Reflective practice as a tool for teacher education: a comparison between individual and peer reflection of Iranian EFL teachers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although research on teacher reflection has substantially grown in the past decades, little is known about how reflection could be integrated in teacher education programs. The current study explored the potential of reflection as a tool for teacher education among Iranian EFL teachers through the use of individual and peer reflection. Data were collected before, during, and after the teacher education program from semi-structured interviews and reflective journals. The analysis of the data showed that while the teachers were not adequately familiar with the principles of reflection before the course, they gradually learned how to use the course content for their personal reflection and use in their classes in relation to their individual and peer reflection. After the course, the teachers showed great interest to be exposed to alternative teacher education programs and learned to situate their course learning within their own engagement in reflective practice. The study provides implications for teacher educators regarding how to include individual and peer reflection approaches in pre-service and in-service teacher education programs so that teachers could become more reflective in their teaching practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it