Journal ofhttp://jlr.sagepub.com/
Literacy Research
Reflection and Learning to Teach Reading: A Critical Review of
Literacy and General Teacher Education Studies
Kathleen Roskos, Carol Vukelich and Victoria Risko
Journal of Literacy Research 2001 33: 595
DOI: 10.1080/10862960109548127
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/33/4/595
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Literary Research Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Literacy Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jlr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jlr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/33/4/595.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2001
What is This?
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013
REFLECTION AND LEARNING TO
TEACH READING: A CRITICAL
REVIEW OF LITERACY AND
GENERAL TEACHER EDUCATION
STUDIES
Kathleen Roskos
JOHN CARROLL
UNIVERSITY
Carol Vukelich
UNIVERSITY OF
DELAWARE
Victoria Risko
VANDERBILT
UNIVERSITY
Much has been hoped for and said about reflection as
an essential attribute of effective literacy teaching. Equally
as much remains muddled and confused, however, as
to its purpose, development, and role in preparing new
teachers of reading. How to help aspiring teachers become more reflective about their literacy teaching across
the preparatory years is not clear, and proven strategies
for improving reflection through professional education
are lacking. This article provides a comparative analysis of 54 reflection studies (18 literacy; 36 general teacher
education) with the goal of clarifying the concept of
reflection as studied in the literacyfieldandfor informingfuture research. An inductive paradigmatic analysis
produced descriptive observations that highlight similarities and differences between the two data sets and
five interpretive patterns that characterize researchers'
conceptualizations andproblem solving. Several guidelines are recommended for conducting research that
deepens understandingof the concept and informs reading educators in their practice.
J LR
V. 33 NO. 4
2OO1
PP. 595-635
should become reflective professionals is a dearly held ideal among teacher educators. Many envision
preparing beginning teachers as problem solvers and meaning builders
who consider multiple viewpoints and think logically and clearly about
the practical and moral issues that swirl around literacy teaching. Inspired
by Dewey, reading educators strive to develop literacy teachers who ultimately engage in deliberate practice, who think about what they are doing
and why they are doing it every step of the way.
Yet the realization of this ideal both within and beyond the confines of
preparatory coursework in literacy instruction has not been easy to attain.
How to help aspiring teachers become more reflective, for example, is not
all that certain (Russell, 1993). Moreover it is not clear that even if beginners
grew more reflective, to what extent this activity improves their teaching
performance and positively impacts children's literacy achievement. The
reflective teacher, in other words, is a noble ideal (and a long-standing one),
but how to nurture such individuals through teacher preparation programs
and why do so (for all practical purposes) are not well understood.
To a large extent, the problem stems from the idea of "reflection" itself,
which is a dense, multi-layered concept that can be examined from multiple
perspectives and at multiple levels. As van Manen (1995) observed, reflection is a phenomenon (a lived experience with temporal qualities), a theory
of professional practice (e.g., Schon's, 1983, reflection-in-action), and an
intellectual construct that involves "a complex array of cognitively and
philosophically distinct methods and attitudes" (pp. 33-34). Dewey (1901/
1933) argued, for example, that reflection consisted of several mental steps
(e.g., confusion, anticipation, analysis, elaboration, decision making, and
action) and certain qualities of character (e.g., open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility). Others observe that reflection occurs at
different levels of deliberation, such as technical, interpretive, and critical
kinds of rational thinking (e.g., Guillaume & Rudney, 1993; van Manen,
1977; Zeichner & Liston, 1985). The "complex array" of ideas surrounding
reflection has produced multiple definitions of what it is and means in the
field of teacher education. Reflection and reflective activity are linked to
teaching actions, thinking, development, awareness, beliefs, assessment, and
educational reform. Little in the discourse on teacher education, in fact,
has gone unmentioned in relation to this concept (Calderhead, 1992). But
with all that has been hoped for and all that has been said in the name of
reflection, much remains muddled and confused as to its purpose, development, and role in preparing new teachers of reading.
In this article, we attempt to disentangle reflection as an object of study
in the professional education of reading teachers. If we are to harness the
power of reflection to develop thoughtful, deliberative beginning teachers
THAT FUTURE TEACHERS OF READING
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
596
of reading, then we need to secure a surer grip on what the concept is and
how it functions in the "learning-to-teach" process. Specifically, we set out
to compare reflection research reported in the literacy education literature with that in the general teacher education literature in hopes of finding
direction for future research on literacy teacher preparation. Our goal is to
conduct a comparative analysis of these two bodies of research in order to
note likenesses and differences that might help to clarify the reflection construct for research work and inform instruction in reflection during the
preparatory years. We also thought that a comparative approach would
reveal engaging themes that provoke new insights on reflection in professional literacy education.
Background of the Critical Review
Following on Dewey"s assertion that teachers' reflective abilities liberate
them from the tyranny of technique (Dewey, 1901/1933), teacher educators have long espoused providing opportunity for students to think back
on their learning-to-teach experiences and contemplate how these inform
their pedagogic thinking. Venues for this kind of reflection include paper
assignments and classroom discussions traditionally part and parcel of
teacher education courses. Interest in reflection surged, however, with the
advent of Schon's stunning book entitled The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action (1983). Here, in elegant detail, Schon described
the process of "here and now" reflection, which he referred to as "reflection-in-action." Arguing that problem solving by way of technical rationality was insufficient for dealing with the uncertainties and complexities
of real professional work, Schon tried to show how practitioners "stop and
think" in action and thereby develop problem solutions from their own
experience or, in Deweyean terms, "learn by doing." The idea captured the
hearts and minds of teacher educators, who looked anew at reflection in
all its dimensions as a means for developing more skillful, critically minded
and thoughtful teachers. A spate of research ensued, reaching a peak in the
early 1990s.
The bulk of studies across this time period focused on two broad areas
of inquiry: characteristics of students' reflective thinking and curricular
or instructional strategies that supported or enhanced students' reflective
abilities. In their influential work, Zeichner and Liston (1985), for example,
identified four levels of logic in students' reflective discourse (factual, prudential, justificatory, and critical); they observed that students' reflecting
was generally at a low level of logic - results corroborated in our own (Risko,
Roskos, & Vukelich, 1999) and other studies of students' levels of reflective
thinking (e.g., Sparks-Langer, Simmons, Pasch, Colton, & Starko, 1990).
597
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
JLR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
Teachers-to-be, it appears, describe, report, and query some, but they do
not interpret, evaluate, and critique teaching activity very much in ways
that deepen their understandings of the contextual and socio-political dimensions of teaching practice. Although a number of rationales are proposed to account for this tendency (e.g., stages of reflective judgment;
King & Kitchener, 1994), few have been systematically pursued in teacher
development.
The research of this period also yielded six major instructional approaches in the learning-to-teach context that appeared to illuminate and
influence students' reflective abilities. These include reflective teaching,
action research, ethnography, writing, curriculum analysis/development,
and supervisory approaches (Zeichner&Liston,i985).Cruikshank (1985),
for example, developed a structured skills approach to reflective teaching,
whereas Russell (1989), among others (e.g., Richert, 1992), focused on
scaffolding the reflection process in the context of field work and student
teaching. Likewise, Gitlin and Teitelbaum (1983) taught their prospective
teachers ethnographic techniques (e.g., taking field notes) to sensitive them
to the "hidden curriculum" in school routines. Afflerbach et al. (1988) involved their students in the analysis of their own writing to help them reflect on the writing process as a teaching strategy.
Several instructional strategies also emerged as means for linking students' reflective thinking with their own or others' teaching actions, that is,
journals (e.g., Brunner, 1994), case studies (e.g., Richert, 1991), portfolios
(e.g., Borko, Michalec, Timmons, & Siddle, 1997), autobiographies (Pinar,
Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995), and procedural cycles (e.g., Freiberg
& Waxman, 1990). As in teacher education more generally, literacy educators incorporated a variety of these strategies into methods coursework
for purposes of encouraging and enhancing students'reflections. Much of
this strategy research, however, failed to carefully delineate the instructional features that influenced reflection, per se, and to specify procedures
for implementation that assured fidelity to the instructional approach. As
a result, strategies, and to some degree program approaches, were variously interpreted and liberally applied, leading Zeichner and Liston (1991)
to charge that the reflection research sends the message that "as long as
teachers reflect about something, in some manner" and then do something, "it's OK, since they have reflected about it" (p. 24).
Clearly the burst of interest in reflection that followed from Schon's
publication recharged this line of research with some good results.(e.g.,
descriptions of students'levels of reflective thinking and instructional techniques). However, it also stretched the construct considerably as a phenomenon, a process, and a practice. Reflection seemed to belong every-
598
where in teacher preparation and in all manner of forms. At the same time
reflection became embedded in a wide variety of learning-to-teach approaches and techniques, each claiming its virtues. One of the more popular was journal writing, which pervaded learning-to-teach coursework.
Thus, as the 1990s drew to a close, many definitions of reflection, many
interpretations, many approaches, and many assumed outcomes peppered
the reflection research, including studies that focused on improving the
professional education of reading teachers. Liberal to a fault, the scientific
approach to reflection seemed diffuse and scattered with little evidence in
hand to show its significance for teacher development and performance.
As an object of study in professional education, reflection, therefore,
remains a large, blurry concept (van Manen, 1995). We know in our bones
that it is important for teacher educators to teach reflection and for aspiring teachers of literacy to learn how to reflect in the context of their professional work. But it is a difficult concept to grasp and hold on to so as to
get a good look at what it means for individuals who want to learn to teach
and for a professional community that desires reflective practice in the
everyday teaching of reading. We confronted this reality everyday in our
professional work at both the course and program level. Much is said about
reflection as an ideal, we found, but little is provided in the way of raw
specifics that inform the teacher educator's practice, which led us to a critical review of reflection studies in our field (Roskos, Risko, & Vukelich,
2000). From a pool of 30 studies representing a 15-year period, we learned
that although authors acknowledged the power of reflection as an intellectual tool and potential change agent, the line of inquiry generally lacked
coherence between theoretical frame and method, sufficient data to warrant claims, and specificity about instructional tools. Well-intentioned and
effortful, the work nonetheless failed to sharpen the edges of the reflection
construct for research purposes and offered little in the way of a pedagogy
of reflection for teacher educators.
Yet this research activity contains information that should not lay fallow which prompted us to reorganize our approach. Scouring reflection
studies in literacy education in combination with those of general teacher
education, we reasoned, may offer up particulars in the form of ideas, patterns, trends, and methodological techniques that help give definition and
shape to reflection as a construct for scientific scrutiny. A comparative review of the reflection literature challenges us to see anew, to discover what
has escaped our attention, and to find out what has been missing from
inquiry. It can yield information and insights that point the way forward
for future research and for instruction in professional literacy education
programs.
599
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
Method
JLR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
te .R/sA:o
We organized our review of reflection studies for purposes of analytic comparison between general teacher education studies and those specific to
literacy education from 1985 to 1999. Our interest in a comparative analysis arose from an earlier critical review of a set of 30 literacy studies in this
same time period that examined reflection in preservice literacy education (Roskos, Risko & Vukelich, 2000). Results provided a set of observations that described the conceptual features and functions of reflection in
the preparation of reading teachers, but also called into question the clarity, precision, coherence, and relevance of the line of inquiry. Comparing
these literacy-specific observations to those in the broader arena of teacher
education would help us to examine the literacy education line of reflection
inquiry from another perspective and in ways that might inform and
strengthen it.
