UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Student-teacher reflection in the practicum setting Clarke, Anthony 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_clarke_anthony.pdf [ 11.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086534.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086534-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086534-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086534-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086534-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086534-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086534-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086534-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086534.ris

Full Text

STUDENT-TEA.CHER REELECTION I N T H E P R A C T I C U M SETTING by Anthony Clarke  D i p l o m a of Physical Education, M e l b o u r n e U n i v e r s i t y , 1974 H i g h e r D i p l o m a of Teaching, Melbourne College of A d v a n c e d Education, 1976 B.Ed., Melbourne College of A d v a n c e d Education, 1980 M . A . , U n i v e r s i t y of British C o l u m b i a , 1989 A Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Faculty of Graduate Studies Department of Mathematics and Science Education W e accept this thesis as conforming to the  require(i-s^dard\  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A M a y , 1992 © A n t h o n y Clarke, 1992  In  presenting  degree freely  this  at the  thesis  in  University of  available for reference  copying  of  department publication  this or of  thesis by  this  his  for or  partial  fulfilment  of  British  Columbia,  I agree  and study. scholarly her  Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  requirements that  I further agree  purposes  representatives.  may be It  thesis for financial gain shall not  permission.  DE-6 (2/88)  the  is  that  the  an  advanced  Library shall make it  permission for extensive  granted  by the  understood be  for  allowed  that without  head  of  my  copying  or  my written  Abstract This study demonstrated  that the notions of reflective practice, as  advocated by D o n a l d Schon, are applicable to student-teachers i n practica settings.  For Schon, a practitioner is reflective w h e n he or she becomes  intrigued or curious about some element of the practice setting, frames it i n terms of the particulars of the setting, reframes it i n terms of past experience and knowledge, and then develops a plan for future action. Reframing occurs as a response to the 'back talk' i n the action setting where something does not happen as expected (producing the 'curious' or 'intrigued' response). A number of issues specific to student-teacher reflection emerged from the analysis of four student-teachers engaged i n a thirteen week practicum. The analysis was guided by three research questions: What is it that studentteachers reflect upon?; What precipitates that reflection?; a n d W h a t factors enhance or constrain that reflection?  The student-teachers i n this study  reflected u p o n three m a i n issues: the o w n e r s h i p of their practice; p u p i l learning; and the different levels of their understanding of practice. F r o m the analysis, it was possible to identify up to four different p r é c i p i t a n t s or triggers for the types of reflective activity documented: a p r i m a r y and secondary precipitant at each of the framing and reframing stages.  The secondary  precipitant at the reframing stage was deemed to be the most significant i n terms of student-teacher reflection.  Factors that either  enhanced  or  constrained reflection have been summarized i n terms of their implications for enhancing reflective practice.  These factors i n c l u d e d : exposure to a  multiplicity of perspectives; intense examination of one's practice; theorizing about one's practice; and the ability to entertain uncertainty. Finally, the study contributes i n three ways to Schon's conceptualization of reflection as it applies to student-teachers i n practica settings. reflection is b o m of incidents but is thematic i n nature.  Firstly,  Secondly, ownership  of one's practice is central to a variety of reflective concerns raised b y studentteachers.  Finally, Schon's coaching models need to be r e v i e w e d i n light of  changes that occur i n the relationship between student and sponsor as the action w h i c h students reflect u p o n moves from a v i r t u a l w o r l d of p l a n n i n g to the real w o r l d of performance.  Table of Contents  Abstract  ii  Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures  iii viii ix  Acknowledgements  x  CHAPTER 1  1  Introduction I. The problem  1 1  Reflective practice  1  Student-teacher reflection i n the practicum setting  3  n. The study  4  The purpose of the study  4  Research questions  5  Contribution of the study  6  Research method  6  Data Analysis  7  Pilot study  8  Limitations of the study  8  in. Organization of the chapters CHAPTER 2 Reflective Practice as a Research A g e n d a i n Teacher Education I. Practitioner knowledge as received knowledge Implications for teacher education n. Practitioner knowledge as knowledge-in-action Implications for teacher education  10 12 12 12 14 17 18  in. Reflective practice  20  IV. Schon's notion of reflective practice  22  Routine and non-routine problems  23  Reflection i n and on action  25  A n appreciative system  26  The importance of the practice setting  27  A reflective practicum  28  V . Issues related to Schon's conceptualization of reflective practice CHAPTER 3  30 33  Factors That Enhance or Constrain Reflective Practice  33  1. The prior knowledge and experience of the students  33  n. The on-campus component - Course work  34  The conservative influence of teacher education programs  34  Course fragmentation  35  Isolation from the practice setting  36  ni. The off-campus component - The practicum  36  Educational Leadership  37  The norms of teaching  37  The time press  38  A utilitarian emphasis that pervades the practice setting  39  L i m i t e d control over curricula practices or teaching content  41  IV. The triadic relationship  41  Trends i n student-teacher supervision  41  N e w roles for the student and the supervisors  43  Selection of supervisors  45  C o m m i t m e n t to reflective practice  46  Student evaluation  47  Triadic instability  48  The difference between school and university cultures  49  V . Programmatic responses to enhance reflective practice  50  A n overview of the strategies  51  C o m m o n themes  52  On-campus strategies for enhancing reflective practice  52  Off-campus strategies for enhancing reflective practice  56  W i t h i n the triad  56  Beyond the triad  58  VI. The practicum as a research context for exploring reflection  62  CHAPTER 4  64  Research M e t h o d  64  I. Data capture  64  The reflective teaching cycle  64  The participants  65  II. Data collection procedures Pre- and post-lesson discussions  67  Lessons  68  Stimulated recall sessions  68  Semi-structured interviews  68  Data collection report  69  Successful sessions  69  Data tape and transcript designations  70  III. Data analysis Transformations IV. Data review  71 71 73  Member check  73  A u d i t trail  73  CHAPTER 5 The Case of Sally L  67  Introduction  n. Analysis  75 75 75 76  Theme one - Teaching orientation  76  Theme two - Passive interaction w i t h the sponsor teacher  83  Theme three - P u p i l learning  88  Theme four - Collégial interaction w i t h the sponsor teacher  92  III. Summary CHAPTER 6 The Case of Tina  95 97 97  I. Introduction  97  II. Analysis  97  Theme one - Ownership of one's practice  97  Theme two - Expectations of p u p i l knowledge  104  Theme three - Questioning style  110  Theme four - Off-task behaviour  116  ni. Summary CHAPTER 7  119 121  The Case of Steve  121  I. Introduction  121  n. Analysis  121  m.  Theme one - Elicitation as a dominant classroom practice  121  Theme two - Ownership of one's practice  130  Summary  140  CHAPTER 8  142  The Case of Jona  142  I. Introduction  142  n. Analysis  142  m.  Theme one - Direct instruction  142  Theme two - Different levels of understanding one's practice  148  Theme three - U n i t themes and lesson objectives.  153  Theme four - Ownership of one's practice  160  Theme five - Rigidity vs. flexibility i n the use of lesson plans  166  Summary  170  CHAPTER 9  172  Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications for Practice I. Conclusions emerging from the research questions Question one: What d i d the students reflect upon?  172 172 172  Ownership of one's practice  173  The w a y pupils learn  173  Seeing practice through the eyes of an experienced teacher  174  Question two - What precipitated the students' reflection?  174  Précipitants for each theme  174  A contrast between what is proposed and what happens  176  Question three: What enhanced or constrained reflection?  176  Student-related factors  178  The use of video  178  Setting the agenda  180  Interaction w i t h students and pupils  181  Problem setting versus problem solving  182  Observation w i t h dialogue  184  The time available for reflection  185  M a k i n g explicit past experiences  186  Sponsor teacher related factors  186  Inquiring into rather than reporting on practice  187  Trust, support, and confidence  187  Program related factors Method courses that linked theory to practice n. Discussion of critical issues arising from the study  188 188 189  The thematic nature of student-teacher reflection  189  The ownership of one's practice  191  Planning vs. performance and Schon's coaching models  193  III. Implications for practice  195  Multiplicity of perspectives  195  Intense examination of practice  196  Theorizing about practice  196  Entertaining uncertainty  197  IV. Further research  198  Idiosyncratic factors emerging from the cases  198  The practicum as professional development for the sponsor  199  References  201  A p p e n d i x A - The D u a l Role of A d v i s o r and Researcher  220  A p p e n d i x B - T w o Outcomes of the M e m b e r C h e c k i n g Process  225  A p p e n d i x C - The M e r g i n g of Pre- and Post-Lesson Discussions  227  A p p e n d i x D - Identifjdng Reflective Practice  231  List of Tables  Table 1. Report of cancelled data collection sessions  69  Table 2. Examples of session descriptors for the case of Sally  69  Table 3. Summary of results for the case of Sally  94  Table 4. Tina's differentiation between questioning strategies  112  Table 3. Summary of results for the case of Tina  119  Table 6. Summary of the results for the case of Steve  140  Table 7. Jona's shift from rigid adherence to flexible use of lesson plans  169  Table 8. Summary of the results for the case of Jona  171  Table 9. Descriptive categories for the reflective themes  173  Table 10. A n example of primary and secondary précipitants  175  Table 11. List of précipitants for the reflective themes  177  Table 12. Reflective themes initiated by student and sponsor  181  List of Figxures  Figure 1. Programmatic responses for enhancing reflective practice  52  Figure 2. The reflective teaching cycle  63  Figure 3. Reflective teaching cycles across the practicum  65  Figure 4. Sample transcript excerpt designation  70  Figure 5. The case of Sally: Reflective theme map  74  Figure 6. The case of Tina: Reflective theme map  97  Figure 7. The case of Steve: Reflective theme map  122  Figure 8. The case of Jona: Reflective theme map  143  Figure 9. Jona's practicum "funnel"  152  Figure 10. Jona's teaching "plateau"  163  Figure 11. Sessions i n w h i c h framing occurred  179  Figure 12. Sessions i n w h i c h reframing occurred  179  Figure 13. Composite map of themes from the four case studies  190  Figure 14. Professional development opportunities for the sponsor  199  Acknowledgements First and foremost, I w i s h to a c k n o w l e d g e the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the students and teachers i n this project: John Bittante, John Currie, A n n e m a r i e D e b r u y n , Susan Juhas, W e n d y L i m , C l i v e Sanders, George Sarich, Stuart Simpson, and Susan Turner. Indeed, this is your study! I w i s h to also thank Bruce Gurney and Karen Meyer, for conducting the independent interviews d u r i n g this study. Thanks also to Peter C h i n , G i l l i a n C l o u t h i e r , Sandra Crespo, Debbe G e r v i n , and K e n Hughes for their reading and comments on various drafts of this document. A special thanks to Robin Hansby, whose guidance and counsel from the very b e g i n n i n g of m y doctoral p r o g r a m was always m u c h appreciated. Indeed, Robin's o w n thesis was instrumental i n the development of many of the ideas i n this document. To Renee Fountain, m y sincere thanks for always being curious a n d inquisitive about m y work. But more importantly for being a great friend. Your help and assistance w i l l always be remembered. A n d to m y mentor, Karen M e y e r and her family (Jim, Greg, a n d A m y ) , m y sincere thanks for your continuous a n d valuable support.  You will  always be m y N o r t h American family! I w o u l d also like to thank m y committee, Gaalen Erickson, Jim Gaskell, and Peter Grimmett. I came to U . B . C . specifically because of your interest i n teacher education and I w i s h to say, without hesitation, that m y w o r k w i t h you has been more rewarding than I ever dreamt possible. M y sincere thanks. Finally, a very special thanks to m y o w n family (my A u s t r a l i a n family that is!) whose continuous support and encouragement, each and every day of the p r o g r a m was very m u c h appreciated. Barbara, Elizabeth, and Timothy.  Thank y o u Isobel, George,  CHAPTER 1 Introduction  I. The p r o b l e m Reflective practice Professional development is the p r i m a r y a i m of pre-service, i n d u c t i o n , and in-service teacher education programs (Zeichner, 1987b). The impact of professional development u p o n classroom practice is governed by a number factors, one of w h i c h is the abiUty of teachers to be reflective about their practice.  It has been argued that reflection s h o u l d be fostered at the pre-  service level and subsequently encouraged as a career-long pursuit (Cole, 1989; W i l d m a n , Magliaro, N i l e s & M c L a u g h l i n , 1990). G a i n i n g insights into the reflective practices of student-teachers^ is, therefore, an important step i n understanding and fostering the development of reflective practice i n the field of teaching. Recent studies have suggested that developing reflective practitioners i n school settings is a difficult goal to achieve. A number of barriers exist; for example, the 'apprenticeship of observation' that a l l students 'serve' as learners i n classrooms (Clift, Nichols & M a r s h a l l , 1987; C r o w , 1987; FeimanN e m s e r , 1983; Lortie, 1975; Russell, 1988; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987); the conservative influence of teacher preparation programs (Feiman-Nemser, 1983, 1986; G o o d m a n , 1988; Ross, 1987; Zeichner, 1980); and the utiUtarian emphasis that seems to pervade the practice setting (Boydell, 1986; Hayes & Ross, 1988; K i l b o u r n , 1982; Pugach & Johnson, 1990; W i l d m a n et al., 1990). Unless  students  are  encouraged  to  examine  the  taken-for-granted-  assumptions associated w i t h these barriers, the development of a reflective d i s p o s i t i o n is l i k e l y to be severely constrained.  O n e area w h i c h  has  The terms student-teacher or student will be used exclusively to refer to student-teachers undertaking their professional year of study at a tertiary institution. The term pupil will be used throughout this study to refer to children or young adults attending high school. The terms sponsor teacher or sponsor will be used to denote a school-based 'supervisor,' and faculty advisor or advisor to denote a university-based 'supervisor.'  considerable potential for precipitating such a dialogue is the practicum setting, a n d i n particular the relationship between the student-teacher a n d sponsor teacher. The potential contribution of this interaction for promoting reflection o n practice is especially significant given that m a n y aspiring a n d experienced teachers regard the practicum as the most important component of their teacher preparation (Goodlad, 1988; W i d e e n , H o l b u r n , & Desrosiers,  1987). Louden (1989) a n d Grimmett, Erickson, M a c K i n n o n , and Riecken (1990) have s h o w n that the term 'reflection' means m a n y things to m a n y people. For some, reflection means a review of one's practice to ensure fidelity to a particular set of rules.  For others, reflection means ' m a k i n g problematic'  particular aspects o f one's practice  (i.e., e x a m i n i n g  assumptions) to gain new insights into that practice.  taken-for-granted  Further, reflection has  been conceptualized as a personal activity, as a p u b l i c activity, o r as a combination of the two (Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; Pugach & Johnson, 1990). These various conceptualizations  are g r o u n d e d  i n p a r t i c u l a r v i e w s of  knowledge and their relationship to the practice setting. Recent directions i n educational research conceive of professional practice as the  knowledge-in-  action that practitioners exhibit i n their daily work. A number of researchers have d r a w n u p o n this notion as a theoretical perspective to g u i d e their studies.  D o n a l d Schon's (1983, 1987) contribution to a conceptualization of  reflective practice is particularly significant i n this regard. Schon's conception of professional practice calls for knowledge-in-action to be understood i n terms of reflection-in-action a n d reflection-on-action. Grimmett (1989) notes that it is Schon's emphasis o n the action setting that makes his conception of professional practice quite distinctive. K n o w l e d g e in-action, for Schon, becomes the r a w material o n w h i c h reflection operates. Such knowledge is "constructed by practitioners through reflection-in-action (i.e., action generated through on-the-spot experimentation) a n d reflectionon-action (i.e., action p l a n n e d o n the basis of post-hoc deliberation)" (Grimmett, 1988, p. 9).  thinking and  For Schon, the interplay  between  problem setting, problem framing and reframing, experimentation, and 'back talk,' constitute the artistry of professional practice.  student-teacher reflection i n the practicum setting For the student-teacher, the practicum experience is the first opportunity to engage i n systematic reflection on classroom practice.  Student-teachers  come to the practice setting w i t h various conceptions of teaching and learning (Calderhead, 1988; C o l e , 1989; M e r t z & M c N e e l y , 1992; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987).  A s they engage i n classroom practice they encounter many events,  some familiar and anticipated, others new and surprising. Their conceptions of teaching a n d learning are supported or challenged accordingly.  Both  instances present opportunities for reflection and professional development. W h e n students deal w i t h familiar and anticipated classroom events they are likely to draw upon a repertoire of responses based upon prior experiences as p u p i l s i n schools, as students at universities, as leaders i n positions of responsibility, etc. (Calderhead, 1992; Cole, 1989). Inevitably, student-teachers are challenged by many new and unanticipated classroom events for w h i c h no appropriate response w i l l be present i n their current repertoire (Housego, 1987). In these situations, students w i l l have to construe responses sensitive to the situation at hand and bring to bear any prior knowledge and experience that might be appropriate.  A t times, this is an exciting a n d i n v i g o r a t i n g  experience, at other times it is unnerving and b e w i l d e r i n g (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). A l l classroom events, be they anticipated or unanticipated, routine or non-routine, p r o v i d e opportunities for reflection - a chance to examine practice i n the light of past experience and knowledge, and to develop or modify a plan for future action.  In many instances, student-teachers may  recognize these opportunities and reflect u p o n their actions. H o w e v e r , there may also be instances, w h e n a student-teacher fails to recognize the significance of a particular classroom event. Take, for example, a student-teacher that this researcher observed recently.  E a r l y i n the  practicum, the student-teacher introduced the concept of 'equilibrium' to a Grade 11 Chemistry class.  In the ensuing classroom discussion it became  apparent that some p u p i l s were using ' e q u i l i b r i u m ' to denote a p h y s i c a l property (i.e., weight) rather than a chemical property (i.e., the constituents of a chemical reaction). The pupils' confusion was further exacerbated when the student-teacher drew a teeter-board on the overhead projector and proceeded to use this as an analogy for 'balancing' chemical equations.  The student-  teacher remained blissfully ignorant of the pupils' quandary throughout the lesson. W h e n suitable strategies for checking p u p i l understanding are absent a student-teacher needs the benefit of some form of collaborative reflection to assist i n the examination of his or her practice. A t such times, the role of the sponsor teacher is critical (Erickson & M a c K i n n o n , 1991). The nurturing of reflective practice is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks faced by the sponsor teacher (Nolan and Huber, 1989). It is important for the sponsor teacher to be sensitive to the ways i n w h i c h the novice teacher is likely to view and reflect upon the practice setting. The sponsor teacher must g u a r d against the temptation of assuming that what he or she 'sees' is identical to what the student-teacher 'sees' (Schon, 1987).  S i m i l a r l y , the  sponsor's reflections about the practice setting may be very different to those of the student-teacher. Therefore, the sponsor must h o l d i n abeyance his or her o w n agenda and carefully attend to the student-teacher's reactions to the practice setting (Kilbourn, 1990). The temptation to produce i n the studentteacher a 'carbon copy' of the sponsor  teacher militates against  the  development of reflective practice. II. The study The f o l l o w i n g description of the study is d i v i d e d into six sections: purpose, research questions, method, analysis, pilot study, and limitations. These sections provide a composite picture that w i l l guide the reader through the remainder of the thesis. The purpose of the study This study is set i n the "dailiness" (Lieberman & M i l l e r , 1984) of studentteaching practice and is grounded in the notion that knowledge is personally constructed and socially mediated as students reflect u p o n practice (Schon, 1983, 1987; von Glasersfeld, 1987). A s such it draws u p o n Schon's explication of reflective practice as outlined i n his two books: The reflective practitioner: H o w professionals think i n action (1983), and E d u c a t i n g the  reflective  p r a c t i t i o n e r : T o w a r d s a n e w design for teaching a n d l e a r n i n g i n the p r o f e s s i o n s (1987).  For Schon, a practitioner is reflective w h e n he or she  becomes intrigued or curious about some element of the practice setting, frames it i n terms of the particulars of the setting, reframes it i n terms of past  experience a n d k n o w l e d g e , a n d then develops a p l a n for future action. Reframing occurs as a response to the 'back talk' i n the action setting where s o m e t h i n g does not h a p p e n 'intrigued' response).  as expected  ( p r o d u c i n g the ' c u r i o u s ' or  This definition of reflection is used throughout this  study. The purpose of this study is to examine the applicability of Schon's conceptualization of reflective practice i n an educational setting, i n particular, a student-teacher practicum setting.  A n d , if Schon's conceptualization is  viable i n this setting, an additional a i m is to determine the circumstances w h i c h are conducive to the development of student-teacher reflection i n this setting. Past studies have p r o v i d e d some insights into different aspects of a student-teacher  reflection (Borko, L i v i n g s t o n , M c C a l e b , a n d M a u r o , 1989;  K i l b o u r n , 1982; M a c K i n n o n , 1989). The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive picture of student-teacher  reflection, from a Schonean  perspective, b y examining the practices of student-teachers as they prepare, teach, and conference their lessons, w i t h their sponsor teachers w h i l e o n practica. Research questions To examine student-teacher reflection i n the practicum setting, the study is d i v i d e d into three parts: the first, to identify w h a t student-teachers reflect upon; the second, to establish what precipitates that reflection; and the third, to identify factors that e n h a n c e or c o n s t r a i n reflection. Thus, the research questions are: •  What do student-teachers reflect upon? In particular, it is important to identify the process of framing a n d reframing i n w h i c h the student-teachers engage as they reflect u p o n issues, problems, etc., encountered i n the practice setting.  •  What precipitates  reflection?  This question seeks to identify elements w i t h i n the practicum that trigger the reflective process and to determine the effect of these upon the students' framing and reframing of issues, problems, etc.  •  What factors enhance or constrain reflective  practice?  The broad focus of this question is u p o n the practicum i n general, that is, factors such as: interaction w i t h pupils, the use of video tape, past experiences as a learner, etc. The specific focus of this question is u p o n the interaction between  the student-teacher a n d  sponsor  teacher. C o n t r i b u t i o n of the study D o n a l d Schon (1983, 1987) conceptualized reflective practice as the knowledge practitioners display w h e n they are confronted w i t h problematic situations.  H i s studies are g r o u n d e d i n the practice of master teachers  w o r k i n g w i t h gifted p r o t é g é s ; for example, Quist, a master designer, w i t h Petra, an advanced design student, and Franz, a w o r l d famous pianist, w i t h A n n o n , a talented y o u n g pianist. U s i n g these 'ideal' situations as exemplars, Schon described h o w reflective practice might look, be identified, and be nurtured.  The present s t u d y extends  Schon's w o r k b y u t i l i z i n g  his  conception of reflective practice, gleaned from these 'ideal' settings, a n d a p p l y i n g it to 'everyday' student-teacher practica settings. been made to select exemplary teachers or students.  N o attempt has  Indeed, every attempt  was made to ensure that the settings were typical of most student-teacher practica (save for the presence  of the researcher  and the  participants  involvement i n the project). Further, the study moves beyond 'clinical' p l a n n i n g settings, w h i c h are the basis for m u c h of Schon's analysis - settings i n w h i c h students experiment i n a relatively risk-free 'virtual' w o r l d - and includes actual performance settings - settings i n w h i c h students put into practice their planning i n a 'real' w o r l d environment (i.e., high school classrooms). The results of this study also contribute to a conceptualization of the practicum writ large and the role it might play w i t h regard to the professional development of both the student-teacher and the sponsor teacher. Research method A regular teaching cycle, defined i n this study as a lesson taught b y a student and the pre- and post-lesson discussions w i t h the sponsor teacher that  surround the lesson, p r o v i d e d the structure for the investigations outlined i n the research questions. Overlaid on the regular teaching cycle were a series of stimulated video recall sessions (Tuckwell, 1982).  These sessions a l l o w e d  both the student and the sponsor to comment u p o n each stage of the regular teaching cycle. The combination of the regular teaching cycle and the video recall sessions is defined i n this study as a 'reflective teaching cycle.'  Four  student-teachers and their respective sponsor teachers participated i n this study.  Five reflective teaching cycles were conducted for each student over  the course of their practica (approximately one cycle every two weeks).  In  a d d i t i o n to the reflective teaching cycles, a number of semi-structured interviews (Mishler, 1986; Spradley, 1979) were conducted w i t h the students and the sponsors. Data Analysis The tapes from each of the reflective teaching cycles a n d the semistructured interviews were fully transcribed^. The analysis of the data was based upon the constant comparative method i n w h i c h incidents and events were  catalogued  and  grouped  a c c o r d i n g to  common  features  and  characteristics (Classer & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & C u b a , 1985). A s different trends emerged some groups were collapsed into a single category, w h i l e others were d i v i d e d into further categories.  A s M a c K i n n o n (1989) warns,  there are difficulties associated w i t h this process: Research of this k i n d 'the data.'  ...  is afflicted by a struggle to make something of  These polymorphous bodies of stirring and shifting things  that w i l l eventually be said to have particular shapes and regularities indeed to count for something, to represent particular significances seem at first glance to require identification and at another, fabrication (p. 47). In an attempt to avoid the dangers associated w i t h this method of data analysis, an extensive audit trail and member checking process was conducted throughout the study.  The exception was the video tapes of the lessons for which only the sections relevant to the discussion between the student and sponsor were transcribed.  The analysis of the data was based upon four levels of 'transformation' (Novak & G o w i n , 1984). The first was the verbatim transcription of a l l data tapes. The second level was the identification of the i n d i v i d u a l components of reflection (précipitants, frames, reframes, and plans for future action). The third level was the identification of (1) reflective themes, (2) specific factors that enhanced or constrained reflection, and (3) general factors related to student-teacher reflection i n the practicum setting.  A t the fourth level, the  factors a n d themes were categorized according to d o m i n a n t trends a n d patterns. Pilot study A pilot study was conducted w i t h one student prior to the m a i n study. A l t h o u g h the intention was to collect a sample (18 tapes) of the full data set (50 tapes), circumstances permitted the collection of a complete data set.  A  preliminary analysis demonstrated that the data collection procedures were robust and successful i n 'getting at' student-teacher reflection. A s a result, the procedures used for the pilot study were used for the m a i n study.  Following  the analysis of the three students i n the m a i n study, the researcher  re-  analysed the full data set from the pilot study and i n c l u d e d the results w i t h the m a i n group.  Therefore, the study represents the reflective practices of  four student-teachers on practica. Limitations of the study There were four limitations to this study: (1) student-teacher reflection was not confined to the five reflective teaching cycles that comprised the data collection, (2) the presence of a video camera and the researcher i n a number of lessons taught b y the student-teachers,  (3) the project, itself, was an  intervention i n the student-teachers' reflections u p o n their practices, and (4) the dual role played by the researcher, that is, faculty advisor cum researcher. The  most significant l i m i t a t i o n to the study was that the student-  teachers' reflections on their practices were not bounded by such things as the time of the day, physical location, interactions w i t h the researcher, etc.  The  students reflected on their practice within and beyond the time set aside for data collection.  C o g n i z a n t of this limitation, the study was designed to  capture the student-teachers' reflections at times that were felt to be the most critical d u r i n g the practica. To this extent the study was successful. Clearly, though, it was not possible to document the full range of the student-teacher reflection across the whole practicum experience. The second limitation was related to the presence of a video camera and researcher i n the student-teachers' altered the setting. classrooms.  classrooms.  This presence immediately  N o longer were the classrooms 'typical'  student-teacher  To ameUorate this 'intrusion', as far as possible, the researcher  video taped a number of the students' classes before the project began to allow both the students and pupils to become comfortable w i t h the presence of the camera and researcher. It appeared that this significantly reduced the effect of the camera and researcher i n the classrooms, for both students and pupils. The t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n was the 'interventionist' nature of the project. Clearly, asking students to watch video tapes of their practices was likely to enhance their reflections u p o n those practices.  In this regard, an important  assumption needs to be highlighted. F r o m the outset of this project, there was an assumption that student-teachers d i d reflect u p o n their practices. If the researcher had felt otherwise, the research questions w o u l d have been considerably different. For example, a researcher w i t h a different perspective might have asked 'Do student-teachers reflect u p o n their practice?' and not, as i n this study, 'What do student-teachers reflect upon?' Where the project d i d intervene i n the students' practica was i n p r o v i d i n g an opportunity for the students to reflect o n their practices. What is important (particularly w i t h regard to the research questions) was that the project d i d not 'require,' demand' or 'mandate' that the student reflect on their practices. N o r d i d the project suggest  an agenda for student-teachers'  reflections.  T h u s , the  reflective themes identified i n this study were the student-teachers'  own  reflections u p o n their practices. A s such, the claims emerging from the study are b o u n d e d b y the l i m i t a t i o n that the project p r o v i d e d a structured opportunity for the students to reflect on their practice. The fourth limitation was the researcher's d u a l role as faculty advisor and researcher.  T w o questions arise i n relation to this issue: (1) 'Was it  possible for the researcher to collect data on the students' reflections w h i l e  • I  f  acting as faculty advisor?, and (2) 'What checks were i n place to ensure that the role of faculty advisor, as played by the researcher, was consistent w i t h 'typical' practica settings.' W i t h regard to the first question, all students were interviewed by an independent researcher at the end of the study. i n t e r v i e w s were to determine the extent to w h i c h  These  the students  felt  comfortable i n sharing their doubts, confusions, difficulties, etc, (i.e., elements critical to Schon's notion of reflective practice) w i t h the researcher. report of these i n t e r v i e w s , i n c l u d i n g extracts from  A full  the i n t e r v i e w s , is  contained i n A p p e n d i x A . In short, the effect of the d u a l role played by the researcher i n terms of a n s w e r i n g the research questions appeared to be minimal. W i t h regard to the second issue, to ensure that the role of faculty advisor as p l a y e d b y the researchers was consistent w i t h the supervision that other students were receiving outside the project, the researcher supervised an additional number of students beyond the project.  A s such, the researcher  monitored his supervision of students w i t h i n and beyond the project.  While  it was impossible to ensure identical supervision between the two contexts (or, for that matter, between any two students), this strategy p r o v i d e d a check for consistency i n terms of faculty advising within and beyond the project. III. Organization of the chapters There are eight chapters i n this study.  The first four  chapters  (encompassing the introduction, literature review, and method) p r o v i d e the foundation upon w h i c h the study was based and conducted. The next four chapters are written as i n d i v i d u a l cases for each of the students (Sally, Tina, Steve, a n d Jona^) i n the study.  Each of these chapters begins w i t h a map  illustrating the number and duration of the reflective themes identified i n the case. The reflective themes for the case are then presented i n detail. Each of the case study chapters concludes w i t h a one-page s u m m a r y table of the themes, factors and related issues that emerged from the case.  The final  chapter draws the results of the case studies together, discusses these results i n  Pseudonyms for the students and sponsor teachers are used throughout the study.  relation to perspectives i n the literature, and considers the implications of this study for reflection i n the practicum setting and further research.  CHAPTER 2 Reflective Practice as a Research A g e n d a i n Teacher Education Chapters two and three present a review of the literature on reflective practice.  Chapter two examines the theoretical perspective that led to, and  underlies, the current research interest i n reflective practice.  It begins by  contrasting two different perspectives on professional knowledge, the first as received knowledge and the second as knowledge-in-action. The significance of knowledge-in-action is then highlighted against the backdrop of various research efforts designed to depict the knowledge practitioners construct i n the immediacy of the practice setting. O f particular importance is the work of Schon w h o has recently p o p u l a r i z e d the term 'reflective practice.'  The  review details Schon's contribution i n this regard. In chapter three, the review of the literature moves from the theoretical to the practical by focussing u p o n the reflective practices of student-teachers. In particular, it explores the factors w h i c h enhance or constrain studentteacher reflection d u r i n g a teacher education program. The review begins by e x a m i n i n g the on- and off-campus components program.  of a teacher education  The r e v i e w then considers specific strategies that have been  introduced to promote the development of reflective practice.  F i n a l l y , an  argument is put, d r a w i n g u p o n the literature reviewed i n both chapters, for the importance of the practicum setting as a research context for investigating student-teacher reflection. I. Practitioner knowledge as received k n o w l e d g e In the early 1900's education was a new and emerging field of study. To gain legitimacy and status w i t h i n the research c o m m u n i t y , educationalists sought to imitate the methods and forms of i n q u i r y that h a d secured the natural scientists their lofty position i n the academy.  This endeavour, to  "travel the same r o y a l road" (Soltis, 1984, p. 6) to success, resulted i n educational research being dominated by a paradigmatic orientation that has been v a r i o u s l y labelled as p o s i t i v i s m (Phillips, 1983), logical e m p i r i c i s m (Harre, 1981), or technical rationality (Schon, 1983). Researchers committed to this perspective assume that: 1) there is a reality that can be discovered, 2) this  reality can be reduced to propositional logic, 3) it can be inferred by objective value-free observation, and 4) the character of the observed phenomena is not altered by the data collection methods (Schubert, 1980). The implications of this perspective i n education were significant.  A  research programme was initiated to discover universal laws and axioms that w o u l d guide teaching practice (Garman, 1986). This programme was based u p o n linear causal models (Erickson, 1986) w h i c h attempted to measure student success i n terms of academic achievement gains (Van M a n e n , 1977). This perspective i m p l i e d that the k n o w l e d g e , skills, and  competencies  required by teachers could be specified i n advance (Zeichner, 1987a) and that professional practice could be regarded as the field of theoretical application (Connelly and C l a n d i n i n , 1986). Much  of the  process-product,  teacher  effectiveness,  and  teacher  competency research traditions are based u p o n this 'positivist' perspective (Shulman, 1981, 1986b; Boydell, 1986). Consider, for example, the b o d y of literature that stems from process-product research. o r i e n t a t i o n believe that the p h e n o m e n a  Researchers w i t h this  they explore are natural  and  therefore stable, and that under intensive analysis and experimentation these phenomena y i e l d "scientific generalizations and trends" (Gage, 1980, p. 14). An  attempt is m a d e  to f i n d  relationships between  specified  teacher  behaviours (processes) and student outcomes (products). A n example of this is the time-on-task  construct w h i c h relates academic achievement w i t h the  time that i n d i v i d u a l students spend 'on-task'.  W h i l e the notion of time-on-  task is a useful construct (teachers do try to keep students actively engaged i n their w o r k ) , a n d has intuitive appeal, critics question the theoretical a n d methodological assumptions upon w h i c h this research is based. For example, Erickson (1986) lists three problems: the research proceeds from an inadequate notion of interaction (a one-way causal influence rather than reciprocal interchange of factors w i t h i n the learning environment), the research is based u p o n an extremely reductionist view of classroom processes, and the research outcomes are too n a r r o w l y defined i n terms of end-of-year  achievement  scores. Put simply, a scientifically, objective, value-free frame of reference is unlikely to capture, or explicate, the full complexity of the teaching-learning environment.  A study by Smyth (1987, cited i n Smyth, 1989b) highlights some of these concerns.  D u r i n g a research project established to study the nature of peer  supervision, the time-on-task construct became the focus for a particular set of classroom observations. One of the teachers was concerned about the level of student muttering i n his class.  After a p e r i o d of investigation, d u r i n g  w h i c h time the teachers recorded both the students' behaviour and associated 'mutterings,' they discovered that contrary to their initial assumption - that muttering was indicative of off-task behaviour - the muttering was indeed w o r k related. They concluded that the capable students verbalized problems to themselves for clarification and the less able students sought clarification from their neighbours. Thus, the observable behaviour, 'muttering,' was not an i n d i c a t i o n of off-task behaviour but quite the opposite.  The teachers  i n v o l v e d "issued a challenge to the w i d e s p r e a d v i e w that to be on-task students needed to be silent" (Smyth, 1987, p. 13). This example highlights the deceptiveness of surface appearances when taken as indicators of specific behavioural patterns.  What process-product researchers h a d often taken as  l o w inference indicators were i n reality highly inferential (Erickson, 1986). Implications for teacher education The seductive simplicity of readily codified behaviours, w h i c h emanated from 'positivist' research, had implications for teacher 'training.'  Teacher  educators were quick to incorporate the findings from teacher effectiveness, process-product, and teacher competency research into their preparation programmes (Boydell, 1986; Shulman, 1986a).  A s V a n M a n e n (1977) notes,  g i v e n the nature of the 'knowledge industry' at that time, the enthusiastic application of such theory to practice came as no surprise: In a culture where the knowledge industry is strongly dominated by an attitude of accountability and h u m a n engineering, it is not s u r p r i s i n g that the predominant concern of educational practice [had] become an instrumental pre-occupation w i t h techniques, control, and  means-ends  criteria of efficiency a n d effectiveness, (p. 209, emphasis i n original) Thus, the preparation of novices was greatly simplified w h e n teaching was v i e w e d as instrumental p r o b l e m s o l v i n g made r i g o u r o u s b y  the  application of scientific theory (Boydell, 1986; M a y & Z i m p h e r , 1986; Schon, 1983).  Student-teacher s were to be technicians w h o faithfully implemented  the results of academic research (Krogh, 1987; Simmons, Sparks, & C o l t o n , 1988; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987).  A s a consequence, teacher  education  programmes became imbued w i t h a technical, almost scientific, language that was supposedly an accurate representation of classroom practice, for example ' A L T ' or A c a d e m i c Learning Time (Shulman, 1986b; Tabachnick, P o p k e w i t z , & Zeichner; 1979).  The notion of the 'teacher as technician' was further  enhanced by the positivist assumption that the problems of practice were generalizable across m u l t i p l e contexts, and as such d i d not require on-site interpretation or adjustment (Erickson, 1986; N o l a n & Huber, 1989; Selman, 1988). U n d o u b t e d l y there exist some generic 'tools of the trade' w h i c h have a degree of general applicability.  Consider, for example, a simple technique  such as addressing a question to a w h o l e class before selecting a p u p i l to respond; the hope being that each p u p i l w i l l remain attentive i n anticipation that he or she might be called upon to respond. It is likely that most teachers have used this particular technique at some stage. This and other techniques can be employed quite effectively b y the discriminating teacher.  The use of  'techniques' becomes problematic, however, w h e n they become an expected (mandated?) practice, or the sole modus operandi for practitioners. Some studies show that student-teachers value 'techniques' almost to the exclusion of any other component of their teacher preparation (Campbell, Green, & Purvis 1990; Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; Russell, M u n b y , Spafford, & Johnston, 1988).  M a c K i n n o n and E r i c k s o n (1988) suggests that an early  dependence u p o n such techniques is indeed a characteristic of early field experiences, particularly w h e n 'survival' is paramount.  They propose that  basic techniques need to be mastered before students are able, or ready, to consider more substantive educational issues.  The challenge for teacher  educators is to select an appropriate time to move students beyond a 'what works' approach to classroom practice (Goodman, 1988). For example. B r o w n (1990) contends that teachers may require three to four years of teaching experience before they might be expected to reflect on their practice. Closely aligned w i t h a dependence u p o n techniques is the concern that teachers w h o  have achieved technical competence often remain at that level (FeimanN e m s e r , 1983).  Evidence of this is r e a d i l y noted b y anyone w h o has  conducted professional development programs for practicing teachers.  There  is a strong expectation that presenters w i l l provide materials that can be taken back and used unproblematically i n classrooms; quick technological fixes! V a n M a n e n (1977) submits that this desire for technical instrumentality is rooted i n the quest for practical relevancy; a n o r m w h i c h pervades  the  teaching profession a n d is characterized by the separation of theory from practice, learning 'the tricks of the trade', or learning by trial and error. Such norms as these inhibit systematic i n q u i r y into and reflection u p o n one's practice.  It m a y be important then to encourage practitioners not o n l y to  consider the 'how' and 'what' of their teaching but also the 'why' of their teaching practices (Wildman & Niles, 1987). It was i n this light that researchers began to question the consequences of programmes emphasising 'technical k n o w - h o w ' to the exclusion of more substantive issues related to classroom practice (Krogh, 1987; Richards & Gipe, 1987; Stout, 1989). V a n M a n e n (1977) argues that while the 'how' questions are relevant, other  questions  interpretation of the 'practical.'  must be asked to ensure  an  adequate  Other researchers contend that a p u r e l y  technical approach to teacher education supports the notion that prospective teachers are passive recipients of knowledge and that they play very little part i n determining the substance or direction of their programmes ( H a n d a l & L a u v â s , 1987; Tabachnick et al., 1979; Zeichner, 1980, 1987a). These researchers note that by h i g h l i g h t i n g only the technical aspects student-teachers have tended to regard the practice setting as unproblematic, and v i e w their role w i t h i n schools as one of acquiescence and conformity to existing routines maintaining the status quo. W i l d m a n and Niles (1987) suggest that passive 'compliance' by student-teachers is a serious i m p e d i m e n t to career-long professional g r o w t h and development; a sentiment echoed b y G l i c k m a n (1988): It is when we believe that someone else can decide for us, or that we can control what w i l l happen, that we stick to a plan that overrides h u m a n judgement and we lose the capacity to receive information, to educate and correct ourselves (Glickman, 1988, p. 64).  Increasingly, the model of teaching as merely 'technical prowess' is being challenged.  Researchers have begun to re-examine the nature of teachers'  knowledge w h i c h is 'practical' i n more than just a technical or managerial sense (Feiman-Nemser, 1986, 1990). A s Hargreaves (1988) notes "teachers are not just bundles of s k i l l , competence and technique; they are creators of meaning, [and] interpreters of the w o r l d " (p. 216). Feiman-Nemser (1986) comments that, u n t i l recently, "the p r e v a i l i n g v i e w a m o n g researchers  h a d been that teachers h a d experience  while  academics had knowledge" (p. 512). Teachers were not seen as possessing a unique body of knowledge and expertise. Researchers have since questioned the service mentality of the 'received knowledge' tradition a r g u i n g that it likens teaching to an information processing model that is neither a v a l i d nor accurate description of teacher knowledge (Garman, 1986; Richardson, 1990; Schon, 1983, 1987; V a n Manen, 1977). II, Practitioner knowledge as knowledge-in-action A n alternative perspective that recognizes the d y n a m i c nature of a teachers'  k n o w l e d g e has been referred  to as ' k n o w i n g - i n - a c t i o n . ' T h i s  knowing-in-action is manifest i n the 'conversation' that takes place between the practitioner and his or her setting (Garman, 1987; H o l l a n d , 1987; Schon, 1983, 1987; V a n M a n e n , 1977; Yinger, 1990).  Y i n g e r (1990) f o u n d  the  conversation metaphor useful because it acknowledges teaching practice as a social process taking place within a specific context and characterized b y the natural 'give-and-take' between the practitioner and the setting.  Yinger  emphasized that "the language of practice is found i n the practitioners action, rather than speech.  It is rarely heard, but it is seen and felt" (p. 91).  The  notion of 'rarely heard' is an acknowledgement that a large part of a teacher's 'knowing' is indeed tacit, evidenced by the fact that teachers themselves have great difficulty i n articulating what it is they k n o w , and h o w they have come to k n o w it (Feiman-Nemser, 1986; M a c K i n n o n , 1989; R i c h a r d s o n , 1990; Shulman, 1987, 1988). Sergiovanni (1985) describes this tacit k n o w l e d g e as informed intuition:  Professionals  rely heavily on  knowledge i n use.  informed  i n t u i t i o n as they  create  Intuition is informed by theoretical knowledge on  the one hand and by interacting w i t h the context of practice on the other. W h e n teachers use informed intuition, they are engaging i n reflective practice.  . . . K n o w i n g is i n the action itself . . . (p. 11).  Implications for teacher education This alternate conception of teacher knowledge, as active construction rather than passive reception, has significant i m p l i c a t i o n s for teaching, teacher education, and research on teaching (Erickson & M a c K i n n o n , 1991). F r o m this perspective teacher knowledge is embedded i n and emerges out of action (Sergiovanni, 1985; Smyth, 1989); it is a "situated k n o w l e d g e made powerful b y the contexts i n w h i c h it is acquired and used" (Shulman, 1988, p. 37).  This v i e w has resulted i n a m a r k e d change i n the w a y researchers  conceptualize teaching practice (Garman, 1986; LaBoskey & W i l s o n , 1987; Schwab, 1969; T o m , 1985).  Researchers have n o w begun to examine the  specialized knowledge that teachers acquire and use as they encounter the "complex, unstable, uncertain, and conflictual w o r l d of practice" (Schon, 1987, p. 12).  The purpose is neither to predict, explain, nor to provide rules or  regulations, but rather to understand and depict meaningful h u m a n action for the purpose of g u i d i n g practice (Garman, 1986; Grimmett, 1989; Schon, 1988; Schubert, 1980; Sergiovanni, 1986; W i l d m a n et al., 1990). Research i n this genre has variously been referred to as interpretive (Erickson, 1986; H o w e & Eisenhart, 1990; Soltis, 1984) or hermeneutic (Habermas, 1973, V a n M a n e n , 1977). Erickson (1986) has suggested interpretive research leads to: . . . questions of a fundamentally different sort from those posed b y standard research o n teaching. teachers  are  Rather than ask w h i c h behaviours b y  positively correlated  with  student  gains  on  test  achievement, the interpretive researcher asks "What are the conditions of meaning that students and teachers create together, as some students appear to learn and others don't?  A r e there differences i n the meaning-  perspectives of teachers and students i n classrooms characterized by higher achievement and more positive morale?  H o w is it that it can  make sense for students to learn i n one situation and not i n another?" (Erickson, 1986, p. 127)  The focus is on intention not behaviour; on subjective meaning rather than objective observation. There are no such things as stimuli, responses, or measurable behaviours but rather "encounters, lifeworlds, and meanings, w h i c h invite investigation" (Van M a n e n , 1977, p. 214). Teachers are regarded as active agents i n the construction of k n o w l e d g e rather than  passive  recipients of 'professional' knowledge (Tom, 1985; Zeichner, 1980). Inquiry is grounded i n practice, and its end point is action relevant to a specific setting ( C o n n e l l y & C l a n d i n i n , 1986; Eisner, 1983; Firestone, 1987).  Research  produces 'thick description' of specific cases rather than 'codified abstract realities' garnered from statistical m a n i p u l a t i o n (Ryle, 1949).  The p r i m a r y  concern for interpretive researchers is " p a r t i c u l a r i z a b i l i t y rather  than  generalizability" (Erickson, 1986, p. 130). Stake (1980) suggests that knowledge of 'the particular' is what practitioners use to make sense of unfamiUar situations; that they begin to identify patterns i n new contexts b y d r a w i n g u p o n a repertoire of prior experiences: K n o w l e d g e [of the particular] is a form of generalization scientific i n d u c t i o n , but naturalistic  . . .  not  generalization, a r r i v e d at b y  recognizing the similarities of objects, and issues i n and out of context, and by sensing the natural covariations of happenings (Stake, 1980, p. 69). Geertz (1973) argues i n a similar vein suggesting that generaUty grows out of the 'delicacy of distinction', rather than the 'sweep of abstraction'; that the use of 'thick description' enables practitioners to place events i n an intelligible and personally meaningful frame. Simmons (1980) and A l d e r m a n , Jenkins, and K e m m i s (1980) propose that if 'delicacy of distinction' is indeed the essence of interpretive research, then researchers and practitioners need to communicate these distinctions i n a 'language'  that retains  a l l the richness and subtlety of  interactions w i t h i n the context of the setting.  participant  Several researchers argue that  interpretive studies, and i n particular case studies, are powerful vehicles for achieving these aims (Erickson, 1986; Grimmett, 1989; LaBoskey & W i l s o n , 1987; Russell, 1988; Shulman, 1984, 1986a, 1987; Smyth, 1989; Stake, 1980; W i d e e n et al., 1987). A n increasing number of studies provide such insights  into teachers' practical knowledge. For example, Grimmett and Crehan (1990) report on a case study i n w h i c h they investigated teacher reflection w i t h i n a clinical s u p e r v i s i o n setting.  They e x a m i n e d the s u p e r v i s o r y d i a l o g u e  between Barry, an experienced teacher, and Margaret, his principal.  Their  study was based "on 'thick focused' descriptions derived from extensive field notes taken by two observers" and "stimulated-recall interview transcripts" (Grimmett & C r e h a n , 1990, p. 216).  Their analysis is g r o u n d e d i n the  particular and draws upon the interaction between the two participants. They concluded that the important concepts Barry used to structure his practice were d e r i v e d through experiential metaphors that permeated his t h i n k i n g about teaching practice, rather than t h r o u g h a process of technical or instrumental analysis. A second example is a case study b y L o u d e n (1989), whose study addressed the problem of "understanding the process of change i n teachers' classroom knowledge and action" (p. 1).  