Key words: collaborative teacher study group, Non-Native Speaker of English,

Abstract

NNSs (non-native speakers) of English who are EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teacher candidates have long experienced isolation, frustration, and exclusion in the process of learning to teach English in U.S. graduate programs. Collectively, six EFL graduate students, the researcher included, formed a collaborative teacher study group allowing the group to reflect on and theorize about knowledge and strategies for approaching English teaching and learning issues. This teacher study group effectively tore down the walls of isolation by supporting each other in the process of teacher professional development and providing each other with constructive suggestions concerning future teachers' inevitable confusion, frustration, and struggles in the TESOL profession.

---

1. Background of the study
My participation in a study entitled: "In their own words: Decisions, Expectations, and Experiences of International Graduate Students in the School of Education," revealed a strong need for peer support in international students' graduate studies. Four Taiwanese graduate students were interviewed by the School of Education at a Midwestern research university to investigate their enculturation processes of studying. During the process of that research, it became clear to me that Asian graduate students' behaviors and learning patterns derived from Asian cultural attributes and are different from American learning styles. As a member of this particular group, I explored Taiwanese graduate students' reasons for coming to the United States, their expectations before arrival, and their experiences in adapting to U.S. academic life after their arrival. It was imperative to recognize that American classroom discussion was usually dynamic and moved at a very quick pace. All of the participants indicated that they had trouble using English intuitively to convey their ideas in an ongoing class discussion. One participant commented that the fact that she needed to pay extra attention and effort in just making sense of the conversation in class inhibited her from making direct contributions. A participant stated her frustration: "My voice is imprisoned in my not-quite-perfect English." They also expressed their disappointment in the curriculum, which was designed only for native speaker teachers in training. Thus, their needs as international graduate students planning to teach English as a Foreign Language were not met. All agreed that they were isolated and overwhelmed in their own coursework and rarely had a chance to share their academic struggles or learn about what other colleagues were working on. They all expressed having experienced loneliness, stress, and separation in studying in a foreign country and, significantly, voiced a desperate hunger to belong to a community.

2. Introduction
This research was derived from my fellow colleagues' social and academic alienation. I invited several EFL colleagues, four from Taiwan and one from Korea, to join me in forming an EFL teacher study group outside of a U.S.-based graduate course to provide each other with similar experiences with a collegial support group. This group not only allowed us as graduate students and future teachers to co-construct the meanings of new knowledge but prepared us for future challenges in the English teaching field. This forum encouraged participants to collaboratively assimilate new knowledge and theories.

In this process, the intention was to reflect on our hidden belief systems in regard to English learning and teaching and together modify and reconcile them with cross-cultural differences in EFL contexts. This "thought collective" (Fleck, 1935, p. 38) came into play through our process of problem-solving, information-sharing, and supporting one another. But how could a "thought collective" avoid the self-destructive impulse of using the group solely to air complaints? Teacher study groups bring people together to understand and share unavoidable struggles, confusions, and frustrations in the ongoing process of professional development. This paper intends to discuss how a group of EFL teachers, through collective reflection, not only came up with constructive suggestions and solutions but also supported each other in this process of growing in the U.S. program as well as becoming proficient EFL teachers.

3. Non-Native Speaker of English in the TESOL Profession
There is an increasing number of Non-Native Speakers (NNSs) who come to the U.S. to pursue their graduate degrees in programs like Language Education and TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). However, there is only a small body of literature concerning NNSs in the TESOL profession. The issues that have been addressed in the literature are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of NNSs entering the English teaching profession (Medgyes, 1994; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999), and the attitudes of students toward NNS teachers (Amin, 1997; Tang, 1997). There is little information about the processes of NNS EFL teachers coming from other countries to pursue their graduate studies in the U.S.; that is, how they make sense of those theories initiated in Western countries, further their previous understanding of their underlying culture and its influence on their pedagogy, manage exposure to Western ideologies, and project the mediation of these conflicting values into their evolving teaching practices, both in the U.S. and in their home countries. As Liu (1999) indicates, NNS teachers actually outnumber NS teachers in the English teaching profession world-wide and globalization makes English an ever-increasingly important lingua franca. Furthermore, she claims that NNSs who pursue their training in English teaching graduate programs in North America, Britain, and Australia are two-fifths of that population. As Braine (1999) indicates:

It was evident that at the U.S. graduate school in which this study was conducted, the NNS teachers outnumbered the NS teachers, and yet little attention was paid to strengthen the voices of NNSs. While most of them returned to their countries to teach English as Foreign Language, their particular needs were left unnoticed in their graduate programs as they themselves needed to bridge the gap between what they learned in the programs and what they could implement in their home countries (Liu, 1999). I am particularly concerned about how these EFL teachers could manage these competing pressures while working on their degrees in their foreign learning context. What could nurture them through their learning process, so that they could transform the theories into relevant practice?

