-
DOI 10.1515/applirev-2013-0013Applied Linguistics Review 2013;
4(2): 291315
Steve Mann and Steve WalshRP or RIP: A critical perspective on
reflective practiceAbstract: This paper provides a critical review
of reflective practice (RP), drawing attention to particular
problems with its representation, as well as proposing a more
evidence-based and data-led approach to RP. Our central argument is
that RP in the fields of applied linguistics, TESOL and education
has achieved a status of orthodoxy without a corresponding data-led
description of its value, processes and outcomes. Our concern is
that RP is described in ways that are elusive, gen-eral, and vague
and which may not be particularly helpful for practitioners. This
is largely due to the lack of concrete, data-led and linguistic
detail of RP in prac-tice and to its institutional nature, lack of
specificity, and reliance on written forms. It is also the case
that, despite a small number of exceptions (e.g. Kortha-gen and
Wubbels 1995; Walsh 2011), reflective practice is not
operationalized in systematic ways.This paper argues that applied
linguistics needs to champion a description of RPs processes and
impact by drawing on data-led accounts of reflective practice
across a range of contexts. Too many RP accounts rely on general
summaries and so are neither critical, transparent, nor usable by
other practitioners. A key as-pect of developing a more critical
approach is the need to move beyond rosy sum-maries of the outcomes
of RP towards accounts of how RP gets done. Where pos-sible we need
to share examples of reflection in action so that its nature and
value can be better understood. We propose here that RP needs to be
rebalanced, away from a reliance on written forms and taking more
account of spoken, col-laborative forms of reflection; in sum, we
argue for a more dialogic, data-led and collaborative approach to
reflective practice.
Keywords: Reflective practice, reflection, teacher education,
reflective tools, in-teraction, dialogue, collaboration
Steve Mann: University of Warwick. E-mail:
[email protected] Walsh: Newcastle University. E-mail:
[email protected]
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
292Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
1IntroductionReflection and reflective practice continue to have
a central position in pro-fessional education: the best thing any
education can bequeath is the habit of reflection and questioning
(Grayling 2003: 179) and Moseley et al (2005) see the highest level
of thinking and learning in education as strategic and reective
thinking. However, the central argument of this paper is that while
reflective practice (RP) has established itself as a ubiquitous
presence in professional edu-cation and practice, its current
status is not supported by detailed, systematic and data-led
description of either its nature or value. There are two responses
to this. The first is to say that RP has become so bloated and so
riddled with incon-sistencies that it needs to be put out of its
misery and left to rest in peace (RIP). The second is to take the
position that it has potential value but needs to deal with some of
its problems and inconsistencies. It is the latter position which
we adopt here.
Fundamental to this position is the argument that while, for
some RP might be viewed as a management tool used to measure and
check teachers per-formance, possibly to criticise and admonish we
maintain that it is still a very useful means of promoting
self-development. However, in its present form, we recognise that
RP cannot perform this function and that there needs to be a
recon-figuration of RP, both in terms of focus and approach. Our
motives for adopting this perspective can be summarised as
follows:a. There is a lack of data-led research on RP and a need
for data-led practice in
RP. Put simply, we need more evidence from the perspectives of
both research and professional development.
b. Current thinking in teacher education (both in general and
specifically in re-lation to second language teacher education)
values approaches which foster teacher autonomy and
self-development. For this to be effective, there is a strong and
pressing need for teachers to acquire the skills and practices
which will allow them to develop.
c. Following on from (a) and (b), we are proposing that teacher
efficacy will be heightened when teachers develop closer and better
grounded understand-ings of their contexts. RP is, we suggest, the
most appropriate means of en-suring that such understandings
occur.
In this paper, we argue that while RP has considerable merit in
professional edu-cation, it is: not sufficiently data-led too often
presented as an individual process which fails to value
collabora-
tion or participation in a community of practice
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP293
dominated by written forms of reflection at the expense of
potentially more beneficial spoken forms
insufficiently detailed about the nature of reflective tools
The first part of the paper discusses how RP might be viewed
from an applied linguistics perspective and then describes each of
these four challenges in more detail. In the second part of the
paper, we consider how these issues might be ad-dressed in a move
towards rebalancing and revitalising RP.
1.1Language, reflection and the real world
Across a range of areas of professional practice (healthcare,
education, business) practitioners need to reflect. Given the
embedded status of reflective practice in professional education
and to some extent in CPD, we see working towards a better
understanding of reflective practice as a real world challenge for
applied linguistics (AL), which, as is widely recognised, is
concerned with the theoretical and empirical investigation of
real-world problems in which language is a central issue (Brumfit
1995: 27). Indeed, AL has already played an important role in
re-vealing that the majority of professional practices are
accomplished through various forms of workplace interaction (see,
for example, Edwards and Westgate 1992; Drew and Heritage 1992) and
that institutional practice is inextricably linked to language and
communication. The role of RP too, as a process of professional
development, is to understand and improve practice (Schn 1991).
Consequently, we believe that AL should play a stronger role not
only in promoting understand-ings of real-world workplace practice
but also in supporting the goal of RP in achieving this
understanding. As a discipline, AL is uniquely positioned to both
scrutinise and evaluate the impact of RP on professional practice,
while at the same time enhancing understandings of the linguistic
and interactional re sources used to achieve this.
By focusing on language as social action and considering the
ways in which RP gets done through human interaction, we are
adopting a pragmatically mo-tivated (Bygate 2005: 571) perspective
on the situated real-world circumstances of reflective practice. We
believe that a better understanding of RP is more likely to
elucidate the real world of professional practice and help work
towards better outcomes in professional development. However, there
is also a need to under-stand the nature of reflection itself and
we argue that there are therefore two elements of the potential
role of AL in understanding RP. These can be expressed in the
distinction between the language for reflection and the language of
reflection:
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
294Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
(for reflection) the aim should be to produce tools and
frameworks for fine-grained understanding of professional
activities
(of reflection) the aim should be to produce systematic accounts
of the lan-guage used in reflection (an analytic challenge for
AL).
The first sense puts the focus on how the procedures of
reflection might encour-age attention to real-world linguistic and
interactional features of professional practice. This is the main
focus of this paper. The second sense is process-oriented and puts
the focus on the fact that RP is framed, encouraged and achieved
through language. A structured and systematic approach is more
likely to lead to a clearer understanding of both the process and
the potential outcomes of reflec-tion. This focus on language is
not gratuitous; put simply, through focusing on the language used
to achieve a task or complete a practice, we can gain a
fine-grained understandings of how the task gets done.
1.2Origins and definitions
A number of theorists (in particular Dewey, Schn and Kolb) have
been influen-tial in the development of the concept of reflection.
Dewey is widely credited for turning attention to the importance of
experiential learning and reflective thought as the sole method of
escape from the purely impulsive or purely routine action (Dewey
1933: 15) and is concerned principally with the relationship
between ex-perience, interaction and reflection. It could be argued
that the key messages of this paper (albeit with a linguistic
twist) are consistent with Deweys original for-mulations of
reflection. In particular, our position has resonance with Deweys
concerns about linear models of thinking. Reflection is a highly
complex process where thinking, interaction, knowledge and learning
have a reflexive relation-ship (see Semetsky 2008). In returning to
some of Deweys initial philosophic formulations of reflection we
also hope to avoid some of the instrumentalism of many contemporary
understandings (see Gray and Block 2012 who argue against the
prevailing climate of instrumental rationalization and worry that
second language teacher education programmes often purport to
facilitate the develop-ment of reflective practice but, due to
institutional constraints, actually restrict opportunities for
reflection and teacher learning). Instead, we would wish to
fore-ground two aspects of Deweys conceptualization of reflection.
First, its emphasis on serious, active and persistent engagement
with a doubt or perplexity. Second, that the process invites
criticism and close examination. In essence, we believe that his
calls for hypothesis testing and systematic method are close to the
arguments we develop in this paper for more systematic and data-led
approaches to RP.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP295
Schn (1983) picked up Deweys arguments and was influential,
particularly in distinguishing between reflection-in-action and
reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action is synchronous with the
professional act (thinking on your feet) and reflection-on-action
is asynchronous (a reflection after the professional action or
incident). Killion & Todnem (1991) add reflection-for-action
which is forward looking and identifies steps or guidelines to
follow to succeed in a given task in the future. For-action pushes
the process in more sustained and systematic di-rections and so
overlaps with notions of research (e.g. action research,
explora-tory practice). The importance of reflective practice as an
integral part of action-orientated and practioner-led teacher
development is outlined in Mann (2005).
RP established itself in the late 1980s, arguably becoming a fad
in the 1990s. Certainly by 1994, Zeichner (1994: 10) tells us that
everyone has jumped on the bandwagon.1 Bengtsson (1995) also
provides a useful overview of contributions on reflection in
pedagogical journals (e.g. Journal of Teacher Education) in the
early 1990s. We do not have space in this paper to present a
thorough literature review of reflection but it is worth attempting
a definition. This is not easy, as the nature of reflection and
critical reflection is often ill-defined (Hatton and Smith 1995).
While most definitions highlight the importance of experience, they
vary in the extent to which they foreground interaction or action.
Most include the intel-lectual and the affective (what you think
and how you feel). Two elements of many definitions are action and
critical, though, again, there are huge varia-tions in emphasis.
Some writers foreground a critical element (e.g. Brookfield 1997;
Bailin et al 2007), while others, like Mezirow (1991), put the
emphasis on critical self-awareness and critical reflection of
presuppositions (on which learn-ing is based). Given this range of
use and emphasis, we would not expect much agreement in definition.
For the purposes of this paper, we will adopt the defini-tion put
forward by Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985: 3):
[reflection is] a generic term for those intellectual and
affective activities in which indi-viduals engage to explore their
experiences in order to lead to new understandings and
appreciation.
The choice of this definition suits the purpose of this paper
which is to deal with a subset of reflective activity (spoken and
collaborative reflection) and makes the argument that this kind of
reflection is currently not recognised enough as there is too much
focus on individual reflection. We draw on this definition in the
next section, where we go on to review specific areas of the
problematic status of RP.
1For a fuller account of the appeal and growth of RP we would
recommend McLoughlin (1999).
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
296Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
2RP problemsThere have been a number of concerns expressed in
relation to reflection and RP. For some, there is a sense that RP
has run its course and there is now a need to move beyond
reflective practice (Bradbury et al 2010) and consider new
ap-proaches to CPD. What follows takes a critical stance (extending
previous cri-ticisms and some of our own) in outlining key
problems, presented under four major themes: lack of data-led
accounts; focus on the individual; dominance of written RP; using
the wrong reflective tools. This paper concentrates on data from
teaching and teacher education but we believe that the arguments
here hold for any professional practice.
2.1Lack of data-led accounts
As we have argued, RP in the fields of AL, TESOL and education
(and undoubt-edly wider afield) has achieved a status of orthodoxy
without a corresponding data-led description of its value,
processes and impact. This means that it is usu-ally dealt with in
flabby, vague and unhelpful ways. There are too many accounts of
reflection that contain models, checklists and series of questions
to be used as prompts. Very few have examples of reflection and
where data is included it is usually self-report or short extracts
from reflective journals. We are particularly worried about the
lack of data about spoken reflective processes. Farrell (2007), in
an otherwise excellent introduction to reflective language
teaching, has a chapter on collaborative teacher development in
groups. However, there are no data ex-tracts (although there is an
insightful summarised scenario late in the chapter). We believe
that more insider views of reflection (e.g. comments on both the
na-ture and value expressed in qualitative interviews and
transcriptions of actual spoken reflection) will help provide a
clearer understanding of the possibilities of doing RP.
2.2Focus on the individual
RP is often presented as an individual process that does not
foreground collabo-ration or participation in a community of
practice. We can make a distinction between any professional task
(that gets done) and the kind of reflection that goes on in the
head of an individual about that task. While we recognise that
indi-vidual in the head reflection is both important and necessary,
it is not the only show in town. We see it as problematic that
models and accounts of reflection
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP297
(e.g. Brockbank and McGill 2007) usually present reflection as
an individual matter (the individual thinks about their intentions
before teaching, conducts the class and then reflects in their head
on action). Foregrounding the individual process underestimates the
value of collaborative processes. Johns model (2000) puts more
emphasis on the act of sharing with a colleague or mentor, which
she argues enables new understandings to be established. We also
find Zepkes definition (2003: 170) helpful in this regard. He says
that reection is a process to help us learn from our own or others
experiences and to turn that learning into action (our emphasis).
Brookfield (1995: 92) too proposes that the goals of a critically
re-flective teacher should extend beyond autobiographical
self-reflection and include the critical reflective lenses of the
students eyes, our colleagues experiences, and theoretical
literature. However, learning from other colleagues is not the same
as a co-constructed sense of reflecting together through
interaction (which is much more in tune with Deweys original
formulation) and underestimates dialogic processes of collaborative
reflection. Hatton and Smith (1995) see dialogic reflec-tion as
involving discourse with self. We would agree with this but the
notion of dialogic reflection should also include discourse with
others (in various collab-orative and workplace processes) as well
as between different forms of know-ledge, particularly experiential
and received knowledge (Wallace 1991). It is evi-dent that
knowledge and action can be co-constructed in conversational groups
(Bailey 1996) and that the constructivist power of such
collaborative small groups (Bailey & Willet 2004: 15) can
create opportunities for dialogic reflection.