H i s i n q u i r y was based u p o n a  collaborative relationship between a teacher and a researcher, i n w h i c h both jointly planned, taught and conferenced a series of lessons over the course of a year.  F r o m this intensive case study. L o u d e n concluded that teachers'  understanding of teaching changed s l o w l y , was constructed w i t h i n  the  teachers' personal horizons of understanding, and was related to the tradition of teaching i n w h i c h they w o r k e d . H e also noted that proposals to change teachers' practice were "proposals to change teachers' lives, and s h o u l d be approached w i t h care and h u m i l i t y not arrogance and certainty" ( L o u d e n , 1989, p. i). Each of these cases provides a detailed account of the knowledge that teachers construct as they engaged i n 'conversations' w i t h the practice setting,' knowledge that is embedded i n , and emerges out, of their actions; a knowledge-in-action. III. Reflective practice W h i l e there is a general consensus among educational researchers that practitioners exhibit knowledge-in-action as they deal w i t h the complexities of teaching, agreeing u p o n a conceptual framework  to describe  this  'knowledge' has been more difficult (Noordhoff & K l e i n f e l d , 1990; T o m ,  1985). Those faithful to a Deweyan perspective prefer to visualize teaching as a process of 'deliberation' (Court, 1988); others, like Yinger (1990) see it as 'contemplation'; Fenstermacher  (1988) prefers  the n o t i o n of 'practical  arguments'; N o o r d h o f f and Kleinfeld (1990) use the 'heuristic of design'; while Zeichner and Liston, (1987) use a broadly encompassing portrayal of 'the moral craftsperson'.  C o m m o n to each of these depictions is the notion  that teachers' reflect u p o n their practice.  Grimmett, Erickson, M a c K i n n o n ,  and Riecken (1990) and Grimmett (1988) have brought some clarity to the proliferation of different conceptualizations by categorizing them according to "how research-derived knowledge is v i e w e d as contributing to the education of teachers" (p. 11). Grimmett et al. (1990) have distinguished between three different uses of the term reflection: as directing practice, as i n f o r m i n g practice, or as transforming practice. The first category is consistent w i t h a v i e w of teacher knowledge that is received knowledge; knowledge that is readily applicable to the practice setting.  Teacher reflection i n this sense w o u l d be v i e w e d as  about action - thoughtfulness  "thoughtfulness  that leads to conscious, deliberate  moves,  usually taken to 'apply' research findings or educational theory" (Grimmett, 1988, p. 11). Practitioner reflection results i n directing or controlling  action.  The second category views teacher reflection as "deliberation and choice a m o n g competing versions of 'good teaching'" (Grimmett, 1988, p . 12). Conceptualizations i n this category place importance o n the context a n d consequences for p u p i l learning. action.  Reflection upon different choices informs  In the third category, reflection is v i e w e d as the "reconstruction of  experience, at the end of w h i c h is the identification of a new possibility for action" (Grimmett, 1988, p. 12). w i t h i n this category.  There are three sub-categories  delineated  In the first, reflection results i n new understandings of  the practice setting, the focus being the act of problem setting. In the second sub-category, reflection results in new understandings of self-as-teacher,  the  focus being on the i n d i v i d u a l teacher i n the practice setting. In the third subcategory, reflection results i n new understandings  of  taken-for-granted  assumptions about teaching (the focus being social, political, and cultural aspects of the practice setting).  In each of these cases reflection through the  reconstruction of experience transforms practice.  Consistent w i t h the shift i n perspective of practitioner knowledge from being received knowledge to knowledge-in-action, the focus of recent research into teaching practice has been w i t h i n the t h i r d category o u t l i n e d b y Grimmett.  Interest i n this area has been stimulated by the w o r k of Schon  (1983, 1987) w h o recently popularized the term 'reflective practice' (FeimanNemser, 1990; Richardson 1990). M o r e importantly Schon, d r a w i n g u p o n the writings of Dewey, has framed his conceptualization of reflection i n terms of the immediacy of the action setting.  For Schon, thought is embedded i n  action, and knowledge-in-action is the corner-stone of professional practice. I V . Schon's notion of reflective practice Schon's work was particularly timely i n that it introduced an alternative w a y of approaching teachers' t h i n k i n g a n d action at the same time that 'interpretivist'  research  was  gaining  legitimacy  in  the  educational  community (Richardson, 1990). Schon contends that the dominant positivist orientation of the professional schools often overlooked education for the 'artistry' of practice. H e argues for a new epistemology of practice based o n reflective practice; reflective practice b e i n g the 'artistry' d i s p l a y e d b y competent practitioners as they confront problems w h i c h are ambiguous, unclear or indeterminate.  Schon's solution is to include, as the core of  professional education, a reflective p r a c t i c u m .  The m a i n features of a  reflective practicum being learning by d o i n g , coaching that accompanies teaching, and reciprocal reflection between student and coach.  S i m p l y put,  Schon, submits that the choice is between the rigour of technical rationality or the relevance of reflective practice: In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard g r o u n d where practitioners can make effective use of  research-based  theory and technique, and there is a s w a m p y l o w l a n d where situations are confusing "messes" incapable of technical solution. The difficulty is that the problems of the h i g h g r o u n d , however great their technical interest, are often relatively unimportant to clients or to the larger society, w h i l e i n the swamp are the problems of greatest h u m a n concern. Shall the practitioner, stay on the h i g h g r o u n d where he can practice rigorously, . . . or shall he descend to the swamp where he can engage  the most important and challenging problems if he is w i l l i n g to forsake technical rigour? (Schon, 1983, p. 43) Routine a n d non-routine problems Schon is particularly interested i n the knowledge that practitioners b r i n g to bear o n the problems they encounter i n the action setting. H e argues that a technical rational approach holds that the practice setting is p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h i n s t r u m e n t a l p r o b l e m s o l v i n g .  For example, w h e n a  practitioner is confronted w i t h a problem, he or she identifies the problem as being of a particular type and then applies an appropriate technique to solve the problem. Simply put: If this is problem ' A , ' apply technique ' A ' ; if this is p r o b l e m ' B ' , a p p l y technique ' B , ' etc. oriented towards p r o b l e m s o l v i n g .  Thus, practitioner k n o w l e d g e is  U n d e r l y i n g this perspective is the  assumption that the problems of practice are routine; that they are knowable i n advance, and have been subjected to a set of rule-like generalizations that are applicable across multiple settings (Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Thus, under a technical rational approach, the practice setting is characterized by problem solving made rigorous by the application of standard theories and techniques. Schon follows this analysis of problem solving w i t h the question 'What happens w h e n practitioners are faced w i t h non-routine  problems?'  Non-  routine situations are at least partly indeterminate, and are not immediately amenable to a technical solution. F r o m his observations, Schon postulates that w h e n practitioners are confronted w i t h problematic situations, situations that cannot be dealt w i t h b y the application of generalized techniques, they engage i n a very different process, that of problem setting. It is this notion of problem setting that sets reflective practice apart from technical rationality. Schon defines problem setting as the process i n w h i c h a practitioner names the things which he or she w i l l attend to and frames the context i n w h i c h he or she w i l l attend to them.  W h e n confronted b y non-routine problems,  s k i l l e d practitioners learn to conduct frame experiments i n w h i c h they impose a k i n d of coherence on 'messy' situations.  T h e y come to n e w  understandings of situations and n e w possibilities for action through a spiralling process of framing and reframing. Each reframing suggests a n e w way of looking at a problem that lends itself to a method of inquiry i n w h i c h practitioners have confidence. Through the effects of a particular action, both  intended and unintended, the situation 'talks back.'  This 'conversation'  p r o v i d e s the data w h i c h may then lead to n e w meanings a n d reframing.  further  Thus, "reflection involves the rigorous testing of inferences  (suggestions) by mental elaboration and overt action" (Grimmett, 1988, p. 6). In this sense problem setting  and problem solving  are interdependent,  a  particular line of action follows from a frame that has been engaged to set the problem (MacKinnon & Erickson, 1988). In the 'conversation of practice,' reflective practitioners listen a n d reframe problems d r a w i n g on past experience and knowledge, and construct new knowledge en route. They make sense of new and unusual situations of practice b y c o m p a r i n g and contrasting them w i t h situations p r e v i o u s l y encountered.  Schon (1987) postulates that being able to 'see' a new situation  in this manner is an important element of reflective practice: To see this [situation] as that is not to subsume the first under a familiar category or rule.  It is rather, to see the unfamiliar situation as both  similar to and different from the familiar one, without at first being able to say similar or different w i t h respect to what.  The familiar situation  functions as a precedent, or a metaphor  an exemplar for the  . . .  unfamiliar one (p. 67). Therefore, the role that knowledge plays i n this conception of practice, is to provide the practitioner w i t h metaphors that allow h i m to appreciate and transform his practice (Grimmett, 1989; N o o r d h o f f & K l e i n f e l d , 1990).  For  Schon (1988): . . . a reflective teacher builds her repertoire of teaching experience . . . not as methods or principles to be applied like a template to new situations, but as stories that function like metaphors, projective models to be transformed and validated through on the spot experiment on the next situation (p. 26). Schon also notes that framing and reframing differs from person to person.  Practitioners w i l l make sense of, and frame, problems i n different  ways depending upon the repertoire of experience and knowledge they bring  to a particular setting.  This has important implications for experienced  practitioners w h o are charged w i t h the responsibility of i n d u c t i n g novices into the professions, for example, sponsor teachers w o r k i n g w i t h studentteachers i n a practicum setting. Experienced practitioners must be aware that what they are l i k e l y to 'see' i n a particular situation is often m a r k e d l y different to what the novice is likely to 'see.' A s such, an induction grounded i n reflective  practice  demands  that novices' perceptions  of problematic  situations be both sought and valued as valid and meaningful interpretations of the situation. H a v i n g considered the role reflection might play i n dealing w i t h nonroutine problems, Schon returned to the issue of routine problems.  It has  been noted above that w h e n intuitive action leads to surprise (as i n the case of a non-routine problem) practitioners respond b y reflecting u p o n their practice.  Alternatively, Schon suggests, w h e n intuitive, spontaneous, action  yields nothing more than the results expects, as i n the case of a routine problem, practitioners tend not to think about their actions. H e argues that the tacit understandings practitioners develop i n routine situations are rarely subject to reflective i n q u i r y .  Schon refers to this unconscious repetitive  action as 'overlearning.' H e argues that practitioners need to problematize routine practices i n m u c h the same way as non-routine practices. O n l y i n this w a y w i l l 'taken-for-granted assumptions' be made explicit and available for reflective examination.  Thus, Schon advocates that reflective practice, as  o p p o s e d to repetitive practice, s h o u l d become the modus professional activity.  operandi of  This n o t i o n of reflection a l l o w s teachers to see  themselves as other than trained technicians a n d validates the k i n d of expertise and experience they bring to the practice setting (Kilbourn, 1988). Reflection i n and o n action Schon also differentiates between two types of reflection: reflection-inaction a n d  reflection-on-action.  In his first b o o k , ' T h e  Reflective  Practitioner,' Schon (1983) refers almost exclusively to reflection-in-action. A c c o r d i n g to Schon, reflection-in-action is that w h i c h takes place i n the immediacy of the action setting and is often triggered b y surprise or intrigue. Schon suggests that a practitioner's reflection-in-action is b o u n d e d b y the 'action-present,' the zone of time i n w h i c h action can still make a difference  to a situation.  In his second book, 'Educating the Reflective Practitioner,'  Schon (1987) extends his conception of reflection to include reflection-onaction,  and  reflection-on-'reflection-in-action.'  This  additional  dimension accounts for reflection beyond the 'action-present.'  time  Others have  speculated o n the effect of reflection i n and o n action as it relates to the practice setting. Yinger and Dillard (1986, cited i n Comeaux & Peterson, 1988) suggest that reflection-in-action affects directly the action part of the teaching cycle, while reflection-on-action affects the design phase.  To Noordhoff and  K l e i n f e l d (1990) the value of reflection-on-action is that practitioners are more likely to move beyond their espoused theories and begin to critically examine their theories-in-use. A n appreciative system U n d e r l y i n g Schon's notion of reflective practice, be it i n - or on-action is the 'appreciative system'*' that professionals and novices brings to the action setting.  This system consists of the practitioner's repertoire of values,  knowledge, theories, and practices. A s Hayes and Ross (1988) and Ross (1990) note a practitioner's appreciative system influences the types of dilemmas that he or she w i l l recognize, the framing and reframing of problems that w i l l occur, and the judgements that w i l l be made about the outcomes.  Schon  (1987) advises that i n order to see professional practice as a frame experiment, or as a 'reflective conversation' w i t h the practice setting, the appreciative system is c o n t i n u a l l y b e i n g constructed  b y the practitioner: "In  the  constructionist v i e w , our perceptions, appreciations and beliefs are rooted i n worlds of our o w n m a k i n g that we come to accept as reality" (p. 36). In other words, if professional practice is to encompass reflection it must be grounded i n a w o r l d v i e w that is based upon a constructivist perspective.  Ross (1987)  states that if teacher educators are to have an impact upon the appreciative system of student-teachers, they must appreciate the students' levels of understanding practice, shape communication to the current level of student understanding, and challenge the student's current level of reasoning.  Goodman (1988) prefers the phrase 'intuitive screen', rather than appreciative system, as the referent which students use to make sense of the activities and ideas in the action setting.  The importance of the practice setting For Schon, the process of reflection is best appreciated by students i n the reality of the practice setting. Indeed, because reflection is an integral part of 'swamp-life' it cannot be taught w i t h i n confines of a lecture theatre.  Thus,  students can o n l y come to have some understanding of reflection i n the process of d o i n g (Houston & Clift, 1990). understand  O n l y then w i l l they begin to  what it is that they need to learn.  U n d e r l y i n g this notion of  reflection is again a constructivist perspective; a process whereby practitioner and student construct meaning from each other's messages.  Schon (1987)  elaborates: . . . it is not a k i n d of telegraphy i n w h i c h meaningful signals are directly transmitted from one participant to the other.  Rather, each participant  must construct for himself the meaning of the other's messages a n d must design messages whose meanings the other can decipher (p.95). D r i v e r and Bell (1986) make a similar argument i n relation to p u p i l learning: "It is not so m u c h what we abstract from a situation as the constructs we bring to it w h i c h determines the sense we make of it" (p. 448). Furthermore, the meanings that students i n i t i a l l y construct from  their  instructors' descriptions are very likely to be incongruent w i t h the meanings their instructors intend. W h e n students try to act on what they have seen or heard, they may reveal to themselves, and their coaches, the prior knowledge they b r i n g to their practica and the understandings they have constructed from their coaches' actions.  The clarification of intended meanings and the  discovery and resolution of incongruities between instructors' intentions and students' understandings are best achieved through a c t i o n and r e f l e c t i o n . The purpose of questioning is "not to assess but to encourage dialogue and to stimulate students to view situations from multiple perspectives" (Ross, 1990, p. 106). According to Schon, when the process works w e l l there is a k i n d of reciprocal construction that leads to a convergence of meaning. Schon likens the role of a constructivist teacher to that of a coach: Here, [the teacher] w o u l d be attentive to the ways i n w h i c h children's learning is like or unlike the kinds of learning they have detected i n themselves.  They w o u l d be encouraged to think of their teaching as a  process of reflective experimentation i n w h i c h they try to make sense of the sometimes p u z z l i n g things children say and do, asking themselves, as it were, " H o w must the kids be thinking about this i n order to ask the questions, or give the answers, they do?" (Schon, 1987, p. 323). A reflective practicum Schon's 'education for artistry' requires that student  l e a r n i n g be  undertaken i n a practicum setting, a virtual w o r l d , that allows students to experiment at a lower cost ( M a c K i n n o n & Erickson, 1988). recommends  a 'reflective p r a c t i c u m . '  For this, he  Such a practicum w o u l d  be  characterized by: - learning by doing, where the practicum w o u l d become the core of the c u r r i c u l u m for teacher preparation, rather than an 'afterthought' for a p p l y i n g the theories and techniques taught i n course w o r k at the university, - coaching rather than teaching, where "the coach's legitimacy does not depend on his scholarly attainments or proficiency as a lecturer but on the artistry of his coaching practice" (Schon, 1987, p. 311), and - a dialogue of reciprocal reflection in- and on-action between coach and student, that is, the search for convergence of meanings b y seeking to enter into each other's way of seeing a particular problem and also the w a y each is framing the interaction in w h i c h they are engaged. For this task Schon identifies three models of coaching: F o l l o w M e , Joint Experimentation, and H a l l of Mirrors. Each places different demands on the competencies of the coach and student. three models.  Follow Me is foundational to a l l  Essential to this m o d e l are 'telling a n d l i s t e n i n g ' a n d  'demonstrating and imitating.' M i n d f u l of the paradox of learning a n e w competence ("a student cannot at first understand what he needs to learn, and can learn it o n l y by beginning to do what he does not yet understand" Schon, 1987, p. 93), Schon asks the student to w i l l i n g l y suspend disbelief and autonomy dependency.  and  to enter into a t e m p o r a r y  r e l a t i o n s h i p of trust  and  The student w i l l have to follow the instructor even when he or  she is unsure - indeed, just because he or she is unsure!  In F o l l o w M e , the  'telling' might be a description, a criticism, a suggestion, or even a series of examples.  For each of these the student must carefully attend to what the  coach has to offer.  H e or she must begin to construct, and reflect o n the  information shared by the coach. A s a reflective practicum develops, the student w i l l be invited, sooner or later, to attend to his or her o w n preferences and to take these, rather than those of an external authority (i.e. the coach), as the criteria b y w h i c h to regulate his or her actions.  For Joint Experimentation  to be feasible, several  conditions must be met: - there must be a w a y of breaking the larger task into  manageable  problems, - the student must be able to say what effects he or she w o u l d like to produce, and - the coach must be w i l l i n g to keep instructional goals w i t h i n the bounds of the model. Joint Experimentation can be used to help a student see that he or she is free to set objectives.  For Schon, a key indicator of Joint Experimentation  w i t h i n a reflective practicum is: . . . [when] students and coaches begin to talk w i t h each other elliptically, using shorthand i n w o r d and gesture to convey ideas that to an outsider seem complex or obscure.  They communicate easily, finishing each  other's sentences or leaving sentences unfinished, confident that the listener has grasped their essential meaning (Schon, 1987, p.100). The two models. Joint Experimentation and F o l l o w M e , are distinctive ways of fulfilling the coaching task. Each is appropriate to different contexts and demand different competencies from the coach and student. In the third of the three models. Hall of Mirrors, their frame of reference:  the student and coach continually shift  They see their interaction at one moment as a re-enactment of some aspect of the student's practice; at another, as a dialogue about it; and at still another, as a m o d e l i n g of its redesign.  In this process, they must  continually take a two-tiered v i e w of their interaction, seeing it i n its o w n terms and as a possible mirror of the interaction the student has brought to the practicum for study (Schon, 1987, p. 297). Thus, the coach, w h i l e e d u c a t i n g the  student, m i r r o r s the  very  competencies he wishes the student to use i n his or her professional practice. If the coach wants the student to surface confusion and uncertainty about the practicum setting, then it is incumbent u p o n the coach to surface his or her o w n confusion and uncertainty about the practice setting. To the extent that he or she "can do so authentically" (Schon, 1987, p. 286), the coach models for his student ways of seeing error and uncertainty as opportunities for learning. A H a l l of Mirrors can be created only on the basis of 'parallelisms' between practice and practicum, so that coaching resembles the practice to be learned. Schon cautions that the three coaching models are ideal types. A coach m a y shift from one to another, adapting to the needs of the student. Moreover, the three approaches may be combined. In a fundamental sense, however, a coach always uses F o l l o w M e to communicate his professional practice; he demonstrates, and expects his students to creatively imitate, the particular k i n d of learning-by-doing on which the practicum depends. V . Issues related to Schon's conceptualization of reflective practice Several researchers have been concerned w i t h the sharp distinction Schon has d r a w n between the science of technical rationality ('rigour') and the art of reflective practice ('relevance'); that the two perspectives are i n some w a y mutually exclusive and that the tension of reform is between a conception of teaching as a technical enterprise (which w o u l d only i m p r o v e as the research base improved) and teaching as a reflective activity (which w o u l d o n l y improve as teachers became inquirers into their o w n practice) (GilHss, 1988; H a r r i s , 1989; Selman, 1988; Shulman, 1988; W i l d m a n et al., 1990). Grimmett (1989) counters that Schon is not so m u c h pitting technical rationality against reflective practice as "contrasting the use of knowledge i n accordance w i t h the norms of technical rationality and the k n o w l e d g e  derived and used reflectively i n the action setting" (p. 25). In a similar vein, M a c K i n n o n and Erickson (1988), Calderhead (1989), and O ' G o r m a n (1989) state that Schon's intention is not to define the two as competing models, but to highlight the different contribution each makes to professional practice. In Schon's o w n words, "the dilemma of rigour or relevance may be resolved if we can develop an epistemology of practice w h i c h places technical problem solving within a broader context of reflective inquiry" (Schon, 1983, p. 69). Some researchers  have questioned Schon's premise that reflection  occurs only i n conditions of uncertainty - "Surprise and puzzlement are at the heart of reflective teaching" (Schon, 1988, p. 22).  Indeed, G r i m m e t t (1989)  points out that research o n reflective practice has been centred p r i m a r i l y u p o n situations that perplex practitioners.  LaBoskey (1989), Selman (1989),  and H o u s t o n and Clift (1990) i n addressing this issue suggest that reflectionin-action can be both spontaneous (as the result of a perplexing situation) and deliberate (as the result of m a k i n g an element of one's practice problematic). They agree that surprise and intrigue are powerful triggers to reflection-inaction but also believe that practitioners intentionally engage i n reflection-onaction. Schon's (1987) second book, w h i c h introduces the notion of reflectionon-action is, i n part, a response to issues such as these.  LaBoskey (1988)  advises that, w h i l e definitional difficulties still remain, teachers s h o u l d be encouraged to problematize their teaching both w i t h i n , and b e y o n d , the action setting. Russell et al. (1988) suggest that, although reflection m a y not always be a conscious activity, w h e n teachers are placed i n situations where reflection is encouraged, they are usually enthusiastic and w i l l i n g participants i n the process. Other researchers caution that Schon's primary data sources were one-toone action settings (an architect w i t h a student, a psychotherapist w i t h a client, a music teacher w i t h a student) (LaBoskey, 1989; Ross, 1987). A s such, these action settings  are considerably different to that of teachers i n  elementary and secondary school environments.  For this reason, K i l b o u r n  (1988) questions whether reflection-in-action can remain alive at a l l w i t h i n the d a i l y practice of an elementary or secondary classroom, where teacher s u r v i v a l is often based therefore,  upon routinization.  K i l b o u r n has  that reflection-on-action m a y be a more fruitful  suggested, concept for  understanding, and t a l k i n g about professional development i n teaching. C o u r t (1988) argues even more forcefully  that reflection-in-action is a  misnomer, that any reflection requires "at least a momentary time-out from action" (p. 146) and, therefore, reflection-on-action is the more appropriate concept w h e n considering the professional k n o w l e d g e that practitioners construct as they interact w i t h the practice setting. C i n n a m o n d and Z i m p h e r (1990) are concerned that reflective practice has been regarded largely as an individual activity. They argue that there has been a general o m i s s i o n of any a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of the p o t e n t i a l l y interactive nature of the reflective process. They call for a greater emphasis to be placed upon the behaviours, values, and orientations of the constituent members of the communities i n w h i c h practitioners w o r k and are socialized. Similarly, Feiman-Nemser (1986) states that an appreciation of interactive dialogue that takes place between the various cultures w i t h i n a particular setting is an integral part of the 'sense m a k i n g ' that emanates from  the  reflective process. The concerns raised i n this section extend Schon's notion of reflective practice rather than detract from it. A s has been noted, Schon has responded to some of these issues by further refining his conception of reflection (Schon, 1987). In a recent book, edited by Schon (1991), The Reflective T u r n , other researchers have begun to address some of these issues.  CHAPTER 3 Factors That Enhance or Constrain Reflective Practice The six sections of this chapter address a number of practical issues related to the factors that enhance or constrain student-teacher reflection. The review begins w i t h an examination of the influence of a student's prior knowledge and experience (i.e., what a student brings to a teacher education program). In the second section, the influence of the on-campus course w o r k is reviewed (i.e., what happens at the university). In the t h i r d section, the influence of the off-campus practicum is reviewed (i.e., what happens i n the school).  G i v e n the research attention that the triadic relationship has  received i n the literature (i.e., the relationship between student, sponsor, and a d v i s o r i n the p r a c t i c u m setting), the fourth section is devoted to an examination of this relationship i n terms of enhancing or constraining student-teacher reflection.  The fifth section provides an o v e r v i e w of the  programmatic responses that have emerged i n response to the issues raised i n the earlier sections.  The c o n c l u d i n g section draws u p o n the c o m b i n e d  reviews of the literature (both theoretical and practical) to argue that the p r a c t i c u m is an important context for c o n t i n u i n g research into studentteacher reflection. I. The prior knowledge and experience of the students Student-teachers  enter formal teacher education programs w i t h an  extensive k n o w l e d g e of teaching and learning already gleaned from their experience i n elementary and secondary schools (Clift et al., 1987; C r o w , 1987; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Russell, 1988; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Lortie (1975) refers to this experience as the 'apprenticeship of observation,' and FeimanNemser (1983) calls it the 'hand of the past.' Feiman-Nemser (1983), Zeichner (1980), and Blakey, Everett-Turner, Massing, and Scott, (1988) suggest that it is through this process students internalize models of teaching.  Further, some  researchers contend that there is a strong tendency for students to duplicate in their o w n practice the methods of their former teachers; that is, to teach as they were taught (Nolan & Huber, 1989; Ross & Hannay, 1986). This tendency also arises from a reluctance on the part of the students to relinquish practices they have become familiar w i t h d u r i n g their o w n school careers (Feiman-  Nemser, 1983).  To overcome this tendency Feiman-Nemser (1983) argues  that students should problematize their o w n conceptions of teaching: Clearly biography is a powerful influence . . . Unless future teachers get some cognitive control over prior school experience, it may influence their teaching unconsciously and contribute to the perpetuation of conservative school practices (p. 153). G a s k e l l (1985), and W i d e e n et al. (1987) concur, a d d i n g that unless students examine their prior experiences, the effect w i l l be a strong tendency to support imquestioningly the status quo w i t h i n schools. H o w e v e r , prior experience may not always be detrimental to development of reflective practice.  the  Richards, G i p e , L e v i t o v , and Speaker  (1989) argue that prior knowledge i n the form of personal practical experience might predispose certain students to reflective i n q u i r y . They suggest that students w i t h prior exposure to positions of group leadership m i g h t be predisposed to reflection because they may have access to a repertoire of various teaching strategies.  A s such these students might be more likely to  "step back from their teaching i n order to consider h o w the lesson is actually going" (Richards et al., p. 3). II. The on-campus component - Course w o r k The on-campus component of a teacher education program also has been regarded as h a v i n g an important influence u p o n the reflective practices of student-teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 1983, 1986; G o o d m a n , 1988; Zeichner, 1980).  Three areas are p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o m i n e n t  i n the literature:  the  conservative influence of teacher education programs, course fragmentation, and isolation of course work from the practice setting. The conservative influence of teacher education programs It has been w i d e l y assumed that teacher education programs have a liberalizing influence upon students, breaking the grip of past experience and traditional values (Feiman-Nemser, 1983, 1986; Zeichner, 1980). Contrary to this, recent studies have suggested that, despite the rhetoric of reflective practice, the university experience actually reinforces traditional values.  C r o w (1987) argues that university personnel often use teaching styles that contradicted the notions of reflective practice that they are seeking to endorse. C r o w (1987) and Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981) also refer to a 'hidden' or 'unofficial' curriculum' that pervades university courses and runs counter to reflective practice.  Professors, either implicitly or explicitly, emphasize 1)  importance of first-hand experience, 2) learning through trial and error, 3) the separation of theory from practice, and 4) the notion that knowledge can be broken into manageable bits and transmitted to the learner ( C r o w , 1987; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). This is further compounded by the fact that many novices expect their professors to teach them 'how to teach,' and that this knowledge w i l l transfer directly and unproblematically to the practice setting (Campbell et al., 1990; Russell et al., 1988). Tabachnick, Popkewitz, and Zeichner (1979), and Ross (1987) also found that university professors often encourage students to 'fit i n ' and comply w i t h current school practices. Thus, it has been argued that university programs endorse acquiescence and conformity to traditional practices and fail "to p r o v i d e prospective teachers w i t h the conceptual tools w h i c h w o u l d enable them to transcend the structural contexts w i t h i n w h i c h teaching and learning currently occur" (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981, p. 9). Course fragmentation G o o d m a n (1988) argues that a further impediment to the development of reflective practice is the fragmented nature of on-campus course w o r k . Programs may need to undergo considerable structural changes if they are to support both i n d i v i d u a l and c o m m u n a l reflection (Houston «& CUft, 1990). Shulman (1988) warns that a program w h i c h sets out to encourage reflection is likely to need more, not less, organization, than one i n w h i c h "traditional disciplines are permitted to h o l d sway" (p. 35). Thus, unless resources are p r o v i d e d initiatives i n this direction are likely to be short-lived (Goodman, 1988). Ross (1990) agrees, arguing that the present 'university culture' retains a technical rather than a reflective orientation w i t h i n teacher education b y limiting  resources  institutional rewards.  such  as,  course  f u n d i n g , i n s t r u c t i o n a l time,  and  Isolation from the practice setting A further barrier to the development of reflection o n campus is the difficulty i n communicating to students what it means to be reflective about their practices until they actually begin teaching ( M a c K i n n o n & Erickson, 1988).  Instruction can sensitize a beginner to aspects of practice, but real  learning occurs in the action setting (Yinger, 1990). Learning i n action settings is the essence of Schon's (1987) thrust for reflective practice. This thrust is also taken by Fullan and Connelly (1987) i n their report on Teacher Education i n Ontario: Theories of child development, methodologies for teaching and for the organization of subject matter, history and sociology of education and so forth should not, we believe, be taught as separate courses but should, instead, be w o v e n into the fabric of a program conceptualized p r i m a r i l y as a practicum" (p. 46). The p r o g r a m m a t i c u n i v e r s i t i e s are  responses to this d i l e m m a are v a r i e d .  experimenting  with  their entire  teacher  Some  preparation  programs off-campus, dovetailing classroom experience w i t h on-site classes (Hundley, 1990). Other programs are experimenting w i t h arrangements that put university personnel w i t h i n schools on a full-time basis d u r i n g student practica (Wilson, 1990).  Yet, other programs are o p t i n g for early field  placements. In a study of students undertaking early field placement, Denton (1982) demonstrated that their experience helped them to place subsequent course work i n a meaningful context. However, E r d m a n (1983) suggests that such placements often cast the student i n the role of 'teacher's aide' rather than a reflective learner, and therefore are utilitarian i n their orientation. III. The off-campus component - The practicum Once the students are on practicum, a number of other factors have been suggested that either enhance or constrain student-teacher reflection (Boydell, 1986; W i l d m a n , M a g l i a r o et al., 1990; W i l d m a n & N i l e s , 1987).  Indeed,  students soon discover that the school e n v i r o n m e n t  always  conducive to reflective practice.  was not  Educational Leadership Students quickly realize that they w o r k not only i n classrooms, but also i n large bureaucracies (Crow, 1987).  There are many social, political, and  practical forces which may buffet the would-be reflective voyager: Institutional constraints create an environment w h i c h almost seems to w o r k against a teacher's attempt to have serious and rigorous discussion. These constraints  are, moreover, part a n d parcel of the teacher's  knowing-in-action and reflection-in-action and cannot be set aside . . . (Kilbourn, 1988, p. 20). School bureaucracies often exercise tight control over many aspects of the practice setting w h i c h is, at times, i n direct conflict w i t h notions of teacher autonomy and, as such, constrain reflection (Hayes & Ross, 1988; K i l b o u r n , 1982; Pugach and Johnson, 1990; Schon, 1988).  W i l d m a n and N i l e s (1987)  suggest that relinquishing aspects of control may be one of the most difficult accommodations for facilitators of reflection. Further, Ross (1987), W i l d m a n and Niles (1987), and Ross and Hayes (1988) argue that unless school leadership directly supports  professional  development efforts that value teacher input, encourage collegiality (as opposed to contrived colleagiality - Hargreaves, 1989) and seek continuous i m p r o v e m e n t then reflective practice is l i k e l y to be severely constrained. This applies to both the experienced practitioner and the student-teacher o n practicum. Further, as W i l d m a n and N i l e s (1987) observe: "If administrators do not have similar levels of knowledge, skills, and understanding about the reflective process, they can k n o w i n g l y or u n k n o w i n g l y construct barriers" (p. 28).  Thus, these authors contend that administrators w i l l have to develop  radically different conceptions of h o w teachers function i n schools i f the notion of teachers as reflective practitioners is to become commonplace. T h e norms of teaching A n o t h e r constraint on reflection is the powerful norms that pervade teachers' lives. These norms often r u n counter to conceptions of professional growth and development (Cormin & B o w m a n , 1988; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Lieberman & M i l l e r , 1984).  Thus, the n o r m of practicality,  characterized by the separation of theory  from practice, learning the 'tricks of the trade,' and learning by 'trial and error,' is likely to inhibit reflection on substantive issues (Crow, 1987; Cole, 1989; N o l a n & Huber, 1989). The norm of self-sufficiency,  characterized by  'not asking for help', non-interference, and physical isolation, prohibits many forms of collaborative inquiry, knowledge sharing, and peer support, w h i c h is regarded  as an important component of reflective practice (Comeaux &  Peterson, 1988; Feiman-Nemser, 1986; Hayes & Ross, 1988; H o u s t o n & Clift, 1990; Lieberman, & routinization,  M i l l e r , 1984; N o l a n & H u b e r , 1989).  The n o r m of  characterized by batch processing, technical problem s o l v i n g ,  and the impersonalization of the teaching task, results i n teachers reverting to models of past experience rather than reflecting u p o n the idiosyncratic features of their present situations and devising appropriate solutions (Gilliss, 1988; G l i c k m a n , 1985; N o l a n & H u b e r , 1989). p o w e r f u l norms is that of maintaining  Perhaps one of the  most  the status quo w h i c h encourages  acquiescence and conformity to current school practices. School systems often reward  consistency,  organization.  stability, and  alignment  w i t h the  values  of  the  Thus, maintenance of the status quo can be incompatible w i t h  professional autonomy and problematizing one's o w n practice ( W i l d m a n & N i l e s , 1987) The time press Another element of the practice setting that confines reflective practice is the 'time press' that that many teachers experience i n school settings: Classrooms are complicated and busy settings . . . The sheer number and pace of events call for quick and decisive actions.  The w o r k d a y offers  little time to unravel the complex causes of the reality teachers face (Feiman-Nemser, 1986, p. 516). The lack of time available for reflection is frequently cited as a major obstacle to the development of reflective practice (Campbell et al., 1990; C o m e a u x & Peterson, 1987; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; H o u s t o n & Clift, 1990; N i l e s , M c L a u g h l i n , W i l d m a n , & Magliaro, 1989; N o l a n & Huber, 1989; Ross, 1990; Tabachnick et al., 1979; W i l d m a n & Niles, 1987). For instance, Pugach  and Johnson (1990) caution that "reflection is not likely to be a n a t u r a l outgrowth of a system i n w h i c h time is an unavailable resource to classroom teachers" (p. 205). Cole (1989) and N o l a n (1989) suggest that it is not sufficient to p r o v i d e time for reflection but to also allocate resources for students, teachers and advisors to become familiar w i t h what it means to be reflective. W i l d m a n and N i l e s (1987) suggest that 20-30 hours are needed to assist teachers i n m o v i n g to a stage of independence w i t h this sort of activity a n d a further 20-30 hours spent on its practice. Gilliss (1988) warns that most school administrators are unlikely to provide sufficient time for this to occur. Tabachnick et, al. (1979) argue that the fragmented structure of the school day also prevents students and teachers from engaging i n any substantial interactions w i t h their pupils. Interactions tend to be brief and impersonal, and u n l i k e l y to p r o v i d e students w i t h valuable feedback or alternative perspectives for v i e w i n g their practice. A utilitarian emphasis that pervades the practice setting A factor w h i c h further constrains the development of reflective practice is the utilitarian emphasis that pervades the practicum setting. practicum  setting  promotes  the  development  Often the  of u t i l i t a r i a n t e a c h i n g  perspectives (i.e., a 'what works' approach) amongst students to the exclusion of ethical, social, or political considerations (Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; G o o d m a n , 1988; Zeichner, 1980).  Other studies have demonstrated  that  students move towards a more custodial orientation d u r i n g their practicum, and readily equate success i n teaching to order and discipline i n the classroom (Feiman-Nemser, 1983, 1986; Glassberg & Sprintall, 1980; Tabachnick et al., 1979; Zeichner, 1980, 1987).  Therefore, researchers have questioned  the  w i s d o m of extending the time spent on practicum if, as these authors suggest, it o n l y serves to perpetuate existing institutional and professional norms (Beyer, 1984; Brown, 1990; Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Stout, 1898; Tabachnick et al. 1979; Wideen et al., 1987). Zeichner (1980) contends that the more time spent on practicum does not necessarily mean that the students w i l l be m o r e reflective: Consequently, proposals w h i c h 'solve' problems of teacher education b y merely scheduling more student time i n classrooms rests u p o n the  apparently untenable assumption that more time spent i n that w a y w i l l automatically make better teachers (p. 51). In similar fashion, Feiman-Nemser (1990) argues that it is not the amount of time spent on practicum that is important but h o w that time is spent. Beyer (1984) suggests that while the replication of current school practices might be laudable i n certain circumstances, there is a danger that students w i l l accept as unproblematic certain educational 'givens' and i n this sense the practicum experience is likely to be "miseducative, since it cuts short the possibility for further education and g r o w t h " (p. 37) w h i l e perpetuating utilitarian attitudes.  W h i l e 'survival' and 'technical k n o w - h o w ' are often  foremost i n the m i n d of novices, students must be encouraged to m o v e b e y o n d utilitarian concerns to substantive classroom issues; for example, p u p i l s p r i o r knowledge and it's manifestation w i t h i n classroom discourse (Campbell, 1986, cited i n W i d e e n et al., 1987; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Gaskell, 1985; M a c K i n n o n & Erickson, 1988). The  utilitarian emphasis might be overcome if, as H o u s t o n a n d Clift  (1990), Shulman (1986b), and Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1990) suggest students are encouraged to develop a broad and in-depth k n o w l e d g e of w h a t is happening i n the classroom, the milieu of the school, and the c o m m u n i t y at large.  W i l d m a n and Niles (1987) suggest that an important component of  this process is the need for students to express the specific events they w i s h to subject to analysis. Thus, observational skills and the ability to describe the various settings i n objective terms rather than judgemental terms are v i e w e d as precursors to the development of reflective practice (Kilbourn, 1982; N o l a n & Huber, 1989) Encouragingly, Peterson and Comeaux (1987) found that i n an analysis of student and sponsor discourse almost twenty per cent of the comments m o v e d beyond factual accounts of classroom practice and into hypothetical, justificatory, or critical reflection.  L i m i t e d control over curricula practices or teaching content Student-teachers  find themselves i n teaching situations where most  classroom activities have been determined prior to their arrival (Tabachnick et al., 1979). Thus, they often lack any authority over the curricular practices or content for w h i c h they are responsible d u r i n g the practicum (Zeichner, 1987).  W h i l e strong leadership from supervisors is i m p o r t a n t ,  unless  students are able to exercise some control over content, and the w a y w h i c h that content is presented, then student-teacher reflection w i l l be constrained. I V . The triadic relationship The triadic relationship within the practicum setting is an area that has received a great deal of attention i n the literature.  The f o l l o w i n g r e v i e w  examines seven aspects of this relationship: trends i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of student-teachers, new roles for students and sponsors, selection of sponsors and  advisors, commitment  to reflection, student  evaluation,  triadic  instability, and differences between school and university cultures. Trends i n student-teacher supervision Historically the relationship between students and supervisors has been dominated by an apprenticeship training model (Boydell, 1986; B r o w n , 1990; G a s k e l l , 1985; Zeichner, 1987a; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987).  Under  the  apprenticeship m o d e l , students are expected to observe a n d imitate the practices of a 'master' teacher.  Activities for the student are carefully  prescribed i n advance, allowing little i n d i v i d u a l discretion on the part of the student d u r i n g either the design or implementation phases ( K i l b o u r n , 1982; Zeichner, Liston, Mahlios & Gomez, 1987). The role of the faculty advisor is to determine the success or otherwise of the students efforts.  Typically, this  assessment is based u p o n two or three student-observation visits.  M a y and  Zimpher (1986) argue that the apprenticeship model "reflects a positivist v i e w i n that the p r i m a r y source of learning and teaching is b y i m i t a t i o n a n d modelling" (p. 88). This strictly top-down linear supervisory m o d e l has been rivalled recently by more collégial forms of supervision (Bolin, 1987; H o u s t o n and  Clift,  1990), the  most  common  being  clinical  s u p e r v i s i o n à la  Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1973). Three aspects differentiate this m o d e l of supervision from the apprenticeship model: 1) the focus of the classroom observation is negotiated by the triadic members, 2) the methods for objective  data collection are agreed upon by all members of the triad, and 3) the student is i n v i t e d to join w i t h the sponsor and advisor i n the interpretation of the results following the classroom observation (Acheson & G a l l , 1987). W i d e s p r e a d use of the clinical s u p e r v i s i o n m o d e l has resulted i n a variety of interpretations w i t h i n the practice setting. Hunter (1984) and Joyce and Showers (1982) use it as a form of technological intervention specifically aimed at enhancing teacher effectiveness.  Others have utilized elements of  the clinical s u p e r v i s i o n cycle to b r i n g an i n q u i r y - o r i e n t e d focus to the practicum setting. For example, H o l l a n d (1989a) has noted that Garman's use of clinical supervision: . . . at its highest levels moves beyond the data of classroom observation to attend to the mutual discovery of the meanings and potential of both the supervisor's and teacher's professional practice (p. 366). Likewise,  Kilbourn  (1982) emphasizes  autonomy,  evidence,  and  continuity w i t h i n a clinical supervision m o d e l to ensure m u t u a l reflection and understanding for each of the practicum partners.  Despite these recent  variations. M a y and Z i m p h e r (1986) and S m y t h (1989a) have argued that many educators have still imbued clinical supervision w i t h positivist notions of standardization, quality control and homogenization of pedagogy; "the m e d i c a l metaphor  ' c l i n i c a l ' connot[ing] s o m e t h i n g i n need  of careful  diagnosis and a prescribed course of action toward i m p r o v e d 'health'" ( M a y & Z i m p h e r , 1986, p. 88).  Other researchers have suggested  that c l i n i c a l  supervision has become a sophisticated mechanism for teacher inspection and surveillance and that current usage emphasizes an overly narrow and technical view of teaching (Doyle, 1990; Garman, 1990; Smyth, 1989a). Ross (1990), Simmons, Sparks, and Colton (1987) and Houston and Clift (1990) consider that if reflective practice, as outlined by Schon (1983), is to be realized then an alternative relationship is required to that w h i c h is typically associated w i t h the apprenticeship and clinical supervision models. Notions of linear s u p e r v i s i o n and collégial assistance need to be replaced b y a concerted collaborative endeavour grounded i n reflective i n q u i r y (Garman, 1986; Sergiovanni, 1985; T o m , 1985).  For D o n a l d Schon (1988), "both the  reflective teacher and reflective coach are researchers i n a n d o n practice whose w o r k depends on their collaboration w i t h each other" (p. 29).  Both  sponsor teacher and faculty advisor must carefully attend to the appreciative system that students b r i n g to the practice setting.  H o l l a n d (1989a) a n d  Sergiovanni (1985) argue that i n this sense the interaction between student and supervisors allows for a shared interpretation of meaning that each person assigns to classroom events.  Further, the interplay between student,  sponsor, and advisor becomes a constructivist activity g r o u n d e d i n the student's o w n inquiry into his or her practice and is informed by the sponsor and advisor's experience and knowledge. This form of reflective i n q u i r y is broader than that u s u a l l y associated w i t h clinical s u p e r v i s i o n i n that it considers cultural contexts, unintended consequences of action, and student values as they impact u p o n the practice setting (Houston and Clift, 1990). Clearly, a practicum relationship grounded i n reflective practice makes very different demands u p o n each participant as opposed to other supervisory relationships (Hayes & Ross, 1988; N o l a n & Huber, 1989; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987). N e w roles for the student and the supervisors The student is expected to be both proactive and interactive, not merely reactive (Zeichner, 1987a).  W i l d m a n and N i l e s (1987) have w a r n e d that  w h i l e it is tempting for the other members of the relationship to 'speed up' reflection by d o i n g the reflection for the student, the pace of reflection must be governed b y the student. In this sense, it is important that the student be encouraged to listen to his or her o w n 'voice' (Cole, 1989; C o m e a u x & Peterson, 1990; Hayes & Ross, 1988; H o l l a n d , 1989a).  W i l d m a n and N i l e s  (1987) contend that w h e n the student is encouraged to do this the 'locus of control' remains w i t h the student and the process becomes i n t e r n a l i z e d . Richards et al. (1989) suggest that students w i t h an internal 'locus of control' believe that they are i n control of themselves and their actions. By contrast, prospective teachers w h o maintain an external 'locus of control' are more likely to attribute their teaching successes or failures to forces beyond their control, for example, fate, luck, or chance. A s the role of the student  teacher is redefined w i t h i n the triadic  relationship, so too are the roles of other participants.  W i l d m a n and N i l e s  (1987) propose that both sponsor teacher and faculty advisor "must constantly . . . counsel each other to listen and facilitate rather than talk and dominate" (p. 30).  W h e n sponsors and advisors adopt such a stance, and encourage  students to listen to their o w n 'voice,' it is incumbent u p o n them to ascertain the student's appreciative system, that is, the w a y i n w h i c h a perceives the teaching-learning relationship.  student  Once ascertained the sponsor  and advisor must consider h o w it might be similar to or different from their o w n appreciative systems, and carefully monitor changes i n both as the relationship between the participants grows and develops ( M a c K i n n o n & E r i c k s o n , 1988).  The development of c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g  between  participants is critical for reflection (Ross, 1987). Unless this occurs the process is likely to be i n jeopardy from the outset ( M a c K i n n o n , K u h n , & G u r n e y , 1988; Schon, 1987). Pugach and Johnston (1990) believe that a collaborative approach also increases the l i k e l i h o o d of private 'internal dialogue' being made explicit, public, and thus available for joint reflection. For example, while the student may be making sense of the practice situation, both sponsor and advisor may be rediscovering 'what it is that they k n o w ' and 'how they have come to k n o w it,' and be w i l l i n g to share it w i t h the other members (Garman, 1986; H o l l a n d , 1989a; M a c K i n n o n et al., 1988; N i l e s et al., 1989; W i l d m a n et al., 1990). W i l d m a n and Niles (1987) in considering the role of the sponsor and advisor, suggest that the understandings  that they have of their o w n  classrooms is often more utilitarian than analytical because they themselves have had few opportunities to b u i l d up objective accounts of classroom life. Thus, as the teacher and advisor begin to observe novices i n action, and to share their o w n ideas, they are likely to reflect extensively u p o n their o w n practice. Erickson and M a c K i n n o n (1991) have reported this trend i n a study of the relationship between a sponsor teacher and his student-teacher: . . . experienced teachers i n our group actually found it easier to unpack their o w n knowledge and understanding i n the context of w o r k i n g w i t h a novice teacher.  