Received: 22 June 2021

| Revised: 7 August 2022

| Accepted: 28 August 2022

DOI: 10.1002/tesj.677

C O N C E P T UA L F E AT U R E A RT I C L E

Postlesson affordance-­based reflective

discussion in ELT classes

Quang Nhat Nguyen

Faculty of Foreign Languages and

International Cooperation, Nova College, Abstract
Ho Chi Minh City This article points out the need for postlesson affordance-­
based reflective discussions as the traditional outcome-­
based approach does not allow high levels of reflection
to take place. After introducing the iceberg of reflection,
it proposes a theoretical ground for discussions on the
premise of learning affordances. Identifying the learning
opportunities and factors of inhibition, teachers can
holistically assess their teaching practices and orient the
direction of future lessons. The article also suggests that
postlesson affordance-­based discussions should channel
more diverse stakeholders with teacher–­ student
discussions, peer discussions, and self-­discussions based
on the four lenses of critical reflection. Teachers can also
invite different stakeholders in a joint discussion so that
different voices can triangulate and complement each
other. Acknowledging the importance of differential
learning and teaching, the author recommends how
teachers can hold discussions in different classroom
contexts to foster language emergence and empower
learners.

1 | I N T RO DU CT ION

In the postmethods era, teaching should be eclectic, critical, and reflective to cater to different
learner needs in diverse teaching contexts. As student-­centered educational philosophies be-
come the core of education, English language teachers can no longer focus solely on their global
course books or predesigned syllabi when these toolkits may fail to acknowledge differences

© 2022 TESOL International Association.

TESOL Journal. 2022;00:e677.    wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tesj | 1 of 14

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.677
(2 of 14) |    NGUYEN

across learners (Nguyen & Hung, 2020). Because learners’ linguistic developmental trajectories,
zone of proximal development, and physical and psychological factors may vary significantly
(Ellis, 2015), teachers must constantly assess and adapt their teaching practices. In other words,
they need to sensitize themselves to the constant changes in their teaching process to foster
learners’ agency, motivation, and autonomy as well as improve to their academic performance
(Akbari, 2007; Fallah & Abdolrezapour, 2016; Ganah, 2012). Concerning the importance of situ-
ated and context-­based language teaching, it is essential to call for reflective and critical teaching
practices among English language teachers.
Teachers implement various reflective teaching practices throughout their career path,
including joining lesson study, writing teaching journals, conducting action research, prac-
ticing in microteaching sessions, and discussing with their critical friends (Bailey, Curtis, &
Nunan, 2001; Farrell, 2015). Among all activities that English language teachers use in pursuit
of their professional development, discussion is one of the most ubiquitous practices in many
educational institutions worldwide (Bailey et al., 2001). The popularity of discussion as a crit-
ically reflective teaching activity can be attributed to critical ideology positing that education
should be dialogic (Liu, 2017), and it is through dialogue that education becomes democratic.
According to Meddings and Thornbury (2009), education should not be the mere transference
of knowledge but rather communication and dialogue. Freire (2000) stated that dialogic pro-
cesses are essential in fostering social justice and development in education. Thus, discussions
are aimed at enhancing teaching effectiveness and uncovering preordained inequities in the
classroom.
Unfortunately, applying discussion as a reflective teaching practice is not as easy as it sounds.
On the one hand, some teachers falsely assume that critical reflective discussions merely focus
on solving inequalities, fostering social justice, or promoting extracurricular activities, thus
ignoring the role of discussions in enhancing students’ academic performance. On the other
hand, the outcome-­based discussions currently implemented in many institutions can neither
manifest deep levels of reflection nor represent the multifaceted perspectives of different stake-
holders. While discussions are supposed to be critical and reflective, many teachers intuitionally
use them as a forged and demonstrative institutional appraisal ritual without careful consider-
ation and adaptation, pledging that discussions are “inherently superior” and the most “adult”
critical reflective teaching practice (Brookfield, 2017, p. 4). However, without the proactive role
of the reflectors to engage stakeholders, the outcome-­based approach is subjective, superficial,
and unresponsive to the students’ urgent needs. Therefore, this article investigates postlesson
affordance-­based reflective discussion as an alternative to outcome-­based discussions for English
language teachers to simultaneously scaffold learners’ linguistic development and address social
issues in the classroom.