This collective connecting and nurturing might lead to the participants questioning the cultural contexts to which they return upon the completion of their courses, as well as the cultural contexts of the United States. Research indicates that the gap between what most EFL/ESL programs advocate as useful, such as a communicative teaching approach and Whole Language in North America, Britain, and Australia (NABA), cannot be directly applicable to Asian countries (Holliday, 1994). In order to facilitate the revision and transfer of these theories to Asia - a relevant project, given the significant population in the TESOL programs - new research is obviously needed. My group emerged to fill the void present in, possibly unintentionally, the ethnocentric pedagogy we were exposed to. Our reflections on both the theories and our distinct cultural positions were highly productive in localizing our knowledge in order to benefit our future students and contribute more international perspectives to the NABA programs.

4. Literature Review
4.1 Teacher Study Group
In the educational field, teacher study groups, also known as collaborative groups, are commonly sustained by four to ten teachers who share similar interests, and reach their individual goals through interaction and collaboration with other colleagues. Much research has documented that a teacher study group can be an effective avenue to support modern teachers who need to emphasize their ongoing lifelong professional development and can have a great impact on teaching effectiveness (Clair, 1998). Participation in reflective inquiry groups can "enable teachers…to become subjects of the educational process by overcoming authoritarianism and an alienating intellectualism…." (Freire, 1970, p. 74). In response to the trend of teacher self-improvement and keeping up with new innovations, teachers in a teacher study group gather together to promote trust and openness, and diminish the sense of isolation long experienced by most teachers. Through "living the process" (Short, 1992) in teacher study groups, participants are empowered to reflect on their current beliefs and practices regarding literacy learning, English language acquisition, and teacher education. According to Matlin and Short (1991), "for the teachers, the study group is an opportunity to think through their own beliefs, share ideas, challenge current instructional practices, blend theory and practice, identify professional needs-as well as develop literacy innovation for their classrooms" (p. 68).

When professional development is examined through a constructivist lens, in contrast to participating in traditional teacher training models, teachers in teacher study groups are able to construct new knowledge through a process of interweaving their schemata and valuable experience. In the teacher study group model, knowledge is not meant to be transmitted by experts. Constructivist notions of collaborative construction, context, and conversation (Jonassen et al, 1995) are crucial components in teacher study group communication. Teacher study groups build up a community in which teachers interact with a small group of people (ideally four to six) to share their hopes and concerns. In study groups, the teachers bring their specific needs and explore their profession together to identify problems and engage in ongoing professional development dialogue. By doing so, teachers can further comprehend their own experiences and the insights of other teachers, which leads the group to a new vision (Freedman et al., 1999). It reflects Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin's (1995) professional development model that "means providing occasions for teachers to reflect critically on their practice and to fashion new knowledge and beliefs about content, pedagogy, and learners" (p. 597).

Teacher study groups are receiving increasing attention as effective tools for professional development at all educational levels. They provide a crucial format for teachers to gain ownership and autonomy over their learning, serving as a forum in community learning and offering avenues for self-actualization. Many schools have offered various groups for professional development. However, they are often run by administrators or others outside the group. Thus, the control lies with outsiders and so the teachers in these groups do not have any autonomy, but are just passively completing a predetermined agenda. In contrast, 'teacher'-initiated study groups are composed of teachers voluntarily joining a collaborative community to meet individual needs as well as to set collective goals as a group. Personal inquiry and exploration are controlled from inside by the membership and collaborative direction of the focus is owned by each member. In essence, each member shares a sense of equality and responsibility.

4.2 Critical Reflection
Noffke and Stevenson (1995) apply critical theory in student teachers' critical reflection and inquiry. They assert that student teachers need to be made aware of, and provided with opportunities to practice critical inquiry and reflection. McClaren (1989) claims that critical theory "attempts to provide teachers and researchers with a better means of understanding the roles that schools actually play within a race, class, and gender divided society" (p. 163). The importance of exposing pre-service EFL teachers to critical reflection and inquiry in their professional development cannot be overemphasized. Knecht (1997) concurs, noting that "critical reflection involves open discourse that is free from dominance, repression, and inequality. In other words, all views are given critical consideration" (p. 18-19). Palmer (1998) stresses critical reflection by asking teachers to interrogate their own practice, asking, "Who is the self that teaches?" He further notes that "by addressing [the question] openly and honestly, alone and together, we can serve our students more faithfully, enhance our own well-being, make common cause with colleagues, and help education bring more light and life to the world" (p. 7).

