Anxiety-Sensitive Collaboration in the Language Practice Classroom: A Practitioner Inquiry into Post-COVID English Language Teaching
Maria Lisak
Chosun University, South Korea
Abstract
This practitioner inquiry explores how trauma-sensitive and collaborative practices supported South Korean university students returning to face-to-face English classes after two years of online learning. In a context where English functions as both a cooperative and competitive gatekeeper for employment, many learners expressed anxiety and introversion about in-person participation. The study situates this affective landscape within broader national traumas—including the Sewol ferry disaster (2014) and the Itaewon tragedy (2022)—and ongoing systemic pressures in education. Through classroom-based reflection and analysis, the teacher-researcher examines how collaborative scaffolding and activity-based learning can foster safety, engagement, and equity in post-pandemic English education.
Keywords: practitioner inquiry, collaborative learning, trauma-sensitive pedagogy, English language teaching, anxiety, post-COVID education
Introduction
"How can students 'stay' when they want to run away from English?" This question emerged from student feedback in late 2022, when face-to-face classes returned as the institutional norm after two years of disrupted learning. The transition from online Zoom classrooms back to physical spaces revealed an unexpected challenge: learners expressed high levels of anxiety regarding face-to-face interaction, with students describing discomfort about "working with real people instead of Zoom screens."
This paper presents a practitioner inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2015) that positions the teacher as researcher, documenting the implementation and analysis of anxiety-sensitive collaborative practices in an English language classroom. The study examines how 91 Korean university students in a mandatory content course taught in English navigated the return to face-to-face learning through structured collaborative steps, trauma-sensitive interventions, and carefully scaffolded language learning activities.
The research unfolds against the backdrop of South Korea's complex relationship with English language education. English proficiency serves as a gatekeeper to employment opportunities, creating high-stakes pressure in an already competitive educational environment. This pressure is compounded by recent collective traumas—the 2014 Sewol ferry disaster and the 2022 Itaewon Halloween crowd crush—that have shaped how Korean youth experience safety, trust, and institutional authority. Understanding these contextual factors is essential to comprehending the depth of student anxiety and the necessity of trauma-informed pedagogical approaches.
Research Context and Problem
The institutional timeline of learning modalities provides crucial context:
Spring & Fall 2020: Fully online instruction via Zoom
Spring & Fall 2021: Hybrid instruction (simultaneous face-to-face and Zoom)
Spring 2022: Month-by-month student choice between online or hybrid
Fall 2022: Mandated return to face-to-face instruction
This final transition in Fall 2022 created the catalyst for this inquiry. Students who had adapted to online learning environments—where camera-off participation was common and physical presence was optional—suddenly faced mandatory in-person interaction. The classes were not organized by language level, creating additional anxiety for students concerned about peer comparison and English proficiency.
Student feedback revealed three primary concerns: anxiety about real-time face-to-face interaction, self-identification as introverted (with implications for participation expectations), and discomfort with the vulnerability required in language practice. These concerns prompted the central research question: How can collaborative processes and trauma-sensitive practices be integrated to create equitable learning conditions for students with different emotional and motivational needs?
Theoretical Framework
This study draws upon three interconnected theoretical frameworks, each addressing different dimensions of the pedagogical challenge.
Collaborative Learning Processes
Hmelo-Silver, Chernobilsky, and Jordan's (2008) work on collaborative learning processes in new learning environments provides the foundational framework. Their approach, grounded in constructivism, emphasizes that learning emerges through social interaction and shared meaning-making. The framework identifies three key coding categories for analyzing collaborative work:
Content: The subject matter being explored
Collaboration: The social processes through which learners work together
Complexity: The cognitive demands of the task
Additionally, Hmelo-Silver et al. identify cognitive indicators that reveal the depth of collaborative engagement: questioning, justification, and monitoring. These indicators help researchers understand not just what students are doing, but how they are thinking together.
The concept of activity systems (Hmelo-Silver & Chernobilsky, 2012) extends this framework by emphasizing how tools mediate learning. In an activity system, tools are not neutral instruments but active agents that shape discourse, thinking, and learning outcomes. This perspective is particularly relevant for understanding how the shift from digital to physical classroom tools affects student engagement and anxiety.
