Self-Reflective Teacher Model for Creating LASS in EFL Classes

DOI 10.5281/twist.10049652#595 TWIST, 2026, Vol. 21, Issue 2, pp. 85-93 TWIST Journal homepage: www.twistjournal.net Self-Reflective Teacher Model for Creating LASS in EFL Classes Srinivasa Rao Idapalapati English Language Institute, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia Abstract Language acquisition requires a specific environment to support learners in acquiring native-like fluency. Developed by Jerome Bruner, the Language Acquisition Support System (LASS) plays a crucial role in language acquisition. In the case of the first language (L1), the support system comes automatically from parents and the environment in which the child was born. On the contrary, in the case of the acquisition of a foreign language (L2), there would be no such support system or environment to foster the acquisition. To bridge the gap, the teachers of L2 need to play a crucial role in creating and developing LASS by simulating the features of the system. However, language teachers find the creation of LASS and the facilitation of relevant environments quite challenging. Assuming that the hard-trenched beliefs and opinions that teachers hold as an important factor that hinders teachers' ability to create such a classroom environment, this study has developed a ‘self-reflective teacher model’ based on the philosophical underpinnings of Ayn Rand, Jiddu Krishnamurthy, and Terry Borton to support teachers in understanding about the reality of their beliefs and enable them to create LASS in their classes. The model was employed by 36 EFL teachers with favourable outcomes in creating LASS in their classes. The inferential statistics drawn from the data collected from the experiences of the 36 teachers through a 10item Likert scale confirm the viability of the model, which can be used and developed further for improving students' acquisition of the language and communicative competence. Keywords self-reflective teacher, second language acquisition, teachers’ beliefs, Language Acquisition Support System (LASS), objective reality, choiceless awareness INTRODUCTION Jerome Bruner holds that language acquisition is a unified process of learning grammar, meaning, and communicative intent together simultaneously and not separately from one another (Bruner, 1985, p. 18). These three aspects of language that correspond to syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of a language are interdependent and inseparable. Bruner asserts that the acquisition of a language is possible with the mastery of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of the language when the language is set to learn in a relevant social context. This social context, in the case of the first language or mother tongue, is created in the form of a mini-cosmos created by the mother or caregiver to their infants, in which they carry out nonverbal interactions that form the foundation for language acquisition. This mini-cosmos or the ‘transactional format’ is what Bruner calls the Language Acquisition Support System (LASS) that forms the basis for the Interactional theory of language learning and acquisition (ibid., p.19). Within the mini-cosmos, infants are provided with communication input that incorporates all three aspects of language, initially in the form of non-verbal cues and gestures, which will later be supplemented with verbal structures that the infants can use in the real world. However, Bruner also points out that infants are inherently endowed with a biological and genetic system, which Noam Chomsky referred to as the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), supporting the natural acquisition of language (Chomsky, 1965, p. 55). Several other theories underpin the importance of social context in language learning and acquisition. The sociocultural theory proposed by Lev Vygotsky and the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) emphasize that the best way of teaching language by teachers or parents is to provide the target language input that is much closer to the learner's existing knowledge of the language within their social environment in a thoughtfully structured transactional format (LaMarr, 2025). In a similar tone, Fernald (1985) writes about the ‘motherese’, which is a “speech register used by adults with infants and young children… that is… linguistically simplified and characterized by high pitch and exaggerated intonation.” Referring to the acquisition of a language, Dell Hymes proposed ‘communicative competence’ that has to be mastered within social contexts, where language learners later demonstrate their mastery of the language in 85 compliance with the social and cultural norms of the society within which they exist and continue to communicate (Hymes, 1972). The concept of ‘communicative competence’ specifically underpinned the importance of social context for the acquisition of language in contrast with the linguistic-structure-centered approach that preceded the communicative approach (Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Emphasizing the significance of context, Balboni (2018) brings in Alexander von Humboldt’s view of a teacher's role in language acquisition, which says, “A language