Critical reflection fosters the most effective teacher interaction in a professional setting; by encouraging teachers to take a stand in questioning and challenging others' underlying assumptions, teaching practices can be improved and conditions of schooling can be made more just (Carr and Kemmis, 1983). However, critical reflection and inquiry do not come naturally to most teachers, so appropriate opportunities should be provided to enhance their practice, especially for those who are attempting to absorb knowledge in a U.S. graduate program and to bring that back to their home contexts. For this purpose, an encouraging and nurturing discussion forum should be established and promoted to enhance critical reflection. Meyer and Achinstein (1998) laud learning communities such as teacher study groups "for an inquiry stance which is meant to embrace critical reflection. Critical reflection is both a capacity and a process to challenge the taken-for-granted assumptions of teaching and schooling practices and to imagine alternatives for the purposes of changing conditions" (p. 7). In this respect, our own teacher study group attempted to provide us with the essential opportunities to pose questions, express confusion and surprise, reflect on how we had learned and taught English, help each other better understand our prior and current experiences, and, ideally, overcome the obstacles we faced as international EFL students, teachers, and scholars. It is believed that an inquiry group based on equality of participation and encouraging critical reflection can develop a critical awareness of issues naturally.

5. Context and Participants
The inspiration for forming this group began after our participation in a graduate course in a large U.S. Midwestern university, where five other EFL graduate students and the researcher met as an informal teacher study group outside of a graduate course. As individual foreign students and non-native speakers of English on our own, we had long experienced isolation, frustrations, and exclusion in an American graduate program. Having been isolated as foreign students and non-native English speakers, we found this experience so valuable that we decided to form an ongoing 'formal' teacher study group. This was a forum wherein participants shared concerns related to English teaching and learning, educational issues, and professional development. It drew on course materials and our classroom learning and teaching experiences, and was intended as a means by which we could reflect on and theorize about knowledge. The group continually reflected on our past English learning and teaching experiences, carefully examined the knowledge we gained in the Language Education program, and discussed together what would work best for our cross-cultural English classrooms. This collaborative inquiry group brought together individuals to share experiences, concerns, and struggles. We were embarking upon a process of dismantling the walls of isolation effectively by supporting each other in teacher professional development and providing each other with constructive suggestions concerning future teachers' inevitable confusions, frustrations, and struggles.

The study group comprised five participants and the researcher, all graduate students in the English as a Foreign Language related program. Their background details can be seen in Table 1. Pseudonyms were adopted for each participant other than the researcher.

Participant	Year(s) of teaching	Prior teaching level	Home Country	Degree Pursued
Li-Ting	6	College and K-12	Taiwan	Ph.D.
Hui-chin	2	College level	Taiwan	Ph.D.
Wen-Ling	3	K-12	Taiwan	Master's
Ru-Fang	4	K-12	Taiwan	Ph.D.
Moon	7	High School	Korea	Ph.D.
Kun	1	K-12	Taiwan	Ph.D.

Table 1: Participants' Demographic Information for the First Semester

As a study group, we articulated our own beliefs and practices and challenged the assumptions underlying our own behaviors, attitudes, and teaching in order to enhance our own learning and teaching practices. We began to interrogate how students were taught and evaluated, and to analyze and challenge the existing curricula and mandated policies in our countries. In the second semester, Wen-Ling and Li-Ting returned home, so two other participants were invited (see Table 2 below) and they agreed to join the group.

Participant	Year(s) of teaching	Prior teaching level	Home Country	Degree Pursued
Su-Fen	1	K-12	Taiwan	Master's
In-Soon	7	High School	Korea	Ph.D

Table 2: Participants' Demographic Information for the Second Semester

6. Data Collection and Analysis
Data analysis was ongoing, using hermeneutic-reconstructive analysis, which involves the articulation of implicit features of meaning, such as meaning fields and validity claims, into explicit form. This method of hermeneutic-reconstructive analysis is guided by theories of meaning and culture (Carspecken, 1996). The researcher applied the first three phases of critical ethnography described by Carspecken (1996) as follows: compiling the primary record, doing reconstructive analysis, and generating dialogical data. From the beginning and throughout the study, data analysis took place alongside data collection to allow questions to be refined and new avenues of inquiry to be developed. Comparison from one meeting to another as well as across different sources of data was made to discover themes, patterns, changes and processes of development whereby participants themselves progressively articulated implicit structures into their discourse thereby provided both support and indications of needed refinement for the researcher's initial reconstructions.

The data transcripts consisted of 985 pages in double space for the group meetings and 216 pages for interview data. In the first phase of data analysis, I read all data in a line-by-line fashion in its entirety and later checked for any emerging themes and analyzed the most important issues.

