Quality Self-Reflection through Reflection Training
Bahar Gün
Asst. Prof. Dr. Bahar Gün holds BA, MA and PhD degrees in ELT. She has 20 years of experience in
ELT as a teacher and teacher trainer. She currently works at Izmir University of Economics as the
Assistant Director of the School of Foreign Languages. She is primarily in charge of teacher education
programs at the SFL. Her research interests include teacher beliefs and attitudes, and reflective
teaching and learning.
E-mail: bahar.gun@ieu.edu.tr
This research study discusses the importance of ‘reflection training’ in teacher education
programs. The main premise of the study is that although teachers are constantly encouraged
to ‘reflect’ on their teaching, they are unable to do so effectively unless they are specifically
trained on how to reflect (they tend to ‘react’ rather than ‘reflect’!). It is known that teachers
can increase their ability to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and take action towards
improving themselves as better teachers when they receive feedback from different sources –
i.e. through trainer, colleague and learner observations, as well as from watching their own
video-recorded lessons. The best results for their development are obtained when these
teachers are also provided with focused input sessions related to reflecting on different aspects
of their classroom teaching as well as having the opportunity to watch videos of themselves
teaching.
Introduction
This study investigates how ‘reflection’ can become more effective through systematic
training and practice. When ‘reflection’ is merely preached, it is more likely that it will not be
embraced and subsequently pursued by the participants (Leather and Popovic 2008).
Reflection is valuable when teachers are able to make a critical inquiry into the process of
their teaching practice by interpreting the data collected on their teaching (Bailey 2006), and
to bring about ‘changes’ in their classrooms based on those interpretations. In order for the
teachers to become ‘reflective practitioners’ of their own professional practice, they may need
to be ‘coached’ in this ability (Wallace 1996).
Reflective Practice in Teaching
Reflective practice is a prevailing paradigm that dominates teacher education around the
world; therefore, it is commonly included in many professional development programs
(Farrell 2008, Leather and Popovic: ibid.). Reflection is not an easy process, since ‘it requires
critical thought, self direction, and problem solving coupled with personal knowledge and
self-awareness’ (Chant, Heafner and Bennett in Lee 2007: 322). Richards and Lockhart’s
(1994:1) definition seems to best capture the premise of reflection in the field of teaching: ‘A
1
reflective approach to teaching is one in which teachers collect data about teaching, examine
their attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and teaching practices, and use the information obtained
as a basis for critical reflection about teaching’. All the teachers, in one way or another, ‘look
back’ at their classes and from their reflections, draw implications for their classroom
teaching. This reflection may be in the form of ‘self-reflection’, where teachers think about
the positive and negative aspects of recent teaching; or they may share these thoughts with
colleagues; or they may choose to invite a colleague and/or a teacher trainer to their classes
for further feedback. In this sense, ‘reflection’ may sound like an everyday activity for any
given teacher. The crucial question, however, is the ‘effectiveness’ of the reflection that is
carried out by teachers. We can make a distinction here between the reflection as looking
back into one’s teaching and drawing some general conclusions about the classes taught –“I
had a very productive lesson today”, or “This was not one of my best classes” kind of
comments-, or ‘critical reflection’, where teachers reflect on their practice as a way to bring
themselves to the level of awareness of what they do and the reasons for this (Bailey 1997). In
the latter sense, the process of reflection should include what/why questions rather than how
to questions, which are directly related to the methodological concerns of teaching (Barlett, in
Posteguillo and Palmer 2000). Focusing on ‘why’ questions is what is important for critical
reflection and this is how a deeper understanding of one’s own teaching can be generated.
Reflection through Classroom Observations
Having been involved in the field of ELT as a teacher and a teacher trainer for 20 years, I
believe that conducting classroom observations and giving feedback to teachers is undeniably
useful, yet insufficient in itself to help teachers reach a level of reflection that will optimize
their professional development. Simply asking them to complete a ‘post observation reflection
sheet’ after a classroom observation and expecting them to think ‘critically’ about their
teaching has resulted in no significant change for the teachers I have observed over the years.
I have noticed two different tendencies, each of which is an exaggeration. In the first, teachers
claim the lesson was a disaster. In the other extreme, teachers claim they taught a ‘perfect’
lesson. However, in both cases it is likely that the lesson contained both positive and negative
aspects. This leads to the following questions:
-Is it enough to ask the teachers to go and ‘reflect’ on their teaching and fill out the answers
on a given sheet of paper? Are they just ‘reacting’ rather than ‘reflecting’ when they are asked
to do that?
2
-When we, the trainers, do that, do we just assume they know how to look at their teaching
critically?
