BY TxoMAs

FInRELL

in ESL/EFL eflective practice is becoming a dominant paradigm

teacher education programs worldwide' Reflection-in-teaching
of teachre{ers to teac}rers subjecting their l-reiiefs and practices

hc
oFi
-

ing to a critical analysis. However, the concept of reflective

teaching

is not clearlv defined, and a piethora of

different

have been pushed in teacher education approaches with sometimes con{using rneanings

to reflective teaciring and then programs. This article revier,vs some current approaches

]-t a\ \J rt bU
-

for ESL/EFL teachers to reflect on their: suggests a method of providing opporlunities

teaching and critically reflective teachwork. The article seeks to examine: 1) reflective teaching. Five components of a teacher ing and. 2) the dif{erent approaches to reflective

{or practicing ESL/EFI- teachers are development model that can provide opportunities
discussed. One clay a young girl rvas watching her mother cooking a roast ofbeef' Just before the mother put the roast in the pot, she cut a slice off the encl. The ever observant daughter
askecl her mother why she had done that, and

C)

FiB
l*-

o
l-

(I992:5I) fu rther proposes a rellective/developmental orientalion "as a tneans for (1) improving classroom Processes and outcomes, and (2) developing confident, selfmotivated teachers and learners'" The focus here is on anaiysis' feedback, and adaptation

OT
of/t

the mother responded that her grandmother

hacl always done

it. Later that same afternoon' the mother was curious, so she called irer mother and asked her the same question' Her mother, the child's grandmother, said that in

as atr ongoing and recursive cycle

classrootl.

in

the

In a more recent article,

Pennington

(1995:706) says that teacher change and

clevelopment require an awareness o{ a need to change. She defined teacher development as "a metastabie system of context-interactive change involving a continual c-vcle of innovaLjre behatjor and adjustrnenl to cirnttnr-

her day she had to trim the roasts because

-{J: a\
l;

they were usually too big for a regular pot' Teaching without any reflection can lead to

"...cutting the slice off the roast," and can also lead to burnout on the job' One way of

+r:
-F
10

\JA o a\ Vo-

identifying routine and of counteracting

burnout is to engage in reflective teaching'

stances." She sees two key colltponents of chartse: innovation arrd critical reflectiorr' In

h", iudr:oT hoil.rgl'tt*=t.""durr

What is reflection?

In a review of the literature on reflective teaching, one discovers that there is much variance in the definition' Penr-rington Q992:al defines reflective teaching as
"delibelating on experience, and that of mirroring experience." She also ertends this idea

Iea.hets through a change cycle as they Iearned moved about innovatior-r, she noted that through "deep reflection, teachers were able to reconstruci a teaching framework io incorporate the

previousl,v contradictory
(1995:725).

elements"

al:

O*

to reflective learning. Pennington (7992:47) relates development to reflection where

"reflectiot'r is viewed as the input for development rvhile also reflection is viewed as the

Richards (1990:5) sees reflection as a key component of teacher developrnent' He says

that self-inquiry and critical thinking

can

"he1p teachers move from a ievel where thev

output of developtnent'"

Pennington

may be guided largeli' by impulse' intuition' or routine, to a level'lvhere their actions are

Ocr-Dec

1998

'

ENGLIsH

TEAcHING

FoRUM

Reflection Type and Author

Technical Rationality (Schulman 1987; VanMannen 1977)

Content of Reflection
Examining one's use of skills and immediate behaviors in teaching with an established research/theory base.

Reflection-in-action (Schon, 1983,

1987)

Dealing with on{he-spot professional problems as they occur. Thinking can be recalled and ihen shared later.

Reflection-on-action (Schon 1983, 1987; Hatton and Smith 1995; Gore and Zeichner 1991)
n -for-action (Killon and Todnew 1991)

Recalling one's teaching after the class. Teaching gives reasons for his/her actions/behaviors in class.

I
Ref lectio

Proactive thinking in order to guide future action.

Recent research

on reflective
Action Research (Carr and

1986)

Kemmis

Self-reflective enquiry by participants in social settings to improve practice.

TnerE

practice has used

1

different and

guided b), re{lection and critical thinking." In refening to criiicai reflection in an interview with Faneii (1995:95), Richards says: "Critical reflection refers to an activity or .\process in wh-rch experience is recailed. considered, and evaluated, usuall,v in relation to a broader purpose. It is a response to a past experience and involves conscious recall and examination of the experience as a basis for

and sometime (a milieu)." Dewey (1933:9)

sees a
sa-vs

conflicting terms to define reflective

teaching. I

further distinction in teaching rvhen he "routine teaching takes place when the

means are probiematic but the ends are taken

for granted." However. he sees reflective aq&n as entailing "active, p"r.;.tifrTril careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowiedge in light of the
grounds that supporl it and the furlher consequences to nhich it leads."

evaluation and decision-making and as

source for planning and action."

Outside TESOL, the terms involving

reflection become less clear. The definitions move from simply looking at the behavioral aspects of teaching, to the beliefs and knowledge these acts of teaching are based on, to
the deeper social meaning the act of teaching has on ihe community.

According
(

to

Recent research on reflective practice has used different and conflicting terms to define reflective teaching. Table 1 gives a summary ofthe major approaches to the study ofreflective practice. The first t-vpe of refl ecilon" lechnical rationfu, examines teaching behaviors and skills after an event, such as a class. The focus of
refl

Zeichner and Liston

e

ectionisoneff ective_,+ppli-c-e]3o-!..o{."lf l1lt

98

7 :3

4)

persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge. Routine action is guided primariiy by tradition, external authority. and circumstances." Zeichner and Liston (1987:87) define teach-

lq3:-tllg_egjes:'

nt ail s th e acti

ve,

and technidai

k";*i"G

i,.,

th"

(\hnMannenlqT?), ilso focuies on ^ra-ii cognitive aspects of teaching (Schulman 1987). Many beginning teachers start to

"iu.rioo*

ing as "taking place when someone (a teacher) is teaching someone (a student)

about something (a curriculum) at some place

examine their skills from this perspective in controlled situaiions with immediate feedback from teacher educators. The beginning teacher is trving to cope with the new situation ofthe classroom (Fuller 1970).

Er.rct-rsH TEAcHTNG Fonun

Ocr-DEc

1998

11

The second notion of reflective practice is c alled2gfle*tiauln:onli9 L Echon I 983, 1 987). For this to occur. the teacher has to have a kind of knowing-in-action. Knowing-in-action is analogous to seeing and recognizing a face

and Todnew (1991:15) argue that reflectionfor-action is the desired outcome of both pre-

vious types of reflection, reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action; however. they say that "we undertake reflection, not so much to
rer-isit the past or to become aware of the meta

in a

crowd without "listing" and piecing

together separate features; the knowledge we

reveal

in our intelligent action is publicly

,/
"We undertake

observable, but we are unable to make it verball-v explicit. Schon (1987) says that rve can sometimes make a description of the tacit, but that these descriptions are symboiic constructions; knowledge-in-action is dynamic, facts are static. For Schon (1983, 1987), thought is embedded in action and knowledge-in-action is the center of professional practice' Reflection-in-action, again according io Schon (t 983, I 987), ilseugerle,{y.ftJHqk ine ahout what-rve are doins in the classroom --'.--....:., .'".* :)-----F-: arf _dsrn&iL-this thirrking is supr' hile ,ue pn."d tn reshape whal ue are doing. There is a sequence of "moments" in a process of reflection-in-action: (a) A situation or action o(.cLl15 lo nhi,'h we bling spontaneous routinized responses. as in knowing-in-action; (b) Routine responses produce a surprise. an unexpected outcome for the teacher that does not fit into categories of knowing-in-action. This then gets our attention; (c) This surprise Ieacls to re{lection within an action. This

cognitive process one is experiencing (both noble reasons in themselves) but to guide future action (the more practical purpose)." The fifth notion of reflection is connected to action research. Action research is the

ffi;mfiio.';fmose

craft-knowledge values of teaching that hold in place our habits when

we are teaching (McFee 1993)'

