ENHANCING EFL TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGICAL

PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)

COMPETENCE THROUGH REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Yunica Rhosiana Saria, Nur Arifah Drajatib, Hyo-Jeong Soc, Sumardid

(arhosianasari14@student.uns.ac.id, bnurarifah_drajati@staff.uns.ac.id,
c
hyojeongso@ewha.ac.kr, dsumardi74@staff.uns.ac.id)
a, b, d
Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta (UNS)
Jl. Ir. Sutami No. 36A, Kentingan, Kec. Jebres,
Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia
c
Department of Educational Technology,
Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Daehyeon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea

Abstract: This study examines how reflective practices can be an effective

strategy in enhancing in-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK). The participants were two English teachers in high
schools in Indonesia who designed and implemented technology-integrated
lessons after participating in a professional development workshop. Data
collected from their reflective journals and interviews were analyzed using
thematic analysis. Findings from the interviews and teacher’s reflective journal
revealed three reflective practices: reflection in, on, and for action. Reflective
practices helped the teachers to describe and articulate their own experiences in
teaching, learn from enacted experiences in the classroom, and apply learned
practices in subsequent teaching. This virtuous cycle indicates that reflective
practice is an essential mechanism for EFL teachers to become proficient in
integrating technology in their teaching practices.
Keywords: EFL teachers, professional development, reflective practice,
TPACK
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v32i1/117-133

During the past decades, reflective practice has been suggested as an essential
component of teacher education to help teachers to improve their teaching from
in-depth introspection of embodied experiences (Beauchamp, 2015; Chien,

117
118 TEFLIN Journal, Volume 32, Number 1, January 2021

2013; Cirocki & Widodo, 2019; Farrell, 2018) and to activate their
metacognitive thinking to identify areas for improvement in teaching
(Loughran, 2007). Further, reflective practice is also considered a powerful tool
to investigate teachers’ expected goals and epistemological beliefs and enhance
teacher awareness during their teaching process (Demirbulak, 2012; Farrell,
2007; Nguyen, 2017).
Nowadays, teachers are increasingly more involved with designing and
implementing technology-enhanced lessons in classrooms (Tai et al., 2015).
However, bringing technology into the classroom is not a simple process since
teachers need to consider the connection between technology usage and
pedagogical goals to achieve (Drajati et al., 2018; Koh et al., 2015; Mouza,
2011). The type of teacher knowledge that helps this process of thinking is
known as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which
refers to how teachers integrate their technological knowledge (TK),
pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK) to create
technology-integrated lessons (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Researchers have investigated the potential of reflection on teaching to
help teachers improve their critical thinking, knowledge, and action to integrate
content, pedagogy, and technology (Loveless, 2011). The study by Kale (2017)
showed that reflection helps pre-service teachers to improve TPACK for
technology integration. Similarly, Gönen (2019) investigated how pre-service
teachers in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context integrated
technology during the 12-week teaching practicum and found that blending
reflective practice and situated learning experiences (e.g., teaching practicum)
is an effective way to equip pre-service teachers with TPACK. Krauskopf
(2017) examined how the use of the Graphic Assessment of TPACK
Instrument (GATI) helps develop teachers’ meta-conceptual awareness of their
teaching practices. GATI in Krauskopf’s study refers to teachers’ creating
graphical representations of what they understand to be their current TPACK
and aspired TPACK.
Despite the existing research on TPACK and reflective practice, little is
known about whether reflective practices can help in-service teachers develop
knowledge about teaching with technology in the EFL context. This research
aims to address this issue by exploring the narrative story of EFL teachers. The
two chosen teachers implemented a reflection cycle on their experiences
designing and implementing technology-enhanced lessons. This study’s
Sari et al., Enhancing Teachers’ TPACK Competence through Reflective Practice 119

guiding research question was: What aspects of TPACK did teachers reflect on
during the reflective practice cycle?

