21
Article Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X) 1–21 Ó The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1558689813509027 mmr.sagepub.com Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration– Teaching Adaptations– Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers’ Reflective Notes H. Emily Hayden 1 and Ming Ming Chiu 1 Abstract We explore development of elementary preservice teachers’ reflective practices as they solved problems encountered while teaching in a reading clinic. Written reflections (N = 175) were col- lected across 8 weeks from 23 preservice teachers and analyzed to investigate relationships among problem exploration, teaching adaptations, and problem resolution. In this sequential mixed methods design, exploratory qualitative analysis revealed co-occurrence of problem exploration, instructional adaptation, and problem resolution. Confirmatory quantitative analysis found significant relationships: preservice teachers who engaged in more problem exploration or description of instructional adaptations reported more problem resolutions the following week. Results support mixed method, longitudinal analyses to analyze preservice teachers’ writ- ten reflections, and use of written reflections with responsive feedback to develop preservice teachers’ agency for problem solving. Keywords mixed methods, reflective practices, teacher preparation, reading instruction A fundamental task for novice teachers, those engaged in practicum, clinical experiences, stu- dent teaching, or the first years of practice (Berliner, 1988) is development of reflective prac- tices that lead to adaptive expertise. Expertise in teaching requires skillful, fluid blending of deep, varied content knowledge with extensive pedagogy (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005; Milner, 2010) while balancing unpredictability of people and environments. Teachers who manage this balance are enacting reflective practice by combining thought and analysis with action in practice (Scho ¨n, 1983) and reflective teachers become ‘‘adaptive experts’’ (Hammerness et al., 2005, p. 359) who can identify instructional roadblocks, then gen- erate and enact successful responses. 1 State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA Corresponding Author: Emily Hayden, Graduate School of Education, Department of Learning and Instruction, University at Buffalo, 584 Christopher Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-1000, USA. Email: [email protected] at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014 mmr.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

  • Upload
    m-m

  • View
    223

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

Article

Journal of Mixed Methods ResearchXX(X) 1–21

� The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1558689813509027

mmr.sagepub.com

Reflective Teaching viaa Problem Exploration–Teaching Adaptations–Resolution Cycle: A MixedMethods Study of PreserviceTeachers’ Reflective Notes

H. Emily Hayden1 and Ming Ming Chiu1

Abstract

We explore development of elementary preservice teachers’ reflective practices as they solvedproblems encountered while teaching in a reading clinic. Written reflections (N = 175) were col-lected across 8 weeks from 23 preservice teachers and analyzed to investigate relationshipsamong problem exploration, teaching adaptations, and problem resolution. In this sequentialmixed methods design, exploratory qualitative analysis revealed co-occurrence of problemexploration, instructional adaptation, and problem resolution. Confirmatory quantitative analysisfound significant relationships: preservice teachers who engaged in more problem explorationor description of instructional adaptations reported more problem resolutions the followingweek. Results support mixed method, longitudinal analyses to analyze preservice teachers’ writ-ten reflections, and use of written reflections with responsive feedback to develop preserviceteachers’ agency for problem solving.

Keywords

mixed methods, reflective practices, teacher preparation, reading instruction

A fundamental task for novice teachers, those engaged in practicum, clinical experiences, stu-

dent teaching, or the first years of practice (Berliner, 1988) is development of reflective prac-

tices that lead to adaptive expertise. Expertise in teaching requires skillful, fluid blending of

deep, varied content knowledge with extensive pedagogy (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, &

LePage, 2005; Milner, 2010) while balancing unpredictability of people and environments.

Teachers who manage this balance are enacting reflective practice by combining thought and

analysis with action in practice (Schon, 1983) and reflective teachers become ‘‘adaptive

experts’’ (Hammerness et al., 2005, p. 359) who can identify instructional roadblocks, then gen-

erate and enact successful responses.

1State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Emily Hayden, Graduate School of Education, Department of Learning and Instruction, University at Buffalo, 584

Christopher Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-1000, USA.

Email: [email protected]

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 2: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

This sequential mixed methods study was conducted to improve understanding of what

novices reflect on in their teaching practice, and how their reflections might be connected to

instructional action. We analyzed structured reflections written by 23 novices after weekly

teaching in a reading clinic to identify the events these novices focused on for reflection and

the processes they applied during reflection on these events. Dewey’s (1916) pragmatic view of

knowledge as (a) connected inseparably to action, (b) centered on understanding relationships

between knowledge and action across different experiences, and (c) resulting in the combina-

tion of action with reflection on that action helped us understand the results as we explored two

specific questions:

1. What problems of teaching practice did novices describe in their reflections?

2. What relationships, if any, were present among three themes that emerged from qualitative

analysis of novices’ reflections: problem exploration, instructional adaptation, and problem

resolution?

Purpose of This Study

Our interest in exploring novices’ reflective practices developed after hearing a colleague assert

that novices would be unlikely to reflect deeply on any challenges in their teaching. We dis-

agreed. In fact, novices often acknowledge their need for developing reflective practices to

improve their readiness for teaching and seek out opportunities to build these habits of mind

(Loughran, 2006; Lunenberg & Korthagen, 2005; Nilsson, 2009). In the initial exploratory

phase of this study, qualitative analysis of the written reflections aimed to explore novices’

descriptions of problems. This phase revealed co-occurrences of reflection on problems and

instructional adaptations. A subsequent review of the literature revealed support for the reflec-

tion on problems and connection to action (Dewey, 1916) that emerged from this first phase of

analysis and we followed with a quantitative phase as confirmatory analysis for these co-

occurrences.

In our review of the literature, we did not find studies that had implemented this type of

analysis. Many used self-report scales and questionnaires to explore teachers’ perceptions of

pedagogical context, knowledge, dispositions, teaching, and learning (Giovannelli, 2003;

Kramarski & Michalsky, 2009). These approaches provided solid quantitative data but lacked

rich descriptions and grounded perspectives of novices immersed in reflection on teaching.

Other studies provided case descriptions of individual teachers’ development of reflection and

adaptive expertise (Hayden, Rundell, & Smyntek-Gworek, 2013; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Lytle &

Cochran-Smith, 1992; Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007; Ostorga, 2006) and teacher educators’

reflective development (Pui-lan et al., 2005), but one analyzed data for only one lesson instead

of following teachers over time (Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007) and none connected that with

confirmatory analysis that measured relationships among variables. We aimed to fill this gap

by providing comprehensive, convergent analysis of the reflective data these novices provided.

Theoretical Frameworks

Dewey’s (1916) pragmatic views of knowledge as ‘‘concerned with grasping the relationship

between our actions and their consequences’’ (Biesta, 2010, p. 106, italics original) became our

theoretical lens. Understanding this relationship makes knowledge in one experience freely

available for use in other experiences (Dewey, 1916), but Dewey was careful to differentiate

between knowledge and habits, which are predispositions formed by prior experiences that

encourage the same response when presented with particular situations. Habit ‘‘does not make

2 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 3: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

allowance for change of conditions [and] . . . often leads astray’’ (p. 359). Knowledge is more

powerful and can help us ‘‘plan intelligently and direct our actions’’ (Biesta, 2010, p. 107).