This situation often required them to make explicit  both the procedures and actions that they engaged i n (which were often routine and tacit in nature) as well as the rationale for d o i n g them. This act of making one's knowledge explicit and p r o v i d i n g reasons for one's  behaviour rarely occurs i n the normal activities and routines engaged i n by a teacher (p. 9). In this manner, the triadic relationship may serve as a reflective vehicle and educative opportunity for all participants (Boydell, 1986; Emans, 1983; N o l a n & Huber, 1989). teachers often  This is of particular importance given that sponsor  perceive their interaction w i t h student teachers as  important form of professional development.  an  These interactions are often  perceived to be of greater value than, for example, in-service programmes, contact w i t h b u i l d i n g principals, or membership of professional associations (Wideen et al., 1987). relationship.  Thus, there is value for a l l participants i n such a  U n d e r these circumstances, the potential for students to be  reflective i n a collaborative relationship is l i k e l y to be greater than that afforded by other supervisory models described earlier. Selection of supervisors A triadic relationship grounded i n reflective inquiry is dependent largely upon  the  sponsor  and  advisor  for  its success.  Unfortunately  few  opportunities are available for practitioners (i.e., sponsor teachers and faculty advisors) to develop as reflective practitioners.  Zeichner and Liston (1987)  lament the apparent lack of support given to sponsor teachers and faculty advisors i n this important aspect of their o w n professional  development.  T w o major factors appear to hinder the development of reflective educators for use i n supervisory relationships: 1) the ad hoc selection of the sponsor teachers, and 2) the transitory nature of the faculty advisors (Ross, 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Sponsor teachers are rarely selected because of their potential as reflective coaches.  M o r e often their selection is based u p o n  criteria such as ' W h o has the lightest load?' or 'Whose turn is it this year?' (Goodlad, 1988; Stout, 1987). Ideally, sponsor teachers should be selected from outstanding practitioners w h o are able to help students reflect u p o n tacit knowledge and translate it into discursive forms (Erdman, 1983).  Zeichner  and Liston (1987) suggest that until sponsor teachers receive some form of r e w a r d , recognition, or time compensation for their i n v o l v e m e n t i n the supervision of student-teachers, faculties of education are u n l i k e l y to have much  impact  upon  present  supervisory  introduction of alternative practices.  practices  let  alone  on  the  S i m i l a r l y , the appointment satisfactory.  of faculty advisors is often less  than  M a n y are graduate students for w h o m their involvement i n the  supervisory process is often more related to financial needs than to an overr i d i n g interest i n the professional development of student-teachers.  Even  then the recognition or r e w a r d for services rendered is relatively meagre (Ross, 1987; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987).  A l s o , advisors w h o are w i t h the  program for o n l y one or two years are u n l i k e l y to become familiar w i t h sponsor teachers or the school environments i n w h i c h the student-teachers are placed (Erdman, 1983).  Furthermore, the transitory nature of advisors  makes it difficult for program co-ordinators to ensure continuity between course and field w o r k from year to year (Ross, 1990).  In short, the ad hoc  selection of sponsor teachers and the transitory nature of faculty advisors limits the l i k e l i h o o d of either being c o m m i t t e d to, or even h a v i n g a knowledge of, reflective practice.  Therefore, the development of reflective  facilitators for use i n practicum settings is a critical problem facing i n q u i r y oriented teacher education programmes (Stout, 1989). C o m m i t m e n t to reflective practice Lack of commitment to a triadic relationship g r o u n d e d i n reflective practice has numerous consequences.  Clearly, i n any reflective endeavour  there is an element of personal and professional risk. This underscores the need for a safe and supportive relationship w i t h i n the triad w h i c h w i l l engender  a sense of trust and professional respect for o p i n i o n s of it's  i n d i v i d u a l members (Erickson & M a c K i n n o n , 1991; H o u s t o n & Clift, 1990; M a c K i n n o n & Erickson, 1988; Ross, 1987; Ross «& Hayes, 1988; W i l d m a n & N i l e s , 1987). G o o d m a n (1983) warns that unless these conditions are met the process may be detrimental to the development of reflective practice: It is difficult under the best of conditions for i n d i v i d u a l s to question their beliefs and to explore the implications of their actions. Challenging students to reflect u p o n their experience and ideas must be done w i t h sensitivity and respect for the individuals. If healthy dynamics are not established, challenging students to think may result i n defensiveness, not insight (Goodman, 1983, p. 48).  A triadic relationship grounded i n reflection w o u l d permit dissent a n d conflict, interactions w h i c h are unlikely to be condoned i n other supervisory relationships.  N o l a n (1989) suggests that such an environment needs to be  nurtured over time, and that it may take up to five or six reflective i n q u i r y cycles before students are w i l l i n g to raise issues. This highlights the need for commitment by all participants to the process over a sustained period of time (Kilbourn, 1982). A n d commitment i n this sense means more than just the occasional classroom visit by the sponsor teacher or faculty advisor. Housego (1987) notes that sponsor teachers do not always place a high priority upon the observation of student-teachers and, furthermore, that faculty advisor visits tend to be even less frequent (sometimes as few as three over a thirteen week practicum). Occasional drop-in visits or i m p r o m p t u discussions are unlikely to engender the sort of trust and confidence necessary for students to 'open up', to take risks, and to address substantive issues (Hayes «& Ross, 1988; Houston & Clift, development  1990); nor are  they l i k e l y to be c o n d u c i v e to  of ' c o m m o n m e a n i n g ' between  a l l parties  the  (Ross, 1987).  Furthermore, d r o p - i n visits are u n l i k e l y to "honour the context of events leading to that point [in time]" (Kilbourn, 1982, p. 3). Drop-in visits, therefore, constrain any collaborative endeavour, or joint reflection. Student evaluation Evaluation also impacts upon the degree to w h i c h the practicum setting provides an atmosphere  conducive to student-teacher reflection.  Nolan  (1989) questions the dual roles of collaborator and evaluator w h i c h are often assigned to teachers and advisors.  H e argues that students are u n l i k e l y to  expose themselves to situations of uncertainty and confusion (which the literature suggests are characteristic of reflective practice) i f an evaluative component is present within the practice setting. Gurney (1989) observes that w h i l e the practicum should be "a l o w risk environment where one is free to experiment" (p. 25), the evaluative component turns the practicum into a 'proving ground'  rather  than  a 'training ground.'  T h i s p r o b l e m is  confounded when, as Gurney (1989) reports, "the faculty advisor is seen as an evaluator for w h o m special lessons are prepared" (p. 22) rather than as a coach i n a joint learning endeavour.  In a similar study. Cole (1987) found  that student teachers saw their sponsor teachers as a source of advice for  s o l v i n g immediate problems  of practice but their faculty advisors  as  evaluators of performance. W h i l e it is not possible to completely eliminate e v a l u a t i o n ,  some  researchers have suggested ways i n w h i c h its impact u p o n the practicum setting might be reduced. In one study, Partington (1982) found that w h e n the assessment role was assigned to the sponsor teacher, rather than the faculty advisor, students exhibited far less anxiety.  Others have suggested that i f  faculty advisors were to become more intimately i n v o l v e d i n the practicum setting their role w o u l d be perceived by students as something other than evaluation (Gurney, 1989). Comeax and Peterson (1990) and M a c K i n n o n and Erickson (1988), i n acknowledging that the practicum inevitably results i n an evaluation of students, have suggested  that one w a y to counteract  this  apparently disabling feature is to explicitly include the students' reflective efforts i n their overall evaluation. Thus, elements of reflective practice such as confusion, doubt, and self-questioning, w o u l d be v i e w e d as positive indicators of professional development rather than disabling factors. Triadic instability The relationship between student, sponsor, and advisor has also been the focus of several studies w h i c h have argued that the triad is an inherently unstable structure; that participants seek greater dyadic balance at the expense of triadic cohesiveness (Emans, 1983; Yee, 1968). Studies have indicated that the student and sponsor teacher often form a close alliance d i s t a n c i n g themselves  from the faculty advisor ( B r o w n , 1990; K e l i i p i o ,  Shapson, Sprungman, Squire, Steinman, Toms, & W i d e e n , 1990).  Prentice, In such  instances, the sponsor teacher is often regarded as supportive w h i l e the faculty a d v i s o r is perceived as being 'critical' ( W i d e e n et a l . , 1987). Unfortunately, being supportive has often resulted i n a conscious avoidance of any form of conflict, or discourse, on potentially difficult topics (Housego, 1987; Tabachnick et al., 1979).  A n alliance along these lines is u n l i k e l y to  engage the student i n a discussion of substantive issues related to teaching; discussions w h i c h are central to the notion of reflective practice.  Boydell  (1986) has offered a slightly different interpretation to explain the apparent isolation of the faculty advisor:  The assumption underlying much current practice is that teaching is best learned by observing practitioners, by serving an apprenticeship w i t h a "good" teacher . . . Such an approach implies an essentially passive role for the [faculty advisor] as someone w h o must not interfere "with the guidance of the master and his apprentice" (Stone, 1984, p. 21, i n Boydell, 1986, p. 115) B o y d e l l (1986) contends that a relationship a l o n g these lines often negates what the student m i g h t have learnt w h i l e on-campus a n d  the  potential contribution that a faculty advisor is able to make. Once again, the ineffectiveness of the faculty advisor is likely to constrain collaboration and reflective inquiry i n ways similar to that described i n the previous example. The isolation of the faculty advisor is also apparent w h e n studentteachers' report on their practica experiences.  C a m p b e l l , Green, and P u r v i s  (1990) have noted that faculty advisors are rarely mentioned, suggesting that advisors play a m i n i m a l role i n a students' perceptions of their practica. This seemingly m i n i m a l  role calls into question  university's role i n the practicum setting.  the w h o l e n o t i o n of  the  Several researchers have argued  that faculty advisors often have to 'play out' a social role d u r i n g each visit, reestablishing their relationship w i t h the student and sponsor each time, thus leaving little time for substantive discussions w i t h either party (Boydell, 1986; Emans, 1983, Zeichner et al., 1987). W h e n this is combined w i t h Boydell's (1986) concern that advisors tend to tread warily w h e n on the 'sponsors turf,' it is not s u r p r i s i n g that a faculty advisor's c o n t r i b u t i o n is  sometimes  minimal. The difference between school and university cultures Some studies have indicated that the lack of clarity of triadic participant roles is a result of poor communication between faculties of education and the schools (Applegate & Lasley, 1982; Housego, 1987; W i d e e n et al., 1987). Simmons et al (1988) and Brookhart and L o a d m a n (1989) have argued that i n order to overcome this confusion universities and schools need to acquire a bi-lingual and bi-cultural capacity. Support for such a position may be found i n a recent study b y K e l i i p i o et al. (1990) w h o have noted that it was the values embedded i n the two cultures that gave rise to the most critical  incidents faced by students as they struggled to w a l k "the line between discrepant school associate and faculty associate expectations" (p. 11).  For  example, K e l i i p i o et al. (1990) found students were resistant to the faculty advisors' expectations that they 'routinely reflect u p o n their teaching' w h e n such a practice was neither displayed by, nor expected of, the sponsor teachers supervising their practica. Brookhart and L o a d m a n (1989) observe that triadic relationships displaying collaborative efforts often w o r k e d to bridge the gap between these two cultures.  Emans (1983) and Boydell (1986) propose a re-  conceptualization of the faculty advisor role w i t h i n the practicum.  They  suggest that the faculty advisor remain involved i n practicum but be given: . . .  less direct responsibility for immediate supervision of students,  w o r k i n g instead i n an inservice mode w i t h teachers on c u r r i c u l u m development  and  the i m p r o v e m e n t of teaching, f o c u s i n g o n  the  interpretation of theory and research that constitutes the knowledge base of education (Boydell, 1986, p. 123). Thus, the faculty advisor's influence w o u l d be directed more towards the sponsor teacher and indirectly upon the school environment.  Gaskell (1985)  hopes that this might encourage 'a tilt towards pedagogical i n q u i r y ' w i t h i n schools, a disposition w h i c h the student-teachers i n his study felt was lacking at both professional and institutional levels d u r i n g their practica.  Emans  (1983) has warned that there w i l l be considerable resistance to such a proposal, not o n l y from administrators  and c u r r i c u l u m personnel (who are  not  accustomed to h a v i n g university personnel intimately i n v o l v e d w i t h their operations) but also from faculty advisors themselves "who often show little interest i n contributing to, or even u s i n g the k n o w l e d g e , that comprises professional education" (p. 17). V . Programmatic responses to enhance reflective practice The review, so far, has highlighted a number of factors that either enhance or constrain student-teacher reflection. In response to these factors, several teacher education programs have introduced strategies specifically to to address one or more of these factors. strategies.  This section of the reviews those  The r e v i e w is d i v i d e d into four parts: an o v e r v i e w of the  strategies, c o m m o n themes among the strategies, on-campus strategies for  enhancing reflection, and off-campus strategies for enhancing reflection. The off-campus strategies are d i v i d e d into two groups: those w i t h i n , and those beyond the triadic relationship. A n overview of the strategies Reflection has become an important, if not primary, component of many teacher education programmes (Zeichner, 1987b). Attempts have been made to enhance reflection both on-campus (course w o r k ) and off-campus practicum).  (the  But, as W i l d m a n and Niles (1987) have argued, reflection w i l l  not "happen s i m p l y because it is a good or even c o m p e l l i n g idea" (p. 29). Nor,  as G o o d m a n (1983) has suggested, and Zeichner et al. (1987) have  demonstrated, simply h a v i n g reflection as a program goal w i l l not ensure its manifestation i n a student's teaching practice.  To this end, a number of  programmatic initiatives have been introduced to enhance student-teacher reflection. M a n y programs employ several different strategies.  For example, the  Reflective Program i n Teacher Education (RITE), U n i v e r s i t y of Houston, uses i n d i v i d u a l journal writing, micro-teaching, and (Freiberg and  W a x m a n , 1990).  ethnographic  studies  The Professional Teaching Program  ( P R O T E A C H ) , U n i v e r s i t y of F l o r i d a , emphasizes action research, dialogue journalling, and faculty modelling (Ross, 1990). The Teacher for Rural A l a s k a Program (TRA), University of A l a s k a - Fairbanks, teach cases and use video tapes for stimulated recall (Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1990). In the elementary student-teaching  p r o g r a m at the U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n , Zeichner a n d  L i s t o n (1987) use a c o m b i n a t i o n of action research, ethnographic c u r r i c u l u m analysis projects elementary  program  at  for enhancing reflective practice.  Knox  College,  Illinois,  students  and  In  the  undertake  ethnographic studies i n an attempt to problematize their practice a n d to uncover the 'educational givens' within local school settings (Beyer, 1984). Figure 1 depicts one w a y of categorising the various programmatic responses to reflection. The categories are based u p o n the level at w h i c h the activity occurs (e.g., on-campus or off-campus) and the participants i n v o l v e d in the activity (e.g., the student or members of the triad). Further, w h e n the responses are grouped i n this way the importance of contingent factors that  have already been discussed (e.g., trust and support, access to alternative perspectives, or student voice) become even more apparent. Finally, it must be noted that the distinctions made between the categories are for descriptive purposes only; there is considerable overlap across categories. C o m m o n themes U n d e r l y i n g the majority of programmatic attempts to enhance reflective practice are four c o m m o n themes.  The first is the notion of making  explicit  issues and problems that one encounters, or arise as a result of, w o r k i n g i n the practice setting (Cole 1989; M a c K i n n o n , 1987; Ross, 1990; Russell et al., 1988; Segiovanni, 1985).  Cole (1989) argues that "inquiry into one's o w n  practice must begin w i t h an explication and examination of the foundations o n w h i c h practice w i l l develop" (p. 20). C o u p l e d w i t h m a k i n g explicit, is the second theme of 'giving reasons' for one's actions (Kilbourn, 1988; Ross, 1990; Schon, 1988; Shulman, 1987, 1988). Shulman (1988) argues that: It is not enough merely to celebrate the reasons for the student's judgement or actions. O u r obligations are not discharged until what is reasoned has been married to what is reasonable (p. 34). A  t h i r d c o m m o n emphasis  is the  n o t i o n that knowledge  is  socially  constructed; that it is time b o u n d , and culture specific, rather than 'certain' (Kilbourn, 1988; LaBoskey & W i l s o n , 1987; M a c K i n n o n , 1989; Ross, 1987). A final, emphasis is the need for a common pedagogical  language,  a lingua  franca, to assist c o m m u n i c a t i o n between students, faculty, a n d school personnel (Freiberg & W a x m a n , 1990; Hayes & Ross, 1980; M a c K i n n o n et al., 1988; Ross, 1987; Russell et al., 1988; Simmons et al., 1988). It is this common language that Shulman (1987) believes is important for gaining insights into, and relating the w i s d o m of, practice to novice teachers. On-campus strategies for enhancing reflective practice On-campus strategies are typically associated w i t h course work. For the purposes of this review they are grouped under the following headings:  Enhancing Reflective Practice C o m m o n Themes • Making Explicit the Foundations on One's Own Practice • Giving Reason for One's Actions • Knowledge As Being Individually Constructed andSocially Mediated • Development of a Common Pedagogic Language  Strategies  On-Campus  Off-Campus  I  I  I  Knowledge Base  Research  Modelling  Elicitation  - Content - Pedagogic - Curricular  - Curriculum Development - Critique  - Faculty  - Vignettes - Interactive Videos - Teaching Exemplars - Teaching cases - Micro-teaching - Seminars  Beyond the Triadic Relationship  Within the Triadic Relationship -  Coaching and Modelling Dialogue Journalling Reflective Interview Stimulated Recall Interview  T  I 1  Ethnographic  Action Research  Reflective Writing  - Case Studies - Narrative  - Individual - Peer Collalx)ration  - Journal - Autobiographic  Figure 1. Strategies for enhancing reflective practice.  Curriculum Analysis  knowledge base, research, modelHng, and elicitation. Knowledge base The on-campus strategies for enhancing reflection can be broken d o w n into four sub-categories.  The first is the knowledge base that students d r a w  u p o n and construct as they participate i n teacher education programs. K i l b o u r n (1988) has argued that the quality of a student's reflection is influenced b y the relative sophistication of the k n o w l e d g e base he or she brings to the teaching environment.  H o u s t o n and Clift (1990) concur, and  a d d that a student's knowledge base affects his or her appreciation of the pupils' understanding and the choice of appropriate instructional strategies. Shulman (1986a, 1986b, 1987) suggests that the requisite knowledge base for teaching includes: subject content knowledge - understanding not only "that something is so, but w h y is it so, and on what grounds its warrant can be asserted"  (1986b, p. 9); pedagogical  content knowledge  - "the ways of  representing and f o r m u l a t i n g a subject that make it comprehensible to others" (1986b, p. 9); and curricular  knowledge  - "the p h a r m a c o p i a from  w h i c h the teacher draws those tools of teaching that present or exemplify particular content a n d remediate or evaluate the adequacy of accomplishments" (1986b, p. 10).  student  N o o r d h o f f a n d K l e i n f e l d (1990) have  suggested that limited knowledge means that pre-service teachers m a y not adequately 'read' many of the variables i n the practicum setting. In a study of pre-service teachers Borko et al. (1988), have noted that a strong content knowledge base resulted i n students being more responsive to pupils' needs. U p o n noting that few students possessed extensive pedagogical knowledge, they concluded that students should be placed i n their preferred subject areas d u r i n g practica so that the majority of their time m a y be spent developing pedagogical knowledge rather than content knowledge. Research A second strategy for enhancing reflection is to engage students i n some form of on-campus research.  Zeichner (1987b) and Ross (1987) propose that  students be i n v o l v e d i n curriculum  development projects to demonstrate the  active role that teachers can play in the development of the curriculum. They contrasted this w i t h the dominant view of teachers as merely implementors of the curriculum. Stout (1989) suggests a second form of student research  w o u l d be a critique of the literature on reflection so that they may come to an understanding of the underlying principles of reflective practice. Faculty modelling A number of researchers have emphasized the importance of  faculty  modelling for enhancing reflective practice (Campbell et al., 1990; Ross, 1990; Ross & Hannay, 1986; V a l l i , 1990; Zeichner & Liston, 1987).  Ross (1987)  suggests three guide lines for m o d e l l i n g reflective practice: 1) p r o v i d e an example of p r o b l e m setting b y sharing, p u b l i c l y , decisions made  about  substantive issues, 2) communicate to the students the perception that k n o w l e d g e is uncertain at times, and 3) demonstrate through personal performance.  competent action  Ross and H a n n a y (1986) have argued that  faculty modelling is a crucial step i n encouraging students to be reflective: If university instructors, w h i l e overtly advocating reflective i n q u i r y , m o d e l passive and expository instructional techniques, then h o w can change be facilitated? Rather than being a link i n a continuing chain of passivity, the u n i v e r s i t y s h o u l d p r o v i d e an interactive a n d critical model of pedagogy  . . . In other words, this approach to teaching must  become the n o r m a l w a y of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g practice rather than a verbalism used i n university classrooms (p. 12). C a m p b e l l et al. (1990) add that students may not always be aware w h e n an instructor is m o d e l l i n g a particular strategy and that there m a y be occasions w h e n students need to be told what an instructor is doing and w h y . Elicitation The final on-campus category encompasses a number of approaches w h i c h might be best labelled as elicitation strategies. W i l d m a n et al. (1990) suggest that vignettes  K i l b o u r n (1988) and  are one w a y of enhancing  reflection-on-action where the reading, listening and discussion of stories gives the students vicarious experience. Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1990) and W i l d m a n et al. (1990) have used selected interactive  videos a n d cases i n a  similar fashion to present "a complex and difficult situation as a source of deliberative material" (p. 176); using these students learned h o w to spot central issues, to frame problems, and to suggest solutions. G u r n e y (1989) and  M a c K i n n o n and E r i c k s o n (1988) have used what they call exemplars,  pedagogical  typically video tape and in-class demonstrations, to stimulate  students' curiosity a n d to elicit the students' notions of 'teaching' and 'learning.' The vicarious experience p r o v i d e d by video, cases, and exemplars has the immediacy of the teaching situation but without the press for action that accompanies the 'real' w o r l d of practice.  Freiberg and W a x m a n (1990)  have adopted a modified form of micro-teaching to provide students w i t h an opportunity to elicit feedback, and provide an opportunity for self-assessment. They contend that the combination of experience and reflection results i n professional growth.  F i n a l l y , on-campus seminars  r u n concurrently w i t h  teaching practice are useful for encouraging student-teachers to reflect u p o n their practice (Goodman, 1983). G o o d m a n claims that the seminar plays three important roles, each of w h i c h contributes to a student-teacher's professional development: a liberalizing role, a collaborative role, and an i n q u i r i n g role. Off-campus strategies for enhancing reflective practice Off-campus strategies are generally associated w i t h the practicum and w i t h activities w i t h i n and beyond the triad relationship.  This review first  examines the activities w i t h i n the triad, and then those b e y o n d the triad. W i t h i n the triadic relationship there is one area discussed, that is, strategies based u p o n the interaction between student, sponsor, and advisor. Beyond the triadic relationship four groups are discussed: ethnographic  research,  action research, reflective w r i t i n g , and c u r r i c u l u m analysis. Each of these strategies engages the student as researcher into his or her practice, and the 'cultural milieu' i n w h i c h his or her teaching takes place (Houston & Clift, 1990). W i t h i n the triad Four programmatic strategies were identified for enhancing reflective practice w i t h i n the triad: coaching and m o d e l l i n g , dialogue j o u r n a l l i n g , reflective interviews, a n d stimulated recall i n t e r v i e w s .  E a c h of these  strategies is describe below. C o a c h i n g and m o d e l l i n g .  G u r n e y (1989), M a c K i n n o n et al. (1988),  W i l d m a n et al. (1990), and Schon (1987, 1988) describe a form of coaching  whereby both sponsor teacher and faculty advisor model reflective practice i n the supervisory relationship. In Schon's (1988) words: One person helps another learn to practice reflective teaching i n the context of d o i n g  . . .  demonstrating reflective teaching i n the very  process of trying to help the other learn to do it. (p. 19) Schon (1983, 1987) refers to three types of coaching: ' f o l l o w me', 'joint experimentation,' a n d 'hall of mirrors.'  F o l l o w me is characterized b y  showing and telling, joint experimentation by collaborative i n q u i r y , and hall of mirrors by reciprocal reflection.  Therefore, "from this perspective, the  [student] becomes engaged i n action, and reflection, assisted by a coach w h o scaffolds the learning-to-teach process through dialogue a n d m o d e l l i n g " (Lalik, N i l e s , & M u r p h y , 1989, p. 1).  Thus, the supervisory relationship  mirrors the very practice that the student is encouraged to develop i n the classroom (MacKinnon et al., 1988). Dialogue journalling. A number of researchers have referred to a second strategy  w i t h i n the t r i a d called dialogue journalling  (Clift et al., 1987;  Glassberg and Sprintall, 1980; Richards & Gipe, 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). This is a common strategy whereby a student records his or her reflections on a particular lesson or related activity (Ross, 1990; Zeichner, 1987b). m i g h t be puzzles, critical incidents, or dilemmas.  These  The journals are then  periodically read by the sponsor teacher or the faculty advisor w h o w o u l d respond, question, and offer suggestions about the issues contained therein. Hence, a dialogue w o u l d develop w i t h i n the journal w h i c h a student might reflect u p o n (Freiberg & W a x m a n , 1990). Copeland (1986, cited i n Ross, 1990) has argued that journal w r i t i n g contributes to the development of student reflection only when students are taught techniques (such as what questions to ask) and they have received thoughtful and meaningful feedback. Reflective a n d  stimulated  recall i n t e r v i e w s .  The final two triadic  strategies are closely l i n k e d ; reflective interviews and stimulated recall interviews (e.g. using video to stimulate recall). These are designed to attend to the students' understanding of the practice situation ( K i l b o u r n , 1988), to provide an enabling opportunity for students to construct their o w n meaning  (Gurney, 1989), and to encourage and stimulate students to v i e w situations from  m u l t i p l e perspectives  (Ross,  1990).  Both  strategies  provide  opportunities for all triad members to develop a c o m m o n meaning of the events w i t h i n the practice setting. Similarly, both strategies permit students to critique their o w n performance w i t h input from experienced professionals (Volker, 1987, cited i n Houston & Clift, 1990). Beyond the triad F o u r p r o g r a m m a t i c strategies  have been  reported  for  enhancing  reflective practice b e y o n d the triadic relationship: ethnographic research, action research, reflective writing, and curriculum analysis. Ethnographic research. Included within this category are two strategies: case study and narrative.  Shulman (1986b) has argued that case studies are  important on two counts: 1) they help new teachers to clarify their practical arguments and 2) they highlight values and norms that operate w i t h i n the practice setting.  Beyer (1984), LaBoskey and W i l s o n (1987), and Ross (1990)  have used case study assignments to highlight taken-for-granted assumptions i n the practice setting, and to enable students to develop a structural framework w i t h w h i c h to approach future problems, thus, " e m p o w e r i n g them w i t h the ability to become more reflective practitioners" (Ross, 1990, p. 4).  Ross (1990) reports on a teacher education p r o g r a m at V i r g i n i a State  University i n which students are required to develop case studies on pupils: The purpose of this task was to develop their appreciation of (1) the amount of information that is available i n the classroom setting; (2) h o w difficult it is to be aware of all this information; and (3) h o w important this i n f o r m a t i o n is i n m a n a g i n g a classroom that p r o v i d e s e q u a l opportunity to all students (p. 146). LaBoskey and W i l s o n (1987) suggest that case studies serve to connect the theoretical w i t h the experiential by encouraging teachers to identify issues of concern and to critically examine them i n the light of theories examined o n campus.  Connelly and C l a n d i n i n (1986) have used the term narrative  to  capture their particular use of case studies: " . . . teachers' stories are retold i n the narrative account i n such a w a y that the observed and reflected u p o n  events are embedded i n . . . terms of unities of personal and professional experience" (p. 307). The interpretation of observed data is based on a mutual researcher-participant reconstruction of meaning-in-action, where reflectionin-action is captured by participant observation i n classrooms, and reflectionon-action through interviews w i t h participants at a later stage: The two practices combined, that of w o r k i n g w i t h reflection-in-action a n d reflection-on-action, create the basis for the narrative  accounts  w h i c h constitute the detailed m e t h o d o l o g y for the development of theory i n the narrative method  . . .  The development, therefore, is  dialectic i n the sense that we have used it; it involves the researcher and participant i n a m u t u a l development of ideas.  M u t u a l l y enhanced as  researcher and participant discuss and modify the participant's narrative (Connelly & Clandinin, 1986, p. 306). A c t i o n research. A c t i o n research is defined by Zeichner (1987b) as a form of "self-inquiry by participants i n order to i m p r o v e their o w n practice" (p. 568), either individually or w i t h peers. T o m (1984) adds that: . . . action researchers also believe that scientific findings cannot be converted into rules for h a n d l i n g every p r o b l e m of c u r r i c u l u m a n d teaching strategy.  A c t i o n researchers stress that every practical situation  has a unique context and that there must therefore be as many research findings as there are different contexts. Thus action researchers attempt to develop context sensitive generalizations whose a p p l i c a b i l i t y is limited to similar local situations i n the future,  (p. 41)  Carr and K e m m i s (1983) describe action research as a series of self-reflective cycles of p l a n n i n g , acting, observing, and reflecting.  Individual  action  research projects therefore require students not only to examine classroom and school phenomena but also to become actively involved i n the research process.  A c t i o n research is "inherently a social form of research: those  i n v o l v e d i n the practice being considered are to be i n v o l v e d i n the action research process in all its phases" (Carr & Kemmis, 1983, p. 155). Zeichner and L i s t o n (1987) have i n v o l v e d student-teachers i n action research  projects  focusing on such things as grouping strategies, levels of p u p i l involvement  in class, and teachers' behaviour towards high- and low-ability groups. They argue that such projects bring an inquiry-oriented focus to the school setting and encourage student-teachers to be reflective about their teaching practices. Peer collaboration is a move away from the notion of reflection as a personal or i n d i v i d u a l act towards a more collaborative process (Comeaux & Peterson,  1988;  Feiman-Nemser,  1986;  Pugach  &  Johnson,  1990).  Unfortunately, although this appears to be a desirable practice it w o u l d seem that teachers rarely have neither the time nor the opportunity to observe and conference w i t h each other ( W i l d m a n êz Niles, 1987). Schon (1983) contends that this is prima facie evidence for establishing institutional conditions that permit time for reflection: " A teacher's isolation i n her classroom w o r k s against reflection-in-action. She needs to communicate her private puzzles and insights, to test them against the views of her peers" (p. 333). Reflective practice then is likely to be enhanced b y peer collaboration because internal d i a l o g u e or conversation is made explicit and thus available for joint reflection (Freiberg & W a x m a n , 1990; P u g a c h & Johnson, 1990).  The  advantages of shared reflection are that both parties are likely to 'see' things that they may not have realized i n their o w n teaching ( W i l d m a n et al., 1990). Houston and Clift (1990) argue that a sense of community, developed through collaboration, provides a supportive environment that enhances reflective activity.  Pugach and Johnson (1990) encourage their students to take on  either the role of initiator or facilitator i n the peer collaboration process. They list four steps to guide students: 1) reframe through clarifying questions, 2) s u m m a r i z e the refined p r o b l e m , 3) generate possible solutions, a n d 4) consider w a y s of e v a l u a t i n g the effectiveness  of the s o l u t i o n chosen.  W i l d m a n et al. (1990) suggest that teachers reflect on their teaching together w h e n circumstances such as proximity, common problems, shared theories, or social compatibility cause a bonding to develop between them.  Therefore,  understanding how such relationships develop might also be an important factor i n facilitating reflection i n schools.  Finally, there is evidence that  student-teachers value peer collaboration w i t h i n the practicum setting.  If  encouraged, peer collaboration can contribute not only to the development of reflective practice, but also increase its likelihood as a career l o n g pursuit (Campbell et al., 1990).  Reflective w r i t i n g .  Another common method for encouraging student-  teacher i n q u i r y is reflective w r i t i n g ; t w o c o m m o n forms are journalling  private  and autobiographical w r i t i n g (Copeland, 1986, cited i n Ross, 1987).  Reflective w r i t i n g provides a w a y for pre-service teachers to practice critical analysis and reasoning (Ross, 1990; Ross & Hannay, 1986). Journal w r i t i n g , b e y o n d the supervisory triad, provides students w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y to question: 1) what they k n o w , 2) what they feel, 3) what they do, and 4) w h y they do it (Yinger & C l a r k , 1981, cited i n Zeichner, 1987).  In this activity  students write for themselves, as opposed to 'writing for the supervisor'; it is, therefore, a very private and internally driven form of deliberation (Freiberg & W a x m a n , 1990; L a B o s k e y & W i l s o n , 1987; W i l d m a n  et a l . , 1990).  Autobiographical w r i t i n g is slightly different i n that teachers are asked to critique their autobiographies i n relation to their recent school or university experiences - similar to C o n n e l l y a n d C l a n d i n i n ' s (1986) conception of narrative but w i t h a distinctly autobiographical orientation. The intention is to create l i n k s between the personal a n d professional dimensions of a student's life: Personal and professional k n o w l e d g e need not occupy t w o distinct territories discreteness  in a divided  psyche.  F o r one t h i n g , s u c h  obsessive  tempts the dominance of one d o m a i n over the  other.  Furthermore, the desire for integration, for integrity, is the i n d i v i d u a l ' s impetus for cognitive growth. (Atwell, 1988, p. 12) Oberg (1990) has also used autobiographical w r i t i n g as a strategy for encouraging her students to explore their professional teaching i n relation to their personal histories.  Students  b e g i n b y i n i t i a l l y w r i t i n g about  a  particularly interesting classroom event and over the course of a semester explore the values, biases, and norms, that are present i n their stories.  The  final versions are integrated personal and professional autobiographies based u p o n extensive reflection. Curriculum  Analysis.  C u r r i c u l u m analysis is another strategy  for  enhancing reflection beyond the triadic relationship (Beyer, 1984; G o o d m a n , 1988).  Students  curriculum.  investigate, and reflect u p o n , v a r i o u s aspects of  the  In particular, students question the origins and purposes of  c u r r i c u l u m , and attempt  to lay out ideological a n d societal influences  embedded within the curriculum materials. Students are challenged to relate their analyses back to their o w n conceptions of c u r r i c u l u m and c u r r i c u l u m development.  G o o d m a n (1988) and Beyer (1984) believe that such studies  move teachers away from a passive acceptance of the curriculum, towards an active role i n its design, implementation, and evaluation. V I . The practicum as a research context for exploring reflection W h i l e m a n y strategies have been suggested for enhancing reflective practice, there are few systematic reviews i n the literature of the success or otherwise of these strategies.  Zeichner (1987b) notes that empirical evidence  i n support of the various strategies is s u r p r i s i n g l y meagre.  Similarly,  Richards and Gipe (1987) report: . . . researchers  say that seminars, partnership  teaching,  mini-  ethnographic studies and j o u r n a l keeping engender reflection . . . H o w e v e r , explicit directions for conducting these activities are not provided.  M o r e importantly, analyses of "the meaning constructed b y  pre-service teachers about their experiences are lacking." . . . There are a paucity of data w h i c h specifically document and examine changes i n prospective teachers' concerns.  Therefore, teacher educators have little  measurement criteria of the educative worth of reflection, (p. 5) Thus, it w o u l d seem that research is necessary to ascertain influences of various strategies o n student-teacher reflection.  F o l l o w i n g this, there is a  need to investigate h o w the successful strategies might be best incorporated into a teacher education program (Erickson, 1988; Houston & Clift, 1990). In terms of Schon's conceptualization of reflective practice, and the importance of action setting, off-campus strategies deserve closer research attention: It isn't enough to ask teachers what they do, for what they do and what they say often diverge, one must get at what teachers do through direct, r e c o r d e d observation that permits a v e r y detailed d e s c r i p t i o n of behaviour  and  a  reconstruction  assumptions (Schon, 1988, p. 9).  of  intentions,  strategies,  and  The practicum w o u l d be the p r i m a r y focus of such attention.  The  importance of the practicum is further h i g h l i g h t e d by reports that m a n y aspiring and experienced teachers regard it to be the single most important component of their teacher education programs (Goodlad, 1988; Wideen et al., 1987).  In s u m , the practicum and the associated relationships that occur  between students and supervisors provides a important and valuable context for investigating student-teacher reflection.  CHAPTER 4 Research M e t h o d This chapter provides the reader w i t h details of the research design, specifically the data capture, data collection, data analysis, and data review procedures. I. Data capture T w o aspects of the data capture are discussed i n this section: the reflective teaching cycle, and the selection of the participants. The reflective teaching cycle A regular teaching cycle (i.e., a student's pre-lesson discussion w i t h a sponsor teacher, the teaching of a lesson, and a post-lesson discussion w i t h the sponsor teacher) p r o v i d e d the basic structure around w h i c h the research method was constructed.  O v e r l a i d on this cycle was a series of stimulated  v i d e o recall sessions i n w h i c h both the student and sponsor were able to comment upon the three stages of the regular teaching cycle (see Figure 2). ^  The practicum  ^  — —  Video of pre-lesson discussion.  Stimulated recall with sponsor.  \ Stimulated recall with student.  /  \  Stimulated recall with student. I • • Video of post-lesson ^ discussion. ^ Stimulated recall with sponsor.  ^  Stimulated recall with sponsor. # / Video of lesson. ^  Stimulated recall with student.  Figure 2. The reflective teaching cycle  The combination of a regular teaching cycle and the overlaid video recall sessions constitutes, i n this study, a 'reflective teaching cycle.' This cycle was tested i n a pilot study and found to be robust and successful i n 'getting at" student-teacher reflection.  The reflective teaching cycle was  subsequently  used to examine the reflective practices of four student-teachers as they prepared, taught, and conferenced their lessons w i t h their sponsor teachers. The utility of the reflective teaching cycle is that it is based u p o n the most predominant features of the practicum experience, that is, the planning, teaching, and conferencing that surrounds a student's lesson. These features provide critical junctures for examining student reflection i n the practicum setting. This cyclic pattern allows links to be made between what the student thought might be the case prior to the lesson, what actually occurred d u r i n g the lesson, and the student's reactions after the lesson. The reflective teaching cycle has a second utility; it can be continually repeated throughout the practicum.  Therefore, student-teacher reflection  may be tracked w i t h i n a specific reflective teaching cycle and across several cycles (Figure 3).  Such tracking may p r o v i d e insights into the  factors  enhancing or constraining reflection over the course of the practicum. Central to the examination of reflective practice both w i t h i n and across cycles is the influence of the sponsor teacher. This highlights the third utility of the cycle; it incorporates the interplay between student-teacher and sponsor teacher as they discuss the student's teaching practice. This interplay may be mapped d u r i n g a single reflective teaching cycle or over several cycles to examine the role of the sponsor i n relation to the reflective practices of the student. In this study five reflective teaching cycles were conducted w i t h each student d u r i n g their practica (see Figure 3).  A d d i t i o n a l semi-structured  interviews were conducted at the beginning, m i d - p o i n t , and end of the practica. The participants There were three criteria for selecting the participants i n this study: that participation  i n the  project  w o u l d be  voluntary,  that  the  students  involvement w o u l d not jeopardize their practica (i.e., 'at risk' students w o u l d not be involved i n the project^), and that there was physical space available i n the schools to conduct the stimulated recall a n d a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r v i e w sessions.  The Practicum Week 1  Week 13  Figure 3. Reflective teaching cycles across the practicum  The Teacher Education Office and the Department of Mathematics and Science Education^ p r o v i d e d the researcher w i t h a list of eighteen students w h i c h might, if asked, volunteer for the project. Further, these students were not considered to be 'at risk' by the faculty. The researcher visited all eighteen students and their respective sponsor teachers prior to the practicum. Based upon the initial reactions of the students and sponsors to the study (i.e., their wiUingness to be video taped, willingness to commit time to the study, etc.) and availability of physical space w i t h i n the school for taping and recording the various research sessions, four students and their sponsors were i n v i t e d to participate i n the project. A l l accepted the invitation.  That is, the faculty felt there was a risk that the student may not satisfactorily complete their practicum. The researcher's supervisor was from the Department of Mathematics and Science Education. Therefore, the researcher decided to use channels of communication that already existed between the Department and the Teacher Education Office for selecting the students rather than going outside the department and independently selecting the students.  II. Data collection procedures W i t h i n the reflective teaching cycle there were nine points of data collection as shown i n (see Figure 2, page 64). Beyond the cycles, there were three other points of data collection. A l l sessions were video and audio taped. This procedure ensured that the was a back-up tape for all sessions. The data collection procedures included: - pre-lesson discussions between student and sponsor teacher, - stimulated recall of the pre-lesson discussions w i t h student  and  sponsor teacher, separately, - lessons taught by the student, - stimulated recall of the lessons w i t h student and sponsor teacher, separately, - post-lesson discussions between student and sponsor teacher, - stimulated recall of post-lesson discussions w i t h student and sponsor teacher, separately, and - semi-structured  interviews  on  demographic  conceptions of 'teaching' a n d 'learning,' a n d the  information, participants'  reactions to the study. The data collection was conducted at the convenience of the participants and w i t h m i n i m u m disruption to normal classroom activities. T y p i c a l l y , a cycle was spread over three days: the pre-lesson sessions on day one, the lesson sessions on day two and the post-lesson sessions on day three. M o s t of the data collection sessions occurred on-site.  A few of the pre-, m i d - , and  post-practicum interviews were conducted off-site. Pre- and post-lesson discussions D u r i n g the r e c o r d i n g of a l l pre- a n d post-lesson discussions, the participants were seated beside each other and the camera trained to record both participants. The researcher started the video and audio tape recording machines a n d then left the r o o m before  the discussions began.  participants stopped the tapes at the end of the discussions.  The  Lessons The lessons taught by the student-teacher were v i d e o taped by the researcher.  To ensure that the presence of a video camera created m i n i m a l  disruption to the class, the researcher video taped the same classes before the project began.  This enabled both the student-teachers a n d the p u p i l s to  become familiar w i t h the presence of the camera and the researcher i n the classroom.  A parabolic microphone was situated beside the camera to  enhance the audio recording. A wide-angled focus was maintained for most of the video taping. Occasionally the focus w o u l d be narrowed to capture the student-teachers' one-to-one interaction w i t h the pupils. For the most part the camera was situated at the back of the r o o m , although there were occasions when it was possible to video tape the lesson from other angles w i t h o u t d i s r u p t i n g the class (e.g., w h e n the p u p i l s were engaged i n a laboratory session). Stimulated recall sessions The stimulated recall sessions  conducted  d u r i n g this s t u d y  were  substantially different from the more traditional use of stimulated recall (Tuckwell, 1982). The primary difference i n this study was that the agenda for the recall sessions was set b y the participants; they stopped, started, and commented u p o n the sections of video tape that were of interest to them. Their reflections on their practice were stimulated by their o w n curiosity. In more traditional forms of stimulated recall, it is the researcher, not the participant, w h o sets the agenda.  For example, the researcher might select  excerpts from the video (or audio) and ask the participant to recall what their thoughts were at those points i n time.  Stimulated recall sessions  conducted on the pre-lesson discussions, lessons, a n d the  were  post-lesson  discussions. Semi-structured interviews Pre-, m i d - and post-practicum interviews were conducted w i t h each of the students. M i d - and post-practicum interviews were conducted w i t h each of the sponsors. A series of questions (10 to 15) were used as the basis for the interviews.  These semi-structured interviews were consistent w i t h standard  interview protocols and techniques (Mishler, 1986; Spradley, 1979).  The p r e - p r a c t i c u m interviews were conducted b y an  independent  interviewer and explored the students' conceptions of teaching, learning, and learning h o w to teach.  A n independent interviewer was used so that the  students w o u l d not associate the researcher w i t h a particular line of inquiry. This was important, particularly i n the early stages of the practicum, w h e n the researcher was encouraging the participants to set their o w n agenda.  It  was less of an issue later on, w h e n the participants were accustomed to research protocols (i.e., the students felt free to comment u p o n any issue that interested them and not just u p o n issues that they thought w o u l d be of interest to the researcher). The mid-practicum interviews were conducted by the researcher, and sought to situate the participants' teaching practices i n the context of their o w n experiences.  Therefore, demographic, school, and w o r k information  were collected d u r i n g these interviews. The post-practicum interviews were conducted by a second independent interviewer. The p r i m a r y purpose of these interviews was to determine any potential conflict that participants perceived as a result of the d u a l roles played by the researcher d u r i n g the study (see A p p e n d i x A for a discussion of this issue). Data collection report The data collection report provides information on the success, or otherwise, of the data collection. The report also indicates the method used for designating the data tapes and transcript excerpts used i n the analysis. Successful sessions The research design required two hundred taped sessions; fifty sessions for each student/sponsor pair. One hundred and ninety-two sessions were successfully completed. Eight sessions were cancelled due to circumstances beyond the control of the researcher. Table 1.  The cancelled sessions are listed i n  Table 1. Report of cancelled data collection sessions  Cases  Cancelled Sessions  Sally  Cycle three - post-lesson discussion. Cycle three - recall session with Sally of post-lesson discussion. Cycle three - recall session with Jason of the post-lesson discussion.  Tina  Pre-practicum interview. Cycle five - post-lesson discussion. Cycle five - recall session with Tina of post-lesson discussion. Cycle five - recall session with Linda of the post-lesson discussion.  Jona  Cycle four - recall session with Jona of the post-lesson discussion.  The researcher felt that the eight cancelled sessions d i d not u n d u l y affect the results of the study. Data tape and transcript designations The data tapes for the reflective teaching cycles were designated by case, cycle number, session descriptor, and tape number. Table 2 provides the list of session descriptors used i n the study (the case of Sally is used as an example).  Table 2. Examples of session descriptors for the case of Sally Session descriptor  Explanation  Pre  Pre-lesson discussion between Sally and Jason  Pre/S  Pre-lesson recall session with Sally  Pre/J  Pre-lesson recall session with Jason  Les  Lesson taught by Sally  Les/S  Lesson recall session with Sally  Les/J  Lesson recall session with Jason  Post  Post-lesson discussion between Sally and Jason  Post/S  Post-lesson recall session with Sally  Post/J  Post-lesson recall session with Sally  W i t h i n the body of this document, the same designation has been used for transcript excerpts.  Included i n the identification of excerpts is the page  number of the transcript from w h i c h the excerpt was taken. Figure 4 provides an example of a transcript designation.  The case of Sally/Jason Cycle one, tape two Pre-lesson recall session with Sally Page five  Sally: That's what I thought. (S/J CI.2 Pre/S, p. 5) Figure 4. Sample transcript excerpt designation  The tape and excerpt designations for the additional interviews were similar to the reflective cycle designations, except the session descriptors used were 'Int I' (pre-practicum), 'Int IP (mid-practicum), a n d 'Int IIP (postpracticum). III. Data analysis The data analysis is based u p o n the constant comparative m e t h o d (Classer & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & C u b a , 1985) and draws u p o n the w o r k of D o n a l d Schon (1983, 1987) to analytically examine student-teacher reflection i n the p r a c t i c u m setting.  There were four levels of data  transformation  (Novak & G o w i n , 1984): production of verbatim transcripts, identification of the i n d i v i d u a l components of reflection, identification of reflective themes, and categorization of dominant trends and patterns. Transformations The first level of transformation was the verbatim transcription of the data tapes.  In the case of the lesson tapes, o n l y excerpts relating to the  stimulated recall discussions were transcribed.  The second level of transformation i n v o l v e d the identification of the i n d i v i d u a l components of reflection (i.e., p r é c i p i t a n t s , frames, reframes, and plans for future action).  Instances of framing were flagged and then the  dialogue which followed, both within the cycle and i n succeeding cycles, was examined for instances of reframing.  In some cases, what was i n i t i a l l y  identified as a frame was subsequently identified as a reframe. In these cases the dialogue preceding the reframe was scrutinized for instances of framing. A s frames and reframes were identified, the circumstances i n w h i c h they occurred were examined to identify what precipitated these events. The third level of transformation was the identification of reflective themes, that is, the l i n k i n g together of the i n d i v i d u a l components of reflection.  