Unveiling the Impact of Journal Writing on EFL Teachers’ Professional Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore and document language teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of journal writing as a tool for improving their practice and enhancing their professional growth. The significance of reflective journals in improving professional practice has been widely reported in pre-service teacher education research. However, research on in-service English as a foreign language teachers’ perceptions of teaching journals has yielded competing views, and it remains an underexplored area. Prompted by this, a qualitative research design was adopted to document language instructors' perceptions of and experiences using teaching journals in their daily lives. Four female English language teachers from the English Language Institute (ELI) at a university in Saudi Arabia participated in a two-week journal writing intervention to reflect on and document their experiences. The findings drawn from the focus-group interviews revealed that the participants had both positive and negative experiences with teaching journals but, for the most part, found journal writing to be a valuable tool for reflecting on their teaching and enhancing their professional growth. Additionally, the participants reported some challenges encountered in integrating journal writing, including lack of time, miscommunication with superiors, lack of motivation, and heavy workload. The study also discusses recommendations for using journals for classroom practitioners and professional development researchers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".