Knowledge for teaching serves as a tool for reorganizing instructional activity, combining

pedagogical theory with practice, and illuminating connections between what is known in one

content area with applications in another. Knowledge combined with action allows one to make

a ‘‘systematic inspection of the situation . . . to identify and state the problem [and] develop sug-

gestions for addressing [it], for finding a way to act, and hence find out what the meaning of the

situation actually is.’’ (Biesta, 2010, p. 109) Reflection at its basic level centers on this type of

exploration, ‘‘asking questions, describing key elements, and evaluating current practice in light

of student responses’’ (Hayden et al. 2013, p. 147). It is aimed at taking action (Korthagen &

Kessels, 1999, Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) and is embodied in practice (Kinsella, 2007). And

since some of the most efficacious learning experiences for teachers at any level come when they

encounter ‘‘puzzling, troubling or interesting phenomenon’’ (Schon, 1983, p. 50) exploration of

these problems of practice can generate adaptations either initiated in the moment of teaching or

planned for future interactions (Duffy et al., 2008) and aimed toward resolution. This is the prac-

tice of adaptive experts (Gooddell, 2006; Hole & McEntee, 1999; Tripp, 1993).

Literature Review

Language and Reflective Thought

Exploration of ideas through language shapes and drives learning and solidifies development of

schema (Vygotsky, 1978) and knowledge. Reiman (1999) linked intrapersonal language to

reflection and argued that ‘‘a pedagogy of action/reflection and journaling can frame language

in new ways, promoting deeper understanding’’ (p. 599). Writing to reflect ‘‘focuses attention

and permits the symbolizing of meaningful experience’’ (p. 604). Hacker, Keener, and Kircher

(2009) declared ‘‘[p]roduction of thought is the core of writing’’ (p. 155) and Wells (2003)

asserted that writing allows ‘‘complex structures of meaning to be articulated more precisely

than . . . in everyday conversation’’ (p. 55). But Reiman (1999) lamented the lack of solid con-

structs for analyzing written reflections and their usefulness and identified the need for scaffolds

or guided formats to provide continuous, ongoing connections between teaching action and

reflection. Reiman especially supported dialogic reflection, where teachers write for an audi-

ence (e.g., a teacher educator) and can expect a response. This method is useful for developing

teaching competencies for multiracial settings (Milner, 2010) supporting preservice teachers

(Farrell, 2007; Lam, 2011) and helping novices negotiate first years of practice (Tillman, 2003).

Learning Reflective Practices

Novices must learn ways adaptive experts link reflection and action, because reflective practice

is more than acquiring skill sets or possessing certain dispositions. It involves integrating spe-

cific thinking activities with analysis in order to develop new habits of mind. Korthagen and

Kessels (1999) outlined habits of reflection in their ALACT model, when a teaching Action is

followed by Looking back to reflect, Awareness expands by naming, questioning, describing,

and evaluating, and Creating instructional adaptations is followed by Trial and review. Jay and

Johnson (2002) included some ALACT elements in their stage model of reflection, starting

with descriptive reflection when teachers name events, key elements, feelings, responses, and

generate questions. Active, reflective analysis of teaching challenges and generation of adaptive

responses encourages novices to take agency and bridge theory and practice by ‘‘perceiving

more in a particular situation and finding a helpful course of action [based on] strengthened

Hayden and Chiu 3

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 4: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

awareness’’ (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999, p. 7), but this does not develop without specific gui-

dance and concentrated support (Risko et al., 2008). By combining questioning of causes and

contexts with knowledge of theory and methods, novices can uncover instructional steps that

strengthen student learning.

Challenges, Adaptation

Reflecting on teaching challenges is crucial for building agency and efficacy, since it helps

novices become aware of ‘‘spaces where [they] can take initiatives’’ (Greene, 1988, p. 17).

Experiences of ambiguity and uncertainty can become prompts to reflect, and reflection can

change the ‘‘character of an action’’ (Shepel, 1995, pp. 434-435) when novices use it to adapt

instruction to affect student outcomes. But expecting teachers to think deeply about every event

in the teaching day would be unrealistic.

Cuban’s (1992) distinction of problems from dilemmas provides a way to think selectively

about teaching interactions. Problems are routine, structured situations that produce conflict

because a goal is blocked. Learning when to re-teach and when to move on is a problem of tim-

ing and targeting that will resolve as the ability to assess student learning improves. Expertise

provides solutions to such pedagogical issues, so less reflection time is required as teachers gain

proficiency with management of the tasks of teaching. Dilemmas are messier and require teach-

ers to choose among ‘‘competing highly prized values’’ (Cuban, 1992, p. 6). For example, some

students may transfer learning easily between reading and writing domains, seeing that strate-

gies to recognize and record story elements on a graphic organizer can be applied in reverse as

a prewriting strategy. Other students may need more scaffolded support in order to transfer stra-

tegies from reading to writing. If the teacher’s goal is for every student to write a story with

specific elements, that goal may need to be confronted.

Problems have elements of predictability and can be managed, but dilemmas interrupt the

teaching flow even for experts and require reflection and agency. Reflecting deeply on dilem-

mas while managing problems is a marker of expertise that requires the ability to filter prob-

lems by generating pedagogical adaptations that lead to resolution. Doing so frees up time and

space for reflection on dilemmas, improves self-efficacy for teaching, and decreases burnout

(Haverback & Parault, 2008). Novices may initially reflect deeply on every classroom chal-

lenge, not yet having management routines for resolving problems. Developing such routines is

a crucial milestone in teacher development and an indicator of growth through the novice stage.

When novices notice and describe problems (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Pui-lan et al., 2005), feel

‘‘empowered and perplexed enough to pose questions’’ (Miller, 2007, p. 312) then reflect and

generate solutions, they move toward adaptive expertise.

Method

Participants

We obtained consent to collect written reflections from 23 novice teachers, all female, enrolled

in a reading assessment and evaluation course with teaching component at a public Midwestern

university. Six were graduate students adding teaching credentials, and 17 were junior-year

undergraduates. Eighteen novices provided information on previous teaching experiences. Four

of the graduate students had worked as para-educators in public schools for less than 4 years,

one was an English Language instructor overseas for 2 years, uncertified to teach in the United

States, and one had a degree and 2 years experience in school counseling. Undergraduates

reported two to six semesters of practicum during teacher training.

4 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 5: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

Context

The course novices were enrolled in focused on developing reflective inquiry and theoretical

frameworks to link assessment, instruction, and student performance. Instruction covered initial

reading/writing/spelling assessment and analysis and research-based elements of instruction.

Teaching in the reading clinic coincided with the class, but discussions of teaching experiences

were only used as examples to clarify instructional topics. No seminar or other outlet for dedi-

cated discussion accompanied teaching and the only regular time discourse occurred was during

novices’ writing of reflections and supervisors’ responses to them.

Each novice taught one child for two 60-minute sessions per week. Children were predomi-

nantly Caucasian, attended public or private schools in a Midwestern metropolitan area, and

ranged from first to sixth grade. Fourteen were boys, and 9 of the 23 children attended schools

where 40% or more qualified for free/reduced lunch. Novices used three initial sessions to

administer assessments and set instructional goals. Supervisors in the reading clinic were all

experienced reading teachers with master’s degrees or above. They worked with novices indivi-

dually to observe lessons, provided written feedback on lesson plans and reflections, and some-

times met with students outside of lessons.

Novices submitted written reflections (SOAR notes) for each teaching week. Reflections

included a Subjective retelling of lesson events, progress toward Objectives, Analysis of the

lesson, and Reflection. Since recognizing and describing problems is the first step to developing

reflective practices (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Pui-lan et al., 2005), novices were encouraged to

describe teaching challenges, plan instructional responses, and develop questions to explore

during further teaching. Focusing reflections this way addressed course goals of linking assess-

ment, instruction, and student learning through goal-directed teaching and systematic inten-

tional inquiry into practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993).

Data Collection

Novices began writing reflections the second week of teaching, and reflections were collected

from the confidential class blog for 8 weeks. Five novices submitted fewer reflections due to

absences, resulting in a final set of 175 written reflections. These reflections comprise the entire

data set analyzed for this report.

Establishing Quality and Rigor

We used Tashakkori and Teddlie’s (2006, 2008) integrative framework to assess design quality

and interpretive rigor of our analysis. This framework incorporates ‘‘standards of quality from

both qualitative and quantitative approaches’’ (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, p. 300). Quality

aspects include design suitability and fidelity, within-design consistency, and analytic adequacy.

Rigor includes aspects of interpretive and theoretical consistency, interpretive agreement, dis-

tinctiveness, efficacy, and correspondence. Table 1 presents the measures we took to insure

quality and fidelity in this study.

Analysis

Qualitative

We began qualitative analysis by using axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to first identify

sections where novices wrote about challenges they encountered during teaching. We viewed

Hayden and Chiu 5

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 6: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

instances when novices used more than one sentence and extended detail to describe a challenge

as evidence of exploration. After reviewing the literature and discovering Cuban’s (1992) work,

we coded these instances as either problem or dilemma explorations.

Reflection on problems occurred more frequently than on dilemmas, so we examined each

problem exploration closely. We re-read each exploration to code the type of problem described.

Ten problem types emerged (Table 2). We read the reflection again to capture novices’

responses, searching for adaptations novices planned for future lessons or implemented in the

present moment, and for statements indicating the novice perceived problem resolution. This

involved searching across each novice’s case, using axial coding to capture problem explora-

tions, adaptations, and resolutions, over the 8 weeks of reflections. Once we discovered the co-

occurrence of reflection on problems, adaptations, and resolution, we quantitized (described

below) these axial codes, thereby creating categories that we could then use to perform confir-

matory statistical analysis.

Table 3 provides an excerpt of the coded transcript of one reflection by Mikah, an undergradu-

ate, to illustrate how problem exploration, problem naming, adaptation, and resolution were coded.

In the excerpt, Mikah reflected on timing and targeting and weighed qualitative and quantitative

information to make her decision on text level for Nathan’s instruction. This exemplifies the cycle

of problem exploration in a reflection leading to generation of an adaptation. Frequently, novices

revisited the same problem in subsequent reflections, either to add new descriptive detail, reflect

on the outcome of an adaptation, revise their approach, or describe problem resolution.

Quantitative

After identifying a problem exploration–adaptation–resolution cycle during qualitative analysis,

we tested whether this cycle was a general pattern that occurred often in these novices’

Table 1. Quality and Rigor.

Quality: Design suitability Writing makes internal reflective process partially visible;organization and structure writing brings to thought processesstrengthen data quality (Reiman, 1999; Wells, 2003)

Descriptions of reflective practices grounded in first personaccounts

Quality: Within-designconsistency, analytic adequacy

Logical progression: qualitative analysis identified critical incidents ofreflection and supportive axial codes (categories), quantitativeconfirmatory analysis uncovered relationships. Procedures tocontrol for teacher and time variation, serial correlation bias, falsepositives, missing data

Rigor: Interpretive consistency,distinctiveness

Problem/dilemma names sorted by experienced teachers, comparedwith author ratings: a = .67

One novice case dual-coded. Coding scheme interrater reliability withexperienced coder using 100 quotations from data set: problemexploration a = .71, adaptation a = .74, resolution a = .70

Rigor: Theoretical consistency,interpretive agreement

Identification of axial codes (categories) reviewed by expert externalreviewer.

Review of literature specifically focused on novice teachersRigor: Integrative efficacy of

designInferences made in qualitative analysis subjected to quantitative

confirmatory analysis.Inferences from each strand of sequential analysis compared with

research questions. Conclusions considered findings from bothsets of data and both types of analysis

6 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 7: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

reflections by modeling antecedents of problem resolution with a statistical discourse analysis

(SDA, Chiu, 2008). We did this because there was variation across the 23 novices’ use of the

reflective cycle, and while qualitative analysis provided pictures of individual teachers’

patterns, we wanted a picture of the overall relationships among problem exploration-

adaptation-resolution for this convenience sample of novices. To explore these relationships,

we quantitized axial codes for problem exploration, adaptation, and resolution with a frequency

count, assigning a score (1) to each category each time it appeared in a reflection and 0 other-

wise so that the qualitative data could be analyzed statistically (Caracelli & Greene, 1993;

Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

To test relationships among these patterns, we needed to address analytic difficulties involv-

ing the entire data set, the outcome variable, and the explanatory variables (see Table 4). First,

the sample had missing data, which can reduce estimation efficiency, complicate data analyses,

and bias results. Markov Chain Monte Carlo multiple imputation estimates the values of the

Table 2. Problems of Practice in Novices’ Reflections.

Problem Frequency

Teacher skill development 236Identifying student skill deficits 166Timing and targeting 101Identifying student strengths 62Time management 48Identifying new needs 37Strategy implementation 19Implementing teaching plan 15Monitoring success: learning or strategy 15Challenging behaviors 14

Table 3. Qualitative Coding Sample.

Reflective note excerpt Codes

I had started to feel that maybe Nathan was not ready to be on book [D-3] of QuickReads. He started off real strong reading 130WPM [wordsper minute]. Gradually, his WPM decreased [to] 99. He received thatrate twice when I started to question whether to continue with this levelor go down one. As long as the subjects continued to be about howsome of the sports began, I considered the interest level a key part ininstruction. I chose to continue.

Problem exploration;Problem: timing andtargeting

We were finally able to play the inflected endings soccer game. [Since] Iwould save the game until the end of the session we only had about 5-7minutes to play. Nathan would bring small toys to the session. To get hisfocus off of playing with his toys,

Problem: challengingstudent behavior

I would tell him that we could use them as our game pieces instead of theboring old pieces I had.

Adaptation

This would encourage him to put them aside. Problem resolutionBeing that I am still learning how to fully understand inflected endings (and

how to explain them)Problem: teacher skill

developmentI decided to stick with just seeing if Nathan knew which rule [he] needed

to apply to which ending.

Hayden and Chiu 7

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 8: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

missing data and addresses this issue more effectively than deletion, mean substitution, or sim-

ple imputation (Peugh & Enders, 2004).

The outcome variable Resolution differed across teachers and time. Since failure to account

for similarities in behaviors by the same teacher (vs. different teachers) can underestimate the

standard errors, a multilevel analysis was needed to compute appropriate estimates (Goldstein,

1995). Since teachers’ behaviors in adjacent weeks are often more similar than behaviors that

are several weeks apart, failure to model this similarity (serial correlation of errors) can bias

results (Kennedy, 2008). An I2 index of Q-statistics tested all groups simultaneously for serial

correlation of residuals in adjacent weeks (Huedo-Medina et al., 2006). If the I2 index showed

significant serial correlation of errors, we added the outcome variable value of the previous con-

versation turn, which often eliminates the serial correlation (e.g., when modeling the outcome

variable Problem Resolution, we added whether Problem Resolution occurred in the previous

turn (Problem Resolution) [–1] as an explanatory variable (Chiu & Khoo, 2005).

Statistical discourse analysis (Chiu, 2008) addresses the explanatory variable issues,

sequences and false positives, with a vector auto-regression (VAR, Kennedy, 2008), multilevel

M-tests (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004) and the two-stage step-up procedure

(Benjamini et al., 2006). A VAR models how attributes of each teacher behavior in recent

sequences influence a teacher’s behavior in the current week. For example, the likelihood of a

Problem Resolution in a given week might be influenced by teacher Problem Exploration or

Adaptation in previous weeks. Last, testing many possible outcomes increases the risk of Type

I errors (Benjamini et al., 2006). The two-stage linear step-up procedure was used because it

reduces these more effectively than 13 other methods (Benjamini et al., 2006).

