In-Service Teacher Education - Roberto Amorim

ii
AN INVESTIGATION OF TEACHERS' REACTIONS TO AN INSERVICE

TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM BASED ON REFLECTION AND ACTION
RESEARCH
BY
ALTAMIR ROBERTO MACHADO AMORIM
Licenciado, Centro Universitário de Belo Horizonte, 1974

Curso de Pós Graduação, Centro Universitário de Belo Horizonte, 2003
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Second Language
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2005
Urbana, Illinois
iii
ABSTRACT
Conferences on language teacher education are being held all over the world
displaying marked emphases on inservice teacher education and programs that are
teacher-learner-centered, context-sensitive, and which, through reflection and
collaborative action research, allow teachers to further their own professional
development and their knowledge about the teaching processes. In view of such interest,
and the still scarce amount of published data-based evidence on the effectiveness of such
programs, particularly from the point of view of the teachers, this study investigated
teachers’ reactions to a program that incorporates those characteristics. More specifically,
it investigated how teachers acknowledged the impact of reflection on their beliefs and
practice, which activities teachers thought were more motivating and beneficial to them,
what specific and practical learning issues emerged from such a program, and how much
this approach contributed to giving teachers a sense of ownership of their developmental
process.
For this investigation, four Teacher Assistants from the Division of English as an
International Language of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign participated in
a 10-week program based on reflection and action research devised after suggestions
from the literature.
The findings indicate that teachers, without downplaying the importance of
instruction on theory, see reflection and action research as effective tools for
development, and see this approach to teacher education as more beneficial to their
professional development than programs heavily based on theory and methods.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 1
The Choice of the Topic...................................................................................... 1

The Scarcity of Data-based Research on the Effectiveness of Teacher
Education Approaches and Practices.................................................................. 1
The Effectiveness of Preservice Compared to Inservice Teacher Education….. 2
Characteristics of Inservice Teacher Education.................................................. 3

A Trend toward Teacher-Learner-Centeredness, Reflection, and Action
Research.............................................................................................................. 4
The Purpose........................................................................................................ 5
The Framework................................................................................................... 5
Specific Research Objectives and Organization................................................. 6
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................... 7
Recent History and Trends in TESOL Teacher Education Research………….. 7
Preservice and Inservice Language Teacher Education...................................... 9
Common Problems with Inservice Teacher Education....................................... 11
From Top-Down to Teacher-Learner Centered Inservice Education.................. 12
Reflection in Language Teacher Education Programs........................................ 14
Broadening the Scope of Reflective Activities................................................... 17
From Reflection to Action................................................................................... 18
Teachers and Research........................................................................................ 19

Comparison of the Program Used for Data Collection in this Project with
another Tri-Dimensional Framework Suggested in the Literature...................... 23
Empirical Research on the Effectiveness of Reflection in Teacher Education... 25

vii
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURES, MATERIALS, AND METHODS……………. 26
The Research Questions...................................................................................... 26
The Participants................................................................................................... 26
A Descriptive and Non-Judgmental Approach................................................... 27
Material and Procedures...................................................................................... 28
Data Analysis...................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4 – FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..................................................... 46
Phase One: Reflecting on Basic Beliefs and Comparing Them with Practice.... 47
Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of Phase One.................. 48
Findings and commentaries regarding Group Discussion 1........................ 56
Findings and commentaries regarding the YES/NO Survey Questionnaire 64
Final Evaluation of Phase One..................................................................... 68
Phase Two: From Reflection to Action............................................................. 69
Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of Phase Two................. 70
Findings and commentaries regarding the activities ranking...................... 82
Final Evaluation of Phase Two..................................................................... 86
Phase Three: Planning Intervention.................................................................. 87
Part II of Group Discussion 2 – Choosing topics for the action research

plans.............................................................................................................. 88
Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of Phase Three............... 90
Findings and commentaries regarding the Final Survey.............................. 96
Final Evaluation of Phase Three.................................................................. 103

viii
CHAFTER 5 – CONCLUSION................................................................................ 105
The Answers to the Research Questions............................................................. 106
Pedagogical Implications.................................................................................... 113
Limitations of this Study and Suggestions for Further Research........................ 114
Some Final Notes about Reflection..................................................................... 116
Some More Ideas of Reflective Activities.......................................................... 116
Final Evaluation of the Findings......................................................................... 117
Final Comments.................................................................................................. 118
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................
. 120
APPENDIXES……………….................................................................................... 127
Appendix A – The Schedule............................................................................. 127
Appendix B – Questionnaire A: What You Believe......................................... 128
Appendix C – Questionnaire B: What You Do................................................ 129
Appendix D – Questionnaire C: (Essay Question)........................................... 130
Appendix E – YES/NO Questionnaire Form and Answers.............................. 132
Appendix F – Reflective Activities….............................................................. 136
Appendix G – Activities-Ranking Form........................................................... 160
Appendix H – Action Research Plans............................................................... 161
Appendix I – Final Survey Form..................................................................... 164
Appendix J – Reflective Essays of Phase One (Coded).................................. 165
Appendix K – Reflective Essays of Phase Two (Coded).................................. 173
Appendix L – Reflective Essays of Phase Three (Coded)................................ 183
Appendix M – The Coding Matrix.................................................................... 188

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Comparison of Two Frameworks.............................................................. 24

Figure 3.1: Conceptual Map......................................................................................... 29
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Reflective Questions of Phase One as They Were Paired...................... 31-32
Table 3.2: List of Reflective Activities.................................................................... 35
Table 3.3: Data Sources and Methods of Analysis.................................................. 41
Table 4.1: Results of the Ranking of Activities....................................................... 83
Table 4.2: Chart of the Average Preference for the Reflective Activities………... 84
Table 4.3: Final Survey: Weighted Average............................................................ 97
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A recent trend in second language teaching is a movement away from methods and other
external or top-down views of teaching toward an approach that seeks to understand
teaching in its own terms. (Richards & Lockhart, 1996, p. ix)
The choice of the topic for this research project was born from a sense of need, on
the part of the researcher, of an inservice teacher development program that was context
sensitive, teacher-learner centered, not prescriptive, not overloaded with irrelevant
theory, motivating, and yet effective in promoting professional growth. A search in the
literature of TESOL resulted in a significant number of apparently effective suggestions
for and approaches to teacher development programs, and much enthusiasm over issues
such as reflective teaching and action research but, surprisingly, few examples of
structured programs that were transferable or adaptable, as well as little empirical
evidence that such programs work. The researcher then decided to design a framework
that put together all those characteristics and investigated their effectiveness from the
point of view of the participant teacher. In other words, an investigation of how teachers
react to an inservice teacher education program that relies entirely on reflection and
action research.
The Scarcity of Data-Based Research on the Effectiveness
of Teacher Education Approaches and Practices
Richards and Nunan (1990) observed that the field of EFL/ESL teacher education
was relatively underexplored up to that time. As evidence of this fact, he stated that few
2
of the articles published on this field in the previous twenty years were data-based, that
little data had been gathered on the kinds of programs that worked and didn’t work, and
that there had been a reluctance to subject assumptions behind current approaches and
practices to critical scrutiny. Bernhardt and Hammadou (1987) cited 78 papers published
on this topic in the preceding 10 years and pointed out that the vast majority constituted
straightforward descriptions of programs or aspects of them, or pieces of practical advice
which they called, “perceptions of experienced foreign language educators,” (p. 293) and
that only eight papers focused on data-based research. Commenting on the scarcity of
conceptual or research-wise attention paid to the development of teachers in second
languages, Lange (1990) observed that the research data-base in second language teacher
education at all levels is pitifully small. Although there have been a few important
publications in the field of EFL/ESL teacher education after the early 1990s, such as a
special edition of TESOL Quarterly in the Autumn of 1998, the fact is that empirical
research in this field is still scarce.
The Effectiveness of Preservice Compared to Inservice Teacher Education
Commenting on the clinical experience practicum of ESL graduate programs, and
on a survey conducted by Richards and Crookes (1987), Lange (1990) noted that
although the importance of such programs has been increasingly recognized, their
effectiveness has yet to be determined. Given the limited time of such preservice
experiences, particularly in graduate programs, the translation of the theoretical learning
into practical application for the classroom is also limited and, as a result, Lange
concludes, teachers may be learning more on the job. Such a conclusion, which is shared
3
by many other researchers (Renyi, 1996; Hawley & Valli, 1996; Sykes, 1996; Lewis,
1997; Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 1998; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Gebhard & Oprandy,
1999; among others), points to the importance of on-the-job learning and to the need of
structured inservice teacher education programs to facilitate such learning.
Characteristics of Inservice Teacher Education
Even structured inservice teacher education programs, however, often carry a front
loading format, as Freeman (1994) noted, and share the same shortcomings of academic
programs with an over emphasis on theoretically oriented workshops and seminars. Blair
(1982), Oller & Richard-Amato (1983), and Larsen-Freeman (1986) observed that very
often such programs are characterized by an obsession with methods which puts them in
route of collision with up-to-date theory from college/university teacher development
programs (Lange, 1990). Kumaravadivelu (2001) defends a context-sensitive language
teacher education that enables teachers to construct their own theory of practice and treats
learners, teachers, and teacher educators as coexplorers. For such he proposed a
postmethod pedagogy based on the argument that teacher education must go beyond the
limitations of the transmission model and that if it is to be relevant, teacher education
programs must be sensitive to “a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group
of learners pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional context
embedded in a particular sociocultural milieu,” (p. 538). Jack Richards, in the preface to
the book Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Richards and Lockhart,
1996), states that “a recent trend in second language teaching is a movement away from
methods and other external or top-down views of teaching toward an approach that seeks
4
to understand teaching in its own terms,” (p. ix). They suggest that traditional inservice
teacher workshops designed to improve teaching skills often have only short-term effects
and rarely involve teachers in an ongoing process of examining their teaching.
A Trend toward Teacher-Learner-Centeredness, Reflection, and Action Research
Richards and Lockhart (1996) observe that, in order to change, inservice teacher
education should focus on the instructors themselves, who would take the initiative and
explore what they do and why they do it in search of a better understanding of their
individual teaching processes. In the process, teachers observe themselves, collect data
about their own classroom performance and results, and use that data for self-evaluation,
questioning their attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and teaching practices, in order to
change and grow professionally. In this inquiry-based approach to reflective teaching,
teachers are to answer questions whose answers will help them evaluate their teaching,
question their assumptions, decide if aspects of their own teaching could be changed,
develop strategies for change, and monitor the effects of implementing these strategies.
Johnston and Irujo (2004) noted that studies of observation and supervision are now
investigating new models that move away from transmission of information about good
or bad teaching (e.g., Fanselow, 1988). They added that conceptualizations of inservice
opportunities have been enriched by the work done around reflective teaching and action
research (Edge, 2001; Edge & Richards, 1993; Kamhi-Stein & Galván, 1997; and others)
and that there is a growing group of studies in which teacher educators further their own
professional development, as well as knowledge about the processes of teacher education,

5
through reflective studies and action research (Mercado, 1996; Bailey, et al., 1998; Irujo,
2000; Johnston, 2000).
Conferences on Language Teacher Education are being held all over the world
displaying marked emphasis on inservice teacher education and programs that are
teacher-learner-centered, and which promote reflection and collaborative action
(research). One example is the International Conference on Language Teacher
Education, sponsored by the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition of
the University of Minnesota which has been held once a year since 1999 and whose
themes give a clear idea of that focus.
The Purpose
Given such interest in a teacher-learner centered, context-sensitive language teacher
education (Kumaravadivelu, 2001), the marked emphasis on reflection and action
research (Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Gebhard & Oprandy, 1999; Burns, 1999; and
others), and the still scarce amount of data-based evidence that such programs work or do
not work (Richards & Nunan, 1990), this project aims at investigating the overall
perception teachers have of a program that incorporates those characteristics and allow
for teachers to take responsibility for their developmental process.
The Framework
A 10-week inservice teacher education program based on reflection and action
research was devised following suggestions by Richards and Lockhart (1996); Gebhard
and Oprandy (1999); Richards and Nunan (1990); Bailey, et al. (1998); Burns (1999) and
6
others. The program – essentially teacher-learner centered – started with teachers
individually, continued with small group discussions, and finished with a practical and
objective collaborative action-research activity. In the process, the teacher-learners were
guided into acknowledging their beliefs, questioning them, comparing them with actual
practice, reflecting on both – first individually and then in small groups, – and acting
upon them for awareness and eventual change.
Specific Research Objectives and Organization
The four specific research objectives (SRO) of this thesis are listed below. The way
they are sequenced here follows a conceptual order, although this order may not coincide
with the way in which the data was collected.
SRO1: to investigate the impact of self and group reflection on teachers’ beliefs
and practices;
SRO2: to investigate types of reflective activities that are more motivating for
teachers;
SRO3: to investigate types of specific learning issues that may emerge from an
inservice teacher education program based on reflection and action
research;
SRO4: to investigate the overall perception teachers have of a program based on
reflection and action research.
The initial research questions, which can be found in the Material, Procedures,
and Methods chapter, refer to these specific objectives. No specific hypotheses were
raised, as they were expected to emerge from the data.

7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter starts by reviewing the recent history and trends in language teacher
education to contextualize the design of the inservice program utilized for data collection
in this research. It covers the distinction between preservice and inservice teacher
education, pointing out some common problems regarding the first and a shift of
emphasis toward the second. As the program designed for this research is based on
reflection and action research, this review also addresses the emphasis on teacher-learner
centered approaches, the suggested use of reflection and action-research in language
teacher education programs, the kinds of reflective techniques suggested in the literature,
and some issues related to teachers’ research, particularly, collaborative action research.
The purpose of this review is to argue that there is still a need for research that
investigates how teachers perceive the effectiveness of a program that puts together most
of the principles describe above.
Recent History and Trends in TESOL Teacher Education Research
Until around the mid 1970s, a concern with the credibility of the teacher
profession in general led to the assumption that good teacher performance was the result
of acquired research-driven knowledge (Holmes Group, 1986), or the knowledge of
general theories and methods assumed to be applicable to any teaching context. For this
reason, teaching was viewed as a set of discrete behaviors, conclusions about teaching
were detached from the contexts within which it occurred, and the teachers’ perspectives
and understandings of teaching practices were ignored (Woods, 1987). Teacher

8
education focused exclusively on theory, while a practicum provided opportunities for
observation and practice, but the real development of teaching abilities and strategies
would only happen when teachers got involved in real-life practice (Freeman & Johnson,
1998).
A focus on the importance of teachers’ thoughts
An interest in teachers’ thoughts, judgments, decisions, and cognitive processes
that shape behaviors emerged around the mid-seventies (Jackson, 1968; Shavelson &
Stern, 1981) and was known as teacher cognition. This interest, however, was restricted
to general observation of what teachers did and the reasons why they did so, with no
focus on the teachers’ individual experiences and perspectives in the process of their own
professional development (Freeman & Richards, 1996). The idea was simply to identify
effective teaching behaviors and present them as models to teachers-in-preparation (Clark
& Peterson, 1986).
By the mid-eighties, a new interest emerged in how teachers thought their
previous classroom experiences as learners shaped their teaching behaviors, values and
beliefs (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Pajares, 1992), an interest which is still prevalent
today, according to Freeman and Johnson (1998).
In 1990, Richards and Nunan edited a collection entitled Second Language
Teacher Education which is considered the first notable publication that was rich in both
theoretical approaches and empirical data (Johnston & Irujo, 2004). Its papers brought a
new emphasis to issues such as reflective teaching (Bartlett, 1990), and the need to design
new models of teacher education programs (Lange, 1990).

9
A focus on the context-sensitive nature of teachers’ knowledge-base
Gradually, the interest in teachers’ thoughts shifted towards a systematic effort to
investigate the complex process of teacher knowledge during and after formal teacher
education (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). In 1996 alone, five volumes were published on issues
related to teacher knowledge (Woods, 1996; Freeman & Richards, 1996; Bailey et al.,
1996; Nunan & Lamb, 1996; and Lier, 1996). Freeman and Johnson (1998) identified a
problem with the knowledge-base of language teacher education, which is that it “often
remains compartmentalized in separate course offerings, continues to be transmitted
through passive instructional strategies, and remains generally disconnected from the
authentic activity of teaching in actual schools and classrooms,” (p. 402). Thus, they
proposed a reconceptualization of such a knowledge-base, so that it focused on the
activity of teaching itself, and centered on the teacher who does it, the contexts in which
it is done, and the pedagogy by which it is done. Moreover, they proposed a
reconceptualization of teaching itself “from a behavioral view of what people do when
they teach languages to a constructivist view of how people learn to teach,” (p. 402) – in
other words, they proposed a change of focus from preservice to inservice teacher
education.
Preservice and Inservice Language Teacher Education
The distinction between preservice and inservice teacher education is usually
agreed upon by researchers and the teaching community. Preservice refers to a course or
program of study which student teachers complete before they begin teaching, whereas
inservice refers to experiences which are provided to teachers who are already teaching
10
and which form part of their continued professional development (Richards & Schmidt,
2002).
MA-TESOL programs, which are typical examples or preservice programs,
usually require students to study methods and materials, phonology, morphology, syntax,
applied linguistics and theories of second language acquisition (Richards & Hino, 1983;
Reid, 1995/1996, Freeman & Johnson, 1998), and include a practicum which gives the
teacher-learners the chance to practice what they have learned from those classes
(Richards & Crookes, 1987). Although what preservice education provides is essential
for the formation of teachers, Freeman and Johnson (1998) warn against the assumption
that these discrete amounts of knowledge will be enough to make effective professionals
and that they will be applicable to any teaching context. They state that, “the true locus of
teacher learning lay in on-the-job initiation into the practices of teaching and not in the
processes of professional teacher education,” (p. 399). Freeman and Johnson see schools
and classrooms as critical to constructing effective teacher education because they
function as frameworks of value and interpretation in which language teachers learn to
work effectively; they are the places in which teacher-learners carry out their work, test
out theory in practice, are socialized into teaching in their first years on the job, and
receive inservice education.
In discussing the contextual, situated nature of L2 teaching, Freeman (1994)
observes that “aside from the structural distinctions between pre- and inservice education,
front loading persists as the dominant format in teacher education so that a single,
sustained professional input early on in teachers’ careers is assumed to equip recipients
for a lifetime of professional work.” (p. 3). As Clair (1998) put it, “one-shot workshops
11
and prepackage seminars, although potentially effective for creating awareness and
building discrete skills, are insufficient for facilitating teacher collaboration and change,”
(p. 466).
Similarly, Richards and Lockhart (1996) argue that simply exposing teachers to
research or theory is not enough as they will build their experience in teaching and in the
process construct their own theories. They also suggest that traditional inservice teacher
workshops designed to improve teaching skills often have only short-term effects and
rarely involve teachers in an ongoing process of examining their teaching.
Bailey et al. (1998) stated their belief that successful professional development
must be ongoing, sustained, and self-directed. As Lange (1990) noted, the phrase teacher
development is used to describe “a process of continual intellectual, experiential, and
attitudinal growth of teachers,” (p. 250). The term development is specifically used to
suggest that teachers continue to evolve in the use, adaptations, and application of their
art and craft. It is the continuance of that evolution – which Larsen-Freeman (1983) calls
the educative process – that teacher education programs seek, but rarely establish.
Freeman and Johnson (1998) observed that “because the research knowledge per
se does not articulate easily and cogently into classroom practice, much current
knowledge in SLA may be of limited use and applicability to practicing teachers,” (p.
411). For this reason, they argue that teacher education should focus less on what
teachers need to know or on how they can be trained, and more on what they actually
know, how this knowledge shapes what they do, or what the natural course of their
professional development was over time.

12
Gebhard and Oprandy (1999) suggest that a new approach to inservice teacher
education is needed because much of what is learned from in-campus programs is soon
forgotten or discarded when teachers enter or return to schools. They argue that it is
imperative to provide teachers with inservice programs which link the content of teacher
education to the contexts in which they work.
In summary, according to the literature, effective models of professional
development should be authentic, embedded in the reality of school life, participatory,
designed and directed with teachers’ input, and should reflect principles of adult learning
and shared decision making. They should focus on individual and organizational
learning; should be site based, coherent, comprehensive, rigorous, sustained, and
adequate to facilitate growth, critical reflection, and change (Little, 1993; Hawley &
Valli, 1996; Renyi, 1996; Sykes, 1996; Lewis, 1997).
From Top-Down to Teacher-Learner Centered Inservice Education
Bailey, et al. (1998) observed that “just as teachers cannot do the learning for the
learners, teacher educators cannot do the learning for preservice or in-service teachers,”
(p. 554).
Kumaravadivelu (2001) noted that it is well known by now that most models of
teacher education follow a top-down approach, in which teacher educators engineer the
classroom teaching of teacher-learners, suggest the best ways to teach, model appropriate
teaching behaviors, and evaluate the mastery of such behaviors. He said that “such a
transmission model of teacher education is hopelessly inadequate to produce self-
directing and self-determining teachers,” (p.552). According to Kumaravadivelu, teacher

13
education should “start with practicing teachers, either individually or collectively,
observing their teaching acts, evaluating their outcomes, identifying problems, finding
solutions, and trying them out to see once again what works and what does not,” (p. 539)
Nunan (1990) stated that a primary goal for inservice teacher education is to give
teachers ways of exploring their own classroom. However, the purpose of preservice and
inservice teacher supervision has often been to evaluate the teacher’s teaching, offer
suggestions on the best way to teach, direct or guide the teacher, and model teaching
behaviors. This supervised (top-down) approach to teacher education is essentially
prescriptive in its nature and forces teachers to comply with what the supervisor thinks
they should do in the classroom. In this way, teachers are not allowed to develop the
skills they need to make informed decisions about how to teach (Gebhard & Ueda-
Motonaga, 1992).
An alternative approach to supervision, intended to provide teachers with
opportunities to explore their own teaching, is presented by Fanselow (1982, 1987b,
1990), Gebhard (1990), and Gebhard, Gaitan and Oprandy (1990). This approach does
not tell teachers what to do or how to do it, but rather collaborates with them in the
process of exploring teaching possibilities. The goal of exploration is not to look for a
better way to teach, but to construct and reconstruct a detailed description of teaching
based on awareness gained from systematic observation (Gebhard & Ueda-Motonaga,
1992).
Richards and Lockhart (1996) argue that it is important that the developmental
responsibility be transferred to teachers, by putting them in the center of the teacher-
learning process, and acknowledging their right to choose their own ways of teaching
14
according with their individual characteristics and beliefs. They also list the many
influences that impact one’s teaching and point out how important it is that teachers
reflect on them to gain teaching awareness.
Building on John Fanselow’s ideas (1977a; 1977b; 1982; 1987b; 1990; Fanselow
& Light, 1977), Gebhard and Oprandy (1999) defend an exploratory approach to
teaching, in which teachers take responsibility for their own development through careful
descriptive and nonjudgmental observation of teaching processes from different angles,
and meticulous reflection on them. According to them, this is to be accomplished through
careful examination of one’s beliefs about teaching, experimenting with practical actions
that facilitate observation, locating practical classroom problems, acting upon them
through action research projects, and expanding exploration beyond the boundaries of
classroom and school.
Reflection in Language Teacher Education Programs
A general agreement about the conceptualization of the notion or reflection is that
it is an intrapersonal process with the potential to facilitate personal and professional
knowledge, that it can be a process and method of informing practice with reason, and
that it can promote changes in behavior and practice (Knowles, 1991). Reflection is
considered an important component of learning in teacher development and has been a
constant focus of teacher development activities based on the assumption that teachers
can improve their understanding of teaching and the quality of their own teaching by
reflecting critically on their teaching experiences (Richards & Schmidt, 2002).

15
Bartlett (1990) lists some of the approaches to teacher development proposed and
implemented since the early eighties – teacher-as-researcher, action research, clinical
supervision, the critical pedagogy perspective, and reflective teaching. He proposes a re-
visitation of the latter, first popularized by Cruickshank (Cruickshank & Applegate 1981;
Cruickshank et al. 1981; Zeichner 1981-2) about twenty years ago.
Reflective teaching is defined by Cruickshank and Applegate (1981) as the
teacher’s thinking thoughtfully, analytically and objectively about what happens in
classroom lessons, and about alternative means of achieving goals or aims. Their idea of
reflection is constrained to the process of thinking, and the purpose of reflective teaching
is ultimately to create good habits of thought. In this context, the most important action
on the part of the teachers to improve their practice is the development of teaching
techniques.
According to Zeichner and Liston (1985), however, Cruickshank’s definition
would broadly fit a first level of reflection, which they call origins, According to them,
reflection should extend to the purposes and consequences of a teacher’s work, as well as
to the material and ideological constraints and encouragements embedded in the
classroom, school, and societal contexts in which they live. The goal is that teachers
develop the pedagogical habits and skills they need for self growth.
The objective of reflection
One of several goals behind a reflective approach is to encourage teachers to take
responsibility for their professional development and in doing so, acquire a sense of
ownership of their own professional growth and autonomy. While reflecting, teachers
16
must examine their attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and teaching practices, and use the
information obtained as a basis for critical reflection about teaching (Richards &
Lockhart, 1996). Moreover, by regularly reflecting on their own practices, teachers are
expected to develop and test their own theories about teaching and learning (Calderhead
& Gates, 1993). This kind of reflective practice is consistent with what Freeman and
Richards (1996) called an interpretivist view of teaching (teaching as knowing what to
do), as opposed to a behavioral view (teaching as doing), and a cognitive view (teaching
as thinking and doing). Kumaravadivelu (2001) stated that a continual cycle of
observation, reflection, and action is a prerequisite for the development of context-
sensitive pedagogic knowledge. Reflecting on one’s teaching, and, in the process,
developing knowledge and theories of teaching, is regarded as an essential component in
the lifelong process of professional growth (Nunan & Lamb, 1996; Bailey, et al, 1998).
Bailey, et al. (1998) observed that “regular reflection on their classroom experiences
allows teachers to identify areas in their teaching that they feel need attention and thus
spurs their continuing professional development,” (p. 536-537). In addition, when critical
reflection is seen as an ongoing process and a routine part of teaching, it enables teachers
to feel more confident in trying different approaches and assessing their effects on
teaching (Richards & Lockhart, 1996).
Experience is not enough
Richards and Lockhart (1996) argued that “experience is insufficient as a basis for
development,” and that regardless of their experience, “much of what happens in teaching
is unknown to the teacher,” (p. 3-4). According to the authors, critical reflection through
17
self-inquiry can trigger a deeper understanding of facts about their teaching that teachers
are not aware of. Such examination involves posing questions about how and why things
are the way they are, what value systems they represent, what alternatives might be
available, and what the limitations are of doing things one way as opposed do another.
Teachers who are better informed as to the nature of their teaching are able to evaluate
their stage of professional growth and what aspects of their teaching they need to change.
Broadening the Scope of Reflective Activities
For a study investigating reflective teaching, Bailey, et al. (1998) chose three
reflective tools – journals, videotaping, and teaching portfolios – and stated their belief
that the use of any of them could lead to powerful professional development. They
argued that the fact that the participant teachers could voluntarily choose which activity
to undertake allowed them to fit the activities to their regular routine, so as to make up for
time constraints, and contributed to a sense of ownership and commitment. This suggests
that to add flexibility to a teacher education program based on reflection, teacher
educators should provide teacher-learners with as many choices of activities as possible,
given the many possible variations of personalities, styles, personal preferences, and time
availability.
Popular (and not so popular) types of reflective activities
Activities such as journal writing, audio and videotaping, lesson reports, surveys
and questionnaires, group discussion, and peer observation are often utilized in teacher
education programs and are also referred to in the literature (Bartlett, 1992; Richards &
18
Lockhart, 1996; Bailey, et al., 1998; Farrell, 1998; Stanley, 1998; Thiel, 1999; and
Crandall, 2000; among others). A far from exhaustive list of other reflective activities
suggested in the literature includes: interviewing teachers, engaging a critical friend,
drama /role play, trying the opposite, developing metaphors; storytelling, critical incident
analysis, mind mapping, course/unit/program reviews, clinical supervision, mentoring,
teaching portfolios, teaching/learning networks (e.g., WebLogs or Blogs & Web
Forums), and action research. Although reports on the practical results of some of the
activities listed above have been reported in the literature, to date there seems to be no
study that compares many of them together for effectiveness and applicability – neither
from the point of view of researchers, nor from that of practicing teachers.
Reflective activities as tools in action research
Burns (1999) suggested reflective activities as tools for data collection in action
research, and classified them in two great groups: observational and non-observational.
She argued that observation tools have the advantages of enabling the action researcher
to identify emerging classroom patterns and themes and clarify the issues that are central
to the classroom investigation, while non-observational tools result in data that are
essentially introspective, that is, they invite personal and individual accounts of events,
attitudes and beliefs.
From Reflection to Action
Dewey (1916, 1931, 1933), a pragmatist philosopher who is considered the father
of all kinds of cyclical models in reflection, defined reflection as a tool to foster

19
pragmatic and instrumental improvement. Inspired by the pragmatic ideas of Dewey,
Schon (1983, 1987) introduced the idea of reflection-in-action which represents the
complex ways in which professionals interact with practical problems as they test out and
modify hypotheses, spot problems and find solutions within the contexts in which they
work. Schon’s work initiated a significant shift in teacher education and research towards
an ever increasing emphasis on reflective practice so teachers come to understand their
own thinking (Richards & Lockhart, 1996). This kind of reflection-in-action, according to
Bailey, et al. (1998) “can lead to undeniable insights that come from the insider
knowledge only we as teachers possess,” (p.548).
To Kemmis (1986), reflection is more than “just an individual, psychological
process. It is an action-oriented, historically-embedded, social and political frame, to
locate oneself in the history of a situation, to participate in a social activity, and to take
sides on issues. Through reflection and the action which it informs, we may transform the
social relations which characterize our work and our working situation,” (p. 5)
Teachers and Research
The notion of teacher research in TESOL has been growing steadily since the
beginning of the 1900s and is advocated for by many researchers, among which is
Kumaravadivelu. According to Kumaravadivelu (2001), practicing teachers can develop
interpretive strategies to observe, analyze, and evaluate their own teaching acts by using a
suitable classroom observation framework, and should start by “determining what basic
assumptions about language, learning, and teaching are implied in their original
pedagogic formulations, what existing assumptions need to be modified in light of

20
research findings, and what changes in pedagogic formulations are warranted by such
modifications,” (p. 551 ). Kumaravadivelu suggested that it is through research initiated
and implemented by teachers and motivated mainly by their own desire to self-explore
and self-improve that teachers can theorize from practice and practice what they theorize.
Burton (1998) suggested that teachers’ research should stimulate careful
consideration of practice and theorizing as a means to further action. She places teachers
as the central contributors in any reflective process on TESOL research and argued that
teachers are not only the ones who can provide classroom data, but are also the most
qualified interpreters of research data, and the ones who are more likely to act on research
outcomes in the classroom. In addition to that, she suggested that the involvement of
teachers in research will help them develop the skill of theorizing classroom practice – a
point previously defended by Nunan (1987) and by Burton (1991) herself. Burton stated
that “teachers’ insights on and involvement in research processes are essential, valuable
contributions to curriculum innovation and professional renewal. In doing research,
teachers learn to ask good questions about what they do and know, and what they do
about what they know (Freeman, 1995), and to test the trustworthiness of their learning in
action,” (p. 422). Burton listed six reasons why teacher education should focus on what
teachers need from research: first, because orthodox research does not provide what
teachers want to know; second, because teachers find learning about teaching for
themselves professionally and intellectually satisfying; third, because unlike professional
researchers, teachers have a personal, direct investment in research outcomes; fourth,
because teachers tend to view learning as a continual construction process rather than as a
body of knowledge to be discovered and maintained; fifth, because teachers seek

21
understanding and illumination rather than explanation and definition; and last, because
teachers have different expectations of research reports: they appreciate thick description
rather than the reduced context of formal research reports.
Once the importance of the involvement of teachers in research is established,
other issues come into play, such as what counts as research, how it should be done, who
this research is useful for, how the outcomes can be shared, tested, and furthered, and
how to guarantee its reliability and sustainability. A systematic approach to teachers’
research which seems to provide satisfactory responses to those issues and which has
grown in popularity and respect over the years is action research. The next paragraphs
define the term and show what some researchers say about its applicability, qualities,
purposes, and methods.
Action Research
Kurt Lewin (1948, 1952), a social psychologist, is regarded as the father of the
concept of action research. The basic premise was that those affected by planned changes
should be responsible for deciding the kind of action that will possibly lead to
improvement as well as for evaluating the results of what was tried out in practice
(Gebhard & Oprandy, 1999). The linking of the terms action and research highlights the
essential feature of the method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of improvement
and as a means of increasing knowledge about the curriculum, teaching and learning.
22
Action Research: tailor made for the field of education
Corey (1952, 1953), adopted action research under the argument that formal
research has little impact on educational practice. He observed that by studying their
own teaching through action research, teachers were more likely to change their teaching
than from reading about what someone else had discovered regarding the consequences
of their teaching.
Action Research: context-based, collaborative, participatory, and self-evaluative
Cohen and Manion (1985) described action research as a small-scale intervention
in the functioning of the real world and a close examination of the effects of such
intervention. They suggested that action research should be context-based, collaborative,
participatory, and self-evaluative. A collaborative approach to action research is also
what Burns (1999) defends. According to Burns, action research works best for teachers
when it is collaborative and framed by supporting structures, such as a school and/or
integrated within a professional development program.
Action Research: an exploratory approach
Gebhard and Oprandy (1999) observed that action research provides teachers with
a way of looking at their practice that helps them to reflect on their teaching and allows
them to systematically work through the classroom problems or concerns by creating and
initiating plans of action and then reflecting on the degree to which the plans work. They
advocate the notion of exploratory teaching, and state that in order for action research to
be valid as an exploration of teaching, its objective has to go beyond just finding a
solution to a problem; it must include the discovery and rediscovery of our teaching
23
beliefs and practices and must produce awareness of our teaching related to our problem-
solving processes.
Comparison of the Program Used for Data Collection in this Project with another
Tri-Dimensional Teacher Education Framework Suggested in the Literature
The inservice teacher education program designed for data collection bears some
resemblance to a framework proposed by Kumaravadivelu (2001), although this program
was not based on that. Kumaravadivelu’s framework was a reaction to what he called a
“repeatedly articulated dissatisfaction with the limitations of the concept of method and
the transmission model of teacher education,” (p. 537) and consists of a three-
dimensional system in which the parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility
are proposed as organizing principles for L2 teaching and teacher education. As can be
seen from the comparative graphic in figure 2.1, the two first phases of the model
designed for this project bear close resemblance to those proposed by Kumaravadivelu.
Aside from some overlapping in the focus of each phase, it can be seen that both start
from the teachers individually, helping them confront their beliefs and assumptions, and
both bring reflection into practical pedagogical contexts by helping teachers observe their
teaching acts, understand and identify problems, analyze and assess information, and
consider and evaluate alternatives for intervention. Kumaravadivelu’s third dimension
focus on a political dimension which is not explicitly mentioned in the framework of this
program due to the fact that the focus here was on the teachers’ reactions to and learning
from designing an intervention plan derived from reflection. It is undeniable, though, that
political issues often play a crucial role in the design of action-research projects.
24
Figure 2.1
This Model
Kumaravadivelu (2001) Comparison of Two Frameworks
25
Empirical Research on the Effectiveness of Reflection in Teacher Education
As can be seen from this review, much has been discussed and theorized about
reflection in teacher education, but little empirical evidence is available to support these
theories. Cornford (2002), noted that only a small number of empirical studies have
been published that have examined the effectiveness of reflective teaching or practice in
achieving the desired objectives of a particular reflective approach. According to
Cornford, even the few empirical studies published show disappointing results. In
addition to that, he argued that as quality journals seldom report empirical studies that
produce non-significant results, there is a good chance that many other studies were
conducted but failed to demonstrate the effectiveness or significant benefits of reflective
practices. Even if one does not subscribe to Cornford’s position, the fact remains that
there is little published empirical evidence to support the widespread ideological
enthusiasm for reflective teaching and reflection based teacher education approaches.
This thesis project was motivated by this need of empirical evidence about
whether an inservice teacher education program based solely on reflection and action
research can effectively foster teacher development. The perspective, however, is not that
of the researcher, or of scholars and professional experts, but that of the teachers
themselves, who are in the heart of the process, confronting beliefs, theorizing from their
practice and practicing what they theorize (Kumaravadivelu, 1999). This project
investigated how teachers acknowledged the impact of reflection on their beliefs and
practice; which activities they thought were more motivating and beneficial to them; what
specific learning issues emerged from such a program, and how much this approach
contributed to giving teachers a sense of ownership of their developmental process.

26
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES, MATERIALS, AND METHODS
The Research Questions
The four research questions (RQ), which are respectively consistent with the four
specific research objectives (SRO) stated in the first chapter, are:
1. What is the impact of reflection on teachers’ beliefs and practices?
2. What kinds of reflective activities are more motivating for teachers?
3. What specific learning issues may emerge from an inservice teacher education
program based on reflection and action research?
4. What is the overall perception teachers have of a program based on reflection
and action research?
The Participants
Four Teacher Assistants (TAs) from the Service Courses of the Division of English as an
International Language (DEIL) of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
(UIUC) were invited to participate in this 10-week research project, and were given a
brief explanation of the purpose of the study and a tentative schedule (The schedule can
be seen in Appendix A). Upon their acceptance, a time was arranged for the first meeting
when they signed the Letters of Consent and were given a detailed explanation about the
whole project. For the sake of this thesis, and to preserve their confidentiality, the
participant teachers were given pseudonyms and are referred to as Alice, Irwin, Mary and
Yvonne. As far as teaching experience goes, Alice had no previous teaching experience
27
except for some tutoring of Spanish and ESL, and a few weeks teaching a service course
on phonetics and morphology as a teacher assistant at the UIUC. Irwin had extensive
experience with EFL tutoring, two years of experience teaching EFL in Mexico and was
now teaching an undergraduate course on academic writing; Mary had over five years of
experience in teaching Spanish as a foreign language and English as a second language at
various levels and also taught academic writing at UIUC; and Yvonne had over 5 years of
EFL tutoring experience and was also teaching academic writing as a TA.
The role of the participants
The role of the participant teachers was that of learners in the sense that they were
expected to be actively involved in the learning process and take responsibility for their
role in it. Throughout this paper they are referred to as participant teachers, teacher-
learners, or simply teachers.
The role of the researcher was that of a teacher-supervisor, in the sense that rather
than being the one who held the knowledge, he was an organizer, assessor, prompter,
resource, and occasionally participant (Harmer, 2001).
A Descriptive and Non-Judgmental Approach
This program was designed to be consistent with the ideas of Fanselow (1990)
and Gebhard and Oprandy (1999), in which no activity was to be prescriptive or
judgmental. The researcher provided the participants with an organized set of procedures
and suggestions of activities to facilitate reflection and to achieve awareness-raising
goals, but made clear that the main goal was simply exploration for the sake of learning.
28
The participants were informed that the results of their reflection would be objectively
discussed rather than evaluated and that the entire set of procedures, as well as the final
analysis, was to be as descriptive and non-judgmental as possible. What was expected
from the participants was that they simply reflect on what they did, justify choices, and
express preferences, the degree of satisfaction, and accomplishment from their
participation in the program.
Material and Procedures
Figure 3.1 aims at giving a global idea of the three-dimensional framework of this
project. It starts with pure individual reflection, brings this reflection to more practical
situations, and gradually moves to collaborative work. It searches for consistency with a
teacher-centered, bottom-up approach, as defended in the literature (Richards &
Lockhart, 1996; Gebhard & Oprandy, 1999; Richards & Nunan, 1990; Bailey, et al.,
1998; Burns, 1999; and others). This conceptual map should function as a visual
reference to help understand the whole process, as each phase of the project is being
explained. The map shows the activities undertaken by the participants in each phase and
their intrinsic purposes, the relevance of those activities for the purpose of data
collection, and the specific data sources from each phase. Besides being a source of data,
the group discussions (GDs) also served as an opportunity to instruct the participants in
the procedures for the following phase.
The following sections provide a narrative description of the procedures,
materials and methods used in this study, along with explanation regarding sequence and
components of the three phases of the program used for data collection.
29
Figure 3.1
Conceptual Map
Phase One
The focus of Phase One was on the teacher individually and the purpose was
primarily to help the participant teachers reflect on some of their basic beliefs in order to
gain awareness, and secondarily, to allow them to compare their stated beliefs with their
teaching practice for convergences or discrepancies. The result of reflection was to be

30
reported in an essay. The participants were informed about the first of those objectives,
but not about the second, as not to predispose them to force a match between practice and
beliefs when answering the second questionnaire. The possibility that they noticed such
intention was considered but not regarded as a variable that might spoil the purpose of the
research as it might simply anticipate reflection that would inform their essays.
The specific research objectives (SRO) in this phase were primarily the
investigation of the impact of self reflection on teachers’ beliefs and practices (SRO1)
from the point of view of the teachers. Secondarily, the data from this phase was also
expected to contribute with information about types of specific learning issues that may
emerge from an inservice teacher education program based on reflection and action
research (SRO3), and the overall perception teachers have of a program based on
reflection and action research (SRO4).
The first meeting (Introducing phase one)
Phase one was introduced at the end of the first meeting. The participants were
told that they would receive by e-mail the first task – an awareness-raising questionnaire
(Questionnaire A, which can be seen in appendix B) about their beliefs regarding
ESL/EFL teaching. They were given one week to answer the questionnaire in a frank and
objective way and have in mind that their answers should not be directed to the
researcher but to themselves. They were also told that there was no right or wrong, which
means they would not be judged as such since what really mattered for the project was
their further reflection upon answering them. They were asked to try their best at
answering all the questions, but were given the right to skip questions for which they did
31
not have an answer or which they did not want to answer. They were offered help with
clarifications at any time by e-mail, telephone, or in person.
Questionnaire B, which can be seen in appendix C, was also awareness-raising
but with the focus on the participants’ ESL/EFL teaching practice. They were asked to
think about their own teaching and what they did on a regular basis in class, and to
answer another set of ten questions following the same criteria established for the first
one – sincerity, objectiveness, focus on themselves, no concern with assessment, and the
right to choose not to answer. The questions in Questionnaire B were purposely related to
the stated beliefs of Questionnaire A, but arranged in a different order so that the
participants would not immediately relate them with the questions they had previously
answered.
Table 3.1 below shows the questions as they were paired. The letters (A) and (B)
refer to Questionnaires A and B. The numbers between brackets refer to the numbers that
the questions were given in the original questionnaire:
Table 3.1
Reflective Questions of Phase One as They Were Paired
About the choice of field A. How would you characterize English teaching as a profession?
[1]
B. Why did you decide to become a teacher? Why did you choose
teaching English? [1]
About experience as a Language A. How do you believe your own learning has influenced your
Learner teaching? [2]
B. In what ways have you been able to bring the insights of your
own learning experience into your teaching? [3]
32
Table 3.1 (Continued)
About teaching as a profession A. How can teachers pursue professional development? [3]
B. What kinds of professional development activities have you
been engaged in? [10]
About self image as a teacher A. What in your opinion are the personal characteristics necessary
(The teacher’s mirror) to make someone a successful teacher? [4]
B. Chose three adjectives that would better describe you as a

teacher and explain why they were chosen. Choose three words
your students might use to describe you as a teacher and explain
why they would choose them. [2]
About beliefs derived from A. Is your teaching aligned with any known TESL/TEFL
educationally or research-based methodology? If so, which one and why? If not, how would you
principles or from methods label your teaching approach? [5]
whose effectiveness the teacher
trusts. B. What are some preferred activities you use in your classes? Why
do you believe they are effective for learning? [6]
About the roles of teachers and A. Visualize the ideal classroom: what does it look like? (Think of
learners students, teachers, resources, and goals). [6]
B. What is your role in your classroom? What role do you expect

your students to assume in your classroom? [5]
About making a difference A. What kind of relationship do you think teachers should have
(holistic teaching) with students in an EFL/ESL classroom? [7]
B. What kind of learning environment do you try to create in your
classroom? [4]
About catering for different A. How important is to address individual learning styles and meet
learning styles the needs of students with different levels of ability? [8]
B. How do you vary instruction for the individual needs of your

students? Give specific examples. [8]
About motivational strategies A. What is the role of the teacher in motivating students to learn a
foreign or second language? [9]
B. What techniques do you use to keep students actively involved
and motivated during a lesson? [9]
About the program and the A. Who do you think should decide what to teach? [10]
curriculum
B. What determines the content of your lesson plan? (Ex.: the
curriculum provided by the school, the textbook content, the
needs your students have voiced or you noticed they have...) [7]
33
Questionnaire C (Essay Question – appendix D) was entitled How much does
your practice match your beliefs? and, as the title suggests, prompted the participants to
contrast their stated beliefs with their practice and reflect on how much their practices
were consistent with their beliefs. The participants’ answers to the first two
questionnaires were paired according to topic and the participants were asked to compare
their answers for convergences and discrepancies between beliefs and practice and then
write an essay on the main points of their reflection. They were asked to include in their
essay reference to any point they were planning to give special consideration to and/or act
upon, and to state their opinion about the relevance of acknowledging beliefs and
comparing them with practice in terms of empowering a teacher to address specific needs
related to his/her teaching.
The second meeting (closing Phase One and introducing phase two)
The second meeting was planned to last sixty minutes: twenty minutes for a
discussion of the tasks and events of Phase One and forty minutes for an explanation of
phase two. The discussion was not monitored by the researcher, who observed at a
distance and took notes. After the meeting, each participant was sent an electronic
message with five YES/NO questions about Phase One and a box for comments. The
questions are listed below and the full form can be seen in appendix E.
1. Did you find discrepancy(ies) between your beliefs and your practice?
2. After you reflected on your beliefs and your practice, is there any point you
plan to give special consideration?

34
3. Do you feel that acknowledging your beliefs and comparing them with your
practice may help you address your needs related to your teaching?
4. Do you feel that activities such as these of Phase One display respect for your
individual teaching style?
5. Had you ever been prompted to check your beliefs against your practice
before?
The relevant materials for data collection in Phase One are the reflective essays
and the answers to these questions.
Phase Two
The focus of Phase Two was practical in the sense that the teachers’ reflections
were directly linked to their teaching practice, feeding and being fed by it, thus enabling
them to understand and identify problems, analyze and assess information, consider this
information, and evaluate alternatives for intervention (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). Instead
of the more philosophical reflection of phase one, the attention was now focused on the
exploration of the teachers’ pedagogical practice. Moreover, the activities of this phase
were expected to inform the designing of the action-research plan in phase three.
The specific research objectives in this phase were primarily the investigation of
types of reflective activities that are more motivating for teachers (SRO2), and the impact
of self and group reflection on teachers’ beliefs and practices (SRO1), all from the point
of view of the teachers themselves. The enquiry about the teachers’ preference was
expected to contribute to a holistic evaluation of this program (SRO4). As in all the
others, this phase was also expected to provide information regarding types of specific
35
learning issues that may emerge from an inservice teacher education program based on
reflection and action research (SRO3).
The twenty minutes left at the end of the second meeting for the explanation of
Phase Two were barely enough, but this was compensated by the fact that the material
prepared for it was self explanatory. The participants were told that this second phase
should be less time consuming than the first phase – especially if they chose reflective
activities that could be carried out during their regular classes. The task was to write an
essay about one reflective activity they had tried out. They were reminded that they could
try as many activities as they pleased, but should report on only one. Each participant
received a kit of reflective activities as described in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2
List of Reflective Activities
NON-OBSERVATIONAL ACTIVITIES
1. Writing a teaching journal/diary
Participants could choose between writing a journal or a diary, which could be either intrapersonal or
dialogic. If dialogic, the journals or diaries should be exchanged either with another participant-teacher
or with any other EFL/EFL teacher.
2. Writing an activity report

Participants should write a report on an activity or section of their classes. Such activity or section
should not be longer than 20 minutes.
3. Interviewing Teachers (Burns, 1999)

Participants should interview teachers who were not involved in the research project on issues they
were interested in knowing more about. For such they were provided with an extensive list of questions
on several issues (The list addressed the same issues listed in Table 3.1 and some more. The full list
can be seen in Appendix E)
4. Developing Metaphors (Block, 1992; Allan, 1994; Tobbin, 1990; Burns, 1999)
Participants should think of a metaphor that described themselves and their teaching in imaginative
ways.
5. Trying the opposite (Gebhard & Oprandy, 1999)

Participants should choose one of their teaching behaviors – preferably a controversial one (e.g., error
correction; use of L1) – and try an exact opposite behavior. There was no specific objective other than
observing and reflecting on the results.
36
Table 3.2 (Continued)
OBSERVATIONAL ACTIVITIES
6. Audio or Video-recording a class
Participants should audio- or video-record no more than 20 minutes of a class they taught, reflect on it
afterwards, and produce a written report of their reflections. They were provided with suggestions of
what to look for, but they were free to choose whatever they wanted to investigate.
7. Seeing one’s teaching through the students’ eyes

One or two students should be chosen and asked to observe a teacher’s class for specific aspects of
their teaching (e.g., teacher talk, space the teacher fills in the classroom, questioning strategies,
correction techniques, mannerisms, and so on). The teacher would conference with the student(s)
afterwards and reflect on the outcome.
8. Stepping into the Students’ Shoes

Participants should put themselves in the students’ shoes by attending a beginners’ class of a language
they knew nothing about, and reflect afterwards about how much they learned regarding what their
students feel in their classroom.
9. Classy Observation
Participants were encouraged to observe a class that apparently has little in common with language
teaching, reflect on their own teaching based on it, and write an essay based on their reflection.
10. Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies (Hahn & Alsberg - unpublished)
Participants were given a DVD with clips of ten movies in which teachers are portrayed in the
classroom (e.g., Mona Lisa Smile, Stand and Deliver, Dead Poets Society). They were asked to reflect
on their teaching practice as well as on their teaching beliefs with basis on those stereotypes. They
were provided with questions and guidelines for their reflection.
The materials included a folder with the ten reflective activities explained in
detail, a DVD with support material for activity 10, and four booklets – two with support
material for activities 3 and 10, one containing examples for activity 9, and one with the
content of the full folder in a pocket format that they could carry with them for quick
reference. The participants were given three weeks to try out as many of the reflective
activities they pleased but to write a reflective essay about only one. They were told that
they could approach the issues from any angle they chose but were asked to have in mind
their answers to the two questionnaires of phase one. They were also told that they could
contact the researcher at any time during the course of the three weeks of Phase Two and
ask for help or clarification.

37
Ten reflective activities were provided, which is a significantly larger number of
activities compared to the programs the literature on which this experiment was based
suggests. This was done to obtain a better idea of how teacher-learners react to them in
terms of preference and thus provide a richer answer to Research Question 2. The
activities were divided in 5 non-observational and 5 observational, according to the
categorization recommended by Burns (1999), in spite of the fact that, as Burns herself
observed, these two broad categories are not mutually exclusive and may overlap. The
full content of the folder and the texts that explain them can be found in appendix F.
The third meeting (closing Phase Two and introducing phase three)
The third meeting was divided into two parts: the first, a debriefing of phase two.
The second, a discussion about specific problems identified as a result of doing the
reflective activities and which the participants would be interested in investigating with
action research.
The first part was a monitored discussion of Phase Two in which the participants
discussed the reflective activities they had chosen to try and their reasons for such; the
activities they had chosen to report on and why; the impact that those activities had
already had on their teaching as well as the likelihood of a future impact; the activities
they still planned to try; and general findings from the full experience.
At the end of this part of the discussion, the participants were asked to fill out a
form in which they ranked the activities from 1 to 10 (1 for their favorite activity, and 10
for the least likely to be chosen) and, in case they had not chosen to try out the one they
ranked 1, they were asked to explain why.

38
In the second part of the meeting the participants made connections between their
reflective experiences and problems which they might be interested in investigating
through action research. In preparation for that, they were given a brief explanation of
what action-research was about with a PowerPoint presentation they had been sent in
advance. It was decided that the action research activity would be to devise an action
research plan that could be carried out in the future. The choice of topics was left for the
participants to decide later, provided that the four of them worked together or in pairs so
as to keep the action research activity collaborative. In the scope of this study, this meant
having a minimum of one and a maximum of two action research plans.
The relevant materials for data collection in Phase Two were not only the content
of the written report, but also the kind and number of activities the participants tried out;
the choice of activities they had chosen to report on, and the reason for their choices.
Phase Three
The focus of Phase Three was on intervention and collaboration. More
specifically, how teachers translate the philosophical impacts of systematic reflection on
their beliefs and pedagogical practices into action and intervention, and what specific
learning issues emerge from the process. The final evaluation was an attempt to
holistically evaluate the teachers perception about this kind of program based on
reflection and action research.
The specific research objectives in this phase were the investigation of the
effectiveness of reflection in fostering teachers’ intervention (SRO1), types of specific
learning issues that may emerge from an inservice teacher education program based on
39
reflection and action research (SRO3), and the overall perception teachers have of a
program based on reflection and action research (SRO4).
The fourth meeting (Closing Phase Three/ Final Survey)
In the final meeting, the participants handed in a final reflective essay about
writing an action research plan that was based on their real and immediate needs as
identified from the reflective activities they experimented with. They were then given a
final survey with sixteen items which should be marked on a Likert Scale that ranged
from strongly disagree to strongly agree (The survey form can be seen in Appendix I).
They were told that the questions were intended to summarize their final impressions
about the project and about the validity of an alternative program for inservice teacher
development and that right after they answered them, they would be given the chance to
discuss them and elaborate on any issue that could not be well represented by that scale.
Data Analysis
Given its broad scope, this research used triangulation, or multiple approaches for
data collection and analysis. It followed a mix of narrative enquiry, case study, and
grounded theory styles. Narrative enquiry because it gave the researcher and the
participant teachers the opportunity to describe, represent, and assess human relations and
interactions related to the acts of teaching (Beattie, 1995), and also because it allowed for
collaborative ventures in which the participant teachers and the researcher raised
questions about their practices, chose courses of action from multiple possibilities, and
co-created new meanings for old conceptions and practices. Case study because a
40
situation was designed – an inservice teacher education program based on reflection and
action research – based on a theoretical framework that carried preconceived concepts
and assumptions related to an ideal approach to inservice teacher education. Grounded
theory because the researcher did not rely on fixed hypotheses but allowed for new
concepts and hypotheses to emerge from the data, build new theory and modify the
original design (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
As for the analysis, it was essentially qualitative, although it included some
quantitative elements. The findings related to Research Question 2, for example, are
represented by a graphic that shows the participants preferences in a quantitative way.
The analysis, though, is qualitative in that it focuses on the why’s of participants’
choices. The same happens with the final survey, which shows quantitative data on the
participants’ holistic impression about their participation but which is analyzed in
comparison with field notes from the group discussion and final essays in search of
impressions not represented by the graphic, and nuances in their impressions that would
probably not be spotted if it were not for the survey.
Given the triangulation previously mentioned, the specific coding methods will be
better explained as each one of the data elements is discussed in Chapter 4.
Data sources and methods of analysis
It should be noted that as this investigation was of the effectiveness of a full
model of inservice teacher education program as a whole, all the data material collected
may be of some degree of relevance for any of the research questions. Some of the
41
materials, however, may contribute more or less to answer specific questions. Table 1
shows the materials collected for analysis and the methods utilized:
Table 3.3
Data Sources and Methods of Analysis
The Data Sources Method of Analysis

Content analysis by means of bracketing and with the help
 four reflective essays
of a coding matrix (appendix M)
Phase One
 three 5-question Objective analysis of the YES/NO answers. Analysis of the

Yes/No survey Comments field content by means of bracketing and with
questionnaires the help of a coding matrix (appendix M)

 group discussion 1

 four reflective essays
Phase Two
 four activity-ranking Objective tallying of quantitative data with further

questionnaires qualitative analyses.


 three reflective essays
Phase three
 four 16-question final Objective tallying of quantitative data with further

survey questionnaires qualitative analyses.

The data coding
The data collection and analysis were essentially qualitative although they
included some quantitative elements. The decisions about the kinds of research methods
and materials were based on current literature on teacher education, the population being
42
researched, and the resources available. The holistic nature of the research objectives
demanded triangulation of data sources among the YES/NO questionnaires, the reflective
essays, and the field notes, in addition to triangulation to reconcile qualitative and
quantitative data. A matrix was created for content analysis of the qualitative data sources
and can be seen in Appendix M. The logical analysis was inductive, which means that the
researcher looked for emergent patterns in the data, categorized the meaningful ones, and
filled them into the matrix. Moreover, the analysis and interpretation were made by
means of a bracketing system (Patton, 1990), which means the data sources were read
repeatedly by the researcher and whenever it was located a key phrase or any statement
that spoke directly to the phenomenon investigated, a bracket was inserted with the
appropriate coding. The next steps were interpreting the meanings of those phrases;
trying to obtain the subject's interpretations of them; inspecting the meanings for what
they revealed about essential, recurring features of the phenomenon being studied; and
offering a tentative statement, or definition, of that phenomenon in terms of the features
identified (Denzin, 1989; Patton, 1990).
Coding of the essays, YES/NO Questionnaires, and Group Discussions
Whenever a key phrase or statement was found in the essays and in the YES/NO
Questionnaire, a bracket was inserted with a code that indicated impact on teachers in
terms of evidence of awareness and evidence of changes in knowledge, attitude or
behavior, as described below:
a) Change in Knowledge [knw]: when the participants revealed having
learned any new issue, which might include new insights on previous
43
learned subjects. Learning here is to be understood in a broad sense, which
means learning not only about pedagogical practices, but also about the
social context to which the participants belong, about their teaching
environment and school policies and politics, and even about the
participants themselves – in which learning is close to self-awareness.
b) Change in Attitude [att]: when the participants revealed new positions and
dispositions, as well as new manners, feelings, and beliefs;
c) Change in Behavior [bhv]: when the participants changed any social or
pedagogical behavior as a result of reflection, or due to simply
participating in the program.
Evidence of awareness and/or evidence of change were considered as evidence of
impact and served to inform Research Question 4. Changes in knowledge also informed
Research Question 3, regarding specific learning issues that emerged from the reflective
activities.
In order to investigate Research Question 2 – kinds of reflective activities that are
more motivating for teachers – an Activity Ranking Form (appendix G) was used, in
addition to the analysis of the activities actually chosen by the participants and the
reasons for doing so that they stated in a group discussion (GD2). The Activity Ranking
Form, which measured stated preference, served to calculate the average likelihood that
each activity would be chosen based on the preferences stated by the participants. The
stated preference was compared with the actual choice and the reasons for convergence
or divergence were analyzed with basis on information from the group discussion (GD2).
44
In order to assess the overall impact of this kind of program on teachers –
Research Question 4 – these guiding questions were devised:
(A) Was the program effective in raising awareness?
(B) Was the program effective in fostering reflection?
(C) Was the program effective in fostering changes in knowledge, behavior, or
skills?
(D) Was the program effective in fostering intervention as a result of reflection
and awareness?
(E) Did teachers display evidence of approval of this kind of program?
In order to investigate question (A), the essays, the YES/NO Questionnaires and
excerpts from the recordings of the meetings were coded for evidence of awareness.
Whenever a key phrase or statement was found that denoted awareness, a bracket was
inserted with the coding [awr].
Questions (B) through (D) were answered holistically with basis on the overall
results found in the coded analysis of the initial research questions.
In order to investigate question (E) the same data sources were coded for evidence
of approval, disapproval, or uncertainty regarding the question. As in the case of
awareness, whenever a key phrase or statement was found that denoted one of those
feelings, a bracket was inserted right after with the coding [app] [dsp] or [unc]. As with
evidence of awareness, the numbers did not mean quantification, but certainly helped
evaluation, especially in the comparison of approval and disapproval.

45
Consistent with the purpose that the whole project be teacher-learner-centered and
follow a bottom-up approach, the answers to the research questions were to be searched
for in the testimony that the participant teachers gave about their findings, impressions,
and feelings during and after their participation in the program. This means that very
often, the participants’ speech speaks for itself, in which case, quotations were provided
and extensive interpretation was regarded as unnecessary. Close scrutiny of some
statements would surely raise many questions whose answers can not be found in the
discussion. Such questions were deliberately disregarded as most of them go beyond the
scope of this research.

46
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter follows the order in which the data was collected in the three phases
of the project. Each phase contributed primarily to inform the specific research issues
under scrutiny in that phase but also informed the issues focused on in the other phases.
Phase one focused on the impact of self-reflection on teachers beliefs and practices
(SRO1/RQ1); Phase Two focused on the investigation of types of reflective activities that
are more motivating for teachers (SRO2/RQ2); while Phase Three focused on how
systematic reflection on beliefs and practices can be translated into action research, and
on the overall perceptions teachers had of the program used for data collection
(SRO4/RQ4). Research questions 1 and 2 will be directly addressed in this chapter along
with explanations of how the coding system was used, descriptions of the findings, and
detailed commentaries.
Research question 3 is discussed only in Chapter 5 (Conclusion) because it was
informed by the same data collected to answer RQ1. This means that the types of specific
learning issues that emerged from the program used in this study (RQ3) were those coded
as change in knowledge – one of the measures of impact of reflection on teachers (RQ1).
Research question 4 is discussed both in this chapter and in the concluding chapter. This
chapter discusses the findings from the final survey in phase three, while the final chapter
discusses the contributions from the other data sources regarding the overall perception
the participants had of the program used for data collection in this study – for example,
the answers given to the YES/NO Questionnaire of Phase One, and general impressions
revealed in the essays and group discussions.

47
Phase One – Reflecting on Basic Beliefs and Comparing Them with Practice
The data collection sources for Phase One were four reflective essays, three 5-
question YES/NO survey questionnaires, and group discussion 1 (GD1) which closed
Phase One and introduced phase two. The reflective essays of this phase were read
carefully by the researcher as an informed reader and analyzed for key phrases and
statements that spoke directly to the phenomena under investigation which, in this case,
were those related to Research Question 1 – the impact of self reflection on teachers’
beliefs and practices. The findings are expected to be generalizable to other teacher
education programs based on reflection and action research.
The main focus of Phase One was on RQ1 – What is the impact of awareness and
reflection on teachers’ beliefs and practices? This question addressed two distinct issues:
first, whether any impact did take place, and second, what the nature of this impact was.
For the sake of this investigation, question one should be understood in this way:
1.1) Was there any impact?
a) If so, what was the nature of this impact?
b) If not, why not?
The answer to sub-question 1.1 should be an objective YES or NO; but in order to
reach this answer, the researcher thoroughly analyzed the essays for evidence of
awareness raised by the activities [awr], and for changes of knowledge [knw], attitude
[att], or behavior [bhv]. The reflective essays of Phase One with the coding can be seen
in appendix J.
48
Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of phase one.
The four reflective essays of Phase One displayed clear indications that awareness
of self or awareness related to the teacher’s practice had been raised by the questionnaires
answered in phase one. Sometimes awareness meant a reaction to a state of affairs, such
as in “even if I wanted to do something novel and different in the classroom, I am highly
restricted to what that can be. For example, the entire syllabus and teaching style have
been handed to me. I have little to no input in the process.” This apparently negative
realization is followed by a display of positive attitude: “One positive aspect of this, is
that I agree and enjoy what I have been given” (Alice).
Even though awareness is included in the text of Research Question 1, it was also
regarded as evidence of impact of the whole program on the participant teachers, as this
awareness often conveyed an attitude for further reflection or for change such as in,
I realized that there was something wrong with what I was doing (Irwin)
While I think that gap will always exist, it should be my goal to try to
decrease the distance between the two (Mary).
This activity has alerted me to be more aware of what I do in the
classroom and be prudent in molding and stating my beliefs (Yvonne).
The questionnaires of this first phase were focused on awareness raising, and
awareness was regarded as sufficient evidence of impact, but once the incidence of
impact was found to be true, also the nature of this impact was investigated in terms of
changes in knowledge, attitude, and behavior. Changes in attitude were evident in many
49
statements as can be seen in the coded essays in appendix J, or as in these examples from
Yvonne’s essay:
First of all, it is very crucial to continuously check back on myself to see if
my beliefs and practice match. If they don’t, we should put our efforts into
doing so.
It is from this reflection that I feel the need for proper training to establish
my beliefs as a teacher.
Changes in behavior or changes in knowledge that go beyond awareness were not
expected to be found in the reflective essays of phase one, but they appeared anyway. In
this statement made by Mary, for example, awareness seems to have led to a new insight
about herself and her teaching: “On one hand, I think that I am addressing students’
needs, but it is possible that my teaching is still mostly geared toward what I would want
if I were the student”.
Clearer evidence of changes in knowledge appeared in Irwin’s and Mary’s essays
when they referred to previous experiences with inservice programs. As the programs
they referred to also seem to have been based on reflection, their contributions were
counted as evidence of the holistic impact of such programs on the participant teachers.
Here are some examples of such statements:
I learned that teacher’s beliefs play a very strong role on the way they
behave while teaching. (Irwin)
Suddenly, I found myself jumping from a teacher-centered class into more
a student-centered one. (Irwin)

50
I have experienced how all students learn more and learn better when
activities are extended and enhanced through the course of addressing
multiple learning styles. (Mary)
Commentary
The reflective essays of Phase One showed that the questionnaires did raise
awareness – which was not surprising as they were designed to do so – and that this
awareness in itself represented an impact. As to the nature of this impact, the results
showed some change in attitude, and no significant change in beliefs, or behavior. This
was also expected as this was a phase of purely reflective activities with no effort to
extend reflection into practice, as there was not enough time to allow that to happen.
The two first questionnaires of Phase One prompted the participants to confront
their beliefs and then compare them with their practice for convergences or discrepancies.
When prompted to do so, the participants did not find significant discrepancies. This is
easily explained by the fact that all of them were at the same time practicing teachers and
TESOL graduate students, which means that they were bombarded with theory and
challenged to confront it with their practice on a regular basis. In this scenario, the few
surprises or realizations that did take place take broader significance as in these
examples:
I think it is a really good idea to make teachers tell you their ideal
situation and then ask them about the reality a short time later. This gives
them an opportunity to objectively compare. I think it provides valuable
insights. For example, I realized that I talk about the ideal in a way that is
51
too ideal. I set up expectations and situations that the “real” me think are
impossible. I therefore set myself up to never be able to meet my own
expectations as a teacher. (Alice)
Going back to the ten questions and comparing the answers has helped me
think in a different light. Although I may have ‘thought’ about such issues,
this is the first time where I was able to reflect on myself from an objective
angle. (Yvonne)
A question remains: Would professional teachers in an inservice program in
regular school settings have more surprises? The answer to this question, however, goes
beyond the scope of this research and is a subject for further investigation.
Alice’s essay
Alice approved of the idea of being questioned on her beliefs and, soon after,
being confronted with what she called reality. She said that it gave her the opportunity to
objectively compare both her beliefs and her reality and achieve valuable insights. Her
reflection seems to be rather conflicting; she confesses to be pessimistic about the
possibility of achieving a perfect match between ideal and practice, and concludes that
her own idealization of teaching is too far from reality and that she feels like she will
never be able to meet her own expectations about herself as a teacher. In addition to that,
she mentions some contextual factors that interfere with this match, such as the kind of
class she teaches, and the institutional rules and beliefs. More specifically, she says that
in her case she is given an entire syllabus ready-made and instructions on how to teach it,
and that there is not much she can do about it even if that contradicts her personal beliefs.
52
She said: “I have little to no input in the process”. She seems to justify her pessimism
with the restrictions the context imposes on her but, in spite of that, she states that she
likes the way she is told to teach, which implies that the top-down decisions on what and
how to teach somehow match her beliefs and consequently her practice. She also says
that where applicable, her teaching practice lines up with her beliefs about what an ideal
teacher should be like. Even minimized by the expression where applicable, the conflict
still sounds evident between the lines, beyond actual words or conscious
acknowledgement.
Alice’s dilemma suggests a need for teacher educators to constantly create
situations that allow teachers to confront their beliefs with their practice. The hope to
strike an acceptable balance lies in gradually adjusting both our beliefs to our practice,
and our practice to our beliefs. From what Alice says, we can infer that the decisions
about the way she should teach are top-down and prescriptive and as a novice teacher,
she seems to be happy with that. For her, it is convenient to have a model to follow,
especially because this model is one that she respects and admires, as can be seen in
further testimony she gave. She declared later on, in one of the GD’s, that after one year
she would be left on her own to teach that class and then she would be able to begin
exploring her own teaching.
Regardless of its being attainable or not, it is worthy to point out here that a
perfect match between beliefs and practice is not necessarily good or bad. What
ultimately determines effective teaching is the conscious acknowledgement of the
principles behind ones’ actions and the constant questioning of these principles as to
whether they are resulting in practice that effectively fosters students’ learning. A good
53
example of a perfect match between beliefs and practice that should be questioned is
given by Irwin in his essay.
Irwin’s essay
Irwin found a satisfactory match between his beliefs and practice as a result of
answering the two first questionnaires, but as he himself proved later, this did not mean
much. He wrote that the first time he was asked to compare his beliefs and practice was
in an inservice teacher training program in his home country. His answer was that he
taught the way he thought teaching and learning should be, which means, his teaching
was the result of his beliefs about teaching and of his experience as a learner. Further
reflection revealed that his teaching was exactly like that he had had as a student and his
beliefs were also probably similar to those of his former teachers. He believed in teacher
fronted classes, he trusted textbooks to determine the course and content of instruction,
and he thought of grades as the ultimate educational goals to be reached. Realizing that
his practice matched his beliefs did not by itself produce any awareness that could result
in change and improvement. Only after he was exposed to new ideas about teaching,
enthralled by them, and then again prompted to confront his newly acquired beliefs with
his practice, did Irwin have his mind “shaped into a new paradigm”.
Irwin confessed that he had an internal struggle before giving up the comfort and
safety of his long held beliefs and, in his own words, his “favorite place in the front of the
classroom”, which only happened after his mind was shaped into a new paradigm. This
demonstrates that significant (and lasting) changes of beliefs happen inside-out as a result
not of external pressures, but of teachers’ being exposed to new ideas, having their minds
54
opened to them, and having been given opportunities for self-observation, comparison,
reflection, and spontaneous intervention.
Mary’s essay
Mary was the only participant to directly refer to questionnaire questions and
answers in her reflection. In her essay she quoted herself from the answer to one of the
questions in which she commented: “I saw a gap between my ideologies and actual
practice”. After reflecting, she concluded that she had found no glaring discrepancies,
but that “just because the questionnaires were not able to tease out any glaring
contradictions, it does not mean that they do not exist.” She defended the reason why she
did not find discrepancies by saying, “I believe I managed to avoid them by hedging
answers or conceding that I still had unformed notions about some of the topics”.
In commenting on her answers to the pair A5B6 (Question 5 of Questionnaire A
and Question 6 of Questionnaire B) – about theoretical beliefs related to methodology
and actual practice – Mary clearly displayed her discernment of the issue, which can not
be said of many teachers who are not simultaneously involved in academic studies and
practice. The point is that while few or no discrepancies were found with these subjects,
the same may not be true when this program is brought to institutional contexts.
Interestingly enough, although being an academic, she confessed reluctance in adopting
trendy jargon and labels as she knew how much more complex real teaching is. This
showed acknowledgement of a distance between theory and practice, which implies that
her beliefs, though aligned with her practice, might not have been perfectly aligned with
the theory.
55
Like Alice, Mary admits that pressures of time and scheduling may interfere with
an ideal match between what teachers think they should do and what they actually do. To
exemplify that, she says that she believes a teacher has to cater to individual students and
learning styles – and she does her best at pursuing that – but that very often this has to be
sacrificed for the sake of time and curriculum.
Like Irwin, Mary admits to be strongly influenced in her teaching by her past
experience as a learner. She exemplifies by saying that when asked to teach a reading
course – something she had never studied herself – she did not know what to do, in spite
of having learned plenty of theory about how to teach such a course. Only after she had
the chance to actually observe someone teaching the subject did she feel ready to do it
herself, which seems to be an issue for further investigation. Mary seems to support the
thesis that rather than flooding teachers with theory and methods, inservice teacher
education programs should allow teachers to explore their own teaching and find their
own answers to their professional conflicts. In Mary’s own words,
Reading the latest research in teaching methodology does not do much to
elicit change. It is only when teachers are using the practice in the
classroom, and allowing other teachers (or future teachers) to observe
them in action that change will gain momentum.
Yvonne’s essay
Unlike all the other participants, Yvonne admitted to this having been the first
time she had been prompted to reflect on those issues from an objective angle. She
confessed that the activity alerted her to being more aware of what she did in the
56
classroom and more prudent in shaping and stating her beliefs. She noted that her
answers to the questions about methodology, strategies, program and curriculum were
relatively weak and vague, maybe due to the fact that she was a novice teacher. She said
the questionnaires helped her understand how crucial it is that teachers continuously
question their beliefs and check them against their practice, but she repeatedly stated her
need of specialized training, of a supervisor who supplied what she called the appropriate
tools to foster reflection and who provided established or informed beliefs about
teaching.
Findings and commentaries regarding Group Discussion 1
GD1 was a sixty-minute meeting with the presence of all the participants. It was
divided into two parts: forty minutes for a group discussion of the tasks and events of
phase one, and twenty minutes for explanations regarding phase two. The researcher
observed the discussion at distance and, after 40 minutes, interrupted it for the
introduction of phase two. Only the first part was recorded and constitutes data source for
this phase. The recording was listened to repeatedly and had some parts of it transcribed
and analyzed for the same phenomena observed in the essays, i.e., evidence of awareness
– regarded as evidence of impact on teachers’ beliefs – and the nature of such impact in
terms of producing changes in attitude, knowledge, or behavior. The next paragraphs
describe the discussion and findings in light of the same issues investigated in the essays:
phrases or statements that spoke directly to the phenomena under investigation. Literal
transcriptions are provided.

57
The first pair of questions the participants addressed was the one about the choice
of professional field, the first in each of the questionnaires:
A. How would you characterize English teaching as a profession?
B. Why did you decide to become a teacher? Why did you choose teaching
English?
These two questions were intended to make the teachers look back at the original
idea they had of the occupation, the reasons why they first chose to become teachers, and
why specifically to teach English. The reason for including those questions is that very
often, in the experience of the researcher, the answer to some professional conflicts that
teachers experience may be traced back to a poor career choice, even when the actual
symptoms are found in their practice. When this is the case, such realization may save the
trouble to look for explanations elsewhere. For example, some teachers may be unhappy
with their occupation because they feel it is not as well paid as they think it should be,
which may result in lack of motivation, in not finding time to prepare classes accordingly,
in not being patient or caring enough with the students’ needs, and much more. Another
reason for including these questions is that by reflecting back on their beginnings,
teachers may rekindle their love for the career they chose and by doing so, settle present
conflicts.
Although interesting findings resulted from the answers to these questions, it must
be said that their choice was not consistent with the purpose of context-sensitiveness
intended for the program designed for this study and, consequently, frustrated the purpose
explained in the previous paragraph. These questions would better fit teachers in an
58
institutional professional setting with some (or many) years of practice, than this
population made of teachers who were starting a career and still in honeymoon with it.
In spite of frustrating their intended purpose, the questions did raise awareness to
other relevant issues and foster interesting comments. Mary, the more experienced
participant, raised the point by saying:
I thought that was an interesting question about… English as a profession
versus… or English teaching… like… were we trying to distinguish it from
teaching History or Biology…
This comment triggered a discussion on an intriguing point the participants had
never thought about before. Irwin stated that he had chosen teaching English first of all
because he loves the language, and second, because there is a demand for English
teachers in his country. Alice and Mary, both native speakers, noted that there is also a
good demand for ESL teachers in the USA, which might be their reason for choosing this
career. They said that when they decided to be English teachers, they also decided that
they did not want to teach it as a first language, mainly due to the students’ motivation,
which they perceived as low compared to that of ESL learners. The realization of their
reasons to enter the English teaching profession led to an appraisal of the importance of
students’ motivation, and to considerations about the importance of teachers’ exploring
the motivation their students bring to class. This was viewed as evidence of awareness
that has the potential to promote changes in attitude, and even in knowledge.
Alice mentioned a friend who was an ESL teacher and through whom she learned
how fun ESL classes could be. This kind of realization may put a teacher back on track in
case this teacher does not find the same pleasure in teaching s/he once did, or can not
59
bring the same joy to herself/himself or her students as s/he used to. Yvonne said that she
decided to teach English after she had lived in the USA for some time and then
understood how poorly the language was taught in her country, Korea.
Alice brought up another issue regarding the notions of communicative language
teaching, authentic material and approaches, and the reality of ESL classrooms. She said:
I’m glad that we pushed this whole communicative thing, because it is
something about using the language... even outside of the classroom,
because when I get into a classroom it’s foreign, it’s easier, it’s a
protected environment….
Yvonne was surprised that American ESL teachers, working in the USA, would
have such a feeling. Everybody agreed that there is very little reality in what is done in
the classroom and on how important it is to bring authenticity into language learning.
Mary pointed out how what textbooks say is communicative is often not communicative
at all, which appeals to teachers’ resourcefulness and willingness to go beyond the
contents of the textbook. This part of the discussion fostered awareness, promoted a
confrontation of theory with practice in search for answers about the best way to teach,
prompted changes of attitude, and may have resulted in new insights about the issue.
The next point was about how much of what a teacher does mirrors her/his past
experiences as a learner, a point often addressed by researchers (e.g., Freeman and
Johnson, 1998) and previously raised by Irwin in his essay. Alice said: “One of the
reasons I went into teaching is because I had had a couple of awesome teachers who
were language teachers”.

60
Yvonne questioned the relevance of a teacher’s doing everything s/he likes, or
which s/he used to like as a student, without much concern for what the students like. She
said, “I sometimes wonder whether this is not too personal?” and added,
I ask myself this question when I teach… when I set up an activity… I
basically do what I want to do… so… Would the students approve of it?
Would they like this as much as I like it?
Irwin said that all he used to do, up to a certain time, was replicating everything
his own teachers had done, but that there came a time when he just stopped and said, “Is
what I am doing really effective?
The awareness just raised had the potential to generate issues to be investigated
through action research, in which case awareness might result in changes of knowledge
and behavior.
The discussion suddenly shifted to the distance between theory and practice.
Again, Alice raised the subject:
We all have these awesome, idealistic things about what we should do,
and then… what really happens in the classroom and…. I’m sick and tired
of showing up to class and having people say, ‘we need to make this
wonderful, communicative, healthy, unrestrictive environment, and I’m
like… shut up about it already! I know all the socio-linguistic-political-c*,
but what does that mean about the classroom? I don’t think that half of us
are playing what we are saying (…) and even if we are, is it…is it
possible? Sometimes I wish we didn’t so much focus on the idealization of

61
teaching and actually focused on what people do, even if it is bad… like…
what is it that teachers are doing. Sometimes I feel like… attending
conferences and workshops and… I think it is kind of all c*. It’s like
politics, when you get these big catch phrases… like values, but they don’t
really mean anything. I… I want something real; I want something I can…
touch.
Alice’s opinion, if shared by the other teachers, might bring strong support for
inservice teacher education programs that focus on self-reflection, and self and
collaborative exploration. The other participants displayed cautious agreement as can be
seen in the following transcripts. Mary, elaborating on the issue of the usefulness of
conferences and workshops, said:
I find they are really motivating sometimes but the thing I focus on is that I
would rather have an inservice with the four teachers I work most with
and say, ‘what are you doing in your class? And, let me tell what I am
doing in mine, and let’s pull all of our resources together and come out
with the best things.
Elaborating on alternative and more beneficial approaches to teacher-learning in
inservice programs rather than workshops or seminars, Irwin said that peer and self-
observation have a great potential to change one’s beliefs and practice:
This year I took this course that was based on observation, and I think that
I learned from that experience much more than I did in my regular studies
(…) you know, sharing and sharing – ‘This is what I do and here is why’.”
62
Mary said her default setting was “the way that I was taught” and added that this
sometimes worked against her in which she found that it was difficult to apply different
theories to her practice. She said that it would be easier if the classes in which she had
been had applied the same theories she learns now, which, she said, was not true. About
here default setting, Mary gave this example in her essay:
Only when I saw a videotape of another person’s teaching could I begin to
imagine what the reading class should ‘look’ like. That is, how it should
be structured, how appropriate topics are chosen and activities carried
out. Perhaps this is simply a reflection of my own learning style…show
me, don’t tell me.
Another example of a preference for the show-me-don’t-tell-me approach is given
by Alice. Commenting on a course she was teaching for the first time, and the fact that
she was asked to observe a more experienced teacher before she taught the same lesson to
her own class, Alice said:
I really like the way (…) he has this whole thing set up and it’s like an
apprenticeship kind of thing and (…) every day you go and observe his
class… I just think it’s really interesting because there are lots of different
things that I get from him: a) I get to see somebody teach the class that I
am going to teach every day… that’s awesome but b) it’s also really
interesting when I see what he does and it goes in one way, and then if I
do it, then it goes another way… It’s kind of: What’s different? Why did
this go this way and this and that…?

63
Asked by another participant whether she felt constrained to do things his way,
she said,
Yeah, but he’s been doing this forever and (…) I pretty much agree with
what happens. (…) it’s restrictive but, anyway, it is like what you said about
observation; I like that, because I can see it and within 48 hours, try it.
Irwin questioned what she said about getting different results and about what she
had done about it, which was, actually, a question about reflection and intervention. Her
answer showed that she had thoroughly done both.
Yvonne asked Alice to try and apply her conclusions to another course. Alice said
that she could not do so as she did not know much about the others’ classes, which is
consistent with the known fact that every teaching context is unique in many ways. A
point stands out, however, that there seems to be a marked preference for the show-me-
don’t-tell-me approach that teacher educators should take into account in the design of
inservice teacher development programs. Show-me-don’t-tell-me, on the other hand,
suggests a preference for observational activities, which is confirmed by both the
quantitative and the qualitative analyses in this study.
The group discussed the issue of peer observation further, particularly, how much
one observes from another teacher can be replicated in his or her own practice. This gave
way to a rich discussion that included individual styles, personality traits, role modeling,
and ideas of what a good teacher is – plenty of awareness raising issues, a rich reservoir
of ideas for action research, a favorable situation for changes in attitude, knowledge, or
behavior.
64
Findings and commentaries regarding the YES/NO survey questionnaire
After the meeting just discussed, each participant was sent an electronic message
with five YES/NO questions about phase one, which is the third data source for this
phase. Each question had a field for comments in which the respondents were instructed
to fill in, if their answers could not be satisfactorily conveyed by an objective YES or
NO. Three of the participants answered the questionnaire. The analysis of the comments
was made with the same matrix used for the reflective essays, and elaborated on with
descriptive and analytical commentaries. The five questions in the Survey Questionnaire
were:
1. Did you find discrepancy(ies) between your beliefs and your practice?
2. After you reflected on your beliefs and your practice, is there any point you
plan to give special consideration?
3. Do you feel that acknowledging your beliefs and comparing them with your
practice may help you address your needs related to your teaching?
4. Do you feel that activities such as these of Phase One display respect for your
individual teaching style?
5. Had you ever been prompted to check your beliefs against your practice
before?
Questions 1 through 3 were directly related to initial Research Question 1 and
were intended to help teachers compare their stated beliefs with their pedagogical
practice in the hope that the findings could cause an impact on their beliefs, their practice,
or both. Given the fact that the participants were all MATESL students, any surprises
65
should grow in importance, as these teachers were simultaneously exposed to plenty of
theory and practice and consequently being constantly challenged to contrast both with
their beliefs. Question 4 and 5 addressed the perception of the participants regarding the
program as a whole.
Alice’s answers to questions 1 through 3
Alice said YES to question number 1 and added this comment: “My beliefs seemed
very idealistic while my practices seemed more pragmatic”, a comment that seems to lean
toward practice and consider a revision of beliefs. This means that rather than being
about a change in beliefs impacting practice, it is about practice impacting beliefs. This
indicates that comparing beliefs with practice and reflecting about them may equally lead
to changing one or the other. Question 2 is open to this possibility.
Alice’s answer to question number 2 was also YES with the observation that “I
think I will try to put more of that idealism into the pragmatics of my teaching” showing
that reflection fostered a need for testing her beliefs (and hypotheses) about teaching
practices, and prompted an attitude for change. Alice answered YES to question 3 with a
comment that it helped her realize the discrepancy and the need to reconcile her beliefs
with her practices, which is clear evidence of a change in attitude.
Mary’s answers to questions 1 through 3
Mary answered NO to question number 1 and commented that she had not found
anything shocking or unknown to her, but added: “I think the exercise had the potential
to find discrepancies… just lucky none turned up!” As she had stated in her essay, “just
66
because the questionnaires were not able to tease out any glaring contradictions, it does
not mean that they do not exist.” These statements, plus the fact that she admitted to
having previously found discrepancies, point out to the validity of this kind of reflection.
To question number 2, Mary also answered NO, but added this comment:
“though, to be honest I might think that I should if I wasn’t so incredibly busy this month
or we weren’t following up with other reflective activities.” Her comment suggests the
admission that the issue deserves further consideration – a positive attitude towards doing
so in the future – and the hope that the next activities would allow for such. Together
with the affirmative answer to question 3, Mary’s reactions display evidence of
awareness and a change in attitude, which means that there was impact toward changes.
Yvonne’s answers to questions 1 through 3
To question number 1, Yvonne responded YES AND NO and commented:
Judging from the answers, I would have to say both YES and NO. YES,
because the answers were somewhat related to one another. NO, because
some questions were answered with a different approach. Judging from
what I believe and what I actually do in the classroom, however, I would
lean more to YES because I do try extremely hard to follow my beliefs.
Based on her words, Yvonne’s answer can be regarded as affirmative, especially
because to question number 2 she responded affirmatively and added that now that she
was more aware, she planned to be more careful in what she did and said in class. The
answers to questions 1 and 2 together seem to confirm an impact on her beliefs; a

67
disposition for change is evident in her answer to question 3: “Yes, absolutely. However, I
think further systematic steps should be taken to put information/awareness into use.”
The participants’ answers to questions 4 and 5
Questions 4 and 5 were intended to contribute to a general idea of the perception
of the participants regarding the program as a whole, especially compared with other
teacher education programs not primarily focused on reflection and in which teachers are
not given much chance to voice their concerns or given tools to find their own answers.
All the participants admitted, in response to questions 4, to having had their
individuality respected, and this is regarded as evidence of approval of this program
which was designed to be teacher centered.
The issue of teacher-centeredness of inservice education programs was of
secondary interest in this research, which justifies questions 4 and 5. The relation of
questions 5 – whether the participants had been prompted to check their beliefs against
their practice before – with teacher-centeredness is related to the fact that what teacher
education programs often do is having teachers compare their practice with the research
knowledge, which, according to Freeman and Johnson (1998) “does not articulate easily
and cogently into classroom practice;” (p. 411); or in other words, which is alien to
teachers reality. By being allowed to compare their practice with their beliefs, teachers
should feel that their actual and immediate needs are being addressed. This does not in
any way invalidate instruction on theory and research, as this is a more than valid way to
inform teachers’ beliefs and establish a safe basis for change and improvement. The
point of question 5 is to call attention to the possibility that this issue has not been given
68
the attention it deserves in teacher education. A negative answer to question 5 was
expected to provide support to such assumption.
Although all the participants answered question 5 negatively, it must be said that
the question itself may lose significance under close scrutiny give the fact that Alice and
Yvonne were novice teachers, and Irwin also had limited experience. Mary, the only
experienced participant, answered NO, but added: “not in such a manner”. As the
manners in which she had been prompted so that before are not known, it can not be said
that this program better helps teachers compare their beliefs with their practice as
compared with other approaches.
Final Evaluation of Phase One
The analysis of the reflective essays of Phase One did show awareness raising,
and changes in attitude, and although reflection and awareness alone were not enough to
produce noticeable changes in behavior, it is evident that monitored reflection was
necessary to lead to awareness, which is a necessary basis for behavioral change to occur.
The results also showed that in the participant teachers’ view, instruction plays a
significant role and that it is the combination of reflection and awareness with monitored
exploration and intervention that eventually allows for learning and growth. As Freeman
and Johnson (1998) put it, all of these are necessary “if we mean to strengthen and
improve, rather than simply preserve and replicate, educational practice,” (p. 401).
The group discussions were the eleventh reflective activity. Although not
included in the Kit of Reflective Activities of phase two, they were present in all the
phases and profitable for reflection and learning. In GD1, for example, forty minutes
69
were enough to cover very few of the reflection questions of phase one, which means that
there was plenty of material for discussion in each pair.
The findings from the answers to the survey questionnaire seem to have provided
a positive answer to initial Research Question 1, which asked whether the activities of
Phase One produced an impact on teachers’ beliefs. The findings indicate that reflection
generated favorable attitudes for change and professional growth, which consequently
serves as a confirmation of impact. The nature of this impact is related to raised
awareness regarding beliefs and the theoretical principles behind them, raised awareness
about actual pedagogical practice, and changes in attitude toward further reflection or
intervention.
Phase Two – From Reflection to Action
The data collection sources for Phase One were four reflective essays, four
activity-ranking forms, and group discussion 2 (GD2) which closed Phase Two and
introduced phase three. The reflective essays of this phase – which were supposed to be
reports of one of the activities chosen by the participant to try out – were analyzed in the
same way as those from phase one, but in this case, the focus was on Research Question
2 – kinds of reflective activities that are more motivating for teachers. Also relevant for
this research was the kind and number of activities the participants tried out; the activities
chosen to report on, as well as the ones not chosen for trial or to report on. In order to
gather that information, an Activity Ranking Form (appendix G) was used in addition to
the four reflective essays and the discussion in GD2, which was monitored with the use
of specific questions. The data from the essays and the GD2 were also expected to
70
provide information regarding Research Question 1 – the impact of self reflection on
teachers’ beliefs and practices – and 3 – types of specific learning issues that emerged
from participation in this program. As with the whole project, the findings are expected
to be generalizable to other teacher education programs based on reflection and action
research.
Different from those of phase one, the reflective activities suggested for Phase
Two were more practical, so as to give the teachers the chance to systematically delve
into their teaching practices, exploring pedagogical processes, identifying problems, and
considering alternative approaches to teaching. For such, ten reflective activities were
provided – five non-observational and five observational – with detailed explanations and
material of support. The participants were given three weeks to try out as many activities
as they pleased, provided they reported on only one. The full content of the reflective
activities kit and the texts that explain the activities can be found in appendix F. At the
end of phase two, the participants were asked to rank the ten activities in order of
preference (1 for their favorite, and 10 for the least likely to be chosen), and were
monitored in a group discussion.
The quantitative results of the activity-ranking form were qualitatively analyzed,
together with the other data collected, for possible reasons behind the choices made by
the participants.
Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of phase two.
Unlike the essays of phase one, which were based on abstract reflection, the four
reflective essays of Phase Two were expected to rely on more practical reflection, as
71
teachers looked at their practice from different angles and explored alternative
approaches to teaching. The participants were given ten choices of observational and
non-observational activities and displayed a marked preference for the observational
ones. As the practical implication of observation is more difficult to assess, the results of
this phase somewhat frustrated the researcher’s intention of making it less theoretical.
Yet, it provided a satisfactory answer to Research Question 2, and relevant information
for the other research questions.
Alice’s essay
Alice was the only participant who chose a non-observational activity to try out
and report on. She chose activity 2, in which she was supposed to write a report on a
classroom activity that took no longer than 20 minutes. As her essay was supposed to be
a report on an activity, her activity report was also her essay.
Alice’s choice reflects one of the main reasons raised in the group discussion for
their choices – time constraints. As she was on a tight schedule as a MATESL student
and a first-semester TA, she put together this task with one she had been assigned for a
practicum course she was taking at UIUC as part of her MATESL program. She reported
on a 10-minute conversational activity given to 20 students from various nationalities. In
her report, she thoroughly followed the instructions provided and after having described
the class and the activity, she wrote her findings and conclusions. It was evident from her
essay that she benefited from this exploratory opportunity and learned about her teaching.
She highlighted the good points of the activity and an unexpected outcome from which
she learned that there were variables she should try and account for in the future. Alice’s
72
report presented evidence of awareness raised by reflecting of the lesson she had taught,
such as when she said:
While circulating and listening to Ss, I realized that something a little
different than planned happened. Instead of sticking to the given subject,
personal past histories, Ss began talking about that but then shifted back
and forth to the present (i.e. what do you do now that you are here in the
US? Where are you from? etc).
In other instances, Alice showed not only awareness, but also evidence of
learning, and an attitude for future intervention, as in
To improve my lesson study process, I could think more about possible
outcomes before the lesson. That way, I would be more prepared. It had
not crossed my mind that Ss might not stick to the subject of personal
histories.
Her report was complete; the essay, however, for the purpose of this research,
missed something. The researcher expected a testimony of the validity of such reflective
practice for teacher development. In other words, a testimony of how, in the participant’s
view, such a reflective activity could be useful in helping teachers identify points in their
teaching that deserve special attention and/or future intervention.
Irwin’s essay
Irwin chose activity 10 (observational) – more specifically: the movie clip of
Dangerous Minds (1995). In this movie, Michelle Pfeiffer plays a teacher in a high-
school in which the students are poor Afro-Americans and Latinos. After a very negative
73
first encounter with the students, the teacher resorts to unconventional methods of
teaching, using karate, Bob Dylan’s lyrics, friendship and attention, and thus getting the
trust of the students. Influenced by the movie, Irwin’s reflection took him back to his first
experience as a teacher and the first shock between theory and the reality of classroom.
He said, “I soon realized that the knowledge that I had of teaching and learning did not
quite match the daily teaching practice in the classroom”, and proceeded by describing
some of the aspects that challenged his “storage of theories”. His focus was on the
relationship between teacher and students and some of the many variables that come to
play. The way Irwin put it suggests a feeling of not having been told that he would be
dealing with human beings, as when he said: “Sometimes teachers must put aside what
they have to teach and think of students as people with needs other than learning”.
Irwin’s reflection suggests that in trying to stick to their theoretical roots in linguistics,
teacher educators may sometimes overlook teachers’ real and immediate needs and thus
frustrate these teachers and the purposes of the teacher education program itself. Irwin
concludes that it is necessary to “find effective, meaningful, attitude-change provoking
actions that will serve both purposes – meeting student’s needs while providing them with
opportunities for learning”.
Mary’s essay
Like Irwin, Mary also chose activity 10. Paraphrasing the nickname given to the
activity (Teachers in the Movies), Mary entitled her essay, “Teaching in the Movies”. She
started by calling attention to the fact that teachers in the movies are actually part of a
fantasy realm, an idealistic and unrealistic portrait that can not be compared with real life.
74
She elaborated on that by saying that none of the teachers portrayed in those movies seem
to have much in common with the teachers she had as a student or with herself as a
teacher. Some of the dissimilitudes she mentioned are how easy energy and motivation
are transferred to individual students by the teacher; how quick, flexible and creative
teachers are to change the course of a lesson plan; how teachers can afford to invest their
own money to enrich classroom work; and how they can find time to help students on an
individual basis, even with personal matters. She admits though to how inspiring those
characters are in that they make real teachers feel like striving for improvement and
perfection. Mary concluded her essay by saying:
I do find it useful to see teachers in the movies. It often helps to re-
energize me with the idealism and idealistic situations of teachers in film.
(…) Films remind me that teaching can be a wonderful and rewarding
profession.
Revisiting her history as a teacher in her reflection, Mary realized that experience
had already taught her a great deal, but admitted that much more was still to be learned.
She asked herself important questions such as “Do I convey the content of the class in a
way that connects to the students?”; “Do I set high expectations that inspire students to
greatness?”; and “What is the difference between making students work really hard and
inspiring them to make themselves work hard?. All of these questions seem potentially
rich in terms of fostering objective reflection and informed intervention. Actually, they
eventually influenced the choice of one of the topics for the action research activity of
Phase Three. In this sense, this activity provided an affirmative answer to Research
Questions 1 and 3.
75
Yvonne’s essay
Yvonne also chose activity 10 to reflect and to report on. She said that the first
thought to come to her mind as she watched the movie clips was that “being a teacher is
a fascinating but a very challenging profession”. Yvonne expressed her fascination for
the power human beings have to influence one another, and considered it a big challenge
to transform effort and dedication into making a difference. This fascination seems to
have potential to be translated into rekindled motivation, and into a new disposition to
face challenges, which are powerful allies in the venture of exploring one’s teaching.
Yvonne observed that although real life classroom environments are usually
friendlier than the ones in the movies, and everyday problems usually different, such
environments and problems are equally challenging nonetheless. She specifically pointed
out two challenges: acknowledging the uniqueness of each student, and catering for each
student’s unique needs. Among others, she asked herself these questions, all of which
may constitute rich subjects for teachers’ research: “What type of a teacher am I?”,
“Have I had any influence on my students?”, “What efforts have I put in to make
learning more effective?”, “Have I made a difference so far?”
Yvonne saw all ten of the movie clips and commented that given the variety of
subject-matters and styles they portray, she understood that there is no right answer for
what best teaching should be like. She added that each class and each student will raise
different questions that will deserve what she called “tailored answers”. Yvonne’s
conclusion that there is no right way of teaching suggests that no top-down approach to
teacher instruction will be as fit to contribute to teachers’ development as an approach
that is born in their real-life context and immediate needs. Yvonne applied this reflection
76
to her current teaching experience and confessed: “I was a bit uncertain whether my
teaching approach was ‘right’ or not. But now, with the reflection, I feel more confident
about the way I teach and how I should go about it from now on.” This change in attitude
suggests a favorable start for an exploratory journey. Yvonne concluded her essay by
turning back to reality and saying:
Certainly, there are teachers in these times that are as inspiring and
dedicated, and it is because of these that we are stimulated. As teachers
and as students, we have felt that invisible space which tends to keep the
two entities somewhat distant than they really should be. And it is this
barrier that the teachers need to tear down. In a nutshell, this means that
we, as teachers, need to make it our ultimate goal to reach out to the
minds and hearts of each and every student.
Actually, this is precisely what Mary and Yvonne aimed at in their action research
plan: breaking out barriers and reaching out for the students.
Findings and commentaries regarding Group Discussion 2
Group discussion 2 started with a monitored discussion of the participants’
experiences in trying out the reflective activities. In order to facilitate the discussion and
also guarantee that it would provide relevant data for this research, six questions were
directed to the whole group (which means that answers were voluntary). Question 1 was
discussed before the filling out of the Activities Ranking Form, so that the participants
could make better informed decisions about the ranking. After the forms were filled out,
the discussion proceeded with the other questions. Here are the 6 questions:
77
1. Which reflective activity did you choose and why did you choose it? How
would you rank the other 9 activities in order of preference?
2. Did the activity you tried impact your teaching in any way? If so, how? If not,
why do you think it didn’t?
3. Do you think it may still impact your teaching in the future?
4. Do you intend to try any of the other activities in a near future? If so, which
one(s)? If not, why not?
5. How do you feel doing activities such as these may contribute to your
professional development?
6. Did the activity you chose raise any question about your teaching or your
student’s learning that you would like to investigate?
Question 1 - Which reflective activity did you choose? Why did you choose it?
The three participants present at the meeting had chosen the video to reflect on.
When asked the first question, Mary said it was because it was more flexible to do as
there was no need to schedule as it would happen with observation, for example. She also
said that this was the activity that required the least preparation or pre-reflection. Yvonne
agreed with that and added that it seemed more fun as compared to the other activities,
and she liked the idea that it was visual, i.e., she could see people teaching. Irwin agreed
that it was more practical in face of time constraints. What was mentioned next was the
fact that those reasons and motivations sound similar to those of our students. Mary listed
them: activities should be visual, easy on the schedule, and not require a lot of work
78
before one can start. Summarizing what all the participants said, reflective activities will
be more likely to be chosen if they are: a) flexible and easy on the schedule; b) practical
(i.e., not too time-consuming in terms of preparation and/or pre-reflection), c) fun to do;
and d) visual and referential (serving as a model).
All the participants were busy with the courses they were taking and the classes they
were teaching, which explains their concern with time constraints. Teachers in real life
institutional contexts, however, are likely to have the same problem, which argues in
favor of teacher education programs that give teachers some flexibility of choices. This
grows in relevance in face of the fact that the most popular reflective activities in teacher
education are usually time-consuming: journal writing, video or audio-recordings
(sometimes with transcription), group discussion (these three listed by Richards and
Schmidt (2002)), and peer observation (sometimes with pre- and post-observation
meetings).
The argument for fun and visual activities was that they were more motivating. This
led to the argument that most of the participants’ reactions as teacher-learners could and
should be thought of as extendable to their students. On the other hand, teacher educators
should be aware of the fact that the basic motivation of teacher-learners is similar to that
of students in general, which becomes an argument against too many lectures or dry
theories in teacher education programs. As for this discussion, the participants noticed
that more than exploring their own teaching, they were probing into how people learn.
It must be said at this point that the participants were not against theoretical
instruction in inservice teacher education – quite the opposite. What they advocated for
79
was a fair distribution of theoretical instruction and practical, meaningful, and fun
activities.
Question 2 - Did the activity you tried impact your teaching in any way?
If so, how? If not, why do you think it didn’t?
Yvonne said that when she entered her classroom for the first time after she
watched the movie clips, she tried not to think of the class simply as a class. She had
noticed that the way she talked to her students used to be as if she were reading a script.
After the activity, she tried to balance her reason with her instincts and to think of her
students as whole human beings. She said that she now needed to talk to them in order to
check their understanding rather than using mechanical methods for such. She felt the
need to communicate with the students beyond conventional ways. She confessed this
realization had meant a great deal to her.
When asked whether she believed that additional impacts were likely to happen in
her teaching in the future as a result of that activity, Yvonne answered affirmatively. She
said that it came at an initial point in her career in which she was constrained by limits or
fixed patterns that she felt obligated to follow and that now she understood that in the
near future she should manage to become less constrained. Asked specifically if that
experience would, for example, change the way she prepared her lesson plans, she said
that she would certainly think ahead and plan her classes in a more realistic way. Here is
a summary of what Yvonne said about what she learned from doing that activity and
reflecting on it:
80
a) she learned about holistic teaching, or how important it is to see students as
full and complex human beings that deserve individual attention;
b) she learned that lesson plans, methods, approaches, and techniques should
not be mechanical, as teachers are not dealing with machines but with
human beings;
c) she learned that there are no fixed, or right ways to do things, and that she
would have to get rid of any straightjacket she has been given or adopted if
she were to reach the best of herself as a professional;
d) she learned that change must happen before she enters the classroom, when
she is preparing her lesson plan.
Yvonne hopefully also learned that if change is to happen, it has to start even
before the lesson plan, in the teachers’ heart and mind, or wherever beliefs reside. The
fact is that learning did take place and impacted Yvonne’s beliefs and practice.
Asked whether she intended to try any of the other activities in the near future,
Yvonne said that she might try stepping into the students’ shoes, even though she had
recently lived that experience. She justified her choice by saying that she suddenly
realized that she remembers her former teachers – and maybe even models after them –
but she does not remember as well what being a language learner is like.
Irwin, following the same line of thought, said that doing the activity reminded
him that the materials he dealt with were people, who needed a proper learning
environment, who had needs that had to be satisfied, who had time limitations like
everybody else, and who were exhausted by the time they came to his class in early
81
evening. Irwin admitted to an impact in his beliefs in the first place, and to a change in
his attitude in the classroom as a consequence of that. He said that instead of coming into
the classroom and immediately throwing at the students what he had prepared for the
class, he now took five minutes just to talk to them, person to person, and confessed that
he was amazed by the change it made in the atmosphere. He said it was like saying, “I
care”, and finding out that students had something to say.
Asked whether he intended to try any of the other activities in the near future,
Irwin said he surely would, and mentioned specifically “interviewing teachers”, adding
that the best way he had found so far to grow professionally was getting feedback from
peers.
Mary said that what struck her the most in the movies was the way teachers found
a way to connect with their students, reach out to them and somehow say: “I see you for
who you are, and I still think that you can be destined for greatness, and no matter how
high the expectations are for you, you can meet them”, and thus motivate them to meet
their goals. Asked about the impact the activity had on her, Mary said she felt reenergized
but that it really did not actually change what she did in the classroom.
Asked whether she intended to try any of the other activities in the near future,
Mary said she would try the “classy observation”, which was about observing a class not
directly related to ESL and applying that to her teaching. What she planned to do is what
Gebhard and Oprandy (1999) call making personal connections to teaching. Further
discussion led to an agreement by all that a teacher does not become a teacher when s/he
enters the classroom. Teachers are teachers all the time, and it is more than natural that
82
they extend the exploration of their teaching to their mundane experiences out of their
classrooms.
An interesting finding is that when asked about other activities they intended to
try out, none of the participants mentioned the one they ranked two (the second preferred
one) in the form they had just filled out. Irwin said he would like to try activity 3,
Interviewing teachers, which he had ranked 5 in the form. Mary said she would like to try
activity 9, Classy Observation, which she had ranked 3; and Yvonne said she would
probably try out activity 8, Stepping into the students’ shoes, which she had ranked 3).
This once again points out to how flexible a teacher education program must be in order
to adapt to the flexibility of teachers’ preferences and the way these preferences may vary
according to contexts, moments, and moods.
Findings and commentaries regarding the Activities Ranking
Before filling out the forms, the participants were informed that the criterion for
their choices should be simply preference, for whatever reasons they had. They were
instructed to rank the activities from 1 to 10 (1 for their favorite activity, and 10 for the
least likely to be chosen). Table 4.1 below shows the results of the ranking. The last
column on the right shows the average (AVG) ranking given to each activity. As the
preferred activity was ranked 1, the lowest average results represent the activities most
likely to be chosen. In the same fashion, the lower number obtained after the addition of
the AVG column displays the preference for non-observational and observation activities.
83
Table 4.1
Results of the Ranking of Activities
NON-OBSERVATIONAL ACTIVITIES Alice Irwin Mary Yvonne AVG
1. Writing a teaching journal/diary 6 6 7 9 7.00
2. Writing an activity report 1 8 6 10 6.25
3. Interviewing Teachers 5 3 1 5 3.50
4. Developing Metaphors 9 9 10 4 8.00
5. Trying the opposite 2 10 8 8 7.00
Preference for non-observational activities 31.75
OBSERVATIONAL ACTIVITIES Alice Irwin Mary Yvonne AVG
6. Audio or Video-recording a class 3 4 2 6 3.75
7. Seeing one’s teaching through the students’ eyes 10 7 9 2 7.00
8. Stepping into the Students Shoes 8 5 5 3 5.25
9. Classy Observation 4 2 3 7 4.00
10. Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies 7 1 4 1 3.25
Preference for observational activities 23.25
The chart represented by Table 4.2 gives a visual representation of the
participants’ average preference for each activity. On average, the most preferred activity
was number 10 - Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies. This was an expected result
based on the actual choice that the participants had already made, and on what they had
said in GD2. The two most salient reasons mentioned by the participants for the choice
were the motivational component of movies that involve teachers, and time-constraints.
In addition to this, the layout of the DVD with the movie clips was visually appealing and
made the participants want to watch it.

84
Table 4.2
The Average Preference for the Reflective Activities
Activity 1 - Writing a Teaching Journal/Diary
Activity 2 - Writing an Activity Report
Activity 3 - Interview ing Teachers
Activity 4 - Developing Metaphors
Activity 5 - Trying the Opposite
Activity 6 - Audio- or Video-recording a Class
Activity 7 - Seeing one's Teaching Through the Students' Eyes
Activity 8 - Stepping into the Students Shoes
Activity 9 - Classy Observation
Activity 10 - Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Put together with the time constraints, the choice of activity 10 can be easily
understood. In a certain way, the presentation of the material influenced the choice. ESL
publishers make a point of producing material that is appealing to the eyes, and thus
motivating to learners. The material designed for this research had the same concern,
based on the assumption that this motivational variable should also be a concern of
teacher educators. What was not given enough attention, though, is the fact that besides
the natural appeal of movies, the presentation of the DVD also served to reduce the
attractiveness of the rest of the material. It was this realization that prompted the
researcher to try and design an unbiased tool to measure teachers’ preference of reflective
activities.
Mary chose activity 10 in spite of its being her forth choice and she was the only
participant who did not choose to try out the activity ranked number one. She justified her
choice with those two reasons mentioned before: motivational appeal and time
constraints. As motivational appeal was also mentioned by the other two participants who
85
chose activity 10, this should serve as evidence that such a component in activities is as
relevant for teacher-learners as it is for ESL/EFL students.
Alice chose activity 2 – Writing an Activity Report – as her favorite one and,
consistently, as the activity of choice for her reflection. In spite on this consistency,
another piece of evidence, already mentioned in the discussion of her essay, suggests that
time constraints was also a determining issue in Alice’s choice.
Considering the average, the second activity most likely to be chosen was number
3 – Interviewing Teachers. This is consistent with the findings from GD2, when the
participants revealed their preference for learning from each other instead of receiving
theoretical instruction. It also supports the thesis that teacher education should be bottom
up, and that teachers are willing to learn from sharing and collaboratively exploring their
teaching (see Burns, 1999). This choice is not as consistent, however, with the general
results that point to a preference for observational activities. This choice may suggest that
what teachers have to say about what they do may mean more to other teachers than
simple observation, as the descriptive report of their actions brings also a rationale.
The third activity most likely to be chosen – number 6: Audio or Video-recording
a class – also confirms that teachers want to explore their own teaching and learn from it.
In addition to that, it indicates a preference for self observation and auto exploration,
suggesting that teachers would rather judge themselves than be judged by others.
The fourth activity most likely to be chosen – number 9: Classy Observation –
consists of observing classes and activities that have little or no connection with
ESL/EFL teaching, reflect on them, build metaphors about one’s own teaching, and learn
in the process. The fact that the participants indicated preference for this activity suggests
86
that teachers are willing to extend the exploration of their teaching out of the limitations
of the classroom; that they like the idea of learning from real life models and adapting
them to their teaching, maybe bringing some more authenticity to their classrooms; and
that they are willing to take measures to change their behavior for better whenever
possible.
The remaining activities are markedly in a dispreferred group, which is comprised
of all the activities for which there was less than 50% likelihood to be chosen by these
participants. This group starts with activity number 8 – Stepping into the Students Shoes
– and proceeds respectively with activities 2 (Writing an Activity Report); 1 (Writing a
Teaching Journal/Diary), 5 (Trying the Opposite), 7 (Seeing one’s Teaching through the
student’s eyes), and 4 (Developing Metaphors), the least likely to be chosen. The reasons
why these activities are dispreferred go beyond the scope of this project, but certainly
deserve further investigation. As no specific reasons were elicited from or mentioned by
the participant teachers in the GDs, any discussion here would be unwarranted
speculation. One fact worthy of mention, however, is the fact that the writing of teaching
journals and diaries, so popular in teacher development programs, proved to be clearly
dispreferred in this experiment.
Final evaluation of Phase Two
A general conclusion about the essays is that the reflective activities tried out did
result in awareness, rekindled motivation, and attitude for change, which represents a
positive answer to Research Questions 1 and 3. As for Research Question 2 – about types
of reflective activities that are more motivating for teachers – the essays show a
87
preference for observational activities but little is evident about the reasons for the
choices, except for the motivational appeal and time constraints.
Although time constraints tend to be common to most teaching contexts, there
may be some other variables to explain the participants’ choice other than those two
explicitly mentioned by them, but such assumption asks for further research. This project
relied solely on the ranking of the activities and the group discussion to assess the general
attitudes of the teachers regarding the reflective activities.
Phase Three – Planning Intervention
One of the objectives of phase three, related to Research Questions 1 and 3, was
to investigate how the impact of systematic reflection on beliefs and practice can inform
and foster action (research) and intervention. For such, the participants were asked to take
advantage of their experiences in the previous phases and identify problems that might
inform a collaborative action research project. The discussion that took place in the
second part of GD2 was crucial in the process of selecting issues for that investigation.
The relevant data sources regarding this objective were the reflective essays and GD3.
The essays were analyzed in the same fashion as the others from the previous phases, but
the analytical commentaries focused on the impression teachers had of designing an
action research plan to investigate problems that they had located and which were close
to their reality and needs. The analysis of part II of the GD2 followed the same analytical
model used for the other GDs – description and analytical commentaries.
Another objective of this phase was to inform Research Question 4 – the overall
perception teachers have of an inservice teacher education program based solely on

88
reflection and action research. The main data source for this analysis was the quantitative
data obtained from the final survey, but the results of the survey were analyzed together
with the GD3 and data from all the other sources. GD3 was analyzed for qualitative data
that served to crosscheck the results of the survey about the general perception the
participants had of this program, while the other data sources were analyzed and coded
for evidence of approval [app] or disapproval [dsp] of the program designed for this
research. The findings are expected to be generalizable to other similar programs as well.
Part II of Group Discussion 2 – choosing topics for the action research plans
After discussing their impressions from the experiences of phase two, the
participants discussed potential problems that they had located and that might constitute
subjects to be investigated through collaborative action-research. In preparation for that,
they were given a brief explanation of what action-research was about, which was done
with the help of a PowerPoint presentation they had been sent in advance.
Some areas of interest that were raised in this discussion, and which could inform
the action-research plan, were: a) how to improve a teacher’s ability to facilitate
conversation in the classroom by identifying variables that contribute to students
participation and engagement in classroom activities; b) how such improved facilitation
can impact the rates between teacher and students’ talk; c) strategies that can help a
teacher identify her/his teaching style and how the teacher can build upon that; d) how
the improvement of the personal relationship between teacher and students impacts
classroom work and the learning that occurs there (both teachers’ and students’ learning);
e) reasons why two teachers teaching a same level and with a similar lesson plan get
different results.
89
The participants were asked to try and devise an action research plan that could be
carried out in a hypothetical next phase of this teacher education program. In spite of all
the ideas raised in the discussion, the exact topic (or topics) the participants would be
working on was not decided at the meeting. It was made clear that as the action research
plan was to be collaborative, it should be developed by at least two participants, which
means that either one or two action research plans would be devised. The main reason for
postponing the decision about who would do what and with whom was the absence of
one of the participants. Another reason was that the participants wanted to take some
more time to discuss the topics and decide which topic to pick.
Two topics were chosen by the participants, which means they worked in pairs.
One of the pairs chose to write an action research plan on the topic (d) listed above: how
the improvement of the personal relationship between teacher and students impacts
classroom work and the learning that occurs there (both teachers’ and students’
learning. This choice was clearly influenced by reflective activity 10, which characterizes
an impact of the reflective activities on teachers. The other pair chose a topic which had
not been discussed at the meeting and which was a practical and immediate concern of
the teacher who was not present at the meeting: whether or not classroom pair activities
are useful for anything else than changing the class dynamic every now and again. This
choice also seems related to the reflective activity chosen by Alice – a lesson report. The
actual content of the action research plans is not considered data source for this research
but both plans can be seen in appendix G.
The fact that the ideas chosen for action research were inspired by the activities
performed by the participants in the previous phases of the project, and that such ideas
90
were born from the needs of the teachers, suggests that the program was successful in
impacting teachers and creating favorable conditions for learning, change, and
improvement. This investigation, however, is primarily interested in how the teachers
themselves perceived this impact, and the feelings of ownership they developed about the
process. The essays and GD3 were expected to provide such information.
Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of phase three
Alice and Irwin decided for a project on an issue that was an immediate need of
Alice’s, and of which Irwin had made no mention at GD2. This sounds like a good
definition of collaboration as related to collaborative action research – mutual
understanding of peer needs, sharing of knowledge and experience about issues that are
of common interest of the participants, or simply joint exploration for the sake of
learning. As Irwin did not submit his reflective essay, the analysis regarding this action-
research devising activity, and the impact it had on its developers, is based on Alice’s
essay only.
Alice’s essay
Alice and her partner taught very different classes: Alice taught pronunciation and
phonetics, while Irwin taught academic writing. They agreed to develop an action
research plan to investigate “whether or not classroom pair activities are useful for
anything else than changing the class dynamic every now and again.” Here is what Alice
had to say about the experience of developing the plan and about the process that led to it.
91
I believe that thinking about these issues was really helpful. Sometimes,
when you teach a class, you do things without thinking about them. It is
good to constantly be questioning yourself and your methods in the
classroom. It was also helpful to realize that with a little bit of work, I
personally could conduct a mini-experiment and get answers to questions
unique to my class. I think what was most helpful about this task was
brainstorming and discussing with another teacher the possible problems
in my class that have to do with interactive learning.
Alice’s words reveal approval of the activity, raised awareness about a new and
apparently efficient tool to explore her teaching, and satisfaction at finding out that she
could count on a peer to work out pedagogical problems that were hers only. Alice’s
words seem to bring a positive response to Research Questions 1, 3, and 4.
Mary’s essay
Mary and Yvonne’s thorough research plan was inspired by the reflective
activities they tried out, and discussed in GD2. In their own words, their plan revolved
“around the way instructors interact with students on a personal level.” Here is what
Mary said about her initial motivation:
I am one of many teachers who has always believed that the learning of
course content is the most important aspect of the class, that teachers
should not be ‘friends’ with the students, and they should not be
influenced by a desire for popularity with the students. But although a
line is drawn between the teacher and students, and although the main
92
goal of the class is to learn the content, the social aspect of the
classroom is also very important.
Mary’s words reveal that the awareness raised by previous reflection gave her and
her partner a bold disposition to defy established rules in order to investigate and test
hypotheses about better teaching. Regarding her expectations about the plan, she shows
an unbiased and open-minded attitude, and expresses her confidence that that action
research could be beneficial to her as a teacher:
I think that this action research is important because it could influence
me to believe that it is more important to know my students on a
personal level than it is to keep a wall between us. (…) the action
research will give me a more balanced view of the advantages and
disadvantages of both, and I can make a better decision regarding my
teaching based on my own personality and my own experiences.”
In discussing the experience of developing an action research plan, Mary
came back to a recurrent issue in all the GDs, that is, the distance between
theory and practice. This once again points to the importance of the issue, and to
the need that teacher educators give it special attention.
Conducting action research allowed us to look at an aspect of teaching
that was important to us, but which is not normally dealt with (I assume)
in a lot of literature. Or if it is, it is certainly not something that is
generalizable. Rather than spending time on how other people might
look at this question, we chose to look at what we do with social

93
interaction in the classroom, and applied our own perspectives to the
evaluation of this aspect of teaching.
Mary said that she and her partner were doing something that the literature was
not likely to provide, given the many variables that go on in real life classroom contexts.
She confessed to how important they felt it is that teachers test their hypotheses on their
own, look at issues from their own perspectives and according to their own discernment
of values in order to find their own answers. By developing an action research plan that
was born out of her immediate needs, Mary seems to have felt her individual needs
catered for, as can be inferred from her words:
The way in which we interact with students is completely individual, and the
findings of this research are mainly applicable to the person who conducts
the study. We can share our findings and help others get a general
understanding of the subject, but as far as influencing teaching practice, the
action research on this topic was essential.
Without downplaying the importance of theory and research, Mary reinforces her
impression that inservice teacher education must be contextualized and must give
teachers the chance to experience research in order to learn and change. She makes clear
the impact that such approach can have on teachers’ beliefs and practice:
As far as influencing teaching practice, the action research on this topic was
essential. While theory is important to help us gain knowledge and develop
our methodology, it is only through experience that we change our
practices.
94
About the importance of collaborative work, the potential benefits of action
research, and the dangers of a top-down approach to teacher education, here is what Mary
says:
I feel that the collaborative model is important because it implements
within the design of the task a sense of mentoring. The mentors may be
colleagues on equal footing of experience and knowledge, but this can
also be important to a support system. It is nice to have feedback and
reassurance from a peer. Anytime the mentorship occurs with someone at
a higher level or someone who is more of an administrator, there is
always a sense of evaluation. Peer-to-peer collaboration removes the
worst of that feeling and you are left to share both good and bad
experiences, successes and failures, and help each other out with realistic
suggestions or simply a sympathetic ear. The action research project
encourages those interactions, but guides them to be conducted in a
focused way.
Although none of the participants knew about the research questions in this
research, Mary’s conclusion to her essay seems to summarize the objectives and support
positive answers to all of them:
This is time well-spent because it gives teachers the opportunity to work
on a topic that is near and dear to their hearts, it has a greater chance of
changing not only teaching beliefs but also behaviors, and because it
encourages teachers to communicate with each other in a concrete way
about important issues in teaching.

95
Yvonne’s essay
Yvonne made a cautious evaluation of action research in teacher education. She
pointed out the practical and logistic difficulties it may present for teachers, such as
definition of methods, possible obstacles for implementation, lack of time, resources, or
tools, and validity of results. In spite of all that, Yvonne also highlighted the important
role action-research may play in catering for teachers’ individual needs. She said:
As a teacher, I find myself faced with ‘problems’ or ‘inquiries’ of big and
small size everyday. Some are simple enough to be solved on my own, but
others are more challenging, above my ability to handle due to the
uniqueness of the class and its components. In this sense, the action plan
is beneficial in a way that it tackles ‘my’ problems. This is a research that
starts with ‘real’ research questions. In other words, it is a tailored
research primarily aimed at investigating areas of my concern and,
further, providing answers that can be shared with teachers who have
similar concerns.
In concluding her essay, Yvonne reinstated her impression about the limitations
and difficulties in designing and carrying out collaborative action research, but added:
“However, is still worth carrying it out because of the practicality that many
conventional theories lack.” Wisely she observed that “this does not necessarily mean
that theory based sessions and seminars for teachers should all be avoided or eliminated
completely from a teacher training program”. Yvonne’s words seem to argue for a fair
blend of both theoretical and hands-on instruction in teacher education.

96
Findings and commentaries regarding the Final Survey
The final survey was primarily aimed at assessing the general impression the
participants had of the program as a whole, and thus inform Research Question 4. The
participants were given a form with sixteen items which should be marked on a Likert
Scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. They were told that the items
were intended to summarize their final impressions about the project and about the
validity of a program for inservice teacher development such as the one they had
experienced. They were also told that after they finished marking, they would have the
chance to discuss the items and elaborate on any issue that could not have been well
represented by that scale. The original form can be seen in appendix I.
The survey was answered in no more than ten minutes and the rest of the time was
used to discuss some of the items, so doing a final balance of the whole project, their
impressions, their findings, and their perceived gain. Picture 4.2 shows a graph with the
quantitative results – average of the responses. These results were put together with
evidence collected from the other sources, as expressions of approval or disapproval, or
other key phrases or statements that revealed the participants’ impressions of the program
as a whole.
97
Table 4.3
Final Survey
98
Analysis of the quantitative results of the final survey
A simple analysis of the quantitative results show strong approval of the program
regarding its openness, flexibility, respect for teachers’ voice (6 and 8), potential to help
teachers question their assumptions (13 and 14), acquire awareness, and consider change
(14). Besides providing a positive response to Research Question 4, these results also
support Research Question 1.
The participants displayed clear agreement that the program was teacher-centered
and had a clear focus on their needs (2, 5, and 7), that it impacted their beliefs (3), and
that it seemed useful in helping teachers develop and implement strategies for change (15
and 16).
Points of which the participant displayed rather moderate approval were that the
reflection they had done had instilled a need for change or improvement (1), that the
program gave them the chance to look at their teaching from different angles (9), that
such an approach to inservice teacher education seems more beneficial than traditional
top down approaches (11), and that this program can help teachers assess their teaching
(12). The timid agreement with item 1 seems consistent with a holistic view of the rest of
the data, in which no instances of willed decision to change can be seen, except for the
apparently strong sense of a need of careful re-evaluation of the relationship between
teachers and students. Item number 9 might have gotten a stronger agreement if the
teachers had tried other reflective activities. The ones they did try certainly contributed
little to their seeing their practice from other angles. The modest agreement with item 11
is consistent with the repeated observations by the participants that they still saw great
importance in theory and research. As these were MATESL students, and potential
99
researchers themselves, this may as well be a rather biased position. A comparative study
with teachers in other contexts should be a subject for further research. The issue about
this program being useful in helping teacher assess their teaching (12) was not very well
understood as can be seen in the subsequent discussion.
An item that deserved a moderate approval was number 10, about the usefulness
of self-reflection activities in raising issues for action research. This was rather surprising
in the view of the researcher, who saw the number of issues raised from basically only
one activity as quite significant.
The least enthusiastic agreement was given to item 4, regarding a perceptible
impact of the reflection on the participants’ practice. This seems perfectly consistent with
the rest of the findings, as there was little evidence of change in behavior as a result of
the reflection. The strong agreement with item 14, however, shows willingness and trust
that that might happen in the future.
Findings and commentaries regarding group discussion 3
The discussion that followed confirmed the quantitative results and presented
many points of convergence and none of divergence, besides the raising of one or two
extra issues not addressed by the survey. For example, Alice suggested that some degree
of authority and control in teacher education programs might be necessary and even
desirable, a point that raised no comments from the participants. When asked if comment
or clarification was needed regarding the survey, the participants asked for additional
explanation of four items: 11, 12, 13, and 15.

100
In spite of the significant rating given to item 11 – This approach to inservice
teacher education is more profitable to teachers than the traditional top down
approaches – all the participants made a point of reaffirming their belief that a good
approach to teacher education should be a combination of what this program suggests and
the kind of teacher education usually provided in seminars and workshops. The
researcher explained, however, that this program had not been designed as a substitute for
conferences, seminars, workshops, or any other method currently used to make the
knowledge base of theory and research available to teachers. Actually, this tentative
framework was rooted in up-to-date suggestions from the literature and tried and
incorporated its suggestions such as top-down orientation, prescriptive nature,
contextualization, and teacher-centeredness. What this inservice program was intended
to do was give teachers a chance to test their hypotheses in the light of those theories. On
the other hand, if this program proved to be efficient, it might as well feed seminars with
practical and empirically proved contributions to the teaching community.
The data collected throughout the project presents several signs of participants’
reaction to the overflow of contextually meaningless theory in teacher education
programs. Alice noticed that even this program would be a waste of time if there were no
implementation. She said:
It’s a lot of research; it's a lot of intellectual stuff (…) not that learner
centered kind of stuff… (…) not the way that we do education.” (…)
getting everybody in a room and saying, ‘this is what we believe’ and...
convincing them to come to your side (…). Does that actually affect what
101
they are doing in the classroom?” (…) “If you could somehow get
teachers to do it and see if they change…”
Asked to state their opinion about the validity of this program, the participants
mentioned the following points (the words in italics are literal quotations):
 It focuses on the teacher; open to subjectivities: “It gives teachers the opportunity
to do something individual and focused on individual, and specific needs”; (Irwin)
 It facilitates reflection that would not occur otherwise: “I wouldn't have been able
to reflect upon some issues until I watched myself. For example: video-taped my
classes, tape recorded myself...” (Irwin)
 It can (and should) be adapted for different contexts (including EFL): “It works
differently according to the setting. As a foreign language teacher, it helped me a
lot.” (Yvonne)
 It’s casual and there is not excessive emphasis on methodology, and better than
heavily theory based programs: “It’s more motivating that reading articles for a
next inservice, or something similar. (…) You can't have one presentation, or
read this, and then expect people to actually change the way they write their
lesson plans”. (Mary)
 There is no intimidation from authorities: “If you have someone higher than you
that you trying to work with, you get this sense of evaluation whereas if you are
collaborating among your peer group, that sense of evaluation is completely
gone.” (Mary)
102
 It fosters peer collaboration and sharing: “sometimes it’s just a shoulder to cry on,
but that is so important, that the teacher, especially a new teacher, can just share
all the successes and failures and not worry about judgment and critics.” (Mary)
 It encourages sharing knowledge within a context that is common to everybody:
“I think you have to really motivate people to do want to do something different,
which is why I like the idea of observing other teachers”. (Alice)
“I have always learned more by observing other teachers than otherwise.”
(Irwin)
I've seen three people teach (...) they have three totally different styles, all very
good, but it's like you can pick and choose what you like out of each and
implement that.” (Alice)
 It creates a chance for teachers to contribute in seminars
The participants also requested clarification of item 12 – This program can help
teachers assess their teaching. They were told that it was not about a good-or-bad kind of
assessment; rather it was about whether they felt that such a program could facilitate the
exploration of their teaching. This exploration should help them identify points that
needed intervention in order to make their teaching more effective, their classes more
interesting and motivating, and their students more involved in the learning process.
Another item that was not very clear was number 13 – This program can help
teachers question their assumptions. It was explained that teachers often make
assumptions based solely on intuition, and the point here was whether they felt that this
103
program could help them ask the right questions to prompt investigation and eventual
intervention, like Alice had mentioned in her essay:
Sometimes, when you teach a class, you do things without thinking about
them. It is good to constantly be questioning yourself and your methods in
the classroom. It was also helpful to realize that with a little bit of work, I
personally could conduct a mini-experiment and get answers to questions
unique to my class.
Clarification was also requested for item 15 – This program can help teachers
develop strategies for change. It was explained that one (not so difficult) thing to do is to
locate a problem – reflection can do that; a completely different (and more complex) one
is to devise ways to deal with it – action research is suggested as an informed way to
develop strategies for dealing with those problems.
Final evaluation of Phase Three
The reactions of the participants to designing an action research plan that was
born from their immediate needs, as they themselves had found them out, were
reassuring. Several ideas for investigation and intervention came from the reflection
done in the previous phases. Mary referred to them as “near and dear to their hearts”.
Two were used, and more encouraging than the action research plans themselves were the
expressions of trust and enthusiasm that doing this activity elicited from the participants:
This is time well-spent because it gives teachers the opportunity to work
on a topic that is near and dear to their hearts, it has a greater chance of
104
changing not only teaching beliefs but also behaviors, and because it
encourages teachers to communicate with each other in a concrete way
about important issues in teaching. [Mary]
It is a research that starts with ‘real’ research questions. In other words,
it is a tailored research primarily aimed at investigating areas of my
concerns and further, providing answers that can be shared with teachers
of similar concerns. [Yvonne]
The research action plan is an interesting and worthwhile approach to
cope with imminent matters at hand. [Yvonne]
Such positive reactions from the participants suggest that action research is indeed
a valid tool to be included in teacher education programs. It has the potential to generate
genuine and sustained improvement to teachers’ practice while giving teachers a sense of
ownership of the process. It provides a systematic basis for exploration of teaching and
allows teachers to address their real and immediate needs, experiment with new ideas,
strategies, methods, and materials, and assess their effectiveness. It also allows for
collaborative enterprises in which teachers share their knowledge and experiences and
decide as a team on issues that are of common interest.

105
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The main objective of this study was to investigate how teachers react to an
inservice teacher education program that relies entirely on reflection and action research,
two points often touted as effective tools in the ESL/EFL literature. More specifically,
this study examines how teachers acknowledge the impact of reflection on their beliefs
and practice and how they react to that; which activities are more motivating and
beneficial to teachers’ professional development from their own points of view; what
specific and practical learning issues emerge from a such a program, and how much an
approach to teacher education that is not prescriptive or patronizing contributes to the
building up of feelings of ownership and a sense of taking responsibility for their
developmental process.
The main concern was that the point of view be that of the teacher, with as little as
possible interference of the researcher. This interference, however, was not always easy
to avoid as the researcher, a teacher educator himself, was empathetic with those theories
and hopeful that they would prove effective and feasible for such a program. In a way,
designing the framework for data collection and the material for the reflective activities
demanded trust and enthusiasm from the person who did it; this material would probably
not have been as motivating to the participants if it had not been for the motivation of the
one who created them in the first place. The researcher strived to be unbiased in his
analysis, but may not have always succeeded. The data, however, are available in the
appendixes and in the text to be judged by independent readers and to make up for
unintentionally biased interpretations.

106
The Answers to the Research Questions
RQ1: What is the impact of reflection on teachers’ beliefs and practices?
For the sake of analysis, this question was subdivided as follows:
1.1) Was there any impact?
a) If so, what was the nature of this impact?
b) If not, why not?
As can be seen in the discussion of each phase, the answer to sub-question 1.1
was positive as plenty of evidence of impact was found in each phase and in the course of
each activity undertaken by the participants. As for the nature of this impact, changes in
attitude – when the participants revealed new positions and dispositions, as well as new
manners, feelings, and beliefs – were more evident than changes in knowledge or
behavior This can be explained by the relatively short time frame of the study. Even
though the program gradually moved from reflective to more practical activities, it never
really reached a phase in which the participants had time to test the assumptions derived
from their reflection, conduct the action research they planned, and act upon the findings
from this research. This same explanation can account for the little evidence of changes
in behavior. The second most predominant evidence of impact was of changes in
knowledge, which can be seen in the conclusions about RQ3. In summary, the findings
related to Research Question 1 point to a positive answer.
RQ2. What kinds of reflective activities are more motivating for teachers?
The findings show a marked preference for observational activities (as opposed to
non-observational), particularly, activities that have a strong motivational appeal, which

107
are visual, which do not demand much preparation, which are easy on the schedule, and
which are less time consuming.
The most likely explanation for the marked preference for observational activities
may be the show-me-don’t-tell-me style referred to by the participants. These findings
suggest that teachers think they learn better from observing models of teaching behavior
than by being observed or by reflecting and reporting on their pedagogical practices.
Together with the strong approval given to items 6 and 8 of the final survey, the findings
also suggest that teachers want to be given flexibility and freedom to adapt the models
they observe to their individual style.
RQ3. What specific learning issues may emerge from an inservice teacher education
As the data sources were coded for evidence of impact, they were also coded for
change in knowledge, which means learning. As it was explained in the methodology
section, it was considered change in knowledge any instance that revealed that the
participants had learned specific issues related not only to pedagogical practices, but also
to themselves, their students, and the institutional policies and politics. The following list
of quotations from the data shows examples of learning that seem to suffice as a positive
response to Research Question 3:
Alice:
It had not crossed my mind that students might not stick to the subject of
personal histories.
108
It was helpful to realize that with a little bit of work, I personally could
conduct a mini-experiment and get answers to questions unique to my class.
I think what was most helpful about this task was brainstorming and
discussing with another teacher the possible problems in my class that have
to do with interactive learning.
Irwin:
Appealing to student’s needs, selecting topics, holding more real
communication, and exploring and implementing authentic material are new
insights to teaching that would render various benefits for both teacher and
learner.
Now I understand that doing pair and group work is better than teacher’s
lecturing, that language teaching should be student-centered.
Teachers’ beliefs play a very strong role on the way they behave while
teaching.
Teachers should not be constrained by the syllabus.
Sometimes teachers must put aside what they have to teach and think of
students as people with needs other than learning.
Some students bring their personal problems and necessities into the
classroom. In order to cater for that, the teacher must find effective,
meaningful, attitude-change provoking actions that will serve both purposes –
meeting student’s needs while providing them with opportunities for the
targeted learning.
109
Mary:
I think that I am addressing students’ needs, but it is possible that my teaching
is still mostly geared toward what I would want if I were the student.
I have experienced how all students learn more and learn better when
activities are extended and enhanced through the course of addressing
multiple learning styles. (raised awareness of issues previously learned)
Although a line is drawn between the teacher and students, and although the
main goal of the class is to learn the content, the social aspect of the
classroom is also very important.
Conducting action research allowed us to look at an aspect of teaching that
was important to us, but which is not normally dealt with (I assume) in a lot of
literature.
We can share our findings and help others get a general understanding of the
subject, but as far as influencing teaching practice, the action research on this
topic was essential.
While theory is important to help us gain knowledge and develop our
methodology, it is only through experience that we change our practices.
The mentors may be colleagues on equal footing of experience and
knowledge, but this can also be important to a support system.
It is nice to have feedback and reassurance from a peer.
The action research project encourages those interactions, but guides them to
be conducted in a focused way.

110
Yvonne:
There is no ‘right’ answer for all, but a tailored answer for every different
class and student.
About the need for teachers to entertain the students: This not only makes you
look more confident and reassures the students that you know what you are
doing, but it also makes the class more dynamic and interesting in most cases
No matter what we decide to teach, what approach to take or what activities
we choose, we always need to keep in mind that it all needs to be used to keep
the learner engaged, give them a motive, a reason, and most importantly,
show them that you care.
Action research is a tailored research primarily aimed at investigating areas
of my concerns and further, providing answers that can be shared with
teachers of similar concerns.
Other pieces of evidence can be found in the transcripts of the GDs previously
discussed, but these examples should suffice to suggest a positive response to Research
Question 3.
RQ4. What is the overall perception teachers have of a program based on reflection
The fourth research question investigated the holistic effectiveness of this teacher
education program from the perspective of the teachers. The data sources were analyzed
for evidence of approval or disapproval of the program in the words or the participant
teachers. To facilitate the analysis, five questions were devised:

111
skills?
and awareness?
Questions A and B found plenty of evidence for a positive answer in all the data
sources. The analysis of the YES/NO Questionnaire of Phase One is a good example. In
the reflective essays alone, sixty four statements were found that revealed awareness
which was raised by the reflection fostered by this program.
As for question C, there was clear evidence of changes in knowledge, as could be
seen from the answer to RQ3. Changes in behavior were not salient, but could also be
found, as, for example, in the testimonies of Irwin and Yvonne about the first class they
taught immediately after having done the reflective activity in phase two. Irwin and
Yvonne’s account can also be counted as evidence of intervention as a result of reflection
and awareness, which is the issue in question D. The only evidence that demonstrates a
change in skills is related to devising an action research plan, which seemed to have been
new for most, if not all, of the participants.
As for question E, the data sources were rich in information. Here are some
quotations to serve as examples:

112
I think it is a really good idea to make teachers tell you their ideals and then
ask them about the reality a short time later. This gives them an opportunity
to objectively compare. I think it provides valuable insights. [Alice]
The fact of being able to analyze issues such as decision-making, actions,
objectives, who my students were, what their reasons to learn English were,
whether what I did in class was effective raised my consciousness more than
anything I had tried before. [Irwin]
Although I may have ‘thought’ about such issues, this is the first time where
I was able to reflect on myself from an objective angle. [Yvonne]
But now, with the reflection, I feel more confident about the way I teach and
how I should go about it from now on. [Yvonne]
I believe that thinking about these issues was really helpful. [Alice].
Yes, it helped me realize the discrepancy and the need to reconcile my
beliefs with my practices. [Alice]
It is good to constantly be questioning yourself and your methods in the
classroom. [Alice]I think that this action research is important because it
could influence me to believe that it is more important to know my students
on a personal level than it is to keep a wall between us. [Mary]
I feel that the collaborative model is important because it implements within
the design of the task a sense of mentoring. [Mary]
The overall impression of the researcher concerning the way the participants
reacted to this program based on reflection and action research is that it was viewed with
113
favorable receptivity, and even enthusiasm. In spite of the cautious appraisal made by
Yvonne, the participants seemed very confident that including action research in a
teacher education program seems to be a feasible and beneficial idea. Reflection seems to
have been well fostered, awareness was evident and plenty, learning did take place, and
several signs of change in attitude for change and improvement could be seen. In addition
to that, the participants seemed to have acquired a genuine feeling of ownership and
consciousness that they were in charge of their professional development process.
Pedagogical Implications
The pedagogical implications of this study are primarily related to teacher
education pedagogy. The findings show that the needs of teacher-learners are very similar
to the needs of any other learner: they want to be heard about their learning styles, needs,
and goals, and they want to be given activities which have a strong motivational appeal,
which are visual, which do not demand much preparation, which are easy on the
schedule, and which are not too time consuming. Moreover, they prefer observing to
being observed, and they would rather learn from observation than from reporting on
their pedagogical practices. Above all, teachers want to be given flexibility and freedom
to adapt the models they observe, and the right to challenge established rules in the
exploration of their teaching, in their search for more effective teaching approaches.
The findings also indicate that if teacher educators are attentive to what teacher-
learners have to say, they will probably find out that teachers want support and even
direction, but that such support and direction should consist of suggestions and flexible
choices, rather than prescription and imposition. Teacher-learners are willing to

114
systematically explore their own teaching and will gladly accept guidance in locating
problems, creating questions, and planning intervention. In addition to that, the findings
suggest that although acknowledging the value of workshops and seminars, teachers
believe that they can learn more from each other and from the collaborative exploration
of their teaching processes.
As for the usefulness of reflection and action research in teacher education, the
findings suggest that reflective activities rekindle motivation, and foster awareness and
attitudes for change, while action research is seen by teachers as an effective tool for the
systematic exploration of their teaching practices.
As for the implications for pedagogy in general, common sense suggests that
teachers’ development should result in improvement in students’ learning. In the case of
this study, the research plans and the participants’ reactions to the reflective activities
give testimony of that. They thought of their students in the first place, and considered a
more humanistic approach to their teaching. They felt the need to reach out to their
students, listen to what they had to say, and cater for their needs.
Limitations of this Study and Suggestions for Further Research
Kumaravadivelu (2001) stated that “a relevant language pedagogy must be
sensitive to a particular group of teachers instructing a particular group of learners who
are pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional context embedded in
a particular sociocultural milieu,” (p. 533-534 ). This is one of the basic postulates
behind a program such as this: that it be context sensitive. In this sense, this project was
limited by the population it investigated, which, as with any other population or contexts,
115
has very peculiar characteristics and needs. Even being attentive to this, the researcher
made mistakes in the elaboration of questions – such as the first question of the YES/NO
Questionnaire – and activities that were not the most appropriate for this group in face of
its immediate needs. A second edition of this project should avoid such mistakes.
The participants in this project were all very enthusiastic and willing to
collaborate with the researcher and with each other, but the whole situation was not real
in a literal sense. Rather than teachers participating in a real inservice teacher education
program, they were teacher-learners testing what they saw as a hypothetical alternative to
traditional models of teacher education. This stole the authenticity that would greatly
contribute to a fairer evaluation of the outcome. A larger number of participants in a real
institutional context in which the participant teachers were exclusively involved with
ESL/EFL teaching might be more appropriate for such research. In addition to that, the
uniqueness of this group and situation may prevent many of the findings to be
generalizable.
Given the time allocated for the research and the contextual conditions, the
participants did not have the chance to have a taste of all the reflective activities in order
to make better informed choices. Therefore, their ranking was more of guessing what
they would like to try than otherwise. Having several participants try them all, reflect
upon the results and than rank them, might have produced more reliable results and
stands as a suggestion for further research. They also did not have time to move from
reflection to practice, intervention, and further reflection to close the cycle.
Another limitation of this study, now regarding the data coding, is that the only
person to read and code the data sources was the researcher himself. A replication of the
116
experiment with the involvement of more than one researcher may add interrater
reliability to the findings.
Two other suggestions for further research are the investigation of teachers’
perception of Journal Writing as a reflective activity in teacher education, and a search of
other variables to explain the choice of reflective activities, other than motivational
appeal or time constraints.
Some Final Notes about Reflection
Reflection, as it was seen in this program, is not about the everyday routine
reflection that often happens under natural circumstances, such as when a teacher shows
authentic concern for problems but never writes it down or takes time to investigate
reasons and consider intervention. Moreover, it is not only about locating problems and
finding solutions to them, but about creatively exploring new possibilities for one’s
teaching and finding inspiration in contexts other than the school or classroom settings.
The pedagogical reflection advocated in this project is oriented to action, in which the
teachers, as part of a teacher-learning program, constantly and systematically undertake
deliberate and sustained reflection and action for the purpose of improvement.
Some More Ideas of Reflective Activities
The twelve reflective activities used for the purpose of this program (ten in the
kit, plus group discussions and the action research planning) include some which are
common in teacher education, and some which are not so common or which were
designed exclusively for this program. Many other activities, however, could be included
117
in teacher education programs in order to systematize reflection and make it more
practical and beneficial. Table 5.1 shows the activities used in this project and a (far from
exhaustive) list of other activities suggested in the literature:
Table 5.1
A List of Reflective Activities
This program Other Suggestions
 Writing a Teaching Journal/Diary  Course/Unit/Program Reviews

 Writing an Activity Report  Peer Observation
 Interviewing Teachers  Clinical Supervision
 Developing Metaphors  Critical Incident Analysis
 Trying The Opposite  Engaging a Critical Friend
 Audio or Video-Recording a Class  Drama /Role Play
 Seeing One’s Teaching through the Students’ Eyes  Mentoring
 Stepping into The Students Shoes  Mind Mapping
 Classy Observation  Storytelling
 Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies  Teaching Portfolios
 Group Discussion  Teaching/Learning Networks
 Action Research  WebLogs (Blogs), and Forums
Final Evaluation of the Findings
The results of both quantitative and qualitative analysis are promising for
programs such as the one designed for this research. The framework suggested is not to
be seen as a fixed model, but as a basis for modification and adaptation to other contexts.
Modification and adaptation are expected and encouraged because they are part of the
idea that teacher education must be context-sensitive. It seems to the researcher,
however, that there should be a sequence to these three phases, when teachers would
actually carry out the action research projects, analyze the results, plan and implement
intervention, and re-start the cycle by reflecting on the results, locating problems, and so
on.
118
Final Comments
“Movie teachers are able to do things that the rest of us would get fired for.”
These words were said by Mary, who labeled them “sad but true”. Mary was referring
specifically to the relation between teachers and students, and barriers imposed by
cultural and institutional policies, but if her words are to be generalized to other fields,
and if the same feeling is shared by the majority of the teacher population, this is surely a
variable that deserves serious investigation. For the sake of this research, those words
seem to suggest that if inservice teacher education programs are to focus on the teachers
and their needs, are to inspire them to explore their teaching in any possible way, and are
to give them freedom to do so, they must allow teachers to dare and even defy some
established rules if that is to help them to test hypotheses about better teaching.
The promising findings of this research indicate that teachers, without
downplaying the importance of instruction on ESL/EFL theory, see reflection and action
research as effective tools for development. The practical results of the reflective
activities also indicate that awareness was raised by reflection and that this awareness
was translated into changes in attitude, knowledge, and behavior. Reflection and
awareness allowed for the identification of problems, and prompted the planning of
action and intervention.
The analysis of teachers’ reactions to an inservice teacher education program
based on reflection and action research suggests that they approve of such a program, and
see it as more beneficial to their professional development than programs heavily based
on theory and methods, provided teachers also have the chance to occasionally participate
in open workshops and seminars. A holistic view of the project suggests that inservice
119
teacher education programs should rest on reflection, on action upon reflection, and in
teachers being given chances to confront their beliefs and explore their own teaching in
order to locate and solve their own conflicts.

120
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, L. (1994). Reflections and Teaching: Cooperative Workshops to Explore Your

Experience. Sydney: Adult Literacy Information Office.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan D. (1998). Undeniable Insights: The Collaborative
Use of Three Professional Development Practices. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (3), 546-
556.
Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J. C. Richards

and D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 202-214). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bartlett, L. (1992). Selected professions observed: competency-based standards and their

implications for the teaching profession. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
17 (2), 9 - 25.
Beattie, M. (1995) New Prospects for Teacher Education: narrative ways of knowing
teaching and teacher learning, Education Research 37(1)
Bernhardt, E., & Hammadou, J. (1987). A decade of research in foreign language teacher
education. Modem Language Journal, 71, 291-299.
Blair, R. W. (1982). Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass.:

Newbury House.
Block, D. (1992). Metaphors we teach and learn by. Prospect, 7(3), 42-55.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English teachers. New York:
Burton, J. I. (1991) . Planning for a professional program: Review of the professional

support and development in the AMEP. Canberra, Australia: Department of
Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs.
Burton, J. I. (1998). A Cross-Case Analysis of Teacher Involvement in TESOL Research.

TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 419-446.
Calderhead, J., & Gates, P. (Eds.), (1993), Conceptualising Reflections in Teacher

Development, Sussex: The Falmer Press.
Clair, N. (1998). Teacher Study Groups: Persistent Questions in a Promising Approach.

TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 465-492.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
121
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1985). Research methods in education, (2nd ed.). London:
Croom Helm.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives
of Experience. New York: Teachers College Press.
Corey, S. M. (1952). Action research and the solution of practical problems. Educational
Leadership, 9(8), 478-484.
Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Cornford, I.R. (2002). Reflective Teaching: empirical research findings and some
implications for teacher education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training,
54(2), 219-235.
Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,

20, 34-55.
Cruickshank, D. R., & J. H. Applegate (1981). Reflective teaching as a strategy for

teacher growth. Educational Leadership, 38, 553-4.
Cruickshank, D. R., Holton, J., Fay, D., Williams, J., Kennedy, J., Myers, B. & Hough, J.
(1981). Reflective Teaching: Instructor's Manual. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta
Kappa.
Cruickshank, D. R. (1984). Helping teachers achieve wisdom. Manuscript. College of

Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological

Methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1931). Philosophy and civilization. New York: G.P. Putman’s Sons.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. In W. B. Kolesnick, 1958, Mental Discipline in Modern

Education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Edge, J. (Ed.). (2001). Action Research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Edge, J., & Richards, K. (Eds.). (1993). Teachers develop teachers’ research. Oxford:
Heinemann.
Fanselow, J. & Light, R. L. (1977). Bilingual, ESOL, and Foreign Language Teacher
Preparation: Models, Practices, Issues. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
122
Fanselow, J. (1977a) Beyond Rashomon: conceptualizing and observing the teaching

act. TESOL Quarterly 11(1), 17-41.
Fanselow, J. (1977b). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals
10(5), 583-92.
Fanselow, J. F. (1982). “What kind of flower is that?” – A contrasting model for

critiquing lessons. In H. Eichheim and A. Maley (Eds.), Papers from Goethe Institute
– British Council Seminar on Classroom Observation, Paris: Goethe Institute.
Fanselow, J. (1987a). Do me a favor? Don't do me a favor. Do yourself a favor.

Unpublished manuscript. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Fanselow, J. (1987b). Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Alternatives in

Language Teaching. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
Fanselow, J. F. (1990). “Let’s see”: Contrasting conversations about teaching. In J. C.

Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 182-197).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Farrell, T. (1998). Reflective teaching: The principles and practices. Forum, 36(4), 10-17.
Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education and the problem of transfer.
In L. C. S. Li, D. Mahoney, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Exploring second language
teacher development (pp. 1-21). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Freeman, D. (1995). Asking “good” questions: Perspectives from qualitative research on

practice, knowledge, and understanding in teacher education. TESOL Quarterly,
29(3), 581–585.
Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1996). Teacher learning in language teaching. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of

language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.
Gebhard, J. G., Gaitan, S., & Oprandy, R. (1990). Beyond prescription: The student
teacher as investigator. In J. C. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language
teacher education (pp. 16-25). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gebhard, J. G. (1990). Interaction in a teaching practicum. In J. C. Richards and D.

Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 118-131). New York:
123
Gebhard, J. G., & Ueda-Motonaga, A. (1992). The power of observation: “Make a wish,
make a dream, imagine all the possibilities!” In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative
language learning and teaching (pp. 179-191). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gebhard, J. G., & Oprandy R. (1999). Language teaching awareness: A guide to

exploring beliefs and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (3rd edition) Harlow:
Longman.
Hathaway, R. S. (1995). Assumptions Underlying Quantitative and Qualitative Research:

Implications for Institutional Research. Research in Higher Education 36(5)
Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1996). The essentials of effective professional development: A
new consensus. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
Invitational Conference on Teacher Development and School Reform, Washington,
DC.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East
Lansing: MI: Author.
Irujo, S. (2000). A process syllabus in a methodology course: Experiences, beliefs,

challenges. In M. P. Breen & A. Littlejohn (Eds.), Classroom decision-making:
Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 209-222). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Johnston, B. (2000). Investigating dialogue in language teacher education: The teacher

educator as learner. In K. E. Johnson (Ed.), Teacher education (pp. 157-173).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Johnston, B. & and Irujo, S. (2004). Voices from the Field. Retrieved January 25, 2005,
from the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (Carla) Web site:
http://www.carla.umn.edu/resources/working-papers/samples/voices.html.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D., & Galván, J. L. (1997). EFL teacher development through critical
reflection. TESOL Journal, 7, (1), 12-18.
Kemmis, S. (1986). Critical reflection. Unpublished manuscript. Deakin University,

Geelong, Australia.
Knowles, J.G. (1991). Journal use in preservice teacher education: A personal and
reflexive response to comparisons and criticisms. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association of Teacher Education, New Orleans, USA.
124
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Theorising practice, practising theory: The role of critical

classroom observation. In H. Trappes-Lomax & I. McGrath (Eds.), Theory in
language teacher education (pp. 33–45). London: Longman.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a post-method pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4),

537-560.
Lange, D. L. (1990). A blueprint for a teacher development program. In J. C. Richards &

D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (4th ed., pp. 245-268). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). Training teachers or educating a teacher. In J. E. Alatis, H.

H. Stern, and P. Strevens (eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language
and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics.

Gertrude W. Lewin (ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1948.
Lewin, K. (1952). Group Decision and Social Change. In readings in Social Psychology,
Newcomb and Hartey (eds), Holt (New York).
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice.
Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lincoln, Yvonne S. and Guba, Egon G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational

reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129-151.
Markee, N.P.P. (1997). Managing curricular innovation (pp. 42-69). New York:
Mercado, C. I. (1996). Critical reflection on lived experience in a bilingual reading

course: It’s my turn to speak. Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 567-601.
Nunan, D. (1987). The Teacher as Curriculum Developer. Sydney: National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research.
Nunan, D. (1990). Action research in the language classroom. In J. C. Richards & D.

Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 62-81). New York:
125
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher: Managing the learning
process. In Cambridge Language Education series, edited by Jack C. Richards.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oller, J. W. Jr., & Richard-Amato P.A. (Eds). (1983). Methods that work: A smorgasbord
of ideas for language teachers. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd. ed.). London:
Sage.
Reid, J. M. (1995/1996, December/January). Let's put the "T" back in TESL/TEFL

programs. TESOL Matters, p. 3.
Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional

development for student success. New York: National Foundation for the
Improvement of Education.
Richards, J. C., & Hino, N. (1983). Training ESL teachers: the need for needs
assessment. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, and P. Strevens (eds.), GURT '83: Applied
Linguistics and the Preparation of Second Language Teachers. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Crookes G. (1987). The practicum: a survey of research and current
practices. Paper presented at the 21st annual TESOL Convention, Miami Beach,
Florida.
Richards, J. C, & Nunan, D. (1990). Second language teacher education. New York:
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart C. (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Language

Classrooms. New York: CLE. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and
applied linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Longman (Pearson Education).
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts,

judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.
Stanley, C. (1998). A framework for teacher reflectivity. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 584-
591.
126
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Strickland, D. (1988). The teacher as researcher: towards the extended professional.

Language Arts, 65(8), 74-64.
Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappa, 77, 464-
467.
Thiel, T. (1999). Reflections on critical incidents. Prospect, 14(1), 44-52.
Tobin, K. (1990). Metaphors and images in teaching. In What Research Says to the
Science and Mathematics Teacher. Monograph Series Paper No. 5. Curtin University:
The Key Centre for School Sciences and Mathematics.
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy, and
Authenticity. London: Longman.
Woods, P. (1987). Life histories and teacher knowledge. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Educating
teachers: Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge (pp. 121-136). New York:
Falmer Press.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and

classroom practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zeichner, K. M. (1981-2). Reflective teaching and field-based experience in teacher

education. Interchange 12, 1-22.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1985). Varieties of discourse in supervisory

conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1.
127
(Appendix A)
THE SCHEDULE (10 WEEKS)
Meeting 1 (60 min): Opening Meeting between the researcher and the
Sep 17 participants when the project will be explained in details, questions will be
raised and answered, and the letter of Consent will be signed. Also, a first
(Week 1) questionnaire will be handed out and the answers should be sent to the
researcher electronically until Sep. 23.
Sep 24
The second questionnaire sent electronically and answers due Sep. 30.
(Week 2)
Oct 1
Essay question sent electronically and due Oct.07
(Week 3)
Oct 8 Meeting 2 (60 min): Participants meet with the researcher to share their
findings on the self-reflection questionnaires and to receive material and
(Week 4) instructions for the reflective activities.
Oct 11-28 Participants try out one or more of the reflective techniques and answer
(Weeks 5-7) awareness-raising questions about their experience.
Meeting 3 (60 min): Participants meet with the researcher to discuss

Oct 29 impressions and findings regarding the self-reflective activities and to plan
a simple, practical, and objective collaborative action-research activity to
(Week 7) be carried out in the next three weeks under the supervision of the
researcher.
Nov 1-18 Participants carry out the action research activity and together write a
(Weeks 8-10) report on their findings.
Meeting 4 (Wrap-up – 60 min): Participants meet with the researcher,

Nov 19 hand in a final report of their findings on the action research activity,
(Week 10) discuss findings and final impressions on the whole project, and answer a
few multiple-choice questions regarding those impressions.
128
(Appendix B)
QUESTIONNAIRE A: WHAT YOU B ELIEVE

This is an awareness-raising questionnaire about your beliefs regarding ESL/EFL
teaching. Please, answer the questions in an objective way and have in mind that you are
not answering to anybody but yourself. There is no right or wrong, no expected answer,
no assessment purpose. If you feel you don’t have an answer to any of the questions, just
say so, but please try your best before skipping a question. You may write as much as
you want but please be objective.
1. How would you characterize English teaching as a profession?
2. How do you believe your own learning has influenced your teaching?
3. How can teachers pursue professional development?
4. What in your opinion are the personal characteristics necessary to make

someone a successful teacher?
5. Is your teaching aligned with any known TESL/TEFL methodology?

If so, which one and why? If not, how would you label your teaching approach?
6. Visualize the ideal classroom: what does it look like? (Think of students,
teachers, resources, and goals).
7. What kind of relationship do you think teachers should have with students in an
EFL/ESL classroom?
8. How important is to address individual learning styles and meet the needs of
students with different levels of ability?
9. What is the role of the teacher in motivating students to learn a foreign or

second language?
10. Who do you think should decide what to teach?

129
(Appendix C)
QUESTIONNAIRE B: WHAT YOU DO

This is an awareness-raising questionnaire about your ESL/EFL teaching practice. Please,
think about your own teaching and what you do on a regular basis in class and answer the
following questions in an objective way. Have in mind that you are not answering to
anybody but yourself. There is no right or wrong, no expected answer, no assessment
purpose. If you feel you don’t have an answer to any of the questions, just say so, but
please try your best before skipping a question. You may write as much as you want but
please be objective.
1. Why did you decide to become a teacher? Why did you choose teaching
English?
2. Chose three adjectives that would better describe you as a teacher and explain
why they were chosen. Choose three words your students might use to describe
you as a teacher and explain why they would choose them?
3. In what ways have you been able to bring the insights of your own learning
experience into your teaching?
4. What kind of learning environment do you try to create in your classroom?
5. What is your role in your classroom? What role do you expect your students to
assume in your classroom?
6. What are some preferred activities you use in your classes? Why do you believe
they are effective for learning?
7. What determines the content of your lesson plan? (Ex.: the curriculum provided
by the school, the textbook content, the needs your students have voiced or you
noticed they have, etc.)
8. How do you vary instruction for the individual needs of your students? Give
specific examples.
9. What techniques do you use to keep students actively involved and motivated
during a lesson?
10. What kinds of professional development activities have you been engaged in?
130
(Appendix D) – Contrasting Beliefs with Practice (Essay Question)
QUESTIONNAIRE C: ESSAY QUESTION
How much does your practice match your beliefs?

The table below shows your answers to the first two questionnaires paired according to
topic. Compare your answers for convergences and discrepancies between beliefs and
practice and then write an essay on the main points of your reflection. If there is any point
you are planning to give special consideration, please state which one and what you are
planning to do about it. In addition to that, express your opinion about the relevance of
acknowledging beliefs and comparing them with practice in terms of empowering a
teacher to address specific needs related to his/her teaching.
About the choice of field

How would you characterize English teaching as a Why did you decide to become a teacher? Why did
profession? you choose teaching English? [1]
About experience as Language Learner

How do you believe your own learning has influenced In what ways have you been able to bring the insights
your teaching? of your own learning experience into your teaching?
[3]
About teaching as a profession

How can teachers pursue professional development? What kinds of professional development activities
have you been engaged in? [10]
About self image as a teacher (The teacher’s mirror)

What in your opinion are the personal characteristics Chose three adjectives that would better describe you
necessary to make someone a successful teacher? as a teacher and explain why they were chosen.
Choose three words your students might use to
describe you as a teacher and explain why they would
choose them? [2]
131
About beliefs derived from educationally or research-based

principles or from methods whose effectiveness the teacher trusts.
Is your teaching aligned with any known TESL/TEFL What are some preferred activities you use in your
methodology? classes? Why do you believe they are effective for
If so, which one and why? If not, how would you label learning? [6]
your teaching approach?
About the roles of teachers and learners

Visualize the ideal classroom: what does it look like? What is your role in your classroom? What role do
(Think of students, teachers, resources, and goals). you expect your students to assume in your
classroom? [5]
About making a difference (holistic teaching)

What kind of relationship do you think teachers What kind of learning environment do you try to
should have with students in an EFL/ESL classroom? create in your classroom? [4]
About catering for different learning styles

How important is to address individual learning styles How do you vary instruction for the individual needs
and meet the needs of students with different levels of of your students? Give specific examples. [8]
ability?
About motivational strategies

What is the role of the teacher in motivating students What techniques do you use to keep students actively
to learn a foreign or second language? involved and motivated during a lesson? [9]
About the program and the curriculum

Who do you think should decide what to teach? What determines the content of your lesson plan?
(Ex.: the curriculum provided by the school, the
textbook content, the needs your students have voiced
or you noticed they have...) [7]
132
(Appendix E)
YES/NO QUESTIONNAIRE (ORIGINAL FORM)

If you find YES or NO only don’t reflect what you want to say about the issue, feel free
to write comments in the space below the question.
Yes No
1. Did you find discrepancy(ies) between your beliefs and your practice? [1]
Comments: (Optional)
After you reflected on your beliefs and your practice, is there any point you
2.
plan to give special consideration? [1]
Do you feel that acknowledging your beliefs and comparing them with your
3.
practice may help you address your needs related to your teaching? [2]
Do you feel that activities such as these of Phase One display respect for
4.
your individual teaching style? [2]
Had you ever been prompted to check your beliefs against your practice
5.
before? [3]
133
YES/NO QUESTIONNAIRE (ANSWERS)
SURVEY - PHASE ONE - ALICE

Evidence of Impact (SO1.1) → Y SO3 Specific Learning Issues that emerged
↓ Nature of Impact (SO1.2)

[att] Attitude 3
[knw] Knowledge 0
[bhv] Behavior 0
↓ Holistic Evaluation
[awr] Evidence of awareness Y
[app] Evidence of approval Y
[dsp] Evidence of disapproval N
[unc] Evidence of uncertainty N
YES/NO QUESTIONS
If you find YES or NO only don’t reflect what you want to say about the issue, feel free to write comments
in the space below the question.
YES
Comments: My beliefs seemed very idealistic while my practices seemed more pragmatic [awr].
2. After you reflected on your beliefs and your practice, is there any point you plan to give special
consideration?
YES [att]
Comments: I think I will try to put more of that idealism into the pragmatics of my teaching [att].
3. Do you feel that acknowledging your beliefs and comparing them with your practice may help
you address your needs related to your teaching?
YES [app]
Comments: Yes, it helped me realize the discrepancy and the need to reconcile my beliefs with my
practices. [awr] [att]
4. Do you feel that activities such as these of Phase One display respect for your individual teaching
style?
YES [app]
5. Had you ever been prompted to check your beliefs against your practice before?
NO [app]
134
SURVEY - P HASE ONE – MARY


[att] Attitude 1
[knw] Knowledge 0
[bhv] Behavior 0
[awr] Evidence of awareness N
YES/NO QUESTIONS
No
(at least, nothing too shocking or unknown to me previously. I think the exercise had the potential to
find discrepancies…[app] just lucky none turned up!)
consideration?
No
(Though to be honest I might think that I should if I wasn't so incredibly busy this month or we
weren't following up with other reflective activities.) [att]
you address your needs related to your teaching?
Yes [app]
style?
Yes [app]
5. Had you ever been prompted to check your beliefs against your practice before?
Yes (but it's been a while)
135
SURVEY - PHASE ONE – YVONNE


[att] Attitude 1
[knw] Knowledge 0
[bhv] Behavior 0
[unc] Evidence of uncertainty Y
YES/NO QUESTIONS
Judging from the answers, I would have to say both YES and NO [unc]. Yes, because the answers
were somewhat related to one another. No, because some questions were answered with a different
approach. Judging from what I believe and what I actually do in the classroom, however, I would lean
more to ‘YES’ [app] because I do try extremely hard to follow my beliefs.
consideration? [1]
Yes. Now that I’m more aware, [awr] I plan to be more careful and prudent in what I do and say in
class [att]. Especially in giving tasks that will take into consideration of the individual needs.
you address your needs related to your teaching? [2]
Yes, absolutely [app]. However, I think further systematic steps should be taken to put the
information/awareness into use.
style? [2]
Don’t quite understand what ‘display respect for your individual teaching style’ means [unc]. If you’re
asking if the Phase One has helped me reflect on how I teach, I would have to answer YES. [app]
5. Had you ever been prompted to check your beliefs against your practice before? [3]
No, not in such a manner. [app]

136
(Appendix F) – Reflective Activities
Participants could choose between writing a journal or a diary, which
could be either intrapersonal or dialogic. If dialogic, the journals or
diaries should be exchanged either with another participant-teacher or
with any other EFL/EFL teacher.
Participants should write a report on an activity or section of their
classes. Such activity or section should not be longer than 20 minutes.
3. Interviewing Teachers (Burns, 1999)
Participants should interview teachers who were not involved in the
research project on issues they were interested in knowing more about.
For such they were provided with an extensive list of questions on
issues such as teaching abilities; planning skills; teaching experience
and strategies; catering for different learning styles; assignments,
assessment, and self-assessment; classroom management; motivation;
knowledge of content and material; and holistic teaching.
4. Developing Metaphors (Block, 1992; Allan, 1994; Tobbin, 1990;
Burns, 1999)
137
Participants should think of a metaphor that described themselves and
their teaching in imaginative ways.
5. Trying the opposite (Gebhard & Oprandy, 1999)
Participants should choose one of their teaching behaviors (e.g., error
correction; space; use of L1) – preferably a controversial one – and try
an exact opposite behavior. There was no specific objective other than
observing and reflecting on the results.
Participants should audio- or video-record no more than 20 minutes of
a class they taught, reflect on it afterwards, and produce a written
report of their reflections. They were provided with suggestions of
what to look for, but they were free to choose whatever they wanted to
investigate. The researcher offered help with the recording procedures
and with transcription if they wanted.
Participants would choose one or two students of theirs and ask them
to observe one of their classes for specific aspects or their teaching
(e.g., teacher talk, space the teacher fills in the classroom, questioning,
correction, mannerisms) and reflect on that afterwards.

138
8. Stepping into the Students Shoes
Participants should put themselves in the students’ shoes by attending
a beginners class of a language they knew nothing about, and reflect
afterwards about how much they learned about what their students feel
in their classroom.
Participants were encouraged to observe a class that apparently has
little in common with language teaching, reflect on their own
teaching based on it, and write an essay based on their reflection.
They were provided with an example by Gebhard and Oprandy (1999).
10. Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies (Hahn & Alsberg -
unpublished)
Participants were given a DVD with clips of ten movies in which
teachers are portrayed in the classroom (e.g., Mona Lisa Smile, Stand
and Deliver, Dead Poets Society). They were asked to reflect on their
teaching practice as well as on their beliefs about teaching as
compared with those stereotypes. They were provided with questions
and guidelines for their reflection.

139
(Appendix E) – The Reflective Activities Kit

140
REFLECTIVE ACTIVITIES
This kit contains 10 reflective activities (5 non-observational and 5
observational) of which you can try out as many as you please, but
report on only one. The written report may be as long as needed
and you may approach the issue from any angle you choose, but
you are encouraged to have in mind your answers to the two
questionnaires of phase one.
3. Interviewing Teachers (Burns, A. 1999)
4. Developing Metaphors (Block, D. 1992; Allan, L., 1994; Tobbin, K. 1990; Burns, A. 1999)
5. Trying the opposite (Gebhard, J. G. and Oprandy, R., 1999)
10. Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies (Hahn, L & Alsberg, J)

141
REFLECTIVE ACTIVITY 1
Writing a teaching journal/diary
If you choose to write a journal, you should know that you are not supposed to hand it in
to the researcher. If you are writing a dialogue journal, your journal will be read by
yourself only or by a peer. What you are expected to do for the sake of this research is to
submit an essay with your reflection on the effects of journal writing.
You can choose to write an intrapersonal or a dialogic journal. Intrapersonal journals

are an opportunity to openly explore thoughts that you might not be comfortable
revealing to other people. Dialogic journals give you the chance to find out what
feelings, issues, accomplishments, and problems you share with other teachers. The
descriptive parts of these journals may also allow you to learn from the explorations of
your peers.
Because I am assuming that you already know a good deal about this kind of reflective
activity, I will not explain it in detail, but if you need any help, feel free to come and talk
to me. Just as a reminder, journals are known to provide:
 a place to articulate and explore our beliefs and practices;
 a place to keep a record of such things as self-observations and the observation of

other teachers; conversations with peers; teaching ideas; questions and answers;
and personal connections between who we are as individuals and who we are as
teachers;
 a way to work through the emotional part of your teaching, vent your frustrations,
work through your judgments, and raise questions.(Bailey 1990 p.218);
It is advisable that you add entries to your journal right after teaching experiences, but
you can also do that at any time. For example, you might be watching a TV show and
have a good idea for a class activity – record it down on your journal; you may be having
a class on pottery and learn something about facilitating learning – write it down in your
journal. Your journal is not to be a teaching journal, but rather a learning journal about
your teaching.
142
Here are some simple suggestions for the entries in your journal. You may choose to
follow all of them, some of them, or even none of them.
Your entries might be on:
 The actions and reactions of your students to your teaching;
 Activities or actions that you feel like repeating in the future;
 Activities or action that you will try and do differently in the future (and why you
will change them);
 How your students benefited from your lesson;
 How much you learned from teaching that lesson (either in terms of teaching
practice or in terms of actual learning of content)
 The unexpected outcomes of your lesson plan;
 A comparison between the theories and beliefs you hold about teaching and the
actual practice;
 A comparison between the ESL/EFL teaching theories you know of and your
actual practice.
Another important suggestion is that you make your journal as non-judgmental as

possible. Avoid vague adjectives such as: the result was good; I liked it; the activity
worked fine; etc. Even though your journal is a personal account of your impressions,
those expressions may not help you acknowledge the WHY’s, i.e., why it was good, why
you liked it, why it worked. Make your journal more exploratory by going beyond a
simple descriptive account of facts.
143
Writing an activity report
Write a report on one activity or section of one of your classes. This activity or section
should not be longer than 20 minutes.
By writing reports on activities you have another chance to reflect on your teaching
practice and collect important information that will help you improve them for future use
and better help your students to learn.
These are some suggestions on what to include and how to organize your lesson report.
Feel free, though, to format it the way you think it will better serve as a reference source
in the future.
BACKGROUND  Briefly describe the nature of the course in which the activity was given (a
Course writing course, a conversation course, a test-prep course, etc.
Student Population  Talk about where the activity fit into the course, discussing any previous
Classroom Setting lessons related to the activity you are reporting on.
 Describe general characteristics of the student population, including any
relevant differences among students, in terms of background and
preparation for an activity such as the one you gave.
 Indicate the class size as well as any relevant information about the
learning environment.
ACTIVITY  Identify the student-learning goal (or goals) of the activity.

Learning Goal  Provide a detailed description of the activity.
Lesson Design  Mention the amount of time estimated and the amount of time actually
Rationale spent.
 Explain how and why such an activity may influence student learning,
thinking, and engagement.
 Refer to any theoretical or empirical work you may know of that
influenced the design of the activity and say how it influenced your
choosing it.
FINDINGS  Briefly describe what kinds of evidence were collected before, during and
Approach after the activity.
Results  Report major results related to student learning and involvement (e.g.,
student engagement, types of thinking, attitudes, motivation, social
behaviors, etc.)
 Explain how findings relate to the learning goal(s) of the lesson.
 Discuss any unexpected results.
CONCLUSIONS  Reflect on how the lesson worked and evaluate its effectiveness (successes
Effectiveness of as well as areas for improvement).
Lesson  Discuss how the lesson might be modified to improve its effectiveness.
Remaining Questions  Identify possible ways to improve your lesson study process.
 Specify any remaining questions.
144
Interviewing Teachers (Burns, A. 1999)
For this activity you will interview one or more teachers who are not involved in this
research project. This shouldn’t be a formal interview – of the kind in which one person
asks and the other answers – but one in which you discuss a topic and both participants
learn from the discussion. Choose a topic of your interest, but make sure it is of the
interest of the other teacher too. After the interview, reflect on what you two discussed
and write an essay on the most important points of your reflection.
Attached to this paper, you will find an extensive list of questions that should serve as
source of ideas for your interview. The questions focus on different issues such as
Basic beliefs about the English language; teaching as a profession; how people
learn, what constitutes effective teaching, the roles of teachers and learners;
curriculum development; the influence language learning experiences on one’s
teaching; the characteristics and qualities of an effective teacher.
Planning skills – effective lesson plans, defining goals, choosing activities,
assigning homework, increasing the chance that students understand content;
Teaching experience and strategies – e.g.: the process-approach to writing,
cooperative learning, lecturing or group work, teaching grammar;
Learning styles – catering for different learning styles; varying instruction,
maximizing the learning potential of students, dealing with mixed ability classes /
slow learners / advanced learners;
Assignments, assessment, and self-assessment – the ideal homework load, how
should ESL/EFL learning be assessed; make-up solutions for poor test results,
accountability for poor results;
Classroom management – the ideal classroom, dealing with students who finish
assignments early, dealing with discipline problems, how to react and count-react
to problems, establishing rules;
Motivation – dealing with unmotivated students, the right amount of challenge to
offer students, keeping students actively involved during a lesson, getting students
excited about learning, enhancing students’ self-esteem;
Knowledge of content material and technology available for teaching – what a
teacher needs to teach, teaching with a textbook one does not like; effective
material, criteria for evaluating textbooks for adoption, choosing a level to teach;
Holistic teaching – teacher-student relationship, learning environment, teaching
values, the importance of humor in the classroom;
145
Beliefs about the English language

 Why do you think English is an important language?
 Do you think English is more difficult to learn than other languages?
 What do you think the most difficult aspects of learning English are? (grammar,
voc, pronunciation)
 Which dialect of English do you think should be taught? (British, American,
Australian…)
 Do you think it is important to speak English with native-like pronunciation?
 How does English sound to you compared to other languages you know?
 What attitudes do you think your learners associate with English?
 Do you think English has any qualities that make it different from other
languages?
About teaching as a profession

 How would you characterize English teaching as a profession?
 What changes do you think are necessary in the language teaching profession?
 What kind of training do you think language teachers need?
 What kinds of professional development activities best support teaching?
 What kind of support for professional developments is available at the school you
work for?
 What kind of support your school does not offer that you think it should?
 What is the most rewarding aspect of teaching for you?
 Do you think language teachers should be evaluated throughout their careers? If
so, what form should this evaluation take?
Beliefs about how people learn

(based on training, teaching experience, or experience as language learners)
 How do you define learning?
 What are the best ways to learn a language?
 What kinds of exposure to language best facilitate language learning?
 What kinds of students do best in your classes?
 What kinds of learning styles and strategies do you encourage in learners?
 What kinds of learning styles and strategies do you discourage in learners?
 What roles are students expected to assume in your classroom?
 How do you personally feel students learn?
146
Beliefs about what constitutes effective teaching

 How do you see your role in the classroom?
 How would this be apparent to a visitor?
 What teaching methods do you try to implement in your classroom?
 What teaching resources do you make use of?
 How would you define effective teaching?
 What is your approach to classroom management?
 What are the qualities of a good teacher?
Beliefs about the roles of teachers and learners

 What is the role of an EFL/ESL teacher?
 What is your approach (methodology) to teaching?
 What is your personal view of teaching?
 What do you expect from your students?
 How much of the talk should you do in a typical class?
 How much is the teacher responsible for the students’ learning?
 How much is the student responsible for his/her own learning?
About the Program and the Curriculum

 Do you feel that the teacher should be responsible for developing programs and
objectives or should these be provided by the coordination?
 What do you think are the most important elements in an effective language
teaching program?
 What do you think the role of textbooks and teaching materials in a language
program should be?
 How useful do you think instructional objectives are in teaching?
 Who decides how you teach: you or the institution?
 How do you decide what to teach?
 To what extent is your teaching based on your students’ needs?
 What changes would you like to see in your program?
 In an ESL/EFL course, how should a student's achievement and progress be
measured?
147
About the influence language learning experiences on one’s teaching,

 Tell me how your own learning has influenced your teaching.
 In what ways have you been able to bring the insights of your learning experience
into your teaching?
 Which one teacher you had you would like to emulate? Why?
About characteristics and qualities of an effective teacher (teaching abilities)

 What are the qualities of an effective teacher? Which of those characteristics
would you say you have?
 Name three of your professional weaknesses. In what areas do you feel you need
improvement?
 How would you describe yourself as a teacher? Chose three adjectives that would
better describe you and explain why they were chosen.
 How would your students describe you as a teacher? What are three words your
students might use to describe you as a teacher?
 Could you describe your teaching style? What distinguishes you as a teacher?
 What is your basic teaching philosophy? How do you incorporate your teaching
philosophy into your daily instruction?
 How do you hold yourself and others accountable for student progress?
 Is it important for students to like you as a teacher?
 How do you receive feedback? Criticism?
Planning skills, assignments, and assessment

 Describe the components of an effective lesson plan.
 Do you believe in detailed lesson plans? How closely do you follow your lesson
plans?
 What do you include when you write objectives?
 How would you teach a conversation class for students at different levels ranging
from low intermediate to advanced?
 What is the role of homework? How much homework will you assign?
 How do you increase the chances that students will understand what you are
teaching?
 If more than half of your students fail your first exam, what does this mean?
What do you do?
 How do you provide feedback to students about how they are doing?
148
Teaching experience and strategies

 Describe your past teaching experiences. What made them successful?
 What are strategies that you have found effective in the classroom? Share a
successful experience in teaching and why it was meaningful to you.
 What do you think of cooperative learning?
 Are you familiar with the process approach to writing? Do you use it? Why or
why not?
 What do you think are some effective ways to help students understand the
structure of the language (grammar)?
 How much time of a class do you estimate you lecture?
 If students are having difficulty learning a skill or concept, what do you do?
Catering for different learning styles

 How do you address the needs of diverse learners and meet the needs of students
with different levels of ability while still covering the intended content?
 How do you vary instruction for individual needs of students? Give specific
examples.
 Would you rather teach the slow learner or the high-achiever? Why?
 How do you work with low achievers (students who perform below the expected
level)?
Classroom management
 Visualize an ideal classroom: What does it look like? (students, teachers,
resources, and goals)
 Some of your students always finish assignments early. How do you deal with
the free time that they have?
 What kind of rules do you have in your classroom? How are they established?
 What techniques would you use to handle discipline problems that may arise in
your classroom?
 How do you develop a good student–teacher relationship?
 Is it appropriate to tell your class that you are angry with them?
 What would you do to promote a safe atmosphere in your classroom?
 A student tells his teacher that he forgot to bring his paper, which he had written
the night before. The teacher says, “I understand. I sometimes forget things like
that too.” How do you evaluate the way this teacher responded to the student?
149
Motivation
 What techniques do you use to keep students actively involved and motivated?
 How do you deal with the unmotivated student?
 What kinds of challenges are you prepared to offer students?
 What are some of your ideas for enhancing your students' self esteem?
 How can you get students to be excited about learning?
Knowledge of content and material

 What is the most exciting initiative happening in your area of ESL/EFL today?
 What books, concepts or experiences have influenced you most in your
professional development?
 What kind of materials and supplies would you need to do your best job?
 What materials have you used that you found most effective?
 Cite the criteria you would use to evaluate a textbook for possible adoption.
 What technology do you think is needed to promote a good learning
environment?
 If you could choose to teach any level or kind of class, which would you select
and why?
Holistic teaching (Making a difference)

 What values are most important to you?
 What do you value most in a student of yours?
 What kind of relationship do you have with your students?
 What kind of learning environment do you try to create?
 What do you feel is important to know about your students? How do you gather
this information?
 What do you feel are the most important things students learn in your classroom?
 What difference do you hope to make in the lives of your students?
 Through your teaching, do you think students can be changed?
 How do you show your students that you understand them and their frustrations?
 How do you make students feel at ease around you, while still respecting you?
 How do you deal with controversial subjects in class?
 Do you believe in teaching students what to think or how to think?
 In what ways have you incorporated critical thinking skills into your instruction?
 Do you like laughter in your classroom?
 How will your students remember you?
150
Developing Metaphors (Block, D. 1992; Allan, L., 1994; Tobbin, K. 1990; Burns, A. 1999)
Allan (1994) proposes that the conscious use of metaphors can lead teachers to describe
themselves and their teaching in unusual and imaginative ways. Metaphors can bring into
play new sets of beliefs and attitudes that can be accompanied by changes in behavior.
If you choose this activity, these are some steps you should follow:
1. Ask yourself the following questions.
(a) What do I do when I teach?

(Choose a specific teaching context and answer: I listen, negotiate, ask for feedback...)
(b) What roles do I take when I teach?
(Continuing from above: organizer, mediator, observer...)
(c) What metaphors do you associate with these roles?
(Continuing from above: I see myself as a...)
2. After you build your metaphor, reflect on responses and explore the following
questions:
(d) Does this metaphor represent what I do, what I want to do, or a mix of both?
(e) Does the role represented by this metaphor change when the context changes?
(f) What roles and metaphors do my students see in my teaching?
(g) Am I comfortable with my metaphor and the role it represents or would I like
to make changes? How would I like to change it?
(h) How does my metaphors and the role it represents link with the theoretical
approaches in ESL/EFL? What are the consistencies/inconsistencies? What do
I feel/think about this?
3. Use your metaphor(s) as a guide to evaluate your teaching. Reflect on your

metaphor as you teach. If there are inconsistencies, you can make choices about
changing your teaching or your metaphor. After you reflect for some time, write
an essay sharing your experiences. Your essay may be as long as you wish.
In the next page you will find some examples of metaphors from Allan's
collaborative workshop group for Adult Basic Education teachers.
151
Examples of Metaphors
Allan, L. 1994. Reflections and teaching: cooperative workshops to explore your experience. Sydney: Adult Literacy
Information Office.
Metaphors enabled individuals to name aspects of their teaching in increasing detail and
depth. Some metaphors revealed aspects of teaching that were acceptable representations
of a teacher's personal theories of teaching:
The metaphor of a crossword-puzzle maker took a while to come up with. This was how I saw
myself at the time. I didn't want to give students the answers. I could give them clues about
how to get the solution, but I wanted them to come up with the answers... The crossword-
puzzle maker metaphor also recognized the fact that I as the teacher still had a responsibility
to know my subject area. Then I looked at what I would like to be. This didn't require a total
change of my metaphor but rather an extension. I wanted to make the puzzle more cryptic, so
that students could take more responsibility and extend themselves into areas they may not
have ventured. Eventually I would like to make them the puzzles.
Other metaphors produced thought-provoking portrayals of differences between learner
and teacher perceptions, which challenged the researcher's ideals and acted as a catalyst
for rethinking.
I talked about my metaphor with my students. A lighthouse was mentioned. I'm there guiding,
steady, shining, warning about the rocks and channels but only guiding. I think maybe that's a
bit unflattering so I am not quite happy with it. I thought I had more interaction with them
than that. It seems a bit stand-offish.
I feel like a staple gun in the trades [classes] – like a band-aid only quicker and more violent –
okay, formula – bang, staple, okay, ratio – bang, okay, trig – bang. Rosie the Riveter – bang,
bang, bang. But in other classes it's not that at all – there's time, there's enjoyment. But the
lighthouse is interesting – a problem. Blink, blink, blink, remember this, what do you already
know, what's the question saying, question, prompt, blink, blink.
Developing metaphors may also enable a teacher to identify barriers that have an impact
upon her/his classroom practices, such as syllabus constraints and timetabling
arrangements.
A further use of metaphors is illustrated by Chris Pearson (1997), a teacher of
intermediate adult ESL students in Victoria. A metaphor helped Chris to express his
initial dilemmas about motivating and unifying his student group.
It was apparent from the outset that working with this group was going to pose problems that I
had not encountered before. I often felt that I was driving a big bus down a particularly
bumpy road with a group of passengers that did not seem to know what stop they wanted or
why they had gotten on in the first place. As a consequence, passengers continually got off at
the wrong stop or attempted to jump off while the bus was still moving. This meant we were
constantly stopping to check for missing people and to encourage stragglers to get back on.
Through a process of trial and error, Chris and the group eventually evolved a “stop,
think, write, stop and think again” formula for writing tasks. Although to Chris's mind
this appeared “very mechanical”, it produced writing outcomes for his students that
provided them with an effective learning structure and allowed them to gain results both
through group processes and individually. Chris extended his metaphor as a way of
evaluating what he believed had been achieved through the research process.
While the bus has become in part more oriented towards a common goal than it was at the
onset of this particular journey, there will no doubt be more flat tires and blown head gaskets
to come.
152
Trying the opposite (Gebhard, J. G. and Oprandy, R., 1999)
Trying the opposite is a very good strategy to deal with classroom problems. When you
see that a certain approach to a problem is not giving good results, just try something
radically different from that to see what happens. Even if it doesn’t solve the problem, it
may give you a better idea of what to do about it.
The idea of this activity goes a little beyond that, extending this experience to some
specific classroom behaviors of yours. You should choose one of your teaching behaviors
– preferably one that you know there is controversy about – and try an exact opposite just
to see what happens. As an example, take the use of L1 in the classroom in EFL contexts.
If you use L1 moderately, try not using it at all, and see how your students react to that.
If you never use L1 (or if you use it most of the time), try using it moderately. You
might do that, for example, by translating words that refer to concepts which are difficult
to grasp, or by separating 5 minutes at the end of the class to discuss with your students,
in their native language, any problems they may have found with the content of that class.
Here is a sample list of other behaviors you might want to try the opposite. Some of these
would work in two directions; some would not. Feel free to add to this list.
 How much you talk in the classroom as compared to how much you allow your students
to talk (you may pretend you have a problem with your voice and teach a class in which
you barely say a word);
 How much you write on the board.
 How much time you give your students to answer your questions.
 How many questions you ask.
 How much you praise your students.
 How much you correct your students’ talk.
 How much of your class you teach with books open.
 How much you use overhead or multimedia projectors.
 How much you use songs or movies.
 How detailed your lesson plans are.
 How often you tell jokes in the classroom.
 What kind of space you use in the classroom (e.g., where you walks, who you look at).
 Which students you concentrate your class on (weak/strong students).
Try the opposite of a usual behavior of yours, reflect on the results, and write an essay
on the main points of your reflection.
153
Audio or Video-recording a class
Audio- or video-record no more than 20 minutes of a class you teach, watch and reflect
on it afterwards, and produce a written report of the lesson together with your reflections.
Even in 20 minutes there may be too much to be observed, so it may be a good idea to
decide beforehand on what exactly you will observe for. For example, you may want to
have a better idea of
 The rate between your talking time as compared to how much you allow your
students to talk;
 The way you address students and how fair you are in giving them opportunities
to participate;
 How much your students really get involved in the activity and how much you
contributed to that;
 The response your students give to the motivational strategies you use;
 The amount of time you wait after asking a question and getting a response.
 The source and target of your questions.
 The number and types of questions you ask (e.g., either-or, yes-no, Wh-, tag).
 The number of display questions (questions you already knows the answer to) and
referential questions (questions to which you don’t know the answer) you ask.
 The content of your questions (e.g., how many questions contain content about
procedures, general life events, personal issues regarding the students, study of language, study
of other subjects besides language).
 The space you use in the classroom (e.g., where you walks, who you look at).
 The way you give instructions (e.g., writes on the board, gives them orally, has students
repeat them) and students' reactions to them.
 The error treatment techniques you make use of: who treats errors, when, how,
what kinds of errors?
 Your use of praise behaviors.
154
These are but just a few suggestions. There are plenty of other things you might be
interested in investigating. Feel free to choose any.
If you need, I may be able to help you with the recording or transcription. The analysis,
though, will be up to you.
A very important point is that you not get distracted by other events or aspects of the
activity that are not related to the point you chose to investigate. It might make it more
difficult to profit from the observation and to report on it later. Most people don’t like the
sound of their voice recorded or even the way they look in the clothes they were wearing
that day. Try not to bother about these kinds of things. They usually don’t affect your
teaching or your students learning.
Here is a link to a page of the NYU that you may want to visit. It’s called “Viewing Guide for Videotaped
Classes – Improving Your Teaching through Self Examination”.  http://www.nyu.edu/cte/guide.html
155
Seeing one’s teaching through the students’ eyes
For many teachers peer observation carries a very negative load. They feel they are being
spied on, that supervisors or even fellow teachers expect them to be perfect, and that their
jobs are jeopardized by class observation. They feel nervous, frightened, resentful, angry,
or all that together. Ironically, though, consciously or unconsciously, they know that they
are being constantly observed by their students who, especially in the case of EFL/ESL
teaching, want them to be perfect. As this is a kind of observation you can’t avoid, it may
be a good idea to learn from it. Your students can give you very rich feedback if you just
give them the chance. They can say a lot about your way of teaching, your week and
strong points as a teacher, your mannerisms, the space you fill in the classroom, the
attention you distribute, your questioning style, your error correction techniques, how
much you talk, and much, much more.
The idea here, though, is not that you ask them about that – you may not be prepared for
what you will hear. Instead, this suggestion is that you choose one or two students and
ask them to observe you in a couple of classes for some very specific behavior(s). You
may give them a checklist, so they will be discreet when taking notes and not miss out in
the class or even distract you as you are teaching. Depending on what you want to be
observed on, a checklist may not work. If this is the case, give your observer(s) a form
that will facilitate observation and ask them (and instruct, if necessary) to be objective
and descriptive in their observation, rather than judgmental. For example, instead of
saying that your error correction techniques were “fine”, they should describe exactly
what you did and what that means for the students.
In the next page you will find a short list of some of the things you might want to be
observed on. Of course there is much more you could think of. The choice is yours.
Choose just a couple of behaviors, as to make observation and further assessment easier.
After you reflect on the results of the observation, write an essay on the main points of
your reflection.
156
Examples of teacher behaviors you might choose to be observed on
 Amount of time teacher waits after asking a question and getting a response.
 The source and target of questions.
 The number and types of questions the teacher asks (e.g., either-or, yes-no, Wh-, tag).
 The number of display questions (questions the teacher already knows the answer to)
and referential questions (questions to which the teacher does not know the answer).
 The content of the teachers' questions (e.g., how many questions contain content about
procedures, general life events, personal issues regarding the students, study of language, study
of other subjects besides language).
 The space the teacher uses in the classroom (e.g., where the teacher walks, who the
teacher looks at).
 The way the teacher gives instructions (e.g., writes on the board, gives them orally, has
students repeat them) and students' reactions to them.
 Error treatment: Who treats errors, when, how, what kinds of errors?
 The teacher's use of praise behaviors.
157
Stepping into the Students Shoes
I learned an important lesson about my teaching when my mother-in-law asked me to
give her some lessons on how to deal with a computer. She was almost 70 and had never
touched a computer in her life. I confess that I was quite impatient in the beginning, and
it took me quite a while to understand that she needed some good hours of practice only
in dealing with the mouse, before I could tell her anything else. I wondered how often I
did the same in my own teaching, taking for granted that students knew some things that
seemed pretty obvious to me. Many times a certain piece of vocabulary or a concept
seems so simple and easy that we think that teaching that is a waste of time.
At another time I decided to take some French lessons. I though it would be easy because
I am a language teacher and know how to learn a language. What I didn’t expect is that I
would get a tutor who decided to show off and demonstrate how fluently she could speak
French, and who wouldn’t see that I didn’t have a clue of what she was saying or wanted
me to say or do. The only one class I had with that tutor taught me an important lesson
and led me to carefully question my own teaching. Putting ourselves in the place of the
student helps a lot and I advise every teacher to do it.
This activity suggests that you attend a beginner’s class of a language you know nothing
about, and reflect afterwards on your experience as a student and about what your
students may feel in your classroom.

158
Classy Observation
“Each of us yearns to create and recreate for ourselves what has already
been created by others for themselves.” J. F. Fanselow (1997, p. 167)
Class observation is classic and very effective reflective tool that you can use if you want,
but this suggestion is quite different from that. The idea here is that you observe a class
that apparently has little in common with language teaching, reflect on it, and write an
essay based on your reflection.
Examples of such classes are: dance, carpentry, photography, floral design, guitar, home
maintenance, computers, painting, stained/art glass, yoga, or any other class of those
special interest courses that are usually offered by community centers.
I selected, as examples for your reflection and your essay, the written testimony of two
renowned ESL researchers about what they learned about their teaching from this kind of
experience. The first is Jerry Gebhard (1999), who tells about a yoga class he took, and
the other is Robert Oprandy (1999), who describes his first oil-painting class.
Example 1
Robert Oprandy (1999) describes his first oil-painting class:

I picked up an artist's paintbrush for the first time since elementary school. My classmates and I learned
to make the medium, to stretch and treat canvases, to paint ten shades of gray between white and black,
to see objects and their colors with much more heightened attention, and to be in a creative process,
much like what our language students go through as they try to express and explore meanings together
in a foreign tongue. Learning all these things and putting myself in the position of learner was incredibly
instructive. It made me reflect a great deal on how I was being taught and on how uniquely my class-
mates and I were reacting to our lessons.
I was struck, for example, by how the lessons were structured. At the beginning of each class, there was
minimal input from the teacher. This was followed by lots of individual practice/play with the teacher's
ideas. During these playful practice parts of the lesson, we all had enough space to do our own thing and
to take our own breaks to look at what our classmates were doing at their easels. This allowed me to
pick up ideas from here and there and to look anew at my own canvas and the forms, brush strokes, and
color choices I was making. I noticed that some students were using the whole studio in the way I was;
others stayed primarily at their own easels, intent mostly on what they themselves were doing. What
seemed important was that the choice was ours. The teacher would come around and make one or two
comments here and there, but for the most part she would attend to student solicitations for her help. The
class would usually close with a quick summary point or two from the teacher.
As pleased as I was by the way the lessons were structured, I felt that it would also have been useful for
us as a group to gather for 10 to 15 minutes each week to share what we were noticing, struggling with,
and excited about in our painting. This would have allowed us to reflect a bit more on our process as
painters, to "talk shop" as painters, however new we were to creating works of art, and to learn from one
another's insights and feelings. Feeling membership in the club of painters might have been accelerated
by such discussions.
My experience as an art student contained many lessons for me as a language teacher. I have begun to
think more about how to make the language classroom into a studio where students can come to work on
their language skills.
159
Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies (Hahn, L. & Alsberg, J., 2004)
Together with these instructions is a DVD with clips of

movies in which teachers are portrayed regarding classroom
work. Nine movies were selected: The Paper Chase (1973);
Stand and Deliver (1988); Dead Poets Society (1989);
Dangerous Minds (1995); Mr. Holland’s Opus (1995); The
Mirror Has Two Faces (1996); A Beautiful Mind (2001);
The Emperor’s Club (2002); and Mona Lisa Smile (2003).
Besides these nine clips, there is an extra one from the movie Dead Poets Society, in
which the main character, John Keating, gives a short but very interesting lecture on the
issue of beliefs and conformity. The length of the video clips varies from 2 to 20
minutes. The DVD has a total footage of a little over two hours.
If you choose this activity, you should watch as many of the clips you please, reflect on
what you saw and write an essay on the main point of your reflection. You may choose to
reflect on one movie only or on two or more, even on all of them, but you should write
only one essay. Remember that your reflection will be primarily on your own teaching as
compared with those stereotypes, and secondarily on what you realized about teaching in
general based on the class situations portrayed in the movies.
You are being given a booklet with some questions to assist you on your reflection. The
booklet is sealed for a reason: you are advised to read it only after you have seen the
clips, reflected on them, and written a first draft of your essay. You may even choose
not to open the booklet at all. The questions are not designed to be directive in any way,
but to help you with the afterthoughts, the questioning and refining of your first
reflections. Some points, though, that you might want to have in mind as you watch the
clips are the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the teachers, the most salient features of
their styles and your personal identification with them, the actions they take to change
their teaching according to circumstances, the activities and assignments they give, and
most importantly, what you can take away from this reflective activity to help you
become a more effective teacher.
160
(Appendix G) – Activities-Ranking Form
RANKING THE ACTIVITIES

Please, rank the reflective activities below in the order of your
preference. (1 for your favorite, and 10 for the least likely to be chosen).
If number one is not the activity you chose to do, please say why.
13. Interviewing Teachers (Burns, A. 1999)
14. Developing Metaphors (Block, D. 1992; Allan, L., 1994; Tobbin, K. 1990; Burns, A. 1999)
15. Trying the opposite (Gebhard, J. G. and Oprandy, R., 1999)
20. Reflecting on Stereotypes from the Movies (Hahn, L & Alsberg, J)

161
(Appendix H) – Action Research Plans
Action Research Plan I

Instructors of Academic Writing for Non-Native Speakers
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
1. Problem and Area of Focus
We feel that it is important to know students on a personal level. We wish to look at how
we interact with students, and how improved personal relationships can improve the
classroom and the learning that occurs there.
2. Research Questions and Hypotheses

Q1. What are our current methods of reaching out to students on a personal level and
how can we improve upon them?
H. We currently engage students in personal conversation at the beginning of class. We use
examples from the students’ experiences and background knowledge to explain course
material. Students are asked to describe their individual lives and perceptions in certain
assignments, such as journals. We conduct individual conferences on student writing
assignments.
Q2. How will improved personal relationships between the teacher and students affect
the learning in the classroom?
H1. Reaching out to students on a personal level will motivate students to perform well on
classroom tasks.
H2. Reaching out to students on a personal level will allow the teacher to better understand and
meet individual learner’s needs.
H3. Reaching out to students on a personal level will improve the comfort level of students, and
cause them to participate more openly in the classroom by volunteering answers and giving
positive feedback to peers.
3. Data Collection and Analysis Plan

 We will examine the course materials and assignments to discover how much of
the activities ask students to rely on and/or share their personal experiences.
 We will videotape the classes to see what methods we use to encourage personal
interaction.
 We will talk with students and colleagues to gather additional methods of
reaching out to students.
 We will gather data regarding students perceptions of motivation, effort, and
classroom participation with questionnaires administered at the beginning and the
end of the study
4. Timeline for Implementation

Week 1: Teachers begin to implement plans, must videotape one lesson a week. First
questionnaire administered to students
Week 2: teachers meet to discuss questionnaire and videotape findings
Week 3: teachers meet to discuss videotape findings
Week 4: 2nd questionnaire administered to students
Week 5: teachers meet to discuss questionnaire and videotape findings
162
5. Resource List
 References?
 2 classrooms, 3 times a week for the ESL course of each instructor
 video recording equipment to tape class sessions
 1 reserved conference room for 4 meetings of the ESL instructors to plan and
discuss findings
6. Tools of Inquiry
A. Questionnaire of Student Perceptions
Sample Items:
1. Describe your teacher with three adjectives
2. Do you feel that your teacher understands your needs in this class?
3. Do you feel that classroom activities are motivating?
4. How well does your teacher know you (scale of 1-5)
5. Do you participate more actively in this class than in your other classes? Why
or why not?
6. Do you feel comfortable speaking in front of your peers in this class?
B. Video Review Checklist

Directions: Watch the video of the lesson and check any types of interpersonal
interaction that occurs with the students. Estimate the amount of time spent on
each interaction. Indicate if any interaction is something new that you have tried.
TYPES OF INTERACTION
Asking about personal life
Un-elicited discussion of personal life
Allowance of off-task behavior or discussion
Requesting personal examples to connect with lesson
Un-elicited personal examples to connect with lesson
Personal writing task
Other ______________________
C. Discussion questions for instructor meetings

What are your findings so far?
Do you feel that you are doing enough to reach out to students?
Do you worry that this is taking time away from the course content?
What do you think you need to do more?
What seems to be working?
What does not seem to be working?
How can you change what you are currently doing?
Do you feel that the findings support the hypotheses?
7. The Research Group

The research group includes two instructors, each with her own writing class of 15-25
students, and the supervising faculty member. Instructors will work together to develop
the research action plan and to meet three times during the implementation to check
progress and discuss findings. Implementation will be conducted individually by the
instructors. The supervising faculty member will provide feedback on all stages of
planning, implementation, and discussion of the results.
163
Action Research Plan II
An action research plan which investigates interactive learning among students
Because we had two very different classes, our plans are also different problems.
Problems
In my class, I ask students to constantly work as pairs reading dialogs to each
other while focusing on phrase stress, word stress, or a segmental. Because I cannot be
present I each dyad, I wanted to research whether or not these pair activities were useful
for anything else more than changing the class dynamic every once and again.
Plan
To investigate this, I would record students in several different classes and
analyze their talk during pair work. I would check to see if when Student A made a
mistake, did B correct it? If so, did A ‘learn’ from that correction? I would then compare
the pair dialogs to class talk and see if student A still evidenced the changed behavior.
Prediction
I would predict that ‘learning’ or correction would depend on the competency of
the members in the dyad as well as their familiarity with each other. This research would
have implications on how often I used pair work and how much displaying of knowledge
I would then expect from students.
164
(Appendix I) –Final Survey Form
FINAL SURVEY
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
These are just a few questions intended to summarize your
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
final impressions about this project and about the validity of an
alternative program for in-service teacher development. We
will be discussing these questions anyway, so if you feel that
Neutral
your best answer to any of the statements wouldn’t fit in this
scale, you will have the chance to clarify it.
1 2 3 4 5
1. I felt a need for change or improvement as a result of the self-
3 1
reflection I did in the course of this project.
2. This approach to teacher education is geared towards my professional

2 2
needs.
3. Participating in this program has positively impacted my beliefs. 1 3
4. Participating in this program has positively impacted the way I teach. 1 3
5. This program is 100% centered on the teacher as a learner. 1 3
6. Issues were openly discussed, decisions were flexible and opinions

4
were listened to and respected.
7. This project respected my individual teaching style and needs. 2 2
8. I didn’t feel pushed toward any teaching model. 4
9. I felt encouraged to look at my teaching practice from different

angles, reflect, and try different ways of doing things. 1 1 2
10. The self-reflection activities were helpful in raising issues for action
research. 1 2 1
11. This approach to in-service teacher education is more profitable to

1 1 2
teachers than the traditional top down approaches.
12. This program can help teachers assess their teaching. 1 1 2
13. This program can help teachers question their assumptions. 1 3
14. This program can help teachers consider aspects of their teaching that
4
could or should be changed.
15. This program can help teachers develop strategies for change. 2 2
16. This program can help teachers monitor the effects of implementing
2 2
those strategies.
165
(Appendix J) – The Reflective Essays of Phase One
REFLECTIVE ESSAY 1 - ALICE


[att] Attitude 2
[knw] Knowledge 0
[bhv] Behavior 0
How much does my practice match my beliefs?

Overall, it seems that where applicable, my teaching lines up with my ideals of
goof teaching and a good teacher. Nevertheless, the basic trend I have noticed [awr], is
that the class I am teaching now is very restrictive in terms of what I can teach and how.
Even if I wanted to do something novel and different in the classroom, I am highly
restricted to what that can be [awr]. For example, the entire syllabus and teaching style
have been handed to me. I have little to no input in the process. One positive aspect of
this, is that I agree and enjoy what I have been given [att].
I also seem to have a more idealistic tone when talking about "best"
circumstances versus talking about reality [awr]. I think that while part of me loves the
idea of an ideal classroom/students/teacher, etc, but I have a pessimistic side that thinks
that such a thing doesn't really exist [att].
I think it is a really good idea to make teachers tell you their ideal situation and
then ask them about the reality a short time later. This gives them an opportunity to
objectively compare. I think it provides valuable insights [app]. For example, I realized
that I talk about the ideal in a way that is too ideal. I set up expectations and situations
that the “real” me think are impossible. I therefore set myself up to never be able to meet
my own expectations as a teacher [awr].
166
REFLECTIVE ESSAY 1 - IRWIN

 Appealing to student’s needs, selecting topics, holding more real

↓ Nature of Impact (SO1.2) communication, and exploring and implementing authentic material are new
insights to teaching that would render various benefits for both teacher and
[att] Attitude 4 learner.
[knw] Knowledge 4
 Now I understand that doing pair and group work is better that teacher’s
[bhv] Behavior 4 lecturing, that language teaching should be student-centered.
↓ Holistic Evaluation  Teachers’ beliefs play a very strong role on the way they behave while
teaching.
[app] Evidence of approval  Teachers should not be constrained by the syllabus.
Y

What influences a teacher’s classroom-performance behavior? This is a question
that I heard from a professor over a year ago. It really captivated my attention and kept
me pondering about it. In addition, it made me question myself on what I was doing in
the classroom and why [awr]. During a one-year in-service training program I learned
that teacher’s beliefs play a very strong role on the way they behave while teaching
[knw].
Teacher’s beliefs about the teaching-learning process are surely expressed

through actions in the classroom, either overt or covert. I knew that sometimes my
lessons were either very interesting or too boring [awr]. Of course, there is no single
teacher who wants their students to leave their classroom bearing a feeling that they have
wasted their time. Thus, I realized that there was something wrong with what I was doing
[awr] [att]. Then, through research, class self observation, and feedback I discovered that
my teaching was a reflection of what I thought teaching and learning was all about [awr].
For instance, I used to believe that teaching was about teachers standing in the front and
delivering information to their students, assuming that that was the way students would
learn; that my own ways to explain were clear and unquestionable; that textbook would
determine the course of the content; that grades were the ultimate goal to be reached; and
that the way that I learnt should be as much the same the way that I should teach [awr].
167
As a result, my behavior in the classroom was comprised by a series of actions that

matched such beliefs by which I mean things like teacher-centered teaching, teacher’s
taking most of the class time, no classroom interaction – pair up, group work, etc. [knw].
Of course, this had a great impact on my students [awr].
Because many teachers strongly believe that what they do is simply the most
adequate, a change in their way of thinking is perhaps a difficult thing to be achieved.
Fortunately, I underwent the experience of watching and listening to my own teaching –
through video recording, and I arrived at the conclusion that I should change some
viewpoints about teaching and learning [att]. Self-reflection was crucial at that point
[app]. The fact of being able to analyze issues such as decision-making, actions,
objectives, who my students were, what their reasons to learn English were, whether what
I did in class was effective or not raised my consciousness more than anything I had tried
before[app].
The fact of understanding the teaching-learning process as an ever changing

interaction between teacher and learner shaped my mind into a new paradigm [awr] [att].
Suddenly, I found myself jumping from a teacher-centered class into more a student-
centered one [bhv]. At first, I remember, it was somewhat uncomfortable to give up my
favorite place (the front of the classroom), lessen the time that I should talk, and open
opportunities for my students to experience the language. On the other hand, this new
perspective released me from the painful way to having to stick up to useless constraints
– syllabus, table of contents, and the like [knw] [bhv]. This new insight to teaching
would render various benefits for both teacher and learner. For instance, appealing to
student’s needs, selecting topics, holding more real communication, exploring and
implementing authentic material, only to name a few [knw] [bhv].
As a conclusion, I have changed some beliefs [awr] [app] [att]. Thus, in the light
of this new thinking I have tried to incorporate it into my everyday teaching practice [att]
[bhv]. Now, I find some more congruities between the ways that I conceive the teaching-
learning process and what I do in the classroom [awr] [app]. Still, there is a way ahead to
go through [awr].
168
REFLECTIVE ESSAY 1 - MARY

 I think that I am addressing students’ needs, but it is possible that my teaching

is still mostly geared toward what I would want if I were the student.
[att] Attitude 2
 I have experienced how all students learn more and learn better when
[knw] Knowledge 2 activities are extended and enhanced through the course of addressing
[bhv] Behavior 0 multiple learning styles. (raised awareness of issues previously learned)
[app] Evidence of approval N

In the comparison of my beliefs and practices I am relieved to find no
discrepancies. This is not to say that all answers are the same, but I do not contradict
myself. However, did I portray my beliefs and practices as aligned because they are, in
fact, mirroring each other? Or is it possible that I was simply wise enough to not fence in
my answers. While I do not find actual discrepancies in my responses, I believe I
managed to avoid them only by hedging answers or conceding that I still have unformed
notions about some of the topics [awr].
In response to the question about teaching methodology, I responded that I did not
feel comfortable attempting to place a label on the theories I prescribe to. While I am
happy to discuss the activities I prefer in the classroom, and give a casual rationale for
why I believe they are useful and successful in meeting course goals, I don’t wish to say I
follow one methodology. I feel bad to not be able to answer this question in a more
straightforward way, but I think my logic is sound. First, my mind simply doesn’t
classify information in that way. Some people can classify themselves according to
researcher’s names or their theories… but in my own mind those names and theories are
easily confused, and I would rather use descriptive terms than be caught misquoting or
mis-citing a concept. Second, I know that labeling myself will only result in ‘dating’
myself. In a year or two that label will be passé and I will just have to find a new label. I
169
want my personal teaching theory to be current and educationally sound, but I don’t have
the energy to be ‘trendy’ and follow along with the buzz words of the hour. I know that I
need to be familiar with the jargon that is common in this field, and yet I would rather
focus on the concepts than the words that are used to label them.
One topic that I am still forming my beliefs about is the notion of how my past
experiences influence my present [awr]. My past experiences as a student have an
extremely strong hold over how I teach. Last year I had the opportunity of teaching
reading to intermediate level English learners. This was an interesting experience
because, as I began this assignment, I struggled to understand how I should teach reading.
My uncertainty was not the result of being uninformed in teaching theory and practice,
but rather it was because it had been so incredibly long since I had witnessed the teaching
of reading. Basically, if I haven’t seen one of my teachers (or teacher friends) do it in
practice over the past 15 years, then I boggled by how to implement something new in
the classroom myself. In this situation, I would have felt comfortable with text analysis
and critical review in reading, but teaching the fundamentals of ‘how to read’ seemed a
mystery. Only when I saw a videotape of another person’s teaching could I begin to
imagine what the reading class should ‘look’ like. That is, how it should be structured,
how appropriate topics are chosen and activities carried out. Perhaps this is simply a
reflection of my own learning style…show me, don’t tell me [awr]. Also, I need trial
and error. But this illustrates to me how difficult it is to introduce innovation [awr].
Reading the latest research in teaching methodology does not do much to elicit change. It
is only when teachers are using the practice in the classroom, and allowing other teachers
(or future teachers) to observe them in action that change will gain momentum [awr].
Another area of concern is that of addressing individual needs of the students

