Advertisement

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 91–98 | Cite as

What is Reflective Teaching? Lessons Learned from ELT Teachers from the Philippines

  • Paolo Nino Valdez
  • Jocelyn Amor Navera
  • Jerico Juan Esteron
Regular Article

Abstract

Reflection is an essential dimension of effective teaching. It prompts classroom teachers to subject themselves to a process of self-observation or self-evaluation. By reflecting on what they do in the classroom, teachers specifically explore their teaching practices and beliefs and whether these, indeed, work. This then may lead teachers to continue or modify their teaching strategies for the improvement of their class instruction. Grounded on the notions of reflective practice (in: Kumaradivelu 2003; Freeman 2002; Borg 2003), this brief report aims to share insights from a case study conducted in the Philippines. Initially, the study presents challenges teachers face in the Philippine education system in terms of actualizing reflective teaching. Using a case study approach among teachers taking a master’s class on English Language Teaching issues, the presentation proceeds with discussing the teachers’ views on reflective teaching and the existing challenges faced in actualizing this practice in their respective contexts. The presentation further identifies teachers’ contrasting views about existing theoretical viewpoints on reflective teaching that may serve as potential areas for further investigation.

Keywords

English Language Teaching Philippine education Reflective teaching 

References

  1. Benson, P. (2009). Learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 839–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg, S. (2012). Current approaches to language teacher cognition research: A methodological analysis. In R. Barnard & A. Burns (Eds.), Research language teacher cognition and practice (pp. 11–29). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  4. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. de la Rosa, P. (2005). Toward a more reflective teaching practice: Revisiting excellence in teaching. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(2), 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Department of Education. (2016). DO no. 39, s. 2016—Adoption of the Basic Education Research Agenda [PDF document]. http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/order/2016/DO_s2016_039.pdf.
  7. Farrell, T.S.C. (2008). Reflective practice in the professional development of teachers of adult English language learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. http://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/pd_resources/CAELABrief-ReflectivePractice.pdf
  8. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444801001720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hacker, P., & Barkhuizen, G. (2008). Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition: Developing personal theories through reflection in language teacher education. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner autonomy: Concepts, realities and issues (pp. 161–186). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 78–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kumaradivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kumaradivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. New York/London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  14. Martin, I. P. (2005). Conflicts and implications in Philippine education: Implications for ELT. In D. T. Dayag & J. S. Quakenbush (Eds.), Linguistics and language education in the Philippines and beyond: A festschrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista (pp. 267–280). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
  15. Perfecto, M. R. G. (2012). Contextual factors in teacher decision making: Extending the woods model. Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 21(3), 474–483.Google Scholar
  16. Rañosa-Madrunio, M., Tarrayo, V. N., Tupas, R., & Valdez, P. N. (2016). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and practices in the Philippines. In R. Barnard & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 114–133). Phnom Penh: IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, USA: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Valdez, P., & Lapinid, M. R. (2015). The constraints of math teachers in the conduct of action research: A rights analysis. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 12, 1–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English and Applied Linguistics, Brother Andrew Gonzalez College of EducationDe La Salle UniversityManilaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations