critical friendships in a face-to-face language teaching class and
179
CRITICAL FRIENDSHIPS IN A FACE-TO-FACE LANGUAGE TEACHING CLASS AND AN ONLINE SYNCHRONOUS ENGLISH WRITING LEARNING ENVIRONMENT By YUSTINUS CALVIN GAI MALI A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Teaching and Learning MAY 2021 © Copyright by YUSTINUS CALVIN GAI MALI, 2021 All Rights Reserved
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
0 -
download
0
Transcript of critical friendships in a face-to-face language teaching class and
CRITICAL FRIENDSHIPS IN A FACE-TO-FACE LANGUAGE TEACHING CLASS AND
AN ONLINE SYNCHRONOUS ENGLISH WRITING LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
By
YUSTINUS CALVIN GAI MALI
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Teaching and Learning
MAY 2021
© Copyright by YUSTINUS CALVIN GAI MALI, 2021
All Rights Reserved
© Copyright by YUSTINUS CALVIN GAI MALI, 2021
All Rights Reserved
ii
To the Faculty of Washington State University:
The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of YUSTINUS
CALVIN GAI MALI find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.
__________________________________________
Thomas L. Salsbury, Ph.D., Chair
__________________________________________
Jane E. Kelley, Ed.D.
__________________________________________
Sarah N. Newcomer, Ph.D.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First, I would like to thank my research advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Thomas L.
Salsbury, for his presence, guidance, and support throughout my doctoral studies. I appreciate his
valuable time to listen to my ups-and-down stories about completing my research studies. His
professionalism and mentorship will also be my life-time model on how I should be a caring
teacher and encouragingly treat my future students so that all of them can find and grow with
their research interests. Thank you, Professor Tom!
I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Jane E. Kelley and
Dr. Sarah N. Newcomer, for their valuable input that enhanced this dissertation substantially. I
acknowledge Dr. Kelley, who reminded and helped me to integrate the language and culture
components in my dissertation. I am also indebted to Dr. Newcomer, who introduced me to the
growth-fostering interactions that added to the theoretical framework of my research.
My heartfelt thanks, then, go to Tom, Katrine, and Conor. This dissertation would not be
completed without their participation in the studies. I thank them for opportunities to observe
their classes and converse about their teaching and learning practices that help me to
grow my personality and pedagogy.
Achieving this dream would also not be possible without the scholarship from Fulbright
and DIKTI (or the Indonesian Directorate General of Higher Education). I offer my sincere
gratitude to the Indonesian and American governments for financially supporting my study in the
United States.
Special thanks to these people: Dr. Joseph Ernest Mambu and Novasari Linda Jeany from
the Bureau of International Relations office at Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga,
Indonesia (UKSW), for their consistent support in processing all administrative documents for
iv
my visa and Fulbright scholarship grant renewal; Kelly McGovern in the Office of Graduate
Education at Washington State University, Pullman (WSU) for all of her assistance in the
process of completing my Ph.D. program; Nurise Widjaya and Rianti Hastuti, the program
officers of the American Indonesian Exchange Foundation (AMINEF), with whom I
communicate regularly regarding administrative documents and the progress of my doctoral
study; Dr. Seyed Abdollah Shahrokni, for his advice and encouraging words in the process of
completing this dissertation. All of them have supported me in various ways.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to these persons: Frances Sinanu, my colleague
at UKSW, who convinced me to continue my Ph.D. in the United States; my classmates at WSU:
Pan, Haixa, Jo Ann, Jenn, Maureen, and Sarah, as well as my Indonesian friends in Pullman:
Alit, Tri, Dewa, Stefani, Nisa, David, Vivi, and Andrew; our supportive friendship has made me
thrive in my Ph.D. life; and Father Antonius Sumarwan, S.J., who has supported me spiritually
through his prayer and reflective conversations about my doctoral study.
Last but not least, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for my family
members: Laurentia Yuli Hastuti, my wife, who has wholeheartedly supported my doctoral study
and allowed me to achieve my dream; Lusia Kristiani, my mother, who has always remembered
my name in her prayer and encouraged me to finish my study on time; Yakobus Yohanes Mali,
my (late) father who, a day before he passed away in the last Fall semester (October 5) 2019,
called and encouragingly asked me to keep focusing on completing my Ph.D. Thank you, dad;
you will always be in my heart.
Above all, I am grateful to Jesus Christ, my Father and faithful Friend, for his never-
ending mercy and blessing so that I dare to take this vulnerable yet life-changing journey.
Once again, I thank them all very much! Go Cougs!
v
CRITICAL FRIENDSHIPS IN A FACE-TO-FACE LANGUAGE TEACHING CLASS AND
AN ONLINE SYNCHRONOUS ENGLISH WRITING LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Abstract
by Yustinus Calvin Gai Mali, Ph.D.
Washington State University
May 2021
Chair: Thomas L. Salsbury
This dissertation consists of two interrelated qualitative case studies. They explore
transnational and cross-cultural critical friendship (CF) projects reflecting on teaching and
learning activities in a face-to-face (f2f) class and an online synchronous learning environment.
Various data sources of class observation notes, interview transcripts, analytic memos, and email
(text) communication were collected and analyzed qualitatively.
The first study was a pilot CF between an American associate professor (as the observed
lecturer) and an Indonesian doctoral student (as the critical friend) at a state university in the
United States. Framed under CF principles combined with the spirit of social constructivism
theories, the paper sought to explore perspectives of the lecturer toward his participation in the
CF, ways it might/might not help the lecturer to make positive changes in his future classrooms,
and pedagogical lessons that the critical friend gained from the CF.
Meanwhile, the second study examined patterns and perspectives of two American
English writing instructors (as the observed instructors) of a Language Center in a state
university in the United States on their participation in the CF with an Indonesian doctoral
vi
student as their critical friend. Further, the study explored how the CF supports the instructors’
reflection of teaching practice and how that reflection process supports their practice, specifically
in the instructional adjustment period from f2f to online learning. Framed under CF principles,
together with a tenet of relational cultural theory, the study also examined the critical friend’s
experiences in participating in the CF and personal meanings of being a transnational and cross-
cultural critical friend in the CF.
The cross-case comparison analysis results appear to support key theoretical propositions
of this dissertation, namely, that the CF projects, in various ways, have the potential to support
the university lecturers or language instructors and the critical friend in their teaching
development, make them more aware of what happened in a lesson and their teaching behaviors,
and free them from isolated teaching conditions. Theoretical models of the CF, pedagogical
lessons, contributions of the studies to the CF-related literature, practical recommendations for
language teaching and learning, and guiding questions for further research are presented.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 2
Structure of the Dissertation ................................................................................... 2
References ............................................................................................................... 4
2. STUDY ONE: AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND A DOCTORAL
STUDENT LEARN FROM EACH OTHER: CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP ................... 5
Literature Review .................................................................................................... 8
Methods ................................................................................................................. 18
Findings ................................................................................................................. 31
Discussions ........................................................................................................... 37
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................... 40
References ............................................................................................................. 44
Appendices ............................................................................................................ 53
3. TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STUDIES .............................................................. 74
Reference .............................................................................................................. 75
viii
4. STUDY TWO: LANGUAGE INSTRUCTORS AND A DOCTORAL
STUDENT LEARN FROM EACH OTHER: CRITICAL FRIENDSHIPS ............... 76
Literature Review .................................................................................................. 79
Methods ................................................................................................................. 87
Findings ............................................................................................................... 105
Discussions ......................................................................................................... 120
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................... 127
References ........................................................................................................... 131
Appendices .......................................................................................................... 141
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 160
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 164
Final Words ......................................................................................................... 165
References ........................................................................................................... 167
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
4.1 The Sample of Tentative Themes Development of Katrine’s Interview Data ...................... 102
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2.1 The CF Model in This Study .................................................................................................. 17
2.2 The Case Study Design ........................................................................................................... 18
2.3 A Pencil Sketch of the Classroom .......................................................................................... 24
2.4 A Sample of the Open Coding Process to the Observation Notes .......................................... 26
2.5 A Sample Slide that I Prepared for the Interview Session ...................................................... 27
2.6 The Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................. 29
2.7 A Sample of the Coding Process to the Interview Transcripts ............................................... 30
4.1 The CF Model in This Study .................................................................................................. 86
4.2 The Multiple-Case Study Design ............................................................................................ 88
4.3 The Sequence of the Data Collection Procedures ................................................................... 94
4.4 A Sample Slide that I Used in the Interview Session ............................................................. 98
4.5 A Sample of Initial Coding I Put on a Word File ................................................................. 100
4.6 Open Coding of the Highlighted Data in ATLAS.ti ............................................................. 101
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation project is mainly motivated by my reflective experiences as a university
lecturer in Indonesia. I gradually realized that the written evaluation1 that my students write to
convey my overall teaching performances in a semester is not enough. The commonly fleeting
feedback, it’s all perfect, or you are the best, Mr. Calvin, fails to guide me on what I should do to
perform better with my teaching.
Back in the years 2014-2018, I was also so busy with my work of teaching, doing
research, publication, and community and social service that I had never thought about observing
other teachers to “gain knowledge of myself, construct, and reconstruct my knowledge”
(Gebhard, 2005, p. 10). Therefore, I now wish to take a more proactive role to see practices of
other teachers, consider them as my mirror that will enable me “to see myself in them, see
myself differently, explore variables we both use” (Fanselow, 1988, p. 115), and do better in my
teaching practices. The tight schedules of my work should not put me in an isolated teaching
condition, in which we, as teachers, do not have support systems for our teaching development
(Nguyen & Ngo, 2018).
The critical friendship (CF) project (e.g., see Farrell, 1998, 2001) seems to be the right
vehicle to respond to my wish to grow pedagogically. With that belief, I have connected my
reflective experiences to my reading of the CF-related literature. At the completion of this
dissertation, I will have taken three years of this dissertation journey to explore CF. In that
exploration, I keep my theoretical propositions in mind that the CF project has the potential to
1 At Washington State University, Pullman, students usually call it “the Blue Course Evaluation.”
2
(1) support university lecturers or language instructors and their critical friend in their teaching
development; (2) make them more aware of what happened in a lesson and their teaching
behaviors; (3) free them from the isolated teaching conditions; (4) be applicable across settings
(e.g., reflecting on teaching and learning activities in a face-to-face (f2f) and online synchronous
environment) with people they have known well for a long time, and with those they have not.
Research Objectives
I narrate my CF exploration in two qualitative case studies that have interrelated goals. In
my first study, I complete a CF with my dissertation research advisor at Washington State
University, Pullman, the United States. The research explores his perspectives of participating in
the CF, in what ways (if any) he believes that the CF might/might not help to make positive
pedagogical changes in his future classrooms, and the pedagogical lessons gained from a CF in a
f2f classroom setting. Meanwhile, in the second study, I do the CF with two language instructors
at a state university in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The study mainly aims at
exploring the participants’ perspectives of participating in the CF, how the CF supports reflection
of teaching practice, and how the reflection supports teaching practice, specifically during the
COVID-19 situation, the time when the study was conducted.
Structure of the Dissertation
After this introductory chapter, I present the content of the dissertation as two
independent qualitative studies. Chapter two will be about my first study. Then, chapter three
will connect my first study to the second study, which I will present in chapter four. Readers can
learn from the findings and discussions and follow up on the research by using the guiding
questions presented in each of these studies.
3
In chapter five, I will conclude by: considering if my theoretical propositions might be
trustworthy and applicable across settings, placing the propositions in the discourse of the CF-
related literature, and discussing some contributions of the dissertation. I will then offer some
practical recommendations for teachers who hope for positive changes in their f2f or online
synchronous classrooms. Finally, I will provide encouraging words for all fellow teachers,
educators, lecturers, and instructors who are now struggling in their teaching because of the
challenging COVID-19 situation and the necessary instructional adjustments. Similar to Roo
(2018), (a few, if any) references or tables, figures, and appendices cited in this dissertation
appear separately in every chapter.
I allow my readers to make a personal connection with any thoughts, ideas, lessons,
learning experiences, feelings, and discussions presented in these five chapters. Readers are also
welcome to have various “meaning-perspectives or interpretations of events” (Gage, 1989, p. 5)
toward this dissertation, as I believe that knowledge is “subjective, contextualized, and should be
personally experienced” (Egbert & Sanden, 2020, p. 35).
4
References
Egbert, J., & Sanden, S. (2020). Foundations of education research: Understanding theoretical
components (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Fanselow, J. F. (1988). “Let’s see”: Contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
22(1), 113–130.
Farrell, T. S. C. (1998). Critical friendship in ELT teacher development. Prospect, 13(2), 78–88.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Critical friendships: Colleagues helping each other develop. ELT
Journal, 55(4), 368–374.
Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on
teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.
Gebhard, J. G. (2005). Teacher development through exploration: Principles, ways, and
examples. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 9(2), 1–15.
Nguyen, H. T. M., & Ngo, N. T. H. (2018). Learning to reflect through peer mentoring in a
TESOL practicum. ELT Journal, 72(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx053
Roo, A. K. (2018). Exploring science literacy of English learners in K-16 learning environments
[Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University].
https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/handle/2376/16314
Smith, M. G. (2019). A video-mediated critical friendship reflection framework for ESL teacher
education. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 23(1), 1–18.
5
CHAPTER TWO
STUDY ONE: AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND A DOCTORAL STUDENT LEARN
FROM EACH OTHER: CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP
Abstract
Some teaching evaluation mechanisms might lead university lecturers to a process of isolated
teaching reflection and potentially hinder positive pedagogical changes in their future
classrooms. It could be the case that they need someone to become their critical friend.
Successfully building trust, a lecturer and a critical friend can form a critical friendship (CF).
Framed under the principles of CF and the spirit of social constructivism theories, this qualitative
case study reports on a CF between an associate professor (as the observed lecturer) and a
doctoral student (as the critical friend) at a university in the United States. More specifically, the
research seeks to explore the perspectives of the lecturer toward his participation in the CF, the
ways CF might/might not help the lecturer to make positive pedagogical changes in his future
classrooms, and the pedagogical lessons that the critical friend gained from the CF. Data were
garnered from observation notes of teaching practices, analytic memos on the notes, and semi-
structured interview transcripts. The findings show that the observed lecturer considers the CF
helpful to spot some classroom issues that he was not aware of and to initiate some pedagogical
changes in his future classrooms. At the same time, the CF enables the critical friend to learn
pedagogical and cultural lessons from a classroom setting in the United States. Overall, this
study indicates the success of the CF that was framed under the principles of trust, reflection,
peer observation, and constructive interaction between the observed lecturer and the critical
friend. Limitations of the current study and directions for further research are also discussed.
Keywords: critical friendship, critical friend, reflection, teaching practices
6
An Associate Professor and A Doctoral Student Learn From Each Other:
Critical Friendship
Before coming to the United States to pursue my doctoral studies, I was a lecturer in an
English Language Education Program at a private university in Indonesia. At the end of every
semester, I always received written student evaluations conveying my overall teaching
performances in a semester. It was always my practice to read percentages (or numbers) of my
students’ agreement or disagreement about my teaching and short open-ended responses on the
students’ evaluation forms. For instance, in a writing class (May 2017), some students wrote:
“Don’t be too serious, just relaxed, Mr. Calvin” (student 1); “The teacher provided feedback for
every assignment so that I know what my mistakes are” (student 2). Another comment was
equally unhelpful: “The teacher always gives detailed explanations in the class” (student 3).
Although the feedback might indicate students’ satisfaction with my overall teaching, I
felt that this written feedback did not guide me on what I should do precisely to enhance my
teaching practices. For example, despite the comment to just relax, Mr. Calvin (student 1), I
could not recall when I became that “serious” lecturer. I argued to myself that the student was
probably thinking about other classes or, in short, the student was just wrong! I agree with Farrell
(2004) that “so much takes place so quickly that a teacher cannot hope to see and monitor
everything that goes on” (p. 64). Moreover, I second Tuğa’s (2013) concern that written
feedback might only focus on telling (and risking ambiguity) instead of showing, specifically,
what students meant by their feedback. Also, my interview with two senior lecturers at a
university in the United States indicated that their students’ evaluations are sometimes only used
for administrative purposes (e.g., completing an annual review portfolio). If this situation
continuously happens every year when universities go through the end-of-semester review cycle
7
and start to accept new students, I wonder how university lecturers can learn from teaching-
related problems they probably have in classes in order to make positive pedagogically related
changes in their future classrooms.
At education institutions across the United States, there are other assessment mechanisms
beyond student evaluations. Among others are: evaluating teaching materials (Stark & Freishtat,
2014), doing self-evaluation (Miller & Seldin, 2014) through teaching statements, and
descriptions of teaching objectives, strategies, and methodologies. Other ways include brief
reflections on course materials (Center for Teaching and Learning, 2019), as well as reflective
teaching portfolios as “a faculty member’s opportunity to contextualize the experience from his
or her point of view” (Lyde et al., 2016, p. 86). Although each mechanism has its strengths, I am
concerned that some procedures might address the teaching reflection process in isolation, in
which lecturers do not have support systems for their teaching development (Nguyen & Ngo,
2018). In that condition, Gemmel (2003) warned that “lecturers who work in isolation often
resort to familiar methods rather than approaching concerns from a problem-solving perspective
in attempting to meet the diverse instructional needs of today’s students” (p. 10).
Therefore, a lecturer might need someone who could play the role of a critical friend or
“a reflective practitioner (with integrity and passion for teaching and learning) who establishes
safe ways of working and negotiates shared understandings to support someone’s teaching
practices” (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009, p. 206). Campbell et al. (2004) added that a critical
friend could be a person who is able to listen. Further, the critical friend will provide questions
for a peer to understand his/her teaching, highlight the specificity of the teaching practices, give
constructive (not judgmental) feedback, and advocate for success in teaching (Costa & Kallick,
1993). Successfully building trust, a lecturer and a critical friend could then begin forming a
8
critical friendship (henceforth called CF) to talk about the practices in a collaborative
undertaking (Farrell, 2001), promote collegiality, and minimize a sense of isolation that they
might feel (Farrell, 2007). The CF can be done in a one-to-one mode or with a group of people
(Storey & Wang, 2016).
Literature Review
Definitions of Critical Friendship
What is CF? Lawrence Stenhouse was the first person who introduced CF in 1975; he
suggested that a teacher worked with another individual who could advise as a friend (not as a
consultant) to enhance the reflective capabilities of the teacher (Richards & Farrell, 2005). Built
on the foundations of trust (Farrell, 1998) and openness (Farrell, 2004), CF is a collaboration that
encourages discussion and reflection to enhance the quality of teaching and learning (Farrell,
2001). The collaboration helps teachers improve their instruction through “ongoing practice-
centered collegial conversations about teaching and learning” (Smith, 2019, p. 2). As a social
process (Golby & Appleby, 1995), individual(s) involved in the collaboration ask provocative
questions about teaching practices, provide classroom data to be analyzed, and offer feedback for
the teaching as a friend (Thorgersen, 2014). However, in a CF, the term critical should not be
translated negatively as it is basically about “separating teaching into its parts, discerning how
those parts work together (if they do), and how teaching is connected to other parts of life”
(Farrell, 2001, p. 369). All ideas of being a critical friend and definitions of CF help me to
highlight some fundamental principles of CF that I discuss in the next section.
9
Principles of Critical Friendship
Trust
The first principle is trust. Although it might depend on personal relationships (Nilsson et
al., 2018) and take time to build (Farrell, 2001), trust needs to be established to ensure the
success of CF (Farrell, 1998; Swaffield, 2004). To create trust, a lecturer needs to feel that
his/her critical friend will listen well, clarify ideas, encourage specificity of teaching practices,
take time to understand what is being presented fully, be an advocate for the success of the work,
“be clear about the nature of the relationship, and not use it for evaluative or judgmental
purposes” (Costa & Kallick, 1993, p. 50).
Reflection
The next principle is reflection. It is conscious thinking about what teachers are doing
and why they are doing it; teachers reflect on what they do as teachers, what is going on in a
classroom, observable actions, and students’ reactions during lessons (Farrell, 2015a). Moreover,
reflection happens where teachers systematically gather data about their teaching inside
classrooms, and they use the data to make informed decisions for their pedagogical practices
(Farrell, 2014) or draw implications for their teaching (Gün, 2011). Besides among the teachers
themselves (see Carolan & Wang, 2012; Farrell, 1998, 2001, 2007, 2015b; Gray, 2012; Hunter et
al., 2014; Moore & Carter-Hicks, 2014; Vo & Nguyen, 2010), the reflection process was also
carried out by a university professor and doctoral students in the United States (see Probst et al.,
2016). More specifically, the professor initiated a collaboration with six doctoral students to
reflect on their qualitative research course. The students’ written reflections for the course were
managed to become a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, from which the students had
10
the hands-on experiences of collecting and analyzing authentic research data and learning
multiple ways of knowing.
Peer Observation
The third principle is peer observation, which is fruitful to both an observer and a teacher
being-observed (Donnelly, 2007). When we observe others to gain knowledge of self, we get
opportunities in constructing and reconstructing knowledge that we already have (Gebhard,
2005). These propositions appear to be true in the previous studies that observe classes and/or
discuss the observation in a meeting attended by teachers (see Carolan & Wang, 2012; Gün,
2011; Vo & Nguyen, 2010) or by students (see Nguyen & Ngo, 2018; Smith, 2019; Storey &
Wang, 2016). For instance, a teaching practicum student in Vietnam mentioned that “How could
we see ourselves when we were teaching in class? My peers could help me with that” (Nguyen &
Ngo, 2018 p. 193). Then, in a Critical Friends Group (CFG) among four beginner teachers in
Vietnam, all teachers in the study regarded the CFG as “opportunities to learn from colleagues
and exchange professional ideas” (Vo & Nguyen, 2010, p. 210).
Interaction
The last principle is interaction. The interaction happens between a lecturer and a critical
friend or in a CF with a group of people (Storey & Wang, 2016) who provide “honest” (see
Samaras & Sell, 2013, p. 101), constructive, and non-judgmental feedback (Costa & Kallick,
1993; Richard & Farrell, 2005; Thorgersen, 2014) for the lecturer’s teaching practices. Based on
his professional experiences working with twelve experienced American, Canadian, and
Japanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers, Gebhard (2005) stated that providing
rules that aim at “non-judgmental and non-prescriptive discussion” (p. 12) and focusing the
11
discussion on specific teaching aspects might promote a productive interaction. The
communication can then generate ideas to apply in a classroom. For instance, a teacher taking a
practicum course to obtain an MA in English Language Teaching (ELT) in Iran said that: “At the
end of all observations, I started a friendly communication with the observed teachers, and we
talked about the teaching sessions. The outcome was wonderful. I learned something new and
was able to suggest teaching ideas to my colleagues” (Moradkhani, 2019, p. 67).
Pedagogical Lessons Gained in a Critical Friendship
Previous studies reported that the CF, which involved some of the previously discussed
principles, might provide pedagogical lessons for their participants. I use the term pedagogical
lessons similarly to Richards and Schmidt (2010), who defined the term as what instructors learn
about teaching techniques used by a teacher in a classroom, what happened in the class, and
“ways in which teaching and learning activities were delivered” (p. 425). One example of a
pedagogical lesson was from Farrell (2001). He reported how his presence helped the observed
teacher to become more aware of her teaching in the context of an academic writing class in
Singapore. The teacher said, “I was so glad that students were beginning to speak up more in
class. Maybe I didn’t give them much opportunity in my earlier classes” (Farrell, 2001, p. 371).
More recently, Nguyen and Ngo (2018) reported how a pre-service EFL teacher in Vietnam
could learn to pay more attention to students’ behavior in a class: “However, after observing my
lesson, Van reminded me about a group at the back who were always playing cards, and I paid
more attention to them in the next lesson” (p. 191). Another evidence was observed in Carolan
and Wang’s (2011) study involving two teachers. One teacher is from China, and the other one is
from Australia. They taught reading and vocabulary-related classes. The teachers observed each
12
other’s classes through a video recording and reported what they could learn from their
observation. For instance, the teacher from Australia learned that “the younger Chinese students
were required to prepare the text before the class, which would be a strategic idea to be tried
(where feasible) with the mature-age Australian group” (Carolan & Wang, 2011, p. 75).
Meanwhile, observing the English lesson in Australia, the teacher from China could learn that:
Interactions between students and students and the teacher are essential and allow the
students to speak and communicate with each other. The teacher performs as a facilitator,
offering guidance and instruction. The students are also encouraged to think critically and
develop their creativity; the methodology is student-centered interactions. (Carolan &
Wang, 2011, p. 76)
To add, in a student-centered classroom, students work together, communicate with, learn from,
and value each other’s contributions (Jones, 2007). Some researchers (e.g., Egbert, 2007;
Shahrokni, 2017) believe that opportunities for the students’ interactions can promote learning
engagement in classrooms.
The pedagogical lessons gained in the previous studies seemed to meet the characteristics
of good teachers, as discussed in the literature. For instance, in line with Carolan and Wang’s
(2011) student-centered interactions, a teacher should be able to engage students in classroom
activities and encourage them to do something, not just listen and observe (Johnson, 2013) or
open a book and do exercises (Miller, 2012). In other words, a teacher should not passively
spoon-feed their students with knowledge (Palmer, 2015). Then, responding to the student’s
negative behavior in the class as reported in Nguyen and Ngo’s (2018) study, I agree with
Schibsted (2009) that a teacher can set classroom rules at the beginning of the semester about
what they can and cannot do in the class to develop positive classroom management. Another
13
characteristic is the ability to remember students’ names and address them correctly, which
might open the door to a more personal connection and invite students to see their teachers as
role models (Chambliss, 2014). Addressing students’ names properly also shows respect and
recognizes students as individuals (Glenz, 2014). Cooper et al. (2017) presented some students’
voices on why teachers should learn students’ names: “instructor knowing your name can be
rather inspiring for a student to want to achieve more in class (student 1); an instructor knowing
my name makes me feel more comfortable asking questions (student 2)” (p. 7).
Empirical Gaps in the Literature
Besides discussing the CF’s principles, my literature review also revealed some empirical
gaps in the previous studies. The gaps related to building trust, teacher observation protocols,
teaching/research setting, and relationship patterns. First, in a CF, the reflection process might
cause doubts and even tensions from any confrontation in discussing teaching observations
(Farrell, 2001); therefore, “sufficient trust needs to be established for healthy confrontation to be
tolerated, and some rules need to be negotiated” (Farrell, 2001, p. 374). Farrell’s points were
noticeably absent from the literature because most of the previous studies were limited to
detailing procedures to undertake the project and displaying positive voices from research
participants. To the best of my knowledge, Nilsson et al. (2018) were among distinct researchers
who recently addressed Farrell’s concern about minimizing doubts and tensions in a CF. To
accomplish it, they proposed ways to communicate, which have not been explored frequently by
many previous researchers. For instance, an observer and an observed teacher should discuss
what happened in the class, share a mutual interest in any class activities, and not guard their
positions in their conversations.
14
The second gap in the literature was about teacher observation protocols. For example, in
his study, Farrell (2001) acknowledged that “the teacher did not ask him how or what to observe
in any of the classes” (p. 370). A similar situation happened in Golby and Appleby’s (1995)
study where “no detailed specification of the role was made explicit” (p. 151). In another study
(e.g., Vo & Nguyen, 2010), the researchers did not explicitly mention specific teaching aspects
to discuss in their CFG. I could sense it from a student’s interview report: “Through peer
observation, I learned about my colleague[s]’ strengths and weaknesses and that gave me a
chance to develop my teaching abilities” (p. 209). In that case, I am wondering if the mentioned
strengths and weaknesses were related to particular teaching aspects. Some other researchers also
did not entirely focus their explorations on teaching and learning practices inside a classroom;
for example, they discussed student-teacher relations outside classrooms (Farrell, 2015b) and
instructors’ assumptions about course integrity in a distance model (Hunter et al., 2014).
I also identified other gaps in the literature. For instance, the previous research has been
limited to three general issues on teaching, such as “classroom procedures and lesson planning,
self-presentation and classroom persona, and classroom management” (see Tuğa, 2013, p. 178).
There might not be enough evidence on other teaching and learning aspects, such as on how
teachers show respect to and interact with their students (rapport), maximize students’ talking
time (interaction), and use relevant technology in a class (teaching techniques) as addressed in
the recently published study (see Moradkhani, 2019). Definitions and foundations related to CF
have been based in the US setting (e.g., see Bambino, 2002; Costa & Kalick, 1993). We need to
expand our understanding by including cross-cultural perspectives of CF, which might benefit
teachers interested in doing a similar CF in a multicultural education setting. The relationship
patterns of teacher-teacher, teacher-student, or student-student were also apparent in the research
15
strands across literature in reflective practices that included undergraduate students (e.g., Astika,
2014; Behizadeh et al., 2019), school teachers (e.g., Andrei, 2017; Hyacinth & Mann, 2014), and
university professors (e.g., Lewis, 2018; Wahyudi, 2016; Zulfikar, 2019). However, I discovered
a CF between a university professor and doctoral students who reflected on a qualitative method
class (see Probst et al., 2016). In such collaboration involving a university professor and doctoral
students, it remains a mystery how the collaboration could address Farrell’s (2001) concern. That
is about tolerating healthy confrontation in a CF project, for instance, by implementing the
communication techniques as proposed by Nilsson et al. (2018). Moreover, I have not seen much
evidence to suggest that (video) recording and reflecting on more various teaching aspects
beyond what Tuğa (2013) had addressed (e.g., with the most recent teaching observation
framework by Moradkhani, 2019) of an experienced university lecturer’s classes might benefit
the lecturer and the critical friend and achieve the goals of CF: directing positive actions to
enhance the quality of teaching and learning in the future.
Last, the literature (e.g., Farrell, 1998, 2007; Golby & Appleby, 1995; Nguyen & Ngo,
2018; Smith, 2019; Tuğa, 2013; Vo & Nguyen, 2010) indicated a less explored CF done by a
native English speaker lecturer (e.g., from the United States) and a non-native English speaker
critical friend (e.g., from Indonesia). I agree with Carolan and Wang (2011) that doing a peer
observation across cultures can be a useful and informative activity as it provides teachers with
opportunities “to exchange teaching experiences, reflect on cross-cultural teaching practices, and
develop an integrated pedagogy” (p. 77). I see a connection of Carolan and Wang’s idea on the
cross-cultural teaching practices with a view that “culture is central to learning” (The Education
Alliance, 2020, n. p.) and “deeply embedded in any teaching” (Gay, 2002, p. 112). Therefore,
teachers need to be culturally responsive to their teaching, in which academic knowledge is
16
situated in students’ lived experiences (Skepple, 2015), students have spaces to do a cross-
cultural communication with classmates (Deady, 2017; Gay, 2000; Rucker, 2019), and teachers
are aware of and respond to cultures that are present in their class (Rychly & Graves, 2012). The
discussions on the connection between teaching and culture also seem to be missing in the
previous CF literature.
