This article was downloaded by: [Clayton State University Library]On: 07 October 2014, At: 20:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Reflective Practice Interventions: Raising Levels ofReflective JudgmentAudrey Friedman PhD a & Lea Schoen ba Boston College , USAb Indiana University Southeast , USAPublished online: 02 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Audrey Friedman PhD & Lea Schoen (2009) Reflective Practice Interventions: Raising Levels ofReflective Judgment, Action in Teacher Education, 31:2, 61-73, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2009.10463518

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2009.10463518

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reflective Practice Interventions ; Raising Levels of Reflective Judgment Audrey Friedman Boston College

Lea Schoen Indiana University Southeast

ABSTRACT: Reflective practice is a major focus of teacher preparation programs (Cochran- Smith & Lytle, 1992; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Zeichner, 1986; Zeichner & Liston, 1987), yet Zeichner (1986) asserts that developing reflective practice in preservice teachers has fo- cused primarily on short-term, less systematic interventions and that interventions must be successful with all prospective teachers, not just those who are reflective by nature. The fol- lowing research explores the use of the reflective judgment model (King & Kitchener, 1994) to explain how preservice teachers reason about ill-structured dilemmas of practice and the potential impact of a multifaceted intervention to raise levels of reflective judgment during field experiences.

Thinking and acting reflectively in the face of ambiguity is pertinent to preservice teachers, who must resolve ill-defined dilemmas in daily practice (Dudley-Marling, 1997; Friedman, 2004; Jackson, 1986; Lortie, 1975; Villaume, 2000). Yet preparing preservice teachers to engage in reflective practice as they work through ill-structured problems is addressed superficially or not at all in many teacher education programs (Clark, 1988; Ichimura, 1993; Labaree, 2000; Wasserman, 1999), and teacher educators may be erroneously assuming that preservice teachers are capable of making justifiable decisions about practice (Floden & Buchmann, 1993). Accepting knowledge as being uncertain and developing a personal ap- proach to justifiable decision making demands complex thinking and deliberate negotiation of authentic and often dissonant events (Has- well, 1993).

Theoretical Framework

Research in adult cognitive development shows that effectively making decisions about ill- defined intellectual problems is developmental and related to several variables. According to the reflective judgment model, the way that individuals view knowledge and reason about ill-defined problems between childhood and adulthood evolves through seven stages (King & Kitchener, 1994). See Table 1. In Stage 1 knowing is concrete, limited to what the senses justify: “Seeing is believing.” Stage 2 thinkers justify knowledge via observation or authori- ties. At Stage 3, thinkers consult authorities or integrate what “feels right.” It is not until Stage 4, which describes the thinking of most college seniors, that knowledge emerges as a single abstraction and is understood as being uncertain but idiosyncratic and unjustified.

Address correspondence to Audrey Friedman, PhD, Associate Professor of Teacher Education, Lynch School of Educa- tion, Boston College, Campion Hall 118, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. E-mail: friedmaa@bc.edu.

Action in Teacher Education Vol. 31, No. 2 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

62 AUDREY FRIEDMAN AND LEA SCHOEN

Table 1. Assumptions About Knowledge: Stages 1-7 of the Reflective Judgment Model

Stage How Certain Is Knowledge? How Is Knowledge Gained? How Are Beliefs Justified?

1 Absolutely certain.

2 Absolutely certain but not immediately available.

3 Absolutely certain about some things; temporarily uncertain about others.

4 No certainty because of situational variables (data lost over time).

No certainty except via personal perspectives within a specific context.

6 Some personal certainty about beliefs based on evaluations of evidence on different sides of the question.

7 Certainty that some knowledge claims are better and more reasonable than others although they are open to evaluation.

5

Via direct observation.

Via direct observation and what authorities say is true.

Via authorities in some areas; via personal biases when knowledge is uncertain.

Via personal and others’ biases, data, and logic.

Via evidence gathered through rules of inquiry appropriate for the context.

Via personal assessment of arguments and data; via evaluated opinions of experts.

Via a process of critical inquiry or synthesis.

Beliefs are a direct reflection of reality. No need to justify.

Direct observation or via authorities.

Via authorities in some areas; what feels right in the moment when knowledge is uncertain.

Via idiosyncratic evaluations of evidence and unevaluated beliefs.

Via rules of inquiry for a particular context.

Via generalized rules of inquiry, personal evaluations that apply across contexts, evaluated views of experts.

Via more or less reasonable conjectures about reality or the world based on an integration and evaluation of data, evidence, andlor opinion.

Source. Adapted from King and Kilchener (1994).

At Stage 5, knowledge is justified by rules of inquiry for a particular context. Stage 6 think- ers use generalized rules of inquiry, personal evaluations, or evaluated views of experts to justify claims. Thinking at the highest level of reflective judgment, Stage 7, is a systematic evaluation of evidence using generalizable, evaluative criteria and thorough and compel- ling understanding. Stages 1-3 are considered pereflective; Stages 4-6, quasi-reflective; and Stages 6-7, refictive. Individuals generally progress through these stages through an in- variant sequence, which varies by person. The model views knowing and understanding as a dynamic process that continually improves.

