Editorial1

Integrating the idea of
reflective practice into
Hungarian teacher education:
Thoughts about jazz and teaching

Magnuczné Godó Ágnes

Recently I attended a most interesting workshop organised in the framework of the British Council Resources Pool Project. The central aim of the workshop was how to involve teacher trainees in exploratory teaching and encourage them to summarise their experiences in their thesis so that they would develop into reflective practitioners. While all the participants, who were representatives of Hungarian teacher-training institutions with a strong pedagogical-methodological profile, agreed that promoting reflective practice is an important facet of teacher education, it also became clear that the role and value of reflection is interpreted in very different ways among teacher educators.

This workshop left me with several questions and made me reconsider my experiences and concerns related to reflective practice and exploratory teaching. In this paper, I would first like to discuss how reflection and exploration fit into teacher education objectives in general. Then I will go on to examine some of the reasons why it is difficult to involve students in exploratory practices in a Hungarian context. Finally, I would also like to point out how some of these problems can be overcome and what benefits trainees gain through exploratory teaching during their pre-service or in-service teacher education.

Teacher training perspectives have changed greatly in the past 50 years. For a long time, the main concern was to find the most effective ways of teaching and prescribe to trainees the tools (i.e. classroom techniques) of successful practice. This ‘method era’ was characterised by a zealous quest for the single right method which would provide a universal solution for effective language learning. It seemed that the Audio-Lingual Method answered this demand as it was not only justified by the success of fast-track military training programmes in the US, but was also supported by behaviourist psychology (Allwright & Bailey, 1991). Although the hegemony of the Audio-Lingual Method was soon shattered (the first classroom-based investigations showed that it was not more effective than the already outdated grammar-translation method, which gave way to a host of new alternative methods), the prevailing belief till the late 1970s was that it was the method alone that determined the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. Thus, the main task of teacher training was to make good craftsmen of trainees by providing them with the right teaching tools.

The abundance of emerging new methods in the 1970s also provoked a considerable amount of debate and uncertainty. Therefore, the only way to test their effectiveness was to go into the classroom and see how they worked. The results of these early studies were far from conclusive: the Pennsylvanian Project (Smith, 1970) revealed that the Audio-Lingual Method was superior to the traditional grammar translation method only in reading. The Gothemburg English Teaching Method Project (Lindbald, 1969) showed that children’s performance did not depend on the absence or presence or quality of grammar explanation, but adults seemed to benefit from grammar explanations. After his seminal video study of 1970, Politzer (1970), concluded that “the very high complexity of the teaching process makes it very difficult to talk in absolute terms about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ teaching devices”, and he also suggested that “the value of any technique depends in part on the relative value of the other techniques that could have been used in place of the one actually selected by the teacher” (Allwright & Bailey, 1991, p. 9). This was the start of the post-method era, which had important implications for the teaching profession.

The post-method era brought with it the legitimisation of a new field of research called classroom research. This line of investigation focused on what actually happened in classrooms rather than on other aspects of the teaching and learning process (e.g. input such as syllabuses and teaching materials, and outputs such as test scores) (Allwright & Bailey, 1991) and considered the insider-view of the teacher as well. Through its history, classroom research demonstrated a move from the global aspects of teaching to situation dependent micro-aspects, which constituted a perceivable move from studying approaches and methods to examining techniques used by particular teachers in particular classrooms on particular days and processes characterising specific teaching situations. As Prabhu (1990) points out, the realisation that there is no best method applicable to every language classroom changed a prescriptive stance of research to a descriptive one.

All this has had dramatic implications for teacher education, too. As there is no single right method, trainees have to be prepared to cope with a variety of situations with resourcefulness, invention and improvisation - just as artists do. However, the artistic approach also has its dangers: constant improvisation and eclecticism in techniques may lead to a failure on the part of teachers to formulate a personal theory of teaching and learning which could constitute a principled guideline in any situation. As Prabhu (1990) and Kumaravadivelu (1994) suggest, in the post-method era, teachers have to exercise a principled eclecticism to find the best method for their own teaching situations. This choice, however, is not easy. First of all, teachers must know about a range of possible approaches and methods, they must have experience in using these approaches in various teaching situations, and they must be able to make expert judgement of the particular learners’ needs and characteristics, and even then, their choice could be debated. The way to such expertise leads through exploration, reflection and professional maturation, and this is why many teacher training institutions nowadays set the high aim of educating reflective practitioners (Schön, 1983).

Reflective practice means a continuous effort to analyse and assess one’s practice, which should ideally happen through exploratory teaching. Exploration, in this case, involves a conscious monitoring and testing of one’s own classroom practices, and the evaluation of teaching methods in the light of everyday teaching experiences and previous research findings in language pedagogy. Allwright & Bailey (1991) also emphasise the importance of teachers’ first-hand experience in the teaching-learning situation, which enables them to mediate between research and everyday practices. Reflective teachers are capable of identifying concrete and meaningful problems in their practice, generating informed solutions on the basis of their theoretical background knowledge and experience, testing these solutions and learning from the experience (Copeland, Birmingham, de la Cruz & Lewin, 1993). This high level of reflectivity seems to involve two modes of thinking in Schön’s (1983) view. Reflection-on-action means the retrospective, systematic analysis and reconsideration of one’s actions, thinking back on what happened in the class and why. The experience gained both through practice and the conscious reflection on practice enable the teacher to adapt sensitively to the given teaching context, to apply situation-driven methods, and to solve unanticipated problems. All this happens through a continuous monitoring, evaluation and revision of ongoing performance, through reflection-in-action. Schön (1987) illustrates reflection-in-action with a wonderful metaphor, comparing teaching with a creative art - music:

At the same time, Copeland et al. (1993) also note that reflection has both a developmental and personality factor: that is, teachers have to learn how to reflect, but some have more, others less inclination towards it. To make their definition of reflective practice more precise, they suggest that it should be imagined as a continuum rather than an ‘either-or’ condition.

In sum, answering the demands of current educational research is a great challenge for teacher-training institutions. Future reflective practitioners definitely require education rather than training, an essential part of which is developing an understanding of themselves as teachers and of what happens in their own classrooms. On the other hand, I also think that the degree of reflectiveness and autonomy required of teachers is strongly culture-bound, and our traditional, Hungarian teacher education practices do not accommodate these professional qualities very easily. In the following, I will explore the main reasons why.

One of the basic reasons why experimenting and personal-meaning construction is hardly present in our educational system is the value system it reflects. Every educational system is representative of some underlying intellectual tradition that is culturally and historically determined. White (1988) distinguishes three such value systems. Classical humanism stresses the “transmission of an esteemed cultural heritage” (White, 1988, p. 24) in education and sees the main aim of research as contributing to this body of knowledge. Reconstructivism considers education a means of restructuring society, an instrument of social change, and lays great emphasis on “planning, efficiency and rationality” (White, 1988, p. 24). Finally, progressivism is based on the idea that education should serve “the growth and self-realisation of the individual” (White, 1988, p. 24), and foregrounds problem-solving, reflection and action. The primary educational aim is to “stimulate new ideas, opinion and perceptions rather than simply exchange them” (White, 1988, p. 25). The degree of desired creativity and reflection in any educational system depends on these value systems and varies across cultures.

Hungary has been traditionally drawn to the German educational tradition, which corresponds to the classical humanistic value system. Hungarian students at all levels of education are still overwhelmed by facts and figures and little time is given to digesting and reconstructing this knowledge. We operate in a knowledge-telling rather than a knowledge-transformation mood (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). Although there are promising signs of a paradigm shift - in a recent magazine interview our Educational Secretary remarked that it was time teachers stopped asking their students to learn how many ships the Athenians bought, and rather discussed why (Schaffer, 1999) - the change is slow. The implication for teacher training is that it is hard work to fight the reflexes acquired through decades of primary and secondary education, and students have to be awakened to the importance of evaluating and learning from their own experiences.