Theoretical Framework
My study is framed under CF, which is drawn from the previously discussed principles,
such as trust, reflection, peer observation, and interaction. As the study involves interpersonal
interactions (e.g., between a lecturer and a critical friend), the spirit of social constructivism
theories (see Aljohani, 2017; Sanden, 2016; Tracey & Morrow, 2017) also informs the
theoretical framework of this research. The theories convinced me that the (pedagogical)
knowledge growth of participants in the CF is, in large part, a result of their interactions with one
another. During the interactions, I am aware that considerations of race, social class, ethnicity,
language, values, beliefs, and teaching experiences (Kelley, 2008; Skepple, 2015) between the
lecturer and critical friend could also impact their knowledge constructions. Therefore, I treated
this study as “context-specific and value-bonded” (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019, p. 103).
17
Figure 2.1
The CF Model in This Study
Note. The horizontal and vertical lines inside the circle mean based on; therefore, I will read that
the CF in this study is based on trust, reflection, peer observation, and interaction. Then, the big
grey circle shows that the CF is “context-specific and value-bonded” (Bloomberg & Volpe,
2019, p. 103).
Framed under the CF and informed by the gaps in the literature, the study aims to answer
these research questions:
1. How does the university lecturer feel about his/her participation in the CF?
2. In what ways (if any) does the lecturer believe that the CF might/might not help to make
positive pedagogical changes in his/her future classrooms?
3. What are pedagogical lessons that the critical friend gains from the CF?
By answering these questions, I hope to provide language teachers with pedagogical lessons that
might help to solve teaching-related problems in their classes and enhance their teaching
instructions. Moreover, my study should provide some evidence for the value of a reflective
practice that might promote dialogue, engagement, and evidence-based reflection, which,
Critical Friendship
Trust
Interaction
Peer
Observation
Reflection
• The spirit of social
constructivism
theories: (1) expecting the
knowledge growth
from the interaction
(2) understanding that the backgrounds
of the participants
might impact their
knowledge
constructions
18
according to Walsh and Mann (2015), still remains a challenge for teacher educators and
practitioners. I also hope to inform teachers about possible ways that the systematic reflection
process in a trusting and supportive environment might be carried out.
Methods
This study aimed to explore the perspectives of the university lecturer on the participation
in the CF, the ways the lecturer believed that the CF might/might not help to make positive
pedagogical changes in his/her future classrooms, and pedagogical lessons that the critical friend
gains from the friendship, without any attempts to control the participants’ behavior (Ary et al.,
2019). To achieve these goals, I employed a qualitative case study approach because it enabled
me to deeply investigate a phenomenon in its real-world contexts (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019;
Yin, 2018), informed by the participants’ perspectives (Newcomer, 2017). More specifically, I
followed Yin’s single-case (embedded) design, as illustrated below.
Figure 2.2
The Case Study Design (adapted from Yin, 2018, p. 96)
The single-case design was selected because the phenomenon in this study had “critical
and revelatory” components (Yin, 2018, p 97). According to Yin, the critical component means
Context: at a class in the US university
Phenomenon (Case): the CF
Embedded unit of
analysis 1: the lecturer
(see the research
questions 1 & 2)
Embedded unit of
analysis 2: the critical
friend (see the research
question 3
19
that a researcher aims to determine if his/her theoretical propositions are correct or if some other
alternatives might be more appropriate. Meanwhile, the revelatory component indicates that a
researcher observes and analyzes a phenomenon that is previously inaccessible. In this case
study, the theoretical proposition to explore further is if the CF benefits the university lecturer
and the critical friend pedagogically. Then, the revelatory case in this study is informed by the
empirical gap in the literature where the previous research (e.g., Carolan & Wang, 2012; Farrell,
1998, 2001; Nguyen & Ngo, 2018; Smith, 2019; Tuğa, 2013) has not explored a CF between a
native English speaker university lecturer from the United States and a non-native English
speaker doctoral student from Indonesia.
Research Participants
The CF in this study involved two participants. The first participant, Tom, was an
associate professor in a university in the United States with more than 20 years of experience in
teaching students at the undergraduate, master, and doctorate levels. In this study, his role was as
the observed lecturer. I used the professor’s real name to acknowledge his thoughts and
contributions to this study. “The greater the level of anonymization and the further it moves from
its original context, the less useful are the data” (Thomson & Bzdel, 2004, as cited in Wiles et
al., 2006, p. 291). I also participated in this study as the critical friend who observed Tom’s
teaching practices and provided feedback on his teaching. Appendix A details each of our
responsibilities in the current CF. Like the current study, some previous researchers (e.g.,
Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009; Farrell, 1998, 2001; Golby & Appleby, 1995; Williams & Todd,
2016) successfully involved themselves as research participants (e.g., as an observed teacher or a
critical friend) in their studies that were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
20
Regarding the small number of participants in this qualitative case study, I reinforced
Yin’s (2018) claim that case study researchers should not treat their case as a sampling unit to
represent a larger population and make a statistical generalization. Instead, they should consider
their case as an opportunity to shed empirical light on theoretical principles and lessons learned
from their case study. I also adopted Fossey et al. (2002) who argued that there is not an exact
minimum number of participants needed to perform sound qualitative research. However, Fossey
et al. reminded researchers to provide detailed information to fully describe a phenomenon under
their investigation, which I did in this method section.
I purposively (Ary et al., 2019) involved the lecturer in this research because we have had
a good relationship. The observed lecturer has been my doctoral research advisor for two years,
and we have been working together in completing two previous research projects on technology
and motivation. I was also a doctoral student in one of his courses in the Fall 2018 semester.
Through the process of research advising and classroom interactions, our relationship has
developed very well; we could respect each other’s research interests and cultural backgrounds
and establish a good rapport. This condition was essential in building the foundations of “trust”
(Farrell, 1998, p. 86) as a key to ensure the success of a CF. The observed lecturer acknowledged
the trust that we successfully built when he introduced my research topic in the class: “[…]
Calvin’s research is around teacher’s reflection; […] watching yourself teach with somebody you
trust. I trust Calvin, and Calvin trusts me” (8/21/19/ observation note/2-3). With these
foundations at heart, we entered this CF research with positive attitudes toward lifelong learning
(Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009). We also believed in the value of the project for our professional
development as teachers.
21
Researcher Positionality
This section describes my positionality as a researcher to inform readers about the
background experiences (e.g., beliefs, assumptions, and social backgrounds) (Bloomberg &
Volpe, 2019) brought to this research, possible connections, and conflicts of interest that
emerged in this study (Saldaña, & Omasta, 2018). In 2014, I started to work as a lecturer at a
private university in Indonesia before coming to the United States to pursue my doctoral studies
in 2018. This Indonesian university is in an EFL setting where students (according to Richards &
Schmidt, 2010) learn English in a formal classroom with limited opportunities to use the
language outside the class. My previous four-year teaching experiences in the Indonesian EFL
setting might influence how I saw the teaching practices of the observed lecturer who taught
classes in the US setting where almost everyone speaks English either inside or outside classes.
Introductory Dialogues
Smith (2019) suggested an introductory dialogue to begin the CF so that both the teacher
and the critical friend are “on the same page” (p. 14). Moreover, participants in a CF need to
negotiate rules to ensure their profound reflective experiences (Farrell, 2001) and productive
interaction (Gebhard, 2005). Therefore, the CF in this study began with a discussion meeting in
the second week of August 2019. I met the observed lecturer in his office to detail the research
purposes, discuss and negotiate data collection procedures (e.g., see Figure 2.6), and ask his
permission to observe his class. Farrell (2001) also reminded that reflective communication
might cause doubt and raise tension. To minimize that condition and make the observed lecturer
feel as comfortable and safe as possible, I explained to him that I positioned myself as a
supportive listener, not as an expert. Therefore, following Nilsson et al. (2018), I would not ask
22
demanding questions, legitimize myself as a knowledgeable facilitator, nor refer our discussions
to any theoretical literature as illustrated in the following excerpts:
What are the students supposed to learn? Which learning concepts are central? In your
oral instructions, the performance, not the learning, is in focus […] (note: these questions
about learning were asked in a row) (p. 16). I am thinking about students’ participation
during the lesson related to learning, according to Liberg’s theory. Where are the students
situated in this model, and how could their participation be expanded? I am also thinking
about which abilities are being practiced during the lesson and what the students learn. In
the presentation of the universe at the beginning of the lesson, by using the local
environment as a metaphor, it seems like the students’ abstraction ability is challenged.
They are invited to be in their zone of proximal development. I wonder how many
students are situated in their ZPD when they are working in groups later on during the
lesson. (p. 17)
The excerpts above are the kinds of questions I wish not to have with the observed lecturer as the
questions can potentially make him feel judged.
Research Setting and Data Collection Procedures
I collected research data from video recordings of class sessions and audio recordings of
the interview sessions. The recorded class was Teaching English Language Learners for
Secondary Teachers. It was a three-credit course held in the Fall 2019 semester and attended by
students in the Secondary Education Program (who typically enter in the third year of their
undergraduate degree program). In the class syllabus, some purposes of the course are:
23
(a) to provide secondary education majors with research-based practical knowledge that
they will be able to apply in a variety of instructional contexts to ensure the success of
minority students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds; (b) to develop an
understanding of basic concepts of second language processing in a variety of language
learning contexts; (c) to develop skills that will enable them to teach students when they
do not speak their students’ language(s) yet are responsible for making sure those
students learn and meet the state standards for their grade.
The classroom topic of the first two observed meetings (on August 21 & 23, 2019) related to
values and beliefs in teaching, while the other observed sessions (on August 28 & 30, 2019)
discussed English language learners in the 21st-century classrooms. From a total of thirty
students in the class, two students were non-native speakers of English, and the others were
native English speakers born in America. As illustrated in Figure 2.3, the recorded class was
equipped with four large synchronous TV screens placed on the right and left (front and back)
corner of the class. There were also whiteboards on the left, front, and right sides of the class.
The lecturer’s table on the front area was equipped with a computer to control the TV screens.
The TV screens and teacher’s and students’ desks were movable to facilitate small group work
(e.g., there were usually eight to nine groups in every session). During the class sessions, the
students mostly worked in groups of four to five students.
24
Figure 2.3
A Pencil Sketch of the Classroom
Then, teaching practices during the four observed sessions of the same class were video-
recorded. I came to each meeting that lasted for 50 minutes. I put a video camera at the back-left
corner of the class (see Figure 2.3) to record the teaching and learning activities. Like Farrell
(2001), I did not interfere with any learning activities, talk to students, or the observed lecturer in
classroom sessions, or show any gestures that attracted attention. This stance was to ensure that
all classroom teaching and learning practices ran as naturally as possible and also to minimize
the “observer effect” (Bodgan & Biklen, 2016, p. 36), where my presence in the class with the
video recording might influence students’ and teachers’ behavior in the class. Furthermore, I
decided to record the class because (like Orlova, 2009) I could view what was going on in the
class repeatedly. In Saldaña and Omasta’s (2018) words, the video could provide me with “fresh
memories” (p. 83) on the observations. With the video, I could also make the reflection process
25
more concretely tied to the observed lecturer, enable him to see himself teaching (Baecher et al.,
2014), and help him to spot an exact teaching aspect he might need to improve (Tuğa, 2013).
I watched the recordings of four class sessions, which each lasted from 50-60 minutes, to
spot teaching moments related to seven aspects of teaching (taken from Moradkhani, 2019, p.
71), such as organization, rapport, teaching techniques, presentation, management, questioning,
and interaction (for more details, see Appendix B). The framework should be reliable because
Moradkhani (2019) formulated it by “consulting multiple ELT resources, two domain experts,
and observation sheets collected during his/her years of teaching EFL and supervising teachers in
language schools” (p. 64).
While watching the recordings, I typed my observation notes using Microsoft Word. The
notes described what the lecturer did (e.g., his gesture and where he walked and sat), with whom
he interacted, and his teaching instructions. The notes also informed some behaviors that the
students made in the class (e.g., playing with the phone, being passive, and dominating group
and class discussions) to see how the lecturer addressed those attitudes. Further, I put time
stamps to detail “duration of specific moments or chunk of action” (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018,
p.85) to provide more data for answering the research questions.
Next, I uploaded the observation notes (see Appendix C) to ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data
analysis software. With the software, I open-coded the observation notes (see Figure 2.4). Ary et
al. (2019) defined open-coding as an activity to label and categorize phenomena that emerged in
the data. I took some labels in my coding process from Moradkhani’s (2019) teaching
observation framework that closely described what was going on in the classroom. I also came
up with other codes (e.g., inclusivity, fairness, and domination) after reading and giving
26
meanings to the notes. Overall, this process resulted in some “descriptive codes in the form of a
word or short phrase” (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018, p. 287).
Figure 2.4
A Sample of the Open Coding Process to the Observation Notes
Then, following Saldaña and Omasta (2018), I assembled the coded data (see Appendix D),
looked at quotations (e.g., phrases or sentences) under each code, and described what happened
in the class coupled with my analytic memos on the observation (see Appendix E). I put the
27
description (e.g., in one/two sentences) on PowerPoint slides (see Figure 2.5). In the end, I cut
the video recordings using a software (e.g., Open Shot Video Editor, accessible at
https://www.openshot.org/) to show the teaching practices in the class, and (following Farrell,
2011) to separate teaching and learning into their components.
Figure 2.5
A Sample Slide that I Prepared for the Interview Session
Note. C refers to Calvin, the author/critical friend, while T refers to Tom, the observed lecturer.
To provide more data to answer the research questions, I conducted two semi-structured
interview sessions (on September 11 & 18, 2019) with the observed lecturer to discuss the
PowerPoint slides, watch the cut video recordings, describe what happened, clarify the teaching
moments, and discuss pedagogical lessons I could learn. In this semi-structured interview (see
Saldaña & Omasta, 2018), I provided a detailed list of questions that covered all topics I wished
to discuss with the observed lecturer about his teaching practices and asked follow-up questions
based on responses given in the interview. The interview sessions were also to “discern how the
separated teaching parts (as displayed in the video recordings) work together, and how teaching
is related to other areas of life” (Farrell, 2001, p. 369). This was illustrated in the following
28
interactions (9/18/19/interview/33-362) when we discussed the concepts of inclusivity in teaching
and learning:
The critical friend (Author): I also experience the same thing, like here in the US
when it was like, in the first meeting of the class after the break. Sometimes, it is quite
difficult for me to engage in the discussion when they ask: where did you go?
The observed lecturer (Tom): Yes [laughing], I didn’t go anywhere.
Author: I just stay in my apartment. I bring this up and want to discuss it with you
because it is so true. Sometimes, I just feel I don’t go anywhere. [laughing]
Tom: That’s right. Then, you feel bad. What’s wrong with me? Is it because I didn’t have
enough money to travel, or I just didn’t want to travel? I don’t want to go to these special
places; I just stayed at home. So, rather than including people, making them feel
comfortable about who they are and their place in the class, comments like that can be
exclusive; it can make people feel there is something wrong with them, or like they are
[othered]. And this happens a lot.
Similar to Moradkhani (2019), I also asked about the logic behind some practices or teaching
techniques. In the interview sessions, I then asked the observed lecturer how he felt about his
participation in the CF and to what extent he believed the project might/might not help to make
positive pedagogical changes in his future classrooms. Overall, Figure 2.6 summarizes all the
data collection procedures in this study.
2 These numbers show the line number of the research data in the Appendix.
29
Figure 2.6
The Data Collection Procedures
Data Analysis Procedures
All of the interview sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed (e.g., see Appendix F), and
analyzed qualitatively. Like Easton et al. (2000), I was aware that errors, such as missing,
misinterpreted, mistyped words, and incorrect punctuation, could occur during the transcription
process and change meanings from what was initially said. Therefore, I first emailed the data
transcription to the observed lecturer and let him read and confirm the accuracy of the data. In
addition to the observation notes, the transcripts were also coded descriptively (e.g., see
Appendix G). Emergent themes were further defined within the research questions. Soon after
the data analysis was completed, I met the lecturer and let him review the analysis. The lecturer
also checked all emergent themes and excerpts of the transcript to ensure that all of the
interpretations were reasonable and accurate. This member-checking procedure (according to
Ary et al., 2019; Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019) helped to ensure the accuracy of the findings where
my potential biases did not influence how the lecturer’s perspectives were portrayed. Previous
Step 1Had the introductory dialogues
Step 2Video-recorded the teaching practices
Step 3Watched the recordings and made the observation notes
Step 4Coded the notes and described what happened in the class
Step 5Put the description on the PowerPoint slides
Step 6Did the interview sessions with the observed lecturer to discuss the slides
30
researchers (e.g., Baecher et al., 2014; Li, 2007; Ruggiero & Mong, 2015) have successfully
implemented this procedure in their study.
Figure 2.7
A Sample of the Coding Process to the Interview Transcripts
Limitations of the Study
This study has some limitations. For instance, technically, since I put my video camera at
the back corner of the class, I could not hear clearly what the students discussed in their tables
and what the lecturer said when he interacted with some students during the group discussion. At
the time when the study was conducted, I was also a doctoral student and knew the observed
lecturer very well through the process of research advising and classroom interactions.
31
Therefore, our CF might create a bias specifically in the data interpretation stages, and I was
aware of the power difference (e.g., between a doctoral student and his associate professor) that
might limit our conversation at some points. Nevertheless, by providing detailed descriptions of
my role and acknowledging my potential biases, I followed Creswell and Miller (2000) in
promoting greater transparency of my influence on this research. In doing so, I hoped to ensure
the transferability of my study, “the degree to which the findings of a qualitative study can be
applied to other contexts or individuals” (Ary et al., 2019, p. 445).
Findings
I will present the results in order of the research questions. Then, following Sawir (2005),
I will show excerpts of data transcriptions as they are without any editing (e.g., in terms of
grammaticality) to maintain their truth-value. To recall, I defined the term pedagogical lessons
as what I could learn about teaching techniques used by the observed lecturer in his classroom,
what happened in the class, and “ways in which teaching and learning activities were delivered”
(Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 425).
How the University Lecturer Feels about His/ Her Participation in the CF
The observed lecturer felt positive about the CF. The lecturer thanked me for taking a risk
to do the project; it was a new and fruitful experience to see himself teach:
So, in terms of how I feel, I feel really positive. The positive feelings are for me that I
really learned a lot. I’m not used to seeing myself teach, so yeah, I learned a lot about
that, and I already mentioned that doing it with a doctoral student; I am grateful that you
took that risk, and you feel comfortable enough with me […]. I am really grateful to you
because it is not easy to sit down with a professor. That’s when growing occurs; when
32
someone says, did you notice? Wow, you are right, and I am super grateful to you for
that. And, I am learning a lot about those ways I could be more; hold people more
accountable. When they were in my class, to be on the ball and my game more, I can
push the students a little more. (9/18/19/interview/84)
The participation in the CF (e.g., by watching the videos of his teaching) also helped the
observed lecturer to recognize strengths and weaknesses in his teaching. He mentioned:
Watching video definitely helps a lot, right. It totally met my expectations since it
already kind of confirmed things that I have been thinking about already. It wasn’t like I
have been telling myself in my head things that were very different from what I saw on
the video. You know, in my head, it just confirms that here are my strengths, here are
my weaknesses. And the video confirms that for me. (9/18/19/interview/85)
Ways (if any) the Lecturer Believes that the CF Might/Might Not Help to Make Positive
Pedagogical Changes in His/ Her Future Classrooms
The CF helped the observed lecturer to plan some actions for his future classroom. The
data indicated five main plans. First, the lecturer will pay more attention to small class
phenomena (e.g., using a phone in a classroom). He said, “Sometimes I miss those little things
like students checking their phones. I should be better about that. Thank you. It’s really
helpful”(9/11/19/interview/22).
Second, he will set a class rule dealing with the use of a phone. He mentioned, “We use
our phones for some activities, but when we are not using phones, you are right, I’ll say: Let’s
keep our phones down” (9/18/19/interview/79). These first two plans were based on what we
33
watched in the video where a female student was distracted with her smartphone while her group
members were doing a classroom task (8/20/19/observation note/23).
Third, he will call on students’ names to engage them more. We discussed that only a few
and the same students who always actively gave feedback during a group presentation
(8/23/19/observation note/59,67) and participated in class discussions (8/30/19/observation note/
111,114,125). Dealing with this plan, the observed lecturer said:
I could start calling on some people, just say: What do you think? Sometimes, I just really
have no idea, you know [laugh], that’s okay, but I should be able to do that more
frequently. I will (9/18/19/interview/ 44). “Yap, I totally agree. You know, because it is
interesting, like; because I don’t like calling on students, I need to do that more. That’s
actually a great point. (9/18/19/interview/79)
Fourth, he will check on students’ progress. I liked the use of group discussions as it
provided opportunities for students to interact with one another. Yet, I asked the lecturer how he
made sure of each student’s understanding of the class discussion (my analytic memos/5).
Although there would be no quizzes in class, and the assessment could be more embedded into
class activities, the observed lecturer supported an alternative that: “[…] I could do more like
what did you learn today? Help people kind of share out what they have learned; did we meet our
objectives; let’s go back to our objectives, did we meet these? That would be really good.”
(9/18/19/interview/ 81)
Last, he will be more careful with his time management. I informed the lecturer that, at
the beginning of the class of meeting four, he spent almost half of the class time to do a review
discussion on the previous meeting’s topic (9/18/19/interview/70). He knew about that issue, felt
bothered, and bummed about that (9/18/19/interview/70). With this awareness, he would do
34
better about the time, as he said: “And then, time management, I agree. I try to balance; try to
create rapport with getting stuff done, right? [laughing] So, that’s good” (9/18/19/interview/ 81).
Pedagogical Lessons that the Critical Friend Gains from the CF
The CF works both ways, which enrich the experiences for the observer and observed.
While the observed lecturer learned from my analysis and observations of his class, I also
learned a lot about pedagogy and relationship building with students that the lecturer modeled for
me. I would report on what I learned from my observations of the lecturer’s class. These are, of
course, subjective and mainly based on Moradkhani’s (2019) teaching observation framework.
I learned that technology could be used to support teaching instructions. For instance, the
observed lecturer always displayed learning agendas of a meeting on classroom screens. In the
first meeting, he also used the screens to show a sample drawing of the guiding principle to help
students generate ideas. When the students finished drawing a guiding principle in their group,
the lecturer photographed the drawing and uploaded them to his class learning management
system, Blackboard. These practices enabled each student to see every group’s drawing from
his/her laptop. The lecturer also displayed the poster on the TV screens available in the
classroom, so students could point to their poster when presenting it to the class
(8/23/19/observation note/34).
I learned how to be respectful to students. For instance, the observed lecturer started the
class by introducing a student who just joined the class (8/20/19/observation note/1). He
sometimes complimented students who gave feedback to a group presentation
(8/23/19/observation note/53). Moreover, given the observations occurred in the first weeks of
35
the new semester, the lecturer always tried to memorize students’ names (8/20/19/observation
note/26) as he clarified in the interview:
Since this was the first week of class, I was focusing on learning students’ names. That
was a big part of it. As I am walking around, I am just reciting their names in my head
and remembering kind of creating contexts like who is working with whom […]
(9/11/19/interview/8)
I learned the concept of inclusivity. In the class, the observed lecturer once explained
ideas of inclusivity, which I had never heard before in my teaching experiences in Indonesia. He
thought about his positionality to engage all students in his classrooms. This was what he said to
his students:
When I introduced Calvin, and I said it is a very beautiful place; my wife and I went to
Yogyakarta. I was reflecting on that. Did I need to say that? Can I just say I was there?
Thinking of why we say what we say in front of our students […] If I want to be
inclusive, stick to the subject matters, not the agenda. When I said that I went to
Yogyakarta, it is a beautiful place, Mount Merapi, Borobudur, because it might be another
agenda; I want to show you all that I travel somewhere. You will think that “that will kind
of excluding me,” I will not be able to do that because of my immigration status,
nationality, and other things. (8/23/19/observation note/38)
Hearing what the observed lecturer said, I asked myself if I had ever shared something that might
exclude some students in my class or make them uncomfortable. Therefore, echoing what the
lecturer said, I should “stick to the subject matters” and be more careful about what I will share
(e.g., perhaps about my experiences living or studying for Ph.D. in the United States) with my
future students in Indonesia.
36
I learned the concept of fairness. The observed lecturer was willing to do precisely the
same as what his students were asked to do in the class. For instance, he shared stories about his
parents in the classroom soon after the students finished telling about their culture in the group. It
was as described in the following interactions (9/18/19/interview/67-69):
Tom: Well, because I was asking them to talk about their own personal lives, so I
thought like it was only fair if I am asking them to open up about their personal lives, so
I should also be able to open up about mine within reason and in safe; I am just sort of
showing that if they can be vulnerable; I can be vulnerable.
Author: So, I can sense that it is like fairness. If you have to do that, I’ll do that too. It
reminds me of a writing class. The professor should have experiences: writing,
publications when they ask their students to publish […] [laughing]
Tom: That is exactly it. If I am asking you to do it, I should do it too.
I learned how to promote authentic learning discussions in the classroom. Authenticity
refers to any topics, processes, and contents that learners can connect to a real-world situation
beyond classroom walls (Egbert & Shahrokni, 2018). The video showed that the observed
lecturer used many real-life examples to explain authentic concepts. For instance, he talked about
his vacation to Borobudur and Mount Merapi to clarify inclusivity (8/23/19/observation note/38).
As the data indicated, more students actively responded to those kinds of authentic concepts than
those who responded to an open question, such as commenting on a group presentation
(8/23/19/observation note/58).
I learned how to encourage students’ active participation. For instance, the observed
lecturer did not just stand in front of the class and explain the learning materials
(9/11/19/interview/6). Instead, he used group work and asked his students to collaborate with
37
their group members and draw (8/20/19/observation note/11, 22) as well as to interact with their
group members about authentic topics, such as funds of knowledge, technology,
(8/20/19/observation note/6), food, religion, tradition, personal relationships
(8/28/19/observation note 72, 73) and about a movie, book, and song they like or dislike
(8/30/19/observation note/137). The data also showed that the lecturer provided time for his
students to discuss how they felt about sharing their personal experiences with friends in the
group (8/28/19/observation note/100). When clarified in the interview, the lecturer would be
open to hearing from those who felt less positive about the activity and consider their voice as
constructive feedback for his future classroom activities:
If I see people going like thumbs down, and that gives me a sense that something wasn’t
quite right in that activity. It could be that they felt triggered. It was very personal stuff,
or they felt like they were sharing something, and they weren’t sharing it in a way that
was being very accepted […] So, part of it is to model like how we can move forward if
we’re gonna build off this for the next day as allow us, students to kind of go like: “oh, I
don’t get this; this is not fun.” I would have asked for some people to volunteer why,
and they could have talked about ways they would like to do it differently. And then, I’ll
keep and consider that for the next class. (9/18/19/interview/55)
Discussions
Overall, the observed lecturer felt positive about the CF. He thanked me for sitting with
him, telling what I noticed during his class sessions, and making him “more aware of his
teaching behaviors” (Farrell, 2004, p. 65), such as dealing with the time management and the
students who were distracted with the use of phones inside the class. With this evidence, I can
38
say that a doctoral student, in addition to his/her typical role as a graduate teaching/ research
assistant, might have the potential to be a teaching reflection partner of a university professor,
similar to what was documented in the previous study (see Probst et al., 2016).
In the current CF, the observed lecturer also said that watching the video of his teaching
practices helped to confirm his teaching strengths and areas that might need improvement. Also,
as evidenced in the interview, watching the teaching video confirmed his concern about some
things that he had not expected in his practices. These findings should indicate the success of the
data collection procedure in this study, where the use of video recordings facilitated a reflection
process concretely tied to a teacher (Baecher et al., 2014) and helped the observed lecturer to
look at specific teaching aspects he needed to improve (Tuğa, 2013).
My study went beyond describing the positive views of the observed lecturer. The data
indicated that the CF also helped the lecturer to plan five applicable actions to take in his future
classes following the reflection process, where he was given the opportunity to use data about his
teaching inside a class (e.g., from the video recordings and conversations with me) to make
informed changes to his pedagogical practices (see Farrell, 2014) or draw implications for his
future teaching (see Gün, 2011). I considered his plans as additional knowledge and inputs for
my teaching practices where I should also pay more attention to small class phenomena, call
students’ names to engage them more, check on my students’ progress, manage time for doing
classroom activities, and set a class rule about using a phone.
At the same time, I could learn pedagogical lessons from this CF, which complement my
teaching practices. For example, on a deeper level, I am now more aware of the importance of
addressing students’ names correctly, as I can show respect (Glenz, 2014), make personal
connections (Chambliss, 2014), and engage my students in learning activities (Cooper et al.,
39
2017). Working and interacting with an associate professor in the US also provided me with “an
added value” (Golby & Appleby, 1995, p. 155) to my teaching practice, such as about fairness
and inclusivity or a topic of discussion that might exclude a group of students in the classroom.
Likewise, Miller (2012) held the view that “as teachers, we must look carefully at our classes to
be certain that we are including everyone equally” (p. 37). Therefore, as a teacher, I should now
be more aware of any stories I bring in my class as I do not want to exclude a group of students
from my class discussion. This idea can serve as vehicles for the inclusion of multiple
perspectives, none of which is more correct than the other. Moreover, as appeared in the data, I
could relate the inclusivity to “other areas of life” (Farrell, 2001, p. 369), such as my difficulty
joining the discussion about a holiday in America with my classmates. Therefore, I could argue
to myself that the CF might open possibilities to gain both classroom pedagogy and real-life
lessons at the same time.
I am also interested in discussing how the observed lecturer encourages students’ active
participation in his class. Unlike teaching and learning activities in most of the Indonesian
college classes that are usually more teacher-centered, I saw a real demonstration of a student-
centered class where the lecturer did not passively transfer knowledge (Palmer, 2015), and the
students could work together, communicate with, learn from, and value each other’s ideas
(Jones, 2007) related to the authentic classroom discussions (e.g., about their food, religion,
personal relationships, and tradition). In the discussions, the lecturer encouraged his students to
share their own home experiences, not just sharing everyday things they had in the United States.
These practices gave me a clear illustration of culturally responsive teaching where students have
spaces to engage in a cross-culture communication with classmates (Deady, 2017; Gay, 2000;
Rucker, 2019). The cross-cultural communication should be applicable in a university class in
40
Indonesia, where students usually come from different islands, and they have different local
languages and traditions from one another.
