Next Article in Journal
Innovative Framework for Assessing the Impact of Agile Manufacturing in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
Next Article in Special Issue
Using Digital Learning Platforms for Teaching Arabic Literacy: A Post-Pandemic Mobile Learning Scenario in Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Analysis for the Landscape Visual Aesthetic Quality of Urban Residential Districts Based on 3D City Modeling
Previous Article in Special Issue
Parental Involvement in Distance K-12 Learning and the Effect of Technostress: Sustaining Post-Pandemic Distance Education in Saudi Arabia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 18
10.3390/su141811504
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Multilingualism and Professional Development Activities on Teacher Reflection Levels

by
Asma Almusharraf
1,
Norah Almusharraf
2,* and
Daniel Bailey
3
1
College of Languages and Translation, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh 13317, Saudi Arabia
2
Applied Linguistics, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of English Language and Literature, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11504; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811504
Submission received: 15 August 2022 / Revised: 9 September 2022 / Accepted: 12 September 2022 / Published: 14 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Post-pandemic Digital Educational Scenarios)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Reflection occurs as a learning process in which thoughts are consequential and continuously improved upon. The current research examined teacher reflection by examining the influence of multilingualism and professional development activities on teacher reflection levels. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS employing 226 male and 207 female EFL instructors teaching in Saudi Arabia. Variables were grouped into languages spoken and professional development activities. Inferential statistics (i.e., descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, and one-way ANOVA) were utilized. The findings revealed that reflective practices varied significantly due to the languages spoken. The mean of the total English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI) for participants who performed the professional development activity is higher than for those who did not. Further, participants who collaborated with colleagues were mentored, self-studied, and took courses illustrated a significantly higher total score on the ELTRI. When designing professional development curricula, a greater focus on particular reflection training should be more appropriate depending on completed professional benchmarks. These implications and the future direction of this study highlight the dynamic influence of multilingualism in reflective practices. Henceforward, the study suggests the imperative need to provide teachers with professional development programs for training them and elevate their awareness of the effectiveness of reflective teaching practices.

1. Introduction

Higher education practices that incorporate reflection and reflective practices represent an influential role in developing life-long learning and dynamic citizenry [1]. Dewey and Zugsmith [2] originated the concept of reflection in the 1930s as a pivotal role in learning and continued to develop into several practices, such as Bloom’s taxonomy [3], Schön’s [4] reflective practice, and Biggs’s [5] notion of teaching for quality learning. According to Farrell and Jacobs, reflection generally means “conscious thinking about what we are doing and why we are doing it” [6], p. 2. Rodgers envisaged reflection as a “vehicle used in the transformation of raw experience into the meaning-filled theory that is grounded in experience, informed by existing theory and serves the larger purpose of the moral growth of the individual and society” [7], p. 863. While not referencing any specific learning theory, Rodgers [7] advocates how reflective inquiry supports the creation and refining of learning and teaching theories through a recursive process of critically analyzing successful and unsuccessful class activity. In line with Dewey’s original thoughts, Rodgers viewed reflection as a meaningful experience that values individuals and the community’s personal and academic growth.
Reflective practice is observed when instructors monitor, assess, and provide critical attention to their teaching views and practices to arrive at counteractive approaches [8]. Furthermore, Farrell [8] indicated that reflective practice could reveal underlying beliefs that can be compared to classroom practices. However, some researchers debate that critical reflection (i.e., critique of opinions, beliefs, and values) demands reflection at a deeper level [9], as a low level of reflection may not lead to any changes [10]. According to Afshar and Farahani [11], instructors who do not question their teaching philosophy and the values and assumptions behind their teaching practices are not involved in reflective teaching. Furthermore, instructors who do not reflect on their teaching practices “will be likely to teach as they were taught and, thus, ineffective teaching strategies will be replicated” [12], p. 61.
Prior research appears consistent with the idea that a systematic review of practice is valued and relatively associated with the context, audience, and procedure [13,14]. Earlier reported studies have driven further improvement in reflective teaching and encouraged practitioners and researchers to seek effective methods for teacher professional development [6]. Professional development is associated with individual and social representations of narrative interpretations of experiences, expectations, ethics, and personal characteristics related to the professional context [15]. Professional development’s demand to maintain a high-quality practice of reflection is broadly recognized as an implicit obligation of professionals nowadays, bolstered by specific qualifications of professional measures and procedures [16].
Furthermore, a considerable body of literature emphasizes the significance of including multilingual teachers’ practices of reflection in their professional contexts to support one another’s development of critical thinking skills [17,18,19,20]. The reflections of multilingual teachers are mediated by experiences that promote in-depth thoughtful analysis of practices and beliefs [19]. Prior studies have shown that multilingual teachers are better EFL teachers than monolinguals considering their background gain of linguistic and cultural experiences [21,22,23]. Kleyn et al. argued that the leading “monoglossic language ideologies” [24], (p. 93) appear to hinder bilingual and multilingual communities’ elevation and limit students’ understanding of our globalizing world.
Reflection is an essential characteristic of successful language teachers [25] and, hence, worth attention and investigation. More importantly, Moayeri and Rahimiy [26] pointed out that it is particularly important to examine instructors’ reflections in EFL contexts where students are rarely exposed to the target language outside of the classroom. Therefore, in this study, multilingualism and professional development activities (i.e., attending a workshop, being mentored, collaborating with colleagues, self-study, and taking courses) were examined as accomplishments and, consequently, predictors of reflective thinking and practices. There has been less previous evidence for postsecondary instructors’ multilingualism on teacher reflection levels.
Thus, this research aimed to better envision teacher reflection by exploring the influence of multilingualism and professional development activities on teacher reflection levels. A specific goal of the study was to answer the following questions:
  • To what extent, if any, is there a relationship between multilingualism and EFL instructors’ reflection?
  • To what extent, if any, is there a relationship between attending professional development activities (i.e., attending a workshop, being mentored, collaborating with colleagues, self-study, and taking courses) and EFL instructors’ reflection?

2. The Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Framework

The backgrounds of reflective practice differ according to the viewpoint and field. However, researchers [27,28] have linked the initiation of reflection to Dewey [29], which led Schön [4] to develop a reflective practitioner philosophy that includes reflection-in-action (reflecting while teaching) and reflection-on-action (reflecting after the act). Afterward, Mezirow’s critical reflection [9] has been constructed to add to reflective practice’s practicalities. Brookfield [30,31] prescribed a critically reflective perspective of adult learning and highlighted three unified processes: (1) the instructor questioning, modifying, and reframing a learning–teaching hypothesis, (2) the instructor taking alternative standpoints of the hypothesis to reassess and plan actions for reasoning and beliefs, and (3) the instructor realizing aspects of cultural, social, and academic values and reflecting this realization in future work.
The present study is based on Kolb’s [32] experiential learning theory that learning occurs when thoughts are perpetually improved by experience. In his work, Kolb connected the structuring and restructuring of philosophies to active experimentation within classrooms (e.g., new abilities, skills, or attitudes) that demands continuous reflection [32]. Kolb’s learning cycle model encompasses experience, reflection, conceptualization, and application to achieve experiential learning [32]. This process is similar to Schön’s reflection-in-action, which can lead to a variety of practical realizations of the potential learning value of a more “stream of consciousness” [4] (p. 278) form of reflection. Furthermore, it is possible to gain new insights and perceptions by reflecting on the moment. For example, reflecting on different opinions can lead teachers to reexamine and strengthen longstanding teaching practices, resulting in the development of both instructors and students.

2.2. Multilingualism

Cook [21] argued that second language (L2) speakers’ knowledge, cognitive processes, and multiple competencies diverge from monolingual natives; as such, they should be considered to be given full authority in the classroom to utilize translanguaging to simplify the lesson delivery (i.e., use spoken languages within the communication system, [33]). Further, Cook [21] suggested that multilingual instructors should be allowed to integrate goals based on L2 learners inside and outside the classroom (i.e., modifying teaching activities and looking at L2 learners’ descriptions that accumulate to their cultural backgrounds). However, Ellis [34] argued that all teachers’ plurilingual multiple competencies are varied and complex, and Cook’s notion of L2 learners’ competency is rather complicated and does not apply to all. According to Ellis [35], p. 90, there is no public data that indicates whether ESL teachers are monolingual, bilingual, or multilingual, and no research exists to show whether bilingual and multilingual teachers are more effective in teaching English. Further, Chen et al. [36] argued that multilingualism in higher education is displayed as a multilayered and multidimensional structure that might vary from one practitioner to another.
Dewaele and Wei [37] linked multilingualism to creativity, open-mindedness and divergent thinking, and high levels of cognitive empathy. Flores claimed that “undeniably, bilingual teachers play a vital role in the cognitive development of their students” [38] (p. 275). However, Ellis’s research concluded that the main difference between multilingual and monolingual instructors appears to be in “richness of understanding of language and language learning” [35], p. 101; for example, multilingual teachers use their knowledge of other languages “at the level of phonology, lexis, grammar, syntax, discourse, and pragmatics” to describe how English works at these levels as well as how students are challenged by it [35], p. 101. Cummins claimed that the extended growth of academic knowledge in multilinguals is correlated with improved “metalinguistic, academic and cognitive functioning” [22], p. 182. In Ellis’ study, some of the multilinguals grew up bilingual and bicultural, as well as codeswitching as a common practice [35] (p. 102), and they reflect on their teaching and learning experiences as a fundamental aspect of knowledge and experience from which they envision their practice. Furthermore, language, particularly multilingualism, should be developed by paying attention to both the linguistic and sociopolitical aspects [39]. This is imperative because many EFL learners come from backgrounds that might encounter discrimination and immigration issues.

2.3. Professional Development and Reflection

There has been a great interest in EFL instructors’ professional development to reinforce a more efficient and successful teaching–learning process [40,41,42]. Professional development activities can be formal and informal [40,43,44]. The formal approach involves specific institutional support, requiring teachers to attend educational programs such as workshops and courses that follow a curriculum on a particular topic. This type usually addresses the needs of the institution rather than the instructor [40,43]. As opposed to formal professional development, informal professional development involves a more personalized approach, such as mentoring, collaboration with others, and self-study, which is initiated and directed by the instructor, addressing his or her particular needs and interests. Therefore, formal professional development can be described as top-down, while informal development can be described as bottom-up [8,40]. Richards [45] added a third approach where an interactive collaboration between the institution and instructor needs is met. In order to ensure high-quality reflection, it is advised to balance both institutions’ goals and instructors’ needs when implementing professional development activities. Further, Sancar and Deryakulu [46] emphasized the importance of cooperation between all educational-related parties (i.e., stakeholders, organizations, institutions, and instructors) to avoid wasting time, labor, and money.
According to Borup and Evmenova [47], effective professional development activities can enhance instructors’ language proficiency, content knowledge, teaching skills, and more importantly, reflective competence. Reflection for professional development has been discussed by many researchers in the literature [16,48,49,50,51]. Teacher professional development is suggested as an opportunity to build a collective and sustaining understanding of one’s identity in a social context to make sense of “both mundane reality and stressful teaching-related events through the co-construction of social support” [51], p. 105. Dewey [52] explained why reflective thoughts in teaching are fundamental when he said,
It emancipates us from merely impulsive and merely routine activity…enables us to direct our activities with foresight and to plan according to ends-in-view, or purposes of which we are aware…to act in a deliberate and intentional fashion…to know what we are about when we act. It converts action that is merely appetitive, blind, and impulsive into intelligent action [52], p. 17.
Various reflections on professional development are available in the literature. For instance, Swanson et al.’s [53] ongoing dialogic reflection and co-teaching, Ab Rashid’s [51] dialogic reflection through conversations on social media social networks, Bailey and Willet’s [54] idea of collaborative conversations among language teachers, Elbaz’s [55] suggestion of writing as inquiry and storytelling of the teaching self in writing workshops, Harlin (2017) [56] and McCullagh’s [57] recommendations of teachers viewing videos of their teaching, and Tour’s [58] teachers’ self-initiated professional learning through personal learning networks. The instructors can use reflective teaching to recognize weaknesses in their employed teaching methods or implemented designs and guide effective instructional strategies to solve issues relative to teaching and learning development [59,60,61]. Further, reflection allows instructors to think of positive teaching emotions that they value and negative ones they would like to avoid [62].
Reflection might be undertaken at different levels, and not all reflection is carried out at the deepest or critical level [9]. For instance, a superficial level of reflection may apply to specific learning outcomes that require the learner to designate, describe, or recall. In contrast, a more in-depth and critical reflection can be associated with context and goal orientation and enhance learning outcomes [63]. Class management and pedagogical skills are positively affected by increased reflection [64].
Experience does not predictably indicate knowledge and understanding of one’s teaching practice without continuous reflection, and might only indicate routine teaching [62,65]. Additionally, instructors must stay up-to-date on new developments in their fields of expertise to improve their teaching and promote student success. Instructors need to be involved in the continuous development of their professional growth by attending professional development workshops, courses, and conferences [66]. They can also participate in online forums to share their teaching experiences and reflective thoughts and build teacher networks [67]. Collaboration between instructors is essential; even when one instructor is mentoring another, both mentor and mentee should benefit from the relationship [68]. New learning cannot be transferred to the classroom without involving conversations, discussions, and dialogues that promote reflection [8,62].
While instructors perceive reflection as an aid to better inform their practice, issues such as time restrictions, work accountabilities, and uncertainty of the results emerging from the reflective practice may explain why many do not reflect (Abednia et al., 2013) [69]. For example, Dyment and O’Connell [70] found that although some instructors were requested to keep journals during the beginning of their teaching, they rarely reexamined or checked through previously written explanations. Further, several instructor participants within Dyment and O’Connell’s study [70] articulated that they felt they were no longer required to reflect in the ways they were trained to; instead, reflection still happened through deliberating with other colleagues, formal and informal assessments from students, thinking about their instruction, and bending lesson plans to meet the student’s needs as well as doing experimental and action research studies.

3. Method

The current research is part of a larger project [71], which examined postsecondary instructors’ reflective teaching practices pertaining to gender differences and teaching experience. However, this study looked at teacher reflection by examining the influence of multilingualism and professional development activities on teacher reflection levels utilizing a quantitative design using descriptive statistics, an independent sample t-test, and one-way ANOVA. In this study, convenience sampling of 226 male and 207 female EFL instructors working in Saudi Arabia ranging from 25 to 60, with an average age of 41 (SD = 6.3), was used as part of the study. A minimum of one or more English classes at the university level were required for these instructors to be selected. Participants were from different nationalities, including American, British, Canadian, Egyptian, Indian, Jordanian, and Saudi. The participants were grouped into monolingual (116), bilingual (292), and multilingual (25). Regarding the professional development activities, 203 participants attended reflection-related workshops, 209 were mentored, 323 collaborated with others, 381 were involved in self-study, and 366 took professional development courses.

3.1. Instruments

The first section of the questionnaire collected demographic variables, including age, gender, teaching experience, spoken languages, education level, and professional development activities. The questionnaire’s central portion consists of an adapted version of Akbari et al.’s [72] English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI). This questionnaire contains five subscales with a total of 35 items, assessing participants’ reflective practices. The first subscale is the practical reflection, which includes teachers’ consultations with their peers regarding teaching concerns, observing other teachers’ classes, being observed by other teachers, and writing reflective diaries about their teaching activities. The second subscale measures cognitive reflection, including teachers attending professional seminars, conducting action research, and learning about pedagogical theory. The third subscale focuses on learner reflection, in which teachers try to understand learners’ backgrounds and identify their expectations regarding various teaching methods. The fourth subscale is metacognitive reflection comprised of teachers’ attitudes toward the philosophy of teaching, critical evaluation of their teaching, and perceptions of their own previous teachers’ teaching methods. The final subscale is critical reflection, which focuses on teachers’ knowledge of social and political issues that affect teaching development and classroom management. There are five subscales in this questionnaire that range from (1) “never” to (5) “always.” The Cronbach alpha for these subscales ranged between 0.75 and 0.89.
Surveys were created and distributed using LimeSurvey© online platform. Survey participants were initially informed that completing the survey implied their agreement to contribute to this research, subject to applicable conditions (i.e., being EFL instructors with at least one year of institutional teaching experience). Participants were also informed that all personal information would be deidentified and kept confidential. The university’s Institutional Review Board approved this study (PSU IRB-2020-04-0037).

3.2. Data Analysis

IBM SPSS 28.0 was used to analyze the data. Languages spoken and professional development activities were grouped as variables. Inferential statistics (i.e., descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, and one-way ANOVA) were used. Mahalanobis and Cook’s distances were calculated for each reflection level, and 19 outliers were removed. In order to determine whether the assumptions were correct, normality and collinearity tests were conducted. Tolerance levels were above 0.85, and all VIF values were between 1.1 and 1.2, far below the upper threshold of 10.

4. Results

A summary of the findings and contributions is presented in this section. To answer the first research question: To what extent, if any, is there a relationship between multilingualism and EFL instructors’ reflection? First, a descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to determine the number of languages instructors spoke and the level of reflection in the ELTRI. As shown in Table 1, multilingual participants scored higher than monolinguals and bilinguals on the total ELTRI score. Multilinguals also scored higher in all the ELTRI subscales; practical, cognitive, learner, metacognitive and critical. The highest two mean scores are metacognitive (M = 4.10) and cognitive (M = 3.88).
Next, one-way ANOVA was used to examine the relationship between participants’ spoken languages and the ELTRI. Results indicated a statistically significant difference in the total score of the ELTRI among monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual speakers as demonstrated by one-way ANOVA, F(2430) = 15.56, p < 0.001. A Tukey post hoc test showed that multilingual speakers (M = 3.69, SD = 0.43) scored higher than either monolingual (M = 3.12, SD = 0.48) or bilingual speakers (M = 3.24, SD = 0.46).
There was a statistically significant difference in the ELTRI practical factor among monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual speakers as demonstrated by one-way ANOVA, F(2430) = 13.83, p < 0.001. A Tukey post hoc test showed that monolingual speakers (M = 2.73, SD = 0.72) scored lower than either bilingual (M = 3.04, SD = 0.61) or multilingual speakers (M = 3.32, SD = 0.70).
There was a statistically significant difference in the ELTRI cognitive factor among monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual speakers as demonstrated by one-way ANOVA, F(2430) = 15.19, p < 0.001. A Tukey post hoc test showed that multilingual speakers (M = 3.88, SD = 0.75) scored higher than either monolingual (M = 3.05, SD = 0.76) or bilingual speakers (M = 3.22, SD = 0.65).
There was a statistically significant difference in the ELTRI metacognitive factor among monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual speakers as demonstrated by one-way ANOVA, F(2,430) = 13.62, p < 0.001. A Tukey post hoc test showed that multilingual speakers (M = 4.10, SD = 0.54) scored higher than either monolingual (M = 3.36, SD = 0.66) or bilingual speakers (M = 3.46, SD = 0.65).
The second research question addressed the relationship between attending professional development activities (i.e., attending a workshop, being mentored, collaborating with colleagues, self-study, and taking courses) and EFL instructors’ reflections. For this, a descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to show the mean and standard deviation of the professional development activities by instructors and the level of reflection in the ELTRI. As shown in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6, the mean of the total ELTRL for participants who performed the professional development activity is higher than those who did not.
Next, results from an independent sample t-test showed that participants who collaborated with colleagues (M = 3.61, SD = 0.44) demonstrated a significantly higher total score on the ELTRI, t(431) = −10.577, p < 0.001 than those who did not collaborate with colleagues (M = 3.10, SD = 0.42). Likewise, participants who were mentored (M = 3.32, SD = 0.49) demonstrated a significantly higher total score on the ELTRI, t(431) = 3.765, p = 0.009 than those who were not mentored (M = 3.19, SD = 0.47). Additionally, participants who self-studied (M = 3.64, SD = 0.61) demonstrated a significantly higher total score on the ELTRI, t(431) = −5.278, p < 0.001 than those who did self-study (M = 3.17, SD = 0.43). Lastly, participants who took courses (M = 3.60, SD = 0.50) demonstrated a significantly higher total score on the ELTRI, t(431) = −6.701, p < 0.001 than those who did not take courses (M = 3.16, SD = 0.45). However, participants who attended a workshop (M = 3.35, SD = 0.70) demonstrated a significantly higher score only on the practical factor of the ELTRI, t(431) = −4.513, p < 0.001 than those who did not attend a workshop (M = 3.05, SD = 0.68).

5. Discussion

In this study, the following results were observed: (a) reflective practices varied significantly depending on the language spoken, (b) participants who participated in the professional development activity scored higher than those who did not, and (c) participants who collaborated with colleagues, were mentored, self-studied, and took courses scored significantly higher on the ELTRI.

5.1. Multilingualism and Reflective

Ellis [35] recognized that L2 knowledge influences teacher practice, and now we better understand how reflection beliefs are associated with multilingualism. Results of this study indicate a statistically significant difference in the total score of the ELTRI among monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual speakers showing that multilingual speakers (M = 3.69, SD = 0.43) scored higher than either monolingual (M = 3.12, SD = 0.48) or bilingual speakers (M = 3.24, SD = 0.46). Results also show that the highest two mean scores among the ELTRI subscales are metacognitive (M = 4.10) and cognitive (M = 3.88). This indicates that multilinguals performed better than bilinguals and monolinguals in thinking about their strengths and weaknesses as an instructor, searching for and using new teaching techniques, and carrying out small-scale research activities. These results answer Ellis’s [35] call for more research connecting multilingualism to effective teaching behavior. Furthermore, this result is broadly in line with Cummins [22], who argued that the developed amount of academic knowledge in multilinguals is associated with heightened levels of empathy and improved linguistic and cultural understandings (e.g., acculturation, cross-cultural code-switching).
Similarly, as noted by Dewaele and Wei [37], multilingual speakers view the world from a broader perspective and more enriched experience. Therefore, it is claimed that multilingual teachers have implicit beliefs about their students’ learning processes, approaches, and perspectives [38]. For multilingual instructors, minds are, by default, reflecting on their own teaching and learning practice [35]. This result ties well with Palmer’s study [19] that advocated for implementing multilingual programs to enhance teachers to be leaders for social change within their language classrooms.
The teachers who spoke a second or foreign language reported having a better perspective of reflective teaching, contributing to extant literature [20,73]. Research by Palviainen et al. [20] also emphasizes the significance of raising awareness of using (i.e., code-switching) minority languages (i.e., Arabic and Swedish) to scaffold majority language and to encourage positive attitudes. Practicing accountable code-switching within the EFL classroom (i.e., teachers assess and reflect the extent and the excellence of practice) appears to be a fundamental factor of reflective practice. As Palviainen et al. argue, the switching between the L1 and L2 is associated with the “power of personal ideologies, in terms of both changing one’s own practices and challenging prevailing ideologies as represented by society or by superiors” [20], p. 628. Thus, reevaluating external factors and conditions affecting the reflective practices of multilingual teachers is critical. Perhaps, in comparison to monolinguals, multilingual teachers can empathize with students’ challenges while developing multilingual proficiency because of the multilingual teacher’s plurilingual standards, multilingual consciousness, and linguistic lenience.

5.2. Professional Development Activities and Reflection

Descriptive statistics showed that reflection increased with all professional development activities (i.e., attending a workshop, being mentored, collaborating with colleagues, self-study, and taking courses). An independent sample t-test showed that participants who collaborated with colleagues (M = 3.61, SD = 0.44), were mentored (M = 3.32, SD = 0.49), self-studied (M = 3.64, SD = 0.61), and took courses (M = 3.60, SD = 0.50) demonstrated a significantly higher total score on the ELTRI than those who did not. These results show that professional development is critical for improving the reflection outcome. This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g., [8,27,40,43,48,49,50,51,58]), indicating a relationship between professional development activities and reflection. It seems that instructors who display a character to reflect are the most likely to be involved in professional development activities.
The results have shown that participants who attended a workshop (M = 3.35, SD = 0.70) demonstrated a significantly higher score only on the practical factor of the ELTRI, t(431) = −4.513, p < 0.001 than those who did not participate in a workshop (M = 3.05, SD = 0.68). This indicates that participants who attended workshops outperformed those who did not in writing about their teaching experience (i.e., accomplishments/failures), talking about class experiences with colleagues to seek their advice/feedback, observing other teachers, and asking peers to observe their classes. However, there were no significant differences between those who attended workshops and those who did not participate in the other factors of ELTRI (i.e., cognitive, learner, metacognitive, and critical). There was no difference between participants in aspects such as; thinking about using/introducing new teaching techniques, learning about students’ learning styles and preferences, thinking about their teaching philosophy, and thinking about social aspects that can influence their teaching. It is worth noting that some workshops or short courses present new information that might not meet the instructors’ needs. Therefore, some researchers indicated that workshops led by outside experts that benefit some administration needs are a waste of time [8,67]. These results align with research indicating that instructors should be involved in a long-term process of systematic professional growth opportunities that allow them to think, evaluate, and reflect on their teaching practice [8,50].

5.3. Pedagogical Implication

Results from this study would have a lasting influence on approaches to designing professional development curricula. For instance, a greater focus on particular reflection training may be more appropriate depending on completed professional benchmarks. The implications and the future direction of this study highlight the dynamic influence of multilingualism and professional development activities on reflective practices. Henceforward, the research suggests the imperative need to elevate the teacher’s awareness of the effectiveness of reflective teaching practices.
The spoken languages benefit instructors and allow them to grow professionally [19]. Developing foreign language talents is also a valuable resource for advancing national interests. Chen et al. [36] argue that national and institutional contexts value language as a resource to reflect and enrich. Multilingualism combined with professional development activities is essential for cognitive reflection; that is, thinking about applying education theory to class activities. In this initial stage of expanding multilingual higher education in the EFL context, the multiple viewpoints on multilingual education validate the complexity of multilingualism’s conceptual structure, which has immediate implications for policymakers in the EFL context and elsewhere [36].
Despite overwhelming evidence that multilingualism benefits instruction, second language skills are often overlooked as criteria for language teaching positions. The way multilinguals learn may influence how they reflect and, consequently, behave in the classroom. Further, according to Akbari [25], the emphasis on reflective practices and teachers’ practical gain may result in teachers being isolated from language teaching discussion communities. The implication of these findings is associated with their belief in supporting their professional experiences as a valuable gateway to the teaching profession.
Becoming involved in professional development activities contributes to improved levels of instructor reflection. Specifically, mentoring, collaborating with colleagues, self-study, and taking courses demonstrated higher reflection levels. ELTRI participants who attended workshops scored significantly higher on the practical factor. It is unrealistic to assume that instructors will benefit from the professional development activity in the same way. Variations occur, and each participant develops differently. Still, interestingly, all participants who were involved in a professional development activity were more reflective than those who did not participate in that activity. This implies that professional development activities provide solid opportunities for instructors to become more reflective practitioners. Instructors should not be limited to one or two types but should be involved in many meaningful professional development opportunities that encourage constant reflection on teaching practices.
Instructors should take advantage of online professional development activities. To design effective online instruction, online technologies have opened up more opportunities for distance collaboration [74] and professional development [75]. Further modeling of practical online teaching approaches has been ascertained to support preservice teachers to develop knowledge about what is attainable and efficacious in online courses [47].
Collaboration between the institution and the instructor is crucial for effective professional development [45,46]. The current study emphasizes the need to provide evidence to reinforce collaborative reflection opportunities within the institution to sustain professional development [76]. Furthermore, the international experience of visiting scholars could also be implemented to enforce teaching development and allow reflective opportunities for university faculty [77], as well as innovation and entrepreneurship education [78].
Moments of the reflective process should be perceived as a continuous need to accommodate new ideas and information. As Richardson [79] argues, teacher perceptions may be influenced by experience; however, that experience is constructive only with time for reflection. Thus, prospective instructors are encouraged to generate their understanding, engage in various occasions that challenge their prior beliefs, and provide structured debriefing and reflection opportunities, explicitly focusing on critical and practical reflection. This is essential because educators must stand as ongoing allies to ensure the sustained development of knowledge and constructive views leading to professional growth.

6. Conclusions

This research aimed to identify patterns in reflection behavior among multilingual instructors and involvement in professional development activities. This study’s findings are considered a promising aspect of reflective practices and variance in languages spoken and participation in professional development activities. Moreover, the research results show that multilinguals scored significantly higher on the ELTRI than bilinguals and monolinguals. The results also show that reflection increased with all professional development activities (i.e., attending a workshop, being mentored, collaborating with colleagues, self-study, and taking courses). Participants who collaborated with colleagues, who were mentored, who self-studied, and who took courses demonstrated a significantly higher total score on the ELTRI than those who did not. These findings remind instructors, practitioners, and policymakers within the context of teaching and learning that success is more than some numerical measure of efficiency.
Further validation is needed to understand that multilingual instructors possess an exclusive epistemological attitude and performance concerning learning. A field experience, as an example, in the EFL contexts would help underpin features within EFL instructors’ reflective practices and promote a new perspective or frame of reference through critical reflection. The observational visits (to observe the instructor practices within their classrooms) can reinforce certain teaching practices and aid in authentic application. Further research could also yield a more nuanced consideration of the associations between multilingualism and instructors’ involvement in professional development activities in broader contexts. This is critical to eliminate reflection scales that do not benefit the student or teacher, prioritize reflection scales, and identify which are most beneficial for reflective practices.
The findings of this research support the notion that teachers’ own language learning experience is a valuable resource and an influential contributor to their origins of language, language practice, and language learning. In other words, the more multilingual the teacher, the more affluent the language resources. However, this study does not claim that multilinguals are better instructors than monolinguals. Future research could continue this line of inquiry by collecting a larger sample size of teachers’ cognitive and behavioral data to increase statistical power.
Further work is undoubtedly in demand to disentangle the complexities of the extent of reflection and the quality associated with standard measurements. To get a detailed understanding of the entanglement of reflective teaching, cognitive data should be collected during the occurrence (e.g., using think-aloud) or after the occurrence (e.g., using reflective interviews). Behavioral data (e.g., speaking skills, gestures) are critical to be collected in additional qualitative data because cognition mediates the relationship between effect and behavior [80]. Future work should also promote benchmarking qualities and characteristics to provide interpersonal skills, networking opportunities, and linkages with instructors in local and international contexts. Within the teaching and reflective paradigm, it must be noted that some qualities in teaching (e.g., building student-teacher rapport) are superior to others (e.g., classroom organization). Thus, some reflection needs to prioritize students’ psychological needs before examining the teaching context. Further, some restrictions related to teachers’ reflective practices, such as time, resources, and salary, might influence the teachers’ ability to reflect.

Author Contributions

A.A.: report and narratives, N.A.: data collection and analysis, D.B.: theoretical framework. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The researchers thank Prince Sultan University for funding this research project under grant [Education Research Lab]- [ERL-CHS-2022/2]. In addition, this paper was supported by Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) and Konkuk University in 2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Prince Sultan University-approval number (PSU IRB-2020-04-0037), for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bharuthram, S. Reflecting on the process of teaching reflection in higher education. Reflective Pract. 2018, 19, 806–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dewey, K.W.; Zugsmith, R. An Experimental Study of Tissue Reactions about Porcelain Roots1. J. Dent. Res. 1933, 13, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bloom, B.S.; Engelhart, M.D.; Furst, E.J.; Hill, W.H.; Krathwohl, D.R. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain; David McKay: New York, NY, USA, 1956. [Google Scholar]
  4. Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner; Basic Books, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  5. Biggs, J. What the Student Does: Teaching for enhanced learning. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 1999, 18, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Farrell, T.S.C.; Jacobs, G.M. Practicing What We Preach: Teacher Reflection Groups on Cooperative Learning. Electron. J. Engl. Second. Lang. 2016, 19, 4. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092795.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2022).
  7. Rodgers, C. Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking. Teach. Coll. Rec. Voice Sch. Educ. 2002, 104, 842–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Farrell, T.S. Reflective Practice in ELT; Equinox: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mezirow, J. On Critical Reflection. Adult Educ. Q. 1998, 48, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kember, D.; McKay, J.; Sinclair, K.; Wong, F.K.Y. A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2008, 33, 369–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Afshar, H.S.; Farahani, M. Inhibitors to EFL teachers’ reflective teaching and EFL learners’ reflective thinking and the role of teaching experience and academic degree in reflection perception. Reflective Pract. 2017, 19, 46–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Braun, J.A.; Crumpler, T.P. The social memoir: An analysis of developing reflective ability in a preservice methods course. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2004, 20, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hickson, H. Critical reflection: Reflecting on learning to be reflective. Reflective Pract. 2011, 12, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Higgins, D. Why reflect? Recognising the link between learning and reflection. Reflective Pract. 2011, 12, 583–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tracey, M.W.; Hutchinson, A. Reflection and professional identity development in design education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2016, 28, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Friedman, A.; Phillips, M. Continuing professional development: Developing a vision. J. Educ. Work 2004, 17, 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Freeman, R. Building on Community Bilingualism; Caslon: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  18. Palmer, D. The Discourse of Transition: Teachers’ Language Ideologies within Transitional Bilingual Education Programs. Int. Multiling Res. J. 2011, 5, 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Palmer, D.K. Supporting Bilingual Teachers to Be Leaders for Social Change: “I must create advocates for biliteracy”. Int. Multiling Res. J. 2018, 12, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Palviainen, Å.; Protassova, E.; Mård-Miettinen, K.; Schwartz, M. Two languages in the air: A cross-cultural comparison of preschool teachers’ reflections on their flexible bilingual practices. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2016, 19, 614–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cook, V. Going beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOL Q. 1999, 33, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cummins, J. Research news and Comment: Alternative Paradigms in Bilingual Education Research: Does Theory Have a Place? Educ. Res. 1999, 28, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. García, O. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kleyn, T.; López, D.; Makar, C. What About Bilingualism? A Critical Reflection on the edTPA with Teachers of Emergent Bilinguals. Biling. Res. J. 2015, 38, 88–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Akbari, R. Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System 2007, 35, 192–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moayeri, M.; Rahimiy, R. The Significance of Promoting Teacher Reflection: A Review Article. Lat. Am. J. Content Lang. Integr. Learn. 2019, 12, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fook, J. Beyond Reflective Practice: Reworking the ‘Critical’ In Critical Reflection; Bradbury, H., Frost, N., Kilminster, S., Zukas, M., Eds.; Beyond Reflective Practice Approaches to Professional Lifelong Learning; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2010; pp. 37–51. [Google Scholar]
  28. Johns, C. Balancing the winds. Reflective Pract. 2005, 6, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dewey, J. Democracy and Education; Createspace Independent Publishing Platform: North Charleston, SC, USA, 1916. [Google Scholar]
  30. Brookfield, S. Tales from the dark side: A phenomenography of adult critical reflection. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 1994, 13, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brookfield, S. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; FT Press: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  33. Clarkson, P. Reflecting on translanguaging by a monolingual: Is that paradoxical? Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2019, 15, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ellis, E.M. “I May Be a Native Speaker but I’m Not Monolingual”: Reimagining All Teachers’ Linguistic Identities in TESOL. TESOL Q. 2016, 50, 597–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ellis, E. The Invisible Multilingual Teacher: The Contribution of Language Background to Australian ESL Teachers’ Professional Knowledge and Beliefs. Int. J. Multiling 2004, 1, 90–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, X.; Dervin, F.; Tao, J.; Zhao, K. Towards a multilayered and multidimensional analysis of multilingual education: Ideologies of multilingualism and language planning in Chinese higher education. Curr. Issues Lang. Plan. 2019, 21, 320–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dewaele, J.-M.; Wei, L. Multilingualism, empathy and multicompetence. Int. J. Multiling 2012, 9, 352–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Flores, B.B. Bilingual Education Teachers’ Beliefs and Their Relation to Self-Reported Practices. Biling. Res. J. 2001, 25, 275–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tönsing, K.M.; Soto, G. Multilingualism and augmentative and alternative communication: Examining language ideology and resulting practices. Augment. Altern. Commun. 2020, 36, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cirocki, A.; Farrell, T.S. Professional development of secondary school EFL teachers: Voices from Indonesia. System 2019, 85, 102111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shin, J.K.; Kim, W. Perceived impact of short-term professional development for foreign language teachers of adults: A case study. Foreign Lang. Ann. 2021, 54, 365–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wynants, S.; Dennis, J. Professional Development in an Online Context: Opportunities and Challenges from the Voices of College Faculty. J. Educ. Online 2018, 15, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wilden, E.; Porsch, R. (Eds.) The Professional Development of Primary EFL Teachers: National and International Research; Waxmann Verlag: Münster, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Villegas-Reimers, E. Teacher Professional Development: An International Review of the Literature; International Institute for Educational Planning: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  45. Richards, J.C. Key Issues In Language Teaching; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sancar, R.; Atal, D.; Deryakulu, D. A new framework for teachers’ professional development. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 101, 103305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Borup, J.; Evmenova, A.S. The effectiveness of professional development in overcoming obstacles to effective online instruction in a College of Education. Online Learn. 2019, 23, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Day, C.; Kington, A.; Stobart, G.; Sammons, P. The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2006, 32, 601–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Farrell, T. Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups: From Practices to Principles, 1st ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gheith, E.; Aljaberi, N. University of Petra Reflective Teaching Practices in Teachers and Their Attitudes Toward Professional Self-development. Int. J. Progress. Educ. 2018, 14, 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ab Rashid, R. Dialogic reflection for professional development through conversations on a social networking site. Reflective Pract. 2017, 19, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bugg, E.G.; Dewey, J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Am. J. Psychol. 1934, 46, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Swanson, L.; Kang, E.J.S.; Bauler, C. Revealing a bilingual science teacher’s dynamic views and practice about science and language teaching through dialogic reflections. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2019, 15, 523–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bailey, F.; Willet, J. Collaborative groups in teacher education. In Collaborative Conversations among Language Teacher Educators; Hawkins, M., Irujo, S., Eds.; TESOL: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2004; pp. 15–32. [Google Scholar]
  55. Elbaz, F. Writing as inquiry: Storying the teaching self in writing workshops. Curric. Inq. 2002, 32, 403–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Harlin, E.-M. Folk High School Teachers’ Professional Development—Supported by watching videos of their own teaching. Nord. Stud. Educ. 2017, 37, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mccullagh, J.F. How can video supported reflection enhance teachers’ professional development? Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2012, 7, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tour, E. Teachers’ self-initiated professional learning through Personal Learning Networks. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2016, 26, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Finlay, L. Reflecting on Reflective Practice; Practice-Based Professional Learning Centre; The Open University: Milton Keynes, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  60. Saito, E.; Khong, T.D.H. Not just for special occasions: Supporting the professional learning of teachers through critical reflection with audio-visual information. Reflective Pract. 2017, 18, 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zeichner, K.M.; Liston, D.P. Reflective Teaching: An Introduction; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  62. Farrell, T.S.C. Reflective Practice in Language Teaching; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  63. Sableski, M.-K.; Kinnucan-Welsch, K.; Rosemary, C. Facilitating Teacher Reflection Using a Metacognitive Tool. Available online: https://www.mwera.org/MWER/volumes/v31/issue3/V31n3-Sableski-FEATURE-ARTICLE.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2022).
  64. Dewaele, J.-M.; Gkonou, C.; Mercer, S. Do ESL/EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence, teaching experience, proficiency and gender affect their classroom practice? In Emotions in Second Language Teaching; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 125–141. [Google Scholar]
  65. Aalto, E.; Tarnanen, M.; Heikkinen, H.L. Constructing a pedagogical practice across disciplines in pre-service teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 85, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rimmer, W.; Floyd, A. The Contribution of Conferences to Teachers’ Professionalism. Available online: http://www.tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej93/a3.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2022).
  67. Farrell, T.S.C. Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice; Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ellis, N.J.; Alonzo, D.; Nguyen, H.T.M. Elements of a quality pre-service teacher mentor: A literature review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2020, 92, 103072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Abednia, A.; Hovassapian, A.; Teimournezhad, S.; Ghanbari, N. Reflective journal writing: Exploring in-service EFL teachers’ perceptions. System 2013, 41, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dyment, J.E.; O’Connell, T.S. When the Ink Runs Dry: Implications for Theory and Practice When Educators Stop Keeping Reflective Journals. Innov. High. Educ. 2014, 39, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Almusharraf, N.; Almusharraf, A. Postsecondary Instructors’ Reflective Teaching Practices Pertaining to Gender Differences and Teaching Experience. J. Ethn. Cult. Stud. 2021, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Akbari, R.; Behzadpoor, F.; Dadvand, B. Development of English language teaching reflection inventory. System 2010, 38, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. García, O. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  74. Lay, C.D.; Allman, B.; Cutri, R.M.; Kimmons, R. Examining a Decade of Research in Online Teacher Professional Development. Front. Educ. 2020, 5, 573129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dille, K.B.; Røkenes, F.M. Teachers’ professional development in formal online communities: A scoping review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 105, 103431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lotter, C.R.; Thompson, S.; Dickenson, T.S.; Smiley, W.F.; Blue, G.; Rea, M. The impact of a practice-teaching professional development model on teachers’ inquiry instruction and inquiry efficacy beliefs. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2018, 16, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhao, X.; Liu, X. Sustaining Faculty Development through Visiting Scholar Programmes: A Transformative Learning Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, W.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, M.; Li, Y. Exploring Maker Innovation: A Transdisciplinary Engineering Design Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 14, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Richardson, V. Significant and Worthwhile Change in Teaching Practice. Educ. Res. 1990, 19, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kim, L.E.; Klassen, R.M. Teachers’ cognitive processing of complex school-based scenarios: Differences across experience levels. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 73, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Number of languages spoken.
Table 1. Number of languages spoken.
ELTRI SubscaleMonolingualBilingualMultilingual
nMSDnMSDnMSD
Practical1162.730.712923.040.61253.320.70
Cognitive1163.050.762923.220.65253.880.75
Learner1163.160.762923.250.77253.530.63
Metacognitive1163.360.662923.460.65254.100.54
Critical1163.260.692923.190.79253.500.62
Total1163.120.482923.240.46253.690.43
Table
Table 2. Attending a workshop.
Table 2. Attending a workshop.
ELTRI SubscaleNoYes
nMSDnMSD
Practical2032.970.632302.970.69
Cognitive2033.050.682303.350.70
Learner2033.380.652303.110.84
Metacognitive2033.450.572303.490.75
Critical2033.210.752303.230.76
Total2033.210.362303.250.57
Table
Table 3. Being mentored.
Table 3. Being mentored.
ELTRI SubscaleNoYes
nMSDnMSD
Practical2902.950.701433.010.57
Cognitive2903.130.621433.390.83
Learner2903.160.781433.410.71
Metacognitive2903.370.671433.660.62
Critical2903.270.711433.140.84
Total2903.190.471433.320.49
Table
Table 4. Collaborating with colleagues.
Table 4. Collaborating with colleagues.
ELTRI SubscaleNoYes
nMSDnMSD
Practical3232.790.561103.500.67
Cognitive3233.150.711103.390.67
Learner3233.110.761103.630.66
Metacognitive3233.350.641103.830.62
Critical3233.080.721103.670.69
Total3233.100.421103.610.44
Table
Table 5. Self-study.
Table 5. Self-study.
ELTRI SubscaleNoYes
nMSDnMSD
Practical3812.920.64523.330.71
Cognitive3813.160.67523.640.81
Learner3813.200.76523.540.76
Metacognitive3813.390.58524.020.88
Critical3813.180.73523.550.87
Total3813.180.43523.640.61
Table
Table 6. Taking courses.
Table 6. Taking courses.
ELTRI SubscaleNoYes
nMSDnMSD
Practical3662.910.62673.340.76
Cognitive3663.160.68673.510.78
Learner3663.160.78673.660.56
Metacognitive3663.400.65673.860.69
Critical3663.160.76673.620.63
Total3663.160.45673.600.50
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Almusharraf, A.; Almusharraf, N.; Bailey, D. The Influence of Multilingualism and Professional Development Activities on Teacher Reflection Levels. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811504

AMA Style

Almusharraf A, Almusharraf N, Bailey D. The Influence of Multilingualism and Professional Development Activities on Teacher Reflection Levels. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18):11504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811504

Chicago/Turabian Style

Almusharraf, Asma, Norah Almusharraf, and Daniel Bailey. 2022. "The Influence of Multilingualism and Professional Development Activities on Teacher Reflection Levels" Sustainability 14, no. 18: 11504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811504

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop