Upload
m-m
View
223
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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