promoting teacher reflection: what is said to be done

This article was downloaded by: [Fordham University]On: 13 October 2013, At: 03:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 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

Promoting teacher reflection: what issaid to be doneJuanjo Mena Marcos a , Emilio Sanchez a & Harm H. Tillema ba University of Salamanca , Spainb Department of Education , Leiden University , The NetherlandsPublished online: 20 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Juanjo Mena Marcos , Emilio Sanchez & Harm H. Tillema (2011) Promotingteacher reflection: what is said to be done, Journal of Education for Teaching: Internationalresearch and pedagogy, 37:1, 21-36

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2011.538269

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 whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising 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 &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2011.538269

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

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

Journal of Education for TeachingVol. 37, No. 1, February 2011, 21–36

ISSN 0260-7476 print/ISSN 1360-0540 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02607476.2011.538269http://www.informaworld.com

Promoting teacher reflection: what is said to be done

Juanjo Mena Marcosa, Emilio Sancheza and Harm H. Tillemab*

aUniversity of Salamanca, Spain; bDepartment of Education, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Taylor and FrancisCJET_A_538269.sgm(Received 16 March 2010; final version received 28 May 2010)10.1080/02607476.2011.538269Journal of Education for Teaching0260-7476 (print)/1360-0540 (online)Original Article2011Taylor & Francis371000000February [email protected]

The present article’s aim is to evaluate studies that promote teacher reflection.Through programmes of professional development, teachers are being encouragedto improve their reflective practice. This paper explores the grounding of what isadvocated as reflective teaching and looks at possible differences between what isevidenced in research and what is promoted in practice. For this purpose, thecontent of a collection of texts published in teacher journals was analysed. Thetexts disseminated reflections on action to teachers. An analytical framework wasused to evaluate the professional development proposals for teachers’ reflectivepractice. The findings indicated there was a lack of agreement about how toconduct reflection, as well as a wide variety of types of reflection. Many proposalslacked empirical and theoretical support. A strong trend was noted towardsprescription, despite the fact that little justification was provided for the advice.This led us to conclude that teachers are provided with only limited informationon how to improve their reflective practice, which may hamper its use.

Keywords: teacher reflection; grounded theory; teacher research; professionaldevelopment

Introduction

The notion of teacher reflection has been accepted widely and promoted in teachingpractice (see Edwards, Gilroy, and Hartley 2002; Mena Marcos and Tillema 2006).The practice of reflection is said to scaffold critical thinking (Korthagen 2004),provide a source of knowledge construction in teaching (Conway 2001), and promoteself-regulation in teachers (Singh 2008; Boud 2007). Reflection is rooted in the under-standing that teachers recognise teaching as a process that lies open to scrutiny anddeliberation (Van Manen 1995; Schön 1983; Elliot 2001), which permits change inexisting practices (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988). For these reasons, reflection hasbecome a key strategy in many professional development programmes (Clarke 2006;Crocco, Faitfull, and Schwarz 2004; Carrington and Saggers 2008); a number ofguidelines and proposed models have been formulated to improve this teacher meta-cognitive ability (Whipp 2003). The ultimate goal of promoting reflective practices inteachers (Van Manen 1995) is to enable teachers to ‘reconstruct local knowledgewhile working in the context of research communities’ (Cochran-Smith and Lytle1993, 68), to become cognisant of their own problems, and remain less dependent onoutside (external) expert knowledge (Cousin 2002). Internalising this meta-cognitivetool empowers teachers to face the ‘continual interplay between research and practicewithin the practical setting’ (Loughran 2007).

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3

22 J.M. Marcos et al.

What would occur if those persuasive but also complex notions had been simpli-fied? Early critical voices of the concept of reflection (Gilroy 1993) warned againstoverextending the notion beyond its meaning and possibilities. Its widespread adop-tion in teachers’ professional development has led to a diversity of intentions andpromises. For instance, by omitting the difficulties associated with this process (Adler1991), or by skipping over embedded assumptions underlying its usage (Newman1996), or ignoring the implications for practical knowledge construction, reflection asa concept and tool has been taken beyond its limits. This has caused it to lose clarity(Edwards, Gilroy, and Hartley 2002) and to promise more than it can deliver (Kane,Sandretto, and Heath 2002).

The inherent danger of this lack of clarity in embedded assumptions is that teachersare drawn into an apparent consensus about the prospects and feasibility of reflectionand believe that reflection can help them improve their teaching (Newman 1996; MenaMarcos, Sanchez, and Tillema 2009). It is, therefore, in the interest of teachers as wellas teacher educators (Mansvelder 2006) to be cautious about defining reflection inprogrammes of teacher education and interpreting it as a tool to support a wider notionof professional development. Scrutinising what is told to teachers about reflection andexplicating its (potential) usage can lend clarity to the promotion of reflection to teach-ers and safeguard its genuine opportunities for teaching practice (i.e., not overextendingits use beyond its meaning – Kugelmass 2000). In the present study we have analysedwhat is conveyed to teachers about reflection in professional development journals thatact as forums to communicate central notions on reflection for teaching practice.

Reflection: what is said

Reflection has been essentially conceived as a cyclical and recursive process that atleast includes:

(1) problem-solving (Dewey 1910; Lewin 1946; Robertson 2008; Wetzstein andHacker 2004), which

(2) coincides with awareness-raising (Schön 1983; Dewey 1910; Stenhouse1985), in order to

(3) construct professional knowledge (Zeichner and Liston 1996; GarmannJohnsen and Normann 2004; Elliot 1991).

Aside from these core conceptions, advocates have linked reflection to many otheraspects of behaviour, but the concept has become increasingly complex (Adler 1991;Hatton and Smith 1995). Reflection models promoted through professional develop-ment programmes have added significantly to the original concept (Dewey 1910;Elliot 2001), especially with regard to:

(1) Teacher attributes attached to the use of reflection.(2) Training processes involved in its adoption.(3) Modes of applying reflection (i.e., limitations in conditions and settings).

For instance, with respect to the first point, above, it is argued that the propagationof a distinctive teacher identity is inherent in using reflection (Korthagen et al. 2001).It is stated as well that a reflective practitioner needs to:

(1) be an expert in a specific domain (Smith 2005);(2) build on experiential knowledge (Beijaard, Meijer, and Verloop 2004);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3

Journal of Education for Teaching 23

(3) be critical (McLellan 2004); and(4) work collaboratively (Orland 2001).

With regard to the second point, above, it has been claimed that training in reflec-tion needs to be based on action research procedures, such as observation and analysisof classroom situations (Samaras 2002), and on mentor guidance that allows teachersto examine critically their practical knowledge (Crasborn et al. 2008). Nevertheless,research has also disclosed some warnings when accomplishing critical reflection: itrequires extended time and effort since there is not only action but re-description ofpractice (Elliot 1991; Borko and Putnam 1996); it is not just a training technique, butrequires personal involvement in practice. It may also become self-limited (Schön1983) in the absence of wider principles or theories to support its findings.

Promoting reflection

Precisely because of its wide adoption and the many additions to the concept of reflec-tion, there is a need to determine how well substantiated the concept is by its promot-ers (Braun and Crumpler 2004; Baker El-Dib 2007), and whether programmes thatdisseminate reflection provide a clear conceptual framework to guide teacher action(Birmingham 2004; Clark 2001). The nature and extent of explication and empiricalsupport given to a particular reflective model will determine whether the modelprovides a solid ground for reflective practice (Dillenbourg 1999; Clark and Schaefer1989). A grounded or ‘deliberate’ reflective practice (Mamede and Schmidt 2004)rests on the guarantee that what is being offered to teachers can and will support howwell they deal with reflection in their practice (Allwood, Nivre, and Ahlsén 1991;Mitscherling, Ditommaso, and Naved 2004). Promoting reflection, therefore, buildson the convincing arguments that ground its distribution (Pea 1993; Moran 2007).

A meta-analysis of studies on teacher reflection (Mena Marcos and Tillema 2006)has shown that key elements of reflection (above) are only rarely addressed in anexplicit way to teachers. Only a few studies conceptualise and analyse reflection as adeliberate problem-solving process. The majority of studies view reflection as aprocess of raising awareness (Ropo 2004) but fail to identify the practical content ofthe process or the knowledge gained for improving teaching practice. Most researchpapers on teacher reflection focus on identifying levels and types of reflection (e.g.,descriptive vs. critical awareness: Hatton and Smith 1995; Mezirow 1991; explicativevs. narrative arguments: Winitzky 1992; and relativistic vs. absolute thinking: Kingand Kirchener 1994; Baxter 2004) but only few such studies provide information onits applicability and implementation in the classroom. Furthermore, attention to thepreconditions for implementing reflection seems to be emphasised in many studies.

Against this background, and given the significance of clarifying the concept ofreflection in teachers’ professional development, the research described in this paperaims at scrutinising:

(1) What is being offered about reflection as relevant to teachers for improvingtheir reflective practice (i.e., the content of reflection).

(2) How is it supported (i.e., is it grounded in evidence, shared and built on validexperiences, or empirical findings that can justify what is it said to be done?).

(3) By what argumentative mode are teachers called upon to adopt reflection(i.e., how are they convinced to use it?).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Such an analysis has the overarching aim of helping to understand how reflectionis disseminated in teaching practice.

Method

Sample

In this study we conducted a discourse analysis of 122 articles that dealt with teacherreflection. These texts, generally between four and five pages long, were published intwo popular educational journals in Spain: Notes on Pedagogy (NP) and EducationalInnovation Journal (EIJ). The articles (in Spanish) were written by 168 authors whohad a research background in teacher education. Some of the articles were written bywell-known, international scholars (i.e., Schön, Elliot, Giroux, Apple, Stenhouse);others originated from Spanish teacher educators. The articles deliberately intendedto distribute specific notions on reflection to improve teacher practice. The majorityof articles shared ideas in a common language to teachers. The selected articles forour review covered a period of two decades (from 1985 to 2005). The bimonthly jour-nals we analysed have a print run of about 11,000 issues each, with an estimated audi-ence for both journals of nearly 375,000 readers (Wolters Kluwer Group sources),thereby attaining a high percentage of diffusion in the field. The inclusion criteria forreview of articles consisted of two elements: (a) whether the purpose of the accountwas to make reflection better known and accepted by teachers; and (b) whether theaccounts are meant to present a coherent proposal/experience about reflection toteachers.

Text coding and analysis

The first author in this study analysed the data (Mena Marcos 2007). Reliability checksin the coding of data were performed by two independent raters. The content of thearticles was analysed in four steps, which acted as successive filters to condense thetext information. The researchers did not use predefined categories in analysing a text,but used an inductive or ‘bottom up’ approach (Silverman 2001) comparable togrounded theory analysis (Corbin and Strauss 1990) in which categories emerge fromthe data (in the following way):

(1) Selection of information. Each article was divided into paragraphs as thecontext unit (Cohen, Mahion, and Morrison 2007). This allowed theresearcher to select text fragments that explicitly addressed a topic or themerelevant to reflection (having an inter-rater reliability of k=0.79).

(2) Segmentation of units into propositions. Context units were divided intotheir constituent propositions (Kintsch and Van Dijk 1978). Each proposi-tion as a coding unit covered a single subject-predicate relationship that waslabelled as a topic (with inter-rater reliability for this analysis beingk=0.83).

(3) Grouping propositions (topics) into themes. Propositions predicating thesame content were combined under the same theme. For a theme to be estab-lished at least three similar propositions needed to be identified (with inter-rater reliability for this analysis being k=.90). A total of 117 themes could beclassified.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Theme analysis and categorisation

As a subsequent step, themes, as the unit of analysis, were attributed to variouscontent-specific categories:

● Themes referring to ‘What’ questions. These could refer to the four followingcategories: (1) a justification of reflection (reasons to engage in reflection);(2) basic principles on reflection i.e., constituent features); (3) focus ordomain of reflection; and (4) attributes of a reflective teacher.

● Themes referring to ‘How’ questions. These could pertain to two further cate-gories: (5) process or method for conducting reflection; and (6) training anddevelopment needed for reflection;

● Themes referring to ‘By’ questions: These could pertain to the final threecategories of conditions of application, i.e., limitations that impede reflection:(7) difficulties (conceptual limitations); (8) pitfalls (personal and administrativelimitations); and (9) obstacles (limitations in current practice).

Each theme (with its included propositions) was coded under one of the ninerelevant categories.

Appraisal of articles: ‘what is said to be done’

Three criteria were taken into consideration to assess the results of the content analysisof articles, considered under three research questions:

(1) What is conveyed on reflection. The degree to which particular themes withrespect to reflection were mentioned, i.e., the number of times a topic wasfound in coding units.

(2) What warranty is given for reflection. Coding units were classified both withrespect to degree and type of warranty or evidence given as either: (a) empir-ical support (based on research data presented); (b) theoretical support(based on conceptual literature and references); and (c) legislative or regula-tive support (based on circumstance and mandatory regulations). As an indi-cator of warranty, a coefficient was calculated by dividing the number ofclaims found (empirical, theoretical, or regulative) by the number of claimsplus the total number of propositions (called the discursive coefficient –DC). The interpretation range of this coefficient is: (a) low: between 0 and0.33; (b) intermediate: between 0.33 and 0.66; and (c) high: between 0.66and 1.

(3) Mode of convincing teachers to adopt reflection. This criterion assesses thetext’s ability to persuade teachers to adopt reflection. A qualitative indicatorwas used for classification of coding units: (1) implicative intention (Si)presenting the message in tentative terms, i.e., ‘could’; (2) descriptive inten-tion (Di) presenting ideas as an existing reality, i.e., ‘is’; and (3) prescriptiveintention (Pi,) encouraging teachers to comply with what is said, i.e., ‘should’arguments.

Findings

The results of our analysis are described under the three main review questions:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


1. What is conveyed about reflection?

Table 1 gives an overview of frequencies for categories of reflection being commu-nicated to teachers in articles that promote professional teacher development ofreflection (distributed over three subsequent levels of detail).

Overall, there were 1509 propositions that gave detail about what is said aboutreflection, categorised under nine headings. What is notable from Table 1 is that justi-fications for reflection are seldom provided. What seems to be lacking is the identifi-cation of reflection with problem solving, as well as its association with awareness asa feature of reflection, which is frequently shown in research (i.e., critical reflectionvs. habitual reflection). Instead, basic principles stressed in reflection relate to usingtheoretical knowledge (Category 2).

Also noteworthy from a professional development point of view, is the lack ofattention to conceptual artefacts or practical rules (local knowledge) that teacherscould gain from reflecting on their practice. Moreover, the texts mainly address thefocus or domain of reflection; that is, teachers should engage in critical thinking abouttheir setting and context of teaching (or analysing the self, their teaching, or criticisingsociety) (Category 3). Most attention is given to the critical attributes of a ‘good’reflecting teacher, but with little attention on how to do this kind of reflecting (i.e., theprocedural side of it: Category 5). Only 2.1% of the texts referred to concrete ways ofconducting reflection, while 23.71% of the texts relate to limitations and barriers toreflection (i.e., mentioning difficulties, obstacles, and pitfalls); providing teacherswith no concrete suggestions about how to cope with reflection. Of the texts, 13.97%did pay attention to the process of reflection (but mainly referring to the training thatwas needed). However, there was little attention given to more specific advice on howto conduct the process of reflection (4.30%), as well as how to overcome the concreteobstacles that arise when practicing reflection.

Of the 122 articles, a substantial portion (62.36%) refer to components of reflec-tion, but these pertain mainly to the additional (i.e., the fourth) element. Of furtherinterest is that two categories, taking up 20.07% of the propositions (i.e., pitfalls andobstacles), have no particular reference to reflection.

2. Warranty

The justification for proposals given to promote reflection, be they theoretical, empir-ical or legislative, is modest (172 propositions out of 1509; 11.39%). The empiricalclaims are especially limited (11; 0.72%). These cases usually refer to specific andiconic research projects (i.e., the Ford Teaching Project) rather than specific data.Theoretical warrants (i.e., ‘reflection, as stated by Schön (1983)’) reach a percentageof 10% (151 pp.), and legislative warrants (i.e., ‘the new educational law defines ateacher as a reflective practitioner, therefore’) do not exceed 1% of propositions. Inaddition, it should be noted that half of the empirical warrants are not directly associ-ated with the reflective paradigm per se. As for the theoretical warrant, over half ofthe propositions (54.4%) are based on claims coming from outside the reflectiveparadigm. The coefficient of discursive support (DC) shows a low score, with valueswell below .1. (i.e., for empirical support DC-e =.007; for theoretical support with 146propositions DC-t = .08; and for regulative support DC-r =.009). These findingsindicate that most of the propositions (over 90%) have no substantive foundation invalidated knowledge (theoretical basis or empirical support).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Tabl

e 1.

Cla

ssifi

cati

on s

chem

e of

pro

posi

tion

s in

to c

ateg

orie

s.

LE

VE

L I

LE

VE

L I

IL

EV

EL

III

Evi

denc

ed

1.Ju

stif

icat

ion

(110

; 7.

28%

)1.

1.E

duca

tion

al s

uppo

rt f

or r

efle

ctio

n(6

3; 4

.17%

) –

101.

1.1.

Lac

k of

res

earc

h (1

4; 0

.92%

)√

1.1.

2.L

ack

of i

nnov

atio

n (c

onse

rvat

ism

) (2

9; 1

.92%

)x

1.1.

3.D

efic

ienc

ies

in e

duca

tion

of

teac

hers

(33

; 2.

18%

)x

1.2.

The

oret

ical

gro

undi

ng o

f re

flec

tion

(26;

1.7

2%)

– 19

1.2.

1.A

ppro

ach

to e

stab

lish

dis

cour

se i

n pr

acti

ce (

4; 0

.26%

)x

1.2.

2.H

ighl

ight

ing

teac

her

prof

essi

onal

ism

(6;

0.3

9%)

x1.

2.3.

Pos

itiv

e re

cept

ion

by t

each

ers

(16;

1.0

6%)

x1.

3.P

ress

ure

to i

mpl

emen

t re

flec

tion

(21;

1.3

9%)

– 22

1.3.

1.B

ased

on

refo

rm d

ocum

ents

(i.e

., la

ws)

(19

; 1.

25%

)x

1.3.

2.B

ased

on

peda

gogi

cal

lite

ratu

re (

2; 0

.13%

)x

2.B

asic

pri

ncip

les

of

refl

ecti

on(1

84;

12.1

9%)

2.1.

Nat

ure

of k

now

ledg

e (t

each

er

prac

tica

l kn

owle

dge

is n

ot u

nive

rsal

)(5

8; 3

.84%

) –

12

2.1.

1.P

ract

ical

kno

wle

dge

is l

ocal

(33

; 2.

18%

)√

2.1.

2.P

ract

ical

kno

wle

dge

is c

ase

base

d (1

0; 0

.66%

)x

2.1.

3.T

each

er p

ract

ice

is s

ubje

ct t

o ch

ange

(8;

0.5

3%)

√2.

1.4.

Dyn

amic

rel

atio

ns i

n te

achi

ng (

7; 0

.46%

)x

2.2.

Con

nect

ing

theo

ry–p

ract

ice

(127

; 8.

41%

) –

42.

2.1.

Com

mon

und

erst

andi

ng o

f th

eory

–pra

ctic

e (5

7; 3

.77%

)√

2.2.

2. P

osti

onin

g th

eori

es i

n pr

acti

cal

sett

ing

(28;

1.8

5%)

x2.

2.3.

Gen

erat

ion

of t

heor

ies

from

pra

ctic

e (4

2; 2

.78%

)√

3.F

ocus

or d

omai

n of

re

flec

tion

(222

; 14

.71%

)

3.1.

Stu

dyin

g te

achi

ng(1

32;

8.74

%)

– 3

3.1.

1. I

ts s

truc

tura

l (c

lass

room

org

anis

atio

nal)

asp

ects

(5

; 0.

33%

)x

3.1.

2. I

ts c

omm

unic

ativ

e as

pect

s an

d dy

nam

ics

(24;

1.5

8%)

x3.

1.3.

Its

cur

ricu

lar

aspe

cts

(tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng p

roce

sses

) (2

1; 1

.13%

)x

3.1.

4. I

ts e

thic

al a

spec

ts (

valu

es)

(82;

5.4

3%)

√

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Tabl

e 1.

(Con

tinu

ed).

LE

VE

L I

LE

VE

L I

IL

EV

EL

III

Evi

denc

ed

3.2.

Stu

dyin

g th

e ed

ucat

iona

l sy

stem

(14;

0.9

2%)

– 23

3.2.

1. C

riti

quin

g th

e sy

stem

(4;

0.2

6%)

√3.

2.2.

Fos

teri

ng p

arti

cipa

tion

in

the

syst

em (

10;

0.66

%)

√3.

3.S

tudy

ing

soci

ety

(76;

5.0

3%)

– 8

3.3.

1. U

nder

stan

ding

soc

iety

(24

; 1.

59%

)√

3.3.

2. A

ddre

ssin

g cr

itiq

ue f

rom

soc

iety

(2;

0.1

3%)

√3.

3.3.

Par

tici

pati

on i

n th

e po

liti

cal

aren

a (1

0; 0

.66%

)√

3.3.

4. T

rans

form

atio

n of

soc

iety

(34

; 2.

25%

)√

4.A

ttri

bute

s(4

23;

28.0

3%)

4.1.

Cri

tica

l te

ache

r(6

8; 4

.50)

– 9

4.1.

2. B

ecom

ing

an e

xper

t te

ache

r (1

2; 0

.79%

)√

4.1.

3. B

ecom

ing

a cr

itic

al t

each

er (

56;

3.71

%)

√4.

2.P

ract

ical

tea

cher

(161

; 10

.66%

) –

14.

2.1.

Try

ing

out

pers

onal

the

orie

s on

tea

chin

g (4

0; 2

.65%

)√

4.2.

2. B

eing

a s

elf-

regu

late

d te

ache

r (4

1; 2

.71%

)√

4.2.

3. N

ot j

ust

appl

ying

the

ory

into

pra

ctic

e (8

0; 5

.30%

)√

4.3.

Inqu

irin

g te

ache

r(4

4; 2

.91%

) –

144.

3.1.

Sys

tem

atic

use

of

proc

edur

es (

24;

1.59

%)

√4.

3.2.

Con

tinu

ity

and

pers

iste

nce

in s

tudy

of

teac

hing

(20

; 1.

32%

)√

4.4.

Col

labo

rati

ve t

each

er(1

50;

9.94

%)

– 2

4.4.

1. C

omm

unic

atio

n be

twee

n te

ache

rs (

27;

1.78

)√

4.4.

2. J

oint

par

tici

pati

on a

mon

g te

ache

rs (

84;

5.56

%)

√5.

Pro

cedu

re/m

etho

d(6

5; 4

.30%

)5.

1.S

yste

mat

ic a

naly

sis

of r

eal

situ

atio

ns(3

2; 2

.12%

) –

165.

1.1.

Obs

erva

tion

in

the

clas

sroo

m/s

choo

l (4

; 0.

26%

)√

5.1.

2. G

ivin

g ac

coun

ts o

f da

ily

prac

tice

(di

arie

s) (

13;

0.81

%)

√

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Tabl

e 1.

(Con

tinu

ed).

LE

VE

L I

LE

VE

L I

IL

EV

EL

III

Evi

denc

ed

5.1.

3. A

naly

sis

of c

lass

room

inf

orm

atio

n (3

; 0.

19%

)√

5.1.

4. I

nter

pret

atio

n of

inf

orm

atio

n (1

2; 0

.79%

)√

5.2.

Cir

cula

r pr

oces

s(3

3; 2

.18%

) –

155.

2.1.

Pro

cess

con

sist

ing

of p

robl

em–g

oal–

solu

tion

–rev

isio

n pl

an

(8;

0.53

%)

√

5.2.

2. I

dent

ifyi

ng o

f pr

oble

ms

(8;

0.53

%)

√5.

2.3.

Fin

ding

cau

ses

of p

robl

ems

(3;

0.19

%)

√5.

2.4.

Foc

us o

n co

ntex

t of

pro

blem

s (5

; 0.

33%

)5.

2.5.

Pla

nnin

g to

war

ds c

hang

e (1

; 0.

06%

)√

5.2.

6. P

lann

ing

revi

sion

in

teac

hing

(8;

0.5

3%)

√6.

Tra

inin

g an

d de

velo

pmen

t(1

46;

9.67

%)

6.1.

Edu

cato

rs(2

4; 1

.59%

) –

206.

1.1.

Non

-jud

gmen

tal

educ

ator

s (4

; 0.

26%

)x

6.1.

2. T

each

er e

duca

tors

as

guid

es a

nd m

ento

rs (

6; 0

.38%

)x

6.1.

3. T

each

ers

as e

duca

tors

and

tra

iner

s (1

2; 0

.76%

)x

6.2.

App

roac

hes

(49;

3.2

4%)

– 13

6.2.

1. U

nive

rsit

y-ba

sed

tran

smis

sion

of

know

ledg

e (2

6; 1

.72%

)√

6.2.

2. T

rain

ing-

base

d on

tut

oria

l se

ssio

ns (

6; 0

.38%

)√

6.2.

3. D

e-ce

ntra

lise

d tr

aini

ng b

ased

in

scho

ols

(7;

0.46

%)

√6.

2.4.

De-

cent

rali

sed

trai

ning

bas

ed o

n al

tern

ativ

e so

urce

s ou

tsid

e sc

hool

(10

; 0.

55%

)√

6.3.

Con

tent

s(8

2; 5

.4%

) –

76.

3.1.

Pro

visi

on o

f kn

owle

dge

on d

idac

tics

(12

; 0.

76%

)√

6.3.

2. P

rovi

sion

of

spec

ific

kno

wle

dge

(IC

T, m

ath,

etc

.) (

3;

0.19

%)

x

6.3.

3. O

nly

theo

reti

cal

know

ledg

e on

ref

lect

ion

(8;

0.53

%)

x6.

3.4.

Eth

ical

and

soc

ial

know

ledg

e (1

7; 0

.11%

)√

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Tabl

e 1.

(Con

tinu

ed).

LE

VE

L I

LE

VE

L I

IL

EV

EL

III

Evi

denc

ed

6.3.

5. A

naly

sis

of h

ypot

heti

cal

situ

atio

ns (

8; 0

.53%

)x

6.3.

6. A

naly

sis

of r

eal

situ

atio

ns (

7; 0

.46%

)x

6.3.

7. O

bser

vati

on o

f re

al s

itua

tion

s (6

; 0.

38%

)√

6.3.

8. E

xclu

sive

ly b

ased

on

prac

ticu

m (

21;

1.13

%)

√7.

Dif

ficu

ltie

s w

ith

refl

ecti

on(5

5; 3

.64%

)

7.1.

Pro

blem

s w

ith

just

ific

atio

n(1

5; 0

.99%

) –

237.

1.1.

Ide

alis

ing

refl

ecti

on (

seen

as

solu

tion

of

any

prac

tica

l pr

oble

m)

(4;

0.26

%)

x

7.1.

2. I

ntui

tive

pra

ctic

e (d

ange

r of

gro

undi

ng k

now

ledg

e on

ly o

n in

tuit

ive

theo

ries

) (8

; 0.

53%

)x

7.1.

3. R

efle

ctio

n as

gen

eric

edu

cati

onal

val

ue ra

ther

than

a m

eans

to

im

prov

e pr

acti

ce (

3; 0

.19%

)√

7.2.

Pro

blem

s in

con

cept

uali

sati

on(2

4; 1

.59%

) –

217.

2.1.

Im

prec

isio

n (1

6; 1

.06%

)√

7.2.

2. B

lend

ing

(fus

ion

wit

h ot

her

conc

epts

) (3

; 0.

19%

)x

7.2.

3. O

verl

appi

ng w

ith

othe

r co

ncep

ts (

3; 0

.19%

)√

7.2.

4. C

ompl

exit

y (i

n te

rmin

olog

y, d

efin

itio

ns, e

tc.)

(2;

0.1

3%)

7.3.

Pro

blem

s in

ope

rati

onal

isat

ion

(12;

0.7

6%)

– 25

7.3.

1. N

o sp

ecif

icat

ion

of p

roce

dure

(5;

0.3

3%)

x7.

3.2.

Sim

plif

icat

ion

in t

he a

ppro

ach

take

n (3

; 0.

19%

)x

7.3.

3. D

isco

nnec

ted

from

con

tent

s (o

nly

a pr

oced

ure)

(4;

0.2

6%)

x8.

Pit

fall

s(2

14;

14.1

8%)

8.1.

… i

n ap

plic

atio

n(3

1; 2

.05%

) –

178.

1.1.

Lac

k of

pro

fess

iona

l com

pete

nce

in r

efle

ctio

n (1

2; 0

.76%

)x

8.1.

2. L

acki

ng p

rofe

ssio

nal

atti

tude

(la

ck o

f be

liev

ing

in

refl

ecti

on)

(19;

1.2

5%)

x

8.2.

… i

n ad

min

istr

atio

n(9

6; 6

.36%

) –

58.

2.1.

Not

a r

equi

rem

ent

in l

egis

lati

on (

33;

2.18

%)

x

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Tabl

e 1.

(Con

tinu

ed).

LE

VE

L I

LE

VE

L I

IL

EV

EL

III

Evi

denc

ed

8.2.

2.B

ad m

anag

emen

t in

sch

ool

(31;

2.0

5%)

x8.

2.3.

Inad

equa

te t

reat

men

t of

tea

chin

g st

aff

(32;

2.1

2%)

x8.

3.P

rofe

ssio

nali

sm o

f te

ache

rs(8

7; 5

.76%

) –

68.

3.1.

No

prof

essi

onal

com

pete

nce

to e

ngag

e in

ref

lect

ion

(40;

2.6

5%)

x

8.3.

2.N

o po

siti

ve a

ttit

ude

tow

ards

ref

lect

ion

(47;

3.1

1%)

x9.

Obs

tacl

es(8

9; 5

.89%

)9.

1.L

ack

of r

esou

rces

(61;

4.0

4%)

– 11

9.1.

1.L

ack

of f

unds

(16

; 1.

06%

)x

9.1.

2.W

rong

dis

trib

utio

n of

fun

ds (

6; 0

.39%

)x

9.1.

3.E

xces

sive

num

ber

of w

orki

ng h

ours

(10

; 0.

66%

)x

9.1.

4.L

ack

of t

ime

for

refl

ecti

on (

25;

1.65

%)

x9.

1.5.

Lac

k of

spa

ce t

o en

gage

in

refl

ecti

on (

4; 0

.26%

)x

9.2.

Dis

appo

inti

ng r

esul

ts(2

8; 1

.85%

) –

189.

2.1.

No

effe

ctiv

enes

s (n

othi

ng h

as c

hang

ed)

(1;

0.06

%)

x9.

2.2.

Suc

cess

onl

y in

cer

tain

con

text

s (8

; 0.

53%

)x

9.2.

3. P

arti

al o

utco

mes

(do

es n

ot e

xpla

in t

he w

hole

of

teac

her

prac

tice

) (1

4; 0

.92%

)x

9.2.

4. D

emag

ogic

use

of

resu

lts

(for

pol

itic

al p

urpo

ses)

(5

; 0.

33%

)x

Not

es:

betw

een

pare

nthe

ses:

no.

of

prop

osit

ions

and

per

cent

age.

Cat

egor

ies

2, 3

, and

5 c

ould

sta

nd a

s th

e co

re m

odel

com

pone

nts

of r

eflec

tion

in

the

diss

emin

atio

n te

xts.

Bol

d: p

rior

itis

ed l

isti

ng o

f ca

tego

ries

. Leg

end:

√=

pre

sent

; x=

abs

ent.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


3. Mode of convincing

The text’s intention to promote reflection (i.e., the message given to teachers) distin-guishes three types: (1) implicative: i.e., the text expresses interesting thoughts, offersnew ways of thinking (i.e., ‘we believe’) and resulted in 17.95%, or 271 propositions;(2) descriptive: i.e., mentioning factual reasons to adopt reflection (e.g., ‘reflectionhas’) resulted in 44.06%, or 665 propositions; and (3) prescriptive, i.e., the articledirects or hints at a preferable action (e.g., ‘we must’) and resulted in 7.97%, or 573propositions.

Discussion

Four biases

This study explored what is advocated and disseminated as reflection about teachingto teachers. Understanding what is promoted about teacher reflection to practitionersmay help us clarify how reflection as a concept is being adopted and used by teachers.Our findings helped us to identify at least four ways reflection is disseminated. Thesedifferent modes can be interpreted as messages about reflection that may affect theimpact, feasibility, and comprehension of the concept in practice and which explicateunderlying assumptions or biases about the concept. We found four such underlyingbiases in what is conveyed to teachers:

Bias 1: stressing the ‘what’ over the ‘how to’ (explicating the declarative over the procedural)

Reflection is mainly promoted as a professional practice that permits teachers to solveproblems through critical deliberation. Texts reviewed stress conceptual issues suchas teacher attributes, models, or reflective approaches rather than the practicalprocedures and methods on how to reflect. The latter received marginal attention and,when addressed, were not specified sufficiently for teachers to conduct the process ofreflection. An example of this approach would be:

This involves starting off from practice to analysing situations, defining problems, creat-ing procedures, questioning norms, rules and strategies commonly and automaticallyused, explaining the intervention and reflection procedures throughout action. (NP,1998, 161, no. 1: 11)

This typical fragment illustrates the need to define problems, but not how to dealwith them; it stresses the need to develop procedures but not the content that needs tobe dealt with. The fragment also calls for ways to examine interventional procedures,but is not clear on how to implement them. This example is representative of the arti-cles we analysed and may point to yet another problem: the reflective approaches beingadvocated generally stress the need to be aware of the steps to be taken in reflection,but not how to gain awareness about what to reflect about.

Bias 2: grounding reflection in beliefs, not evidence

Our results make it clear that what is conveyed to teachers about reflection is notprimarily grounded in evidence (only 37.64% of the propositions were of this type).This conclusion is supported by the fact that almost half of what is said to teachers is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


based on knowledge originating from beliefs or perspectives the authors hold aboutreflection. More specifically, the percentage of texts offered to teachers as legitimateor validated knowledge is small. This leads us to conclude that the articles do notdisseminate evidence-based knowledge about reflection, but generate statements ofopinion and belief. This may raise a concern: if validated knowledge is not used tosubstantiate ideas (for instance, about teachers who successfully reflect in practice orabout levels of reflection), teachers will not have the means to evaluate the informa-tion presented to them. This may put at risk both the verification of a propagatedmodel as well as the evaluation of circumstances under which a proposal may beapplied.

Bias 3: echoing ideal realisations

What is notable in the accounts on reflection is the high level of talk about ‘ideal’cases. Talking about how successful and widespread the ideas that are discussed areis more frequently apparent from the texts than is talking about real practice. Wenoticed that it is difficult to find accounts that deal with actual obstacles encounteredin practice (89, or 5.89% of propositions). Moreover, when mentioning concreteobstacles to reflection, it often comes down to blaming administrators or teachers whodid not invest enough effort and resources, but not on reflection itself.

Bias 4: ‘implicating’ what to do

In addition to our finding that promotion of reflection is mainly focused on conceptualaspects and has few empirical or validated bases, we observed that the articles’promotional intent (i.e., way of convincing) is predominantly implicative (DC = 2.20);that is to say, authors use mainly imperative arguments, i.e., ‘teachers should’, tosuggest that what they promote is certain and well-founded.

Implications

Our identification of these four main biases is by no means intended to be overly crit-ical of the notion of reflection, but is rather meant to highlight certain blind spots(Tillema, Orland-Barak, and Mena 2008) that can improve the way teachers maybenefit from reflective practice. Biases in promoting ideas to teachers have also beenfound in other domains such as mentoring (Sánchez et al. 2009), which suggests aneed to be cautious. What seems important to highlight in our findings is that ‘tellingmore than we can know’ as well as ‘telling only half the story’ (Kane, Sandretto, andHeath 2002) indicates a gap between what is said in research on reflection and whatis communicated in practice. It can lead to a situation (see Mena Marcos, Sánchez, andTillema 2008) in which experienced teachers, when reflecting on their practice,echoed (i.e., ‘talked’ about the conceptual ideas and beliefs disseminated) rather than‘walked’ (i.e., reported ‘products’ of their own practice).

What emerges from our review of the selection of studies examined that promotereflection is that teachers may take the ideas on reflection presented to them as if theyrepresented valid practices, embedded in real experiences and accompanied byevidenced appraisals. But on closer inspection the reflective accounts do not providea very precise description of practices, and lack substantiation: they do not provide

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


any procedures or approaches to guide implementation. We found the lack of warrantyis compensated by a wealth of beliefs to point out what needs to be done. This couldvery well be one of the reasons why reflective accounts are not really supportive inhelping teachers to understand or modify existing practices (Edwards, Gilroy, andHartley 2002). In our view it seems necessary to offer teachers more evidence-basedor research validated information on what works in reflective practice by offering rele-vant journals or educational programmes that could scaffold reflective practice. Thiscould be accomplished by using procedures and methods, as well as substantiated orcontent-rich accounts on reflective practices that work. In this way advocates canshow specifically how teachers can attain grounded practices as well as evaluate thedifficulties of implementing what is promoted about reflection.

ReferencesAdler, S. 1991. The reflective practitioner and the curriculum of teacher education. Journal of

Education for Teaching 17, no. 2: 139–50.Allwood, J., J. Nivre, and E. Ahlsén. 1992. On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic

feedback. Journal of Semantics 9: 1–26.Baker El-Dib, M.A. 2007. Levels of reflection in action research. An overview and an

assessment tool. Teaching and Teacher Education 23: 24–35.Baxter, M.B. 2004. Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection.

Educational Psychologist 39, no. 1: 31–42.Beijaard, D., P.C. Meijer, and N. Verlop. 2004. Reconsidering research on teachers’ profes-

sional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 107–28.Birmingham, C. 2004. Phronesis. A model for pedagogical reflection. Journal of Teacher

Education 55, no. 4: 313–24.Braun, J.A., and T.P. Crumpler. 2004. The social memoir: An analysis of developing reflective

ability in a pre-service methods course. Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 59–75.Borko, H., and R.T. Putnan. 1996. Learning to teach. In Handbook of educational psychology,

ed. D.C. Berliner, and R.C. Calfee, 673–780. New York: Simon and Schuster McMillan.Boud, D. 2007. Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In Reframing assessment

in higher education, ed. D. Boud, and N. Falchikov, 14–25. London: Routledge.Carrington, S., and B. Saggers. 2008. Service-learning informing the development of an inclu-

sive ethical framework for beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 24:795–806.

Clark, C. 2001. Carr and Kemmis’s reflections. Journal of Philosophy of Education Society ofGreat Britain 35, no. 1: 85–100.

Clark, H.H., and F.S. Schaefer. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13: 259–94.Clarke, A. 2006. The nature of substance of cooperating teacher reflection. Teaching and

Teacher Education 22: 910–21.Cochran-Smith, M., and S. Lytle. 1993. Inside/outside. Teachers’ research and knowledge.

New York: Teachers’ College Press.Cohen, L., L. Mahion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research methods in education. London:

Routledge.Conway, P.F. 2001. Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: From a temporally trun-

cated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching andTeacher Education 17: 89–106.

Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluativecriteria. Qualitative Sociology 13, no. 1: 3–20.

Cousin, G. 2002. Strengthening action-research for educational development EducationalDevelopments 1, no. 3: 5–7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Crasborn, F., P. Hennissen, N. Brouwer, F. Korthagen, and T. Bergen. 2008. Promoting versa-tility in mentor teachers’ use of supervisory skills. Teaching and Teacher Education 24:499–514.

Crocco, M.S., B. Faitfull, and S. Schwarz. 2004. Inquiry minds want to know. Action researchat New York City professional development school. Journal of Teacher Education 54,no. 1: 19–30.

Dewey, J. 1910. How we think. Boston: Heath and Co.Dillenbourg, P. 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning? In Collaborative-learning:

Cognitive and computational approaches, ed. P. Dillenbourg, 1–19. Oxford: Elsevier.Edwards, A., P. Gilroy, and D. Hartley. 2002. Rethinking teacher education. Collaborative

responses to uncertainty. London: Routledge.Elliot, J. 1991. Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.Elliot, J. 2001. Making evidence-based practice educational. British Educational Research

Journal 27, no. 5: 555–74.Garmann Johnsen, H.C., and R. Normann. 2004. When research and practice collide: The role

of action research when there is a conflict of interest with stakeholders. SystemicPractice and Action Research 17, no. 3: 207–35.

Gilroy, P. 1993. Reflections on Schön, an epistemological critique. In International analysisof teacher education, ed. P. Gilroy, and M. Smith, 311–21. London: Carfax.

Hatton, N., and D. Smith. 1995. Reflection in teacher education: Towards definitions andimplementation. Teaching and Teacher Education 11: 33–49.

The history boys. Directed by Nicholas Hytner. UK: BBC Two Films, 2006.Kane, R., S. Sandretto, and C. Heath. 2002. Telling half the story: A critical review of

research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educa-tional Research 72, no. 2: 177–228.

Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 1988. The action research planner. Victoria: DeakinUniversity.

King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 2004. Reflective judgement: Theory and research on thedevelopment of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist 39,no. 1: 5–18.

Kintsch, W., and T.A. Van Dijk. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and produc-tion. Psychological Review 85: 363–94.

Korthagen, F.A.J. 2004. In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holisticapproach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 77–97.

Korthagen, F.A.J., J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Lagerwerf, and T. Wubbels. 2001. Linkingpractice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kugelmass, J.W. 2000. Subjective experience and the preparation of activist teachers.Teachers and Teacher Education 16, no. 2: 179–94.

Lewin, K. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2: 34–46.Loughran, J. 2007. Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges,

demands, and expectation on self-studies. Journal of Teacher Education 58, no. 1:12–20.

Mamede, S., and H. Schmidt. 2004. The structure of reflective practice in medicine. MedicalEducation 38: 1302–8.

Mansvelder, D. 2006. The learning portfolio as a tool to stimulate reflection by student teach-ers. Ph.D. diss., University of Leiden.

McLellan, E. 2004. How reflective is the academic essay? Studies in Higher Education 29,no. 1: 76–89.

Mena Marcos, J.J. 2007. The reflection-action-research 25 years later: A comparison betweenwhat we know, what we communicate and what we do through documentary analysis.Unpublished diss., University of Salamanca.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3


Mena Marcos, J.J., E. Sánchez, and H. Tillema. 2008. Analysis of the in-service teachers’spontaneous reflections. What is said and what is done. Teachers and Teaching: Theoryand Practice 14, no. 2: 95–114.

Mena Marcos, J.J., and H. Tillema. 2006. Studying studies on teacher reflection and action:An appraisal of research contributors. Educational Research Review 2, no. 1: 112–32.

Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mitscherling, J., T. Ditommaso, and A. Naved. 2004. The author’s intention. New Cork:

Lexington.Moran, M.J. 2007. Collaborative action research and project work: Promising practices for

developing collaborative inquiry among early childhood preservice teachers. Teachingand Teacher Education 23: 418–31.

Newman, S.J. 1996. Reflection and teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching 22,no. 3: 297–310.

Orland, L. 2001. Learning to mentor as learning a second language of teaching. CambridgeJournal of Education 31, no. 1: 53–68.

Pea, R.D. 1993. Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In Distrib-uted cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, ed. G. Salomon, 47–87. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Robertson, J.M. 2008. Coaching educational leadership: Building leadership capacitythrough partnership. London: Sage.

Ropo, E. 2004. Teaching expertise. In Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the wayfrom novice top expert, ed. H.P.A. Boshuizen, R., Bromme, and H. Gruber, 159–79.Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Samaras, P.A. 2002. Self-study for teacher educators: Crafting a pedagogy for educationalchange. New York: Peter Lang.

Sánchez, E., E. Ciga, J. Mena, J. García, M. Rueda, and E. García. 2009. The challenge to teachself regulated learning: Difficulties teachers encounter in teaching dyslexic students. Paperpresented at the EARLI 13th biennial conference, August, in Amsterdam.

Schön, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:Basic Books.

Silverman, D. 2001. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text andinteraction. London: Sage.

Singh, P. 2008. Oral and written reflection in practice management: An action researchapproach. Systematic Practitioner Action Reserch 21: 171–85.

Smith, K. 2005. Teacher educators’ expertise: What do novice teachers and teachers educatorssay? Teaching and Teacher Education 21: 177–92.

Stenhouse, L. 1985. Research as a basis for teaching. London: Heinemann.Tillema, H., L. Orland-Barak, and J. Mena. 2008. Articulating choice and deliberation in

conducting research – researchers ‘working in the interpretive zone’. Ethnography andEducation 3, no. 1: 49–62.

Van Manen, M. 1995. On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice 1, no. 1: 33–50.

Wetzstein, A. and W. Hacker. 2004. Reflective verbalization improves solutions. The effectsof question-based reflection in design problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology18: 145–56.

Whipp, J.L. 2003. Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions. Helping prospectiveteachers think deeply about field experience in urban schools. Journal of TeacherEducation 54, no. 4: 321–33.

Winitzky, N. 1992. Structure and process in thinking about classroom management: An explor-ative study of prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 8, no. 1: 1–14.

Zeichner, K.M., and D.P. Liston. 1996. Reflective thinking: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:50

13

Oct

ober

201

3

promoting teacher reflection: what is said to be done

Documents