Data Collection
The review focused on empirical studies (quantitative and qualitative)
dealing with reflection in preservice teacher education that were published
between 1985 and 1999. This 15-year period reflects seminal works on
reflection and teacher education (e.g., Schon, 1987,1991) and the development of critical arguments for the inclusion of reflection activity in teacher
preparationprograms(e.g.,Calderhead,i987;Cruikshank,i985;Zeichner
& Liston, 1985). The selection and identification of reflection studies followed a two-step procedure that built on the search process conducted in
our earlier literacy-focused review.
Step one involved identifying reflection studies in general teacher education that paralleled the collection of 30 literacy studies gathered for the
prior study. This literacy collection had resulted from three successive
sweeps of the professional literature in teacher education. Initially, PsychlNFO,
Acorn, and ERIC online databases were scanned for articles from 1985 to
1999 that met the inclusion criteria of reflection, teacher education, and
preservice teacher education. This search yielded 602 abstracts that included theoretical papers, studies, book chapters, and dissertations. Sifting through these abstracts we located studies pertaining to the teaching
of language arts and literacy and eliminated all others. In a second sweep,
we added the term "literacy" to the descriptor string, which yielded 82 articles specific to professional education in literacy teaching. In examining
this set, we eliminated those articles that did not provide empirical data
on the role of reflection in the learning-to-teach-literacy process (e.g.,
600
position papers, theoretical descriptions, and professional essays). In our
third sweep, we manually searched the National Reading Conference Yearbooks from 1985 to 1999, the College Reading Association Yearbooks for
this same period, and the full text of retrieved papers for studies that did
not emerge from the computer search. This strategy produced another 12
studies, some that duplicated those found in the prior searches. The pool
of relevant studies was further narrowed to those that explicitly dealt with
some aspect of reflection as it related to preservice teachers engaged in
literacy education coursework and programs, that is, reflective thinking,
reflective practice, reflective abilities, reflection awareness, and factors contributing to reflection development. Using this procedure we built a collection of 30 studies that appeared to offer sufficient descriptive evidence
on reflection as a process and goal in the professional preparation of reading teachers. We grouped the studies into three time periods (1985-1989,
1990-1994,1995-1999).
Similarly we built a collection of general teacher education studies of
reflection. We returned to the pool of scholarly work gathered from our
initial search of the literature and retrieved reflection research papers published or presented in the broader arena of teacher education. We eliminated theoretical papers, book chapters, and professional commentaries,
yielding a collection of 363 studies across the 15-year period. The collection was further trimmed by including only those studies that explicitly
addressed reflection in teacher preparation, specifically reflective thinking, reflective practice, and reflection development as these relate to preservice teachers. We also manually searched major teacher education journals, such as Teaching and Teacher Education, for research articles within
the time frame specified. The final collection from the teacher education
domain consisted of 284 published studies or presented papers between
1985 and 1999, which we grouped in the same three time periods as above.
The two collections in hand - 30 literacy studies and 284 general teacher
education studies - we next established criteria for selecting those studies
relevant to our analytic purpose, specifically a comparative analysis, as step
two in our procedure. To assure scientific quality, only studies published
in research journals were retained, having had the benefit of peer review,
and only those that identified reflection as the central investigative focus.
Some studies, for example, include reflective activity in the pursuit of other
research goals, such as evidence of students' critical thinking about pedagogy or their beliefs. Applying these criteria, the final collection of literacy
studies consisted of 18 studies across the 15-year period and that of general teacher education included 36 studies in this time span. Studies in
each collection were grouped into three time periods (1985-1989,1990-
601
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
1994. i995-i999)> and, following random assignment, each of us assumed
responsibility for a time period, agreeing to become an expert in that subset
for both collections.
To organize both collections for easy reference and data analysis, we
prepared summaries of the studies in our respective time periods (see
Appendix). These provided the who, what, when, where, and why of each
study and also briefly listed the results. We used this information to survey
the content of the collections, to index key elements of each study, and to
organize basic descriptive information as needed for data analysis.
Data Analysis
We analyzed the total of 54 studies following an inductive paradigmatic
analysis process articulated by Polkinghorne (1995). We assumed this
stance for three reasons. One, most of the studies we had gathered were
descriptive in nature, relying heavily on qualitative methods and strategies for the treatment of data. The primary analytic task often involved
finding and describing themes and structures in essentially prosaic text
forms (e.g., journal writing). Thus, as a staple of qualitative methodology
(e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 1990), an inductive paradigmatic analysis seemed
well-suited to the fundamental research orientation of both collections.
Two, we intended to compare and contrast the two collections for features
indicative of conceptual as well as temporal qualities, that is, the historical
continuity in ideas and theoretical stances. Three, we had used a similar
analytic approach in our prior critical review and could build on this intellectual work.
Briefly, the analytic work of inductive paradigmatic analysis involves
classifying a particular instance or event as belonging to a category or concept. The goal is to develop a categorical scheme out of the data, which
provides the basis for inducing relationships that hold between and among
the established categories. Such relationships reveal "cognitive networks
of concepts" that represent the formulations held by a culture or group.
For our purposes, this approach allowed us to examine how reflection is
conceptualized and studied in the professional education of future teachers.
We used a two-step analytic procedure to derive categories and features reflective of the knowledge networks embedded in the studies. First,
each of us read and reread our respective subset of studies to identify how
reflection was conceptualized and systematically examined. We generated
detailed synopses of the studies, including the researchers' theoretical
perspectives, data collection and analysis techniques, and conclusions. We
also analyzed each paper for its methodological strengths and weaknesses
by assessing coherence in theoretical stance, method, and findings. To assess coherence we looked for evidence of accuracy and logic between the
602
theoretical frame, data collection and analysis procedures, results, and
implications. Second, we all read and reread each other's synopses. We individually recorded emerging themes and features and discussed and negotiated our observations. From this, we adapted the coding matrix from
the previous study to organize the information we were finding. It consisted of six thematic categories (theoretical frame(s), setting/situation,
definitions, influential factors, methodology, and recommendations) and
related features in each category. For example, the category of theoretical
frame included six features, such as Reflection helps teachers bridge theory
and practice and Reflection is socially constructed, as in discussions and interactions with others. We each applied the coding matrix to a sample study
drawn from each time frame to clarify categories and to verify the features.
Following further discussion that led to the collapsing of some features,
word changes in others, and the addition of new features, we achieved an
interrater reliability of 96% on the samples.
Using the coding results per the matrix, we next each developed descriptive observations from our respective sets of studies based on the frequency of features in each thematic category. We further analyzed these
observations to note patterns and themes that characterized a specific time
period. Moving from these particulars, we developed, through discussion
and consensus, a general set of descriptive observations for each collection of studies buttressed by coding tabulations. Through a comparisoncontrast analytic process, we then outlined the similarities and differences
between the two collections.
We then returned to the two sets of descriptive observations to induce
a more conceptual overview of reflection as a topic of study. Our analytic
strategy involved connecting both sets of descriptive observations together
"with successive layers of inferential glue" to get at the conceptual networks
guiding the research activity (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p. 238). In other
words, we worked analytically to answer the question: What are the broader
patterns that pull these descriptive observations together? We used an interpretive comment approach to discuss the patterns as conceptual networks that explain reflection as an object of study in professional education and to lay the groundwork for recommendations that might guide
future research in the literacy field.
Results and Discussion
To bring the reflection construct into sharper relief for scrutiny, we first
compared its formulation in literacy studies with that of general teacher
education studies and then examined its treatment from both these perspectives. The results are organized in two parts - descriptive observations
and interpretive comments. Part one reports the discrete observations for
603
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
each collection of studies and the comparative analysis between the two
collections. Part two provides an interpretation of the comparative analysis and the descriptive observations as a whole. Five patterns are discussed
as a "cognitive network of concepts" that express the general principles,
facts, and methods pertaining to reflection as an object of study in this
body of teacher education and literacy education research.
Descriptive Observations of the Two Collections
Table 1 summarizes the coding results that constitute the particulars from
which the descriptive observations were derived. The frequency of some
particulars over others and how they cluster together provide evidence for
making observations about the characteristics of reflection as well as the
investigative effort used to study it. Particulars (descriptor items in Table
1) and their combinations are indicated in parentheses to help the reader
track the evidence that supports the descriptive observations and related
inferences.
Our initial encounter with these data drew our attention to the qualities of the literacy studies, which, as we had observed in our earlier work,
suggest certain strong tendencies in this line of inquiry (Roskos, Risko, &
Vukelich, 2000). In terms of theoretical orientation, literacy researchers
conceive reflection largely as a problem solving activity (1.1) that occurs in
field-based activity (2.4) and attempt to describe the reflection that is invited around their teaching activities as a process of "learning by doing"
(6.1), although they fall short of grounding their observations with actual
data from these situations (6.3). A majority view reflection as a means of
bridging theory and action (1.4), yet few provide data-driven analyses that
make such thinking visible and demonstrate its emergence in real teaching experience (6.2). About half acknowledge the social embeddedness of
reflective thought as shaped through social discourse and language in activity (1.6); some go even further to embrace reflection as an instrument
of change (1.5). Despite these social constructivist leanings, however, reflection is treated primarily as a solitary, private act as indicated by the
heavy emphasis on personal writing (not interpersonal dialogue) as the
means of expressing and developing reflective thought (4.id, 4.2a, 4.2b,
4.2d, 4-2g). Relatedly, literacy researchers stress that reflection should engage future teachers in examining their past experience in light of new
learning for purposes of extending their pedagogic thinking and actions
(4.1a), but few describe coaching and instructional strategies that might
scaffold students' thinking and doing beyond existing schemas (5.4,6.4).
Only Bean and Zulich (1993) and Herrmann and Sarracino (1993) address the kind of instructional specifics that might help teacher educators
604
scaffold students' thinking to higher levels of reflection during the learning-to-teach-literacy process. That writing prevails as the dominant means
of eliciting students' reflections is noteworthy along with the rapid rise in
the use of portfolios to document students' reflective thinking and performance (4.2a). Clearly, literacy researchers prefer qualitative approaches to
the study of reflection (5.2), with a distinct bias toward examining influencing factors (e.g., writing) over individual variables that might influence or direct the process. Individual differences in reflection development
(1.2,1.3) and the influence of personal characteristics on reflective activity
(4.1b), for example, have not received much attention until more recently
(e.g., Lyons, 1998; Zulich, Bean, & Herrick, 1992). Although many authors
gathered basic identifying information on their participants as subjects
(4.1a), they tended not to go beyond this level of description.