cannot be taught. One can only create conditions for learning to take place.” Given the importance of social context or mini-cosmos in language learning, this study aims to identify features of the mini-cosmos that can be used to develop a LASS model for simulating social contexts or the mini-cosmos itself in EFL classrooms. Additionally, since EFL teachers play a crucial role in creating LASS in their classrooms, and due to the diverse beliefs and opinions teachers hold about their students and teaching methods, as discussed in the literature review, the study emphasizes the need to train teachers to recognize how their beliefs might interfere with accurately replicating LASS features. To fill this gap, and this study has developed a self-reflective teacher model driven by questions: What is LASS? What are its features? How do we create LASS in English language classrooms? and Can teachers establish LASS in their L2 classes? The model was created drawing on the philosophical concepts of Ayn Rand’s objective reality, Jiddu Krishnamurthy’s choiceless awareness, and Terry Borton’s ‘reach, touch, and teach. When the model was tried out by 36 EFL teachers in different EFL contexts, the results were positive and encouraging, with significant improvements in the learners' progress in the acquisition of English. LITERATURE REVIEW Freeman & Anderson (2013) pointed out that the work and art of teaching language, which is a blend of social, affective, and cognitive domains, needs a “contingent orchestration” of “physical, emotional, practical, behavioural, political, experiential, historical, cultural, spiritual, and personal” factors at the observable level apart from several other unobservable factors that add to the complexity of the work of art. A deeper understanding of the factors that support the acquisition of English as a foreign language or a Second language in the existing literature can help us create a better learning environment and context in EFL and ESL classrooms. In the view of Byram (1997), developing intercultural competence needs specific education or training on intercultural competence, which seems to be true for EFL teachers to be effective in fostering indiscriminate yet critically evaluative and unbiased intercultural communicative competence while presenting the learning materials reflecting varying cultural and social phenomena and practices. Culturally competent use of language goes beyond the grammatical rules and makes the language more functional and appropriate to the context that involves field, tenor, and mode, which correspond to topic, relationship, and channel of communication (Halliday, 1978). Cultural nuances and functionality in language use can’t be completely conveyed through linguistic competence; rather, it's possible through communicative competence that supports making meanings in semiotic and metaphorical expressions (Halliday & Hasan, 1989). In the wake of the neoliberal and new capitalistic approaches to globalization, Gray (2010, pp. 16-18) writes about the importance of the inclusion of intercultural competence in the teaching materials of English language courses. Vygotsky (1978) explained that, according to developmental psychology, interactions with others and society are essential for language development and meaning-making. Regarding perception and attention, he clarified that through language-based interactions, individuals learn to interpret the objects they perceive with their senses. Further, their interpretations and definitions of these objects influence their attention. Vygotsky viewed attention as a culturally mediated, voluntary activity that emerges from the various interpretations humans develop based on sensory perceptions (ibid., pp. 31-38), which lead to the development of specific consciousness in individuals (Krishnamurti, 1972). Explaining the nature of consciousness, Jean Paul Sartre introduced the terms Being in-itself and Being for-itself, and the concept of Being for-itself is relevant to human beings and is the cause of developing consciousness and beliefs (Sartre, 2018, p. 785). People develop their specific consciousness from the society, environment, and culture they were brought up in, and are usually programmed to look at objects through the lens of their specific consciousness, which most of the time distorts the truth in the facts they observe (Krishnamurti, 1972). On the other hand, the distinction between method-based pedagogy and post-method pedagogy made by Kumaravadivelu (2003) highlights the capabilities of teachers to go beyond prescriptive method-based language instruction and signifies the importance of social contexts. To achieve communicative competence aligned with the worldview of a multicultural mosaic, Kumaravadivelu developed a framework of macro strategies for teaching English (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). In a study by Sercu (2005) identified how challenging it is for teachers to overcome strongly held beliefs about their own culture and to view other cultures from an outside perspective (p.2). Examining various themes that influence and shape language teachers’ actual performance in their classrooms, Borg (2011) discussed ‘teacher cognition’ as one of the