The reflective practitioner in teaching: Toward a research agenda

Teaching It Teacher Eduwlron, Printed m Great Bntam

Vol 9. No. 4. pp. 347-359,

THE REFLECTIVE

1993

0742~051X/93 S6.00 + 0.00 @ 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd

PRACTITIONER IN TEACHING: AGENDA

WILLIS

D. COPELAND University

and CARRIE

of California,

EMILY Portland

Barbara,

BIRMINGHAM USA

DE LA CRUZ

State University,

BRIDGET University

Santa

TOWARD A RESEARCH

of California,

OR, U.S.A.

LEWIN Santa

Barbara

U.S.A

Abstract- Recognizing the apparent appeal that the image of a teacher as a “reflective practitioner” has for teacher educators and noting the lack of clarity and consistency which accompanies its discussion, this project undertook to develop a description of what reflective practice in teaching would “look like.” The paper presents 12 critical attributes that would indicate a teacher’s stance toward reflection, accompanied by four assumptions on which the attributes are based. Finally, the utility of these attributes is discussed in terms of both a research agenda and teacher education program decisions that they might inform.

The image of a teacher as a dynamic and continually growing professional-a reflective practilike most enduring ideas in tioner-can, education, be traced to Dewey (1933). This image has found much recent popularity among teacher educators around the world. Indicative of this is the growth in Donald Schon’s notoriety in education circles in the 3 years between his initial American Educational Research Association appearances at the annual meeting in Washington in 1987, when he first related his studies of students in design studios to the preparation of teachers, and his John Dewey Lecture in Boston in 1990. Reflection has become one of the most popular issues in teacher education. The literature is replete with accounts of the reported success of reflective practitioners in changing and improv-

The authors wish to thank their colleagues Martha helped with the early portions of this work.

ing their own teaching (e.g., Bolin, 1988; Lalik, Niles, & Murphy, 1989; Munby & Russell, 1989), of teacher education programs instilling reflective “practices” in their students (e.g., Applegate, Shaklee, & Hutchinson, 1989; Bean & Zulich, 1989; Elbaz, 1988; Korthagen, 1988; LaBoskey, 1989; Ross, 1989b; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1991; Zeichner, 1987) and of calls for further reform in pursuit of a reflective stance in teaching (e.g., NotIke & Brennan, 1988; Zeichner, 1983). Yet, as has often occurred with other “movements” in education, we are now in danger of being drawn beyond our knowledge base to the employment of practices that are founded only in assumptions, rhetoric, and belief in what’ “should be.” For all the popularity of reflection as an appropriate stance for professional edu-

Allexsaht-Snider, 347

Carolyn

Cogan,

Fred Mounter,

and Elaine Sporko

who

34x

WILLIS

D. COPELAND

caters. is little evidence that lates reflectivity other conditions teachers’ professional Likewise, we little on to base decisions in education or about the of propreparation, behavior growth. An of the reveals a assumption that in professional havior is but very guidance as how confidently determine that behavior exists. Not do the used in growing literature there is much variance the definition any single (cf., Calderhead, Gore, 1987; & Brennan, While one observe accurately the literature expanding rapidly, must also that its is undisciplined in danger losing its tial for lasting improvement practice. Perhaps most central on which subsequent work be built that of nature of itself. What reflection in How would recognize a practitioner if saw one‘? an effort work through basic issue project described began by current literature reflective teaching, thinking, reflectionreflective action, reflection and reflective teaching to profestraining and the reflective action research, other related This literature examined in arenas: (I) various terms that relate reflection and accompanying definitions, the implementation programs instituted promote reflective in teaching teacher education, (3) the of researchers further disciplined in the From this review, coupled additional with other an operational began to which described reflective practice teaching “looks The purpose this paper to present set of attributes of practice as initial step an effort distinguish reflective from their reflective colleagues. is important preface the of these with an recognition of underlying assumpthat have this work. the discussion critical attributes, paper will what is as a agenda for

research

et al.

into this on

Assumptions

on

important

this Work

We four assumptions guide our of the as operational definition

area

Based

have served attributes reflection in

Perhaps the central assumption which our is based reflection as process. We it most to seek of identifying in teaching examining thought processes which educators coupled with actions that from those rather than identifying any characteristics of values, or styles that describe them. we assume the process thinking is most characteristic of practitioners is process of problems. In this assumption find ourselves by a limitation of English language. phrase “problemis inadequate our purpose. “problem” typically, not always priately, carries pejorative connotation. who seek solve problems understood to that things not as as they be. that exist and be remedied. admit to existence of is seen admit weakness. “solving” often gests arriving a single solution, a which may be appropriate even possible every case. do not these negative limiting connotations cannot find phrase which a practitioner’s for reviewing improving professional tions better “problem solving.” we find necessary to clear that, these pages, SchGn (1990) we view problem .soluiny us a healthy, normul, und creative process in which capuble pructitioners uttempt to make sense of‘ puzling or chullenyiny phenomena, identijj areas of pructice that bear scrutiny, dejine purtitular youl.s,fijr improvement, and pursue actions explicitly intended to uccomplish them.

Reflective

Practitioner

This assumption also recognizes that, although reflection involves solving problems, it is also much more. Reflective teachers not only perceive and define problems and generate and apply solutions, they also use this process to modify and enhance their understanding of professional practice. As a result of confronting problems, their understanding is reconstructed. Thus, neither learning nor problem solving, in and of themselves, constitute reflection. Rather, we see both as necessary components of reflection. Finally, this assumption casts reflection as also an ongoing process. Classroom dilemmas are played out over an extended time period. They do not have specific beginnings or ends. Rather, they come to the forefront or recede as a result of additional contextual factors, continually shifting in importance. One or more variables may not be known to any degree of certainty (cf., Wood, 1983). A reflective practitioner recognizes that a problem situation is merely one of many events on a pasttpresentfuture continuum. At the moment an anomaly occurs, a teacher assesses the situation based on information from past experiences, as well as from present conditions, in order to decide on an action which will influence future events. The past, present, and future of teacher, students, and environment are meshed in what Yinger (1990) calls an ongoing conversation of practice. As a process, reflective practice is recursive. It is ongoing and operates at a multitude of levels in any given time frame. Reflective Practice in Teaching is Manifested a Stance Toward Inquity

us

Here we understand a stance to be an overall attitude toward understanding classroom life. It is a general or pervasive pattern that characterizes a teacher’s continuing responsiveness to the particular circumstances of his or her teaching. Assuming a stance toward reflection includes identifying whether engagement in the reflective process is appropriate for a particular situation. Such a stance cannot be discerned from discrete overt teacher behaviors; a teacher’s reflective stance in teaching can be noted only when considering patterns over time. Where reflective thinking is identified by a process, a reflective practitioner is identified by a stance.

in Teaching

349

The Demonstration of Reflective Practice is Seen to Exist Along a Continuum People vary in the opportunity, ability, or propensity to reflect. It would be unreasonable to expect teachers consistently to engage in reflection at every moment. Likewise, there are probably very few who never engage in reflection. In addition, teachers may engage in reflection with differing degrees of thoroughness, depending on both the context and the teacher’s own proclivity to reflection. Rather than identifying a teacher as reflective or not reflective, we assume that any definition of reflection in teaching should allow for discerning a spectrum of reflection in teachers. Reflective Context

Practice

Occurs Within a Sociul

Education is a social activity. It typically involves multiple participants (students, parents, colleagues) and it takes place in a shared setting (the classroom, faculty lounge, boardroom). Yinger (1990) refers to this quality as “the learning place,” a basic relationship which develops between students, teachers, and environment as they come to know each other. For these reasons, it is important to acknowledge the contextual element when considering the reflective practice of teachers. Although context is often defined as “something that surrounds and influences, as environment or circumstances” (Standard College Dictionary, 1966, p. 292), the etymology of the word suggests an added dimension, The word “context” is derived from two Latin roots: corn-together and texere-to weave. These roots indicate more than the surroundings of a situation. Weaving together suggests the process of entwining separate entities to produce a newly constructed single entity. Thus, context refers to the construction, or “weaving” of students, teacher, and setting into a teaching situation. Of course, not all researchers accept this assumption to the same degree. Some use the social context as the central emphasis and sole interpretative lens through which reflection is viewed, while others consider the social context only as a peripheral issue. Our view is neither extreme. Although the social context is not the explicit focus of our investigation, we realize that

WILLIS

is0

reflective setting. Critical

practice

always

happens

Attributes

of Reflective Teaching

D. COPELAND

in a social

Practice

in

Following we offer 12 critical attributes that we suggest would indicate a teacher’s stance toward reflection and thus be present in the reflective process of a teacher.

Teaching is full of problematic situations -classroom management, dealing with individual differences. relationships with colleagues and administrators, instructional issues, societal pressures, moral dilemmas. Problematic situations are central to the study of reflection to the extent that the study of reflective practice “is essentially concerned with how educators make sense of the phenomena of experience that puzzle or perplex them” (Grimmett, MacKinnon, Erickson, & Ricckcn, 1990, p. 20). 1. A prnhlcvn is icl~wt~fictl. A reflective teacher is not only aware of these problems, but she or he also takes care to define them in an explicit, conscious way. This is in contrast to the teacher who simply has a vague sense of uneasiness about something in the classroom. Dewey describes this step as “an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity that has been felt (directly experienced) into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought” (1933, p. 107). Thus, the problem can be phrased as a question, for example, “How best can I introduce long division to this mathematics group?” or “What can be done to help this student get along better with his peers’?” Dewey suggests the centrality of this initial step in reflection by quoting an old saying. “A question well put is half answered” (p. 108). Schiin (1983, 1987) uses the phrase “problem framing,” implying a bringing together and framing up of the issues involved in the problem, or, as Dewey put it. “a process of intellectualizing what at first is merely an emotional quality of the whole situation. This conversion is effected by noting more definitely the conditions that constitute the trouble and cause the stoppage of action” (p. 109).

et al

Problem definition is not simply a first step in a chronological. linear progression. It is an ongoing process throughout reflection. Schiin (1983) describes a “problem reframing” that goes on continually as more knowledge is gained and applied to the situation. This knowledge used in reflection has been labeled with many terms, but they include “professional knowledge, past experience, the uniqueness of the situation and people involved, social and professional norms of behavior, and expectations held by others” (Kirby & Teddlie, 1989, p. 46). As reflection acts to solve the problem, the teacher’s perception of the problem changes. As stated above, the word “problem” in this context need not denote a negative situation, as if the reflective teacher were constantly facing terrible adversity. A problem instead is a situation in which there is doubt, uncertainty, hesitation, or challenge. It could be an instance where the teacher wants to improve a lesson plan, foster more cooperation among her or his students or reevaluate her or his assumptions about authority and autonomy in the classroom. A problem is simply any situation in which the means to a goal are not immediately evident or in which a goal itself is in question. .?. Thr problem derives ,fkm LI concretc~ situutiorz in practice. Reflection results from an actual or potential occurrence of a problem, in any case, something related to the teacher’s practice. In this context “practice” is meant to be the broad picture of teaching as a profession. It includes instructing, understanding, planning, managing, building and maintaining professional relationships. evaluating the philosophical underpinnings of one’s professional actions, and more. Thus, the broad range of issues that emerge from concrete situations in practice may relate to the three levels of reflection described by van Manen (1977) as the technicul-anulyti~al (“How can I avoid the confusion my students experienced last year when they were introduced to electricity?“), the hrrmenauticphenomenokyical (“What do I really believe about children’s gender roles?“), and the c.riticalLdialectical (“Is ability grouping compatible with justice and fairness?“).