Once the themes were identified the incidents of framing and  reframing were more closely examined, w i t h i n the context of the events that s u r r o u n d e d them, to determine the factors that seemed to enhance or constrain reflection. Particular attention was given to factors such as: - the time of day, - the extent to w h i c h the sponsor shared the teaching responsibilities, - the number of classes taught by the student, - the age group of the pupils, - the content of the lessons, - the roles of the participants, - the ethos of the school, - the curriculum orientation, etc. At  the fourth l e v e l of transformation, factors a n d themes  categorized according to dominant trends and patterns.  were  C l a i m s emerging  from the study are based u p o n the transformations made at this level. The first three levels of transformation are reported i n the i n d i v i d u a l case study chapters.  A s such, the case study chapters p r o v i d e an overall  picture of student-teacher reflection. Indeed, the chapters stand alone, i n and of themselves, as examples of reflection i n the practicum setting. The fourth level of transformation is reported i n the final chapter.  The organization of  the chapters i n this w a y has been quite deliberate. The independent nature of the four case study chapters allows for one or other of the chapters to be omitted yet the claims i n the final chapter to stand, virtually, unaltered. V . Data review T w o methods were used for reviewing the different phases of the data analysis throughout this study: a member check and an audit trail. M e m b e r check A n important part of the research method was member checking. A l l participants were sent three separate mailings of their respective case study chapters (the third m a i l i n g also included a copy of the final chapter, that is, the conclusions and discussion). In some cases, phone calls and visits to schools augmented this process. d e v e l o p m e n t of the  Each mailing represented the progressive  case studies  a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d changes  participants suggested to earlier drafts.  that  the  In some cases, substantial rewriting  was required; i n other cases only a few changes were necessary. Suffice it to say that the final analysis that appears i n this document concurs w i t h the participants' interpretation of the events that were reported. (Two additional outcomes of the member checking process, although not directly related to the research questions, are reported i n A p p e n d i x B). A u d i t trail To ensure that a l l possible care was taken i n the analysis of the data an audit trail was maintained throughout the analysis. The audit trail existed at four levels. The first level was the full transcription of the data tapes. Details of any activities that occurred d u r i n g the tapes, and w h i c h were relevant to the dialogue therein, were also noted. The second level of the audit trail was the 'story boarding' of specific incidents identified i n the reflective teaching cycles.  The third level was the development of detailed theme maps (of  w h i c h highly abstracted versions appear at the beginning of the case study chapters).  The fourth level was the l i n k i n g and recording of the reflective  themes as identified from the theme maps.  A t all levels of the audit trail,  dialogue, associated commentary, themes, etc., were annotated w i t h a code that indicated the origin of the each element. The audit trail ensured that the lines of inference from data to results were available for review and revision  at a l l times.  Thus, the audit trail was an attempt  to account for the  progressive development of the data analysis. Every attempt was made to ensure that all potential themes were fully explored before being rejected or accepted as reflective themes.  Further, a l l aspects of the audit trail were  shared w i t h either independent researchers or participants i n the study, and there was a consensus among these groups that the lines of inference from data to results were both reasonable and fully documented.  CHAPTER 5 The Case of Sally The results and analysis of the data are presented i n four chapters, one for each case study: Sally (chapter five), Tina (chapter six), Steve (chapter seven), and Jona (chapter eight). A l l four chapters have a common structure. Each begins w i t h a 'theme map' that sketches the number and duration of the reflective themes that were identified i n the case. The theme maps p r o v i d e the reader w i t h an overview of what is to follow. then examined i n greater  The reflective themes are  detail; for example, the p r é c i p i t a n t s ,  frames,  reframes, and plans to guide future action, are presented through the use of transcript excerpts.  A l s o , factors w h i c h enhanced or constrained reflection  and related issues are h i g h l i g h t e d at the end of each theme.  When a  particular factor or issue occurred i n more than one theme, it is noted i n the first theme only and not repeated i n subsequent themes i n the case (e.g., the use of video tape).  Each chapter concludes w i t h a s u m m a r y table of the  salient points from the case. The summary tables allow the reader to review each case at a glance. I. Introduction This case study is based u p o n the practicum experiences of Sally, a student  engaged i n her professional year of teacher e d u c a t i o n at  the  University of British Columbia. Sally was born on the West Coast of British C o l u m b i a i n a small fishing community. She attended the local elementary and secondary high schools before m o v i n g to Vancouver to undertake a B.Sc. i n Chemistry at U B C .  F o l l o w i n g graduation Sally entered the secondary  teacher education program i n the Faculty of Education. For her practicum, Sally was assigned to a senior h i g h school i n a s u b u r b a n district of Vancouver.  H e r p r i m e teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was for  Baccalaureate (IB) C h e m i s t r y classes at Grade eleven.  International  Sally also taught  Biology to Grade 11 and Science and Technology to Grade 10. Sally's sponsor teacher was Jason. Jason had taught for sixteen years and was head of the science department at the school. H e had supervised five student-teachers prior to Sally.  II. Analysis Four reflective themes were identified d u r i n g the analysis: teaching orientation, passive interaction i n discussions w i t h the sponsor teacher, p u p i l learning, and collégial interaction i n discussions w i t h the sponsor teacher. Figure 5 maps the duration of the four themes across the practicum.  For  example, Sally's reflection upon p u p i l learning extended across four reflective teaching cycles, beginning i n the first tape of second cycle ('2.1') and extending through to the post-practicum interview ('111').  Reflective themes  Reflective teaching cycles Cycle 1  Cycle 2  Cycle 3  Cycle 4  Cycle 5  1. Teaching orientation 1.1  2. Passive interaction  1.8  3. Pupil learning  2.7 2.1  III  4. Collégial interaction 3.3  Note:  5.8  The numbers on the time lines refer to the first and final transcript excerpts used to identify a particular theme. For example '3.7" identifies the seventh tape of the third cycle, and '111' identifies the third tape of the additional interviews.  Figure 5. The case of Sally: Reflective theme map  Theme one - Teaching orientation Sally was p a r t i c u l a r l y interested teaching and learning.  i n the constructivist approach  to  This h a d been a strong emphasis i n her science  methods courses at U B C . In the first two weeks of the practicum, she tried to incorporate these ideas into her teaching. number of novel demonstrations chemistry phenomena. of  designing and  For example, Sally devised a  to elicit the p u p i l s ' p r i o r concepflons of  H o w e v e r , she soon discovered that the combination  preparing  'constructivist'  lessons  was  a very  time  consuming task. By the end of the second week Sally was unable to devote the time necessary to incorporate these sorts of activities into her lessons.  Indeed, most of her time was spent 'boning up' on the content (often till two o'clock i n the morning!). In the first reflective teaching cycle (week three of the practicum) there was  evidence of a m a r k e d  constructivist teaching a p p r o a c h  towards  shift a w a y  a more t r a d i t i o n a l  from a teaching  approach. The language that Sally used to describe her practice was indicative of this change. She spoke more i n terms of telling rather than listening to the pupils. A s Sally reviewed her lesson,in the first reflective teaching cycle she referred to it as being primarily teacher-centred: Sally:  It w i l l be more just from me to them. (S/J C l . l Pre, p. 2)  Sally was conscious of her shift towards a teacher-centred a n d after  the lesson commented  orientation  that she s h o u l d have e l i c i t e d m o r e  information from the pupils rather than just giving them the answers: Sally:  [In future] I think I w o u l d ask them a few questions, ' W h y is this sort of thing happening'; try to put a seed i n their m i n d to generate a few more answers.  Jason also noticed the teacher-centred  (S/J C1.4 L e s / S , p. 4) orientation that h a d b e g u n  to  characterize Sally's practice: Jason:  I w o u l d have had a bit more input from the class into what I was going to put i n the notes . . . there is nothing w r o n g w i t h the approach that she took, it's just that it is a bit more of a straight lecture approach. (S/J C1.5 L e s / J , p. 9)  The classes s u r r o u n d i n g and i n c l u d i n g the second teaching cycle d i s p l a y e d further evidence of a shift towards more traditional teaching practices. Sally used the term 'lecture' ("I wasn't about to stop the lecture." S/J  C2.6 Post, p. 1) and Jason used the term 'university' ("It's almost  university style" - S / J C2.6 Post, p. 6) to describe her practice. The pupils also began to compare Sally's teaching to their perception of university teaching. Sally recalls:  Sally:  One of the girls actually asked me the other day, 'Like h o w fast do they do this at the university?' 'It seems like w e are d o i n g twice as many notes i n half the amount of time.'  ( S / J C2.5  Les/S, p. 6) Thus, by the end of the second teaching cycle, Sally h a d recognized a n d framed her practice i n terms of its teacher-centredness or its 'university' orientation. By the third reflective teaching cycle Sally was quite alarmed at the g r o w i n g discrepancy between her intellectual beliefs about teaching, and her actual practice. H e r dismay increased when Jason indicated that he was going to focus u p o n Sally's classroom questioning practices i n the following lesson. A s Sally reflected u p o n the difference between her practice and her beliefs she recognized the powerful influence that her former teachers had, both at school and university, i n shaping her current practice.  She then  reframed her current practice not i n terms of its teacher-centredness but i n terms of 'teaching as she was taught': Sally:  I was thinking last night, I am not doing half the things I want to.  Tony:  In regard to what?  Sally:  In regard to teaching style, getting things across.  Tony:  Really?  Sally:  Like looking at their past knowledge, and stuff like that. Ideas. Like, I was starting to do that at the beginning. I was looking at what their ideas were, and trying to relate it to their life. N o w , 1 find that I am just so caught up w i t h the mechanics of just k n o w i n g the material and stuff, that I am not t h i n k i n g of those considerations. It just sort of struck me yesterday at the end of the [pre-lesson] tape . . .  I am not d o i n g any of the things I  believe i n . I'm not. I'm like zero. Like none! N o n e of them! Tony:  Where d i d y o u get the i n f o r m a t i o n about w h a t y o u are supposed to do?  Sally:  I don't know? Just from all the POT^ lectures, and listening to Bruce^, and reading literature and stuff like that. Things that y o u are supposed to do i n science education to help them learn.  The most effective ways for them to learn.  Thinking  about it, I'm not doing any of that. I am basically teaching h o w I was taught, for a lot of it. Tony:  What do y o u mean by that?  Sally:  I am teaching the same style, for a lot of it, that I have been taught i n m y past career. G o i n g through the material.  Tony:  W h e n y o u were a learner?  Sally:  When I was a learner. (S/J C3.2 P r e / S , p. 1)  In wondering aloud w h y it was difficult for her to supplant the practices of her former teachers w i t h the practices that she had been exposed to at U B C , Sally offered four explanations: the mechanics of the classroom teaching; insufficient preparation time; her unfamiliarity w i t h a constructivist learning environment, and the need for a personal support system to sustain an alternative teaching orientation: Tony:  C a n y o u w o n d e r out l o u d w h y that m i g h t be?  Is it the  mechanics y o u said? Sally:  I think it is the mechanics, and partially being so rushed, but partially not thinking about it, and m a k i n g a conscious effort to do it because, right now, it's just not natural for me. I haven't seen it done all that much, and it's not an experience that I am familiar w i t h .  Tony:  Does Bruce give you any hints about h o w to keep that going?  Sally:  N o . [Well,] 'Be a reflective teacher and write i n your journal every day.' [laughs]  Tony:  Do y o u do that?  A n acronym for Principles of Teaching. Bruce Gurney was Susan's principal science method lecturer at U B C and also a strong advocate for a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. [Note: Brian's name is used with his permission.]  Sally:  I have never been able to write a journal, I tried to write a diary when I was a teenager and wanted to save all those precious things.  Tony:  Same here.  Sally:  It's like, after two weeks it dies.  Tony:  So what plans have y o u got for the future then?  Sally:  I think I am going to write b i g notes to myself somewhere, or something; like: Q.  ' A r e y o u doing this?'  A.  ' N o , y o u are not!' [laughing, as she responds to her o w n question]  Q.  ' A r e y o u d o i n g it because y o u don't think it works?' [pause]  'Do y o u think it is useless?' [pause]  'Are you  doing it because y o u are lazy?' A.  'Because y o u are lazy, probably [laughs]^. Because it makes sense to y o u intellectually that this should work. (S/J C3.2 P r e / S , p. 1, emphasis i n original)  After the practicum, Sally recalled the third reflective teaching cycle as a 'crisis-point' i n her practicum: Sally:  I don't k n o w , 1 reached a few little mini-crisis points d u r i n g the practicum. It was quite good. Like thinking back on what I thought learning was all about and h o w things should be done, it was like ' O h G o d , I am not doing any of it, I've turned into m y past teachers.'  It was a horrible moment w h e n I realized  what was happening because I was so caught up i n the ritual of it all; of going through and getting the stuff, a n d teaching it. D a m n it! . . . For a part of it I definitely became the teachers I have had . . . N o t the good ones. I don't k n o w w h y ? I wasn't doing the things that the teachers w h o have impressed me  Sally's claim that she was 'lazy' needs to be understood in the terms of her the practicum as whole. Typically, she would work until one or two in the morning 'boning up' on the content. This left very little time or energy for Sally to consider teaching strategies that would match her 'intellectual beliefs' about teaching and learning. Sally was anything but lazy!  most have done; those [teachers] were few and far between.  I  was going by the norm. (S/J Sally Int III, p. 8) A n d finally, Sally noted h o w difficult it was to overcome the teaching practices she had been exposed to as a pupil: Sally:  I had to keep reminding myself. It didn't come readily to me. I was falling back o n techniques that I have been taught or exposed to, more than g o i n g ahead w i t h n e w ideas that I thought were really good ideas. (S/J Independent Int, p. 2^0)  In sum, through the supervisory practices of her sponsor teacher and her o w n reflection, Sally confronted the discrepancy between her beliefs and her practice. She recognized that her orientation to teaching had become one of default rather than choice. Sally had sub-consciously duplicated the practices of her former teachers.  This recognition was a critical point i n Sally's  practicum and thereafter she critiqued her practice i n terms of these t w o different orientations to teaching. Review of theme one - Teaching orientation Sally's reflection o n her teaching orientation was precipitated b y a discrepancy between her intellectual beliefs about teaching and her actual teaching practice. A t U B C , Sally had been exposed to a constructivist teaching p h i l o s o p h y w h i c h placed the p u p i l at the centre of the t e a c h i n g / l e a r n i n g enterprise!^; a view to w h i c h Sally subscribed. A n important aspect of this philosophy was the elicitation of the pupils' prior conceptions as a precursor to the construction of new knowledge. In the first two weeks of the practicum Sally's practice displayed evidence of a constructivist approach to teaching.  H o w e v e r , b y the third week (first  reflective teaching cycle) there had been a marked shift from elicitation of  A n independent interview that was conducted after the practicum as part of another research project. Constructivism asserts two main principles: "(1) knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the cognizing subject; (2) the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experiential world . . ." (von Glasersfeld, 1988 p. 1)  p u p i l responses (listening) to a lecture-style approach (telling). D u r i n g the second reflective teaching cycle, Sally framed her practice i n terms of it's teacher-centredness or university orientation. In the third teaching cycle, as Sally lamented the discrepancy between her beliefs about teaching and her actual practice, she reframed her teaching orientation i n terms of teaching as she was taught.  She suggested  four reasons for this orientation:  the  mechanics of teaching the material, her unfamiliarity w i t h the principles of constructivism, her need for a personal support system to support  an  alternative orientation, and insufficient lesson preparation time. A s a result of her reflection, Sally noted that her teaching practice h a d become one of default rather than choice. In the fourth and fifth reflective teaching cycles she deliberately sought to alter this b y defining her practice i n terms of her personal beliefs about teaching. There were three factors that appeared to enhance Sally's reflection on her teaching orientation. courses  at U B C .  These  The first was her pre-practicum science method courses  went  beyond  methods  per se (e.g.,  demonstrations and labs) and related the methods to theoretical perspectives that underlay the use of the methods.  The instructors explicitly l i n k e d theory  to practice. Theory became a 'lived' experience w i t h i n the courses as students were encouraged to critique the various methods presented different theoretical perspectives.  i n terms of  Relating theory to practice, i n this w a y ,  p r o v i d e d Sally w i t h a heuristic for e x a m i n i n g the relationship between theory and practice i n her o w n teaching. The second factor that appeared to enhance Sally's reflection on her practice was the use of video, particularly the video tapes of her lessons. V i d e o tape p r o v i d e d Sally w i t h an opportunity to review her o w n practice free from the 'press' of classroom teaching^2  she was able to compare and  contrast her beliefs w i t h her practice: "I gained a real insight into h o w I presented myself i n class . . . because I could see myself d o i n g it" (S/J Int in, p. 4 ) .  Thus, video p r o v i d e d Sally w i t h an opportunity to inquire into her  Feiman-Nemser (1986) uses the term 'classroom press' to describe the complexity of classroom settings: "The sheer number and pace of events that call for quick and decisive action . . . the workday offers little time to unravel the complex causes of the reality teachers face" (p. 316).  practice i n ways that may not have been possible u s i n g more traditional methods of classroom review and evaluation. A third factor was the importance of making explicit her past experiences i n classrooms and the influence that these experiences h a d on her present practice.  It was clear that Sally's experiences as a learner influenced her  teaching.  By mid-practicum, Sally identified some of these influences and  was able to use them as a reference for critiquing her o w n practice. One factor that appeared to constrain Sally's reflection was a lack of time. She was extremely busy right throughout the practicum and felt rushed most of the time (". . . being so rushed" - S / J C3.2 P r e / S , p. 1). A s her teaching load increased she found that she had virtually no time to sit and talk about her practice w i t h either her peers or her sponsor teacher. Finally, there were two issues w h i c h , w h i l e not directly related to the research questions, had implications for Sally's reflection o n her practice. Firstly, reflection, w h e n it does occur, d i d not always result i n an immediate change to one's practice. For example, it was only after a considerable period of time, and repeated confrontation w i t h visual evidence, that Sally began to alter her orientation to teaching.  Thus, time and continual support were  important ingredients for professional development through reflection. The second point, w h i c h is related to the first, is that even i f something makes intellectual sense, it does not necessarily mean that y o u w i l l do it, or even k n o w h o w to do it i n the practice setting. Despite Sally's strongly held beliefs about 'good' teaching, these beliefs d i d not r e a d i l y translate into classroom practices. Thus, m a k i n g explicit one's intellectual beliefs, i n and of itself, does not ensure that one w i l l k n o w h o w to incorporate those beliefs into one's practice.  Therefore, it is important to problematize one's practice  (i.e., examine the taken-for-granted assumptions) i n relation to alternative courses of action. Theme two - Passive interaction w i t h the sponsor teacher Sally's contributions to the pre- and post-lesson discussions of the first teaching cycle were m i n i m a l .  W h e n Sally d i d contribute it was more to  acknowledge that she had heard what Jason had said rather than to expand u p o n , or a d d to, the issues that he h a d raised.  Sally's comments  were  principally i n the form of 'positive m i n i m a l responses such as: "Yeah," " A h , ha," "Really," "I see," "Fair enough," and "OK."  A s such these responses d i d  not suggest agreement or understanding but rather an acknowledgement that she had heard what had been said^^ A s Jason watched the video tapes of his pre- and post-lesson discussions, i n the first cycle w i t h Sally, he was disappointed b y the extent to w h i c h he dominated the discussions. A n incident i n the post-lesson discussion of the first cycle caused h i m to reflect on this dominance. Jason had suggested to Sally that she should elicit the pupils' answers to a particular problem before telling them the solution (in this case, the causes of erroneous data).  A s he  watched this segment of their conversation o n tape, he noted that he h a d failed to do w i t h Sally the very thing he was suggesting Sally do w i t h her pupils, that is, encourage active participation: Jason:  I was talking too much, I didn't give her a chance.  Tony:  Oh?  Jason:  I think so. L o o k i n g at this now, I feel I was talking too m u c h and not g i v i n g her enough chance to respond  . . . Perhaps, I  should have said 'What w o u l d y o u do i n future?'  Treat that  situation the same as I w o u l d treat a situation i n a regular class, but w i t h Sally. Tony:  So use the same techniques y o u w o u l d use i n a class?  Jason:  I don't see w h y not. (S/J C1.8 P o s / J , p. 1)  A s Sally's watched the tapes of the pre- and post-lesson discussions she noted that she contributed very little to the conversation.  She framed her  role i n these discussions in terms of being 'a receiver of knowledge':  Maltz and Borker (1982) define 'positive minimal responses' as nods and comments like 'yes' and 'mm, hmm.' Further, they suggest that for women a response of this type means simply 'I'm listening to you, please continue.' They argue that for men such comments have a stronger meaning such as 'I agree with you' or at least 'I follow your argument so far.' Maltz and Borker contend that these difference possibly lead to 'miscommunication' between the two groups.  Sally:  1 am the receiver of the knowledge.  That's about it.  There  wasn't any interaction. (S/J C1.9 P o s / S , p. 3). Sally appreciated the help and advice that Jason offered but noted that there were times w h e n she w a n t e d to p l a y a more active role i n the discussions about her practice: Sally:  'Jason stop talking just for a few seconds every n o w and then.' 'Let Sally talk about something.' . . . W h e n I had a point, and I wanted to say something, Jason wanted to tell me so m u c h stuff that there wasn't time. ( S / J C I . 9 P o s / S , p. 3).  A t the end of the first cycle, Sally summarized her desire for a more active role by indicating a preference for a more collégial relationship: Sally:  I w o u l d appreciate [being] more of a colleague . . .  a little bit  more equal. (S/J C1.9 P o s / S , p. 4) In the second reflective teaching cycle, Jason provided an opportunity for Sally to contribute to the discussions b y pausing more often w h e n he spoke, and b y i n v i t i n g Sally to comment on her teaching.  For example, at the  beginning of the post-lesson discussion he asked " H o w d i d y o u feel about it?" (S/J, C2.6, Pos, p. 1 ); and then at the end "Anything else?" (S/J C2.6 Pos, p. 7). Sally d i d participate more actively but still felt she was 'receiving' Jason's point of view: Sally:  U m , 1 had a little more input this time than last time. But still I was receiving his v i e w point, and h a v i n g h i m d e v e l o p things; where and h o w they c o u l d have been.  W e didn't  actually w o r k through any problems together. It was still a lot of Jason telling me 'This is what I saw," and 'This is maybe how you can do it,' w h i c h is very v a l i d since he is like such a good teacher. But that's still h o w things are going. ( S / J C2.7 Pos/S, p. 8)  But more often, Sally felt that she was just sitting and listening to Jason rather than actively participating.  A s she explored the issue of sitting and  listening, she reframed her interaction w i t h Jason not i n terms of being a receiver of knowledge but i n terms of being a p u p i l i n his classroom: Sally:  I a m sitting there and listening to Jason teacher as being a p u p i l of this teacher.  . . .  The student-  This is w h a t is  happening here. That's what I feel. (S/J, C2.7 P o s / S , p. 8) This reflection d i d not immediately alter the level of Sally's participation i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions but was critical i n that it highlighted for Sally the role that she had played thus far.  After having reframed her  interaction w i t h John i n terms of being a p u p i l i n his class, Sally began to take a more active role i n her discussion w i t h Jason. A t the end of the practicum, the combined efforts of both Sally and Jason to contribute equally to the discussions resulted i n a more collégial relationship. Review of theme two - Passive interaction w i t h the sponsor teacher There were two distinct phases i n Sally's interaction w i t h her sponsor teacher.  The first phase was her passive participation i n their discussions  d u r i n g the first half of the practicum; the second phase, reported later i n this chapter, traces the shift to a more collégial relationship between the two. In the first phase, Sally framed her interaction w i t h Jason i n terms of being a receiver of knowledge. W h i l e she felt that receiving knowledge i n the form of feedback was valuable, by the end of the first reflective teaching cycle she wanted to play a more active role i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions w i t h Jason.  Indeed, Jason, himself, noted that his dominance of these discussions  constrained Sally's participation in the discussions. A l t h o u g h there was a more balanced interaction between the Sally a n d Jason i n the second cycle, Sally still felt that she was mostly sitting a n d listening to Jason.  A s Sally explored this further, she reframed the problem  not just i n terms of 'being a receiver of knowledge' but i n terms of 'being a p u p i l in Jason's classroom.'  This was precipitated by her frustration at not  having the opportunity to contribute to pre- and post-lesson discussions w i t h Jason.  Sally then revised her role i n the student/sponsor  relationship and  deliberately sought to interact more fully i n these discussions (the results of these efforts are recorded i n the fourth reflective theme - Sally's collégial interaction w i t h Jason). There were three factors w h i c h appeared to constrain Sally's reflection on her practice. Firstly, Sally's passive interaction w i t h Jason. Sally listened but d i d not actively participate i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions that occurred i n the early part of her practicum. W h i l e she modified her practice in response to Jason's ideas, it was more i n terms of temporary 'fixes' rather than substantive changes to her o w n practice.  Further, w h e n Sally was a  passive participant i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions w i t h Jason, the agenda for those discussions was set almost entirely by Jason.  A s a result,  Sally's personal concerns about her practice remained u n k n o w n to Jason. A s the practicum progressed, it became apparent that Sally was less reflective about the issues that Jason raised as opposed to those that she raised. Indeed, at times, she referred to the items that Jason raised as being 'a list of negatives.' The second factor is related to the the tacit nature of Jason's knowledgein-action.  A t times, Jason seemed to find it difficult to 'make explicit' the  knowledge-in-action that he exhibited i n his daily practice^*. W h e n Jason's knowledge-in-action remained tacit then Sally's practicum tended  towards  'apprenticeship' training. A s a result, Sally's learning occurred more through an 'immersion' i n the practice setting rather than from her pre- and postlesson discussions w i t h Jason.  This immersion precluded the sense-making  that might have come from collaborative exploration of the practice setting. (This changed significantly in the second half of the practicum as Sally a n d Jason's interactions became increasingly collégial.) The final factor w h i c h seemed to constrain Sally's reflection u p o n practice was Jason's  emphasis  on experiential learning.  Early i n  the  practicum, Jason placed great emphasis u p o n the importance of practical experience ("Like anything else, through experience y o u learn the tricks" - S / J  A difficulty which 1 also face, and am only too familiar with, in attempting to explain my own practice.  C2.6 Post, p. 3).  W h i l e practice is the central component of the  experience, an emphasis on practice per se often precludes  field  substantive  discussions about practice itself. A s a result, Jason's early discussions w i t h Sally often remained at a level of reporting o n ('This is what I saw') rather than 'inquiring into' practice ('How w o u l d y o u address this problem?', 'Is it similar to other experiences?' etc.) Theme three - P u p i l learning A s noted i n theme one, early i n the practicum Sally experimented w i t h a number of interesting and novel approaches that actively involved the pupils i n their o w n learning. However, by the second teaching cycle this approach to p u p i l learning had all but vanished. T w o factors contributed to the demise of this approach i n Sally's teaching. Firstly, Sally had to spend m u c h of her time familiarizing herself w i t h the content required to teach IB chemistry: Sally:  L i k e I never heard of Graham's L a w of Gas Diffusion u n t i l Sunday. Yeah, on Sunday I really learned about Graham's L a w of Gas Diffusion.  Like if I just had the content on the tips of  m y fingers it w o u l d be so much easier. (S/J C2.5 L e s / S p. 29) A second factor was the academic ability of the pupils i n the IB classes. The p u p i l s were very bright and they were quick to seize u p o n even the smallest flaw i n Sally's teaching.  For example, i n the second reflective  teaching cycle, Sally was explaining the different velocities that i n d i v i d u a l molecules of a gas have at a given point i n time.  To help the p u p i l s to  v i s u a l i z e the different velocities she asked them to i m a g i n e w h a t  the  molecules might look like if she took a 'snapshot' of a gas: Sally:  O K , we are going to take a snapshot of the molecules of a gas. W e have the world's fastest film.  What are the velocities of  the molecules going to look like? (S/J, C2.5 L e s / S , p. 1) A l t h o u g h the intent of the exercise was clear, one of the pupils immediately noted that if it was a 'snapshot' the molecules w o u l d all be stationary and therefore their velocities w o u l d be zero.  This was f o l l o w e d by general  agreement amongst the class (and also m i x e d w i t h an element of glee i n  'catching the teacher out'). For an experienced teacher, an intellectual joust of this type might be welcomed, perhaps even encouraged, but for a beginning teacher the situation is quite different. P u p i l challenges, of the type described, do little to bolster a teacher's confidence especially at the beginning of one's teaching career. Indeed, the effect is often the reverse. A s a result of these two factors Sally adopted a very conservative approach to p u p i l learning; an approach i n w h i c h the concerns of the i n d i v i d u a l were subsumed under whole-group instruction. A s Sally reflected on her orientation to teaching - 'teaching as she was taught' (see theme one) she also reflected on her current approach to instruction and framed it i n terms of 'going through the material': Sally:  1 am teaching the same style, for a lot of it, that I have been taught i n m y past career.  G o i n g through the material.  (S/J  C3.2 P r e / S , p. 1) This generic approach to p u p i l learning, characterized b y w h o l e - g r o u p instruction, virtually eliminated p u p i l interaction w i t h the teacher.  'Going  through the material' or 'covering the material' was perhaps the safest w a y for Sally to approach teaching given the difficulty of the content a n d the pupil's readiness to challenge her teaching: Sally:  It puts me a little bit more on m y guard. I am not as ready and open to be spontaneous and just say anything.  I k n o w that if I  slip up, for sure one of them is going to catch me.  W h i c h is  good. It is good that they are questioning and they are thinking and are on their toes. for me.  But it makes it a little bit more difficult  So the material is a strain i n the first place, but then  having that on top of it! (S/J C4.5 L e s / S , p. 3) Sally's use of whole-group instruction as a 'safety device' was also noted b y Jason d u r i n g the fifth cycle: Jason:  I think that she has a tendency to have very  teacher-centred  lessons, which is a safe approach. (S/J C5.2 P r e / J , p. 6)  A t the end of the practicum, Sally critiqued this generic approach to teaching.  She d r e w u p o n her o w n experiences as a p u p i l to argue that  learning should be a personally integrated and meaningful experience: Sally:  I have heard that 5% of what y o u get i n school actually sticks w i t h y o u . A n d I really believe that. I was just thinking of the things that I have really learned and that have stayed w i t h me. Learning has to be a personal thing. It has to be integrated into you. It has to mean something to y o u . It has to be important. Y o u have to make connections into your life. ( S / J Sally Int III, p. 4)  Sally then argued that whole-group instruction failed to p r o v i d e this; indeed, it had an inappropriate focus i n that learning tended to be content-centred rather than pupil-centred: Sally:  If I went and asked them now, some of it w o u l d come back to them but so m u c h of the learning that is done for tests. That is all it is done for. That is one of the biggest problems that I have w i t h the h i g h school c u r r i c u l u m .  That the things that w e  teach them aren't necessarily valuable to them unless it is just a step for them from high school to university, and onto a job, a doctorate, to teach, or whatever. The fact that content is not valuable. A n d I am finding myself as a teacher of information. (S/J Sally Int m, p. 6) Sally suggested that p u p i l learning could be personalized and made relevant to the pupils by 'threading' real life experiences into the content: Sally:  In any subject, I think y o u can sneak i n interesting parts.  Like  we were d o i n g this part on moluscs, and since I grew up [on the coast] I have millions of stories of going out to the beach with my Dad. O f octopuses. Like the time an octopus actually bit him. A n d stuff like that. I managed to thread some light i n every n o w and then to the content.  I don't have a story for  everything that I have to teach, but finding real life things that work into their lives, or w o r k into your life, I find that helps. (S/J Sally Int III, p. 6) F i n a l l y , she s u m m a r i z e d the more traditional 'covering the material' approach to p u p i l learning as akin to covering a class w i t h a big bed sheet w h i c h effectively covers or masks i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l learning: Sally:  1 hate that.  Covering.  The b i g bed sheet image over the  students. There, its covered! (S/J Sally Int IE, p. 7) This theme represents an important development i n Sally's appreciation of her o w n teaching practice. teaching orientation.  In theme one, Sally made problematic her  In this theme, she considered an important aspect of  that teaching orientation (i.e. p u p i l learning) and began to devise strategies for addressing this aspect of her teaching. Review of theme three - P u p i l learning The third reflective theme traced Sally's reflection o n p u p i l learning. This reflection was precipitated by Sally's earlier reflection on her teaching orientation (in w h i c h Sally recognized that she was teaching as she was taught).  Sally framed her approach to p u p i l learning i n terms of 'going  through the material' or covering the material, an approach i n w h i c h the concerns  of the  instruction.  individual  tended  to be s u b s u m e d  by  whole-group  T w o factors contributed to Sally's use of this approach to p u p i l  learning: the level of knowledge necessary to teach IB Chemistry, and the academic ability of the pupils taking IB Chemistry. W i t h regard to the former, Sally was unfamiliar w i t h the content and spent most of her time 'boning up' on Chemistry; this left her w i t h little time to consider alternative strategies to traditional classroom practices (e.g., whole-group instruction).  In the latter,  the p u p i l s , because of their h i g h academic ability, always enjoyed  an  intellectual joust whenever the occasion arose; though w e l l meaning, they were quite merciless i n this regard.  The combined pressure of these two  factors severely curtailed Sally's attempts to cater for p u p i l learning as it pertained to a constructivist approach to teaching: ". . . the things y o u are supposed to do i n science education to help them learn" (S/J C3.2 P r e / S , p. 5).  A t the end of the practicum, Sally reframed her approach to p u p i l learning not i n terms of going through the material or covering the material but i n terms it being a personal and i n d i v i d u a l activity.  She likened the  going through the material to covering the class w i t h a bed sheet w h i c h masked i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l differences from the teacher.  To overcome this,  Sally argued that classroom instruction needed to be personally relevant to pupils and integrated into their daily experiences. Finally, there was one factor that appeared to constrain Sally's reflection u p o n her practice: her u n f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the content p r a c t i c u m is, by it's v e r y nature, a threatening  material.  The  situation for b e g i n n i n g  teachers and difficulty w i t h content c o m p o u n d s this situation.  Sally's  preoccupation w i t h content limited her inquiry into practice and reduced the range and scope of her reflection on her practice. Theme four - Collégial interaction w i t h the sponsor teacher In the early part of the practicum Sally felt that her role i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions had been as a receiver of knowledge and then as a p u p i l i n a classroom.  A l t h o u g h her contribution to the discussions d u r i n g  the first two cycles had been largely passive, by the third cycle Sally had begun to play a more active role.  Instead of just sitting and listening, she asked  questions and called upon Jason for assistance and help. Sally no longer felt that she had to go to the discussions w i t h a l l the answers w o r k e d out i n advance.  Together the two began to share their experiences and  sought  solutions to the problems that they both saw as important i n Sally's practice. Early i n the third cycle, Sally framed her interaction w i t h Jason i n terms of it being like 'a normal conversation': Sally:  This conference could just be a normal conversation. ( S / J C3.3 Pre/S, p. 3)  The sessions w h i c h followed became increasingly collégial (sharing of information) and collaborative (jointly w o r k i n g on problems). dominated the discussions; rather both contributed:  Neither  Both of us were of talking about what was going on. ( S / J C4.8  Sally:  Pos/S, p. 5) Jason felt that Sally was n o w actively seeking advice on certain issues and that he was p r o v i d i n g her w i t h an opportunity to say more. H e felt that his confidence i n Sally's teaching practice contributed to this: Jason:  I think that I am saying a little bit less [in this discussion] than i n the first couple.  Tony:  A n d w h y is that?  Jason:  Perhaps I have become more relaxed and confident i n what she is doing, and i n what she is presenting to the students, (S/J C5.2 Pre/J, p. 6)  In a similar fashion, Sally felt that the increased collegiality was a result of her o w n confidence i n her ability to teach, and Jason's confidence i n that ability: Sally:  W e are more at a 'colleague' level. I am consulting h i m .  Tony:  W h y is that?  Sally:  1 don't know? Perhaps, more confidence on m y part, i n myself, and 1 think that Jason has more confidence i n me as w e l l .  (S/J  C5.3 P r e / S , p. 3) A s Sally began to appreciate the g r o w i n g collégial a n d collaborative nature of their interaction she reframed the relationship not i n terms of it being 'a normal conversation' but in terms of 'seeing her practice through Jason's eyes': Sally:  W e are both sort of discussing it on the same level. W e have the same ideas about what was going on, and what needs to be fixed.  W e are collaborating. W e both saw the same things i n  the lesson that didn't work.  A n d I thought that was pretty  good because 1 am sort of seeing things a little bit more through Jason's eyes, the more experienced teacher's eyes. P o s / S , p. 1)  ( S / J C5.8  This reframing was a important point i n Sally's practicum i n that it signalled a shift from the pupil/teacher relationship, that had characterized her earlier interaction w i t h Jason (see theme one), to a more collégial and collaborative teacher/teacher relationship. She d i d this b y d r a w i n g u p o n the notion  of different  'levels of u n d e r s t a n d i n g '  her  practice.  As  she  contemplated her future practice she felt that her insights into her o w n teaching had begun to include the sorts of things that experienced teachers 'see' as essential to their practice. Review of theme four - Collégial interaction w i t h the sponsor teacher Sally's interaction w i t h her sponsor teacher d u r i n g the first half of the practicum was largely passive. She politely listened but rarely participated i n their pre- and post-lesson discussions.  In theme two, she referred to their  interaction i n terms of it being a teacher/pupil relationship.  In the second  half of the practicum this relationship became increasing collégial.  B y the  t h i r d cycle, Sally framed her interaction w i t h Jason i n terms of it being a normal conversation. It was clear that she no longer saw herself as just 'one of Jason's pupils.' In the weeks that followed this level of interaction became the norm. By the fifth cycle, Sally and Jason's relationship had become both collégial and collaborative; they w o r k e d together to address issues that they saw as being important i n her practice.  A t this point, Sally reframed her  interaction w i t h Jason, not i n terms of it being a normal conversation, but i n terms of seeing her practice through Jason's eyes.  In the process, she d r e w  u p o n the notion of different levels at w h i c h one might understand practice. Sally n o w felt that she was on a level of understanding that approximated Jason's level of understanding teaching practice. F r o m this theme two factors emerged that appeared to enhance Sally's reflection upon her practice. teacher.  Firstly, her active interaction w i t h her sponsor  W h e n Sally began to interact w i t h her sponsor-teacher i n the pre-  and post-lesson discussions she revealed an ability to be very perceptive about her o w n practice. Further, it seemed that Sally was more reflective about the concerns that she raised, as opposed to those Jason raised (which, at times, she construed as being a list of negatives). Thus, encouraging Sally to set her o w n agenda was a useful tactic for enhancing reflection upon practice.  The second factor was Jason's reflection on his supervisory practices. Early i n the practicum, Jason, after watching video tapes of his discussions w i t h Sally, noted that he dominated their interactions.  A s he explored his  dominance further, he reflected o n his o w n role as supervisor.  H e argued  that he was failing to do w i t h Sally the very thing that he was suggesting she do w i t h her pupils, that is, to actively involve them i n their o w n learning ("I should have said 'What w o u l d y o u do i n future?'  Treat the situation the  same as I w o u l d treat a situation i n a regular class" - S / J C1.7 P o s / J , p. 31). Jason's reflection on his supervisory practices significantly altered the w a y he interacted w i t h Sally. Their discussions shifted to i n q u i r i n g into rather than reporting on practice.  This was significant i n that it encouraged Sally to  problematize her o w n practice. Finally, there was a issue that w h i l e not directly related to the research questions, was related  to p r a c t i c u m writ  large.  O n several occasions  throughout the practicum, and particularly d u r i n g this theme, there was a remarkable similarity between the issues that Sally and Jason raised d u r i n g their separate stimulated recall sessions. If, as has been indicated above, Sally was more reflective about the issues she raised as opposed to those raised by Jason, then the common perception of a supervisor as one w h o points out the strengths and weaknesses i n students' practice may need to be reviewed. This w o u l d be an important issue for a teacher education program that sought to encourage student-teacher reflection. III. Summary Table 3 provides an overview of the four reflective themes i n the case of Sally.  The table also provides a summary of the factors that enhanced or  constrained reflection, and related issues.  Table 3. Summary of results for the Case of Sally Research Questions One and Two  Research Question Three  Theme  Precipitated by:  Framed in terms of:  Reframed in terms of:  Plan for future action:  Factors which enhance (E) or constrain (C) reflection:  Teaching orientation  Internal dissonance resulting from the difference between her beliefs and her actions  Having a teachercentred focus  Teaching the way she was taught  To reconcile her beliefs with her actions  • Science methods courses which link theory and practice (E) • Use of videotape (E) • Making explicit past experiences (E) • Insufficient time for reflection (C)  Passive interaction with her sponsor teacher  Frustration at Being a not having an receiver of opportunity to knowledge participate in the pre- and post-lesson discussions  Pupil learning  Dismay at finding herself a teacher of content  Collégial interaction with her sponsor teacher  Being like Surprise in the changed a normal relationship conversation between herself and her sponsor teacher  Being a pupil To develop a in a classroom more collégial relationship with her sponsor teacher  Going through Learning as or covering the personally material meaningful and integrated experience Seeing things through the experienced eyes of her sponsor  Related Issues  Reflection does not immediately alter practice Even if something makes intellectual sense it does not mean that you vkdll do it or even know how to 'go about' doing it  Passive interaction vAth the sponsor (C) Tacit nature of the sponsors knowledgein-action (C) The sponsor's early emphasis on experiential learning (C)  To alter her ' Unfamiliarity vnth classroom content (C) practices to include real life applications Shift towards ' a more collégial and collaborative relationship teacher  Active interaction with sponsor (E) Sponsor's reflection upon his supervisory practices (E)  Similarity between the issues that both student and sponsor raise  CHAPTER 6 The Case of T i n a The structure of this chapter is identical to the previous chapter.  It  begins w i t h a theme map w h i c h is followed by the i n d i v i d u a l themes and concludes w i t h a table summarizing the salient points from the case. I. Introduction The second case study is based upon the practicum experiences of Tina. Tina graduated w i t h a B. Sc. i n Biology and w o r k e d for a year i n a university laboratory before entering teacher education. same school as Sally.  Tina's practicum was i n the  The school was a suburban senior h i g h w i t h a  population of 1200 pupils. The curriculum encompassed trade school courses to International Baccalaureate courses.  Tina's sponsor teacher was L i n d a .  L i n d a h a d taught for ten years and had supervised three student-teachers prior to Tina.  D u r i n g the practicum, Tina taught Grade 11 and 12 Biology,  Year 11 Chemistry, and Grade 10 Science and Technology. II. Analysis Four reflective themes were identified d u r i n g Tina's practicum, namely: the ownership of one's practice, student expectations of p u p i l knowledge, questioning style, and off-task behaviour.  Figure 6 maps the duration of the  themes across the practicum. Theme one - O w n e r s h i p of one's practice Tina's primary teaching responsibility was for Grade 11 Biology.  She  quickly demonstrated a solid grasp of the Biology content knowledge but faced the challenge of f i n d i n g suitable classroom activities a r o u n d w h i c h to structure the teaching of that content. O n several occasions, Tina recognized the difficulty she faced i n this regard.  For example, i n the first reflective  teaching cycle. She commented: Tina:  I'm not sure of the type of activity to [pause], to b r i n g it a l l together. ( T / L C l . l Pre, p. 4)  Reflective themes  Reflective teaching cycles Cycle 1  1. Ownership  Cycle 2  Cycle 3  Cycle 5  •  •  1.1  III  2. Pupil knowledge  9  »  1.7  4.6  3. Questioning style  m  •  2.7  4.6  4. Off-task behaviour Note:  Cycle 4  •  •  3.8  III  The numbers on the time lines refer to the first and final transcript excerpts used to identify a particular theme. For example '3.7 identifies the seventh tape of the third cycle, and '111' identifies the third tape of the additional interviews.  Figure 6. The case of Tina: Reflective theme map She made a similar comment i n the second teaching cycle: Tina:  Yeah, the monocots and diocots, I am not exactly sure h o w to introduce that. ( T / L C2.1 Pre, p. 4)  A s a result of her difficulty i n finding suitable activities, T i n a often asked L i n d a , her sponsor teacher, for ideas. L i n d a , w h o was a strong advocate for co-operative learning^^, encouraged Tina to experiment w i t h this approach to her teaching.  Consequently, co-operative learning very q u i c k l y became the  modus operandi for Tina's practice.  By the e n d of the second reflective  teaching cycle, Tina h a d noticed the strong s i m i l a r i t y between her o w n practice and Linda's pracflce.  She framed this i n terms of being a clone of  Linda: Tina:  Sometimes I feel like I'm a clone of L i n d a  ...  So it feels like  since she had this influence on me, that I am being the same as her. ( T / L C2.8 Post/S, p. 4)  A n approach to leaning which encourages positive interdependence, individual accountability, and collaborative sharing amongst pupils in small group settings. See Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec Johnson (1986).  T h r o u g h o u t the  t h i r d a n d fourth reflective teaching cycles, T i n a  experimented w i t h a number of her o w n activities. Still, she found it difficult to come up with new ideas of her o w n and often turned to L i n d a for help: Tina:  I don't k n o w what I w o u l d have come up w i t h o n m y o w n . ( T / L C 3 . 2 P r e / S , p. 1)  Despite the help that L i n d a was able to offer, she was concerned that Tina felt obliged to follow her suggestions for the classes: Linda:  I think I try to precede everything by saying this is a suggestion, but it is already a m i n d set once I say it.  I mean she feels  obligated probably. So, maybe when y o u talk to her ask her how she feels about this, she must say 'Boy, she might as w e l l teach this, she k n o w s exactly what she wants to the last second'. ( T / L C4.2 P r e / W , p. 12) D u r i n g the fourth reflective teaching cycle, T i n a i n d i c a t e d that she wanted to be more independent of L i n d a and take greater control over her o w n practice: Tina:  I came up w i t h a couple of ideas that we talked about but L i n d a had to m o u l d them more.  If I had had time, or h a d done it  ahead of time, and thought my ideas through . . . I might have thought h o w I wanted to structure them so I w o u l d n ' t be depending on her suggesting h o w I w o u l d implement it.  ...  So, I w o u l d feel better if I had more like 'This is what I want to do.'  Y o u know?  W i t h o u t having to rely o n her to m o l d it.  ( T / L C4.3 Pre/S, p. 1) This desire for independence was reflected in her w i s h to develop activities of her o w n : Tina:  N o w I feel like, O K , I have this material, what do I want to do w i t h it?  Right?  A n d one of those reasons is because I am  trying to get away a little bit more from her activities of co-  operative learning constantly. So, I am trying to think of h o w I w o u l d want to present it. ( T / L C4.3 P r e / S , p. 3) In the fifth reflective teaching cycle, Tina had developed a number of her o w n activities for use i n the classroom and seemed not to require as m u c h help from L i n d a as on previous occasions. D u r i n g the stimulated recall session of the pre-lesson discussion, Tina commented on this change: Tina:  [Today] I was saying what I was going to do [in the class] . . . The other ones [i.e., earlier lessons] w o u l d be like 'I have an idea' and L i n d a w o u l d map it out. ( T / L C5.3 P r e / S , p. 1)  In the the post-practicum interview, Tina reflected o n this shift from dependence u p o n to independence from L i n d a a n d reframed her earlier notion of being a clone of L i n d a i n terms of 'jumping through hoops.'  While  Tina welcomed the opportunity to imitate Linda's practice, she felt that her 'imitation' had become an 'expectation' (a criticism that L i n d a h a d levelled at her o w n supervisory practices i n the fourth cycle). In a critique of her o w n practice, Tina noted that she too was m a k i n g her p u p i l s 'jump through hoops': Tina:  There were some things that I felt really frustrated w i t h . was this o v e r k i l l I think on co-operative learning.  One  I d i d it  every single class . . . L i n d a and I planned almost every lesson to three quarters of the w a y along [the practicum], and every single one of them was a different co-operative l e a r n i n g technique.  A n d I agree w i t h it and I like it. A n d I Uke the  theory . . . But after a while I began to feel that I was k i n d of losing it. A n d then b y having m y students do it I was asking them to 'jump through hoops,' and I was feeling Uke I was 'jumping through hoops' as w e l l  ...  I think the students got  sick of it, after a while. ( T / L Tina Int III, p. 3) Tina began to value the importance of a philosophy that was distinctly her own; one which w o u l d undergird and guide her future practice:  Tina:  I didn't feel comfortable i n m y practicum i n taking a strategy or method, and saying [to the p u p i l s ] 'I want y o u to d o this because I want y o u to learn the definition of such and such' because I didn't feel solid enough i n saying 'This is the reason w h y I want y o u to do this.' philosophy.  I didn't feel that I had a firm  I hadn't defined it for myself and I don't think  that I have still yet defined it.  But I k n o w what I l i k e and I  k n o w what I don't like. A n d I want to do a lot of reading and stuff, and w r i t i n g , so that I can get that more concrete so that when 1 go to look at a strategy I can say 'That's me!' and I am going to give it to them because 7 want this.' ( T / L Tina Int HI, p. 11, emphasis i n original) Tina's reflection on the o w n e r s h i p of her teaching practice - from i m i t a t i o n ('being a clone of Linda') to independence ('That's me!') - was perhaps the most significant theme i n this case study. Each of the other three themes contributed to this movement towards ownership and control over her o w n practice. Review of theme one - Ownership of one's practice The practicum has often been regarded as a form of apprenticeship training.  