Multilevel, Vector Autoregression. After imputing the missing data (6%) with MCMC-MI, we mod-

eled problem resolution with multilevel VAR (Goldstein, 1995). We entered variables into our

analysis according to possible causal relationships, likely importance, and time.

Problem Resolutionij = b00 + eij + f0j + b0tTeacher0j + b0pPupil0j

+ b0sSchool0j + bcjCurrent Noteij + bnjPrevious Noteij ð1Þ

b00 is the grand mean intercept of Problem Resolutionij, for each note (i) of each novice (j).

The note- and teacher-level residuals are eij and f0j. To see if novices’ characteristics signifi-

cantly influenced problem resolution, we entered teaching experience, experience in schools,

Table 4. Statistics Strategies to Address Each Analytic Difficulty.

Analytic difficulty Statistics strategy

Data set� Missing data � Markov Chain Monte Carlo multiple imputation (Peugh &

Enders, 2004)Outcome variable� Differences across teachers � Multilevel analysis (also called hierarchical linear modeling, Bryk

& Raudenbush, 1992; Goldstein, 1995)� Differences across time � I2 Index of Q-statistics (Huedo-Medina, Sanchez-Meca,

Marin-Martinez, & Botella, 2006)Explanatory variables� Sequences across time � Vector auto-regression (VAR, Kennedy, 2008)� False positives � Two-stage linear step-up procedure (Benjamini, Krieger, &

Yekutieli, 2006)

8 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 9: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

graduate or undergraduate into the model (Teacher) using a nested hypothesis test (Kennedy,

2008). Next, to see if child characteristics influenced problem resolution, we added student eth-

nicity, gender, teaching grade, reading level, and qualification for free/reduced school lunch

(Pupil). We also added variables for the school each child attended (private school, low

income) (School). Next, we entered a vector of note characteristics: week of teaching (from

first to eighth), Problem Exploration, Adaptation (Current_Note). Last, we entered character-

istics of the reflective note written the previous week (VAR, Kennedy, 2008): whether or not

the novice wrote about Problem Exploration (21), or Adaptation (21) in that previous week

(Previous_Note). An alpha of .05 was used.

Results

Question 1: What Problems Did Novices Describe?

Problem identification is an essential first step in reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002) and ‘‘profes-

sional practice has at least as much to do with finding the problem as with solving [it]’’ (Schon,

1983, p. 18). While our analysis revealed 10 problem types in the novices’ reflections (Table

2), three were reflected on in more than 70% of the problem descriptions. Teacher skill devel-

opment, when novices identified an area of need for their own development, occurred most fre-

quently followed by Identifying skill deficits of students. Because all children at the reading

clinic exhibited reading delays the course focus was on diagnosing needs and individualizing

instruction, and novices reflected in detail on student needs as they worked to refine and focus

instructional planning. Timing and targeting was the third most frequently-occurring problem,

when novices reflected on their students’ success meeting objectives, need for review, or readi-

ness for new learning.

These three most frequent problems are illustrated with problem explorations from three under-

graduate novice cases. These cases also represent the variation of child grade level and novice

approaches. While Annie and Carol used the problem exploration-adaptation-resolution cycle to

varying degrees, Andrea represents a contrast: a novice who did not engage in detailed problem

exploration and never wrote about finding resolution, although she did generate some adaptations.

Annie. Annie worked with Donny, a sixth-grade student with mild mental handicaps. Annie

documented 6 instances of problem exploration, 12 adaptations, and 4 resolutions. Like many of

the novices, Annie described problems of practice that she encountered and included numerous

self-questions, often noting the disconnection between her middle-level training and Donny’s

instructional needs. Her reflections illuminate the demands on teachers to continually re-tool,

revise, and adapt their skills to meet students where they are (Duffy et al., 2008). Annie began

the semester by identifying Donny’s instructional needs and two areas for her own development.

Donny enjoys reading, but [has] issues pulling out details. When probed, he can normally recall . . .

but I really want to help him pull out information in the story himself. I’m just a little confused

how to do so. I’ve also noticed he relies on the illustrations heavily. While this is a good compre-

hension strategy, he uses the pictures to create his own sentences when he doesn’t know a word or

gets tripped up on a sentence. I’m still trying to figure out strategies to work on sounding out the

word [and] one of my goals for Donny is comprehension, so I [will] focus on this in the future, I’m

just unsure how. [Teacher skill development]

In mid-semester, Annie began to make adaptations: ‘‘I tried to be cognizant this week of how

many times I [corrected] Donny during his reading [Adaptation: present]. If I have him repeat

Hayden and Chiu 9

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 10: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

too many words, his comprehension goes down greatly.’’ At this point, she began to reflect on

problem resolution, while continuing a recursive cycle of problem exploration-adaptation.

I tried a few new activities with Donny this week . . . Some were almost too fun and he became dis-

tracted easily. I noticed that even though hands on activities are great for him, I need to monitor

closely to ensure that he is on task. [Problem resolution] I’m going to brainstorm more fun games

to play this week, and also branch out into other areas such as word families. [Adaptation: future]

Often, resolving one instructional issue uncovers yet another. As the semester ended, Annie

recognized a new learning need for Donny and began to comprehend the difference between

decoding ability and vocabulary knowledge. Although she did not generate an adaptation, this

productive questioning raised her awareness and helped refine her targeting of Donny’s instruc-

tional needs. The limited time frame of the reading clinic experience was a complicating factor,

and this is true of all practicum experiences.

Donny’s ability to sound out unfamiliar words is greatly improving, but he had a real test on the last

page with a lot of harder, unfamiliar words. He tackled the first few very well, [then] started to

become frustrated. I wonder if there is a certain number of times . . . I should correct/help him? In

that book, all the difficult words were on one page. Do I only correct him every few mistakes, or

each time? [Teacher skill development] All of the words were synonyms for slow. Most of these

words Donny had never encountered, let alone know the meaning. [Timing and targeting]

In the last week, Annie encountered a very challenging behavior.

Having this makeup session without any outside distractions was wonderful. He gets distracted or

off task after the simplest sound. It was nice to have a quiet, productive atmosphere. However, I was

a little concerned about Donny’s referral to the session as a ‘‘date’’ and also asking if we ‘‘could kiss

at the end.’’ [Challenging behavior] Although I feel I handled it ok I began to think how I would

handle a similar situation in my classroom. It was definitely a few uncomfortable moments but I got

him back on task and he didn’t mention it again. [Problem resolution]

Resolving such problems quickly, without fanfare, reduces the distraction they cause, allow-

ing teachers to focus on instructional needs instead. Developing such responses is a crucial task

for the novice. The written reflection format gave Annie a space to reflect and find a level of

resolution for this uncomfortable event.

Carol. Carol was an undergraduate elementary education major paired with a second-grade stu-

dent. She documented 2 instances of problem exploration, 23 adaptations, and 7 resolutions.

Carol’s reflections provided a picture of persistence in problem exploration and the recursive

adaptation cycle that can lead to student success and resolution of problems across areas of

instruction. She began by identifying Kady’s strengths and needs.

