Building Reflective Teacher Communities in ELT: Sustaining Professional Growth through the Kirkpatrick Model

Introduction

In ELT, teacher professional development often suffers from short-term focus and limited follow-up. While workshops and certifications provide exposure to innovative methods or revisitation of proven methodologies, they frequently fail to lead to long-term change in classroom practice or in teacher pedagogical behavior. The Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), traditionally applied to corporate training evaluation, has offered a structured framework for understanding the effectiveness of teacher development programs in language teaching. However, for ELT institutions committed to communicative and formative assessment principles, its potential can only be realized when PD is embedded within reflective and collaborative learning environments, where teachers can coach each other and lend them a hand when needed. This is why Farrell (2015) notes that “teachers must not only learn about teaching, but learn from their teaching” (p. 12), something that requires a more seasoned instructor’s help. My intention with this paper is to examine how integrating reflective teacher communities with the Kirkpatrick Model can ensure sustainable and meaningful professional growth.

Reflection as the Foundation of Teacher Growth

The notion of reflection in teaching traces back to Schön’s (1983) concept of the reflective practitioner, which emphasizes the teachers’ ability to think critically about their own practice while engaged in it. Reflection, according to Schön, allows professionals to construct new understandings of complex situations through “reflection-in-action” (p. 68). In ELT, such reflection becomes essential because communicative classrooms are dynamic ecosystems where language, identity, and interaction converge. Farrell (2015) extends this idea to teacher education, suggesting that reflective teaching “moves teachers beyond technique to question the assumptions and values underlying their decisions” (p. 9). Thus, reflection serves not only as a cognitive activity but as a transformative process linking experience, ELT theory, and classroom reality and teaching practices.

Communities of Practice (CoP) as Contexts for Reflection

While reflection may begin as an individual process, its impact multiplies when situated within a community of practice (CoP). Lave and Wenger (1991) define CoPs as groups where individuals “share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (p. 98). Within ELT institutions, such communities allow teachers to engage in dialogue, share classroom experiences, and co-construct pedagogical knowledge. As Wenger (1998) later argues, participation in a community transforms learning from a product into a process of identity formation. When teachers reflect collectively on student outcomes, feedback, and challenges, they align their practices with shared values of communicative competence and learner autonomy, principles central to modern language pedagogy.

The Kirkpatrick Model as a Framework for Sustained Evaluation

As I have explored in other posts of mine in this blog, the Kirkpatrick Model offers a four-level framework, Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results, that can help supervisors guide pre- or in-service instructors’ reflection within teacher communities. Applied to ELT, it can help educators evaluate professional development initiatives beyond participant satisfaction (Reaction in the Kirkpatrick Model). For instance, Level 1 (Reaction) may involve teachers’ engagement during workshops; Level 2 (Learning) assesses the knowledge gained about communicative or formative practices; Level 3 (Behavior) examines whether teachers apply these methods in class; and Level 4 (Results) evaluates the ultimate impact on student learning and engagement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). When communities of practice (CoP) adopt this model as a shared reflection tool, they ensure that evaluation becomes formative, not punitive, fostering continuous improvement and shared accountability.

Integrating Reflection and Evaluation: A Synergistic Approach

The true innovation of a proposal like this one lies in combining reflection (Schön, 1983) and evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) as complementary dimensions of teacher growth and professional development. Reflective teacher communities (RTCs) can use the Kirkpatrick framework to structure their teaching and learning discussions, moving from initial emotional responses to data-informed inquiry about learning transfer and student outcomes. As Fullan (2007) has observed, “sustainable change depends less on policy and more on the quality of interaction within the professional community” (p. 43). When teachers collectively analyze classroom evidence such as student in- or out-of-class work, peer observations, and formative assessments (application and feedback sessions), they develop a culture of evidence-based reflection aligned with institutional goals, mostly aligned with CEFR linguistic and pragmatic descriptors.

Leadership and Institutional Support

Institutional leaders such as the academic director, the head of training, and the coordinator of teacher supervision play a decisive role in nurturing these reflective teacher communities (RTCs). Leadership, according to Hargreaves and Fullan (2012), must shift from hierarchical supervision to “professional capital,” where teachers are empowered as agents of improvement (p. 89), not just a cohort of instructors who must execute specific “orders” on how to teach and align their teaching to a given methodology. Creating time for structured reflection with a CoP, promoting collaborative inquiry through online synchronous and asynchronous course, and recognizing teacher innovation when this has materialized in a classroom are essential administrative supports that all instructors must feel coming positively towards them. As Farrell (2015) cautions, “reflection without institutional backing risks becoming another isolated burden on teachers” (p. 23), more “work” that needs to be complied with if a teaching position wants to be held. Therefore, reflective practice should be institutionalized as part of the school culture, not an extracurricular activity.

The Transformative Potential of Reflective Communities

When reflection, collaboration, and structured evaluation converge, reflective teacher communities (TCRs) evolve into “transformative agents of change” for the language classrooms. At this point, instructors become researchers of their own practice (classroom delivery), and evaluation shifts from compliance to curiosity (summative and formative assessments). Lave and Wenger’s (1991) principle of legitimate peripheral participation reminds us that even novice teachers contribute meaningfully as they engage in shared reflection and gradually assume more central roles. Such dynamics ensure that professional learning, and in consequence teacher development, is not a static process but continuously renewed through participation, dialogue, and shared vision of how language teaching is more effective in their institutions and within the methodology being employed.

Conclusion

Sustaining teacher professional growth and teaching performance in ELT requires more than isolated workshops, training sessions, or assessment frameworks. True PD demands a cultural shift toward reflective collaboration and embracing a CoP. By integrating the Kirkpatrick Model into reflective teacher communities (TCRs), institutions can ensure that professional development becomes a cyclical, evidence-informed, and participatory process that will help instructors align with the institutional pedagogical model. As Schön (1983) envisioned, teachers evolve not through prescriptions but through reflection-in-action; as Farrell (2015) adds in this respect, teacher learning deepens when shared within communities. The road forward for ELT professionals is thus clear: to cultivate reflective teacher communities (TRCs) that transform training into sustainable, institutionalized professional growth.

📚 References

Bailey, K. M. (2017). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions. National Geographic Learning.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting reflective practice in ELT: Research-based principles and practices. Routledge.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

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

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Comprehension and Reflection Worksheet