Teachers’ Reflective Practice

Reflective practice has been extensively discussed among researchers and
teachers who aim to develop teacher professionalism and to empower teachers
in the practice of their teaching profession (Munalim & Gonong, 2019).
Cirocki and Widodo (2019) define reflective practice as a process of thinking
about the critical incidents in the classroom before, during, and after their
occurrence to have an in-depth evaluation of the teaching and learning process.
Contemplating the experience is to gain new understandings that can enhance a
teacher's future practices. Reflective practice helps practitioners think on their
feet and improvise to deal with uncertainty, chaos, and complexity in teaching
(Finlay, 2008).
In terms of technology integration in the teaching and learning process,
teachers can articulate their past experiences and learn to understand
technology integration by doing reflective practices. To become a reflective
practitioner, a teacher needs to do not only reflection-on-action (a reflection of
the previous activities) but also reflection-in-action and reflection-for-action
(reflection for future actions to improve or change) (Schön, 1983).
Wilson (2008) states that in the reflection-in-action, teachers have deep
thinking of the present situation. Similarly, Murphy (2013) points out that
reflection-in-action is teachers’ awareness of the class conditions. Broader
research studies found that learners’ responses or feedback during the class
condition have an essential role in improving teaching and lesson planning
(Crichton & Gil, 2015).
Further, the next cycle on teachers’ reflective practice experience concerns
reflection after teaching or reflection-on-action. In this cycle, the practitioners
recall their memory and evaluate the obstacles, weaknesses, strengths of the
teaching aspects. One example of reflection on action is teachers watching their
videos or doing a peer-reflection right after the teaching process (Farrell,
2018).
Reflection-for-action impacts how a lesson plan is designed and deals with
planning before teaching. It deals with the preparation before the teaching and
learning process. The teachers usually think of some steps as anticipation of
classroom situations (Farrell, 2018). Minott’s (2010) study revealed some
120 TEFLIN Journal, Volume 32, Number 1, January 2021

aspects of the reflection-for-action teachers are supposed to consider, which

involve students’ reactions (in reflection during the class) and resources,
including school facilities and supplies for the lesson. Moreover, reflection for
action refers to finding out problems and possible solutions for the future
lesson, anticipating the challenges of preparing the lesson.

TPACK in Language Teaching

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a useful
conceptual framework for conceptualizing, scrutinizing, and evaluating what
teachers need to know to integrate technology into teaching practices (Mishra
& Koehler, 2006). Teachers need to construct a solid knowledge repertoire of
technology, pedagogy, and content to plan effective teaching with technology
(Hofer et al., 2011; Hughes, 2005; Koehler & Mishra, 2005). The TPACK
framework does not merely focus on one pedagogical orientation but involves
various knowledge orientations (Harris & Hofer, 2011). The TPACK elements
of profound elaboration are technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical
knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), and technological pedagogical
knowledge (TPK).
Effective integration of technology into teaching practices requires
mutual relationship between content and pedagogical knowledge. Therefore,
the TPACK development strategy used in the workshop provided to the
participants of the present study was structured around learning activities that
match a particular content area (Harris & Hofer, 2011). Each activity integrates
digital and non-digital technologies. The study therefore emphasizes largely
multimodal learning and reflective practice to help EFL teachers reconstruct
the aspects of TPACK during the class and when planning the lessons.

Research Context
This research was conducted in a teacher professional development (TPD)
program organized by university faculty members through an international
collaborative research project. The TPD program involved two workshops for
EFL teachers in secondary schools in Indonesia, which aimed to equip them
with TPACK to design and implement multimodal language learning with
technological components, and to help them to reflect on their teaching
Sari et al., Enhancing Teachers’ TPACK Competence through Reflective Practice 121

practices. The first workshop was about the theoretical aspects of

multimodality in language learning and the nature of reflective teaching
practices and how teachers can reflect on their teaching practices. Further, the
second workshop focused on the practical aspects of creating a lesson plan by
using TED-Ed as media to support multimodal language learning. Each
workshop lasted for 90 minutes.
To gain an in-depth understanding of the impacts of the workshop on
teaching practices, pre-observations and final observations were carried out to
portray realistically teaching practices by teachers. Pre-observations were done
before the procedural intervention or before the workshop was implemented,
whereas the final observations were conducted after the workshop. Teachers
were also interviewed before and after the observed lessons to identify their
skills to plan the lessons and to integrate technology into their teaching
practices. Further, reflective journals, the journal to document teachers’ stories
and reflections after their teaching practices, were analyzed to explore whether
teachers got a better understanding of the integration of technology into
teaching practices which in turn improved the student learning process.

METHOD
The researchers used a qualitative research method in the narrative inquiry
to examine teachers’ stories describing the reflective practice of integrating
technology, content, and pedagogy. A narrative inquiry focuses on teachers’
embodied stories, which offer an in-depth understanding of the event being
investigated. Using narrative inquiry to explore every aspect of pedagogy
(Clandinin, 2013), the researchers collected the data from multiple sources for
four months, including interviews, observations and reflective journals.
In this qualitative narrative study, the researchers investigate the reflective
practice of two teachers. Pseudonyms are used for the confidentiality of the
participants. The first teacher, Ani (female), is an experienced teacher with 15
years of teaching experience. She has been awarded the top national teacher,
which indicates her excellence in teaching. The second teacher, Budi (male), is
a technology-savvy teacher with five years of teaching experience and has been
enthusiastic about applying technology from the early years when he entered
the teaching profession. Both teachers have a master's degree in English
education.
122 TEFLIN Journal, Volume 32, Number 1, January 2021

Another consideration for recruiting the teachers was that the two teachers
had implemented the lessons they designed during the workshops in their
classrooms. Based on the observations conducted before the workshop, the
teachers were also found to have integrated technology in the classroom
regularly, which reflected TPACK requirements.

Data Collection
The teachers were asked to implement in their classrooms the lesson plans
they had designed during the workshop. The researchers observed and recorded
the teachers’ activity during the teaching and learning process. The teachers
were interviewed for 15 minutes before and after each observed lesson in
Indonesian. The pre-lesson interviews were to gain an overall understanding of
the teacher’s lesson plan as well as to identify their thoughts and expectations
on the lesson outcomes. The post-lesson interviews focused on the lesson
outcomes to gain a more profound sense of what had happened during the
lesson implementation and why. After the final observation, a 30-minute
interview was conducted to examine teachers’ overall experiences and beliefs
about teaching English with technology.
The teachers were also asked to keep a journal to document their stories
and reflections after the implementation. The teacher wrote a reflection of their
teaching at the end of each lesson that served as a journal entry. There were
three journal entries for each teacher as the data. The teachers wrote their
thoughts on their practice in response to some guiding questions. The questions
were: (1) What happened in class while you were applying multimodality as
the type of TPACK?; (2) How were the students’ responses while you were
applying TPACK?; and (3) Why did the response emerge? In particular, the
teachers were directed by the questions to write their thoughts related to the
implementation of the TPACK framework in their classrooms, thinking deeply
in every aspect of TPACK, both content (English), pedagogy (multimodal
learning), and technology (TED-Ed).

Data Analysis
For data analysis, the researchers conducted a thematic analysis of the
reflective journals and interviews that dealt with teachers’ reflective practice.
The pre-observation was also analyzed by using the process of thematic
analysis includes three activities. The first activity was repeatedly reading data
Sari et al., Enhancing Teachers’ TPACK Competence through Reflective Practice 123

on the narrative. This activity has an interactive relationship with the second
activity, which is coding and categorizing data extracts. The researchers must
move back and forth to improve thematic headings based on the data's
theoretical relationship (Barkhuizen et al., 2014). Themes were categorized
around three types of reflections: reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action, and
reflection-for-action, proposed by Schön (1983) and Killion and Todnem
(1991).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings
This section focuses on presenting the teachers’ experience in utilizing
reflective practice in their teaching, particularly to reflect on their use of
technology and TPACK. The findings are organized around the three stages of
reflection: reflection in-, on-, and for-action.
Reflection-in-Action: Students’ Responses during the Implementation of
Technology
Reflection-in-action occurs during an action, which engages teachers to
look at what they observe when teaching and give judgments about what
happened in the classroom (Burhan-Horasanlı & Ortaçtepe, 2016). The aspects
observed are usually related to the multiple aspects of teaching and learning,
such as students’ motivation, teaching and learning materials, and the
effectiveness of teaching-learning activities. Ani was also involved in the
reflection-in-action during her teaching process, as seen in the interview
excerpt:
From the beginning until the end of the lesson, I monitored the class situation,
including the students’ attention. In this lesson, I used an article and asked them
to make a mind map about the article by using an application. Some minutes
later, some students turned to be noisy without noticing me giving the next
instructions. I hypothesized many factors about their behavior, ‘Is there
something wrong with the application and the music?’, ‘Did I teach them too fast
to apply their understanding of the materials into the application?’ It is an
essential part of my teaching process to decide the next action, whether I should
repeat the instructions or simplify the assignment. (Ani / Interview.03)
124 TEFLIN Journal, Volume 32, Number 1, January 2021

In this excerpt, Ani considered the students’ response to indicate their

attention levels and whether the materials were delivered well. Changing or
repeating instructions based on the students' responses through monitoring is an
aspect of pedagogical knowledge (PK), whereas her speculation on ‘something
wrong with the application’ reflects technological knowledge (TK). Ani shared
that monitoring students’ understanding happens naturally even though it is not
described in the lesson plan. Further, Ani mentioned her concern about task-
centered learning rather than understanding-focused learning, when students
focused too much on completing tasks without deep understanding:
I found out that something went missing when the students focused only on
finishing the assignment (in this case, making a mind map using an application)
but did not understand the material I was supposed to teach. They could not
answer my questions related to the text even after the assignment was
accomplished. (Ani/ Reflective Journal.02)
Budi also mentioned close monitoring of students’ understanding and the use
of technological application:
During the teaching process, I made a personal approach to the students, where I
went around the classes to make sure they understand the materials and
technological applications. There were usually two or three students who do not
understand the technological applications. For example, I used TED-Ed to teach
about poems. There were some obstacles, such as sign-up problems and the
distraction of social media. These simple things made my class become less
conducive to teaching and caused a lack of student understanding about the
materials I taught. Due to the large class size, I could only make this personal
approach to specific students. (Budi/Interview.03)
Overall, Budi appeared to focus on tackling some obstacles with
technology usage in the classroom, and his pedagogical knowledge (PK) was
less revealed during the interview. The use of technology often caused the class
to become noisy, which may indicate issues with students’ ability to use the
technology. Budi tried to solve the issue by spending more time with the
students who still did not understand the materials or instructions. In other
words, he used his technological knowledge to resolve the students’ problems.
Sari et al., Enhancing Teachers’ TPACK Competence through Reflective Practice 125

Reflection-on-Action: Technology and Method as a Puzzle

The two teachers did reflection-on-action through individual
analysis and discussion with colleagues, as seen in this excerpt from
Ani:
At the end of each lesson, where I integrated short stories and TED-Ed as the
media, I felt something missing, such as the time-division. The time provided in
the school for English lessons was limited. Then I discussed this issue with my
colleague and decided that it would be better if some materials are done as
homework to relieve class time. Besides, I also asked my students to inform me of
the parts that they do not understand. These are input for my analysis.
(Ani/Interview.10)
This excerpt indicates Ani’s technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)
on time allocation management. The use of technology seemed to require
longer time allocation for a lesson. At this point, Ani realized that integrating
content, pedagogy, and technology should be considered in an integrated way.
To find a specific solution, she engaged in discussions with fellow teachers to
find the balance between learning in class and learning out of class (e.g.,
homework).
A similar situation happened to Budi. Initially, he was not entirely sure
about integrating technology in his lessons and thought that a technology-
enhanced lesson is not a simple process, and he could continue with a
traditional teaching approach. From the second trial, he was able to see the
appropriateness and benefits of integrating technology, which changed his
initial experience of integrating technology in the lessons:
The first time I used TED-Ed application, a short story facilitated by the video
available in the TED-Ed, it was very beneficial for me to explain the material in
the class. At first, I only thought, “I just download the video, then show it and
finish the lesson,” and I continued to teach conventionally, so the video had no
connection with the material and the approach. (Budi/Reflective Journal.03)
Budi’s mentioning that he thought the teaching method and the technology
media did not relate to each other implies that he did not consider the close
integration of pedagogical and technological aspects in the lessons, which
affected the materials he wanted to deliver to his students. In the attempts to
address teacher learning within PD, Kazemi and Hubbard (2008) made a
distinction between knowledge that is possessed and knowing that is deployed
126 TEFLIN Journal, Volume 32, Number 1, January 2021

in action. Learning to improve teaching (e.g., teaching with technology) entails

developing both knowledge and knowing. The teachers’ narratives imply that
they had acquired TPACK—a form of knowledge required for teaching with
technology—to some degree, but they had difficulty applying it in action in
innovative ways.

Reflection-for-Action: Integrating TPACK Means Leaving Comfort Zone

With regard to reflection-for action, Budi’s narratives show improvement
in how he used the TPACK framework for the lesson redesigning process. He
elaborated on the consideration in choosing technological tools for the next
lesson in his reflective journal.:
Today I had some problems with students’ understanding of grammatical rules
that used the short story and video as the learning platform. For the next material
about the different genres, I need to fix my lesson plan to help students
understand the lesson’s goals, whether it is a receptive skill or productive skill, to
make sure the strategy I’m going to blend with technology and how much I should
teach conventionally. (Budi/Reflective Journal.03)
Budi discussed his consideration in choosing the teaching strategy based
on reflecting on the action he did previously. The reflection for action relates to
the action for future changes and improvement. This is clearly shown in his
thinking about what is needed for the next implementation, related to the
content or skill as the goals and technology as the media (TPACK). He also
reflected through the discussion with colleagues, which improved his ideas on
designing the teaching materials.
Meanwhile, Ani started with fundamental points to teach and considered
new knowledge on designing the materials by considering the coherence
between content and technology. In one interview, she explained how she
delivered materials in the first lesson in a traditional way and used technology
as the primary media (e.g., mobile learning) in the next session:
I have a consideration that I have to apply technology, but I still need to stress
more on the content. So in this way, I try to combine both of them. It means that in
my lesson design, I delivered the material in a typical way in the first session. In
the next session, when I applied the TPACK using TED-Ed, I thought it is helpful,
and I applied that when I knew that the students already got the point of the
material to be easier for them to apply what we had done or discussed.
(Ani/Interview.30).
Sari et al., Enhancing Teachers’ TPACK Competence through Reflective Practice 127

Ani examined her lesson design several times to ensure that the design
worked for her students and concluded that it is better to apply technology after
the materials have been thoroughly discussed and understood. Both teachers’
reflection-for-action was related to finding an optimal balance between
traditional approaches and new approaches (the use of TED-Ed), moving
beyond their comfort zone. Overall, the two teachers appreciated the
opportunity to design, implement, and reflect on their classroom experiences
with technology. When asked to share the most valuable aspect of teaching
with technology, both of them commented on the importance of implementing
technology into their classrooms and how this experience forced them to “get
out of their comfort zone,” “think outside the box,” “utilize new resources in
their instruction,” and “reflect on the outcomes of their lesson.” For instance,
Ani shared that:
Technology integration is a way of exploring outside my comfort zone. I need to
force myself to improve my technological knowledge for my students. This
allowed me to reflect more on the outcomes of my lesson plan as opposed to just
implementing the lesson and moving on. (Ani/Interview.32)

Discussion
This study examined two EFL teachers’ stories about how the cycle of
reflective practice helped them consider technology, content, and pedagogy as
an integrated knowledge base that can guide effective teaching with
technology. From the narrative inquiry analysis, we identified three patterns of
reflective practices:
1. The teachers were engaged in reflection-in-action, where they sensed what
happened during their teaching practice and then took actions based on the
informal hypothesis.
2. Reflection-on-action resulted in the teachers’ understanding of
constructing a new lesson plan for the classroom’s TPACK perspective.
3. The significant knowledge in reflection-for-action is the connection
between content knowledge (CK) and technological knowledge (TK),
which resulted in the emergence of reflection on technological content
knowledge (TCK) that the teachers started to think deeply about how
technology usage is related to the students’ needs of understanding the
content.
128 TEFLIN Journal, Volume 32, Number 1, January 2021

While both teachers had a similar tendency in how they engaged in

reflective practices, there was a slight difference in terms of the focus of their
reflection. This finding is in line with Cahyani and Cahyono’s (2012) research,
which indicates that some teachers have a strong interest in various technology
usage, and some do not. It is stated that a teacher who is not skillful in using
technology will join some workshops and training in recognizing new
technology (Cahyani & Cahyono, 2012). It may cause the teacher to have more
time to see and observe the technology supporting the learning process.
Meanwhile, novice preoccupation in technology tends to become risk-taking in
technology usage. (Meskill et al., 2002). From the background, Ani is a more
experienced teacher in teaching English, whereas Budi is a technology-savvy
teacher. In most of Ani’s narratives, the focus was on content knowledge and
her trial and error to find the appropriate balance between technology, content,
and pedagogy. On the contrary, Budi’s narrative focused more on finding the
newest technological applications.
Concerning teacher learning within professional development, Kazemi and
Hubbard (2008) distinguish between knowledge that is possessed and knowing
that is deployed in action. Learning to improve teaching (e.g., teaching with
technology) entails developing both knowledge and knowing (Farrell, 2018),
involving the action of sorting the accessible aspects of technology for the
classroom application. This study suggests that while teachers had attended
TPACK workshop and training, they still had some difficulties applying
TPACK in designing lessons in innovative ways. Similar difficulties were
discussed in Drajati et al. (2018). In their research, teachers encountered
challenges in terms of limited time allocation and supporting facilities for
English subject.
The understanding of TPACK complexity indicates teachers’ awareness of
integrating technology, content, and pedagogy (Schmidt et al., 2009), which
makes them more aware of how to design lesson plans for future teaching. This
study suggests that reflection enabled teachers to build connections among the
different components of TPACK. As one of the tools of reflection on action,
group discussion brings confidence to the teacher in developing TPACK in
their lesson plans. Narrative inquiry reveals the embedded elements of
reflection (Barkhuizen et al., 2014), including issues related to pedagogy, such
as learners, instruction, and assessment, as well as content and technology.
Initially, teachers were reluctant to implement technology in student-centered
Sari et al., Enhancing Teachers’ TPACK Competence through Reflective Practice 129

ways, despite their ability to design technology-integrated lessons. With

reflective teaching, they looked back on their learning to look forward to their
teaching (Farrell, 2007; Ghaye, 2011). As suggested by Farrell (2018) and
Freeman (2016), reflection is a form of improvement concerning the teacher’s
mind about their consideration of choosing teaching strategy, technology, and
many other components related to the lesson.

CONCLUSIONS
Reflection is a powerful mechanism to help teachers in making adaptive
inferences on their teaching. The EFL teachers did their reflection by telling
stories on their technology usage, which increased their awareness of their
teaching practices and led them to make decisions towards improvement. With
the importance of reflective practice on TPACK, teacher education institutions
and professional development programs may consider sessions to gain the
necessary knowledge and skills for reflective practices. In terms of future
research, there is a need for long-term research that includes teacher groups
with different educational and professional experiences. Future research can
also elaborate more on the types of challenges teachers face in developing
TPACK in a longer timeframe.

REFERENCES
Barkhuizen, G. P., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in
language teaching and learning research. Routledge.
Beauchamp, C. (2015) Reflection in teacher education: Issues emerging from a
review of current literature. Reflective Practice, 16(1), 123-141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.982525
Burhan-Horasanlı, E., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2016). Reflective practice-oriented
online discussions: A study on EFL teachers’ reflection-on, in and for-
action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59(2016), 372-382.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.002
Cahyani, H., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2012). Teachers' attitudes and technology use
in Indonesian EFL classrooms. TEFLIN Journal, 23(2), 130-148.
Chien, C. (2013) Analysis of a language teacher's journal of classroom practice
as reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 14(1), 131-143, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.732951
130 TEFLIN Journal, Volume 32, Number 1, January 2021

Cirocki, A., & Widodo, H. P. (2019). Reflective practice in English language

teaching in Indonesia: Shared practices from two teacher educators.
Iranian Journal of English Teaching Research, 7(3), 15-35.
Clandinin, D. J. (2013) Engaging narrative inquiry. Routledge.
Crichton, H., & Gil, F. V. (2015). Student teachers’ perceptions of feedback as
an aid to reflection for developing effective practice in the classroom.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 38:(4), 512-524.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2015.1056911
Demirbulak, D. (2012). Fostering propensities for reflective practice at
undergraduate methodology and practicum courses. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 48, 39-58.
Drajati, N. A., Tan, L., Haryati, S., Rochsantiningsih, D., & Zainnuri, H.
(2018). Investigating English language teachers in developing TPACK
and multimodal literacy. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3),
575-582. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9806
Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to
practice. Continuum Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Operationalizing reflective practice in second language
teacher education. Journal of Second Language Teacher Education, 1(1),
1-20.
Finlay, L. (2008) Reflecting on "Reflective practice'. Practice-based
Professional Learning Paper 52, The Open University. Retrieved from
https://oro.open.ac.uk/68945/1/Finlay-%282008%29-Reflecting-on-
reflective-practice-PBPL-paper-52.pdf
Freeman, D. (2016). Educating second language teachers. Oxford University
Press.
Ghaye, T. (2011) Teaching and learning through reflective practice: A
practical guide for positive action (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Gönen, S. I. K. (2019). A qualitative study on a situated experience of
technology integration: Reflections from pre-service teachers and students.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 163-189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1552974
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers'
curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of
Sari et al., Enhancing Teachers’ TPACK Competence through Reflective Practice 131

Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570
Hofer, M. J., Grandgenett, N., Harris, J., & Swan, K. (2011). Testing a
TPACK-based technology integration observation instrument. In M.
Koehler & P. Mishra, (Eds.) Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp.
4352–4359). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE), Waynesville, NC USA.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in
forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302
Kale, U. (2017). Technology valued? Observation and review activities to
enhance future teachers" utility value toward technology integration.
Computers & Education, 117, 160-174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.007
Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of
professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324330.
Killion, J. P., & Todnem, G. R. (1991). A process for personal theory building.
Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14-16.
Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design
educational technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2),
131-152. https://doi.org/10.2190%2F0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking
and 21st-century skills. In J. H. L. Koh, C. S. Chai, B. Wong & H.-Y.
Hong (Eds.), Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications
in teaching and learning (pp. 33-46). Springer.
Krauskopf, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2017). Prompting teachers"
reflection of their professional knowledge. A proof-of-concept study of the
Graphic Assessment of TPACK Instrument. Teacher Development, 22(2),
153–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2017.1367717
Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to
the challenges, demands, and expectation of self-study. Journal of
Teacher Education, 58(1),12–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106296217
132 TEFLIN Journal, Volume 32, Number 1, January 2021

Loveless, A. (2011). Technology, pedagogy, and education: Reflections on the

accomplishment of what teachers know, do, and believe in a digital age.
Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 20(3), 301-316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2011.610931
Meskill, C., Mossop, J., DiAngelo, S., & Pasquale, R. K. (2002). Expert and
novice teachers talking technology: Precepts, concepts, and misconcepts.
Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 46-57. Retrieved from
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25176/1/06_03_m
eskill.pdf
Minott, M.A. (2010). Reflective teaching and how it aids in coping with heavy
workloads, mandated policies, and disagreements with colleagues.
Current Issues in Education, 13(1). Retrieved from
https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/225/127
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College
Record, 108, 1017–1054.
Mouza, C. (2011). Promoting urban teachers' understanding of technology,
content, and pedagogy in the context of case development. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 44(1), 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782577
Munalim, L. O., & Gonong, G. O. (2019). Stances in student-teachers' spoken
reflection: An exploratory linguistic study to enhance a reflection
inventory. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 7(1), 119-
139.
Murphy, J. (2013). Reflective teaching: Principles and practices. In M.
CelceMurcia, D. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a
second or foreign language (pp. 613-629). National Geographic Learning
and Heinle.
Nguyen, C., D. (2017) Connections between learning and teaching: EFL
teachers' reflective practice, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(3),
237-255, https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1356725
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in
action. Basic Books.
Tai, H., Pan, M., & Lee, B. (2015). Applying Technological Pedagogical and
Content Knowledge (TPACK) model to develop an online English writing
Sari et al., Enhancing Teachers’ TPACK Competence through Reflective Practice 133

course for nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 35(6), 782–788.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.016
Wilson, J. P. (2008). Reflecting‐on‐the‐future: A chronological consideration
of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(2), 177-184.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802005525