With these lessons learned from the CF, my study should contribute beyond general
issues of teaching, as addressed by Tuğa (2013), such as “classroom procedures and lesson
planning, self-presentation and classroom persona, and classroom management” (p. 178).
Although the action plans of the observed lecturer and the pedagogical lessons that I learned in
this CF might be related to technical aspects of classroom teachings, and I did not refer the
discussions to any theoretical literature about language skills, I could still observe some models
for the students in the course on teaching and learning the language skills of speaking/listening
(see Farrell, 1998), writing (see Farrell, 2001, 2006), and reading (see Carolan & Wang, 2012).
These models might directly apply to (EFL) language classrooms. Overall, the lessons confirmed
the positive voices addressed by the previous studies that teachers can learn something new
(Moradkhani, 2019) and various teaching techniques (Vo & Nguyen, 2010) through observing
classrooms and discussing the observations with peers.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The study comes up with the following conclusions. First, the observed lecturer feels
positive about his participation in the CF, and he believes that the project helps him to initiate
applicable actions for his future classes. Second, the CF provides various pedagogical lessons for
the critical friend. Third, the CF protocols seem to work successfully, as indicated by the positive
responses from the observed lecturer to his participation in the CF, the creation of action plans
for his future classrooms, and the lessons learned by the critical friend. The overall CF process I
engaged with the observed lecturer should address Farrell’s (2001) concern on building trust,
41
engaging in healthy dialogue, and readiness to participate in a CF. Fourth, the CF involving a
non-native English speaker critical friend (a doctoral student) and a native English speaker
teacher (an associate professor) should contribute to a novel relationship pattern in the literature
that has overwhelmingly involved the collaborations among students-students and teachers-
teachers from the same nationalities and cultural backgrounds. The fact that this CF includes an
international student from a non-English speaking country is yet another novel contribution to
the literature in this area. Fifth, in addition to their typical roles as graduate teaching or research
assistants, doctoral students might have the potential to be a teaching reflection partner of their
university professor. Further, the study maintains Moradkhani’s (2019) belief in the strengths of
collaborative and oral reflection approaches to better support fellow educational teachers in their
professional development.
Despite the success stories and the view that promoting the roles of critical friends into
layers of a school system will create considerable possibilities for self-evaluation (Costa &
Kallick, 1993), I am aware of some potential challenges of implementing the CF and limitations
of the current study. For instance, enacting all protocols in this CF (e.g., building a relation and
trust, observing and recording classrooms, watching teaching videos together, and attending
interview sessions to discuss the teaching practices) might be time-consuming and require a
strong commitment from all individuals involved in the project. Teachers with busy schedules
and heavy workloads would likely be reluctant to participate in a CF of this scope. I also realize
that the project requires collaboration, communication skills, trust, and openness. In that case,
individuals who live in a setting where a habit of working together does not seem to be popular
(Vo & Nguyen, 2010) or one where people are not used to speaking openly about what they
think and to accept feedback or different views (Wachob, 2011) might find this CF project
42
challenging to implement. Then, like Farrell (1998), I did not have a chance to make further class
observations to check if the lecturer’s planned actions were carried out and resulted in positive
changes in his classrooms. Lastly, due to competing responsibilities on the lecturer’s and my
time, interview sessions typically did not last longer than one hour. Given more time and more
continuity, we could have deepened our CF (e.g., analyzing the various dynamics and
pedagogical lessons available from the observed class).
To address the current limitations and concerns, firstly, I suggest those (e.g., teachers,
practitioners, and students) who are interested in doing a similar CF to work with a small number
of individuals (see Carolan & Wang, 2012; Farrell, 2001) and have freedom for selecting
partners to collaborate with (Gün, 2011). Then, I encourage interested teachers to reduce the
scope of the CF protocols and focus on one or two mutually agreed upon dimensions. Secondly,
more evidence is needed to conclude whether the protocols in this study and the teaching
observation framework by Moradkhani (2019) could guide the CF between a native English
speaker teacher and a non-native English speaker critical friend in different settings outside the
United States. I recommend future researchers replicate this study by implementing similar
research protocols in language classes (e.g., writing, speaking, listening, or reading) in Southeast
Asian countries. The researchers could then conduct a post-observation after the meetings to
observe if there are any expected changes in an observed teacher’s classroom. Future studies
could also explain how time constraints in a CF could be addressed.
I would also recommend the following research ideas. For instance, it might be fruitful to
explore perspectives of a non-native English speaker college professor and a native English
speaker college professor (e.g., with less than ten years of teaching experience) or a doctoral
student toward their participation in a similar CF. Future researchers can also try to provide a
43
“rival explanation” (Yin, 2018, p. 105) by conducting another case study, asking the same
research questions, and applying the same CF protocols with someone they did not know very
well. Then, they can find out if they have similar results to what has been discussed in this paper.
I was also curious how future researchers can create a critical researcher friendship (CRF) and
explore how the CRF might benefit two novice researchers who are struggling in publishing their
papers in international journals with a high impact factor. To end this paper, I would like to
suggest some reflective questions to think about moving forward:
• What will happen when a CF “goes south” or has a negative outcome?
(e.g., the CF does not end well, and people’s feelings get hurt.)
• What are some insights from this study in terms of cultural influences/context?
• How do the cross-cultural perspectives presented in this study benefit and contribute to
the literature on CF?
• How will what Calvin observed in Tom’s class differ from and/or be similar to what
might be observed in an Indonesian classroom?
• How might this study also be informed by studies of mentorship?
• How is the CF in this study different than mentorship?
44
References
Aljohani, M. (2017). Principles of “constructivism” in foreign language teaching. Journal of
Literature and Art Studies, 7(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836/2017.01.013
Andrei, E. (2017). Technology in teaching English Language learners: The case of three middle
school teachers. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.280
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. A. (2019). Introduction to research in
education (10th ed.). Cengage.
Astika, G. (2014). Reflective teaching as alternative assessment in teacher education: A case
study of pre-service teachers. TEFLIN Journal, 25(1), 16–32.
Baecher, L., McCormack, B., & Kung, S. C. (2014). Supervisor use of video as a tool in teacher
reflection. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 18(3), 1–17.
Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 25–27.
Baskerville, D., & Goldblatt, H. (2009). Learning to be a critical friend: From professional
indifference through challenge to unguarded conversations. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 39(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902260
Behizadeh, N., Thomas, C., & Cross, S. B. (2019). Reframing for social justice: The influence of
critical friendship groups on preservice teachers’ reflective practice. Journal of Teacher
Education, 70(3), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117737306
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map
from beginning to end (4th ed.) [PDF file]. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Bodgan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2016). Qualitative research for education (5th ed.). Pearson
Education, Inc.
45
Campbell, A., McNamara, O., & Gilroy, P. (2004). Practitioner research and professional
development in education. Sage Publications, Inc.
Carolan, L., & Wang, L. (2012). Reflections on a transnational peer review of teaching. ELT
Journal, 66(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr023
Center for Teaching and Learning. (2019). Self-assessment.
https://www.washington.edu/teaching/topics/assessing-and-improving-
teaching/evaluation/self-assessment
Chambliss, D. F. (2014, August 26). Learn your students’ names. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/08/26/essay-calling-faculty-members-learn-
their-students-names
Cooper, K. M., Haney, B., Krieg, A., & Brownell, S. E. (2017). What’s in a name? The
importance of students perceiving that an instructor knows their names in a high-
enrollment biology classroom. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0265
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership,
51(2), 49–51.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Deady, K. (2017, August 11). 5 steps to becoming a culturally responsive teacher. Teachaway.
https://www.teachaway.com/blog/5-steps-becoming-culturally-responsive-teacher
Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117–129.
46
Easton, K. L., McComish, J. F., & Greenberg, R. (2000). Avoiding common pitfalls in
qualitative data collection and transcription. Qualitative Health Research, 10(5), 703–707.
Egbert, J. (2007). Asking useful questions: Goals, engagement, and differentiation in technology-
enhanced language learning. Teaching English with Technology, 7(1), 1-17.
Farrell, T. S. C. (1998). Critical friendship in ELT teacher development. Prospect, 13(2), 78–88.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Critical friendships: Colleagues helping each other develop. ELT
Journal, 55(4), 368–374.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflection breaks for busy teachers.
Corwin Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). Reflective practice in action: A case study of a writing teacher’s
reflections on practice. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 77–90.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. Continuum.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2014). ‘Teacher you are stupid!’ – Cultivating a reflective disposition. The
Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 18(3), 1–10.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015a). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A
framework for TESOL professionals. Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015b). Reflecting on teacher-student relations in TESOL. ELT Journal, 69(1),
26–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu033
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., Mcdermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating
qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717–732.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.
47
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106–116.
Gebhard, J. G. (2005). Teacher development through exploration: Principles, ways, and
examples. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 9(2), 1–15.
Gemmel, J. C. (2003). Building a professional learning community in preservice teacher
education: Peer coaching and video analysis (UMI No. 3078685) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts Amherst]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Glenz, T. (2014). The importance of learning students’ names. Journal on Best Teaching
Practices, 1(1), 21–22.
Golby, M., & Appleby, R. (1995). Reflective practice through critical friendship: Some
possibilities. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(2), 149–160.
Gray, S. M. (2012). From principles to practice: Collegial observation for teacher development.
TESOL Journal, 3(2), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.16
Gün, B. (2011). Quality self-reflection through reflection training. ELT Journal, 65(2), 126–135.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq040
Hunter, C. A., Ortloff, D. H., & Wagner, W. R. (2014). Out of our comfort zones: Reflections
about teaching qualitative research at a distance. The Qualitative Report, 19(45), 1–24.
Hyacinth, T., & Mann, S. (2014). Reflective practice in Nigeria: Teachers’ voices and
experiences. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 18(3), 1–26.
Johnson, B. (2013, June 28). Great teachers don’t teach. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/great-teachers-do-not-teach-ben-johnson
Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom. Cambridge University Press.
48
Kelley, J. E. (2008). Harmony, empathy, loyalty, and patience in Japanese children’s literature.
The Social Studies, 99(2), 61-70.
Lewis, K. A. (2018). A digital immigrant venture into teaching online: An autoethnographic
account of a classroom teacher transformed. The Qualitative Report, 23(7), 1752–1772.
Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782488
Lyde, A. R., Grieshaber, D. C., & Byrns, G. (2016). Faculty teaching performance: Perceptions
of a multi-source method for evaluation (MME). Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 16(3), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.18145
Miller, J. E., & Seldin, P. (2014). Changing practices in faculty evaluation. American
Association of University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/article/changing-practices-
faculty-evaluation#.XcussFczbIU
Miller, P. (2012). Ten characteristics of a good teacher. English for Specific Purposes, 1, 36–38.
Moore, J. A., & Carter-Hicks, J. (2014). Let’ s talk! Facilitating a faculty learning community
using a critical friends group approach. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–17.
Moradkhani, S. (2019). EFL teachers’ perceptions of two reflection approaches. ELT Journal,
73(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy030
Newcomer, S. N. (2017). Investigating the power of authentically caring student-teacher
relationships for Latinx students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 17(2), 179–193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1310104
49
Nguyen, H. T. M., & Ngo, N. T. H. (2018). Learning to reflect through peer mentoring in a
TESOL practicum. ELT Journal, 72(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx053
Nilsson, M. H. Z., Wennergren, A. C., & Sjöberg, U. (2018). Tensions in communication-
Teachers and academic facilitators in a critical friendship. Action Research, 16(1), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316660365
Orlova, N. (2009). Video recording as a stimulus for reflection in pre-service EFL teacher
training. English Teaching Forum, 2, 30–36.
Palmer, T. (2015, June 20). 15 characteristics of a 21st-century teacher. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/discussion/15-characteristics-21st-century-teacher
Probst, B., Harris, D., Pehm, J., Lindquist, R., Mora, O., Hallas, V., & Sandoval, S. (2016). In
our voices: A collaborative reflection on teaching and being taught. Qualitative Social
Work, 15(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325015618772
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers:
Strategies for teachers learning. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics (4th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Rucker, N. W. (2019, December 10). Getting started with culturally responsive teaching.
Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/getting-started-culturally-responsive-teaching
Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. J. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience: Practice and
reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14,
161–178.
Rychly, L., & Graves, E. (2012). Teacher characteristics for culturally responsive pedagogy.
Multicultural Perspectives, 14(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2012.646853
50
Saldaña, J. & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life [PDF file]. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Samaras, A. P., & Sell, C. (2013). Please write: Using critical friend letter writing in teacher
research. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(4), 93–110.
Sanden, S. (2016). Negotiating discrepancies: Literacy instruction in the university classroom
and the primary classroom. Journal of Literacy Practice and Research, 41(3), 30-37.
Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of prior
learning experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), 567-580.
Schibsted, E. (2009, May 13). How to develop positive classroom management. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/classroom-management-relationships-strategies-tips
Shahrokni, S. A. (2017). Nearpod. TESL-EJ, 20(4). http://www.tesl-
ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume20/ej80/ej80m2/
Skepple, R. G. (2015). Preparing culturally responsive pre-service teachers for culturally diverse
classrooms. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning, 12(6), 57–
69.
Smith, M. G. (2019). A video-mediated critical friendship reflection framework for ESL teacher
education. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 23(1), 1–18.
Stark, P. B., & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen Research,
(0), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1
Storey, V. A., & Wang, V. C. X. (2016). Critical friends protocol. Adult Learning, 28(3), 107–
114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159516674705
Swaffield, S. (2004). Critical friends: Supporting leadership, improving learning. Improving
Schools, 7(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480204049340
51
The Education Alliance. (2020). Culturally responsive teaching. Brown University
https://www.brown.edu/academics/education-alliance/teaching-diverse-learners/strategies-
0/culturally-responsive-teaching-0
Thorgersen, C. F. (2014). Learning among critical friends in the instrumental setting. National
Association for Music Education, 32(2), 60–67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314521032
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and
models. The Guilford Press.
Tuğa, B. E. (2013). Reflective feedback sessions using video recordings. ELT Journal, 67(2),
175–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs081
Vo, L. T., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2010). Critical friends group for EFL teacher professional
development. ELT Journal, 64(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp025
Wachob, P. (2011). Critical friendship circles: The cultural challenge of cool feedback.
Professional Development in Education, 37(3), 353–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.537064
Wahyudi, R. (2016). Becoming an empowered EFL teacher : A critical self-reflection of
professional development. Elted, 20, 83–96.
Walsh, S., & Mann, S. (2015). Doing reflective practice: A data-led way forward. ELT Journal,
69(4), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv018
Wiles, R., Charles, V., Crow, G., & Heath, S. (2006). Researching researchers: Lessons for
research ethics. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 283–299.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065004
52
Williams, J. K., & Todd, R. H. (2016). Debriefing the interpretive researcher: Spider sniffing
with critical friend. The Qualitative Report, 21(12), 2161–2175.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed.) [PDF file]. Sage Publications,
Inc.
Zulfikar, T. (2019). From an active learner to a reflective practitioner: Learning to become a
professional Indonesian EFL instructor. The Qualitative Report, 24(3), 429–440.
53
Appendix A
The Responsibilities of Each Participant in the CF
The CF
principles
Responsibilities of each participant:
Tom (the observed lecturer)
Calvin (the observer and the critical friend)
Trust
• Calvin and Tom had established a good rapport (e.g., as a lecturer-student
as well as a doctoral research advisor-research advisee) for around two
years before the CF project began.
• Calvin initiated the CF project, informed Tom about rules and processes of
the project, and invited him to participate in the CF.
Peer
Observation • Calvin observed and video-recorded classroom activities in Tom’s four
class sessions. The observation was guided by the teaching framework
(see Appendix B) of Moradkhani (2019). The framework was selected
because it was formulated by “consulting multiple ELT resources, two
domain experts, and observation sheets Moradkhani had collected during
his/her years of teaching EFL and supervising teachers in language
schools” (p. 64).
Interactions
and
Reflection
Calvin:
• Described teaching activities performed by Tom
• Summarized the descriptions on PowerPoint slides
• Put the teaching videos on the slides to illustrate some teaching activities;
• Showed specific teaching aspects (e.g., by playing the teaching videos)
that might need future improvement and the ones that he could learn
• Led the discussions on the slides with the observed lecturer
• Asked him to clarify what he did in the classroom
• Shared lessons learned from the classroom practices and discussions
• Provided feedback to the observed lecturer’s teaching performance as a
friend
• Shared his experiences as a student and lecturer in Indonesia with regards
to the teaching practices that happened in the observed lecturer’s class
Tom:
• Provided comments to the descriptions, reflections, and feedback that I
addressed in the interview sessions
• Shared perspectives on his participation in the CF and the extent he
believed the CF might/might not help to make positive changes in his
future classrooms
Note. These participant responsibilities address empirical gaps in the CF literature regarding
details on participants’ roles (Golby & Appleby, 1995) and specifics of the observation protocol
focusing on particular teaching aspects (Farrell, 2001).
54
Appendix B
The Observation Framework (adapted from Moradkhani, 2019, p. 71)
No Teaching Aspects Reflections
1 Organization Does the teacher organize subject matter, prepare for the class,
clearly state objectives, emphasize, and summarize main
points?
2 Rapport Does the teacher hold the interest of students? Is the teacher
respectful, fair, and impartial? Does the teacher provide
feedback, encourage participation, interact with students, show
enthusiasm?
3
Teaching techniques Does the teacher use relevant teaching aids, materials,
techniques, and technology; include variety, balance,
imagination, and group involvement; use examples that are
simple, clear, and appropriate; stay focused on and meets stated
objectives?
4 Presentation Does the teacher establish a classroom environment conducive
to learning; maintain eye contact; use a clear voice, strong
projection, proper enunciation, and clear instructions; use
appropriate gestures to make himself/herself understood?
5 Management Does the teacher use time wisely, demonstrate leadership
ability, appropriately deal with disruptive behaviors?
6 Questioning Does the teacher ask both factual and interpretive questions;
strike a good balance between yes/no and wh- questions in the
light of students’ proficiency level; allot enough waiting time to
get a response?
7 Interaction Does the teacher maintain a good balance between teacher-
student and student-student interactions, maximize student
talking time, have a relatively equal interaction with all
students, utilize pair/group work appropriately?
55
Appendix C
My Observation Notes Based on the Video Recordings
In this note, T refers to the observed lecturer. Then, for anonymity reasons, I use pseudonyms
(e.g., Za or Sa) to refer to students. I printed the pseudonyms in italic. For brevity purposes, I
decided to show the observation notes only on two class sessions.
Class session 1_Wednesday_August 20, 2019
1. The observed lecturer (henceforth called T) introduces a student who just joined the class
[minute 0-1].
2. T introduces me and briefly tells where I am from. T explains that he traveled to
Indonesia and visited some tourism places in my hometown, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, a
long time ago. [minute 1-2]
3. T explains that I am here to do some recordings.
T says, “if I am asking you to do it, I better to do the same.” [minute 2-3]
4. T explains what the students will do in the class today.
“I would like us to start our semester with some guiding principles; we will do it in non-
linguistic ways; we will do some drawing.”
[minute 3-4.20]
5. T distributes a handout to the group. [minute 4.20 -5.30]
6. T asks the students to write the group number in the paper and bring the paper on Friday.
T then checks who is in group 1, 2, 3, and so on and tells guiding principles that the
students will discuss in the group.
Group 1: Potentials
Group 2: Funds of knowledge
Group 3: Diversity in ELL
Group 4: Scaffolding
Group 5: Students with limited formal education
Group 6: Special needs
Group 7: Access, support, and accommodation
Group 8: Multimedia, literacy, and technology
[minute 5.30-8.00]
7. Read the handout, check with your friends, and think about any take-ways you can have
from the text. [minute 8.01-8.10]
56
8. The students read the text and discuss it with the groups.
T distributes drawing paper and crayon to the groups.
[minute 8.11-13.50]
9. T interrupts the discussion.
T explains:
the “think aloud”: telling what I am doing and why I am doing it to help students
understand the mind of T; why T asks students to work in the group; T wants people to
know each other little bit better; T clarifies that he is aware of the quiet space that
students need for doing the discussions; in that situation, he explains that he has to move
around the class to distribute the paper; he will try to little bit more efficient with his
time. Although some students might think that this drawing activity might be expensive,
but T believes that it is an important task.
[minute 13.50-17.00]
10. T shows examples of the drawing of the guiding principles (e.g., funds of knowledge,
potentials, students with limited formal education, scaffolding) on the TV screens done
by students from his previous class. There are some pictures, such as scale, ladders,
bridges, and apples on the screens. [minute 17-18.45]
11. T asks students to draw. [minute 18.50]
12. A female student seems to be passive.
She seems not to participate actively in the drawing process. [minute 19-22]
13. T moves around the class and observe the students’ work. [minute 22-23.50]
14. T comes back with the students’ attendance list on his hand and observes the students’
work. He often smiles and has a small talk with his students. [minute 24; minute 26.40]
15. A female student in one group seems to do all the drawings. [minute 26.24]
16. T stands in the middle of the class and looks back at his attendance list while observing
his students’ work. [minute 27.27; minute 29.70]
17. T comes back to his table and prepares some small paper. [minute 30.05]
18. T comes back to the middle of the class and observes the students’ work. [minute 31.14]
19. T asks his students to finish the work in 5 minutes. [minute 31.27]
20. T writes numbers on the class whiteboards on which the students will put their drawings.
[minute 32]
21. T sits with a group and has a small talk with them. [minute 33.52]
57
22. Some students start to put their drawings on the whiteboard based on the group’s number;
T gives them the tape to stick their posters. [minute 34.20]
23. A female student plays with her smartphone while his friends are still finishing the
drawing. [minute 37.45-38.10]
She is the only female student in her group.
Three other friends are all male.
24. T raises his right hand (signaling his students to stop working).
His students raise their right hand too. [minute 40.44]
25. T speaks to the class that the key to doing group work is that everyone is participating; “I
want to make sure that everyone is participating.” [minute 41.33]
26. T explains that while everyone was working, he does not just sit down. His goal is that T
wants to remember everybody’s name. “Am I say your name correctly? I see some
people got their tags, and I check my list.” [minute 42.05-43.45]
27. T informs his students that three persons cannot join them today. [minute 43.51]
28. T asks his students: who wants to take one of them in their group. [minute 44]
T recommends: how if we put student A there to have more men there; a balanced group?
29. T decides not to discuss the syllabus on this day because he runs out of time; besides, he
does not want to throw many things before the class ends. T asks his students to check
their blackboard, check the content, and review the syllabus and readings there. [minute
45.20]
30. T asks his students to give final comments on what they learn today that is helpful for
them. Three students give their opinions, and T praises the opinions, e.g., great
comments! [minute 45.40-46.53]
31. T ends the class, and the students leave the class. [minute 52]
Class session 2_Friday_August 23, 2019
32. T asks the technician (TC) to come in and help with the technology.
T wants his students to use the same technology; T says: being in this room enables the
students to try the technology. [minute 0-46]
33. TC demonstrates how to connect students’ laptops to the classroom TV screens so that
the students can see small texts more easily. TC explains how to set the IP numbers.
[minute 1.30-5.01]
58
34. T explains that he wants to show the students’ drawings that he photographed and then
uploaded on the blackboard before the class so that every student can now see it on the
blackboard. [minute 5.05]
35. T demonstrates how to access the drawing. [minute 8]
Students have their own laptop to see the drawing. They can also see the drawing from
the TV screens available in the class.
36. T asks his students to sit with their group, and students move around. [minute 8.36-9.45]
37. T asks the group to decide who will be the speaker. “Then, make sure your speaker
remembers what you discussed and know what they want to say.” [minute 10.00]
38. T explains about the concept of “inclusivity” [minute 11.25-13.45]
“When I introduced Calvin, and I said it is a very beautiful place; my wife and I went to
Yogyakarta. I was reflecting on that. Did I need to say that? Can I just say I was there?
Thinking of why we say what we say in front of our students […] If I want to be
inclusive, stick to the subject matters not the agenda. When I said that I went to
Yogyakarta, it is a beautiful place; Mount Merapi Borobudur; because it might be another
agenda; I want to show you all that I travel somewhere. You will think that “that will
kind of excluding me” I will not be able to do that because of my immigration status,
nationality, and other things.
39. Four students respond to his concept. [minute 13.50-18.30]
It is okay because it is to show that the teacher still has life.
“Social-economic” issues.
Let students know that you are humans.
A teacher offered his students to go to Europe and framed it in an educational mindset;
therefore, it does not feel to exclude students at all. If they can go this year, please do, if
not, maybe they can try next year.
40. T repeats again that he really thinks about that matter, thinking carefully what he is
saying in the classroom. [minute 18.32-19.00]
41. T gives students some minutes to check in with their group and decide who will be the
speaker. [minute 19.30]
42. T puts some posters on the whiteboard. [minute 20.21-22.01]
43. The same female student plays with her phone again, not talking with her group
members. [minute 22.45-23.40]
44. T asks his students to prepare their notes in case there are some important points from the
group presentation. [minute 25.01]
59
45. T allows the presenter to sit or stand, but reminds him/her to make an eye-contact.
[minute 25.47]
46. The first group starts the presentation. [minute 26]
The group’s drawing is displayed on the classroom TV screens.
Some students also see the drawing from their laptops.
T sees the picture from the computer monitor on his table.
47. T invites the class to give the group feedback. [minute 27.42]
Three students respond.
It seems that only Za and Sa are the ones who actively participate in the classrooms.
48. The second group starts the presentation. [minute 29.20]
The group’s drawing is displayed on the classroom TV screens.
Some students also see the drawing from their laptop.
T sees the picture from the computer monitor on his table.
49. T invites the class to give the group feedback. [minute 30.24]
Two other students give responses (not Za and Sa).
50. T checks with his students about the technology used in the class; they seem to be okay;
they can see the drawing from the screen and laptop. [minute 31.08]
51. The third group starts the presentation. [minute 31.24]
52. T asks his students who want to link the diversity with the ideas discussed in the previous
meeting. [minute 33.05]
53. The same student (Za) gives feedback to the group. [minute 33.10]
Another student gives feedback. [minute 33.40]
T says great comments!
54. The fourth group starts the presentation. [minute 34.09]
55. Two students give feedback. [minute 35.12]
They give a compliment to the group.
56. T builds the students’ feedback. [minute 36.14-37.24]
Scaffolding is such an important concept.
57. The fifth group starts the presentation. [minute 37.42]
58. T invites students to give comments, but no one responds. [minute 39.07]
T breaks the silence asking his students if anyone is interested in teaching in Spokane.
There is a refugee center there. [minute 39.21]
60
59. The same student, Sa, responds to T by asking him a question. [minute 40.29]
60. T seems not to have an answer to that question; if we have time, T will invite a teacher
from the refugee center so that everyone can talk with him. T will follow up with Sa.
There is no simple answer to her question. That is a great question. [minute 40.45]
61. The sixth group starts the presentation. [minute 41.36]
62. T invites students to give comments. [minute 42.46]
63. Two students give responses. [minute 42.53]
The students share their real-life experiences: working experiences and educational
psychology projects in high school.
64. The seventh group starts the presentation. [minute 43.43]
No response from the class.
65. T says that they run out of time. [minute 45.14]
66. The last group starts the presentation. [minute 45.42]
67. Two same students, Za and Ja, comment on the group’s ideas. [minute 46.43]
68. T briefly summarizes the presentations; “please think about those guiding principles in
your class.” However, while T is talking, most of the students are busy putting books on
their bags and preparing to leave. [minute 53.33]
61
Appendix D
The Descriptive Codes Generated from the Observation Notes
I followed the descriptive coding technique by Saldaña and Omasta (2018, p. 289). Then, the
number (e.g., 15, 47) preceding the description shows the observation number I wrote in
Appendix C. For brevity purposes, I decided to show only one/two quotations of each code.
DOMINATION
• 15. A female student in one group seems to do all the drawings.
• 47. It seems that only Za and Sa are the ones who actively participate in the classrooms.
FAIRNESS
• 3. T says, “if I am asking you to do it, I better to do the same.”
• 95. T responds to his story. He also shares his personal story.
INCLUSIVITY
• 38. T explains the concept of “inclusivity.”
“When I introduced Calvin on Wednesday, and I said that my wife and I went there, I
was reflecting on that. Did it really matter? Thinking about say what we say. I started to
think about that. But, does it necessarily include you all? So, it is not just about using the
right pronouns; it is so much deeper than that!”
INTERACTION
• 80. A student raises her hand, and T sits with the group. They talk.
• 100. T asks his students to show their thumb up if they like it or thump down if they do
not like it. Most of the students show their thumb up.
MANAGEMENT
• 29. T decides not to discuss the syllabus on this day because he runs out of time.
• 65. T says that they run out of time.
ORGANIZATION
• 25. T speaks to the class that the key to doing group work is that everyone is
participating; “I want to make sure that everyone is participating.”
• 29. T asks his students to check their blackboard, check the content, and review the
syllabus and readings there.
PLAYING WITH PHONE
• 23. A female student plays with her smartphone while his friends are still finishing the
drawing.
• 43. The same female student plays with her phone again.
62
PRESENTATION
• 20. T writes numbers on the class whiteboards on which the students will put their
drawings.
• 46, 48. The group’s drawing is displayed on the classroom TV screens.
QUESTIONING
• 30. T asks his students to give final comments on what they learn today that is helpful for
them.
• 49. T invites the class to give the group feedback.
RAPPORT
• 1. T introduces a student who just came to the class.
• 26. T wants to remember everybody’s name. “Am I say your name correctly? I see some
people got their tags, and I check my list.”
STUDENTS’ PASSIVE BEHAVIOR
• 12. A female student seems to be passive. She seems not to participate actively in the
drawing process.
• 64. No response from the class.
TEACHING TECHNIQUE
• 93. T wants students to circle up and share their discussion experiences, talking about
themselves, their culture, opening themselves to someone that they do not know very
well.
• 149. T explains about the essence of creating a safe place to talk and gives some
examples to support his explanations
63
Appendix E
My Analytic Memos on the Observation Notes
1. How can T deal with students who are distracted with their phones?
How does T feel about this?
2. Is there a policy regarding the use of a phone in the classroom?
3. Why are there only a few students who give feedback to their friends’ presentations? Is it
because of the open questions, such as “do you have any feedback for the group?”
4. Will T point some students who never speak up in the class to give feedback?
5. I like the use of the group discussions, but how will T assess each student’s performance?
Will there be a quiz? How can T know that each student understands the ideas discussed
in the group?
6. It seems that a group discussion is always used in those three class sessions. Does T have
reasons for selecting the group discussions as his teaching and learning approach?
7. Time management also becomes a concern here. Is T aware of that? Will T time the
group discussion sessions (e.g., using his phone’s stopwatch)? In that way, T perhaps can
ensure that students have enough time to share and participate in giving feedback to
other’s group class presentations.
