Supporting Teacher Reflective Practice Through Instructional Supervision: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

This qualitative descriptive study examined how school leaders in Arkansas and Tennessee, as part of their teacher supervision responsibilities, encourage and support teachers’ reflection as a key component of professional growth. Drawing on supervision and reflection literature, the research focused on what leaders do to move away from simply checking evaluation criteria boxes and instead work alongside teachers to drive meaningful improvement. Data were collected from interviews with 16 school leaders across both states and analyzed for common patterns. The findings revealed three key themes: (1) purposeful questioning and reflective dialogue help develop teacher agency; (2) leadership strategies such as building trust and modeling vulnerability foster reflective practice; and (3) challenges include time constraints, veteran teacher resistance to change, and lack of trust in the evaluator’s feedback. The findings indicate that leaders view reflection as essential to shifting supervision from monitoring to partnership. Effectiveness, however, depends on intentionally creating non-evaluative contexts and embedding reflection in school routines. This study offers practical insights for reframing supervision as a collective, growth-oriented process within instructional leadership.

1. Introduction

Instructional leadership is foundational to teacher supervision and to fostering professional growth through teacher reflection. As leaders shift from compliance-driven, policy-mandated evaluations toward collaborative dialogue between leaders and teachers, the focus moves from meeting requirements to supporting professional learning through teacher reflection for instructional improvement (Oliveras-Ortiz, 2017). Instructional leaders in many states support both teacher accountability and teacher growth and include formative feedback alongside accountability measures. Leaders navigate this overlap by fostering a collaborative atmosphere, making evaluations a learning process rather than solely judgmental (Derrington, 2016; Mette et al., 2017). Furthermore, by embedding opportunities for reflective learning, teacher growth is prioritized over leader judgement.

Dewey (1933) and Schön (1983) demonstrated that reflection helps educators analyze actions, question assumptions, and adjust practice. Reflection is both an individual and a collective process, embedded in supervision, coaching, and professional dialogue (Glickman et al., 2018; Gordon, 2021; Zepeda, 2017). Furthermore, scholars argue that authentic reflection deepens teacher self-awareness, strengthens decision-making and fosters lasting change (Brookfield, 2017; Marzano, 2012). When supervision includes structured reflection, it fosters a partnership built on trust, inquiry, and shared responsibility for learning (Gordon, 2021; Nolan & Hoover, 2011).

However, when teachers experience reflective practices tied to a principal-directed process, it might result in disengagement or even resistance rather than meaningful professional learning (Cutrer-Parraga & Miller, 2022). In contrast, reflection is valued when it is teacher-driven and focused on promoting professional improvement, rather than prescribed administratively (Mette et al., 2015).

This study examined how instructional leaders in Arkansas and Tennessee promote teacher reflection, focusing on their strategies and the obstacles they encounter in their daily efforts to achieve this goal. Specifically, we responded to the research needed to identify strategies that facilitate and support reflective practices leading to understanding of the concept and its potential connections to professional growth (Miller, 2023). By situating reflection within instructional leadership, the study shows how leaders foster reflective practices that support professional growth. Understanding these processes helps reframe teacher supervision as a collaborative, empowering process.

1.1. Purpose and Research Questions

This qualitative study examined how Arkansas and Tennessee instructional leaders promote and sustain teacher reflection within their supervision practices. It explored how leaders facilitate reflective dialogue, model reflection, and create conditions that encourage teachers to think critically about instruction. The study also investigated challenges leaders face in promoting reflection and how these shape reflective practices in schools.

The study was guided by the following research questions:

• How do instructional leaders in Tennessee and Arkansas describe their role in promoting reflection among teachers?
• What strategies do instructional leaders use to foster teacher reflection within their schools?
• What challenges do instructional leaders face when encouraging teachers to engage in reflection, and how do they address these barriers?

By exploring these questions, this study aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on instructional supervision through examining how leadership practice supports teacher reflection. In doing so, the findings offer insight into how reflection can be intentionally embedded in supervision to move beyond compliance toward meaningful professional growth. The study is situated within an integrated conceptual framework of instructional leadership and teacher supervision, providing a foundation for the analysis of the findings.

1.2. Instructional Leadership

Hallinger (2005) provides a key conceptualization of instructional leadership for K–12 contexts. The dimension ‘Managing the Instructional Program’ includes supervising and evaluating instruction. School leaders must deeply engage in stimulating, supervising, and monitoring teaching and learning.

A meta-analysis of 27 quantitative, primarily correlational studies, examined the relationship between school leadership and student outcomes, adding to this understanding (Robinson et al., 2008). Key results of the studies indicate that leader actions that promote participation in teacher development are important when leaders participate as both leaders and learners. Furthermore, teacher learning can occur through professional development or discussions of teaching concerns.

Under the broader framework of instructional leadership, supervision and evaluation are not isolated leader responsibilities but are essential to shaping instructional improvement and professional learning. When leaders embed reflective dialogue within supervisory processes, they shift the focus from compliance to capacity building, reinforcing supervision as a developmental rather than punitive endeavor.

Existing research highlights the importance of reflective dialogue, structured feedback, and supportive conditions. However, less is known about how instructional leaders enact these practices in their daily supervisory work and how they manage the challenges associated with fostering teacher reflection. This study builds on the research by examining how instructional leaders promote and sustain teacher reflection within the context of supervision. Although reflection on classroom instruction occurs within both professional development and evaluation, this study uses instructional supervision as the more encompassing term.

1.3. Teacher Supervision

Teacher supervision is a collaborative model to improve teaching and learning (Glickman et al., 2018; Gordon, 2021; Zepeda, 2017). Effective supervision blends observation, coaching, and reflection to foster teacher autonomy and instructional quality (Nolan & Hoover, 2011). This approach shifts supervision from monitoring to dialogue (Mette et al., 2015). Supervisors become partners with teachers, promoting inquiry, trust, and ongoing improvement.

Reflection is a core part of effective, collaborative supervision. It fosters dialogue and deepens teachers’ understanding of their decisions (Gordon, 2021; Zepeda, 2017). When supervision includes structured reflection, it changes from evaluative oversight to a partnership for shared learning and growth (Glickman et al., 2018).

In a clinical supervision model, reflective feedback during post-analysis focuses on observation data. The supervisor guides teacher reflection and decision-making. The post-observation conference may involve future lesson discussions, teacher concerns, observation data, and improvement plans. Adding to our understanding, Gordon (2026) emphasizes the role of reflective feedback, asserting that modeling reflective feedback will improve teachers’ practices.

Reflection, in this view, transforms supervision and evaluation from a procedural requirement into a professional learning experience grounded in dialogue, inquiry, and shared responsibility for teacher growth. Understanding the concept of reflection, therefore, is essential to reframing supervision as a developmental process rather than a compliance-driven exercise.

1.4. Reflection Overview

Reflection is central to personal and professional growth and has a rich history in education. It involves examining experiences, thoughts, and feelings to gain insights and guide future actions. The roots of reflection trace back to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who emphasized questioning assumptions and deep understanding. The formal role of reflection in education expanded during the 19th and 20th centuries. Dewey promoted experiential learning and problem-solving, which included reflection. He believed students should reflect on their experiences to build knowledge. As teaching became a profession, reflection became part of teacher training. Early teacher educators emphasized self-awareness and critical thinking for effective teaching. Today, reflection’s recognized benefits include enhanced self-awareness and critical thinking that support sound decision-making, improved problem-solving, a deeper understanding of students and learning processes, and the fostering of professional growth and development (Schön, 1983; Machost & Stains, 2023).

Reflective practices are used across educational contexts, from early childhood through higher education, to strengthen teaching, support student development, and inform educational policy and practice (Brookfield, 2017; Machost & Stains, 2023). Reflective practices, Machost and Stains (2023) elaborate, are the educator’s conscious and ongoing effort to assess how their ideologies and experiences shape their teaching. By understanding the impact of their actions, educators can better support students and improve teaching.

1.5. History of Reflection in Education

Since the 1980s, the work of John Dewey and Donald Schön on reflection has been an integral part of teacher and school leader training. This popularity can be attributed to a shift in the field aimed at changing society’s image of educators as professionals (Korthagen & Wubbels, 1991) Dewey (1933) differentiated between thinking and reflection, characterizing thinking as the uncontrolled flow of ideas, feelings, thoughts, and impulses into the mind, while reflection is an active cognitive process that involves contemplating the meaning of previously held rules, beliefs, and experiences and how they impact current practices (Mulryan-Kyne, 2021). Critical reflection is closely tied to the development of practical wisdom (Johnson, 2020; Rowe, 2014).

Schön (1983, 1987) built on Dewey’s ideas of context and time (Mulryan-Kyne, 2021) by introducing the concepts of reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action. Schön distinguished between reflection-on-action, where one reflects on an experience after being removed from it, and reflection-in-action, which involves evaluating a situation or problem, considering alternative solutions, and taking action in the current time and place. In other words, reflection-in-action occurs during the teaching process, where the teacher assesses the situation and takes action, drawing on previous experiences. In comparison, reflection-on-action describes the teacher reflecting on the experience, considering alternatives, contemplating the impact of previously held ideas and experiences on their decisions, and planning for the best solutions or actions for the future.

1.6. Reflection Frameworks in Education

Many frameworks have been developed in recent decades, building on the work of John Dewey and Donald Schön. All reflective models aim to promote reflection by providing structure and mechanisms for reflection in professional contexts. Ward and McCotter (2004) asserted that all reflection frameworks share three common elements: situated reflection, a cyclic nature, and consideration of multiple perspectives in context. These frameworks are similar and related to one another. In this section, we briefly describe these frameworks and note some areas of overlap.

Van Manen (1977) introduced a hierarchy of reflection consisting of three levels: technical, practical, and critical. Technical reflection focuses on describing and setting immediate goals. Practical reflection examines the assumptions behind one’s actions. Critical reflection contemplates the social, political, and ethical issues that surround or influence one’s actions. Hatton and Smith (1995) built their reflection model on Van Manen’s model, adding another level. Their model includes four levels and primarily focuses on students writing reflective journals. It consists of descriptive writing, descriptive reflective writing, dialogical reflection, and critical reflection. Descriptive writing does not involve reflection but rather provides a pure description of events or literature. Descriptive reflective writing describes an event while considering factors that may justify or explain it. Dialogical reflective writing is similar to Schön’s reflection-on-action, in which the individual reflects on events and considers alternative actions and ways to improve future actions.

Bain et al. (1999) present a model with five levels of reflection and four foci. The five levels are: reporting, responding, relating, reasoning, and reconstructing. The four foci include activity, self, professional demands, and context (Mulryan-Kyne, 2021). The first level, reporting, is similar to Hatton and Smith’s descriptive level, in which the individual only describes or reports an event. At the second level, responding, the individual evaluates the information and makes a judgment about a situation. At the third level, relating, the individual identifies how he or she relates to the experience and offers a superficial explanation of his or her actions. At the fourth level, reasoning, the individual pauses to consider the depth of the situation and the factors that influence his or her actions, taking into account the experiences or ideologies that underlie them. At the fifth level, reconstructing, the individual contemplates the implications of his or her actions and formulates new plans or actions for their learning, highlighting the impact of previous experiences on their ability to learn and change or modify their practices. The last two levels correspond to Van Manen’s critical level of reflection.

Another popular reflection framework often introduced in pre-service teachers’ training is Kolb’s experiential learning model. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model emphasizes students’ reflection on concrete past examples to form conclusions and develop solutions for future experiences. It is similar to Schön’s reflection-on-action. Kolb asserted that learning from experience occurs in a cyclical manner. Gibbs (1988) built on Kolb’s experiential learning model, also highlighting the cyclical nature of reflection.

Across these frameworks, reflection is consistently presented as a structured and cyclical process that moves from simple description to deeper analysis while considering multiple perspectives within context. Although the models vary in design, they share an emphasis on reflection as an ongoing process in which individuals examine experiences, make sense of their actions, and use that understanding to inform future practice.

1.7. Relationship Between Critical Reflection and Effective Teaching

Marzano (2012) argued that reflective practice is a critical component of developing expertise. As teachers work toward becoming experts, they must begin with a foundational understanding of what constitutes good teaching. Models and frameworks for effective instructional strategies provide a basis for reflection by standardizing language and facilitating conversations about teaching and learning (Brookfield, 2017; Frontier & Mielke, 2016; Marzano, 2012). These conversations, an essential element of reflective practice, can take many forms. Feedback from school leaders, colleagues, and even students can contribute, but true growth occurs when teachers actively reflect on it (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983).

Schön (1983) added another layer to reflective practice by emphasizing that a model of effectiveness alone is insufficient to enhance teacher performance. Educators must also be researchers, staying current with new theories to continually improve their instruction (Brookfield, 2017; Schön, 1983). By comparing their current practices with emerging theories, teachers can set more accurate and effective growth goals—an aspect of reflection highlighted by Marzano (2012). Personalized growth goals based on metacognitive efforts help teachers “clarify the gap between current and ideal performance” (Frontier & Mielke, 2016, p. 138). Data plays a crucial role in this process, guiding teachers through inquiry and experimentation (Schön, 1983). This inquiry often involves observing others’ teaching and reviewing one’s own through video recordings, which are positively linked to performance improvement (Gibbons & Farley, 2019; Marzano, 2012).

1.8. The Crucial Role of School Leaders

When implemented with fidelity, the critical elements of reflective teaching practices improve student learning (Aydogmus & Kurnaz, 2022; Shaheen et al., 2022). The work begins with establishing schools that emphasize a culture of reflectivity, as Hattie (2012) explains:

School leaders and teachers need to create schools, staffrooms, and classrooms where errors are welcomed as learning opportunities, where incorrect knowledge and understanding are discarded, and where teachers feel safe to learn, relearn, and explore knowledge and understanding.

(p. 22)

Schools that create conditions for critical reflection will realize the practice’s intended benefits. Fullan (2023) further explains that school leaders need to “make the learning culture of schools and districts the main event” (p. 77). He argues that this culture is present when the identified critical elements of reflection are prominently practiced throughout the building.

Offering teachers the time they need and establishing structures to support reflection are essential practices for school leaders (Jaeger, 2013; Marzano, 2012). Incorporating reflection into teacher professional development offerings is an important step in that process, and it can take the form of case studies, coaching, and video recordings (Jaeger, 2013; Marzano, 2012). Principals have also identified the need to cultivate the following attitudes to promote reflection among their teaching staff: open-mindedness, responsibility, and transparency (Singleton, 2012). It is also important that school leaders anticipate potential barriers to teacher reflectivity, including a lack of experience with the practice, ego-driven resistance, and structural and contextual limitations, such as inadequate time within the school day (Jaeger, 2013; Singleton, 2012).

1.9. Teacher Supervision and Evaluation

Contemporary scholarship increasingly positions teacher supervision not as a compliance-oriented evaluation mechanism but as a central structure for fostering reflective professional learning (Gordon, 2021; Glickman et al., 2018; Zepeda, 2017). Supervision, as described by scholars, is most effective when it situates teachers in cycles of observation, feedback, and dialogue that promote critical reflection on classroom practice. Consequently, reflection is not an individual cognitive act alone but is mediated through supervisory interactions, particularly within post-observation and feedback conferences (Glickman et al., 2018; Mette et al., 2015).

Miller (2023) provides empirical evidence that supervisory behaviors significantly influence the extent and depth of teacher reflection. When administrators engage in dialogic, inquiry-oriented supervision, teachers are more likely to critically examine their instructional decisions. Conversely, when supervision is directive or evaluative in tone, reflective engagement is diminished.

Central to these supervisory cycles is the post-observation conference, widely recognized as the feedback process where reflection is cultivated. Tang (2007) describes an analysis of feedback communication in teaching practice supervision, demonstrating that the nature of supervisory discourse directly impacts teacher learning. When feedback is framed as a collaborative exploration of practice, teachers are more likely to engage in reflective thinking. In contrast, judgmental or evaluative feedback limits teachers’ willingness to critically examine their instruction. Similarly, Balyer (2020) examined instructional feedback provided by school leaders on classroom observations and found that effective feedback prompts teachers to reflect on their practice in ways that lead to instructional improvement. However, the study also notes that when feedback is brief, generic, or compliance-driven, opportunities for reflection are significantly reduced. Oliveras-Ortiz (2017) found that teachers lack trust in principal feedback and highlighted the need for leader development in instructional supervision. Asregid (2023) investigated feedback practices in microteaching supervision and reported that dialogic, open-ended feedback is most effective in facilitating reflective practice.

An interpretation of studies indicates that feedback that invites teachers to consider their instructional decisions fosters deeper levels of reflection and trust than feedback that simply identifies strengths and weaknesses. Reflective dialogue about instructional practice supports teacher learning, as Anthony et al. (2023) elaborated. Teachers, when invited to reflect, will self-identify areas where feedback would be beneficial, as opposed to the typical process of feedback that is not collaborative and is typically provided by the observer uninvited.

Evaluation of teachers is a component of leadership supervisory responsibilities. Notable supervision scholars suggest that supervision and evaluation should not be the responsibility of the same person (Hazi, 2022; Mette et al., 2015, 2017). Hazi and Mette argue that teacher evaluation and instructional supervision are fundamentally distinct practices: evaluation is an accountability tool with rubrics and checklists, and, in contrast, supervision is a process of instructional improvement focused on collaborative professional development activities. On the other hand, scholars recognize that school leaders are responsible for both teacher professional growth and accountability, with teacher evaluation serving as a component of supervision that requires principals to simultaneously serve as evaluator and instructional supervisor (Derrington & Campbell, 2015).

Overall, the literature suggests that when supervision is designed to engage teachers in critical reflection on their classroom practice, it can transform evaluation from a procedural accountability requirement into a meaningful professional learning experience.

2. Methods

Although reflection is well established as central to professional learning, as summarized in the literature review, the ways in which school leaders actively promote and sustain it within supervision remain underexplored. This study therefore examined how instructional leaders support teacher reflection, including the strategies they use and the challenges they encounter.

We employed a qualitative descriptive design with an inductive thematic analysis to examine how instructional leaders in Arkansas and Tennessee promote and sustain teacher reflection within their supervisory practices. We explored how leaders facilitate reflective dialogue, model reflection, and create conditions that encourage teachers to think critically about instruction. In the study, we also investigated challenges leaders face in promoting reflection and how these shape reflective practices in schools. The study design was appropriate for collecting instructional leaders’ perspectives on promoting and sustaining teacher reflection as a way to utilize participants’ language and experiences to generate relevant connections to practice (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

The interview questions were developed from the literature on reflection and supervision and aligned with the research questions. They were designed to examine the strategies instructional leaders use to promote reflective practices, as well as the barriers they encounter and how those barriers are addressed.

The interview questions were created and aligned with the research questions to answer them. Furthermore, the interview questions were informed by the literature on instructional supervision and teacher reflection. Questions were organized around three categories: (a) leaders’ roles in promoting reflection, (b) strategies used to foster reflective practice, and (c) challenges and barriers encountered.

The questions were reviewed by a sample of instructional leaders similar to the participants and utilized a face validity protocol. Minor changes were made for clarity following the pilot question review. As described by Edmonson and Irby (2008), this protocol involved presenting the questions to colleagues for critique to ensure clarity and alignment with the study. This study utilized a qualitative descriptive design to provide a rich, straightforward account of instructional leaders’ perspectives (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Interview questions were developed directly from the research questions and informed by the literature, rather than anchored in a single theoretical framework. This approach ensured alignment between the study’s purpose and data collection while allowing participants’ experiences to guide the inquiry (Saldaña, 2021). The interview questions are in Appendix A.

2.1. Participant Criteria

A criterion-based purposeful sampling strategy was used to identify participants who could provide relevant and information-rich perspectives. Participants were required to (a) hold a formal instructional leadership role (e.g., principal, assistant principal, instructional coach), (b) be responsible for supervising or evaluating teachers, and (c) have experience engaging teachers in reflective practices.

Recruitment began with EdD students at the University of Tennessee and Arkansas State University and expanded through snowball sampling, whereby participants recommended additional instructional leaders who met the study criteria.

Participants were recruited by email, starting with students in the K-12 Schools Leadership EdD programs at the University of Tennessee and Arkansas State University. A total of 16 participants were interviewed in 2025 (10 from the University of Tennessee and 6 from Arkansas State University). They held a variety of leadership positions in schools, all of which involved supervising and evaluating teachers and providing professional development as part of the supervisory process. The participants’ grade levels and positions are presented in

Table 1. Demographic Data of Participating Teacher Leaders.

Participant	Role	School Level	Gender	Years in Leadership	State
1	Principal	Elementary	Female	17	TN
2	Teacher Mentor	Middle	Female	9	TN
3	Principal	Middle	Female	9	TN
4	Principal	Middle	Male	2	TN
5	Assistant Principal	Elementary	Female	2	TN
6	Principal	Elementary	Male	5	TN
7	Center Director	Teacher Preparation	Female	4	TN
8	Associate Head of School	PreK—12th Grade	Female	5	TN
9	Assistant Director	Early Childhood	Female	4	TN
10	Principal	High School	Male	19	TN
11	Assistant Superintendent	Central Office	Male	21	AR
12	Alternative school Director	K-12	Female	3	AR
13	Principal	7-12	Male	15	AR
14	Principal	Elementary	Female	9	AR
15	Literacy Coach	Elementary	Female	4	AR
16	Assistant Principal	K-12	Male	7	AR

.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom and lasted approximately 30–40 min. With participant consent, interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim for analysis. Field notes were taken immediately after interviews to capture initial impressions, contextual details, and emerging analytic insights.

Data collection and preliminary analyses were conducted independently by state, with one researcher in each state leading the analysis. Following this independent analysis, the findings were integrated. Comparative analysis demonstrated thematic consistency across both contexts, supporting the credibility of the findings. An inductive approach was used to analyze the collected data. A thematic analysis, within the qualitative inductive approach, was employed to identify patterns and themes as they emerged (Mertens, 2020; Sundler et al., 2019; Vignato et al., 2022). Memos were written in the margins, and color-coded sentences and paragraphs were used to indicate possible codes. Themes were derived from code groupings (Sundler et al., 2019). An iterative process was used to define the codes and themes. Memoing provided insights into the decision-making process for code and theme descriptions, ensuring consistency in the researchers’ analysis (Saldaña, 2021). ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2026) was used as a tool to assist with editing for clarity, organization, and drafting portions of the manuscript. The authors reviewed and verified all content and take responsibility for its accuracy. The analysis and interpretations are those of the author.

3. Results

This qualitative study explored how instructional leaders perceive and promote reflective practice in K–12 educational settings. Specifically, it examined the strategies leaders use to foster teacher reflection, the challenges they encounter, and how reflective practices are embedded in supervision and evaluation processes.

Analysis of participant interviews revealed three overarching themes:

• Purposeful Questioning and Reflective Dialogue as Catalysts for Growth
• Leadership Strategies that Foster Reflection
• Challenges and Barriers to Encouraging Reflection

These themes collectively illustrate how reflection functions as both a leadership tool and a professional learning process that shapes instructional practice and teacher development.

3.1. Purposeful Questioning and Reflective Dialogue as Catalysts for Growth

Across participants, purposeful questioning was consistently identified as a central leadership strategy for fostering teacher reflection. Leaders described using open-ended, scaffolded, and intentional questions to guide teachers’ thinking, deepen self-awareness, and prompt critical examination of instructional decisions. A principal explained that questions were “leveled from yes/no to explain,” helping teachers move from surface-level responses to deeper analysis and understanding. Common reflective prompts included “What went well in the lesson?”, “Why did you make that instructional choice?”, and “How can you tell learning has taken place?” These questions encouraged teachers to articulate their reasoning, assess outcomes, and identify next steps for improvement. Several leaders reported intentionally planning reflective questions before conferences or coaching sessions to keep discussions focused and meaningful.

Cognitive Coaching techniques were frequently used to structure reflective conversations, drawing on the work of Costa and Garmston (2015). These practices were supported through leadership professional development in a large urban Tennessee school district where several participants were employed. Leaders described this approach as a powerful tool for prompting teachers to think critically about their decisions, though they acknowledged that “you can’t coach someone who doesn’t want to be coached.” Another stated, “We must have these honest, meaningful conversations with one another.” Coaching, when successful, helps teachers internalize reflective habits and engage in more self-directed professional inquiry, according to the participants.

Participants emphasized that questioning not only prompts reflection but also fosters teacher ownership and agency. As one administrator noted, “They have to see what to improve for themselves.” This approach positions teachers as active participants in their professional learning rather than passive recipients of feedback. A principal explained, “They have to own it. They have to think that the change is their idea.”

Overall, leaders viewed questioning as a balance of guidance and autonomy. Purposeful questioning reframed supervision from a compliance task to a process of collaborative problem-solving and professional discovery. An administrator shared, “It must be a two-way conversation. I invite my teachers to give me feedback so that I can improve my practice through reflection.” As one participant stated, “Reflection is the best teacher. The answers are in ourselves, and coaching brings it out.”

3.2. Leadership Strategies That Foster Reflection

Leaders employed a range of strategies to embed reflection into school routines and professional learning structures. These strategies focused on three interconnected elements: creating trust and partnership, modeling reflective practice, and structuring opportunities for dialogue.

Leaders emphasized that teachers were more likely to engage authentically in reflection when they felt safe and supported rather than judged. As one principal explained, “Be a partner, be positive, not negative.” An elementary principal emphasized that reflection must be framed as growth-oriented rather than evaluative. Another summarized, “Trust is required to not fear inadequacy.” An instructional leader stated, “I think it is important to have that relationship … we should already be in a position to where we are comfortable with having those discussions. Part of it is vulnerability and accountability on the part of the leader.” Instructional leaders described efforts to create safe, non-evaluative spaces where reflection could occur naturally. These efforts included informal hallway conversations and coaching sessions that emphasized collaboration rather than critique. An instructional coach mentioned that she takes advantage of PLCs at her school and “lets teachers model lessons and give feedback for each other” to encourage reflection among teachers. Feedback to teachers was regularly provided and regarded as a strategy for fostering reflection. Leaders described giving feedback in structured post-observation conferences and in more informal settings, such as brief classroom visits called “walk-throughs.”

Modeling reflective practice was another strategy often mentioned. Many leaders modeled reflection by openly examining their own leadership decisions, discussing school improvement strategies, or sharing reflective insights during meetings. As one leader explained, “I try to model reflection in my post-observation meetings. When I ask teachers reflective questions, it opens the door for them to think deeply about their own decisions.” Another leader shared that she “teaches a lesson and asks teachers to critique her lesson” to encourage them to examine and reflect on their own lessons. Modeling makes reflection visible, demonstrating that professional growth is an ongoing process for everyone. By modeling vulnerability, actively listening, and maintaining confidentiality, leaders fostered teacher trust and were more likely to engage in honest reflection, according to the participants.

Structured reflection opportunities were evident as leaders intentionally built reflection into existing professional structures. Strategies such as lesson self-evaluations, post-observation conferences, and year-end goal reviews were mentioned. Some school leaders used written reflections or pre- and post-observation surveys to prompt self-assessment, while others incorporated regular coaching meetings where teachers set the agenda and identified their own areas for growth. Another mentioned that he “asks teachers to write a reflection over a particular lesson with guiding questions” to facilitate the post-observation conversation and promote teachers’ reflection. A principal indicated that in his school district, “we have a couple of formal reflection pieces” that promote teachers’ reflective practices. Highlighting the importance of the district-adopted evaluation model, leaders with experience in more than one evaluation model noted that evaluation systems with reflective rubrics are more effective than others in fostering teacher thinking about their practice.

3.3. Challenges and Barriers to Encouraging Reflection

Although reflection was universally valued, participants identified several persistent barriers that hindered sustained, meaningful reflection. The most common challenges included teacher resistance to change, limited time, and a lack of credibility in the evaluator’s feedback.

Leaders across settings described veteran and tenured teachers as the group most resistant to reflection. Experienced educators might view reflective practices and feedback as critiques of their expertise. One leader observed, “Veteran teachers are stuck in their ways and feel like they are being told they’re not good enough.” A principal added, “They have to be convinced that changes are needed.” Another shared, “So there’s always some pushback, especially for those veteran teachers who have been in the field a long time, and they’re thinking that they already know and they don’t need to reflect on anything that they have done. Um, they pretty much know it!” A principal stated, “With veteran teachers, you get ‘I’ve done this for 30 years. Why do I have to change and think about what I‘ve done?’ There’s been that challenge to some degree.” Leaders explained that helping experienced teachers “see a need for improvement” required relational trust and developing the belief that “There’s always room for growth even with high-achieving teachers.” Almost all leaders accepted responsibility for promoting reflection, as an elementary school leader stated, “Move every teacher to be better. I have to be patient.” An instructional leader reported using storytelling as a strategy to lower resistance and deepen engagement, explaining that it “encourages teachers to get to the critical reflection piece.”

While most leaders viewed their role as facilitating teacher reflection, there were notable exceptions. A secondary principal stated that “some teachers need to change, now! I, as the leader, mandate it not as a may but as a must.” Another principal commented, “They have to be tricked! I have to steer the conversation in a way so they see what needs to be changed and then they take responsibility to change it.”

Time constraints were cited by almost all participants as a major barrier to promoting teacher reflection. The demands of teaching, administrative duties, and constant change left little room for deep reflection. As one leader stated, “Reflection becomes a checklist because there’s not enough time for teachers or leaders.” Another mentioned the strains of meeting the standards and pacing guides on teachers’ time and attention. Leaders who found success in addressing this challenge embedded reflection into existing routines such as allocating time during PLCs, professional development sessions, or end-of-year reviews for deliberate reflective discussion. All participants recognized the importance of time in supporting reflection. As one participant observed, “When we make time for reflection, people realize it’s valuable—it becomes part of how we grow together.” Part of the structure involves creating and planning questions to guide discussions in PLCs, post-conferences, and meetings. However, leaders acknowledged that although they recognized the importance of timely feedback, time constraints limited their ability to deliver it promptly and consistently.

Several participants identified teacher mindset as both a barrier and an opportunity. Teachers without a growth mindset were less inclined to reflect, especially when they did not view reflection as valuable to their practice. As one participant explained, “Teachers can’t be reflective if they don’t see a need for improvement.” Another shared, “nobody likes to be criticized. Some teachers don’t want to be self-reflective because they don’t want to acknowledge they need to change.”

To address these challenges, instructional leaders emphasized the importance of cultivating a culture of continuous learning, framing reflection as an expected professional norm rather than an optional activity. One leader captured this approach succinctly: “It starts with a growth mindset—learn every day, no finish line.”

4. Discussion

In this study, we sought to understand the strategies instructional leaders in Tennessee and Arkansas use to describe their role in cultivating teacher reflective practices, the barriers or challenges that hinder them, and how they address those challenges. The findings indicate that leaders who model reflective practice, cultivate collaborative partnerships, and intentionally structure opportunities for reflection perceive themselves as effective in facilitating teacher reflection within supervisory contexts, particularly during post-observation conferences. This finding supports the body of research on supervision, indicating that reflective dialogue deepens understanding and changes evaluative judgment to a partnership for shared learning and growth (Gordon, 2021; Glickman et al., 2018; Zepeda, 2017). Thus, reflective dialogue not only deepens understanding but also supports the development of teachers as active participants in their own professional growth.

This study builds on instructional supervision research by positioning reflection not merely as a component of supervision, but as the mechanism through which supervision becomes a developmental, growth-oriented process. The findings suggest that when instructional leaders intentionally engage teachers in reflective dialogue, supervision shifts from a compliance-oriented activity to a collaborative process focused on instructional practice. In this way, reflection helps reconcile the identified tension between supervision and evaluation (Hazi, 2022; Mette et al., 2015, 2017) by creating conditions where accountability and professional learning can coexist. These findings further reinforce the view of reflection as socially mediated, occurring through dialogue, feedback, and collaborative inquiry rather than as an isolated individual practice. The findings align with the work of Schön, particularly the distinction between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Leaders supported reflection-on-action through post-observation questioning, coaching interactions, and informal instructional conversations, as well as through structured processes and written reflections.

The study also highlights the importance of organizational structures in sustaining reflection (Fullan, 2023; Glickman et al., 2018; Jaeger, 2013). Reflection was most effective when it was part of existing routines, such as professional learning communities, coaching cycles, and post-observation processes. When viewed as an additional task, reflection often became superficial or compliance-oriented. These findings suggest that reflection, while an individual practice, is also an organizational one that must be intentionally structured and supported by leaders.

Resistance to reflection, particularly among veteran teachers, underscores the complexity of facilitating reflection (Cutrer-Parraga & Miller, 2022; Jaeger, 2013). The findings suggest that experienced teachers may perceive reflective practices as challenges to their expertise, reinforcing the need for a leadership approach that acknowledges teachers’ experiences while promoting continuous growth. Additionally, teachers may lack trust in feedback when leaders serve as instructional coaches (Oliveras-Ortiz, 2017), which may require additional training to develop leaders’ effectiveness.

The findings can also be interpreted through the levels of reflection described by Van Manen (1977). While some practices reflected technical or descriptive levels, leaders’ use of questioning and dialogic feedback supported movement toward deeper, dialogical, and critical reflection. These findings also reflect the broader conceptualization of reflection as a structured, cyclical, and developmental process, where individuals move from description to deeper analysis over time. However, constraints such as time, resistance, and evaluative pressures limited the depth of engagement, indicating a gap between intended and enacted reflective practice. From an instructional leadership perspective, this study extends the work of Hallinger (2005) by demonstrating that managing the instructional program includes fostering teachers’ reflective capacity within supervision of instruction.

Limited time consistently restricted opportunities for sustained reflective dialogue, often reducing reflection to a procedural activity rather than a meaningful process of professional inquiry. Within supervisory contexts, time pressures associated with instructional leadership responsibilities, accountability demands, and daily school operations further complicated leaders’ ability to engage teachers in reflective conversations. Consistent with the literature on supervision as a cyclical process of observation, feedback, and dialogue (Glickman et al., 2018; Zepeda, 2017), these findings suggest that reflection requires protected and structured time within the school day to move beyond surface-level engagement.

4.1. Implications for Practice

Several implications for practice emerge from this study. First, instructional leaders should intentionally develop and use purposeful questioning strategies to promote deeper levels of teacher thinking. Second, leaders must prioritize the development of collaboration and model vulnerability to create conditions that support teacher reflection. Third, reflection should be embedded within existing school structures rather than treated as an additional task.

Additionally, leaders should develop reflection strategies based on teacher readiness and experience, provide multiple ways for engagement, such as written reflection, dialogue, and use of PLCs. Addressing resistance should acknowledge teachers’ professional identities while promoting a culture of continuous learning, which is not an easy task, especially when the teacher has years of experience compared to the principal. Finally, leaders should consider ways to create opportunities for reflection that are separated from the formal evaluation process to encourage deeper engagement.

4.2. Future Research

Future research should examine teachers’ perceptions of reflective practices within supervisory and professional development contexts, particularly whether they view reflection as a meaningful opportunity for growth or as an extension of evaluation.

Given the importance of creating conditions that support reflection, future research should explore how instructional leaders intentionally create and sustain trust and collaboration while navigating the tension between accountability and professional growth within existing school structures.

4.3. Limitations

This study was limited to 16 instructional leaders in two states and cannot be generalized to all leaders. Leaders working in different districts, geographic regions, or policy environments may experience facilitating reflection differently. The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth understanding of specific contexts and not transferability.

Additionally, the findings are limited to interviews and self-reports; thus, responses may have been influenced by selective memory or social desirability. Although strategies such as multiple researchers’ review of data were used to enhance trustworthiness, qualitative findings are inherently shaped by participant perception and researcher interpretation.

5. Conclusions

This study examined how instructional leaders in Arkansas and Tennessee navigate the complexities of teacher supervision. The findings indicate that when leaders move beyond compliance-driven evaluation and embrace reflective practice, supervision can be a meaningful catalyst for professional growth.

Reflection does not occur automatically; it must be intentionally cultivated. Leaders who use purposeful questioning, build trust-based relationships, and model a growth mindset are better able to address obstacles, such as limited time and teacher resistance. When teachers are supported in critically examining their instructional decisions, they develop the autonomy and professional judgment needed for sustained improvement in student learning.

As schools continue shifting toward collaborative models, this study highlights that a leader’s most influential tool is not a rubric or checklist, but the ability to facilitate purposeful, reflective dialogue. When instructional leaders intentionally align practices and conditions to support reflection, supervision becomes a powerful mechanism for professional learning and sustained instructional improvement.