in a German state co-operative university. They indicate a successful outcome for the teacher, whose aim had been to teach with a thinking environment coach-mindset, adhering to the 10 components. The questions raised revolve around what exactly caused the students to behave in the ways they did and whether it is enough for the teacher to lead by example. The model, parts 1 and 2, in the last section offers a framework for teachers who have identified a need for change in their behaviours and attitudes. It is predicated on a desire for positive, growth mindset thinking and a willingness to embody at least some of the ten components.

7. Project Conclusions, Recommendations, Achievements and Limitations 7.1

Project Conclusion

This project was initiated in order to determine what effect a coach-approach style of teaching would have on a group of Business English students. The two issues identified as needing attention were too much Teacher Talking Time (TTT) and too little Wait Time (WT). The inductive, qualitative, interpretivist research approach


Page 39


involved the teacher exploring these issues with her students in order to come up with a plan for change. This is otherwise known as “Exploratory Action Research”. Four specific points can be drawn out of the study. Firstly, a coach-approach helps to create a growth mindset within the teacher. Modelling this increases the likelihood of students similarly thinking with a growth mindset, albeit subconsciously. Secondly, the Model offers a “wholistic” framework which acts as a reminder to consider the entire teaching process, from course design and lesson preparation, to in-class activities, to after lesson follow-ups. It highlights the importance of the ten components in order to nurture a Thinking Environment and build a strong foundation upon which to carry out the aforementioned teaching activities, as well as enabling the teacher to be considerate of the students and their needs. Feedback from the students provided the third point of relevance arising from the study: a teacher with a growth mindset, practising a coach-approach method of teaching can better create a calm, relaxed environment. This encourages collaborative work, more student speaking practice, less TTT and strong group dynamics. Lastly, it was recognised from what was not gathered during the research, that a more in-depth study would be needed to measure the tangible impact of coach-approach teaching on language level improvement. Such a study would add to the growing area of academic research into Language Learning Psychology. It would also facilitate a move for the topic of coaching in ELT from general practitioner discussions into the academic arena. As stated in section 6.1 of the Findings Introduction, here are the original research questions in full with a summary of findings pertaining to each. 7.1.1 How aware are students of the impact of increased think time on their ability and willingness to participate in class? Explicit awareness was not present in the data. This is likely due to not being directly asked whether they had noticed the teacher deliberately waiting longer after asking questions. Such directness could have influenced their perceptions. However, there was recognition of, and appreciation for, the slower pace in lessons. As reported above, the calm and relaxed nature of the English classes offered them time and space to get to know each other. They all felt better able to express themselves and Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 40


their opinions. So while the explicit awareness may have been lacking, the result of increased think time did have an effect on group dynamics and individual participation rates. 7.1.2 How do students respond within a Thinking Environment framework? How does the application of the ten components impact their language learning? Again, the data do not offer hard evidence of how students responded or how much their language learning improved. This would definitely need to be part of a future study, measured by formal pre- and post-test results, and via thorough conversation analysis, for example. What did stand out from this set of data was the students’ affinity with the idea of equality, a sense of ease within the groups, and appreciation for the working atmosphere as well as the structured, well-organised, workapplicable lessons. Beyond the ten components specifically, other aspects of the Thinking Environment were also important: not interrupting and not infantalising. Breaking the ingrained social habit of interrupting remained a difficult task; the students did strive to be more attentive with each other. However, from general comments in class, it seems that obeying the teacher’s instruction to not interrupt each other was the primary driver, rather than a genuine understanding of what giving attention truly entails. Reports of feeling respected and listened to by their teacher is the strongest indicator of a positive response to being taught within the Thinking Environment framework. This stems from the teacher’s strong aversion to infantalising behaviour, along with a deep belief in equality among thinking peers. This last point reinforces the idea that it is the teacher’s mindset which has the most impact on her learners. 7.1.3 What methods and techniques help the teacher to foster a thinking environment in class? Specific “methods or techniques” are not the main focus here. As discussed in the literature review above, teacher conceptions are key. Self-awareness and personal insight are paramount to identifying a need for change. If a teacher feels their classes need improving, they could take any or all of the following actions: 

engage a developmental coach (section 4.3.2)


Page 41




engage a Thinking Environment coach, and learn how to apply the ten components in the classroom



focus on developing a mindset shift, aiming for a growth mindset to help create new kinds of lessons



become aware of one’s own core values and beliefs, reflect on how they are demonstrated before, during and after class



use the coaching-based teaching model as a guide to creating one’s own way of being.

7.1.4 What might block the use of the ten components in class? How can such blocks be overcome? The main block to fostering a Thinking Environment is a fixed mindset. Where there is no room to simply “be”, achievement is limited. A fixed mindset “fills people’s minds with interfering thoughts, it makes effort disagreeable, and it leads to inferior learning strategies.” (Dweck, 2015) When it comes to using the ten components, there are any number of potential blocks, most of which teachers are familiar with. The following are just three: 1. Place. Some teaching rooms are not pleasant or comfortable. It is difficult to create a space which says to the students “you matter”. When the room is dark and airless with hard seats and rubbish on the floor, it creates a feeling of despondency and low motivation. 2. Information, i.e.: the knowledge to be imparted by the teacher. Much of the research into teacher effectiveness notes that a teacher’s expertise is fundamental (Hattie, 2003; Bain 2012). If their knowledge lacks accuracy or is outdated, students lose interest and learning cannot be generated. 3. Attention. Interruptions or distractions in the class break the attention being paid by both teacher and students. If a person feels they are not being listened to, they are likely to switch off and stop thinking. This is one of the biggest challenges in many classes, especially with larger groups. Overcoming any block requires recognition that there is a block, and then the desire and motivation to do something about it. Some involve practical considerations, for example, move tables out of the way, open the windows, ensure you know your Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 42


subject, agree to speak only when holding a “talking stick”. Overcoming others might need additional help, for example from colleagues, school directors, an education ministry, or a coach. 7.1.5 What specific recommendations could be made to leverage evidence of improved student learning experience in light of this research? The fifth research question is covered under the next section.

