100% found this document useful (2 votes)

332 views64 pages

Reflective Practice in Language Teaching - Thomas Farrell

Uploaded by

ddoblex doblex

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

100% found this document useful (2 votes)

332 views64 pages

Reflective Practice in Language Teaching - Thomas Farrell

Uploaded by

ddoblex doblex

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 64

Farrell

This Element examines the concept of reflective practice in

language teaching, reconsidering a framework for a holistic
approach to language teacher reflection and reflective practice.
It includes a brief description of reflective practice and how it
is operationalized by two of its main protagonists, John Dewey
and Donald Schön, as well as some of the limitations of their Language Teaching
conceptions. This Element is used as an introduction to how
the author developed Dewey and Schön’s ideas when creating
a five-stage framework of reflective practice for language
teachers. The author then presents an in-depth case study of
the reflections of an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher
working in Costa Rica as he moved through the five stages of
Reflective Practice in

Reflective Practice in Language Teaching

the framework. The author then outlines and discusses how
reflective practice may be moved forward and calls attention
to the importance of emotions in the process of reflection for
language teachers. Language Teaching

About the Series Series Editors

This Elements series aims to close the gap Heath Rose
between researchers and practitioners by Linacre College,

Thomas S.C. Farrell

allying research with language teaching University of
practices, in its exploration of research- Oxford
informed teaching, and teaching- Jim McKinley
informed research. The series builds upon University College
a rich history of pedagogical research in London
its exploration of new insights within the
field of language teaching.

Cover image: EduLeite/E+/Getty Images ISSN

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the 2632-4415
Cambridge (online)
Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783 ISSN 2632-4407 (print)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Elements in Language Teaching
edited by
Heath Rose
Linacre College, University of Oxford
Jim McKinley
University College London

REFLECTIVE PRACTICE IN
LANGUAGE TEACHING

Thomas S. C. Farrell
Brock University

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009013901
DOI: 10.1017/9781009028783
© Thomas S. C. Farrell 2022
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2022
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978-1-009-01390-1 Paperback
ISSN 2632-4415 (online)
ISSN 2632-4407 (print)
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.

Elements in Language Teaching

DOI: 10.1017/9781009028783
First published online: April 2022

Thomas S. C. Farrell
Brock University
Author for correspondence: Thomas S. C. Farrell, [email protected]

Abstract: This Element examines the concept of reﬂective practice in

language teaching, reconsidering a framework for a holistic approach
to language teacher reflection and reflective practice. It includes a brief
description of reflective practice and how it is operationalized by two of
its main protagonists, John Dewey and Donald Schön, as well as some
of the limitations of their conceptions. This Element is used as an
introduction to how the author developed Dewey and Schön’s ideas
when creating a five-stage framework of reflective practice for
language teachers. The author then presents an in-depth case study of
the reflections of an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher working
in Costa Rica as he moved through the five stages of the framework.
The author then outlines and discusses how reflective practice may be
moved forward and calls attention to the importance of emotions in the
process of reflection for language teachers.

Keywords: reﬂective teaching, language teaching, language teachers, John

Dewey, Donald Schön

© Thomas S. C. Farrell 2022

ISBNs: 9781009013901 (PB), 9781009028783 (OC)
ISSNs: 2632-4415 (online), 2632-4407 (print)

1 Background 1

2 “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants”: Dewey and Schön 8

3 Reﬂective Practice in Action 23

4 Moving Forward with Reﬂective Practice: Possibilities

for Further Dialogue 41

5 Conclusion 46

References 48

1 Background
The overall goal of this Element is to provide a comprehensive argument for
reconsidering a framework I devised (Farrell, 2015) for a five-stage approach to
language teacher reflective practice, supported by an in-depth case study
I conducted in which I added appraisal analysis to the framework.
Uncertainty over the meaning of reflection and reflective practice is due to the
majority of recent approaches having been based on an understanding (which is
most likely a misunderstanding) of the two most popularly cited theoretical
sources, namely the works of John Dewey and Donald Schön. One of the aims
of this Element is to return to these two theoretical sources in order to clarify
what I mean by the notion of reflective practice and then to establish the criteria
(i.e., framework) I use to clearly define what I mean by reflective practice for
language teachers. I add another dimension, the emotional aspect of reflection,
related to reflective teaching within my framework. As Fook (2010) has noted,
emotions can not only trigger learning issues for teachers but can also act as an
“impetus and motivation for finding meaning and continuing reflection” (p. 48).
This Element goes on to consider how, in my own work, I have built on some of
the limitations or constraints in the work of Dewey and Schön in the develop-
ment of what I have referred to as a holistic approach to reflective practice for
language teachers (Farrell, 2015).

1.1 Organization of This Element

In this first section, I introduce the topics of reflective practice and reflection.
I briefly outline where the concept of reflection originated and examine some of
the main issues associated with the uncertainty around how it has been under-
stood. I then connect these issues with an argument for the need to reconcep-
tualize reflective practice in language education. From here, I close the section
with an attempt to disentangle the different terms related to reflection and
reflective practice to bring clarity to the concepts.
In Section 2, I first examine the theoretical underpinnings, both the per-
spectives and the constraints, of the models of reflection presented by both
Dewey and Schön – two of the most generally uncritically incorporated
sources of inspiration language teacher educators and language teachers use
to justify their reflection within language teaching (Farrell, 2018). In this
light, I follow the discussion of the theoretical underpinnings with an over-
view of the development of my own framework (Farrell, 2015) and an
explanation of how the framework was designed especially for language
teachers to reflect on practice, and how this has been developed from the
work of Dewey, Schön, and others.

In Section 3, I outline and discuss how I used my framework in a recent in-

depth case study with one English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher in Costa
Rica as he reflected intensely on his work over a two-month period during the
height of the COVID-19 pandemic when he was suddenly required to teach all
his classes on an online platform (Zoom). In this section, I give details about
how Damien (pseudonym) reflected on his philosophy, principles, theory,
practice, and beyond (Farrell, 2015). I also outline and discuss how I applied
the Appraisal Framework from systemic functional linguistics (SFL) with
a specific focus on the aspect of affect to account for the range of emotive
language Damien used when reflecting. This latter analysis is a new addition to
the framework for reflecting on practice, and I believe it is a promising tool for
future researchers, language teacher educators, and language teachers for
gauging the importance of emotions within the process of reflective teaching.
In Section 4, I consider how the concept of reflective practice can be moved
forward in language teaching. Section 5 brings a conclusion to this Element.
One final point to emphasize is that the focus is on how to encourage language
teachers to reflect on themselves and their practices both inside and outside the
classroom as part of their professional development. (I use the term language
teaching to include the field of teaching English to speakers of other languages
[TESOL] that includes EFL and English as a second language [ESL] teachers.
This Element does not cover second language students or student learning and
reflection; rather, it covers the education of second language teachers and
getting them to reflect.)

1.2 Reﬂective Practice and Reﬂection

Reflective practice as a mark of professional competence has taken hold across
many professions in recent times (e.g., science, law, medicine, nursing, and
education). For example, reflective practice has been cited as especially helpful
for students of law who lack practical experience because they can, as Anzalone
(2010) has noted, “examine and test beliefs and principles against what is being
learned doctrinally” (p. 86). Within the nursing profession, reflective practice
has been cited as an important concept because it can help narrow the divide
between theory and practice (Kim et al., 2010). Within the field of education, as
Tabachnik and Zeichner (2002) have pointed out, “there is not a single teacher
educator who would say that he or she is not concerned about preparing teachers
who are reflective” (p. 13).
Thus, reflective practice has taken a firm hold within teacher preparation and
development programs as an essential skill (Loughran, 2002; Lytle & Cochran-
Smith, 1992). Reflective practice offers teachers a way to articulate those

aspects of practice that make up part of that knowledge base in teaching by

helping practitioners better understand what they know and do as they (re)
consider what they learn in and through their teaching (Smyth, 1992). As
Zwozdiak-Myers (2012, p. 3) has pointed out, reflective practice is central to
a teacher’s development because it helps teachers “analyse and evaluate what is
happening” in their classes so they can not only improve the quality of their
teaching but also provide better learning opportunities for their students.
Within language teaching, reflective practice has also arguably become an
even more important concept as the profession has moved into a “post-method
condition” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) where language teachers no longer rely on
prescribed teaching methods. Generally, reflective practice for language
teachers, as Freeman (2016) puts it, is the “mental activity that teachers do as
they think in teaching situations” (p. 207). Its inclusion in language teacher
education and development programs, according to Freeman, is based on two
premises: “(1) Improvement in teaching comes when teachers can turn actions
that are automatic and routine into ones that are considered. (2) This shift from
automatic to considered actions supports a more professionalized view of
teaching” (p. 221). Thus, although reflective practice has been embraced enthu-
siastically in recent years in the field of language teaching, “what it actually is
and how it might be developed are more problematic” (Walsh & Mann, 2015,
p. 351).
In other words, although reflection and reflective practice have gained prom-
inence in language teaching as marks of professional competence, and reflective
practice has been considered a significant component of many preservice
language teacher education and in-service development programs, there is
still little agreement about how to define the concept or indeed what strategies
can operationalize or promote reflective teaching. Thus, although most lan-
guage educators still concur that some form of reflection is desirable for
language teachers, the precise definition of reflective practice remains vague,
with resulting misunderstandings about the philosophical traditions behind
whose work is most cited when attempting to define and operationalize this
interesting yet complex topic.
The concept of reflection can be traced back to various ancient and current
religions, but the current use of the term reflection comes from the Latin word
reflectere and means “to bend back” (Valli, 1997, p. 67) or to look back and
become more aware of a past event or issue. From ancient historical cultural and
religious roots (e.g., ancient Greece, China, and India) we recognize that
humans tend to “reflect” in some manner as they go about their daily lives. In
the early twentieth century, reflection and reflective practice appeared espe-
cially in North America through the seminal work of John Dewey. Dewey
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
4 Language Teaching

(1933) was initially interested in encouraging more reﬂection in student learn-

ing (rather than with teachers) because he worried that routine thinking and
decision-making by students in educational settings would not lead to
a complete education. He extended this idea of reflective inquiry to teachers
on the basis of noting that teachers who do not reflect on their work can become
slaves to routine because their actions are guided mostly by impulse, tradition,
and/or authority rather than by informed decision-making. This decision-
making, Dewey (1933) insisted, should be based on systematic and conscious
reflections because teaching experience, when combined with these reflections,
can lead to awareness, development, and growth.
Thus, Dewey (1933) maintained that reflective practice entails “active, per-
sistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge
in light of the grounds that support it and the further consequences to which it
leads” (p. 9). This famous and often used quote has proved to be the basis of
many subsequent approaches to reflection and reflective practice, and the
concept saw a resurgence in the 1980s with the work of Donald Schön (1983,
1987). Whereas Dewey (1933) encouraged practitioners to reflect after the
action, or “reflection-on-action,” Schön (1983, 1987) encouraged practitioners
to reflect during action, or “reflection-in-action,” on the basis that practitioners can
see more than they can explain. Schön wanted to encourage practitioners to reflect
as they engaged in this action (I explain this in more detail section 2 below).

1.3 Reconceptualizing Reﬂective Practice in Language Education

Herein lies one of the major issues related to many previous discussions and
implementations of reflective practice in language education. Both Dewey’s
(1933) oft-cited definition and his overall “reflection-on-action” approach, as
well as the frequent references to and citations of Schön’s (who incidentally did
not work much with teachers) “reflection-in-action” approach, have been used
in the scholarly literature in language education without any real critical
examination. This has resulted in concealing the exact nature of reflection and
its implications for language teacher education and language teaching. For
example, in their probing article on “doing reflective practice” within language
education, Walsh and Mann (2015) noted that the many challenges regarding
understanding the true nature of reflective practice can make operationalizing
reflective practice difficult for researchers and language teachers alike; as Walsh
and Mann (2015) stated, “the many differing (and even conflicting) perspectives
on what reflection actually means make it difficult for researchers and practi-
tioners to operationalize it in any meaningful way” (p. 215). For instance, when
language teacher candidates or experienced language teachers are encouraged

to reﬂect, it is important to know in whose tradition this reﬂection is mirrored

and how reflection is operationalized based on the underlying traditions. Within
language teaching, then, as Freeman (2016) maintains, although reflective
practice can offer a way into the “less accessible aspects of [a language]
teacher’s work” (p. 208), this access really depends on how reflection is
operationalized.
Essentially, I suggest that one of the main reasons scholars and practitioners
alike have problems with “doing” reflective practice is a lack of understanding
of what reflective practice is and how it can be operationalized in language
teaching; thus, there is confusion about the nature of reflection for teachers and
teacher educators. As Freeman (2016) asks, “is ‘reflection’ a clearly defined
concept or has it become a catch-all?” (p. 208).
As Freeman (2016) observed, “conceptualizing reflection in teaching is
usually traced back to the work of John Dewey [and] Donald Schön on whose
work the notion of reflection in education largely rests” (p. 208). However, both
offer very different models of reflective practice and both are limited. Thus, in
the spirit of reflective practice, in what follows, I examine both of their models
because both have been very influential to my own work but also different to my
approach.

1.4 Disentangling the Terms

Having provided a brief overview of the top topic and argument of this Element,
I now briefly summarize some of the key terms related to reflection and
reflective practice in language teaching to show why there seems to be so
much confusion with how they are used in the literature.
In any review of the literature on reflective teaching, it is possible to find terms
that vary in meaning, and sometimes it is difficult to unravel them. Within the
field of language teaching, I (2018) recently extensively reviewed research on the
practices that encourage ESL and EFL teachers to reflect on their own practices.
Of the 138 studies published in academic peer-reviewed journals (I did not
include monographs, book chapters, or books on reflective practice) over a seven-
year period (2009–2015), I noted that only 52 of those studies attempted to define
reflective practice (with citations). Furthermore, only 11 of the 52 studies
attempted to define or very loosely defined the concept by just citing scholars’
work. Seventy-five studies (or more than 50 percent of the total) did not give any
definition of the concept but led into a discussion of “reflective practice” without
saying what it was. Indeed, many studies used different terms such as reflection,
reflective practice, critical reflection, reflective teaching, reflective action, reflec-
tion-in-action, reflection-on-action, reflective practitioner, reflective thinking,

reﬂective inquiry, analytical reﬂection, and so on interactively in the sense that

they had the same meaning as reflection or reflective practice. As I remarked,
this lack of clarity around the overall concept of reflection and reflective
practice and related terms is problematic within language teaching. Lack of
clarity with regard to what we mean by reflection and lack of understanding of
models of knowledge that underpin reflective practice make it difficult to
operationalize the concept.
In addition, I (2018) discovered that, of the citations from the 52 studies (out
of 138) that actually defined reflective practice in TESOL, the “main” scholars
outside language teaching who were cited as a source for the research included
Dewey (19 citations) and Schön (22 citations), and most of these only provided
a quotation from either Dewey or Schön to legitimize their particular approach,
perhaps without a full understanding of their approaches and theoretical
grounding.
Within language teaching, early incorporation of the term reflection distin-
guished between a “weak” form and a “strong” form. In its weakest version,
reflection was said to be no more than “thoughtful” practice where language
teachers sometimes, as Wallace (1996) suggested, “informally evaluate various
aspects of their professional expertise” (p. 292). However, as Wallace also
pointed out, this type of “informal reflection” does not really lead to improved
teaching and can even lead to more “unpleasant emotions without suggesting
any way forward” (p. 13). Thus, a second, “stronger” form of or stance on
reflection in language teaching emerged that proposed that language teachers
should systematically collect data about their teaching and use that information
to make responsible decisions about their teaching (Richards & Lockhart,
1994). In fact, this stance on reflection reiterates what Dewey (1933) noted
about reflection when he said that “data (facts) and ideas (suggestions, possible
solutions) thus form the two indispensable and correlative factors of all reflect-
ive activity” (p. 104). In more recent discussions on reflection in language
teaching, Walsh and Mann (2015) have echoed this call for data-led reflective
practice by encouraging teachers to collect data as a concrete means of focusing
their reflections so they can make more insightful analysis and gain a fuller
sense of their own teaching.
Recently, this second, “stronger” conceptualization of reflection is beginning
to take hold within language teaching (e.g., see Mann & Walsh, 2017, for an
excellent analysis and implementation of evidence-based reflective practice for
language teachers). Nevertheless, we must still be careful that evidence-based
approaches are not reduced solely to solving teaching problems that have
occurred in class, where teachers are encouraged to collect data to “fix”
classroom problems without any critical reflection on the social, affective,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 7

moral, or political aspects related to practice. Indeed, we must also be careful

that critical reflections on practice consist of more than asking why a teacher
uses a particular method in a lesson, as occurred within the early literature on
reflection in the field of language teaching; as Hatton and Smith (1995) also
noted many years ago, there is such a problem with the term critical reflection.
They observed that some take it to “mean no more than constructive self-
criticism of one’s actions with a view to improvement” (p. 35).
In order to critically reflect on our practices, we must move beyond self-
critical conceptual descriptions and examine the ideological influences that
impact these practices as well as consider the interplay between our emotions
and our reflections. One early notable exception within the field of language
teaching who advocated for such a critical approach was Bartlett (1990), who
maintained that we include the broader society in any approaches to reflections
on teaching. Bartlett noted that critically reflective teachers must “transcend the
technicalities of teaching and think beyond the need to improve . . . instructional
techniques” (p. 204). However, Bartlett’s ideas were largely ignored within
language teaching until scholars such as Crookes (2013) wanted a more critical
approach and advocated “teaching for social justice, in ways that support the
development of active, engaged citizens who . . . will be prepared to seek out
solutions to the problems they define and encounter, and take action accord-
ingly” (p. 8). Thus, reflection should also include language teachers reflecting
on the equitable nature of the profession (Hatton & Smith, 1995), as well as
critically reflecting on the presence of power structures within the institutions in
which they work (Brookfield, 1995).1
The problems of unraveling the semantics of the terms reflection and reflect-
ive practice outlined earlier in this Element also include the place and meaning
of the term reflexive as in “reflexive practice.” Coghlan and Brannick (2005)
maintain that “reflexivity is the constant analysis of one’s own theoretical and
methodological presuppositions” (p. 6). Within language teaching, Edge (2011)
contends, the term reflexive overlaps and interacts with reflection and reflective
practice. However, one major difference I see is that the term reflexive practice
denotes a more inward-looking, individual reflective activity where practi-
tioners look at their own self-trajectories, which for the most part are discon-
nected from others; indeed, as Edge acknowledges, “the reflexive invites the
autobiographical” (p. 25). I agree that language teachers and language teacher
educators should interrogate their own philosophies, principles, theories, and

