ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRANIAN EFL TEACHERS' PERFECTIONISM AND THEIR REFLECTIVITY

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)

Volume 7 (3), November 2014; 13-‐28 Shokrollahi, M ., & Baradaran, A EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org

13

ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRANIAN EFL TEACHERS’ PERFECTIONISM AND THEIR REFLECTIVITY

MUSTAFA SHOKROLLAHI

Department of English Language, Science and Research, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

[email protected]

ABDOLLAH BARADARAN Department of English Language, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

[email protected] ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers' three dimensions of perfectionism (self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed) and their reflectivity. To this end, 289 male and female Iranian EFL teachers teaching English at Language institutes and schools of Tehran and Karaj, Iran, were randomly selected. They were asked to fill in two questionnaires, namely The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and The English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI; Akbari, Behzadpour & Dadvand, 2010). Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. In order to find out the relationships between the variables, the Pearson correlation formula was conducted, the results of which uncovered that there is a statiscally significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers' three dimensions of perfectionism and their reflectivity. Furthermore, a regression analysis revealed that perfectionism is a significant predictor of Teachers’ reflectivity. The findings of this study can help teachers to match teaching and learning so as to develop learners’ potentials in EFL learning and also might be of value to all those who are engaged in language teaching, teacher training, material development, syllabus design, and teaching-learning process to possess a better perspective into developing efficient instructions. KEYWORDS: Perfectionism, Teachers’ Reflectivity INTRODUCTION The gap between theory and practice might be the reason many private and public schools are failing to enable the students to acquire the English language (Dewey, 1938). As Mathew (2012) stressed the fact that, "Teaching and learning tends to become as two disconnected activities when teachers do not take responsibility for student learning and achievement. Reflective practitioners are those who identify these gaps and create conditions needed to raise the achievement levels"(p.207). He added that, reflective teachers provide a chance and an



14

atmosphere to find a solution for these problems, bridge this gap, and do what is essential for professional rise. This reflective practice plays a crucial role in assisting the teacher to promote his/her profession as most of what teachers learn is gained through their experiences in the class. Other scholars in the field have also reconfirmed that, highly qualified teachers are the most prominent factors affecting the effectiveness of students' academic achievement (Wright, Hom, & Sanders, 1997; Arends, 1998; Alexander & Fuller, 2005). Therefore, it has become a common ground in Second or Foreign language teaching to place reflective teaching and effective learning side by side and define them inseparably (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

Reflective practices have become widespread in all facets of teacher education and were emphasized by various studies (Schon, 1987; Kullman, 1998; Ixer, 1999; Cornford, 2002). Graves (2002) asserted that “Reflection is about learning to see and to understand what is seen, It is one of the most powerful tools teachers can use to explore, understand, and redirect their practice” (pp. 19-21). A handful of recent studies have spotlighted the importance of reflection in the point that when teachers reflect on their teaching practice, they can have an in-depth insight of their teaching and can take the required procedures to promote their teaching practice (Prabhu, 1990; Richards & Lockhart 1996; Graves 2002; Rose, 2007). It is then when “a shift occurs in their understanding and a wider range of effective, intelligent actions becomes possible” (Stanley, 1998; as cited in Graves, 2002, p. 20); which according to Richards and Lockhart (1996) “these experiences can serve as the basis for critical reflection” (p. 6), and as Pollard (2008) believed, would result in a stable growth in the quality of education. One personality characteristic that plays a leading role in teachers’ stress and their reactions to students’ behaviors is perfectionism (Flett, Hewitt, & Hallett, 1995; Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996; Mitchelson & Burns, 1998; Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000; Friedman, 2000; Chang, 2006; Pishghadam & Akhoondpoor, 2011). Perfectionistic teachers place high performance rules in their classes and lay too much stress on flawlessness which grow the learners' as perfectionistics. Research findings have provided evidence that perfectionism is of general concern in second or foreign language teaching and learning as Pishghadam and Akhoondpoor (2011) have found links between perfectionism and students’ success and also between teacher perfectionism and learner perfectionism in foreign language learning in a large-scale study of university students. They have declared, "Part of learner perfectionism, especially socially-prescribed perfectionism, can be shaped by teachers. Therefore, they must be aware of how their personal preferences and beliefs about language learning can shape the students' ideas of how to become a successful language learner"(p.439). They added that, teachers must be cognizant that not only they play the role of a teacher but also a model who is often faithfully followed. They also pinpointed that language teachers should be cautious not to shatter learners' self-confidence and become aware that how their instant and occasional harsh reactions to a mistake can make a learner anxious and dissatisfied with the learning. Schuler (1999) has done a study on gifted students in a rural middle school and have found that the majority of gifted middle school participants who demonstrated perfectionistic traits reported that “some of their teachers had influenced their perfectionism, either positively or negatively”



15

(p. 65). “Learners’ perfectionism in language learning can be in part due to their teachers’ perfectionistic orientations, but language teachers’ perfectionism has received scant attention” (Pishghadam, Fatemi & Ghaviandam, 2013, p.15). Perfectionism and professional achievement have been mutually connected in some studies. Socially prescribed perfectionism has been connected to job stress and low job satisfaction in professional teachers (Flett et al., 1995). In a study by Stoeber and Rennert (2008), it was revealed that teachers with high levels of socially prescribed perfectionism endured more frequent and more intense professional distress (e.g., lack of recognition, lack of control over school-related matters). Accordingly, an increasing number of the aforementioned researchers, indicated that both perfectionism and teachers’ reflectivity play important roles in effective teaching and successful language learning, which suggest a need to investigate the links between the two, to equip us with a more comprehensive approach toward the professional development of language teaching. However, to the knowledge of the researcher, no well-established theories directly indicated the exact relationship between perfectionism and teachers’ reflectivity. Perfectionism Perfectionism is defined as a personality trait that involves striving for flawlessness, setting excessively high performance standards that are accompanied by a fear of failure, straining to reach these unrealistic goals, and defining one’s worth by the attainment of these standards with tendencies for overly critical evaluations of one’s behavior (Pacht, 1984; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Blatt, 1995; Flett & Hewitt, 2002). The main features of perfectionism are having ambitious, vague and elusive goals and extreme efforts to achieve them. People with perfectionist tendencies are usually diligent, hardworking and reliable, but are not prepared to deal with sudden changes and unexpected situations (Mehrabizadeh & Verdi, 2003). Although many scholars have pertained perfectionism to neurosis and maladjustment and confirmed its ruinous effects (Hollender, 1965; Burns, 1980; Pacht, 1984; Flett & Hewitt, 2002;), a large number of studies have agreed on its possible facilitative effects (Parker, 1997; Enns & Cox, 2002; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001; Grzegorek, Rice, Slaney & Franze, 2004; Chan, 2007; Fong, 2012). Fong (2012) maintained that, “In its positive or adaptive form, perfectionism encourages a pursuit of high standards with realistic evaluation, appreciation of efforts and tolerance for failure” (p.1). Neimark (2007) names this “adaptive and healthy variation of perfectionism” as “Optimalism”. Adaptive perfectionists also have the tendency to perceive difficult activities as challenging and perceive themselves as highly competent (Blatt, D’Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1976; Hamachek, 1978; Frost et al., 1990). They also have a balanced thinking and strive for success (Enns & Cox, 2002).

Dimensions of Perfectionism Considering personal and social components, perfectionism can be regarded as a multidimensional personality trait (Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991, Flett & Hewitt, 2002).



