Cited by 160Reflective Practices in EducationTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice

Open access
Mann, Steve, Walsh, Steve·2013·Applied Linguistics Review

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/applirev-2013-0013

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The presence of the novice instructor opened the space of reflexivity to be collaborative and dialogical, not only the enterprise of the veteran instructor.

    “In the context of this research, the presence of the novice instructor opened the space of reflexivity to be not only the enterprise of the veteran instructor, but rather a collaborative and dialogical space to exchange perspectives, examine data together, and collaboratively build shared visions and planning next steps (Mann & Walsh, 2013).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Mann, S., & Walsh, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Mann, Steve
Venue
Applied Linguistics Review
Published
2013-10-25
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
291-315
ISSN
  • 1868-6303 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-6311
OpenAlex
W2086534172
Cited by
160
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
32.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Linguistics Review (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
reflective practice, reflection-in-action, collaborative reflection, dialogic reflection, reflective writing, applied linguistics, TESOL, teacher professional development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review