1
I return to the issue of critical reflection in Section 2.2 when I outline and discuss my framework
for reflecting on practice, as it includes coverage of critical reflection that I call “beyond practice,”
and how I specifically attempt to integrate teacher emotions within the framework as an integral
aspect of reflective teaching.

practices and critically reflect beyond practice; however, I also agree with
Dewey (1933), who maintained that the process is social and as a result, it is
best carried out in the presence of others. Thus, my framework for reflecting on
practice outlined in this Element is both “reflective” and “reflexive”; as
Thompson and Pascal (2012) pointed out, the former incorporates the more
“traditional notion of reflection as an analytical process” and the latter, reflexive
approach emphasizes “the mirroring of practice, and thereby undertaking a self-
analysis” (p. 320).
Note that, because of word count restrictions, this Element cannot and does
not attempt to review all the literature related to all the different definitions of or
approaches to reflective practice (but see Farrell, 2017, for a detailed outline of
how language teacher educators attempted to incorporate some kind of reflec-
tion within their language teacher education programs in order to bridge the
theory/practice divide they noticed between the content of their courses and the
reality of the classroom; Farrell, 2018, for a report on the research conducted on
reflective practice; and Farrell, 2019a, for an analysis of the different typologies
of and approaches to reflective practice). Rather, I only focus on the two most
cited approaches from Dewey and Schön and their influence in the development
of my own framework.

2 “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants”: Dewey and Schön

My own interest in the concept of reflective practice is long-standing (e.g.,
Farrell, 1999a, 1999b, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2013a, 2013b, 2014,
2016). Throughout its early period, my work was influenced by Dewey and
Schön as two scholar giants. However, I was not fully convinced of the efficacy
of their approaches beyond their pragmatic attraction when it came to imple-
menting reflective practice. About ten years ago, I endeavored to reflect on
reflective practice after working with this concept for more than ten years before
that (including completing my PhD dissertation on the topic) but never ques-
tioning why I was so influenced by these scholars nor what exactly their
approaches stood for. Now it seems almost mandatory to cite both scholars
but without full knowledge of what they really represent. Indeed, within
language teacher education, a recent review of an edited book that included
the topic of reflection critically noted that the mandatory citation of Schön’s
work was somehow missing (Ur, 2020). However, while I fully acknowledge
that Schön’s work on reflective teaching is very important, merely citing his and
Dewey’s work is not a sufficient justification for their inclusion because, as
Hébert (2015) suggests, we also need to better understand the intricacies of their
approaches. Thus, my aim in this section is to point out that teacher educators,

researchers, and language teachers should not uncritically pay “homage” to

their work without a full understanding of what their work means within
reflective practice.
It is also because of their huge influence on the development of my own
framework that it encourages language teachers to reflect on their teaching. It is
important for language teachers, teacher educators, researchers, and policy
makers who may want to operationalize reflective teaching based on citing
these almost “canonical” sources (Hébert, 2015) to have a clear understanding
of the underlying theoretical traditions. One important reason for seeking such
clarity is that when preservice and/or in-service language teachers are asked to
reflect within language teacher education and development programs, more
attention should be afforded to discussions about whose ideological tradition
this request mirrors (Collin, Karsenti, & Komis, 2013; Hébert, 2015). Indeed,
Hébert has suggested that, in order to retain the spirit of reflection, all models
should be “critically examined and their connection to Dewey and Schön
closely scrutinized” (p. 362). Akbari (2007) noted, “it is good to reflect, but
reflection itself also requires reflection” (p. 205).

2.1 Dewey and Schön: Perspectives and Constraints

2.1.1 Perspectives
Dewey’s (1933) main approach to reflective practice is called reflective inquiry,
where he suggests practitioners can slow down the interval between thought and
action as they pass through its five main phases of reflection. The first phase is
called suggestion, where a practitioner faces a problematic issue and quickly
comes up with some vague suggestions as possible solutions. Here Dewey
(1933) maintains that practitioners suspend immediate judgment to consider
alternative reasons for the problem as they move into the second phase, called
intellectualization. During this phase, the practitioner’s initial emotional reac-
tion is converted into an intellectual reaction as he or she moves from problem
“felt” to problem to be solved. The practitioner begins to refine the problem by
asking more probing questions; as Dewey (1933) noted, a question well asked is
half the answer already. The third phase is called guiding idea, where the
practitioner gathers as much information about the problem as possible from
as many different sources as possible in order to come up with a working
hypothesis. Indeed, during this third phase, I have encouraged language
teachers to also consider Brookfield’s (1995) idea of looking at a problem
through different lenses – the teacher’s lens, the colleague’s lens, the student’s
lens, and a literature review lens – in order to gather as much information as
possible about the problem at hand. The fourth phase is called reasoning, and

here the practitioner attempts to come up with a tentative solution based on all
the information gathered thus far. The practitioner makes a tentative plan that he
or she does not know will work at that time when he or she moves into the fifth
and final phase, called hypothesis testing. After deciding the plan, the practi-
tioner tests it by action and observation to see if it works; if it does not work, the
practitioner attempts to generate different solutions and test these in a similar
manner. The approach combines his or her process approach with the product
approach to reflection; the process begins when a problematic issue arises which
he or she calls “suggestion” in the first phase of the model. The product of
reflection is solving the problem, ideally at the end of phase five.
Although I present the reflective inquiry phases in linear fashion, Dewey
acknowledged that teachers do not (and probably should not) go through each of
these phases in a lockstep fashion. Dewey also recognized that going through
the process of reflective inquiry is not easy, because reflective thinking involves
suspending immediate judgment so that we can delay reaching hasty conclu-
sions. Thus, Dewey (1933) was encouraging teachers to take a step back by
going through all the phases and to avoid jumping to early conclusions before
having had an opportunity to examine the issue or problem in detail.
Dewey’s (1933) approach to reflection has had immense influence on the
work of other scholars over the intervening years who have since built on this
model. For example, Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985) have suggested a more
cyclical model with three broader categories of reflective thought (experience,
reflection, and outcome) that also emphasizes emotion as an element of reflect-
ive practice. In addition, Zeichner and Liston (1996, 2014) also returned to
Dewey’s (1933) original ideas when they distinguished between routine action
and reflective action and suggested that, for teachers, “routine action is guided
primarily by tradition, external authority and circumstance,” whereas reflective
action “entails the active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or
supposed form of knowledge” (Zeichner & Liston, 1996, p. 24). In addition, Jay
and Johnson (2002) use Dewey’s (1933) description of reflection as “the active,
persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of know-
ledge in light of the grounds that support it” (p. 9). Indeed, I believe that
Dewey’s (1933) evidence-based reflective inquiry cycle is most likely
a precursor to action research steps that have been incorporated in general
education and language teaching in modern times (e.g., Burns, 2010).
In addition, Dewey (1933) noted that knowledge of the strategies and
methods of reflective practice are not enough by themselves because “there
must be the desire, the will, to employ them. This is an affair of personal
disposition” (p. 30). Thus, Dewey (1933) maintained that reflection needs to
be guided by a set of attitudes to make the reflection truly meaningful. Dewey
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 11

(1933) pointed out that the mark of an intellectually educated person is the
development of such attitudes or habits but that they do not come naturally and
so must be acquired through training. Dewey maintained that in order to be
considered truly reflective, teachers must cultivate (at least) three attitudes:
being open-minded, responsible, and wholehearted.
Dewey (1933) defined the attitude of open-mindedness as “freedom from
prejudice, partisanship, and such other habits as close the mind and make it
unwilling to consider new problems and entertain new ideas” (p. 136). Open-
mindedness suggests that we need to “let go” of being right all the time and that
we should question our thinking and doubts in a kind of self-observation in
order to gain more insight into our actions, thoughts, and learning, or to “admit
that a belief to which we have once committed ourselves is wrong” (p. 136). To
be truly open-minded one must, as Dewey pointed out, be willing to listen to all
sides as well as to note all the facts from different sources and be open to looking
into alternative solutions even if one has to admit one was not correct in the first
instance.
The attitude of being responsible is connected to being open-minded in that
Dewey encouraged practitioners to consider the consequences of whatever
actions they adopt as a result of changing their beliefs. As Dewey (1933)
noted, a responsible attitude is one where people “consider the consequences
of a projected step,” which means “to be willing to adopt these consequences
when they follow reasonably from any position already taken” (p. 138).
However, he noted that it is not uncommon for practitioners to continue to
hold onto false beliefs, because they are unable or unwilling to accept the
consequences and, as a result, may not be able to compete any project.
When a reflective practitioner is wholehearted – the third attitude – he or she
must take up any project with a “whole heart” by committing fully to reflection.
Dewey (1933) pointed out that “there is no greater enemy of effective thinking
than divided interest”; nevertheless, he noted that when practitioners are fully
invested, the issue at hand will sustain their reflections. In other words, reflect-
ive teachers have a wholehearted attitude they will reflect throughout their
careers. I include much of Dewey’s ideas in my own definition of reflective
practice.
There was a lull for many years after Dewey’s significant contribution of the
concept of reflection in education (and what some would suggest could be called
revolutionary thoughts on the need for both students and teachers to reflect on
their practices). This was until the 1980s with the emergence of the work of
Donald Schön (1983, 1987). Some scholars maintain that imprints of Dewey’s
work are ever present in the work of Schön, and in fact, Schön’s PhD disserta-
tion (Yale, philosophy, 1955) was focused on an analysis of Dewey’s “Theory of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
12 Language Teaching

Inquiry.” Although Schön did not refer to Dewey much in his work, I believe
Dewey’s philosophical pragmatism and influence led him to take a more prag-
matic (rather than theoretical) approach to reflective practice (which also
attracted me to his work).
Most of Schön’s initial work was within organizations in terms of how
practitioners in these organizations viewed their work, and especially the notion
of practitioner-generated intuitive practice. Schön (1983) made this clear in his
early influential book, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in
Action, when he noted the need for a greater understanding of the knowledge of
practitioners as they practice.
In the 1970s, while at MIT, Schön teamed up with Chris Argyris and devel-
oped the (now famous) notion of single-loop and double-loop learning, where
thinking, practice, and problems between the two are raised to an explicit level
(rather than remaining at the usual tacit level) where they can be accessed
(Argyris & Schön, 1974). This collaboration with Argyris led him to focus on
professional learning within organizations and how to develop critical, self-
reflection that was to influence the work for which he is most recognized, and
for his idea of practitioners reflecting-in-action – this is the kind of reflection
that takes place in real time and as a consequence of emergent challenges or
observations on what is happening. Schön (1983, 1987) was convinced that
professionals “know” more than they can articulate and was interested in getting
them to articulate what they “know” and “do” by engaging in this process of
reflection-in-action. As Schön (1983, p. 50) observed, the “know-how is in the
action.” Thus, he suggested that practitioners become more aware of what they
do as they perform by observing their actions, or by reflecting-in-action. Schön
(1983) suggests that reflection-in-action happens in uncertain, unique situ-
ations, when routine action leads to some unexpected results (good or bad).
This, of course, all depends on the practitioner’s awareness of that “situation.”
For language teachers, Freeman (2016) suggests that the “uniqueness is not in
the situation, but in how the individual approaches, thinks about, and ‘frames’
it” (p. 201). The practitioner uses the knowledge obtained during this framing
process while “reflecting-in-action . . . thinking what they are doing and, in the
process, evolving their way of doing it” (Schön, 1983, p. 56). The result may
lead to some modification or adjustment or possibly doing the same again.
Schön (1983, p. 62) maintains that the adjustment time frame, or, as he calls it,
“‘action-present,’ the zone of time in which action can still make a difference to
the situation,” as the practitioner reflects-in-action may “stretch over minutes,
hours, days, weeks or even months.” Thus, in a Deweyan sense, a temporal
pause (where the practitioner attempts to reshape what he or she is doing while
he or she is doing it) may be necessary between reflection and action and when
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 13

making any readjustments to an action. For Schön (1983, p. 18), then, “problem
setting,” or finding the problem in the first place, is as important as solving it and
depends on the level of awareness of each individual practitioner in situations of
practice that are unique to the individual practitioner.
Many scholars have credited Schön’s work with directing the attention of
teacher educators to the concept of reflection in teacher education and develop-
ment (Freeman, 2016; Loughran, 2002; Rogers, 2002; Zeichner, 1983). One
reason for this may have been that Dewey’s approach to reflection maintained
that the practitioner suspend action when confronted with a problem and after
going through his steps of reflective inquiry, to take action only in the final
stage, whereas Schön (1983) encouraged the practitioner to continue to reflect
during action (or “action present”) in an attempt to reshape what the practitioner
is doing while he or she is doing it.
I chose to include the subheading “standing on the shoulders of giants” for
this section because without these two great scholars’ approaches to refection
and reflective practice, I would not have any basis to understand this interesting,
yet complex concept and I would not have been able to develop my own
framework for reflecting on practice. Dewey (1933) is widely acknowledged
as the founder of the reflective practice movement in modern times, and he
considered reflective practice as intentional, systematic inquiry that was discip-
lined and that would ultimately lead to change and professional growth for
teachers (reflection-on-action). Schön built on Dewey’s work and added to this
the idea of a practitioner being able to reflect on his or her intuitive knowledge
while engaged in the action of teaching (or reflection-in-action).
The legacy of Dewey and Schön is important because they moved the concept
of reflection far beyond everyday simple wonderings about a situation to a more
rigorous form of evidence-based thinking where a teacher systematically inves-
tigates a perceived “problem” in order to discover a solution. Engaging in
evidence-based reflective practice allows teachers to articulate to themselves
(and others) what they do, how they do it, why they do it, and what the impact of
one’s teaching is on student learning. In addition, both Dewey’s and Schön’s
work suggest that teachers can look at what is actual and occurring (theories-in-
use) in their practice and compare this to their beliefs (espoused theories) about
learning and teaching because, for many, the espoused theories may not work in
action and thus the teacher must develop new theory within that action. This
productive tension (Donald Freeman, personal communication) between
“espoused theories” and “theories-in-use” can provide teachers with the oppor-
tunity to examine their practice so that they can deepen their understanding of
what they do and thus gain new insights about their students, their teaching, and
themselves. As Dewey (1933) noted, growth comes from a “reconstruction of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
14 Language Teaching

experience” (p. 87), and by reﬂecting on these experiences we can reconstruct

our own approaches to teaching. That said, Hébert (2015) cautions against any
“uncritical adoption of reﬂective models, stressing that in doing so, the very
spirit of reﬂective practice can be undermined” (p. 381).

2.1.2 Constraints

I now outline some of the constraints I see in both Dewey’s and Schön’s work,
not to disparage them in any way, but rather to use them to further develop the
concept of reflection and reflective practice within the language teaching
profession. For example, one constraint is in Dewey’s suggestions that reflec-
tion must always begin with some type of problem that upsets the routine of
daily practice and that needs to be tackled and solved immediately, or, as Dewey
(1933) stated, the reflection process begins with “a shock or an interruption
needing to be accounted for, identified, or placed” (p. 12). The practitioner then
proceeds through the five phases of reflective inquiry with the final goal “that
results in the alleviation of doubt by way of certainty, or at least, as close to
certainty as possible” (Hébert, 2015, p. 363). However, this excludes situations
of practice that do not create doubt, such as a more critical stance toward how
use of a particular textbook set within a curriculum reflects the values of the
teachers and the students within a community or context. As Ecclestone (1996)
also notes, such a technical-rationalist approach to reflection “divorces values
from techniques and methods” (p. 148). Thus, Dewey’s (1933) reflective
inquiry focuses almost exclusively on solving problems but does not encourage
any critical reflection beyond immediate practice.
Linked to the constraint associated with reflection that must be initiated by
a shock or a problem is Dewey’s idea that the problem itself must be solved.
Thus, Dewey’s reflective inquiry approach can be classified as an “ends-based
model” (Hébert, 2015, p. 363) that must always begin with a problem and then
uncover a solution. This notion that there must be some kind of conclusive (and
mostly positive) result to the reflective inquiry process has also seeped into the
recent action research movement within language teaching that I outlined in
Section 2.1.1, where teachers usually only examine classroom-based problems
of practice that need to be corrected. In other words, there is no room for doubt
or uncertainty, as problems must be repaired. However, I believe that when
language teachers explore, examine, and reflect, for example, on critical inci-
dents that occur frequently within classrooms, they quickly realize how com-
plex and uncertain the teaching process is and, as a result, need to develop
a tolerance for ambiguity because there are no simple solutions or answers
available. I also include such encouragement of a tolerance for ambiguity in my

framework by encouraging language teachers to reﬂect on critical incidents

both inside and outside the classroom.
One more constraint I think is important to note regarding Dewey’s approach
is that there is some kind of distance between the practitioner and the problem
during the reflection process. In fact, it seems that the person who is doing the
reflection is standing on the outside looking at the problem. In other words, the
teacher is separated from the act of teaching and the “problem” that needs to be
“fixed” exists outside the person who is doing the reflection, or the teacher-as-
person. Thus, reflection and problem-solving seem to exist outside the person-
as-teacher. I return to this issue in Section 2.2.1 when I outline my framework,
but for now I maintain that the person-as-teacher cannot be divorced from the
act of teaching and reflection, and so I believe that reflection is grounded in the
notion that teachers are whole persons and the person-as-teacher should be
a part of the reflection process.
Similarly to Dewey’s approach of relating reflection nearly exclusively to
problem-solving, Schön’s experiential-intuitivist model of reflection was criti-
cized for focusing on problem-solving (Hébert, 2015). Although Schön (1983)
attempted to address Dewey’s technical rationalist temporal gap between reflec-
tion and action through his reflection-in-action (or “action present,” as noted in
Section 2.1.1) approach, his model similarly proceeds along a “causal chain”
(Hébert, 2015, p. 366) that is also initiated by a problem of some kind that
results in the practitioner becoming uncertain. As the practitioner moves along
that “chain” and reflects-in-action, he or she ultimately ends up reflecting-on-
action, like what Dewey proposed. Indeed, as Collin, Karsenti, and Komis,
(2013) have argued, “reflection-in-action may therefore be retrospective, which
blurs the distinction from reflection-on-action” (p. 109).
Another constraint I suggest connected to Schön’s (1983) reflecting on
“situations of practice” with learner teachers especially is the difficulty of
recognizing individual teachers’ unique reflections, which are different from
those of the teacher educator overseeing the process of reflection. Within
language teaching, as Freeman (2016) has pointed out, although the teacher
educators may see different issues, or “situations,” in lessons they observe, they
“cannot see them on behalf of” the learner teachers they are observing (p. 210).
In other words, for some learner teachers, particular “situations” may be taken
as “problematic,” but not for others. Thus, I believe that when language teachers
are asked to reflect on their practices, teacher educators and administrators must
consider whose interests are being pursued/met: the teacher educator’ or the
teacher? As a result, I have frequently proposed that when language teachers
reflect through the lens of the framework outlined in this Element, it is used as
a kind of mirror for descriptive accounts of what occurs without (prescriptive)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
16 Language Teaching

critiques from teacher educators or supervisors, or those who are facilitating the
reflective process. The main idea of encouraging teachers of all levels to engage
in reflective practice is that they take responsibility for their decisions and
actions inside and outside their lessons (I address this in more detail in
Section 4).
In addition, I think it is important that teacher educators consider that when
learner teachers are requested to reflect, often a top-down, “reflect on demand”
type of imposed power differential is attached to the process wherein what
teacher educators consider to be important “situations” override the perceptions
of the learner teacher doing the reflecting. The likely outcome of such reflection
is one of compliance, where the teacher looks to the supervisor for “what to
reflect on” while going through the motions, or as Hobbs (2007) put it, “faking it
or hating it” (p. 405). Thus, teacher educators must be aware of the power
dynamics present and be on guard against such top-down imposed reflections in
order to allow learner teachers to see their own situations of practice.
One further but very important constraint associated with Schön’s (1983)
approach to reflection outlined by Boud and Walker (1998) is that his analysis
ignores critical features of the context of reflection. As Boud and Walker point
out, context is “the single most important influence on reflection and learning”
(p. 197). They define context as “the total cultural, social and political environ-
ment in which reflection takes place” (p. 196). They note that this larger context,
although mirrored in local contexts, is also further modified within these
settings such as educational settings that include the institution, the classroom,
the curriculum, and any other context-specific social and cultural aspects of that
setting. Their point is that the context will influence the type and methods of
reflection possible. They maintain that, when considering the importance of
context in the reflection process, practitioners should consider:

• their awareness of what elements of the cultural, institutional, or disciplinary

context may need to be ﬁltered or confronted in this local context, or which
may be used to advantage in the learning event (i.e., a particular session in
a course);
• how they can cope with the demands of the institution within which they
operate; and
• their own power and the ways in which this might impact learners singularly
and collectively.

In summary, I value Dewey and Schön’s approaches to reﬂective practice

because both took a pragmatic rather than a theoretical approach to reflection
and reflective practice. In addition, Dewey emphasized evidence-based, sys-
tematic collection of data about practice and then using such evidence to make
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 17

more informed decisions about practice. I also agree with Schön’s additions to
reflecting while doing the action, or reflection-in-action, in that practitioners
should not only reflect after the event. However, I note that both approaches also
have constraints or limitations because they are both ends-based models where
problems must be solved regardless of when they occur (in-action or on-action).
In other words, there is no room for uncertainty and the practitioner seems
somewhat detached from the reflection process. I believe that reflection should
not only begin with seeking answers to a problem but also allow for some kind
of uncertainty in that we may not reach a clear solution. In addition, values
should be interwoven with the reflection process itself. It was with these
constraints that I was prompted to develop the more holistic approach to
reflective practice for language teachers that is outlined in the next section.

2.2 A Holistic Approach to Reﬂecting on Practice for Language

Teachers
Both Dewey’s and Schön’s perspectives on reflection and reflective practice
have had immense influence on my own work, especially the development of
my new framework for reflecting on practice for language teachers (Farrell,
2015). Like Dewey, I consider reflective practice as a form of systematic inquiry
that is rigorous and disciplined, and, like Schön, I am interested in how teachers
“think on their feet” or how they reflect, not only in action and on action, but
also for action. Reflection-for-action is different from reflection-in-action and
reflection-on-action in that it is proactive in nature. Killion and Todnem (1991)
maintain that reflection-for-action can be the desired outcome of both previous
types of reflection. They point out that “we undertake reflection, not so much to
revisit the past or to become aware of the metacognitive process one is experi-
encing (both noble reasons in themselves) but to guide future action (the more
practical purpose)” (p. 15). I have also incorporated reflection-for-action, or
anticipatory reflection, in my framework because, as Stanley (1998) has noted,
all three are what “reflective practitioners do when they look at their work in the
moment (reflect-in-action) or in retrospect (reflect-on-action) in order to exam-
ine the reasons and beliefs underlying their actions and generate alternative
actions for the future” (p. 585).
Dewey’s and Schön’s legacies are important because they moved the concept
of reflection far beyond everyday simple wonderings about a situation (or
mulling over something without taking action) to a more rigorous form of
reflective thinking whereby a teacher systematically investigates a perceived
problem in order to discover a workable solution over time. I realize that I was
attracted to their work because they were very pragmatic in their approaches so

that they could help practicing teachers on the front lines. However, I also saw
a need to explore other modes, approaches, and typologies beyond the confines
(noted in Section 2.1.2) of Dewey’s and Schön’s approaches. With the idea that
reflective practice may not be the same as the practice of reflection, I also
reexamined other models and frameworks (some were follow-ups to Dewey’s
and Schön’s works; others were different) to see if these held any useful points
for me to consider as I attempted to expand my understanding of reflective
practice and the practice of reflection. I outline some of their influences on the
development of my own framework in what follows.
Kolb’s (1984) approach, for example, is influential in that he focuses on
practice and can guide teachers in a systematic way on how to examine the
success or otherwise of their lessons and to seek improvement as a result of such
reflections. While I agree somewhat with this approach and include many of
these elements in my own current framework, Kolb does not take the teacher-as-
person into consideration in terms of his or her identity and the impact of social
and political elements on such reflections. However, his work was further
developed by Gibbs’s (1988) reflective cycle to help with the professional
development of nursing practitioners, and he included the practitioners’ emo-
tions while reflecting. This is a positive addition to the typologies on reflective
practice because there is a consideration of the practitioners’ feelings while
reflecting on a particular experience. I agree with this. However, I would bring it
further and include an emotional/affective aspect of reflection beyond just
reflecting on a particular event or experience to include critical reflection on
all aspects of our work. Thus, I believe we must be on guard against intellec-
tualizing reflection as solely a cognitive process by stepping back too far from
the person-as-teacher who is doing the reflection, and instead recognize the
emotional, affective aspects of reflection. An important addition to the develop-
ment of my framework for reflecting on practice includes this crucial aspect of
reflecting on emotions associated with practice.
I studied Johns’s (1995) model of reflection within the nursing profession and
I agree with him that reflection is “a way of being” or a daily occurrence on
a personal and professional level. As a result, I believe that reflection is not
a one-off event, but a lifelong endeavor for language teachers. That said, I do not
believe that language teachers should engage each day in intensive reflections,
as this would be too much and would probably have a negative effect on their
students’ learning. Rather, I believe that teaching experience should be inter-
spersed with periods of reflection throughout a teacher’s career so that he or she
does not plateau (e.g., see Farrell, 2014). In that manner, and similarly to what
Johns has noted, reflective practice can become a way of life for language
teachers both professionally and personally within their daily lives.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 19

I also agree with Brookfield’s (1995) idea of critical lenses (see also Dewey’s
reflective inquiry in Section 2.1.1), as these lenses give us more insight into
what we as individuals could be unwittingly blocking from our “vision” about
what we do. It may not be easy to look at ourselves professionally, and it is very
difficult to look at ourselves personally, thus bringing in others to facilitate
reflection offers us other views about our practice that we may not be able to
“see” if we reflect alone. When we ask colleagues to help us look, we can
develop a sense of community, and when we ask our students about our
teaching, we are getting them to engage in reflective learning. All this is a win-
win outcome for everyone involved in the community.
One final model that has influenced the development of the framework
outlined later in this Element is the approach to reflective practice proposed
by psychologists Shapiro and Reiff (1993). Their approach focused on
addressing the needs of experienced professionals who wished to get
a better understanding of their practices. Their model outlined a process of
reflective inquiry on practice (RIP). Their process of reflection began at level
1 with an examination of philosophy of practice, or the person behind the
practice. This was followed by level 2 reflections called basic theory (they
considered this less influential than philosophy because it may be derived
from philosophical premises). Level 3 reflections outlined a theory of practice
that also included what they called theory of techniques embedded in
a general approach to practice. This was followed by level 4 reflections called
technique where practitioners reflect on their deliberate professional behavior,
including examining their lectures, role-playing, dialogues, panel discussions,
group problem-solving activities, simulations, and any other activities they
engaged in. Level 5, the final level of reflections, was called interventions or
moves. They suggested that moves are behaviors that are directly observed in
professional practice.
Shapiro and Reiff (1993) maintain that their framework is similar in purpose
to Argyris and Schön’s (1974) reflection and double-loop learning (see
Section 2.1.1) through understanding the various relationships between and
among the different levels of their model to improve professional practice, and
they also note that the reflection should take place in the context of a supportive
group situation (and, as Dewey suggested, in collaboration with others).
However, what is different from the work of Schön (1983, 1987) is, most
notably, that they focus on reflection-on-action – that is, after the event – and
not in-action during the event itself. In addition, their framework was designed
exclusively to help experienced professionals (mostly psychologists) and
encouraged them to engage in Kolb’s (1984) reflective observation so that
they could notice patterns in their practice.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
20 Language Teaching

2.2.1 The Framework

The framework presented in this Element also consists of five stages similar to
Shapiro and Reiff’s (1993) framework; however, these stages focus on different
aspects of reflection after a similar beginning focus on philosophy and I add the
important aspect of critical reflection which I call reflecting beyond practice in
the framework that includes emotional reflection, achieved through appraisal
analysis. In this Element, I have chosen to focus my discussion mainly on
Dewey’s and Schön’s models of reflection, their perspectives, and some of
their shortcomings, because they have been so influential on my work on
reflective practice over the past forty years. I also attempted to incorporate
Gibbs’s (1988) reflection on practitioners’ emotions, Johns’s (1995) consider-
ation of reflection as “a way of being,” Brookfield’s (1995) idea of critical
lenses, and Shapiro and Reiff’s (1993) structured approach to developing the
framework. In addition, I also studied many other approaches, many of which
I conclude overlook the inner lives of teachers. I think this separation of the
reflector from what is being reflected on is the result of reflection being reduced
to a problem-solving activity where the sole aim is to fix rather than understand
the problem. Such a focus on “reflection-as-repair” (Freeman, 2016, p. 217)
reduces reflection to more ritualistic and mechanical technical rationality that
defeats the original spirit of reflection. When students are asked to reflect on
demand by following a sequence of steps outlined in predetermined checklists
or a trajectory of set questions, reflection becomes one-dimensional and is
confined to a retrospective “post-mortem” (Freeman, 2016, p. 217) role. The
result of such approaches to reflection is that teachers have been required for the
most part to follow a set of checklists designed by others when reflecting.
Thus, with this framework, I believe that engaging in reflective practice
should not result in technical, rational teachers; rather it should result in inte-
grated teachers because they have knowledge of who they are (their philoso-
phy), why they do what they do (their principles), what they want to do (their
theory), how they do it (their practice), and what it all means to them within
their community (beyond practice). The framework is outlined in Figure 1.
I now briefly outline each stage.

Philosophy: This first stage maintains, similarly to Shapiro and Reiff’s (1993)
ideas, that practice, both inside and outside the classroom, is invariably guided
by a teacher’s basic philosophy, or the “teacher-as-person,” and that this
philosophy has been developing since birth. Thus, self-knowledge is an essen-
tial first step for teachers in working through the framework, but it is often
overlooked in earlier literature on reflective practice. Teachers can obtain self-
knowledge by exploring, examining, and reflecting on their background – from
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 21

Philosophy

Beyond
Principles
Practice

Practice Theory

Figure 1 Framework for reﬂecting on practice (Farrell, 2015)

where they have evolved – such as heritage, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic

background, family, and personal values that have combined to influence who
they are now as language teachers. Reflecting on their philosophy of practice
can not only help teachers flesh out what has shaped them as human beings, and
how their past experiences may have shaped the construction and development
of their basic philosophy, but it can also help them move onto the next level of
reflection, reflecting on their principles.

Principles: The second stage of the framework, principles, includes reﬂections

on teachers’ assumptions and beliefs about teaching and learning English as
a subsequent language. Teachers’ practices and their classroom instructional
decisions are often formulated and implemented (for the most part subcon-
sciously) on the basis of their underlying assumptions and beliefs because these
are the driving forces (along with philosophy reﬂected on at stage one) behind
many of their classroom actions. Thus, reﬂecting on principles of teaching and
learning enables teachers to uncover their beliefs and gain a deeper awareness of
their teaching practice.

