Teacher Reflection: Policies, Practices and Impacts 9781788921022

Citation preview

Teacher Reflection

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Founding Editor: Viv Edwards, University of Reading, UK Series Editors: Phan Le Ha, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA and Joel Windle, Monash University, Australia. Two decades of research and development in language and literacy education have yielded a broad, multidisciplinary focus. Yet education systems face constant economic and technological change, with attendant issues of identity and power, community and culture. What are the implications for language education of new ‘semiotic economies’ and communications technologies? Of complex blendings of cultural and linguistic diversity in communities and institutions? Of new cultural, regional and national identities and practices? The New Perspectives on Language and Education series will feature critical and interpretive, disciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives on teaching and learning, language and literacy in new times. New proposals, particularly for edited volumes, are expected to acknowledge and include perspectives from the Global South. Contributions from scholars from the Global South will be particularly sought out and welcomed, as well as those from marginalized communities within the Global North.  All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION: 111

Teacher Reflection Policies, Practices and Impacts Studies in Honor of Thomas S.C. Farrell Edited by

Zia Tajeddin and Atsuko Watanabe

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Jackson

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/TAJEDD1015 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Tajeddin, Zia, editor. | Watanabe, Atsuko, editor. Title: Teacher Reflection: Policies, Practices and Impacts/Edited by Zia Tajeddin and Atsuko Watanabe. Description: Bristol, UK; Jackson, TN: Multilingual Matters, 2022. | Series: New Perspectives on Language and Education: 111 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This book examines teacher reflection in three main areas: policies, practices and the impact of teacher reflection on teachers’ practices and professional development. The chapters shed light on concerns and challenges experienced by teachers in diverse international contexts and institutions”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022022400 (print) | LCCN 2022022401 (ebook) | ISBN 9781788921008 (paperback) | ISBN 9781788921015 (hardback) | ISBN 9781788921022 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788921039 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Reflective teaching. | Teaching—Psychological aspects. | Teachers—Training of. | Language teachers—Training of. Classification: LCC LB1025.3 .T3975 2022 (print) | LCC LB1025.3 (ebook) | DDC 371.102—dc23/eng/20220623 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022022400 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022022401 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-101-5 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-100-8 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK. USA: Ingram, Jackson, TN, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2022 Zia Tajeddin, Atsuko Watanabe and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by SAN Publishing Services. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd.

Contents



Figures and Tables

ix

Contributorsxi Acknowledgementsxvii

Introductionxix Zia Tajeddin and Atsuko Watanabe Part 1:  Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

1

Reflection on Reflective Practice Thomas S.C. Farrell

2  Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research Zia Tajeddin, Atsuko Watanabe and Hossein Ali Manzouri

3

20

Part 2:  Teacher Reflection Policies 3  Applying Farrell’s Evidence-Based Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education: A Reflective Practice Report Laura Baecher, Marcus Artigliere and Lauren McCoy

43

4  Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development Mark Wyatt and Ashraf Darwish

58

5  The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice  in TESOL-Related Policies Minh Hue Nguyen and Nur Hayati

72

6  Reflecting and Connecting: Creating Opportunities for Teacher Trainees to Connect Theory and Practice Ann M. Glazer and Kathleen M. Bailey

88

v

vi  Teacher Reflection

Part 3:  Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts 7  An Appreciative-Inquiry and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum Tammy Gregersen and Sarah Mercer

105

8  Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges Michael Karas, Juliane Martini and Farahnaz Faez

120

9  Researcher Reflexivity and Reflective Dialogue: An Exploration of Pre-Service Teachers’ Professional Identity Development Atsuko Watanabe

135

10  Novice and Experienced Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity Minoo Alemi and Zahra Maleknia

149

11  Reflective Practice as Identity Work: A Teacher Educator’s Reflections on Identity Tensions Bedrettin Yazan

164

12  ‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’: ­Pre-Service Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice During Overseas Immersion Rui Yuan and Min Yang

179

13  Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy Through Collaborative Reflection Zia Tajeddin and Neda Khanlarzadeh

194

14  Reflecting on Native/Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers Angela Farrell

209

15  Using Computer-Mediated Cooperative Development in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers Katie Webb, Steve Mann and Kamal Aqili Shafie 16  More than Words: Phraseology and Significance in the Reflective Practice Discourses of English Language Teacher Education Fiona Farr

224

238

Contents vii

17  Discourse of Reflections on Instant Joint Engagement in Online ELT Graduate Courses Hatime Çiftçi and Kenan Dikilitaş

253

Epilogue 266 Atsuko Watanabe and Zia Tajeddin

Index

270

Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1.1

Framework for reflecting on practice (Farrell, 2015b)

10

Figure 2.1

Screening process of the selected studies

28

Figure 2.2

Number of the selected studies per year

28

Figure 2.3

Research distribution in journals

28

Figure 3.1

Artifacts for reflection, reflection tools and reflection approaches for student teachers

45

Figure 3.2

Artifacts for reflection, reflection tools and reflection approaches for teacher educators

46

Figure 8.1

Themes for duoethnography as an effective reflective tool

125

Figure 8.2

Challenges of completing a duoethnographic assignment 129

Figure 11.1 A teacher candidate’s concept map of her CAN

168

Figure 11.2 Two teacher candidates’ co-constructed rubric

168

Figure 16.1 Overview of Teacher Education Corpus (TEC)

241

Figure 16.2 Random selection of 20 concordance lines of I feel that

243

Figure 16.3 Key multi-word expressions in TP feedback

244

Figure 16.4 Select key multi-word expressions in the feedback corpus

245

Figure 16.5 Random selection of 15 concordance lines of a little bit more

246

Tables

Table 2.1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

27

Table 2.2

Number of participants in the selected studies

29

ix

x  Teacher Reflection

Table 3.1

Reflecting on our teacher candidates’ reflection using Farrell’s five stages

48

Table 3.2

Farrell’s Beyond Practice reflective aspect applied to CSTP artifact

54

Table 5.1

Policy documents used as data

76

Table 5.2

Levels of reflection in the policies

77

Table 6.1

Number of students in each course and number of posts comprising the data set

93

Table 6.2

Themes, theme descriptors and theme examples

95

Table 6.3

Themes ranked by number and percent of total words

96

Table 8.1

Duo/trioethnography topics

124

Table 13.1

Teachers’ demographic information

198

Table 15.1

Description of moves

227

Contributors

Thomas S.C. Farrell is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at Brock University, Canada. Professor Farrell’s professional interests include Reflective Practice, and Language Teacher Education and Development. Professor Farrell has published widely in academic journals and has presented at major conferences worldwide on these topics. A selection of his books include: Teaching Practice: A Reflective Approach (2011, New York: CUP  – with Jack Richards); Reflecting on Teaching the Four Skills (­University of Michigan Press, 2012); Reflective Practice (TESOL USA, 2013); Reflective Writing for Language Teachers (Equinox, 2013); Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups (Palgrave McMillian, 2014); International Perspectives on English Language Teacher Education (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; Ed, 2015); Promoting Teacher Reflection in Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals (Routledge, 2015); From Trainee to Teacher: Reflective Practice For Novice Teachers (Equinox, 2016); Reflecting on Critical Incidents in Language Education (With L. Baecher, Bloomsbury, 2017); Preservice Teacher Education (TESOL USA, 2017); Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (TESOL USA, 2017); Research on Reflective Practice in TESOL (Routledge, 2018); Reflective Language Teaching: Practical Applications for TESOL Teachers (Bloomsbury, 2018); Reflection as Action in ELT (TESOL USA, 2019); Reflective Practice in ELT (Equinox, 2019); Reflective Teaching, Revised Edition (TESOL USA, 2020); and Arabic Translation of Reflective Writing for Language Teachers (Equinox – King Abdullah Institute for Translation and Arabization, Saudi Arabia, 2020). His webpage is . Editors

Zia Tajeddin is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at Tarbiat Modares University, Iran. His main areas of research include language teacher education, intercultural language teaching and L2 pragmatics in the context of EIL/ELF. He co-edits (with Thomas S.C. Farrell) the Springer book series Studies in Language Teacher Education. He is the co-editor (with Thomas S.C. Farrell) of Second Language Teacher Education (Equinox Publishing) and the co-editor (with Naoko Taguchi) of Applied Pragmatics (John Benjamins) and sits on the editorial/review board of many xi

xii  Teacher Reflection

­journals including RELC Journal, Profile and TESL-EJ. He has published articles in Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, The Language Learning Journal, Language Testing, Language and Intercultural Communication, TESL-EJ, TESL Canada Journal, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, RELC Journal, Pedagogies: An International Journal, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Australian Journal of Teacher Education, among others. He is the co-editor (with Carol Griffiths) of Lessons from Good Language Teachers (Cambridge University Press, 2020) and the coeditor (with Minoo Alemi) of Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language (Routledge, 2021). Atsuko Watanabe, PhD, is a Professor in the Faculty of Language and Literature at Bunkyo University, Japan. Her publications include Reflective Practice as Professional Development: Experiences of Teachers of English in Japan (Multilingual Matters, 2017). Her research interests include reflective practice, researcher reflexivity and qualitative interview methods. Authors

Minoo Alemi is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at IAU, West Tehran Branch, Iran. She is the associate editor of Applied Pragmatics (John Benjamins). She has published numerous book chapters in edited volumes and papers in journals such as Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, Language and Intercultural Communication, International Journal of Social Robotics and Language Learning and Technology. She is also the co-editor (with Zia Tajeddin) of Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language (Routledge, 2021). Marcus Artigliere is a Clinical Lecturer at Hunter College, New York as well as a doctoral student in TESOL at Teachers College. His current research interests are academic language, and literacy and technology. He is also interested in coaching and mentorship in supervision in the teacher education context. Laura Baecher is a Professor of TESOL at Hunter College, City University of New York. Her research focuses on teacher education to serve English learners, including the use of video for teacher learning, and practicum and supervision. She is the co-author of Reflecting on Problems of Practice in TESOL with Tom Farrell. Kathleen M. Bailey is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS). She completed her MA and her doctorate at the University of California in Los Angeles. Her research interests include teacher education, language assessment and the teaching of listening and speaking.

Contributors xiii

Hatime Çiftçi is an Associate Professor in the Department of English ­Language Teaching at MEF University. She teaches courses such as Sociolinguistics, Applied Linguistics and Research Methods. She received her PhD in Second Language Acquisition and Instructional Technology from University of South Florida. Her research interests include pragmatics and discourse, politeness, intercultural communication and computer-­ mediated communication. Ashraf Darwish works for the Ministry of Education in Oman as a Teacher Trainer in Dhofar Governorate. He holds an MA TESOL in Teacher Education from the University of Leeds and is currently a doctoral researcher. Kenan Dikilitaş is a Professor of University Pedagogy at University of Stavanger, Norway. His research interest includes English language teacher education, action research and bilingual education in monolingual contexts. He has published monographs, edited books and journal articles on these topics. Farahnaz Faez is an Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario in Canada. Her research interests include second language pedagogy, language teacher education, teacher self-efficacy, teacher proficiency and nonnative English-speaking teachers. She is the co-editor of TESL Canada Journal. Fiona Farr is an Associate Professor of applied linguistics and TESOL in the School of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics at the University of Limerick, Ireland. She is also Director of the CALS (Centre for Applied Language Studies) research centre, and Research Director in MLAL. Her key areas of expertise are teacher education, reflective practice, continuous professional development, applied corpus linguistics and technology-enhanced language learning. Angela Farrell is a Lecturer in TESOL/Linguistics at the University of Limerick, Ireland and Course Director of the International Structured PhD programme. She has been a teacher and teacher educator for more than 25 years and has published widely in areas including reflective practice, applied corpus linguistics and language teacher education. Ann M. Glazer is an Academic Assessment Specialist at the Center for Educational Effectiveness at the University of California Davis. She holds an MA in TESOL from the Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey. Her recent research focuses on instruction and assessment of academic discussion skills for post-secondary English language learners. Tammy Gregersen is a Professor of TESOL at the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. She has published extensively on individual differences, teacher education, nonverbal communication in

xiv  Teacher Reflection

language classrooms, positive psychology and language teacher wellbeing. She was awarded two Fulbright Scholar opportunities in Costa Rica and Chile. Nur Hayati is a PhD student at Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. In her home country, Indonesia, she works as a faculty member of the English Department, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). Her research interests are in the areas of reflective practice, teacher cognition, teacher education and teacher professional development. Michael Karas teaches courses in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and Applied Language Studies at Renison University College, University of Waterloo. He completed his PhD in Applied Linguistics at the University of Western Ontario. His research interests include duoethnography, teacher self-efficacy, pronunciation instruction and silence and reticence in language classrooms. Neda Khanlarzadeh is a doctoral candidate in Applied Linguistics at Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran. Her areas of interests are discourse studies, second language pragmatics, teacher education and intercultural language teaching. She has also co-authored papers and book chapters in national and international journals and edited volumes. Zahra Maleknia holds a PhD degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) from IAU, West Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran. Her areas of interest focus on teacher identity, teacher professional development, critical pedagogy and English as an international language (EIL). Steve Mann (Professor of Applied Linguistics) currently works at the Centre for Applied Linguistics at the University of Warwick. He previously lectured at both Aston University and the University of Birmingham. He has experience in Hong Kong, Japan and Europe in both English language teaching and teacher development. Hossein Ali Manzouri is a PhD candidate of TEFL at Tarbiat Modares University and a faculty member at University of Zabol, Iran. He has published articles in local and international journals. His research interests include second language acquisition, teacher education and English as an international language. Juliane Martini is a second language researcher and university lecturer based in Canada. She is currently pursuing her PhD in Applied Linguistics at Western University. Her research interests include areas such as language teacher cognitions, applied corpus linguistics, corpus literacy and second language vocabulary. Lauren McCoy is a high school English as a Second Language teacher in a New York City public high school that serves newcomer students. She is a visiting lecturer in TESOL at Hunter College, City University of New

Contributors xv

York. She is also an instructor and a doctoral candidate at Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research focuses on the experiences of Latinx students making the transition from high school to college. Sarah Mercer is a Professor of Foreign Language Teaching and Head of ELT at the University of Graz. She is the author, co-author and co-editor of several books in the field of language learning psychology. In 2018, she was awarded the Robert C. Gardner Award for excellence in second language research. Minh Hue Nguyen is a Lecturer in TESOL Education, Monash University, Australia. Her recent research publications are in the areas of TESOL teacher educators’ professional learning, language teachers’ learning, teacher/learner agency and professional identity, and content-language teacher collaboration. Kamal Aqili Shafie was a Hornby Scholar (2019/2020) from Malaysia and completed his B.Ed. in TESL and MA in TESOL at the University of Warwick, UK. He has worked as a teacher/teacher educator at secondary, preuniversity and tertiary levels for the past seven years. Currently, he works as an English language lecturer at Japan-Malaysia Technical Institute. Katie Webb is currently pursuing PhD at Warwick University, which aims to explore the learning experiences, identities and perceptions of a group of in-service teachers studying an MA TESOL. She has seven years of practical experience teaching General English, and English for Specific and Academic Purposes in Europe and Asia. Mark Wyatt is an Associate Professor of English at Khalifa University in the UAE. He previously worked for the Universities of Leeds (on a BA TESOL project in Oman) and Portsmouth (on a B.Ed. TESL project for Malaysian teachers). His research interests include language teachers’ selfefficacy beliefs, mentoring and reflection. Min Yang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Chung Cheng University in Taiwan. Her research interests include language teacher education, English academic writing and feedback, and doctoral education. Bedrettin Yazan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Bilingual and Bicultural Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio. His research focuses on language teacher learning and identity, collaboration between ESL and content teachers, language policy and planning, and World Englishes. His recent co-edited books include Language Teacher Identity in TESOL: Teacher Education and Practice as Identity Work (Routledge), The Complexity of Identity and Interaction in Language Education (Multilingual Matters) and Autoethnographies in English Language Teaching: Transnational Identities, Pedagogies, and Practices (Routledge).

xvi  Teacher Reflection

Rui Yuan is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education of the ­University of Macau. His research interests include language teacher cognition, identity and emotions. He has published extensively on these topics in more than 20 international journals in the fields of TESOL and teacher education.

Acknowledgements

The idea of publishing this book on reflective practice engagement by language teachers was prompted by the idea and practice of Professor Thomas S. C. Farrell, who has disseminated the concept of reflective practice and inspired practitioners and researchers in the field of language teaching across the globe. First of all, we would like to express our greatest gratitude to Tom, who continues to inspire us and who relentlessly encouraged and supported us in writing and compiling the book.  Our appreciation goes to Phan Le Ha, a Professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and Joel Windle, Monash University, as and the joint editors of Multilingual Matters’ series on New Perspective on Language and Education. This book is part of this series. We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to Anna Roderick, the editorial director of Multilingual Matters, for her continued encouragement and support in publishing the book. Also, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who read the book proposal and the first draft of the book and provided invaluable comments.  We are grateful to Mythili Devi, the project manager, and Stanzi Collier-Qureshy, the production assistant, of Multilingual Matters, for helping us through the production process. Finally, we would like to show our sincere gratitude to the contributors of this book with whom we were grateful and honored to work. Their dedication to reflective practice and cooperation have made the publication of this book possible. Zia Tajeddin and Atsuko Watanabe

xvii

Introduction Zia Tajeddin and Atsuko Watanabe

A cursory look at books published on teacher reflection in the past two decades clearly indicates that this area, in conjunction with the related areas of action research (Burns, 2019) and exploratory practice (Allwright, 2003; Hanks, 2017), has always been at the center of teacher education and professional development (Farrell, 2013, 2019). These books are highly informative and interesting and have made significant contribution to the knowledge base of reflective practice. However, the majority of these books are focused on teacher reflection in general, including all areas of education, rather than language teacher reflection or address teacher reflection only from a conceptual perspective devoid of empirical data and findings enriching conceptualizations and arguments. Also, most of these books cover a limited dimension of teacher reflection, e.g. only teacher reflective practice. To fill these gaps, Teacher Reflection: Policies, Practices and Impacts: Studies in Honor of Thomas S.C. Farrell covers different dimensions of language teacher reflection policies, practices and impacts. First, this book is not limited to reflective practice but touches upon various aspects of teacher reflection such as macro and micro policies and constraints as well as opportunities in the engagement of reflective practice. In addition, this book explores teachers’ identity, cognition, emotion and motivation, areas that are relevant but often not discussed in the literature on reflective practice. Second, it is often the case that the literature on reflective practice is based on the practice of teachers in certain contexts such as the UK, the US and Australia. However, this book sheds light on concerns and challenges experienced by teachers in various international contexts and institutions under diverse policies. Third, other books on teacher reflection are mainly conceptually-driven, not data-driven, while this book aims to unravel dimensions of teacher reflection and how they are enacted in different international contexts based on empirical data. As this book covers critical conceptual, methodological and practical grounds of teacher reflection, the intended readership includes teacher education researchers, students, teachers, teacher educators and supervisors in TESOL programs, developers of international/regional certificate programs and teacher education policymakers.

xix

xx  Teacher Reflection

Each chapter in this book, except Chapter 1 as a conceptually-driven chapter, consists of the following sections: (1) Introduction (2) Theoretical underpinnings and existing research (3) An empirical study (new qual, quan or mixed-methods research) (4) Practical implications for teacher reflection (5) Conclusion and directions for future research The chapters in this book are arranged in three parts: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection, Teacher Reflection Policies and Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts. (1) Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection: Historical roots of teacher reflection, reflective practice models and theories in the past few decades, and recent emerging themes and trends in teacher reflection in the past two decades. (2) Teacher Reflection Policies: Macro and micro policies (opportunities and constraints) for enhancing teacher reflection set by national and institute/school-level policymakers, teacher educators and supervisors, MA TESOL programs and international/regional certificate programs in different international contexts. (3) Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts: Teachers’ agency, experience and tools for reflective practice, their beliefs about the necessity and viability of reflective practice, the areas of their teaching practice they reflect on and the impact of reflection on their professional development. The first part of the book addresses Macro-Perspectives on Teacher reflection, which includes Chapters 1 and 2. In Chapter 1, Thomas S.C. Farrell explores teacher reflection as a key element of teacher competence and professional development. He traces the historical roots of reflective practice from Dewey to Schön. He then goes beyond these two scholars’ conceptions into his own framework development with the field of TESOL, which includes five stages of reflection: Philosophy, Principles, Theory, Practice and Beyond Practice. The chapter continues with Farrell’s suggestions about important issues within the concept of reflective practice which can be the genesis of vibrant future studies. Farrell suggests that, irrespective of model, approach, typology or framework, teacher reflection should be adapted to individual and collective contextual needs. In Chapter 2, Zia Tajeddin, Atsuko Watanabe and Hossein Ali Manzouri describe their systematic review of two decades of research on teacher reflection. The chapter begins with shifting changes of reflective practice in recent years. It continues with the authors’ description of two decades of research on teacher reflection in terms of participants, design of the studies, data collection sources and aims of the 57 papers they reviewed. The authors propose implications for teacher reflection and underline the

Introduction xxi

need for research on the interface between teacher reflection and other teacher and contextual variables, particularly teacher identity, agency and emotion. The second part of the book is titled Teacher Reflection Policies and subsumes Chapters 3–6. Chapter 3, authored by Laura Baecher, Marcus Artigliere and Lauren McCoy, aims to apply Farrell’s evidence-based reflection to strengthen TESOL teacher education. The authors present an artifact-driven model of teacher reflection that they used in their student teaching/practicum in TESOL. Based on their findings, they propose practical implications for reflection-for-action and for those who support teacher reflection in TESOL. The aim of Mark Wyatt and Ashraf Darwish in Chapter 4 is to unravel tensions in language teachers’ reflective practice in the process of continued professional development. They report on a case study of the developing Omani educational system through the lens of reflective practice and conclude that Farrell’s (2016) five-stage analytical framework is useful for future research exploring teacher engagement with reflective practice. Chapter 5, authored by Minh Hue Nguyen and Nur Hayati, pursues to describe the positioning of teacher reflective practice in TESOL-related policies. To this end, the authors draw on a framework for teacher reflection (Farrell, 2015) to analyze this positioning. They argue that whereas teacher reflective practice is promoted to some extent in these policies, limited practicality, coherence and alignment were found with Farrell’s framework. In Chapter 6, Ann M. Glazer and Kathleen M. Bailey explore how opportunities for teacher trainees can be created to connect theory and practice. The aim of their study is to add to insights on teacher trainees’ reflections about their own academic coursework. Their findings offer implications for the processes of prompted reflection among language teachers-in-training. The third part of this book includes Chapters 7–17, placed under the rubric of Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts. In Chapter 7, Tammy Gregersen and Sarah Mercer adopt an Appreciative-Inquiry approach to pre-service teacher reflection during the practicum. First, they introduce the notion of Appreciative Inquiry as a self-determined, strengths-based, positive approach to professional growth and change. Next, through the Appreciative-Inquiry lens, they study how focusing on student teacher strengths and their experiences of positivity during their reflective practices can help pre-service teachers with their professional growth, their courage in their teaching and their greater sense of agency. Michael Karas, Juliane Martini and Farahnaz Faez, in Chapter 8, focus on duoethnography as a dialogic reflective practice method and how teachers in an MA TESOL program utilize this method as a reflective practice tool. Their findings prove that duoethnography, despite some challenges in using it, is a very useful assignment that affords teachers a chance to reflect on important issues. In Chapter 9, the twofold aim of Atsuko Watanabe is to explore pre-service teacher identity and her involvement as a mentor in a

xxii  Teacher Reflection

study that used Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 motivational self-system as a framework. Watanabe introduces the theoretical grounding of language teacher identity for pre-service teachers in light of Dörnyei’s system and researchers’ reflexivity. Her study shows that pre-service teachers can benefit from reflection to actively engage in the exploration of their future teacher identity and move from an ideal teacher self, based simply on projected images, to a dynamic transforming ideal teacher self which is formed by their personal experiences and reflection. The purpose of Chapter 10, authored by Minoo Alemi and Zahra Maleknia, is to explore novice and experienced language teachers’ collaborative reflection on their professional identity. Framed by Bamberg’s (1997) three-level positioning analysis, the data were analyzed to reveal how the teachers position themselves to others and others to themselves through their collaborative interactions. In view of the findings, they conclude that novice and experienced teachers hold divergent positions about the role of factors such as teacher training courses, workplace regulations and teacher active agency in their identity (re)construction. In Chapter 11, Bedrettin Yazan addresses reflective practice as identity work and describes a teacher educator’s reflections on identity tensions. Yazan discusses how teacher educators can benefit from identity as a pedagogical lens to inform teacher reflective practice through the writing of critical autoethnography. He further concludes that identity tensions can contribute to identity-oriented teacher learning practices. The aim of Chapter 12, authored by Rui Yuan and Min Yang, is to study pre-service language teachers’ reflective practice during overseas immersion. The findings show the role of reflection in teacher learning in settings which are linguistically and culturally diverse. The authors suggest that these findings help language teacher educators and curriculum developers promote pre-service language teachers’ reflective abilities by creating a rich and meaningful immersion experience for them. In Chapter 13, Zia Tajeddin and Neda Khanlarzadeh highlight the facilitative role of collaborative reflection in heightening teachers’ awareness of intercultural language pedagogy. Their findings reveal that teachers’ collaborative reflection provides spaces for them to enhance their intercultural knowledge, share their experiences dialogically and improve their awareness for intercultural language teaching. Chapter 14, authored by Angela Farrell, addresses reflection on native/non-native identity from the perspective of EFL teachers. The author explores the notion of critical reflective practice and its merits for critical awareness-raising teacher education programs in relation to normative issues pertaining to teacher identity in a non-mainstream English setting. The findings demonstrate that critically oriented reflective practice can foster the critical awareness of student teachers about native/non-native teacher ideologies. In Chapter 15, Katie Webb, Steve Mann and Kamal Aqili Shafie discuss the use of using computer-mediated cooperative development in a virtual reflective environment among English language teachers. The authors provide an

Introduction xxiii

outline of the purposes of cooperative development and report on a study on the operationalization of cooperative development. Informed by the findings, they argue for the use of cooperative development as a fairly flexible tool for sustained spoken reflection. Fiona Farr, in Chapter 16, describes formulaic language use in the reflective practice discourses of English language teacher education. The author examines the conceptual underpinnings of reflective practice in language teacher education and reviews other relevant discourse-oriented studies. She analyzes the reflective practice discourses of student teachers using transcribed spoken corpus from both online and face-to-face interactional modes. In light of the findings, practical implications are proposed regarding the importance of pragmatic considerations in reflective practice interactions, the use of teacher education corpus and the important role of research in the field. Finally, in Chapter 17, Hatime Çiftçi and Kenan Dikilitaş investigate the discourse of post-course reflections by in-service teachers on instant joint engagement in online ELT graduate courses. Their findings demonstrate that engagement for teacher reflection might be promoted in synchronous interactions during online teacher education courses. The authors argue that in-service teachers’ cognitive, socioconstructive, affective and interactive engagement can foster their critically reflective voice. References Allwright, D. (2003) Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research 7 (2), 113–141. Bamberg, M.G.W. (1997) Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative & Life History 7 (1), 335–342. Burns, A. (2019) Action research in English language teaching: Contributions and recent developments. In X. Gao (ed.) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 991–1005). Cham: Springer. Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013) Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups: From Practices to Principles. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 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) Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research 20 (2), 223–247. Farrell, T.S.C. (2019) Reflective Practice in ELT. Sheffield: Equinox. Hanks, J. (2017) Exploratory Practice in Language Teaching: Puzzling About Principles and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Part 1 Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

1 Reflection on Reflective Practice Thomas S.C. Farrell

Introduction

Reflective practice is seen as a crucial element of the professional competence of individuals in many different professions worldwide including the field of education. Reflective practice has also arguably now become one of the most important concepts within what is considered a postmethod period of the teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) profession as well. As Freeman (2016: 208) maintains, for TESOL teachers, reflective practice offers a way into the less ‘accessible aspects of teacher’s work’. From its roots in the work of the American philosopher and educator John Dewey and later through the work of Donald Schön, who built on Dewey’s work by constructing a theory specific to developing professional knowledge, many different typologies about what reflective practice is and how it should be implemented have appeared. Each of these typologies manifests different theoretical traditions and underlying assumptions and beliefs about reflective practice with a resultant confusion about what they all mean. However, it is important for educators to understand these typologies before implementing any because such an understanding will yield more information about different structural processes that guide the implementation of reflection and reflective practice for teachers. In such a manner, educators will be able to choose a typology of reflective practice that best mirrors their understanding of what reflective practice is and how it should be carried out in and around their practice. I have had a long-standing interest in the topic of reflection and reflective practice related to the field of TESOL. Over the years I have been lucky to work with so many excellent pre-service, novice and in-service second language teachers worldwide on a wide range of issues, and I have learned so much from these wonderful professionals about reflection. I have learned more about topics such as novice language teachers’ transition in the first year (Farrell, 2003, 2008a, 2008b, 2016a, 2016b, 2016d); the importance of RP in TESOL teacher education programs (Farrell, 2012c, 2016c); international perspectives on ESL teacher education 3

4  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

(Farrell, 2015a); expectations and reality during the practicum (Farrell, 2007a); teacher beliefs and role identities (Farrell, 2011, 2016e, 2017); competencies and teachers’ expertise associated with effective teaching (Farrell, 2013c, 2014, 2015c); framework for TESOL professionals (Farrell, 2015b); development groups and collaborative discussions (Farrell, 1999, 2013a); reflective writing (Farrell, 2013b); teaching the four skills (Farrell, 2012b); mapping conceptual change through critical reflection (Farrell, 2009); Dewey’s and Schön’s contributions (Farrell, 2012a); RP in action for busy teachers (Farrell, 2004); RP in both research and practice (Farrell, 2007b, 2018a, 2018b, 2019, 2021, 2022) and many more. I am also humbled and honored to be asked to write a chapter for a book on reflective practice that has my name in the subtitle as well. Thus, I am more than honored to be a part of this volume edited by two wonderful proponents of reflective practice as well as contributing colleagues to the collection whose work I also greatly admire. I thought then that my chapter would be helpful to trace the development of reflective practice from Dewey to Schön and beyond into my own framework development with the field of TESOL so that we can better understand their underlying theories and therefore be able to place each typology and approach within our own needs and context. I begin the chapter with a review of the roots of reflective practice. Roots of Reflective Practice

Many scholars would consider the work of the American philosopher and educator John Dewey (1933) as a 20th century starting point of the reflective practice movement in education, whose main aim at that time was to help individuals (mostly students) acquire the habit of reflection so that they can engage in intelligent (or what he later called ‘reflective action’) rather than routine thought and action. Dewey (1933) maintained that knowledge is created, not by blindly applying deductive theory, but by directly facing difficulties, clearly defining them so that possible solutions can be considered and tested. He called this approach ‘reflective inquiry’. Thus, as Dewey suggested, knowledge comes from experience and problem-solving where teachers carefully integrate theory into practice. Dewey (1933: 9) considered reflection for teachers as ‘active, persistent, 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’ and as a result they can be freed from routine thinking and routine actions. Dewey’s (1933) ‘reflective inquiry’ was the centerpiece of his approach to reflective practice as he encouraged teachers to suspend their immediate judgment and engage systematically in reflective inquiry that has five different stages, the first of which is suggestion where a doubtful situation is understood to be problematic, and some vague suggestions are considered

Reflection on Reflective Practice  5

as possible solutions. This is followed by intellectualization where the initial emotional reaction to the difficulty or perplexity of the problem that has been felt (directly experienced) is intellectualized into a problem to be solved. Then, a guiding idea is developed after the collection of as much factual material as possible from observations and the like about the problem. The fourth stage of Dewey’s reflective inquiry involves reasoning, which involves making links between all the information gathered at the previous stage and then making a reasoned hypothesis about the nature of the problem. The final stage comprises hypothesis testing where the initial ideas reached at the previous stage are tested and a more refined hypothesis takes place; the testing can be by overt action or in thought (imaginative action). If successful, then strong positive conclusions can be drawn; if this fails, then participants can return to any of the previous stages and go through the process again until the problem is solved. Although the process is iterative in nature, Dewey (1933) noted that the reflective inquiry framework should not be taken as linear and, as such, participants may move back and forth through any of the stages depending on their needs to solve the problem at hand. A core recommendation from Dewey (1933) was that teachers continuously move within the model until the ‘problem’ they are inquiring about is solved; in fact, according to him, the problem must be solved leaving no uncertainty. Dewey (1933) maintained that such ‘reflective thinking’ (or, as he described it, suspending immediate judgment) within his reflective inquiry model is not easy and even sometimes leads to unpleasant feelings and can be dangerous, because teachers must actively challenge their takenfor-granted ways of doing things and thus be taken out of their comfort zones as they are forced to look at their practice. Consequently, he noted that engaging in reflective inquiry requires a particular reflective disposition or attitude where Dewey maintained that the three most important attitudes are to be open-minded, responsible and wholehearted if reflective teaching is to have real meaning. To have an open-minded disposition to reflective teaching, Dewey (1933: 136) maintains that teachers should remain free from ‘prejudice, partisanship, and such other habits as close the mind and make it unwilling to consider new problems and entertain new ideas’. To have a responsible disposition to reflective teaching, a teacher must continuously consider the consequences of what he or she does or has done (actions) and what he or she has learned from these actions as a teacher. So, to be responsible means teachers consider the effect of what they do on themselves, their students, the community in which they teach and the greater society of which they are members. A reflective teacher with a wholehearted attitude ‘throws himself [sic] into it [teaching]’ (Dewey, 1933: 137) with an open heart, care and mindfulness. If teachers, as Dewey suggests, adopt such a reflective disposition with attitudes such as open-mindedness, responsibility and wholeheartedness, they will reap the vast benefits of engaging in reflective inquiry by

6  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

becoming a more integrated, confident, reflective practitioner whose students are the ultimate beneficiaries. Dewey’s (1933) reflective inquiry model is actually the precursor to action research movement (although this is not often recognized) that has become very popular in recent TESOL literature where language teachers are encouraged to engage in action research projects (e.g. see the IATEFL Research SIG for many such examples). I would suggest that Dewey’s evidence-based approach to reflective practice has been the most influential in modern-day resurgence of the reflective practice movement in education in general and in TESOL specifically. As outlined below, for example, the much-cited work of Donald Schön, who completed his PhD thesis in 1955 (Yale, Philosophy, 1955) on Dewey’s reflective inquiry, was greatly influenced by his work. Finally, in TESOL my own work on reflective practice for the past 40 years has been greatly influenced by Dewey’s (1933) evidence-based approach and together with Donald Schön’s (1983) concepts of reflection-in-action (see below) has led me to develop my own framework, specifically for TESOL practitioners, which I call framework for reflecting on practice (see below for more on this). Dewey’s legacy is important because it moved the concept of reflection far beyond simple everyday wonderings about a situation (or mulling over something without taking action) to a more rigorous form of thinking, whereby a teacher systematically investigates a perceived problem to discover a solution. Boud et al. (1985) later amended Dewey’s five phases of reflection into three (although they have sub-phases that could be also counted) and put more emphasis on emotions or the affective activities practitioners use to explore their experiences in order to arrive at new understandings of their practice. Boud et al. (1985) called this ‘attending to feelings’ during the experience as their second stage or level of reflection, the first being anticipation of the experience and the last a consolidation after the experience. Many years later, Zeichner and Liston (1996: 24) returned to Dewey’s 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’. While John Dewey is acknowledged as the major theorist of reflective practice and thinking, and the imprints of Dewey’s work is ever present in the work of Donald Schön, it is Schön who drew the most extensive attention to this concept in the 1980s, and beyond. In the early 1980s, reflection began to reemerge after a gap of about 30 years which saw the emergence of Donald Schön’s (1983, 1987) concepts of reflection-in-action (thinking while we are doing) and reflectionon-action (thinking about what we did afterward) which encouraged practitioners to integrate theory with action. Schön (1983, 1987)

Reflection on Reflective Practice  7

questioned the kind of knowledge that was generated by academics in their ivory towers and its relationship to the kinds of competencies required and even valued by professionals in their everyday practice because he noted they did not match. Influenced by Polanyi’s (1967: 4) ideas about tacit knowledge, that is: ‘we know more than we can tell’, Schön (1983) maintained that practitioners know more than they can talk about, later called their ‘knowing-in-action’, and as such they should be encouraged to reveal this intuitive knowing in the middle of action so that it is for action. Schön (1983) called this ‘reflection-in-action’, and he maintained that such reflection could lead to a greater understanding of how professionals know through their practice. Schön recognized the need for practitioners not only to make the tacit knowledge explicit (reflect-in-action) but also to revisit this after the event through reflection-on-action. Such a process, as Schön (1983, 1987) noted, prevents reflection-in-action from becoming too routinized because we are making judgments based not only on intuition and context but also on reasoned reflection after the event. Schön (1983) noted that Dewey encouraged teachers to reflect on their practice after the fact, or reflection-on-action. However, Schön maintained that reflection begins in professional practice, some of which may be ‘messy’ and confusing. Therefore, even though teachers may have obtained their subject matter knowledge (their theoretical knowledge), this does not explain what actual classroom practice is because teachers obtain their tacit knowledge from these real-classroom experiences. As such, teachers must engage in reflection-in-action (thinking on their feet) as well as reflection-on-action (after the class). Thus, a ‘Schönian’ approach to reflection indicates that the practitioner moves along a ‘causal chain’ as they reflect following a sequence of moments in a process of ­reflection-in-action in which the practitioner attempts to solve a problem (the cause of reflection-in-action) and results in reflection-on-action where the practitioner attempts to solve the problem. So, for Schön, reflection-in-action allows the practitioner to react during the action and, thus, adds to Dewey’s reflection-on-action ideas where the practitioner could only react after the event. It is interesting to note that initially Schön did not work much with teachers, but rather within organizations in general as he was interested in how practitioners in these organizations viewed their work, and it is probably safe to say that for educators his focus on the notion of ­practitioner-generated intuitive practice was of most interest. Indeed, in terms of the legacy of both Dewey’s and Schön’s work, it was later work by different scholars that really pushed reflective inquiry and reflective practice from the margins of education into many different fields with a more mainstream acceptance of its potential to be a transformative experience for those who engage in it, and especially within the TESOL profession (see Farrell, 2018a for more).

8  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

Development of Reflective Practice

Since Dewey’s (1933) excellent work in reflective inquiry and Schön’s (1983, 1987) subsequent work and development of Dewey’s reflective inquiry, reflective practice began to quickly move from the margins of many professions into a more accepted recognition of reflective practice seen as a mark of professional competence. As a result, different definitions of what reflective practice is and what it should entail, either in terms of the different levels of reflection or in terms of the iterations of reflections as represented in different typologies, also developed over the years. This in turn has led to the development of more complex conceptual debate about this concept where each approach and corresponding typology can represent a different theoretical tradition attachment. Such differences will necessitate that when scholars reflect, their underlying assumptions and beliefs mirror whatever background traditions and approaches they adhere to regarding the concept of reflective practice. This is not always the case, so in this chapter, rather than just outlining all the different typologies that have sprouted up since Dewey’s (1933) and Schön’s (1983, 1987) seminal work (see Farrell, 2019), I will outline what I think is some of the lineage of particular approaches that further develop their legacy, as well as how this work has influenced my own understanding of reflective practice as I outline my ‘framework for reflecting on practice in TESOL’. I think that many scholars who work within the concept of reflective practice would agree that central to its development is the idea that theory and practice can and should be better integrated regardless of the profession one is in. Thus, the notion of experiential learning began to take hold in the early 1980s. Although not called reflection or reflective practice, David Kolb’s (1984) influential theory of experiential learning was influenced by Dewey’s (1933) work, and also a shared interest in experiential learning theory with Schön’s work (as well as Kurt Lewin’s ‘Experiential Learning Model’) where he saw the centrality of a practitioner’s experience in the overall learning process. Indeed, both Kolb and Schön saw learning as a process that includes a feedback cycle involving experience and reflection on that experience and then learning from those reflections for a greater understanding of the next experience and so on. Specifically, Kolb’s (1984) four-stage experience cycle had a sequence: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Concrete experience is where a practitioner describes an experience. Observation is where the practitioner explains if the experience was positive or negative. Formation of abstract concepts is where the practitioner describes what worked well or did not work well. Testing concepts in new situations is where the practitioner asks if they would change or do anything differently in light of the new information. As Kolb (1984: 38) stated, ‘Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience’.

Reflection on Reflective Practice  9

Fred Korthagen (1985) later adapted Kolb and Fry’s (1975) model, and this newer version (called ALACT) has been used in many teacher education programs since. ALACT is an acronym standing for Action, Looking, Awareness, Creating, Trial. This cycle consists of five phases: (1) Action, (2) Looking back on the action, (3) Awareness of essential aspects, (4) Creating alternative methods of action and (5) Trial – which itself is a new action and thus the starting point of a new cycle. Another cycle that extended Kolb’s was developed by Graham Gibbs (1988), within the field of nursing. This model is greatly influenced by Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle; whereas Kolb has four stages in his cycle, Gibbs has six. The extra stages added in Gibbs’ model, developed to help with the professional development of nursing practitioners, signal his desire to include an affective component to reflection. Gibbs’ (1988) reflective cycle thus includes the idea of emotional reflection or how emotions impact a practitioner’s reflections on an experience. Gibbs’ (1988) work later influenced the work of Chris Johns (1995) model of structured reflection within the nursing profession, as he encouraged reflection as a way of being in daily practice. My own work has been greatly influenced by all the excellent approaches of the excellent scholars discussed above as well as other scholars not discussed above. David Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle, for example, is influential in that he focuses on the practice and can guide teachers in a systematic way on how to examine the success of their lessons and to seek improvement as a result of such reflections. While I agree with this approach somewhat 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, as noted above, his work was further developed by Gibbs when he included the practitioner’s emotions while reflecting. This is a positive addition to the typologies on reflective practice because there is a consideration of the practitioner’s feelings while reflecting on a particular experience and 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. In other words, my framework for reflecting on practice includes such critical reflection and I am influenced here by Stephen Brookfield’s (1995) work on critical reflection, because he says it helps teachers develop a rationale for practice; it helps teachers avoid self-laceration; it grounds teachers emotionally; and it enlivens classrooms. Most of these reasons include teachers being able to justify what they do and why they do it and thus not always blame themselves as they have done the best they can. In other words, after systematically exploring their practice, they are more grounded emotionally because they do not leave things to chance. This also gels with Chris Johns’ idea that reflection is ‘a way of being’, and as such, teachers can reflect naturally during their careers (see above).

10  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

Figure 1.1  Framework for reflecting on practice (Farrell, 2015b)

Thus, I reflected intensely on both Dewey and Schön’s work as well as that of other scholars and decided to develop a more holistic framework of reflective practice specifically for TESOL professionals. I re-examined all the other models and frameworks above to see if these held any useful points I could use. I also broadened my readings on the topic of reflection by reviewing work on reflection in the field of psychology and specifically the work of Shapiro and Reiff (1993) and their model reflective inquiry on practice that suggested different levels of reflection that begins with reflection on the self. I incorporated many of their ideas into the development of my new framework I call the ‘Framework for Reflecting on Practice’ as outlined in Figure 1.1 (Farrell, 2015b). As outlined in Figure 1.1, the framework has five different stages/levels of reflection: Philosophy, Principles, Theory, Practice and Beyond Practice. • Philosophy: This first stage of reflection within the framework examines the ‘teacher-as-person’ and suggests that professional practice, both inside and outside the classroom, is invariably guided by a teacher’s basic philosophy and that this philosophy has been developed since birth. Thus, in order to be able to reflect on our basic philosophy, we need to obtain self-knowledge and we can access this by exploring, examining and reflecting on our background – from where we have evolved – such as our heritage, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background and family and personal values that have combined to influence who we are as language teachers. As such, teachers may talk or write about their own lives and how they think their past experiences may have shaped the construction and development of their basic philosophy of practice. Reflecting on their philosophy of practice can help teachers not only to flesh out what has shaped them as human beings and teachers but also to help them move on to the next level, of reflecting on their principles. • Principles: The second stage of the framework includes reflections on teachers’ assumptions, beliefs and conceptions about teaching and

Reflection on Reflective Practice  11

learning. All three are really part of a single system and difficult to separate because they overlap a lot. Although I treat them separately in the framework, I see them as three points along the same continuum of meaning related to our principles. Teachers’ practices and their instructional decisions are often formulated and implemented (for the most part subconsciously) on the basis of their underlying assumptions, beliefs and conceptions because these are the driving force (along with philosophy reflected on at Stage 1) behind many of their classroom actions. • Theory: Influenced by their reflections on their philosophy and on their principles, teachers can now actively begin to construct their theory of practice. Theory explores and examines the different choices a teacher makes about particular skills taught (or which they think should be taught). In this stage, teachers consider the type of lessons they want to deliver on a yearly, monthly or daily basis. All language teachers have theories, both ‘official’ theories learnt in teacher education courses and ‘unofficial’ theories gained through 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 in the framework include considering all aspects of a teacher’s planning and the different activities and methods teachers choose (or may want to choose) as they attempt to put theory into practice. • Practice: Reflecting on practice begins with an examination of our observable actions while we are teaching as well as our students’ reactions (or non-reactions) during our lessons. Of course, such reflections are directly related to and influenced by our reflections on our theory at the previous level and on our principles and philosophy. At this stage 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). When teachers engage in reflection-in-action, they attempt to consciously stand back while they are teaching as they monitor and adjust to various circumstances that are happening within the lesson. When teachers engage in reflection-on-action, they examine what happened in a lesson after the event has taken place, and this is a more delayed type of reflection than the former. When teachers engage in reflection-for-action, they reflect before anything has taken place and attempt to anticipate what may happen and account or prepare for this before they conduct the lesson. • Beyond practice: The final level of the framework entails teachers reflecting beyond practice. This is sometimes called critical reflection and involves exploring and examining the moral, political, social and emotional issues (see also below for more on ‘emotionalizing’ reflective practice) that impact a teacher’s practice both inside and outside

12  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

the classroom. Critical reflection moves the teacher beyond practice and links practice more closely to the broader sociopolitical as well as affective/moral issues that impact practice. Such a critical focus on reflections also includes teachers examining the moral aspect of ­practice and the moral values and judgments that impact practice. The framework can be navigated in three different ways: t­ heory-­into-(beyond) practice, (beyond) practice-into-theory or a singlestage application. Thus, it is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive framework. Teachers can take a deductive approach to reflecting on practice by moving from theory-into-practice or from Stage 1, philosophy, through the different stages to Stage 5, beyond practice. Some may say that preservice teachers who do not have much classroom experience would be best suited to take such an approach because they can first work on their overall philosophical approach to teaching English to speakers of other languages and work their way through the different stages of principles (2) and theory (3) so that when they reach the practicum stage, they will be well placed then to reflect on their practice (4) and eventually move beyond practice (5). This theory-driven approach to practice where philosophy and theory have an initial influence on practice is probably a natural sequence of development for novice teachers because they do not have much teaching experience. 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. Thus, continued reflection can nourish both practice and theory of practice. Experienced teachers too can also choose to begin their reflections at Level 1, philosophy, especially if they consider their philosophy as a significant basis of their ­practice, with principles second, theory third, and so on through the framework. Both Dewey and Schön have had an immense influence on my work, and over the years, I have attempted to facilitate teachers as they reflected on what they think they do (their beliefs) and what they actually do (their practices) while they are teaching through the lens of the framework for reflecting on practice (e.g. most recently, Farrell & Kennedy, 2019, 2020; Farrell & Macapinlac, 2021; Farrell & Stanclick, 2021). Moving Forward with Reflective Practice

Dewey’s and Schön’s work have had a profound influence on the development and power of reflection for many educators, especially in the North American context, as well as my own work on reflection as outlined above. Although I differ on certain aspects of both scholars’ approach (e.g. that reflection has to begin with a problem (or shock) and has to have a conclusive end; although reflection-in-action occurs along a causal chain, it ends

Reflection on Reflective Practice  13

up as retrospective reflection because a ‘pause’ is necessary within the action), I have nevertheless attempted to address these shortcomings (and more) within my own model. However, important issues remain to be addressed within this interesting yet complex concept, some of which include the following criticisms (to mention just a few): • Reflective practice tends to focus on an individual’s thinking without much recognition of context. • Reflective practice does not recognize power differentials or dynamics between more than one practitioner who are reflecting together within particular cultures. • If we consider engaging in reflective practice as good practice, is unreflective practice bad? • Critical reflection is not easily defined in all contexts. • Reflections themselves may be superficial, or just descriptive or procedural, as if following a recipe in a compliant manner. • We still do not know how to adequately assess reflective practice. All the above issues are surely important and can be the genesis of vibrant future debates, but it is the last two above that particularly troubles me because they are concerned with the implementation of reflective practice. Unfortunately, many of the approaches and typologies that have sprouted up since Dewey’s and Schön’s magnificent work, although admirable in their attempt to help teachers to engage in structured reflections, are nevertheless very retrospective in their nature and take a ‘fix-it’, problem-solving viewpoint to reflective practice. If this is the case, teachers will find themselves always on the backfoot trying to solve some perceived technical issue within a teaching ‘bubble’ of the classroom. The practitioner doing the reflection is separated from the reflection itself and finds himself or herself always seeking to improve some technical/mechanical aspect of his or her practice. The serious pedagogical concern for many teachers in training, teacher educators and experienced teachers on in-service development course is the near compulsory element attached to the reverence of reflective practice which requires all to reflect. Of course, this reflection is then assessed but, as stated above, we still do not know to adequately assess reflective practice, and perhaps Hobbs (2007: 413) is correct when she says: ‘reflection and assessment are simply incompatible’. The problem in pre-service education is that such required reflection tends to be superficial and devoid of any critical self-reflection because learner teachers may feel required to give the teacher educators what they want. Such an approach robs learner teachers, teacher educators and experienced teachers from having an intrinsic meaningful experience while engaging in reflective practice by opting for such a minimalist approach by ‘doing enough to pass’ or worse, faking the whole process of reflection (Hobbs, 2007). Indeed, and unfortunately, school administrators have also jumped on this approach as they seek to (re)enforce the power differentials (see above)

14  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

that sometimes more holistic approaches to reflect tend to equalize. In fact, what invariably has happened in many instances is that one type of checklist that reflective practice was designed to replace has replaced another and many see engaging in reflective practice as only a tool (I have seen this term used in many definitions of reflective practice) to ‘fix’ problems (that they identify on pre-determined checklists) in teaching. This view sees teachers reverting to being technicians (which defeats the original purpose of RP against such a view of teacher as technician) whose competence is evaluated by the end product of these tools/checklists in terms of the ‘changes’ they have made in their practice in order to satisfy the administrators’ or supervisors’ views of what should be done in the classroom. In other words, many models do not look at reflective practice in any holistic manner that includes the person who is reflecting (or ­person-as-teacher) as well as what the person is reflecting on. That is another reason I designed a more holistic approach by providing an overall reflection framework for TESOL teachers. 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 in action, on action, and for action. However, I have added to their approaches by including more of the human/societal aspects of reflection so that individual participants can join others and engage in community reflections. I believe teacher educators can take more responsibility to encourage the development of more authentic reflection by first examining in whose tradition they ask their learner teachers or experienced teachers to reflect (see Farrell, 2021a). Just asking or telling teachers to reflect and legitimizing such reflection via Dewey, Schön, Farrell or any other approaches is not enough because teacher educators must also discuss the origins of these approaches with the participants because most models/typologies (see above) are descendants of particular ideological and epistemological approaches that the participants (and the teacher educators) may not agree with. I believe that such reflective discussions (that models and epitomizes reflection from the beginning) should occur before any reflective assignment is requested in a teacher education or development course so that all participants know what it means to them to reflect. All participants do not have to agree with one approach, but they can be asked to explain what approach they want to take to reflection and why. In addition to the above comments, I believe that because teaching (practice) occurs within a particular context and community, so too should any reflective practice be concerned to be contextual and social in its nature. Thus, there is no standardized approach that fits all contexts and, as such, practitioners should adapt and tailor models, typologies and approaches to their particular context. Another area for more development when moving forward with operationalizing reflective practice is the place of emotions within reflection and

Reflection on Reflective Practice  15

indeed within my own framework outlined above. Although it is included in the ‘beyond reflection’ stage (see above), not much has been said or done about the place of emotions within the concept of reflective practice. Emotions are at the ‘core’ (Holmes, 2010: 147) of reflection, and as Hargreaves (2000: 412) suggests, ‘reflection can help us guide and moderate our emotions and sometimes even willfully move us into another emotional state by deciding to brood or cheer ourselves’. For language teachers, such reflection helps them, as Gkonou and Miller (2020: 6) point out, to ‘compare their emotions about practice with colleagues and take action to improve current conditions’. In fact, Farrell (2022) discovered that the reflections of one EFL teachers on his emotional challenges during the ‘beyond practice’ stage of Farrell’s (2015a) framework on his emotional struggle related to the dissonance between his personal ethics and his perceptions of the institution’s business ethics. This tension never ceded, and he ended up leaving the institution. From a methodological perspective, I gauged the teacher’s emotions by examining his affective language through the lens of the ‘Appraisal framework’ (Martin & White, 2005). The Appraisal framework aims to provide a systematic account of language for expressing attitude, engagement and graduation (see Martin & White, 2005; White, 2000 for detailed descriptions of each). A central element of the Appraisal framework is to provide a systematic account of language for expressing attitude and consists of three subsystems: Affect, Judgement and Appreciation (White, 2000) with affect referring to the language used for expressing emotions. Others may have different methods of gathering such data but what is clear to me is the need to ‘emotionalize’ (Holmes, 2010) the concept of reflective practice more so that we can help language teachers develop better ‘emotional flexibility’ (Mackenzie, 2002: 186) that can help language teachers, such as the teacher in Farrell’s (forthcoming) study above, to develop new strategies and techniques to deal with such emotional dissonance, and thus consider alternative actions that may not have been so drastic. Although I think the future is bright for the concept of reflective practice, since Donald Schön (1983) refamiliarized the teaching community with its possibilities, it has since become an overused term with so many multiple meanings that define different theoretical and political agendas that practicing teachers and teacher educators have become confused as to what it is and how to apply it. In order to continue to benefit from the understanding and application of this interesting yet complex concept, we still need to do more research and answer important questions. Thus, I end this chapter with two questions that I consider important to answer as we move forward with reflective practice: • What kinds of research devices may be suited to reflective practice processes? Some of these, for example, may unite various groups who encourage teacher research and action research without positioning

16  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

•

• •

•

these within the reflective practice umbrella by considering combinations of qualitative research, action research, exploratory action research, participatory action research, teacher research in different locations to produce a network of practitioners and themes for reflection, and academic research which highlights collaborations between teachers and academics. Related to the above question is what methods can be used when researching reflective practice from both quantitative and qualitative paradigms and what about mixed methods approaches work best? From within the qualitative paradigm, are single case studies of the reflections of one teacher desirable and illuminating, for example? I ask this question because recently a paper I sent of a case study of a one English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher for possible consideration for publication to the well-known academic journal very much related to the concept of reflective practice was returned by the editor stating: ‘we no longer take single case study examples as we prefer to publish larger group research on reflective practice’. I was astonished on two fronts: the first is that I believe studies of even one teacher reflecting can be very instructive for all other teachers, and such case studies are not suited to be generalized as this is an inappropriate trajectory from a representative sample to generalizable findings that is common for most mass survey-type research. As Richards (2011: 216) noted, such case study research can provide a ‘strategic selection’ of cases that can ‘generate illustrative outcomes drawing strength from the rich particularity of individual cases’. Future similar case studies conducted can address this issue by using a comparative approach to demonstrate the similarities and differences across a number of settings. What is the role of emotion in reflective practice and how can we research this important aspect of reflection? Is the ‘Appraisal framework’ a useful approach for gauging teachers’ affective language in order to give a picture of the emotional impact of reflection? Related to the previous point, what kinds of collaborations can encourage reflective practice, and what kinds of supports (material, financial) within institutions can help foster more collaborative research both pre-service and in-service? For example, future research can explore peer collaborations, partnerships between researchers in university settings and practitioners in real classrooms, and/or collaborations with supervisors and other stakeholders outside schools and university settings.

Conclusion

This chapter has outlined and discussed various important typologies of reflective practice so that teachers can understand the underlying

Reflection on Reflective Practice  17

traditions and theories associated with each. Understanding such typologies will give teachers more information about different structural processes that guide reflection. I also outlined and discussed my own recently developed framework for reflecting on practice and how its lineage descended from the work of Dewey and Schön particularly. I do not want to overly bias teachers to adopt this framework but I do want to guard them against taking a reductionist view toward reflection as a ‘fix it’ approach to teaching problems, as this limits the teacher and brings back technical rationality that reflective practice was originally designed to prevent, as I believe we should not separate the teacher-as-human from the act of teaching or reflection. The main idea is not to say which typology is best; rather, when practitioners at any level are asked to reflect, it is necessary to consider in whose tradition this reflection mirrors so that its origins can be made explicit to all. The chapter suggests that whatever model, approach, typology or framework is adopted, it should be tailored to individual and collective contextual needs that further everyone’s learning and reflection. References Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. New York, NY: Kogan Page. Brookfield, S.D. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Farrell, T.S.C. (1999) Teachers talking about teaching: Creating conditions for reflection. TESL-EJ 4 (2), 1–17. Farrell, T.S.C. (2003) Learning to teach English language during the first year: Personal influences and challenges. Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (1), 95–111. Farrell, T.S.C. (2004) Reflective Practice in Action: 80 Reflection Breaks for Busy Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007a) Failing the practicum: Narrowing the gap between expectations and reality with reflective practice. TESOL Quarterly 41 (1), 193–201. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007b) Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London: Continuum Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2008a) Novice Language Teachers: Insights and Perspectives for the First Year. London: Equinox Publishing. Farrell, T.S.C. (2008b) Teaching Reading to English Language Learners: A Reflective Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2009) Critical reflection in a TESL course: Mapping conceptual change. ELT Journal 63 (3), 221–229. Farrell, T.S.C. (2011) Exploring the professional role identities of experienced ESL teachers through reflective practice. System 39 (1), 54–62. Farrell, T.S.C. (2012a) Reflecting on reflective practice: (Re)visiting Dewey and Schön. TESOL Journal 3 (1), 7–16. Farrell, T.S.C. (2012b) Reflecting on Teaching the Four Skills: 60 Strategies for Professional Development. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2012c) Novice-service language teacher development: Bridging the gap between preservice and in-service education and development. TESOL Quarterly 46 (3), 435–449.

18  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

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 Publishing. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013c) Reflecting on ESL teacher expertise: A case study. System 41 (4), 1070–1082. Farrell, T.S.C. (2014) ‘I’ve plateaued…gone a little stale.’ Mid-career reflections in a teacher reflection group. Reflective Practice 15 (4), 504–517. Farrell, T.S.C. (ed.) (2015a) International Perspectives on English Language Teacher Education: Innovations from the Field. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015b) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015c) It’s not who you are! It’s how you teach! Critical competencies associated with effective teaching. RELC Journal 46 (1), 79–88. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016a) From Trainee to Teacher: Reflective Practice for Novice Teachers. London: Equinox Publishing. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016b) The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research 20 (2), 223–247. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016c) TESOL, a profession that eats its young! The importance of reflective practice in language teacher education. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 4 (3), 97–107. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016d) Surviving the transition shock in the first year of teaching through reflective practice. System 61 (3), 12–19. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016e) The teacher is a facilitator: Reflecting on ESL teacher beliefs through metaphor analysis. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 4 (1), 1–10. Farrell, T.S.C. (2017) ‘Who I am is how I teach’: Reflecting on teacher role identity. In G. Barkhuizen (ed.) Reflections on Language Teacher Identity Research (pp. 183–189). London: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2018a) Research on Reflective Practice in TESOL. New York: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2018b) Reflective Language Teaching: Practical Applications for TESOL Teachers (2nd edn). London: Bloomsbury. Farrell, T.S.C. (2019) Reflective Practice in ELT. London: Equinox Publishing. Farrell, T.S.C. (2021) TESOL Teacher Education: A Reflective Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2022) Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farrell, T.S.C. and Kennedy, B. (2019) A reflective practice framework for TESOL teachers: One teacher’s reflective journey. Reflective Practice 20 (1), 1–12. Farrell, T.S.C. and Kennedy, J. (2020) My personal teaching principle is ‘safe, fun, and clear’: Reflections of a TESOL teacher. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 8 (2), 83–96. Farrell, T.S.C. and 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. and Stanclick, C. (2021) ‘COVID-19 Is an opportunity to rediscover ourselves’: Reflections of a novice EFL teacher in Central America. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220981778 Freeman, D. (2016) Educating Second Language Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit Oxford Polytechnic.

Reflection on Reflective Practice  19

Gkonou, C. and Miller, E. (2020) An exploration of language teacher reflection, emotion labor, and emotional capital. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.580 Hargreaves, A. (2000) Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education 16, 811–826. 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. Johns, C. (1995) Framing learning through reflection within Carper’s fundamental ways of knowing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 22 (2), 226–234. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kolb, D.A. and Fry, R.E. (1975) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (ed.) Theories of Group Processes (pp. 33–57). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Korthagen, F. (1985) Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the Netherlands. Journal of Teacher Education 36 (5), 11–15. Mackenzie, C. (2002) Critical reflection, self-knowledge, and the emotions. Philosophical Explorations 5 (3), 186–206. Martin, J.R. and White, P. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Polanyi, M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Richards, K. (2011) Case studies. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 207–221). London: Routledge. Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shapiro, S.B. and Reiff, J. (1993) A framework for reflective inquiry on practice: Beyond intuition and experience. Psychological Reports 73, 1379–1394. White, P. (2000) Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill and F. Rock (eds) Working with Dialogue (pp. 67–80). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Zeichner, K.M. and Liston, D.P. (1996) Reflective Teaching: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

2 Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research Zia Tajeddin, Atsuko Watanabe and Hossein Ali Manzouri

Introduction

Teacher reflection contributes to more effective teaching by affording teachers a tool for understanding the teaching and learning process. Provided that it is continued and systematic, teacher reflection can play a central role in teacher professional development. Teacher reflection has been researched from three vantage points. The first strand of research has addressed policies and programs directing or facilitating teacher reflection during pre-service and in-service teacher education. There is a second body of research that has sought to unravel tools for teacher reflection and the aspects of teaching, learning and educational contexts represented in teacher reflective practices. The third vantage point shaping studies on teacher reflection is informed by the need to explore the impacts of and the nexus between teacher reflection and other dimensions of teachers’ professional lives such as teacher emotion, identity, autonomy, cognition, motivation and self-efficacy. Framed by these three strands of research, the purpose of this chapter is to systematically review empirical studies on language teacher education. The chapter begins with a critical review of the main trends of research in language teacher reflection and the emerging areas of research that have gained momentum over the past two decades. The chapter continues with a systematic review of empirical studies on language teacher reflection in two decades, ranging from 2001 to 2020. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in literature search for this systemic review will be delineated in terms of journal qualifications (peer-reviewed, scholarly journal indexed in SJR and/or JCR), publication time span (2001–2020) and research methods (qual, quan or mixed-methods design). The studies 20

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  21

selected will be described drawing on meta-ethnography as an analytical approach and based on the aims, designs, data collection methods and analytical techniques used in the studies. The results of this analysis will also shed light on the types of teachers whose reflective practice is studied (pre-service vs in-service), methods adopted in these studies, and teacher and contextual variable related to teacher reflection in these studies. The findings will have implications for heightening teacher reflection by enhancing the understanding of teachers and teacher educations of dominant trends in teacher reflection. In view of the gaps found in this systematic review, the chapter concludes with directions for further research on language teacher reflection. Shifting Changes of Reflective Practice

In this section, we continue to illustrate the shifting trends of reflective practice research which have been witnessed in the past 20 years. As reflective practice has established itself to be one dominant underlying philosophy of teacher professional development in various contexts, there have been quite a few shifting trends. In this literature review, we focus on the following shifts: reflective practice forum, emerging methods of reflective practice, interface between reflective practice and other teacher variables, and the impact of reflective practice on teachers’ practice, learners’ gains and the community. Reflective practice through online forums

With the development of the internet, there has been a surge of research on online community of reflection. The increase was accelerated by the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. With the spread of the new virus, practitioners were obliged to teach lessons online and researchers to conduct research online. This has also brought about the change of reflective forum from face-to-face to online. Various online interfaces provide practitioners and researchers reflective arenas with numerous benefits, one of which is an ease of creation of a reflective community (Burhan-Horasanlı & Ortactepe, 2016). Online forums do not require the participants to travel afar to meet other members in reflective groups. The necessity of traveling to meet the other members often restricted the participants in terms of the locations they are situated. Online reflective venues allow almost any participants regardless of their situated areas to join the forum. This is also associated with the psychological ease of participation in the online forum as it is often the case that practitioners can participate from home or their workplaces, where they literally feel ‘at home’. This might enhance their involvement and engagement in sharing their views and feelings. Online platforms that allow teachers to share their writing online, such as blogs, opened an accessible writing community among the

22  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

participants. The use of email has promptly been replaced by platforms that allow users synchronous access to the same document. In addition, the comment functions in such platforms provide users a better sense of interaction via writing. It has been pointed out that this type of platform with an interactive nature facilitates the participants to share their views and is conducive for facilitating reflection (Tajeddin & Aghababazadeh, 2018). Rashid (2018) reports on the use of Facebook timelines as a forum for teaching-related conversations in the study with 34 English language teachers. The study found that the forum allowed the teachers to engage in dialogic reflection, which brought about a better understanding of their professional lives. Rashid (2018) suggests reconceptualization of professional development, that is, professional development should lead to a construction of a forum of collective and mutual support for teachers. Mumford and Dikilitaş’ (2020) study with three pre-service teachers as participants found that the use of an online platform as a reflective forum was pertinent to individuals’ past experiences and attitudes toward online communication, especially attitudes toward synchronous interaction through writing. They suggest the importance of providing training to pre-service teachers for online learning. Tajeddin and Aghababazadeh (2018) found in their study with 32 in-service EFL teachers that the engagement in a blog as a reflective arena allowed the participants to develop critical reflection more than descriptive reflection. Having an opportunity for regular reflection on their practice via blogs brought them to become aware of and identify the sources of the problems with which they were confronted. Online platforms as reflective forums is promising as they continue to provide creative forums for interaction and exchanges transcending physical borders. What might pose challenges is the importance of the forums user-friendliness (Tajeddin & Aghababazadeh, 2018) for teachers and students which are varied among the individuals in different contexts. Collaborative dialog as opposed to solitary monolog

One aspect of reflective practice which has received critical evaluation is pertinent to its engagement, that is, reflective practice can be a solitary, naval-gazing engagement for an individual (Farrell, 2015). The shift of the engagement in reflective practice from solitary individual reflection to one in dialog with others has been seen in research. This shift can be observed in the definitions of reflective practice and reflection which are put forward by numerous scholars. Farrell (2015: 123), for example, defines reflective practice as ‘a cognitive process accompanied by a set of attitudes in which 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’ (­italics added). The inclusion of the terms dialogue or others is witnessed

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  23

in other definitions of reflection such as by Jay and Johnson (2002), Mann (2005), Tamai (2016) and Watanabe (2017). The incorporation of dialogue and others in the process of reflection is informed by the learning theory of social constructivism which regards knowledge to be created through interaction with others and emphasizes the collaborative nature of learning (Vygotsky, 1978) and of social-cultural theory that regards learning as a social process which is mediated by language and involves interaction with an (often more experienced) other (Wenger, 1998). The incorporation of dialog has been reflected in the research designs which involve focus group discussions or shared journals among the participants. One emerging research methodology that has been witnessed is duoethnography, which is defined by Lowe and Laurence (2020: 2) as ‘a qualitative research methodology in which two researchers utilize dialogue to juxtapose their individual life histories in order to come to new understandings of the world’. Schaefer and Brereton (2020) employed duoethnography in the study of reflective practice. From the analysis of their own dialog, they found that transcribing and compiling relevant aspects from listening to their own dialog brings them to look at their ideas reflectively and reflexively through different perspectives. In reaction to a persistent structure of practitioner versus researcher, the collaboration can be seen among all who are involved in research, that is, between researchers and participants as well as among participants. Reflective practice has brought about a paradigm shift in the positions of teachers, that is, experiences of teachers as knowledge, teachers as legitimate knowers (Johnson & Golombek, 2002) and reflecting on one’s experiences as a form of professional development. However, there still exists a persistent division between practitioners and researchers, that is, researchers obtain, analyze and publish the data of practicing teachers, whereas practitioners remain peripheral to such stages of research despite their provision of data to the researchers (Watanabe, 2017). One reaction to such division of practitioner versus researcher is the concept of researcher reflexivity, which has been employed in qualitative studies. Berger (2015: 220) defines researcher reflexivity as ‘the process of a continual internal dialogue and critical self-evaluation of researcher’s positionality as well as active acknowledgment and explicit recognition that this position may affect the research process and outcome’. It has become a commonplace for researchers to refer to their background as they are part of research in qualitative research. In researcher reflexivity, it is also crucial to critically look into one’s research process in terms of the ethical conduct of research. In engagement in the practice and research reflective practice, which changed the position of the teachers to legitimate knowers (Johnson & Golombek, 2002), involvement of the practitioners in the research process and the reflexivity for the researchers have been regarded vital elements.

24  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

Reflective practice and other teacher variables

One aspect that has come to a consensus about reflection is that it can be targeted not only on one’s practice but on other complex and intangible constructs such as professional identity development, beliefs, emotion and teacher efficacy. Farrell (2013: 92) argues that developing a teacher perspective requires not only to understand pedagogical skills and content knowledge but also to understand one’s ‘beliefs, assumptions, values, and practices that guide teacher actions both inside and outside the classroom’. Among such constructs, teachers’ professional identity is one area which has received prominent attention in the field of TESOL. Professional identity can be explained by what Farrell (2018) refers to as ‘Philosophy’ in his Framework for Reflecting on Practice: A teacher’s philosophy comes from a deep understanding of the self and how we have evolved thus far as human beings and how aspects of our background – from where we have evolved – such as our heritage, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background, family and personal values have combined to influence who we are now as TESOL teachers. (2018: 38)

Many studies on professional identity attempt to explore it through the lens of reflective practice as it involves individuals to delve into oneself, that is, to look into one’s beliefs and attitudes as well as practice. Farrell (2018) argues the importance of reflection on one’s identity as it is the basis of the teacher who we are and also the reasons for why we became a teacher. Another area of intricate construct that is often explored through reflective practice is teacher belief, which is defined by Kagan (1992: 65) as ‘unconsciously held assumptions about students, classrooms, and the academic material to be taught’. It is claimed that teacher beliefs exert tremendous influences on teachers’ decisions and actions, such as their planning procedure (Woods, 1996) and their teaching practice in the classroom (Korthagen, 2004; Tsui, 2003). However, it is also pointed out that teacher beliefs and what teachers actually do in the classrooms are often different. Becoming aware of such discrepancy is said to be a prerequisite for change and development (Farrell, 2007) and reflective practice offers the key for its exploration. A case study of two experienced teachers in Singapore by Farrell and Lim (2005) found that the participants owned a set of belief systems that were not necessarily demonstrated in their classroom teaching. This can be attributed to the lack of time and their persistent idea about teaching of grammar which they had been exposed to for a long time as students. Without the engagement in reflection, the teachers were not aware of their views and their practice of teaching grammar in their lessons. Reflective practice has also been applied in an emerging area of research such as the notion of emotional capital. In a study of exploration

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  25

of emotional capital pertinent to language teachers’ emotion labor, Gkonou and Miller (2021) argue that language teachers, in their struggle to accord with the feeling rules, or what is expected from their institutions, develop the capability to perform the emotions which they believe are expected of them. This capacity is further shaped and developed through both individual reflection and collaborative reflection with colleagues. The studies introduced above show a crucial role that reflective practice plays in an exploration of professional development for teachers as it allows teachers to delve into intangible as well as tangible areas of teaching. Impact of reflective practice on teachers, learners and the community: Critical reflection

Reflective practice has been influenced by numerous learning theories that were prevalent at different times, such as experiential learning and social constructivism. One trend that we can observe in the recent shift is the influence of critical pedagogy which, in the literature of reflective practice, is known as critical reflection. Critical reflection for teachers is illustrated as a way of looking at teaching and learning, that is, teachers, students, school and community to be entities embedded in specific historical and sociopolitical contexts. Teachers are encouraged to reflect on teaching outside of the classroom in a broader context where they are embedded as well as the practice in the classroom. As an agent for change, teachers are encouraged to attempt to transform the context into one that is equitable for all the members in the given context (Farrell, 2015). In his framework, Farrell (2015: 96) describes the concept of critical reflection as Beyond Practice and depicts the importance for teachers’ engagement: One reason for reflecting beyond practice is that teachers may be able to understand the way particular societal assumptions they may have been following in their practice are in fact socially restrictive. Through a process of reflection teachers can develop new ideas that can empower them to become transformative intellectuals within society.

