Reflective Feedback

            “A teacher is not likely to improve their teaching,” says Stephen Gordon (Texas State University/San Marcos) in this article in Theory Into Practice, “unless they perceive the need for change through reflection on their beliefs, their teaching behaviors, and the impact of those beliefs and behaviors on students.” But there are few opportunities for this kind of reflection, says Gordon, because of teachers’ heavy workload, curriculum demands, student behavior, isolation from colleagues, and the summative focus of the traditional teacher evaluation process.

            Ideally, principals and other supervisors help teachers reflect on their practice, but too often, says Gordon, “feedback consists of judgments and suggestions for improvement.” A better model is reflective feedback, which is non-evaluative, free of judgment, and focused on identifying and addressing teachers’ concerns. There’s a dialogue between the supervisor (or peer) and teacher, based on actual observation of the teacher working with students, or viewing a video of a lesson. The discussion pinpoints a specific area the teacher has identified, looks at possible solutions, and the teacher decides how to follow up.

            In this kind of reflective dialogue, the most potentially interesting part is how the teacher’s espoused beliefs about teaching align with what’s going on in their classroom. “Realization of a conflict between teaching beliefs and teaching behaviors can lead to cognitive dissonance,” says Gordon. “To relieve that dissonance, the teacher may change their beliefs, change their teaching, or both.”

Gordon describes four frameworks for analyzing teaching, each with the potential to foster reflective feedback:

• Clinical supervision – This is the traditional teacher-evaluation process: a pre-observation conference discussing the lesson plan; a classroom visit with detailed note-taking; a post-observation meeting and write-up. There’s certainly room for reflective feedback in the first and third phase, but principals’ workload keeps them from doing these more than once or twice a year, if that. A common workaround: having an instructional coach or peer implement the clinical supervision process, minus the evaluative component.
• Peer video analysis – A group of teachers watches a video of one of their lessons, replaying segments if necessary, reflects on questions the teacher wants to discuss, and the teacher decides how to follow up. Questions about this process: Will teachers share videos of lessons that might be viewed as problematic? Will the presence of a supervisor inhibit the discussion of less-than-stellar teaching? Will the facilitator raise important issues of beliefs and pedagogy? And will there be time for this in the busy lives of teachers?
• Teacher learning walks – A group of teachers visits several classrooms with an agreed-upon focus, meets to discuss their observations, and shares conclusions with the faculty of the school. Learning walks are intended to serve as professional learning for the teachers observed and for those doing the classroom visits. “Multiple learning walks with different teachers being observed in each walk,” says Gordon, “can gather data that becomes the basis for schoolwide instructional improvement goals.” Potential drawbacks are similar to peer video analysis: the quality of facilitation, the level of candor, and the time required.
• Collaborative autobiography – Several teachers write privately about their individual practice, meet to share and discuss one teacher’s writing, make connections to the teacher’s beliefs and professional and personal history, and share key next steps. “Often,” says Gordon, “other members of the group describe experiences, emotions, concerns, and needs similar to those shared by the teacher reading from their autobiography… This framework increases both individual and group self-awareness and a commitment for positive change.”

            Although each of these – clinical supervision, video analysis, learning walks, and collaborative autobiography – has the potential to foster high-quality reflective feedback among teachers, says Gordon, “none of the frameworks are widely used in our schools.” Why? Lack of time, and school leaders not taking the initiative to make them happen. He urges principals and other supervisors to support at least one framework, carve out sufficient time for implementation, involve teachers in planning, provide PD that demonstrates how it can foster reflective feedback, and solve inevitable glitches.

            “For any of these frameworks to be successful,” Gordon adds, “reflective feedback needs to be reciprocal: supervisor to teacher, teacher to supervisor, and in group frameworks, teacher to teacher. The supervisor is the essential model for and facilitator of reflective feedback.” 

 “The Power of Reflective Feedback” by Stephen Gordon in Theory Into Practice, Winter 2026 (Vol. 65, #1, pp. 5-22); Gordon can be reached at sg07@txstate.edu.

Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #1134 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.