Utilising E-Portfolios and Videos to Encourage Dialogic Reflections in Pre-service Teacher Education: An Analysis of Two Interventions from Bangladesh and Malaysia

August 2025 – Volume 29, Number 2

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29114s7

Nusrat Gulzar
University of Warwick, UK
<nusrat.gulzarwarwick.ac.uk>

Muhammad Fitri Bin Ahmad
University of Warwick, UK
<muhammad-fitri-bin.ahmadwarwick.ac.uk>

Steve Mann
University of Warwick, UK
<steve.mannwarwick.ac.uk>

Abstract

This paper discusses two interventions that explored the use, practice and outcomes of e-portfolios and videos in encouraging reflective practice (RP) in pre-service teacher education programmes in Bangladesh and Malaysia. The first case (Bangladesh) evaluates a tailored intervention facilitating student teachers’ online reflections via Google Sites. Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) of interviews, e-portfolio entries, and peer-to-peer conversations suggest that the flexible nature of the e-portfolio facilitation process, including targeted scaffolding and tasks, enabled student teachers to reflect on learning experiences through dialogues with self, peers and the researcher. The second case (Malaysia) examines the use of video-enhanced observation (VEO) platforms in promoting dialogic reflection. Thematic analysis of collaborative discussions, interviews, and reflective vignettes revealed that STs valued videos for practicing dialogic reflection and professional development. Offering autonomy in structuring RP and using customisable VEO tag sets enhanced their reflection experience. By examining student teachers’ perspectives on the challenges and benefits of videos and e-portfolios, the research also offered deeper insights into the possibilities associated with utilising these technologies for practising reflection in local contexts. Finally, the study presents some actionable strategies for teacher educators seeking to employ e-portfolios and videos to support meaningful reflective engagement among pre-service student teachers.

Keywords: reflective practice, technology-enhanced interventions, e-portfolios, videos, flexible approach, pre-service teacher education.

In recent decades, reflective practice (RP), traditionally reliant on written, routinised and structured forms, has evolved with technology-enhanced approaches leading to personalised, authentic, dialogic forms of practice (Farr & Riordan, 2015; Li & Walsh, 2023;). Precisely, e-portfolios (Bräuer & Ziegelbauer, 2023) and videos (Baecher et al., 2023) have been leading the way in helping to transform RP in pre-service teacher education (PSTE) due to their advantages for multimodal, self-regulated and dialogic features (Farr et al., 2019; Zhang & Tur, 2022). While these technologies offer new possibilities for reflection in pre-service teacher education (Farr & Riordan, 2015), teacher educators often struggle to effectively implement and evaluate these reflective processes (Suphasri & Chinokul, 2021). Current research primarily focuses on the affordances, challenges and practices of online technologies in teacher education (Kiddle & Prince, 2019; Mann & Walsh, 2017) but tends to overlook two crucial aspects: how practitioners design, develop, and evaluate approaches to encouraging RP using these tools and what concrete evidence shows about which approaches work best for supporting reflection in PSTE.

Data-driven research remains crucial for examining teacher educators’ implementations of RP through their chosen pedagogy, feedback, scaffolding, and social interaction strategies (Farr et al., 2019; Mann & Walsh, 2013). This focus on designing and evaluating technology-enhanced opportunities for encouraging RP represents true innovation in the field (Borko et al., 2007; Edge & Mann, 2013).

E-portfolios and videos for RP can offer a) evidence-based reflection through documented teaching moments and experiences, b) collaborative analysis through shared digital spaces, c) ongoing dialogue between peers and mentors, and d) personalised, self-paced learning paths while maintaining student-centred practices (Gavaldon, 2019; Mann et al., 2019). Our work in this paper builds on previous contributions (Alkan et al., 2024; Farrell & Farrell, 2024; Tiainen et al., 2024), which attempted to move RP from a rigid, standardised approach to a more flexible, personalised method through the thoughtful integration of these technologies. This innovation requires three elements:

1. Sound pedagogical foundation for a technology-enhanced approach, which includes tailored situated prompts and tasks (Bower & Vlachopoulos, 2018; Gavaldon, 2019).
2. Provision for active support through interactive feedback, scaffolding, and purposeful use of technologies (Birello & Pujola Font, 2020; Shoffner, 2009).
3. Support and opportunities for meaningful dialogue between participants (Chuang, 2010; Dzay-Chulim & Mann, 2017).

This approach problematises the traditional structured practices of reflection by emphasising personalisation and authentic engagement over routine and formality (Farrell, 2022a). It also acknowledges both the possibilities and limitations of e-portfolios and video use in RP, focusing mainly on the possibilities of technology-enhanced approaches to encouraging dialogic reflection among student teachers (STs).

Therefore, the authors report the practitioner-led approach that e-portfolios and videos create more contextualised and personalised reflection opportunities in two different cultural contexts – Bangladesh and Malaysia. As practitioner studies on technology-enhanced approaches, our research explores a) the design process: how feedback, scaffolding, instructions, tasks, and post-task discussions were tailored to each context; b) the implementation outcomes: evaluating the benefits and challenges of these technological innovations in their respective settings (Edge & Mann, 2013). We address the following research questions:

1. How can e-portfolios and videos be adapted to encourage RP among pre-service teachers in Bangladesh and Malaysia?
2. What are the benefits and challenges of implementing these technologies in encouraging RP in each context?

By discussing the two cases, we attempted to demonstrate how flexible, dialogic, and student-led approaches to technology use can foster dialogic RP in PSTE.

Literature Review

This section begins by emphasising the need for more data-driven research in RP. It then provides an overview of the new dimensions in RP, particularly with a focus on adopting technology-enhanced approaches and the affordances of videos and e-portfolios for RP.

The Need for Data-led Practitioner Research on RP

Reflection, an inseparable and crucial component of teacher education (Jay & Johnson, 2002), can be difficult to encourage or teach due to its complex nature and “elusive boundaries” (p. 73). As RP continues to evolve (Farrell, 2022a) in teacher education, the need for evidence-based research becomes increasingly essential. However, research on the implementation and practice of reflection often lacks comprehensive, data-driven analysis of processes and evaluations (Mann & Walsh, 2013). As Farrell and Farrell (2024) note, “we do not know what research has been conducted on the practices that encourage RP” (p. 3) in teacher education programmes. Mann and Walsh (2013) similarly argue that RP in applied linguistics and education has achieved “orthodoxy” (p. 296) without a corresponding evidence-led description of its value, processes and impact. They identify several key challenges: dominance of reflective models over practical guidance, lack of data-led accounts, focus on individual rather than collaborative reflection, over-reliance on written forms, assessment difficulties, and inadequate details regarding the nature of the reflective tools. They advocate for a more evidence-based, data-led approach emphasising dialogic and collaborative reflection to address these challenges.

Traditional approaches to RP often fail to support meaningful engagement because they are often too structured, rigid, and isolating (Finlay, 2008). Farrell & Farrell (2024) argue that the focus needs to shift from “following a recipe-following checklist” (p. 3) to a more holistic process (Farrell, 2015) whereby teachers learn to reflect by engaging with and valuing both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of their experiences. When STs are forced or instructed to reflect in routine, mechanical ways without engaging them in a supportive and tailored environment, they tend to disengage, deviate and only participate superficially (Hobbs, 2007). Instead, recent studies suggest that RP works best when newcomers are offered the freedom and space to take responsibility and explore methods that are suitable. Tiainen et al. (2024), for example, adopted a “non-prescriptive, self-guided approach” (p. 11) to encourage reflection. They report that STs were able to develop “a pool of practical knowledge” and “emerging” understandings of their teaching based on reflections on the experiences and learnings they valued (p. 12). This personalised approach to encouraging RP helps make the process feel more meaningful and less like a tedious requirement (Mann & Walsh, 2013).

 New Dimensions in RP

New dimensions in RP are driven by continued technological advancements and a focus on social, emotional, and interactional aspects of practice (Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Farr et al., 2019). These recent developments indicate that reflection is best practised not as a solo activity but as a socially engaged process within an interactive and participatory environment (Chuang, 2010; Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Zhang & Tur, 2022). Technologies have a crucial role in bringing this shift from individual to collective practices (Shoffner, 2009), from structured to flexible approaches, allowing opportunities for what Collin and Karsenti (2011) describe as practicing in the presence of “an other” (p. 571). However, while technology is often prominent in pre-service teacher education innovations, Edge and Mann (2013) caution against viewing technological tools as inherently innovative. Rather than simply filling courses with new tools, successful innovations on reflections should carefully consider how technology can serve established pedagogical purposes while potentially opening new avenues for more student-led, personalised approaches to reflections. They employ the metaphor of Janus, the Roman god who could look both backwards and forwards, to emphasise the importance of balancing innovations in pre-service education with sound pedagogical principles for leveraging new possibilities. They advocate for carefully selecting, trialling, and evaluating tools like e-portfolios, video platforms, and online learning environments to ensure they genuinely enhance reflections rather than simply adding superficial technological elements.

Nurturing dialogue with self and others, including peers, mentors, or instructors, is a vital element in technology-enhanced approaches to RP (Ehiyazaryan-White, 2012; Farr & Riordan, 2015; Li & Walsh, 2023). STs’ experiences, incidents, tools (e.g., videos), and artefacts (blog or e-portfolio entries) can “act as catalysts” in initiating practical and focused conversations (Mann & Walsh, 2017, p. 189). For STs, this means engaging personally and socially to develop a comprehensive understanding of their abilities and teaching context (Moon, 2004; Pedro, 2005). The social dimension of RP aligns with Vygotsky’s (1978) perspectives on learning, which emphasise development through interaction with peers and more experienced practitioners (Lantolf & Poehner, 2008).

Recent technology-enhanced approaches to encouraging reflections emphasised the social and interactional aspects of practising reflections. For example, blog-based writings (Tang & Lam, 2014; Tur & Urbina, 2014), multimodal compositions (Adie & Tangen, 2015), peer-led group discussion forums (Palacios et al., 2022), videos-enhanced practices (Mann et al., 2019) digital storytelling (Long & Hall, 2015) support what Mann and Walsh (2017, p. 190) describe as “dialogic reflection” — bottom-up, guided, collaborative processes entailing interaction, discussion and debate with peers in technology-enhanced environments. Recent studies also support this notion. For example, Palacios et al. (2022), who designed and integrated their pedagogical approach to online peer-led group reflective practice, report that both the process and the comfortable environment enabled students to deeply engage in meaning-making and reflexivity through individual and group reflections. Likewise, Marshall et al. (2022) advocate for a student-centred approach towards fostering dialogues. They conducted a synthesis of the literature to explore factors that support reflection. They underscore the value of nurturing a “safe, supportive and blame-free environment” where STs are willing to “vent” (p. 490) their ideas and thoughts, be open-minded, and empathetic towards others’ experiences (p. 492).

E-portfolios and videos

In recent decades, e-portfolios have emerged as strategic tools for embedding learner-centred, reflective, and constructive pedagogical principles in teacher education (Chye et al., 2019; Gulzar & Barrett, 2019). e-portfolios ‘use technologies as the container’, allowing trainees to document their artefacts in “many different media types”(Barrett, 2007, p.438). Reflection remains an intrinsic feature of e-portfolio work, supporting users to “bridge between the past and the future, the theory, and the practice” in their journey from knowledge development to novice teaching (Ayan & Seferoğlu, 2011). Depending on the nature of tasks, opportunities for interaction and the type of tool, e-portfolios can support deeper and more nuanced engagement with reflective practice (Kajder & Parkes, 2012). Additionally, several other contextual variables, such as the need for time management, taking on new roles, and fostering a culture of reflection on learning, are important parameters that could influence the use and implementation of specific e-portfolio tools (Carney, 2006).

E-portfolios facilitate reflective dialogues over time, incorporating self-dialogues (Hatton & Smith, 1995) and ongoing processes with peers through collaborative discussions and self-representations (Clark, 2016; Farr et al., 2019). Dialoguing before, during and after e-portfolio work can only be beneficial in giving shape to existing works and “develop ideas not only at a personal level but within collaborative initiatives” (Chuang, 2010, p. 221). This makes reflection using the tool a social process rather than an isolated, passive activity (Cleveland, 2018). Tang and Lam (2014) and Kurtoğlu-Hooton (2013), among others, explored these affordances through designed tasks and selected tools to encourage reflections in pre-service teachers. More recent studies have explored STs’ perspectives and practices of reflection on e-portfolios, emphasising the social and situated elements of STs’ experiences (e.g., Chye et al., 2019; Zhang & Tur, 2022). Nonetheless, some intertwined elements associated with reflecting in online spaces, for example, audience awareness, self-representations, interactivity and ethical elements, have received little attention in the existing literature (Ross, 2014). Therefore, we see the need to deeply explore the process STs undergo while reflecting on e-portfolios, and what characterises the quality and nature of their reflections when they are offered flexibility in their practices.

Video platforms such as Video Enhanced Observation (VEO) enhance reflection by enabling STs to stop, re-play, tag, comment, and share reviewed videos with peers for feedback and discussion (Liesa et al., 2023; Seedhouse et al., 2022). This process supports better reflection as teachers can draw on gained knowledge to analyse strengths and weaknesses and develop improvement plans through multiple cycles of lesson analysis and collaborative discussions (Walsh & Mann, 2015). Tripp and Rich (2012) state that video analysis allows teachers to identify gaps between their beliefs and practices, articulate underlying assumptions, revisit forgotten teaching elements, focus on multiple classroom aspects, and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

In pre-service contexts where STs lack teaching experience and contextual knowledge, video use advances RP by providing a ‘mirror’ for individual and collaborative examination, deconstruction, and theorising of practice while making meaningful connections between education theories and classroom teaching (Harford & MacRuairc, 2008). However, implementing video-based reflection faces challenges, including motivation for critical reflection and fear of peer judgment (Ong et al., 2020; Richter et al., 2022). Therefore, to effectively integrate video in RP, careful attention must be paid to the structural format, scaffolding, training, and sufficient time to understand the process. To do this, Nagro (2020) suggests systematically analysing other teachers’ videos before self-analysis to gradually reduce initial face issues, scaffold and familiarise STs with the procedures, and gradually build openness to peer feedback.

Methodology

The study employs a comparative case study approach (Yin, 2018) and practitioner research (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Burns, 2010) to examine two technology-enhanced interventions for promoting RP in pre-service teacher education in Bangladesh and Malaysia. This approach allows for a detailed examination of “a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (Yin, 2018, p. 13), while action research enables practitioners to systematically investigate and improve their practice through iterative cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection (Burns, 2010; Mann, 2005).

Although situated in different contexts, both cases share a common methodological approach: practitioner-researchers used iterative cycles to plan and evaluate how technology tools could encourage RP (Burns & Dikilitaş, 2024; Burns & Kurtoğlu-Hooton, 2016). In Bangladesh, the intervention involved two cycles with separate cohorts of 15 participants. The initial needs analysis informed the design of e-portfolio tasks, peer conversations, resources, and scaffolding approaches. Key refinements in the design were made based on data from the first cycle, feedback from teacher educators working in the setting and the researcher’s reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) of the researcher’s journal. The changes include developing more contextualised prompts, enhancing peer dialogue opportunities from the start, and tailoring multimodal feedback strategies. The Malaysia case similarly progressed through three action research cycles – pilot, guided reflection, and customised reflection stages – each cycle informing improvements to the video-based reflection protocols and tagging systems.

Data collection across both cases focused on capturing the process and outcomes of student-teacher engagement with the technological tools. The Bangladesh case analysed reflective dialogues and portfolio artefacts from four STs, Jasmin, Flora, Bima, and San (pseudonyms), examining how they navigated online reflections on e-portfolios. The Malaysia case encouraged six second-year STs’ (ST1-ST6) use of video platforms through recorded discussions, interviews, and reflective vignettes. This combination of observational and self-report data allowed for triangulation in understanding how STs experienced and utilised the technological affordances for reflection (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).

Both cases demonstrate what Burns (2010) describes as the “problematising” function of action research—practitioners identify challenges or opportunities for improvements in encouraging RP, implement technological solutions, gather evidence of impact, and make systematic refinements. In Bangladesh, this led to the development of structured yet flexible e-portfolios that promote digital reflections. In Malaysia, this resulted in student-informed protocols for video analysis and customised tagging systems that support focused reflection on teaching practice. The study emphasises the contextual factors shaping implementation and the common affordances of technology-enhanced approaches for enhancing RP across settings.