The issue of the contribution that exploratory teaching can make to the bulk of professional knowledge also needs to be addressed. If we admit that there is no best method and every teaching situation is unique, then the relevance of local and individual experience for a larger community might be questioned. What is more, it also means that findings gained through research based on exploratory teaching cannot be generalised. The advantages that exploratory practice offers are not unanimously accepted: handling personal experience as data is questioned by many academics and ‘subjective’ accounts, however well triangulated (i.e. supplemented by others’ viewpoints/observations or different methodological approaches), are still difficult to document in a way that is acceptable within our academic traditions.

Although in-service teachers and pre-service trainees have different professional backgrounds, they often share the same uneasiness about reflective practice. One would think that having more experience and expertise to rely on, in-service teachers see more sense in engaging in exploratory practices and investigations to further develop their understanding. This, however, is rarely the case. There are several reasons why teachers are seldom motivated to devote extra energy to constantly monitoring and adapting their methods and changing their practices in the long run. The first problem definitely is that the benefit teachers gain through experimenting and implementing changes are not in proportion with the effort invested. They are usually underpaid and overworked, and having to cope with the complexity of school life, they do not have space for serious reflection and investigation, so they slip in and out of habits and routines without even noticing it. And the efforts needed indeed are significant. As Allwright (forthcoming) points out, the research techniques for classroom-based research projects, derived from academic research in other social sciences, “are not easy to use and require both special training and a considerable investment of time” (p. 7). Although nowadays most training programmes aim to engage trainees in intensive classroom investigation, there is a risk that teachers will find it too demanding to maintain these practices in their everyday work, and that they will never go beyond the troublesome novice researcher stage. Porter & Brophy (1988) also suggest that educational research proposes more and more things that teachers should add to their practices; consequently, reflective practice results in “hard work, hard thinking, tough choices and objective evaluation” (p. 83). By advocating reflective practice as an essential aspect of teaching at all levels, and taking this into account in evaluating performance, teacher educators may give the impression to teachers and trainees that they underestimate the effort involved.

Finally, it is impossible to ignore the influence of the social context in which teachers have to work. In an environment where inventiveness and professionalism are not appreciated, and where teachers’ work is not differentiated according to quality and achievement, it is perhaps idealistic to expect teachers to invest considerable time and effort just for their professional enjoyment and satisfaction.

Although trainees have few professional experiences yet, they can sense the low social prestige of the profession, which is very demotivating. The number one problem with trainees is involvement: while in-service teachers see retraining as a way to keep their jobs and develop professionally, the majority of our pre-service trainees consider the course an opportunity to improve their English: and use it as a springboard to other careers (personal communication with our trainees in the teacher Training Programme, University of Miskolc). While it is difficult to convince someone not interested in the profession to engage in exploratory practices, it might nevertheless serve as an ‘appetiser’, and more innovative training facilities that promote a reflective attitude could win more people over to the profession. The facilities available, however, leave much to be desired.

While Schön’s (1987) music metaphor already quoted is an appealing ideal, the advanced level of expertise praised by Schön is the result of many years of conscious self-development and practice, and trainees cannot be expected to display this degree of consciousness and independence. In most teacher training colleges in Hungary, including our three-year teacher training programme at the University of Miskolc, students spend very little time in schools. At our department, teacher trainees have to observe 25 lessons in the fifth semester and teach 15 in the sixth. This time is just enough for them to overcome their classroom jitters and become more or less comfortable in the practicalities of classroom management. There is no time for trial, error and reflection: during the training period many students do not reach the stage of being able to see themselves and the class objectively from ‘outside’. They are mostly focused on themselves, and all we can hope to achieve is that, towards the end of the training period, they become capable of ‘taking in the students’, as well. Calderhead (1989) and MacKinnon (1987, cited in Copeland et al., 1993) also share these concerns expressing doubts “whether inexperienced teachers can be expected to reflect deeply about abstract principles” (p. 351). Copeland et al. (1993) add that reflection requires time, opportunity and assistance from others, which teacher training programmes often lack. They also call attention to the strong need to conform to norms in most institutions, which is again not conducive to experimentation and personalised solutions. In view of these factors, introducing reflective and exploratory practices into training programmes requires careful consideration.

Last but not least, I would like to return to the problem of involvement and motivation. Even if all other circumstances are ideal, reflection depends on the individual’s willingness to reflect. Reflection means a conscious attitude; it is not something that we implement in the first methodology session from eight to half past nine on Monday morning. However, the personal qualities necessary for reflection are considered to be highly developmental, given that a reflective attitude can be encouraged through providing opportunities and assistance.

Copeland et al. (1993) claim that failure to reflect and problematise the teaching situation “may be caused either by inability or unwillingness on the part of the teacher to consider the matter at a certain time” (p. 351). Inability may be due to a lack of affective or professional experience or, as they suggest, a lack of ability to think reflectively. Unwillingness, on the other hand, is defined by Dewey (1933, cited in Copeland et al., 1993) as a lack of openmindedness, wholeheartedness and responsibility. Openmindedness means self-questioning, careful thought, and freedom from unconscious fears, while wholeheartedness signifies a genuine interest in the job. Responsibility is understood as an ability to take responsibility for our decisions and their consequences. As a consequence, professional knowledge is only one component of reflection. As long as training programmes are only concerned with imparting technical knowledge and are not concerned with developing personal characteristics and attitudes, it is impossible to help students grow into committed and responsible teachers who see personal and professional development as a cornerstone of success. All in all, we can say that training future reflective practitioners is a complex and challenging educational task.

While the above concerns may sound familiar to many teacher trainers, those who have incorporated the reflective agenda into their curriculum to any degree, know that the challenge is worth accepting. The valuable experience reflective practice can offer outweighs the difficulties that may have to be overcome. In what follows, I would like to revisit the concerns discussed in the previous section and point out how both trainees and trainers can benefit by identifying these concerns, then finding solutions for them. However, the order in which I present the concerns will be reversed. While I acknowledge that the social-cultural background in which we are educated and work deeply influences our beliefs about learning and teaching, I will nevertheless start with the personal factors, in order to suggest that educating independent and reflective individuals can lead to changes in social, cultural and professional attitudes.

It is crucial to recognise that reflectivity is a developmental quality: it is a composite of affective and cognitive features that evolve through a process of learning and maturation. Teacher education programmes should recognise this and include this educational aspect in their curricula. Exploratory practice is an excellent way of developing openmindedness, wholeheartedness and responsibility, as suggested by Dewey (1933, cited in Copeland, et al. 1993). There is no better way to create interest in the profession than asking trainees to closely observe classrooms, and build trust and co-operate with each other, their students and with other teachers. Through classroom projects they can gain insights into the teaching-learning process, understand learning from the students’ perspective, become more conscious as teachers and gain confidence. Open-mindedness is promoted by puzzling over possible solutions, self-questioning and self-assessment, and the ability to judge themselves more or less objectively frees trainees from unconscious fears, as well. Responsibility is also a key factor in designing classroom- based research projects. While planning an investigation, teacher trainees should consider a series of professional, technical and ethical issues, and they should learn to be responsible to the other participants of the research for their decisions. This involves sharing their findings and benefiting their students if possible. Engaging in exploratory teaching means mobilising and developing a host of affective, cognitive and professional skills, offering opportunities for learning which are especially suitable for teachers. Last but not least, this learning experience is also transferable to other spheres of life, which is not a factor to be neglected in a situation where many trainees are uncertain about their future career.

Another important recognition in connection with reflectivity is that, owing to the developmental nature of the quality, students need to be given time, opportunity and expert assistance. Time and opportunity definitely means providing students with the opportunities to visit schools, work together with practising teachers and teach. It is common knowledge among practising teachers that we all go through various stages of development: first we are only concerned with ourselves, whether we look and act as teachers should. Only later do we start to pay attention to the students and the extent to which they are receptive to our personality and teaching style. It takes more experience and time than traditional teaching practice allows to be able to develop a bird’s eye view of ourselves and the class, and to observe and evaluate our performance and practices in an unbiased manner. I believe that reflection is only possible in this last stage. By then, trainees have had enough time to become comfortable in their new surroundings, build trust with their students and mentors, and be able to devote time and energy to problematising both the teaching-learning process and what happens in the classroom. This concern is shared by Zeichner & Teitelbaum (1982, cited in Copeland et al., 1993) as well, when they remark that an emphasis on reflective practice might not be appropriate at all points of professional training, and it is still to be investigated by researchers at which points of the process reflectivity is best introduced and how.

In a situation where both the ‘when’ and the ‘how’ of introducing reflectivity into training programmes is so uncertain, exploratory practice offers unique opportunities for teacher development. Teacher trainees can connect theoretical considerations with practice; acquire a working style which is based upon close co-operation among students and teachers; and practise a continuous evaluation of their teaching from multiple perspectives that embrace professional, affective and ethical issues. Teacher training programmes should aim to take their trainees to this last stage. However, increasing the amount of training time is very often not possible. In this case, it is worth conducting other ways of school-based student research, such as the investigation of input or output, teaching careers, and teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the learning process as accessed through interviews and questionnaires.

Finally, expert assistance should also be emphasised. Loughran (1996) concludes that reflection is best taught by modelling; consequently, teacher educators must demonstrate through their own professional practice how to carry out investigations, draw conclusions and present findings. The most profitable way to encourage trainees to engage in reflective, exploratory practices is to involve them in shared projects, in thinking together and in co-operative enquiry. If and where possible, teaching practice is a good opportunity for conducting small-scale investigations, ideally accompanied by a course module where discussion of classroom experiences is also possible.

The best example of such a co-operative teacher-student project I heard from a Rumanian colleague, who initiated an optional, enquiry-based methodology course with a strong reflective research profile in the face of the rather normative methodology course requirements that are generally followed at the University of West, Timisoara. In this course, students were encouraged to investigate their ideas on what constitutes ‘good’ teaching practice and various aspects of their own and others’ learning processes via a variety of research activities. These exploratory practices included reflective diary writing, discussions in focus groups, individual and group interviews, the trainees’ own investigative projects, which they documented in research diaries and later presented in conferences and publications. The course had very positive effects on all the participants. The trainees became keen observers of themselves, of their students, and of other teachers. They developed confidence in evaluating their practices and acquired the necessary technical skills for presenting their findings to wider audiences. One of the participants at the end of the course said to the seminar teacher that learning to do classroom research made her feel “like a child who is taken by her parents to some place where only adults are allowed” (Matei, forthcoming).

Such examples illustrate that reflecting on the various aspects of their own and others’ learning processes and trying to research these in a principled way cannot only offer trainees rich investigation opportunities, but can also increase their awareness and responsibility towards their own learning.

I believe that a trainee who is encouraged to deal with the difficulties of his or her own practice and seek solutions will find it easier to take charge as a teacher as well. The ability to reflect and knowledge about how to problematise teaching and investigate classroom problems gives confidence and security. It also makes teachers more open to co-operative endeavours, as exploratory teaching inevitably trains people to be concerned about others, and to ‘care and share’ (Moskowitz, 1978). In an interview study that some colleagues and I conducted recently (Elekes, Godó, Szabó & Tóth, 1998), Hungarian teachers complained of isolation, lack of enthusiasm, motivation and acknowledgement. The most positive feature of their professional life was networking with others, and the ones who sometimes took part in projects said that working with others gave them a feeling of success and satisfaction. Co-operation with and responsibility for others are key concepts: a constant exploration of one’s teaching practices, besides adding to an already full agenda of school life, requires a lot of time and effort. Co-operative enquiry can be a solution, as sharing ideas, research techniques and the practical tasks of data collection and analysis can immensely reduce the work involved, as well as create a close collegial atmosphere.

All in all, reflective practice and engaging in exploratory teaching do not only contribute to professional development, but, as Dick Allwright said in a recent seminar on classroom research (ELTE PhD programme in Language Pedagogy, Budapest, May, 1999), its function is also to keep teachers interested and motivated, to give them a sense of direction and purpose - which might, eventually, keep them in the profession.

Although it has to be admitted that value systems and intellectual traditions are difficult to change, I do think a paradigm shift has already started. In the past decade the role of the creative and independently thinking individual as a shaper of the Hungarian economy and society has been increasingly acknowledged. Individual experience and expertise has become more valuable, and it does look as if individuals who have been allowed to grow and realise themselves are making the Hungarian society progress.

Progressivism will eventually influence the academic community as well. It will have to be recognised that there is no complete objectivity in the social sciences: findings are always filtered through individual experience, starting from the choice of topic, instruments, participants and analytical framework. The key to relative objectivity lies in multiple perspectives (Davis, 1995). This is the answer to the “What’s the use of reporting local findings if each teaching situation is different and it is impossible to generalise the experience?” question. In language pedagogy, the solutions are not in particular techniques used in particular situations, but in the multiple ways the same puzzles are solved, and variety is handled.

My aim was to examine the pedagogical potential of reflective practice in teacher education in a Hungarian context. Having accepted that there is no best method that provides universal solutions for every teaching situation, teacher trainees should learn to cope with the unexpected through exploring their own practices and reflecting both on and in their actions. Like all pedagogical paradigms, the ‘post-method’ paradigm also represents a set of valued attributes that teachers should possess and possibly pass on, such as creativity, problem solving, reflection and action. These values might clash (as they do in Hungary) with cultural and intellectual traditions that have a different view of learning and teaching (in our case, preserving, transmitting and contributing to a body of knowledge accumulated over time). Consequently, there are various cultural, contextual, institutional and personal reasons why reflection and exploration are difficult to integrate into our teacher education programmes.

However, it should be realised that reflectivity has huge potentials in teacher education, and exploratory teaching can be a pedagogical tool that offers unique learning opportunities for future teachers. It develops transferable professional, affective, ethical and organisational skills that students will be able to use in any situation where various professional practices have to be problematised and improved. These personal and professional skills will also help students build co-operative relationships with their colleagues and students and find satisfaction in their career. Thus, exploratory practice is not only a way of gaining high level professional knowledge, but also an opportunity for developing personal attitudes that may, in the future, encourage teachers to remain in the profession.

I am grateful to Kontra Edit, Christopher Ryan, Jane Sunderland and Szesztay Margit for their valuable comments on an earler version of this paper.

Allwright, D. (forthcoming). Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 4: Second language education.
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1991). Focus on the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 43-51.
Copeland, W.D., Birmingham, C., de la Cruz, E., & Lewin, B. (1993). The reflective practitioner in teaching: Toward a research agenda. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 347-359.
Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 427-453.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Regnery.
Elekes, K., Godó, Á., Szabó, P., & Tóth, I. (1998). A view of teaching careers in Hungary in the late 1990s. novELTy, 5 (4), 6-22.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27-48.
Lindbald, T. (1969). Implicit and explicit - an experiment in applied psycholinguistics. GUME -Projektet 1. Gothenburg: Pedagogiska Institutionen, Lararhogskalan: Goteborg, Goteborgs Universitet, Emgelska Institutionen.
Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and teaching about learning through modelling. London: Falmer Press.
MacKinnon, A. (1987). Detecting reflection-in-action among pre-service elementary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 135-145.
Matei, G. (forthcoming). What happens when student teachers become researchers (of their own free will). In Proceedings of the Summer Forum on PHD Research, Budapest, 1999.
Moskowitz, G. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class. Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle.
Politzer, R. L. (1970). Some reflections on ‘good’ and ‘bad’ language teaching behaviors. Language Learning, 20, 31-43.
Porter, A.C., & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the institute for research on teaching. Educational Leadership, 45 (8), 74-85.
Prabhu, N.S. (1990). There is no best method - why? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161-176.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transformation in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Volume 2: Reading, writing and language learning (142-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaffer, E. (1999). Fölpumpált tananyag. (An interview with Zoltán Pokorni, Secretary of Education in Hungary). N?k Lapja, 50 (25), 30-33.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossie-Bass Publisher.
Smith, P. D. (1970). A comparison of the cognitive and audiolingual approaches to foreign language instruction: The Pennsylvanian foreign language project. Philadelphia: Center for Curricullum Development.
Zeichner, K . M., & Teitelbaum, K. (1982). Personalized and inquiry-oriented teacher-education: An analysis of two approaches to the development of curricullum for field based experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching, 8, 95-117.
White, R. V. (1988).The ELT curriculum. Design, innovation and management. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.