We have witnessed a number of studies on reflective practice and on fostering critical reflection. Safari (2018), through self-study narrative, found that narratives of various parties such as students, teachers and teacher educators offer ‘insightful and enlightening clues’ for learning how to interact with one another and suggested the importance for policymakers and authorities to acknowledge and appreciate their voices. Tajeddin and Aghababazadeh (2018), in their study, found that the participants in the studies showed the instances of critical reflection more

26  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

than descriptive reflection and argued that in-service teachers who have solved some immediate challenges in the classrooms, such as classroom management, are able to reflect on a broader context of their teaching such as syllabus, teaching materials and working conditions. It has been pointed out that critical reflection could be challenging in some context to be practiced (Watanabe, 2017); however, many of the studies do not necessarily illustrate how teachers are the agent for change in their attempts to transform the political and societal structures. These studies describe how teachers look critically at teaching materials, syllabus and curriculum. This might provide some clues for different teachers in numerous contexts to start to engage in the study of critical reflection. In this section, we have provided a brief review of the shifting changes of reflective practice in the past 20 years. As reflective practice is a concept that is informed by historical, sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts, we can expect to witness further shifts in the research and practice of reflective practice. In what follows, we report on a systematic review of studies on teacher reflection. An Empirical Study Literature search and inclusion criteria

To carry out this study on teacher reflection, we follow what Gough et al. (2012) described as the systematic review strategy. Since it has been argued that using multiple sources is conducive to locating related studies (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001), multiple electronic databases were consulted through a systematic key word search. The process began by searching Google Scholar, which is a well-known platform for finding research papers. The first 25 pages included 250 research papers on reflection and related concepts from 2001 to 2021. However, only the studies that were published by prominent international publishers in the field of applied linguistics, such as Elsevier, Taylor and Francis, Oxford University Press, Sage, Springer, Wiley, Cambridge University Press and De Gruyter were selected. In addition, databases such as ERIC, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Web of Knowledge were explored to locate related studies. ERIC, ScienceDirect and Web of Knowledge databases were selected from a list of databases in applied linguistics presented by In’nami and Koizumi (2010), and Scopus was used as a database in Avgousti (2018). To identify reflection as an educational concept in these databases, a wide range of combination of search strings was used. The databases were searched in June and July 2021 using these key terms: (reflection OR reflexivity OR reflective practice OR critical reflection OR reflect) AND (language OR language teacher OR language education OR teacher education OR foreign language OR second language OR EFL OR ESL OR TEFL OR TESL). The date of publication was restricted to 2000 onward. Regarding

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  27

Table 2.1  Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

1. P  ublication date of the article should be 2001 onward.

1. Publication date of the article is before 2001.

2. R  esearch paper should be written in English.

2. T  he study is carried out in settings other than language such as mathematics.

3. T  he study should be published as a research paper.

3. T  he study is a book chapter, book review, conference proceedings, a meta-analysis, a systematic review, a synthesis, a thesis or a dissertation, a commentary, an editorial, a book introduction or an interview.

4. The research should be empirical.

4. There is no empirical intervention in the study.

the methodology, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research studies were included. There were no constraints concerning the methodology of the studies. Papers included in the review were peer-reviewed articles published in leading international journals in the field of applied linguistics and teacher education indexed by ISI or Scopus. Table 2.1 details the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting the studies. After screening titles and abstracts, 207 studies were identified as relevant to the current study. Then, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 99 results were excluded (29 excluded on date of publication, 38 excluded on not being in a language setting, 14 excluded on not having intervention and 18 excluded on the type of publication). Six more articles were excluded since their full texts were not available. From 102 remaining research papers, 45 articles did not satisfy inclusion criteria. Therefore, 57 full-text original research papers were included for the current study (Figure 2.1). Findings

Regarding the publication date of the selected articles, only 12 studies were published from 2001 to 2010, while 37 studies (nearly 65%) were published in the next decade (Figure 2.2). The highest number of articles was published in 2018 (10 articles). This simply means that there seems to be an increasing interest among applied linguistics researchers in reflection studies. As shown in Figure 2.3, the publication of the papers is spread across a variety of different journals, with Reflective Practice accommodating the greatest number of studies (21 out of 42), followed by Teaching and Teacher Education and System with seven and four articles, respectively. Professional Development in Education accommodates three papers, while TESL Canada Journal, Language Teaching Research, Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, Australian Journal of Teacher Education and ELT Journal each accommodates two articles of the whole sample. Other 20 journals each includes one article on teacher reflective practice in the current study.

28  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

Figure 2.1  Screening process of the selected studies

Figure 2.2  Number of the selected studies per year

Figure 2.3  Research distribution in journals

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  29

Design of the studies

Qualitative studies comprise nearly 89% of the selected papers (52 studies). This may be due to the complexity of the concept of reflection which makes it difficult to be examined fully through quantitative instruments. On the other hand, only six quantitative studies (Aliakbari et al., 2020; Kurosh et al., 2020; Marzban & Ashraafi, 2016; Rahimi & Weisi, 2018; Seydi Shahivand & Moradkhani, 2020; Soodmand Afshar & Farahani, 2018) and three mixed methods research studies (Hobbs, 2007; Hyacinth & Mann, 2014; Moradkhani & Shirazizadeh, 2017) were identified. Participants of the studies

Participants in 38 studies were in-service teachers (e.g. Farrell, 2006; Farrell & Ives, 2015; Playsted, 2019), while 20 studies used pre-service teachers as participants (e.g. Arslan, 2019; Güngör, 2016; Hahl, 2021; Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005; Yagata, 2017). Regarding the demographic information of the participants, majority of the studies (84%) provided information about the participants’ gender, while 16% did not give this information at all. Only 43% of the selected papers provided information about participants’ educational degrees (BA, MA, PhD, other degrees such as DELTA and CELTA). The least provided information related to the age of the participants since only 28% of the studies reported on this item. As to the number of participants, qualitative studies included smaller samples; however, due to their nature, five quantitative studies included the highest number of participants (Table 2.2). Table 2.2  Number of participants in the selected studies Number of Participants

Example

Below 10

Chien (2013) = 1; Farrell (2016a) = 3; Farrell (2016b) = 3; Farrell (2019) = 1; Schmid (2011) = 7

10 to 50

Lee (2007) = 31; Power (2012) = 21; Turhan and Kirkgoz (2018) = 49

More than 50

Aliakbari et al. (2020) = 181; Kurosh et al. (2020) = 70; Marzban and Ashraafi (2016) = 200; Rahimi and Weisi (2018) = 150; Seydi Shahivand and Moradkhani (2020) = 230; Soodmand Afshar and Farahani (2018) = 304

Data collection methods of the studies

While 47 of the selected studies used interview, observation and questionnaire as their single data collection methods or as one of the methods, 11 studies (Clarke, 2006; Güngör, 2016; Karakaş & Yükselir, 2021; Kourieos, 2016; Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005; Lazarus & Olivero, 2009; Martínez, 2018; Schmid, 2011; Waring, 2013; Yuan & Mak, 2018; Yuan et al., 2022) used video recordings to provoke teachers’ reflection. Other methods used for data collection include narrative inquiry (e.g. Ates et al., 2015; Gkonou & Miller, 2021; Safari, 2018), reflective discussion (e.g.  Birbirso, 2012; Burhan-Horasanlı & Ortactepe, 2016; Gelfuso,

30  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

2017), field notes (Chien, 2013; Hobbs, 2007; Hyacinth & Mann, 2014; Karakaş & Yükselir, 2021), peer feedback (Karakaş & Yükselir, 2021), videopapers (Lazarus & Olivero, 2009), drawings (Safari, 2018) and mentoring meetings (Urzua & Vasquez, 2008). Main aims of the studies

Research papers selected for the current systematic review pivoted around various themes. Seven studies explored the relationship between reflection and other variables. These variables include satisfaction, autonomy, collegial support, time pressure, student demotivation, student discipline problems, self-efficacy, graduation degree and nationality, contextual differences, research practice, emotional intelligence and teaching experience. For instance, Aliakbari et al. (2020) investigated the interplay of satisfaction, autonomy, collegial support, time pressure, student demotivation and student discipline problems with teacher reflective practice. Results of their study suggested strong positive correlation between reflective practice and job satisfaction, supportive social climate and teacher autonomy. Student demotivation, time pressure and student discipline problems, on the other hand, were found to have significantly negative correlation with reflective teaching. In another study, Kurosh et al. (2020) explored teachers’ reflective practice in relation to their selfefficacy. They found that ELT teachers’ self-efficacy was enhanced by their reflective teaching. Marzban and Ashrafi (2016) studied EFL teachers’ reflective thinking skills in terms of their graduation degree and nationality. Results revealed that ELT teachers who held higher graduation degrees were more conscious of significance of reflection and tended to be more reflective. In addition, they found that nationality could make a difference in the degree of reflectivity in teachers where teachers in the developed world context were more reflective. In a study by Rahimi and Weisi (2018), the relationship between English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers’ reflective practices, self-efficacy and research practice was investigated. The findings showed that reflective practice, research practice and self-efficacy were correlated significantly and positively. They indicated a significantly positive correlation among subscales of reflective practice (practical reflection, cognitive reflection, affective reflection, metacognitive reflection and critical reflection) with research practice and self-­ efficacy. Finally, Soodmand Afshar and Farahani (2018) examined Iranian EFL teachers’ views on self-perceived inhibitors to reflective teaching and the impact of teaching experience and academic degree on their perception of reflective teaching. Based on their findings, they argued that Iranian EFL teachers perceived lack of knowledge, affective-emotional inhibitors and teaching situations as three types of inhibitors to their reflective teaching. Their findings also revealed that teachers with different academic degree (BA, MA and PhD) and various teaching experience were significantly different regarding their reflective teaching.

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  31

Positive impacts of reflective practice on teachers’ effectiveness, efficacy of reflective journal writing, video-based stimulated recall, videopapers and collaborative reflective practice were explored in some studies. For example, Mante-Estacio et al. (2018) sought to examine teachers’ beliefs regarding their teaching of speaking, writing and listening. They asked English teachers to write reflective logs and take part in interviews to express their perceptions of effective teaching. Teachers’ reflections revealed that effective teaching was associated with professional development, instructional skills and learner centeredness. They argued that such reflective practices can potentially benefit teachers and boost their professional development. Chien (2013) analyzed journal entries of an elementary school teacher and found that while written reflections can benefit the teacher, there were some challenges including time limitations for writing reflective journals and lack of analysis of the reflections to be applied in the future classes. Similarly, Barber (2021), Liou (2001) and Ouellette-Schramm et al. (2019) reported that writing reflection journals could benefit EFL teachers. Sowa (2009), Birbirso (2012), Farrell (2006, 2016b), Gun (2010) and Hyacinth and Mann (2014) found that reflective practice brings about positive results as we as new opportunities and challenges both for teachers and learners. In a similar vein, Lee (2007) collected data through journal entries and post-study interviews as reflection tools. Data analysis suggested that reflective practice can be beneficial for teachers since it provides them with insights into the efficacy of their teaching enable them to understand theories through applying and personalizing them. Karakaş and Yukselir (2021) video-recorded the teaching sessions of English teachers in Turkey. Teachers watched their own teaching and reflected upon their practice through focus-group discussions. Analysis of the obtained data suggested that video-recorded reflective practice was very beneficial to the teachers and could raise their consciousness about those aspects of teaching to which they usually did not attend. Moreover, it was observed that teachers, after reflecting on their recorded teaching sessions, made changes in their future teaching practices. Kourieos (2016) and Martínez (2018) confirmed that video-based stimulated recall was beneficial in assisting teachers to do reflective practice. Güngör (2016) and Gelfuso (2017) also reported that video-recorded micro-teaching sessions as reflection tools could significantly contribute to more efficient teaching. Similar findings were echoed by Lazarus and Olivero (2009), Schmid (2011), Yuan and Mak (2018) and Yuan et al. (2022). Farrell (2011) examined the relationship between reflection and identity through engaging teachers in reflective group discussions. Results of the study indicated that teachers could identify their various identities as teachers including Teacher as Manager, Teacher as Acculturator and Teacher as Professional. Moreover, Hanson (2011) found that reflection can pave the way for establishment and development of teacher identity.

32  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

Similarly, Turhan and Kirkgoz (2018) concluded that pre-service teachers admitted the necessity of reflective practice for professional development. Also, Chitpin (2011) argued that reflection in the form of critical conversation with a mentor can improve the efficacy of teaching practice. In their studies, Urzua and Vasquez (2008) and Waring (2013) suggested that it is vital for the mentors to encourage reflection in their pre-service and novice teachers. However, Azizah et al. (2018) found that experienced teachers could benefit considerably more from reflective practice compared with novice teachers. Many other studies focused on various research themes related to the concept of teacher reflection. For example, BurhanHorasanlı and Ortactepe (2016) found that teachers could benefit more from online collaborative reflective practice. Ates et al. (2015), Clarke (2006) and Clarke and Otaky (2006) examined the relationship between cultural factors and teachers’ reflective practice. Hobbs (2007) argued that forced reflective practice can never establish genuine reflective practice since reflection needs to be done out of the urgent need of a teacher for locating problems and providing more efficient teaching practice. Discussion

Teacher reflection is integral to teacher professional development. It can contribute to the development of teacher knowledge base and improve teacher pedagogical practice. Due to this important role, teacher reflection has received a mounting interest and featured in many studies in the past few decades. The aim of the systematic review was to unravel main strands in teacher reflection research in the past two decades. The findings showed main strands of development in terms of the number of studies on teacher reflection published in journals, design of the studies, data collection instruments, types of participants and main aims of the studies. In what follows, these findings are discussed. The trend of studies published in the past two decades shows that there has been a sharp trajectory of studies since the mid-2010s. As to the journals publishing these studies, our findings reveals that Reflective Practice, as a journal devoted to teacher reflection, has functioned the main outlet for these studies. Besides, System and Teaching and Teacher Education have the targets of many relevant studies. Other journals have published reflection studies in lower numbers. These journals include those in which the scope of the journals was mainly technology-enhanced language education. This indicates the proliferation of research on teacher reflection aided by technology such as blogs, online platforms and online messaging networks. This systematic review evidenced that qualitative research was the main design of studies on teacher reflection. Only few studies were quantitative by nature (e.g. Soodmand Afshar & Farahani, 2018), and still fewer ones adopted a mixed methods design (e.g. Hobbs, 2007; Hyacinth

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  33

& Mann, 2014). The qualitative studies mainly used interviews or observation, which have traditionally been the main data collection sources for this purpose (e.g. Martínez, 2018; Schmid, 2011; Yuan et al., 2022). However, the studies reviewed demonstrate an emerging feature of data collection methods in teacher reflection research which are clearly observed in the studies published particularly in the second half of the 2010s. Among these methods gaining momentum are narrative inquiry (e.g. Gkonou & Miller, 2021) and reflective discussion (e.g. Burhan-Horasanlı & Ortactepe, 2016; Gelfuso, 2017). In line with its increasing use in studies on other areas of teacher education, such as teacher identity and teacher agency, narrative inquiry has functioned as an emerging method in teacher reflection research. Another data collection method adopted more recently is collaborative discussion. With the rise of sociocultural theory and its application to teacher education, collaborative professional development has attracted the attention of teachers, teacher educators and researchers. A corollary of this attention can be observed in the burgeoning of studies on the affordance of collaboration for enhanced reflection. The last purpose of the systematic review was to trace the main aims of the research conducted on teacher reflection in the past two decades. The findings from this systematic review shows three sets of aims pursued in this body of research. The first aim of the research was to find how teacher reflection is related to the teacher variable (e.g. Kurosh et al., 2020; Rahimi & Weisi, 2018; Soodmand Afshar & Farahani, 2018). The studies pursued to find how teacher reflection was related with other teacher and contextual variables or how teacher reflection was impacted by these variables. The variables examined in these studies include teacher identity, efficacy, emotional intelligence, researcher practice and teaching experience. Among these variables, the interface between teacher reflection and teacher identity seems to be more recent, as observed in the past decade (e.g. Gelfuso, 2017; Güngör, 2016). The second main aim of the studies was to evidence the impact and benefits of teacher reflection on both teachers and learners. As the review shows, teachers’ effectiveness improved through their reflective practice. Also, teacher reflection contributed to the quality of learning including learners’ satisfaction, motivation and autonomy. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

The emergent themes of research described in the background section of this chapter coupled with the systematic review we provided above have implication for teacher reflection. These emerging themes include the increasing use of online forum, dialogic and collaborative reflection, and new methods of reflective practice. Online reflection via blogs, social networks and computer-based platforms creates a space for teacher reflection irrespective of time and space limits. The experience of the COVID-19

34  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

pandemic, which acted as a turning point for the exigency of online language education and teacher education, has created more awareness about the potential of online facilities for teacher reflection. Dialogic and collaborative reflection, as another emerging theme informed by the sociocultural perspective in the past two decades (e.g. Chacón, 2018; Johnson, 2009), opens new avenues for teacher reflection and the relevant research framed by this perspective. The sociocultural perspective has documented the importance of collaborative professional development in teacher education. Collaborative reflection, as one of the methods in inquiry-based teacher education, can stimulate teachers to reflect on the teaching practice of themselves and other teachers in the context in which this reflection is dialogic and scaffolded by the participating teachers in the collaborative forum. The findings from our systematic review of 20 years of research on teacher reflection provide insights that can benefit teacher reflection. One of the main insights relates to the increasing interest in teacher variables associated with teacher reflection, such as teacher identity, autonomy, emotion and research practice. The nexus between teacher reflection and these teacher variables suggests that teachers and teacher educators could deal with teacher reflection as aligned with these variables. It follows that teacher reflection can be enhanced or hampered by other teacher-internal variables. Furthermore, as our findings show, teacher reflective engagement can be impacted by external variables akin to institutional support and affordance provided by peers, supervisors and other stakeholders. This implies that influential external sources should be regarded in heightening teachers’ motivation for reflective practice. The systematic review documented that both pre-service and ­in-service teachers’ reflective practice was the target of the studies. This indicates that teacher reflection is not limited to the stage in which teachers have already started their teaching career. Teacher reflection should begin in pre-service teacher education and be encouraged as a requisite tool for teacher professional development. At this pre-service stage, the teacher education program can create spaces for teacher reflective practice by engaging them in microteaching and peer observation. Also, the methods for teacher reflection can be introduced by teacher educators and adopted by teachers for effective reflective practice. Through reflection notes, diaries, participation in online reflection forum and input-based reflection tools, such as videos, teachers can generate the perception that reflection is inherent to the teaching profession and boosts their professional development. Our systematic review showed that numerous studies brought to light reflection practiced by in-service teachers. These teachers are involved in regular teaching practice, make decisions every moment in the classroom, plan and prepare lessons, and need to bridge the belief-practice gap. As such, their reflective practice, if exercised critically and accompanied active engagement in collaborative reflection, can benefit their own

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  35

professional development and learners’ gains. In view of this, reflection by in-service teachers requires continued affordance from supervisors, mentors, teacher educators and institution managers. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

The aim of this chapter was to bring to light recent and emerging trends in teacher reflection scholarship. The examination of emerging trends and the systematic review of research published in the past two decades demonstrate that the focus, modality and participative structure of teacher reflection have transcended beyond its traditional scope dominant in the 1980s–1990s. As to the focus of studies, more external and internal teacher variables feature in teacher reflection research. The modality of reflection has broadened to encompass online and technology-­ enhanced teacher reflection. Finally, the participative structure of teacher reflection has turned to be more dialogic and collaborative in line with the sociocultural perspective on teacher education. The findings from our systematic review suggest further areas for research on teacher reflection. One under-researched area is the interface between teacher reflection and other teacher variables, including teacher identity and teacher emotion. More research is needed to document how these variables can facilitate of hinder teacher reflective engagement. To move beyond reflection on teachers’ teaching practice, another related research is to investigate how variables such as teacher identity can be the focus of teacher reflection and how reflection on identity can contribute to the reconstruction of different dimensions (personal, professional, enacted, imagined) of teacher identity. As to reflection modality, the opportunities and challenges of online reflection could be investigated. References Avgousti, M.I. (2018) Intercultural communicative competence and online exchanges: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning 31 (8), 819–853. Berger, R. (2015) Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 15 (2), 219–234. Burhan-Horasanlı, E. and Ortactepe, D. (2016) Reflective practice-oriented online discussions: A study on EFL teachers’ reflection-on, in and for-action. Teaching and Teacher Education 59, 372–382. Chacón, C.T. (2018) Reflective teaching. In J.I. Liontas (ed.) The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–5). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007) Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London: Continuum. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013) Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups: From Practices to Principles. London: Palgrave. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. London: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2018) Research on Reflective Practice in TESOL. London: Routledge.

36  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

Farrell, T.S.C. and Ives, J. (2015) Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research 19 (5), 594–610. Farrell, T.S.C. and Lim, P.C.P. (2005) Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 9 (2), 1–13. Gkonou, C. and Miller, E.R. (2021) An exploration of language teacher reflection, emotion labor, and emotional capital. TESOL Quarterly 55 (1), 134–155. Gough, D., Thomas, J. and Oliver, S. (2012) Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Review 1 (28). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 In’nami, Y. and Koizumi, R. (2010) Database selection guidelines for meta-analysis in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly 44 (1), 169–184. Jay, J.K. and Johnson, K.L. (2002) Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 18, 73–85. Johnson, K.E. (2009) Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, K.E. and Golombek, P.R. (2002) Inquiry into experience: Teachers’ personal and professional growth. In K.E. Johnson and P.R. Golombek (eds) Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development (pp. 1–4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kagan, D.M. (1992) Implications of research of teacher belief. Educational Psychology 27, 65–90. Korthagen, F.A.J. (2004) In search of the essence of a good teacher: Toward a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 77–97. Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (2001) Practical Meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lowe, R.J. and Lawrence, L. (2020) An introduction to duoethnography. In R.J. Lowe and L. Lawrence (eds) Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection and Classroom Application (pp. 1–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mann, S. (2005) The language teacher’s development. Language Teaching 38, 103–118. Mumford, S. and Dikilitas, K. (2020) Pre-service language teachers reflection development through online interaction in a hybrid learning course. Computer & Education 144, 1–13. Rashid, R.A. (2018) Dialogic reflection for professional development through conversations on a social networking site. Reflective Practice 19 (1), 105–117. Safari, P. (2018) A critical reflection on (re)construction of my identity as an English language learner and English teacher. Professional Development in Education 44 (5), 704–720. Schaefer, M. and Brereton, P. (2020) Developing understandings of reflective practice and teacher training. In R.J. Lowe and L. Lawrence (eds) Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection and Classroom Application (pp. 133–152). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Tajeddin, Z. and Aghababazadeh, Y. (2018) Blog-mediated reflection for professional development: Exploring themes and criticality of L2 teachers’ reflective practice. TESL Canada Journal 35 (2), 26–50. Tamai, K. (2016) Use of epistemological lenses on the ambiguity of reflective practice: What is it to reflect on experience? In K. Tamai, I. Nakamura and J. Trefla (eds) Current Issues and New Thoughts on Reflective Practice, Journal of Research Institute 53, 23–50. Kobe City University of Foreign Studies. Tsui, A.B.M. (2003) Understanding Expertise in Teaching: Case Studies of ESL Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press. Watanabe, A. (2017) Reflective Practice as Professional Development: Experiences of Teachers of English in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woods, D. (1996) Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decision-Making and Classroom Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  37

Papers included in the systematic review Aliakbari, M., Khany, R. and Adibpour, M. (2020) EFL teachers’ reflective practice, job satisfaction, and school context variables: Exploring possible relationships. TESOL Journal 11 (1), 1–20. Arslan, F.Y. (2019) Reflection in pre-service teacher education: Exploring the nature of four EFL pre-service teachers’ reflections. Reflective Practice 20 (1), 111–124. Ates, B., Kim, S. and Grigsby, Y. (2015) Cultural narratives in TESOL classrooms: A collaborative reflective team analysis. Reflective Practice 16 (3), 297–311. Azizah, U.A., Nurkamto, J. and Drajati, N.A. (2018) Reflective practice: The experiences of pre-service EFL teachers in teaching English. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14 (3), 133–144. Barber, J.D. (2021) Using course journals to encourage reflective practice in second language teacher education. Reflective Practice 22 (1), 128–141. Birbirso, D.T. (2012) Reflective practicum: Experience of the Ethiopian context. Reflective Practice 13 (6), 857–869. Burhan-Horasanlı, E. and Ortaçtepe, D. (2016) Reflective practice-oriented online discussions: A study on EFL teachers’ reflection-on, in and for-action. Teaching and Teacher Education 59, 372–382. Chien, C. (2013) Analysis of a language teacher’s journal of classroom practice as reflective practice. Reflective Practice 14 (1), 131–143. Chitpin, S. (2011) Can mentoring and reflection cause change in teaching practice? A professional development journey of a Canadian teacher educator. Professional Development in Education 37 (2), 1–16. Clarke, A. (2006) The nature and substance of cooperating teacher reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education 22, 910–921. Clarke, M. and Otaky, D. (2006) Reflection ‘on’ and ‘in’ teacher education in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Educational Development 26, 111–122. Farrell, T.S.C. (2006) The first year of language teaching: Imposing order. System 34, 211–221. Farrell, T.S.C. (2011) Exploring the professional role identities of experienced ESL teachers through reflective practice. System 39, 54–62. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016a) TESOL, a profession that eats its young! The importance of reflective practice in language teacher education. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 4 (3), 97–107. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016b) Surviving the transition shock in the first year of teaching through reflective practice. System 61 (3), 12–19. Farrell, T.S.C. (2019) Reflective practice framework for TESOL teachers: One teacher’s reflective journey. Reflective Practice 20 (1), 1–12. Farrell, T.S.C. and Ives, J. (2015) Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research 19 (5), 594–610. Gelfuso, A. (2017) Facilitating the development of preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of literacy and agentic identities: Examining a teacher educator’s intentional language choices during video-mediated reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education 66, 33–46. Gkonou, C. and Miller, E.R. (2021) An exploration of language teacher reflection, emotion labor, and emotional capital. TESOL Quarterly 55 (1), 134–155. Gun, B. (2010) Quality self-reflection through reflection training. ELT Journal 65 (2), 126–135. Güngör, M.N. (2016) Turkish pre-service teachers’ reflective practices in teaching english to young learners. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 41 (2), 137–151. Hahl, K. (2021) Student teachers’ experiences of using photos in teacher reflection. Reflective Practice 22 (1), 115–127.

38  Part 1: Macro-Perspectives on Teacher Reflection

Hanson, J. (2011) Teacher reflection and identity teaching a language from within an L2 cultural identity, or teaching from within L1 culture about L2. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning 1 (1), 1–38. Hobbs, V. (2007) Faking it or hating it: Can reflective practice be forced? Reflective Practice 8 (3), 405–417. Hyacinth, T. and Mann, S. (2014) Reflective practice in Nigeria: Teachers’ voices and experiences. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language 18 (3), 1–26. Karakaş, A. and Yükselir, C. (2021) Engaging pre-service EFL teachers in reflection through video-mediated team micro-teaching and guided discussions. Reflective Practice 22 (2), 159–172. Kourieos, S. (2016) Video-mediated microteaching – A stimulus for reflection and teacher growth. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 41 (3), 65–80. Kurosh, S., Yousefi, M.H. and Kashef, S.H. (2020) Iranian teachers’ reflective teaching practice in relation to self-efficacy perceptions: Investigating teachers’ discipline. Reflective Practice 21 (3), 356–370. Lazaraton, A. and Ishihara, N. (2005) Understanding second language teacher practice using microanalysis and self-reflection: A collaborative case study. Modern Language Journal 89 (3), 529–542. Lazarus, E. and Olivero, F. (2009) Videopapers as a tool for reflection on practice in initial teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 18 (3), 255–267. Lee, I. (2007) Preparing pre-service English teachers for reflective practice. ELT Journal 61 (4), 321–329. Liou, H.C. (2001) Reflective practice in a pre-service teacher education program for high school English teachers in Taiwan, ROC. System 29 (2), 197–208. Mante-Estacio, M.J., Valdez, P.N. and Pulido, D. (2018) Effective teaching of the macroskills: reflections from Filipino teachers of English. Reflective Practice 19 (6), 844–854. Martínez, J.M.G. (2018) How effective is collaborative reflective practice in enabling ­cognitive transformation in English language teachers? Reflective Practice 19 (4), 427–446. Marzban, A. and Ashraafi, N. (2016) Assessing reflective thinking skills in EFL/ESL instructors based on differences in graduation degree and nationality. Reflective Practice 17 (6), 681-693. Moradkhani, S. and Shirazizadeh, M. (2017) Context-based variations in EFL teachers’ reflection: The case of public schools versus private institutes in Iran. Reflective Practice 18 (2), 206–218. Mumford, S. and Dikilitaş, K. (2020) Pre-service language teachers’ reflection development through online interaction in a hybrid learning course. Computers & Education 144, 1–26. Ouellette-Schramm, J., Molina, S.C. and Reimer, J. (2019) Developmentally distinct experiences among novice teachers reflecting on Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). Reflective Practice 20 (6), 732–744. Playsted, S.A. (2019) Reflective practice to guide teacher learning: A practitioner’s journey with beginner adult English language learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 7 (3), 37–52. Power, J.B. (2012) Towards a greater understanding of the effectiveness of reflective journals in a university language program. Reflective Practice 13 (5), 637–649. Rahimi, M. and Weisi, H. (2018) Reflective practice, self-efficacy and research practice of EFL teachers: Examining possible relationships. Issues in Educational Research 28 (3), 756–780. Rashid, R.A. (2018) Dialogic reflection for professional development through conversations on a social networking site. Reflective Practice 19 (1), 105–117.

Language Teacher Reflection: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research  39

Safari, P. (2018) A critical reflection on (re)construction of my identity as an English language learner and English teacher. Professional Development in Education 44 (5), 704–720. Schmid, E.C. (2011) Video-stimulated reflection as a professional development tool in interactive whiteboard research. ReCALL 23 (3), 252–270. Seydi Shahivand, E. and Moradkhani, S. (2020) The relationship between EFL teachers’ trait emotional intelligence and reflective practices: A structural equation modeling approach. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 14 (5), 466–480. Soodmand Afshar, H. and Farahani, M. (2018) Inhibitors to EFL teachers’ reflective teaching and EFL learners’ reflective thinking and the role of teaching experience and academic degree in reflection perception. Reflective Practice 19 (1), 46–67. Sowa, P.A. (2009) Understanding our learners and developing reflective practice: Conducting action research with English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education 25, 1026–1032. Tajeddin, Z. and Aghababazadeh, Y. (2018) Blog-mediated reflection for professional development: Exploring themes and criticality of L2 teachers’ reflective practice. TESL Canada Journal 35 (2), 26–50. Turhan, B. and Kirkgoz, Y. (2018) Towards becoming critical reflection writers: A case of English language teacher candidates. Reflective Practice 19 (6), 749–762. Urzua, A. and Vasquez, C. (2008) Reflection and professional identity in teachers’ futureoriented discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (7), 1935–1946. Waring, H.Z. (2013) Two mentor practices that generate teacher reflection without explicit solicitations: Some preliminary considerations. RELC Journal 44 (1) 103–119. Yagata, K. (2017) A failure of dialogue? A critical reflection on a discussion between a teacher trainer and a pre-service second-language teacher. Reflective Practice 18 (3), 326–338. Yoshihara, R., Kurata, A. and Yamauchi, A. (2020) Reflective journals to explore struggles and difficulties of novice Japanese EFL university instructors. Reflective Practice 21 (1), 81–93. Yuan, R. and Mak, P. (2018) Reflective learning and identity construction in practice, discourse and activity: Experiences of pre-service language teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education 74, 205–214. Yuan, R., Mak, P. and Yang, M. (2022) ‘We teach, we record, we edit, and we reflect’: Engaging preservice language teachers in video-based reflective practice. Language Teaching Research 26 (3), 552–571.

Part 2 Teacher Reflection Policies

3 Applying Farrell’s EvidenceBased Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education: A Reflective Practice Report Laura Baecher, Marcus Artigliere and Lauren McCoy

Introduction

If you have ever had the good fortune of seeing Tom Farrell present at a conference (with his signature baseball cap), you know that he is irreverent, energetic and completely engaging as he tells the story of reflection in TESOL teacher education. Maybe that baseball cap can be seen as a sort of symbol, representing an intentional choice to bring him closer to the audience. As an audience member and observer, we observe that he has chosen to wear a baseball cap while keynoting at a major conference. We can imagine that this was done purposefully, but we cannot know the reasoning behind the choice unless we engage in a reflective conversation with him. We perceive as observers that being approachable and unpretentious are important values that are conveyed through that small choice to wear the baseball hat (nod to John Fanselow’s seminal work on small changes, e.g. 1988), but what does Tom Farrell say? We present this bit of evidence to him and ask him to reflect. In this act of reflecting, he can affirm what he has consciously chosen to do, or he can explore a move of which he had previously been unaware. In either case, it is that bit of evidence – the act of hat wearing – that sparks the reflection. In the reflection we enter a dialectic between objective, observable evidence and the inner life and belief system of the doer, between the doer and the observer, and between the doer, the observer and the data. Farrell’s very humanistic approach to reflection is a synergy of considered, careful data collection combined with the recognition that none of the data will really make sense for teacher learning if it is divorced from 43

44  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

the teacher’s external context and their internal beliefs, concepts and ideologies (2016). This external/internal dual approach to supporting teacher reflection forms the basis of our work in a large, urban, public college of teacher education in the US as we prepare TESOL educators. As Farrell (2013) puts it: Evidence-based reflective practice is centered on three important questions teachers ask themselves about their practice. By systematically collecting data to answer these questions, they can engage in evidence-based reflective practice (Farrell, 2007). The three questions in an evidence-based reflective cycle are: What do I do? Why do I do it? What is the result?

The practice of engaging teachers in reflection may seem straightforward, but all of us who have attempted to deepen reflection in coaching, supervising or supporting teacher learning know it is quite complex. In this chapter, we present an artifact-driven model of reflection that we use in our student teaching/practicum in TESOL to foster evidence-based introspection that is also connected to a high-stakes teacher certification exam in our context. We examine our process as a single case that may have applicability in other TESOL teacher education contexts, and as a form of self-study for ourselves as teacher educators. After reviewing our teacher candidates’ reflective process, we turn Farrell’s three questions to ourselves and our work, and they form the foundation for this chapter: (1) What do we do to foster teacher reflection in our TESOL educator preparation program? (2) Why do we take up these particular teacher education approaches? and (3) What results do we see? Research Traditions on Teacher Reflection

Farrell has been the leader in the field of TESOL in regard to reflective practice, with a great impact on teacher educators and teachers through his books, journal articles and presentations (see Google Scholar citations). Building on the general education literature on teacher education and making that research nest in the TESOL context, he has emphasized (1) the need for descriptive, non-judgmental observation; (2) the use of artifacts; (3) the importance of peers and mentors as partners in the reflective process; and (4) action research as tools that offer teachers not only the opportunity not only to engage in evidence-based reflection, but to become empowered through their reflection. The TESOL practicum has also long been the lead space in which these critical, developmental activities are expected to occur (Farrell, 2008; Yazan, 2015) using artifacts, reflection tools and approaches (see our way of seeing these as interconnected in Figure 3.1) in a linked process. Reflection is grounded in data, and there are multiple artifacts to be found in the supervised student teaching context: lesson plans, student

Applying Farrell’s Evidence-Based Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education  45

Figure 3.1  Artifacts for reflection, reflection tools and reflection approaches for student teachers

work and video records. Each of these is a sort of primary source document that can be examined by student teachers and serve as the basis for their reflections. In addition to these primary source materials, there are many types of tools for reflective engagement with these artifacts, such as blogs (Tajeddin & Aghababazadeh, 2018) or video logs (Sydnor, 2016), as well as approaches, such as peer-mentoring (Nguyen & Ngo, 2018) or lesson study (Myers, 2013). As Mann and Walsh (2017: 246) aptly point out, however, there is a need for both the evidence itself and a means to reflect on it as well as a need to ‘show student teachers and practitioners how to do it: reflection needs to be taught’. In order for student teachers to carry out meaningful and impactful reflection, teacher educators need to know how to guide this reflection. Less research has been done on teacher educators learning to reflect in comparison to the extensive literature on teacher reflection. TESOL teacher educators can find resources that are written for them in the ‘teacher trainer’ role to guide others through reflective practice, which are incredibly useful (e.g. Malderez & Wedell, 2007; Woodward, 1991), and there is a robust literature on the reflective practices of supervisors engaged in post-observation conferences (e.g. Copland, 2012; Farr,

46  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

Figure 3.2  Artifacts for reflection, reflection tools and reflection approaches for teacher educators

2010), but research on how TESOL teacher educators use their student teachers’ reflective artifacts to spark their own reflection, and the tools and approaches they employ to do so, is harder to find. In the wider teacher education literature, collaborative and collective studies of teacher educators’ own practices offer insights into the need for more time for such work, a higher value on program-wide approaches rather than individual faculty approaches, and a commitment to challenge each other to grow in supportive ways (e.g. Loughran, 2010; Macphail et al., 2019; Ulvik et al., 2020; Zeichner, 2007). In practical terms, we teacher educators could benefit from a reflection process that substitutes the artifacts, tools and approaches used with student teachers and applies these approaches in a parallel manner in ways appropriate to teacher educators (see Figure 3.2). An Empirical Study Method

The reflective practice report is a scholarly genre that is not an empirical study, but employs most of the same features as a qualitative self-study.

Applying Farrell’s Evidence-Based Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education  47

It is organized by inquiry, description, outcomes and analysis and is presented through the first person, places the researchers within the study and seeks authenticity and professional learning for the authors (Earl & Ussher, 2016; Ellingson, 2011). We approached this reflection on practice with reference to the framework of self-study in teacher education. Selfstudy in teacher education emerges from the fields of reflective practice, action research and teacher research and ‘is an approach to understand one’s own practice and one’s self-concept, [and] means that teacher educators look critically at their own professional values, work towards a better self-understanding, and have a moral purpose’ (Hauge, 2021: 2). A central premise in self-study methodology is that a critical friend will be a reflective partner in examining and considering the data that emerge. In our triad, we find such critical friendship and one that has lasted professionally in the context of preparing TESOL teachers for more than a decade. The three authors have all served as practicum instructors, field supervisors, cooperating teachers and have all taught in the same school contexts where we now prepare new teachers. Our opportunities, however, to look back and reflect-on-reflection are rare – that is, to take time to look at the student outcomes together and not in isolation are infrequent, hence our welcoming of this chance to study our own practices with the guidance and perspectives of each other. Our setting is a large, urban Masters in TESOL program that consists of 12, three-credit courses. The supervised teaching practicum occurs in the final or penultimate semester of their program. A large component of this practicum is reflection on artifacts: lesson plans, videos of their teaching and student work samples, created within the delivery of a week’s worth of content-based English as a second language (ESL) student teaching. Within this context, we focus for this chapter on a singular example of a student teacher’s reflective work sample as an artifact to ground our reflection as teacher educators. This example is from what we call the ‘Core Teaching Skills Portfolio’ (CTSP). Student teachers focus on one week of connected instruction (a mini-unit of integrated content and language teaching). They write three extended reflections, each tied to an artifact from that one week of instruction as follows (as presented in Figure 3.1): Artifact 1: Lesson plans from the mini-unit of content-language instruction Artifact 2: Two 10-minute video clips from the implementation of the mini-unit Artifact 3: Three student work samples at the conclusion of the mini-unit

Each of the written reflections is guided by prompt questions that are answered by all the student teachers. Teacher educators then provide

48  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

feedback and consider how to advance their student teachers’ reflections further and use teacher candidate responses to plan for conversations during the practicum seminar meeting times (once per week). Thus, the artifacts that lead to reflection on our part as teacher educators are these three commentaries that are written by teacher candidates: Artifact 1: Teacher Candidates’ Lesson Plan Commentaries Artifact 2: Teacher Candidates’ Video Clip Commentaries Artifact 3: Teacher Candidates’ Student Work Sample Commentaries

We intentionally structured our self-study based on Farrell’s (2016) five stages described earlier: (1) philosophy, (2) principles, (3) theory, (4) practice and (5) beyond practice. We began by aligning Farrell’s five stages for reflection with the reflective moves required of our teacher candidates as well as for ourselves in carrying out our review of our practices. Table 3.1 displays five dimensions of how we considered our reflective work as teacher educators in parallel to that of our student teachers: In the following section, we share our key findings from our reflective review on our student teachers’ artifact-based reflections (using their commentaries as our artifacts). These reviews were conducted by selecting student exemplars from student teaching/practice classes. We examined the artifacts for emergent themes and then coded select works using inquiry questions.

Table 3.1  Reflecting on our teacher candidates’ reflection using Farrell’s five stages TESOL Teacher Candidates’ reflective questions:

TESOL Teacher Educators’ (Authors) reflective questions:

Philosophy

How is my work with my English learners shaped by my personal background (heritage, family values, prior schooling, etc.)?

How is my work with my teacher candidates shaped by my personal background (heritage, family values, prior schooling, etc.)?

Principles

How is my work with my English learners shaped by my assumptions, beliefs and conceptions of teaching and learning?

How is my work with my teacher candidates shaped by my assumptions, beliefs and conceptions of teaching and learning?

Theory

What ideas inform my planning in regard to methods or approaches I want to employ in my work with my English learners?

What ideas inform my planning in regard to methods or approaches I want to employ in my work with my teacher candidates?

Practice

What actions are visible in my teaching and engagement with my English learners?

What actions are visible in my teaching and engagement with my teacher candidates?

Beyond Practice

How can I be more critical about what I am enacting in relation to broader trends?

How can I be more critical about what I am enacting in relation to broader trends?

Applying Farrell’s Evidence-Based Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education  49

Findings

We began our inquiry with three questions about how we support teacher reflection, which Farrell (2013) lays out as a foundation for ­evidence-based reflection: (1) What do we do to foster teacher reflection among our TESOL student teachers? (2) Why do we take up these particular teacher education approaches? and (3) What results do we see? We wanted to implement the earlier stages of examining our philosophies and principles and connect those to the practices we value and take up with our student teachers. (1) What do we do to foster teacher reflection among our TESOL teacher candidates?

In reviewing the ways we actively encourage, support and require our teacher candidates to reflect on practice, we realized that teacher candidate reflection was taking place in more ways than we had realized, and beyond as well as tied to the CTSP larger reflective project. We highlight practices that we are interested in and wrestling with as supporters of teacher reflection. This stage of our reflection encompasses Farrell’s theory and practice components (see Table 3.1). We considered the questions: What ideas inform my planning in regard to methods or approaches I want to employ in my work with my teacher candidates? and What actions are visible in my teaching and engagement with my teacher candidates? (Laura) I am a huge fan of pre-observation feedback. It seems to me that teachers are much less defensive and much more receptive to feedback on their lesson plans, since they have not yet taken place. When I give feedback on a lesson that has already been taught, teachers are naturally positioned as defending choices made whereas when I give feedback on lessons that are coming up, we can more naturally be co-collaborators and coplanners. It really feels more like setting the teacher candidate up for success rather than a ‘gotcha’ of post-observation feedback. An outgrowth of this in my practice is that when the post-observation conversation then occurs, we pull out the lesson plan and this is a central artifact in those conversations. Because we were both involved in the lesson design, it gives more of a sense of workshopping through what we saw happening, what we would change, in a collaborative spirit rather than me informing the teacher of what I noticed. A challenge I find is when I notice early on that the lesson planning skills of a teacher candidate are particularly undeveloped. Then, a dilemma I face is to what extent I ‘write’ the lesson plan and how much input I give at that phase. In summary, I realize that providing feedback and, to some degree, ­co-constructing lesson plans with teacher candidates, is a productive way to improve the overall lesson quality and student experience. I have realized that this is more effective when done prior to the observed lesson. (Marcus) I start all supervised teaching classes with a brief structured reflection. During this reflection, participants are given roles and divided

50  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

into small groups of three to four. Groups start with silent writing and note reactions to three guiding questions: 1) what was difficult since the last time we met? 2) what were you successful in accomplishing? and 3) list the challenges or successes you would like to share with the larger group. Post writing, each participant shares their reflections while group members listen and respond. Conversation moves to whole group discussion and a debrief of small group patterns and trends. During the process, I visit all groups, listen, and participate. There have certainly been challenges to implementing this process in our seminar course as it takes away time from other course content and can also be difficult to maintain the structure of the reflection. Students love to share their dilemmas and the discussions can be cathartic, but as the instructor, it is challenging to be sure the conversations remain productive. There have been many times when students either veer off track, socialize and/or avoid difficult conversations. Quiet, individual writing is helpful to jumpstart conversations and give students a moment to process their experiences from the previous week of student teaching/practicum. I have also learned that both the instructor and students must become comfortable with silence during reflection. Without space for processing and writing, I have noticed conversations tend to remain at the surface level. The seminar clinical experience is incredibly busy for students. For many, this is the first time they have been in a K-12 classroom, and it is common to struggle to make meaning and process all that they are seeing and experiencing. The intense nature of the clinical experience creates sort of an emotional, physical and psychic shock to their system. In summary, structured reflection has become integral to create a space to process their experiences, make meaning and build peer relationships. Another challenge is creating a community of trust. I have learned it is critical to first establish trust and build a community of practice where students feel comfortable sharing their difficulties and successes, however small they may be. Students need to see and feel that seminar is a safe, non-evaluative holding space to process their experiences. When trust and community are present, I have found that students began to rely on each other as critical friends to problematize, and problem-solve classroom dilemmas. (Lauren) To foster reflection in teacher candidates, I make it an integral part of each class. At the start of the semester, I emphasize that we are critical colleagues, working together to grow in our practice. Similar to Marcus, I often use structured reflection in small collaborative groups. One person will bring up an issue they are struggling with in their teaching; the group will ask probing and clarifying questions, and then work collaboratively to come up with next steps, which we then discuss with the whole group. Structured reflection also provides me the opportunity to model my thinking and reflect on my teaching, as I am also currently a high school ESL teacher. In offering up vulnerability and talking through my instructional choices, what went well, what I would change, and what I am working on, I hope to lower teacher candidates’ affective filter in class. One challenge is that teacher candidates in the course want

Applying Farrell’s Evidence-Based Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education  51

to have the perfect lesson plan which can lead to them planning ‘safe’ language objectives or activities, such as a language objective that just involves transition words or sentence stems. Teacher candidates may feel nervous sharing their lessons or video recordings, so centering reflection and growth is crucial to reinforce that this course is a space for trying new things. Another way I foster reflection is by having teacher candidates analyze artifacts, often from their own classes, such as student work, assessments, tasks, language objectives or video clips of their teaching. I use protocols for artifact analysis in small groups where one person presents the artifact and gives some context, then the group will take low inference notes, and engage in a discussion that models the reflective questions and thinking they will do in the CTSP. For every observation that teacher candidates complete in the course, I emphasize the importance of the written reflection component post observation and post observation feedback. One challenge I face is that, sometimes in written reflections, teacher candidates will vent, and exhibit deficit thinking around their students, cooperating teacher or school structures, rather than digging deeper into their teaching practice and what is in their locus of control, and I wonder what is the best way to address this. When I am giving feedback on observations, I focus my feedback on the written reflection and ask more probing questions to further prompt reflection on their next steps and on the observation process. In summary, I have found that providing a safe, productive space for peer-peer learning is integral to the student teaching experience. I have also found it very helpful and productive to include protocols for grounding our class discussions in student work. By doing so, teacher candidates can clearly see the impact or lack of impact of their instruction and therefore make more informed choices about what they would do differently, making stronger connections to their practice and ­student performance.

In looking across our reflections on the ways in which we approach fostering teacher reflection in TESOL candidates, we (Laura, Marcus, Lauren) noticed that we all commented on the importance of peer-to-peer reflection, setting protocols for structured reflection and making it an integral part of the coursework and observation process. We also reflected on how we use pre- and post-observation artifacts in combination with feedback to foster evidence-based reflective practice with teacher candidates. All of these aspects of our work with teacher candidates show a commitment to the philosophy and work of Farrell on teacher reflection. (2) Why do we take up these particular teacher education approaches?

Just like we ask teacher candidates to do, we ask ourselves as teacher educators to examine our choices and to heighten our awareness of the reasoning behind those choices. This stage of our reflection encompasses

52  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

Farrell’s philosophy and principal components (see Table 3.1); we considered the questions How has my work with my teacher candidates been shaped by my personal background (heritage, family values, prior schooling, etc.)? and How has my work with my teacher candidates been shaped by my assumptions, beliefs and conceptions of teaching and learning? The following are excerpts of our reflection on the ‘Why’ we engage in the practices we describe above. (Laura) The focus I mention above on pre-observation feedback I believe stems from my long-term interest in curriculum design and planning as vehicles to express understanding about effective teaching. While certainly teachers need to be responsive to in-the-moment events in lessons, I think I operate from a strong belief that much can be controlled, or at least predicted, with careful planning. Perhaps this is because I myself feel anxious if I start a class without enough planned. Perhaps it’s because I have taught for so many years and been in hundreds of classrooms where teacher moves seem consistently linked to certain student actions. When I work with teachers whose plans do not show an understanding of triedand-true TESOL methods, I see that as a chance to teach or to remind them of those practices. The pre-observation is in pro-active mode while the post-observation is re-active and leads to more defensiveness. I view the lesson plan as a window into teachers’ understanding of research and theory on language teaching, their connection to the materials, their knowledge of their learners, and their stance on how English will best be learned in their setting. (Marcus) In our supervised teaching classes, I use reflection as a tool for growth. Implementing reflective practice with my students stems from my belief in learning from mistakes, successes, and being able to clearly identify these moments, noticing their impact on students. Frequently, my students just want the ‘play book’ or easy answer for how to solve complex dilemmas they encounter in the classroom. I understand this instinct as I wanted the same thing as a novice middle school ESL teacher! However, over time, I learned that there are no easy answers when a core part of the work involves building relationships with young learners. Reflection affords an opportunity to develop effectiveness by processing and justifying why you are effective in order to replicate successes and not make the same mistakes over and over. These practices are informed in part by my own experiences as a student and learner. I know first-hand how an inclusive and positive space can positively impact learning. I also clearly remember the many negative early educational experiences where there was no time or effort to reflect or revisit work and the emphasis was solely on quick, ‘correct’ results. In these contexts, mistakes felt and were viewed by the teacher as an insurmountable deficit that was penalized rather than presented as a learning opportunity. These experiences have shaped my practices and how I take up reflection with my graduate students. (Lauren) One of my beliefs that informs the way I approach teacher reflection is that we learn in community with each other. I take this stance in

Applying Farrell’s Evidence-Based Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education  53

the high school ESL classes I teach as well as in my work with teacher candidates. I aim to have many opportunities for reflection in our seminar so that we are learning from and with each other. I became a teacher through an alternative certification program where I was teaching ESL in a public high school while taking courses towards my MA in TESOL. In my first years of teaching, I was very much learning to build the plane while flying it, as the saying goes. I was learning theory and pedagogy while teaching; for me, reflecting on what was going on in the classroom was critical in my first years of teaching and it contributed greatly to my professional growth. For this reason, I think in reflection it is very important to connect theory and practice. I encourage reflective practices to challenge teacher candidates to think about assumptions they may be making about their students, how they can act as change-agents and advocate for English learners, and what they can do to improve instruction.

Again, we see in our self-reflections that the personal and professional intersect; by beginning to unpack our positionalities, the taken-­ for-granted assumptions about our views on teaching and learning become apparent. These commitments and assumptions become even more salient when put in dialogue with each other, and for this reason, the work of dialogic self-reflection must be ongoing in our work as teacher educators. (3) What results do we see?

For this chapter, we selected one CTSP as a means to best display our self-study process: we examined not only the reflection being done by a teacher candidate on their ESL practice, but our own responses to that reflection as a way to reflect on our work as teacher educators. Thus, the CTSP served as a three-tiered artifact for reflection: first, for the teacher candidate looking directly at their lesson plans, video records of teaching and student work samples; second, for us as practicum instructors looking at their commentaries on those artifacts; and third, to look at our feedback to their commentaries. The CSTP and especially the teacher candidates’ reflective commentaries provide us the artifacts we need to ground our reflection, and the collaborative cross-analysis supports us as teacher educators to consider the results of our intentions and practices. Laura, Marcus and Lauren noted that much of what we hoped to see resulting from our work on reflective practice was observable in this teacher’s commentaries. At the same time, we wondered about gaps and what we could do to better advance and deepen the reflection we saw in our teacher candidate’s work. This stage of our reflection encompasses Farrell’s beyond practice component (see Table 3.1), with the guiding question How can I be more critical about what I am enacting in relation to broader trends? Our noticing and wonderings are presented in Table 3.2.

54  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

Table 3.2  Farrell’s Beyond Practice reflective aspect applied to CSTP artifact Guiding Question: How can I be more critical about what I am enacting in relation to broader trends? Focus Area

Noticing

Wonderings

Teacher’s assessment practices

We notice that this teacher feels very confident about the content area learning of their students, and there is an assetbased view of their students; in their analysis and reflection, they look for evidence of the objective being met, rather than just describing what is missing or lacking.

We wonder if we should do more work with ESL student work samples to guide our candidates in reflecting on them together. We see lots of language areas in the student samples and wonder how language-aware the teacher is.

Knowledge of learners

We notice that the teacher’s sense of knowing the learners included home language but did not go much beyond that.

We wonder what we could do to go deeper than the cultural iceberg (Frank, 2013), and we wonder about how deeply the teacher is reflecting on her identity in relation to her students. In particular, we wonder how we can ensure that our candidates do not avoid conversations about race, poverty, ability and other factors that make knowing learners much more intersectional than their first language identity.

Language awareness

The teacher reflects positively on their use of sentence frames as a way to support the learners. There is no questioning of this approach.

We wonder if sentence frames are being overused and how we could have prevented this from arising in the planning stages. We note that the language the teacher is expecting students to learn and practice is already provided to them in the sentence frames – which is a very common issue among teacher candidates in our program. In this case, we see the teacher looking for content knowledge about this text rather than setting up the conditions for students to practice target language.

Feedback practices

The teacher reflects on her feedback to a student who is the only one to bring up a new aspect of the text in the discussion. She comments that she praised him for that but redirected him to use the sentence frames and handed out a ticket to reward the students’ efforts.

We wonder if in stressing the use of clear language objectives, we are promoting compliance rather than creativity and risk-taking in the language classroom. We wondered about whether we have candidates reflect sufficiently on the hidden curriculum of their feedback to students.

Differentiation

The teacher reflects on how she recognizes that often it is difficult to differentiate her teaching because of the pressures of limited class time and her own planning time.

We wonder how realistic we are with our teacher candidates about mixed level classes and whether in truth we avoid these sticky or problematic examples when reflecting on teaching with them.

Applying Farrell’s Evidence-Based Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education  55

Implications for Teacher Education

After reviewing our findings and considering our beliefs, knowledge and practices with supporting teacher reflection – and how those play out in resulting teacher reflective commentary, we put forth five practical implications for our future selves (reflection-for-action) and for others who support teacher reflection in our field. TESOL teacher educators optimally: (1) Look inward and backward to understand their personal and professional histories and how those shape our approaches as teacher educators. (2) Set aside time to journal, blog, video record and write about the dilemmas and success they see in fostering reflection among their student teachers. (3) Create a collaborative partnership or a small group of peers to have conversations that opens ourselves up to diverse approaches to working with our student teachers. (4) Bring in artifacts of our student teachers’ practice (e.g. reflection commentaries, video analysis assignments, student work sample diagnoses) to center our writing and our conversations. (5) Purposefully focus on persistent challenges teacher educators confront when working with student teachers, for example: how to bring in critical conversations about race, gender and inclusion; how to deepen student teacher reflection beyond the surface; or how to intensify attention to student language output. Supporting teacher candidate reflection has been a key goal of our course design and instruction. We believe that as we become more experienced with the situations and challenges our teachers face, and how they respond to those challenges, we have become more effective at knowing how to set up the conditions for them to reflect on their practice. Looking back, we see our progress in supporting reflective practice, but it is still an evolving goal for us as teacher educators and there are areas that we hope to adapt and include in future course design. For our student teacher seminar and practicum courses, we would like to include reflective rubrics that students are given at the beginning of the course and can direct their writing and analysis of impact. These rubrics could include a self-analysis of what was learned and select questions from Farrell guiding questions in Table 3.1. We do not always make those strong connections from theory to practice, and from our student teachers’ practices back to theory nor do we follow our student teachers out into their first years in the field as we would like to (Farrell, 2021). We also noticed the need for strategic, targeted written feedback that encourages teacher candidates to deepen their reflection at all stages of teaching. Whether we are supporting lesson

56  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

planning by giving pre-observation feedback or reviewing teacher candidates’ culminating written reflections of the CSTP, we, as teacher educators, can strengthen our feedback in the form of probing, reflective questions that will prioritize risk-taking, language instruction and language awareness, as well as encouraging teachers to develop a deeper knowledge of themselves and their students’ intersectional identities. Overall, we see that teacher reflection in our courses has led to many positive outcomes for teacher candidates. By developing reflective practices, this transcends into their classrooms, and they are more eager to seek out opportunities for feedback from colleagues and mentors. They are also more open to trying new things and hosting other teachers to observe and get feedback. In this way, this instills in teachers a greater sense of ownership over their pedagogy, and they see themselves as agentive teachers that can make changes to their practice that will have an impact on students and their school communities. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

Farrell’s work builds on this rich tradition of reflection in teacher education and applies it directly to TESOL teacher education. Over the course of his career, his publications have shaped and reinforced our understanding of reflective practice, sustaining it as a core tenet in all TESOL teacher preparation programs while also continuously challenging us as teacher educators to be critical of our own practice. In this reflective report, we engaged directly in considering our practice as TESOL teacher educators, using collaborative conversations and shared reflection on a jointly-viewed artifact, approaches recommended by Farrell in his recent (2021) volume on reflection in TESOL teacher education. Our experience with this selfstudy has reminded us that to continue to grow as teacher educators, we must regularly, and with humility, re-examine what we do, why we do it, and its impact as evidenced in student teacher outputs. Using the baseball hat as metaphor, we must re-assert that we are as much learners as our student teachers, and we must be fully in the game with them; not as referees but as coaches and players. References Copland, F. (2012) Legitimate talk in feedback conferences. Applied Linguistics 33 (1), 1–20. Earl, K. and Ussher, B. (2016) Reflective practice and inquiry: Let’s talk more about inquiry. Teachers and Curriculum 16 (2), 47–54. Ellingson, L.L. (2011) Representing participants in feminist research. Women & Language 34 (2), 103–108. Fanselow, J.F. (1988) ‘Let’s see’: Contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL Quarterly 22 (1), 113–130. Farr, F. (2010) The Discourse of Teaching Practice Feedback: A Corpus-Based Investigation of Spoken and Written Modes (Vol. 12). Abingdon: Routledge.

Applying Farrell’s Evidence-Based Reflection to Strengthen TESOL Teacher Education  57

Farrell, T.S.C. (2007) Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London: Continuum Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2008) Critical incidents in initial teacher training. English Language Teaching Journal 62 (1), 3–10. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013) Reflecting on ESL teacher expertise: A case study. System 41 (4), 1070–1082. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016) Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research 20 (2), 223–247. Farrell, T.S.C. (2021) TESOL Teacher Education: A Reflective Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Frank, J. (2013) Raising cultural awareness in the English language classroom. English Teaching Forum 51 (4), 2. Hauge, K. (2021) Self-Study Research: Challenges and Opportunities in Teacher Education. In Teacher Education in the 21st Century-Emerging Skills for a Changing World. IntechOpen. See https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/75416 (accessed 6 August 2021). Loughran, J. (2010) Seeking knowledge for teaching teaching: Moving beyond stories. Studying Teacher Education 6 (3), 221–226. MacPhail, A., Ulvik, M., Guberman, A., Czerniawski, G., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. and Bain, Y. (2019) The professional development of higher education-based teacher educators: Needs and realities. Professional Development in Education 45 (5), 848–861. Malderez, A. and Wedell, M. (2007) Teaching Teachers: Processes and Practices. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2017) Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching: Research-Based Principles and Practices. London: Routledge. Myers, J. (2013) Creating reflective practitioners with preservice lesson study. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 8 (1), 1–9. Nguyen, H.T.M. and Ngo, N.T.H. (2018) Learning to reflect through peer mentoring in a TESOL practicum. ELT Journal 72 (2), 187–198. Sydnor, J. (2016) Using video to enhance reflective practice: Student teachers’ dialogic examination of their own teaching. The New Educator 12 (1), 6784. Tajeddin, Z. and Aghababazadeh, Y. (2018) Blog-mediated reflection for professional development: Exploring themes and criticality of L2 teachers’ reflective practice. TESL Canada Journal 35 (2), 26–50. Ulvik, M., Eide, H.M.K., Eide, L., Helleve, I., Jensen, V.S., Ludvigsen, K., Roness, D. and Torjussen, L.P.S. (2020) Teacher educators reflecting on case-based teaching: A collective self-study. Professional Development in Education 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1 080/19415257.2020.1712615 Woodward, T. (1991) Models and Metaphors in Language Teacher Training: Loop Input and Other Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yazan, B. (2015) ‘You learn best when you’re in there’: ESOL teacher learning in the Practicum. CATESOL Journal 27 (2), 171–199. Zeichner, K. (2007) Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 58 (1), 36–46.

4 Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development Mark Wyatt and Ashraf Darwish

Introduction

Reporting to work on my first day as a regional teacher-trainer/­advisor for the Ministry of Education (MoE) in a remote region of Oman in October 2000, I (the first author) was greeted outside the MoE building by the regional senior inspector of English, who, after a brief and enthusiastic welcome, informed me that his transport had not arrived. Surveying my battered but serviceable four-wheel drive vehicle, he asked if I could drive him to a remote school on the edge of the desert about 90 minutes away. It would be an opportunity for me to meet a few of the Omani English teachers I would be working with and observe classes. I readily agreed and, later that morning, was ushered, together with the senior inspector, into the back of a young learners’ class in progress that was following a new curriculum in a freshly built school; there were songs, action rhymes and total physical response activities for the approximately 25 seven year olds starting to learn English. Afterwards, I was led into the reception area of the head teacher’s office. We (the senior inspector and I) exchanged pleasantries with the head teacher and were then joined by the teacher whose class we had observed. Without eliciting any information, the senior inspector crisply told the teacher what he thought of her lesson, highlighting several ‘strong points’ and issues she should pay attention to. He then turned to me: ‘Mark, what did you think?’ What did I think? As a British teacher educator with overseas experience in South and South-East Asia before Oman, supportive of a reflective model of teacher education (Wallace, 1991), and wary of the potentially destructive impact of directive supervision (Gebhard, 1984) (see Farrell [2015] for a more recent harrowing account), I was also conscious of stepping ‘into a new society with its own deep culture’ (Holliday, 1994: 43) 58

Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development  59

that I would need to negotiate carefully. The rather old-school senior inspector was, like most of the inspectors he supervised, an expatriate from a North African country approaching the end of his career. The Omani teacher was fairly young, female, with good English. In the new Basic Education system (a unified 10-year programme designed to meet all basic education needs), she would be expected to reflect on her teaching. The school, sandwiched between sand dunes and fishing villages, had a newly appointed senior teacher, also with only a few years’ teaching experience, to support continuing professional development (CPD). There would be teacher education courses that I would be involved in to help both teacher and senior teacher; the latter co-incidentally, after completing in-service BA and MA TESOL degrees, later became a co-author (Al-Senaidi & Wyatt, 2014), but that is another story. In October 2000, the implementation of Oman’s policies concerning reflective practice (RP) in English language teaching (ELT) appeared to be at a crossroads, and, in this chapter, we explore tensions in the enactment of these policies as the Omani educational system developed. First, though, we contextualize these developments in relation to the spread worldwide of RP. Reflective Practice and Professional Development

RP has been defined as ‘a form of teacher development that takes place through close examination of one’s own experiences and ideas in ­teaching’ (Watanabe, 2017: 1). Around this central introspective focus are various intellectual and affective activities that are shaped by the sociocultural/ historical contexts in which they occur (Mann & Walsh, 2017; Watanabe, 2017). While the value of reflective thought is recognized in ancient religions and philosophies (Akbari, 2007; Mann & Walsh, 2017), only more recently has encouraging RP been seen as an integral component of second language teacher education (SLTE) (Farrell, 2015; Wright, 2010). This seems to have occurred as awareness spread that learning teaching is intimately connected with the development of knowledge, identity and beliefs and is a socially constructed process, involving interaction with students and fellow teachers (Freeman & Johnson, 1998). By the mid-1990s, accounts of RP being made central to SLTE were beginning to appear, from contexts such as Australia, Hong Kong, the UK and the US (Freeman & Richards, 1996). Nevertheless, RP likely took time to spread within countries and around the world. Watanabe (2017) reports that in 2007 RP was still little discussed in Japan. Despite its benefits, there have been concerns about the way in which RP is sometimes presented top-down in SLTE as a rather mundane and inflexible activity, with the completion of prescribed writing tasks given undue importance (Mann & Walsh, 2013, 2017). If the focus is on generating a product rather than following a process of self-discovery, then

60  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

faked, exaggerated or mechanically produced reflections, depending on which institutional expectations need to be met and on teachers’ affective reactions to them, may result (Akbari, 2007; Mann & Walsh, 2013). Teachers faced with assignments that require lower order thinking skills may lose sight of the original goal of RP, i.e. to develop a heightened understanding of one’s teaching and learning in a particular context (Farrell, 2007). If mandated surface-level RP becomes a dull, resented chore (Mann & Walsh, 2013), cynicism may become manifest. Accounts of deep engagement with RP being encouraged by teacher educators are evident in Farrell’s (2016) review of 116 studies published between 2009 and 2014. Produced largely apparently by teacher educators who have been sufficiently committed to RP to reflexively research it within their own social worlds, the studies analysed by Farrell (2016) tend to use data generated from teachers’ lived experiences to explore through collaborative dialogues, a process that Mann and Walsh (2017) recommend. Farrell (2016) groups the 116 studies according to whether the reflection they report on primarily concerns philosophy, principles, theories, practices or issues beyond practice, or different combinations of these. Links are discernible between areas of focus and methods. For example, studies that have involved teachers in reflecting on their philosophies have drawn upon their life histories; studies that have encouraged reflection on principles have used tools such as metaphor analysis; studies that have sought access to teachers’ reflections on theory have drawn upon their lesson plans or lesson planning processes. The largest group of studies in Farrell’s (2016) review elicited theory in relation to practice, for example, through video-stimulated recall (Wyatt & Arnold, 2012), a method that allows for frozen data, in the form of video-recordings, to be collected and presented to the teacher to encourage reflective thought. Alternatively, however, audio-recordings or the observer’s narrative record can prompt dialogic reflection. As Farrell (2016) highlights, though, some teachers can react adversely to being observed, which may be partly because observations are sometimes used for evaluative rather than CPD purposes and can involve the reductive use of checklists. For individuals scarred by such experiences, alternatives such as self-observation (Mann & Walsh, 2017) or participation in a critical friendship discussion group (Farrell, 2016) might be preferable to the observation of another. When a post-observation conference is held with an observer, who may be a mentor or peer in a CPD situation, how this is conducted is crucial. Too often, even when the purpose is expressly not to evaluate, an observer’s comments might still consist mainly of praise or criticism, i.e. ‘judgementoring’ practice (Hobson & Malderez, 2013) that can prescriptively inhibit agency (Ončevska Ager & Wyatt, 2019). Far better, as Malderez (2015) argues, is if the observed teacher is encouraged to describe memorable classroom incidents from their own perspective,

Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development  61

explore possible explanations for these incidents and reflect on implications, with the observer metaphorically ‘holding up the mirror’ (Malderez & Bodóczky, 1999: 19). This may be in the context of non-directive supervision (Farrell, 2015; Gebhard, 1984), an approach that can be contrasted with the kind of directive supervision which the senior inspector in Oman in 2000 (described above) seems to have employed. However, the extent to which non-judgementally oriented reflective dialogues involving a mentor or peer are likely to be able to support the co-construction of knowledge (Freeman & Johnson, 1998) is likely to depend on teacher as well as observer factors. Much might depend not only on teachers’ own culturally mediated educational experiences, but also, in the case of non-native speaker English language teachers working in contexts where English has a semiofficial status in post-lesson discussions in educational settings (Wyatt & Arnold, 2012), on their feelings about their second language proficiency. Regarding culture first, there are many contexts around the world where ‘from a young age, formal education… has always taught [students] the “right” way to think’ (Chng, 2019: 359). Consequently, the concept of reflection might still be ‘elusive and distant’ to many pre-service teachers in training (Yuan & Mak, 2018: 206), notwithstanding the exhortations to reflect which are increasingly commonplace on SLTE courses (Mann & Walsh, 2017). Consequently, ‘systematic and sustained guidance and support from teacher educators’ is needed (Yuan & Mak, 2018: 206); this support should ideally include opportunities to develop appropriate metalanguage (Mann & Walsh, 2017), since being able to use such discourse may increase teachers’ self-confidence in using English. Indeed, supporting the use of metalanguage may be crucial, since there are unfortunately educational contexts where supervisors appear to use the post-lesson discussion primarily as an opportunity to criticize pre-service teachers’ English against native-speakerist norms, damaging their self-confidence (Akcan & Tatar, 2010). We consider such issues in relation to Oman, exploring, with the help of various documents, how RP has been introduced as a strategy to support CPD in ELT, and how implementation of the policy has evolved. To achieve this, we explore synergies and tensions in the educational system, drawing on the perspectives of teacher educators, supervisors, teachers and academics regarding RP, treating the developing Omani educational system as a case study (Stake, 1995). An Empirical Study Method

As Stake (1995: 2) explains, a case is ‘a bounded system… an object rather than a process’, distinguished by its uniqueness, complexity, but

62  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

also commonality. In focusing on policies regarding RP and how these policies have been interpreted, resisted and implemented within the Omani educational system, we are seeking to develop in-depth understanding to share through ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973). In developing this case, we have drawn on a range of documents, including articles that discuss RP in Oman at different points in time and curricular documents produced by the Omani MoE. In gathering and interpreting these documents, we have used our considerable experience in the Omani context. The first author worked as a teacher educator in Oman for eight years, and conducted doctoral research there (Wyatt, 2008), which has led to various publications, including those focusing on RP and mentoring in Omani English teachers (Wyatt, 2010; Wyatt & Arnold, 2012). The second author has over 20 years’ experience in Oman as an English language teacher, regional teacher trainer and doctoral researcher. We have built on these varied experiences collaboratively and reflexively in developing the case study below, which provides a historical narrative account centred on tensions regarding the introduction and implementation of RP. Findings Initial tensions regarding a lack of RP

Frustrations in Oman with the existing policy of ‘top-down CPD’ (Mann & Walsh, 2017), which was then provided through short orientation courses and supervisory inspector visits with directive feedback, are evident in Harrison (1996). Harrison, who would be the Chief Inspector/Supervisor for the next decade, argued that there was a need for ‘getting teachers and learners to reflect upon their own teaching and learning, in a systematic and structured way… [with this approach to CPD becoming] the very vehicle for implementing curriculum change’ (1996: 302). In the early-to-mid 1990s, however, the curriculum was still teacher-proof (Barnard & Randall, 1995), with detailed instructions provided to the teacher to govern each and every step of the lesson, including which classroom language to use. In supervisory visits from their inspectors, teachers were evaluated by ‘the degree to which the teaching deviated from the procedures laid down in the [teacher’s] book’, as Barnard and Randall (1995: 344) report. This situation is likely to have arisen partly as the educational system was so new. In 1970, a population of over half a million had been served by only three primary schools educating approximately 900 students; nearly 50% of Omani men and 90% of Omani women had been illiterate (Atkins & Griffiths, 2009). However, a newly established MoE then rapidly increased access to learning (Atkins & Griffiths, 2009), recruiting teachers from other Arab countries and employing Omanis who had only attended primary school themselves as teachers. Over time, curriculum materials were developed, teacher training colleges were opened and

Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development  63

Oman’s first public university was established. Yet there was still an issue with the quality of the education provided. Students tended to have very limited opportunities to engage in speaking activities in their English classes (Harrison, 1996), with teacher-centred, assessment-driven pedagogy the norm (Atkins & Griffiths, 2009); students entering university tended to have inadequate study skills and limited English language proficiency (Flowerdew, 1993). This all impacted the extent to which Omani English teachers were ready for a CPD model based on RP. Al-Issa (2005) recalls welcoming members of the first cohort of university-trained pre-service teachers to his secondary school, where they would take their practicum in the 1989– 1990 academic year. He complains that these teachers lacked technical ability and initiative, ‘followed the teacher’s guide religiously’, over-used the learners’ first language and taught ‘through memorization’; furthermore, they ‘had not been equipped with any tools [such as journals or diaries] to help them critically reflect on their classroom practices’ (Al-Issa, 2005: 338). Nor was the SLTE provided by the teacher training colleges necessarily any better, with many of the graduating diploma holders still also at post-beginner levels of English (Al-Lamki, 2009). In a consultancy report, Nunan et al. (1987) had advised the MoE to invest in helping Omani English teachers to conduct needs analyses, design their own materials and develop appropriate pedagogy. However, in the early-to-mid 1990s, the first SLTE priority of the ELT Department within the MoE was still to address low-level English language proficiency (Al-Lamki, 2009). Efforts to support RP

RP became more central to CPD in the late 1990s to support the introduction of the Basic Education curriculum, under which English would be taught from Grade 1, rather than Grade 4 as previously. CPD offered by the ELT Department included: • A 150-hour primary teachers’ methodology course, which included hands-on interactive activities, micro-teaching, peer observation and opportunities for dialogic reflection (Al-Jardani, 2009). A 75-hour course for lower secondary school teachers followed. • A 25-hour orientation course for new senior English teachers (West, 2004). In the new system, senior teachers would jointly prepare, teach and discuss lessons with colleagues who they felt needed help, organize peer observations, informally observe teachers and organize inhouse meetings and workshops around issues of local concern (Harrison & West, 2001). Meanwhile, ‘inspectors’ would be replaced by ‘supervisors’ working closely with senior teachers to support selfenquiry and reflection in teachers (Al-Lamki, 2009). • A three-year part-time in-service BA Educational Studies (TESOL) degree offered by the University of Leeds to all eligible 1050 diploma

64  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

holders and taken by 921 of these teachers (Atkins & Griffiths, 2009). The course aimed to develop ‘problem-solving and reflective abilities, analytical and critical evaluation abilities’ (Atkins & Griffiths, 2009: 7) through practical assignments (Al-Sinani et al., 2009), which ­t ypically required teachers to ‘observe their learners, analyse learning/teaching materials used in their schools, adapt materials (e.g. to make them more communicative), trial them and then evaluate these ­innovations’ (Wyatt, 2014: 6). Input included an optional module on mentoring, based on Malderez and Bodóczky (1999), which proved popular with course participants moving into senior teacher positions, a journey made by over 230 of them by 2009 (Wedell & Atkins, 2009). Tensions in the implementation of policies supportive of RP

While RP was being made central to CPD in Oman, there were nevertheless tensions in implementing the new policies. For example, regarding the vignette at the beginning of this chapter, the senior inspector adopting a directive approach to supervision was actually doing so in contravention to the guidance provided by his line manager. Harrison (1998: 18) advises (senior) inspectors to avoid ‘launching into [their] opinion of the lesson’ during a post-lesson discussion. He suggests instead that inspectors should elicit as much as possible, ensuring ‘that the teacher does most of the talking’ (1998: 18). Helped by skilful questioning, Harrison (1998) suggests, teachers are quite likely to be able to identify challenges they face, pinpoint ways of addressing them and develop commitment to trying these ideas out. However, many of the inspectors reading/listening to this advice would have been the same inspectors who, a few years earlier, had been asked to assess lessons by the extent to which they followed the teacher’s guide (Barnard & Randall, 1995). Moreover, CPD opportunities for (mostly) expatriate inspectors were limited, with investment for continuing education channelled mostly towards Omani diploma holding teachers, who tended to be able to benefit both from the Leeds BA (Atkins & Griffiths, 2009) and the primary teachers’ methodology course (West, 2004). Consequently, many Omani teachers taking the Leeds BA, particularly those teaching the old curriculum gradually being phased out as more schools converted to Basic Education, were inspired to experiment, which was officially allowed providing curricular aims were achieved. There were nevertheless conflicts. For example, a teacher in Wyatt (2008) recalled arguing for more than 30 minutes with an old-school inspector, citing literature while he did so to defend his innovative classroom practice. However, the inspector refused to accept any deviation from the procedures listed in the teacher’s book. Such disagreements are likely to have dwindled over time as expatriate inspectors were replaced by Omani supervisors, whose own teacher

Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development  65

education experiences tended to be more recent. While these supervisors’ practices would also have varied, with some conceptualizing their work more in terms of ‘identifying good and weak points’ than supporting reflection (Al-Zadjali, 2009: 24), the understanding that the central purpose of the post-lesson discussion was ‘to encourage teachers to reflect upon their lesson’ does appear to have spread (Al-Abri, 2009: 86). Other tensions related to the way in which RP became mandated. For example, while MoE goals were set for teachers to become more creative, reflective problem-solvers (Al-Habsi, 2009), strategies to achieve these goals included requiring teachers to produce written reflections on each and every lesson (A’Dhahab, 2009) and to engage regularly in peer observation (Al-Rasbiah, 2009; Orabah, 2009), with the completion of these tasks feeding into annual appraisals. For some teachers, writing reflective notes on every lesson became a boring, time-consuming process, as two teachers interviewed by A’Dhahab (2009) explained. This was also the reaction of Al-Riyami (2015), who recalls finding it repetitive and ultimately meaningless. Heavy workloads made completing reflection sheets seem like an ‘imposed administrative burden’ (Al-Jabri, 2009: 17). While teachers appeared to be aware of the value of reflection, the artefacts they produced, i.e. the reflection sheets, were generally descriptive, surfacelevel and lacking critical engagement (A’Dhahab, 2009; Al-Riyami, 2015). This insight underlines the warnings issued by Mann and Walsh (2013) regarding the use of reflective writing as a dull, mechanical requirement. There was also ambivalence towards peer observation as a strategy for supporting RP. Orabah (2009), for example, found that while the overwhelming majority of the teachers he surveyed believed that peer observations could theoretically be very useful in helping them to reflect more fully on their lessons, only a tiny minority had experienced such a benefit. Negative attitudes towards peer observation apparently sprang from the way in which the process was administered, mandated by the MoE and monitored by visiting supervisors (Al-Habsi, 2009), but insufficiently supported through CPD (Al-Rasbiah, 2009); there was a lack of specific workshops on the topic (Al-Sidairi, 2009). The way in which peer observations were conducted left something to be desired. Pre-lesson discussions tended to be brief or non-existent, observations usually lacked a specific focus, while post-lesson discussions were sometimes either not held, or, if they were, could be dominated by the observer and were often highly evaluative in nature (Al-Habsi, 2009; Al-Rasbiah, 2009; Orabah, 2009), revealing ‘judgementoring’ practices (Hobson & Malderez, 2013). So, while many teachers appear to have appreciated the potential of peer observations to foster professional cooperation and enhance reflective skills (Al-Sidairi, 2009; Orabah, 2009), there were nevertheless tensions relating to the implementation of this policy in the first decade of the 21st century.