Analysis of the cases

Case 1: e-portfolio intervention

This case reports on the design, introduction, and evaluation of e-portfolios for supporting reflections in an MA programme. STs used the Google Sites (GS) application to create their e-portfolios. They used various modes, including texts, images, videos, and word clouds, while focusing strongly on their personal choices, style, and preferences for e-portfolio entries and representations (Yancey, 2023). The case examines:

1. The four design features of the intervention and their role in facilitating STs’ digital reflections.
2. ST engagement, their online reflective entries, and their perceived challenges and benefits of using e-portfolios.

Participants were Master’s in English Language Teaching (ELT) students from a public university in Bangladesh. The programme comprised two semesters, including a practicum component as part of the teacher education course offered in the second semester. However, due to a strong focus on curriculum and formal assessments, the programme offered limited opportunities for practicing reflective skills (Amin & Basu, 2023), highlighting the need for situated reflective tasks and opportunities that aligned with the curriculum and the STs’ learning experiences (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Mann & Walsh, 2013). Based on the needs analysis, the researcher (Author 1) developed four key design elements to facilitate a technology-enhanced environment (Bower & Vlachopoulos, 2018) for e-portfolio use. They include, a) virtual communication, b) multimodal tasks, c) buddy scheme (i.e., peer conversations), and d) feedback and scaffolding.

Virtual communication
Synchronous and asynchronous communications between the researcher and STs were integral to the design, forming a technology-enhanced environment for facilitating e-portfolio work across different stages (Chuang, 2010). Adopting a multimodal approach involves selecting, introducing and promoting specific tools for specific purposes (Farr & Riordan, 2015). Towards the mid-stage intervention, communication shifted to instant chat messaging (individual and group) and Zoom follow-up meetings (i.e., peer-dialogue and drop-in sessions). One-on-one dialogic communication via synchronous chats remained continuous (Farr & Riordan, 2015). The final stage was more interactive, involving additional Zoom group sessions, including showcase sessions where STs could see and comment on their peer’s final published work online and exchange comments. STs could individually access Padlet, shared Google Drive folder for multimodal tasks, tailored tutorials on GS, multimedia resources and image creation links.

Multimodal tasks
Designing situated multimodal tasks was central to the project. Tasks were organised into three themes: individual focus (STs as persons), teaching-related work (within and beyond MA), and research-related work (Figure 1). The tasks incorporated STs’ current MA learning experiences, previous academic experiences, and non-academic experiences. The researcher relied particularly on Moon (2004), Farrell (2015), Farrell (2007) and Mann and Walsh (2017) to design the tasks along with the guides, prompts, and sample ideas. For example, in set two (teaching), STs were asked to analyse critical teaching incidents using situated prompts (Farrell, 2007). Each task comprised individual prompts for multimedia use (Mann & Walsh, 2017) and self-reflection (Moon, 2004). Tasks were arranged from simple to complex, which helped STs gradually progress with their reflection (Larrivee, 2008).

Figure 1. The sets of tasks

All tasks encouraged students to express their perspectives as whole individuals and as emerging professionals (Boud et al., 2013; Farrell, 2015), including their personal stories and “inner lives” (Farrell, 2022a, p. 72). This aimed to transition them from formal to informal, self-expressive compositions, emphasising emotions, perspectives, and progression of thoughts (Cambridge, 2008).

Scaffolding and feedback
Multimodal feedback (audio, video, and written modes) was offered on STs’ e-portfolio entries. The purpose was to encourage STs to use similar elements in their entries (Bräuer & Ziegelbauer, 2023) and facilitate dialogic and interactive feedback exchanges (Hui et al., 2024). They received video feedback on the first task and written and audio feedback on subsequent entries. Feedback mainly emphasised presentation, multimodality, and reflective connections in the entries. Screencast feedback was used to pinpoint details in ST entries, adopting a personal approach by using a soft tone and addressing STs by name (Mann, 2015; Pitt & Winstone, 2020). STs could respond and seek clarification on feedback via instant messaging (Cronje & Van Zyl, 2022), leading to tailored scaffolding and independent work (Zimmerman, 2013). STs followed a sequential cycle for drafting, publishing, exchange of feedback, redrafting, and re-publishing entries.

Buddy-scheme
A buddy scheme was introduced during the mid-stage of the programme, where each ST was paired with a buddy from the cohort. They met online (before and after drafting one task) and used Zoom screen sharing to exchange ideas and seek feedback on their e-portfolio progress. The intervention was sequenced into three stages: initiation, development, and representation (Figure 2). In the initiation stage, participants explored GS and Padlet while starting informal e-journaling. The development stage focused on drafting tasks and engaging in peer discussions. Finally, in the representation stage, participants shared entries, received feedback, and showcased their final work.

Figure 2. The stages in the e-portfolio process

Outcomes

STs’ engagement during the intervention was interpreted through three interconnected layers of dialogic communication—dialogues with self, peers, and the researcher—which collectively shaped their reflective practices in e-portfolios. It was observed that dialogues with oneself (Hatton & Smith, 1995) were foundational, involving an iterative process of initial thoughts, informal e-journaling, and initial decisions (Figure 3). These further influenced their dialogue with others (Jay & Johnson, 2002) (i.e., peers and the researcher) regarding received feedback and progress. These dialogues cycle back to the self, enabling refinement, thoughtful integration, and finalisation of multimodal entries.

Figure 3. ST engagement with the process: interconnected layers of dialoguing

Peer-dialogue

The following example is extracted from San and Bima’s first online buddy conversation. They co-constructed ideas for e-portfolio tasks and offered empathy for each other while collaboratively reflecting on their experiences dealing with challenging situations during peer teaching.

Excerpt 1

1 2	San	…I played the video, but no sound was coming out—which was strange –I didn’t know what to do at that point…
3 4 5	Bima	You know what? I had a similar experience with my peer teaching. I prepared slides and videos to show, but they did not appear on screen. I was devastated. Unfortunately, I could not conduct the class as planned and had to improvise.
6 7 8 9	San	…it was negative, yes, I agree, but you at least had other pictures prepared, which helped visualise the topic. But in my case, I had all my stuff prepared in a digital format with no backups. My teaching began with that experience. It was such a disorienting experience for me.
10 11	Bima	I think both of us can focus on our emotional reactions… you know, the challenges or hassles teachers like us face?
12 13 14	San	But I want to focus on my experience and how I can overcome this when facing similar challenges in the future; I mean, I have to think about alternative ways.
15	Bima	Are you talking about improvisation?
16 17 18 19	San	This is very easy when you say that I would improvise on the spot. But when you are actually on the spot, it is difficult to resist the gears in my head – they just don’t move, and I couldn’t think of anything. I think this is something that comes with experience as well.

San and Bima worked to validate each other’s struggles and gradually engaged in a collective exploration of how the technical challenges they faced during their peer-teaching experiences influenced their decisions, emotions, and teaching performance. Lines 6-8 and lines 16-18 demonstrate that both San and Bima were reflecting on their actions (Schön, 1983) as prompted by the dialogic nature of their conversation. The discussion shifted toward a co-construction of ideas regarding their reactions and reflections on their teaching experiences, which was later evident in their e-portfolios.

Dialogue with the researcher

Dialogues between the researcher and STs focused on feedback and scaffolding, primarily driven by STs’ specific needs after receiving video and written feedback. Support was mainly provided after the first draft submission and review, minimising interference and promoting autonomy while keeping guidance available when needed. In response to STs’ questions and queries on “How can I make my writing reflective?”, “What other multimodal elements can I add?” or “How can I link the two experiences?”, the researcher offered tailored support that helped STs transition from descriptive to dialogic writing, incorporating appropriate modes to enhance their work based on task requirements (Gavaldon, 2019). For example, message exchanges with the researcher helped ST Jasmin integrate different perspectives into her research experience entry without disrupting her thought process:

When you (the researcher) gave me this amazing idea to incorporate the same video from the task with our own experience and voice to give some evidence and credentials to the audience, I really liked this idea. Based on your feedback on the first draft, I re-organised my writing into three sections. I was also struggling to balance the formal and informal nature of reflective writing, but when I got feedback from you, I could achieve a balance and kept writing without worrying much (Jasmin, interview data).

Dialogue with self

Dialoguing with self (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Moon, 2004) involved STs engaging with their thoughts and decision-making in digital modalities. The process involved prioritising their emotional, personal perspectives, and academic backgrounds, connecting them to practical aspects such as lesson planning, failed attempts, teaching moments and MA presentation performance. As STs attempted to made these choices and connections (Cambridge, 2008), they used multimodal elements not just to reinforce and illustrate, but to make meaning for themselves and their readers (Hicks & Perrin, 2014).