2.3Dominance of written forms of reflection
The dominance in RP literature of written forms of reflection at
the expense of possible spoken forms is a key issue in this paper.
We recognise that it is impor-tant to look at the bigger context of
individual written reflective texts (see Spiro and Wickens 2011).
In particular we have concerns about the way that assessment and
evaluation distort the kind of reflection that individuals do. It
is important to explore the discourse/discourses of reflective
writing (see also Mann and Walsh 2011 and Farr, 2011 for arguments
for the importance of a discourse perspective).
Apart from the washback effect of assessment on the discourse of
reflection, there are also issues with the forms of writing
required. A common problem with written forms of RP is that the
focus of attention becomes the actual writing itself, or rather the
proforma, checklist or whatever which is used as a stimulus to
reflec-tion. There are (at least) two outcomes of this approach.
The first, as stated above, is that practitioners become concerned
with completing the reflective task (whether this has any
connection with their real experience or not). At its worst,
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
298Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
this can result in inauthentic reflection (Roberts 1998) and
even faking it (Hobbs 2007), where the twin pressures of external
course demands and natural ten-dency to conceal weaknesses and
concentrate on strengths and success stories combine to limit real
reflection. As Scott (2005: 27) says, reflective writing,
osten-sibly a form of self-analysis, takes place in an
institutional forum and is scruti-nized according to institutional
means and standards; Bolton sees such social structures as limiting
the value of personal experience and increasingly hem-ming
professionals in (2010: 11).
Hobbs argues that reflection is especially difficult for novice
teachers (her context is an initial teacher certificate course).
The use of proformas on such ini-tial teacher education courses may
be counter-productive given that trainees are asked to repeatedly
reflect and write down their thoughts. They can easily be-come
mechanical and recipe-following (Boud, 2010: 27). A probable
conse-quence then is that reflections operate, at best, at surface
level and there is often no real evidence of engagement or
criticality. The second problem with this ap-proach is that the
reflective task is not graded to the corresponding stage of
devel-opment. Teachers in training, for example, could benefit
greatly from completing a range of reflective tasks over time
rather than completing the same task (a checklist or proforma)
again and again. By using a variety of tasks, practitioners might
be encouraged to think more deeply, especially if there is scope
for progres-sion in the tasks themselves.
We can see some of these issues embedded in the following
interview com-ments from Elena on an initial teacher education
course (PGCE: Postgraduate Certificate in Education). It sheds
light on the question of whether achieving re-flection is
encouraged in a criteria-led and evidence-based process. Elena has
finished her teaching-practice in London and although she has had a
positive experience, she is clearly frustrated by the form-filling
and beaurocratic aspects of the job. This is an English translation
of the original Spanish version from the research interview:
I spent a whole day last week writing the evidence which
consists of seven sentences start-ing today I realised this and bla
bla bla. But because its evidence based actually I could very well
not have done these things and written that I had anyway. Theyre
asking you to create the evidence out of nothing but its completely
possible because its such a long list and I told my mentor that and
he said well do it if you think by the end of the year you havent
pro-duced evidence for everything, just fake it (Gray and Block,
2012: 1301).
Block and Gray make the point that this kind of text is an
admission that book-keeping exercises (showing evidence) are being
pushed aside by the trainee and that institutional lip-service is
being paid the idea of reflection (2012: 131). The worry is that
reflection is subverted and trivialised at the very moment when
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP299
genuine opportunities for reflection might be useful (ibid).
This extract is inter-esting in a number of other ways. First, it
shows reflection on the process of be-coming a teacher, although
this may not be the kind of reflection that that they (the tutors)
want. Secondly, it suggests that the time Elena has to reflect on
the teaching process is taken up instead with mechanical
form-filling. Thirdly, it dem-onstrates, through the mentors
advice, that it is relatively easy for trainee teachers to fake
evidence or reflections. Finally, there is more than a suggestion
in this com-ment that it might be helpful for trainees to provide
their own evidence for profes-sional development rather than
selecting from a list provided by the institution.
The problem with an evidence-based checklist approach is that it
prioritises a product orientation to learning. It does not value
reflective writing as a process. We need to think more about the
distinction between reflection through writing and writing as a
record of reflection. It is held that reflection can be slippery
(Moon, 2004: 4) and so it needs to be recorded while it is fresh in
the mind. How-ever, writing is not just a record of reflection. It
is reflection in itself. The process of reflective articulation
does not report pre-existing thought. It distils, clarifies or even
reframes an experience, situation or event and increases awareness.
It is ongoing and reflexive, a constant process of trying to get it
right in which saying it right or thinking it right are
intermediary processes.
2.4Appropriate reflective toolsThere remain issues with the
nature and timing of reflective tools used. First of all, there is
the one-size fits all problem where the tool is not sufficiently
orien-tated to particular contextual needs. Then there is the too
much too soon prob-lem which is especially problematic in short
pre-service courses (see Hobbs 2007). Reflective tasks need to be
introduced slowly. If they are too complicated, they stifle budding
reflection. If they become an increasing chore and there is a lack
of variety, the reflective task becomes an institutionalised
requirement that then encourages superficial engagement or
inauthentic reflection. In addition, there may be a design problem
of the lack of progression in the reflective tools and tasks (see
above).
We observe that many prompts for reflection are problem-based,
which may be limiting. It might be just as useful to think of other
triggers in line with ex-ploratory practice (Allwright and Hanks
2009). Exploratory practice avoids the perceived problem-based
orientation of action research and focuses on puzzles. Allwright
argues that puzzle avoids the negative connotations of problem
(ad-mission of incompetence) and involves areas of professional
life we might just want to try to understand better (2003: 117).
Munby and Russell (1990) also suggest puzzles of practice and this
is more in tune with Schns view that
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
300Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
attention should be brought to bear on some puzzling or
troubling or interesting phenomenon (1983: 50).
3RP: A way forwardSo far in this paper we have argued that AL
and Reflective Practice share the same concern: solving real world
problems where language is a key issue (Brumfit 1995: 27). The
preceding section highlighted the key problems associated with RP,
which will be addressed below.
In order to reflect properly on practice, we suggest, there is a
fundamental need to understand the language used to accomplish a
particular workplace ac-tivity. Reflective practice is an important
element of achieving such awareness and understanding. In this
section, we propose a more empirical, data-led and linguistic
description of the nature of RP, presented in three parts:a.
Data-led reflective practiceb. Dialogic RPc. Appropriate tools for
RP
The second of these (b) combines a response to two of the
problems outlined above: too much focus on the individual and the
dominance of written forms of reflection are two sides of the same
coin.
In the section which follows, we present evidence from our own
data-sets, accumulated over a number of years, and taken from a
range of teacher education and professional development contexts,
including ITE (initial teacher education), CPD (continuing
professional development) and contexts where teachers are working
independently or as part of a research project. While the focus
here is very much towards second language teacher education, our
concerns extend to all contexts in which teachers are pursuing
professional development, either as part of a structured programme
such as a Diploma or Masters degree, or through a more autonomous
self-development route.
The methodology we are using to analyse the data is broadly
discourse analy-sis, with a focus on spoken interaction and an
endeavour to examine the ways in which meanings in a range of
professional settings are co-constructed.
3.1Data-led RP
One of the key ways in which RP practices and procedures could
be made more principled and objective is to make the whole process
data-led. In light of the
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP301
fact that teaching is a hugely complex process, involving
multi-party talk and anynumber of agendas occurring simultaneously,
it is, we suggest, difficult to reflect without some kind of
evidence. Put simply, data is a key form of evi-denceand
evidence-based decision-making lies at the heart of developing
ap-propriate practice in any organisation. If we accept that data
is central to reflec-tion, the question then becomes whose data? We
can take the position that anyform of data can be helpful in
providing opportunities for reflection. How-ever, our argument is
that a teachers own data is a particularly rich resource. This is
partly a question of ownership and where there is ownership of the
data there is more likely to be a change in teaching behaviour,
since teachers aremore engaged when they use data from their own
context and experience. They are both the producers and consumers
of their research (Kumaravadivelu 1999).
Of course, research for many involves the collection and
analysis of data and the publication of findings. As we have said
above, any form of data can be useful (e.g. narrative accounts,
critical incidents) but we are making a particular argu-ment here
for the value of recorded data and transcripts of these recordings.
We see this kind of use of data as different from data in big R
research (large-scale, public, generalizable). The kind of research
we are describing here is small-scale, localised, context-specific
and private, conducted by teachers for their own ends. Typically,
this process is situated and concerned with the development of an
appropriate methodology (Holliday 1994).
Greater understanding of professional practice is more possible
when a pro-cess of inquiry is carried out in the teachers natural
environment, using a teachers own data. This is consistent with van
Liers view of ecological research and the kind of reflexive
relationship (between interaction, language, learning and
knowledge) that we emphasised earlier. Van Liers perspective on
ecological re-search sees teaching practices in the classroom as
being comparable with any natural environment in which the
slightest change to one sub-system will affect other systems:
Ecological research pays a great deal of attention to the
smallest detail of the interaction, since within these details
maybe contained the seeds of learning. The reflective teacher can
learn to read the environment to notice such details. (Van Lier
2000: 11)
The advantage of this approach is that practice is theorised, in
a process where the smallest details (in the data) can be a prompt
for reflection and then changes can be implemented and then
evaluated (van Lier 2000). The main justification for the kind of
microscopic analysis we are suggesting is the fact that the
research is located in a context that is both clearly defined and
familiar.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
302Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
It is also worth saying that the value of this kind of data-led
reflective process is just as important for teacher-trainers as for
novice teachers. Indeed, a teacher-educator who practices what he
or she preaches is more likely show commitment to and therefore
promote reflective practice. Edge (2011: 20) talks of consistency
(the demand of teachers that they should be reflective must also
apply to the teacher educator). Edge quotes Argyris & Schn
(1974: 196) that we need teacher educators who ... are strong
enough to invite confrontation of their teaching and to make
themselves vulnerable to inquiry into the incongruities in their
teaching. In the following extract, we see an example of two
university-based teacher- trainers using transcripts of their
feedback sessions as an impetus for reflection. They have been
talking about the kinds of activities included in the feedback
ses-sions (and their relative merit). In this extract Trainer A
articulates a view con-cerned with the origin and nature of the
feedback discussion tasks:
Extract 1A: It was really interesting looking closely at this
one (.) Im beginning to think
it might be useful to look again at the way we use observation
and discussion tasks (.) th- (.) sometimes think they get in the
way of the trainees (.) too much our agenda maybe=
B: =you mean in the actual feedback sessionsA: yeah (.) the
focus needs to come from them more often (.) if they were more
involved in choosing the focus of the observations theyd get
more out of it (.) I might suggest that they use some of Pebblepad
discussions to choose an observation focus (.)
What is interesting about this piece of data is that it not only
shows how the teacher-trainer is considering how best to promote
engagement and reflection (through integrating Pebblepad
discussions to encourage trainees to choose the observation focus)
but it gives an insight into how a data-led process (the use of
transcripts) can lead to new possibilities in practice.
Although, as we have argued above, the big R research model may
not be appropriate here, more informal traditions do resonate with
the position we are adopting. For example, Exploratory Practice
(EP) (see Allwright 2003) and Action Research (AR) rest on the
premise that teachers can and should investigate their own
classrooms and both processes have reflection at their core. The
starting point for AR is the identification of a puzzle or issue.
The process continues with data collection, data analysis and
finally outcomes in the form of changes to practice are suggested.
This process is normally a collaborative one, involving discussion
and dialogue with a colleague or critical friend (see below). The
value
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP303
and relevance of this kind of exploratory or informal research
is self-evident: it helps teachers to focus on issues or puzzles in
their own classrooms and is desir-able from the position of both
professional development and learning. However, the point we want
to emphasise is that an action research process is data-led and
that reflection on collected data is integral. Improvement in
awareness and teach-ing performance can be facilitated by the
collection and analysis of a small amount of data. Here, data are
things like recordings of a teaching session, a set of test
results, feedback from a colleague who has observed a teaching
session, a conversation with a group of students, minute papers2
and so on. In short, col-lecting data means collecting evidence,
which will help a teacher address a par-ticular issue.
3.2Dialogic reflective practice
This section combines two of our central concerns: that
reflective practice is often conducted in a written form and that
it is often an individual enterprise. Our argu-ment is that we
should be embracing a dialogic/collaborative view of reflection
that allows potentially richer articulation and analysis (see also
McCabe et al 2010). In this section, we consider how any future
repositioning of RP should emphasize dialogic collaboration.