Reflective

Practitioner

be defined by the teacher or by anyone involved in the teaching/learning situation. However, the teacher himself or herself must be committed to the problem as worthy of consideration. For example, a preservice teacher may be having difficulties with student assessment, and his supervisor, seeing the problem, may suggest ways to improve assessment practices. If, for some reason, the teacher does not share the supervisor’s concern but reviews the issue only because of the supervisor’s requirement, that teacher cannot be said truly to be engaged in reflection. Practically, “unless the practitioner is committed to the values and theories from which the problem is framed and on which action is based, innovative solutions are unlikely” (Kirby and Teddlie, 1989, p. 46). A failure to find meaning in a certain problem may be caused either by inability or unwillingness on the part of the teacher to consider the matter at a certain time. Inability may be due to the teacher’s cognitive or affective development, amount of experience, or, if such a thing exists, general aptitude for reflective thinking. The willingness to engage in reflection is related to Dewey’s attitudes of openmindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility. The first attitude, openmindedness, is described as “freedom from prejudice, partisanship, and such other habits as close the mind and make it unwilling to consider new problems and entertain new ideas” (1933, p. 30). Dewey lists three hindrances to openmindedness: mental sluggishness, self-conceit, and unconscious fears. Second, wholeheartedness is a genuine interest in the subject of thought which “buoys [the] mind up and gives an onward impetus to thinking” (p. 32). Third, “to be intellectually responsible is to consider the consequences of a projected step; it means to be willing to adopt these consequences when they follow reasonably from any position already taken. Intellectual responsibility secures integrity; that is to say, consistence and harmony in belief” (p. 32). These attitudes are necessary not only for problem definition, but for the entire process of reflection to take place. They speak to the moral implications of reflection, that reflection depends on a teacher’s

351

in Teaching

moral dispositions and emotions.

as well as his or her cognitions

4. The problem can be wid to be one qf import jkr successful teaching/learning in the context in which it is identzjied. The content of reflection is variable. As described above, the three levels of reflection that van Manen (1977) has identified cover a broad range of content: (1) technical rationality, in which the teacher is concerned about how best to accomplish a given educational goal, (2) interpretative understanding,’ in which the teacher makes explicit the assumptions which underlie her professional actions, and (3) critical reflection. Zeichner and Liston (1987) note that for critical reflection “the central questions ask which educational goals, experiences, and activities lead toward forms of life which are mediated by concerns for justice, equity, and concrete fulfillment, and whether current arrangements serve important human needs and satisfy important human purposes” (p. 25). Calderhead (1989) and MacKinnon (1987) have expressed doubt whether inexperienced teachers can be expected to reflect deeply about abstract principles. In fact, others acknowledge that “much of teacher reflection is, of necessity, manifestly concrete” (Nohke & Brennan, 1988, p. 9). On the other hand, Shulman (1987) argues that teacher educators must deal with the underlying beliefs that guide preservice teachers’ educational thinking and acting. At any level, however, the content of reflection must be important educationally. This attribute differs qualitatively from the other 1 I in that it calls for an evaluative judgement on the part of another. A researcher may ask of the other 11 attributes, “Is there evidence for this in a teacher’s report of his or her thinking?” without making this kind of evaluative judgment. But this attribute calls for a problem to be evaluated as to its educational importance. For instance, how important to educational outcomes is a teacher’s choice of literature for the students’ reading when compared to his or her assignment of the students’ seating or his or her choice of bookkeeping methods? Certainly, any situation could possi-

‘van Manen (1977) did not put a label on this second level of reflection. accurately.

We believe “interpretative

understanding”

describes

it

352

WILLIS

D. COPELAND

bly entail important educational and moral problems. This attribute, however, requires that the importance of the problem, as perceived and defined by the teacher, be demonstrable to another. Four A ttrihutrs Rrlutd

to Gmerutin~q Solutions

After the problem has been initially defined or framed, suggestions for solutions begin to occur to the teacher. 5. Possihk .solutiorl.s to the problem urc~grncrSolutions may come to mind quickly and almost automatically, or they may be the result of more deliberate seeking. When this, as well as the rest of the reflective process, occurs in the midst of classroom interaction it is called reflection-in-action by Schiin (1983, 1987) and resembles Yinger’s ( 1988, 1990) image of improvisation. For example, teachers may veer from the course of their lesson plan as they see difficulties arising and adjust the lesson to meet their students’ needs better. Reflection that occurs outside an interactive setting is similar to Yinger’s notions of planning and contemplation and Schiin’s reflection-on-action. It is important for reflection that the teacher suspends judgment on these solutions, holding them as tentative and possible, not jumping to the conclusion that the problem has been solved without further investigation. In other words, a reflective teacher does not always accept the first solution that surfaces, but retains openmindedness as solutions are generated. utecl.

et al

by the teacher. This is different from a solution being considered without the teacher’s awareness of its reasoning. Dewey warns against acting on unexamined principles and enjoins us to “discriminate between beliefs that rest upon tested evidence and those that do not, and be accordingly on our guard as to the kind and degree of assent or belief that is justified” (1933. p. 97). Thus, the reflective teacher is one who is aware of the underlying reasons which guide the solutions being considered. 7. The gtwcrution of’ solutions cngagrs the tcwhrr in u critical ~~suminution of’his or her m‘n prc~~ssionul uctions urici its link to tutyrt actions in othrrs. The reflective teacher takes the respon-

sibility for resolving the problem situation. This is not to say that she or he takes the blame for all that goes wrong or, conversely, receives credit for all that goes well. It does say that he or she assumes the responsibility for solving problems, understanding their causes without placing blame on others for problematic situations. Solution generating is similar to hypothesis making in which a hypothesis is a consideration of two or more variables and their relationships. Similarly, a solution is a link between the variables of teacher action and the desired actions or cognitions of others. Examples include, “Maybe what they need in order to make more thorough group presentations is more time in their groups and less time individually” or “If I let the students make their own decisions about this project it might help them develop more of a sense of responsibility.” Solutions are designed so that the actions of the teacher are seen to 6. Solutions ure qenwutrd ,fkm or ure contribute to the actions. values, emotions, or of others. groundd in throric~s, ussuniption.~, or rr.scwrc~li cognitions findings Ivhich urc explicitl~~ hdd und understood Another way to think of critical self-examinah_11the pructitiwwr. Teachers learn about teachtion is of the teacher stepping out of the situation ing from a variety of sources. Solutions may be and exploring its ins and outs as an outsider applications of research findings or of theory without a vested interest in his or her own learned in preservice teacher education. Equaladvantage. This requires the teacher to step ly, solutions may be grounded in the teacher’s behind Rawls’ (1972) “veil of ignorance” in an personal knowledge (Grimmett et al., 1990) of attempt to negotiate a moral dilemma without life in general, teaching in general, or teaching valuing his or her own place in the situation more certain students in particular. Such knowledge than that ofothers. thus theoretically suspending has been termed personal practical knowledge knowledge (hence ignorance) of personal interby Elbaz (1983) or craft knowledge by Tom and ests. Reflective teachers “have the ability to stand Valli (1990). The important consideration for apart from the self to critically examine their own this attribute is that, whatever bases there are for actions and the context of those actions” (Valli & the generated solutions, they are held explicitly Taylor, 1988, p. 20).

Reflective

Practitioner

8. The solutions sought are expected to have positive consequences in terms of student learning. Although reflection relies on past experiences and learning, its orientation is forward-looking. Our judgement turns backward for its material: something has turned out differently than we anticipated, and so we think back to discover what was the matter. But while the material of the judgement comes to us from the past, what really concerns us is what we shall do the next time; the function of reflection is prospective. (Dewey, 1932, 1960, p. 14)

Tentative solutions are constructed so as to improve situations in the future. This could be in order to avoid a repeat of an undesirable situation should the opportunity come up again, to prepare a strategy for dealing successfully with an anticipated situation, to improve tomorrow what was a problem today, or to think through one’s deeply held assumptions that have an impact on teaching and learning. Dewey notes, “It has been suggested that reflective thinking involves a look into the future, a forecast, an anticipation, or a prediction. . . . As a matter of fact, every intellectual suggestion or idea is anticipatory of some possible future experience” (1933, p. 117). The reflective teacher generates potential solutions with an eye toward their applications in the future to real problems, not merely as an exercise in problem-solving or a regretful complaint about what should have been done. Another component of this attribute is the connection with student learning. The goal of reflective practice does not stop with the teacher; it is ultimately concerned with student outcomes. A reflective teacher would not, for instance, propose implementing inquiry-based science simply in order to expand his or her teaching repertoire without considering the impact on students’ learning. Three Attributes

Related

to Testing Solutions

Reflection involves the implementation and testing of solutions and thus includes action as well as consideration. 9. A solution to the problem is selected. The reflective teacher tests the generated solutions mentally and selects those she or he believes is best suited. Solutions are examined for coherence within themselves, compared with data the teacher continues to gather about the situation,

in Teaching

353

and played out in the imagination with their probable consequences. This looking ahead involves what Noordhoff and Kleinfeld call “spinning out potential consequences of possible (1990, p. 173). Again, this may be actions” accomplished almost instantly just moments after the problem has been perceived, or it can be the product of long deliberation. 10. The chosen solution is implemented. Literature on reflection has been characterized as separating reflection from action (e.g., McNamara, 1990). However, Dewey (1933) writes that a conclusion (solution) is merely hypothetical or conditional until it is tested by overt action. Without action, reflection is incomplete. In this as defined here differs from way, “reflection” “reflection” as used in everyday language. In this context, reflection involves action as well as deliberation. A less reflective teacher may engage in the mental part of reflection but fail to implement a solution when it is called for. In contrast, the more reflective teacher follows through such deliberation with action and, in so doing, produces evidence upon which to judge the success of the solution. II. The solution is weighed as to its @ect on the target actions and the consequences of these eflects in terms of student outcomes. Once again, a goal of reflective practice is to improve student learning; thus, the evaluative phase of reflective action is based on student outcomes. An intermediate evaluation may concern how well the solution was implemented, but “evaluating the solution by determining whether the consequences are desirable or not” (Ross, 1989b, p. 22) is central to reflection. While a less reflective teacher may succeed in getting a group of students to sit quietly during a lesson, she or he may not think to assess what learning is going on while the students sit quietly. In contrast, the more reflective teacher would consider both the immediate implementation of the solution and its long-term consequences. Dewey reminds us, “Sometimes consequences show failure to confirm instead of corroboration. The idea in question is refuted by the court of final appeal. But a great advantage of possession of the habit of reflective activity is that failure is not a mere failure. It is instructive” (1933, p. 114). Although a problem may be

