Introduction

Teacher critical reflection (TCR) is a considered and observant approach to look deeply and purposefully at teaching practice to resolve an issue, idea, or to challenge practice (Sullivan et al., 2016). This form of reflection involves developing an understanding of the ways in which practice aligns with beliefs, how the role of power is acknowledged, and the value teachers place on shared communication to build an equitable and fair reasoning for their practice (Brookfield, 2017). Therefore, TCR is an analytical process that engages deep levels of critique with understanding of professional practice. This MA QES contributes recommendations that inform the significant position that TCR has in Australian teacher frameworks, provides support in response to the challenge that teachers have in navigating extensive advice regarding TCR, and identifies the potential for teachers to question practice.

The significance of TCR as a process through which to influence, inform, and enhance teaching practice is well documented and draws from a wealth of approaches (Darling-Hammond, 2008; Dewey, 1938; Gardner, 2014; Schön, 1983, 1986, 1987). What is also evident is that there is no consistent and agreed perspective about TCR (Fook, et al., 2015) and that it is interpreted differently by different people. This MA QES positions the importance of TCR, investigates TCR in contemporary research, and builds on the substantive endorsement that TCR supports quality teaching practice by developing recommendations or lines of actions (Hanneset al., 2018) that provide insight into TCR. It concludes with recommendations derived from the MA QES to inform future research and teaching practice.

Teacher critical reflection (TCR)

Ideas about TCR stem from the work of Dewey (1938) and the notion of learning through and reflecting on experience. Years later Schon (1983) identified the importance of reflection during and after the action or the incident in focus. These two influential theorists are key informants of critical reflection processes. Critical reflection on action and in action has been discussed extensively by Schön (1983), who argued that professional capability to reflect on action leads to the possibility of engaging in a further process of continuous learning, thus contributing to enhancing the quality of professional practice. In respect to teaching and preservice teacher education, Darling-Hammond (2008) contended that TCR must be ongoing and embedded in daily practice. Key characteristics of TCR indicate that teachers are thoughtful about their experience, consider their practice from diverse perspectives, and are open to re-positioning their beliefs and philosophies through what they learn (Sullivan et al., 2016). To critically reflect is personal, contextual, and purposeful, involving many interwoven complexities (Zwozdiak-Myers, 2012). The overarching goal of TCR is to enact change that reflects professional growth, understanding, and accountability (Di Stefano et al., 2015).

Much research has addressed the notion that TCR encourages teachers to consider their assumptions about teaching, learners, families, colleagues, and their identity as teachers (Fook et al., 2015; Liu, 2015). However, the focus here is the different strategies and outcomes that result from teachers engaging in TCR. These practices include strategies that teachers use to guide and support TCR such as critiquing practice and collaborating with colleagues, and the outcomes of the use of these strategies, such as learner growth, refined teacher knowledge, and improved understanding of the focus of the reflection. Understanding the intricacies of TCR is fundamental to moving beyond recognising that TCR is valuable for investigating high-quality evidence of critically reflective teaching practice (Fook et al., 2015). In this instance, the MA QES becomes a tool for moving these understandings forward.

There are variations and similarities in the advice, tools, sequences, cycles, and guides that teachers may choose to draw from when critically reflecting. Dewey (1938) was a pioneer in understanding TCR and encouraged a pragmatic approach of active reflection that involved identifying challenges, and ongoing examination, analysis, and verification of beliefs related to those challenges. His theorising about reflection led to a wealth of interpretations that further supported the significance of reflection in improving practice. Each explanation of reflection identified different interpretations and in turn suggested reflective opportunities (Schon, 1983). Cycles of reflection have been positioned within many explanations of TCR (Boud et al., 1985; Gibbs & Great Britain Further Education Unit, 1998; Johns, 2000; Kolb, 1984), as well as being used to guide reflective frameworks (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Hallet, 2012), and suggest tools for reflection (Liu, 2015). Further, various terms are used to refer to critical reflection, including ‘shifts in teacher practice’, ‘shifts/growth in learners/students’, ‘reflective practice’, ‘reflexivity’, ‘deep thinking’, ‘deep reflection’, ‘reflexology’, and ‘reflective pedagogy’ (Fook et al., 2015; Ixer, 2016). Thus, in a literature review, the myriad terms related to critical reflection needed to be accommodated.

Research question

To investigate the intricacies of TCR in peer-reviewed journal articles and to develop recommendations integral to the completion of a MA QES, a main question was: How is teacher critical reflection evidenced, justified, and communicated in research?

Method

A structured Meta-Aggregative (MA) Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) (Hanneset al., 2018) literature review was chosen to investigate how TCR is evidenced, justified, and communicated in research. This methodology recognises previously established depth of discussion of a topic and reveals what can be learnt from quality research to establish recommendations or lines of action in a research area. The meta-aggregative approach originates from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and has been used successfully in QES to verify the validity of qualitative research. While often used in the health sciences, Hannes et al. (2018) provide an example from education.

Protocol development phase

Prior to undertaking the MA QES process, protocol development (Flemminget al., 2019; Hannes et al., 2018) occurred to define search terms and parameters for the review. The protocol development began with an open search of articles that reported on TCR. At this point, the search terms were generalised to provide a large pool of potential studies and using these terms, more than 5000 peer-reviewed articles illustrating, explaining, and critiquing teacher engagement with critical reflection (2013–2019) were identified (Table 1). The search was then limited to journals focussed on education, and terms refined to ‘the significance of teacher reflection on teacher practice’, ‘reflexivity’, ‘reflective practice’, and ‘teacher transformative learning’. These terms were chosen to include research that may have referred to TCR in a different way. The time frame was chosen to access contemporary studies and included teachers in early childhood and primary school settings working with children from birth—12 years.

Table 1 Meta-aggregative search and selection
Full size table

Qualitative evidence synthesis

Following the protocol development, a four-phased approach (Hannes et al., 2018) was employed in selecting studies for review: 1. comprehensive searching and selection of articles; 2. critical appraisal; 3. data extraction and categorisation; and 4. synthesis of findings—recommendations for teacher practice, and further research for teacher critical reflection. An explanation of the application to TCR follows, beginning with the sequence (Table 1).

  1. 1.

    Comprehensive Search: Screening Phases 1 and 2

In Screening Phase 1 (Table 1), the initial pool of 5000 + articles was identified using key words, abstracts, and key words used in references. Because the focus was the use of critical reflection by practising teachers, studies in preservice teacher education were removed. Studies not published in English and duplicate studies identified in two databases (SAGE; ERIC) were excluded, reducing the pool to 2168.

In Screening Phase 2, to identify articles with a specific focus on TCR, more explicit search terms were used: ‘shifts in teacher practice’, ‘shifts/growth in learners/students’, ‘reflective practice’, ‘reflexivity’, ‘deep thinking’, ‘deep reflection’, ‘reflexology’, and ‘reflective pedagogy’. To retain the focus on TCR from birth-12 years, items making explicit mention of preservice teacher education, whole school reform, high/secondary school, policy, and tacit understandings of reflection were excluded. These refinements reduced the pool to 120 articles (Table 1). Where the criteria for in/exclusion were not conclusive in the abstract, the article itself was reviewed, which resulted in exclusion if initial criteria were not met.

  1. 2.

    Critical Appraisal

Abstracts for the remaining peer-reviewed articles (N = 120) were scrutinised. Each abstract was reviewed to identify a connection between TCR and practice. As a result, 76 articles were selected for critical appraisal. The critical appraisal process was informed by the JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research (Hannes et al., 2018) (Appendix 1). The checklist was used to assess the quality of the research (methodology, methods, conclusions linked to data analysis etc.; Appendix 1) and how it was communicated. Drawing on the levels of quality enabled a rapid refinement of articles that met the inclusion checklist criteria and acknowledged the credibility and rigour of the original research.