A l t h o u g h the traditional notions of an 'apprenticeship' are no  longer regarded as appropriate for i n d u c t i n g beginners to the teaching profession  (Kilbourn,  1982; Z e i c h n e r , et  a l . , 1987), elements  of  the  apprenticeship m o d e l still have some use i n the practicum setting, i n this case, imitation^6.  T i n a noted that through imitation her practice came to  closely resemble that of L i n d a , her sponsor teacher. Tina framed this i n terms of being a 'clone' o f L i n d a .  After the practicum, T i n a reflected u p o n this  feature of her practice and reframed it not i n terms of 'imitation' but i n terms ' j u m p i n g through hoops;' a form of compliance to external expectations rather than d e v e l o p i n g her o w n expectations.  This was precipitated b y a  sense of frustration at constantly using an approach to teaching similar to that of her sponsor teacher.  A s a result, she decided it was important to develop  Donald Schon (1987) has argued that creative imitation "is the process of selective construction" (p. 108) and uses it to define the dominant characteristic of his 'Follows Me' model for coaching reflective practice.  her o w n expectations expectations.  for teaching rather than r e l y i n g u p o n  external  In Tina's case, this meant defining more clearly a personal  philosophy to guide her teaching practice. Three factors appeared to enhance Tina's reflection on the ownership of her practice. Firstly, there was a student network that Tina maintained w i t h other students on practicum. She regularly referred to, and d r e w upon, this network to compare and contrast her practicum experiences w i t h those of the other students. For example, at one stage she d r e w u p o n Sally's^^ 'Jeopardy Game' rather than using Linda's 'Teams, Games and Tournaments' at the end of a unit review: "What I w o u l d like to do is to follow Sally's Jeopardy G a m e " ( T / L C3.1 Pre, p. 7).  A t another  time, she d r e w u p o n  conversations w i t h other students to contrast  her  alternative i n s t r u c t i o n a l  methods: "I feel at this point that I have never actually stood u p and done a long haul of talking, and some people on Saturday night  . . . said it varies;  some times it is ten minutes and some times it is up to forty" ( T / L C3.6 L e s / S , p. 5).  A s Tina d r e w u p o n these experiences and the experiences of her  sponsor, she began to develop a practice that was distinctly her o w n . Another factor that enhanced Tina's reflection was a c o m m o n sharing of interests between herself a n d L i n d a b e y o n d the classroom setting; for example, d u r i n g workshops, extra-curricula activities, etc.  These shared  interests engendered a sense of trust and comfort i n their relationship. This trust and comfort, i n turn, a l l o w e d T i n a to express more fully, a n d to experiment w i t h , her o w n thoughts and ideas about teaching and learning. A s such, Tina's relationship w i t h L i n d a contributed to her reflection o n the ownership of her practice. A third factor that enhanced Tina's reflection was Linda's o w n reflection on her o w n supervisory practices.  Very early i n the practicum L i n d a , noted  that she dominated the pre- and post-lesson discussions: "I just feel like w h e n there is a pregnant pause, I jump i n , a typical teacher reaction . . . sometimes w h e n I asked her a question I started g i v i n g reasons w h y she might have done that; but when I ask her a question, I should just stop and let her talk" !^  Sally, as in 'The Case of Sally.  ( T / L C l . 8 p o s t / W , p. 4). A s a result, L i n d a encouraged Tina to establish her o w n agenda d u r i n g the pre- and post-lesson discussions. Thus, Linda's role i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions shifted from 'reporting on' to i n q u i r y into' Tina's practice. T w o factors appeared to constrain Tina's reflection on the ownership of her practice.  Firstly, Tina's emphasis o n technical p r o b l e m s o l v i n g as  opposed to problem setting. For example, Tina often drew u p o n Linda's vast s u p p l y of co-operative l e a r n i n g activities to solve p r o b l e m s that  she  anticipated, or encountered, i n the practice setting. Often the 'fit' between the problem and the solution was less than smooth. Tina tended to jettison one activity after another i n search for a successful solution. It wasn't until Tina reached a point of frustration, f o l l o w i n g her ' o v e r k i l l ' o n  co-operative  learning, that she began to attend more carefully to the particulars of her classroom teaching.  A s a result, she began to design solutions (through  problem setting) that were specific to her o w n practice. Secondly, Linda's 'possessiveness'  of certain classes taught b y T i n a  constrained Tina's reflection u p o n her practice. Specifically, w h e n Tina began teaching Linda's Grade 12 Biology class, Linda's supervisory practices became more directive; that is, the agenda for the pre- and post-lesson discussion was mostly set by L i n d a . A s L i n d a watched the video tapes of these discussions, she noted that her 'possessiveness' of the Biology 12 class interfered w i t h her role as sponsor teacher: "1 didn't give her a chance to say 'I think . . .' I guess it is because I am very possessive of m y Bi[ology] 12's" ( T / L C4.2 P r e / W , p. 8). There appeared to be a link between the level of 'possessiveness' as exhibited by L i n d a and the degree of ownership exhibited b y Tina for her o w n practice; the less possessive L i n d a became the more independent Tina became. U p o n reflection, L i n d a felt that it was important for sponsors to acknowledge that some classes were harder for her to 'hand over' to students than other classes: "When y o u write this up, y o u can say h o w possessive a teacher can be of something" ( T / L C4.2 P r e / W , p. 13). F i n a l l y , two issues emerged from this theme that, w h i l e not directly related to the research questions, were related to Tina's reflection u p o n her practice.  Firstly, it seemed that L i n d a tended to isolate elements of her  practice i n ways that were unintentionally misleading for Tina. One w a y for L i n d a to 'survive' the complexity of teaching was to routinize activities.  In  her classroom, L i n d a set i n motion complex routines w i t h a single w o r d or a gesture of her hand; instructions were often i m p l i e d rather than stated.  It  seemed that information essential to the success of a particular routine or activity had become increasingly unspoken, even tacit.  Thus, w h e n L i n d a  attempted to explain some activities to Tina she had difficulty i n surfacing all the information related to the activities. This was occasionally the case w i t h complex co-operative learning activities that Tina tried to introduce to her classes.  Thus, w h e n L i n d a attempted to isolate elements of her practice,  particularly routines for Tina, she d i d so i n ways that occasionally were unintentionally misleading for Tina. The second related issue is that w h e n reflection d i d occur, it d i d not always immediately alter practice. There were instances w h e n both L i n d a and T i n a reflected u p o n their practices  (e.g., for T i n a , teaching, for L i n d a  supervision) but w i t h no immediately visible change to their practices. time and support  appear to be important  ingredients  for  Thus,  professional  development through reflection. Theme two - Expectations of p u p i l knowledge Tina began the practicum w i t h a preference for pupil-centred activities. She hoped that such activities w o u l d encourage her pupils to 'think about the work' rather than to just memorize it verbatim: Tina:  I don't want them to just give it back to me . . .  I didn't want  to just lecture because it [i.e., the work] is something that I cannot just say 'Read this and k n o w it.'  ( T / L C I . 2 P r e / S , p. 3)  T i n a tried to do this by i n t r o d u c i n g a number of co-operative  learning  strategies to her classes i n the first three weeks of the practicum. D u r i n g the full-class discussions that followed these sessions, Tina was surprised when, on several occasions, she was unable to elicit the information she anticipated from her pupils; especially, when she felt the material was relatively straight forward:  Tina:  It seems to me w h e n y o u read it [the material] that it is something that could be covered quite quickly. ( T / L C 1.7 Post, p.l)  She felt that the problem lay i n the pupils inability to draw the i n d i v i d u a l w o r k components into a coherent whole: Tina:  I feel right n o w that everything is really disjointed for them. ( T / L 1.7 Post, p. 2)  L i n d a framed the problem i n terms of Tina's background: Linda:  She doesn't think that there is a lot of substance i n those chapters, and ah, because she is where she is at, and she has got through biology for four years at university, the stuff that is i n the biology text is, for her I think, very introductory, very trivial. ( T / L C I . 8 P o s t / W , p. 1)  To overcome the disjointedness, Tina decided to provide the pupils w i t h more direction. This change created a d i l e m m a for Tina.  H o w was she to  maintain her initial commitment to 'active' p u p i l participation w h i l e at the same time d i r e c t i n g the p u p i l s l e a r n i n g through inherently 'passive.'  activities that  were  A n example of this tension occurred i n the second  teaching cycle. Tina asked her pupils to group a list of terms into categories of their o w n choice. The categories that they chose differed significantly from the categories that T i n a had anticipated.  Tina was then caught between  wanting to 'direct' their responses ('telling them h o w to do it') and w a n t i n g to elicit their responses: Tina:  I don't k n o w h o w to change it?  Categorizing the words; the  problem is that since they're supposed to categorize it I can't tell them h o w to do it.  ( T / L C2.3 P r e / S , p. 5, emphasis i n  original) A s a result of this d i l e m m a , Tina often let classroom discussions go w e l l beyond the time she had alloted in the hope that the pupils w o u l d eventually  p r o d u c e the correct answer(s).  Unfortunately, the a d d i t i o n a l time she  a l l o w e d for the discussions tended to aggravate rather than alleviate the problem: Tina:  [It was like] dragging, pulling teeth. It was just awful . . . That is what I was having problems with, short of telling them what I wanted I couldn't think of anything. ( T / L C2.7 Post, p. 1)  A s Tina contemplated these difficulties she began to frame the issue i n terms of the dominant teaching strategy she was using, i n this case co-operative learning: Tina:  Sometimes, I think that it might not be as w o n d e r f u l as the intent of the whole set up is supposed to be. ( T / L C3.8 P o s / S , p. 3)  Faced w i t h these concerns and the pressure of teaching senior high classes (i.e. 'getting through the content'), Tina felt the need to move towards a more teacher-centred emphasis: Tina:  I think it is necessary, really, really, necessary to get up there and just talk about it.' ( T / L C3.6 L e s / S , p. 7)  M o r e specifically, she felt a lecture component w o u l d be useful i n this regard: Tina:  I w o u l d like to do a little bit more of a lecture . . . they need someone else [other than their co-operative learning partners] to say 'This is this' and 'This is this.' ( T / L C3.8 P o s / S , p. 3)  After the third teaching cycle, Tina began to experiment w i t h lecture segments i n many of her lessons. H o w e v e r , she was still disappointed w i t h the pupils' responses i n discussion sessions that followed her lectures: Tina:  I don't k n o w if it is m y questions or if they don't k n o w what I am asking them, or what I want them to k n o w ? Les/S. p. 5)  ( T / L C4.6  Thus, T i n a found herself i n a situation s i m i l a r to that w h i c h she h a d encountered w i t h co-operative learning, the p u p i l s still seemed to have trouble i n arriving at the answer(s) she expected. A s Tina began to grapple w i t h this issue, she found an incident i n the fourth reflective teaching cycle to be particularly instructive i n this regard. Tina wanted to review the 'scientific method' w i t h her classes i n preparation for an assignment. She anticipated this w o u l d be relatively 'straight forward,' but this was not so. She soon discovered that the pupils k n o w l e d g e of the material fell well short of her expectations. A s Tina reflected o n this incident, she began to question her original framing of p u p i l knowledge, i.e., the need for more teacher-directed or teacher-centred instruction: Tina:  The thing is, if y o u get u p there and ask a question and y o u are not getting the response that y o u want, if y o u just tell them, do they understand? Because they haven't understood what I a m trying to ask them. So, if I just tell them the answer does that click? (C4.6 L e s / S , p. 11, emphasis i n original)  A s Tina questioned the effectiveness of the strategies she had used, she began to reframe the problem i n terms of her o w n personal k n o w l e d g e of scientific phenomena; knowledge that, for her, was relatively black a n d white: Tina:  It is just black and white. It is so simple just because that is what your w h o l e u n i v e r s i t y [experience] is based a r o u n d , especially i n science, and to them they have no idea. ( T / L C4.6 Les/S, p. 12)  This reframing brought a fundamental shift i n Tina's expectations of p u p i l knowledge. She began to differentiate between the conceptions that experts and novices hold about various scientific phenomena.  She further critiqued  her expectations of p u p i l k n o w l e d g e by n o t i n g that her assumption that scientific knowledge was relatively straight forward served o n l y to confuse rather than clarify various issues for her pupils:  Tina:  I thought about that afterwards . . I wouldn't be looking for the specific five [procedures] because that to them w o u l d be confusing. I w o u l d just say ' H o w do scientists work?' and then brain-storm and put them all d o w n and then try and get the order from them. ( T / L C4.6 L e s / S , p. 12, emphasis i n original)  W h a t was critical was that Tina had begun to see p u p i l k n o w l e d g e as being v a l i d i n its o w n right. She felt that her o w n advanced knowledge of science had blinkered her v i e w of alternative conceptions, and pre-empted a consideration  of responses  that fell  outside  the  narrow  d i c t u m s of  'university' science. Review of theme two - Expectations of p u p i l knowledge A t the beginning of the practicum, Tina opted for a teaching style that encouraged her pupils to be active participants i n their o w n learning.  This  approach was best characterized by Tina's extensive use of co-operative learning early i n the practicum. A s the practicum progressed, T i n a became increasingly concerned by the poor performance of her pupils i n both quizzes and classroom discussions w h i c h often followed her co-operative learning sessions.  T i n a framed the p r o b l e m i n terms of the d o m i n a n t teaching  strategy she was using (i.e., co-operative learning). She felt a need to p r o v i d e her  pupils with  more  teacher-centred  i n s t r u c t i o n to  improve  their  knowledge. A s a result, Tina introduced a number of small lecture segments into her classes. Despite the introduction of a more teacher-centred approach there was Uttle improvement i n the pupils' performance.  A s Tina reflected u p o n this,  she began to reframe the p r o b l e m not i n terms of teaching strategies but rather i n terms of an u n d e r l y i n g assumption that she had made about the w o r k , namely that it was relatively straight forward.  She realized that a  number of the scientific concepts w h i c h she considered to be "black a n d white" were indeed m u c h "fuzzier" to her pupils. Further, this assumption tended to confuse rather than clarify issues for the pupils. By problematizing her practice in this way, Tina noted that she needed to be more responsive to alternative conceptions pupils held about scientific phenomena.  Three factors emerged that seemed to enhanced Tina's reflection on p u p i l knowledge; the first, Tina's one-to-one interaction w i t h her p u p i l s . Tina's use of co-operative learning allowed her to interact regularly o n a oneto-one basis w i t h her pupils.  This interaction enabled her to tap into her  pupils' successes and difficulties i n qualitatively different ways than might have been the case u s i n g more traditional teaching methods.  T h i s was  particularly noticeable i n her early discussions o n teaching, for example: "I am burning that person, I don't k n o w h o w long it takes the average person to copy that d o w n , so, that is what I am really w o r r i e d about d o i n g that" ( T / L C I . 9 P o s t / S , p. 5). A s a result, her early critiques of her teaching i n c l u d e d concerns for both 'self and 'others.'  This p r o v i d e d different  perspectives  from w h i c h Tina could examine her practice. A second factor was the Science Methods courses that Tina took prior to her practicum (these were the same as Sally's).  O n several occasions, Tina  referred to these courses and the constructivist theory that was both presented and practiced w i t h i n these courses.  One instructor, Bruce, was particularly  influential i n this regard: "Bruce always throws out intriguing questions and then k i n d of sits there and waits for it; like he w i l l throw out a thoughtprovoker, and everybody is like ' O K , h m m m ' . . . and then everybody w o u l d start taking stabs at it left, right and centre" ( T / L C4.9 P o s / S , p. 4). She used this theory/practice association to critique her o w n practices and those of other teachers.  Examining links between theory and practice i n this w a y gave  T i n a a basis for investigating and reflecting u p o n the assumptions that underlay different approaches to teaching and learning; for example cooperative learning versus the more teacher-centred activities that she tried i n her classes. A third factor that enhanced Tina's reflection was the tendency for postlesson discussions to become pre-lesson discussions for future lessons. W h e n this occurred, Tina had the opportunity to draw upon her recent practice and conduct 'thought experiments' for future practice; a transition to from 'what has happened' to 'what might happen.'  In such instances, Tina's reflection  was enhanced because she began to develop plans to guide her future action. A  specific instance of this transition occurred d u r i n g the  post-lesson  discussion of the fourth cycle i n w h i c h Tina reflected on p u p i l k n o w l e d g e  (See A p p e n d i x B for an excerpt of this d i s c u s s i o n w h i c h includes the transition from 'what has happened' to 'what might happen'). One factor that appeared to constrain Tina's reflection u p o n her practice, was her early emphasis o n content knowledge.  For example, there were  times w h e n Tina presented L i n d a w i t h the content for the c o m i n g lesson bereft of the structure or manner i n w h i c h she hoped to teach it.  For  example, a comment from L i n d a d u r i n g the third cycle highlights this: "We are planning it together but I was hoping that she w o u l d have more on paper, or more thoughts than, just, 'Here is the content" ( T / L C3.3 P r e / W , p. 2). Tina's focus o n content (e.g., 'What to teach?') rather than u p o n broader pedagogic issues (e.g., ' H o w might I teach this?') constrained her inquiry into, and reflection upon, her teaching practice. Theme three - Q u e s t i o n i n g style A t the beginning of the practicum, Tina tried a number of approaches to p u p i l questioning.  After the first few weeks she became comfortable w i t h ,  what she called, a 'free atmosphere' approach to questioning.  She felt that  this was an effective questioning technique because she was able to elicit answers from the pupils; Tina:  One thing that 1 do notice, w h i c h I do all the time, is I don't wait for hands.  I don't ask for hands . . . The thing is that I  hear all these murmurings a l l over the place and because of that I can hear all the answers. ( T / L C2.6 L e s / S , p. 7) D u r i n g the second reflective teaching cycle, L i n d a raised two concerns about this approach; first, that often the p u p i l s m u m b l e d or muttered their responses; and second, it was easy for pupils to opt out of responding. L i n d a suggested that Tina consider a co-operative learning strategy, 'Think, Pair, Sharers- (TPS), followed by direct questioning to overcome these problems. In reply, Tina acknowledged that her p u p i l s m u m b l e d but argued that this  Pupils think to themselves about a topic, they then pair up with another student to discuss it, and they then share their thoughts with the class (Kagan, 1990).  was an important element of her free atmosphere  approach i n that it  p r o v i d e d a comfortable and safe environment for her pupils to respond: Tina:  Just the way I question them  ....  I don't m i n d them calling  out, I mean that is sort of like a free atmosphere i n the classroom.  They tend to m u m b l e more n o w and I hear it  more. Like, I ask a question and 'Blah, blah, blah,' and it comes out a little bit more. ( T / L C2.7 Post, p. 5) Linda questioning.  was  s u r p r i s e d that T i n a  preferred  this free  approach  to  She believed that the TPS approach w o u l d enhance not hinder  p u p i l participation: Linda:  It surprised me, what she said, that she likes general discussion . . .  Because I don't think 'general' discussions i n an open  forum really work if y o u don't give the kids a chance first of all to discuss their answer ' i n house' at their tables.  ( T / L C2.8  P o s t / W , p. 4) Furthermore, L i n d a felt that by allowing responses to be muttered, Tina was failing to acknowledge each pupil's response: Linda:  H e r perception of the classroom is that 'Yeah, they  are  responding to me and therefore I sort of filter out their answers and I hear some of their answers but I don't hear a l l the answers.' But that is not acknowledging that fact that a l l these answers should be heard by everyone else. ( T / L C2.8 P o s t / W , p. 6) D u r i n g the weeks that followed, Tina experimented w i t h a number of different approaches, i n c l u d i n g TPS. A s she d i d so a tension developed w i t h i n Tina between her preferred method and Linda's suggested method. Tina acknowledged that her free atmosphere approach was not perfect but felt that TPS was not necessarily the answer either:  Tina:  I k n o w I need a lot of work i n that area but I don't k n o w if I agree w i t h Linda's resolution of it . . . She says when y o u ask a question get them to talk about it [first].  But if y o u ask a  question and [then say] 'Talk i n your groups' they just look at each other and they don't say anything or they start talking about the weekend or something like that . . . and to me that is not a solution . . . . They get so used to the opportunity [to talk] they just sit there and yak and stuff like that. I don't find it very effective. ( T / L C4.6 L e s / S , p. 1) Tina also criticized her free atmosphere approach to questioning: Tina:  It is a concern w i t h me just because it is not always effective, I have some classes I w i l l go i n there, and the atmosphere of a l l the classes changes; one day everybody w i l l be w i t h y o u , and it w i l l be w o r k i n g really w e l l , and y o u can say 'general,' a n d people w i l l mutter and stuff like that. ( T / L C4.6 L e s / S , p. 2)  A s Tina explored the issue further, she noted that she h a d difficulty i n singling out i n d i v i d u a l pupils: Tina:  I have real qualms about singling someone out, y o u k n o w , ask a question and then go pick someone out . . . I don't want to pin point people, I don't want to ask for hands.  ( T / L C4.6  Les/S, p. 2) The issue of singling someone out led Tina to reframe the problem of p u p i l questioning not i n terms of its effectiveness from a teacher's perspective but in terms of its appropriateness from a pupils' perspective. She d i d this b y drawing upon her o w n experiences as a p u p i l : Tina:  Generally, I w o u l d only answer if I was absolutely sure, or if I was asked, but I w o u l d not just take a chance and put m y h a n d up.  Ever!  But I w o u l d say something, I w o u l d try it. I was  pretty quiet i n school, but I w o u l d maybe mutter it.  But I  w o u l d never sort of spit it out. ( T / L C4.6 L e s / S , p. 3, emphasis in original) A s T i n a r e - w o r k e d the issue she began to differentiate classroom  settings  in which  different  between  q u e s t i o n i n g approaches  were  appropriate; for example, she felt w h e n e x p l o r i n g a n e w topic muttered responses were appropriate but that singling someone out was not. Thus, Tina, by reflecting on her preference for a free atmosphere was able to make explicit her reasons for this preference. A s a result, she reframed the issue of p u p i l questioning i n terms of the appropriateness of the different approaches from a pupil's perspective as opposed to a teacher's perspective. She then used this distinction to identify situations i n w h i c h , for her, the different questioning approaches were appropriate (see Table 4). Table 4. Tina's differentiation between questioning approaches Classroom activity:  Questioning style: Muttered response  Singling out pupils  1.  When the questioning follows a teacher explanation session  •  •  2.  When the questioning follows a revision session  •  •  3.  Exploration of a topic using student input.  •  X  4.  Questioning in a junior high school class.  X  •  Note: • = Appropriate, X = Inappropriate  Review of theme three - Questioning style Teachers use many different approaches w h e n questioning pupils^^. Typically, they favour an approach w i t h w h i c h they are comfortable and is appropriate to the class they are teaching. In the early weeks of the practicum, T i n a favoured a free atmosphere approach to questioning.  With  free  atmosphere the pupils were not required to raise their hands nor were they singled out to respond; rather they were allowed to volunteer answers b y speaking or calling them out i n class.  !9  Tina framed her use of her free  See: Omstein, (1990), Strother, (1989), and Wilen (1984).  atmosphere  approach  i n terms of its effectiveness  from a  teacher's  perspective, that is i n terms of obtaining answers from the pupils. By the fifth week of the practicum, Tina's free atmosphere approach to questioning had become a feature of her practice. O n e characteristic of this approach that concerned L i n d a was the level of muttering that occurred w h e n p u p i l s responded to Tina's questioning.  Often, it appeared that p u p i l s  muttered their responses as if to test them i n the general melee of the class before committing themselves to a particular answer.  L i n d a suggested that  Tina might try a co-operative learning strategy called 'Think, Pair, and Share' to overcome the excessive muttering.  L i n d a felt that if the p u p i l s first aired  their ideas i n small group settings they might be less hesitant to commit themselves to a particular response i n large class settings.  Furthermore, Tina  could then direct questions to i n d i v i d u a l pupils, k n o w i n g that a l l pupils had tested their answers "in-house" before being asked to go public. This created a tension for Tina between her preference for a free atmosphere approach and the suggested TPS approach to questioning. For a number of weeks T i n a experimented w i t h both  approaches.  D u r i n g the fourth reflective teaching cycle, Tina r e v i e w e d her approach to p u p i l questioning. TPS made intuitive sense to Tina but she felt the p u p i l s d i d not take TPS seriously. Further, she felt that the problem w i t h the free atmosphere approach was that it d i d not draw everybody i n . A t this point, Tina reframed the issue of questioning not i n terms of the effectiveness of a p a r t i c u l a r strategy appropriateness  f r o m a teacher's perspective  from the p u p i l s ' perspective.  but  i n terms of its  T i n a d r e w o n her o w n  experiences as a p u p i l and noted that she often preferred to volunteer responses as opposed to being singled out.  A s she explored the issue from  this perspective, she began to categorize different questioning approaches as being suitable for different classroom activities. There were three factors w h i c h appeared to enhance Tina's reflection u p o n her questioning practices. The first was the use of video tape. A s i n the case of Sally, video tape p r o v i d e d Tina w i t h an additional perspective from w h i c h to view her practice: "I think that this has made me think more about  how I do things than I otherwise w o u l d " ( T / L C4.3 P r e / S , p. 8). This was the case w i t h different questioning strategies Tina used i n the classroom. The second factor was Tina's m a k i n g explicit her past experiences as a learner.  By d r a w i n g u p o n these experiences, T i n a was able to explore  alternative  frames  effectiveness  for the  dilemmas  she faced; for example,  versus p u p i l appropriateness.  teacher  Thus, m a k i n g explicit past  experiences as a learner enhanced Tina's reflection u p o n her practice. The third factor that enhanced Tina's reflection was m a k i n g explicit her o w n preferred learning style. A s Tina made explicit her o w n learning style she examined more closely the tensions she faced i n her classroom teaching. For example, w h i l e she f o u n d co-operative l e a r n i n g to be i n t u i t i v e l y appealing she also had some serious questions about its use i n the classroom. The following excerpt illuminates this aspect: Tina  W h e n I first came here, it was like, this co-operative learning is great because that is h o w I learn.  But I think that a lot of  these activities jump i n before the pupils have done the first couple of steps. A n d I don't think that is beneficial. I k n o w when I am studying for a test, i f it is coming up quick, like as on that day, and I am still trying to read over some notes, i f someone  starts t a l k i n g to me about the material, I get  completely frustrated.  A n d I get really uptight. A n d I can't do  it. I haven't gotten to that stage yet: 'Just let me read it now.' So, y o u have to be up to a certain point before y o u can actually do that and I think that a lot of these activities don't p l a n around kids getting to that certain point. ( T / L Turner Int II, p. 4) By m a k i n g explicit her o w n preferred learning style Tina's reflection upon her practice was enhanced. B e y o n d the factors  w h i c h enhanced  or constrained  reflection, an  additional factor emerged that, while not directly related to the three research questions, d i d influence Tina's reflection u p o n her practice.  That factor was  the professional development opportunity that the practicum p r o v i d e d for her sponsor teacher, L i n d a . There were many occasions w h e n L i n d a used the project as an opportunity to reflect on her o w n practice: "I guess because I have been d o i n g it for a long time, seven years, these things y o u take for granted, and it is k i n d of interesting that I could actually explain it like that because I have never h a d to explain it to myself" ( T / L C2.9 P o s / W , p. 1). Further, Linda's reflection often contributed to Tina's reflection; for example, Linda's i n q u i r y into her o w n use of T P S d u r i n g the pre- a n d post-lesson discussions enhanced  Tina's reflection both w i t h i n a n d b e y o n d  those  discussions.  Thus, w h i l e the p r i m a r y purpose of the practicum was Tina's  professional  d e v e l o p m e n t , it also p r o v i d e d professional  development  opportunities for Linda^o. Theme four - Off-task behaviour D u r i n g the first few weeks on p r a c t i c u m , T i n a experimented w i t h numerous co-operative learning activities that required the pupils to w o r k i n small groups.  For the most part, the p u p i l s w o r k e d w e l l but on several  occasions their concentration drifted to other topics (e.g., the party o n Saturday night!). D u r i n g the third reflective teaching cycle, the 'gossiping' of a particularly bright group of girls precipitated a discussion between Tina and L i n d a about off-task behaviour.  A s they e x p l o r e d the reasons for the  gossiping, Tina noted that often the pupils went off-task o n l y after they had made a reasonable attempt at the work. This created a d i l e m m a for T i n a i n that she wanted her pupils to understand the w o r k but recognized that she could not force an understanding.  Tina felt that s i m p l y telling the p u p i l s to  look at the page and 'think' was not be an effective solution: Tina:  I sort of took it, as 1 was w a l k i n g around, that they tried it, and that they didn't understand it, and therefore they are sort of flogging a dead horse and they're not going to keep going. A n d other kids were still trying to decipher some, but they said that they had tried it, I mean [pause], that's what I mean y o u can't force an understanding of it  . . .  I don't believe that y o u  I have argued elsewhere that it is also a professional development opportunity for faculty advisors (see Clarke, 1991).  shouldn't  try, but sometimes  I guess y o u can't force it  sometimes, y o u just can't force someone to look at a page and, you know, 'think.' ( T / L C3.8 P o s / S , p. 1) Throughout  the  remainder  of the  practicum, Tina  continued  to  experiment w i t h different strategies for maintaining p u p i l involvement i n the lesson. Still, there were occasions when different pupils went off-task, the frequency of w h i c h seemed to be no more or less than one w o u l d expect i n regular practica settings. It wasn't until after the practicum that Tina raised the issue of off-task behaviour again.  This occurred d u r i n g the post-practicum interview.  Tina  contrasted her views of off-task behaviour with those of Linda's views: Tina:  O n e t h i n g that I really have a p r o b l e m w i t h , i n fact two: Linda's style and m y own. She was having the students always on task  . . .  Myself, as a student, if I am on task 75% of the  time, that is a really good day. ( T / L Tina Int III, p. 5) A s Tina drew u p o n her o w n experiences as a p u p i l she began to reframe the issue of off-task behaviour from the pupils perspective rather than that of the teacher. She felt that there were large differences between the abilities and behaviours of different p u p i l s and that these needed to be recognized and accounted for b y the teacher.  Further, she felt that l e a r n i n g was  the  responsibility of the p u p i l not the teacher: Tina:  I mean I never had problems i n school, and I was never ragged on by teachers. M y friends that weren't doing as w e l l were told to get o n task, and study this and stuff. were fine I was left alone.  But since m y marks  I day dreamed, I talked, I fooled  around, I skipped class, and that is fine for certain people.  I  mean people here at U B C are not the n o r m because we have been told and told and told, even though it is k i n d of hard to see yourself as not the norm, but I think that goes for a lot of people - give them the responsibility. The more responsibility  you have the more y o u w i l l want to have; w o r k w i t h it. ( T / L Tina L i t in, p. 5, emphasis in original) Tina argued that there was likely to be a variety of reasons for pupils going off-task and that it was quite possible for the teacher to be unaware of all the reasons. Thus, it was important for a teacher to recognize that his or her lesson was but a single event amongst many i n the day-to-day lives of the pupils; therefore, to expect 100% on-task behaviour i n any single lesson was unrealistic: Tina:  I don't believe i n a student being on task 100% of the time i n any classroom. I just don't believe it is possible at all. They are going to have off days. They are not going to be there a lot of the times i n the mornings at 8.30! I just don't believe that it is real life. ( T / L Tina Int 111, p. 5)  T i n a then noted that there was a considerable difference between a learning  environment  in  which  pupil  learning  was  the  teacher's  responsibility as opposed to one i n which it was the pupil's responsibility: Tina:  I think if y o u go at it for an idea, thinking that they have to be on-task a l l of the time, a student is not going to want to be i n your classroom. They are going to have those days when they are just feeling sick, they might be getting a cold or something. A n d if y o u force them to do things that they don't want to do, all the time, I mean there are some things that they have to learn, but it is not going to be a very nice atmosphere to be i n , I think.  A n d like doing things, project-wise and scope-theme  sort of idea they work at it at their o w n pace. They can w o r k hard one day, and they can have a slower day.  I think that  w o u l d be a nicer way to go about it. ( T / L Tina Int III, p.9) Thus, Tina resolved the tension between wanting p u p i l s to understand and not being able to force an understanding by arguing that responsibility for learning resides p r i m a r i l y w i t h the pupils. Further, an appreciation of offtask behaviour from the pupils' perspective enabled Tina to outline briefly a  classroom setting w h i c h w o u l d be sensitive to the needs of the p u p i l and also conducive to p u p i l learning. Review of theme four - Off-task behaviour Tina was interested i n , and experimented w i t h , a variety of co-operative learning activities (e.g.. Jig-saw, T P S , and R o u n d Table).  Each of these  activities required the pupils to work i n small groups. D u r i n g the second and third reflective teaching cycles, both Tina and L i n d a noted incidents of offtask behaviour d u r i n g these activities. Often this behaviour was manifested i n the form of talking or gossiping. A s Tina reviewed these incidents she noted that the p u p i l s went off-task only after they h a d made a reasonable attempt at the w o r k that had been set.  Tina reflected on the pupils' off-task  behaviour i n terms of her o w n teaching practice, that is, what could she do to ensure that groups remained on-task.  B e y o n d asking the p u p i l s to keep  trying she felt she could not compel someone to look at a page and 'think.' A s Tina framed the problem i n these terms, she recognized the d i l e m m a she faced; on the one hand, wanting the pupils to understand but, on the other hand, not being able to force an understanding. There were further incidents of off-task behaviour d u r i n g the fourth and fifth reflective teaching cycles. After the practicum, Tina began to reframe the p r o b l e m from a p u p i l ' s perspective.  She felt that l e a r n i n g was  the  responsibility of the p u p i l not the teacher. She reframed the issue by d r a w i n g upon her o w n experiences as a p u p i l , noting that there were many factors that affected her level of involvement i n a class and that it was unreasonable to expect any p u p i l to be '100% on-task all of the time.' F i n a l l y , there were no n e w factors  i d e n t i f i e d i n this theme that  enhanced, constrained, or were related to Tina's reflection u p o n her practice. in. Summary Table 5 provides an overview of the four reflective themes i n the case of Tina.  The table also provides a summary of the factors w h i c h enhanced or  constrained reflection, and related issues.  Table 5. Summary of results for the Case of Tir\a  Research Questions One and Two  Research Question Three  Theme  Precipitated by:  Framed in terms of:  Reframed in terms of:  Plan for future action:  Ownership of one's practice  Frush-ation at the 'overkill' on co-operative learning  Being a clone of Linda's  Jumping through hoops  To develop a personal philosophy on teaching  Expectations Surprise at of pupil what Tina knowledge thought the 7upi s would enow with what she was able to elicit  The need for a more teachercentred approach to classroom instruction  Her assumption that the work was relatively straight forward  To 'look for more' in a pupil's answer than that governed by 'university' science  Questioning Conflict style between 'free atmosphere' versus TPS approach  Effectiveness from a teacher's perspective  Appropriateness from a pupil's perspective  To match questioning practices to classroom activities  Off-task behaviour  Not being Learning as able to the pupils' force an responsibility understanding  Contrast between Tina and Linda's view of offtask behaviour  To be sensitive to the pupil's needs within and beyond the classroom  Related Issues  Factors which enhance (E) or constrain (C) reflection: A student network (E) Sharing of common interests between Tina and Linda (E) Linda's reflection upon her role of sponsor(E) Tina's emphasis on problem solving (C) Linda's possessiveness of certain classes (C)  Linda isolated elements of her practice that may have been unintentionally misleading for Tina Reflection does not always immediately alter practice  •Tina's one-to-one interaction with pupils (E) • Science methods courses linking theory to practice (E) • Merging of post- and prelesson discussions (E) • Tina's content emphasis (C) The use of videotape (E) Tina making explicit past experiences (E) Tina making explicit her own learning style (E)  The practicum as professional development for Linda.  CHAPTER 7 The Case of Steve The structure of this chapter is identical to the two previous chapters; it begins w i t h a theme m a p , an explication of the themes follows, and it concludes with a summary table of the salient points. The reader is reminded that the factors w h i c h enhance or constrain reflection, and the related issues, are noted only on the first occurrence, and are not repeated if they appear i n subsequent themes. I. Introduction The third case study is based u p o n the practicum experiences of Steve. Steve graduated w i t h a B.Sc. i n Biochemistry a n d w o r k e d for eighteen months i n a commercial laboratory before entering the teacher education p r o g r a m at U B C .  Steve's sponsor teacher. Cliff, has advanced degrees i n  B i o l o g y and C h e m i s t r y and h a d taught and conducted research at the university level prior to taking his degree i n education at U B C . H e was i n his third year of teaching i n a large suburban h i g h school i n Vancouver. school has a reputation for being ' a c a d e m i c '  The  Cliff had supervised one  student prior to Steve. II. Analysis T w o reflective themes were identified i n this case study: elicitation as a dominant classroom practice; and the ownership of one's practice. Figure 7 illustrates the duration of these themes across the five reflective teaching cycles. Theme one - Elicitation as a dominant classroom practice In this theme Steve reflects on his use of elicitation, first framing it i n terms of its utilitarian value i n encouraging pupils to w o r k and then later reframing it for i n terms of it pedagogical value i n h e l p i n g p u p i l s to understand concepts. This shift was precipitated by Steve's curiosity about the pupils' ability to 'intuit' information rather than being told information.  Reflective themes  Reflective teaching cycles Cycle 1  1. Elicitation  Cycle 2  Cycle 3  Cycle 5  •  •  1-1  5.3  2. Ownership  Note:  Cycle 4  •  •  4.1  5.9  The numbers on the time lines refer to the first and final transcript excerpts used to identify a particular theme. For example '3.7 identifies the seventh tape of the third cycle, and 'III' identifies the third tape of the additional intervievy^s.J  Figure 7. The case of Steve: Reflective theme map  The lesson of the first reflective teaching cycle dealt w i t h solutes and solvents. In the pre-lesson discussion, Steve indicated that he was g o i n g to begin the lesson by w r i t i n g a number of items on the board and asking the pupils about the common properties of each. W h e n asked by Cliff as to h o w he was going get the p u p i l s to 'think' about the properties, Steve indicated that he was going to set it as a question, and then w a l k around the class to ensure that all pupils were participating: Steve:  A s m y i n t r o d u c t i o n , I was just g o i n g to p u t a list o n the overhead or o n the board and just have them think what a l l these things have i n common: salt water, air, brass, pop, glass, etc.  Cliff:  Right.  N o w , h o w are y o u going to get them to think about  that? Steve:  O K , what I w i l l ask them to do [pauses].  I w i l l put it on the  board as a question and have them answer it, write it d o w n i n their books. W a l k around.  I found w i t h m y other classes if I  don't walk around they don't do it. Cliff:  H o w long are y o u going to give them for it?  Steve:  A couple of minutes.  Cliff:  To write something d o w n and then w h e n y o u get responses are y o u g o i n g to put all the responses d o w n or just [pause]? What is going to happen?  Steve:  I w i l l sort of see where it goes, if I get the right answer right away, 1 might go and on and ask someone else and say ' O K , that is so-and-so's o p i n i o n what do y o u think?'  They w i l l  probably say the same thing. ( S / C C l . l Pre, p. 2) Cliff suggested that Steve might consider exploring all the answers that the pupils offered, and not only the 'right' answers: Cliff:  It depends on h o w y o u want to go. It could be that y o u start putting all of the responses d o w n , and then discuss them.  Steve:  OK.  Cliff:  [For example:] 'What do y o u think about this?' 'Do y o u think that this is a good answer?' O K ? I don't k n o w . But that's an idea. ( S / C C l . l Pre, p .2)  A s Steve watched the above pre-lesson conversation o n the v i d e o , he indicated that he appreciated Cliff's input and that ehcitation was preferable to the more direct approach that Steve had initially intended to use: Steve:  That was sort of an alternative.  It was k i n d of a g o o d  suggestion that Cliff made. A n d a different strategy using the same sort of procedure; using the list from the introduction. Instead of just l o o k i n g for the right answer, sort of p u t t i n g them all d o w n and going back and discussing the merits of each one. ( S / C C1.2 P r e / S , p. 3) A s Steve gave further thought to Cliff's suggestion, he framed elicitation i n terms of its utility for 'encouraging the pupils to participate': Steve:  I think that it is good for the kids, instead of them putting forward an answer and then y o u saying 'That is w r o n g ' and then going to someone else, accept all the answers and then we w i l l discuss everyone[s' answers]. It sort of encourages them to participate. ( S / C C1.2 P r e / S , p. 3)  After the lesson, both Steve and Cliff felt that Steve's use of elicitation i n the lesson was successful. A s Steve watched the lesson, he began to reframe his original notion of elicitation i n more substantive terms. H e indicated that it was an alternative to teacher-centred instruction i n that it u t i l i z e d the knowledge that pupils brought to the classroom setting: Steve:  I suppose that it is better doing it this w a y than saying 'This is a definition of a solution' and g i v i n g it to them.  Tony:  Why?  Steve:  W e l l , instead of them just copying d o w n notes straight off the board, I think that this gets them thinking a bit more. U s i n g all the examples helps them visualize the concept.  Tony:  O K . Was this what y o u intended to do?  Steve:  Yeah, I think that it is more effective to use questioning and answering techniques to get information out of the students, instead of m a k i n g them write it out, me coming w i t h 20 pages of notes prepared and just fire them on the board. ( S / C C I . 6 Les/S, p. 4)  A similar incident occurred i n the second reflective teaching cycle.  The  objective of the lesson was to introduce a formula for determining d i l u t i o n factors. In the pre-lesson discussion, Steve indicated that he was going to use direct instruction to begin the lesson: "I was going to show them h o w it is used" ( S / C C2.1 Pre, p. 1). In the conversation that followed. Cliff wondered aloud if the students might be able to intuit the formula for themselves: Cliff:  I was thinking about it myself because I am getting close to that as well. M y lesson w i l l be somewhat similar to yours . . .  are  you going to try and get that out of them or are y o u just going to tell them straight away? Do y o u think that they w i l l be able to come up w i t h that themselves? Steve:  I doubt it. I am not sure h o w I w o u l d go about getting it out of them?  Cliff:  N o , I think that y o u are probably right. N o , no, I am not sure. It was just something that 1 thought that I could mention. ( S / C C2.1 Pre, p. 1)  A s Steve watched this conversation on the video he noted the usefulness of Cliff's suggestion: Steve:  This was an interesting thing that I really hadn't  thought  about. Cliff was saying 'Do you think that y o u could try and get them, using questioning, to probe, and to get them to come up w i t h it.' Tony:  W i t h what?  Steve:  The formula for using d i l u t i o n factors, instead of just saying 'This is h o w y o u do it, this is the formula.' Y o u k n o w , initial volume over final volume?  Tony:  O K . A n d is that what he was searching for i n that example?  Steve:  M h h , hmm.  A n d I might try it n o w that he has said that, I  might give it a try and sort of see what happens.  ( S / C C2.2  Pre/S, p. 2) A n d later, Steve expanded o n his earlier reframing by noting that not o n l y was elicitation an alternative to direct instruction but that it was more effective than direct instruction i n helping pupils to 'understand' concepts: Steve:  If it can be done, that is probably the best w a y to do it because it sort of helps them along the sequential thought process of getting them to the final conclusion; to the final answer that you are looking for. Instead of just coming flat out and saying, this is the case, and then they say 'Why?'  I think that if y o u  can develop it, it is probably more effective for the students to understand the concept. ( S / C C2.2 P r e / S , p. 3) A s i n the first cycle, both Cliff and Steve felt that Steve's use of elicitation was a success.  Cliff, w h o was teaching a Chemistry 11 class i n parallel to  Steve, suggested that Steve was more successful than he was i n eliciting p u p i l responses for the same lesson: Cliff:  H e wasn't even sure that he wanted to do it. H e didn't think that he could do it.  Tony:  This technique?  Cliff :  Right. H e thought that it was too difficult.  Tony:  The technique that y o u suggested to him?  Cliff:  Yes. A n d he has done it better than I d i d . I didn't do it as well as he d i d .  Tony:  What were the good parts about this particular [technique]?  Clive:  H e is g i v i n g them examples. H e is leading them. It is purely inductive and I didn't.  I just d i d one example a n d I didn't  b u i l d it up like this w i t h a half, one quarter, one tenth.  That  was really better. That was a b i g improvement o n what I d i d . ( S / C C 2 . 6 L e s / C , p . 5) Steve's transition from a teacher-centred approach to a student-centred approach was not without its difficulties.  Four aspects of this approach were  particularly problematic for Steve; three he noted d u r i n g the first cycle, and the fourth d u r i n g the second cycle. Each aspect is identified and illustrated w i t h an example: 1) Being able to ask 'pivotal' questions: Steve:  I was really struggling for the right question there.  I sort  of got off track a bit. I was digging for solute and solvent. Tony:  From the students?  Steve:  Yeah.  A n d the questions that I gave d i d n ' t get me  anywhere  . . . The looks that I got from their faces were  like 'What?' ( S / C CI.6 L e s / S , p. 4) 2) H a v i n g enough time to elicit p u p i l responses: Steve:  It only took me ten minutes to get to it [laughs] . . . Y o u could cover so m u c h material i n an hour, just b y reading off y o u r overheads and just h a v i n g them c o p y them down.  Tony:  A n d this has taken 10 minutes to get a r o u n d to a definition of a 'solution'?  Steve:  W e have talked for ages! ( S / C C1.6 L e s / S , p. 4)  3) The pupils' resistance to elicitation strategies: Steve:  W e l l , a lot of times that is all that y o u want to do, is to copy d o w n the notes, y o u don't want to have to answer the question.  Y o u want the teacher to give y o u the  answer. ( S / C C1.6 L e s / S , p. 4) 4) The unpredictability of the outcome: Steve:  Especially not k n o w i n g what is going to happen or h o w it is going to come out . . .  It is hard, for me anyway, to sort  of predict everything that is going to happen.  A l l the  different possibiHties. ( S / C C2.9 Pos/S, p. 1) Steve's explication of these difficulties  further  i n d i c a t e d that he  was  beginning to view elicitation i n substantively different ways to the utilitarian v i e w he articulated i n the first reflective teaching cycle. The lesson of the third cycle was a lab and, other than Steve's interaction w i t h the small groups, it d i d not p r o v i d e Steve w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y to experiment further w i t h elicitation.  The fourth reflective cycle saw a  temporary halt to Steve's use of elicitation as he adopted the safety and logic of a more transmissive teaching style for introducing a new unit of w o r k (see the second reflective theme).  In the fifth reflective cycle, Steve's returned to  the use of elicitation as a d o m i n a n t classroom practice. provided  evidence of Steve's  The cycle also  c o n t i n u e d r e f r a m i n g of e l i c i t a t i o n  substantive rather than utilitarian terms.  in  For example, earlier Steve h a d  indicated that a difficulty he had w i t h elicitation was the unpredictability of the pupils' responses.  N o w , he felt that unpredictability was an important  element of this particular approach to classroom teaching: Steve:  I am not really sure what is g o i n g to happen there [in the lesson].  Um.  If it doesn't come off that is fine.  I am just  curious as to what is going on i n their heads. W e have talked about two different types or organisms. One is sponges that  don't have any nerve tissue. N o w h y d r a have nerves and we are sort of b u i l d i n g on that. I just want to see if they have any sort of guesses as to what their ideas might be as to the next step. To just see what happens. ( S / C C5.3 P r e / S , p. 1)) Steve's shift from  a u t i l i t a r i a n to a substantive  elicitation had a considerable impact u p o n his practice.  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of Indeed, elicitation  became a dominant classroom strategy for Steve. H i s reflection o n elicitation resulted i n a cascade effect o n other aspects of his practice.  The second  reflective theme traces one of these effects. Review of theme one - Elicitation Typically, the nature of the initial concerns of b e g i n n i n g teachers, are m o r e u t i l i t a r i a n than substantive.  F o r example, the management  of  classrooms takes precedence over the management of discourse w i t h i n those classrooms.  A s a result, suggestions for i m p r o v i n g practice are v a l u e d  initially for their utility and only later appreciated for the contribution they make to p u p i l learning. This was the case w i t h Steve's use of elicitation. H e initially framed elicitation i n terms of its utility for encouraging the pupils to w o r k and later reframed it i n term of its substantive pedagogic advantages compared w i t h more utilitarian advantages.  This shift was precipitated b y  Steve's curiosity i n the ability of the pupils to intuit the chemical formulae; a idea that was suggested by Cliff. T w o factors emerged from this case that appeared to enhance Steve's reflection on elicitation.  The first was his use of 'negative cases' to make  explicit the ' u n k n o w n ' or unfamiliar.  It was often difficult for Steve to  describe situations, or to frame practices, that appeared to be at a formative stage i n his o w n mind. W h e n Steve attempted to describe n e w or unfamiliar situations, it was easier for h i m to say 'what it was not like' b y d r a w i n g on what he already 'knew.'  For example, i n this theme, Steve was able to  describe what he had hoped to achieve through elicitation by first framing it i n terms of what he felt he was unable to achieve through direct instruction. Thus, through the use of the negative case, Steve framed a n d reframed his notion of elicitation.  A second factor was Cliff's reflection o n his o w n supervisory practices. After r e v i e w i n g the pre- and post-lesson discussions. C l i f f changed his supervisory practices from 'reporting on' to 'inquiring about' Steve's practice. In a critique of his supervisory practices, he noted: "It is just me spouting off; lecturing, right! A n d really it w o u l d be good to get h i m i n v o l v e d and for me to see if he really does agree w i t h it, and to elicit some responses from h i m " ( S / C C2.8 P o s / C , p. 3). A s a result of this reflection. Cliff invited Steve to actively involve himself i n , and to set his o w n agenda for, the discussions that preceded and followed his lessons. There were two factors that constrained Steve's reflection on his practice, and i n particular u p o n elicitation. The first was Steve's unfamiliarity w i t h the content.  