Theory: Theory explores and examines the different choices teachers make
about particular language skills taught (or they think should be taught) or, in
other words, how to put their theories into practice. Influenced by their reflec-
tions on their philosophy and principles, teachers actively begin to construct
their theory of practice. Theory at this stage means that teachers consider the
type of lessons they want to deliver. All language teachers have theories, both
“official” theories we learn in teacher education courses and “unofficial” theor-
ies we gain with teaching experience. However, not all teachers may be fully
aware of these theories, especially their “unofficial” theories that are sometimes
called “theories-in-use.” Reflections at this stage/level in the framework include
considering all aspects of teachers’ planning and the different activities and
methods teachers choose (or may want to choose) as they attempt to put theory
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
22 Language Teaching

into practice. Teachers can also examine critical incidents, or any unplanned
events that happen during a class, outside a class, or during their career, that are
“vividly remembered” (Brookﬁeld, 1990, p. 84). When a critical incident
occurs, it interrupts (or highlights) the taken-for-granted ways of thinking
about teaching and, by analyzing such incidents, language teachers can develop
a clearer understanding of theory and practice. Although I include critical
incidents in this stage, they can be included and do occur throughout the stages
as Playsted (2019) outlined.

Practice: The fourth stage, practice, provides an opportunity for language

teachers to explore what they do in their classrooms and to closely examine
connections between their philosophy, principles, and theory with more visible
actions and thus note any “discrepancy between what we do and what we think
we do” (Knezevic, 2001, p. 10). At this stage/level in the framework,
teachers can reflect while they are teaching a lesson (reflection-in-action),
after they teach a lesson (reflection-on-action), or before they teach
a lesson (reflection-for-action). Although Schön (1983, p. 56) maintained
that reflection-in-action does not have to be “in the medium of words”
(as when jazz musicians “feel” the music), my framework suggests that the
medium of language is probably necessary to describe such reflection because
as Freeman (2016, p. 215) has noted, “languaging reflection-on-action” can
help teachers explain what they do by creating a separation between “the lived
present and a languaged past” (p. 216), thus making the private individual
reflections more public. When teachers engage in reflection-on-action, they are
examining what happened in a lesson after the event has taken place, and this
is a more delayed type of reflection as they go through Dewey’s (1933) steps
in his reflective inquiry model. When teachers engage in reflection-for-action,
they are attempting to reflect before anything has taken place and to anticipate
what may happen and try to account for this before they conduct the lesson.

Beyond practice: The final stage, beyond practice or critical reflection, explores
the moral, political, emotional, ethical, and community/social issues that impact
teachers’ practices both inside and outside the classroom. Beyond practice here
means that language teachers reflect beyond their methods and if they “work” or
not to other issues that they must also deal with on a daily basis, such as
community and political issues that can impact who they are as teachers and
what they do inside and outside their classrooms. Reflections at this stage can
assist teachers in becoming more aware of the many political agendas and
economic interests that can (and do) shape how we define language teaching
and learning. They can become more aware of the impact of their lessons on
their community (this also includes the virtual community) and the impact of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 23

that community on their practice. At this critical reﬂection stage, in this

Element, I have now added more emphasis on how researchers, teachers, and
teacher educators can specifically access, explore, and reflect more precisely on
teacher emotions by examining teachers’ affective language through the lens of
the Appraisal Framework (Martin, 2000; Martin & White, 2005; White, 2000).
A central component of the Appraisal Framework is exploration of language for
expressing attitude that consists of three subsystems: affect, judgment, and
appreciation (White, 2000), with affect referring to the language used for
expressing emotions. I believe that this will better “emotionalize” (Holmes,
2010) the concept of reflective practice so we can better account for the
emotional aspects of professional experiences and for how emotions contribute
to the making of and reflections on professional language teaching practices
(Brookfield, 1995).
The framework is descriptive rather than prescriptive in that it does not
suggest mapping out so-called best practice. As Edwards and Thomas (2010)
cautioned, “reflective practice cannot be a prescriptive rubric of skills to be
taught [to teachers]; in fact, to see it in this way reverts to the very technicist
assumptions reflective practice was meant to exile” (p. 404). Over recent years,
I have conducted such evidence-based holistic reflective practice research using
the framework in Section 2.2.1 (but without specific reference to the emotional
aspects of reflecting on practice that are present in this Element), with the idea
that the teachers will benefit as a means of making their own informed decisions
about teaching (e.g., Farrell & Kennedy, 2019; Farrell & Macaplinac, 2021).

3 Reﬂective Practice in Action

In this section, I introduce the most recent in-depth case study that I conducted
with an EFL teacher in Costa Rica, in Central America, who used the expanded
framework as a lens to reﬂect on his teaching. I also include how I explored his use
of emotive language as he engaged in reﬂective practice throughout the process.

3.1 Background to the Study

The English language has been a prominent focus in education throughout
Central America due to several factors including tourism, economic expansion,
proximity to English-speaking countries, and interest in science and biodiver-
sity (Aguilar-Sánchez, 2005). In 2008, the Costa Rican government ofﬁcially
declared English learning “a matter of national interest” (Campos, 2012,
p. 169). The government has implemented several policies to establish
English as the ﬁrst foreign language and, as a result, teachers must follow the
National Syllabus for English. This syllabus states that English prepares

students to face challenges that require an additional language, gain integrated

knowledge of the world, and actively engage in the global economy to benefit
the country (MEP, 2001). In an effort to make English education more access-
ible in Central America, local governments opened nonprofit binational schools
in most major cities. These schools offer a range of programs for different
audiences, all in alliance with the National Geographic Learning Curriculum
(Inforcostarica, 2000). Notably, there is a scholarship program for students who
are of low socioeconomic status but earned high academic standing after high
school. Most teachers are non-native speakers of English, but they must have an
academic background in teaching, hold a score of 950 on the Test of English for
International Communication (TOEIC), and have at least one year of teaching
experience. English as a foreign language teachers are usually contracted to
teach up to three classes of three hours in length, every day except Sunday.
The teacher highlighted in the case study reported in this Element teaches
EFL to local adult students at a nonprofit binational center for English teaching
in Costa Rica. The institution prioritizes speaking skills and knowledge of L2
English grammar. The teacher, Damien (a pseudonym), has been teaching EFL
for five years and holds a bachelor’s degree in English teaching as a second
language (ETSL) from a local university. Damien expressed interest in this
study after having completed several research projects during his own post-
secondary studies.
The study commenced in 2020 shortly after the global outbreak of the
COVID-19 pandemic when Damien had hitherto been teaching in traditional
classrooms. Upon receiving news of government-mandated school closures,
Damien transitioned all instruction to synchronous online learning beginning in
March 2020. Students in existing classes were expected to participate in virtual
classes from their home computers using a video conference platform for the
remainder of the academic term. In addition to school closures, nonessential
businesses in many countries suspended operations or exercised restrictions and
directed employees to work from home. Damien moved to using the online
platform Zoom from his home.
Data collection took place over one month and included semi-structured
interviews and follow-up interviews that were subsequently transcribed, written
reflection tasks, and virtual classroom observations in line with Farrell’s (2015)
reflective framework.2 Responses were sought to a main research question –
what are Damien’s reflections as expressed through his philosophy, principles,
theory, practice, and beyond practice? Six interviews were conducted: one
preinterview to clarify basic information and five follow-up interviews

2
My thanks to Connie Stanclik for help with data collection and initial interpretation of data

following each stage of the reflective practice framework. All interviews were
conducted and recorded via Zoom and lasted between thirty and forty-five
minutes (Maxwell, 1992). In addition, three different classes per week were
observed and recorded on Zoom and each class was later transcribed. Damien
also completed six written reflection tasks (by e-mail) that explored his phil-
osophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond practice, and these were later
used as springboards for questions in follow-up interviews.
Data were coded using a priori theory to structure initial levels of the coding
scheme and later organized into different categories according to the stage of
framework for reflective practice, which was, “open, axial, and selective”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 200). In order to make sense of the data, recurring patterns
were then grouped and compared against the research question. In addition, for
each observed lesson, I had access to Damien’s lesson plan to help analyze the
objectives and compare his intentions with what he actually delivered during the
lesson. Member checking was used as a means of confirming the validity of
the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I shared Damien’s complete descriptive
reflections (i.e., the findings outlined in Section 3.2) with him so that he could
reflect on these descriptions without any comments, analysis, or interpretations.
I believe that teachers constructing their own meaning, understanding, and
knowledge of their practice is more important than creating a condition of
what Fanselow (1988) has called “learned helplessness” (p. 145), when others
provide the analysis. Fanselow notes that providing “help” can not only lead to
resentment but can also stop the exploration of teaching that reflective practice
is designed to encourage. As Fanselow (1988) explains, “helpful prescriptions
can stop exploration, since the receiver, as someone in an inferior position being
given orders by someone in a superior position, may easily develop the ‘ours is
not to wonder why’ syndrome” (p. 114).

3.2 Findings (Damien’s Reﬂections)

The ﬁndings are presented as answers to the main research question: what are
Damien’s reﬂections as expressed through his philosophy, principles, theory,
practice, and beyond practice?

3.2.1 Philosophy
Damien said his family members have been influential in his life, specifically
when they encouraged him to pursue teaching because, in his view, they
believed he possessed the necessary traits to succeed in the field. He shared
that, during his teacher education program, he had had positive experiences. He
also noted that he was involved in conducting multiple research projects and

that, as a result, he was excited when he heard about this opportunity to

participate in a reflective practice study. Damien viewed his participation in
this study, and specifically the concept of reflective practice, as a new skill for
him to learn.
Reflecting on the self, Damien described himself as a good listener. He
believes that he has always possessed this trait and that it comes from a desire
to help and learn from others. He expressed that meeting new people since
becoming a teacher has exposed him to new experiences and expanded his
natural sense of curiosity. He said that throughout his career, he hopes “to learn
about all things” that will help him develop his practice. Damien recounted that
some of his prior jobs in the service industry solidified his desire to help others
and he had established high ethical standards for himself as a professional.
Related to setting high ethical standards for himself, Damien also maintained
that he has a perfectionist attitude and therefore often found himself frustrated
when he began teaching. However, he did not elaborate on what aspects of
teaching frustrated him at this time of the project other than noting that teachers
should not be totally responsible for providing positive learning opportunities
and that institutions also have such a responsibility. He did nonetheless elabor-
ate in the post-project interview about current frustrations related to his teaching
situation that would eventually lead him to stop teaching at this institute after
the project ended. I discuss this in more detail later in this section.

3.2.2 Principles

Regarding language learning, Damien remarked that he believes such learning

should occur in a friendly and positive environment where students are encour-
aged to express themselves freely. He relayed that giving students opportunities
to express their opinions and interests helps them learn “just to be able to
communicate in the language” without fear of making mistakes. He believes
learning should be fun, and he enjoys sharing activities and information stu-
dents may ﬁnd interesting in their free time, such as pop culture content or news
articles related to topics discussed in class. Damien noted that this principle has
been helpful for him in the transition to online learning, as the new medium has
impacted the atmosphere of his classroom:

Before online classes, it was super easy and everything in the classroom was
a very nice atmosphere. The last bi-mester was the ﬁrst one we started
teaching online. I had a couple of complications also with a couple of
students. Nothing too serious, nothing that I would stress over a lot. This bi-
mester, I thought it was going to be easier, and it was in some ways, but the
type of students made it a little difﬁcult.

Next, Damien talked about language teaching and that he believes that teaching
through what he called “communicative learning” gives him more flexibility to
gauge his students’ needs. Damien also noted the importance of balancing his
students’ needs with job expectations. While he noted that his institution sets
clear guidelines and learning goals, Damien believes that “not everyone learns
the same way, especially in the type of classes we have.” This motivates him to
consider the needs of different students. Furthermore, he reported that “most
important, the people [who] come to our place are also from companies and so
they need English for different purposes.” Thus, he remarked, it is important for
him to be aware of these purposes in order to tailor his practice to specific needs
and goals as they emerge. “I have different ways to present the information to
students, so it is understandable, and everyone [somehow] gets the idea at the
end.” This articulates his belief about the efficacy of communicative learning
while simultaneously revealing a degree of uncertainty because the curriculum
does not always accommodate this. Admittedly, he said that he cannot always
address every student’s specific needs, but he believes that being flexible and
adaptive is the key to navigating needs as they are encountered. Damien also
noted that he believes building rapport with students is an important aspect of
language teaching. He admitted that it was challenging to connect with students
during his first year of teaching but that now, five years on, he views connnec-
tion as a tool for gaining a greater understanding of how best to deliver his
lessons.
Because the institution Damien works in prioritizes speaking skills, Damien
talked about his beliefs related to teaching this skill. However, he also said that
he believes that his students should also have a good knowledge of L2 English
grammar, noting that he continues to include this in his teaching. Regarding the
teaching of L2 speaking, Damien said that teaching L2 speaking should enable
learners to use the language in meaningful ways because the students in his class
“need the language for something, irrespective of individual purposes.” He
explained that this requires him to learn more about his students’ learning styles
and purposes for attending class, which can vary greatly depending on the size
of the class. He also noted that, while teaching L2 speaking he has an important
role in managing interaction, he said:

There is as much chance for interaction as the teacher allows it. I feel like
I have a lot of control over (and maybe can monitor better) the time I allow for
interaction. However, this is something that has to be well designed
beforehand.

Damien believes that managing interaction should be a curated step in the

lesson-planning process, especially in online classrooms. He said teachers are

responsible for creating an environment where student-to-student interaction is

plentiful and expressed that he is always trying to encourage more of it in the
midst of online learning.
Damien further noted that while teaching L2 speaking, using L1 to facilitate
comprehension for low-level learners is important. Although his institution
employs an “English only” policy, Damien maintained that incorporating
some L1 is necessary when accommodating low-level students struggling
with comprehension and output. He recalled that “there are a couple of students
who are having a hard time and I cannot just leave them behind.” Moreover, he
justiﬁed that utilizing L1 at times is the most realistic and practical approach to
addressing immediate needs and that pushing students beyond their current
capabilities may have negative repercussions:

I was having a hard time having them speak English. So that was my only
concern this bi-mester (term), that a lot of them would fail and I guess they’re
going to fail, unfortunately. But it’s for the best because if they go to another
level when they are not prepared, it’s going to be more difﬁcult for them and
for the next teacher too.

Regarding L2 grammar, Damien expressed that students’ understanding basic

grammar rules is essential for good L2 proﬁciency. When asked about how
knowledge of grammar builds linguistic competence, he remarked, “there are
some patterns that we need to recognize to learn a language, but the way every
individual manages to recognize these patterns varies.” While overall Damien
follows a communicative approach to his teaching, he also believes that L2
grammar has an important role in creating a framework for language learning,
which he acknowledged is “recognized and interpreted differently among
learners.” Damien also contended that recognizing grammar patterns and prac-
ticing language are important. He recounted that making time to practice new
grammar concepts is something he always aims to incorporate in his teaching.
Since transitioning to online learning, Damien assigns certain grammar activ-
ities for homework that would have previously been completed during class. He
said that he does this to “take advantage of (class) time for practice and for
speaking, because sometimes reviewing this grammar takes a lot of time from
the class.” By teaching this way, he is still adhering to institution guidelines for
using class time to focus on speaking skills. Damien ensures his students receive
adequate opportunities to learn and practice language patterns in order to
deepen their understanding of L2 grammar.
Damien’s beliefs are primarily grounded in his experience of what works best
in the classroom and his institution’s established practices (Richards &
Lockhart, 1994). He recounted that his daily work experiences and the

experiences of his colleagues impact his teaching beliefs but ultimately he

chooses to uphold established practices while maintaining some of his own
beliefs. “At the end of the day, I teach based on the expectations from my
workplace because we have to comply with certain standards, but I try to make
space for my own beliefs.” Using his experiences to make decisions and
adhering to his institution’s expectations reinforces his recurrent belief that
ﬂexibility is an important attribute of a successful teacher.

3.2.3 Theory

Damien reﬂected on his lesson-planning and delivery procedures in his class-

room and said that his primary concerns when planning are trying to achieve all
the goals and outcomes emphasized at his institution and assessments, which he
admitted rarely happens. Damien tries to engage in “forward planning,” where
lesson content has precedence over teaching methods and activities. In other
words, the teacher begins by identifying the content to be taught and only then
decides activities and methods to be used to achieve this plan, which is assessed
at the end of the lesson. Such planning is generally used at institutions with
mandated curricula and textbooks and centrally designed assessments
(Richards, 2013). Damien mentioned that he takes a more general approach to
planning now that his institution does not require teachers to submit a detailed
lesson plan for each class as it did in the past. Although he has had opportunities
to teach many courses over his ﬁve-year career at the institution, Damien
relayed that he continues to revise his planning procedures.

