The notion of criticality can be traced back to Socrates’ ideology of critical self-examination (White, et al., 2006). This notion, then, begins to gain popularity in which contemporary literature on critical reflections emerge (for example, works of (Habermas, 1981; Mezirow, 1990; Peltier et al., 2005; Redmond, 2004). The developing understanding of criticality and reflection over the years has resulted in multiple frameworks and approaches to critical reflective practices. Consequently, the definition and application of reflection and critical reflection vary across fields without reaching a consensus and consistency among social theorists, researchers, therapists, and educators (Black, & Plowright, 2010; Hickson, 2011; Wong et al., 2016). From my perspective, the many definitions of critical reflections have resulted in the understanding of ‘reflecting critically’ or being ‘critical’ unhelpfully vague, particularly in the context of educational practices. Arbitrating whether a reflection is critical, then, becomes more complex and ambiguous. Grounded by the notion of criticality and transformation of an individual, this study builds on Habermas' (1981) Communicative Action Theory (CAT) and Mezirow's (1990) Theory of Transformative Learning as its theoretical framework. In CAT, Habermas maintains the core aspects of critical theory while emphasising the role of communication in promoting emancipatory transformation. Similarly, Mezirow advocates for critical reflection that transforms the practitioner’s beliefs, values, and eventually, practices for their professional growth.

Research Aims

This study intends to explore the concept of criticality and develop an understanding of critical reflection in in-service teachers’ reflections.

Research Question

“What can I learn about criticality from teachers’ critical reflections?”

In this study, I use the creative visual arts method, i.e., Reflective Drawing and Dialogic Reflection (RDDR) framework, an adaptation of Luc Pauwel’s Integrated Framework for Visual Social Research (Pauwel, 2011) to generate my research data. According to (Theron et al., 2011), drawings are commonly used ‘to measure cognitive development… and as a projective technique to explore conscious and unconscious issues and experiences' (p.18). Theoretically, drawings can potentially reveal more than what may have been captured in writing. It creates a path for researchers to explore participants’ sense-making of their situation while making a connection to their emotions and feelings – leading to a succinct presentation of their experience, therefore, creating an opportunity for a more meaningful reflection (Kearney & Hyle, 2004). Due to its potential to offer rich and insightful research data (Guillemin, 2004; Theron et al., 2011), I employ drawings as a part of my research method to explore criticality in critical reflections within educational settings.

Drawings as a research method involve more than just engaging participants in producing drawings as research data. Researchers often include either written or verbal explanations of drawings as a part of the data generation process. According to Guillemin (2004), drawings are produced by unique individuals in a particular time and space, therefore, it must be followed by a verbal explanation. For her, verbal explanation complements visual research tools to encourage meaning-making and sense-making, while providing a platform for the image producer to give voice to what they intend to convey in the drawings. Drawn by Walsh & Mann, (2015) collaborative reflection and Bakhtin's (1981) notion of dialogism, I integrated dialogic reflection into the methodology framework. According to Bakhtin, within the interaction between individuals, the multiplicity of voices and perspectives becomes less quiescent as (re)construction of meaning occurs, which potentially would raise one’s awareness of self. In collaborative reflection, the interaction between individuals would mean one’s articulation of thoughts during reflective conversation, which may lead to one’s professional development and growth.