Kady really enjoyed reading aloud together versus reading aloud to me. I saw her taking time to

incorporate the pictures after she finished reading. [Identifying student strengths] When I had the

game for working with long vowel sounds I found that there were certain combinations Kady espe-

cially [had] trouble with. [Identifying student skill deficits]

Carol described an unsuccessful adaptation and generated an alternative:

Kady still was quiet and wouldn’t really [respond] when I talked with her about making connections

with what she was reading. [Identifying student skill deficits] I gave her examples [Adaptation:

10 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 11: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

present] about how I love playing with my dog thinking it would get her to talk. I know she loves

dogs, so picked a book about a little girl and her dog, thinking it would encourage easy connections,

yet I failed. For [week 2] I [chose] a real-life book about a dog, thinking maybe the real pictures will

help trigger connections. [Adaptation: future]

While reflecting on the outcomes of her adaptations, Carol persisted in extended problem explo-

ration and refined adaptations strategically. After noting Kady’s responses for a few more les-

sons, Carol wrote, ‘‘[Kady] really responds well to the questioning strategy, therefore I may

shift between strategies, to point out ways that specific strategies can help us understand what

we read.’’ [Adaptation: future] The recursive problem exploration-adaptation cycle helped

Carol guide Kady to develop flexibility with varied comprehension strategies, an approach that

researchers (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012; Clay, 1991) have affirmed as vital for student confi-

dence and reading success.

In another recursive cycle, Carol implemented a vocabulary strategy, first collecting data by

writing down words Kady had troubles with so she ‘‘could shape lessons and choose books [to]

help with those words.’’ She then used problem exploration to analyze and adapt.

I need to put limits on (her) picture, since she is really into detail. [Time management] Maybe . . . I

could send [that] home for her mom to help with. Kady [could] write the vocabulary word on the

card, with a sentence she makes up, and . . . finish the pictures [at home]. [Adaptation: future]

Carol scaffolded with adaptations during the lesson to support Kady through difficulties.

Kady found it hard, yet still was able to come up with three sentences that included our vocabulary

words. For a couple I said she could look through the book [for] ideas from the pictures

[Adaptation: present] because she absolutely had no idea.

While working on comprehension and vocabulary learning, Carol continued to scaffold decod-

ing as well and began to find resolution.

Kady struggled at first, but once I talked with her about how to pick which vowel to say in the word,

how to decide fast, and not stop on a word, Kady had no problem, spelling a word, saying it, and

identifying the vowel sound. [Problem resolution]

Throughout the semester, Carol reflected on her own skill development as well.

My confidence really decreases if I don’t see a purpose or a place where I want the children to end.

By simply doing word study on words from a given text, it really wasn’t connecting to the reading.

Tuesday Kady built the words, yet I didn’t have enough tiles to keep the words built, so she [re-

used] the letters . . . If I’d had more copies of the letters, [Teacher skill development], I could have

had Kady build the words and stick them on a cookie sheet in the groups I said. We could have

stopped and reflected on the words while reading if she got stuck. [Adaptation: future] It’s some-

thing as easy as that I need to keep in mind. [Problem resolution]

Recursive problem exploration-adaptation and reflecting on effectiveness and on her practice

helped Carol design instruction that scaffolded Kady’s learning and, over time, led to resolution

of instructional problems.

Andrea. Andrea was an undergraduate novice majoring in education for Birth-Grade 3 students

who worked with Cliff, a late-first-grade student reading at early kindergarten level. Andrea

Hayden and Chiu 11

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 12: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

wrote brief reflections identifying student strengths, skill deficits, and adaptations in a matter-

of-fact, cursory way. She never engaged in extended, detailed writing for problem exploration,

and while she documented five adaptations, she never wrote of finding problem resolution.

Andrea generated adaptations quickly, but as the teaching term went on, she began to notice

discrepancies between her instruction and Cliff’s responses.

In Week 2, Andrea noted that Cliff had difficulty answering comprehension questions after

reading instructional level texts, then added ‘‘I am wondering if my questions are too hard. I

feel like we are pretty used to each other now, and I do not know why he is not able to answer

these simple background questions’’ (Problem: monitoring success of strategy). She did not

explore this problem any further or adapt her approach to building comprehension in this or

subsequent reflective notes, even though her supervisor provided specific suggestions for com-

prehension instruction. In the same note she wrote, ‘‘I was disappointed that Cliff was not even

trying to decode the words he did not know . . . he just looked at me.’’ This thin analysis of

Cliff’s response to decoding seems almost an assignment of blame and was not accompanied

by concurrent adaptation or reflection on other possible causes, as the reading clinic course

taught. Since the text Cliff was reading was an early kindergarten-patterned text, and he had

trouble answering prereading questions as well, this problem merited deeper reflective inquiry.

This incident may have foreshadowed the dilemmas Andrea encountered later in the term, when

she wrote repeatedly of Cliff’s difficulties with transferring his knowledge and skills between

reading and writing tasks. Transfer would be difficult to accomplish without first achieving

flexibility and mastery of decoding and comprehension in early texts.

As the term continued, Andrea used her pattern of quickly identifying a problem related to

Cliff’s skill acquisition, generating an adaptation, and moving on without further reflection.

We have been working with lots of different short vowel sounds, and when I asked why he chose a

certain one, he didn’t quite know what to say [Identifying new need], so I think I need to go

back and re-teach concepts of vowels and explain the two sounds they all make. [Adaptation:

future]

Andrea’s perfunctory pattern was relatively unique in this sample, and one result was that she

continued to deal with the same problems throughout the term. In Week 5, she expressed confi-

dence that Cliff would be able to transfer his skill in writing short vowel words to reading short

vowel words, but in Week 6, the opposite happened.

I noticed that Cliff is reverting back to looking at the pictures for clues [for] what the word might

be before sounding it out first. [When] he came to p/o/t . . . instead of starting with the /p/, a sound

he knows well, he scanned the pictures . . . and said ‘‘pan.’’ I just said, ‘‘Close, but let’s look at the

word again.’’ I had to walk him through each sound, something that we haven’t done since we first

began this strategy. [Dilemma: student breakdown]

Here it appears that Cliff did check the /p/ sound of pot, since he offered a word with the same

beginning. In her efforts to have Cliff read all the letter-sounds correctly, Andrea decided to

implement a risky adaptation: ‘‘From now on, I am going to begin covering the . . . pictures up

before he reads the words to encourage him to look at the text before the pictures.’’

[Adaptation: future] For a kindergarten-level reader, not allowing the integration of picture

clues with text clues is detrimental (Clay, 1991; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) and this decision was

not supported by Andrea’s supervisor or by the reading clinic coursework. This example of a

quick adaptation, unsupported by reflection, was not well received by Cliff: ‘‘he would get

angry if he could not figure out a particular word.’’

12 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 13: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

Although Andrea engaged in very brief, even shallow reflection on problems, she wrote of

dilemmas in her teaching interactions more frequently. Throughout the term, she struggled to

help Cliff transfer his skills from writing to reading, use his knowledge flexibly, and avoid

breakdowns. Andrea identified Cliff’s need to build decoding and comprehension proficiency,

but she did not reflect deeply on this problem and did not engage in recursive adaptation cycles

when her first adaptations failed to resolve the problem by building skills that Cliff could main-

tain. Lack of resolution of these early reading-skill problems made the dilemmas of transfer,

using knowledge flexibly, and student breakdowns more likely.

Question 2: What Relationships, if Any, Were Present Among Themes of ProblemExploration, Instructional Adaptation, and Problem Resolution?

