A Dialogic Approach to Fostering TESOL Teacher‐learners’ Research Engagement: Insights from a ‘ <i>Learning‐to‐Research</i> ’ Procedure

As an important site for teacher learning, education (TE) courses are a promising context to provide teacher-learners (TLs) with “systematic, intentional and well-organized instruction” (Johnson, 2015: 517) of various kinds, including guided instruction on research engagement. However, little has explored the role TE in promoting second language (L2) TLs’ engagement, especially MA TESOL where conducting is not obligatory and/or restricted high-GPA students only. This study addresses above-stated gap by investigating L2 perceptions dialogic research-engagement procedure (REP) designed promote their engagement (using/reading) (doing) within post-graduate instructed acquisition (ISLA) course. The offers insights into evaluations REP (e.g., impact, process, challenges mediating factors) describes stages that can be integrated courses. A high level involving only reading being critical consumers but also doing (Borg, 2010), benefits teachers multiple aspects. First, it empowers them make more appropriate pedagogical decisions informed others’ own evidence-based research, leading positive impact professional development (PD) teaching practice (Hargreaves, 2006). Second, engaging-in-research, teachers’ constrained ‘consuming’ ‘transferring’ knowledge produced academics; they act as agents who ‘transform’ (i.e. create, adapt modify) about learning (Kiely & Davis, 2010). Third, could help refresh perspectives profound manners, developing new ways seeing, doing, thinking, forming talking, establishing knowing through validating hypotheses existing theories Despite these benefits, revealed barriers primarily due lack institutional support concerns practicality applicability (Sato Loewen, 2019). While efforts from different stakeholders needed tackle challenges, we argue plays crucial attitudes toward thus fostering Within worthwhile TLs hands-on experience series systematic activities, educators (TEs) instrumental linking practice. Adopting Vygotskian sociocultural perspective, Johnson (2015) proposes enacting “collaborative teaching-learning relationships” (p. TEs interact dialogically offer timely expert explanations advice (i.e., mediation) will shape reshape teaching, create zones proximal (ZPDs) conduct well-informed instructional practices assistance TEs. To enact this ‘learning-to-teach’ experience, which involved creating multiple-staged team-teaching project. worked team educator observe ESL lesson, co-constructed lesson plan, participated practice-teach, then actual-teach, finally wrote reflections experiences. feature was demonstrated most clearly fellow classmates regularly provided immediate tailored feedback TLs. Johnson’s targeted learning-to-teach, given its reported effectiveness accommodating personalizing arguably applied aid ‘learning-to-research’ experience. Studies have shown many programs world-wide emphasize focus rather than (Munthe Rogne, 2015). Consequently, although requires read (occasionally) do does necessarily result actions research. Therefore, essential develop systematic, well-scaffolded such opportunity towards Our overarching inquiry is: What teacher-learners’ design facilitating course? Participants were sixteen English-L2 (1 male, 15 females; age range: 23-40 years old) nationalities: Chinese, Japanese, Saudi Arabian, Vietnamese, Spanish, Korean. They had diverse at levels primary, secondary, university), varying six months (M = 3.28, SD= 4.62). At time enrolled 13-week course ISLA coursework master’s program Applied Linguistics Australian university. Students pathway predominantly take fulfil graduation requirements. An end-of-course project dissertation) optional mainly available students. Additionally, while offered methods part curriculum, similar context, often required engage complete assessments, actually focal concerned topics interaction, input, output, L1 use, etc.) goal enabling understand processes issues surrounding classroom think critically findings relationship instruction. activities so-called REP, three purposes: increasing understanding procedure, guiding carry out study, raising awareness importance pedagogy. REP’s incorporated Weeks 2 11 approach enhancing main principles: dialogic, reflective. established comprising two components based Borg’s (2010) conceptualization engagement: engaging using) doing) further divided stages: reading, using, designing, reporting, disseminating, reflecting each stage underpinned perspective 2009), emphasizes scaffolding. That is, continued interactions consultancy dialogues peers TEs), aimed foster cognitive mediate reflective reflection entries) deepen process it. Finally, recursive go back previous necessary. For instance, designing (Stage 3), repeat earlier 1) critiquing ‘engage-with-research’ component (Stages 1 2) introduced first scaffolded types. asked critique practice-oriented, empirical, action etc.), connections practices. Then, critiqued presented pair one self-chosen empirical 20-minute oral presentation. activity helped gain deeper relate practice) served springboard exercise cognition seek Throughout stages, participants weekly journals shared platform (Blackboard) reflect discussions partner. commented informally assess support, form clarification, explanation, questions provoke thinking. avoid conflicts interests, analysed until received course’s grade. Built ‘engage-in-research’ 3 5) opportunities put theoretical systematically mini-research topic interest (see Appendix supplemental materials examples topics). Because how languages learned settings, encouraged classroom-based bearing mind includes other organized workshops identified gaps, practised collecting, analysing, reporting disseminating poster presentations. Notably, one-on-one consulting sessions points discuss (Dialogue data analysis 2). These individual conversations mentorship In Stage 6, implementation. perceived cycle, starting 6 circling Figure materials). It should noted collaboratively authors, instructors. motivation stemmed having either did see relevance practice, or desire lacked guidance. Data collected Blackboard), focus-group interviews. final end 6) whole Each 100-150 words long; 129 collected, totalling 19,500 words. Reflection prompts elicited participants’ aspects: design, what learnt weekly. ask queries get TEs’ support. 