| 4 |
Locating methods in ELT education: perspectives and possibilities
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 5 |
The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
I’m having a spring clear out: a corpus-based analysis of e-transactional discourse
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
Reflective practice in English Language Teaching : research-based principles and practices
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
Analysing spoken discourse in University small group teaching
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 11 |
English Profile Studies 1. Criterial Features in L2 English: Specifying the Reference Levels of the Common European Framework * English Profile Studies 2. Language Functions Revisited: Theoretical and Empirical Bases for Language Construct Definition across the Ability Range
|
|
|
|
In: ELT journal. - Oxford : Oxford University Press 68 (2013) 1, 85
|
|
OLC Linguistik
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 17 |
RP or ‘RIP’ : a critical perspective on reflective practice
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
This paper provides a critical review of reflective practice (RP), drawing attention to particular problems with its representation, as well as proposing a more evidence-based and data-led approach to RP. Our central argument is that RP in the fields of applied linguistics, TESOL and education has achieved a status of orthodoxy without a corresponding data-led description of its value, processes and outcomes. Our concern is that RP is described in ways that are elusive, general, and vague and which may not be particularly helpful for practitioners. This is largely due to the lack of concrete, data-led and linguistic detail of RP in practice and to its institutional nature, lack of specificity, and reliance on written forms. It is also the case that, despite a small number of exceptions (e.g. Korthagen and Wubbels 1995; Walsh 2011), reflective practice is not operationalized in systematic ways. This paper argues that applied linguistics needs to champion a description of RP's processes and impact by drawing on data-led accounts of reflective practice across a range of contexts. Too many RP accounts rely on general summaries and so are neither critical, transparent, nor usable by other practitioners. A key aspect of developing a more critical approach is the need to move beyond rosy summaries of the outcomes of RP towards accounts of how RP gets done. Where possible we need to share examples of ‘reflection in action’ so that its nature and value can be better understood. We propose here that RP needs to be rebalanced, away from a reliance on written forms and taking more account of spoken, collaborative forms of reflection; in sum, we argue for a more dialogic, data-led and collaborative approach to reflective practice.
|
|
URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0013
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/75112/
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
|
|