It

concerns

tlre transforrnation uf resear-ch, i-qqo-a.clion.'

ii{'ffi;-(ied5' t?8) ;;t;, (1) a particular kind of practice-one in

research into

="ftls

{{

reflection, not so
much to revisit the past or to become aware of the meta

cognitive process one is experiencing (both noble reasons in themselves) but to

guide future action (the more practical purpose)."
T

reflection is to some level conscious but need not occur in the rlredium of words; (d) Reflection-in-action has a critical function. It
questions the structure of knowing-in-action.
N

ow

we

-tlrink cr-itic

ally {,otr t f E=qhga\ i n g

thalg--o-i=l1s-

(e) Refleclllere in tlieTirst place;

tiorr gires ri"e lo on-the-spot experimentalion. Ste think up and try out new actions intended

to erplore newly observed situations or happenings. Schon (1983, 1987) says that reflection-in-action is a reflective conversation with tlre materials ol a situation.

which there is a cr#t-knorvleclge, and (2) is research basecl on a particular model of knowiedge and research with action as ouicome...tl.ris knowledge is practicai knowledge." Carr and I(emmis (1986:182) say that aqrirpj]seg-$i: "is a form nf self-refleltire i r1 und ellaken hy part ic i pan I " lteachet s. "i-qu or principals, for example) in social situations in order to improve the rationaiity and justice of (a) their own social or educational practic,es, (b) their understanding of these practices, and (c) the situations (and institutions) in which these practices are carried out." We can see then, that there is a big difference be1!-99! reflecjive q4 {*Ioqti action. If the review of the literature of reflec4-i'iiFTeachi ng leveal s differen t deli nit ions of the concept, the same is true for definitions of critical reflection. Outside TESOL, Hatton il St-t1iltSDil35) point out that the term critical reflection, "iike reflection itself, appears to be used loosely, some taking it to mean more than constructive self-criticism of one's action with a view to improvement."

Hatton and Srnith (1995:35),

po
i

however,

The third notion of reflection is calied

reflection
_o:'t

-gcti.gn. Refl ection-on-action deals

withth_ink1gg'hack-ln.whar-u,e-ha.y-e,-d-qtp._,l9_ discovgl.lu,l*o-urh1*olyltc_r!4 .-1gtlgl.Tly.F:" cprrllr!*ulc"d. te 'an *Uge-J_12g. st_cd ec_llpn (Schon

1987; Hatton and Smith 1995). This includes

nt opuhelth_e_ c,9!99pl9! -c_l!gg!e!9gUn "implies the acceptance of a particular ideology." This view of critical reflection in teaching also cails folgo!,liderations o{ moral and gtbi"rl problerns aAdi.., iggTfeore ;ii1 Zeichner 1991; V-anMannen 1977), and it also

reflecting on our reflecting-in-action, or

thinking about the \{ay we think, but it is clifferent lrom refl ect ing-i n-actiorr. The founh notion of reflection is called l*9lio!fu99Jfu. Reflection-for-action is different from the previous notions of reflection in that it is proactive in nature. Kiilon

involves "making judgments llgy-! .'yltSfut professional activity is equitable. just. and

*.pst'n

-E-S"..-"lt:

Smith 1995:35). Therefore, the lvicler sociohistoricai and political-cultural contexts can also be included in critical reflection (Zeichner and Liston 1987; Schon 1983, 1987).