66  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

An apparently more successful innovation to support RP was the involvement of senior teachers in providing mentoring. Various studies that have explored the mentoring practices of senior teachers (e.g. Al-Abrawi, 2009; Al-Sinani, 2009; Al-Suleimi, 2009; Wyatt & Arnold, 2012) have provided evidence of collaborative and non-directive supervisory styles (Gebhard, 1984) being utilized to help teachers reflect in English in post-lesson discussions. Indeed, these studies provide little evidence of directive supervision, although one of three senior teachers in Al-Sinani (2009) and one of four in Al-Suleimi (2009) were found to switch to a more directive style after being unable to elicit much; the teachers they were working with may have lacked confidence in talking about their lessons in English. Patience is required (Wyatt & Arnold, 2012) and sensitivity. The senior teachers in these studies generally tried to create a suitable climate for reflection in post-lesson discussions and then encouraged teachers to reflect, offering support in different ways, for example, by paraphrasing (Al-Suleimi, 2009). Some of these senior teachers would have taken the mentoring module on the Leeds BA that was based on Malderez and Bodóczky (1999). Others would have attended the initial 25-hour orientation course for senior teachers (West, 2004), which introduced concepts such as non-directive supervision (Gebhard, 1984) and focused observation tasks (Wajnryb, 1992). This orientation course was replaced by a more fully developed 75-hour year-long version (Etherton & Al-Jardani, 2009) in 2009 (Darwish, 2011). The 75-hour course, which focused on supporting key competencies in areas such as team building, supporting CPD and observation, was positively evaluated by the senior teachers who participated in Darwish’s study, several of whom would nevertheless, though, have appreciated more recognition from administrators for the mentoring they were providing in their schools. Current support for RP

In the past decade, there have been various positive educational policy developments relating to RP. For example, the MoE now runs in-service courses for novice teachers, senior teachers and supervisors that are internationally endorsed by University College London at postgraduate diploma level (Al-Jabri et al., 2018). These include a two-year course for senior teachers, rebranded as a ‘Partners in Leadership Programme’, which ‘places heavy emphasis on collaborative consultation’ with colleagues at school (Al-Jabri et al., 2018: 90) so that professional learning communities can be established and nurtured. Assessed tasks for participating senior teachers, who now seem to be gaining increasing recognition for playing a central mentoring role (Al-Balushi, 2018), include portfolios showcasing CPD activities they have initiated in the local context and reports requiring reflective analysis of local initiatives and research evidence (Al-Jabri et al., 2018).

Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development  67

Another positive change relates to the addressing of concerns regarding the implementation of policies supportive of RP that were evident in the first decade of the 21st century. For example, the chore of writing reflection sheets (Mann & Walsh, 2013) after each and every lesson has been removed. Whereas previously teachers were confronted with conspicuously large blank reflection boxes in their lesson plan documents that occupied as much white space as the lesson plan itself (with the instruction: ‘Make comments on lessons and the implications for future planning. Complete for each class you teach at this Grade.’), the documents have now been redesigned, and there is recognition that it ‘may not always be practical’ to write reflective notes after every lesson (MoE, 2020: 56). Teachers are asked instead to ‘take some time out to reflect upon, at the very least, one lesson a week’ (2020: 56) and are given advice, for example, to focus on critical incidents, and on how to recall, reflect and consider how to move forward. Examples are provided of the reflective process, for example, of a teacher identifying the need for further scaffolding or the possibility of collaborating in the future with a colleague. Given earlier disquiet about the process (A’Dhahab, 2009; Al-Riyami, 2015), these innovations are likely to have improved teacher morale. Attitudes towards peer observation also appear to be more positive, according to Al-Balushi (2018: 1351), with teachers she surveyed explicitly favouring ‘collaborative learning opportunities’ that involve sharing and discussion. Facilitating effective peer observation was one of the key competencies central to the expanded 75-hour senior teacher course (Darwish, 2011). The participants in Darwish’s study indicate that their self-­ confidence grew considerably through the course in facilitating peer observations. So there do seem to have been positive developments. Implications for Teacher Reflection

Educational change processes are complex (Wedell & Atkins, 2009), as this case study focusing on the integration of RP into CPD in Oman over several decades illustrates. Challenges included getting all stakeholders on-board at different times, with resources sometimes over-stretched. For example, inspectors conducting post-lesson discussions in the late 1990s and peer-observing teachers in the following decade could ideally have received more help so that directive supervision (Gebhard, 1984) and ‘judgementoring’ practices (Hobson & Malderez, 2013) could have been reduced. A second challenge is that administrative needs for accountability have apparently intruded on RP, with the reflection sheets supplied to teachers in the first decade of the 21st century inducing more mechanical than cognitive reflection (Mann & Walsh, 2013). Yet successes have included a constant commitment to the senior teacher system introduced with Basic Education and a strengthening since of initiatives designed to help senior teachers take on mentoring roles.

68  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

It follows, then, that for RP to become central to CPD: (1) All stakeholders need to be involved and supported. So, when RP is introduced in educational systems, school administrators and ­inspectors/supervisors should also be invited to awareness-raising ­sessions and encouraged to be reflective in their own work. The ­support offered should also extend into pre-service teacher education and to pre-service teacher educators. (2) Once in-service, teachers need to be given both the encouragement to reflect and sufficient autonomy to act on their reflections. Consequently, RP needs to be presented as a stimulating cognitive activity that can be drawn upon by teachers monitoring their own classroom teaching and innovating with the curriculum to achieve learning outcomes in creative ways that respond to the local context. (3) Change agents, such as senior teachers, need to be empowered so that reforms can succeed. It is vital that practical mentoring courses that develop knowledge and skills in scaffolding evidence-based RP are made available. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

In constructing this case study of the developing Omani educational system through the lens of RP, we have inevitably focused more on trends than on development in individuals, but nevertheless feel that something may be lost in this synthesizing. We would like to conclude by returning briefly to Farrell’s (2016) analytical framework to highlight its usefulness for future research exploring engagement with RP. We draw on illustrative qualitative case study data from one Omani teacher (Wyatt, 2010), retrospectively analysed according to the framework: Philosophy: ‘I care about the children’s feelings, and want them all  to love English, without putting them under pressure’. Principles: ‘I try to give them freedom in the classroom to talk, to write, to read, to speak, even to use Arabic if they don’t know the meaning’. Theories: ‘I try to help them [develop positive attitudes] by encouraging and praising them individually and in groups’. Practice: ‘When I said “yes, yes” I encouraged her to think more… I don’t want to discourage them because they are spontaneous… so we have to accept all their answers and then we can use another way’. Beyond practice: ‘[the teacher] needs to think continually about the pupils, her pupils in the classroom, because the teacher is the only person who knows the pupils, because she lives with them in the classroom, in the classroom atmosphere everyday’ (Wyatt, 2010: 246–50).

Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development  69

We would suggest that when teachers are reflecting in this way, revealing learner-centred philosophies and principles, then educational policies supportive of RP are starting to bear fruit. Change processes, though, are inevitably complex, and for trends across individuals to be understood by policymakers in different contexts, larger-scale research is also needed. The analysis of documents from different sources within a case study approach, as here, is one potential strategy. References A’Dhahab, S.M. (2009) EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding reflective writing. In S. Borg (ed.) Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman (pp. 1–15). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Akbari, R. (2007) Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System 35, 192–207. Akcan, S. and Tatar, S. (2010) An investigation of the nature of feedback given to ­pre-service English teachers during their practice teaching experience. Teacher Development 14 (2), 153–172. Al-Abrawi, N.A. (2009) Senior English teachers’ views of the benefits of post-lesson discussions. In S. Borg (ed.) Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman (pp. 37–45). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Abri, O.M. (2009) Supervisors’ perceptions of the supervisory process. In S. Borg (ed.) Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman (pp. 81–91). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Balushi, K. (2018) EFL teachers’ CPD experiences: Perspectives from Oman. International Journal of Advanced Research 6 (5), 1345–1358. Al-Habsi, H.S. (2009) Peer observation in Oman: How it is carried out and teachers’ attitudes towards it. In M. Wyatt and J. Atkins (eds) Research Perspectives on Education in Oman (pp. 75–88). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Issa, A.S.M. (2005) The implications of the teacher educator’s ideological role for the English language teaching system in Oman. Teaching Education 16 (4), 337–348. Al-Jabri, N.S. (2009) Post-basic school teachers’ attitudes towards reflection. In S. Borg (ed.) Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman (pp. 16–24). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Jabri, M.J.H., Silvennoinen, H. and Griffiths, D. (2018) Teachers’ professional development in Oman: Challenges, efforts and solutions. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 17 (5), 82–103. Al-Jardani, M.M. (2009) Developing as a teacher trainer planning INSET courses. In M. Wyatt and J. Atkins (eds) Research Perspectives on Education in Oman (pp. 48–60). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Lamki, N. (2009) The beliefs and practices related to continuous professional development of teachers of English in Oman. PhD thesis. University of Leeds. Al-Rasbiah, S.A. (2009) Peer observation: Teachers’ beliefs and practices. In S. Borg (ed.) Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman (pp. 46–55). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Riyami, T. (2015) Reflection: Is it a promising or spurious tool for teachers’ professional development? International Journal of Bilingual & Multilingual Teachers of English 3 (1), 47–58. Al-Senaidi, F.S. and Wyatt, M. (2014) Involving female Omani English language teachers in evaluating curriculum materials. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (2), 42–59. Al-Sidairi, Z.S. (2009) Post-basic school English teachers’ views about peer observation. In S. Borg (ed.) Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman (pp. 56–69). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman.

70  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

Al-Sinani, S.K. (2009) How senior English teachers support teachers in reflecting on their lessons during post-lesson discussions. In M. Wyatt and J. Atkins (eds) Research Perspectives on Education in Oman (pp. 31–47). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Sinani, S.K., Al-Senaidi, F.S. and Etherton, S. (2009) Developing teachers as researchers: The BA educational studies (TESOL) programme. In J. Atkins, M. Lamb and M.  Wedell (eds) International Collaboration for Educational Change: The BA Project (pp. 95–104). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Suleimi, B.S. (2009) The characteristics of post-lesson discussions. In S. Borg (ed.) Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman (pp. 25–36). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Al-Zadjali, F.H. (2009) Fostering professional development in post-lesson discussions: Perceptions of teachers and supervisors. In M. Wyatt and J. Atkins (eds) Research Perspectives on Education in Oman (pp. 15–30). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Atkins, J. and Griffiths, D. (2009) Background to the BA educational studies (TESOL) programme and project. In J. Atkins, M. Lamb and M. Wedell (eds) International Collaboration for Educational Change: The BA Project (pp. 1–10). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Barnard, R. and Randall, M. (1995) Evaluating course materials: A contrastive study in text book trialling. System 23 (3), 337–346. Chng, S.I. (2019) Incorporating reflection into computing classes: Models and challenges. Reflective Practice 19 (3), 358–375. Darwish, A.S.B. (2011) Senior teachers’ perceptions of SET in-service training course in Oman. MA thesis, University of Leeds. Etherton, S. and Al-Jardani, M. (2009) Recent developments in in-service language teacher education in Oman. In J. Atkins, M. Lamb and M. Wedell (eds) International Collaboration for Educational Change: The BA Project (pp. 191–200). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007) Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London: Continuum. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Second language teacher education: A reality check. In T.S.C. Farrell (ed.) International Perspectives on English Language Teacher Education (pp. 1–15). London: Palgrave MacMillan. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016) Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research 20 (2), 223–247. Flowerdew, J. (1993) Content-based language instruction in a tertiary setting. English for Specific Purposes 12, 121–138. Freeman, D. and Johnson, K.E. (1998) Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 32 (3), 397–417. Freeman, D. and Richards, J.C. (eds) (1996) Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gebhard, J.G. (1984) Models of supervision: Choices. TESOL Quarterly 18 (3), 501–514. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana. Harrison, I. (1996) Look who’s talking now: Listening to voices in curriculum renewal. In K. Bailey and D. Nunan (eds) Voices from the Language Classroom (pp. 283–303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harrison, I. (1998) Guidelines and Information for Regional Inspectors of English in the Sultanate of Oman. Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Harrison, I. and West, G. (2001) Effective Changes to Basic Education School Supervision for Teachers of English in Oman. Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman.

Tensions in Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice in Continuing Professional Development  71

Hobson, A.J. and Malderez, A. (2013) Judgementoring and other threats to realizing the potential of school-based mentoring in teacher education. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 2 (2), 89–108. Holliday, A. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malderez, A. (2015) On mentoring in supporting (English) teacher learning: Where are we now? In D. Holló and K. Károly (eds) Inspirations in Foreign Language Teaching: Studies in Language Pedagogy and Applied Linguistics in Honour of Péter Medgyes (pp. 21–32). Harlow: Pearson Education. Malderez, A. and Bodóczky, C. (1999) Mentor Courses: A Resource Book for TrainerTrainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2013) RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice. Applied Linguistics Review 4 (2), 291–315. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2017) Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Ministry of Education (2020) Lesson Preparation Book for English language Teachers. Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Nunan, D., Tyacke, M. and Walton, D. (1987) Philosophy and Guidelines for the Omani English Language School Curriculum. Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Ončevska Ager, E. and Wyatt, M. (2019) Supporting a pre-service English language teacher’s self-determined development. Teaching and Teacher Education 78, 106–116. Orabah, S.S.B. (2009) Teachers’ beliefs about observation. In S. Borg (ed.) Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman (pp. 70–80). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wajnryb, R. (1992) Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallace, M.J. (1991) Training Foreign Language Teachers: A Reflective Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watanabe, A. (2017) Reflective Practice as Professional Development: Experiences of Teachers of English in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wedell, M. and Atkins, J. (2009) The BA project as an example of large-scale educational change. In J. Atkins, M. Lamb and M. Wedell (eds) International Collaboration for Educational Change: The BA Project (pp. 201–211). Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. West, G. (2004) In-service Teacher Training Activities for English Teachers in Basic Education in Oman. Muscat: Ministry of Education, Oman. Wright, T. (2010) Second language teacher education: Review of recent research on practice. Language Teaching 43 (3), 259–296. Wyatt, M. (2008) Growth in practical knowledge and teachers’ self-efficacy during an inservice BA (TESOL) programme. PhD thesis, University of Leeds. Wyatt, M. (2010) One teacher’s development as a reflective practitioner. Asian EFL Journal 12 (2), 235–261. Wyatt, M. (2014) Action research on a teacher education programme. ELT Research 29, 5–8. Wyatt, M. and Arnold, E. (2012) Video-stimulated recall for mentoring in Omani schools. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 1 (3), 218–234. Yuan, R. and Mak, P. (2018) Reflective learning and identity construction in practice, discourse and activity: Experiences of pre-service language teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education 74, 205–214.

5 The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies Minh Hue Nguyen and Nur Hayati

Introduction

It is widely recognised that teacher reflective practice (TRP) is an important aspect of good professional practice (Alemi & Tajeddin, 2020), and it has emerged as an established research field (Farrell, 2015). TRP is increasingly important in frameworks for evaluating the quality of language teaching such as the British Council Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Framework, the Cambridge English Teaching Framework and the Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services (EAQUALS) (Alemi & Tajeddin, 2020). In addition, high-stake TESOL-related policies have strong influence on TESOL and TESOL teacher preparation practices. However, little is known about how TRP is positioned in these policies across different contexts. In an attempt to address this gap, this chapter examined the promotion of TRP in TESOLrelated standards across three types of English education contexts: English as an additional language (EAL), English as a foreign language (EFL) and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Our policy analysis was guided by the question How is teacher reflective practice positioned in TESOL-related policies? and supported by Farrell’s (2015) Framework for Reflective Practice. In the subsequent sections of this chapter, we first begin by reviewing the literature on language TRP and elaborating on the theoretical framework underpinning the research. The next section reports on the empirical study, including a description of the research method, the findings and discussion of findings. Next, we discuss practical implications for promoting TRP based on the findings of the study. The chapter ends with some concluding remarks and recommendations for future research. 72

The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies  73

Teacher Reflection: Policies and Promotion Language teacher policies

Although the notion of TRP has been variedly defined (Farrell, 2015), researchers seem to agree that it involves logical and systematic thinking on problems and beliefs (LaBoskey & Hamilton, 2010). It is also understood as reflecting on the teaching practice to develop expertise by linking theory and practice (Wallace, 1991). Another well-received conceptualisation of TRP is that it is a meaning-making process that requires community support and positive attitudes (LaBoskey & Hamilton, 2010). Engaging in reflection is considered beneficial for teachers’ CPD. It contributes to the increased understanding of oneself and one’s own practice (Alemi & Tajeddin, 2020) and facilitates the ability to apply theory to practice and to learn from experience (Farrell, 2015). It also allows seeing teacher practice from different perspectives (Kuswandono, 2014) and develops teachers’ capacity for critical thinking (Cornish & Jenkins, 2012) and pedagogical reasoning (Farrell, 2015). Various studies have been conducted concerning reflective practice in the TESOL field. Studies involving pre-service teachers have investigated reflective practice in practicum or microteaching settings, focusing on the use and effectiveness of tools for reflection, such as journals and portfolios (Hall & Townsend, 2017). Another topic of concern is how student teachers’ reflective practice can be scaffolded in teacher education (Cornish & Jenkins, 2012). Similarly, studies with in-service TESOL teachers have focused on teachers’ engagement in reflection using various tools and procedures, such as journals (Donyaie & Afshar, 2019) and weblogs as a form of e-portfolios (Tajeddin & Aghababazadeh, 2018). Other studies have demonstrated how a community of practice supports teachers’ engagement in reflection (e.g. Cirocki & Widodo, 2019; Farrell, 2016). The importance of collaboration and institutional support is further elaborated by Farrell (2021: 59) in his recent paper concerning promoting TRP in schools. Farrell emphasises the need for building a ‘collaborative school culture’ which involves teachers’ engagement in ‘reflective-generating activities’, such as, team teaching, mentoring, lesson study and action research. The above-cited studies draw similar implications in terms of the importance of supportive policies and standard practice taking place in the institutions where pre- and in-service TESOL teachers study or work in order to promote TRP. More specifically, they indicate the need for the integration of reflective tools and reflective activities in teacher education and teacher professional development programmes. They also stress the importance of a positive environment for reflection with support groups involving colleagues, peers, mentors and/or teacher educators. In line with this, Moradkhani and Shirazizadeh (2017: 206) found that there are five contextual factors that influence teachers’ engagement in reflection,

74  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

including ‘knowledge of reflection, institutional demands, teachers’ attitude toward teaching, availability of resources, and collegial support’. Despite the importance of supportive policies to foster reflection among pre- and in-service TESOL teachers, there have been only few studies on TRP in TESOL context that focus on policies. One related conceptual study was done by Öztürk and Aydin (2019), who examined the policies concerning TESOL teacher education in Turkey. One of their key findings was that at both pre- and in-service levels, the policy that regulates the teacher education and professional development tended to focus more on theory rather than practice, and there are minimum opportunities for reflection. This was pointed out as a major weakness that needed to be addressed by policy reforms. Also in the Turkish context, Tezgiden Cakcak (2015) investigated the policies on TESOL programmes in terms of the teacher roles these programmes prepare the student teachers for. The results of the document analysis showed that at the national level, the policy documents explicitly stated reflective practitioner as the goal. However, at the institutional level, as reflected in the foreign language teacher education programme examined in the study, inconsistency was found. The institutional website depicted passive technician, that is, the student teachers in the programme seemed to be prepared to become teachers who transmit knowledge from the experts without questioning and reflection. Conversely, the document on the programme aims indicated reflective practitioner as the expected outcomes. Apart from the inconsistency, the existing policies on reflective practitioner as the targeted teacher role did not seem to translate into the design and the enactment of the programme. While the programme had reflective elements, it tended to prepare teachers more for becoming passive technicians. Meanwhile, Meierdirk (2016) analysed the national standards of professional teachers in England, including TESOL teachers. She concluded that the standards included elements of reflection, but only in technical sense, while critical reflection, in terms of teachers’ questioning the norms and the contextual factors that influence their practice and how these might constrain their thinking and action, was not part of the standards. She also argued that the policy on teacher education in England that focused on school-based training had made it difficult for the student teachers to learn the knowledge base that would enable them to engage in fruitful reflection. It can be seen that there is a scarcity of empirical research on how reflective practice is positioned in policies, such as in the standards of professional teachers and teacher education. The few studies reviewed above already indicated the complexity of this issue, the influence of contextual factors on the development of policies, the effects of policies on practice and the possible inconsistency between different policy documents and between policy and practice. There appears to be an agreement

The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies  75

that language teachers in all contexts need to develop reflective skills, but there need to be more studies on the positioning of language TRP in policies that regulate teacher education. It is particularly important to examine this issue using a comprehensive theoretical framework on reflective practice and a range of TESOL contexts. Such investigations are needed to inform policy improvement and to allow benchmarking among countries of similar contexts. This study thus aims to address these gaps by investigating the following question: How is teacher reflective practice positioned in TESOL-related policies? A framework for promoting reflective practice

This study used the five-level framework for promoting reflective practice proposed by Farrell (2015) to analyse the positioning of TRP in TESOL-related policies. The five levels include Philosophy, Principles, Theories, Practice and Beyond Practice. This framework was developed out of Farrell’s concern that, in many cases, the reflective process focuses mainly on problems and practice while ignoring the teacher-as-person who has their own philosophy, principles and theories about teaching and ­learning. Farrell (2015: 24) emphasised the role of the first three levels in addressing this concern. First, Philosophy is the roots of practice and involves examining one’s background, comprising of ‘heritage, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background, family, and personal values’ and how these affect one’s practice. Second, Principles refers to reflecting on one’s beliefs, assumptions and conceptions of teaching and learning, the way they are formed and the way they influence practice. Third, Theory involves reflecting on both the ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ theories of teaching and learning obtained from literature and from learning and professional experience. Philosophy, Principles and Theory indicate the aspects that teachers might not be aware of, but as they reflect, these might be put into light and help them understand and improve their practice. The fourth level in Farrell’s (2015) framework, Practice, involves the notions of reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action and reflectionfor-action. Reflection-in-action happens when teachers ‘consciously stand back while they are teaching as they monitor and adjust to various circumstances that are happening within the lesson’, while reflection-on-action refers to ‘examining what happened in a lesson after the event has taken place’ (Farrell, 2015: 29). Reflection-for-action involves using one’s knowledge and experience to engage in reflections to guide future action. The Beyond Practice level in Farrell’s framework, on the other hand, is critical reflection, or reflection-beyond-lesson (Cirocki & Widodo, 2019), where practitioners reflect on broader moral, political and social issues, which influence and are impacted by their practice. The five levels from Farrell’s (2015) framework do not stand in isolation, but there is an interaction of all the levels and one might reflect upon

76  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

more than one at a time. The framework is chosen as it depicts a holistic picture of different elements of TRP to be promoted. We understood the framework to be broad enough to capture possible variations across the policies concerned. An Empirical Study Method

We first conducted an extensive internet search for teacher education standards and teachers’ standards representing major types of English education contexts including EAL, EFL and CLIL. Where such documents were not publicly available, we explored our professional networks to request assistance with the search. The search resulted in five relevant documents used in five English education contexts. All of these documents were in effect at the time of data collection in 2020. Table 5.1 summarises our data for this chapter. Table 5.1  Policy documents used as data TESOL context

Specific context

Policy documents

Target effect

CLIL

Europe

European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education (2010)

Pre-service teacher preparation

EAL

Australia

EAL/D (English as an additional language/ dialect) Elaborations of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (2015)

In-service teachers

US

US TESOL Teacher Preparation Standards (2018)

Pre-service teacher preparation

Chile

Chile Disciplinary Standards for English (2014)

Pre-service teacher preparation

Vietnam

Vietnam English Teacher Competency Framework (2014)

In-service teachers

EFL

While our search for TESOL-related teachers’ standards was by no means exhaustive, we considered the five documents above directly relevant to the focus of this study and representative of major types of international TESOL contexts. We also considered having two policies per national English education context type (EAL and EFL) and one used across the European continent as sufficient for the scope of this chapter. The policy from Chile is in Spanish, so it was first translated into English using Google Translate, which was then cross-checked using Microsoft Translate. Relevant sections were then identified from the translation by the first author before a TESOL academic/Spanish native speaker was deployed to check the accuracy of the translation in these relevant extracts. All the documents were then imported into an NVivo

The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies  77

12 database for data management and analysis. The analysis was performed using policy analysis from a discourse theory perspective, which involves semantic analysis for contents and interpretative analysis for how the contents are presented (Thomas, 2005). In terms of analytical processes, each document was first coded into the aforementioned five levels of reflection in Farrell’s (2015) model to determine the foci of TRP as positioned in the policies. Second, the levels of reflection were then examined closely both in terms of the elaboration of the TRP levels and the role of the teacher. Finally, a cross-policies analysis was performed to gain insights into the similarities and differences between the five policies in relation to the positioning of TRP. Findings

The ways in which the TESOL-related policies under research position TRP in terms of the levels described by Farrell (2015) is summarised in Table 5.2 and analysed in detail in the sub-sections. Table 5.2  Levels of reflection in the policies TESOL-related teachers’ standards

Philosophy

Principles

Theory

Practice

Beyond Practice

Europe

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Australia

-

-

-

✓

✓

The US

✓

✓

-

✓

✓

Chile

✓

-

✓

✓

-

Vietnam

✓

-

-

✓

✓

Europe

The European policy seems to place great emphasis on TRP as this is included as the first target professional competence that CLIL teachers are expected to develop. Under the heading Personal Reflection Competence, the policy says, ‘Commitment to one’s own cognitive, social and affective development is fundamental to being able to support the cognitive, social and affective development of students’ (European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education, 2010: 17, emphasis added). Being the only policy that promotes all levels of TRP also shows the essential position of TRP in the European policy. Regarding Philosophy, the European policy expects teachers to ‘obtain self-knowledge’, which is an important aspect of teachers’ reflection on Philosophy (Farrell, 2015: 24): CLIL teachers are able: [….] c) to define their own pedagogical and content (subject field) competences, and related developmental needs (PDC 3)

78  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

d) to define their level of language competence according to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), and to articulate related developmental needs (PDC 8) [….] i) to explore and to manage the multiple roles and identities of a CLIL teacher (PDC 6). (2010: 17)

This extract shows that European CLIL teachers are expected to obtain self-knowledge about professional competence and developmental needs (items c and d), and multiple roles and identities (item i), which are aspects in reflection on Philosophy (Farrell, 2015). Regarding Principles, the policy requires that CLIL teachers are able ‘to explore, and to articulate their own understanding of, and attitudes towards, generally accepted principles of teaching and learning’ (2010: 17). The policy also recognises the role of reflection on the origin of attitudes in an individual’s understanding and management of their attitudes and learning: Critical reflection and dialogue about the socially constructed nature of attitude can help individuals to better understand and manage their own attitudes and learning, as can meta-affective and meta-cognitive awareness. (2010: 9)

In terms of Theory, teachers are expected to be able ‘to explore and to articulate ways of working with learners to jointly identify teacher and student sociocultural, personal and vocational learning needs’ (2010: 17). At the Practice level, teachers are expected ‘to explore and to manage the impact of one’s own attitudes and behaviour on the learning process’ (2010: 18) and ‘to cooperate with colleagues so as to reflect on and improve learning’ (2010: 21). In terms of reflection Beyond Practice, CLIL teachers are expected ‘to explore and to articulate the necessity to cooperate with colleagues and other key CLIL stakeholders, and describe mechanisms for cooperation’ (2010: 17). The findings presented above indicate the important position of TRP in the European CLIL policy. This is seen not only through the primary position on the reflection competence in the document but also though the elaboration of each reflection level in the policy. Teachers not only play the role of reflective practitioners at all reflective levels but also are c­ o-operators to colleagues and other CLIL stakeholders in their reflective practice. Australia

The Australian policy states different standards for teachers in different career stages. Overall, it promotes two reflection levels from Farrell’s model: Practice and Beyond Practice. Regarding Practice, there are different standards for TRP at different career stages, with increasing expectations as teachers move along their career. Australian graduate (i.e.

The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies  79

beginning) teachers are expected to reflect on Practice based on ‘informal feedback provided by EAL/D learners in response to changes in practice’ and ‘constructive feedback from EAL/D knowledge sources’ (EAL/D 2015: 42). Proficient teachers should engage in more systematic ‘reflective practice linked to data on EAL/D students’ progress in learning English, learning through English and learning about English’ (2015: 40). Proficient teachers should also engage in ‘personal inquiry and reflective practice on working with EAL/D learners, drawing on a range of EAL/D knowledge sources, including EAL/D teacher associations, websites and community organisations’ (2015: 42). Highly accomplished teachers in Australia, in turn, are expected to reflect on their Practice, which is the same as for graduate and proficient teachers, and additionally ‘[m]odel and promote reflective practice linked to data on EAL/D students’ progress’ (2015: 40). Finally, lead teachers are expected to perform, model and also support TRP. The Australian policy promotes reflection Beyond Practice amongs graduate and proficient teachers while there is no mentioning of such reflection for highly accomplished and lead teachers. Consider personal attitudes and behaviours in regard to cultural diversity, and reflect on any issues identified. (Graduate) Reflect on experiences of engaging EAL/D parents and fine-tune practice accordingly, discussing with EAL/D specialists and intercultural officers. (Proficient)

Australian graduate and proficient teachers are expected to reflect Beyond Practice to consider their attitudes and behaviours towards cultural diversity and engagement with other stakeholders beyond the classroom, which ‘links practice to the broader socio-political, as well as affective/moral issues that impact practice’ (Farrell, 2015: 30). The findings show that in the Australian policy, reflection on Practice and Beyond Practice holds an important position in teachers’ professional practice. The policy positions teachers at different stages of their career in varied roles, with more senior teachers having more supporting and leading roles in addition to their own reflective practice. The policy also recognises the importance of TRP in relation to Australia’s diverse cultural and linguistic body of students. The US

The US policy promotes TRP at four levels: Philosophy, Principles, Practice and Beyond Practice. The US policy indicates that ‘[c]andidates practice self-assessment and reflection, make adjustments for self-improvement, and plan for continuous professional development in the field of English ­language learning and teaching’ (US TESOL Teacher Preparation Standards, 2018: 11), which reveals the role of reflective practice in this context. The policy specifies that:

80  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

Candidates identify and describe the impact of his/her identity, role, ­cultural understandings, and personal biases and conscious knowledge of U.S. culture on his/her interpretation of the educational strengths and needs of individual ELLs [English language learners] and ELLs in general. (2018: 8)

This extract illustrates the focus on both Philosophy, associated with teacher candidates’ self-knowledge/identity (Farrell, 2015), and Beyond Practice, through their reflection on broader cultural issues (Farrell, 2015), and their links to learners’ needs and strengths. The US policy also specifies a required assessment task in teacher education, which illustrates reflection on Principles and Beyond Practice. In this task, teacher candidates reflect on ‘a philosophy of teaching ELLs’ (US TESOL Teacher Preparation Standards, 2018: 15), which is in line with Farrell’s (2015) conception of Principles. They also need to reflect on ‘their understanding of and commitment to the critical issues related to culturally and linguistically diverse students’, which is an example of reflection Beyond Practice as they are required to make links between learners’ broader issues associated with learners’ cultural and linguistic background with the classroom (Farrell, 2015). Reflection on Practice is promoted through the requirements that ‘candidates make instructional decisions by reflecting on individual ELL outcomes and adjusting instruction’ (Farrell, 2015: 9). Specifically, they are expected to be able to analyse and interpret assessment data to make informed instructional decisions as well as to ‘reflect upon the impact of their instruction on their ELLs’ learning’ (US TESOL Teacher Preparation Standards, 2018: 14). In addition, US teacher candidates are expected to ‘engage in supervised teaching to apply and develop their professional practice using self-reflection and feedback from their cooperating teachers and supervising faculty’ (2018: 11). This standard specifies that supervised teaching; that is, ‘what actually happens in the classroom’ (Farrell, 2015: 29); should be the focus of self-reflection. Regarding Beyond Practice, US TESOL teachers are expected to ‘devise and implement methods’ to ‘investigate the academic and personal c­ haracteristics of each ELL, as well as family circumstances and literacy practices, to develop individualized, effective instructional and assessment p ­ ractices for their ELLs’ (US TESOL Teacher Preparation Standards, 2018: 16). They are also expected to ‘devise and implement methods to understand each ELL’s academic characteristics, including background knowledge, ­educational history, and current performance data, to develop effective, individualized instructional and assessment practices for their ELLs’ (2018: 8). These standards indicate that US teachers are expected to reflect on ‘the moral, political, and social issues that impact on teachers’ practice’, which is considered reflection Beyond Practice (Farrell, 2015: 30).

The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies  81

Chile

The Chilean policy promotes TRP on the levels of Philosophy, Theory and Practice. Regarding Philosophy, teachers’ reflection on their professional competence and future plan to address their deficit areas is positioned as important, as indicated in the following standards. (6) Continuously reflects on their own linguistic and methodological competence. (7) Designs an action plan to address their deficit areas, both linguistically and methodologically. (Chile Disciplinary Standards for English, 2014: 34) Similar to the European policy, the Chilean standards position teachers’ reflection on their professional competence as an important aspect of ‘selfknowledge’, which Farrell (2015) considers an element of Philosophy. In terms of reflection on Theory, Chilean teachers are expected to ‘[c]ritically [assess] different theories and approaches to acquiring a foreign language, to then select the strategies most relevant to the needs of their students and their specific circumstances’ (2014: 30). They are also required to ‘[reflect] on their future educational practice from reading and analysing publications about English teaching-learning’ (Farrell, 2015: 34). These are in line with Farrell’s (2015) elaboration of reflection on Theory as it involves teachers’ thinking about their choice of teaching methods and forward planning. At the Practice level, they are to reflect on their current and future practice by reading references and considering student assessment results and classroom problems, as detailed below: 4. Designs and integrates formative and summative assessment to collect information on the progress of their students and modify their planning according to the results obtained. 8. Identifies problems in their classroom practice related to English teaching-learning methodology, and is capable of designing and implementing an action plan in search for alternative solutions. (Chile Disciplinary Standards for English, 2014: 27–28)

Regarding teachers’ role in reflection, the Chilean policy promotes the teacher as reflective practitioner whose reflection centres on their own work. It does not position the teacher as someone who promotes or supports TRP in the community of practice like in the case of the Australian and European jurisdictions. Vietnam

The Vietnamese policy, like the European policy, includes a separate competency designated to TRP. It explicitly promotes teacher reflection on Philosophy, Practice and Beyond Practice. Its positioning of teacher reflection on Philosophy is as follows:

82  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

Teachers reflect on their own and their students’ cultural values and prior learning experiences and how they affect students’ language learning preferences and classroom behaviors. (Vietnam English Teacher Competency Framework, 2014: 16) Teachers practice ongoing reflection to examine their own language learning, and their own teaching questions, and use their findings to inform their own practice. (2014: 20)

These extracts illustrate reflection on Philosophy as they require teachers to ‘obtain self-knowledge’ by ‘reflecting on the [educational] background from where [they] have evolved’ and use this to inform their practice (Farrell, 2015: 24). Competency 5.2 specifically promotes reflection on Practice. The following are some relevant standards from the document: Reflects on what went right and what students resisted […] in the language classroom. Reflects on lesson content (e.g. activities, students’ reaction) and uses this to inform future planning. Observes other teachers (or college and university teachers), invites other to observe them, and learns from constructive feedback. (Vietnam English Teacher Competency Framework, 2014: 19)

In addition to specifying the areas of practice to guide TRP (the what) as above, the Vietnamese policy also provides specific strategies (the how) for teachers to reflect on Practice. These strategies include analysing learners’ errors, implementing continuous assessment, asking learners ‘what they liked or didn’t like about language activities and content’, ‘[using] in-class activities to monitor and assess children’s participation and performance’, and making notes on lesson plans in terms of students’ performance, successes and difficulties. It suggests that teachers should use this information to inform their future planning. Regarding Beyond Practice, the Vietnamese policy emphasises ‘the importance of the teachers’ understanding of context in which English is being taught’ (2014: 1). In addition, teachers need to ‘connect English learning to other school subjects and relevant contextual issues related to English use’ (2014: 1). To meet these expectations, Vietnamese teachers need to engage in reflection Beyond Practice using the following strategies: Reflects on learners’ values & prior learning. (2014: 2) Looks at similarities and differences between Vietnamese and native English-speaking cultures. (2014: 5) Recognizes individual learner variables (such as age, L1 literacy, personality, motivation, socioeconomic status). (2014: 5) Reflects on children’s other classroom learning experiences and how these experiences affect children’s behavior in the language classroom. (2014: 17)

The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies  83

The data presented above show that the Vietnamese policy does not promote teacher reflection only at the Philosophy, Practice and Beyond Practice levels. It also enables TRP through specific guidelines and strategies for teachers to realise these levels of reflection. In terms of teachers’ role, the Vietnamese policy mostly positions teachers as reflective practitioners rather than reflection promoters, collaborators, supporters or leaders like in the Australian and European policies. Discussion

All the policies recognise the importance of teachers’ reflection as a professional competency. This is in line with the contemporary views on the place of TRP in TESOL professional expertise (Farrell, 2015; Freeman, 2016). The policies promote TRP either as an independent standard or sub-standard (Europe, Chile and Vietnam) or integrated with standards related to other professional competencies (Australia and USA). Regardless of how TRP is represented, it is tightly linked to other types of knowledge such as pedagogical content knowledge, understanding of learners and learning and so on, which is in line with the teacher reflection framework (Farrell, 2015). The study found no pattern that distinguishes the CLIL, EFL and EAL teachers’ standards. The analysis shows differences across the policies, which is similar to the finding of Tezgiden Cakcak (2015). It can be seen from the European, US, Chilean and Vietnamese policies that although these jurisdictions promote teacher reflection on Philosophy, the positioning varies across the three jurisdictions. The European, Chilean and US policies focus more on reflection on the teacher’ self-knowledge about professional competencies. The Vietnamese policy, however, focuses particularly on teachers’ selfknowledge obtained through reflection on their personal histories. The European and US polices are the only ones promoting reflection on Principles. While the European and Chilean policies promote reflection on Theory, this reflection level is absent from the remaining three policies. The inadequate focus on Principles and Theory resonates with Farrell’s (2015: 29) concern that these ‘hidden’ aspects underlining language teaching are often neglected. The ‘top of the iceberg’ (2015: 29), Practice, is promoted in all cited policies, which is also consistent with Farrell’s (2015) observation. Reflection Beyond Practice is another level promoted across most contexts, with a particular focus on the cultural, political, educational and linguistic contexts of teaching such as the language learners’ backgrounds and characteristics, the communities of practice and the broader school curriculum. The three main types of teacher role in TRP that are identified in the policies include reflective practitioner, co-operator of reflective practice and promoter of reflective practice. While all five policies position teachers as reflective practitioners and co-operators in TRP, only the Australian

84  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

policy promotes senior teachers as promoters of reflective practice. One possible reason is that the European, Chilean and US policies focus on initial teacher education, which does not apply directly to senior graduate teachers. However, there is space for teacher education to promote community support in enabling TRP, even at early stages of the career, as this has been shown to benefit teachers’ professional development (Farrell, 2016). Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

The findings suggest that greater attention should be given to how TRP is positioned in TESOL-related policies in terms of practicality, coherence and broader professional expectations. Regarding practicality, teachers’ standards should not only highlight the importance and levels of reflective practice (e.g. the Australian and Chilean policies) but also provide practical guidelines for teachers and teacher education in implementing the policy (e.g. the US and Vietnamese policies). The practical guidelines would have the potential to address the issues identified previously in terms of the mismatch between policy and practice (Meierdirk, 2016; Tezgiden Cakcak, 2015) and ensure that teacher education and teachers meet the professional standards regarding TRP. Regarding coherence, the analysis showed that not all policies under analysis promotes all five levels of reflection suggested by Farrell (2015). While all the policies advocate reflection on Practice and Beyond Practice, the levels of Philosophy, Principles and Theory are not consistently promoted across the policies. While it is pleasing to see such a consistent focus on Practice and Beyond Practice, it is essential that teacher standards in different contexts coherently advocate all levels of teacher reflection to ensure teachers develop consistency in their reflective teaching. This is particularly important in the era of international mobility, where language teacher education has been pushed to prepare teachers for the ‘multifaceted and demanding instructional contexts’ (Johnson & Golombek, 2020: 117), both local and international. Moreover, what teachers bring to their work shapes who they are as language teachers (Philosophy) and their beliefs, assumptions and conceptions related to teaching (Principles) (Cross, 2020). In addition, how teachers transfer theory into practice (Theory) should also be at the heart of teachers’ work, especially when culturally responsive pedagogy is considered central (Kubanyiova, 2020). Therefore, we argue that teacher reflection on Philosophy, Principles and Theory and the impact of these on their work should be promoted alongside reflection on Practice and Beyond Practice in high-stake TESOLrelated policies. Finally, the suggestion about coherence also links to broader international expectations in the field. The framework for TESOL professional knowledge (Freeman, 2016) and the comprehensive framework for

The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies  85

promoting TRP (Farrell, 2015) represent many of these international expectations. Freeman (2016), drawing on decades of research, theories and practices in the field, synthesised a framework for TESOL professional knowledge that includes disciplinary knowledge (what), knowledge of pedagogy (how), knowledge in-person and in-place (who and where) and knowledge-for-teaching (why). Such a framework conceptualises reflective practice as an essential domain of language teacher knowledge. Within the specific TRP field, Farrell’s (2015) comprehensive framework was developed based on career-long scholarly work and represents professional expectations in terms of TRP. Farrell’s (2015) teacher reflection framework can complement Freeman’s (2016) framework by providing specific guidelines for developing TRP as a domain of language teacher knowledge. Therefore, we argue that it is essential that TESOL-related standards in specific contexts promote the different levels of reflection in response to these broader international expectations in the field. To this end, we recommend that TESOL-related teachers’ standards promote TRP as an independent competency and at the same time enable teachers to draw connection with other professional competencies, such as disciplinary knowledge and pedagogy knowledge, since Farrell’s (2015) framework indicates that there is a close link between TRP and other types of professional knowledge. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

Drawing on a framework for teacher reflection (Farrell, 2015), we analysed the positioning of TRP in five TESOL-related policies. It is promising to find that TRP is promoted to some extent in all policies. However, the study also found limited practicality, coherence and alignment of the policies with Farrell’s (2015) framework, which was developed based on career-long research on TRP and represents the field’s expectations in terms of reflective practice. We found that reflection on Practice is well positioned in all five policies, while reflection on Philosophy and Beyond Practice is advocated in four, and reflection on Principles and Theory in only two. Overall, the findings show that the hidden aspects of teaching (Principles and Theory) (Farrell, 2015) receive limited attention in the policies. The teachers’ standards also provide little practical guidance for teachers’ reflective practice. The chapter has discussed implications for policy development to address these areas of concern. This study focused on the analysis of TRP policy at national level, and the findings of this study are limited to the five jurisdictions mentioned. It would be enriching to examine policies in other TESOL contexts to allow for comparison and aggregation of TESOL TRP policies. It would also add more insights to investigate how the national policies are further translated into institutional policies in educational settings, such as schools and teacher education programmes, and how the policy

86  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

documents at the different levels are consistent with and supportive to each other in terms of TRP integration. As a policy analysis, the findings of the study are also limited to how TRP is framed within policy documents. It would be beneficial for further research to examine how such policies are implemented to enable TRP. For example, research on how TRP is developed through teacher education and teacher professional development would be a potentially useful research avenue. Farrell’s (2015) framework can as well be used to inform the data collection and analysis on how the different types of teacher reflection spelt out in the policy documents are actually promoted in the curriculum and pedagogy of teacher education programmes, and in professional development activities for teachers at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Finally, future research could investigate how teachers engage in TRP in their different roles as framed in the policies, including practitioners, supporters and leaders in reflective practice. Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Cong Lem Ngo, Diana Dudzik, Malba Barahona and Michelle Espinoza Lobos for their help with data collection and analysis. We thank Professors Zia Tajeddin and Atsuko Watanabe and the reviewers for their constructive feedback. References Alemi, M. and Tajeddin, Z. (2020) Reflection and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths and Z. Tajeddin (eds) Lessons from Good Language Teachers (pp. 41–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cirocki, A. and Widodo, H.P. (2019) Reflective practice in English language teaching in Indonesia: Shared practices from two teacher educators. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 7 (3), 15–35. Cornish, L. and Jenkins, K.A. (2012) Encouraging teacher development through ­embedding reflective practice in assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 40 (2), 159–170. Cross, R. (2020) The ‘subject’ of Freeman & Johnson’s reconceived knowledge base of second language teacher education. Language Teaching Research 24 (1), 37–48. Donyaie, S. and Afshar, H.S. (2019) EFL teachers’ reflective journal writing: Barriers and boosters. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 7 (3), 71–90. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016) Surviving the transition shock in the first year of teaching through reflective practice. System 61 (3), 12–19. Farrell, T.S.C. (2021) Promoting teacher reflection in schools: Becoming centers of inquiry. Research in Language and Education: An International Journal [RILE] 1 (1), 59–68. Freeman, D. (2016) Educating Second Language Teachers: The Same Things Done Differently. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, J.M. and Townsend, S.D.C. (2017) Using critical incidents and e-portfolios to understand the emergent practice of Japanese student-teachers of English. Teaching and Teacher Education 62 (2017), 1–9.

The Positioning of Teacher Reflective Practice in TESOL-Related Policies  87

Johnson, K.E. and Golombek, P.R. (2020) Informing and transforming language teacher education pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 24 (1), 116–127. Kubanyiova, M. (2020) Language teacher education in the age of ambiguity: Educating responsive meaning makers in the world. Language Teaching Research 24 (1), 49–59. Kuswandono, P. (2014) University mentors’ views on reflective practice in microteaching: Building trust and genuine feedback. Reflective Practice 15 (6), 701–717. LaBoskey, V.K. and Hamilton, M.L. (2010) ‘Doing as I do’: The role of teacher educator self-study in educating for reflective inquiry. In N. Lyons (ed.) Handbook of Reflection and Reflective Inquiry: Mapping a Way of Knowing for Professional Reflective Inquiry (pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Springer. Meierdirk, C. (2016) Is reflective practice an essential component of becoming a professional teacher? Reflective Practice 17 (3), 369–378. Moradkhani, S. and Shirazizadeh, M. (2017) Context-based variations in EFL teachers’ reflection: The case of public schools versus private institutes in Iran. Reflective Practice 18 (2), 206–218. Öztürk, G. and Aydin, B. (2019) English language teacher education in Turkey: Why do we fail and what policy reforms are needed? AJESI - Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International 9 (1), 181–213. Tajeddin, Z. and Aghababazadeh, Y. (2018) Blog-mediated reflection for professional development: Exploring themes and criticality of L2 teachers’ reflective practice. TESL Canada Journal 35 (2), 26–50. Tezgiden Cakcak, S.Y. (2015) Preparing teacher candidates as passive technicians, reflective practitioners or transformative intellectuals? PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University. Thomas, S. (2005) Taking teachers out of the equation: Constructions of teachers in education policy documents over a ten-year period. The Australian Educational Researcher 32 (3), 45–62. Wallace, M.J. (1991) Training Foreign Language Teachers: A Reflective Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

6 Reflecting and Connecting: Creating Opportunities for Teacher Trainees to Connect Theory and Practice Ann M. Glazer and Kathleen M. Bailey

Introduction

It is not uncommon for teacher trainees to want more practical elements in their MA programs, while teacher educators may seem to stress research and theory. Many teacher educators try to model effective teaching behaviors and strategies to make the connection between theory and practice, but to what extent are language teacher trainees aware of these efforts? Does creating a context for sharing brief reflections facilitate trainees’ awareness? This chapter reports on a research project in which, by instituting a micro-policy of regular reflection, a teacher educator hoped to focus her graduate students’ attention on the practical aspects of language teaching they were learning about, even in their more theoretical and research-focused coursework. The study examined the themes revealed in the reflections written by language teacher trainees in four (­ non-practicum) graduate courses. It is important to note that in this project, reflection was happening at two levels. First, the reflective task was designed to encourage the MA candidates in these courses to notice and reflect on their learning in general, and the teaching modeling they had witnessed in particular. Second, by collecting the students’ reflections, the professor (Kathi) was also practicing reflective teaching, in that she was collecting (and examining) data about her teaching. We will return to what she learned in the Implications section below. 88

Reflecting and Connecting  89

Reflective Practice in Teaching, Learning and Professional Development

Reflective practice, ‘the capacity to reflect on action so as to engage in a process of continuous learning’, has been a consistent research interest in education since Dewey’s (1933) How We Think (Schön, 1983: 102). This concept can be applied to many areas. Here, we will focus on its role in teaching, learning and professional development in language education. Farrell (2018: 1–2) defined reflective teaching practice as ‘a cognitive process accompanied by a set of attitudes in which 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’. By including the component of dialogue with others, Farrell, among others (e.g. Mann & Walsh, 2017), ­emphasized an element of reflection that can, by its nature, both broaden and deepen the process. Importantly, Mann and Walsh (2017: 6) noted, ­‘reflection is a highly complex process in which thinking, interaction, knowledge and learning have a reflexive relationship’. As in a reflective teaching practice, these four components intersect and overlap in the reflective practices addressed below. As early as the 1970s, researchers also explored reflective practice in learning as a means to develop knowledge (e.g. Habermas, 1971), as a way to promote learner autonomy (e.g. Zeichner & Liston, 1987), and as a core component of experiential education (e.g. Kolb, 1984). Moeller (1996), for example, acknowledged that typical language teachers enter teachertraining programs after years of being students and argued that by recording their thinking about those learning experiences, trainees can reveal the implicit theories, values and beliefs that underlie their thinking about the teacher’s role(s). Mann and Walsh (2017: 12) summarized the role of reflection in knowledge development when they noted, ‘Through ­discussion, dialogue, and reflection, new understandings are ­appropriated, or made one’s own’. This appropriation and ownership, they argued, is a key aspect of learning, and the stakes are especially high since teacher trainees are expected to connect theory to practice and apply their new knowledge to benefit their future students. Reflecting on learning can also be a powerful tool for promoting learner autonomy. Wilson and Jan (1993) noted the strong connection between reflection and the capacity to monitor and direct one’s own learning process. They argued that ‘metacognition, i.e. knowledge, awareness and control of cognition, is the outcome of conscious reflection’ (1993: vii, emphasis ours). Little (2007) concurred and provided a helpful operationalization of conscious reflection, arguing, ‘we must supplement the incidental reflection that planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning entail [with] an explicitly detached reflection on the process and content of learning’ (2007: 24, emphasis ours). This detached, conscious reflection

90  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

on learning then supports the learners’ ability to ‘amplify’ or ‘focus’ their learning (Little & Thorne, 2017). Facilitated or prompted reflection is also a central component of experiential learning. In the mid-1980s, Boud et al. (1985) linked reflection to three stages of experiential learning, arguing that reflection on the experience in each stage is what leads to learning: preparation (when learners should consider the demands that will be placed on them in their field experience), engagement (when learners should intentionally process the inputs they encounter in the field) and processing (when the learners should contemplate and synthesize what they have experienced). Each of those stages of experiential learning, of which teacher preparation is one wellknown type, may be marked by some sort of facilitated or prompted reflection. Prompted reflection is important because, as Radović et al. (2021: 3) note, ‘Reflection does not happen spontaneously. It requires learners being directed toward examining their beliefs and understanding for developing new knowledge’. They add that ‘the focus of reflection can be directly activated by using reflection prompts and guiding questions’ (2021: 3). Though it may seem unnatural at first, we must ‘embrace “reflective intervention”’ as a central component of teaching and learning (Little, 2007: 24). More recently, Mann and Walsh (2017: 13) stressed that ‘tutors or colleagues may help an individual acquire new understandings by … drawing attention to a specific phenomenon’. These authors likened facilitation and/or prompting of reflection to scaffolding. Tying many of the previous ideas together, they noted the value of prompted reflection ‘in helping promote understanding, develop criticality and assist professionals as they gain ownership of new concepts’ (2017: 14). Many scholars have focused on the role of reflective practice in professional development (e.g. Farrell, 2014; Murphy, 2014). The overwhelming consensus is that reflective practice can promote professional development: In a review of 116 published studies on TESOL teachers’ reflective practice, Farrell (2016: 241) concluded that ‘both preservice and inservice teachers are interested in, and feel they benefit from, reflecting on various aspects of their practice’. In particular, he noted that such reflection led to enhanced awareness, which led teachers to ‘further explore and in some instances even challenge, their current approaches to their practices, especially when they note any tensions between their philosophy, principles, theory, and practice’ (2016: 241). Reflective practice in teaching, reflective practice in learning and reflective practice in professional development all fundamentally rely on the practitioner’s capacity for reflective thinking, which involves ‘thinking about one’s own thinking, thinking about learning, and relating ideas to previous experiences’ (Wilson & Jan, 1993: 8). Reflective writing, which requires its practitioners to ‘express in written form their thoughts, beliefs and attitudes, typically in relation to particular topics or experiences’, has a rich tradition in the field of education generally and teacher education

Reflecting and Connecting  91

particularly (Borg, 2006: 249). It is important to remember that reflective writing can be both a record of one’s reflective thinking and the process through which that reflective thinking takes place (Mann & Walsh, 2017). In addition, ‘research has demonstrated the effect of reflective writing on the development of reflective practice’ (Ossa Parra et al., 2015: 17). Reflective writing, both in traditional paper journal formats and electronic formats, has been found to promote reflective practice among preservice language teachers (e.g. Brooke, 2012; Khanjani et al., 2018). In spite of substantial inquiry on reflection in education, there has been relatively little research on teacher trainees’ reflection on their own academic coursework. Exceptions to this trend include Bigelow and Ranney (2005), which investigated comments written by pre-service teachers at the end of classes in which they were students, and Lee (2007), which explored teacher trainees’ perceptions of reflective journaling in language teaching methodology courses and found that the trainees reported reflection to be beneficial. The study that is the focus of this chapter aimed to add to the research on teacher trainees’ reflections about their own academic coursework. Our investigation centered on the topics of their written reflections, not on the trainees’ perceptions of the practice of reflection. An Empirical Study

The research project began when Kathi, as a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS), decided to address an institutional challenge. The challenge will come as no surprise to teacher educators: some MA candidates in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and Teaching Foreign Language (TFL) felt that the program was not focused enough on the practical aspects of language teaching. In an attempt to bridge the theory-practice gulf perceived by the students, Kathi decided to regularly prompt her students to reflect on what they had learned about language learning and teaching in four of her courses; two were entirely online and two were primarily face-to-face courses. In all cases, she required the students to post their written reflections in the courses’ electronic bulletin board (BB) system, which is referred to in the prompt (given in full below) as the discussion forum. What is one thing you learned (or one insight you had) about language teaching and/or learning as a result of this course last week? It could be something you read about or heard about in class, or a technique the professor used for managing instruction. It could be an awareness that occurred to you as a result of a classroom activity. Think of one thing you learned about language teaching and/or learning and share it in a brief paragraph by posting your idea on this discussion forum.

92  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

Our study then addressed the following primary research question: When invited to reflect and comment (in written form) on what they have learned about language teaching and learning during the previous week of a graduate course, what do language-teachers-in-training choose to write about? Method

Kathi regularly incorporated this prompt in four courses that she taught over a six-month period: (1) Applied Linguistics Research; (2) Language Assessment; (3) Language Teacher Education; and (4) Introduction to Language Program Administration. The first two courses were taught in fall term, and the latter two were taught in January term. These January courses are intensive: an entire two-credit elective is covered in one month. The regularity of the required response to this prompt was an essential component of the action. As Wilson and Jan (1993: vii) noted, ‘Developing reflective skills and strategies involves sustained and repeated practice incorporated within the context of purposeful learning experiences and not just tacked on as an afterthought’. For this reason, the prompt appeared weekly on the two intensive January courses’ BBs and at one- to two-week intervals on the two fall courses’ BBs. While the individual responses to the prompt were not assessed, participation in the discussion forums was a required component in each course. To ascertain whether her students were focusing on the practical aspects of language teaching as a result of these required reflections, Kathi collected the written responses to the prompt. To extend the research, Kathi invited Ann and Susan Mayer, Ann’s classmate, to analyze the data. (Ann’s classmate and our collaborator in this research, Susan Mayer, passed away shortly after completing the data analysis for this project and earning her MA TESOL from MIIS. We deeply appreciate the humor, wisdom and insight she brought to our lives and this work.) The participants in this study were 40 teachers-in-training enrolled in the TESOL and TFL MA program at MIIS. They were taking one or more of four courses Kathi taught over a period of two academic terms. Two of the courses were primarily face-to-face: Applied Linguistics Research (ALR) and Language Assessment (LAS); two of the courses were primarily online: Language Teacher Education (LTE) and Introduction to Language Program Administration (LPA). Because some participants were enrolled in more than one of these courses, the total number of unique participants was 40. The materials used for this study consisted of the instructor’s reflection prompt and the MA students’ written postings in response. The participants responded to the prompt as part of their normal course proceedings, and the instructor’s prompt was the same each time it

Reflecting and Connecting  93

Table 6.1  Number of students in each course and number of posts comprising the data set Number of Students Enrolled Student Posts

ALR

LAS

LTE

LPA

Total Unique Students/Posts

8

8

13

18

40

48

40

35

69

192

appeared on the course BB. There were eight invitations to post during the 15-week ALR and LAS courses, and there were four invitations to post during the four-week intensive LTE and LPA courses. The total number of student posts and number of posts per course are presented in Table 6.1. With two exceptions, the trainees did not know that their posts might be used for secondary analysis. The exceptions were Ann and her classmate, Susan, who were invited to participate in this discourse analysis after they completed the fall LAS course and before they completed the January LTE course. Nunan and Bailey (2009: 173) emphasized that familiarity with the research setting and/or participants can be valuable and can enable researchers to ‘convincingly portray the individual[s] under investigation’. Indeed, Ann’s and Susan’s knowledge of the courses, especially the assignments, readings and activities, was a particularly valuable asset during the data coding process, which will be described below. With the two exceptions mentioned above, in an effort to partially control the problem of contamination of data, Kathi did not ask the students’ permission to use their posts for research until the end of the courses. All of the students in all four courses agreed to participate and gave their informed consent. The analyses involved both quantitative and qualitative processes. In the present study, the data (the students’ posts) were qualitatively collected, and they were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Based on multiple readings of the data, we identified 13 themes that the trainees mentioned in their posts. The wording of the prompt suggested that the trainees might be likely to mention the following: (1) the content of the course (‘something you heard about in class’); (2) the literature assigned for the course (‘something you read about [for] class’); (3) the professor’s style or technique(s) (‘a technique the professor used for managing instruction’); and (4) activities that were part of a class session (‘a classroom activity’). They did indeed mention all four of those themes. The trainees also regularly wrote about nine additional themes that will be addressed in the Findings section. Once the themes had been identified, Ann and Susan proceeded to code the data. Working primarily at the sentence or phrase level, they coded the entire posting so that no word was left uncoded, and each word, phrase, clause or sentence was coded into only one theme category. Allowing for only one possible theme per phrase, clause or sentence was

94  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

not unproblematic; however, the decision to pursue single-theme coding facilitated the quantitative analysis, which will be discussed below. In line with consensual qualitative research (CQR), in any case where there was disagreement, Ann and Susan discussed the passage until they agreed on the coding. Kathi served in a role similar to that of the auditor in CQR, providing feedback at two main stages of analysis: determining themes and coding. After each post was coded, we counted the total number of words dedicated to each theme within each post. By so doing, we were able to get a sense not only of which themes were mentioned but also how much trainees were writing about a particular theme. With this information, we ranked the themes according to how much trainees wrote about them (see Table 6.3). Findings

As previously noted, we identified 13 themes in the trainees’ posts, which are exemplified in Table 6.2. The students in the ALR class mentioned all 13 of the identified themes in their set of posts. The LPA class members mentioned 12 of the 13 themes; they did not include references to literature from other courses in their posts. The LTE class members mentioned only 11 themes; they did not mention their own traits or other teachers’ techniques. Similarly, the LAS students mentioned only 11 themes; they did not write about literature assigned for other courses or the course medium. The initial analysis enabled us to determine what these teachers-in-training chose to write about when invited to reflect (in written form) on what they had learned about language teaching and learning during the previous week of a graduate course. Calculating the percentage of words dedicated to a particular theme provided a picture of how much trainees were writing about a particular theme. The results are provided in Table 6.3. As Table 6.3 illustrates, the trainees wrote most about the topics that were most closely aligned with those offered in the prompt. This finding suggests that the wording of the prompt may have influenced what trainees chose to write about. Table 6.3 also shows, however, that the trainees were not completely bound by those topics; indeed, following very closely behind mentions of the course instructor’s technique were reflections on their own experiences as language learners or teachers. Before turning to the practical implications of our findings, we will discuss the possible threats to the internal validity of this study. One potential threat is that the trainees may not have been posting earnestly. Because the posts were required and were viewable by other class members and the course instructor, the posts may not accurately reflect the trainees’ thoughts. Indeed, Kagan (1990) acknowledged that ‘any s­ hort-answer, selfreport scale of teacher thinking has certain inherent limitations. First, teachers’ responses may be influenced by social d ­ esirability … [and] some

Theme Descriptor

Specific mention of this teacher’s style or technique

Direct mention of class activities or indirect reference to the teacher’s choices

Specific mention of another teacher’s style or technique

Includes course topics, assignments and self-selected readings pertaining to assignments

Includes all assigned input – texts and video/audio clips from the course for which the poster is posting

Includes course topics, assignments and self-selected readings pertaining to assignments for other courses

Includes all assigned input – texts and video/audio clips from other courses

Direct reference to one’s own teaching or learning experience prior to or concurrent with the current course

A general opinion – usually prefaced by I believe or I think

Explicit reference to poster’s self/personal characteristics

Explicit mention of something the poster hopes to learn from the course

Direct reference to the course medium (e.g. the online medium of the course)

Response to others or their posts

Theme

This Teacher’s Techniques

This Course Activities (The how of the course)

Other Teacher’s Techniques

This Course Content (The what of the course)

This Course Literature

Other Course Content (The what of the course)

Other Course Literature

Own Experience

Own Beliefs

Own Traits

This Course Expectations

This Course Medium (Face-to-Face or Online)

Other Posts/Posters

Table 6.2  Themes, theme descriptors and theme examples

I agree with you, Zelda!

On another note, this is a whole new way of using [the BB] for me.

I’m looking forward to learning better strategies for interviewing prospective employees.

I am generally patient with my students.

I believe that standardized tests are more harmful than they are beneficial.

In my years teaching at the Adult School, this happened all the time!

It is easy to connect these ideas to Dörnyei’s ideas about motivation.

I was happy to see that what we learned in Ed Research is relevant here too!

After I started reading about different models of teacher education programs, I appreciate much more the challenges of choosing the right model.

During our discussions last week, I thought more about the use of cloze activities and how they can be used to assess student learning.

For example, I remember my high school physics class; we had a mobilemaking competition that was quite motivating.

What made [the introduction activity] meaningful and will aid in my teaching is our discussion afterwards on why KB had us introduce each other. Specifically, how we can use student introductions as a grammatical assessment tool in class.

Something I’ve noticed is the teacher’s use of humor; it seems to encourage us to learn.