In the next step of data analysis, I created a graphic representation of the conversation that mapped the voices and responses of all the participants while discussing various topics. In other words, I categorized each participant's contributions to the discussion graphically so that I could compare the viewpoint of each participant to the overall conclusion of the discussion. Peer debriefing with graduate school professors on a weekly basis was done to check the emerging categories, reach mutual consensus, and check for validity. A participant check was completed on an individual basis to solicit further comments and facilitate continued analysis.

7. Results and Discussions
Given the chances to engage in dialogue with each other in the group, we drew on each other's experiences, observations, and interests to learn more about English teaching and learning. Through meaning negotiation, problem posing, and information co-construction, we acquired new knowledge of language learning and teaching. We shared our diverse understandings, took positions on issues, and gained new perspectives from each other. Inevitably, tensions arose when differences did occur but these led us to ponder those issues and revise our thinking. Gradually, we moved from vague ideas to a clearer understanding, from what we used to believe to a potential new understanding, and from initial questions to new movements. In this way, we generated more inquiries from sharing, reflecting on our past experiences, and on the possible pedagogical applications in future classrooms. We were encouraged to take thoughtful new actions through the way we structured our meetings.

As a result, the professional development process illuminated as follows in Figure 1: A) Learning through sharing; B) Contextualizing our concerns; C) Examining and challenging each other's underlying assumptions; D) Internalizing the knowledge collaboratively before implementation; E) Inviting Other Group Members' Contributions.

a) Learning through sharing
b) Contextualizing our concerns
c) Examining and challenging each other's underlying assumptions
d) Internalizing the knowledge collaboratively before implementation
e) Inviting other members' contributions

Figure 1: Professional Development Process

7.1 Learning through Sharing
"It is a good place for us to share. In our culture, we rarely share [in our teaching profession]. But now, I have more chances to share and listen to others' voices, [especially] we came from similar backgrounds and had similar concerns" (the Initial Interview with Wen-Ling)

7.1.1 Sharing Current Experiences as Graduate Students
Through group discussions, we went through vicarious learning processes while participants shared their experiences from observing U.S. elementary school classrooms, participating in research projects, and working with native English speakers. The forum allowed us to interact with and learn from other graduate students in the U.S. graduate program. Although our group members were studying in the same graduate program, we took different courses and participated in different projects. Sharing with other group members and listening to others' personal experiences greatly broadened our own individual experiences.

We discussed a wide variety of issues. To name just a couple of examples, Li-Ting shared with us her experiences of observing an inquiry-based classroom, so that our group could often make reference to that specific classroom to envision the dynamic in an inquiry-based curriculum. Kun identified the cultural differences between U.S. children and children in the Taiwanese culture by referring to a classroom observation experience.

Kun: Last time, I observed a first grade class. There was a kid [first grade who] asked me, "Can I make up my own story" because she could not read the book. Then she just narrated a story and turned the pages. She was so good at that. I guess our children could not do that. (Group Meeting)

Compared to those in the U.S., Kun suggested that teachers in the Taiwanese culture did not encourage students to express their thinking verbally but emphasized the importance of thinking, listening, and internalizing the knowledge over expressing personal reactions. In our discussion, we constantly compared the two educational systems and ideologies and learned more about their respective learning styles and cultural attributes.

One of the most significant issues we discussed was English learning in general, and writing in particular for us as non-native speakers. As Li-Ting also participated in a project of reading and writing in a local elementary school, she explained the design and the purpose of the project and utilized that particular experience to facilitate group discussion on our group members' writing pieces. Not only did our group experience the process of being authors, but we also gained a picture of how to set up a writing workshop in our future classrooms. During our discussion, organized rather like a writers' workshop for ourselves, we vented our frustrations of being non-native speakers as we needed to spend tremendous time on English reading and writing and felt we never measured up to native speakers. We shared the underlying assumption that native speakers would have no problem in their reading and writing.

However, I brought in a new perspective from a course I took with all native speakers.

Hui-chin: This Thursday, I was so surprised on the day that my professor gave back our midterm papers; he lectured for two hours about the importance of writing. The professor said, "It is essential for you to learn NOT to write incomplete sentences." He pulled several examples from the midterm papers. I was extremely surprised to learn that native English speakers also did that. (Group Meeting)

It was a commonly held belief that because native speakers had the ownership of that language, they would rarely make mistakes. Continual sharing in the group broke our assumptions and served to encourage us. Li-Ting supported this view saying,
"You [referring to Moon] said we spent too much time revising your writing last time and you felt your time was wasted. [But as] I said, a lot of native speakers, if they want to be good, also have to spend a lot of time [on it]. I had an experience working with native speakers. We just wanted to come up with a 250 word proposal. We worked on that from one to seven-thirty, almost 7 hours. Can you believe that?" (Group Meeting)