64
Appendix F
The Interview Transcripts
For anonymity reasons, I use pseudonyms (e.g., Bel or Ter) to refer to students. I printed the
pseudonyms in italic. For brevity purposes, I decided to show the transcripts of only one
interview session.
Interview 2_18 September 2019
Calvin:
31. [play the video] This is what I am interested in. Professor Tom, how do you feel about
this?
Tom:
32. I spend a long time thinking about: do I want to go there with the students? And, it’s hard
for me to say it because I was being vulnerable. But, you know, I have been, often time,
thinking about how we, our strategic, and what we say like why we say things for
reasons. If I am introducing you as a student from Indonesia, then, I have to say I went to
Borobudur. So, why I am saying; why I pretend the focus back on me? Why I didn’t
focus on you? Or what my purpose in saying this in the first place. Students might say, oh
cool, this guy travelled. Am I trying to get them respect me because I have been in
different places, that I married, I did these cool things, or so that might have been my
thinking at the time. Then, when as I reflected on it, how about those students that may
never wanna travel, who don’t identify straight white man, can be a lot of people there
that don’t identify that way. Why do they care that I got kids and traveled in these places,
you know?
Calvin:
33. Professor, honestly, I also experience the same thing like here in the US. when it was like
in the first meeting of the class after the break. Sometimes, it is quite difficult for me to
engage in the discussion when they talk about: okay, where did you go?
Tom:
34. Ya…yes...[laughing] I didn’t go anywhere.
Calvin:
35. I just stay in my apartment. I bring this up and want to discuss it with you because it is so
true. Sometimes, I just feel I don’t go anywhere. [laughing]
Tom:
36. Then, ya, that’s right. Ya, then, you feel bad. What’s wrong with me? Is it because I
didn’t have enough money to travel, or I just didn’t want to travel? I don’t want to go to
these special places, I just stayed at home. So, rather than including people, making feel
comfortable about who they are, and their place in the class, comments like that can be
exclusive; can make people feel there is something wrong with them; like they are
[othered]. And, this happens a lot. If you have your students; like if I have to say, to talk
about physically you; oh, your skin is darker, and I am like making a point of that; I am
sort of like othering you. Oh, I am saying that there is something that makes you different
65
that stands out, and that can make someone feel uncomfortable, right? Plenty of people
feel that way. That wouldn’t be me being intentionally mean; it is just me in general, so a
person who’s trying to be friendly, but, instead, they are excluding because they make
some feel uncomfortable.
Calvin:
37. This is another unique moment, Professor Tom. At that time, Sa, one of your students,
asked a question, but I don’t know what was going on at that time, but it seems that you
decide not to answer, or the answer is too long. This is just to show you [play video]. In
this situation, actually, I learn how you respect your students because in some teaching
contexts in Indonesia, if you do not have an answer, they just say: I don’t know; you can
browse the Google, you find out, and then you tell me later on. How do you feel about
that?
Tom:
38. I don’t know if this is going to happen. Now after I see that again, oh wow, I wonder if
I’m gonna have the opportunity to invite that former student because he’s in Boizy
[laughing]. I said we could. In the previous class, I invited people come talk; I don’t
know if we have time for that though.
Calvin:
39. What was going on at that time, because Sa’s question is like she speaks too fast?
Tom:
40. Ya, I don’t remember what she asked, but I do fakely remember that it was the first week
of the class, and I mentioned about the newcomer center; talking about if students have
very, very low level of English, how can we pull them in our classes? And, so that’s why
I brought the newcomer center just having like make decision to speed up the process of
language learning process because some students just don’t have the luxury of time, so a
lot of extra programs.
Calvin:
41. This is just an interesting thing for me because I learn from you how to respond.
Tom:
42. I think it was one of those questions that I get asked early in this semester before students
have done much readings, and they don’t really know that. At the end of the semester,
other students can answer that for her because hopefully we’ll have done all of the
readings and learning what we need to do. I think I was responding more like: we are
going to learn about these, and at the end of the semester you should be able to answer
your own questions.
Calvin:
43. After they finish discussing; then, they have to present. Interestingly, I see two groups
who did not receive comments from other groups. The video showed that you are like to
break the silence by doing this... [showing the video]. This is Val’s group. You break the
silence. How do you feel about this situation when no one respond?
66
Tom:
44. I guess there is a couple of things. I could not start calling up people, and I don’t
remember if it was a question that was like a thought question or question more about
people’s experiences. I don’t remember. I think probably I am not a kind of person who I
should call some people very much. I should though. I think there is something that I
wanna do better at is: keep it going by actually calling on people cause I do make a ton of
eye contacts. I am always really aware of my students. I know some students looking at
me, so I get the sense that we are following along. I could start calling on some people,
just say: what do you think? Sometimes, I just really have no idea, you know [laugh],
that’s okay, but I should be able to do that more frequently. I will.
45. That was also towards the ends of the class, I think, and they were tired cause we had
done the activity where they were presenting the picture that they drew and so Val’s
group had drawn the picture that she had drawn and any comments on that particular
guiding principle, and no one had anything to say cause people are getting kind of tired.
Probably if I say: is there any comments, and then if I said Rey, do you have any
comments? It should be like, no, and she would not necessarily; shouldn’t have that
comment; I was not asking her. I was not asking her that we all have comments; so,
anything you want to say; a kind of wait; no one got anything to say, okay so let’s move
on.
Calvin:
46. I saw that you made two interruptions when the students were discussing and working in
a group. The first one is when you give extra paper and repeat the instructions. And, the
second thing is you ask your students about how they feel about the discussion. I just
want to know why you make these interruptions. Just a quick video [play the video].
Tom:
47. I made that interruption because what I sense from hearing the groups is that they were
trying to make generalizations about American culture. In America, we do this. When I
am a teacher, I’ll do x, y, z, and I did not want them to do that. I want them to thinking
about their personal experiences with the rite of passage, food, different roles of
responsibilities. I want everyone to be speaking for themselves. And so, by doing that,
they could see how were they similar? How were they different in their own values?
Calvin:
48. Professor Tom, do you want to see the second interruption?
Tom:
49. Sure, ya.
Calvin:
50. I have to ask this because it rarely happens in Indonesian classes. My teachers never ask.
After this, you just do this; just do it. That’s why I need to hear from you.
Tom:
51. I guess there are a couple of things. One, I think it is important for students to feel like
that they have choices. What we do is pretty consensus building. I am sort of looking
around; kind of get a sense of if I said: hey, let’s share what you guys have been talking
about; I’d really like to know that. I don’t want to force on people if it’s a pretty private
and not comfortable. So, I look for strong reaction. If I see someone is going like
that...okay, I can see that’s gonna create some conflict for that person. So, I just feel like
67
it is important that students feel like they have kind of ownership; they can decide how
we want to move forward.
Calvin:
52. So, in that case, if for example, majority of students say no; is it okay for you?
Tom:
53. If they said there is no way I wanna share this, I would say okay, but because I wanna
add two questions; one is: is this going okay? I sensed it was, so let’s keep going. And the
other question was do you want to share that with other people? so that we can talk about
what you learn about yourself and about each other without putting people on the spot
like they had to. It was kind of fun, and we did.
Calvin:
54. In line with that, actually I see that, at the end of the class, you asked your students to
give thumbs up or thumbs down. I just observe that some students give... [showing
thumbs down]
Tom:
55. Like this [moving his thumbs down]. Ya, it’s okay. What I hope is that I see people doing
this this, this. If I see people going like thumbs down, and that gives me a sense that
something wasn’t quite right in that activity; it could be that they felt triggered; it was a
very personal stuff; or they felt like they were sharing something, and they weren’t
sharing it in a way that was being very accepted. That’s how I interpreted those, so I kind
of expected most people be thumbs up; oya that was cool. I saw some people kind of
going like this [showing thumbs down], but I expected that. I wasn’t thinking that
everyone was gonna be a 100% on board with talking about some pretty personal stuffs
about their life and so I expected to see some thumbs down.
Calvin:
56. Do you do something for the thumbs down?
Tom:
57. So, part of it is to model like how we can move forward, if I were gonna build off this for
the next day as allow us, students to kind of go like: oh, I don’t get this; this is not fun. I
would have asked for some people to volunteer why, and they could have talked about
ways they would like to do differently. And then, I’ll keep that and take that into
consideration for the next class. It is mostly around process since my content is a kind of
set up the content around the process; so, people like that process, working together, they
prefer to be more whole group.
Calvin:
58. As a teacher, you are open to those thumbs down, and you give students choices; is it
okay if they, for example, don’t like or feel comfortable?
Tom:
59. Oh totally, I am not evaluating them based on how they respond to my activities. I just
wanna see, generally speaking people, that the activity thinks resonating, moves forward,
or it is just totally flopping. And, I can sense from the class that people are talking and
they’re working. It’s going pretty well, but I don’t want to assume that, so it just gives me
an opportunity to assess; Does it resonate with you? And if I see a bunch of people going
68
like this [showing thumbs down], I’ll be like wow, that could be my surprise and then
they probably explain why since they are going to be future teachers themselves.
Calvin:
60. Professor, so this is quite sensitive, but can I ask this?
Tom:
61. Ya, sure.
Calvin:
62. In that sharing session, when the students share their ideas, and you respond; I capture
this moment when you open up your personal story about your parents.
Tom:
63. That was hard.
Calvin:
64. Do you still remember that?
Tom:
65. Ya.
Calvin:
66. How do you feel about that?
Tom:
67. Well because I was asking them to talk about their own personal lives, so I thought like it
was only fair if I am asking them to open up about their personal lives, so I should also be
able to open up about mine within reason and in safe; I am just sort of showing that if
they can be vulnerable; I can be vulnerable, they can too. It’s all a part of their learning;
helping us to understand how we are, where we are coming from.
Calvin:
68. So, I can sense that it is like of fairness. If you have to do that, I’ll do that too. It reminds
me of writing class. The professor should have experiences: writing, publications, when
they ask their students to publish, I just feel like...[laughing]
Tom:
69. That is exactly it. If I am asking you to do it, I should do it too.
Calvin:
70. This is the last observation. In the beginning of the class of meeting four, you talk about
being independent, and you use again real-life examples; when kids leave home; is it
right that you have to leave at 18? And, many students responded, but then I just want to
inform you that, in the video, you spend like 23 minutes.
Tom:
71. I know. It dragged down, and only a few of people talking. I know; that bothered me. I
felt like I was bummed about that; they started to talking about something like
restaurants, but a lot of people were not participating.
Calvin:
72. Ya, so you are aware of that?
Tom:
73. Yes, Za really wanna to talk, and the other students were just kind of listening and
become passive. I felt bad about that. That didn’t go the way I want it to go.
69
Calvin:
74. Do you expect that to be that long?
Tom:
75. No. And they wouldn’t stop. They just kept going on and on about how much they like
these different foods; And they just went on and on. And I was surprised. That wasn’t
something that I had expected [laughing]
Calvin:
76. Sometimes when I am in a class discussion, especially when my American friends talk,
they just talk very fluently, and I just feel like their opinion is so cool. I just look down at
myself.
Tom:
77. Ya, so that’s about inclusion. I think I have mentioned it. I remember that you got a
couple of students talking about their favorite restaurant; things they like to do, things
they like to eat. And I looked at Mar, and he is also from Wakina, and hey, you are from
Wakina, and I am from Wakina. Remember Kopps burgers, oh ya, that’s so big. It is like
a conversation between two of us, and everybody else just sit around. I am not
participating so that for me, that was a bummer. That happened. I guess I was feeling it
was; I was kind of tired that day. They are all silent. I know. It didn’t work.
Calvin:
78. So, these are the things I can observe from your class and learn from our discussions
[showing the suggestions for improvement in the slides].
Tom:
79. Yap, I totally agree. You know because it is interesting like; because I don’t like calling
on students, I need to do that more. That’s actually a great point. We use our phone for
some activities, but when we are not using phone; you are right, I’ll say: let’s keep our
phone closed. And then, this is really important because I say objectives at the beginning
of the class, but I am really checking to see if they meet our objectives, and that’s part of
the assessment, so this is really a big deal.
Calvin:
80. Do you have a short quiz or something like that?
Tom:
81. I tend not to and so I tend to be more into the activity. I mean my assessment would be
the non-verbal diagrams; I can see those, scan them, and put them on the blackboard. So,
that’s one way, but I could do more like what did you learn today? help people kind of
share out what they have learnt; do we meet our objectives; let’s go back to our
objectives, do we meet these? That would be really good. And then, time management, I
agree. I try to balance; try to create rapport, with get stuffs done, right? [laughing] So,
that’s good.
Calvin:
82. Ya, it’s my observation, in my humble opinion. Then, I just want to ask about how do
you feel about this discussion and being recorded. How do you feel about that?
Tom:
83. It’s super revealing for I am aware that, one, I am really grateful to you because it is not
an easy thing to sit down with professor; here is what I saw you could do better. So, I am
really grateful to you because that big growing occurs when someone says did you
70
notice? Wow, you are right, and I am super grateful to you for that. And, I am learning a
lot about those ways I could be more; hold people more accountable. When they were in
my class, to be on the ball, under the game more, I can push the students little more.
Thinking about time management, assessment, checking phones; those things, all kind of
circle around our students; are they really engaged? do they feel like they’re gonna be
held accountable for their learning? That, kind of, fits us a theme, and I think it is really
an important point.
84. So, in terms of how I feel, I feel really positive. The positive feelings are for me that I
really learn a lot. I don’t get used to see myself teach, so ya I learn a lot about that, and I
already mentioned that doing it with a doctoral student, I am grateful that you take that
risk, and you feel comfortable enough with me. Ya, so that’s super cool.
85. And then, watching video definitely helps a lot, right. It totally met my expectations since
it already kind of confirm things that I have been thinking about already. It wasn’t like I
have been telling myself in my head things that were very different from what I saw on
the video. You know, in my head, it just confirms that here are my strengths, here are my
weaknesses. And the video confirms that for me.
Calvin:
86. How do you feel when I share my personal feeling about that, for instance, about
inclusivity?
Tom:
87. Ya, that’s really helpful cause it shows very important to you, and it’s really important to
me too.
Calvin:
88. And, do you feel any conflicting feeling in our discussions, for instance, when I say
something about time management?
Tom:
89. No, not at all. And then, as far as improving, I think that has a lot of potentials. I can’t
think of any way to improve right now. I think probably it would be super cool if you are
observing, thinking about me, and I do that for you. So, the power difference isn’t so big;
it’s little awkward for you as a graduate student to say that, but you navigate it that well.
But if it were with my colleagues; if we were peered, that would be probably better
because they are also in the same situation. You know what I mean. But then, on the
other hand, it is good that you’re away more objective. So, I think it is really a good
project.
71
Appendix G
The Descriptive Codes Generated from My Interview Transcript
I followed the descriptive coding technique by Saldaña and Omasta (2018, p. 289). Then, the
number (e.g., 10, 58) preceding the description shows the observation number I wrote in
Appendix F. For brevity purposes, I decided to show only one/two quotations of each code.
WHAT I LEARN
• 10. I am learning people’s names, so the students are getting to know each other, and I
get to know their name.
• 58. As a teacher, you are open to those thumbs down, and you give students choices; is it
okay if they, for example, don’t like or feel comfortable?
FAIRNESS
• 67. Well because I was asking them to talk about their own personal lives, so I thought
like it was only fair if I am asking them to open up about their personal lives, so I should
also be able to open up about mine within reason and in safe; I am just sort of showing
that if they can be vulnerable; I can be vulnerable, they can too. It’s all a part of their
learning; helping us to understand how we are, where we are coming from.
• 69. That is exactly it. If I am asking you to do it, I should do it too.
TEACHING TECHNIQUE
• 26. We did that social skill T-chart. You (calvin) were there for that. What does it look
like when you cooperate? Eye-contact, and they are not checking on their phone.
• 44. I could not start calling up people […]. I think probably I am not a kind of person
who I should call some people very much.
INCLUSIVITY
• 32. I spend a long time thinking about: do I want to go there with the students? And, it’s
hard for me to say it because I was being vulnerable. But, you know, I have been, often
time, thinking about how we, our strategic, and what we say like why we say things for
reasons. If I am introducing you as a student from Indonesia, then, I have to say I went to
Borobudur. So, why I am saying; why I pretend the focus back on me? Why I didn’t
focus on you? Or what my purpose in saying this in the first place. Students might say, oh
cool, this guy travelled. Am I trying to get them respect me because I have been in
different places, that I married, I did these cool things, or so that might have been my
thinking at the time. Then, when as I reflected on it, how about those students that may
never wanna travel, who don’t identify straight white man, can be a lot of people there
that don’t identify that way. Why do they care that I got kids and traveled in these places,
you know?
• 77. Ya, so that’s about inclusion. I think I have mentioned it. I remember that you got a
couple of students talking about their favorite restaurant; things they like to do, things
they like to eat. And I looked at Mar, and he is also from Wakina, and hey, you are from
72
Wakina, and I am from Wakina. Remember Kopps burgers, oh ya, that’s so big. It is like
a conversation between two of us, and everybody else just sit around. I am not
participating so that for me, that was a bummer.
INTERACTION
• 28. The first two weeks, the students come from different disciplines, so I really like to
mix them up to get to know each other.
• 28. It is just nice to have these kinds of diversity in there. A woman is always nice to
have a man, and a man is always nice to have a woman.
MANAGEMENT.
• 71. I know. It dragged down, and only a few of people talking. I know; that bothered me.
I felt like I was bummed about that; they started to talking about something like
restaurants, but a lot of people were not participating.
• 75. No. And they wouldn’t stop. They just kept going on and on about how much they
like these different foods; And they just went on and on. And I was surprised. That
wasn’t something that I had expected [laughing].
PLAYING WITH PHONE
• 21. Look at that, she checked her phone again and she is kind of distracted. Very
interesting.
RAPPORT
• 8. I was really focused on their names.
• 10. I am learning people’s names, so the students are getting to know each other, and I
get to know their name.
STUDENTS’ PASSIVE BEHAVIOR
• 24. Ter is super quiet, and she is one the quietest students in the class.
• 73. […] and the other students were just kind of listening and become passive. I felt bad
about that. That didn’t go the way I want it to go.
POSITIVE FEELING
• 83. It’s super revealing for I am aware that, one, I am really grateful to you because it is
not an easy thing to sit down with professor; here is what I saw you could do better. So, I
am really grateful to you because that big growing occurs when someone says did you
notice? Wow, you are right, and I am super grateful to you for that. And, I am learning a
lot about those ways I could be more; hold people more accountable. When they were in
my class, to be on the ball, under the game more, I can push the students little more.
Thinking about time management, assessment, checking phones; those things, all kind of
circle around our students; are they really engaged? do they feel like they’re gonna be
held accountable for their learning? That, kind of, fits us a theme, and I think it is really
an important point.
73
• 84. So, in terms of how I feel, I feel really positive. The positive feelings are for me that I
really learn a lot. I don’t get used to see myself teach, so ya I learn a lot about that, and I
already mentioned that doing it with a doctoral student, I am grateful that you take that
risk, and you feel comfortable enough with me. Ya, so that’s super cool.
• 85. And then, watching video definitely helps a lot, right. It totally met my expectations
since it already kind of confirm things that I have been thinking about already. It wasn’t
like I have been telling myself in my head things that were very different from what I saw
on the video. You know, in my head, it just confirms that here are my strengths, here are
my weaknesses. And the video confirms that for me.
SUGGESTION
• 89. I think probably it would be super cool if you are observing, thinking about me, and I
do that for you. So, the power difference isn’t so big; it’s little awkward for you as a
graduate student to say that, but you navigate it that well. But if it were with my
colleagues; if we were peered, that would be probably better because they are also in the
same situation. You know what I mean.
FUTURE ACTION
• 44. I should though. I think there is something that I wanna do better at is: keep it going
by actually calling on people cause I do make a ton of eye contacts. I am always really
aware of my students. I know some students looking at me, so I get the sense that we are
following along. I could start calling on some people, just say: what do you think?
Sometimes, I just really have no idea, you know [laugh], that’s okay, but I should be able
to do that more frequently. I will.
• 79. We use our phone for some activities, but when we are not using phone; you are right,
I’ll say: let’s keep our phone closed. And then, this is really important because I say
objectives at the beginning of the class, but I am really checking to see if they meet our
objectives, and that’s part of the assessment, so this is really a big deal.
74
CHAPTER THREE
TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STUDIES
The first study explores the critical friendship (CF) with my research advisor as someone
I know very well for around two years. The exploration also focuses on teaching and learning
activities in a face-to-face (f2f) content course. I need to provide a “rival explanation” (Yin,
2018, p. 105) to my first study to have greater support for my theoretical propositions that the CF
project has the potential to (1) support university lecturers or language instructors and their
critical friends in their teaching development; (2) make them more aware of what happened in a
lesson, and their teaching behaviors; (3) free them from the isolated teaching condition; and (4)
be applicable across settings (e.g., reflecting on teaching and learning activities in the f2f and
online synchronous environment) with people they have known well for a long time, and with
those they have not.
Thus, in chapter four, I will present another case study asking similar research questions,
applying similar research processes to those of my first study, but involving research participants
whom I have not known very well. The second case study also focuses on the CF explorations
related to teaching and learning activities in two writing (skill) classes in an online synchronous
learning environment (e.g., in Zoom platform, https://zoom.us/). Finally, in chapter five, I will
compare findings and look for emerging patterns in both studies (e.g., presented in chapters two
and four) to have some thoughts on my theoretical propositions, place the propositions in the
discourse of the CF-related literature, and discuss contributions of this dissertation.
75
Reference
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed.) [PDF file]. Sage Publications,
Inc.
76
CHAPTER FOUR
STUDY TWO: LANGUAGE INSTRUCTORS AND A DOCTORAL STUDENT LEARN
FROM EACH OTHER: CRITICAL FRIENDSHIPS
Abstract
University language instructors, oftentimes, have so many things to do that they barely have time
to sit down, catch their breath, and reflect on what transpires inside their classrooms. In that
situation, a critical friendship (CF) might be a support system for the instructors, specifically in
the current COVID-19 situation and instructional adjustment period from face-to-face to the
online learning environment. Framed under CF principles and the spirit of interactions that foster
professional growth, this qualitative multiple-case study examined patterns and perspectives of
two American English writing instructors of a Language Center (LC) in a university in the USA
on their participation in a transnational and cross-cultural CF with an Indonesian doctoral student
as their critical friend. Further, the study explored their perspectives on how CF supports their
reflection of teaching practice, how that process of reflection supports their practice, specifically
in the instructional adjustment period, and my experiences as the critical friend in the CF. Four
data sources (teaching observation notes, interview transcripts, my analytic memos as a critical
friend, and email (text) communication with the instructors) were collected and analyzed
deductively and inductively. The qualitative cross-case analysis results show that all instructors
regard their participation in the CF as fruitful in diverse ways. In this research, I also explore
how the overall CF process supports my development as a person and as a writing teacher.
Pedagogical lessons I gain from the instructors’ online synchronous writing class, practical
implications of this study, and recommendations for further research are also presented.
Keywords: critical friendship, critical friend, reflection, qualitative research, writing class
77
Language Instructors and a Doctoral Student Learn from Each Other:
Critical Friendships
University language instructors are often very busy with so many demands on their time.
Primarily, they spend hours teaching in a classroom to get through the class syllabus and doing
administrative tasks, such as grading, preparing instructional materials for their students, and
annual review documents. Some instructors also have additional responsibilities on university
committees, community and social service (e.g., giving workshops for teachers), and research
activities outside classrooms. “A teacher’s day never really ends” (Farrell, 2004, p. 1).
For many university instructors, there is even more work to do in the current COVID-19
situation. This is because the condition has prompted universities, such as those in the USA, to
move their face-to-face (f2f) teaching and learning instruction in classrooms to online delivery
mode (Abdalla, 2020; Chavez, 2020; Foresman, 2020; Kelland, 2020; Levenson et al., 2020). In
that situation, the instructors will need to learn new skills that are different from those they have
been using in a traditional f2f language classroom (Hampel & Stickler, 2005). They might also
spend some time adjusting f2f learning activities they previously planned to meet their current
online class environments (Kearns, 2016).
The tight schedules of the instructors can limit their time to sit down, catch their breath,
and reflect on what they do inside classrooms more than just “the fleeting thoughts of oh, that
class went well” (Farrell, 2004, p. 1). To this point, Farrell (2004) reminded us that “If teachers
do not take time to reflect on their work, they may become prone to burnout” (p. 8). However,
the reflection is not easy to do alone (Farrell, 2001) because teachers are likely to be biased in
favor of their teaching styles and might not be able to exactly spot what worked and what did not
in their teaching practices (Moradkhani, 2019).
78
In that situation, a critical friend can play a role in being a support system for the
instructors to reflect on their teaching practices. For instance, the friend might provide questions
to understand their teaching, give constructive (not judgmental) feedback, and advocate for
success in their teaching (Costa & Kallick, 1993), specifically in the adjustment to online
teaching and learning instructions. The critical friend also collaborates “in a way that encourages
discussion and reflection to improve the quality of teaching and learning” (Farrell, 2001, p. 369).
To avoid negativity on the term and its application into practice, I maintain Farrell’s (1998) view
that the emphasis should be placed on “the notion of friend rather than that of critical” (p. 87).
Being open to one another (Farrell, 2004) and after the trust is established (Costa &
Kallick, 1993), the critical friend and the language instructors can collaboratively form a critical
friendship (henceforth called CF). “The central aim of CF is for one teacher to help another
teacher improve instruction through a foundation of trust, openness, and mutual respect” (Smith,
2019, p. 2). The CF might support the teaching reflection and the online instructional adjustment
of the instructors through “reciprocal and supportive” (Nguyen & Ngo, 2018, p. 188)
conversations. As a social process (Golby & Appleby, 1995), individual(s) involved in the
collaboration make inquiries about teaching, provide classroom data to be analyzed, and offer
feedback as a friend (Richard & Farrell, 2005; Thorgersen, 2014). I will continue the paper with
a brief literature review on principles of CF, transnational and cross-cultural CF, theoretical gaps
in the literature, and the theoretical framework of the study that led to the research questions.
79
Literature Review
Principles of CF
The CF in this study was conducted in a one-to-one model (Storey & Wang, 2016)
through “partner interactions” (Sturgill & Motley, 2014, p. 81) between a critical friend and two
language instructors. Looking at the ideas of being a critical friend and definitions of the CF, I
based the one-to-one CF in this study on four main principles: tentative trust, reflection, peer
observation, and interaction. I will discuss each of these principles in the subsequent paragraphs.
Tentative Trust
The first principle is tentative trust. Campbell et al. (2004) warned that “having a critical
friend may not always be comfortable” (p. 110) for some people. Therefore, it is essential to be
sensitive about the nature of the relationship and establish trust before starting the CF (Farrell,
1998). However, I agree with Farrell (2001) that participants in a CF sometimes might not have
sufficient time to build up a deep level of trust with each other. They might not be at a point
where they can openly share and talk about their teaching observations in “unguarded
conversation” (Baskerville & Goldbatt, 2009, p. 216). In past studies, CF participants were found
to need around eighteen months (see Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009), two years (see Chapter 2),
or even six years (see Golby & Appleby, 1995) to have that deep level of trust with one another.
Given that these long periods of time are not always feasible in many instructional environments
among colleagues, I asked in the current study whether I could develop what Baskerville and
Goldblatt (2009) called “tentative trust” (p. 217) with positive assumptions that the CF would
help teachers to be aware of “what it is they actually do (not what they “think” they do) in and
beyond their classrooms” (Farrell, 2016, p. 240).
80
I recognized that a set of ground protocols might help to create that sense of tentative
trust. For instance, Golby and Appleby (1995) suggested an open discussion at all stages in a CF:
“talking honestly about the project, coupled with respect and empathy for the other partner” (p.
156), and giving freedom for an observed teacher to decide what to integrate into the CF
practices. Moreover, teachers being observed need to be in a supportive environment (Farrell,
2004) where their critical friend will “listen well, clarify ideas, encourage specificity in teaching
practices, advocate for the success of the work, and not use the relationship for judging” (Costa
& Kallick, 1993, p. 50) or criticizing (Schuck & Russell, 2005).
Reflection
The second principle is reflection. Farrell (2006) said that “we do not learn as much from
experiences as we learn from reflecting on those experiences” (p. 77). As a subjective practice
(Kabilan, 2007), in teaching and learning, reflection happens when teachers systematically gather
data about their teaching inside classrooms, and they use the data to make informed decisions for
their pedagogical practices (Farrell, 2014) and draw implications for their teaching (Gün, 2011).
The reflection (on-action) can take place after the class, in Farrell’s (2016) words, by consciously
thinking about “visible behaviors of what we do as teachers” (p. 226) and “examining what
happened in a lesson” (p. 227). When teachers can be more aware of what happens in their
classroom, of factors that affect their teaching, and can pay attention to their behavior and that of
their students rightly, they can perform more effectively in their teaching practices (Farrell,
2004). Nevertheless, Farrell (2001) reminded us that reflection is not for everyone as it can cause
81
doubt and uncertainties; therefore, people involved in a reflection process should be in a “good
personal psychological state” (p. 373).
Peer Observation
The next principle is peer observation. In a teacher’s words, the observation “shouldn’t
be about just compiling negative information” (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011, p. 458). Instead, it
should be fruitful to both an observer and a teacher being-observed (Donnelly, 2007). For an
observed teacher, “Peer observations were essential, in that they confirmed my ability to get the
knowledge across to my students while giving me valuable insights into how to improve my
delivery further” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 124).
An observer might also gain some pedagogical lessons from a teacher that she/he
observed. Farrell and Guz (2019), for instance, reported classroom practices that they could learn
after observing an L2 reading class. Some of the lessons included doing activities in a step-by-
step process, using humor to maintain students’ interests, and providing examples to support
explanations. I believe that these lessons might be applicable to other language classes, such as
writing. Also, after observing a Research Writing course, Gebhard (2005) said that “I knew that I
wanted to adapt this activity (e.g., creating research project proposal posters) for the research
writing students in my class” (p.11).
Furthermore, peer observation might facilitate teachers to be more aware of their teaching
and improve by adopting some teaching strategies they have observed (Nguyen & Ngo, 2018)
and by comparing teaching ideas with colleagues (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011). For example, a
pre-service teacher in Nguyen and Ngo’s (2018) study said that “My peer’s lesson that I
observed was unfocused. When I taught my class, I never made this mistake. I became aware of
82
my teaching methods from observing her lesson” (p. 191). Another pre-service teacher conveyed
that “I observed Bi’s lesson. I saw she was very strict. I learned from her and tried to be strict in
my class” (p. 192). In line with Nguyen and Ngo’s views, Cosh (1999) believed that a peer
observation should encourage self-awareness and not be a tool for judging others based on one’s
assumptions, but instead for assessing those assumptions based on teaching practices of the
teachers. Peer observation may also create new learning opportunities, specifically in online
environments (Swinglehurst et al., 2008).