Developing experiential knowledge, we suggest, is supported by
collaborative discussion where thoughts and ideas about class-room
practice are first articulated and then reformulated in a
progression towards enhanced understanding. In this approach,
reflection on practice does not occur in isolation, but in
discussion with another practitioner. An example of such a process
would be cooperative development, which involves a Speaker and an
Understander (Edge 2002).
Socio-cultural views of learning are helpful here, emphasizing
as they do the fact that all human development is underpinned by
language, often talk. It is not that social activity influences
cognition ... but that social activity is the process through which
human cognition is formed. (Lantolf & Johnson 2007: 878). The
process of social interaction forms the internalized psychological
tools that fuel reflection (Johnson and Golombek 2011). Quite
simply, if we wish to develop, under-stand or improve in any aspect
of our lives, one of the first steps is usually to talk about it.
It is especially important for novice teachers to have
opportunities for
2Minute papers are short, written evaluations by students on a
teachers teaching. They are quick to complete (hence minute paper)
and give useful feedback on specific teaching sessions.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
304Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
reflection through talk so that they articulate current
understanding but also ex-perience the forms of inquiry by which
competent practitioners reason their way, in problematic instances,
to clear connections between general knowledge and particular cases
(Schn 1987: 39).
As a way of exemplifying how dialogue might enhance reflection,
consider this extract in which two teachers (T1 and T2) on an
in-service teacher educa-tionprogramme are discussing their use of
teacher echo (repetitions) in an ESL context involving a group of
multilingual adult learners. Both teachers had agreed on a focus
for attention in their teaching (teacher echo). They then
individually made a short (15 minute) video-recording of their
teaching. The next step was to watch both recordings together and
use this as a basis for discussion, part of which is shown in
extract 2 below:
Extract 2T1: I was struck by how much echoing I did before and
sometimes there was a
justification for it .... but a LOT of the time .... it was just
echo for the sake of echo so I was fairly consciously trying NOT to
echo this time
T2: And what effect did that (reduced echo) have on the
interaction patterns or the involvement of learners in the class,
did it have any effect that you noticed?
T1: I think that it made them more confident perhaps in giving
me words be-cause it was only going to come back to them if the
pronunciation WASnt right rather than just getting ((1)) straight
back to them. When youre elicit-ing vocabulary if theyre coming out
with the vocabulary and its adequate and its clear, theres no need
for you to echo it back to the other students .... youre wasting a
lot of time by echoing stuff back.
Here we see very clearly the value of dialogue in promoting
closer understand-ings. T1 is reflecting on her use of echo, the
repetition of student contributions a common feature of classroom
discourse. Her realisation that echo can become a kind of habit
(echo for echos sake) is probed by T2 who asks about the effect of
echo on learner involvement. T1s response is quite revealing: she
says that re-duced echo makes learners more confident and that a
lot of echo is unnecessary. Arguably, this realisation may not have
occurred without an opportunity to dis-cuss echo and reflect on its
effects. T2s contribution allows her to think about her language
use and give reasons, possibly for the first time. It is this kind
of light bulb moment which professional dialogue can create.
Through talk, new realisa-tions and greater insights come about and
get their first airing.
In a second example (extract 3 below), the teacher Nick (N) is
discussing wait time with a colleague Irene (I). This extract is
taken from an action research
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP305
project in which teachers were considering their use of language
and interaction in an adult ESL setting. The aim of the project was
to help teachers improve their understandings of teacher talk;
teacher-participants became researchers of their own practices
(Walsh 2006).
Extract 3N: I just found it was very enjoyable and the feedback,
like extended wait-time.
Lots of GAPS here where you think theres nobody replying and
then they suddenly come in
I: Was that conscious or was that just something....?N: No I
deliberately because I know that the far-easterners have problems
speak-
ing and therefore I gave them I just gave them whatever time
they needed you know. In some cases theyre processing the question
and theyre processing the information and they HAVE to literally
look into their own minds and do they have an experience which
relates to the question. And this is the case I think particularly
with Roy with Yung rather and Jang who are Korean I think the
wait-time is ALways more extensive for them.
In this example of dialogic RP, we see how, for Nick, there is a
growing realisation of the value of wait-time in whole class open
discussion (I just gave them what-ever time they needed). He
comments on what actually happens following a teacher prompt
(theyre processing the question [...] and they HAVE to literally
look into their own minds and do they have an experience which
relates to the ques-tion) and he makes the interesting observation
that for some students, this takes more time and they need to be
given that time (the wait-time is ALways more ex-tensive for them).
Of course, we might also note that Nick is stereotyping Korean
students with these comments, something which wed obviously want to
avoid. Nonetheless, it would appear from Nicks comments that this
is the first time he has been in a position to actually think about
wait time as an important phenom-enon and one that teachers need to
incorporate into their teaching. Arguably, a spoken rather than
written form of RP and the involvement of a colleague allowed Nick
to analyse this aspect of his teaching in sharper focus and make
changes by increasing wait-time where necessary. Note too how his
colleague, Irene, plays an important role in guiding the discussion
and in helping Nick to clarify his own thinking around a particular
issue. A further data extract collected by Nick actu-ally teaching
showed him using longer pauses and extended wait time.
A dialogic approach to reflective practice, we suggest,
addresses the need for more spoken forms of reflection and for a
collaborative, rather than individual, approach. In the next
section we consider how appropriate tools might enhance RP.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
306Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
3.3Appropriate tools for RP
The previous two sections established arguments for a more
data-led and more collaborative approach to RP. In this section, we
demonstrate how appropriate tools may assist data collection and
promote collaboration. The extracts pre-sented above already, to
some extent, exemplify the kinds of tools we are advo-cating(for
example, the use of teachers own transcripts and the use of video-
recordings). Below, we present two further examples of tools that
teachers might use to facilitate a process of RP and make it more
data-led.
3.3.1Ad hoc self-observation
In the earlier sections of this paper, we argued against the
wholesale adoption of frameworks or models for RP. This said, there
is a case to be made for the use of ad hoc instruments, designed
for specific tasks in specific contexts (c.f. Wallace 1998). Such
an approach permits up-close self-observation and allows for the
emergence of detailed understanding of professional practice,
without the need for a transcription or recording. An ad hoc based
approach to self-observation responds to the issue of
standardisation that Gray and Block (2012: 141) raise. They present
a critique of a McDonaldised system designed to produce teachers
capable of using basic tools of the trade such as textbooks in ways
which are ef-ficient, calculable and predictable and which
guarantee the delivery of a stan-dardised product into the
educational marketplace. Ad hoc tools are designed by and for
teachers in a local context and so, to some extent at least, avoid
issues of standardisation.
One example of such an instrument was devised by Walsh (2006).