30-minute interviews (three total, 5-6 TLs) occurred weeks after reports submitted, overall factors affecting format used exchange ideas. following theme-based approach. Firstly, author locate highlight segments containing views inquiries contributing engagement). Next, all highlighted re-read initial codes generated keywords directly referred inquiries. grouped themes. followed double-code entire data. All themes discussed agreed coders. When systematicity 13 (82.5%) stated appropriate, published research), research) Excerpt 1). very us start articles because some background information researchers did. practising I idea [i.e. research] (P1—Focus-group interview). enabled P1 realise usefulness combining critiquing, Most (93.75%) carefully detailed guidelines, “systematize research” “reading producing it” (P10—Reflection). results indicate multi-staged seemed effective smooth transition able shift between roles producers latter deemed difficult among practicing (Gilliland, 2018). Given often-reported maintain involvement beyond TE, involve both (e.g. REP) effectively our talks throughout during when conducted studies. showed interactive discussion P5: week types corrective feedback. Although it’s useful know several techniques correct learners’ errors, wonder feedback? Things like ‘good’, ‘well-done’ let learners aspects well? How compare negative Could my this? TE: Good reflection! You look teacher’s learner’s perhaps much provides feedback, use follow-up learners? Thank you. I’ve formed your advice… (P5 – Weekly reflection) P5 initially unsure her since Through exchanges reflections, teacher-educator validated ideas suggestions she may explore further. later resulted formulate questions. Such early research-conducting journey maintaining REP. really appreciated discussion. me find direction wasn’t sure if observation survey talked explained tools examples. So got clearer decided surveys suit context. (P10 Focus-group interview) demonstrates regular P10 select tool case, acted experienced relevant needs, ZPD endeavour. Moreover, (73.3%) acknowledged principle conducive internalizing enjoyed reflections. summarize skills, realize understood well didn’t. liked If am doubt anything responded quickly refection forum. (P13 Previous suggests way PD study) (Farrell Kennedy, Thus, potentially implemented non-ISLA commenting positively major challenges. intensity activities. three-month-semester, “a bit overwhelming” (P14—Reflection). Fifteen expressed “though [the REP], overwhelming, lots short time” (P7—Reflection). challenge, nine (56.25%), access sites. One “for okay colleague’s class home, group participants” (P11—Focus-group international students, teach any classes studying associated logistic pressure classrooms). future implementation lengthened, component, allow classrooms would advantageous. Interview responses changes participation 93.75% participants. Before participating fan After lot articles, tend switch interesting. read, bigger base/data became. result, thinking skills. teaching. want PhD, PhD read. (P10—Focus-group P10’s comments before REP: “not embracing “knowledge base”, “critical thinking”, confidently She admitted increase significant evidence contributed developments cognitions 2009). limited [in academic papers is. clear structure area studies always same terms structure. students’ perceptions. Those rethink improve teaching”. (P5—Focus-group indicates apart study), suggest familiarity Excerpts 7, 8 9 indicated influences (as 81.25% participants). me, fun, enjoyable you It’s like… ah that? good answer question. quite satisfying end. (P7—Focus-group 7 shows P7 adopt renewed again understanding. he sense fulfilment satisfaction, him [REP], observing class. skills confidence (P4—Focus-group Now need next step apply just classrooms. (P6—Focus-group show previously used. More importantly, increased essence started classroom. converge imply motivated confident enjoyment impacted attitudinal moving low favourable stand wishing research). impacts point encouraging addressing long-standing outsiders community (McKinley, apprehensions mostly constraint, resources, rewards attempts. barriers, albeit uncommon, shutdown research-promoting endeavours. collective (teachers, institutions levels, academics), least programme leaders contribute embedding curricula. evidenced learning-to--research (ie., REP), included awareness, enhanced senses enjoyment. training contextual constraints obstacles limitations regarding small-scale predominant reliance qualitative analyse projects’ consider experiences limitations, embedded thereby strengthening research-pedagogy nexus. We thank inspired grateful anonymous reviewers editor insightful Any remaining errors ours. Phung Dao lecturer Manchester Metropolitan University. He earned his Concordia University (Canada), (University Queensland). His interests include Language Technology, Classroom Second Acquisition, Pedagogy, Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). Mai XNC Nguyen Griffith (Australia), Her education, development, methodology. Noriko Iwashita teaches SLA, pedagogy, assessment Master’s supervise projects Queensland. peer interaction assessment, interfaces task-based assessment. Franciele Spinelli currently eLearning officer assistant holds bachelor’s degree Languages Education Universidade Vale Rio dos Sinos (Brazil) Please note: publisher responsible content functionality supporting supplied authors. (other missing content) directed corresponding article.