Download pdf - Using Reflective Practice to Link Personal and Public Theories

This article was downloaded by: [The University Of Melbourne Libraries]On: 29 September 2013, At: 10:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Using Reflective Practice to LinkPersonal and Public TheoriesMorwenna Griffiths a & Sarah Tann ba School of Education, University of Nottingham, UniversityPark, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdomb School of Education, Oxford Polytechnic, Wheatley,Oxfordshire OX9 1HX, United KingdomPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Morwenna Griffiths & Sarah Tann (1992) Using Reflective Practice to LinkPersonal and Public Theories, Journal of Education for Teaching: International research andpedagogy, 18:1, 69-84

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260747920180107

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 whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out 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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260747920180107

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1992 69

Using Reflective Practice to LinkPersonal and Public TheoriesMORWENNA GRIFFITHSSchool of Education, University of Nottingham, University Park, NottinghamNG7 2RD, United Kingdom

SARAH TANNSchool of Education, Oxford Polytechnic, Wheatley, Oxfordshire OX9 1HX,United Kingdom

ABSTRACT Ways of improving the efficacy of present methods of relating theory and practicein the education of teachers are considered. It is argued that: (1) insufficient attention has beenpaid to the methods of uncovering personal theories; (2) personal theories are often expressed inimages and metaphors; and (3) the interlocking of personal and public theory can usefully beunderstood as the interaction of different levels of reflection. Five levels of reflection areidentified and are then used to argue, further, that: (4) different language is appropriate todifferent levels of reflection; and (5) each practitioner should be able to work at each level.

1. THEORY IN TEACHER EDUCATION AND REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Criticisms that teacher education is too theoretical have appeared in a steady flow inrecent years, both in the United Kingdom and in much of the rest of the Englishspeaking world, for instance, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. As Education(15 February 1991) pointed out, "The new Secretary of State [in Britain] and hisjunior ministers believe they have detected the source of most of the strange andsilly ideas in education—in the colleges of education... [They believe] traineeteachers could learn on the job under the tutelage of mentors without the risk ofinfection by dotty ideas and fancy theories" (p. 128). On 18 March 1991 theIndependent reported: "The Prime Minister believes that too much time is spent byteachers on Bachelor of Education courses studying the theory without putting theexperience into practice". In the USA the Holmes group has come into beingprecisely to defend teacher education from equivalent views there (Devaney, 1990).

Much of this criticism is incoherent: teacher education is attacked because it isover-full of theory in contrast with the down-to-earth practice and sound commonsense of teachers. For instance, in the Guardian (19 March 1991), O'Hear argued:

Who better to induct a newcomer into teaching: a theorist who believesthat, left to themselves in a sensitive and nourishing atmosphere, childrenwill naturally learn for themselves; or an experienced professional teacherwho realises the difficulties with so-called open approaches to learning?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13

70 M. Griffiths & S. Tann

Yet it is the same set of critics who make pronouncements that the 'barmy' theoriesof teachers (about reading methods, for instance, or, in the case of O'Hear,antiracism), need to be thrown out and replaced by sound ones. For example, theEconomist (23 February 1991) comments approvingly that the "new curriculum willbring a little rigour into the soppy world of sand pits and colouring books. For toolong, over-indulgent teachers have churned out children for whom reading is achallenge and writing a mystery".

There is nothing wrong with sound common sense—it is, after all, the stuff ofpersonal theories—but it can operate in 'barmy' ways if it is not rigorouslyexamined. The question raised is not, therefore, one of good common sense or badtheories. Rather, it should be how much rigour we apply to both our practice and thetheories which underpin it. It would seem that it is not theory itself that is beingchallenged, but the nature and 'soundness' of the espoused theory which is beingquestioned.

The force of the attacks depends on the assumption that there is a clear dividebetween 'theory' and 'practice'. In effect, policy-makers are reactivating an olddebate, on the relation between theoretical and practical reason. The question iscrucial to any practical enterprise, and has been debated down the centuries. Therehave been those who have argued that both theorising and practical action can carryon independently of the other. There have been others who reply that the mutualindependence of theory and practice is impossible to sustain since each dependscrucially on the other. Education is like any other practical enterprise in this respect.Mutual suspicion between those who think of themselves as theorists and those whothink of themselves as practitioners appears, dissolves, and reappears in a range ofother practices besides education: business management, nursing, town planning,architecture, and social policy are examples. For instance Woodcock (1991) com-ments:

The argument over whether the courses offered at such academic institu-tions [business schools] are too theoretical and irrelevant to companies andthe business of managing at work shows no sign of abating. 'Goodmanagers are made at work not in business schools and the only forum formanagement learning is the organisation in which they work', says Dr IanCunningham.

A radical answer to the question of the theory/practice distinction has becomepopular recently. Writers such as Carr (1986), Carr & Kemmis (1986) and Schon(1983, 1987), and Elliott (1987, 1989) (also see Dearden, 1984, for a discussion ofthe position) argue that all action is an expression of theory (albeit, highly personaland implicit theory). It is an argument which owes much to Dewey on the one hand,and to the recent tradition of critical theory on the other, and it also draws on thework of Aristotle on practical reason (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Griffiths, 1987;Ashcroft & Griffiths, 1989).

This paper argues that the assumed divide between theory and practice is false.We consider that the gap between theory and practice is better construed as amismatch between the observer's theory and the practitioner's own theory. Or to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Reflective Practice 71

put it another way, what we still tend to label as 'theory' and 'practice' are moreaccurately seen as 'public' and 'personal' theories. Such a view has importantconsequences. Our argument is that we should value practitioners' personal theoriesand encourage them to make explicit their tacit theory to help them theorise fromtheir practice, at a number of different levels of reflection. We argue that this can befacilitated through a variety of media (e.g. plain words, video, metaphor). Personaltheories need to be revealed (at different levels) so that they can be scrutinised,challenged, compared to public theories, and then confirmed or reconstructed.'Personal' and 'public' theories need to be viewed as living, intertwining tendrils ofknowledge which grow from and feed into practice.

Such a perspective on theory has profound implications for teacher education.The view that all practice is an expression of personal theory underpins theapproach often referred to as 'the reflective teacher' or 'the reflective practitioner'model (e.g. see Zeichner et al., 1987, p. 22; McCutcheon & Jung, 1990, p. 144). (Itshould be noted that the word 'reflective' is over-used in teacher education, and nowsometimes simply means 'thinking' and sometimes has one of range of technicalmeanings.) Central to the spirit of reflective practice is reflection on the personaland professional concerns of the individual student teacher. The reflective practi-tioner reflects on his or her own practice. The theories which are used are taken onwholeheartedly, and criticised open-mindedly.

We ourselves are committed to reflective practice as a way of working in allsectors of education, including schools and teacher education. We have spent 5 yearsas part of a team developing teacher education courses—both in-service and pre-service—based on a model of the 'reflective practitioner' (Isaac & Ashcroft, 1986;Ashcroft, 1987; Pollard & Tann, 1987; Ashcroft & Tann, 1988; Griffiths & Tann,1991). Theories which we presented to the students, or which they discovered forthemselves through library research, were to be tested against their own experienceand assessed against their own professional values. In other words, they wereexpected to build and refine their personal theories of action.

We were in no doubt that our courses were a substantial improvement on moretraditional ones (Griffiths, 1985; Catling, 1990). However, the suspicion grew thatthe improvement might be less 'reflective' than we had hoped. Certainly, methodsused in the courses appeared to be so. Action research methods were built into theSchool Experience of the students, and into the assessment of serving teachersstudying for Diplomas or Masters' qualifications. Students kept journals. The tutorsmonitored the way they supervised students on school experience. Large files ofobservational data, accompanied by analysis and copious commentaries, were gener-ated both by the students and by the tutors. The doubt was whether these piles ofdocuments constituted 'reflection', or whether the new rhetoric we used was in factunrelated to the improvements we had witnessed.

These doubts led to our looking for evidence about whether our students wereeither building or refining their own personal theories. The results were notreassuring. For example, an exercise was given to pre-service students as part of thecourse in which they were required to work together on a cross-curriculum topic inschool, 1 day a week for 5 weeks. They were asked to evaluate their sessions, and to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


explain not only what they chose to do, and whether it was done, but also why theychose to do it. Overwhelmingly, evaluations were in terms of whether children hadenjoyed the session, co-operated, could accomplish the activity and if it 'went well'.Even when they were asked to focus on the assumptions and theories behind theseevaluations they found it next to impossible to examine, for instance, the signifi-cance of 'enjoyment' or 'accomplishment' in theories of motivation or learning.Further, 'went well' seemed to encode a dual notion of the children's happiness, andteacher's control. Apparently quite hidden from the students were the theoreticaldilemmas such a duality presents to the child-centredness most of the studentsapparently avow. The pre-service students were not alone in finding it difficult towork on their own personal theories. The action research carried out by experiencedteachers on various courses demonstrated the same concern with practical detailsand smoothly running classrooms, and the same difficulty in noticing how educa-tional theory impinged on their day-to-day practice as teachers. Moreover, it onlyrarely called basic professional values into question, or raised questions of hiddenassumptions behind ways of working (Griffiths & Tann, 1991).

Such findings are similar to those which Goodman (1984) found in her analysisof seminars which were intended to encourage students to reflect upon theirpractice. In fact discussions focused on 'what worked' and how to handle specificproblems which had arisen. The criteria of what worked were never articulated orchallenged, nor was the 'problem' ever questioned as to why a student found itproblematic. Further, this approach is confirmed by Fuller & Brown (in Zeichner &Teitelbaum, 1982), who report that students were primarily survival or self-orientated and hence were very instrumental in their level of concerns.

We have said that reflection relies on an ability to uncover one's own personaltheories and make them explicit. Yet there are serious doubts about the extent towhich this is happening in the courses as they are presently taught.

The following sections discuss alternative media through which practitionerscan be encouraged to reflect upon their practice, and different levels of reflection atwhich practitioners can be supported in their theorising.

2. PERSONAL THEORIES AND REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

The model of reflective practice is underpinned by the argument that professionaldevelopment requires reflection on personal theories, as we have said. Yet thedifficulties attendant on discovering personal theories are rarely given more thanscant attention.

The lack of attention given to the uncovering of personal theories contrastswith the relatively large quantities of notice given to the various elements ofreflective methodology, the journal writing or of the action-research cycle. There isplenty of advice and academic discussion on the elements of observation, analysis,evaluation and planning. This is the stuff of 'research methods' and the reflectivepractitioner movement (quite properly) makes use of the extensive literature onthem.

It is the initial focus of all this activity which is left relatively unexamined.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Most of the texts on action research and reflective practice contain implicit(sometimes explicit) messages about suitable topics for reflection. It is probable thatsuch topics would only coincide with any particular teacher's own personal theoriesby good luck. Yet reflection on one's own practice (theories) is precisely whatdistinguishes the reflective practitioner model. It appears to us that there is plentyof careful, useful activity taking place. The action research cycle goes roundsmoothly and elegantly. However, unless sufficient attention is paid to the hub of allthis activity, the cycle can become a mere hoop without a hub, careering along,giving enjoyment and excitement, and often going a long way before keeling over.However, for carrying loads, or to get anywhere, a hub is essential. In the rest of thissection we review suggestions about how practitioners can begin their engagementwith a reflective cycle.

The literature of action research suggests three focuses for engagement, whichare often associated with different forms of response, using different media anddifferent types of cognitive demands. The most common form of response teachersare invited to consider is: 'what is happening in this situation?' They may makeinterpretations of a situation, without systematic evidence which, if questioned,might be discussed in the plain words of everyday conversations. The use of 'plainwords' for considering events, alone or with others, seems an appropriate way offocusing on practical problems. Indeed, Kemmis & McTaggart (1982) underline theneed for teachers to engage in problem identification and Pollard & Tann (1987)offer many specific examples of such identification and ways in which these mightbe discussed and followed up. Handal & Lauvas (1987) appear to advocate thismethod exclusively, while hoping that teachers will describe 'what is happening' interms of theories and values as well as in terms of practical events (though whatevidence they offer suggests that teachers do not fulfil such hopes). However, theuse of 'plain words' can be doubly problematic: there is an assumption that suchplain words are commonly understood because they are shared, and a furtherassumption that thoughts and feelings can adequately and easily be expressed inplain words.

A second form of response relates to teachers focusing on 'where is myevidence and how do I know?' In the bustle of classroom activity it is often hard forteachers to monitor their own actions. Various methods can be used to 'give apicture' of what happened. The use of video or photography has been proposed forsuch purposes. For instance, Whitehead (1988) makes the suggestion that ifpractitioners can see themselves in action they are more likely to perceive anymismatches—or 'living contradictions'—between what the practitioners would liketo be doing and what in fact they are doing. Such evidence of 'living contradictions'can provide an opportunity for the practitioners to have the time to look over andreflect upon what they did as well as why they were doing it, which can lead them toprobe how they came to have that goal. By such means it can be possible to leadparticipants into articulating and examining their personal theories and to avoid theexclusive attention on immediate technical problems relating to classroom practice.

However, there is no reason to believe that personal theories will be uncoveredsimply by viewing videos, any more than they are by reflections in plain words.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Without an awareness of the need to probe personal theories, students' reflectionswill remain constrained by the 'what works' test. When students on our courses haveused videos they have only looked for contradictions between their conception oftheir own theories and their perception of their own practice, assuming a 'means-end' approach. The focus rarely extended to contradictions within their owntheories, because their theories were never challenged or compared to those of otherpeople (public theories)—hence, their own 'ends' were never challenged. Moreoverthe method will not call into question any personal theories which are sincerelyexpressed in everyday actions. Yet it often just these personal theories that need re-examination. A teacher who sincerely holds class-prejudiced or sexist assumptionsand attitudes will remain unchallenged by evidence of those beliefs and attitudes.

The third form of response focuses on exploring 'what do you mean, and whatmakes you think the evidence,is worth looking at?' This attempt to focus onmeanings and how we convey them is a focus on our own language and the meta-language we use to discuss meanings. It turns attention to our construction,representation and communication of meanings and thus to a close examination ofour personal theories and how we share them. The work here is diverse—in spite ofbeing sparse. While advocates of plain words or of evidence (observational 'mir-rors') hope that these issues will be a focus of attention, the most illuminating andconvincing work here is concerned with metaphors, or, more generally, with images.We have used it to help us think further about methods which could lead moredirectly to the underlying theories which constrain the actions of teachers. Indeed,much of the work on metaphors and images is explicitly described as work withpersonal theories.

Metaphor was used by Fox (1983) in staff development work with lecturers inhigher education. Fox enabled participants in "new lecturer courses" to generateimages by asking them what they meant by 'teaching'. He then compared the imageswith those generated by the students. He found, for instance, that lecturers weremuch more likely than students to perceive teaching as travelling (like showingstrangers round a well-known and well-loved part of the world), while studentswere more likely to have a transfer model. This result is confirmed by Best &Abbott (1988), who found student teachers were frustrated by the propensity (asthey saw it) of their lecturers to 'hide the food' or knowledge, rather than feed themdirectly. Once these images were made explicit, both lecturers and students couldreflect on them, working on their images where they were unhelpful.

Munby & Russell (1990) and Tobin (1990) have explored the use of metaphorby teachers in schools. In both cases the researchers worked with individualteachers. These teachers discussed aspects of their teaching with a researcher, whoreflected back to them their use of metaphor. For instance, Tobin found that oneteacher, Gary, conceptualised his management role as being an intimidator, unlike,for instance, Sarah, who used the metaphor "teacher as comedian", or Peter, whoused "captain of a ship". The teachers were then encouraged to reflect on themetaphors they used, with a view to improving their practice.

In a project similar to those just described, Marshall (1990b) explains howmetaphors and metaphorical language can be used with student teachers to increase

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


reflection. Students were encouraged to describe their teaching roles in metaphoricalterms, and then to generate alternatives for roles they found problematic. In anotherstudy Marshall (1990a) considers metaphors as public rather than personal theory.Instead of focusing on metaphors peculiar to individual teachers or students, sheconsiders a metaphor often used in public discourse (classroom as work place) andthe role it plays in shaping teachers' and researchers' practice.

The studies described above demonstrate that the notion of image, as it relatesto metaphors [1], can be a powerful way into the expressions of meanings and theorganising ideas which underpin our way of thinking about teaching and learning.This idea may be strange to the English speaking world: it is usual in the Anglo-American tradition to express theory in as plain words as possible. It is notsurprising, then, that it is necessary to turn to continental Europe to find anacknowledgement of the power and value of other forms of discourse. Heideggerexplores the notion that much can be said in allusive, expressive, poetic languagethat cannot be said in any other form, in the poems, dialogue and essays collected inPoetry, Language, Thought (1971) and in Discourse on Thinking (1966). In thelatter, it is instructive to compare the 'plain words' of the first part, the 'MemorialAddress' with the allusive second part, 'Conversation on a Country Path aboutThinking'. The one does simply repeat the argument of the other. Both parts areneeded to explain and understand the ideas and reflections of the work as a whole.The books are written in this way because of Heidegger's view that the attempt touse only plain words impoverishes thinking and spoils practice. For instance, heargues in 'Building Dwelling Thinking' (1971) that to use words like 'building','dwelling' and 'thinking' as if they did not trail allusion, images and history opensthe way to making the mistake of thinking that buildings are simply structures thatwe can put up, giving no thought to the importance to human life of havingsomewhere to dwell. Milan Kundera (1988) also argues for the importance of the'counterpoint' of different genres within a single piece of writing in order to conveydifferent aspects of meaning.

It is unfortunate that theorisers confine themselves to just one form ofdiscourse, rather than use the richness of everyday language. The images andallusions that surround key words of a practice are essential to the thinking andunderstanding which will inform future actions. Therefore, focusing on metaphorand 'image' can be a valuable indicator to the personal theories which guide ourpractices.

Noticing our own metaphors and images is arduous. It is difficult to hear themin our own speech and even to detect them in someone else's descriptions andexplanations, perhaps because using image and metaphors is such an everyday partof our speech, perhaps because the Anglo-Saxon tradition accords them so littleimportance. It is possible to pay attention to our own metaphors, but it requires alot of time and an unusual degree of application. The trio of books written byMarion Milner, an educational researcher and psychologist, describe a life-time'sefforts to discover a (changing) set of personal theories (Milner, 1934,1937,1987).Although it would be unlikely that many people would want to follow her exampledirectly, the methods she uses are an indication of the importance of paying

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


attention to image and metaphor. In the first of the books, A Life of One's Own, shetried to use plain words (in much the same way as teachers are encouraged to do inthe first form of response (p. 6)). She moved on to collecting evidence, through thestraightforward use of a (reflective) journal, in a way reminiscent of the secondform (p. 6) but came to the conclusion that "the ordinary everyday perception ofthings which serves us pretty well when going about daily practical affairs is not theonly kind of perceiving that the mind can do" (p. 110). Finally she turned tovarious ways of catching her own free associations of image and word (through theobjects and notes she collects), and to the use of fantasy to uncover further imageswhich she could use in her reflections on her values.

Milner's experiments can be extended to methods of helping teachers andstudents reflect, but the process is eased if a tutor, colleague or friend can help thepractitioner tune into his or her own speech habits. In our experience, students andteachers when first encouraged to listen out for metaphors, find it difficult even tospot them, and even more difficult to sort, categorise and analyse them. Even withthe help of a 'critical friend', many find it hard them to make the connectionbetween the images and the practical implications in classroom action (Griffiths &Tann, 1991).

In this section we have said that 'plain words' and 'mirrors' may be useful inuncovering personal theories, but it should not be assumed that they do so. Indeed itis likely that action research which uses them will seldom touch personal theories,because the questions and responses invite technical, even instrumental responses.We have been impressed with the possibilities of metaphor and imagery forexpressing personal theories, though there are the following problems with it. It isdifficult to notice one's own imagery at all; then to label and find words for it; and,finally, to grasp its significance.

3. LEVELS OF REFLECTION: SPIRALLING BETWEEN PERSONAL ANDPUBLIC THEORIES

In this section we go on to consider the implications of the links between personaltheories and reflective practice explained in section 1, and the difficulties ofuncovering personal theories, explained in section 2.

The framework we are using is based on the view that the divide usuallylabelled as theory and practice, is, in effect, a divide between personal and publictheories. We remarked on this in Section 1, and now further remark that theanalyses and discussions of the various authors described in the last section allsupport this point, either explicitly or implicitly. They have made the point using anumber of terminologies: personal theories are sometimes known as 'theory-in-action' (Schon) or as 'metaphors' (Munby & Russell); the comparison with publictheories results in 'living contradictions' (Whitehead) or in 'critical reflection' (Carr& Kemmis). Underlying each of these explanatory frameworks is the commonargument that any intelligent action (whether 'reflective' or not (Dewey, 1933)) is aninstance of a number of judgments about values, aims, commitments, as well asabout the nature of knowledge, and how to understand what is going on in a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


particular situation (Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Pollard & Tann, 1987). The practiceof any teacher is the result of some theory or other, whether acknowledged or not.

Since both personal and public theories are categories of theory, it might behoped that it would be easy to compare the two, once they are both expressedexplicitly. However, this would be over-optimistic. The comparison remains adifficult one. The difficulty is partly one of translation: the two kinds of theory aremost easily expressed in different languages. It is also one of scope: personaltheories are focused on the small-scale and particular, and public ones on the large-scale and universal.

In order to do clarify the issues raised here, we have developed a theory ofinterlocking and interacting levels of reflection. We have observed that differentwell-known theories of action research concern themselves with different possiblelevels of reflection, but most work on action research concentrates on one level ofreflection to the exclusion of others. Indeed, numerous books on action researchdisplay this graphically by representing the cycle of action research as a simpleprogression through action, observation, evaluation and planning, which then be-comes a spiral over time. Sometimes this happens because only one level isrecognised at all. In other cases, the existence of more than one level is recognised,but only one is considered significant or valuable.

Van Manen (in Zeichner & Teitelbaum, 1982) distinguished three levels ofreflection, each one higher than the last and superseding it. The first is concernedwith technical application, the second with the underlying assumptions of action,and the worth of competing educational goals, and the third and final one, 'criticalreflectivity', with moral and ethical issues related to the social, political andeconomic conditions of educational practice. In his later work, Van Manen (1990)retains this view. He complains that "action research too easily slips from thought-ful reflection on experience into a rationality of problem thinking and problemsolving" (p. 155). The kind of reflectivity he advocates is one in which "to reflect(critically-interpretively) is not just retroactively making pedagogical sense ofexperience" (p. 156). The levels distinguished by Van Manen are similar to thosedistinguished by those, like Mezirow (1981) and Carr & Kemmis (1986), who workwith categories derived from Habermas. Habermas suggests three primary cognitiveinterests: the technical (concerned with instrumental action), the practical (con-cerned with the clarification of conditions for communication and intersubjectivity),and the emancipatory (concerned with moral, social and political reality and itsimplications for self-knowledge). For Mezirow, Carr and Kemmis the emancipatoryis more significant and valuable and supersedes the other levels. The role of "criticalconversation"—including the understanding and use of public theories—is crucialfor Carr & Kemmis (1986). Zeichner emphasises the need for student teachers totake note of published theory as well as to direct their own learning (Zeichner,1986).

Other theories emphasise other levels. For instance, reflection during action isthe main concern of Schon's work (1983, 1987). Those contributors to Lomax(1990) who are teachers practising in schools, are not concerned, in the main, tocompare their findings to public theories, but are using evidence and observation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


along with discussion with colleagues to bring about change in their schools andclassrooms. Handal & Lauvas (1987) write from within a different academictradition. They talk of purposes rather than levels: counselling for independence, as'discourse', as confrontation or prop, as critique.

Our theory of different levels differs from the theories described above in thatnot only does it recognise different levels (and purposes) but also asserts that all ofthem are both necessary and important to the reflective action researcher atdifferent stages in his or her professional life. We are closer to Dewey (1933) thanthe other writers who have been mentioned. In Chapter 6, he uses examples todemonstrate what he means by 'reflective thinking'. He chooses one case ofreflection at the time of action, another of reflection after the action, and a thirdwhich combines the two, and which also makes use of public theory.

Three possible levels were suggested in Griffiths (1990). In this article weexpand them to five. The suggestion is that the cycles of action, observation,analysis, evaluation and planning take place at many different levels of speed andconsciousness, all of which are valuable and necessary to reflective practice.

We identify them as follows, using examples taken from classrooms:

(a) Reflection-in-action: likely to be personal and private.1. Act-react (Rapid reaction).At this level, reaction is immediate. For instance, if a child is behaving well, ateacher may 'automatically' give praise, while another equally 'automatically'will not. Again, if a child asks for a spelling, the teaching action is immediateand routine, but not all teachers have same immediate and automatic reaction.

2. React-monitor-react/rework-plan-act (Repair).At this level, although there is pause for thought, it is 'on the spot', and veryquick. An untrained observer will miss it. For instance, a teacher may see thechildren have an unexpected reaction to a piece of work and adjust the lessonplan, even abandon i t . . . Or a child may show an unexpected interest in a pieceof work, so the teacher will make the decision to allow her to pursue it ratherthan carry on with normal work.

(b) Reflection-on-action: likely to be interpersonal and collegial.3. Act-observe-analyse and evaluate-plan-act (Review).At this level, thought and reflection are going on after the actions arecompleted. The previous two levels are both 'reflection-in-action', but fromhere the levels are all 'reflection-on-action'. This may happen at any timeduring a normal working day—in break time, going home in the car, at the endof the day or the end of the week.

The teacher will muse over or talk about the progress of a particulargroup, or a particular child. This may be as a result of memory or of markingwork. As a result existing plans for teaching and learning may be modified. Ateacher may reassess how a child is to be managed, or think again about grouprelations in the class.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


4. Act-observe systematically-analyse rigorously-evaluate-plan-act (Research).At this level, observation becomes systematic and sharply focused. The processof collecting information, analysing it and evaluating it may be a matter ofweeks or months. Tick sheets, video or a diary may be used to collectinformation, on a particular issue. The teacher will then reflect carefully on thereasons for the way the issue has arisen in the way it has, and also on theinformation collecting itself: its validity and reliability.

5. Act-observe systematically-analyse rigorously-evaluate-retheorise-plan-act(Retheorising and reformulating).This is the level of abstract, rigorous reflection, which is formulated andreformulated, over a matter of months or years. In the process the teachers'own theories will become changed, and it is possible that accepted theories willbe challenged. This level cannot occur unless the teacher is reading theorycritically.

The last (two) levels, in particular, lend themselves to engaging with publictheory. This is often encouraged through the wider support of courses and networks(and what Elliott refers to as the 'conversational communities' of researchers) whichform a public arena for discourse, debate and dissemination.

The framework is useful in expanding on the issues of personal theories and thelanguage of theories (personal and public) which we raised at the start of thesection. Some of the difficulties observed in reflective practice are the result ofpresent inadequate single level concepts of action research. Understanding in termsof a single level means that much action-research remains at a superficial level—inthat personal theories are not challenged. The kind of superficiality will vary withthe particular level. Superficiality is most easily seen, perhaps, in the middling levelsof repair and review and research. Remaining at these levels means that attention islikely to remain focused on technical problems, as has been pointed out above, inquotations by Van Manen and in our descriptions of student teachers in section 1.However, remaining at the level of academic theory is just as likely to lead tosuperficiality, though it is likely to be dressed up into apparent depth. Equally,remaining at the level of reflection-in-action will probably lead to more and morepolished reactions, but without the perspective afforded by review, research orretheorising. This last has been testified over and again by the many experiencedteachers who have begun researching their own practice, and found that no matterhow skilful they are, their practice (personal theory) changes when they begin towork at other levels too.

There can be no doubt that superficial action research is better than none.Everyone has to start somewhere, and no-one can start everywhere. It is beingargued that all of the levels are an essential part of reflective practice. At any onetime the focus may be on one or another of them, but it is vital that each reflectivepractitioner should follow all of them at some time. No doubt individuals will findsome levels easier than others. Moreover, calling one's own everyday behaviour intoquestion can be a painful business. It is much easier to focus on the more external

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


features of classrooms and schools. To add to the difficulty, the levels must affecteach other. It is this interaction that makes reflecting along the innermost level(reaction) and the outermost level (retheorisation) so difficult. The former, reac-tion, appears so common and familiar that it is hard even to see it, let aloneexplicitly call it into question so that it may interact with other levels, while thelatter, retheorisation, may seem abstract and arcane. Putting the two together isharder still. Yet, of course, abstract theories are quite likely to raise questions aboutthe individual's own day-to-day practice, and vice versa.

It is easy to see why schoolteachers tend to start with the review and researchlevels and then stay there, while teachers in higher education cling to the level ofretheorisation. It is also easy to see that either of these levels make a good place tobegin and a bad place to stop. If all the levels are brought into play, the personaltheory stands more chance of being brought into question, since the accepted theoryof one level may well clash with the accepted theory of another.

When we presented an earlier version of this paper at the Kingston PolytechnicConference on Staff Development, we were challenged by a teacher who said that hehad no reason to read theory since the problems he was dealing with were unique tohis classroom. At the review and research levels he may well be right. However hecan do no more than tinker with the problems if he stays on these levels. Hispersonal theory will remain unexamined: his basic assumptions about his role as ateacher, his expectations of pupils, the nature of what he teaches, the principlesunderpinning how he teaches are all likely to stay unchallenged and unchanged. Yet,the young men and women in his secondary school classroom are affected by all thegeneral educational issues to be found in any sector of education, be they equality ofopportunity, learning theories, or ultimate aims of education.

To recognise the crucial way one's own personal theory affects one's ownpractice is a critical prerequisite for any attempt one might make to change one'spractice. For, to examine the consistency of one's theories with one's own practice,the coherence and adequacy of that theory are vital and essential parts of reflectivepractice, if it is to lead to refining, reframing and change. Such an examination canfruitfully be stimulated and extended by comparing and critically analysing one'sown personal theory against a range of public theories, which challenge andencourage retheorising.

4. QUESTIONS OF LANGUAGE

We are now in a position to return to the question of language. The levels identifiedin the theory each come with a language which most easily expresses what is atissue. Indeed it is easy to see that much of the gap that opens between personal andpublic theories is one of different languages. For instance, we observed how ourstudents discuss their planning in task-orientated terms. They focus on actualactivities, like 'playground games', 'feely bags' or 'number work'. Asked for reasonsthey tend to use words like 'fun', 'interest', 'resources' and, occasionally, 'match' or'motivate'. An experienced teacher planning a term's work in school used a similarframework. She too focused on actual activities like 'medieval cookery', 'large castle

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


frieze' and 'visit to Warwick Castle', organising them in terms of 'concepts/ideas/content' but also in terms of curriculum areas and pervasive themes: 'art', 'stories','maths', 'multicultural', 'role of women'. These are ordinary everyday words, ratherthan the terms of academic theory, though a few technical terms have crept into thework of the students, and more into the work of the experienced teacher.

Academic language is different from the language of routine planning andevaluation. It is also different from the images and metaphors that experiencedteachers or managers unself-consciously produce when discussing and evaluating asituation at work. Like Tobin and Munby and Russell (mentioned in the lastsection), we have found that teacher-talk is a rich source of metaphor. LikeMarshall, we find that teachers, managers and researchers readily produce analogiesand images of their work place when encouraged to do so.

It should be no surprise that students and teachers experience problems anddissonance when trying to make the connections between academic theory, personaltheory and everyday planning and evaluation. Each level has its own language.'Review' levels of planning and immediate evaluation use the words of every daywhile 'research' and 'retheorisation' use academic terminology. One way of express-ing personal theories is through metaphor and analogy.

The implications of there being different languages appropriate to differentlevels, is that teachers need to be able to use more than one language and to be ableto translate from one to the other. This position means that we differ from bothLomax and from Carr about the language of action research. Carr (1989) arguesthat teachers need access to a language that can describe the practical art of teachingsince that art is 'tacit' knowledge. Lomax (1990), who disagrees strongly with thispoint of view, denies the need for any language save that created by teachersthemselves as the discourse of professional practice. In other words, Carr wants togive a language to teachers, while Lomax believes that teachers' language is enoughby itself: "What teachers need is a voice, a platform from which to speak, not accessto a form of discourse" (p. 9). The analysis in this paper shows them both to haveonly a partial view of the situation. Teachers have a language, admirably suited topractical action. Indeed, we have argued that they have more than one: theexpressive language well suited to expressing deeply held beliefs and values, and theplain words appropriate to everyday planning and evaluation. However, they alsoneed access to the academic rhetoric that Carr, rightly, perceives as powerful, andthey need, most difficult of all, a way of translating the discourses into each other,as is shown by the high proportion of teachers in higher education, familiar withthese different forms of discourse, but often unable to make connections betweenthem.

5. CONCLUSION

In this paper we have said that personal theory is too often left unaffected by theprocesses of action research and the clue to why this is so is in the levels at whichreflection should take place if it is to be most effective in changing personal practiceand public theory. We would argue that O'Hear is right if he wishes to acknowledge

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


the importance of 'common sense' and that common sense and personal theory needto be recognised for the powerful effect they may have influencing practice. But wewould also wish to argue that teachers need to reflect upon their personal theory andprevailing practice at each of the five levels of reflection. This would encouragethem to articulate their own theory, critically examine it, check for consistency,coherence and adequacy, compare it with alternative theories and reconceptualise itin order to increase the effectiveness of their own professional thinking.

We have also drawn attention to the difficulty of taking the first steps alongthis road: namely, finding a language in which to articulate our personal theories,and understanding the language of public theories, so that a critical investigation canbe begun. The riches of language are at the disposal of teacher-researchers: from theexpressive, allusive, poetic and 'metaphoric', through plain words of 'common sense'larded with a few technical terms, to the abstract terminology of public theories.These different forms of language are typically associated with 'practice' and'theory', which, we have argued, may be better understood as 'personal theory' and'public theory'. Indeed the whole paper could be read as plea for the recognition ofthe importance of public theories of education in the education of teachers, withoutlosing sight of the importance of personal theories embedded in practice. It couldalso be read as a plea for the recognition of the importance of time for sustainedreflection in the education of teachers, both at the stage of initial teacher educationand post-professionally.

NOTE

[1] Clandinin (1986, 1989) works with a much more general concept of 'image': the 'images' areconceptualised by the researcher and indicate general dispositions. Examples of 'image' for herincluded: "teaching as related to children", "language as a key", and "classroom as a home". Theterm is used alternatively by Morine-Dershimer (in Calderhead, 1988) as in having a "mentalimage" of "how a lesson will go". This is to use the term to indicate a 'video' approach topredicting and preplanning a lesson. Schrank & Abelson (in Calderhead, 1988) use 'image' to referto a "visual snapshot memory of an event", in order to review and evaluate an incident. Such useof the term 'image' appear to serve as processes by which reflection could be facilitated bycreating different kinds of visual 'mirrors', as in our second category above. Hence, although theterm is the same its use is very different to that which we wish to consider here.

REFERENCES

ARGYRIS, C. & SCHON, D. (1974) Theory into Practice (London, Croom Helm).ASHCROFT, K. (1987) The history of an innovation, Journal of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education, 12(1).ASHCROFT, K. & GRIFFITHS, M. (1989) Reflective teachers and reflective tutors: school experience in

an initial teacher education course, Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(1), pp. 35-52.ASHCROFT, K. & TANN, S. (1988) Beyond building better checklists: staff development in a school

experience programme, Journal of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 13, pp. 61-72.BEST, R. & ABBOTT, F. (1988) Information-handling skills in initial teacher education, Working Paper 1

(Essex Institute of Higher Education).CALDERHEAD, J. (Ed.) (1988) Teachers' Professional Learning (London, Falmer Press).CARR, W. (1986) Theories of theory and practice, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 20(2), pp.

177-189.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


CARR, W. (1989) Quality in Teaching (London, Falmer Press).CARR, W. & KEMMIS, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research (London,

Falmer Press).CATLING, SIMON (1990) The Applied Education Field in Oxford Polytechnic: the validation document

(Oxford, Oxford Polytechnic).CLANDININ, D. (1986) Classroom Practice: teacher images in action (London, Falmer Press).CLANDININ, D. (1989) Developing rhythm in teaching: the narrative study of a beginning teacher's

personal practical knowledge of classrooms, Curriculum Inquiry, 19(2), pp. 121-141.DEARDEN, R. (1984) Theory and Practice in Education (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).DEVANEY, KATHLEEN (1990) Theory into practice: the education core, Theory into Practice, 29(1), pp.

6-12.DEWEY, JOHN (1933) How We Think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative

process (London, Heath).Economist (1991) A classroom revolution?, 23 February.Education (1991) Teacher training: two supper parties ponder over the port, 15 February.ELLIOTT, J. (1987) Educational theory, practical philosophy and action research, British Journal of

Educational Studies, 35(2), pp. 149-169.ELLIOTT, J. (1989) Educational theory and the professional learning of teachers, Cambridge Journal of

Education, 19(1), pp. 81-101.Fox, D. (1983) Personal theories of teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), pp. 151-163.GOODMAN, J. (1984) Reflection on teacher education, Interchange, 15(3), pp. 9-26.GRIFFITHS, M. (1985) An Evaluation of School Experience (Oxford, Oxford Polytechnic).GRIFFITHS, M. (1987) The teaching of skills and the skills of teaching, Journal of Philosophy of

Education, 21(2), pp. 203-214.GRIFFITHS, M. (1990) Action research: grassroots practice or management tool?, in: P. LOMAX (Ed.)

Managing Staff Development in Schools: an action research approach (Clevedon, MultilingualMatters).

GRIFFITHS, M. & TANN, S. (1991) Ripples in the reflection, in: P. LOMAX (Ed.) Managing BetterSchools and Colleges: an action research approach (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).

HANDAL, GUNNAR & LAUVAS, PER (1987) Promoting Reflective Teaching: supervision in action (MiltonKeynes, Open University Press).

HEIDEGGER, MARTIN (1966) Discourse on Thinking, trans. J. M. ANDERSON & E. HANS FREUND(London, Harper & Row).

HEIDEGGER, MARTIN (1971) Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. A. HOFSTADTER (London, Harper &Row).

Independent (1991) Teaching courses to be cut: Tories plan to curb 'theory' and put trainees into theclassroom sooner, 18 March.

ISAAC, J. & ASHCROFT, K. (1986) Enquiring teachers: a B.Ed. Honours programme, in: DevelopingEnquiry-based courses: further concerns (Cambridge, Cambridge Institute of Education).

KEMMIS, S. & MCTAGGART, R. (1982) The Action Research Planner (Deakin, Deakin University).KUNDERA, MILAN (1988) The Art of the Novel (London, Faber & Faber).LOMAX, P. (1990) An action research approach to developing staff in schools, in: P. LOMAX (Ed.)

Managing Staff Development in Schools: an action research approach (Clevedon, MultilingualMatters).

MARSHALL, HERMINE (1990a) Beyond the workplace metaphor: the classroom as a learning setting,Theory into Practice, 29(2), pp. 94-101.

MARSHALL, HERMINE (1990b) Metaphor as an instructional tool in encouraging student teacherreflection, Theory into Practice, 29(2), pp. 128-132.

MCCUTCHEON, G. & JUNG, B. (1990) Alternative perspectives on action research, Theory into Practice,29(3), pp. 144-151.

MEZIROW, JACK (1981) A critical theory of adult learning and education, Adult Education, 32(1),pp. 3-24.

MILNER, M. (FIELD, J.) (1934, 1986) A Life of One's Own (London, Virago).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


MILNER, M. (FIELD, J.) (1937, 1986) An Experiment in Leisure (London, Virago).MILNER, M. (1987) Eternity's Sunrise: a way of keeping a diary (London, Virago).MUNBY, H. & RUSSELL, T. (1990) Metaphor in the study of teachers' professional knowledge, Theory

into Practice, 29(2), pp. 116-121.O'HEAR, A. (1991) Getting the teachers we deserve, Guardian, 19 March.POLLARD, A. & TANN, S. (1987) Reflective Teaching in the Primary School: a handbook in the

classroom (London, Cassell).SCHON, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner (London, Temple Smith).SCHON, D. (1987) Education the Reflective Practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning

in the professions (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).TOBIN, K. (1990) Changing metaphors and beliefs: a master switch for teaching? Theory into Practice,

29(2), pp. 121-127.VAN MANEN, M. (1990) Beyond assumptions: shifting the limits of action research, Theory into

Practice, 30(3), pp. 152-157.WHITEHEAD, J. (1988) Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind 'How do I

improve my practice?', Cambridge Journal of Education.WOODCOCK, CLIVE (1991) Bridging the gap between academia and industry, Guardian, 11 February.ZEICHNER, K.M. (1986) Content and contexts: neglected elements in studies of student teaching as an

occasion for learning to teach, Journal of Education for Teaching, 12(1), pp. 5-24.ZEICHNER, K.M. & TEITELBAUM, K. (1982) Personalised and inquiry-oriented teacher education,

Journal of Education for Teaching, 8(2), pp. 95-117.ZEICHNER, K.M., TABACHNICK, R. & DENSMORE, K. (1987) Individual, institutional and cultural

influences on the development of teachers' craft knowledge, in: J. CALDERHEAD (Ed.) ExploringTeachers' Thinking (London, Cassell).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

0:27

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13