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

S T U D E N T - T E A . C H E R R E E L E C T I O N I N T H E P R A C T I C U M S E T T I N G by Anthony Clarke Dip loma of Physical Education, Melbourne Univers i ty , 1974 Higher Diploma of Teaching, Melbourne College of Advanced Education, 1976 B.Ed. , Melbourne College of Advanced Education, 1980 M . A . , Universi ty of British C o l u m b i a , 1989 A Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfi lment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy i n The Faculty of Graduate Studies Department of Mathematics and Science Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the r e q u i r e ( i - s ^ d a r d \ T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A May , 1992 © Anthony Clarke, 1992 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract This study demonstrated that the notions of reflective practice, as advocated by Donald Schon, are applicable to student-teachers i n practica settings. For Schon, a practitioner is reflective when 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 in terms of past experience and knowledge, and then develops a plan for future action. Reframing occurs as a response to the 'back talk' in 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 student-teachers reflect upon?; What precipitates that reflection?; and What factors enhance or constrain that reflection? The student-teachers i n this study reflected upon three main issues: the ownership of their practice; pup i l learning; and the different levels of their understanding of practice. From the analysis, it was possible to identify up to four different préc ip i tants or triggers for the types of reflective activity documented: a pr imary 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 in terms of student-teacher reflection. Factors that either enhanced or constrained reflection have been summarized in terms of their implications for enhancing reflective practice. These factors included: exposure to a mult ipl ici ty of perspectives; intense examination of one's practice; theorizing about one's practice; and the ability to entertain uncertainty. Finally, the study contributes in three ways to Schon's conceptualization of reflection as it applies to student-teachers in practica settings. Firstly, reflection is b o m of incidents but is thematic in nature. Secondly, ownership of one's practice is central to a variety of reflective concerns raised by student-teachers. Finally, Schon's coaching models need to be reviewed in l ight of changes that occur in the relationship between student and sponsor as the action which students reflect upon moves from a vir tual wor ld of planning to the real wor ld of performance. Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents i i i List of Tables v i i i List of Figures ix Acknowledgements x C H A P T E R 1 1 Introduction 1 I. The problem 1 Reflective practice 1 Student-teacher reflection in 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 10 C H A P T E R 2 12 Reflective Practice as a Research Agenda in Teacher Education 12 I. Practitioner knowledge as received knowledge 12 Implications for teacher education 14 n. Practitioner knowledge as knowledge-in-action 17 Implications for teacher education 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 30 C H A P T E R 3 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 Limited 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 Commitment 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 With in the triad 56 Beyond the triad 58 VI. The practicum as a research context for exploring reflection 62 C H A P T E R 4 64 Research Method 64 I. Data capture 64 The reflective teaching cycle 64 The participants 65 II. Data collection procedures 67 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 71 Transformations 71 IV. Data review 73 Member check 73 Audi t trail 73 C H A P T E R 5 75 The Case of Sally 75 L Introduction 75 n. Analysis 76 Theme one - Teaching orientation 76 Theme two - Passive interaction wi th the sponsor teacher 83 Theme three - Pup i l learning 88 Theme four - Collégial interaction wi th the sponsor teacher 92 III. Summary 95 C H A P T E R 6 97 The Case of Tina 97 I. Introduction 97 II. Analysis 97 Theme one - Ownership of one's practice 97 Theme two - Expectations of pupi l knowledge 104 Theme three - Questioning style 110 Theme four - Off-task behaviour 116 ni. Summary 119 C H A P T E R 7 121 The Case of Steve 121 I. Introduction 121 n. Analysis 121 Theme one - Elicitation as a dominant classroom practice 121 Theme two - Ownership of one's practice 130 m. Summary 140 C H A P T E R 8 142 The Case of Jona 142 I. Introduction 142 n. Analysis 142 Theme one - Direct instruction 142 Theme two - Different levels of understanding one's practice 148 Theme three - Uni t themes and lesson objectives. 153 Theme four - Ownership of one's practice 160 Theme five - Rigidity vs. flexibility in the use of lesson plans 166 m. Summary 170 C H A P T E R 9 172 Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications for Practice 172 I. Conclusions emerging from the research questions 172 Question one: What d id the students reflect upon? 172 Ownership of one's practice 173 The way pupils learn 173 Seeing practice through the eyes of an experienced teacher 174 Question two - What precipitated the students' reflection? 174 Précipi tants 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 with students and pupils 181 Problem setting versus problem solving 182 Observation wi th dialogue 184 The time available for reflection 185 Making 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 188 Method courses that l inked theory to practice 188 n. Discussion of critical issues arising from the study 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 Mult ipl ic i ty 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 Appendix A - The Dua l Role of Advisor and Researcher 220 Appendix B - Two Outcomes of the Member Checking Process 225 Appendix C - The Merging of Pre- and Post-Lesson Discussions 227 Appendix 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 précipi tants 175 Table 11. List of précipi tants 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 in which framing occurred 179 Figure 12. Sessions in which 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 wish to acknowledge the part icipation of the students and teachers in this project: John Bittante, John Currie, Annemarie Debruyn, Susan Juhas, Wendy L i m , C l i v e Sanders, George Sarich, Stuart Simpson, and Susan Turner. Indeed, this is your study! I wish to also thank Bruce Gurney and Karen Meyer, for conducting the independent interviews during this study. Thanks also to Peter C h i n , G i l l i a n Clouthier , Sandra Crespo, Debbe Gervin, and Ken 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 beginning of my doctoral program was always much appreciated. Indeed, Robin's own thesis was instrumental in the development of many of the ideas i n this document. To Renee Fountain, my sincere thanks for always being curious and inquisitive about my work. But more importantly for being a great friend. Your help and assistance w i l l always be remembered. A n d to my mentor, Karen Meyer and her family (Jim, Greg, and A m y ) , my sincere thanks for your continuous and valuable support. Y o u w i l l always be my Nor th American family! I wou ld also like to thank my committee, Gaalen Erickson, Jim Gaskell , and Peter Grimmett. I came to U .B .C . specifically because of your interest in teacher education and I wish to say, without hesitation, that my work wi th you has been more rewarding than I ever dreamt possible. M y sincere thanks. Finally, a very special thanks to my own family (my Austral ian family that is!) whose continuous support and encouragement, each and every day of the program was very much appreciated. Thank you Isobel, George, Barbara, Elizabeth, and Timothy. C H A P T E R 1 Introduction I. The problem Reflective practice Professional development is the pr imary aim of pre-service, induction, and in-service teacher education programs (Zeichner, 1987b). The impact of professional development upon classroom practice is governed by a number factors, one of which is the abiUty of teachers to be reflective about their practice. It has been argued that reflection should be fostered at the pre-service level and subsequently encouraged as a career-long pursuit (Cole, 1989; Wi ldman , Magliaro, Ni les & McLaughl in , 1990). Gaining insights into the reflective practices of student-teachers^ is, therefore, an important step in understanding and fostering the development of reflective practice i n the field of teaching. Recent studies have suggested that developing reflective practitioners in school settings is a difficult goal to achieve. A number of barriers exist; for example, the 'apprenticeship of observation' that al l students 'serve' as learners in classrooms (Clift, Nichols & Marshal l , 1987; Crow, 1987; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Lortie, 1975; Russell , 1988; Zeichner & Lis ton, 1987); the conservative influence of teacher preparation programs (Feiman-Nemser, 1983, 1986; Goodman, 1988; Ross, 1987; Zeichner, 1980); and the utiUtarian emphasis that seems to pervade the practice setting (Boydell, 1986; Hayes & Ross, 1988; Ki lbourn , 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 wi th these barriers, the development of a reflective disposi t ion is l ike ly to be severely constrained. One 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, and in particular the relationship between the student-teacher and sponsor teacher. The potential contribution of this interaction for promoting reflection on practice is especially significant given that many aspiring and experienced teachers regard the practicum as the most important component of their teacher preparation (Goodlad, 1988; Wideen, Holburn , & Desrosiers, 1987). Louden (1989) and Grimmett, Erickson, MacKinnon , and Riecken (1990) have shown that the term 'reflection' means many things to many people. For some, reflection means a review of one's practice to ensure fidelity to a particular set of rules. For others, reflection means 'making problematic' part icular aspects of one's practice (i.e., examin ing taken-for-granted assumptions) to gain new insights into that practice. Further, reflection has been conceptualized as a personal activity, as a publ ic activity, or as a combination of the two (Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; Pugach & Johnson, 1990). These various conceptualizations are grounded i n part icular v iews 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 in their daily work. A number of researchers have drawn upon this notion as a theoretical perspective to guide their studies. Donald Schon's (1983, 1987) contribution to a conceptualization of reflective practice is particularly significant in this regard. Schon's conception of professional practice calls for knowledge-in-action to be understood in terms of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Grimmett (1989) notes that it is Schon's emphasis on the action setting that makes his conception of professional practice quite distinctive. Knowledge-in-action, for Schon, becomes the raw material on which reflection operates. Such knowledge is "constructed by practitioners through reflection-in-action (i.e., action generated through on-the-spot experimentation) and reflection-on-action (i.e., action planned on the basis of post-hoc th ink ing and deliberation)" (Grimmett, 1988, p. 9). 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 in systematic reflection on classroom practice. Student-teachers come to the practice setting wi th various conceptions of teaching and learning (Calderhead, 1988; Cole , 1989; Mertz & McNee ly , 1992; Zeichner & Lis ton, 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 and learning are supported or challenged accordingly. Both instances present opportunities for reflection and professional development. When students deal wi th familiar and anticipated classroom events they are likely to draw upon a repertoire of responses based upon prior experiences as pupils in 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 which no appropriate response w i l l be present in 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 and invigorat ing experience, at other times it is unnerving and bewildering (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). A l l classroom events, be they anticipated or unanticipated, routine or non-routine, p rovide 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 upon their actions. However , there may also be instances, when a student-teacher fails to recognize the significance of a particular classroom event. Take, for example, a student-teacher that this researcher observed recently. Ear ly i n the practicum, the student-teacher introduced the concept of 'equil ibrium' to a Grade 11 Chemistry class. In the ensuing classroom discussion it became apparent that some pupi ls were using 'equi l ibr ium' to denote a physical 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. When suitable strategies for checking pup i l understanding are absent a student-teacher needs the benefit of some form of collaborative reflection to assist in the examination of his or her practice. A t such times, the role of the sponsor teacher is critical (Erickson & MacKinnon, 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 in which the novice teacher is l ikely to view and reflect upon the practice setting. The sponsor teacher must guard against the temptation of assuming that what he or she 'sees' is identical to what the student-teacher 'sees' (Schon, 1987). Similar ly , the sponsor's reflections about the practice setting may be very different to those of the student-teacher. Therefore, the sponsor must hold i n abeyance his or her own agenda and carefully attend to the student-teacher's reactions to the practice setting (Kilbourn, 1990). The temptation to produce i n the student-teacher a 'carbon copy' of the sponsor teacher militates against the development of reflective practice. II. The study The fol lowing description of the study is d iv ided 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 in the "dailiness" (Lieberman & Mi l l e r , 1984) of student-teaching practice and is grounded in the notion that knowledge is personally constructed and socially mediated as students reflect upon practice (Schon, 1983, 1987; von Glasersfeld, 1987). A s such it draws upon Schon's explication of reflective practice as outlined in his two books: The reflective practitioner: H o w professionals think i n action (1983), and Educat ing the reflective p r a c t i t i o n e r : Towards a new design for teaching and learning i n the professions (1987). For Schon, a practitioner is reflective when he or she becomes intrigued or curious about some element of the practice setting, frames it in terms of the particulars of the setting, reframes it in terms of past experience and knowledge, and then develops a p lan for future action. Reframing occurs as a response to the 'back talk' in the action setting where something does not happen as expected (producing the 'curious ' or 'intrigued' response). This definition of reflection is used throughout this study. The purpose of this study is to examine the applicabil i ty of Schon's conceptualization of reflective practice in 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 im is to determine the circumstances which are conducive to the development of student-teacher reflection i n this setting. Past studies have provided some insights into different aspects of a student-teacher reflection (Borko, Livingston, McCaleb , and Mauro , 1989; Ki lbourn , 1982; MacKinnon, 1989). The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive picture of student-teacher reflection, from a Schonean perspective, by examining the practices of student-teachers as they prepare, teach, and conference their lessons, wi th their sponsor teachers whi le on practica. Research questions To examine student-teacher reflection in the practicum setting, the study is d ivided into three parts: the first, to identify what student-teachers reflect upon; the second, to establish what precipitates that reflection; and the third, to identify factors that enhance or cons t ra in reflection. Thus, the research questions are: • What do student-teachers reflect upon? In particular, it is important to identify the process of framing and reframing in which the student-teachers engage as they reflect upon issues, problems, etc., encountered in the practice setting. • What precipitates reflection? This question seeks to identify elements wi th in 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 upon the practicum in general, that is, factors such as: interaction with pupils, the use of video tape, past experiences as a learner, etc. The specific focus of this question is upon the interaction between the student-teacher and sponsor teacher. Contr ibut ion of the study Dona ld Schon (1983, 1987) conceptualized reflective practice as the knowledge practitioners display when they are confronted wi th problematic situations. H i s studies are grounded i n the practice of master teachers work ing wi th gifted p ro tégés ; for example, Quist, a master designer, wi th Petra, an advanced design student, and Franz, a wor ld famous pianist, wi th Annon , a talented young pianist. Us ing these 'ideal' situations as exemplars, Schon described how reflective practice might look, be identified, and be nur tured. The present study extends Schon's work by u t i l i z i ng his conception of reflective practice, gleaned from these ' ideal ' settings, and applying it to 'everyday' student-teacher practica settings. N o attempt has been made to select exemplary teachers or students. 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' planning settings, which are the basis for much of Schon's analysis - settings in which students experiment i n a relatively risk-free 'virtual ' wo r ld - and includes actual performance settings - settings in which students put into practice their planning in a 'real' wor ld 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 with regard to the professional development of both the student-teacher and the sponsor teacher. Research method A regular teaching cycle, defined in this study as a lesson taught by a student and the pre- and post-lesson discussions with the sponsor teacher that surround the lesson, provided the structure for the investigations outlined in the research questions. Overlaid on the regular teaching cycle were a series of stimulated video recall sessions (Tuckwell , 1982). These sessions a l lowed both the student and the sponsor to comment upon 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 addi t ion to the reflective teaching cycles, a number of semi-structured interviews (Mishler, 1986; Spradley, 1979) were conducted wi th the students and the sponsors. Data Analysis The tapes from each of the reflective teaching cycles and the semi-structured interviews were fully transcribed^. The analysis of the data was based upon the constant comparative method in which incidents and events were catalogued and grouped according to c o m m o n features and characteristics (Classer & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Cuba , 1985). A s different trends emerged some groups were collapsed into a single category, whi le others were d iv ided into further categories. A s M a c K i n n o n (1989) warns, there are difficulties associated wi th this process: Research of this k ind . . . is afflicted by a struggle to make something of 'the data.' 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 wi th 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 & Gowin , 1984). The first was the verbatim transcription of al l data tapes. The second level was the identification of the indiv idual components of reflection (précipi tants , 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 in the practicum setting. A t the fourth level, the factors and themes were categorized according to dominant trends and patterns. Pilot study A pilot study was conducted with one student prior to the main study. Al though 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 in 'getting at' student-teacher reflection. A s a result, the procedures used for the pilot study were used for the main study. Fol lowing the analysis of the three students in the main study, the researcher re-analysed the full data set from the pilot study and included the results wi th the main 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 in a number of lessons taught by the student-teachers, (3) the project, itself, was an intervention in the student-teachers' reflections upon their practices, and (4) the dual role played by the researcher, that is, faculty advisor cum researcher. The most significant l imitat ion 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 wi th the researcher, etc. The students reflected on their practice within and beyond the time set aside for data collection. Cognizant of this l imitat ion, the study was designed to capture the student-teachers' reflections at times that were felt to be the most critical during 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 in the student-teachers' classrooms. This presence immediately altered the setting. N o longer were the classrooms 'typical' student-teacher classrooms. To ameUorate this 'intrusion', as far as possible, the researcher video taped a number of the students' classes before the project began to al low both the students and pupils to become comfortable wi th the presence of the camera and researcher. It appeared that this significantly reduced the effect of the camera and researcher in the classrooms, for both students and pupils. The th i rd l imitat ion was the 'interventionist' nature of the project. Clearly, asking students to watch video tapes of their practices was l ikely to enhance their reflections upon those practices. In this regard, an important assumption needs to be highlighted. From the outset of this project, there was an assumption that student-teachers d i d reflect upon their practices. If the researcher had felt otherwise, the research questions w o u l d have been considerably different. For example, a researcher wi th a different perspective might have asked 'Do student-teachers reflect upon their practice?' and not, as in this study, 'What do student-teachers reflect upon?' Where the project d i d intervene in the students' practica was in providing an opportunity for the students to reflect on their practices. What is important (particularly wi th 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 id the project suggest an agenda for student-teachers' reflections. Thus, the reflective themes identified in this study were the student-teachers' o w n reflections upon their practices. As such, the claims emerging from the study are bounded by the l imi ta t ion that the project p rov ided a structured opportunity for the students to reflect on their practice. The fourth limitation was the researcher's dual role as faculty advisor and researcher. T w o questions arise in relation to this issue: (1) 'Was it possible for the researcher to collect data on the students' reflections whi le • I f acting as faculty advisor?, and (2) 'What checks were in place to ensure that the role of faculty advisor, as played by the researcher, was consistent wi th 'typical' practica settings.' Wi th regard to the first question, all students were interviewed by an independent researcher at the end of the study. These interviews were to determine the extent to w h i c h the students felt comfortable in sharing their doubts, confusions, difficulties, etc, (i.e., elements critical to Schon's notion of reflective practice) wi th the researcher. A full report of these interviews, i nc lud ing extracts from the interviews, is contained in Appendix A . In short, the effect of the dual role played by the researcher i n terms of answering the research questions appeared to be m i n i m a l . Wi th regard to the second issue, to ensure that the role of faculty advisor as played by the researchers was consistent wi th 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 within and beyond the project. Whi le it was impossible to ensure identical supervision between the two contexts (or, for that matter, between any two students), this strategy provided a check for consistency in terms of faculty advising within and beyond the project. III. Organization of the chapters There are eight chapters in this study. The first four chapters (encompassing the introduction, literature review, and method) provide the foundation upon which the study was based and conducted. The next four chapters are written as individual cases for each of the students (Sally, Tina, Steve, and Jona^) in the study. Each of these chapters begins wi th a map illustrating the number and duration of the reflective themes identified in the case. The reflective themes for the case are then presented i n detail. Each of the case study chapters concludes wi th a one-page summary 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 in Pseudonyms for the students and sponsor teachers are used throughout the study. relation to perspectives in the literature, and considers the implications of this study for reflection in the practicum setting and further research. C H A P T E R 2 Reflective Practice as a Research Agenda 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 in the immediacy of the practice setting. Of particular importance is the work of Schon who has recently popular ized the term 'reflective practice.' The review details Schon's contribution in this regard. In chapter three, the review of the literature moves from the theoretical to the practical by focussing upon the reflective practices of student-teachers. In particular, it explores the factors which enhance or constrain student-teacher reflection during a teacher education program. The review begins by examining the on- and off-campus components of a teacher education program. The review then considers specific strategies that have been introduced to promote the development of reflective practice. Final ly , an argument is put, drawing upon 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 knowledge In the early 1900's education was a new and emerging field of study. To gain legitimacy and status wi th in the research community, educationalists sought to imitate the methods and forms of inquiry that had secured the natural scientists their lofty position in the academy. This endeavour, to "travel the same royal road" (Soltis, 1984, p. 6) to success, resulted i n educational research being dominated by a paradigmatic orientation that has been variously labelled as posi t ivism (Phil l ips, 1983), logical empir ic ism (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 in 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 upon linear causal models (Erickson, 1986) which attempted to measure student success in terms of academic achievement gains (Van Manen, 1977). This perspective imp l i ed that the knowledge, ski l ls , and competencies required by teachers could be specified in advance (Zeichner, 1987a) and that professional practice could be regarded as the field of theoretical application (Connelly and Clandinin, 1986). M u c h of the process-product, teacher effectiveness, and teacher competency research traditions are based upon this 'positivist' perspective (Shulman, 1981, 1986b; Boydell , 1986). Consider, for example, the body of literature that stems from process-product research. Researchers wi th this orientat ion believe that the phenomena they explore are natural and therefore stable, and that under intensive analysis and experimentation these phenomena y ie ld "scientific generalizations and trends" (Gage, 1980, p. 14). A n attempt is made to f ind relationships between specified teacher behaviours (processes) and student outcomes (products). A n example of this is the time-on-task construct which relates academic achievement wi th the time that indiv idual students spend 'on-task'. Whi le the notion of time-on-task is a useful construct (teachers do try to keep students actively engaged in their work) , and has intuitive appeal, critics question the theoretical and methodological assumptions upon which 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 within the learning environment), the research is based upon an extremely reductionist view of classroom processes, and the research outcomes are too narrowly defined in 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 envi ronment . A study by Smyth (1987, cited in Smyth, 1989b) highlights some of these concerns. Dur ing 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 in his class. After a period of investigation, dur ing which time the teachers recorded both the students' behaviour and associated 'mutterings,' they discovered that contrary to their init ial assumption - that muttering was indicative of off-task behaviour - the muttering was indeed work 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 indication of off-task behaviour but quite the opposite. The teachers invo lved "issued a challenge to the widespread v iew 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 had often taken as low inference indicators were in reality highly inferential (Erickson, 1986). Implications for teacher education The seductive simplicity of readily codified behaviours, which 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 Manen (1977) notes, g iven 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 human engineering, it is not surpris ing that the predominant concern of educational practice [had] become an instrumental pre-occupation wi th techniques, control, and means-ends criteria of efficiency and effectiveness, (p. 209, emphasis in original) Thus, the preparation of novices was greatly simplified when teaching was v i ewed as instrumental problem solv ing made r igourous by the application of scientific theory (Boydell, 1986; M a y & Zimpher, 1986; Schon, 1983). Student-teacher s were to be technicians who faithfully implemented the results of academic research (Krogh, 1987; Simmons, Sparks, & Col ton, 1988; Zeichner & Lis ton , 1987). A s a consequence, teacher education programmes became imbued wi th a technical, almost scientific, language that was supposedly an accurate representation of classroom practice, for example ' A L T ' or Academic Learning Time (Shulman, 1986b; Tabachnick, Popkewitz , & Zeichner; 1979). The notion of the 'teacher as technician' was further enhanced by the positivist assumption that the problems of practice were generalizable across mult iple contexts, and as such d id not require on-site interpretation or adjustment (Erickson, 1986; No lan & Huber, 1989; Selman, 1988). Undoubtedly there exist some generic 'tools of the trade' which have a degree of general applicability. Consider, for example, a simple technique such as addressing a question to a whole class before selecting a p u p i l to respond; the hope being that each pupi l w i l l remain attentive i n anticipation that he or she might be called upon to respond. It is l ikely that most teachers have used this particular technique at some stage. This and other techniques can be employed quite effectively by the discriminating teacher. The use of 'techniques' becomes problematic, however, when 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, Munby , Spafford, & Johnston, 1988). M a c K i n n o n and Erickson (1988) suggests that an early dependence upon such techniques is indeed a characteristic of early field experiences, particularly when '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. Brown (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 wi th a dependence upon techniques is the concern that teachers who have achieved technical competence often remain at that level (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). Evidence of this is readily noted by 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 in classrooms; quick technological fixes! V a n Manen (1977) submits that this desire for technical instrumentality is rooted i n the quest for practical relevancy; a norm which pervades the teaching profession and 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 inquiry into and reflection upon one's practice. It may be important then to encourage practitioners not only to consider the 'how' and 'what' of their teaching but also the 'why' of their teaching practices (Wildman & Niles, 1987). It was in this light that researchers began to question the consequences of programmes emphasising 'technical know-how' to the exclusion of more substantive issues related to classroom practice (Krogh, 1987; Richards & Gipe, 1987; Stout, 1989). Van Manen (1977) argues that while the 'how' questions are relevant, other questions must be asked to ensure an adequate interpretation of the 'practical.' Other researchers contend that a purely 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 (Handal & Lauvâs , 1987; Tabachnick et al., 1979; Zeichner, 1980, 1987a). These researchers note that by highlighting only the technical aspects student-teachers have tended to regard the practice setting as unproblematic, and v iew their role wi th in schools as one of acquiescence and conformity to existing routines -maintaining the status quo. Wi ldman and Niles (1987) suggest that passive 'compliance' by student-teachers is a serious impediment to career-long professional growth and development; a sentiment echoed by 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 human 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 which is 'practical' in more than just a technical or managerial sense (Feiman-Nemser, 1986, 1990). As Hargreaves (1988) notes "teachers are not just bundles of sk i l l , competence and technique; they are creators of meaning, [and] interpreters of the world" (p. 216). Feiman-Nemser (1986) comments that, unt i l recently, "the prevai l ing v i ew among researchers had been that teachers had experience wh i l e 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 arguing that it likens teaching to an information processing model that is neither a val id nor accurate description of teacher knowledge (Garman, 1986; Richardson, 1990; Schon, 1983, 1987; Van Manen, 1977). II, Practitioner knowledge as knowledge-in-action A n alternative perspective that recognizes the dynamic nature of a teachers' knowledge has been referred to as 'knowing-in-act ion. ' This knowing-in-action is manifest in the 'conversation' that takes place between the practitioner and his or her setting (Garman, 1987; Hol land , 1987; Schon, 1983, 1987; V a n Manen , 1977; Yinger, 1990). Yinger (1990) found the conversation metaphor useful because it acknowledges teaching practice as a social process taking place within a specific context and characterized by the natural 'give-and-take' between the practitioner and the setting. Yinger emphasized that "the language of practice is found in 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 in articulating what it is they know, and how they have come to know it (Feiman-Nemser, 1986; M a c K i n n o n , 1989; Richardson, 1990; Shulman, 1987, 1988). Sergiovanni (1985) describes this tacit knowledge as informed intuit ion: Professionals re ly heavi ly on informed in tu i t ion as they create knowledge in use. Intuition is informed by theoretical knowledge on the one hand and by interacting wi th the context of practice on the other. W h e n teachers use informed intuit ion, they are engaging i n reflective practice. . . . Knowing is in the action itself . . . (p. 11). Implications for teacher education This alternate conception of teacher knowledge, as active construction rather than passive reception, has significant implications for teaching, teacher education, and research on teaching (Erickson & MacKinnon , 1991). From this perspective teacher knowledge is embedded in and emerges out of action (Sergiovanni, 1985; Smyth, 1989); it is a "situated knowledge made powerful by the contexts in which it is acquired and used" (Shulman, 1988, p. 37). This v iew has resulted in a marked change in the way researchers conceptualize teaching practice (Garman, 1986; LaBoskey & Wi l son , 1987; Schwab, 1969; Tom, 1985). Researchers have now begun to examine the specialized knowledge that teachers acquire and use as they encounter the "complex, unstable, uncertain, and conflictual wor ld 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 human action for the purpose of guiding practice (Garman, 1986; Grimmett, 1989; Schon, 1988; Schubert, 1980; Sergiovanni, 1986; W i l d m a n et al., 1990). Research in this genre has variously been referred to as interpretive (Erickson, 1986; H o w e & Eisenhart, 1990; Soltis, 1984) or hermeneutic (Habermas, 1973, Van Manen, 1977). Erickson (1986) has suggested interpretive research leads to: . . . questions of a fundamentally different sort from those posed by standard research on teaching. Rather than ask which behaviours by teachers are pos i t ive ly correlated w i t h 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? Are there differences in 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 in one situation and not in 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 st imuli , responses, or measurable behaviours but rather "encounters, l ifeworlds, and meanings, which invite investigation" (Van Manen, 1977, p. 214). Teachers are regarded as active agents i n the construction of knowledge rather than passive recipients of 'professional' knowledge (Tom, 1985; Zeichner, 1980). Inquiry is grounded in practice, and its end point is action relevant to a specific setting (Connel ly & Cland in in , 1986; Eisner, 1983; Firestone, 1987). Research produces 'thick description' of specific cases rather than 'codified abstract realities' garnered from statistical manipulation (Ryle, 1949). The pr imary concern for interpretive researchers is "par t icular izabi l i ty 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 in new contexts by drawing upon a repertoire of prior experiences: Knowledge [of the particular] is a form of generalization . . . not scientific induct ion, but naturalistic generalization, a r r ived at by recognizing the similarities of objects, and issues in and out of context, and by sensing the natural covariations of happenings (Stake, 1980, p. 69). Geertz (1973) argues in 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 Alderman, Jenkins, and Kemmis (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 al l the richness and subtlety of part icipant interactions within the context of the setting. Several researchers argue that interpretive studies, and in particular case studies, are powerful vehicles for achieving these aims (Erickson, 1986; Grimmett, 1989; LaBoskey & Wi l son , 1987; Russell, 1988; Shulman, 1984, 1986a, 1987; Smyth, 1989; Stake, 1980; Wideen 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 in which they investigated teacher reflection wi th in a cl inical supervis ion setting. They examined the supervisory dialogue 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 & Crehan, 1990, p. 216). Their analysis is grounded 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 derived through experiential metaphors that permeated his thinking about teaching practice, rather than through a process of technical or instrumental analysis. A second example is a case study by Louden (1989), whose study addressed the problem of "understanding the process of change i n teachers' classroom knowledge and action" (p. 1). H i s inquiry was based upon a collaborative relationship between a teacher and a researcher, in which both jointly planned, taught and conferenced a series of lessons over the course of a year. From this intensive case study. Louden concluded that teachers' understanding of teaching changed s lowly , was constructed w i t h i n the teachers' personal horizons of understanding, and was related to the tradition of teaching in which they worked. H e also noted that proposals to change teachers' practice were "proposals to change teachers' lives, and should be approached wi th care and humil i ty not arrogance and certainty" (Louden, 1989, p. i). Each of these cases provides a detailed account of the knowledge that teachers construct as they engaged in 'conversations' w i t h the practice setting,' knowledge that is embedded in , and emerges out, of their actions; a knowledge-in-action. III. Reflective practice Whi le there is a general consensus among educational researchers that practitioners exhibit knowledge-in-action as they deal wi th the complexities of teaching, agreeing upon a conceptual framework to describe this 'knowledge' has been more difficult (Noordhoff & Kle infe ld , 1990; Tom, 1985). Those faithful to a Deweyan perspective prefer to visualize teaching as a process of 'deliberation' (Court, 1988); others, l ike Yinger (1990) see it as 'contemplation' ; Fenstermacher (1988) prefers the not ion of 'practical arguments'; Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1990) use the 'heuristic of design'; while Zeichner and Liston, (1987) use a broadly encompassing portrayal of 'the moral craftsperson'. Common to each of these depictions is the notion that teachers' reflect upon 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 viewed 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 in forming practice, or as transforming practice. The first category is consistent with a view of teacher knowledge that is received knowledge; knowledge that is readily applicable to the practice setting. Teacher reflection in this sense wou ld be viewed as "thoughtfulness about action - 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 among competing versions of 'good teaching'" (Grimmett, 1988, p . 12). Conceptualizations in this category place importance on the context and consequences for pup i l learning. Reflection upon different choices informs action. In the third category, reflection is viewed as the "reconstruction of experience, at the end of which is the identification of a new possibility for action" (Grimmett, 1988, p. 12). There are three sub-categories delineated wi th in this category. In the first, reflection results in 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 individual teacher in the practice setting. In the third sub-category, reflection results in new understandings of taken-for-granted assumptions about teaching (the focus being social, poli t ical , and cultural aspects of the practice setting). In each of these cases reflection through the reconstruction of experience transforms practice. Consistent wi th the shift in perspective of practitioner knowledge from being received knowledge to knowledge-in-action, the focus of recent research into teaching practice has been wi th in the th i rd category out l ined by Grimmett. Interest in this area has been stimulated by the work of Schon (1983, 1987) who recently popularized the term 'reflective practice' (Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Richardson 1990). More importantly Schon, drawing upon the writings of Dewey, has framed his conceptualization of reflection in 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. IV . Schon's notion of reflective practice Schon's work was particularly timely in that it introduced an alternative way of approaching teachers' thinking and action at the same time that ' interpret ivis t ' research was ga in ing leg i t imacy i n the educa t iona l 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 on reflective practice; reflective practice being the 'artistry' d i sp layed by competent practitioners as they confront problems which are ambiguous, unclear or indeterminate. Schon's solution is to include, as the core of professional education, a reflective practicum. The main features of a reflective practicum being learning by doing, coaching that accompanies teaching, and reciprocal reflection between student and coach. Simply 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 ground where practitioners can make effective use of research-based theory and technique, and there is a swampy lowland where situations are confusing "messes" incapable of technical solution. The difficulty is that the problems of the high ground, however great their technical interest, are often relatively unimportant to clients or to the larger society, while in the swamp are the problems of greatest human concern. Shall the practitioner, stay on the high ground 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 wi l l ing to forsake technical rigour? (Schon, 1983, p. 43) Routine and non-routine problems Schon is particularly interested in the knowledge that practitioners bring to bear on the problems they encounter in the action setting. He argues that a technical rational approach holds that the practice setting is p r imar i ly concerned w i t h instrumental problem solv ing . For example, when a practitioner is confronted wi th 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 problem 'B ' , apply technique 'B, ' etc. Thus, practitioner knowledge is oriented towards problem solving. 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 in 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 wi th the question 'What happens when practitioners are faced wi th non-routine problems?' N o n -routine situations are at least partly indeterminate, and are not immediately amenable to a technical solution. From his observations, Schon postulates that when practitioners are confronted wi th problematic situations, situations that cannot be dealt wi th by 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 in which a practitioner names the things which he or she w i l l attend to and frames the context i n which he or she w i l l attend to them. When confronted by non-routine problems, sk i l led practitioners learn to conduct frame experiments i n which they impose a k i n d of coherence on 'messy' situations. They come to new understandings of situations and new possibilities for action through a spirall ing process of framing and reframing. Each reframing suggests a new way of looking at a problem that lends itself to a method of inquiry in which practitioners have confidence. Through the effects of a particular action, both intended and unintended, the situation 'talks back.' This 'conversation' provides the data wh ich may then lead to new meanings and further reframing. 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 l isten and reframe problems drawing on past experience and knowledge, and construct new knowledge en route. They make sense of new and unusual situations of practice by comparing and contrasting them wi th situations previous ly 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 wi th 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 in this conception of practice, is to provide the practitioner wi th metaphors that al low h im to appreciate and transform his practice (Grimmett, 1989; Noordhoff & Kleinfeld , 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 in different ways depending upon the repertoire of experience and knowledge they bring to a particular setting. This has important implications for experienced practitioners who are charged wi th the responsibility of inducting novices into the professions, for example, sponsor teachers work ing wi th student-teachers in a practicum setting. Experienced practitioners must be aware that what they are l ike ly to 'see' in a particular situation is often markedly different to what the novice is likely to 'see.' As such, an induction grounded in reflective practice demands that novices' perceptions of problematic situations be both sought and valued as val id and meaningful interpretations of the situation. Hav ing considered the role reflection might play in dealing wi th non-routine problems, Schon returned to the issue of routine problems. It has been noted above that when intuitive action leads to surprise (as in the case of a non-routine problem) practitioners respond by reflecting upon their practice. Alternatively, Schon suggests, when intuitive, spontaneous, action yields nothing more than the results expects, as in the case of a routine problem, practitioners tend not to think about their actions. He argues that the tacit understandings practitioners develop i n routine situations are rarely subject to reflective inquiry . Schon refers to this unconscious repetitive action as 'overlearning.' H e argues that practitioners need to problematize routine practices in much the same way as non-routine practices. Only in this way w i l l 'taken-for-granted assumptions' be made explicit and available for reflective examination. Thus, Schon advocates that reflective practice, as opposed to repetitive practice, should become the modus operandi of professional activity. This notion of reflection al lows teachers to see themselves as other than trained technicians and validates the k i n d of expertise and experience they bring to the practice setting (Kilbourn, 1988). Reflection i n and on action Schon also differentiates between two types of reflection: reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. In his first book, 'The Ref lec t ive Practitioner, ' Schon (1983) refers almost exclusively to reflection-in-action. Accord ing to Schon, reflection-in-action is that wh ich takes place i n the immediacy of the action setting and is often triggered by surprise or intrigue. Schon suggests that a practitioner's reflection-in-action is bounded by the 'action-present,' the zone of time in which 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-on-action, and reflection-on- 'reflection-in-action. ' This add i t iona l t ime dimension accounts for reflection beyond the 'action-present.' Others have speculated on the effect of reflection in and on action as it relates to the practice setting. Yinger and Dil lard (1986, cited in 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 Kleinfe ld (1990) the value of reflection-on-action is that practitioners are more l ikely to move beyond their espoused theories and begin to critically examine their theories-in-use. A n appreciative system Under ly ing Schon's notion of reflective practice, be it in - 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. As 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 in order to see professional practice as a frame experiment, or as a 'reflective conversation' wi th the practice setting, the appreciative system is cont inual ly being constructed by the practit ioner: "In the constructionist view, our perceptions, appreciations and beliefs are rooted in worlds of our own making that we come to accept as reality" (p. 36). In other words, if professional practice is to encompass reflection it must be grounded in a wor ld view 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 in the reality of the practice setting. Indeed, because reflection is an integral part of 'swamp-life' it cannot be taught within confines of a lecture theatre. Thus, students can only come to have some understanding of reflection i n the process of d o i n g (Houston & Clift , 1990). O n l y then w i l l they begin to understand what it is that they need to learn. Under ly ing 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 ind of telegraphy in which 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 and must design messages whose meanings the other can decipher (p.95). Driver and Bell (1986) make a similar argument i n relation to p u p i l learning: "It is not so much what we abstract from a situation as the constructs we bring to it which determines the sense we make of it" (p. 448). Furthermore, the meanings that students in i t ia l ly construct from their instructors' descriptions are very likely to be incongruent wi th the meanings their instructors intend. When students try to act on what they have seen or heard, they may reveal to themselves, and their coaches, the prior knowledge they bring 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 ac t ion and ref lec t ion . 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 wel l there is a k ind 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] wou ld be attentive to the ways in which children's learning is like or unlike the kinds of learning they have detected in themselves. They would be encouraged to think of their teaching as a process of reflective experimentation in which they try to make sense of the sometimes puzz l ing things children say and do, asking themselves, as it were, "How must the kids be thinking about this in 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 learning be undertaken i n a practicum setting, a virtual wor ld , that allows students to experiment at a lower cost (MacKinnon & Erickson, 1988). For this, he recommends a 'reflective pract icum. ' Such a prac t icum w o u l d be characterized by: - learning by doing, where the practicum wou ld become the core of the curr iculum for teacher preparation, rather than an 'afterthought' for applying the theories and techniques taught in course work at the universi ty, - 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 by seeking to enter into each other's way of seeing a particular problem and also the way each is framing the interaction in which they are engaged. For this task Schon identifies three models of coaching: Fol low Me , Joint Experimentation, and H a l l of Mirrors. Each places different demands on the competencies of the coach and student. Follow Me is foundational to al l three models. Essential to this model are ' tel l ing and l is tening' and 'demonstrating and imitating. ' Mind fu l of the paradox of learning a new competence ("a student cannot at first understand what he needs to learn, and can learn it only by beginning to do what he does not yet understand" -Schon, 1987, p. 93), Schon asks the student to wi l l ing ly suspend disbelief and autonomy and to enter into a temporary relat ionship of trust and dependency. 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 Fol low 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 on 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 own preferences and to take these, rather than those of an external authority (i.e. the coach), as the criteria by which to regulate his or her actions. For Joint Experimentation to be feasible, several conditions must be met: - there must be a way 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 th in 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 within a reflective practicum is: . . . [when] students and coaches begin to talk wi th each other elliptically, using shorthand in word and gesture to convey ideas that to an outsider seem complex or obscure. They communicate easily, f inishing 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 Fol low 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, the student and coach continually shift their frame of reference: 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 modeling of its redesign. In this process, they must continually take a two-tiered view of their interaction, seeing it in its own 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, wh i l e educating the student, mirrors the very competencies he wishes the student to use in his or her professional practice. If the coach wants the student to surface confusion and uncertainty about the practicum setting, then it is incumbent upon the coach to surface his or her own 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 may 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 Fol low M e to communicate his professional practice; he demonstrates, and expects his students to creatively imitate, the particular k ind of learning-by-doing on which the practicum depends. V . Issues related to Schon's conceptualization of reflective practice Several researchers have been concerned wi th the sharp distinction Schon has drawn between the science of technical rationality ('rigour') and the art of reflective practice ('relevance'); that the two perspectives are in some way mutually exclusive and that the tension of reform is between a conception of teaching as a technical enterprise (which wou ld only improve as the research base improved) and teaching as a reflective activity (which w o u l d only improve as teachers became inquirers into their o w n practice) (GilHss, 1988; Harr is , 1989; Selman, 1988; Shulman, 1988; W i l d m a n et al . , 1990). Grimmett (1989) counters that Schon is not so much pit t ing technical rationality against reflective practice as "contrasting the use of knowledge in accordance wi th the norms of technical rationali ty and the knowledge derived and used reflectively in 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 'Gorman (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 own words, "the dilemma of rigour or relevance may be resolved if we can develop an epistemology of practice which 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 in conditions of uncertainty - "Surprise and puzzlement are at the heart of reflective teaching" (Schon, 1988, p. 22). Indeed, Grimmett (1989) points out that research on reflective practice has been centred pr imar i ly upon situations that perplex practitioners. LaBoskey (1989), Selman (1989), and Houston and Clift (1990) in addressing this issue suggest that reflection-in-action can be both spontaneous (as the result of a perplexing situation) and deliberate (as the result of making an element of one's practice problematic). They agree that surprise and intrigue are powerful triggers to reflection-in-action but also believe that practitioners intentionally engage in reflection-on-action. Schon's (1987) second book, which introduces the notion of reflection-on-action is, i n part, a response to issues such as these. LaBoskey (1988) advises that, while definitional difficulties st i l l remain, teachers should be encouraged to problematize their teaching both wi th in , and beyond, the action setting. Russell et al. (1988) suggest that, although reflection may not always be a conscious activity, when teachers are placed in situations where reflection is encouraged, they are usually enthusiastic and wi l l ing participants i n the process. Other researchers caution that Schon's primary data sources were one-to-one action settings (an architect wi th a student, a psychotherapist wi th a client, a music teacher with 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 lbou rn (1988) questions whether reflection-in-action can remain alive at al l wi th in the dai ly practice of an elementary or secondary classroom, where teacher su rv iva l is often based upon rout inizat ion. K i l b o u r n has suggested, therefore, that reflection-on-action may be a more fruitful concept for understanding, and ta lking about professional development i n teaching. Cour 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 when considering the professional knowledge that practitioners construct as they interact wi th the practice setting. Cinnamond and Zimpher (1990) are concerned that reflective practice has been regarded largely as an individual activity. They argue that there has been a general omiss ion of any acknowledgement of the potent ial ly 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 in which practitioners work and are socialized. Similar ly , Feiman-Nemser (1986) states that an appreciation of interactive dialogue that takes place between the various cultures wi th in a particular setting is an integral part of the 'sense making ' that emanates from the reflective process. The concerns raised in this section extend Schon's notion of reflective practice rather than detract from it. As 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 Turn , other researchers have begun to address some of these issues. C H A P T E R 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 wi th 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 work is reviewed (i.e., what happens at the university). In the third section, the influence of the off-campus practicum is reviewed (i.e., what happens in the school). G iven the research attention that the triadic relationship has received in the literature (i.e., the relationship between student, sponsor, and advisor i n the pract icum setting), the fourth section is devoted to an examination of this relationship in terms of enhancing or constraining student-teacher reflection. The fifth section provides an overview of the programmatic responses that have emerged in response to the issues raised in the earlier sections. The concluding section draws upon the combined reviews of the literature (both theoretical and practical) to argue that the pract icum is an important context for continuing research into student-teacher reflection. I. The prior knowledge and experience of the students Student-teachers enter formal teacher education programs wi th an extensive knowledge of teaching and learning already gleaned from their experience in elementary and secondary schools (Clift et al., 1987; Crow, 1987; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Russell, 1988; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Lortie (1975) refers to this experience as the 'apprenticeship of observation,' and Feiman-Nemser (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 own 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 wi th during their own school careers (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). To overcome this tendency Feiman-Nemser (1983) argues that students should problematize their own 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). Gaskel l (1985), and Wideen et al. (1987) concur, adding that unless students examine their prior experiences, the effect w i l l be a strong tendency to support imquestioningly the status quo wi thin schools. However , prior experience may not always be detrimental to the development of reflective practice. Richards, Gipe, Levi tov, and Speaker (1989) argue that prior knowledge in the form of personal practical experience might predispose certain students to reflective inquiry. They suggest that students wi th prior exposure to positions of group leadership might be predisposed to reflection because they may have access to a repertoire of various teaching strategies. As such these students might be more l ikely to "step back from their teaching in order to consider how the lesson is actually going" (Richards et al., p. 3). II. The on-campus component - Course work The on-campus component of a teacher education program also has been regarded as having an important influence upon the reflective practices of student-teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 1983, 1986; Goodman, 1988; Zeichner, 1980). Three areas are par t icular ly prominent 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 wide ly 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 tradit ional 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 implic i t ly or explicit ly, 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 (Crow, 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 in ' and comply with current school practices. Thus, it has been argued that universi ty programs endorse acquiescence and conformity to traditional practices and fail "to provide prospective teachers wi th the conceptual tools which wou ld enable them to transcend the structural contexts wi th in which teaching and learning currently occur" (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981, p. 9). Course fragmentation Goodman (1988) argues that a further impediment to the development of reflective practice is the fragmented nature of on-campus course work. Programs may need to undergo considerable structural changes if they are to support both ind iv idua l and communal reflection (Houston «& CUft, 1990). Shulman (1988) warns that a program which sets out to encourage reflection is l ikely to need more, not less, organization, than one in which "traditional disciplines are permitted to ho ld sway" (p. 35). Thus, unless resources are provided initiatives in this direction are l ikely to be short-lived (Goodman, 1988). Ross (1990) agrees, arguing that the present 'university culture' retains a technical rather than a reflective orientation wi th in teacher education by l i m i t i n g resources such as, course funding, ins t ruct ional t ime, and institutional rewards. Isolation from the practice setting A further barrier to the development of reflection on campus is the difficulty in communicating to students what it means to be reflective about their practices until they actually begin teaching (MacKinnon & Erickson, 1988). Instruction can sensitize a beginner to aspects of practice, but real learning occurs in the action setting (Yinger, 1990). Learning in action settings is the essence of Schon's (1987) thrust for reflective practice. This thrust is also taken by Fullan and Connelly (1987) in their report on Teacher Education in 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 woven into the fabric of a program conceptualized pr imari ly as a practicum" (p. 46). The programmatic responses to this d i lemma are var ied . Some universi t ies are exper iment ing w i t h their entire teacher preparat ion programs off-campus, dovetailing classroom experience wi th on-site classes (Hundley, 1990). Other programs are experimenting wi th arrangements that put university personnel wi th in schools on a full-time basis dur ing student practica (Wilson, 1990). Yet, other programs are opting 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 in a meaningful context. However, Erdman (1983) suggests that such placements often cast the student in the role of 'teacher's aide' rather than a reflective learner, and therefore are utilitarian in 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 , Magl iaro et al. , 1990; Wi ldman & Ni les , 1987). Indeed, students soon discover that the school environment was not always conducive to reflective practice. Educational Leadership Students quickly realize that they work not only in classrooms, but also i n large bureaucracies (Crow, 1987). There are many social, poli t ical , and practical forces which may buffet the would-be reflective voyager: Institutional constraints create an environment which almost seems to work against a teacher's attempt to have serious and rigorous discussion. These constraints are, moreover, part and 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 which is, at times, in direct conflict with notions of teacher autonomy and, as such, constrain reflection (Hayes & Ross, 1988; Ki lbourn , 1982; Pugach and Johnson, 1990; Schon, 1988). W i l d m a n and Ni les (1987) suggest that relinquishing aspects of control may be one of the most difficult accommodations for facilitators of reflection. Further, Ross (1987), Wi ldman and Niles (1987), and Ross and Hayes (1988) argue that unless school leadership directly supports professional development efforts that value teacher input, encourage collegial i ty (as opposed to contrived colleagiality - Hargreaves, 1989) and seek continuous improvement then reflective practice is l ikely to be severely constrained. This applies to both the experienced practitioner and the student-teacher on practicum. Further, as Wi ldman and Niles (1987) observe: "If administrators do not have similar levels of knowledge, skills, and understanding about the reflective process, they can knowingly or unknowingly construct barriers" (p. 28). Thus, these authors contend that administrators w i l l have to develop radically different conceptions of how teachers function in schools i f the notion of teachers as reflective practitioners is to become commonplace. The norms of teaching Another constraint on reflection is the powerful norms that pervade teachers' lives. These norms often run counter to conceptions of professional growth and development (Cormin & Bowman, 1988; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Lieberman & Mil ler , 1984). Thus, the norm of practicality, characterized by the separation of theory from practice, learning the 'tricks of the trade,' and learning by ' trial and error,' is l ikely 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, which is regarded as an important component of reflective practice (Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; Feiman-Nemser, 1986; Hayes & Ross, 1988; Houston & Clift , 1990; Lieberman, & Mi l l e r , 1984; N o l a n & Huber , 1989). The norm of routinization, characterized by batch processing, technical problem solving, and the impersonalization of the teaching task, results in teachers reverting to models of past experience rather than reflecting upon the idiosyncratic features of their present situations and devising appropriate solutions (Gilliss, 1988; Gl i ckman , 1985; N o l a n & Huber, 1989). Perhaps one of the most powerful norms is that of maintaining the status quo w h i c h encourages acquiescence and conformity to current school practices. School systems often reward consistency, stabil i ty, and al ignment w i t h the values of the organization. Thus, maintenance of the status quo can be incompatible wi th professional autonomy and problematizing one's own practice (Wildman & Niles , 1987) The time press Another element of the practice setting that confines reflective practice is the 'time press' that that many teachers experience in school settings: Classrooms are complicated and busy settings . . . The sheer number and pace of events call for quick and decisive actions. The workday 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; Comeaux & Peterson, 1987; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Houston & Clif t , 1990; Ni les , McLaughl in , Wi ldman, & Magliaro, 1989; Nolan & Huber, 1989; Ross, 1990; Tabachnick et al., 1979; Wi ldman & Niles, 1987). For instance, Pugach and Johnson (1990) caution that "reflection is not l ikely to be a natural outgrowth of a system in which time is an unavailable resource to classroom teachers" (p. 205). Cole (1989) and Nolan (1989) suggest that it is not sufficient to provide time for reflection but to also allocate resources for students, teachers and advisors to become familiar wi th what it means to be reflective. W i l d m a n and Ni les (1987) suggest that 20-30 hours are needed to assist teachers in moving to a stage of independence wi th this sort of activity and 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 in any substantial interactions wi th their pupils. Interactions tend to be brief and impersonal, and un l ike ly to provide students wi th valuable feedback or alternative perspectives for viewing their practice. A uti l i tarian emphasis that pervades the practice setting A factor which further constrains the development of reflective practice is the utilitarian emphasis that pervades the practicum setting. Often the prac t icum setting promotes the development of u t i l i t a r ian teaching perspectives (i.e., a 'what works' approach) amongst students to the exclusion of ethical, social, or poli t ical considerations (Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; Goodman, 1988; Zeichner, 1980). Other studies have demonstrated that students move towards a more custodial orientation during their practicum, and readily equate success in teaching to order and discipline in the classroom (Feiman-Nemser, 1983, 1986; Glassberg & Sprintall , 1980; Tabachnick et al . , 1979; Zeichner, 1980, 1987). Therefore, researchers have questioned the wisdom of extending the time spent on practicum if, as these authors suggest, it only 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 more reflective: Consequently, proposals which 'solve' problems of teacher education by merely scheduling more student time in classrooms rests upon the apparently untenable assumption that more