-[?,"T-

rfiutron

*a

12

Ocr-DEc

1998

Erucltsn

TElcutt'tc

Fonuv

In TESOL, too, ihe term critical reflection

has been used rather lo6sely.

ii1iffi1T[900

does not distinguish between reflection and critical reflection. Neither does he take the broader aspect of society into consideration

7. Prouide diffirent opportunities. A range of activities should be providecl for teachers to reflect on their work. These actirities can be carried out alone, in pairs, or as a group. A group of teachers may clecide to do one of the activities or a comliination oi any or all of them. Group discusslons. Group discussion-* can simply be a group of teachers who come together for regular rneetings to reflect orr their work. A teacher trairer (or moilerator) shouid provide encouragement ancl suppofi
fcrr the group.

when defining reflective practice. Similarly, Day's (1993) ideai of analytical reflection
does not talk about the broader society. Also, Pennington (1995: 1 06) defines critical refl ec-

tion as "the process o{ information gained

through innovation in relation to the teacher's existing schema for teaching." Again, the broader aspect of society does not play a sig-

nificant role in her definition of critical

reflection. However, Bartlett (1990:204) sees a need Lo inblmle-ThF*6loill"r society in any definition of critical reflection. He says that in order for teachers to become criticaily reflective, they have to "transcend the technicalities of teaching anil think beyond the need to improve our instructional techniques." He sees critical reflection as "locating teaching

Obseruation. Observation can be carriecl out alone, as in self-observation, in pairs observing each other's class (see also "critical friend" below) or the group can try to observe each member's class. (As observ:rtion can
Lre

sensitive issue, a discussion of this is included in the section on built-in mles.) Journal writing. Journai writing can aiso
be carried out alone in the form of a diary in pairs writing to and for each other, in the group writing to and lbr each other (see Broi;k et. aL. 1992 for ideas of'journaling together"). As with the otl'rer activities, some ground

in i ts 6ioa?A;oiiaTffi"t1il;I

l6"G*rl- -

Providing oppoft unities for ESL/EFL teachers to reflect: Five components of a teacher development model
The five components of a language teacher development model presented here are the result of the exper-iences of an EFL teacher

rules shoulcl be built in to this activity

(addressed below).

Critical friends. Groups and individuals link critical friendships in some wa,v to observations of classes. In this way the critical friends can have an open dialogue which is grounded in their observations and experiences. Colleagues can engage each otl'rer in systernatic reflection and thus clirect each
other's professional self-development. Franc is

deveiopment group in l(orea. In the fail semester of 1994, three experienced EFL teachers in Korea met to reflect on their work (Farrell 1996). This process of reflection included weekly group meetings, individual meetings, class observation, and regular journal writing (for a complete description of the study please see Farrell 1996). The five core elements are not isolated but are all connected: One builds on the other and all need to be considered as a whole. The five components are:

(1995.'234') says

that critical friends

.

can

1. Provide different opportunities

activities.

lbr

"stimulate, clarify, and extend thinking. . ancl feel accountable for their own grorvth and their peers' growth." It is important to note that wher.r utilizing anv of the above activities in any program o{ professional sel{-development, the suggestions that follow components t'lvo througl'r live
should also be incorporatecl.

teachers lo leflect through a range of different

2. Negotiated ground rules. Initially,

our group took a flexible approach, which was inibnnal for each of the activities. and we dicl

2. Build in
of time.

some ground rules

to

the

pro('ess and into eat h uclivitl.