Guided by the checklist (Appendix 1), one of three levels of evidence was assigned to each of the 76 articles according to the thoroughness and clarity of the information in each article: Unequivocal; Potentially Credible, Unsupported. The Unequivocal level indicated that the article met each of the items on the checklist and there was an informed connection between the aim of the study and accounting for the conclusions. The Potentially Credible level identified that evidence was open to challenge or interpretation. For example, the research aim was not clear or the conclusions were not aligned with the findings. The Unsupported level showed a lack of cohesion and connectivity throughout the article, producing a tenuous relationship between the evidence and the checklist items (see Appendix 2: Critical appraisal worked example). This examination resulted in 13 articles meeting the Unequivocal level requirements and comprising the pool for data extraction. This level of scrutiny of the quality was designed specifically to encourage confidence in the rigour of article selection (Hannes et al., 2018).

  1. 3.

    Data Extraction

Following the identification of the 13 Unequivocal articles, a four-step process of data extraction began. First, to provide consistency in reporting for the thematic analysis, selected characteristics were used to extract and tabulate data: methodology, method, phenomenon of interest, setting, geographical region, data analysis, theoretical perspectives, cultural context, and participants (Hannes et al., 2018) (See Appendix 3: Characteristics of articles). Second, information from the theoretical perspectives or cultural context criteria was analysed to identify how critical reflection was defined, and how teachers used theoretical perspectives to justify the result of critical reflection. Third, articles were analysed according to the emerging themes. Fourth, each article was considered for evidence of a theoretical perspective. For instance, theories of critical reflection (e.g. reference to Dewey or Schon) were observed in the text or the references, along with evidence of a theoretical lens and justification, cycles or tools, and nomenclature. This was important because it identified the role that theory played either in guiding the process of TCR or in justifying the outcomes of TCR. These 13 articles were then clustered, resulting in 10 categories.

Data extraction: Categorisation.

An analysis of the 13 articles revealed 10 categories.

  • Professional development

  • Educator investment

  • Collaboration

  • Critical friend/academic advisor

  • Action research/reflecting through experience

  • Aligning philosophy/practice

  • Reflective tools

  • Nomenclature

  • Leadership

  • Theoretical foundations.

These ten categories were grouped into four themes according to similarities and connections (Table 2). Categories such as professional development, action research, and leadership were identified within an Objectives theme because they had a similar underpinning ideal and focussed on what drove the process. In drawing these ideas together, it was evident that the success of professional development, action research, and leadership was heavily influenced by the Objectives that guided the process. Similarly, the remaining categories were considered in connection with the others and assigned categories. Table 2 shows the categories, the justification for the grouping, and the synthesis reflecting the justification.

Table 2 Categories, justification, and synthesised statements
Full size table

Synthesis of findings

The synthesis of findings illustrates the shift from the categories to lines of actions that are key to the fourth step (Table 1) (Hannes et al., 2018). This synthesis identified four statements that contribute to authentic, credible, and sustainable TCR as derived from the QES.

Synthesis 1: objectives

Synthesis 1 indicated a clear understanding of the purpose of TCR and that specific objectives are needed to encourage teacher commitment. An explicit approach to TCR was considered essential, as teachers can differ in their interpretation of the same situation. For example, some see that the purpose of critical reflection is to improve student learning outcomes, some to improve social justice opportunities, and some to improve practice. Clear and informed objectives and the importance of each teacher’s involvement in goal setting contribute to professional investment and using TCR to inform these objectives. Teacher critical reflection should invite teacher agency and collaboration; and objectives should be intrinsically motivated and collaboratively constructed so that teachers can see a professional value. Teachers also benefit from the support of the learning community. Objectives of TCR need to be specific, collaborative, and aligned with understanding the purpose of reflection, as well as the perceived results.

Synthesis 2: TCR as part of teacher identity

Teacher identity is inextricably connected to TCR and the significance of each teacher’s understanding that critical reflection informs his or her teacher identity. Teacher beliefs and values, not only about education, but views and the value of reflection are deeply connected and influence the success of TCR. Examining one’s view of TCR and supporting individual understanding of the process of critical reflection leads to deeper understandings of practice. This understanding is essential in supporting teachers as change agents who engage in honest and informed critical reflection that is communicated credibly and authentically.

Synthesis 3: social collaboration

Social collaboration is fundamental in supporting honest and verified TCR. The importance of a distinct philosophy, ideology, and agenda is significant. Teachers need to be supported to change, be respected, and afforded a voice in the collaborative team. An unambiguous perspective about TCR is needed, and teachers need to feel safe, supported, and equipped with resources and opportunities that are conducive to transformative TCR.

Synthesis 4: tools, vision, and credibility

A well-defined process for TCR is needed so that change can be evaluated and replicated. The terminology used when working with TCR is dependent on the agenda, the vision, and in turn, objectives of the TCR within the learning context. The way the teacher or researcher defines TCR is significant, as is the way that teachers choose to reinforce professional judgements using evidence (data), literature, curriculum advice, and theory. The development of a tool guiding TCR is recommended, as is a model that enables TCR. However, the model should be transferable yet flexible, and dependent on the context and objectives. This model would also prompt connections to the theoretical underpinnings that guide teacher decision making. From this model, teachers, collaborative teams, and leadership groups could select the best approach to support their agenda.

Discussion

This Meta-Aggregative (MA) Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) investigated examples of quality TCR in recent peer-reviewed articles. The main question that guided the review was: What can be learned from how TCR is evidenced, justified, and communicated in research? The synthesis identified the varied ways in which TCR is used and in turn communicated. Recommendations are discussed with the aim of developing a more refined and transferable approach to TCR, and to explore the overarching question with a focus on ‘What now?’; mainly because recommendations from an MA QES should lead to potential testing of the knowledge gained to evaluate the outcomes on practice (Hannes et al., 2018). The following syntheses outline recommendations in respect to objectives, TCR and teacher identity, social collaboration, and tools.

Recommendations: objectives (synthesis 1)

The impact of the objectives is significant for TCR. In the synthesised literature, TCR was approached differently depending on the specified objective/s. For example, individual teachers created objectives based on developing deeper understandings of child development that were integral to achieving their professional goals (Escamilla & Meier, 2018), compared to the set objectives in larger communities of practice that developed collaborative goals (Cravens et al., 2017). The use of action plans (Bleach, 2014) and agreement about the TCR objective was essential (Benade, 2015) in supporting the reflective process. Objectives created by teachers willing to collaborate through TCR were effective (Cravenset al., 2017). Successful use of teaching as inquiry, driven by clearly stated objectives and shared goals, was evidenced in longitudinal studies (Escamilla & Meier, 2018). Regardless of the scale of the program i.e. large-scale professional development agendas in geographical regions, schools, or early childhood settings or smaller teams or individuals, a shared and clearly stated and understood objective that guides TCR is essential. Various programs highlighted different objectives and strategies, but all 13 referred to TCR as a key to success in achieving the objectives derived from the need for change.

Further deconstruction of the transparency of objectives was promoted. Objectives should be contextual and informed by those leading the process. For example, professional development (PD) with an objective of TCR leading sustained change was described and supported by individual TCR (Biccard, 2018). Conversely, PD developed by an academic advisor and principal based on their observation of a perceived lack of continuity between teachers’ beliefs and practice (Loizou, 2015) was not directly led by the teachers themselves. The difference in the agenda influences the nature and ownership of the objective and engagement (i.e. teacher ‘buy in’). The propensity for objectives to guide TCR through giving voice to stakeholders (Escamilla & Meier, 2018) was noted, and in this sense, TCR made the voices of teachers, families, and children visible in practice. The importance of tailoring objectives to teachers and contexts is obvious and recommended within the literature.

Recommendations: TCR as part of teacher identity (synthesis 2)

Synthesis 2 identified the importance of teacher identity in influencing successful TCR. Teacher identity is inextricably connected to a teacher’s beliefs, values, and sense of agency (Bleach, 2014; Escamilla & Meier, 2018; Loizou & Recchia, 2018). This QES recommends moving away from the complexities of how teacher identity is defined (Schutz et al., 2020) to considering the teacher’s understanding/value of TCR; and the implications for teacher identity and in turn professional growth. In this sense, TCR can be measured i.e. the knowledge drawn from TCR informs teacher identity in the way that teachers justify, practice, and inform their teacher voice (Benade, 2015; Bleach, 2014). When teachers are valued and TCR is valued, there is alignment with the success of TCR (Loizou & Recchia, 2018). Therefore, teachers who see TCR as part of their identity and have a propensity to challenge their beliefs and values are more inclined to engage successfully with TCR (Biccard, 2018). The use of enforced professional development goals is questionable. For instance, large-scale professional development agendas must contain respected elements of individual teacher voice and choice, valuing all participants as agents of change (Bleach, 2014). In effective TCR, the worth of participants’ beliefs in respect to improving, sharing, and developing practice is significant (Cravens et al., 2017; Escamilla & Meier, 2018). This synthesis indicates that the value that individual teachers place on TCR and the way this supports teacher professional identity is significant.

Recommendations: social collaboration (synthesis 3)

From small- to large-scale learning communities, social collaboration plays a significant role in sustaining and supporting TCR. The importance of sharing TCR to guide, enhance, and quantify thinking was evidenced in the literature in different ways (Cravens et al., 2017; Escamilla & Meier, 2018; Loizou & Recchia, 2018). Teachers articulated their knowledge and perspectives derived from TCR by using interactive forms of communication such as email and online material; they were also connected in small research groups, in teams within their workplace, and supported in self-study by an academic or colleague (Benade, 2015). Encouraging collaborative TCR led to a strategic pedagogical approach to catering for diverse learner needs (Loizou, 2015). The endorsement of collaborative TCR as more effective than reflecting in isolation was established (Benade, 2015). Furthermore, isolated individual teacher inquiry was revealed as a limited tool for reflection and growth in contemporary times (Cravens et al., 2017).

Collaborative learning opportunities are integral in sustaining large-scale teacher networks. Participating teachers needed to openly engage with, not just ‘endure’ the PD (Cravens et al., 2017). The success of teacher active participation (collaboration) is impacted by the objectives (Synthesis 1) and the role that each participant plays, with each participant considered as important as the others (Escamilla & Meier, 2018). The value of promoting TCR through learning communities focussed on “transformative learning” was identified (Pihlaja & Holst, 2013, p. 193) alongside recognition of the impact of teacher ideologies, which are influenced by teachers’ home and work lives (Synthesis 2).

Collaboration supports the effectiveness of TCR and can be reinforced by a critical friend or academic advisor, not solely by teaching colleagues (Benade, 2015). The literature illustrated the use of peer excellence groups that focussed on teacher efficacy to strengthen communities of practice (COP), thus supporting the success of TCR (Cravens et al., 2017; Pihlaja & Holst, 2013). Within COP, reflecting collaboratively allowed teachers to review current ways of thinking (Biccard, 2018). A key support in the COP approach was the balance between valuing teachers and holding participants accountable (Cravens et al., 2017). The COP identifies the significance of the philosophy of the community. However, more work is needed to establish positive learning cultures that encourage an openness of practice (Loizou, 2015).

Social collaboration plays a key role in the longevity and success of TCR including how the ideology of the workplace team influences the objective/s (Synthesis 1), as well as the outcomes of TCR (Escamilla & Meier, 2018). Features of successful collegial TCR include sharing and listening to different perspectives, deconstructing perceptions, and subsequently strengthening professional practice. A shared ideology and understanding the role that teachers play as change agents are essential. The ideals that underpin a shared ideology (Synthesis 1) contribute greatly to teacher agency and the success of TCR (Óskarsdóttir et al., 2019; Van Der Heijden et. al., 2015) i.e. social collaboration is integral to the success of TCR.

Recommendations: Tools (synthesis 4)

Tools refers to the practices and language used to support TCR. The strategies used by teachers to support the vision and credibility of practice are the foundations for TCR. There are three distinct aspects: first, the tools and processes that teachers use to guide TCR; second, the vision which is predominantly guided by the objective/s (Synthesis 1) and the understanding of what TCR involves; and third, credibility of the theoretical/research perspectives that teachers use to afford integrity to the justifications and decisions. Synthesis 4 makes it possible to ascertain the more practical elements that support TCR. Diverse strategies were identified and used to encourage TCR, including reflecting through experience (critical incidents) (Biccard, 2018), and deconstructing critical incidents which enabled a focus on new or perplexing experiences that catalysed reflection, and as a result, teachers re-orientated or transformed their teaching perspectives. The role of TCR in supporting change is reflected in the way teachers respond when confronted with a challenging situation; sharing this experience with the research team produced a shared “discussion, analysis and change” (Escamilla & Meier, 2018, p. 16).

Navigating the different terminology and approaches to TCR is important to success. The articles reviewed employed several methods to gather data about TCR, including video, focus groups, conversational interviews, reflective journalling, and used evidence such as tools and records as impetus for reflection (Loizou & Recchia, 2018). Reflective journalling (Loizou & Recchia, 2018) and the value of collaboratively analysing individual reflections was positioned within the research as beneficial in developing a shared dialogue (Biccard, 2018). Reconsidering goals for lessons provided insight into the teacher’s professional growth through TCR (Biccard, 2018). However, a specific tool for TCR was not clearly identified. For instance, in some instances, critical incidents formed the impetus, specific questions were raised, clear goals were set, but there was not a shared understanding of the process to ensure a clear outcome was reached. Each approach resulted in different levels of success, working from simple measures to identify TCR, to engaging in self-study or working towards a clearly stated personal or shared goal (Pihlaja & Holst, 2013). Self-study was identified as an effective tool for encouraging teachers to think critically about their practice (Óskarsdóttir et al., 2019). The importance of evidence to guide and justify TCR was reinforced, and identified the propensity for TCR to then strengthen the credibility of practice. Teacher critical reflection through self-study supports the reframing of teacher understanding through questioning practice. The process of reflection encourages teachers to see experiences differently and to reconsider practice (Biccard, 2018).

Supportive TCR strategies included writing journals, diaries, and blogs (Benade, 2015), monthly meeting times, a key facilitator role within the process, a model of inquiry to guide TCR, video recorded lessons for reflection, reflective writing, and questionnaires (Yeh, 2018). Varied approaches were used by all studies. Teacher modelling of specific problems and collaborative problem-solving was used alongside journalling to record reflection, further serving as a staff appraisal (accountability) measure (Biccard, 2018). Blogging (Benade, 2015), engaging in dialogue and collaboration, and shared reading/documentation provided further evidence of the value of a shared approach to TCR (Escamilla & Meier, 2018). Several factors were key to successful TCR, including professional development that was tailored to participant needs and supported with a range of strategies such as focus groups, conversational interviews, reflective journalling, artefacts, reflection on practice, professional exchange, and establishing professional trust (Loizou & Recchia, 2018). Approaches to reflection varied from using teacher reflections on practice to specifically guiding the TCR approach (Pihlaja & Holst, 2013); to using questionnaires (Likert scale) and observation focussed on what teachers think they do as reflective teachers, and what they actually do to direct TCR (Tok & Dolapçioglu, 2013). Reflections on classroom practice led to exploring a definition of adaptability and were then used as stimulus for TCR (Vaughn et al., 2016). Communities of practice focussed on social collaboration and dialogue, PD sessions were guided by “signposts for reflections” and supported with observations, program documentation, and feedback (Bleach, 2014, p. 189). Diverse approaches were represented in the literature and offered an insight into the varied ways that teachers critically reflect. The decisions behind choosing these strategies were influenced by the vision for TCR, and the way TCR was valued and positioned as a tool for change (Synthesis 2).

The literature consistently highlighted the shifts in the thinking of teachers involved in TCR (Biccard, 2018). Changes in thinking led to teachers considering their role in student learning (Vaughn et al, 2016; Heijden et al., Vaughn et al., 2016; 2015; Yeh, 2018). Even though differing individual teacher perspectives enrich and challenge TCR, the MA QES showed that the specific way that TCR was used needed to be agreed on. Understanding what the teacher hoped to achieve through TCR and how this translated into practice was essential and provided a level of credibility to the process (Loizou, 2015).

Teachers used theoretical perspectives to guide TCR, drawing commonly on the work of Dewey and Schon. They also used theoretical perspectives to justify their practice of TCR. The MA QES suggests that TCR is generally informed by theory i.e. a theoretical framework guides the approach, but there are ambiguities in the way that teachers support the credibility of their judgements as the result of TCR. Identifying the credibility of teacher thinking through justifying the result of TCR with theory and research evidence is crucial, and a key recommendation of several articles (Benade, 2015; Cravens et al., 2017; Escamilla & Meier, 2018; Loizou & Recchia, 2018; Óskarsdóttir et al., 2019; Pihlaja & Holst, 2013; Tok & Dolapçioglu, 2013; Van Der Heijden et al., 2015; Vaughn et al., 2016; Yeh, 2018).

Limitations

Critical appraisal (CA) informed the levelling of articles and may unintentionally have excluded studies. It is possible that relevant information may have been collected but not communicated as it may not have fitted into the CA criteria. Reducing the number of articles using the CA tool can mean that the pool of articles (in this case, 13) was used to develop the recommendations and may have excluded research involving TCR. This MA QES focussed on identifying the quality of the articles that met the CA checklist. All studies needed to meet all checklist items to be included. This process may have excluded research in which TCR was illustrated and therefore led to inadvertently overlooking relevant articles, or articles that included examples that may have been relevant to the research. However, the quality criteria refer not only to TCR, but also to the quality of the published articles and the propensity to communicate research clearly. The number of articles used in the final analysis represents a base for future MA QES in this field.

Conclusion

What can be learned from how TCR is evidenced, justified, and communicated in research? This MA QES has revealed that TCR as a process and a form of analytical thinking provides valuable opportunities to improve the quality of professional practice. To connect the above recommendations (syntheses), the development of a model of TCR is needed. The model should be flexible enough to be transferable to different contexts and able to accommodate different objectives, collaborative teams, and leadership groups. This model would prompt connections to the theoretical underpinnings of teaching and learning, evidence, data, and curricula to guide teacher decision making.

Teacher critical reflection affords credibility to teaching practice and informs decision making, leading to greater opportunities for teachers to justify teacher thinking and to change professional practice. Quality evidence of TCR reinforces the significance of sustained approaches to reflection, which is most effective when teachers are personally and professionally engaged. Recording successful and credible TCR is necessary to inform an evidenced-based model for TCR. Future research would provide evidence of the intricacies of TCR and illustrate how teachers use TCR to reinforce professional judgements with evidence of practice, data, research, theory, or curriculum advice.

The similarities and differences identified in the empirical literature illustrate the need for a guided approach to TCR, one that supports teachers in a cycle of reflection, but also encourages the importance of justifying teaching practice with credible and informed perspectives. Further research could extend the four recommendations derived from this MA QES and provide authentic evidence of teacher practice that is guided and informed by TCR. This evidence would include identifying distinct and connected objectives, ensuring teacher investment, supporting TCR as a significant aspect of teacher identity, the importance of social collaboration, and the tools used to support the vision and credibility attached to TCR. This research could then be used to inform a model of TCR to enable an explicit, transferable, and contextual approach to TCR.