time spent in that way 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 how that time is spent. Beyer (1984) suggests that while the replication of current school practices might be laudable in certain circumstances, there is a danger that students w i l l accept as unproblematic certain educational 'givens' and in this sense the practicum experience is l ikely to be "miseducative, since it cuts short the possibi l i ty for further education and growth" (p. 37) whi le perpetuating uti l i tarian attitudes. Whi le 'survival ' and 'technical know-how' are often foremost in the mind of novices, students must be encouraged to move beyond uti l i tarian concerns to substantive classroom issues; for example, pupils prior knowledge and it's manifestation wi th in classroom discourse (Campbell, 1986, cited in Wideen et al., 1987; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Gaskell , 1985; MacKinnon & Erickson, 1988). The utili tarian emphasis might be overcome if, as Houston and Cli f t (1990), Shulman (1986b), and Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1990) suggest students are encouraged to develop a broad and in-depth knowledge of what is happening in the classroom, the mil ieu of the school, and the community 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 wish to subject to analysis. Thus, observational skills and the ability to describe the various settings in objective terms rather than judgemental terms are viewed as precursors to the development of reflective practice (Kilbourn, 1982; No lan & Huber, 1989) Encouragingly, Peterson and Comeaux (1987) found that in an analysis of student and sponsor discourse almost twenty per cent of the comments moved beyond factual accounts of classroom practice and into hypothetical, justificatory, or critical reflection. Limited control over curricula practices or teaching content Student-teachers f ind themselves in 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 which they are responsible dur ing the practicum (Zeichner, 1987). Whi l e strong leadership from supervisors is important , unless students are able to exercise some control over content, and the way which that content is presented, then student-teacher reflection w i l l be constrained. IV . The triadic relationship The triadic relationship within the practicum setting is an area that has received a great deal of attention in the literature. The fo l lowing review examines seven aspects of this relationship: trends i n the supervision of student-teachers, new roles for students and sponsors, selection of sponsors and advisors , commitment to reflection, student eva lua t ion , t r iadic 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; Brown, 1990; Gaske l l , 1985; Zeichner, 1987a; Zeichner & Lis ton , 1987). Unde r the apprenticeship model , students are expected to observe and imitate the practices of a 'master' teacher. Act ivi t ies for the student are carefully prescribed in advance, al lowing little individual discretion on the part of the student during either the design or implementation phases (Kilbourn, 1982; Zeichner, Liston, Mahlios & Gomez, 1987). The role of the faculty advisor is to determine the success or otherwise of the students efforts. Typical ly, this assessment is based upon two or three student-observation visits. M a y and Zimpher (1986) argue that the apprenticeship model "reflects a positivist v iew i n that the pr imary source of learning and teaching is by imitat ion and modelling" (p. 88). This strictly top-down linear supervisory model has been rivalled recently by more collégial forms of supervision (Bolin, 1987; Houston and Cl i f t , 1990), the most common being c l in ica l supe rv i s ion à la Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1973). Three aspects differentiate this model 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 invited to join wi th the sponsor and advisor in the interpretation of the results following the classroom observation (Acheson & Gal l , 1987). Widespread use of the clinical supervision model has resulted i n a variety of interpretations within 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 uti l ized elements of the cl inical supervis ion cycle to br ing an inquiry-oriented focus to the practicum setting. For example, Hol land (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). L ikewi se , K i l b o u r n (1982) emphasizes autonomy, evidence, and continuity wi th in a clinical supervision model to ensure mutual reflection and understanding for each of the practicum partners. Despite these recent variations. M a y and Zimpher (1986) and Smyth (1989a) have argued that many educators have still imbued clinical supervision with positivist notions of standardization, quality control and homogenization of pedagogy; "the medical metaphor 'c l in ical ' connot[ing] something i n need of careful diagnosis and a prescribed course of action toward improved 'health'" (May & Zimpher , 1986, p. 88). Other researchers have suggested that c l in ical 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 which is typically associated with the apprenticeship and clinical supervision models. Notions of linear supervision and collégial assistance need to be replaced by a concerted collaborative endeavour grounded in reflective inquiry (Garman, 1986; Sergiovanni, 1985; Tom, 1985). For Donald Schon (1988), "both the reflective teacher and reflective coach are researchers in and on practice whose work depends on their collaboration wi th each other" (p. 29). Both sponsor teacher and faculty advisor must carefully attend to the appreciative system that students bring to the practice setting. H o l l a n d (1989a) and Sergiovanni (1985) argue that in 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 grounded i n the student's own inquiry into his or her practice and is informed by the sponsor and advisor's experience and knowledge. This form of reflective inquiry is broader than that usually associated wi th cl inical supervision i n that it considers cultural contexts, unintended consequences of action, and student values as they impact upon the practice setting (Houston and Clift , 1990). Clearly, a practicum relationship grounded in reflective practice makes very different demands upon each participant as opposed to other supervisory relationships (Hayes & Ross, 1988; Nolan & Huber, 1989; Zeichner & Lis ton, 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 Niles (1987) have warned that while it is tempting for the other members of the relationship to 'speed up' reflection by doing the reflection for the student, the pace of reflection must be governed by 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; Comeaux & Peterson, 1990; Hayes & Ross, 1988; Hol land , 1989a). W i l d m a n and Ni les (1987) contend that when the student is encouraged to do this the 'locus of control ' remains wi th the student and the process becomes internalized. Richards et al. (1989) suggest that students wi th an internal 'locus of control' believe that they are in control of themselves and their actions. By contrast, prospective teachers who maintain an external 'locus of control ' are more l ikely 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 wi th in the triadic relationship, so too are the roles of other participants. Wi ldman and Ni les (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). When sponsors and advisors adopt such a stance, and encourage students to listen to their o w n 'voice,' it is incumbent upon them to ascertain the student's appreciative system, that is, the way i n wh ich a student perceives the teaching-learning relationship. Once ascertained the sponsor and advisor must consider how 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 (MacKinnon & Erickson, 1988). The development of common understanding between participants is critical for reflection (Ross, 1987). Unless this occurs the process is l ikely to be in jeopardy from the outset (MacKinnon, K u h n , & Gurney, 1988; Schon, 1987). Pugach and Johnston (1990) believe that a collaborative approach also increases the l ikel ihood 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 know' and 'how they have come to know it,' and be wi l l i ng to share it wi th the other members (Garman, 1986; Hol l and , 1989a; MacKinnon et al., 1988; Ni les et al., 1989; W i l d m a n et al. , 1990). Wi ldman 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 bui ld up objective accounts of classroom life. Thus, as the teacher and advisor begin to observe novices i n action, and to share their own ideas, they are l ikely to reflect extensively upon their own practice. Erickson and MacKinnon (1991) have reported this trend in a study of the relationship between a sponsor teacher and his student-teacher: . . . experienced teachers in our group actually found it easier to unpack their own knowledge and understanding in the context of work ing wi th a novice teacher. This situation often required them to make explicit both the procedures and actions that they engaged in (which were often routine and tacit in nature) as wel l as the rationale for doing them. This act of making one's knowledge explicit and providing reasons for one's behaviour rarely occurs in the normal activities and routines engaged in 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; No lan & Huber, 1989). This is of particular importance given that sponsor teachers often perceive their interaction w i t h student teachers as an important form of professional development. These interactions are often perceived to be of greater value than, for example, in-service programmes, contact wi th bui lding principals, or membership of professional associations (Wideen et al. , 1987). Thus, there is value for al l participants in such a relationship. Under these circumstances, the potential for students to be reflective in a collaborative relationship is l ike ly to be greater than that afforded by other supervisory models described earlier. Selection of supervisors A triadic relationship grounded in reflective inquiry is dependent largely upon the sponsor and advisor for its success. Unfor tunate ly 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 in this important aspect of their own professional development. Two 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. More often their selection is based upon criteria such as 'Who has the lightest load?' or 'Whose turn is it this year?' (Goodlad, 1988; Stout, 1987). Ideally, sponsor teachers should be selected from outstanding practitioners who are able to help students reflect upon tacit knowledge and translate it into discursive forms (Erdman, 1983). Zeichner and Liston (1987) suggest that until sponsor teachers receive some form of reward, recognition, or time compensation for their involvement i n the supervision of student-teachers, faculties of education are unl ikely to have m u c h impact upon present supervisory practices let alone on the introduction of alternative practices. Simi la r ly , the appointment of faculty advisors is often less than satisfactory. M a n y are graduate students for whom their involvement in the supervisory process is often more related to financial needs than to an over-r id ing interest i n the professional development of student-teachers. Even then the recognition or reward for services rendered is relatively meagre (Ross, 1987; Zeichner & Lis ton, 1987). A l s o , advisors who are w i t h the program for only one or two years are unl ikely to become familiar w i t h sponsor teachers or the school environments in which 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 work from year to year (Ross, 1990). In short, the ad hoc selection of sponsor teachers and the transitory nature of faculty advisors l imits the l ike l ihood of either being committed to, or even hav ing a knowledge of, reflective practice. Therefore, the development of reflective facilitators for use i n practicum settings is a critical problem facing inquiry-oriented teacher education programmes (Stout, 1989). Commitment to reflective practice Lack of commitment to a triadic relationship grounded 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 wi th in the triad wh ich w i l l engender a sense of trust and professional respect for opinions of it's ind iv idua l members (Erickson & MacKinnon , 1991; Houston & 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 & Niles , 1987). Goodman (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 individuals to question their beliefs and to explore the implications of their actions. Challenging students to reflect upon their experience and ideas must be done wi th sensitivity and respect for the individuals. If healthy dynamics are not established, challenging students to think may result in defensiveness, not insight (Goodman, 1983, p. 48). A triadic relationship grounded i n reflection wou ld permit dissent and conflict, interactions which are unlikely to be condoned i n other supervisory relationships. No lan (1989) suggests that such an environment needs to be nurtured over time, and that it may take up to five or six reflective inquiry cycles before students are wi l l ing 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 in 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 impromptu 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; Hous ton & Cl i f t , 1990); nor are they l ike ly to be conducive to the development of ' common meaning' between a l l parties (Ross, 1987). Furthermore, drop-in visits are unl ikely 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 which the practicum setting provides an atmosphere conducive to student-teacher reflection. N o l a n (1989) questions the dual roles of collaborator and evaluator which are often assigned to teachers and advisors. H e argues that students are unl ikely 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 while the practicum should be "a low risk environment where one is free to experiment" (p. 25), the evaluative component turns the practicum into a ' p rov ing g round ' rather than a ' t ra ining ground. ' This problem is confounded when, as Gurney (1989) reports, "the faculty advisor is seen as an evaluator for whom special lessons are prepared" (p. 22) rather than as a coach in a joint learning endeavour. In a similar study. Cole (1987) found that student teachers saw their sponsor teachers as a source of advice for so lv ing immediate problems of practice but their faculty advisors as evaluators of performance. W h i l e it is not possible to completely eliminate evaluation, some researchers have suggested ways in which its impact upon the practicum setting might be reduced. In one study, Partington (1982) found that when 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 involved in 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 MacKinnon and Erickson (1988), in acknowledging that the practicum inevitably results in an evaluation of students, have suggested that one way to counteract this apparently disabling feature is to explicitly include the students' reflective efforts in their overall evaluation. Thus, elements of reflective practice such as confusion, doubt, and self-questioning, w o u l d be v iewed as posit ive 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 which 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 distancing themselves from the faculty advisor (Brown, 1990; K e l i i p i o , Prentice, Shapson, Sprungman, Squire, Steinman, Toms, & Wideen, 1990). In such instances, the sponsor teacher is often regarded as supportive whi le the faculty advisor is perceived as being 'cri t ical ' (Wideen et a l . , 1987). Unfortunately, being supportive has often resulted in 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 unl ikely to engage the student in a discussion of substantive issues related to teaching; discussions which are central to the notion of reflective practice. Boydel l (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 wi th a "good" teacher . . . Such an approach implies an essentially passive role for the [faculty advisor] as someone who must not interfere "with the guidance of the master and his apprentice" (Stone, 1984, p. 21, in Boydell , 1986, p. 115) Boydel l (1986) contends that a relationship along these lines often negates what the student might have learnt whi le on-campus and the potential contribution that a faculty advisor is able to make. Once again, the ineffectiveness of the faculty advisor is l ikely to constrain collaboration and reflective inquiry in ways similar to that described in the previous example. The isolation of the faculty advisor is also apparent when student-teachers' report on their practica experiences. Campbel l , Green, and Purvis (1990) have noted that faculty advisors are rarely mentioned, suggesting that advisors play a minimal role in a students' perceptions of their practica. This seemingly m i n i m a l role calls into question the whole not ion of the university's role i n the practicum setting. Several researchers have argued that faculty advisors often have to 'play out' a social role during each visit, re-establishing their relationship wi th the student and sponsor each time, thus leaving little time for substantive discussions wi th either party (Boydell, 1986; Emans, 1983, Zeichner et al., 1987). When this is combined wi th Boydell 's (1986) concern that advisors tend to tread wari ly when on the 'sponsors turf,' it is not surpr is ing that a faculty advisor's contr ibut ion is sometimes m i n i m a l . 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; Wideen et al., 1987). Simmons et al (1988) and Brookhart and Loadman (1989) have argued that in 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 in a recent study by Kel i ip io et al. (1990) who have noted that it was the values embedded in the two cultures that gave rise to the most critical incidents faced by students as they struggled to walk "the line between discrepant school associate and faculty associate expectations" (p. 11). For example, Ke l i ip io et al. (1990) found students were resistant to the faculty advisors' expectations that they 'routinely reflect upon their teaching' when such a practice was neither displayed by, nor expected of, the sponsor teachers supervising their practica. Brookhart and Loadman (1989) observe that triadic relationships displaying collaborative efforts often worked to bridge the gap between these two cultures. Emans (1983) and Boydell (1986) propose a re-conceptualization of the faculty advisor role wi th in the practicum. They suggest that the faculty advisor remain involved in practicum but be given: . . . less direct responsibility for immediate supervision of students, work ing instead in an inservice mode wi th teachers on cur r icu lum development and the improvement of teaching, focusing on the interpretation of theory and research that constitutes the knowledge base of education (Boydell, 1986, p. 123). Thus, the faculty advisor's influence would be directed more towards the sponsor teacher and indirectly upon the school environment. Gaskell (1985) hopes that this might encourage 'a tilt towards pedagogical inquiry ' wi th in schools, a disposition which the student-teachers in his study felt was lacking at both professional and institutional levels dur ing their practica. Emans (1983) has warned that there w i l l be considerable resistance to such a proposal, not only from administrators and cur r icu lum personnel (who are not accustomed to having university personnel intimately involved wi th their operations) but also from faculty advisors themselves "who often show little interest in contributing to, or even using the knowledge, 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. This section of the reviews those strategies. The review is d iv ided into four parts: an overview of the strategies, common themes among the strategies, on-campus strategies for enhancing reflection, and off-campus strategies for enhancing reflection. The off-campus strategies are d iv ided into two groups: those wi th in , 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 work) and off-campus (the practicum). But, as W i l d m a n and Niles (1987) have argued, reflection w i l l not "happen simply because it is a good or even compell ing idea" (p. 29). N o r , as Goodman (1983) has suggested, and Zeichner et al . (1987) have demonstrated, simply having reflection as a program goal w i l l not ensure its manifestation in 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 in Teacher Education (RITE), Universi ty of Houston, uses i n d i v i d u a l journal w r i t i n g , micro-teaching, and ethnographic studies (Freiberg and W a x m a n , 1990). The Professional Teaching Program ( P R O T E A C H ) , Univers i ty of Flor ida, emphasizes action research, dialogue journalling, and faculty modelling (Ross, 1990). The Teacher for Rural Alaska Program (TRA), University of Alaska - Fairbanks, teach cases and use video tapes for stimulated recall (Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1990). In the elementary student-teaching program at the Univers i ty of Wiscons in , Zeichner and Lis ton (1987) use a combinat ion of action research, ethnographic and cur r icu lum analysis projects for enhancing reflective practice. In the elementary p rogram at K n o x Col lege , I l l i no i s , students undertake ethnographic studies in an attempt to problematize their practice and to uncover the 'educational givens' within local school settings (Beyer, 1984). Figure 1 depicts one way of categorising the various programmatic responses to reflection. The categories are based upon the level at which the activity occurs (e.g., on-campus or off-campus) and the participants involved in the activity (e.g., the student or members of the triad). Further, when the responses are grouped in 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 Underlying the majority of programmatic attempts to enhance reflective practice are four common themes. The first is the notion of making explicit issues and problems that one encounters, or arise as a result of, work ing in the practice setting (Cole 1989; MacKinnon , 1987; Ross, 1990; Russell et al., 1988; Segiovanni, 1985). Cole (1989) argues that "inquiry into one's o w n practice must begin wi th an explication and examination of the foundations on which practice w i l l develop" (p. 20). Coupled wi th making 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. Our obligations are not discharged until what is reasoned has been married to what is reasonable (p. 34). A th i rd common emphasis is the not ion that knowledge is socially constructed; that it is time bound, and culture specific, rather than 'certain' (Kilbourn, 1988; LaBoskey & Wilson, 1987; MacKinnon , 1989; Ross, 1987). A final, emphasis is the need for a common pedagogical language, a l ingua franca, to assist communicat ion between students, faculty, and school personnel (Freiberg & Waxman, 1990; Hayes & Ross, 1980; MacKinnon 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 wisdom of, practice to novice teachers. On-campus strategies for enhancing reflective practice On-campus strategies are typically associated wi th course work. For the purposes of this review they are grouped under the following headings: Enhancing Reflective Practice Common 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 I Knowledge Base - Content - Pedagogic - Curricular On-Campus I Research - Curriculum Development - Critique Off-Campus Modelling - Faculty I Elicitation - Vignettes - Interactive Videos - Teaching Exemplars - Teaching cases - Micro-teaching - Seminars Within the Triadic Relationship - Coaching and Modelling - Dialogue Journalling - Reflective Interview - Stimulated Recall Interview - Case Studies - Narrative T Beyond the Triadic Relationship I 1 Ethnographic Action Research - Individual - Peer Collalx)ration Reflective Writing - Journal - Autobiographic Curriculum Analysis Figure 1. Strategies for enhancing reflective practice. knowledge base, research, modelHng, and elicitation. Knowledge base The on-campus strategies for enhancing reflection can be broken down into four sub-categories. The first is the knowledge base that students draw upon and construct as they participate i n teacher education programs. K i l b o u r n (1988) has argued that the quali ty of a student's reflection is influenced by the relative sophistication of the knowledge base he or she brings to the teaching environment. Houston and Clift (1990) concur, and add 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 why is it so, and on what grounds its warrant can be asserted" (1986b, p. 9); pedagogical content knowledge - "the ways of representing and formulat ing a subject that make it comprehensible to others" (1986b, p. 9); and curricular knowledge - "the pharmacopia from which the teacher draws those tools of teaching that present or exemplify particular content and remediate or evaluate the adequacy of student accomplishments" (1986b, p. 10). Noordhoff and Kle infe ld (1990) have suggested that l imited knowledge means that pre-service teachers may not adequately 'read' many of the variables in the practicum setting. In a study of pre-service teachers Borko et al . (1988), have noted that a strong content knowledge base resulted in 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 in their preferred subject areas during practica so that the majority of their time may be spent developing pedagogical knowledge rather than content knowledge. Research A second strategy for enhancing reflection is to engage students in some form of on-campus research. Zeichner (1987b) and Ross (1987) propose that students be involved in curriculum development projects to demonstrate the active role that teachers can play in the development of the curriculum. They contrasted this wi th the dominant view of teachers as merely implementors of the curriculum. Stout (1989) suggests a second form of student research would 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 model l ing reflective practice: 1) provide an example of problem setting by sharing, publ ic ly , decisions made about substantive issues, 2) communicate to the students the perception that knowledge is uncertain at times, and 3) demonstrate competent action through personal performance. Ross and Hannay (1986) have argued that faculty modelling is a crucial step in encouraging students to be reflective: If university instructors, whi le overtly advocating reflective inquiry , model passive and expository instructional techniques, then how can change be facilitated? Rather than being a l ink in a continuing chain of passivity, the universi ty should provide an interactive and cri t ical model of pedagogy . . . In other words, this approach to teaching must become the normal way of conceptualizing practice rather than a verbalism used in university classrooms (p. 12). Campbell et al. (1990) add that students may not always be aware when an instructor is modell ing a particular strategy and that there may be occasions when students need to be told what an instructor is doing and why. Elicitat ion The final on-campus category encompasses a number of approaches which might be best labelled as elicitation strategies. K i lbou rn (1988) and W i l d m a n et al. (1990) suggest that vignettes are one way 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 and cases in a similar fashion to present "a complex and difficult situation as a source of deliberative material" (p. 176); using these students learned how to spot central issues, to frame problems, and to suggest solutions. Gurney (1989) and M a c K i n n o n and Er ickson (1988) have used what they cal l pedagogical exemplars, typically video tape and in-class demonstrations, to stimulate students' curiosity and to elicit the students' notions of 'teaching' and 'learning.' The vicarious experience provided by video, cases, and exemplars has the immediacy of the teaching situation but without the press for action that accompanies the 'real' wor ld of practice. Freiberg and Waxman (1990) have adopted a modified form of micro-teaching to provide students wi th an opportunity to elicit feedback, and provide an opportunity for self-assessment. They contend that the combination of experience and reflection results in professional growth. Final ly , on-campus seminars run concurrently wi th teaching practice are useful for encouraging student-teachers to reflect upon their practice (Goodman, 1983). Goodman claims that the seminar plays three important roles, each of which contributes to a student-teacher's professional development: a liberalizing role, a collaborative role, and an inquir ing role. Off-campus strategies for enhancing reflective practice Off-campus strategies are generally associated wi th the practicum and wi th activities wi th in and beyond the triad relationship. This review first examines the activities wi th in the triad, and then those beyond the triad. Wi th in the triadic relationship there is one area discussed, that is, strategies based upon the interaction between student, sponsor, and advisor. Beyond the triadic relationship four groups are discussed: ethnographic research, action research, reflective wri t ing, and curr iculum analysis. Each of these strategies engages the student as researcher into his or her practice, and the 'cultural mil ieu ' in which his or her teaching takes place (Houston & Clift , 1990). Wi th in the triad Four programmatic strategies were identified for enhancing reflective practice wi th in the triad: coaching and model l ing, dialogue journal l ing, reflective interviews, and stimulated recall interviews. Each of these strategies is describe below. Coaching and mode l l ing . Gurney (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 in the supervisory relationship. In Schon's (1988) words: One person helps another learn to practice reflective teaching in the context of doing . . . 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: ' fol low me', 'joint experimentation,' and 'hal l of mirrors. ' Fo l low me is characterized by showing and telling, joint experimentation by collaborative inquiry, and hal l of mirrors by reciprocal reflection. Therefore, "from this perspective, the [student] becomes engaged in action, and reflection, assisted by a coach who scaffolds the learning-to-teach process through dialogue and model l ing" (Lalik, Ni les , & 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 wi th in the t r iad 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). These might be puzzles, critical incidents, or dilemmas. The journals are then periodically read by the sponsor teacher or the faculty advisor who w o u l d respond, question, and offer suggestions about the issues contained therein. Hence, a dialogue w o u l d develop within the journal which a student might reflect upon (Freiberg & Waxman, 1990). Copeland (1986, cited in Ross, 1990) has argued that journal wr i t ing 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 and st imulated recall interviews. The final two triadic strategies are closely l inked; 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 (Kilbourn, 1988), to provide an enabling opportunity for students to construct their own meaning (Gurney, 1989), and to encourage and stimulate students to v iew situations from mu l t i p l e perspectives (Ross, 1990). Both strategies p r o v i d e opportunities for all triad members to develop a common meaning of the events within the practice setting. Similarly, both strategies permit students to critique their own performance wi th input from experienced professionals (Volker, 1987, cited in Houston & Clift, 1990). Beyond the triad Four programmatic strategies have been reported for enhancing reflective practice beyond the triadic relationship: ethnographic research, action research, reflective writ ing, 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 wi th in the practice setting. Beyer (1984), LaBoskey and Wilson (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 wi th which to approach future problems, thus, "empowering them with the ability to become more reflective practitioners" (Ross, 1990, p. 4). Ross (1990) reports on a teacher education program at Vi rg in i a State University in 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 in the classroom setting; (2) how difficult it is to be aware of all this information; and (3) how important this information is in managing a classroom that provides equal opportunity to all students (p. 146). LaBoskey and Wi lson (1987) suggest that case studies serve to connect the theoretical with the experiential by encouraging teachers to identify issues of concern and to critically examine them in the light of theories examined on-campus. Connelly and Cland in in (1986) have used the term narrative to capture their particular use of case studies: " . . . teachers' stories are retold in the narrative account in such a way that the observed and reflected upon events are embedded in . . . 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 reflection-in-action is captured by participant observation in classrooms, and reflection-on-action through interviews with participants at a later stage: The two practices combined, that of work ing wi th reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, create the basis for the narrative accounts wh ich constitute the detailed methodology for the development of theory i n the narrative method . . . The development, therefore, is dialectic in the sense that we have used it; it involves the researcher and participant in a mutual development of ideas. Mutua l ly enhanced as researcher and participant discuss and modify the participant's narrative (Connelly & Clandinin, 1986, p. 306). Act ion research. Act ion research is defined by Zeichner (1987b) as a form of "self-inquiry by participants in order to improve their o w n practice" (p. 568), either individual ly or with peers. Tom (1984) adds that: . . . action researchers also believe that scientific findings cannot be converted into rules for handl ing every problem of curr icu lum and teaching strategy. Act ion 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 appl icabi l i ty is l imited to similar local situations in the future, (p. 41) Carr and Kemmis (1983) describe action research as a series of self-reflective cycles of p lanning, 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 in the research process. Ac t ion research is "inherently a social form of research: those involved i n the practice being considered are to be involved i n the action research process in all its phases" (Carr & Kemmis, 1983, p. 155). Zeichner and Lis ton (1987) have invo lved student-teachers in action research projects focusing on such things as grouping strategies, levels of pup 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 individual act towards a more collaborative process (Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; Fe iman-Nemser , 1986; Pugach & Johnson, 1990). Unfortunately, although this appears to be a desirable practice it wou ld seem that teachers rarely have neither the time nor the opportunity to observe and conference wi th each other (Wildman 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 in her classroom works 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 l ikely to be enhanced by peer collaboration because internal dialogue or conversation is made explicit and thus available for joint reflection (Freiberg & Waxman , 1990; Pugach & Johnson, 1990). The advantages of shared reflection are that both parties are l ikely to 'see' things that they may not have realized in their own teaching (Wildman 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 in the peer collaboration process. They list four steps to guide students: 1) reframe through clarifying questions, 2) summarize the refined problem, 3) generate possible solutions, and 4) consider ways of evaluat ing the effectiveness of the solut ion chosen. Wi ldman et al. (1990) suggest that teachers reflect on their teaching together when 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 in facilitating reflection in schools. Finally, there is evidence that student-teachers value peer collaboration wi th in the practicum setting. If encouraged, peer collaboration can contribute not only to the development of reflective practice, but also increase its l ikel ihood as a career long pursuit (Campbell et al., 1990). Reflective wr i t ing . Another common method for encouraging student-teacher inqu i ry is reflective wr i t ing ; two common forms are private journalling and autobiographical wri t ing (Copeland, 1986, cited i n Ross, 1987). Reflective wri t ing provides a way for pre-service teachers to practice critical analysis and reasoning (Ross, 1990; Ross & Hannay, 1986). Journal wri t ing, beyond the supervisory triad, provides students wi th the opportunity to question: 1) what they know, 2) what they feel, 3) what they do, and 4) why they do it (Yinger & Clark, 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; LaBoskey & W i l s o n , 1987; W i l d m a n et a l . , 1990). Autobiographical wr i t ing is slightly different in that teachers are asked to critique their autobiographies in relation to their recent school or university experiences - similar to Connel ly and Clandinin ' s (1986) conception of narrative but wi th a distinctly autobiographical orientation. The intention is to create l inks between the personal and professional dimensions of a student's life: Personal and professional knowledge need not occupy two distinct territories in a d i v i d e d psyche. For one thing, such obsessive discreteness tempts the dominance of one domain over the other. Furthermore, the desire for integration, for integrity, is the individual 's impetus for cognitive growth. (Atwell , 1988, p. 12) Oberg (1990) has also used autobiographical wr i t ing as a strategy for encouraging her students to explore their professional teaching in relation to their personal histories. Students begin by in i t i a l ly 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 in their stories. The final versions are integrated personal and professional autobiographies based upon extensive reflection. C u r r i c u l u m A n a l y s i s . Cu r r i cu lum analysis is another strategy for enhancing reflection beyond the triadic relationship (Beyer, 1984; Goodman, 1988). Students investigate, and reflect upon, various aspects of the curr iculum. In particular, students question the origins and purposes of cur r icu lum, and attempt to lay out ideological and societal influences embedded within the curriculum materials. Students are challenged to relate their analyses back to their own conceptions of curr iculum and curr iculum development. Goodman (1988) and Beyer (1984) believe that such studies move teachers away from a passive acceptance of the curriculum, towards an active role in its design, implementation, and evaluation. V I . The practicum as a research context for exploring reflection Whi l e many 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 surpr is ingly meagre. S imi la r ly , Richards and Gipe (1987) report: . . . researchers say that seminars, partnership teaching, m i n i -ethnographic studies and journal keeping engender reflection . . . However , explicit directions for conducting these activities are not provided. More importantly, analyses of "the meaning constructed by pre-service teachers about their experiences are lacking." . . . There are a paucity of data which specifically document and examine changes in prospective teachers' concerns. Therefore, teacher educators have little measurement criteria of the educative worth of reflection, (p. 5) Thus, it wou ld seem that research is necessary to ascertain influences of various strategies on student-teacher reflection. Fo l lowing this, there is a need to investigate how 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, recorded observation that permits a very detailed descript ion of behav iour and a reconstruct ion of intent ions, strategies, and assumptions (Schon, 1988, p. 9). The practicum w o u l d be the pr imary focus of such attention. The importance of the practicum is further highlighted by reports that many 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 sum, the practicum and the associated relationships that occur between students and supervisors provides a important and valuable context for investigating student-teacher reflection. C H A P T E R 4 Research Method This chapter provides the reader wi th 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 wi th a sponsor teacher, the teaching of a lesson, and a post-lesson discussion wi th the sponsor teacher) provided the basic structure around which the research method was constructed. Overlaid on this cycle was a series of stimulated video recall sessions i n which both the student and sponsor were able to comment upon the three stages of the regular teaching cycle (see Figure 2). Stimulated recall with sponsor. / Stimulated recall with student. ^ The practicum — — Video of pre-lesson ^ discussion. \ Stimulated recall with student. \ Stimulated recall I with sponsor. • • Video of post-lesson # ^ discussion. / ^ ^ Video of lesson. Stimulated recall ^ with sponsor. Stimulated recall with student. Figure 2. The reflective teaching cycle The combination of a regular teaching cycle and the overlaid video recall sessions constitutes, in this study, a 'reflective teaching cycle.' This cycle was tested in a pilot study and found to be robust and successful in '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 wi th their sponsor teachers. The util i ty of the reflective teaching cycle is that it is based upon 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 in 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 dur ing 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 within a specific reflective teaching cycle and across several cycles (Figure 3). Such tracking may provide insights into the factors enhancing or constraining reflection over the course of the practicum. Central to the examination of reflective practice both wi th in and across cycles is the influence of the sponsor teacher. This highlights the third utili ty 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 during a single reflective teaching cycle or over several cycles to examine the role of the sponsor in relation to the reflective practices of the student. In this study five reflective teaching cycles were conducted wi th each student dur ing their practica (see Figure 3). Add i t iona l semi-structured interviews were conducted at the beginning, mid-point , and end of the practica. The participants There were three criteria for selecting the participants in this study: that par t ic ipat ion i n the project w o u l d be voluntary , that the students involvement wou ld not jeopardize their practica (i.e., 'at risk' students w o u l d not be involved in the project^), and that there was physical space available i n the schools to conduct the stimulated recall and addi t ional in terview 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^ provided the researcher wi th a list of eighteen students which 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 wi th in the school for taping and recording the various research sessions, four students and their sponsors were invited to participate in 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 in (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 wi th student and sponsor teacher, separately, - lessons taught by the student, - stimulated recall of the lessons wi th student and sponsor teacher, separately, - post-lesson discussions between student and sponsor teacher, - stimulated recall of post-lesson discussions with student and sponsor teacher, separately, and - semi - s t ruc tu red i n t e rv i ews on d e m o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n , conceptions of 'teaching' and ' learning, ' and the part icipants ' reactions to the study. The data collection was conducted at the convenience of the participants and wi th min imum disruption to normal classroom activities. Typical ly , 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. Most of the data collection sessions occurred on-site. A few of the pre-, mid- , and post-practicum interviews were conducted off-site. Pre- and post-lesson discussions D u r i n g the recording of al l pre- and 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 and then left the room before the discussions began. The participants stopped the tapes at the end of the discussions. Lessons The lessons taught by the student-teacher were video taped by the researcher. To ensure that the presence of a video camera created minimal disruption to the class, the researcher video taped the same classes before the project began. This enabled both the student-teachers and the pupils to become familiar wi th 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 wou ld be narrowed to capture the student-teachers' one-to-one interaction wi th the pupils. For the most part the camera was situated at the back of the room, although there were occasions when it was possible to video tape the lesson from other angles without disrupt ing the class (e.g., when the pupi ls were engaged i n a laboratory session). Stimulated recall sessions The stimulated recall sessions conducted dur ing this study were substantially different from the more traditional use of stimulated recall (Tuckwell, 1982). The primary difference in this study was that the agenda for the recall sessions was set by the participants; they stopped, started, and commented upon the sections of video tape that were of interest to them. Their reflections on their practice were stimulated by their own curiosity. In more traditional forms of stimulated recall, it is the researcher, not the participant, who 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 were conducted on the pre-lesson discussions, lessons, and the post-lesson discussions. Semi-structured interviews Pre-, mid- and post-practicum interviews were conducted wi th each of the students. M i d - and post-practicum interviews were conducted wi th 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 wi th standard interview protocols and techniques (Mishler, 1986; Spradley, 1979). The pre-practicum interviews were conducted by an independent interviewer and explored the students' conceptions of teaching, learning, and learning how to teach. A n independent interviewer was used so that the students would not associate the researcher with a particular line of inquiry. This was important, particularly in the early stages of the practicum, when the researcher was encouraging the participants to set their o w n agenda. It was less of an issue later on, when the participants were accustomed to research protocols (i.e., the students felt free to comment upon any issue that interested them and not just upon 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 in the context of their o w n experiences. Therefore, demographic, school, and work information were collected during these interviews. The post-practicum interviews were conducted by a second independent interviewer. The primary purpose of these interviews was to determine any potential conflict that participants perceived as a result of the dual roles played by the researcher during the study (see Appendix 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 in 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. The cancelled sessions are listed in Table 1. 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 id not unduly 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 in 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 With in the body of this document, the same designation has been used for transcript excerpts. Included in the identification of excerpts is the page number of the transcript from which 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), and 'Int IIP (post-practicum). III. Data analysis The data analysis is based upon the constant comparative method (Classer & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Cuba, 1985) and draws upon the work of Donald Schon (1983, 1987) to analytically examine student-teacher reflection i n the practicum setting. There were four levels of data transformation (Novak & Gowin , 1984): production of verbatim transcripts, identification of the ind iv idua 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, only excerpts relating to the stimulated recall discussions were transcribed. The second level of transformation involved the identification of the indiv idual components of reflection (i.e., préc ip i tants , frames, reframes, and plans for future action). Instances of framing were flagged and then the dialogue which followed, both within the cycle and in succeeding cycles, was examined for instances of reframing. In some cases, what was in i t ia l ly 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 which 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 nk ing 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, wi th in the context of the events that surrounded 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 which 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. A t the fourth level of transformation, factors and themes were categorized according to dominant trends and patterns. Cla ims emerging from the study are based upon the transformations made at this level. The first three levels of transformation are reported in the ind iv idua l case study chapters. A s such, the case study chapters provide an overall picture of student-teacher reflection. Indeed, the chapters stand alone, in and of themselves, as examples of reflection in the practicum setting. The fourth level of transformation is reported in the final chapter. The organization of the chapters in this way 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 in the final chapter to stand, virtually, unaltered. V . Data review Two methods were used for reviewing the different phases of the data analysis throughout this study: a member check and an audit trail. Member 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 mai l ing 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. Each mail ing represented the progressive development of the case studies and incorporated changes that the participants suggested to earlier drafts. In some cases, substantial rewriting was required; in other cases only a few changes were necessary. Suffice it to say that the final analysis that appears in this document concurs wi th 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 in Appendix B). A u d i t trail To ensure that al l possible care was taken in 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 during the tapes, and which were relevant to the dialogue therein, were also noted. The second level of the audit trail was the 'story boarding' of specific incidents identified in the reflective teaching cycles. The third level was the development of detailed theme maps (of which highly abstracted versions appear at the beginning of the case study chapters). The fourth level was the l inking 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 wi th 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 al 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, al l aspects of the audit trail were shared with either independent researchers or participants in 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. C H A P T E R 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 with a 'theme map' that sketches the number and duration of the reflective themes that were identified in the case. The theme maps provide the reader wi th an overview of what is to follow. The reflective themes are then examined i n greater 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 so , factors which enhanced or constrained reflection and related issues are highlighted at the end of each theme. W h e n a particular factor or issue occurred in more than one theme, it is noted in the first theme only and not repeated in subsequent themes i n the case (e.g., the use of video tape). Each chapter concludes wi th a summary table of the salient points from the case. The summary tables al low the reader to review each case at a glance. I. Introduction This case study is based upon the practicum experiences of Sally, a student engaged i n her professional year of teacher education at the University of British Columbia. Sally was born on the West Coast of British Columbia in a small fishing community. She attended the local elementary and secondary high schools before moving to Vancouver to undertake a B.Sc. in Chemistry at U B C . Fol lowing graduation Sally entered the secondary teacher education program in the Faculty of Education. For her practicum, Sally was assigned to a senior h igh school i n a suburban district of Vancouver . Her pr ime teaching responsibi l i ty was for International Baccalaureate (IB) Chemistry classes at Grade eleven. 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 dur ing the analysis: teaching orientation, passive interaction in discussions wi th the sponsor teacher, pup i l learning, and collégial interaction in discussions wi th the sponsor teacher. Figure 5 maps the duration of the four themes across the practicum. For example, Sally's reflection upon pupi l learning extended across four reflective teaching cycles, beginning in 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 2. Passive interaction 3. Pupil learning 4. Collégial interaction 1.1 1.8 2.7 2.1 III 3.3 5.8 Note: 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 Sal ly was part icular ly interested i n the constructivist approach to teaching and learning. This had 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. For example, Sally devised a number of novel demonstrations to elicit the pupils ' prior concepflons of chemistry phenomena. However, she soon discovered that the combination of des igning and prepar ing 'constructivist ' lessons was a very t ime 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 t i l l two o'clock in the morning!). In the first reflective teaching cycle (week three of the practicum) there was evidence of a marked shift away from a constructivist teaching approach towards a more t radi t ional teaching approach. The language that Sally used to describe her practice was indicative of this change. She spoke more in terms of telling rather than listening to the pupils. As 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 orientation and after the lesson commented that she should have el ici ted more information from the pupils rather than just giving them the answers: Sally: [In future] I think I would ask them a few questions, 'Why is this sort of thing happening'; try to put a seed i n their mind to generate a few more answers. (S/J C1.4 Les /S , p. 4) Jason also noticed the teacher-centred orientation that had begun to characterize Sally's practice: Jason: I wou ld have had a bit more input from the class into what I was going to put in the notes . . . there is nothing wrong wi th the approach that she took, it's just that it is a bit more of a straight lecture approach. (S/J C1.5 Les /J , p. 9) The classes sur rounding and inc lud ing the second teaching cycle displayed further evidence of a shift towards more tradit ional 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 'universi ty ' ("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 how fast do they do this at the university?' 'It seems l ike we are doing 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 had recognized and framed her practice in terms of its teacher-centredness or its 'university' orientation. By the third reflective teaching cycle Sally was quite alarmed at the growing discrepancy between her intellectual beliefs about teaching, and her actual practice. Her dismay increased when Jason indicated that he was going to focus upon Sally's classroom questioning practices in the following lesson. A s Sally reflected upon the difference between her practice and her beliefs she recognized the powerful influence that her former teachers had, both at school and university, in shaping her current practice. She then reframed her current practice not in 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 wi th the mechanics of just knowing the material and stuff, that I am not thinking of those considerations. It just sort of struck me yesterday at the end of the [pre-lesson] tape . . . I am not doing any of the things I believe in. I'm not. I'm like zero. Like none! None of them! Tony: Where d i d you get the information about what 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 l ike that. Things that you are supposed to do in 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 how I was taught, for a lot of it. Tony: What do you mean by that? Sally: I am teaching the same style, for a lot of it, that I have been taught in my past career. Going through the material. Tony: When you were a learner? Sally: When I was a learner. (S/J C3.2 Pre/S, p. 1) In wondering aloud why it was difficult for her to supplant the practices of her former teachers wi th 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 wi th a constructivist learning environment, and the need for a personal support system to sustain an alternative teaching orientation: Tony: Can you wonder out loud w h y that might be? Is it the mechanics you said? Sally: I think it is the mechanics, and partially being so rushed, but partially not thinking about it, and making 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 with. Tony: Does Bruce give you any hints about how to keep that going? Sally: N o . [Well,] 'Be a reflective teacher and write in your journal every day.' [laughs] Tony: Do you do that? An acronym for Principles of Teaching. Bruce Gurney was Susan's principal science method lecturer at UBC 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 you got for the future then? Sally: I think I am going to write big notes to myself somewhere, or something; like: Q. 'Are you doing this?' A . 'No, you are not!' [laughing, as she responds to her own question] Q. 'Are you doing it because y o u don't think it works?' [pause] 'Do you think it is useless?' [pause] 'Are you doing it because you are lazy?' A . 'Because you are lazy, probably [laughs]^. Because it makes sense to you intellectually that this should work. (S/J C3.2 Pre/S, p. 1, emphasis in original) After the practicum, Sally recalled the third reflective teaching cycle as a 'crisis-point' in her practicum: Sally: I don't know, 1 reached a few little mini-crisis points dur ing the practicum. It was quite good. Like thinking back on what I thought learning was all about and how things should be done, it was like 'Oh God , I am not doing any of it, I've turned into my past teachers.' It was a horrible moment when 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, and teaching it. Damn it! . . . For a part of it I definitely became the teachers I have had . . . Not the good ones. I don't know why? I wasn't doing the things that the teachers who 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 how 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 fall ing back on techniques that I have been taught or exposed to, more than going ahead wi th new 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 own 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 two different orientations to teaching. Review of theme one - Teaching orientation Sally's reflection on her teaching orientation was precipitated by 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 phi losophy which placed the pup i l at the centre of the teaching/learning enterprise!^; a view to which 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. However, by the third week (first reflective teaching cycle) there had been a marked shift from elicitation of An 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) pup i l responses (listening) to a lecture-style approach (telling). Dur ing 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 in terms of teaching as she was taught. She suggested four reasons for this orientation: the mechanics of teaching the material, her unfamiliarity wi th 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 had become one of default rather than choice. In the fourth and fifth reflective teaching cycles she deliberately sought to alter this by 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. The first was her pre-practicum science method courses at U B C . These 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 inked theory to practice. Theory became a ' l ived' experience within the courses as students were encouraged to critique the various methods presented i n terms of different theoretical perspectives. Relating theory to practice, in this way, p rov ided Sally wi th a heuristic for examining the relationship between theory and practice in her own 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. Video tape provided Sally wi th an opportunity to review her own practice free from the 'press' of classroom teaching^2 she was able to compare and contrast her beliefs wi th her practice: "I gained a real insight into how I presented myself in class . . . because I could see myself doing it" (S/J Int in, p. 4 ) . Thus, video provided Sally wi th 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 in ways that may not have been possible using 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 had 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 own 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 Pre /S , p. 1). A s her teaching load increased she found that she had virtually no time to sit and talk about her practice with either her peers or her sponsor teacher. Final ly, there were two issues which, while not directly related to the research questions, had implications for Sally's reflection on her practice. Firstly, reflection, when it does occur, d id 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 wi th 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, which is related to the first, is that even i f something makes intellectual sense, it does not necessarily mean that you w i l l do it, or even know how to do it in the practice setting. Despite Sally's strongly held beliefs about 'good' teaching, these beliefs d i d not readily translate into classroom practices. Thus, making explicit one's intellectual beliefs, in and of itself, does not ensure that one w i l l know how 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) in 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 minimal . When Sally d id contribute it was more to acknowledge that she had heard what Jason had said rather than to expand upon, or add to, the issues that he had raised. Sally's comments were principally in the form of 'positive minimal responses such as: "Yeah," " A h , ha," "Really," "I see," "Fair enough," and "OK." As 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, in the first cycle wi th Sally, he was disappointed by the extent to wh ich he dominated the discussions. A n incident in the post-lesson discussion of the first cycle caused h im 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 on tape, he noted that he had failed to do wi th Sally the very thing he was suggesting Sally do wi th 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. Looking at this now, I feel I was talking too much and not giving her enough chance to respond . . . Perhaps, I should have said 'What w o u l d you do in future?' Treat that situation the same as I wou ld treat a situation in a regular class, but with Sally. Tony: So use the same techniques you would use in a class? Jason: I don't see why not. (S/J C1.8 Pos/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 in 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 Pos/S, p. 3). Sally appreciated the help and advice that Jason offered but noted that there were times when she wanted to play a more active role i n the discussions about her practice: Sally: 'Jason stop talking just for a few seconds every now and then.' 'Let Sally talk about something.' . . . When I had a point, and I wanted to say something, Jason wanted to tell me so much stuff that there wasn't time. (S/J CI.9 Pos/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 would appreciate [being] more of a colleague . . . a little bit more equal. (S/J C1.9 Pos/S, p. 4) In the second reflective teaching cycle, Jason provided an opportunity for Sally to contribute to the discussions by pausing more often when he spoke, and by invi t ing Sally to comment on her teaching. For example, at the beginning of the post-lesson discussion he asked "How d id you 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 id participate more actively but sti l l 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 ew point, and having h i m develop things; where and how they could have been. We didn' t actually work 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,' which is very val id since he is like such a good teacher. But that's still how 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. As she explored the issue of sitting and listening, she reframed her interaction wi th Jason not i n terms of being a receiver of knowledge but in terms of being a pupi l in his classroom: Sally: I am sitting there and listening to Jason . . . The student-teacher as being a p u p i l of this teacher. This is what is happening here. That's what I feel. (S/J, C2.7 Pos/S, p. 8) This reflection d id not immediately alter the level of Sally's participation in the pre- and post-lesson discussions but was critical in that it highlighted for Sally the role that she had played thus far. After having reframed her interaction wi th John in terms of being a pupi l in his class, Sally began to take a more active role in her discussion with Jason. A t the end of the practicum, the combined efforts of both Sally and Jason to contribute equally to the discussions resulted in a more collégial relationship. Review of theme two - Passive interaction with the sponsor teacher There were two distinct phases in Sally's interaction wi th her sponsor teacher. The first phase was her passive participation i n their discussions during the first half of the practicum; the second phase, reported later in this chapter, traces the shift to a more collégial relationship between the two. In the first phase, Sally framed her interaction wi th Jason i n terms of being a receiver of knowledge. Whi le she felt that receiving knowledge in the form of feedback was valuable, by the end of the first reflective teaching cycle she wanted to play a more active role in the pre- and post-lesson discussions wi th Jason. Indeed, Jason, himself, noted that his dominance of these discussions constrained Sally's participation in the discussions. Al though there was a more balanced interaction between the Sally and Jason in the second cycle, Sally still felt that she was mostly sitting and listening to Jason. As Sally explored this further, she reframed the problem not just i n terms of 'being a receiver of knowledge' but in terms of 'being a pup 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 wi th Jason. Sally then revised her role in the student/sponsor relationship and deliberately sought to interact more fully in these discussions (the results of these efforts are recorded in the fourth reflective theme - Sally's collégial interaction wi th Jason). There were three factors which appeared to constrain Sally's reflection on her practice. Firstly, Sally's passive interaction wi th Jason. Sally listened but d id not actively participate in the pre- and post-lesson discussions that occurred in the early part of her practicum. While she modified her practice in response to Jason's ideas, it was more in terms of temporary 'fixes' rather than substantive changes to her own practice. Further, when Sally was a passive participant i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions wi th Jason, the agenda for those discussions was set almost entirely by Jason. A s a result, Sally's personal concerns about her practice remained unknown 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 knowledge-in-action. A t times, Jason seemed to find it difficult to 'make explicit ' the knowledge-in-action that he exhibited in his daily practice^*. When Jason's knowledge-in-action remained tacit then Sally's practicum tended towards 'apprenticeship' training. As a result, Sally's learning occurred more through an ' immersion' in the practice setting rather than from her pre- and post-lesson discussions wi th 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 and Jason's interactions became increasingly collégial.) The final factor which seemed to constrain Sally's reflection upon practice was Jason's emphasis on experiential learning. Ear ly i n the practicum, Jason placed great emphasis upon the importance of practical experience ("Like anything else, through experience you 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). Whi le practice is the central component of the f ield experience, an emphasis on practice per se often precludes substantive discussions about practice itself. As a result, Jason's early discussions wi th Sally often remained at a level of reporting on ('This is what I saw') rather than ' inquiring into' practice ( 'How wou ld you address this problem?', 'Is it similar to other experiences?' etc.) Theme three - P u p i l learning A s noted in theme one, early in the practicum Sally experimented wi th a number of interesting and novel approaches that actively involved the pupils in their own learning. However, by the second teaching cycle this approach to pupi l learning had all but vanished. Two factors contributed to the demise of this approach in Sally's teaching. Firstly, Sally had to spend much of her time familiarizing herself wi th the content required to teach IB chemistry: Sally: L ike I never heard of Graham's L a w of Gas Diffusion unt 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 my fingers it would be so much easier. (S/J C2.5 Les /S p. 29) A second factor was the academic ability of the pupils in the IB classes. The pupils were very bright and they were quick to seize upon even the smallest flaw in Sally's teaching. For example, in the second reflective teaching cycle, Sally was explaining the different velocities that ind iv idua l molecules of a gas have at a given point i n time. To help the pupi ls to visual ize the different velocities she asked them to imagine what 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. We have the world's fastest f i lm. What are the velocities of the molecules going to look like? (S/J, C2.5 Les /S , p. 1) Al though 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 fol lowed by general agreement amongst the class (and also mixed wi th an element of glee in '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. Pupi 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 in wh ich the concerns of the individual were subsumed under whole-group instruction. As 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 in 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 my past career. Going through the material. (S /J C3.2 Pre/S, p. 1) This generic approach to pup i l learning, characterized by whole-group instruction, vir tually eliminated pup i l interaction wi th the teacher. 