3. Make provisions for four different kinds

4. Provide external input for enriched reflection. 5. Provid. lbr ion aflettive stales.

not specificaliy state whai we wanted to achieve in each of the activities. With this level of flexibilit,v in our group, each participant exhibited a cli{ferent level of energy and commitment. For erample, two of the participants were active in all of the activities, while

Erucrrsg

TEAcHTNG Fonuu

Ocr-Dec

199a

13

the other chose to be active in oniy one of the activities. This fl exibility provided opportuniIie. fbr the group to progress at it" orvn pat e. in a way which best suited each individual s own needs. Colby and Appieby (1995:156) say that too much flexibility in these situations can lead to "a danger that lthe group]
may just clrift." In fact, it appeared that at times we dri{ied offinto our own agendas and there was a dan-

ger lhal more pressing lsnmelimes inrpurtant but mostly trivial) matters or problems woulcl take over. Therefore, I see a neecl for a negotiated set of built-in-ruies or guidelines that each group or pair should lbllow in order to keep the drifting to a minimurn. The model I present here can be adjusted to inclividual
group needs.
Suggestions three through five are actuaily ground rules that can be built in to the activities. For example, who rvill chair the meet-

A revolving chair with a resulting revolving level of responsibility to provide a

ings?
site and refreshments, and set the agenda and

length o{ the meetings. This chairperson

shouid also be willing to use his/her position to protect and encourage the free expression of views.

it or change it? lVhat do others do? (Our group tended to stay at ievel o{ describing r,vhat we cio). 'lcr suggest a set of buiit-in rules for "critical friends" is not easy because there musl be an elentenl of trusl and openne"- pte5enl in order to avoicl putting emphasis rin the critical while overlooking the friend. Putting a greater emphasis on the friend implies trust and support that is needed to get at the c:ritical levei of reflection. Otherwise, we can, as F rancis (I995:2a0) says, "iace observation and feedback with subjective juclgments and a 'fix it assumption'." The friend can provide another set of eyes that both suppofi and challenge us to get at deeper reflections of our teaching. 'Io encourage this openness, the initiai conversations betrveen criticai friends (or all conversations) should be taped and analyzed. This analysis can include the use of guestions in their relationship, in terms of type, power structures estabiished, {bcus of observation, and usefulness. In this way critical friencls can negotiate what they want to achieve. Of course, al1 of the above activities and built-in guidelines
Should vou continue to do

For
need

cannot be accomplished quickly; like ail valuable things, they take tirne. This introduces the next contponent of the model: time.

obser-vations, cedain understandings

to be negotiated ahead of time.

For

example, what are the responsibilities of the observer? Is inter-vention possible or desirable in the class? Will the class be videotaped, audiotaped, or neither? If you use a video, how will this be analyzed and whv? What is to be observed and how? For journal writing, our teacher development grolrp found that the number of entries

3. Four ilistinct types of time.

For

practicing teachers to be able to reflect on

their work, time is a very important consideration. Our group considered four different
views/types of time: 1. Individual

2. Activity 3. Developm-nt
4. Period of reflectiorr IndiuicLuaL Practicing teachers are very busy in their daily teaching and other relared

did not realiy influence the level of critical reflection. and i{ anythirrg, led to more
descriptions of teaching. Just as research has shown that preservice teachers tend to rarnble

duties, and the amount of time any one

teacher i-. willing to invest in his or her professional seif-cler.elopment will naturally vary. This can create a dilemma for the group if aii

in their writing

(Francis 1995), our group

tended to ramble on about personal matters outside their teaching in their rvriting. We exchanged our journals at the start of each group meeting but we did not discuss them. A minirnum set of guideiines neetls to be negotiated to insure a deeper, critical level of rellection beyond mere descriptions of teaching. Forthis, groups/pairs should negotiate the number of frequency of entries and the type of entries. The following list ofgeneral questions may help get a writer starled: Describe rvhat you do with no judgment? Why do you do it?

the partir:ipants do not attend all the group meetings or parlicipate fully in the arrtivities; group cohesion may be harmed. 'fherefore, a cerlain level of commitment by individual

participants

in terms of time

availability

should be negotiated by the group at the start of the process.

Actiuity. Associated with the time each parlicipant has to give the project is the time that should be spent on each activity. For

14

Ocr-Dec

1998

Ettc Lt s r-r Te,qcs r r'rc Fo

nuv

exarnple, our lroup meetings were scheduled to last for one hour; whereas they lasted for: three hours. This wa,* both good and had; it provided more clialogue, but it also exl-rausted everyone as the term progr:essecl. Tinre ful lhe olrserrirtion pro( ess is t'oncernecl with the number of observations. Two of the partir:ipants in our group allowed observations once a week. the other four times during the semester. The numller of times a class can be observed should be negotiated by each group u,hile also taking the first notion of time (individurl) i nlo tonsirlelation. The journal also needs time: tirne to write and time to read. Our group read each other's journal at the beginning o{ each group meeting, but we wrote it at home. However, we did not comment on the journals. An alternative way rvould be to have time to write and read

time wasted. Secondl,r, having a {ixed periocl in which to reflect allows the participants to know what period during the semester they

can devote wholly to reflection. Our group

bec,ause

survived, according to one of the participants, "we had an end in sigirt."

4. External input. The previous three suggestions utilize ihe idea o{'probing and articulating personal theories, rvhich is at the center of teacher professionai self-development. This

process

of constructing

and

reconstructing reai teaching experiences, and r:eflecting on personal beliefs a]:rlut teaching. However, at this level, reflection only empha-

sizes personal experiences, which Ur (199320-22) says promotes "a relative

neglect of external input." Teacher education, rrirethpr pre)er'\ ice ur irrs"rvice" r'equile. input from "vicarious experiences. other peoples' obsen'ations antl reflection,...and from other peoples' experiments. and from theories learned from research and the literatule." Our group dicl not provide the extemal input Ur discusses. This may be one possible reason that reflection, for the most part, remained at the descriptive rather than analytical level ir.r oul project. We reflected on our teaching as individual teachers, but we did not compare this rvith other peoples' opinions (university experis or other teachers). If groups of teachers readii,v accept each other's perceptions of theil teaching and suppofi these perceptions regardless ofwhat outsiders sal-, Nias (1987:140) points out, they "also inhibit change; by definition there is seldom dissent or creative tension." Individuals and groups in a pl-ocess of professional self-development need to be challenged b,v erternal irrput fol a more "enlich.d refle,.tion" (Lir 1993). This external input can come

I Teacher education,

at the beginning and/or end of each

meeting.

group

whether preservice

Deuelopment. Another aspect of time that

is

or inservice,
requires input from

irnportant for teacher self-development groups is the time it takes to develop. Golby and Appleby (1995:158) point out that "teacher-q do not readily confront their problems with a reflective approach." Eibaz (1988:173) says that teachers "have a common concern to reduce the complerity of the situation, to accept neat and obvicrus accorutts of the causes of the problems." Analytical reflection. therefore, takes time and only progresses at a rate whicli indiviclual teachers ale readv to reflect critically. Our group encountered two distinct stages. The first stage was what I cail the "getting to know you" stage. We were feeling each other out and negotiating our personal and group agendas. When we started trusting each other

"vicarious experiences, other peoples' observa-

tions and reflection,...and from other peoples'

experiments, and

which

a little more, we entered a second stage. I cali the reflective stage. The first
:tage 1s6[

from theories
learned from research and the
Iiterature."

group meetings over d se\enwill no doubt experience di{Terent stages o\rel a ciifferent time period.

iir.

from professional journals, other

studies.

teachers'

observations. and book publications of case

week period, Other groups

Period of reflectiorL. The period ol time it takes to hecome reflective is connected to the last aspecl of time presentetl here: the time {ianie for the project as a rvhole. How long shoulcl a gloup, a pair:" or an individual leflect? It is impodant to consiclel tl'ris for tw<r rea$ons. First, reflection takes time, so the reflective period should be correspondingiy long rather than short; otherlyise. it wiil be