7.2

Recommendations

In light of the findings and conclusions above, the following recommendations have been made. They are likely to be of particular interest to teacher trainers and language school staff development managers. 1. Introduce EFL teachers to basic coaching principles; discuss where they coincide with teaching and how they differ from teaching. Suggest resources for self-coaching and personal development. This is ideal for teachers unsure of how much they want to invest in coaching but are keen to understand more. 2. Offer developmental coaching for teachers. This involves higher financial investment and requires deeper commitment to addressing specific issues at work. The return on such an investment should be seen directly in successful student learning outcomes, and re-energised motivated staff. 3. Create peer-coaching groups to discuss and explore the implementation of coaching-based teaching methods in different settings. This would require initial direction by a trained coach. For example, a Time to Think coach can instruct the group in specific Thinking Environment applications which will foster effective group discussion sessions. 4. Use the coaching-based teaching model presented here to form the basis of a staff development programme. The workshop outlined in Appendix 6 can be used as a standalone programme or incorporated into pre-existing teacher training courses, for example the DELTA TEFL teacher training certificate. 5. Conduct more research into the applicability of coaching-based EFL teaching, e.g.: in a university department with a group of full-time teachers trained in how to use and apply the model presented in this report. Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 43


7.3

Achievement of Project Aims

7.3.1 To research theories and published evidence of what factors influence successful learning outcomes for SL learners in HE. This first aim was achieved in terms of learning what factors influence successful learning, both generally and in second language learning settings. There is a plethora of sources available relating to learner motivation and increasingly to teacher motivation, conception and well-being. The field of language learning psychology is a developing area which is likely to offer further insight into teacher psychology and its impact on learning outcomes. It also offers a likely setting for ongoing research into the coaching-based teaching discussed here. 7.3.2 To conduct classroom-based teacher research and collect data on how my students respond to coaching-based teaching. The second aim was perhaps most significant in terms of learning how to be a teacher-researcher. The process of conducting exploratory action research was a steep learning curve, but the collected data provided plenty of scope for evaluation. The main achievement resulting from this aim was recognition of the value of teachers researching their own practice and sharing the findings they make. 7.3.3 To investigate directly with my students their thoughts, feelings, impressions of this method of teaching. The very nature of the teaching approach being investigated in this project facilitated open and willing engagement with this particular research aim. The students were familiar with being invited to share their thoughts and feelings as a normal part of the lessons. As to the results of what they shared, the findings present a useful variety of views. With more probing questions, a clearer picture of how they felt about the specific teaching method would have emerged. The non-directive nature of the thinking environment approach to coaching precludes interrupting a speaker, and combined with time restrictions, it was not possible to pursue certain lines of enquiry. 7.3.4 To collate both secondary and primary research for analysis and evaluation so that I can create a coaching-based teaching model and produce a set of recommendations on how to use the model.


Page 44


This fourth aim resulted in the model depicted in section 6.3. The bases for the model came from Nancy Kline’s Thinking Environment, and Ken Bain’s research presented in his book “What do the best college teachers do?” Review of the literature provided further evidence of the efficacy of the ideas pertaining to how to create effective learning environments. The recommendations 1-3 and 5 listed above arise from the project overall. The model-based workshop outlined in Appendix 6 is the vehicle for fourth recommendation. It is itself a set of recommendations for how to use the model. It could also be used for future research as suggested in recommendation 5. 7.3.5 To use the recommendations to attract employers interested in working with me to implement staff development and coaching measures. The final aim remains open and ongoing. It forms the basis from which tailor-made proposals can be written for specific training and staff development entities.

7.4

General Limitations to the Study

As with any small-scale study of this nature, the low number of participants limits the veracity of any findings. Similarly, the homogeneity of the group restricts the variety of perspectives. The limited time created a degree of pressure to rush; students would not have been available after the course for the focus groups so they had to be conducted in lesson time. These points are mentioned in the methodology and findings sections. The following are additionally raised for consideration. Lack of familiarity with the analysis tool, NVivo 11, meant the data coding and collation was less efficient than it could have been. There are probably many other functions that would have made the data analysis and evaluation more scientific, and graphically presentable. Training in conversation analysis could similarly have meant a more thorough investigation of the transcripts. Verifying the results would be difficult as the context of this study is very specific. It may not be feasible to conduct similar research as teachers would need to be trained in the Thinking Environment components or at least basic coaching principles. This is costly and time-consuming. Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 45


8. References Bain, K. (2012). What the best college students do (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Bergland, C. (2015). Alpha Brain Waves Boost Creativity and Reduce Depression. Psychology Today. Retrieved 19 September 2017, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletesway/201504/alpha-brain-waves-boost-creativity-and-reduce-depression Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., & Brown, P. (2011). Examining the effect of class size on classroom engagement and teacher–pupil interaction: Differences in relation to pupil prior attainment and primary vs. secondary schools. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 715-730. Broughton, T., & Beere, J. (2013). The perfect teacher coach. Bancyfelin: Independent Thinking. Brown, P., & Brown, V. (2012). Neuropsychology for coaches. [S.l.]: Open University Press. Campbell, A., Philips, S., & Gilroy, P. (2002). Research for professional development. London: Paul Chapman. Carnell, E., Macdonald, J., & Askew, S. (2006). Coaching and mentoring in higher education. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, Self-confidence, and Group Cohesion in the Foreign Language Classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01113.x Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT journal, 54(2), 109-117. Cuddy, A. (2012). Your body language may shape who you are. Ted.com. Retrieved 15 April 2013, from https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT journal, 52(3), 179-187. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/330107 Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.


Page 46

Module IS7020: “Creating a Thinking Environment.” Dussault, P. (2017). Individuals Who Call Themselves Coaches. LinkedIn. Retrieved 26 September 2017, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/issue-untrained-individuals-who-call-themselves-pierredussault-ing Dweck, C. (2015). Mindset by Carol Dweck. Clitheroe, United Kingdom: Joosr. Ehrenberg, R. G., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(1), 1-30. European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - EU pupils are learning foreign languages at an earlier age. (2008). Europa.eu. Retrieved 15 March 2017, from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-1754_en.htm?locale=en Fletcher, S., & Mullen, C. (2012). The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coaching in education. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Barber, D & Foord, D., (2014). From English Teacher to Learner Coach. The Round. Retrieved from http://the-round.com/resource/from-english-teacher-to-learner-coach/ Flanders, N. (1966). Analyzing Teacher Behavior As Part Of The Teaching-Learning Process By Ned A. Flanders. The student teacher's reader: a collection of readings, 19(3), 270. Gao, Y. (2015). Language Teacher Beliefs and Practices: A Historical Review (Pd.D candidate). Kent State University. Gattegno, C. (1972). Teaching foreign languages in schools the silent way (1st ed.). New York: Educational Solutions. Haill, A. (2012). Coaching - Oxford Professional English. Oxfordprofessionalenglish.com. Retrieved 15 September 2017, from http://oxfordprofessionalenglish.com/coaching-2/ Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow: Longman. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference, What is the reseach evidence?. In Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us? ACER Research Conference. Melbourne, Australia: ACEReSearch. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/ Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning (1st ed.). London: Routledge. Hunter, M. (2017). Why Coaching in ELT? Brighton: Academic Study Kit


Page 47

Module IS7020: “Creating a Thinking Environment.” Ingram, J., & Elliott, V. (2015). A critical analysis of the role of wait time in classroom interactions and the effects on student and teacher interactional behaviours. Cambridge Journal Of Education, 46(1), 37-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2015.1009365 Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning And Instruction, 7(3), 255-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(96)00028-x Kline, N. (1999). Time to think. London: Ward Lock. Kline, N. (2016). FINE POINTS BY NANCY KLINE. Timetothink.com. Retrieved 3 February 2017, from http://www.timetothink.com/home/fine-points-by-nancy-kline/ Kline, N. (2009). More time to think. Pool-in-Wharfedale: Fisher King Pub. Kline, N. (2015). Time to Think Foundation Course notes. Wallingford, Time to Think Ltd. Knight, J. (2009). Instructional coaching. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press. Kovacs, G. (2017). Language Coaching: More Than Just a New Approach. LinkedIn. Retrieved 15 September 2017, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/language-coaching-more-than-just-newapproach-gabriella-kovacs-acc Kwan, Y., & Wong, A. (2014). The constructivist classroom learning environment and its associations with critical thinking ability of secondary school students in Liberal Studies. Learning Environments Research, 17(2), 191-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-014-9158-x Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly, 19(2), 207-228. Mayo, P. (2013). Echoes from Freire for a critically engaged pedagogy (1st ed.). New York: Bloomsbury. Mercer, S. (2017). Connecting minds: language learner and teacher psychologies. IATEFL Annual Conference, Glasgow, April 5, 2017 Mercer, S., & Gkonou, C. (2017). Understanding emotional and social intelligence among English language teachers. London: British Council. Mercer, S., Taylor, F., Roosken, B., Ryan, S., Gonzalez, A., & Yim, S. (2012). Symposium on the psychology of language learning. In IATEFL 46th International Conference (pp. 41-44). Canterbury: IATEFL.


Page 48

Module IS7020: “Creating a Thinking Environment.” Moran, K. (2016). Student-to-student legacies in exploratory action research. Elt Journal, ccw091. Morgan, K. (2011). Barefoot Coaching Course: The Coaching Relationship. Presentation, London. National Framework for Mentoring and Coaching | Centre for the Use of Research & Evidence in Education (CUREE). (2005). Curee.co.uk. Retrieved 2 September 2017, from http://www.curee.co.uk/resources/publications/national-framework-mentoring-and-coaching NCSL Modular Curriculum. (2017). Nationalcollege.org.uk. Retrieved 2 September 2017, from https://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/transfer/open/mentoring-and-coaching-core-skills/mccores02/mccore-s02-t03.html Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review Of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.2.2.175 Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41(2), 136-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.2.136 Orlando, M. (2013). Nine Characteristics of a Great Teacher. Faculty Focus | Higher Ed Teaching & Learning. Retrieved 10 October 2017, from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/philosophy-ofteaching/nine-characteristics-of-a-great-teacher/ Paling, R. (2017). Neurolanguage Coaching. The Choir Press. Poklepovic, D. (2015). Weekend Workshop with Dana Poklepovic. Besig.org. Retrieved 20 July 2015, from http://besig.org/events/online/workshops/Workshop_51.aspx Rock, D. (2006). A Brain-Based Approach to Coaching. International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 4(2), pp.32-43 Rowe, M. (1972). Wait-Time and rewards as instructional variables: their influence on language, logic and fate control. In National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New York. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass. Stahl, R. (1994). Using "Think-Time" and "Wait-Time" Skillfully in the Classroom.. Ericdigests.org. Retrieved 31 March 2016, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/think.htm Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.


Page 49

Module IS7020: “Creating a Thinking Environment.” Thornbury, S. (1996). Teachers research teacher talk. ELT Journal, 50(4), 279-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.4.279 Thornbury, S. (2012). S is for Silence. An A-Z of ELT. Retrieved from https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/s-is-for-silence/ Thornbury, S. (2015). Inductive and deductive grammar teaching: what is it, and does it work?. OUP ELT Global Language. Retrieved from https://oupeltglobalblog.com/2015/04/24/inductive-anddeductive-grammar-teaching/ Tobin, K. (1987). The Role of Wait Time in Higher Cognitive Level Learning. Review Of Educational Research, 57(1), 69-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543057001069 Tucker, L. (2017). Study in Germany in English. Top Universities. Retrieved 15 March 2017, from https://www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/europe/germany/study-germany-english UK’s English Language Teaching sector worth £1.2 billion. (2016). ICEF Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment. Retrieved 9 May 2017, from http://monitor.icef.com/2016/02/uks-english-language-teaching-sector-worth-1-2-billion/ Underhill, A. (2006). Reflective Practice, Action, Inquiry and Deep Values. In IATEFL Research Special Interest Group Conference. London: IATEFL. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University. van Nieuwerburgh, C. & Campbell, J. (2015). A global framework for coaching in education. CoachEd: The Teaching Leaders Coaching Journal. 1, 2-5.' Williams, G. (2016). Using Coaching Techniques In ELT - EFL Magazine. EFL Magazine. Retrieved 19 February 2016, from http://www.eflmagazine.com/using-coaching-techniques-in-elt/ Xerri, D. (2016). Split personality/unified identity: being a teacher-researcher. ELT Journal, 71(1), 96-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw069 Yost, D., Sentner, S., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An Examination of the Construct of Critical Reflection: Implications for Teacher Education Programming in the 21st Century. Journal Of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002248710005100105


Page 50


Part C: Reflective Essay 1. Introduction In the area of English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching, critical reflection is de rigueur and classroom practice research for the purposes of reflection and professional development has been developing apace in the last decades (Dikilitas, Smith & Trotman, 2015; Allison & Carey, 2007; Yost, Sentner & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). In preparing myself for this exercise, I came across renowned ELT author and practitioner Adrian Underhill’s conference paper: “Reflective practice, action inquiry and deep values” (Underhill, 2006). His model for values-based inquiry struck a chord with me and I determined I would conduct my MA research project along those lines. Investigating his ideas and sources further, I came across the work of Starr and Torbert (2005) and discovered a connection with triple-loop learning – a concept explored in a previous module on this course of study. The main aspect of learning I want to explore in this reflective essay is how transforming my teaching practice into learner-centred coaching correlates with triple-loop learning for me. I felt a definite shift in my attitude towards teaching which affected not only how I taught, but how I prepared to teach and how I viewed my students. Focus group interviews with the sample group of students indicated a raised awareness of the learning experience for them also. To aid in this reflective endeavour, the following model has been created to provide a framework for structured analysis and evaluation. It is derived from a combination of Snell and Chak’s (1998:340) view of organisational triple-loop learning and Starr and Torbert’s (2005:88) feedback awareness graphic. The former see team members learning from the discovery that they, and their predecessors, have been either facilitating or inhibiting the team’s learning. This leads to “new structures and strategies for learning” being produced, until ultimately they reach a point of coinvented “collective mindfulness”. Starr and Torbert’s (2005) depiction of triple-loop learning is based around a change within a given person’s awareness that “occurs in any moment where there’s an attention distinct from the mental thinking, from the


Page 51


physical sensing, and from the objects of perception, infusing them all with an immediacy that is at once passionate, dispassionate, and compassionate.”