-Do they need any guidance or “coaching” in how to reflect? If so, what is the appropriate
method of reflection training?
These questions made me think that perhaps teacher trainers can help teachers develop
significantly better when they ‘train’ them on how to reflect instead of conducting ‘snapshot’
observations and giving feedback. As Bailey (op.cit.: 326) suggests, reflection is essentially
personal, teachers must reflect for themselves; and the role of the trainer, or ‘supervisor’,
should be to promote the reflection process ‘by providing input but refraining from taking
over’. In this case, what exactly is meant by ‘input’ becomes the critical point. Brandt (2008:
37) also believes that feedback alone is insufficient, and feedback and reflection should be
‘integrated in the form of reflective conversations with a number of features including the
assigning of greater prominence to reflection, and to the presence of a facilitator and language
learners’. I also thought the best tool to involve teachers in reflection would be to video
record their lessons. As Bill Templer (in Harmer 2007: 410) says ‘we need to hold up mirrors
to our own practice, making more conscious what is beneath the surface’. What better tool can
we provide teachers for doing this than a camera in the classroom? Considering all these
factors, i.e., integrating feedback from various sources with the feedback the teacher gathers
from his/her self; the specific role of the trainer in the process as well as the feedback
obtained from learners and even from colleagues, prompted this research study on the
effectiveness of a ‘reflection training’ program, taking into account some of Dewey’s (in
Bailey: op.cit.) principles:
1. The issue on which the teacher reflects must occur in the social context where
teaching occurs.
2. The teacher must be interested in the problem to be resolved.
3. The ‘issue’ must be owned by the teacher- that is, derived from his or her practice.
4. Systematic procedures are necessary.
3
Aim, Research Question and Hypothesis
Aim
The reflective teaching and learning project was initiated and conducted in a university setting
to help teachers ‘reflect critically’ on teaching in order to increase their ability to identify
strengths and weaknesses, and take action towards becoming more effective teachers, with an
ultimate aim of identifying strategies for teacher educators to help teachers to engage more
successfully in reflective behaviour.
Research Question
With this aim in mind, the following question was devised at the outset: To what extent do the
teachers learn about teaching from trainer/colleague/learner observations compared to
watching their own video-recorded lessons?
All the possible parties that could give feedback to a teacher were included, eventually
leading the teacher to reflect more effectively on teaching. In the literature there are a number
of studies on trainer observations and feedback as well as peer observations (Richards 1998;
Bailey: op.cit.), and learner observations (Kurtoğlu Eken 1999); and some studies which look
at a combination of two or three of these feedback sources. Richards (1997), for example,
compared the feedback given by the class teacher themselves, a colleague and a learner for
the same observed lesson. A fourth perspective, namely the teacher trainer, was included in
classroom observations carried out in this study. Therefore, in this study the feedback came
from:
1. Teachers themselves
2. Learners
3. Trainers
4. Colleagues
Hypothesis
Considering the critical task of reflection training, i.e. training in self-awareness, the
following hypothesis was put forward: By providing teachers- regardless of their nationality,
experience and background in ELT- with focused input, and providing them with the
opportunity to watch videos of themselves teaching along with the feedback coming from
variety of sources, the teachers can be trained to reflect on their teaching.
4
Participants and Procedure
This project was carried out in an intensive English language teaching program in Turkey. All
the feedback providers constituted the participants in the project:
The teachers
Four teachers were invited to participate in the project, and before agreeing to take part in it,
the premise and procedures of the project were explained. Since it was hypothesized at the
outset that all teachers, regardless of nationality (native vs. non-native speakers), experience
and background in the field of ELT, can benefit from coaching in reflection, the profile of the
four teachers was as follows:
4 teachers (invited)
' (
2 NS 2NNS 2 Turkish, 1 American, 1 British teacher
2more exp 2less exp 2 teachers with 7 years of experience, 2 with 3 years of
experience
2ELT 2non-ELT 2 teachers with BA degrees in ELT, 2 teachers with military
backgrounds before obtaining CELTA qualifications
The trainers
Three trainers, including the author, who worked in the Teacher Development Unit in the
institution where the project was conducted, were involved in providing the input sessions and
doing the classroom observations. All three trainers –one Brazilian, two Turkish- were
experienced teacher trainers who were also voluntarily involved in the project.
The Learners
As noted by Kurtoglu Eken (op.cit.: 241), ‘learners are also observers in their own right, and
there is a lot we can learn from them about teaching and about learning’. Since the aim was to
look at different perspectives in classroom observations, learners were included in the process
taking on the role of observer and feedback provider. Four teachers were asked to invite one
learner each, and thus four learners joined as participants on a voluntary basis.