[awr]. I think that this is a difficult area to look at in practice. On one hand, I think that I
am addressing students’ needs, but it is possible that my teaching is still mostly geared
toward what I would want if I were the student [knw]. Also, I think that the students
whose needs are not being met are also the least likely to step forward and point it out to
me [awr]. In the class that I currently teach, I assess whether their needs are being met
by their success in the class. This works because I have managed to make sure that
everyone is successful. When this does not work, however, is when some students are
170
not successful. Their lack tells you that their needs aren’t being met, but it doesn’t help
you to assess how their needs are not being met. Once I have that figured out, I am happy
to make accommodations. I have experienced how all students learn more and learn
better when activities are extended and enhanced through the course of addressing
multiple learning styles [knw]. At the same time, it’s nice to be able to move quickly
through the curriculum when you have pressures of time and scheduling, too [awr].
In one questionnaire I wrote that, “…I see a gap between my ideologies and
actual practice [awr]. While I think that gap will always exist, it should be my goal to try
to decrease the distance between the two.” [att] Just because the questionnaires were not
able to tease out any glaring contradictions, does not mean that they do not exist [awr]. I
think that there are two more possibilities. First, contradictions between belief and
practice exist and I just have not yet become aware of these differences yet myself [awr].
Or, I am aware of a gap, and yet I paint a better picture with words than you might
witness if you watched my teaching [awr]. Still, I think that I mostly do strive to
‘practice what I preach’, and though I may not be perfect, I can keep trying [att].
171
REFLECTIVE E SSAY 1 - YVONNE


[att] Attitude 5
[knw] Knowledge 0
[bhv] Behavior 0

Going back to the ten questions and comparing the answers has helped me think
in a different light [awr] [att]. Although I may have ‘thought’ about such issues, this is
the first time where I was able to reflect on myself from an objective angle [app]. Also,
this activity has alerted me to be more aware of what I do in the classroom and be prudent
in molding and stating my beliefs [awr] [att].
In comparing, I found that some were more difficult than others when trying to
distinguish the similarities and differences between the paired answers. Although the
wordings weren’t exactly the same, I can say that most of the questions were approached
in a similar direction. Especially, the first four questions about one’s own personal
experience such as choice of field, experience as a language learner and self image as a
teacher were all answered with a similar and firm view. Surprisingly, however, the beliefs
and practice that I wrote down for questions related to methodology, strategies, program
and curriculum, were relatively weak and vague [awr]. This is because, as a novice
teacher, I have not yet had enough experience, knowledge or professional training to
position myself as a teacher with the appropriate tools [awr]. And it is from this
reflection that I feel the need for proper training to establish my beliefs as a teacher [att].
From this opportunity, I realized a couple of things [awr]. First of all, it is very
crucial to continuously check back on myself to see if my beliefs and practice match. If it
172
doesn’t, we should put our efforts into doing so [att]. But before we make any changes in
our practice, we as teachers should dwell on what are beliefs are [att]; are they
appropriate? Are they ideal? And it is at this point where another emphasis should be
made; the importance of professional teacher training. It is not only important to train
ourselves to teach well but to train ourselves to have the ‘right’ beliefs to teach well.
173
(Appendix K) – The Reflective Essays of Phase Two
REFLECTIVE ESSAY 2 – ALICE

 It had not crossed my mind that Ss might not stick to the

↓ Nature of Impact (SO1.2) subject of personal histories.
[att] Attitude 1
[knw] Knowledge 1
[bhv] Behavior 0
Reflective Activity – Activity Report

Background
The course I’m teaching in is called an SEC course. It is a teacher practicum

course that has about 20-30 ESL teachers training to become professionals. After several
weeks (6-7 weeks) of theory the ESL teachers get a chance to apply their theory by
teaching 3 times in a Special English Class (SEC). The SEC is designed to be a
communicative course (conversation) for intermediate learners. There are about 20 Ss in
the SEC (10 from Korea and the rest from varying countries [Mexico, Turkey, China,
etc]). The Ss are all very active in class and seem to enjoy each other and the course.
After observing the course for 2 weeks, the ESL teachers in the practicum decided that
the Ss did not need formal grammar instruction, but instead time to practice and
automatize the things they had previously learned.
Activity
The activity fit into the course about 3 ½ weeks into instruction. The stated goal
the on formal lesson plan was: To have Ss practice talking about their personal histories
174
and questioning classmates about theirs. This activity followed a brainstorming activity
in which Ss were asked to provide questions to the teacher about certain topics they
might ask a stranger/slight acquaintance about their personal history upon meeting them.
Ss were then put into random pairs and asked to converse with their partners and learn
about each others personal histories (i.e. what did they do before they came to the US?
When did they start studying English, etc). The stated amount of time for the task was 10
minutes and Ss were stopped after about 11 minutes. The activity was designed to give
Ss time conversing and especially using the past tense in talking about personal past
histories.
Findings
Ss were very engaged in the task. All groups were talking and because Ss were so
comfortable with each other there was no silence or resistance to the activity. While
circulating and listening to Ss I realized that something a little different than planned
happened [awr]. Instead of sticking to the given subject, personal past histories, Ss
began talking about that but then shifted back and forth to the present (i.e. what do you
do now that you are here in the US? Where are you from? etc) [awr].
Conclusions
Even though Ss didn’t stick to the topic, I felt that the activity was still successful.
As I walked around I would hear Ss repairing their own utterances to make them more
correct. Even though Ss didn’t stick to the topic, they still were given an authentic
opportunity to converse with someone in English. As I mentioned earlier, the ESL
teachers in the course decided that what the Ss need most is time to practice. This
activity gave them just that opportunity and with a subject matter relevant to their needs.
Talking to strangers/slight acquaintances about their past histories and present status is
something these Ss do with regularity. To improve the lesson’s effectiveness, Ss could
be given even more time to converse. I had to stop Ss to move on with the class, but I
believe they could have talked for much longer. It is unnatural to have to stop a
conversation in the middle to move on to another topic. To improve my lesson study
175
process, I could think more about possible outcomes before the lesson. That way, I
would be more prepared [att]. It had not crossed my mind that Ss might no stick to the
subject of personal histories [awr]. [knw]
I think the class went well, but unexpectedly [awr]. It was hard to have Ss focus
particularly on past histories without talking about the present. But, maybe it’s good that
they didn’t only talk about the past because then that would have been unnatural. I think
having them speak for most of the time was a really good idea because when I was
circulating, I noticed that most students had the correct grammatical form, but they would
have to SISC repair. This means to me that what they really needed was time to practice
what they already knew in order to make it more automatic [awr].
176
REFLECTIVE ESSAY 2 - IRWIN

 Sometimes teachers must put aside what they have to teach

and think of students as people with needs other than
[att] Attitude 1 learning.
[knw] Knowledge 2  Some students bring their personal problems and necessities
[bhv] Behavior 0 into the classroom. In order to cater for that, the teacher must
find effective, meaningful, attitude-change provoking actions
↓ Holistic Evaluation that will serve both purposes – meeting student’s needs while
providing them with opportunities for the targeted learning.
Reflecting on Stereotypes
From the movie Dangerous Minds (1995)
A few years ago, I started teaching EFL at a local Middle School in Puebla,
southeastern Mexico. As every just-graduated professional, I was very excited that at
least I would commence doing what I liked the most, teaching. Unfortunately, such a
feeling of enjoyment lasted rather quite little. I soon realized that the knowledge that I
had of teaching and learning did not quite match the daily teaching practice in the
classroom. All of a sudden, my teenager students along with all those traits which are
typical of such an age challenged that storage of theories. Thus, I had to learn that in
order for teachers to be effective, they have to find a way which will enable them to
identify themselves with students and go even beyond the boundaries of the subject
matter that they must teach.
Sometimes teachers must put aside what they have to teach and think of students
as people with needs other than learning [awr] [knw]. For example, students whose
affective needs are not being met will tend to reflect their emotions through some
negative behavior patters. Those, of course, will influence the class development. This
holds especially true for children and teenagers. However, some adults also carry their
own problems and necessities into the classroom. As a result, the learning process is, to
minor or major extent, hindered from being fulfilled.
177
Consequently, teachers should find ways to overcome such circumstances [att].

The question that might be raised at this point is what can teachers do under such
settings? Part of the answer is to find effective, meaningful, attitude-change provoking
actions that will serve both purposes – meeting student’s needs while providing them
with opportunities for the targeted learning [knw]. This will require a double effort on the
teachers’ side as to the design of their lessons. However, it is at this point where theory
and practice meet and come alive [awr].
As a conclusion, there is no perfect teaching scenario in which the presence of a

teacher results superfluous [awr]. Furthermore, and most importantly, neither is there any
scenario where students are expected to act to perfection. Instead, there is a real world
where both parties of the teaching-learning process depend on and need of each other.
The key for both of them to thrive in such a process is to find the intricate way that leads
to effective interaction among them [awr].
178


[att] Attitude 1
[knw] Knowledge 0
[bhv] Behavior 0
Teaching in the movies

I have to admit, I usually see teachers in the movies as part of a fantasy realm, and
I don’t try to make a comparison to real life. Richard Dryfus, Edward James Olmos,
Robin Williams, Michelle Pfiffer and others in their teaching roles do not seem to have
much in common with the teachers I had as a student, and as a teacher myself, I never
hold myself to their glamorous standards.
In the movies, a teacher’s energy is easily transferred to the students. Motivation

and ‘ganas’, if not found in the individual students, can be given to them by the sheer will
of the instructor. The instructor always finds the flexibility to change a lesson plan at a
moment’s notice, the money to spend on enriching the classroom, and the time to help
students on an individual basis no matter what other personal problems or restrictions
may exist elsewhere in their lives. In real life, we may not find the success that some of
these movie-teachers do, but we can strive to have some of the same qualities to some
degree.
The qualities each teacher seems to have in common include the ability to be
flexible in the classroom and adapt quickly to the students, the ability to explain content
in a way that connects to students, and the ability to set expectations that inspire students
to meet them. Are these qualities that I possess? Sometimes. I still work to be flexible
179
and adapt quickly to the reactions of my students. To answer questions that I don’t know
the answers to. To deal quickly and effectively with students who disagree or who are
simply being disagreeable [awr]. How do you react to the student who says “You are a
bitch!”? Or to the student who never does his or her homework? Or the student who
calls another student a rag-head because she follows a different faith? Sometimes the
challenge is to react to good things, like a student who has created an interactive web-site
to illustrate the point that you taught the day before. I’ve experienced all of these things,
and it is not as though I was a horrible teacher, but if I were faced with them now, I think
that I would be a lot better than before [att]. Age, maturity and experience can count for
a lot! Do I connect the content of the class in a way that connects to the students? Again,
this is something that I have gotten better at over time [awr]. Through the feedback that I
received as a first and second year teacher, I learned that one of my weaknesses was my
ability to convey the purpose of the lessons and to provide transition and connection
between topics [awr]. Over time, I’ve become more skilled with this. I think that I
always had enthusiasm, sometimes even the ‘ganas’ to share with the students, but I make
a more conscious effort to explain how the content is important to real life. And as time
goes by, sometimes I even do this unconsciously [awr]. Do I set high expectations that
inspire students to greatness? Umm, maybe? Last semester I received a very flattering
letter from a student who claimed that all students, native speakers or no, should have my
class to fulfill the rhetoric requirement. He said that the course challenged him, and
really pushed him to improve his writing skills like no other course ever had. But this
seems like a gray area. What is the difference between making students work really hard
and inspiring them to make themselves work hard? [awr]
There are two big differences between movie teachers and my real-world life.
First, they are star-teachers every day of their careers, while I often have more off-days.
Professor Kingsfield of the Paper Chase and Mr. Holland of Mr. Holland’s Opus are
exceptions, since they were often jerks, but this realism is the main reason that those
movies are so superior. Secondly, movie teachers are able to do things that the rest of us
would get fired for [awr]. Some of these behaviors belong to the sad-but-true category.
For example, we can’t hug our students, and are encouraged to avoid pretty much all
physical contact. We can’t make jokes that would infer anything about the students
180
romantic life, sexuality, or intelligence. In the school I worked in before, we couldn’t

‘humiliate’ a student by asking them to sit in the corner or perform some punishment, like
erasing the blackboards, in front of other students. Of course, I have visited classrooms
that are more like Jaime Escalante’s and such familiarity on behalf of the teachers (and
students) is more similar to Jaime’s. But I think all teachers, in all ‘real’ settings, are
more conscious that their behavior and comments can have a great effect on students. I
think teachers are more aware that they need to care for students’ mental states, and not
just their academic status. I would hate to be last person a student spoke to before he or
she committed suicide. I would also hate to be one of many targets in a Columbine-like
outburst.
This does not mean that I avoid reaching out to my students on a personal level.
I’m not actually very good at it, but I’m not Professor Kingsfield either [awr]. During
my first year teaching I picked up a habit from a good teacher friend of mine, and that is
excessive praise. It doesn’t matter how small the behavior is that is receiving praise;
everyone feels a moment of happiness in receiving it. And I tend to give special praise
for actions not related to the course content, like for throwing away someone else’s
garbage left on the floor, or complimenting another student, and then they get the “thank
you for being a good member of our community” praise.
I do find it useful to see teachers in the movies [app]. It often helps to re-energize
me with the idealism and idealistic situations of teachers in film. When I was still
teaching at the high school level, I couldn’t watch Boston Public because I found it
depressing and de-motivating, but movies were always more inspiring. I know that I
can’t be exactly like the actors and actresses who portray teachers in the film, but films
remind me that teaching can be a wonderful and rewarding profession [awr].
181

 There is no ‘right’ answer for all, but a tailored answer for

every different class and student.
[att] Attitude 2
 About the need for teachers to entertain the students: This not
[knw] Knowledge 3 only makes you look more confident and reassures the
[bhv] Behavior 0 students that you know what you are doing, but it also makes
the class more dynamic and interesting in most cases
 No matter what we decide to teach, what approach to take or
[awr] Evidence of awareness Y what activities we choose, we always need to keep in mind
that it all needs to be used to keep the learner engaged, give
them a motive, a reason and most importantly, show them
[dsp] Evidence of disapproval N that you care.
Teachers in the Movies

‘Being a teacher is a fascinating but a very challenging profession’ [awr]. This is
the first thought that stuck to my mind as I sat gazing at the screen as the last scene faded
away. ‘Fascinating’, because it is amazing how one human being can influence another.
‘Difficult’, because it takes so much effort and dedication to make a difference. There is
another thought that crossed my mind: Although the teacher figures portrayed in the
movies seem to be all situated in somewhat more ‘challenging’ environment than your
everyday teacher, I believe that any classroom is as challenging because each and every
student is unique and has unique needs [awr]. With these thoughts, I started asking
myself numerous questions: “What type of a teacher am I?”, “Have I had any influence
on the students?”, “What efforts have I put in to make learning more effective?”, “Have I
made a difference so far?” and, needless to say, a lot more. [awr]
The subjects taught were diverse; law, poetry, mathematics, music and art. And as
diverse as the subjects were so were the teachers and their teaching methods. Although
very different in teaching tactics, the teachers in the movies were all successful at being
recognized, acknowledged, and approved by the students. Their approach was
‘customizing’. This means that there is no ‘right’ answer for all, but a tailored answer for
every different class and student [knw]. This eventually applies to the ESL service course
that I’m teaching, as well. This being my first semester teaching such a course, I was a bit
182
uncertain whether my teaching approach was ‘right’ or not. But now, with the reflection,
I feel more confident about the way I teach and how I should go about it from now on
[awr] [app].
There is another similarity that was found in most of the teachers in the movies. In
addition to being teachers, they were actors and entertainers. I totally agree with the
notion that you need to have or build this trait to some extent when teaching. This will
not only make you look more confident that reassures the students that you know what
you are doing but it also makes the class more dynamic and interesting, not in all but in
most cases [awr] [knw].
We have to take into consideration the fact that these subject matters were made
into movies because it isn’t something we see or experience so often. But, certainly, there
are teachers in these times that are as inspiring and dedicated. And it is because of these
movies that we are stimulated. As teachers and as students, we have felt that invisible
space which tends to keep the two entities somewhat distant than they really should be.
And it is this barrier that the teachers need to tear down [awr] [att]. In a nut shell, this
means that we, as teachers, need to make it our ultimate goal to reach out to the minds
and hearts of each and every student [att]. To do this, much effort is needed. No matter
what we decide to teach, what approach to take or what activities we choose, we always
need to keep in mind that it all needs to be used to keep the learner engaged. Give them a
motive, a reason and most importantly, show them that you care by engaging into the
activities yourself [knw].
183
(Appendix L) –Reflective Essays of Phase Three
REFLECTIVE ESSAY 3 - ALICE

 It was helpful to realize that with a little bit of work, I

personally could conduct a mini-experiment and get answers
[att] Attitude 0 to questions unique to my class.
[knw] Knowledge 2  I think what was most helpful about this task, was
[bhv] Behavior 0 brainstorming and discussing with another teacher, the
possible problems in my class that have to do with interactive
↓ Holistic Evaluation learning.

Devising a Research Plan

I think that when Irwin and I talked about interactive learning we realized that
between the two of us we had very different classes. This meant that we would have to
develop very different action research plans to investigate interactive learning in our two
distinct classes. We also challenged ideas as to whether or not pair work was really
helpful in our classes [awr]. Because in both of our classes pair work entails one
students correcting another, we were skeptical about how much of this really took place.
Because we cannot be present at all pair interactions, we would have to devise an action
research plan that involved recording the interactions.
I believe that thinking about these issues was really helpful [app]. Sometimes,
when you teach a class, you do things without thinking about them [awr]. It is good to
constantly be questioning yourself and your methods in the classroom [app]. It was also
helpful [app] to realize that with a little bit of work, I personally could conduct a mini-
experiment and get answers to questions unique to my class [knw]. I think what was
most helpful about this task, was brainstorming and discussing with another teacher, the
possible problems in my class that have to do with interactive learning [att] [knw].
184

 Although a line is drawn between the teacher and students,

and although the main goal of the class is to learn the
[att] Attitude 4 content, the social aspect of the classroom is also very
important.
[knw] Knowledge 7
[bhv] Behavior 0  Conducting action research allowed us to look at an aspect
of teaching that was important to us, but which is not
↓ Holistic Evaluation normally dealt with (I assume) in a lot of literature.
[awr] Evidence of awareness Y  We can share our findings and help others get a general
understanding of the subject, but as far as influencing
teaching practice, the action research on this topic was
[dsp] Evidence of disapproval N essential.
 While theory is important to help us gain knowledge and
develop our methodology, it is only through experience that
we change our practices.
 The mentors may be colleagues on equal footing of
experience and knowledge, but this can also be important to
a support system.
 It is nice to have feedback and reassurance from a peer.
 The action research project encourages those interactions,
but guides them to be conducted in a focused way.
In response to action research:

Our action research revolves around the way instructors interact with students on
a personal level. I am one of many teachers who has always believed that the learning of
course content is the most important aspect of the class, that teachers should not be
‘friends’ with the students, and they should not be influenced by a desire for popularity
with the students. But although a line is drawn between the teacher and students, and
although the main goal of the class is to learn the content, the social aspect of the
classroom is also very important [awr] [att] [knw].
I think that this action research is important [app] because it could influence me
to believe that it is more important to know my students on a personal level than it is to
keep a wall between us [awr]. I am interested to find out if increased social interaction
with the students will lead to better learning, as I suspect that it will [att]. There are still
many good reasons for the “wall” to exist, but the action research will give me a more
balanced view of the advantages and disadvantages of both, and I can make a better
185
decision regarding my teaching based on my own personality and my own experiences

[att].
Conducting action research allowed us to look at an aspect of teaching that was

important to us, but which is not normally dealt with (I assume) in a lot of literature
[awr] [knw]. Or if it is, it is certainly not something that is generalizable [awr]. Rather
than spending time on how other people might look at this question, we chose to look at
what we do with social interaction in the classroom, and applied our own perspectives to
the evaluation of this aspect of teaching [att].
The way in which we interact with students is completely individual, and the
findings of this research are mainly applicable to the person who conducts the study. We
can share our findings and help others get a general understanding of the subject, but as
far as influencing teaching practice, the action research on this topic was essential [knw].
While theory is important to help us gain knowledge and develop our methodology, it is
only through experience that we change our practices [awr] [knw]. At least for myself, I
tend to need more hands-on, experiential learning.
I feel that the collaborative model is important [app] because it implements

within the design of the task a sense of mentoring. The mentors may be colleagues on
equal footing of experience and knowledge, but this can also be important to a support
system [knw]. It is nice to have feedback and reassurance from a peer [awr] [knw].
Anytime the mentorship occurs with someone at a higher level or someone who is more
of an administrator, there is always a sense of evaluation. Peer-to-peer collaboration
removes the worst of that feeling and you are left to share both good and bad experiences,
successes and failures, and help each other out with realistic suggestions or simply a
sympathetic ear [app]. The action research project encourages those interactions, but
guides them to be conducted in a focused way [app] [knw].
The use of action research is challenging because it takes time to plan, implement
and analyze the study. However, this is time well-spent [app] because it gives teachers
the opportunity to work on a topic that is near and dear to their hearts, it has a greater
chance of changing not only teaching beliefs but also behaviors [app], and because it
encourages teachers to communicate with each other in a concrete way about important
issues in teaching [app].
186

 Action research is a tailored research primarily aimed at investigating areas

↓ Nature of Impact (SO1.2) of my concerns and further, provides answers that can be shared with teachers
of similar concerns.
[att] Attitude 1
[knw] Knowledge 1
[bhv] Behavior 0
[unc] Evidence of uncertainty Y
Action Research Plan Essay

There are numerous obstacles and points of concern when teaching. As a teacher,
I find myself faced with ‘problems’ or ‘inquiries’ of big and small everyday. Some are
simple enough to be solved on ones own, but others are more challenging, above ones
ability, to handle due to the uniqueness of the class and its components. In this sense, the
action plan is beneficial [app] in a way that it tackles ‘my’ problems. It is a research that
starts with ‘real’ research questions [app]. In other words, it is a tailored research
primarily aimed at investigating areas of my concerns and further, provides answers that
can be shared with teachers of similar concerns [knw].
As appealing as the action research plan is, due to its ‘practical’ characteristics, it
seems to have obstacles of its own in planning and implementation [awr] [unc]. The
planning part was a bit dubious and as to the uncertainty of the methods that were to be
used [unc]. In the process of coming up with the necessary resources and tools, I was a
little skeptical of the authority and reliability they had to be to serve as substantial
evidence for such a research [unc]. Another difficulty is in the implementation part.
Although it deals with realistic issues, it can be a little unrealistic in its implementation
which might take too much time and effort away from the actual class leading to other
unexpected results [unc].
187
The action research plan does have its limitations. It, however, is still worth
carrying out [app] because of its practicality that many conventional theories lack. This
does not necessarily mean that theory based sessions and seminars for teachers should all
be avoided or eliminated completely from a teacher training program [unc]. I personally,
as a teacher new to the teaching field, feel the need and greatly desire for both theoretical
and practical training. As a consequence, both aspects should be moderately blended in to
a program for synergy effects that would reel in applicable results. All in all, the research
action plan is an interesting and worthwhile approach to cope with imminent matters at
hand [app]. With the ‘right’ or ‘adequate’ guidance and setting, I believe that many
teachers will benefit from such action research [att].
188
(Appendix M) – The Coding Matrix
MATRIX FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS – BRACKETING (1)
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES:
The essays, YES/NO Questionnaires, and excerpts from the recording of the meetings
were read repeatedly and carefully, and analyzed following this sequence:
1. Locating key phrases and statements that speak directly to the

phenomenon in question and insert a bracket with the coding;
2. Interpreting the meanings of these phrases;
3. Trying to obtain the subject's interpretations of those phrases;
4. Inspecting these meanings for what they reveal about the
essential, recurring features of the phenomenon being studied;
5. Offering a tentative statement, or definition, of that phenomenon in terms
of the essential recurring features identified (Denzin, 1989: 55-56).
Whenever a key phrase or statement was found, a bracket was inserted right after with the
coding below.
CODING:
1. What is the impact of awareness and reflection on teachers’ beliefs and
practices?
1.1) Was there an impact? [Y] [N] (Depending whether 1.2 is true or not)
1.2) What was the nature of this impact?
[att] Changes in attitudes, manners, positions, dispositions, feelings, beliefs:

(Confirmation is also considered)
[knw] Changes in knowledge (including new knowledge about the way things are)
[bhv] Changes in behaviors:

189
2. What kinds of reflective activities are more motivating for teachers?
a) Stated preference: Activities Ranking Form: Quantitative Data
Non-Observational Activities (NOA)  Activities 1-5
Observational Activities (OA)  Activities 6-10
b) Choice for trial and report (Comparison with stated preference)
Tried and reported on the same activity stated as preferred:
Evidence of reasons: (should emerge from the data)
1) Easy on the schedule
2) Does not demand extended preparation time
3) Visual aspect of the activity
Tried and reported on a different activity from that stated as preferred:
 Only one participant did so, but there was not evidence as to the reason.
Note: Each participant chose only one activity to try and report on. If any participant
had tried two or more activities and chosen one to report on, there would be
another variable to be considered.
3. What specific learning issues may emerge from an inservice teacher education
Evidence of learning issues should emerge from the data coded for change in
knowledge. The specific issues learned by the participants should be listed in the
discussion of the results).
190
4. What is the overall perception teachers have of a program based on reflection

In order to assess the overall impact of this kind of program on teachers, these
guiding questions were formulated:

skills?

and awareness?
Question (A): In search for an answer to this question, the reflective essays,
YES/NO Questionnaires, and excerpts from the recordings of the
meetings should be coded for evidence of awareness [awr], and
the results assessed holistically for a general appraisal of the
effectiveness of the program in raising awareness.
Questions (B, C, D) = In search for an answer to this question, the coding of all the data
sources should be used for a holistically evaluation.
Question (E): In search for an answer to this question, the reflective essays,
YES/NO Questionnaires, and excerpts from the recordings of the
meetings should be coded for evidence of approval [app],
disapproval [dsp], or uncertainty [unc].
NOTE: The numerical figures resulting from the coding for evidence of awareness,
approval, disapproval, or uncertainty, should not be interpreted quantitatively,
but assessed holistically in terms of weak, moderate, or strong evidence
regarding each one of those issues.

In-Service Teacher Education - Roberto Amorim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In-Service Teacher Education - Roberto Amorim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ii

AN INVESTIGATION OF TEACHERS' REACTIONS TO AN INSERVICE

ALTAMIR ROBERTO MACHADO AMORIM

Licenciado, Centro Universitário de Belo Horizonte, 1974

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

teacher-learner-centered, context-sensitive, and which, through reflection and

collaborative action research, allow teachers to further their own professional

teachers’ reactions to a program that incorporates those characteristics. More specifically,

this approach contributed to giving teachers a sense of ownership of their developmental

International Language of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign participated in

from the literature.

The findings indicate that teachers, without downplaying the importance of

professional development than programs heavily based on theory and methods.

The Choice of the Topic...................................................................................... 1

The Effectiveness of Preservice Compared to Inservice Teacher Education….. 2

Characteristics of Inservice Teacher Education.................................................. 3

Specific Research Objectives and Organization................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................... 7

Recent History and Trends in TESOL Teacher Education Research………….. 7

Preservice and Inservice Language Teacher Education...................................... 9

Common Problems with Inservice Teacher Education....................................... 11

From Top-Down to Teacher-Learner Centered Inservice Education.................. 12

Reflection in Language Teacher Education Programs........................................ 14

Broadening the Scope of Reflective Activities................................................... 17

From Reflection to Action................................................................................... 18

Teachers and Research........................................................................................ 19

Empirical Research on the Effectiveness of Reflection in Teacher Education... 25

CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURES, MATERIALS, AND METHODS……………. 26

The Research Questions...................................................................................... 26

A Descriptive and Non-Judgmental Approach................................................... 27

Material and Procedures...................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 4 – FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..................................................... 46

Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of Phase One.................. 48

Findings and commentaries regarding Group Discussion 1........................ 56

Findings and commentaries regarding the YES/NO Survey Questionnaire 64

Final Evaluation of Phase One..................................................................... 68

Phase Two: From Reflection to Action............................................................. 69

Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of Phase Two................. 70

Findings and commentaries regarding Group Discussion 2........................ 76

Findings and commentaries regarding the activities ranking...................... 82

Final Evaluation of Phase Two..................................................................... 86

Phase Three: Planning Intervention.................................................................. 87

Part II of Group Discussion 2 – Choosing topics for the action research

Findings and commentaries regarding the essays of Phase Three............... 90

Findings and commentaries regarding the Final Survey.............................. 96

Findings and commentaries regarding Group Discussion 3........................ 99

Final Evaluation of Phase Three.................................................................. 103

CHAFTER 5 – CONCLUSION................................................................................ 105

The Answers to the Research Questions............................................................. 106

Pedagogical Implications.................................................................................... 113

Limitations of this Study and Suggestions for Further Research........................ 114

Some Final Notes about Reflection..................................................................... 116

Some More Ideas of Reflective Activities.......................................................... 116

Final Evaluation of the Findings......................................................................... 117

Final Comments.................................................................................................. 118

Appendix A – The Schedule............................................................................. 127

Appendix B – Questionnaire A: What You Believe......................................... 128

Appendix C – Questionnaire B: What You Do................................................ 129

Appendix D – Questionnaire C: (Essay Question)........................................... 130

Appendix E – YES/NO Questionnaire Form and Answers.............................. 132

Appendix F – Reflective Activities….............................................................. 136

Appendix G – Activities-Ranking Form........................................................... 160

Appendix H – Action Research Plans............................................................... 161

Appendix I – Final Survey Form..................................................................... 164