This study involved six Malaysian teachers who have been teaching English Language at primary schools in Malaysia for more than five years. The participants of this study were recruited via purposive and convenience sampling. Participation was voluntary, and a total of six female teachers volunteered to participate in this research. As it was a convenience sampling, the participants came from different states and different teaching backgrounds. However, the participants underwent similar teacher training programs during their undergraduate years. From the RDDR framework, I developed a three-phased data gathering method, i.e., (i) establishing a baseline understanding, (ii) four-cycle of RDDR, and (iii) semi-structured feedback interview. The first phase of the data generation process involved gathering the participants’ understanding of critical reflection to ensure that the participants were aware of what they could reflect on. The main research data were generated in the second phase, i.e., the four-cycle RDDR phase. A complete cycle of RDDR consisted of two tasks, (i) an individual-prompt-based Reflective Drawing (RD), and (ii) dialogic reflection (DR) between two participants. For the first task, participants were required to critically reflect on their teaching practices and produce their own visual form as research data for each cycle. For this purpose, I employed a non-algorithmic technique as the product of the methods. The participants were asked to draw a river journey (an adaptation of Kerchner's (2006) River Journey) to depict their critical reflection. The process of critical reflection and the drawing of the river journey were done individually, at their own preferred time. They were given the flexibility of time to complete the drawing before we scheduled the second task, the DR. For this task, the participants were paired randomly to verbalise their RD. The participants engaged in the RD with the same partner throughout the four cycles. After the four-cycle RDDR, I conducted a short semi-structured feedback interview with the participants individually to support the main research data. This method produced three different sets of data, i.e., (i) 24 RDs, (ii) 12 DRs and 24 audio transcripts, and (iii) 6 semi-structured feedback interviews.

The initial findings of this study suggest that participants responded positively to the arts-based elements of the RDDR framework. Through the framework's flexibility, participants demonstrated enhanced emotional engagement and deeper self-awareness as they reflected on their lived experiences as English Language teachers through multiple modalities, specifically through reflective drawing and dialogues with other participating teachers. While addressing the limitations of conventional written reflection research methods, the RDDR framework captures and acknowledges the multidimensional nature of teachers' experiences and the contextual constraints they face in their professional practices. Initial findings also suggest that participants were able to identify and challenge embedded assumptions in their practice while maintaining authenticity in their reflections. This study advances both methodological and theoretical contributions to the field. Methodologically, the RDDR framework offers a structured yet flexible methodology that bridges creative arts methods with critical pedagogy, potentially widening the pathways for educational research. It demonstrates how creative approaches can be systematically integrated into reflective practice, serving as a foundation to explore alternative approaches to critical reflection. This study may provide insights into the RDDR framework's potential as a reflective tool that facilitates emancipatory transformation among teachers and educators by fostering critical consciousness while remaining sensitive to teachers' individual contexts and constraints. Further exploration of the framework's feasibility may offer a structured approach to supporting teachers in reflecting critically while considering the various contextual and personal factors that influence their critical reflection.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. University of Texas Press. Black, P., & Plowright, D. (2010). A Multidimensional Model of Reflective Learning for Professional Development. Routledge, 11(2), 245–258. Guillemin, M. (2004). Understanding Illness: Using Drawings as a Research Method. Qualitative Health Research, 14(2), 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303260445 Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press. Hickson, H. (2011). Critical Reflection: Reflecting on Learning to be Reflective. Routledge, 12(2), 829–839. Kearney, K. S., & Hyle, A. E. (2004). Drawing out emotions: The use of participant-produced drawings in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research, 4(3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104047234 Kerchner, J. (2006). Tools for Developing Reflective Skills. In Reflective Practices in Arts Education (pp. 123–138). Springer. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pauwel, L. (2011). An Integrated Conceptual Framework for Visual Social Research. In The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods (pp. 3–23). SAGE Publications, Inc. Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2005). The Reflective Learning Continuum: Reflecting on Reflection. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475305279657 Redmond, B. (2004). Reflection in Action: Developing Reflective Practice in Health and Social Service. Ashgate. Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. SAGE Publications, Inc. Theron, L., Mitchell, C., Smith, A., & Stuart, J. (Eds.). (2011). Picturing research: Drawing as visual methodology. SensePublishers. 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 White, S., Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (Eds.). (2006). Critical Reflection in Health and Social Care. Open University Press. Wong, Y. M., Mansor, R., & Samsudin, S. (2016). The Use of Critical Reflection Manual in Reflective Journal: A Case Study of Malaysian Student Teachers’ Perception. Geografia, 12(1), 8–18.