The less f a m i l i a r Steve was w i t h the content  'transmissive' his teaching became.  the  more  A s Steve gained confidence w i t h the  content he began to consider other aspects of his teaching as it related to p u p i l learning: "I am really trying to w o r k on diversity i n the class instead of just standing there and talking; lecturing . . .  I think that is going to take a fair  while to get to that stage where I feel comfortable w i t h the material so that I can just start playing w i t h it" ( S / C Steve Int n, p. 7). It was clear that Steve's concern for content constrained his reflection on elicitation. The second factor that appeared to constrain Steve's reflection about eUcitation was Cliff's initial conceptualization of his role as sponsor teacher. Cliff's conception was based, i n part, upon his o w n practica experiences.  For  example. Cliff's faculty advisor d i d not debrief Cliff at the end of a classroom observation.  Rather, the advisor spoke directly to Cliff's sponsor teacher,  who, i n turn relayed to Cliff the improvements his advisor suggested.  A t the  beginning of the practicum. Cliff anticipated that I, as Steve's faculty advisor, w o u l d play a similar role. W h e n this didn't occur. Cliff re-conceptualized his role as sponsor and deliberately sought to be an active inquirer into Steve's practice. Three other issues related to reflection, but not directly to the research questions, emerged from this theme. reflective themes.  The first was the issue of identifying  It w o u l d be incorrect to assume that because o n l y two  themes were identified in this case that Steve was less reflective than the  three other students i n this study^i.  Steve, unlike the other participants,  tended to 'think before he spoke.' Thus, he w o u l d often articulate a plan for future action without verbalising the intermediate steps taken i n the process of a r r i v i n g at that plan. This made it difficult to identify the various frames he m a y have brought to bear as he reflected o n the problems he encountered in the practice setting. Thus, when students 'think aloud' (as was the case for Sally, Tina, and Jona) it is easier to identify reflection i n terms of Schon's four components. A second issue that arose was that reflection, when it d i d occur, d i d not immediately alter Steve's practice. There were instances i n this theme where both Cliff and Steve reflected u p o n their practices w i t h no immediate change to their practices (e.g., Steve's reflection o n elicitation, and Cliff's reflection o n his supervisory practices).  Thus, time and continual support are important  ingredients for professional development through reflection. The final issue that emerged from this theme was the combination of specialist/non-specialist supervision that enriched the pre- a n d post-lesson discussions that occurred between the Cliff a n d Steve.  Cliff's  subject  specializations were Biology and Chemistry. M y o w n specializations were p h y s i c a l education, mathematics,  a n d computer  science.  When  Cliff  examined elements of Steve's practice d u r i n g the stimulated recall sessions, he often h a d to 'make explicit' the connections he was m a k i n g between content a n d pedagogy that eluded me as a non-specialist supervisor.  Asa  result. Cliff often pursued these connections w i t h Steve d u r i n g the pre- a n d post-lesson  discussions.  The c o m b i n a t i o n of s p e c i a l i s t / n o n - s p e c i a l i s t  supervision enhanced the dialogue amongst the three of us. Theme two - O w n e r s h i p of one's practice The second theme traces Steve's reflection u p o n the ownership of his practice.  H e initially framed his practice i n terms of t w o influences: his  sponsor teacher's practice, and his o w n experiences as a p u p i l i n traditional classroom settings.  A s a result, Steve identified with, and incorporated into  his o w n practice, elements of his sponsor teacher's practice that resonated There were four themes for Sally, four themes for Tina, and five themes for Jona.  most strongly w i t h his o w n p r i o r experiences as a p u p i l .  Later i n the  practicum, Steve began to contrast the similarities and differences among his developing practice w i t h these two influences.  The variance between his  practice and these influences precipitated a reframing of his o w n teaching i n terms of ownership for his o w n practice. In the lesson of the first reflective teaching cycle there were m a n y similarities between Steve's teaching and Cliff's teaching.  Steve noted this  towards the end of the first cycle: Steve:  There are some parallels, some consistencies, there is not an abrupt change. ( S / C C1.8 P o s / S , p. 4)  Similarities between their teaching practices were also evident d u r i n g the second teaching cycle. In the third teaching cycle there was evidence that Steve was beginning to experiment more w i t h his o w n ideas. H i s lesson plan indicated a g r o w i n g confidence to select and experiment w i t h a range of different activities for use i n the classroom. Cliff recognized this shift: Cliff:  I sense n o w that he is not just accepting everything I say. ( S / C C3.6 L e s / C , p. 4)  The fourth reflective teaching cycle was a watershed  for  Steve's  increasing ownership of his practice. H e was faced w i t h h a v i n g to define his practice either i n terms of the accumulated w i s d o m of his sponsor teacher, the influences of his past experiences, or the personal knowledge that he had begun to construct for himself about teaching. T h e lesson of the fourth reflective teaching cycle was to be introductory chemistry class on 'Acids and Bases.'  an  Steve's lesson p l a n was  d i v i d e d into four segments: A.  Demonstration using three colourless liquids.  B.  Elicitation of common acids and bases.  C.  Listing of the characteristics of acids and bases.  D.  Seat w o r k i n w h i c h the pupils were to construct their o w n table of acids and bases.  Steve intended to draw u p o n the pupils' knowledge from the previous unit to introduce the topic. H e wanted to begin w i t h a demonstration and, from  that, elicit the  p u p i l s ideas  about  acid/base  chemistry.  The  demonstration i n v o l v e d three colourless Uquids - an acid, a base, a n d an indicator: Steve:  I won't introduce it as 'Today we are going to start A c i d and Bases.' . . . w h i c h might lead them to saying ' O h , w e l l one is an acid and one is a base.' . . .  I w i l l just sort of say 'I have two  solutions here.' ( S / C C4.1 Pre, p. 1) C l i f f w o r r i e d that the demonstration w o u l d mislead the p u p i l s into equating colour change w i t h an acid/base reaction and suggested that Steve reverse the order of the first three segments (i.e., to C , B, A ) . F o l l o w i n g the pre-lesson discussion, Steve opted for re-ordering the segments as suggested by Cliff.  A s Steve spoke about his decision to jettison his o r i g i n a l p l a n , he  framed his practice i n terms of two influences: (a) his sponsor teacher's practice, and (b) the safety of traditional, and pedagogically sound, classroom practices: Steve:  The plan n o w has changed a bit at this point. M y introduction, which I though might work, I was trying to use inductive to try and get the answers out of the class, instead of just saying 'This is A , this is B, this is C , I was trying to draw it out of them.  Tony:  M h h , hmm.  Steve:  After looking back on it now, w i t h Cliff's input, it looks like it wouldn't really work. N o w that I have been thinking about it a little longer it probably w o u l d n ' t w o r k as w e l l as I h a d planned.  Tony:  Really?  Steve:  Yeah.  It is just a different approach.  Instead, Cliff seems to  think that it is better to say 'Look this is what w e are talking about' and go right into it, instead of trying to induce it out of  them or d r a w it from them.  I can see where he is sort of  coming from. Tony:  So, what are y o u going to do?  Steve:  U m , I think that I might do it the changed w a y , it is probably the safest way to do it, to get the stuff across, instead of trying to draw it from them. ( S / C C4.2 P r e / S , p. 1)  Later, Steve commented u p o n the 'logic' and 'safety' of this alternative approach to his lesson: Steve:  It seems more logical. Probably a little safer too, I think.  Tony:  In what regards?  Steve:  W h e n y o u are presenting the information firsthand instead of trying to [pause], like if y o u are trying to d r a w it out of them and they are not getting it, y o u are probably are going to end up having to give it to them anyway.  Tony:  This way y o u do what?  Steve:  Y o u give it to them first and then they can think about it, and then y o u pose them w i t h a problem based u p o n the knowledge that y o u have reviewed w i t h them. ( S / C C4.2 P r e / S , p. 4)  The notion of g i v i n g it to them (i.e., knowledge), letting them think about it, a n d then setting the p u p i l s a p r o b l e m is predicated u p o n a notion that learning is largely a transmissive act; a characteristic of 'traditional' lecture environments22. A second incident d u r i n g the same discussion also demonstrated Steve's readiness to abandon his o w n ideas.  For the seat-work segment, Steve  wanted the students to construct a table based upon an example given i n the textbook. Cliff worried that Steve was m o v i n g beyond what was required i n the Grade 11 curriculum and suggested that, rather than m a k i n g u p a n e w exercise for the pupils, Steve s h o u l d use the questions at the e n d of the chapter:  See the first reflective theme for a discussion of Steve's thoughts on a lecture approach versus an elicitation approach to teaching.  Steve:  I thought about giving them a series of acids to name, to come up w i t h the formula. One w a y or another, like pure acids and hypo-acids and stuff. There is a table i n there.  Cliff:  [Cliff checks the questions at the end of the chapter] O h . This is O K . N o . Those are fine. Those review and practices are fine. N u m b e r 1 is O K . Right?  Steve:  Right.  Cliff:  N u m b e r 2 is O K . Right? I mean they have got to k n o w that. Right? . . . N u m b e r 3, y o u tell them not to do because w e are not going to use those definitions . . .  But they can then do 5,  6,7, and 8. ( S / C C4.1 Pre, p. 5) In the stimulated recall session, Steve indicated that he h a d p r e v i o u s l y judged the questions at the end of the chapter to be inappropriate but decided to follow Cliff's advice: Steve:  [The video shows Cliff l o o k i n g through the text book]  H e is  l o o k i n g for an activity, some questions to do at the end.  I  looked and I thought some of them were k i n d of stupid but I have changed m y m i n d now. Tony:  W h y have y o u changed your mind?  Steve:  W e l l , I think that it is important to give them sort of some seat work to do i n the class, i n the last 10 or 15 minutes of the class or whatever.  Just to give them a break.  T o give me a break.  So, I have decided to give them some questions anyway. Tony:  O u t of their text book?  Steve:  M h h , h m m . ( S / C C4.2 P r e / S , p. 4)  This second incident is identical to the first incident i n that it was counter to Steve's initial intentions and Steve abandoned his o w n ideas for those of his sponsor teacher.  Despite this, at the end of the cycle, Steve noted  that he felt his practice was significantly different to that of Cliff's practice: Steve:  I don't see very many parallels between Cliff and myself as far as teaching practices. ( S / C C4.9 P o s / S , p. 4)  A l t h o u g h Steve d i d not explore the implications of this statement d u r i n g the fourth cycle, his perceived difference between their styles is p a r t i c u l a r l y interesting i n the light of an incident i n the fifth cycle. The lesson i n the fifth 'Evolutionary  Changes  in  cycle was a G r a d e 11 B i o l o g y ; the topic, Animals'  (Invertebrate  Zoology  -  C.  Platyhelminthes). Steve had divided the lesson into three segments. A . A n elicitation of pupils ideas. B. A n examination of a specific case. C. A simple lab. Similar to fourth reflective teaching cycle, Steve was keen to begin the lesson w i t h an elicitation segment: "I came up w i t h this question 'What do y o u think?' to see what they think" ( S / C C5.3 P r e / S , p. 1). By relinquishing direct control of the classroom discourse, Steve realized that the outcome was somewhat unpredictable: "I am not sure what is going to happen there. U m , if it doesn't come off that is fine" ( S / C C5.3 P r e / S , p. 1)23. Steve's willingness to take this risk, one w h i c h he had tentatively planned but decided against i n the fourth cycle, was indicative of an increased confidence i n his o w n practice: "I feel sort of more confident now, I have sort of progressed to a point where it is like 'I am going to do this" ( S / C C5.3, P r e / S , p. 3). F o l l o w i n g the pre-lesson discussion. Cliff noted that he was deliberately letting Steve teach the lesson as planned, although it was at variance w i t h the way Cliff w o u l d have taught it: "I am letting h i m go w i t h this. A g a i n he is doing it differently" ( S / C C5.2 P r e / C , p. 4). The nature of this difference was not discussed, but an aspect of this difference became apparent later i n the cycle. D u r i n g the course of the fifth cycle, Steve was i n v o l v e d i n a field trip and was unable to teach one of his two Biology 11 classes.  Cliff offered to  This was building upon Steve's use of elicitation as a dominant classroom strategy. the first reflective theme).  (See  'cover' the second class i n Steve's absence.  To ensure that the t w o classes  remained 'on par/ Cliff used Steve's lesson plan for the dass^^. Later, as Cliff watched video tape of Steve teaching the first class he suddenly realized that he (i.e.. Cliff) h a d unconsciously rearranged  the order of the first t w o  segments: Cliff:  O h , n o w isn't that strange, I just noticed something.  They  copied d o w n the notes and then he showed them the diagram. A n d that is a good w a y to introduce the lab but I d i d the other way around.  I showed them the diagram and then the notes.  That is all. That is what I d i d because I just d i d it his lesson, right. A n d I thought I d i d his lesson. But I didn't. I started off with a diagram first and then d i d the notes. ( S / C C5.5 L e s / C , p. 6) W h e n Cliff asked Steve about the ordering of the segments, Steve replied that the order was unimportant: Cliff:  I don't k n o w whether it was d o w n on your lesson plan or not, I showed the overhead first, and then d i d the notes. D i d I do it wrong?  Steve:  I don't think so.  Cliff:  OK.  Steve:  I don't think it really matters.  Cliff:  O h . O K . A l l right. I just thought, the reason that I d i d it that way was because it was nice for them to see it before they write about it. I didn't do it deliberately, I just d i d it. A n d then when I saw the tape, 1 said 'Whoa, he is getting to show the diagram now, and when I d i d his lesson I d i d it before.'  Steve:  I don't think that it matters that much. ( S / C C5.7 Post, p. 2)  Steve's reaction here is reminiscent of the fourth teaching cycle i n w h i c h he dismissed the ordering of the segments as being relatively unimportant to  It is common practice for a teacher who is absent on an excursion to leave the lesson plan for the 'substitute' teacher to follow.  his lesson.  Later, d u r i n g Steve's stimulated recall of the above discussion  w i t h Cliff, it became apparent that, contrary to Steve's comments on the tape, Steve felt that his original ordering of the segments was important.  A s he  explained this, Steve demonstrated an increasing sense of ownership for his practice: Steve:  There are points for and against both methods, to show the actual d i a g r a m first a n d then talk about  the  structures  afterward, or try and build it and then show it. I was trying to do general characteristics of the types of organisms i n this p h y l u m and then say, ' O K , n o w that we k n o w what  the  general body plan of these types of organisms are, lets look at one specifically, the planaria.'  Instead of saying 'Here is a  planaria, and here's what it's body p l a n is, blah, blah, blah, this is what happens,' where y o u might get sort of focussed [on that one animal].  Say 'Well, maybe this i n not the only organism  in this p h y l u m that has this sort of structure.'  I think that was  the w a y that I sort of w o r k e d it. T r y i n g to go from general to specific. Instead of specific and staying with it. ( S / C C5.9 P o s / S , p. 2) Steve's reframing of his practice i n these terms signaled a g r o w i n g independence from the practices of (a) his sponsor teacher, and (b) his past experiences w i t h traditional practices, towards an increasing ownership for his o w n practice. This is consistent w i t h a statement he made earlier i n the cycle: Steve:  I feel sort of more confident now. I have progressed to a point where it is like 'I am going to do this.' ( S / C C5.3 P r e / S , p. 4)  Review of theme two - Ownership of one's practice The practicum is the first opportunity that many students have to teach in a classroom setting.  In the absence of a w e l l established teaching style,  student-teachers often imitate the practices of their sponsor teachers or d r a w  u p o n their past experiences as learners^^ (e.g., the most recent being their undergraduate years at university). The result of these two influences is that student-teachers often identify with, and incorporate into their o w n practice, elements of their sponsor teachers' practices w h i c h resonate most strongly w i t h their o w n experiences. This was the case for Steve. H e framed his early practice i n terms of these two influences. A s the practicum progresses, most students become more innovative and begin to experiment w i t h a w i d e r range of classroom strategies.  Such experimentation often signals the  development of a teaching style that is uniquely their o w n . This trend was also clear d u r i n g Steve's practicum. H e began to contrast the practices of his sponsor teacher w i t h his o w n practices. The degree of variance between the two precipitated a reframing of Steve's practice i n terms of a teaching style that was uniquely his o w n . Five factors emerged from this theme that enhanced Steve's reflection on his practice.  The first was Cliff's confidence i n Steve's ability to teach.  This enabled Steve to experiment w i t h a variety of different teaching practices that suited his o w n personality and style: "[Cliff] showed a lot of confidence i n me and that sort of fostered confidence i n myself . . . and once y o u get a little bit of confidence and sort of 'I can do this,' then y o u just go and do it and y o u get better and better as it goes on" ( S / C Steve Int, p. 1). A s a result, Steve went on to experiment w i t h a practice that was uniquely his o w n . A second factor w h i c h is closely related to the first was the trust that existed between Cliff and Steve. While the first factor was related to Steve's actions i n the classroom, the second was related to Steve interactions w i t h Cliff: "He was very supportive . . .  I felt that I could go to h i m " ( S / C Steve  Int III, p. 5). Steve regarded this as a strength i n his practicum and he felt comfortable i n raising issues of concern w i t h Cliff.  This sense of trust i n his  dialogue w i t h Cliff enhanced Steve's reflection on his o w n practice. A third factor was Steve's use of the video tape to review his teaching. H e found the tapes of his lesson to be useful i n analysing his practice: "The film sessions have been really valuable as a sort of analytical tool to pick out Lortie (1975) refers to this as 'the apprenticeship of observation.'  the Httle things that y o u are not aware of . . . it is a lot easier if y o u can see it yourself" ( S / C C5.9 P o s / S , p. 4). H e also noted that seeing himself o n tape added a dimension that w o u l d be hard to duplicate through paper and pencil reporting: "It is fine for someone to sit at the back of the class and write notes and you meet w i t h them afterwards . . . but for y o u o w n sake it is better to see it yourself" ( S / C Steve Int III, p. 14).  Thus, v i d e o p r o v i d e d an additional  perspective from w h i c h Steve could view his practice. Another factor that enhanced Steve's reflection on his o w n practice was his periodic observation of his sponsor teacher's practice. For example, w h i l e 'brain-storming' was a common activity i n Cliff's classes, it wasn't until week nine that Steve began to 'make-sense' of Cliff's references to 'brain-storming' after sitting i n on one of Cliff's classes: "The interesting thing is, that w i t h this technique that C l i f f  uses, not a l l the time but quite often, y o u w r i t e  everything on the board; if they say the w o r l d is flat y o u put that on the board too" ( S / C C4.2 P r e / S , p. 2). A s a result, Steve was able to make connections between theory (as articulated b y Cliff i n their discussion sessions) a n d practice (as d i s p l a y e d b y Cliff i n his teaching).  Regular observation and  dialogue helped Steve make-sense of his sponsor's 'talk' i n ways that d i d not seem possible through 'talk' alone. The fifth factor that enhanced Steve's reflection on his practice was the network of students that he constantly met and conferred w i t h d u r i n g the practicum.  Steve d r e w u p o n his peers both w i t h i n and beyond the school  setting to discuss his practice: "I talked to people i n m y class, like o n the phone at night . . .  I w i l l say 'This is what I am doing' or if I have an idea I  w i l l say 'I am thinking of doing this, what do y o u think?'" ( S / C C5.3 P r e / S , p. 3). Sharing ideas amongst w i t h other student enriched his o w n practice and the discussions about that practice, particularly as he began to define a practice that was uniquely his o w n . There was one factor that emerged d u r i n g the course of this theme that appeared to constrain Steve's reflection o n his practice: insufficient time to reflect on his practice. Towards the end of the practicum, Steve had very little time to sit d o w n and think about his practice: "Another thing about teaching that I found was just getting ten minutes to yourself to sit back to sort of say  ' O K , what am I going to do next?" ( S / C Steve Int III, p. 8). The increasing w o r k l o a d exacerbated this: "It's great teaching two out of eight [blocks], y o u have all the time i n the w o r l d to prepare your lessons and to have everything ready to go; it's beautiful, but when y o u are up to a full load" ( S / C Steve Int ni, p .8). Thus, as the practicum progressed there was less and less time for Steve to reflect on his o w n practice. III. Summary Table 6 provides an overview of the two reflective themes i n the case of Steve. The table also provides a summary of the factors w h i c h enhanced or constrained reflection, and related issues  Table 6. Summary of results for the Case of Steve Research Questior\s One and Two  Research Question Three  Theme  Precipitated by:  Framed in terms of:  Reframed in terms of:  Plan for future action:  Factors which enhance (E) or constrain (C) reflection:  Elicitation  Curiosity in ability of the pupils to intuit formulae  It's utility for encouraging pupils to work  It's pedagogical value for pupil learning  To use elicitation to actively engage pupils in their own learning  • The use of negative cases (E) • Cliffs reflection upon his supervisory practices (E) • Steve's unfamiliarity with the content (C) • Cliffs initial view of his role as supervisor (C)  Ownership of one's practice  Variance between Steve's and Cliffs practice  Steve's sponsors practice and traditional classroom practices  A teaching style that was uniquely Steve's own  To get the pupil's to try to 'build' their own knowledge  • Cliffs confidence in Steve's ability to teach (E) • Atmosphere of trust between Cliff and Steve (E) • Use of videotape (E) • Steve's periodic observation of Cliffs teaching (E) • A student network (E) • Insufficient time for reflection (C)  Related Issues  • It is easier to identify individual aspects of reflection when people talk as they think • Reflection does not always immediately alter one's practice • The combination specialist/ non-specialist supervision  CHAPTER 8 The Case of Jona  The structure of this chapter is identical to the previous chapters: it begins with a theme map, an explication of the themes then follows, and it concludes with a summary table. I. Introduction  The fourth case study is based upon the practicum experiences of Jona. Jona came from a city in southern interior of British C o l u m b i a where he attended both elementary and secondary schools. H e also completed the first two years of a B.Sc. degree in biology at the local community college before transferring to U B C for his final two years. After graduation he entered the teacher education program at U B C . For his practicum, Jona was assigned to the same school as Steve.  H i s sponsor teacher was G a r y , a senior  mathematics and science teacher with 30 years of teaching experience. G a r y had supervised fifteen student-teachers prior to supervising Jona. II. Analysis  There were five reflective themes identified in this case: direct instruction; levels of understanding one's practice; a link between unit themes and lesson objectives; ownership of one's practice; and rigidity versus flexibility in the use of lesson plans. The duration for each of these themes across the practicum is depicted in Figure 8. Theme one - Direct instruction  Direct instruction is an approach to teaching that is characterized by teacher-centred instruction and whole-group learning26; an example of direct instruction is the lecture method.  Some researchers have suggested that  students' prior experiences with direct instruction, particularly at the senior high school and undergraduate levels, significantly influences the way they conceptualize teaching and learning27. A t the beginning of the practicum, it 26 27  For a discussion of direct instruction see Omstein (1990), p. 302-307. See Feiman-Nemser (1983) - 'the hand of the past'; and Lortie apprenticeship of observation.'  (1975)  - 'the  was clear that Jona's prior experiences w i t h direct instruction h a d a strong influence on his teaching practice.  Reflective themes  Reflective teaching cycles Cycle 1  1. Direct instruction  Cycle 2  Cycle 3  Cycle 4  Cycle 5  •—  -•  1.3  5.9  2. Understanding practice 1.9  5.9  3. Themes and objectives 2.1  3.9  4. Ownership 2.3  5. Lesson plans Note:  5.9 3.5  5.9  The numbers on the time lines refer to the first and final transcript excerpts used to identify a particular theme. For example '3.7 identifies the seventh tape of the third cycle, and 'III' identifies the third tape of the additional interviews.  Figure 8. The case of Jona: Reflective theme map  In the lesson of the first teaching cycle, Jona noted that he was going to use a direct instruction approach: Jona:  Basically, stand up the front and talk about this stuff. Y o u know?  'I w i l l write some stuff on the overhead and y o u guys  copy it d o w n and we w i l l get an understanding.'  ( J / G C1.3, p. 2)  A s the lesson progressed, an incident caused Jona to question this approach. Jona called upon a p u p i l , Michala, to give her answer to one of the homework questions.  M i c h a l a replied "Magnesium," to w h i c h Jona replied  "Correct." A s the class checked their answers, one girl called out " H o w d i d you get that? . . . Like, I am totally lost" ( J / G CI.5 L e s / J , p. 1). Jona then spent the next ten minutes explaining to the class h o w M i c h a l a got her answer. Jona d i d not call u p o n Michala, or any other p u p i l , d u r i n g his explanation. At  the conclusion of his explanation, further  queries f r o m the p u p i l s  indicated that many were still confused.  Suddenly, Jona realized that a key  piece of information the he assumed had been g i v e n i n the question was missing. H e quickly back-tracked and said that he w o u l d accept one of two answers, either "'Magnesium' or 'It can't be done'" ( J / G C1.5 L e s / J , p. 4). A s Jona watched this incident on video, he noted that it w o u l d have been better at the beginning to ask M i c h a l a to explain her answer rather than attempting to explain it himself: Jona:  I s h o u l d have said to M i c h a l a , she was the one w h o said magnesium, ' M i c h a l a , h o w d i d y o u get magnesium?'  And  then let Michala explain it . . . A n d that w o u l d have saved me a big time headache. ( J / G CI.6 L e s / J , p. 2) Jona noted that his o w n extensive elaboration of M i c h a l a ' s answer  had  backfired: Jona:  I ended up shooting myself i n the foot. ( J / G CI.6 L e s / J , p. 4)  This incident was one example of Jona's use of direct instruction i n the classroom.  Another example occurred i n the second cycle.  Jona taught a  lesson i n w h i c h the first half was a lecture and the second half was a lab. W h e n the lab started, it soon became  apparent that the p u p i l s were  encountering considerable difficulty w i t h the work.  W h e n Jona began to  check for the source of the difficulty, he found that the pupils' notes from the lecture segment were very poor. H e framed the difficulty that the pupils were h a v i n g w i t h the lab i n terms of the their poor note-taking ability and their u n f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h direct instruction.  To overcome these problems, he  decided to supplement his verbal presentation w i t h a visual component: Jona:  Y o u see, again, I am sort of i n the university mode 'If I say it, you write it down.' I have got to remember that they are not quite university primed yet. [If I] put it d o w n o n the board that w i l l make it easier for them. ( J / G C2.7 Post, p. 2)  H e hoped that by writing key words and phrases on the board that it w o u l d be easier for the pupils' to take notes:  Jona:  It is just that, again, I am i n that university mentality where 'If the prof says it, it goes d o w n on the paper.' . . .  I have got to  get out of that and say 'Well, these guys aren't quite university yet, so y o u are going to have to write more things down.' ( J / G C2.8 Post/J, p. 2) Despite adding a visual component to the lesson of the third cycle, Jona still found that the pupils had difficulty w i t h his direct instruction approach. D u r i n g the cycle, G a r y , Jona's sponsor teacher, also noted that the p u p i l s tended to tune out when Jona was lecturing: Gary:  If y o u are going to sit up there and talk, they are going to say 'Oh, yeah, yeah,' and pretty soon they are g o i n g to be gone. g / G C 3 . 5 L e s / G , p. 4)  In the stimulated recall session that followed the post-lesson discussion, Jona agreed that his instructional style had too much of a lecture orientation and that he needed to find alternative approaches to classroom instruction: Jona:  I am getting too m u c h into 'Write the notes out' and ' C o p y it down' . . . I noticed even i n teaching m y Grade 10 class today it was just copying stuff d o w n  . . . Really, it's got more of a  lecture flavour than I w o u l d like, and I don't like that, but m y mentality so far has been 'Well, what else can I do?' ( J / G C3.9 Post/J, p. 2) In the fifth cycle, Jona began to critique his use of direct instruction. H e surfaced two u n d e r l y i n g assumptions that attracted h i m to this method: it permitted a high degree of teacher control, and it required less preparation than other methods of instruction.  Despite these advantages he felt that he  w o u l d not use this approach regularly in his future practice: Jona:  Direct instruction is easy.  Tony:  W h y is it easy?  Jona:  Because y o u are i n control. It is like, h o w can I describe this? W e l l , y o u are i n control, they have a specific job to do, the students, y o u k n o w , w h i c h is to Usten to you, to take notes, to do questions or whatever.  Y o u don't have to w o r k too hard to  think up novel ideas for the lesson. Tony:  OK.  Jona:  I mean y o u have to but it is not as if y o u are trying to come up w i t h games or stuff like that.  Tony:  M h h , hmm.  Jona:  So, it's actually easier than other forms of instruction.  Tony:  OK.  Jona:  So, it was good for me to learn h o w to do that but I don't k n o w if I w i l l stick w i t h it that much. ( J / G C5.9 Post/J, p. 3)  A s Jona further examined his use of direct instruction, he began to reframe the issue not i n terms of the pupils' difficulty w i t h the method but i n terms of the method itself. H i s main criticism was the lack of feedback and interaction it permitted between the members of the class a n d w i t h the teacher.  H e noted that direct instruction a l l o w e d very little monitoring of  p u p i l learning at the actual time of instruction: Jona:  What ends up happening is that the classes don't always go as well. M a y b e the students don't go as well. They don't learn as well . . . If the students don't learn it as well then that is not as apparent right away . . . It is unfortunate because a lot of times it doesn't w o r k out and y o u don't see it right away. A n d the students are the ones that end up suffering. ( J / G C5.9 Post/J, p. 4)  By comparison, Jona noted that alternative instructional methods allowed for more feedback and interaction: Jona:  If y o u have got them doing group work or games or whatever you see a lot more. I mean, y o u can't get feedback unless they are talking or d o i n g something, and if y o u are d o i n g direct  instruction, generally they are not talking too much. ( J / G C5.9 Post/J, p. 4) Thus, Jona's reflection on direct instrucflon resulted i n n e w approaches and ideas for his teaching. W h i l e he still planned to use direct instruction, he w a n t e d to incorporate alternative approaches  that permitted interaction  between the teacher and the pupils. Review of theme one - Direct instruction Jona experimented w i t h several different instructional methods d u r i n g his practicum; one of these was direct instruction. H e found that the p u p i l s performed poorly w h e n he used this form of instruction. H e initially framed this problem i n terms of the pupils' unfamiliarity w i t h the method. H e felt that once the p u p i l s were better at taking notes their performance w o u l d improve.  After incorporating strategies to improve note-taking, Jona found  that only marginal gains had been made i n pupils' performance.  Jona then  made the method (i.e., direct instruction) problematic, arguing that it afforded little interaction or feedback between teacher and p u p i l , and that this was detrimental to the pupils' learning.  Framed this way, it was the method that  was found wanting, not the pupils.  A s a result, he introduced alternative  instructional methods w h i c h he used i n combination w i t h direct instruction that increased teacher/pupil interaction. T w o factors emerged from this theme that enhanced Jona's reflection on direct instruction.  The first was Jona's use of 'Student-teacher E v a l u a t i o n  Questionnaires' that he distributed to the p u p i l s .  Jona d i s t r i b u t e d t w o  different questionnaires to the pupils to obtain feedback on his teaching. The questionnaires provided Jona w i t h an additional perspective for reflecting on his practice.  For example, after reading the responses to the first set of  questionnaires, Jona critiqued his teacher-centred orientation: "This is one part that I have learned throughout this term, especially it hit me after I read those first set of evaluations: "1 w o u l d normally be talking all through this and racing ahead on the overhead . . .  I think back to the lessons I have done  . . . you know, 1 am constanfly talking i n those lessons" ( J / G C5.6 L e s / J , p. 4).  A second factor that enhanced Jona's reflection was the use of video tapes.  These video tapes p r o v i d e d an opportunity for both student and  sponsor to closely analyze various aspects of Jona's practice.  For G a r y , the  video tapes allowed h i m to slow d o w n the action and examine Jona's practice i n greater detail than was possible in situ: "This is a good w a y to analyze it because y o u can see things and y o u can stop it . . . and y o u can zero i n on things that y o u wouldn't normally be looking at" ( J / G C1.5 L e s / G , p. 4). In a similar fashion, Jona also found the tapes useful: "I was able to go over again m y ideas for the lesson . . .  it helped me to evaluate w h y I am d o i n g this;  w h y it is good to make this change ( J / G Jona Int III, p. 4). O n e issue that emerged from this theme that was related to Jona's reflection on his practice, but not directly the three research questions, was that reflection, w h e n it d i d occur, d i d not immediately alter his practice. A l t h o u g h Jona reflected o n his use of direct instruction there was no immediate change i n his practice. Time and continual support (e.g., frequent observation and dialogue about his practice) appeared  to be  important  ingredients for professional development through reflection. Theme two - Different levels of imderstanding one's practice After the first couple of weeks o n p r a c t i c u m , Jona noted that his interaction w i t h Gary was similar to a teacher/pupil relationship: "To a large extent it is teacher/pupil, it could hardly be any other way" ( J / G C1.3 P r e / J , p. 3). Towards the end of the first reflective teaching cycle, Jona noted that he listening more than talking d u r i n g their discussions and thought that this was appropriate: Jona:  I mentioned  before  teacher/student  and  [discussion] was even more so teacher/student. interaction . . .  I  think  this  There is less  I think that I d i d a lot of listening, and that is  the point here; I have got to learn. ( J / G C I . 9 Post/J, p. 4) By the third teaching cycle, Jona had begun to detect a change i n his relationship w i t h Gary; he n o w regarded the interaction as i n c l u d i n g both talking and listening:  Jona:  It was mostly one-sided before and it is becoming less one-sided now.  I a m getting more of a feel for what I need to do i n  preparation for m y lessons and I am also getting more of a feel for what I am doing right and w r o n g i n m y lessons . . . G a r y was doing more teaching before. H e was saying 'Well, O K , y o u are going to need this, y o u are going to need to do this, etc' N o w , it has become a little more ' Y o u are pretty right but this is maybe a suggestion.' . . . I guess if I had to describe it briefly I think that I w o u l d say that I'm learning from talking to h i m about this stuff. ( J / G C3.3 Pre/J, p. 3) By the fifth reflective teaching cycle, Jona perceived that the relationship between himself and G a r y h a d developed to the point where there was a balance between the contributions that each made to the discussions. Indeed, G a r y encouraged Jona to put forward his o w n ideas. A t the end of the fifth cycle, Jona framed his interaction w i t h Gary i n terms of them both m o v i n g to higher levels of understanding his teaching practice: Jona:  W e m i g h t have talked about this at the b e g i n n i n g of the practicum [but] the thing is n o w it is on a different level . . . It is on a different level between the two of us. N o w it is more of a discussion rather than 'What do I do i n this situation?' ( J / G C5.9, Post/J, p. 4)  A s Jona gave more thought  to this shift, he began  to e x p l o r e  the  circumstances that enhanced it: Jona:  First of all, because Gary and I have progressed to a point i n our r e l a t i o n s h i p w h e r e we are comfortable w i t h  each  other  discussing things like this. Tony:  OK.  Jona:  W h y we have gone to this different level, perhaps, is because I have learned a lot more about m y o w n b e h a v i o u r i n the classroom.  Y o u know?  H o w I deal w i t h the things i n the  classroom or h o w I s h o u l d be d e a l i n g w i t h things i n the classroom. ( J / G C5.9 Post/J, p.5)  Jona noted that concurrent w i t h this shift was the development of his o w n unique style of teaching: Jona:  A t the beginning of the practicum it was like ' W e l l , follow a standard approach that we hope works for you.' N o w it has got to be m y way of dealing w i t h it because it is m y personality and I have got to be consistent w i t h m y personality.  Tony:  A n d y o u are not Gary?  Jona:  Yeah. I am not somebody w h o is going to follow Gary's rules because I don't k n o w any better.  N o w I a m a little more  comfortable w i t h m y behaviour, attitudes, mannerisms, whatever i n the classroom.  or  I can sort of develop m y o w n  methods of dealing w i t h things is probably the best w a y to put it. ( J / G C5.9 Post/J, p. 5) Jona then illustrated the importance of h a v i n g his o w n teaching style by referring to a potential disciplinary problem i n one of his classes: Jona:  This is something that just occurred to me n o w . T w o months ago if I was aware of this [kid] i n the back of the classroom I probably w o u l d have leaned on h i m , this k i d . Because that is the U B C method.  U B C teaches y o u that the k i d has got to be  on-task. Y o u know? A n d it looks bad if the k i d is not on-task. Y o u know, ' M y faculty advisor is not going to be to happy if m y kids are not on-task.' N o w , I am l o o k i n g at this from m y point of v i e w , saying 'Well what is the problem here?'  . . . Now I  have progressed to a point where U B C has got their little formula but n o w I have got m y o w n , or I a m beginning to develop m y o w n . ( J / G C5.9 Post/J, p. 6) A s Jona explored the notion of different levels of understanding  his  practice, he began to reframe the issue not i n terms of a parallel movement by both Gary and himself to higher levels but i n terms of h i m m o v i n g to a level of understanding commensurate w i t h that of Gary:  Jona:  I have been t h i n k i n g about this now, this different level that we are at.  I don't k n o w so m u c h as if w e are really o n a  different level but perhaps I am understanding at a different level.  L i k e we c o u l d have exactly the same discussion i n  January, and I w o u l d have understood it o n a certain level. Perhaps a surface level. But n o w that I k n o w the kids, I k n o w the teachers, I k n o w the situation, I understand this w h o l e discussion a lot better. I understand it on a different level. Y o u know? Tony:  Yes.  Jona:  Like I have been trying to p i n it down. I can see myself having this same discussion back i n January but there is something different.  I think I am really understanding what it means.  Before it w o u l d have been superficial . . . In January, we could have had a very broad discussion. This  discussion  is s o m e w h a t  It is a little deeper n o w .  different,  but  also  I  am  understanding it at a different level. ( S / C C5.9 Post/J, p. 8) Jona then drew upon the notion of a funnel to depict his different levels of understanding practice: Jona:  It was sort of 'the lesson' but broader; perspective.  from a  broader  Before what we used to do was sit there and look  at this part of the lesson and take it apart and dissect it. What we are d o i n g n o w is t a k i n g this part of the lesson  and  expanding upon it. Y o u sort of look at it like a funnel. Y o u get the part of the lesson, like before we were taking it apart and saying 'This is what I d i d wrong,' etc., or 'This is what I d i d right,' or whatever. N o w we are looking at it and saying 'Yeah, you d i d this right,' and n o w we are expanding on it saying this is the k i n d of stuff y o u have to do.  . . .  G o i n g from the  microscopic sections that we were d o i n g before, a n d n o w taking a section a n d l o o k i n g at the bigger picture;  the  implications of everything and h o w it fits into teaching i n general, school, life, etc. ( J / G C5.9 Post/J, p. 9)  Jona's sense of the practicum "funnel" is depicted i n Figure 9. W i t h the passage of time, Jona's understanding of his practice m o v e d from a technical perspective to a more conceptual perspective; something a k i n to m o v i n g a v i e w finder forward and backward resulting i n a variety of possible frames.  A lesson Weekl Figure 9. Jona's practicum "funnel" Thus, Jona's reflection on the different levels of understanding p r o v i d e d h i m w i t h both a fine-grained, detailed perspective as w e l l as a broader, more conceptual frame. R e v i e w of theme two - Level's of understanding one's practice Typically, at the beginning of a practicum, student-teachers imitate the practices of their sponsor teachers; the interaction between the two is often regarded by the students as a teacher/pupil relationship.  A s the practicum  progresses and the students take greater responsibility for their o w n teaching. They begin to develop teaching styles that are uniquely their o w n .  A t this  point, the students often characterize their interaction w i t h their sponsors i n terms of a teacher/teacher relationship.  This was the case w i t h Jona.  This  shift precipitated Jona's reflection on the sense he was m a k i n g of the p r a c t i c u m i n comparison w i t h that of his sponsor teacher.  H e initially  framed this i n terms of a parallel movement by both of them to progressively  higher levels of understanding.  Later he reframed this i n terms of himself  m o v i n g to a level of understanding commensurate w i t h that of Gary. T w o factors emerged from this theme that enhanced Jona's reflection on his practice. The first was Jona's interaction w i t h G a r y beyond the classroom setting. Jona involved himself i n a number of extra-curricula activities w i t h G a r y (e.g., soccer coaching, helping w i t h the school dance, excursions to the aquarium, etc.). The two became good friends. This was evident i n their preand post-lesson discussions w h i c h , over the course of the practicum, became increasingly conversational as opposed to instructional. For example, at the b e g i n n i n g of a session they w o u l d often briefly recap the extra-curricula events of previous day. discussions  of Jona's  This easy manner w o u l d then continue into their teaching  practice  providing a  non-threatening  atmosphere i n which Jona could examine and critique his practice. T h e second factor, closely l i n k e d  to the first, was Jona's  active  participation i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions. A s the rapport between Jona a n d G a r y developed, Jona actively i n v o l v e d himself i n , a n d set the agenda for his discussion w i t h Gary: "It was mostly one-sided before and it is becoming less one-sided now" ( J / G C3.3 P r e / J , p. 3).  T h u s , Jona's active  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n his dialogue w i t h G a r y enhanced his reflection o n his practice. Theme three - U n i t themes and lesson objectives. Early in the practicum Jona taught a unit of w o r k based u p o n animal physiology and evolutionary development.'  One of the lessons w i t h i n this  theme was entitled 'The Planaria and the Earthworm.' This lesson took place d u r i n g the second reflective teaching cycle.  There were three distinct  segments d u r i n g the lesson: an instructional segment, a lab explanation segment, and a lab. D u r i n g the pre-lesson discussion, it became apparent that the link between the overall unit theme and the i n d i v i d u a l lesson objectives was absent i n Jona's lesson plan: Gary:  N o w , overall, what do y o u hope to accomplish?  Jona:  O K , the outcomes that 1 see are that the pupils should be able to name the parts of the planaria: the outsides parts, the surface  parts.  Be able to describe its reaction to certain stimuli: light,  water current, acetic acid, table salt, and their reaction to touch from a probe. A l s o , from the earthworm, note the parts o n the outside a n d the inside; the parts that are b i g e n o u g h  to  recognize. ( J / G C2.1 Pre, p. 2) G a r y then hinted that the pupils should be able to go beyond just describing the animals and be able to d r a w conclusions about the p h y s i o l o g i c a l differences between all the animals under study (i.e., the overall unit theme): Gary:  But, what about comparison?  Y o u have got t w o different  kinds of worms? Jona:  OK.  Gary:  N o w , [the pupils] should be able to see the difference between a flat w o r m and a r o u n d w o r m and w h y one is more advanced that the other: 'What does the earth w o r m have over the flat worm?'  Jona:  OK.  Gary:  They s h o u l d be able to see that y o u have gone from an organism that has one entry for food and exit for waste to two; one for food a n d one for waste.  That is a  tremendous  development, even though they all belong to worms. Jona:  Right, I w i l l mention that. ( J / G C2.1 Pre, p. 2)  A s Jona watched this conversation on tape, he noted that he had forgotten to link the lesson objectives to the unit theme: Jona:  N o w , this again snapped me back to what I was doing. The u n d e r l y i n g theme i n a l l of this is the e v o l u t i o n of animals. A n d y o u are going up the evolutionary tree to more and more complex animals.  A n d I mentioned it when we talked about  worms last day d u r i n g class but the tendency that I find i n labs is to just say 'Well, O K , go to it!' ( J / G C2.3 P r e / J , p. 3) Despite this reminder, i n the actual lesson, the link between the lesson objectives and the unit theme received scant attention.  Indeed, the o n l y  mention that Jona made of the relationship was a brief statement at the end of the first segment: Jona:  Keep i n m i n d that they are higher o n the evolutionary tree. W h y are earthworms higher o n the evolutionary tree than planaria? ( J / G C2.5 L e s / G , p. 2).  Later, as Jona watched this segment on video tape, he noted that he was unsure about h o w he w o u l d relate the i n d i v i d u a l lesson objectives to the overall unit theme: Jona:  This was what G a r y had told me about, to compare the two worms.  H e mentioned that maybe I could get them to write  something out  ...  I thought about that. I thought that [the  lesson is] long, though.  There is lots to do. If I mention it to  them, at least it is i n their minds. Hopefully they are t h i n k i n g about it. 1 didn't k n o w if I should go through it and have them actually write something out? ( J / G C2.6 L e s / J , p. 2) In the lessons that followed, maintaining a link between the objectives and themes was a recurring problem. It was manifest i n the difficulty that the p u p i l s h a d i n m a k i n g connections w i t h i n and across the lessons of the various units.  Jona framed the pupils' problem i n terms of external factors  over w h i c h he had little or no control, for example: the time of day, the pupils' passive approach to learning, the pupils' lack of enthusiasm, and the pupils' reluctance to answer questions.  H e also felt that it may have been the  nature of the subject itself: Jona:  W e do a couple of questions and look at things, but y o u k n o w , with these things it is like 'This is the class [phylum].' 'These are the characteristics.'  'This is this.' ' A n d this is this.' M a y b e  the subject material contributes to it a little bit? ( J / G C3.6 L e s / J , p. 3) Jona was intrigued by an incident that occurred d u r i n g the lesson.  He  watched the incident once and then rewound the tape to look at it a second  time.  It was a section of tape i n w h i c l i Jona h a d been r e v i e w i n g w i t h the  students the homework questions assigned the previous day.  The p u p i l s  were h a v i n g considerable trouble i n answering one of the question.  After  several attempts by the class to provide the correct answer, a p u p i l named Marians finally called out: Maria:  [Said i n frustration] What are y o u looking for? ( J / G C3.6 L e s / J , p. 10)  W h e n Jona saw this on tape, he stopped the tape and began to question his ability to clearly communicate what he was l o o k i n g for i n a h o m e w o r k question: Jona:  O K . Y o u see. That is it right there. W h e n she said that, I said, 'Oh, god.' I really k n e w that I had a problem  . . . That one  rang i n m y ears for the rest of the class and that is the one that kept c o m i n g back to m y m i n d : 'What are y o u l o o k i n g for?' W e l l , if I haven't made it clear what I am l o o k i n g for then what am I d o i n g up here asking these stupid questions?  If I  haven't made it clear then they are little more than s t u p i d questions! Tony:  I guess so?  Jona:  A n d it is a waste of time. ( J / G C3.6 L e s / J , p. 10)  A s Jona advanced the video tape a little further, M a r i a was seen expressing her frustration even more eloquently; frustration that was evident among the other members of the class: Maria:  It's h a r d to think w h e n y o u don't k n o w w h e r e y o u are thinking to. ( J / G C3.6 L e s / J , p. 11)  F r o m her comment, it was clear that the links between the lesson objectives and unit theme were neither obvious nor readily apparent.  One of the most academically able pupils in the class.  Jona a n d G a r y talked about  this incident d u r i n g the  post-lesson  discussion and agreed that something needed to be done. A s Jona reviewed this conversation, he began to reframe the problem not i n terms of external factors over which he had little control but i n terms of the need for 'an angle' to connect the elements of a unit together. H e likened the p u p i l s ' quandary to that of reading a paper that h a d no thesis, or to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a conversation that had no point: Jona:  Actually, n o w that I think of it, this is what I was missing . . . Whenever I write a paper [pause], y o u k n o w h o w y o u write a paper and y o u have a thesis, . . . that's m y angle. A n d I am going to write i n that vein.  W h e n I come into a classroom I  have got to have an angle, something that I am trying to get at . . . This is all coming to me now. I was in [the classroom] and I was talking but there was no point to what I was saying. I was just talking! Y o u k n o w ?  It was almost like 'casual.'  When  you think about a casual conversation w i t h somebody, there is no real point to it a lot of times. Tony:  Right.  Jona:  N o t h i n g ! L i k e ' H o w ' s the weather?' ' O h , the weather is fine.' A n d that is the sense of it that I am getting.  There is no point  to it. I am almost filling i n time because they have to be there, so, we w i l l just talk about this stuff i n the text. Tony:  O K . So, is there no point for you or for the students?  Jona:  W e l l , for both I think. I don't have a point that I a m getting at so they are not getting anything really. ( J / G C3.9 Post/J, p. 7)  H a v i n g reframed the problem i n terms of needing a point or a thesis, Jona then suggested how he might do this in future classes: Jona:  But 1 have got to have more of a point. Like, 'This is what we are looking at today. W e are looking at arthropods, and notice the diversity i n body plan; notice the differences i n habitats. This is a very diverse group.  Tony:  A n d have that r u n n i n g throughout the period and h a v i n g it anchoring off that?  Jona:  Yeah. A c t u a l l y I could clear some garbage off the blackboards and I can write d o w n 'These are the three key points that we are going to keep coming back to.' ( J / G C3.9 Post/J, p. 8)  Indeed, throughout the remainder of the practicum, Jona attempted to emphasize the links between the i n d i v i d u a l lesson objectives and the unit themes.  H i s reframing of the problem, from external factors over w h i c h he  h a d no control to internal factors over w h i c h he had considerable control, enabled h i m to devise strategies to ensure that the p u p i l s were  more  successful at recognizing the relationships between the objectives a n d unit themes. Review of theme three - The link between themes and objectives Jona found that d u r i n g the first half of the practicum his p u p i l s h a d difficulty i n making connections w i t h i n and across the lessons of a particular unit.  A s he sought to understand the p u p i l s ' difficulty i n this regard, he  framed the problem i n terms of external factors over w h i c h he had little or no control. A n incident d u r i n g the third reflective teaching cycle caused Jona to reframe this issue i n terms of his failure to maintain a strong l i n k between the lesson objectives and unit themes.  Jona likened this failure to w r i t i n g a  paper w i t h o u t a thesis or c o n d u c t i n g a conversation w i t h o u t a point. Thereafter, he deliberately maintained common threads throughout the unit to ensure that i n d i v i d u a l lesson objectives remained closely l i n k e d to the unit themes. Three factors arose from this theme that enhanced Jona's reflection o n his practice. The first was the use of stimulated recall sessions of pre- and post-lesson discussions. These sessions provided Jona w i t h an opportunity to put into his o w n words what he understood his sponsor to be saying. For example, d u r i n g one discussion G a r y suggested that Jona needed a g i m m i c k to tie his lessons together. A s the discussion continued, Jona reframed Gary's notion of a g i m m i c k i n terms of the need for an angle.  O n l y later, i n the  stimulated recall session, d i d he realize that he had re-cast Gary's suggestion: "There is probably a difference between what we mean by a g i m m i c k and an angle" ( J / G C3.9 Post/J, p. 10). A t that point, he began to explore and to make sense of the two terms i n relation to his o w n practice. Thus, stimulated recall  p r o v i d e d the o p p o r t u n i t y for sense-making that became part of Jona's framing and reframing of his practice. A second factor that enhanced Jona's reflection was his encouragement of p u p i l s to be critical and independent thinkers.  