As seen in excerpt 1, San wanted to discuss her challenges in detail, while Bima on emotional reactions to peer-teaching. San’s e-portfolio entry “San, Behind the Dais” began by expressing disappointment with her demonstration class. She used narrative structure to recount challenging moments while incorporating emotional responses (Bain et al., 1999; Boud et al., 2013). She reflects on her weaknesses, over-reliance on technology for lesson delivery and unclear instructions. “I was hardly satisfied with my performance given the time restrictions. In both cases, I was short-sighted and underprepared for potential crises and challenges…” Her closing remarks showed progression toward reconstructing future approaches (Boud et al., 2013), noting, “I could only think of countermeasures after my class…” San’s emotional reactions centred more on the lessons learned than her teaching performance. Conversely, Bima emphasised emotional responses and self-evaluations more than teaching disruptions. She reflects on her dual identity: “I was split into two entities, one being an M.A. student exceptionally anxious about her marks and the other, a novice teacher, who reasonably learned from the real classroom experience.” Bima acknowledged her emotional challenges of revisiting her peer-teaching experience, stating, “When I sit down to reflect on my practicum experience, my old wounds open up, and I cannot concentrate on facts and inferences.” She attempted to make sense of her maturity and gradual adaptation, “…however, with each passing day, I slowly adjusted myself and accepted the reality as it is.” Bima further integrated a self-reflection map of her teaching strengths and weaknesses (Figure 4) – a visual reflection technique like concept mapping (Mann & Walsh, 2017) that demonstrated her self-dialogue process and helped present her “matured” thoughts on e-portfolios.

Figure 4. Bima’s reflections

Bima, in the interview, states,

“I think I learned to think rationally, and I was not emotional at the end; I was kind of, you know, critiquing my own self and making sure that, okay, Bima (to herself), you did not do that, right? I was being another person: maybe I was reflecting from a third person, you can say that. That’s what I meant by maturity” (Bima, Interview).

Bima explicitly connected her performance understanding with maturity, valuing the transition from emotional to rational evaluation of her strengths and weaknesses. She emphasised perspective-taking (lines 5-7) and intellectual growth while reflecting on her performance. Self-dialogue and peer exchange were interconnected and non-linear, as shown in Figure 4.

STs also foregrounded their learnings from past stories of learning, places and people that shaped their identities or personalities and attempted to link those elements to practical aspects like lesson planning, failed attempts, teaching, philosophies, and self-performance (Farrell & Kennedy, 2019). Flora uses the metamorphosis metaphor (Figure 5) to represent her emotional growth and ongoing development. Flora reflected,

“I felt that I had matured emotionally from the day I was born to now, and I wanted to portray that growth through metamorphosis. I also think this process will continue—as I teach in one place and then move to another—so I will keep evolving, like metamorphosis itself” (Flora, Interview).

Figure 5. Flora’s e-portfolio

Flora’s self-expression of her emotional and intellectual growth is connected to her journey of navigating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) since her childhood. Her progression of thoughts is evident in other entries, e.g., “Short Stories,” where she foregrounds her journey of self-doubt and difficulties in academic routines to embracing growth through the support of people, places, and connections around her. She then moved on to writing about her MA learnings, where she foregrounds her growth and maturity by contextualising crucial moments from her peer collaboration presentation. This time, she chose the title “Ebb and Flow” to metaphorically represent the outcomes of her two performances and her continued journey with ADHD.

Figure 6. Flora’s e-portfolio

The image and caption of the “exact moment” serve as a tool for Flora to make sense of her self-performance and emotional responses to the episode. She writes, “…the damage has already been done. I became overwhelmed and focused only on the time, not what I needed to say next”. Flora later adds,

“…it always happens that I do one part of public speaking well, and then another part I completely fail…I earlier saw San’s e-portfolio titles and realised I, too, could be creative with the titles. Then my imagination just went wild…” (Flora, Interview).

The above example also emphasises the provision of recursive decision-making about multimedia in textuality and audience (Hicks & Perrin, 2014). Similarly, San used six shades of colours in a visual to represent different uniforms, with colours as tools to express emotions and feelings attached to her past educational experiences (Figure 7).

Figure 7. San’s e-portfolio

She used the metaphoric title “San, the institutionalised” to draw readers to her background story, explaining: “The reason I tell you this backstory (academic journey from school to university) of mine is so you understand some of my beliefs and convictions regarding teaching and learning later when I discuss them.” San reflected on how her educational experiences shaped her teaching perspectives and values. She incorporated comic images of the Japanese drama Great Teacher Onizuka and the term “Shu Ha Ri” (i.e., stages of learning) to reflect on the influence of institutional experiences on her teaching philosophies. San later comments on her practice of engaging in self-dialogue while constructing her multimodal reflective entries:

“I am showing myself in other forms, like through the types of pictures I prefer; they tell much more than just the picture of my face” (San, Interview).

San and Flora both “made use of artefacts” and “introspective commentaries” (Mann & Walsh, 2017, p. 146) as tools to present these authentic representations of their selves and their experiences.

Affordances and Challenges

The STs found the scaffolding and video feedback helpful in improving their online reflective entries. They also valued the dialogic space developed during the e-portfolio process, with “helping each other” being a common practice amongst the pairs. Flora further notes that tasks and prompts helped reflect on past experiences, saying prompts prevented her from feeling “thrown in a sea of thoughts”. STs appreciated the  user-friendliness and multimodal features of GS, which allowed them to “confidently express their ideas and reflections”. San, for instance, thinks she was comfortable sharing her “true self” in her e-portfolio:

“If I am being uncomfortable and I am compromising the way I am presenting myself, then that wouldn’t be a very honest picture of mine. So, I thought I should just be myself and present how I talk…” (San, interview)

The above examples underscore their awareness of self-representations and connecting with audience as closely tied to practicing online reflections as discussed by Ross (2014).

The intervention, however, was not without its challenges and caveats. Some participants struggled to fully engage in the e-portfolio tasks due to varying levels of digital competencies, logistical issues (e.g., internet connectivity and device problems), time management, and difficulty differentiating academic and reflective writing.  Jasmin, for instance, was well-acquainted with the technical aspects, but initially struggled with the process of conveying thoughts clearly in the space:

[…] in terms of how to convey my thoughts, be it a story or kind of narrative or I should write in a formal way. So this actually confused me a lot […] (Jasmin, interview).

Such findings indicate the eportfolio space offered them a chance to understand or explore the distinction between their performance in academic settings, and reflecting in digital spaces, where they experience less interference, and more flexibility. These  indicated the need for offering more tailored support, guidance, analysis of STs’ needs and dialogic exchange to help all STs benefit from the e-portfolio process.

Case 2: Video-based intervention

This case explores digital video use for RP in an Institute of Teacher Education (ITE) in Malaysia. It was carried out as action research comprising three cycles, including preliminary studies (pilot stage), followed by two intervention cycles (Stage 1: Guided Reflection, and Stage 2: Customised Reflection). The study aimed to explore and design a practical and evidence-based structure of reflection featuring video analysis, peer feedback, and scaffolding via a digital platform (i.e., Video Enhanced Observation – VEO) and to investigate the role of videos for encouraging RP in this setting.

The case, therefore, discusses:

1. The design and integration of digital video use in reflective practice at the Institute of Teacher Education in Malaysia and its role in scaffolding reflective practice.
2. The benefits and challenges of STs’ engagement with the video-based reflective process and its impact on their reflective practice.

RP in the ITE still follows a conventional structure, which is individualistic and written. For instance, after conducting micro-teaching in their teaching preparation modules, a typical task for the STs was to write a reflection on the micro-teaching that has been carried out, focusing on the lesson planning and its delivery (e.g., Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threat (SWOT) analysis). The requirement of this task was often simplistic, which was to produce a written narrative of the lesson without the need to provide data or evidence. STs often worked on this task individually and relied on their memory, which is arguably problematic (Gelfuso, 2016).

Therefore, this study introduced an alternative method for conducting reflection by employing VEO (Seedhouse et al., 2022) to foster a collaborative, data-driven approach to RP. The STs engaged in group discussions online via Microsoft Teams for all sessions in each cycle, offering greater practicality as it allowed them to schedule discussions flexibly.