Triple loop: ATTENTION / INTENTION

Produce new structures & strategies for learning

Co-invent collective mindfulness – mutually improved learning

Double loop: THOUGHTS / STRATEGY

Single loop: SENSATIONS / BEHAVIOURS

Discover how we facilitated or inhibited learning

Fig.5: Single-, double-, and triple-loop learning and feedback model for reflective evaluation. Adapted from Snell & Chak, (1998:340) and Starr & Torbert, (2005:88)

2. Critical Reflection The process of reflecting on the research project necessitates looking back before looking forward. The key focus of my study was born from what I learned on the post-graduate coaching certificate and subsequently started to try out in some classes. It is from this point now that I can look back and map the stages of learning I underwent in terms of the model in Fig.5 above, before evaluating the project and ultimately offering an action plan for next steps. Sensations / Behaviours After twelve years of freelance English teaching and pushing myself to do a good job, my energies started to wane. I was maintaining a level of “good enough”, cutting corners and relying on my natural charm to keep clients and students happy. Although I was successful on paper, earning a decent wage and in constant Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 52


demand, I was still merely biding my time till I achieved full-time employment. I knew this rationally but did little to proactively move myself out of freelance teaching. I was caught in a cycle of accepting work, earning the money, going through the motions all the while thinking an offer to join an established company as a valued, salaried member of staff was around the next corner. Working in education exposed me to the joys of, and value gained from, learning and development. Being a naturally studious type, I took every opportunity to engage in what I now appreciate as life-long learning activities. So while my job was depleting my reserves and stretching my nerves, the courses I undertook gave me a boost and kept me going. What was not changing, however, was my attitude towards myself as a teacher; I didn’t really believe I was “a teacher”. Borg (2003, 2015) and Kalaja et al (2016), cited in Gkonou, Mercer & Daubney (2016), make a clear connection between what I believe about myself as a teacher and how I perform in the classroom: “Fundamentally, teachers’ beliefs influence their teaching practice and decisionmaking processes, and ultimately strongly determine the nature of classroom life and the overall classroom atmosphere.” It got to the point where I became less than proud of my behaviour in the classroom. My actions were not facilitating the best learning for my students, nor giving me any sense of satisfaction. It was time for something to change. Thoughts / Strategy The grand change plan came to naught. From this point of reflective distance, it is clear that fixed mindset (Dweck, 2015) was the problem. I believed that, as had been the case previously, people would be convinced on meeting me that I was the woman for the job. Fortunately, in between the failed job interviews, I found a fresh take on teaching English as a foreign language: English for Academic Purposes. The experience of a summer pre-sessional programme at Bristol University precipitated a turning point in my mindset and became the catalyst for where I am now, on this particular Masters course.


Page 53


The ideas I have about blending coaching with teaching had already been forming before I started teaching on the EAP pre-sessional course. Once there, I gained immense satisfaction from seeing the benefits of those ideas in action. It was being asked to present these ideas and outcomes to my peers at one of the weekly CPD sessions which really started the ball rolling. I could feel a shift in myself from reluctant English teacher / “wannabe” corporate trainer to academic educator. Although there was no clear notion of an end goal, thoughts of how to proceed were forming, starting with committing to the WBIS Masters programme. Attention / Intention While researching for and conducting the research project, the importance of intention became clear to me. Previously, any intention I had had never extended beyond getting through the day’s lessons, or completing a course so I could move onto the next opportunity or adventure. According to Dyer (2004), I was effectively getting what I didn’t want by focusing on precisely that, i.e.: to be stuck as a jobbing teacher. Through coach training, I learnt to realign my focus and pay close attention to what was going on with my students in class. Gradually awareness dawned as to the value of what I was doing in those moments, with those learners. It became about the intentional end goal of the learning for my students. There was a tangible shift not only in my attitude to teaching, but also in my perception of the bigger picture. It is not about me teaching, it is about students learning in a way that meets their needs, expectations and views of the world. Individual and Collective Mindfulness This brings me to the current research project being reflected upon. I had conscientiously planned the semester with clear intentions: designed a well-thought through set of relevant lessons which met the module parameters as well as the incorporating students’ feedback from the previous semester. In having this wellstructured plan, I would be better able to manage the research goals and collect the data I needed. This mindful and deliberate approach to planning demonstrates the paradigmatic shift in my mindset. Where once I was happy to “wing” my lessons, with minimal consideration of what the final outcome should be, I was now behaving like


Page 54


a “real” teacher. And this did not go unnoticed or unappreciated by some of the students, as one of the quotes in the report findings showed: “I had the feeling that everything was set up very good. ... it took a long time for the preparation and I felt the meaning of the topics were – the lessons were deep.” This was music to my ears, and validation for my efforts. It seemed efforts to adjust my thinking to match my newly identified professional outcomes were paying off. My new “inner dialogue” was enabling a connection to intention (Dyer, 2004:87). Mindfulness, born of my attention and intention, was also evident within the group. Some students were using language similar to that which I used when referring to the ten components: ease and appreciation were particularly noticeable in one of the focus groups. Behaviour with each other during activities, such as roleplays, and the subsequent feedback rounds, was more considerate than I have experienced with other groups over the years. They were mindful of how they spoke to each other, even trying to avoid interrupting too much. I cannot categorically say whether this was down to how I was teaching, or whether I had primed them to be more aware by telling them about the Thinking Environment. I cannot presume to say that their respect and politeness with each other was solely down to the behaviours I modelled. Indeed, at least two students astutely pointed out that as a group, they are all well-brought up, well-educated young people from similar backgrounds. It does raise some interesting points however, which would lend themselves to further study. Values-Based Inquiry At the start of the research project, I had wanted to do a values-based inquiry according to Underhill (2006). Teaching with a coaching-based model firmly situated within Kline’s Thinking Environment is inherently based on the values I hold. Wanting to afford my students the full attention I believe they are due, not interrupting their thought processes, providing a place which demonstrates they matter – all the components of the Thinking Environment afford me the opportunity to behave according to my values. That is the beginning of my answer to one of Underhill’s questions: “What is deeply important to me in my work?” (Underhill, 2006:2) Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 55


On reflection, I am probably being overly hard on myself to say the research project did not go completely according to plan: the data collection was not strictly scientific; the NVivo 11 tool was not fully utilised; the semi-structured interviews could have had more relevant and probing questions. These criticisms arise in large part because of the values I hold. It was more important to be present for my students than to allow the recording equipment to distract me. Interrupting what an individual was saying so as to redirect their thinking onto more convenient topics for my purpose would have broken a fundamental belief and value. Even taking “field notes” in class caused me conflict – by writing my notes, my attention was away from the students. Ironically, the fact that I did allow the research activities to distract me to a certain degree meant I could not simultaneously reflect on the four areas of my experience, as proposed by Torbert (2004) and described in Underhill (2006): 

the outcomes and impacts of my actions on others, which are brought about by



the qualities of my behaviours and actions in my practice, which are influenced by



the congruence of my plans, strategies and my ways of thinking about what I do which are affected by and can influence



my deep purposes, values and intentions.

Instead, I will have to reflect on my actions after the fact in order to realise the intention of behind a values-based action inquiry. As Underhill (2006) suggests, it makes more sense to work in reverse order. By creating and using a teaching model which reflects my (coaching-based, thinking environment) values, I was able to plan with deep purpose and intention. My ways of thinking, underpinned by my values, meant I considered the impact of the research project on my students and planned accordingly, with the final goal in view. Once in class, I aimed to behave in accordance to my values and as outlined in the teaching model – specifically, four of Bain’s (2012) six broad questions. Now, I can review the outcomes and impacts of my actions on the members of the group, which is in essence what the report findings are all about. The fact that the data cannot categorically prove the efficacy of my teaching approach on learning has become Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 56


secondary. My students showed an openness and willingness to try out the main principles of the Thinking Environment, namely not interrupting and paying more attention to each other. And most significantly, I have achieved a “triple-loop” shift in the perception of myself as a teacher. Closely related to this realisation, is the discovery of a keen interest in classroombased exploratory action research (Smith 2015:42 in Moran 2016). Having read many articles describing teacher-research (e.g.: Borg, 2009; Dar & Gieve, 2013; Moran, 2016) I understand the value in practising teachers investigating what they do and reflecting on why they do it. Even more exciting for me, coming from a coaching perspective with its inherent psychological underpinnings, are the current developments in the field of Language Learning Psychology. As Gkonou, Mercer & Daubney (2016) conclude in their paper looking at teacher perspectives in LLP, as interest in the field grows, it “is better placed to engage with group dynamics” and “to look more closely at interrelations such as between the teachers’ and learners’ psychologies”. This is precisely the direction I see my ongoing studies taking. I can imagine, for example, exploring the question: ‘how far does a teacher’s coachingmindset influence students’ willingness and ability to think critically in a university setting? Or as put forward in the conclusion from the report above: ‘What is the impact of a Thinking Environment coach mindset on English language learners’ learning?’ On a final note, it became clear to me during this project, as well as in other university classes where I teach, that I have gone as far as I can with my own understanding of Thinking Environment Applications. I feel there is huge value in teaching a different “way of being” with each other as offered by Nancy Kline’s training programmes. The nine applications of the Thinking Environment as presented in the Time to Think Foundation course (see them listed below), offer ways to encourage clearer thinking and more positive interaction both among students and their teachers, as well as between teaching professionals. In order to enhance the use of the Model-based staff development course proposed here, it would help to be formally trained as a Time to Think Facilitator. Equally, the skills gained from learning the nine Applications more intimately can be blended into any lesson. Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 57


The Nine Applications of the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® 1. Thinking Pairs 2. Dialogue 3. Rounds 4. Open Discussions 5. Transforming Meetings 6. Presentations 7. Thinking Partnership Demonstration 8. The Time to Think Council 9. Facilitation (Kline, 2015)

3. Conclusion Through this WBIS Masters programme, I have been introduced to the world of teacher (practitioner) research. The course of study has enabled me to realise a long-held idea for developing a coaching-based teaching model, incorporating the ten components of the Thinking Environment. Through designing and implementing a research plan, I have discovered the value of taking time to think and plan thoroughly. My courses (not only the one described in the report, but elsewhere) are now complete blocks linked together with a clear theme and intention. I am aspiring to work with Ken Bain’s broad questions to help me maintain my effectiveness as a “good” teacher. Nancy Kline’s 10 components are my constant companions, helping me develop my coach mindset. I can apply them not only when interacting with my students, but also when reflecting on my own thoughts and behaviours so I don’t become too harsh and unforgiving of myself when my best intentions slip. I also know there is more to learn and how to go about gaining those skills and knowledge. Finally, drawing together what I have reflected upon, and to help in achieving my emerging goals, an action plan has been developed.


Page 58


4. Action Plan 

Distil the findings from this report into a conference paper to be delivered at two teachers’ conferences in November and December this year. Follow up with proposal to contribute to the conference selections publications.



Research Professors in the field of Educational Development in HE in order to identify potential supervisors.



Plan the next teacher-research project using Exploratory Action Research approach: o Identify a “puzzle” o Find out which students would be open to participating o Conduct the research with a view to getting published in a peer review journal, e.g.: OUP’s ELT Journal.



Network with other teacher-researchers and identify a mentor



Continue reading academic research and papers



Write a proposal in preparation to apply for a PhD position to start by Autumn 2018.



Complete the Time to Think Facilitator course. This will teach me how to deliver the Applications used in a Thinking Environment and enable me to better integrate them in my classes where necessary.


Page 59


5. References Allison, D., & Carey, J. (2007). What do university language teachers say about language teaching research?. TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 61-81. Bain, K. (2012). What the best college students do (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0261444803001903 Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 358-388. Dar, Y., & Gieve, S. (2013). The use of Exploratory Practice as a form of collaborative practitioner research. International Student Experience Journal, 1(1), 19-24. Dikilitas, K., Smith, R. and Trotman, W (eds). Teacher-researchers in Action. Faversham: IATEFL Dweck, C. (2015). Mindset by Carol Dweck. Clitheroe, United Kingdom: Joosr. Dyer, W. (2004). The Power Of Intention. London: Hay house. Gkonou, C., Mercer, S., & Daubney, M. (2016). Teacher perspectives on language learning psychology. The Language Learning Journal, 1-13. Kline, N. (1999). Time to think. London: Ward Lock. Kline, N. (2015). Time to Think Foundation Course notes. Wallingford, Time to Think Ltd. Moran, K. (2016). Student-to-student legacies in exploratory action research. Elt Journal, ccw091. Snell, R., & Chak, A. (1998). The Learning Organization: Learning and Empowerment for Whom?. Management Learning, 29(3), 337-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350507698293005 Starr, A., & Torbert, B. (2005). Timely and transforming leadership inquiry and action: Toward triple-loop awareness. Integral Review, 1(1), 85-97. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2345/4245 Underhill, A. (2006). Reflective Practice, Action, Inquiry and Deep Values. In IATEFL Research Special Interest Group Conference. London: IATEFL. Yost, D., Sentner, S., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An Examination of the Construct of Critical Reflection: Implications for Teacher Education Programming in the 21st Century. Journal Of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002248710005100105


Page 60


Appendices Appendix 1 Comparative list of teacher and coach skills & behaviours Teaching / Training

Coaching

Transfer knowledge / skill

Motivate to increase performance

Tell about...

Help attain results

Give information about...

Guide towards change behaviours

Source: Poklepovic, 2015

Teachers are responsible for...

Coaches are responsible for...

... the process and the results

... facilitating the mobility of their client

... their student’s learning

... providing feedback and motivation

... setting concrete terms with a result at the end

... encouraging self-reflection

Source: Hunter, 2017

9 Characteristics of a Great A Good Coach Coaching Manual, 2008) Teacher (source: Orlando, 2013)

(source:

Barefoot

Respects students

Focuses on the client, what the client wants and what will help them achieve it. Creates a sense of community and Listens – not just to the words, but ti what belonging in the classroom is behind them Is warm, accessible, enthusiastic and Is totally curious about the client’s dream caring and hopes, their values and what they are passionate about Sets high expectations for all students Trusts that the client can achieve their potential Has her own love of learning Tells the truth – gently and kindly Is a skilled leader Leads by example and moves out of their own comfort zone Can “shift gears” Listens without judgement and allows space for emotion Collaborates with colleagues on an Accepts the client without analysing or ongoing basis judging Maintains professionalism in all areas Does not try to be perfect or have all the answers Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 61


Appendix 2 Robert Stahl’s Eight Categories of Periods of Silence The eight categories are named either according to the place they occur or by the primary function they perform during conversations and discussions. These categories are subsumed by the overarching concept of think-time. (1) Post-Teacher Question Wait-Time. The typical teacher pauses, on the average, between 0.7 and 1.4 seconds after his/her questions before continuing to talk or permitting a student to respond. When teachers perceive a student as being slow or unable to answer, this period of time is frequently less than .7 seconds. Post-teacher question wait-time occurs when a period of 3 or more seconds of uninterrupted silence follows a teacher's question, so that students have sufficient uninterrupted time to first consider and then respond to the query. To be most effective, this period of silence should follow a clear, well-structured question with the cues students need to construct adequate answers. Conversely, extended periods of silence following imprecise questions tend to increase the confusion, heighten the frustration, and lead to no response at all. (2) Within-Student's Response Pause-Time. Within-student's response pause-time occurs as a student pauses or hesitates during a previously started response or explanation for up to or more than 3 seconds of uninterrupted silence, before continuing his/her answer. By definition, no one except the student making the initial statement can interrupt this period of silence. The student may or may not need or take the full 3 seconds, or he/she may need more than 3 seconds; it is up to the student to make this decision. Having an opportunity for sufficient time to finish their previously started answers is an uncommon occurrence for students. The widespread practice is for teachers to interrupt or cut students off from completing their responses, especially when the pauses are beyond .5 seconds. Students often follow these periods of silence by volunteering, without teacher prompts, information that is usually sought by the teacher. (3) Post-Student's Response Wait-Time. This 3 or more seconds of uninterrupted silence occurs after a student has completed a response and while other students are considering volunteering their reactions, comments, or answers. This period allows other students time to think about what has been said and to decide whether they want to say something of their own. If students are to interact with one another during academic discussions, they must be given the time needed to consider one another's responses so that they can have dialogue among themselves. (4) Student Pause-Time. Student pause-time occurs when students pause or hesitate during a self-initiated question, comment, or statement for 3 or more seconds of uninterrupted silence before finishing their self-initiated statements. By definition, no one except the student making the initial statement can interrupt this period of silence. The student may or may not need or take the full 3 seconds or may need more than 3 seconds. It is up to the student to make this decision.


Page 62

Module IS7020: “Creating a Thinking Environment.” (5) Teacher Pause-Time. Teacher pause-time, which occurs at a variety of places during a class period, is characterized by a 3 or more second period of uninterrupted silence that teachers deliberately take to consider what just took place, what the present situation is, and what their next statements or behaviors could and should be. One example of when the 3 seconds or longer of reflective thought would be beneficial for the teacher--and eventually students--after a student has asked a question that requires more than an immediate, short recall answer. Other examples are when students have asked for further clarifications, clearer explanations, or better examples than those already provided. (6) Within-Teacher Presentation Pause-Time. Within-teacher presentation pause-time occurs during lecture presentations or other extended information input periods, when teachers deliberately stop the flow of information and give students 3 or more seconds of uninterrupted silence to process the just-presented information. These pauses allow students time to consolidate their thinking, with no request of them to follow with a public response. In effect, this period of silence provides students uninterrupted time to momentarily consider the information of the teacher's presentation in smaller, "bite-sized" chunks, rather than all at once. (7) Student Task-Completion Work-Time. Student task-completion work-time occurs when a period of 3-5 seconds; several (e.g. 15, 20, 30, or 90) seconds; or 2 or more minutes of uninterrupted silence is provided for students to remain on-task. This period allows students to complete a short or lengthy academic task that demands their undivided attention. Each period of uninterrupted silence should be appropriate to the length of time students need to complete the particular task. (8) Impact Pause-Time. Impact pause-time occurs when the most dramatic way to focus attention at a given time is to provide a period of uninterrupted silence. Impact pause-time may continue for less than 3 seconds or far longer periods, up through several minutes, depending upon the time needed for targeted cognitive or affective impacts. One example of a desired result is creation of a particular mood or affective environment, such as when sudden silence may generate a feeling or mood of anticipation, expectation, drama, suspense, or uncertainty. Another example is providing time for students to consider and internally respond to a rhetorical question before continuing with additional information or activity.

Stahl, R. (1994).


Page 63


Appendix 3 The Ten Components of a Thinking Environment® ATTENTION: an act of creation In almost any setting the best help we can be is to create the conditions for people to generate their own finest thinking. And when someone is thinking around us, much of the quality of what we are hearing is our effect on them. In fact, the quality of our attention determines the quality of other people’s thinking. Attention, driven by deep respect and genuine interest, and without interruption, is the key to a Thinking Environment. Attention is that powerful. It generates thinking. It is an act of creation. Attention: listening with palpable respect and genuine interest, and without interruption

EQUALITY: even in a hierarchy people can be equal as thinkers In a Thinking Environment everyone is valued equally as a thinker. Everyone gets a turn to think out loud and a turn to give attention. To know you will get your turn to speak makes your attention more genuine and relaxed. It also makes your speaking more succinct. Equality keeps the talkative people from silencing the quiet ones. But it also requires the quiet ones to contribute their own thinking. The result is high quality ideas and decisions. Equality: treating each other as thinking peers; giving equal turns and attention; keeping boundaries and agreements

EASE: ease creates; urgency destroys Ease, an internal state free from rush or urgency, creates the best conditions for thinking. But Ease, particularly in organisations and through the 'push' aspect of social networking, is being systematically bred out of our lives. We need to face the fact that if we want people to think well under impossible deadlines and inside the injunctions of ‘faster, better, cheaper, more,' we must cultivate internal ease.

Ease: offering freedom from internal rush or urgency APPRECIATION: the human mind works best in the presence of appreciation Society teaches us that to be appreciative is to be naïve, whereas to be critical is to be astute. And so, in discussions we are asked to focus first, and sometimes only, on the things that are not working. The consequence is that our thinking is often specious. Thinking Environment expertise generates a balanced ratio of appreciation to challenge so that individuals and groups can think at their best. Appreciation: practicing a 5:1 ratio of appreciation to challenge Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 64


ENCOURAGEMENT: to be 'better than' is not necessarily to be 'good' Competition between people ensures only one thing: if you win, you will have done a better job than the other person did. That does not mean, however, that you will have done anything good. To compete does not ensure certain excellence. It merely ensures comparative success. Competition between thinkers is especially dangerous. It keeps their attention on each other as rivals, not on the huge potential for each to think courageously for themselves. A Thinking Environment prevents internal competition among colleagues, replacing it with a wholehearted, unthreatened search for good ideas. Encouragement: giving courage to go to the cutting edge of ideas by moving beyond internal competition

FEELINGS: unexpressed feelings can inhibit good thinking Thinking stops when we are upset. But if we express feelings just enough, thinking re-starts. Unfortunately, we have this backwards in our society. We think that when feelings start, thinking stops. When we assume this, we interfere with exactly the process that helps a person to think clearly again. If instead, when people show signs of feelings, we relax and welcome them, good thinking will resume. Feelings: allowing sufficient emotional release to restore thinking

INFORMATION: withholding or denying information results in intellectual vandalism. Facing what you have been denying leads to better thinking We base our decisions on information, accurate or not, all of the time. When the information is incorrect, the quality of our decisions suffers. Starting with accurate information is essential, therefore, if good independent thinking is our aim. The importance of information also pertains to the pernicious phenomenon of denial, the assumption that what is happening is not happening. Learning how to formulate questions that dismantle denial is a powerful feature of Thinking Environment expertise. Information: supplying the facts; dismantling denial


Page 65


DIVERSITY: The greater the diversity of the group, and the greater the welcoming of diverse points of view, the greater the chance of accurate, cutting-edge thinking Reality is diverse. Therefore, to think well we need to be in as real, as diverse, a setting as possible. We need to be surrounded by people from many identity groups, and we need to know that there will be no reprisal for thinking differently from the rest of the group. The Diversity Session, a series of questions that best reveals and strengthens the diversity of a group, is the basis of another important programme producing Thinking Environment expertise. Diversity: welcoming diverse group identities and diversity of thinking

INCISIVE QUESTIONS™: a wellspring of good ideas lies just beneath an untrue limiting assumption. An Incisive Question will remove it, freeing the mind to think afresh Everything human beings do is driven by assumptions. We need to become aware of them, and by asking Incisive Questions, replace the untrue limiting ones with true, liberating ones. The building of Incisive Questions is at the very heart of generating fine independent thinking. These questions have been described as ‘a tool of unbelievable precision and power’. This expertise is also the focus of the Thinking Partnership Course and is the operating methodology of our Coaching approach. Incisive Questions: removing assumptions that limit our ability to think for ourselves clearly and creatively

PLACE: when the physical environment affirms our importance, we think more clearly and boldly When our bodies are cared for and respected, our thinking improves We have found consistently that Thinking Environments are places that say back to people, ‘You matter.’ People think better when they can arrive and notice that the place reflects their value - to the people there and to the event. Place is a silent form of appreciation. Place: creating a physical environment that says back to people, ‘You matter’

Source: www.timetothink.com/thinking-environment/the-ten-components/


Page 66


Appendix 4 Participant Information Document “Creating a Thinking Environment for English Language Learners. A Model for Staff Development Training” You are being invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Please ask me if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part. Thank you for reading this. What is the purpose of the study? The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of applying a coaching-based teaching model to university students studying English as a second language. The aim of the study is to collect data on the effectiveness of the teaching model and to evaluate its impact on both teacher and students in terms of reaching intended learning outcomes. A further aim will be to elicit students’ reactions to and perceptions of this style of teaching with a view to adapting the model to better meet their needs. A written report will be produced at the end of the project. The findings from the study will be used to inform the approach used, and to facilitate the creation of a staff development programme for English as a Foreign Language teachers. Why have I been chosen? The group has been conveniently chosen based on access and study constraints – we can only meet at certain times in the academic year. Do I have to take part? You are free to decide whether or not to take part. If you decide to take part you will be given this information sheet to keep and be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. A decision to withdraw at any time, or a decision not to take part, will not affect the standard of teaching you receive, nor lesson feedback or grades, in any way. What will happen to me if I take part? If you decide to take part, you will be given this information sheet to keep and asked to sign the consent form. The aims and objectives of the project will be explained and your questions answered during the first lesson at the start of the semester. You can request to meet with me privately with any personal questions or concerns at any time during the project. All discussions that take place between us will be entirely confidential.


Page 67

Module IS7020: “Creating a Thinking Environment.” What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part? There are no disadvantages or risks foreseen in taking part in the study. What are the possible benefits of taking part? You will be exposed to a highly reflective and critical thinking way of studying which can be applied to other subjects on your course. You can take advantage of personal coaching in English, as well as voice your views and ideas on how your English classes should be run. By taking part, you will be evaluating the coaching-based teaching method from your perspective; this will provide valuable input into the design of a staff development programme for future English language teachers and trainee teachers. What if something goes wrong? If you wish to complain or have any concerns about any aspect of the way you have been approached or treated during the course of this study, please contact: Professor Lawrence Bellamy Associate Dean, Faculty of Business & Management, University of Chester, United Kingdom, Chester CH1 4BJ Tel. +44 (0)1244 511000 If you are harmed by taking part in this research project, there are no special compensation arrangements. If you are harmed due to someone’s negligence (but not otherwise), then you may have grounds for legal action, but you may have to pay for this. Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential? All information which is collected about you during the course of the research will be kept strictly confidential so that only the researcher carrying out the research will have access to such information. What will happen to the results of the research study? The results will be written up into a report as part of my Work Based Integrated Study (WBIS) Masters course. It is hoped that the findings may be used to improve the developmental training provided to other teachers and as a result further enhance their professional practice. Individuals who participate will not be identified in any subsequent report or publication. Who is organising the research? The research is wholly organised by me. Who may I contact for further information? If you would like more information about the research before you decide whether or not you would be willing to take part, please contact: Michelle Hunter, [email protected] Thank you for your interest in this research.


