Teacher Development

An international journal of teachers’ professional development

ISSN: 1366-4530 (Print) 1747-5120 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

Reflective teaching practices in Turkish primary

school teachers

Şükran Tok & Sevda Doğan Dolapçıoğlu

To cite this article: Şükran Tok & Sevda Doğan Dolapçıoğlu (2013) Reflective teaching
practices in Turkish primary school teachers, Teacher Development, 17:2, 265-287, DOI:
10.1080/13664530.2012.753940

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2012.753940

Published online: 22 May 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 483

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtde20

Download by: [UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE GUERRERO] Date: 06 September 2016, At: 10:50
Teacher Development, 2013
Vol. 17, No. 2, 265–287, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2012.753940

Reflective teaching practices in Turkish primary school teachers

Şükran Toka* and Sevda Doğan Dolapçıoğlub
a
Pamukkale University, Education Faculty, Denizli, Turkey; bHatay Provincial National
Education Directorate, Turkey
(Received 7 July 2011; final version received 23 October 2012)

The objective of the study is to explore the prevalence of reflective teaching

practices among Turkish primary school teachers. Qualitative and quantitative
research methods were used together in the study. The sample was composed of
328 primary school teachers working in 30 primary education institutions in the
town of Antakya in the province of Hatay (Turkey). For data collection, a
Reflective Teaching Practices Questionnaire and observation form were used.
The results of the study show that teachers generally implement the following
reflective teaching practices: providing learner-centered instruction, creating a
reflective classroom climate, valuing criticism, self-appraising, making decisions
for the future, solving problems, and being open to professional development.
However, observation results indicate that teachers generally fail to implement
the reflective teaching practices of praising students who defend their views
freely, facilitating students to communicate their criticism regarding instructional
processes and teacher attitudes in oral or written form, identifying problems that
emerge in the class, and keeping a daily journal to observe their own profes-
sional development and identify shortcomings.
Keywords: reflective teaching; reflective teachers; primary school teachers

Introduction
Reflection is essential to both in-service teachers’ and students’ learning (Rodger
2002). According to Dewey (1933), reflective thought is ‘active, persistent, and care-
ful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the
grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends’ (5). Rodgers
(2002) viewed reflection as ‘a systematic, rigorous, disciplined way of thinking, with
its roots in scientific inquiry’ and viewed reflection as an approach to problem
solving. According to Wilson and Jan (1993), reflection is a process of individuals’
evaluation of self, experience and learning. An ability to reflect evolves out of our
experiences both as a professional and a person (Scanlan and Chernomas 1997).
Reflection continually emerges as a suggested way of helping practitioners better
understand what they know and do as they develop their knowledge of practice
through reconsidering what they learn in practice (Smyth 1992, cited in Loughran
2002). Furthermore, there has been a recognition that reflection is important in
sustaining one’s professional health and competence and that the ability to exercise
professional judgment is in fact informed through reflection on practice (Day 1999,

*Corresponding author. Email: stok@pau.edu.tr

Ó 2013 Teacher Development

266 Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

cited in Loughran 2002). Reflection is one key practice that has long been
recognized as an important and valuable cognitive process, and it continually resur-
faces in conceptualizing the practice setting (Bode 1940; Boud, Keogh, and Walker
1985; Dewey 1933; Hullfish and Smith 1961; Russell and Munby 1992, cited in
Loughran 2002).
Although reflective teaching is an important element of pre-service and in-service
teachers’ professional development, as the subject of this study, there are very few
studies dealing with the reflective teaching practices of primary school teachers in
Turkey (Kazu and Demiralp 2012; Yorulmaz 2006) or in other countries (Campoy
and Radcliffe 2002; Galvez-Martin 1997, 2003). So this study, on identifying the
prevalence of reflective teaching practices of primary school teachers, is expected to
provide guidance in filling the gap in the field of study.

Literature review
Reflection plays a crucial role during in-service teachers’ learning process (Shulman
1987). Indeed in recent years, the reflective approach has become a major paradigm
in educating qualified teachers (Clegg, Tan, and Saeidi 2002; Tochon 1999). The
American National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education 2006, for exam-
ple, has established standards that call for pre-service teachers to demonstrate the
ability to reflect (cited in Lai and Calandra 2010).
Reflection has an important effect on creating an effective learning environment.
Some studies have reported strong positive relationships between effective teaching
and reflection. In these studies, an effective in-service teacher, one who maximized
students’ achievement and promoted higher level thinking skills in his/her
classroom, was also a reflective, thoughtful practitioner (Onosko 1992; Porter and
Brophy 1988, cited in Norton 1997). Wilson and Jan (1993) posited that in-service
teachers who have reflection skills and use these skills in class environments
increase student motivation directly and develop students’ thinking and problem-
solving skills. From another vein, according to Pickett (2005) and Stoddard (2002),
students and in-service teachers question their own thinking, find the opportunity to
express their own views and notice the problems that they encounter in classroom
environments in the process of reflective teaching. Moreover, they use scientific
methods to solve problems, examine desired or unexpected results of a solution that
is implemented, and evaluate the contribution of the solution to the results. Reflec-
tion supports the power of rationalizing, and develops academic, social, visual
skills, and thinking skills in children at young ages (Epstein 2003). Classrooms
where reflection is practiced are learner centered. In these classes, students may
make their own decisions, determine their own learning goals, assume the responsi-
bility for learning, can identify and correct their own mistakes and can self-motivate
(Wilson and Jan 1993). The process of reflection facilitates understanding of the self
within the dimensions of practice, and encourages critical thinking skills in students
(Scanlan and Chernomas 1997). The use of learner-centered instruction along with
a call for critically thinking students puts reflection at the core of education
(Ramsey 2003).
Successful professionals need to reflect upon their actions (Kember et al. 1999).
Despite its power to improve learning and practice, reflection does not seem to be a
spontaneous activity in the teaching profession as in-service teachers need to
 Teacher Development 267

actively dedicate time and effort to make reflections (Gelter 2003). With regard to
this, one could state that there are certain factors that constrain reflection. According
to Oxman and Barell (1983), these negative factors are shortcomings due to the
in-service teachers’ lack of training and preparation for reflection, students’ lack of
experience in reflection, the workload of the program and the school system.
Richert (1990) found in his study that lack of time was the reason that in-service
teachers were not reflective in their instruction. Additionally, Richert found that
safety was an important issue in conditions where in-service teachers worked with
others. Fear of failure and judgment was especially high (cited in Pickett 2005).
Oxman and Barell (1983) stated that in-service teachers cannot fully embrace reflec-
tive thinking and do not view it as part of the teaching profession, which are factors
that constrain reflective thinking. Reflective thinking is possible to practice through
in-service teachers who possess these skills. Moreover, the more teacher reflectivity
that occurs, the better the quality of education (Wenzlaff 1994).

The Turkish context

The Turkish education system includes: pre-primary schools (3–5 years old),
primary schools (6–9 years old), middle schools (10–13 years old), high schools
(14–18 years old) and higher education institutions (aged 18 and above) (Ministry
of National Education 2012). Pre-primary, primary and secondary schools are
managed by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE). Higher education institu-
tions (universities, faculties, institutes, higher education schools, conservatories,
vocational higher education schools and application-research centers) are governed
by the Higher Education Council.
In Turkey, teacher education programs are offered at the university level. Four-
year undergraduate degree programs are for primary education (pre-school, class
teaching, natural sciences, mathematics, social studies, Turkish, foreign languages,
visual arts, music, physical education and sports, computer education and instruc-
tional technologies) and primary and secondary education (e.g. foreign languages,
computer education and instructional technologies). The five-year graduate degree
programs are for secondary education (e.g. mathematics, history) (Higher Education
Council 2007). Pre-service teachers take courses from three main areas: general
culture, special subject training, and pedagogy. Every pre-service teacher takes prac-
tice lessons in the schools around his/her faculty. After the graduation, they work as
trainees for one or two years according to their success. MoNE determines the
number of teachers who will be employed every year and this is announced in the
media. The appointments are carried out according to applications. In addition to
this, teachers are trained in courses organized by the National Education Depart-
ment of In-service Training (UNESCO 2001).
The MoNE determined the competencies of the teaching profession within the
framework of the Support for Basic Education Project in 2005 in order to increase
the qualifications of the teaching profession. Some of the teaching competencies
developed within this scope are about reflective practices (self-evaluation, achieving
self-development, following professional developments and contribution to them,
contribution to the betterment and development of the school, commenting on data
through analysis, offering feedback, reviewing the process of teaching and learning
according to the results). The Ministry aims to use these competencies in determin-
ing teacher education policies, in pre-service teacher training programs of higher
268 Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

education institutions which educate teachers, in teachers’ in-service training

programs, in the selection of in-service teachers, and in the performance evaluations
of in-service teachers. The Ministry started its program on school-based professional
development in order to further develop these competencies. However, the study of
the Turkish Education Association (2009) states that there is a competence problem
concerning primary school teachers related to reflective teaching in some areas
(professional development efforts, the regulation of teaching according to individual
differences, achievement levels, environmental conditions, using alternative
measurement and assessment methods and tools). To support teachers in reflective
teaching practices, these competence areas need to be developed.

The study
Research questions
The objective of the study is to explore the prevalence of reflective teaching prac-
tices among Turkish primary school teachers. Specifically, the following research
questions were investigated: (1) What do teachers think they do as reflective teach-
ers? (2) What do teachers actually do in teaching?

The participants
The sample of the study was composed of 328 primary school teachers (1st–5th
classes; age group 7–12 years) working in 30 primary education institutions in the
town of Antakya in the province of Hatay (Turkey). The cluster sampling technique
was used in the sampling procedure of the study. This technique is used when the
population can be subdivided into groups. In this procedure, it is not the units (the
individuals) that are selected, but the clusters; all the units belonging to the clusters
selected are then included in the sample. Clusters can be selected by means of
random procedure (Corbetta 2003).

Data collection instrument

To determine the reflective teaching practices of the primary school teachers in this
study, a Reflective Teaching Practices Questionnaire was developed (37 items). The
studies of the educators and scholars who had contributed to the field were used in the
process of item development for the scale (Dewey 1933; Epstein 2003; Kitchener
1983; Mewborn 1999; Norton 1997; Oxman and Barell 1983; Pickett 2005; Pollard
2002; Ramsey 2003; Rodgers 2002; Roskos 2001; Song, Grabowski, and Koszalka
2006; Stoddard 2002; Taggart and Wilson 1998; Tang 2002; Wakefield 1996; Wilson
and Jan 1993). Within this context, the reflective teaching practices were described as
sharing students’ feelings, taking students’ criticisms into consideration, organizing
educational conditions according to these criticisms, incorporating students in decision
making, thinking about alternative evaluation methods, determining student levels,
offering feedback to the students, constant and active thinking on activities, pointing
out in-class problems and asking for students’ views on these, collecting evidence
about the decision, following and evaluating professional development, taking his/her
colleagues’ criticisms into consideration, and constant review of teaching procedures.
The questionnaire is composed of 5-scale Likert-type items with the following
options: always, often, sometimes, rarely, and never. The questionnaire was
 Teacher Development 269

presented to faculty members working in the field of reflective thinking and primary
school teachers. The necessary corrections were made in line with the feedback,
and the final form was produced. It was conducted with 185 primary school teach-
ers working in different primary education institutions in the province of Hatay for
the pilot study.
Factor analysis was deemed appropriate to determine the construct validity of
the instrument. As a result of the first factor analysis, nine items with high load
values in more than one factor were discarded from the instrument and the analysis
was repeated. In the second factor analysis, the factor structure of the data was
analyzed using principal component analysis. The results showed that one basic
factor emerged, which constituted 30.99% of the total variance and eigenvalue of
8.68. The common variances of the items range between .47 and .75. Their factor
loads vary between .41 and .72. The means of the items in the questionnaire are
between 2.42 and 4.65, and the standard deviations are between .58 and 1.28. The
item total correlation coefficient ranges between .39 and .71. The t values calculated
from the 27% top and bottom groups are significant at .05 (see Appendix 1 for the
components of the Reflective Teaching Practices Questionnaire). The Cronbach
alpha reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was .91 (see Appendix 2 for the
Reflective Teaching Practices Questionnaire).
In addition, observation, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was
used to determine the condition of primary school teachers’ reflective teaching prac-
tices in the natural environment in which they arise. Observation is used to discover
complex interactions in natural social settings (Marshall and Rossman 1999, 107).
An observation, made during a research study, with respect to physical proximity
and the relationship between the observer and the one observed, is participant
observation (Merriam 1998). A structured observation form was prepared as parallel
to the developed survey to determine primary school teachers’ implementation of
reflective teaching practices. However, since it is not possible to observe all the
items (e.g. I think about the alternative methods and viewpoints) in the question-
naire in the classroom environment, observations were conducted based on some of
the items in the questionnaire. According to Yıldırım and Şimşek (2008), studies of
this sort can, in their natural environment, serve the aim of testing the results
obtained through unstructured field studies. In this case, the researcher generally
will employ a structured observation tool.
A total of 13 items were included in the observation form addressing reflective
teaching practices. The observation form was a Likert-type scale with five options:
always, often, sometimes, rarely, and never (see Appendix 3 for the observation
form).
The questionnaire was administered on 328 primary school teachers working in
30 primary education institutions. Following this, 12 teachers were randomly
selected from the primary school teachers with whom the questionnaire was used,
and each teacher was observed at different times for three class hours for three
weeks. In the process one of the researchers observed the classroom and the teacher
and took observation notes.

Research design
The researchers employed a mixed-methods research strategy where a quantitative
data collection instrument was used to determine primary school teachers’ views of
270 Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

reflective teaching practices and a qualitative data collection instrument method was
used to obtain the results of observations of primary school teachers’ reflective
teaching practices. The findings are presented in association with each other after
the qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data. The data were analyzed
through frequency and percentage calculations.

Findings
This section presents the primary schools teachers’ personal information. Moreover,
it presents primary school teachers’ views and observation results regarding reflec-
tive teaching practices under categories (see Table 1 for the tabulated form of the
questionnaire and observation results).

Personal information
Fifty-nine percent of the teachers who responded to the questionnaire and 73% of
the teachers who participated in the observations constituted female teachers. Forty-
five percent of the respondents have teaching experience of 21 years or more, and
66% of the observed teachers have between 11–15 years and 21 or more years’
experience.

Findings regarding reflective teaching practices

Creating learner-centered instructional environments
The items that were stated to be performed ‘always’ and their percentages are the
following: ‘I arrange the teaching-learning process based on the skills and personal
needs of students’ (54%); ‘I provide various activities (tests, homework, meeting
with student, meeting with family etc.) to determine students’ learning levels’ (63%);
‘I evaluate the results of these activities’ (69%); ‘I give feedback about students’
level of learning’ (51%); ‘I praise students who defend their views freely’ (45%);
and, ‘I conduct lessons by relating the topics to students’ own lives’ (59%). Accord-
ing to the results of observations, teachers ‘often’ implement these reflective teaching
practices. However, 75% of the teachers were observed to only ‘sometimes’ imple-
ment the practice related to ‘praising students who defend their views freely’.

Creating a reflective class climate

The items that were stated to be performed ‘always’ and their percentages are the fol-
lowing: ‘I create a classroom environment where students can express themselves
freely’ (63%); ‘I elicit students’ views about the problems that emerge during class’
(45%); ‘I include students in in-class decision making’ (59%); and, ‘I facilitate
students to share their feelings with me such as interests, fears, anxieties, worries and
enthusiasm related to the topic with me’ (65%). The results of observations show that
teachers generally implement this practice ‘often’. The results obtained from the survey
and observations regarding creating a reflective classroom climate support each other.

Valuing criticism
Thirty-five percent of the teachers indicated that they ‘often’ implemented the
practice of ‘I enable my students to communicate their evaluation of my instructional
Table 1. Tabulated form of the questionnaire and observation results.

Questionnaire Observation
results results
ITEMS f % f %
Creating learner-centered I arrange the teaching-learning never - - - -
instructional environments process based on the skills and rarely 2 1 - -
personal needs of students. sometimes 20 6 2 17
often 129 39 8 66
always 177 54 2 17
Total 328 100 12 100
I provide various activities (tests, never - - - -
homework, meeting with rarely 1 1 - -
student, meeting with family sometimes 6 2 1 8
etc.) to determine students’ often 97 29 5 42
learning levels. always 224 63 6 50
Total 328 100 12 100
I evaluate the results of these never - - - -
activities. rarely 1 1 - -
sometimes 10 3 2 17
often 91 27 3 25
always 226 69 7 58
Total 328 100 12 100
I give feedback about students’ never - - - -
level of learning. rarely 1 1 - -
sometimes 18 6 1 8
often 142 42 9 75
always 167 51 2 17
Total 328 100 12 100
I praise students who defend never 3 1 - -
their views freely. rarely 10 3 - -
Teacher Development

sometimes 69 21 9 75
often 99 30 3 25
always 147 45 - -
271

Total 328 100 12 100

(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
272

Questionnaire Observation
results results
ITEMS f % f %
I conduct lessons by relating the never - - - -
topics to students’ own lives. rarely 1 1 - -
sometimes 10 3 2 17
often 123 37 7 58
always 194 59 3 25
Total 328 100 12 100
Creating a reflective class I create a classroom environment never - - - -
climate where students can express rarely 1 1 - -
themselves freely. sometimes 4 2 1 8
Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

often 113 34 6 50
always 210 63 5 42
Total 328 100 12 100
I elicit students’ views about the never - - - -
problems that emerge during rarely 4 1 4 33
class. sometimes 38 12 6 50
often 139 42 2 17
always 147 45 - -
Total 328 100 12 100
I include students in in-class never - - - -
decision making. rarely 2 1 - -
sometimes 15 5 - -
often 94 29 8 67
always 217 65 4 33
Total 328 100 12 100
I facilitate students to share their never - - - -
feelings with me such as rarely - - - -
interests, fears, anxieties, worries sometimes 9 3 3 25
and enthusiasm related to the often 126 38 4 33
topic with me. always 193 59 5 42
Total 328 100 12 100
(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
Questionnaire Observation
results results
ITEMS f % f %
Valuing criticism I enable my students to never - - - -
communicate their evaluation of rarely 3 1 3 25
my instructional processes and sometimes 108 32 5 43
teaching attitudes in oral or often 113 35 2 16
written form. always 104 32 2 16
Total 328 100 12 100
I change my instructional never 5 2 - -
processes and attitudes based on rarely 14 4 - -
my students’ evaluation. sometimes 63 19 - -
often 135 41 - -
always 11 34 - -
Total 328 100 - -
I ask my colleagues to evaluate never 7 2 - -
my instructional processes and rarely 18 6 - -
teaching attitudes. sometimes 70 21 - -
often 107 33 - -
always 126 38 - -
Total 328 100 - -
I consider my colleagues’ never - - - -
criticism regarding my rarely 6 2 - -
instructional processes and sometimes - - - -
teaching attitudes. often 3 1 3 25
always 108 32 5 43
Total 113 35 2 16
Self-evaluation I think over and over when never - - - -
deciding on teaching-learning rarely 4 1 - -
Teacher Development

objectives, topics, methods and sometimes 28 9 - -

techniques, evaluation and often 140 42 - -
assessment. always 156 48 - -
Total 328 100 - -
273

(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
274

Questionnaire Observation
results results
ITEMS f % f %
I evaluate my strong and weak never - - - -
points in teaching. rarely 2 1 - -
sometimes 25 8 - -
often 115 35 - -
always 186 56 - -
Total 328 100 - -
I ask myself the question ‘do the never - - - -
practices that I conduct benefit rarely - - - -
my students/yield results in sometimes 7 2 - -
Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

students’ learning?’ often 92 28 - -

always 229 70 - -
Total 328 100 - -
I constantly review/question my never - - - -
teaching practices. rarely - - - -
sometimes 24 7 - -
often 107 33 - -
always 197 60 - -
Total 328 100 - -
Making decisions about the I ask myself what changes I can never 1 1 - -
future make when I am preparing this rarely 7 2 - -
lesson in the future. sometimes 56 18 - -
often 131 39 - -
always 133 40 - -
Total 328 100 - -
I ask myself the question ‘what never 1 1 - -
are the possible effects of the rarely 7 2 - -
changes I can make?’ sometimes 58 18 - -
often 146 44 - -
always 116 35 - -
Total 328 100 - -
(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
Questionnaire Observation
results results
ITEMS f % f %
I think about the alternative never - - - -
methods and viewpoints. rarely 2 1 - -
sometimes 32 10 - -
often 157 47 - -
always 137 42 - -
Total 328 100 - -
Problem solving I determine the problems that never - - - -
occur in the lesson (students not rarely 3 1 3 25
understanding the topic, failure sometimes 18 6 5 43
to attract interest, often 128 39 2 16
communication, etc.). always 179 54 2 16
Total 328 100 12 100
I collect evidence that supports never 1 1 - -
my decisions. rarely 10 3 - -
sometimes 42 13 - -
often 135 41 - -
always 140 42 - -
Total 328 100 - -
Openness to professional I identify the areas where I need never - - - -
development to develop. rarely 4 1 - -
sometimes 34 10 - -
often 117 36 - -
always 173 53 - -
Total 328 100 - -
I follow professional never - - - -
publications and new rarely 1 1 - -
Teacher Development

developments. sometimes 10 3 - -
often 91 27 - -
always 226 69 - -
Total 328 100 - -
275

(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
276

Questionnaire Observation
results results
ITEMS f % f %
I discuss what we do in class, never - - - -
why we do this practice, rarely 4 1 - -
whether these practices are sometimes 26 8 - -
effective with my colleagues. often 117 36 - -
always 181 55 - -
Total 328 100 - -
I make use of professional never - - - -
publications and new rarely 3 1 - -
developments. sometimes 47 14 - -
Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

often 163 50 - -
always 115 35 - -
Total 328 100 - -
I keep a diary to follow my never 85 25 5 42
professional development and rarely 65 20 4 33
see my shortcomings. sometimes 91 27 3 25
often 58 18 - -
always 29 8 - -
Total 328 100 12 100
 Teacher Development 277

processes and teaching attitudes in oral or written form’. However, the results of the
observations show that 43% of the teachers only ‘sometimes’ displayed this practice.
On the other hand, 41% of the teachers stated that they ‘often’ implemented the
practice of ‘I change my instructional processes and attitudes based on my students’
evaluation’; 38% of the teachers stated that they ‘always’ implement the practice ‘I
ask my colleagues to evaluate my instructional processes and teaching attitudes’;
and 49% stated that they ‘always’ implement the practice ‘I consider my
colleagues’ criticism regarding my instructional processes and teaching attitudes’.

Self-evaluation
The items that were stated to be performed ‘always’ and their percentages are the
following: ‘I think over and over when deciding on teaching-learning objectives,
topics, methods and techniques, evaluation and assessment’ (48%); ‘I evaluate my
strong and weak points in teaching’ (56%); ‘I ask myself the question “do the prac-
tices that I conduct benefit my students/yield results in students’ learning?”’ (70%);
and ‘I constantly review/question my teaching practices’ (60%).

Making decisions about the future

Forty percent of the teachers stated that they ‘always’ implement the practice ‘I ask
myself what changes I can make when I am preparing this lesson in the future’;
44% of the teachers stated that they ‘often’ realize the attribute ‘I ask myself the
question “what are the possible effects of the changes I can make?”; and 47% stated
they ‘often’ implement the practice ‘I think about the alternative methods and
viewpoints’.

Problem solving
The items that were stated to be performed ‘always’ and their percentages are
the following: ‘I determine the problems that occur in the lesson (students not
understanding the topic, failure to attract interest, communication, etc.)’ (54%),
and ‘I collect evidence that supports my decisions’ (42%). However, the results
of the observations showed that 43% of the teachers ‘sometimes’ implement the
practice of ‘finding out problems’.

Openness to professional development

The items that were stated to be performed ‘always’ and their percentages are the
following: ‘I identify the areas where I need to develop’ (53%); ‘I follow profes-
sional publications and new developments’ (69%); and ‘I discuss what we do in
class, why we do this practice, whether these practices are effective with my
colleagues’ (55%). Furthermore, 50% stated that they ‘often’ implemented the
practice ‘I make use of professional publications and new developments’.
On the other hand, 27% of the teachers stated that they ‘sometimes’ imple-
mented the practice ‘I keep a diary to follow my professional development and see
my shortcomings’. Results of the observations indicate that 42% of the teachers
‘never’ keep a diary.
278 Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

Discussion
This study aims at examining the prevalence of reflective teaching practices
among primary school teachers in Turkish elementary schools. For this purpose,
the following questions were asked: (1) What do teachers think they do as reflec-
tive teachers? (2) What do teachers actually do in teaching?
Highlighting our main findings, the following can be concluded: Firstly, the find-
ings of this study highlight the fact that primary school teachers generally implement
the attributes of implementing learner-centered instruction (the consideration of indi-
vidual needs in the process of teaching, determining the level of students with vari-
ous activities, giving feedback, praising students and associating the contents with
students’ lives), creating a reflective class climate (creating a liberal class environ-
ment, receiving students’ opinions on problems, involving them in the decision-mak-
ing process, sharing the feelings of students), valuing criticism (the consideration of
students’ and colleagues’ criticisms), self-evaluation (thinking over and over while
making decisions on teaching, evaluating strengths and weaknesses, determining the
contribution of the practices to students and reviewing teacher practices constantly),
making decisions for the future (considering the effects of possible changes to be
made in the course and thinking of alternative methods and perspectives), problem
solving (determining the problems that occur during the lesson, collecting evidence
related to the accuracy of decisions), being open to professional development (identi-
fying the areas that need to be developed, following professional publications and
new developments, discussing teaching practices with colleagues and making use of
professional publications and new developments).
It is understood that the findings obtained both from the survey and the observa-
tion usually support each other. In other words, teachers think they implement the
reflective teaching practices under these categories and also the observation results
show that these practices are carried out by primary school teachers.
The in-service teachers may have had the opportunity to display these practices
as a result of their participation in student-centered instruction in in-service educa-
tion programs and the opportunity provided for teachers who self-develop to obtain
promotion. Galvez-Martin (1997, 2003) in their study compared the level of reflec-
tions of in-service and pre-service teachers. Analysis of the data indicated that in-
service teachers achieved higher levels of reflection than pre-service teachers, even
though they had received no training on reflective thinking. Galvez-Martin pointed
out that class teachers are more experienced, which may lead to this conclusion.
According to the research conducted by Semerci and Kılınç (2010), the more the
seniority year increases, the more the teachers tend towards reflective thinking, such
as continuous and intentional thinking, being open-minded, interrogative and effec-
tive teaching, being investigative, proactive and sincere, etc. In this study, the fact
that the teachers responding to the survey and participating in the observation are
experienced might have led to this result.
Second, the results of the observation show that some of the reflective teaching
practices of teachers are problematic. The results of observations indicated that
primary school teachers ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’ implement the practices of praising
students who defend their views freely, facilitating students to express their evalua-
tions of teachers’ instructional processes and attitudes in oral or written form,
identifying problems that emerge in class and keeping a journal to follow their
professional development and observe shortcomings.
 Teacher Development 279

The factors such as the load of the curriculum and the crowded classrooms in
Turkey may have prevented teachers from allocating time for reflective activities.
As Galvez-Martin (1997, 2003) pointed out, the reflectivity achieved by pre-service
teachers by the end of their programs is lost after their first entry years as teachers.
In most schools, reflection is not being promoted among teachers and many teach-
ers are not interested in reflecting at all. Therefore, reflection stagnates or vanishes
over time. In addition, teachers in teacher training programs might not have
received enough training related to reflective teaching practices.
The findings obtained from the results of the observation show that primary school
teachers don’t adequately realize reflective teaching practices such as praising students
who defend their views freely and facilitating students to express their evaluations of
teachers’ instructional processes and attitudes in oral or written form. One of the topics
focused in this study is teachers’ practices supporting reflecting learning. The sense of
authoritarian discipline might have prevented both teachers from praising students
defending their views freely and students from expressing their criticisms of teachers’
instructional processes and attitudes in oral or written form.
As Cooper (1999) stated, the best way to learn about oneself as an in-service
teacher is to seek feedback from others. However, according to the view that Pickett
(2005) quotes from Richert (1990), teachers fail to be reflective in instructional pro-
cesses because they are anxious about being judged and fear failure. Further, the
Vygotskian view of reflection as intertwined with semiotic mediation (cited in Hers-
hkowitz 1999) has led many educators to take the position that this mediation
should be initiated by giving students specific opportunities to reflect on others’
mental processes by giving verbal reports and critiques in a classroom forum.
Some studies found that one of the factors that helps students’ reflective thinking
is a flexible learning environment (Kim, Grabowski, and Sharma 2004; Koszalka,
Song, and Grabowski 2002). According to Korthagen and Vasolos (2005), on the
other hand, in-service teachers should ask their students what they want, think, and
feel during the reflection process.
The findings obtained from the results of the observation show that teachers some-
times implement the practice of identifying problems that occur in the lesson (students
not understanding the topic, failure to attract interest, communication, etc.). This situa-
tion might be the reason for teachers' personal characteristics or lack of teacher train-
ing. On the other hand a lack of schools leads to crowded classes in Turkey. Also
from this perspective, it is not possible for a teacher to determine all the problems that
occur during the lesson. Similarly, a study by Marcos, Sánchez, and Tillema (2008)
shows that in-service teachers do not work along the lines identified in current reflec-
tion models (i.e. providing clear problem definition).
Besides, the findings obtained from the results of observation show that most
teachers don’t keep a diary to follow their professional development and observe
shortcomings. This may be the result of teachers’ lack of knowledge regarding the
importance of keeping a reflective diary and doing so in the pre-service and
in-service periods. On the other hand, the reason for not keeping a diary may be
that they may consider this activity as boring and a waste of time. In fact, primary
school teachers are responsible for managing the teaching process, providing
guidance for students and preparing them for upper secondary education. Thus, their
workload is heavy. This also shows that they don’t have time to keep a diary.
Similarly, as Shaughnessy and Smith (1998) argued, little specific time is allocated
for in-service teachers to reflect on their practices and instructional methods. Tang
280 Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

(2000) found in his study that student teachers who kept a diary review their
practices and acquire the skill of evaluating themselves. According to Scanlan and
Chernomas (1997), keeping a reflective journal was helpful in assisting teachers to
understand the assumptions held with respect to student learning. Keeping records
are important for many reasons. The review of records of pupil achievement can
provide a partial mirror on our own teaching which, for the self-aware in-service
teacher, can provide a constructive spur to further pedagogic or curricular develop-
ment. Records exchanged between in-service teachers provide the crucial means of
ensuring that there is continuity and progression in the children’s learning
experiences from year to year (Pollard 1998). As the diary is written, the diary
keeper goes back to the event and realizes different situations and evaluates the
situation again (Williams and Wessel 2004). Roskos (2001) explained that the use
of a diary or other written sources may be effective in the development of reflective
thinking.

Conclusions and implications

Developing a habit of reflective thinking takes time (Brown 1999). To overcome the
shortcomings related to reflective teaching practice that were identified as a result of
the study, it might be suggested that primary school teachers be taught the theoretical
and practical dimensions of reflective teaching practices during pre-service and in-
service training. According to Bowman, Galvez-Martin, and Morrison (2005),
reflection develops from deliberately planned programs beginning with the first
professional education course that the pre-service teacher takes and continues on to
student teaching.
The promotion of reflective teachers is a complex process that may require close
attention in every aspect of a teacher training program. Most importantly, reflective
thinking cannot be taught through a few simple techniques but requires education
that transforms the pre-service teachers’ ways of knowing, their views about knowl-
edge and the roles of in-service teachers and students. When reflective thinking
becomes a habit of mind based on specific epistemic views that promote its devel-
opment, then in-service teachers will be able to make sound pedagogical decisions
(Ostorga 2006).
The idea of reflective practice has been the adoption of reflection as a founda-
tion for many teacher education programs (Richert 1990; Russell 1997; Tom 1985;
Valli 1993; Zeichner 1983, cited in Loughran 2002). The idea of reflective teaching
practice should also be a part of Turkey’s teacher training programs, because
reflective practice is viewed as a means by which practitioners can develop a
greater level of self-awareness about the nature and impact of their performance, an
awareness that creates opportunities for professional growth and development.
Reflective practice is a professional development process that is highly effective in
achieving behavioral change. Also, reflective practice and its underlying assump-
tions are in sharp contrast with the traditional practice of professional development
(Osterman and Kottkamp 1993).
The notion of reflection, or what is commonly referred to as ‘reflective thinking’
(as performed by the ‘reflective practitioner’ in ‘reflective practice’), has been
widely researched with pre-service students and in-service teachers in the context of
teaching and learning (e.g. Grushka, McLeod, and Reynolds 2005; Harrison,
 Teacher Development 281

Lawson, and Wortley 2005; Pedro 2005, cited in Phan 2007). Existing research
evidence indicates that reflection is beneficial in teaching and learning processes, as
it enables students and educators alike to think critically about their own learning
and professional development. The ultimate outcome of reflection is the develop-
ment of specific skills that may assist individuals to become more critical and to
develop expertise in their areas of professionalism (Phan 2007).
Teacher educators may be models of reflective practitioners for pre-service
teachers and encourage them. Primary education supervisors may evaluate in-service
teachers’ reflective teaching practice behaviors in classroom environments and help
them with their shortcomings or mistakes. As Scanlan and Chernomas (1997) stated,
the teacher educator can offer a model to pre-service teachers about the relevance of
reflection to their learning, such as keeping a reflective journal, course evaluations,
coaching each other in reflective teaching, and recharacterizing interactions with
students. At the same time, more long-term observations may be conducted in order to
better determine primary school teachers’ reflective teaching practices.
This study may help primary school teachers know themselves better and
contribute to their professional development. In addition, as this study shows what
kind of reflective teaching practices teachers realize it can provide guidance for pre-
service and in-service training programmes and researchers who will study in this
field. The results of the research can assist institutions responsible for teachers’ pro-
fessional development when dealing with reflective teaching practices. Moreover,
the fact that education has a dynamic structure at all its levels requires that the tasks
and the qualifications of in-service teachers, who assume an important role in this
process, be constantly questioned and developed.

Notes on contributors
Şükran Tok is an associate professor in the Department of Education Sciences at Pamukkale
University, Denizli, Turkey. She received her PhD degree in curriculum and instruction from
Çukurova University, Turkey. Her current research interests focus on teacher training,
reflective thinking, learning strategies and curriculum evaluation.

Sevda Doğan-Dolapçıoğlu is a classroom teacher in Hatay, Turkey. She is a doctoral student

in Curriculum and Instruction at Çukurova University, Turkey. Her current research interests
focus on thinking skills and reflective thinking.

References
Bode, B. 1940. How we Learn. New York: Heath.
Boud, D., R. Keogh, and D. Walker. 1985. Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Bowman, C. L., M. Galvez-Martin, and M. Morrison. 2005. “Developing Reflection in
Preservice Teachers.” In Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment,
Instruction, and Professional Development, edited by S. E. Israel, 335–349. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, D. 1999. “Promoting Reflective Thinking: Preservice Teachers’ Literacy Autobiog-
raphies as a Common Text.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 42: 402–410.
Campoy, R. W., and R. Radcliffe. 2002. “Reflective Decision-Making and Cognitive Devel-
opment: A Descriptive Study Comparing the Reflective Levels of Pre-Service and İn-Ser-
vice Teachers.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465 753.
282 Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

Clegg, S., J. Tan, and S. Saeidi. 2002. “Reflecting or Acting? Reflective Practice and Contin-
uing Professional Development in the UK Higher Education.” Reflective Practice 3 (1):
131–146.
Cooper, J. M., ed. 1999. “To be Teacher as a Decision Maker.” In Classroom Teaching
Skills. Boston: Houghton Mifftin Hullfish.
Corbetta, P. 2003. Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. London: Sage Publica-
tions.
Day, C. 1999. “Researching Teaching Through Reflective Practice.” In Researching Teach-
ing: Methodologies and Practices for Understanding Pedagogy, edited by J. J. Lough-
ran. London: Falmer.
Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think. New York: Prometheus Books.
Epstein, A. S. 2003. “How Planning and Reflection Develop Young Children’s Thinking
Skills.” Journal of Young Children 58: 28–36.
Galvez-Martin, M. E. 1997. “Who is More Reflective? Inservice or Preservice Teachers?”
Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Asso-
ciation, Chicago, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 422 320.
Galvez-Martin, M. E. 2003. “Reflective Teaching, Reflective Practice, and… What Else?”
Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal 1 (3): 59–65.
Gelter, H. 2003. “Why is Reflective Thinking Uncommon?” Reflective Practice 4: 337–344.
Grushka, K., J. H. McLeod, and R. Reynolds. 2005. “Reflecting upon Reflection: Theory
and Practice in One Australian University Teacher Education Program.” Reflective Prac-
tice 6: 239–246.
Harrison, J. K., T. Lawson, and A. Wortley. 2005. “Mentoring the Beginning Teacher:
Developing Professional Autonomy through Critical Reflection on Practice.” Reflective
Practice 6: 419–441.
Hershkowitz, R. 1999. “Reflective Processes in a Mathematics Classroom with a Rich Learn-
ing Environment.” Cognition and Instruction 17: 65–93.
Higher Education Council. 2007. Öğretmen Yetiştirme Ve Eğitim fakülteleri. Ankara: YOK.
Hullfish, H. G., and P. G. Smith. 1961. Reflective Thinking: The Method of Education. New
York: Dodd, Mead and Company.
Kazu, H., and D. Demiralp. 2012. “Usage Status of Methods That Enhance Reflective
Thinking in Primary Level Programs (Elazığ City Example).” International Online Jour-
nal of Educational Sciences 4 (1): 131–145.
Kember, D., A. Jones, A. Loke, J. Mckay, K. Sinclair, H. Tse, C. Webb, F. Wong, M. Wong,
and E. Yeung. 1999. “Determining the Level of Reflective Thinking from Students’
Written Journals Using a Coding Scheme Based on the Work of Mezirow.” International
Journal of Lifelong Education 18: 18–30.
Kim, K., B. L. Grabowski, and P. Sharma. 2004. “Designing a Classroom as a Learner-
Centered Learning Environment Prompting Students’ Reflective Thinking in K-12.”
Paper Presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
Chicago, IL, October.
Kitchener, K. S. 1983. “Educational Goals and Reflective Thinking.” The Educational
Forum 48: 75–95.
Korthagen, F., and A. Vasalos. 2005. “Levels in Reflection: Core Reflection as a Means to
Enhance Professional Growth.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 11: 47–71.
Koszalka, T. A., H. D. Song, and B. Grabowski. 2002. “Examining Learning Environmental
Design Issues for Prompting Reflective Thinking in Web-Enhanced PBL.” Paper Pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LO, April 1–5.
Lai, G., and B. Calandra. 2010. “Examining the Effects of Computer-Based Scaffolds on
Novice Teachers’ Reflective Journal Writing.” Educational Technology Research and
Development 58: 421–437.
Loughran, J. J. 2002. “Effective Reflective Practice in Search of Meaning in Learning about
Teaching.” Journal of Teacher Education 53: 33–43.
Marcos, J. J. M., E. Sánchez, and H. Tillema. 2008. “Teachers Reflecting on Their Work:
Articulating What is Said about What is Done.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice 14: 95–114.
 Teacher Development 283

Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mewborn, D. S. 1999. “Reflective Thinking among Preservice Elementary Mathematics
Teachers.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30: 316–340.
Ministry of National Education. 2012. “12 yil zorunlu eğitim: sorular – cevaplar.” Accessed
March 3, 2012. http://www.meb.gov.tr/duyurular/duyurular2012/12Yil_Soru_Cevaplar.pdf
Norton, J. L. 1997. “Learning from First Year Teachers: Characteristics of the Effective Prac-
titioner.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, Memphis, TN, November 13.
Onosko, J. J. 1992. “Exploring the Thinking of Thoughtful Teachers.” Educational Leader-
ship 49 (7): 40–43.
Osterman, K. F., and R. B. Kottkamp. 1993. Reflective Practice for Educators. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ostorga, A. N. 2006. “Developing Teachers Who Are Reflective Practitioners: A Complex
Process.” Issues in Teacher Education 15: 5–20.
Oxman, W., and J. Barell. 1983. “Reflective Thinking in Schools: A Survey of Teacher Per-
ceptions.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada, April.
Pedro, J. Y. 2005. “Reflection in Teacher Education: Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Mean-
ings of Reflective Practice.” Reflective Practice 6: 49–66.
Phan, H. P. 2007. “An Examination of Reflective Thinking, Learning Approaches, and Self-
Efficacy Beliefs at the University of the South Pacific: A Path Analysis Approach.” Edu-
cational Psychology 27: 789–806.
Pickett, A. 2005. “Reflective Teaching Practices and Academic Skills Instruction.” Accessed.
http://www.indiana.edu/~1506/mod02/pickett.html
Pollard, A. 1998. Reflective Teaching in the Primary School. London: Cassell.
Pollard, A. 2002. Reflective Teaching: Effective and Research-Based Professional Practice.
London: Continuum.
Porter, A. C., and J. Brophy. 1988. “Synthesis of Research on Good Teaching: Insights from
the Work of the Institute for Research on Teaching.” Educational Leadership 45 (8):
74–85.
Ramsey, S. J. 2003. “Reflective on the Future-Education in the Third Millennium.” Curricu-
lum and Teaching Dialogue 5: 123–130.
Richert, A. E. 1990. “Teaching Teachers to Reflect: A Consideration of Programme Struc-
ture.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 22 (6): 509–527.
Rodgers, C. 2002. “Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Think-
ing.” Teachers College Record 104: 842–866.
Roskos, K. 2001. “Reflection and Learning to Teach Reading: A Critical Review of Literacy
and General Teacher Education Studies.” Journal of Literacy Research 33: 595–619.
Russell, T., and H. Munby. 1992. Teachers and Teaching: From Classroom to Reflection.
London: Falmer.
Scanlan, J. M., and W. M. Chernomas. 1997. “Developing the Reflective Teacher.” Journal
of Advanced Nursing 25: 1138–1143.
Semerci, N., and H. H. Kılınç. 2010. “Primary First and Second Stages Teachers’ Reflective
Thinking Tendencies (Case of Elaziğ City).” Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştirmaları 8 (1):
1–14.
Shaughnessy, M. F., and S. L. Smith. 1998. Teacher Emotions and Reflective Thinking.
ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454 211.
Smith, P. G. 1961. Reflective Thinking: The Method of Education. New York, NY: Dodd,
Mead and Company.
Song, H.-D., B. Grabowski, and T. Koszalka. 2006. “Instructional Design Factors Prompting
Reflective Thinking in Problem-Based Learning Environments: Comparing Middle
School and College Students’ Perception.” Instructional Science 34: 63–87.
Stoddard, S. 2002. “Reflective Thinking within an Art Methods Class for Preservice Elemen-
tary Teachers.” Paper Presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Education.
Accessed. http://www.hiceducation.org/edu_proceedings/Shari%20S.%20Stoddard2.pdf
284 Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

Taggart, G., and A. Wilson. 1998. Promoting Reflective Thinking in Teachers: 44 Action
Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tang, C. 2002. “Reflective Diaries as a Means of Facilitating and Assessing Reflection.”
Paper Presented at the HERDSA Conference, Perth, Western Australia.
Teekman, B. 2000. “Exploring Reflective Thinking in Nursing Practice.” Journal of
Advanced Nursing 31: 1125–1135.
Tochon, F. V. 1999. “Myths in Teacher Education: Towards Reflectivity.” Pedagogy Culture
& Society 7 (2): 257–289.
Tom, A. R. 1985. “Inquiry into Inquiry-oriented Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher
Education 36 (5): 35–44.
Turkish Education Association. 2009. Öğretmen Yeterlikleri özet Rapor. Ankara: TED Press.
UNESCO. 2001. “The Turkish Education System and Developments in Education.” http://
www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Turkey.pdf
Valli, L. 1993. “Reflective Teacher Education Programs: An Analysis of Case Studies.” In
Conceptualising Reflection in Teacher Development, edited by J. Calderhead and P.
Gates. London: Falmer.
Wakefield, J. 1996. Educational Psychology: Learning to Be a Problem Solver. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Wenzlaff, T. 1994. “Training Students to Be a Reflective Practitioner.” Education 115:
278–288.
Williams, R., and J. Wessel. 2004. “Reflective Journal Writing to Obtain Student Feedback
about Their Learning During the Study of Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions.” Journal
of Allied Health 33: 17–23.
Wilson, J., and W. L. Jan. 1993. Thinking for Themselves: Developing Strategies for Reflec-
tive Learning. South Yarra, Vic.: Eleanor Curtain Publishing.
Yanes, M. J. 2004. “Distance Education in Traditional Classes.” The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education 5: 265–276.
Yıldırım, A., and H. Şimşek. 2008. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara:
PegemA Yay.
Yorulmaz, M. 2006. “Evaluation of Primary School Teachers’ View and Practices Relating
to the Reflective Thinking (An Example of Diyarbakır City).” Unpublished Master’s
thesis, Fırat Üniversity, Elazığ.
Zeichner, K. M. 1983. “Alternative Paradigms of Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher
Education 34 (3): 3–9.
 Teacher Development 285

Appendix 1. Components of Reflective Teaching Practices Questionnaire

(N=185).

Cronbach’s
Item Correlation t Factor alpha
No Mean SD coefficients values loadings values
1 4.39 .58 .39 5.27 .41 .9107
2 4.40 .71 .55 7.15 .57 .9085
3 3.72 1.09 .45 5.00 .42 .9114
4 3.96 .96 .46 7.05 .46 .9099
5 4.36 .69 .51 7.29 .52 .9090
6 4.65 .62 .49 5.29 .49 .9095
7 4.41 .85 .59 6.64 .60 .9076
8 4.55 .61 .50 5.89 .51 .9094
9 4.47 .68 .43 6.16 .46 .9098
10 4.38 .74 .49 6.64 .51 .9094
11 4.46 .65 .48 6.93 .49 .9096
12 4.42 .69 .50 6.50 .52 .9092
13 3.99 1.01 .71 9.46 .72 .9052
14 3.92 .99 .66 10.21 .67 .9062
15 4.17 .79 .65 9.82 .66 .9069
16 4.27 .82 .70 9.68 .72 .9057
17 4.38 .73 .63 9.10 .67 .9070
18 4.20 .84 .56 7.53 .57 .9081
19 4.06 .59 .43 6.25 .42 .9104
20 4.45 .70 .50 6.16 .53 .9092
21 4.33 .77 .54 6.03 .56 .9086
22 2.42 1.28 .50 8.23 .45 .9120
23 3.61 1.05 .60 9.47 .58 .9078
24 3.92 .91 .55 8.02 .54 .9083
25 4.22 .87 .53 6.09 .55 .9086
26 4.00 1.06 .61 7.61 .59 .9074
27 4.29 .82 .57 6.43 .56 .9082
28 4.44 .73 .65 9.21 .67 .9068

Appendix 2. Reflective Teaching Practices Questionnaire.

Number Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

of Items
1 I create a classroom environment where
students can express themselves freely.
2 I facilitate students to share their feelings
with me such as interests, fears, anxieties,
worries and enthusiasm related to the topic
with me.
3 I enable my students to communicate their
evaluation of my instructional processes
and teaching attitudes in oral or written
form.
(Continued)
286 Sß . Tok and S.D. Dolapçıoğlu

Appendix 2. (Continued).
Number Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
of Items
4 I change my instructional processes and
attitudes based on my students’ evaluation.
5 I arrange the teaching-learning process
based on the skills and personal needs of
students.
6 I praise students who defend their views
freely.
7 I include students in in-class decision
making.
8 I ask myself the question ‘do the practices
that I conduct benefit my students/yield
results in students’ learning?’
9 I conduct lessons by relating the topics to
students’ own lives.
10 I provide various activities (tests,
homework, meeting with student, meeting
with family, etc.) to determine students’
learning levels.
11 I evaluate the results of these activities.
12 I give feedback about students’ level of
learning.
13 I ask myself what changes I can make
when I am preparing this lesson in the
future.
14 I ask myself the question ‘what are the
possible effects of the changes I can
make?’
15 I think about the alternative methods and
viewpoints.
16 I think over and over when deciding on
teaching-learning objectives, topics,
methods and techniques, evaluation and
assessment.
17 I determine the problems that occur in the
lesson (students not understanding the
topic, failure to attract interest,
communication, etc.).
18 I elicit students’ views about the problems
that emerge during class.
19 I collect evidence that supports my
decisions.
20 I evaluate my strong and weak points in
teaching.
21 I identify the areas where I need to
develop.
22 I keep a diary to follow my professional
development and see my shortcomings.
23 I follow professional publications and new
developments.
24 I make use of professional publications and
new developments.

(Continued)
 Teacher Development 287

Appendix 2. (Continued).
Number Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
of Items
25 I discuss what we do in class, why we do
this practice, whether these practices are
effective with my colleagues.
26 I ask my colleagues to evaluate my
instructional processes and teaching
attitudes.
27 I consider my colleagues’ criticism
regarding my instructional processes and
teaching attitudes.
28 I constantly review/question my teaching
practices.

Appendix 3. The observation form.

Item
No Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
1 I arrange the teaching-learning process based
on the skills and personal needs of students.
2 I provide various activities (tests, homework,
meeting with student, meeting with family
etc.) to determine students’ learning levels.
3 I evaluate the results of these activities.
4 I give feedback about students’ level of
learning.
5 I conduct lessons by relating the topics to
students’ own lives.
6 I praise students who defend their views
freely.
7 I create a classroom environment where
students can express themselves freely.
8 I facilitate students to share their feelings with
me such as interests, fears, anxieties, worries
and enthusiasm related to the topic with me.
9 I include students in in-class decision making.
10 I enable my students to communicate their
evaluation of my instructional processes and
teaching attitudes in oral or written form.
11 I determine the problems that occur in the
lesson (students not understanding the topic,
failure to attract interest, communication, etc.).
12 I elicit students’ views about the problems that
emerge during class.
13 I keep a diary to follow my professional
development and see my shortcomings.