Research consistently demonstrates a statis- tically significant relationship between educa- tional level and reflective judgment (Brakck, 1984; Friedman, 2004; King & Kitchener, 1994; King, Kitchener, Ihvison, Parker, & Wcxd, 1983; Kitchener, 1986; Kitchener & King, 1990; Kitchener et al., 1993; Lawson, 1980; Welfel, 1982). Intellectual disposition, person- ality traits, and social, cu~tural, and historical

variables may also contribute to the develop ment of reflective judgment (Friedman, 1995, 2004). College-age students reflect a range of reflective judgment levels, which is consistent with the fact that preservice teachers possess a range of epistemological beliefs (OLaughlin, 1991; White, 2000) and draw on multiple lenses to frame kliefs (Many, Howard, & Hoge, 2002). Cognitive skills that emerge between the ages of 2 and 30 and that are directly related to reflective judgment levels can be prompted through contextual support (Fischer, Bullock, Rotenberg, & Raya, 1993; Fischer & Lamborn, 1989). Without support, individuals function at a cognitive level that marks the low end of their natural range. Optimal levels require focused contextual support (Kitchener & Fischer, 1990; Kitchener, Lynch, Fischer, & Wood, 1993). Ey- ler, Giles, Lynch, and Gray (1997) found that “highly reflective service-learning experiences have an impact on students’ ability to deal with complex unstructured prcddems” and that “service needs to be tightly linked to learning and reflection is that link.” Frequent support,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

RejIectiwe Practice lnterventions 63

practice, and feedback; purposeful guidance in challenging assumptions; and educational experiences such as discussions, active learn- ing, and writing activities contribute to gains in reflective judgment (Brownlee, Purdie, & bulton-Lewis, 2001; Cicala, 1997; Kitchener & Brenner, 1990; Roberts, Busk, & Comerford, 2001; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). That all col- lege juniors and seniors manifest high levels of reflective judgment and, therefore, reflective practice is an assumption, and the ability to en- gage in rigorous inquiry and reflective practice depends on predispositions toward reflection, level of reflective judgment, and the quality of educational intervention. Thus, the reflective judgment model offers a useful framework for exploring preservice teachers’ cognitive devel- opment because it represents a consistent con- ceptual model; it concedes gradual growth in approaches to reasoning about teaching, which is fraught with endemic uncertainties; and it recognizes that teacher educators may assume that preservice teachers are capable of reflec- tive practice when in fact they may not yet be developmentally able or ready.

Research Question

The primary research question that guided this complex case study is as follows: At what stages of reflective judgment do preservice teachers justify knowledge claims and beliefs about classroom practice, and what happens when teacher educators support reflection via inter- active journaling and collaborative inquiry and self-study into classroom dilemmas during field experiences?

Method

This research was a complex, instrumental, intrinsic, and collective case study (Stake, 2000) that employed elements of participa- tory action research. Specifically, it used two groups for different durations (complex), and it sought to identify the implications of using online probative journaling and reflective- judgment protocol-based discussion to support

reflective judgment development (instrumen- tal and intrinsic). This was a self-reflective ac- tion research project (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000) involving participants’ reflection about personal development in reflecting about and resolving ill-defined classroom dilemmas.

Participants and Context

Case Studies 1 and 2

All 16 participants were female college juniors enrolled in the third prepracticum experi- ence in an elementary education certification program at a private university. Case Study 1 included 10 preservice teachers, 5 in urban schools and 5 in suburban schools, who partic- ipated from January through April. Case Study 2 participants were in the same urban school for their third prepracticum (January-April) but continued in different settings for full- time student teaching. Of the 6 participants, 2 stayed in urban schools and 2 continued at upper middle-class suburban schools, 1 at an affluent suburban school, and 1 at an affluent private school.

Interventions

Interventions included online probative, practice-based journals and biweekly/triweekly RJI (reflective judgment interview) protocol. Most journals progressed through several it- erations. Analysis of weekly journals revealed common dilemmas; the most common became the focus of seminar discussion, guided by an RJI protocol-for example,

Some teachers believe that public schools provide children with opportunities to succeed and achieve if they work hard enough. Others believe that there are societal factors that diminish the chances for some children to succeed, such as race, class, etc. What do you think about these statements? How have you come to believe this way? Why do you believe this way? Is it the case that one opinion is right and one is wrong? How is it that experts disagree about this subject?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

64 AUDREY FRIEDMAN AND LEA SCHOEN

Data Sources and Data Analyses

Data sources included tape-recorded, tran- scribed, and member-checked discussions, journals, a final essay, and a self-analysis that evaluated how and why personal ability to make reflective judgments about classroom- based dilemmas had regressed, temporized, or progressed. Researchers responded to journals and essays, facilitated seminars, and coded and analyzed all data. One researcher is certified in administering and rating the RJI. Data analy- ses incorporated word and whole-text analysis (Ryan & Bernard, ZOOO), and Kitchener and King’s (1985/1996) protocol, Reflective Idg- ment Scoring Manual With Examples, informed ccding. See Table 2.

Results and Analyses

Reflective Judgment Model: A Useful Conceptualization of Preservice Teacher Reflect ion

Case Study 1

At the beginning of the third prepracticum, Jane and Meghan functioned at high pre- reflective (2/3); Lena, Susan, Sarah, at the lower end of quasi-reflective ( 3 ) ; Lisa, Kendra, Stacey, Lucy at mid-quasi-reflective ( 3/4); and Kara at the high end of quasi-reflective (4/5). See Figure 1. Stages and range are consistent with research (King & Kitchener, 1994). Results indicate that the reflective judgment model (Kitchener & King, 1985/1996) reli- ably constructs how preservice teachers ex- perienced, articulated, and reflected about ill-defined dilemmas of practice.