Subsequent quantitative analysis showed that problem exploration and adaption often preceded

problem resolution, consistent with the exploration-adaptation-resolution cycle discovered in

the qualitative analysis and supporting our belief that written reflections provided powerful sup-

port for novices’ developing reflective practices and adaptive expertise. Novices made an aver-

age of 0.19 problem explorations, 0.49 adaptations, and 0.19 resolutions per reflection for a

total of 33 problem explorations, 86 adaptations, and 33 resolutions across the entire data set

(see Table 5 for summary statistics, and the table in the appendix for correlation–variance–cov-

ariance). Of the differences in resolutions, 21% was due to novice characteristics and 79% was

due to differences across reflections (see Table 6). Novice characteristics provided relatively lit-

tle information about the occurrence of resolution, but graduate novices were significantly less

likely to document resolution than undergraduate novices. This may simply be due to the more

extended experiences the graduate student novices had with children. All of them had worked

in full-time positions in schools for 2 to 4 years. Hammerness (2006) found that extended obser-

vation and data collection by novices led to less certainty in their statements, ‘‘suggesting that

Table 5. Summary Statistics (N = 175).

Variable Mean SD Minimum Median Maximum

Problem resolution 0.19 0.57 0 0 4Teacher characteristics

Teaching experience 0.05 0.21 0 0 1Total years in schools 2.74 1.89 0 2.44 6Graduate student 0.17 0.38 0 0 1

Student characteristicsBlack 0.17 0.37 0 0 1Hispanic 0.08 0.28 0 0 1Caucasian 0.75 0.43 0 1 1Female 0.40 0.49 0 0 1Grade 2.81 1.37 1 3 6Reading level 2.22 1.71 0 1.75 6.75Free/reduced lunch 0.34 0.48 0 0 1

School characteristicsPrivate school 0.32 0.47 0 0 1Low income 1.05 3.69 0 0.24 19.50

Reflection note characteristicsProblem exploration 0.19 0.51 0 0 3Present adaptations 0.49 0.82 0 0 4

Hayden and Chiu 13

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 14: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

perhaps they were more open to questioning their assumptions and to re-examining their per-

spectives about students’’ (p. 81).

This pattern echoes the results of research with experienced teachers in the same reading

clinic (Hayden & Pasman 2008). It may be that more seasoned students reserve judgment, wait-

ing for additional evidence before attributing resolution. Many challenges in teaching are recur-

ring (Cuban, 1992), and teachers become more keenly aware of their successes and failures as

they amass experiences (Berliner, 1986, 1988). Shulman (1987) asserts that teacher develop-

ment progresses ‘‘from expertise as learners through a novitiate as teachers [and] exposes and

highlights the complex bodies of knowledge and skill needed to function effectively as a

teacher. The neophyte’s stumble becomes the scholar’s window’’ (p. 4). Perhaps the graduate

novices in this study were more likely to view problem exploration-adaptation as a process of

refinement, opening ‘‘the scholar’s window’’ for more consideration.

Model 2 added student and school characteristics to the analysis. Novices who worked with

a female student, in a higher grade, or not receiving free/reduced lunch documented more reso-

lutions. In Model 3, reflective note characteristics were analyzed. Novices who described more

adaptations in a reflection identified significantly more resolutions in that same reflection.

Furthermore, novices who had more problem explorations or adaptations in the previous week’s

reflection had significantly more resolutions the following week. No other variable was

Table 6. Summary of Multilevel Regression Models Predicting Problem Resolutions WithUnstandardized Regression Coefficients (Standard Errors in Parentheses).

Explanatory variable Three multilevel regression models of problem resolutions

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Teacher characteristicsSome teaching experience 0.289 (0.236)Total years in school 0.057 (0.059)Graduate student 20.269 (0.135)* 20.191 (0.091)* 20.206 (0.101)*

Student characteristicsAfrican American student 20.266 (0.454)Caucasian student 20.221 (0.390)Female 0.262 (0.093)** 0.147 (0.067)* 0.163 (0.082)*Free/reduced lunch 20.186 (0.084)* 20.192 (0.083)* 20.178 (0.090)*Grade 0.077 (0.032)* 0.061 (0.030)* 0.073 (0.034)*Reading level 20.010 (0.037)

School characteristicsPrivate school 0.091 (0.177)Low income 0.006 (0.018)

Current reflection noteProblem exploration 0.000 (0.055)Thoughtful adaptation 0.151 (0.049)** 0.152 (0.047)** 0.177 (0.050)***

Previous reflection note (21)Problem exploration (21) 0.143 (0.054)**Thoughtful adaptation (21) 0.147 (0.048)**

Variance at each level Explained variance at each levelTeacher (21%) 0.321 0.307 0.305Note (79%) 0.057 0.054 0.176

Total variance explained 0.112 0.107 0.203

Note. Each regression model included a constant term.

*p \ .05. **p \ .01. ***p \ .001.

14 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 15: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

significant. This explanatory model accounted for more than 20% of the differences in problem

resolution across reflections. Thus, novices who used their structured written reflections to

explore problems in detail and generate adaptations were subsequently and significantly more

likely to reflect on problem resolution.

This finding is supported by the cases of Annie, Carol, and Andrea. Annie engaged in explo-

ration of several different problems, generated focused adaptations, and found resolution. Carol

explored a smaller number of problems over the 8-week term, but explored them in depth, gen-

erating many adaptations, reflecting on the outcomes, and continually refining her approach.

She illustrates the trial and error style that some novices may enact when first confronted with

teaching challenges. Carol persisted and was flexible in applying the techniques she learned in

the class, with resolution as the result.

Andrea did not engage in problem exploration, made very few adaptations, and documented

no resolutions. She illustrates a perilous cycle that novice teachers may fall into. Andrea con-

fronted the challenges in teaching a struggling reader with a perfunctory, scope-and-sequence

kind of approach in which she assumed skills were mastered once she had taught them. She was

puzzled when Cliff was unable to transfer skills to new contexts or, worse, when he seemed to

forget the skills altogether. She placed responsibility for these difficulties with Cliff and did not

pause to reflect more deeply or refine her instructional approach. Andrea seems to represent the

type of novice that our colleague referred to when speculating that novices would be unlikely to

reflect deeply on any challenges in teaching. Fortunately, Andrea’s pattern of responses to prob-

lems of practice was not representative of the sample of novices.

Discussion

Contributions to Mixed Methods Research

This sequential study demonstrates an effective method for analyzing reflections from many

teachers in a clinical setting across time. Multiple measures of quality and rigor were imple-

mented in the design and in both strands of analysis. Beginning with a qualitative exploratory

phase allowed us to collect and analyze data that was grounded in the complex lived experi-

ences of the novices. Integration of theory throughout this strand, and several layers of member

checking helped assure quality and consistency of our coding formats. Quantitizing the qualita-

tive data for confirmatory analysis revealed that the cycles of problem exploration-adaptation-

resolution found within individual novice cases held significance for the larger sample as well.

We accounted carefully for the statistical challenges that such a nested analysis raised.

All these measures resulted in findings that illustrated how this structured written reflection

requirement supported novices’ developing understanding of the connection between knowledge

and action in practice, or reflective practice. The significant relationships among problem

exploration-adaptation-resolution reiterate Dewey’s (1916) pragmatic views of knowledge while

specifically describing problems of practice that novices are labeling and learning (Berliner,

1988; Cuban, 1992). Structured written reflections with feedback helped these novices use

reflective inquiry to generate adaptations, find resolution, and practice how to ‘‘think like a

teacher’’ (Hammerness et. al., 2005, p. 382). Furthermore, this method gave novices a way to

resolve some commonplace problems of practice while in the preservice stages. If ‘‘the central

issue teacher education must confront is how to foster learning about and from practice in prac-

tice’’ (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 42), then this analysis is an important step in understanding

what problems of practice concern novices and how novices used written reflections in a clinical

experience to connect reflection with action and do teaching practice.

Hayden and Chiu 15

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 16: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

Contributions to Understanding

Knowledge did indeed serve as a tool for reorganizing novices’ instructional activity in a signif-

icant number of teaching interactions in this sample. These novices combined what they learned

in the course and what they knew about pedagogy with what they experienced in their teaching

practice and through the use of reflection scaffolded by a written format found ways to act

(Biesta, 2010) that resulted in resolution. Annie provides an example of reflection at its most

basic level by ‘‘asking questions, describing key elements, and evaluating current practice in

light of student responses’’ (Hayden et al., 2013, p. 147). She raised many questions in her

reflections, and explored several problems of practice. Through this questioning and explora-

tion, she found ways to retool her teaching approach based on the unique needs of her student.

Carol’s approach was more focused. She engaged in fewer problem explorations only

because she revisited the problems she identified and engaged in extensive adaptations and

refinement of instruction directed at these problems. The result of her ‘‘systematic inspection’’

(Biesta, 2010, p. 109) of several key situations was that she was able to try on different pedago-

gical and instructional interventions, find meaning in the situation, and apply it to develop an

approach that fit her student’s needs and habits of learning.

Andrea seemed to inhabit a space of puzzlement and perplexity (Dewey, 1933) and accord-

ing to Dewey, this should have caused her to pause and reflect. Instead of making efficacious

use of these ‘‘puzzling, troubling or interesting phenomenon’’ (Schon, 1983, p. 50), she

remained in a cycle of equating instruction with learning, giving less consideration than neces-

sary to her student’s responses to instruction. Instead of revising her instruction when it became

apparent that Cliff had not retained knowledge from previous lessons, she puzzled over his lack

of effort and the breakdown of his knowledge. Her instructional approach became almost puni-

tive, insistent on exactness and regressing to strategies (covering pictures) that may have done

more harm than good. How can teacher educators help novices like Andrea move beyond such

apparent impasses? Learning what problems cause novices to pause and reflect, and how

novices respond to challenges such as those experienced by this sample, can help teacher edu-

cators answer questions such as this. Experiences can be designed that provide opportunities to

actively engage with these specific problems during training, when novices have easy access to

experienced mentors who can mediate the learning (Alexander & Fives, 2000; Vygotsky,

1978).

Contributions to Teacher Education, Future Directions

Results of this study have value for novices and teacher educators because we analyzed a form

of reflection frequently used in teacher education: externally assigned, structured, and written.

While supervisor support and the accountability loop enhanced frank and detailed reporting,

the reflections are still self-reports. And while most teachers do not continue reflective writing

once they are established in a teaching position, this study supports requiring structured written

reflections for teachers in training as a way to harness the power of language in learning and

scaffold developing reflective practices that may later become internalized.

We did not conduct follow-up to determine what novices carried into their current teaching

practices from this experience. But these novices’ written reflections provided evidence of a

developmental journey. If ‘‘meaning takes shape in social action as actors interpret and make

sense of their affairs from within the contexts of actual tasks’’ (Macbeth, 2006, p. 183), then

the changes over time within these reflections are at least markers of this journey, and future

research on development of reflective practices should include the markers of problem explora-

tion, adaptation, and resolution.

16 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 17: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

It is reasonable to assume that supervisor/novice interactions (which were not accounted for

in data analysis) and the reflection writing structure mediated novices’ reflective writing while

they taught in the reading clinic. Indeed, that was a goal of the class and of the requirement to

write reflections. While supervisors could intervene during lessons and read all lesson plans

and reflections, one supervisor responded consistently in writing to the reflections of her super-

visees while the others preferred to intervene during novices’ lessons or respond to questions

face-to-face. Specific evidence of all supportive moves by supervisors was not collected and

thus supervisor impact on the development of novices’ reflective practices was not analyzed.

This impact needs to be examined more closely in future research.

The distinction between problems/dilemmas also needs further exploration. Which chal-

lenges are problems that can be resolved early in practice so that they no longer require deep

reflection and which are dilemmas that linger long into a teacher’s career? Are dilemmas as

persistently challenging as Cuban (1992) described, or do dilemmas eventually resolve into less

troubling problems as teachers gain experience? Does a similar relationship exist among

dilemma exploration-adaptation-resolution? How can teacher educators support novices in

developing reflective responses to dilemmas? Exploring these questions can further support

novices as they develop reflective practices that lead to adaptive expertise.

Hayden and Chiu 17

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 18: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

Corr

elat

ion–Var

iance

–C

ova

rian

ceM

atri

xofO

utc

om

ean

dExpla

nat

ory

Var

iable

s.

Var

iable

12

34

56

78

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

1Pro

ble

mre

solu

tion

0.2

80.0

10.0

52

0.0

42

0.0

10.0

20.0

42

0.0

30.0

40.0

52

0.0

12

0.1

50.0

30.1

10.0

90.1

02

Som

ete

achin

gex

per

ience

0.0

50.0

42

0.0

30.0

32

0.0

10.0

10.0

32

0.0

20.0

60.1

22

0.0

12

0.0

42

0.0

12

0.0

12

0.0

12

0.0

23

Tota

lye

ars

insc

hool

0.0

52

0.0

93.5

32

0.0

50.1

70.0

42

0.2

60.0

72

0.3

90.3

32

0.1

92

0.5

20.0

50.1

62

0.0

30.2

04

Gra

duat

est

uden

t2

0.1

10.3

72

0.0

70.1

90.0

02

0.0

30.0

32

0.0

40.2

80.3

92

0.0

40.5

52

0.0

30.0

12

0.0

60.0

25

Afr

ican

Am

eric

anst

uden

t2

0.0

42

0.1

00.2

50.0

20.1

42

0.1

20.0

60.1

10.1

30.0

92

0.0

52

0.0

62

0.0

22

0.0

32

0.0

32

0.0

36

Cau

casi

anst

uden

t0.0

90.1

20.0

62

0.1

62

0.7

80.1

82

0.0

32

0.1

22

0.2

32

0.2

20.0

80.1

30.0

30.0

30.0

50.0

57

Fem

ale

0.1

60.2

72

0.2

80.1

30.3

22

0.1

30.2

40.0

40.0

30.0

92

0.0

82

0.2

72

0.0

30.0

02

0.0

40.0

18

Free

/red

uce

dlu

nch

20.1

22

0.1

60.0

82

0.1

90.6

22

0.5

70.1

60.2

20.0

62

0.0

92

0.0

62

0.1

92

0.0

40.0

12

0.0

52

0.0

19

Gra

de

0.1

10.1

92

0.1

50.4

70.2

62

0.3

80.0

50.0

91.8

71.3

32

0.1

20.9

32

0.0

52

0.0

72

0.0

42

0.1

110

Rea

din

gle

vel

0.0

60.3

20.1

00.5

20.1

42

0.3

00.1

12

0.1

10.5

62.9

92

0.2

81.1

52

0.0

52

0.0

62

0.1

12

0.0

711

Pri

vate

school

20.0

22

0.1

52

0.2

22

0.2

02

0.3

00.3

92

0.3

52

0.2

72

0.1

92

0.3

50.2

22

0.3

10.0

32

0.0

10.0

82

0.0

112

Low

inco

me

school

20.0

72

0.0

52

0.0

70.3

32

0.0

50.0

82

0.1

42

0.1

10.1

80.1

82

0.1

814.0

22

0.1

42

0.1

12

0.2

42

0.0

313

Pro

ble

mex

plo

ration

0.1

32

-0.0

80.0

52

0.1

42

0.1

20.1

32

0.1

12

0.1

62

0.0

82

0.0

70.1

52

0.0

80.2

30.0

70.0

22

0.0

214

Adap

tation

0.2

52

0.0

80.1

00.0

42

0.0

90.1

00.0

10.0

22

0.0

62

0.0

52

0.0

32

0.0

40.1

90.6

32

0.0

30.0

515

Pro

ble

mex

plo

ration

(21)