Page 68


Appendix 5 Semi-Structured Interview Questions 1-to-1 Interviews Aim is to get better understanding of your experiences of English language learning. How many years have you been studying English? What are some of your most positive memories? How have you been able to judge over the years, your increasing proficiency? Looking back, what would have helped improve your experience? What do you think helped you most to learn English? How far did your teachers influence your learning success? What else do you think you / your teachers could have done to improve the overall experience of learning English as a foreign language? What more do you think, feel or want to say about your experiences of language learning?

Focus Groups When you reflect on your 5 classes this semester, how do they compare with your previous experiences of English language classes? What, in your view, made these lessons different / better / less effective than other times? What should, for you, an English lesson be like at University? How do you see the role of “teacher”? And the role of “student”? How many of the 10 components of a Thinking Environment do you remember from the first lesson? What do they now mean to you? How well do you feel we, as a class, behaved in accordance with the principles of these components? What else do you think, want to say or feel about our time together this semester?


Page 69


Appendix 6 Preliminary Plan for Staff Development Programme Assumptions 1. Setting: University undergraduate class of non-native English speakers, level B2 and upwards 2. Goal: deeper learning of the language; independent thinking (ie: critical thinking); “stickiness” of language (Gladwell) 3. Means: an environment that nurtures more student speaking and less TTT

Methodology: coach-approach = questions, reflection and self-responsibility (i.e. focus on learner autonomy) Review of current teaching habits How do you prepare to teach? What do you typically do? What are you not doing that you wish you were doing? What are the obstacles preventing you from preparing in the way you would prefer? What are your expectations of yourself? How closely are your expectations met, generally? What prevents them from being met? How can you increase the chances of meeting your expectations most of the time? What are your expectations of your students? How closely are your expectations met, generally? What prevents them from being met? How do you deal with situations where students do not meet your expectations? How do your students react to how you express your expectations of them? What are their expectations of you? How do you know? How far do you meet them? What are your teacher beliefs, values, attitudes and intentions? INPUT SEGMENT: 

Would you say you have a fixed or growth mindset? (Refer to Dweck’s work)

Create your own “Positive Philosophical Choice” slogan Reflect upon and review answers to the above questions. Create your PPC. As a model here is a version from Nancy Kline. How does it feel compared to yours? How do you prepare to teach? What are you typical habits around preparing your courses / lessons? Michelle Hunter (1126521)

Page 70


How successful have they been? What would improve your preparation processes?

INPUT SEGMENT:    

Findings from Hattie’s research Findings from Bain’s research Review of classic ELT teacher training manuals Share experiences and practices

What do you expect of your students (before you meet them)? What are your expectations of how your students need to learn with you? What are your classroom “ground rules”? How do you express them to your students?

INPUT SEGMENT:   

The power in intention (refer to Dyer’s work) How to decide on which expectations need to be set How to express certain expectations

Your behaviour during class / How do you treat your students? How would you describe your typical class, when all feels good and you are in an optimum state of mind? What tends to happen to throw you off, lose your train of thought of get distracted from your lesson plan? How do you deal with such situations? How do your students tend to deal with such situations? In a typical, average class, what percentage of the time is taken up with teacher talk, instruction, feedback? What percentage of the time to students talk? Is it usually the same students talking or do all get equal turns? INPUT SEGMENT       

The facts about TTT – Mary Rowe, Robert Stahl etc. Roleplay classroom situation with an overly talkative teacher and students trying to contribute Discuss ways to become more aware of when we’re talking too much Brainstorm ways of reducing our TTT / stopping ourselves Decide on an action plan for reducing TTT Roleplay implementing the plan – record Review recording – adjust plan – commit to working with plan.


Page 71


What level of rapport do you typically reach with your students within the first two – three lessons? 1 (no rapport)

10 (excellent rapport)

What does that rapport look like / feel like / sound like? Would you want to increase rapport with your students? What would need to happen to move you up the scale to stronger levels of rapport? How do you deliver feedback? How do your students usually respond to your feedback? Does it differ between verbal and written forms? INPUT SEGMENT:      

Talk about feedback as gift giving. Feedback models Determine each person’s preferences Reflect on how to implement next time Roleplay in groups / pairs. Record – review – reflect – evaluate – determine goal(s) - consider plan of action

Classroom Environment Based on the following criteria, rate the overall learning environment in your classes Paying attention to each other

No attention 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

High rate of attention-giving 8 9 10

Students to teacher Students to students Teacher to students


Page 72


Showing appreciation for one another

No appreciation 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

High rate of appreciation 8 9 10

No encouragement 1 2 3

4

5

6

7

High rate of encouragement 8 9 10

Students to teacher

Students to students

Teacher to students

Positive encouragement for one another

Students to teacher

Students to students

Teacher to students


Page 73


What do you do after class / How do you follow up? Group discussion on what each typically does. How to identify and maintain best practice? How do students typically respond to post-class interactions / communication? What would improve your habits?

End of course review, evaluation and feedback.


Page 74

Creating a Thinking Environment.

Creating a Thinking Environment.

Suggest Documents

Creating a Thinking Environment for English

Creating a Safe Environment

Systems Thinking - Environment - Ecology

4. STATISTICAL THINKING IN A TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Creating a Cellular Environment for Neuroregeneration - eNeuro

Creating and Maintaining A Healthy Work Environment

A Domain Independent Environment for Creating Information ...

Creating a Conducive Environment for Higher ... - unece

Healing Environment 1 Creating a Healing Environment ... - Texas CASA

Creating a Culturally Inclusive Classroom Environment

Creating a healthy household environment - Tufts

THIRD SPACE: CREATING A LIBRARY ENVIRONMENT THAT ...

Creating a school nutrition environment index and

Creating a Learner Centric Environment Through POGIL

| CREATING A BETTER ENVIRONMENT - Irish Prison Service

Creating a Healthy Team Environment - John Maxwell

Creating a Safe and Inclusive Learning Environment

Creating a Feedback-Rich Workplace Environment

Creating an Environment Personalization - Pearson

CREATING THE 3D IMMERSIVE ENVIRONMENT

Creating Thinking Classrooms: Perceptions and Teaching ...www.researchgate.net › publication › fulltext › Creating-

Creating an Informal Reading Thinking Inventory

THINKING OUTSIDE THE FLOW: CREATING CUSTOMIZED ... - DA

Creating Cultures of Thinking - Ron Ritchhart