General dimensions: Cognitive complexity, reasoning style, and openness. Preservice teach- ers’ cognitive complexity, simplicity of beliefs, and the capacity to identify complexity fluc- tuated according to recognition of dilemma complexity. Reflection was technical: report- ing which instructional strategies “worked o r did not work” (Stage 3 [S3)) and exhibiting confusion when reasoning about a suhissue within a complex dilemma. Few still reasoned

that issues had simple solutions (S2): “He needs to he reprimanded. . . . That’s what my teacher did when I was in school.” Some ar- ticulated complexity (S4), that is, the best way to teach a concept to diverse students. Sarah grappled with using manipulatives, fearful that using them would result in a loss of control, but she moved warily into the gray area: ‘‘Us- ing manipulatives definitely helped the stu- dents find and see the patterns.” Some actually explored complexity using inquiry (S5), such as in the case of high-stakes testing. Susan noted: “When comparing the achievement of students . . . there are so many different aspects of a child’s world that affect them. . . . It is not a simple cause-and-effect relationship between standards and achievement in these settings.”

Some individuals utilized contradictory logic to resolve dilemmas (S3). Meghan oh- served, “My CT [cooperating teacher] yells at them, hut I know she really cares about the kids.” Some were unable to differentiate between a beliefs merits, and as such, their re- sponses yielded to “instinct” or what “felt right” (S3). A few were more explicit in using logic to explore sides of an issue (S4/S5). About the use of prescriptive pedagogy, Lisa noted, “There are many options for a student who doesn’t grasp it one way; it’s g o d that students are encouraged to do the problem in other ways.”

Openness is a disposition through which to consider and process alternative beliefs and viewpoints. Participants did not always cope well with alternative points of view (S3), partic- ularly around issues of classroom management and prescriptive pedagogy. They rigidly adhered to teaching practices and beliefs about stu- dents (S7 ) , thereby suggesting a deficit model: Lena said, “I was so impressed with Rachel’s (a METCO [Metropolitan Coucil for Educational Opportunities] student) speaking and social skills, 1 was surprised that she was bussed in.” They could not justify a course of action.

Specific dimensions : Nature of knowledge and nature ofjustification. The nature of knowl- edge reflects how one views the certainty of knowledge and how one regards the legitimacy of different viewpoints. Participants viewed reality as being knowable and temporarily uncertain only if there was a lack of sufficient

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Tabl

e 2.

Des

crip

tion

of C

riter

ia fo

r R

atin

glco

ding

Onl

ine

Jour

nals

, Sem

inar

Di

m,

Dile

mm

a Es

say,

and F

inal

Ref

lect

ive E

ssay

Gen

eral

C

ogni

tive

Kno

wle

dge

is re

al,

Know

ledg

e is

righ

t K

now

ledg

e is

true,

co

mpl

exity

ta

ngib

le, c

oncr

ete,

or

wro

ng:

false

, or u

ncer

tain

: an

d si

ngul

ar.

solu

tions

are

am

bigu

ity is

si

mpl

e an

d ea

sy.

troub

ling

Rea

soni

ng

Opi

nion

is fa

ct.

styl

e R

easo

ning

is

Som

e lo

gic:

illo

gica

l; op

inio

ns

pers

onal

and

an

d ev

iden

ce a

re

subj

ectiv

e: w

hat

blur

red.

fe

els

right

.

Ope

nnes

s U

ninf

orm

ed an

d O

ther

poi

nts

of v

iew

So

me

open

ness

: na

ive.

ar

e po

ssib

le b

ut

reje

cts b

elie

fs

wro

ng.

rath

er th

an b

e un

certa

in.

spec

mc

Nat

ure

of

Kno

wle

dge

need

s Kn

owle

dge

is

Kno

wle

dge w

ill

know

ledg

e no

just

ificat

ion;

ab

solu

tely

certa

in

even

tual

ly be

rig

ht or

wro

ng, i

s or

unc

erta

in:

know

n: o

ne

know

n; o

ther

not

di

ffere

nt v

iew

s an

swer

is a

s ex

ist.

are

just

wro

ng.

good

as

anot

her.

Nat

ure

of

Alte

rnat

ives

do

not

Just

ify b

elie

fs vi

a D

ecis

ions

are

not e

valu

ated

: no

t bas

ed o

n op

inio

n ar

e kn

owin

g is

ev

iden

ce b

ut o

n di

ffere

nt;

egoc

entri

c.

wha

t sub

ject

has

qu

estio

ns

been

told

. au

thor

ity.

just

ifica

tion

exis

t; ev

iden

ce is

au

thor

ities:

bel

iefs

te

ntat

ive: f

act a

nd

Kno

wle

dge

is

Kno

wle

dge

is

Kno

wle

dge i

s un

certa

in; is

sues

co

mpl

ex,

com

plex

and

ar

e co

mpl

ex b

ut

expe

rienc

e is

ev

alua

ted

acro

ss

ther

e ar

e no

lim

iting

; evi

denc

e se

vera

l poi

nts

of su

biss

ues.

ha

s m

any

sides

. vie

w.

Beg

inni

ng to

real

ize

Rea

soni

ng is

logi

cal;

Rea

soni

ng is

logi

cal,

role

of e

vide

nce;

ex

plic

it an

d do

es n

ot a

rgue

co

nsis

tent

ev

iden

ce w

hich

w

ith e

vide

nce

eval

uatio

n of

lead

s to

mor

e co

nsis

tent

ly

evid

ence

. co

mpe

lling

claim

s.

base

d on

Ope

n to

oth

er v

iew

s Se

es d

iver

se p

oint

s Ex

amin

es m

any

of vie

w:

is

but s

tubb

orn

or

wish

y-w

ashy

. ob

ject

ive

abou

t un

reas

onab

le

all p

oint

s of

view

.

view

s; d

ismiss

es

clai

ms,

but

offe

rs

no fin

al a

nsw

er.