This coincided w i t h a  feature of the c u r r i c u l u m at Jona's school: a 6 month off-campus challenge p r o g r a m available to G r a d e 10 students.  This p r o g r a m is designed to  encourage p u p i l s to be independent a n d critical thinkers.  When  the  practictun began, Jona was given two Grade 10 classes that had just returned from this program.  It was clear that these p u p i l s were inquisitive a n d  thoughtful about their work. They wanted to be active participants i n their o w n learning29 (e.g., the M a r i a incident). Jona's interaction w i t h the pupils caused h i m to think carefully about his practice. A third factor that enhanced Jona's reflection was teaching m u l t i p l e sections of the same course. Jona noted that teaching the same material to more than one class allowed h i m to "package it better" ( J / G C2.6 L e s / J , p. 4) i n later classes. A l s o , teaching multiple sections of a course shifted the emphasis d u r i n g pre- and post-lesson discussions, from content (What is to be taught?) to more substantive issues (Why and h o w it might be taught?). O n e factor that appeared to constrain Jona's reflection was brief, unfocussed, or unrecorded, observations by his supervisors (in this case, the sponsor teacher and faculty advisor). W h e n classroom observations became a casual activity, G a r y and I tended to recall only the most visible and readily identifiable aspects of teaching; typically these were issues of a technical nature.  Technical issues usually required less analysis, and were easier to  speak about than substantive issues. Casual observation neither a l l o w e d us to appreciate, nor raise w i t h Jona, the subtleties that were inherent i n his o w n practice.  G a r y and I recognized this and altered our supervisory practices  accordingly. A s a result, later discussions began to encompass a broader range of issues.  29  Indeed, when I first observed these classes, I was convinced that they must have been Grade 11 or 12 pupils.  Theme four - O w n e r s h i p of one's practice Throughout the first and second cycles, Jona was a keen observer of Gary's practice.  H e regularly questioned G a r y about the strategies a n d  approaches that he used i n the classroom.  E a r l y i n the second reflective  teaching cycle Jona sensed that he m i g h t have been asking too  many  questions: Jona:  Sometimes I think maybe I go to h i m a bit too much.  Things  are going quite well so far i n the practicum. A n d he has helped me a lot. A lot of times I go to h i m and ask 'What is the best way to do this,' and I think that he w o u l d prefer that I do a little bit more [myself]. Y o u know, if I b l o w it, I b l o w it; I learn something. Tony:  A n d what are the indicators that he is wanting y o u to 'go it alone' a bit more?  Jona:  W e l l , I w i l l say something like 'What do y o u think about this, and he w i l l say 'Sounds O K , try it out,' stuff like that. 'See h o w it goes.' 'Give it a shot.' ( J / G C2.3 P r e / J , p. 1)  A n incident i n the lesson of the second teaching cycle caused Jona to think further about this issue.  M i d - w a y through the lesson, some p u p i l s  asked Jona a procedural question about the work. After giving the pupils an answer, Jona checked the answer w i t h G a r y (who was seated to one side of the classroom).  A s Jona watched this incident on video tape he framed his  questioning of Gary in terms of not wanting to 'rock the boat': Jona:  Y o u see, I could have given them an answer for what I wanted them to do, right? I had thought about it. 'This is what y o u do' and 'That is it.' The thing is, I am looking at three classes that belong to Gary, and I don't want to change [his] procedure because to me it is really silly to change the procedure for seven weeks and after I am gone they have to learn Gary's procedure again. So, I really don't want to end up rocking the boat. A n d this is also w h y I think G a r y is tired of listening to me asking questions 'Well, what about this?' and 'What about this?'  But  again I am really trying to be careful about r o c k i n g the boat  because I don't want to do that to h i m or his students. ( J / G C2.6 Les/J, p. 6) In the third reflective teaching cycle, G a r y commented on the nature of his interaction w i t h Jona. H e felt that it was time for Jona to become more independent: Gary:  I am trying to draw [him out] now. I have almost been leading h i m by the hand up until now. N o w , I am w a i t i n g for h i m to come forth. I want h i m to design things. I have given h i m the area that I want covered but h o w he covers it, I think he is n o w going to have to make those decisions . . . H e has got to s w i m or sink on his o w n . . . There seemed to be, up until n o w , a slight lack of confidence. H e was sort of coming to me 'Is this OK?'  A n d n o w 'Well, w a i t a minute, the decision has to be  yours now, because i n six months y o u are going to be o n your o w n and y o u are g o i n g to have to make that decision.' Whether it is a right or w r o n g decision, I w o u l d sooner see h i m go through a bad lesson. But the decision is his. ( J / G C3.2 P r e / G , p . 3) In the t h i r d reflective teaching cycle, Jona noticed that G a r y was more reluctant to provide h i m w i t h answers to his questions: Jona:  Generally, he didn't really have as m u c h to say as he d i d i n the first two cycles. ( J / G C3.3 P r e / J , p. 1)  A n incident similar to that described i n the second cycle also occurred i n the third cycle. In mid-lesson , Jona asked G a r y a question about the w o r k the pupils were doing. In the post-lesson discussion, Jona reframed his tendency to continually seek Gary's advice not i n terms of 'not wanting to rock the boat' but i n terms wanting to teach 'the right way': Jona:  W h e n I asked y o u about that lab yesterday [in class], h o w to mark this particular part, I got that impression [that y o u were saying] ' O K they are yours, y o u are the boss.'  ...  I have a  tendency to ask too many questions [because] I want to do it right, / don't want to do it my way, I want to do it right! ( J / G C3.7 Post, p. 4, emphasis i n original) In the stimulated recall discussion that f o l l o w e d , he began to make explicit what he meant by the teaching the right way: Jona:  M y p r o b l e m is I don't want my answers, I want the  right  answers. I don't want to do things m y way. I want to do things his w a y . . . Y o u see I want h i m to tell me the w a y to do it. Then I w i l l do it, because I k n o w he has developed it over the years; his way is going to be pretty right. ( J / G C3.9 P o s t / J , p. 6, emphasis i n original) But for Gary, it was time to "cut the apron strings": Gary:  H e is talking to me, he keeps asking, and going and going and going.  H e wants to be sure that it is 100% right. W e l l , y o u  can't be  . . .  Y o u have got to cut the apron strings.  The  umbilical cord had gone now. H e has got the ability. ( J / G C3.8 P o s t / G , p. 3) Jona's reframing was pivotal i n terms of developing a practice that was distinctly his o w n .  In the weeks that followed, he demonstrated  greater  independence from Gary and experimented w i t h a number of his o w n ideas i n the classroom. In conversations w i t h Gary, Jona drew upon the notion of a plateau to describing his shift from dependence to independence: Gary:  W e were talking about this prior to coming out the door, the fact that he said 'I reached a plateau there for a while.' I said, 'Yeah, we all do, that's learning.' H e said 'I was frustrated, I didn't seem to be progressing.' A n d I said 'Yeah, y o u d i d and you went through that.' But I said ' A t that time, up until that point, I was a l l o w i n g y o u to ask me questions and I was helping y o u develop it.' ( J / G C4.2 P r e / G , p. 1)  Figure 10 depicts the plateau that Jona reported during his practicum.  Relative change  Jona's 'teaching performance.'  Time Week 4  Point at which Gary no longer supplies the answers.  W  e  e  k  s  Point at which Jona acknowledges that there is no right way of teaching.  Figure 10. Jona's teaching "plateau"  A t the end of the fifth cycle, Jona s u m m a r i z e d his reframing of the problem by noting that that there was no right w a y of teaching, be it Gary's way, U B C ' s way, or anyone else's: Jona:  A n d that is something that 1 have learned from being i n the practicum.  There is no U B C method, there is no this [is the  right method], forget it, y o u k n o w .  W e l l , not forget it, but  really there is no tried and true method.  Y o u have to learn it  yourself.  ...  Consider your o w n situation  I guess that is  another area of progress. I have become m y o w n teacher rather than a U B C clone. ( J / G C5.9 Post/J, p. 7, emphasis i n original)  Review of theme four - Ownership of one's practice A t the beginning of a practicum, student-teachers often regard their sponsor teachers as master teachers and themselves as apprentices.  Such was  the case w i t h Jona i n the early weeks of his practicum. Jona regularly sought G a r y out for advice and tried to emulate his teaching.  H e tried to duplicate  the routines and procedures that G a r y used i n his classes.  Jona framed his  emulation of Gary's practice i n terms of not wanting to rock the boat. A s the practicum progressed, G a r y encouraged Jona to find his o w n solutions to the various problems he encountered i n the practice setting. A t this point, Jona's teaching performance began to plateau.  It wasn't u n t i l after the t h i r d  reflective teaching cycle that his performance began to i m p r o v e again.  As  Jona reflected on the plateau i n his teaching performance, he reframed his emulation of Gary's practice i n terms of wanting to teach the right way.  He  noted that earlier, instead of developing his o w n practice, he had faithfully duplicated Gary's practice. Jona's reflection was precipitated by his concern that he was g o i n g to G a r y too often  for advice a n d help.  Having  a c k n o w l e d g e d his dependence u p o n G a r y , Jona decided to take greater ownership for his o w n teaching and to define a practice that was uniquely his own. T w o factors emerged from this theme that enhanced Jona's reflection. The first, Gary's support for Jona as he began to take greater control over his o w n practice.  G a r y encouraged Jona to experiment w i t h his o w n ideas.  As  Jona took the first tentative steps i n this direction, he began to reflect on the ownership of his o w n practice.  Gary's support and encouragement at this  time was critical i n this regard. The second factor was Jona's realization that 'the U B C method' was a guide, not a prescription for practice: "Really, to a large extent we were a bunch of U B C clones when we came out on practicum . . .  and I mean to a  large extent y o u need that to get started . . . but n o w I have progressed to a point where U B C has got their little formula but n o w I have got m y o w n , or I a m b e g i n n i n g to develop m y o w n " ( J / G C5.9 P o s t / J , p. 7). experimented  w i t h his o w n f o r m u l a , his energies  A s Jona  were directed  developing and reflecting on a practice that was uniquely his o w n .  into  Three factors were identified that constrained Jona's reflection on his practice.  One factor was Jona's unquestioning acceptance of established  routines.  Jona attempted to faithfully duplicate the practices of his sponsor  teacher and d i d not question Gary's practices. givens i n the setting.  Indeed, he accepted them as  It was o n l y w h e n he was encouraged to experiment  w i t h his o w n ideas that he began to question these practices and to critique each i n relation to his e v o l v i n g practice.  Jona's reliance u p o n established  routines inhibited his reflection on his o w n practice. A n o t h e r factor that constrained Jona's reflection was an emphasis o n utilitarian rather than substantive issues. D u r i n g early part of the practicum, Jona's inquiries into his practice reflected a problem solving or a 'what works' approach to teaching^o.  Absent from these inquiries were questions that  addressed the appropriateness or value of different activities. O n l y towards the end of the practicum, and i n particular when he acknowledged that there was no right way of teaching, d i d Jona begin to attend to the particulars of the setting a n d the importance of these i n relation to his o w n teaching style. U n t i l this occurred, Jona's reflections were constrained b y a u t i l i t a r i a n emphasis i n his teaching. The third factor that constrained Jona's reflection o n practice was his initial conception of the practicum as a hoop j u m p i n g exercise. Jona noted that w h e n student-teachers perceived the p r a c t i c u m as a hoop j u m p i n g exercise then learning becomes an activity y o u do for someone else and not for yourself: "It is like j u m p i n g through the hoops, tell them anything that they want to hear" ( J / G Jona Int III, p. 1). Because of this perception, Jona initially expected others to set the the agenda for the discussions about his practice. Consequently, he wanted to please his sponsor teacher rather than reflect on and develop his o w n practices. Finally, there was one issue that was related to Jona's reflection u p o n his practice but not directly related to the three research questions that emerged from the analysis. G a r y noted that d u r i n g his 30 years as a teacher he h a d  30  LaBoskey (1990) refers to beginning teachers who ask 'what works' questions as 'common sense thinkers' and those who ask 'why' questions as 'alert novices.'  been asked to participate i n many different projects (e.g., international educators had used his classroom to examine N o r t h American science classes, local M i n i s t r y of Education officials had used his classroom as a set for T V and f i l m projects, and teacher educators had used his classroom for their student-teachers).  W h i l e a l l these projects were related to Gary's practice,  none deliberately sought to elicit Gary's o w n ideas o n teaching and learning. Rather, there was greater interest i n the setting i n w h i c h he taught.  By  contrast, he felt the current research project w i t h Jona v a l u e d both the propositional and experiential knowledge that he brought to the practice setting (informed b y 30 years of teaching experience).  H e enjoyed  the  opportunity of m a k i n g explicit the things that intrigued h i m about his o w n practice and Jona's practice d u r i n g the video recall sessions. A t t e n d i n g to and sharing  this k n o w l e d g e b o t h  enhanced  and  enriched  the  practicum  experience for both Jona and myself. Theme five - R i g i d i t y vs. flexibility i n the use of lesson plans The lesson of the t h i r d reflective teaching cycle dealt w i t h molluscs. Jona had d i v i d e d the lesson into three segments: a introductory film (15 minutes), a teacher-led discussion (20 minutes), a n d a instructional component (15 minutes). generated  teacher-centred  The film was a success i n that it  considerable interest amongst the p u p i l s .  Unfortunately, the  pupils' initial enthusiasm waned during the second segment, and by the third segment it was almost nonexistent. two segments.  In short, the lesson d i e d i n the the last  The pupils were neither disruptive nor disrespectful, but one  b y one they disengaged themselves from the lesson.  G a r y noted that they  were not actively involved i n the class: Gary:  They are going through the motions but they are not listening. a/G C3.5 L e s / G , p. 4);  Jona described the pupils' lack of involvement i n a similar way: Jona:  They are on-task but they are dead on-task! ( J / G C3.6 L e s / J , p. 7).  Despite the fact that Jona sensed the lesson was d y i n g , he steadfastly adhered to the text of his lesson plan throughout the lesson.  In the post-  lesson discussion, he framed the problem of p u p i l disengagement i n terms of poor lesson planning on his part: Jona:  I guess m y organization was just lacking here . . .  I thought I  was prepared but I wasn't ready for everything . . . we had the count d o w n , we just didn't get the Hft off. ( J / G C3.9 P o s t / J , p. 2). A l t h o u g h the lesson of the fourth cycle was more successful, other lessons around this time continued to display symptoms similar to those described above. The lesson of the fifth reflective cycle was on the invertebrate body plan. Jona d i v i d e d this lesson into three segments: a student-centred  elicitation  segment (15 minutes), a note-taking segment (15 minutes), and a teacher-led discussion (20 minutes).  A s Jona watched the video tape of this lesson, he  contrasted his current practice w i t h that of the third cycle. H e noted that he h a d become less dependent u p o n his lesson p l a n per se a n d was more responsive to the pupils during the lesson. The reasons for this was his use of summary overheads to guide his lesson. Jona then reframed the problem of p u p i l disengagement i n the third reflective teaching cycle not i n terms of poor lesson planning but i n terms of an over-dependence u p o n the lesson p l a n itself. Before the fifth cycle, Jona had often taught w i t h his lesson plan 'in-hand' and frequently referred to it d u r i n g the lesson.  B y the end of the  practicum Jona had deliberately opted for summary overheads to guide his practice instead of referring to the full text of his lesson plans during the class. For example, in one overhead he bracketed a set of key phrases w i t h the w o r d ' W h y ' to r e m i n d h i m s e l f to elicit ideas from the p u p i l s .  In another  overhead, he used different symbols d o w n the left h a n d side to r e m i n d himself of different strategies to use at various stages. A s he contrasted the difference between constantly referring to his lesson plan and his later use of summary overheads, he likened his first practice to strict adherence to bibUcal rules whereas the latter practice was guided more by a feel for the class:  Jona:  I put it ['Why' on the O H ] to r e m i n d me to aslc a question there.  Tony:  W e l l , that's good.  Jona:  I am trying to get away from using the sheet^^ all the time.  Tony:  Y o u are right because y o u are not u s i n g a sheet at all i n this lesson.  Jona:  N o . I am standing over here by the overhead. The overhead is here, and the sheet is over here [pointing to the far side of the desk]. I left it there when I was standing on the other side of the overhead. I am trying to get away from that. I was talking to Steve32 about it one day and it is like y o u have an agenda, sort of rules or things that y o u have to get through i n the day. Y o u know? That is your direction [but] y o u don't really k n o w what y o u are doing; y o u follow the sheet like the bible. So, I am t r y i n g to get away from that.  A n d what that means is  putting little reminders o n the overhead.  It m i g h t be like  sometimes y o u w i l l see that I have a star . . . or where, I have written TPS: Think, Pair, Share. ( J / G C5.6 L e s / J , p. 5). In short, the s u m m a r y overheads enabled Jona to focus more on the p u p i l s i n the class than o n the lesson p l a n per se.  Jona's shift from r i g i d  adherence to flexible use of lesson plans was captured i n a series of comments i n w h i c h he indicated an alternative approach for future practice (see Table 7). F i n a l l y , Jona's reflection on his use of lesson plans also revealed a movement  from  a p u r e l y cognitive a p p r o a c h  to teaching (technical,  mechanical, and step b y step) to an approach w h i c h i n c l u d e d an affective element (a feel for the class).  The final lessons of the Jona's practicum  revealed a combination of these two elements. R e v i e w of theme five - Lesson plans Teaching is a complex activity. There is m u c h to consider, prepare, and act upon for each class. A lesson plan is an important element of that process.  Jona often referred to his lesson plan as 'the sheet.' Steve as in the case of Steve (see preceding chapter).  The reflective theme examined i n this section, explores Jona's perplexity as he discovered that his lesson plans d i d not cater for every contingency. For example, his lesson of the third cycle died slowly as one by one the p u p i l s disengaged from the lesson. Experienced teachers, for the most part, are able to to respond quickly to such circumstances and can alter their lesson p l a n in situ.  Less experienced teachers, however, are unable to respond as quickly  and have fewer change-options at their disposal. H o w do students react? Jona, i n this instance, chose to stick steadfastly to the lesson as planned i n the hope that perseverance w o u l d bring it back to life!  Table 7. Jona's shift from rigid adherence to flexible use of lesson plans  Current practice  Initial practice •  •  At first you are talking about the  ^  •  mechanics in the classroom. It goes  you feel what you are doing type  from the technical... (p. 1*)  thing, (p. 1*)  Before it was a lot of mechanics. It  " H  •  Now it is like, all right, 'This is  was going through the motions, that  what I should do now because it feels  is, 'What should I do next?' 'This is  right, so that is what I should do.' ...  what I should do next.' (p. 2*)  •  . . . to more of a feeling type thing.  Earlier on it was like 'What is the  ~ l•  •  It makes sense! (p. 2*)  I don't need the sheet any more . . .  next step, what is the next step?' I  it has become much more a second  think that you could probably best  nature sort of thing,  (p. 2*)  descritje that as looking at the sheets I use. Most of the time, until recently. I was clutching a sheet; you know. •What do I have to do?' (p. 2'*) * From J / G C5.9 Post/J  A s Jona contemplated the difficulties he encountered i n the third cycle, he framed them i n terms of being under-prepared.  In the lessons that  followed, he tried to be fully prepared and to faithfully follow the details contained i n his lesson plan.  Still, there were occasions w h e n his p u p i l s  became disinterested i n the lesson. Over the course of the practicum, Jona shifted away from a r i g i d adherence to lesson plans to a more flexible use of overhead  s u m m a r i e s to guide his teaching.  A s a result, Jona was more  responsive to the pupils and was able to alter his lesson plans accordingly. After the fifth cycle, Jona reflected on this new approach and reframed his successes not i n terms of being better prepared but i n terms of being less dependent u p o n his lesson plans per se. H e then argued that this a l l o w e d h i m to have more of a feel for the lesson and to respond more q u i c k l y to changing circumstances w i t h i n the classroom. There was only one additional factor that emerged from the analysis of this theme that enhanced Jona's reflection on his practice, namely, his empathy w i t h the pupils. A s Jona attempted to articulate his concerns about his teaching, he realized that he was five years removed from being a p u p i l himself.  B y m i d - p r a c t i c u m , he h a d begun to question some of the  assumptions he had made about the classroom setting and acknowledged that many assumptions d i d not match his current experience i n the classroom: "I am still trying to get a grasp of h o w students think. I have got to get back into the m i n d of a 16-year-old" ( J / G C2.6 L e s / J , p. 10). A s a result, Jona's concerns for his practice shifted from those of 'self to those of 'others' w h i c h resulted i n a very different sort of critique of his practice. For example, i n the above theme, by p r o b l e m a t i z i n g his practice from the p u p i l s ' perspective, Jona devised an alternative practice that enabled h i m to be more responsive to the changing circumstances i n the classroom.  Thus, Jona's empathy w i t h the  pupils provided an additional dimension to his inquiry about his practice. Summary Table 8 provides an overview of the five reflective themes i n the case of Jona.  The table also provides a summary of the factors that enhanced or  constrained reflection, related issues.  Table 8. Summary of results for the case of Jona Research Questions One and Two Theme  Precipitated by:  Direct instruction  Research Question Three  Related Issues  Reframed in terms of:  Plan for future action:  Factors which enhance (E) or constrain (C) reflection:  Dissatisfaction The pupils with direct were found instruction wanting  The method was found wanting  Using a combination of methods  • Pupil evaluations of Jona's teaching (E) • The use of video (E)  Levels of understanding one's practice  Curiosity at wanting to 'pin down' his changing relationship with Gary  Pararellel movement by both to higher levels of understanding  Jona moving to a level of understanding commensurate with Gary  To consider both conceptual and technical aspects of teaching  • Jona's interaction with Gary beyond the classsroom (E) • Jona's active participation in his discussions with Gary (E)  The link between objectives and themes  Surprise that the pupils were unable to 'see' the links  External factors over which he had no control  The need for an angle or thesis to connect the work  Regular reference to focal points that connect the work  • Stimulated recall (E) • Pupils as independent and critical thinkers (E) • Teaching multiple sections of a course (E) • Brief, unfocussed, unrecorded observations (C)  Ownership of one's practice  Concern that he was going to Gary too much  Not wanting to 'rock the boat' (i.e. Gary's practices)  Jona's attempt to find the 'right way' of teaching  Develop a plan that was distinctly his own  • Gary's support (E) • The importance of recognizing • Realizing that the UBC Gary's teaching method was a guide (E) • Jona's unquestioning experience and knowledge use of set routines (C) • Utilitarian emphasis (C) • The practicum as a hoopjumping exercise (C)  Use of Lesson plans  Concern for pupil disengagement  Underjrepared esson plans  Rigid adherence to lesson plans  Use of summary overheads  • Jona's empathy with the pupils (E)  Framed in terms of:  • Reflection does not always immediately alter practice  CHAPTER 9 Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications for Practice The conclusions, discussion and implications for practice that appear i n this chapter are d r a w n from the reflective practices of four student-teachers as they p r e p a r e d , t a u g h t , and d i s c u s s e d their lessons i n concert w i t h their sponsor teachers, and then reviewed these activities through the use of video tape. This chapter is d i v i d e d into four sections: conclusions emerging from the research questions, a discussion of critical issues arising from the study, implications for practice, and possibilities for future research. To facilitate the reading of the chapter all claims have been italicized w i t h i n the text. I. Conclusions emerging from the research questions In answer to the first research question - What do student-teachers reflect upon? - three categories emerged: ownership of one's practice, the w a y pupils learn, and seeing practice through the eyes of an experienced teacher.  In  answer to the second question - What precipitated student-teacher reflection? - it was possible to identify up to four p r é c i p i t a n t s for each theme, the most significant being the 'secondary' precipitant at the reframing stage. In general, student-teacher reflection was precipitated w h e n there was a contrast between what the student believed w o u l d happen and what actually happened.  In  answer to the third question - What factors enhanced or constrained studentteacher reflection? - the factors are g r o u p e d into three categories: student related, sponsor related, and program related factors.  The results to each of  the research questions are examined i n greater detail below. Q u e s t i o n one: What d i d the students reflect upon? Fifteen reflective themes, spread amongst identified d u r i n g this study.  the four students, were  These themes have been g r o u p e d into three  m a i n categories of description (Table 9), two of w h i c h were p a r t i c u l a r l y dominant: the ownership of one's practice, and the w a y p u p i l s learn.  One  theme (namely, Sally's 'Passive interaction w i t h her sponsor'), w h i c h d i d not 'fit' into the three m a i n categories, and about w h i c h there was insufficient information to specify a new description, has not been categorized.  Table 9. Descriptive categories for the reflective themes  Descriptive categories  Themes Sally Teaching orientation  Ownership of one's practice  •  The way pupils learn  •  Pupil learning  Seeing practice through the eyes of an experienced teacher  •  Collégial interaction with sponsor  •  Tina Ownership of one's practice  • Questioning • Off-task behaviour  Steve Ownership of one's practice • Elicitation  Jona Ownership of one's practice • Direct instruction  • Expectations of pupil knowledge  •  •  •  Use of lesson plans • Link between themes and objectives •  Levels of understanding  Ow^nership of one's practice The first category that emerged from the results was the reflection on the ownership of one's practice.  students'  O w n e r s h i p of one's practice  was characterized as a shift from 'a dependence upon' to 'an independence from' either traditional classroom practices or the practices of the sponsor teacher.  In the cases of Sally, Tina, and Steve, this shift was initiated by the  student. In the case of Jona, it was initiated by the sponsor. In all four cases, the movement to an independent practice was accompanied b y increased levels of anxiety as each student struggled to define a practice that was uniquely his or her o w n . The w a y pupils learn The second category that emerged from the data was the reflection on the way in which pupils learn.  students'  Reflection i n this category was  characterized as a shift from a teacher's perspective to a pupil's perspective on the w a y i n w h i c h p u p i l s learn.  The issues around w h i c h these reflections  took place i n c l u d e d p u p i l learning, lesson content, lesson p l a n n i n g , and classroom behaviour. Seeing practice through the eyes of an experienced teacher A third pattern that emerged from the data, was the students' reflection on  their  ability  practitioner.  to  see  teaching  through  the  eyes of  an  experienced  This category was characterized b y a shift i n the students  understanding  of practice  to  progressively higher  l e v e l s that  were  commensurate w i t h their sponsor teachers' understandings of practice.  Both  Sally and Jona reflected u p o n this issue. Both students recognized that they were interpreting aspects of their practice quite differently at the end of the practica as compared to the beginning of the practica, and that they had come to see their teaching as if through the experienced eyes of their sponsor teachers. Q u e s t i o n two - What precipitated the students' reflection? Question two p r o v e d to be more difficult to answer than was first anticipated.  The reason for this difficulty was that up to four p r é c i p i t a n t s  could be identified w i t h the reflective activity associated w i t h each theme. P r é c i p i t a n t s for each theme For each reflective theme it was possible to identify a p r i m a r y a n d secondary precipitant at each of the framing and reframing stages. In some instances there was repetition of the p r é c i p i t a n t s over the t w o stages. Thus, the p r i m a r y precipitant at the framing stage might also be the p r i m a r y precipitant as the reframing stage. Primary p r é c i p i t a n t s were usually extrasubjective and of an informal nature (e.g., an incident on v i d e o or a casual comment by a sponsor teacher).  Secondary précipitants were more subjective  a n d of a formal nature (e.g., students internaUzed the issue a n d explicitly referred to it). A n example of a theme w i t h four different p r é c i p i t a n t s was Sally's reflection on her teaching orientation. this theme are listed in Table 10.  The various p r é c i p i t a n t s for  Table 10. A n example of primary and secondary précipitants  Reflective theme components  Descriptors  •  Theme:  Teaching orientation  •  Precipitant:  Internal dissonance between belief and actions*  •  Frame:  Having a teacher-centred focus  •  Primary precipitant:  Watching a video of her classroom teaching  Secondary precipitant:  Sally noting her lack of interaction with pupils Teaching the way she was taught  Reframe: Primary precipitant:  John's intention to focus on pupil questioning  Secondary precipitant:  Sally's noting the dissonance between her beliefs and actions  • Plan for future action:  To reconcile her beliefs with her actions  The secondary precipitant at the reframing stage is regarded as the main precipitant for the theme  Sally's reflection on her teaching orientation was initially precipitated by watching a video of herself teaching (primary precipitant - framing stage). W a t c h i n g the video precipitated Sally's comment that there was a lack of interaction between herself and her pupils (secondary precipitant - framing stage). The secondary precipitant resulted i n Sally's critique of her teaching i n terms of its teacher-centred orientation (the frame).  Sally's reframing of her  orientation to teaching was initially precipitated by John's comment that he intended to focus on Sally's questioning strategies (primary precipitant reframing stage).  This comment precipitated Sally's a r t i c u l a t i o n of a  dissonance between her beliefs about teaching and her actual practice i n the classroom (secondary precipitant - reframing stage).  A s a result, Sally  reframed her teaching i n terms of teaching as she was taught (the reframe). Thus, Sally's reflection was a product of primary and secondary précipitants at both the framing and reframing stages. This pattern of p r é c i p i t a n t s was evident i n all themes identified i n this study.  Further, it was the secondary precipitant at the reframing stage that  appeared to be the most important i n terms of the students' reflections and  their subsequent plans for future action. Therefore, i n each of the themes, the secondary precipitant at the reframing stage is referred to as the m a i n precipitant for the theme. The explication of précipitants i n this w a y provides a new insight to student-teacher reflection. In short, the results of this study i n d i c a t e d that up to four different précipitants  could be identified for each  reflective theme; a primary and secondary precipitant and reframing stages. precipitant  Of the four précipitants  at each of the framing  identified, it was the secondary  at the reframing stage that appeared to be the most influential  terms of the student-teachers'  in  reflection on their practices.  A contrast between what is proposed and what happens I n general, the reflective themes in this study were precipitated  when  there was a contrast between what the students anticipated would happen and 1) what actually happened, or 2) what the sponsor teachers suggested might happen.  In the first instance, it was the student-teacher's actions i n the  practice setting that highlighted this contrast.  In the second instance, it was  the sponsor teacher's comments i n relation to the student's proposed actions that highlighted this contrast. Further, although it was possible to identify what precipitated the reflective themes, it was difficult to an assign appropriate descriptors for each of the précipitants^^.  What, at one point, might be regarded as 'intrigue,' a  short time later might be regarded as 'curiosity.' O r , what at one point what appeared to be 'conflict', at another point appeared to be 'dissatisfaction.' The descriptors for m a i n p r é c i p i t a n t s of the fifteen reflective themes are g i v e n i n Table 11. The contribution that this study makes i n this regard is to provide a broader range of descriptors than is typically encountered i n the literature. Q u e s t i o n three: What enhanced or constrained reflection? The factors w h i c h enhanced or constrained student-teacher have been grouped into three broad categories: student-related,  reflection sponsor-  related, or program-related. A factor was considered to enhance reflection if it contributed to the development of one of the four components of reflection (i.e., the precipitant, frame, reframe, or plan for future action). A factor was Definitions for the descriptors were taken from the Oxford Dictionary.  considered to constrain reflection i f it l i m i t e d the opportunities for the development of any of these components.  Table 11. List of précipitants for the reflective themes  Case  Theme  Main précipitants  Sally  Teaching orientation  internal dissonance  Passive interaction  frustration  Pupil learning  dismay  Collégial interaction  surprise  Ownership  frustration  Pupil knowledge  surprise  Questioning style  conflict  Off-task behaviour  contrast  Elicitation  curiosity  Ownership  variance  Direct instruction  dissatisfaction  Levels of understanding  curiosity  Themes and objectives  surprise  Ownership  concern  Lesson plans  concern  Tina  Steve  Jona  O f the forty-six factors that were identified across the four cases, fortythree fell into one of three categories o u t l i n e d above.  Because of the  idiosyncratic nature of three remaining factors, these are addressed i n a later section entitled 'Possibilities for Further Research.' O f the factors that were identified as enhancing or constraining student reflection, many were common to all four cases (e.g., the use of video tape). A l s o , m a n y factors, w h i l e not identical, were very similar to other factors w i t h i n and across cases (e.g., p u p i l empathy i n the case of Jona, and 'one-toone' interaction w i t h pupils i n the case of Tina). The conclusions that follow are d r a w n from the relationships between the factors within and across cases.  Student-related factors The student-related factors that enhanced or constrained reflection are g r o u p e d under the f o l l o w i n g headings: the use of video, agenda setting, p r o b l e m setting versus p r o b l e m solving, the use of time, interaction w i t h students and p u p i l s , observation a n d dialogue, and m a k i n g explicit past experiences.  The reader is r e m i n d e d that there is considerable overlap  between the groups and that they do not represent discrete entities i n and of themselves. The use of video. The use of video tape enhanced the student-teachers' reflection o n their practices i n a l l four cases.  Consider Figures 11 and 12.  These figures p r o v i d e a s u m m a r y of the different sessions i n w h i c h the students either framed or reframed issues. F r o m these figures, it is clear that the framing and reframing of m a n y issues occurred mostly d u r i n g the video recall sessions.  The video recall of  the lessons p r o v i d e d the students w i t h an opportunity to examine their practices 'first hand.' In this sense, the tapes of the lessons acted as a p r i m a r y data source34. Further, the tapes permitted the students to stop, start, and review sections of their lessons that were of importance to them. It was clear that the video recall of the lessons enhanced the students' reflection on their practices.  This result is i n accord w i t h those of K i l b o u r n (1988) a n d Ross  (1990). The v i d e o recall sessions of pre- and post-lesson discussions also p r o v i d e d the students w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y to 'put into their o w n w o r d s ' what they understood their sponsor teachers to be saying. In the light of these  A primary data source is, as far as is possible, free from interpretation from an observer. This stands in contrast to pencil and paper reporting which is a secondary data source in that it has passed through at least one level of interpretation (i.e., it represents what the sponsor teacher or faculty advisor 'saw'). The reader is reminded that the video tapes of the lessons were a primary data source only in so far as a wide-angled focus was used to collect the data.  Number of g I themes framed  Lesson Plan  5--  Levels of Understand  4--  Off-task Behaviour  Ownership 3--  Ownership  Collégial Interaction  Themes & Objectives  Pupil Learning  Teaching Question Orientation Style  2--  1--  Pupil Knowledge  Elicitation  Sessions in which the themes were framed  Ownership Direct Instruction Passive Interaction  Pre-lesson Video recall Video recall Post-lesson Video recall PreMidPostdiscussions pre-lesson lessons discussions post-lesson practicum practicum practicum discussions discussions^ yinterview interview interview^  V  Reflective teaching cycles  Additional interviews  Figure 11. Sessions i n w h i c h framing occurred  6--  Number of themes reframed  Themes & Objectives  5- -  Levels of understand  4--  3--  Lesson Plan  Direct Instruction  Question Style  Ownership  Off-task Behaviour  Pupil Knowledge  Collégial Interaction  Ownership Sessions in which the themes were Pupil reframed Learning  2--  1--  Teaching Elicitation Orientation  Ownership Passive Interaction  Pre-lesson Video recall Video recall Post-lesson Video recall PreMidPostdiscussions pre-lesson lessons discussions post-lesson practicum practicum practicum discussions discussions^ ^interview interview interview^  Reflective teaching cycles  Y  Additional interviews  Figure 12. Sessions i n w h i c h reframing occurred  new understandings, the students often framed a n d reframed issues they found to be problematic i n their o w n practice. A n example of this was Jona's reframing of the relationship between themes and objectives. A l t h o u g h , there has been little w o r k reported on the use of stimulated recall of pre- and post-lesson discussions, the students i n this study benefitted experience.  from this  In short, the use of video recall of both lessons and pre- and post-  lesson discussion  enhanced the students'  reflection upon their practices  Setting the agenda. A n examination of the transcript data indicated that the students and sponsors raised many issues about the students' teaching practices. O f the issues raised, fifteen developed into and were identified as reflective themes.  O f these themes, ten were initially raised b y the students  and five by the sponsors (see Table 12). A n inspection of Table 12 reveals that of the four issues that Sally reflected u p o n all four were raised b y her; Jona raised three of the five issues he reflected on; and i n the cases of T i n a and Steve there was an even split between the issues that were raised either b y the sponsor concerned  or student.  In short, when students gave voice to issues that  them, they reflected on the same number of issues, if not more,  than those raised by their sponsors.  The importance of 'student voice' i n  relation to reflection u p o n practice has also been highlighted i n other studies (Cole, 1989; H o l l a n d , 1989a; Schon, 1987). Students g i v i n g voice to their concerns also appeared to be related to the degree to w h i c h they actively participated i n the pre- a n d  post-lesson  discussions. There were times when the students listened but d i d not actively participate i n those discussions. The clearest example of this was i n the case of Sally i n w h i c h her p a r t i c i p a t i o n was l i m i t e d to ' m i n i m a l p o s i t i v e responses.'  Further, when the students were passive participants i n pre- and  post-lesson discussions, the agenda for those discussions was set p r i m a r i l y by the sponsor teachers. G i v e n the tendency for students to be more reflective about the issues they raised as opposed to those raised by their sponsors, the important of student voice and active participation are critical i n the determining w h o sets  the agenda for the pre- and post-lesson discussions. Specifically, the reflective Table 12. Reflective themes initiated by student and sponsor Case  Issue raised by:  Reflective theme  The student Sally  Tina  Teaching orientation  •  Passive interaction  •  Pupil learning  •  Collégial interaction  •  Ownership  •  The sponsor  Pupil ownership Questioning •  Off-task Steve  Jona  Elicitation Ownership  •  Direct instruction  •  Levels of instruction Themes and objectives •  Ownership Lesson plan  practices of the student-teachers  in this study were enhanced when they were  actively involved in the agenda setting process in the discussions about their practice.  These results are consistent w i t h other studies.  F o r example,  Zeichner (1987a) argues that students are more reflective w h e n they are proactive not merely reactive to the settings i n w h i c h they undertake their practica. Interaction w i t h students and p u p i l s . Students' interactions w i t h fellow students, and w i t h the pupils they taught, p r o v i d e d alternative perspectives w i t h w h i c h to examine different teaching practices. Informal student-teacher networks p r o v i d e d the students w i t h a rich resource of ideas for this sort of examination (e.g., Tina's ownership of her practice). A number of studies have h i g h l i g h t e d the importance of this type of interaction d u r i n g the  p r a c t i c u m (Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; Feiman-Nemser, 1986; P u g a c h & Johnson, 1988).  For example, F e i m a n - N e m s e r (1986) argues that peer  interaction was an important factor for enhancing reflection because it casts reflection as a collaborative process rather than a p u r e l y p e r s o n a l or i n d i v i d u a l act.  The students use of networks i n this study underscored the  value of sharing one's teaching experiences w i t h fellow students. A n o t h e r level of interaction that enhanced the students' reflection o n their practices was their interaction w i t h the pupils.  This interaction was  particularly noticeable i n the cases of Tina and Jona. In the case of Tina, her one-to-one interaction w i t h the p u p i l s , especially d u r i n g her use of cooperative learning, provided her w i t h a perspective o n teaching that m a y not have been possible t h r o u g h more t r a d i t i o n a l approaches  to teaching.  Similarly, Jona's empathy w i t h his p u p i l s p r o v i d e d h i m w i t h an alternative perspective on his practice (e.g., his use of p u p i l questionnaires to evaluate his teaching furnished h i m w i t h important feedback about his practice). Jona's close interaction w i t h the p u p i l s also p r o v i d e d h i m w i t h important in situ feedback (e.g. the M a r i a incident). The importance of interactions w i t h pupils has been reported by other researchers w h o have used case studies and narratives to engage students i n one-to-one interactions w i t h p u p i l s (Beyer, 1984; LaBoskey & Wilson, 1987). The results of this study are consistent w i t h these reports and indicate that the students' students alternative  and  pupils  enhanced  their  reflection  interaction by  with both fellow  providing  them  with  perspectives from which to examine their practices.  Problem setting versus problem solving. W h i l e on-campus course w o r k p r o v i d e d the students w i t h generic approaches to problems encountered i n the practice setting, these approaches d i d not always p r o v i d e answers to specific problems related to the students' practices. Further, an over-reUance on a generic or, what Schon w o u l d refer to as, a technical p r o b l e m s o l v i n g approach, at times led to frustration and disappointment. For example, i n the case of T i n a , her early reliance u p o n her sponsor teacher's co-operative learning strategies d i d not 'solve' the problems peculiar to her o w n practice. Further, a technical problem solving approach resulted i n a utilitarian emphasis i n the students' teaching practices (i.e., a 'what works' approach to  teaching).  For example, this was evident i n the case of Jona, w h e n early i n  the practicum he regarded his teaching as a 'hoop-jumping' exercise and later w h e n he attempted to replicate the practices of his sponsor teacher.  In the  case of Steve, this approach was manifest i n his reliance u p o n traditional classroom practices gleaned from his prior experiences as a learner.  In the  case of Tina, it was evident i n her early reliance u p o n co-operative learning strategies.  O n l y when the students began to attend to the specific features of  their o w n practice d i d their inquiries shift from a generic or technical p r o b l e m solving approach to a problem setting approach.  W h e n students  began to ask questions such as ' W h y am I d o i n g this?' or 'What effect is this having o n m y class?' they began to examine assumptions about their practice that they had, hitherto, taken-for-granted.  The importance of problem setting  as opposed to technical problem s o l v i n g is, of course, a tenet of Schon's argument for a new epistemology of practice (i.e., reflective practice). It was clear from this study that the students attention to problem setting enhanced their reflections on their practices. The students approached p r o b l e m setting i n a variety of w a y s .  A  particularly interesting strategy was their use of negative cases (i.e., the students articulated an alternative practice b y describing what they did not like about their current practice). A l l four students used negative cases as a strategy for problem setting (e.g., 'pupil learning' for Sally; 'questioning style' for Tina; 'elicitation' for Steve; and 'direct instruction' for Jona).  However,  the use of negative cases was more predominant i n the case of Steve, than it was i n the other three cases.  The students' use of negative cases enabled  them to make explicit, to frame, and to reframe, issues i n their teaching that were n e w or unfamiliar to them. They were able to express what a new issue was 'like' by describing how it differed from something w i t h w h i c h they were familiar. This is a variation on Schon's (1987) notion that: To see this [situation] as that is not to subsume the first under a familiar category or rule.  It is rather, to see the unfamiliar situation as both  similar to and different from the familiar one, without at first being able to say similar or different w i t h respect to what.  The familiar situation  functions as a precedent, or a metaphor . . .  an exemplar for the  unfamiliar one. (p. 67)  The students use of negative cases resulted i n the construction of n e w frames to account for the 'unfamiliar.' In sum, the students' reflections on their practices, were enhanced when the nature solving  of their inquiries  shifted  from a generic  approach to a problem setting  students found  useful  approach.  in the process  of problem  or technical  problem  One of the strategies setting  was  the  the use of  negative cases. Observation  with  dialogue.  It is ironic that, w h i l e m a n y students  d i a l o g u e d w i t h their sponsor teachers o n a regular basis throughout the practicum, the students' observations of their sponsors' teaching practices typically ceased after the first few weeks o n practicum. A n instance of the problems associated w i t h the separation of dialogue and observation occurred i n the case of Steve. Throughout the practicum, it appeared that Steve a n d Cliff shared a c o m m o n understanding of brain-storming - an activity i n w h i c h a teacher elicits responses from the students about a particular issue. Indeed, the notion of brain-storming came up i n several discussions d u r i n g Steve's practicum.  It wasn't until late i n the practicum that Steve, after  observing one of Cliff's classes^^, began to appreciate that Cliff's conception of 'brain-storming' differed from his o w n .  Thus, w h i l e dialogue throughout  the practicum p r o v i d e d an opportunity for Steve and Cliff to make explicit their notions of 'brain-storming,' it was o n l y through observation, later i n the practicum, that Steve began to realize the difference between his o w n and Cliff's conception of brain-storming. Similar incidents occurred i n the cases of Sally and Tina. W h i l e there was a tendency for the students to observe fewer classes taught by the sponsor teachers as the practicum progressed, there was also a tendency for the sponsor teachers to observe fewer of the students' classes. One reason for this was that sponsor teachers felt that it was important for students to 'go it alone' i n the classroom; to develop a sense of confidence i n 35  Steve did not regularly observe Cliff's classes after his first few weeks on practicum and it was only because Cliff was being video taped on this occasion that Steve observed this particular class. This observation was in the ninth week of the practicum.  their o w n practice w i t h o u t the sponsor  teacher b e i n g present i n  the  classroom. W h i l e going it alone is undoubtedly a useful experience, the cyclic observations that were a part of this research project indicated that the students' reflections were enhanced w h e n regular dialogue was accompanied by observation.  The importance of dialogue for convergence of m e a n i n g  between student and sponsor has been reported elsewhere (Driver & Bell 1986; Erickson & MacIGnnon, 1991; Ross, 1990; Schon, 1987) a n d Schon (1983, 1987) has written at length o n the value of observation (e.g., the F o l l o w M e model for coaching reflective practice). This study has demonstrated that the complementary  practices  of observation  sponsor, enhanced the student-teachers'  and dialogue,  by both student and  reflection on their practices.  The time available for reflection. There were two aspects of the studentteachers' practica experiences that i m p i n g e d u p o n the time available for reflection: the difficulty they had w i t h the content material they were given to teach, and the range of classes that they were given to teach. In the first instance, the students' difficulty w i t h content often meant that a considerable amount of time was spent 'boning up' o n content at the expense of pedagogy. A clear example of this was Sally's pre-occupation w i t h the content required to teach IB Chemistry 11. Sally, by her o w n admission, often w o r k e d until very late at night reviewing the material for the next day. Similar situations occurred i n all four cases. This issue is not new i n teacher education and has been noted b y other researchers (Borko et, a l . , 1988; Shulman, 1986b). It was clear, that the students' difficulty w i t h the content i m p i n g e d u p o n the time available for them to reflect on substantive aspects of their practice. In the second instance, the students' teaching loads, particularly towards the end of the practica, also i m p i n g e d u p o n the time available for reflection. W h i l e there are benefits i n having the students work towards a full teaching load w i t h a range of classes, w h e n it is at the expense of reflection an increased w o r k l o a d seemed professional development.  to be detrimental to the students o v e r a l l This result is consistent w i t h other  studies  investigating w o r k l o a d and 'time press' ( C a m p b e l l et al., 1990; F e i m a n Nemser, 1986; Niles et al., 1987).  One way to address the constraints of difficulties w i t h content and high workloads, is to have the students teach more than one class of the same course. The benefits of this strategy were obvious i n the case of Jona, and to a lesser degree i n the cases of Tina and Steve. Teaching more than one class of the same course reduced preparation time and enabled the students to spend more time addressing the pedagogical aspects of their teaching. A l s o w h e n students taught multiple classes of the same course, the emphasis o n content diminished after teaching the first class and shifted to a broader discussion of teaching practices for the second and third classes; a shift from 'What do I have to teach?' to ' H o w might I teach it better?' study indicate that difficulties  with content and high workloads  upon the time available for reflection. teaching these  Thus, the results of this impinged  Alternative  uses of time, such as  more than one class of the same course,  may overcome some of  constraints.  M a k i n g explicit past experiences. M a k i n g explicit one's past experiences as a learner (either i n a school classroom or a university lecture theatre) provided the students w i t h a basis for problematizing their teaching practices. In the case of Jona, problematizing his past experiences resulted i n a critique of the university mentality that pervaded his teaching; for Sally, it was the realization that she was teaching as she was taught; and for Tina, it was an explication of her personal preference for a particular learning style. In a l l three cases, the students d r e w u p o n their past experiences as learners to examine taken-for-granted assumptions about their current practice.  The  importance of m a k i n g explicit past experiences has been reported i n m a n y studies (Cole, 1989; M a c K i n n o n , 1987; Russell et al. 1988; Sergiovanni, 1985) and is consistent w i t h Schon's (1988) argument for a new epistemology of practice i n w h i c h practitioners d r a w u p o n past experience a n d  new  knowledge to frame and reframe routine and non-routine aspects of their practice.  S i m p l y put, i n this study, student-teacher  reflection was enhanced  when the students made explicit their past experiences as learners. Sponsor teacher related factors Of  the factors that were identified  as enhancing or c o n s t r a i n i n g  reflection, a number were specifically related to the sponsor teachers.  These  factors fell w i t h i n two broadly defined categories: inquiring into rather than reporting on the students' practices, and trust, support, and confidence i n the student. Inquiring into rather than reporting on practice. One of the assumptions inherent i n the notion of supervision of student-teachers is 'reporting on' (in the formative sense) a student's practice.  