Thus, Li-Ting demonstrated that writing is not just a skill, but a process of making thoughts clear, and she perceived that if a native speaker wanted to master writing, they also needed to put in much effort. She offered us a more optimistic perspective on our learning process as non-native English speakers: "Don't you think when you [as a non-native speaker] write, you also have to pay extra attention because [you] care how much people can understand it. [You pay attention] to how ideas come out and how [it] flows, so that the ideas become better ones." Li-Ting acknowledged the value of taking time to construct ideas when trying to write and think in a foreign language. While some of us regarded our non-native English as a weakness, Li-Ting encouraged us to be confident in ourselves and value the struggle of mastering a second language.

In addition, Kun recognized the power of sharing in the group by commenting,
We came to this group….it is like a counseling session. We let go of our frustrations as graduate students or EFL teachers. Sometimes we got some suggestions from other members, but sometimes even we didn't come up with any solutions to the problems. I really feel my problems and difficulties were released from sharing (the Second Interview with Kun).

We shared our setbacks in our dual role as graduate students and future teachers, and encouraged each other in a constructive fashion as we all had similar experiences. Kun claimed that this kind of sharing worked like mental therapy in the sense that in articulating the feelings, one could "let go of" distressing experiences and contemplate solutions even though participants did not necessarily receive alternatives or feedback from other group members.

7.1.2 Sharing Past Experiences as Language Learners and Teachers
We related our past experiences as language learners and teachers in order to conceptualize the ways that we might connect our new knowledge and use it in our native lands. Li-Ting shared how she created different learning centers, such as reading, writing, music, drama, and computer centers, for multi-age English learners to engage in learning English. The discussion of the difficulties she encountered, how much she learned from that experience, and any lingering questions that she had advanced our knowledge of language learning and teaching issues.

In the group, our ongoing inquiries were accommodated and other members offered alternative solutions to problems and struggles.

Li-Ting: I think we probably need to explore ourselves more, you know, there are so many things [that] we didn't know about ourselves. Like how we really learn and how we were taught. Each time, it makes me think [what is the relationship between how] I learn and [how I] teach (Group Meeting)

It is interesting to investigate how understanding our roles as language learners and teachers can help us envisage how we would use our knowledge in the language classrooms. Only through attentively connecting our past experiences with the new theories and knowledge could we enhance our understandings of language learning and teaching.

7.2 Contextualizing our Concerns
This teacher study group allowed us to contextualize our concerns as Asian graduate students and future teachers. Kun shared a classroom discussion situation with group members:

He also pointed out that most of his American classmates did not know the difference between ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL contexts so that they could not situate our difficulty in implementing theories. Other members in the group were interested in how the professor reacted in the class and how we as EFL teacher learners should position ourselves to further the issue.

Li-Ting: That is good. So how did the professor respond?
Moon: [I think the] problem is [that] whenever we talk about our problems in our [EFL] contexts. [We always said there were] too many students in the class. Our problem is always the same. [The professors feel] so sorry for us.
Li-Ting: What? So sorry for us?
Moon: Our [class] discussion is always centered on the American setting. Our answers [to the problems in our contexts] are always like that "but we have 60 students in our class, it is impossible. We don't have enough time, it is impossible. We don't have enough text." It is not contributing to the classroom discussion. [What we did is] just explain our situation, but we did not [offer] insights.
Li-Ting: I think we did not push further. I am not saying that those concerns are not right. I am saying that we need to push them further to understand there are more problems and questions that are rooted in our [context]. That part is class size and we don't have enough material. YES, YES. That is all true, but a lot of people stop there. We did not push the issue further. I can say that even if I give you enough text and I cut down the class size to 25. I will bet the problems are still there. (Group Meeting)

This excerpt demonstrated the problem that we had long experienced in our graduate program: our needs as EFL teachers were different from our native-English- speaking classmates. Situated in a graduate program in the U.S., we examined how we were positioned as graduate students and what hindered us from expressing the challenges for our own contexts. The graduate courses in the Language Education program are mostly tailored to English as first language literacy and for those in the TESOL program to English as a Second Language. A large group of graduate students from different countries came to these programs to learn to become EFL teachers. However, little effort was paid to meet the particular needs of EFL teachers.

Li-Ting questioned whether we could go further concerning the existing constraints we had in our contexts and looked for alternative possibilities. She said that even if the ideal classroom situation was provided she doubted that everything would be perfect. She longed for a forum through which a group of like-minded people could share the existing challenges and come up with potential alternative solutions rather than being confined by the constraints.