354

WILLIS

D. COPELAND

defined specifically and a solution selected carefully, subsequent examination may that goals were reached. Reflective practice guarantee success. However, from setbacks and the reflective process. Often, and reflective process begins An Attribute Related Rqjiectiue Practice

to Learniny.from

Reflective practice continues beyond mere problem-solving to incorporate new knowledge into the teacher’s previous understanding. 12. The wjlective process leuds to an enhuncement of the teacher’s understundiny used to yiz’e meuniny to the projkssionul context in which the problem IVUSidentified. The presence of this attribute emphasizes the difference between the proverbial teacher who has taught for 20 years and the one who has taught the same year 20 times. De Jong and Korthagen (1989) claim that “a person is reflective when he or she is engaged in structuring his or her perception of a situation, of his or her actions or learning, or when he or she is engaged in altering or adjusting these structures” (cited in Wubbels & Korthagen, 1990, p. 32). In other words, the reflective teacher learns from her or his professional experiences. The teacher is able to apply solutions arrived at through reflection to similar situations encountered later. Previous reflective experience is incorporated into the teacher’s personal knowledge from which new solutions are generated. Old problem situations will have been clarified, freeing the teacher to reflect on new ones. Dewey concludes The function of reflective thought is, therefore, to transform a situation in which there is experienced obscurity, doubt, conflict, disturbance of some sort, into a situation that is clear, coherent, settled, harmonious.. Partial and ineffectual thinking ends in conclusions that are formally correct but make no difference in what is personally and immediately experienced. Vital inference always leaves one who thinks with a world that is experienced as different in some respect, for some object in it has gained in clarity and orderly arrangement. Genuine thinking winds, up, in short, with an appreciation of new values (1933, pp. 100, 101).

et al.

The Utility oj These Attributes The question now arises concerning the utility of the above 12 attributes of reflection. How might they be useful in furthering a research agenda on reflection in teaching and teacher education? It will be recalled that our assumptions cast reflection as a stance which characterizes the general tendency of an educator to engage in a conscious process that includes generating and testing solutions to problems in improving professional practice. From such assumptions it would reasonably follow that it would be inappropriate to attempt to observe indicators of reflection simply by observing teaching actions. Such actions may be important, especially in relation to the attributes which require that a problem to be derived from a concrete situation in practice and that a solution actually be implemented. Yet, it is the thought behind the actions of teaching, not the actions themselves, that is crucial to reflection. The above attributes find utility in the guidance they provide the researcher in analyzing expressions of teachers’ thoughts. We suggest that most overt of teacher expressions thought-responses in interviews, entries in journals, or even casual conversation about teaching and learning-may be analyzed to identify patterns which represent the above attributes. Does a teacher represent, in descriptions and explanations of his or her own teaching, the possibility that a particular course of action was undertaken in order to bring about a different learning response than previously had been evident in the classroom? Or are the teacher’s actions described more as deriving simply from the desire to follow recommendations of university professors, cooperating teachers, supervisors, or colleagues? Is a change in the teacher’s plans described as proceeding from a perceived potential consequence for learning that is grounded in an explicitly held assumption or theory? Or is the change simply initiated in the vague hope that “something different might work better?” Although our work in applying these attributes to understanding teachers’ thoughts has just begun, we have reason to be hopeful. Initial examination of their reliability suggests that different researchers can learn to make similar assessments of the presence of these attributes in

Reflective

Practitioner

expressions of teachers’ thoughts. Further, our early data indicate a relationship between these assessments and other judgments of teachers’ tendencies to be reflective. Our early experience also suggests that data collected previously for other purposes may not be helpful in identifying the teacher’s stance toward reflectivity as defined here. For example, the impressions collected over weeks or months that make up a university supervisor’s picture of a teacher may not be useful for this purpose if the supervisor did not have in mind the attributes as the impressions were being formed. We sense that one must approach the data collecting task with these attributes in mind in order to get a valid assessment of a teacher’s reflective stance. In our initial work we have found that supervisors, once they understand these attributes, can attend purposefully to indicators of the attributes’ presence as interaction with their student teachers continues. Thus, they are able to build a more complete view of the student teacher’s reflective stance than they had constructed before becoming aware of the attributes. As one might expect, conducting an interview to construct a teacher’s stance toward reflectivity is quite a delicate task. The researcher’s goal is to elicit expressions of thought that would reveal the presence of the attributes if they are, in fact, present. Yet the researcher must avoid the tendency to use direct questions and thereby to lead the subject to consider teaching in ways not typical of the subject’s thought. Our thus far is that appropriately experience prepared interviewers can strike the proper balance, but it is a balance that requires repeated confirmation.

A Research

Agenda

for Reflection

As we grow in our ability to identify, with some confidence, those educators whose general professional stance is characterized by reflection, we will find ourselves better able to advance programs of research related to reflection and teaching. Predictably, the first temptation will be to attempt to verify the assumed positive relationship between reflectivity and teacher effectiveness. Do students of highly reflective teachers learn more or better or even differ-

in Teaching

355

ently than those of teachers who are not characterized by a reflective stance? Education has a long but disappointing history of attempts to relate personality variables, styles, or qualities in teachers to student learning outcomes. This history suggests that research problems such as this, which admittedly have the lure of the siren’s song of “teaching improvement,” would cast researchers onto the rocks of wasted effort by yielding conflicting and uninterpretable results. We would suggest that such questions be avoided in favor of a more constrained yet more potentially useful research agenda. The Validity of’ our 12 Attributes Presence of Reflection

to the

A first task is to verify the validity of the 12 attributes of reflection in teaching. This process of verification may reveal the need for redefinition of the attributes, as indeed it already has, or, realistically, it may cast doubt on the entire construct as we define it. We will need to continue our work of examining relationships between expressions of teacher thought, observations of teachers’ actions, and the results of other assessments of reflectivity in teachers. As we undertake to establish validity of these suggested attributes of reflectivity in teaching, we will also be able to verify that teachers do, in fact, differ in their tendency to adopt a reflective stance in their professional behavior. Of course the whole issue of reflection is predicated on this most basic of assumptions, but it nevertheless requires verification. Once we are able to detect tendencies toward reflection, will we find them in all teachers but only manifested at different times or under different circumstances? Or will we find variation across teachers in their tendencies to engage in the process of reflection? Further, if researchers are able to verify that teachers differ in their propensity to reflect, could they then determine how reflectivity is distributed among the population of teachers? Is reflectivity a stable characteristic over teachers’ professional lives or does it appear developmental or situational in nature? It will also be appropriate to test some of the assumptions on which our attributes are based. As an example, are the attributes arrayed in a

356

WILLIS

D. COPELAND

hierarchical fashion so that to manifest one is necessarily to manifest the others that precede it? It would seem that such a hierarchical quality may be present, at least in terms of the four main groups of attributes. That is, it would appear difficult to imagine that a teacher might regularly engage in the process of “Generating Solutions” without having attempted “Problem Definition”. On the other hand, it might be quite reasonable to imagine that we will find teachers who do consider or more accurately worry about problems but do not undertake to generate solutions. If such a hierarchical quality holds up under empirical testing, then the attributes can be said to define the spectrum along which teachers can be arrayed according to their stance toward reflection. Relationships Between Rgflection Attributes qf Teachers

and Other

Assuming that teachers who are more reflective can be accurately identified, it would then be important simply to get acquainted with them. What are hey like from psychological, social, and occupational perspectives? Here the researcher would be able to explore relationships between reflection and other attributes of teachers. For example, Korthagen (1988) has proposed a correlation between reflectivity and external/internal learning orientation. LaBoskey (1989) has investigated reflection’s relationship to proactive and reactive orientations to teaching, and Hall (1988) has suggested that the initiator style of educational administration is more in line with a reflective stance that the responder or manager styles. Would these suggestions find support under further examination informed by the above operational definition of reflectivity? Are there other characteristics that correlate with reflectivity? In a like manner, Zeichner and Liston (1987) have indicated that teachers’ value systems, as reflected for example in their pupil control ideologies, are related to reflectivity. Can this relationship consistently be detected in more and less reflective teachers as identified by the attributes presented above? Are there other values, positions, or ideologies which might similarly be associated with high or low reflectivity? Finally, it would be interesting to explore how teachers’ reflectivity manifests itself in the work

et al.

place. Do the career trajectories of highly reflective teachers appear any different from those of their less reflective colleagues? Here it would be possible to explore teachers’ tendencies to change teaching assignments, seek new positions and responsibilities outside of the classroom, further their own education and even involve themselves in avocations outside of teaching. Issues of job satisfaction (Wubbels & Korthagen, 1990), openness to experimentation with and adoption of educational innovations, as well as relationships with students and other colleagues might be reasonable targets of disciplined inquiry. The Nature

sf Rcflectivit>x

Researchers would also properly turn their attention to the nature of reflectivity itself. This may well take the form of assuming a particular perspective, then investigating and interpreting an exploration of reflective practice from this perspective. The value of a particular perspective may be judged not from empirical investigations, but from the reasonableness of the rationale which supports it. Consideration of van Manen’s (1977) three scientific traditions and accompanying kinds of reflection-technical-analytic, hermeneutic phenomenological, and criticalldialectical-is one way to characterize the nature of reflection. An alternative perspective is that offered by critical theory, the purpose of which is “to emancipate all people such that none are subject to domination or exploitation by others economically, politically, sexually, intellectually, or spiritually” (Ross & Hannay, 1986, p. 13). An emphasis on the social nature of reflection has been suggested (Nolfke & Brennan, 1988; Cinnamond & Zimphir, 1990) in which individual actions are mediated by the social contexts within which reflective teachers function. Recognizing the moral nature of schooling, reflective practice may also be investigated from the perspective of teachers’ moral dispositions, struggles, decisions, and actions (Birmingham, 1993). Bergamo, Green, and Ridgeway (I 989) have suggested the importance of the focus of teachers’ reflection. Houston (1988) and Yinger (1990) have suggested the possible distinction between an analytical or logical approach to reflection as contrasted with an intuitive or contemplative

Reflective

approach. Korthagen reflection from the psychology. The Fostering

Practitioner

(1988) has approached foundation of cognitive

of a RqYective

Stance

Teacher educators appear to be eager to promote reflectivity in their students. There currently exists a growing number of teacher education programs that are explicitly dedicated to reflectivity as an educational goal and have in place instructional experiences intended to move students toward that goal (e.g., Bolin, 1988; Bullough, 1989; Korthagen, 1988; Lalik et al., 1989; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Most of this activity, however, has preceded disciplined inquiry into the teachability of reflectivity as a professional stance. A great number of questions have yet to be systematically addressed concerning both programmatic and methodological issues. From a programmatic perspective, can teacher educators be assured that an emphasis on reflective practice is equally appropriate at all points of professional development or would it be more productive to assume, as Zeichner and Teitelbaum (1982) do, a highly developmental nature of reflection? In the latter case, researchers might attempt to identify those stages in a teacher’s professional development at which concerns for engaging in a process of reflection might best be introduced, revisited, and/or emphasized. The possibility might be explored that, as Hollingsworth (1989) suggests, guidelines could be developed to determine more appropriately an optimal order of activities that constitute a teacher preparation program. Schijn (1987) has pointed to the programmatic problem of striking an appropriate balance between what he sees as two competing emphases. On the one hand, programs would encourage the novice teacher to engage in the reflective process while, on the other, the teacher would be expected to acquire particular knowledge and skills considered by teacher educators to be essential to practice. Are these two emphases mutually exclusive or, as Fenstermacher (1988) has suggested, is it possible to develop a program that integrates work toward multiple goals into a cohesive educational experience? Wedman, Mahlios, and Whitfield (1989) have

in Teaching

351

suggested that most typical teacher education programs contain within their structures obstacles to the development of reflection. Development in the process of productive reflection can be assumed to require opportunity, time, and assistance from others, yet these are often lacking in typical teacher education programs. Further, student teaching, which is generally that part of a teacher education program in which the process of reflection is considered most appropriate, is often least amenable to change by the student teacher. The strong press to conform to existing norms has been widely documented (cf., Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986) and serves to discourage student teachers from acting in creative ways as a result of reflection. Additionally, apprenticeships such as student teaching are notoriously difficult places in which to explore new professional actions and procedures because the possibility of failure carries with it such dire consequences. A conservative approach is considered safest. This characteristic of the student teaching experience has led Salzillo and Van Fleet (1977) to question what the appropriate balance should be between treating the student teaching site as a model for practice and thus increasing student teaching time-and treating it as a “social laboratory” in which to venture, test, and explore, and thus to increase observation/study time. In addition to the above programmatic issues, the researcher who wants to inform an emphasis on reflection in teacher education might attend to the issue of method. In fact, a variety of methods intended to promote reflectivity have been proposed, including autobiographical writing (Bean & Zulich, 1989; Elbaz, 1988), the use of metaphors and imagery (Elbaz, 1983), the development of the social context offered by group discussion (Elbaz, 1988), engagement of students in ethnographies (Gitlin & Teitelbaum, 1983), an emphasis on the model of teaching offered by the university professors and supervisors (Cohn, 1981), the use of appropriate supervisory approaches (Bergamo et al., 1989; Zeichner, 1987), engagement of student teachers in action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Oberg & McCutcheon, 1989; Ross, 1989a), and curriculum analysis and development (Zeichner, 1983). All of these methods call for close examination which itself is illuminated by a consistent

358

WILLIS

D. COPELAND

operational definition of the reflective process such as that which is offered here. Their power in promoting the establishment of a reflective stance in developing teachers as well as their appropriate place and orchestration in a teacher preparation program all deserve disciplined inquiry. Conclusion This paper has been bold to present answers to two central questions: What are the critical attributes that distinguish reflective teachers from their colleagues‘? and What is an appropriate and productive research agenda that will further our understanding of this notion of reflectivity? The answers to these questions have been framed in terms of a vision of reflectivity as a teacher’s tendency to engage in a conscious process of identifying problematic issues in their practice and pursuing solutions that bring about valued effects on student learning. The inclination to polarize teachers as reflective or nonreflective has been avoided as has the tendency to assume that highly reflective individuals are a priori better teachers than their less reflective colleagues. The research agenda that such an operational definition supports would be assumed to be useful, both in sharpening our understanding of professional behavior in teaching and in guiding the preparation of entrants into the specialized and “indeterminate zone of practice” (Schon, 1983) which is teaching.

References Applegate,

(1989). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Bean, T. W., & Zulich, J. (1989). Using dialogue journals to foster reflective practice with preservice, content-area teachers. Teacher Educarion Quur[crl~, 16(l), 33~ 40. Bergamo, H., Green, J. L., & Ridgeway, D. (1989). Making professional development last: Issues and research, policy and practice. Columbus: The Ohio State University Department of Policy and Leadership. Birmingham, C. (1993). The mora1l.v reflectitv character. Unpublished manuscript, University of California. Santa Barbara. Bolin, F. S. (1988). Helping student teachers think about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 48-54. Srimulatiny

J.,

Shaklee,

r@ec/ion

B..

about

&

Hutchinson,

learning

lo

L.

leuch.

et al

Bullough, R. V. (1989). Teacher education and teacher reflectivity. Journal of T~cher Education, 40(2), I5 21. Calderhead. J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education, Teachimy and Tcuchu Eduution, 5. 43-5 1. Cinnamond. J. H.. & Zimphir, N. L. (1990). Refectivity as a function of community. In R. T. Clift. W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.). Encourcryiny refkv/irr pructb in rdurufion (pp. 57-72). New York: Teachers College Press. Cohn, M. (1981). A new supervision model for linking theory to practice. Journal of Teuc~hrr Educcrfion. 32(3). 26 30. De Jong. J. A., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1989). Handelen, reflecteren, opleiden. In J. Vedder et al. (Eds.), De opdrachc Ron de Ierurmopleidiny, kn,ulirrit en trruksv+rediny (pp. 93 101). Utrecht/Groningen: WCC/VELON (Dutch). Dewey, J. (1932, 1960). Throry of the mm-u/ /ifi. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Dewey, J. (1933). HOM. ice think. Chicago: Regnery. Elbaz. F. (1983). Teucher thinking: A .\lu(rv of prcrc~tic~ul kno&dy!ye. London: Groom Helm. Elbaz, F. (1988). Critical reflections on teaching: Insights from Freire. Journal of Eduution /iv Teachiny, 14. 171 181. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden. R. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hundhook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan. G. (1988). The place of science and Fenstermacher, epistemology in Schdn’s conception of reflective practice’? In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in trucher educurion (pp. 39-46). New York: Teachers College Press. Gitlin. A., & Teitelbaum, K. (1983). Linking theory and practice: The use of ethnographic methodology by prospective teachers. Journcd of Education for Teuchiny. 9. 225 234.

Gore, J. H. (1987). Refecting on reflective teaching. Jourrrcrl (?/’ Toucher Education, 38, 33 39. Grimmett, P. P., MacKinnon, A. M., Erickson, G. L., & Riecken, T. J. (1990). Reflective practice in teacher education. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encourayiny rqflecrive pracrice in cducution (pp. 20- 38). New York: Teachers College Press. Hall, G. E. (1988). Strategic sense: The key to effective leadership in school principals. in H. C. Waxman, H. J. Freiberg. J. C. Vaughan, & M. Weil (Eds.), lmuyrs of rcf+ction in reacher rduution (pp. 42-44). (Contract number 400-85-1039). Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Hollingsworth. S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. .4mericun Educulionnl Researc,h Journal, 26, 160- 189. Houston, W. R. (1988). Rellectmg on reflection in teacher education. In H. C. Waxman, H. J. Freiberg, J. C. Vaughan, & M. Weil (Eds.), Imqes ofreflrction in teacher education (pp. 7- 8). (Contract number 400-85-1039). Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The uction rescvrr& planner (3rd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University. Kirby, P. C., & Teddlie, C. (1989). Development of the reflective teaching instrument. Journrrl o/‘ Research und Deuelopmenr in Educcztion, 22, 45 5 1. Korthagen, F. A. (1988). The influence of learning orientations on the development of reflective teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Tetrchers’ prof>s.tionul leurniny (pp. 35 50). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Reflective

Practitioner

LaBoskey, V. K. (1989). An exploruiion of the nature and stability of r@Zectivity in preservice teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Lalik, R. V.. Niles, J. A., & Murphy, S. B. (1989). Using your head and your heart: A study ?f a process ,f;v promoting r@ec/ion among student teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. MacKinnon, A. (1987). Detecting reflection-in-action among preservice elementary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3. 135-145. McNamara, D. (1990). Research on teachers’ thinking: Its contribution to educating student teachers to think critically. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, 147-160. Munby, H.. & Russell, T. (1989). Metaphor in /he study q/ tcucher.s’ profi.s.sional knovclledye. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. NofIke, S., & Brennan, M. (1988). T/?e dimensions ofrefleclion: A conceptual and contestuul unulysix Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Noordhoff, K., & Kleinfeld, J. (1990). Shaping the rhetoric of reflection in multicultural settings. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging rpflectire practice in education (pp. 3-19). New York: Teachers College Press. Oberg, A., & McCutcheon, G. (1989). Teachers’ experience doing action research. Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 116-127. Rawls, J. (1972). A theory qf Justice.Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ross, D. D. (1989a). Action research for pre-service teachers: A description of why and how. Peabody Journal qf Education, 64, 131-157. Ross, D. D. (1989b). First steps in developing a reflective approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 22-30. Ross, E. W., & Hannay, L. M. (1986). Towards a critical theory of reflective inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 9-15. Salzillo, F., & Van Fleet, A. (1977). Student teaching and teacher education: A sociological model for change. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 27 3 1. SchBn, D. A. (1983). The rclflective practitioner: HOW prqfessionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schiin, D. A. (1987). Educating the r@ectivepractitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. SchGn, D. A. (1990). Cases of rqjlectiur practice in teacher education: Critical comments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Shulman, L. (1987)Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 51, l-22.

in Teaching

359

Standard college dictionary. (1966). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Tabachnick, R.. & Zeichner, K. (1991). Issues andpractices in inquiry-oriented teacher education. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Tom, A., & Valli, L. (1990). Professional knowledge for teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher educarion. New York: Macmillan. Valli, L.. & Taylor, N. E. (1988). Reflective teacher education: Preferred characteristics. In H. C. Waxman, H. J. Freiberg, J. C. Vaughan, & M. Weil (Eds.). Images of reflection in teacher education (pp. 20-21). (Contract number 400-85-1039). Office of Educational Research and Improvement. van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205 228. Wedman, J., Mahlios, M., & Whitfield, J. (1989). Perceptual differences regarding the implementation of an inquiry oriented student teaching curriculum. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(4), 29-35. Wood, P. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem structure: Implications for cognitive development. Human Deoelopment, 26, 249-265. Wubbels, T., & Korthagen. F. A. J. (1990). The effects of a pre-service teacher education program for the preparation of reflective teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, 29-43. Yinger, R. (1990). The conversation of practice. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging refiectiae practice in education (pp. 73-96). New York: Teachers College Press. Yinger, R. J. (1988). The intelligence of practice. In H. C. Waxman, H. J. Freiberg, J. C. Vaughan, & M. Weil (Eds.), Images of reflection in teac,her education (pp. 13-15). (Contract number 400-85-1039). Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 3-9. Zeichner, K. M. (1987). Preparing reflecting teachers: An overview of instructional strategies which have been employed in preservice teacher education. Internarional Journal of Educational Research, 11, 565-575. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Revienl, 51,23-48. Zeichner, K. M., & Teitelbaum, K. (1982). Personalized and inquiry oriented teacher education: An analysis of two approaches to the development of curriculum for fieldbased experiences. Journal of Education ,for Teaching, 8, 95 117.

Submitted Accepted

25 August 6 January

1992 1993