The study progressed in three stages:

Stage 1: Pilot Stage
At this stage, STs were introduced to the use of video for reflective practice (RP), with the aim of enabling them to reflect on concrete teaching moments using video as data. Two external short videos of an English lesson for primary pupils in China were utilised for this purpose. The STs reviewed and tagged the videos on VEO before engaging in peer discussions on Microsoft Teams (MS Teams). Apart from providing practical training on how to use the platform, based on the guidelines by Miller and Haines (2022), the researcher (Author 2) offered minimal guidance during this phase. Additionally, STs employed the provided tag set, the Professional Learning Tag Set (Figure 8), within the platform to facilitate their video reviews.

Figure 8. Professional Learning Tag Set

In this tag set, there are four tags which are “I suggest”, “A surprise was”, “ I wondered”, and “I noticed”. STs used these tags as a guide to reflect on the video. It serves as a starter for them to practice using the VEO platform, as the tags were basic and general. There are also pre-tagging and post-tagging forms that ask for general details.

Stage 2: Guided Reflection Stage
Based on their experience during the Pilot Stage, STs claimed they needed more explicit guidance to structure their video-based reflection process. Hence, in this stage, they were introduced to a practical framework for integrating digital video and video-enhanced observation into continuing professional development (Seedhouse et al., 2022). STs were then asked to review two more external lessons from the same source (English lessons for primary pupils in China) by utilising the framework shared with them. While applying the framework, they made necessary adjustments to accommodate the study’s context, as certain elements, such as obtaining supervisor feedback, were not applicable in this study. STs also used the tag set provided (i.e., Professional Learning Tag Set) to review and tag the videos. Discussion was then carried out with their group members on Microsoft Teams. At the end of this stage, STs proposed a reflection protocol they believed would be more suitable for this context. This protocol (Table 1) was then reconstructed and used to streamline their reflection process in stage 3. In addition, STs realised they needed a more detailed tag set focused on classroom teaching. Consequently, they customised two tag sets (Figures 9-10) for specific aspects of teaching and learning, which they would use for their video review in Stage 3.

Table 1. Video-Based Reflection Protocols (VBRP) for STs

Step	Actions
Pre-Session Preparation	1.   Record Your Lesson: Capture the entire lesson on video.
	2.   Select a Video Clip: Choose a specific part of the lesson for reflection. Edit it into a short clip and upload it to VEO.
	3.   Review Your Video: Watch the clip and take notes on teaching strategies, student engagement, strengths, and areas for improvement.
Tagging and commenting	4.   Use VEO’s Tagging Feature: Select one of the following tag sets: · SET 1: Pre-Service Teacher Teaching and Learning Review Tag Set. · SET 2: Pre-Service Teacher Teaching and Learning Review Tag Set.
	5.   Tag Specific Moments: Mark key moments in your video using the chosen tag set.
	6.   Add Comments: Write detailed observations, emotions, and intentions for each tagged moment. These will aid in deeper discussions.
Sharing Tagged Videos	7.   Share with Group Members: Share your tagged video through VEO before the session.
	8.   Provide Context: Use VEO’s pre-tagging function to add notes or highlights or communicate context via email/messages.
	9.   Engage with Peers’ Videos: Watch peers’ tagged videos and respond to their comments (using bullet points or full sentences).
Collaborative Discussion	10. Meet with the Group Members: Use Microsoft Teams to discuss each member’s video.
	11. Focus Areas: Reflect and discuss tagged moments, self-assess teaching practices, and identify areas for growth.
	12. Engage Actively: Provide constructive feedback, ask probing questions, and share personal experiences.
	13. Lead Discussion: If it’s your video, guide the discussion by highlighting key moments and seeking peer input. (important so that the discussion becomes dynamic)
	14. Time Management: Decide as a group on discussion time (typically 15–30 minutes per video – to allow for targeted and more concise discussion).
Action Planning	15. Set Action Steps: Based on the discussion, outline strategies for improving teaching and create a plan for future lessons (set achievable target – immediate and long-term plans).
	16. Document Insights: Use VEO’s post-tagging function to record key points and action plans.

Figure 9. Pre-service Teacher Teaching and Learning Review Tag Set – SET 1

STs customised a more specific set of tags with 8 tags, “teacher’s presence”, “communication & delivery”, “content knowledge”, “classroom management”, “pedagogy”, “assessment & feedback”, “adaptability & creativity”, and “quick tag”. They also customised pre-tagging form to include “objectives of the lesson” and “objectives of reviewing video”. For the post tagging form, they included a “summary of discussion” and “SWOT analysis”.

Figure 10. Pre-service Teacher Teaching and Learning Review Tag Set – SET 2

STs also customised Set 2, which has seven tags: “Teacher’s Presence,” “Students’ Participation,” “Teaching Practices,” “Use of Feedback,” “Inclusive Practices,” “Teacher-Student Interaction,” and “Extra.”

Stage 3: Customised Reflection
In this final stage of the study, STs used their video artefact from the recorded micro-teaching lesson they carried out in one of their degree modules. They edited the video to a short clip of around two to three minutes and uploaded it onto the VEO platform for review. Following the protocol they had developed earlier, STs also used one of the customised tag sets to review their lesson. The review and discussion processes in this stage were a bit different from the two stages as the STs discussed their lessons or gave feedback on a peer’s lesson rather than exploring or reflecting on a stranger’s lesson. The customised tag set provided STs with a focus for their collaborative discussion. It also allowed them to choose a specific tag that best describes the issue they want to discuss at a particular moment, making it easier for them to present their ideas, experiences and reflections during the discussion session.

Excerpt 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7	ST1	… Okay, at this part. I was aware after the session, … Only when I review the session, I am aware that I’m actually not moving. And this is, I feel like this is a wrong position on, you know, a wrong way of starting or conducting a lesson because I was just standing in front of the laptop, right? And then I was looking at the laptop instead of the students. So, can I get your opinion? So, what do you think about this? If it was you? How would　you start with the lesson? …
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15	ST6	Yeah, okay, so based on our previous discussion, … I think this is ST5 suggestion where the teacher should greet the pupils first, in the middle, at the front of the front and in the middle. And then make sure not to hold anything or do anything so that the pupils won’t get distracted. So, the pupils will only focus on you, not your hands, not the things you’re holding. Like for example, in the video you are, you know, you are using your laptop, right, so I guess it’s better for you to just focus on the pupils and greet them. Make them focus. Yeah. So that they will be happy to focus on you.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25	ST1	Yeah, I got your point. Also, I’m really actually kind of leaning on the table some more. So maybe the takeaway from this particular tag is we should be aware of our postures and movements during the lesson to be aware of our movements during the lesson because even during the lesson I didn’t realise okay, this is a common knowledge we know that okay, teacher should move here and the teacher shouldn’t read and everything but somehow during the lesson, we just tend to forget about all these things. So maybe, maybe we need to be aware of or know how to present ourselves in the class right? So, we should be aware of our movements. ST5, do you have anything, or can we move to the next one?
26	ST5	I agree with everything you guys said and you already said what I want to say so let’s move on

Outcomes
This study explored video use and framework design, giving STs autonomy to develop their video-led reflection process. STs demonstrated positive attitudes toward integrating digital video and video observation platforms in their RP. The findings report that integrating video tools (VEO) with specific protocols, guidance, and tag sets proved effective in fostering structured, evidence-based, and collaborative reflection among STs, enhancing their RPs and ability to review teaching practices critically. For instance, the following excerpt from a collaborative discussion between ST1, ST5, and ST6 about ST1’s micro-teaching video demonstrates the effectiveness of this video-based intervention in creating more tangible, data-led RPs.

Figure 11. Screenshot of the CRS between the STs in Excerpt A

In Excerpt 2, ST1 utilised the Pre-service Teacher Teaching and Learning Review Tag Set—SET 2 to analyse her lesson. The excerpt highlights ST1’s reflection on her first tag, body language/teacher movement, which falls under the broader category of teacher presence. In lines 2–4, ST1 reflects on her ineffective classroom positioning at the start of the lesson, an insight gained through video review. Although STs often fear being judged when sharing their teaching practices (Ong et al., 2020), ST1’s willingness to openly discuss her lesson and actively seek feedback from her peers (lines 5–7) demonstrates a commendable level of openness and receptiveness to different perspectives.

In response, ST6 connected the discussion to their previous reflections, emphasising the importance of teacher presence at the beginning of a lesson. ST6 also built on ST5’s observations regarding classroom positioning, offering constructive advice on avoiding distracting items while delivering the lessons. In lines 19–24, ST1 acknowledged her limited awareness of positional issues, noting that while teachers often thought they would notice such matters “in-action”, but she had missed it and (Schön, 1983) the video provided her with clearer, objective insights about the issue. The discussion reflects how video-based tools not only provide concrete evidence for reflection (Nagro, 2020) but also can be utilised to create a safe space where STs feel encouraged to share, receive feedback, and engage in meaningful, data-driven reflective practices with their peers (Gelfuso, 2016; Tripp & Rich, 2012).

Affordances and Challenges

Data gathered from STs’ vignettes highlighted the benefits and challenges that need to be considered before implementing this approach to ensure a more seamless process of reflection for STs. ST2 outlined five key benefits of digital video integration for his RP:

“Firstly, it allows teachers to observe their own teaching practices and identify areas for improvement. Secondly, it provides an opportunity for teachers to reflect on their own teaching practices and gain insights into their own teaching style. Thirdly, it can be used to facilitate collaboration between teachers, allowing them to share their experiences and insights with one another. Fourthly, it can be used to document the reflection process, allowing teachers to revisit their thoughts and feelings at a later time. Lastly, it can be used to provide feedback to teachers on their teaching practices.” (ST2).

ST 2’s account reflected on the affordances of VEO that acted as a platform for video review in this study. From this account, we can infer that VEO, accompanied by the protocol developed to suit STs’ circumstances, had been successful in helping STs to effectively reflect on their teaching by providing flexible chances for reviewing, tagging, and discussing their micro-teaching with their peers. In addition, the features within the VEO platform also enable STs to revisit the lesson reviewed later, allowing them to return to it to work on any of the aspects discussed or to compare the teaching.

Whilst video and VEO have been applauded for their potential for reflections (Blikstad-Balas & Staal Jenset, 2024; Ha et al.,, 2024; Seedhouse et al., 2022), any technological tool cannot avoid technical issues. ST 6 wrote about her challenges in the technicalities of video recording and storage on the platform:

“I encountered a challenge during the project related to video recording. Setting up my camera properly to record the teaching video remained an issue, and I faced difficulties with video storage and uploading it to the VEO app. These challenges may be attributed to file storage capacity requirements and data usage for video uploads.”(ST6).

Although this issue is sometimes isolated, it could somehow affect the whole process and should be dealt with by the technical team as soon as possible. In addition, ST6 added that, besides technical difficulties, there were concerns about privacy, comfort with being recorded, and time constraints that could further underscore the complexities of integrating digital tools into RP.

“… there are also some obstacles that need to be considered when using digital video as a tool in conducting a teaching reflection session. Firstly, technical difficulties may arise when recording or playing back video footage. Secondly, some teachers may feel uncomfortable being recorded and may not want to participate in the reflection process. Thirdly, there may be concerns around privacy and confidentiality, particularly if the video footage contains sensitive information about STs or other teachers. Lastly, there may be concerns around time constraints, as recording and reviewing video footage can take time.” (ST6).

The points above underscore the crucial aspects that must be carefully considered for the successful implementation of digital video in reflective practice in a pre-service context. With the provision of tailored scaffolding and guidance, STs were able to effectively use video in their reflective practice. This approach not only offered them the flexibility to structure their reflection process independently but also highlighted the significant role of support in their success.

Discussion

The above discussion on the findings contributes to our theoretical and pedagogical understanding of how technology-enhanced approaches can support Mann and Walsh’s (2013) and Farrell & Farrell’s (2024) call for evidence-led, data-driven approaches to implementing RP in PSTE.

Evidence-Based Reflection Through Documentation

Both cases demonstrated how technological tools provide concrete evidence for reflection, moving beyond the traditional, prescriptive and isolated forms of written reflections (Chuang, 2010) in the case of e-portfolios and memory-based recollections in the case of videos (Gelfuso, 2016). In the Bangladesh case, e-portfolios enabled STs to document and revisit their experiences through multiple modalities, allowing for deeper analysis and meaning-making for themselves and their readers, which means STs were also involved in authorship and decision-making (Chuang, 2010), which helped them to be more responsible of what they share and how they represent (Clark, 2016; Yancey, 2023). As seen in Flora’s use of a metamorphosis metaphor and San’s colour-coded analysis, the multimodal capabilities of e-portfolios allowed STs to capture and examine their experiences in ways that pure text could not achieve (Birello & Pujola Font, 2020). The findings, therefore, reassure us of the potential of technology to provide concrete evidence for reflection, aligning with those of Birello and  Pujola Font (2020) and Kajder and Parkes (2012), which report how e-portfolios encouraged meaningful multimodal representations of their reflections.

Similarly, in the Malaysian case, video technology provided tangible evidence of teaching moments that could be analysed repeatedly and shared with peers. As highlighted by ST1’s reflection on classroom positioning, the VEO platform’s tagging system enabled precise identification and analysis of specific teaching behaviours – something that would be difficult to achieve through memory alone (Tripp & Rich, 2012). This aligns with Nagro’s (2020) findings about how systematic video analysis guides deeper reflection on specific teaching moments.

Collaborative Analysis in Digital Spaces

Both interventions demonstrated the value of what Mann and Walsh (2013) term’ dialogic reflection ‘. The e-portfolio case, in particular, showed how peer dialogue influenced individual reflection, as evidenced in the conversation between San and Bima. These exchanges exemplify the social construction of understanding that Vygotsky’s (1978) perspectives on learning emphasise. The digital space facilitated these collaborative exchanges while maintaining individual autonomy in reflection, thereby highlighting the role of technology in fostering meaningful exchanges.

The Malaysian case further reinforced this through structured video analysis sessions where peers could offer specific, evidence-based feedback to each other. The customised tag sets developed by the STs demonstrate how technological tools can be adapted to support focused, collaborative reflection while maintaining relevance to specific educational contexts (Edge & Mann, 2013). This addresses the need for more systematic approaches to collaborative reflection identified in the literature (Farrell & Farrell, 2024; Mann & Walsh, 2017).

Sustained Dialogue and Mentorship

Both cases illustrated how technology can support ongoing dialogue between peers and mentors, addressing the need for more sustained reflective conversations in teacher education (Farrell & Jacobs, 2016). In the e-portfolio case, the multimodal feedback approach enabled continuous dialogue between STs and the researcher, as evidenced in the scaffolded exchanges with Jasmin. The findings align with Farr et al. (2019), who emphasise the benefits of e-portfolios in fostering dialogues with peers and the teacher educator on themes of teaching and experiences. Additionally, it corroborates (Barton & Ryan, 2014) findings on the influence of a multimodal approach on promoting authentic and less superficial reflections.

The Malaysian case demonstrated how video can structure dialogic exchanges through protocols and tag-sets, making feedback more focused and actionable. The Video-Based Reflection Protocols (VBRP) developed by the STs show that technologies can be adapted to support systematic yet flexible approaches to reflection, reiterating Farrell’s (2015) and Tiainen et al.’s (2024) proposal for less structured, more democratic approaches to RP.

Personalisation While Maintaining Structure

A key finding across both cases was the balance between personalisation and structure. The e-portfolio intervention allowed STs like Flora and Bima to explore personal narratives and emotional responses while maintaining a framework for professional reflection. This aligns with recent research suggesting that RP works best when newcomers have the freedom and agency to develop their style (Farrell & Farrell, 2024; Tiainen et al., 2024). Similarly, the video intervention’s customisable tag sets and protocols demonstrate how technological tools can provide structure while allowing for individual agency in the reflective process. This addresses what Shoffner (2009) identifies as the need for flexible, technology-enhanced approaches to reflection that maintain a pedagogical focus.

Challenges and Considerations

Both cases also revealed essential challenges in implementing technologies. Technical issues, time management, and privacy concerns emerged as common themes, echoing the challenges identified in previous literature (e.g., Bräuer & Ziegelbauer, 2023; Oakley et al., 2014). The Bangladesh case highlighted how varying levels of digital competence, ease of use and engagement can impact engagement with e-portfolios. The findings echo the trends observed in (Alkan et al., 2024). Again, the Malaysian case demonstrated how technical difficulties with video recording and storage can disrupt the reflective process. These challenges underscore Edge and Mann’s (2013) caution against viewing technological tools as inherently innovative. Effective implementation depends on thoughtful consideration of pedagogical goals and systematic planning. Developing protocols and scaffolding strategies can address these challenges through careful design and ongoing adaptation.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study has a few limitations. The cases were presented briefly due to word constraints. Hence, the contextual factors and rationale behind the interventions may not be fully represented. Additionally, the outcomes of the interventions were evaluated and interpreted primarily based on ST perspectives, experiences and practices. Nevertheless, despite the context-specific nature of the cases in the study, they offer data-led insights for teacher educators regarding the practical affordances, challenges and potential pitfalls of using technologies like Google Sites and VEO platforms to promote RP in different PSTE settings.

