This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 11:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Teaching Reflective Practice:Implementation in the Teacher-Education SettingJennifer L. Jones a & Karrie A. Jones ba Department of Mathematics , Niagara Universityb Department of Mathematics , Tapestry Charter SchoolPublished online: 03 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Jennifer L. Jones & Karrie A. Jones (2013) Teaching Reflective Practice:Implementation in the Teacher-Education Setting, The Teacher Educator, 48:1, 73-85, DOI:10.1080/08878730.2012.740153

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.740153

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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

The Teacher Educator, 48:73–85, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0887-8730 print/1938-8101 online

DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2012.740153

PROMISING PRACTICE

TEACHING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE: IMPLEMENTATION IN THE

TEACHER-EDUCATION SETTING

JENNIFER L. JONES

Department of Mathematics, Niagara University

KARRIE A. JONES

Department of Mathematics, Tapestry Charter School

Over the past several decades a growing amount of research has considered the role, challenges, and

complexities of teaching reflective inquiry to preservice teachers. Generally accepted as a valuable com-ponent of a teacher education program, there are persistent levels of ambiguity regarding how reflective

inquiry can be intentionally fostered during initial stages of teacher preparation. This qualitative

research study seeks to provide one exemplar of this promising practice by exploring the instructionalapproaches used to promote reflective inquiry in preservice teachers by a veteran teacher educator from

Niagara University, NY. Using participant observer research protocols, data were collected and analyzed

according to qualitative research methodologies (Spradley, 1980). Grounded in the theories of Dewey(1935) and Schön (1983), this study examines how the teacher educator studied created opportunities

for preservice teachers to develop their reflective inquiry skills in a Methods of Secondary Education

course. Advice for other teacher educators and implications for the greater teacher education communitywill be discussed.

Over the past several decades, increased emphasis has been placed on the role of reflectivepractice and reflective inquiry in the field of teacher education. Although generally valuedas a critical component to ‘‘thinking like a teacher’’ (Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1993; Zeich-ner & Liston, 1996), this seemingly convergent view is littered with ambiguities about howreflective thinking should be taught to preservice teachers. In their 2002 piece, Spauldingand Wilson found that many new educators are unable to transfer the reflective inquirystrategies they learned in teacher’s college to their actual teaching careers. Thus, thisstudy explored the specific instructional approaches that hold promise in fostering longterm reflective practice in novice teachers. Guided by the research question ‘‘How canteacher educators help preservice secondary teachers improve their reflective thinking?,’’this qualitative research study explored the instructional approaches of a veteran teachereducator from a small private university in Western New York.

Jennifer L. Jones is now in the Special Education Department at Oracle Charter School in Buffalo, New

York.Address correspondence to Jennifer L. Jones, Special Education Coordinator, Oracle Charter School, 888

Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14209, USA. E-mail: Jljones_00@yahoo.com or jjones@oraclecharterschool.org

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

74 J. L. Jones and K. A. Jones

Theoretical Framework

Before one can promote reflective practice, one must first consider the basic operationaldefinitions inherent in answering the questions What is reflection? and What is reflectivepractice? Among the most valuable and most accepted definitions of reflection is the oneset forth over 70 years ago by John Dewey. In his 1933 piece How We Think, Deweyconceptualized reflection as more than simply the recall of past events but the ‘‘active,persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in thelight of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends’’ (Dewey,1933, p. 9). Dewey posited that for reflection to be a valuable, transferable experience itmust meet four criteria:

1. It must enable the learner to make connections between ideas, abstract relationships,and other experiences and ideas.

2. It must be systematic and intentional.3. It must be a social activity, completed through interaction with others.4. It must be viewed as a means of personal growth and continued improvement.

To Dewey, reflective thought is not equivalent to casually ‘‘thinking things over,’’ but it isa systematic, disciplined, and rigorous way of thinking. To him, the process of reflectiveinquiry is analogous to the process of scientific inquiry in that it has precise steps. Thesesteps include observation and analysis of an experience, generation of hypothesis andtheories, gathering data, and drawing conclusions. Dewey wrote that though thinking is alargely ‘‘natural process,’’ the process of reflective thinking must be taught and practicedto be meaningfully applied.

Apart from teaching and practicing the steps of reflection, Dewey also believed thatpersonal attitudes and dispositions played a notable role in reflective inquiry. As writtenin both How We Think (1933) and Democracy and Education (1919), Dewey asserted thatreflection is dually a cognitive act and ‘‘a set of attitudes.’’ According to Dewey, theseattitudes include, but are not limited to (a) empathy, (b) open-mindedness, (c) curiosity,(d) self-awareness, (e) intercultural communication skills, (f) patience, (g) ability to takerisks/act/experiment, and (h) active seeking of feedback and alternative perspectives. InDewey’s conceptualization, individuals who do not have these competencies must learnthem before meaningful reflection can take place.

Although Dewey’s work has shaped our understanding of the reflective thought,perhaps equally noteworthy is the work of Donald Schön. Building on Dewey’s work,Schön (1983, 1987) developed and published a theory of professional learning built onthe assumption that professional practice is complex, unpredictable, and often challenging.Schön claimed that much of the information professionals use to guide their practice ismisguided, espoused theory, rather than evidence based best practice. To remedy thissituation, he set forth a model to make reflection an explicit part of professional growthand development. This theory states that the practitioners must recognize that not allactions lead to learning, but those who are informed by reflection will experience cognitivegrowth.

In the Schön model of reflective practice, reflection has two distinct components:reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. The first, reflection-in-action is the process of‘‘thinking on your feet’’ and is the reflection that takes place as an event is transpiring. Ashe wrote in his 1983 book The Reflective Practitioner, during the process of reflection-in-action,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Reflective Practice 75

The practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situationwhich he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on theprior understandings, which have been implicit in his behavior. He carries out an experimentwhich serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in thesituation. (Schön, 1983, p. 68)

Thus, this first type of reflection seeks to move professionals from ‘‘trial and error’’ topurposeful and reasoned on-the-spot decision making.

The second type of reflection is reflection-on-action. According to Schön (1983, p. 26),during reflection-on-action, ‘‘we reflect on action, thinking back on what we have donein order to discover how our knowing-in-action may have contributed to an unexpectedoutcome.’’ This type of reflection takes place after an event has transpired and is theprocess by which a professional spends time exploring why he/she acted the way he/shedid and what happened as a result of a specific decision and action.

For professionals, Schön’s work brought to the forefront the realization that learningfrom practice must be a systematic and intentional process. His notion that reflectiveinquiry must be thoughtfully employed as a model of professional growth brought to lightthe realization that expertise is the result of deliberate, purposeful reflection. As a result ofSchön’s research, reflection has been recognized as a key component of teacher education.

Literature Review: Teaching Reflective Practice

Although there is a rich body of published works that have explored the questions ‘‘Whatis reflection?’’ and ‘‘What is reflective practice?,’’ there is also an impressive history ofpublications on teaching reflective practice. Of the existing works on this topic, one of thefirst of its kind was an edited book of seven teacher education programs that claimed toexplicitly teach their preservice teachers to be reflective educators (Valli, 1992). Theseprograms shared several major features including (a) the use of techniques, such asmicroteaching, journaling and self-evaluation, (b) attempts to build in opportunities toreflect on practicum experiences, and (c) a concern for the development of preserviceteachers’ personal style and philosophy of teaching including ethical dimensions. Valli’swork was among the first to highlight the complexities of the teaching of reflection andthe distinctive ways in which education programs attempted to address the issue. It alsobrought to light many of the challenges teacher education programs face when teachingreflective practice. These include concerns about teaching (and assessing) the dispositionsrelated to reflection, and practical issues such as the time consumed in planning andimplementing reflection initiatives at a program level.

Since 1992, similar studies have documented the successes and challenges of teachingreflective practice. Though there exists a wide array of approaches to foster reflection,their utility and overall effectiveness differs. According to Hatton and Smith (1995) theseapproaches fall into four gross categories:

1. Action research projects (Knight, Wiseman, & Cooner, 2000; Mitchell, Reilly, & Logue,2009; Wong, 2011)

2. Case studies of students, teachers, classrooms, and schools (Barnett, 1991; Carter, 1993;Moreno & Valdez, 2007)

3. Microteaching (Benton-Kupper, 2001; Fernandez, 2010; Fernandez & Robinson, 2007;Iverson, Lewis, & Talbot, 2008)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

76 J. L. Jones and K. A. Jones

4. Structured curriculum tasks (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Smith 1991)

Although each of these strands of research has contributed meaningfully to an under-standing of the role of reflection in teacher education, the focus on this article is a morespecific look at the pedagogy of teaching reflection within the classroom setting. This studyexamined the steps individual teacher educators can take to foster the reflective thinkingof preservice secondary teachers. Unlike the published studies that relate the successes ofspecific, stand alone interventions, this study was holistic and focused on the pedagogicalapproaches during eight weeks of classroom observation.

Method

Participants

The setting for this study was a course on Methods of Secondary Education at a small, privateUniversity in Western New York. Students in this course were seeking initial teachercertification in grades 5–12 or 7–12 in the disciplines of business, English, Spanish, andsocial studies. Although other content certifications are offered at this university, none ofthe students enrolled in the specific section of this course were seeking certification inthose concentrations. This course met once a week for 2 hours and 50 minutes for 16weeks. This course is required in the secondary education sequence and is typically takenduring students’ senior year, the semester before student teaching.

In the specific class in which this field study was completed, there were 14 students,four males and 10 females. All of the students were undergraduates and 13 of 14 wouldbe student teaching the next semester. Five of 14 were studying to become social studiesteachers, five English, three foreign languages, and one business. The class was largelyCaucasian with one Asian-American student.

Their teacher, Dr. V, was a 27-year faculty member who had been teaching since1971. He had previous experience teaching social studies at the high school level beforetransitioning to this university. This professor has won various teaching awards (includingan Excellence in Teaching Award and the New York State Association of Teacher Edu-cators Applebee Award for Excellence in Teacher Education). His areas of research arecooperative learning and social-emotional learning. Dr. V teaches three sections of Methodsof Secondary Education each semester.

This site was selected due to my (the first author’s) working relationship with Dr. V.We have been co-teachers during various semesters at this institution since 2008 and havepublished together on issues relating to teacher education, mathematics education, andinstructional best practices. Dr. V was told that the purpose of this study was to investigatehow teacher educators teach reflective practice.

My primary role was that of a participant observer. In this role, I systematicallyand intentionally recorded notes about the experience while concurrently adding (whenappropriate) to classroom discussions and activities. In congruence with the situationGlesne (1999) described, as this research study developed I became more and more ofa participant and less of an observer. This was because some of the texts the studentsused in class are pieces I co-wrote with Dr. V, and therefore at various appropriate timesI would be asked to respond to student inquiries, facilitate an activity, or elaborate on apoint mentioned. As Glesne (1999) stated, as a participant observer, ‘‘you risk losing the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Reflective Practice 77

eye of the uninvolved observer; yet the more you participate the greater your opportunityto learn’’ (p. 396). Given the nature of the research goals, I felt participation observationwas an appropriate role.

Data Collection

Data were collected in the form of teacher and student interviews and five classroomobservations. Following the process described by Glesne (1999) and Creswell (1998), hand-written field notes were recorded during the experience and then re-written within severalhours after to ensure that sufficient detail could be recalled and documented. During thisprocess, descriptive notes were combined with analytic notes to create a holistic accountof the events that transpired. Bogdan and Biklen (1992) maintained that this process (ofcombining objective and subjective notes) allows the researcher to begin preliminary dataanalysis and hypothesis generation. Observations were spaced one week apart.

To increase the validity of this piece, specific attention was place on triangulating datafrom multiple sources. Creswell and Miller (2000) stated that the process of triangulationincreases the reliability of qualitative research by forcing the researcher to ‘‘search forconvergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes orcategories in a study’’ (p. 126). In this piece, data were triangulated from a series of fiveclassroom observations, informal interviews with students, and weekly meetings with theprofessor. Before each observation, Dr. V and I also met and informally discussed thegoals and content of the lesson. It was during this time that I received a copy of all ofthe classroom materials students would be using that day. These methods were collectivelyused to look for meaning in the data.

Data Analysis

The data were explored using the process of analytic induction proposed by Lincoln andGuba (1985). Inductive analysis is an attempt to understand the reality of a situation bycreating comprehensive, logical theories and classifications from a body of evidence. Ratherthan using a deductive approach that relies on previously established theories to be tested,using an inductive process allows for modifications of concepts and relationships to evolvethroughout the process of doing research. Through the inductive method, the researchercreates categories that help explain the phenomena being studied and those categoriesbecome guiding research theories (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This was an appropriateapproach given my research question because I was interested in exploring the instructionalmethods Dr. V used to foster reflective practice in his classroom of preservice teachers.Rather than enter the field site with a pre-established lens, the analytic induction enabledme to take a systematic generative approach to gathering and analyzing the collected data.

In their 1981 article ‘‘Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction’’Goetz and LeCompte outlined six steps to analytic induction in qualitative research. Theauthors stated that this list was based on their review of the previous research on processingand interpreting qualitative data. This process begins with the scanning of data collectedin field notes to identify categories and attributes, followed by additional scanning of thedata for other examples of categories, then creating typologies for categories.

I followed these steps from the very beginning of my data collection process, at-tempting to identify categories and attributes as the field notes were being transcribed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

78 J. L. Jones and K. A. Jones

and interviews were being conducted. This recursive process of data collection and dataanalysis helped me consistently narrow my focus during observations and attend to the mostimportant pieces of dialogue and student-teacher interaction. As Miles and Huberman(1994) stated, while there are many different approaches of generating hypothesis fromqualitative data, at its core is the fundamental notion that it must be an interactive andrecursive process.

Once all of the data were gathered I created a typology of four means by which Dr. Vencouraged reflection in his students. These preliminary classifications were (a) publicmodeling of the reflective process, (b) specific strategies to foster reflection in secondary students,(c) reflection though writing, and (d) embedded reflection in classroom activities. For each cate-gory, I gathered examples of the category in action based on the field notes I created.Although this was a fruitful endeavor, when considering the interview data I realized thatthese categories did not encapsulate the complexity of Dr. V’s decision-making process oraccount for the generalizable, transferable relationships that existed among the examplesin each category. Thus I shifted my focus to Spradley’s (1980) domain analysis to explorethe relationships that existed among the examples I classified. In this way, Spradley (1980)stated that the researcher is better able to extrapolate the semantic relationships thatexist between examples. Using Spradley’s framework for semantic domains (1979, p. 111),I created a theory for fostering reflective practice in the teacher education classroom,based on the properties that were common to each example in my original categoriza-tion. From this analysis, three broader, more encompassing categories were created. Theywere:

1. Generate solutions to a problem.2. Critique solutions/provide feedback on solutions.3. Test an emerging hypothesis.

By reorganizing the initial examples I had drawn from the data, as well as revisiting andreinterpreting the events described in my field notes in light of the properties of eachcategory, I worked to ensure that the categories I had created were representative of thepedagogy Dr. V used in his classroom.

Results

The purpose of this research study was to examine the promising practice of teachingreflective inquiry and reflective thinking to preservice teachers. Using Spradley’s (1980)domain analysis, a three-part theory was developed.

Generate Solutions to a Problem

According to Dewey (1933), creating multiple, plausible, and thoughtful solutions to aproblem is among the pillars of the ‘‘complete act of thought.’’ Although often cognitivelychallenging, generating solutions to a problem is a necessary part of creating, testing andultimately accepting an emerging hypothesis. From the standpoint of fostering studentreflection, having students generate possible solutions to authentic, classroom-based prob-lems fosters the ‘‘recognition, examination, and rumination over the implications of one’sbeliefs, experiences, attitudes, knowledge, and values as well as the opportunities and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Reflective Practice 79

constraints provided by the social conditions in which the teacher works’’ (Zeichner &Liston, 1996, p. 20).

In Dr. V’s classroom generating possible solutions to a given problem was an inte-grated and extensive component of the curriculum, which often took the form of smallgroup work or whole class discussions. In this teacher education classroom, generatingsolutions to a given problem took two distinct forms: (a) opportunities to generate solutionsto logical ‘‘classroom community’’ decisions or (b) extended, curriculum-based problem-solving sessions about the content of effective teaching and learning.

The first type, the more informal of the two, often took the form of a ‘‘communitymeeting’’ where students generated solutions to authentic issues related to their classroomcommunity. These meetings were often informal, brainstorming sessions, led by Dr. V, tonegotiate a classroom policy or work through an unexpected classroom challenge. Oneexample of this took place during week 4 of the course when a university scheduledconvocation was held during the second hour of their 3-hour class. Acting as facilitator,Dr. V led the students through an exercise to generate solutions to the question ‘‘Whatshould we do about opening convocation?’’ He asked the students to propose solutionsand to scrutinize the consequences of each possible decision. Apart from setting classroompolicy, this community meeting also acted as a ‘‘teachable moment’’ because it modeleda strategy for dealing with the same sorts of decisions these students will need to make aspracticing teachers. By fostering a discussion that was dually focused on effective teachingand the consequences of the decision-making process, students were able to practice theintrapersonal techniques of reframing. They also practiced their skills of reflective listeningand respectful problem solving ( Jay & Johnson, 2002).

Apart from the ‘‘community meetings,’’ students also practiced their reflective inquiryskills by participating in activities that asked them to generate solutions that were tiedto instructional/teaching-based problems. In one such learning experience, during weekeight of the course, students were given the case study of Alex Bailey, a fictitious 8th-gradesocial studies teacher who was teaching her students about the causes of the Civil War.Students were told there were 262 problems with the lesson as it was written. They wereasked to work collaboratively in their base groups to (a) identify as many problems withthe teaching scenario as they could and (b) propose as many solutions to the problemsas they could generate. Munby and Russell (1990) called such ’’puzzles of practice’’ acritical component of reflective teacher education because they force preservice teachersto generate, propose and critique solutions to real life issues. Schön (1983) added to thisrationale by stating, ’’professional practice has at least as much to do with finding theproblem as with solving the problem found’’ (p. 18). Thus, by asking students to identifyconcerns and then generate solutions within the context of classroom vignettes, studentspractice the reflective inquiry skills that they will need to use as practicing teachers.

Critique Solutions/Provide Feedback on Solutions

While generating solutions to a given problem proved to be a worthy forum for teachingreflective practice, so too was the second platform that emerged after the eight weeks ofdata collection—critiquing provided solutions to a problem. Unlike the first component ofthe typology that required student to analyze a problem and generate possible solutions,in this model students were provided with possible solution to a problem and asked tocritique them. According to Arlin (1975), this process of making judgments is the most

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

80 J. L. Jones and K. A. Jones

significant characteristic of adult development beyond the acquisition of formal operationsin adolescence. Thus, by asking pre-teachers to evaluate a teaching decision, students wereable to practice and receive feedback on the act of critical reflection.

In Dr. V’s class this component of reflection was scaffolded using a graphic organizercalled the t-bar. This two column chart helped to organize students’ thoughts as theygenerated advantages and disadvantages to a given teaching scenario or decision. In onesuch instance, students considered three teachers who were each starting a lesson on thecauses of World War II. The problem presented to students was, How should teachers startclass? and the possible solutions were presented in vignette form through the lessons ofthree teachers. In the first possible solution, Teacher 1 started class by asking a student,‘‘Can you tell us the three causes of WWII?’’ Teacher 2 asked students to ‘‘take a fewseconds to think’’ and said that he would be ‘‘randomly drawing names to share one causeof WWII that they learned yesterday.’’ Teacher 3 asked students to write down the causesthey could remember and share their lists with a partner before sharing with the wholegroup.

Dr. V prefaced the activity by stressing that, while these are fictitious teachers, theyare representative of the multitude of ways that teachers can start a lesson. To begin thereflective process, the students were placed in teams of three and asked to discuss bothstrengths and weakness of each approach using the t-bar format. By considering not onlypossible solutions to a problem, but the consequences of a teacher’s decision, studentswere encouraged to provide evidence to support their critiques. Jay and Johnson (2002)stated that asking preservice teachers to critique possible solutions allows them to considerthe deeper meaning of what is happening in a classroom situation. It also brings to lightthe moral and political dimensions of schooling and how various alternatives align withtheir own moral and ethical considerations of teaching.

Test an Emerging Hypothesis

In his text, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Schön (1987) called ‘‘reflective practicum’’one of the most powerful and effective tools for learning the artistry of any professionalcraft. He stated that reflective practicum is a process by which novices test their developinghypothesis about the profession in an environment ‘‘relatively free of the pressures, distrac-tions, and risks of the real [world]’’ (Schön, 1987, p. 37). Furthermore, through ‘‘reflectivepracticum’’ students are enriched not only by the experience of having performed theprofessional craft in an authentic setting, but are privy to the ‘‘dialogue of reciprocalreflection-in-action between the coach and students’’ (p. 303). In Dr. V’s teacher educationclassroom, this process of ‘‘reflective practicum’’ was actualized through a series of threemicroteaching events held on weeks 8, 10, and 12 of the semester.

The first of students’ three microteachings was used as a forum to introduce prospec-tive teachers to the notion of teaching a concept that is within their discipline, but outsidethe realm of the typical grades 5–12 curriculum. Coined the ‘‘famous person’’ lesson, thismicroteaching was focused on teaching a student-selected famous person from their field.Students were responsible for creating a lesson plan, teaching it to a small group of 3 or 4of their peers and reflecting on the process using a set of reflection prompts. It is importantto note that in this class students did not simply describe their lesson plan or how theywould teach the lesson, but were expected to actually teach the lesson, as they would ina secondary classroom. Famous people taught in these lessons ranged from Steve Jobs to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Reflective Practice 81

Marie Antoinette, and were selected based on on students’ personal interest and teachingconcentration. As the students worked, Dr. V circulated the room, providing students withboth written and verbal feedback on their work. This feedback was not evaluative but ratherconversational, enticing students to provide rationales and justification for their teachingdecisions. After teaching, students also completed a written reflection of the experience,answering questions such as:

� Which of your students was the hardest to reach? How did you make the lesson workfor them?

� What is one thing you would do differently next time?� What went really well in today’s lesson?

As Schön (1987) suggested, this process is effective at promoting reflective inquiry becauseit allows students to ‘‘resolve any incongruities between instructors’ intentions and students’understanding’’ (p. 161) in a meaningful and authentic way.

Discussion

This qualitative research study was designed to explore the pedagogical approaches thatteacher educators can use to foster reflective thought and promote reflective practice intheir students. Using the research methodologies of Goetz and LeCompte (1981) andSpradley (1980), the practice of teaching reflection was explored though the practices ofDr. V in his Methods of Secondary Education classroom. Two implications of this researchare: (a) there is promise in teaching reflective practice as an embedded, component ofthe teacher education curriculum, not as a stand alone activity or supplemental task and(b) the dispositions and components of critical reflection must be taught and scaffoldedfor preservice teachers.

Teaching Reflection as an Embedded Component of the Curriculum

In this qualitative research study, reflection was taught in three ways:

1. By creating opportunities for students to generate a solution to a problem.2. By creating opportunities for students to critique a solution/provide feedback on a

solution.3. By creating opportunities for students to test an emerging hypothesis.

One important implication of these findings is the realization that reflection should notbe an ‘‘add on’’ to the existing curriculum but an embedded, meaningful componentof instruction. According to Ryan and Scott (2008) one of the fastest growing areas ofinterest in the teacher education is in the area of technology. As such, it has been aforeground of promise in some area of teacher development and a detriment in others. Inthe case of reflection, there has been increased interest in using web-based tools as stand-alone reflective projects such as electronic portfolios, blog entries or other video-basedreflection experiences (Lee, 2010; Scott, 2010). However, as this research study suggested,there is also promise in capitalizing on the reflection opportunities present in everydayclassroom activities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

82 J. L. Jones and K. A. Jones

In Dr. V’s class, opportunities for reflection were entirely based on experiences thestudents had in class. Activities such as the ‘‘Alex Bailey’’ teaching scenario or the mi-croteaching sessions were only possible because students were able to meaningfully interactwith their peers and could get feedback from the teacher. This is supported by Dewey’s(1933) assertion that reflection must be a social activity, completed through interactionwith others. It is much more cumbersome to interact socially when using email (for exam-ple), as responses are delayed and feedback much more refined and edited than it is in aface-to-face interaction (Picciano, 2002). Thus, by completing reflections in class, studentshave the opportunity to interact with others as they practice the act of reflective inquiry.

Schön (1987) provided further support for this implication by citing that for theconceptual skills associated with reflection to be meaningful and transferable, they mustbe applied frequently and flexibly in various, authentic contexts. In the classroom wherestudents meet three or more hours a week, there are numerous opportunities for reflectionto occur. As previously mentioned, in Dr. V’s class opportunities for reflective inquiryarose both regarding classroom community decisions (those decisions that directly affectedlearners as Methods of Secondary Education students) and curriculum driven scenarios. Bysending reflection experiences home, teacher educators risk reducing the number of novel,authentic contexts where reflection skills can be rehearsed, thus limiting students’ practiceof reflection skills.

Scaffolding the Dispositions and Components of Critical Reflection

According to Bullough and Gitlin (1995) there is a widely held myth that reflection is simply‘‘just thinking hard about what you do.’’ From a teaching perspective, adoption of this mythstands to result in the assumption that adult students know how to reflect on their behavior,thoughts and feelings and that they are able to modify their decision making appropriately.As supported by the theoretical framework of Schön (1987), however, all professionals(even adults) need direct instruction and opportunities to practice the complex skill ofreflection.

In Dr. V’s class, this process was scaffolded by modifying both the nature and com-plexity of the reflection tasks assigned to fit students’ skill levels. In the beginning ofthe semester, reflection tasks were very tightly scaffolded through ‘‘community meetings’’and by making and reflecting on decisions that were concrete and locally based. Thecommunity meeting regarding opening convocation was an example of this, as the decisionwas immediately relevant, meaningful to all the students, and had only a limited number ofplausible solutions. More complex tasks, such as reflecting on an entire teaching scenarioor the students’ actual microteaching experiences were saved until the latter half of thesemester when sufficient feedback and modeling of the reflective process had occurred.

Apart from simply teaching the process of critical reflection, it should be noted thatDr. V spent a great deal of time modeling, explicitly discussing and providing students’feedback on the dispositional components of reflection. One example of this was whenstudents were asked to critique the instruction decisions made by Teachers 1, 2, and 3.Apart from simply considering factual information, students were encouraged to considerthe scenarios from the students’ point of view and critique the provided solutions byempathizing with a student in each of the teachers’ class. According to Dewey (1933),dispositions like empathy are essential for reflective practice and therefore deliberate,sustained attention must be paid to improve reflective inquiry skills.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Reflective Practice 83

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study that are worthy of consideration. First, it isimportant to note my role as researcher in this study. I have worked extensively with Dr. Vin the past and have helped write and provide input into many of the articles and activitiesused in this course. My entry into this site was facilitated by the fact that we have co-taughtthis class since 2008 and so I could dually be of help to the students while conducting myresearch. Thus, my role often vacillated between researcher and co-teacher. While this didnot detract from my ability to complete this study, it is a component of the data collectionand interpretation process that should be noted.

Additionally, this qualitative study was completed in a single Methods of SecondaryEducation classroom over a time period of 8 weeks. Although I believe the research findingssuggested in this piece are representative of the pedagogical approaches used by Dr. V theentire semester, only data from 8 of the 16 weeks were considered. Furthermore, this fieldstudy was conducted in only one of the three sections of this course. Thus, the insightsoffered here might not be an exhaustive list of the strategies Dr. V used, but rather thosestrategies this professor deemed most appropriate to use with this classroom of students.

Conclusions

In this qualitative research study, the practices of a veteran teacher education professorwere considered over the course of an 8-week case study. Using participant observerresearch protocols, data were collected using field notes, teacher and student interviewsto address the research question, ‘‘How can teacher educators help preservice secondaryteachers improve their reflective thinking?’’ Using the qualitative research methodologiesof Goetz and LeCompte (1981) and Spradley (1980), the data suggested that reflectioncan be effectively taught through scaffolding opportunities for students to (a) generatesolutions to a given problem, (b) critique solutions to a given problem, and (c) test theiremerging hypotheses in novel contexts.

To teacher educators, these results imply that reflection must be an embedded,intentionally infused component of the curriculum, involving both interaction with peersand feedback from the teacher. It can be assumed that students do not innately knowhow to reflect and thus the teacher educator must play a key role in developing the skillsof reflective thought in students. Though developing reflective practice is a complex andpotentially convoluted process, it is a means by which continued and limitless professionalgrowth can occur. Thus upon graduation and for the remainder of a student’s professionalcareer, the skills of reflective practice are those an educator can rely on to continue theprocess of professional improvement.

References

Arlin, P. K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: A fifth stage. Developmental Psychology, 11(1),602–606.

Barnett, C. (1991). Building a case-based curriculum to enhance the pedagogical content knowledgeof mathematics teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 263–272.

Benton-Kupper, J. (2001). The microteaching experience: Student perspectives. Education, 121(1),830–835.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

84 J. L. Jones and K. A. Jones

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for exploring self

and school context. New York, NY: Garland Press.Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational

Researcher, 22(1), 18–23.Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice,

39(3), 124–131.Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Educa-

tion, 57(3), 300–314.Dewey, J. (1919). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY:

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

Boston, MA: DC Heath.Fernandez, M. L. (2010). Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through microteach-

ing lesson study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 351–362.Fernandez, M. L., & Robinson, M. (2007). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on microteaching lesson

study. Education, 127(2), 203–215.Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12(1), 51–70.Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995) Reflection in teacher education—Towards definition and implemen-

tation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.Iverson, H. L., Lewis, M. A., & Talbot, R. M. (2008). Building a framework for determining authen-

ticity of instructional tasks within teacher education programs. Teaching and Teacher Education,

24(2), 290–302.Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2002) Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher

education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85.Knight, S. L., Wiseman, D. L., & Cooner, D. (2000). Using collaborative teacher research to determine

the impact of professional development school activities on elementary students’ math and writingoutcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 26–38.

Lee, O. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ reflection through interactive online journal writing.Physical Educator, 67(3), 128–139.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Mitchell, S. N., Reilly, R. C., & Logue, M. E. (2009). Benefits of collaborative action research for the

beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher, 25(2), 344–349.Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar

in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1),194–206.

Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1990). Metaphor in the study of teachers’ professional knowledge. Theoryinto Practice, 29(2), 116–121.

Noordhoff, K., & Kleinfeld, J. (1993). Preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 9(1), 27–39.Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance

in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.Ryan, J., & Scott, A. (2008). Integrating technology into teacher education: How online discussion

can be used to develop informed and critical literacy teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,

24(6), 1635–1644.Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Reflective Practice 85

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Scott, S. G. (2010). Enhancing reflection skills through learning portfolios: An empirical test. Journal

of Management Education, 34(3), 430–457.Smith, D. (1991). Educating the reflective practitioner in curriculum. Curriculum, 12(1), 115–124.Spaulding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that

encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1393–1421.Spradley, J. A. (1979). The ethno-graphic interview. New York, NY: Rhinehart & Winston.Spradley, J. A. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Valli, L. (Ed.). (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Wong, M. W. Y. (2011). Adapted action research as an instructional strategy in a music teacher

education programme in Hong Kong. Music Education Research, 13(1), 107–120.Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

08 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014