In their study, Swinglehurst et al. (2008) also brought up some teaching issues about
dealing with students who seldom contribute to class discussions, challenges in teaching mixed-
ability students, and ways of balancing individual learners’ needs and creating reciprocal
attitudes in an online discussion. There were no simple answers to these issues, especially when I
related them to the synchronous online environment. However, from previous studies, I found
some strategies that might address Swinglehurst et al.’s discussion points. For instance,
providing presentation files, online handouts, and other supportive visuals for teaching
instructions to enhance students’ understanding (Grant & Cheon, 2007) might be a strategy to
deal with teaching mixed-ability students. In that situation, sharing the recorded class sessions
might also be beneficial specifically to international students as they sometimes need more time
to understand what their instructors were saying in the class (Vu & Fadde, 2013). Giving clear
class expectations, structures, and roles in their virtual class sessions (McBrien et al., 2009)
might be a technique of balancing the individual learners’ needs. Finally, in creating reciprocal
attitudes in an online discussion, I agree with Liang (2010) that teachers always need to remind
their students to focus on content-related discourse and play down non-content related
conversations during their online synchronous group discussions.
83
Interaction
The last CF principle is interaction. In this study, the interaction happens between
language instructors and a critical friend to talk about the instructors’ teaching practices based on
what the critical friend saw in his/her class observation. The interaction encourages the
instructors to be aware of their actions and why they do those actions (Cosh, 1999; Kabilan,
2007) through “comments, questions, and suggestions which reflect the teacher’s world and
which are not evaluative or judgmental” (Freeman, 1982, p. 26).
To minimize any doubts or tensions in the conversation about teaching observation, I
agree with Farrell (2001) that some (communication) rules need to be negotiated. For instance, I
concurred that the critical friend should not enter the interaction “as an expert in a special field of
academic knowledge, who put right wrongs” (Holden, 1997, p. 444) to the instructors’ teaching
practices. The critical friend should also not (in Nilsson et al.’s 2018 phrases) ask demanding
questions, legitimize him/herself as a knowledgeable facilitator, and refer the discussions to any
theoretical literature. In a teacher’s words, “it shouldn’t be based on theoretical concepts, […] no
theory blah blah” (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011, p. 459). Instead, the instructors and the critical
friend should share perspectives in a supportive atmosphere to help each other gain pedagogical
insights (Rarieya, 2005) and be exposed to different viewpoints (Farrell, 2004) through which
they could grow as a teacher.
Transnational and Cross-Cultural CF
With the previously discussed CF principles, I conducted a transnational and cross-
cultural CF with two language instructors. This type of CF involves participants from different
countries and cultural backgrounds, such as between an Indonesian and American lecturer (see
84
Chapter 2), a Chinese and an Australian teacher (e.g., Carolan & Wang, 2012), or between
Egyptian and American MA students (see Wachob, 2011). It may be essential to conduct the CF
in this study so that it can provide participants with opportunities “to exchange teaching
experiences and reflect on cross-cultural teaching practices” (Carolan & Wang, 2012, p. 77).
Hopefully, the opportunities can also broaden their horizons in being a multicultural teacher who
(in Gibbs’, 2006, phrases) always respects others (e.g., students, teachers, colleagues, and
parents) regardless of their race, gender, age, color, or learning abilities.
However, the transnational and cross-cultural CF might create dynamics in its
implementation because of the participants’ cultural differences. For instance, in a Southeast
Asian context, such as Vietnam, a habit of working together among teachers does not seem to be
popular (Vo & Nguyen, 2010). In Indonesia, where I am from, “people are generally indirect
communicators and find it difficult to say no or give negative responses even if they do not agree
with people because they want to show politeness” (Cultural Atlas, 2020a, n. p.). In Egypt, like
Indonesian culture, some MA students in Wachob’s (2011) study said that “criticizing people is
not acceptable, and saying what you really think might be misjudged as being rude” (see p. 358).
Another Egyptian student also mentioned that “in this culture of ours, we are not used to
speaking openly about what we think and feel” (p. 359). These cultures might be different from
those of American people who are usually “very direct communicators and always try to get to
the point” (Cultural Atlas, 2020b, n. p.). In Althen and Bennett’s (2011) words, “Americans
generally consider themselves to be open, and direct when dealing with other people; If I dislike
something you are doing, I should tell you about it directly so that you will know from me, how I
feel about it” (p. 23).
85
Farrell (2016) made an extensive review of 116 studies (e.g., from 2009-2014) screened
from 58 academic peer-reviewed journals on practices that encourage TESOL teachers to reflect.
From his analysis, I learn that a transnational and cross-cultural CF, which is done in the US
context and involves a non-native English speaker critical friend (e.g., a doctoral student from
Indonesia) and language instructors (e.g., born in the US), seems not to be sufficiently
researched. Therefore, a CF in the US setting that involves participants (e.g., from America and
Indonesia) who have cultural differences might create dynamics that could contribute to the
discussions in the CF and reflective practice related literature.
Furthermore, the transnational and cross-cultural CF to support the teaching reflection
and the instructional adjustment to the online environment (e.g., in Zoom) is still limited in
numbers. Thus, I believe that this present study might also contribute its findings to the CF and
reflective practice literature that has commonly discussed dynamics in traditional f2f classrooms
(e.g., see Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009; Costa & Kallick, 1993; Farrell, 1998, 2001; Nguyen &
Ngo, 2018; Nilsson et al., 2018; Smith, 2019; Vo & Nguyen, 2010).
Theoretical Framework
I framed this study under the CF, which has four principles: tentative trust, reflection,
peer observation, and interaction. Additionally, as the research involves ongoing interactions
(e.g., between the language instructors and the critical friend), following Cowin and Newcomer
(2019), I also framed this study under a tenet of Relational Cultural Theory, namely growth-
fostering interactions (see Fletcher & Ragins, 2007). In such interaction, the instructors and the
critical friend start with mutual authenticity (e.g., “bringing one’s authentic self to the
interaction”), move to mutual empathy (“whereby one can hold onto one’s self but also
86
experience the other’s reality”), and end with mutual empowerment (“whereby each person is in
some ways influenced or affected by the other so that something new is created”) (p. 383). In the
growth-fostering interactions, Fletcher and Ragins (2007) also emphasized that participants
mutually expect their interactions to be opportunities to grow, have the responsibility to
contribute to the growth of the other, put aside any hierarchical roles in their conversations, and
accept vulnerability as a condition for their learning. I hold a view that vulnerability is
“uncertainty and emotional exposure” (Brown, 2013, n. p.) or “the willingness to do something
where there are no guarantees” (Brown, 2011, n. p.), which can eventually lead people to joy,
creativity, and meaning-making experiences (Schawbel, 2013). Figure 4.1 illustrates the
theoretical framework model of my study.
Figure 4.1
The CF Model in This Study
Note. The horizontal and vertical lines inside the circle mean based on; therefore, I will read that
the CF in this study is based on tentative trust, reflection, peer observation, and (growth-
fostering) interaction.
Critical Friendship
Tentative
Trust
(growth-
fostering)Interaction
Peer
Observation
Reflection
• Being authentic,
empathic, and
vulnerable
• Expecting the
interactions to be opportunities to grow
• Contributing to the
growth of the other
• Moving to a
nonexpert role
87
Framed under the CF principles coupled with the spirit of the growth-fostering
interactions and informed by the theoretical voids in the literature, my study aims to answer these
research questions:
1. What are the language instructors’ perspectives on their experiences in the CF?
2. How does the CF support the instructors’ reflection of teaching practice?
3. How does that process of reflection support practice specifically in the instructional
adjustments from f2f to online sessions?
4. What are the critical friend’s perspectives on his/her experiences in the CF?
4.1. How am I doing as a critical friend?
4.2. What does it mean to be a transnational and cross-cultural critical friend?
Answers to research questions 1-3 above would enable us to get ideas of the language
instructors’ perspectives on their CF experiences and participation. Meanwhile, research question
4 above would allow us to see my experiences as a critical friend in working with the language
instructors. The results of this research are expected to provide practical information that will
enable in-service teachers, university lecturers, and language practitioners to learn how the CF
was conducted in order to reflect on the online synchronous teaching and learning activities in
the United States under the selected theoretical framework (see Figure 4.1). I now describe the
methods of my study.
Methods
This research delved closely into the CF’s experiences for both the instructors and the
critical friend, perspectives of how the CF supports the instructors’ reflection of teaching
practices, and how that process of reflection supports the practices. To achieve these goals, I
88
approached my study qualitatively, as I could study individuals in their natural settings
(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019) without any attempts to control their behavior (Ary et al., 2019).
With the approach, I could also promote an in-depth understanding of activities and experiences
from the participants’ points of view in the form of words rather than statistics or numbers
(Saldaña & Omasta, 2018).
More specifically, I applied a qualitative case method to answer the research questions.
With the case study, I could “investigate a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”) in depth and
within its real-world context” (Yin, 2018, p. 50) to inform professional practice (Bloomberg &
Volpe, 2019). Then, I adapted Yin’s multiple-case study design (see p. 105). Figure 4.2
illustrates the sequential process of the design and shows “entities to be studied” (Egbert &
Sanden, 2020, p. 76). In the model, I considered “individuals” (Yin, 2018, p. 71) or the language
instructors as different cases to study in my research.
Figure 4.2
The Multiple-Case Study Design
Note. My CF process with each case lasted for around two weeks.
Select cases and discuss data collection procedures with each participant
Explore the first case (e.g.,with the first language instructor) and write my reflection as the critical friend
Reflect on experiences in the first case and make necessary adjustments in the research protocols to explore the second case
Explore the second case study (e.g., with the second language instructor) and write my reflection as the critical friend
Reflect on experiences in the second case and write individual case reports
Do cross-case analysis, draw cross-case conclusions, report my overall experiences as the critical friend, and answer the research questions
89
Research Participants
I did the CF with two language instructors at the LC. For anonymity reasons, I gave the
observed instructors the following pseudonyms: Katrine (instructor 1) as the first case, and
Conor (instructor 2) as the second case. I (author) also participated in this study as a critical
friend who observed and discussed the instructors’ teaching practices.
I selected the participants for three reasons. First, it was the recommendation of the
Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment at the LC (who I contacted in April 2020).
The Director informed me that they were happy to participate and might be committed to doing
the CF process with me during this period. Initially, another LC instructor, Olivia (pseudonym),
was also interested in participating, and we conversed once about the CF. However, due to
circumstances, she decided to withdraw from the study.
Second, I accepted the recommendation because I did not know the participants very well
before the study began. Therefore, I could provide a “rival explanation” (Yin, 2018, p. 105) to
my first study in chapter 2 (e.g., where I worked with my research advisor, someone I have
known very well since August 2018). Then, with the current research participants, I should be
able to compare the results of both studies to see if my theoretical propositions (e.g., that the CF
has the potential to address a need to support university lecturers/ instructors in their teaching
practices and benefit the critical friend pedagogically) were still applicable.
Third, the instructors taught writing-related courses. Thus, I could hope to observe and
learn how they taught writing to students, what materials, websites, and online sources they used
to support their teaching. Considering that the COVID-19 virus outbreak might last for some
time, the observation could also equip me with useful information and experiences when I teach
writing in a similar online synchronous environment, specifically in Indonesian EFL settings,
90
after I complete my Ph.D. study. In these settings, writing is still considered to be a problematic
(Laksmi, 2006) and challenging (Ratminingsih, 2015) task because EFL teachers often have “a
limited understanding of students’ writing processes and give much emphasis on corrections of
grammatical errors in students’ writing” (Yeh, 2014, p. 23). I also expected that my observation
of the LC writing instructors could provide me with more ideas on the writing process and
various writing-related activities beyond grammar corrections. With these three considerations, I
was confident that the instructors were the best fit for my CF research.
The First Case
The first case was Katrine. She is a white, middle-class American who was born in the
United States but grew up in a Middle Eastern country. She has been teaching at the LC for more
than five years. Before joining the LC, Katrine earned a TESOL degree and gained experience
teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) and EFL. In the past, she also taught French and
Spanish at the college level. In addition to English as her first language, Katrine also speaks
Spanish and French; she understands and writes a little bit of Arabic.
During the time of the study, Katrine taught an academic composition course. As stated
in the syllabus, upon completion of this course, the students would be able to: (1) employ all
steps of the writing process, including pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing; (2)
compose effective thesis statements; (3) summarize and respond to academic texts. The students
would also be able to: (4) synthesize information from credible sources and (5) produce coherent
problem/solution essays using adequate, clear, and logical support. Katrine had twelve
international students. Most of the students were from China and Middle Eastern Countries, such
91
as Oman, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. These students had to pass the course to be able to
matriculate into the university as undergraduate or graduate students.
I started my case study exploration with Katrine because we were former classmates in a
doctoral-level course. Given this previous relationship, I could talk a little bit more openly with
her, ask for some input for my next data collection procedures, and converse about the conditions
of the other participant, specifically in this COVID-19 situation, to ensure the success of the CF:
Katrine: Who is the next person that you’re going to try to work with? […] Did you
have somebody else in mind too?
Author: […] Yes. I will work with Conor.
Katrine: So, Conor was the other. Okay [...] Conor will do it no matter what, right? He’s
going to do it. He’s younger and can handle the load.
(5/12/2020/interview/90-94/Katrine)
With this information, I could approach the next participant, Conor, more confidently.
The Second Case
The second case was Conor. He was born and raised in the USA. He mostly spent his
teaching career in China, where he taught for one year at a kindergarten and two years at an
Intensive English program. Then, he continued teaching English for seven years at a university in
the same region. He then returned to the USA and has been teaching at the LC for less than five
years. Overall, he has been teaching ESL for 12 years.
At the LC, during the time of the study, Conor taught a course of reading and
composition. After completing the course, the students would be able to: (1) employ all steps of
the writing process, including prewriting, drafting, revision, editing, and publishing. The students
92
would also be able to: (2) write compare/contrast and cause/ effect essays using adequate, clear,
and logical support; and (3) respond to prompts and draw connections between readings and
personal experience, world knowledge, and other sources. In the class, Conor had ten
international students. Most of them were from China and Saudi Arabia.
Research Setting
All classes at the LC took place in synchronous online teaching and learning
environments. In that setting, all students were geographically separated from the instructors
(Mansour & Mupinga, 2004) (e.g., some of them joined the class from their college town, while
others joined from their home country), and they did not need to travel and arrive at a physical
classroom on their campus (Benshoff & Gibbons, 2011). However, they had to attend regular
online synchronous “live, real-time” (Murray, 2007, p. 1) f2f learning events (Mayadas et al.,
2015) facilitated by a video conferencing platform called Zoom. In brief, Zoom has some
features to facilitate synchronous learning, such as desktop and screen sharing, text-chat box,
group breakout rooms, and two-way audio and videoconferencing (Do, 2018; Gallagher, 2020).
Other features include providing non-verbal feedback (e.g., raising a hand, mentioning yes or
no), using the screen annotation, saving the Zoom teaching recordings, and sharing the access of
the recordings to students (Harvard University Information Technology, n. d.). The LC
instructors also used a Classroom Management System (CMS), such as Blackboard, to support
their teaching and learning activities. For instance, like Chou and Chou (2011), the LC
instructors posted online content, announcements, assignments, and grades, created discussion
forums, and collected writing assignments in their CMS.
93
Researcher Positionality
I am a Southeast Asian/Indonesian lecturer who previously taught in an English
Language Education Program at a private university in Indonesia with four years of teaching
experience. I also had an opportunity to teach Introduction to Computer Assisted Language
Learning course (see Mali, 2017) to my Indonesian students and integrate various technology in
my classes (see Mali, 2016, 2018). During the research process, I was also a graduate student
who experienced participating in four doctoral online synchronous courses, from March through
May, during the Spring semester 2020, in a Ph.D. program at a state university in the Pacific
Northwest of the United States. I brought this positionality as my “authentic self” (Fletcher &
Ragins, 2007, p. 383) in my interactions with the LC instructors to constructively discuss their
teaching practices.
Data Collection Procedures
Figure 4.3 describes the brief sequence of the data collection process with each language
instructor, and it also shows my overall CF process with the LC instructors. In this section, I will
detail each process displayed in the Figure.
94
Figure 4.3
The Sequence of the Data Collection Procedures
Note. From my overall data collection processes (e.g., process 1-5), I would have four data
sources to analyze: [1] teaching observation notes, [2] interview transcripts, [3] my analytic
memos as a critical friend, and [4] email (text) communication with the instructors. These
multiple sources of data (according to Ary et al., 2019) enhanced the credibility of my research
as I found support for my conclusions in this study from more than one data source.
Process 1
Before the CF begins, Schuck and Russell (2005) suggest an open and frank discussion to
explore possible concerns and expectations from both the instructors and the critical friend. I also
used this process to develop “tentative trust” (Baskerville & Goldbatt, 2009, p. 217) with the
instructors. Therefore, before collecting the data, like Carolan and Wang (2012), I started with
informal email communication with the instructors to introduce myself, the research purposes,
and the data collection procedures that I planned to carry out in their classes. In the email, I also
asked the participants to openly tell me how they felt about the data collection procedures and to
share any concerns that they might have, so we could, in Baskerville and Goldblatt’s (2009)
Process 1:Have the email communication and set the informal zoom meeting with each instructor
Process 2:Watch the first class video recording, and make notes on teaching aspects that each instructor wanted me to focus on
Process 3:Interview each instructor to discuss teaching and learning activities in the class
Process 4:Watch the second class video recording, and make notes on teaching aspects that each instructor wanted me to focus on
Process 5:Interview the instructor to discuss teaching and learning activities in the class and make a final reflection
95
words, “establish safe ways of working together and negotiate shared understandings” (p. 206)
and later talk about the instructors’ teaching practices in “unguarded conversation” (p. 216).
Then, before the class observation, I set up an informal Zoom meeting with each
instructor individually to meet virtually f2f, greet one another, and follow-up on our discussions
in the previous email communication. I also used the meeting to minimize any doubts before
interviewing the observed instructors. In this meeting, like Fletcher and Ragins (2007), I brought
my authentic self to the interaction, such as opening up about my worries to the participants
about doing the CF with them as someone that I had not known very well for a long time:
Author: […] You know, Conor, I keep thinking like when I sent you an email, and then
you did not respond to my email for some days, I just feel like: did I say something
wrong?
Conor: No, no, no. Sadly, we’re getting way too many emails these days, so I am just
planning when to do it because I have so many emails lately.
Author: And you know, when I got feedback from my committee members: hey, Calvin,
you need to consider their tight schedule, I just feel like, oh, did I also send them too
many emails asking this and that?
Conor: No, no. You are good. We understand it. No problem. Absolutely. It’s not that
bad right now. There are some things that are tight, but it’s okay. This is not too much, so
don’t feel bad. You’re doing fine. You’re communicating fine. Don’t feel bad about any
of it. (6/19/2020/meeting/39-42/Conor)
Furthermore, in the Zoom meeting, I asked the participants about specific things that they
expected from me as a critical friend and about what they wanted me to observe or what
feedback they would specifically like to hear from me. Following Golby and Appleby (1995), I
96
did this activity to give a sense of freedom for the instructors to decide what to integrate into the
CF practices. Each instructor had different expectations. For instance, Katrine appreciated
anything I might notice about her students, but she generally wanted to hear more positive
reinforcement from me. Besides, Katrine thought that me seeing how she taught the online class
might be a good thing that I could do at that time. Katrine explained:
I am not sure what exactly the feedback I need, honestly. I mean, anything you notice
about my students is always appreciated [...] I do not know what I would need from you
more than just letting you be aware of the situation right now. Maybe what makes sense
is for you to just kind of, I mean in terms of your learning too, I think just watching how
teachers try to teach in this setting is something that would be interesting to know more
about and just knowing how complicated it is right now (laughing) […] I think I need
more positive reinforcements than any negative right now. I am just overwhelmed. I just
need positive right now more than a lot of negatives. If I were in my classroom, then I
would be much more open. But, right now, it is a really tough time.
(6/9/2020/meeting/13/Katrine)
Meanwhile, Conor had more specific aspects that I could focus on and expected more
specific feedback. For example, he liked to have input on the content he was teaching, how he
engaged with the online content, and how he presented the material in a way that was
appropriate, understandable, and that was going to benefit the students
(6/19/2020/meeting/7/Conor). Moreover, Conor wanted to hear about insights from my
educational background that might help him grow as a teacher (6/19/2020/meeting/5/Conor).
Conor was also open to hearing any other things that I wanted to bring up in the conversation
with him (6/19/2020/meeting/11/Conor).
97
Further, in the informal Zoom meeting, I did the following things. First, I prepared
PowerPoint slides (for more details, see Appendix A) to guide my talk and convey my ideas in a
more organized way. Second, considering the technical reasons on Zoom, I asked their favor to
set the Zoom meeting for our interview sessions using their Zoom account that enabled us to
access the audio-transcripts for our conversation. In the end, I scheduled an interview session
with each instructor and answered questions that each instructor had. Overall, at this first stage, I
could have three data sources to analyze: my email (text) communication, my manually verbatim
interview transcripts of the informal Zoom meeting, and my analytic memos on the email
communication and the informal Zoom meeting with each instructor.
Process 2 and 4
At these stages, I watched two video-recorded Zoom class sessions that each instructor
was comfortable sharing with me. Each video recording lasted for one to two hours, and I
accessed all of the videos from the links that the instructors sent to my email. In the videos, I
could see them teaching writing-related components in the class and communicating with their
students. In total, I watched four video recordings (two for each instructor).
I decided to watch the video recordings instead of joining the Zoom session directly
because of the following reasons. First, research participants (according to Cohen et al., 2007)
might change their teaching (e.g., in a better or worse way than they usually do) and have more
anxiety if they know that someone is observing them. Second, watching the video and not
coming to the class should help me to maintain the qualitative component of my study where I
aimed to study individuals (e.g., the LC instructors) who could teach as naturally as possible in
the research setting. Third, the video recordings could provide me with “fresh memories”
98
(Saldaña & Omasta, 2018, p. 83) about what happened in the classroom and help me to spot
specific teaching aspects (Tuğa, 2013) on which the instructors wanted me to focus. As a reliable
tool for reflection (Lamb et al., 2012), video recording can also capture the complexity of
classroom situations that teachers can review, observe, and reflect upon (Romano & Schwartz,
2005) outside of class.
Then, while watching the recordings, I did the following activities. First, I opened a Word
file on my laptop and typed my observation notes about what was going on in the class and some
teaching aspects that each instructor wanted me to focus on. At the end of my observation notes,
I wrote a brief analytic memo about my thoughts on “visible behaviors of the instructors’
teaching practices, and what happened in the classroom” (see Farrell, 2016, p. 226). Then, I put
the brief memo on PowerPoint slides supported with screen-captures of some different teaching
events in the Zoom session (as an example, see Figure 4.4). I then discussed the slides in the
interview session with the LC instructors.
Figure 4.4
A Sample Slide that I Used in the Interview Session
Katrine’s face is
here.
99
Overall, these processes (e.g., 2 & 4) provided me with two data sources to analyze: my class
observation notes and analytic memos on the observation notes.
Process 3 and 5
In these stages, I did two semi-structured Zoom interview sessions with each instructor.
In the semi-structured interview (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018), I initially prepared PowerPoint
slides that detailed a list of questions and teaching aspects I planned to discuss with the
instructors. I sent the slides to the participants via email a day before the interview so that they
might have time to see what would be discussed, reflect on their teaching practices, and prepare
responses less anxiously before the interview. Then, in the interview session, I asked some
follow-up questions based on responses given in the interview and (like Moradkhani, 2019)
about the logic behind some practices or teaching techniques.
To guide my overall interview process, I followed an interview checklist (see Appendix
B) and used the interview prompt (see Appendix C). All the interview sessions were audio and
video recorded. Then, in these stages (process 3 & 5), I got the interview transcripts from the
Zoom automatic transcript feature, copied-pasted them to Word files on my laptop, and double-
checked them with what was said in the video. At the end of the transcripts, I wrote the analytic
memos. Overall, these stages provided me with two data sources to analyze: the semi-structured
interview transcripts (e.g., around 24,000 words) and my analytic memos on the interview.
Data Analysis
I did my analysis inductively and then deductively (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; also, as
done by Newcomer, 2017). My inductive analysis started with the data of the first case (Katrine)
and moved to the second case (Conor). First, to analyze the teaching observation notes and the
100
interview transcripts, I read and selected “the relevant text, which is directly related to and can
help answer the research questions” (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018, p. 286). On a Word file, I
highlighted and put initial codes or “words or short phrases that symbolically assigns an essence
capturing” (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018, p. 522) to some excerpts of the relevant notes and
transcripts (see Figure 4.5).
After that, I re-read the notes, transcripts, and the initial code descriptions several times
to help me become immersed in the data. Then, I uploaded the initially highlighted and coded
data to ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis software (see Figure 4.6). With the software, I open-
coded the data. Ary et al. (2019) defined open-coding as an activity to label and categorize
phenomena that emerged in the data. I took some labels directly from the participants’ language
(Saldaña & Omasta, 2018) and came up with some codes after I read and gave meanings to the
research data.
Figure 4.5
A Sample of Initial Coding I Put on a Word File
Note. This is Katrine’s interview transcript on Tuesday, June 16, 2020
101
Figure 4.6
Open Coding of the Highlighted Data (e.g., Katrine’s Interview Transcript) in ATLAS.ti
At this stage, like Bloomberg and Volpe (2019), I also reviewed the manifest (e.g., everything
that is observable) and tried to interpret the latent (e.g., what is hidden or can be inferred) more
carefully. The data analysis eventually resulted in final “descriptive codes in the form of a word
or short phrase” (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018, p. 287). Then, following Saldaña and Omasta, I
assembled the coded data and looked at quotations and patterns in the quotes until I had some
“tentative themes” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 210) to answer the research questions as
illustrated in Table 4.1.
102
Table 4.1
The Sample of Tentative Themes Development of Katrine’s Interview Data
Research Question 1:
What are the language instructors’ perspectives on their experiences in the CF?
The tentative theme:
Katrine felt positive about her experiences in the CF.
Codes (6/16/2020/interview/36/Katrine):
1. Positive responses about the CF process (RQ 1)
Quotations:
36. […] Oh, I think it was really nice to be able to sit back and kind of look, talk
about my teaching with someone […]
36. […] This was much more mellow, and it was nice to be able to just talk to you
and share my frustrations right now and kind of just enjoy teaching again because
sometimes it’s really hard […]
36. […] So, it’s just nice to kind of have that dialogue. Yeah […]
2. Quality Assurance (RQ 1)
Quotations:
36. […] It always evaluates the teacher, evaluates the teacher. It’s always quality
assurance […]
36. […] So you know, the first time somebody tells me they’re coming to my class,
I’m just like, again, you know, it’s like evaluate me again? You know […]
103
36. […] Yet, it’s not always understood outside of teachers, like admins always
want to give us more classes or more students or more boxes to check, you know,
more administration, and doesn’t necessarily see the value in just our teaching [...]
Next, I started to make sense of my data deductively (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As I
analyzed the teaching observation notes and interview transcripts of the second case, I started to
check if the themes from my previous data analysis on the first case were still relevant or needed
some modifications. Then, I made the cross-case comparison (Castellanos & Rodríguez, 2009) of
the data analysis results between the first and second cases. As I moved further along in
analyzing the data and writing the findings and discussion sections, I checked if some themes
remained solid and if others did not hold up. With supporting evidence (e.g., from my email
communication with the LC instructors and my analytic memos), I developed my final set of
themes as the answers to the research questions.
Soon after the data analysis was completed, I conducted the following activities to ensure
the quality of my data analysis. First, I emailed the observed instructors and let them check all
emergent themes and excerpts of the transcripts. “Do the people who were studied agree with
what I said about them?” (Ary et al., 2019, p. 443). This member-checking procedure helps to
ensure the credibility of information in my study (Creswell & Miller, 2000) and my reliable
interpretations of the research data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; also done by Newcomer, 2017).
The procedure can also ensure the construct validity where a claim in a case study genuinely
reflects the events in the study (Yin, 2018). Second, I invited triangulating analysts (Kozleski,
2017). The analysts were individuals outside my research project (e.g., three associate professors
in a state university in the USA) who reviewed and provided constructive inputs for my analysis
104
to enhance the credibility of themes resulted from my data analysis process. Last, I explained
some possible limitations of my research (e.g., see the next section) that could affect my data
analysis and research findings. With all of these strategies, I was confident that my analysis “had
not been shaped according to any predispositions, assumptions, and biases of a researcher”
(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019, p. 433).
Limitations of the Study
Despite the care with which I collected and analyzed my data, there were some
limitations to the present study. First, before the data collection, the research participants knew
that they would receive a monetary incentive for their participation in this research. Therefore, I
was aware that they might tend to tell positive perspectives and experiences on their involvement
in this CF. Second, Katrine was my classmate in a doctoral course in a semester, and this might
have affected how she responded to my interview questions. Third, in analyzing the video
recordings, I could not observe the students’ group discussions in the Zoom breakout rooms and
see all students’ faces in Zoom at the same time, which might have limited my explorations at
some points. Finally, as this research was conducted during the challenging situation of COVID-
19 and the transition period from f2f to online learning, I felt uneasy to reach out to the
participants and ask for more additional video recordings and interview sessions. I believe that
more ideas could have been explored if I had analyzed more video recordings and conducted
other interview sessions with the instructors.
105
Case Study Findings
I will present the findings in order of the first and second cases to answer research
questions number one to three. I will then continue to share the results of my role as a critical
friend as the answer to research question number four.
The First Case: Katrine
Her Experiences in the CF
Overall, Katrine felt positive about her experiences in the CF. She felt that our
conversation was reassuring of her teaching practices, and she said: “It was nice. It was
reassuring. I’m glad that you’ve had similar experiences in Indonesia”
(6/12/2020/interview/84/Katrine). The CF process could help Katrine enjoy her teaching and see
the value of her teaching practices, as what she said in the interview:
[…] This was much more mellow, and it was nice to be able to just talk to you and share
my frustrations right now and kind of just enjoy teaching again because sometimes it’s
really hard. […] Admins always want to give us more classes or more students or more
boxes to check, you know, more administration, and doesn’t necessarily see the value in
just our teaching. So, it’s just nice to kind of have that dialogue.