The Colleagues
One of the important guidelines for peer observation is that participants select their own
partners to collaborate with (Richards and Lockhart in Richards: op.cit.). Keeping this
principle in mind, the four participant teachers were asked to choose a colleague to observe
their classes and do the given observation tasks. All four were free to choose which colleague
5
to approach before each observation, therefore, almost all chose different colleagues each
time, thus involving a number of teachers in the project.
Procedure
The entire process took eight weeks, including eight input sessions and five focused
classroom observations. The following diagram shows how the eight input sessions and five
recorded observations were organized within the given eight week period. For the details
about the procedure see the Appendix.
Week Video: Lesson Observation (T+S: same task);
01 Learner training (same video + Observation Task)
Reading & discussing: Reflection and Reflective Teaching
Week Discussion: Reflection and Reflective Teaching 1st Round of Obs (Focus: General
02 Teaching &Learning)
Article Reading Task: Learning-centeredness
Week Reflections on 1st Obs(General Teaching and Leaning)
03 Work on Ts’ Lesson Objectives 2nd Round of Obs (Focus:TTT)
Article Reading Task: Teacher Learning Action Plan
Week Portuguese Demo Lesson –Discussion (TTT) 3rd Round of Obs (Focus:
04 Instructions)
Work on Ts’ Lesson Objectives
Portuguese Demo Lesson –Discussion (Instructions) 4th Round of Obs (Focus:Feedback)
Week
Work on Ts’ Lesson Objectives 05
Week Repetition of Session 1-Video task
Reflections and Discussion on ‘Feedback’ Week
5th Round of Obs (Focus:Error
08 Correction) 06
Work on Ts’ Lesson Objectives
As can be seen in the Portuguese Demo Lesson –Discussion (Error Correction) Week
Work on Ts’ Lesson Objectives 07
diagram, in weeks 4, 5
and 7, the input sessions started with the Portuguese demo lessons because being in the role
of learners of a foreign language seems an excellent way for teachers to reflect, since it
provides the ‘hands on’ experience of being a learner. This kind of experience definitely
promotes the teacher ‘…as a reflective practitioner, a critical enquirer and a context-sensitive
professional’ (Hyatt and Beigy 1999:16). What was common in all the Portuguese demo
lessons was that the trainer showed the teachers not only exemplary practice but also the ‘bad’
practice to highlight the importance of the target classroom techniques. As Nunan (in Hyatt
6
and Beigy: op.cit.: 15) points out ‘as much can be learned from instances of bad practices as
from instances of successful practice’.
Two points that were regularly emphasized in each of the input sessions, regardless of the
specific observation focus of the week, were the importance of lesson objectives and learner
and learning-centeredness. These two areas appeared to be the ‘areas for improvement’ for
most teachers observed according to the trainers’ past observation records.
Another point that should be highlighted is the ‘friendly atmosphere’ in the input session
room. All the teachers and trainers sat down in a circle and had informal discussions about
their classes, reflections, ideas about the specific foci identified, as well as many other related
issues. There was a considerable amount of sharing, understanding and empathising, which
contributed to a significant increasing in awareness for all involved. As suggested by Valli (in
Brandt: op.cit.: 43), reflection is a social activity because:
If left unsocialized, individual reflection can close in on itself, producing detached,
idiosyncratic teachers. Because reflection is not an end in itself, but for the purpose
of action, communal dialog is essential. Many different voices are necessary.
More on Observations
The five rounds of observations focusing on five different areas in classroom teaching were
conducted following the steps below:
1. Each week started with the input session, followed by video recorded observations.
Prior to the observation, the observation task designed for each week was explained a)
to the trainer, b) to the colleague, c) to the learner (in the learner’s L1 to avoid any
possible misunderstandings). The task was given to the teacher immediately after the
observation, and the teacher was asked to submit the task back to the trainer within the
same day of observation. The teacher was asked to do the exact same task within the
next two or three days after viewing the video of himself/herself teaching in that given
week. The reason for following such a cycle was to highlight for the teacher the
difference between ‘reaction’ (immediately after the lesson) and ‘reflection’ (after
attending the focused input session and watching the video).
2. Each input session was on the focus identified for the previous week’s observation;
therefore, observed teachers were not aware of the focus of the observations until
receiving the task sheet immediately after the observed lesson to ensure the
‘naturalness’ of the recorded lessons.
7
3. After the teachers completed the task on the same day as the observations, there was
an interval of 2 or 3 days before they repeated the task. By the time the teachers
watched the videos, they knew exactly what to look at (the predetermined focus for
observation) as well as other aspects of their teaching they might have noticed. Videos
were viewed only by the teachers who were involved in the study.