The SETT (self evaluation of teacher talk) framework was designed
in collaboration with a group of university TESOL teachers and used
to help teachers gain closer under-standings of the complex
relationship between language, interaction and learn-ing.
Essentially, it is an adaptable instrument comprising four
micro-contexts (called modes) and 14 interactional features (such
as clarification request, dis-play question, teacher echo). By
recording their classes and then completing the SETT grid, teachers
establish a snapshot of their verbal behaviour while teach-ing. It
has been used and adapted to a range of contexts globally and is
now em-ployed on initial teacher education courses in, for example,
Singapore, Ireland and Taiwan (see Walsh 2011). Similar tools have
been advocated by other re-searchers with an overall goal of making
classrooms more dialogic and more engaging for learners (see, for
example, Mortimer and Scott 2003; Alexander 2008).
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP307
In extract 4 below, the teacher, Joy, has analysed her teaching
using the SETT framework and is talking about her evaluation with a
colleague, Mike. Both teachers are using the framework as part of
an INSETT programme and working towards their DELTA (Diploma in
English Language Teaching for Adults) qualifi-cation. The focus of
the reflection is scaffolding.
Extract 4Mike: Is scaffolding something you think you do more of
in that type of mode for
example youre in a skills and systems mode here? Do you think
its some-thing that happens more in some modes than others or is it
maybe too difficult to say at this stage?
Joy: My first feeling would be yes because its so focused on
language that any-thing they give me that might not be correct and
not clear then Im going to re-formulate it or anything they dont
understand Im going to give them a lot of examples so thats all
scaffolding isnt it?
This is perhaps the first time that Joy has had an opportunity
to reflect on her useof scaffolding. Her comments indicate that she
is trying to both understand for herself and explain to Mike how
scaffolding occurs in practice (Im going to re-formulate it [...]
Im going to give them a lot of examples so thats all scaffold-ing
isnt it?). Joy explains that scaffolding occurs more in skills and
systems modebecause this is the mode where the main focus is the
language itself (its so focused on language). Mike plays a key role
in this extract in helping Joy to clarify her own reflections,
understand when a particular practice occurs, and explain why.
What we are witnessing here is that this teacher is reflecting
through dia-logue, based on an earlier analysis of her own
interactions with students. We suggest that this is a far more
effective means of promoting RP than simply ask-ing people to
reflect on their practice. Not only are teachers able to discuss
particular aspects of their teaching, they are also able to give
reasons for a particular strategy and make observations about its
appropriacy at a given moment.
3.3.2Stimulated recall
One of the most powerful means of promoting reflective practice
is to get teachers to make a video-recording of their teaching and
then discuss it with a critical friend or colleague. This
procedure, known as stimulated recall, (see, for exam-ple, Lyle
2003) has the immediate advantage of allowing both parties to
watch
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
308Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
something and comment on it together. It is a very useful tool
and an excellent means of raising awareness about specific features
of a teachers professional practice. In its purest form, it is used
to get practitioners to actually recall specific incidents and
comment on them, but it can also be used as a stimulus to provide
talking-points and promote discussion.
In extract 5 below, for example, the teacher Mary is explaining
how she clarified a piece of vocabulary which had been elicited
(Note that the class-room interaction is presented on the left, the
teachers commentary on the right). This extract is taken from the
action research project described above, where teachers were
analysing their own use of language while teaching (Walsh
2006).
Extract 5
(The teacher is eliciting vocab items and collecting them on the
board. Learner 1 is trying to explain a word)
1.L1: discographics=2.M: =ooh what do you mean?3.L1: the people
who not the people the (4) the business about music record series
and=4.M: =is this a word youre thinking of in Basque or Spanish in
English I dont know this word disco-graphics what I would say is er
(writes on board) like you said the music business=5.L1: =the music
business? what is the name of of er industry?=6.M: =the music
industry as well its actually better
I was going to say its a false friend but I decided not to
because I thought that might confuse her ... maybe I misunderstood
her now when I look back at it ... I under-stood at the time that
she meant that this was a particular industry but maybe she meant a
business .... but I wasnt prepared to spend a long time on that
because it didnt seem important even though there was still a doubt
in my mind ....
A number of observations can be made about the interaction: In
1, L1 comes up with an invented piece of vocabulary,
discographics,
which is immediately met with surprise by Mary in 2. L1 tries to
explain (in 3) and encounters some perturbation, indicated by
self-
initiated self-repair and a 4 second pause, which Mary ignores,
preferring to let L1 struggle a little longer.
In 4, Mary interrupts L1 (indicated =) and seeks clarification,
offering an ac-knowledgement of L1s previous contribution (like you
said). Mary also scaf-
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP309
folds a more precise term, offering the music business as a more
appropri-ate phrase for discographics.
In 5, it is apparent that L1 is not satisfied with this
attempted clarification, as indicated by her two questions, both
suggesting some doubt and confusion.
Mary again interrupts (in 6), possibly preventing a fuller
explanation from L1 and possibly causing further confusion.
Marys self-reflections on her data are interesting. Her insights
offer a detailed analysis of a repair strategy which may have
backfired and caused more confu-sion. She is able to rationalise
the whole process and take stock of the different courses of action
taken, and alternatives rejected (I was going to say its a false
friend but I decided not to because I thought that might confuse
her). Mary is also able to accept that she may have understood L1s
explanation and that she pos-sibly could have allowed more time. By
her own admission, and as evidenced in 5 (see above), there was
some uncertainty about the outcome of this repair being
successfully achieved. There is doubt both in Marys comments (there
was still a doubt in my mind ....), and in the questions asked by
L1 (the music business? what is the name of industry?).
It is clear, from this extract, that stimulated recall is a
particularly useful data-led reflective tool, offering as it does
an opportunity for teachers to use data to inform their reflections
and then engage in dialogue to fine tune their thinking. Even
without the transcripts, much can be learned by participants and it
is a methodology which brings together very nicely the various
ele-ments which we have argued, are necessary for RP to work
effectively: tools, dataand dialogue. Stimulated recall is
relatively easy to organise, inexpensive and unobtrusive, and has
considerable potential for influencing professional
development.
4ConclusionsAL has already provided useful attention to talk at
work (e.g. Edwards and West-gate 1992; Drew and Heritage 1992).
This paper has argued that AL can also pro-vide a lead in looking
at how data can aid reflection and a professional learning process.
We also believe that an AL perspective can usefully be brought to
bear on the nature of reflective talk itself. This paper has not
directly addressed this per-spective but we hope the paper might
act as a catalyst for such description. We need better data-led
descriptions of levels and types of reflection.