Know

ledg

e is

K

now

ledg

e is

Know

ledg

e is

id

iosy

ncra

tic,

dom

ain-

spec

ific,

judg

ed

abst

ract

, rel

ativ

ist:

unce

rtain

. and

qu

alita

tivel

y an

d di

ffere

nces

are

co

mpl

ex;

alth

ough

val

id n

ot

disc

rete

: no

gray

. di

ffere

nce

rela

tes

tota

lly d

efen

sibl

e.

to w

orld

view

.

Expr

esse

s st

rong

C

hoos

es p

oint

of

Assu

mes

but

doe

s po

int o

f vie

w b

ut

view

bas

ed o

n no

t con

stru

ct

poin

t of v

iew

; no

obj

ectiv

ity:

evid

ence

that

is

uses

inco

mpl

ete

judg

ed

eval

uate

s ev

iden

ce: a

uth.

qu

alita

tivel

y.

stre

ngth

of

is d

ogm

atic

. ev

iden

ce a

nd

exD

erts

' cla

ims.

Kno

wle

dge

is c

ompl

ex,

anal

yzed

, sy

nthe

sized

, and

co

nstru

cted

.

Rea

soni

ng is

logi

cal,

stra

tegi

zed,

ge

nera

lized

into

ab

stra

ctio

ns

supp

orte

d by

ev

iden

ce.

Sees

why

oth

ers

hold

po

ints

of v

iew

, en

dors

es p

erso

nal

view

but

is o

pen

to

reex

amin

atio

n.

Know

ledg

e re

sults

fro

m ri

goro

us in

quiry

an

d ev

alua

tion

acro

ss m

ultip

le

pers

pect

ives

and

is

mor

e or

less

re

ason

able

and

defe

nsib

le.

Stat

es o

pini

ons

firm

ly,

base

d on

eva

luat

ed

evid

ence

: abs

tract

s ac

ross

and

with

in

dom

ains

: con

stru

cts

high

er-o

rder

th

inkin

a.

Saum

?. A

dapt

ed fr

om R

efle

ctiv

e Jud

gmen

t Scoring M

anua

l Wilh

&m

pk

(K

itche

ner &

Kin

g, 1

985/

1996

).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

66 AUDREY FRIEDMAN AND LEA SCHOEN

Mary Carla

Susan June

Jen Sophie

Ka ra Lucy

Stacey Kendra

Lisa Sarah Susan

Lena Meghan

Jane

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

W End of Student

111 Teaching

End of 3rd Prepracticum

M Beginning of 3rd Prepracticum

Figure 1. Change in stages of reflective judgment for participants.

information (S3). They believed that most cli- lemmas had correct resolutions and that, when unsure, observing veteran teachers would yield the correct answer (S3). Some began to real- ize that knowledge is uncertain, abstract, and affected by too many variables to he known with certainty (S4). Kendra remarked that she had been unsure whether students had grasped the concept of counting by 2s: “There were times when I really didn’t know for sure what I should be doing.” Uncertainty brought dissonance. A few believed that knowledge of reality is personal and embedded in interpre- tation (S5): “People can manipulate the same data to support an opposing argument” ( b r a ) . Preservice teachers frequently believed that there was most often one “right” solution, and they were irncoinfortahle when unable to find “the” answer. They based decisions on personal experiences, observations of cooper- ating teachers, o r previous and unexamined assumptions about students and teaching (S3).

A few believed that they knew what was right for them in terms of educational philosophy and guiding principles but that they could not judge others’ beliefs as “right” or “wrcmg.” Some found that evaluating complex problems in terms of simple right and wrong was impos- sible (S4/S5). Mary observed,

[Theory] can only take you so tar because everything is just so individual and con- textual. It can give you fundamental ideas, but I don’t think there’s any teacher in the world that can say they inodel their cIassr(x)in after one specific theory-and if they do, 1 want t o know that theory!

Sophie could not tolerate dissonance. Catch-Up Day, which “allowed different stii- dents to work on different tasks with everyone asking for help at once,” created an uncer- tainty that was “too hectic and inefficient.” Preservice teachers usually considered all points of view about uncertain questions to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Reflective Practice lnterventions 67

equally correct or equally biased (S3/S4); they selected certain strategies without evaluating reasons or consequences (S3/S4); or they saw discrete differences in points of view but could not integrate them into a broader view (S4). Participants occasionally articulated that dif- ferent points of view resulted from different interpretations of the world, and they at- tempted to examine evidence that supported different views (S4/S5). Lena took different perspectives into account to try to invite students to comprehend that “daily life” is dif- ferent in different times, places, and cultures.

Nature of justification considers how one reasonably justifies knowledge, beliefs, and decisions; gathers, evaluates, and utilizes evi- dence in justifying a belief or point of view; and acknowledges the role of authority in making judgments. Preservice teachers were generally confused about how to make judg- ments about uncertain dilemmas (S3), and they did not differentiate beliefs from reasons that justified beliefs (S3). At times they understood the difference between uncone sidered and considered judgment but were unable to use evidence to arrive at a conclu- sion (S4). Beliefs were justified arbitrarily, idiosyncratically, or rigidly, but tentative beliefs were easily swayed (S3/S4). As Carla noted, “there is no cut-and-dry relation- ship between standards and the achievement gap,” and “measures other than high-stakes testing, such as reforms designed to improve the structure and stability of urban school communities, would also be necessary steps for helping students in urban schools achieve at a high academic level.” Despite reasoned beliefs, she noted, “Tests are here to stay re- gardless of what I believe.”