Trauma-Sensitive Educational Practices
Venet's (2021) equity-centered trauma-informed education provides the second theoretical pillar. Venet argues that trauma-informed approaches must move beyond individual accommodations to address systemic and structural sources of trauma. This perspective is crucial in the South Korean context, where educational pressure, competitive hierarchies, and collective historical traumas intersect.
Trauma-sensitive practices recognize that traditional educational structures often reinforce power imbalances and deficit narratives. Instead of asking "What's wrong with this student?" trauma-informed educators ask "What happened to this student?" and "What support does this student need to engage?" This reframing shifts from pathologizing student responses to understanding them as reasonable reactions to challenging circumstances.
The framework emphasizes three key dimensions:
Agency: Supporting students' capacity to make meaningful choices
Identity: Validating diverse student identities and experiences
Power: Examining and redistributing power within classroom structures
English Language Teaching Models
The third framework involves established English language teaching (ELT) models, particularly Task-Based Approach (TBA) and Content-Based Learning (CBL). These models were analyzed to understand how language learning goals intersect with collaborative and trauma-sensitive practices.
Task-Based Approach structures learning around meaningful tasks rather than isolated language forms. The typical sequence includes pre-task introduction, task completion in pairs or groups, planning for reporting, reporting back to the class, analysis of language features, and focused practice. This model aligns well with collaborative processes by centering social interaction and authentic communication.
Content-Based Learning integrates language instruction with subject matter content, using higher-order thinking skills and varied instructional approaches. Key principles include teaching vocabulary as a separate skill, relating lessons to students' lives, using multiple sources, employing group work, and creating opportunities for reporting and sharing.
Both models emphasize the social nature of language learning and create natural opportunities for the collaborative scaffolding necessary in anxiety-sensitive classrooms.
Methodology
Research Design
This study employs practitioner inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2015), a qualitative research approach (Yin, 2015) that positions the teacher as researcher. Practitioner inquiry values the knowledge generated from practice and recognizes that teachers have unique insights into learning processes occurring in their classrooms. This methodology is particularly appropriate for exploring complex, context-specific pedagogical questions that emerge from actual teaching practice.
The study follows a four-stage design:
Literature Review: Examination of collaborative processes, trauma-sensitive practices, and ELT models
Initial Data Collection: Analysis of student feedback and classroom interactions
Activity in Motion: Implementation and observation of integrated approaches
Analysis and Findings: Synthesis of how these three frameworks work together in practice
Participants and Setting
The study involved 91 Korean university students enrolled in a mandatory content course for their major, taught entirely in English. Classes were not organized by language level, meaning students with varying English proficiency levels learned together. This heterogeneity created both challenges and opportunities for collaborative learning.
The student population reported high levels of introversion and anxiety about face-to-face interaction. These self-reported characteristics shaped the pedagogical approach, necessitating careful attention to comfort, safety, and varied participation structures.
Data Collection
Data collection encompassed multiple sources:
Student feedback forms reporting anxiety levels and learning preferences
Classroom observations documenting collaborative interactions
Student work samples (homework assignments, in-class activities, presentations)
Teacher reflections on pedagogical decisions and student responses
Analysis of discourse patterns during collaborative work
The data collection process was iterative, with initial findings prompting adjustments to both pedagogical practices and analytical frameworks. This responsiveness is characteristic of practitioner inquiry, which values the emergent nature of classroom-based research.
Analytical Framework
The analytical approach evolved through multiple stages, reflecting the complexity of integrating three theoretical frameworks:
Part 1a (Initial Analysis): Applied Hmelo-Silver's coding categories (content, collaboration, complexity) and cognitive indicators (questioning, justification, monitoring) to classroom interactions. However, preliminary analysis revealed that these codes needed adaptation for the specific context of language learning. The researcher developed modified codes: preparation, participation, presentation, follow-up, rationale, and meta-awareness of English skills.
Part 1b (Initial Analysis Extended): Attempted to code for cognitive engagement using categories of actions, attempts, integration, explanation, and revision. A crucial insight emerged: these cognitive engagement codes closely resembled cycles of language production. This observation prompted the incorporation of explicit ELT models into the analysis.
Part 2a (Collaborative Process Analysis): Examined how collaboration impacted discourse, revealing that some ostensibly individual work was actually collaborative in nature when students internalized collaborative processes.
Part 2b (Trauma-Sensitive Practices Analysis): Explored how trauma-sensitive interventions impacted discourse and student engagement. A key finding emerged: reframing "participation" as "contribution" reduced anxiety by validating diverse forms of engagement.
Part 2c (English Language Model Analysis): Identified the specific eight-step teaching process used in the course and analyzed how it supported language learning goals.
Part 3 (Synthesis Analysis): Integrated findings across all three frameworks to understand their relationships and combined effects on student learning and engagement.
Implementation: The Eight-Step Collaborative Process
The pedagogical approach synthesized collaborative learning, trauma-sensitive practices, and language learning into an eight-step cycle that structured each major learning activity.
Step 1: Individual Homework Research
Description: Students individually researched a topic or problem related to course content, preparing for collaborative work.
Collaborative Element: Though completed individually, this step was explicitly framed as preparation for group work, establishing individual accountability within a collective purpose.
Trauma-Sensitive Element: Individual research allowed students to prepare at their own pace, reducing anxiety about spontaneous performance.
Language Learning Element: Research activities developed reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in low-pressure contexts.
Cognitive Engagement: Actions, attempts, and explanation-building as students made sense of new information.
Step 2: Individual Homework Writing
Description: Students completed written responses, analyses, opinions, or webquests, typically via Google Forms.
Collaborative Element: Written work created artifacts that students would later share, establishing personal contributions to collective knowledge.
Trauma-Sensitive Element: Writing allowed processing time and revision opportunities, supporting students who needed more time to formulate ideas in English.
Language Learning Element: Focused practice in written expression with explicit attention to opinion formation, analytical thinking, and evidence use.
Cognitive Engagement: Actions, attempts, and explanation as students articulated their thinking in writing.
Step 3: Collaborative Class Share (Speak/Listen)
Description: Students shared their homework writing with partners, small groups, or the whole class.
Collaborative Element: Direct peer-to-peer interaction where students practiced both speaking and active listening.
Trauma-Sensitive Element: Structured sharing with clear expectations reduced anxiety about spontaneous speaking. Partner and small group formats offered lower-stakes speaking opportunities.
Language Learning Element: Oral communication practice with authentic audience and purpose.
Cognitive Engagement: Actions, attempts, and explanation as students verbalized their written ideas and responded to peer questions.
Step 4: High-Collaboration Class Interaction
Description: Groups received new tasks requiring them to synthesize or extend their shared homework into something new.
Collaborative Element: Genuine interdependence where no single student could complete the task alone. Required negotiation, compromise, and collective problem-solving.
Trauma-Sensitive Element: Distributed cognitive load across group members. Multiple roles allowed students to contribute according to their strengths.
Language Learning Element: Authentic communicative purpose requiring negotiation of meaning, clarification, and extended discourse.
Cognitive Engagement: Actions, attempts, integration, and explanation as groups synthesized multiple perspectives into new understanding.
Step 5: Collaborative Presentation
Description: Individual representatives or whole groups presented their collaborative work to the class.
Collaborative Element: Presentation represented group thinking, not just individual performance. Class served as witness and support for presenting groups.
Trauma-Sensitive Element: Choice between individual representative or whole-group presentation reduced performance anxiety. Framing classmates as supportive witnesses rather than evaluative judges changed the social dynamic.
Language Learning Element: Formal speaking practice with attention to organization, clarity, and audience engagement.
Cognitive Engagement: Actions, attempts, integration, and presentation skills as groups organized and communicated their thinking.
Step 6: Collaborative or Individual Written Revision
Description: Students created new artifacts (written summaries, graphs, drawings, extensions) documenting their learning, completed individually or collaboratively.
Collaborative Element: When completed collaboratively, required negotiation about what to include and how to represent learning.
Trauma-Sensitive Element: Multiple modalities (writing, drawing, graphing) allowed diverse forms of expression. Could be completed as homework if class time felt too pressured.
Language Learning Element: Revision and extension of ideas with attention to written accuracy and completeness.
Cognitive Engagement: Revision and integration as students refined their understanding and representation.
Step 7: Individual Reading with Teacher Feedback
Description: All student Google Form responses (without identifying information) were posted on the course website. Students read peers' work and teacher feedback.
Collaborative Element: Learning from peers' ideas and seeing diverse approaches to the same task. Building sense of learning community.
Trauma-Sensitive Element: Anonymized sharing protected student identity while allowing learning from others. Teacher feedback focused on content and ideas, not just correctness.
Language Learning Element: Reading comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and meta-awareness of English language patterns through seeing how others expressed similar ideas.
Cognitive Engagement: Integration and meta-awareness as students compared their work to peers' and reflected on teacher feedback.
Step 8 (Implicit): Cycle Continuation
The cycle repeated with new content, allowing students to develop comfort with the process and build collaborative skills over time. The repetitive structure itself served as a trauma-sensitive practice by providing predictability and reducing anxiety about "what comes next."
Trauma-Sensitive Practices: Four Key Interventions
Beyond the collaborative structure, four specific trauma-sensitive practices were integrated throughout the course to address student anxiety and create more equitable learning conditions.
1. Translanguaging as Advocacy
Theoretical Basis: Translanguaging (Canagarajah, 2012; Hawkins, 2011) recognizes that multilingual speakers draw on their full linguistic repertoire rather than keeping languages separate. In educational contexts, translanguaging validates students' home languages as resources rather than deficits.
Implementation: Students were explicitly encouraged to use Korean when needed for understanding, for processing complex ideas, and for supporting peers. The classroom norm shifted from "English only" to "English practice with support." Students could write initial notes in Korean before translating to English, discuss difficult concepts in Korean within groups, and explain to peers in Korean when someone was struggling.
Impact on Anxiety: This practice directly addressed anxiety about English proficiency by removing the expectation of perfect English performance. It validated students' funds of knowledge (González et al., 2006) and repositioned their bilingualism as an asset. The practice supported agency by giving students choice in their language use.
Unexpected Outcome: Students often chose to use more English than required once the pressure was removed. The permission to use Korean paradoxically increased English use by reducing anxiety about "getting it wrong."
2. Anxiety Check-Ins as Counterstory
Theoretical Basis: Counterstorytelling (Dutta, Azad, & Hussain, 2022) challenges dominant narratives—in this case, the narrative of "toxic positivity" (Kaufman, 2021) that dismisses or pathologizes anxiety. Rather than viewing anxiety as something to overcome or hide, this practice treated it as valid information about student experiences.
Implementation: Regular check-ins invited students to name their current anxiety levels and identify specific sources of discomfort. These check-ins were brief, normalized as part of class routine, and framed as valuable data rather than personal failures. The teacher explicitly validated anxiety as a reasonable response to challenging learning situations.
Impact on Anxiety: By naming anxiety openly, the practice reduced shame and isolation. Students realized others shared similar feelings, creating community rather than competition. The practice supported identity by validating diverse emotional responses to learning.
Connection to Korean Context: This practice addressed cultural tensions around emotional expression. While Korean educational culture sometimes emphasizes perseverance through difficulty without complaint, students responded positively to explicit validation of their struggles. The practice created space for authentic emotional expression within an otherwise hierarchical educational structure.
3. Soft Fascination Activities
Theoretical Basis: Soft fascination (Basu, Duvall, & Kaplan, 2019) describes the restorative attention that occurs when engaging with gently stimulating natural phenomena—clouds moving, leaves rustling, water flowing. Attention Restoration Theory suggests these experiences replenish cognitive resources depleted by sustained focused attention.
Implementation: Classes incorporated brief activities involving nature observation, embodied movement, music listening, and sensory awareness. Activities included looking at images of natural landscapes, listening to ambient sounds, engaging in gentle stretching, and reflecting on sensory experiences. These were framed not as breaks from learning but as integral to learning capacity.
Impact on Anxiety: Soft fascination activities interrupted the escalating tension that can build during challenging academic work. They provided legitimate respite without shame, reframing rest as necessary rather than indulgent. The practice addressed power by centering margin-to-center experiences and looking to nature systems for healing and inspiration rather than solely to institutional structures.
Theoretical Significance: These activities "perforate discourses of institutionalization" by importing alternative ways of being into the classroom. They challenged the assumption that productive learning requires constant cognitive effort and validated embodied, contemplative experiences as legitimate pedagogy.
4. Negotiated Assignment and Homework Deliverables
Theoretical Basis: Negotiated syllabus approaches (Azarnoosh & Kargozari, 2018) share curricular decision-making between teachers and students. This practice redistributes power and acknowledges learners as experts on their own learning needs.
Implementation: Students could negotiate assignment formats, deadlines, and deliverables within broad parameters. For example, if the learning goal was "demonstrate understanding of concept X," students could choose whether to write an essay, create a visual representation, record a video explanation, or design an alternate format. Deadlines could be adjusted for students managing multiple pressures.
Impact on Anxiety: Negotiation created self-paced learning practices and performances that honored diverse student circumstances. Students felt confident advocating for themselves and managing their own learning processes. The practice supported all three dimensions: agency (making meaningful choices), identity (learning approaches that fit individual needs), and power (participating in curricular decisions typically reserved for teachers).
Reframing Participation: Crucially, this practice contributed to reframing "participation" as "contribution." Rather than measuring participation by amount of speaking or completeness of assignments, the framework recognized diverse forms of contribution—researching carefully, listening actively, supporting peers, asking clarifying questions, and creating thoughtful artifacts all counted as meaningful contributions to the learning community.
Analysis and Findings
Part 1: Initial Coding and Adaptation
The first analytical challenge involved adapting Hmelo-Silver's collaborative learning framework to the specific context of language learning. While Hmelo-Silver's codes for content, collaboration, and complexity were relevant, the cognitive indicators required substantial modification.
Finding 1: Cognitive engagement in language learning looks different from cognitive engagement in other collaborative contexts. The indicators that Hmelo-Silver identified—questioning, justification, monitoring—needed to be reframed for language learning as: preparation, participation, presentation, follow-up, rationale, and meta-awareness of English skills.
Finding 2: When attempting to code for cognitive engagement using categories like actions, attempts, integration, explanation, and revision, these codes mapped almost directly onto language production cycles. This observation prompted the crucial insight that collaborative processes in language learning are simultaneously cognitive processes and language learning processes. The three cannot be separated; they are mutually constitutive.
This finding necessitated incorporating explicit attention to English language teaching models into the analysis, leading to the identification of the specific model being used.
Part 2: Three-Framework Analysis
Finding 3: Some Individual Work is Actually Collaborative
Analysis of collaborative processes revealed that individual homework tasks (Steps 1 and 2) functioned collaboratively because they were explicitly framed as preparation for group work. Students internalized collaborative purposes even when working alone. This challenges rigid distinctions between individual and collaborative work, suggesting that framing and purpose matter as much as immediate social interaction.
Finding 4: Participation as Contribution
Trauma-sensitive practices analysis identified a crucial reframing: shifting from "participation" to "contribution" as the valued classroom currency. Traditional participation metrics (frequency of speaking, completeness of assignments) increased anxiety for students who processed differently, needed more time, or experienced social anxiety. Reframing to "contribution" validated diverse ways of adding to the collective learning: thorough preparation, active listening, supporting peers, asking clarifying questions, and creating thoughtful written work all counted as contributions. This reframing reduced anxiety by expanding what "counted" as legitimate engagement.
Finding 5: Eight-Step Language Learning Process
The analysis of English language teaching models identified the specific pedagogical structure being used: an eight-step process synthesizing Task-Based Approach and Content-Based Learning. This structure provided:
Elicit student interests
Plan research area (real-life problem investigation)
Research and write (individual Google Form responses)
Class share (partner or group sharing of homework)
Group interaction (new task building on shared homework)
Presentation (individual or group representative)
Written revision (individual or group artifact)
Read teacher feedback (all anonymous student responses shared)
This model integrated higher-order thinking skills, varied content delivery, separate vocabulary instruction, and connection to students' lives—all principles of effective content-based learning.
Part 3: Synthesis Analysis
The most significant finding emerged from synthesizing the three frameworks: collaborative processes, trauma-sensitive practices, and language learning models are not separate pedagogical interventions but interdependent dimensions of a single activity system.
The STELLAR Framework
A synthesis table revealed how Hmelo-Silver's original categories mapped onto the post-COVID classroom organization:
Finding 6: Cognitive Engagement and Collaboration Mediated by Trauma-Sensitive Practices
The synthesis revealed that trauma-sensitive practices functioned as the necessary conditions for collaborative and cognitive engagement to occur. Without addressing anxiety through translanguaging, check-ins, soft fascination, and negotiated deliverables, many students would have been unable to engage in the collaborative and cognitive work at all.
Trauma-sensitive practices were not "add-ons" but integral to the activity system. They created the emotional and psychological safety necessary for risk-taking inherent in language learning and collaborative work.
Finding 7: Tools Shape Activity While Activity Shapes Tools
The analysis revealed bidirectional influence between tools and activities. Collaborative structures shaped how students engaged with content, but student responses also shaped how collaboration was structured. For example, initial anxiety about face-to-face sharing led to adjusting group sizes and offering partner work before whole-class sharing.
Similarly, trauma-sensitive practices influenced collaborative structures (e.g., allowing translanguaging during group work), while collaborative experiences informed what trauma-sensitive supports were needed (e.g., noticing that transitions between activities created anxiety led to developing transition rituals).
Part 4: Evidence from Student Work
Analysis of student homework and classwork provided evidence of the integrated framework's effectiveness:
Evidence of Actions and Attempts: Student writing showed increased willingness to attempt complex sentences and unfamiliar vocabulary over the semester. Errors remained, but the willingness to take risks with language increased.
Evidence of Integration: Group presentations demonstrated synthesis of multiple homework responses, showing students could integrate peers' ideas with their own.
Evidence of Explanation: Written revisions showed students developing more sophisticated explanations, moving from simple descriptions to analytical thinking.
Evidence of Revision: Comparing early and late semester work revealed students developing meta-awareness of their English production, self-correcting more frequently, and requesting specific feedback.
Evidence of Contribution: Class observations documented diverse forms of contribution: students who rarely spoke in whole-class settings consistently contributed thoughtful written responses; students with strong English skills used that strength to support peers; students with deep content knowledge contributed sophisticated ideas even when language production was challenging.
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
This study makes several contributions to understanding collaborative learning, trauma-sensitive pedagogy, and language teaching in post-pandemic contexts.
Redefining Collaborative Learning in Language Classrooms
The study challenges conventional boundaries between individual and collaborative work, demonstrating that framing and purpose create collaboration even in ostensibly individual tasks. This has implications for how we conceptualize and measure collaborative learning. Traditional metrics focusing on immediate social interaction miss the ways learners internalize collaborative purposes and prepare for collective work.
Furthermore, the study demonstrates that collaborative learning processes cannot be separated from language learning processes in language classrooms. Every collaborative moment is a language learning moment; every language learning moment is potentially collaborative. This inseparability requires integrated pedagogical frameworks rather than treating collaboration as one element among many.
Expanding Trauma-Sensitive Pedagogy Beyond Individualization
While much trauma-informed education literature focuses on individual accommodations, this study demonstrates structural and systemic approaches to trauma-sensitivity. By building trauma-informed practices into the core pedagogical structure rather than offering them as individual supports, the approach normalized care and reduced stigma.
The concept of "perforating discourses of institutionalization" through practices like soft fascination activities suggests that trauma-sensitive pedagogy requires more than adjusting existing structures—it requires importing alternative ways of being and knowing into educational spaces.
Contextualizing English Language Teaching in Geopolitical Realities
The study situates English language teaching within South Korea's specific geopolitical, historical, and social contexts. English functions as a gatekeeper to opportunity, creating high-stakes pressure. Collective traumas shape how young people experience safety and trust in institutional settings. Competitive educational structures coexist with cooperative cultural values.
These contextual factors cannot be treated as background information; they actively shape what happens in language classrooms. Effective pedagogy must engage with these realities rather than assuming universal best practices. The study models how practitioners can develop contextually responsive approaches that honor local experiences while drawing on international scholarship.
Practical Implications
For Language Teachers:
The eight-step collaborative process provides a transferable structure adaptable to different contexts and content areas. The key principles—individual preparation, peer sharing, collaborative synthesis, presentation, revision, and reflection—can be implemented with various content and student populations.
The four trauma-sensitive practices—translanguaging as advocacy, anxiety check-ins, soft fascination activities, and negotiated deliverables—offer concrete interventions teachers can incorporate immediately. Importantly, these practices are not resource-intensive; they require primarily shifts in framing and permission-giving rather than extensive new materials.
For Educational Institutions:
The study highlights the importance of supporting teachers in developing contextually responsive practices rather than mandating standardized approaches. The practitioner inquiry methodology demonstrates the value of teacher research for generating locally relevant pedagogical knowledge.
Institutions should recognize that returns to pre-pandemic "normal" may not serve students who have changed during the pandemic. Flexibility, trauma-informed approaches, and attention to student wellbeing should not be temporary pandemic measures but permanent features of caring educational environments.
For Researchers:
The study models how practitioner inquiry can integrate multiple theoretical frameworks to address complex, real-world pedagogical problems. The iterative analytical process—moving from initial coding to framework adaptation to synthesis—demonstrates the value of remaining responsive to emergent insights rather than forcing data into predetermined categories.
The study also demonstrates the importance of explicit attention to researcher positionality. As a foreign teacher in South Korea, the researcher brought both insider and outsider perspectives, requiring careful attention to cultural context and student experiences.
Limitations
Several limitations warrant acknowledgment. First, as a single-teacher study, findings may not transfer to other contexts or teachers. The specific teacher-student relationships, institutional contexts, and cultural factors all influenced outcomes.
Second, the study focuses primarily on teacher observations and analysis rather than direct student voice. While student feedback informed the inquiry, more systematic inclusion of student perspectives would strengthen findings. Future research should center student experiences more explicitly.
Third, the study documents implementation and initial analysis but does not follow students longitudinally to assess long-term impacts. Questions remain about whether reduced anxiety and increased engagement translate to sustained language development or whether effects are limited to the specific classroom context.
Conclusion
This practitioner inquiry began with a simple but urgent question: "How can students 'stay' when they want to run away from English?" The question emerged from the specific context of post-pandemic returns to face-to-face learning but touches fundamental issues about how we create learning environments where all students can engage, contribute, and develop.
The study demonstrates that addressing student anxiety requires more than individual accommodations or generic "best practices." It requires integrated approaches that weave together collaborative structures, trauma-sensitive practices, and disciplinary-specific (in this case, language learning) pedagogies within careful attention to specific contexts.
The synthesis of Hmelo-Silver's collaborative learning processes, Venet's trauma-sensitive education, and task-based/content-based language teaching created an activity system where learners with different emotional and motivational needs could participate in ways that honored their experiences and supported their development. The eight-step collaborative process provided structure and predictability; the four trauma-sensitive practices created safety and validation; the language learning model ensured disciplinary learning goals were met.
Perhaps most significantly, the study challenges us to reconsider what counts as "successful" learning and engagement. By reframing participation as contribution and validating diverse forms of engagement, the approach expanded who could be seen as legitimate learners and what could count as meaningful learning. This expansion is not a lowering of standards but a recognition of the many ways humans think, learn, and contribute to collective knowledge-building.
The post-pandemic moment presents both challenges and opportunities for education. Students bring new anxieties, new expectations, and new understandings of what learning environments can be. Rather than attempting to return to pre-pandemic "normal," this study suggests we have an opportunity to build better learning environments informed by what we've learned about flexibility, care, and the necessity of addressing emotional and psychological dimensions of learning alongside cognitive ones.
For language learners in South Korea navigating the high-stakes gatekeeping functions of English while processing collective and individual traumas, these approaches offer ways to "stay"—to remain present, engaged, and developing despite discomfort. For teachers anywhere supporting learners through challenging transitions, the integrated framework offers both specific practices and broader principles for creating anxiety-sensitive, equitable learning environments.
The work continues. This presentation represents Part 3 of a four-part study, with final analysis still in progress. As the practitioner inquiry methodology suggests, teaching and research remain intertwined, each informing the other in ongoing cycles of practice, reflection, analysis, and revision. The question "How can students stay?" continues to evolve, generating new questions, new insights, and new pedagogical possibilities.
References
Azarnoosh, M., & Kargozari, H. R. (2018). Negotiated syllabus. In Issues in syllabus design (pp. 135-147). Brill.
Basu, A., Duvall, J., & Kaplan, R. (2019). Attention restoration theory: Exploring the role of soft fascination and mental bandwidth. Environment and Behavior, 51(9-10), 1055-1081.
Buzzanell, P. M. (2010). Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 1-14.
Canagarajah, S. (2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2015). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.
Chadwick, R. (2021). On the politics of discomfort. Feminist Theory, 22(4), 556-574.
Chandler, A. (2019). Shame as affective injustice: Qualitative, sociological explorations of self-harm, suicide and socioeconomic inequalities. In Suicide and Social Justice (pp. 32-49). Routledge.
Crumpler, T. P., Handsfield, L. J., & Dean, T. R. (2011). Constructing difference differently in language and literacy professional development. Research in the Teaching of English, 55-91.
Dutta, U., Azad, A. K., & Hussain, S. M. (2022). Counterstorytelling as epistemic justice: Decolonial community‐based praxis from the global south. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1-2), 59-70.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
Hawkins, M. R. (Ed.). (2011). Social justice language teacher education (Vol. 84). Multilingual Matters.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Chernobilsky, E. (2012). Understanding collaborative activity systems: The relation of tools and discourse in mediating learning. In Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 254-261). Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E., & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(5), 409-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9063-8
Holland, D. C. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press.
Kaufman, S. B. (2021). The opposite of toxic positivity. The Atlantic, 18.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, C. (2007). New literacies. A New Literacies Sampler, 229-237.
Lewis, C., Enciso, P. E., & Moje, E. B. (Eds.). (2020). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Routledge.
Nygreen, K. (2006). Reproducing or challenging power in the questions we ask and the methods we use: A framework for activist research in urban education. The Urban Review, 38, 1-26.
Pease, B. (2021). Undoing privilege: Unearned advantage and systemic injustice in an unequal world. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Pennycook, A. (2004). Performativity and language studies. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 1(1), 1-19.
Putu, A. P. D. (2021). Case based learning in language teaching. Journal on Studies in English Language Teaching (JOSELT), 2(2), 13-19.
Venet, A. S. (2021). Equity-centered trauma-informed education. W. W. Norton & Company.
Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford Publications.
Appendices
Appendix A: Eight-Step Collaborative Process Summary Table
Appendix B: Four Trauma-Sensitive Practices Framework
Appendix C: Mapping Hmelo-Silver Framework to Post-COVID Language Classroom
This table illustrates the synthesis analysis showing how collaborative learning theory, cognitive engagement, and English language teaching converged in practice:
Original Hmelo-Silver Framework:
Content → Collaboration → Complexity
Cognitive Indicators: Questioning, Justification, Monitoring
Adapted Framework for Language Learning Context:
Key Insight: Collaborative processes, cognitive engagement, and language learning cycles are mutually constitutive in language classrooms—they cannot be meaningfully separated.
Author Note
Maria Lisak is a faculty member at Chosun University in South Korea, where she teaches content courses in English to Korean university students. Her research interests include practitioner inquiry, trauma-informed pedagogy, collaborative learning, and equity in language education. She is particularly interested in how teachers can create learning environments that honor student experiences while supporting rigorous academic development.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maria Lisak, Department of English Language and Literature, Chosun University, Gwangju, South Korea.
Acknowledgments: The author wishes to thank the 91 students who participated in this inquiry and who generously shared their experiences, anxieties, and insights. Their willingness to engage despite discomfort made this work possible and meaningful. Thanks also to colleagues at Chosun University for supporting practitioner inquiry and to the JALT International Conference community for creating spaces where teachers can share emerging research.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The author declares no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
Comments
Post a Comment