(6/12/2020/interview/36/Katrine)
In the interview, she also liked that the CF process did not intend to evaluate her teaching like
the quality assurance practices that she usually experienced in her department.
[…] What happens a lot with teachers is there’s so much quality assurance like we’ve got
this evaluation that’s done on us […] The students evaluate us; people come in our class
like the Director evaluates us. It always evaluates the teacher, evaluates the teacher. […]
106
So, you know, the first time somebody tells me they’re coming to my class, I’m just like,
again, you know, it’s like evaluate me again? You know.
(6/16/2020/interview/36/Katrine)
[…] There’s always, and there’s always do better. Even if you’re a perfect teacher,
there’s a do better […] There’s always a do better […] I think my last time, it was just
that I said you guys instead of you all. So, I didn’t use a gender-neutral word. And so, that
was the only thing I can find to criticize you on, and they always have to find something.
There’s always something. We never get a perfect review, never.
(6/16/2020/interview/38/Katrine)
Katrine made a point that “it’s also important to have space where you’re not going to be
judged” (6/16/2020/interview/60/Katrine).
How the CF Supports the Instructors’ Reflection of Teaching Practice
Katrine felt that the CF process helped her to look at her teaching practices and reflect on
them. In the interview, she told me:
I was able to go back and kind of reflect about my teaching a little bit. I’m very much of a
student-centered teacher. And action research is probably one of my favorite types of
research, which is very much about reflection, re-doing, and doing it better next time.
And so, this kind of follows with that. (6/16/2020/interview/50/Katrine)
I could see Katrine’s reflection when we talked about the graphic organizer that she used in the
class. She realized that she needed to change some ideas in the graphic as described in the
following interaction (6/12/2020/interview/42-43/Katrine), which might demonstrate how a
107
person is “in some way influenced or affected by the other so that something new is created”
(Flectcher & Ragins, 2007, p. 383):
Author: […] thanks for sharing the graphic organizer, Katrine, and I think I can use this
for my writing class in Indonesia later.
Katrine: I want to tell you something about this too. So, um, when I started this, even
this lesson on problem-solution, I was focusing a lot on effects, and I started realizing that
I should focus more on causes because the solution comes out of the cause. So, it’s just
something I learned, and I’ve taught this class quite a few times, but it was just like this;
this aha moment. So, like when the day you observed, they were really focusing on
effects. And then the day after, I was like, oh, we really need to be thinking about causes.
So that was kind of I changed the graphic organizer a bit. And if I teach this, again, I’m
going to focus more on causes than effects; I think if that makes sense. Just because from
the cause is where you find the solution. Yeah, so that was a learning thing for me. So,
just say, you know.
How the Process of Reflection Supports Practice in the Instructional Adjustment
In the reflection process, Katrine mostly considered her interaction with other teachers as
a supportive part of her instructional adjustment. In the interview, she instanced the interaction
with other teachers where she could talk about what worked and did not work with her teaching
practice in the online environment:
[…] I meet with some of the teachers, and we kind of talk about what we did well. And
we’re also open about what we flubbed up on like one time I tried to do this. When I have
in-person class, I like to do speed dating where I give them like a minute, and they talk to
108
one person. Then, they have to move and talk to another, and then they have to move and
talk to another. I tried to do that online in Zoom, and it totally failed (laughing). It is like
plopped. So, you know, being able to talk to people about that and talk about what we
think went well or how to do it well, or what we just, you know, we can’t handle. So, I
think having people to talk to other teachers has been really helpful.
(6/16/2020/interview/58/Katrine)
The Second Case: Conor
His Experiences in the CF
Conor considered the CF as a fruitful experience. He admitted that it was helpful to be
observed by someone outside his department that does not affect his job
(7/1/2020/interview/53/Conor) and that has a different background, culture, and learning
situation from him (7/1/2020/interview/55/Conor). The CF also helped him to reassess his
teaching practice: “So, we talked a lot about best practices in meetings. I think it’s always good
to reassess: are we actually following best practices? And where can we improve?”
(7/1/2020/interview/55/Conor). In the CF, Conor might also receive unbiased inputs from me as
someone he did not know very well, as illustrated in the following interactions
(7/1/2020/interview/56-57/Conor):
Author: So, Conor, how do you feel when you work with me as someone that you do not
know very well?
Conor: I think it’s fine. I think it’s good. Sometimes the benefit of that can be there’s no
bias in it. You know what I mean. So, if you and I had been friends for years and you’re
observing me now, you’re going to have a certain bias based on our friendship, whether
109
positive or negative. So, as a stranger, whether sometimes some awkwardness to get over
for people, that’s like, oh, you don’t know me, you don’t know my background as a
teacher, you can just look at the actual teaching, and it removes the bias. I think that can
be a good thing.
How the CF Supports the Instructors’ Reflection of Teaching Practice
The CF supports Conor’s reflection of teaching practice in two different ways. First,
questions I asked about his teaching practices helped him to consider how he did things or what
he was doing in the class (7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor). I believed this was where I could use
my peer observation (in Cosh’s, 1999, views) to encourage self-awareness and assess
assumptions based on the teaching practices of the teacher. For example, we talked about some
“strong words” that he used in his teaching instructions (6/23/2020/interview/45-50/Conor):
Author: […] I just feel that in some parts of your teaching, you use this kind of, if I can
say, strong words, like, “don’t be lazy about it and if nine o’clock is too early, perhaps
you might need to think about whether the university is the right place for you.” You also
mentioned about this, like, don’t play with your friends who want you to fail in your
study. Conor, how do you feel about that? […]
Conor: Yeah. That’s a good question. Um, yeah. So there are two things. I mean, I talked
to my wife too about the friends. That’s probably too strong. I think I was a kind of
frustrated there, you know. Personally, I think I just was overreacting a little bit there.
However, I often talk about, don’t be lazy and things like you know, if you can’t do this
work, you might rethink university. I use that term. I use that with them a lot. And part of
it is trying to challenge them to realize why they’re here. You know, a lot of students we
110
get in our department, honestly, they don’t want to be here. They’re here because their
parents made them.
Author: Oh, I see.
Conor: […] And again, sometimes I think whether this is too strong, or not. And that’s
something I definitely am trying to grow in by being strong but not too strong, and I
haven’t ever had a student kind of push back and be like, “whoa, that was too much.”
And so that’s a good thing, but I do recognize it’s something I want to be careful with
because it might not work with every student the right way […] So yeah, it’s something
I’m still fleshing out over my, you know, ten years of teaching. It’s something I think.
Second, through the CF, Conor had opportunities to take some time to look back at what he did
in his classrooms and thought about what he could do to enhance his teaching practices:
[…] And so, having the critical friendship support is kind of this idea of like it’s an
opportunity to pause and reflect, you know, which I think is often lacking when we’re so
busy just pushing forward, always trying to plan out what’s next, make our lessons better,
but we don’t actually stop and go back and think: okay, my previous lesson, what didn’t
go well? What could go better? And I think that’s often a weakness in teachers. And so,
having the critical friendship, I think it helps with that, really helps to just stop and really
go over the previous lessons that we’ve already moved on from, that we’re already
looking at next week. But now, let’s stop and look back, think about what we can do that
will influence our ability to do next week better. (7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor)
However, Conor realized that the CF process might not work with all teachers as “[…] teachers
often times put the full effort and energy to their practice. And so, when, you know, when you’re
pointing out something that they could do better, sometimes they take it personally”
111
(6/23/2020/interview/70/Conor). That might explain why “having a critical friend may not
always be comfortable” (Campbell et al., 2004, p. 110) for some people.
How the Process of Reflection Supports Practice in the Instructional Adjustment
The reflection process helped Conor to see how he taught in the online environment, a
setting where he still needed some adaptations, and which teaching parts that he has adapted
well. He clarified:
I think it’s good because, again, as we’re moved to online, um, we’ve basically, most of
us have just taken our normal teaching practices and styles from the classroom and placed
them online, and I think that there’s an adaptation that needs to take place. I think the
reflection that we’re able to do through this process helps to think through not just
teaching skills and style, but also better application in the online teaching format and so
that I think that’s been helpful too […] So, I noticed in some areas; you would bring up
where I’m like, oh yeah wow, that really has adapted to online. I see how I’ve adapted
there, and now there are days where it’s like, yeah, I still need to adapt that more to the
online focus. (7/1/2020/interview/63, 65/Conor)
To clarify the interview excerpt above, we discussed some teaching practices that Conor might
have adapted well. For instance, Conor always asked his students to turn on their laptop’s camera
so that he could engage the students, build a sense of learning community with them, and ensure
that they followed the teaching and learning activities in the Zoom class
(6/23/2020/interview/16/Conor). I also told Conor that sharing learning materials on the screen
and asking students, for instance, to paraphrase a sample sentence
(7/1/2020/interview/15/Conor), or provide answers for a skill practice of cause and effect
112
language (7/1/2020/interview/20/Conor), seemed to work in engaging his students with the
learning materials.
We also talked about some distractions that Conor might still need to handle in his online
teaching practices. For example, there was a student who did not pay attention to Conor’s
explanation as this student was watching a movie during the class session. When asked about a
possible solution to that, Conor admitted that:
Yeah, that’s tough. That one is hard. And you can see it. Obviously, I don’t think I
handled it well in this one. You know, sometimes I get frustrated because you feel like
you’re trying to help them, and then they are just watching a movie, and then later, they
turned in the wrong assignment. (6/23/2020/interview/36/Conor).
Conor also mentioned a phone as another challenging distractor in his class session.
[…] I did have a situation today with a student as well. He was on his phone. I just asked
him to focus or, you know. It might be good for him not to come to class for a time until
he can focus. […] So that’s a hard one. Um, in person, it’s much easier to handle it, but
online I’d say that’s one of the more difficult things. (6/23/2020/interview/36/Conor).
It was probable that movies and phones became the main distractions for students’ attention in
Conor’s Zoom class.
The Critical Friend: Calvin
My Experiences in the CF as a Transnational and Cross-Cultural Critical Friend
I experienced various dynamics in doing the CF with the LC instructors. I will describe
those dynamics under four categories based on CF’s principles: tentative trust, reflection, peer-
observation, and interaction.
113
Tentative Trust. It is essential to be sensitive about the nature of the relationship to build
trust in a CF (Farrell, 1998). I understand that. However, I sometimes felt too sensitive about
what I was doing, specifically at the beginning of the CF. For example, in May 2020, I started to
email all instructors, introduced myself, and briefly explained the data collection procedures in
my study. At that moment, I was wondering why they did not directly reply to my email. I was
anxious: “It’s been a week that Katrine has not responded to my email. Did I say something
wrong in the email? Or are there some procedures that she is concerned about?”
(5/24/2020/analytic memos/1/Katrine) Is it polite to talk about the monetary incentive in the
email? (5/19/2020/analytic memos/2/Conor).
After worriedly waiting for some days, I was so relieved that they replied to my email
and found no problems with the data collection procedures. “Hi Calvin, thanks for the thorough
explanation. Yes, I am fine with everything you have described […]” (5/20/2020/email/Conor).
“So sorry I didn’t get back to you. It’s been a busy semester [...] The procedures are fine”
(5/25/2020/email/Katrine). With these positive responses, I was more confident to take the next
steps in the data collection process.
In the CF, I also did my best to “listen well, clarify ideas, and encourage specificity in
teaching practices” (Costa & Kallick, 1993, p. 50). I listened to what teaching aspects that the
instructors expected me to focus on (see process 1), and we discussed their expectations in the
interview sessions. For instance, I shared positive reinforcements to Katrine’s teaching practices,
such as typing students’ ideas (e.g., some solutions to a problem) on the screen, being humorous
in some moments, and using the graphic organizer that I might use for my students in Indonesia
(6/12/2020/interview/28, 31, 42/Katrine). I put these practices on the slides and used some
figures (as an example, see Figure 4.4) to clarify ideas and encourage the specificity. She felt
114
positive about that: “It’s reaffirming that a lot of what I do is helpful to ELLs because that’s my
intention. So, it’s reaffirming. So, thank you” (6/12/2020/interview/48/Katrine).
Reflection. Seeing what the instructors did in the classroom and talking with them about
their practices also helped me to (in Farrell’s, 2016, phrases) consciously think about my
previous practices (e.g., as a lecturer in Indonesia). For example, I spoke with Conor about the
strong words in his teaching instructions (6/23/2020/interview/55-58/Conor), a moment when
probably I could also “exchange teaching experiences, reflect on cross-cultural teaching
practices” (Carolan & Wang, 2012, p. 77) and compare teaching ideas with another teacher
(Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011). The following is our conversation:
Author: […] It reminds me also of my practice as well because in Indonesia, once I also
asked two students to leave the class because they made noise. They played with their
phone, you know. After that, I just asked myself, why did I do that? I also sometimes use
strong words because if I don’t use those strong words, sometimes our students do not
want to listen, you know.
Conor: Yeah, you know, I think, and even sending students out of the classroom, the
goal is not to embarrass them, but you got to think about all of the students. If these two
are distracting, and hopefully, that would be a wake-up call for them, you know.
Author: Yes, a wake-up call, I like that.
Conor: They come back, and they’re better. You know, I think it’s a goal of just many
tools of what we can do to keep students motivated when they don’t want to intrinsically
be motivated.
115
This conversation informs me that, in the future, I should be more thoughtful with any words that
I will say to my students. If I need to use any strong words, I should carefully use them only for
the wake-up call and for motivating my students to do better in the classroom.
I also reflected on how Conor detailed the writing rubric that he used to assess the writing
task (6/25/2020/observation/17/Conor). Looking back at my previous teaching practices in
Indonesia, I realized that I did not explain a writing rubric to my students as detailed as what
Conor did. In the past, my students might not be clear about what I expected from their essays.
Therefore, I should do better in explaining the rubric when I come back to my writing classes in
Indonesia.
Peer-Observation. The opportunities to observe how Katrine and Conor taught the
writing classes were also fruitful for me. Like what Farrell and Guz (2019); Gebhard (2005);
research participants in Donnelly’s (2007) and Nguyen and Ngo’s (2018) study experienced from
their class observation practices, I could learn various teaching and learning activities, websites,
and online sources about writing that I have never used before in Indonesia. For example, I
learned the use of Gale in Context Opposing Viewpoints database
(6/12/2020/observation/30/Katrine). The database provides students with readable and short
articles across disciplines that they might use to find some supporting evidence for their
argumentative essays. Each item in the database contains a sidebar that concisely summarizes
vital points discussed in the article. That summary might help students understand what the
whole article talks about. Second, I learned the Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and
Purpose (CRAAP) test (6/16/2020/observation/20/Katrine) to evaluate any sources that students
plan to use in their paper (see Central Michigan University Library, n. d.; Kurpiel, 2019, for
more info about the test). Third, at the beginning of the class, I also saw Conor, who asked his
116
students to write a paragraph about what they did on the weekend and submitted it to Blackboard
(5/18/2020/observation/2/Conor). He considered the writing activity as an attendance check and
wanted his students to come on time so that they could do it and earn points from the writing task
(5/18/2020/observation/10/Conor). I am personally interested in using the CRAAP test and
applying the attendance check so that my future students can select reliable information to write
in their academic essays and be committed to coming on time to the similar online synchronous
class setting. These experiences should demonstrate Nguyen and Ngo’s (2018) thoughts that peer
observation might facilitate teachers to be more aware of their teaching and improve by adopting
some teaching strategies they have observed.
In the interview, both Conor and Katrine also shared their concerns about teaching and
learning engagement. The peer observation enabled me to see what they did to engage their
students with them as the instructors and with learning materials that they conveyed in the Zoom
environment. First, technically, both always asked their students to turn on their laptop’s camera.
When asked why they needed to do it, Conor informed that:
Cameras on for everyone leads to better engagement […] The second point of it is trying
to create some of that community feel, um you know, when you’re looking at a screen
and it’s just blank faces and voices coming out, you don’t feel as engaged or as a part of
that […] (6/23/2020/interview/16/Conor)
Meanwhile, Katrine told me that:
One of the reasons I like them to show their faces is because I don’t feel like I’m just
talking out like into nowhere. Right? I actually know that people are listening to me.
And sometimes, there’s little, you know, nonverbal communication like nods and stuff
that happens. And it’s just a way for me to connect […] You know, but I, I may say: hey,
117
I love your hair today or, oh, that’s a cool t-shirt or something, so they know that I’m
seeing them because that helps me engage with them and makes me feel that they’re
listening [...] (6/12/2020/interview/82/Katrine)
Second, I observed that sharing screen and asking different students to respond to a question in
the language skill practice (6/25/2020/observation/59-67/Conor) worked well to engage the
students with the learning material. Next, I also learned how Katrine opened her Word file,
shared her screen, asked her students to share thoughts on problems, effects, and solutions
towards some pictures they saw on the Word file; then, she typed students’ responses on the
Word file so that everyone could see (6/9/2020/observation/38-60/Katrine). With that activity,
more students actively participated in sharing their thoughts. I also believed that the students
could follow the discussions easier than just passively listening to explanations
(6/9/2020/analytic memos/4/Katrine). Overall, what I observed in their classes equipped me with
new and applicable information on teaching writing-related courses in the Zoom environment,
specifically dealing with students’ learning engagement in the class session.
Interaction. I used Fletcher and Ragins’ (2007) spirit of growth-fostering interactions to
frame the expectations of my interactions with the LC instructors as my opportunities to grow
and contribute to their growth as the writing instructors. Therefore, in talking about their
teaching practices, I did not become “an expert in a special field of academic knowledge, who
put right wrongs” (Holden, 1997, p. 444) to their practices. I also tried my best “not to use the
relationship for judging” (Costa & Kallick, 1993, p. 50) or criticizing (Schuck & Russell, 2005).
Katrine saw my effort: “I think you’re being very thoughtful and appreciative in noticing things
[…]” (6/16/2020/interview/40/Katrine). Conor also responded to my effort positively:
118
“[…] you’ve asked questions about things rather than pointing out negatives: you did this
wrong. You asked questions, and I think that’s the proper way to go about it. And then,
through the asking of questions, it helped me to reconsider how I do things or what I’m
doing” (7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor).
However, during the data collection process in the CF, as an Indonesian, I experienced
some “straight forward” interaction moments, and those made me quite surprised. I illustrated
one interaction moment from my email communication with Katrine (6/5/2020/email/Katrine)
when we scheduled a Zoom meeting:
Author: […] Below is the Zoom invitation, and I will email you again an hour before the
meeting (just for a warm reminder). Thank you so much for your help, Katrine.
Katrine: It’s on my calendar. No need to remind me. I will be in class, and it will be
distracting.
Author: Okay, Katrine. Thanks
However, Katrine seemed to be aware of what she said to me and clarified that in the interview
session.
You know how I told you, you didn’t have to give me a reminder; some people might
need that reminder. So that’s fine. It’s good to ask them (laughing). I didn’t need the
reminder, but other people might. So it’s good to ask them.
(6/16/2020/interview/48/Katrine)
Another moment happened in my informal Zoom meeting with Katrine. She asked me, “How
does the first interview have to be? How long is it?” (6/9/2020/interview/46/Katrine). At that
time, I found it uneasy to directly say “one hour,” as I know she was very busy at that time.
Luckily, she offered me her office hour on Friday at 9-10 a.m. I should be more direct in
119
answering that kind of question next time (6/9/2020/analytic memos/2/Katrine), think more
positively about all that happened during the CF process, and not take what the instructor said to
me too personally. Learning from my Zoom meeting’s experience with Katrine, I was more
confident in being more direct and asking for an hour interview session from Conor
(6/19/2020/meeting/27/Conor).
How I Am Doing as The Critical Friend
Both Katrine and Conor felt positive about what I did during the CF process. For
example, Katrine said that “I think you are very thoughtful and appreciative in noticing things.
Yeah, I think it’s been kind of a nice experience” (6/16/2020/interview/40/Katrine). Moreover,
when specifically asked if she felt receiving too many emails during the communication process,
Katrine mentioned that “[…] I thought, you were very careful about time, right, you know. We
need to, you know, be considerate of time. I don’t think you sent too many emails at all. They
always had a purpose” (6/16/2020/interview/46/Katrine). Conor also had similar views with
Katrine about how I performed in the CF. His response was this:
Yeah, I think the process has been good. I think that you’ve been responsible for sending
emails and checking in on things. So, I’ve seen that. That means a lot to me. That makes
it clear that you’re consistent. That’s helpful. I think with the feedback you’ve given,
you’ve done it in a good way. You’ve been positive. I think bringing up the positive
things obviously helps a teacher, so they don’t feel maybe negative about themselves […]
I think you’ve handled, you’re going about the process and the questions in a very good
way. (7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor)
120
The overall findings on my experiences of being in the CF and on how I am doing as a critical
friend will later help me to discuss meanings to be a transnational and cross-cultural critical
friend in the next section.
Discussions: The Cross-Case Comparisons and Meanings to be the Critical Friend
A Critical Friend in a CF Should Not Be Like a Critical School Inspector
The first research question aims to explore the LC instructors’ perspectives about their
experiences in the CF. The findings in the previous sections show that Katrine and Conor had
positive and fruitful experiences in the CF. An emerging pattern that influences their positive
experiences is my presence more as a supportive friend. At the LC, Katrine usually experiences
the quality assurance of her teaching practices; the process tends to be more judgmental and is
more about finding weaknesses of her teaching practices. I feel a similar atmosphere in Conor’s
words that “[…] And so, there’s a different feel to it when a dean or department head is
observing you than someone that doesn’t have an effect on your job, so to speak, you know what
I mean” (7/1/2020/interview/53/Conor). I also see some keywords (e.g., dean, department head,
director) in what Conor and Katrine say about the CF process. The keywords might mean that
both appreciate a more bottom-up approach “whereby the teachers’ perspectives are considered
first and foremost, and it is they themselves who design how a class observation is to be carried
out” (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011, p. 450) not their department head or the dean.
Reflecting on the data, I would reinforce that a CF project, therefore, should not be like
or the same as quality assurance in a university. Like Schuck and Russell (2005), the instructors
should have opportunities to voice their expectations and concerns about the CF-related activities
before they start the project. Then, in a CF, the critical friend should indeed become a friend who
121
gives constructive feedback and does not act like a critical school inspector “who put right
wrongs” (Holden, 1997, p. 444) in the instructors’ teaching practices. I would repeat Farrell’s
(1998) words that the emphasis should be placed on the notion of “friend” rather than that of
“critical” (p. 87). If the CF process is not “reciprocal and supportive” (Nguyen & Ngo, 2018, p.
188), the CF might not, in Costa and Kallick’s (1993) phrases, advocate success in teaching.
Instead, the process might add more pressure to the instructors, like when Katrine says, “[…]
The first time somebody tells me they’re coming to my class; I’m just like, again, you know, it’s
like evaluate me again? [...] (6/16/2020/interview/36/Katrine). I do not want to be that
“somebody” in Katrine’s class.
Therefore, to strengthen this message, I would say that the frequently used terms of
critical friend in the previous literature (e.g., Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009; Farrell, 1998), and
“that has been used in teacher professional learning communities for at least 20 years” (Wiggins,
2018, p. 1) should now be modified into a more positive term, such as supportive friend (or
supportive friendship). Although Farrell (2001) has clarified that we should not translate the term
critical in a CF negatively, “how can critical friends be really critical and friendly enough at the
same time?” (van Swet et al., 2009, p. 353). I think that the new term of the supportive friend
might more explicitly remind future CF participants that their primary roles are not to be critical
and judgmental to each other.
Looking at the data (6/12/2020/interview/36, 40, 84/Katrine)
(7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor), I would translate the term supportive friend as someone who can
reassure teaching practices of an observed teacher, be appreciative in noticing things, and see
positive values in teaching practices of the observed teacher inside the classroom. These
characteristics of a supportive friend might be practical ways on how people should be “an
122
advocate for the success of the work” (Costa & Kallick, 1993, p. 50) and collaborate with
another teacher to contribute to the growth of the other (Fletcher and Ragins, 2007), specifically
in the adjustment learning period and during the COVID-19 situation.
Focusing on What Happened in the Classroom Supports the Reflection
The second research question is to explore how the CF supports the instructors’ reflection
of teaching practice. Keywords that I find in Katrine’s and Conor’s responses are about “go
back” (6/16/2020/interview/50/Katrine) and “go over the previous lessons”
(7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor). As shown in the interview data, the current CF supports both
instructors in that process, which might indicate the success of the reflection (on-action) and
interaction principles I apply in my CF. In other words, Katrine and Conor can look back at their
teaching because our interaction is mainly about “the teacher’s world” (Freeman, 1982, p. 26) or
all things that “happened in a lesson” (Farrell, 2016, p. 226). I do not talk about any items that
are not closely related to the lesson, such as any theoretical literature (Nilsson et al., 2018) or
theoretical concepts (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011).
After Katrine and Conor looked back at their teaching, they similarly mentioned: “[…]
doing it better next time (6/16/2020/interview/50/Katrine) and “[…] think about what we can do
that will influence our ability to do next week better (7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor). With these
responses, I hold Farrell’s (2004) views that when teachers can be more aware of what happens
in their classroom and can pay attention to their behavior and that of their students’ rightly, they
can perform more effectively in their teaching practices. Therefore, in addition to improving
teaching instructions (Farrell, 2001; Smith, 2019), a critical friend in a CF should always intend
his/her “non-judgmental comments, questions, and suggestions” (Freeman, 1982, p. 26) to make
123
observed teachers be (more) aware of their class and behavior during the class sessions (Cosh,
1999; Kabilan, 2007).
The Presence of Supportive Individuals Supports the Instructors’ Practices
The third research question focuses on how the process of reflection supports practice,
specifically in the instructional adjustments from f2f to online sessions. In that reflection process,
the data highlights the presence of supportive people with whom Katrine can share what worked
and what did not in her Zoom class (6/16/2020/interview/58/Katrine) and with whom Conor can
discuss practices he has adapted well or those he might need to adjust more
(7/1/2020/interview/63, 65/Conor). Therefore, when doing the reflection alone, I agree with
Moradkhani (2019) that teachers might not precisely spot what did not work in their teaching
practices and might not (in Rarieya’s 2005 phrases) gain pedagogical insights as to what Conor
experienced:
[…] So, I noticed in some areas, you would bring up where I’m like, oh yeah wow, that
really has adapted to online. I see how I’ve adapted there, and now there are days where
it’s like, yeah, I still need to adapt that more to the online focus.
(7/1/2020/interview/63, 65/Conor)
A Transnational Critical Friend Means Being Trustworthy and Open-Minded
The discussions in this part should answer the sub-research question four on what it
means to be a transnational and cross-cultural critical friend in my CF with the LC instructors.
124
Being Trustworthy
Although I did not have sufficient time to build a deep trust with the instructors, I tried
my best to be a trustworthy person for them. For instance, Katrine expected me to provide more
positive reinforcement for her teaching practices. I listened to her and met her expectations. In
the interview session, I reinforced her practices about typing students’ responses on a Word file
and displaying the file on the Zoom screen to help students follow the class discussions easily,
being humorous in some moments, and using the graphic organizer that I might use for my
students in Indonesia (6/12/2020/interview/28, 31, 42/Katrine). I did not lie to her and did not
use the interview sessions to discuss “negative observation” (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011, p.
458) or position myself “as an expert in a special field of academic knowledge, who put right
wrongs” (Holden, 1997, p. 444) on her teaching practices.
The same condition also applied to Conor. In the informal Zoom meeting, before I started
the data collection process, I explained what the communication rules were. For instance, I
would share my perspectives in a supportive environment and not judge his teaching practices
(6/19/2020/meeting/1/Conor). I did what I said I would. For example, in talking about the strong
words that Conor used in the class (6/23/2020/interview/45-50/Conor), I used a question, “which
reflects the teacher’s world and which is not evaluative or judgmental” (Freeman, 1982, p. 26)
(e.g., Conor, how do you feel about that?) instead of saying that it was so rude for him to say so.
The data shows that Conor appreciated what I did. In the interview, he said: “[…] you’ve asked
questions about things rather than pointing out negatives: you did this wrong. You asked
questions, and I think that’s the proper way to go about it [....]” (7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor).
From these experiences, I believe strongly that the CF overall process could train me to
grow as a trustworthy person who always truthfully actualizes what I say to other people. I also
125
hope to be that trustworthy person who listens attentively to people’s expectations and always
pays attention to small things (e.g., sending emails and checking on things) specifically in every
CF process in the future, as related to what Conor said in the interview session: “[…] You’ve
been responsible for sending emails and checking in on things. So, I’ve seen that. That means a
lot to me […] (7/1/2020/interview/59/Conor).
Being Open-Minded
I agree with Farrell (2006) that I can learn from reflecting on my experiences, specifically
on the CF process with the LC instructors. I also support the view that the class observation
“shouldn’t be about just compiling negative information” (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011, p. 458).
Pedagogically, in the reflection process (Farrell, 2014), I gathered data about the teaching
practices of the LC instructors inside the online synchronous classrooms. Then, I opened my
mind to learn from the instructors’ class in the US setting and used some information to make
informed decisions for my teaching practices in Indonesia. For example, from my observations, I
learned about being more careful in saying any words to my students in a class and explaining a
writing rubric in more detail. I will also explore the CRAAP test further for evaluating sources.
I also learned technical things from Katrine and Conor. For instance, they always asked
their students to turn on their laptop’s camera. Conor believes that “Cameras on for everyone
leads to better engagement […]” (6/23/2020/interview/16/Conor). Moreover, I also learned what
Katrine did in the class to brainstorm writing ideas with her students. For example, she opened
her Word file, shared her screen, asked her students to share thoughts on problems, effects, and
solutions on some pictures they saw on the Word file (6/9/2020/observation/38-60/Katrine). In
other words, there were supportive visuals to enhance students’ understanding (Grant & Cheon,
126
2007). What I learned might not directly respond to writing problems (see Laksmi, 2006) and
challenges (see Ratminingsih, 2015) in EFL settings. However, the new information can add to
my teaching skills as a writing instructor beyond “giving much emphasis on corrections of
grammatical errors in students’ writing” (Yeh, 2014, p. 23) and confirm Swinglehurst et al.’s
(2008) view that in online environments, peer observation may create new learning
opportunities.
Furthermore, I reflected on my communication experiences in my CF, specifically with
Katrine as an American instructor. At first, I was shocked about her email when we scheduled
the Zoom meeting: “It’s on my calendar. No need to remind me. I will be in class, and it will be
distracting” (6/5/2020/email/Katrine). Gradually, I realized that, at some points, I do need to be
“frank, open, and direct” (Althen & Bennett, 2011, p. 23) specifically to make something clear.
For example, it was when I openly and directly said to Conor that I needed one hour to interview
him (6/19/2020/interview/27/Conor). From that process, I now can tell that an Egyptian student’s
voice of “saying what you really think might be misjudged as being rude” (Wachob, 2011, see p.
358) is not always applicable, specifically in a transnational and cross-cultural CF. In line with
that, “being indirect communicators and finding it difficult to say no even if they disagree with
people because they want to show politeness” (Cultural Atlas, 2020a, n. p.) will tend to hinder
the open (Farrell, 2004) and frank (Schuck & Russell, 2005) communication between CF
participants. With these thoughts, all (transnational and cross-cultural) CF participants should
value and perform specific protocols they have agreed upon with each other rather than bringing
each of their cultural (e.g., communication) backgrounds into play that can potentially hinder the
overall CF process at some points.
127
Conclusions and Recommendations
In conclusion, first, I experience success in my CF with two language instructors at the
LC. Second, my presence as more of a supportive friend during the CF process and my focus of
all teaching discussions on what happens in the instructors’ class sessions appear to have
contributed to the success of my CF. Third, although my CF might not produce “any observable
change” (Farrell, 1998, p. 86) in the instructors’ classes, it helps Katrine and Conor to look back
on and be more aware of what happened in their class than just having “the fleeting thoughts of
oh that class went well” (Farrell, 2004, p. 1) as well as to find areas for teaching improvement.
Fourth, regardless of various dynamics and vulnerable experiences in my CF with the LC
instructors, I would say the overall CF process helps me grow in my personality and writing
pedagogy. Fifth, being a transnational and cross-cultural critical friend means being a
trustworthy and open-minded friend for the LC instructors in all stages of the CF. With all these
concluding points in mind, I hold Moradkhani’s (2019) belief in “the strength of collaborative,
oral reflection approaches over an individual one” (p. 68).
Several recommendations arise out of this study. For example, during the transition
period from f2f to online learning, teachers might think about forming an e-supportive friendship
group of three to four teachers who have been working together and who have known each other,
such as for more than two years. Then, they can decide to meet regularly every month in an hour
Zoom meeting to share the success and challenges (e.g., engaging students with online learning
materials and dealing with students who are often distracted by their phone during the class
session) they might have in teaching in the online synchronous environment. They can listen to
each other and learn from their success stories. Finally, they can offer practical, constructive, and
non-judgmental solutions to solve the challenges.
128
Teachers may also use the Zoom meeting as a supportive learning community where they
can “analyze how to use technology, give one another constructive feedback, brainstorm ideas,
and play together” (Muhtaris & Ziemke, 2015, p. 23) with technology. Practically speaking,
every teacher can be assigned to read about a (simple) learning application from a technology
book (e.g., Egbert, 2017; Egbert & Shahrokni, 2018) or a technological blog (e.g.,
https://www.freetech4teachers.com/). Then, the teacher presents the application, and the other
group members can try the apps together and think about pedagogical (writing) components to
integrate into the technology. The group members can always decide who will present first and
the format of the presentation. In the meeting, they might also discuss some technological topics
in writing classes, such as free databases that provide quality articles, applications of the CRAAP
test to evaluate sources, the importance of using visuals (e.g., sharing the Zoom screen, pictures,
typing students’ ideas on Word) to support their explanations, or potential features of Zoom that
they might use to support their online synchronous teaching.
In addition to the supportive Zoom meeting, department heads, or academic directors of a
study program might also need to re-evaluate their current quality assurance practices for their
instructors. Rather than focusing more on finding weaknesses or areas for improvement, they
might try to have a dialogue about values or pedagogical practices they can learn from the
instructors and see the impacts of that dialogue on the instructors. Katrine called this a “strength-
based approach where the focus of the dialogue is not on pointing out every single weakness”
(6/16/2020/interview/52/Katrine).
Further, I agree that “having a critical friend may not always be comfortable” (Campbell
et al., 2004, p. 110) for some people, and a reflection process in a CF might cause doubt and
uncertainties (Farrell, 2001). From that point, I see the importance of Schuck and Russell’s
129
(2005) ideas to have sufficient time for an open and frank discussion, especially in a similar
short-term CF in the future. The discussion is to explore possible concerns and expectations from
all future CF participants before they start the friendship. Yet, the participants should not only
talk about matters related to the data collection procedures but also openly and frankly converse
about their “psychological state” (Farrell, 2001, p. 373) to develop stronger “tentative trust”
(Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009, p. 217) with one another.
In the end, I would recommend some ideas for further research explorations. To fill more
gaps in the literature, future researchers might try to apply the CF framework of this study (see
Figure 4.1), which is still relatively new, in a similar online setting. Then, they should recruit
participants who are specifically from “The Middle East, Australia, New Zealand, South
America, or Africa teaching in primary, elementary or secondary school settings” (see Farrell,
2016, p. 238). Further work might also focus on exploring challenges in doing a CF and ways to
maximize the potential of the CF, specifically in the tentative trust situation where participants
do not have sufficient time to build up a deep level of trust with each other. Moreover, there are
still some questions that I cannot answer in the current study, which might be areas for future
research:
• Can the research questions of the present study be approached quantitatively? How?
• What are practical ways to positively maintain a transnational and cross-cultural CF in a
more extended period of months or years?
• How can a similar CF process benefit international doctoral students who are in the
process of completing their Ph.D. dissertation?
130
• How does the modification from the term critical friendship into supportive friendship
affect the theoretical framework used by a researcher and contribute to the psychological
state of future research participants?
• (as an alternative to interviewing an observed teacher) Are there any specific rubrics to
assess (my) performances of a critical/supportive friend in a similar friendship?
Other questions (adapted from Swaffield, 2004, p. 268) that might be worth exploring are:
• What are the necessary preconditions for a fruitful transnational and cross-cultural
friendship in the future?
• How can supportive friends be best matched with school colleagues?
In closing, what I offer in this paper hopefully can be a way to invite my readers to reflect on
meanings of the transnational and cross-cultural CF practices hold for them, reflect on their own
(CF and teaching) experiences, and perhaps “learn from mine” (Lewis, 2018, p. 1754).
131
References
Abdalla, J. (2020, March 11). US universities switch to online courses due to coronavirus.
Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/universities-switch-online-courses-
due-coronavirus-200310202804023.html
Althen, G., & Bennett, J. (2011). American ways: A cultural guide to the United States (3rd ed.).
Intercultural Press.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. A. (2019). Introduction to research in
education (10th ed.). Cengage.
Baskerville, D., & Goldblatt, H. (2009). Learning to be a critical friend: From professional
indifference through challenge to unguarded conversations. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 39(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902260
Benshoff, J. M., & Gibbons, M. M. (2011). Bringing life to e-Learning: Incorporating a
synchronous approach to online teaching in counselor education. The Professional
Counselor, 1(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.15241/jmb.1.1.21
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map
from beginning to end (4th ed.) [PDF file]. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Brown, B. (2011, January 4). The power of vulnerability [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o
Brown, B. (2013, March 14). Myth: “Vulnerability is a weakness”. SUPERSOUL.
http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/excerpt-daring-greatly-by-dr-brene-brown
Campbell, A., McNamara, O., & Gilroy, P. (2004). Practitioner research and professional
development in education. Sage Publications, Inc.
132
Carolan, L., & Wang, L. (2012). Reflections on a transnational peer review of teaching. ELT
Journal, 66(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr023
Castellanos, J. O., & Rodríguez, J. L. (2009). Intradistrict resource reallocation for Latino
English language learners: An exploratory multiple case study approach. Bilingual
Research Journal, 32(3), 298–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235880903372886
Central Michigan University. (n. d.). Website research: CRAAP test.
https://libguides.cmich.edu/web_research/craap
Chavez, N. (2020, May 2). Another wave of coronavirus will likely hit the U.S. in the Fall.
Here’s why and what we can do to stop it. CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-second-wave-fall-season/index.html
Chou, A. Y., & Chou, D. C. (2011). Course management systems and blended learning: An
innovative learning approach. Journal of Innovative Education, 9(3), 463–484.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Cosh, J. (1999). Peer observation: A reflective model. ELT Journal, 53(1), 22–27.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.1.22
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership,
51(2), 49–51.
Cowin, K. M. & Newcomer, S. N. (2019). Sharing stories and learning to lead: A relational
mentoring process through self-portraiture. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 31(2),
239-262.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
133
Cultural Atlas. (2020a). Indonesian culture. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/indonesian-
culture/indonesian-culture-communication
Cultural Atlas. (2020b). American culture. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/american-
culture/american-culture-communication
Do, J. (2018). Understanding instructors’ synchronous online course design activity [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville].
https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6550&context=utk_graddiss
Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117–129.
Egbert, J. (2017). Methods of education technology: Principles, practice, and tools. Open
Educational Resources (OER). Available online at: https://opentext.wsu.edu/tchlrn445
Egbert, J., & Sanden, S. (2020). Foundations of education research: Understanding theoretical
components (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Egbert, J., & Shahrokni, S. A. (2018). CALL principles and practices. Open Educational
Resource (OER). Retrieved from https://opentext.wsu.edu/call/
Farrell, T. S. C. (1998). Critical friendship in ELT teacher development. Prospect, 13(2), 78–88.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Critical friendships: Colleagues helping each other develop. ELT
Journal, 55(4), 368–374.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflection breaks for busy teachers.
Corwin Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). Reflective practice in action: A case study of a writing teacher’s
reflections on practice. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 77–90.
134
Farrell, T. S. C. (2014). ‘Teacher you are stupid!’ – Cultivating a reflective disposition. The
Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 18(3), 1–10.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2016). The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective
practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research,
20(2), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815617335
Farrell, T. S. C., & Guz, M. (2019). ‘If I wanted to survive I had to use it’: The power of teacher
beliefs on classroom practices. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language,
22(4), 1–17.
Fletcher, J. K., & Ragins, B. R. (2007). Stone Center relational cultural theory: A window on
relational mentoring. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at
work: Theory research and practice (pp. 373-399). SAGE Publications.
Foresman, B. (2020, March 12). Here are the U.S. universities that have closed due to
coronavirus. edscoop. https://edscoop.com/universities-closed-due-coronavirus-2020/
Freeman, D. (1982). Observing teachers: Three approaches to in-service training and
development. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586560
Gallagher. (2020, March 29). Zoom for online learning updates: Expanded access for schools.
Zoom blog. https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/03/29/how-to-use-zoom-for-online-
learning/
Gebhard, J. G. (2005). Teacher development through exploration: Principles, ways, and
examples. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 9(2), 1–15.
Gibbs, J. (2006). Reaching all by creating tribes learning community. Center Source Systems,
LLC.
135
Golby, M., & Appleby, R. (1995). Reflective practice through critical friendship: Some
possibilities. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(2), 149–160.
Grant, M. M., & Cheon, J. (2007). The value on using synchronous conferencing for instruction
and students. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 211–226.
Gün, B. (2011). Quality self-reflection through reflection training. ELT Journal, 65(2), 126–135.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq040
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach
languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455
Harvard University Information Technology. (n. d.). Using Zoom to teach your class online.
https://atg.fas.harvard.edu/using-zoom-teach-your-class-online
Holden, G. (1997). “Challenge and support”: The role of the critical friend in continuing
professional development. The Curriculum Journal, 8(3), 441–453.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517970080307
Kabilan, M. K. (2007). English language teachers reflecting on reflections: A Malaysian
experience. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 681–705.
Kearns, L. R. (2016). The experience of teaching online and its impact on faculty innovation
across delivery methods. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 71–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.005
Kelland, K. (2020, March 6). Beware second waves of COVID-19 if lockdowns eased early:
Study. TheJakartaPost. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/03/26/beware-second-
waves-of-covid-19-if-lockdowns-eased-early-study.html
136
Kozleski, E. B. (2017). The uses of qualitative research: Powerful methods to inform evidence-
based practice in education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
42(1), 19-32.
Kurpiel, S. (2019). Evaluating sources: The CRAAP test. https://researchguides.ben.edu/source-
evaluation
Laksmi, E. D. (2006). “Scaffolding” students writing in EFL class: Implementing process
approach. TEFLIN Journal, 17(2), 144-156.
Lamb, P., Lane, K., & Aldous, D. (2012). Enhancing the spaces of reflection: A buddy peer-
review process within physical education initial teacher education. European Physical
Education Review, 19(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X12457293
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2011). Classroom observation: Desirable conditions
established by teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 449–463.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.587113
Levenson, E., Boyette, C., & Mack, J. (2020, March 12). Colleges and universities across the
U.S. are canceling in-person classes due to coronavirus. CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/09/us/coronavirus-university-college-classes/index.html
Lewis, K. A. (2018). A digital immigrant venture into teaching online: An autoethnographic
account of a classroom teacher transformed. The Qualitative Report, 23(7), 1752–1772.
Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-
related discourse. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 45–64.
Mali, Y. C. G. (2016). Project based learning in Indonesian EFL classrooms: From theory to
practice. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 3(1), 89-105.
137
Mali, Y. C. G. (2017). EFL students’ experiences in learning CALL through project based
instructions. TEFLIN Journal, 28(2), 170–192.
Mali, Y. C. G. (2018). Digital video presentation an EFL writing classroom. Journal of Creative
Practices in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1-21.
Mansour, B. E., & Mupinga, D. M. (2004). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid
and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242–249.
Mayadas, F., Miller, G., & Sener, J. (2015, April 4). Definitions of e-learning courses and
programs version 2.0. Online Learning Consortium.
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/updated-e-learning-definitions-2/
McBrien, J. L., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces. Employing a synchronous online
classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-17.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moradkhani, S. (2019). EFL teachers’ perceptions of two reflection approaches. ELT Journal,
73(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy030
Muhtaris, K., & Ziemke, K. (2015). Amplify: Digital teaching and learning in the K-6
classroom. Heinemann.
Murray, M. (2007). Introduction to synchronous e-learning. In B. Brandon (Ed.), The eLearning
Guild’s handbook on synchronous e-learning (pp. 1-12). The eLearning Guild.
Newcomer, S. N. (2017). Investigating the power of authentically caring student-teacher
relationships for Latinx students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 17(2), 179–193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1310104
138
Nguyen, H. T. M., & Ngo, N. T. H. (2018). Learning to reflect through peer mentoring in a
TESOL practicum. ELT Journal, 72(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx053
Nilsson, M. H. Z., Wennergren, A. C., & Sjoberg, U. (2018). Tensions in communication-
Teachers and academic facilitators in a critical friendship. Action Research, 16(1), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316660365
Rarieya, J. F. A. (2005). Reflective dialogue: What’s in it for teachers? A Pakistan case. Journal
of In-Service Education, 31(2), 313–335.
Ratminingsih, N. M. (2015). The use of personal photographs in writing in a project-based
language learning: A case study. The New English Teacher, 9(1), 102-117.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers:
Strategies for teachers learning. Cambridge University Press.
Romano, M., & Schwartz, J. (2005). Exploring technology as a tool for eliciting and encouraging
beginning teacher reflection. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher, 5(2), 149-
168.
Saldaña, J. & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life [PDF file]. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Schawbel, D. (2013, April 21). Brene Brown: How vulnerability can make our lives better.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2013/04/21/brene-brown-how-
vulnerability-can-make-our-lives-better/#700ae98436c7
Schuck, S., & Russell, T. (2005). Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher
education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 107–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960500288291
139
Smith, M. G. (2019). A video-mediated critical friendship reflection framework for ESL teacher
education. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 23(1), 1–18.
Storey, V. A., & Wang, V. C. X. (2016). Critical friends protocol. Adult Learning, 28(3), 107–
114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159516674705
Sturgill, A., & Motley, P. (2014). Methods of reflection about service learning: Guided vs. free,
dialogic vs. expressive, and public vs. private. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL
Journal, 2(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.2.1.81
Swaffield, S. (2004). Critical friends: Supporting leadership, improving learning. Improving
Schools, 7(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480204049340
Swinglehurst, D., Russell, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2008). Peer observation of teaching in the online
environment: An action research approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5),
383–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00274.x
Thorgersen, C. F. (2014). Learning among critical friends in the instrumental setting. National
Association for Music Education, 32(2), 60–67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314521032
Tuğa, B. E. (2013). Reflective feedback sessions using video recordings. ELT Journal, 67(2),
175–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs081
van Swet, J., Smit, B. H. J., Corvers, L., & van Dijk, I. (2009). Critical friendship as a
contribution to master’s level work in an international programme of study. Educational
Action Research, 17(3), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790903093292
Vo, L. T., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2010). Critical friends group for EFL teacher professional
development. ELT Journal, 64(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp025
140
Vu, P., & Fadde, P. J. (2013). When to talk, when to chat: Student interactions in live virtual
classrooms. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(2), 41–52.
Wachob, P. (2011). Critical friendship circles: The cultural challenge of cool feedback.
Professional Development in Education, 37(3), 353–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.537064
Wiggins, T. G. (2018). Critical friendship: Helping youth lift as they climb together. Afterschool
Matters, 27, 1–9.
Yeh, H. C. (2014). Exploring how collaborative dialogues facilitate synchronous collaborative
writing. Language Learning and Technology, 18(1), 23–37.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed.) [PDF file]. Sage Publications,
Inc.
141
Appendix A
The Content of My PowerPoint Slides for the Informal Zoom Meeting
Slide Descriptions
1 A title page showing the date of the meeting
2 A brief definition of CF and CF principles that I used to frame my study
(Adding the definition is a modification I make on the slide after my informal
meeting with Katrine. It is to remind Conor about the CF.)
3 Communication rules that I will use in all (interview) meetings with each instructor:
• [1] Bring our authentic self to the interaction; [2] listen well and try to
experience the other person’s reality; [3] see the interview as opportunities
to grow (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007)
• [4] not enter the interaction “as an expert in a special field of academic
knowledge, who put right wrongs” to our (teaching) practices; ask
demanding questions, and refer our discussions to any theoretical literature
(Nilsson et al., 2018)
• [5] no judging or criticizing (Costa & Kallick, 1993)
• [6] share perspectives in a supportive atmosphere (Farrell, 2004) and help
each other to gain (pedagogical) insights (Rarieya, 2005) specifically in this
(transitional and difficult) period
4 My initial data collection plans I described in the email
(e.g., having three class observations before the interview sessions, and having two
class interview sessions after the interview sessions)
5 Some considerations I had about the tight schedules of each instructor in their
adjustment period from f2f to online learning
6 Some reflective questions, such as about what each instructor expected more from
me as the critical friend
7 My proposal for slight changes in the data collection plans
(e.g., reducing the number of class observations and changing the order of the data
collection procedures as displayed in Figure 4.3)
8 Questions to reflect in the interview sessions
9 Technical things about Zoom meeting
(e.g., to record a session and enable audio transcripts)
142
Appendix B
The Interview Protocol Checklist
Check
(✓)
Before the interview, I will email the LC instructors to:
remind them about the interview agenda; I will also send them my PowerPoint
slides that inform [1] teaching aspects that I will discuss with them; display [2] a
brief note about and [3] pictures (and time frames) of their teaching practices in
Zoom (e.g., I used the PrtSc Ins button on my laptop keyboard to capture the
picture). In some slides, I also show [4] excerpts of their talk in the classroom.
Check
(✓)
During the interview, I will:
start with a warm greeting (e.g., asking how they are doing) and thank for their
participation in this study
show them the PowerPoint slides that I have sent through email
ask about the thinking behind some practices or teaching techniques
ask their perspectives on their experiences of being in the CF
ask how the CF supports their reflection of teaching practice
ask how that process of reflection support practice specifically in the
instructional adjustments from f2f to online sessions
and how I am doing as a critical friend
try to relate their ideas to my online class sessions in my Ph.D. program or my
classroom that I taught in Indonesia
share pedagogical lessons I can learn from their teaching practices
take some notes on important points that the participants share
value any responses, thoughts, and experiences they have shared
Check
(✓)
After the interview, I will email the participants to:
thank them for their participation in the interview session and the Zoom
recording files they have sent to my email
143
Appendix C
The Interview Prompt (adapted from Saldaña & Omasta, 2018, p. 162).
Hello, [name of the interviewee/observed instructor]. Thank you for taking the time to
talk to me today on [date] at [time]. To be sure that we have an accurate record of today’s
conversation, I am going to audio and video record our interview. Is that okay for you? This
interview is conducted as a part of my CF research. I consider this interview session as a
valuable opportunity to learn from you and grow as a teacher. If there is anything you do not feel
comfortable answering or that you do not know the answer to, that is not a problem; just let me
know, and we can skip that question.
After this, I will display the PowerPoint slides and start to ask some questions based on
the information on the slides.
Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today. I really appreciate your help. If
you have any questions in the future, please feel free to email me at [email protected].
Thank you again!
144
Appendix D
The Observation Notes and My Analytic Memos on the Notes
For brevity purposes, I decided to show the observation notes only on one of Katrine’s class
sessions. In the notes, K refers to Katrine. Then, for anonymity reasons, I use pseudonyms (e.g.,
Ti, Ib, Te, Chu) to refer to students.
Katrine_Class session 1
Level 5: Academic Composition
Day: Monday/ June 9, 2020
Duration: 1 hour (9.00-10.00 a.m.)
Topic: Problem-solution essay
1. K greets her students. [minute 0.19-3.17]
2. K opens the class. [minute 03.41]
Today, we’re just going to be working more on getting to go over the problem solution. I
want to do a little bit of a kind of a more talking activity at the beginning of class to kind
of get us thinking about problem solution and how to approach this. So, let me share the
screen.
3. K shares her screens and shows a picture of a messy room [minute 4.04].
What is happening in this picture? What do you think the problem is?
4. Ti starts to answer the questions, and K responds to Ti’s answer. [minute 4.14]
5. K asks an open question if there could be other problems that they see in the picture.
[minute 5.02]
6. The same student, Ti, answers the question. [minute 5.16]
7. K calls another student to give some responses. [minute 5.36]
8. Ib answers the question, and K responds to Ib’s ideas. [minute 5.43]
9. K calls another student to give some responses. [minute 5.48]
10. Chu tells an idea. [minute 5.55]
11. K asks another question: what do you think the effect of the problem is? [minute 6.02]
12. Te answers the question very shortly. [minute 6.16]
13. K responds to Te’s responses and asks a follow-up question. [minute 6.22]
145
14. Some students (e.g., Ti, Mo, Te) share their ideas, and K responds to their answers.
[minute 6.29]
Ah, so maybe there’s bugs in here, right. That’s an effect. If it’s too messy and there’s
lots of a food and stuff that could be bugs. Right, so bugs would be in effect.
15. K types students’ ideas on the Microsoft Word file that K has shared on the screen.
[minute 7.47]
Some of the effects could be bugs, right? That’s what you said. Can’t find anything,
that’s another effect.
16. Another student, Ra, directly starts to add ideas. [minute 8.04]
17. K responds to Ra’s ideas. [minute 8.08]
So, it would be hard to walk in this, right? It’s hard to walk in here, okay?
18. K asks another question: what are some other possible effects? [minute 8.17]
19. Ib shares his idea. [minute 8.33]
20. K says “good” to Ib and types Ib’s answers on the Word file. [minute 8.38]
21. Ra shares ideas. [minute 8.43]
22. K types Ra’s answers on the Word file. [minute 8.38]
23. K responds to Ra’s idea. [minute 8.51]
Depression, right? Maybe. Yeah, low self-esteem. Low self-esteem could go either
way; it could be a cause. Maybe, that’s why this happened, or it could be an effect.
Maybe it came after, right? It depends. That can be both.
24. K asks anything else? [minute 8. 55]
25. Ti shares ideas. [minute 9. 12]
26. Ra adds an idea. [minute 9. 16]
27. K responds to the mentioned ideas of her students and types the ideas on the Word file.
[minute 9.21]
28. K starts to ask another question: what are some possible solutions? [minute 9-48]
29. Ra, Mo, and Te share their short answers. [minute 9.54-10.10]
30. K types their answers on the Word document. [10.06]
146
31. Ra shares some ideas and has a short interaction with K. [minute 10.28]
32. K clarifies the problems solution idea that Ra asks. [minute 11.06]
I’d love to have a little bit of an effect on the paper. It’s always good to use that kind of a
language. Like, why is this problem? What is it doing? Why does it affect us, right? and
then you propose the solution. I’d like some effect. Yeah, I’d like some effect because it
makes for your solution stronger if you can see why, what the effect is.
33. Sal asks another question about how to present ideas in one paragraph, and K responds to
Sal’s ideas. [minute 11. 59-12.37]
34. K tells students that they can download learning materials in their Blackboard. At the
same time, K shares her screen, displays her Blackboard page, shows where students can
find those materials [minute 13.04]
35. K asks students to work in pairs. [minute 13.28]
What I want you to do is I’m going to put you in pairs, or maybe more depends on who’s
around today. And, I want you to pick. There’s different pictures here. I want you to just
pick three of them. And I want you to think about what the problem is and what the
effects are, and what possible solutions are, okay. You only have to pick three pictures.
Okay. Just pick three of them that interest you and your group and just kind of talk about
it, write some things down, and then we’ll go back as a big group and kind of look at
them. Okay.
36. Students start to work in a group in the breakout rooms. [minute 16.03-19.38]
37. K tries to give some funny thoughts [jokes] about the group work. [minute 19.21]
It’s interesting how some groups are like fast to talking and so much slower. Yeah. It
depends who’s in them to some, some people like to get in arguments, more than other
people (laughing).
38. K starts the class discussion again and asks students to share what they discuss in the
group. K also shares her screen and shows the picture. [minute 20.07]
39. K shares her screen and asks a question: what are some of the problems that you all
decided were in this? [minute 20.12]
40. Some students (Ra, Ib, Ti) share ideas, and K types their responses on the Word file.
[minute 20.30]
There is more than one problem in here, discrimination maybe. Homelessness could be
another problem if maybe that person is homeless. Yeah […] Your comment was really a
good one. There are lots of problems here, right.
41. K scrolls down her screen and asks another question: what are some of the effects?
[minute 21.21]
147
42. Some students (Ra, Ti, Ib) share their thoughts, and K types the thoughts on the Word
file. [minute 21.30]
43. K scrolls down her screen and asks another question: what about solutions?
[minute 22.18]
44. Some students (Ra, Ti, Tar, Moh) share their ideas, and K types the ideas on the Word
file. [minute 22.21]
45. K tries to clarify and rephrase ideas mentioned by Ti. K types on the Word file.
[minute 23. 38] Taking care of our people. Yeah, good. Okay, good. So you’ve come up
with some solutions. Right. Okay.
46. K shows another picture and asks students to share their ideas: do you see some problems
there? [minute 23. 40]
47. Some students (Ib, Ti, Ra) share their ideas, and K types the ideas on the Word file.
[minute 23.55]
48. K starts to discuss the effect of the problem. [minute 25.05]
49. Some students [Ib, Ti, Ra] share their ideas, and K types the ideas on the Word file.
[minute 23.55]
50. K asks: what are some possible solutions? [minute 26.16]
51. Some students [Ti, Ra] share their ideas, and K types the ideas on the Word file. [minute
26.20]
52. K calls Moh to share ideas. [minute 27.16]
53. Moh tells ideas. [minute 27.26]
54. K scrolls down her screen and asks another question: what’s the problem in this one?
[minute 28.01]
55. Some students [Sa, Ti] share their ideas, and K types the ideas on the Word file. [minute
28.04]
56. K says: how about the effect of this? [minute 28.40]
57. Some students [Ra, Ti] share their ideas, and K types the ideas on the Word file. [minute
28.43]
148
58. K says then a possible solution? [minute 29.05]
59. Some students [Ra, Ti] share their ideas, and K types the ideas on the Word file. [minute
29.12]
60. K starts to summarize ideas discussed in the Word file. [minute 30.52]
Okay, so we got the idea, right, we got the idea. We got some ideas flowing. We see the
difference and how it’s all really how we structure this, right?
61. K shares her PowerPoint file and discusses the slides. [minute 31.09]
So this is going to be the basic structure. I’m very open to people. This is level five so, if
you talk to me about it and want to change the structure a bit, I’m totally cool about that.
Let’s see if I can get this to work. Can you all see the screen? Let’s kind of talk about
what we want the parts to be. So, you’re going to have a problem, right? And you’re
gonna have two solutions. You’re going to have an evaluation of both solutions and a
conclusion. Okay, so, um, the problem can be one paragraph or two paragraphs, that’s up
to you, really [...].
62. Ra wants to clarify something: so that would be six paragraphs? [minute 32.31]
63. K and Ra have a short talk about the essay structure. [minute 32.36-34.20]
64. While showing the slides, K asks:
What’s the problem? [minute 35.01]
What do you think they’re going to talk about in the next paragraph? [minute 35.29]
65. Ra and Ti are the ones who give their responses. [minute 35.03-35.57]
66. K explains parts of the essay (e.g., problem, solution 1-2, evaluation of both solutions,
and conclusion). [minute 36.09-38.30]
67. Ra asks about the grade percentage for this assignment. [minute 39.16]
68. K opens her Blackboard and shows the syllabus to answer Ra’s question.
[minute 39.44] K and Ra start to have a short discussion about the grade.
69. K shows a calendar in her Blackboard to explain the assignment, when to submit it, and
some activities that students will do in the next class. [minute 41.31]
70. Ra responds. [minute 42.18]
71. K responds to Ra and continues to explain the time. [minute 42.23-42.56]
72. K and Ra have another short talk about the assignment. [minute 43.53-44.37]
149
73. K shows and explains a graphic organizer to help students write their essay. K shares the
organizer on the screen. [minute 45.09-46.17]
So this is really nice. This is a nice basic one where you decide what the problem is.
Right. You write down what the problem is, and then you’re thinking about possible
solutions. This is a guide. Right. So, you could organize it this way. With the
introduction, with the hook the problem the thesis statement.
74. K shows where students can download the graphic organizer in Blackboard.
[minute 46.27]
75. K asks students to work in groups in the breakout rooms and discuss the sample of the
essay uploaded on Blackboard. [minute 46.56-52.42]
76. K starts to open the sample essay, share the screen, and discuss it with students. [minute
52.46]
So the hook, right. So this is one idea you could do, quote, most, most people do
statistics, they work really nicely with this kind of paper […]
77. Chu and Te (finally) appear here and give their short answer. They have a short talk about
the sample essay. [minute 53.18-55.06]
78. K closes her class and tells briefly what they will discuss tomorrow. [minute 56.14]
Calvin’s analytic memo
1. K always uses visual materials (e.g., Ms. Word files that are shared on the screen) to
support her explanation.
2. I also like when K opens her syllabus and shows the grading section to answer the
student’s questions about the grade. It might signal and remind students to do their tasks
seriously because the task is graded.
3. K often rephrases or clarifies ideas that her students share in the class discussion to make
the ideas more clear or easy to understand.
