How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice

Abstract

While the term reflective practice can be found throughout preservice and professional teacher education courses, this chapter suggests that much of the emphasis on reflective practice in these courses is of a cursory nature, with a focus on superficial provision of answers rather than on the acquisition and practice of processes, techniques, and modeling which encourage deeper knowledge and advanced skills in teaching. This chapter argues that for reflective practice to become internalized, transformative, and embedded in the everyday practices of teachers, a number of elements, currently paid passing attention (if addressed at all), need to become the pivotal foci of teacher education for reflective practice. Based on the author’s experience as a teacher educator working in the field of reflective practice, a number of practical suggestions are made and examples given of perspectives and activities which might contribute to a more profound recognition of the complex nature of reflective practice and its real potential in teacher education.

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix A: Research Article Protocol

The Research Article Protocol was designed to provide a structured and efficient way for teachers to share and investigate the meaning of research texts with others. Each participant has the opportunity to explain one research article and share one question about that article while the listeners assist the sharing teacher in understanding the literature. Each teacher can learn from the other’s research.

The benefit of using a protocol for this conversation lies in the compressed time for each stage of the conversation that focuses each participant. For the experience to work, it is important to adhere to the format and time limits.

• 1. In groups of three or four, the sharing teacher summarizes one of the research articles along with one of the questions, while the two listeners take notes but do not respond (5 min. in a group of three, 4 min. in a group of four).

• 2. The two or three listeners ask questions about and/or comment on the meaning of the text, the interpretation of the text by the sharing teacher, and/or the perspective or emphasis placed on the text by the sharing teacher. They may interact with each other; the sharing teacher does not respond but takes notes (8 min. in a group of three, 6 min. in a group of four). They may address any (but not all) of these issues or other issues raised by this particular article:

  • Does the researcher define technical terms or terms with multiple understandings?

  • Does the researcher measure change? Are these measurements appropriate to this research?

  • Does prior research on this issue corroborate the findings or conclusions of this research?

  • What data collection methods are used and are they appropriate for this research?

  • What constitutes the sample – size, demographic information, grade level, school type, socioeconomic situation, geographic area, etc.?

  • Does the research include primary sources (interviews, field observations, documents, anecdotal evidence)?

  • Does the researcher exhibit bias? Does the researcher explain biases?

  • What assumptions has the researcher made?

  • What cultural implications are considered?

  • Is the research replicable or has it been replicated?

  • How does this research stand up over time (longitudinal studies)?

  • What variables are considered? What variables are not considered? Does the researcher control for differences?

  • Does the researcher use multiple data sources? Does the researcher subscribe to triangulation of data?

• 3. The sharing teacher then chooses to address the questions or ideas that have caused deep reflection about the research topic or the research (2 min.).

• 4. The other teachers take turns being the sharing teacher and follow steps 1–3 (15 min. each in a group of three, 12 min. each in a group of four).

1.2 Appendix B: Protocol for Peer Analysis of a Data Set

The Protocol for Peer Analysis of a Data Set was designed to provide a structured way for teachers to learn from describing and listening to a discussion of data analysis methods for each other’s data sets. After each participant has the opportunity to share the MPQ, the participants assist the sharing teacher to unpack the meaning of a data set. Each teacher can learn from the other’s experience.

The benefit of using a protocol for this conversation lies in the compressed time for each stage of the conversation that focuses each participant. For the experience to work, it is important to adhere to the format and time limits.

• 1. In groups of three (or four), the sharing teacher provides the MPQ and a data set to the other teachers (2 min).

• 2. The two (or three) other teachers silently read the data set, noting possible ways to analyze the data to help resolve the MPQ (3 min).

• 3. The two teachers share their ideas about analyzing the data with each other (10 min, 8 min for groups of four). The sharing teacher does not respond but takes note of:

  • Data analysis methods that have already been attempted

  • Data analysis methods that have not been attempted but should be

  • Data analysis methods that may not be useful

  • Unclear or confusing data analysis methods

  • Improved ways to analyze the data

• 4. The sharing teacher comments, questions, and discusses with the other teachers on the suggested data analysis methods that helped deepen his/her thinking or understanding of the data (5 min, 3 min for groups of four).

• 5. Each teacher in turn becomes the sharing teacher (20 or 16 min each).

• 6. After everyone has completed the protocol , the whole class debriefs on ideas that emerged from sharing the data analysis (15 min).