2 | T H E I C E B E RG OF R E FLECTION

Since the 1930s, many scholars have contributed to the conceptualization of reflection and reflec-
tive practices. According to Bugg and Dewey (1934), reflection carries the connotation of deliberate
choice making and decision making regarding actions to implement in teaching. Schön (1983) adds
that it is by reflective practices that educational practitioners make their tacit knowledge explicit.
Van Manen (1991) stated that reflection is not merely embedded in experience; it is experience per
se. Reflection, either association with other activities or in isolation, should account for intellectual
NGUYEN    | (3 of 14)

and affective exploration of experience to discover novel understandings and create appreciation of
the learning and teaching process (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 2013).
As reflection and reflective teaching practices have attracted scholarly attention and become
a common part of the contemporary classroom for more nearly a century, there have been many
attempts to classify reflection into different levels. Noticeably, Fleck (2012) systemized and pro-
posed a multilevel model of reflection, which includes descriptive, dialogic, transformative, and
critical reflection.
Figure 1 represents my adaptation of levels of reflection proposed by Fleck (2012) into an
iceberg model. Descriptive reflection is the superficial tip of the iceberg as it is only a narra-
tive of actions without any multilateral explanation and analysis to bring forward a change
in personal perspective. Dialogic reflection, right below water surface, examines interdepen-
dence and correlations of different experiences through iterative cycles of questioning the un-
derlying reasons for an action and providing alternative interpretations. Following repeated
cycles of dialogic reflection, transformative reflection allows reflective practitioners to revisit
issues with alternative solutions that may create more effective and welcomed outcomes com-
pared to the measures taken in the past. Critical reflection, the deepest level of reflection, goes
beyond the reflection-­on-­action process by looking at what, why, and how an event happened
through an ecological lens that considers social, historical, political, and cultural factors. At
first sight, the word critical may create a hegemonic and paradigmatic connotation that teach-
ers have to address tremendous social issues such as racism, inequality, or discrimination
(Brookfield, 2017). However, critical reflection is, in fact, an iterative process of questioning
and dismantling the so-­called common sense and truth in the classroom, deconstructing these
socially acclaimed norms, and establishing more fundamental radicals to enhance teaching
and learning. In short, critical reflection should aim at reinvestigating common assumptions
in class to enhance the teaching and learning process. Based on this iceberg model, subse-
quent sections of this article discuss the limitations of traditional outcome-­based reflective
discussion and justify why affordance-­based reflective discussion can activate deeper stages
of reflection.

FIGURE 1 The iceberg of reflection (adapted from Fleck's (2012) levels of reflection)
(4 of 14) |    NGUYEN

3 | T H E RI G IDIT Y OF OU TCOME- ­B ASED DISCUSSION:

T H E T I P O F T HE ICE B E RG

Conventionally, teachers plan the lesson, teach it, and finally assess whether learning outcomes,
particularly about modality, key structures, and target vocabulary, are met (Lindahl &
Baecher, 2016). Based on Tyler's (1949) rational-­linear framework, the outcome-­based lesson
plan suggests that lessons are developed as predetermined events that affect the behavioral
changes of all the members of the class when they achieve the teacher's aims, objectives, and
learning outcomes (Crabbe, 2003). The problem is that because most lesson plans are outcome
oriented, the postlesson discussions function as a contract-­ acceptance test. The teaching
practices that should focus on what learners achieve turn out to focus on whether the teacher's
goals, outcomes, and aims are met (Anderson, 2015). Inability to fulfill these aims equates to
the failure of teaching. By merely describing what happened in the classroom and whether they
met the teaching outcomes, teachers touch on only the most visible layer of reflection, which is
descriptive reflection. If most of the class meets the outcomes predetermined by the teacher or
curriculum designers, the reflection process terminates.
In less expected scenarios, the outcome-­based reflective discussion sometimes requires teach-
ers to explain why their lesson plans fail, which initiates some dialogic reflective practices. The
teacher, at this point, may try to investigate the causal relationship leading to their failures. No
matter what reasons lead to their unsuccessful lessons, they are still subjectively portraying stu-
dents through the eyes of the educator. By and large, outcome-­based discussions fail to account
for the natural happenings in the class. Even where they include aspects related to students, they
are just subjective portrayals drawn by the teachers per se. The question is whether teachers can
plan all that the learners learn or whether being taught means learning. It is even nonsensical to
ask students why the lesson fails as they do not decide the outcomes and they are under no obli-
gation to study in a particular manner to achieve the goals that the teacher sets. Furthermore, as
the outcome-­based discussion might be an official part of the appraisal process after other teach-
ers visit and observe a class (Nguyen, 2021), whether a discussion moves to the transformative
stage depends on how willing the observees and observers are to listen and discuss the lesson in
depth. Above all, it is hard to expect any in-­depth critical reflection in outcome-­based discussion
as it contradicts the nature of critical teaching practices. Outcome-­based discussion works on
fundamental assumptions (e.g., teachers assume the level of the class, what linguistic items they
acquire after an arranged activity, or anticipated problems that students encounter). In sharp
contrast, critical reflective practices reject the idea of accepting these so-­called norms and as-
sumptions without listening to other voices. Thus, it might be concluded that outcome-­based
discussions cannot fully cover different reflective levels that foster mutual objective exchanges
in class.

