From Reflection to Leadership: Mentorship as the Fourth Level of Professional Growth in ELT

ELT Leadership, Kirkpatrick Model, Mentorship, Professional Capital, Reflective Communities, Reflective Practice, Teacher Well-being 0 comments

Mentorship Glowing

AI-generated picture by Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano in November 2025

Introductory Note to the Reader

Reflective journaling entered my professional life during my graduate studies at Laureate Education, and it quickly became foundational to my growth as an instructor. Far from being a mere academic exercise, journaling allowed me to understand how language learning unfolds cognitively, emotionally, and socially. Over the years, it has helped me identify when and how I can support my students as they move beyond their current developmental stages—those subtle, yet transformative “pinch points” where guidance, clarity, or encouragement unlocks new learning.

As my understanding deepened, I came to appreciate that reflection is not only a personal tool but also a professional responsibility. An experienced educator recognizes that growth does not end with mastering teaching techniques; it culminates in accompanying other teachers on their journeys. That conviction motivates the essay that follows, which explores mentorship as the highest and most human dimension of reflective professional development.

From Reflection to Leadership: Mentorship as the Fourth Level of Professional Growth in ELT

Abstract

This essay argues that mentorship represents the fourth and culminating level of professional growth within a reflective English Language Teaching (ELT) framework. Building on Schön’s (1983) concept of “knowing-in-action” and Farrell’s (2022) work on reflective teacher identity, the paper proposes that reflection naturally evolves into leadership through the relational and collaborative practice of mentorship. By extending the Kirkpatrick Model beyond institutional metrics, the essay conceptualizes “Level 4” not only as measurable results but also as the development of reflective communities sustained by experienced teachers. Drawing on the work of Hargreaves and Fullan (2012), Richards and Farrell (2005), and Mercer and Gregersen (2020), it highlights how mentorship strengthens teacher well-being, professional capital, and institutional culture. Ultimately, the essay positions reflective mentorship as pedagogical stewardship—teachers nurturing teachers—and the most enduring expression of professional maturity in ELT.

Keywords:

Reflective Practice, Mentorship, ELT Leadership, Professional Capital, Teacher Well-Being, Kirkpatrick Model, Reflective Communities

Resumen

Este ensayo sostiene que la mentoría constituye el cuarto y último nivel del desarrollo profesional dentro de un marco reflexivo de la enseñanza del inglés (ELT). Basándose en el concepto de Schön (1983) de “knowing-in-action” y en el trabajo de Farrell (2022) sobre la identidad docente reflexiva, el artículo propone que la reflexión evoluciona naturalmente hacia el liderazgo por medio de la práctica relacional y colaborativa de la mentoría. Al ampliar el Modelo de Kirkpatrick más allá de indicadores institucionales, se interpreta el “Nivel 4” no solo como resultados medibles, sino como el desarrollo de comunidades reflexivas sostenidas por docentes experimentados. A partir de las ideas de Hargreaves y Fullan (2012), Richards y Farrell (2005) y Mercer y Gregersen (2020), el ensayo muestra cómo la mentoría fortalece el bienestar docente, el capital profesional y la cultura institucional. En última instancia, se presenta la mentoría reflexiva como una forma de mayordomía pedagógica —docentes que forman a otros docentes— y como la expresión más duradera de la madurez profesional en ELT.

Resumo

Este ensaio argumenta que a mentoria representa o quarto e último nível do desenvolvimento profissional dentro de um marco reflexivo no ensino de inglês (ELT). Com base no conceito de “knowing-in-action” de Schön (1983) e no trabalho de Farrell (2022) sobre a identidade docente reflexiva, o texto propõe que a reflexão evolui naturalmente para a liderança por meio da prática relacional e colaborativa da mentoria. Ao expandir o Modelo de Kirkpatrick além dos indicadores institucionais, o ensaio interpreta o “Nível 4” não apenas como resultados mensuráveis, mas como o desenvolvimento de comunidades reflexivas sustentadas por professores experientes. Inspirado pelas contribuições de Hargreaves e Fullan (2012), Richards e Farrell (2005) e Mercer e Gregersen (2020), mostra como a mentoria fortalece o bem-estar docente, o capital profissional e a cultura institucional. Conclui-se que a mentoria reflexiva constitui uma forma de liderança pedagógica —professores formando professores— e a expressão mais duradoura da maturidade profissional no ELT.

Introduction

In English Language Teaching (ELT), reflective practice has long been recognized as a cornerstone of ongoing teacher development. However, the end goal of reflection is not merely personal mastery of TESOL techniques or methodological approaches but the transformation of reflective awareness into leadership and, why not, mentorship. As Schön (1983) observed, professionals grow by making their “knowing-in-action” explicit. Seeing it happen in the classroom tells us that a reflective transformation is taking place. Yet, the mature stage of this reflective cycle lies in guiding other teaching professionals to develop that same awareness one develops through reflective practice. This essay (post #493 in this blog) argues that teacher mentorship constitutes the fourth level of professional growth within a reflective ELT framework, building on the Kirkpatrick Model by extending its final level, results, toward collaborative teacher development and institutional renewal of mentoring figures.

Reflection as a Foundation for Leadership

Reflection remains central to professional identity formation. Thomas Farrell (2022) has noted that reflective teachers not only understand their pedagogical decisions but also shape their professional selves within dynamic educational contexts. This ongoing and permanent self-examination of one’s pedagogical beliefs and decisions generates the confidence and insight necessary for mentoring leadership, a competency that can be nurtured through time and aiding other teaching professionals. Jack C. Richards and Thomes Farrell (2005) emphasize that “the move from teacher to mentor is a developmental shift from self-directed reflection to other-directed guidance” (p. 7). In other words, this is a natural process that does not happen overnight; one does not wake up the following day being a teacher mentor or coach. In this sense, leadership begins when teachers use their reflective capacities to nurture others’ growth rather than focusing solely on their own performance because they have gone through a process of reflection that has helped them discover how they can transform their teaching skills into professional competencies that can transform their teaching and student learning. When this stage in their developmental process is achieved, we are about to witness the advent of a new generation of mentors and coaches.

Mentorship as the Extension of Reflection

Mentorship transforms reflection into relational pedagogy, an educational approach the places the teacher-learner relationship at the center of the learning process. Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) introduced the concept of professional capital, which includes human, social, and decisional capital, each cultivated through mentoring and collaboration. Reflective mentors model vulnerability, dialogue, and co-construction of knowledge for novice or beginning teachers, guiding and supporting them. And as Day and Sachs (2004) contend, teacher professionalism thrives when schools become “communities of inquiry and mutual support” (p. 14), places where mentors and instructors can sit together to discuss and assess what is happening in their classrooms. For this type of relationship between a mentor and a teacher, reflective mentorship becomes an ethical act: a means of ensuring that professional growth is sustainable, shared, and anchored in human connection.

The Kirkpatrick Model and the Fourth Level of Growth

When viewed through the Kirkpatrick Model, mentorship aligns with the highest evaluative level, results, where reflection produces observable transformation of planning for a class and of the teaching processes present in a classroom. However, this paper extends the model to propose a “fourth level of growth” in which the results are not limited to institutional metrics but are embodied in human relationships. The mentor’s role becomes a multiplier of reflective practice, sustaining professional learning communities that perpetuate the reflective cycle within the cohort of teachers in an institution. This interpretation situates mentorship as the capstone of the reflective teacher’s journey: from learning to teaching, from self-awareness to stewardship.

Teacher Well-Being and Reflective Communities

Mentorship and well-being are mutually reinforcing. Mercer and Gregersen (2020) argue that teacher well-being depends on connectedness, emotional resilience, and professional purpose. Reflective mentors contribute to institutional well-being by cultivating empathy, recognition, and psychological safety among peers, a true community of “reflective” practice where shared challenges can be openly discussed and where solutions can be tried out with peers while being aided by a teacher coach or mentor. As Farrell (2022) highlights, reflective communities serve as “spaces of belonging” where dialogue reduces isolation and fosters collective meaning-making. Hence, mentorship is both a professional and emotional endeavor; it ensures that growth is grounded in care and shared purpose and not grounded in a hierarchical relationship between an instructor and a teacher coach.

Conclusion

Reflective mentorship represents the natural culmination of professional development in ELT. It transcends self-improvement to embody pedagogical stewardship; that is, teachers nurturing teachers. Through mentorship, reflection becomes leadership, transforming not only classrooms but institutions. The synthesis of the Kirkpatrick Model with reflective mentorship underscores that the highest form of teaching is helping others grow. As Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) remind us, “Great teachers lead not through authority but through moral and professional capital.” In this spirit, mentorship remains the most human and enduring dimension of professional growth.

📚 References

Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers. Open University Press. https://es.scribd.com/document/383169015/International-Handbook-on-the-Continuing-Professional-Development-of-Teachers

Farrell, T. S. C. (2022). Reflective practice in ELT: Identities, beliefs, and practices. Bloomsbury.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. https://share.google/W5qQnZDdWcBXIJTuC

Mercer, S., & Gregersen, T. (2020). Teacher well-being. Oxford University Press. DOI:10.31261/TAPSLA.9238

Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511667237

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. https://raggeduniversity.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/1_x_Donald-A.-Schon-The-Reflective-Practitioner_-How-Professionals-Think-In-Action-Basic-Books-1984_redactedaa_compressed3.pdf

Reader’s Comprehension and Reflection Worksheet by Jonathan Acuña

Mentorship as the Fourth Level of Professional Growth in ELT by Jonathan Acuña

Saturday, November 22, 2025

Cannibalism and Conscience: The Ethics of Revenge in Dante’s Inferno Canto XXXIII

Betrayal, Dante Alighieri, Dante Studies, Ethics, Inferno XXXIII, Moral Cannibalism, Moral Theology, Thomistic Ethics, Ugolino, Vengeance 0 comments

Frozen Horror of Eternal Vegeance

AI-generated picture by Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano in November 2025

Introductory Note to the Reader

This is the third time in my life that I have the opportunity to read The Divine Comedy. Each reading has revealed new layers of meaning, but this time, I chose to delve specifically into the disturbing episode of Count Ugolino’s eternal feast on Archbishop Ruggieri’s skull.

I wanted to better understand what Dante was ethically and theologically exposing through this grotesque and unforgettable scene.

The following paper represents that exploration, an attempt to see beyond the horror and uncover the moral architecture that Dante constructs around betrayal, vengeance, and the dark logic of sin. And here it is.

Cannibalism and Conscience: The Ethics of Revenge in Dante’s Inferno Canto XXXIII

Abstract

This essay examines the ethical implications of Count Ugolino’s eternal act of cannibalistic vengeance in Canto XXXIII of Dante Alighieri’s Inferno. Situated in the Ninth Circle, this episode dramatizes themes of betrayal, corrupted reason, political treachery, moral cannibalism, and the tension between human revenge and divine justice. Drawing on scholarly analyses by Hollander, Singleton, Barolini, and others, the paper argues that Dante’s portrayal of Ugolino serves as a symbolic critique of unregulated vengeance and the spiritual self-devouring that results from rejecting forgiveness. Through close textual analysis of the Italian and English verses and references to Thomistic moral philosophy, the essay situates Ugolino’s punishment within Dante’s larger ethical vision, where sin becomes an inward-turning act that annihilates both self and community. The episode ultimately reveals how hatred, when allowed to reign unchecked, becomes an eternal feast upon one’s own damnation.

Keywords:

Dante Alighieri, Ugolino, Inferno XXXIII, Vengeance, Betrayal, Thomistic Ethics, Ethics, Moral Cannibalism, Moral Theology, Dante Studies

Resumen

Este ensayo analiza las implicaciones éticas del acto eterno de venganza caníbal del conde Ugolino en el Canto XXXIII del Infierno de Dante Alighieri. Situado en el Noveno Círculo, este episodio dramatiza temas de traición, corrupción de la razón, conflicto político, canibalismo moral y la tensión entre la venganza humana y la justicia divina. A partir de análisis de Hollander, Singleton, Barolini y otros críticos, el ensayo sostiene que la representación de Ugolino funciona como una crítica simbólica contra la venganza descontrolada y el autoaniquilamiento espiritual que surge cuando se rechaza el perdón. Mediante un análisis textual detallado de los versos en italiano e inglés y referencias a la ética tomista, el ensayo ubica el castigo de Ugolino dentro de la visión ética más amplia de Dante, donde el pecado se convierte en un acto que se vuelve hacia dentro y destruye tanto al individuo como a la comunidad. El episodio revela, en última instancia, cómo el odio perpetuo se transforma en un banquete eterno sobre la propia condenación.

Resumo

Este ensaio investiga as implicações éticas do ato eterno de vingança canibal do conde Ugolino no Canto XXXIII do Inferno de Dante Alighieri. Localizado no Nono Círculo, o episódio dramatiza temas de traição, razão corrompida, conflito político, canibalismo moral e a tensão entre a vingança humana e a justiça divina. Com base em estudos de Hollander, Singleton, Barolini e outros, o ensaio argumenta que a representação de Ugolino funciona como uma crítica simbólica à vingança descontrolada e ao autoaniquilamento espiritual resultante da recusa do perdão. Por meio de análise textual dos versos em italiano e inglês e referências à ética tomista, o estudo insere o castigo de Ugolino na visão ética mais ampla de Dante, segundo a qual o pecado é um movimento interior que destrói o indivíduo e a comunidade. O episódio demonstra que o ódio eterno se converte em um banquete interminável sobre a própria perdição.

Introduction

At the lowest depth of the Inferno, Dante encounters a bizarre scene of frozen hatred: two souls locked in a grotesque intimacy, one gnawing on the skull of the other. In Inferno Canto XXXIII, Count Ugolino della Gherardesca is eternally devouring the head of Archbishop Ruggieri degli Ubaldini, symbolizing vengeance perpetuated beyond death. Dante introduces them in the Ninth Circle, specifically in Antenora, “which holds traitors to country, city, and party” Armenikus & Statler 2025). The episode is a masterpiece of ethical symbolism, portraying how betrayal and vengeance consume both body and soul.

“His mouth uplifted from his horrid meal,
that sinner wiped his lips upon the hair
of the head he had laid waste behind.” (Inferno XXXIII.1–3, trans. Musa, 2003)

“La bocca sollevò dal fiero pasto
quel peccator, forbendola a’ capelli
del capo ch’elli avea di retro guasto.” (Inferno XXXIII.1–3)

The act of biting another’s skull evokes primal savagery, yet Dante’s moral vision extends beyond the literal image: it becomes a mirror of moral cannibalism, where revenge feeds endlessly upon itself. For Vasquez (2020), “Dante's portrayal of Count Ugolino implies deeper crimes beyond cannibalism, suggesting pedophilia and betrayal.”

Political Betrayal and the Context of Ugolino’s Damnation

Historically, Count Ugolino was a Pisan noble accused in 1289 of treason by Archbishop Ruggieri, “whose alliance he had sought, had him imprisoned with his two sons and two grandchildren in a tower, where the whole family was left to die of starvation” (Borges Center, n.d.) Dante’s retelling transforms this political tragedy into an allegory of corrupted reason and spiritual blindness.

Ugolino narrates his imprisonment, starvation, and the deaths of his children with chilling restraint:

“Then fasting got the better of grief.” (Inferno XXXIII.75, trans. Musa, 2003)

“Poscia, più che ‘l dolor, poté ‘l digiuno.” (Inferno XXXIII.75)

This ambiguous line, whether Ugolino succumbed to hunger or resorted to cannibalism, reveals the moral paradox Dante constructs: Ugolino is both victim and sinner. As Hollander (2001) argues, “Dante portrays Ugolino not simply as an object of pity, but as one who internalizes the very cruelty he suffered” (p. 212). His eternal punishment, gnawing the skull of his betrayer, embodies a cyclical vengeance that perpetuates the sin of betrayal he once endured.

Ethical Dimensions: Justice, Vengeance, and Sin

The moral teaching in this episode lies in Dante’s confrontation between human revenge and divine justice. While Ugolino seeks vengeance through eternal violence, Dante’s theology insists that true justice belongs only to God. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, II–II, Q.108) warns that “vengeance is lawful only when directed by justice, not by passion.” Ugolino’s endless feeding on Ruggieri’s skull is therefore not justice but the eternalization of passion, a moral imprisonment within wrath and pride.

“If I speak ill of him, I do not weep.” (Inferno XXXIII.8)

“S’io dico il vero, piangi tu di lui.” (Inferno XXXIII.8)

His inability to forgive, even in death, signals the final corruption of his moral will. Singleton (1977) notes that “Ugolino’s crime is the refusal of transcendence; he cannot cease to be his own avenger” (p. 227). This refusal renders his suffering unredemptive, contrasting with the penitents of Purgatorio, who transform pain into purification.

Dante’s Role as Witness and Moral Interpreter

Dante’s dialogue with Ugolino blurs the line between empathy and condemnation. The poet listens with horror yet does not intervene; his silence signifies both compassion and moral distance. When Dante hears Ugolino’s story, he is moved to curse Pisa itself:

“Ah, Pisa, shame of all the people of that fair land where ‘si’ is heard,
since your neighbors are slow to punish you,
may Capraia and Gorgona move and dam the Arno at its mouth!” (Inferno XXXIII.79–83)

“Ahi Pisa, vituperio de le genti
del bel paese là dove ‘l sì suona,
poi che i vicini a te punir son lenti,
muovasi la Capraia e la Gorgona,
e faccian siepe ad Arno in su la foce.” (Inferno XXXIII.79–83)

Here, Dante acts as a moral intermediary, condemning not just the sinner but the entire political system that enabled betrayal. Barolini (1992) explains that “Dante’s condemnation of Pisa reflects his moral vision that sin is not private—it infects the body politic” (p. 112).

Symbolism of Cannibalism: The Devouring of Humanity

The image of Ugolino gnawing Ruggieri’s skull is not mere grotesque invention; it dramatizes the spiritual cannibalism of sin. As pointed out by Cotton, K. (2015), “Historians believe that, in fact, Ugolino did try to preserve his life by eating on his dead family there in the tower. Not once does Dante the Poet consider that Ugolino offered his own flesh and blood to preserve these little ones. He engages in cannibalism in life and engages in cannibalism in death. He loved only himself in life and gets to devour his enemy in death.” The act of devouring symbolizes a will turned inward, feeding upon hatred rather than love. Aquinas defined sin as “a turning away from God toward mutable good” (Summa Theologica, I–II, Q.71), and here the mutable “good” is revenge itself.

Ugolino’s eternal consumption of Ruggieri’s skull becomes a perverse Eucharist, an inversion of the sacrament of communion. As explained by Warlick (n.d.), “We receive the Eucharist under the appearance of basic, elemental foods, bread and wine. And the sacrament brings about spiritually the nourishment it symbolizes, for in it Christ provides us richly with all that we need for healing and nourishment in the life of grace.” Instead of receiving divine grace, Ugolino partakes in endless hatred. Hollander (2001) describes this inversion as “a blasphemous parody of sacred eating, where the soul consumes not God, but its own damnation” (p. 215).

The Ethics of Pity and the Reader’s Moral Response

Dante’s ethical genius lies in his ability to implicate the reader in the moral dilemma. Are we to pity Ugolino or condemn him? For Hollander, “Dante's risky technique was to trust us, his readers, with the responsibility for seizing upon the details in the narratives told by these sympathetic sinners in order to condemn them on the evidence that issues from their own mouths.” Dante’s narrative style, blending pathos with horror, forces the reader to experience moral ambivalence. The Inferno thus becomes a test of ethical discernment, not mere observation.

As Ugolino finishes his tale, Dante says nothing. The silence following the story mirrors the collapse of moral categories: the victim and perpetrator are fused in shared damnation. Singleton (1977) concludes that “Dante’s silence is the ethical recognition that vengeance without grace annihilates both self and other” (p. 231).

Conclusion

In Inferno Canto XXXIII, Dante encapsulates one of the most complex moral paradoxes of his entire Commedia: the interplay between justice and revenge. The image of Ugolino devouring Ruggieri’s skull dramatizes how hatred perpetuates itself, even beyond death, when love and forgiveness are absent. Through this scene, Dante teaches that ethical salvation requires transcendence of vengeance, a surrender of one’s moral will to divine order.

Dante’s moral universe, grounded in Thomistic and Augustinian ethics, reveals that the punishment of the damned is not imposed from without but arises from within. As it is explained by Thomistic Guy (2025), “Dante creates a work which has long inspired both Catholic and non-religious images of hell and suffering, and all centred around values and morality based long in both Thomistic, and to some extent, Aristotelian thought.” Ugolino’s eternal feast is the embodiment of his own moral choice: to feed on vengeance rather than grace.

📚 References

Aquinas, T. (1981). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Christian Classics. (Original work published 1265–1274) https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1225-1274,_Thomas_Aquinas,_Summa_Theologiae_%5B1%5D,_EN.pdf

Armenikus, V. and Statler, L. (2025, May 1). Breaking the Ice Within ❄️: The Line Between Good and Evil Passes Through Every Heart. Retrieved form Genius & Ink. https://armenikus.substack.com/p/breaking-the-ice-within-the-line

Barolini, T. (1992). The undivine comedy: Detheologizing Dante. Princeton University Press.

Cotton, K. (2015, March 21). Category: Cannibalism. (n.d.). PERPETUAL ASTONISHMENT. https://perpetualastonishment.weebly.com/inferno/category/cannibalism#:~:text=Historians%20believe%20that%2C%20in%20fact,a%20totally%20self%2Dreferent%20reality.

Dante Alighieri. (2003). The divine comedy: Inferno (M. Musa, Trans.). Penguin Classics.

Hollander, R. (1988). The moral situation of the reader of Inferno (2.0). Princeton Dante Project. https://dante.princeton.edu/pdp/moralsit.html#:~:text=If%20we%20are%20struck%20by,coming%20of%20Beatrice%20to%20Limbo.

Hollander, R. (2001). Dante: A life in works. Yale University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348496243_Dante_A_Life_in_Works

Singleton, C. S. (1977). Dante studies II: Journey to Beatrice. Harvard University Press. https://share.google/FDgCJXKjaGAJPVfmz

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2001). Crossway.

Guy, T. (2025, January 31). Ethics in the Inferno: Aquinas, Aristotle, and Dante’s Vision of Virtue. Thomistic Guy. https://thomisticguy.substack.com/p/ethics-in-the-inferno-aquinas-aristotle?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Ugolino della Gherardesca | Borges Center. (n.d.). University of Pittsburgh https://www.borges.pitt.edu/i/ugolino-della-gherardesca#:~:text=Index:%20La%20espera%2C%20El%20Aleph,damnation%20in%20the%20same%20circle.

Vasquez, P. (2020). Dante's Cannibal Count: Unnatural Hunger and its Reckoning. Retrieved from Academia.Com https://www.academia.edu/43990092/Dantes_Cannibal_Count_Unnatural_Hunger_and_its_Reckoning

Warlick, D. (n.d.). Holy Eucharist. St. Mary Catholic Church and School - Derby, KS. https://www.stmarysderby.com/sacraments/holy-eucharist#:~:text=We%20receive%20the%20Eucharist%20under%20the%20appearance,and%20nourishment%20in%20the%20life%20of%20grace.

Reader's Handout

Reader's Handout by Jonathan Acuña

The Ethics of Revenge in Dante’s Inferno Canto XXXIII by Jonathan Acuña

Sunday, November 16, 2025

From Mechanism to Meaning: Tracing the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0)

Connectivism, Constructivism, Educational Evolution, Human-Centered Pedagogy, Learning Technologies, Posthumanism, Teaching Models, Wilbert Salgado 0 comments

Visualizing the evolution of teaching methods

AI-generated picture by Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano in November 2025

Introductory Note to the Reader

Though Wilbert and I teach English in different contexts, I am sure that we hold many similar approaches and ideas regarding the learning of a second language such as English.

This is just a joint effort to put together his expertise with mine and try to come up with a thoughtful post about the evolution of teaching models. Our intention is to offer educators, students, and colleagues a conceptual map that promotes reflection on where teaching has been, and where it is going, in an increasingly human–AI collaborative world.

From Mechanism to Meaning: Tracing the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0)

Abstract

This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and technological development of teaching models from Teaching 1.0 through Teaching 5.0, drawing on the collaborative framework developed by Wilbert Salgado. Each stage reflects changing epistemologies, pedagogical priorities, and conceptions of the teacher–learner relationship. Using perspectives from positivism, constructivism, connectivism, posthumanism, and human-centered design, the essay examines how education has shifted from transmission-based instruction to ethical, technology-integrated co-learning. The narrative combines scholarly analysis with reflective commentary to help readers situate themselves within this pedagogical continuum and consider how technology, ethics, and empathy shape the future of teaching.

Keywords:

Teaching Models, Educational Evolution, Constructivism, Connectivism, Posthumanism, Human-Centered Pedagogy, Learning Technologies

Resumen

Este ensayo analiza la evolución histórica, filosófica y tecnológica de los modelos de enseñanza desde Teaching 1.0 hasta Teaching 5.0, basado en el marco conceptual desarrollado por Wilbert Salgado. Cada etapa refleja transformaciones en la epistemología, las prioridades pedagógicas y la relación docente–estudiante. A partir de perspectivas como el positivismo, el constructivismo, el conectivismo y el posthumanismo, el texto muestra cómo la educación ha pasado de un modelo de transmisión de contenidos a una pedagogía ética, colaborativa y mediada por la tecnología. El enfoque combina rigor académico con reflexión personal para invitar al lector a cuestionar su propia práctica docente y el papel de la tecnología y la empatía en el futuro de la educación.

Resumo

Este artigo examina a evolução histórica, filosófica e tecnológica dos modelos de ensino, desde o Teaching 1.0 até o Teaching 5.0, com base no marco conceitual desenvolvido por Wilbert Salgado. Cada fase representa mudanças na epistemologia, nas prioridades pedagógicas e na relação entre professor e aluno. Utilizando perspectivas como positivismo, construtivismo, conectivismo e pós-humanismo, o texto discute como a educação passou de uma instrução transmissiva para uma pedagogia ética, colaborativa e integrada à tecnologia. O ensaio combina análise acadêmica com reflexão pessoal, incentivando o leitor a situar sua prática docente dentro desse continuum pedagógico.

Education has always been a mirror of its time and culture, reflecting the dominant philosophical and technological paradigms that shape our human understanding and knowledge. Each epoch redefines the teacher’s role, the learner’s agency, and the nature of knowledge itself. In Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0), Wilbert Salgado outlines this historical and epistemological transformation through five pedagogical eras. Each phase embodies a unique negotiation between humans (being in this case teachers and learners) and technology, between the quest for efficiency and the preservation of meaning. The framework is not merely descriptive; it offers an ethical and philosophical lens to understand how education evolves in response to its age (current ways of thinking and technological development). By tracing this arc, we can perceive how the act of teaching continually oscillates between mechanism and meaning, control and creativity, hierarchy and co-learning.

The first stage, Teaching 1.0, based on Wilbert Salgado’s analysis, captures the essence of the Industrial Paradigm, deeply rooted in positivism and essentialism (Comenius, 1657/1907; Herbart, 1902). Knowledge was viewed as objective, universal, and externally verifiable. The teacher stood as the authority, transmitter, and moral guide, while students were expected to absorb information passively through imitation and repetition. This educational model mirrored the needs of industrial society: order, discipline, and productivity. While such instruction fostered uniformity and moral stability, it often neglected individual growth and critical reflection. The teacher’s voice dominated the classroom, and education became a process of reproduction rather than transformation. In retrospect, this model illustrates how early education systems sought to replicate social order through obedience rather than to nurture intellectual independence.

The emergence of Teaching 2.0 during the mid-twentieth century marked a profound epistemological shift. Inspired by the cognitive revolution and constructivist theories, this era reconceived learning as an active process of meaning-making (Dewey, 1938; Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1978). The teacher’s authority gave way to facilitation; the classroom became a space of inquiry, experimentation, and reflection. Students learned not by absorbing facts but by connecting experiences. Dewey’s pragmatism redefined education as life itself, a continuous process of growth through experience, while Piaget and Vygotsky underscored the role of interaction and social context in knowledge construction. Personally, Wilbert and I find in this model the pedagogical DNA of contemporary learning: the dialogic process, the emphasis on curiosity, and the recognition that knowledge is not received but built. Teaching 2.0 invited educators to prioritize thinking over memorization, inquiry over conformity, and the learner’s experience over the teacher’s monotone monologues.

The transition to Teaching 3.0, the Digital and Networked Era, further disrupted traditional pedagogies by introducing technology as both medium and metaphor. Learning became decentralized and networked, embodying the principles of connectivism (Siemens, 2005; Downes, 2012). In this newer paradigm, knowledge exists not solely in the human mind but across nodes of a digital network, within communities, devices, and shared platforms. The teacher evolved from facilitator to designer of learning experiences, curating content and crafting digital spaces for collaboration. The classroom expanded beyond physical boundaries into a global and asynchronous environment. With the arrival of multimedia and early learning management systems, students became explorers of interconnected knowledge rather than sole recipients of information. Yet, this abundance of access brought new pedagogical challenges: discerning truth, managing information overload, and maintaining human depth in virtual spaces. As educators Wilbert and I have witnessed how Teaching 3.0 demands a dual literacy, technological and critical, to balance participation with discernment.

Based on Wilbert’s analysis, Teaching 4.0 emerged in tandem with Industry 4.0, the age of automation, data, and artificial intelligence. This model positions education as a platform for creativity, adaptability, and lifelong learning (Anderson, 2010; Redecker, 2017). Teachers function as mentors and learning designers who cultivate competencies that transcend disciplines (critical thinking, collaboration, problem-solving, and ethical reasoning). Learning is personalized through adaptive systems and gamified environments, and assessment emphasizes performance and innovation rather than rote mastery. However, as automation grows more sophisticated, this stage exposes an existential tension: the risk of reducing human intelligence to data points. The question arises, are we preparing adaptable workers or conscious citizens? To us, Teaching 4.0 exemplifies both promise and paradox: it democratizes access to knowledge but risks commodifying learning itself. To sustain its humanistic integrity, educators must intentionally pair technological fluency with emotional and ethical literacy.

The culmination of this trajectory, Teaching 5.0, represents what Wilbert Salgado defines as the Human-Centric Era, a reintegration of ethics, empathy, and sustainability into education. Rooted in the philosophies of posthumanism and ethical constructivism (Haraway, 2016; Braidotti, 2019), this model envisions human–AI collaboration not as competition but as co-evolution. Teachers are no longer mere transmitters or designers; they become co-learners and ethical guides who nurture reflection, empathy, and global awareness. Students, in turn, become responsible digital denizens capable of blending creativity with conscience and ethics. This model invites a holistic pedagogy, one that incorporates social-emotional learning (SEL), transdisciplinary inquiry, and sustainability education (UNESCO, 2021). We personally see Teaching 5.0 as a moral and spiritual reawakening within the technological age. It recognizes that the ultimate purpose of education is not efficiency but humanity, to ensure that technology amplifies compassion rather than alienates it.

The intellectual beauty of this pedagogical evolution lies not in its linearity but in its recursive nature. Each stage corrects and complements the excesses of the previous one: 1.0’s rigidity gives rise to 2.0’s creativity; 3.0’s connectivity anticipates 4.0’s adaptability; and 5.0’s ethical dimension restores the human equilibrium lost to automation. This interplay reveals a profound truth: “Education is always an ethical enterprise.” As teachers, we do not merely adopt new technologies; we embody new philosophies of being and knowing. Each lesson, whether mediated by chalk or algorithm, carries with it an implicit worldview, one that either humanizes or mechanizes learning.

For both of us, Wilbert Salgado and Jonathan Acuña, this framework is more than an academic taxonomy; it is a pedagogical compass. It challenges educators to situate themselves within this evolutionary continuum and ask, From which paradigm do I teach, and toward which paradigm am I teaching? In our shared reflections, we have come to see that while technological revolutions reshape educational practice, it is reflection that reshapes its meaning. Teaching, in every iteration, remains a profoundly human act, rooted in empathy, curiosity, and ethical imagination.

Ultimately, the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0) reminds us that progress in education is not measured by how efficiently we transfer information, but by how deeply we cultivate understanding. As we navigate the age of intelligent machines and immersive realities, the challenge is not to keep pace with technology but to ensure that learning keeps faith with humanity. Every new teaching model is a mirror, but also a choice, a chance to reimagine what it means to teach and to be taught in an age where both human and artificial intelligences coexist.

📚 References

Anderson, C. (2010). The new industrial revolution: Makers, innovation, and the reinvention of the world. Crown Business.

Braidotti, R. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Polity Press.

Comenius, J. A. (1907). The great didactic of John Amos Comenius (M. W. Keatinge, Trans.). Adam & Charles Black. (Original work published 1657)

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council of Canada.

Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.

Herbart, J. F. (1902). Outlines of educational doctrine (A. Lange, Trans.). Macmillan.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press.

Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Evolution of Teaching Models by Prof. Wilbert Salgado

Evolution of Teaching Models by Prof. Wilbert Salgado by Jonathan Acuña

Reader’s Handout Engaging with the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0)

Reader’s Handout Engaging With the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0) by Jonathan Acuña

Tracing the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0) by Jonathan Acuña

Saturday, November 15, 2025

From Reflection to Leadership: Mentorship as the Fourth Level of Professional Growth in ELT

Cannibalism and Conscience: The Ethics of Revenge in Dante’s Inferno Canto XXXIII

Reader's Handout

From Mechanism to Meaning: Tracing the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0)

Evolution of Teaching Models by Prof. Wilbert Salgado

Reader’s Handout Engaging with the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0)

Reflective Online Teaching

Visitors

Costa Rica

TESOL Certified Instructor

Certified Virtual Instructor

PD Talks & NCTE-Costa Rica

Copyscape

Labels

Blog Archive