Moon: I know the problem is that in classroom discussion, I know that I want to push [the issue] further. They [the other classmates] are not interested [in that] because our concerns are not their concerns. So we stopped there.
Kun: So they [other classmates] could not give us solutions or something.
Li-Ting: That is a challenging for us too. If we talk to people, the conversation just stops right there and then there is no answer.
Moon: This [our comment] will be not important or contribute[able] to [the class] discussion. We just got tired and our problems--we needed to solve them ourselves.
Li-Ting: I think the professor will get frustrated too because it does not go further.
Moon: But we don't want to take too much time, you know, our language is also too slow [and] many things together, it doesn't go further. If you are slow, then the class loses the moment[um].
Hui-chin: That is why our group can put it further.
Li-Ting: Yes we came here to put it further. That is why we are not satisfied; even we had 17 days from morning to afternoon [in this graduate course]. We got it so small [in the cohort group] like 8 or 10 people. Still we want to push it further and think about that for our classrooms. But you have 3 hours a week [for a class] and so many people in one classroom. The intensity is not there. I think that is the point. (Group Meeting)

It was noticeable that we felt there was no room for our own problems in the American classroom discussions because, on the one hand, our issues were not what most American classmates were concerned about; and on the other hand, suggestions could not be given even after sharing our struggles, since most of the people in the class could not contextualize the problems and situations of EFL contexts. It was unavoidable for us to feel that we, as Asian graduate students, could not contribute our voices to the ongoing classroom discussions due to the discrepancy between our educational systems and the U.S. educational system.

Moon also pointed out that our language proficiency was not adequate for speed of ongoing classroom discussions. Once in our group meeting, Wen-Ling and I also shared our feelings of guilt over not being able to contribute our voices in either classroom conversation or giving feedback in written forms to English-native speakers in our classes. We consciously examined how we were positioned in this U.S. graduate program and tried to create constructive solutions for our own challenges and dilemmas in regard to the dual roles of Asian graduate students and future EFL teachers. As a result, our culturally homogenous group often expressed how powerful this group was for each of us to share our concerns concerning EFL teaching and international graduate students.

We acknowledged that this model of professional development contributed the most to our own growth and supported us in the process of absorbing new knowledge and transferring it to our own cross-cultural contexts. This forum satisfied us because we could voice our own concerns without too much elaboration, and because we came from similar educational contexts and cultures. From the start, we shared common ground, such as English proficiency, cultural background, and educational systems, and collaboratively solved the problems or provided potential solutions. In this group, we released ourselves from the burden of native level English proficiency in order to actively participate in group discussions without the fear of our non-native English being judged. We realized that we were empowered by challenging and supporting each other to push the issue further and contextualize our concerns, together as a group, instead of seeking any solutions to our own problems in the graduate classrooms. By means of continuing the dialogue, we each realized that problems or struggles were often common to us all and so further offered support and alternative solutions to each other.

7.3 Inviting Other Group Members' Contributions
During the intensive discussion with other group members, we were often inspired by our conversations. We appreciated the opportunities to gain alternative perspectives on diverse issues from listening to others and to be valued as individuals. We constantly shared our past learning and teaching experiences with other group members, so Li-Ting suggested that our group should collectively write a book about our personal stories.

Li-Ting: I really enjoy our conversation
Kun: Yes. Especially, this argument, "what is really fair?"
Li-Ting: And [also] cheating part, what is fair for education? I think, we should, six of us, together write a book, like one hundred stories about us, or something like storybooks. Because we always have stories like this to talk about, and that really connects people a lot.
Hui-chin: It was great to talk about those [teaching and learning] issues with Li-Ting. But we just feel the same thing and our views are too close. We didn't get another perspective. (Group Meeting)

Despite the relative cultural homogeneity of our group, we acknowledged the power of sharing and invited each other to put down our stories as learners and teachers in print. Our experiences as EFL learners and teachers helped us recognize our validity and, from that recognition, to connect with other teachers and make sense out of them collectively and cross-culturally. I made a distinction between sharing with individual colleagues and sharing in the group: assorted perspectives allowed us to gain new understandings of an issue from diverse angles which one-on-one communication did not always reveal. We often argued with other members to get our meanings across and negotiated meanings to reach a broader view. This could only be achieved by sharing in a group.

We initiated ideas about writing our own English children's literature, based on our localized cultures and learners' proficiency levels, rather than directly appropriating the texts from the U.S. Encouraging each other to work collaboratively with others to write for our EFL learners, we learned that each of us had a different specialty. Ru-Fang also recommended that we should write a grammar book different from the traditional, skills-based ones. She perceived the grammar books we had before as too skills-based and hoped to incorporate the rules into a storyline or other creative literature for us. Recurrently, each of us came up with different invitations that functioned as catalysts. These different types of invitations, to transcribe our experiences or compose Asian children's literature, opened theoretical and personal windows for us. Even though we did not pursue these dreams at that stage, the possibility of articulating and executing them empowered us and encouraged us to push our limits further.

In our group, we often expressed our needs for understanding the new knowledge and then make good use of it in our near future. New invitations did incorporate our version of Whole Language.

Li-Ting: I hope we can do EFL Whole Language, something that comes from our heart, our experience, and our research
Kun: Great idea. Incorporate Whole Language in our setting.
Hui-chin: I think it is doable.
Li-Ting: My problem was how will all these make sense in EFL [contexts] and in what forms will be represented? So that we think that [EFL Whole Language] represents us and also be true to the theory.
Ru-Fang: Difficult
Li-Ting: But I think what about our version? I just want to come up with our own voice. What about our version of interpreting those theories. (Group Meeting)

We desired to produce our own version of Whole Language in EFL settings. Considering existing hindrances in our contexts, it was crucial for us, as EFL teachers, to envisage our own interpretation of a new philosophy. We recognized that it was inevitable for us to go through the process of deliberating on the knowledge itself and its implementation. Our goal was to honor the fundamental theories behind Whole Language while considering how best the new knowledge could be accommodated within our existing educational system.

7.4 Internalizing the Knowledge Collaboratively before Implementation
We often expressed how much this study group met our needs as international students and future EFL teachers. Moon shared her dramatic change after participating in this teacher study group. She indicated that before these experiences, she always did the minimum amount of studying required for her graduate courses. She did not find a strong connection between what she studied and what she would do as an EFL teacher. Other participants echoed her ideas of how this group made it possible for us to co-construct knowledge in the group and further internalize that knowledge in order to reiterate it in our future contexts.

Moon: I suddenly get interested in studying after joining this group. But at the same time, [I think] this system holds me [back]. I prefer to have this kind of study group or summer institute instead of going to school to study something in which I am not interested. I feel how nicely this group is made. It inspires me to study, continue to do this kind of group, and write a paper about it, instead of working hard for 2 years on writing a dissertation. Because I know a lot of people working hard to earn their Ph.D. but those people spoiled our education. They have very different attitudes. I know they have never been teachers before, but they went back to Korea and employed the new knowledge, but they don't have a clue how school works. They think they are born to be professors. They never have had school teaching experience, but they just study a lot and get the degree. After they had the long-term job as professors, they try to criticize the teachers in elementary or high schools.
Li-Ting: Yes
Wen-Ling: The teachers are always meant to be blamed.

This excerpt represented how Moon questioned the existing institutionalized learning process a Ph.D. student goes through. She favored the learning experience in a collaborative group over the other learning experiences, such as taking courses or writing a dissertation. She started to see herself as an autonomous and cooperative learner and believed she was a life-long learner. She had shared her opinions earlier with the group: "I think this system [graduate studies] holds me [back]. I feel I learned something and I want to go back and do something. But the problem is soon I need to take the qualifying exam and write a dissertation. I feel it is a wasting of time." She recognized the meaning of engaging in a study group like this and would rather focus on the issues relevant and practical to her. After intensive discussion in the group, we were motivated to put those ideas into actual classroom situations, and felt enthusiastic about education and our role as EFL teachers. However, we were absent from our home countries during a time of change, resulting in lack of knowledge about current situations. We vented our frustrations of not being able to bring the knowledge we were currently acquiring to the real-life classrooms and tried to find ways to fill this gap.

Carefully looking at how Ph.D. holders positioned themselves and were positioned in our educational systems, we criticized the professors with Ph.D. degrees in our countries who do not take cross-cultural factors into account and also ignore the practicing teachers' existing repertoires.

Moon: When they [Ph.D. holders] go back [to my country], they always said teachers are bad and wrong. They held tons of conferences to teach teachers. They focus on what they need to teach instead of understanding the educational system as a whole. That is why there is always hostility between teachers and professors.
Hui-chin: This is really a good lesson for future professors like us. (Group Meeting)

Moon criticized the distance between Ph.D. holders and practicing teachers at elementary and high school levels. College professors tend to impose the new knowledge they learned in the U.S. upon practicing teachers and devalue these teachers. All of us soon will be Ph.D. holders and possibly college professors. Each of us learned how the college professors and elementary and high school teachers are positioned and reminded ourselves to carefully examine cultural and educational differences before we try to implement the knowledge we learned. The group questioned why teaching experience is devalued but the Ph.D. degree is much more valued throughout Asian societies, as Hofstede (1986) reports, whereas higher degree holders often do not link knowledge and practice. We started to challenge the assumption that the higher the degree a teacher gets, the better teaching she will offer. This is often not the case if the Ph.D. holders do not make an effort to make the connection between practice and learned knowledge. On the other hand, we were also concerned that people who earn higher degrees often retreat to the ways they taught before, when they return to teach in their home countries; they do not implement new ideas.