most influential factors affecting prospective language teachers. Teacher cognition refers to what teachers think, know, and believe, and how their knowledge, thought processes, and beliefs translate into their actions in the classroom. Conversely, Borton (1970) observes that teachers must develop knowledge about the facts and realities of their students, which makes their teaching more meaningful and effective. Utami (2016) presents multiple definitions of teachers’ beliefs that shape their teaching practices. She highlights the importance of teachers’ knowledge and educational development, considering factors from their school years, classroom experiences, professional growth, and contextual influences as the main factors affecting their teaching. Similarly, Larenas & Navarrete (2015) noticed that, despite the varying beliefs that teachers hold depending on their personal experiences with the teachers who educated 86 them, the social, cultural, and environmental factors that shape their teaching practices, they tend to reorient their teaching when they are supplied with the right inputs that can influence their thinking. The early efforts in communicative language teaching were undertaken by less well-known specialists, such as the Frenchman C. Marcel (1793–1896), the Englishman T. Prendergast (1806–1886), and the Frenchman F. Gouin (1831– 1896) in the 19th century (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp. 7-8). Throughout the history of language teaching approaches and methods, especially for English, the development of a new method or approach often assumes it will be considerably better than previous ones. Explaining the theories of ‘language learning’ versus the theories of the ‘nature of language,’ Richards & Rodgers (2001, pp. 22-23) distinguished between process-oriented language learning theories, which “build on learning processes, such as habit formation, induction, inferencing, hypothesis testing, and generalization,” and condition-oriented theories, which “emphasize the nature of the human and physical context in which language learning occurs,” which signifies the importance of context. Stephen D. Krashen’s Monitor model of language teaching exemplifies a model based on both process and condition-based language learning, especially the theory of affective filters highlights the importance of classroom environment (Krashen, 1982, p. 31). FEATURES of LASS An initial analysis of the desired environment, or the mini cosmos, reveals features of LASS such as a stress-free setting, routines that are consistently repeated to help learners master the target language, simplified or learner-directed speech, the use of non-verbal cues to support verbal communication, and scaffolded speech acts appropriate to the learners' developmental level. To facilitate adult learners, teachers can substitute the routines, such as peekaboo and shared attention on objects like toys, with activities similar to roleplays and interactions used in everyday conversations, like ordering food and dialogues for asking directions or requesting some information, which can be repeated until the learners get a good grasp of the language, with frequent guidance by language teachers who substitute the mothers or caregivers in facilitating learning. Drawing on the literature review, the key features of LASS were labelled as outlined in the following list: 1. Scaffolding or a structured support provided by teachers to help learners understand the language and its use. 2. Joint attention of the teachers and learners linking the words and the objects or actions that they refer to. 3. Interaction and conversations that involve turn-taking and simple role-plays, much similar to how caregivers model sounds and gestures. 4. Motherese, or the learner-directed speech that emphasizes important words, provides intonation clarity of each word, and even segments the speech into chunks for easier processing. 5. Routines and repetitions that support internalizing the vocabulary and sentence structures, offering predictable language patterns. 6. Contextual support by linking language to the immediate context or social situation, so that learners can make meaning of the words and sentences effectively. 7. Embedding language in cultural and social milieu that involves activities using the culture carriers, such as songs, stories, games, lullabies, and social norms and customs. Although the list of key features mentioned here is not comprehensive, it is presumed that the list can support teachers in understanding what the LASS sounds like, and think about the requirements to create such an environment in their classes Creating LASS in EFL classes Reflecting on the kinds of hard trenched beliefs that EFL teachers hold, which can be observed from their expressions, such as, ‘these students can’t understand these concepts’, and ‘it’s very difficult to teach them grammar and meanings’ it is assumed that teachers’ cognitive processes that take place amidst such beliefs in their minds may not support them in making right decisions about their teaching and their students’ learning. Li & Walsh (2011) argue that teachers’ beliefs influence their teaching, classroom interactions, and learning, which in turn shape their beliefs over time. Effective teaching is about making the right decisions, which largely depend on one's beliefs. Ladson-Billings (1995) holds that “the goal of education becomes how to ‘fit' the students constructed as 'others' by virtue of their race/ethnicity, language, social class, or any such biased factor into a hierarchical structure that is defined as a meritocracy.” Kubota & Lin (2006) wrote in length about the bigoted beliefs about race, ethnicity, and culture that pervade throughout the education system, which keep seeping into the teacher interactions with their students labelled ‘others’ who are, by default, viewed as unfit, to a range of extent, for the mainstream educational phenomenon. Having understood the nature of the hard, entrenched beliefs of teachers that impede and influence their decisionmaking, answers to questions such as, Is it possible to get the teachers out of such beliefs and free their minds to make the right decisions? If it's possible, what is the way do so? appeal to be the right solution. And in view of the nature and the identified features of LASS, it is assumed that EFL teachers need to develop unbiased and indiscriminate attention to their students' abilities and backgrounds and approach their students with no prior established beliefs that impede their understanding of any of the students in their classes, to build such an environment in their classes. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND THE LASS MODEL To develop a LASS model suitable for adult language classrooms, it is assumed that the model should incorporate the features of LASS as they were outlined in Section 2. The model needs to help teachers unlearn their previously held beliefs and start thinking about their students equitably. To foster this kind of awareness, the study assumes that teachers need to be introduced to the unified theory, which combines the philosophical insights of ‘objective reality’ as explained by Ayn Rand, the choiceless observation proposed by Jiddu Krishnamurthy, and the ‘reach, touch, and teach’ concept 87 developed by Terry Borton. The unified theory itself functions as the LASS model and as an approach. This approach enables the teachers to make better decisions in their classroom context and to create the desired classroom environment, which is a simulation of LASS. Differentiating the approach, method, and technique of language teaching, Richards & Rodgers (2001, p. 19) clarify that an approach is “a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language teaching and learning,” a method is an organized presentation of course material aligned with the theoretical principles. The technique is the actual implementation of the methods, tricks, and strategies as classroom procedures. As part of the method, it is assumed that the present LASS model functions as a classroom technique to support the implementation of the method. As clarified, the LASS model is a unified theory of the three philosophical concepts mentioned above. The concept of objective reality, as developed by Ayn Rand and explained by the Ayn Rand Institute (2018), posits that all reality that exists in the world exists as an objective, absolute reality. The ultimate moral purpose of human existence is to pursue their own self-interest without intending to force others to be the means of their ends or be forced as means of their ends, thus becoming a rationally self-interested individual (Kolkenbrock, 2025). On the contrary, as envisioned by Krishnamurthy, the world we see is created by thought, and so is not the objective reality (Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, n.d.). Krishnamurthy argues that the thought by its work throughout human existence has created the outer world, which is the product of centuries of conditioning of the human race by thought. However, a deeper analysis of the two contradictory views of Ayn Rand and Krishnamurthy we can see a convergence of their ideas at one point. According to Krishnamurti (1979), ‘absolute attention,’ which is possible only by choiceless awareness, is the core outcome of all his experiences with and understanding of the movement of the thought, which offers a philosophical perspective on society’s influence on the mind by differentiating ‘attention’ from ‘concentration.’ He defines ‘attention’ as an objective, unbiased state achieved when observing something without the interference of human consciousness, which includes their memory and beliefs or opinions (Brajkov & Tharakan, 2025). Krishnamurti’s concept of attention echoes Ayn Rand’s idea of ‘objective reality,’ which she describes as an ‘objective absolute’ (Ayn Rand Institute, 2018). On the other hand, Borton (1970, p. vii) identifies that “what a student learns in school, and what he eventually becomes, are significantly influenced by how he feels about himself and the world outside.” Highlighting the importance of education and teaching that support self-identification, Borton proposed the teaching approach of ‘Reach, Touch, and Teach.’ By advocating that teachers ‘reach’ their students, Borton suggests that teachers need to understand their students thoroughly by facilitating deeper discussions with them through questions about their personal feelings regarding their study courses, leading them to self-identify (Rolfe, 2014). Then, teachers need to ‘touch’ their students by addressing their emotional concerns and supporting them in identifying themselves (ibid. Once teachers succeed in touching their students emotionally, they can teach them organically, making learning enjoyable by building rapport with students, which is essential for acquiring the English language and communicative competence. This rapport is possible for a teacher when students feel that their teacher talks like them. “He talk like we does [sic]” (Borton,1970, p.13). Terry Borton’s approach has led him to create his reflective three-stage framework for structured reflection on an experience by the prompt questions: What?, So what?, and Now what? (Habimana, Bizimana & Maniraho, 2025). Self-Reflective Teacher Model This study has adopted the philosophical perspectives of Ayn Rand, Jiddu Krishnamurthy, and Terry Borton to create a self-reflective teacher model, serving as the basis of its theoretical framework, which supports the creation of LASS in EFL classes. Assuming that a clear and deeper understanding of the three viewpoint, which together can form the selfreflective teacher model, can support the teachers in finding the reality about their students as well as their classroom and outside learning environments objectively, and their understanding of their students can, in turn, support them in creating LASS in their classes, the study was conducted at an English Language Institute of a university with 36 EFL teachers. Due to the constraints imposed by the institute’s policies and the norms that teachers and the institution must follow, the names of the teachers and the university are kept confidential. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study employed a teacher action research design, in which a self‐reflective teacher model that was developed drawing on the philosophical underpinnings of Ayn Rand, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Terry Borton, was introduced as an intervention. Although action research was defined in multiple ways, the essence of the design is to research into the issues related to teaching and learning, which teachers identify while they are in the teaching process, by reflecting on their teaching methods, the teaching learning environments, and the related processes, and finding better ways to improve the teaching and learning process relevant to their context (Montecinos, Ceardi & Fernández, 2014). After conducting four training sessions on the model for about 120 EFL teachers, thirty-six EFL teachers voluntarily implemented the model, reflected on their EFL teaching practice, and data on student progress and teacher perceptions were collected. The teachers were asked to note down the students' progression and participation before and after the training sessions and record a comparative account of their experiences with the students of the same group attending the courses at different levels. As the teachers already had their students’ records of the beginner-level English language courses, they were asked to record the quality of participation and progression of their students after the teachers underwent the training sessions and employed their self-reflective teacher model while teaching. The study recorded the teachers' experiences using a questionnaire of 10 Likert items and analysed the qualitative data in quantitative terms by employing the descriptive and inferential statistics of ANOVA, and drew inferences about the training intervention. 88 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Table 1 Self-Reflective Teacher Model Questionnaire (Likert Scale Items) Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Statement (1) (2) (3) (4) I would like to engage in the self-reflective 18 teacher model to evaluate my teaching 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) (50%) practices regularly. The model helped me become more aware 20 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) of my beliefs and biases, and how they (56%) interfere with my decision-making process. I now consider students’ individual needs 17 and perspectives more deeply, and could 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 3 (8%) (47%) create LASS in my EFL classes. The Reach, Touch, and Teach framework 19 supported me in building a learner-friendly 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) (53%) rapport with my students. I feel more autonomous and confident by 18 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) employing absolute reason in making (50%) pedagogical decisions. The model encouraged me to think critically 20 0 (0%) 3 (8%) 2 (6%) about the traditional teaching norms and (56%) design differentiated teaching effectively. My understanding of students’ emotional 21 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) and cognitive needs has improved. (58%) I observed progress in students’ language acquisition, as well as the use of motherese, 19 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) in my interactions with them after (53%) employing the model. The model’s philosophical foundations align 17 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 3 (8%) with my teaching values. (47%) I intend to continue using the self-reflective 20 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) model in my teaching. (56%) Strongly Agree (5) 15 (41%) 12 (33%) 15 (42%) 13 (36%) 13 (36%) 11 (30%) 12 (33%) 13 (36%) 13 (36%) 13 (36%) Descriptive Statistics The stacked bar graph below provides a visual representation of the 36 EFL teachers’ responses to each of the 10 Likert items. Each bar, segmented by response category (Strongly Disagree to Agree), shows the distribution across all items. The scores reflecting strong agreement across all items, with moderate consistency in responses, reflect supporting evidence in favour of the self-reflective teacher model. Fig. 1 Stacked bar graph reflecting teachers’ responses Table 2 below presents the mean scores and standard deviations for each item. All items received high average ratings, indicating strong agreement and positive reception of the model. 89 S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Table 2 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Each Questionnaire Item in the Likert Scale Item Mean SD Key Insight Self-reflective teacher model in teaching 4.31 0.68 High mean, relatively low variability (SD) Awareness of beliefs and biases 4.17 0.82 Lower mean, higher variability Consideration of student perspectives and 4.31 0.77 High mean creating LASS Use of Borton's reflective framework 4.25 0.77 Moderate mean and variability Autonomy in pedagogical decisions 4.17 0.91 Lower mean, high variability Questioning traditional norms 4.14 0.97 Lowest mean, highest variability (SD) Understanding emotional/cognitive needs 4.28 0.74 High mean Observed student progress 4.25 0.77 Moderate mean and variability Alignment with philosophical foundations 4.14 0.91 Lowest mean, high variability Continued use of the model 4.31 0.74 Highest mean The bar graph provided below, reflecting the data in Table 1, clarifies that all ten items related to the self-reflective teacher model received mean scores above 4.0, and far above the neutral midpoint of 3.0 on the Likert scale, indicating a strong agreement with all statements. However, it can be noticed that the item number 6 "Questioning traditional norms" with a 4.14 mean and 0.97 SD, shows the most variation in responses, suggesting less consensus among participants compared to item 1 "Self-reflection in teaching" with a mean of 4.3, and an SD of 0.68. Fig. 2 Bar Graph Showing Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Each Item in the Likert Scale ANOVA statistics To leverage inferential statistics, specifically to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in how teachers rated the various items, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted, with the following results of the statistics. k = 10, number of items) n = 36, number of participants = score of participants ( i ) on item ( j ) Grand Mean (GM): average of all scores Item Mean ( ): average score for each item Between-Items Sum of Squares (SS_between): Within-Items Sum of Squares (SS_within): Using the aggregated data: GM = 4.23 = 1.83 = 170.2 90 Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F-Ratio p-Value By using the F-distribution with and ( ), the calculated p-value equals to 0.9586, which clarifies that the ANOVA results show no statistically significant differences in average scores across the 10 items, F(9, 315) = 0.376, p = .959, indicating that teachers consistently responded to all aspects of the model positively, highlighting its overall impact on reflective teaching practices more positively. DISCUSSION The findings of the study suggest that most of the teachers, with their consistently positive responses to the model, find the self-reflective teacher model to be viable and encouraging in creating LASS in their EFL classes. The results of the descriptive statistics demonstrate high mean scores on all ten Likert items. The high mean scores, together with the lack of statistically significant differences in item ratings, which is shown as F (9, 315) = 0.376, p = .959, suggest that the model was broadly accepted with all its features grounded on the philosophical underpinnings of the chosen thinkers. This consistency observed in the results reflects the model’s overall alignment with teachers’ professional values and classroom realities. The model’s theoretical and philosophical foundation, which was grounded on the rational selfinterest of Ayn Rand, the choiceless awareness and liberation from conditioning advocated by Jiddu Krishnamurthy, and structured reflective inquiry proposed by Terry Borton, helped develop a stronger sense of mediation and selfexamination among participants. As shown in item 5 of the Liker item, Rand’s influence can be observable in the participant teachers’ increased objectivity and confidence in their observations and teaching decisions. Likewise, the teachers’ improved awareness of their biases and assumptions influenced by Krishnamurthy’s principles can be observed from the ratings given to items 2 and 3. Similarly, as indicated by strong agreement with items 4 and 7, the influence of Borton’s “Reach, Touch and Teach” framework can be observed in its efficacy in being a guiding principle for