If it’s a level that I haven’t taught in a while, then I just try to maybe read what
I planned for those classes and if I have some new ideas, I deﬁnitely get rid of
the old ones and try to implement ideas that would work better now in this
context for students. And so that’s basically what I do.

Reviewing his past work serves as a reminder of what works well and what
requires adjustment. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, planning for online
classes has taken a new form. Damien explained that planning fewer,
meaningful activities via online learning has been more effective than
attempting to do the same number of activities that were done in the
traditional classroom.
Damien reported that he has approached critical incidents with various
solutions and believes that they are opportunities “to set the mood and be
a beacon of what we want to achieve every term.” In his experience,
reducing the use of L1 in the classroom has presented various challenges
and incidents (which he did not elaborate on) at different proﬁciency levels,
leading to moments that have shaped his outlook on the issue (see principles
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
30 Language Teaching

in Section 3.2.2 for comments on use of L1 in his classroom). After evaluat-

ing and experimenting with competing advice from colleagues, Damien
concludes that teachers must know their students best and should use what
will motivate their particular students to resolve difﬁculties.

3.2.4 Practice

For the practice stage of reﬂection, three lessons of three hours each in length
were observed. All lessons, topics, vocabulary, and grammar structures are
predetermined on a course syllabus given by the institution. The teacher is
required to cover the syllabus but has the freedom to design activities to
present the material. Table 1 summarizes Damien’s observed practices (on
Zoom).
As indicated in Table 1, Damien did not always follow his lesson plans and
diverged in two of his observed classes. He explained in the post-observation
interviews that his divergence was because of timing issues related to deliver-
ing online lessons that he was still dealing with; however, he ensures all
necessary material is covered, even if it means “extra work for next time,”
resulting in the pace of instruction being altered. He noted that “as long as my
students learn” was the most important goal; he does not view deviations from
his original lesson plan as a negative thing. He explained that timing has been
severely impacted by the transfer to online learning because of COVID. “Time
goes by a little faster in online platforms if we are not well aware of it.” He also
reported spending considerably more time on giving and clarifying instruc-
tions in oral, visual, and written forms within the online platform. However,
one other observed notable deviation from the original lesson plan was in
his second lesson when he intentionally cut one activity to spend more time
than he initially planned to review a grammar concept from the previous class.
When asked about this choice in the post-lesson interview, Damien said that he
remembered that a couple of students were absent from the lesson when he
introduced the grammar concept and that he wanted them to review it and have
the opportunity to address any problems. Despite this deviation, Damien’s
lessons seemed to achieve his intended goals by maintaining focus on the
outcomes while adjusting to unanticipated needs.
Damien was also observed giving feedback and correcting oral errors
throughout, as well as incorporating his students’ cultural background into
the activities. He made use of small group interactions, ensured the students
remained on task as much as possible, and remained engaged in informal
interactions with his students. He gave students opportunities to speak, either
by asking for volunteers or by eliciting responses, followed by any necessary

Table 1 Damien’s Observed Practices

Observed Practices Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3

Follow lesson plans N N O
Provide feedback O O O
Correct oral errors O O O
Incorporate students’ cultural and/or O O O
background knowledge into activities
Be available to students O O O
Engage in informal interactions with N O N
students
Keep on task O O O
Perform small group activities O O O
Address individual learners needs/ O O O
questions
Allow L1 O O O
Teacher Question Types
Total number of questions asked 90 80 141
Display questions 27 27 66
Referential questions 33 25 41
Questions checking comprehension 19 18 20
Use of “Okay/Right?” 5 6 5
Rephrased/Reformulated questions 2 0 1
Other questions (e.g., informal 4 4 8
conversation)
Elicitations
Total number of elicitations 82 76 121
Correction/Recasts (Oral) 23 12 41
Positive feedback 21 7 21

Note: O: Observed; N: Not observed

corrections and positive feedback, and he allowed his students to use their L1
when answering (Turns 7 to 14 in what follows) without any punishment, as
exempliﬁed in the following excerpt from the ﬁrst observation:

Excerpt 1

1. St: Inﬂuenza, or ﬂu, is caused by a virus. So “seein” . . . how do you pronounce?

2. T: You can pronounce “scientists.”
3. St: Scientists have to make a new vaccine every year.

4. T: Okay, very good, excellent. So here it says that “influenza, or the flu.” Remember
I told you flu is short for influenza. And can you guys pronounce it “cost”?
5. Ss: Cost.
6. T: Similar to when you are talking like about the price. I’m going to write it here.
7. St: [Using L1], teacher?
8. T: What is the meaning?
9. St: [Using L1]
10. T: Yes, but, [L1]. What is the meaning for?
11. St: Cost.
12. T: [Using L1]. Remember, what is the meaning for?
13. St: What is the meaning for cost?
14. T: It means [using L1].

Note: T: teacher; Ss: multiple students; St: speciﬁc student

Students were also observed working in small groups using a feature of the
video conference platform that creates smaller sessions within the main
conference call. This provided opportunities for increased interaction with
each other and with the teacher at a lower student-to-teacher ratio. Although
Damien believes that students would have more interaction in a traditional
classroom, he utilizes this feature to his advantage when implementing dis-
cussion activities, which he said have been “less successful” in the online
classroom. While students worked in small groups, Damien moved from one
session to another to keep students on task and to evaluate the efﬁcacy of the
activities.
Related to timing issues, Damien repeatedly remarked that time management
is a recurrent issue and that online learning requires a more practical approach.
He noted that focusing on simpler activities to achieve learning goals is a better
use of his students’ time, rather than trying to accomplish the same activities he
once planned for traditional classroom delivery. Damien is certain that his
students are comfortable informing him if they do not understand instruction,
feedback, or new concepts, even with the additional obstacles of online learn-
ing. Evidence of this is found is his extensive use of questions and elicitations
(although it should be pointed out that many times there was overlap between all
question types in each lesson), also summarized in Table 1. Damien asked
mostly display questions (39 percent of all questions) to address comprehension
and incorporated referential questions (32 percent) and comprehension-
checking questions (24 percent) that kept students engaged and promoted the
high degree of interaction observed in all three lessons. His preference for
prompting more student talk was most notably demonstrated through frequent
elicitations during the third lesson (121 elicitations). The following excerpt
provides an example:

Excerpt 2

T: All right. Can you also pronounce here “quiet”?

Ss: Quiet.
T: Very good. Number 4. Who can read four?
St: Yes?
T: Who’s going to read 4?
St: How does Derek Sieber say people feel when they share their life plan?
T: Mhm. How do people feel when they say, when they share their life plan? Can you
pronounce “share”?
Ss: Share.
T: Good. So, the ﬁrst one says frightened. Can you pronounce “frightened”?
Ss: Frightened.
St: What is the meaning of frightened?
T: Frightened is like scared. Do you know scared?
Ss: Yes.
T: Yeah, like [using L1].
Ss: Frightened.
T: Frightened. I’m going to write the pronunciation. Frightened. The second one, you
pronounce it “cheerful.”
Ss: Cheerful.
Ss: [Using L1].
T: Yes, similar to happy, that’s correct. Cheerful.
St: Cheerful.
T: And what is the last one?
St: Easy, B.
St: Sad.
Ss: [Using L1].
T: Yeah, if you want to say that, you say “tired.”
Ss: Tired.
T: You write it like this and you pronounce it like this: “tired.”
Ss: Tired.
T: No, not tie-red. Tired.
Ss: Tired.

Note: T: teacher; Ss: multiple students; St: speciﬁc student

Furthermore, Damien was observed using Lesson 3 to complete the tasks he

did not accomplish in the ﬁrst two lessons due to the time constraints he
mentioned. Although making up for lost time resulted in little informal
interaction with students, the signiﬁcant number of display questions
(sixty-six instances) he used in this lesson is probably an indication that
he wanted to check for his students’ understanding, but it is also noted that
he used referential questions (forty-one instances) in this lesson in order to
encourage interaction in meaningful ways rather than just checking their
comprehension.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
34 Language Teaching

3.2.5 Beyond Practice

Damien noted in his critical reflections beyond practice that language
education institutions should uphold high ethical standards to ensure that
students’ language learning experiences are not exclusively the responsi-
bility of the teachers. I am not sure what Damien was referring to regarding
his use of “ethical standards” and the role of the institution in which he
worked, but he seemed to be struggling with the commercial aspects of
language education and his sense of personal responsibility to provide
a meaningful educational experience for his students. Damien suggested
in one of the interviews that both the school and the teachers should share
this responsibility and create a positive learning environment that yields
success for the students. Although asked to elaborate, he did not give any
further details of what he was thinking. Specifically related to language
schools, Damien remarked that while he understands their need to get new
students, he was conflicted between the business side of making money
and providing a good experience for students learning English. He said that
he had experienced this before in his previous career, where marketing
systems in place promised more than they could deliver to the customer,
and now he is worried about how institutions advertise as a business and
less as an educational institution. “We still have to give them good service
and give them some benefit, at least the benefit of knowledge.”
While suggesting that he is in a challenging profession, Damien said
that he appreciates the growth and learning he has experienced since
entering the teaching profession (but did not give specific examples) and,
as a result, no longer underestimates the influence teachers have on their
students and, as an extension, on society as well. This has helped him
take responsibility for his role as an impartial judge in the classroom. He
described his relationship with students as “friendly and inviting” and
acts “as impartial[ly] as possible in every aspect” to ensure any personal
bias does not influence learning decisions. He explained that certain
reflection-in-action choices must be made in response to students’ reac-
tions and that his beliefs about teaching and learning should not interfere
with their immediate needs. Notably, Damien’s role as a motivator has
undergone some changes with the adoption of online learning and limited
face-to-face interaction.

I truly believe that it is necessary to know our student audience and reﬂect on
our teaching practices. I also believe that our role as a teacher is to be
a facilitator of knowledge, and so we need to ﬁnd the best way to transmit
this to students.

When asked about how he manages new challenges, he stated that he realizes
some issues are “totally out of [his] control,” such as students refusing to
interact and participate in the virtual classroom. He maintains that the onset of
new learning standards does not change his role as a motivator and that,
similarly to his early teaching experiences, patience and experience have
made it possible to build rapport in the presence of obstacles.
As mentioned in the “beyond practice” explanation of the framework
(Section 2.2.1), I have recently added how researchers, teachers, and
teacher educators can (and should) examine the emotional aspects of
reflective practice. I therefore wondered about Damien’s use of emotive
language while he was reflecting on his teaching. I outline this aspect of
his reflections in this beyond practice stage. I focus the analysis on affect
because emotions are usually experienced in the context of affect. Affect
is defined as “a feeling encompassing a variety of moods and emotional
states that help form the emotional makeup of an individual” (Robbins,
Judge, & Campbell, 2017, p. 261). I analyzed all Damien’s reflections at
each stage for affective language using White’s (2000) approach, which
include examining the data for adverbials: “happily,” “angrily,” “fear-
fully,” “proudly”; attributes: “I’m sad.” “He’s frightened of spiders”;
nominals: “His fear was obvious to all”; and verbs: “This pleases me.”
“I hate chocolate.” Thus, by applying the categories of affect to the
linguistic expressions that appeared in Damien’s reflections, I was able
to take a deeper look into his use of affective language.
For the most part the results indicate that many of the attitudes Damien
expressed as affect were negative expressions. In the philosophy stage, for
example, when he was talking about himself as a teacher or person-as-
teacher, he said he was frustrated (coded attributes) as in the following
sentence: “I try to be perfectionist and often get frustrated when things don’t
go as expected when students are learning the language.” He also talked
about how he had to follow course objectives and how this conflicted
sometimes with more practical goals. “Let me see how I can put this. . . .
Of course we need to follow . . . the goals that each unit of the book has, but
I don’t know.” Need (to follow) was coded as a verb in this instance. Related
to the topic of having to follow the curriculum, other words were coded as an
attribute such as the word expected when he said: “It’s [curriculum] some-
thing that we are expected to follow every time. It’s like part of the planning
steps that we have. So we should always follow . . . that model.” He also used
the attribute unfair when he was reflecting on his lack of opportunity to
advance within the institution because of the system it uses when consider-
ing promotion of teachers. “To get a promotion [is] based on . . . our scores
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
36 Language Teaching

and surveys and everything. And sometimes I think it’s unfair that it’s all on
us.” More negative attributes such as boring and tiring were used by Damien
too when considering his present position as a teacher.
In addition, when he reflected on the clash between his personal ethics and
those of the institution in which he worked, he used the attributes angry and
offended as in the following sentence: “I’ve actually been kind of angry at
the type of advertising they’ve been doing for online courses lately. I mean,
at least me as a person . . . as an outsider coming to the institution and seeing
this, I would feel like kind of offended to be honest.” In the beyond practice
stage too, which focused on his critical reflections of his working conditions,
he expressed most dissatisfaction with the extra work he had to do as a result
of COVID such as his use of a lot (coded as attribute) in the sentence:
“Before we would address things there in the moment, but now there’s a lot
of forms to fill out, emails to read and respond.” Damien also used an
attribute to call the pandemic heavy as in the following sentence: “I think
that it’s [the pandemic] heavy on the mind I would say because it’s like
a recurring thought.”
That said, when Damien talked about his students, he expressed more
positive language attributes and he showed how much he wanted them to
have a good experience with him as their teacher as well as to learn the
language. For example, he reflected (perhaps having made his decision to
leave the school at this point?), “When I leave this school, my students and
colleagues will remember me for being a good friend, [for] always being
receptive, and for caring about them.” He also used more positive verbs when
he said, “It’s because you want them to really be competent in the language”
and “I’m actually happy that at least some of them are and they tell me in
class, ‘Oh, teacher, I just completed this exercise and this and this and this
really helped, or it helped me understand the topic better.’” This analysis of
Damien’s affective language indicates that when he talked about and reflected
on the institution, he used more negative attributes such as “angry,” “unfair,”
and/or “boring,” but when he talked about and reflected on his students, he
used more positive affective language such as “receptive,” “caring,” and/or
“fun.” I return to this aspect of the reflective process in the section that
follows.