Future research can explore the longitudinal impact and influence of such technology-enhanced, flexible approaches on teacher development from practitioners’ and ST perspectives, emphasising context-appropriate integration of e-portfolios and videos to foster reflections in PSTE. It is essential to consider factors to implement similar approaches to RP successfully. For example, selecting appropriate tools and understanding the contextual and technical aspects associated with their use can influence the subsequent steps, particularly the nature of dialogues and reflection in the process. Additionally, having a sound pedagogical understanding of feedback and guidelines for progressing with the tools and fostering dialogic communication throughout the process are crucial. We also emphasise appropriate task design and tailored scaffolding for STs, considering the careful balance between structure and flexibility while maintaining rigour, responsibility and accountability. Finally, paying attention to user privacy settings, ease of use, and familiarity with tools is essential for the meaningful practice of reflections.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates how videos and e-portfolios can be meaningfully utilised to support individual and collaborative reflection while focusing on specific factors of the teaching and learning context of Bangladesh and Malaysia. Evidence shows that STs in both contexts could engage in a dialogic process of RP, prioritising their choices, experiences, emotions and perspectives (Farrell, 2015). This shift aligns with socio-cultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) while addressing practical needs for evidence-based, context-sensitive innovations encouraging RP for professional development (Edge & Mann, 2013; Mann & Walsh, 2017). Although the process of reflection is essentially an active process (Boud et al., 2013), inviting both cognitive and non-cognitive engagement on the part of STs (Farrell, 2015), it should be grounded in practice, as each individual interprets their experiences differently (Pedro, 2005). Videos and e-portfolios, when thoughtfully implemented using a flexible approach, can bring possibilities for meaningful and dialogic RP (Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Jay & Johnson, 2002) – one that engages STs in the process and prepares them well for their future teaching context (Farrell, 2022b).

The study contributes to the ongoing academic discourse on data-led studies on implementing e-portfolios and videos as useful scaffolding tools that support STs to deconstruct the often complex, abstract concept of reflection into meaningful, concrete steps. Our discussion highlights the importance of a flexible, less-routinised, student-led approach to encouraging RP in PSTE. With the necessary scaffolding and feedback, such an approach can not only address many of the limitations of traditional and contemporary approaches to RP noted in previous research (Farrell & Farrell, 2024; Mann & Walsh, 2013) but also positively influence STs’ practice and the nature of their reflections using technologies.

About the Authors

Nusrat Gulzar is currently pursuing her PhD in Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching (ELT) at the University of Warwick, UK, with a Commonwealth Scholarship. She holds an MA in ELT (with a specialism in Teacher Education) from the University of Warwick. She has extensive experience teaching at several universities in Bangladesh and the UK, including supervising MA TESOL dissertations at the University of Warwick, the University of Leeds, and the University of Birmingham. Her research interests include reflective practice, digital pedagogies, e-portfolios for teacher development, learning design and multimodal literacies. ORCID: 0000-0003-3797-9120

Muhammad Fitri bin Ahmad is an accomplished educator in Malaysia. He was awarded the A. S. Hornby Scholarship in 2018, leading to his pursuit of an MA in TESOL at the University of Warwick. Currently, a PhD candidate at the same university with sponsorship from the Ministry of Education Malaysia, Fitri is committed to influencing teacher education and is especially passionate about advancing teacher professional development for transformative learning experiences. ORCID: 0009-0002-3531-1880

Steve Mann joined the Centre for Applied Linguistics at the University of Warwick in September 2007. He previously lectured at both Aston University and the University of Birmingham. He has experience in Hong Kong, Japan and Europe in both English language teaching and teacher development. Steve supervises a research group of PhD students who are investigating teachers’ education and development. The group’s work considers aspects of teacher development, teacher beliefs and the development of knowledge, the first year of teaching, mentoring, blended learning, action research, and the use of technology in teacher development. ORCID: 0000-0002-6347-1614

To Cite this Article

Gulzar, N., Ahmad, M. F. B., & Mann, S. (2025). Utilising e-portfolios and videos to encourage dialogic reflections in pre-service teacher education: An analysis of two interventions from Bangladesh and Malaysia. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(2). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29114s7

References

Adie, L., & Tangen, D. (2015). The use of multimodal technologies to enhance reflective writing in teacher education. In M. E. Ryan (Ed.), Teaching reflective learning in higher education: A systematic approach using pedagogic patterns (pp. 127–138). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09271-3_9

Alkan, S. H., Bradfield, K., & Fraser, S. (2024). Prospective teachers’ views and experiences with e-portfolios. Reflective Practice, 25(6), 767–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2024.2398800

Amin, S. M., & Basu, B. L. (2023). Affordances and constraints of teaching practicum on MA TESOL/applied linguistics programmes in Bangladesh: A comparative case analysis. BELTA Journal, 7 (1)1-18. https://journal.belta-bd.org/article/beltaj.2023.0701.01

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813

Ayan, D., & Seferoğlu, G. (2011). Using electronic portfolios to promote reflective thinking in language teacher education. Educational Studies, 37(5), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.539782

Baecher, L., Mann, S. J., & Nobre, C. (2023). Using video to support teacher reflection and development in ELT. Bristol: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

Bain, J. D., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Mills, C. (1999). Using journal writing to enhance student teachers’ reflectivity during field experience placements. Teachers and Teaching, 5(1), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060990050104

Barrett, H. C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT Initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436-449. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.50.6.2

Barton, G., & Ryan, M. (2014). Multimodal approaches to reflective teaching and assessment in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841650

Birello, M., & Pujola Font, J. T. (2020). The affordances of images in digital reflective writing: An analysis of pre-service teachers’ blog posts. Reflective Practice, 21(4), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1781609

Blikstad-Balas, M., & Staal Jenset, I. (Eds.). (2024). Using video to foster teacher development: Improving professional practice through adaptation and reflection (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003427414

Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. A. (2007). Genres of empirical research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106296220

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (2013). Reflection: turning experience into learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315059051

Bower, M., & Vlachopoulos, P. (2018). A critical analysis of technology-enhanced learning design frameworks. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 981-997. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12668

Bräuer, G., & Ziegelbauer, C. (2023). The electronic portfolio: Self-regulation and reflective practice. In D. Stodulka, S. E. Lotter, & F. Kleinknecht (Eds.), Digital writing technologies in higher education (pp. 245–259). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36033-6_16

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806

Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863466

Burns, A., & Dikilitaş, K. (Eds.). (2024). The Routledge Handbook of Language Teacher Action Research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003367352

Burns, A., & Kurtoğlu-Hooton, N. (2016). Using action research to explore technology in language teaching: international perspectives. ELT Research Papers, 16(6), London: British Council. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_28313%20ELTRA%20Report%20WEB.PDF

Cambridge, D. (2008). Layering networked and symphonic selves: A critical role for e‐portfolios in employability through integrative learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(4), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740810900685

Carney, J. (2006). Analyzing research on teachers’ electronic portfolios: what does it tell us about portfolios and methods for studying them? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(3), 89–97. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ876906.pdf

Chuang, H.-H. (2010). Weblog-based electronic portfolios for student teachers in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 211–227.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40603157

Chye, S., Zhou, M., Koh, C., & Liu, W. C. (2019). Using e-portfolios to facilitate reflection: Insights from an activity theoretical analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.002

Clark, J. E. (2016). From selfies to self-representation in electronically mediated reflection: The evolving Gestalt effect in ePortfolios. In K. B. Yancey (Ed.), A rhetoric of reflection (pp. 149–165). University Press of Colorado. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1djmhfg.11

Cleveland, R. E. (2018). Using digital portfolios: Reflection, assessment & employment. TechTrends, 62(3), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0262-0

Collin, S., & Karsenti, T. (2011). The collective dimension of reflective practice: The how and why. Reflective Practice, 12(4), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.590346

Cronje, J., & Van Zyl, I. (2022). WhatsApp as a tool for building a learning Community. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(3),  296-312. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.3.2286

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dzay-Chulim, F., & Mann, S. J. (2017). Collaborative and dialogic reflection in second language teacher education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 6(2), 122-144. Available at: https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/114152/

Edge, J., & Mann, S. J. (2013). Innovations in pre-service education and training for English language teachers. Innovations. London: British Council. Available at: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/C442_Innovations_PRESETT_FINAL_WEB%20ONLY_v2.pdf

Ehiyazaryan-White, E. (2012). The dialogic potential of ePortfolios: Formative feedback and communities of learning within a personal learning environment. International Journal of ePortfolio, 2(2), 173–185. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107620.pdf

Farr, F., Farrell, A., & Riordan, E. (2019). Social interaction in language teacher education: A corpus and discourse perspective. Edinburgh University Press.