The collection of general teacher education studies shares some of these
same characteristics. Most authors, for example, treat reflection as a problem solving activity (1.1), rooted in the Deweyean tradition, and examine
it through this lens in the methods they employ to study it (5.5). They tend
to emphasize environmental influences on reflection, such as the "learn to
teach" curriculum (4.1c), the student teaching experience (2.5), and opportunities to write about it (4-id, 4.2b). Like their literacy counterparts,
many embrace reflection as an intellectual tool for bridging theory and
practice and central to the life of the effective educator (1.4). Few, on the
other hand, espouse social constructivist ideas as investigative frames (1.5,
1.6), preferring to couch their theoretical rationales and stances in developmental process terms (1.2). Turner-Muecke, Russell, & Bowyer (1986),
for example, track reflective activity over time and changes in the supervisor-student teacher relationships, and Knowles and Hoefler (1989) document the development of a student teacher. As in the literacy collection,
the general studies provide little information on how to actually teach
reflection as an outcome of investigative work (6.4),but MacKinnon (1987),
among others (e.g., Bean & Zulich, 1993; Korthagen, 1985,1988), makes a
move in this direction. General teacher education studies are also overwhelmingly qualitative (5.2), thus rich in description but rather sparse on
explanation and verification of findings and recommendations (6.3,6.5).
Apart from these likenesses between the two collections, there are qualities that sharply distinguish the two sets from one another, and thus turn
up the observational lens on reflection. In the following, we describe these
differences which highlight features of reflection and ways of seeing it that
bring it more clearly into view.
One striking difference is the greater use of discussion and interview in
the general teacher education studies to elicit reflections, thus allowing for
the oral expression of reflective thinking in the company of another or
605
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
Table 7. Percentage of Studies with Descriptor Items
Literacy only
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
Description
o
Genera/ only
Total
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
Combined
Total
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
Total
Theoretical frames
Problem solving
1.1
100%
86%
60%
82%
69%
67%
45%
70%
100%
73%
50%
74%
Developmental
1.2
20%
43%
40%
35%
45%
47%
63%
51%
38%
45%
56%
46%
Individual differences
1.3
20%
14%
40%
24%
9%
0%
18%
8%
13%
5%
25%
13%
Theory practice
1.4
100%
43%
40%
59%
45%
53%
45%
49%
63%
50%
44%
52%
Critical
1.5
0%
14%
40%
43%
36%
20%
9%
22%
25%
18%
19%
20%
Social
1.6
60%
57%
40%
53%
36%
20%
33%
27%
44%
32%
31%
35%
History
2.1
0%
43%
0%
18%
27%
33%
18%
27%
19%
36%
13%
24%
Setting
Intro course
2.2
20%
14%
20%
18%
27%
20%
0%
16%
25%
18%
6%
17%
Methods course
2.3
20%
0%
20%
12%
18%
7%
9%
11%
19%
5%
13%
11%
Methods field
2.4
40%
100%
60%
71%
55%
20%
18%
30%
50%
45%
31%
43%
Student teaching
2.5
0%
29%
20%
18%
55%
53%
45%
51%
38%
45%
38%
41%
3.1
60%
43%
100%
65%
91%
73%
82%
81%
81%
64%
94%
78%
Background
4.1a
40%
71%
40%
53%
18%
60%
36%
41%
25%
64%
38%
44%
Traits
4.1b
0%
0%
20%
6%
18%
0%
45%
19%
13%
0%
38%
15%
Definition
Explicit
Facilitating factors
Curriculum
4.1c
40%
71%
40%
53%
82%
67%
27%
59%
69%
68%
31%
57%
Writing
4.1 d
40%
86%
40%
59%
0%
87%
36%
46%
13%
86%
38%
50%
Portfolio
4.2a
0%
0%
60%
18%
0%
7%
9%
12%
0%
5%
25%
9%
Table 7. (Continued)
Literacy only
Description
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
Total
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
18%
45%
0%
0%
0%
29%
0%
0%
60%
57%
60%
43%
-
0%
Quantitative
5.1
Qualitative
Mixed
Journal
4.2b
0%
Wo
40%
Prof, plans
4.2c
0%
0%
Dialog journal
4.2d
20%
57%
Videos
4.2e
20%
Discussions
4.2f
Written summaries
4.2g
Combined
Genera/ only
Total
40%
45%
0%
0%.
0%
0%
9%
20%
0%
11%
6%
0%
13%
18%
11%
20%
47%
82%
80%
45%
20%
41%
55%
33%
36%
0%
40%
12%
0%
60%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
5.2
80%
100%
100%
94%
73%
5.3
20%
0%
0%
5%
27%
Coaching
5.4
20%
0%
0%
6%
Theory/method
5.5
60%
86%
40%
65%
Other
43%
Period I Period 2 Period 3
31%
Total
32%
44%
35%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
32%
0%
17%
6%
9%
13%
9%
70%
75%
73%
38%
63%
41%
56%
36%
31%
41%
27%
0%
41%
19%
22%
18%
14%
0%
14%
13%
9%
67%
73%
70%
75%
77%
94%
81%
13%
0%
14%
25%
9%
0%
11%
36%
7%
27%
23%
31%
5%
19%
17%
82%
73%
64%
73%
75%
77%
56%
70%
55%
81%
88%
95%
50%
80%
41%
Methodology
Recommendations
o
Desc. Process
6.1
80%
100%
40%
76%
91%
93%
Teaching link
6.2
60%
14%
80%
47%
55%
20%
45%
38%
56%
18%
56%
Data support
6.3
0%
57%
40%
35%
36%
33%
27%
32%
25%
41%
31%
33%
How to teach
6.4
40%
0%
0%
12%
45%
0%
0%
14%
44%
0%
0%
13%
Data support
6.5
0%
14%
60%
24%
36%
7%
55%
30%
25%
9%
56%
28%
JLR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
others (4.2O. Although most of these authors do not make the case for
socially constructed reflections theoretically - for example, only Bolin
(1988) and Reiman (1999) actually refer to Vygotsky - 70% of them engaged students in collective dialogic processing of reflection, and some go
on to talk about the importance of this shared activity to stimulate deeper
thought and reflection (e.g., Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1991;
Guillaume & Rudney, 1993) and to support the students' emotional development (Baird et al., 1991). Additionally several describe, rather explicitly,
the reflective thinking occurring in partner to partner or group discussions (e.g., Baird etal.,i99i;Bolin,i988; Ferguson, 1989; Hill, 1986; Hillkirk
& Dupuis, 1989; Knowles & Hoefler, 1989; Richert, 1990; Ross, 1989) and
also the mutual development of reflection for both supervisor and student
teacher (e.g.,MacKinnon,i987; Turner-Muecke et al., i986).Turner-Muecke
et al. (1986), for example, document prospective teachers' reflections on
learning to teach and the instructors' reflections on learning to supervise.
Further, when interview was used as a methodology to elicit the understandings that students might employ in making sense of observed classroom practice or in guiding their own teaching, this dialogic exchange
typically occurred at regular intervals, sometimes weekly, throughout the
duration of the studies - rather than just at their end (e.g., Korthagen, 1985,
i988;MacKinnon,i987;Richert,i99o;Sparks-Langeretal.,i99o;TurnerMuecke et al., 1986).
A second notable difference is these researchers' attention to definition
of terms (3.1). Most of them (81%) provide an explicit definition of reflection that sets up and guides the examination of the reflection process in
students' thinking and activity. A consistent theme that threads through
these definitions is the idea that reflection is a deliberate act that is undertaken for purposes of making well-reasoned choices and taking responsibility for those choices (Korthagen, 1988; MacKinnon, 1987; Ross, 1989).
As Bainer and Cantrell (1993) have written, reflection is "the ability to assess situations and to make thoughtful, rational decisions" (p. 65).
Several acknowledge the various definitions of reflection found in the
literature (most of which relate to Dewey's inquiry-oriented concepts), and
many draw heavily on Dewey, Schon, or Zeichner and Liston to build their
definitions. Most take the additional steps to articulate specifically what
they mean by reflection in their study and to link these features to their
search for evidence in students' talk, writing, or teaching behaviors. Hatton
and Smith (1995), for example, derive their definition of reflection from a
rich, thick description of the research as well as sustained discussion amongst
colleagues, defining it as "deliberate thinking about action with a view to
its improvement" (p. 40). They then gathered evidence of reflection as expressed in students' writing, identifying three types of writing indicative
608
of reflection as defined - descriptive (reasons for action/improvement
based on personal judgment), dialogic (discourse with oneself about possible reasons for actions/improvement), and critical (reasons for actions/
improvements that take into account broader sociocultural contexts). They
go on to explore the issues of language use and knowledge and experiential bases in facilitating or inhibiting demonstrations of reflective thinking.
Similarly, Sparks-Langer et al. (1990) described changes to their teacher
education program as an outcome of rich discussions informed by the literature on teacher thinking and reflection as well as their own research.
The researchers initially defined reflection as the ability "to apply educational principles and techniques within the framework of [one's] own experience, contextual factors, and social and philosophical values [to analyze] ones own and the class's performance" (p. 24). Next they gathered
evidence of students' reflection as expressed in weekly interviews and daily
teaching reflection journals. Finally, they analyzed the students' responses
using a seven-level framework for assessing reflective pedagogical thinking, which had been derived from the multiple sources (e.g., cognitive psychology, teacher decision making, experiential learning theory). Their data
revealed students' difficulties with critical reflection, that is, to carefully
consider equity and justice issues in their teaching. As a result, the team
reformulated their reflective thinking framework to accommodate these
observations in their program.
Three new definitional features of reflection also crop up in the set of
general teacher education studies. One is the notion of "refraining," that is,
to use reflection, not to abandon previous beliefs and understandings, but to
expand on them and to take on new perspectives by problematizing situations and ideas. MacKinnon (1987), for one, extends features of reflection
in this direction, describing "reframing," based on Schon's theory, as the
reflective phase in which problems are reexamined from at least one theoretical perspective, maybe more. When working in this phase, perspective
teachers do not necessarily abandon their own experiences and perspectives. Rather they analyze problems from different theoretical perspectives,
and as they do, they come to deeper understandings about their own perspectives and adopt new theoretical "platforms" to examine problems. To
MacKinnon, evidence of reframing serves as a "marker" to indicate reflection is occurring. Turner-Muecke et al. (1986) also discuss reframing as
part of a cyclical problem-solving (and reflective) process - reconsidering or
reframing the problem and then testing new solutions. Later, Wedman,
Martin, and Mahlios (1990) build on this notion of reflection as reframing
by identifying three dimensions to which students must attend in their
reconsideration of a teaching problem: an inquiry orientation (considering alternatives to established practice), an inquiry process (identifying
609
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
and applying alternatives), and educational phenomena (considering the
social nature of education).
A second feature is the activity of "debriefing" as an important aspect
of the reflection process. For example, Knowles and Hoefler (1989) rely
heavily on Joplin's (1981) model of experiential education in their discussion of debriefing. Viewed as the last stage of reflection, and to ensure education rather than miseducation or failure, the preservice teacher is expected to make "connections between knowledge and experience" (p. 19).
They argue that this debriefing stage is often omitted in programs designed
to enhance reflective development, often because instructors have difficulty talking about student teachers' strengths as well as their failures, in
particular the times in which the student teacher is less than successful.
Knowles and Hoefler argue for systematic analyses of the teaching experiences and sustained conversations with a supervisor as an "embryonic"
state for developing new understandings and ways to resolve challenges.
And a third feature contributing to the clarity of definition found in the
general teacher education studies more so than in the literacy studies is a
finer emphasis on reflection as an opportunity to examine the socio-political dimensions of schooling and to assess teaching actions for their contribution toward more equitable instruction (e.g., Wedman & Martin,
1986). Generalists with a social constructivist orientation, it appears, maintained their stance more specifically and exactly in crafting their definitions than their literacy peers. Winitzky's (1992) definition is illustrative:
"Reflection is ... the ability to retrieve appropriate knowledge, to apply
that knowledge in perceiving and analyzing causal relationships in classroom management events, and to connect such knowledge to larger social
issues" (p. 3). Moving the socio-political elements of definition into program action, Gore and Zeichner (1991) describe an "emancipatory action
research" project that purposively draws aspiring educators' attention to
issues of equity and social justice through readings and other course activities. And, although their students greatly struggled with this dimension of reflection, they nonetheless were confronted with the political and
moral aspects of teaching - a rare occurrence in teacher education. Such
effort is also evident in the work of Sparks-Langer et al. (199 o), who pushed
beginners' reflecting beyond the practical to the critical in the social reconstructivist sense. They concluded, "We are fairly successful in promoting the cognitive-micro-technical aspects of teacher thinking. It is harder,
however, to develop critical reflection crucial for responsible professional
practice"(pp. 31-32).
A third difference distinguishing general teacher education from literacy
studies is in the use of writing as a means of eliciting and documenting
610
reflection (4.1 d). For most, through 1995, writing is seen as a data collection
device and not a process in and of itself for promoting reflective thought
(see, e.g., Bolin, 1988 [journals]; Korthagen, 1985 [written responses to
questionnaires]). A few exceptions to this point are Hatton and Smith
(1995), Reiman (1999), and Hoover (1994) who comment on the intellectual demands of writing which may serve to further the development of
conscious awareness and deliberative thinking. Reiman (1999), in particular, points out the value of writing, as in journaling, for framing language
so as to express experience in new ways that promote deeper understandings. Further, Hoover (1994) contends that features of written text, such as
the need for explicitness and integration of ideas, create fertile conditions
for reflective thinking. Most researchers of reflection studies in general
teacher education fields, however, do not view writing in this way; rather,
they use writing as a data collection means toward a data analysis end. On
the other hand, several of the literacy researchers (e.g., Afflerbach et al.,
1988; Bean & Zulich, 1990,1991,1993) intimate that the writing process
per se may be influential in the development of reflective thought, which
may account for their heavier reliance on writing venues in prompting and
promoting reflection in their research work (e.g., portfolios, journals,
reflective summaries).
A fourth difference between the two collections highlights the more
precise methodology of the general teacher education studies. Illustrative
in this regard is the more thorough treatment of coaching. With the exception of studies published in the 1990-1994 time frame, a fair number of
these authors offered rather specific descriptions of the coaching done to
develop reflection in novice teachers (5.4) - a methodological move directly tied to their more explicit definitions of the construct (3.1). They
explained how students were actually guided to reflect through prompts
and feedback - procedures rarely described in literacy studies (6% of
studies). Reiman (1999), for example, discusses in considerable detail the
matching and graduated mismatching procedures of guided reflection that
induced reflection development in students'journal writing. Hillkirk and
Dupuis (1989) provided guiding questions that focused preservice teachers'
analytic thinking on their practicum teaching interlinked with their own
personal histories. MacKinnon (1987) and Turner-Muecke et al. (1986)
carefully describe the kind of supervisory talk that occurs between the
teacher and the preservice teacher and the decisions made by the supervisor to guide thinking during each phase of problem solving and reflection.
Interestingly, as noted earlier, the 1990-1994 set of studies are an exception
to this trend. Only Gore and Zeichner (1991) provide a specific accounting of how they coached their students to develop reflection, describing
611
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
JLR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
ed Risko
how they introduced students to action research as a way to "help [them]
understand [their] own practice and to improve it" and see action research
as "an integral part of their daily experiences in schools" (p. 127).
A related methodological design feature is the better coherence found
in the general teacher education studies. This is evident along two routes.
One is the "fit" between the authors' theoretical emphasis on reflection as a
developmental process (1.2) that is pulled forward through problem solving activity in dynamic situations, such as student teaching (2.5) and oral
discussion (4.2O. Their attention to the details of coaching and process
outcomes on students' reflective thinking attempt to follow through on
these ideas in mutually supporting ways. A second is the concern for "clarity" as seen in the attempt to describe one's history with the topic (2.1), to
provide explicit definitions (3.1), and to diversify method for purposes of
accuracy and precision (5.1,5.3). Although these authors, like their literacy
colleagues, often failed to accrue sufficient data to support their claims,
they nonetheless worked to build trustworthiness into their investigative
designs, and thus improve the significance of their findings.
Concluding our comparison of these two sets of studies, we can see in
their similarities common ground - reflection as problem solving (1.1) and
"learning by doing" (2.4,2.5,4.1c); writing as the catchment of reflective
thought (4.id); qualitative research as the route to truth (5.2); and description as evidence, albeit retrieved from a thin layer of factual data on students
and conditions (6.1,6.3). Also both sets are disappointingly alike in their
failure to provide specific information on how to teach reflection in preparing future teachers (6.4). In the differences that surface, we can observe
interesting disparities in theoretical stance (1.2,1.5,1.6),definitional elaboration and explicitness (3.1), use of dialogue (4.2O, attention to detail in
coaching (5.4), and coherence of methodological design. These differences
highlight salient features of reflection as a construct that need to be considered and attended to in literacy research. Expanding the definition of
reflection to incorporate theory and structure (reframing and debriefing
aspects), for example, opens up new pathways for literacy researchers.
Interpretive Comments
Our initial analysis dealt with the "particulars" of two collections of reflection studies to construct a descriptive account of each for purposes of comparison. The generalist and the literacy specialist in teacher education, we
found, can elucidate features and structures of reflective activity in similar
and also quite different ways.
Moving to a macro-level of paradigmatic analysis, which focuses on
relationships across categories, we next treated the two collections as a
612
whole and searched for patterns that tied them together. Our analysis
yielded five patterns that characterize the ways these researchers approach
and resolve the reflection research "problem," tendencies in their investigative work, their handling of the search for evidence, and the significance
of research solutions for advancing professional education. Below we discuss these patterns as interpretations grounded in the "particulars" and as
conceptual threads that build understanding of reflection study. Where
helpful, we again reference specific descriptor items in parentheses.
The first, and perhaps the most compelling pattern, is the "thick on describing, thin on implying" approach to the study of reflection. In general,
authors struggle with the weight of the construct, which may speak to its
incredible complexity as an idea. Reflection, as van Manen points out, is
challenging and "in the very nature of the pedagogical relation" (van Manen,
1995. P- 34)- Dewey, after all, spoke not only of reflection as thinking but
also as a set of personal qualities, such as open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility. Zeichner (1987) would add: building the active,
persistent and careful study of problems, purposes of action, and the educative and moral consequences of action. On the whole, authors of the general teacher education studies seemed to have coped with this complexity
better than those of literacy studies (e.g., Bolin, 1988; Gore & Zeichner,
1991; Guillaume &Rudney, 1993; Hill, 1986; Korthagen, 1985,1988). Their
theoretical explanations were often more consistent than those found in
literacy studies. They focused more squarely on their data to explain what
students were learning and doing and provided more information about
their teaching or coaching. Yet in sorting out the complexity of the reflection
construct, more often than not authors seemed to lose their way and to
have difficulty systematically tracking the research problem through to a
productive solution that addressed not only the problem, but also extended
the "so what does this mean" for theory building or practice (6.3,6.5). It of
course is never easy to build a good research "story" that starts and ends
satisfactorily. But the study of reflection in the professional education of
teachers, that specific to literacy and other areas as well, seems preoccupied with describing what reflection is and not enough with building,
analyzing, and interpreting data in ways that build an evidentiary base.
Although there are notable exceptions, for most studies reviewed here, this
pattern holds true.
A second is the"backloading of reflection research" into advanced field
work (2.4) and student teaching (2.5). Most studies (84%) occur in the
latter phases of the preparatory period, which leaves little to go on in the
effort to understand the development of reflection in the learning-to-teach
process from its start. That this tendency exists may be explained in part
by the theoretical stance assumed by most reflection researchers, namely
613
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
that individuals "learn by doing," and therefore reflection is best constructed
out of real classroom experience. However, there is some evidence that the
intensity of real classroom experiences and the considerable emotion-live
teaching it involves may cloud and even inhibit reflective abilities of beginners(Gleissman,i984).Asaconsequence,thedatagatheredunderthese
conditions may not be the best evidence of developmental tendencies. Less
real and more protected environments for reflective thinking, such as introductory and methods courses, may in fact provide a truer approximation
of students' capabilities and build a foundation for thinking of problems
and issues from multiple perspectives. Though some authors appear to
express the belief that reflection develops over time (e.g., Baird et al., 1991;
Ross, 1989), few pay any real attention to this notion in their research designs. There are, of course, exceptions. Baird et al. (1991), for example, followed a group of students during their last year of preparation and then
followed three members of this group into their first two-years of teaching.
Typically, however, reflection development is considered across a single
semester or at best an academic year (e.g., Bolin, 1990; Guillaume & Rudney,
1993; Herrmann & Sarracino, 1993; Winitzky, 1992).
Third, the trend over the 15-year period in studies from both collections is that "definitions matter." Authors of most of the general teacher
education studies (81%) and more than half of those in the literacy studies
(65%) take steps to define what they mean by reflection and ground their
definitions firmly in the philosophical and empirical knowledge base. Studies in the last 5 -year period were the strongest in this regard. Dewey, Schon,
and van Manen remain as stable organizers as definitions are shaped and
honed around three main kinds of reflection - retrospective (on past action), anticipatory (on future action), and contemporaneous (in action;
van Manen, 1995). Also notable is that authors of general studies describe
their history with reflection work, thus enriching their definitions with
programmatic and personal experience.
A fourth pattern is the apparent struggle with the "person-environment
dynamic." How do the influences of educational environment, such as
'learning-to-teach' experiences and assignments, interact with personal
attributes, such as individual history and character traits, to more or less
support the development of reflection as a skill and disposition? Thus far,
studies in both sets have failed to grapple with the simultaneity and integration of these influences, favoring by far the exploration of environmental
factors on reflection over person factors. The focus on tools underscores
this point as many studies examine the influence of portfolios, journaling,
and reflective summary writing on students' reflective status and thinking. By far, studies focus on writing as a vehicle for inducing reflection, for
example, portfolios, journals, professional development plans, and reflective
614
summaries. A few authors, however, raise the possibilities of individual
differences and reflective ability. Korthagen (1985,1988; Korthagen &Wubbels, 1995), for one, discusses internally driven versus externally driven
learners. He argues that those future teachers who need external cues and
lots of external direction for reflection from the teacher are often those
who show weak reflection abilities in journaling and portfolio work. These
are students who may drop-out of teaching, who fail to thrive as reflectors,
and who complain loudly about lack of direction and help from their teachers and mentors. On the other hand, the internally driven student develops
his/her own goals and directions and moves to deeper levels of reflection,
ultimately succeeding in programs that are based on inquiry-driven, constructivist models (such as Dewey or Schon). In other words, what the educational environment affords as opportunities to learn may meet some students' needs and not others and consequent interactions may support or
constrain individual development. Gore and Zeichner (1991) grapple with
this as they reflect on why their preservice students failed to provide evidence of critically reflective teaching practice (that is, conduct action research which consider the moral and ethical implications of their teaching). They believe that personal attributes, which they label "biological
factors," such as preservice teachers' generally unpoliticized view of schooling and the relative unimportance of academic work in students' lives, interact with "situational factors," such as the failure to be confronted with
explicit discussions of the moral aspects of teaching and their temporary
status in their teaching placements, along with "cultural factors," such as
"technical rationality, individualism, and instrumentalism that dominate
education thinking," to inhibit preservice teachers' development of critical
reflection (p. 131). Thus, although a few have pointed to individual differences as factors, even fewer have taken up the challenge of exploring the
person-environment interface and its meaning for preparing reflective
teachers.
A fifth pattern, and a troubling one, is an apparent lack of "historical
continuity" in the research that builds a line of inquiry and develops a cumulative effect with the potential of informing practice. In framing their
studies, authors reach back to Dewey, but tend not to bring foundational
concepts and propositions forward into newer arenas of thought and knowledge. Attention to critical pedagogy and social constructivist ideas across
all studies, for example, has not advanced very much (20% and 35% of
studies respectively), despite the literacy researchers' surge of interest in
Vygotsky in the 1980s (1.6) and social justice issues more recently (1.5).
Even Schon's powerful ideas appear to lack punch as studies show a declining interest in coaching and a persistent focus on writing as the medium for reflection (in lieu of dialogic formats). Another clue suggestive
615
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
of stagnation is the lack of diversity in method, which actually shows a
tendency for fewer mixed designs (from 31% to 19%). Although a focus on
reflection as a developmental process has improved, especially among generalists, little has changed over time to more frontally examine who develops, when, and under what conditions and, most importantly, to observe
if advanced reflection in teachers makes a difference in their practice. Are
more reflective beginning teachers better teachers? Do children achieve
literacy more fully, more thoroughly and more surely under their tutelage?
Are some kinds of reflection more efficacious for advancing teaching performance than others? What develops in persons and environments to instill and foster reflective thinking about teaching? How do we teach for
reflection? We are still waiting after 15 years for fruitful answers to these
basic questions.
Arising from our observations, these five patterns illuminate the network of motivation, preferences, ideas, problems and solutions that form
the scientific meaning and value of the two collections. Mindful that these
patterns are interpretations, they do offer an approximation of the formulation of the reflection research domain. As we can see, the research work
is lively and thriving in some areas, such as attention to definition and to
descriptions of reflection. But, unfortunately, it lacks novelty, diversity, and
vigor in the handling of theoretical ideas, research problems, study designs, and prickly issues (e.g., the analysis of reflection as a change agent in
the sociopolitical sense). Noticeably absent are robust efforts to understand
reflection as a way to socialize future teachers into the culture of teaching
(e.g., power struggles among teachers as described by Livingston, 1999)
and to sensitize them to the social injustices that often inhibit students'
learning in classrooms (e.g., Leland, Harste, & Youssef, 1997). Winitzky
(1992, pp. 2-3) argues that this is caused by the mutual exclusivity of the
"multiple organizing frameworks" used by researchers studying reflection.
She suggests three frameworks have been used to guide reflection studies:
a cognitive approach where the purposes of reflection are to "identify key
factors affecting student learning, weigh their relative influence, clarify
causal relationships, and make reasoned decisions about future actions"; a
critical approach where researchers are interested in teachers' exploration
of "the moral, social, and political implications, dilemmas, and trade-offs
inherent in every teaching act"; and a narrative approach where researchers are interested in "teachers own descriptions of the circumstances under which they make decisions." Winitzky (1992) argues that although each
perspective is important and should be acknowledged,"only one can come
to the forefront for any given study" (p. 3). We would argue, though, that
any investigation of particular reflective features or perspectives must be
grounded in an examination of potential synergy among several perspec-
616
tives and a systematic analysis of multiple factors (e.g., context where reflection
occurs, students' personal history and individual approach to reflection)
that impact its development in dynamic ways. To do otherwise is to strip
reflection of its meaning and complexity.
J LR
Summary and Recommendations
Reflection
Reflection, as a thoughtful and a caring act, goes to the heart of the instructional relationship. It is not only a tool of skilled practice, but also a
feeling that helps educators to teach effectively and intelligently rather than
unthinkingly, dogmatically or prejudicially. Reflection, as Dewey (1964)
pointed out, propels "intelligent action" (p. 211). But reflection is a difficult
concept for beginners to grasp in the practical activity of learning to teach.
And, as teacher educators, we found it hard to teach, because there is a lack
of well-organized information on reflection development in those learning and starting to teach, and there is not much in the way of researchbased strategies to guide instruction in reflection.
Faced with this practical reality, we continued our examination of reflection inquiry within the last 15 years to obtain a surer grip on the concept, to identify new research directions, and to glean information that
might inform our instruction. We applied a qualitative strategy that treated
the research domain of literacy and general teacher education studies in a
figure-ground manner, so that features relevant to the study of reflection
might stand out. Observations emerged from this analytic process that
described similarities and also highlighted important differences in the
formulation of the construct. Additionally, an holistic interpretation of
these observations pointed to common elements that appear over and over,
producing the "cognitive networks of concepts" that constitute knowledge
- the known in this domain. But it also revealed elements that are missing
or are incomplete and around which "cognitive networks of concepts" yet
need to be constructed. Following this analytic trail, we were alerted to
new features of the construct (e.g., reframing and debriefing) and exposed
to the procedures and nuances of instructional techniques less familiar to
us (e.g., coaching). Moreover we developed insights that open up new possibilities and directions for reflection research. Below, we offer these as
guidelines that might chart the way forward for this line of inquiry in literacy professional education and lead to a more-informed pedagogy.
First, studies should focus on gathering evidence of reflection development in those learning to teach with the goal of creating a developmental
continuum that describes typical phases of cognitive and dispositional
growth in relation to teaching work. This is essential, but as yet far too
thinly described. Descriptive evidence is needed at three levels - at the
617
and Learning
to Teach
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
& Risko
onset of preparation, across the preparatory years, and into the first years
of teaching. We need to ask: What does beginning reflection look like in
future teachers of reading? How does reflective thinking change as novices shift from their student role to that of the teacher? What are the features of reflection in new teachers as they adapt to the realities of everyday
practice? How do the developmental trajectories of reflection vary among
individuals? Compiling these kinds of descriptive data contributes to an
understanding of reflection development and provides indices of growth
in reflection as a skill and disposition in the professional teaching of reading.
Second, applied research is needed to identify and articulate proven
strategies for improving students' reflective abilities within dynamic teaching-learning environments. These strategies need to be purposeful, sensitive to contextual factors, and responsive to students' individual approach
to reflection. To "elicit" reflection is not enough to "improve" preservice
teachers' reflective abilities as future professionals. Researchers in the literacy field need to design and validate instructional protocols that more
deliberately scaffold reflective thinking to more critical levels. On this point,
there is, in fact, little evidence that writing for oneself, as frequently used in
the popular journal writing strategy, impacts the level of preservice teachers'
reflective thinking. The data suggest, rather, that it is preservice teachers'
socially constructed reflections - those built through the interactive tug
and pull with a more informed other - that lead them to more in-depth
considerations and penetrating ideas (Freire & Macedo, 1987). Reading
pedagogy researchers, therefore, should turn more of their attention to
studying dialogic relations between peers and between developing teachers and their instructors - relations which appear to prompt and encourage
future reading teachers to think more deeply and critically about their role.
Third, literacy researchers should more precisely identify the dimension(s)
of reflection under scrutiny so as to build the theoretical foundations for
the position taken and to align the methodology and findings with that
position in order to gain scientific power. A clear statement of definition
reflective of the literature and the researcher's circumstance or history
seems particularly helpful as demonstrated in reflection studies outside
the literacy field. Literacy researchers need to better frame the reflection
problem under study as to its function (e.g., for personal, classroom practice, or professional outcomes), features (e.g., of problem solving, of teaching actions, of sociopolitical and ethical criteria), temporal qualities (e.g.,
anticipatory, in-action or retrospective), and structure (e.g., scaffolding,
refraining, debriefing). Presently, what counts as reflection and how it is
observed and categorized varies tremendously across studies, and to infer
globally that all and any kind of reflection is good for future teachers is not
helpful for improving professional education or literacy teaching practice.
618
Fourth, researchers should strive for diversity of method in their research designs. It is important to move from baseline description to more
rigorous observational methods in order to establish and refine educational interventions that ultimately improve the teacher educators' practice. More complex and creative designs are also necessary for capturing
the joint interactive effects of individual propensities and environmental
factors on reflection development in the professional setting. To get at
"jointness" of person-environment interactions, Rogoff (19 8 2), for example,
describes a contextual event approach that relies on eclectic methods for
examining setting and task features, person characteristics, and their integration. Such approaches help to generate more diversity of outcomes ones that account for developmental and learning differences of future
reading teachers and ones that acknowledge particular characteristics of
the context(s) within which reflecting occurs for these factors may foster
different reflection attributes.
Fifth, more attention needs to be paid to a sense of historical continuity
in reflection research work so that studies build on one another in ways
that bring traditional wisdom and past gains forward into new research
efforts. Right now making the case for teaching reflection in preparing future literacy teachers rests largely on good ideas, not on proven results because of a scattered approach to the examination of foundational ideas.
The fragmentation that has resulted makes it difficult to bundle findings
into corroborating evidence that supports well-defined research problems
and discriminating analyses that both continue and challenge conceptualizations of reflection. The need to establish a better sense of research
history in the line of inquiry is critical for without one it will be very difficult to trail reflection as a phenomenon, process and practice into our professional teaching work and as a distinguishing feature of excellent literacy
instruction.
Taken all at once these guidelines indicate that there is much to do to
improve the quality of reflection research in our field. The agenda seems
so large. Yet it is also an attractive agenda, and an exciting one, because it
presents plenty of possibilities for study that could be groundbreaking,
imaginative, compelling, and beneficial for literacy research and pedagogy.
REFERENCES
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies reviewed. Of those, references marked
with an additional asterisk indicate literacy studies.
**Afflerbach, P., Bass, L., Hoo, D., Smith, S., Weiss, L, & Williams, L. (1988). Preservice teachers use think-aloud protocols to study writing. Language Arts, 65,
693-701.
619
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
&Risko
**Allen, V., Freeman, E., & Lehman, B. (1989). A literacy education model for preservice teachers: Translating observation and reflection into exemplary practice. In S. McCormick & P. O'Keefe (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for
literacy research and instruction. Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 473-480). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
*Bainer, D.L., & Cantrell, D. (1992). Nine dominant reflection themes identified for
preservice teachers by a content analysis of essays. Education, 112, 571-578.
*Bainer, D.L., & Cantrell, D. (1993). The relationship between instructional domain and the content of reflection among preserve teachers. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 20 (4), 65-76.
*Baird, J.R., Fensham, P.J., Gunstone, R.F., & White, R.T. (1991). The importance of
reflection in improving science teaching and learning. New York: John Wiley.
**Bean, T.W., & Zulich, J. (1989). Using dialogue journals to foster reflective practice with preservice, content-area teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 33-40.
**Bean, T.W., & Zulich, J. (1990). Teaching students to learn from text: Preservice
content teachers' changing views of their role through the window of studentprofessor dialogue journals. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory
and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms. 39th yearbook of the National
Reading Conference (pp. 171-178). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
**Bean, T.W., & Zulich, J. (1991). A case study of three preservice teachers' beliefs
about content area reading through the window of student-professor dialogue
journals. In C.K. Kinzer & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Viewsfrom many perspectives. 40th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 463-474). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
**Bean, T.W., & Zulich, J. (1993). The other half: A case study of asymmetrical
communication in content-area reading student-professor dialogue journals.
In D.J. Leu & C.K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research,
theory, and practice. 42nd yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.
289-296). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
*Bolin, F.S. (19 88). Helping student teachers think about teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 39 (2), 48-54.
*Bolin, F.S. (1990). Helping student teachers think about teaching: another look at
Lou. Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (1), 10-19.
*Borko, H., Michalec, P., Timmons, M., & Siddle, J. (1997). Student teaching portfolios: A tool for promoting reflective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 48
(5), 345-357.
Brunner, D.D. (1994). Inquiry and reflection: Framing narrative practice in education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
*Calderhead, J. (1987). The quality of reflection in student teachers' professional
learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 10 (3), 269-278.
Calderhead, J. (1992). The role of reflection in learning to teach. In L. Valli (Ed.),
Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques (pp. 139-146). Albany,NY:State
University of New York Press.
*Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum settings: Reflective practice under scrutiny. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 243-261.
*Collier, S.T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teach620
ing experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (3), 173-181.
Cruikshank, D.R. (19 85). Uses and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan,
66, 704-706.
**Danielson, K. (1989). The autobiography as language reflection. Reading Horizons, 29, 257-261.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: C.C. Heath. (Original work published 1901)
Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey selected writings. New York: Modern Library.
*Ferguson, P. (1989). A reflective approach to the methods practicum. Journal of
Teacher Education, 40 (2), 36-41.
Freigberg, H.J., & Waxman, H.C. (1990). Reflection and the acquisition of technical teaching skills. In R. Clift, W.R. Houston, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs (pp. 119138). New York: Teachers College Press.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York:
Bergin & Garvey.
*Galvez-Martin, M.E., Bowman, C.L., & Morrison, M.A. (1998). An exploratory
study of the level of reflection attained by preservice teachers. Mid-Western
Educational Researcher, 11 (2), 9-18.
Gitlin, A., & Teitelbaum, B. (1983). Linking theory and practice: The use of ethnographic methodology by prospective teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 9 (3), 225-234.
Gleissman, D.H. (1984). Changing teaching performance. In L.G. Katz & J.D. Raths
(Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 95-111). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
*Gore, J.M., & Zeichner, K.M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in
preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 79, 119-136.
*Guillaume, A.M., & Rudney, G.L. (1993). Student teacher's growth toward independence: An analysis of their changing concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 65-80.
*Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teachingand Teacher Education, 11, 33-49.
**Herrmann, B.A., Sarracino, J. (1993). Restructuring preservice literacy methods
course: Dilemmas and lessons learned. Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (2),
96-106.
**Hill, S. (1986). Language education and field experiences. Journal of Teacher
Education, 37 (3), 56-59.
*Hillkirk, K., & Dupuis, V. (1989). Outcomes of a teacher education curriculum
module that emphasizes inquiry and reflection. The Teacher Educator, 24 (3),
20-27.
*Hoover, L.A. (1994). Reflective writing as a window on preservice teacher's thought
process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 83-93.
Joplin, L. (1981). On defining experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4 (1), 17-20.
**Kasten, C.K., & Padak, N.D. (1997). Nurturing preservice teachers' reflection on
literacy. In C.K. Kinzer, K.A. Hinchman, & D.J. Leu (Eds.) Inquiries in literacy
theory and practices. 46th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.
621
J LR
Reflection
and Learning
to Teach
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
&Risko
335-346). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and
promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
*Knowles, J., & Hoefler, V. (1989). The student teacher who wouldn't go away: Learning from failure. The Journal of Experimental Education, 57 (4), 14-21.
*Korthagen, F. (1985). Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the
Netherlands. Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (5), 11-15.
*Korthagen, F. (1988). The influence of learning orientations on the development
of reflective teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers'professional learning (pp.
35-50). New York: Falmer Press.
*Korthagen, F.A., & Wubbels, T. (1995). Characteristics of reflective practitioners:
Towards an operationalization of the concept of reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1 (1), 51-72.
**Leland, C.H., Harste, J.C., & Youssef, O. (1997). Teacher education and critical
literacy. In C.K. Kinzer, K.A. Hinchman, & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy
theory and practices. 46th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.
385-396). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Livingston, G. (1999). Beyond watching over established ways: A review as recasting
the literature, recasting the lived. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 9-20.
**Lyons, N. (1998). Reflection in teaching: Can it be developmental? A portfolio
perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 115-127.
*MacKinnon,A. (1987). Detecting reflection-in-action among preservice elementary science teachers. Teachingand Teacher Education,3, 135-145.
*Metcalf, K.K., & Kahlich, P.A. (1998). Nontraditional preservice teacher development: The value of clinical experience. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, (2), 69-82.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of
new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J.A.
Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 5-23). London:
Falmer Press.
*Pultorak, E.G. (1993). Facilitating reflective thought in novice teachers. Journal of
Teacher Education, 44 (4), 288-295.
*Pultorak, E.G. (1996). Following the developmental process of reflection in novice teachers: Three years of investigation. Journal of Teacher Education, 47 (4),
283-291.
*Reiman, A.J. (1999). The evolution of the social roletaking and guided reflection
framework in teacher education: Recent theory and quantitative synthesis of
research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 597-612.
*Richert, A.E. (1990). Teaching teachers to reflect: A consideration of program
structure. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22 (6), 509-527.
Richert, A.E. (1991). Case methods and teacher education: Using cases to teach
teacher reflection. In B.R. Tabachnich & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices
622
in inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp. 130-150). London: Falmer Press.
Richert, A.E. (1992). The content of student teachers' reflections within different
structures for facilitating the reflective process. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.),
Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 171-191). London:
Falmer Press.
J LR
**Risko, V., Roskos, K., & Vukelich, C. (1999). Making connections: Preservice
Reflection
teachers' reflection processes and strategies. In T. Shanahan & F. RodriguezBrown (Eds.), Forty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. and Learning
to Teach
412-422). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Rogoff, B. (1982). Integrating context and cognitive development. In M.E. Lamb &
A.L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 125-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roskos, K., Risko, V., & Vukelich, C. (2000). A critical review of reflection in the
professional education of future teachers of reading. In T. Shanahan & F.V.
Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.). Forty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
*Ross, D. (1989). First steps in developing a reflective approach. Journal of Teacher
Education, 40 (2), 22-30.
Russell, T. (1989). Documenting reflection-in-action in the classroom: searching
for appropriate methods. Qualitative Studies in Education, 2 (4), 275-294.
Russell, T. (1993). Critical attributes of a reflective teacher: Is agreement possible?
In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 144-153). London: Falmer Press.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Schon, D. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
*Sebren, A. (1995). Preservice teachers' reflections and knowledge development in
a field-based elementary physical education methods course. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education Methods Course, 14, 262-283.
**Sibbett, J., Wade, S., & Johnson, L. (1998). Preservice teachers' reflective thinking during a case discussion. In D.J. McIntyre & D.M. Byrd (Eds.), Strategies for
career-long teacher education. Teacher Education Yearbook VI (pp. 26-39).
Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
*Sparks-Langer, G.M., Simmons, J.M., Pasch, M., Colton, A., & Starko, A. (1990).
Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 23-32.
*Stoiber, K.C. (1991). The effect of technical and reflective preservice instruction
on pedagogical reasoning and problem solving. Journal of Teacher Education,
41 (2), 131-139.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
**Truscott, D.M., & Walker, B.J. (1998). The influence of portfolio selection on
reflective thinking. In E.G. Sturtevant, J. Dugan, P. Linder, & W.M. Linek (Eds.),
623
J LR
Roskos,
Vukelich,
&Risko
Literacy and community. Commerce, TX: College Reading Association.
Tsangaridou, N., & O'Sullivan, M. (1994). Using pedagogical reflective strategies
to enhance reflection among preservice physical education teachers. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 13-33.
*Turner-Muecke, L., Russell, T., & Bowyer, J. (1986). Reflection-in-action: Case
study of a clinical supervisor. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2 (1), 4 0 49.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.
Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.
Van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and practice. 1 (1), 33-50.
**Walker, B.J. (1991). A descriptive study of the reflective statements of preservice
teachers. In T. Rasinski, N. Padak, & J. Logan (Eds.), Reading is knowledge (pp.
97-103). Pittsburgh, KS: College Reading Association.
**Walker, B.J., & Ramseth, C. (1993). Reflective practice confronts the complexities of teaching reading. In T. Rasinski & N. Padak (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy
learning and instruction (pp. 171-177). Pittsburgh, KS: College Reading Association.
*Wedman, J., & Martin, M. (1986). Exploring the development of reflective thinking through journal writing. Reading Improvement, 23 (1), 68-71.
*Wedman, J.M., Martin, M.W., & Mahlios,M.C. (1990). Effect of orientation, pedagogy and time on selected student teaching outcomes. Action in Teacher Education, 12 (2), 15-23.
*Winitzky, N. (1992). Structure and process in thinking about classroom management: An exploratory study of prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 1-14.
*Winitzky, N., & Arends, R. (1991). Translating research into practice: The effects
of various forms of training and clinical experience on preservice student's
knowledge, skill, and reflectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (1), 5265.
Zeichner, K. (1987). Preparing reflective teachers: Tensions between abstractions
and realities. Journal Teacher Education, 3 (1) 25-31.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1985). Varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 155-174.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1991). Traditions of reform in U.S. teacher education. East
Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED320905)
**Zulich, J., Bean, T.W., & Herrick, J. (1992). Charting stages of preservice teacher
development and reflection in a multicultural community through dialogue
journal analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 345-360.
Manuscript received: August 28, 2000
First revision requested: December 11, 2000
Final revision received: December 11, 2000
Accepted for publication: December 19, 2000
624
Appendix. Summary of Reflertion Studies in Preservice Education - 1985-1999 (Note: * Indicates Literacy Studies)
Author® (date)
OS
Participants & setting
Data source(s)
Research goal
1985-1989
Study the writing process
Results
Reflection helps students recognize challenges of
writing process for children.
Afflerbach
•
, Bass,
Hoo, Smith, Weiss, &
Williams (1988)
5 elementary ed. students;
professor
Think-aloud transcripts
Allen
•
, Freeman, &
Lehman (1989)
27 students in language arts
methods course
Written responses to class & discussion Develop a model to link theory &
practice
Bea
• n & Zulich
(1989)
Undergraduate students
Dialogue journals; observations
enrolled in author's contentarea reading course with field
experience
Reflect on discrepancy between
content areas & universally applied
reading strategies
Bolin (1988)
1 elementary ed. student
teacher; university supervisor
Implemented effectively, journals can reveal &
Discover how preservice teachers'
thoughts develop over time as revealed facilitate preservice teachers reflective & critical
in reflective journals kept during
growth over time.
student teaching
Calderhead (1987)
10 postgraduate teachers
Interviews; reflective summaries
involved in field experience for
teaching students ages 8-13
Danielso
•
n (1989)
Students in author's courses
Autobiographical accounts of language
development
Examine role of autobiography in
understanding influences on children's
language development
Ferguson (1989)
Preservice teachers enrolled in
social studies methods course
in a cooperative teaching
practicum with master
teachers
Questionnaire; reflective summaries;
discussion between preservice teacher &
master teacher; lesson plans; practicum
field notes; conferences; seminars
All preservice teachers demonstrated ability to
Evaluate course outcomes by finding
evidence of preservice teachers making function at Van Mannen's 2nd level of reflective
connection between theory learned in rationality, some at the 3rd.
methods course & practice in the field;
additionally, to examine whether or not
preservice teachers were able to assess
the value of the learned instructional
methods on their own teaching
Reflective dialogue journal; interviews
Reflection was facilitated by videotaping & interaction
with classroom teachers.
Dialogue journals can effectively encourage reflection
& bridge distance between content-area subculture &
reading strategies.
Preservice teachers passed through 3 stages during
Pinpoint how preservice teachers
interpret & reflect on teaching practices student teaching, but did not naturally demonstrate
as a means of learning how to
development of reflective thought.
encourage this skill
Autobiographical journaling helps students identify
teaching strategies.
Appendix. (Continued)
Authorfs) (date)
Participants & setting
Data source(s)
Research goal
Results
*Hill (1986)
Primary ed. preservice teachers Reflective summaries; seminar
discussions; interview; questionnaire
in language arts seminar &
related field component
Preservice teachers learned to think reflectively about
Explore unique elements of reflective
approach to the field-based program & young children's language development &
assess their effectiveness
demonstrated critical thinking as a result of the field
experience tutoring 1 child.
Hillkirk & Dupuis
(1989)
2 sections of "The Teaching
Biography of
"
course; the 2nd semester of a
generic methods course with a
5-week practicum
Seminar observations; weekly meeting
with instructors; written student
evaluations; written instructor
evaluations
Examine & assess effects of generic
methods course redesigned to make
better use of field experience &
encourage deep reflection
Knowles & Hoefler
(1989)
1 student teacher
Journal entries; instructor's clinical notes Compare 1 student's failure in the
student teaching experience to the
Experiential Education Model proposed
by Joplin
Korthagen (1985)
116 graduated participants &
13 students approaching
graduation from a 4.5-year
reflective teaching program
Questionnaire; interviews
Korthagen (1988)
18 prospective math teachers
Standardized interview with teacher
Document effects of reflective teacher External-oriented learners expressed dissatisfaction
educators; questionnaire; Kelly's
ed. program on students with different with the program & often dropped out.
repertory grid; interviews with students; learning orientations
IE0 test
MacKinnon (1987)
Undergraduate science
methods students
Lesson transcriptions; discussions
between preservice teachers &
supervisors
Measure the effectiveness of Schon's
model of reflection-in-action to study
the way the preservice teachers "make
sense of their teaching performances"
Schon's model is an effective way of accessing the
thought processes of preservice teachers.
Ross (1989)
26 undergraduate students
enrolled in elementary ed.
course that encourages the
development of reflection
Theory-to-practice papers
Evaluate the ways that preservice
teachers learn to reflect when
participating in an education course
that intends to foster reflection
Many students have the capability to reflect at high
levels, but may vary in their reflective tendencies.
Journals of students who participated in the teaching
biography were more analytical & reflective than
those of the control group.
Reflection can turn a negative teaching experience
into a beneficial learning experience.
Evaluate the effectiveness of a reflective Program effectiveness is dependent on students'
teaching program in the Netherlands
innate ability to reflect. Those not predisposed to
reflective thinking do not benefit.
Appendix. (Continued)
Research goal
Author® (date)
Participants & setting
Turner-Muecke,
Russell, & Bowyer
(1986)
1 graduate student who
served as clinical supervisor;
1 student teacher with MA in
English
Wedman & Martin
(1986)
23 elementary & secondary ed. Journal entries (randomly selected)
students
Bainer & Cantrell
(1992)
96 preservice teachers in ed.
psych. & general pedagogy
Bainer & Cantrell
(1993)
75 preservice teachers in ed.
psych. & general pedagogy
Reflective essays
Discover whether the amount of
reflection &/or the content of reflection
varies based on the instructional
domain of the lesson used during the
reflective experience
Content should not be the primary consideration in
selecting a reflective experience. The amount of
reflection did not vary across different instructional
domains.
Baird, Fensham,
Gunstone, & White
(1991)
13 science student teachers,
14 novice & experienced
science teachers, 14 science
students in grades 8 through
11, & the authors
Diaries, written evaluations, interviews,
discussions, & questionnaires.
Observe whether collaborative reflection
could enhance teaching & learning of
science by generating desirable
cognitive, metacognitive, & affective
outcomes
2 common features were found in the personal
development experienced by the participants: the
importance of reflection for intellectual development
& the importance of collaboration for fostering this
reflection.
*Bean & Zulich
(1990)
3 preservice teachers enrolled
in a secondary content-area
reading course
Student-professor dialogue journals
Explore the changing views of a
required course of content-area teachers
through the use of student-professor
dialogue journals
The competing forces of discipline & school-based
cultures, as well as individual development, play
uncharted roles in a preservice teacher's efforts to
function successfully within the profession.
*Bean & Zulich
(1991)
3 education students enrolled
in a content-area reading
course.
Student-professor dialogue journals &
interviews
Subjects expressed a real interest in implementing
Consider the beliefs & practices of
preservice content-area teachers about content reading strategies & a concern about their
the required course & the relationship ability to implement them in a field experience.
to field experience & to explore the use Differences were noted also based on personal
of actual content-area reading strategies biographies brought into the class.
Data source(s)
Verbatim transcripts of classroom
instruction; graph of student
participation; transcriptions of
supervisory conferences; supervisor's
reflective journal
Results
Determine the value of the supervisor's Supervisor became aware of personal biases & the
own reflection in action as she
value of careful documentation of supervision process.
attempts to encourage reflection in a
student teacher
Discover extent to which students
reflect
Students reflect at technical level.
1990-1994
Group discussions & reflective essays
Define the content of reflection through Analysis found that preservice teachers reflect mainly
on the process of teaching (particularly planning &
studying what preservice teachers
reflect about after a clinical experience implementation).
Appendix. (Continued)
Author(s) (date)
oo
Participants & setting
Data source(s)
Bea
• n & Zulich
(1993)
3 education students enrolled Student-professor dialogue journals
in a content-area reading
course.
Bolin (1990)
1 preservice student teacher
Gore & Zeichner
(1991)
18 elementary student
teachers
Guillaume & Rudney 19 elementary student
(1993)
teachers
Herrman
•
n&
Sarracino (1993)
13 preservice early childhood
& elementary students
Research goal
Results
Found that the professor's responses did not create a
Discover the extent to which the
symmetrical dialogue. Instead, they focused these on
content-area reading professor's
response created a symmetrical dialogue extending student thoughts, answering questions, &
acknowledging skills.
Discover, in the form of a case study, if
Dialogue journal, interview with
supervisor, autobiography, & evaluations the researcher's conclusions from the
1st case study still hold true & are the
recommendations made still valid
Analyze student teacher's research
Action research project
projects for evidence of the favored
view of reflective thinking
The researcher's conclusions from the 1st case study
were found to be the same & the recommendations
valid. The case study student focused more on
description rather than reflection in his writings.
Dialogue journals & discussions
Found that the students express a variety of concerns
that can fit into 6 categories: lesson planning &
evaluation, discipline, working with pupils, working
with cooperating teachers & adjusting their
classrooms, working with others in the profession, &
transitions from the student to professional teacher.
Also found that changes in concern showed
participants growing from student to teacher. Final
finding indicated that student teachers reflect when
given structured opportunities.
Investigate the changing concerns of
student teachers by an extensive
analysis of their reflective journals
Professional dialogues, questionnaires, & Discover the preservice students' overall
reaction to the restructured course &
reflective summaries
changes in their self-perceptions,
conceptual understandings, & theoretical
perspectives about literacy teaching &
their instructional actions
Little evidence was found with attention to the
critical domain of reflection. The study suggested
possible changes in the student teaching course as a
result of the analysis.
3 major categories emerged: cognitive shifts (changes
in conceptual understandings of literacy teaching),
social shifts (changes in association or interaction
with peers, parents & students), & emotional shifts
(changes in affective aspects of literacy teaching).
Appendix. (Continued)
Author® (date)
Participants & setting
Data source(s)
Hoover (1994)
2 secondary ed. student
teachers
Questionnaires, interviews, journals, &
videos
Pultorak (1993)
31 student teachers enrolled Journals & interviews
in a K—12 teacher preparatory
program
Richert (1990)
12 preservice secondary ed.
teachers
Sparks-Langer,
Simmons, Pasch,
Colton, & Starko
(1990)
Stoiber (1991)
12 elementary & 12 secondary Journals & interviews
preservice methods students
Research goal
Results
Written assignments were more useful in making
Describe an in-depth analysis of the
participants' cognitive processes explicit than in their
writing of 2 secondary preservice
teachers involved in assignments
actively constructing knowledge about teaching &
designed as a programmatic feature to learning.
promote reflective thinking during a
university teacher ed. practicum.
Investigate reflection in written form
over a short period of time, facilitate
reflection over a longer period of time,
determine if student teachers could
reflect within certain categories
Portfolios, journals, interviews, reflective Examine the effect of particular aids to A structured opportunity to reflect time, & safety all
emerged as central in encouraging teachers to reflect
reflection on the reflections of novice
summaries, & questionnaires
in ways that they found helpful in understanding
teachers
their experiences in classrooms.
Design & pilot test an interview
schedule & various forms of "think
aloud" reflection journals to be used
during the teaching week
67 preservice teachers
majoring in elementary ed.
Video-stimulated interview & inventory Compare the effects of technical &
reflective instruction in classroom
management on preservice teachers'
reasoning & problem solving
36 junior phys. ed. majors
enrolled in a secondary
pedagogical course
Written reflective logs, written video
commentaries, & interviews
OS
to
Tsangaridou &
O'Sullivan (1994)
Daily journals produce reflections similar to
characteristics of 3 categories: technical rationality,
practical action, & critical reflection. Journals
generated reflections that were thematic in nature.
Visitation journals were less thematic. Reflective
interviews led to reflection in all 3 categories.
Describe how specific reflective
pedagogical strategies influence
preservice phys. ed. teachers to reflect
on their practice
Students appeared to be meeting the program goal
of using pedagogical principles & some contextual
information to analyze teaching events (but only 1
student was at the highest level of 7).
Participants in the reflective condition provided more
reasons for their decisions, expressed a greater sense
of responsibility for motivating student learning &
establishing a positive learning environment & used
strategies more often to solve problems than
participants in the technical & control conditions.
New pedagogical reflective strategies are successful in
promoting preservice teachers' reflective abilities.
o
Appendix. (Continued)
Author(s) (date)
Participants & setting
Data source(s)
Research goal
Results
Walke
•
r (1991)
18 preservice teachers
Diagnostic narratives, daily observations, Explore the reflective statements of
information interviews, literacy artifacts preservice teachings during a reading
clinic situation
Walke
•
r & Ramsey
(1993)
25 preservice elementary ed.
teachers
Diagnostic narratives with 4 aspects
(plans, rationales for plans, observations
during instruction, & reflections after
instruction), field notes from direct
observations & literacy artifacts
Examine the development of reflectivity Discovered which aspects of instruction the preservice
to understand how preservice teachers teachers contemplated.
"see" problems when teaching problem
reading & if they make reflective
statements that show the complex
relationship among competing variables
when teaching
Wedman, Martin, &
Mahlios (1990)
Students enrolled in student
teaching during the 3rd
9-week academic period at
2 different Midwestern
universities (23 in
experimental; 26 in control)
Teacher Beliefs Inventory & 2
instruments designed by the
researchers
To assess the extent to which an
inquiry-oriented student teaching
program influenced student teachers'
reflective practices
Winitzky (1992)
Ordered tree technique & reflective15 elementary preservice
teacher candidates enrolled in thinking interview
a 1-year graduate program in
teacher ed.
Discovered 10 categories of reflective statements
The experimental group's reflective teaching practices
were primarily technical; control group did grow in its
reflective thinking practices,
Determine if increases in preservice
There was a positive correlation between the
teachers' cognitive structures are
preservice teachers' complexity of knowledge
coupled with corresponding increases in structure & their ability to reflect.
their ability to reflect, analyze, & reason
Appendix. (Continued)
Author(s) (date)
Participants & setting
Winitzky & Arends
(1991)
Study 1:37 preservice teacher
ed. students enrolled in a
secondary general methods
course. Study 2:39 preservice
teachers enrolled in a
secondary general methods
course. Study 3:36 preservice
teachers enrolled in a
secondary general methods
course.
*Zulich, Bean, &
Herrick (1992)
8 preservice teachers, each
from 3 stages of a
postbaccalaureate program
Data source(s)
Research goal
Study 1:20-item multiple-choice test;
video-tapes of micro-teaching;
investigator-made test where student
wrote about the strengths &
weaknesses of their microteaching
lessons & justified their responses.
Study 2: Ordered-tree technique;
reflective essay (Study 1); knowledge
test (Study 1). Study 3: Researchermade multiple-choice tests to measure
knowledge acquisition; planning a
lesson to measure skill; analysis of a
videotaped lesson of a teacher
performing a strategy to assess
reflection; vocabulary test to measure
verbal abilities.
Weekly dialogue journals
Results
Examine the relationship between
students' pedagogical knowledge &
their reflective abilities
Candidates with more organized & complex
knowledge structures were more able to reflect on
classroom management events at all levels.
Examine programmatic & personal
dimensions that interact to shape a
future teacher's beliefs & practices
Preservice teachers pass through 3 states:
introductory, intermediate, & immersion. Their
biographies interact with other dimensions, including
discipline subculture & the quality of preservice
experience in the classrooms which help or impede
their ability to negotiate & then to reflect on the
competing demands of becoming a teacher.
1995-1999
Borko, Michalec,
Timmons, & Siddle
(1997)
MA+ program: 21 students
participating as a cohort
Written reflection by all 21 students &
interviews with 8 students
Investigate whether student teachers'
construction of portfolios would
enhance their reflection on practice
15 of 21 students described the portfolio as a tool for
reflection; 11 said it allowed them to make
connection between theory & practice; & 10
characterized it as a step toward a professional
portfolio. None of the student teachers considered
their portfolios to be complete.
Appendix. (Continued)
Author® (date)
Clarke (1995)
Collier (1999)
Participants & setting
4 student teachers on a
12-week practicum
4 Student teachers
Data source(s)
Video recall sessions
Research goal
Identify what student teachers reflect
about, what precipitates reflection, &
factors that enhance or constrain
reflective practice
Results
15 reflective were themes documented. Students were
engaged in purposeful inquiry leading to the
resolution of a problem or the management of
dilemma.
Reflective practice is a unique & individual
developmental process. 3 of the 4 participants
typically functioned from a reactive vs. proactive
stance. Student teachers were subjective in their
perceptions of clinical experiences. 1 student teacher
demonstrated a more open-minded approach to her
experiences. All student teachers demonstrated at
least 2 levels of reflection over the course of the
placement regardless of their epistemological
orientation. Student teachers became aware of the
sound & character of their own voices & learned how
they think & how they convey what they think to
others through their words & actions.
Investigate achieved levels of reflection Over 2 quarters, even without training, the avg. levels
over time by preservice teachers when of reflection on readings increase significantly from
Ross' lowest to moderate levels. Over 3 quarters, it
they were asked simply to reflect on
their field experiences & course content increased from lowest level to intermediate.
Reflective journals, reflective interviews, Examine reflective characteristics that 4
peer observation conferences, & group elementary school student teachers
exhibit during their 8-week clinical field
seminars
placement
Galvez-Martin,
21 preservice teachers in a
Bowman, & Morrison graduate elementary teacher
(1998)
certification program
Reflective journals
Hatton & Smith
(1995)
Teacher ed. students
undertaking the 4-year
secondary Bachelor of Ed.
degree. Cohort of 26 students
& 4 cohort of 34 students
Written report, self-evaluations,
videotapes, & 20-minute interview
*Kasten & Padak
(1997)
29 preservice ed. students
enrolled in the last literacy
course in their programs
Reflection in 2 different ways: writing Understand how preservice teachers
about their lessons; writing a 3-4 page reflect when they reflect & if they
reflection as part of a personal portfolio reflect critically
Investigate the nature of reflection in
teaching, define specific forms of
reflection, & evaluate the strategies in
terms of the degree to which they
facilitate particular types of reflection
4 types of writing were identified, 3 of which were
characterized as different kinds of reflertion. The most
common type of reflertion was descriptive with a
high incidence of multiple perspectives.
Students are reflective according to some definitions
of reflection as well as authors' definition. Context of
reflections makes a difference. The directions students
are given about how to reflect are important.
Appendix. (Continued)
Author(s) (date)
Participants & setting
Data source(s)
Research goal
Korthagen & Wubbles Meta-analysis of 4 studies & 1 Written survey, questionnaire, interview, Answer the question: What are the
(1995)
new study N = 360 (all
critical attributes that distinguish
videotapes, IE0 test
reflective teacher from their colleagues?
studies)
Evaluate the authors' own approach to
"Leland, Harste, &
16 undergraduate teacher ed. Journals
teacher ed. & determine whether they
Youssef (1997)
students
needed to make a more deliberate
effort to call students' attention to
issues of equity & justice, or whether
these topics would emerge from their
own reflections on educational issues &
observations of classroom life
Lyon
• s (1998)
10 participants (4
undergraduates, 6 interns)
Portfolios & interviews
Metcalf & Kahlich
(1998)
18 preservice teachers enrolled Semistructured interviews & guided
in an intensive program of
written reflection
secondary teacher ed. for
nontraditional students
Results
The study reveals 4 critical attributes & 7 correlates of
reflectivity.
1,465 entries (12.41%) met the criterion for being
considered critical. There was a difference between
the type of critical journal entries made, with
instructional entries dominating during semesters 2 &
3. There was also an increase across the 3 semesters
in the overall amount of critical entries, with students
becoming increasingly aware & critical of the invisible
forces that operate on meaning making within
schools in general.
Critical conversations interrogating portfolio entries &
Describe how reflection has been
their significance foster teachers' consciousness of
discussed in teacher ed. & what
developmental elements are involved in their knowledge of practice. Teaching practice
identified as part of one's teaching philosophy. The
reflection
process of reflection that comes through public,
collaborative inquiry, involves learning about the self,
about the values one holds for teaching & learning.
Examine the professional growth &
development of preservice teachers
Nontraditional preservice teachers' development is
similar to that of traditional preservice development
but seems to progress more quickly; their conceptions
of good teaching & of themselves as teachers begin
& develop in highly predictable way; & on-campus
clinical experiences seem to provide unique &
valuable opportunities for self reflection &
professional growth.
Appendix. (Continued)
Author(s) (date)
Participants & setting
Data source(s)
Research goal
Results
Pultorak (1996)
82 novice teachers (71%
elementary; 29% secondary)
during their 16-week final
field-based teaching
experience
Reiman (1999)
Dialogue journals with instructor &
Synthesis of 7 studies on
guided reflection conducted by peers
the author & colleagues with
preservice & in-service
teachers
Add focus to the developmental process At 1st contact with teaching, novice teachers are
of the presence & character of teacher most concerned about their survival skills such as
reflectivity in novice teachers
class control, mastery of content, & evaluation of
supervisors. They appear to become more autonomous
& structured in their deliberations regarding moral &
ethical imperatives during this stage.
Examine the effects of guided reflection The guided reflection framework prompted modest
framework as an approach to reflection growth in more complex problem solving &
interpersonal maturity. Participants in treatment
on moral development, conceptual
groups gained professional skills associated with more
complexity, & interpersonal maturity
effective & responsible practice.
*Risko, Roskos, &
Vukelich (1999)
30 preservice teachers enrolled Double-entry journals & interviews
in literacy method courses at
3 different university locations.
Describe the nature of students'
reflective activity, specifically their
strategies & level of reflection
The frequency of each level of reflection did not
change. Most students recognized that reflection was
helpful for remembering & processing course
information. They could elaborate on reasons for
reflection, steps they followed, & how they
approached the task.
Sebren (1995)
7 preservice teachers during a Audiotapes of weekly 1-hour reflection
field-based elementary
sessions, nonparticipant observation of
methods course
methods course meetings & field
experiences, 3 interviews, & documents
Analyze & describe preservice teachers'
reflections & knowledge development
during a field-base elementary methods
course. Consider the potential influence
of reflection experiences on the
preservice teachers' development
The preservice teachers: (a) made managerial
decisions in relation to their effect on the learning
environment; (b) planned lesson content in relation to
past & future lessons; (c) considered the children's
prior learning & skillfulness in relation to subject
matter decisions; (d) connected their choice of words
& actions to the children's perspective. They did not
however develop the ability to respond pedagogically
to students during an actual lesson.
Reflective journals, reflective interview
Appendix. (Continued)
Author(s) (date)
Sibbet
•
, Wade, &
Johnson (1998)
Truscot
•
t & Walker
(1998)
Participants & setting
Data source(s)
28 preservice teachers enrolled Small- & large-group case discussion
in a required secondary
teacher ed. course
63 undergraduate student
teachers from various
disciplines
Portfolios
Research goal
Results
Conscientious
effort
to
understand
the perspectives of
Examine the reflective process of future
students with limited English proficiency & to analyze
teachers & their discussion of case
how teachers' roles affect the teaching & learning
studies
context. Their reflection moved from a teachercentered urgency to solve the problem to an openminded, responsible, & whole-hearted approach, in
which students were willing to grapple with the
complexities of the problems & issues they saw in
the case.
Describe the kind of artifacts student
teachers selected for their cumulative
portfolio, which artifacts they viewed as
most important in describing them as a
teacher, & which types of reflective
thinking the artifacts represented
955 included artifacts that involved technical
reflection: 88% included experiential-based items, e.g.,
implemented lessons; 44% stated that the Philosophy
Toward Teaching Essay, which involved conceptual &
critical reflection, was the most important item in
describing them as a teacher.