Participants began to acknowledge evi- dence and differentiate facts from opinions, but they did not evaluate or use evidence to reason to conclusions (S3). For example, when comparing the degree of parental involvement between urban and suburban schools, all at- tributed a “lack of student achievement [in urban schools] to a lack of parental involve- ment.” They employed contradictory logic, equated personal beliefs with evidence (S3), or suggested that there would never be enough

evidence to know something with certainty (S41S5 1.

Preservice teachers believed that authori- ties “knew” or would eventually “know” the answer (S3). Relying heavily on C T s , supervi- sors, or professors to guide decision-making processes, they sometimes accepted the man- dates of curriculum developers and designers of standardized assessment instruments as being unquestionable (S3). However, as participants transitioned from earlier prereflective stances to quasi-reflective thinking, they became sub- jectively disillusioned with authorities’ knowl- edge, considering it arbitrary or biased (S4). Some expressed cynicism toward authority or disillusionment with so-called experts’ knowl- edge (S4) and became highly skeptical. Some, however, viewed authorities as human beings with their own interpretations (S4lSS).

Changes in reflective judgment? By the end of the third prepracticum, Jane and Meghan moved from S2/S3 to S3; Lena stayed at S3; Susan and Sarah moved from S3 to S3/S4; Lisa, Kendra, Stacey, and Lucy remained at S3/S4; and Kara remained at S4/S5. See Figure 1. Although four participants progressed in reflective judgment, it is impossible to assert that interventions influenced this change. Research in reflective judgment claims that changes may take at least a year. In most instances, probative journaling, contextual support, and discussion coaxed participants to examine dilemmas that riddled classroom practice, which may have offered the support that Fischer and colleagues (1993) assert is critical to moving adults along the cognitive continuum. What is ironic is that the most reflective preservice teacher, Kara, entered at S4/S5 and remained there. Furthermore, she did not complete a final reflective essay, nor did she submit more than one journal, suggesting that she was naturally disposed to reflection.

Case Study 2

With one exception, preservice teachers who were involved in two semesters of intervention consistently moved toward higher stages of re- flective judgment-with June, ]en, and Susan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

68 AUDREY FRIEDMAN AND LEA SCHOEN

moving to S4 and with Carla and Mary almost consistently at S5. Sophie entered at S2 and remained at S2. See Figure 1. All submitted at least one iteration of each journal, participated in nine seminar discussions, and wrote final reflective dilemma essays and a self-analysis about growth in ability to reflect about ill- defined dilemmas. Results and analyses of Case Study 1 outline general and specific dimen- sions of reflective judgment to provide a more detailed understanding of the model.

lntegratioe analysis of general and spectfic di- mensions of refictive judgment. Participants ini- tially viewed knowledge as being known and dilemmas as simple and justified knowledge based on personal experience, direct observa- tions, and cooperating teachers’ practice, with the third factor being most influential. Teach- ers’ personal experiences as students informed practice-based decisions (S2). Mary’s early reasoning focused on “what [her CT] knew best, mostly previous experience as a student and assumptions and beliefs.” June entered teaching believing that “teaching entailed only teaching the material” and that “parental support [was] essential for student achieve- ment” (S3). Similarly, Jen possessed definite beliefs on education: “In my eyes, what I had in school worked” (S2). Susan considered her- self an observer and “tended to quickly accept [her] cooperating teacher’s views and actions as correct” because she “did not know enough about the students, routines, or the classroom to make any strong judgments” (S3).

“Classroom management” served as a backdrop for reinforcing a copy view of knowledge (S2/S3). June voiced discomfort at raising her voice at students but rational- ized her teacher’s “yelling at students,” not- ing, “I really do feel like she’s understanding of the students” (S2/S3). Participants trusted cooperating teachers as “authorities” to teach them what they needed to know. Only Mary demonstrated thinking at the higher end of prereflective levels, noting that it was impor- tant to identify biases such as “growing up in an upper-middle-class area, very concerned parents, never struggling with academics as much as her students” so that she could “work through them.” Interrogating biases was a

constant struggle as she explored feelings of “sympathy” for pupils.

By the end of the prepracticum experience and at the beginning of the full-time student teaching, several began to question their CTs’ knowledge, the complexity of dilemmas, and the uncertainty of knowledge (S4). June, who had voiced discomfort about yelling at stu- dents, observed,

Last semester, my teacher was sterner and many times raised her voice and yelled at the students. Although 1 did not agree with her style, I was not sure how I would manage the students. . . . Now I know that discipline is not that simple.

Susan believed that a young boy who was isolated in the back of the room “acted out hecause of his seat in the back,” but she deferred to her CT’s wisdom. Eventually her observations and instincts convinced the CT to change his seat (S4/S5). In a revealing journal, Carla questioned her CT’s manage- ment of a distracting student whose behavior she ignored until it got out of hand: “1 trust that the approach my teacher chose to deal with his behavior was the most effective for him but . . . I tnay have stepped in when the behavior started to avoid other students being distracted” (S4). Sophie still “put a lot of con- fidence in [her] Cooperating teacher”: “I always assume that my cooperating teacher handles the situation the way it should be handled and do not think twice about it” (S2).

Jen and June and especially Carla and Mary questioned assumptions about students and teachers in urban schools, parental in- volvetnent, high-stakes testing, and discipline. During the last seminar of the third prepracti- cutn, Mary decided, “I have been thinking a lot a b u t classroom discipline. . . . 1 refuse to scream at my students. My CT is wrong. My students deserve to be respected, and yelling at them is disrespectful.” She went on to say, “When I establish clear rules with clear conse- quences and stick by them, my students can do well.” Reasoning was transitioning from S3 to S4. Early in the second semester, ]en, who iden- tified parental involvement as being essential to pupil success, found that in her affluent pri-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Reflective Practice lntewentions 69

vate school placement, parental involvement was troubling and complex, and she wondered, “Where do you draw the line? Each Wednes- day afternoon parents visit as guest readers. . . . On the surface it’s all wonderful!” Soon, parents brought in treats, like “mini-pumpkins, then pencils, then cupcakes.”

It’s beginning to feel like a battle among the parents as to who will bring in the best treat . . . parents trying to outdo each other. . . . I just think that it might not be something that should be modeled for the children.

She added evidence to her conclusion: “Chil- dren are bragging about their parents, boasting that ‘my mom brought in the pumpkins,’ and what about the child whose parents are work- ing and cannot volunteer or bring in treats?” She reasoned through this dilemma effectively and across multiple contexts but believed that she could not change this event given the school culture. Like her peers, she could not help but compare her school’s rich resources with those she had seen in her previous urban placement. All the preservice teachers were at a loss to rectify the dilemma of how parent involvement and school resources affected the students’ achievement.

At the end of the study, Carla and Mary significantly progressed in the way that they reasoned and justified knowledge claims and beliefs. Carla grappled with classroom manage- ment issues (especially around administrative support), difficulties accommodating diversity given required mandated initiatives, and pre- scribed pedagogies. Working through these is- sues, she submitted the highest number of jour- nal iterations, participated in every discussion, and genuinely questioned her assumptions and biases about school culture, students, teaching, and discipline. Carla remained in the same urban placement because she had come to “love the children there” and was learning “to negotiate the school culture.” “Unnerved,” she noted, “I do not agree with the ways the prin- cipal ensures student success and implements curriculum,” and she observed that colleagues felt “pressure to prepare students for upcoming midyear assessments and MCAS [Massachu-

setts Comprehensive Assessment Systems] but did not feel that the district-mandated pro- grams were aligned with assessments.” Once, the principal came into the classroom during the administration of a reading assessment to check notebooks and reprimanded a child for not having her notebook signed. The child broke into tears, and classmates became angry and upset and could not complete the assess- ment. “Much to my disappointment, my CT was glad to see the principal keeping her word about reinforcing student achievement.” This response was troubling: “A person for whom I had a lot of respect was condoning a behavior that I disagreed with.”

Interviewing her principal as part of coursework emerged as a pivotal event. When Carla asked her about her proudest moment as a teacher or principal, she began to answer, then abruptly stopped and apologized. She said, “I’m sorry, I never get like this” and be- gan to cry.

She then told me that a kindergartener brought a bag of marijuana and a book of matches to school for another student. They were confiscated, and she said, “The students knew what to do with the drug, how it made them feel, how to smoke it.”

Carla articulated how she had not chal- lenged her assumptions about the principal and how she had misjudged the principal’s demeanor. Although she still did not agree with the principal’s unannounced classroom intrusions, she observed that “coming off strong” was essential for “a principal who must constantly brave difficult issues of discipline and who is under constant pressure to ensure that her students succeed.” She saw the im- mense complexity of the principal’s thinking. The principal too challenged deficit myths about urban students, explored culturally rel- evant pedagogy, and questioned mandated initiatives.

I am now looking at situations through lenses other than my own. . . . I am cer- tain to run into people with whose beliefs I might not agree. I must look at all sides,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

70 AUDREY FRIEDMAN AND LEA SCHOEN

the whole picture. This does not mean that 1 will necessarily change m y view, but ultimately, 1 will make the final deci- sion about what is right based on my hest judgment after reviewing all sides o f the dilemma.

She elaborated on her initial “ignorance a b u t urban schools.” Like Mary, she con- cluded, “The students have the potential to do well and can succeed in an urban setting as long as there are high standards, student advocates, and effective instruction.” In the end, Carla was reasoning at Stage 5.

Examining discipline was a critical epi- sode in Mary’s growth. She entered her third prepracticum believing that the “best way to manage discipline was to treat students with respect” and this meant “rarely raising [her] voice.” Her CT’s constant screaming was “troubling and upsetting.” She believed this, recalling her own experiences of “hating to he yelled at,’’ her coursework on proactive hehav- ior discipline, and a sense ahwt “what was thc right thing to do.’’ She noted that her “rarely raised voice” did “not get the resiilts that her cooperating teacher got.” By mid-February, Mary decided that raising her voice was okay: “I know that she likes the kids, so she doesn’t do this to be mean but thinks these kids need this kind of discipline because it was what they are accustomed to.” Peers noted that their CTs got results from yelling. Discussion probed re- search about discipline. Mary focused on this in iterative journals-specifically, her ciecision to yell. “I refuse to believe that these kids are accustomed to this kind of treatment. Even if they are, it is not right.” After 9 weeks of student teaching, Mary noted a “fundamental change” in the way she thought about urban teaching:

When I kgan, I left every day feeling had for those students, telling my roommates how awful it was for them. I still feel sorry for them, but there is no time to feel bad. 1 must challenge them as much as I would any other student. I cannot perceive these kids as poor students. . . . Many of my stu- dents cannot get signatures and blame it on their parents who work at night. If I sat

back and thought, “Aww how awful that must be, don’t worry a b u t the signatures, I understand,” 1 would k letting thein down. 1 must have the same expectations as 1 would if 1 were in Newton [a more affluent suburb]. The world heyond the classroom will not say to these students, “Recause you are poor, 1 will let you by.” . . . It will he even tougher.

Like Carla, Mary saw dilemmas as being connected, complex, and contiguous. h t h participants had a high number of journal iterations, responded thoughtfully to chal- lenging questions, participated honestly dur- ing discussions, supported final analyses with details from journals, interrogated assumptions and biases, and reasoned at Stage 5 by the end of the study.

Sophie made the least progress, submitting only one journal (with no response-probing questions) and participating in seminar dis- cussions only when prompted. She became a teacher because she “loves to be at the front of the classroom, leading a discussion, teaching a lesson, or reading a story aloud.” She believed, “I will be one of the people who teach them many great things.” She rarely questioned her CT‘s actions, and she demonstrated strong bi- ases throughout discussions and journals. When qucstioncd ahwt these beliefs, she rarely offered justification: “I attended excellent schools, and this is the way I learned and was taught.” She did begin to form her own opinions:

After writing this journal, 1 decided to ob- serve the students’ attention levels when my CT was teaching. This idea would not have occurred to me last semester, when I implicitly believed that m y CT was doing everything perfectly. Being in the classroom every day helped me to see things from a different angle, which is helping me form my own opinions and conclusions.

Journaling changed from detailing events in lists to grappling with feelings ahwt students- especially, the urban- versus suburban-student dilemma. She also posed better questions about her thinking, suggesting that knowledge was emerging as being uncertain for her:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Reflective Practice lnterventions 7 1

I often ask myself questions that I cannot answer . . . should 1 look for schools and communities where resources are abun- dant and where parents are active and supportive? [Or] would it be better for me to work at a poorer, urban school that has a shortage of teachers and resources?

She believed, “The student who did not celebrate Halloween should attend a private school” and “high-stakes testing is a pana- cea.” Although questions reflected some soul- searching, an earlier comment, “I will be one of the people who teach them many great things,” suggests that she regards herself as a potential savior of poor urban children. She did observe that she had not truly grown in her ability to reason through ill-defined prob- lems but believed that “thinking and reflect- ing on these situations helps improve [her] instruction and practices.”

Conclusions and Implications for Teacher Educators

If developing critical reflection about practice is a goal of teacher education programs, these results suggest that the reflective judgment model is an effective framework for identify- ing, understanding, and enhancing preservice teachers’ reasoning about classroom practice. When participants responded to interven- tions, they progressed in their capacity to address ambiguity, recognize complexity of knowledge claims, reason and justify evidence, and make reflective judgments. Providing sup- port and protocols enabled most participants to negotiate dissonance; even the least reflec- tive participant began to question beliefs.

The results of this study have several im- plications for teacher educators. First, they must recognize that epistemological develop- ment and reflective judgment indeed influ- ence how preservice teachers perceive, negoti- ate, and justify decisions about ill-defined classroom dilemmas; otherwise, teacher educa- tors might miss opportunities to nurture criti- cal reflection. The most illuminating state- ments emerged in response to prompts designed

to explore participants’ reflective judgment; that is, timely and systematic probing of re- sponses can help preservice teachers progress rather than temporize or regress. Identifying and exploring common dilemmas through it- erative journals and guided discussion not only uncovers preservice teachers’ beliefs but also provides a supportive environment to interro- gate na’ive assumptions and negotiate disso- nance. This process’s recursive nature allows for deeper analysis, which can lead to change and effective action. Transitioning from the prereflective stage ( S 3 ) to the quasi-reflective (S4) is uncomfortable because adults must recognize that knowledge is uncertain and complex; uncertainty is an inexorable part of the nature of teaching that continues through- out the professional life span. Teacher educa- tors must be prepared to support preservice teachers through the confusion, anxiety, and cognitive dissonance of teaching and learning. Integrating probative questions adapted from the RJI into interactions with preservice teach- ers not only reveals epistemic assumptions about complexity and uncertainty but also re- inforces more logical evaluation of evidence, context, perspective, biases, and knowledge claims. This demands that teacher educators continually reflect about the complex dilem- mas inherent in their personal practice and model this process for preservice teachers; oth- erwise, they will miss significant opportunities to support preservice teachers to become re- flective practitioners, especially in times when practice-based dilemmas are increasingly more complex and urgent.

References

Brabeck, M. M. (1984). Longitudinal studies of in- tellectual development during adulthood: The- oretical and research models. Journal of Resemch and Development in Education, f7(3), 12-27.

Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Teach- ing in Higher Education, 6( 2), 24768.

Cicala, J. J. (1997). The relationship between student involvement and reflective judgment for students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

72 AUDREY FRIEDMAN AND LEA SCHOEN

attending a community college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York.

Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions o f research on teacher thinking. Educational Re- searcher, I 7( 2 ), 5- 1 2.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1992). Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dudley-Marling, C. ( 1997). Living with uncertainty: The messy reality of classroom practice. Ports- mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Eyler, I., Giles, D. E., Jr., Lynch, C., & Gray, C. ( 1997, March). Service-learning and the develop- ment of reflective judgment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa- tional Research Association, Chicago.

Fischer, K. W., Rullock, D., Rotenberg, E. J., & Raya, P. (1993). The dynamics of competence: How context contributes directly to skill. In R. Wozniak & K. Fischer (Us.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific enti- ronments (Vol. 1, pp. 93-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fischer, K. W., & Lamborn, S. (1989). Mecha- nisms of variation in developmental levels: Cognitive and emot ional transit ions dur ing adolescence. In A. de Rihaupierre (Ed.), Tran- sition mechanisms in child development (pp. 33-67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Floden, R. E., 61 Ruchmann, M. (1993). Retween routines and anarchy: Preparing teachers for uncertainty. Oxfurd Review of Education, 19( 3) ,

Friedman, A. A. (1995). The relationship bttocwn intellectual disposition and reflective judgment in forty- three college women. Unpublished disser - ration, Boston College, Rcxton.

Friedmian, A. A. (2@@4). The relationship he- tween intellectual disposition and reflective judgment in college wornen. Journal of Adult Development, I 1 (4), 297-304.

Haswell, R. H. (1993. Student self-evaluation and developmental change. In J. Macgregor (Ed.), Student self-ewaluation: Fostering reflectiwe leani- ing (pp. 83- 100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ichimura, T. (1993). A philosophical approach to the knowledge base in teacher education: Recognizing the element of uncertainty in teaching. Petlhody Journal of Education, 68(4), 3-15.

373-382.

Jackson, P. (1986). The uncertainties of teaching. In P. Jackson (Ed.), The pactice of teaching (pp. 53-74). New York: Teachers College Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participa- tory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. K. Lincoln (Eds.) , Handhook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adoles- cents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., Davison, M. L., Parker, C. A., & Wood, P. K. (1983). The justification of beliefs in young adults: A longitudinal study. Human Development , 26, 106-1 16.

Kitchener, K. S. (1986). The reflective judgment model: Characteristics, evidence, and mea- surement. In R. A. Mines & K. S. Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development: Methods and models (pp. 76-91). New York: Praeger.

Kitchener, K. S., & Rrenner, H. (3. (1990). Wis- dom and reflective judgment: Knowing in the h c e of uncertainty. In R. J . Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and devehpment (pp. 212-229). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kitchener, K. S., & Fischer, K. W. (1990). A skill approach to the development o f reflective thinking. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Ileeelopmental per- spectives on teaching and learning thinking skills. London: Karger.

Kitchener, K. S., 61 King, l'. M. (1990). The reflective judgment model: Transforming as- sutnptions about knowing. In ]. Mezirow (Ed.), Fostering critical refkction in adulthood: A guide to transformntive and emancipatq learning (pp. 159-1 76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1996). Reflective judgment scoring manual with examples. Origi- nally published 1985. (Available from K. S. Kitchener, %hod of Education, University of Iknver, Denver, CO 802 10.)

Kitchener, K. S., Lynch, C. L., Fischer, K. W., & W w d , P. K. (1993). 13evelopmenta1 range of reflective judgment: The effects of contextual support and practice on developmental stage. Detdopmental Psychology, 29, 893-906.

Laharee, D. F. (2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education: L3ifficult practices that look easy. Journal of Teacher Education, 5 I ( 3 ), 228-233.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Reflective Practice Inmentions 73

Lawson, J. M. (1980). The relationship between graduate education and the development of reflective judgment: A function of age or educational experience (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 47,402B.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Endemic uncertainties. In D. C. Lortie (Ed.), School teacher: A sociological study (pp. 134-161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Many, J. E., Howard, F., & Hoge, P. (2002). Epistemology and pre-service teacher educa- tion: How do beliefs about knowledge affect our students’ experiences? English Education,

O’Laughlin, M. (1991, April). Undergruduate and graduate student teachers’ developing understand- ings of teaching and learning: Report of a one- year journal study and follow-up interviews. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educa- tional Researcher, 29( l ) , 4-15.

Roberts, W. L., Busk, P. L., & Comerford, S. S. (2001, February). Epistemological beliefs of teacher credential students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. K. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qditative research (2nd ed., pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Pre-service teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113-121.

34(4), 302-322.

Villaume, S. K. (2000). The necessity of uncer- tainty: A case study of language arts reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 5 I ( 1 ) , 18-25.

Wasserman, S. (1999). Shazam! You’re a teacher: Facing the illusory quest for certainty in class- room practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(6), 464, 466-468.

Welfel, E. R. (1982). How students make judg- ments: Do educational level and academic major make a difference? Journal of College Student Personnel, 23, 490497.

White, B. C. (2000). Pre-service teachers’ episte- mology viewed through perspectives on prob- lematic classroom situations. Journal of Educa- tion for Teaching, 26(3), 279-305.

Zeichner, K. ( 1986). Preparing reflective teachers: An overview of instructional strategies which have been employed in pre-service education. International Journal of Educational Research,

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching stu- dents to reflect. Harvard Educational Review,

I 1 (5), 565-575.

37, 23-38.

+ + + Audrey Friedman is an associate professor and chair of the elementary education department at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. Her research interests include devel- oping and nurturing reflective judgment in adolescents and adults and alternative assess- ments in reading, writing, and mathematics in K-12 settings.

Lea Schoen is an assistant professor of elemen- tary education at Indiana University Southeast. Her research interests include early-childhood development, curriculum, and instruction and fostering the reflection and development of candidates for early-childhood education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cla

yton

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

20:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014