Farr, F., & Riordan, E. (2015). Tracing the reflective practices of student teachers in online modes. ReCALL, 27(1), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344014000299

Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212328

Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. Routledge.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2022a). Operationalising reflective practice in second language teacher education (SLTE). Second Language Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1558/slte.21881

Farrell, T. S. C. (2022b). Reflection on reflective practice. In Z. Tajeddin & A. Watanabe (Eds.), Teacher reflection: Policies, practices and impacts (pp. 3–19). Multilingual Matters.

Farrell, T. S. C., & Farrell, A. H. (2024). Reflective practice in language teacher education. In Z. Tajeddin & T. S. C. Farrell (Eds.), Handbook of language teacher education: Critical review and research synthesis (pp. 1–32). Springer Nature: Switzerland.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43208-8_2-1

Farrell, T. S. C., & Jacobs, G. M. (2016). Practicing what we preach: Teacher reflection groups on cooperative learning. TESL-EJ, 19(1), 1–9. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092795.pdf

Farrell, T. S. C., & Kennedy, B. (2019). Reflective practice framework for TESOL teachers: One Teacher’s reflective journey. Reflective Practice, 20(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1539657

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00141

Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on ‘reflective practice’ (Practice-Based Professional Learning Paper No. 52). Practice-Based Professional Learning Centre, The Open University. https://oro.open.ac.uk/68945/1/Finlay-%282008%29-Reflecting-on-reflective-practice-PBPL-paper-52.pdf

Gavaldon, G. (2019). ePortfolio as a means of scaffolding reflection: From written reflections to graphic narratives. In S. Ballweg & B. Kühn (Eds.), Materialien Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache (pp. 259–279). Göttingen University Press.
https://doi.org/10.17875/gup2021-1629

Gelfuso, A. (2016). A framework for facilitating video-mediated reflection: Supporting preservice teachers as they create ‘warranted assertabilities’ about literacy teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.003

Gulzar, N., & Barrett, H. C. (2019). Implementing ePortfolios in teacher education. In S. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (pp. 488-506). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315659824-38

Ha, X. V., Murray, J. C., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). “Without the video, I wouldn’t have known”: An experienced EFL teacher learning to provide oral corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12556

Harford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and teacher education, 24(7), 1884-1892.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.010

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U

Hicks, T., & Perrin, D. (2014). 13 Beyond single modes and media: Writing as an ongoing multimodal text production. In E. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Ed.), Handbook of Writing and Text Production (pp. 231-254). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220674.231

Hobbs, V. (2007). Faking it or hating it: Can reflective practice be forced? Reflective Practice, 8(3), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940701425063

Hui, L., Ippolito, K., Sarsfield, M., & Charalambous, M. (2024). Using a self-reflective ePortfolio and feedback dialogue to understand and address problematic feedback expectations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(3), 334-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2232960

Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8

Kajder, S., & Parkes, K. (2012). Examining pre-service teachers’ reflective practice within and across multimodal writing environments. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(3), 229–249. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/38466/

Kiddle, T., & Prince, T. (2019). Digital and online approaches to language teacher education. In S. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (pp. 111–124). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315659824-11

Kurtoğlu-Hooton, N. (2013). ‘Providing ‘the spark’ for reflection from a digital platform’, in Edge, J and Mann, S (eds) Innovations in pre-service education and training for English language teachers. British Council, 17-32. Available at: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/C442_Innovations_PRESETT_FINAL_WEB%20ONLY_v2.pdf

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (Eds.). (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing.

Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451

Li, Y., & Walsh, S. (2023). Technology-enhanced reflection and teacher development: A Student teacher’s journey. RELC Journal, 54(2), 356-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231161153

Liesa, E., Mayoral, P., Giralt-Romeu, M., & Angulo, S. (2023). Video-based feedback for collaborative reflection among mentors, university tutors and students. Education Sciences, 13(9), 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090879

Long, B. T., & Hall, T. (2015). R-NEST: Design-based research for technology-enhanced reflective practice in initial teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2535

Mann, S. (2005). The language teacher’s development. Language Teaching, 38(3), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444805002867

Mann, S. (2015). Using screen capture software to improve the value of feedback on academic assignments in teacher education. In: Farrell, T.S.C. (eds) International perspectives on English language teacher education. International Perspectives on English Language Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137440068_10

Mann, S., Davidson, A., Davis, M., Gakonga, J., Gamero, M., Harrison, T., Mosavian, P., & Richards, L. (2019). Video in language teacher education. ELT Research Papers 19 (1), London: The British Council. Available at: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/J201%20ELT%20Video%20in%20language%20teacher%20education%20FINAL_Web.pdf

Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2013). RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 291-315. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0013

Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching: Research-based principles and practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315733395

Marshall, T., Keville, S., Cain, A., & Adler, J. R. (2022). Facilitating reflection: A review and synthesis of the factors enabling effective facilitation of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 23(4), 483-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2022.2064444

Miller, P., & Haines, J. (2022). Using VEO – A practical guide. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional development (pp. 39-61). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203416150

Nagro, S. A. (2020). Reflecting on others before reflecting on self: Using video evidence to guide teacher candidates’ reflective practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(4), 420-433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119872700

Oakley, G., Pegrum, M., & Johnston, S. (2014). Introducing e-portfolios to pre-service teachers as tools for reflection and growth: lessons learnt. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2013.854860

Ong, W. A., Swanto, S., & Alsaqqaf, A. (2020). Engaging in reflective practice via vlogs: Experience of Malaysian ESL pre-service teachers. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 717-725. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i3.23222

Palacios, N., Rafique, R., Kwihangana, F., & Zhao, X. (2022). Online peer-led group reflective practice in higher education: a seminar-based project evaluation. Reflective Practice, 23(6), 676-689. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2022.2116567

Pedro, J. Y. (2005). Reflection in teacher education: Exploring pre‐service teachers’ meanings of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 6(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462394042000326860

Pitt, E., & Winstone, N. (2020). Towards technology enhanced dialogic feedback. In: Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Boud, D. (eds) Re-imagining University Assessment in a Digital World. The Enabling Power of Assessment, 7. Springer, Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_7

Richter, E., Hußner, I., Huang, Y., Richter, D., & Lazarides, R. (2022). Video-based reflection in teacher education: Comparing virtual reality and real classroom videos. Computers & Education, 190, 104601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104601

Ross, J. (2014). Performing the reflective self: Audience awareness in high-stakes reflection. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.651450

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

Seedhouse, P., Miller, P., & Haines, J. (2022). A practical framework for integrating digital video and video-enhanced observation into continuing professional development. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Video enhanced observation for language teaching: Reflection and professional development (pp. 199-216). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Shoffner, M. (2009). “Because I know how to use it”: Integrating technology into pre-service English teacher reflective practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 371-391. Available at: https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-4-09/english-language-arts/article1-html-9/

Suphasri, P., & Chinokul, S. (2021). Reflective practice in teacher education: Issues, challenges, and considerations. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 62, 236–264. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1334998

Tang, E., & Lam, C. (2014). Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blog-based teaching portfolios. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.002

Tiainen, O., Lutovac, S., & Korkeamäki, R. L. (2024). Rethinking approaches to reflection in initial teacher education. Educational Research, 66(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2024.2346088

Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 728-739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011

Tur, G., & Urbina, S. (2014). Blogs as ePortfolio platforms in teacher education: Affordances and limitations derived from student teachers’ perceptions and performance on their ePortfolios. Digital Education Review. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1058463

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

Walsh, S., & Mann, S. (2015). Doing reflective practice: A data-led way forward. ELT Journal, 69(4), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv018

Yancey, K. B. (2023). The value of purposeful design: A case study of an ePortfolio reflective prompt. Across the Disciplines, 20(3–4), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2023.20.3-4.03

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Zhang, P., & Tur, G. (2022). Educational e-portfolio overview: Aspiring for the future by building on the past. IAFOR Journal of Education, 10, 51–74. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.10.3.03

Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.