4. K opens her Ms. Word file, shares her screen, asks her students to share thoughts on
problems, effects, and solutions on some pictures they saw on the Word file. Then, K
types students’ ideas there. I believe this can help students to follow the discussions more
easily than just listening passively to explanations.
5. I learn a new thing from today’s session, such as about the graphic organizer.
6. K provides a sample essay for students. As an English language learner, it will be helpful
for me (us) to see an example.
150
7. I notice that calling students’ names can be an option to actively engage students in the
class discussion. How does K feel about this?
8. Why does K ask students to turn on their laptop’s camera? How does K feel about seeing
their students’ faces?
9. I can feel a humorous atmosphere in some parts of today’s session.
10. Overall, K’s class session is very student-centered. K asks many questions to students
and sends them to breakout rooms to discuss with their classmates.
151
Appendix E
The Interview Transcripts and My Analytic Memos on the Transcripts
For brevity purposes, I decided to show the transcripts only on one of Conor’s interview
sessions. In this transcript, C refers to Calvin, while Co refers to Conor.
Conor_Interview 2
Day: Wednesday/ July 1, 2020
Duration: 30 minutes (11.00-11.30 a.m.)
Topic: Discussing class observation 2
Co
1. Hi, Calvin, how’s your day?
C
2. I am doing great, Conor. How are you?
Co
3. I am fine.
C
4. All right, so Conor, can we start now?
Co
5. Sure
C
6. Hello again, Conor, good morning, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me
today on July 1, 2020, at 11.00 a.m. To be sure that we have an accurate record of today’s
conversation, I’m going to video and audio-record our interview, is that okay for you,
Conor?
Co
7. Yup. No problem.
C
8. Okay, thank you. So, this interview is conducted as a part of my critical friendship
research, and I consider this interview session as a valuable opportunity to learn from you
and grow as a teacher. And, if there is anything you do not feel comfortable answering or
that you do not know the answer to, that is not a problem, Conor, just let me know, and
we can skip that question. Okay?
C
9. So, Conor, these are some rules that I am going to use in our conversation today. They
are the same as what he had in our previous interview. Then, I would like to position
myself as a lecturer who has some teaching experiences in Indonesia and as a the
graduate student to respond to what you will share in this conversation.
C
10. Conor, I would like to start from here. So, I noticed that in the beginning of the class
from minute one until minute twenty two, I see the black screen in the beginning of the
class. So yeah, what was going on, Conor?
152
Co
11. Oh, yeah. So, what happens is as soon as one student signs on, the recording starts.
C
12. Oh I see.
Co
13. So, that student whoever signed on, they signed on 20 minutes before class. So we start
this class either at 10.30 or 11, I can’t remember. Um, so that’s why you’ll see a black
screen because as soon as someone comes to the meeting, the recording starts, and I don’t
go in and cut it, but that’s why there’s this long period of black screen before starting
C
14. Okay, thank you, Conor, for clarifying that.
C
15. Next, I am going to talk about the online engagement and getting students to engage
actively online materials. Okay. So, Conor, I think I learned about this when you give
simple examples, like for example, Sally was late for the class, you talk about the low
exam grades. And then, you stop there for some seconds and then you ask questions. I
think it works very well to engage your students with the learning material.
C
16. Yeah. And the second one, I would like to talk about this, Conor. So, you mentioned
about this is. As you were in the group, you notice that in the group, there was typically
one or two people that talked quite a bit. Conor, could you tell me a little bit what was
going on at that time actually if you still remember.
Co
17. Yeah. So, I use the breakout rooms and put students into groups of typically three to four
people. I do know that, three or four people. And so what I do is during that time, I try
not to jump in too much in those groups. I’ll add information if I hear something wrong
or people aren’t participating. But, I typically just come into those groups and observe. I
just listen to what they’re talking about, see how they’re discussing, and let them kind of
do that. But afterwards, I didn’t want to give feedback that in those groups, I did notice
that usually there was one or two people that did most of the talking while there was a
couple people that would say nothing. You know, so encouraging those people to speak
up more and encouraging the people that talked less to try to participate more. Typically
what I’m noticing is in those groups, the students who participate more are the ones that
are usually doing better in the class. The ones who are not participating are typically
doing worse. And that’s because I think they’re not participating because they’re
distracted with something. So, I’m just trying to encourage them through different means
whether it’s my teaching or in group work to be active and be present in what’s going on
here.
C
18. To clarify, so you say all of those after all students come back to the main room, right?
Co
19. Yes. correct.
153
C
20. And then, next, I also learn from you that when you review the skill practice one and you
show the screen there and then you ask every student to answer the questions, yeah, it
works very well to engage all of your students.
Co
21. Yeah, definitely.
C
22. So, now, Conor, I would like to talk about these: presenting the content and the speed of
your speaking. And this is what I notice. First, I think that when you review the rubric in
very detail, I think it was very good because I believe that your students will know what
you expect from them when they write their essay. So, I learned a lot from you from this
practice: explaining the rubric in detail. Then, if I can say, the skill practice materials, I
think, they are very useful because I believe that might help students to learn the
vocabulary, the cause, and effect of vocabulary. My question is can they access the PDF
file of this?
Co
23. Yeah, that’s in Blackboard.
C
24. And when you show this simple but very clear picture and diagram to support your
explanation, I think it might help your students to follow the ideas and what you explain
more easily.
Co
25. Great.
C
26. Thank you for sharing this picture. And I also like this actually when you provide the
complete sources on Blackboard. For example, I notice this the cause and effect
language. I think this is very useful and the sample paper as well because basically, as an
international student, sometimes we need to see the example. And, I will say that it might
help students to study outside the class. So Conor, just to clarify, so basically, your
students can access all the materials in the Blackboard, right? My question is: do you
frequently remind them to check the Blackboard and study the materials?
Co
27. Yeah, usually at least once or twice a class, especially towards the end of class, I remind
them. Especially like this week is we’re writing our paper, I remind them. I sometimes try
to give them an answer, but I don’t always try to give them the whole answer because I
don’t want to just hand it to them. I want them to go back, look at the material and learn
it, not just hear the answer and apply it. You know what I mean. So yeah, I typically
remind them hey this is on Blackboard, remember, go back and check this. If you have
questions, look at this first, things like that.
C
28. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And then, I would like to talk about something I feel
I want to bring up and something that I notice in your class. So, Conor I would like to ask
you about this again like when you mentioned about this: when I’m looking at the grades
154
now, I see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, you will be like home for again next semester. Yeah. Conor, my
question is what messages that you want to tell to your students at that time?
Co
29. Yeah, I think it’s the idea of like it’s time to worry a little bit. It’s time to be concerned
more about what’s going on because there’s clearly a disconnect going on in our class.
So, one thing that’s difficult about this level is in order to progress to the next level, they
have to get at least a B in all of their classes. And that’s, you know, for the graduate level,
that’s normal. These are undergraduate students, a lot of them. And so for that, that’s a
difficult task for many of them. And I think some of them come from cultures again
where you can kind of be getting an F all semester, and then you just get that final exam,
you get an A, and you pass. In our culture, you dig a hole too deep. Even this week, I’m
looking at grades and saying, hey, six of you right now are in a place where you might not
pass this class. Hopefully, that’s helping them realize, oh, I need to start working harder
now. I even noticed this week, a couple of students have started working much harder on
this paper than they did the last paper. Part of it is they’re realizing, oh, I really need to
get going here. I really, really need to try harder, work harder, things like that.
C
30. I have a question about this. So, for example, when you fail them or give them like C or
D, will you have like problems from your academic coordinator or from your students?
Do they complain?
Co
31. No. I’ve seen that before. Like when I taught in China, I saw situations when my students
would complain, and sometimes the department would just pass them anyway, even if I
failed them. And that, obviously, I didn’t think it was good because they didn’t earn the
great, you know. In my department, no, my department head is very supportive. The only
thing we try to hit a 75% to 80% progression rate. That’s our goal. Our goal, 75 to 80%
of people in our class should progress. All we need to explain why. We need to have an
understanding of why didn’t that number happens, you know what I mean. For this
semester. Obviously, there’s some extenuating circumstances with the online teaching. I
have one student who’s most likely going to fail the class, sadly, partly I think because he
went back to his home country, so the time difference has been hard for him to manage.
So, we have to have an explanation of why the students fail, but students’ failing is not a
problem because we don’t fail students. Students fail themselves.
C
32. So the key is that you explain why they get that grade. All right. Thank you for clarifying
that. Okay, so, I also notice this, actually, when you mention: yeah, it’s going to be a long
class; there’s a lot to unpack here. My question about that is can your student access the
zoom class recordings? (There is an internet connection problem here for twenty
seconds.)
Co
33. Are you back? Sorry. I don’t know if it was me or you. But, my students can access the
zoom recordings. They do have access to it. I find it out a couple times to them.
C
34. So, you tell them to go back and see the recordings, right?
155
Co
35. I don’t mention as much as I mentioned going and looking at the material on Blackboard.
I tend to talk about that more. So, I could mention the recordings more, I think. I know
they have access. I only think maybe one or two students actually have gone back and
looked at the recordings as needed. So, that is something I could mention more, definitely
C
36. Yeah. That’s just for your information. Yeah, Conor, actually, I notice about this. So
when you ask your students: hey, do you have questions about the task? I notice that
perhaps only one or sometimes two students who ask questions during the class, but I
notice that more students asked more questions after the class and after their friends have
left the zoom meeting. Yeah, just to clarify this, do you usually stay for some minutes
just to answer the questions? And do you usually provide like individual consultations
outside the class?
Co
37. Yeah, yeah. So, I do typically, I tried it in class, like maybe three to four, five minutes
early so they have time to ask specific questions. In class, I tried to make it more general
questions that apply to everyone. And so, I tried to let students know: if you have specific
questions about your grade or your circumstance, you can ask me after class. And so,
that’s often a time when many students will do that. But I also provide opportunities to
meet in class So like today, for example, when we’re doing conferences, I create a
breakout room for just me and one student. And so, we will go. We’ll look at their outline
together and conference about that. They can also email me. I’ve been answering a lot
emails. This week, and oftentimes just emailing back and forth. I’ve been able to answer
their questions, mostly, but sometimes we’ve had to say: hey, let’s zoom really quick.
And so, I do well for the individual, but that’s more kind of on an as-needed basis.
C
38. Yeah, so on a needed basis.
Co
39. Yeah, I do a conference with them after every paper they write. I conference with them
one on one in a breakout room. The other students work on something, and I pull one
student aside in a breakout room to conference with them. Or, I conference with them
about like their outline today in preparation for their paper they’re writing right now. But
then, outside the class, if they have questions, things like that, I tend to get them kind of
the power over their own education to come and ask me that I’m available to them, but
I’m not gonna force them to come and meet with me to talk about questions. I’m going to
let them come up with those questions instead.
C
40. Thank you, Conor, for providing that kind of consultation. I just feel that when you
mention their level, level four, intermediate to upper-intermediate. Sometimes, I am not
sure whether they really understand what you explain. It’s not because of how you
explain to them, but more because of their level, you know what I mean.
Co
41. For sure. Yeah, and that’s a concern with some of the students. I know some students
clearly understand. Some don’t. And so my rhetoric to them is, I don’t know if you don’t
understand. I’m going to teach it, as well as I can. You’ve got to go to Blackboard to
156
review, but I can’t tell if you don’t understand, you have to communicate that to me in
some way, right? And so, I have a couple of students right now that I’m worried. One boy
has been struggling with understanding, but he’s asking a lot of questions. And that’s
helping him. Another girl, I think, is struggling to understand, but she’s not asking
anything, and it’s coming out when she’s turning things in, making the same mistake
many times, even though we’ve talked about it many times. So, you know, I think for her.
The language is a problem.
C
42. Conor, for some cultures, you know, we are sometimes shy to ask questions and to tell
the teacher that I don’t understand about this, but I just feel that when you provide the
individual consultations, it’s very helpful for the students, Conor.
Co
43. Yeah, for sure.
C
44. Conor, from my two class observations that I have done, do you think that the phone and
the movie are some of the main distractions in your class?
Co
45. Yeah, I would say those two. On their phone, it’s typically chatting with friends. It could
be movies or videos on the computer. Those have been the big ones I’ve seen. I’ve also
seen a couple of times students working on other class homework, that’s been another
one. Students are often doing because you know when we’re in the classroom together, I
can see them. But, I can’t see what they’re doing, necessarily, right now.
C
46. When you ask them to turn on their camera, and then, I mean, can you hear the sound of
their movie? Or can you see their eyes?
Co
47. Yeah, so there’s time when we’re working on an assignment to get make them unmute
themselves and then they can’t play a video or I would hear it. Um, but typically, I just
look at their eyes. I can see how focused, they are. Non verbals, you know, like you
nodded when I said something. If they’re just kind of staring off at weird times and, uh,
you know, kind of not using nonverbal cues of the correct way, that typically gives me a
clue that they’re drifting off. Or when they ask a question, I just answered. That’s a really
common one. I’ll tell them hey do this. And then like about a minute later, I’ll say, wait,
what am I supposed to do. And that, to me, tells me you are not paying attention.
C
48. Okay, And then, I have a question about that, actually. Do you discuss that issue in the
meeting with the other instructors?
Co
49. Yeah, we’ve talked about this. I’m just trying to do things to help students engage to stay
on task. And typically, what we talked about is trying to put them, using the breakout
rooms frequently, and that’s why I use them quite a bit as I keep going because it’s easier
to hold them accountable when they’re kind of in smaller groups. There’s really no
excuse not to participate when there are three people instead of 10 people, things like
that. Calling on people at random times, you know, not to police them, but to just make
157
them aware that you could be asked a question at any moment, so be ready, something
like that. But yeah, it’s definitely much trickier in the online format.
C
50. All right. I think that’s all my questions about your class. So, how do you feel about our
discussion today?
Co
51. Yeah, I think it’s helpful. It’s always good to see some of the things that I’m doing
positively and things that I can continue to improve on. So, I think it’s very helpful to
have that type of discussion.
C
52. And then, I would like to ask you about this. So, what are your perspectives about the
experiences of being in this friendship, especially from the beginning when I emailed you
and introduced myself to you and up to this point, Conor?
Co
53. Yeah, I think overall it’s helpful, you know, because typically when I’m getting observed
in my department, it’s from like my department head or someone like that. And so,
there’s a different feel to it when a dean or department head is observing you than
someone that doesn’t have an effect on your job, so to speak, you know what I mean.
C
54. Okay.
Co
55. There’s a different feel to it. So I think that can be helpful too, plus having someone from
a different background, different culture, different learning situation as you’re doing in
grad school here at this campus, and I did a different grad school. So, having some of
those things, I think, is helpful to just reassess because I oftentimes think as teachers, we
just do what makes the most sense to us, but we don’t always stop and think if this is the
best thing. What is a good practice? And, what could be a better practice? So, we talked a
lot about best practices in meetings. I think it’s always good to reassess: are we actually
following best practices? And, where can we improve?
C
56. So, Conor, how do you feel when you work with me as someone that you do not know
very well?
Co
57. I think it’s fine. I think it’s good. Sometimes the benefit of that can be there’s no bias in
it, you know what I mean. So, if you and I had been friends for years and you’re
observing me now, you’re gonna have a certain bias based on our friendship, whether
positive or negative. So, as a stranger, whether sometimes some awkwardness to get over
for people, that’s like, oh, you don’t know me, you don’t know my background as a
teacher, you can just look at the actual teaching, and it removes the bias. I think that can
be a good thing.
C
58. All right. Now about this question, if you can assess me: how am I doing as a critical
friend, from the beginning till this point?
158
Co
59. Yeah, I think the process has been good. I think that you’ve been responsible sending
emails and checking in on things. So, I’ve seen that. That means a lot to me. That makes
it clear that you’re being consistent. That’s helpful. I think with the feedback you’ve
given, you’ve done it in a good way. You’ve been positive. I think bringing up the
positive things obviously helps a teacher, so they don’t feel maybe negative about
themselves, and then you’ve asked questions about things rather than pointing out
negatives: you did this wrong. You asked questions, and I think that’s the proper way to
go about it. And then, through the asking of questions, it helped me to reconsider how I
do things or what I’m doing. So, I think you’ve handled, you’re going about the process
and the questions in a very good way.
C
60. Okay, thank you, Conor, for answering that. Then, I also need to ask you about this
question. How does our critical friendship support your reflection of teaching practice?
So in my study, reflection happens when teachers systematically gather data about their
teaching inside classrooms, and they use the data to make informed decisions for their
pedagogical practices. And then, the reflection happens after the class by consciously
thinking about the visible behaviors of what we do as teachers, our practice, and what
happens in the classroom.
Co
61. Yeah, I think it’s helpful because of that kind of consciously thinking about kind of what
we did. I think as teachers, we prepare, we spend a lot of time preparing, you know, for
lessons and things like that. We do professional development to prepare. And all of these
things are in preparation. Then, we teach. And then, after we teach. I find that we don’t
really spend time reflecting much. You know what I mean. I feel like we often are busy
grading or preparing for the next lesson, you know what I mean. And so, having the
critical friendship support is kind of this idea of like it’s an opportunity to pause and
reflect, you know, which I think is often lacking when we’re so busy just pushing
forward, always trying to plan out what’s next, make our lessons better, but we don’t
actually stop and go back and think: okay, my previous lesson, what didn’t go well? What
could go better? And I think that’s often a weakness in teachers. And so, having the
critical friendship, I think it helps with that, really helps to just stop and really go over the
previous lessons that we’ve already moved on from, that we’re already looking at next
week. But now, let’s stop and look back, think about what we can do that will influence
our ability to do next week better.
C
62. Thank you, Conor, for answering that question. It’s a very clear answer. And then, how
does that process of reflection support your practice, your teaching practice, especially in
this instructional adjustment from face-to-face to online environment?
Co
63. I think it’s good because again, as we’re moved to online, um, we’ve basically, most of
us have just taken our normal teaching practices and styles from the classroom and place
them online, and I think that there’s an adaptation that needs to take place. I think the
reflection that we’re able to do through this process helps to think through not just
teaching skills and style, but also better application in the online teaching format, and so
159
that I think that’s been helpful too. So, I’m thinking through not only, okay, how can I
improve as a teacher?but then how can I take what I’ve done in the classroom? How can
I also better apply that to the online situation. So, I think that’s something that’s also
very helpful through this process of reflection.
C
64. So, through this process, do you mean that you also have some ideas about how you can
do better in the new online environment?
Co
65. Correct, so I feel like one thing that was helpful is reflecting, not just on my own teaching
practice, but also just how my teaching practice needs to and maybe has at times adapted
to online. So, I noticed in some areas, you would bring up where I’m like, oh yeah wow,
that really has adapted to online. I see how I’ve adapted there, and now there are days
where it’s like, yeah, I still need to adapt that more to the online focus.
C
66. All right, so Conor. I think that’s all my interviews. Thank you so much, Conor, for all of
your help, time, and participation in my study. (I then ask him to check the accuracy of
his interview excerpts that I will present on my paper. I thank him once again, and we say
goodbye to one another.)
My analytic memos:
1. I feel that I should do better in explaining the rubric to my future students like what
Conor did.
2. Again, turning on the laptop’s camera during the Zoom session is important.
3. I should be present for my students (e.g., through email or the consultation before,
during, and after the class session) and answer questions they have about the lesson.
4. The movie and phone are the biggest distractors. Be careful, Calvin! Teachers might need
to think about some rules to deal with the phone and movie.
5. My presence as a critical friend does not give him evaluative pressure (like when his
department head comes and observes his teaching).
6. These keywords are essential: “pause and reflect; going back and thinking; adaptation;
being more aware of things; doing better and improve; no bias” to describe the reflection
process in the CF.
7. Conor overall feels positive about our CF.
160
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This dissertation has explored two critical friendship (CF) projects in a face-to-face (f2f)
and online synchronous learning environment with the research procedures and the theoretical
framework models. Finally, the dissertation comes to the following conclusions that hold my
theoretical propositions about the CF and contribute to the CF-related discourse in the literature.
First, the CF projects have the potential to support the university lecturer and language
instructors (as the observed teachers) and their critical friend in their teaching development. For
the observed teachers, the CF process helps them to be more aware of their “teaching behaviors”
(Farrell, 2004, p. 65) or “what they do in their classrooms” (Farrell, 2016, p. 240). With the
awareness, the observed teachers can plan some positive (pedagogical) changes for their future
classrooms (e.g., Tom’s plan to call on his students’ names to engage them more, Katrine’s plan
to revise her graphic organizer, and Conor’s thoughts to use “strong words” in his class more
carefully). Then, as the critical friend, I can learn various pedagogical and cultural lessons after
observing their classes and discussing my observations with them. With all the evidence, I am
now more convinced that the CF might open possibilities to gain both classroom pedagogy and
real-life lessons at the same time.
Second, the advantages mentioned above might also indicate the success of the CF
projects to free all the participants in both studies from the isolated teaching conditions, in which
they do not have support systems for their teaching development. The isolated conditions of the
CF participants, for example, can be minimized through the supportive and non-judgmental
interactions that provide them with opportunities to look back at what happened in the class and
their teaching behavior, find areas for improvement, and share teaching and life experiences. In
161
such interactions, the participants can also adapt some teaching strategies, activities, and
materials to make positive pedagogical changes in their future classrooms.
Third, regardless of the communication dynamics that happened, specifically in the
second study, the CF projects seem to be applicable across settings, such as reflecting on
teaching and learning activities in the f2f and online synchronous environment, with people that
the participants have known very well for a long time (e.g., around two years) and with those
they have not. In that case, the CF principles and the overall CF process, specifically in chapter
four, might inform future researchers who wish to conduct a similar friendship where they do not
have sufficient time to build a deep level of trust with one another.
Fourth, the dissertation confirms some argumentations and experiences that have been
discussed in the previous CF-related literature. For example, with the selected CF principles,
procedures, and theoretical framework models in this dissertation, I maintain the advantages of
doing peer-observations as experienced by the previous researchers, such as getting valuable
insights (see Donnelly, 2007) and learning various teaching techniques from an observed teacher
(see Farrell & Guz, 2019; Gebhard, 2005; Moradkhani, 2019; Nguyen & Ngo, 2018; Vo &
Nguyen, 2010). Then, after completing my CF with Conor and Katrine, I concur with
Swinglehurst et al.’s (2008) view more confidently that doing a peer observation in online
environments may create new learning opportunities.
Fifth, applying the positive spirits of being constructive (Costa & Kallick, 1993;
Thorgersen, 2014), supportive (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009), non-judgmental (Gebhard,
2005), and growth-fostering (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007) in all stages of the research contributes to
the success of the CF projects in this dissertation. In that case, I would repeatedly argue that the
common term of critical friendship in the literature should now be modified into a more positive
162
one, such as supportive friendship. The new term of supportive friendship might also tell a more
explicit message that all CF participants should be supportive of one another, and the emphasis is
placed on “the notion of friend rather than that of critical” (Farrell, 1998, p. 87).
Furthermore, my dissertation has made several contributions to the field. First, it
generates two theoretical framework models of CF that involve the spirit of social constructivism
theories (e.g., by Sanden, 2016; Tracey & Morrow, 2017) and the growth-fostering interactions
(e.g., by Fletcher & Ragins, 2007). To the best of my knowledge, the previous CF researchers
have not frequently used these theoretical models. The models might also be used as theoretical
foundations to design teaching reflection practices for pre/in-service teachers (e.g., similar to
Nguyen & Ngo, 2018; Vo & Nguyen, 2010). Second, my dissertation presents a distinct CF
relation between an associate professor/ language instructor from the United States and a
doctoral student/ lecturer from Indonesia. Therefore, the findings in the studies should add to the
discussions in the CF literature that, in many cases, involve pre/in-service teachers with the same
nationality and cultural backgrounds. Third, the studies’ contexts in the f2f and online
synchronous learning environment might also broaden the explorations and dynamics of the
previous CF studies that are often limited to f2f learning situations. These first three
contributions are essential as they might help qualitative researchers or graduate students
interested in researching CF to spot theoretical and methodological gaps in the literature and use
the novel theoretical CF models in their study.
The second study in the dissertation should also expand the implementation of
Baskerville and Goldblatt’s (2009) tentative trust principle, specifically in a CF that focuses on
teaching and learning activities in the online synchronous environment in the US setting. This
contribution might be significant in real life, specifically when lecturers or instructors are
163
assigned to reflect on their (online synchronous) teaching practices with some colleagues in a
situation where they do not have sufficient time to build up a deep level of trust with each other.
In that case, how I implemented the tentative trust principle in my CF might be (theoretical)
guidance for their teaching reflection activities.
There are some other contributions to the field. For example, all the CF activities in this
dissertation hope to answer Walsh and Mann’s (2015) calling on finding a technique that might
promote dialogue, engagement, and evidence-based reflection, specifically for teacher educators
and practitioners. That communicative, engaging, and evidence-based reflection (of CF)
technique might be a source of professional development for teachers who wish to be more
aware of their teaching practices and what is going on in their classes. When teachers can be
more aware of what happens in their classroom and can pay attention to their behavior and their
students’ rightly, they can perform more effectively in their teaching practices (Farrell, 2004).
Besides, my dissertations should demonstrate the application of Yin’s (2018) case study
methods, which should benefit readers of this dissertation who wish to apply a similar research
method in their future research agendas.
Finally, the overall findings of the dissertation would maintain the strength of
“collaborative, oral reflection approaches over an individual one” (Moradkhani, 2019, p. 68). A
dean, head of a study program, or related personnel in educational institutions might use the
findings as a theoretical and evidence-based foundation to modify or supplement written student
evaluations that lecturers commonly receive at the end of every semester. With the collaboration
and oral reflection approaches, lecturers hopefully can receive a deeper and more meaningful
evaluation for their teaching development beyond “the fleeting thoughts of oh, that class went
well” (Farrell, 2004, p. 1).
164
Recommendations
Informed by all the research findings and discussions, the dissertation has some practical
recommendations for university lecturers and language instructors who wish to see positive
changes in their f2f or online synchronous classrooms. For example, they can try to:
• be more aware of stories that they bring to their class as they should include all
students in the class discussions about those stories
• set a strict class rule dealing with the use of phones during class sessions
• be more thoughtful of any (strong) words that they say to their students
• support their (writing) class explanations using visuals (e.g., PowerPoint slides,
pictures) and with examples (e.g., a sample essay or a paragraph)
• provide their students with multi-modal learning experiences (e.g., discussing, writing,
drawing, moving, presenting, asking, and answering questions) where the students can
act beyond passively listening to their (dominant) teachers’ talks
• equip students in a writing class with various information (e.g., databases that provide
reliable articles and ways to evaluate sources) more than just focusing on grammatical
aspects
• take a role in developing students’ soft-skills of being punctual and supportive with
one another and listening attentively to someone who is speaking
• actively call students’ names, specifically those who rarely speak and contribute to
class discussions
165
• take a more proactive role in surrounding themselves with supportive friendship
circles where they can converse about and get inputs for instructional teaching
challenges they might have, for instance, in the new online teaching environment
• be open-minded and willing to learn and adapt (positive) pedagogical practices and
learning materials from other teachers
Final Words
I would end my dissertation by presenting some words from a letter written by a school
principal, Danny Steele (see Steele, 2016, n. p.). I sincerely use these words to support my fellow
teachers, educators, lecturers, and instructors who are now probably struggling in their teaching
because of the challenging COVID-19 situation and the instructional adjustments from f2f to
online learning.
Dear all teacher friends:
You’re tired. I know you are.
[…] “Hang in there -- thanks for all you do!”
But I want you to know exactly what it is that I’m thankful for:
You take time to prepare meaningful lessons even when you feel yourself dragging.
You provide encouragement and support to your colleagues when they’re down.
You are kind to students when you see them because you realize that may be the only
kindness they experience all day.
You strive to motivate apathetic students.
Sometimes your efforts don’t seem to make a difference.
But you keep trying because that’s what teachers do.
166
You spend countless hours grading papers
because you know that your feedback will help students grow.
You teach, and then you reteach and sometimes tutor individually
because you realize not everyone gets it the first time (or even the second time).
You learn new ideas from your colleagues and sometimes from the internet
because you are committed to being a better teacher tomorrow than you were today.
You work to create a positive classroom environment
because you know that is the best kind of environment in which to learn.
You try to connect with students who don’t seem reachable
because you realize you may be their only lifeline.
You have patience with the students who may be disruptive and annoying
because you know that those students still need you.
You provide structure and organization in your classroom
because you know you may have students who don’t have any at home.
You teach your students the skills that will ensure they have a brighter future.
You are that teacher who is the answer to a mother’s prayer.
I know you’re tired, and you have a right to be [...] I never take that for granted.
You’re tired, but you push on.
And that makes you heroic.
167
References
Baskerville, D., & Goldblatt, H. (2009). Learning to be a critical friend: From professional
indifference through challenge to unguarded conversations. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 39(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902260
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership,
51(2), 49–51.
Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117–129.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflection breaks for busy teachers.
Corwin Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2016). The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective
practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research,
20(2), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815617335
Farrell, T. S. C., & Guz, M. (2019). ‘If I wanted to survive I had to use it’: The power of teacher
beliefs on classroom practices. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language,
22(4), 1–17.
Fletcher, J. K., & Ragins, B. R. (2007). Stone Center relational cultural theory: A window on
relational mentoring. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at
work: Theory research and practice (pp. 373-399). SAGE Publications.
Gebhard, J. G. (2005). Teacher development through exploration: Principles, ways, and
examples. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 9(2), 1–15.
Moradkhani, S. (2019). EFL teachers’ perceptions of two reflection approaches. ELT Journal,
73(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy030
168
Nguyen, H. T. M., & Ngo, N. T. H. (2018). Learning to reflect through peer mentoring in a
TESOL practicum. ELT Journal, 72(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx053
Sanden, S. (2016). Negotiating discrepancies: Literacy instruction in the university classroom
and the primary classroom. Journal of Literacy Practice and Research, 41(3), 30-37.
Steele, D. (2016, November 3). Letter to a tired teacher.
http://www.steelethoughts.com/2016/11/letter-to-tired-teacher.html
Swinglehurst, D., Russell, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2008). Peer observation of teaching in the online
environment: An action research approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5),
383–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00274.x
Thorgersen, C. F. (2014). Learning among critical friends in the instrumental setting. National
Association for Music Education, 32(2), 60–67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314521032
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and
models. The Guilford Press.
Vo, L. T., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2010). Critical friends group for EFL teacher professional
development. ELT Journal, 64(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp025
Walsh, S., & Mann, S. (2015). Doing reflective practice: A data-led way forward. ELT Journal,
69(4), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv018
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed.) [PDF file]. Sage Publications,
Inc.
