RUNNING HEAD: Reflective Thinking
Running head begins on next page; add footer to this page
Reports of Research and Reflection
Reflective Thinking: The Essence of Professional Development
Margaret Egan
College of Mount Saint Vincent
Abstract
This article discusses theprocesses and challenges of enabling preservice teachers to develop their ability to reflect meaningfully on their teaching performance as it relates to their ongoing professional development. It reviews previous and contemporary definitions of reflection. From this perspective some differing approaches to the reflective process in preservice teachersare reviewed—those more typically external and/or reactive and those that stem more from one’s inner core. Korthagen’s extensive work on the reflective process is summarized and his emphasis on Core Reflection is carefully considered and presented for implementation.
Introduction
During the past 20 or more years there has been consistent emphasis on the utilization of reflective writing—journals, essays, portfolios—as a form of documentation of progress in the professional development of preservice teachers. Serious thinking, sometimes marred with frustration, led to the realization that we cannot help preservice teachers craft any authentic evidence of growth or any insightful product unless we first help them begin to develop the art of reflective thinking. Hence, the purpose of this article is to examine the different approaches to facilitating reflection and to consider the various ways that teacher educators can assistgenuine reflective thinking in preservice teachers.Essentially, we are exploring some key questions: What is reflective thinking and how does one actually help develop reflective thinking in preservice teachers?
There are many who in their versatile and practical works have offered us much encouragement in our task of developing reflective thought. Posner (2000) warns, “If you merely ‘do’ your field experience without thinking deeply about it, if you merely allow your experiences to wash over you without savoring and examining them for their significance, then your growth will be severely limited” (p.22). Kilbane and Milman (2003) advise thatreflection should occur throughout the entire process of one’s professional development.Beattie (2007) encourages the use of the Circle of Inquiry—from Experience to Reflection to Interpretation to Application—to help foster continuous professional development. In a similar vein, Kronowitz (2008) clearly and extensively explains that it is never too early to begin reflecting on one’s teaching performance. Foster, Walker, and Song (2007) give considerable emphasis to the art of reflection as they describe the process as the need to “dig beneath the surface observations to uncover possible explanations for what happened” (p.34). Thus, reflection must give evidence of disposition as well as ability—key elements in the teaching process. Barrett’s (2007, Electronic Portfolios.org) extensive work with the development of electronic portfoliosgives unequivocal testimony to the necessity of formative reflective assessment in preparation for the summative product—in this case the electronic portfolio that speaks to the professional development and competence of the individual. While Barrett’s emphasis is on the portfolio as an electronic masterpiece, she cites reflection as one of the key pedagogical requirements for development: “An electronic portfolio without reflection is just a multimedia presentation, a fancy electronic resume, a web page, or a digital scrapbook. The power of reflection turns our COLLECTIONS into EVIDENCE of our learning…” (Barrett, Reflections, 2003).
In his work on understanding and assessing the reflective thinking processes of preservice teachers, Lee (2005) defines reflective thinking as a developmental process that encompasses three levels or depths of reflection. He describes Level 1 as the Recalllevel in which the preservice teacher merely describes the teaching situation in which he finds himself. For example, the preservice teacher might report that as he was teaching his lesson, the students were rowdy. Level 2 is the Rationalization level in which the preservice teacher tries to find relationships or reasons for situations. Here, the preservice teacher might reflect that student rowdiness was caused by the upcoming holiday or by his own inability to organize his materials. At Level 3, the Reflectivity level, the preservice teacher views the situation with the resolve to adjust his practice in subsequent situations. His reflection can include comments such as “Next time I will provide more interesting activities that are more challenging and less flavored with drill and routine.”
LePage, Darling-Hammond, Akar, Gutierrez, Jenkins-Gunn, and Rosebrock (2005) claim that those who practice reflectively canreadily move beyondthe trial-and-error stage to systematic teaching performance. Furthermore, they note that those who are disposed to reflection are less likely to blame parents or children for lack of progress in learning. Rather, these reflective practitioners have a stronger tendency to engage in critical self-analysis to modify and adapt their strategies.
Deliberation upon reflection would be severely lacking if we did not draw inspiration from John Dewey (1933) who insisted that reflective thinking must be an educational aim. There is no choice. Dewey noted that we need to change action that could be merely self-seeking, blind, and impulsive into action that is intelligent—action that is more “in the virtue of thought” (p. 18). Needless to say, one would hope not to find self-seeking, blind, and impulsive action within the teaching profession (or any profession). Regrettably, such unreflective patterns of behavior can develop. That is why we must help preservice teachers cultivate good habits of reflecting appropriately, consistently, and effectively from the very beginning of their professional development.