4 | P O ST L ESSON AF FOR DAN C E- ­B ASED REFLECTIVE

DI S C US S I O NS: A M U LT ILE VE L REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

The term affordance was coined by the psychologist James J. Gibson in 1966. In an ecological
context, Gibson defined affordances as the good and the bad an environment offers, provides, or
furnishes its animals (Gibson, 1979). The term has influenced many other sciences, including
English language teaching (ELT) and second language acquisition. In language learning,
affordances are the opportunities and challenges that learners perceive in the environment
NGUYEN    | (5 of 14)

to learn a language (Van Lier, 2004). In the ecological linguistic sense, affordances, offering
potential learning opportunities or inhibitions, come from the semiotic budget of the learning
environment that affords language to emerge. Positive affordances, or learning opportunities, are
effective in developing learner language only if learners perceive and actively interact within and
with the environment. On the other hand, negative affordances play a seminal role in exposing
learners’ weaknesses for teachers to address in order to facilitate the learners in their learning
process.
In line with the affordance-­based lesson planning proposed by Anderson (2015), postlesson
affordance-­based reflective discussions question the focus on the predetermined outcomes. The
ecological linguistic perspective, proposed by Van Lier (2004), posits that language learning should
occur incidentally when learners interact with the environment to absorb linguistic semiotics
rather than just by doing the planned activities. Instead, postlesson affordance-­based reflective
discussions are a forum for teachers and students to analyze what affordances happen in class,
how teachers exploit the positive affordances to support learners’ linguistic acquisition, how each
student with different needs interacts with learning opportunities, and what negative affordances
affect their engagement and motivation in class. The collaborative talks of the classroom provide
teachers with more multilateral perspectives in the form of dialogic reflection. Moreover, because
different stakeholders constantly interpret the classroom affordances through their personalized
lens, they can find their own path to reflection and transform and enhance the learning experience.
These self-­adjustments can create a transformative personalized experience that suits the students’
needs rather than the teacher's subjective plan. Finally, by addressing the causes of negative affor-
dances, members of the class can contemplate the social inhibitors that encourage a “democratic
impulse” to fight classroom injustice (Brookfield, 2017, p. 92). All in all, these aspects of postlesson
affordance-­based reflective discussions manifest all four reflection levels of the iceberg.

5 | CO N D UCT IN G POST LE SSON AFFORDANC E- ­B ASED

REF L ECT I V E DISCU SSION

5.1 | What to focus on

When it comes to affordance-­based reflective discussions, the teacher should pay attention to
(1) what learning opportunities happened in the classroom (positive affordances), (2) what
inhibitions hindered students from their learning process (negative affordances), and (3) what
language emergence the teacher succeeded or failed to work on in class. Anderson (2015)
suggested six kinds of learning opportunities: skills related, systems related, metacognitive/study
skills, affective/social, cognitive, and additional embedded (literacy and numeracy). From the
examples proposed by Anderson, skills-­related learning opportunities are related to linguistic
knowledge. However, this model fails to include learners who learn English for specific/
professional purposes and who use English as a professional medium. And the model excludes
the cultural aspect, which is crucial in world-­readiness standards for English language learners
(ACTFL, 2014). Therefore, this article recommends some additional aspects to complement the
model proposed by Anderson (see Table 1).
Although Anderson (2013) presented only learning opportunities in his article, it is vital for
postlesson discussions to also focus on inhibitions that prevent learners from interacting with
the language in class. When reflecting on negative affordances that prevent students from fully
engaging in a lesson, the teacher must identify the source of inhibitions. Upon identifying these
(6 of 14) |    NGUYEN

TABLE 1 Verbs to describe learning opportunities

Learning opportunities Learners…

Linguistic skills-­related • Improve… (e.g., speaking skills)
• Develop… (e.g., listening skills)
Systems-­related • Consolidate/reinforce/expand (e.g., knowledge of adjectives and verbs
to describe a festival)
• Improve their ability to use/proceduralize their knowledge of… (e.g.,
the present simple to describe habitual actions)
• Notice/become more sensitive to… (e.g., the use of spoken discourse
markers to soften assertions)
School/job-­related • Improve work-­related skills (e.g., telephone communication in
English)
• Develop self-­efficacy (e.g., confidence about resolving disputes at
work)
Metacognitive/study-­skills • Develop/improve their ability to… (e.g., infer the meaning of
unfamiliar words from context)
• Develop strategies for… (e.g., paraphrasing unknown words)
Affective/social • Gain confidence in… (e.g., sharing personal preferences)
• Recognize… (e.g., mutual interest)
Cultural • Sympathize/gain awareness of/reflect… (e.g., relationships
between cultures, relationships between cultural products, cultural
perspectives)
• Notice… (e.g., similarities and differences between their monolingual
family and intercultural workplace environment)
Cognitive • Develop/improve their ability to… (e.g., identify potential problems in
a business plan)
• Develop strategies for… (e.g., evaluating the arguments of a writer)
Additional embedded (literacy • Develop literacy skills (e.g., spelling, copying, note-­taking using newly
and numeracy) studied lexis)
• Improve basic numeracy (e.g., converting a test score into a
percentage)
Note. Adapted from ACTFL (2014); Anderson (2015).

aspects, the teacher may understand whether learning cannot occur due to temporary or perma-
nent inhibition factors. Also, this gives insight into whether the lesson's success or lack thereof
comes from intramural or extramural reasons. Then, the teacher will know if the class requires a
change in teaching approach or lesson content.
Table 2 provides five potential groups of inhibition in ELT classes that postlesson affordance-­
based reflective discussions may help reveal: pedagogical, psychological, sociocultural, cognitive
and metacognitive, and linguistic. Pedagogical inhibitions relate to how teachers’ techniques,
methods, approaches, or philosophy may impede students’ learning process. By attending to ped-
agogical inhibitions, teachers can initiate the critical thinking process that redresses the power
imbalance in the classroom. For example, some teachers require total discipline in their class-
room, but students with a kinesthetic learning style may find it hard to study when they are not
allowed to move around or play games to learn in class. Also, experientialism can be misleading
by connecting years of experience to teaching effectiveness (Brookfield, 2017). Thus, when ob-
serving and discussing problems coming from pedagogical aspects, teachers can reduce their
impostership and stimulate learner-­centeredness.
NGUYEN    | (7 of 14)

TABLE 2 Some factors of inhibition for ELT learners

Factors of inhibition Example
Pedagogical Punishment, teacher–­student distance, stressful class rapport, irregular
attendance, teacher's impostership, unsuitable teaching techniques,
lack of teachers’ support
Psychological and Fear of evaluation and testing, anxiety, aggression, burnout, lesson
physiological staleness, loss of interest, disentanglement, age, negative L1 transfer,
medical problems, low motivation, self-­esteem, ego, burnout, health-­
related issues
Sociocultural Religious prohibitions, cultural conflicts, vocational pressure,
environmental distractions, familial issues, microaggression,
discrimination, racism, sexism, language imperialism, generation
gaps, ideological gaps, hatred toward L2 due to colonization or
invasion
Cognitive/metacognitive Learning content overload, unfamiliarity with new teaching/learning
techniques, unfamiliarity with testing and assessment techniques,
mismatch in learning and teaching styles, cognitive immaturity, lack
of problem-­solving skills, lack of self-­study skills
Linguistic L1 being forbidden, overreliance on L1, low L1 proficiency to understand
instructions or discuss personal problems, inadequate language
ability to uptake teachers’ feedback, language transfer issues (false
friends, sociolinguistic gaps)

Psychological and physiological inhibitors are factors from learners’ biological and mental
features, such as burnout or low motivation, that may affect their studies. While some of these is-
sues are obvious, such as health-­related academic performance, others can be explored in discus-
sion only when there is mutual trust between students and teachers. By understanding learners’
physiological nature, teachers can initiate dialogic reflection or accept that problems sometimes
come from health-­related issues that are uncontrollable for teachers and learners.
Sociocultural inhibitions require reflective discussion to uncover the critical layer. For in-
stance, some sociocultural traits are instilled in many cultures that prevent teachers from imple-
menting communicative language teaching because students are expected not to talk or debate
with teachers. Also, learning may be inhibited in a classroom that allows racism, sexism, or other
types of discrimination. While teachers can deal with microaggression on the spot, sociocultural
conflicts that hinder the learning process may come from deep-­rooted macro issues in each soci-
ety. Teachers, however, should remember that the desire to address all of the issues unsolvable by
the whole society in an ELT class would be overambitious. Cognitive and metacogintive inhibi-
tions, such as content overload or cognitive immaturity, are latent factors that require teachers to
have both sensitivity and criticality to recognize. Admittedly, cognitive and metacognitive over-
load can be easily mistaken for mental laziness if teachers only judge students based on the mere
description of their in-­class learning behaviors.
The final inhibition group rests on learners’ underdeveloped linguistic knowledge. As some
teachers hold extreme assumptions (e.g., not allowing code-­switching as it can ruin the target
language, allowing only English in class; Sampson, 2012), discussion with other stakeholders
about these linguistic assumptions can curb students’ difficulty in an ELT class.
It is important to understand that Table 2 is not exhaustive, and teachers should consider their
own teaching context to clearly understand what negative affordances impede their learners’ ac-
quisition of the target language. Another caveat is that although some inhibitions are universal
(8 of 14) |    NGUYEN

for all language learners, there are also hindrances that only an individual learner or a group of
learners experience due to certain distinctive characteristics. For example, anxiety and learning
content overload are ubiquitous in any classroom, and all language learners have to experience
these moments throughout their learning path (Ellis, 2015; Thornbury, 2006). In addition, mis-
matches between learning and teaching styles in the classroom exemplify a common factor that
can cause frustration and impede the language learning process (Peacock, 2001). On the other
hand, there are differential inhibitors that only a specific group of EFL learners experience. For
example, the language ego permeability hypothesis posits that while giving up control over self-­
presentation is necessary to learn a new language, postpuberty learners are more reluctant to
leave their ideal self-­image than younger learners (Arnold & Brown, 1999). Also, falling victim
to racist or sexist microaggressions can inhibit some learners from acquiring knowledge (Cho &
Johnson, 2020; Ramjattan, 2020). Teachers can modify their teaching or seek additional help from
the school authority or parents to support students’ language learning by focusing on these nega-
tive affordances. All in all, constant reflection is the ultimate key to critical and sensitive teaching.

5.2 | Stakeholders and interactional patterns in postlesson

affordance-­based reflective discussions

Although traditional postlesson outcome-­based discussions are usually conducted among teach-
ers after an observation session, postlesson affordance-­based reflection requires a diversity of
stakeholders during the reflection process. Brookfield (2017) argued that for the deepest level
of reflection, critical reflection, to take place, discussion must be conducted through four in-
terrelated lenses: the students’ perception, a colleague's perception, personal experience, and
theoretical orientation. Foremost among these lenses is the students’ perception, because they
are at the center of this discussion as they directly experience the affordances in class (Connolly
& Smith, 2002; Wade, 1994). Virtually no well-­informed decision about various aspects, from
sequencing activities, providing scaffolding, or organizing group patterns to constructing as-
signments, can be made without teachers’ awareness and knowledge of what is happening with
students or what is going on in students’ minds (Brookfield, 2015). In the second lens of reflec-
tion, a colleague is invited to a reflection discussion. The colleague should be a friend in whom
the teacher can confide without fear of losing face and who is critical, professional, and hon-
est enough to provide constructive feedback even when the truth can be detrimental to friend-
ship (Nguyen, 2021). The third lens is based on the teacher's personal experience as a learner.
However, a teacher's lens can depend on teaching experience as a teacher learns from success
and failure when working with different classes. Finally, affordance-­based reflective discussions
should be conducted considering theoretical literature, as it can curb teachers’ impostership
and provide them with different perspectives on familiar teaching situations (Brookfield, 2002).
To apply Brookfield's four lenses, it is suggested that teachers hold discussions with students,
colleagues, and themselves separately or combine different stakeholders in one discussion (see
Figure 2).
Figure 2 shows various forms of postlesson affordance-­based reflective discussions. When
discussing with the students, one possibility is that teachers might start with general concepts
like what the students want, what they need, and what they value about learning English.
After that, the discussion can focus on the activities they think created the most interest and
the most positive learning opportunities. Next, learners can talk about their negative learn-
ing experiences or inhibitions, with a short explanation of why they might have happened.
NGUYEN    | (9 of 14)

FIGURE 2 Dynamics of affordance-­based post-­lesson discussions

Finally, the class can discuss what they think may or may not help their learning process in
the future and give some critical justification for their ideas. Teachers should take a step back
and let students lead the discussion to increase their agency. However, teachers should facili-
tate and moderate the students’ discussion to maintain its foci. Ideally, this discussion can be
incorporated frequently into the last part of the classroom content as a post-­task, as it also fos-
ters conversations for language to emerge. The discussion also may be recorded for teachers to
later reflect on and adjust their teaching practices. Then, teachers can analyze learners’ needs
and preferences before adding supplementary content to the tailor-­made teaching menu of
each specific class to serve the linguistic and cultural diversity of the students, instead of fol-
lowing the premade syllabus provided in the course book (Lindahl & Watkins, 2014). Under
certain circumstances, student–­teacher discussions can be a one-­on-­one session with a stu-
dent who has some sensitive personal problems (e.g., the death of a family member) that
create negative learning affordances or those to whom teachers find it necessary to give more
individual attention.
Regarding Meddings and Thornbury's (2009) suggestion to discuss lessons with like-­minded
teachers, it is necessary to underscore the affordances in the classroom rather than teaching and
(10 of 14) |    NGUYEN

learning outcomes. When exchanging notes, teachers can be critical friends who ask for deeper
reflection rather than merely a description of the lesson. This discussion should propose such
main questions as the following:

1. What learning affordances happened in class? What scope and degree of influence on
students did they have?
2. How appropriate were the teacher's choices of activities to afford students language emergence
and eliminate factors of inhibition?
3. What should the teacher change for the next class or about themselves? What should be the
topic of the following discussion?

Discussions with other teachers after peer observation should focus on these questions.
Teachers should bear in mind that there can be extensions of the discussion. For example, if the
observation is for appraisal purposes, students should join some part of the discussion to trian-
gulate the observer's judgment. The observers and observed teachers can discuss what they will
change if they teach that lesson again in the future. They can also discuss their personal profes-
sional development goals with each other.
What also matters to each teacher is self-­discussion. Although other researchers call this activity
self-­reflection, I prefer the term self-­discussion as it fits the dialogic and objective nature of critical
discussion. In self-­discussion, teachers should wear different hats rather than trying to describe the
class subjectively. They can imagine themselves in the place of other stakeholders to critically attack
and defend the logic of the lesson. For example, they can role-­play as students and think about their
feelings to see if they are overloaded with the teacher's talk or bored with repetitive and monoto-
nous activities. The diversity of discussion types and the information teachers gather from each
discussion type could lead to a coordinated decision on what direction the ensuing lessons should
aim for to ensure learner development. In cases where other stakeholders think about the class in a
way that is significantly different from a teacher's initial assumptions, teachers should spend more
time on self-­discussion and consulting current research literature to make sure their teaching suits
the learners’ authentic needs and avoid being overconfident about their personal experience.
A possible option is that teachers can jointly host a session to talk to more than one side of
the stakeholders (Brookfield, 2017). For example, if two teachers coteach a class, it is possible
that they have different interpretations of the students’ characteristics and problems, thus hold-
ing a discussion that accommodates both of them and their students allows their perspectives
to complement each other. On the other hand, if teachers are participating in demonstrative
teaching sessions, they can discuss with their peers and reflect on the demonstrative teaching
by themselves. It is noteworthy that regardless of whether discussions are conducted with other
colleagues or with students, teachers should always take some time to reflect on whether what
their friends or their students suggest comports with their own experience. Should there be any
conflict between these perspectives, consulting current academic reference sources mindfully
and openly might be a viable option to consider before reaching a final decision.

5.3 | How should teachers hold postlesson affordance-­based

reflective discussions in different contexts?

The first aspect for consideration is class size. Teachers can discuss their teaching directly with the
class in smaller classes, but students in larger classes may group discussions first before sharing
NGUYEN    | (11 of 14)

their opinions with the whole class. For a large class with more reserved students or a lower level
class, teachers should let them discuss their lesson first in small groups. Strategic grouping creates a
safe environment necessary for reflective learning before teachers can help students step out of their
comfort zone (Cohen et al., 2019). It is not necessary to ask all the students in a class at once about
the affordances that they encounter. Instead, teachers can divide the class into small groups of about
10 students and let them alternately join discussions in different lectures. Reflection can occur only
when students fully trust the teacher, so teachers should remain silent until they feel secure enough
to share their thinking publicly in large classes. When students come from diverse social back-
grounds, teachers need to pay attention to those with limited opportunities to participate or who are
potentially threatened by other members in class (e.g., due to bullying or racism). Through discus-
sion with specific groups of students, teachers can initiate a multitier system of trauma-­informed
and inclusive pedagogy. By holding small-­group discussions with vulnerable students, teachers can
identify which learning or assessment content may be sensitive to them and thus can censor these
topics or find approaches to deliver them in a less threatening manner. Dialogues after classes with
victims of bullying, sexism, or racism can be informative for the school authority so that they can
step in to prevent possible mental or physical damage. Also, these students should be informed that
they can discuss their problems safely and anonymously in case of emergency through specific hot-
lines or online platforms so that they can receive constant support from teachers or the authority.
Another factor to consider when holding a postlesson affordance-­based discussion is the learn-
ers’ age. In a class of young learners, postlesson affordance-­based discussions are not necessarily
formal and serious meetings. Instead, teachers can gamify the discussion by asking students to
write in their first language (L1) what they learned and how they felt about the lesson then post the
notes on the board as quickly as possible. Teachers then can analyze what activities students like
or hate to incorporate in the following lessons. It is advisable to keep their questions as vivid and
straightforward as possible and reward students when they join in the sharing sessions, as young
learners’ cognition has not fully developed (Harmer, 2007). In contrast, one of the most common
problems for adult learners is their language ego (Pennington, 2019). Talking about problems, es-
pecially personal issues, may be face-­threatening for adult learners. Thus, teachers can allow them
to remain silent if they are anxious and talk to them privately later about their inhibitions when
they seek help. Sometimes teachers can strategically absent themselves from one or two lessons
in the whole course and have a substitute teacher come to observe the class. Through colleagues’
perspectives, teachers can have more objective opinions of how the class works.
Conducting postlesson affordance-­based reflective discussions is crucial but usually forgotten
in exam-­oriented courses. Preparatory courses for proficiency exams are ubiquitous, especially
in many Asian nations where English is one of the core subjects in the national curriculum and
is a gatekeeper that learners have to pass before they can enter university (Hamid, 2015; Nguyen
& Nghia, 2021). As learners in this context are usually put under immense pressure from family,
friends, and teachers, an affordance-­based discussion is even more crucial to prevent nervous
breakdown or emotional crisis. Although this form of discussion does not need to occur every
day, some class sharing once a week or once every 2 weeks is worth considering. Teachers can
discuss how to apply the knowledge acquired from mock tests and preparatory handouts to daily
conversation or how relevant the reading passages are to the learners’ community. Also, teachers
can share their personal experience about when they were still learners or let students talk about
factors of inhibition like family or peer pressure to release their tensions. By exchanging and
guiding students about authentic communication during these discussions, teachers can open
up more learning opportunities and counterbalance the overemphasis on learning academic
English just for the sake of testing and evaluation.
(12 of 14) |    NGUYEN

Teachers can sometimes combine objectives by incorporating postlesson affordance-­based

discussion into a review session using task-­based language teaching or Dogme tasks. Unplugged
from the day-­to-­day syllabus, these dialogic and real-­world tasks create an environment where
both teachers and students are empowered to free themselves from the course books and pre-
made syllabi. Before engaging the task, it is advisable to provide students with the categories of
affordances as presented in Tables 1 and 2 in order to help them activate their schemata and ex-
perience their learning process. While students reflect on the classroom affordances, the teacher
can move around the class and provide them with linguistic supports, such as lexical or gram-
matical items. The dialogic processes and interactions are likely to foster supportive and non-
threatening social conditions that learners can freely engage with while allowing new linguistic
knowledge to emerge, thus supporting learners’ development of the target language.

6 | CO N C LUSION

The complexity of learning contexts and learner characteristics can create many challenges for
teachers. Outcome-­based discussion works on the premise of assumptions and may not fully
accommodate different levels of reflection. This research has shown that postlesson affordance-­
based reflective discussions can be a pivotal alternative to help teachers critically dismantle the so-­
called long-­existing truth in teaching and learning. Postlesson affordance-­based reflective discussion
is responsive to students’ real here-­and-­now needs and open to constructive voices of different
stakeholders. In order for postlesson discussions to become valuable for the teaching process,
I propose that teachers should (1) base their discussions on affordances; (2) vary the discussion's
interaction patterns, including student–­teacher discussions, self-­discussions, and teacher-­teacher
discussions; and (3) sequence and adapt teaching content according to the results of the discussions.
Based on the ideas of affordance-­based teaching presented by Anderson (2015) and critical
reflection presented by Brookfield (2017), postlesson affordance-­based reflective discussion in-
cludes all levels of reflection so that, in class, it addresses assumptions that may be inappropriate
but are deep-­rooted. Postlesson affordance-­based discussion should foster a transformative and
authentic learning-­centered teaching approach. English language teachers and administrators
should also consider affordance-­based discussion in their classrooms as a daily reflective teach-
ing practice as it can cater to different learning contexts, empower learners, and encourage au-
thentic language emergence.
Although I have tried my best to provide some pedagogical suggestions for teachers to con-
sider when conducting postlesson affordance-­based reflective discussions, these suggestions are
not intended to be exhaustive. Teachers are encouraged to reflect on their own teaching contexts
to adjust the approach and foci of their discussion. Further studies can be conducted on teachers’
and students’ perceptions when conducting this form of discussion, its effectiveness in teacher
education, and how learners’ linguistic development can benefit from postlesson affordance-­
based reflective discussion.

THE AUTHOR

Quang Nhat Nguyen is currently Dean of Faculty of Foreign Languages and International
Cooperation at Nova College, in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. His scope of research interests
NGUYEN    | (13 of 14)

includes teacher education, computer-­assisted language learning, sociolinguistics, English lan-

guage teaching methodology, Dogme ELT, and liberal/critical education.

ORCID
Quang Nhat Nguyen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9149-5066

REFERENCES
ACTFL. (2014). World-­readiness standards for learning languages world-­readiness standards for learning languages.
http://www.actfl.org/publi​catio​ns/all/world​-­readi​ness-­stand​ards-­learn​ing-­langu​ages
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education.
System, 35, 192–­207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.12.008
Anderson, J. (2015). Affordance, learning opportunities, and the lesson plan pro forma. ELT Journal, 69, 228–­238.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv008
Arnold, J., & Brown, D. (1999). Introduction: A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning
(pp. 1–­24). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The self as source (Vol. I). Boston,
MA: Heinle and Heinle
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.) (2013). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In Reflection: Turning
Reflection into Learning (pp. 18–­40). London, UK: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. D. (2002). Using the lenses of critically reflective teaching in the community college classroom. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(118), 31–­38. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.61
Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bugg, E. G., & Dewey, J. (1934). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process(Vol. 46, pp. 8–­10. New York, NY: Heath & Co Publishers.
Cho, H., & Johnson, P. (2020). Racism and sexism in superhero movies: Critical race media literacy in the
Korean high school classroom. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(2), 66–­86. https://doi.
org/10.18251/​ijme.v22i2.2427
Cohen, M., Buzinski, S. G., Armstrong-­Carter, E., Clark, J., Buck, B., & Reuman, L. (2019). Think, pair, freeze: The
association between social anxiety and student discomfort in the active learning environment. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5(4), 265–­277. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl00​00147
Connolly, B., & Smith, M. W. (2002). Teachers and students talk about talk: Class discussion and the way it should
be. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(1), 16–­26. https://doi.org/10.2307/40017502
Crabbe, D. (2003). The quality of language learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 9–­34. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3588464
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Fallah, E., & Abdolrezapour, P. (2016). An investigation into the impact of reflective teaching on EFL learners
autonomy and intrinsic motivation. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(4), 305–­315. https://doi.
org/10.18844/​cjes.v10i4.229
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London, England: Bloomsbury.
Fleck, R. (2012). Rating reflection on experience: A case study of teachers’ and tutors’ reflection around images.
Interacting With Computers, 24, 439–­449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.07.003
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. London, England: Bloomsbury.
Ganah, A.(2012). Motivating weak students: A critical discussion and reflection. Education, 133(2), 248–­258.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. London, England: Allen and Unwin.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hamid, M. O. (2015). Policies of global English tests: Test-­takers’ perspectives on the IELTS retake policy.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37, 472–­487. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596​
306.2015.1061978
Harmer, J.(2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman.
(14 of 14) |    NGUYEN

Lindahl, K., & Baecher, L. (2016). Teacher language awareness in supervisory feedback cycles. ELT Journal, 70,
28–­38. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv047
Lindahl, K., & Watkins, N. M. (2014). What's on the “LO” menu? Supporting academic language objective devel-
opment. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(5), 197–­203. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00098​655.2014.918531
Liu, K. (2017). Creating a dialogic space for prospective teacher critical reflection and transformative learning.
Reflective Practice, 18, 805–­820. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623​943.2017.1361919
Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching unplugged Dogme in English language teaching. London, England:
Delta.
Nguyen, Q. N.(2021). Revisiting peer classroom observations as a teacher professional development protocol:
A critical theoretical review of global practices. Vietnam Journal of Education, 5(2), 10–­20. https://doi.
org/10.52296/​vje.2021.71
Nguyen, Q. N., & Hung, B. P. (2020). The Dogme approach: A radical perspective in second language teaching
in the post-­methods era. Journal of Language and Education, 6(3), 173–­184. https://doi.org/10.17323/​
jle.2020.10563
Nguyen, Q. N., & Nghia, V. N. D. (2021). Task-­based language teaching to enhance learner communicative compe-
tence in Vietnam: A matter of opinion? International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(8),
151–­159. https://doi.org/10.32996/​ijllt.2021.4.8.22
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 11, 1–­20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-­4192.00001
Pennington, M. C. (2019). “Top-­down” pronunciation teaching revisited. RELC Journal, 50, 371–­385. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00336​88219​892096
Ramjattan, V. A.(2020). Engineered accents: International teaching assistants and their microaggression learn-
ing in engineering departments. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–­16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562​
517.2020.1863353
Sampson, A. (2012). Learner code-­ switching versus English only. ELT Journal, 66, 293–­303. https://doi.
org/10.1093/elt/ccr067
Schön, D. A. (Ed.) (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. In The reflective practitioner:
How professionals think in action (pp. 49–­55). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Thornbury, S. (2006). An A–­Z of ELT (2nd ed.). London, England: Macmillan.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 90–­96). Boston,
MA: Kluwer Academic.
Van Manen, M. (1991). Reflectivity and the pedagogical moment: The normativity of pedagogical thinking and
acting. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 507–­536. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220​27910​230602
Wade, R. C. (1994). Teacher education students’ views on class discussion: Implications for fostering critical reflec-
tion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(2), 231–­243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-­051X(94)90015​-­9

How to cite this article: Nguyen, Q. N. (2022). Postlesson affordance-­based reflective

discussion in ELT classes. TESOL Journal, 00, e677. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.677