16

Hewitt and Flett (1991) identified three dimensions of perfectionism based on intrapersonal and interpersonal manifestation of perfectionism: self-oriented perfectionism involves setting high standards for oneself and evaluating oneself against the standards with compulsive pursuit of perfection and improvement and avoidance of failure; other-oriented perfectionism involves imposing unrealistic expectations on others in their lives while socially prescribed perfectionism involves significant high standards and expectations that others impose on oneself. The Concept of Reflection Perspectives on reflective thinking comprise ideas rooted from the fields of psychology, education, philosophy, and the arts. Early philosophers and thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle and Locke contemplate and discussed the ideas on reflection; meta-cognition or thinking about one’s thinking (Maarof, 2007). Many scholars in the field have addressed Dewey as the pioneer of proposing the reflective practice (Farrell, 2004; Hillier, 2005; Pacheco, 2005; Akbari, 2007), and also Schon, as a figure who has affected reflective teaching (Ixer, 1999; Griffiths, 2000; Tsui, 2003). Akbari (2007) stated that reflection for Dewey “is equal to professionalism and knowledge is based on scientific approaches”, and for Schon “is an intuitive, personal, non-rational activity … and knowledge is the direct result of practice” (p. 5). He added that “The concept which seems to have the informal agreement of teacher educators of the field is reflective teaching” (Richards and Lockhart, 1994; Halliday, 1998; Akbari, 2007, as cited in Akbari et al., 2010). Dewey (1910; 1933) added that reflection is not a habitual process; rather it is a learned process that requires encouragement, reinforcement, supervision and training. Jay and Johnson (2002) have also maintained that “Reflection is a process, both individual and collaborative, involving experience and uncertainty. It is comprised of identifying questions and key elements of a matter that has emerged as significant, then taking one’s thought into dialogue with oneself and with others” (p. 76). Another definition of reflection is by Farrell (2004) who stated: Teachers can become more empowered decision makers, engaging in systematic reflections of their work by thinking, writing, and talking about their teaching; observing the acts of their own and others’ teaching; and by gauging the impact of their teaching on their students’ learning. In these ways, teachers can begin to locate themselves within their profession and start to take more responsibility for shaping their practice. This I call reflective teaching (pp. 5-6). Moreover and Schon (1987) and Richards and Lockhart (1996) have defined Teachers' Reflectivity as a teacher initiated process looking at what teachers do in the classroom, thinking about why they do it, and thinking about if it works - a process of self-observation and self-evaluation. Richards and Lockhart(1996) stated that: “reflective approach to teaching is one in which teachers and student teachers collect data about teaching, examine their attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and teaching practices; and the data are then used further to reflect critically about teaching” (p.1). Distinct approaches of reflective teaching have been developed. These approaches comprise ‘Written accounts of experiences,’ ‘Self-report,’ ‘journal writing,’ ‘lesson reports,’ ‘surveys and questionnaires,’ ‘audio and video recordings,’ ‘peer observation,’ ‘action research,’ ‘teaching portfolios,’ ‘group discussions,’ ‘analyzing critical incidents’ (Powell, 1985; Bailey, 1990; Farrell, 2004).



17

Facets of Teacher Reflection Previous studies have classified the facets that reflection may entail. Mostly they are grouped into six elements. It is noteworthy to mention that Akbari et al.’s (2010) proposed model of reflection which has been used in this study is based on these six facets of teacher reflection. These facets comprise a) Practical facet which deals with the approaches and tools of reflective practice discussed in the previous section (Powell, 1985; Bailey, 1990; Farrell, 2004). b) Critical or Conceptual Facet; Items falling in this category deal with teachers' reflecting on the political significance of their practice and introducing topics related to race, gender and social class, and exploring ways for students empowerment (Bartlett, 1997; Day, 1993; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Zeichner & Liston, 1994; as cited in Akbari et al., 2010 ). c) Moral or Ethical Facet; Valli (1990) named this facet as “deliberative approach” which “urges teachers to think critically about their purposes and how to justify them from a moral point of view” (cited in Hansen, 1998, p. 644). d) Cognitive Facet; “Conducting small-scale classroom research projects (action research), attending conferences and workshop related to one's field of study, and reading the professional literature are among the behaviours included in this domain” (Farell,2004; Richards & Farell,2005; as cited in Akbari et al., 2010). e) Meta-cognitive or teacher-related Facet; “This component deals with teachers and their reflections on their own beliefs and personality, the way they define their practice, their own emotional make up, etc.” (IIillier, 2005; Pollard et al., 2006; Richards and Lockhart, 1994; Zeichner and Liston, 1996; Stanley, 1998; as cited in Akbari et al., 2010). And f) Affective or learner-related Facet; “the components which are worth reflecting on with respect to the learner include students’ learning strategies, their cognitive and learning styles, their preferences, their affective factors, and their abilities” (Hillier, 2005; Pacheco, 2005; Pollard et al., 2006; Richards & Lockhart, 1999; Richards & Farrell, 2005; as cited in Fat’hi and Behzdpour, 2011, p.247). RESEARCH QUESTIONS To achieve the purpose of the this study the following research questions were proposed: Q1. Is there any significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ perfectionism and their reflectivity? Q2. Does Iranian EFL teachers’ perfectionism significantly predict their reflectivity? METHODOLOGY A thorough description of the participants, procedure, and instrumentation carried out for this study are presented in this section. Participants The target participants of this study comprised 289 Iranian EFL teachers whose years of teaching experience ranged from 1 to 27 years. It should be noted that the initial number of the participants was 366 and 77 were excluded due to missing questionnaires or careless and incomplete answers. All the participants were the practicing EFL teachers from different institutes and schools in



18

Tehran and Karaj, Iran, and the questionnaires were distributed among them through personal contacts or Emails. 139 of the respondents were male (48%) and 150 female (52%). Instrumentation Teachers’ degree of perfectionism was rated by the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale developed by Hewitt and Flett (1991, 1996) that is a 45-item measure of perfectionism; with 15 questions assessing each of the three dimensions comprising Self-oriented, Other-oriented, and Socially-prescribed perfectionism. Hewitt and Flett (1991) factor analyzed this scale and concluded that it has a very robust factor structure. The MPS has been shown to exhibit acceptable reliability and validity (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). According to Hewitt and Flett (1991) the test-retest reliability of the subscales were 0.88, 0.85, and 0.75 for self- oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism respectively. Moreover; the correlations between the subscales are substantial, and range from .25 to .40 (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). “As suggested by Samar and Shirazizade (2011) among the all scales made on perfectionism this multidimensional model of Hewitt and Flett (1991) is the most compatible with educational aspects” (Pishghadam et al., 2013, p.14). The reliability estimate for the whole measure with the sample in the present study was found to be .79. Teachers’ Reflectivity was measured by the validated English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory which was developed by Akbari et al. (2010). It includes 29 items on a 5-point Likert format. The robust qualitative and quantitative analysis done on the measure has yielded some underlying factors of the teacher reflectivity construct in it, including Affective, Cognitive, Meta-cognitive, Practical and Critical dimensions. The questionnaire enjoys high reliability and validity as a measuring instrument for teacher reflectivity. The Cronbach’s Alpha estimates for the indicators of practical, affective, critical, meta-cognitive, moral, and cognitive were calculated and turned out to be 0.73, 0.78, 0.84, 0.82, 0.67, and 0.83 respectively. The reliability for the whole measure with the sample in the present study was found to be .82.

Procedures In order to achieve the purpose of the study, the following steps were taken: First, the MPS and ELTRI were piloted on a sample of 30 Iranian EFL teachers similar in characteristics to the target group of the study to ensure the reliability of the scales for the target sample. Then, a total number of 289 Iranian EFL teachers were randomly selected and asked to fill out the questionnaires in 60 minutes. They were given enough instructions of filling the questionnaires and assured about the confidentiality of the data gathered. Finally, the administered questionnaires were collected and scored to be considered for statistical analysis so as to investigate whether there was any significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers' perfectionism and their reflectivity.



19

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This study was an attempt to disover whether there was any significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ perfectionism and their reflectivity or not. The following parts will explain the applied statistical procedure. Results of the Pilot Study Before administering the questionnaires, they were piloted to a group of 30 Iranian EFL teachers, bearing almost the same characteristics as the target sample of the study to ensure the reliability of the scales for the target sample. Item analysis and reliability estimates were carried out after the pilot administration which showed that, the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability estimate of the ELTRI came out to be .83 and the MPS .80 . Therfore the both scales, ELTRI and MPS, has been found as reliable and valid instruments for measuring teachers’ reflectivity and perfectionism respectively. Testing Assumptions Five assumptions should be met before one decides to run the Pearson correlation and regression analysis. The data should be measured on an interval scale rather than ordinal or nominal scales. Each pair of scores should be independent from all other pairs. The data should be normally distributed. The relationships between the variables should be linear and finally the residuals should have homogeneous variances (homoscedasticity). The assumptions were checked respectively to see whether running correlation was legitimate or not. The descriptive statistics and normality inspections of the Perfectionism and teachers’ reflectivity questionnaire are presented in table 1.

Table 1: Testing Normality Assumptions and Descriptive Statisticsof MPS and ELTRI Questionnaires

N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation

Variance

Skewness Kurtosis

Stat

istic

Std.

Err

or

Stat

istic

Std.

Err

or

Perfectionism 289 162.00 260.00 214.8720

22.92714 525.654 -.147 .143 -.540 .286

Valid N (listwise) 289

Teachers’ Reflectivity 289 45.00 146.00

100.8478

21.61639 467.268 -.150 .143 -.559 .286

Valid N (listwise) 289

The minimum and maximum scores on the questionnaires are presented in the table 1. To add, the ratio of Skewness statistic over its standard error for the scales is within the acceptable range



20

of ±1.96; the ratio of kurtosis statistic over its standard error is also within the acceptable range of ±1.96 for both of the scales, which mean that the distribution did not show a significant deviation from normality. The above scores are represented in Figures 1 and 2 for clearer inspection.

Figure 1: Histogram of the Distribution of Scores; Perfectionism Questionnaire

Figure 2: Histogram of the Distribution of Scores; Teachers’ Reflectivity Questionnaire

Testing the Null Hypotheses The result of the Pearson correlation in Table 2 indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers' perfectionism and their reflectivity (r = .601, p < .05).



21

Table 2: Pearson Correlation; perfectionism and teachers' reflectivity Teachers'

Reflectivity Perfectionism

Teachers' Reflectivity Pearson Correlation 1 .601** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 289 289

Perfectionism Pearson Correlation .601** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 289 289

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Thus, the first null hypothesis as there is no significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers' perfectionism and their reflectivity is rejected. Based on the Table 3 it can be concluded that there are significant relationships between Iranian EFL teachers' three dimensions of perfectionism and their reflectivity as follows:

Table 3: Pearson Correlations;The Dimensions of Perfectionism and Reflectivity Teachers'

Reflectivity

Teachers' Reflectivity Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N 289

SO Pearson Correlation .575** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 289

OO Pearson Correlation .416** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 289

SP Pearson Correlation .545** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 289

Since the correlation between the two variables of perfectionism and teachers’ reflectivity turned out to be significant, the researcher could legitimately opt for the regression analysis between the two variables to see to what extent Iranian EFL teachers’ perfectionism scores could predict their reflectivity. The result is depicted in the following tables. The regression model converged in one step. As Table 4 shows perfectionism is entered into the model to predict 36.2 percent of scores in Teachers’ reflectivity questionnaire (R = .601, R2 = .362).

Table 4: Variables of the Regression Model Model Variables

Entered Variables Removed

Method

1 Perfectionismb . Enter a. Dependent Variable: Teachers' Reflectivity b. All requested variables entered.



22

Table 5 shows that R (the correlation) turned out to be .601, and the R square came out to be .362.

Table 5: Model Summary, Regression Analysis; Predicting Teachers’ Reflectivity by Using Perfectionism Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .601a .362 .360 17.29958 a. Predictors: (Constant), Perfectionism b. Dependent Variable: Teachers' Reflectivity

As reported in table 6, the results of the ANOVA test of significance of the regression model (F = 162.66, p < .05) indicate that the regression model is statistically significant. Thus, the second null hypothesis as Iranian EFL teachers' perfectionism does not significantly predict their reflectivity is rejected.

Table 6: Regression Output: ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 48681.253 1 48681.253 162.664 .000b Residual 85892.048 287 299.275 Total 134573.301 288

a. Dependent Variable: Teachers' Reflectivity b. Predictors: (Constant), Perfectionism

Table 7 displays the standardized beta coefficient (B=.601, t=2.186, p=.000<.05) which indicates that the model was significant meaning that Iranian EFL teachers’ perfectionism could significantly predict their reflectivity. Hence, the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 7: Regression Output: Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 20.999 9.608 2.186 .030 Perfectionism .567 .044 .601 12.754 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Teachers' Reflectivity

The researcher already checked for the assumption of normality of the distribution of pairs of scores, but in a regression the distribution of the residuals should also be checked. Figure 3 was used by the researcher to visually inspect the result.



23

Figure 3: P-P Plot for Diagnosing Normal Distribution of Residuals As demonstrated in Figure 4, since the cloud of data is scattered randomly across the plot, the variance is homogeneous and the assumption of homoscedasticity was met.

Figure 4: Plot of Studentized Residuals; Predicting Teachers’ Reflectivity



24

The idea that the researcher has gone through table 8 was to check whether there were influential outliers or not. As the Cook’s distance values did not exceed 1 and the largest value is .065 in this data set, the conclusion is that there were no influential outliers. Also Mahalanobis distance reconfirms the nonexistence of significant outliers as there is no value in the data set exceeding 11 (the largest being 5.318).

Table 8: Cook's Distance and Mahalanobis Distance Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Cook's Distance .000 .065 .004 .007 289 Mahal. Distance .000 5.318 .997 1.201 289 a. Dependent Variable: Teachers’ Reflectivity

With reference to the data analyses in this study, the researcher observed that a statistically significant relationship was found between Iranian EFL teachers' perfectionism and their reflectivity (r = .601). As a result, improving teachers’ perfectionism can be efficient in the progression of their reflectivity. Considering no previous studies were found to explore the relationship between perfectionism and reflectivity, the results cannot be compared. Furthermore, the results of the present study showed a statistically significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers' three dimensions of perfectionism and their reflectivity; Self-oriented perfectionism and reflectivity (r = .575), Other-oriented perfectionism and reflectivity (r = .416), Socially-prescribed perfectionism and reflectivity (r = .545). The findings of the present study are in consistent with a number of previous studies which have found links among perfectionism, teachers’ effectiveness, teacher burnout, and reflectivity as to prevent teacher burnout in the 1980s, Schön (1991/1983) emphasized the importance of adopting a reflective approach to teaching over more traditional approaches which as Mathew (2012) has believed would lead to an effective teaching. Furthermore; Stoeber and Rennert (2008) approved that perfectionists should not be concerned that their perfectionistic strivings will be deleterious for their mental and physical health or may take them to burnout. In lieu their perfectionistic strivings may assist them to vigorously get over the challenges of their jobs. To sum up, the variables are closely and significantly interconnected. In addition, it is observed that Iranian EFL teachers' perfectionism is a significant predictor of their reflectivity which predicts 36.2 percent of the scores in teachers’ reflectivity questionnaire (R = .601, R2 = .362). CONCLUSION The current study was an attempt to investigate the relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ perfectionism and their reflectivity. The analyses of data yielded that there was a significant relationship between each pair of variables. In this research, it was revealed that the more perfectionistic teachers are, the more they reflect on their teaching tasks and that improving one will result in the progression of the other. Thus,