Hui-chin: Why is that they [teach] the same way as they were taught or taught?
Moon: Maybe it is too difficult. And also, the system doesn't support the new ways of teaching. For example, they need to teach for the test, so it is useless to teach in communicative ways. (the Initial Interview with Moon)

In order to achieve change, the whole system needs to nourish the entire process of linking theory and practice. Teachers might experience frustration if not provided with approval and assistance. We realized that forming a teacher study group like this after we return home to teach will support us in grappling with the existing limitations in the school systems. It is reasonable for us to expect not to revert back to the old ways of teaching if supported by a group like this.

7.5 Examining and Challenging Each Other's Underlying Assumptions
In our discussion, we frequently challenged each other's hidden assumptions of language teaching and learning and encouraged each other to articulate our beliefs. We posed questions to continually examine our beliefs and also challenge each other:
"Why are those ideas and theories that came from our past teachers being attacked by the new theories we are acquiring right now? New ideas need time to prove [their] effectiveness." (Ru-Fang, GM)

"Is tradition always backward and wrong? Many people still practice the traditions; does it mean they were being proven effective?" (Li-Ting, GM)

"In the future, when you teach, will you follow the ways how you were taught or implement these new theories and idea we learned here in the U.S.?" (Hui-chin, GM)

"We know different sign systems are important now. But if you were parents, weren't you nervous when your children were good in different sign system than academics?" (Kun, GM)

"We often expected our learners to learn at fast speed and showed the school or parents the promising products. So how could we allow 'time' for our learners to engage in the process while all school authority and parents expected is the test result?" (Hui-chin, GM)

"I can articulate what I believe…I can test what I believe, because my thinking was never being challenged and just sleeping in my mind. But now I start to talk with [you guys]. I can see clearly what I believe and maybe I can change, and revise what I am doing" (the Initial Interview with Moon)

Our doubts, uncertainty, and uneasiness led us to explore more about our lingering beliefs about language learning and teaching. We took time to deliberate on these recurring concerns haunting our minds. However, we did not always reach solutions. Inevitably, we sometimes felt frustrated by our conversations because we did not come up with solutions to our problems and felt we needed experts' suggestions. Gradually, however, we perceived that those lingering questions encouraged us to advance and re-formulate our understandings and left us more space to think about them at deeper levels.

8. Conclusions
As future EFL teachers coming from similar educational and cultural backgrounds, we formed this teacher study group as a forum to share our struggles and concerns with one another so that we could work together as a collegial community to solve problems and give each other feedback and suggestions. Our group aimed to ensure professional growth so that our learning and teaching practices became rich and generative experiences for each participant. It was through inquiry that we as graduate students made connections between our past experiences and current learning and further bridged the knowledge co-constructed as a group to our pertinent contexts. The process of being involved in a collaborative group and negotiating meanings is central to the goal of transferring practical knowledge and theories to different EFL contexts. Our study group aimed to build a sense of community learning that made use of group members' inquiry, knowledge, and reflections as vehicles to construct knowledge, improve instruction, and promote professional development. We also saw the group as opening doors for us as EFL teachers with similar concerns, interests, and needs to connect in a community of learning to share lesson plans, ideas, and innovations.

The fact that we were guided by theory validated our efforts as we started to take an authoritative stance in our own professional development process. Our voices, even in our non-native English, had been liberated because we had a shared understanding and similar educational and cultural backgrounds. While pursuing our degrees in the U.S., as international graduate students, we did not generally get the opportunity to practice our new knowledge in actual classrooms. This teacher study group provided an opportunity for us to organize and lead discussions, to design the study guide and leading questions for other members, and to reflect on our English learning and teaching experiences. This social context also allowed members to share and circulate up-to-date academic information, and then, consequently, to project what might or might not work in real classrooms. As a result, we familiarized ourselves with the rhetoric of different academic disciplines and developed a collective understanding of the TESOL profession, so that we could return to the larger community and deploy its academic discourses. Our voices and identity in the TESOL profession were thus strengthened and sustained through this supportive community. Most importantly, the community of the group provided each of us with social-emotional support and allowed us to share our difficulties in different aspects of study and work in U.S. academia. We came to realize that we shared the same circumstances and did not need to struggle alone in striving to become excellent EFL teachers.

References
Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 580-583.

Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming critical: Knowing through Action Research. Deakin University Press, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study group: Persistent questions in a promising approach. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 465-492.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional