reflective teaching[1]

8/3/2019 Reflective Teaching[1]

1/8

BY TxoMAs FInRELLeflective practice is becoming a dominant paradigm in ESL/EFLteacher education programs worldwide' Reflection-in-teachingre{ers to teac}rers subjecting their l-reiiefs and practices of teach

ing to a critical analysis. However, the concept ofreflective

teaching is not clearlv defined, and a piethora of differenapproaches with sometimes con{using rneanings have been pushed in teacher educatioprograms. This article revier,vs some current approaches to reflective teaciring and thesuggests a method of providing opporlunities for ESL/EFL teachers to reflect on thework. The article seeks to examine: 1) reflective teaching and critically reflective teaching and. 2) the dif{erent approaches to reflective teaching. Five components of a teach

development model that can provide opportunities {or practicing ESL/EFI- teachers adiscussed.

hc--oFi-]-ta\\JrtbUC)FiBoOTl*- l-/tof- E-{J:a\\JAa\ oVo-I l;+r:O*al:

-F

One clay a young girl rvas watching hermother cooking a roast ofbeef' Just before themother put the roast in the pot, she cut a sliceoff the encl. The ever observant daughteraskecl her mother why she had done that, andthe mother responded that her grandmotherhacl always done it. Later that same afternoon'the mother was curious, so she called irermother and asked her the same question' Hermother, the child's grandmother, said that inher day she had to trim the roasts becausethey were usually too big for a regular pot'

Teaching without any reflection can lead to"...cutting the slice off the roast," and canalso lead to burnout on the job' One way ofidentifying routine and of counteractingburnout is to engage in reflective teaching'What is reflection?

In a review of the literature on reflectiveteaching, one discovers that there is muchvariance in the definition' Penr-ringtonQ992:al defines reflective teaching as"delibelating on experience, and that of mir-roring experience." She also ertends this ideato reflective learning. Pennington (7992:47)relates development to reflection where"reflectiot'r is viewed as the input for develop-ment rvhile also reflection is viewed as theoutput of developtnent'" Pennington

(I992:5I) fu rther proposes a rellective/deveopmental orientalion "as a tneans forimproving classroom Processes and ocomes, and (2) developing confident, semotivated teachers and learners'" The fochere is on anaiysis' feedback, and adaptatias atr ongoing and recursive cycle inclassrootl.In a more recent article, Penningt(1995:706) says that teacher change aclevelopment require an awareness o{ a neto change. She defined teacher developmas "a metastabie system of context-interactichange involving a continual c-vcle of innoLjre behatjor and adjustrnenl to cirnttstances." She sees two key colltponentschartse: innovation arrd critical reflectiorrh", iudr:oT hoil.rgl'tt*=t.""durr Iea.hmoved through a change cycle as they Iearabout innovatior-r, she noted that throu"deep reflection, teachers were able to recstruci a teaching framework io incorporatepreviousl,v contradictory eleme(1995:725).

Richards (1990:5) sees reflection as acomponent of teacher developrnent' Hethat self-inquiry and critical thinking"he1p teachers move from a ievel wheremay be guided largeli' by impulse' intuior routine, to a level'lvhere their actions

10 Ocr-Dec 1998 ' ENGLIsH TEAcHING FoR


2/8

Reflection Type and Author Content of ReflectionTechnical Rationality (Schulman1987; VanMannen 1977)

Examining one's use of skills andimmediate behaviors in teaching withan established research/theory base.

Reflection-in-action (Schon, 1983, 1987) Dealing with on{he-spot professionalproblems as they occur. Thinking canbe recalled and ihen shared later.

Reflection-on-action (Schon 1983, Recalling one's teaching after the class.1987; Hatton and Smith 1995; Teaching gives reasons for his/herGore and Zeichner 1991) actions/behaviors in class.Ref lectio n -for-action(Killon and Todnew 1991)

Proactive thinking in order to guidefuture action.

Action Research (Carr and Kemmis Self-reflective enquiry by participants in1986) social settings to improve practice.

IRecent research

on reflectivepractice has useddifferent and

conflicting terms todefine reflective

teaching.

guided b), re{lection and critical thinking." Inrefening to criiicai reflection in an interviewwith Faneii (1995:95), Richards says:"Critical reflection refers to an activity or.\-process in wh-rch experience is recailed. con-sidered, and evaluated, usuall,v in relation toa broader purpose. It is a response to a pastexperience and involves conscious recall andexamination of the experience as a basis forevaluation and decision-making and as asource for planning and action."Outside TESOL, the terms involvingreflection become less clear. The definitionsmove from simply looking at the behavioralaspects of teaching, to the beliefs and knowl-edge these acts of teaching are based on, tothe deeper social meaning the act of teachinghas on ihe community.According to Zeichner and Liston( 1 98 7 : 3 4) lq3:-tllg_egjes:' e nt ail s th e acti ve,persistent and careful consideration of anybelief or supposed form of knowledge. Rou-tine action is guided primariiy by tradition,external authority. and circumstances."Zeichner and Liston (1987:87) define teach-ing as "taking place when someone (ateacher) is teaching someone (a student)about something (a curriculum) at some place

TnerE 1

and sometime (a milieu)." Dewey (1933:9)sees a further distinction in teaching rvhen hesa-vs "routine teaching takes place when themeans are probiematic but the ends are takenfor granted." However. he sees reflectiveaq&n as entailing "active, p"r.;.tifrTrilcareful consideration of any belief or sup-posed form of knowiedge in light of thegrounds that supporl it and the furlher conse-quences to nhich it leads."

Recent research on reflective practice hasused different and conflicting terms to definereflective teaching. Table 1 gives a summaryofthe major approaches to the study ofreflec-tive practice.

The first t-vpe of refl ecilon" lechnical ration-fu, examines teaching behaviors and skillsafter an event, such as a class. The focus ofrefl ectionisoneff ective_,+ppli-c-e]3o-!..o{."lf l1ltand technidai k";*i"G i,., th" "iu.rioo*(\hnMannenlqT?), ^ra-ii ilso focuies oncognitive aspects of teaching (Schulman1987). Many beginning teachers start toexamine their skills from this perspective incontrolled situaiions with immediate feed-back from teacher educators. The beginningteacher is trving to cope with the new situa-tion ofthe classroom (Fuller 1970).

I

11r.rct-rsH TEAcHTNG Fonun Ocr-DEc 1998


3/8

I"We undertake

reflection, not somuch to revisit thepast or to becomeaware of the metacognitive processone is experienc-ing (both noble

reasons in them-selves) but to

guide future action(the more practical

purpose)."

