rp or rip, a critical perspective on reflective practice, mann and walsh-2013-0013 read - all...

DOI 10.1515/applirev-2013-0013Applied Linguistics Review 2013; 4(2): 291315

Steve Mann and Steve WalshRP or RIP: A critical perspective on reflective practiceAbstract: This paper provides a critical review of reflective practice (RP), drawing attention to particular problems with its representation, as well as proposing a more evidence-based and data-led approach to RP. Our central argument is that RP in the fields of applied linguistics, TESOL and education has achieved a status of orthodoxy without a corresponding data-led description of its value, processes and outcomes. Our concern is that RP is described in ways that are elusive, gen-eral, and vague and which may not be particularly helpful for practitioners. This is largely due to the lack of concrete, data-led and linguistic detail of RP in prac-tice and to its institutional nature, lack of specificity, and reliance on written forms. It is also the case that, despite a small number of exceptions (e.g. Kortha-gen and Wubbels 1995; Walsh 2011), reflective practice is not operationalized in systematic ways.This paper argues that applied linguistics needs to champion a description of RPs processes and impact by drawing on data-led accounts of reflective practice across a range of contexts. Too many RP accounts rely on general summaries and so are neither critical, transparent, nor usable by other practitioners. A key as-pect of developing a more critical approach is the need to move beyond rosy sum-maries of the outcomes of RP towards accounts of how RP gets done. Where pos-sible we need to share examples of reflection in action so that its nature and value can be better understood. We propose here that RP needs to be rebalanced, away from a reliance on written forms and taking more account of spoken, col-laborative forms of reflection; in sum, we argue for a more dialogic, data-led and collaborative approach to reflective practice.

Keywords: Reflective practice, reflection, teacher education, reflective tools, in-teraction, dialogue, collaboration

Steve Mann: University of Warwick. E-mail: [email protected] Walsh: Newcastle University. E-mail: [email protected]

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload Date | 10/11/13 2:09 PM

292Steve Mann and Steve Walsh

1IntroductionReflection and reflective practice continue to have a central position in pro-fessional education: the best thing any education can bequeath is the habit of reflection and questioning (Grayling 2003: 179) and Moseley et al (2005) see the highest level of thinking and learning in education as strategic and reective thinking. However, the central argument of this paper is that while reflective practice (RP) has established itself as a ubiquitous presence in professional edu-cation and practice, its current status is not supported by detailed, systematic and data-led description of either its nature or value. There are two responses to this. The first is to say that RP has become so bloated and so riddled with incon-sistencies that it needs to be put out of its misery and left to rest in peace (RIP). The second is to take the position that it has potential value but needs to deal with some of its problems and inconsistencies. It is the latter position which we adopt here.

Fundamental to this position is the argument that while, for some RP might be viewed as a management tool used to measure and check teachers per-formance, possibly to criticise and admonish we maintain that it is still a very useful means of promoting self-development. However, in its present form, we recognise that RP cannot perform this function and that there needs to be a recon-figuration of RP, both in terms of focus and approach. Our motives for adopting this perspective can be summarised as follows:a. There is a lack of data-led research on RP and a need for data-led practice in

RP. Put simply, we need more evidence from the perspectives of both research and professional development.

b. Current thinking in teacher education (both in general and specifically in re-lation to second language teacher education) values approaches which foster teacher autonomy and self-development. For this to be effective, there is a strong and pressing need for teachers to acquire the skills and practices which will allow them to develop.

c. Following on from (a) and (b), we are proposing that teacher efficacy will be heightened when teachers develop closer and better grounded understand-ings of their contexts. RP is, we suggest, the most appropriate means of en-suring that such understandings occur.

In this paper, we argue that while RP has considerable merit in professional edu-cation, it is: not sufficiently data-led too often presented as an individual process which fails to value collabora-

tion or participation in a community of practice


RP or RIP293

dominated by written forms of reflection at the expense of potentially more beneficial spoken forms

insufficiently detailed about the nature of reflective tools

The first part of the paper discusses how RP might be viewed from an applied linguistics perspective and then describes each of these four challenges in more detail. In the second part of the paper, we consider how these issues might be ad-dressed in a move towards rebalancing and revitalising RP.

1.1Language, reflection and the real world

Across a range of areas of professional practice (healthcare, education, business) practitioners need to reflect. Given the embedded status of reflective practice in professional education and to some extent in CPD, we see working towards a better understanding of reflective practice as a real world challenge for applied linguistics (AL), which, as is widely recognised, is concerned with the theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problems in which language is a central issue (Brumfit 1995: 27). Indeed, AL has already played an important role in re-vealing that the majority of professional practices are accomplished through various forms of workplace interaction (see, for example, Edwards and Westgate 1992; Drew and Heritage 1992) and that institutional practice is inextricably linked to language and communication. The role of RP too, as a process of professional development, is to understand and improve practice (Schn 1991). Consequently, we believe that AL should play a stronger role not only in promoting understand-ings of real-world workplace practice but also in supporting the goal of RP in achieving this understanding. As a discipline, AL is uniquely positioned to both scrutinise and evaluate the impact of RP on professional practice, while at the same time enhancing understandings of the linguistic and interactional re sources used to achieve this.

By focusing on language as social action and considering the ways in which RP gets done through human interaction, we are adopting a pragmatically mo-tivated (Bygate 2005: 571) perspective on the situated real-world circumstances of reflective practice. We believe that a better understanding of RP is more likely to elucidate the real world of professional practice and help work towards better outcomes in professional development. However, there is also a need to under-stand the nature of reflection itself and we argue that there are therefore two elements of the potential role of AL in understanding RP. These can be expressed in the distinction between the language for reflection and the language of reflection:



(for reflection) the aim should be to produce tools and frameworks for fine-grained understanding of professional activities

(of reflection) the aim should be to produce systematic accounts of the lan-guage used in reflection (an analytic challenge for AL).

The first sense puts the focus on how the procedures of reflection might encour-age attention to real-world linguistic and interactional features of professional practice. This is the main focus of this paper. The second sense is process-oriented and puts the focus on the fact that RP is framed, encouraged and achieved through language. A structured and systematic approach is more likely to lead to a clearer understanding of both the process and the potential outcomes of reflec-tion. This focus on language is not gratuitous; put simply, through focusing on the language used to achieve a task or complete a practice, we can gain a fine-grained understandings of how the task gets done.

1.2Origins and definitions

A number of theorists (in particular Dewey, Schn and Kolb) have been influen-tial in the development of the concept of reflection. Dewey is widely credited for turning attention to the importance of experiential learning and reflective thought as the sole method of escape from the purely impulsive or purely routine action (Dewey 1933: 15) and is concerned principally with the relationship between ex-perience, interaction and reflection. It could be argued that the key messages of this paper (albeit with a linguistic twist) are consistent with Deweys original for-mulations of reflection. In particular, our position has resonance with Deweys concerns about linear models of thinking. Reflection is a highly complex process where thinking, interaction, knowledge and learning have a reflexive relation-ship (see Semetsky 2008). In returning to some of Deweys initial philosophic formulations of reflection we also hope to avoid some of the instrumentalism of many contemporary understandings (see Gray and Block 2012 who argue against the prevailing climate of instrumental rationalization and worry that second language teacher education programmes often purport to facilitate the develop-ment of reflective practice but, due to institutional constraints, actually restrict opportunities for reflection and teacher learning). Instead, we would wish to fore-ground two aspects of Deweys conceptualization of reflection. First, its emphasis on serious, active and persistent engagement with a doubt or perplexity. Second, that the process invites criticism and close examination. In essence, we believe that his calls for hypothesis testing and systematic method are close to the arguments we develop in this paper for more systematic and data-led approaches to RP.


RP or RIP295

Schn (1983) picked up Deweys arguments and was influential, particularly in distinguishing between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action is synchronous with the professional act (thinking on your feet) and reflection-on-action is asynchronous (a reflection after the professional action or incident). Killion & Todnem (1991) add reflection-for-action which is forward looking and identifies steps or guidelines to follow to succeed in a given task in the future. For-action pushes the process in more sustained and systematic di-rections and so overlaps with notions of research (e.g. action research, explora-tory practice). The importance of reflective practice as an integral part of action-orientated and practioner-led teacher development is outlined in Mann (2005).

RP established itself in the late 1980s, arguably becoming a fad in the 1990s. Certainly by 1994, Zeichner (1994: 10) tells us that everyone has jumped on the bandwagon.1 Bengtsson (1995) also provides a useful overview of contributions on reflection in pedagogical journals (e.g. Journal of Teacher Education) in the early 1990s. We do not have space in this paper to present a thorough literature review of reflection but it is worth attempting a definition. This is not easy, as the nature of reflection and critical reflection is often ill-defined (Hatton and Smith 1995). While most definitions highlight the importance of experience, they vary in the extent to which they foreground interaction or action. Most include the intel-lectual and the affective (what you think and how you feel). Two elements of many definitions are action and critical, though, again, there are huge varia-tions in emphasis. Some writers foreground a critical element (e.g. Brookfield 1997; Bailin et al 2007), while others, like Mezirow (1991), put the emphasis on critical self-awareness and critical reflection of presuppositions (on which learn-ing is based). Given this range of use and emphasis, we would not expect much agreement in definition. For the purposes of this paper, we will adopt the defini-tion put forward by Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985: 3):

[reflection is] a generic term for those intellectual and affective activities in which indi-viduals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciation.

The choice of this definition suits the purpose of this paper which is to deal with a subset of reflective activity (spoken and collaborative reflection) and makes the argument that this kind of reflection is currently not recognised enough as there is too much focus on individual reflection. We draw on this definition in the next section, where we go on to review specific areas of the problematic status of RP.

1For a fuller account of the appeal and growth of RP we would recommend McLoughlin (1999).



2RP problemsThere have been a number of concerns expressed in relation to reflection and RP. For some, there is a sense that RP has run its course and there is now a need to move beyond reflective practice (Bradbury et al 2010) and consider new ap-proaches to CPD. What follows takes a critical stance (extending previous cri-ticisms and some of our own) in outlining key problems, presented under four major themes: lack of data-led accounts; focus on the individual; dominance of written RP; using the wrong reflective tools. This paper concentrates on data from teaching and teacher education but we believe that the arguments here hold for any professional practice.

2.1Lack of data-led accounts

As we have argued, RP in the fields of AL, TESOL and education (and undoubt-edly wider afield) has achieved a status of orthodoxy without a corresponding data-led description of its value, processes and impact. This means that it is usu-ally dealt with in flabby, vague and unhelpful ways. There are too many accounts of reflection that contain models, checklists and series of questions to be used as prompts. Very few have examples of reflection and where data is included it is usually self-report or short extracts from reflective journals. We are particularly worried about the lack of data about spoken reflective processes. Farrell (2007), in an otherwise excellent introduction to reflective language teaching, has a chapter on collaborative teacher development in groups. However, there are no data ex-tracts (although there is an insightful summarised scenario late in the chapter). We believe that more insider views of reflection (e.g. comments on both the na-ture and value expressed in qualitative interviews and transcriptions of actual spoken reflection) will help provide a clearer understanding of the possibilities of doing RP.

2.2Focus on the individual

RP is often presented as an individual process that does not foreground collabo-ration or participation in a community of practice. We can make a distinction between any professional task (that gets done) and the kind of reflection that goes on in the head of an individual about that task. While we recognise that indi-vidual in the head reflection is both important and necessary, it is not the only show in town. We see it as problematic that models and accounts of reflection


RP or RIP297

(e.g. Brockbank and McGill 2007) usually present reflection as an individual matter (the individual thinks about their intentions before teaching, conducts the class and then reflects in their head on action). Foregrounding the individual process underestimates the value of collaborative processes. Johns model (2000) puts more emphasis on the act of sharing with a colleague or mentor, which she argues enables new understandings to be established. We also find Zepkes definition (2003: 170) helpful in this regard. He says that reection is a process to help us learn from our own or others experiences and to turn that learning into action (our emphasis). Brookfield (1995: 92) too proposes that the goals of a critically re-flective teacher should extend beyond autobiographical self-reflection and include the critical reflective lenses of the students eyes, our colleagues experiences, and theoretical literature. However, learning from other colleagues is not the same as a co-constructed sense of reflecting together through interaction (which is much more in tune with Deweys original formulation) and underestimates dialogic processes of collaborative reflection. Hatton and Smith (1995) see dialogic reflec-tion as involving discourse with self. We would agree with this but the notion of dialogic reflection should also include discourse with others (in various collab-orative and workplace processes) as well as between different forms of know-ledge, particularly experiential and received knowledge (Wallace 1991). It is evi-dent that knowledge and action can be co-constructed in conversational groups (Bailey 1996) and that the constructivist power of such collaborative small groups (Bailey & Willet 2004: 15) can create opportunities for dialogic reflection.

2.3Dominance of written forms of reflection

The dominance in RP literature of written forms of reflection at the expense of possible spoken forms is a key issue in this paper. We recognise that it is impor-tant to look at the bigger context of individual written reflective texts (see Spiro and Wickens 2011). In particular we have concerns about the way that assessment and evaluation distort the kind of reflection that individuals do. It is important to explore the discourse/discourses of reflective writing (see also Mann and Walsh 2011 and Farr, 2011 for arguments for the importance of a discourse perspective).

Apart from the washback effect of assessment on the discourse of reflection, there are also issues with the forms of writing required. A common problem with written forms of RP is that the focus of attention becomes the actual writing itself, or rather the proforma, checklist or whatever which is used as a stimulus to reflec-tion. There are (at least) two outcomes of this approach. The first, as stated above, is that practitioners become concerned with completing the reflective task (whether this has any connection with their real experience or not). At its worst,



this can result in inauthentic reflection (Roberts 1998) and even faking it (Hobbs 2007), where the twin pressures of external course demands and natural ten-dency to conceal weaknesses and concentrate on strengths and success stories combine to limit real reflection. As Scott (2005: 27) says, reflective writing, osten-sibly a form of self-analysis, takes place in an institutional forum and is scruti-nized according to institutional means and standards; Bolton sees such social structures as limiting the value of personal experience and increasingly hem-ming professionals in (2010: 11).

Hobbs argues that reflection is especially difficult for novice teachers (her context is an initial teacher certificate course). The use of proformas on such ini-tial teacher education courses may be counter-productive given that trainees are asked to repeatedly reflect and write down their thoughts. They can easily be-come mechanical and recipe-following (Boud, 2010: 27). A probable conse-quence then is that reflections operate, at best, at surface level and there is often no real evidence of engagement or criticality. The second problem with this ap-proach is that the reflective task is not graded to the corresponding stage of devel-opment. Teachers in training, for example, could benefit greatly from completing a range of reflective tasks over time rather than completing the same task (a checklist or proforma) again and again. By using a variety of tasks, practitioners might be encouraged to think more deeply, especially if there is scope for progres-sion in the tasks themselves.

We can see some of these issues embedded in the following interview com-ments from Elena on an initial teacher education course (PGCE: Postgraduate Certificate in Education). It sheds light on the question of whether achieving re-flection is encouraged in a criteria-led and evidence-based process. Elena has finished her teaching-practice in London and although she has had a positive experience, she is clearly frustrated by the form-filling and beaurocratic aspects of the job. This is an English translation of the original Spanish version from the research interview:

I spent a whole day last week writing the evidence which consists of seven sentences start-ing today I realised this and bla bla bla. But because its evidence based actually I could very well not have done these things and written that I had anyway. Theyre asking you to create the evidence out of nothing but its completely possible because its such a long list and I told my mentor that and he said well do it if you think by the end of the year you havent pro-duced evidence for everything, just fake it (Gray and Block, 2012: 1301).

Block and Gray make the point that this kind of text is an admission that book-keeping exercises (showing evidence) are being pushed aside by the trainee and that institutional lip-service is being paid the idea of reflection (2012: 131). The worry is that reflection is subverted and trivialised at the very moment when


RP or RIP299

genuine opportunities for reflection might be useful (ibid). This extract is inter-esting in a number of other ways. First, it shows reflection on the process of be-coming a teacher, although this may not be the kind of reflection that that they (the tutors) want. Secondly, it suggests that the time Elena has to reflect on the teaching process is taken up instead with mechanical form-filling. Thirdly, it dem-onstrates, through the mentors advice, that it is relatively easy for trainee teachers to fake evidence or reflections. Finally, there is more than a suggestion in this com-ment that it might be helpful for trainees to provide their own evidence for profes-sional development rather than selecting from a list provided by the institution.

The problem with an evidence-based checklist approach is that it prioritises a product orientation to learning. It does not value reflective writing as a process. We need to think more about the distinction between reflection through writing and writing as a record of reflection. It is held that reflection can be slippery (Moon, 2004: 4) and so it needs to be recorded while it is fresh in the mind. How-ever, writing is not just a record of reflection. It is reflection in itself. The process of reflective articulation does not report pre-existing thought. It distils, clarifies or even reframes an experience, situation or event and increases awareness. It is ongoing and reflexive, a constant process of trying to get it right in which saying it right or thinking it right are intermediary processes.

2.4Appropriate reflective toolsThere remain issues with the nature and timing of reflective tools used. First of all, there is the one-size fits all problem where the tool is not sufficiently orien-tated to particular contextual needs. Then there is the too much too soon prob-lem which is especially problematic in short pre-service courses (see Hobbs 2007). Reflective tasks need to be introduced slowly. If they are too complicated, they stifle budding reflection. If they become an increasing chore and there is a lack of variety, the reflective task becomes an institutionalised requirement that then encourages superficial engagement or inauthentic reflection. In addition, there may be a design problem of the lack of progression in the reflective tools and tasks (see above).

We observe that many prompts for reflection are problem-based, which may be limiting. It might be just as useful to think of other triggers in line with ex-ploratory practice (Allwright and Hanks 2009). Exploratory practice avoids the perceived problem-based orientation of action research and focuses on puzzles. Allwright argues that puzzle avoids the negative connotations of problem (ad-mission of incompetence) and involves areas of professional life we might just want to try to understand better (2003: 117). Munby and Russell (1990) also suggest puzzles of practice and this is more in tune with Schns view that



attention should be brought to bear on some puzzling or troubling or interesting phenomenon (1983: 50).

3RP: A way forwardSo far in this paper we have argued that AL and Reflective Practice share the same concern: solving real world problems where language is a key issue (Brumfit 1995: 27). The preceding section highlighted the key problems associated with RP, which will be addressed below.

In order to reflect properly on practice, we suggest, there is a fundamental need to understand the language used to accomplish a particular workplace ac-tivity. Reflective practice is an important element of achieving such awareness and understanding. In this section, we propose a more empirical, data-led and linguistic description of the nature of RP, presented in three parts:a. Data-led reflective practiceb. Dialogic RPc. Appropriate tools for RP

The second of these (b) combines a response to two of the problems outlined above: too much focus on the individual and the dominance of written forms of reflection are two sides of the same coin.

In the section which follows, we present evidence from our own data-sets, accumulated over a number of years, and taken from a range of teacher education and professional development contexts, including ITE (initial teacher education), CPD (continuing professional development) and contexts where teachers are working independently or as part of a research project. While the focus here is very much towards second language teacher education, our concerns extend to all contexts in which teachers are pursuing professional development, either as part of a structured programme such as a Diploma or Masters degree, or through a more autonomous self-development route.

The methodology we are using to analyse the data is broadly discourse analy-sis, with a focus on spoken interaction and an endeavour to examine the ways in which meanings in a range of professional settings are co-constructed.

3.1Data-led RP

One of the key ways in which RP practices and procedures could be made more principled and objective is to make the whole process data-led. In light of the


RP or RIP301

fact that teaching is a hugely complex process, involving multi-party talk and anynumber of agendas occurring simultaneously, it is, we suggest, difficult to reflect without some kind of evidence. Put simply, data is a key form of evi-denceand evidence-based decision-making lies at the heart of developing ap-propriate practice in any organisation. If we accept that data is central to reflec-tion, the question then becomes whose data? We can take the position that anyform of data can be helpful in providing opportunities for reflection. How-ever, our argument is that a teachers own data is a particularly rich resource. This is partly a question of ownership and where there is ownership of the data there is more likely to be a change in teaching behaviour, since teachers aremore engaged when they use data from their own context and experience. They are both the producers and consumers of their research (Kumaravadivelu 1999).

Of course, research for many involves the collection and analysis of data and the publication of findings. As we have said above, any form of data can be useful (e.g. narrative accounts, critical incidents) but we are making a particular argu-ment here for the value of recorded data and transcripts of these recordings. We see this kind of use of data as different from data in big R research (large-scale, public, generalizable). The kind of research we are describing here is small-scale, localised, context-specific and private, conducted by teachers for their own ends. Typically, this process is situated and concerned with the development of an appropriate methodology (Holliday 1994).

Greater understanding of professional practice is more possible when a pro-cess of inquiry is carried out in the teachers natural environment, using a teachers own data. This is consistent with van Liers view of ecological research and the kind of reflexive relationship (between interaction, language, learning and knowledge) that we emphasised earlier. Van Liers perspective on ecological re-search sees teaching practices in the classroom as being comparable with any natural environment in which the slightest change to one sub-system will affect other systems:

Ecological research pays a great deal of attention to the smallest detail of the interaction, since within these details maybe contained the seeds of learning. The reflective teacher can learn to read the environment to notice such details. (Van Lier 2000: 11)

The advantage of this approach is that practice is theorised, in a process where the smallest details (in the data) can be a prompt for reflection and then changes can be implemented and then evaluated (van Lier 2000). The main justification for the kind of microscopic analysis we are suggesting is the fact that the research is located in a context that is both clearly defined and familiar.



It is also worth saying that the value of this kind of data-led reflective process is just as important for teacher-trainers as for novice teachers. Indeed, a teacher-educator who practices what he or she preaches is more likely show commitment to and therefore promote reflective practice. Edge (2011: 20) talks of consistency (the demand of teachers that they should be reflective must also apply to the teacher educator). Edge quotes Argyris & Schn (1974: 196) that we need teacher educators who ... are strong enough to invite confrontation of their teaching and to make themselves vulnerable to inquiry into the incongruities in their teaching. In the following extract, we see an example of two university-based teacher- trainers using transcripts of their feedback sessions as an impetus for reflection. They have been talking about the kinds of activities included in the feedback ses-sions (and their relative merit). In this extract Trainer A articulates a view con-cerned with the origin and nature of the feedback discussion tasks:

Extract 1A: It was really interesting looking closely at this one (.) Im beginning to think

it might be useful to look again at the way we use observation and discussion tasks (.) th- (.) sometimes think they get in the way of the trainees (.) too much our agenda maybe=

B: =you mean in the actual feedback sessionsA: yeah (.) the focus needs to come from them more often (.) if they were more

involved in choosing the focus of the observations theyd get more out of it (.) I might suggest that they use some of Pebblepad discussions to choose an observation focus (.)

What is interesting about this piece of data is that it not only shows how the teacher-trainer is considering how best to promote engagement and reflection (through integrating Pebblepad discussions to encourage trainees to choose the observation focus) but it gives an insight into how a data-led process (the use of transcripts) can lead to new possibilities in practice.

Although, as we have argued above, the big R research model may not be appropriate here, more informal traditions do resonate with the position we are adopting. For example, Exploratory Practice (EP) (see Allwright 2003) and Action Research (AR) rest on the premise that teachers can and should investigate their own classrooms and both processes have reflection at their core. The starting point for AR is the identification of a puzzle or issue. The process continues with data collection, data analysis and finally outcomes in the form of changes to practice are suggested. This process is normally a collaborative one, involving discussion and dialogue with a colleague or critical friend (see below). The value


RP or RIP303

and relevance of this kind of exploratory or informal research is self-evident: it helps teachers to focus on issues or puzzles in their own classrooms and is desir-able from the position of both professional development and learning. However, the point we want to emphasise is that an action research process is data-led and that reflection on collected data is integral. Improvement in awareness and teach-ing performance can be facilitated by the collection and analysis of a small amount of data. Here, data are things like recordings of a teaching session, a set of test results, feedback from a colleague who has observed a teaching session, a conversation with a group of students, minute papers2 and so on. In short, col-lecting data means collecting evidence, which will help a teacher address a par-ticular issue.

3.2Dialogic reflective practice

This section combines two of our central concerns: that reflective practice is often conducted in a written form and that it is often an individual enterprise. Our argu-ment is that we should be embracing a dialogic/collaborative view of reflection that allows potentially richer articulation and analysis (see also McCabe et al 2010). In this section, we consider how any future repositioning of RP should emphasize dialogic collaboration. Developing experiential knowledge, we suggest, is supported by collaborative discussion where thoughts and ideas about class-room practice are first articulated and then reformulated in a progression towards enhanced understanding. In this approach, reflection on practice does not occur in isolation, but in discussion with another practitioner. An example of such a process would be cooperative development, which involves a Speaker and an Understander (Edge 2002).

Socio-cultural views of learning are helpful here, emphasizing as they do the fact that all human development is underpinned by language, often talk. It is not that social activity influences cognition ... but that social activity is the process through which human cognition is formed. (Lantolf & Johnson 2007: 878). The process of social interaction forms the internalized psychological tools that fuel reflection (Johnson and Golombek 2011). Quite simply, if we wish to develop, under-stand or improve in any aspect of our lives, one of the first steps is usually to talk about it. It is especially important for novice teachers to have opportunities for

2Minute papers are short, written evaluations by students on a teachers teaching. They are quick to complete (hence minute paper) and give useful feedback on specific teaching sessions.



reflection through talk so that they articulate current understanding but also ex-perience the forms of inquiry by which competent practitioners reason their way, in problematic instances, to clear connections between general knowledge and particular cases (Schn 1987: 39).

As a way of exemplifying how dialogue might enhance reflection, consider this extract in which two teachers (T1 and T2) on an in-service teacher educa-tionprogramme are discussing their use of teacher echo (repetitions) in an ESL context involving a group of multilingual adult learners. Both teachers had agreed on a focus for attention in their teaching (teacher echo). They then individually made a short (15 minute) video-recording of their teaching. The next step was to watch both recordings together and use this as a basis for discussion, part of which is shown in extract 2 below:

Extract 2T1: I was struck by how much echoing I did before and sometimes there was a

justification for it .... but a LOT of the time .... it was just echo for the sake of echo so I was fairly consciously trying NOT to echo this time

T2: And what effect did that (reduced echo) have on the interaction patterns or the involvement of learners in the class, did it have any effect that you noticed?

T1: I think that it made them more confident perhaps in giving me words be-cause it was only going to come back to them if the pronunciation WASnt right rather than just getting ((1)) straight back to them. When youre elicit-ing vocabulary if theyre coming out with the vocabulary and its adequate and its clear, theres no need for you to echo it back to the other students .... youre wasting a lot of time by echoing stuff back.

Here we see very clearly the value of dialogue in promoting closer understand-ings. T1 is reflecting on her use of echo, the repetition of student contributions a common feature of classroom discourse. Her realisation that echo can become a kind of habit (echo for echos sake) is probed by T2 who asks about the effect of echo on learner involvement. T1s response is quite revealing: she says that re-duced echo makes learners more confident and that a lot of echo is unnecessary. Arguably, this realisation may not have occurred without an opportunity to dis-cuss echo and reflect on its effects. T2s contribution allows her to think about her language use and give reasons, possibly for the first time. It is this kind of light bulb moment which professional dialogue can create. Through talk, new realisa-tions and greater insights come about and get their first airing.

In a second example (extract 3 below), the teacher Nick (N) is discussing wait time with a colleague Irene (I). This extract is taken from an action research


RP or RIP305

project in which teachers were considering their use of language and interaction in an adult ESL setting. The aim of the project was to help teachers improve their understandings of teacher talk; teacher-participants became researchers of their own practices (Walsh 2006).

Extract 3N: I just found it was very enjoyable and the feedback, like extended wait-time.

Lots of GAPS here where you think theres nobody replying and then they suddenly come in

I: Was that conscious or was that just something....?N: No I deliberately because I know that the far-easterners have problems speak-

ing and therefore I gave them I just gave them whatever time they needed you know. In some cases theyre processing the question and theyre processing the information and they HAVE to literally look into their own minds and do they have an experience which relates to the question. And this is the case I think particularly with Roy with Yung rather and Jang who are Korean I think the wait-time is ALways more extensive for them.

In this example of dialogic RP, we see how, for Nick, there is a growing realisation of the value of wait-time in whole class open discussion (I just gave them what-ever time they needed). He comments on what actually happens following a teacher prompt (theyre processing the question [...] and they HAVE to literally look into their own minds and do they have an experience which relates to the ques-tion) and he makes the interesting observation that for some students, this takes more time and they need to be given that time (the wait-time is ALways more ex-tensive for them). Of course, we might also note that Nick is stereotyping Korean students with these comments, something which wed obviously want to avoid. Nonetheless, it would appear from Nicks comments that this is the first time he has been in a position to actually think about wait time as an important phenom-enon and one that teachers need to incorporate into their teaching. Arguably, a spoken rather than written form of RP and the involvement of a colleague allowed Nick to analyse this aspect of his teaching in sharper focus and make changes by increasing wait-time where necessary. Note too how his colleague, Irene, plays an important role in guiding the discussion and in helping Nick to clarify his own thinking around a particular issue. A further data extract collected by Nick actu-ally teaching showed him using longer pauses and extended wait time.

A dialogic approach to reflective practice, we suggest, addresses the need for more spoken forms of reflection and for a collaborative, rather than individual, approach. In the next section we consider how appropriate tools might enhance RP.



3.3Appropriate tools for RP

The previous two sections established arguments for a more data-led and more collaborative approach to RP. In this section, we demonstrate how appropriate tools may assist data collection and promote collaboration. The extracts pre-sented above already, to some extent, exemplify the kinds of tools we are advo-cating(for example, the use of teachers own transcripts and the use of video- recordings). Below, we present two further examples of tools that teachers might use to facilitate a process of RP and make it more data-led.

3.3.1Ad hoc self-observation

In the earlier sections of this paper, we argued against the wholesale adoption of frameworks or models for RP. This said, there is a case to be made for the use of ad hoc instruments, designed for specific tasks in specific contexts (c.f. Wallace 1998). Such an approach permits up-close self-observation and allows for the emergence of detailed understanding of professional practice, without the need for a transcription or recording. An ad hoc based approach to self-observation responds to the issue of standardisation that Gray and Block (2012: 141) raise. They present a critique of a McDonaldised system designed to produce teachers capable of using basic tools of the trade such as textbooks in ways which are ef-ficient, calculable and predictable and which guarantee the delivery of a stan-dardised product into the educational marketplace. Ad hoc tools are designed by and for teachers in a local context and so, to some extent at least, avoid issues of standardisation.

One example of such an instrument was devised by Walsh (2006). The SETT (self evaluation of teacher talk) framework was designed in collaboration with a group of university TESOL teachers and used to help teachers gain closer under-standings of the complex relationship between language, interaction and learn-ing. Essentially, it is an adaptable instrument comprising four micro-contexts (called modes) and 14 interactional features (such as clarification request, dis-play question, teacher echo). By recording their classes and then completing the SETT grid, teachers establish a snapshot of their verbal behaviour while teach-ing. It has been used and adapted to a range of contexts globally and is now em-ployed on initial teacher education courses in, for example, Singapore, Ireland and Taiwan (see Walsh 2011). Similar tools have been advocated by other re-searchers with an overall goal of making classrooms more dialogic and more engaging for learners (see, for example, Mortimer and Scott 2003; Alexander 2008).


RP or RIP307

In extract 4 below, the teacher, Joy, has analysed her teaching using the SETT framework and is talking about her evaluation with a colleague, Mike. Both teachers are using the framework as part of an INSETT programme and working towards their DELTA (Diploma in English Language Teaching for Adults) qualifi-cation. The focus of the reflection is scaffolding.

Extract 4Mike: Is scaffolding something you think you do more of in that type of mode for

example youre in a skills and systems mode here? Do you think its some-thing that happens more in some modes than others or is it maybe too difficult to say at this stage?

Joy: My first feeling would be yes because its so focused on language that any-thing they give me that might not be correct and not clear then Im going to re-formulate it or anything they dont understand Im going to give them a lot of examples so thats all scaffolding isnt it?

This is perhaps the first time that Joy has had an opportunity to reflect on her useof scaffolding. Her comments indicate that she is trying to both understand for herself and explain to Mike how scaffolding occurs in practice (Im going to re-formulate it [...] Im going to give them a lot of examples so thats all scaffold-ing isnt it?). Joy explains that scaffolding occurs more in skills and systems modebecause this is the mode where the main focus is the language itself (its so focused on language). Mike plays a key role in this extract in helping Joy to clarify her own reflections, understand when a particular practice occurs, and explain why.

What we are witnessing here is that this teacher is reflecting through dia-logue, based on an earlier analysis of her own interactions with students. We suggest that this is a far more effective means of promoting RP than simply ask-ing people to reflect on their practice. Not only are teachers able to discuss particular aspects of their teaching, they are also able to give reasons for a particular strategy and make observations about its appropriacy at a given moment.

3.3.2Stimulated recall

One of the most powerful means of promoting reflective practice is to get teachers to make a video-recording of their teaching and then discuss it with a critical friend or colleague. This procedure, known as stimulated recall, (see, for exam-ple, Lyle 2003) has the immediate advantage of allowing both parties to watch



something and comment on it together. It is a very useful tool and an excellent means of raising awareness about specific features of a teachers professional practice. In its purest form, it is used to get practitioners to actually recall specific incidents and comment on them, but it can also be used as a stimulus to provide talking-points and promote discussion.

In extract 5 below, for example, the teacher Mary is explaining how she clarified a piece of vocabulary which had been elicited (Note that the class-room interaction is presented on the left, the teachers commentary on the right). This extract is taken from the action research project described above, where teachers were analysing their own use of language while teaching (Walsh 2006).

Extract 5

(The teacher is eliciting vocab items and collecting them on the board. Learner 1 is trying to explain a word)

1.L1: discographics=2.M: =ooh what do you mean?3.L1: the people who not the people the (4) the business about music record series and=4.M: =is this a word youre thinking of in Basque or Spanish in English I dont know this word disco-graphics what I would say is er (writes on board) like you said the music business=5.L1: =the music business? what is the name of of er industry?=6.M: =the music industry as well its actually better

I was going to say its a false friend but I decided not to because I thought that might confuse her ... maybe I misunderstood her now when I look back at it ... I under-stood at the time that she meant that this was a particular industry but maybe she meant a business .... but I wasnt prepared to spend a long time on that because it didnt seem important even though there was still a doubt in my mind ....

A number of observations can be made about the interaction: In 1, L1 comes up with an invented piece of vocabulary, discographics,

which is immediately met with surprise by Mary in 2. L1 tries to explain (in 3) and encounters some perturbation, indicated by self-

initiated self-repair and a 4 second pause, which Mary ignores, preferring to let L1 struggle a little longer.

In 4, Mary interrupts L1 (indicated =) and seeks clarification, offering an ac-knowledgement of L1s previous contribution (like you said). Mary also scaf-


RP or RIP309

folds a more precise term, offering the music business as a more appropri-ate phrase for discographics.

In 5, it is apparent that L1 is not satisfied with this attempted clarification, as indicated by her two questions, both suggesting some doubt and confusion.

Mary again interrupts (in 6), possibly preventing a fuller explanation from L1 and possibly causing further confusion.

Marys self-reflections on her data are interesting. Her insights offer a detailed analysis of a repair strategy which may have backfired and caused more confu-sion. She is able to rationalise the whole process and take stock of the different courses of action taken, and alternatives rejected (I was going to say its a false friend but I decided not to because I thought that might confuse her). Mary is also able to accept that she may have understood L1s explanation and that she pos-sibly could have allowed more time. By her own admission, and as evidenced in 5 (see above), there was some uncertainty about the outcome of this repair being successfully achieved. There is doubt both in Marys comments (there was still a doubt in my mind ....), and in the questions asked by L1 (the music business? what is the name of industry?).

It is clear, from this extract, that stimulated recall is a particularly useful data-led reflective tool, offering as it does an opportunity for teachers to use data to inform their reflections and then engage in dialogue to fine tune their thinking. Even without the transcripts, much can be learned by participants and it is a methodology which brings together very nicely the various ele-ments which we have argued, are necessary for RP to work effectively: tools, dataand dialogue. Stimulated recall is relatively easy to organise, inexpensive and unobtrusive, and has considerable potential for influencing professional development.

4ConclusionsAL has already provided useful attention to talk at work (e.g. Edwards and West-gate 1992; Drew and Heritage 1992). This paper has argued that AL can also pro-vide a lead in looking at how data can aid reflection and a professional learning process. We also believe that an AL perspective can usefully be brought to bear on the nature of reflective talk itself. This paper has not directly addressed this per-spective but we hope the paper might act as a catalyst for such description. We need better data-led descriptions of levels and types of reflection.

The main argument of this paper is that RP needs to rebalanced away from an individual written version of RP towards processes which are data-led,



collaborative, dialogic and which use appropriate tools. Such a repositioning of RP might contribute to deeper understandings of real-world workplace practice. As well as descriptions of reflective practice, we need more accounts of reflective tools which consider their nature and appropriacy at particular stages of profes-sional development. While some valuable work has been done, there is clearly a key role for AL to play in any future revitalisation of RP.

We also need more critical accounts that examine whether institutional sup-port for reflective practice are also backed up by creating opportunities for such collaborative talk (both in terms of time and space). For example, we see staff-room talk as crucial to informal processes of reflection. Richards (1999) shows how stories provide the basis for collaborative understandings. However, it goes without saying that teachers need a staffroom for this to be true (and not all schools have such a space). It is also worth making the point that reflection might be better seen as part of teachers jobs rather than an add on or extra thing to do. This would mean that RP gets timetabled into the working week and teachers are properly paid for it.

We are not claiming that a more dialogic and collaborative approach to RP is without problems and challenges. There are likely to be tensions in many contexts where RP is used for professional development; for example, there may be issues relating to the social relations of those engaged in RP trust andmutual respect are clearly essential. There may be a concern that the ap-proach to RP being proposed here could result in a proliferation of standard practices and promote beliefs which are not always appropriate in a particu-larcontext. It may be true that dialogic RP is not necessarily always the most ef-fective and we certainly acknowledge that written reflections have a key role to play.

Nonetheless, it is still our contention that a more data-led treatment of RP will help in achieving greater understanding of professional practice, especially if the data involves those doing the reflecting. This might help avoid the situation prevailing on many teacher education programmes where reflection is left to the individual who lacks clarity about what reflection might look like. In avoiding vague understandings, we need to design teacher education materials which integrate data-led examples of reflective practice so that choices, decisions, puzzles, and scenarios are foregrounded. This not only gives a more concrete idea of what reflection looks like, but it encourages a view that teachers are always in a process of becoming a better teacher. Considerations of appropriacy and fit with context are always and necessarily in a state of flux and accommodation. This is why reflection is important.

In redirecting our focus towards collaborative and spoken processes, we are not suggesting that the autonomous individual is incapable of self-reflection. In


RP or RIP311

any professional development process, collaboration and autonomy are both essential ingredients:

Self-directing persons develop most fully through fully reciprocal relations with other self-directing persons. Autonomy and co-operation are necessary and enhancing values of human life. (Heron 1996: 3)

In the final part of the paper, the need for appropriate reflective tools was high-lighted. The two examples featured above (ad hoc self-observation and stimu-lated recall) are not presented here as uniquely reflective. We consider there to berange of other viable reflective tools (e.g. critical incidents, use of portfolios, cooperative development, narrative inquiry, staffroom talk, and critical friend-ships). The point we seek to make is that we need more data-led accounts of both reflection and any interaction involved and also the outcomes and value of these tools.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Fiona Copland, Keith Richards, Mohammed Manasreh, Heo Jaeyeon and Floricely Dzay Chulim for some help-fulfeedback on earlier versions of this article. We would also like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful responses to our article.

ReferencesAkbari, Ramin. 2007. Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2

teacher education. System 35(2). 192207. Alexander, Robin J. 2008. Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk (4th edition),

Dialogos.Allwright, Richard. 2003. Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language

teaching. Language teaching research 7(2). 113114.Allwright, Richard and James Hanks. 2009. The developing language learner: An introduction to

exploratory practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Argyris, Chris & Donald Schn. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 28. Bailey, Kathleen. 1996. The role of collaborative dialogue in teacher education. In Donald

Freeman & Jack Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching, 260280. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold Coombs, and Leroi Daniels. 2007. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of curriculum studies 31(3). 285302.

Bartlett, Leo. 1990. Teacher development through reflective teaching. In Jack C. Richards and David Nunan (eds.) Second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Bengtsson, Jan. 1995. What is reflection? On reflection in the teaching profession and teacher education. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 1(1) 2332.

Boud, David. 2010. Relocating reflection in the context of practice. In Helen Bradbury, Nick Frost, Sue Kilminster and Miriam Zukas. (Eds.) Beyond reflective practice, 2536. London: Routledge.

Boud, David, Rosemary Keogh and David Walker. 1985. What is reflection in learning? In David Boud, Rosemary Keogh & David Walker (eds.) Reflection: Turning experience into learning, 717. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Bradbury, Helen, Nick Frost, Sue Kilminster and Miriam Zukas (eds). 2010.Beyond reflective practice; new approaches to professional lifelong learning.Abingdon: Routledge.

Brockbank, Anne & Ian McGill. 2007. Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Brookfield, Stephen.D. 1997. Assessing critical thinking. New directions for adult and continuing education, No. 75, 1729.

Brookfield, Stephen. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brumfit, Christopher. 1995. Teacher professionalism and research. In Guy Cook and Barbara

Seidlhofer, (Eds.) Principles and practice in applied linguistics. 2742. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burns, Ann. 1999. Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, Martin. 2005. Applied linguistics: A pragmatic discipline, a generic discipline? Applied Linguistics. 26(4). 568581.

Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison. 2011. Research methods in education. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Dewey, John. 1933. How we think: A re-statement of the relation of reective thinking to the education process. Boston: DC Heath & Co.

Drew, Paul and John Heritage. (eds). 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edge, Julian. 1992. Co-operative development. London: Longman.Edge, Julian. 2001. Action research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.Edge, Julian.2002. Continuing cooperative development: A discourse framework for individuals

as colleagues.Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Edge, Julian. 2011. The reflexive teacher educator in TESOL: roots and wings. London: Routledge.Edwards, Anthony and David Westgate. 1994. Investigating classroom talk. London: Falmer.Farr, Fiona. 2011. True thinking or cosy chats: reflective talk in language teacher education.

Reflection in the round:discourses and practices of reflection in HE. BAAL-CUP Seminar, Westminster Institute of Education, OxfordBrookes University, June 24 2011. Available: https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/RIR/June+24+BAAL_CUP+Seminar.

Farrell, Tom. 2007. Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London: Continuum.

Gray, John and David Block. 2012. The marketisation of language teacher education and neoliberalism. In David Block, John Gray and Marnie Holborow (eds.).Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. 114143. London: Routledge.

Grayling, Anthony. 2003. Meditations for the humanist: Ethics for a secular age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hatton, Neville and David Smith. 1995. Reflection in teacher education: towards definition and implementation. Teaching and teacher education. 11(17). 3349.


RP or RIP313

Heron John. 1996. Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage Publications.

Hobbs, Valerie. 2007. Faking it or hating it: can reflective practice be forced? Reflective practice. 8(3). 405417.

Johns, Christopher. 2000. Becoming a reflective practitioner: a reflective and holistic approach to clinical nursing, practice development and clinical supervision. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Johnson, Karen E. 1995. Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Karen E. and Paula R. Golombek. (Eds.). 2011. Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. London: Routledge.

Kemmis, Robin and Stephen McTaggart. 1992. The action research planner (third edition).Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Killion, John & Geoff Todnem. 1991. A process for personal theory building.Educational Leadership. 48(7). 1416.

Korthagen, Fred. A. J. & Theo Wubbels. 1995. Characteristics of reflective practitioners: towards an operationalization of the concept of reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 1(1). 5172.

Kumaravadivelu, Bernard. 1999. Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2). 453484.

Lantolf, James P. and Karen E. Johnson. 2007. Extending Firth & Wagners ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and teacher education. The Modern Language Journal. 91(5). 875890.

Loughran, John. 2002. Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 51(1). 3343.

Lyle, John.2003.Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research.British Educational Research Journal. 29(6).861878.

Mann, Steve and Steve Walsh. 2011. Shaping reflective tools to context. Paper presented at the reflection in the round: Discourses and practices of reflection at the BAAL/CUP seminar (Oxford Brookes University).

Mann, Steve. 2005. State-of-the-art: the language teachers development. Language Teaching. 38(3). 103118.

Maughan, Chris and John Webb. 2001. Small group learning and assessment. Retrieved August 02c, 2012, from the Higher Education Academy website: www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/temp/assessment.html

McCabe, Mike, Steve Walsh, Ron Wideman and Eileen Winter. 2011. The R word in teacher education: understanding the teaching and learning of critical reflective practice. International electronic journal for leadership in learning.

McLaughlin, T. E.1999. Beyond the reflective practitioner. Educational philosophy and theory. 31(1). 925.

Mezirow, Jack. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Moon, Jennifer. 2004. A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Mortimer, Eduardo and Phillip Scott. 2003. Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Oxford University Press.

Moseley, David, Vivienne Baumfield, Julian Elliott and Steven Higgins. 2005. Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Munby, Hugh and Tom Russell. 1990. Metaphor in the study of teachers professional knowledge. Theory into Practice. 29. 116121.

Pennycook, Alistair. 1994. The cultural politics of English as an international language. Essex: Longman.

Richards, Keith. 1999. Working towards common understandings: Collaborative interaction in staffroom stories.Text.19(1). 143174.

Roberts, Jon. 1998. Language teacher education. London: Arnold.Schn, Donald. 1983. The reective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:

Temple Smith.Schn, Donald. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass Inc.Schn, Donald. 1991. The reflective practitioner. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Scott, Tony. 2004. Creating the subject of portfolios: Reflective writing and the conveyance of

institutional prerogatives. Written communication. 22(3). 326.Semetsky, Inna.2008.On the creative logic of education, or: Re-reading Dewey through the

lens of complexity science.Educational Philosophy and Theory.40(1). 8395.Spiro, Jane and Paul Wickens. 2011. Reflection in the round:Discourses and practices of

reflection in HE. BAAL-CUP Seminar, Westminster Institute of Education, OxfordBrookes University, June 24 2011. Availableat: https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/RIR/June+24+BAAL_CUP+Seminar

van Lier, Leo. 2000. From input to affordance: social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wallace, Michael. 1998. Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Wallace, Michael. 1991. Training foreign language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Walsh, Steve. 2006. Investigating classroom discourse. London and New York: Routledge.Walsh, Steve. 2011. Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London and New York:

Routledge.Wells, Gordon. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Zeichner, Kenneth. 1994. Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice

in teaching and teacher education. In Gunnar Handal, Sveinung Vaage and Ingrid Carlgren (Eds) Teachers minds and actions: Research on teachers thinking and practice. London: The Falmer Press.

Zepke, Nick. 2003. Reflecting-Learning-Teaching. In Nick Zepke, David Nugent & Louis Leach (eds.) Reflection to transformation: A self-help book for teachers. 1733. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press Ltd.

BionotesDr Steve Mann is Associate Professor at the Centre for Applied Linguistics at Uni-versity of Warwick. He is Director of MA ELT programmes. He previously lectured at both Aston University and University of Birmingham. He has experience in


RP or RIP315

Hong Kong, Japan and Europe in both English language teaching and teacher development. His most recent book Innovations in Pre-service Teacher Education (2013) is part of the British Councils new Innovation Series. Steve supervises a research group of PhD students who are investigating teachers education and development. The groups work considers aspects of teacher development, reflec-tive practice and teacher beliefs.

Steve Walsh is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of Postgraduate Re-search in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences at Newcastle University. He has been involved in English Language Teaching for more than 20 years and has worked in a range of overseas contexts, includ-ing Hong Kong, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, Poland and China. Steves research interests include professional discourse, classroom discourse, teacher develop-ment, second language teacher education, educational linguistics and analyzing spoken interaction. He has published extensively in these areas and is the Editor of the journal Classroom Discourse published by Routledge.


rp or rip, a critical perspective on reflective practice, mann and walsh-2013-0013 read - all...

Documents