The main argument of this paper is that RP needs to rebalanced
away from an individual written version of RP towards processes
which are data-led,
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
310Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
collaborative, dialogic and which use appropriate tools. Such a
repositioning of RP might contribute to deeper understandings of
real-world workplace practice. As well as descriptions of
reflective practice, we need more accounts of reflective tools
which consider their nature and appropriacy at particular stages of
profes-sional development. While some valuable work has been done,
there is clearly a key role for AL to play in any future
revitalisation of RP.
We also need more critical accounts that examine whether
institutional sup-port for reflective practice are also backed up
by creating opportunities for such collaborative talk (both in
terms of time and space). For example, we see staff-room talk as
crucial to informal processes of reflection. Richards (1999) shows
how stories provide the basis for collaborative understandings.
However, it goes without saying that teachers need a staffroom for
this to be true (and not all schools have such a space). It is also
worth making the point that reflection might be better seen as part
of teachers jobs rather than an add on or extra thing to do. This
would mean that RP gets timetabled into the working week and
teachers are properly paid for it.
We are not claiming that a more dialogic and collaborative
approach to RP is without problems and challenges. There are likely
to be tensions in many contexts where RP is used for professional
development; for example, there may be issues relating to the
social relations of those engaged in RP trust andmutual respect are
clearly essential. There may be a concern that the ap-proach to RP
being proposed here could result in a proliferation of standard
practices and promote beliefs which are not always appropriate in a
particu-larcontext. It may be true that dialogic RP is not
necessarily always the most ef-fective and we certainly acknowledge
that written reflections have a key role to play.
Nonetheless, it is still our contention that a more data-led
treatment of RP will help in achieving greater understanding of
professional practice, especially if the data involves those doing
the reflecting. This might help avoid the situation prevailing on
many teacher education programmes where reflection is left to the
individual who lacks clarity about what reflection might look like.
In avoiding vague understandings, we need to design teacher
education materials which integrate data-led examples of reflective
practice so that choices, decisions, puzzles, and scenarios are
foregrounded. This not only gives a more concrete idea of what
reflection looks like, but it encourages a view that teachers are
always in a process of becoming a better teacher. Considerations of
appropriacy and fit with context are always and necessarily in a
state of flux and accommodation. This is why reflection is
important.
In redirecting our focus towards collaborative and spoken
processes, we are not suggesting that the autonomous individual is
incapable of self-reflection. In
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP311
any professional development process, collaboration and autonomy
are both essential ingredients:
Self-directing persons develop most fully through fully
reciprocal relations with other self-directing persons. Autonomy
and co-operation are necessary and enhancing values of human life.
(Heron 1996: 3)
In the final part of the paper, the need for appropriate
reflective tools was high-lighted. The two examples featured above
(ad hoc self-observation and stimu-lated recall) are not presented
here as uniquely reflective. We consider there to berange of other
viable reflective tools (e.g. critical incidents, use of
portfolios, cooperative development, narrative inquiry, staffroom
talk, and critical friend-ships). The point we seek to make is that
we need more data-led accounts of both reflection and any
interaction involved and also the outcomes and value of these
tools.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Fiona Copland, Keith
Richards, Mohammed Manasreh, Heo Jaeyeon and Floricely Dzay Chulim
for some help-fulfeedback on earlier versions of this article. We
would also like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their detailed
and helpful responses to our article.
ReferencesAkbari, Ramin. 2007. Reflections on reflection: A
critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2
teacher education. System 35(2). 192207. Alexander, Robin J.
2008. Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk (4th
edition),
Dialogos.Allwright, Richard. 2003. Exploratory practice:
Rethinking practitioner research in language
teaching. Language teaching research 7(2). 113114.Allwright,
Richard and James Hanks. 2009. The developing language learner: An
introduction to
exploratory practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Argyris, Chris &
Donald Schn. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 28. Bailey, Kathleen. 1996. The
role of collaborative dialogue in teacher education. In Donald
Freeman & Jack Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language
teaching, 260280. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold Coombs, and Leroi Daniels.
2007. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of curriculum
studies 31(3). 285302.
Bartlett, Leo. 1990. Teacher development through reflective
teaching. In Jack C. Richards and David Nunan (eds.) Second
language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
312Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
Bengtsson, Jan. 1995. What is reflection? On reflection in the
teaching profession and teacher education. Teachers and teaching:
Theory and practice, 1(1) 2332.
Boud, David. 2010. Relocating reflection in the context of
practice. In Helen Bradbury, Nick Frost, Sue Kilminster and Miriam
Zukas. (Eds.) Beyond reflective practice, 2536. London:
Routledge.
Boud, David, Rosemary Keogh and David Walker. 1985. What is
reflection in learning? In David Boud, Rosemary Keogh & David
Walker (eds.) Reflection: Turning experience into learning, 717.
London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Bradbury, Helen, Nick Frost, Sue Kilminster and Miriam Zukas
(eds). 2010.Beyond reflective practice; new approaches to
professional lifelong learning.Abingdon: Routledge.
Brockbank, Anne & Ian McGill. 2007. Facilitating reflective
learning in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into
Higher Education and Open University Press.
Brookfield, Stephen.D. 1997. Assessing critical thinking. New
directions for adult and continuing education, No. 75, 1729.
Brookfield, Stephen. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective
teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brumfit, Christopher. 1995.
Teacher professionalism and research. In Guy Cook and Barbara
Seidlhofer, (Eds.) Principles and practice in applied
linguistics. 2742. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burns, Ann. 1999. Collaborative action research for English
language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, Martin. 2005. Applied linguistics: A pragmatic
discipline, a generic discipline? Applied Linguistics. 26(4).
568581.
Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison. 2011. Research
methods in education. London: Routledge-Falmer.
Dewey, John. 1933. How we think: A re-statement of the relation
of reective thinking to the education process. Boston: DC Heath
& Co.
Drew, Paul and John Heritage. (eds). 1992. Talk at work:
Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Edge, Julian. 1992. Co-operative development. London:
Longman.Edge, Julian. 2001. Action research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL
Inc.Edge, Julian.2002. Continuing cooperative development: A
discourse framework for individuals
as colleagues.Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Edge,
Julian. 2011. The reflexive teacher educator in TESOL: roots and
wings. London: Routledge.Edwards, Anthony and David Westgate. 1994.
Investigating classroom talk. London: Falmer.Farr, Fiona. 2011.
True thinking or cosy chats: reflective talk in language teacher
education.
Reflection in the round:discourses and practices of reflection
in HE. BAAL-CUP Seminar, Westminster Institute of Education,
OxfordBrookes University, June 24 2011. Available:
https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/RIR/June+24+BAAL_CUP+Seminar.
Farrell, Tom. 2007. Reflective language teaching: From research
to practice. London: Continuum.
Gray, John and David Block. 2012. The marketisation of language
teacher education and neoliberalism. In David Block, John Gray and
Marnie Holborow (eds.).Neoliberalism and applied linguistics.
114143. London: Routledge.
Grayling, Anthony. 2003. Meditations for the humanist: Ethics
for a secular age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hatton, Neville and David Smith. 1995. Reflection in teacher
education: towards definition and implementation. Teaching and
teacher education. 11(17). 3349.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP313
Heron John. 1996. Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human
condition. London: Sage Publications.
Hobbs, Valerie. 2007. Faking it or hating it: can reflective
practice be forced? Reflective practice. 8(3). 405417.
Johns, Christopher. 2000. Becoming a reflective practitioner: a
reflective and holistic approach to clinical nursing, practice
development and clinical supervision. Oxford: Blackwell
Science.
Johnson, Karen E. 1995. Understanding communication in second
language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, Karen E. and Paula R. Golombek. (Eds.). 2011. Research
on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective
on professional development. London: Routledge.
Kemmis, Robin and Stephen McTaggart. 1992. The action research
planner (third edition).Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin
University Press.
Killion, John & Geoff Todnem. 1991. A process for personal
theory building.Educational Leadership. 48(7). 1416.
Korthagen, Fred. A. J. & Theo Wubbels. 1995. Characteristics
of reflective practitioners: towards an operationalization of the
concept of reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 1(1). 5172.
Kumaravadivelu, Bernard. 1999. Critical classroom discourse
analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2). 453484.
Lantolf, James P. and Karen E. Johnson. 2007. Extending Firth
& Wagners ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and
teacher education. The Modern Language Journal. 91(5). 875890.
Loughran, John. 2002. Effective reflective practice: In search
of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education. 51(1). 3343.
Lyle, John.2003.Stimulated recall: a report on its use in
naturalistic research.British Educational Research Journal.
29(6).861878.
Mann, Steve and Steve Walsh. 2011. Shaping reflective tools to
context. Paper presented at the reflection in the round: Discourses
and practices of reflection at the BAAL/CUP seminar (Oxford Brookes
University).
Mann, Steve. 2005. State-of-the-art: the language teachers
development. Language Teaching. 38(3). 103118.
Maughan, Chris and John Webb. 2001. Small group learning and
assessment. Retrieved August 02c, 2012, from the Higher Education
Academy website: www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/temp/assessment.html
McCabe, Mike, Steve Walsh, Ron Wideman and Eileen Winter. 2011.
The R word in teacher education: understanding the teaching and
learning of critical reflective practice. International electronic
journal for leadership in learning.
McLaughlin, T. E.1999. Beyond the reflective practitioner.
Educational philosophy and theory. 31(1). 925.
Mezirow, Jack. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Moon, Jennifer. 2004. A handbook of reflective and experiential
learning: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Mortimer, Eduardo and Phillip Scott. 2003. Meaning making in
secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Oxford University
Press.
Moseley, David, Vivienne Baumfield, Julian Elliott and Steven
Higgins. 2005. Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and
learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
314Steve Mann and Steve Walsh
Munby, Hugh and Tom Russell. 1990. Metaphor in the study of
teachers professional knowledge. Theory into Practice. 29.
116121.
Pennycook, Alistair. 1994. The cultural politics of English as
an international language. Essex: Longman.
Richards, Keith. 1999. Working towards common understandings:
Collaborative interaction in staffroom stories.Text.19(1).
143174.
Roberts, Jon. 1998. Language teacher education. London:
Arnold.Schn, Donald. 1983. The reective practitioner: How
professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.Schn, Donald. 1987. Educating the reflective
practitioner. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass Inc.Schn, Donald.
1991. The reflective practitioner. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing
Ltd.Scott, Tony. 2004. Creating the subject of portfolios:
Reflective writing and the conveyance of
institutional prerogatives. Written communication. 22(3).
326.Semetsky, Inna.2008.On the creative logic of education, or:
Re-reading Dewey through the
lens of complexity science.Educational Philosophy and
Theory.40(1). 8395.Spiro, Jane and Paul Wickens. 2011. Reflection
in the round:Discourses and practices of
reflection in HE. BAAL-CUP Seminar, Westminster Institute of
Education, OxfordBrookes University, June 24 2011. Availableat:
https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/RIR/June+24+BAAL_CUP+Seminar
van Lier, Leo. 2000. From input to affordance:
social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J.P.
Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.Wallace, Michael. 1998. Action research for language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Wallace, Michael. 1991. Training foreign
language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Walsh, Steve. 2006. Investigating classroom discourse.
London and New York: Routledge.Walsh, Steve. 2011. Exploring
classroom discourse: Language in action. London and New York:
Routledge.Wells, Gordon. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a
sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Zeichner, Kenneth. 1994.
Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective
practice
in teaching and teacher education. In Gunnar Handal, Sveinung
Vaage and Ingrid Carlgren (Eds) Teachers minds and actions:
Research on teachers thinking and practice. London: The Falmer
Press.
Zepke, Nick. 2003. Reflecting-Learning-Teaching. In Nick Zepke,
David Nugent & Louis Leach (eds.) Reflection to transformation:
A self-help book for teachers. 1733. Palmerston North, New Zealand:
Dunmore Press Ltd.
BionotesDr Steve Mann is Associate Professor at the Centre for
Applied Linguistics at Uni-versity of Warwick. He is Director of MA
ELT programmes. He previously lectured at both Aston University and
University of Birmingham. He has experience in
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
RP or RIP315
Hong Kong, Japan and Europe in both English language teaching
and teacher development. His most recent book Innovations in
Pre-service Teacher Education (2013) is part of the British
Councils new Innovation Series. Steve supervises a research group
of PhD students who are investigating teachers education and
development. The groups work considers aspects of teacher
development, reflec-tive practice and teacher beliefs.
Steve Walsh is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of
Postgraduate Re-search in the School of Education, Communication
and Language Sciences at Newcastle University. He has been involved
in English Language Teaching for more than 20 years and has worked
in a range of overseas contexts, includ-ing Hong Kong, Spain,
Hungary, Ireland, Poland and China. Steves research interests
include professional discourse, classroom discourse, teacher
develop-ment, second language teacher education, educational
linguistics and analyzing spoken interaction. He has published
extensively in these areas and is the Editor of the journal
Classroom Discourse published by Routledge.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM
-
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload
Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM