Introduction

Reflective teaching, characterized as the careful examination of teachers' instructional practices, beliefs, assumptions, and conceptions of teaching and learning (Farrell, 2015, 2016, 2023), is an important teacher-related variable in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching contexts. The review of the literature on reflective teaching portrays that this variable has been subject to conceptual analysis (e.g., Farrell, 2016; Jordi, 2011; Larrivee, 2000; Loughran, 2002; Westbury, 2012) and empirical investigations in relation to self-efficacy (e.g., Babaei & Abednia, 2016; Moradkhani et al., 2017), burnout (e.g., Kalantari & Kolahi, 2017; Shirazizadeh & Moradkhani, 2018), context-based variations (Moradkhani & Shirazizadeh, 2017), teaching effectiveness (Motallebzadeh et al., 2018), emotional intelligence (Seydi Shahivand & Moradkhani, 2020), teacher autonomy (Moslehi & Salehi, 2021), teaching journal and peer observation (Moradkhani, 2019), and self-evaluation techniques (Roohani & Moosavi Avendi, 2019). Notwithstanding the abundant body of research into reflective teaching, a study exploring the effect of an intervention based on the stages of reflective teaching on promoting teachers' reflectivity is non-existent. The most important prerequisite for implementing intervention-based investigations is a rigorous theoretical framework. This conceptual richness, however, calls for rigorous empirical investigations to determine how such frameworks can tangibly enhance teachers’ classroom practices.

Farrell (2016), conducting a thorough review of previous studies, has determined five stages for reflection, including philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond practice. During the philosophy stage, teachers reflect upon the main reasons rooted in their past teaching and learning experiences, which guide their current teaching practices. In the principles stage, teachers examine and analyze their "assumptions, beliefs, and conceptions of teaching and learning" (Farrell, 2016, p. 3). The third stage, theory, deals with teachers' reflection upon the construction of their theories of practice built upon their examination of philosophy and principles. The fourth stage, practice, entails the examination and reflection upon teachers' observable instructional practices and students' learning. The final stage, beyond practice which Farrell calls critical reflection, involves the exploration and examination of "Ethical, political, and societal issues influence a teacher's practice both within and beyond the classroom." (Farrell, 2016, p. 5). Despite Farrell’s framework providing a comprehensive model for reflective teaching, no study has yet examined its effectiveness in enhancing teachers' reflectivity—a gap this research addresses. The outcome of this study can provide insights into the implementation of such a framework for intervention-based research in developing EFL teachers' reflective teaching, which can, in turn, improve teacher educators' awareness for designing programs aiming to foster teachers' reflectivity.  Without such experimental evidence, the pedagogical utility of Farrell’s comprehensive model remains speculative rather than empirically substantiated.

Although the literature review indicates the increasing recognition of such competencies as reflective and critical teaching in the context of Iran (Alinejad et al., 2024; Atai & Moradi, 2016), the studies conducted are mainly correlational or perceptual in nature; that is, there is scarce intervention-based research on the way in which these competencies could be systematically developed. The studies yield evidence that teachers advocate for critical pedagogy (Atai & Moradi, 2016). These studies try to make a connection between reflection and such variables as professional identity (Abednia, 2012) and critical thinking (Alinejad et al., 2024). Also, research reveals that specific techniques like self-evaluation are promising for future education (Roohani & Moosavi Avendi, 2019); however, very few, if any, studies have examined the comparative effectiveness of structured, theory-driven professional development programs. Indeed, such a gap is critical given that making sustainable changes entails moving beyond awareness-raising to deliberate intervention (Ebadi & Gheisari, 2016). Therefore, the present study seeks to deal with this gap by experimentally exploring two distinct reflective teacher training programs in Iran. Such a comparison turns out to be crucial when it comes to determining whether the adoption of a critical approach, with a focus on the socio-political dimensions of teaching (Farrell, 2016), leads to more beneficial outcomes than a foundational reflective program, which focused only on the personal and pedagogical domains. Comparing these two treatments, the study seeks to examine the unique contribution of the "beyond practice" stage, dealing with a gap in intervention-based studies on structured reflective frameworks. To contextualize these aims, the ensuing section synthesizes theoretical and empirical literature underpinning reflective and critical teaching paradigms.

Literature Review

Reflective Teaching

Dewey (1933), the leading figure in advancing reflective practice in the field of education, notes that reflection is "a deliberate and thorough evaluation of any belief or claimed knowledge" (p. 9). Schön (2017) maintains that reflective teaching involves the exploration and analysis of one's own teaching practices, with the goal of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Zeichner and Liston (1987) characterize reflective teaching as a process of self-examination and self-evaluation that involves examining one's own teaching practices in order to identify areas for improvement and make changes that enhance student learning. Reflective teaching makes teachers capable of making more informed instructional decisions and carrying out more influential instructional practices (Akbari, 2007; Crandall, 2000). In contrast, lack of reflection makes teachers likely to adopt the instructional practices that they were exposed to during the time they were students and, accordingly, unreflective teachers will make fewer informed decisions (Braun & Crumpler, 2004). Given this conceptual foundation, examining how reflective teaching can be systematically cultivated becomes a pressing empirical concern.

Farrell (2016) defines reflective teaching as a process of self-inquiry and self-evaluation that involves reviewing one's teaching methods and personal beliefs, and utilizing this insight to make informed decisions about how to improve student learning. Hatton and Smith (1995) hold that reflective teaching is a deliberate and systematic approach to professional development that involves critically examining one's own teaching practices in order to identify areas for improvement and make changes to enhance student learning. Reflective teaching is a process of ongoing inquiry, in which teachers critically examine their own beliefs and assumptions about teaching and learning, and use this information to inform their practice (Boud et al., 2013). Reflective teaching involves the intentional and systematic examination of one's own teaching practices, with the goal of improving the quality of instruction and enhancing student learning (Brookfield, 2017). As seen in the previous definitions, two core components constitute reflective teaching; examination and exploration of teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices, and fostering students' learning outcomes. These two pillars have informed subsequent operationalizations of reflective teaching in empirical research.

The studies conducted on reflective teaching in the Iranian EFL context have mainly used either of the two research designs as follows: the first strand of research has used correlational statistics to shed light on the relationship between reflective teaching and other variables, such as teacher self-efficacy (Babaei & Abednia, 2016; Moradkhani et al., 2017), a decrease in burnout (Kalantari & Kolahi, 2017; Shirazizadeh & Moradkhani, 2018), enhanced teaching effectiveness (Motallebzadeh et al., 2018), the degree of emotional intelligence (Seydi Shahivand & Moradkhani, 2020), and teacher autonomy (Moslehi & Salehi, 2021). The second strand of research examines specific techniques or critical approaches by taking a more intervention-oriented path. For example, the research findings reveal that self-evaluation techniques improve reflectivity (Roohani & Moosavi Avendi, 2019); moreover, critical reflection has been found to be effective in fostering teachers' professional identity (Abednia, 2012) and changing classroom practices (Ebadi & Gheisari, 2016). Also, research shows that Iranian teachers are open to the stages of critical pedagogy (Atai & Moradi, 2016), and there is a significant correlation between critical thinking tendency and reflective practice (Alinejad et al., 2024). Yet, despite the growing research interest in these correlations, no experimental, comparative research has ever explored the effectiveness of a comprehensive, theory-driven reflective course by drawing on an established framework like Farrell’s (2016). Indeed, the previous research interventions have examined isolated techniques or critical reflection alone and no study has systematically compared the effects of a structured course and its foundational stages (philosophy, principles, theory, and practice) with a course that extends into critical reflection. Thus, the current study is aimed at filling this gap by producing empirical evidence on the relative effectiveness of these two structured interventions in enhancing reflectivity among Iranian in-service EFL teachers. This comparative design necessitates a detailed exposition of Farrell’s five-stage framework in the following section.

The Five Stages of Reflection

Farrell (2016) provides the quintuple stages of philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond practice based on an extensive review of extant empirical investigations. As Farrell notes, the philosophy stage involves the examination of teachers’ personal histories. This stage assists teachers in reflecting on how teacher identities are originated, formed, and developed. The philosophy stage requires that teachers reflect upon their previous teaching and learning experiences from the time they were born, which inform their current decisions with regard to their instructional practices and students' learning. The principles stage involves reflecting on teachers' current assumptions, beliefs, and understandings of teaching and learning. (Farrell, 2016). As Farrell maintains, teachers' assumptions, beliefs, and conceptions form the basis for the underlying principles based on which teachers deliver their instructional practices and interpret classroom events. According to Farrell, reflections at the theory stage involve considering aspects of a teacher’s planning, as well as the various activities and methods they choose (or might want to choose) to implement their theories in practice. Farrell further notes that, another way to access the theory is by examining critical incidents, as they can provide insight into a teacher's process of theory-building. During the practice stage, educators have the opportunity to engage in reflection while delivering a lesson (reflection-in-action), following the completion of a lesson (reflection-on-action), or prior to teaching a lesson (reflection-for-action).

The fifth stage, Beyond Practice (Critical Reflection), involves investigating and analyzing the moral, political, and social issues that influence a teacher's practice both within the classroom and in the broader community (Farrell, 2016). As Farrell (2009, p. 293) notes, "critical reflection calls into question the power relationships that allow, or promote, one set of practices considered to be technically effective." Farrell (2009, p. 293) further maintains that "for reflection to be considered critical it must have as its explicit focus uncovering, and challenging, the power dynamics that frame practice and uncovering and challenging hegemonic assumptions." Thus, critical reflection, in contrast to the initial four stages, emphasizes the broader sociocultural and political milieu of teachers' reflection and expands the scope of examination from teachers' instructional practices and the underlying principles to the issues which can impact teaching from outside the classroom.

As discussed above, Farrell’s (2016) framework makes a distinction between individuals’ intra-personal reflection on their own previous experiences, perceptions, and practice (the initial four stages) and their critical reflection (the fifth stage) on external sociopolitical factors. As a reflective process, these four stages, namely philosophy, principles, theory, and practice, concern the teacher’s personal history and experiences, perceptions and beliefs, pedagogical reasoning, and immediate classroom actions. The empirical studies on these dimensions have sought to examine reflective teaching by focusing on teacher identity and personal narratives (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2013; Barkhuizen, 2010; Farrell, 2011, 2014; Lim, 2011; Liu & Xu, 2011; Mitton-Kűkner & Akyűz, 2012; Shelley et al., 2013; Trent, 2010), perceptions and conceptualizations (e.g., Abednia et al., 2013; Borg, 2011a & 2011b; Farrell, 2009; Lin et al., 2012; Wan et al., 2011), theorizing (e.g., Aliakbari & Nejad, 2013; Dooly & Sadler, 2013; Luo, 2014; Morton & Gray, 2010; Shi & Yang, 2014; Too, 2013; Wu et al., 2014; Zottmann et al., 2012), and hands-on techniques used in the classroom (e.g., Eroz-Tuğa, 2013; He & Prater, 2014; Mak, 2011; Phipps & Borg, 2009; Tinker Sachs & Ho, 2011; Wachob, 2011; Waring, 2013; Yang, 2009). The fifth stage—beyond practice or critical reflection—goes further to address the ethical, sociopolitical, and ideological factors contributing to shaping education. Research in this area (e.g., Abednia, 2012; Ahmadi et al., 2013; Barkhuizen, 2010; Birbirso, 2012; Deng & Yuen, 2011; Farrell, 2011, 2014; Feng-ming Chi, 2010; He & Prater, 2014) deals with challenging hegemonic assumptions and power dynamics. Therefore, the framework basically distinguishes reflection associated with personal and pedagogical development from critical reflection. The latter questions the broader socio-cultural constraints and moral imperatives of teaching from a critical perspective. Such a theoretical distinction between the initial four stages (philosophy, principles, theory, and practice) and the final stage (critical reflection) provided the rationale for exploring the comparative effects of the four stages of philosophy, principles, theory, and practice, on the one hand, and critical reflection, on the other, on Iranian in-service EFL teachers’ self-reported reflective teaching.

There is a consensus that reflecting on one’s beliefs and values during the principles stage entails conducting critical analysis. Yet, Farrell’s (2016) framework characterizes such a type of reflection as a technical or practical critique targeting personal pedagogical coherence. In this study, "without critical orientation" condition refers to a type of reflection that is confined to this internal, pedagogical aspects. On the contrary, the ‘with critical orientation’ condition goes beyond practice stage, shifting the focus outward to examine the sociopolitical, moral, and power-laden contexts that contribute to shaping those beliefs and practices. This operational distinction makes it easier to compare a foundational reflective course to one that extends into critical domains.

Given the aim of this study, the two distinct treatments were compared, instead of comparing a merged model against a control one. The study moves beyond examining the question “if a comprehensive reflective course works”; it identifies and measures the unique, incremental effect of one more component, namely the critical one. This is because a merged model fails to distinguish the contributions of the foundational stages, the critical stage, or their combination to the outcomes. The comparative design directly examines the theoretical hierarchy based on Farrell’s framework, yielding precise evidence of the added value of critical reflection for teacher development.

Purpose of the Study

As the review of the literature and empirical investigations indicates, no study, to date, has explored the influence of the quintuple stages of philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond practice on teachers’ reflective teaching with a focus on critical reflection. Consequently, this research aimed to address the following research questions in order to bridge the gap in the existing empirical literature:

(1)  Does the Reflection-focused Teacher Education Course without critical orientation comprising the stages of philosophy, principles, theory, and practice have any significant effect on in-service EFL teachers’ self-reported reflectivity?

(2)  Does the Reflection-focused Teacher Education Course with critical orientation comprising beyond practice stage have a significant effect on in-service EFL teachers’ self-reported reflectivity?

(3)  Is there any significant difference between the effects of the teacher education courses based on the stages of philosophy, principles, theory, and practice, and those based on critical reflection on in-service EFL teachers’ self-reported reflectivity?

Method

Participants

The participants, selected based on a convenience sampling procedure, included 98 Iranian EFL teachers teaching at three language institutes in Tehran, including both genders with 53 male and 55 female participants. Although convenience sampling from only three institutes in Tehran constrains generalizability, selecting participants from other cities and based on pure random sampling was neither feasible nor practical. The age range of the participants fell between 20 and 45 (M = 33.21, SD = 1.98) and their teaching experience ranged from a few months to 18 years (M = 9.28, SD = 3.45). Among the 98 teachers, 54 held Bachelor of Arts (BA) degrees and 44 had Master of Arts (MA) degrees. They were involved in teaching different language proficiency levels from beginner to advance. Notwithstanding the potential limitation regarding the non-homogeneous proficiency of teachers, it was neither feasible nor consistent with common institutional practice to control for this variable as teachers typically teach multiple levels.

Instrumentation

Reflective teaching questionnaire (RTQ)

The RTQ developed and validated by Akbari et al. (2010) was selected for this study due to its high reliability and validated factor structure, making it a robust measure for assessing teachers’ reflective practices. The questionnaire includes 29 items on a five-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. The minimum and maximum scores on this questionnaire are 29 and 145, respectively. According to Akbari et al. (2010), the instrument had a Cronbach alpha reliability of .91. Moreover, as Akbari et al. (2010) maintained, the questionnaire yielded satisfactory indices using structural equation modeling. As Akbari et al. (2010) contended, this instrument can assess five elements of reflective teaching consisting of the practical, cognitive, affective, meta-cognitive, and critical elements. In the current study, this instrument was used as pretest and posttest before and after the implementation of the Reflective Teacher Education Course (RTEC). Since reliability is sample-dependent (Rouse, 2007), Cronbach’s Alpha was computed on the collected data for the present study and the reliability of this instrument equaled .88, which is considered desirable.

Reflective teacher education course materials

The course materials were developed in line with the five stages of philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond practice (Critical reflection) extracted by Farrell (2016) from previous empirical research. In so doing, initially the previous empirical investigations, associated with each of the quintuple stages mentioned in Farrell (2016), were reviewed extensively. Next, based on the conceptualization of each stage, a series of materials were developed. Following that, each series of materials was discussed in a panel consisting of three experts holding Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degrees in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). Their comments were addressed and the final, modified version of the materials was prepared. As for the course materials associated with each stage, specific discussion guidelines were developed to actively facilitate the teachers' reflection at each specific level. This was done based on Farrell's (2016) framework, which led to the development of structured, sequenced materials.

The philosophy materials (Appendix A) concerned with eliciting experiences and personal history. To this end, guided recall was used; teachers were asked to describe influential former teachers; the teachers were instructed to reflect on the way in which those models consciously or unconsciously had contributed to shaping their pedagogical practices and teaching identity. The principles materials (Appendix B) sought to elicit tacit beliefs through encouraging teachers to compare their past and present teaching procedures (e.g., the steps and procedures they followed to teach reading). This was followed by explicitly identifying, sharing, and critiquing the assumptions and values underlying those practices. As for applied cognition, the theory materials (Appendix C) focused on lesson planning and decision-making, encouraging the teachers to elaborate on the evolving factors they take into account when it comes to designing instruction; moreover, they were asked to reason through how they would tackle unexpected challenges. The practice materials (Appendix D) drew on Schön's concepts by facilitating reflection for, in, and on action, which paves the way for the teachers to verify their pre-lesson expectations, make mid-lesson adjustments, and conduct post-lesson analysis of teaching and learning processes.

The last component, namely the critical reflection materials (Appendix E) aimed to move beyond the classroom, targeting broader influences. These resources directed the teachers to explore the issues of power, privilege, and social justice in their teaching context; the teachers were also provided with the guidelines on how to deal with ethical dilemmas associated with the curriculum and societal norms. They were encouraged to take into account the effects of socio-political and moral issues on learning outcomes. As an iterative process, the development unfolded as follows: the initial drafts were refined by drawing on the theoretical framework. This was done through consulting with three TEFL experts to ensure clarity, pedagogical efficacy, and appropriate cultural relevance consistent with the Iranian EFL context.

Data Collection Procedure

Initially, the materials were developed in line with Farrell (2016) and founded upon the five stages of reflective teaching based on extant empirical investigations. Moreover, appeal was made to expert opinion to assure that the developed materials were in line with Farrell (2016) and previous investigations addressing the five stages of philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and critical reflection. Following that, 98 Iranian EFL teachers teaching at three language institutes in Tehran were selected based on convenience sampling procedures. The teachers were informed that they were to take part in a teacher education course and their participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and they had the option to withdraw from the study at any point during the data collection process. Next, the 98 teachers were randomly divided into three groups consisting of two experimental groups: one receiving treatment for the four stages of reflective teaching (N = 33), one receiving treatment only for critical reflection (N = 32), and a control group (N = 33). Initially, the three groups were asked to fill out the reflective teaching questionnaire as pretest. Then, the experimental groups received treatment for 8 sessions each lasting 1 hour 20 minutes over a period of two and a half months. For the first experimental group, each two sessions were devoted to materials focusing on one of the four stages of philosophy, principles, theory, and practice. The second experimental group was just exposed to critical reflection materials. Table 1 displays the time schedule of treatment and the materials delivered to the participants in the two experimental groups.

Table 1.

Treatment Schedule, Treatment Focus, and Focus of Materials for the Two Experimental Groups

As Table 1 displays, two mutually exclusive interventions were developed to target distinct reflective domains as delineated by Farrell’s (2016) framework. The participants in the first group dealt only with the intra-personal, pedagogy-oriented treatment which involved philosophy, principles, theory, and practice. This unfolded as a reflective sequence that was concerned with teacher identity, personal narratives, beliefs, and classroom justifications (e.g., Farrell, 2011, 2014; Borg, 2011a; Phipps & Borg, 2009). On the contrary, the other group did not undergo such a sequence; that is, all eight sessions focused solely on the “beyond practice” stage of critical reflection, which involved probing the ethical, sociopolitical, and ideological factors shaping education (Farrell, 2016). This critical orientation is associated with a research tradition that questions hegemonic assumptions and power dynamics (e.g., Abednia, 2012; He & Prater, 2014; Deng & Yuen, 2011). As a result, it involves a completely different conceptual and discursive space from the personal-developmental reflection associated with the first group. Given the fact that the two courses possessed no overlapping session foci and dealt with non-overlapping reflective competencies, any differential reflectivity cannot be ascribed to share pedagogical content. Therefore, this design allows for sound comparison as it differentiates the effects emanating from adding a critical dimension to a foundational reflective course. This ensures that the resulting differences between the groups are indicative of the presence or absence of sociopolitically oriented reflection rather than a mixture of both orientations.

The control group followed their regular teaching practice and was not exposed to any of the materials developed for the teachers in the experimental groups. However, the control group solely partook in eight teacher meetings in which the general principles of teaching language skills and components were reviewed. After the treatment, the three groups were given the reflective teaching questionnaire as posttest.

Data Analysis

Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to address the research questions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. As for inferential statistics, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run on the pretest and posttest scores to address the research questions.

Results

To address the research questions, first, the descriptive statistics for the data sets were computed. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the pretest and posttest scores of the three groups.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Skewness and Kurtosis Values for the Pretest and Posttest Scores

As shown in Table 2, the skewness and kurtosis ratios all fell within the range of +/-1.96, which is an indication that the data sets were normally distributed and accordingly, the first assumption of ANCOVA was met (Pallant, 2013). The second assumption of ANCOVA is multicollinearity, which was warranted, since there was only a single covariate (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Regarding the assumption of linearity, the scatterplot of the variables was inspected (see Figure 1.).

Figure 1.

Scatterplot of pretest and posttest reflective teaching scores

As displayed in Figure 1, direct and linear associations exist between the pretest and posttest scores, and thus, the linearity assumption was met. To inspect the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes, the Tests of Between-Subjects Effects were consulted. Table 3 depicts the respective results.

Table 3.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Pretest and Posttest Scores

Referring to Table 3 above, the p-value for Groups * Preall equaled .21 which is higher than 0.05, suggesting that the assumption of the homogeneity of regression slopes was observed. The final assumption of ANCOVA is the homogeneity of variances. Table 4 shows the respective results.

Table 4.

Levene's Test of Equality of Variances

The significance value, as shown in Table 4, turned out to be .12, which is an indication of meeting the assumption of homogeneity of variances. The results of ANCOVA are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Results of ANCOVA

In Table 5, the significance value for the groups equaled .002, which is lower than .005, indicating significant differences among the groups. The calculated partial eta squared value of .86 suggests a substantial effect size (Cohen, 1988). Table 6 illustrates the estimated marginal means.

Table 6.

Estimated Marginal Means

Table 7 displays the pairwise comparisons. Each of the three group comparisons reached statistical significance at the .05 threshold. Teachers who received the critical reflection intervention had markedly higher reflectivity scores than those in both the four‑stage group (mean difference = 28.54, p = .002) and the control group (mean difference = 42.00, p < .001), with the widest disparity appearing between the critical reflection and control conditions. The four‑stage group also obtained significantly higher scores than the control group (mean difference = 13.45, p = .003), which suggests that both forms of reflective teacher education boosted self‑reported reflectivity compared with receiving no treatment, although the critical reflection course clearly yielded the strongest effect.

Table 7.

Pairwise Comparisons among the Groups

Addressing the first research question

As seen in Table 7, the significance value for the four-stage and control groups is .003, which is lower than .005. Moreover, based on the information in Table 7, the estimated marginal means for the four-stage and control groups are 69.17 and 55.72, respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that the teacher education course comprising the stages of philosophy, principles, theory, and practice significantly affected EFL teachers’ reflective teaching.

Addressing the second research question

As displayed in Table 7, the significance value for the critical reflection and control groups is .000, which is lower than .001. Furthermore, the estimated marginal means for the critical reflection and control groups, as depicted in Table 6, are 97.72 and 55.72, respectively. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the teacher education course comprising critical reflection has significantly impacted EFL teachers’ reflective teaching.

Addressing the third research question

As shown in Table 7, the significance value for the critical reflection and four-stage groups is .003, which is lower than .005. Additionally, the estimated marginal means for the critical reflection and four-stage groups, as seen in Table 6, are 97.72 and 69.17, respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the effects of the four-stage and critical reflection teacher education courses on reflective teaching with the critical reflection group outperforming their counterparts in the four-stage group.

Discussion

This study investigated the effects of two teacher education courses comprising the stages of philosophy, principles, theory, and practice, and critical reflection on EFL teachers’ self-reported reflective teaching. Moreover, the study explored any significant difference between the effects of these two teacher education courses on EFL teachers’ self-reported reflective teaching. The results indicated that both teacher education courses significantly impacted Iranian EFL teachers' self-reported reflective teaching. Additionally, the results demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the effects of the four-stage and critical reflection teacher education courses on self-reported reflective teaching with the critical reflection group outperforming the four-stage group.

The results of the current study concerning the significant effect of a teacher education course encompassing philosophy, principles, theory, and practice on reflective teaching substantiate the findings of previous research concerning the contributions of the dimensions of philosophy (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2013; Farrell, 2014), principles (e.g., Abednia et al., 2013; Borg, 2011), theory (e.g., Aliakbari & Nejad, 2013; Dooly & Sadler, 2013), and practice (He & Prater, 2014; Mak, 2011) to reflective teaching. However, the present study moves beyond the correlational analysis using an experimental design. This study, unlike the studies examining the relationship between reflection and variables such as self-efficacy (e.g., Moradkhani et al., 2017), administered an intervention and measured its effect. Indeed, the study drew on Farrell's (2016) stages, yielding causal evidence that stands as testament to the positive effects of structured engagement with philosophy and principles on self-reported reflectivity.

The philosophy stage of reflective teaching highlights the role of the “teacher as a person” (Farrell, 2016, p. 3). This stage posits that a teacher’s instructional practice is influenced by their personal philosophy. Reflecting on philosophy can possibly impact teachers' reflective teaching. The Principles stage, underscoring reflection on practice, constituting reflection on assumptions, beliefs, and conceptions in relation to teaching and learning (Farrell, 2016), can also have exerted influences on teachers' reflective teaching. The theory stage, foregrounding the examination of various choices a teacher adopts about teaching different language skills and components and the active involvement of teachers in constructing their theories of practice (Farrell, 2016), may also have contributed to the improvement of their reflective teaching. The practice stage, constituting reflection on teachers' observable teaching behaviors and learners' reactions during the lessons (Farrell, 2016), may also explain the significant effect of the four-stage teacher education course on teachers' reflective teaching. Overall, the intervention based on the four stages has enabled EFL teachers to reflect on their teaching practices by providing them with a theoretical framework for reflection. The four stages have helped teachers understand the underlying principles of reflective teaching and how it can be applied in their daily practice. The intervention has also provided teachers with a structured approach to reflection, which has helped them to identify areas for improvement and develop strategies for enhancing their teaching practices.

The results of the present study regarding the significant impact of a teacher education course focusing on critical reflection on reflective teaching corroborate the findings of previous studies (e.g., Abednia, 2012; Ahmadi et al., 2013; Barkhuizen, 2010; Deng & Yuen, 2011; Farrell, 2011; 2014; Feng-ming Chi, 2010; He & Prater, 2014) concerning the contributions of critical reflection to reflective teaching. This finding mirrors the qualitative evidence that critical reflection contributes to reconstructing professional identity (Abednia, 2012) and refining classroom practice (Ebadi & Gheisari, 2016).

However, it runs counter to the studies focusing merely on technical reflection, demonstrating the added value of the "beyond practice" stage for transformative development. The potential of the critical stage of reflection on the exploration and examination of moral, political, and social issues influencing teachers' instructional practice inside and outside the class (Farrell, 2016) can provide justification for the significant impact of the critical reflection teacher education course on teachers' reflective teaching. Moreover, Johnson's (2009) emphasis on the informed reconstruction and transformation of sociocultural resources which can be drawn upon by teachers to respond to learners' needs can be another reason for the positive effect of the critical reflection teacher education course on teachers' reflective teaching. Overall, critical reflection has enabled EFL teachers to question the status quo of the social, political, and moral assumptions and beliefs about teaching and learning, leading to a deeper understanding of their instruction. Through critical reflection, teachers have been able to challenge their existing practices and possibly gain more insights into issues influencing their beliefs and practices.

Thus, critical reflection may have helped teachers to develop a more nuanced understanding of their instructional practices and beliefs. As a caveat, it should be noted that the findings of this study on critical reflection need to be contextualized. Although this study revealed the Iranian teachers’ receptiveness to critical pedagogy (Atai & Moradi, 2016), the application of this kind of pedagogy could be challenging within conservative educational contexts. Moreover, the extent to which critical pedagogy is effective may be influenced by individual differences, such as variability in critical thinking dispositions (Alinejad et al., 2024). Therefore, it may not be plausible to generalize the findings to all the L2 education contexts.

The findings of the recent research concerning the superior performance of the participants receiving critical reflection compared to their counterparts in the four-stage group possibly lie in the holistic nature of critical reflection. Critical reflection, encompassing reflection on the moral, social, and political dimensions of teachers' instructional practice and students' learning outcomes via a sociocultural perspective (Farrell, 2016; Johnson, 2009) captures almost all aspects of reflective language teaching practice from a meta-perspective vantage point. Additionally, critical reflection entails reflecting not only on the sociocultural and sociopolitical issues influencing teachers' instructional practices and students' learning outcome inside the class but also incorporates reflection on such issues pertaining to outside the classroom (Farrell, 2016). Such a comprehensive framework for reflection can influence teachers' reflective teaching more in comparison with the four-stage teacher education course. 

Another possible explanation for the more significant effect of critical reflection as compared with the four-stage intervention is that critical reflection encourages EFL teachers to engage in a more profound level of reflection. Critical reflection prompts teachers to question their assumptions and beliefs about teaching and learning, leading to a deeper understanding of their beliefs and practices. In contrast, the intervention based on the four stages provides teachers with a theoretical framework for reflection but may not encourage them to engage in critical reflection. Another justification could be that critical reflection, being more holistic in nature, is a more flexible approach to reflection, which can be adapted to different teaching contexts and situations. The intervention based on the four stages may be more rigid and prescriptive, limiting its effectiveness in diverse teaching contexts.

As a result, one cannot consider critical reflection as a universally superior approach. Indeed, the extent to which such an approach is successful hinges on teachers' previous experience with reflective practice (Roohani & Moosavi Avendi, 2019). Also, the teachers’ capacity to reflect on the sociopolitical dimensions of their practice (Abednia, 2012) may have influenced the outcomes. This study did not control for these factors, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Demonstrating the important value of structured reflection, this study underscores its contextual dependence. Indeed, critical reflection cannot be deemed a panacea. Prospective research should take into account teachers' previous reflective experiences and the institutional constraints related to the Iranian EFL context. The findings of such studies would paint a more comprehensive picture of the effects of these interventions.

Conclusion and Implications

The results of this study offer implications for educational policymakers, teacher educators, teachers, and EFL learners. Based on the results, educational policy-makers should pay more attention to issuing educational policies encompassing the four stages of philosophy, principles, theory, and practice to promote EFL teachers' reflective teaching. More importantly, they should pay more attention to the critical dimension of reflection than the other four stages. The results of this study provide empirical ground for teacher educators to design teacher education and intervention programs aiming to foster EFL teachers' reflective teaching with a special focus on critical reflection. EFL teachers, drawing on the findings of this study, would be able to develop greater awareness in terms of the contributions of the four stages to developing their reflective teaching with more focus on critical reflection. EFL learners, as the main stakeholders of the profession, would receive more informed instructional practices from their reflective teachers, which can positively influence their learning outcomes.

The results of this study showed that the four stages of reflective teaching can positively impact EFL teachers' reflective teaching. Moreover, critical reflection was found to be more effective than the four-stage teacher education course. However, such results cannot be taken to be conclusive and further research is required to shed light on the effects of different stages of reflection on teachers' reflective teaching. Moreover, the findings of this study should be interpreted in the light of several limitations. First and foremost, the actual teaching behaviors may not be captured due to the self-reported data collected in this study. The results may have been mediated by the specific Iranian EFL context and the participant demographics; variables such as teachers' previous reflective activities or their critical thinking experiences (Alinejad et al., 2024) were not taken into account, which may have influenced the generalizability of the outcomes. Moreover, convenience sampling was used to select the participants from only three language institutes in Tehran. Additionally, qualitative measures such as interviews were not employed to examine participants’ perceptions. Accordingly, stimulated recall interviews could be employed to provide a more comprehensive picture of teachers' reflection in action in relation to the five stages of reflection. Additionally, since contextual variations have been found to influence teachers' reflective teaching (Moradkhani & Shirazizadeh, 2017), researchers are encouraged to carry out comparative investigations exploring the effects of different dimensions of reflection on EFL teachers in public schools and private language institutes. Furthermore, since the results of previous studies have revealed associations between reflective teaching and teachers' self-efficacy (Moradkhani et al., 2017) and autonomy (Moslehi & Salehi, 2021), such variables could be investigated as moderating variables for the impacts of different stages of reflection on teachers' reflective teaching.