5. A lou a,ffectiue state. The above ibur components of the model all pose some threat ancl associated amiety for practicing teacher:s. Nias (1987) has

pointed out that charrge

in the practice of teaching is not easy but a lengthy ancl potentiallv painfui plocess.
Inevitably, there rviil be a cer:tain level of anxietv present. Francis (1995) indicates that for in-!.plh reileltion to occur'. rrhich is iior aulomatjr'. anxletl is p'l"senl. Therefore. a non-thleatening be fos-

"""ito"i"""t-ihould

Ercr-rsu

TEAcHTNG FoRUM

Ocr-Dec

1998

'15

terecl in the group by the individuals themselves. Ways of establishing 1ow anxiety can

teaching routines to themselves and others,

and may come to experience and enjoy a new 1eve1 o{ seif-adiculated professionalism.

be incorporated, such as

emphasizing description and observation over judgment.

Category systems such as Fanselow's FOCUS (t987) and/or Acheson's and Gall's (1987) SCORE could also be used to reduce anxiety associated with judgments (we used both category systems to help with our reflections).

Acheson,

References K. and M. Gall. 1987.

cLinical superaision
Longman. (2nd. ed.)

of

Techniques in tlrc teoclrcrs. New York:

Gonclusion Reflective teaching can benefit ESLIEFL teachers in four main ways: (1) Reflective
teaching helps free the teachers from impulse and routine behavior. (2) Reflective teaching allows teachers to act in a deliberate, intentional manner and avoid the "I don't know what I will do today" syndrome. (3) Reflective teaching distinguishes teachers as educated human beings since it is one of the signs of intelligent action. (4) As teachers gain experience in a community o{ professional educators, they feel the need to grow beyond the initial stages of survival in the classroom to reconstructing their own particular theory from their practice. Dewey (1933:87) said that growth comes from a "reconsttuction of experience" so b1 reflecting on our onn experiences, we can reconstruct our own educational perspective. If English as a second or foreign language teaching is to become recognized as a professional body, then teachers need to be able to explain their judgments and actions in their classrooms with reasoned argument. Ways of achieving this level of reason include reflecting on teaching experiences and incorporating evidence from relevant scholarship into teaching routines, which can lead to growth and devel,rpm""t !q_+gg mate reiationship between reflecti.ve teaching

Adler, S. 1991. The re{lective practioner and the cuniculum of teacher education. Journal of E ducation for Tbaching, I 7, 2, pp. 139-i50. Barllett, L. 1990. Teacher development through reflective teaching. 7n Second Language Tbacher Ed,ucation. eds. J. Richards and D.
Nunan. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brock, M., B. Yu, and M. Wong. 1992. "Journaling" together: Coll.ilrorative diary-keeping and teacher devel.opment. 7n Perspectiues on seconrJ language teacher tlet:elopment. eds. J. Flowerdev-, M. Brock, and S. Hsia. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. pp. 295-307. Can, W. and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming crittcaL:

Erlucatiort, knowledge and action

research,.

London: Falmer Press. Day, C. 1993. Reflection: A necessary but not suf-

British Educational Researclt Journal, 19, I, pp. 83-93. Dewey, J. 1933. How we think. In X[entaL Discipline in Modern Eclucation. ed. Sr. Koiesnick.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Fllbaz, F. l9BB. Critical reflections on teaching: insights from freire. JournaL rl Education for TecLching, ?4, pp. t?1-181. Fanselow, J. 1987. Breaking rules. New York:
Longman.

ficient condition {br teacher

development.

t129}:9:gglt_
---a

Farrell, T. 1995. Second language teaching: Where are we and where are we going? An interview with Jack Richards. lnnguage Teaching: The Korea TESOL Jounral, S, 3, pp.94-5. 1996. A qualitative study of the refleciions of {bur experienced EFL teachers in Korea as they reflect on their work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. PA: Indian University of Pennsylvania. Francis, D. 1995. The reflective journal: A window to presen'ice teachers' knowledge. Teach,ing
o,nd Tbach.er Education, 25,2, pp.229-211. Fuiler, F. 1910. Personalized educationfor teachers: An introd,uction for teacher educators, Report No. 001. Austin, Texas, Research and

o,'rarcarilicrac#o'menil
."-The teachers latitude

leflectivc proce"s allow' developing

to

experiment within

framework of growing knowledge and experigives them the opportunity lo exam"nce. It ine their relations with students, their values,

Development Center for Teacher Education. Golby, M. and R. Appleby. 1995. Reflective prac-

their abilities, and their successes and failures in a reaiistic context. It begins the developing teacher's path toward becoming an
'expert teacher' (Lange 1990:240-250')."

tice through critical friendship: Some possibilities. Cambridge Jounral of Education, 25,2, pp. 149-160. Gore, J. and Zeichener, K. 1991. Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study lrom the United States.
Tbaching arul Tbacher Education, 7, pp.
1

19-f36.

ESL/EFL teachers, meeting regularly in any of the forms outlined in this article, wili begin to see how much they have in common, becorne more comfortable explaining their

in teacher- education: Towarcls definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11,1, pp. 33-39. Killon, J. and G. 'fodnew. 1991. A process of per-

Hatton,

N. and D. Smith. 1995. Reflection

Ocr-Dec

1998

EttcLtsH

TencHtt'tc

Fonuu

sonal theory building. EducationaL Leaderslt ip, 48, 6, pp. 14-16. Lange, D. 1990. A blueprint lbr a ieacher development program. ln Second Longua,ge Tbacher Education. er.ls. J. Richards, and D. Nunan. New York: Cambrirlge UniversitJ' Press.

Schon, D. A. 1983. Th,e reflectiue practitioner. New York: Basic Books. ).987. Ed,ucating the reflection, practition-

er: Touards u neu

lea,rning

d,esign

for teaching ancl

in the profession. San Francisco, CA:

McFee. C. 1993. Reflections on the nature o{

action-research. Cambrklge Journal of Educaion 23.2, pp. I 73-1 83. Nias, J. 1987. Learning from clifference: A collegial approach to change. ln Educating Teachers, ed. J. Smyth. Barcombe: The Falmer Press. Penninplon, M. t992. Reflecting on teaching and learning: A development focus for the second language classroom. In Perspectiues on Second, Langu,age Classroctm Tba,cher Educcttlon. eds. J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia. Kowloon: Citv Polythenic of Hong Kong. 1995. The teacher change <:vcle. TESOL
r

Josey-Bass Publishers.

Sehuirnan, 1,. 1987. Knowleclge and teaching: Foundations of the new refoym. Harutrd Ed.ucltion(rl Reuiew, 57, pp. I-22. Ur, P. 1983. Teacher learning. ln Btdlding on strengtlt. 2. The proceedings o{ the ACTAi ATESOL (NSW) National Conference and Bth Summel School. Sydnev. Australia: ATESOL,
NSV4

VanMannen, M. 1977. Linking ways of knowing

rvith ways of being practical.

In qu ir v.

Curricu,lLtm

Quarterh, 29, 4, pp. 705*731.

Richards, J. 1990. Beyond training: Approaches to teacher education in language teachtng. La,nguoge Teacher, 14, 2, pp. 3-8.

6. pp. 2O;-228. Zeicbner. I(. and O. Liston. 1987. Teaching stu,

clent teachers to reflect. HER,

57,I, pp.2248. @

I
THotvtns FnRRell is cur-

rently a lecturer in

!' , . ., 1,-{

l-, \

/,

1
i')

:i; ii'n
.l

i'r.
';r,'tr

{-''

c;L" "-' ,r

English Language and Applied Linguistics at the National lnstitute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. His

research interests
include: Teacher Education/Development, Reflective Teaching,

TESOL Methods and

SLA.

Er,,rct-tsr-r TrncHrr.rc

Fonuu

Ocr-DEc

1998