25

teachers need to think thoroughly before designing classroom activities to see how much they can provide a non-threatening environment, to set realistic performance standards so as to enhance their teaching effectiveness, to help students improve their learning process, to let learners take responsibility for their own learning, to teach them how to take risks, and encourage them to promote. They should carefully assist learners to make appropriate choices and to motivate them to expand their capabilities by considering them as active participants in the teaching and learning process. Teachers who are better informed as to the nature of their teaching are able to evaluate their stage of professional growth and decide what aspects of their teaching they need to change. In addition, when critical reflection is seen as an ongoing process and a routine part of teaching, it enables teachers to feel more confident in trying different options and assessing their effects on teaching. Success in teaching is not just a matter of luck but results from thorough planning, preparation and knowing the learners through reflection, evaluation and practice. The findings of this study can make EFL teachers’ aware of the importance of the way they think, behave, act, and react in the classroom which affects their teaching and consequently the way learners’ acquire language. It can also help them to come to a deeper understanding of how to design more effective teaching tasks to better fit learners. All in all, teachers are expected to realize their role as a contributor to the improvement of their learners’ learning process and problem solving on the one hand, and by providing a way to progress gradually to be more active and responsible for their own learning on the other hand. Limitations During the fieldwork phase of this study, the researcher encountered some limitations: Due to time constraints, it was not possible to carry out classroom observations to experience firsthand information on the teachers’ act of reflecting critically in the classroom. Moreover; having access to many teachers was difficult and to some extent impossible since this study involved only teachers. REFERENCES Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2

teacher education. System, (35), 2, 192-207. Akbari, R., Behzadpoor, F., & Dadvand, B. (2010). Development of English language teaching

reflection inventory. System, 38, 211-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2010.03.003.

Alexander, C. D., & Fuller, E. (2005). Effects of Teacher Qualifications on Student Achievement in Middle School Mathematics in Texas. Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.

Arends, Richard. (1998). Learning to Teach. (4thedn.) New York: McGraw hill. Bailey, K.M. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programmes. In J.C. Richards

and D. Nunan (Eds), Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 215-226). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020.



26

Blatt, S., D’Afflitti, J., & Quinlan, D. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 383-389.

Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, Behavioral Assessment, 17, 323-334.

Chan, D. W. (2007). Positive and negative perfectionism among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Their relationships to general self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(1), 77-102.

Chang, E. C. (2006). Perfectionism and dimensions of psychological well-being in a college student sample: A test of a stress-mediation model. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 1021-1042.

Cornford, I. (2002). Reflective teaching: Empirical research findings and some implications for teacher education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54, 2, 219-235. doi:10.1080/13636820200200196, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820200200196

Dewey, J. (1991/1933). How we think. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. boston: d.c. health. Dewey, John (1938). Experience & Education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi. ISBN 0-684-

83828-1. Dunkley, D. M., & Blankstein, K. R. (2000). Self-critical perfectionism, coping, hassles, and

current distress: A structural equation modeling approach. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 713-730.

Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A critical analysis. In G.L. Flett& P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fat’hi, J., Behzdpour, F. (2011). Beyond Method: The Rise of Reflective Teaching. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1 (2), 241-251 http://doi:10.5539/ijel.v1n2p241.

Farrell, T. (2004). Reflective Practice in Action: 80 Reflection Breaks for Busy Teachers. California: Corwin Press

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In P. L. Hewitt & G. L. Flett (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5-31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Hallett, C. J. (1995). Perfectionism and job stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11, 32-42.

Fong, W.R., (2012). Perfectionism, social connectedness, and academic self efficacy in average and academically talented primary school students in Hong Kong. The HKU Scholars Hub. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/173954.

Friedman, I. A. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional performance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 595-606.

Frost., R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.

Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., &Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. Sport Psychologist, 10, 322-340.



27

Graves, K. (2002). Developing a reflective practice through disciplined collaboration. The Language Teacher, 26(7), 19-21.

Griffiths, V. (2000). The reflective dimension in teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 539-555. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00033-1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00033-1

Grzegorek, J. L., Rice, K. G., Slaney, R. B., & Franze, S. (2004). Self-criticism, dependency, self-esteem, grade point average satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 192-200.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27-33.

Hansen, D. T. (1998). The Moral is in the Practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (6), 653-655.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991b). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

Hillier, Y. (2005). Reflective Teaching in Further and Adult Education. London: Continuum. Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6, 94-103. Ixer, G. (1999). There’s No Such Thing as Reflection. British Association of Social Workers, 29,

513-527. Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for

teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73-85. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8.

Kullman, J. (1998). Mentoring and the development of reflective practice: Concepts and context. System, 26(4), 471-484.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching UK: Oxford University Press.

Maarof, N. (2007). Telling his or her story through reflective journals. International education journal, 8(1), 205-220.

Mathew, N. G. (2012). Reflective Classroom Practice for Effective Classroom Instruction. International Education Studies Canadian Center of Science and Education, 3, 205-211.

Mehrabizadeh, M. & Verdi, M. (2003).Positive perfectionism, negative Perfectionism. Ahwaz: Rasesh Press.

Mitchelson, J. K., & Burns, L. R. (1998). Career mothers and perfectionism: Stress at work and at home.

Neimark, Jill. (2007). "The Optimism Revolution". Psychology Today: 1–3. Retrieved July 1, 2011.

Pacheco, A. Q. (2005). Reflective Teaching and its Impact on Foreign Language Teaching. Numero Extraordinario, 5, 1-19.

Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386-390.Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 477-485.

Parbhu, N. S. (1990). ‘There is no best method-why?’ TESOL Quarterly, 24 (2), 161-76. Parker, S. (1997). Reflective Teaching in the Postmodern World: a manifesto for education in

post-modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.



28

Pishghadam, R., & Akhoondpoor, F. (2011). Learner perfectionism and its role in foreign language learning success, academic achievement, and learner anxiety. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 432-440.

Pishghadam, R., Fatemi, A.h., Ghaviandam, Sh., (2013). Designing and Validating a Scale on English Language Teacher Perfectionism (SELTP) The Iranian EFL Journal, February 2013, Volume 9, Issue 1. pp. 11-22.

Pollard, Andrew. (2008). Reflective Teaching. Brand New; 3rd Edition. UK. Powell, J.P. (1985). Autobiographical learning. In Boud, et al. (pp. 41-51). Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rose, M. (2007). The reflective practitioner. European Center for Modern Languages. Retrieved

on May 15, 2007 from <http:// www.ecml.at/ html/ quality/ english/ continuum/ self assessment/ teachers/ MR_reflective%20practitioner. Html

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Schön, D. A. (1991/1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Ashgate. Stanley, C. (1998). A framework for teacher reflectivity. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 584-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588139

Schuler, P. A. (1999). Voices of perfectionism: Perfectionistic gifted adolescents in a rural middle school. Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130-145.

Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relations with stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21, 37-53.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, S. P., Hom, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.

The Authors Abdollah Baradaran is the Assistant Professor of TEFL and the chairman of the Foreign Languages Faculty at Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. As for his professional background, he has taught many courses in teaching language at the graduate level. He has published several papers in national and international journals and presented in numerous seminars. Mustafa Shokrollahi has got his M.A from Islamic Azad University, Science and Research, Shahr-e-Qods branch, Tehran, Iran. He has been teaching English for more than 10 years at Ministry of Education and different private schools and language institutes. He has published a Specialized Horse Dictionary for the E.F.I.R.I (Equestrian Federation of I.R. Iran) and has worked as an Interpreter for many years. His main areas of research interest comprise Teacher Education, Reflective Teaching, Psychological Issues of ELT, Language Acquisition and Assessment, and Teacher Training.

ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRANIAN EFL TEACHERS' PERFECTIONISM AND THEIR REFLECTIVITY

Documents

Transcript of ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRANIAN EFL TEACHERS' PERFECTIONISM AND THEIR REFLECTIVITY