The second notion of reflective practice isc alled2gfle*tiauln:onli9 L Echon I 983, 1 987).For this to occur. the teacher has to have akind of knowing-in-action. Knowing-in-actionis analogous to seeing and recognizing a facein a crowd without "listing" and piecingtogether separate features; the knowledge wereveal in our intelligent action is publiclyobservable, but we are unable to make it ver-ball-v explicit. Schon (1987) says that rve cansometimes make a description of the tacit, butthat these descriptions are symboiic construc-tions; knowledge-in-action is dynamic, factsare static. For Schon (1983, 1987), thought isembedded in action and knowledge-in-actionis the center of professional practice',/ Reflection-in-action, again according ioSchon (t 983, I 987), ilseugerle,{y.ftJHqkine ahout what-rve are doins in the classroom:)-----F- --'.--....:., -: .'".*r' hile ,ue arf _dsrn&iL-this thirrking is sup-pn."d tn reshape whal ue are doing. There isa sequence of "moments" in a process ofreflection-in-action: (a) A situation or actiono(.cLl15 lo nhi,'h we bling spontaneous rou-tinized responses. as in knowing-in-action;(b) Routine responses produce a surprise. anunexpected outcome for the teacher that doesnot fit into categories of knowing-in-action.This then gets our attention; (c) This surpriseIeacls to re{lection within an action. Thisreflection is to some level conscious butneed not occur in the rlredium of words; (d)Reflection-in-action has a critical function. Itquestions the structure of knowing-in-action.N ow we - -tlrink cr-itic ally {,otr t f E=qhga\ i n gthalg--o-i=l1s- lllere in tlieTirst place; (e) Reflec-tiorr gires ri"e lo on-the-spot experimentalion.Ste think up and try out new actions intendedto erplore newly observed situations or hap-penings. Schon (1983, 1987) says that reflec-tion-in-action is a reflective conversation withtlre materials ol a situation.The third notion of reflection is caliedreflection _o:'t -gcti.gn. Refl ection-on-action dealswithth_ink1gg'hack-ln.whar-u,e-ha.y-e,-d-qtp._,l9_discovgl.lu,l*o-urh1*olyltc_r!4 .-1gtlgl.Tly.F:"cprrllr!*ulc"d. te 'an *Uge-J_12g. st_cd ec_llpn (Schon1987; Hatton and Smith 1995). This includesreflecting on our reflecting-in-action, orthinking about the \{ay we think, but it is clif-ferent lrom refl ect ing-i n-actiorr.The founh notion of reflection is calledl*9lio!fu99Jfu. Reflection-for-action isdifferent from the previous notions of reflec-tion in that it is proactive in nature. Kiilon

and Todnew (1991:15) argue that reflectiofor-action is the desired outcome of both prvious types of reflection, reflection-in-actioand reflection-on-action; however. they sthat "we undertake reflection, not so muchrer-isit the past or to become aware of the mecognitive process one is experiencing (bonoble reasons in themselves) but to guidfuture action (the more practical purpose)."

The fifth notion of reflection is connecteto action research. Action research is tffi;mfiio.';fmose craft-knowledge valueof teaching that hold in place our habits whwe are teaching (McFee 1993)' It concerntlre transforrnation uf resear-ch, i-qqo-a.clion.'ii{'ffi;-(ied5' t?8) ;;t;, ="ftls research in(1) a particular kind of practice-onewhich there is a cr#t-knorvleclge, and (2)research basecl on a particular modelknowiedge and research with action as oucome...tl.ris knowledge is practicai knowedge." Carr and I(emmis (1986:182) say thaqrirpj]seg-$i: "is a form nf self-reflelti"i-qu i r1 und ellaken hy part ic i pan I " lteachetor principals, for example) in social situatioin order to improve the rationaiity and justiof (a) their own social or educational pratic,es, (b) their understanding of these pratices, and (c) the situations (and institutionin which these practices are carried out."

We can see then, that there is a big diffeence be1!-99! reflecjive q4 {*Ioqtiaction. If the review of the literature of refle4--i'iiFTeachi ng leveal s differen t deli nit ionsthe concept, the same is true for definitionscritical reflection. Outside TESOL, Hattil St-t1iltSDil35) point out that the tecritical reflection, "iike reflection itseappears to be used loosely, some taking itmean more than constructive self-criticismone's action with a view to improvement."Hatton and Srnith (1995:35), howevpo i nt opuhelth_e_ c,9!99pl9! -c_l!gg!e!9gU"implies the acceptance of a particular ideogy." This view of critical reflection in teaing also cails folgo!,liderations o{ moral agtbi"rl problerns aAdi.., iggTfeore ;iZeichner 1991; V-anMannen 1977), and it ainvolves "making judgments - llgy-! .'yltSprofessional activity is equitable. just. a*.pst'n f -E-S"..-"lt: -[?,"T- rfiutron *Smith 1995:35). Therefore, the lvicler sochistoricai and political-cultural contexts calso be included in critical reflection (Zeiner and Liston 1987; Schon 1983, 1987).

T

12 Ocr-DEc 1998 Erucltsn TElcutt'tc Fonu


4/8

In TESOL, too, ihe term critical reflectionhas been used rather lo6sely. ii1iffi1T[900does not distinguish between reflection andcritical reflection. Neither does he take thebroader aspect of society into considerationwhen defining reflective practice. Similarly,Day's (1993) ideai of analytical reflectiondoes not talk about the broader society. Also,Pennington (1995: 1 06) defines critical refl ec-tion as "the process o{ information gainedthrough innovation in relation to the teacher'sexisting schema for teaching." Again, thebroader aspect of society does not play a sig-nificant role in her definition of criticalreflection.

However, Bartlett (1990:204) sees a needLo inblmle-ThF*6loill"r society in any defini-tion of critical reflection. He says that in orderfor teachers to become criticaily reflective,they have to "transcend the technicalities ofteaching anil think beyond the need toimprove our instructional techniques." Hesees critical reflection as "locating teachingin i ts 6ioa?A;oiiaTffi"t1il;I l6"G*rl- -Providing oppoft unities for ESL/EFLteachers to reflect: Five components of ateacher development model

The five components of a language teacherdevelopment model presented here are theresult of the exper-iences of an EFL teacherdeveiopment group in l(orea. In the failsemester of 1994, three experienced EFLteachers in Korea met to reflect on their work(Farrell 1996). This process of reflectionincluded weekly group meetings, individualmeetings, class observation, and regular jour-nal writing (for a complete description of thestudy please see Farrell 1996).

The five core elements are not isolated butare all connected: One builds on the otherand all need to be considered as a whole. Thefive components are:1. Provide different opportunities lbrteachers lo leflect through a range of differentactivities.2. Build in some ground rules to thepro('ess and into eat h uclivitl.

3. Make provisions for four different kindsof time.4. Provide external input for enrichedreflection.

5. Provid. lbr ion aflettive stales.

7. Prouide diffirent opportunities. Arange of activities should be providecl forteachers to reflect on their work. These actir-ities can be carried out alone, in pairs, or as agroup. A group of teachers may clecide to doone of the activities or a comliination oi any orall of them.

Group discusslons. Group discussion-* cansimply be a group of teachers who cometogether for regular rneetings to reflect orrtheir work. A teacher trairer (or moilerator)shouid provide encouragement ancl suppofifcrr the group.

Obseruation. Observation can be carrieclout alone, as in self-observation, in pairsobserving each other's class (see also "criticalfriend" below) or the group can try to observeeach member's class. (As observ:rtion can Lrea sensitive issue, a discussion of this isincluded in the section on built-in mles.)

Journal writing. Journai writing can aisobe carried out alone in the form of a diary inpairs writing to and for each other, in thegroup writing to and lbr each other (see Broi;ket. aL. 1992 for ideas of'journaling togeth-er"). As with the otl'rer activities, some groundrules shoulcl be built in to this activity(addressed below).

Critical friends. Groups and individualslink critical friendships in some wa,v to obser-vations of classes. In this way the criticalfriends can have an open dialogue which isgrounded in their observations and experi-ences. Colleagues can engage each otl'rer insysternatic reflection and thus clirect eachother's professional self-development. Franc is(1995.'234') says that critical friends can"stimulate, clarify, and extend thinking. . . anclfeel accountable for their own grorvth andtheir peers' growth."It is important to note that wher.r utilizinganv of the above activities in any program o{professional sel{-development, the sugges-tions that follow components t'lvo througl'r liveshould also be incorporatecl.2. Negotiated ground rules. Initially,our group took a flexible approach, which wasinibnnal for each of the activities. and we diclnot specificaliy state whai we wanted toachieve in each of the activities. With thislevel of flexibilit,v in our group, each partici-pant exhibited a cli{ferent level of energy andcommitment. For erample, two of the partici-pants were active in all of the activities, while