4. After watching the videos and completing the given observation task, the feedback
from the trainer, colleague and learner was also shared with the teacher. That is, at the
end of each observation, the teacher had a set of feedback consisting of a) his/her first
time task, b) second time task, c) trainer completed task, d) colleague completed task,
and e) learner completed task. The aim of all observers was to collect information,
rather than to evaluate the teachers’ performance. It was left to the teacher to consider
the feedback and draw conclusions and implications.
Outcomes
The main premise in the study was to create and/or raise the teachers’ awareness about
classroom conduct by systematically training them on how to reflect, since, as Larsen-
Freeman (in Bailey: op.cit.: 4) has noted, ‘awareness is the first step toward being able to
change our teaching practice’. The ultimate aim of the study was to help teachers critically
reflect on their teaching in order to bring about an instructional improvement in their classes.
Through systematic reflection, they were expected to review their knowledge base, and to be
able to evaluate their actions, decisions and reactions.
Having completed the eight weeks of input sessions and observations, the teachers were given
a feedback questionnaire consisting of the following questions:
1. Whose feedback was the most beneficial and useful to you (colleague, learner, trainer,
watching yourself in the video)?
2. Did you see any improvement as a result of the input sessions? Which had most
impact on you/your reflections?
3. Will the meetings for the Reflective Learning and Teaching Project help you in the
future? If so, how?
4. How do you compare regular observations you had so far to these ones?
5. What could we do to help you continue developing?
What follows are some of the common answers to these questions in the form of direct
quotations:
8
Answer to Q1: “Watching myself in the video!” (All 4 teachers)
Answer to Q2: “All the sessions provided awareness for me; my self-criticism got
better.”
Answer to Q3: “Now I can understand students better and I know what is good for
their learning”
“I will focus more on student production”
Answer to Q4: “The regular observations are only a snapshot, whereas this was an
ongoing thing with results”
“Because I knew that these observations were aiming at professional development
rather than performance evaluation, I felt more comfortable from the very beginning”
Answer to Q5: “Videotape some more of my lessons!!!”
“Maybe repeat the project or similar, one year later”
The main outcome of the study, according to oral as well as written feedback from the
teachers involved, is that watching the videos of themselves teach was the most beneficial of
all the feedback that came from different sources. All four teachers stated that they
appreciated the feedback from colleagues, trainers and learners; that they learnt from them
too, however, all agreed that the videos had the greatest impact. One point that was shared by
all four teachers was that although they knew what specifically to look for while they watched
the videos, they identified other areas to work on, which were not the focal points in any of
the five observations. One, for example, pointed out that he realized, upon watching his
videos; that he needed to work on the ‘pace’ in his lessons. This particular example alone is
enough to suggest the amount of ‘awareness’ on the part of the teacher, and that the teacher
learnt how to look at his teaching more critically.
Conclusion and Implications
A structured and guided procedure, i.e., input sessions, trainer, colleague, learner feedback as
well as the feedback through watching the video recorded lessons were the main components
of the present study. The question posed at the outset of the study was: How effective is self-
criticism through a review of teachers own lesson video compared to other types of feedback,
from trainers, colleagues and learners?
Having completed the project, it can be suggested that the conclusions and implications of the
study are twofold:
9
1) The value of videos in nurturing reflective thinking was confirmed. The most striking result
of this study was that the teachers who were able to identify potential areas of improvement as
well as strengths, even those not covered in the tasks, by watching videos of themselves,
stated that they were able to transfer their critical reflection into ‘on the spot’ strategies in
their classroom. This was evident in the course of five consecutive observations; a result
shared by all three trainers who observed each of the four teachers more than once. The
reason for that effective reflection was that the teachers knew exactly what to look for when
they watched their videos; they were aware and already had a critical eye thanks to the
focused input sessions they attended, and that their videos provided ‘observable evidence of
their instructional decisions’ (Rich and Hannafin 2009), and this appears to have greatly
helped the teachers to become ‘autonomous’.
2) When teachers are given the opportunity to discuss their reflections on their teaching, they
seem better able to mutually identify problems and suggest effective solutions in a
cooperative and collaborative group interaction pattern. As Bailey (op.cit.: 8) says ‘One
reason why reflective teaching is worth doing is that it creates a context which promotes
professional dialogue’, i.e. reflective conversations. In studies where participants were asked
to reflect both in writing and in collaborative discussion, they reported the greatest benefit
from discussing their teaching with others (in Rich and Hannafin: op.cit). The findings of this
project study suggest that integration of theory and practice is best achieved by means of a
thorough reflective process in language teaching (Posteguillo and Palmer: op.cit.). The
ultimate aim of any reflection training program, therefore, should be to make reflection an
integral part of classroom practice. The training programs with this kind of a goal maybe
more important in the long term than focusing on classroom techniques and procedures in
teacher education practice.
References
10
Bailey, K. M. 1997. ‘Reflective teaching: Situating our stories’. Asian Journal of English
Language Teaching 7: 1-19.
Bailey, K. 2006. Language Teacher Supervision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brandt, C. 2008. ‘Integrating feedback and reflection in teacher preparation’. ELT Journal
62/1: 37-46.
Farrell, T.S.C. 2008. ‘Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training. ELT Journal 62/1: 3-
10.
Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Pearson Education
Limited.
Hyatt,D.and A. Beigy. 1999. ‘Into the unknown: Potential for effective teacher development
within an initial ELT teacher education programme’. IATEFL TT SIG Newsletter 3: 13-16.
Kurtoğlu Eken, D. 1999. ‘Through the eyes of the learner: learner observations of teaching
and learning’. ELT Journal 53/4: 240-248.
Leather,S.and R. Popovic. 2008. ‘Time for reflection’. English Teaching Professional 55: 1-
3.
Lee, I. 2007. ‘Preparing pre-service English teachers for reflective practice’. ELT Journal
61/4: 321-329.
Posteguillo, S. and J.C. Palmer. 2000. ‘Reflective Teaching in EFL: Integrating theory and
practice’. TESL-EJ 4/3:1-15.
Richards, J. C. 1997. ‘Three approaches to observation’. The Language Teacher Online
JALT Publications: 1-3.
Richards, J. C. 1998. Beyond Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rich, J. R. and M. Hannafin. 2009. ‘Video Annotation Tools: Technologies to scaffold,
structure, and transform teacher reflection’. Journal of Teacher Education 60/1: 52-67.
Richards, J. C. and C. Lockhart. 1994. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, M. 1996. ‘Structured reflection: The role of the professional project in training
ESL teachers’. In D. Freeman and J. C. Richards (eds.). Teacher Learning in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX
Procedure
11
The following steps were followed during the eight-week period:
1. Week1- A meeting with the four learners was held during which they were informed
about the aim and procedures of the study. In that session, they were given a sample
observation task that they had to complete while watching a video of a teacher teaching a
skills lesson. They were also shown other observation task samples to familiarize them
with the types of tasks they would be asked to do during the course of the project. In this
way they were familiarized with doing classroom observations.
2. Week 1- In the first input session with the four teachers, the same video the learners
watched was viewed by the teachers, and they were asked to write their impressions about
the lesson without being given any detailed guidelines. In the same session, the teachers
were given some quotations about reflection and reflective teaching, and their
understanding of the concept ‘reflection’ was discussed. They were assigned a reading
article on learning-centeredness. No observations took place in the first week.
3. Week 2- In the input session, more discussion on reflective teaching took place and the
teachers were asked to do a task on the reading article assigned the previous week. The
first round of observations and recordings was completed. The focus of the first
observation was general teaching and learning.
4. Week 3- In the third input session, the teachers worked on identifying lesson objectives
and did another reading assignment. Reflections on the first observations were discussed
as a group. The second round of observations focusing on teacher talking time (TTT) was
completed in the third week.
5. Week 4- The Brazilian trainer did a mini demo lesson in Portuguese, which was
followed by a group discussion on her TTT during the demo lesson. The session ended
after another discussion on their reflections concerning the recently observed classes.
During this week, the third round of observations was conducted focusing on classroom
instructions.
6. Week 5- Another Portuguese demo lesson was presented to the teachers and the topic of
the follow up discussion was the teacher’s classroom instructions, the focus of the
previous observations. In the same input session, more practice work was done on
identifying lesson objectives by referring to the individual teacher’s recent classes
(eliciting, boarding and revising the lesson objectives through discussions). The fourth
round of observations focusing on ‘feedback’ was conducted, and the recordings were
completed.
12
7. Week 6- The input session started with reflections on the videos, focusing on the type
and amount of feedback given. This was followed by some more practice work on
identifying lesson objectives. The fifth and the final round of observations, focusing on
error correction were completed.
8. Week 7- The session started with the final Portuguese demo lesson, followed by a
discussion on the classroom instructions of the teacher. The teachers in the group
contributed their own reflections on their own instructions. The session ended with a
discussion on lesson objectives.
9. Week 8- The last session was simply the repetition of the first session. The aim of this
last session was to see the improvement, if any, in the teachers’ critical opinion of any
given lesson after six structured input sessions as well as focused observations.
13