the teachers to reflect on their students' natural tendencies towards their learning goals. As shown in the analysis of the results, the grounded philosophical teacher reflection model has encouraged teachers to think and move beyond their traditional procedural instructional models towards more engaging teaching models driven by critical self-assessment. The model can be observed to be not only encouraging reflection but also developing a tendency towards inquiry, ethical responsibility, and student-centred awareness. As seen in the responses to item 7, which aligns with both Robert Burton's and Krishnamurthy’s emphasis on humanity in teachers’ observation and understanding of their students, teachers reported a deeper understanding of their students’ emotional and learning needs. The positive effects of the model on students' progress, which can be observed in teachers’ responses to item 8, suggest that philosophical reflection in teaching can improve language learning outcomes. It can be inferred from the results that in EFL contexts, where cultural and linguistic diversity pose challenges, the model’s emphasis on personalized understanding and ethical independence of teachers is especially crucial in EFL contexts. It can be understood that teachers practicing reflective habits can better adapt their methods, meet student needs, and foster inclusive environments. Furthermore, this study’s results support integrating philosophical inquiry into teacher development programs, which can help shift reflection from being a technical skill to a sustainable, natural, and universal phenomenon of teacher practice. This approach makes the model a transformative practice grounded in epistemology and provides a rational and moral base for classroom ethics. The connection between the model’s features and the teachers’ beliefs and values, as shown in the responses to item 9 of the Liker scale, highlights its significance, viability, and sustainability in transforming teachers to be more unbiased, indiscriminative, and independent in their decision-making. CONCLUSION Considering the ideological underpinnings in the philosophical revelations of Ayn Rand, Jiddu Krishnamurthy, and Terry Borton, this study has explored their significance in the creation of LASS in the EFL classroom context and created a theoretical model called the self-reflective teacher model to support the creation of LASS in EFL classes. A sample of 36 EFL teachers who employed the model in their EFL context found the model significantly viable and encouraging, with positive outcomes in their students' progression and acquisition of the language. Most of the participating teachers 91 expressed that the self-reflection teacher model has helped them reflect on their beliefs deeply and supported them as a guiding principle in creating LASS in their EFL classes, and facilitated their students to become more confident, interactive, and communicatively competent. As interpreted by most of the teachers, the model has supported them in making their observations of their classroom dynamics more ethical, unbiased, and sustainable. The empirical implications of the study further confirm a phenomenal improvement in the participating teachers’ sensitivity in understanding their students’ needs and the kind of support they require. They indicate the model’s ability to elevate the teaching practice and the related teaching methods from being merely a mechanical process to becoming a philosophically informed, natural, and sustainable phenomenon. The results further highlight the necessity of EFL teachers to be empathetic and adaptable to their students’ needs and expectations, and the way the model has provided a foundation for a deeper reflection and understanding of their learners by harmonizing their values with the realities of their classrooms. This study concludes by recommending the continued use of the reflective teacher model and further research towards creating a more robust model in support of LASS in EFL classes. REFERENCES 1. Ayn Rand Institute. (2018, October 15). The Mike Wallace Interview with Ayn Rand [Video] YouTube. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHl2PqwRcY0) 2. Balboni, P. E. (2018). A theoretical framework for language education and teaching. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. (https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-5275-0869-9-sample.pdf) 3. Borg, S. (2011). Language Teacher Education. In J. Simpson (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 215-228). London: Routledge. Available at (https://simon-borg.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/Borg-2011-RHAL.pdf) 4. Borton, T. (1970). Reach Touch and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education. McGraw-Hill, New York. Available at (https://openlibrary.org/works/OL7305158W/Reach_Touch_and_Teach) 5. Brajkov, B., & Tharakan, K. (2025). A “Pathless Land” of compassion: An ethical perspective of Jiddu Krishnamurti and Zen Kōans. JAHR – European Journal of Bioethics, 16(1), 145–155. (https://doi.org/10.21860/j.16.1.9) 6. Bruner, J. (1985). Child's talk: Learning to use language. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 1(1), 111-114. Available at (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Child's+Talk:+Learning+to+Use+Language+Jerome+ Bruner&btnG=) 7. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 8. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 9. Fernald, A. (1985). Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development, 8(2), 181-195. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(85)80005-9) 10. Freeman, L. D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and principles in language teaching. 3rd edition Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford University Press. 11. Gray, J. (2010). The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT Global Coursebook. Palgrave Macmillan. 12. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. 13. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press. 14. Habimana, S., Bizimana, B., & Maniraho, J. F. (2025). Adapted Terry Borton's Reflective Model for 21st-century Tools to Observe and Reflect on a 7E Model-Based Mathematics Lesson. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 11(3), 317–333. (https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.11.3.317) 15. Hymes, D.H. (1972). On Communicative Competence In: J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 269-293. (Part 2). Available at (https://wwwhomes.unibielefeld.de/sgramley/Hymes-2.pdf) 16. Kolkenbrock, M. (2025). Superstitions of composure: the Ayn Rand cult and the pop-psychology of self-esteem. BJPsych Bulletin, 49(3), 182-186. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2024.17) 17. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Available at (https://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf) 18. Krishnamurti Foundation Trust. (n.d.). Whatever thought creates is reality | J. Krishnamurti [Video]. YouTube. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW3xDYetMcA) 19. Krishnamurti, J. (1972). Santa Monica 1972 – Public Talk 1 – To act instantly is to see actually ‘what is’ [Video]. Krishnamurti - Official Channel. YouTube. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7a4XSYwXGI) 20. Krishnamurti, J. (1979). Awareness of inattention is attention [Video]. J. Krishnamurti - Official Channel. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VrN45mg8gI) 21. Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Introduction to concepts and theories. TESOL Quarterly, 40(3), 471–493. (https://doi.org/10.2307/40264540) 92 22. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. Yale University Press. Available at (https://dokumen.pub/beyond-methods-macrostrategies-for-language-teaching-9780300128796.html) 23. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Routledge. Available at (https://www.library.brawnblog.com/Understanding%20Language%20Teaching-p276.pdf) 24. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. (https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465) 25. LaMarr, T. (2025, July 9). 12.5: Interactionist/social theory. In A. Taintor, T. LaMarr, W. Ruiz, M. Marquez, E. Elam, A. Carnahan, & A. Seegers (Eds.), Infant and toddler care and development. LibreTexts. (https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Develo pment_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/12%3A_Theories_of_Language_Acquisition/12.05%3A_Interactionist_Social_Th eory) 26. Larenas, C. D., & Navarrete, M. O. (2015). A case study on EFL teachers’ beliefs about the teaching and learning of English in public education. Porta Linguarum, 23, 171–186. Available at (https://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero23/11 Claudio Diaz.pdf) 27. Li, L., & Walsh, S. (2011). ‘Seeing is believing’: Looking at EFL teachers’ beliefs through classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 2(1), 39–57. (https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.562657) 28. Montecinos, C., Ceardi, A., & Fernández, M. B. (2014). Using action research to foster preservice teachers’ reflection on themselves as learners: Examining beliefs and changing practices. In V. A. Anfara Jr. & N. T. Mertz (Eds.), International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (Part A) (pp. 427–445). Emerald Group Publishing. (https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-368720140000022023) 29. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305) 30. Rolfe, G. (2014). Reach, touch, and teach: Terry Borton. Nurse Education Today, 34(4), 488–489. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.11.003) 31. Sartre, J.P. (2018). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1943). Available at (https://ia801504.us.archive.org/14/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.69160/2015.69160.Jean-paul-Sartre-Being-AndNothingness.pdf) 32. Sercu, L. (2005). Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An International Investigation. Multilingual Matters. Available at (https://dokumen.pub/foreign-language-teachers-and-intercultural-competencean-investigation-in-7-countries-of-foreign-language-teachers-views-and-teaching-practices-9781853598456.html) 33. Utami, D. N. (2016). The EFL teachers' beliefs and their teaching practices. OKARA Journal of Languages and Literature, 2(10), 135–144. (DOI:10.19105/ojbs.v10i2.974) 34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 93