Erucrrsg TEAcHTNG Fonuu Ocr-Dec 199a 13


5/8

the other chose to be active in oniy one of theactivities. This fl exibility provided opportuni-Iie. fbr the group to progress at it" orvn pat e.in a way which best suited each individual sown needs. Colby and Appieby (1995:156)say that too much flexibility in these situa-tions can lead to "a danger that lthe group]may just clrift."In fact, it appeared that at times we dri{iedoffinto our own agendas and there was a dan-ger lhal more pressing lsnmelimes inrpurtantbut mostly trivial) matters or problems woulcltake over. Therefore, I see a neecl for a nego-tiated set of built-in-ruies or guidelines thateach group or pair should lbllow in order tokeep the drifting to a minimurn. The model Ipresent here can be adjusted to inclividualgroup needs.

Suggestions three through five are actuailyground rules that can be built in to the activ-ities. For example, who rvill chair the meet-ings? A revolving chair with a resultingrevolving level of responsibility to provide asite and refreshments, and set the agenda andlength o{ the meetings. This chairpersonshouid also be willing to use his/her positionto protect and encourage the free expressionof views.For obser-vations, cedain understandingsneed to be negotiated ahead of time. Forexample, what are the responsibilities of theobserver? Is inter-vention possible or desir-able in the class? Will the class be video-taped, audiotaped, or neither? If you use avideo, how will this be analyzed and whv?What is to be observed and how?For journal writing, our teacher develop-ment grolrp found that the number of entriesdid not realiy influence the level of criticalreflection. and i{ anythirrg, led to moredescriptions of teaching. Just as research hasshown that preservice teachers tend to rarnblein their writing (Francis 1995), our grouptended to ramble on about personal mattersoutside their teaching in their rvriting. Weexchanged our journals at the start of eachgroup meeting but we did not discuss them.A minirnum set of guideiines neetls to benegotiated to insure a deeper, critical level ofrellection beyond mere descriptions of teach-ing. Forthis, groups/pairs should negotiate thenumber of frequency of entries and the type ofentries. The following list ofgeneral questionsmay help get a writer starled: Describe rvhatyou do with no judgment? Why do you do it?

Should vou continue to do it or change ilVhat do others do? (Our group tended to stat ievel o{ describing r,vhat we cio).'lcr suggest a set of buiit-in rules for "critcal friends" is not easy because there musl ban elentenl of trusl and openne"- pte5enlorder to avoicl putting emphasis rin the criticwhile overlooking the friend. Putting a greatemphasis on the friend implies trust and suport that is needed to get at the c:ritical levof reflection. Otherwise, we can, as F ranc(I995:2a0) says, "iace observation and feeback with subjective juclgments and a 'fixassumption'."

The friend can provide another set of eyethat both suppofi and challenge us to getdeeper reflections of our teaching. 'Io encouage this openness, the initiai conversationbetrveen criticai friends (or all conversationshould be taped and analyzed. This analyscan include the use of guestions in their relationship, in terms of type, power structureestabiished, {bcus of observation, and usefuness. In this way critical friencls can negotiawhat they want to achieve. Of course, al1the above activities and built-in guidelinecannot be accomplished quickly; like avaluable things, they take tirne. This introduces the next contponent of the model: time3. Four ilistinct types of time. Fpracticing teachers to be able to reflect otheir work, time is a very important consideation. Our group considered four differenviews/types of time:

1. Individual2. Activity3. Developm-nt4. Period of reflectiorrIndiuicLuaL Practicing teachers are ver

busy in their daily teaching and other relareduties, and the amount of time any onteacher i-. willing to invest in his or her professional seif-cler.elopment will naturally varyThis can create a dilemma for the group if athe partir:ipants do not attend all the groumeetings or parlicipate fully in the arrtivitiesgroup cohesion may be harmed. 'fherefore,cerlain level of commitment by individuaparticipants in terms of time availabilitshould be negotiated by the group at the staof the process.