Example

Reflecting and Connecting  95

96  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

Table 6.3  Themes ranked by number and percent of total words Theme

Number of Words

% of Total Words

This Course Content

6813

26.61

This Course Literature

5528

21.59

This Teacher’s Techniques

3341

13.05

Student’s Own Experience

2899

11.32

This Course Activities

1573

6.14

Other Posts/Posters

1439

5.62

This Course Medium

1103

4.31

Other Course Content

948

3.70

Other Teacher’s Techniques

720

2.81

Student’s Own Beliefs

485

1.89

This Course Expectations

336

1.31

Other Course Literature

300

1.17

97

0.38

Student’s Own Traits

might feign endorsement of items perceived to be “correct”’ (Kagan, 1990: 185). Borg (2006: 66) also referred to the challenge of full disclosure when posts are to be assessed: ‘[T]rainees’ behaviours may be influenced by the need to pass the assessment rather than being a reflection of their own beliefs about how to teach’. We acknowledge that, in our analysis, we have assumed that the trainees posted their thoughts fully and honestly. Another issue may be that, as Moon (2006) noted, deep reflection requires more than the 200–500 words typically allocated for written reflections. Such brevity, Moon argued, may yield only superficial descriptions. If the relatively short reflections impacted what the trainees chose to write about, and/or if the length of the post was curtailed by expectations of brevity, that brevity could be a confounding factor that cannot easily be addressed. Possibilities for future research include removing the phrase ‘brief paragraph’ from the prompt, which might promote more extensive responses. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

These findings have several implications for reflective practice and for teaching, in both teacher training courses (such as those from which these data were derived) and in the future language classes of the trainees. We will first consider the practical implications for teacher educators (including Kathi) and then address the possible implications of our findings for teachers-­in-training. We noted above that in collecting data from her trainees through these postings, Kathi was engaging in reflective teaching. That is, to excerpt from Farrell’s (2018: 1) definition, she used ‘the data to make

Reflecting and Connecting  97

informed decisions about her teaching’. That process has been a catalyst for Kathi’s own continued professional development, and the ways she has ‘continue[d] to evolve in the use, adaptation, and application of [her] art and craft’ may be adaptable for other teacher educators (Lange, 1990: 250). The students’ posts showed that they did, at least sometimes, notice the teaching procedures Kathi utilized. What we do not know (and cannot judge from the data gathered from the posts alone) is whether they realized that she was trying to model appropriate teaching behaviors. We also do not know (since she was not keeping a teaching journal at the time) when she was consciously modeling teaching procedures she hoped would be valuable to the MA candidates in their subsequent practice as language teachers. What became apparent was that for teacher educators who actively try to model pedagogical practices, immediate prompted reflection and/or overt signaling might be helpful for the trainees. That is, it could heighten the trainees’ awareness of the modeling if the professor were to draw attention to that modeling. As an example of immediate prompted reflection, after a lesson in which Kathi intentionally used varied strategies for distributing turns, she asked the trainees how many different ways they had gotten turns to speak during that lesson. They identified self-nomination (by hand-raising or speaking out), responding to general solicits, and direct nomination (when she called on a particular student). Direct nomination was accomplished by name in alphabetical order (and later, in reverse alphabetical order); by going in sequence around the room and by having each student call on the next person. Being prompted to reflect in this way caused the students to process the input. In reporting surprise at how many different techniques had been planned to encourage verbal participation, the students revealed some of their implicit ideas about the teacher’s role, one of the valuable functions of reflection. As a result of analyzing the students’ prompted reflections in the four courses from which we collected our data, Kathi’s own awareness was also raised to the potential need for overt signaling. Since that time, she has adopted the strategy of alerting the students to her use of particular teaching techniques more frequently. That is, during a lesson on any topic, when a procedure might be useful for language teaching, she will announce to the students that they are ‘pushing the pedagogical pause button’ momentarily. She then asks them how they might use the particular technique they had just experienced in their own teaching. She has implemented this practice in both face-to-face and online teaching. Such pedagogical stopping points have included brief discussions of various techniques for grouping and pairing students, creating tasks to reinforce a teaching point, using ungraded pop quizzes to raise students’ awareness about their knowledge gaps, and providing time in the lesson plan for participants to explicitly connect the teaching technique to their own future teaching practice and/or goals.

98  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

An additional practical implication for language teacher educators relates to the process of data collection in this study. Collecting the trainees’ reflection posts on the course BB was an easy, highly efficient way to gather data on Kathi’s own teaching; further, using postings on a course BB provided an easily accessible record of the trainees’ reflections. Teacher educators adopting a similar approach can see what the students in the course are noticing (or at least writing about), and the regularity of the trainees’ posts provides ongoing, formative feedback, an ideal catalyst for reflection. Teacher educators can then use what they learn from the trainees’ posts to make both immediate and future pedagogical decisions. This study also offers implications for language teachers-in-training, related primarily to the processes of prompted reflection. Through the relatively simple process of responding to regular, prompted reflection posts that were a requisite component of their courses, these MA candidates built a record of their learning that they could revisit for future analysis. Additionally, because of the nature of the BB, the teachers-­ in-training were able to read and respond to other trainees’ posts. From Farrell’s (2018) perspective, there are two benefits of this aspect of the reflective practice. First, the trainees are engaging in dialogue with one another about both learning and teaching. Second, in effect, the data set from which the trainees are able to make decisions about their current learning and their future practice grows. That is, they are able to draw on not only their own reflections but others’ as well. Our findings reveal that being regularly prompted to reflect on how their professors teach can indeed raise awareness of the theory-practice connection among the teachers-in-training. Conversely, if teacher educators are not demonstrating effective teaching, the trainees may become aware of a gap between theory and practice. In addition, our data suggest that being prompted to reflect on their experiences as teacher-learners helped Kathi’s students make the connection between the research and theory they were reading about and their own experiences and views. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

Both teacher trainees and their instructors can benefit from reflecting on learning and from the associated research. Wilson and Jan (1993: 10) argued that ‘the development of reflective and metacognitive thinking should be considered an important curriculum initiative essential to learning’. More recently, Radović et al. (2021: 2) reinforced why doing so is essential, noting, ‘when students reflect on the relationship between formal academic knowledge and concrete learning experiences, a deeper understanding develops’. By introducing the practice of reflecting on learning in her courses, Kathi supported the trainees’ skill development by prompting them to think about not just what they were learning but also about how they were learning it.

Reflecting and Connecting  99

Specifically, Kathi wanted the students to link their coursework to the practical aspects of language learning and teaching. As Moon (2006: 18) has noted, ‘What a teacher teaches may not be what is learnt by the learner and learning logs can be a helpful tool to find out what is actually being learned, or at least noticed, by the learner’. The postings helped Kathi see what her students were noticing. Further, the BB format, wherein authors, classmates and the instructor can read all of the postings, can be beneficial to all the participants. We close with a point from Farrell (2012) about the importance of including reflective practice in teacher training programs. He cites the following comment from Tarone and Allwright (2005: 12): Differences between the academic course content in language teacher preparation programs and the real conditions that novice language teachers are faced with in the classroom appear to set up a gap that cannot be bridged by beginning teachers.

Farrell believes that providing ‘novice teachers with reflective practice opportunities during their teacher preparation courses that can be continued into their first years [of teaching]’ (2012: 438) can help them bridge this gap. We hope that these teachers-in-training benefitted from having their attention drawn to the professor’s teaching to help bridge that gap. An additional benefit of this process was that the postings gave Kathi regular updates about how the trainees were processing the experience, thereby developing her ability to connect theory and practice. This study suggests many directions for future research. First, it would be worthwhile to connect the students’ postings about what they noticed to Kathi’s efforts to model teaching practices. To do that, the instructor could keep a journal about what she had hoped to accomplish by using various techniques. Alternatively, she could highlight in her lesson plans those points where she planned to demonstrate a particular teaching strategy. Second, because some of the participants were enrolled in more than one of the courses, it would be interesting to compare the themes addressed in their BB postings for the different classes. That is, were the students enrolled in two or more classes writing about the same themes and/or teacher behaviors in different classes? In particular, if students were enrolled in both a primarily face-to-face course and a primarily online course, would there be differences in what they wrote about in those two contexts? Third, removing the prompt’s reference to brevity would be an interesting avenue to pursue, exploring the potential relationship between text length and possible superficiality of reflection. Methodologically speaking, the process we used is a rather basic form of quantitative analysis that overlooks the quality of the content of the posts. Therefore, a fourth line of research could focus on the nature of the elaboration, delving into the texts of the postings to investigate what trainees are writing

100  Part 2: Teacher Reflection Policies

regarding a particular theme. Fifth, given the students’ diverse backgrounds, disaggregation of the data could enable additional lines of inquiry, such as whether more experienced trainees write more, or more frequently, about the professor’s techniques than those with less teaching experience. Finally, we could follow Kathi’s own evaluation of implementing this micro-policy on reflection in her courses. Continuing to collect and analyze data from future students, and asking teachers-in-training in other professors’ courses to engage in similar reflections on the pedagogical modeling they witness in their course work, would also enable us to draw stronger conclusions. References Bigelow, M. and Ranney, M. (2005) Pre-service ESL teachers’ knowledge about language and its transfer to lesson planning. In N. Bartels (ed.) Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education (pp. 179–200). New York, NY: Springer. Borg, S. (2006) Teacher Cognition and Language Education. London: Continuum. Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page. Brooke, M. (2012) Enhancing pre-service teacher training: The construction and application of a model for developing teacher reflective practice online. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 2 (4), 180–188. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Co. Farrell, T.S.C. (2012) Novice-service language teacher development: Bridging the gap between preservice and in-service education and development. TESOL Quarterly 46 (3), 435–439. Farrell, T.S.C. (2014) Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups: From Practices to Principles. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016) Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research 20 (2), 223–247. Farrell, T.S.C. (2018) Reflective practice for language teachers. In J.I. Liontas (ed.) The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. (pp. 1–6). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Habermas, J. (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann. Kagan, D.M. (1990) Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle. Reviews of Educational Research 60, 419–469. Khanjani, A., Vahdany, F. and Jafarigohar, M. (2018) Effects of journal writing on EFL teacher trainees’ reflective practice. Research in English Language Pedagogy 6 (1), 56–77. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning as the Science of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lange, D.L. (1990) A blueprint for a teacher education program. In J.C. Richards and D.  Nunan (eds) Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 245–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, I. (2007) Preparing pre-service English teachers for reflective practice. ELT Journal 61 (4), 321–329. Little, D. (2007) Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1), 14–29.

Reflecting and Connecting  101

Little, D. and Thorne, S.L. (2017) From learner autonomy to rewilding: A discussion. In M. Cappellini, T. Lewis and A.R. Mompean (eds) Learner Autonomy and Web 2.0 (pp. 12–35). Sheffield: Equinox. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2017) Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching: Research-Based Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Murphy, J.M. (2014) Reflective teaching: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton and M.A. Snow (eds) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4th edn) (pp. 613-629). Boston, MA: Heinle. Nunan, D. and Bailey, K.M. (2009) Exploring Second Language Classroom Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Boston, MA: Heinle. Ossa Parra, M., Gutiérrez, R. and Aldana, M.F. (2015) Engaging in critically reflective teaching: From theory to practice in pursuit of transformative learning. Reflective Practice 16 (1), 16–30. Radović, S., Firssova, O., Hummel, H.G. and Vermeulen, M. (2021) Improving academic performance: Strengthening the relation between theory and practice through prompted reflection. Active Learning in Higher Education 1–6. https://doi. org/10.1177/14697874211014411 Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Tarone, E. and Allwright, D. (2005) Second language teacher learning and student second language learning: Shaping the knowledge base. In D.J. Tedick (ed.) Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 5–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wilson, J. and Jan, L.W. (1993) Thinking for Themselves: Developing Strategies for Reflective Learning. Armadale, Australia: Eleanor Curtain Publishing. Zeichner, K.M. and Liston, D.P. (1987) Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review 57 (1), 23–48.

Part 3 Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

7 An Appreciative-Inquiry and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum Tammy Gregersen and Sarah Mercer

Introduction

The process of pre-service language teachers becoming educators is often marked by periods of turbulence, crises in identity, a lack of confidence and a limited sense of agency (e.g. Buchanan et al., 2013; Pietsch & Williamson, 2010; Schaefer, 2013). A defining factor during this process is the relationship with and feedback from their teacher educators and/or mentors (Ambrosetti & Dekkers, 2010; Izadinia, 2015). To ensure open and honest feedback, a relationship of trust between mentors and pre-service teachers is critical. When relationships work well, the experience with mentors and their feedback can be extremely positive, and they can serve as a valuable form of support for pre-service teachers. However, often, feedback in this context tends to remain rooted in a deficit position in which the emphasis is on what can be done by the student teacher to improve their practice, with little explicit focus on strengths or aspects of positivity. In this chapter, we introduce the notion of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) as a means of teacher reflection, which is a self-determined, strengthsbased, positive approach to professional growth and change (Hammond, 2013). Inspired by Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build theory and Seligman and Peterson’s (2004) notions of signature strengths, this study aims to show how focusing on student teacher strengths and their experiences of positivity through an AI lens during their reflective practices can help pre-service teachers to grow, be more courageous in their teaching, and feel a greater sense of agency about themselves as empowered, confident educators. In the rest of the chapter, we propose implications of AI for teacher reflection and provide suggestions for further research. 105

106  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Appreciative Inquiry and Teacher Reflection

Reflective practice refers to when individuals contemplate what they do, why they do it and how they do it (Farrell & Kennedy, 2019). This process of seeking to understand oneself and one’s practices is critical for all educators given the constantly changing dynamics of teaching experiences and learner encounters. However, in the context of teacher education, it is especially important as emergent teachers (i.e. those in their pre-service preparation) form their understandings of teaching and learning, and their identities of themselves as educators. In many contexts, such reflective practice has become mainly retrospective and is carried out predominantly as ‘reflection-as-repair’ (Freeman, 2016: 217), instead of contemplating one’s practice to increase self-awareness of potential. This ‘post-mortem reflection’ restricts self-deliberations to fixing something that is perceived as broken, rather than reflection to attain self-appreciation and discernment (Freeman, 2016: 217). AI contrasts from a deficit-based mentality as it offers an avenue toward empowerment by highlighting and celebrating teachers’ talents and potential (He, 2013). The aim of AI is to reveal existing strengths and cultivate ways to capitalize on them in the future. Using AI as a reflective lens with pre-service teachers encourages them to explore positive aspects contributing to their classroom efficacy, instead of condemning them to ruminating on what went awry or what they could do better. This approach empowers them to intentionally envision their prospective teaching practices building upon their strengths and past successes (Kaplan, 2014). Directing emergent teachers’ reflection to their strengths increases their confidence by reaffirming what they are doing well, thereby boosting their confidence and empowering them to try out a range of teaching approaches. Peers can play a vitally important role in an AI approach (Harrison & Hasan, 2013). Gosling (2014) proposed the notion of collaborative peer review, which centers on the principles of reciprocal learning, enquiry and a non-judgmental approach to feedback and reflection. As the focus in AI is on identifying strengths, a comfortable atmosphere of trust and safety emerges easily among peers who can comment openly on each other’s teaching, learning from each other and sharing feedback. In this way, AI’s strengths-based approach offers a framework which not only benefits the reviewee but also provides a lens and perspective of growth for the reviewer (Lomas & Nicholls, 2005). Including a collaborative peer review element in an AI approach maximizes the potential for all the peers to recognize and understand what constitutes effective teaching and the potential for individuality. Farrell (2011: 6) draws attention to the importance of recognizing that, ‘peer review will only work well if colleagues respectfully acknowledge that there are diverse approaches to teaching, with the reviewer helping to promote critical reflection and strategies to

An AI and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum  107

address any areas for improvement’. This highlights the need for flexibility and open-mindedness about the potential diversity in what classifies as ‘good’ or ‘effective’ teaching. The reflection triggered in an AI context encourages teachers to contemplate the teaching style that works best for them and offers a safe space to think about this from a position of strength, with teaching models as goals to strive toward, rather than problem scenarios to move away from. An additional dimension to the collaborative peer review utilized in this study involves an approach to pairing peers together based on the strengths of each peer as mentoring is more likely to be successful in situations where they connect both personally and professionally (Abell et al., 1995). Indeed, similarity between trusted mentoring peers has been shown to predict the success of the relationship (Eby et al., 2013; Ensher & Murphy, 1997). For these reasons, the current research project carefully paired peers based on character signature strengths. Seligman (2002) describes signature strengths as the defining characteristics of a person that one owns, celebrates and displays frequently. The Virtues In Action (VIA) taxonomy of strengths developed by Park et al. (2004) describes six pervasive and esteemed virtues, all of which are shared by the main religions and cultural traditions of the world: wisdom, courage, love, justice, temperance and spirituality. Organized under the umbrella of these six broad virtues are 24 discrete strengths including appreciating beauty, bravery, creativity, curiosity, fairness, gratitude, humor, kindness, learning, love, perspective, spirituality, teamwork and zest (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The participants in our study took the online assessment tool, the VIA Inventory of Strengths, developed by Peterson and Park (2006) to identify their defining signature strengths, and peers were paired together according to the compatibility of their shared strengths. This approach has previously been utilized successfully by Gregersen and MacIntyre (2018), who worked with shared signature strengths to successfully pair emergent teachers with experienced teachers based upon the strengths they had in common. The focus of their project was to gauge emergent teachers’ reactions to the advice provided by experienced mentors. The emergent teachers consistently stated that the advice they received was supportive, that they felt that their resiliency and coping skills had improved, and they persevered more in pursuit of their teachingrelated goals. The shared values and mutual compatibility of perspectives on teaching aided the formation of a relationship characterized by harmony and trust, which facilitated an honest and respectful exchange. Arguably, perhaps no connection has more potential for transforming teachers than that between an experienced and an emergent teacher (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2018). Mentoring is defined as: Creating an enduring and meaningful relationship with another person, with the focus on the quality of that relationship including factors such

108  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

as mutual respect, willingness to learn from each other, or the use of interpersonal skills. Mentoring is distinguishable from other retention activities because of the emphasis on learning in general and mutual learning in particular. (Salinitri, 2005: 858)

Mentors are able to promote reflective practices through their supportive, positive partnership in which both mentors and pre-service teachers jointly and independently reflect on their practice, reconsidering the ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ of their teaching (Schön, 1983, 1987). This collaboration between the mentor and mentee engenders new emergent professional knowledge for both parties (Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Malderez & Wedell, 2007; Richards, 2008; Smith, 2001; Wright, 2010). In an AI approach to mentoring, the role and relationship between mentor and pre-service teacher reflects more closely the notion of ‘critical friendship’ as elucidated by Farrell (2001) as opposed to the kind of ‘judgementoring’ cautioned against by Hobson and Malderez (2013). In our approach, the mentor is not seen as aiding a less able colleague but together with the involvement of the trusted peer forms a member of a ‘feedback team’ offering support and critical reflection using a strengths-based perspective. The ‘feedback team’ consists of mentor, peer and student teacher. Together they collaboratively engage in a form of reflective inquiry, with a shared curiosity to learn more together about teaching practices and envisioning a positive scenario of teaching practice. In this more democratic form of mentoring relationship, the feedback team also sustains the emotional and cognitive development of the emergent teacher’s evolving professional identity (Malderez & Bodoczky, 1999). Such emotional and psychological support is a critical feature of effective mentoring processes and can help strengthen the pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy as well as boosting their morale and job satisfaction (Ager & Wyatt, 2019; Bullough, 2005; Johnson et al., 2005; Lindgren, 2005; Marable & Raimondi, 2007). One particularly effective dimension to this type of mentoring is the inclusion of self-directed feedback options for emergent teachers to explicitly guide, select and visualize their areas of feedback. Instead of a blanket, generalized or mentor-determined perspective on areas of feedback, the approach taken in this study ensured that the pre-service teachers chose themselves the areas on which they wished to concentrate and receive feedback. This autonomy and ability to self-direct the content and attentional focus of the reflection and feedback processes can enhance the individual’s motivation, self-efficacy and sense of agency as well as receptiveness to the feedback itself (Ager & Wyatt, 2019). In sum, in this study, we report on an approach to pre-service teacher reflection which involved an AI approach including collaborative peer review, mentors as part of a ‘feedback team’, and a self-directed feedback agenda within a strengths-based perspective. In this chapter, we report on a case study which describes the experiences of two emergent teachers

An AI and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum  109

within such an approach to reflection and feedback during the teaching of a demonstration lesson. We explore the nature of the positive feedback they provided and received. We seek to understand to what extent AI reflection and feedback can help pre-service teachers to grow, be courageous in their teaching and feel a greater sense of agency about themselves as empowered, confident educators. An Empirical Study Method

This qualitative case study examined the AI feedback and reflections of two trusted peers (and their mentor, who is the lead author of the study) during their teaching simulation experiences in a pre-service teacher methods course that was a requirement in the Master of Arts in the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) program at a small private international university in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The two trusted peers were chosen from a larger sample of 15 students, all of whom provided informed consent, and were also in the same class. Given the limitations of space in this chapter, it was decided to focus in detail on two cases in order to illustrate more fully the characteristics of the approach taken and the experience from the pre-service teacher perspective. This particular pair, who are identified with pseudonyms in our discussion, was selected for this chapter because of the thorough, comprehensive responses they provided throughout the process. In essence, our AI approach includes five additional adaptations that fit epistemologically with the frame but which we found made a vital contribution to its success: (1) The incorporation of collaborative peer reviews; (2) the construction of a ‘feedback team’ including a trusted peer and mentor; (3) the pairing of student teachers based on their character strengths; (4) the use of a framework of competences to guide and focus feedback; and (5) the inclusion of a self-directed element. The first case study participant, Emily, is a 28-year-old female from the US with an undergraduate degree in Elementary Education from a US institution. She had four years of teaching experience in the US before entering the Masters’ program in the UAE. The second case study participant, Anne, is a 27-year-old female of Indian heritage who has spent her entire life in the UAE where she also had received her degree in Mass Communications. She had approximately one year of teaching experience in the UAE before entering the program. English is the first language of both participants. This study implemented a four-phase cycle of reflection centering on strengths and positivity inspired by AI. It is important to note the study took place 100% online due to Covid restrictions. Prior to the first phase of reflection, all 15 students in the MA TESOL graduate Methods class

110  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

took the VIA Survey online to discover their top five strengths. The mentor subsequently paired students by matching their top strengths. In this case, Emily and Anne were paired as trusted peers based on their shared strengths of leadership, honesty and bravery. At the beginning of the AI experience, Emily and Anne were each asked individually to choose a specific teaching method from the course textbook (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013) to prepare a lesson plan and simulate it using the class as ‘learners’. Emily chose to simulate a lesson using Total Physical Response to teach Indonesian Bahasa to beginning learners, and Anne elected to simulate a class using Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to teach Hindi, also to beginning learners. Stage 1: After providing a workshop on the principles and advantages of AI, the mentor, who was also the instructor for the Methods class, asked each class member to identify three areas they would like to receive feedback from a total of 22 competences from the ‘AI Observation list’. This important stage gave the student teacher control over the feedback process. The mentor distributed the ‘AI Observation list’ which was adapted from the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) (Newby, 2007). EPOSTL is a document for students in initial teacher education that serves as a reflection tool to encourage student teachers to reflect on their pedagogical knowledge and skills under a variety of competences. The adaptation of the EPOSTL included an average of seven ‘Teacher can…’ statements under each of the 22 sections that provided behavioral, observable examples of best practices. Having such a structure was important to ensure constructive, focused feedback and reflection, while maintaining the option for any additional points which may have emerged during the reflective discussions. Stage 2: Emily and Anne submitted a lesson plan prior to their class simulation to the mentor and to each other. In a synchronous online class, they carried out an hour-long foreign language lesson with the goal of maintaining the ‘purity’ of the given method. Emily and Anne acted as trusted peers, observing and taking careful notes on the competences preselected by the other from the ‘AI Observation List’. The mentor did the same. The essential guiding principle was that the observations from both parties must focus only on the positive aspects of the participant’s teaching giving structured feedback on the self-selected competences. Within three days of each participant’s simulation, the trusted peer and mentor provided the participant with their feedback. The trusted peer used the items on the ‘AI Observation List’ to guide their response, whereas the mentor drew on the framework but wrote a highly personal letter to each participant showcasing areas of strength and positivity. Stage 3: Next, in a co-constructive, supportive process, the mentor and the pair of trusted peers collectively reflected on what went well and why they thought this was the case. They ideated together on how the

An AI and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum  111

signature strengths and positive experiences from their simulations could be further built upon in the future. This stage was important in not only reflecting on the current experience but also extending this reflection forward prospectively to future contexts. Stage 4: As a final step, each of the participants wrote a personal written reflection on the feedback discussions, their teaching experience and concrete action steps for future growth building on their strengths. This stage was valuable in allowing an individual element to the process which had been largely collaborative so the emergent teachers could reflect in ways that were personally meaningful and potentially unique. Our qualitative analysis focused on the four stages of AI using the data sets of one pair of trusted peers and the mentor. Each AI stage produced a separate set of narrative data that was then coded according to the purpose of each phase in the process. This included (1) the choices the trusted peers made concerning the teaching competences on which they wanted feedback; (2) the AI feedback provided by the trusted peers and by the professor-mentor; (3) the collaborative ideation concerning how signature strengths might be used in the future; and (4) the reflections provided by the participants at the end of the procedures. Findings Stage 1 of AI

In Stage 1 of AI, participants identified areas on which they would like to have feedback. Both Anne and Emily chose the skills of ‘teaching speaking’ and ‘lesson content’, while for the third skill, Anne chose ‘interaction with learners’ and Emily selected ‘teaching vocabulary’. Stage 2 of AI

The coding of the feedback exchange (from Anne to Emily; from Emily to Anne and from the professor-mentor to both – a corpus of 2126 words) resulted in the data clustering around two main themes: teacher disposition and pedagogical choices/behavior. Teacher Dispositions. First, the AI feedback provided to Anne in terms of her teacher dispositions invariably highlighted the ways in which she was able to engage learners. Emily commented to Anne on the notion that her lesson engaged ‘a cultural element that ignited excitement for the language learner’ and that the material presented was ‘challenging enough to help us grow, but also simple enough that learners could be confident in responding’. Emily suggested that ‘the breakout groups were a phenomenal way to increase engagement’ and that ‘we [the learners] had a newfound confidence to hold a conversation’. Emily continued, ‘Students felt less intimidated because of the way you had them take on silly roles’, and that Anne was able to encourage participation ‘even for the nervous learners’. Emily concluded her AI feedback with the following:

112  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

As you interacted with learners, you were positive and encouraging. You cultivated a safe place for students to make mistakes, while correcting when necessary for comprehension (as the method suggests). The various activities made learning possible for all styles of learners and because of the sequencing of various activities, there was hardly a moment to lose focus or daydream.

The feedback provided by the mentor maintained the same positive tenor toward Anne’s teacher dispositions. She commended her ability to maintain a ‘supportive atmosphere that invited learners to take part in your speaking activities through your cheerful, positive voice and asking for volunteers rather than calling people out’. The mentor, like the trusted peer, celebrated Anne’s ability to encourage interaction and participation which provided learners with the psychological space ‘to make guesses and feel free to be wrong – essentially having the chance to express their opinions’. In Anne’s AI feedback to Emily about teacher dispositions, her responses also focused on Erica’s ability to ‘create a supportive environment for her students’, which in turn made them all feel very comfortable. Anne approved of Emily’s ‘constant positive reinforcement’ and mentioned that ‘even though it was being relayed in another language, it still had the same effect’. The trust peer applauded Emily’s penchant for assessing how well the learners understood simply via observation. Anne commented: Throughout the lesson, [Emily] kept using positive encouraging words in the target language which in turn helped students learn that much more of the language. The way that [Emily] said the words in terms of tone and voice modulation, really helped keep the class fun, interesting, engaging and effective…Her positive reinforcement was a constant propeller in this lesson and really helped lower the affective filter and eliminated any inhibitions anyone might have.

The feedback also addressed Emily’s preparation and attentiveness to her supportive error correction techniques: ‘Sometimes when students got confused with the commands, her way of error correction was very student led and empowering’. The mentor’s feedback to Emily was as positive as that of the trusted peer and addressed the notion of student engagement: ‘In terms of your interaction with learners, you had everyone engaged from the moment you began and they hung with you until the very end. I did not see even one small instance of learners’ attention straying from your lesson’. The mentor also commented on how the emergent teacher provided feedback to her learners: ‘Your responsiveness and reactions were 100% supportive and encouraging, and when a learner did make an error, you so sensitively corrected it that it seemed as if it was just one more part of the instruction.

An AI and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum  113

No one was shamed or seemed even the least bit intimidated by the lesson or your correction’. Pedagogical choices/behaviors. The second theme around which feedback providers’ responses clustered was pedagogical choices/behavior. Beginning with Emily’s feedback to Anne, she focused on the effectiveness of providing background information so that learners could ‘make connections, as well as activate schema’. This was followed by praise of Anne’s sequencing: ‘As you began your presentation, you started with small basic vocabulary. You immediately formatively assessed our understanding of these words by asking us questions using pictures’. The trusted peer further celebrated the re-cycling of information: ‘I loved the way you had us practice the word by listening to the song. Variations of practice ingrained the word in our minds, as well as helped learners to hear the word in a musical context’. Emily ended her AI feedback with these celebratory comments: Your lesson was full of a variety of activities that stimulated speaking, as well as some that presented the language in creative ways, including role play and unscrambling of sentences, as well as music and word searches. Although there was a vast variety, there was a clear sequence and easy flow from activity to activity. This is testament to excellent, intentional planning.

The mentor’s feedback also praised Anne for the sequencing of her lesson and for her effective time management which moved learners from simple to more complex syntax and made sure they had scaffolding when necessary. The AI feedback also celebrated the varied, balanced activities that permitted learners to ‘work on different skills and competencies (i.e. listening to music for the same vocabulary that they were learning to speak), which also ensured the interdependence of listening and speaking’. Anne commented that Emily ‘offered a lot of examples, repetition, and displayed a great deal of patience and reassurance’. Anne commented that, ‘the vocabulary chosen was simple and consisted mostly of verbs’ which in her opinion was an excellent selection ‘due to the fact that acting it out was easy’. Because the lesson was structured and used solely the target language, Anne noticed that ‘not once did she switch to English, and yet she managed to cause NO confusion, and she kept the class going’. The trusted peer was impressed with the organization of the lesson and the absence of ‘chaos’. Anne extoled the virtues of a lesson plan that was flexible yet structured with effective pacing. Finally, the mentor focused her AI feedback on Emily’s pedagogical choices surrounding sequencing by saying, ‘You used a variety of activities to present and practice vocabulary and carefully sequenced the lesson contents. You began with asking for volunteers who functioned as models

114  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

for the rest’. She also commented on her observational skills and use of sensitive scaffolding, ‘You changed up the order and made different combinations to ascertain that they knew the words rather than a specific routine. You slowly removed the scaffolding of your joining in and allowed them to work it out on their own. Then, once you were assured that everyone had it down, only then did you ask individuals to go out on a limb and physically act out the vocabulary alone’. In sum, it is possible to see from these data extracts how feedback was focused and constructive with clear areas of strength and skills to be expanded upon. Stage 3 of AI

In this stage, the trusted peers collectively ideated on how their shared VIA strengths of leadership, honesty and bravery as well as their positive experiences with AI can be further built upon in the future. They came to the conclusion that their leadership strengths could be used to delegate tasks and set clear goals with plans for meeting them. Anne commented: This leadership quality of planning new and innovative activities for students, even if it requires extra planning….will certainly provide for an engaging classroom. Not only will the students look up to you, but I can see other teachers in your cohort asking for workshops and presentations on all of the fun tools you will be able to share in a professional learning community!

They also discussed how leaders must guide by example, making learning environments safe and comfortable, which also will mean understanding that students may have different learning skills and, through strong leadership, make arrangements for that. Lastly, the trusted peers alluded to the fact that their strength as leaders will allow them to provide clear direction for task completion and planning. Regarding their shared strength of honesty, the trusted peers turned their attention to error correction and the ways in which their honesty can be utilized to provide frank and constructive feedback couched in positive encouragement. They also encouraged one another to use their honesty to be ‘genuine’ in the classroom and to provide every learner with a voice that as teachers, they will listen to. One trusted peer said to the other: ‘I believe that this quality [honesty] will help you to nurture true, authentic friendships with your students, their families, and the teachers you work with. I would certainly love to have you on my team!’ Finally, in terms of their shared strength of bravery, they came to the conclusion that it will provide them with the option of choosing to work outside their comfort zones and that this ‘sense of “psychological bravery”’ would allow them to move ‘toward something challenging rather than away from it’ and enable them to walk ‘the more challenging path’.

An AI and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum  115

One trusted peer said to the other: ‘I can see how there will be many times where you will need to speak up with confidence, with students and with administration, as you advocate for what you believe is right’. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

In the fourth stage of AI, Emily and Anne wrote personal reflections on the feedback, their teaching experiences and concrete action steps for future growth building on their strengths. Analyzing these reflections provides valuable insights about possible practical implications for AI-based teacher reflection. The first implication that emerged was the positive role that the element of choice played for the emergent teachers. Both Emily and Anne elected to have feedback provided on interacting with learners. Anne said, for example, that she ‘felt that the points that were focused on in the feedback were aspects I really focused on achieving’. For both emergent teachers, interaction was obviously a central part of their teaching philosophies, so receiving feedback on what they deemed as important made the feedback much more meaningful. The second significant implication concerns the elements of positivity, empowerment and confidence that the AI process instills in its participants. Emily articulated this clearly in her reflection on the process: As one who is motivated by encouragement, the AI process almost brought me to tears. It makes so much sense that an observation followed by kudos rather than criticism would boost the confidence of a teacherwhy wouldn’t this be common practice? It was also really cool to receive [Anne’s] feedback and provide feedback for her strengths. While observing her lesson, I saw how beneficial it could be to consider another teacher’s strengths and learn from them. The AI process is an empowering way to transform the typically nerve-wracking observation into a growth experience that the teacher can look forward to experiencing.

The ability to see strengths in themselves and others provided a sense of agency and confidence as well as an impetus for them to consider the implications of an AI approach for their own teaching and feedback processes in the future. This move away from focusing on deficits and problems but looking instead to strengths and potential amplified the positive experience including the socio-affective dimension of the process which is so critical to effective mentoring. The third implication concerns the formation of a ‘feedback team’ in which the mentor plays a collaborative role together with a trusted peer. This supportive team opened up collective learning grounded in the authentic, trusted relationship that had been formed among all the parties. This democratizing of the relationships of feedback was empowering for both the peer and the student teacher as well as being enlightening and

116  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

rewarding for the mentor. It strengthened the sense of collective identity and feeling of belonging among the ‘team’ that in turn boosted their motivation and confidence as equal respected partners. A final implication of the approach was a celebration of a pluralistic view of teacher competences. Appreciating strengths inherently implies a respect for diversity. The pre-service teachers were able to observe assorted strengths and celebrate individual authenticity, rather than having to adhere to a pre-determined set of top-down prescriptive guidelines of a mentor or institution-imposed framework of supposed ‘good teaching’. Instead, these pre-service teachers witnessed positivity in all their peers’ teaching, no matter how varied their strengths, style and focus were. Although in this case study, we concentrate on two teachers who shared strengths, these strengths varied considerably across the group as a whole. As such, these pre-service teachers became aware not of conformity, but of uniqueness of strengths and competences, understanding in a deep, experiential way that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to good teaching. Finally, in the context of this edited collection, the pre-service teachers saw that reflection can be about strength, not weakness. They understood that critical thinking does not inherently mean feedback on failures and fault, but rather it refers to thoughtful and considerate understandings about potential. From an AI perspective, they experienced reflection as a collaborative, shared process of supportive, co-constructed understandings with a focus on growth and strength. In addition, given the structured framework to guide their AI processes of reflection and feedback, they also witnessed this as a coherent, constructive and focused form of positive feedback, avoiding the pitfalls of unfocused, generalized, vague reflection without clear aims. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

This qualitative case study implemented a four-stage cycle of reflection centering on strengths and positivity inspired by AI. It demonstrated that focusing on pre-service teacher strengths and their experiences of positivity during their practicum can help them to grow, be more courageous in their teaching and feel a greater sense of agency about themselves as empowered, confident educators. As a process of reflection, we found the focus on strengths, rather than deficits, enabled an atmosphere of growth and potential, rather than one of weakness and repair. Importantly, we combined the AI approach with five additional adaptations that fit epistemologically with the frame but which we found made a vital contribution to its success. Together, these elements in the reflective process framed within the positivity of an AI lens generated a culture of acceptance, respect and support which enhanced the student teachers’ teacher identities and agency as well as their sense of belonging and psychological

An AI and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum  117

safety within the group. Given the importance of a climate of socio-­ affective support and trust which is so vital to effective mentorship, ­reflection, and feedback, we consider these adaptations to have played a critical role in the success of this project. In this chapter, we have only been able to report in depth on a single case study of one pair of student teachers from the entire data set. Our aim has been to illustrate the process we followed comprehensively to enable others to explore this approach in their own contexts. This particular group of pre-service teachers were exceptionally culturally diverse and their absolute embracing of this approach, no matter their background, suggests that this approach could have wide appeal. However, future research will be needed to examine this approach to reflection and feedback within a range of contexts and across linguistic and cultural settings. In addition, more research would be needed longitudinally to understand how experiencing a teacher education program defined by an AI approach may affect teachers’ confidence, agency, and teaching practices as well as retention in the profession. Developing a focus on strengths could form a long-term habit with far-reaching positive consequences throughout their careers. References Abell, S.K., Dillon, D.R., Hopkins, C.J., McInerney, W.D. and O’Brien, D.G. (1995) ‘Somebody to count on’: Mentor/intern relationships in a beginning teacher internship program. Teaching and Teacher Education 11 (2), 173–188. Ager, E.O. and Wyatt, M. (2019) Supporting a pre-service English language teacher’s selfdetermined development. Teaching and Teacher Education 78, 106–116. Ambrosetti, A. and Dekkers, J. (2010) The interconnectedness of the roles of mentors and mentees in pre-service teacher education mentoring relationships. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35 (6), 42–55. Buchanan, J., Prescott, A., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burke, P. and Louviere, J. (2013) Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 38 (3), 112–129. Bullough, R.V. (2005) Being and becoming a mentor: School-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2), 143–155. Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Hoffman, B.J., Baranik, L.E., Sauer, J.B. and Baldwin, S. (2013) An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin 139, 441–476. Ensher, E.A. and Murphy, S.E. (1997) Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior 50 (3), 460–481. Farrell, T. (2001) Critical friendships: Colleagues helping each other develop. ELT Journal 55 (4), 368–374. Farrell, K. (2011) Collegial Feedback on Teaching: A Guide to Peer Review. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Fredrickson, B.L. (2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56 (3), 218–226. Freeman, D. (2016) Educating Second Language Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

118  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Freeman, D. and Johnson, K. (1998) Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 32 (3), 397–417. Gosling, D. (2014) Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. In J. Sachs and M. Parsell (eds) Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 13–31). New York, NY: Springer Gregersen, T. and MacIntyre, P.D. (2018) Signature strengths as a gateway to mentoring: Facilitating emergent teachers’ transition into language teaching. In S. Mercer and A. Kostoulas (eds) Language Teacher Psychology (pp. 264–290). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hammond, S.A. (2013) The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishing. Harrison, L.M. and Hasan, S. (2013) Appreciative inquiry in teaching and learning. New Directions for Student Services 2013 (143), 65–75. He, Y. (2013) Developing teachers’ cultural competence: Application of appreciative inquiry in ESL teacher education, Teacher Development 17 (1), 55–71. Hobson, A.J. and Malderez, A. (2013) Judgementoring and other threats to realizing the potential of school-based mentoring in teacher education, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 2 (2), 89–108. Izadinia, M. (2015) A closer look at the role of mentor teachers in shaping preservice teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 52, 1–10. Johnson, S., Berg, J. and Donaldson, M. (2005) Who Stays in Teaching and Why: A Review of the Literature on Teacher Retention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Kaplan, C.S. (2014) An appreciative inquiry approach to reflecting on teaching. The Language Educator 9, 44–47. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M. (2013) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindgren, U. (2005) Experiences of beginning teachers in a school-based mentoring programme Sweden. Educational Studies 31 (3), 251–263. Lomas, L. and Nicholls, G. (2005) Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in Higher Education 11 (2), 137–149. Malderez, A. and Bódoczky, C. (1999) Mentor Courses: A Resource Book for Trainer Trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malderez, A. and Wedell, M. (2007) Teaching Teachers: Processes and Practices. London: Continuum International Publishing. Marable, M. and Raimondi, S. (2007) Teachers’ perceptions of what was most (and least) supportive during their first year of teaching. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 15 (1), 25–37. Newby, D. (2007) EPOSTL – A Reflection Tool for Language Teacher Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Park, N., Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004) Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23 (5), 603–619. Peterson, C. and Park, N. (2006) Character strengths in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 27 (8), 1149–1154. Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004) Character Strengths and Virtues: A Classification and Handbook. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pietsch, M. and Williamson, J. (2010) Getting the pieces together: Negotiating the transition from pre-service to in-service teacher. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 38 (4), 331–344. Richards, J.C. (2008) Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal 39 (2), 158–177.

An AI and Strengths-Based Approach to Pre-Service Teacher Reflection During the Practicum  119

Salinitri, G. (2005) The effects of formal mentoring on the retention rates for first-year, low achieving students. Canadian Journal of Education 28 (3), 853–873. Schaefer, L. (2013) Beginning teacher attrition: A question of identity making and identity shifting. Teachers and Teaching 19 (3), 260–274. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Seligman, M.E.P. (2002) Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. New York, NY: Free Press. Smith, J. (2001) Modeling the social construction of knowledge in ELT teacher education. ELT Journal 55 (3), 221–227. Wright, T. (2010) Second language teacher education: Review on recent research on practice. Language Teaching 43 (3), 259–296.

8 Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges Michael Karas, Juliane Martini and Farahnaz Faez

Introduction

Reflective practice remains an important professional tool for all (English) language teachers. While it can be an ill-defined term and the authenticity of reflection is certainly worth questioning in some circumstances (Mackenzie, 2019), few would argue against language teachers reflecting on their practice (Farrell, 2015). Reflective practice plays an important role in helping teachers understand teaching and enhancing performance (Mann & Walsh, 2017). However, reflection is not simple. It requires extensive effort and engagement in order to move beyond mere ‘passing thoughts’ about one’s teaching (Farrell, 2015). Language Teacher Education (LTE) programs play a key role in this as they can help teachers learn how to reflect on their practices and plant seeds for future reflection as teachers progress throughout their careers. Thus, as part of LTE ­programs/courses, it is important to introduce teachers to various ways they can reflect on their practice. This chapter looks at teachers in an MA TESOL program in Ontario, Canada, and how they utilize duoethnography as a reflective practice tool. Duoethnography is a dialogic reflective practice method where two or more people interact with each other and critically analyze phenomena important to them (Sawyer & Norris, 2013). It is an emerging research methodology and a reflective practice tool in English language teaching (ELT) that allows participants to be the sites of their own inquiries (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). How duoethnography can be utilized as a tool for reflection and its triumphs and challenges, specifically in an LTE course/program, remains somewhat unclear. This chapter partially addresses this gap and explores duoethnography as a reflective practice tool with international teachers in an MA TESOL program in Canada. 120

Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges  121

Duoethnography and Teacher Reflection

Duoethnography encourages open-mindedness and embraces a poststructuralist lens that seeks to challenge societal and professional norms (Lowe & Lawrence, 2020). Key to duoethnography is the concept of currere, a term coined by William Pinar, which frames duoethnography as ‘lived curriculum’ (2020: 15) where the dialogical process is central to reconceptualizing current understandings (Sawyer & Norris, 2013). Dialogue and interaction are at the heart of duoethnography, and participants generate new meanings through their conversations. Duoethnographers become the sites of their own inquiries and investigate their own life histories to see how their personal experiences may have influenced them in the present (Lowe & Lawrence, 2020). Part of this is drawing on ‘currere’s emphasis on learning to read self as text – as fluid, recursive, and multilayered within a cultural context’ (Sawyer & Norris, 2013: 15). Reflection-on-action and reflection-for-action are the focus of duoethnography as duoethnographers reflect on their previous experiences as a way to inform future practice (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). However, because it is a polyvocal methodology, duoethnography breaks away from more isolating reflective practice measures and adds a new voice and perspective into the ‘normally closed world of self-study’ (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020: 14). This inclusion of alternative perspectives, while at times perhaps more complicated, enhances duoethnography as a reflective tool as users can investigate issues in their own contexts with a critical partner who is more distant to the situation (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). While still emerging as a methodology and tool for reflective practice, various duoethnographies have been completed in ELT and applied linguistics. Authors have focused on topics such as native speakerism (Lowe & Kickowiak, 2016), plurilingual graduate student writing (Corcoran et al., 2018), native speakerism and ‘hidden curricula’ in ELT training (Lowe & Lawrence, 2018) and a host of other topics. More often used as a research method, duoethnography as a tool for language teacher reflection is somewhat more recent (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). Lowe and Lawrence’s (2020) edited volume includes three duoethnographies that look at duoethnography for language teacher reflection. First, Smart and Cook (2020) enacted a duoethnography between an experienced and novice teacher. Their duoethnography helped provide a more equal platform between mentor and mentee and was helpful for the experienced practitioner to deeply reflect on the issues that had not been considered for a long time, and for the novice teacher, encouraged him to engage with reflective practice as his career progresses (Smart & Cook, 2020). Kasparek and Turner (2020) conducted a reflective duoethnography on special education needs in EFL teacher development. They reflected on their life experiences and how their perceptions about special education needs had been influenced. Sharing the experience of tutoring a special

122  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

needs learner, the duoethnography helped them reframe their perceptions of, and experiences with, special needs education as ‘puzzles that inspired our curiosity and exploration’ (2020: 130). Finally, Schaefer and Brereton (2020) enacted a duoethnography on their perceptions of reflective practice, their roles as teacher trainers in encouraging reflective practice, and the impact of reflection and teacher training on their identities as teacher trainers. These three chapters offer an initial glimpse into duoethnography as a reflective tool for language teaching professionals. As a method for reflective practice, duoethnography should be used to find ‘practical solutions to concrete, local issues’ (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020: 17), allowing teachers to focus on issues of importance to them. To enact a duoethnography, generally, two or more people must critically engage in dialogue about their chosen topic, record these dialogues in some way, analyze the data and then write it up (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). However, there is great flexibility in how this is done, and these stages are not necessarily conducted in a linear fashion (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). Duoethnographers can have traditional face-to-face dialogues, or they can enact their dialogues online using both oral and/or written tools (e.g. Zoom, Google Docs, etc.) (Huang & Karas, 2020). Furthermore, duoethnographers are encouraged to use various artifacts that are of importance to their inquiry (Sawyer & Norris, 2013). These can include pictures, academic literature and even online digital artifacts depending on the investigation (Huang & Karas, 2020; Sawyer & Norris, 2013). As these interactions, both with fellow duoethnographers and artifacts, are occurring, recordings of dialogues can serve as further artifacts for reflection and data can be simultaneously analyzed and collected; this blending of phases can even continue into the writing up stage as new insights can be gleaned as the duoethnography is being written (Lawrence & Nagashima, 2020). Final written duoethnographies can be presented in many ways, but a common method is to embrace the dialogic nature of duoethnography and use recreated dialogues that represent the findings of the investigation (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). Many of the duo/trioethnographies submitted as data for this study reflected the flexible nature of duoethnography as a tool for teacher reflection. Duoethnography is gaining popularity as a reflective tool (and a research methodology), and hence teachers’ perceptions of its triumphs and challenges can shed light on ways it can be used in LTE programs to enhance reflection. In what follows, we present a case study of duoethnography use to enhance reflection in an MA TESOL program. An Empirical Study

This study addressed the following research questions: (1) When using duoethnography, what topics do teachers reflect on? (2) What are teachers’ perceptions about duoethnography as a tool for reflective practice?

Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges  123

(3) What are teachers’ challenges completing a duoethnography? Data were drawn from teachers in an MA TESOL program at a university in Ontario, Canada. Participants (N = 162) were mostly from China, along with a small number from Iran, Japan and Korea. For the most part, teachers were inexperienced and had little to no formal teaching experience; however, a select number of participants were experienced teachers. Because of this, we refer to them as ‘teachers’ throughout the chapter but with the acknowledgment that many would be considered ‘pre-service teachers’ in other contexts. For one of their final courses, participants needed to complete a duoethnography as an assignment. The course focused on issues related to LTE, and reflective practice was a key component. Students were guided to select a topic of their choice that they could critically examine through the lens of their own experiences. They were given examples of published duoethnographies (e.g. Lowe & Kiczkowiak, 2016; Rose & Montakantiwong, 2018) and were also encouraged to read Norris (2008) and Sawyer and Norris (2013) for further methodological information on duoethnography. After completing the assignment, teachers were asked to reflect on duoethnography as a tool for reflective practice and their challenges completing the assignment. Data for this study are drawn from the assignments and their responses to the reflective questions. For Research Question 1, data analysis consisted of noting the topics and grouping them together. For Research Questions 2 and 3, data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) notion of theoretical thematic analysis, we extracted themes based on our theoretical and analytical interest in reflective practice. This means that our thematic analysis was explicitly carried out in relation to our research questions and was somewhat researcher driven. In total, there were 75 duoethnographies and 4 trioethnographies for a total of 79 teacher duo/trioethnographies. Dialogue is key to any duoethnography, and as part of the assignment, teachers were asked to record their dialogues in some way. However, teachers were allowed to complete their dialogues/interactions using the modality they preferred, and they were encouraged to use meaningful physical and/or digital artifacts. Most participants used Wechat (51), the popular Chinese mobile application, for their dialogues, using a combination of voice/video conversations and texting. For most groups, this was accompanied by Google Docs (49) where they organized information and added reflections/reactions to their dialogues. Only 10 groups actually had face-to-face conversations, but this was likely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic that made in-person interactions difficult. Other tools were used sparingly by a minority of groups, for example, Facebook Messenger (2) and Zoom (15). While participants were encouraged to incorporate artifacts into their projects, academic literature was the only physical/digital artifact used by groups, with

124  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

the exception of four groups who explicitly noted the use of YouTube videos. Thus, for most groups, dialogues and academic literature served as the main data for teachers’ inquiries. Findings

The first research question sought to determine what topics teachers chose to reflect on. As mentioned, teachers were encouraged to reflect on a topic of interest to them, as long as it was related to teaching/learning languages. Table 8.1 shows the different topics from different groups. The two most common topics included first language (L1) use in the second language (L2) classroom and reflections on teachers’ study abroad experiences. Twelve groups focused on their own experiences learning English, and another 12 groups focused on assorted teaching issues of importance to them. These teaching issues included how to teach pronunciation, online teaching/learning, teacher/student-centered pedagogy, novice teacher issues and other specific topics of interest to certain teachers. Next, eight groups focused on the adaptation of communicative language teaching (CLT) for different contexts and another eight groups focused on native English-speaking teachers/non-native English-speaking teachers (NEST/NNEST) issues (e.g. NNEST identity, challenges faced by NNESTs, etc.). Four groups looked at the topic of motivation in language learning while three groups discussed the commercialization of ELT across various contexts. Finally, one group focused on culture shock as a phenomenon (not related to their own study abroad experience), while another group looked at autonomous learning. Research Question 2 investigated teacher perceptions about duoethnography as a reflective tool. The vast majority of teachers in this study saw duoethnography as an effective reflective tool in LTE. For them, the Table 8.1  Duo/trioethnography topics Duo/Trioethnography topics

Number of groups

L1 use in L2 classrooms

15

Study abroad experience

15

English Learning Experiences

12

Assorted teaching issues

12

Adaptation of CLT for different contexts

8

NEST/NNEST issues

8

Motivation and language learning

4

Commercialization of ELT

3

Culture shock

1

Autonomous learning

1

Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges  125

Figure 8.1  Themes for duoethnography as an effective reflective tool

dialogic element of duoethnography presented a pedagogical component that allowed teachers to reflect beyond their own perspectives (Norris, 2008). Dialogue and writing, two methodological components of duoethnography, have been recently identified as the most common tools teachers use to facilitate reflection (Farrell, 2019). The first provides a supportive environment and sense of community that teachers can rely on when reflecting on their professional practice. The latter allows teachers to step back, organize their thoughts and become more aware of their own practice. Three main themes were extracted from teachers’ answers to the reflective questions: (1) the advantages of approaching an issue from multiple perspectives; (2) the potential of using duoethnography as a tool for (deep) reflection; and (3) the means to change meanings and co-construct knowledge. These three themes explain why teachers see duoethnography as a promising tool for reflection. Although there is no hierarchical relation to the order that these themes are presented here, it is important to notice that they are interconnected. Figure 8.1 shows the themes that teachers used to explain the effectiveness of duoethnography and their connection with each other. Quotes are verbatim to reflect the true voices of teachers and may include grammatical errors. Theme 1: Multiple perspectives

The advantages of exploring multiple voices in a dialogue was a recurring theme for teachers in their reflections. As Norris (2008) suggests,

126  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

teachers in this study also believe that exploring their histories from different perspectives has positively affected their understanding of personal experiences. For instance, many participants described that they went through a process of learning how to listen to others. In this process, listening to different or unexpected perspectives provided them with a valuable learning tool for professional development. ‘I have learned to see things from multiple perspectives by exchanging ideas and opinions with my partner’, noted one participant and echoed by others. While seeing different perspectives as an important outcome in their assignments, teachers also recognized the importance of their peers in the learning process. Peers can play a supportive and motivational role when they collaborate with each other. One teacher noted, ‘I learned that every teacher has a different perspective on teaching and realized the importance of exchanging experiences between teachers’. In addition, peers allowed each other to negotiate meaning and come to terms with opposite opinions. One of the participants noted that this exchange promoted reflection and questioning of their own beliefs: ‘From other people’s talking, we could gain some different viewpoints that we may never think about before. Sometimes, my partner and I may hold opposite ideas and we would try our best to persuade the other. During this process, it provides us a chance to reflect on our own opinions’. Peers’ critical analyses of experiences and beliefs was also observed by participants. Teachers saw critiques as a constructive tool in a duoethnographic assignment. This positive impact of having a critical partner was reported by one participant (among others): ‘…the interlocutors work as critical friends who collaborate in a mode that encourages discussion and reflection. By mediating each other, the quality of language teaching and learning can be improved’. Altogether, the selected quotes in this section stress the ‘reflective diversity of the duoethnographic method’ (Lowe & Lawrence, 2020: 119). The open dialogue, critical peer analysis and multiplicity of experiences provided an ideal framework for teachers’ development of reflective practice. Theme 2: Tool for (deep) reflection

Another theme that was frequently seen in teachers’ responses was the acknowledgment of duoethnography as a tool for (deep) reflection that could help with their teaching. The process of listening to others and writing everything back seems to have helped teachers develop an understanding of reflective practice at a deeper level of critical thinking. Similar to Schaefer and Brereton’s (2020) report, the process of completing this assignment allowed teachers to rethink previous experiences and inform future thinking. One participant noted that ‘duoethnography serves as a reflective tool and pushes us to reflect on the second level of reflection’. Through deep reflections, teachers were able to challenge their own ideas and beliefs about teaching. They looked back at their

Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges  127

practice and criticized their own concepts of teaching. The retrospective reflection was important in their teacher education program because it promoted critical thinking and professional development. As the teachers reported below, they can already identify the benefits of reflection in their future careers. ‘It served as an eye opening to the three of us (as) to what to avoid and what to be aware of when we start our teaching paths’, noted one participant. The motivation and framework for self-reflection was also identified by some participants. The development of a dialogue between peers allowed them to look at themselves in a different light. As the participants noticed, they learned to reflect on themselves while completing the assignment. ‘…listening to others experience can make ourselves to reflect on our teaching as well’, stated one teacher. Participants also noted that duoethnography allowed them to see the vast diversity in second language teaching and learning contexts. Therefore, it provided them with a better understanding of contextualized practice. Specifically, one of the teachers noted that they were able to deeply reflect on ‘whether TBLT (Task-Based Language Teaching) is suitable for all language teaching environments’ and to ‘think more deeply about the topic’. The exchange of ideas allowed them to elaborate on a very precise topic. In summary, teachers believed that a duoethnographic methodology provided them with tools for deeply reflecting on issues of second language teaching and learning. The combination of multiple methods of reflection (dialogue, listening back and writing) provided participants with an ideal framework for self-reflection and peer feedback, which promoted a re-evaluation of their own experiences. As a consequence, the assignment proved to be a valuable tool for teachers’ professional development. Theme 3: Co-construction of knowledge

A topic that arose often in teachers’ comments was the potential for the co-construction of knowledge. Changes in perspectives and the coconstruction of meaning are central principles of duoethnography (Norris, 2008). Through dialogue, participants rethink and transform knowledge by comparing, contrasting and combining individual narratives (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020). One participant noted: In the process of our discussion and the recall of our previous experience, we found the common features in our experience and the interesting differences in our experiences. And this construction of meaning [through] dialogues within one topic gives me a deeper understanding of using L1 in the L2 classrooms.

Teachers were also able to develop knowledge by talking it out. In other words, the process of communication helped teachers review, clarify

128  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

and reconstruct concepts. One participant noted that ‘reflection benefits from dialogue because it allows for clarification, critical thinking and enhanced understanding’. This process of communication also helped teachers co-construct their knowledge about teaching. Therefore, it made them realize the potential of duoethnography as a professional development tool that can improve the quality of their teaching. ‘By talking with my partner and introducing my personal teaching experiences, I could recall some useful information and my partner could give me some suggestions to improve my teaching methods’. In addition, several participants identified duoethnography as a learning tool for problem resolution. As they discussed possible teaching and learning issues, they came up with creative ideas together: ‘[duo]ethnography gave us a chance to discuss common experiences with peers, so we can together learn from each other and come up with ideas on how to solve the problems we might face in future’. One of the participants reported on a particular episode when they tried to elaborate on the efficacy of using CLT in the Chinese context. The analysis of Western teaching settings made them reconstruct the understanding of their own educational system as described in the following quote: Before this assignment, we both thought it was about the time to change the teaching system in China and let some fresh air in which means we both agreed that teacher-centered teaching should be replaced with CLT. However, after several conversations and reference checking, we have both changed our minds since we have learned that teaching and learning are contextualized. The reason why Western cultures are more adapted to the CLT method is because of the small-sized classroom so every student could have a chance to talk, and also because of the cultural tradition. From this assignment, I have realized that teachers could not just borrow methods and apply them but have to make them fit and proper.

Overall, participants concluded that duoethnography is a tool that allows them to co-construct their knowledge of second language teaching and learning. Through dialogue, peer critique and deep reflection, they were able to reconceptualize and contextualize their teaching practice. In addition, they acknowledged the importance of different points of view and self-reflection in order to understand specific phenomena. Challenges of completing a duoethnographic assignment

The third research question aimed to identify teachers’ challenges of completing a duoethnographic assignment. A main challenge noted by almost every participant was the ‘time’ required to complete this collaborative assignment. They commented that the assignment was time-­ consuming because they had to prepare for the discussion, then discuss their views, decide on major themes to present in the assignment and

Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges  129

Figure 8.2  Challenges of completing a duoethnographic assignment

engage in a collaborative writing process. In what follows, we discuss the challenges specific to the duoethnography assignment which emerged under three main categories further elaborated below: (1) Consolidating different opinions; (2) Questioning trustworthiness of findings; and (3)  Identifying salient themes and making connections to the related research. As displayed in Figure 8.2, even though we present them under three categories, the themes are interrelated and can overlap. Consolidating different opinions

Teachers overwhelmingly discussed the challenge of consolidating different perspectives into a single assignment both in terms of the content to present in the final assignment and the writing process. This sentiment was echoed by one of the participants: ‘Each of us would offer our own opinion, I think for us, integrating the opinions was a challenge. Each of us gave rich perspectives, which made our topic diverse but also resulted in exceeding the word count requirement’. While teachers viewed it useful to have diversity in perspectives due to different backgrounds, there were concerns over selecting and organizing the content that should be included in their final draft. Additionally, teachers commented on the challenges of incorporating different opinions and reaching an agreement in a collaborative writing assignment: ‘The greatest challenge in completing this assignment is that sometimes my partner and I had different opinions in terms of the writing. We communicated a lot during the process of completing the assignment and reached an agreement’. This quote highlights one of the issues many

130  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

groups noted in that they believed they needed to come to a consensus in their duoethnographies. In general, teachers expressed discomfort about ways of presenting different opinions in a single assignment and they were concerned about ways to reach an agreement when they had different opinions on a given topic. Questioning trustworthiness of findings

Another concern that teachers raised was related to subjectivity and potential for developing misconceptions. They overwhelmingly expressed that ‘people’s thoughts are not objective’ and hence their discussion can result in ‘somewhat errored ideas as a trustful perspective’. One teacher discussed how findings from such discussions can be unreliable because it is based on people’s personal experiences: ‘This tool, however, can be unreliable sometimes because the conclusion is based on two teachers’ personal experiences which can be subjective, thus making the conclusion difficult to be generalized’. This opinion highlights an important aspect that duoethnographies are highly personal and results should not be generalized, but the participant, among many others, did not seem to embrace the subjectivity of the process as they reflected on their topic, rather believing they should only be seeking some generalizable, objective ‘truth’. Overall, several teachers raised concerns about accepting ‘personal experiences and opinions’ as a reliable source of information. Identifying salient themes and connecting to related research

A final major challenge identified by teachers was related to identifying salient themes in their discussion and making relevant connections to the existing literature. Several teachers echoed that ‘we have difficulty in coming up with an emerging topic’ and that ‘finding relevant literature that fits precisely with our reflections was hard’. One participant noted that in spite of preparing an outline initially, their discussion did not necessarily follow the outline; hence, after completing their discussion, it was difficult for the group to ‘summarize our ideas’. Many participants noted challenges associated with selecting the major issues/themes related to their discussion, especially within the word limit restrictions of this assignment. Finding relevant literature to connect their opinions was also noted quite frequently. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

There are several practical implications that can be drawn from the findings of this study and the concerns raised by participants in order to enhance the use of duoethnography as a tool for reflection with teachers in an LTE program/course. One area that needs to be emphasized is the issue of ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘objectivity’ of this assignment or its findings. Teachers need to be reminded that personal experiences and opinions on a

Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges  131

topic are valid perspectives that shed light on any given topic and that while relevant connections to previous literature are valuable, every aspect of the discussion does not necessarily need to be connected to literature. This misinterpretation caused many groups to find the assignment more timeconsuming than it should have been. It is important that participants review literature on their topic as this helps them situate their experiences with literature. However, many groups did not seem to integrate literature as a ‘co-participant’ (Huang & Karas, 2020), but rather used literature as a justification for the beliefs they stated in their dialogues. This can be useful as it is important to find empirical support for subjective views on teaching, but if using duoethnography as an assignment, a more explicit conversation on the role of literature may be helpful. Another area that teachers needed more guidance on was how to interpret the qualitative data. Most teachers had expressed concerns about how to select the salient themes from their discussion and which ideas to incorporate. This program was not a research-based program, so teachers did not have much experience formally ‘coding’ data. For practically based programs and/or with teachers who have little to no research experience, more explicit instruction on how to determine themes and salient quotes may be helpful. Duoethnography allows for flexibility and somewhat eschews standard research practices (Sawyer & Norris, 2013); thus, teachers do not necessarily need formal instruction on how to interpret qualitative data, but some guidance may be helpful based on feedback from these participants. Finally, Lawrence and Lowe (2020: 19) aptly note that reflective practice can be intimidating for novice teachers and that there is pressure to ‘conform to expectations’. Related to this is Mackenzie’s (2019) notion of strategic reflection, as opposed to authentic reflection, where novice teachers as part of LTE complete reflective assignments in perfunctory ways to merely appease the teacher educator and get good grades. This pressure to conform was found among these participants as they may have felt pressure to conform with the norms presented throughout the course; however, there also appeared to be pressure to conform with each other’s views as many noted one of the challenges of the duoethnography was to find agreement between partners. In describing the assignment to students, it is important to emphasize that the purpose of the assignment is not to ‘reach an agreement’ but in fact to work along as a ‘critical friend’ and to bring to light the different perspectives on any given topic. In the future, this needs to be made more explicit that students do not need to come to agreement when doing duoethnography and that this tension can be highly beneficial and is a key element of duoethnography. In LTE, eliminating ‘strategic’ reflection (Mackenzie, 2019) entirely can be difficult, but participants can be encouraged to challenge each other, and even the program/course ethos, to embrace a more critical lens and not simply say what they believe their teacher educator wants to hear.

132  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

Duoethnography proved to be a very useful assignment that offered teachers a chance to reflect on an issue of importance to them. They were able to personalize academic discourse and literature by connecting them to their own experiences. Participants noted the value of their own experiences and perspectives, as well as the importance of exploring issues from multiple points of view. As a tool for deeper reflection, the duoethnography assignment helped teachers understand different educational contexts, elaborate on unclear teaching issues and co-construct knowledge of teaching practice. As a consequence, this dialogic process taught them the value of discussing their own experiences and learning from a critical partner. The completion of the assignment was not short of challenges. For instance, teachers reported their difficulties consolidating different opinions from peers and incorporating these opinions into writing. They also reported that identifying different themes and connecting them to literature was a daunting task. In addition, some participants questioned the trustworthiness of the methodology by expressing concerns with the subjective nature of the discussions. Overall, participants received the duoethnographic experience as a positive tool for professional development. However, the limitations of the assignment suggest the need for future research and development to gain insights into duoethnography as a reflective tool, especially with teachers in a teacher education program. There is a need to understand duoethnography as a research methodology and as a reflective tool and the approach duoethnographers take to each. Duoethnography as a research methodology has great potential for investigating critical issues and can be used to challenge broad normative assumptions in order to provide ‘theoretical and empirical insights in the field’ (Lawrence & Lowe, 2020: 17), while as a tool for reflective practice, it can address the issues of local importance and offer practical solutions. However, these elements are not in conflict and duoethnography can help connect research and practice, but as was found with many participants in this study, connecting localized personal experiences with wider issues in the field was not always simple. Further examples of reflective duoethnographies could shed light on how future duoethnographers can blend these elements and perhaps (further) blur the lines between research duoethnographies and reflective duoethnographies. While publication was not a motivation for these teachers, it may be a motivating factor with other groups. Smart and Cook (2020) encourage duoethnographers to publish their reflective duoethnographies, but also note that publication should not be the end of the process. We concur with this as published duoethnographies can offer a more personalized insight into teachers’ experiences and perhaps reduce the persistent researchpractice divide. However, it is important to consider that many may not want to publish their inquiries, especially considering the personalized

Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges  133

nature of duoethnography, and this may be more prevalent with teachers on practice-based LTE programs. Still, duoethnography does offer a useful reflective tool for teachers on LTE programs, and if they are interested in publishing, teachers should be encouraged and supported to publish their duoethnographies. Despite some challenges, using duoethnography as a reflective practice tool provided a flexible approach for teachers to reflect on issues of importance to them and connect their personal experiences with wider issues in ELT in a critical way. Beyond reflection, modeling duoethnography in an LTE program could also help teachers in their future practice as Lowe and Lawrence (2020) demonstrate that duoethnography has potential as a pedagogical tool in English language classrooms for learners’ language development, further expanding the potential of duoethnography. Whether utilized as a research methodology, as a method of instruction in (English) language classrooms, or as discussed here, as a tool for reflection to grapple with local and personal teaching issues, duoethnography is a flexible tool with great potential. Further duoethnographies, and research about duoethnography itself, will be highly useful. References Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77–101. Corcoran, J., Gagné, A. and McIntosh, M. (2018) A conversation about ‘editing’ plurilingual scholars’ thesis writing. Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing/ Rédactologie 28, 1–25. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2019) Reflective Practice in ELT. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing. Huang, P. and Karas, M. (2020) Artefacts as ‘co-participants’ in duoethnography. TESL Canada Journal 37 (3), 64–74. Kasparek, N. and Turner, M.W. (2020) Puzzling about special education needs in EFL teacher development: A duoethnographic inquiry. In R.J. Lowe and L. Lawrence (eds) Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection and Classroom Application (pp. 112–132). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lawrence, L. and Lowe, R.J. (2020) An introduction to duoethnography. In R.J. Lowe and L. Lawrence (eds) Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection and Classroom Application (pp. 1–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lawrence, L. and Nagashima, Y. (2020) The intersectionality of gender, sexuality, race, and native-speakerness: Investigating ELT teacher identity through duoethnography. Journal of Language, Identity, & Education 19 (1), 42–55. Lowe, R.J. and Kiczkowiak, M. (2016) Native-speakerism and the complexity of personal experience: A duoethnographic study. Cogent Education 3, 1–16. Lowe, R.J. and Lawrence, L. (2018) Native-speakerism and ‘hidden curricula’ in ELT training: A duoethnography. Journal of Language and Discrimination 2 (2), 162–187. Lowe, R.J. and Lawrence, L. (eds) (2020) Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection and Classroom Application. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mackenzie, L. (2019) Investigating reflection in written assignments on CELTA courses. ELT Journal 73 (1), 11–20.

134  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2017) Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching: Research-based Principles and Practices. London: Routledge. Norris, J. (2008) Duoethnography. In L.M. Given (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 234–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Rose, H. and Montakantiwong, A. (2018) A tale of two teachers: A duoethnography of the realistic and idealistic successes and failures of teaching English as an international language. RELC Journal 49 (1), 88–101. Sawyer, R.D. and Norris, J. (2013) Duoethnography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schaefer, M. and Brereton, P. (2020) In R.J. Lowe and L. Lawrence (eds) Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection and Classroom Application (pp. 165–186). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Smart, B. and Cook, C. (2020) Professional development through duoethnography: Reflecting on dialogues between an experienced and novice teacher. In R.J. Lowe and L. Lawrence (eds) Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection and Classroom Application (pp. 91–111). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

9 Researcher Reflexivity and Reflective Dialogue: An Exploration of Pre-Service Teachers’ Professional Identity Development Atsuko Watanabe

Introduction

Teaching is a two-way street with ongoing interactions between teachers and students, with teachers often having a lasting impact on students. During interactions with students who aspire to be English language teachers, I often hear that they want to pursue this career because they encountered a wonderful teacher in junior high school and express a yearning to be like those teachers. While hearing these views, I often wonder if the pre-service teachers aspire to be like their role models right up to graduation or whether these pre-service teachers revise and subsequently develop their ideal images of teachers as they progress through their undergraduate degree. Qualitative research places the researcher in the part of world they study. Reflective practice represents interactive, mutual and reflexive engagement between researcher and participants, which in turn is influenced by their rich and uniquely complex relationship (Watanabe, 2017a). My PhD focused on reflective practice for professional development for in-service teachers, and I conducted several qualitative studies where I asked the participants to reflect on their experiences after completing the PhD. One aspect of this type of research that always concerns me is how I myself am situated in the research as a researcher. While engaging in research, I often reflect on my interaction and involvement, and wonder about my role. In general, researchers do not explore their own positioning in research, yet I am as much part of my research projects as my participants. The aim of this chapter thus is twofold – an exploration of pre-service teacher identity as well as an exploration of the author’s involvement in 135

136  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

the study as a mentor using Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 motivational self system as a framework. This chapter first introduces the theoretical underpinnings of language teacher identity for pre-service teachers referring to Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system and the Japanese education context and is followed by a discussion of researchers’ reflexivity. Subsequently, an empirical study with a dual focus of the analysis on the participation of the author as a mentor as well as data collected from the interviews with the per-service teachers is presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications for future research. Theoretical Underpinnings Language teacher identity

Language teacher identity has emerged as a major area of interest in the field of L2 language teacher research (Barkhuizen, 2019; Yuan & Lee, 2014). Barkhuizen (2019), by stating that language teaching is ‘identity work’, emphasises the importance of identity in the teaching profession. More specifically, teacher identity informs how one interprets and interacts in and with an environment and how one makes decisions (Hong, 2010). That is to say, how teachers see themselves can influence and explain how they teach (Benthien, 2017; Kanno & Stuart, 2011; Varghese et al., 2005; Yuan & Lee, 2014). Language teacher identity is described as being a contextual, multifaceted and an evolving construct (Benthien, 2017; Duff & Uchida, 1996; Yuan & Lee, 2014). It is contextual as it is situated (Barkhuizen, 2019) and developed in situ (Kanno & Stuart, 2011) through interactions with the environment including homes, schools and workplaces (Norton, 2013). It is multifaceted as it involves interactions with various constructs such as teacher roles, beliefs, emotions, assumptions and values both inside and outside the classroom (Barkhuizen, 2019; Farrell, 2013). It is evolving as it is shaped through a process of constant negotiation to make sense of interactions with the teaching context, available resources and the environment (Barkhuizen, 2019; Benthien, 2017; Norton, 2013). Beijaard et al. (2004) describe this constant negotiation as a process of building teachers’ practical knowledge through an ongoing integration of what is regarded to be relevant, both individually and collectively, to teaching. Possible selves

The L2 motivational self system was put forward by Dörnyei (2009) to explain L2 learners’ motivation. Influenced by theories including possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986), the L2 motivational self system comprises three components: the ideal self, the ought-to self and the learning environment. The L2 motivational self system has been applied by

Researcher Reflexivity and Reflective Dialogue  137

Kubanyiova (2009) to focus on in-service language teachers and by Benthien (2017) to explore the transformation of L2 learner to L2 teacher in the Japanese L2 context. To illustrate the construct of possible teacher selves, Kubanyiova (2009) depicts the ideal language teacher self as self which language teachers ideally hope to be. In order to achieve this self, teachers are motivated to expend effort to reduce the gap between the ideal self and the actual self. The ought-to language teacher self on the other hand is an image of a teacher self with a representation of responsibilities, obligations and expectations from colleagues, parents, students, school rules and norms. Teachers’ attempts to reduce discrepancy between the ought-to language teacher self and actual self are extrinsically motivated, as they are attributed to the avoidance of negative consequences. Kubanyiova (2009: 315) argues that possible selves theory indicates that behaviours of people are not necessarily based on social reality, but constitute ‘an important imagined future dimension that transcends direct experience and functions as an incentive for development and change’, that is, motivation ignites current behaviour to achieve certain outcomes in the future. Benthien (2017) found that the development of L2 teacher identity shapes the teachers and explains their practice. In the process of constructing an ideal and ought-to selves, having an image of a teacher is argued to be important. Dörnyei (2009: 18) points to the ‘availability of an elaborate and vivid future self-image’ as one condition for enhancing or hindering the impact of the ideal and ought-to selves. For pre-service teachers, this image is not necessarily a vivid image of their future self, but rather the image of a teacher who they met in the past and who they seek to emulate. Furthermore, having this image of a teacher appears to be a crucial aspect of choosing a teaching career in the first place. Watanabe et al. (2019) found in their interview study focusing on in-service teachers that all six participants had vivid images of an ideal teacher before becoming a teacher. In contrast, Akiyama et al. (2020) noted that undergraduate students who decided to discontinue the teacher certificate programme did not have such strong role models. The culture of teaching in Japan

As the importance of context in the development of teacher identity has been emphasised by numerous scholars (Barkhuizen, 2019; Benthien, 2017; Norton, 2013), it is imperative to introduce the Japanese teaching context. All participants in my present study aspire to become English language teachers at junior high schools. Asaoka (2019) describes two distinctive deeply ingrained aspects of teaching culture in Japanese junior high schools: holistic teaching and teaching as a craft. Holistic teaching delineates that teachers are responsible for fostering the social development of students as well as teaching their particular subject. Novice teachers are expected to handle classroom management (Ito, 2011; Shimahara,

138  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

2002), to find their teaching style, to learn to adapt to the national educational directives, to ready students for examinations, to experience crosscultural issues through team-teaching with non-Japanese Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) (Benthien, 2017) and to provide individual counselling (Asaoka, 2019). Their expectations and responsibilities are not only limited to teaching their subject or carrying outclass teacher duties but are further extended to extracurricular activities including the supervision of club activities and planning an execution of field trips and sports festivals. All these responsibilities and expectations from the wider sociocultural environment are encapsulated in the role of primary and secondary teachers in Japan. Being a teacher means not only to foster academic development but also to foster students’ social, moral and personal development (Asaoka, 2019). Teaching as a craft indicates that teaching is considered a craft which is ‘learned, transmitted, emulated, and reformulated’ (Asaoka, 2019: 34). That is, teaching is often not explicitly explained by the experienced teachers to the novice, but rather novice teachers are expected to ‘steal’ the craft from others. Reflective practice

Reflective practice has established itself as a major philosophy in teacher development in the field of English language teaching. In addition to exploring teaching practice, it has been employed as a way to probe more intangible constructs, such as beliefs and professional identity (Duff & Uchida, 1996; Farrell, 2013, 2015; Korthagen, 2004; Watanabe, 2017a; Yuan & Lee, 2014). In Farrell’s (2015) framework for reflecting on practice, teachers are encouraged to examine their embedded assumptions through five lenses of reflection: Philosophy, Principles, Theory, Practice and Beyond Practice. The first stage, Philosophy, explores ‘teacheras-person’, formed through background such as ‘heritage, ethnicity, ­religion, socioeconomic background, family and personal values that have combined to influence who we are as language teachers’ (2015: 24). I define reflective practice as an act conducted in dialogue with the self and others, which involves ‘looking back over one’s actions, thoughts, written and spoken ideas, feelings, and interactions, all with the goal of making new meaning for oneself’ (Watanabe, 2017a: 47). Researcher reflexivity

Qualitative research has been recognised as being ‘co-constituted, a joint product of the participants, researcher and their relationship’ (Finlay, 2002: 212). Understanding and meaning are negotiated in the particular sociocultural contexts where the participants and the researchers are situated; thus, even with the same participant, a different researcher will weave a different story (Finlay, 2002).

Researcher Reflexivity and Reflective Dialogue  139

If research is a joint product between a researcher and a participant researcher, reflexivity is a crucial consideration in qualitative studies. Berger (2015: 220) defines researcher reflexivity as ‘the process of a continual internal dialogue and critical self-evaluation of researcher’s positionality as well as active acknowledgment and explicit recognition that this position may affect the research process and outcome’. Researcher’s positionality comprises various personal dispositions such as gender, ethnicity, affiliation, age, personal experiences, linguistic background, beliefs, theoretical, political and ideological views, and also emotional responses to participants in a study (Berger, 2015). Hosking and Plunt (2010: 64) argue the importance for the researchers to exhibit the ‘sources of subjectivity’ to allow readers to evaluate the quality and usefulness of the study. To explore how positionality affects the research process and outcomes, it is necessary to scrutinise and analyse the types of questions and comments made by researchers (Watanabe, 2017b). Reflective practice is a mutual and reflective interaction woven through the unique relationships between the researcher and the participants (Watanabe, 2017a), and it is crucial for researchers to be mindful of their position and participation in reflective interactions (Kvale, 2006; Mann, 2011). This is a point which needs to be taken into consideration by researchers, especially when they are engaging in the research as a teacher educator or a mentor with students as participants, as this constitutes a hierarchical relationship and imbalance of power. Ethics is another dilemma which may be faced by researchers. Kubanyioba (2008) argues the importance of ethics in situated contexts when conducting research and differentiates between macroethics and microethics. The former refers to the professional codes of ethics and Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols, while the latter refers to ethics pertinent to a specific research context susceptible to consequences which may affect the researcher and/or participants. To illustrate microethics, Kubanyiova (2008) depicts three areas of ethically critical dilemmas: ethical tensions in pursuing a high-quality research design, conflict between macroethical and microethical perspectives of beneficial research treatment, and ethical tensions in research relationships. Ethical tensions in pursuing a high-quality research design refers to the tension between a pursuit of technical rigor in research and making amendments in research procedures or methods to avoid potential negative consequences experienced by participants. Conflict between macroethical and microethical perspectives of beneficial research treatment might be caused when what might be considered a beneficial outcome of the research or participation is not perceived as thus by the participants. Ethical tensions in research relationships denote that positive relationships between a researcher and participants might place a burden on them.

140  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

An Empirical Study

Aiming to explore pre-service teachers’ professional identity construction and researcher reflexivity as a mentor, the researcher conducted a qualitative study that involved online dialogue with fourth-year p ­ re-service teachers over a period of three months. The research proposal was approved by the educational research ethics committee at the researcher’s university before the onset of the study. The research questions for the study are as follows: • How does the pre-service teachers’ professional identity develop during the last semester at university? • How does the researcher engage in the interview as a mentor? Participants

Students enrolled in two courses taught by the researcher in 2020 were invited to join the study. At the time the announcement was made, all students had completed a two- or three-week teaching practicum at a junior high school or senior high school. Students who showed an interest in the study participated in an online explanation session. Subsequently, five signed the consent form. In this chapter, the stories of three students, Joe, Jun and Mari (all pseudonyms), are reported. All were planning on becoming junior high school English teachers upon graduation from university. Joe had been teaching at juku, which is a private school in addition to an ordinary educational institution. Students often go to juku for the preparation of entrance examinations to high schools or universities. Procedure

A 45-minute individual online interview was conducted once a month from October to December 2020, thus each student was interviewed three times. In January 2021, an online focus group discussion was conducted with all participants. Due to COVID-19, all interactions between the researcher and the participants took place online. In the semi-structured interviews and the focus group discussion, the pre-service teachers reflected on their experiences in the teacher certification programme and the practicum. Furthermore, they discussed the image of their future selves as teachers. The interviews and the discussion were conducted in Japanese and recorded and transcribed. The transcription of the recording was subsequently translated into English by the researcher. The focus of the analysis was the researcher’s engagement in the study as a mentor as well as the reflection of the pre-service teachers on their development of teacher identity.

Researcher Reflexivity and Reflective Dialogue  141

The researcher

As I myself am a participant in this study, I need to situate myself in this research. I teach in a faculty where approximately 70% of the students aspire to be teachers. The university has a well-established education programme. I teach courses such as English Language Pedagogy and English Language Teaching Methods to pre-service teachers. Results and discussion

The interviews highlighted two main aspects of identity development among pre-service teachers: encountering ideal teachers and emerging professional identity. Encountering ideal teachers

When asked about their reason for wanting to be a teacher, all three participants attributed their career choice to meeting a good teacher of English in junior high school. For instance, Jun stated: The initial reason why I wanted to be a teacher was my admiration for the homeroom teacher who was a teacher of English. I liked how he interacted with the students and how he would stand in front of class. I longed to be like him. (Jun, first interview)

Jun expressed that in the practicum, he was imitating the style of the homeroom teacher in terms of asking questions and talking in front of the students. Even though he talked about this junior high school teacher extensively, he could not readily elaborate on his image of what he meant by ‘how he would stand in front of class’. When asked whether he has a different image of himself as a teacher compared to his junior high school teacher, he said, ‘I don’t know, but I would probably think so’. Mari said she has wanted to be a teacher since she was in elementary school. In the first interview, she said, ‘I had this vague idea of wanting to be a teacher when I was in elementary school. I met this great teacher in junior high school and I was determined that I wanted to be a teacher’ (Mari: first interview). Mari said that the teacher would spend time talking to her individually during recess time and after school. He also expended time and energy on extracurricular activities such as school festivals. Mari wished to model herself on this teacher, though the subject of the instruction was of secondary importance. She said, ‘I was thinking I just wanted to be like this teacher’. Joe wanted to be a teacher because he wanted to ‘give back what the teacher did for him’. He described the reason as follows: The reason why I want to become a teacher is that some of my teachers whom I met in junior high school and in high school supported me. They

142  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

set aside time to talk to me. The high school teacher gave me an opportunity to study abroad. Since I was given such an opportunity, I thought I would become an English teacher, as one way to return what the teachers did for me. (Joe, first interview)

Joe described multiple images of an ideal teacher. In addition to those in junior high and high school, he also referred to a teacher from an English conversation school, a privately operated business where students from elementary school to university go to learn and practice conversational English which they cannot sometime do at schools. The classes are usually smaller and there are no constraints on the curriculum. He described his image of an ultimate ideal teacher in this way: My ultimate image of an ideal teacher is of one who knows everything, who does not show weaknesses to the students, who is resolute in front of the students, but this image is far from who I am. (Joe, first interview)

He explained that this image did not come from any teacher whom he encountered but from images absorbed through the media: It is said that teaching is a chosen (sacred) profession. I feel that teaching means guiding the students. That is what a teacher should do. Through TV programmes, I have learned that there was a time when teachers were impeccable. (Joe, first interview)

Thus, when asked why they wanted to become teachers, all three, instantaneously, attributed the reason to meeting one or more great teachers. These teachers became their ideal language teacher self. Mari was not necessarily inspired specifically by the subject matter, the English language; rather, she just wanted to be a teacher. This shows a unique characteristic of a teaching profession as described above as holistic teaching. Teachers at primary and secondary schools are responsible for fostering the welfare and social development of students as well as subject knowledge and skills. Being able to instantaneously depict their ideal teachers might be attributed to the fact that this question is often asked during teacher recruitment interviews and the expected response might be describing teachers whom they met in junior high school. Thus, the participants were possibly pre-prepared to answer this question. Stating their junior high school teachers as ideal language teachers is what is expected at the interviews; thus, it could be postulated that situating their favourite junior high school teachers as ideal teachers may be an indication of the students’ ought-to language (pre-service) teacher selves. Citing Boyatzis and Akrivou, Dörnyei (2009: 14) remarks about L2 learners that ‘it is not always straightforward to decide at times of social pressure whether an

Researcher Reflexivity and Reflective Dialogue  143

ideal-like self-state represents one’s genuine dreams or whether it has been compromised by the desire for role conformity’. This might also explain the descriptions of the ideal-teachers in the participants’ interviews, that is, pre-service students might not necessarily be able to differentiate between an ideal language (pre-service) teacher self and ought-to language (pre-service) teacher self. Emerging professional identity

Over the course of the three interviews, the participants’ own images of ideal teachers and their possible selves seemed to have changed. For instance, in the second interview, Joe stated a different reason for wanting to become a teacher. He said that his motivation was to change English language education in Japan. He argued that the English language lessons in junior and senior high schools are problematic, as they are centred primarily on grammar translation. He said he was not satisfied with the lessons taught by teachers whom he mentioned in the first interview, either. Joe said that although he respects those teachers, his ideas of a good lesson were different from what he experienced in their lessons. He again stated that his models of good lessons were those he experienced in English conversation school. In the third interview, Joe emphasised that he will be a friendly teacher: ‘I think I will be a teacher like the image that the students had of me when I was in the teaching practicum… I think that the students will see me as a friendly teacher’ (Joe, third interview). Asked about the differences between the first and subsequent interviews, he stated ‘From the time I have started teaching at juku. students told me that I am not solemn even when I scold them…. I gave up an idea of being this impeccable teacher’ (Joe, third interview). Joe’s changing image of himself as a teacher seems to have been informed by the image perceived by his students at the practicum school and at juku. In the third interview, Jun described his ideal image as follows: ‘When teaching an ideal lesson, the teaching of my junior high school teacher is at the core. I think I am in the process of adding repertoires to the core, learning and stealing ideas from many teachers’ (Jun, third interview). While Jun originally embraced and seemed satisfied with the teaching of his junior high school teacher, by the third interview, he seemed to feel a need to add a greater variety of styles and explore different ways of teaching. In order to expand his repertoire, Jun is using the term ‘steal’, which expresses an attitude of proactively learning the craft from other teachers rather than waiting to be taught. In the third interview, Mari expressed that she wants to be a teacher who could provide care to each student, which derives from the support she received from her junior high school teacher whom she described in the first interview. This also is an example of holistic education. However, asked if she wants to be a teacher like him, she responded as follows:

144  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

It is not that I will do everything like this teacher. I will take good aspects from him, but there are things that I can do which he cannot. I do respect him, but I would like to establish my own style. (Mari, third interview)

Thus, in the latter interviews, the teachers the participants had described in the first interviews as great teachers were now appraised in a seemingly more nuanced and considered way. The participants still looked up to those teachers but said that they will not teach in the same way. Similarly, their descriptions of teachers whom they encountered in the practicum institutions also changed. Again, while all participants expressed respect and gratitude towards those teachers, some reported they would not imitate their teaching style. Participants also made references to the teachers having pedagogical styles mostly oriented towards grammar translation. There were also comments where the participants wondered whether the students’ low proficiency in English could be attributed to the teachers’ low expectation of the students’ abilities, and if the cause of demotivation observed in the classroom during the practicum might have been related to the marginal attention the teachers provided to those students. There seems to be a defined trajectory in the pre-service teachers’ images of ideal language teacher selves (see also Kubanyiova, 2009). In their initial interviews, the participants referred to and depicted positive images of the teachers whom they encountered in junior high schools. Those teachers seemed to represent their ideal language teacher selves whom the students initially strived to imitate. The interview data show that Jun, Mari and Joe did not necessarily try to fill the gap between their actual selves and their ideal language teacher selves. The ideal teacher self appears to be a dynamic image which changes as pre-service teachers interact within an educational environment and gain experience and knowledge. Their ideal language teacher selves were based on their junior high school teachers, as in the cases of Jun and Mari. However, their identity also integrated their own strengths (Mari) or what they learned from other teachers (Jun). In Joe’s case, his identity of being a friendly teacher grew out of the comments made by his students during the practicum. This seems to support that the ideal teacher self is a dynamic image which changes as pre-service teachers interact within an educational environment and gain experience and knowledge. The changing images of ideal language teacher selves among the participants support the findings that identity is an evolving, multifaceted and contextual construct (Benthien, 2017; Duff & Uchida, 1996; Yuan & Lee, 2014). Researcher reflexivity

Reflecting on myself as a mentor in research, I experienced some tension related to my role in the research and in reporting the research

Researcher Reflexivity and Reflective Dialogue  145

findings, a part of ethical tensions in research relationships noted by Kubanyiova (2008). The first is my dual roles as mentor and teacher. My role as a mentor in the study was to draw out the participants’ views about their pre-service teacher professional identity. When some of them made rather critical comments of the teaching styles of the teachers in their practicum schools, I experienced a conflict. The teaching staff in an education faculty feel a great sense of gratitude to teachers at primary and secondary schools who accept students for a teaching practicum. This feeling of indebtedness was particularly strong in 2020 as COVID-19 spread, and schools needed to deal with many challenges. Hearing the views of the participants, I felt that I should not encourage them to express such critical views in my persona of teaching staff at the university. My ought-to teacher identity wanted to advise the pre-service teachers that they should not talk in that way. I did not do so because the interview was a reflective arena for the pre-service teachers in professional identity development, and I participated in the research as a mentor. However, at the same time, I felt that I should not encourage the participants to elaborate on the topic. In the interviews, I just acknowledged their views and tried to change the direction of the talk or discuss teaching from a general perspective rather than focusing on teaching style of individual teachers. Yet, the dissonance between the two roles lingered. Respecting the research participants and reporting of the data to inform the research community was another source of tension. Critical awareness of teaching styles observed at practicum schools is a part of the learning process for pre-service teachers and shapes their professional identity. However, I felt uncomfortable to present this data. Even though the content of the study was explained and the participants signed the consent form, I still thought that they would feel apprehensive if one of their critical comments appeared in this chapter. This apprehension originates in the shared understanding that we should be and are grateful to the practicum schools. Being situated in such a context, I decided not to include any individual comments about the practicum. Reporting of findings is one purpose of conducting research; however, we need to consider the participants’ position in the research and the situated context. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

The existing body of literature highlights the importance of incorporating an exploration of professional identity in pre-service teachers’ curriculum. This study also found that such an opportunity is beneficial for pre-service teachers as reflection allows them to actively engage in the exploration of their future teacher identity. For pre-service teachers’ identity development, the importance of offering forums, such as interviews and discussion groups, can be highlighted. Such forums allow pre-service teachers to articulate their views about teaching and to examine their

146  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

ideal teacher self and tease it apart from their ought-to teacher self. As verbal articulation involves exploration of one’s ideas, offering multiple opportunities for expressing one’s views would be helpful. Through the engagement in the current study, the researcher experienced the following tensions, dissonance from multiple roles and conflict between respect for research participants and reporting the data to inform the research community. Both are pertinent to the uniqueness of each research context and of relationships between a researcher and participants. Thus, in conducting qualitative research, researchers need to be mindful of microethical as well as macroethical perspectives of a situated context. There may be cases where making alternations in research procedures or methods might become necessary to deter potentially negative consequences for the participants. It would also be vital for researchers to engage in continual reflection on their positionalities throughout the research process, not only in consent form drafting and a research explanation session, but also in data collection, data analysis and publication stages. Furthermore, we need to remind ourselves of and reflect on our utmost purpose of conducting research and to find a balance between respecting participants and informing the research community. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

The purpose of this study was twofold: to explore pre-service teachers’ language teacher identity development and researcher’s involvement in research as a mentor. The study found that exploration of professional identity to be beneficial for pre-service teachers. Reflection encouraged a shift from an ideal teacher self which was based simply on projected images to a dynamic transforming ideal teacher self which integrated the original image with a new ideal teacher self which has been formed by personal experiences and reflection. In terms of involvement in the study, a sense of dissonance was posed between the roles of teacher mentor and researcher. Furthermore, respecting participants and others touched by the study while also adding to the knowledge base in the field of identity development was also confronting. Considering the findings of this study, the following directions for further research can be suggested. First, conducting long-term research in the exploration of pre-service teachers should inform the design of teacher development curriculum and the area of research. Second, the exploration of pre-service teacher professional identity development through their emotional engagement would contribute to further understanding of professional identity development. Also, engaging the participants as coresearchers, an involvement of joint analysis and evaluation of the data (Finlay, 2002), may generate different positionings and relationships between a teacher and students in research. Lastly, in order to clarify and emphasise reflexivity of researchers in research, engagement in a method,

Researcher Reflexivity and Reflective Dialogue  147

such as autoethnography, can be further explored. Pre-service teachers’ identity development has been argued to be important but is still relatively unexplored in Japan (Benthien, 2017). As it involves self-disclosure of the participants, researchers need to take Philosophy (Farrell, 2015) to heart when being reflexive of their impact on the participants. The crux of reflexivity is for researchers to bear in mind the motivation to engage in qualitative research and to negotiate with themselves over what they value in the research process and its outcomes. References Akiyama, T., Watanabe, A. and Ohba. H. (2020) Kyoin shibou no daigakusei ha naze eigo kyoushi wo akiramete shimaunoka – Mizukarano shinro wo kangae kimeru koto ga dekiru monshinhyou sakusei no tameni [Why do English teacher candidates give up becoming an English teacher?: A development of self-diagnostic check lists for enabling university students to think about and make decisions about their future careers] Bulletin of Institute of Educational Research 28, 27–38. Asaoka, C. (2019) Early Professional Development in EFL Teaching: Perspectives and Experiences from Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P.C. and Verloop, N. (2004) Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 107–128. Barkhuizen, G. (2019) Teacher identity. In S. Walsh and S. Mann (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education (pp. 536–552). London: Routledge. Benthien, G. (2017) The transition from L2 learner to L2 teacher: A longitudinal study of a Japanese teacher of English in Japan. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 11 (2), 85–102. Berger, R. (2015) Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 15 (2), 219–234. Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Duff, P.A. and Uchida, Y. (1997) The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practice in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 31 (3) 451–486. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013) Teacher self-awareness through journal writing. Reflective Practice 14 (4), 465–471. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. London: Routledge. Finlay, L. (2002) Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research 2 (2), 209–230. Hong, J.Y. (2010) Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (8), 1530–1543. Hosking, M.H. and Plunt, B. (2010) (Re)constructing reflexivity: A relational constructionist approach. The Qualitative Report 15 (1), 59–75. Ito, A. (2011) Enhancing school connectedness in Japan: The role of homeroom teachers in establishing a positive classroom climate. Asian Journal of Counselling 18 (1 and 2), 41–62. Kanno, Y. and Stuart, C. (2011) Learning to become a second language teacher: Identitiesin-practice. The Modern Language Journal 95 (2), 236–252. Korthagen, F.A.J. (2004) In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 77–97.

148  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Kubanyiova, M. (2008) Rethinking research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics: The tension between macroethical and microethical perspectives in situated research. The Modern Language Journal 92 (4), 503–518. Kubanyiova, M. (2009) Possible selves in language teacher development. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 314–332). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mann, S. (2011) A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 32 (1), 6–24. Norton, B. (2013) Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation (2nd edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Shimahara, N. (2002) Teaching in Japan: A Cultural Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B. and Johnson, K.A. (2005) Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 4 (1), 21–44. Watanabe, A. (2017a) Reflective Practice as Professional Development: Experiences of Teachers of English in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Watanabe, A. (2017b) The researchers’ reflexivity in qualitative interviews. Educational Studies International Christian University 59, 105–116. Watanabe, A., Akiyama, T. and Ohba, H. (2019) Eigo kyouin shibou gakusei no tame no shishitsu shindansho kaihatsu: Shitsuteki kenkyu kara mietekuru shishitsu [Development of credentials diagnosis for students aiming to be English teachers: Credentials disclosed by qualitative analysis]. Bulletin of Institute of Educational Research 28, 99–106. Yuan, R. and Lee, I. (2014) Pre-service teachers’ changing beliefs in the teaching practicum: Three cases in an EFL context. System 44, 1–12.

10 Novice and Experienced Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity Minoo Alemi and Zahra Maleknia

Introduction

Evolving and dynamic by nature, teacher professional identity refers to how teachers view their professional role and how others see them in that particular status, both of which will be reconstructed over years of teaching (Farrell, 2017). This currently accepted definition of teacher professional identity corresponds to the constructivist view of identity as opposed to the essentialist view. Rejecting the essentialist unitary concept of identity, constructivism considers this construct as multifaceted, embodying a variety of dimensions (Kayi-Aydar, 2017). Accordingly, teachers are believed to possess different professional identities which might be even in conflict with each other at a time due to the interface of their personal or cultural background and language education policies or pedagogies in their workplace context, leading to the process of their professional identity formation and reformation (Eslamdoost et al., 2020). However, as Farrell (2017) asserted, the professional identity of teachers remains hidden most of the time as teacher reflection is largely missing. Therefore, in order to be more cognizant of the very nature of their professional identity and its different aspects, teachers should be provided with the opportunity to reflect critically upon how they see themselves as teachers and how others see them in that role (Barkhuizen, 2017), which will bring teachers’ conceptualization of self as a teacher from an unconscious to a conscious level (Yalcin Arslan, 2019). Although there are numerous studies in the literature addressing the notions of teacher identity (e.g. Avalos-Rivera, 2019; Wang, 2020) and teacher reflection (e.g. Kurosh et al., 2020; Yalcin Arslan, 2019) 149

150  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

separately, there is a paucity of research on the integration of them. In order to address reflection on identity, this chapter begins with the theoretical background of teacher professional identity, the constructivist view of professional identity as well as the role of collaborative reflection on identity construction and reconstruction. This section terminates with a brief review of existing literature conducted empirically on teacher identity. It then proceeds with an account of the study investigating EFL teachers’ collaborative reflection on their professional identity. There is a general consensus that teachers’ reflective practices will be more efficient if done collaboratively with other peer teachers (Johnson, 2009). In this regard, two separate collaborative reflection panels were run. Each panel consisted of two novice and two experienced EFL teachers and lasted over three one-hour sessions (total=six sessions). Our aim was to reveal how the targeted participants positioned themselves to others and others to themselves through their collaborative negotiations. A three-level positioning analysis proposed by Bamberg (1997) was used for data analysis. In view of the findings, some implications for teachers, teacher educators and institute stakeholders regarding the essentiality of teacher professional identity awareness-raising through reflective practice and suggestions for further research on the identity-reflection interface are presented. Teacher Professional Identity and Teacher Reflection Teacher professional identity

A review of the recent literature on teacher professional identity indicates that it possesses the following main features. First, teacher professional identity is considered as an ongoing process. In other words, it is a construct that is dynamic, flexible and evolving rather than fixed or stable (Flores, 2020; Kayi-Aydar, 2017), invoking the idea that teacher professional development is a lifelong process. Indeed, through this path, teachers not only acquire professional experiences and expertise in their teaching practice but also develop their personal perceptions and values of the teaching profession adopted and adapted based on the dominant political, sociocultural and educational requirements (Kocabaş-Gedik & Ortaçtepe Hart, 2020). Therefore, teacher professional identity has been defined to be constructed as the result of interaction between teachers as individuals and the context. As another characteristic of this construct, it is believed that teachers are dependent on their circumstances, and their professional identity is shaped and reshaped in the particular context where they live or work (Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2018). Accordingly, it has been recognized to include sub-identities (the third feature), sometimes in conflict with one another (Eslamdoost et al., 2020), which emerge due to the variety of contexts and interactions. More precisely, the sources of these

Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity  151

tensions were mentioned at three levels by Yuan (2018): (1) intrapersonal, due to personal backgrounds with which teachers step into a new workplace context with distinct norms; (2) interpersonal, as the result of interaction with various stakeholders with different expectations such as managers, colleagues and students rather than taking part in a vacuum and; (3) contextual, under the influence of broader social, cultural and historical values. The relevant term here is teacher agency as another crucial trait of teacher professional identity. It refers to the status of teachers not as passive agents receiving and implementing prepackaged ideas from external sources, but as active subjects with their own personal beliefs and experiences which impact their reaction to any imposed theories and new pedagogies. This results in teachers’ professional identity adaptation and renegotiation or their original identity defense (Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2018). In the case of the former, it might lead to teachers’ professional identity development. This new conceptualization of teacher professional identity aligns with constructivists’ view of the nature of identity. Constructivism, as the conceptual framework in this study, has been considered as an opposite pole of essentialism. In fact, constructivists challenged some dominant views of identity proposed by essentialist theorists. As Miller (2009) and Zembylas (2003) pointed out, essentialists believe that (a) identity is a fixed construct; (b) it is an individual phenomenon; and (c) it is a unitary concept. By contrast, constructivists consider identity as a construct that is dynamic, multifaceted, social and evolving over time. Indeed, identity is not pre-fabricated but constructed in situ as the result of both contextual factors and personal beliefs. It is not a matter of being but becoming (Kayi-Aydar, 2017). The term becoming suggests that teachers’ professional identity is in-flux and subject to change through different experiences (Pennington & Richards, 2016). The whole idea is also in line with the poststructuralists’ view as they asserted that ‘the singularity (i.e. unity), predictability, and stability of identity are illusions’ (Zembylas, 2003: 221). Therefore, identity is not considered as a unitary concept anymore but fragmented within different social contexts where an individual interacts with. Recently, a line of research has been conducted on the professional identity of both pre-service and in-service language teachers based on the constructivist perspective. With the purpose of revealing the process of pre-service teacher professional identity growth, Leeferink et al. (2018) conducted a study on 10 student teachers. The findings indicated that half of the participants experienced a continuous learning process in their workplace due to agreement between their teaching practice and personal standards; however, the others underwent discontinuous learning as a result of the conflict between their personal and professional sides, both of which were concluded to be hindering and stimulating in their process of professional identity development. In another study by Dimitrieska

152  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

(2018), the role of mediation in the process of two pre-service teachers’professional identity construction was explored. The microgenetic analysis of the participants’ process of becoming a teacher revealed that it is beneficial for pre-service teachers to get involved in reflective and collaborative dialogs with other experts, teacher trainers and peers to receive the proper type of mediation resulting in their professional identity promotion. In line with this research, Fernando Macías Villegas et al. (2020) also conducted a narrative inquiry on the formation of six student teachers’ professional identity. Data analysis revealed that their identity construction began with some conflicts regarding their preconceptions of teaching vocation, language proficiency and teacher training courses (TTCs). The conflicts were solved as a result of their interaction with members of the community of practice and gaining more teaching experience leading to their professional identity development. With regard to in-service teachers, Ruohotie-Lyhty (2018) investigated how EFL teachers renegotiate their professional identity over time. In this regard, she proposed a model of identity-agency which illustrated that teachers either constantly renegotiate their professional identity as a result of the agreement between their personal ideologies and outside demands or defend their original identities in case of mismatches. Indeed, teachers’ professional identity development occurs when they adapt their personal standards to the context and adopt some parts of the environmental norms and expectations as their professional role identities. In another study, Eslamdoost et al. (2020) used a three-level positioning analysis proposed by Bamberg (1997) to delineate the construction and reconstruction of two Iranian EFL teachers’ professional identity. The participants were revealed to experience a thoroughly opposite process of professional identity construction. From Level 1 positioning perspective, while one of the teachers considered external elements such as the political context, institutional policies, teachers’ dress code and textbook censorships hindering, the other believed in their facilitative role. Therefore, the former tended to diverge from external forces, and the latter strived to converge with outside expectations (Level 2 positioning). Consequently, while the former depicted the image of self as a rule violator, the latter took up the role of a conformist (Level 3 positioning). Finally, Wang (2020) scrutinized the constraints experienced by five novice EFL teachers regarding their professional identity construction. Three restrictive sources were delineated: (1) institute structures such as excessive workloads; (2) institute norms such as inflexible institute curriculum; and (3) wider social contexts providing no scope for innovation. Collaborative reflection on teacher professional identity

According to Vygotsky’s (2018) sociocultural theory, teachers’ knowledge construction is a social process that occurs in interaction with others.

Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity  153

The sociocultural concept of dialogic mediation highlighted that teacher learning internalization is a developmental process that occurs first in collaboration with others, i.e. other-regulation, and then comes under an individual’s control, i.e. self-regulation (Dimitrieska, 2018). Thus, for promoting their professional identity, teachers should get involved in the process of dialogic mediation. Such an opportunity can be provided by forming teacher reflection groups leading to systematic reflection (Dewey, 1998) through collaboration and negotiations of ideas. The whole idea was suggested based on the assumption that reflection in the company of other teachers will be more constructive than individual reflection (Farrell, 2007). Farrell (2017) pointed to the necessity of teachers’ reflective practice on who they are or where they are at the moment and where they have come from for the matter of awareness-raising. However, ‘teachers do not usually consciously reflect on these roles because many have become routine for them over the years’ (Farrell, 2013: 42) and consequently remain at the unconscious level despite the fact that these seemingly insignificant role identities have a direct impact on the formation and reformation of their professional identity as teachers. Thus, in order to become more cognizant of who they are professionally and what professional role identities they have developed through their teaching career, teachers need to get engaged in collaborative reflection practice (Ahn, 2019). Bringing these role identities from the tacit to conscious level might further help teachers reflect upon their strengths and weaknesses which will in turn aid the required identity reconstruction (Yalcin Arslan, 2019) and raise their instructional effectiveness (Kurosh et al., 2020).Despite its significance, the number of studies exploring the process of language teacher professional identity (re)construction through the reflective socialization process has been rare and needs to be addressed in future studies (Sang, 2020). An Empirical Study Method

The literature confirmed the scarcity of studies addressing EFL teachers’ collaborative reflection on their professional identity. To bridge this gap, the current study explored novice and experienced EFL teachers’ collaborative reflection on their professional identity. In fact, it is part of a larger research conducted on teacher identity. To collect the data, eight EFL teachers (four novice and four experienced teachers), teaching adults at English language institutes in the context of Iran, were selected through convenience sampling on a volunteer basis. The experienced teachers had more than five (Tsui, 2005) and the novice teachers were defined to have less than two years of teaching experience (Gatbonton, 2008). They participated in two separate collaborative reflection panels. Each panel

154  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

consisted of two novice and two experienced teachers and took three onehour sessions to get accomplished (total=six sessions). The panels were also run in the participants’ mother tongue, audio-recorded, and later transcribed for data analysis. In the panels, the participants collaboratively reflected upon the role of three factors, predetermined from the review of existing literature by the researchers, in their professional identity development: (1) the role of initial TTCs; (2) the role of workplace regulations; and (3) the role of teachers’ active agency. To analyze the data, Bamberg’s (1997) model of three-level positioning was adopted to delineate how the targeted teachers position others to themselves (Level 1 positioning), themselves to others (Level 2 positioning) and themselves to themselves (Level 3 positioning). The term positioning mainly refers to: (a) different roles teachers consider for others, i.e. external factors, including institutional regulations, teacher training programs, workplace authorities and colleagues in relation to themselves; (b) different role identities teachers adopt and adapt in response to others; and (c) different images teachers wish to project of themselves beyond the immediate content. This study reported on the positioning analysis of the professional identity construction of two participating teachers called Muhammad and Maryam (pseudonyms) from the same panel. In what follows, Muhammad’s (experienced/15 years of experience) and Maryam’s (novice/ one year of experience) account of collaborative reflection on their professional identity would be interpreted as their discourses varied dramatically and they represented thoroughly divergent professional positions due to the striking contrast between their years of teaching experience. Findings The role of initial teacher training courses

When asked about the impact of initial TTCs on teacher professional identity development, Maryam considered them to be highly beneficial and practical programs (Level 1 positioning) which should be obligatory in order to enhance beginning teachers’ cognition of their profession and give them a more comprehensive view of teaching methodologies: TTC really helped me learn how to teach. My perception of teaching has been changed after attending TTC. In fact, I didn’t have any idea about real teaching before TTC. Now I follow their pedagogies…

As she believes in initial TTCs as building blocks of teachers’ professional identity formation, she makes an effort to align her style of teaching with what she was taught in initial TTC (Level 2 positioning). From Level 3 positioning perspective, she depicts herself as a follower who lacks enough teaching expertise and consequently needs to implement initial TTC contents in her classes if she desires to be an effective teacher. Therefore, her

Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity  155

primary perception of teaching and accordingly the base of her professional identity were shaped while attending the pre-service TTC as she maintained that she did not have a true image of teaching before attending this program. Emphasizing the significance of initial teacher education programs on both pre-service and beginning teachers’ identity formation, some recent studies observed that their targeted participants took on a new identity as their teaching preconceptions were challenged and conceptual shifting occurred due to taking part in such programs and cooperating with various members of the community of practice including teacher educators and peers (e.g. Fernando Macías Villegas et al., 2020; Hernandez Varona & Gutierrez Alvarez, 2020). In contrast, Muhammad did not see any advantages in attending initial TTCs: TTC did not have any impact on me. They just taught me some techniques which I have never used as they couldn’t be put into practice in an actual context. I have my personal style of teaching…

According to Level 1 positioning analysis, he points to the restricted role of initial TTCs in preparing teachers for an authentic classroom context questioning the applicability of techniques taught in these TTCs in complex classroom ecology as he had personally experienced nonconformity between theories taught in these pre-service teaching training programs and practice. Therefore, he distances himself from initial TTC pedagogies and mentions that he has developed his own style of teaching (Level 2 positioning). In fact, it is the praxis shock, referring to the experienced conflict between teachers’ expectations and classroom reality (Wang, 2020), which made Muhammad question the very nature of pre-service teacher education programs after many years of teaching experience. Thus, the image of self projected by him is that of an active agent rather than a follower who is autonomous, knowledgeable and experienced enough to run high-efficient classes based on his own expertise (Level 3 positioning). Though being considered as an ideal starting point to raise teachers’ awareness of their profession, initial teacher training programs might not be able to prepare prospective teachers for tensions experienced later in authentic classroom contexts (Flores, 2020). This situation is intensified in contexts such as Iran where certain prepackaged identities are usually imposed on beginning teachers during initial TTCs as they are asked to take them for granted and to follow them in their classes. In such an atmosphere, pre-service teachers might not be well-prepared for unpredictable classroom ecology. Therefore, rather than dictating some fixed preplanned role identities to teachers, it is crucial for pre-service teacher educators to enhance teachers’ metacognition of changing landscape of their professional identity happening through the passage of time and the

156  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

challenges they might encounter meanwhile to lessen the degree of reality shock during actual teaching practice and make teachers develop malleable state of identity (Yuan, 2018). Further, since most tensions take place through the years of teaching experience (Anspal et al., 2019), it seems necessary to support teachers with running in-service training courses at different intervals to help them reflect upon their identity conflicts leading to their professional identity renegotiation. The role of workplace regulations

In terms of the role of the workplace context and its norms, Maryam believes in the constructive role of institute regulations in her professional identity construction (Level 1 positioning) as she claims that whatever she does as a teacher is what was dictated to her by the institute: I might not be able to follow 100% of the workplace regulations in all situations, but I try to do so. All activities I do are planned based on the institute norms dictated to me…

In addition, she strives to conform to the institute standards (Level 2 positioning) as much as possible although she might not be thoroughly successful in this regard. In fact, as a novice teacher, she is not confident enough to develop her own style and prefers to undergo professional development relying on an external dependable source namely institute standards. The supportive role of institutional demands and expectations in novice teachers’ professional learning process, whether continuous or discontinuous, during the early stages of their career life, was highlighted in some recent studies (e.g. Kocabaş-Gedik & Ortaçtepe Hart, 2020; Leeferink et al., 2018). It can be also implied from Maryam’s assertions that she adopts a submissive role identity with respect to institute policies (Level 3 positioning). According to Pennington and Richards (2016), it seems natural for beginning teachers to assume an institutionally designated and confirmed teacher identity as a legitimate and more reliable one as it provides them with a ready structure to follow in their classes. On the contrary, Muhammad said: I used to teach in an institute where expected teachers to follow their set standards. I told my manager, ‘I will teach in a way I like; if you don’t accept it, I’ll leave’… In fact, they were restricting us with their norms and we couldn’t be as creative as we wished…

From the Level 3 positioning angle, he depicts the view of self as a nonconformist who has his personal methodology and who is autonomous enough to follow the way he likes rather than what was dictated to him by the institute. Also, his sense of security seems to be high as he simply

Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity  157

claims to leave the institute in the case the principal does not let him follow his own style. The preference for adopting the position of a teacher who follows one’s personal style of teaching was observed by an experienced teacher in a study by Eslamdoost et al. (2020), though this high degree of certainty for being able to implement one’s own style in an authentic classroom context was not revealed. Further, Muhammad points to the hindering role of institute regulations in fostering creative teachers (Level 1 positioning). Therefore, he diverges from his workplace authorities and identifies with creative teachers who need to have freedom, to be far from any strict rules, and consequently to have more scope for innovations in their teaching practice (Level 2 positioning). In fact, the restrictive role of institutional rules resulting in the development of teachers as pre-programmed robots without any innovations and the conflict between teachers’ personal ideologies and imposed workplace standards were suggested in some previously conducted studies on experienced teachers (e.g. Eslamdoost et al., 2020; Fogle & Moser, 2017). When compared with each other, both Muhammad and Maryam are involved in the process of teacher professional identity reconstruction although in different directions which might be partly due to the impact of their years of teaching experience as Muhammad, in contrast to Maryam, showed a high level of confidence and autonomy to rely on his own expertise rather than being imposed by institutional regulations. The effect of experience on teachers’ reaction, whether acceptance or resistance to dominant workplace ideologies, was confirmed by Avalos-Rivera (2019) who indicated that while his participant, novice at the beginning, positioned his first workplace context as decelerating of his professional identity development due to the lack of rules and expectations, he, then as an experienced teacher, perceived the same imposed regulations, experienced in other contexts over time, as restrictive in the process of his ideal professional identity construction. If they desire to accelerate their process of professional identity development from the very beginning, novice teachers should be cognizant of the necessity of keeping the balance between outside in or institutional view of teaching and inside out or their individual perspective rather than prioritizing one side at the expense of the other (Pennington & Richards, 2016). Keeping both sides through reconciling imposed and ideal identity (Taylor et al., 2013) helps them gain not only more self-confidence preventing the probable future depression but also a sense of job security far from the fear of being rejected by institutional administrators due to ignoring their norms (Zembylas & Chubbuck, 2018). The role of teachers’ active agency

In response to the influence of being an active agent teacher, Maryam indicates her displeasure with the active agency in the case the teacher is a novice with a low level of expertise. According to positioning Level 1,

158  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

though accepting it to be positive for experienced teachers, she views it as an obstacle in the process of novice teachers’ professional development: If teachers are active agents, it doesn’t mean that they are doing right. The active agency doesn’t have a positive impact if teachers are novice with a low level of expertise as they might go wrong. They need to gain more experience…

From the Level 2 positioning angle, she complies with teachers who are cautious enough not to take an active position to avoid any probable mistakes which she believes to be hindering rather than facilitative. Also, she, as a novice teacher, introduces herself as a follower who needs to gain more knowledge and experience if she wants to make informed decisions based on her own expertise in the future (Level 3 positioning). A study by Hassani et al. (2020) in the context of Iran also revealed that some beginning teachers (before an intervention phase during which their critical consciousness was raised through reflective practice) adopted a subservient state to prevent interference with their institute system and showed reluctance to express their own viewpoints or practice creativity as they believed that whatever transmitted to them by institute stakeholders were right. Muhammad, however, suggests it to be desirable even if the teacher lacks enough expertise since ultimately it will lead to teacher professional identity development (Level 1 positioning): Even a novice teacher with a low level of expertise should try to be an active agent. It’s like trial and error. First, they might go wrong, but they’ll learn what’s right in the process…

Therefore, he agrees with teachers who take risks and implement their personal principles in many cases despite their lack of enough expertise (Level 2 positioning) as he believes that professional progress occurs only if teachers undergo the process of trial and error. In line with this assertion, Ruohotie-Lyhty (2018) proposed an identity-agency model which encouraged both pre- and in-service teachers, irrespective of their years of teaching experience, to display an agentic role rather than adhering strictly to a predestined model of teaching. In fact, it is believed that even if teachers take agentic actions that go wrong due to lack of enough experience, it will lead them to renegotiate the personally defined aspect of their professional identity, and it will consequently facilitate their process of professional identity reconstruction. Hence, Muhammad positions himself as an active agent as he later reports that he prefers being active and innovative in his classes to being like a robot following the same routine each session (Level 3 positioning). To confirm this desire, Kayi-Aydar (2017) suggested that if teachers’ sense of innovation and agency is

Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity  159

ignored, their process of professional identity development may cease. Consequently, they need to be supported to teach creatively and based on their own vision. Moreover, the direct relationship between teachers’ level of agency and continuous professional identity development was concluded in Molla and Nolan’s (2020) research. The significance of teachers’ agentive action was also highlighted by Donaghue (2020) who revealed that some of the teachers in his study claimed to converge with institutionally favored professional identity transferred to them by the supervisor during feedback talk due to their awareness of the workplace pressure and desire to be accepted as a legitimate member. However, it was then mentioned that this low level of agency might weaken their teaching practice, limit their innovation, and negatively impact not only their professional identity progress but also the institution itself. Overall, although exercising agentic actions from the very beginning of one’s teaching practice has been proved to be essential (Ruohotie-Lyhty & Moate, 2016), pre-service and beginning teachers including the novice teacher in this study are mainly unaware of their potential for active agency in some situations. As Hassani et al. (2020) showed, the beginning teachers in their study changed from conformists to non-conformists after a period of consciousness-raising. Thus, teacher education programs can also address this issue by caring about teachers’ voice and agency rather than being solely transmissive (Richards, 2017) that is a top-down structure in which teacher educators transmit their knowledge to trainees who are passive and not provided with the opportunity for active agency and collaboration. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

The results of this study have some pedagogical implications that address three groups. First, teachers should be cognizant of their professional identity dynamicity, which is proved to be a never-ending process. Accordingly, teachers, particularly beginning teachers, need to reshape their minds regarding the misconception that attending pre-service TTCs is the end of professional development as it is the start of their lifelong professional journey. Being aware of the identity transmitted to them during TTCs, they are expected to reflect upon who they are at the moment and who they desire to become, give weight to their personal ideologies, and strive to bridge the gap between their imposed identity and ideal identity leading to their professional identity reformation through the passage of time. The second implication is for teacher educators who are expected to change the transmissive structure of teacher education programs to a more collaborative and reflective atmosphere encouraging teachers to co-construct their professional identities in interaction with their peers as teacher identity construction is a social phenomenon rather than transferable prepackaged ideas. Furthermore, they are supposed to

160  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

make beginning teachers reflect on their imagined identity and the probable conflicts they might encounter in authentic contexts and familiarize them with more realistic aspects of the teaching profession. Finally, institute managers are recommended to run in-service training programs with the participation of both novice and experienced teachers so that they can negotiate their experienced tensions and collaboratively reflect upon them to reform their current state of professional identity. In addition, they should encourage teachers to come out of their comfort zone rather than adhering to a ready-made structure and move toward creativity, innovation, and active agency through reflective practice. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

This study shed light on the collaborative reflection of a novice and an experienced EFL teacher on their professional identity construction focusing on three predetermined factors including the role of TTCs, workplace regulations and teachers’ active agency. It was indicated that these two participants adopted thoroughly opposite positions regarding these aspects, which confirms the different professional identity (re)construction process they underwent. While the novice teacher was more of conformist, conservative and passive, the experienced teacher took up a ­non-conformist, autonomous and active role. The novice teacher’s narrow conceptualization of teacher professional identity dynamics was rooted in her lack of enough teaching experience and being limited to insufficient cognitive repertoire transferred to her during pre-service TTC. The experienced teacher, however, owing to his years of teaching experience, trusted his potential as an agent of change and gave more weight to his ideal identity rather than institutionally imposed identity. Overall, the role of novice and experienced teachers’ collaborative reflection was proved to be significant as it provided the participating teachers with the opportunity to bring such valuable information about the nature of their professional identity from the tacit to the conscious level. Furthermore, the sharp contrast between the targeted novice and experienced teachers’ orientation toward different aspects of their professional identity confirmed the direct impact of teaching experience on the professional identity that teachers adopt and adapt over time and its development. This, in turn, validated the importance of novice teachers’ collaboration with more experienced ones as it might accelerate their process of professional identity development. As a final remark, some areas for further research focusing on the identity-reflection interface are suggested. First of all, it is recommended to conduct similar research but longitudinally to illustrate EFL teachers’ professional identity reconstruction over time by running collaborative reflection panels. Also, the effect of gender on EFL teachers’ perception of different aspects of their professional identity through reflective practice can be investigated. Furthermore, EFL teachers’ reflection on the role of

Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity  161

macro-level contextual factors including state-level requirements and dominant political atmosphere in their professional identity development can be scrutinized. Finally, beginning EFL teachers’ reflection on their imagined professional identity can be explored to reveal the extent to which it distances from the realities of actual teaching practice and predict the tensions that might arise. References Ahn, S. (2019) Non-native English-speaking teachers in Korean English classrooms: Reflections through critical performative pedagogy. Reflective Practice 21 (1), 68–80. Anspal, T., Leijen, A. and Löfström, V. (2019) Role in student teacher identity development in primary and subject teacher curricula. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 63 (5), 679–695. Avalos-Rivera, A.D. (2019) The role of students in the professional identity negotiations of a Mexican EFL teacher. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 18 (1), 1–15. Bamberg, M.G.W. (1997) Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative & Life History 7 (1), 335–342. Barkhuizen, G. (2017) Language teacher identity research: An introduction. In G. Barkhuizen (ed.) Reflections on Language Teacher Identity Research (pp. 10–25). New York, NY: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1998) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process (10th edn). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Dimitrieska, V. (2018) Research on teacher identity: Introduction to mapping challenges and innovations. In P.A. Schutz, D.C. Francis and J. Hong (eds) Becoming a Language Teacher: Tracing the Mediation and Internalization Processes of Pre-service Teachers (pp. 157–168). Cham: Springer Nature. Donaghue, H. (2020) Feedback talk as a means of creating, ratifying and normalising an institutionally valued teacher identity. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 19 (1), 1–17. Eslamdoost, S., King, K.A. and Tajeddin, Z. (2020) Professional identity conflict and (re)construction among English teachers in Iran. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 19 (5), 327-341. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007) Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London: Continuum Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013) Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups: From Practices to Principles. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Farrell, T.S.C. (2017) Who I am is how I teach: Reflection on language teacher professional role identity. In G. Barkhuizen (ed.) Reflections on Language Teacher Identity Research (pp. 304–312). New York, NY: Routledge. Fernando Macías Villegas, M., Hernandez Varona, W. and Gutierrez Sanchez, A. (2020) Student teachers’ identity construction: A socially-constructed narrative in a second language teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education 91 (1), 1–10. Flores, M.A. (2020) Feeling like a student but thinking like a teacher: A study of the development of professional identity in initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching 46 (2), 145–158. Fogle, L.W. and Moser, K. (2017) Language teacher identities in the Southern United States: Transforming rural schools. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 16 (2), 65–79. Gatbonton, E. (2008) Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behavior: Novice and experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Language Teaching Research 12 (2), 161–182.

162  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Hassani, V., Khatib, M. and Yazdani Moghaddam, M. (2020) Contributions of Kumaravadivelu’s language teacher education modular model (KARDS) to Iranian EFL language institute teachers’ professional identity. Applied Research on English Language 9 (1), 75–100. Hernandez Varona, W. and Gutierrez Alvarez, D.F. (2020) English language student teachers developing agency through community-based pedagogy projects. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 22 (1), 109–122. Johnson, K.E. (2009) Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2017) A language teacher’s agency in the development of her professional identities: A narrative case study. Journal of Latinos and Education 16 (1), 1–15. Kocabaş-Gedik, P. and Ortaçtepe Hart, D. (2020) It’s not like that at all: A poststructuralist case study on language teacher identity and emotional labor. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 19 (1), 1–15. Kurosh, S., Hossein Yousefi, M. and Hossein Kashef, S. (2020) Iranian teachers’ reflective teaching practice in relation to self-efficacy perceptions: Investigating teachers’ discipline. Reflective Practice 21 (3), 356–370. Leeferink, H., Koopman, M., Beijaard, D. and Schellings, G.L.M. (2018) Overarching professional identity themes in student teacher workplace learning. Teachers and Teaching 24 (1), 1–21. Miller, J. (2009) Teacher identity. In A. Burns and J.C. Richards (eds) The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 172–181). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Molla, T. and Nolan, A. (2020) Teacher agency and professional practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 26 (1), 1–21. Pennington, M.C. and Richards, J.C. (2016) Teacher identity in language teaching: Integrating personal, contextual, and professional factors. RELC Journal 24 (2), 1–19. Richards, J.C. (2017) Transmissive and transformative approaches to language teacher education. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching 12 (1), 15–38. Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2018) Research on teacher identity: Introduction to mapping challenges and innovations. In P.A. Schutz, D.C. Francis and J. Hong (eds) IdentityAgency in Progress: Teachers Authoring Their Identities (pp. 25–36). Cham: Springer Nature. Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. and Moate, J. (2016) Who and how? Pre-service teachers as active agents developing professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education 55 (3), 318–327. Sang, Y. (2020) Research of language teacher identity: Status quo and future directions. RELC Journal, 2 (3), 1–8. Taylor, F., Busse, V., Gagova, L., Marsden, E. and Roosken, B. (2013) Identity in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Why Listening to Our Students’ and Teachers’ Voices Really Matters. London: British Council. Tsui, A.B. (2005) Expertise in teaching: Perspectives and issues. In K. Johnson (ed.) Expertise in Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 167–189). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Vygotsky, L.S. (2018) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, P. (2020) Too many constraints: Five first-year EFL teachers’ professional identity construction. European Journal of Teacher Education 43 (1), 1–20. Yalcin Arslan, F. (2019) Reflection in pre-service teacher education: Exploring the nature of four EFL pre-service teachers’ reflections. Reflective Practice 20 (1), 1–14. Yuan, R. (2018) A critical review on nonnative English teacher identity research: From 2008 to 2017. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39 (1), 1–20.

Language Teachers’ Collaborative Reflection on Their Professional Identity  163

Zembylas, M. (2003) Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 9 (3), 213–238. Zembylas, M. and Chubbuck, S. (2018) Research on teacher identity: Introduction to mapping challenges and innovations. In P.A. Schutz, D.C. Francis and J. Hong (eds) Conceptualizing ‘Teacher Identity’: A Political Approach (pp. 183–193). Cham: Springer Nature.

11 Reflective Practice as Identity Work: A Teacher Educator’s Reflections on Identity Tensions Bedrettin Yazan

Introduction

Tension is an inevitable part of professional identity construction (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Alsup, 2006, 2019; Izadinia, 2014; Pillen et al., 2013; Sayer, 2012). Transitioning and transforming into a new identity involve us grappling with tensions. Language teaching and teacher education are no exception. We all experience tensions in our professional lives; we are pulled in different directions and find ourselves in positions, for example, between societal or professional discourses, institutional expectations, and individual aspirations, when making a decision or taking an action (see Selvi et al., 2022; Yazan et al., 2022). As we become teachers and teacher educators, we experience tensions that we try to resolve or relieve to an extent during our professional practice. Although we know we experience them and recognize their importance in our identity work, we seldom explicitly reflect on the tensions. I believe that describing, analyzing, and reflecting on tensions can open up new conceptual and pedagogical windows for us to better understand our ongoing identity work and its interconnection with our professional learning and practice. Therefore, I concur with Berry (2007: 32), who argues in her book that tensions can help us make sense of the emotions involved in the ‘internal turmoil that many teacher educators experience in their teaching about teaching as they find themselves pulled in different directions by competing concerns, and the difficulties for teacher educators in learning to recognize and manage these opposing forces’. Instances of such internal turmoil in my professional life will be the central focus of this chapter. I unpack my tensions as a language teacher educator and engage in an identity-oriented reflection. More specifically, using self-study methodology (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2015; Peercy & Sharkey, 2020), I explore my 164

Reflective Practice as Identity Work  165

recent tensions as a teacher educator who used critical autoethnography as a teacher learning activity in a graduate-level teacher education course. In the remainder of this chapter, I will first share how I came up with the idea of using critical autoethnography as a teacher learning activity (see Yazan, 2019a, 2019b). Then, I will describe how I have been implementing this activity in my Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition courses in two different university-based teacher education programs since Spring 2018. This description will be ensued by my description and analysis of four main tensions that pertain to my identities as a teacher educator and researcher of teacher education. Lastly, I will discuss how we, as teachers and teacher educators, can use identity as a pedagogical lens to inform teacher reflective practice (e.g. through the writing of a critical autoethnography) and how tensions can be incorporated in teacher education practices to contribute to identity-oriented teacher learning practices. Background How the idea emerged: I was never alone in this

I was first introduced to autoethnography as a method when I was invited by Rashi Jain, my dear friend and colleague, to propose a panel with three other fellow doctoral students at the University of Maryland (UMD), namely, Yu Bai, Anthony Adawu and Dian Marissa. In that collaboration, I learned that autoethnography is an established qualitative inquiry in which the researcher (i.e. ethnographer) critically analyzes autobiographical data to make sense of the intricate interplay between ‘self’ and ‘culture’ by focusing on the situatedness of the self within social, cultural, economic and political discourses (Chang et al., 2013). Rashi suggested we all read Canagarajah’s (2012) autoethnography published in TESOL Quarterly, and we presented our individual autoethnographies in the TESOL 2014 panel that questioned and problematized the NNEST (non-native English-speaking teachers) identity position. As we prepared for this panel through collective critical dialogues at Rashi’s house and presented at TESOL 2014 in Portland (Jain et al., 2014), I became interested in autoethnography as a research methodology. In the same year, I would also listen to my PhD advisor’s presentation at our program colloquium at UMD, when she presented her research ‘Do we “walk the talk” in language teacher education?’ that was a self-study of her year-long experience as a Spanish teacher back in the classroom (see Peercy, 2015). She modeled the self-study methodology that teacher educators use to ­formally examine their own practices with qualitative data in order to improve their practice and contribute to the teacher education knowledge base (Peercy & Sharkey, 2020). These experiences sparked my own idea of studying my own practice as a teacher educator. Later on, when I

166  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

prepared to write a brief activity description for Aya Matsuda’s (2017) edited volume, Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language, I designed autoethnographic activity to support teacher candidates’ (TCs’) learning to adopt the pedagogy of English as an international language. This idea continued to evolve thanks to the people with whom I worked on projects, but the idea that led me to assert agency to write a full-fledged article to describe critical autoethnographic narrative (CAN) was the fourth-round revisions of a journal article. One reviewer suggested I discuss how my study’s findings (Yazan, 2018a) informed critical issues in English language learner (ELL) education and provide implications for teacher education. From my response to that suggestion emerged the idea of CAN as a program-long activity for language TCs. My detailed description was curtailed later due to word limit, but I knew I needed to write a separate paper where I could theorize and describe CAN to the community of language teacher educators. In Summer 2017, I put all my writing commitments aside and began a new paper. I felt the urge to write a piece on the use of critical autoethnography in language teacher education, and I had never been more comfortable writing and composing an academic paper before. I think it was because it was emerging from the nexus of my identities as a teacher educator and researcher of teacher education. It felt right. My conversations with colleagues, Latrise Johnson and Melanie Acosta, reassured me that it was a good idea to design such a teacher learning activity which foregrounds teacher identity development. In that manuscript, I designed CAN as a living narrative document in which teacher candidates recounted and analyzed their past and recent experiences with language use, learning and teaching in order to explore and articulate the sociocultural and political situatedness of language, language teaching and themselves as language teachers. It goes beyond literacy autobiography (Canagarajah, 2020) by concentrating on the interplay between teachers’ identities and surrounding discourses. Imagined as a program-wide endeavor, CAN could be tied to individual teacher education courses as TCs keep working on their CANs throughout their professional preparation by adding and analyzing more stories. That design was the manifestation and culmination of my reflections as a teacher educator and researcher who believes that teacher identity needs to be integrated into teacher education practices. The paper was published in TESOL Journal online first in 2018 (Yazan, 2019a) and marked the emergence of my research agenda into more productive venues that directly inform and are informed by my teacher education practices. How I have used CAN in teacher education courses: I was taking a risk

My dissertation explored ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) TCs’ identity development in a 13-month initial teacher education

Reflective Practice as Identity Work  167

program. Thanks to my dissertation chair and committee members, I kept asking myself what researching teacher identity means for teaching and teacher education. This question guided and fueled my research agenda, and CAN is my current but evolving answer to that question. My search for that answer was very educative. I remember feeling excited when I came across Morgan’s (2004) concept of identity as pedagogy (see also Motha et al., 2012) and later on Olsen’s (2008, 2011) call for the use of identity as a pedagogical tool. The design of CAN was based on these scholars’ work but was theoretically framed by the nexus of earlier scholarship on critical language teacher education (Hawkins & Norton, 2009), autoethnography as an account of identity development (Canagarajah, 2012), narrative as a teacher learning tool (Johnson & Golombek, 2011) and narrative as identity construction (Barkhuizen, 2016). It was definitely part of the increasing interest in autoethnography (Canagarajah, 2012), self-narrative (Lee & Simon-Maeda, 2006), memoirs (Vandrick, 2019), collaborative, critical storytelling (Sister Scholars, 2021) and self-study (Peercy & Sharkey, 2020) in language education as well as the recent critical, social, narrative and affective turns that have led to paradigm shifts in language education research. Initially my original goal with CAN was to apply it as a program-wide learning tool for TCs who could work on this narrative over the span of their coursework in the program (see Yazan, 2019a). However, in my actual implementation, I needed to delimit it to individual courses. The first time I used it was in Spring 2018. I prepared my syllabus for the course, Linguistics for Classroom Teachers, at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Around that time, I was still working on the revisions of the TESOL Journal article and mulling over one reviewer comment which roughly read: ‘This would be a stronger paper if the author actually used that innovative pedagogical tool and shared their data from TCs’. It was mid-way through my tenure track position at UA, and I had started feeling a little more confident about my tenure prospects. I was bold enough to take a risk to overhaul the syllabus. Then, I included CAN as the major semester-long assignment which would be completed in four installments (i.e. drafts) and TCs would have one-on-one feedback sessions with me after every installment to discuss my written feedback, ask questions and plan subsequent steps. In the first two instalments, I expected TCs to narrate all critical incidents from their past and recent experiences with the use, learning and teaching of languages. In the last two, they could still keep revising their narratives, adding more narratives, but the main goal was to start analyzing those critical incidents with a theoretical framework. In the one-on-one feedback sessions, I clarified my written feedback if needed and provided TCs with guidance in narrating and analyzing their stories. I asked them to present their CAN in the last class session. Additionally, in the meantime, we had collective data analysis sessions as a class in which I modeled potential analysis of their stories and asked

168  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

them to draw a concept map of their CAN (see Yazan, 2019b, and Figure 11.1 for examples), and co-construct a rubric (see Yazan, 2019c, and Figure 11.2 for examples) to evaluate their final CAN submission. Completing this assignment required me to spend a lot of time and energy

Figure 11.1  A teacher candidate’s concept map of her CAN

Figure 11.2  Two teacher candidates’ co-constructed rubric

Reflective Practice as Identity Work  169

reviewing TCs’ CAN installments, giving them written feedback, and meeting with them individually. It was totally worth it since I had ample opportunities to get to know my students through their stories as well as their family members’ stories, and work with them on their autoethnographies. Student enrollment in my classes was in my favor. I never had more than 10 students in my graduate courses when I implemented CAN in Spring 2018, Fall 2019, and Spring 2021. An Empirical Study

Below I will describe and analyze my four identity tensions as a teacher educator and researcher of teacher education: (1) struggle to maintain a coherent and consistent sense of self; (2) struggle to gain legitimacy in the terrain of autoethnography; (3) struggle to mediate multiple, interrelating ‘voices’ in my professional identity; and (4) struggle to match assignment with course content. Tension 1: Struggle to maintain a coherent and consistent sense of self

Since my interest in language teacher identity (LTI) emerged through my exposure to the literature on language teacher learning and reflection as well as on NNESTs, I found myself making sense of the empirical and conceptual research in my own identity trajectory. I am a language teacher, and my linguistic identity would be ideologically categorized as ‘NNEST’. Every time I read scholarly conversations on these topics, I tried to understand how such conversations pertained to my identity. What can I learn about myself from the research? How does the research resonate with my experiences? I think that happens whenever we read research; we make sense of it through our interpretive lens which has been constructed through our lived experiences. The first time I taught a teacher education course in 2010, I was a graduate assistant at UMD. The institutional discourses did not position me as a teacher educator, although I was technically teaching teachers to work with English learners. When I graduated from the PhD program and was hired as a faculty member at the University of Alabama (UA), my job description explicitly included my responsibilities working with TCs at undergraduate and graduate levels. Earlier years as a new faculty, I spent most of my time designing my courses and establishing my research. I tried to disseminate my dissertation findings to the scholarly community of educational linguistics in the form of journal articles. During this publishing process, I realized one more time that one of the major implications of LTI research is that teacher identity formation should be an explicit instructional goal in language teacher education practices. I thought to myself: I am a language teacher educator, so do my teacher education courses include any identity-oriented activities? My

170  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

research was pulling me into one direction, while my teacher education practices were headed toward another, which has been my ongoing identity tension (see Yazan, 2018b). First several years in my faculty position, I did not feel empowered to make drastic changes in my courses. First, it took me some time to transform entirely from my graduate student identity into my professor identity. Also, I was not sure if changing assignments in my courses might lead to complications in terms of satisfying the state and national accrediting agencies’ standards. I would talk about teacher identity in my classes and how it is connected to teacher learning. Every time I realized that my classes lacked an assignment or activity that particularly focused on my TCs’ identities, my identity tension became more intensified. This tension ended up being productive in my case. I not only wrote a paper that presented an identity-oriented activity (i.e. CAN) but also asserted the agency to incorporate that activity in my Linguistics for Classroom Teachers as the main assignment in Spring 2018, and I used it for three semesters. Tension 2: Struggle to gain legitimacy in the terrain of autoethnography

As I was typing the design and description of CAN in my syllabus for Linguistics for Classroom Teachers, I was asking myself numerous questions that I imagine my students were also asking about CAN. Being my own biggest critic, I readily went on to question my credibility and legitimacy to use this assignment. I had not written an autoethnography before. I was familiar with the genre by reading autoethnographies and presenting as part of the panel in TESOL 2014. I did not have any insights to share in terms of the writing process. How convincing would it be to require TCs to complete such an unorthodox assignment? I was not entirely sure what exactly I should expect and how to provide feedback. This questioning posed a tension between my instructional belief and decision that CAN would work and my lack of experience with such research writing genre. Yet, it did not stop me from this venture, though; conversely, it spurred me further to devise class activities to introduce critical autoethnography as a research methodology and teacher learning activity, and to scaffold their writing process. My original ideal(istic) plan was to write my own autoethnography as I worked with my TCs, but then realizing how much time and energy I needed to spend guiding them in their CAN, I needed to postpone that idea to the following year (see Yazan, 2019c). First, I shared with my TCs that it was my first time using this assignment, and we would be learning together that semester. I had a plan. I had spent a lot of time thinking about CAN and playing it out to understand how it would go, what challenges TCs and I might encounter and how I could support their writing. I thought providing lots of published and

Reflective Practice as Identity Work  171

unpublished autoethnographies would help. I intentionally selected a mixture of autoethnographies written by teachers and teacher educators (Canagarajah, 2012; Donnelly, 2015; Solano-Campos, 2014) alike so that my TCs can see their peers’ published papers. I also knew that this would be a semester-long process and split the assignment into four installments. In the first place, I expected them to remember and write anything about their past stories regarding their use, learning and teaching of languages, as well as keep a journal of their recent experiences and talk to their family members when relevant. Additionally, we had class discussions on the relationship between identities and ideologies and engaged in collective data analysis sessions to model how they can possibly approach their stories with the lens of language ideologies (see Sayer, 2012). For example, in one session, I shared with TCs data extracts from interviews with parents of an Arabic-English bilingual Libyan family about their family language policies, and we answered some analytical questions to see the relationship between identity and ideologies such as: Who is involved in this incident? Who are the actors/agents? What is happening? Who holds the power to make decisions? What is the justification for their decisions? Who is expected to act on this decision? What identity positions are assumed/enacted? Lastly, I introduced them to multiple theoretical frameworks (e.g. dialogic imagination, communities of practice, language socialization, translanguaging and translingual practices) that they can use to analyze the storied experiences in their CAN. As I read TCs’ first installment of CAN, my tension became more noticeable. Giving feedback on their writing, I was not sure what to focus on and how to guide them in this endeavor. The tentative plan was to narrate as many stories as possible in the first two installments and start working on the analysis of these stories in the last two installments. I did not have a rubric, to begin with, because I did not want to be as prescriptive which would belie the spirit of autoethnography. However, not having a set of well-defined parameters, I was feeling more intense tension. That balance between providing ample amount of guidance and being prescriptive kept being one of the major tensions I have as a teacher educator. Attempting to be congruent to my plan with installments, I focused on TCs’ stories first. I tended to ask them to provide more description or details regarding what exactly happened, who was involved, how they felt then, how they feel now and how that incident influenced their teacher identity. However, around that time, a student asked an honest question in one of class meetings: ‘Dr Yazan, have you ever written a critical autoethnography before? I’d be interested in reading it’. That was a fair question which I was sort of dreading, so it did not help my tension. As a response, I remember sharing with the class my original plan and added that I wanted to publish a critical autoethnography ideally in order to be  able to facilitate their writing process. I told them about the CAN paper that was under review then for TESOL Journal. As I was

172  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

writing this paper, it also occurred to me that modeling such a venture to initiate an innovative practice as a teacher educator would be a good example for TCs. They had the chance to see me implement CAN for the first time and witnessed my vulnerability to build a new assignment that covered the majority of the course grade and took a lot of my time throughout the semester. This tension also ended up being productive for me. I started working on my autoethnography right after the end of Spring 2018 and published it in Teacher Education Quarterly in Summer 2019. Here, by productivity, I do not mean the manuscript itself as a product; I mean that I asserted my own agency by engaging in an autoethnography writing process which involved reflecting on my teacher education practices. Tension 3: Struggle to mediate multiple, interrelating ‘voices’ in my professional identity

As I noted earlier, CAN has been my endeavor to explicitly integrate identity into my teacher education practices. It is primarily the application of an established but contested research methodology to teacher learning. This new assignment is very much situated at the borderland between practices of research and teacher education. Autoethnography as a research methodology is not intended to be used as a teacher learning activity. When I bring it into teacher education and use it to foreground identity in teacher learning, I cross borders or traverse in that liminal borderland area. This border-crossing has been a challenge and source of tension for me when I provide feedback and guidance for my TCs as they were working on their CANs over the semester. While reading TCs’ CAN installments and talking to them during their one-on-one feedback sessions, I find myself between two main professional identities: a researcher of teacher education and a teacher educator. I am aware that in my case, these two identities are very much inseparable from each other. In a recent article, I discussed this issue as part of my multivocal self as a language teacher educator where I enacted in feedback sessions with a TC (Yazan, forthcoming). By reading and rereading the transcriptions of my one-on-one feedback meetings with TCs, I noticed based on my reflections that my identity as a researcher (who is very much interested in teacher identity) was becoming more foregrounded than my identity as a teacher educator (who is using CAN to intentionally facilitate TCs’ professional identity formation). To address that issue, I thought to myself that I needed to keep my researcher identity in check as I listened to my TCs talk about their stories and give them feedback moving forward in writing CAN. I made sure TCs have the discursive space to discuss their stories during feedback sessions or tell new stories, and experiment with theoretical frameworks to analyze their experiences. I consciously evaded analyzing their stories for them, because the analysis

Reflective Practice as Identity Work  173

process is where they would engage in a reflection on their identity formation. To support their analysis, I asked them questions such as: ‘What language practices are assigned value or utility in this story? What ideology(ies) do you see as dominant? What kind of language user/learner/ teacher do these ideologies expect you to become/be?’ Later on, on several occasions, I noticed TCs needed some scaffolding or modeling especially in the use of theoretical framework to analyze the experiences storied in their CAN. I started providing some examples of how they could analyze their stories to make sense of the relationship between ideologies and identities in their life history. In some cases, I directly engaged in analysis with them during feedback sessions, and in others, I told a similar story of mine and analyzed that one as an example. As I discuss in Yazan (forthcoming), the tension in my multivocal self has led to the identity of a ‘sounding board’ which actually is one of the roles that autoethnographers play in collaborative autoethnographies (Chang et al., 2013). Collaborative autoethnographers act like a sounding board by ‘listening to stories or asking probing questions to help others, sometimes caught in their own experiences, connect their stories with those of others’ (2013: 58). My original plan did not include me enacting that identity; it emerged out of my ongoing reflection on my identity tension implementing CAN, which again ended up being productive for me. Tension 4: Struggle to match assignment with course content

I have used CAN in my graduate teaching courses three times so far, twice in a Linguistics for Classroom Teachers in Spring 2018 and Fall 2019 and once in a Second Language Acquisition Research course in Spring 2021. As I mentioned earlier, the original and ideal implementation of CAN was program-long. That is, TCs start working on their CAN with their first class and keep adding to and revising their autoethnography until they complete the program (Yazan, 2019a). Because such a programmatic change was not possible in the institutional settings, I chose to use it as part of a teacher education course. However, the tension I have been experiencing since the first CAN iteration is that I am not sure if I could make sure there is a one-on-one correspondence between CAN as an assignment and the course content. That is, if I am using CAN as one of the major assessment instruments in my course, then it may not be assessing TCs’ learning of all content; it may lack validity, in assessment terms. On one hand, I believe in the instrumentality of CAN in centering on identity work in teacher education practices. On the other hand, as an assessment tool, it may not be doing what it is supposed to do. In both Linguistics and SLA courses, my syllabi are informed by the conceptualization of language which follows the theoretical paradigm shifts in applied linguistics in the past two decades (Block, 2007; Zuengler & Miller, 2006) and covers the issues of identity and ideologies as major

174  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

topics. They both reconsider the ‘traditional’ knowledge base that has been codified as essential language teacher knowledge gained through those courses. However, these courses also need to cover the foundational linguistics and SLA knowledge because I thought these courses should provide a comprehensive coverage of topics and diversity of theoretical approaches. For example, in 2021 when I was teaching SLA research, students knew which SLA research I position myself closer to, but the course content included a survey of all SLA theories from the very beginning so that TCs can see the proliferation of paradigms in that realm of SLA research. TCs and I were well aware that some of the content we discussed in both courses did not lend itself to their CAN research. Although it was not the only assessment of either course, CAN as a major assignment did not generate the assessment data regarding TCs’ learning of the majority of the course content. This tension is exacerbated by the fact that TCs’ learning in these foundational courses is key in their passing the state certification exam or CAN as a key assignment could be used in teacher education program evaluations conducted by state and national accrediting agencies. I really want my TCs to engage in writing their CAN as part of my courses, but I do not want my innovative approach to teacher learning to jeopardize their certification nor my program’s accreditation. This tension is still ongoing and fueling my reflective practice. I will keep asking: What modifications can I make in the design that might help me attend to more of the course content in the writing of CAN? Or is it even possible? Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

In this chapter, I have so far discussed my identity tensions when designing and using CAN as a teacher learning activity in two graduate courses. Based on this discussion, I would like to share pedagogical takeaways for language teacher education. Because identity work is an inevitable component in professional learning and practices, teacher identity should serve as a pedagogical lens that guide language teachers’ and teacher educators’ reflective practices. Earlier research found that language teachers construct their identities in their reflective practice as in the case of novice (Watanabe, 2017) and experienced teachers (Farrell, 2011) and reflection as part of teacher learning contributes to ESOL TCs’ identity formation (Yazan, 2014). Also, recent research on language teacher educators’ identity foregrounds the relationship between reflection and identity construction (Barkhuizen, 2021). There is more research upcoming that addresses the question about the relationship between reflective practice and LTI (see Watanabe, 2017) with a specific focus on tensions (see Tajeddin, forthcoming). Building upon this previous work, we, as language teacher educators, can develop practices that rely on identity as a framework to orient reflection on teaching and teacher education. Such an identity-oriented reflection can address the

Reflective Practice as Identity Work  175

following questions: Who am I as a teacher? Who do I aspire to become? What other social identities are relevant to my teacher identity? What past experiences or people have influenced my current teacher identity? What identity or identities are visible in my practice? What identities am I constructing and enacting in my teaching? What is the relationship between my identity and teaching? Attending to those questions as part of reflection, teachers and teacher educators should realize that they might be experiencing identity tensions and associated emotions. Focusing on those tensions could open up new windows into teachers’ and teacher educators’ self-exploration of the relationship between professional identity and practices. Reflection on identity through tensions could start with the analysis of some sample critical incidents of other teachers available in the literature (Farrell & Baecher, 2017; Richards & Farrell, 2011) or teachers and teacher educators can think of incidents that are critical to them and describe and discuss tensions they experience in relation to those incidents. To turn this reflection into an extended writing, CAN would be a suitable tool for teacher educators to center their practices on teachers’ identity tensions. After storying their experiences, teachers can focus on their tensions to discuss how they are emerging from their practices, what causes those tensions, how their tensions challenge their identity and what they have done to address those tensions. In my last iteration of CAN, I specifically encouraged TCs to attend to their tensions when discussing their teacher identity, but I believe I should make it more explicit in the assignment description. In addition to CAN, there are other teacher learning activities which can be used to reframe teacher reflection with an identity lens. While some of these activities already have tensions as their primary focus, the others can be easily integrated identity tensions with adjustments. To exemplify such identity-oriented teacher learning activities, teacher educators used narrative-biographical methods (Kelchtermans, 2009), autobiographical methods (Canagarajah, 2020; Meijer et al., 2014), collaborative reflection meetings (Meijer & Oolbekkink-Marchand, 2009), redesign of all course components with an explicit pedagogy of teacher identity (Flores, 2014; Martel & Yazan, 2021), language portraits to focus on the relationship between linguistic and professional identities (Lindahl et al., 2021), and race-based caucuses to ‘engage the relationship between teachers’ racialized selves and teacher identities’ (Varghese et al., 2019: 3). In all these activities, identity tensions can be brought in as a central point to guide teacher reflection. Using such activities, teacher educators should also model reflecting on their own identity tensions and unpack how those tensions have been impactful in their professional life. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

In closing, I would like to note that writing this chapter has been a rewarding and challenging reflective process for me. It gave the

176  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

experiential and discursive space to describe, analyze and discuss my identity tensions, but I needed to let myself be vulnerable as I was opening up the analysis of my identity tensions and practices for public scrutiny. Organizing my thoughts and feelings in writing was helpful for me to have a better sense of those tensions and their place in my use of CAN. My future research will examine an extended use of CAN in supporting language teachers’ engagement in reflective narrative writing to better understand tensions they experience at the nexus of their professional practice and identity. Also, I would like to research how my identity as a teacher educator interacts with my students’ identities as teachers. Ending my writing here within the limits of a traditional chapter length, I know that I will continue to navigate the tensions discussed in this paper, and my reflection on my teacher education practices will continue beyond this writing. References Akkerman, S.F. and Meijer, P.C. (2011) A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2), 308–319. Alsup, J. (2006) Teacher Identity Discourses: Negotiating Personal and Professional Spaces. London: Routledge. Alsup, J. (2019) Millennial Teacher Identity Discourses: Balancing Self and Other. London: Routledge. Barkhuizen, G. (2016) A short story approach to analyzing teacher (imagined) identities over time. TESOL Quarterly 50 (3), 655–683. Barkhuizen, G. (2021) Language Teacher Educator Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berry, A. (2007) Tensions in Teaching About Teaching: Understanding Practice as a Teacher Educator. London: Springer. Block, D. (2007) The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). Modern Language Journal 91, 863–876. Canagarajah, A.S. (2012) Teacher development in a global profession: An autoethnography. TESOL Quarterly 46, 258–279. Canagarajah, A.S. (2020) Transnational Literacy Autobiographies as Translingual Writing. London: Routledge. Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F. and Hernandez, K.A.C. (2013) Collaborative Autoethnography. New York, NY: Routledge. Donnelly, H. (2015) Becoming an ESL Teacher: An Autoethnography. Master’s thesis, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. Farrell, T.S.C. (2011) Exploring the professional role identities of experienced ESL teachers through reflective practice. System 39 (1), 54–62. Farrell, T.S.C. and Baecher, L. (2017) Reflecting on Critical Incidents in Language Education: Forty Dilemmas for Novice TESOL Professionals. London: Bloomsbury. Flores, M.A. (2014) Developing teacher identity in preservice education: Experiences and practices from Portugal. In C.J. Craig and L. Orland-Barak (eds) International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) (pp. 353–379). Bingley: Emerald. Hamilton, M.L. and Pinnegar, S. (2015) Knowing, Becoming, Doing as Teacher Educators: Identity, Intimate Scholarship, Inquiry. Bingley: Emerald. Hawkins, M. and Norton, B. (2009) Critical language teacher education. In A. Burns and J. Richards (eds) Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 30–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reflective Practice as Identity Work  177

Izadinia, M. (2014) Teacher educators’ identity: A review of literature. European Journal of Teacher Education 37 (4), 426–441. Jain, R., Bai, Y., Adawu, A., Marissa, D. and Yazan, B. (2014) ‘Am I an “NNEST”?’ A new generation’s identities and perspectives. Unpublished manuscript. Johnson, K.E. and Golombek, P.R. (2011) The transformative power of narrative in second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 45 (3), 486–509. Kelchtermans, G. (2009) Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability, and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 15 (2), 257–272. Lee, E. and Simon-Maeda, A. (2006) Racialized research identities in ESL/EFL research. TESOL Quarterly 40 (3), 573–594. Lindahl, K.M., Henderson, K. and Fallas-Escobar, C. (2021) Linguistically responsive pedagogy for Latinx teacher candidates: Surfacing language ideological dilemmas. TESOL Quarterly 55 (4), 1190-1220. Martel, J. and Yazan, B. (2021) Enacting an identity approach in a language teacher education practicum course. In K. Paesani and M. Bigelow (eds) Diversity and Transformation in Language Teacher Education (pp. 35–62). CARLA: University of Minnesota. Matsuda, A. (ed.) (2017) Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Meijer, P.C. and Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. (2009) Tracing learning in collaborative reflection meetings of student teachers. In C.J. Craig and L.F. Deretchin (eds) Teacher Education Yearbook XVII: Teacher Learning in Small Group Settings (pp. 178–199). Houston: ATE. Meijer, P.C., Oolbekkink, H.W., Pillen, M. and Aardema, A. (2014) Pedagogies of developing teacher identity. In C.J. Craig and L. Orland-Barak (eds) International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) (pp. 293–309). Bingley: Emerald. Morgan, B. (2004) Teacher identity as pedagogy: Towards a field-internal conceptualisation in bilingual and second language education. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7 (2–3), 172–188. Motha, S., Jain, R. and Tecle, T. (2012) Translinguistic identity-as-pedagogy: Implications for language teacher education. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research 1, 13–28. Olsen, B. (2008) Teaching What They Learn, Learning What They Live: How Teachers’ Personal Histories Shape Their Professional Development. London: Routledge. Olsen, B. (2011) ‘I am large, I contain multitudes’: Teacher identity as useful frame for research, practice, and diversity in teacher education. In A. Ball and C. Tyson (eds) The AERA Handbook on Studying Diversity in Teacher Education (pp. 257–273). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Peercy, M.M. (2015) Do we ‘walk the talk’ in preparing teachers to work with language learners? Teacher Education and Practice 28 (1), 126–144. Peercy, M.M. and Sharkey, J. (2020) Missing a S-STEP? How self-study of teacher education practice can support the language teacher education knowledge base. Language Teaching Research 24 (1), 105–115. Pillen, M.T., Den Brok, P.J. and Beijaard, D. (2013) Profiles and change in beginning teachers’ professional identity tensions. Teaching and Teacher Education 34, 86–97. Richards, J.C. and Farrell, T.S.C. (2011) Practice Teaching: A Reflective Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sayer, P. (2012) Ambiguities and Tensions in English Language Teaching: Portraits of EFL Teachers as Legitimate Speakers. London: Routledge. Selvi, A.F., Rudolph, N., and Yazan, B. (2022) Navigating the complexities of criticality and identity in ELT: A collaborative autoethnography. Asian Englishes. https://doi. org/10.1080/13488678.2022.2056798

178  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Sister Scholars (2021) Strategies for sisterhood in the language education academy. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.18 33725 Solano-Campos, A. (2014) The making of an international educator: Transnationalism and nonnativeness in English teaching and learning. TESOL Journal 5 (3), 412–443. Tajeddin, Z. (forthcoming) Language Teacher Identity and Reflective Practice. Sheffield: Equinox. Vandrick, S. (2019) Growing Up with God and Empire: A Postcolonial Analysis of ‘Missionary Kid’ Memoirs. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Varghese, M., Daniels, J.R. and Park, C.C. (2019) Structuring disruption within university-based teacher education programs: Possibilities and challenges of race-based caucuses. Teachers College Record 121 (4), 1–34. Watanabe, A. (2017) Reflective Practice as Professional Development: Experiences of Teachers of English in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yazan, B. (2014) How ESOL teacher candidates construct their teacher identities: A case study of an MATESOL program. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. Yazan, B. (2018a) Being and becoming an ESOL teacher through coursework and internship: Three teacher candidates’ identity negotiation. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 15 (3), 205–227. Yazan, B. (2018b) TESL teacher educators’ professional self-development, identity, and agency. TESL Canada Journal 35 (2), 140–155. Yazan, B. (2019a) Towards identity-oriented teacher education: Critical autoethnographic narrative. TESOL Journal 10 (1), 1–15. Yazan, B. (2019b) Identities and ideologies in a language teacher candidate’s autoethnography: Making meaning of storied experience. TESOL Journal 10 (4), 1–21. Yazan, B. (2019c) An autoethnography of a language teacher educator: Wrestling with ideologies and identity positions. Teacher Education Quarterly 46 (3), 34–56. Yazan, B. (2022) Multivocal teacher educator identity: A self-study of a language teacher educator’s use of critical autoethnography. In R. Yuan and I. Lee (eds) Becoming and Being a TESOL Teacher Educator: Research and Practice (pp. 246–365). London: Routledge. Yazan, B., Pentón Herrera, L. and Rashed, D. (2022) Transnational TESOL practitioners’ identity tensions: A collaborative autoethnography. TESOL Quarterly. http://www. doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3130 Zuengler, J. and Miller, E.R. (2006) Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 35–58.

12 ‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’: ­Pre-Service Language Teachers’ Reflective Practice During Overseas Immersion Rui Yuan and Min Yang

Introduction

Against the backdrop of an increasingly globalized and multicultural world, immersion programs have made inroads into current language teacher education programs. To date, there has been a large volume of studies on the benefits of overseas immersion programs for developing pre-service teachers’ language competence, pedagogical knowledge and intercultural awareness (e.g. Lee, 2009; Smolcic & Katunich, 2017). However, relatively limited attention has been paid to whether and how immersion experiences can influence student teachers’ reflective awareness and abilities, which are the essential components of their professional competence. Reflection generally refers to a continuous and systematic thinking process, which involves critically evaluating specific actions in contexts with reference to a range of complex factors and may result in a judgment or decision about further actions (Farrell, 2008; Yuan et al., 2022). Reflection can occur in the process of classroom teaching, in which teachers make on-site evaluation with immediate adjustment to their unfolding practice (i.e. reflection-in-action), while it can also take place in posteriori of the event (i.e. reflection-on-action) as teachers look back and examine their classroom practice retrospectively (Akbari, 2007; Schön, 1991). According to Karakaş and Yükselir (2020), a combination of ­reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action can further lead to reflectionfor-action, which enables teachers to actively imagine their future 179

180  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

teaching acts and anticipate possible challenges and solutions. In the field of second language teacher education, numerous studies (see Farrell, 2016 for a detailed review) have shown that reflection can move language teachers from daily routinized practice toward an analytical, critical stance to examine their tacit beliefs and practice and seek their continuous learning. Given the popularity of overseas immersion programs in current pre-service language teacher education worldwide (e.g. Lee, 2009; Trent, 2011), there is a need to investigate whether opportunities for reflective practice are available in overseas immersion, how such opportunities (if any) are perceived by student teachers and what potential challenges might impede their reflective practice through immersion. This chapter reports a qualitative case study which explores Hong Kong pre-service language teachers’ learning experiences in an immersion program in New Zealand. Comprising of a wide range of components, including university-based coursework, field school visits, as well as homestay experience, the program aims not only to promote the participants’ language proficiency and intercultural communicative competence but also to enhance their pedagogical knowledge and reflective abilities as prospective language teachers. Drawing on data from in-depth interviews and relevant artefacts (e.g. teaching plans and reflections), the study specifically focuses on two student teachers’ reflective experiences during the immersion program. The findings of the study can add to our understanding about the role of reflection in facilitating teacher learning in linguistically and culturally diverse settings. Additionally, practical implications can also be drawn from the study for language teacher educators and curriculum designers regarding how to create a rich and meaningful immersion experience for pre-service language teachers with a view to promoting their reflective abilities. In the following sections, we first present a review on the relevant studies about pre-service teachers’ reflective practice and overseas immersion, and then introduce the research background and methodology. Afterward, the research findings are illustrated with examples, which are further discussed with practical implications for current second language teacher education. Overseas Immersion and Teacher Reflection

As opposed to a traditional, technical view about teacher learning, the past decades have seen a sociocultural turn in second language teacher education, which sees language teachers as social, agentive and reflective professionals who learn to teach through participation and practice in communities of practice. This view attaches great importance to reflection, which, as argued by many scholars (e.g. Farrell, 2016; Yuan et al., 2022), should constitute an explicit component of teacher education programs at pre- and in-service levels. This is because reflection, enacted through different forms of practice (e.g. journal writing, group discussion

‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’  181

and videoed analysis), plays an indispensable role in teachers’ professional learning, which consists of their knowledge acquisition (e.g. about the subject matter and its teaching), skill building and disposition cultivation (e.g. open-mindedness and inquisitiveness) (Kelly, 2006). On the other hand, promoting reflection in teacher education programs is a challenging task. According to the existing literature (Farrell, 2016; Mann & Walsh, 2013), reflective practice has often been reduced to one-off, isolated tasks without accounting for the dynamic and continuing process of reflection in practice. Additionally, a technical orientation tends to dominate reflective practice in many teacher education classrooms. While such a focus may help address specific teaching issues (e.g. classroom management and teaching of language skills), it runs the risk of neglecting the dialogic (i.e. involving cycles of situated questions and actions as well as consideration of others’ perspectives) and transformative (i.e. reframing of personal assumptions and change of practice and identities) nature of teacher reflection. As Farrell (2016: 225) has rightfully put, effective reflection should not only focus on the intellectual, cognitive and meta-cognitive aspects of practice but also explore ‘the spiritual, moral, and emotional non-cognitive aspects’ that acknowledge the inner life of teachers. To this end, there is a critical need to examine and reform current language teacher education curriculums in order to maximize the potential of reflection to promote teacher learning. Presently, while there has been a large bulk of studies examining the process and outcomes of reflective practice in teacher education courses and teaching practicums (e.g. Walkington, 2005; Yuan & Mak, 2018), relatively limited attention has been paid to short-term overseas immersion programs, which have become an increasingly common component of pre-service English language teacher education programs in many regions (Barkhuizen & Feryok, 2006; Trent, 2011). Through immersion, in which student teachers spend a period of time studying and/or teaching in an overseas country, they can gain chances to interact with people from different linguistic and sociocultural backgrounds, experience innovative teaching approaches and even conduct research and/or teaching related tasks to develop their language proficiency and pedagogical knowledge (Lee, 2009; Yuan et al., 2021). More importantly, as documented in previous studies (e.g. Gleeson & Tait, 2012; Trent, 2011), immersion can bring fresh opportunities for student teachers to explore and participate in different social and cultural communities, thus contributing to their socialization as language teachers. Against this background, this study, drawing on the perspectives of two pre-service language teachers, intends to shed light on the potential of immersion as a critical site for reflective practice in the process of learning to teach. Informed by the relevant teacher reflection literature, the study seeks to answer one research question: To what extent and how does the immersion program promote the participants’ reflective learning?

182  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

An Empirical Study Method

This qualitative case study focused on an immersion program designed for pre-service English teachers in a five-year Bachelor of Education program in a Hong Kong university. The immersion program, lasting for 10 weeks, took place in New Zealand in the third year of the student teachers’ academic studies. In the program, pre-service teachers needed to take a series of courses aimed at improving their language proficiency, teaching pedagogy and basic research skills, while they also needed to visit local primary or secondary schools, where they observed and assisted local language teachers’ classroom teaching. In addition to coursework and school visits, they were required to stay with a local host family throughout the immersion. Cultural tours such as city visits were arranged for them, which took place toward the end of the 10 weeks. The student teachers were also encouraged to arrange small trips and activities by themselves on weekends. The present study is part of a larger research project focusing on preservice language teachers’ critical thinking in their five-year teacher education program in a Hong Kong university (see Yuan et al., 2021). This chapter reports on two student teachers to shed light on how the immersion program afforded and constrained their reflective opportunities and practices. The two participants, Adam and Betty (both pseudonyms), are ethnic Chinese who speak Cantonese as the first language. At the time of the study, they were year-three students in the teacher education program. Data collection commenced in June 2020 after the ethical approval had been obtained from the university. In the study, the two student teachers were invited to join in-depth interviews and share related documents produced during their immersion process. Two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants individually before and at the end of the immersion program. In the first interview, they were prompted to share their expectations for the immersion program, regarding their pedagogical learning, cultural experience and social interaction, and professional identity development. In the second interview, they were asked to share their immersion experience with a focus on how they reflected upon the different components of the immersion program (e.g. coursework, school visits, cultural tours and homestay) during and after the process and how their reflection influenced their language teaching beliefs and practice as well as their future plans. The interviews, lasting for 60 to 90 minutes, were conducted in English and were transcribed verbatim. In addition to the interviews, the participants provided relevant documents that they created during the immersion. Specifically, Adam provided a full pack of teaching materials that he made for the teaching practice during the school visits. He also shared his reflective accounts on the effectiveness of the teaching materials and

‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’  183

directions for improvement. Betty provided the reflections she wrote, which focused on both the coursework and the teaching practice during school visits in the immersion program. Informed by the research question and the conceptualization of reflection (Akbari, 2007; Karakaş & Yükselir, 2020; Schön, 1991) reviewed above, a qualitative and inductive approach (Miles & Huberman, 2014) was used to analyze the interview data. First, critical episodes, in which the participants commented on, analyzed and evaluated their immersion experience, were identified. The participants’ reflection data and teaching materials were also reviewed, and data excerpts related to the identified interview excerpts were extracted and grouped with them. After that, holistic coding of the identified episodes was conducted, with a focus on what the participants reflected upon and how the reflection occurred. The analysis generated three major themes to capture the participants’ reflections regarding three dimensions: culture and language, pedagogy, and self. For example, the participants’ account of their expanded understanding of second language learning based on their social interactions (e.g. during homestay experiences and cultural tours) was coded as cultureand language-oriented reflection, while their account of how lesson observations motivated their reflection about different language teaching methods was coded as pedagogy-oriented reflection. Some participants also mentioned how the immersion experience helped them create different images for themselves as future English teachers, which was coded as self-oriented reflection. Meanwhile, drawing on the existing literature (e.g. Farrell, 2016; Schön, 1991), the identified episodes were further analyzed to ascertain how the participants engaged in reflective practice, i.e. reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action and reflection-for-action. Finally, the influencing factors (e.g. curriculum components and significant others) behind their reflective practice were also identified in line with our research purpose. To ensure trustworthiness of the findings, the authors analyzed the data individually and engaged in rounds of discussion to refine data interpretation. Findings

Taking place in New Zealand, where the education system and culture differed from that of Hong Kong, the immersion program engaged the student teachers in culture- and language-oriented reflection, pedagogyoriented reflection and self-oriented reflection. Culture- and language-oriented reflection

The immersion program emphasized the provision of different cultural and linguistic experience for student teachers to broaden their mind about language learning and teaching. Before the immersion, the two student teachers had been excited about meeting new people, such as

184  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

education-majored students in the New Zealand university, and exchanging ideas about culture and education with them. Betty shared: I do want to meet new people and want to make friends with them. Maybe there will be something I don’t know but I will be open-minded when communicating with them. (Betty, Interview 1)

Throughout the immersion program, the participants were able to meet different people during homestay, teaching practice and cultural tours. Those encounters provided them the space for cultural exchanges and linguistic experience, through which they engaged in reflections to aid their professional development. For example, with his host family, Adam shared the food culture of Hong Kong over the dinner table (Adam, Interview 2). Betty also conversed with her host family every night about her teaching experience at the field school (Betty, Interview 2). These cultural and linguistic exchanges helped them reflect upon their own language learning experience (i.e. reflection-on-action) as a second language learner. Betty’s reflection below, which showed her understanding that language learning is a process of trial and error, provided an example: In the family I needed to talk in English. I would say this was the important element for me to improve my English. … In the first few weeks, I could hardly understand them because of the accent and word choice, but they were patient, and they encouraged me to speak more. … Later on, I became more confident in speaking English. (Betty, Interview 2)

Also, from his reflection-on-action regarding his linguistic experience with the students in the field school, Adam came to realize how raising the students’ awareness about the language issue was important for creating a trusting teacher-student relationship. He found that his students did not have a positive attitude toward English teachers who possessed non-native English accents, including himself. After reflecting upon their interaction (i.e. students did not trust that non-native English-speaking teachers can teach English), he guided the students to watch a TED talk about the ownership of English and do a post-video discussion to promote their critical thinking about their linguistic experience. This effort gradually changed his students’ attitude and mindset about nativeness and nonnativeness in English accents (Adam, Interview 2). The interaction with the students, afforded by the teaching practice component in the immersion program, evidenced how his reflection-on-action fueled his reflection-­ for-action (i.e. implementing a critical thinking task to solve the problem). Such reflective practice was dialogic in nature, as it was inspired by his interaction with the students and consideration of their views. Adam shared:

‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’  185

I did not try to help them critically think about the issue of accents at the beginning, but at some point I realized that such discussion was necessary and so I did it. (Adam, Interview 2)

The coursework component, especially the ethnography course they took, also prompted the student teachers to engage in reflective practice which enriched their perspectives and attitudes toward different cultures. An example was that students in the course were asked to do field observation in a natural setting (e.g. café) and to write a research report about it. As presented below, Betty’s written reflection focused on how her perspective expanded (i.e. becoming more critical) because of her reflection upon cultural encounters: After understanding how Māori people utilized and treasured the environment, as an outsider, I could understand why the insiders, the Māori people, thought that it would be better to keep the mountain as it was in the past. It is showing gratitude and respect to the environment, which has always provided everything to them. I have learnt so much after the field trip and doing this writing. (Betty, Reflection)

The reflective practice, which resulted from the cultural encounters and activities, not only changed the student teachers’ personal perspectives and attitudes but also had a positive impact on their professional learning. For example, Adam tried extreme sports (e.g. skydiving) that were popular in New Zealand. While he experienced physical excitement and different emotions (e.g. fear, happiness), he came to reflect upon his life attitude, which gave rise to a new perspective toward life and living. As he further reflected, he would bring this perspective into his future English classroom, using it as a resource for critical discussion (i.e. reflection-for-action): I come up with a new way of seeing life. Life is very precious and we just live once. … In my future English classroom, I would like to ask my students to discuss in English on the topic of extreme sports and I could share my cultural experience with them. (Adam, Interview 2)

The student teachers’ cultural experience in the immersion program, however, was not all supportive of their reflective practice and professional learning. For example, they were arranged to take the language teaching pedagogy courses with their Hong Kong classmates. Therefore, they did not have opportunities to naturally interact with local students, which limited their opportunities for reflection upon cultural differences: We had no contact with the local students. Although the teachers told us that we could try to interact with the local students by going to the

186  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

common room, the place we have lunch, but it was odd to approach them when they were eating. It was just not within our culture. (Betty, Interview 2)

Betty continued to explain how she hoped that the immersion program could create opportunities for them to connect with the local students for learning and reflection: I wanted to know more about their university life. I also wanted to discuss some common topics about education with them. I hoped to learn different perspectives about language teaching from them. (Betty, Interview 2)

In summary, the components of homestay, teaching practice, ethnography coursework and cultural tours in the immersion program afforded the participants precious cultural and linguistic experiences, which were key sites for their reflective practice and might impact their future language teaching. More opportunities for connection and communication with local students could however be created to engage the participants in ­dialogic reflections in relation to language and culture. Pedagogy-oriented reflection

The immersion program afforded the student teachers opportunities to experience different possibilities of English teaching. The participants were educated in Hong Kong where great emphasis had been placed on language input and drilling exercise in language classrooms (Betty, Interview 1). In their school days, they had also experienced how reading and writing were exclusively taught as isolated skills in English lessons for exam preparation (Adam, Interview 1). After entering the university, they had learned about a more communicative approach to language teaching in the teacher education courses, which was very different from their past experience. With an expanded understanding that language teaching can be approached differently, they were curious to learn about more teaching methods and their underlying assumptions during the immersion (Betty, Interview 1). The participants’ curiosity generally motivated them to engage in reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action by analyzing their experience in New Zealand and comparing it with what they had seen in Hong Kong. The first site for the reflective practice was the pedagogy courses they took in the New Zealand university. The courses were not always effective for their professional learning, however. For example, while some courses allowed them to gain more knowledge of the New Zealand curriculum, others did not bring many new insights to their understanding of language teaching. As shared by Adam, such courses either repeated what had been taught in their home university or offered information that

‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’  187

could easily be accessed on the internet. Therefore, the content similarities, coupled with the lack of intellectual stimuli, to some extent hampered the student teachers’ reflective engagement: I kind of knew the course content. There was not much new stuff for me to learn or think about. (Adam, Interview 2)

The highlights of the immersion program were the school visits, as the student teachers recalled. They were involved in real English lessons and were able to interact with the teachers and students to observe and analyze the curriculum, beliefs and practices of language teaching in light of their past experience. For example, Betty saw how the abstract concept of ‘scaffolding’ was realized in English lessons in New Zealand, via the teacher’s use of a dialogic approach and questioning in the phonics lessons and in the reading and writing lessons: I learned the term ‘scaffolding’ from my teacher at my home university but was not told how to actually practice it. In [the English lessons in] New Zealand, I really experienced it. I really learned how to scaffold students. (Betty, Interview 2)

In other words, reflecting on the lessons she had observed (i.e. reflectionon-action), Betty deepened her understanding of scaffolding in relation to her previously acquired knowledge in the home university. The most reflection-stimulating and inspiring part in the school visit was the teaching practice, an important part of the arrangement of the immersion program. The student teachers were each assigned an English class to teach with the support from a schoolteacher. In Adam’s case, he observed that activity-based learning was highly valued in the New Zealand curriculum. With the help of the supporting teacher who pointed out that his students were generally weaker in vocabulary, Adam designed a full pack of teaching materials containing interactive and fun activities (e.g. running dictation and picture dictation) to enlarge the students’ vocabulary size and help them retain the learned vocabulary items in a motivating environment (Adam, Teaching materials). As he implemented the teaching materials, he engaged in reflection-in-action in the class to examine the effectiveness of his teaching: Most of the students enjoyed it [the activity of running dictation] very much. They felt very excited and motivated to do the exercise. Students felt so excited and tried their very best to remember the words. (Adam, Teaching materials)

Adam’s reflection was ongoing, extending to the end of his classroom teaching (i.e. reflection-on-action). Based on such reflection, he came to understand that providing students language input through drilling in a

188  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

traditional classroom, as he had experienced in Hong Kong, was not the only way to teach English. He learned other possible language teaching methods with different underlying assumptions about language learning, such as using activity-based learning to promote learning English for authentic communicative purposes (Adam, Interview 2). Moreover, the reflective practice not only equipped him with more pedagogical resources and new perspectives in English teaching but also motivated him to plan for his actions (i.e. reflection-for-action) in their future language classrooms in Hong Kong. I think the experience help us to think how we can conduct an English lesson outside the regular curriculum. Maybe we can do some interesting activities on the playground. In the activities, we give the instructions in English and let students communicate with each other in English. It may stimulate students’ interests in English learning. (Adam, Interview 2)

Betty also explicated how her experience of using independent learning, following her supporting teacher’s practice, stimulated her reflection upon the benefits of promoting learner autonomy for students in her future practice in Hong Kong (i.e. reflection-for-action): Students could manage their own learning process. There are some benefits of independent learning for students. It is proved that students would have higher motivation and confidence on learning. ... Also, they would become more aware of their limitations, and they could make improvement. Most importantly, teachers could provide differentiated tasks for students, so that students with diverse abilities could receive suitable support from teachers. For example, teacher could provide different project topics for students to choose so they could work on something they are interested in. (Betty, Reflection)

Meanwhile, as the student teachers observed and compared the different teaching culture and situations between New Zealand and Hong Kong, they were also aware of the possible challenges ahead, such as the limit of time, the influence of the traditional curriculum on English teachers and students, and Hong Kong students’ learning styles. Betty explained: Independent learning is not a common practice in Hong Kong. Schools tend to adopt the traditional teaching and learning mode with students sitting and listening to the teacher. I understand that there are limitations for the schools to use this learning approach, for example, lack of resources. (Betty, Reflection)

Therefore, they decided to practice in their future language classrooms with a realistic and flexible attitude, evidencing how the immersion

‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’  189

experience led to their reflection-for-action with a contextualized and transformative understanding about integrating theories with practice. For instance, in her future teaching, Betty would try to give her students some projects to do, but considering the issue of management and students’ learning style, she would arrange group work to ensure that they could act as each other’s learning resource and keep each other on task (Betty, Interview 2). In Adam’s case, he planned to integrate more listening and speaking activities into his English lessons to balance the heavy focus on reading and writing in the Hong Kong curriculum (Adam, Interview 2). To summarize, the immersion program, particularly the component of school experience, afforded the student teachers opportunities for reflective practice about language teaching pedagogy, with the help of significant others (i.e. the supporting teacher). Their reflective practice generated transformative impacts on their thinking and actions for future language teaching in the school context of Hong Kong. Self-oriented reflection

The immersion provided the student teachers plenty of opportunities for reflection that benefited their professional development, as manifested in their enrichment of pedagogical knowledge and resources, adjustment of mindsets and attitudes, and expansion of perspectives presented above. Reflecting upon the immersion experience, the student teachers became more ‘prepared’ and motivated to become an English teacher (Betty, Interview 2). Adam shared: I’ve always wanted to be an English teacher. After the immersion I make up my mind to be a good teacher. (Adam, Interview 2)

Moreover, their reflective practice was transformative and urged them to create a variety of positive images that associated with their role as a future English teacher (i.e. reflection-for-action). For example, both Adam and Betty created for themselves an image of a flexible teacher who was willing to try new language teaching methods and bring their students new perspectives in their future English classroom. Betty recounted: I am motivated to try the things I learned with my own students. (Betty, Interview 2)

In Adam’s case, he planned to be an English teacher who could help students learn English for authentic communicative purposes and be critical of their own English learning: I will not be an English teacher who only gives language input. I will try to promote students’ creativity and critical thinking skills and guide them to think about how English is useful for them. As I believe now,

190  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

English is a tool for communication. I want my students to know that when they learn English. (Adam, Interview 2)

Their reflective experience in the immersion also helped them became more confident English teachers. This was particularly obvious in their becoming more certain and firmer about their English teaching philosophy and methods. For example, compared to her use of modal verbs that indicated uncertainty (e.g. I might…) and the generally shorter account about her future teaching plan in the first interview, Betty’s description about her pedagogy became more extended and more specific in the second interview. As seen in the quote below, she shared her plan for using the questioning technique in her future reading and writing class: I will ask my students more questions to get them think. I will first start with some yes-no questions and closed questions. After they become more ready to interact with me, I will ask open questions, like the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. (Betty, Interview 2)

Overall, the pedagogical, cultural and language experience afforded by the immersion program promoted the student teachers’ transformative reflective practice about themselves as future English teachers. Despite the challenges they encountered, through reflection, they were able to create positive images for themselves that might facilitate their future English teaching practice. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

Drawing on a qualitative case study approach, this study reveals a wide range of opportunities and constraints embedded in an overseas immersion program, which influence pre-service language teachers’ reflective practice and learning. In general, the study confirms the findings derived from previous research (e.g. Lee, 2009; Smolcic & Katunich, 2017) that highlighted the benefits that student teachers can reap from their overseas immersion experience. By immersing in a socially and culturally different environment, the student teachers were exposed to rich resources that supported their linguistic and cultural learning, while they also gained opportunities to engage in reflective practice and foster their reflective abilities. In particular, as they started to make comparisons between their current environment and past learning context, they were able to analyze, evaluate and reflect on their ongoing experiences in relation to various linguistic, cultural and pedagogical issues (e.g. how to design activities for authentic language use). Such reflective practice, which mainly took place through field visits and cultural tours, was further facilitated by their significant others (e.g. supporting teachers), who could bring a new perspective and engage them in critical dialogue, thus

‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’  191

adding to the intensity and depth of their reflection in the immersion program. As a result, the findings revealed different forms of reflection enacted by the student teachers – not only did they actively reflect on what and how they learned and practiced in the program (Akbari, 2007), but they also embraced a future perspective by planning their future teaching (i.e. reflection-for-action) in relation to the context of Hong Kong (Karakaş & Yükselir, 2020). The various forms of reflections pushed the participants’ reflection from a technical level (i.e. focusing on specific teaching issues) to a transformative one (as suggested by their self-oriented reflections), where they tried to make sense of their own philosophy, practice and identities as growing language teachers in specific institutional and sociocultural contexts (Farrell, 2016). This finding aligns well with the claim about the mutually constitutive relationship between language teachers’ reflective engagement and identity construction (Yuan & Mak, 2018). Through critically examining their daily practice and social interactions both individually and collaboratively, language teachers can find ways to develop a robust identity that in turn supports their reflective learning and continuing development. For transformative reflection to occur, language teacher educators and curriculum designers may need to deliberately infuse an identity element into their teacher education programs. For instance, in light of the interactive relationship between teachers’ metacognitive engagement and identity construction (Yuan & Zhang, 2020), language teacher educators can guide their student teachers to document and analyze critical incidents in their immersion, through which they can metacognitively ascertain, prioritize, plan or revise their existing identities. Following that, they can publicly share their analysis with self-interpretations and engage in collective discussion and reflection through face-toface meetings and/or online platforms to promote identity distribution and shared learning. In addition, the findings also speak to the value of autonomy in promoting pre-service language teachers’ reflective practice and learning. Within the formal curriculum which included university coursework and field school visits, the participants were given opportunities to explore the local culture (e.g. the ethnography project) and try out new ideas in their classroom teaching. Outside the immersion program, they were also able to engage in cultural exchange and exploration by themselves. For instance, Adam tried extreme sports in New Zealand, which served as a critical incident for his personal reflection and learning. In light of such research results, a balanced curriculum characterized by both support and autonomy is critical in facilitating student teachers’ reflective learning during overseas immersion. In addition to structural coursework and activities, language teacher educators can consider giving time and space for student teachers to explore their personal interests through intercultural exchanges and interactions at the immersion site.

192  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

On the other hand, there were some challenges that impeded the participants’ engagement in systematic and continuous reflection on their professional learning. For instance, in terms of cultural learning, the participants complained about the limited interaction with local students in the university. Also, the findings suggest the overlapping between the participants’ previous learning in the Hong Kong university and their coursework in the immersion program. While it is understandable that some pedagogy-focused content may duplicate as teacher educators in the two sites may share similar educational beliefs, it is important that the two sides communicate in advance to avoid overlapping to a large extent. For language teacher educators in the immersion program, it is suggested that they develop the immersion courses and activities based on student teachers’ previous learning experiences. In this way, student teachers may feel inspired and/or intellectually challenged, which can motivate them to further explore and reflect as part of their learning to teach. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

This study sheds light on the potential of overseas immersion programs as a critical site for pre-service language teachers’ reflective practice and professional learning. In particular, the findings show that the participants not only developed new knowledge about language teaching and learning but also transformed their self-understanding as a second language learner and teacher, as reflected by Adam’s claim ‘I come up with a new way of seeing life’. On the other hand, designing and implementing an immersion program is an arduous task, which involves a number of stakeholders (e.g. curriculum designers and teacher educators) in different social and cultural settings. It thus requires careful planning and continuous coordination to provide a balanced (e.g. between guidance and autonomy) and coherent (i.e. linking student teachers’ past experience, current learning and future goals) curriculum with pedagogically and culturally rich content and resources to promote students’ reflective practice and learning. In terms of future research, since the study only drew on the participants’ self-report data, it would be interesting to adopt an ethnographic design and investigate student teachers’ reflective engagement through prolonged field observation covering their coursework, homestay experience and field visits. This may generate new understanding about the enactment of language teachers’ reflective learning through situated and concrete social engagement. In addition, researchers can also adopt a macro perspective to examine the design and implementation of the immersion program with particular attention to the progression between different curriculum components and examine how they collectively shape pre-service language teachers’ reflective learning in the program and beyond (after they return to their home university).

‘I Come Up With a New Way of Seeing Life’  193

Acknowledgement

This article is based on a research project supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [EdUHK 18603618]. References Akbari, R. (2007) Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System 35 (2), 192–207. Barkhuizen, G. and Feryok, A. (2006) Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of a short-term international experience programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 34 (1), 115–134. Farrell, T.S.C. (2008) Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London: Continuum Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016) Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research 20 (2), 223–247. Gleeson, M. and Tait, C. (2012) Teachers as sojourners: Transitory communities in short study-abroad programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (8), 1144–1151. Karakaş, A. and Yükselir, C. (2020) Engaging pre-service EFL teachers in reflection through video-mediated team micro-teaching and guided discussions. Reflective Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1860927 Kelly, P. (2006) What is teacher learning? A socio-cultural perspective. Oxford Review of Education 32 (4), 505–519. Lee, J.F. (2009) ESL student teachers’ perceptions of a short-term overseas immersion programme. Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (8), 1095–1104. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2013) RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice. Applied Linguistics Review 4 (2), 291–315. Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (3rd edn). London: SAGE Publications. Schön, D.A. (1991) The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on Educational Practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Smolcic, E. and Katunich, J. (2017) Teachers crossing borders: A review of the research into cultural immersion field experience for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 62, 47–59. Trent, J. (2011) Learning, teaching, and constructing identities: ESL pre-service teacher experiences during a short-term international experience programme. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 31 (2), 177–194. Walkington, J. (2005) Becoming a teacher: Encouraging development of teacher identity through reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (1), 53–64. Yuan, R. and Zhang, L. (2020) Teacher metacognitions about identities: Case studies of four expert language teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly 54 (4), 870–899. Yuan, R., Yang, M. and Lee, I. (2021) Preparing pre-service language teachers to teach critical thinking: Can overseas field school experience make a difference? Thinking Skills and Creativity 40, 100832. Yuan, R. and Mak, P. (2018) Reflective learning and identity construction in practice, discourse and activity: Experiences of pre-service language teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education 74, 205–214. Yuan, R., Mak, P. and Yang, M. (2022) ‘We teach, we record, we edit, and we reflect’: Engaging pre-service language teachers in video-based reflective practice. Language Teaching Research 26 (3), 552–571.

13 Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy Through Collaborative Reflection Zia Tajeddin and Neda Khanlarzadeh

Introduction

Recent theories and models of intercultural communication and the movements toward English as a lingua franca have led to the growth of an intercultural approach to second/foreign language (L2) teaching (Byram & Wagner, 2018; Kramsch, 2013). As a result of this surge of interest, during the past few decades, intercultural language learning for the development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) has gradually become a critical dimension of L2 education. ICC refers to the ability that guides individuals to conduct successful communication with people of other cultures; however, despite a great emphasis on it, intercultural language pedagogy has not been implemented effectively in L2 classrooms (see Diaz, 2013; East, 2012; Oranje & Smith, 2017; Young & Sachdev, 2011), as teachers’ lack of ability and knowledge hinders their successful intercultural practice (Porto, 2019; Tolosa et al., 2018; Yurtseven & Altun, 2015). Evidently, one approach to the enhancement of teachers’ knowledge and skills for intercultural pedagogy is collaborative reflection (CR), which enables them to discuss a shared vision of their intercultural practices using various forms of experiential data (Nelson et al., 2010). CR groups or focused group discussions of teachers can provide networks of relationships and an atmosphere of mutual trust which allow teachers to analyze their intercultural practices with fresh eyes, to share beneficial experiences with their colleagues, to become more open to change and to reconsider their intercultural beliefs. In this chapter, we first look at intercultural language pedagogy as well as L2 teachers’ cognition and understanding of this pedagogy. We 194

Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy  195

also review previous research on CR among L2 teachers and its potentials for fostering language teaching. Next, a report of a study which investigated CR and its effects on teachers’ intercultural cognition is given. The chapter continues with the implications of this study for more effective intercultural pedagogy and suggestions for the role of CR in developing teachers’ intercultural pedagogy. Finally, directions are proposed for further research on various teacher reflection techniques for teachers’ professional development in intercultural teaching and intercultural awareness. Teachers’ Reflection on Intercultural Pedagogy Intercultural pedagogy

The ICC practice in educational systems is bounded by a myriad of factors, including teachers’ cognition and their previous education (Dervin, 2014). As highlighted by Byram (1997), it is highly crucial for EFL teachers to cultivate their ICC before practicing it in their classes. Even at the preliminary stages of the teaching profession, ICC is considered as one of the imperatives, and interlocutors in multicultural contexts are expected to step beyond their own cultural norms to mediate difficult and baffling cultural situations (Barnatt et al., 2020; Goh, 2012). Nonetheless, teachers’ ICC practice in classes is not as satisfactory as one might expect, which is mostly implicated by the lack of efficient teacher education and intercultural pedagogical cognition (Lallana & Salamanca, 2020; Oranje & Smith, 2017; Tolosa et al., 2018; Young & Schadev, 2011). To date, various methods and strategies, including telecollaboration (Avgousti, 2018), studying abroad (Hauerwas et al., 2017; Marx & Moss, 2011), special courses, traveling abroad, service programs and working in schools with culturally different populations (Barnatt et al., 2020), have been suggested to improve language teachers’ intercultural competence which can be both effective and appealing for L2 teachers. Meanwhile, several studies in the area of L2 teacher education and intercultural pedagogy have focused on exploring teachers’ cognitions and practices regarding ICC (e.g. Bao, 2019; Borg, 2018; Phipps & Borg, 2009). It has been assumed that L2 teachers’ ICC is a representation of their professional identities (Ho, 2009). However, apparently, teachers’ high level of ICC does not necessarily lead to effective intercultural practice in actual classrooms as several personal factors can be decisive in this process. Teachers’ cognition, including their beliefs, knowledge and attitudes, plays critical roles; in fact, teachers’ practice is influenced by their cognition regardless of their actual ability to teach ICC and shapes their practices (Sercu, 2007). The importance of this factor is featured in research which depicts teachers who do not have a complete understanding of the concept of ICC and, as a result, could not implement it in their classes satisfactorily

196  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

(Cheewasukthaworn & Suwanarak, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2016; Peiser & Jones, 2014; Peña Dix, 2018; Xiaohui & Li, 2011; Yurtseven & Altun, 2015). Studies of teachers’ cognitions-practices compatibilities have revealed that aside from personal factors, some contextual and environmental factors might impede teachers’ intercultural practices. The majority of the existing intercultural programs and policies in different countries and settings seem to be deficient due to lack of appropriate curriculum, teacher education courses, and consequently, knowledgeable teacher educators (Peña Dix, 2018; Xiaohui & Li, 2011). Thus, this has inspired many practitioners to delve into the reasons for any incongruity, whether personal or environmental, between teachers’ cognitions and practices (e.g. Chao, 2013; Cheng, 2012; Diaz, 2013; Karabinar & Guler, 2013; Oranje & Smith, 2017; Young & Sachdev, 2011). The reasons reported in most studies included textbooks, syllabi, testing limitations, teachers’ initial beliefs and lack of knowledge about intercultural language teaching (see Tolosa et al., 2018; Young & Sachdev, 2011). Teachers’ defective understanding of the concept of ICC (Gu, 2015; Porto, 2019), their prior experiences as language learners (Castro et al., 2004) and lack of appropriate teaching guidelines and materials (Gu, 2015; Young & Sachdev, 2011) are the decisive factors in shaping their intercultural cognitions and are among other reasons for mismatches between their cognitions and practices. It has also been revealed that teachers consider cultural and intercultural practices as exotic activities that can be simply overlooked and subordinated to linguistic content (Nguyena et al., 2016; Peña Dix, 2018). In short, language teachers’ perceptions and cognitions of ICC as well as their instructional practices are among key factors which play a pivotal role in the implementation of intercultural pedagogy in foreign language education. Teachers’ collaborative reflection

Improving teacher reflection is one of the main objectives of teacher education programs, which can greatly boost the quality of teachers’ thinking and lead to their professional development (Attard, 2012). So far, numerous teacher educators have attempted to suggest different models or frameworks of teacher reflection in order to present a tangible illustration of this process (e.g. Farrell, 2015; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005; Nelson & Sadler, 2013). Moreover, various reflection approaches, including journals, diaries, critical friends, reflection groups (both face to face and virtual) and classroom observations, have been suggested for teachers to practice. As one of the variations of teacher reflection, CR is believed to be highly effective in causing radical changes in teachers’ ‘attitudes, perceptions, conceptions, beliefs, abilities and behaviors’ (Baird, 2004: 16) and is preferred by many teachers (Desouza & Czerniak, 2003; Moradkhani, 2019). CR is

Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy  197

centered on the idea of ‘making public’ (Kelly, 2010: 373), with the help of ‘another practitioner’ (Mann & Walsh, 2013: 303) as it occurs in reflection groups (also known as teacher development groups and discussion groups). Collaboration with their colleagues enables teachers to develop awareness about different ways of improving their teaching practices (Ohlsson, 2013). It also helps them examine their teaching practice and question or transform their prior beliefs and teaching habits (van den Beemt et al., 2018; van Schaik et al., 2019). During this process, teachers initially share their thoughts and opinions on classroom practices and then restructure them for further improvement and deep understanding (Mann & Walsh, 2013). Discussion panels motivate teachers to get together, reflect on their practice, and consequently discuss each other’s strengths and weaknesses (Farrell, 2013; van Schaik et al., 2019). Furthermore, this boost in teachers’ critical reflection leads to major revisions in their personal teaching beliefs by ‘shifting from a private professional autonomy to a public one’ (Pareja Roblin & Margalef, 2013: 29). Yet, most studies focusing on teachers’ CR and reflection-oriented group discussions have sought to analyze the dynamics of such groups, their communication patterns and teachers’ engagements to investigate their effectiveness in developing teacher reflection or to promote specific teaching methods among teachers (e.g. Farrell, 2013; Kember et al., 1997; Yang, 2009). Since the early 2000s, studies focusing on teachers’ discussion and reflection using online platforms have begun to proliferate, as they provide the opportunity for EFL teachers to communicate with their colleagues in other parts of the world (e.g. Cavanagh, 2021; Jones & Ryan, 2014). For example, email exchanges and discussion groups were used to create spaces for teachers from all over the world to share their experiences as a way of promoting teachers’ reflectivity through social and interpersonal interactions with a distant group of colleagues (Burhan-Horasanlı & Ortaçtepe, 2016). As with all aspects of language teaching, the quality of intercultural language teaching can be enhanced through teacher reflection, either collaboratively or individually. Dimitrov and Haque (2016) tried to create a reflective tool that identifies concrete intercultural teaching strategies that teachers can easily draw on in their classes through critical reflection and feedback. Álvarez (2020) highlighted that teachers’ study groups reshape their initial views, beliefs and assumptions in order to collaboratively gain an understanding of ICC pedagogy. CR can help teachers challenge their views of culture and to move toward a more intercultural perception. CR sessions also raise teachers’ awareness of the importance of enhancing their cross-cultural knowledge in order to abandon cultural stereotypes and attain a dynamic view of culture. Moreover, teachers’ participation in the CR can encourage them to confront their deficient understandings and perceptions of culture, observed in mainstream cultural views they have traditionally followed, and to move toward a more intercultural cognition that guided them to meet the current educative, cultural and social

198  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

requirements of an increasingly intertwined world. Considering the abovementioned advantages of CR and its possible positive influences on teachers’ practice as well as the importance of enhancement of ICC pedagogy, it is not unreasonable to assume focused group discussions or CR sessions as an alternative for improving teachers’ ICC cognition. An Empirical Study Method

Given the paucity of research on the intersection of CR and (inter) cultural language teaching, we embarked on exploring this issue. We sought to analyze the effects of interculturally oriented CR sessions on teachers’ intercultural cognitions. Thus, four Iranian EFL teachers (henceforth referred to as A, B, C and D) from a language institute in Tehran, Iran, agreed to participate in this study. The demographic information of teachers is provided in Table 13.1. Table 13.1  Teachers’ demographic information Teachers

Age

Gender

Teaching Experience

A

29

Female

Two years

B

32

Male

Six years

C

36

Female

Two years

D

33

Female

Eight years

The participants were once interviewed prior to the intercultural CR sessions and a week after them. The interview questions focused on teachers’ thoughts, knowledge and beliefs about intercultural language teaching. The responses to the interview questions were recorded and transcribed for content analysis (Creswell, 2012). The content of the CR sessions was arranged in a way to target these issues and intrigue teachers’ discussions on the concept of ICC and its practice in class. During eight 30-minute sessions, teachers expressed their opinions, shared their experiences and reflected on their practices. After the data collection phase, the interview data were read to extract the themes. Afterwards, using the literature, related parts of the excerpts were assigned a code. The codes and themes were frequently and iteratively compared first within cases and, then, cross cases to eliminate redundancies and achieve the final codes. Findings Teachers’ cognition before CR

Several aspects of teachers’ cognition about intercultural language teaching were explored during the interview sessions, including their

Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy  199

perception of culture and intercultural language teaching, their own perceived ICC, related background on ICC knowledge and education, classroom practice, and limitations they encountered to practice ICC. The exploration of teachers’ intercultural knowledge as a component of their cognition revealed that they were fairly familiar with the concept of culture and teaching L2 culture as they presented somewhat appropriate definitions of the concept. They referred to little c culture, such as people’s behaviors and actions, as the main component of culture than big C culture, which deals with more observable aspects of a culture, including arts and literature (see Kramsch, 2013). As discussed in Yuen’s (2011) model, the Practice component of the culture seems more vivid to teachers rather than Products, Perspectives and Persons. However, none of them was familiar with the concept of ICC and its teaching before the interviews, or at least they did not have any knowledge of the technical terms or had not read or studied about them. Yet they believed that their cultural and ICC were at an appropriate level as they achieved them by traveling or living abroad, watching foreign movies, and communicating with friends from other cultures and countries. In general, the teachers believed that the role of culture in L2 learning is very important, especially for better acquisition of some specific expressions and words which are bounded by individuals’ cultural knowledge. However, one of the teachers believed that it depends on learners’ needs and if they do not need to know about other cultures, it might not be necessary to underline cultural points in classes. Teacher B maintained: If the purpose of language teaching is that the student lives in another country that L2 is the first language there, it is a matter of surviving. In this case, yes, you should absolutely mention everything about the culture or teach the terms... But if a student just wants to learn a bit of language or he wants to write formal letters, attend meetings, etc. teaching culture is not very important. (Teacher B)

Nonetheless, they did not consider all cultures, namely L1 culture, L2 culture and international cultures, to be equally important, which shows their poor ICC and their attitudes toward different cultures. Only one of the teachers believed all cultures are equally important in teaching a foreign language, while one teacher accentuated international cultures and two others preferred L2 culture. Meanwhile, two teachers also highlighted the importance of learners’ needs regarding this decision. Although the teachers were not familiar with teaching ICC in L2 classes, as noted above, they believed that it would be a good approach to practice ICC in language classes once they were briefly informed about the concept. Apparently, the teachers, except one, could not thoroughly practice ICC in their classes since they did not know about the concept. The teachers only briefly touched upon cultural contents through the lessons for the purpose of clarifying some vague issues; in fact, cultural and

200  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

intercultural contents were discussed only for the sake of explaining some vocabulary items or expressions. The following excerpt from one of the teachers illustrates this point. It was not very bold. Sometimes there were some points that would come to my mind and I would explain them. They were not very well-structured, and I cannot say that I have put so much effort into it. (Teacher D)

Not surprisingly, the teachers did not regard ICC as one of their teaching aims, and they did not consider it among their teaching priorities, which seems quite reasonable as they were not familiar with the concept of ICC or its principles before CR sessions. As Teacher A stated: Unfortunately, this was not something that I would always do. Just a bunch of small points that I tried to explain in a sentence or two, and I think I was successful in my classes. (Teacher A)

The teachers were asked about the potential limitations they confront in teaching culture and intercultural concepts. The first limitation which was emphasized by three teachers was students’ lack of interest. As one of the teachers maintained: The students themselves do not show any interest and, more importantly, they do not know about these things at all. (Teacher B)

Other important reasons for limitations in teaching ICC were lack of interculturally relevant resources and institute’s policies. Teachers’ cognition after CR

Compared with pre-reflection sessions interviews, in this post-CR phase, teachers succeeded to present better definitions of the concept of culture in general. They also included more aspects of culture in their definition, which evidences growth in their conception and understanding of culture after the reflection sessions. In fact, the teachers, by and large, referred to all aspects of culture, including Practice, Product, Perspectives and Persons (Yuen, 2011). Both hidden (little c) and visible (big C) elements were highlighted by teachers. Moreover, all of the teachers could develop an appropriate understanding of the concept of ICC as it was the main theme of the reflection sessions. Regarding the role of culture in L2 learning, they all came to the understanding that culture is an inextricable aspect of language teaching and cannot be excluded from teaching any aspects of language. Before the CR sessions, the teachers argued that raising cultural points in class is mostly for explicating vocabulary items and increasing learners’ understanding of other aspects of language; however, after the reflection

Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy  201

sessions, they considered cultural content as a critical aspect of language learning and teaching, not as supplementary information for other skills and subskills. According to one of the teachers: In my opinion, teaching culture along with teaching second, third or any other language, other than the mother tongue, plays a very, very important role. It is always said that when a person learns a new language, he is actually learning a new culture. And in fact, he gets acquainted with the new culture of the new language. (Teacher D)

The teachers also valued learning about all cultures equally. Unlike their opinion in the pre-reflection interviews, the teachers believed that L1, L2 and international cultures should be considered while teaching L2. As the data show, the importance of international culture became more exigent to them (Teacher B). I think the number of people who speaks English as a second language is more than native speakers. Because of this, it can now be said that international culture is a culture that is well-established among all the peoples of the world... (Teacher B)

Moreover, the teachers were highly motivated about the intercultural approach and its practice. Three of them believed that intercultural language teaching can be very motivating for learners as they need to become familiar with different cultures. This is evident in the excerpt below: I really saw with my own eyes that it was effective in the classroom. Maybe I didn’t pay attention to it before, but now, I feel I got a broader view of this concept. In fact, it even makes the students motivated. It is even interesting for them to go and read and learn about other cultures, but do not forget something that is definitely theirs. (Teacher A)

They also held a positive attitude about practicing an intercultural approach in their classes, as they put it among their teaching objectives. As highlighted in the previous section, before the reflection sessions, ICC was not among their priorities. However, after the reflection sessions, the teachers became motivated about practicing it in their classes. The following excerpt illustrates one of the teachers’ revisited beliefs about practicing ICC in their classes. After these sessions, it has always been in my mind, like a bell, and whenever there is a topic, before teaching it, I think about intercultural aspects in my lesson plan, like how can I expand it to actually include intercultural issues. (Teacher C)

Interestingly, after the reflection sessions, teachers’ beliefs about limitations in teaching ICC slightly changed. Although they still admitted that

202  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

learners’ interests and institutional policies can be big challenges, they pointed out that learners’ L1 culture can be a preventive factor in practicing intercultural approach, especially when L1 culture and values are substantially against L2 cultural norms. They argued that since learners’ L1 culture is opposed to some aspects of L2 culture, learners cannot accept L2 culture easily. For example, two of the teachers stated: One of the obstacles, I think, is the students’ own beliefs. Although we have students in their twenties to thirties, they still hold guards against other cultures or L2 culture. (Teacher A) Well, our country is Islamic. In boys’ classes, although some of my students are very modern, when want to talk about family members for the first time, they might not like to be asked about their sisters. (Teacher C)

The variety of teachers’ beliefs about limitations in practicing intercultural language teaching was more in post-reflection interviews, which shows that the teachers genuinely put more thought into practicing it. Discussion

The objective of foreign language education is no longer limited to mastering communicative competence, and teachers are required to acquire and teach ICC. Teachers should reshape their knowledge, attitudes, competencies and skills to perform successfully in their classes and to teach L2 based on today’s language education standards (Sercu, 2005b). Hitherto, using various approaches and techniques, several teacher education programs worldwide have included this competence in their programs to increase teachers’ efficiencies (e.g. Álvarez, 2020; Göbel & Helmke, 2010). Also, as a defining feature of effective and mindful teachers and a means for professional development, teacher reflection has received growing attention since the 1990s. It has proved to be an effective and appealing approach to enhancing teachers’ competencies in various aspects of L2 teaching, including ICC and its practice. Previous research on teachers’ reflection, especially CR, has proved the effectiveness of this approach in reshaping teachers’ beliefs and thoughts and consequently leading to substantial changes in their practice (Farrell & Vos, 2018). In fact, as highlighted in Farrell and Jacob (2016), teacher reflection, especially when it occurs in groups, can promote their attitude toward specified teaching techniques and help them practice it more successfully in their classes. The results of our study validated the findings of many previous studies in this respect. It has been revealed that teachers’ CR was an operative way of enhancing teachers’ cognition. All of the participants were unaware of ICC and its importance before the reflection sessions, and they had not learned it in any of their teacher education programs. This is in line with several other studies (e.g. Baker, 2015; Czura, 2016; Jedynak, 2011) that

Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy  203

reported on teachers’ poor knowledge of ICC and its underrepresentation in mainstream teacher education programs. However, teachers considered their own ICC level as appropriate and rather high, which were the results of their own life experiences rather than any formal instructions. Similarly, Ryan and Sercu’s (2005) study demonstrated that teachers felt sufficiently informed about and capable of teaching culture. Our participants also admitted the importance of cultural knowledge and the great role of culture in L2 teaching and learning (also see Hinojosa Pareja & López López, 2018; Sercu, 2005a), yet they used to submerge it to the teaching of other skills such as vocabulary, as it was not within their educational aims (also see East, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2016). Similarly, Castro and Sercu (2005) highlighted that most teachers tended to focus on learners’ communicative skills rather than ICC and prioritized linguistic aspects of language. This can also be interpreted as a sign of incongruity between teachers’ views and their actual practices, which was evidenced and discussed in a plethora of studies on teachers’ intercultural cognition and their practices (e.g. Karabinar & Guler, 2013; Young & Sachdev, 2011). However, teachers’ limited cognition and misperception about ICC teaching are prone to change and can be developed if they are given the opportunity to learn about it (see Tolosa et al., 2018). Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

Teachers’ reflection on their practice can contribute to decisive changes in their teaching beliefs and practices (Farrell & Vos, 2018). As seen in our study, CR was highly influential in changing teachers’ beliefs and improving their intercultural cognition. After the reflection sessions, teachers reconsidered their teaching aims and put ICC among their teaching objectives. Therefore, as it was evidenced in previous works, teachers’ reflection is highly influential in improving their knowledge, beliefs and thoughts (Pareja Roblin & Margalef, 2013). As the pre-reflection interview data showed, teachers did not practice ICC regularly and sufficiently in their classes and their familiarity with the principles of ICC was at its minimum level. This calls for comprehensive and carefully planned teacher education programs which consider the tenets of intercultural education, as it was advised in most of the current L2 education policies (Jedynak, 2011; Yang et al., 2018). The improved ICC cognition of teachers in this study proves the effectiveness of interventions for enhancing teachers’ cognitions in different domains of ELT, including ICC. Meanwhile, due to the intertwined relationship between teachers’ cognitions and practices, such CR sessions can contribute to the quality of teachers’ instructional practices. Therefore, the findings of this study can be beneficial for L2 teachers and teacher educators who wish to enhance their ICC cognitions and practices and keep up with recent approaches to ICC teaching. Further, given the effectiveness of CR for

204  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

promoting productive teaching habits and its potential for improving the gaps in teachers’ cognition, it would be extremely useful in teacher education programs. Teacher educators need to incorporate various reflection strategies, including reflective diaries, observation or engaging in reflection groups, in their teacher training courses, so that all teachers can become familiar with the benefits of reflection and do it properly as most of them might not be aware of the teacher reflection process and strategies. Having the required knowledge in this area, teachers get motivated to be more reflective about their practice. In this study, teachers engaged in various activities such as discussing their intercultural beliefs, reading the related articles, sharing their understanding with one another and talking about the challenges they faced in practicing ICC. They believed that they could enhance their knowledge and practice by attending these reflection sessions. Thus, holding similar reflection sessions in language institutes or schools by the managers and supervisors can be highly beneficial. Finally, as highlighted in the literature, due to teachers’ positive attitudes toward this approach, it can be an enjoyable experience for both pre- and in-service teachers and boost their participation in such programs. Having this in mind, teacher educators can consider taking advantage of the potential of CR sessions and include them in their programs. Conclusion and Direction for Future Research

As one of the essential competencies of L2 speakers, ICC needs to considered rigorously in language education programs, especially when teachers’ cognition is quite unsatisfactory and hence hinders ICC’s successful practice in classes. The interviews with Iranian EFL teachers revealed that their knowledge about intercultural pedagogy is limited and they do not pay sufficient attention to it in their practices. However, their intercultural cognition can be noticeably improved as a result of several CR sessions with their colleagues. These sessions provide spaces for teachers to enhance their knowledge and share their experiences. Many studies conducted on L2 teachers’ CR have mainly focused on the structure of transactions and somewhat neglected its potential for enhancing teachers’ knowledge base and educational beliefs. Thus, there is abundant room for further research on the effects of such reflective sessions in boosting teachers’ practices and knowledge about specific areas in teaching, including ICC. The process of changes in teachers’ ICC cognition is another issue which needs to be analyzed and can contribute to the current literature on both ICC pedagogy and teacher cognition. Moreover, the generalizability of our results is subject to certain limitations due to the restricted number of participants and the type of data collection method, which was interviews with teachers. Further research could be done with a greater number of teachers from various educational and social backgrounds as two important factors in determining

Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy  205

individuals’ ICC. Besides, teachers’ self-perceived ICC levels and selfreported instructional practices might not be aligned with their ICC teaching practices in classrooms. To obtain richer data, assessing teachers’ ICC teaching through observations of their actual classroom practices could yield a clearer picture of the nexus between their ICC cognition and practice. References Álvarez, L.F.C. (2020) Intercultural communicative competence: In-service EFL teachers building understanding through study groups. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 22 (1), 75–92. Attard, K. (2012) Public reflection within learning communities: An incessant type of professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education 35 (2), 199–211. Avgousti, M.I. (2018) Intercultural communicative competence and online exchanges: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning 31 (8), 819–853. Baird, J.R. (2004) Collaborative reflection, systematic enquiry, better teaching. In H. Munby (ed.) Teachers and Teaching (pp. 39–54). London: Routledge. Baker, W. (2015) Research into practice: Cultural and intercultural awareness. Language Teaching 48 (1), 130–141. Bao, R. (2019) Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: Teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System 82, 140–150. Barnatt, J., Andries D’Souza, L., Gleeson, A.M., Mitchell Viesca, K. and Wery, J. (2020) Intercultural competence in pre-service teacher candidates. International Journal of Educational Reform 29 (3), 211–235. Borg, S. (2018) Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In P. Garrett and J. Cots (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness (pp. 75–91). London: Routledge. Burhan-Horasanlı, E. and Ortaçtepe, D. (2016) Reflective practice-oriented online discussions: A study on EFL teachers’ reflection-on, in and for-action. Teaching and Teacher Education 59, 372–382. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence (1st edn). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. and Wagner, M. (2018) Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals 51 (1), 140–151. Castro, P. and Sercu, L. (2005) Objectives of foreign language teaching and culture teaching time. In L. Sercu (ed.) Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An Investigation in 7 Countries of Foreign Language Teachers' Views and Teaching Practices (pp. 19–38). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Castro, P., Sercu, L. and Méndez García, M.D.C. (2004) Integrating language-and-­ culture teaching: An investigation of Spanish teachers’ perceptions of the objectives of foreign language education. Intercultural Education 15 (1), 91–104. Cavanagh, M. (2021) Pre-service teacher reflection and feedback using an online video platform during professional experience. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 46 (2), 72–85. Chao, T.C. (2013) A diary study of university EFL learners’ intercultural learning through foreign films. Language, Culture and Curriculum 26 (3), 247–265. Cheewasukthaworn, K. and Suwanarak, K. (2017) Exploring Thai EFL teachers’ perceptions of how intercultural communicative competence is important for their students. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand 54, 177–204. Cheng, C.M. (2012) The influence of college EFL teachers’ understandings of intercultural competence on their pedagogical practices in Taiwan. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 11 (1), 164–182.

206  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Creswell, J.W. (2012) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Czura, A. (2016) Major field of study and student teachers’ views on intercultural communicative competence. Language and Intercultural Communication 16 (1), 83–98. Dervin, F. (2014) Towards post-intercultural teacher education: Analysing ‘extreme’ intercultural dialogue to reconstruct interculturality. European Journal of Teacher Education 38 (1), 71–86. Desouza, J.M.S. and Czerniak, C.M. (2003) Study of science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about collaborative reflective practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education 14 (2), 75–96. Diaz, A. (2013) Intercultural understanding and professional learning through critical engagement. Babel 48 (1), 12–19. Dimitrov, N. and Haque, A. (2016) Intercultural teaching competence: A multi-­disciplinary model for instructor reflection. Intercultural Education 27 (5), 437–456. East, M. (2012) Addressing the intercultural via task-based language teaching: Possibility or problem? Language and Intercultural Communication 12 (1), 56–73. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013) Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. and Jacobs, G.M. (2016) Practicing what we preach: Teacher reflection groups on cooperative learning. TESL-EJ 19 (4), 1–9. Farrell, T.S.C. and Vos, R. (2018) Exploring the principles and practices of one teacher of L2 speaking: The importance of reflecting on practice. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 6 (1), 1–15. Göbel, K. and Helmke, A. (2010) Intercultural learning in English as foreign language instruction: The importance of teachers’ intercultural experience and the usefulness of precise instructional directives. Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (8), 1571–1582. Goh, M. (2012) Teaching with cultural intelligence: Developing multiculturally educated and globally engaged citizens. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 32 (4), 395–415. Gu, X. (2015) Assessment of intercultural communicative competence in FL education: A survey on EFL teachers’ perception and practice in China. Language and Intercultural Communication 16 (2), 254–273. Hauerwas, L.B., Skawinski, S.F. and Ryan, L.B. (2017) The longitudinal impact of teaching abroad: An analysis of intercultural development. Teaching and Teacher Education 67, 202–213. Hinojosa Pareja, E.F. and López López, M.C. (2018) Interculturality and teacher education: A study from pre-service teachers’ perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 43 (3), 74–92. Ho, S.T.K. (2009) Addressing culture in EFL classrooms: The challenge of shifting from a traditional to an intercultural stance. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 6 (1), 63–76. Jedynak, M. (2011) The attitudes of English teachers towards developing intercultural communicative competence. In J. Arabski and A. Wojtaszek (eds) Aspects of Culture in Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning (pp. 63–73). Berlin: Springer. Jones, M. and Ryan, J. (2014) Learning in the practicum: Engaging pre-service teachers in reflective practice in the online space. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 42 (2), 132–146. Karabinar, S. and Guler, C.Y. (2013) A review of intercultural competence from language teachers’ perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 70, 1316–1328. Kelly, M. (2010) Professional pedagogies and research practices: Teaching and researching reflective inquiry through a medical portfolio process. In N. Lyons (ed.) Handbook of Reflection and Reflective Inquiry (pp. 351–381). Boston, MA: Springer.

Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Intercultural Language Pedagogy  207

Kember, D., Ha, T.S., Lam, B.H., Lee, A., NG, S., Yan, L. and Yum, J.C. (1997) The diverse role of the critical friend in supporting educational action research projects. Educational Action Research 5 (3), 463–481. Korthagen, F. and Vasalos, A. (2005) Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching 11 (1), 47–71. Kramsch, C. (2013) Culture in foreign language teaching. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 1 (1), 57–78. Lallana, A. and Salamanca, P. (2020) Intercultural communicative competence in L2 Spanish: Guidelines for teacher training programmes. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 7 (2), 1–15. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2013) RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice. Applied Linguistics Review 4 (2), 291–315. Marx, H. and Moss, D. (2011) Please mind the gap: Intercultural development during a teacher education study abroad program. Journal of Teacher Education 62, 35–47. Moradkhani, S. (2019) EFL teachers’ perceptions of two reflection approaches. ELT Journal 73 (1), 61–71. Nelson, F.L. and Sadler, T. (2013) A third space for reflection by teacher educators: A heuristic for understanding orientations to and components of reflection. Reflective Practice 14 (1), 43–57. Nelson, T.H., Deuel, A., Slavit, D. and Kennedy, A. (2010) Leading deep conversations in collaborative inquiry groups. The Clearing House 83 (5), 175–179. Nguyen, L., Harvey, S. and Grant, L. (2016) What teachers say about addressing culture in their EFL teaching practices: The Vietnamese context. Intercultural Education 27 (2), 165–178. Ohlsson, J. (2013) Team learning: Collective reflection processes in teacher teams. Journal of Workplace Learning 25 (5), 296–309. Oranje, J. and Smith, L.F. (2017) Language teacher cognitions and intercultural language teaching: The New Zealand perspective. Language Teaching Research 22 (3), 1–20. Pareja Roblin, N. and Margalef, L. (2013) Learning from dilemmas: Teacher professional development through collaborative action and reflection. Teachers and Teaching 19 (1), 18–32. Peiser, G. and Jones, M. (2014) The influence of teachers’ interests, personalities and life experiences in intercultural languages teaching. Teachers and Teaching 20 (3), 375–390. Peña Dix, B. (2018) Developing intercultural competence in English language teachers: Towards building intercultural language education in Colombia. Doctoral dissertation, Durham University. Phipps, S. and Borg, S. (2009) Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System 37, 380–390. Porto, M. (2019) Affordances, complexities, and challenges of intercultural citizenship for foreign language teachers. Foreign Language Annals 52 (1), 141–164. Ryan, P. and Sercu, L. (2005) Familiarity and contacts with foreign cultures. In L. Sercu (ed.) Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An Investigation in 7 Countries of Foreign Language Teachers' Views and Teaching Practices (pp. 39–49). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sercu, L. (2005a) Options regarding different facts of intercultural competence teaching. In L. Sercu (ed.) Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An Investigation in 7 Countries of Foreign Language Teachers' Views and Teaching Practices (pp. 120–129). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sercu, L. (2005b) Teaching foreign languages in an intercultural world. In L. Sercu (ed.) Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An Investigation in 7 Countries of Foreign Language Teachers' Views and Teaching Practices (pp. 1–18). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

208  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Sercu, L. (2007) Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence: What keeps teachers from doing what they believe in? In M. Jimenez Raya and L. Sercu (eds) Challenges in Teacher Development: Learner Autonomy and Intercultural Competence (pp. 65–80). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Tolosa, C., Biebricher, C., East, M. and Howard, J. (2018) Intercultural language teaching as a catalyst for teacher inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education 70, 227–235. van den Beemt, A., Ketelaar, E., Diepstraten, I. and de Laat, M. (2018) Teachers’ motives for learning in networks: Costs, rewards and community interest. Educational Research 60 (1), 31–46. van Schaik, P., Volman, M., Admiraal, W. and Schenke, W. (2019) Approaches to ­co-construction of knowledge in teacher learning groups. Teaching and Teacher Education 84, 30–43. Xiaohui, H. and Li, S. (2011) Teacher cognition of intercultural communicative competence in the Chinese ELT context. Intercultural Communication Studies 20 (1), 175–192. Yang, G., Xiang, H. and Chun, L. (2018) CSL teachers’ cognition in teaching intercultural communicative competence. System 78, 224–233. Yang, S.H. (2009) Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology & Society 12 (2), 11–21. Young, T.J. and Sachdev, I. (2011) Intercultural communicative competence: Exploring English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Awareness 20 (2), 81–98. Yuen, K.M. (2011) The representation of foreign cultures in English textbooks. ELT Journal 65 (4), 458–466. Yurtseven, N. and Altun, S. (2015) Intercultural sensitivity in today’s global classes: Preservice teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies 2 (1), 49–24.

14 Reflecting on Native/ Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers Angela Farrell

Introduction

As in other areas of education, practitioners in the English language teaching (ELT) domain are being impacted by issues posed by critical educational theorists in relation to the ideological underpinnings of their practices (Farrell, 2019). The changing English language landscape globally has fuelled a passionate ongoing debate surrounding the ownership of English given that the majority of communication in English is now by non-native English speakers (NNES) with other NNES (Canagarajah, 2006; Jenkins, 2007, 2012; Kachru, 1992; Seidlhofer, 2011). This has led to a questioning of the legitimacy of some of our established practices and beliefs, bringing to the fore critical issues surrounding the use and teaching of English today (Matsuda, 2012; Pennycook, 2000). From this, critical linguists have rejected the dominant monocentric target English approach based on idealised Anglo-American norms and the traditional NES/NNES dichotomy associated with this approach, which has privileged the former group and disadvantaged the latter (Llurda, 2005; Medgyes, 1992, 1994). Accordingly, seismic sociopolitical developments in the ELT world have been taking place, which are creating both new dilemmas and new opportunities for English as a foreign language (EFL) practitioners. This has led to growing calls for English language teacher education (ELTE) programmes to include a more critically orientated sociolinguistic content and to provide greater opportunities for student teachers to critically explore the ideological dimensions of EFL pedagogy, the ways in which the status quo is now being questioned, and the implications this might hold for their own practices and professional identities (Farrell, 2019; Matsuda, 2012). Against the current backdrop of changing trends and perspectives in the English language world (Graddol, 2006; 209

210  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Holliday, 2005), this chapter reports on recent research that was undertaken in the context of ELT education in Ireland to explore the reflections of student teachers in relation to the ideologies at play in the ELT world, and critical issues pertaining to native/non-native teacher identity. In so doing, it highlights the particular case of Irish EFL teachers and the key role that reflective practice (RP) can play in critically oriented, ELTE in a non-mainstream English setting. Having established the theme and scope of the RP research that will be presented in this chapter, we turn next to the pivotal notion of critical pedagogy and how it has been approached in the L2 teaching and learning context (Pennycook, 1994, 2000, 2001). From this, we highlight the ideologies that underpin EFL pedagogy, at the heart of which lies the myth of native speaker supremacy (Holliday, 2005; Kachru, 1985; Medgyes, 1994; Seidlhofer, 2011). The notion of critical RP is then explored along with the merits of this approach for critical awareness-raising ELTE programmes in relation to normative issues pertaining to teacher identity. The discussion will highlight, in particular, the status of native speaker teachers of English from a non-mainstream English background, as in the Irish case. Native and Non-Native Identity and Reflective Practice

Critical pedagogy is concerned with educational practice in broader social, cultural and political terms, and it has at its core both a social justice orientation and a transformative agenda (Jay & Johnson, 2002). As Pennycook (1994: 24) has observed, critical educational theorists seek to explore and critique the historical and sociopolitical context of schooling and to develop pedagogical practice that aims to change not only the nature of schooling but also the wider society. With roots in Marxist inspired theory, critical pedagogy was strongly influenced in the early 20th century by the ideas of American educational philosopher John Dewey in the US context (1933), and it later became associated with the theoretical work of Brazilian educator Paolo Freire (1972) in the field of liberation pedagogy. As far as the L2 educational context is concerned, the advent of applied linguistics as a discipline in the 1980s brought an increasing interest in the sociopolitical dimensions of second and foreign language teaching (Howatt & Widdowson, 2004). Canagarajah (2006: 10) has observed that prior to this, L2 teachers and teacher educators worked in ‘idyllic innocence’, which the author attributes to the overwhelmingly pragmatic orientation adopted within second and foreign language teaching in the past. Accordingly, there was an emphasis on equipping learners with linguistic and communicative skills to help them to become competent socially and functionally, rather than on exploring and raising awareness of any ideological agendas at play. As a result, the ideological roots of ELT pedagogy remained largely hidden and unexplored until the 1990s when critical linguists, notably Phillipson (1992)

Reflecting on Native/Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers  211

and Pennycook (1994, 2000), turned their attention to the effects of globalisation and issues around the ownership of English and native English speaker (NES) and non-native English speaker (NNES) identity (see also Bolton, 2004; Kachru, 1985, 1992; Milroy, 1999). Critical applied linguistics scholars have used the concept of linguistic imperialism or hegemony to explore and explain the dominant role of English in the world, and particularly the native speaker-based agendas and agencies through which EFL has been promoted historically (Phillipson, 1992: 8). From this viewpoint, ELT became an important activity after decolonisation when the English language was perceived as a more effective means of hegemony. This hegemony has been reflected in the monocentric Anglo-American model that has been promoted in EFL classrooms worldwide, which has served as the benchmark for correct usage and has led to the exclusion of local varieties, irrespective of learner communication needs (Bolton, 2004; Milroy, 1999). This restrictive approach has also been promoted in Ireland, which forms the sociolinguistic backdrop for the empirical study featured in this chapter, where Anglo-American target English norms have been promoted, to the exclusion of Irish English as the local variety (Farrell, 2019; Murphy, 2011; White, 2006). Accordingly, like their non-native teacher counterparts and despite their native speaker status, Irish EFL teachers have been expected to avoid their own variety, even when teaching in the local context, with similar issues of discrimination arising. Much has been written about the historical inequality and privilege that have arisen from the supremacy of the native speaker model in ELT historically, and the ways in which the existing ideological status quo is now being challenged on both linguistic and ideological grounds (Canagarajah, 2006; Jenkins, 2007, 2012; Llurda, 2005; Medgyes, 1992, 1994). However, research which has explored teachers’ perspectives has mostly focused on the disadvantaged position of non-native English speaker teachers (NNESTs), by comparison with their more privileged native English counterparts from mainly mainstream English settings such as the United States and Great Britain (Young & Walsh, 2010). As a result, the disfavoured position of NESTs from non-mainstream English backgrounds, such as Ireland, has been largely overshadowed in the NEST/NNEST debate. Nevertheless, research undertaken in the Irish English context to explore teachers’ attitudes towards the Anglo-American status quo (Farrell, 2019; Murphy, 2011; White, 2006) has revealed that Irish teachers may now be starting to question the types of restrictive practices that they too have been subject to historically. Moreover, in Ireland, as elsewhere, there have been growing calls by applied critical linguists for a rethinking of the content and ideological orientation of ELTE programmes to better prepare future teachers, native and nonnative alike, for both the new challenges and the new opportunities that lie ahead (Jenkins, 2012; Matsuda, 2012).

212  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

This ideological shift is taking place at a time when critical educational theory has become more widely recognised as a central aspect of teacher development. Hence, student teachers are being encouraged to actively examine the political and ideological consequences of their teaching, with RP now playing a key role in this process (Farr & Farrell, 2017; Farrell, 2015, 2018; Richards & Farrell, 2011; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Farr and Riordan (2012) have highlighted the ways in which RP can serve as a useful critical awareness-raising tool to enable student teachers to position their practices in relation to broader social, cultural and political realities. It can also be used to encourage student teachers to confront prior assumptions about teaching and learning, and to enquire into not just classroom practices and norms but also the factors which have shaped them and the consequences (Richards & Farrell, 2011). This suggests that RP can play a vital role in preparing student teachers for the changing nature of English today and the ongoing and future impact of this development on global teaching and learning. For critical applied linguists, this is considered a crucial starting point to contest monolithic views of English and the deficit model of teaching and learning to eliminate the discrimination and injustice this approach has led to (Jenkins, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2011). For student teachers from Ireland, RP can also be used to critically explore their own unique identity in the ELT world as speakers of Irish English, and what this means going forward. However, despite these obvious potential gains, little, as yet, is known about the extent to which RP is being practised in these ways in different ELTE settings, and the processes involved, due to a current dearth in empirically based research in this area (Walsh & Mann, 2015). It is to address this gap in the research literature, and for the potentially valuable outcomes that can be accrued, that the empirical study presented in the following section was undertaken. An Empirical Study

The aim and method of the research reported on, and the RP framework around which it was designed and implemented are described next. This will serve to contextualise the findings and help interpret their significance. Research aim, context and methods of data collection

The research set out to trace the developing critical reflective thinking of student teachers in relation to the ideologies at play in the ELT world and native/non-native teacher identity. For this purpose, a qualitative case study approach was used following the successful exploitation of this approach by a number of RP researchers in the TESOL field (Farr & Farrell, 2017; Farrell, 2015, 2018; Richards, 2000; Tsui, 2003) to explore conceptual/theoretical development in student teacher education.

Reflecting on Native/Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers  213

The context for the study was a one-year MA TESOL programme at a higher education institution in Ireland and the participants were 10 student teachers enrolled on the programme in the 2019–2020 academic year. Of these, nine identified as female and the remaining one as male. All were Irish, and their ages ranged from 22 to 50. Half of the group had between one and five years of teaching experience, either in Ireland or abroad, and the remaining five had not previously taught previously. As part of the MA programme, they were studying modules in English language systems, second language acquisition and EFL classroom pedagogy, research methods, linguistics for EFL teachers and a teaching practice (TP) module. The concept of RP was introduced early to the student teachers and integrated throughout the programme across multiple and varied spoken and written RP modes which were designed to be used in a systematic and complementary way. This included classroom discussions that were guided by lecturers and based on module content, asynchronous online peer blogs and written reflections in an online TP portfolio. This approach was adopted following Spalding and Wilson’s (2002) argument that while many individual methods have proved effective tools for facilitating the reflective thinking of novices, no single pedagogical strategy is best or sufficient to teach reflective thinking skills or to record its development in terms of the depth and outcomes achieved. In this regard, the complementary use of individual/collaborative and spoken/written modes made it possible to address the following three criteria proposed originally by Dewey (1933: 7), and by others since (Farrell, 2004: 44): that is, RP should involve naming the problem or question(s) that arise out of the experience; it needs to happen in interaction with others; and it should take place in a low-anxiety context. In this regard, asynchronous online peer blogs and TP diaries can offer a space in which to encourage student teachers to articulate and explore issues and concerns that arise in relation to their own teaching and learning experiences, as a starting point for the understanding of their significance. Meanwhile, guided group discussions can provide opportunities for targeted critical awareness-raising and collaborative RP with a view to enabling student teachers to move towards generalising these issues, and understanding their wider implications, which involves a deeper and more critically oriented type of reflection, as has been demonstrated by Riordan (2018) and Farr et al. (2019). Accordingly, the RP approach adopted was holistic in nature and offered multiple opportunities and means for reflection within a supportive learning environment to address the evolving needs of student teachers throughout the TP experience. Analysis and findings

Qualitative reflective data were sourced from the guided classroom discussions, the online blogs and the TP portfolios over the course of the

214  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

TP experience. The classroom discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed, and all data types were coded by means of thematic analysis. The triangulated approach adopted was designed to enhance the validity and reliability of the outcomes. In the following discussion, a snapshot is presented of the findings in terms of the developing critical awareness of the student teachers in relation to changing ideologies in the ELT world and their implications for native/non-native teacher identity. This is traced in relation to four themes which emerged from the thematic analysis, that is: (1) Irish English sociolinguistic identity; (2) The Anglo-American target English approach; (3) The native/non-native dichotomy and (4) Future trends. In following extracts, the student teachers are referred to by pseudonyms to protect their identity. Theme 1: Irish English sociolinguistic identity

The data analysis revealed a growing sense of awareness on the part of the student teachers of their Irish English identity, and what this might mean for their professional practices. In Extract 1, they were asked to recall a critical incident from their first few weeks of TP as part of a guided group discussion. Their comments suggest they had entered the programme with only a limited sense of their own sociolinguistic identity as speakers of Irish English and that they were unaware of the lack of status of Irish English in the ELT world and the types of issues this could pose for them professionally: Extract 1: (Guided Classroom Discussion)

ST Liz: A incident that stands out for me was during TP feedback when my supervisor asked me if I was aware that I was using ye* with the students and I actually had no clue what she was talking about. (*Note: Ye is used as a second person pronominal by Irish English speakers in place of Standard British you (Filppula 2012b: 45) She saw I was confused and explained that ye was only used in Ireland which I didn’t know. This was the first I had ever heard about Irish English. I mean I knew about different accents but I never thought there was a separate variety of English that only we spoke. ST Dara: It’s funny you say that because the exact same thing happened to me. I was told to be careful with my use of Irish English in case it confused the learners and I actually had to ask my TP supervisor what she meant.

It is not unusual for native speakers to lack awareness of their own language use, and in the case of native speakers of English, this is often attributed to the absence of formal English language education in the school curriculum as has been the case in Ireland too (Walsh, 2006). Moreover, corpus researchers have pointed to the high level of informality in the speech style of young people in general today, as a result of ongoing vernacularization, with the speech style of the Irish noted in particular for

Reflecting on Native/Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers  215

its colloquial nature (Farrell, 2019). This suggests that ‘ye’ was likely to be a feature that the student teachers would use in their interactions with learners given that many were in their early 20s (Farrell, 2019; Hickey, 2007; Migge & Ni Chiosáin, 2012; Schweinberger, 2012). As personal pronouns are a word class with a high level of frequency in spoken English, this would also explain why the lecturers in question felt it was important to raise student teacher awareness in relation to the suitability of the use of ye in the classroom context (Biber et al., 2002). This extract provides evidence of the restricted target English norms in place in the EFL classroom in Ireland, as in both cases reported there was an expectation on the part of the TP supervisor that student teachers would use Standard English you rather then IE ye. Farrell (2019: 10) has observed that new entrants to the ELT profession today must first be made critically aware of the existing norms and discourses that underpin their practices before they can begin to critique them, for which guided RP can play a useful role. We find evidence of this approach in the Extract 2 where the lecturer expertly guides the group towards making sense of the feedback they have received from TP supervisors by encouraging them to explore attitudes towards Irish English in the wider ELT world: Extract 2: (Guided Classroom Discussion)

Lecturer: And did you gain any other sense about Irish English in terms of how it is viewed in the ELT world by comparison with other varieties from the feedback you were given? ST Claire: Well, yes, that it was somehow wrong to use it and inferior to say British English which is what is taught in the course books. Lecturer: And how did that make you feel? ST Liz: Well, that I was in some way inadequate. To be honest, I found the whole thing quite upsetting. It definitely knocked my confidence as a teacher because I realised I’d have to be a lot more careful about my own language use when I was teaching and this wasn’t something I thought I‘d have to worry about before as well as all the other things. ST Declan: I felt embarrassed like it was something I should have known but yeah…there was a definite sense of doing something wrong or making a mistake.

These comments remind us of the stigmatisation that remains around non-standard English usage (Milroy, 1999), and although ‘ye’ is becoming more evident in the speech patterns of educated speakers in Ireland (Hickey, 2007; Kirk & Kallen, 2007), it is a feature that Irish EFL teachers are still expected to avoid in their classroom practices in Ireland and beyond (Farrell, 2019; Murphy, 2011; White, 2006). To enable the student teachers to understand the significance of the use of Irish English by

216  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

teachers in the EFL educational domain more widely, the lecturer then moves the discussion towards generalising the issue raised more widely: Extract 3: (Guided Classroom Discussion)

Lecturer: Have any of you had similar experiences while teaching anywhere else? ST Lianne: Yes, when I was teaching in Spain…. the Director of the School used to stand outside the door listening to make sure I wasn’t speaking with an Irish accent. It was ridiculous but there was an obsession to get a British accent. It’s what the parents wanted and money talks. Lecturer: Does that surprise the rest of you? ST Maria: Well yes, does it mean we’re only supposed to teach British English wherever we teach?

The previous comment from novice Maria suggests a new-found realisation on her part of the types of restrictions she might face in her future teaching careers of which she has previously been unaware. The following response by a more experienced peer confirms she has gained important insight as to the target varieties that are promoted in EFL pedagogy and often preferred by learners from her experience of teaching internationally, which she shares with the group which helps them to understand the wider critical issues involved: Extract 4: (Guided Classroom Discussion)

ST Claire: Well, it depends really where you’re teaching but EFL teachers are expected to teach either British or American English because that’s what’s in the coursebooks and learners want to learn this.

In the following responses, we see the student teachers starting to question the implications of the restrictive norms that are being described in relation to their own future professional role as speakers of a disfavoured variety. There is also a clear sense that they are becoming more aware of the types of discrimination and injustice this could lead to: ST Niamh: So, what happens if you’re not from there? I mean are we like inferior? ST Declan: You’re expected to fake it. ST Niamh: That’s unfair ST Lianne: It’s not about fair. It’s about what carries prestige in the eyes of learners and employers. Yeah, so if you want the job, you change your accent.

Reflecting on Native/Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers  217

Having provided a useful collaborative space for the student teachers to articulate, share and reflect on their teaching experiences and to explore their potential wider significance, the lecturer points the group towards guided reading from the World Englishes literature. This is with a view to fostering a deeper and more critical understanding of the prevailing ideologies in the ELT world, the ways in which they have been promoted, and the implications they carry for the student teachers’ current and future teaching. Extract 5: (Guided Classroom Discussion)

Lecturer: I think the classroom discussion today has raised important issues which are worth exploring over the course of the next few weeks and I would encourage you to engage with the key readings from the World Englishes field that I am setting and to reflect on what new insights you are gaining in your blogs and TP diaries and try to make links with your teaching now, and in the future. Theme 2: Anglo-American Target English Norms

In their online blogs over the following weeks, we find evidence of the student teachers’ developing critical insights in relation to the practices associated with the historical Anglo-American target English approach. They are also becoming more aware of the conflicting influences at large in the ELT world that serve either to promote, or to thwart reform: Extract 6: Online Blogs

ST Maura: I’ve been reading a lot about Standard English and why British and American English are the main two standards which according to Phillipson can basically be explained by one word…imperialism. McDonald’s and Coca Cola have a lot to answer for. ST Declan: I think people in other countries like France and Spain are more aware of the dominance of English than we are, and they try to protect their own language but because we speak English we don’t feel the same sense of domination. In our case, there are both advantages and disadvantages. ST Declan: So, are you saying we’re complicit? I don’t think it’s the same thing for us because our English is not the one that carries prestige like British or American English. ST: Maura: Yes, because we’re the ones who are supposed to promote it [the status quo]. ST: Declan: It’s not just teachers. What about the course books and publishers? They’re what keep it all going ST: Lianne: And international exams like Cambridge and IELTS which make a fortune out of it [the International English Language Testing System] ST: Marie: But we can’t deny that the situation is changing because English is now used more non-natively than natively. It’s only a matter of time.

218  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

From these interactions, it is also clear that the student teachers are making key links between the existing target English approach, and their own practices as EFL teachers, and there is further evidence of this deeper level of reflection in their TP portfolio entries from this period: Extract 7: TP Portfolios

(ST: Aileen) I’ve thought a lot this week about the variety of English I am teaching, and I’ve asked myself do I say this? And what should I say when I’m teaching learners who have come to Ireland to learn English? After all, we are supposed to be teaching them how to communicate in real life contexts.

There is also a sense that they are developing a stronger sense of awareness and appreciation of their own variety and beginning to explore how they can reconcile their sociolinguistic identity with their professional identity, as the following reflection exemplifies: (ST: Lianne) I feel I’ve learned a lot not only about myself as a student teacher but also about my culture and how it influences my use of English which I’d like to share with the learners more. I feel better able to judge when I can do this in terms of the context and when it might be more appropriate and better welcomed by students.

We meet the student teacher again in a follow-up group discussion when they are reporting back to the group on their newfound insights as to what it means to be an Irish EFL teacher in the ELT world. Theme 3: Native/non-native dichotomy (group classroom discussions)

As their responses suggest, they are now more acutely aware of the types of discrimination that the native/non-native dichotomy brings, as well as both the advantages and disadvantages that their Irish sociolinguistic identity confers on Irish EFL teachers in different teaching contexts: Extract 8: (Guided Classroom Discussion)

ST Declan: Doing the MA TESOL has definitely made me much more aware of the discrimination faced by non-native speaker teachers even here in Ireland. ST Lianne: Yeah, I know a teacher from Poland and she told me that even though she’s more highly qualified than native speaker teachers, she finds it really hard to get teaching work. She’s even thinking of changing her name. ST Maria: I feel we get more respect because we’re native speakers whether we’re better teachers or not, but on the other hand, in some

Reflecting on Native/Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers  219

parts of the world, we could face the humiliation of being told to tone down our accents or to pretend we’re American because they’re top dog.. ST Sandra: I think being Irish can create some difficulties for us as EFL teachers as in some contexts and there will be times when we will have to hide our cultural identity to fit in with what employers want but I think this is changing, which is something I welcome because I don’t feel comfortable being part of a system which is so discriminatory.

These are more mature reflections which show a deeper, critical understanding of the disadvantages faced by all teachers, native and nonnative alike, if their own version of English is other than the ‘prestige’ varieties promoted in the EFL curriculum worldwide. Theme 4: Future trends

In their final group discussion of the semester, the topic turned to the crucial question of how the changing English landscape might be impacting on teacher identity and practices, and from this, they are encouraged to identity the professional needs of future teachers in the light of the complexities surrounding English today: Extract 9: (Guided Classroom Discussion)

Lecturer: So, having explored some of the key issues that are emerging in the ELT world today in relation to the ideologies that underpin our professional identity and practices, how do you think that these developments might change the status and practices of teachers from different backgrounds, and how can teacher education programmes address the future needs of entrants to the EFL profession?

The comments suggest a shared critical awareness that future EFL teachers would be required to teach a greater range of varieties and adopt a more targeted and finely nuanced teaching approach: ST Liz: I think the spread of English is an unstoppable force being driven by globalisation and it’s only a matter of time before we start to see a wider range of Englishes reflected in the content of what we teach which means that teachers will have to be more expert and adaptable. ST Declan: Yes, I agree. I think all teachers will have a more complex role in the future and they will need to know much more about different varieties and what the needs and preferences are in different parts of the world.

When reflecting on the implications this would hold for the notions of nativeness/non-nativeness going forward, there was a sense of optimism that the traditional native/non-native dichotomy in the ELT world would become less relevant with the focus shifting more towards

220  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

individual teacher knowledge and expertise. Moreover, there was a shared recognition that this would be to the benefit of all teachers, as is illustrated: ST Sandra: So, I think it will be more about the relevance of our expertise for a particular context than our native/non-native identity, which I think can only be a good thing for us as Irish EFL teachers. ST Declan: This would mean a more even playing field for all EFL teachers with each of us playing to our strengths. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

In this chapter, we have endeavoured to show, by empirical means, how a critically oriented RP approach was used to foster the critical awareness of student teachers from Ireland in relation to the NEST/ NNEST ideologies which have determined the status and identity of teachers in the ELT domain historically and dictated their professional practices. In so doing, we have also provided evidence of the merits of this approach, and its potentially useful applications for ELTE. For instance, the extracts provided can serve as a useful starting point to encourage student teachers from different English language backgrounds, to explore the existing ideologies at play in the ELT world and the ways in which they are now changing, and to explore what this might mean for their own professional identity and practices going forward, with comparisons made. This approach supports the arguments made by critical linguists that ideological change in the ELT world must begin with student teachers’ being afforded opportunities to critically reflect on their own sociolinguistic identity and position in the ELT world (Canagarajah, 2006; Matsuda, 2012). The research has highlighted the benefits that student teachers from Ireland gained from such opportunities; for instance, it brought an enhanced sense of awareness and appreciation of their own variety and sociolinguistic identity and led to a deeper critical understanding of the normative dimensions underpinning their practices, where reform was needed, and the direction this might take. NEST/NNEST status and teacher identity remain crucial issues for language teachers to address throughout their careers through ongoing critical self-reflection and through critical RP with peers within CoPs (Lave & Wenger, 1991) as part of continuous professional development initiatives. This can be informed by empirically-based, ideologically-­ oriented research of the kind highlighted in this chapter and can be f­ urther supported by RP initiatives with CoPs in diverse ELT and learning ­contexts. It is through active and sustained engagement with critically-­ oriented RP and with the growing body of research in this area that practitioners can gain a more complete understanding and global sense of critical issues pertaining to English language teacher identity today.

Reflecting on Native/Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers  221

In addition to these practical applications, this chapter has provided empirical evidence that can contribute to a more finely nuanced theoretical understanding of the NEST/NNEST dichotomy. For instance, it has shed light on the particular types of discrimination that can arise for EFL teachers from the IE background in the ELT world, which have been under-documented in the World Englishes literature, as well as reminding us of the challenges and dilemmas that all teachers from non-mainstream English backgrounds face as a result of the prevailing ideological status quo. On a more positive note, it has also signalled where opportunities lie for change and the role that RP can play in helping to advance this. Finally, this chapter has demonstrated how awareness-raising of the kind highlighted can be facilitated by guided and targeted critically oriented RP across a range of spoken and written modes of communication to help prepare teachers for their future, more complex roles. It has also underscored the potential that critically oriented RP research offers to explore many of the assumptions that surround the teaching and learning of English today, that as yet have remained untested. Building on this research, and the RP findings revealed, a strong case can be made for action-based research led by teachers in their own professional context involving critical reflection that is based on evidence gathered and evaluation, with an overall view to informing change in the local context. Bottom-up research of this kind offers practitioners a voice and can bring fruitful outcomes in terms of empowering them to question the ideological values that underpin their own professional identity and practices and to play a more active role in shaping more suitable norms and practices. Moreover, it can serve as a basis for future directions in teacher education in the local context to ensure that the content and ideologies reflected are relevant to the lives and experiences of future practitioners. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

The discussion in this chapter has brought a critical RP perspective to bear on the complex and contested issues surrounding native/non-native identity in the ELT world. In so doing, it has started to address the gap in the academic literature for empirically based RP research which can help student teachers to position their practices and professional identity in relation to the changing English landscape and their own position within it, and to gain critical insight into the challenges and opportunities they are likely to meet as future practitioners and how they can be addressed and exploited. In this regard, the study reported in this chapter can serve as a springboard for further RP-based research in ELTE in different settings that can shed light on the critical, sociolinguistic dimensions around teacher identity in ELT today.

222  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

References Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Leech, G. (2002) Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. New York, NY: Longman. Bolton, K. (2004) World Englishes. In A. Davies and C. Elder 9 (eds) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 367–396). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Canagarajah, S. (2006) TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 9–34. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Farr, F. and Farrell, A. (2017) PENSER: A data-informed reflective practice framework for novice teachers. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL 6 (2), 85–103. Farr, F. and Riordan, E. (2012) Students’ engagement in reflective tasks: An investigation of interactive and non-interactive discourse corpora. Classroom Discourse 3 (2), 126–143. Farrell, A. (2019) Corpus Perspectives on the Target Models Used by EFL Teachers from Ireland. Abingdon: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2004) Reflective Practice in Action: 80 Reflection Breaks for Busy Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: California Corwin Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2018) Operationalizing reflective practice in second language teacher education. Journal of Second Language Teacher Education 1 (1), 1–20. Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. London: British Council. Hickey, R. (2007) Irish English: History and Present-Day Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, A. (2005) The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howatt, A.P.R. and Widdowson, H.G. (2004) A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jay, J. and Johnson, K. (2002) Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Eucation 18 (1), 73–85. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2012) English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. English Language Teaching Journal 66 (4), 486–494. Kachru, B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning in the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. (1992) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kirk, J.M. and Kallen J.L. (2007) Assessing Celticity in a Corpus of Irish Standard English. In H.L.C. Tristram (ed.) The Celtic Languages in Contact (pp. 270–298). Potsdam: Potsdam University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Llurda, E. (2005) Non-native TESOL students as seen by practicum supervisors. In E. Llurda (ed.) Non-Native Language Teachers (pp. 131–154). Boston, MA: Springer. Matsuda, A. (2012) Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reflecting on Native/Non-Native Identity from the Perspective of EFL Teachers  223

Medgyes, P. (1992) Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal 46 (4), 340–349. Medgyes, P. (1994) The Non-Native Teacher. London: MacMillan Publishers. Migge, B. and Ní Chiosáin, M. (2012) New Perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Milroy, J. (1999) The Consequences of Standardisation in English. In T. Bex and J.R. Watts (eds) Standard English. The Widening Debate (pp. 16–39). New York, NY: Routledge. Murphy, D. (2011) An investigation of English pronunciation in Ireland: ELT in Ireland presents a number of interesting issues when it comes to the question of pronunciation. English Today 27 (4), 10–18. Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman. Pennycook, A. (2000) English, politics, ideology: From colonial celebration to postcolonial performativity. In T. Ricento (ed.) Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English (pp. 107–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxon: Oxford University Press. Richards, J.C. (2000) Beyond Training: Perspectives on Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. and Farrell, T.S.C. (2011) The nature of teacher learning. In J.C. Richards and T.S.C. Farrell (eds) Practice Teaching: A Reflective Approach (pp. 15–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Riordan, E. (2012) Online reflections: The implementation of blogs in language teacher education. In F. Farr and M. Moriarty (eds) Learning and Teaching: Irish Research Perspectives (pp. 195–224). Berlin: Peter Lang. Riordan, E. (2018) TESOL Student Teacher Discourse. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Online and Face-to-Face Interactions. Oxford: Routledge. Schweinberger, M. (2012) The discourse marker LIKE in Irish English. In B. Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin (eds) New Perspectives on Irish English (pp. 179–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spalding, E. and Wilson, A. (2002) Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that encourage reflective journal writing. Teacher’s College Record 104 (7), 1393–1421. Tsui, A. (2003) Understanding Expertise in Teaching: Case Studies of Second Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walsh, S. (2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse, Domains of Discourse. Oxford: Routledge. Walsh, S. and Mann, S. (2015) Doing reflective practice: A data-led way forward. English Language Teaching Journal 69 (4), 351–362. White, G. (2006) Standard English as a marker of Irish identity. In T. Omoniyi and G. White (eds) The Sociolinguistics of Identity (pp.217–219). London: Bloomsbury. Young, T.J. and Walsh, S. (2010) Which English? Whose English? An investigation of ­non-native speaker teacher beliefs about target varieties. Language, Culture and Curriculum 23 (2), 123–137. Zeichner, K.M. and Liston, D.P. (1996) Reflective Teaching: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

15 Using Computer-Mediated Cooperative Development in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers Katie Webb, Steve Mann and Kamal Aqili Shafie

Introduction

It is now widely accepted that reflective practice (RP) is beneficial, if not essential, to a teacher’s professional development. Thomas Farrell has led the way in our thinking in relation to both the benefits to teachers in engaging in reflective practice (e.g. Farrell, 2017) in offering specific frameworks (e.g. Farrell, 2019) and in providing practical activities and ideas that foster RP (e.g. Farrell, 2003). Others have looked at ways of shifting the balance from written reflection to spoken reflection (e.g. Mann & Walsh, 2017). In this chapter, we focus on spoken reflection and on cooperative development as an important tool for fostering collaborative spoken reflection. In what follows, we use the following acronyms to differentiate different forms of Cooperative Development: CD (Cooperative Development), GD (Group Development), EMCD (E-Mail Cooperative Development), IMCD (Instant Messenger Cooperative Development) and VMCD (Videoconferencing-Mediated Cooperative Development). CD has been established as a viable option for teachers to reflect in a collaborative style of working with peers and specifically aims to encourage teachers to reflect on and improve their individual professional practices (Edge, 2002). Since Edge’s (1992) framework appeared, CD has evolved and now includes several variations, such as group development (GD) in Mann (2002), cooperative development via email (EMCD) in Edge (2006) and instant messenger cooperative development (IMCD) in Boon (2005). In other words, CD can be operationalised in many ways to support collaborative reflection. These variations relate to medium (e.g. 224

CD in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers  225

face-to-face or online), group formation (e.g. pairs or groups) and nature of the roles and expectations adopted (e.g. how strictly ‘roles’ and ‘moves’ are agreed and maintained). We focus on such virtual or remote options and, in this way, hope to add to the evolution of Edge’s original conceptualisation of CD by focusing on Videoconferencing-Mediated Cooperative Development (VMCD) meetings. It is worth making clear in this introduction that, with the Covid-19 pandemic, the affordances of EMCD and IMCD have become more apparent, and there has undoubtedly been greater interest in understanding how teachers can learn and engage in remote development. There are undoubtedly advantages in being faceto-face, but there are also advantages in working virtually. In this chapter, we first provide a literature review that outlines the purposes of CD and the moves introduced in Edge (1992). Following this, we detail our methodology and highlight how our experiences vary in the ways in which we have operationalised CD. We then present the findings, demonstrating how adopting the roles of Speaker and Understander (Edge, 1992) helps to foster spoken reflection. In the practical implications and recommendations, we focus on highlighting some of the fundamental features of VMCD. The chapter concludes with directions for further research. CD and Teacher Reflection

CD affords the chance for teachers to work collaboratively to reflect on their practices and become better professionals by focusing on their self-development (Attia & Edge, 2014; Edge, 2002). This creates an empowering opportunity by ‘offer[ing] teachers the complete ownership of and responsibility for their process of professional growth’ (Attia & Edge, 2014: 71). Ownership is important because CD aims to create a reflective space for connecting received knowledge and more experimental forms of knowledge for the developing practitioner (Mann, 2005). Teachers engaging in CD work collaboratively which leads to increased collegiality because the nature of the collaboration involves frequent meetings between the participants (Edge, 2002). CD welcomes teachers of different ‘level[s] of experience, specialisation, nationality, language or geographical location’ (Attia & Edge, 2014: 71) and has no constraint on the topics. The last point about ‘geographical location’ is particularly relevant to our current study in that virtual CD does not need participants to be face-to-face. CD meetings are typically organised with one teacher taking the role of ‘Speaker’ and the other as ‘Understander’ (Mann, 2002: 197). The Speaker role involves talking ‘through an idea or a personal concern’ (Mann, 2002: 197), whereas the Understander’s role is to remain nonjudgmental and avoid giving advice or steering the talk towards their own agenda but instead to listen and assist the Speaker in articulating their

226  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

own ideas as they clarify and discover where they lead (Edge, 1992). That is to say, the impetus for development needs to arise from the Speaker themselves through the support of the Understander: I need someone to work with, but I don’t need someone who wants to change me and make me more like the way they think I ought to be. I need someone who will help me see myself clearly. To make this possible, we need a distinct style of working together so that each person’s development remains in that person’s own hands. (Edge, 1992: 6)

In CD meetings, the focus is on the self-development of one of the people in the pair and, within its framework, this development only happens once the Speakers is able to identify their personal focus. As highlighted by Attia and Edge (2014: 65), ‘the approach is not about a way of teaching but, rather, a way of being a teacher’. Thus, the concept of development in CD refers to an ongoing process where teachers are always in a state of becoming throughout their teaching profession. While there is also an impetus on goal-setting within the CD framework (articulating their ideas and actively pushing them forward), it is also the case that CD can work well as an exploratory form of talk that does not necessarily need to lead quickly to action, steps and change. As highlighted above, the Speaker works on his or her own development (Attia & Edge, 2014) and, as they focus on articulating their ideas, the Understander supports them by using a number of what are called ‘Understander moves’. These moves are ‘the actual techniques or abilities that one needs to develop’ (Edge, 1992: 13). What follows (Table 15.1) provides an overview of these moves: An Empirical Study

In this section, we analyse the data from two VMCD meetings involving two different pairs. Although the meetings were set up for different purposes and did not follow the same structures, in both cases, there was commitment to the idea that as reflective practitioners we could rework, reconstruct and shape both our thinking and our future experience through VMCD. The data utilised from the first case involve one of the authors of this chapter, Kamal, and an English Language Teacher from Malaysia, Saiful. The purpose of their VMCD sessions lies in their motivation to explore the extent to which VMCD’s could support Saiful’s professional development and for this reason Kamal played the role of Understander in their meetings. Data from the second case involve another of the authors, Katie, and a PhD student, Claudia. They engage in VMCD to explore issues or areas of interest that arise during their PhD journeys. For this reason, they do not have an agreed timeframe nor a regular schedule for their meetings. Instead, the pair typically meet around once a month and take turns to play the role of Speaker and Understander. The

CD in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers  227

data used below are from their third meeting, with Katie playing the role of Speaker. Table 15.1  Description of moves Exploration 1. Attending

The term Attending refers to the skill of listening. It involves the Understander paying close attention to the Speaker and making them feel valued, comfortable and relaxed.

2. Reflecting

Reflecting involves mirroring back what the Understanders have processed and understood from the Speaker (Attia & Edge, 2014). There is always an element of checking, which provides the opportunity for the Speakers to hear what they have articulated.

3. Focusing

Focusing moves help Speakers to narrow and refine their focus (Edge, 2015). This is often done at the beginning of the session, by explicitly asking the Speaker to confirm their focus and throughout the meeting by asking them which areas they would like to consider further.

Discovery 4. Thematising

Thematising involves bringing the Speaker’s attention to possible links between different points they have made that the Understander thinks are connected, or at least related, to each other.

5. Challenging

A Challenging move arises when two (or more) Speaker statements are contradictory or difficult for the Understander to reconcile. It provides the opportunity for Speakers to clarify and make explicit their position.

6. Disclosing

Disclosing is a difficult skill to master because the Understander should Disclose ‘experience only to the extent that it may be useful to clarify exactly what the Speaker is trying to say’ (Edge, 1992: 61). In this way, it acts as a point for the Speaker to contrast or compare.

Action 7. Goal-setting

Once a discovery has been made, Understanders may use a goal-setting move to help move the Speaker to envisage what they ‘want to be doing and achieving’ (Edge, 1992: 68). Understanders can check with the Speaker if they are ready to move towards setting a goal.

8. Trialling

Trialling involves inviting the Speakers to formulate possible steps towards realising their goals and creating opportunity for them to ‘talk through’ what is necessary in achieving it (Edge, 1992: 69).

9. Planning

The final stage marks the point in the interaction where the Speaker and Understander tie up any loose ends before stepping out of their roles and plan for their next meeting.

The purpose of our analysis is twofold. First, we aim to highlight how the interaction between Speakers and Understanders leads to reflection. Second, we aim to demonstrate how VMCD happens in action. To do this, after transcribing the meetings, we identified Understander moves based on Edge’s (1992) framework in the data and then searched for evidence of reflection. In terms of the latter, we drew on three conceptualisations of reflection that are often discussed in the literature, namely: • Reflection in the general sense of pondering or thinking about an issue,

228  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

• Reflection in the sense of self-reflection on professional practice. Often as part of a ‘reflective cycle’ or action research process (e.g. Wallace, 1998), • Reflection in the sense of a particular move that a counsellor or helper makes (e.g. Rogers, 1980: 139). In our VMCD meetings, all three conceptualizations were relevant as the Speakers thought about an issue and self-reflected in the sense of making plans for how they could solve their issues while the Understanders supported this process. Getting started

The first two extracts are taken from the beginning of the meetings. In the first, we analyse how Kamal marks the initiation of the VMCD interaction. Extract 1

Kamal: Saiful: Kamal: Saiful: Kamal: Saiful:

What would you like to speak about today? I would like to speak about the low achievement level for my students when it comes to English. So, you want to talk about the low achievement level of your students when it comes to English? Yes. [...] I would like to explore what are the causes? What can be done and how can I help them to be better? OK, maybe we can start by talking about the problems that you have in mind first? Ok, there are several issues that I notice.[...] there’s a lack of exposure in English [...] And then I don’t think they see the point in being good in English because there is no need for them to speak English in this community [..] I think it affects their motivation to learn English.

Above, Kamal makes a statement of purpose and then invites Saiful to begin. This might be treated as a Focusing move, but it is standard practice for the Speaker to have a focus in mind at the start of the session. Indeed, this is something of an expectation of a successful CD meeting (Edge, 2002; Mann, 2002). Such a move facilitates the Speaker in determining or at least making clear the topic for the session (Edge, 1992). This is what happens when Saiful responds as he immediately demarcates low achievement level as the topic for exploration. Kamal responds with an initial Reflection move, which may appear a little mechanical as it repeats Saiful’s comment word by word but functions to confirm the theme. In most CD talk, Understanders make an effort to not simply ‘echo’ in the Reflection move but to capture and relexicalise the main features of the preceding utterance. In any case, hearing this back encourages Saiful to

CD in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers  229

expand on his initial comment, and he highlights that he would like to explore causes and solutions. Kamal’s next contribution, while prefaced with ‘maybe’ and said in a questioning tone, aims to encourage Saiful to focus on ‘the problems’. Although it is not usually the Understanders role to recommend, in the early stages of CD, the Understander may need to help the Speaker narrow their focus. Saiful reflects on his problems, providing accounts for why his students have a low level of English and discussing the impact. In the talk leading up to the extract below, Claudia has been the Speaker and Katie the Understander. In Extract 2, Claudia marks the switching of roles. Extract 2

Claudia: Katie: Claudia: Katie:

Claudia:

Katie: Claudia: Katie:

Enough of me, what about you? I don’t really know what to say. I’ve got a whole project to figure out. Where do you begin? Where would you like to begin? Good question. I read a report by Fiona on MA TESOL students [...] This is an interesting thought. So I met with the students and I didn’t say who I was [...] Now I’m like am I building a deceitful relationship? So, let me recap. Because the connection is not quite so good and I didn’t want to interrupt you [...]. You started reading identity stuff and that may or may not be relevant. I think the connection broke when you were talking about who was the author? There’s an author who did a study on academic identities of students. So, it seems to me, there’s a connection there. What you were reading about and now how you present yourself to the group That’s true. Actually, I hadn’t thought about it like that.

Katie’s response makes evident she does not have a clear focus. Claudia then uses a Reflection move by repeating Katie’s question but adding in ‘like to’. This shifts the attention back to Katie and prompts her to begin some background or orientation talk, which is on the topic of her reading on identity. Katie then uses the word ‘interesting’ to mark the topic of not informing her students of her intention to research them as one worth exploring. After acknowledging an internet connection issue, Claudia uses a Reflection move to check what she has understood is correct. Such a move is typical of most forms of CD. In other words, Reflection is often prefaced by ‘let me see if I’ve got this right’ or ‘let me just check my understanding’. What is also significant in this VMCD is that internet issues also play into the checking or reflecting. Claudia specifically refers to not

230  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

hearing the author Katie was discussing, which functions as an attending move because it foregrounds the importance of Katie being heard. Katie responds and Claudia then continues with her Reflection. She uses key words already used by Katie (identity, relevant, author) and paraphrases her ideas (how you present yourself) to capture the essence of what has been said. Mann (2002: 151) argues that this ‘recoverable lexis’ is a key part of demonstrating Attending in formulating helpful Reflection moves. Following this, Claudia also makes a thematising move by bringing Katie’s attention to a possible link between Katie’s reading on identity and Katie identifying herself to the students. In this instance, after reflecting on the link, Katie legitimises this move as something she has not considered but may be useful in her continuing articulation. The two VMCD meetings are initiated in the same way in that the interlocutors ‘step into their roles’ (Boon, 2019) and adopt the positions of Speaker and Understander. This helps them to ‘operate under the interactional constraints of the CD framework’ (Boon, 2019). While Saiful is well prepared in terms of having a topic for exploration, Katie is not. This does not impact their interactions. Instead, as evident, the Understanders foster an environment in which ideas can emerge and grow by utilising Focusing and Reflection moves (Mann, 2002). This, in turn, helps the Speakers to formulate and develop more concrete ideas. One of the points to make clear then is that although it is ideal for a Speaker to come with a topic, it is not strictly necessary. It certainly is not a good idea to bring a topic which is overly ‘prepared’ or ‘rehearsed’. That is not the point at all. CD is not a performance space. It is a space to get further in your thinking. Making progress

Extracts 3 and 4 have been taken from partway through the VMCD meetings. In Extract 3, Saiful and Kamal discuss Saiful’s plan of action. Extract 3

Saiful: Kamal: Saiful: Kamal: Saiful: Kamal:

Maybe they use English just for fun, not to improve their English proficiency in terms of school use. So, for them, English is a subject that they use for fun instead of a language that should be taken seriously. Yes. Okay. I don’t think they see the urgency for them to be good in English. So now you’re relating to the point where they’re using English for fun. They don’t see it as an important language that they should study seriously.

CD in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers  231

Saiful: Kamal:

Yes. Would it be helpful, if you want to set like an action plan or a goal? Or would you like to explore more on the topic?

Saiful:

I would love to motivate them so that they see that besides having fun English is also important for their professional development later on.

Saiful begins by reflecting about his students’ use of English. Kamal responds with a Reflection that gives back elements of Saiful’s talk, which results in Saiful responding affirmatively with yes. Kamal uses the response token ‘okay’, which functions to show he is listening but also gives the floor back to Saiful. Saiful again reflects on his students’ use of English, which results in Kamal using a Reflection move to bring together parts of Saiful’s articulation so that Saiful can hear back a version and clarify if necessary. This results in another affirmative yes from Saiful. With confirmation that he has understood, Kamal utilises a Goal-Setting move, by specifically asking if Saiful has a plan or goal he would like to set. This is framed with an option of continuing to explore the issue they are discussing and thus foregrounds Saiful, as the Speaker, as the one in control. Saiful responds by reflecting on how he would like to motivate his students and what he hopes to gain from this. What is noticeable in this extract is that Kamal is explicit in his use of the Understander moves. It may also be that Saiful’s reticence to expand on the problem pre-empts this kind of goal-directed offer. In Extract 4, Claudia also utilises a Goal-Setting move. However, the talk returns to exploring the issue after Katie makes further reflections on the topic. Extract 4

Katie: Claudia:

Katie: Claudia: Katie:

Claudia: Katie:

I went to the meeting, under that kind of pretence is how it felt. How do you think you could? Because it seems to me from your own tone that you don’t feel comfortable with this not being straightforward or clear, entirely clear of or transparent, if you will, about your intentions. Yeah. But how do you think you can work that out? I know Steve is going to the next meeting. So I’m going to talk to him about it. [...] I think maybe if I am in the next meeting, I just say what my main intention is, in an honest way, [..] I think, you know, they probably think Who is this girl? Why is she here? How do you know? I don’t, but I assume. I also don’t want them thinking that I am there as the native Speaker.

232  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Katie uses the word pretence to describe how she felt. Although not shown, there is a long pause between turns, which results in Claudia taking the floor and beginning to formulate a question. She stops midway to check understanding and incorporates an element of reflecting by checking Katie’s tone. In CD, it is important to try to Reflect the way something is being said (the affective dimension) as well as catching the content (the cognitive and ideational element). This proves a successful Understander move, in its efforts to paraphrase ideas that Katie has put forward. The accuracy of the move is confirmed by Katie, who then does not contribute any new understandings. Perhaps to attempt to push the dialogue forward and help Katie articulate solutions to resolve her issue, Claudia directly asks Katie how she can work out the issue. This is similar to the move made by Kamal in Extract 3, in that it is a Goal-Setting move that occurs after the Speaker has added no new information. Katie then thinks about a potential plan and begins a further articulation, namely by starting to reflect on what the students think. Claudia then utilizes a challenging move, which although does not aim to catch Katie out as Claudia does not have a ‘position’, does result in Katie explaining herself. That being said, it also leads to continued exploration and growth, by facilitating a reflection from Katie about how she does not want to be seen. The CD relationship here is a strong one, if it was not so well established, then a direct question (how do you know?) would not be advisable. Extracts 2 and 3 illustrate that the Understanders utilised Goal-Setting moves at points in the interactions where ideas seem to be fully formed to support the Speakers in formulating plans and promote reflective talk. What is important is that the goal-setting moves were not driven by the impetus of the Understanders and are honestly trying to move the Speaker in a direction useful to them. Kamal, as Understander, directly asks if Saiful wishes to continue exploration and Claudia, as Understander, returns to exploration with Katie after picking up cues in their talk that Katie has not finished. We have also shown that challenging moves may lead to the Speaker to feel the need to account for themselves, which is not in the spirit of CD. As such, we posit that it may be better for Understanders to focus on Reflecting, listening and if they do challenge ensure this is framed with the ‘heard’ words of the Speaker. Taking action

The final two extracts are taken from near the end of the meetings. Prior to the first extract, Kamal has asked Saiful if he has ‘any tentative ideas or steps that we can explore?’, which aims to encourage him to ‘identify the steps that need to be taken to realize [his] goal’ (Edge & Attia, 2014: 68).

CD in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers  233

Extract 5

Saiful:

Kamal:

Saiful:

Kamal:

Saiful:

I need to expose them to the outside world [...] And then another idea is to bring maybe former students who have ventured outside and who has already seen the importance of English. So, let me see if I get this right. You’ve mentioned two possible ideas. The first one is you would love to bring them outside of the school to see how English is being used. And, second, you mentioned inviting former students who are successful to come back to school. And between these two ideas, would you like to focus on one of them? I think that the second option is more viable, like inviting someone. I have not identified anyone yet. But I think it is a more viable option compared to the first one. The first one would be really costly. So, you said to me that between these two options, you think the second options are more viable because it’s not as expensive [...] Would you like to come up with some more specific details about your plan on inviting students to your school? I think I might not limit my plan to only inviting former students. Maybe I could invite someone else.

Saiful self-reflects about two possible ways he can help motivate his students to see the importance of English. Kamal then reflects back a version of Saiful articulation, using recoverable lexis (bring them outside, successful, former students). Within this, he attempts to narrow the focus by asking Saiful if he would like to focus on one option. This move has the potential to, and could have arguably, short cut the exploration process. However, the move is unsurprising given that the pair were following the original Edge framework, which has impetus on formulating a ‘step-by-step blueprint for implementation’ (Edge, 1992: 69). Saiful responds choosing the second option and accounts for why. Kamal then uses a Reflection move, which again ends with him asking for ‘specific detail’. This is quite pushy but again is in the spirit of the original framework; as made evident by Edge (1992: 70): ‘In a mood of Honesty, Empathy, and Respect, the Understander has to insist on clarity and detail’. However, it also has the benefit of leading to further exploration. Prior to the extract, Katie has been exploring the reasons why she did not tell the students she was thinking of researching them and what she will need to do in the future. In what follows, the pair discuss her specific actions and then begin to explore a new emerging issue.

234  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Extract 6

Claudia:

Would you elaborate on your identity as you will be doing research with them or like this is a possibility?

Katie:

I think it will be a I’m hoping to study your experiences of the MA.[...]. Steve said it will be really good for you to offer workshops and I think that’s a really good idea. [...] But it’s so weird, isn’t it when you then put yourself in a position of knowing more. I have imposter syndrome.

Claudia: Katie: Claudia:

I completely understand the imposter syndrome issue. Haha. Haha. I don’t know if I got it right. Are you connecting... Or are you having issues with the imposter syndrome regarding the workshop suggested or just the very fact of being in a group in your position?

Katie:

No, yeah, I think, I get imposter syndrome, if I’m putting myself in- when i’m putting myself in a position of someone who can help you.

Claudia uses a Trialling move to clarify which of the actions Katie plans to take. In earlier talk, Katie has contradicted herself by saying that she will tell the students she wants to research them (see Extract 1) and that she is thinking of researching them (see Extract 4). As such, this Trialling move has elements of Challenging and of Reflection. Katie ­provides more details on her plan and then reflects on another related issue she has, namely that of imposter syndrome. This results in Claudia commenting that she understands and laughter from the pair. This laughter is a result of shared understanding as this is a topic the pair discuss frequently outside of VMCD interactions. Claudia then takes the floor and resumes VMCD talk. In a bid to understand whether the imposter syndrome is related to Katie’s earlier talk on identity or just regarding the workshop she has been advised to give, Claudia uses lexis Katie has previously used in relation to the two issues and asks specifically for clarification. This results in Katie explaining her position and then a further articulation about why she feels this way and then further exploration. The extracts above exemplify the differences in terms of the operationalisation of the two VMCD meetings. In the first, which is more orthodox in nature, the Understander focuses on moving the Speaker towards thinking about how their plan can be realized and this results in more goal directed talk. In the second, which is more ad hoc in nature, although a Trialling move was utilised, when an emerging issue is brought up by the Speaker, the Understander ‘goes with the flow’, which encourages further exploration. It is less classic CD but still creates a legitimate space for sustained spoken reflection. It is worth expressing here that utilising the Goal-Setting and Trialling moves of CD requires careful

CD in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers  235

management because they can cause the Understander to short circuit the exploration process. These moves should not come too early in the process. The main purpose of CD is exploratory, and Speakers should not be forced too quickly to action. In other words, Understanders main focus should be understanding, or awareness. Both extracts demonstrate that engaging in VMCD does promote reflective self-development talk. They also demonstrate (perhaps unsurprisingly) that CD is operationalised in very different ways, depending on participants’ degree of familiarity with each other, CD, and confidence in their ability to articulate their emerging ideas. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

The two case studies above show different ways in which VMCD is operationalised. Our position is certainly not that one form of VMCD is better than another. Indeed, we would argue that CD is a fairly flexible tool for sustained spoken reflection. However, we should try to avoid evaluation and suggestion in the Speaker’s role. We should also try to be patient as Understanders and not short-circuit the process for a bullet list of actions. The fundamental value of CD is that it takes a collaborative approach to reflective self-development talk. The Rogerian discourse framework that lies behind CD (see Edge, 2002; Rogers, 1980) prioritises the building of trust, empathy and understanding over time. This means some investment in the process, especially in terms of time. Carl Rogers’ principles of selfactualization and non-judgemental understanding are at the heart of CD. At its simplest we can say that CD puts the emphasis on the Speaker solving their own problems and getting further with their own thinking. We can say that the Understander needs to hold off from evaluation and suggestion (even when they think they have a good idea or possible way forward). Supported by the Understander(s), the Speaker is able to get further in his or her thinking. By focusing energy on the Speaker’s emerging ideas, the Understand is able to foster a collaborative reflective space where articulations, ideas, concepts, and innovations can emerge and grow. In any form of CD but particularly in VMCD, it is important to listen (Edge, 2002). In many ways, listening and reflecting are at the heart of the process. Good listening needs to be demonstrated through appropriate CD moves. If a Speaker is left to speak for long periods, they will not feel supported. More importantly, ‘hearing back the version’ of the developing articulation drives a dialogic process whereby the Speaker is able to take stock and consider whether the Understanders ‘version’ of what they are working on is sufficiently close. Our experience is that it does not matter as much whether the Understanding is accurate as much as attempted. An inaccurate understanding move can drive forward articulation just as much as an accurate one. In other words, the Understander is always

236  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

striving to get it right and that is more important than whether they actually do (get it right). This is very different from a space for reporting ideas that have already been rehearsed, presented or published (Mann & Walsh, 2017). The Speaker should not use CD for an idea that is complete or finished. CD is a space for reflecting on emerging ideas or innovations. In this way, ideas that are tentative, emergent, exploratory and information can be substantiated through the conscious adoption of a CD framework; going through a process of ‘inchoation or incubation’ (Prabhu, 1990: 170) and becoming clearer and more fully formed. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

This article has shown that VMCD offers teachers the space to develop a line of thought or argument that is quite different from the more prevalent debate styles of talk (Mann & Walsh, 2017). At the same time, it is also different from face-to-face CD. The data discussed above featuring moves put forward by Edge (2002) show that we can still ensure a reflective stance in a virtual environment. VMCD allows us to achieve a greater awareness of our own strengths and skills. It can support positive changes in our teaching or research environment. Previous research (e.g. Boon, 2005) has shown that teachers can make use of digital tools to collaborate in making reflective spaces for development. There are some fundamental aspects of CD that are consistent in faceto-face CD, IMCD and VMCD. There are a number of distinct ‘moves’ which peers can use in the role of ‘Understander’ in order to support the spoken reflection of the ‘Speaker’. The evidence from the case studies above suggests that there might be a cline between a more orthodox position where the CD moves suggested by Edge (2002) are consciously integrated and practiced. For Kamal, having a clear sense of the moves available was helpful. Katie’s experience is less orthodox and supports the findings of Mann (2002) that a looser interpretation of Edge (2002) is possible where Reflection can be considered the core move as elements of Reflection are usually present in both Focusing and Relating moves. The last key point about VMCD is not to worry about sticking religiously to CD moves but to maintain the fundamental differences in the Speaker and Understander roles. In terms of future research, we think there are three main areas of interest. First, especially since Covid-19, teacher development is likely to be blended and hybrid. We are unlikely to return to exclusive face-to-face provision. Further research is needed to consider how best to integrate online collaborative reflective speaking into CPD and pre-service teacher education. The second area of research is pinning down the multimodal elements of VMCD. What are the particular affordances and constraints of sharing screens, responding to the embodied aspects of reflection

CD in a Virtual Reflective Environment Among English Language Teachers  237

(especially in relation to the mix of emotional and cognitive elements in reflective talk). Finally, we hope that our study encourages CD practitioners to investigate and report on experiences in relation to the cline between orthodox adoption of Edge’s (2002) CD moves and a more relaxed interpretation of ‘moves’ and ‘roles’. This will help establish and secure the fundamental value and operationalization of CD. References Boon, A. (2005) Is there anybody out there? Essential Teacher 2 (2), 38–41. Boon, A. (2019) Facilitating reflective practice via Instant Messenger Cooperative Development. Indonesian JELT: Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching 14 (1), 35–54. Edge, J. (1992) Cooperative Development. Harlow: Longman. Edge, J. (2002) Continuing Cooperative Development: A Discourse Framework for Individuals as Colleagues. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Edge, J. (2006) Computer-mediated cooperative development: Non-judgmental discourse in online environments. Language Teaching Research 10 (2), 205–227. Edge, J. (2015) Non-judgmental discourse in the development of critical capacity for language teachers. RELC Journal 46 (1), 61–78. Edge, J. and Attia, M. (2014) Cooperative development: A non-judgmental approach to individual development and increased collegiality. In Actas de las VI y VII. Jornadas Didácticas del Instituto Cervantes de Mánchester (pp. 65–73). Manchester: Instituto Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/publicaciones_centros/ manchester_2013-2014.htm Farrell, T.S.C. (2003) Reflective Practice in Action: 80 Reflection Breaks for Busy Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2017) Research on Reflective Practice in TESOL. London: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2019) Reflective Practice in ELT. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing. Mann, S. (2002) Talking ourselves into understanding. In K.E. Johnson and P.R. Golombek (eds) Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development (pp. 195– 209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, S. (2005) The language teacher’s development. Language Teaching 38 (3), 103–118. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2017) Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching: Research-Based Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Prabhu, N. (1990) There is no best method – Why? TESOL Quarterly 24 (2), 161–176. Rogers, C.R. (1980) A Way of Being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Wallace, M. (1998) Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16 More than Words: Phraseology and Significance in the Reflective Practice Discourses of English Language Teacher Education Fiona Farr

Introduction

In terms of a focus on phraseology, since Firth’s original claim that ‘you shall know a word by the company that it keeps’ (Firth, 1957: 11), research has shown that repeated patterns and language sequences constitute a defining characteristic of any genre (Partington, 1998; Römer & Wulff, 2010). These patterns may be unique to a specific context of use, shared with other contexts, or partially shared. Insights into the ways in which such collocations and formulaic language function in context have become much more easily accessible through the use of corpus-based approaches to language analysis (McEnery & Hardy, 2012). The use of sophisticated software reveals relevant and significant phrases with ease, while allowing for a nuanced examination of these in more qualitative ways in the discourse under investigation. This chapter examines the reflective practice discourses of student teachers using a 450,000-word corpus of teacher e­ ducation discourse, from a range of interactional modes (online and face-to-face) which typically take place in an MA and a PhD in TESOL. It begins with a background examination of the conceptual underpinnings of reflective practice in language teacher education and a review of other relevant discourse-oriented studies which have shed some light on this 238

More than Words  239

phenomenon in recent years. It then moves to an examination of the teacher education corpus (TEC). The account in this chapter utilises a corpus-based discourse analysis methodology to investigate spoken and written data collected from an English language teacher education (ELTE) context over a number of years (Farr et al., 2019). Specifically, it investigates the language of RP through a phraseological lens within the TEC. As such, it provides an evidence-based account of how reflective talk is constructed and shared, thereby an insight into the cognitive and affective construction of how reflective discourse manifests. This, in turn, provides a better understanding of how reflective practice happens in action. The findings are always compared with casual conversation data in order to gain a nuanced understanding of how phraseology operates specifically in the ELTE reflective practice context. This evidencebased research will help advance our understanding of how reflective practice happens and provide some further insights into how this fits with our theoretical understandings of such an approach. Implications for reflective approaches in teacher education programmes will be discussed in relation to the pragmatic and also the transactional demands of the contexts under review, with specific and detailed reference to the teaching practice (TP) feedback context. Finally, the use of such corpus-based materials for the induction of novice teachers into reflective practice sharing experiences will be explored. Teacher Reflection and Corpus Linguistics

Reflection is part of our human existence. Although banal, it is true to say that we reflect all the time, both individually and collaboratively. Even in sleep, our subconscious thoughts invade our dreams, shape and direct them. Most of this type of thinking is more akin to musing or pondering. Endeavours of a deeper and more purposeful type of reflection are generally attributed to the great classical philosophers, such as Socrates and his student Plato (approximately 400–300 years BC). In what is now known as the Socratic Method, a consideration of multiple perspectives is prompted through the use of questioning, and it promotes ‘critical inquiry to undermine the plausibility of widely-held doctrine’ (Brickhouse & Smith, 2000: 53). Therein lie the foundations of what was much later framed by Dewey (1933), Schön (1983) and others as reflective practice (RP) (Farrell, 2012). In many contemporary professional contexts, RP has become embedded as a professional development tool and ELTE has certainly embraced it wholeheartedly over the last number of decades. It would be a challenge to find an ELTE syllabus anywhere in the world today which does not contain these two ubiquitous and wedded words. I have worked with graduate students at MA and PhD levels from all over the world and I have yet to meet one for whom the term is a new one, even if the details and mechanics sometimes allude them. In fact, it is exactly

240  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

this ubiquity and widespread application that has caused so much confusion about what is meant by RP, and how it can be applied to the benefit of both student teachers and teacher educators. It has also been criticised for being a bandwagon and being tokenistic within the ELTE community. Because of this, some even consider it a threat: ‘It seems to me that reflection represents one of the subtlest threats to successful teacher education and development. This is part of the price it has had to pay for its success, a consequence to some extent of its widespread adoption’ (Richards, as cited in Mann & Walsh, 2017: 101). There are a number of legitimate criticisms which have been levelled against RP over the years (for example, Akbari, 2007; Mann & Walsh, 2013). In fact, I have openly articulated some of the practical issues which have challenged me most in my own practices over the years. These include, for example, issues related to assessing RP activities and artefacts, the scaffolding of RP activities, and ensuring reflection is balanced against information in today’s world (Farr & Farrell, 2022: Chapter 2). However, I also propose suggested solutions to each of these, many of which have worked in my own teacher education context. Mann and Walsh (2017) mount a robust criticism of RP for not being sufficiently evidence-based and their 2017 volume seeks to address this shortcoming. To an extent, I agree with this, although there are now many more evidenced-based and empirical accounts of RP activities such as reflections and discussions during TP feedback (e.g. Copland, 2012; Donaghue, 2020; Farr, 2011; Vásquez, 2004; Vásquez & Reppen, 2007), and during online social platforms such as blogs, discussion forums and chat (e.g. Riordan, 2018; Szabo & Schwartz, 2011), to give just two examples. The reality is that in the context of a sociocultural paradigm (Freeman, 2016; Johnson, 2009), RP is a useful tool and is likely to be with us for some time to come, both in general education circles (Zwozdiak-Myers, 2012) and more specifically in ELTE (Cirocki & Farrell, 2017). Corpus linguistics as a useful tool in ELTE programmes around the world has been discussed and evaluated in terms of its affordances for a range of relevant activities. These include increasing language awareness as well as developing appropriate language learning pedagogies and materials for a technology-mediated teaching context (for example; AbdelLatif, 2020; Breyer, 2009; Leńko-Szymańska, 2014; Zareva, 2017). What has received much less attention is the employment of corpus-based tools and techniques to explore the practices of ELTE, to better understand them and improve them. I have written about this elsewhere (Farr, 2010, 2021; Farr & O’Keeffe, 2019), so will not go into great detail here, but I will briefly provide some background. In educational contexts, much learning happens through the mediation of language, hence our commitment to activities such as discussions, debates and presentations. In ELTE, much reflective practice occurs through spoken and written language, either individually or collaboratively. Through an examination of some of

More than Words  241

the artefacts of these RP discourses, we can better understand how student teachers (and those who support them) engage in such activities. This not only helps us describe and understand RP better but also allows us to evaluate which types of activities and tasks might better promote reflection for certain student teachers in certain contexts. The limitations and affordances of each are important to understand. This type of exploration can also help initiate novice student teachers and teacher educators into the world of ELTE in a scaffolded way until they feel confident enough, or are obliged by institutional requirements, to engage as full members of this professional community of practice (Freeman, 2016; Lave & Wenger, 1991), which will be discussed later. In a way, such an approach is a marrying of corpus-based discourse analysis and pedagogic formation to provide a proxy for direct experience and all of the frightening prospects that this might bring with it for newcomers (see Grossman [2011: 2838] on ‘decomposition of practice’). An Empirical Study Method

This study is a corpus-based discourse analysis. Two corpora are used. TEC is the focus corpus, and the Limerick Corpus of Irish English (LCIE; Farr & O’Keeffe, 2004) is used as a reference corpus for comparative and contrastive purposes. LCIE is a corpus of approximately one million words. It consists primarily of casual conversation, collected in a range of settings across the Republic of Ireland. The majority of the speakers represented in the corpus are in the 18- to 24-year-old age range (for a full description of LCIE, see Farr et al., 2004). TEC, on the other hand, represents the discourse found in ELTE academic settings (Farr et al., 2019). It contains language originally produced in both spoken and written modes, and amounts to just under half a million words. The various sub-corpora (contexts) in TEC can be seen in Figure 16.1, which provides an overview of the data. As illustrated, the face-to-face spoken data in TEC amounts to approximately 250,000 words representing 55% of the corpus. This compares with circa 200,000 words for the written online data, which represents the remaining 45%.

Figure 16.1  Overview of Teacher Education Corpus (TEC)

242  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

TEC represents the social interactions of student teachers, TP supervisors, lecturers and peer tutors. The student teachers represented two distinct groupings following a TESOL programme at either MA or PhD level. A total of 60 student teachers participated in the research (for just one year each) alongside four TP supervisors, three lecturers and one peer tutor (for one or more years in each case). Of the student teachers involved, 51 were novices and nine had a minimum of three years of teaching experience. TEC is therefore a small specialised corpus comprised of locally sourced data which were generated from tasks assigned to student teachers during their programmes of study. The discussions and written tasks were designed to encourage the participating teachers to reflect on their classroom practice and related experiences, to collaborate with each another and to make connections between theory and practice, which is considered vital for professional development (Akbari, 2007; Farr & Riordan, 2015) (e.g. post-observation feedback discussions, group discussions on various aspects of practice, the development of teaching ­e-portfolios, and blogs, chat and discussion fora reflections on their own practices). The version of TEC used for the purposes of this chapter was collected over a 10-year period between 2008 and 2018, although we continue to grow the corpus on an annual basis where possible. In terms of participation levels in the discourse, the student teachers contribute 72% to the TEC data, and the teacher educators contribute 28%. In fact, they contribute more to all modes except TP feedback, and this is something to be aware of when presenting and interpreting results below. SketchEngine (https://www.sketchengine.eu/) is the online software used for the corpus-based analysis in this chapter. This is currently accessed through an institutional licence granted thanks to EU funding. The focus for the analysis is on phraseology specific to the TEC and relative to more general conversation (as represented in LCIE). To begin to get relevant insights into the data the following steps were followed: (1) Keyword comparison (Kilgarriff, 2009) (only items which appear more frequently in the selected corpus than in the reference corpus, normalised comparisons based on words per million) of: (i) multi-word expressions in a format typical of terminology in the language of the corpus (ii) N-grams: key multi-word expressions (any sequences of tokens) (2) Collocations of some of the significant n-grams and multi-word expressions. Findings

The results from the keyword comparison of multi-word expressions and n-grams were somewhat unsurprising, and therefore not particularly interesting from a research perspective. The searches returned lots of

More than Words  243

phrases related to ELTE, for example, as a teacher, the students were and of your lesson. Apart from providing some reassurance that the discussions and writings are on task, this is not particularly insightful. Three other themes emerged from these searches. Two were discounted as it turns out that the expressions were part of pro-forma templates for written tasks. However, there was one nugget that proved to be interesting, and that is the occurrence of I feel that, as the fourth most common expression in the n-gram search. This occurs 145 times in the TEC and is very high on the keyword list, so obviously an expression of preference for the participants. The three highest occurring phrases were I feel that I (N = 19), I feel that my (N = 15) and I feel that the (N = 14). Notably, the first occurrence of any phrase containing think (other than in pro-forma templates) occurs at 319 on the n-gram list. And although I think that occurs 262 times in TEC, giving it a higher frequency than I feel that, its lower ranking as a keyword makes it relatively insignificant. In other words, its frequency of use is not significantly different from that found in everyday conversation. Taking a closer look at I feel that in a concordance list shows that it is used in a range of reflective and evaluative ways. Figure 16.2 illustrates with a random sample of 20 lines. The tags found in these concordance lines ( and ) indicate that this term is found primarily in the spoken language modes and mainly involve reviews of teaching. Lines 19–20 in Figure 16.2 piqued my interest as I initially thought I had duplicated some files causing repeated concordance lines. However, on closer inspection, it turns out that some of the student teachers were copying, pasting and only slightly modifying their reflections from week to week, or from one task to the next – strategic

Figure 16.2  Random selection of 20 concordance lines of I feel that

244  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

engagement at its best! When I examined similar concordance lines from I think that, the same kinds of reflections and topics emerged. In theory then, these phrases (I feel that and I think that) seem to be interchangeable and used by both parties (in the interactive modes) in the corpus. So, the question remains as to why, of the two, I feel that is a highly ranked phrase. The response to this can only be expressed in a series of plausible interpretations. It may be that this context of RP promotes more holistic engagement, expressed on the emotional as well as cognitive plane. It may be that reflections are articulated as feelings because they are interpreted to be equally in the realm of human instinct as well as academic cognition. It may be that it is a more tentative way for student teachers to express cognition, by building in a pre-emptive face-saving strategy for fear of being evaluated by the teacher educators as being ‘wrong’ in their reflections. Related to this is the notion that there is an expectation for student teachers to present themselves paradoxically as ‘expert novices’ in the face of those more experienced, that is, novice teachers but expected to have become somewhat expert in their understanding of their own teaching (Farr, 2011). As mentioned, it seems that some of the more significant phrases begin to emerge when looking at the spoken modes in particular, and so for the purposes of the remainder of this chapter, I will take a micro-look at the largest of the spoken language corpora, TP feedback. It consists of 20 individual post observation feedback sessions. Involved in these sessions, which last anywhere between 20 and 40 minutes each, are four teacher educators (all female) and 12 student teachers (nine female and three male). Using the same methodology as outlined earlier, I ran keyword lists for multi-word expressions and for n-grams of the TP feedback corpus against LCIE. Figure 16.3 presents the top 50 key multi-word expressions. As in the general TEC corpus, the metalanguage is prevalent in the keyword phrases, for example, teacher talking time, false friend. We also find many context-related expressions and deictic markers which tell us more about the where and the who of the discussions, for example, Chinese girl, intermediate class. For me, with my strong tendency towards the corpus pragmatics (Rühlemann, 2019) of the interaction, it is the

Figure 16.3  Key multi-word expressions in TP feedback

More than Words  245

Figure 16.4  Select key multi-word expressions in the feedback corpus

remaining words which are interesting. So, the question is, what are they and why they are significantly more frequent in this context? Figure 16.4 answers the first of these questions. Taking away the metalanguage and the context specific references, we are left with the multi-word phrases in Figure 16.4. In and of themselves, these expressions do not give a clue as to the genre. They could be found in any piece of spoken discourse, but they are relatively more frequent, and therefore preferable in TP feedback. They give us very strong clues about how the participants talk to each other. In many cases, the differences between the feedback corpus and LCIE are not stark. Interestingly though, seven of the 16 key multi-words contain the quantifiers little, big, major and huge. One, in particular, stands out because of the huge discrepancy in the numbers between the focus and reference corpus, and that is little bit. This shows approximately 600 in the difference between the corpora, clearly a favoured expression in feedback talk. On closer examination, it can be found in 18 out of 20 of the files and has a raw frequency of 116, 98 of which are uses by teacher educators and just 18 by student teachers. This establishes that it is ubiquitous across most of the participants, with a strong preference for use by the teacher educators. The next question then becomes about how this is used in the discourse. It is found at the end of utterances as well as in mid-turn positions. The top collocate to the right is the word ‘more’, giving the expression a little bit more. Figure 16.5 shows how this phrase is used in 15 cases where it is found. All of the examples in Figure 16.5 contain two words carrying a literal meaning of quantity/size – little and more. However, in the Feedback Corpus, they are really not expressing anything to do with literal quantity,

246  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Figure 16.5  Random selection of 15 concordance lines of a little bit more

but rather are being used much more pragmatically than that. In fact, if you were to remove a little bit more from these utterances, the meaning stays largely the same, but the pragmatic impact is potentially much more damaging in a highly sensitive context where one person is being evaluated by a perceived ‘more powerful expert’. It is clear to see that it is being used here to downtone the suggestion/direction (a face-threatening act) being given by the teacher educator. In fact, it is possible that the exact opposite to a little bit more is meant in some cases, for example, they need a little bit more definition, possibly means a lot more. Edge (1984) uses the expression ‘feedback with face’, and there would appear to be ample evidence of this through the use of the expression a little bit more. Clearly, feedback on the affective channel needs to be positive, and on the cognitive channel needs to be honest and critical in order to prompt change and development (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011). Indeed, many of the difficulties and stresses of the practicum in general are brought to the feedback interaction, either as an undercurrent, or more explicitly. Many student teachers are emotionally and psychologically fragile during these encounters, and the engagements can often incite tears and tantrums. Others have documented such tensions and sensitivities in their own research on feedback in different contexts (Copland, 2010; Donaghue, 2020). Turning to the n-gram keyword expressions, while there are many overlaps with the multi-word expressions, one particular phrase caught my eye at number 2 on the list, that is you need to. This is an interesting one, because in terms of what I discussed in the last paragraph, it is very direct in an otherwise very hedged type of discourse. This seems to be the expression of choice when an unambiguous message needs to be communicated to the student teacher, as indicated by its significant keyness relative to similar expressions such as you have to or you must. The concordances, in some cases, show that you need to is prefaced by a hedge

More than Words  247

such as I think, or followed by a downtoner like slightly, as we might expect. However, on other occasions, it is used as a bald on-record expression (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Extract 1 illustrates one such case. Extract 1: You need to be the teacher

You really need to be in other words to do it you need to be the teacher do you remember I talked to you about it’s your class and you’re in control+ Mmhm + you need to be the teacher in cl= in charge of her class again+ Right

The teacher educator’s obvious irritation may be attributed to the fact that she has to revisit advice previously given and not heeded. The message in this extract is unambiguous, and the student teacher seems to respond rather briefly and coyly in the face of this power-laden dynamic. I questioned whether the use of this expression was limited in any way by the time constraints of the interactions in other words because the teacher educators do not have time to elicit or ‘pussyfoot’ (Randall & Thornton, 2001) around the issue. To investigate this hypothesis, I checked the distribution of the expression you need to in the corpus files. In each of 10 randomly selected files of the 17 in which it was found, the earliest occurrence was 2% of the way into the feedback session and the latest occurrence was approximately 40% into the interaction (measured by wordcounts). This shows that time pressure was unlikely to be a factor. It may be that the issue under discussion is too important to risk indirect methods such as elicitation, it may be habit forming for the student teacher, or it may not be especially delicate or significant. Or, quite simply, it may be that annoyance is being expressed. Whatever the reason, it seems that this expression is widely used where it is deemed that there is neither need nor desire for mitigation or face-saving strategies. In the next section, I will discuss the practical implications of these findings. Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

The results in the previous section highlight three significant phrases favoured in the ELTE context as represented in TEC, I feel that, a little bit and need to. In terms of the practical implications, there are three points I would like to highlight: the importance of pragmatic considerations in reflective practice interactions; the use of a corpus such as TEC for induction purposes; and the very important role of research in the field. The first two of these I will discuss in this section and the final one will briefly be addressed in the last section of this chapter. Many of the important discussions found in the RP literature tend to focus on theoretical considerations and practical applications in terms of

248  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

presenting frameworks and tasks that can be used to promote reflective practice (Farrell, 2015; Zwozdiak-Myers, 2012). These are all essential and certainly make life a lot easier for student teachers and teacher educators, me included. However, as well as this, we need to consider how communication and interaction takes place during reflective activities. This includes both the language used and the social dynamics at play, including power relations. Even the modest investigation above gives a strong flavour of the importance of measured communication in a situation which can be full of stresses and tensions. There is a big difference between a statement like, you need to improve on your use of technology, and something like, I feel that it’s important to consider how you might approach the use of technology a little bit in future lessons. It is vital to attend to the affective aspects of communication as well as the more transactional aspects. In other words, it is important to get the job done, but to get it done in an affectively positive way through the inclusion of softeners, downtoners, and an acknowledgement of the importance of emotional and cognitive considerations. This is especially true for teacher educators. As we become accustomed to similar types of engagements from year to year and our exposure increases, we need to be careful not to become desensitised. Every student is a new student. They have the same aspirations, motivations, but also fears and anxieties that being enrolled in a teacher education programme can trigger for any novice teacher. This is especially true of the practice components (Farrell, 2007). Secondly, I want to highlight the potential of corpora such as TEC for induction purposes with both student teachers and novice teacher educators. Such artefacts can provide an important type of exposure before full engagement is required. And while earlier I said that contextual metalanguage and context markers are not especially interesting from a research perspective, they are vital when using such materials for practice-based purposes. It is insightful and orientating for student teachers to peruse the discourse to help understand the norms of practice and interaction in advance. Grossman and McDonald (2008) describe such examination and rehearsal of complex practices within settings of simplified complexity as approximations of practice (see also Trent, 2013). And while they refer specifically to TP, I would argue that the same can apply to contexts such as feedback interactions and group discussions. Such an approach may help to lessen the fear of the unknown. Discourse collected in local contexts tend to be more relevant and reflective of the types of encounters that will be experienced first-hand in those same contexts. In other words, familiarity with such data and a critically guided discussion of such interactions will allow student teachers to empathise with the context, the language (jargon) and the speakers. It can also help close the gap between theory and practice (Farrell, 2021) and become part of their formation as peripheral members of the community, as a stepping stone to becoming full, legitimate members (Freeman, 2016; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The

More than Words  249

same principles apply to novice teacher educators. One of the positive outcomes of forced online interactions during periods of Covid lockdowns is that it is now relatively easy to build a corpus of spoken language. Within the appropriate ethical protocols, reflective discussions can be recorded and are automatically transcribed by most of the common communication applications. These transcriptions can then relatively easily be converted into an electronic corpus ready for exploration. The following are two practical activities to illustrate: (1) Make a recording of any interaction that takes place during your teacher education programme (ensuring to follow ethical protocols). Transcribe the recording roughly. Read the transcription aloud alone. Reflect on the different intentions of the speakers, the type of language used, and their emotional states. Reflect on any alternative interpretations. Read the transcription aloud with some peers playing the different parts. Discuss how they interpret the same extract in terms of intentions, language, and emotions (without sharing your reflections). Compare your interpretations with theirs. Go back to the original actors in the interaction and ask them to comment further. Discuss their interpretations with your own and those of your peer group. What has all of this shown you? (2) Observe an interaction such as feedback, or an English language class. As you observe, note some frequently used phrases (especially by the teacher educators, teachers and student teachers). Reflect and hypothesise on the reasons why such phrases are highly frequent. Discuss your observations and reflections with those being observed. What does this say about language teaching or teacher education? How will this impact on how you engage with the profession going forward? Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

Briefly, I would like to stress the crucial role of research into how reflective practice gets done. This will help inform theoretical and practical discussions going forward and will continue to help to progress and transform practices. This research needs to be conducted from a variety of epistemological and methodological stances. And while, for example, a linguistic ethnographic approach (Creese & Copland, 2015) may uncover some revelations, a corpus-based discourse analysis such as that

250  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

reported in this chapter will reveal other insights (e.g. Urzúa & Vásquez, 2008). As Lantolf once said of SLA theory building, I will now say of reflective practice and teacher education theory building, that is, ‘let all the flowers bloom’ (Lantolf, 1996: 713). Sometimes I am overawed by the complexity of researching and understanding reflective practice in ELTE contexts. It has many faces, many truths, and many, many complexities. Indeed, trying to understand it involves trying to understand the human psyche, and human behaviours. In some ways, it will always be partially elusive, but in other ways, through the examination of words and actions we can begin to decipher what lies at the core of reflective practice and how it gets done. The objective should always be to describe and understand, ultimately in order to engage in and possibly refine practice. Technology now allows us to get bird-eye views of the engagements and discourses of reflective practice through the examination of large datasets, or corpora, which can complement the more micro-level conversation and discourse analysis that we have seen in the past. In this way also, we can begin to address a main criticism of historic RP approaches which is that they have tended to remain confined to matters of techniques and procedures and to lack theoretical discussions (Farr et al., 2019: Chapter 3). Data and evidence can work iteratively with theoretical discussions to maintain focus and relevance. A recent example from my own work is the framing of some of the TEC corpus data against frameworks from language teacher identity (see Farr et al., 2019). I am also curious about how such corpus-data might sit against frameworks such as Freeman’s categorisations for teacher education. This will allow a continuation of the discussions proposed by those who have researched, practised and influenced in the field for many years (e.g. Farrell, 2019; Freeman, 2004; Johnson & Golombek, 2016; Richards & Lockhart, 1996). References Abdel-Latif, M. (2020) Corpus literacy instruction in language teacher education: Investigating Arab EFL student teachers’ immediate beliefs and long-term practices. ReCALL 33 (1), 1–15. Akbari, R. (2007) Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System 35 (2), 192–207. Breyer, Y. (2009) Learning and teaching with corpora: Reflections by student teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning 22 (2), 153–172. Brickhouse, T.C. and Smith, N.D. (2000) The Philosophy of Socrates. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness (pp. 56–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cirocki, A. and Farrell, T.S.C. (2017) Reflective practice for the professional development of TESOL practitioners. The European Journal of Applied Linguists and TEFL 6 (2), 5–24.

More than Words  251

Copland, F. (2010) Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher training: An alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (3), 466–472. Copland, F. (2012) Legitimate talk in feedback conferences. Applied Linguistics 33 (1), 1–20. Creese, A. and Copland, F. (2015) Linguistic Ethnography: Collecting, Analysing and Presenting Data. London: Sage. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of The Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process (revised edn). Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. Donaghue, H. (2020) Feedback talk as a means of creating, ratifying and normalising an institutionally valued teacher identity. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 19 (6), 395–411. Edge, J. (1984) Feedback with face. English Language Teaching Journal 38 (3), 204–206. Farr, F. (2010) How can corpora be used in teacher education? In A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy (eds) Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 620–632). London: Routledge. Farr, F. (2011) The Discourse of Teaching Practice Feedback. An Investigation of Spoken and Written Modes. New York, NY: Routledge. Farr, F. (2021). How can corpora be used in teacher education? In A. O’Keeffe and M.J. McCarthy (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (2nd edn). Abingdon: Routledge. Farr, F. and Farrell, A. (2022) The Reflective Cycle of the Teaching Practicum. London: Equinox. Farr, F. and O’Keeffe, A. (eds) (2004) The Limerick Corpus of Irish English (L-CIE). Limerick: University of Limerick. Farr, F. and O’Keeffe, A. (2019) Using corpus approaches in English Language Teacher Education. In S. Walsh and S. Mann (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education (pp. 268–282). New York, NY: Routledge. Farr, F. and Riordan, E. (2015) Tracing the reflective practices of student teachers in online modes. ReCALL 27 (1), 104–123. Farr, F., Murphy, B. and O'Keeffe, A. (2004) The Limerick Corpus of Irish English: Design, description and application. Teanga (pp. 5–29). Dublin: IRAAL. Farr, F., Farrell, A. and Riordan, E. (2019) Social Interaction in Language Teacher Education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007) Failing the practicum: Narrowing the gap between expectations and reality with reflective practice. TESOL Quarterly 41 (1), 193–201. Farrell, T.S.C. (2012) Reflecting on reflective practice: (Re)visiting Dewey and Schön. TESOL Journal 3 (1), 7–16. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2019) Reflective practice in L2 teacher education. In S. Walsh and S. Mann (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education (pp. 38–51). New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T.S.C. (2021) TESOL Teacher Education: A Reflective Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Firth, J.R. (1957) A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In J.R. Firth (ed.) Studies in Linguistic Analysis (pp. 1–32). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Freeman, D. (2004) Language, sociocultural theory, and L2 teacher education: Examining the technology of subject matter and the architecture of instruction. In M.R. Hawkins (ed.) Language Learning and Teacher Education. A Sociocultural Approach (pp. 169–197). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Freeman, D. (2016) Educating Second Language Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grossman, P. (2011) Framework for teaching practice: A brief history of an idea. Teachers College Record 113 (12), 2836–2843.

252  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

Grossman, P. and McDonald, M. (2008) Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal 45 (1), 184–205. Johnson, K.E. (2009) Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, K.E. and Golombek, P.R. (2016) Mindful L2 Teacher Education. A Sociocultural Perspective on Cultivating Teachers’ Professional development. New York, NY: Routledge. Kilgarriff, A. (2009) Simple maths for keywords. In M. Mahlberg, V. González-Díaz and C. Smith (eds) Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference. Liverpool, UK, 2009. Lantolf, J.P. (1996) SLA theory building: ‘Letting all the flowers bloom!’. Language Learning 46 (4), 713–749. Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2011) Classroom observation: Desirable conditions established by teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education 34 (4), 449–463. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2014) Is this enough? A qualitative evaluation of the effectiveness of a teacher-training course on the use of corpora in language education. ReCALL 26 (2), 260–278. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2013) RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice. Applied Linguistics Review 4 (2), 291–315. Mann, S. and Walsh, S. (2017) Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching. Research-Based Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Routledge. McEnery, T. and Hardy, A. (2012) Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Partington, A. (1998) Patterns and Meaning: Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Randall, M. and Thornton, B. (2001) Advising and Supporting Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. and Lockhart, C. (1996) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Riordan, E. (2018) TESOL Student Teacher Discourse. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Online and Face-to-Face Interactions. London: Routledge. Römer, U. and Wulff, S. (2010) Applying corpus methods to written academic texts: Explorations of MICUSP. Journal of Writing Research 2 (2), 99–127. Rühlemann, C. (2019) Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics. New York, NY: Routledge. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Szabo, Z. and Schwartz, J. (2011) Learning methods for teacher education: The use of online discussions to improve critical thinking. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 20 (1), 79–94. Trent, J. (2013) From campus to classroom: A critical perspective on approximations of practice in teacher education. Research Papers in Education 28 (5), 571–594. Urzúa, A. and Vásquez, C. (2008) Reflection and professional identity in teachers’ futureoriented discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (7), 1935–1946. Vásquez, C. (2004) ‘Very carefully managed’: Advice and suggestions in post-observation meetings. Linguistics and Education 15 (1–2), 33–58. Vásquez, C. and Reppen, R. (2007) Transforming practice: Changing patterns of participation in post-observation meetings. Language Awareness 16 (3), 153–172. Zareva, A. (2017) Incorporating corpus literacy skills into TESOL teacher training. ELT Journal 71 (1), 69–79. Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2012) The Teacher’s Reflective Practice Handbook. Abingdon: Routledge.

17 Discourse of Reflections on Instant Joint Engagement in Online ELT Graduate Courses Hatime Çiftçi and Kenan Dikilitaş

Introduction

Reflection has long been investigated and discussed as a part of purposeful and systematic post-lesson talk where the teacher(s) reflect on the effectiveness of the past teaching (Farrell, 2016). It has also been advocated as an evidence-based (Benson et al., 2018) and data-led process (Walsh & Mann, 2015). However, even though reflection is traditionally understood as an individual process or activity, it involves a social dimension when it is done collectively or in a co-constructed manner. That is, rather than a teacher who reflects on his/her own experiences and practices, we focus on reflection as social interaction in our context. The discourse of reflection, thus, refers to the dialogic interaction between the members, namely teachers, of a community (e.g. a graduate class) by which they conjointly express their ideas, ask questions, share their experiences and so on. Our argument is that the potential impact of such instantly emerging joint reflection specifically in online courses has received inadequate attention as an area of research and as a way of teacher learning (Mumford & Dikilitaş, 2020). The online courses which this study relies on are delivered as a part of a graduate program at a university in the northwest of Turkey, where students can synchronously interact and reflect on their own theoretical and practical professional knowledge construction. The notion of instant joint reflection in these online courses involves contextualizing and internalizing content knowledge by processing it through and beyond discussions and critical reflections on their experiences in their own contexts. With this in mind, our chapter examines the discourse of post-course reflections of the in-service teachers regarding their instant joint reflections throughout the online sessions. That is, we mainly focus on the role 253

254  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

of co-reflection among and by the in-service teachers moderated by the course instructor to engender different patterns of engagement and varying degrees of participation in the online sessions. In doing so, we also attempt to delineate social and active construction of new meanings through online dialogue based on the principle of community of inquiry. The theoretical framework offers reference to how tacit knowledge of the course instructor and in-service teachers as articulated and shared online can help the latter group learn as opposed to codified knowledge easily accessible in books. In that sense, the emerging joint online dialogue might appear to draw on personal and professional experiences and shaping unwritten knowledge in the books. Thus, drawing on a small data set from the discourse of post-course reflections on jointly constructed interactions within and beyond the courses, our chapter discusses the role of such joint critical reflection in an online interactional space regularly for 14 weeks. We qualitatively analyze the potential impact on the course participants, that is the in-service teachers, and discuss practical implications in relation to the theoretical underpinnings of reflection as a process of situational learning. Our study might offer implications not only to online teachers regarding how verbal interactions might play a key role in deeper thinking and interpreting new theoretical knowledge but also to teacher educators who need to focus on fostering language teachers’ online critical communicative skills. Reflection as a Critical Thinking Process

The concept of reflection in teaching or for teachers has originated with the influential work of Dewey (1933) and is a potential tool for language teachers. Even though teacher reflection is commonly practiced through a set of techniques and procedures (e.g. the journal technique), it involves a practical and theoretical basis on the part of the teacher along with affective domains, such as teacher self and personality so that they could become more aware of their own actions and feelings in and outside the class (Akbari, 2007). It could also be defined as ‘a self-critical, exploratory process’ for teachers where they think carefully about their pedagogical decisions within their situated practices in order to better develop such practices (Tripp & Rich, 2012: 678). Such a process is not only crucial to self-development but also to professional development (Maaranen & Stenberg, 2017). However, research on teacher reflection has predominantly examined the practicum or student teaching (Nelson et al., 2016) due to the nature of this culminating experience, and there is a lack of other opportunities where teacher candidates can bridge theory into practice (Bullough, 2002). More recently, Nelson et al. (2016), for instance, examined the reflective practices of teacher candidates during an introductory education course. Through analysis of digital portfolios, including written reflections, their study showed that the reflective process was

Discourse of Reflections on Instant Joint Engagement in Online ELT Graduate Courses  255

beneficial prior to practicum or student teaching experiences of teacher candidates. The results also indicated that it is fundamentally important to surround teacher candidates with meaningful opportunities for reflection through their diverse learning experiences and challenges in their own engagement process so that they can internalize their reflection (Nelson et al., 2016). Even though a bulk of research showcases the role of reflection in language teacher education as well (Burton, 2009), one of the major aspects of such a practice is that language teachers should go through a process of critical awareness by developing the sense of a learning community and making direct and close relations with the members of these communities in their own social context (Hawkins & Norton, 2009). Drawing on such premises, we aim to examine the discourse of postcourse reflections by the in-service language teachers from the perspective of how they also construct a learning community through their conjoint online reflections in their online graduate courses. Synchronous Joint Reflection

Reflection is one of the key mediating tools for learning, which helps process new knowledge by refining established beliefs, and revisiting existing understandings particularly in a collaborative online environment (Anderson & Justice, 2015). Likewise, reflecting synchronously in online settings can cultivate a sense of support and purpose in common (Krutka et al., 2014) while also offering language learning benefits students who use the language creatively to express their subjective arguments which need to be critiqued by others in the community. In such online environments, the mode of interaction can be conducted synchronously (real-time) and asynchronously (non-real-time). The former refers to the synchronous presence of individual while interacting, whereas the latter refers to interacting in the same environment with others’ written posts at different times or not simultaneously. Each mode might bring in a range of factors in learning and understanding and can be perceived distinctly by different individuals. In this study, we focus on the role of former mode by scrutinizing the discourse of post-course reflections of the in-service teachers on their instant joint reflections throughout the online courses. Regarding the mode of interaction, synchronous communication might be considered a superficial reflective process since instant communication may hinder deeper thinking to formulate responses partly due to lack of time to do so (Falloon, 2020), whereas asynchronous communication is described as being thoughtful and deliberative (Lapadat, 2002). To address this disadvantage in synchronous interaction, some argue that moderation is key to supporting instant online interaction (Akyol & Garrison, 2011). The presence of a moderator with reduced interruption

256  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

can also affect online interaction (Burhan-Horasanlı & Ortaçtepe, 2016). Knowledge building and development in online interaction is potentially enhanced when the tutors adopt a supportive style of instruction (Cacciamani et al., 2012). Online reflectivity of learners is often supported by the interacting types of presence. The learners need to be present socially and cognitively in the online environment where tutors are also present with their instructional decisions and practices (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). Online community building in engendering interaction among learners also plays a pivotal role as interaction is inherently a social activity. Social learning with a sense of community influences the degree and mode of participation. As Kim and Ketenci (2019) put it, full participation is ensured by frequent interaction with multiple students who exchange meaningful feedback and contribute to building a community of learners. However, inbound participation takes place when students learn actively and interact dialogically by raising questions and offering feedback, while also seeking issues and commenting actively. Kim and Ketenci (2019) also argue that participation can be in the form of peripheral mode, in which learners do not noticeably engage and remain inactive while absorbing knowledge from their peers’ active learning experiences. An Empirical Study Method

Our study involved a qualitative research design where we collected and examined the discourse of written post-course reflections from the in-service teachers who took the online ELT graduate courses over two semesters in 2020. The study was conducted at a private university in the northwest of Turkey. The participants were MA students in the ELT program where they were taking a fully online MA course with the goal of developing their qualitative research knowledge-base and skills. Recorded and made available to the teachers during the term, the 3-hour course per week was delivered in a student-active mode where the course started (with the tutor present online but silent by monitoring) with the enactment of student-student interaction for 15 minutes to re-discuss the past week content and arguments and raise critical course-related issues they needed to clarify. Following the students’ introductory discussions, the course instructor initiated the input session where the students were still active as discussants in understanding and elaborating on the qualitative methods by referring to their own research they plan and conduct for the fulfillment of the current course. That process usually took 45 minutes. The third level of the course was based on the plenary discussion of 30 minutes where the in-service teachers as the students in the course were seeking and discussing how they could link the course input to their own

Discourse of Reflections on Instant Joint Engagement in Online ELT Graduate Courses  257

research plans to further strengthen the connection of the theoretical research discussion to their own research experiences. At that level, the teacher was also actively interacting with the students. Finally, the students were asked to study asynchronously and write their research stages and submit in the platform of the course in the next 30 minutes. In doing so, the course instructor aimed to create opportunities for students to engage in the critical reflections throughout the course designed and conducted in multimodal formats of communication. All the participants were informed about the data collection process after the course without being told about the exact purpose of research. We invited the students to submit their responses without making it compulsory. We asked them to reflect on the process of synchronous reflection during the course (for specific instructions, see Appendix 1). Those who did submit their written reflections provided their consents for us to use the data for our research. The reflections were collected via emailing by another student in class who anonymized the names as P1, P2, P3, etc. and shared with us. This ensured that reflections on potential negative comments can be transparently documented by the students. We analyzed the data through simultaneous coding where we both went through the data and suggested our themes until we both made sure what the data revealed. We noticed from the excerpts that our participants stressed reiteratively the concept of engagement as they were guided to discuss and reflect on the course issues. We then categorized and conceptualized each of the different topics under the four main dimensions of engagement which cohered expressly. The analysis was completed through constant comparison of the excerpts and the negotiation between us to ensure the saturation where all the data were understood and represented in the themes we induced. Findings

Analyzing the reflective discourse of end-of-semester evaluations by in-service teachers in an online course, we found four major dimensions of engagement: cognitive, social-constructive, affective and interactive engagement. The sub-themes of these dimensions that appeared in our data and sample codes are presented below: Cognitive engagement

Strategy use was one of mostly stated instances of cognitive engagement and the in-service teachers in our study listed many of them including, but not limited to, taking notes, watching the recorded sessions, reviewing, taking screenshots and saving comments in the chat box. I try to follow my friends’ ideas and compare with mine. I note some important points during the courses and rewrite them. (P14)

258  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

During online courses, I always take notes. For example: the author on the slide as reference. Or just a title to search later. Sometimes, I take screenshots if I find the topic is vital to learn and sth that I don’t know. After the courses, I check the resources to learn deeply. (P15) I prefer to watch the [recorded course] sessions in my free time, increasing the speed of the video. I take notes while I watch and this way, I can skip the ‘unnecessary’ parts quickly. (P16) I save comments that are beneficial to me and to the improvement of my knowledge. After lessons, I usually go over the slides and chat comments and try to understand what was said. (P8)

As indicated by various excerpts above, the in-service-teachers use a bulk of strategies that enable them to become cognitively engaged members of that community in their online course. In the first excerpt, for instance, the note-taking strategy helps P14 compare and contrast what they get out of that class with others in the group, whereas P15 takes it further by being involved in after-class deep learning activity through not only note-taking but also other similar strategies (e.g. taking screenshots). Additionally, P16 combines their note-taking strategy use with watching the video-recordings of the online course afterwards, which implies ‘a selective focus’ on the part of this in-service teacher regarding the flow of the course. Finally, we can see in P8 that the strategy of saving comments contributes to her/his knowledge construction and that reviewing slides and chat comments facilitates their comprehension. Follow-up activities also indicated how in-service teachers maintained their cognitive engagement throughout their online course experience. After having classes, I usually watch the recorded sessions and try to compare and add up to my notes. I try to be as neat as possible, such as organizing the files, downloading the weekly reading assignments, finding extra materials, and so on. Often, I come up with what I have been presented with during the courses when I read articles or books so I believe reading more through exploration makes information more sustainable. (P2) After the session, I go over the notes I take and try to write a brief reflection passage as a brief conclusion does a fine job summing up the arguments put forward during the sessions. (P4) I try to read what we have in the curriculum and PowerPoint. After that, I just search for some articles related to our weekly topics. Moreover, I really like watching videos related to our topics. I get advantages from YouTube for learning many different topics related to professional development ….. I watch our lessons more than one time because after that I can write all comments more slowly and concentrate fully on the lesson. Also, sometimes I ask some questions to my friends to discuss it. (P9)

Discourse of Reflections on Instant Joint Engagement in Online ELT Graduate Courses  259

The in-service teachers, as can be seen in the excerpts above, also skillfully utilized a set of follow-up activities enhancing their cognitive engagement in their online course experience. In the first excerpt, P2 with a list of after-class activities demonstrates how these enable them to acquire and sustain information regarding the online course content. Additionally, P4 indicates that a follow-up reflection plays an important role in summarizing the course content again. Finally, many follow-up activities, such as reviewing the syllabus and slides, searching articles, watching additional videos as well as the course recordings, writing the comments down and asking questions to others in the course, are evident in the excerpt by P9 presenting their cognitive engagement through these follow-up activities. Social-constructive engagement

Exposure to multiple views and voices was evidently a category that we closely related to social-constructive engagement of in-service teachers in our study. This was clearly expressed several times in our dataset as follows: I find their views quite genuine and engaging. I learn a lot from my colleagues/friends, and what is nice is everybody responds to each other well, in a constructive way. (P3) My friends’ participation provides me with a chance to see the topic from different perspectives. I think their participation is valuable. (P5) I find my friends’ interaction useful. We produce new thoughts altogether. Also, we benefit from our colleagues’ thoughts. (P6) Firstly, I learn from all students at the same time because of writing excellent and different ideas about each question. Sometimes, I have no idea about the questions, but after I see the comment in the chat box, it gives me a more comprehending view on the questions. (P8)

It is clearly stated by the in-service teachers in the excerpts above that participation and contribution of other students in the online class facilitate a co-constructed learning environment. Being exposed to multiple views and perspectives during the online sessions, they benefit from such dialogic talk and thus become their own agent of comprehension or knowledge construction. Mediating role of the instructor also reflected many facets of socialconstructive engagement of the in-service teachers in our study: Interaction between the professor and students is highly motivating as he leads them to think critically, and he respectfully values any argument put forward. He also interacts with students via WhatsApp group, which is another way of keeping students safe from confusion about anything regarding the course content. (P4)

260  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

I am taking him as a role model for my own online lessons, I am trying to answer all my students while they are typing. I am writing the new vocabulary to the chatbox during online lessons. Then I am sending the photo of it to my students’ WhatsApp group. (P6) What helps me to learn well is the questions that are asked by our instructor. After explaining a concept, our instructor asks us about our experiences related to it. As we write about our experience in the chat box, our instructor gives feedback. This helps me a lot to understand the concepts. (P13)

Another crucial aspect of social-constructive engagement in our data is evidently the mediating role of the course instructor as expressed by the in-service teachers in the excerpts above. In the first one, for instance, P4 describes the role of interaction between the instructor and students as motivating, promoting critical thinking and eliminating confusion in relation to the course content. Similarly, P6 shows their admiration by explaining how they take the instructor as a role model and P13 indicates how the questions and feedback from the instructor mediates their reflections and understanding in the course. Affective engagement

Feelings were also important and explicitly stated by the in-service teachers regarding their affective engagement throughout the online course. We present three excerpts below to showcase how the in-service teachers explicitly state their feelings about their online course experiences. In the first excerpt, P25 elaborates on her feeling relieved, thanks to the discussions where they share their ideas. Additionally, P8 implicitly explains the lowered anxiety level by referring to their online course experiences or the overall context as ‘no-judgment zone’ where any contribution or participation of the in-service teachers is positively reacted and supported and thus they feel motivated in return. Finally, P15 expresses that s/he feels relaxed overall but might be stressed out due to the technical issues. After the online courses, I feel relieved as we nearly always have discussion part because it gives us an opportunity to share what we have learnt so far with each other and we can give ideas to each other. (P25) I believe the other members of the class, as well as myself, am motivated to write and participate because it is seen as a no-judgment zone. No response is considered foolish and it doesn’t matter how small the contribution is or how big, each insert is greeted with enthusiasm, and every comment matters. (P8) I feel relaxed in general. Sometimes, I handle with technical problems such as low Internet connection or headphones problem. Then, I get a little bit stressed. (P15)

Discourse of Reflections on Instant Joint Engagement in Online ELT Graduate Courses  261

Interactive engagement

Mutual development/reciprocity has been one of the indicators of interactive engagement of the in-service teachers in their online course experiences. The active involvement of classmates has been described as the source of motivation for P2 in the first excerpt below and the interactions again where multi-parties are involved played an important role in their connection with the course. Likewise, P4 frames the interactive engagement through active participation of the in-service teachers in the course as the act of taking the responsibility to advance the class, which demonstrates the reciprocal or mutual development through interactive engagement constructed by multi-parties. My friends were highly active in the sessions. One of the things that made me enjoy the classes was of course the interactions I had with my peers. They talked about their experiences regarding the topics and even started discussions from time to time. It also motivated me to follow the classes as the interactions made me feel more in touch with the course. (P2) Most of the students are pretty active during the sessions, but some of them are inevitably taking much more responsibility to further the class by showing great enthusiasm to participate. (P4)

A sense of learning in a community has also been expressed by many in-service teachers in our dataset. Below, P7 provides one of the most interesting explications by using a metaphor for their own understanding of learning in a community. They compare the class to weddings, a form of celebration and a happy event, where dancing, that is active participation and contribution of each party, is crucial for a collective experience. They even use a cultural representation by referring to a specific dance, which is halay, and it is traditionally practiced by wrapping arms-in-arms put on each other’s shoulder and closely following the lead dancer in ‘halay’. P7 then nicely expresses the very idea of being and learning in a community by also indicating the role of ‘bringing your own style without disrupting the crowd’s footwork’ in that community. I also try to participate as much as possible to make stronger connections and to learn and remember better; since I see all classes like weddings, if you don’t dance you are bored and there is not much joy or benefit in that. Being a part of both lessons and halay is almost always a good idea, bringing your own style without disrupting the crowd’s footwork or writing or focus. When done together everything is better. (P7)

Co-reflection on arguments have also been considered an instance of interactive engagement in which the in-service teachers in our study have been involved. The collective discussions and shared experiences seem to be important in P12’s critical thinking abilities.

262  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

It was actually part of co-reflection. There were many similar points that bring us into a productive discussion. So, my friends’ experiences gave me new directions and new phases of thinking. I learned many things from instructors’ comments on their ideas and practices. Moreover, I got the chance to compare my own experiences with my friends’ by critically evaluating them. (P12) Practical Implications for Teacher Reflection

Our study has examined the discourse of post-course reflections by the in-service teachers on their experience of instant joint engagement and on-line reflections throughout online ELT graduate courses. Several pedagogical implications for teacher reflection are in order relying on our findings. We have demonstrated that multidimensional engagement for teacher reflection is evident, which could possibly be promoted in synchronous interactions during online teacher education courses and/or programs. Being involved in various instances of cognitive, socioconstructive, affective and interactive engagement, the in-service teachers in our study have also indicated that such multidimensional engagement can actually foster their critically reflective voice. For example, in many cases, the in-service teachers in our study have become active participants in the dialogic interaction where reflection takes place, or taken the role of lurkers showing engaged listenership. At others, they checked the reflective comments in the chat box both during and after the sessions. This whole process has enabled them what works and does not work for them, and compare and contrast their own engagement with other members of their discourse community (Akbari, 2007). That is, their active involvement or engagement during online sessions and development of critical reflection are mutually supportive processes. To enhance teacher reflection in such online or synchronous ELT graduate courses, we suggest that it is important to create the sense of community for self-expression and facilitate multifaceted engagement through reflective dialogue among the members. The interactional patterns in online or synchronous ELT graduate courses are also worth paying close attention for promoting teacher reflection. The engagement types and patterns in our dataset imply that the in-service teachers have actually been involved in diverse interactional patterns, such as teacher-initiated, student-initiated and student-led. More importantly, we have observed through their engagement patterns that the in-service teachers have constructed a space for collective and multiparty reflection where many participants (in-service teachers) in the online courses have been involved and contributed to. Thus, it seems highly essential that course instructors or teacher training programs should make use of such ‘multilogue’ or multiparty reflective practices as an alternative path to one-way or self-reflective style only.

Discourse of Reflections on Instant Joint Engagement in Online ELT Graduate Courses  263

Regarding pedagogical implications for teacher reflection, our study provides valuable insights into the role of the course instructors in such online or synchronous contexts as well. We have found that the course instructor in our dataset plays a mediating role by facilitating the sociocognitive engagement by and among the in-service teachers in the online ELT graduate course. In that sense, the traditional role of the course instructor where they lecture mostly should be abandoned in online or synchronous sessions. This also makes the role of awareness on the part of the course instructor and students regarding the social-constructive role and/or practices throughout the entire course period where they warrant the maintenance and provision of mutual scaffolding. Therefore, if the traditionally dominant role of the course instructor is eliminated, the opportunities for teacher reflection for the students, or in-service teachers taking graduate courses, will be increased as well. In doing so, all the parties will be able to go through interactional reflection, which could be considered one of the assets of online or synchronous courses as this does not seem possible in conventionally practiced individual teacher reflection. Finally, teacher reflection could also be enhanced in online or synchronous ELT graduate courses by maximizing the practices of multimodal reflection as the mode itself provides such affordances. It seems to be quite possible to enable in-service teachers in such course contexts to be involved in a variety of reflection modes, such as written, oral, video-recorded, and chat-enhanced. Thus, these multimodal reflective practices appeared to lead to reflections on others’ experiences or thoughts. Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

In this chapter, we have presented our study based on the analysis of the discourse of post-course reflections from the in-service teachers in Turkey regarding their instant jointly constructed evaluations and reflections during the online ELT courses they have taken. We can conclude that a multidimensional engagement is practiced by the in-service teachers in online ELT graduate courses, and this immensely contributes to their co-constructed and interactive reflective practices. We have demonstrated that the in-service teachers in such online courses can be involved in many instances of cognitive, socioconstructive, affective and interactive engagement that also support and develop their reflection. For future directions, it might be helpful to examine the discourse of synchronous reflective interaction for a more in-depth understanding of such evaluative and reflective discourse. It is also potentially an intriguing path to examine the discourse of multimodal teacher reflection, such as synchronous and asynchronous, oral and written. Likewise, it could be fruitful to scrutinize how synchronous interlocutors can practice stance-taking and position themselves during the interaction in the

264  Part 3: Teacher Reflection Practices and Impacts

online environment. Lastly, from methodological perspectives, it would be wiser to suggest that including data from the course instructor might also provide some additional and valuable perspectives to better understand instant joint teacher reflection in online teacher education courses. References Akbari, R. (2007) Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System 35 (2), 192–207. Akyol, Z. and Garrison, D.R. (2011) Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education 14 (3), 183–190. Anderson, J.L. and Justice, J.E. (2015) Disruptive design in pre-service teacher education: Uptake, participation, and resistance. Teaching Education 26 (4), 400–421. Benson, P., Chehade, M.A., Lara, J., Sayram, G.A. and Speer, L. (2018) Exploratory practice and professional development in ELT: The roles of collaboration and reflection. English Australia Journal 33(2), 3–19. Bullough, R.V. (2002) Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher education. In J. Loughran and T. Russell (eds) Teaching About Teaching: Purpose, Passion and Pedagogy in Teacher Education (pp. 27–45). London: Routledge. Burhan-Horasanlı, E. and Ortaçtepe, D. (2016) Reflective practice-oriented online discussions: A study on EFL teachers’ reflection-on, in and for-action. Teaching and Teacher Education 59, 372–382. Burton, J. (2009) Reflective practice. In A. Burns and J.C. Richards (eds) The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 298–307). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T. and Fujita, N. (2012) Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Computers & Education 58 (3), 874–884. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers. Falloon, G. (2020) From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development 68 (5), 2449–2472. Farrell, T.S.C. (2016) Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research 20 (2), 223–247. Hawkins, M. and Norton, B. (2009) Critical language teacher education. In A. Burns and J.C. Richards (eds) The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 30-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, M.K. and Ketenci, T. (2019) Learner participation profiles in an asynchronous online collaboration context. The Internet and Higher Education 41, 62–76. Krutka, D.G., Bergman, D.J., Flores, R., Mason, K. and Jack, A.R. (2014) Microblogging about teaching: Nurturing participatory cultures through collaborative online reflection with pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 40, 83–93. Lapadat, J.C. (2002) Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 7 (4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002. tb00158.x Maaranen, K. and Stenberg, K. (2017) Portraying reflection: The contents of student teachers’ reflection on personal practical theories and practicum experience. Reflective Practice 18 (5), 699–712.

Discourse of Reflections on Instant Joint Engagement in Online ELT Graduate Courses  265

Mumford, S. and Dikilitaş, K. (2020) Pre-service language teachers’ reflection development through online interaction in a hybrid learning course. Computers & Education 144, 103706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103706 Nelson, F.L., Miller, L.R. and Yun, C. (2016) ‘It’s OK to feel totally confused’: Reflection without practice by preservice teachers in an introductory education course. Reflective Practice 17 (5), 648–661. Shea, P. and Bidjerano, T. (2009) Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster ‘epistemic engagement’ and ‘cognitive presence’ in online education. Computers & Education 52 (3), 543–553. Tripp, T. and Rich, P. (2012) Using video to analyze one’s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology 43 (4), 678–704. Walsh, S. and Mann, S. (2015) Doing reflective practice: A data-led way forward. ELT Journal 69 (4), 351–362.

Epilogue Atsuko Watanabe and Zia Tajeddin

This epilogue is written for this book Teacher Reflection: Policies, Practices and Impacts. Studies in Honor of Thomas S.C. Farrell. Through the concluding remarks, we attempt to consolidate the chapters by referring to their diversity of topics, emerging collaborative engagement in reflection, researchers’ engagement in reflection and reflexivity, and the importance of student teachers’ reflection. Based on the discussions developed in these chapters, we also suggest directions for further research such as the potential of numerous reflective platforms via the internet, collaborative research among researchers from various contexts and exploration of participants’ engagement in the research process. Concluding Remarks

One critical debate about reflective practice used to be its ambiguous and diversified definitions and interpretations, but the debate seems to have come to a consensus embracing the view that reflective practice is multifaceted, diversified, differently experienced and interpreted in different contexts. This can be encapsulated in what Farrell (2013a: 27) notes: The fact that the debate about what reflective practice is and what it entails remains open is not a bad thing because it means that teachers themselves will still have define it and decide what aspects of reflective practice they may want to use for their needs.

This diversity can be witnessed in a myriad of topics, approaches, ­methodologies and methods in the chapters under the umbrella of reflective practice, such as the analysis of policy documents of TESOL-related teachers standards employing Farrell’s Framework (Nguyen & Hayati), a qualitative case study with appreciative inquiry (Gregersen & Mercer), a case study of videoconferencing-mediated cooperative development (Webb, Mann & Shafie), corpus-based discourse analysis (Farr), duoethnography (Karas, Martini & Faez), joint reflection through online sessions (Çiftçi & Dikilitaş), critical autoethnography (Yazan), collaborative reflection (Alemi & Maleknia), researcher’s reflexivity (Watanabe), cooperative reflection (Tajeddin & Khanlarzadeh), curricular document 266

Epilogue 267

analysis of Omani MoE (Wyatt & Darwish), a case study of a teacher trainer’s reflection (Glazer & Bailey) and self-study employing Farrell’s Framework (Baecher, Artigliere & McCoy). In his chapter in this book, Farrell touches upon several common criticisms against reflective practice, one of which is that reflective practice tends to focus on an individual’s thinking without much recognition of context. Some of the chapters in this book provide hopeful development of reflective practice through introducing studies where practitioners engage in collaborative reflection in a variety of contexts. Çiftçi and Dikilitaş discuss instant joint reflection between students in MA ELT program in Turkey. Karas, Martini and Faez report on duoethnography between students in MA TESOL program in Canada. Webb, Mann and Shafie’s chapter describes how cooperative development between two pairs fosters professional development. Alemi and Maleknia’s study depicts collaborative reflection panels which comprise two novice and two experienced teachers in Iran. Tajeddin and Khanlarzadeh’s study explores four teachers’ engagement in cooperative reflection in Iran. When Farrell published the seminal paper Critical friendship: Colleagues helping each other in 2001, the concept of working with another individual in reflective practice might have been a novel idea. The concept and the spirit of critical friendship have been passed on which form the basis of this array of chapters. These chapters manifest that reflection with others is becoming a common practice in reflective practice in various contexts. In addition to the studies introduced above, some studies engage teacher educators in reflection as well as student teachers. Yazan delves into his identity tension through critical autoethnography. Watanabe reflects on her experience of interviewing pre-service teachers in their exploration of professional development. Glazer and Bailey illustrate a study with two strata of reflection. One is MA candidates’ reflection on their learning, and the other is a professor’s reflection on practicing reflective teaching though reading students’ reflective writing. Baecher, Artigliere and McCoy explore self-study prompting teachers’ reflection through reviewing students’ reflective samples. Some chapters depict teachers’ reflection interacting with student teachers’ reflection, which shows that teacher educators or researchers who are part of the study learn about themselves as well as about student teachers. It also suggests that engagement in reflection of researchers and teacher educators, that is, for them to be reflexive, has come to be essential in a research process. Another notable aspect among the chapters is the number of studies which focus on reflection of pre-service teachers and student teachers, such as chapters by pre-service teachers tertiary institution in Hong Kong (Yuan and Yang) and Japan (Watanabe), and student teachers in MA program in UAE (Gregersen & Mercer), MA TESOL program in Canada (Karas, Martini & Faez) and MA ELT students in Turkey (Çiftçi & Dikilitaş). It has been argued that reflection for pre-service teachers or

268  Teacher Reflection

novice teachers is rather challenging due to their limited teaching experiences to draw from and vocabulary to discuss teaching. However, these studies argue the benefit for pre-service and student teachers to engage in reflection for their professional development. Through these chapters, we can also witness that reflection has been regarded to be crucial for preservice teacher professional development and has been incorporated in numerous teacher education programs. Directions for Future Research

Various platforms accessible to us via the internet have expanded the potential and possibility in numerous areas of teaching, and this is also the case for reflective practice. Several chapters in the book introduce studies conducted online, such as observation of students’ teaching online (Gregersen & Mercer), video conferencing-mediated cooperative development (Webb, Mann & Shafie), online sessions and emails (Çiftçi & Dikilitaş), online courses and electronic bulletin boards (BB) system (Glazer & Bailey) and online interviews (Watanabe). The study by Karas, Martini and Faez allowed students to utilize numerous applications to interact with others such as Wechat, video conversations, texting and Google Docs. As we can see, numerous devices and platforms will accelerate research on reflective practice with the use of Information Communication Technology. As the internet provides virtual borderless interactions, one direction for research is collaborative research conducted beyond classrooms, across cultures and countries. This will lead to the expansion of the possibility of the breadth of classroom teaching and research projects. In conducting such research, intercultural communicative competence discussed in Tajeddin and Khanlarzadeh’s chapter will be of vital importance. The development of the internet may also add another research focus in terms of how reflection can be shared and expressed. In most cases, our reflection is shared through writing and speaking. In addition to the verbal exchanges, there may be other modalities which could be utilized in sharing and expressing one’s reflection, such as through drawings or concept maps (see Yazan’s chapter). Another direction for future research will be how much and how far we engage the participants in collaborative research. In collaborative research between a researcher or a teacher educator and a student teacher, when it comes to the data analysis phase, it is often the case that the researcher or the teacher educator conducts the analysis and publishes its findings. In conducting collaborative research, allowing the participants to engage in data analysis and inviting them to be co-authors is one area which we need to investigate. Introducing the concept of reflective practice to teachers, we are often faced with questions, such as, ‘How does reflection change my practice?’

Epilogue 269

or ‘So, what can I do with reflection in my lesson next week?’ As Farrell’s (2015) framework illustrates, reflective practice is a holistic engagement, where one’s Practice is invariably connected with Philosophy, Principles, Theory and Beyond Practice. Engaging in reflective practice may not provide a quick fix for the next lesson, but it accompanies our journey of teaching, which is full of ups and downs. Years of teaching experience is not necessarily equated with depth of reflectivity or reflexivity. As Farrell (2013b) states, reflection is a way of life. It is a lifelong process and as we develop a deeper understanding about ourselves, students, teaching and the context, we continue to grow as teachers. References Farrell, T.S.C. (2001) Critical friendship: Colleagues helping each other. ELT Journal 55 (4), 368–374. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013a) Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups: From Practices to Principles. London: Springer. Farrell, T.S.C. (2013b) Reflective Teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association. Farrell, T.S.C. (2015) Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals. London: Routledge.

Index

Page numbers in bold refer to information in figures and tables. accents, 184–5, 214 Action moves, 227, 231–5 action research, 16, 44, 221 activity-based learning, 187–8 Adam (student teacher), 182–3, 184–5, 186–7, 189, 191–2 affective engagement, 260 agency, 152, 157–9, 172 Alabama, University of, 167, 169 ALACT (Action, Looking, Awareness, Creating, Trial), 9 Anglo-American norms, 209, 216–18 Anne (student teacher), 109–15 appraisal framework, 15 appreciative inquiry, 105–6, 109–17 artifacts duoethnography, 122, 123 group analysis, 51 student teaching context, 44–6, 55, 180, 241 assessment, 13, 64, 174 assignments, 128–32, 169–72, 173–4 Assistant Language Teachers, 138 asynchronous reflection, 255, 257 Australia, TESOL policies, 78–9 authenticity, 116, 120, 131 autoethnography, 165–6 CAN (critical autoethnographic narrative), 166–76 autonomous learning, 89–90, 124, 188, 191

Beyond Practice stage, 11–12, 25, 75, 77, 78–83, 85 blogs, 21–2, 32, 33, 213, 217 see also journaling broaden-and-build theory, 105 bulletin boards, 91–3, 98–9 CAN (critical autoethnographic narrative), 166–76 Canada, 120, 123 case studies, 16 appreciative inquiry, 109–11 collaborative reflection, 153–4, 198–200 immersion, 182–3 native/non-native identity, 212–13 professional identity development, 141 reflective practice policies, 61–2 CD (Cooperative Development), 224–6 Chile, TESOL policies, 81 China, 128 Hong Kong, 180, 182, 186, 188–9, 192 Claudia (student), 226, 229–30, 231–2, 234, 236 CLIL (content and language integrated learning), 72, 76–8 co-construction of knowledge, 23 appreciative inquiry, 111, 116 collaborative reflection, 152–3, 253–4, 259–60, 263 duoethnography, 125, 127–8 cognition, 195–6, 198–203 cognitive engagement, 257–9 collaborative reflection (CR), 16, 33–4, 254, 267

Bamberg’s positioning analysis, 150, 152, 154–8 baseball cap metaphor, 43, 56 beliefs, 24, 31, 95, 126, 138, 182, 202–4 Betty (student teacher), 182–6, 187–90 270

Index 271

CD (Cooperative Development), 224–5 collaborative dialog, 22–3, 60 consultation, 66–7 ideation, 111 online, 22, 253–4, 255–6, 261–2, 262–3 panels on professional identity, 150, 152–61 in peer groups, 33, 50–1, 55, 194, 196–8, 202–3, 213 peer reviews, 106–7, 116 VMCD (VideoconferencingMediated Cooperative Development), 235–7 writing, 22, 128–30 collaborative research, 268 communication, 127–8, 203, 248, 254 communicative language teaching (CLT), 124, 128 communities of practice, 73, 152 building, 50–1 integration into, 241, 248–9 learning communities, 52, 66–7, 254–6, 261, 262–3 constructivist perspective, 149–50, 151 context importance of, 13, 14, 150, 160–1 interaction with, 136 see also cultural context continuing professional development (CPD) see professional development cooperative development (CD), 224–6 Core Teaching Skills Portfolio (CTSP), 47–54 corpus linguistics ELTE (English language teacher education), 238–40, 248–9 feedback discourse, 243–50 Limerick Corpus of Irish English (LCIE), 241–7 spoken reflection, 243–8 TEC (teacher education corpus), 239, 241–7, 250 COVID-19 pandemic, 21, 123, 140, 225, 249 CPD (continuing professional development) see professional development critical autoethnographic narrative (CAN), 166–76

critical awareness, 255 critical friendship, 47, 108, 126, 131–2, 267 critical incidents, 67, 167, 183, 191, 214 critical inquiry, 239 critical linguistics, 212, 220–1 critical pedagogy, 210, 212 critical thinking for deep reflection, 126–8 immersion program, 182 process, 116, 254–5 skills, 73, 260, 261 CTSP (Core Teaching Skills Portfolio), 47–54 cultural context, 13, 58–61 culture shock, 124 families, 171 immersion experience, 181, 183–6, 191–2 international variation, 61, 79–80, 82–3, 84–5 little c and big C, 199 and self, 165 currere, 121 data collection see research methods deep reflection, 96 deficit model of teaching, 212 Dewey, John, 3, 4–6 dialogic reflective practice, 22–3, 34, 89 dialogic mediation, 152–3 duoethnography, 23, 120–31, 132–3 on immersion program, 181, 184, 186 teacher educators, 53 teacher training, 98, 253, 259–60 discourse, 238–9 feedback, 242–8 post-course reflections, 256–62 see also corpus linguistics Discovery moves, 227 diversity, 107, 129–30, 266–8 Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system, 136–7, 142–3 drilling exercises, 186, 187–8 duoethnography, 23, 120–31, 132–3 reflective practice, 124–30 EAL see TESOL education policies, 72–7 Australia, 76, 78–9, 83 Chile, 76, 81, 83

272  Teacher Reflection

England, 74 Europe, 76, 77–8, 83 Oman, 58–9, 62–3, 68–9 Turkey, 74 USA, 76, 79–80, 83 Vietnam, 76, 81–3 EFL see TESOL ELTE (English language teacher education), 209–10, 220, 239–41 feedback discourse, 256–63 immersion, 183–90, 190–2 phraseology, 243–8 EMCD (E-Mail Cooperative Development), 224–5 Emily (teacher), 109–15 emotions emotional capital, 24–5 engagement, 146 reflective practice, 9, 14–15, 16, 175 engagement, 22, 257, 262–3 affective, 260 cognitive, 257–9 emotions, 146 interactive, 261–3 self-constructive, 259–60 strategic, 243–4 strategies for, 257–9 England, education policies, 74 English language Anglo-American norms, 209 Irish English, 214–16 ownership, 209, 217–18 proficiency, 63, 179 Standard English, 218–19 World Englishes literature, 217–18, 221 EPOSTL (European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages), 110 ESOL see TESOL essentialist perspective, 149–50 ethics, 139, 145–6 ethnography autoethnography, 165–6, 166–76 duoethnography, 23, 120–31, 132–3 Europe, education policies, 77–8 evidence-based approach, 6, 43–4, 239–40, 250 experienced teachers, 79, 121, 123, 138, 154, 174 experiential learning, 8–9, 89–90

Exploration moves, 227, 228–30, 234–5 extreme sports, 185, 191 Facebook, 22, 123 facilitated reflection, 90 Farrell, Tom, 43–4, 224 analytic framework, 9–12, 48–9, 51–2, 53–4, 68, 75–86, 138, 269 feedback appreciative inquiry, 105–6, 111–13, 115–17 discourse, 239–40, 243–50 feedback teams, 108, 109, 115–16 formative, 98 online, 256 reflective practice, 247–8 on reflective writing, 171–3 self-directed, 108–9 GD (Group Development), 224 Gibbs, Graham, 9 globalization, 211, 219 international culture, 199–200, 201 Goal-setting moves, 231–2 groups discussions, 198, 248 feedback teams, 108, 109, 115–16 formation, 225 reflective practice, 50, 197–8 holistic teaching, 137–8, 143–4 Hong Kong, 180, 186, 188–9 Hong Kong University, 182, 192 ideal self, 136–7 identity, 34, 136, 144–5 collaborative reflection, 152–61 development of, 137, 146, 150, 156–60, 169–70, 182, 191 ideal teacher, 137, 141–4, 146 native/non-native English speakers (NES/NNES), 165, 169, 214, 218–21 pre-service teachers, 136–7, 141, 145–6 reflective practice, 24–5, 31–2, 138, 149–53, 174–6, 182 tensions, 150–2, 164–5, 169–76, 267 ideological consequences, 212, 214, 219 IMCD (Instant Messenger Cooperative Development), 224–5

Index 273

immersion cultural reflection, 183–6 experiences, 179–83 pedagogical reflection, 186–9 programs, 183–6, 192 reflective practice, 182–3, 190–2 self-reflection, 189–90 imposter syndrome, 234 independent learning see autonomous learning in-service teachers online courses, 253–4, 255–6 professional identity, 151–2 reflective practice, 29, 34–5, 66–7, 73–4, 79, 90 teacher education, 180–1 interaction with learners, 112–13 interactive engagement, 261–2 intercultural communicative competence (ICC), 194, 198–205, 268 intercultural pedagogy, 195–6, 197, 198–9 international culture, 199–200, 201 Iran, 30, 153–8, 160–1, 198–202, 204 Irish English, 210, 211, 214–16 Japan, 137–8 Joe (student teacher), 140–1, 143–4 journaling, 31, 91 see also blogs journals (academic), 27–8, 32 judgementoring practices, 65, 67, 108 juku, 140, 143 Jun (student teacher), 140–1, 143–4 Kamal (researcher), 226, 228–33, 236 Kathi (professor), 88, 91–100 Katie (researcher), 226–7, 229–34, 236 L2 education, 194 L1 usage in class, 124, 127–8 L2 culture, 202 learners, 136–7, 192, 199–200 language teachers see teachers languages metalanguage development, 61 situatedness, 166 see also English language learners autonomous learning, 89–90, 124, 188, 191

L2 learner, 136–7, 192, 199–200 learner support, 54, 112–13 motivation, 30, 124, 228, 230–1, 233 needs of, 69, 199–200, 202 reflective practice, 89–90 satisfaction, 33 learning communities see communities of practice learning process, 126, 188–9, 240–1, 256 Leeds, University of, 63–4, 66 lesson plans as artifacts, 47–8 feedback on, 49, 110, 113 intercultural issues, 201 in reflective practice, 60, 67, 82, 97 Limerick Corpus of Irish English (LCIE), 241–7 linguistic imperialism, 211 literature reviews, 26–32, 33–4, 35, 130–1 Māori people, 185 Mari (student teacher), 140–1, 143–4 Maryam (novice teacher), 154–7 Maryland, University of (UMD), 165 mentoring appreciative inquiry, 107–8, 109–16, 117 Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system, 136 duoethnography, 121 professional development, 61, 66–8 reflective practice, 44, 62 researcher reflexivity, 139, 144–5 teacher education, 66–8, 105–6, 113 metalanguage development, 61 MIIS (Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey), 91 mixed methods, 16, 32–3 moderator role, 255, 259–60 motivation Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system, 136–7, 142–3 in language learning, 30, 124, 228, 230–1, 233 for self reflection, 127, 260–1 Muhammad (experienced teacher), 154–8 multidimensional engagement, 262–3

274  Teacher Reflection

multimodal reflection, 263, 268 multiple perspectives, 125–6, 129–30, 132, 259–60 multi-word expressions, 238 narrative inquiry, 33 native English speakers (NES), 121 Irish English, 210–12, 214, 215–16, 218–21 reflective practice, 210–12, 220–1 New Zealand, 180, 182, 183–90 no-judgement zone, 260 non-native English speakers (NNES) identity, 165, 169, 214, 220 ownership of English language, 209–10 reflective practice, 61, 210–12, 220–1 status, 211, 218–21 note-taking, 257–9 novice teachers, 121, 248 duoethnography, 123 reflective practice, 131, 154, 174 status, 158–60 see also teacher education nursing profession, 9 NVivo, 76–7 objectivity, 130–2, 139 observations, 44, 249 peers, 65, 67, 110–13, 115 post-observation feedback, 51–2, 60–1 pre-observation feedback, 49, 51–2, 56 supervisory inspections, 62–3 Oman, 61–2 education policies, 58–9, 62–3, 68–9 reflective practice, 64–7 online, 268 collaborative reflection, 253–4, 255–6, 262–3 reflective practice, 21–2, 32, 33–4, 55, 91–3, 213 online courses, 253–4, 255–6 teaching, 109–10, 259–60, 268 ought-to teacher self, 136–7, 142–3, 146 overseas immersion see immersion pacing, 113–14 pedagogy

intercultural, 195–6, 197, 198–9 pedagogical learning, 63, 182, 183, 186–9 peers collaborative reflection, 44, 51, 55, 106–7 critical peer analysis, 126 observations, 65, 67 pairing, 107, 109–10 peer review, 109–15 personal experience, 95 histories, 55, 60, 130–2, 151–2 interests, 191 Philosophy stage, 10, 24, 75, 138, 147 in national policies, 77–85 phraseology, 238 positionality, 53, 139, 150, 152 possible selves theory, 136–7 post-course reflection, 262–4 Practice stage, 11, 75, 77, 78–83, 85 practicum artifacts, 44, 47–8 pre-service teachers, 63, 116, 143–5, 254–5 pre-service teachers appreciative inquiry, 105–6 autonomy, 191 duoethnography, 123 ideal teacher, 143 identity, 135, 136–7, 141, 145–6, 151–2 mentoring, 108 practicum, 63, 116, 143, 254–5 professional development, 268, 269 reflective practice, 12, 29, 32, 34, 61, 90–2, 116, 267 training, 34, 61, 63, 73–4, 154–6, 180–1, 236 see also teacher candidates (TCs); teacher education Principles stage, 10–11, 75, 77, 78–80, 83–4 professional development novice teachers, 138, 174 pre-service teachers, 268, 269 programs, 62–7, 73–4 reflective practice, 21, 32, 34–5, 60, 63–5, 67–8, 72–5, 90, 189, 196, 254 retrospective reflection, 127 sociocultural context, 58–61

Index 275

teacher educators, 96–9 teaching policies, 72–5, 76–86 see also reflective practice; teacher education professional identity see identity prompted reflection, 90 qualitative research, 29, 32–3 see also case studies; reflexivity quantitative methods, 29, 32 reality shock, 155–6 reflection, 227–8, 239 as-repair, 106 facilitated reflection, 90 for-action, 11, 14, 75, 121, 179, 183, 184–5, 188–9, 191 in-action, 6–7, 11, 14, 75, 179, 183, 186–7 moves, 228–30, 233 on-action, 7, 11, 14, 75, 121, 179, 183–4, 186–7 structured reflections, 50, 51 transformative reflection, 180–1, 191 see also reflective writing; spoken reflection reflective action, 6 reflective inquiry model, 4–6, 7 reflective practice, 3–4, 20–1, 262–3, 268–9 cross-policy analysis, 76–85 development of, 4–6, 12–17, 89–91 as prescriptive activity, 59–60, 62–3, 65 strategies, 257–9 typologies, 8–12 see also collaborative reflection (CR); professional development; teacher education reflective writing, 90–1 blogs, 21–2, 32, 33, 213, 217 collaborative, 128–30 deep reflection, 126–7 duoethnography, 122, 125 extended narrative, 170–2, 176 on feedback, 115 journaling, 31, 91 lesson notes, 65, 67 repetition, 243–4 scaffolding, 92–4, 98, 170–2, 241 reflexivity, 23, 138–41, 144–7, 166, 169–70

research methods, 15–17, 29–30, 32–3 autoethnography, 172 CAN (critical autoethnographic narrative), 166–9 case studies, 16, 61–2, 109–11, 140–1, 153–4, 182–3, 198–200, 212–13 corpus linguistics, 241–2, 249 discourse analysis, 92–4, 238–9, 242–8, 256–7 duoethnography, 122–4 literature review, 26–33 online focus group, 140 reflective practice report, 46–7 self-study methodology, 46–7, 164–5 researchers positionality, 139 and practitioners, 23 reflexivity, 23, 138–41, 144–7, 166, 169–70 tensions, 172–3 review strategies, 257–9 Rogerian discourse framework, 235 roles, 83–4, 146, 154 ideal teacher role models, 137, 141–4, 146 online teaching role models, 260, 263 routine action, 6 rubrics co-constructed, 168 reflective, 55 Saiful (teacher), 226, 228–9, 230–1, 232–3, 236 scaffolding language teaching, 54, 113, 187 reflective process, 67, 73, 90 reflective writing, 92–4, 98, 170–2, 241 Schön, Donald, 3, 6–7 school visits, 187–8 screening, 27–8 second language classroom see L2 education self, 165 Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system, 136–7 self-development, 225–6, 235, 254 self-oriented reflection, 108, 183, 189–91 self-study methodology, 46–7, 164–5

276  Teacher Reflection

sequencing, 113–14 signature strengths, 105, 107, 111 SketchEngine, 242 SLTE (second language teacher education) see teacher education social constructivism, 23 social-constructive engagement, 259–60 social dynamics, 247–8, 262–3 social learning, 256 social media, 22, 123–4 sociocultural context, 58–61 Socratic method, 239 Speaker role, 225–36 special education needs, 121–2 spoken reflection, 224, 225, 235, 243–8 Standard English, 218–19 stealing skills, 138, 143 strategic reflection, 131, 243–4 strengths, focus on, 106–7, 112–16 structured reflections, 50, 51 student teachers see pre-service teachers students see learners subjectivity, 130–2, 139 supervisory inspections, 62–3 synchronous reflection, 255, 257, 262–3 tacit knowledge, 254 task-based language teaching (TBLT), 127 teacher behavior modelling, 97–8, 99 teacher candidates (TCs), 47–54, 80, 166–7 see also pre-service teachers teacher education artifacts, 44–5, 47–8, 54 assignments, 128–32, 169–72, 173–4 course content, 173–4 ELTE (English language teacher education), 209–10, 220, 239–40, 243–8, 256, 262–3 immersion, 183–90, 190–2 L2 teachers, 59–60, 180, 195, 210–11 online, 254 post-course reflection, 262–4 professional identity, 152, 160–1 reflective practice, 47–8, 90–6, 97–9, 120, 130–1

reflective tasks, 49, 73–4, 91–3, 95, 96–100 ‘stealing’ skills, 138, 143 TESOL, 44–5, 47–8, 49–54, 55–6, 91–100, 166–7 see also in-service teachers; novice teachers; practicum; preservice teachers; professional development; teachers teacher educators artifacts, 45–6 positionality, 139, 166, 169 reflective practice, 88, 96–100, 204, 267 teacher training courses (TTCs) see teacher education teachers, 20, 255 beliefs, 24, 31, 95, 126, 138, 182, 202–4 efficacy, 30–1 ideal teacher, 137, 141–4, 146 language awareness, 54, 240 language competence, 63, 179 roles, 83–4, 146, 154 variables, 24–5, 30, 33, 34 see also experienced teachers; identity; novice teachers; professional development; teacher education teaching policies, 74–5 Australia, 76, 78–9, 83 Chile, 76, 81, 83 Europe, 76, 77–8, 83 Oman, 58–9, 62–3, 68–9 USA, 76, 79–80, 83 Vietnam, 76, 81–3 teaching practice (TP) portfolios, reflective practice, 213–20 teaching simulation, 109, 110 teaching strategies, 95, 97–8 teaching styles, 107, 143–5, 154–6, 157 TEC (teacher education corpus), 239, 241–7, 250 tensions, 90, 146, 164–5 ethical, 139, 145–6 identity, 150–2, 169–76, 267 reflective practice policies, 64–6 reflective writing assignments, 171–2 TESOL policies, 72, 76–86 professional development, 72–5 programs, 213, 242

Index 277

reflective practice, 3–4, 6, 8–12, 10 teacher education, 44–5, 47–8, 49–54, 55–6, 91–100, 166–7 teacher educators, 46, 56 see also ELTE (English language teacher education); native English speakers (NES); nonnative English speakers (NNES) thematic analyses collaborative reflection, 198 corpus analysis, 243–8 dimensions of engagement, 257 discussion forum posts, 93–4 duoethnography, 123, 125, 130, 131 native English speakers (NES), 214 Theory stage, 11, 75, 77, 78, 81, 83–5 tools, 73, 132 duoethnography, 120 reflective practice, 44–6, 125, 126–7, 239 VMCD (VideoconferencingMediated Cooperative Development), 235–6 transformative reflection, 180–1, 191 Trialling moves, 234–5 trioethnography, 122, 125–6 Turkey, 74, 253, 256

UMD (University of Maryland), 165 Understander role, 225–36 University College, London, 66 USA, 166–7 TESOL policies, 79–80 VIA (Virtues in Action), 107 video-stimulated recall, 60 Vietnam, TESOL policies, 81–3 virtual reflective environments see VMCD (VideoconferencingMediated Cooperative Development) VMCD (Videoconferencing-Mediated Cooperative Development), 224–5 moves, 226–34, 236–7 reflective practice, 235–6 roles, 225–6, 235–7 vocabulary, 187–8 intercultural language pedagogy, 200, 203 Wechat, 123 “ye” (use of), 214–16 YouTube, 124