Reflective Practice Through Journal Writing 
And Peer Observation: A Case Study

Year 2014, Volume: 15 Issue: 4, 189 - 204, 01.12.2014

B. Samrajya Lakshmı

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.21757

Cited By: 6

Abstract

Journal writing and Peer Observation in an educational context have become popular techniques, with several different types of applications. They have now been used quite widely in both language teaching and in teacher training. However, despite its reported advantages in both teaching and research, there are not many Peer Observation and Diary studies available based on the writing of experienced language teachers. The Teacher participants maintain Journal writing and Peer Observation as a means of reflective practice. They consider these practices as a mirror, which reflects the teacher’s own image as a practioner. The post-reflection discussion reveals that the teacher participants believe in reflective practice as an effective means of self-evaluation and of developing sensitivity to students’ learning. This paper examines Peer Observation and journal writing of two teachers working on the same language programme in terms of a variety of topic headings, and suggests that reflective practice can be a useful tool for both classroom research and teachers’ professional development.

Keywords

Journal Writing; Peer Observation; Post Reflection; Professional Development.

References

• Anderson, G., and Herr, K. (1999). ‘The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities?’ Educational Researcher, 28 (5): pp.12
• Chaiklin, S., and J. Lave. (1996) (Eds.). Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Clandinin, D.J., and F. M. Connelly. (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in
• Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J (1933). How we think: a restatement of reflective thinking to the educative processes. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
• Ho, B., and Richards, J. C. (1993). ‘Reflective thinking through teacher journal writing:
• Myths and realities’. Prospect: A Journal of Australian TESOL 8: pp.7-24. In Richards,J.C. and Thomas, S. C. Farrel. Professional Development for Language teachers’ strategies for Teacher learning. Cambridge University Press: New York. 2005, pp.70-71.
• Kremer-Hayon, L. (1993). Teacher self-evaluation: Teacher in their own mirror. Norwell,
• Massachusetts: KIuwer. Lave J., and E. Wenger.( 1991).Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
• Cambridge University Press: New York. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case studv research in education: A qualitative approach. San
• Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Neaman, D., P. Griffin, and M. Cole. (1989). The Construction Zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge University Press: New York.
• Pollard, A., et al. (2006). Reflective Teaching. Viva-Continuum South Asian Edition. Continuum: London.
• Ramanujam, P. (2009). ‘Introduction’. In P. Ramanujam (Ed.). Reflective Practice in the English Classroom. Vijayawada/India: Loyola ELT Centre.
• Schon, D. A.( 1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books: New York.
• Smith, L. M. (1978). ‘An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnography and other case studies’. In L. Shulman (ed), Review of research in education. Peacock: Chicago.
• Stake, R. E. (1994). ‘Case studies’. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
• Qualitative Research. pp. 236-245. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of Higher Psychological
• Processing. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.