Actiuity. Associated with the time eacparlicipant has to give the project is the timthat should be spent on each activity. Fo

14 Ocr-Dec 1998 Ettc Lt s r-r Te,qcs r r'rc Fo n u


6/8

exarnple, our lroup meetings were scheduledto last for one hour; whereas they lasted for:three hours. This wa,* both good and had; itprovided more clialogue, but it also exl-raustedeveryone as the term progr:essecl.Tinre ful lhe olrserrirtion pro( ess is t'on-cernecl with the number of observations. Twoof the partir:ipants in our group allowed obser-vations once a week. the other four times dur-ing the semester. The numller of times a classcan be observed should be negotiated by eachgroup u,hile also taking the first notion of time(individurl) i nlo tonsirlelation.

The journal also needs time: tirne to writeand time to read. Our group read each other'sjournal at the beginning o{ each group meet-ing, but we wrote it at home. However, we didnot comment on the journals. An alternativeway rvould be to have time to write and readat the beginning and/or end of each groupmeeting.Deuelopment. Another aspect of time thatis irnportant for teacher self-developmentgroups is the time it takes to develop. Golbyand Appleby (1995:158) point out that"teacher-q do not readily confront their prob-lems with a reflective approach." Eibaz(1988:173) says that teachers "have a com-mon concern to reduce the complerity of thesituation, to accept neat and obvicrus accoruttsof the causes of the problems." Analyticalreflection. therefore, takes time and only pro-gresses at a rate whicli indiviclual teachers alereadv to reflect critically.

Our group encountered two distinct stages.The first stage was what I cail the "getting toknow you" stage. We were feeling each otherout and negotiating our personal and groupagendas. When we started trusting each othera little more, we entered a second stage.which I cali the reflective stage. The first:tage 1s6[ iir. group meetings over d se\en-week period, Other groups will no doubtexperience di{Terent stages o\rel a ciifferenttime period.

Period of reflectiorL. The period ol time ittakes to hecome reflective is connected to thelast aspecl of time presentetl here: the time{ianie for the project as a rvhole. How longshoulcl a gloup, a pair:" or an individualleflect? It is impodant to consiclel tl'ris for tw


7/8

terecl in the group by the individuals them-selves. Ways of establishing 1ow anxiety canbe incorporated, such as emphasizingdescription and observation over judgment.Category systems such as Fanselow's FOCUS(t987) and/or Acheson's and Gall's (1987)SCORE could also be used to reduce anxietyassociated with judgments (we used both cat-egory systems to help with our reflections).Gonclusion

Reflective teaching can benefit ESLIEFLteachers in four main ways: (1) Reflectiveteaching helps free the teachers from impulseand routine behavior. (2) Reflective teachingallows teachers to act in a deliberate, inten-tional manner and avoid the "I don't knowwhat I will do today" syndrome. (3) Reflectiveteaching distinguishes teachers as educatedhuman beings since it is one of the signs ofintelligent action. (4) As teachers gain experi-ence in a community o{ professional educa-tors, they feel the need to grow beyond the ini-tial stages of survival in the classroom toreconstructing their own particular theoryfrom their practice. Dewey (1933:87) said thatgrowth comes from a "reconsttuction of expe-rience" so b1 reflecting on our onn experi-ences, we can reconstruct our own education-al perspective.If English as a second or foreign languageteaching is to become recognized as a profes-sional body, then teachers need to be able toexplain their judgments and actions in theirclassrooms with reasoned argument. Ways ofachieving this level of reason include reflect-ing on teaching experiences and incorporat-ing evidence from relevant scholarship intoteaching routines, which can lead to growthand devel,rpm""t !q_+gg t129}:9:gglt_mate reiationship between reflecti.ve teachingo,'rarcarilicrac#o'menil ----."-The leflectivc proce"s allow' developingteachers latitude to experiment within aframework of growing knowledge and experi-"nce. It gives them the opportunity lo exam-ine their relations with students, their values,their abilities, and their successes and fail-ures in a reaiistic context. It begins the devel-oping teacher's path toward becoming an'expert teacher' (Lange 1990:240-250')."ESL/EFL teachers, meeting regularly inany of the forms outlined in this article, wilibegin to see how much they have in common,becorne more comfortable explaining their

teaching routines to themselves and othand may come to experience and enjoy a n1eve1 o{ seif-adiculated professionalism.ReferencesAcheson, K. and M. Gall. 1987. Techniques incLinical superaision of teoclrcrs. New YLongman. (2nd. ed.)Adler, S. 1991. The re{lective practioner andcuniculum of teacher education. Journa

E ducation for Tbaching, I 7, 2, pp. 139-i50Barllett, L. 1990. Teacher development throreflective teaching. 7n Second LanguTbacher Ed,ucation. eds. J. Richards andNunan. New York: Cambridge University PrBrock, M., B. Yu, and M. Wong. 1992. "Jouring" together: Coll.ilrorative diary-keepingteacher devel.opment. 7n Perspectiues on seclanguage teacher tlet:elopment. eds. J. Ferdev-, M. Brock, and S. Hsia. Hong Kong:University of Hong Kong. pp. 295-307.Can, W. and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming crittErlucatiort, knowledge and action reseaLondon: Falmer Press.Day, C. 1993. Reflection: A necessary but not ficient condition {br teacher developmBritish Educational Researclt Journal, 19pp. 83-93.

Dewey, J. 1933. How we think. In X[entaL Dpline in Modern Eclucation. ed. Sr. KoiesnMadison, WI: University of Wisconsin PresFllbaz, F. l9BB. Critical reflections on teachinsights from freire. JournaL rl EducationTecLching, ?4, pp. t?1-181.Fanselow, J. 1987. Breaking rules. New YLongman.Farrell, T. 1995. Second language teaching: Ware we and where are we going? An intervwith Jack Richards. lnnguage Teaching:Korea TESOL Jounral, S, 3, pp.94-5.1996. A qualitative study of the reiions of {bur experienced EFL teacheKorea as they reflect on their work. Unlished doctoral dissertation. PA: Indian Unsity of Pennsylvania.Francis, D. 1995. The reflective journal: A winto presen'ice teachers' knowledge. Teaco,nd Tbach.er Education, 25,2, pp.229-211Fuiler, F. 1910. Personalized educationfor teers: An introd,uction for teacher educaReport No. 001. Austin, Texas, ResearchDevelopment Center for Teacher Education

Golby, M. and R. Appleby. 1995. Reflective ptice through critical friendship: Some possities. Cambridge Jounral of Education, 2pp. 149-160.Gore, J. and Zeichener, K. 1991. Action reseand reflective teaching in preservice tea

education: A case study lrom the United StTbaching arul Tbacher Education, 7, pp. 1 19-Hatton, N. and D. Smith. 1995. Reflectioteacher- education: Towarcls definitionimplementation. Teaching and Teacher Edtion, 11,1, pp. 33-39.Killon, J. and G. 'fodnew. 1991. A process of

Ocr-Dec 1998 . EttcLtsH TencHtt'tc Fon


8/8

sonal theory building. EducationaL Leaderslt ip,48, 6, pp. 14-16.Lange, D. 1990. A blueprint lbr a ieacher develop-ment program. ln Second Longua,ge TbacherEducation. er.ls. J. Richards, and D. Nunan.New York: Cambrirlge UniversitJ' Press.McFee. C. 1993. Reflections on the nature o{action-research. Cambrklge Journal of Educa-r ion 23.2, pp. I 73-1 83.Nias, J. 1987. Learning from clifference: A colle-gial approach to change. ln Educating Teach-ers, ed. J. Smyth. Barcombe: The Falmer Press.Penninplon, M. t992. Reflecting on teaching andlearning: A development focus for the secondlanguage classroom. In Perspectiues on Second,Langu,age Classroctm Tba,cher Educcttlon. eds. J.Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia. Kowloon:Citv Polythenic of Hong Kong.1995. The teacher change

reflective teaching[1]

Documents