S u c h reports p r o v i d e valuable  feedback to the students. In this study, three of the four sponsor teachers were surprised at the length and depth of their reporting. Further, as they watched the video tapes of their discussions w i t h their students they were alarmed at the extent to w h i c h their reporting left little time for the students to actively interact, react, or even act, d u r i n g the discussions.  The sponsor teachers  framed this reporting 'phenomena' i n terms of d o m i n a t i n g the discussions w i t h their students.  Each sponsor reflected o n his or her dominance i n  different ways. For example. Cliff saw his dominance i n terms of wanting to fill the gaps i n the discussion; Jason framed it i n terms of his failure to model the very practice that he was asking Susan to demonstrate i n her classroom, and L i n d a saw her dominance, particularly later i n the practicum, as a indication of her possessiveness of certain classes. A characteristic of the change i n supervisory practices, as a result of sponsor teachers recognition of their dominance, was a shift from r e p o r t i n g o n to i n q u i r i n g i n t o the students' practices.  A s this change occurred the  students became more actively i n v o l v e d i n discussions w i t h their sponsor teachers and began setting their o w n agenda for those discussions.  The  importance of i n q u i r i n g into practice is an essential component of Schon's second  and  t h i r d models for coaching reflective practice  Experimentation and H a l l of Mirrors). from 'reporting  on'  to 'inquiring  (i.e.. Joint  In short, the sponsor teachers' shift  into' the students'  practices enhanced the  students' reflection on their practices. Trust, support, and confidence. A characteristic of the student-teachers' reflections, as identified i n this study, was the focus o n problems and difficulties encountered i n the practice setting. teachers'  Rarely d i d the student-  reflections focus on their classroom successes.  Further, their  reflection tended to emphasize the uncertainties and doubts they faced i n  their teaching.  After reading the case studies contained i n this thesis, one  might be forgiven for thinking that Sally, Tina, Steve, and Jona enjoyed little success while on practica. Indeed, the situation was quite the opposite They were successful d u r i n g their practica. reflective teachers.  They were confident, assured, and  Three conditions were identified that enhanced  the  students' confidence i n and reflection u p o n their practices, namely, the trust, support, and confidence that the sponsor teachers had i n the student-teachers' practices. A s the sponsor teachers' trust, support, and confidence i n the students increased, the students began to share and make explicit rather than w i t h d r a w a n d h o l d tacit their concerns about their teaching.  The importance of a  supportive environment, such as this, for the development of reflective practitioners has been noted b y a number of researchers (Erickson & M a c K i n n o n , 1991; Schon, 1988; W i l d m a n et al., 1990). It was clear, i n this study,  that the sponsor  teachers'  trust, support,  and confidence  in  the  students' abilities enhanced the students' reflection on their practices. O n e factor that facilitated these conditions, that was identified i n this study, was the sharing of activities by both sponsor and student beyond the c l a s s r o o m ; this s h a r i n g  i n c l u d e d activities that were  both curricula  (workshops, etc.) and extra-curricula (coaching sporting teams, etc.) i n nature. This is consistent w i t h reports that indicate reflection is enhanced w h e n the students begin to appreciate the 'cultural m i l i e u ' i n w h i c h their teaching takes place (e.g., A t w e l l , 1988; Houston & Clift, 1990). Program related factors In the case of Sally and Tina, one factor that enhanced their reflection was related to the on-campus teacher education program that they undertook prior to the practicum, namely, method courses that linked theory to practice. M e t h o d courses that linked theory to practice. It became apparent i n the first year of the study that the science method courses w h i c h both Sally and Tina took had a considerable impact on their reflection. This was evident i n the  themes on ' p u p i l l e a r n i n g ' (Tina), 'questioning style' (Tina), a n d  'teaching orientation' (Sally) The courses went beyond methods per se and  related the methods to specific theoretical perspectives o n teaching a n d learning.  The association between theory and practice p r o v i d e d Sally and  T i n a w i t h a heuristic for e x a m i n i n g different teaching practices^^.  The  importance of method courses i n this regard has been the subject of other studies (Krough, 1987; Ross, 1990, Zeichner & Liston, 1989). Thus, method courses that made explicit the links between theory and practice enhanced the student-teachers'  reflections on their practices.  IL Discussion of critical issues arising from the study The reflection documented i n this study indicates that Schon's notion of reflective practice is applicable to the professional development of studentteachers i n practica settings. There are three areas i n w h i c h this study extends Schon's conception of reflection as it applies to the practicum setting, namely: the thematic nature of student-teacher  reflection, the o w n e r s h i p of one's  practice, and the planning setting versus the performance settings i n terms of Schon's coaching models. The thematic nature of student-teacher reflection W h e n this study was first conceptualized, it was couched i n terms of identifying reflective incidents. There was an expectation by the researcher, for reasons that w i l l be explored shortly, that it w o u l d be possible to identify reflection during the course of a single interview or stimulated recall session. H o w e v e r , it soon became apparent that the term reflective incident was both misleading and inappropriate. Consider Figure 13 w h i c h is a composite map of the themes identified in this study. What is immediately apparent is the temporal nature of reflection; some themes spanned two weeks, some a full thirteen weeks.  In particular,  different components of reflection arose as incidents w i t h i n cycles, a n d emerged as themes across cycles. Therein resides the confusion between the term reflective incident and reflective theme.  There was a change in the instructors of the method courses during the second year of this study and it took a further twelve months before the theory/practice emphasis was established again. This may account for the absence of this particular factor in the second year of the study (i.e., the reflections of Steve and Jason).  Theme  Reflective Teaching Cycles Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5  Sally:  Teaching Orientation Passive interaction Pupil learning  —  Collégial interaction Tina  -  Ownership  — —  Pupil knowledge Questioning style Off-task behaviour Steve  •  Elicitation Ownership  Jona  Direct instruction Levels of understanding  ^  Themes and objectives Ownership Lesson plans  ———  Figure 13. Composite map of themes from the four case studies The incidents arose as the result of activities i n a lesson, discussions w i t h a sponsor teacher, the video recall of a pre- or post-lesson discussion, etc. These incidents were critical as they often resulted i n the students bringing n e w frames to bear o n issues related to their practices^''. For example, the M a r i a incident i n the case of Jona resulted i n Jona reframing his notion of the relationship between unit themes and lesson objectives.  Associations that  the students made between related incidents became reflective themes over time.  The themes identified i n this study indicate that reflection is horn of  incidents hut is thematic in nature.  This brings some conceptual clarity, at  least for this researcher, to the use of the terms i n c i d e n t and t h e m e as they pertain to student-teacher reflection.  Indeed, there is a body of literature entitled 'critical incidents' that address such occurrences during student-teachers' practica (e.g., see Wideen et al., 1990; Pajak, 1988; Housego, 1987).  Conceptualizing reflective practice i n terms of its thematic nature has important implications for the supervision of student-teachers. For example, it w o u l d be difficult, i f not impossible, to determine whether or not a student was reflective through occasional drop-in visits to the student's classroom. A l t e r n a t i v e supervisory practices to occasional visits w o u l d need to be enacted if the identification and development of student-teacher reflection was to be a primary goal of a teacher education program^s. The ownership of one's practice There are a number of studies that have investigated the n a t u r e of reflection (i.e., 'why' and 'how' people reflect u p o n their practice) (Campbell et al., 1990; Grimmett, 1988; K r o u g h , 1987; L a l i k et al., 1989; L o u d e n , 1989 M a c K i n n o n , 1989; Ross, 1987; Shulman, 1988). Less attention has been given to the substance of reflection (i.e., 'what' people actually reflect upon).  The  results from this study have p r o v i d e d insights into both of these areas; the former is addressed above, this discussion w i l l n o w consider the latter. The intent of research question one - What is it that student-teachers' reflect upon? - was to investigate the s u b s t a n c e of the student-teacher reflection.  Previous studies on student-teacher reflection have s h o w n that  students typically reflect u p o n lesson content (Borko et al, 1987; Russell, 1988) and p u p i l learning (Freiberg & W a x m a n , 1990; W i l d m a n , 1987; Erickson & M a c K i n n o n , 1991).  These results are consistent w i t h one of the m a i n  categories of description that emerged from this study. The category entitled 'the w a y pupils learn' embraces the students reflections u p o n both lesson content and p u p i l learning. It was the second m a i n category of description that emerged from the analysis of the data, that stands i n sharp contrast to the other studies, namely, 'the ownership of one's practice.' There has been little, i f any, documentation, of student-reflection on the ownership of their practice. There are a number of possible explanations for this.  For example, earlier studies i n teacher reflection (regardless of the  theoretical perspective adopted)  were often conducted  w i t h in-service  A brief discussion of some practical issues related to the identification of incidents and themes is contained in Appendix D.  teachers for w h o m ownership of practice may not have been an issue. Thus, as studies on reflection m o v e d from the in-service to the pre-service setting, the issue of ownership may have been subsumed under existing categories or not r e c o g n i z e d as an issue p e c u l i a r to pre-service setting.  Another  explanation may be the context i n w h i c h studies i n student-teacher reflection have taken place.  If the practicum is not the primary setting for the study  then the issue of ownership may not emerge.  Whatever the explanation, the  ownership of one's practice was a significant issue i n this study u p o n w h i c h the students reflected. T h e students'  reflections u p o n  o w n e r s h i p were  manifest  in  the  questions they posed about their practice; for example: - Whose classroom is it? - Whose pupils are they? - Whose instructional strategies w i l l I use, mine or the sponsors? - Whose materials are they? - Whose test is it? - Whose teaching style should I adopt? - Whose unit plan is it? - Whose disciplinary strategies are they? - Whose lesson is it? A s the students wrestled w i t h the question of ownership, an interesting counter-situation emerged.  The sponsor teachers began to ask themselves  similar questions. Enmeshed w i t h i n this dynamic was the sense of 'transfer,' specifically, the transfer of ownership from the sponsor to student (e.g., for establishing co-operative groups, for t a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of tests a n d assignments, and so on.).  This was particularly evident i n the reflective  themes that traced the students'  shift from 'a dependence u p o n ' to 'an  independence from' the sponsor teacher. Central to this particular issue is that ownership must not only be g i v e n (i.e., by the sponsor) but must also be taken (i.e, by the student).  For example, there were times w h e n the sponsors  were reluctant to give up ownership but the students were w a n t i n g to take it, and conversely, times w h e n the sponsors wanted to give up ownership but the students were reluctant to take it.  The contribution that this study has to make i n this regard is that: (1) ownership  of one's practice,  in its various forms, constituted  component of the student-teachers'  a  substantial  reflection in the practica setting, and (2)  reflection upon ownership emerged as a duality  in which ownership  needs to  be both actively given by the sponsor and taken by the student. B r o a d l y conceived, the notion of o w n e r s h i p , as used i n this study, reflects the w a y i n w h i c h the students referred to the development of a practice that was u n i q u e l y their o w n .  C l e a r l y though, referring to this  development i n terms of o w n e r s h i p (or a transfer of o w n e r s h i p ) , w h i l e useful for the students as they made sense of their practica experiences, is overly  simplistic.  Ownership  responsibility, authority, and  entails  autonomy.  many  things,  A n d within  for  example:  each of these  dimensions there are v a r y i n g perspectives, for example, responsibility might be examined from a legal, moral, or educational perspective.  Thus, w h i l e  ownership emerged as a central issue i n the reflective themes documented i n this study, a more detailed examination of ownership i n terms of its various dimensions w o u l d be useful i n further explicating student-teacher reflection i n practica settings. P l a n n i n g vs. performance and Schon's coaching models The teaching practica that was the basis for this study, p r o v i d e d a more complex d y n a m i c than the settings i n w h i c h Schon first explicated his notions of reflective practice.  Schon's w o r k was p r i m a r i l y i n 'clinical'  settings i n w h i c h students were p r o v i d e d w i t h relatively risk-free 'virtual' w o r l d s i n w h i c h to experiment.  Further, these settings were p r i m a r i l y  p l a n n i n g settings i n w h i c h teacher and student w o r k e d on a particular task (e.g., the design of a building, the preparation of a musical performance, etc.). In these instances, the action u p o n w h i c h the students reflected was their planning i n a virtual w o r l d . The teaching practica, as reported i n this study, included both the p l a n n i n g setting and the performance setting (i.e., putting into practice that w h i c h was planned).  Therefore, the students' reflection  i n c l u d e d both p l a n n i n g as action i n a virtual w o r l d and performance as action i n the 'real' w o r l d .  What was particularly striking between Schon's rendering of reflective practice from the perspective of action i n a virtual w o r l d a n d this study's examination of reflection as both action i n a virtual w o r l d (of planning) and the real w o r l d (of performance) was the tenuous nature of the relationship between teacher and student that was associated w i t h the movement between these two worlds. The safety of the v i r t u a l w o r l d i n w h i c h the student a n d sponsor p l a n n e d lessons was, i n part, consistent w i t h Schon's description of the relationship between student and 'coach.' For example, there were instances of the first t w o coaching models. F o l l o w M e a n d Joint Experimentation. W h a t seemed to upset this d y n a m i c was the student's movement from the virtual of planning to the real w o r l d of performance. In all four case studies, w h e n the students m o v e d from p l a n n i n g to performance, the relationships between student and sponsor oscillated enormously. Trust a n d comfort that was evident d u r i n g a p l a n n i n g session suddenly became scepticism a n d distress i n the performance setting. The shift from p l a n n i n g to performance was indeed, i n the words of the students, a reality check! Assurances about p u p i l behaviour p r o v e d to be incorrect; advice on activities seemed to be insufficient; assistance w i t h lesson content appeared to be inadequate; and so on.  A s a result, the relationships between the students and sponsors was  given to abrupt starts and stops.  Sometimes, these changes were m a r k e d b y  periods of silence (or non-participation) b y the students d u r i n g the pre- and post-lesson discussions; at other times, b y quiet acquiescence to established routines and procedures; and yet at other times, by a radical departure from the  advice that h a d been offered.  Interestingly, the  tensions i n the  relationships between the students and sponsors was significant i n terms of precipitating a number of reflective themes i n this study.  But this tension is  not readily apparent i n the coaching models that Schon uses to describe the relationship between a student and his or her reflective coach. The easy transition from one reflective coaching m o d e l to another, that was evident i n the p l a n n i n g settings characteristic of Schon's w o r k , was m a r k e d l y absent as the students m o v e d from p l a n n i n g to settings i n this study.  performance  Thus, while Schon's three coaching models appear to  capture the essence of the relationship between student and sponsor i n the  v i r t u a l w o r l d of p l a n n i n g , the models do not fully  account for  the  interactions between student and sponsor as the student moves from the virtual w o r l d of p l a n n i n g to the real w o r l d of practice. study suggest that the conceptualization  The results of this  of the relationship  between student  and 'reflective coach,' as depicted by Schon, may need to be reviewed in the light of the difference between reflection upon action in a planning and reflection upon action in a performance setting.  setting  A r e v i e w of this k i n d  might p r o v i d e a more comprehensive picture of the potential contribution that supervisors are able to play i n the development of the reflective practices of student-teachers. III. Implications for practice If teacher educators v a l u e reflection they must also address  how  reflection might be realized w i t h i n the practicum setting. Clearly, time needs to be allocated to provide the students w i t h an opportunity to reflect (Cole, 1989; K i l b o u r n , 1990; N o l a n , 1989). However, allocating time, i n and of itself, is insufficient to ensure that students become reflective practitioners; students must be p r o v i d e d w i t h opportunities, structured or otherwise, to reflect on practice.  In this section, the reader is invited to take a step back from the  details of student-teacher reflection portrayed thus far, and to examine the four suggestions for p r o v i d i n g opportunities for student-teachers to reflect u p o n their practices. These opportunities are addressed under the following headings: m u l t i p l i c i t y of perspectives, intense e x a m i n a t i o n of practice, theorizing about practice, and entertaining uncertainty. M u l t i p l i c i t y of perspectives The issue of seeing things from 'different perspectives' was prevalent i n m a n y of the reflective themes identified i n this study. perspectives contributed to the students'  Access to different  framing or reframing of their  practices. This is consistent w i t h the research by W i l d m a n et al. (1990) and Ross (1990).  The different perspectives were gleaned from a number of  sources: student-teacher  networks, v i d e o tapes, interactions w i t h p u p i l s ,  m a k i n g explicit one's beliefs about teaching and learning, etc. Access or exposure to m u l t i p l e perspectives stands i n contrast to the suggestion that students need issues to reflect upon and that the supervisors  role is to set the agenda for such reflection. The reflection documented i n this study suggests that the role for supervisors may not be so much in pointing upon but in providing a multiplicity  of  in enhancing  reflective  practice  out what it is that students should reflect  opportunities  for students to view their practice from  perspectives.  Intense examination of practice The reflective teaching cycle was not intended as a m o d e l for the supervision of student-teachers but was to be used to gain insights into student-teacher reflection.  H o w e v e r , the reflective teaching cycle d i d  p r o v i d e d some insights into possible alternatives to current supervisory practices. In particular, the intense examination of a student's practice over a three day period seemed to be very productive i n terms of p r o v i d i n g the students w i t h an opportunity to explore, in-depth, a number of issues related to their practices.  Such in-depth exploration may not be possible w i t h the  more traditional weekly or fortnightly classroom observations b y supervisors. Further, the students' reactions to the video tapes of the pre- and post-lesson discussions over the three day p e r i o d , that encompassed teaching cycle, were  quite fruitful  the reflective  i n terms of e n h a n c i n g  reflection.  Therefore, the results of this study suggest that the student, sponsor, and advisor should designate a time(s) during the practicum when as a group they examine, in-depth,  the student's  teaching practice.  This may require up to  two or three consecutive days. T h e o r i z i n g about practice Another aspect of reflection that emerged as a trend i n this study was the student-teachers' attempts to theorize about practice. These theories were not super-ordinate to practice but were grounded i n and immediately relevant to the practices of the i n d i v i d u a l students.  The students' d i d not reflect o n  issues related to the broader educational practices; for example, school policy, c u r r i c u l a o r g a n i z a t i o n , resource management,  etc. (although these d i d  impinge o n their practice). The students typically addressed problems w i t h i n their o w n realm. Several factors contributed to this trend.  The most significant was the  students' attempts at p r o b l e m setting as o p p o s e d to technical p r o b l e m  solving.  W h e n the students began to attend to the particulars of their o w n  practice (problem setting) they began to theorize about practice rather than d r a w i n g u p o n generic approaches to teaching (technical p r o b l e m solving). Another factor was the students active participation and agenda setting i n the discussions about their practice. W h e n this occurred, the students began to articulate personal theories about teaching and learning. The students use of 'negative cases' also p r o v i d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y to theorize about practice b y b e g i n n i n g w i t h what was familiar a n d then constructing theories about the unfamiliar. Further, i n the cases of Sally and Tina, methods courses that l i n k e d theory to practice p r o v i d e d the students w i t h a heuristic for examining both current and developing theories about their practice.  In turn, theorizing about practice p r o v i d e d the basis for  substantive discussions about teaching practices that underlay many of the reflective themes identified i n the study. important  Thus, // reflective practice is to be an  aspect of the practica experience, students should be encouraged to  theorize about issues that are immediately  relevant to their own practice.  Entertaining uncertainty There are many criteria u p o n w h i c h student-teachers are judged to have reached (or not reached) a level of competence i n teaching; for example, independence, confidence, etc.  One of the o v e r r i d i n g criterion i n m a n y  faculties of education is for students to be reflective about their practice (Zeichner, 1987b).  The results from this study indicate a key element of  reflection is the ability of the students to entertain uncertainty.  Only by  entertaining uncertainty d i d the students i n this study reflect on many of the themes identified. Further, for the students to entertain uncertainty they need to feel comfortable i n the their practica settings.  The degree  of comfort is  determined, i n part, by the level of of trust, support, and confidence that the sponsor teachers demonstrate i n the students.  These conditions underscore  the importance of carefully selecting (and developing) environments i n w h i c h to place student-teachers d u r i n g their practica.  Thus, entertaining  uncertainty and the setting i n w h i c h the practica takes place are interrelated a n d critical i n the development of students as reflective practitioners.  Therefore,  the practicum  entertaining  uncertainty  element of professional  should be a setting in which the opportunity is supported  development  and  recognized  through  reflection.  as  an  for  important  V . Further research There were two areas that emerged d u r i n g the analysis that are worthy of further research attention: the idiosyncratic factors emerging from the cases, a n d the practicum as professional development opportunity for the sponsor teacher.  Both are related to the reflective practices of student teachers i n the  practicum setting. Idiosyncratic factors emerging from the cases Three factors emerged i n this study that were idiosyncratic to particular cases.  The first emerged i n the case of Jona, namely, brief, unrecorded, and  unfocussed observations resulted i n a technical emphasis u p o n practice (i.e., a 'what works' approach to teaching) by both sponsor and advisor. In the case of Jona, w h e n the supervision of the student was casual it was the technical aspects of teaching that received the most attention i n subsequent discussions. One reason for this seemed to be that technical aspects were easier to recall and speak to than substantive aspects of practice. By contrast, it seemed that extended, recorded, and focussed observations h a d greater potential for encouraging students to examine and reflect upon substantive aspects of their practice. A research project designed to determine the importance of different supervisory strategies (e.g., recorded versus unrecorded) i n terms of studentteacher reflection might i l l u m i n a t e this issue and p r o v i d e suggestions for appropriate supervisory strategies i n the practicum setting. The second and third idiosyncratic factors, both of w h i c h arose i n the case of Sally, are related: the tacit nature of the sponsor's knowledge-in-action a n d the sponsor's emphasis on experiential learning.  The central issue i n  both was the difficulty for the sponsor teacher to make explicit aspects his o w n practice for the student. The consequence was that Sally was encouraged to 'learn' about this knowledge by immersing herself i n the practice setting; the emphasis being that the 'learning is i n the doing.' The experience of this researcher suggests that this approach is prevalent i n many practica settings. The knowledge that practitioners tacitly hold and h o w this knowledge might  be communicated to the student is addressed by Schon.  H o w e v e r his  approach differs to that of the sponsor teacher i n the case of Sally. Instead of an immersion i n practice, Schon argues that the sponsor teacher should use m o d e l l i n g as a first step i n attempting to communicate this tacit knowledge. A research project w i t h an emphasis on the sponsor teachers' tacit knowledge and the ways i n they attempt to communicate this knowledge to the students might elucidate some of these issues. The practicum as professional development for the sponsor A l t h o u g h it was not the intention of this study to examine the reflective practices of sponsor teachers, it became apparent that the sponsors used the practicum as an opportunity to reflect on their o w n t e a c h i n g practices. The potential for professional development i n this regard has been noted by other researchers (Garman, 1982; M a c K i n n o n & Erickson, 1988).  The manner i n  w h i c h the sponsors seemed to reflect on their practices, as they supervised the student teachers, is illustrated i n Figure 14.  Figure 14. Professional development opportunities for the sponsor  Typically, the sponsor teachers reflected o n their o w n practices w h e n they became curious about particular incidents i n the students' practices. Such incidents triggered the recall of similar incidents i n the sponsors' o w n past practices and, momentarily, deflected their focus from the  students'  practices. The sponsor teachers then made problematic these past incidents. Often, it appeared that this was the first time that the sponsor teachers h a d problematized these aspects of their practice.  For example, L i n d a , as she  attempted to explain an aspect of Tina's practice i n terms of her o w n practice commented: Linda:  I have been doing it . . . for seven years. These things y o u take for granted. A n d it is k i n d of interesting that I could express it like that, because I have never had it to explain myself. ( T / L C3.5 L e s / W , p. 2)  Once the sponsor teachers' problematized their o w n practice they then returned to the original incident i n the student's practice and d r e w u p o n the knowledge they had surfaced about their o w n practice i n order to make sense of the student-teacher's practice. Thus, the practica served as a professional development opportunity for both student and sponsor i n this study.  Where the present s t u d y has  highlighted aspects of this development of student-teachers, between sponsor teacher a n d student-teacher  the interplay  for c o m b i n e d professional  development i n the practicum is worthy of further research attention.  References Acheson, K . , & G a l l , M . (1987).  Techniques i n the clinical s u p e r v i s i o n of  teachers. N e w York: Longman. A l d e r m a n , C . , Jenkins, D . , & Kemmis, S. (1980). Rethinking case study: Notes from the Second Cambridge Conference. In Simons, H . (Ed.), Towards a science of the singular (pp.47-61).  Centre for A p p l i e d Research i n  Education, University of East A n g l i a , N o r i c h . A p p l e g a t e , J., & Lasley, T. (1982).  C o o p e r a t i n g teachers' problems w i t h  preservice field experience students. Journal of Teacher Education. 33(2), 15-18. A t w e l l , W . (1988, October). Strengthening the dialectical relationship between teacher's personal knowledge and their professional k n o w l e d g e through autobiography and object relations. Paper presented at the Conference on Reflective Inquiry i n Education, Orlando, Florida. Benham, B. (1979, A p r i l ) . maintenance meeting  The effect of reflective w r i t i n g o n i d e n t i f y i n g  i n student teachers.  of the  American  A paper presented at the a n n u a l  E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , San  Francisco. Beyer, L . (1984). Field experience, ideology, and the development of critical reflectivity. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3). 36-41. Blakey, J., Everett-Turner, L . , Massing, C , & Scott, N . (1988). The m a n v faces of b e g i n n i n g teachers.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the  Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Windsor, Ontario. B o l i n , F. (1987).  O n defining supervision.  Supervision, 2(4), 368-380.  Journal of C u r r i c u l u m  and  Borko, H . , Livingston, C , McCaleb, J., & M a u r o , L . (1988). p l a n n i n g a n d post-lesson reflections: Patterns teacher preparation.  Student-teachers'  a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s for  In Calderhead, J. (Ed.), Teacher's  Professional  Learning. London: Palmer Press. Boydell, D . (1986). Issues i n teaching practice supervision research: A review of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 115-125. B r o o k h a r t , S., & L o a d m a n , W . (1989, M a r c h ) .  School-university  collaboration: W h y it's m u l t i c u l t u r a l education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. B r o w n , K . (1990, June).  What is the role of the university supervisor i n  practice teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, British Columbia. Calderhead, J. (1988, A p r i l ) .  Reflective teaching and teacher education. A  paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l Research Association, N e w Orleans, Louisiana. Calderhead, J. (1989). [Review of Promoting reflective teaching: S u p e r v i s i o n in action, & Reflection i n teacher e d u c a t i o n ] . International Journal of Oualitative Studies i n Education, 2(4), 375-378. Calderhead, J. (1992).  Representations  of teachers'  k n o w l e d g e . A paper  presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. C a m p b e l l , C , Green, M . , & Purvis, C , (1990, June). Becoming a teacher: The pre-service component.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the  Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, British C o l u m b i a . Carr, W . , & Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming critical: K n o w i n g through action research. Australia: Deakin University Press.  C i n n a m o n d , J., & Z i m p h e r , N . (1990). community.  Reflectivity as a function of  In R. Clift, R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), E n c o u r a g i n g  reflective practice i n education (pp. 57-72). N e w York: Teachers College Press. C l a n d i n i n , J., & C o n n e l l y , M . (1988). classrooms: C o l l a b o r a t i v e research,  S t u d y i n g teachers' k n o w l e d g e of ethics, a n d the  n e g o t i a t i o n of  narrative. The Journal of Educational Thought, 22(2A), 269-282. C l a r k e , A . (1991).  Reflective Practice  as  a Collaborative  Enterprise:  Implications for Student, Sponsor, and A d v i s o r . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the C a n a d i a n Society for the Study of E d u c a t i o n Conference, Queens University, Ontario. Clift, R., Nichols, C , & Marshall, F. (1987, A p r i l ) . T u r n i n g opportunities into problems: A n g e r and resistance i n teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association, Washington, D . C . Cochran-Smith, M . , & Lytle, S. (1990).  Research o n teaching a n d teacher  research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2). 2-11. Cogan, M . (1973). C l i n i c a l supervision. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . Cole, A . (1989, March). M a k i n g explicit implicit theories of teaching:  Starting  points i n preservice programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association, San Francisco. C o m e a u x , M . , & Peterson, P. (1988, October).  Teacher evaluation as a n  opportunity for promoting reflection. Paper presented at the Reflective Inquiry Conference, Orlando, Florida. C o n n e l l y , M . , & C l a n d i n i n , J. (1986).  O n narrative m e t h o d ,  philosophy, and narrative unites i n the story of teaching. Research in Science Teaching. 23(4), 293-310.  personal  Journal of  C o u r t , D . (1988).  Reflection-in-action: Some definitional problems.  In P.  Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher education (pp. 143146). N e w York: Teachers College Press. C r o w , N . (1987, April). H i d d e n curriculum i n a teacher education program: A case study.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n  Educational Research Association, Washington, D . C . D o y l e , W . (1990).  Themes i n teacher education.  In R. H o u s t o n (Ed.),  H a n d b o o k of Research on Teacher E d u c a t i o n (pp. 3-24).  N e w York:  Macmillan. Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. The School Science Review, 67(240), 443-436. Eisner, E . (1983). Anastasia might still be alive, but the monarchy is dead. Educational Researcher, 12(5). 13-24. Emans, R. (1983).  I m p l e m e n t i n g the k n o w l e d g e base: R e d e s i g n i n g the  function of cooperating teachers and college supervisors.  Tournai of  Teacher Education, 34(3), 14-17. E r d m a n , J. (1983). Assessing the purposes of early field experience programs. Tournai of Teacher Education, 34(4), 27-31. Erickson, P. (1986).  Qualitative methods i n research on teaching.  In M .  Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119-161). N e w York: M a c m i l l a n . Erickson, G . (1988).  Explorations i n the field of reflection: Directions for  future research agendas. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 195-205). N e w York: Teachers College Press.  Erickson, G . , & M a c K i n n o n , A . (1991). Seeing classrooms i n new ways: O n becoming a science teacher. In D . Schon (Ed.), The Reflective T u r n : Case Studies In Professional Practice (pp. 15-36). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983).  Learning To Teach.  In L . Shulman & G . Sykes  (Eds.), H a n d b o o k of Teaching and P o l i c v (pp. 150-170).  N e w York:  Longman. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1986).  The cultures of teaching.  In M . Wittrock (Ed.),  H a n d b o o k of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 505-526). N e w York: Macmillan. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990).  Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual.  In W . H o u s t o n (Ed.) H a n d b o o k of Research i n Teacher Education (pp. 212-233).  N e w Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n a n d the A s s o c i a t i o n of Teacher  Educators. Fenstermacher, G . (1988). The place of science and epistemology i n Schon's conception of reflective practice.  In P. G r i m m e t t & G . Erickson (Eds.),  Reflection i n teacher education (pp. 39-45). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Firestone, W . (1987).  M e a n i n g i n method: the rhetoric of quantitative and  qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21. Freiberg, J., & W a x m a n , H . (1990). Reflection and the acquisition of technical teaching skills. In R. Clift, R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), E n c o u r a g i n g reflective practice i n education (pp. 119-138). N e w York: Teachers College Press. F u l l a n , M . , & Connelly, F. (1987).  Teacher education i n Ontario: C u r r e n t  practice and options for the future (a position paper written for the Ontario Teacher Education Review). Ontario: M i n i s t r y of Education and M i n i s t r y of Colleges and Universities.  Gage, N . , (1980).  N e w prospects for educational research.  Australian  Educational Researcher, 7(4), 7-25. G a r m a n , N . (1986). rationale  Reflection, the heart of clinical supervision: A m o d e r n  for professional practice.  Tournai of  Curriculum  and  Supervision, 2(1), 1-24. G a r m a n , N . (1990). Theories embedded i n the events of clinical supervision: A hermeneutic approach.  Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m and S u p e r v i s i o n . 5(3),  P. 201-213. Garrison, W . (1986). Some principles of postpositivistic philosophy of science. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 12-18. G a s k e l l , J. (1985).  D e v e l o p i n g an analytical perspective d u r i n g student  teaching: A case study.  In P. A r l i n (Ed.), Research on teaching a n d the  s u p e r v i s i o n of teaching, (pp. 50-65).  Centre for the study of teacher  education. University of British C o l u m b i a , British C o l u m b i a . Geertz, C . (1973). The interpretation of cultures. N e w York: Basic Books. Geertz, C . (1983). Local Knowledge. N e w York: Basic Books. Gilliss, G . (1988). Schon's reflective practitioner: A model for teachers?. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher education (pp. 47-53). N e w York: Teachers College Press. G i l t i n , A . , O g a w a , R., & Rose, E . (1984).  S u p e r v i s i o n , reflection, a n d  understanding. Tournai of Teacher Education. 35(3), 46-52. G i r o u x , H , & M c L a r e n , P. (1986).  Teacher education a n d the politics of  engagement: The case for democratic schooling. H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l Review. 56(3), 213-238. Glassberg, S., & Sprintall, N . (1980).  Student teaching: A developmental  approach. Tournai of Teacher Education, 31(2), 31-38.  Classer, B., & Strauss, A . (1967) The discovery of grounded theory.  Chicago:  Aldine-Atherton. G l i c k m a n , C (1985). Supervision of instruction:  A developmental  approach.  Boston: A l l y n and Bacon. G l i c k m a n , C . (1988). instruction.  K n o w l e d g e and uncertainty  i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of  In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher  education (pp. 57-66). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Goldhammer, R. (1969). C l i n i c a l supervision. N e w York: H o l t Rienhart and Winston. G o o d l a d , J. (1988).  S t u d y i n g the education of educators: V a l u e s - d r i v e n  inquiry. P h i Delta Kappan, 70(10). 104-111. G o o d m a n , J. (1983). The seminar's role i n the education of student teachers. Tournai of Teacher Education, 34(3), 44-49. G o o d m a n , J. (1988, October). education.  U n i v e r s i t y constraints to reflective teacher  Paper presented at Reflective Inquiry Conference, O r l a n d o ,  Florida. G r i m m e t t , P. (1988). perspective.  The nature of reflection and Schon's conception i n  In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher  education (pp. 5-15). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Grimmett, P. (1989). A commentary on Schon's v i e w of reflection. Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 5(1), 19-28. Grimmett, P., & Creehan, P. (1990). Barry: A case study of teacher reflection i n clinical supervision. Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 5(3), 214235.  Grimmett, P., Erickson, G . , M a c K i n n o n , A . , & Riecken, T. (1990). Reflective practice i n teacher education. In R. Clift, R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), E n c o u r a g i n g reflective practice i n education (pp. 20-38).  N e w York:  Teachers College Press. Gurney, B. (1989, March). Constructivism and professional development: A stereoscopic view. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the N a t i o n a l Association for Research i n Science Education. San Francisco. Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press. H a n d a l , G . & L a u v â s , P. (1987). Promoting reflective practice: Supervision i n practice. M i l t o n Keynes: Open University Press. Hargreaves, A . (1988).  Teacher quality: A sociological analysis. Journal of  C u r r i c u l u m Studies, 20, 216-224. Hargreaves, A . (1989, June).  C o n t r i v e d collegiality a n d the culture of  teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education Conference, University of Laval, Quebec. Harre, R. (1981). The positivist-empiricist approach and its alternative. In P. Reasons & J. R o w a n (Eds.). H u m a n inquiry: A Source of n e w p a r a d i g m research. N e w York: John Willey. H a r r i s , I. (1989).  A C r i t i q u e of Schon's v i e w s o n teacher education:  Contributions and issues. Journal of C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 5, (1), 15-18. Hayes, L . , & Ross, D . (1988, October). Trust versus C o n t r o l : The impact of school leadership on teacher reflection. Paper presented at the Reflective Inquiry Conference, Orlando, Florida.  H o l l a n d , P. (1987, October). Conflicting conceptions of coaching: Bruce Toyce's coaching as transfer of technical rationality, and D o n a l d Schon's coaching as a hermeneutic process. Paper presented at the Bergamo Conference on C u r r i c u l u m Theory and Classroom Practice, Dayton, Ohio. H o l l a n d , P. (1989a).  Implicit assumptions about the supervisory conference:  A r e v i e w and analysis of literature.  Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m  and  Supervision, 4(4), 362-379. H o l l a n d , P. (1989b).  Reading between the lines: E x p l o r i n g the supervisory  conference through discourse analysis.  Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m  and  Supervision, 4(4), 380-381. Housego, B. (1987). Critical incidents i n the supervision of student teaching i n an extended practicum. The Alberta Tournai of Educational Research, 33(4), 247-257. Houston, R., & Clift, R. (1990). reflective practice.  The potential for research contributions to  In R. Clift, R. H o u s t o n , & M . P u g a c h (Eds.),  Encouraging Reflective Practice In Education (pp. 208-222). N e w York: Teachers College Press. H o w e , K . , & Eisenhart, M . (1990). Standards for qualitative (and qualitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-9. Hunter, M . (1984) K n o w i n g , teaching, and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.), U s i n g what we k n o w about teaching.  A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a : Association  for Supervision and C u r r i c u l u m Development. Johnson, D . , Johnson, R., & Holubec Johnson, E. (1986). Circles of Learning. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company. Joyce, B., & Showers, B (1982). Leadership, 40,7-10.  The coaching of teaching.  Educational  K a g a n , S. (1990).  The structural  approach  to cooperative  learning.  Educational Leadership, December, 12-15. K e l i i p i o , K . , Prentice, M . , Shapson, S., Sprungman, S., Squire, G . , Steinmann, L . , Toms, M . , & W i d e e n , M . (1990, June).  C r i t i c a l incidents i n the  supervision of student teachers: A n action research perspective.  Paper  presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, British C o l u m b i a . BCilbourn, B. (1982). L i n d a : A case study i n clinical supervision. C a n a d i a n Journal of Education, 7(3), 1-24. K i l b o u r n , B. (1988). Reflecting on vignettes of teaching. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher education (pp. 91-111). N e w York: Teachers College Press. K i l b o u r n , B. (1990). Constructive feedback: Learning the art. Torronto: OISE Press. K o z i o l , S., & Burns, P. (1986).  Teachers' accuracy i n self-reporting about  instructional practices using a focused self-report inventory. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(4), 205-209. K r o g h , S. (1987, A p r i l ) . Reflection on reflective thinking i n methods classes: Where the buck finally stops.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of  the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D . C . L a B o s k e y , V . (1989).  F r o m studio to classroom - or not?  Journal  of  C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 5(1), 29-33. LaBoskey, V . , & W i l s o n , S. (1987, A p r i l ) .  The gift of case study pickle: Case  w r i t i n g in the education of reflective teachers.  Paper presented at the  a n n u a l meeting of the A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D . C .  L a l i k , R., Niles, J., & M u r p h y , S. (1989, March). U s i n g y o u r heart and your head: A study of a process for p r o m o t i n g reflection a m o n g teachers.  student  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n  Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Lieberman, A . , & M i l l e r , L . (1984).  Teachers, their w o r l d , and their work:  Implication for school improvement. Alexandria, V a . , A . S . C . D . L i n c o l n , Y . , & C u b a , E. (1985).  Naturalistic I n q u i r y .  C a l i f o r n i a : Sage  Publications. Lortie, D . (1975). School teacher. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Louden, W .  (1989).  U n d e r s t a n d i n g Teaching:  collaborative research.  M e a n i n g a n d method i n  U n p u b l i s h e d doctoral dissertation. U n i v e r s i t y of  Toronto, Ontario. M a c K i n n o n , A . (1987).  Detecting reflection-in-action a m o n g  preservice  elementary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 135145. M a c K i n n o n , A . (1989).  Conceptualizing a  constructivist science teaching.  'reflective  practicum'  in  U n p u b l i s h e d doctoral dissertation.  University of British C o l u m b i a , British Columbia. M a c K i n n o n , A . , & Erickson, G . (1988).  T a k i n g Schon's ideas to a science  teaching practicum. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection In Teacher Education (pp. 113-137). N e w York: Teachers College Press. M a c K i n n o n , A . , K u h n , K . , «& Gurney, B. (1988, December).  The m o d e l l i n g  process in a reflective practicum. Paper presented at the School Based Research and Constructivist Science Teaching Conference, U n i v e r s i t y of British Columbia, B . C .  M a l t z , D . a n d Borker, R. (1982). miscommunication.  A c u l t u r a l approach to  male-female  In J. G u m p e r z (Ed.), Language and Social identity  (pp. 196-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. M a y , W . & Z i m p h e r , N . (1986). perspectives on supervision.  A n examination of three theoretical Journal of C u r r i c u l u m a n d S u p e r v i s i o n ,  1(2), 83-99. M c L a u g h l i n , H . , & Phelan, A . (1992).  Dialogue w i t h d o m i n a n t discourses:  The case of new teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Mertz, M . , & McNeely, S. (1992, A p r i l ) . Pre-exisiting teaching constructs: H o w students 'see' teaching prior to training. A paper presented at the annual meeting  of the  American  E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , San  Francisco, California. M i l e s , M . , & Huberman, A . (1984). D r a w i n g v a l i d meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 12-30. Mishler, E. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge: H a r v a r d University Press. N i l e s , J., M c L a u g h l i n , R., W i l d m a n , T., & Magliaro, S. (1989, March). influence of collaboration on the t h i n k i n g and practice of teachers.  A  The  mentor  paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n  Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. N o l a n , J. (1989). C a n supervisory practice embrace Schon's v i e w of reflective supervision? Journal of C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 5(1), 35-39. N o l a n , J., & Huber, T. (1989). N u r t u r i n g the reflective practitioner through i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n : A r e v i e w of the literature. C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 4(2), 126-145.  Journal  of  Noordhoff, K . , & Kleinfeld, J. (1990). m u l t i c u l t u r a l settings.  Shaping the rhetoric of reflection for  In R. Clift, R. H o u s t o n , & M . P u g a c h (Eds.),  Encouraging reflective practice i n education (pp. 163-185).  N e w York:  Teachers College Press. N o v a k , J., & G o w i n , A . (1984). Learning h o w to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O ' G o r m a n , R. (1989).  K n o w i n g is i n action.  Journal of C u r r i c u l u m and  Supervision, Fall, 5(1), 10-12. Oberg, A . (1990).  Texts of teachers' reflections.  Presentation g i v e n at the  annual meeting of the C a n a d i a n Society for the Study of E d u c a t i o n , Victoria, British C o l u m b i a . O m s t e i n , A . (1990). Strategies for effective teaching.  H a r p e r Collins: N e w  York. Pajak, E. (1988, April). C l i n i c a l supervision:  Emerging models or muddles.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association, N e w Orleans. Louisiana. Partington, J. (1982).  Teachers i n school as teaching practice supervisors.  Journal of Education for Teaching, 8, 262-274. P h i l l i p s , D . (1983).  After the wake: Postpositivist educational  thought.  Educational Researcher, 12(5), 4-12. Pugach, M . , & Johnson, L . (1990). structured  dialogue.  Developing reflective practice through  In R. Clift, R. H o u s t o n , & M . P u g a c h (Eds.),  Encouraging Reflective Practice In Education (pp. 186-207). N e w York: Teachers College Press.  Richards, J., & G i p e , J. (1987, A p r i l ) .  Reflective concerns of prospective  teachers i n an early field replacement.  Paper presented at the annual  meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C. Richards, J., Gipe, J., Levitov, J., & Speaker, R. (1989, March). P s y c h o l o g i c a l dimensions of prospective teachers' reflective abilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association, San Frandsco, California. R i c h a r d s o n , V . (1990). education.  The e v o l u t i o n of reflective teaching a n d teacher  In R. Clift, R. H o u s t o n , & M . Pugach (Eds.), E n c o u r a g i n g  Reflective Practice In E d u c a t i o n (pp. 3-19). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Ross, D . (1987, October). Reflective teaching: M e a n i n g and implications for preservice teacher educators.  Paper presented at the Reflective Inquiry  Conference, Houston, Texas. Ross, D . (1990). teachers.  Programmatic structures for the preparation of reflective  In R. Clift, R. H o u s t o n , & M . Pugach (Eds.), E n c o u r a g i n g  reflective practice i n education (pp. 97-118). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Ross, W . , & Hannay, L . (1986). Towards a critical theory of reflective inquiry. Tournai of Teacher Education, 37(4), 9-15. Russell, T., M u n b y , H . , Spafford, C , & Johnston, P. (1988).  L e a r n i n g the  professional knowledge of teaching: Metaphors, puzzles, and the theorypractice relationship. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher education (pp. 67-89). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Russell, T. (1987, A p r i l ) .  L e a r n i n g the professional k n o w l e d g e of teaching.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l Research Association, Washington, D . C .  Russell, T. (1988, October).  Documenting  reflection-in-action.  Paper  presented at the Reflective Inquiry Conference, Orlando, Florida. Ryle, G . (1949). The concept of m i n d . L o n d o n : Hutchinson. Schon, D . (1983).  The reflective practitioner: H o w professionals think i n  action. N e w York: Basic Books. Schon, D . (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning i n the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schon, D . (1988).  C o a c h i n g Reflective Teaching.  In P. G r i m m e t t & G .  Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher education (pp. 19-29). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Schon, D . (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies i n and o n educational practice. N e w York: Teachers College Press. Schubert, W . (1980). Recalibrating educational research: Towards a focus o n practice. Educational Researcher, 9(1). 17-24. Schwab, J (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School R e v i e w , Z8(l), 1-23. Selman, M . (1988). Schon's gate is square: But is it art. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher education (pp. 177-192). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Sergiovanni, T. (1985).  Landscapes, mindscapes, and reflective practice i n  supervision. Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 1(1), 5-17. S e r g i o v a n n i , T. (1986). U n d e r s t a n d i n g reflective practice.  Tournai o f  C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 1(4), 353-359. S h u l m a n , L . (1981). D i s c i p l i n e s of i n q u i r y i n education: A n o v e r v i e w . Researcher, 10(6), 12-23.  Shulman, L . (1984). The practical and eclectic: A deliberation on teaching and educational research. C u r r i c u l u m Inquiry. 14(2), 183-200. S h u l m a n , L . (1986a).  Paradigms and research programs i n the study of  teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M . Wittrock (Ed.), H a n d b o o k of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-36). N e w York: M a c m i l l a n . Shulman, L . (1986b). Those w h o understand:  Knowledge growth i n teaching.  Educational Researcher. 15(2), 4-14. S h u l m a n , L . (1987).  K n o w l e d g e and teaching: Foundations of the n e w  reform. H a r v a r d Educational Review. 57(1), 1-22. S h u l m a n , L . (1988). perspective.  The nature of reflection and Schon's conception i n  In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher  education (pp. 31-37). N e w York: Teachers College Press. S i m m o n s , H . (1980).  The case study method i n social i n q u i r y : Editor's  Introduction. In Simons, H . (Ed.), Towards a science of the singular (pp. 62-63).  Centre for A p p l i e d Research i n Education, U n i v e r s i t y of East  AngUa, Norich. Simmons, J., Sparks, G . , & Colton, A . (1988, October). A - h a moments w h i l e g r a p p l i n g w i t h the question: thinking?"  "What do we mean b y teacher reflective  Paper presented at the Reflective I n q u i r y Conference,  Orlando, Florida. S m y t h , J. (1989a).  A n alternative v i s i o n and an "educative" agenda for  supervision as a field of study. Journal of C u r r i c u l u m and S u p e r v i s i o n , 4(2), 162-177. S m y t h , J. (1989b, March).  P r o b l e m a t i z i n g teaching t h r o u g h  perspective on clinical s u p e r v i s i o n . meeting  of the  American  Francisco, California.  a  'critical'  Paper presented at the a n n u a l  E d u c a t i o n a l Research  A s s o c i a t i o n , San  Soltis, J. (1984).  O n the nature of educational research.  Educational  Researcher. 13(9), 5-10. Stake, R. (1980). The case study method i n social inquiry. In Simons, H . (Ed.), Towards a science of the singular (pp. 64-75). Centre for A p p l i e d Research i n Education, University of East A n g l i a , N o r i c h . Stout, C . (1989). Teachers' views on the emphasis on reflective teaching skills during their student teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 89(4). Strother, D . (1989); Developing thinking skills through questioning. P h i Delta Kappan, December, p. 324