0.2

32

0.0

82

0.0

22

0.1

82

0.1

20.1

52

0.1

02

0.1

52

0.0

42

0.0

90.2

22

0.0

90.0

62

0.0

50.5

70.0

316

Adap

tation

(21)

0.2

32

0.1

30.1

30.0

72

0.0

90.1

30.0

32

0.0

22

0.1

02

0.0

52

0.0

32

0.0

12

0.0

60.0

70.0

50.6

8

Ap

pen

dix

Cor

rela

tion,

Varian

ce,C

ovar

ianc

eof

Key

Variab

les

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 19: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

Acknowledgment

We appreciate the research assistance of Yik Ting Choi.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-

lication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alexander, P., & Fives, H. (2000). Achieving expertise in teaching reading. In L. Baker, M. Dreher & J.

Guthrie (Eds.), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp. 285-308). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006). Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the

false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93, 491-507. doi:10.1093/biomet/93.3.491

Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.

Berliner, D. C. (1988, February). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Charles W. Hunt Memorial

Lecture, presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher

Education, New Orleans, LA.

Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In A.

Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research

(2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J.

Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to

do (pp. 1-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioural research:

Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Caracelli, V., & Greene, J. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed method evaluation designs.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195-207. doi:10.2307/1164421

Chiu, M. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A statistical

discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 415-463.

Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). A new method for analyzing sequential processes: Dynamic multilevel

analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 600-631.

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (1992). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities. Educational Researcher,

2, 4-11.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education,

61, 35-47.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York,

NY: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative

process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.

Duffy, G., Miller, S., Kear, K., Parsons, S., Davis, S., & Williams, B. (2008). Teachers’ instructional

adaptations during literacy instruction. In Y. Kim, V. J. Risko, D. L. Compton, D. K. Dickinson, M. K.

Hundley, R. T. Jimenez, K. M. Leander & D. Wells Rowe (Eds.), 57th Yearbook of the national

reading conference (pp. 160-171). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

Hayden and Chiu 19

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 20: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Failing the practicum: Narrowing the gap between expectations and reality with

reflective practice. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 193-201.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Giovannelli, M. (2003). Relationship between reflective disposition toward teaching and effective

teaching. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 293-309. doi:10.1080/00220670309597642

Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Edward Arnold.

Gooddell, J. E. (2006). Using critical incident reflections: A self-study as a mathematics teacher educator.

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 221-248. doi:10.1007/s10857-006-9001-0

Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J.

Dunlosky, A. C. Graesser & A. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154-172). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Hammerness, K. (2006). Seeing through teachers’ eyes: Professional ideals and classroom practices. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., &

Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling, -Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),

Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358-389).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Haverback, H., & Parault, S. (2008). Pre-service reading teacher efficacy and tutoring: A review.

Educational Psychology Review, 20, 237-255. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9077-4

Hayden, H. E., & Pasman, T. D. (December 2008). Developing reflective practice: Just a matter of time?

Presentation at annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, Florida.

Hayden, H. E., Rundell, T. D., & Smyntek-Gworek, S. (2013). Adaptive expertise: A view from the top

and the ascent. Teaching Education. doi: 10.1080/10476210.2012.724054

Hole, S., & McEntee, G. H. (1999). Reflection is at the heart of practice. Educational Leadership, 56, 34-37.

Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sanchez-Meca, J., Marin-Martinez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity

in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 11, 193-206.

Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher

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

Kennedy, P. (2008). Guide to econometrics (6th ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kinsella, E. A. (2007). Embodied reflection and the epistemology of reflective practice. Journal of

Philosophy of Education, 41, 395-409.

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of

teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-17. doi:10.2307/1176444

Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional

growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11, 47-71. doi:10.1080/1354060042000337093

Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Investigating preservice teachers’ professional growth in self-regulated

learning environments. Journal of Education Psychology, 101, 161-175. doi:10.1037/a0013101

Lam, B. H. (2011). A reflective account of a pre-service teacher’s effort to implement a progressive

curriculum in field practice. Schools: Studies in Education, 8, 22-39.

Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning

about teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (2005). Breaking the didactic circle: A study on some aspects of the

promotion of student-directed learning by teachers and teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher

Education, 28, 1-22. doi:10.1080/02619760500039589

Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational

Review, 62, 447-474.

Macbeth, K. P. (2006). Diverse, unforeseen, and quaint difficulties: The sensible responses of novices

learning to follow instructions in academic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 41, 180-207.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect:

Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.

20 Journal of Mixed Methods Research XX(X)

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 21: Reflective Teaching via a Problem Exploration-Teaching Adaptations-Resolution Cycle: A Mixed Methods Study of Preservice Teachers' Reflective Notes

Miller, S. M. (2007). How literature discussion shapes thinking: ZPDs for teaching/learning habits of the

heart and mind. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational

theory in cultural context (pp. 289-316). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Milner, H. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity

studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 118-131. doi:10.1177/0022487109347670

Nilsson, P. (2009). From lesson plan to new comprehension: Exploring student teachers’ pedagogical

reasoning in learning about teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 239-258. doi:

10.1080/02619760802553048

Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2007). When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from

guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 957-969.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.005

Ostorga, A. N. (2006). Developing teachers who are reflective practitioners: A complex process. Issues in

Teacher Education, 15(2), 5-20.

Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research. Review of Educational

Research, 74, 525-556. doi:10.3102/00346543074004525

Pui-lan, K., Brown, W. P., Delamarter, S., Frank, T. E., Marshall, J. L., Menn, E., & Riggs, M. Y. (2005).

Taken with surprise: Critical incidents in teaching. Teaching Theology and Religion, 8, 35-46. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-9647.2005.00223.x

Reiman, A. J. (1999). The evolution of the social roletaking and guided reflection framework in teacher

education: Recent theory and quantitative synthesis of research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15,

597-612. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00016-5

Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J. (2008). A

critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 252-288.

doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Shepel, E. N. L. (1995). Teacher self-identification in culture from Vygotsky’s developmental perspective.

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26, 425-442. doi:10.1525/aeq.1995.26.4.05x1062v

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational

Review, 57, 1-22.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing

grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitiative

approaches (Applied social research methods series, Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2006, April). Validity issues in mixed methods research: Calling for an

integrative framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2008). Quality of inference in mixed methods research: Calling for an

integrative framework. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.) Advances in mixed methods research: Theory and

applications (pp. 101-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative

and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tillman, L. C. (2003). Mentoring, reflection, and reciprocal journaling. Theory Into Practice, 42, 226-233.

doi:10.1353/tip.2003.0038

Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgment. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. (2003). Los ninos se alfabetizan hablando (Children talk their way into literacy.) In J. R. Garcia

(Ed.), Ensenar a escribir sin prisas . . . pero con sentido (pp. 54-76). Seville, Spain: Publicaciaones del

M.C.E.P.

Hayden and Chiu 21

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 18, 2014mmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from