Unanimous agreement among the writers reviewed points to the necessity of reflection in all aspects of professional development. Unfortunately, good, purposeful reflection does not come easily. And so, before documenting growth in teaching, one must first have the reflective content that makes the documentation authentic.The journal, essay, portfolio or discussion, of itself, does not ensure reflection. To put it glibly, there is reflection and then there is high-quality reflection. Before there is reflective content, there must be a person who is learning to thinkbroadly and deeplyon all aspects of his or her ongoing professional development. When this has been accomplished, or at least well begun, then the journal, essay, portfolio, or any piece of writing or any in-depth discussion will becomethe means through which the preservice teacher will be able to express more viably the evidence of external and, equally as important, internal growth as a teacher.
Theoretical Considerations about Reflective Teaching
First, we must ask ourselves how we define reflection. Korthagen (2001) warns us that we will not find unanimity regarding the definition of reflection. Lee (2005) seesreflection as a systematic analysis of an event (or problem) that can be characterized according to content (the main concerns of the thinker regarding a particular situation) and depth (the way the thinker develops the reflection process in relation to that situation). After drawing upon the definitions offered by others, Kilbane and Milman (2003) describe reflection as “taking time to think and contemplate metacognitively about teaching practice” (p. 63). Wolf (2006) explains reflection as a thoughtful analysis and reporting of one’s philosophy and teaching experiences. Dewey (1933) defined reflection as a “better way of thinking” that consists of “turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious and consecutive consideration” (p.3). This “better way of thinking” he refers to as “reflective thinking” (p.3). In this article, as we discuss the quintessence of reflection, we prefer to use Dewey’s simplistically accurate terminology that says it all—“reflective thinking” or “reflection.”
Second, we realize that in this discussion we will probably not be able fully to explain clearlyhow one can actually teach reflective thinking. We can only discuss ways to help preservice teachers cultivate a reflective attitude or way of life.Fortunately, we are dealing with a non-controversial issue regarding the necessity of reflective thinkingwhich leaves us with the luxury of concentrating on the basic issue of how we actually help develop reflective thinking in preservice teachers.
Let us return to Dewey (1993) to review what is really essential. When we are working with preservice teachers (or any teachers for that matter),we must begin with the basics. Dewey noted there are certain attitudes that one must have to engage in worthwhile thought. These attitudes or dispositions are open-mindedness, whole-heartedness, and responsibility. He defined open-mindedness as freedom from prejudice and any other negative qualities that “close the mind and make it unwilling to consider new problems and entertain new ideas” (p.30). The causes of this “mental sluggishness” (p. 30) could be self-absorption, fear, lack of knowledge, or any of a host of related factors.
Whole-heartedness, according to Dewey (1933), is absorption in the task at hand, the task ofbecoming a competent, caring teacher. Without this whole-heartedness, one’s focus is divided or distracted and one cannot give full single-minded devotion to the situation of issue. Dewey noted that when one is fully absorbed, then one is carried with the task. Questions arise; challenges are welcomed; energy is spontaneous. Today, we might describe this positivism as motivation, creativity, devotion—a true sense of professionalism.
Dewey (1933) defines the third quality, responsibility, as more of a moral trait than an intellectual asset. One who is intellectually responsible has fully considered the consequences of one’s professed goals. If one desires to be a good teacher, there will be commitment to the tasks required to attain that goal. There will be a focus, a habit of thoroughness and preparation. There will be no short cuts to professional competence. These three attitudes that Dewey has defined are essential to a strong sense of mission without which a preservice teacher cannot be successful. Getting in touch with one’s personalqualities of open-mindedness, whole-heartedness, and responsibility helps one define that personal mission, the identification of which is a crucial component of the reflection process.
If we are to continue with this article in the exploration of ways to foster reflective thinking, we can do so only with the assumption that these three requisite dispositions—open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility are present within the preservice teacher. These are the dispositions that can drive the preservice teacher to fulfill a personal mission to strive for excellence in professional development. The habit of sustained reflection will help the preservice teacher focus on that mission.It is the teacher educators who must consider how they will inspire and support this ongoing practice of reflection. For the most part, reflection does not occur spontaneously. Dewey (1933) suggested that to develop habits of reflective thinking, we must have a method by which we can provide conditions that nurturereflection. Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) claim that structured reflection is a necessary component of ongoing professional development and behavior.
Perhaps we can draw a simple parallel here. When we “teach reading,” we usually follow a method, although not one method for all. We try to foster thinking skills in children. We know that we cannot say to a child, “read and comprehend this selection.” Rather, we must provide questions that stimulate, questions that require what we traditionally define as literal, interpretive, and critical thinking to foster true comprehension. We also know that to teach reading more effectively, we must help children draw upon their background experiences, their schema. Often, we use a method, more or less structured, to help them recall their knowledge, consider their experiences, ponder their values and beliefs, and express them accordingly. Then, maybe we can say we have “taught” comprehension. Or, have we? Maybe we have just helped develop the essential dispositions for thinking literally, interpretively, and critically. Similarly,in helping preservice teachers with reflective thinking, we need to follow a method that will help usand them to draw upon their knowledge and experience as well as their personal beliefs and values.
Fostering In-Depth Reflection: Theoretical Models
In his discussion of reflective thinking Dewey (1933) clearly emphasized the importance of a sequence or method. In defining reflection, Dewey’s use of the word “consecutive” reminded us there has to be some meaningful order in the process, or as Dewey indicated “not just a sequence but a con-sequence—a consecutive ordering in such a way that each (thought) determines the next as its proper outcome” (p. 4).To nurture reflective thinking in preservice teachers, the supervisor must be clear, competent, and comfortable with the reflective approach that she is using. She must be clear about her expectations.
What type of reflective response from the preservice teacher is necessary? Various excellent models of reflection are available for use. Kolb’s model (Kolb’s Learning Styles 1984—recently updated in May, 2006) invites the learner to follow a process by which one methodically proceeds from the concrete experience to the observation of the experience to the application and then to the active experimentation or redoing of the activity. The steps are logical and should lead to successful outcomes.
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (Self-assessment: The Reflective Practitioner, 2007) offers teachers a clearly developed circular model of reflective teaching that requires the practitioner to select the standards, evidence and artifacts for the learning process; then to describe thewho, what, when, and where of the learning activity. That is followed by analysis—the why and how of what took place. The next activity is the appraisal of the activity—interpretation of events and determination of their impact and effectiveness. Finally, there is the requirement to transformone’s approach—utilizing the data to develop new goals and strategies that can be applied to one’s teaching. Each of the directive headings includes specific descriptors that help to make the directives as concrete as possible (Figure 1).
The circular model can provide the structure that guides the thinking patterns and conversation of the supervisor and preservice or regular teachers. Here is where the influence of the teaching supervisor is critical. Appropriate questions must be asked at the differing levels of reflective development in the circular model so that the preservice teachers may respond appropriately and revise teaching practice accordingly. Through their responses to the guiding questions, preservice teachers may be able to supply the evidence that demonstrates their specific knowledge and teaching skills.
Korthagen (2001) discusses his approach to experiential learning, which can be described by the ALACT model of reflection. This model consists of five phases: action; looking back on the action; awareness of essential aspects; creating alternative methods of action; and trial (Figure 2). According to Korthagen, this approach to reflection offers less dependence upon rational or clinical thinking and more emphasis on thinking, feeling, wanting, and acting. These interpersonal and intrapersonal reflections are fostered by questions such as “What did you want? What did the pupils want? What were you thinking? What were the pupils thinking? How did you feel? How did the pupils feel?” (p. 214).
Figure 1. The cycle of reflection. (Replicated with permission from the public schools of North Carolina, March 2007.)
According to Korthagen’s (2001) plan, Phase 5, the Trial is usually Phase 1, the Action, of the next developing cycle, ensuring that reflection and growth are continually occurring. In explaining this model, Korthagen emphasizes that the preservice teacher, aware of these five phases, progresses through them under the guidance of a supervisor who offers a safe learning climate that supports honest reflection. The supervisor—who, needless to say, must be knowledgeable and aware of the many cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of teaching and learning—is the stimulator of the five-phase process. The supervisor does not dominate the conversation but knows when to keep silent and when to probe, challenge, and encourage.
Figure 2. The ALACT model of reflection. (Copyright Institute for Multi-Level Learning, Amsterdam, 2005.)
Practical/Personal Application
In my ongoing practice as a supervisor of preservice teachers, I have found myself struggling with the realities of helpingpreservice teachers as they reflect upon their experiences. Often, at the conclusion of the preservice teacher’s classroom performance I found myself asking, “How would you describe your accomplishments?” Most often I was greeted with the response, “I did well. The children liked it.” Needless to say, I deserved that type of shallow response. Why? My question was too broad, too superficial. As I refined my supervisory skills, I realized the importance of utilizing pre-teaching questions to guide performance. So, I would have the preservice teachers respond, firstin writing and later during the pre-teaching conference,to questions that would require them to indicate their lesson objective, rationale, students’ prior knowledge, strategies, materials, and means of evaluation. These were all good preparatory questions and required a greater depth of focus by the preservice teachers. After the lesson, I would withhold my practiced tendency to comment immediately upon the lesson. Instead, I would have the students respond first to specific post-lesson questions such as: Did I attain my objective(s)? How do I know? Did I motivate the students? How did I handle any difficulties that occurred? In the future would I do things differently? Then, after this extended time of reflection, usually one or two days, the preservice teacher and I would confer specifically about these post-observation questions.Again, these were good post-teaching and necessary reflective questions that required amorefocused response. Nevertheless, there was a missing element.I was operating somewhat superficially. Was I getting to the heart of the matter?