3.3 Discussion
The foregoing sections outlined Damien’s journey through all five stages of the
framework for reflecting on practice. Themes that emerged in the findings detail
the interconnections and recurring patterns as expressed through his philosophy,

principles, theory, practice, and critical reflection. The section then outlines and
discusses prominent themes that emerged in Damien’s reflections.
A common theme that occurred across all five stages of the framework is the
importance of building rapport with students. Indeed, this was evident begin-
ning in his reflection on philosophy and throughout subsequent stages, when he
reported that interaction with students and colleagues is the best part of his job.
After being raised in a family that he described as “strict,” Damien learned
through his teaching job that he genuinely enjoys meeting new people and
learning from them. His interpersonal tendencies transferred to his principles, as
evident in his frequent references to valuing students’ purposes for learning and
taking time to inquire about this to ensure he provides a positive learning
experience. Damien’s theory divulged challenges to building rapport, specific-
ally in the context of online learning. Unlike his approach to traditional class-
room teaching, Damien reported that he has recently been incorporating humor
in his virtual classes to build rapport and increase both student–student inter-
action and teacher–student interaction. Since beginning online teaching,
Damien’s planning procedures have remained focused on learning goals and
outcomes with the additional dimension of striving to increase interaction. In
practice, Damien was observed building rapport with students through informal
interactions and frequent use of referential questions. Additionally, he articu-
lated positive feedback and acknowledged students’ efforts in various tasks.
Another theme that occurred across all five stages of Damien’s reflections
was his continued referencing to teaching to students’ needs. Damien stated that
it is his responsibility to deliver a positive learning experience wherein his
students learn successfully. His desire to help others, as discussed in his
philosophy, began in childhood and continues to shape his practice. This has
shaped his belief that every student has unique needs and experiences that play
a part in the language classroom, presenting him with the task of balancing their
needs with curriculum expectations. These philosophies and principles align
with Damien’s theories of adapting lesson plans to suit the needs of his
respective students. To learn about his students’ needs, Damien asked about
their goals and intentions during the first week of classes. In practice, Damien
used L1 on multiple occasions to provide adequate and simple explanations to
low-level students, followed by a repetition in L2. In doing so, he demonstrated
his commitment to making decisions based on students’ needs rather than on
institutional expectations.
Balancing job expectations and students’ needs frequently emerged as
a concern when Damien described his practice, notably because he identified
issues with regard to the rapid pace of courses. For teachers, the relational and
indeed emotional investment involved in teaching includes constant monitoring
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
38 Language Teaching

and listening (and sometimes eliciting) to how their students are feeling and
evaluating if they need assistance with their learning; as Isenbarger and
Zembylas (2006, p. 123) have observed, “taking the time to listen to students’
problems or worries, giving advice or guidance to them.” During the third
lesson observation, Damien did not diverge from his lesson plan and finished
activities that were left incomplete from the previous classes. His students
achieved the target learning goals for the lesson, but he did not have time to
engage in informal interaction with students the same way he did in the previous
classes. Overall, Damien’s philosophies, principles, and theories about teaching
to students’ needs were actualized in his practice and further developed in
critical reflection.
Damien reflected on his role as a teacher as being one who finds appropriate
strategies to transmit knowledge so that others understand. Damien’s journey
through the five stages of the framework revealed a primarily cohesive narrative
as indicated in his philosophy, principles, theory, and critical reflection and as
executed in his classroom practices. Although Damien diverged somewhat from
prepared lesson plans in two classes, this may be attributed to issues of time
management, although his tendency to address each inquiry in detail was likely
another contributing factor. Damien did not interpret this as a bad thing, stating,
“they’re all very interested in learning and I appreciate that as well because they
like to joke and make fun, but they are also committed to learning.” Indirectly,
his attention to individual students embodies the theme of building rapport.
Through critical reflection, Damien reiterated that it is integral for teachers to
know and understand their students to be effective educators. Damien’s desire to
build rapport is demonstrated in his practice behaviors and through consistent
allusion throughout his philosophy, principles, theory, and critical reflection. In
addition, he critically reflected on the ethics of teaching in an industry motivated
by money and his personal ethics of always striving to provide a good learning
experience for his students.
Damien’s reflection demonstrates the complex nature of beliefs held by
teachers that are sometimes in opposition of one another. Farrell and Tan
(2008) explored such complex beliefs, reporting that “beliefs exert different
degrees of power and influence on the teacher’s final classroom practices”
(p. 369). For example, the theme of teaching to students’ needs remained
prevalent as one of Damien’s personal beliefs but conflicted with his tendency
for adherence to job expectations and curriculum guidelines. While his institu-
tion employs an “English only policy,” Damien maintains, students struggle at
low levels and he does not intend to “leave them behind” by eliminating all L1
in the classroom. Again, his principles conflict with the established practices at
his institution, but in this case, he prioritizes students’ needs ahead of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 39

expectations. Notably, Damien used every instance of student-initiated L1 to

model the L2 form, which exemplified both his desire to build rapport and his
preference for teaching to students’ needs. These clashes between Damien’s
underlying principles and institutional practices also appeared in the post-
project interviews when he noted his institution’s tendency to blame its teachers
if the students express any negativities rather than taking responsibility itself.
He gave as an example “delivering books on time to classes,” which is not
teachers’ fault. Indeed, and as Colnerud (2015) has noted, sometimes the
stipulated procedures and practices set by institutions in which teachers work
present constraints that make it difficult for teachers like Damien to act in ways
that are consistent with their morals.
Garton and Richards (2008) have noted that “the way teachers talk about their
experiences is fundamental to understanding how a teacher’s knowledge influ-
ences what happens in the context of their work” (xxii). Thus, I used the
Appraisal Framework to explore Damien’s affective language throughout the
period of reflection, and results of this extra focus indicate that he tended to use
“strong” emotions when expressing some of his ethical dilemmas. This finding
seems to have become even more important for the study as I learned indirectly
that shortly after taking part in this reflection project, Damien resigned from the
institution, and I also learned that he has taken a break from teaching altogether.
The analysis of the affective language he used seems to indicate that perhaps he
was already heading in such a direction given the mostly recurring strong (and
mostly negative) emotions he expressed in many instances as he reflected on his
teacher self through his interactions within his intuitional context. As Teng
(2017) has noted, “strong emotions may motivate a teacher to take actions that
he or she would not normally perform” (p. 118). However, I did not have any
further contact with Damien beyond the member checks I did with him when
I presented the findings outlined in this Element for his comments; he did not
comment on his use of language at that time or on his intentions to leave the
institute or teaching altogether.
Teachers as emotional beings are moved by aspects of their work because
they are passionate about their practice, and Damien expressed his passion for
teaching throughout his reflections. Within the field of language teaching (and
with much of the research on reflective practice), however, this (emotional)
reality of teaching has not been acknowledged much, and in some instances, it
has even been devalued by some administrators who consider the work of
English language teaching as only teaching language. Damien has also indi-
cated that this aspect of his contribution had not been recognized or valued at the
managerial and administration level at his institution. Indeed, emotions are
often at the “epicenter” or heart of teaching (Agudo, 2019; Hargreaves, 2000),
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
40 Language Teaching

yet language teaching professional and managerial discourse has often neg-
lected this aspect of teachers’ well-being in terms of their personal and emo-
tional investment in their practice. Good teachers are not well-oiled machines,
and good teaching is not just a matter of knowing the subject matter or being
able to use all the latest techniques while teaching, or even being efficient. Good
teaching is an emotionally charged event where teachers connect with each
student as they passionately deliver their lesson in a pleasurable environment
(Farrell, 2019b).
Perhaps the research on teaching reflection should move toward a greater
understanding of the teacher self and how teachers’ emotions can become sites
of resistance and even self-transformation, both of which may be evident in the
data related to Damien’s search for self-knowledge through the lens of reflective
practice. Although both Dewey and Schön acknowledged the place of emotions
in reflective practice, they did not implement any aspects of reflective practice
linked to teacher emotions, and indeed, since its reemergence in the field of
education, reflective practice research has focused on reflection as a cognitive
act that responds to routine teaching “problems” where the teacher as an
emotional being is separated from the act of teaching. Because emotions are
“core” (Holmes, 2010, p. 147) to reflective practice in the context of teaching
practice, Hargreaves (2000) maintains, “cognitive reflection can help us guide
and moderate our emotions and sometimes even wilfully move us into another
emotional state by deciding to brood or cheer ourselves” (p. 412).
Thus, as Teng (2017) reminds us, because “emotions are part of the very
fabric that constitutes the teacher’s self” (p. 118), it is important to include the
emotional arena within the realm of reflective practice, especially as we critic-
ally reflect on the context of our practice as occurred within Damien’s (emo-
tional) reflections outlined in Section 3.2.5. Reflective practice in language
teaching research and practice can add this layer of emotionalizing reflection
as a theoretical and practical tool and generate more empirical explorations and
articulations of emotion dynamics of reflective practice as an integral part of
encouraging language teachers to reflect. However, because emotions are not
only located within the individual who is reflecting, but also are embedded in
and expressed through affective discourse in human interactions and relation-
ships within institutions, we need further research on how language teachers
feel about the emotional aspect of teaching within a particular context or
institution, and how they feel about the various relationships within that context
that teachers have with their students, peers, and administrators. I believe that
the use of the Appraisal analysis and, specifically, a focus on affect (I have
included it in stage 5, “beyond practice”) can provide another resource for
enhancing the effectiveness of reflective practice for the development of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 41

language teachers. When language teachers are encouraged to reﬂect on their

philosophy, principles, theory, and practice and to critically reflect beyond practice
to include emotional responses at all five stages, this, as Harrison and Lee (2011)
point out, shifts the notion of reflective practice from the psychological processes
of an individual towards questions that are both moral and technical in nature . . .
and highlights critical reflective practices as social [and emotional] acts of
empowerment” (p. 201).

4 Moving Forward with Reﬂective Practice: Possibilities

for Further Dialogue
The final section concludes the Element by considering how we can move
forward with reflective practice in language teaching. Over the years, some
scholars in language teaching have wondered if engaging in reflective practice
will improve the overall quality of teaching, and if reflection will result in better
teaching performance (Akbari, 2007; Borg, 2011). These are very important
questions to ask but even more difficult to answer because, when one says
“improve quality” or “better performance” for teaching, there is an assumption
somewhere that there is some agreed-upon standard out there that is noticeable
and measurable and that achieving it will ensure “quality” teaching of some
kind.
As mentioned in Section 3.1, I shared the findings of each stage with Damien
for his reflections and comments back if he so desired. Damien made the
following brief comments after reading each stage: “it was useful to me to
reflect on each of the stages as it helps me become more aware and selective of
what I do in the class every day.” The main point of conducting such evidence-
based reflective practice research is to encourage language teachers at all stages
of their careers to engage in reflection so that the teacher will benefit from it. As
Damien noted, “it is great to see all the pieces together as part of a big jigsaw
puzzle.” Engaging in reflective practice will generate awareness of what
a teacher is doing, and as a result of this awareness teachers can make informed
decisions about what they would like to “improve” based on that evidence.
Again, as Damien observed after reading these findings, he needs to be “more
observant and keep a visible track of what I am doing in order to outdo myself
every time and not end up doing the same over and over but being more
malleable into the best of daily practices.”
Some years ago, Argyris and Schön (1974) maintained that the overall
purpose of reflection is for the creation of a world that more faithfully reflects
its beliefs and values. So engaging in reflective practice allows accountability
based on evidence for all stakeholders involved but, most importantly, it gives

voice to individual teachers who may have been silenced along the way in their
own professional development trajectory. As Damien reflected on his reflec-
tions (Section 3.2), he noted, “I feel it is a good thing to take the time to stop and
reflect on our teaching practices every now and then.” After such reflections on
practice, language teachers can consider what they want to align more within
their own principles and practices, and thus become generators of practical
knowledge, adding to the incomplete knowledge base of language teaching. In
addition, and as noted in the previous section, teaching is an emotional act
where teachers’ emotional experiences can be opportunities to articulate emo-
tions, but such emotional awareness can also help them consider which positive
emotions they value and which negative emotions they wish to avoid. Indeed,
research has noted that it is more difficult for teachers to reduce negative
emotions (such as anger and stress) than to convey positive emotions (such as
joy and enthusiasm) when working with students (Freznel et al., 2016). By
engaging in reflective practice, language teachers can develop such emotional
awareness, and this can assist them to generate more positive emotions so that
they can minimize stress and enhance their well-being.
It is possible that Damien’s reflective journey through the lens of the frame-
work presented in this Element may have led him to ultimately leave the
institution where he was teaching; however, I am not able to verify this
assumption. I wonder what may have transpired if I as a facilitator had engaged
more with Damien throughout the reflective process about his emotions (both
positive and negative) and helped him to develop more “emotional flexibility”
(Mackenzie, 2002, p. 186), which could have had a different result than his
decision to leave the institution (and ultimately teaching as I discovered later).
On the other hand, an alternative interpretation could be that Damien decided to
end his employment in the institution because he found that engaging in
reflective practice was an emancipating experience for him and, as a result, he
decided he wanted to leave.
All through the five stages of the framework, it seems that Damien faced
struggles to negotiate dissonance between his personal ethics and his percep-
tions of the institution’s business ethics. For example, when reflecting on his
professional identity in stage 1, Damien said that he believes that education
institutions should uphold high ethical standards to ensure that students’ experi-
ences are not exclusively the responsibility of the teachers. Rather, both the
school and the teachers should share this responsibility and create a positive
learning environment that yields success. This struggle appeared in other stages
of his reflections as well, where he noted the teacher’s responsibility in creating
an interactive environment and his priority for interaction that may not always
coincide with the institution’s principles. In stage 3, theory, Damien reported
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 43

that the primary concerns of his lesson-planning procedures are the goals and
outcomes emphasized at his institution, but that he does not always follow them.
Indeed, although Damien said that he tries to adhere to his institution’s expect-
ations to be a “successful teacher,” he also observed that, when trying to comply
with the “imposed standards,” he tries to “make space” for his own beliefs.
I never discovered the details of the various tensions he had with the institution
beyond what I reported in Section 3.2.5, but apparently this tension never eased;
he ended up leaving the institution.
Thus, I believe that we must acknowledge that engaging in reflective practice
is not only a cognitive act/experience but also a deeply emotional one, and
therefore we must consider how teacher reflections on their emotions and their
social and professional sources can become more transformative for them as
they seek to legitimize their practices within different organizations such as
language schools. The findings of the case study presented in this Element
suggests that in language teaching we may also need to discover more of an
understanding about what Fook (2010, p. 49) has discerned as the “complex
interplay of personally and organizationally experienced emotions” and how
this can be incorporated into reflective teaching and learning. Fook has pro-
posed that this understanding at the very least would involve finding out more
about how the “emotional aspects of professional practice, both negative and
positive, contribute to the making of professional identities and professional
practices in particular workplace contexts” (p. 49). I believe that because the
personal and professional are so intertwined, and Damien’s professional iden-
tity and his professional practice clashed with those of his workplace, this may
have led him to make a decision to move away from the workplace. However,
I cannot be sure of this conclusion and thus we need to know more about how
the subjective side of work can be better understood through the concept of
reflective practice. I have attempted to incorporate emotions with the frame-
work for reflection on practice so that we can encourage language teachers to
become better informed and more self-aware of all aspects of their personal and
professional relationships with colleagues.
Furthermore, as COVID-19 continues to disrupt all our lives, including
language teachers who are now required to provide web-based lessons, we
will need to learn more about how they reflect on these new online teaching
experiences. The findings of the case study point out some changes such as the
limitations of instructors’ ability to easily provide critical nonverbal cues when
students signal their understanding, which is easy to recognize in face-to-face
instruction. This in turn makes it more difficult to interpret instructors’ emo-
tional experiences in an online environment. I used the Appraisal Framework to
account for the emotional aspects of Damien’s reflections so that he could
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
44 Language Teaching

develop emotional awareness. However, further research is needed that delves

into language teachers’ emotional reflections and how developing emotional
awareness can help regulate their emotions to minimize stress especially in an
online environment.
In terms of the utilization of the framework presented in this Element,
Damien began his reflections in stage 1, philosophy, and moved through each
of the five stages in sequence. This is similar to other case studies outlined in
Farrell and Kennedy (2019) and Farrell and Macaplinac (2021). Such
a deductive approach was chosen because Damien is considered an early career
teacher (ECT) as he is still in his fifth year of teaching (Gordon, Kane, &
Staiger, 2006). This theory-driven approach to practice where philosophy and
theory have more of an initial influence on practice is probably a natural
sequence of development for ECTs because they have not yet built up
a repertoire of teaching experiences. When their early practices are observed,
it is most likely that theory can be detected in their practice; however, over time
and with reflection, it is possible that their everyday practice will begin to
inform and even change their philosophy and theory and they may come up
with new principles of practice.
However, teachers, teacher educators and researchers may decide to navigate
a reverse process and take a more inductive approach to using the framework by
moving from (beyond) practice into theory if they consider their practice (both
inside and outside the classroom) as powerful determinants of their overall
approach to reflecting on practice. For such an approach to the framework,
teachers may first consider some issue from beyond practice (stage 5) or decide
on a starting point from some issue within their classroom teaching that they
want to explore, and then work their way through the different stages in reverse
order. Indeed, it may have appeared that Damien went through each stage of the
framework from stage 1 to stage 5 in something of a linear, lockstep fashion.
However, what occurred was that Damien would include reflections on more
than one stage at a time and would jump back and forth with reflections from
different stages whenever an issue would bring him there. Thus, it is difficult to
separate each of the five stages in the framework in reality, and although
I reported each stage separately in Section 3.2, I also included relevant infor-
mation from a previous stage if it had impact at another stage. For example,
when reporting the findings of stage 5, beyond practice, I included Damien’s
reflections on his philosophy as stated in stage 1. Similarly, I would suggest
future research be aware of the interconnectedness of each of the five stages and
that no one stage is clearly separate from another.
Yet another way to navigate the framework was conducted by Playsted
(2019) when she self-reflected on her development during her first year of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching 45

teaching. She wrote journals and personal blog posts during her first year as
a teacher and later used the framework as a lens through which to view and
reflect on her writing during that year. While conducting her analysis, she also
identified various critical incidents that she defined as “impacting events or
personal interactions” (p. 42), which highlighted different stages of the reflect-
ive framework. Playsted pointed out that she did not move through the five
stages in a linear process; rather her learning process was one of “looping back
and forth (or framing and reframing a problem)” (p. 44).
In addition, after engaging in systematic reflection through the lens of the
framework, the approach outlined in this Element encourages language teachers
to take responsibility for their own informed decisions about what is important
to them. As Fanselow (1988) has pointed out, “each of us needs to construct,
reconstruct, and revise our own teaching” (p. 116). I believe that this is at the
heart of reflective practice and I believe that language teachers can realize this
by moving through the five stages of the framework presented in this Element,
and make their own decisions about their practice, as demonstrated in the case
study of Damien’s journey through the framework. While I agree that it may be
tempting to challenge Damien (I asked him to elaborate on many of his beliefs
but did not challenge him on any) for example of the uses and abuses of his
students’ use of their L1 as a scaffolding mechanism, the origin of such a belief,
and how that belief fits with his espoused language teaching and learning
theories, I chose not to because I wanted him to reconstruct his own practice
(or as Fanselow [1988, p. 128] put it, “the value of process, not product”) and
find his own truth. Had Damien asked me any questions about his reflections,
which he did not, I would have provided my opinions. Such an approach to
facilitating reflective practice that includes classroom observations takes on
board conversations such as Fanselow (1988) suggests:

Here I am with my lens to look at you and your actions. But as I look at you
with my lens, I consider you a mirror; I hope to see myself in you and through
your teaching. When I see myself, I ﬁnd it hard to get distance from my
teaching. I hear my voice, I see my face and clothes and fail to see my
teaching. Seeing you allows me to see myself differently and to explore
variables we both use. (p. 115)

In addition, administrators wishing to incorporate reﬂective practice in their

workplace should be on guard against any top-down imposed form of retro-
spective reflections that can be interpreted either as opportunities to advance
their particular agenda or as a remedy for difficulties in that workplace (Stark,
Stronach, & Cooke, 1999). Such a top-down push to enforce reflective practice
can backfire in that teachers can resent being used as excuses for a lack of

resources or other such gaps in the organization’s ability to develop a cohesive

working environment. Such an implementation can be called, as Issitt (2003)
pointed out, “deflective practice” and many who advocate such reflection “may
not be skilled in its facilitation nor have the time or resources to support it”
(p. 178). Institutions must allow for honest reflections by their teachers rather
than top-down imposed reflections that institutions may use to get teachers to do
what they consider is “good” or “quality” teaching, such as keeping their
students happy, entertained, and/or passing exams.
Throughout this Element and in much of my other writings on the topic of
reflective practice, I have noted that language teacher educators should always
encourage language teachers of all ranges of experience to engage in reflective
practice. I have also noted the difficulty in operationalizing reflective practice
and I have provided a framework specifically for language that I believe can be
a promising for all stakeholders interested in reflecting. I provided a case study
of how a practicing teacher journeyed through the five stages of the framework
with the aid of a facilitator, as discussed in Section 3.3. Although Damien’s
reflective explorations were presented as a kind of one-off event, I believe that
language teachers should take a step back every so often (as Dewey noted) to
systematically explore their practice either alone with the use of this framework
(e.g., Playsted, 2019), with a facilitator, as in the case study outlined in this
Element, and/or with a group of other colleagues (e.g., Farrell, 2014, 2016) for
the purposes of continued professional development. Thus, I see reflection as
a way of life. As Oberg and Blades (1990) maintain, reflection “lies not in the
theory it allows us to develop about practice or reflection but the evolution of
ourselves as a teacher. Its focus is life; we continually return to our place of
origin, but it is not the place we left” (p. 179). I realize that some educators may
not agree with my approach, but I hope that this Element will open up more
possibilities for dialogue that further illuminates this fascinating, yet complex
topic of reflective practice in language teaching.

5 Conclusion
The contents of this Element have suggested that we move beyond just citing
Dewey and Schön’s work to permit their use of reflection and consider the wider
questions of what reflection is and how it should be operationalized for language
teachers. Language teachers should not be “required” to reflect without any
discussion beforehand on what they all consider reflective practice to be, or in
whose tradition they are being asked to reflect. It is important, then, to allow
time for language teacher educators, language teachers, researchers, and admin-
istrators to define and discuss reflection within their institutions, otherwise it

will remain an ill-deﬁned, intellectual exercise that is often reduced to a set of

techniques that get done to fix perceived problems in practice. If such a stance
continues with language teaching, there is a great danger of losing the real
meaning of reflection as outlined in this Element, or, as Mann and Walsh (2013)
noted, “a real loss of reflective spirit” where there is a total “disregard for
teacher personality” (p. 293). As the Element indicates, I take a more holistic
approach to reflective practice for language teachers that moves beyond but also
builds on both Dewey’s and Schön’s important cognitive aspects of reflection by
adding the spiritual, moral, emotional, or noncognitive aspects of reflection to
the framework I presented. This holistic framework acknowledges the inner life
of language teachers – who they are and what they stand for – and I believe this
was demonstrated by Damien’s reflections outlined in Section 3.2 as well as the
analysis of his affective discourse throughout each stage. Though generalization
is difficult to make from Damien’s reflections and due to the inability to observe
his teaching practices in person, there is every reason to believe that readers may
find much of Damien’s reflections has relevance for their own particular
context, practices, and reflections. As Van Lier (2005) points out, rigorous
analysis of a case study of just one teacher can provide in-depth insights into
intricate pedagogical and contextual issues that “cannot be done adequately in
any other common research practice” (p. 195).
I end this Element by defining my approach to reflective practice as
a cognitive, emotional process accompanied by a set of attitudes in which
language teachers systematically collect data about their practice and, while
engaging in dialogue with others, use the data to make informed decisions about
their practice both inside and outside the classroom. This definition builds on
a previous version I suggested some time ago. I hope this Element provides
a basis for language teachers, teacher educators, and administrators to recognize
the possible transformational benefits of engaging in reflective practice within
language teaching. I hope also that the additional detailed updated inclusion of
the emotive aspects of reflection to the framework that I presented additionally
provides a platform for others when operationalizing or practicing reflective
practice so that we as a profession can provide the best possible learning
opportunities for our language students.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
References
Agudo, J. (ed.) (2019). Quality in TESOL teacher education. New York:
Routledge.
Aguilar-Sánchez, J. (2005). English in Costa Rica. World Englishes, 24, 2,
161–172.
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective
practices in L2 teacher education. System, 35, 2, 192–207.
Anzalone, F. M. (2010). Education for the law: Reflective education for the law.
In N. Lyons (ed.), Handbook of reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing
for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 85–99). New York: Springer.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In
J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (eds.), Second language teacher education (pp.
202–214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bleakley, A. (1999). From reflective practice to holistic reflexivity. Studies in
Higher Education, 24, 3, 315–330.
Borg, S. (2011). Language teacher education. In J. Simpson (ed.), The
Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 215–228). London:
Routledge.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (eds.) (1985). Reflection: Turning
experience into learning. New York: Kogan Page.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses:
The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 2, 191–206.
Brookfield, S. D. (1990). The skilful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and
contradictions. European Journal of Social Work, 12, 3, 293–304.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide
for practitioners. New York: Routledge.
Campos, A. S. (2012). Teaching and learning English in Costa Rica: A critical
approach. Letras, 52, 163–178.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (eds.) (1995). Teachers’ professional
knowledge landscapes. New York: Teachers College Press.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your
organization. London: Sage.

Collin, S., Karsenti, T., & Komis, V. (2013). Reflective practice in initial teacher
training: Critiques and perspectives. Reflective Practice, 14, 104–117.
Colnerud, G. (2015). Moral stress in teaching practice. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 21, 3, 346–360.
Crookes, G. (2013). Critical ELT in action: Foundations, promises, praxis.
New York: Routledge.
Cruickshank, D., & Applegate, J. (1981). Reflective teaching as a strategy for
teacher growth. Educational Leadership, 38, 553–554.
Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for teacher
development. British Educational Research Journal, 19, 83–93.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective
thinking to the educative process. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Ecclestone, K. (1996). The reflective practitioner: Mantra or model for
emancipation? Studies in the Education of Adults, 28, 2, 146–161.
Edge, J. (2011). The reflexive teacher educator in TESOL: Roots and wings.
New York: Routledge.
Edwards, G., & Thomas, G. (2010). Can reflective practice be taught?
Educational Studies, 36, 403–414.
Fanselow, J. F. (1988). “Let’s see”: Contrasting conversations about teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 22, 1, 113–130.
Farrell, T. S. C. (1999a). The reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service
English teachers’ beliefs on grammar teaching. RELC Journal, 30, 1–17.
Farrell, T. S. C. (1999b). Reflective practice in an EFL teacher development
group. System, 27, 2, 157–172.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Tailoring reflection to individual needs. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 27, 1, 23–38.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2004). Reflective practice in action. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). Reflective practice in action: A case study of a writing
teacher’s reflections on practice. TESL Canada Journal, 23, 2, 77–90.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective practice for language teachers: From
research to practice. London: Continuum Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Novice language teachers: Insights and perspectives for
the first year. London: Equinox.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2013a). Reflective practice in ESL teacher development
groups: From practices to principles. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2013b). Reflective writing for language teachers. Sheffield:
Equinox.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2014). Reflective practice in ESL teacher development groups:
From practices to principles. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
50 References

Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reﬂection in second language

education: A framework for TESOL professionals. New York: Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2016). From trainee to teacher: Reflective practice for novice
teachers. London: Equinox.
Farrell, T. S. C. (ed.). (2017). Preservice teacher education. Alexandria, VA:
TESOL Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. New York:
Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2019a). Reflective practice in ELT. London: Equinox.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2019b). Foreword. In J. de Dios Martinez Agudo (ed.), Quality
in TESOL teacher education (pp. i–iii). New York: Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C., & Kennedy, B. (2019). Reflective practice framework for
TESOL teachers: One teacher’s reflective journey. Reflective Practice, 20,
1, 1–12.
Farrell, T. S. C., & Macapinlac, M. (2021). Professional development through
reflective practice: A framework for TESOL teachers. Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 1, 1–25.
Farrell, T. S. C., & Tan, S. (2008). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs
and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 29, 3, 381–403.
Fook, J. (2010). Beyond reflective practice: Reworking the “critical” in critical
reflection. In H. Bradbury, N. Frost, S. Kilminster, & M. Zukas (eds.), Beyond
reflective practice: New approaches to professional lifelong learning (pp.
37–51). New York: Routledge.
Freeman, D. (2016). Educating second language teachers. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., et al. (2016). Measuring teacher
enjoyment, anger, and anxiety: The Teacher Emotions Scales (TES).
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 148–163.
Garton, S., & Richards, K. (2008). Professional encounters in TESOL:
Discourses of teachers in teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods.
Oxford: Further Education Unit Oxford Polytechnic.
Gordon, R., Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using
performance on the job. Hamilton Project discussion paper. Brookings
Institution.
Hargreaves, A. (2020). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their
interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 811–826.
Harrison, J. K., & Lee, R. (2011). Exploring the use of critical incident analysis
and the professional learning conversation in an initial teacher education
programme, Journal of Education for Teaching, 37, 2, 199–217.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
References 51

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reﬂection in teacher education: Towards

definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 1,
33–49.
Hébert, C. (2015). Knowing and/or experiencing: A critical examination of the
reflective models of John Dewey and Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 16,
3, 361–371.
Hobbs, V. (2007). Faking it or hating it: Can reflective practice be forced?
Reflective Practice, 8, 3, 405–417.
Holmes, M. (2010). The emotionalization of reflexivity. Sociology, 44, 1,
139–154.
Inforcostarica. (2000). Education in Costa Rica (html). Infocostarrica,
January 17, 2001. Retrieved from www.infocostarica.com/education/educa
tion.html.
Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in
teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22, 1, 120–134.
Issitt, M. (2003). Reflecting on reflective practice for professional education
and development in health promotion. Health Education Journal, 62, 2,
173–188.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of
reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,
18, 1, 73–85.
Johns, C. (1995). Framing learning through reflection within Carper’s
fundamental ways of knowing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
22, 2, 226–234.
Killion, J., & Todnem, G. (1991). A process of personal theory building.
Educational Leadership, 48, 6, 14–16.
Kim, H., Clabo, L., Burbank, P., & Martins, M. (2010). Application of critical
reflective inquiry in nursing education. In Nona Lyons (ed)., Handbook of
reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective
inquiry (pp. 159–172). New York: Springer.
Knezedivc, B. (2001). Action research. IATEFL Teacher Development SIG
Newsletter, 1, 10–12.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the science of learning and develop-
ment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language
teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in
learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 1, 33–43.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
52 References

Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing.

Harvard Education Review, 62, 447–474.
Mackenzie, C. (2002). Critical reflection, self-knowledge, and the emotions.
Philosophical Explorations, 5, 3, 186–206.
Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2013). RP or “RIP”: A critical perspective on reflective
practice. Applied Linguistics Review, 4, 2, 291–315.
Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching:
Research-based principles and practices. New York: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In
S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and
the construction of discourse (pp. 142–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in
English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(3), 279–301.
McCabe, A. (2002). Narratives: A wellspring for development. In Julian Edge
(ed.), Continuing professional development: Some of our perspectives (pp.
82–89). Whitstable UK, IATEFL.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
MEP (2001). Programas de Ingles III Ciclo [English standards for Junior High
Schools]. San Jose, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Educacion Publica.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Third edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design
and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oberg, A., & Blades, C. (1990). The spoken and the unspoken: The story of an
educator. Phenomonology+Pedagogy, 8, 161–180.
Playsted, S. A. (2019). Reflective practice to guide teacher learning:
A practitioner’s journey with beginner adult English language learners,
IJLTR, 7, 3, 37–52.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward,
central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44, 1, 5–33.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T., & Campbell, T. (2017). Organizational behaviour.
Second edition. Harlow, UK: Pearson Higher Education.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and
reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104, 4, 842–866.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in
action. New York: Basic Books.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.216.183.28, on 25 Apr 2022 at 20:24:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028783
References 53

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reﬂective practitioner. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.
Shapiro, S. B., & Reiff, J. (1993). A framework for reflective inquiry on
practice: Beyond intuition and experience. Psychological Reports, 73,
1379–1394.
Smyth, W. J. (1992). Teachers’ work and the politics of reflection. American
Education Research Journal, 29, 2, 267–300.
Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of
pedagogical strategies that encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers
College Record, 104, 1393–1421.
Stanley, C. (1998). A framework for teacher reflectivity. TESOL Quarterly, 32,
584–591.
Stark, S., Stronach, I., & Cooke, P. (1999). Reflection and the gap between
practice, education and research in nursing. Journal of Practice Teaching in
Health and Social Work, 2, 2, 6–20: 7.
Tabachnik, R., & Zeichner, K. (2002). Reflections on reflective teaching. In
A. Pollard (ed.), Readings for reflective teaching (pp. 13–16). London:
Continuum.
Teng, M. F. (2017). Emotional development and construction of teacher
identity: Narrative interactions about the pre-service teachers’ practicum
experiences. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 42, 11, 117–134.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice.
Reflective Practice, 13, 311–325.
Ur, P. (2020). Review: The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher
Education. ELT Journal, 74, 4, 517–520.
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: Description of teacher reflection in
the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 1, 67–88.
Van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research
in second language Learning (pp. 195–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Wallace, M. (1996). Structured reflection: The role of the professional project in
training ESL teachers. In D. Freeman and J. C. Richards (eds.), Teacher
learning in language teaching (pp. 281–294). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Walsh, S., & Mann, S. (2015). Doing reflective practice: A data-led way
forward. ELT Journal, 69, 4, 351–362.
White, P. (2000). Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics
of modality and hedging. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, & F. Rock (eds.),
Working with dialogue (pp. 67–80). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of

Teacher Education 34, 3–9.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (2014). Reflective teaching: an introduction.
Second edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2012). The teacher’s reflective practice handbook.
Becoming an extended professional through capturing evidence-informed
practice. London: Routledge.

Heath Rose
Linacre College, University of Oxford
Heath Rose is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Oxford. At
Oxford, he is the course director of the MSc in Applied Linguistics for Language Teaching.
Before moving into academia, Heath worked as a language teacher in Australia and Japan in
both school and university contexts. He is author of numerous books, such as Introducing
Global Englishes, The Japanese Writing System, Data Collection Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics, and Global Englishes for Language Teaching. Heath’s research interests are ﬁrmly
situated within the ﬁeld of second language teaching, and includes work on Global
Englishes, teaching English as an international language, and English Medium Instruction.

Jim McKinley
University College London
Jim McKinley is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at UCL, Institute of
Education, where he serves as Academic Head of Learning and Teaching. His major research
areas are second language writing in global contexts, the internationalisation of higher
education, and the relationship between teaching and research. Jim has edited or authored
numerous books including the Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics, Data Collection Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, and Doing Research in
Applied Linguistics. He is also an editor of the journal System. Before moving into academia,
Jim taught in a range of diverse contexts including the United States, Australia, Japan, and
Uganda.

Advisory Board
Brian Paltridge, University of Sydney
Gary Barkhuizen, University of Auckland
Marta Gonzalez-Lloret, University of Hawaii
Li Wei, UCL Institute of Education
Victoria Murphy, University of Oxford
Diane Pecorari, City University of Hong Kong
Christa Van der Walt, Stellenbosch University

About the Series

This Elements series aims to close the gap between researchers and practitioners by allying
research with language teaching practices, in its exploration of research informed
teaching, and teaching informed research. The series builds upon a rich history of
pedagogical research in its exploration of new insights within the ﬁeld of language
teaching.

Elements in the Series

Language Teacher Educator Identity
Gary Barkhuizen
Language Teacher Agency
Jian Tao and Xuesong (Andy) Gao
Pedagogical Translanguaging
Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter
Intercultural and Transcultural Awareness in Language Teaching
Will Baker
Technology and Language Teaching
Ursula Stickler
Reﬂective Practice in Language Teaching
Thomas S. C. Farrell

A full series listing is available at: https://www.cambridge.org/ELAT

Reflective Teaching - Thomas Farrel
100% (5)
Reflective Teaching - Thomas Farrel
47 pages
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching PDF
100% (16)
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching PDF
64 pages
Farrell - Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education
100% (1)
Farrell - Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education
44 pages
Ptah The God of Builders - Images and Simbolism - I. .P. .H. . Guillermo Calvo Soriano, 33rd.
100% (2)
Ptah The God of Builders - Images and Simbolism - I. .P. .H. . Guillermo Calvo Soriano, 33rd.
100 pages
Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education PDF
100% (1)
Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education PDF
155 pages
The Cambridge Guide To Second Language T
No ratings yet
The Cambridge Guide To Second Language T
7 pages
Every Trainers Handbook
100% (1)
Every Trainers Handbook
436 pages
CELTA - Recommended Books
100% (1)
CELTA - Recommended Books
2 pages
Dsa Appointment Form
No ratings yet
Dsa Appointment Form
5 pages
Foundations of Curriculum: Lesson 2.4
100% (1)
Foundations of Curriculum: Lesson 2.4
11 pages
Resources and Materials
100% (1)
Resources and Materials
67 pages
Globalization As An Experience
100% (1)
Globalization As An Experience
2 pages
Reflective Journal Writing
No ratings yet
Reflective Journal Writing
30 pages
Tasks For Teacher Education - Trainers Book PDF
100% (2)
Tasks For Teacher Education - Trainers Book PDF
97 pages
Motivation in Second and Foreign Language Learning - Dornyei
100% (1)
Motivation in Second and Foreign Language Learning - Dornyei
20 pages
Cooperative Development. Professional Self-Development Through Cooperation With Colleagues
No ratings yet
Cooperative Development. Professional Self-Development Through Cooperation With Colleagues
116 pages
Pl4Lt3 - Openplant Powerpid - Tips and Tricks Lecture Companion Guide
No ratings yet
Pl4Lt3 - Openplant Powerpid - Tips and Tricks Lecture Companion Guide
43 pages
Competency Based Language Teaching PDF
No ratings yet
Competency Based Language Teaching PDF
10 pages
Chap 008
100% (1)
Chap 008
47 pages
Teacher Talk and The Classroom Context by Richard Cullen PDF
100% (1)
Teacher Talk and The Classroom Context by Richard Cullen PDF
9 pages
S1-39 The Museum PDF
100% (1)
S1-39 The Museum PDF
16 pages
Writings of H.E. Palmer
100% (1)
Writings of H.E. Palmer
228 pages
How To Write Conclusion in Thesis Sample
100% (3)
How To Write Conclusion in Thesis Sample
8 pages
A Course in English Language Teaching
100% (2)
A Course in English Language Teaching
384 pages
Management in English Language Teaching - White, Ronald V - 1991 - Cambridge - Cambridge University Press - 9780521373968 - Anna's Archive
100% (2)
Management in English Language Teaching - White, Ronald V - 1991 - Cambridge - Cambridge University Press - 9780521373968 - Anna's Archive
354 pages
Managing The Classroom
No ratings yet
Managing The Classroom
22 pages
Lesson Planning From The Heart 2
No ratings yet
Lesson Planning From The Heart 2
3 pages
Ecclectic Approach ELTM
100% (2)
Ecclectic Approach ELTM
28 pages
Assessment For Language Teaching
100% (9)
Assessment For Language Teaching
112 pages
Autonomy Benson2007
100% (2)
Autonomy Benson2007
20 pages
Telling Stories
No ratings yet
Telling Stories
65 pages
RPS - Teaching English For Teenagers
100% (1)
RPS - Teaching English For Teenagers
6 pages
Cooperative Learning in Language Education - George Jacobs & Willy Renandya
No ratings yet
Cooperative Learning in Language Education - George Jacobs & Willy Renandya
81 pages
Mann - The Language Teacher's Development
No ratings yet
Mann - The Language Teacher's Development
16 pages
(Little, 2020) Language Learner Autonomy What, Why and How ILA-LASIG-webinar30.06.20
No ratings yet
(Little, 2020) Language Learner Autonomy What, Why and How ILA-LASIG-webinar30.06.20
27 pages
Ansal Api Summer Report
No ratings yet
Ansal Api Summer Report
80 pages
Level: A1 You and Me: Cefr Mapping New Headway Elementary, Fourth Edition
No ratings yet
Level: A1 You and Me: Cefr Mapping New Headway Elementary, Fourth Edition
21 pages
Supportive Teacher Talk by Cullen
No ratings yet
Supportive Teacher Talk by Cullen
11 pages
Lexical Approach Activities PDF
No ratings yet
Lexical Approach Activities PDF
24 pages
Interview Manju Jois
No ratings yet
Interview Manju Jois
3 pages
3D Voronoi Diagram
No ratings yet
3D Voronoi Diagram
124 pages
Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition - Danuta Gabryś-Barker (Gonca) - A Compilation of Articles
No ratings yet
Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition - Danuta Gabryś-Barker (Gonca) - A Compilation of Articles
194 pages
André Bakker Modeling Flow Fields in Stirred Tanks
No ratings yet
André Bakker Modeling Flow Fields in Stirred Tanks
40 pages
Penny Ur
80% (5)
Penny Ur
14 pages
Teaching Practice (Ban Dep)
No ratings yet
Teaching Practice (Ban Dep)
242 pages
Contemporary ELT Methods
No ratings yet
Contemporary ELT Methods
14 pages
An Introduction To Orthodontics
No ratings yet
An Introduction To Orthodontics
38 pages
Reflective Practice Farrell 2016
No ratings yet
Reflective Practice Farrell 2016
6 pages
A Practical Introduction To Teacher Training in ELT: Teaching English
50% (2)
A Practical Introduction To Teacher Training in ELT: Teaching English
8 pages
Extensive Reading in The ESL Class
No ratings yet
Extensive Reading in The ESL Class
120 pages
Apex Freebitcoin High Odds Long Runner Intelligent Bot
No ratings yet
Apex Freebitcoin High Odds Long Runner Intelligent Bot
16 pages
Friedrichsen, A. (2020) - Second Language Acquisition Theories and What It Means For Teacher Instruction
No ratings yet
Friedrichsen, A. (2020) - Second Language Acquisition Theories and What It Means For Teacher Instruction
34 pages
Feb 2018 Interaction Online Extract
100% (1)
Feb 2018 Interaction Online Extract
233 pages
Orems Self Care Deficit Theory
No ratings yet
Orems Self Care Deficit Theory
22 pages
Freeman, D. & Johnson, K.E. (1998) - Reconceptualizing The Knowledge-Base of Language Teacher
100% (1)
Freeman, D. & Johnson, K.E. (1998) - Reconceptualizing The Knowledge-Base of Language Teacher
21 pages
The Importance of Reflection in Teacher Training
No ratings yet
The Importance of Reflection in Teacher Training
5 pages
Developing Speaking Skill Through Task-Based Materials
No ratings yet
Developing Speaking Skill Through Task-Based Materials
6 pages
Energizing Teacher Research PDF
No ratings yet
Energizing Teacher Research PDF
221 pages
Clinical Care of Persons With Dementia in The Emergency Department: A Review of The Literature and Agenda For Research
No ratings yet
Clinical Care of Persons With Dementia in The Emergency Department: A Review of The Literature and Agenda For Research
8 pages
Integrated Skills in The ESL/EFL Classroom
No ratings yet
Integrated Skills in The ESL/EFL Classroom
8 pages
Reflective Practice Material
No ratings yet
Reflective Practice Material
13 pages
GST 222 Non Military Means of Conflict Resolution
No ratings yet
GST 222 Non Military Means of Conflict Resolution
22 pages
Jack and The Beanstalk
No ratings yet
Jack and The Beanstalk
3 pages
Phrasal Verb
No ratings yet
Phrasal Verb
6 pages
Communicative Language Teaching NUNAN
100% (3)
Communicative Language Teaching NUNAN
10 pages
A Look Under The Hood - A Study of SLA Beliefs and The Underlying Theories
No ratings yet
A Look Under The Hood - A Study of SLA Beliefs and The Underlying Theories
30 pages
Annex 1 Task 4 - My Amazing Future (1) .En - Es
No ratings yet
Annex 1 Task 4 - My Amazing Future (1) .En - Es
3 pages
Customer Service Survey
No ratings yet
Customer Service Survey
3 pages
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching
100% (8)
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching
64 pages
Oup Focus Management in Elt
No ratings yet
Oup Focus Management in Elt
5 pages
Ordinance Creating Peoples Law Enforcement Board
No ratings yet
Ordinance Creating Peoples Law Enforcement Board
3 pages
An Intelligent Student Advising System: A Spanning Tree Approach
No ratings yet
An Intelligent Student Advising System: A Spanning Tree Approach
30 pages
On (Writing) Families Autoethnographies of Presence and Absence, Love and Loss (Jonathan Wyatt, Tony E. Adams (Eds.) ) (Z-Library)
No ratings yet
On (Writing) Families Autoethnographies of Presence and Absence, Love and Loss (Jonathan Wyatt, Tony E. Adams (Eds.) ) (Z-Library)
145 pages
IBAO Ethical Guidelines V100
No ratings yet
IBAO Ethical Guidelines V100
15 pages
The Reflective Teaching Practices-2817
No ratings yet
The Reflective Teaching Practices-2817
10 pages
Unit 4
No ratings yet
Unit 4
9 pages
(ELT Journal 1991-Jul Vol. 45 Iss. 3) Thornbury, S. - Metaphors We Work by - EFL and Its Metaphors (1991) (10.1093 - Elt - 45.3.193) - Libgen - Li
No ratings yet
(ELT Journal 1991-Jul Vol. 45 Iss. 3) Thornbury, S. - Metaphors We Work by - EFL and Its Metaphors (1991) (10.1093 - Elt - 45.3.193) - Libgen - Li
8 pages
Singer Sewing Machine Model 20 Manual
No ratings yet
Singer Sewing Machine Model 20 Manual
36 pages
Skala BiK 2008
No ratings yet
Skala BiK 2008
19 pages
ELT Textbooks and Materials - Problems in Evaluation and Development - v3
No ratings yet
ELT Textbooks and Materials - Problems in Evaluation and Development - v3
137 pages
PLC Symposium
No ratings yet
PLC Symposium
16 pages
Analysis For Language Course Design PDF
No ratings yet
Analysis For Language Course Design PDF
11 pages
Lab - Biology (7 6 25)
No ratings yet
Lab - Biology (7 6 25)
87 pages
An Eye For An Eye
No ratings yet
An Eye For An Eye
3 pages
PG Cert ELT and Professional Practice/ Delta Lesson Plan: Commented (A1) : Please Refer To The File Named Syllabus'
No ratings yet
PG Cert ELT and Professional Practice/ Delta Lesson Plan: Commented (A1) : Please Refer To The File Named Syllabus'
8 pages
Cook Using The First Language in The Classroom 1 PDF
100% (1)
Cook Using The First Language in The Classroom 1 PDF
22 pages
Evaluating Materials in ELT
No ratings yet
Evaluating Materials in ELT
30 pages
Learner-Based Teaching (Resource Books For Teachers)
100% (4)
Learner-Based Teaching (Resource Books For Teachers)
125 pages
Penny Ur Module 17 Summary
No ratings yet
Penny Ur Module 17 Summary
3 pages
Ellis Moura o 2021 ETP
No ratings yet
Ellis Moura o 2021 ETP
4 pages
Rod Ellis On Grammar#408437
100% (2)
Rod Ellis On Grammar#408437
25 pages
Almahrooqi R Coombe C Almaamari F Thakur V Eds Revisiting Ef
100% (2)
Almahrooqi R Coombe C Almaamari F Thakur V Eds Revisiting Ef
350 pages
Aspects of Task Syllabus Design
No ratings yet
Aspects of Task Syllabus Design
7 pages

Reflective Practice in Language Teaching - Thomas Farrell

Uploaded by

Reflective Practice in Language Teaching - Thomas Farrell

Uploaded by

Farrell

This Element examines the concept of reflective practice in

Reflective Practice in Language Teaching

About the Series Series Editors

Thomas S.C. Farrell

Cover image: EduLeite/E+/Getty Images ISSN

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

Elements in Language Teaching

Abstract: This Element examines the concept of reﬂective practice in

Keywords: reﬂective teaching, language teaching, language teachers, John

© Thomas S. C. Farrell 2022

2 “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants”: Dewey and Schön 8

3 Reﬂective Practice in Action 23

4 Moving Forward with Reﬂective Practice: Possibilities

1.1 Organization of This Element

In Section 3, I outline and discuss how I used my framework in a recent in-

1.2 Reﬂective Practice and Reﬂection

aspects of practice that make up part of that knowledge base in teaching by

(1933) was initially interested in encouraging more reﬂection in student learn-

1.3 Reconceptualizing Reﬂective Practice in Language Education

to reﬂect, it is important to know in whose tradition this reﬂection is mirrored

1.4 Disentangling the Terms

reﬂective inquiry, analytical reﬂection, and so on interactively in the sense that

moral, or political aspects related to practice. Indeed, we must also be careful

2 “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants”: Dewey and Schön

researchers, and language teachers should not uncritically pay “homage” to

2.1 Dewey and Schön: Perspectives and Constraints

experience” (p. 87), and by reﬂecting on these experiences we can reconstruct

framework by encouraging language teachers to reﬂect on critical incidents

• their awareness of what elements of the cultural, institutional, or disciplinary

In summary, I value Dewey and Schön’s approaches to reﬂective practice

2.2 A Holistic Approach to Reﬂecting on Practice for Language

2.2.1 The Framework

Figure 1 Framework for reﬂecting on practice (Farrell, 2015)

where they have evolved – such as heritage, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic

Principles: The second stage of the framework, principles, includes reﬂections

Practice: The fourth stage, practice, provides an opportunity for language

that community on their practice. At this critical reﬂection stage, in this

3 Reﬂective Practice in Action

3.1 Background to the Study

students to face challenges that require an additional language, gain integrated

3.2 Findings (Damien’s Reﬂections)

that, as a result, he was excited when he heard about this opportunity to

Regarding language learning, Damien remarked that he believes such learning

Damien believes that managing interaction should be a curated step in the

responsible for creating an environment where student-to-student interaction is

Regarding L2 grammar, Damien expressed that students’ understanding basic

experiences of his colleagues impact his teaching beliefs but ultimately he

Damien reﬂected on his lesson-planning and delivery procedures in his class-

in Section 3.2.2 for comments on use of L1 in his classroom). After evaluat-

Table 1 Damien’s Observed Practices

Observed Practices Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3

Note: O: Observed; N: Not observed

1. St: Inﬂuenza, or ﬂu, is caused by a virus. So “seein” . . . how do you pronounce?

Note: T: teacher; Ss: multiple students; St: speciﬁc student

T: All right. Can you also pronounce here “quiet”?

Note: T: teacher; Ss: multiple students; St: speciﬁc student

Furthermore, Damien was observed using Lesson 3 to complete the tasks he

3.2.5 Beyond Practice

expectations. Notably, Damien used every instance of student-initiated L1 to

language teachers. When language teachers are encouraged to reﬂect on their

4 Moving Forward with Reﬂective Practice: Possibilities

develop emotional awareness. However, further research is needed that delves

In addition, administrators wishing to incorporate reﬂective practice in their

resources or other such gaps in the organization’s ability to develop a cohesive

will remain an ill-deﬁned, intellectual exercise that is often reduced to a set of

Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reﬂection in second language

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reﬂection in teacher education: Towards

Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reﬂective practitioner. San Francisco:

Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of

About the Series

Elements in the Series

A full series listing is available at: https://www.cambridge.org/ELAT

You might also like