'Going through the material' or 'covering the material' was perhaps the safest way for Sally to approach teaching given the difficulty of the content and the pupil 's readiness to challenge her teaching: Sally: It puts me a little bit more on my guard. I am not as ready and open to be spontaneous and just say anything. I know 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. But it makes it a little bit more difficult for me. So the material is a strain in the first place, but then having that on top of it! (S/J C4.5 Les /S , p. 3) Sally's use of whole-group instruction as a 'safety device' was also noted by Jason during 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 Pre/J , p. 6) A t the end of the practicum, Sally critiqued this generic approach to teaching. She drew upon her own 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 you get in school actually sticks wi th you. A n d I really believe that. I was just thinking of the things that I have really learned and that have stayed wi th me. Learning has to be a personal thing. It has to be integrated into you. It has to mean something to you. It has to be important. You have to make connections into your life. (S/J Sally Int III, p. 4) Sally then argued that whole-group instruction failed to provide this; indeed, it had an inappropriate focus in that learning tended to be content-centred rather than pupil-centred: Sally: If I went and asked them now, some of it wou ld come back to them but so much 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 wi th the h igh school curr iculum. That the things that we 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 pupi 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 you can sneak in interesting parts. Like we were doing 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. Of octopuses. Like the time an octopus actually bit him. A n d stuff like that. I managed to thread some light in every now 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 work into your life, I find that helps. (S/J Sally Int III, p. 6) Final ly , she summarized the more traditional 'covering the material ' approach to pupi l learning as akin to covering a class wi th a big bed sheet which effectively covers or masks individual pup i l learning: Sally: 1 hate that. Cover ing. The big bed sheet image over the students. There, its covered! (S/J Sally Int IE, p. 7) This theme represents an important development in Sally's appreciation of her o w n teaching practice. In theme one, Sally made problematic her teaching orientation. In this theme, she considered an important aspect of that teaching orientation (i.e. pup i l learning) and began to devise strategies for addressing this aspect of her teaching. Review of theme three - Pupi l learning The third reflective theme traced Sally's reflection on pup i l learning. This reflection was precipitated by Sally's earlier reflection on her teaching orientation (in which Sally recognized that she was teaching as she was taught). Sally framed her approach to pup i l learning i n terms of 'going through the material' or covering the material, an approach in which the concerns of the i n d i v i d u a l tended to be subsumed by whole-group instruction. Two factors contributed to Sally's use of this approach to pup i l learning: the level of knowledge necessary to teach IB Chemistry, and the academic ability of the pupils taking IB Chemistry. Wi th regard to the former, Sally was unfamiliar wi th the content and spent most of her time 'boning up' on Chemistry; this left her with little time to consider alternative strategies to traditional classroom practices (e.g., whole-group instruction). In the latter, the pupi l s , because of their h igh academic abil i ty, always enjoyed an intellectual joust whenever the occasion arose; though we l l meaning, they were quite merciless in this regard. The combined pressure of these two factors severely curtailed Sally's attempts to cater for pup i l learning as it pertained to a constructivist approach to teaching: ". . . the things you are supposed to do in science education to help them learn" (S/J C3.2 Pre /S, p. 5). A t the end of the practicum, Sally reframed her approach to p u p i l learning not in terms of going through the material or covering the material but in terms it being a personal and ind iv idua l activity. She l ikened the going through the material to covering the class wi th a bed sheet which masked ind iv idua l pup 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 upon her practice: her unfamil iar i ty w i th the content material . The pract icum is, by it's very nature, a threatening situation for beginning teachers and difficulty w i th content compounds this situation. Sally's preoccupation wi th content l imited her inquiry into practice and reduced the range and scope of her reflection on her practice. Theme four - Collégial interaction wi th the sponsor teacher In the early part of the practicum Sally felt that her role in the pre- and post-lesson discussions had been as a receiver of knowledge and then as a pup i l in a classroom. Al though her contribution to the discussions dur ing 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 wi th al l the answers worked out in 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 in the third cycle, Sally framed her interaction wi th Jason in 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 which followed became increasingly collégial (sharing of information) and collaborative (jointly work ing on problems). Nei ther dominated the discussions; rather both contributed: Sally: Both of us were of talking about what was going on. (S/J C4.8 Pos/S, p. 5) Jason felt that Sally was now actively seeking advice on certain issues and that he was providing her wi th an opportunity to say more. H e felt that his confidence in Sally's teaching practice contributed to this: Jason: I think that I am saying a little bit less [in this discussion] than in the first couple. Tony: A n d why is that? Jason: Perhaps I have become more relaxed and confident i n what she is doing, and in 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 own confidence in her ability to teach, and Jason's confidence in that ability: Sally: We are more at a 'colleague' level. I am consulting him. Tony: W h y is that? Sally: 1 don't know? Perhaps, more confidence on my part, in myself, and 1 think that Jason has more confidence in me as wel l . (S/J C5.3 Pre/S, p. 3) A s Sally began to appreciate the growing collégial and collaborative nature of their interaction she reframed the relationship not in terms of it being 'a normal conversation' but in terms of 'seeing her practice through Jason's eyes': Sally: We are both sort of discussing it on the same level. We have the same ideas about what was going on, and what needs to be fixed. We are collaborating. We both saw the same things in 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. (S/J C5.8 Pos/S, p. 1) This reframing was a important point in Sally's practicum i n that it signalled a shift from the pupil/ teacher relationship, that had characterized her earlier interaction wi th Jason (see theme one), to a more collégial and collaborative teacher/teacher relationship. She d id this by drawing upon the not ion of different ' levels of understanding ' her practice. A s she contemplated her future practice she felt that her insights into her own teaching had begun to include the sorts of things that experienced teachers 'see' as essential to their practice. Review of theme four - Collégial interaction wi th the sponsor teacher Sally's interaction wi th her sponsor teacher dur ing the first half of the practicum was largely passive. She politely listened but rarely participated in their pre- and post-lesson discussions. In theme two, she referred to their interaction in terms of it being a teacher/pupil relationship. In the second half of the practicum this relationship became increasing collégial. By the third cycle, Sally framed her interaction wi th Jason in 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 worked together to address issues that they saw as being important in her practice. A t this point, Sally reframed her interaction wi th Jason, not in terms of it being a normal conversation, but i n terms of seeing her practice through Jason's eyes. In the process, she drew upon the notion of different levels at which one might understand practice. Sally now felt that she was on a level of understanding that approximated Jason's level of understanding teaching practice. From this theme two factors emerged that appeared to enhance Sally's reflection upon her practice. Firstly, her active interaction wi th her sponsor teacher. When Sally began to interact wi th her sponsor-teacher in the pre-and post-lesson discussions she revealed an ability to be very perceptive about her own 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 own agenda was a useful tactic for enhancing reflection upon practice. The second factor was Jason's reflection on his supervisory practices. Early in the practicum, Jason, after watching video tapes of his discussions wi th Sally, noted that he dominated their interactions. A s he explored his dominance further, he reflected on his own role as supervisor. H e argued that he was failing to do with Sally the very thing that he was suggesting she do wi th her pupils, that is, to actively involve them in their own learning ("I should have said 'What w o u l d you do i n future?' Treat the situation the same as I would treat a situation in a regular class" - S / J C1.7 Pos /J , p. 31). Jason's reflection on his supervisory practices significantly altered the way he interacted with Sally. Their discussions shifted to inquir ing into rather than reporting on practice. This was significant i n that it encouraged Sally to problematize her own practice. Finally, there was a issue that while not directly related to the research questions, was related to pract icum writ large. O n several occasions throughout the practicum, and particularly dur ing this theme, there was a remarkable similarity between the issues that Sally and Jason raised during 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 who points out the strengths and weaknesses in students' practice may need to be reviewed. This wou ld 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 in 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 Related Issues Theme Precipitated Framed Reframed Plan for Factors which enhance (E) by: in terms of: in terms of: future action: or constrain (C) reflection: Teaching orientation Passive interaction with her sponsor teacher Pupil learning Collégial interaction with her sponsor teacher Internal dissonance resulting from the difference between her beliefs and her actions Frustration at not having an opportunity to participate in the pre- and post-lesson discussions Having a teacher-centred focus Teaching the way she was taught To reconcile her beliefs with her actions Being a receiver of knowledge Being a pupil in a classroom Dismay at finding herself a teacher of content Surprise in the changed relationship between herself and her sponsor teacher Going through Learning as or covering the personally material meaningful and integrated experience Being like a normal conversation Seeing things through the experienced eyes of her sponsor To develop a more collégial relationship with her sponsor teacher To alter her ' classroom practices to include real life applications Shift towards ' a more collégial and collaborative relationship teacher • 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 vAth the sponsor (C) Tacit nature of the sponsors knowledge-in-action (C) The sponsor's early emphasis on experiential learning (C) Unfamiliarity vnth content (C) Active interaction with sponsor (E) Sponsor's reflection upon his supervisory practices (E) 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 Similarity between the issues that both student and sponsor raise C H A P T E R 6 The Case of T ina The structure of this chapter is identical to the previous chapter. It begins wi th a theme map which is followed by the ind iv idua l themes and concludes with 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 wi th a B. Sc. in Biology and worked for a year in a university laboratory before entering teacher education. Tina's practicum was i n the same school as Sally. The school was a suburban senior h igh 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 inda . L inda had taught for ten years and had supervised three student-teachers prior to Tina. Dur ing 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 during 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 - Ownership 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 inding suitable classroom activities around wh ich to structure the teaching of that content. O n several occasions, Tina recognized the difficulty she faced in this regard. For example, i n the first reflective teaching cycle. She commented: T ina : I'm not sure of the type of activity to [pause], to bring it al l together. ( T / L C l . l Pre, p. 4) Reflective themes Reflective teaching cycles Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 1. Ownership • • 1.1 III 2. Pupil knowledge 9 » 1.7 4.6 3. Questioning style m • 2.7 4.6 4. Off-task behaviour • • 3.8 III Note: 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: T ina : Yeah, the monocots and diocots, I am not exactly sure how to introduce that. ( T / L C2.1 Pre, p. 4) A s a result of her difficulty i n finding suitable activities, Tina often asked Linda , her sponsor teacher, for ideas. Linda, who was a strong advocate for co-operative learning^^, encouraged Tina to experiment wi th this approach to her teaching. Consequently, co-operative learning very quickly became the modus operandi for Tina's practice. By the end of the second reflective teaching cycle, Tina had noticed the strong similar i ty between her own practice and Linda's pracflce. She framed this in terms of being a clone of Linda: T ina : Sometimes I feel like I'm a clone of L inda . . . 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). Throughout the th i rd and fourth reflective teaching cycles, T ina experimented with a number of her own activities. Stil l , she found it difficult to come up with new ideas of her own and often turned to Linda for help: T ina : I don't know what I wou ld have come up wi th on my own. ( T / L C 3 . 2 Pre/S, p. 1) Despite the help that L inda 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 mind set once I say it. I mean she feels obligated probably. So, maybe when you talk to her ask her how she feels about this, she must say 'Boy, she might as wel l teach this, she knows exactly what she wants to the last second'. ( T / L C4.2 P re /W, p. 12) Dur ing the fourth reflective teaching cycle, Tina indicated that she wanted to be more independent of L inda and take greater control over her own practice: T ina : I came up wi th a couple of ideas that we talked about but L inda had to mould them more. If I had had time, or had done it ahead of time, and thought my ideas through . . . I might have thought how I wanted to structure them so I wouldn ' t be depending on her suggesting how I wou ld implement it. . . . So, I would feel better if I had more like 'This is what I want to do.' Y o u know? Without having to rely on her to mo ld it. ( T / L C4.3 Pre/S, p. 1) This desire for independence was reflected in her wish to develop activities of her own: Tina : N o w I feel like, O K , I have this material, what do I want to do with 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 how I would want to present it. ( T / L C4.3 Pre /S , p. 3) In the fifth reflective teaching cycle, Tina had developed a number of her own activities for use in the classroom and seemed not to require as much help from Linda as on previous occasions. Dur ing the stimulated recall session of the pre-lesson discussion, Tina commented on this change: T ina : [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 l ike 'I have an idea' and Linda would map it out. ( T / L C5.3 Pre /S , p. 1) In the the post-practicum interview, Tina reflected on this shift from dependence upon to independence from L i n d a and reframed her earlier notion of being a clone of L inda in terms of 'jumping through hoops.' Whi le Tina welcomed the opportunity to imitate Linda's practice, she felt that her 'imitation' had become an 'expectation' (a criticism that L inda had levelled at her own supervisory practices in the fourth cycle). In a critique of her own practice, Tina noted that she too was making her pupi ls 'jump through hoops': T ina : There were some things that I felt really frustrated with. One was this overki l l I think on co-operative learning. I d i d it every single class . . . L inda and I planned almost every lesson to three quarters of the way along [the practicum], and every single one of them was a different co-operative learning technique. A n d I agree wi th it and I l ike it. A n d I Uke the theory . . . But after a while I began to feel that I was k ind of losing it. A n d then by having my students do it I was asking them to 'jump through hoops,' and I was feeling Uke I was 'jumping through hoops' as wel 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 would undergird and guide her future practice: Tina : I didn't feel comfortable in my practicum in taking a strategy or method, and saying [to the pupils] 'I want you to do this because I want you to learn the definition of such and such' because I didn't feel solid enough in saying 'This is the reason why I want you to do this.' I didn't feel that I had a f i rm philosophy. I hadn't defined it for myself and I don't think that I have stil l yet defined it. But I know what I l ike and I know what I don't like. A n d I want to do a lot of reading and stuff, and wri t ing, 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 in original) Tina's reflection on the ownership of her teaching practice - from imitat ion ('being a clone of Linda') to independence ('That's me!') - was perhaps the most significant theme in this case study. Each of the other three themes contributed to this movement towards ownership and control over her own practice. Review of theme one - Ownership of one's practice The practicum has often been regarded as a form of apprenticeship training. Al though the traditional notions of an 'apprenticeship' are no longer regarded as appropriate for induct ing beginners to the teaching profession ( K i l b o u r n , 1982; Zeichner, et a l . , 1987), elements of the apprenticeship model st i l l have some use in the practicum setting, in this case, imitation^6. Tina noted that through imitation her practice came to closely resemble that of Linda, her sponsor teacher. Tina framed this in terms of being a 'clone' of L inda . After the practicum, Tina reflected upon this feature of her practice and reframed it not in terms of 'imitation' but in terms ' jumping through hoops;' a form of compliance to external expectations rather than developing her own expectations. This was precipitated by a sense of frustration at constantly using an approach to teaching similar to that of her sponsor teacher. As 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 for teaching rather than re ly ing upon external expectations. 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 wi th other students on practicum. She regularly referred to, and drew upon, this network to compare and contrast her practicum experiences wi th those of the other students. For example, at one stage she drew upon Sally's^^ 'Jeopardy Game' rather than using Linda's 'Teams, Games and Tournaments' at the end of a unit review: "What I wou ld l ike to do is to follow Sally's Jeopardy Game" ( T / L C3.1 Pre, p. 7). A t another time, she d rew upon her conversations wi th other students to contrast alternative instruct ional methods: "I feel at this point that I have never actually stood up 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 Les /S , p. 5). A s Tina drew upon these experiences and the experiences of her sponsor, she began to develop a practice that was distinctly her own. Another factor that enhanced Tina's reflection was a common sharing of interests between herself and L i n d a beyond the classroom setting; for example, during workshops, extra-curricula activities, etc. These shared interests engendered a sense of trust and comfort i n their relationship. This trust and comfort, in turn, a l lowed Tina to express more ful ly , and to experiment with, her own thoughts and ideas about teaching and learning. A s such, Tina's relationship wi th L inda contributed to her reflection on the ownership of her practice. A third factor that enhanced Tina's reflection was Linda's own reflection on her own supervisory practices. Very early in the practicum Linda , noted that she dominated the pre- and post-lesson discussions: "I just feel l ike when there is a pregnant pause, I jump in, a typical teacher reaction . . . sometimes when I asked her a question I started g iv ing reasons why 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 pos t /W, p. 4). A s a result, L inda encouraged Tina to establish her own agenda during the pre- and post-lesson discussions. Thus, Linda's role in the pre- and post-lesson discussions shifted from 'reporting on' to inquiry into' Tina's practice. Two factors appeared to constrain Tina's reflection on the ownership of her practice. First ly, Tina's emphasis on technical problem solving as opposed to problem setting. For example, Tina often drew upon Linda's vast supp ly of co-operative learning activities to solve problems that she anticipated, or encountered, in 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 unt i l Tina reached a point of frustration, fo l lowing her 'overki l l ' on 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 own practice. Secondly, Linda's 'possessiveness' of certain classes taught by Tina constrained Tina's reflection upon her practice. Specifically, when 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 Linda. A s Linda watched the video tapes of these discussions, she noted that her 'possessiveness' of the Biology 12 class interfered wi th 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 my Bi[ology] 12's" ( T / L C4.2 P r e / W , p. 8). There appeared to be a l ink between the level of 'possessiveness' as exhibited by L inda and the degree of ownership exhibited by Tina for her own practice; the less possessive Linda became the more independent Tina became. U p o n reflection, L inda 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 you write this up, you can say how possessive a teacher can be of something" ( T / L C4.2 P r e / W , p. 13). Final ly , two issues emerged from this theme that, whi le not directly related to the research questions, were related to Tina's reflection upon her practice. Firstly, it seemed that L i n d a tended to isolate elements of her practice in ways that were unintentionally misleading for Tina. One way for L inda to 'survive' the complexity of teaching was to routinize activities. In her classroom, Linda set in motion complex routines wi th a single word or a gesture of her hand; instructions were often impl ied rather than stated. It seemed that information essential to the success of a particular routine or activity had become increasingly unspoken, even tacit. Thus, when L inda attempted to explain some activities to Tina she had difficulty in surfacing all the information related to the activities. This was occasionally the case wi th complex co-operative learning activities that Tina tried to introduce to her classes. Thus, when L inda attempted to isolate elements of her practice, particularly routines for Tina, she d id so in ways that occasionally were unintentionally misleading for Tina. The second related issue is that when reflection d i d occur, it d i d not always immediately alter practice. There were instances when both Linda and Tina reflected upon their practices (e.g., for Tina , teaching, for L i n d a supervision) but wi th no immediately visible change to their practices. Thus, time and support appear to be important ingredients for professional development through reflection. Theme two - Expectations of p u p i l knowledge Tina began the practicum wi th a preference for pupil-centred activities. She hoped that such activities would 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 know it.' ( T / L CI .2 Pre /S , p. 3) Tina tried to do this by introducing a number of co-operative learning strategies to her classes in the first three weeks of the practicum. Dur ing 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 when you 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 in the pupils inability to draw the ind iv idua l work components into a coherent whole: T ina : I feel right now that everything is really disjointed for them. ( T / L 1.7 Post, p. 2) L inda framed the problem in 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 in the biology text is, for her I think, very introductory, very trivial. ( T / L CI.8 Pos t /W, p. 1) To overcome the disjointedness, Tina decided to provide the pupils wi th more direction. This change created a di lemma for Tina. H o w was she to maintain her init ial commitment to 'active' pup i l participation whi le at the same time direct ing the pupi l s learning through activities that were inherently 'passive.' 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 Tina had anticipated. Tina was then caught between wanting to 'direct' their responses ('telling them how to do it') and wanting to elicit their responses: T ina : I don't know how to change it? Categorizing the words; the problem is that since they're supposed to categorize it I can't tell them how to do it. ( T / L C2.3 Pre /S , p. 5, emphasis in original) A s a result of this di lemma, Tina often let classroom discussions go wel l beyond the time she had alloted in the hope that the pupils wou ld eventually produce the correct answer(s). Unfortunately, the addi t ional time she al lowed for the discussions tended to aggravate rather than alleviate the problem: T ina : [It was like] dragging, pul l ing 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) As Tina contemplated these difficulties she began to frame the issue in terms of the dominant teaching strategy she was using, i n this case co-operative learning: T ina : Sometimes, I think that it might not be as wonderful as the intent of the whole set up is supposed to be. ( T / L C3.8 Pos /S , p. 3) Faced wi th 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: T ina : I think it is necessary, really, really, necessary to get up there and just talk about it.' ( T / L C3.6 Les /S , p. 7) More specifically, she felt a lecture component would be useful i n this regard: T ina : I would 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 Pos /S , p. 3) After the third teaching cycle, Tina began to experiment wi th lecture segments in many of her lessons. However, she was still disappointed wi th the pupils ' responses in discussion sessions that followed her lectures: T ina : I don't know if it is my questions or if they don't know what I am asking them, or what I want them to know? ( T / L C4.6 Les/S. p. 5) Thus, Tina found herself i n a situation similar to that wh ich she had encountered wi th co-operative learning, the pupi ls st i l l seemed to have trouble in arriving at the answer(s) she expected. A s Tina began to grapple wi th 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' wi th her classes in preparation for an assignment. She anticipated this wou ld be relatively 'straight forward,' but this was not so. She soon discovered that the pupils knowledge of the material fell wel l short of her expectations. As Tina reflected on this incident, she began to question her original framing of pup i l knowledge, i.e., the need for more teacher-directed or teacher-centred instruction: T ina : The thing is, if you get up there and ask a question and you are not getting the response that you want, if you just tell them, do they understand? Because they haven't understood what I am trying to ask them. So, if I just tell them the answer does that click? (C4.6 Les /S , p. 11, emphasis in original) A s Tina questioned the effectiveness of the strategies she had used, she began to reframe the problem in terms of her own personal knowledge of scientific phenomena; knowledge that, for her, was relatively black and white: T ina : It is just black and white. It is so simple just because that is what your whole universi ty [experience] is based around, especially in 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 pup i l knowledge by noting that her assumption that scientific knowledge was relatively straight forward served only 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 wou ld just say 'How do scientists work?' and then brain-storm and put them all down and then try and get the order from them. ( T / L C4.6 Les /S , p. 12, emphasis i n original) What was critical was that Tina had begun to see pup i l knowledge as being va l id in its own right. She felt that her own advanced knowledge of science had blinkered her view of alternative conceptions, and pre-empted a considerat ion of responses that fell outside the nar row dic tums of 'university' science. Review of theme two - Expectations of pup 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 in the practicum. As the practicum progressed, Tina became increasingly concerned by the poor performance of her pupils in both quizzes and classroom discussions which often followed her co-operative learning sessions. Tina framed the problem i n terms of the dominant teaching strategy she was using (i.e., co-operative learning). She felt a need to provide her pup i l s w i t h more teacher-centred ins t ruct ion 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 in the pupils ' performance. As Tina reflected upon this, she began to reframe the problem not i n terms of teaching strategies but rather in terms of an underlying assumption that she had made about the work, namely that it was relatively straight forward. She realized that a number of the scientific concepts which she considered to be "black and white" were indeed much "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 wi th her pupi ls . Tina's use of co-operative learning allowed her to interact regularly on a one-to-one basis wi th her pupils. This interaction enabled her to tap into her pupils ' successes and difficulties in qualitatively different ways than might have been the case using more traditional teaching methods. This was particularly noticeable in her early discussions on teaching, for example: "I am burning that person, I don't know how long it takes the average person to copy that down, so, that is what I am really worried about doing that" ( T / L CI .9 Post /S, p. 5). A s a result, her early critiques of her teaching included concerns for both 'self and 'others.' This provided different perspectives from which 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 wi th in these courses. One instructor, Bruce, was particularly influential in this regard: "Bruce always throws out intriguing questions and then k i n d of sits there and waits for it; l ike he w i l l throw out a thought-provoker, and everybody is like 'OK, hmmm' . . . and then everybody would start taking stabs at it left, right and centre" ( T / L C4.9 Pos /S , p. 4). She used this theory/practice association to critique her own practices and those of other teachers. Examining links between theory and practice in this way gave Tina a basis for investigating and reflecting upon the assumptions that underlay different approaches to teaching and learning; for example co-operative learning versus the more teacher-centred activities that she tried in her classes. A third factor that enhanced Tina's reflection was the tendency for post-lesson discussions to become pre-lesson discussions for future lessons. When 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 dur ing the post-lesson discussion of the fourth cycle in which Tina reflected on p u p i l knowledge (See A p p e n d i x B for an excerpt of this discussion wh ich includes the transition from 'what has happened' to 'what might happen'). One factor that appeared to constrain Tina's reflection upon her practice, was her early emphasis on content knowledge. For example, there were times when Tina presented L inda wi th the content for the coming lesson bereft of the structure or manner in wh ich she hoped to teach it. For example, a comment from Linda during the third cycle highlights this: "We are planning it together but I was hoping that she would 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 on content (e.g., 'What to teach?') rather than upon broader pedagogic issues (e.g., 'How might I teach this?') constrained her inquiry into, and reflection upon, her teaching practice. Theme three - Questioning style A t the beginning of the practicum, Tina tried a number of approaches to pup i l questioning. After the first few weeks she became comfortable wi th , 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, which 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 Les /S , p. 7) Dur ing the second reflective teaching cycle, L inda raised two concerns about this approach; first, that often the pupils mumbled or muttered their responses; and second, it was easy for pupils to opt out of responding. L inda 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 pupils mumbled 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 provided a comfortable and safe environment for her pupils to respond: T ina : Just the way I question them . . . . I don't mind them calling out, I mean that is sort of l ike a free atmosphere i n the classroom. They tend to mumble more now 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) L i n d a was surpr ised that T ina preferred this free approach to questioning. She believed that the TPS approach would enhance not hinder pup i l participation: L inda : 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 you don't give the kids a chance first of all to discuss their answer ' in house' at their tables. ( T / L C2.8 Pos t /W, p. 4) Furthermore, L inda felt that by allowing responses to be muttered, Tina was failing to acknowledge each pupil's response: L inda : Her 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 al l these answers should be heard by everyone else. ( T / L C2.8 P o s t / W , p. 6) Dur ing the weeks that followed, Tina experimented wi th a number of different approaches, including TPS. A s she d i d so a tension developed wi th in 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 know I need a lot of work i n that area but I don't know if I agree with Linda's resolution of it . . . She says when you ask a question get them to talk about it [first]. But if you ask a question and [then say] 'Talk in 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 Les /S , p. 1) Tina also criticized her free atmosphere approach to questioning: Tina : It is a concern with me just because it is not always effective, I have some classes I w i l l go in there, and the atmosphere of al l the classes changes; one day everybody w i l l be wi th you, and it w i l l be work ing really we l l , and you can say 'general,' and people w i l l mutter and stuff like that. ( T / L C4.6 Les /S , p. 2) A s Tina explored the issue further, she noted that she had difficulty in singling out individual pupils: Tina : I have real qualms about singling someone out, you know, ask a question and then go pick someone out . . . I don't want to p in 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 pup i l questioning not in terms of its effectiveness from a teacher's perspective but in terms of its appropriateness from a pupils ' perspective. She d id this by drawing upon her own experiences as a pupi l : T ina : Generally, I wou ld only answer if I was absolutely sure, or if I was asked, but I would not just take a chance and put my hand up. Ever! But I wou ld say something, I w o u l d try it. I was pretty quiet in school, but I w o u l d maybe mutter it. But I would never sort of spit it out. ( T / L C4.6 Les /S , p. 3, emphasis in original) A s Tina re-worked the issue she began to differentiate between classroom settings i n w h i c h different quest ioning approaches were appropriate; for example, she felt when exploring a new 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. As a result, she reframed the issue of pup i l questioning in 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 in which , 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 when questioning pupils^^. Typical ly, they favour an approach wi th which they are comfortable and is appropriate to the class they are teaching. In the early weeks of the practicum, Tina favoured a free atmosphere approach to questioning. W i t h 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 by speaking or cal l ing them out in class. Tina framed her use of her free !9 See: Omstein, (1990), Strother, (1989), and Wilen (1984). atmosphere approach i n terms of its effectiveness f rom a teacher's perspective, that is in 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. One characteristic of this approach that concerned Linda was the level of muttering that occurred when pupi ls responded to Tina's questioning. Often, it appeared that pupi ls muttered their responses as if to test them in the general melee of the class before committing themselves to a particular answer. L inda suggested that Tina might try a co-operative learning strategy called 'Think, Pair, and Share' to overcome the excessive muttering. L inda felt that if the pupils first aired their ideas in small group settings they might be less hesitant to commit themselves to a particular response in large class settings. Furthermore, Tina could then direct questions to individual pupils, knowing that al 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 Tina experimented wi th both approaches. Dur ing the fourth reflective teaching cycle, Tina reviewed her approach to pup i l questioning. TPS made intuitive sense to Tina but she felt the pupils d i d not take TPS seriously. Further, she felt that the problem wi th the free atmosphere approach was that it d id not draw everybody in . A t this point, Tina reframed the issue of questioning not in terms of the effectiveness of a part icular strategy from a teacher's perspective but i n terms of its appropriateness from the pupi ls ' perspective. Tina d rew on 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. As 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 which appeared to enhance Tina's reflection upon her questioning practices. The first was the use of video tape. As in the case of Sally, video tape provided Tina wi th an additional perspective from which to view her practice: "I think that this has made me think more about how I do things than I otherwise would" ( T / L C4.3 Pre /S , p. 8). This was the case with different questioning strategies Tina used in the classroom. The second factor was Tina's making explicit her past experiences as a learner. By drawing upon these experiences, Tina was able to explore alternative frames for the di lemmas she faced; for example, teacher effectiveness versus p u p i l appropriateness. Thus, making explicit past experiences as a learner enhanced Tina's reflection upon her practice. The third factor that enhanced Tina's reflection was making explicit her own preferred learning style. As Tina made explicit her own learning style she examined more closely the tensions she faced i n her classroom teaching. For example, whi le she found co-operative learning to be in tu i t ive ly appealing she also had some serious questions about its use in the classroom. The following excerpt illuminates this aspect: T i n a When I first came here, it was l ike, this co-operative learning is great because that is how I learn. But I think that a lot of these activities jump in 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, l ike as on that day, and I am still trying to read over some notes, i f someone starts ta lking 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, you have to be up to a certain point before you can actually do that and I think that a lot of these activities don't p lan around kids getting to that certain point. ( T / L Turner Int II, p. 4) By making explicit her own preferred learning style Tina's reflection upon her practice was enhanced. Beyond the factors wh ich enhanced or constrained reflection, an additional factor emerged that, while not directly related to the three research questions, d id influence Tina's reflection upon her practice. That factor was the professional development opportunity that the practicum provided for her sponsor teacher, Linda. There were many occasions when Linda used the project as an opportunity to reflect on her own practice: "I guess because I have been doing it for a long time, seven years, these things you take for granted, and it is k ind of interesting that I could actually explain it l ike that because I have never had 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 inquiry into her own use of TPS dur ing the pre- and post-lesson discussions enhanced Tina's reflection both w i t h i n and beyond those discussions. Thus, while the primary purpose of the practicum was Tina's professional development, it also p rov ided professional development opportunities for Linda^o. Theme four - Off-task behaviour D u r i n g the first few weeks on practicum, Tina experimented w i t h numerous co-operative learning activities that required the pupils to work i n small groups. For the most part, the pupils worked we l l but on several occasions their concentration drifted to other topics (e.g., the party on Saturday night!). Dur ing 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 explored the reasons for the gossiping, Tina noted that often the pupils went off-task only after they had made a reasonable attempt at the work. This created a di lemma for Tina i n that she wanted her pupils to understand the work but recognized that she could not force an understanding. Tina felt that s imply telling the pupils to look at the page and 'think' was not be an effective solution: T ina : I sort of took it, as 1 was walking 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 you can't force an understanding of it . . . I don't believe that you 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, you just can't force someone to look at a page and, you know, 'think.' ( T / L C3.8 Pos/S, p. 1) Throughout the remainder of the pract icum, Tina cont inued to experiment wi th different strategies for maintaining p u p i l involvement in the lesson. Still , there were occasions when different pupils went off-task, the frequency of which seemed to be no more or less than one wou ld expect in regular practica settings. It wasn't unt i l after the practicum that Tina raised the issue of off-task behaviour again. This occurred during the post-practicum interview. Tina contrasted her views of off-task behaviour with those of Linda's views: T ina : One thing that I really have a problem wi th , i n fact two: Linda's style and my 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 upon her own experiences as a pup 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 pupils and that these needed to be recognized and accounted for by the teacher. Further, she felt that learning was the responsibility of the pupi l not the teacher: T ina : I mean I never had problems in school, and I was never ragged on by teachers. M y friends that weren't doing as wel l were told to get on task, and study this and stuff. But since my marks were fine I was left alone. 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 norm because we have been told and told and told, even though it is k ind 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 you w i l l want to have; work with it. ( T / L Tina L i t in, p. 5, emphasis in original) Tina argued that there was l ikely 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 in any single lesson was unrealistic: T ina : I don't believe in a student being on task 100% of the time in 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 in the mornings at 8.30! I just don't believe that it is real life. ( T / L Tina Int 111, p. 5) Tina then noted that there was a considerable difference between a l ea rn ing envi ronment i n w h i c h p u p i l l ea rn ing was the teacher's responsibility as opposed to one in which it was the pupil 's responsibility: Tina : I think if you go at it for an idea, thinking that they have to be on-task al 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 you 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 in , I think. A n d like doing things, project-wise and scope-theme sort of idea they work at it at their own pace. They can work hard one day, and they can have a slower day. I think that would be a nicer way to go about it. ( T / L Tina Int III, p.9) Thus, Tina resolved the tension between wanting pupils to understand and not being able to force an understanding by arguing that responsibility for learning resides pr imari ly wi th the pupils. Further, an appreciation of off-task behaviour from the pupils ' perspective enabled Tina to outline briefly a classroom setting which would be sensitive to the needs of the pupi l and also conducive to pup i l learning. Review of theme four - Off-task behaviour Tina was interested in , and experimented wi th , a variety of co-operative learning activities (e.g.. Jig-saw, TPS, and Round Table). Each of these activities required the pupils to work in small groups. Dur ing the second and third reflective teaching cycles, both Tina and L inda noted incidents of off-task behaviour during these activities. Often this behaviour was manifested in the form of talking or gossiping. A s Tina reviewed these incidents she noted that the pupils went off-task only after they had made a reasonable attempt at the work that had been set. Tina reflected on the pupils ' off-task behaviour in terms of her own teaching practice, that is, what could she do to ensure that groups remained on-task. Beyond asking the pupils to keep trying she felt she could not compel someone to look at a page and 'think.' A s Tina framed the problem in these terms, she recognized the di lemma 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 during the fourth and fifth reflective teaching cycles. After the practicum, Tina began to reframe the problem from a pupi l ' s perspective. She felt that learning was the responsibility of the pup i l not the teacher. She reframed the issue by drawing upon her own experiences as a pupi l , noting that there were many factors that affected her level of involvement in a class and that it was unreasonable to expect any pupi l to be '100% on-task all of the time.' F ina l ly , there were no new factors identif ied i n this theme that enhanced, constrained, or were related to Tina's reflection upon her practice. in. Summary Table 5 provides an overview of the four reflective themes in the case of Tina. The table also provides a summary of the factors which 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 Related Issues Theme Precipitated Framed Reframed Plan for Factors which enhance (E) by: in terms of: in terms of: future action: or constrain (C) reflection: Ownership of one's practice Frush-ation at the 'overkill' on co-operative learning Expectations Surprise at of pupil knowledge what Tina thought the 7upi s would enow with what she was able to elicit Questioning style Off-task behaviour Being a clone of Linda's Conflict between 'free atmos-phere' versus TPS approach Contrast between Tina and Linda's view of off-task behaviour The need for a more teacher-centred approach to classroom instruction Effectiveness from a teacher's perspective Jumping through hoops Her assumption that the work was relatively straight forward Appropriate-ness from a pupil's perspective Not being able to force an understanding Learning as the pupils' responsibility To develop a personal philosophy on teaching 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 To 'look for more' in a pupil's answer than that governed by 'university' science To match questioning practices to classroom activities To be sensitive to the pupil's needs within and beyond the classroom •Tina's one-to-one interaction with pupils (E) • Science methods courses linking theory to practice (E) • Merging of post- and pre-lesson 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. C H A P T E R 7 The Case of Steve The structure of this chapter is identical to the two previous chapters; it begins wi th a theme map, an explication of the themes fol lows, and it concludes with a summary table of the salient points. The reader is reminded that the factors which enhance or constrain reflection, and the related issues, are noted only on the first occurrence, and are not repeated if they appear in subsequent themes. I. Introduction The third case study is based upon the practicum experiences of Steve. Steve graduated w i t h a B.Sc. i n Biochemistry and worked for eighteen months in a commercial laboratory before entering the teacher education program at U B C . Steve's sponsor teacher. Cliff, has advanced degrees in Biology and Chemistry and had taught and conducted research at the university level prior to taking his degree in education at U B C . H e was in his third year of teaching i n a large suburban high school i n Vancouver. The school has a reputation for being 'academic ' Cl i f f had supervised one student prior to Steve. II. Analysis Two reflective themes were identified in 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 in terms of its utilitarian value in encouraging pupils to work and then later reframing it for in terms of it pedagogical value in he lp ing pupi ls 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 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 1. Elicitation • • 1-1 5.3 2. Ownership • • 4.1 5.9 Note: 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 th solutes and solvents. In the pre-lesson discussion, Steve indicated that he was going to begin the lesson by wri t ing a number of items on the board and asking the pupils about the common properties of each. When asked by Clif f as to how he was going get the pupils to 'think' about the properties, Steve indicated that he was going to set it as a question, and then walk around the class to ensure that all pupils were participating: Steve: As my introduction, I was just going to put a list on the overhead or on the board and just have them think what al l these things have in common: salt water, air, brass, pop, glass, etc. Cliff: Right. N o w , how are you 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 down i n their books. Walk around. I found wi th my other classes if I don't walk around they don't do it. Cliff: H o w long are you going to give them for it? Steve: A couple of minutes. Cliff: To write something down and then when you get responses are you going to put all the responses down 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 opinion what do you think?' They w i l l probably say the same thing. (S /C C l . l Pre, p. 2) Cli f f suggested that Steve might consider exploring all the answers that the pupils offered, and not only the 'right' answers: Cliff: It depends on how you want to go. It could be that you start putting all of the responses down, and then discuss them. Steve: OK. Cliff: [For example:] 'What do you think about this?' 'Do you think that this is a good answer?' OK? I don't know. But that's an idea. (S /C C l . l Pre, p .2) A s Steve watched the above pre-lesson conversation on the video, 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 good suggestion that Cl i f f made. A n d a different strategy using the same sort of procedure; using the list from the introduction. Instead of just looking for the right answer, sort of putt ing them all down and going back and discussing the merits of each one. (S /C C1.2 Pre/S, p. 3) A s Steve gave further thought to Cliff's suggestion, he framed elicitation in 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 you saying 'That is wrong' and then going to someone else, accept all the answers and then we wi l l discuss everyone[s' answers]. It sort of encourages them to participate. (S /C C1.2 Pre/S, p. 3) After the lesson, both Steve and Cliff felt that Steve's use of elicitation in the lesson was successful. As Steve watched the lesson, he began to reframe his original notion of elicitation in more substantive terms. H e indicated that it was an alternative to teacher-centred instruction i n that it u t i l ized the knowledge that pupils brought to the classroom setting: Steve: I suppose that it is better doing it this way than saying 'This is a definition of a solution' and giving it to them. Tony: W h y ? Steve: Wel l , instead of them just copying down notes straight off the board, I think that this gets them thinking a bit more. Using all the examples helps them visualize the concept. Tony: O K . Was this what you 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 making them write it out, me coming wi th 20 pages of notes prepared and just fire them on the board. ( S / C CI .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 di lut ion 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 how it is used" ( S / C C2.1 Pre, p. 1). In the conversation that followed. Cl i f f 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 wel l . 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 you just going to tell them straight away? Do you think that they w i l l be able to come up wi th that themselves? Steve: I doubt it. I am not sure how I would go about getting it out of them? Cliff: N o , I think that you 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 you could try and get them, using questioning, to probe, and to get them to come up wi th it.' Tony: W i t h what? Steve: The formula for using di lut ion factors, instead of just saying 'This is how you do it, this is the formula.' Y o u know, init ial 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 now 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 on his earlier reframing by noting that not only was elicitation an alternative to direct instruction but that it was more effective than direct instruction in helping pupils to 'understand' concepts: Steve: If it can be done, that is probably the best way 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 you can develop it, it is probably more effective for the students to understand the concept. (S /C C2.2 Pre/S, p. 3) A s in the first cycle, both Cliff and Steve felt that Steve's use of elicitation was a success. Cliff, who was teaching a Chemistry 11 class in parallel to Steve, suggested that Steve was more successful than he was in eliciting pup i l responses for the same lesson: Cliff: He 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. He thought that it was too difficult. Tony: The technique that you suggested to him? Cliff: Yes. A n d he has done it better than I d id . I didn't do it as wel l as he did. Tony: What were the good parts about this particular [technique]? C l i v e : He is giving them examples. He is leading them. It is purely inductive and I didn't. I just d id one example and I didn't bui ld it up like this wi th a half, one quarter, one tenth. That was really better. That was a big improvement on what I d id . ( 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 during the first cycle, and the fourth during the second cycle. Each aspect is identified and illustrated wi th 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 didn ' t get me anywhere . . . The looks that I got from their faces were like 'What?' ( S / C CI.6 Les /S , p. 4) 2) Hav ing enough time to elicit pupi l responses: Steve: It only took me ten minutes to get to it [laughs] . . . Y o u could cover so much material in an hour, just by reading off your overheads and just having them copy them down. Tony: A n d this has taken 10 minutes to get a round to a definition of a 'solution'? Steve: We have talked for ages! (S /C C1.6 Les /S , p. 4) 3) The pupils ' resistance to elicitation strategies: Steve: Wel l , a lot of times that is all that you want to do, is to copy down the notes, you don't want to have to answer the question. Y o u want the teacher to give you the answer. ( S / C C1.6 Les/S, p. 4) 4) The unpredictability of the outcome: Steve: Especially not knowing what is going to happen or how 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 explicat ion of these difficulties further indicated that he was beginning to view elicitation in substantively different ways to the utilitarian view he articulated in 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 provide Steve wi th an opportunity to experiment further w i th 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 work (see the second reflective theme). In the fifth reflective cycle, Steve's returned to the use of elicitation as a dominant classroom practice. The cycle also p r o v i d e d evidence of Steve's cont inued reframing of e l ic i ta t ion i n substantive rather than util i tarian terms. For example, earlier Steve had indicated that a difficulty he had wi th 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 going to happen there [in the lesson]. U m . If it doesn't come off that is fine. I am just curious as to what is going on in their heads. We have talked about two different types or organisms. One is sponges that don't have any nerve tissue. N o w hydra have nerves and we are sort of bui lding 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 Pre /S , p. 1)) Steve's shift from a ut i l i tar ian to a substantive consideration of elicitation had a considerable impact upon his practice. Indeed, elicitation became a dominant classroom strategy for Steve. H i s reflection on elicitation resulted in a cascade effect on other aspects of his practice. The second reflective theme traces one of these effects. Review of theme one - Elicitation Typical ly, the nature of the init ial concerns of beginning teachers, are more ut i l i tar ian than substantive. For example, the management of classrooms takes precedence over the management of discourse wi th in those classrooms. A s a result, suggestions for improv ing practice are valued init ial ly for their utili ty and only later appreciated for the contribution they make to pupi l learning. This was the case with Steve's use of elicitation. H e initially framed elicitation in terms of its utility for encouraging the pupils to work and later reframed it i n term of its substantive pedagogic advantages compared wi th more utilitarian advantages. This shift was precipitated by Steve's curiosity in 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 'unknown' or unfamiliar. It was often difficult for Steve to describe situations, or to frame practices, that appeared to be at a formative stage in his own mind. When Steve attempted to describe new or unfamiliar situations, it was easier for h im to say 'what it was not like' by drawing 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 in terms of what he felt he was unable to achieve through direct instruction. Thus, through the use of the negative case, Steve framed and reframed his notion of elicitation. A second factor was Cliff's reflection on his own supervisory practices. After reviewing 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 wou ld be good to get h im involved and for me to see if he really does agree wi th it, and to elicit some responses from him" ( S / C C2.8 P o s / C , p. 3). As a result of this reflection. Cl i f f invited Steve to actively involve himself in , and to set his own agenda for, the discussions that preceded and followed his lessons. There were two factors that constrained Steve's reflection on his practice, and in particular upon elicitation. The first was Steve's unfamiliarity wi th the content. The less famil iar Steve was wi th the content the more 'transmissive' his teaching became. A s Steve gained confidence wi th the content he began to consider other aspects of his teaching as it related to pupi l learning: "I am really trying to work on diversity in 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 wi th the material so that I can just start playing wi th 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, in part, upon his own practica experiences. For example. Cliff's faculty advisor d id not debrief Cliff at the end of a classroom observation. Rather, the advisor spoke directly to Cliff 's sponsor teacher, who, in turn relayed to Cli f f the improvements his advisor suggested. A t the beginning of the practicum. Cli f f anticipated that I, as Steve's faculty advisor, w o u l d play a similar role. When 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. The first was the issue of identifying reflective themes. It w o u l d be incorrect to assume that because only 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 would often articulate a plan for future action without verbalising the intermediate steps taken in the process of arr iving at that plan. This made it difficult to identify the various frames he may have brought to bear as he reflected on 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 in terms of Schon's four components. A second issue that arose was that reflection, when it d id occur, d i d not immediately alter Steve's practice. There were instances in this theme where both Cl i f f and Steve reflected upon their practices wi th no immediate change to their practices (e.g., Steve's reflection on elicitation, and Cliff's reflection on 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- and post-lesson discussions that occurred between the Cl i f f and Steve. Cliff 's subject specializations were Biology and Chemistry. M y own specializations were phys ica l education, mathematics, and computer science. W h e n C l i f f examined elements of Steve's practice during the stimulated recall sessions, he often had to 'make explicit ' the connections he was mak ing between content and pedagogy that eluded me as a non-specialist supervisor. A s a result. Cl i f f often pursued these connections wi th Steve dur ing the pre- and post-lesson discussions. The combinat ion of special is t /non-special is t supervision enhanced the dialogue amongst the three of us. Theme two - Ownership of one's practice The second theme traces Steve's reflection upon the ownership of his practice. H e ini t ial ly framed his practice in terms of two influences: his sponsor teacher's practice, and his own experiences as a pup i l in 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 wi th his own prior 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 wi th these two influences. The variance between his practice and these influences precipitated a reframing of his o w n teaching in terms of ownership for his own practice. In the lesson of the first reflective teaching cycle there were many 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 Pos/S, p. 4) Similarities between their teaching practices were also evident dur ing the second teaching cycle. In the third teaching cycle there was evidence that Steve was beginning to experiment more wi th his own ideas. H i s lesson plan indicated a growing confidence to select and experiment w i th a range of different activities for use in the classroom. Cliff recognized this shift: Cliff: I sense now that he is not just accepting everything I say. ( S / C C3.6 Les /C , p. 4) The fourth reflective teaching cycle was a watershed for Steve's increasing ownership of his practice. He was faced wi th having to define his practice either in terms of the accumulated wisdom of his sponsor teacher, the influences of his past experiences, or the personal knowledge that he had begun to construct for himself about teaching. The lesson of the fourth reflective teaching cycle was to be an introductory chemistry class on 'Acids and Bases.' Steve's lesson plan was d iv ided 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 work in which the pupils were to construct their own table of acids and bases. Steve intended to draw upon the pupils ' knowledge from the previous unit to introduce the topic. He wanted to begin wi th a demonstration and, f rom that, el ici t the pupi l s ideas about ac id /base chemistry. The demonstration involved three colourless Uquids - an acid, a base, and an indicator: Steve: I won't introduce it as 'Today we are going to start A c i d and Bases.' . . . which might lead them to saying 'Oh, wel 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 worr ied that the demonstration w o u l d mislead the pupi ls into equating colour change wi th an acid/base reaction and suggested that Steve reverse the order of the first three segments (i.e., to C, B, A ) . Fol lowing 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 original plan, he framed his practice in terms of two influences: (a) his sponsor teacher's practice, and (b) the safety of traditional, and pedagogically sound, classroom practices: Steve: The plan now 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, wi th Cliff's input, it looks l ike it wouldn't really work. N o w that I have been thinking about it a little longer it probably wouldn ' t work as we l l as I had planned. Tony: Really? Steve: Yeah. It is just a different approach. Instead, Cl i f f seems to think that it is better to say 'Look this is what we are talking about' and go right into it, instead of trying to induce it out of them or draw it from them. I can see where he is sort of coming from. Tony: So, what are you going to do? Steve: U m , I think that I might do it the changed way, 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 Pre/S, p. 1) Later, Steve commented upon 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: When you are presenting the information firsthand instead of trying to [pause], like if you are trying to draw it out of them and they are not getting it, you are probably are going to end up having to give it to them anyway. Tony: This way you do what? Steve: You give it to them first and then they can think about it, and then you pose them with a problem based upon the knowledge that you have reviewed wi th them. ( S / C C4.2 Pre /S , p. 4) The notion of giving it to them (i.e., knowledge), letting them think about it, and then setting the pupils a problem is predicated upon a notion that learning is largely a transmissive act; a characteristic of ' traditional' lecture environments22. A second incident during the same discussion also demonstrated Steve's readiness to abandon his own ideas. For the seat-work segment, Steve wanted the students to construct a table based upon an example given in the textbook. Cliff worried that Steve was moving beyond what was required in the Grade 11 curriculum and suggested that, rather than making up a new exercise for the pupils , Steve should use the questions at the end 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 wi th the formula. One way or another, like pure acids and hypo-acids and stuff. There is a table in there. Cliff: [Cliff checks the questions at the end of the chapter] Oh . This is O K . N o . Those are fine. Those review and practices are fine. Number 1 is O K . Right? Steve: Right. Cliff: Number 2 is O K . Right? I mean they have got to know that. Right? . . . Number 3, you tell them not to do because we 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 had previously judged the questions at the end of the chapter to be inappropriate but decided to follow Cliff's advice: Steve: [The video shows Cliff looking through the text book] H e is looking for an activity, some questions to do at the end. I looked and I thought some of them were k ind of stupid but I have changed my mind now. Tony: W h y have you changed your mind? Steve: Wel l , I think that it is important to give them sort of some seat work to do in the class, in the last 10 or 15 minutes of the class or whatever. Just to give them a break. To give me a break. So, I have decided to give them some questions anyway. Tony: Out of their text book? Steve: M h h , hmm. ( S / C C4.2 Pre /S , p. 4) This second incident is identical to the first incident in that it was counter to Steve's initial intentions and Steve abandoned his own 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 Pos/S, p. 4) Although Steve d id not explore the implications of this statement dur ing the fourth cycle, his perceived difference between their styles is part icularly interesting in the light of an incident in the fifth cycle. The lesson in the fifth cycle was a Grade 11 Biology; the topic, ' E v o l u t i o n a r y Changes i n A n i m a l s ' (Invertebrate Z o o l o g y - 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 wi th an elicitation segment: "I came up wi th this question 'What do you think?' to see what they think" ( S / C C5.3 Pre /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 Pre /S , p. 1)23. Steve's willingness to take this risk, one which he had tentatively planned but decided against in the fourth cycle, was indicative of an increased confidence i n his own 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, Pre /S, p. 3). Fol lowing the pre-lesson discussion. Cl i f f noted that he was deliberately letting Steve teach the lesson as planned, although it was at variance wi th the way Cli f f wou ld have taught it: "I am letting h im go wi th this. Aga in 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 in the cycle. Dur ing the course of the fifth cycle, Steve was involved i n a field trip and was unable to teach one of his two Biology 11 classes. Cl i f f offered to This was building upon Steve's use of elicitation as a dominant classroom strategy. (See the first reflective theme). 'cover' the second class in Steve's absence. To ensure that the two classes remained 'on par/ Cliff used Steve's lesson plan for the dass^^. Later, as Cl i f f watched video tape of Steve teaching the first class he suddenly realized that he (i.e.. Cliff) had unconsciously rearranged the order of the first two segments: Cliff: Oh , now isn't that strange, I just noticed something. They copied down the notes and then he showed them the diagram. A n d that is a good way to introduce the lab but I d id 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 id his lesson. But I didn't. I started off with a diagram first and then d id the notes. ( S / C C5.5 L e s / C , p. 6) When Clif f asked Steve about the ordering of the segments, Steve replied that the order was unimportant: Cliff: I don't know whether it was down on your lesson plan or not, I showed the overhead first, and then d id 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: Oh. 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 id 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 id his lesson I d id 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 in which 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, dur ing Steve's stimulated recall of the above discussion wi th 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 iagram first and then talk about the structures afterward, or try and bui ld 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 , now 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 plan is, blah, blah, blah, this is what happens,' where you might get sort of focussed [on that one animal]. Say 'Wel l , maybe this in not the only organism in this phy lum that has this sort of structure.' I think that was the way that I sort of worked it. Trying to go from general to specific. Instead of specific and staying with it. ( S / C C5.9 Pos /S , p. 2) Steve's reframing of his practice in these terms signaled a g rowing independence from the practices of (a) his sponsor teacher, and (b) his past experiences wi th traditional practices, towards an increasing ownership for his own practice. This is consistent wi th a statement he made earlier in 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 Pre/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 wel l established teaching style, student-teachers often imitate the practices of their sponsor teachers or draw upon 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 own practice, elements of their sponsor teachers' practices which resonate most strongly wi th their own experiences. This was the case for Steve. H e framed his early practice in terms of these two influences. A s the practicum progresses, most students become more innovative and begin to experiment wi th a wider range of classroom strategies. Such experimentation often signals the development of a teaching style that is uniquely their own. This trend was also clear during Steve's practicum. H e began to contrast the practices of his sponsor teacher wi th his own practices. The degree of variance between the two precipitated a reframing of Steve's practice in terms of a teaching style that was uniquely his own. Five factors emerged from this theme that enhanced Steve's reflection on his practice. The first was Cliff's confidence in Steve's ability to teach. This enabled Steve to experiment with a variety of different teaching practices that suited his own personality and style: "[Cliff] showed a lot of confidence in me and that sort of fostered confidence in myself . . . and once you get a little bit of confidence and sort of 'I can do this,' then you just go and do it and you get better and better as it goes on" (S /C Steve Int, p. 1). A s a result, Steve went on to experiment wi th a practice that was uniquely his own. A second factor which is closely related to the first was the trust that existed between Clif f and Steve. While the first factor was related to Steve's actions in the classroom, the second was related to Steve interactions wi th Cliff: "He was very supportive . . . I felt that I could go to him" ( S / C Steve Int III, p. 5). Steve regarded this as a strength in his practicum and he felt comfortable in raising issues of concern wi th Cliff. This sense of trust in his dialogue with Cliff enhanced Steve's reflection on his own practice. A third factor was Steve's use of the video tape to review his teaching. He found the tapes of his lesson to be useful in analysing his practice: "The fi lm 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 you are not aware of . . . it is a lot easier if you can see it yourself" ( S / C C5.9 Pos /S , p. 4). He also noted that seeing himself on tape added a dimension that would 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 wi th them afterwards . . . but for you own sake it is better to see it yourself" ( S / C Steve Int III, p. 14). Thus, video provided an addit ional perspective from which 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, while 'brain-storming' was a common activity in Cliff's classes, it wasn't unt i l week nine that Steve began to 'make-sense' of Cliff's references to 'brain-storming' after sitting in on one of Cliff's classes: "The interesting thing is, that wi th this technique that C l i f f uses, not al l the time but quite often, y o u wri te everything on the board; if they say the world is flat you put that on the board too" (S /C C4.2 Pre /S , p. 2). As a result, Steve was able to make connections between theory (as articulated by Cl i f f i n their discussion sessions) and practice (as displayed by Cl i f f in his teaching). Regular observation and dialogue helped Steve make-sense of his sponsor's 'talk' in 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 wi th dur ing the practicum. Steve drew upon his peers both wi th in and beyond the school setting to discuss his practice: "I talked to people in my class, l ike on 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 you think?'" ( S / C C5.3 Pre /S , p. 3). Sharing ideas amongst wi th 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 own. There was one factor that emerged during the course of this theme that appeared to constrain Steve's reflection on his practice: insufficient time to reflect on his practice. Towards the end of the practicum, Steve had very little time to sit down 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 workload exacerbated this: "It's great teaching two out of eight [blocks], you have all the time in the wor ld to prepare your lessons and to have everything ready to go; it's beautiful, but when you 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 own practice. III. Summary Table 6 provides an overview of the two reflective themes in the case of Steve. The table also provides a summary of the factors which 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 Related Issues Theme Precipitated Framed Reframed Plan for Factors which enhance (E) by: in terms of: in terms of: future action: or constrain (C) reflection: Elicitation Curiosity in ability of the pupils to intuit formulae Ownership Variance of one's between practice Steve's and Cliffs practice It's utility for encouraging pupils to work Steve's sponsors practice and traditional classroom practices It's pedagogical value for pupil learning A teaching style that was uniquely Steve's own To use elicitation to actively engage pupils in their own learning To get the pupil's to try to 'build' their own knowledge • 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) • 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 • 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) C H A P T E R 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 Bri t ish Co lumbia 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 Gary , a senior mathematics and science teacher with 30 years of teaching experience. Gary 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 For a discussion of direct instruction see Omstein (1990), p. 302-307. 27 See Feiman-Nemser (1983) - 'the hand of the past'; and Lortie (1975) - 'the apprenticeship of observation.' was clear that Jona's prior experiences wi th direct instruction had a strong influence on his teaching practice. Reflective themes Reflective teaching cycles Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 1. Direct instruction •— - • 1.3 5.9 2. Understanding practice 3. Themes and objectives 4. Ownership 5. Lesson plans 1.9 5.9 2.1 3.9 2.3 5.9 3.5 5.9 Note: 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 you guys copy it down 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 pupi l , Michala, to give her answer to one of the homework questions. Michala replied "Magnesium," to which Jona replied "Correct." As the class checked their answers, one girl called out "How d i d you get that? . . . Like, I am totally lost" (J /G CI.5 Les /J , p. 1). Jona then spent the next ten minutes explaining to the class how Micha la got her answer. Jona d id not call upon Michala , or any other pup i l , dur ing his explanation. A t the conclusion of his explanation, further queries from the pupi l s indicated that many were still confused. Suddenly, Jona realized that a key piece of information the he assumed had been given in the question was missing. He quickly back-tracked and said that he wou ld accept one of two answers, either "'Magnesium' or 'It can't be done'" ( J /G C1.5 Les / J , p. 4). As Jona watched this incident on video, he noted that it wou ld have been better at the beginning to ask Michala to explain her answer rather than attempting to explain it himself: Jona: I should have said to Micha la , she was the one who said magnesium, 'Michala , how d id you get magnesium?' A n d then let Michala explain it . . . A n d that wou ld have saved me a big time headache. ( J /G CI.6 Les/J , p. 2) Jona noted that his o w n extensive elaboration of Michala 's answer had backfired: Jona: I ended up shooting myself in the foot. ( J /G CI.6 Les /J , p. 4) This incident was one example of Jona's use of direct instruction in the classroom. Another example occurred in the second cycle. Jona taught a lesson i n which 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 pupi l s were encountering considerable difficulty wi th the work. When Jona began to check for the source of the difficulty, he found that the pupils ' notes from the lecture segment were very poor. He framed the difficulty that the pupils were having wi th the lab in terms of the their poor note-taking ability and their unfamil iar i ty w i th direct instruction. To overcome these problems, he decided to supplement his verbal presentation wi th a visual component: Jona: You see, again, I am sort of in 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 down on 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 would be easier for the pupils' to take notes: Jona: It is just that, again, I am in that university mentality where 'If the prof says it, it goes down on the paper.' . . . I have got to get out of that and say 'Well , these guys aren't quite university yet, so you 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 with his direct instruction approach. Dur ing the cycle, Gary, Jona's sponsor teacher, also noted that the pupils tended to tune out when Jona was lecturing: Gary: If you are going to sit up there and talk, they are going to say 'Oh, yeah, yeah,' and pretty soon they are going 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 much into 'Write the notes out' and 'Copy it down' . . . I noticed even in teaching my Grade 10 class today it was just copying stuff down . . . Really, it's got more of a lecture flavour than I would like, and I don't l ike that, but my 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 underlying assumptions that attracted h im 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 would not use this approach regularly in his future practice: Jona: Direct instruction is easy. Tony: Why is it easy? Jona: Because you are i n control. It is l ike, how can I describe this? W e l l , you are in control, they have a specific job to do, the students, you know, which is to Usten to you, to take notes, to do questions or whatever. You don't have to work too hard to think up novel ideas for the lesson. Tony: O K . Jona: I mean you have to but it is not as if you are trying to come up with games or stuff like that. Tony: M h h , hmm. Jona: So, it's actually easier than other forms of instruction. Tony: O K . Jona: So, it was good for me to learn how to do that but I don't know if I w i l l stick with 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 in terms of the pupils ' difficulty wi th the method but in terms of the method itself. His main criticism was the lack of feedback and interaction it permitted between the members of the class and w i t h the teacher. He noted that direct instruction al lowed very little monitoring of pup i l learning at the actual time of instruction: Jona: What ends up happening is that the classes don't always go as well . Maybe the students don't go as wel l . They don't learn as wel l . . . If the students don't learn it as wel l then that is not as apparent right away . . . It is unfortunate because a lot of times it doesn't work out and you 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 you have got them doing group work or games or whatever you see a lot more. I mean, you can't get feedback unless they are talking or doing something, and if you are doing 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 new approaches and ideas for his teaching. While he still planned to use direct instruction, he wanted to incorporate alternative approaches that permitted interaction between the teacher and the pupils. Review of theme one - Direct instruction Jona experimented wi th several different instructional methods dur ing his practicum; one of these was direct instruction. He found that the pupils performed poorly when he used this form of instruction. H e initially framed this problem in terms of the pupils ' unfamiliarity wi th the method. H e felt that once the pupils 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 in pupils ' performance. Jona then made the method (i.e., direct instruction) problematic, arguing that it afforded little interaction or feedback between teacher and pup 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 which he used in combination wi th direct instruction that increased teacher/pupil interaction. Two factors emerged from this theme that enhanced Jona's reflection on direct instruction. The first was Jona's use of 'Student-teacher Evaluation Questionnaires' that he distributed to the pupi ls . Jona distr ibuted two different questionnaires to the pupils to obtain feedback on his teaching. The questionnaires provided Jona wi th 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 wou ld 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 in those lessons" ( J /G C5.6 Les / J , p. 4). A second factor that enhanced Jona's reflection was the use of video tapes. These video tapes provided an opportunity for both student and sponsor to closely analyze various aspects of Jona's practice. For Gary, the video tapes allowed h im to slow down the action and examine Jona's practice in greater detail than was possible in situ: "This is a good way to analyze it because you can see things and you can stop it . . . and you can zero in on things that you 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 my ideas for the lesson . . . it helped me to evaluate why I am doing this; why it is good to make this change ( J /G Jona Int III, p. 4). One 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, when it d i d occur, d id not immediately alter his practice. A l t h o u g h Jona reflected on his use of direct instruction there was no immediate change in 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 on practicum, Jona noted that his interaction with 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 Pre/J , p. 3). Towards the end of the first reflective teaching cycle, Jona noted that he listening more than talking dur ing their discussions and thought that this was appropriate: Jona: I ment ioned before teacher /s tudent and I th ink this [discussion] was even more so teacher/student. There is less interaction . . . I think that I d id a lot of listening, and that is the point here; I have got to learn. ( J /G CI.9 Post/J , p. 4) By the third teaching cycle, Jona had begun to detect a change in his relationship wi th Gary; he now regarded the interaction as inc luding both talking and listening: Jona: It was mostly one-sided before and it is becoming less one-sided now. I am getting more of a feel for what I need to do in preparation for my lessons and I am also getting more of a feel for what I am doing right and wrong in my lessons . . . Gary was doing more teaching before. H e was saying 'Well , O K , you are going to need this, you are going to need to do this, etc ' N o w , it has become a little more 'You are pretty right but this is maybe a suggestion.' . . . I guess if I had to describe it briefly I think that I wou ld say that I'm learning from talking to h im 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 Gary had developed to the point where there was a balance between the contributions that each made to the discussions. Indeed, Gary encouraged Jona to put forward his own ideas. A t the end of the fifth cycle, Jona framed his interaction wi th Gary in terms of them both moving to higher levels of understanding his teaching practice: Jona: We might have talked about this at the beginning of the practicum [but] the thing is now 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 in this situation?' ( J /G C5.9, Post/J, p. 4) A s Jona gave more thought to this shift, he began to explore the circumstances that enhanced it: Jona: First of al l , because Gary and I have progressed to a point in our relat ionship where we are comfortable w i t h each other discussing things like this. Tony: O K . 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 behaviour i n the classroom. Y o u know? H o w I deal wi th the things i n the classroom or how I should be dealing wi th things i n the classroom. (J /G C5.9 Post/J, p.5) Jona noted that concurrent wi th this shift was the development of his o w n unique style of teaching: Jona: A t the beginning of the practicum it was l ike 'Wel l , follow a standard approach that we hope works for you.' N o w it has got to be my way of dealing wi th it because it is my personality and I have got to be consistent with my personality. Tony: A n d you are not Gary? Jona: Yeah. I am not somebody who is going to follow Gary's rules because I don't know any better. N o w I am a little more comfortable w i t h my behaviour, attitudes, mannerisms, or whatever i n the classroom. I can sort of develop my o w n methods of dealing with things is probably the best way to put it. (J /G C5.9 Post/J, p. 5) Jona then illustrated the importance of having his o w n teaching style by referring to a potential disciplinary problem in one of his classes: Jona: This is something that just occurred to me now. Two months ago if I was aware of this [kid] in the back of the classroom I probably wou ld have leaned on h im, this k id . Because that is the U B C method. U B C teaches you that the k i d has got to be on-task. You know? A n d it looks bad if the k i d is not on-task. You know, ' M y faculty advisor is not going to be to happy if my kids are not on-task.' N o w , I am looking at this from my point of view, saying 'Well what is the problem here?' . . . N o w I have progressed to a point where U B C has got their little formula but now I have got my own, or I am beginning to develop my own. ( 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 in terms of a parallel movement by both Gary and himself to higher levels but in terms of h im moving to a level of understanding commensurate with that of Gary: Jona: I have been thinking about this now, this different level that we are at. I don't know so much as if we are really on a different level but perhaps I am understanding at a different level. L ike we could have exactly the same discussion i n January, and I w o u l d have understood it on a certain level. Perhaps a surface level. But now that I know the kids, I know the teachers, I know the situation, I understand this whole 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 in 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 would have been superficial . . . In January, we could have had a very broad discussion. It is a little deeper now. This d iscuss ion is somewhat 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; from a broader perspective. 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 do ing now is taking 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 id 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 id this right,' and now we are expanding on it saying this is the k ind of stuff you have to do. . . . G o i n g from the microscopic sections that we were doing before, and now taking a section and look ing at the bigger picture; the implications of everything and how it fits into teaching in general, school, life, etc. ( J /G C5.9 Post/J, p. 9) Jona's sense of the practicum "funnel" is depicted in Figure 9. W i t h the passage of time, Jona's understanding of his practice moved from a technical perspective to a more conceptual perspective; something akin to moving a v iew finder forward and backward resulting in a variety of possible frames. A lesson Week l Figure 9. Jona's practicum "funnel" Thus, Jona's reflection on the different levels of understanding provided h im wi th both a fine-grained, detailed perspective as wel l as a broader, more conceptual frame. Review of theme two - Level's of understanding one's practice Typical ly, 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 own teaching. They begin to develop teaching styles that are uniquely their own. A t this point, the students often characterize their interaction wi th their sponsors in terms of a teacher/teacher relationship. This was the case wi th Jona. This shift precipitated Jona's reflection on the sense he was mak ing of the pract icum in comparison wi th that of his sponsor teacher. H e in i t ia l ly framed this in terms of a parallel movement by both of them to progressively higher levels of understanding. Later he reframed this in terms of himself moving to a level of understanding commensurate wi th that of Gary. Two factors emerged from this theme that enhanced Jona's reflection on his practice. The first was Jona's interaction wi th Gary beyond the classroom setting. Jona involved himself i n a number of extra-curricula activities wi th Gary (e.g., soccer coaching, helping wi th the school dance, excursions to the aquarium, etc.). The two became good friends. This was evident in their pre-and post-lesson discussions which, over the course of the practicum, became increasingly conversational as opposed to instructional. For example, at the beginning of a session they w o u l d often briefly recap the extra-curricula events of previous day. This easy manner wou ld then continue into their discussions of Jona's teaching practice p r o v i d i n g a non-threatening atmosphere in which Jona could examine and critique his practice. The second factor, closely l i nked to the first, was Jona's active participation in the pre- and post-lesson discussions. As the rapport between Jona and Gary developed, Jona actively involved himself i n , and set the agenda for his discussion wi th Gary: "It was mostly one-sided before and it is becoming less one-sided now" ( J / G C3.3 Pre / J , p. 3). Thus, Jona's active part icipation i n his dialogue w i t h Gary enhanced his reflection on his practice. Theme three - Uni t themes and lesson objectives. Early in the practicum Jona taught a unit of work based upon animal physiology and evolutionary development.' One of the lessons wi th in this theme was entitled 'The Planaria and the Earthworm.' This lesson took place dur ing the second reflective teaching cycle. There were three distinct segments dur ing the lesson: an instructional segment, a lab explanation segment, and a lab. During the pre-lesson discussion, it became apparent that the l ink between the overall unit theme and the indiv idual lesson objectives was absent in Jona's lesson plan: Gary: N o w , overall, what do you 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. Also , from the earthworm, note the parts on the outside and the inside; the parts that are b ig enough to recognize. ( J /G C2.1 Pre, p. 2) Gary then hinted that the pupils should be able to go beyond just describing the animals and be able to draw conclusions about the phys io logica l differences between all the animals under study (i.e., the overall unit theme): Gary: But, what about comparison? Y o u have got two different kinds of worms? Jona: O K . Gary: N o w , [the pupils] should be able to see the difference between a flat worm and a round w o r m and why one is more advanced that the other: 'What does the earth worm have over the flat w o r m ? ' Jona: O K . Gary: They should 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 and 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 l ink the lesson objectives to the unit theme: Jona: N o w , this again snapped me back to what I was doing. The underlying theme in al l of this is the evolution of animals. A n d you 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 during class but the tendency that I find in labs is to just say 'Well , O K , go to it!' ( J /G C2.3 Pre/J , p. 3) Despite this reminder, in the actual lesson, the l ink between the lesson objectives and the unit theme received scant attention. Indeed, the only mention that Jona made of the relationship was a brief statement at the end of the first segment: Jona: Keep in mind that they are higher on the evolutionary tree. W h y are earthworms higher on 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 how he wou ld relate the ind iv idua l lesson objectives to the overall unit theme: Jona: This was what Gary had told me about, to compare the two worms. He 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 in their minds. Hopefully they are thinking about it. 1 didn't know if I should go through it and have them actually write something out? ( J /G C2.6 Les /J , p. 2) In the lessons that followed, maintaining a l ink between the objectives and themes was a recurring problem. It was manifest in the difficulty that the pupi ls had in making connections wi th in and across the lessons of the various units. Jona framed the pupils ' problem in terms of external factors over which 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: We do a couple of questions and look at things, but you know, with these things it is l ike 'This is the class [phylum].' 'These are the characteristics.' 'This is this.' ' A n d this is this.' Maybe the subject material contributes to it a little bit? ( J /G C3.6 Les / J , p. 3) Jona was intrigued by an incident that occurred dur ing the lesson. H e watched the incident once and then rewound the tape to look at it a second time. It was a section of tape in whic l i Jona had been reviewing wi th the students the homework questions assigned the previous day. The pupi ls were having considerable trouble in answering one of the question. After several attempts by the class to provide the correct answer, a pup i l named Marians finally called out: Mar i a : [Said in frustration] What are you looking for? ( J /G C3.6 Les / J , p. 10) When Jona saw this on tape, he stopped the tape and began to question his abil i ty to clearly communicate what he was looking for i n a homework question: Jona: O K . You see. That is it right there. When she said that, I said, 'Oh, god.' I really knew that I had a problem . . . That one rang in my ears for the rest of the class and that is the one that kept coming back to my mind : 'What are y o u looking for?' Wel l , if I haven't made it clear what I am looking for then what am I doing up here asking these stupid questions? If I haven't made it clear then they are little more than s tupid questions! Tony: I guess so? Jona: A n d it is a waste of time. ( J /G C3.6 Les /J , p. 10) A s Jona advanced the video tape a little further, Mar ia was seen expressing her frustration even more eloquently; frustration that was evident among the other members of the class: Mar i a : It's hard to think when y o u don't k n o w where y o u are thinking to. ( J /G C3.6 Les /J , p. 11) From 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 and Gary talked about this incident dur ing 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 in terms of external factors over which he had little control but in terms of the need for 'an angle' to connect the elements of a unit together. H e likened the pupils ' quandary to that of reading a paper that had no thesis, or to part icipat ing i n a conversation that had no point: Jona: Actually, now that I think of it, this is what I was missing . . . Whenever I write a paper [pause], you know how you write a paper and you have a thesis, . . . that's my angle. A n d I am going to write in that vein. When 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 know? It was almost l ike 'casual.' When you think about a casual conversation with somebody, there is no real point to it a lot of times. Tony: Right. Jona: Nothing! Like 'How's the weather?' 'Oh, 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 in time because they have to be there, so, we w i l l just talk about this stuff in the text. Tony: O K . So, is there no point for you or for the students? Jona: Wel l , for both I think. I don't have a point that I am 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 in 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. We are looking at arthropods, and notice the diversity in body plan; notice the differences i n habitats. This is a very diverse group. Tony: A n d have that running throughout the period and having it anchoring off that? Jona: Yeah. Actual ly I could clear some garbage off the blackboards and I can write down '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 ind iv idua l lesson objectives and the unit themes. Hi s reframing of the problem, from external factors over which he had no control to internal factors over which he had considerable control, enabled h i m to devise strategies to ensure that the pupi l s were more successful at recognizing the relationships between the objectives and unit themes. Review of theme three - The link between themes and objectives Jona found that dur ing the first half of the practicum his pupi ls had difficulty in making connections within and across the lessons of a particular unit. A s he sought to understand the pupils ' difficulty in this regard, he framed the problem in terms of external factors over which he had little or no control. A n incident during the third reflective teaching cycle caused Jona to reframe this issue in terms of his failure to maintain a strong l ink between the lesson objectives and unit themes. Jona likened this failure to wr i t ing a paper without a thesis or conducting a conversation wi thout a point. Thereafter, he deliberately maintained common threads throughout the unit to ensure that ind iv idua l lesson objectives remained closely l inked to the unit themes. Three factors arose from this theme that enhanced Jona's reflection on his practice. The first was the use of stimulated recall sessions of pre- and post-lesson discussions. These sessions provided Jona wi th an opportunity to put into his own words what he understood his sponsor to be saying. For example, during one discussion Gary suggested that Jona needed a g immick to tie his lessons together. As the discussion continued, Jona reframed Gary's notion of a gimmick in terms of the need for an angle. On ly later, i n the stimulated recall session, d id he realize that he had re-cast Gary's suggestion: "There is probably a difference between what we mean by a gimmick 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 in relation to his own practice. Thus, stimulated recall prov ided the opportunity 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 pupi ls to be critical and independent thinkers. This coincided wi th a feature of the curr iculum at Jona's school: a 6 month off-campus challenge program available to Grade 10 students. This program is designed to encourage pupi ls to be independent and crit ical thinkers. W h e n the practictun began, Jona was given two Grade 10 classes that had just returned from this program. It was clear that these pupils were inquisi t ive and thoughtful about their work. They wanted to be active participants in their o w n learning29 (e.g., the Mar ia incident). Jona's interaction wi th the pupils caused h im to think carefully about his practice. A third factor that enhanced Jona's reflection was teaching mul t ip le sections of the same course. Jona noted that teaching the same material to more than one class allowed him to "package it better" ( J /G C2.6 Les / J , p. 4) in later classes. Also , teaching multiple sections of a course shifted the emphasis dur ing pre- and post-lesson discussions, from content (What is to be taught?) to more substantive issues (Why and how it might be taught?). One 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). When classroom observations became a casual activity, Gary 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 al lowed us to appreciate, nor raise wi th Jona, the subtleties that were inherent in his own practice. Gary and I recognized this and altered our supervisory practices accordingly. As 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 - Ownership of one's practice Throughout the first and second cycles, Jona was a keen observer of Gary's practice. H e regularly questioned Gary about the strategies and approaches that he used in the classroom. Ear ly i n the second reflective teaching cycle Jona sensed that he might have been asking too many questions: Jona: Sometimes I think maybe I go to h im a bit too much. Things are going quite well so far in the practicum. A n d he has helped me a lot. A lot of times I go to h im and ask 'What is the best way to do this,' and I think that he wou ld prefer that I do a little bit more [myself]. Y o u know, if I blow it, I b low it; I learn something. Tony: A n d what are the indicators that he is wanting you to 'go it alone' a bit more? Jona: Wel l , I w i l l say something like 'What do you think about this, and he w i l l say 'Sounds O K , try it out,' stuff like that. 'See how it goes.' 'Give it a shot.' ( J /G C2.3 Pre/J , p. 1) A n incident in 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 pupi ls asked Jona a procedural question about the work. After giving the pupils an answer, Jona checked the answer with Gary (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: You see, I could have given them an answer for what I wanted them to do, right? I had thought about it. 'This is what you 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 why I think Gary 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 rocking the boat because I don't want to do that to h im or his students. ( J / G C2.6 Les/J, p. 6) In the third reflective teaching cycle, Gary commented on the nature of his interaction wi th Jona. He 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 him by the hand up until now. N o w , I am wait ing for h im to come forth. I want h im to design things. I have given h im the area that I want covered but how he covers it, I think he is now going to have to make those decisions . . . He has got to swim or sink on his own . . . There seemed to be, up unti l now, a slight lack of confidence. H e was sort of coming to me 'Is this O K ? ' A n d now 'Well , wait a minute, the decision has to be yours now, because in six months you are going to be on your o w n and you are going to have to make that decision. ' Whether it is a right or wrong decision, I w o u l d sooner see him go through a bad lesson. But the decision is his. ( J / G C3.2 P r e / G , p . 3) In the th i rd reflective teaching cycle, Jona noticed that Gary was more reluctant to provide h im with answers to his questions: Jona: Generally, he didn't really have as much to say as he d i d i n the first two cycles. (J /G C3.3 Pre/J , p. 1) A n incident similar to that described in the second cycle also occurred in the third cycle. In mid-lesson , Jona asked Gary a question about the work the pupils were doing. In the post-lesson discussion, Jona reframed his tendency to continually seek Gary's advice not in terms of 'not wanting to rock the boat' but in terms wanting to teach 'the right way': Jona: When I asked you about that lab yesterday [in class], how to mark this particular part, I got that impression [that you were saying] ' O K they are yours, you 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 in original) In the stimulated recall discussion that fol lowed, he began to make explicit what he meant by the teaching the right way: Jona: M y problem is I don't want my answers, I want the right answers. I don't want to do things my way. I want to do things his way . . . Y o u see I want h im to tell me the way to do it. Then I w i l l do it, because I know he has developed it over the years; his way is going to be pretty right. ( J /G C3.9 Post/J , p. 6, emphasis in original) But for Gary, it was time to "cut the apron strings": Gary: He is talking to me, he keeps asking, and going and going and going. He wants to be sure that it is 100% right. W e l l , you can't be . . . Y o u have got to cut the apron strings. The umbilical cord had gone now. He has got the ability. ( J /G C3.8 Post /G, p. 3) Jona's reframing was pivotal in terms of developing a practice that was distinctly his own. In the weeks that fol lowed, he demonstrated greater independence from Gary and experimented with a number of his o w n ideas in the classroom. In conversations with Gary, Jona drew upon the notion of a plateau to describing his shift from dependence to independence: Gary: We 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, you d id and you went through that.' But I said 'At that time, up unti l that point, I was a l lowing you to ask me questions and I was helping you 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 W e e k s Point at which Gary no longer supplies the answers. 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 summarized his reframing of the problem by noting that that there was no right way of teaching, be it Gary's way, UBC' 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, you know. 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 own situation . . . I guess that is another area of progress. I have become my own teacher rather than a U B C clone. ( J /G C5.9 Post/J, p. 7, emphasis in 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 wi th Jona in the early weeks of his practicum. Jona regularly sought Gary out for advice and tried to emulate his teaching. H e tried to duplicate the routines and procedures that Gary used in his classes. Jona framed his emulation of Gary's practice in terms of not wanting to rock the boat. A s the practicum progressed, Gary encouraged Jona to find his own solutions to the various problems he encountered in the practice setting. A t this point, Jona's teaching performance began to plateau. It wasn't un t i l after the th i rd reflective teaching cycle that his performance began to improve again. A s Jona reflected on the plateau i n his teaching performance, he reframed his emulation of Gary's practice in terms of wanting to teach the right way. H e noted that earlier, instead of developing his own practice, he had faithfully duplicated Gary's practice. Jona's reflection was precipitated by his concern that he was going to Gary too often for advice and help. H a v i n g acknowledged his dependence upon Gary , Jona decided to take greater ownership for his own teaching and to define a practice that was uniquely his o w n . 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 own practice. Gary encouraged Jona to experiment wi th his own ideas. A s Jona took the first tentative steps in 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 in 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 you need that to get started . . . but now I have progressed to a point where U B C has got their little formula but now I have got my own, or I am beginning to develop my own" ( J / G C5.9 Pos t / J , p. 7). A s Jona experimented w i t h his own formula, his energies were directed into developing and reflecting on a practice that was uniquely his own. 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 id not question Gary's practices. Indeed, he accepted them as givens in the setting. It was only when he was encouraged to experiment wi th his own ideas that he began to question these practices and to critique each i n relation to his evolving practice. Jona's reliance upon established routines inhibited his reflection on his own practice. Another factor that constrained Jona's reflection was an emphasis on utilitarian rather than substantive issues. Dur ing 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. On ly towards the end of the practicum, and i n particular when he acknowledged that there was no right way of teaching, d id Jona begin to attend to the particulars of the setting and the importance of these in relation to his o w n teaching style. U n t i l this occurred, Jona's reflections were constrained by a ut i l i tar ian emphasis in his teaching. The third factor that constrained Jona's reflection on practice was his init ial conception of the practicum as a hoop jumping exercise. Jona noted that when student-teachers perceived the practicum as a hoop jumping exercise then learning becomes an activity you do for someone else and not for yourself: "It is l ike jumping through the hoops, tell them anything that they want to hear" ( J / G Jona Int III, p. 1). Because of this perception, Jona init ial ly 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 own practices. Finally, there was one issue that was related to Jona's reflection upon his practice but not directly related to the three research questions that emerged from the analysis. Gary noted that during his 30 years as a teacher he had 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 Nor th American science classes, local Minis t ry of Education officials had used his classroom as a set for T V and f i lm projects, and teacher educators had used his classroom for their student-teachers). Whi le al l these projects were related to Gary's practice, none deliberately sought to elicit Gary's own ideas on teaching and learning. Rather, there was greater interest i n the setting i n wh ich he taught. By contrast, he felt the current research project wi th Jona valued both the propositional and experiential knowledge that he brought to the practice setting (informed by 30 years of teaching experience). H e enjoyed the opportunity of making explicit the things that intrigued h im about his o w n practice and Jona's practice during the video recall sessions. Attending to and shar ing this knowledge both enhanced and enriched the prac t icum experience for both Jona and myself. Theme five - Rig id i ty vs. f lexibi l i ty i n the use of lesson plans The lesson of the third reflective teaching cycle dealt w i th molluscs. Jona had div ided the lesson into three segments: a introductory f i lm (15 minutes), a teacher-led discussion (20 minutes), and a teacher-centred instructional component (15 minutes). The f i lm was a success i n that it generated considerable interest amongst the pupi ls . Unfortunately, the pupils ' initial enthusiasm waned during the second segment, and by the third segment it was almost nonexistent. In short, the lesson died in the the last two segments. The pupils were neither disruptive nor disrespectful, but one by one they disengaged themselves from the lesson. Gary noted that they were not actively involved in 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 in a similar way: Jona: They are on-task but they are dead on-task! ( J /G C3.6 Les / J , p. 7). Despite the fact that Jona sensed the lesson was dying, he steadfastly adhered to the text of his lesson plan throughout the lesson. In the post-lesson discussion, he framed the problem of pupi l disengagement in terms of poor lesson planning on his part: Jona: I guess my organization was just lacking here . . . I thought I was prepared but I wasn't ready for everything . . . we had the count down, we just didn't get the Hft off. ( J /G C3.9 Post /J , p. 2). Al though 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 iv ided 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 wi th that of the third cycle. H e noted that he had become less dependent upon his lesson plan per se and 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 pup i l disengagement in the third reflective teaching cycle not in terms of poor lesson planning but i n terms of an over-dependence upon the lesson plan itself. Before the fifth cycle, Jona had often taught wi th his lesson plan 'in-hand' and frequently referred to it during the lesson. By 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 with the word 'Why ' to remind himself to elicit ideas from the pupi ls . In another overhead, he used different symbols down the left hand side to remind himself of different strategies to use at various stages. As 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: I put it ['Why' on the O H ] to remind me to aslc a question there. Wel l , that's good. I am trying to get away from using the sheet^^ all the time. Y o u are right because you are not using a sheet at all in this lesson. No . 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 l ike you have an agenda, sort of rules or things that you have to get through in the day. You know? That is your direction [but] you don't really know what you are doing; you follow the sheet like the bible. So, I am trying to get away from that. A n d what that means is putt ing little reminders on the overhead. It might be l ike sometimes you w i l l see that I have a star . . . or where, I have written TPS: Think, Pair, Share. ( J /G C5.6 Les /J , p. 5). In short, the summary overheads enabled Jona to focus more on the pupi ls in the class than on the lesson plan per se. Jona's shift from r ig id adherence to flexible use of lesson plans was captured in a series of comments in which he indicated an alternative approach for future practice (see Table 7). Final ly , Jona's reflection on his use of lesson plans also revealed a movement from a pure ly cognit ive approach to teaching (technical, mechanical, and step by step) to an approach which included an affective element (a feel for the class). The final lessons of the Jona's practicum revealed a combination of these two elements. Review of theme five - Lesson plans Teaching is a complex activity. There is much 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). Jona: Tony: Jona: Tony: Jona: The reflective theme examined i n this section, explores Jona's perplexity as he discovered that his lesson plans d id not cater for every contingency. For example, his lesson of the third cycle died slowly as one by one the pupils disengaged from the lesson. Experienced teachers, for the most part, are able to to respond quickly to such circumstances and can alter their lesson plan 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, in this instance, chose to stick steadfastly to the lesson as planned in the hope that perseverance would bring it back to life! Table 7. Jona's shift from rigid adherence to flexible use of lesson plans Initial practice Current practice • At first you are talking about the ^ • . . . to more of a feeling type thing. 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*) . . . It makes sense! (p. 2*) • Earlier on it was like 'What is the ~ l • • 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 in the third cycle, he framed them in terms of being under-prepared. In the lessons that followed, he tried to be fully prepared and to faithfully follow the details contained in his lesson plan. St i l l , there were occasions when his pupils became disinterested in the lesson. Over the course of the practicum, Jona shifted away from a r ig id adherence to lesson plans to a more flexible use of overhead summaries 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 upon his lesson plans per se. He then argued that this al lowed h i m to have more of a feel for the lesson and to respond more quickly to changing circumstances wi th in 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 wi th the pupils. As Jona attempted to articulate his concerns about his teaching, he realized that he was five years removed from being a pup i l himself. By mid-prac t icum, he had begun to question some of the assumptions he had made about the classroom setting and acknowledged that many assumptions d id not match his current experience in the classroom: "I am still trying to get a grasp of how students think. I have got to get back into the mind of a 16-year-old" ( J /G C2.6 Les / J , p. 10). As a result, Jona's concerns for his practice shifted from those of 'self to those of 'others' which resulted in a very different sort of critique of his practice. For example, i n the above theme, by problematizing his practice from the pupi ls ' perspective, Jona devised an alternative practice that enabled h im to be more responsive to the changing circumstances in the classroom. Thus, Jona's empathy w i t h the pupils provided an additional dimension to his inquiry about his practice. S u m m a r y Table 8 provides an overview of the five reflective themes in 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 Research Question Three Related Issues Theme Precipitated Framed Reframed Plan for Factors which enhance (E) by: in terms of: in terms of: future action: or constrain (C) reflection: Direct Dissatisfaction The pupils The method Using a • Pupil evaluations of • Reflection does not instruction with direct were found was found combination Jona's teaching (E) always immediately instruction wanting wanting of methods • The use of video (E) alter practice Levels of Curiosity Pararellel Jona moving To consider • Jona's interaction with under- at wanting movement to a level both Gary beyond the standing to 'pin down' by both to of under- conceptual classsroom (E) one's his changing higher levels standing and technical • Jona's active practice relationship of under- commensurate aspects of participation in his with Gary standing with Gary teaching discussions with Gary (E) The link Surprise External The need Regular • Stimulated recall (E) between that the factors over for an angle reference to • Pupils as independent objectives pupils were which he had or thesis to focal points and critical thinkers (E) and themes unable to no control connect the that connect • Teaching multiple 'see' the links work the work sections of a course (E) • Brief, unfocussed, unrec-orded observations (C) Ownership Concern that Not wanting Jona's attempt Develop a • Gary's support (E) • The importance of of one's he was going to 'rock the to find the plan that was • Realizing that the UBC recognizing practice to Gary too boat' (i.e. 'right way' distinctly method was a guide (E) Gary's teaching much Gary's of teaching his own • Jona's unquestioning experience and practices) use of set routines (C) knowledge • Utilitarian emphasis (C) • The practicum as a hoop-jumping exercise (C) Use of Concern for Under- Rigid Use of • Jona's empathy Lesson pupil dis- jrepared adherence to summary with the pupils (E) plans engagement esson plans lesson plans overheads C H A P T E R 9 Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications for Practice The conclusions, discussion and implications for practice that appear i n this chapter are drawn from the reflective practices of four student-teachers as they p r e p a r e d , taught , and d i s c u s s e d their lessons i n concert w i th their sponsor teachers, and then reviewed these activities through the use of video tape. This chapter is d iv ided 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 within 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 way 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 précipi tants for each theme, the most significant being the 'secondary' precipitant at the reframing stage. In general, student-teacher reflection was precipitated when 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 student-teacher reflection? - the factors are grouped into three categories: student related, sponsor related, and program related factors. The results to each of the research questions are examined in greater detail below. Question one: What d id the students reflect upon? Fifteen reflective themes, spread amongst the four students, were identified during this study. These themes have been grouped into three main categories of description (Table 9), two of wh ich were part icularly dominant: the ownership of one's practice, and the way pupi ls learn. One theme (namely, Sally's 'Passive interaction with her sponsor'), which d id not 'fit' into the three main categories, and about which 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 Tina Steve Jona Ownership of one's practice • Teaching orientation • Ownership of one's practice • Ownership of one's practice • Elicitation • Ownership of one's practice • Direct instruction The way pupils learn • Pupil learning • Questioning • Off-task behaviour • Expectations of pupil knowledge • Use of lesson plans • Link between themes and objectives Seeing practice through the eyes of an experienced teacher • Co l l ég ia l interaction with sponsor • Levels of understand-ing Ow^nership of one's practice The first category that emerged from the results was the students' reflection on the ownership of one's practice. Ownership 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 by increased levels of anxiety as each student struggled to define a practice that was uniquely his or her own. The way pupils learn The second category that emerged from the data was the students' reflection on the way in which pupils learn. Reflection in this category was characterized as a shift from a teacher's perspective to a pupil 's perspective on the way i n which pupils learn. The issues around which these reflections took place included pup i l learning, lesson content, lesson planning, 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 to see teaching through the eyes of an experienced practitioner. This category was characterized by a shift i n the students unders tanding of practice to progress ively higher levels that were commensurate with their sponsor teachers' understandings of practice. Both Sally and Jona reflected upon 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. Quest ion two - What precipitated the students' reflection? Question two proved to be more difficult to answer than was first anticipated. The reason for this difficulty was that up to four préc ip i tan ts could be identified wi th the reflective activity associated wi th each theme. Précipi tants for each theme For each reflective theme it was possible to identify a pr imary and secondary precipitant at each of the framing and reframing stages. In some instances there was repetition of the précipi tants over the two stages. Thus, the pr imary precipitant at the framing stage might also be the pr imary precipitant as the reframing stage. Primary précipi tants were usually extra-subjective and of an informal nature (e.g., an incident on video or a casual comment by a sponsor teacher). Secondary précipi tants were more subjective and of a formal nature (e.g., students internaUzed the issue and explici t ly referred to it). A n example of a theme wi th four different p réc ip i tan t s was Sally's reflection on her teaching orientation. The various p réc ip i t an t s for this theme are listed in Table 10. Table 10. A n example of primary and secondary précipi tants Reflective theme components Descriptors • Theme: Teaching orientation Internal dissonance between belief and actions* Having a teacher-centred focus Watching a video of her classroom teaching Sally noting her lack of interaction with pupils Teaching the way she was taught John's intention to focus on pupil questioning Sally's noting the dissonance between her beliefs and actions • Precipitant: • Frame: Primary precipitant: Secondary precipitant: • Reframe: Primary precipitant: Secondary precipitant: • 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). Watching 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 in Sally's critique of her teaching in terms of its teacher-centred orientation (the frame). Sally's reframing of her orientation to teaching was init ial ly precipitated by John's comment that he intended to focus on Sally's questioning strategies (primary precipitant -reframing stage). This comment precipitated Sally's ar t iculat ion of a dissonance between her beliefs about teaching and her actual practice i n the classroom (secondary precipitant - reframing stage). A s a result, Sal ly reframed her teaching in terms of teaching as she was taught (the reframe). Thus, Sally's reflection was a product of primary and secondary précipi tants at both the framing and reframing stages. This pattern of préc ip i tants was evident in all themes identified in this study. Further, it was the secondary precipitant at the reframing stage that appeared to be the most important in terms of the students' reflections and their subsequent plans for future action. Therefore, in each of the themes, the secondary precipitant at the reframing stage is referred to as the main precipitant for the theme. The explication of précipi tants in this way provides a new insight to student-teacher reflection. In short, the results of this study indicated that up to four different précipitants could be identified for each reflective theme; a primary and secondary precipitant at each of the framing and reframing stages. Of the four précipitants identified, it was the secondary precipitant at the reframing stage that appeared to be the most influential in terms of the student-teachers' reflection on their practices. A contrast between what is proposed and what happens In 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.' Or, what at one point what appeared to be 'conflict', at another point appeared to be 'dissatisfaction.' The descriptors for main préc ip i tants of the fifteen reflective themes are given i n Table 11. The contribution that this study makes in this regard is to provide a broader range of descriptors than is typically encountered in the literature. Quest ion three: What enhanced or constrained reflection? The factors which enhanced or constrained student-teacher reflection have been grouped into three broad categories: student-related, 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 imi ted the opportunities for the development of any of these components. Table 11. List of précipi tants for the reflective themes Case Theme Main précipitants Sally Teaching orientation internal dissonance Passive interaction frustration Pupil learning dismay Collégial interaction surprise Tina Ownership frustration Pupil knowledge surprise Questioning style conflict Off-task behaviour contrast Steve Elicitation curiosity Ownership variance Jona Direct instruction dissatisfaction Levels of understanding curiosity Themes and objectives surprise Ownership concern Lesson plans concern O f the forty-six factors that were identified across the four cases, forty-three fell into one of three categories out l ined above. Because of the idiosyncratic nature of three remaining factors, these are addressed i n a later section entitled 'Possibilities for Further Research.' Of 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 , many factors, while not identical, were very similar to other factors wi th in and across cases (e.g., pupi l empathy in the case of Jona, and 'one-to-one' interaction with pupils in the case of Tina). The conclusions that follow are drawn from the relationships between the factors within and across cases. Student-related factors The student-related factors that enhanced or constrained reflection are grouped under the fol lowing headings: the use of video, agenda setting, problem setting versus problem solving, the use of time, interaction wi th students and pupils , observation and dialogue, and making explicit past experiences. The reader is reminded 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 on their practices in al l four cases. Consider Figures 11 and 12. These figures provide a summary of the different sessions i n wh ich the students either framed or reframed issues. From these figures, it is clear that the framing and reframing of many issues occurred mostly during the video recall sessions. The video recall of the lessons provided the students wi th an opportunity to examine their practices 'first hand.' In this sense, the tapes of the lessons acted as a primary 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 in accord wi th those of K i lbourn (1988) and Ross (1990). The video recall sessions of pre- and post-lesson discussions also provided the students wi th an opportunity to 'put into their o w n words ' 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 5--4--3--2--1--framed Ownership Elicitation Collégial Interaction Pupil Learning Ownership Themes & Objectives Teaching Orientation Direct Instruction Question Style Lesson Plan Levels of Understand Off-task Behaviour Pupil Knowledge Ownership Passive Interaction Sessions in which the themes were framed Pre-lesson Video recall Video recall Post-lesson Video recall Pre- Mid- Post-discussions pre-lesson lessons discussions post-lesson practicum practicum practicum discussions discussions^  yinterview interview interview^ Reflective teaching cycles V Additional interviews Figure 11. Sessions in which framing occurred 6--5- -4--3--2--1--Number of themes reframed Teaching Orientation Lesson Plan Question Style Pupil Knowledge Elicitation Ownership Themes & Objectives Levels of understand Direct Instruction Ownership Collégial Interaction Passive Interaction Off-task Behaviour Ownership Pupil Learning Sessions in which the themes were reframed Pre-lesson Video recall Video recall Post-lesson Video recall Pre- Mid- Post-discussions pre-lesson lessons discussions post-lesson practicum practicum practicum discussions discussions^  i^nterview interview interview^ Reflective teaching cycles Y Additional interviews Figure 12. Sessions in which reframing occurred new understandings, the students often framed and reframed issues they found to be problematic in their own practice. A n example of this was Jona's reframing of the relationship between themes and objectives. A l though , there has been little work reported on the use of stimulated recall of pre- and post-lesson discussions, the students i n this study benefitted from this experience. 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. Of the issues raised, fifteen developed into and were identified as reflective themes. Of these themes, ten were init ial ly raised by 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 upon all four were raised by her; Jona raised three of the five issues he reflected on; and i n the cases of Tina and Steve there was an even split between the issues that were raised either by the sponsor or student. In short, when students gave voice to issues that concerned them, they reflected on the same number of issues, if not more, than those raised by their sponsors. The importance of 'student voice' in relation to reflection upon practice has also been highlighted in other studies (Cole, 1989; Holland, 1989a; Schon, 1987). Students giving voice to their concerns also appeared to be related to the degree to wh ich they actively participated i n the pre- and post-lesson discussions. There were times when the students listened but d id not actively participate in those discussions. The clearest example of this was in the case of Sal ly i n wh ich her par t ic ipat ion was l imi ted to 'm in ima l posi t ive responses.' Further, when the students were passive participants in pre- and post-lesson discussions, the agenda for those discussions was set primari ly by the sponsor teachers. G iven 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 in the determining who sets the agenda for the pre- and post-lesson discussions. Specifically, the reflective Table 12. Reflective themes initiated by student and sponsor Case Reflective theme Issue raised by: The student The sponsor Sally Teaching orientation • Passive interaction • Pupil learning • Collégial interaction • Tina Ownership • Pupil ownership Questioning Off-task • Steve Elicitation Ownership • Jona 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 th other studies. For example, Zeichner (1987a) argues that students are more reflective when they are proactive not merely reactive to the settings i n which they undertake their practica. Interaction with students and pupi ls . Students' interactions wi th fellow students, and wi th the pupils they taught, provided alternative perspectives wi th which to examine different teaching practices. Informal student-teacher networks provided the students wi th a rich resource of ideas for this sort of examination (e.g., Tina's ownership of her practice). A number of studies have highl ighted the importance of this type of interaction du r ing the pract icum (Comeaux & Peterson, 1988; Feiman-Nemser, 1986; Pugach & Johnson, 1988). For example, Feiman-Nemser (1986) argues that peer interaction was an important factor for enhancing reflection because it casts reflection as a collaborative process rather than a pure ly personal or ind iv idua l act. The students use of networks in this study underscored the value of sharing one's teaching experiences wi th fellow students. Another level of interaction that enhanced the students' reflection on their practices was their interaction wi th the pupils. This interaction was particularly noticeable in the cases of Tina and Jona. In the case of Tina, her one-to-one interaction wi th the pupi ls , especially dur ing her use of co-operative learning, provided her wi th a perspective on teaching that may not have been possible through more t radi t ional approaches to teaching. Similar ly, Jona's empathy wi th his pupils provided h im wi th an alternative perspective on his practice (e.g., his use of pup i l questionnaires to evaluate his teaching furnished h im wi th important feedback about his practice). Jona's close interaction wi th the pupils also provided h im wi th important in situ feedback (e.g. the Mar ia incident). The importance of interactions wi th pupils has been reported by other researchers who have used case studies and narratives to engage students in one-to-one interactions wi th pupils (Beyer, 1984; LaBoskey & Wilson, 1987). The results of this study are consistent wi th these reports and indicate that the students' interaction with both fellow students and pupils enhanced their reflection by providing them with alternative perspectives from which to examine their practices. Problem setting versus problem solving. While on-campus course work provided the students wi th generic approaches to problems encountered i n the practice setting, these approaches d i d not always provide answers to specific problems related to the students' practices. Further, an over-reUance on a generic or, what Schon wou ld refer to as, a technical problem solving approach, at times led to frustration and disappointment. For example, i n the case of Tina , her early reliance upon her sponsor teacher's co-operative learning strategies d id not 'solve' the problems peculiar to her o w n practice. Further, a technical problem solving approach resulted in a util i tarian emphasis in the students' teaching practices (i.e., a 'what works ' approach to teaching). For example, this was evident in the case of Jona, when early in the practicum he regarded his teaching as a 'hoop-jumping' exercise and later when he attempted to replicate the practices of his sponsor teacher. In the case of Steve, this approach was manifest in his reliance upon traditional classroom practices gleaned from his prior experiences as a learner. In the case of Tina, it was evident i n her early reliance upon co-operative learning strategies. Only 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 problem solving approach to a problem setting approach. When students began to ask questions such as 'Why am I doing this?' or 'What effect is this having on my 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 solving 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 problem setting i n a variety of ways. A part icularly interesting strategy was their use of negative cases (i.e., the students articulated an alternative practice by describing what they did not l ike 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 in 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 in their teaching that were new or unfamiliar to them. They were able to express what a new issue was 'like' by describing how it differed from something wi th which 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 wi th 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 new frames to account for the 'unfamiliar.' In sum, the students' reflections on their practices, were enhanced when the nature of their inquiries shifted from a generic or technical problem solving approach to a problem setting approach. One of the strategies the students found useful in the process of problem setting was the use of negative cases. Observat ion w i t h dialogue. It is ironic that, whi le many students dialogued wi th their sponsor teachers on a regular basis throughout the practicum, the students' observations of their sponsors' teaching practices typically ceased after the first few weeks on practicum. A n instance of the problems associated wi th the separation of dialogue and observation occurred in the case of Steve. Throughout the practicum, it appeared that Steve and Cl i f f shared a common understanding of brain-storming - an activity i n which a teacher elicits responses from the students about a particular issue. Indeed, the notion of brain-storming came up in several discussions dur ing Steve's practicum. It wasn't unt i l 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 own. Thus, whi le dialogue throughout the practicum provided an opportunity for Steve and Cl i f f to make explicit their notions of 'brain-storming,' it was only through observation, later i n the practicum, that Steve began to realize the difference between his own and Cliff's conception of brain-storming. Similar incidents occurred i n the cases of Sally and Tina. Whi le 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' in the classroom; to develop a sense of confidence in 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 wi thout the sponsor teacher being present i n the classroom. While 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 when regular dialogue was accompanied by observation. The importance of dialogue for convergence of meaning between student and sponsor has been reported elsewhere (Driver & Bell 1986; Erickson & MacIGnnon, 1991; Ross, 1990; Schon, 1987) and Schon (1983, 1987) has written at length on the value of observation (e.g., the Fol low M e model for coaching reflective practice). This study has demonstrated that the complementary practices of observation and dialogue, by both student and sponsor, enhanced the student-teachers' reflection on their practices. The time available for reflection. There were two aspects of the student-teachers' practica experiences that impinged upon the time available for reflection: the difficulty they had wi th 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 wi th content often meant that a considerable amount of time was spent 'boning up' on content at the expense of pedagogy. A clear example of this was Sally's pre-occupation wi th the content required to teach IB Chemistry 11. Sally, by her o w n admission, often worked until very late at night reviewing the material for the next day. Similar situations occurred in all four cases. This issue is not new i n teacher education and has been noted by other researchers (Borko et, a l . , 1988; Shulman, 1986b). It was clear, that the students' difficulty wi th the content impinged upon 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 impinged upon the time available for reflection. Whi le there are benefits i n having the students work towards a full teaching load w i t h a range of classes, when it is at the expense of reflection an increased work load seemed to be detrimental to the students overa l l professional development. This result is consistent w i th other studies investigating work load and 'time press' (Campbell et al . , 1990; Feiman-Nemser, 1986; Niles et al., 1987). One way to address the constraints of difficulties wi th 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 in the case of Jona, and to a lesser degree in 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 when students taught multiple classes of the same course, the emphasis on 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?' Thus, the results of this study indicate that difficulties with content and high workloads impinged upon the time available for reflection. Alternative uses of time, such as teaching more than one class of the same course, may overcome some of these constraints. M a k i n g explicit past experiences. Mak ing explicit one's past experiences as a learner (either in a school classroom or a university lecture theatre) provided the students wi th 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 al l three cases, the students drew upon their past experiences as learners to examine taken-for-granted assumptions about their current practice. The importance of making explicit past experiences has been reported in many studies (Cole, 1989; MacKinnon , 1987; Russell et al. 1988; Sergiovanni, 1985) and is consistent wi th Schon's (1988) argument for a new epistemology of practice i n w h i c h practitioners draw upon past experience and new knowledge to frame and reframe routine and non-routine aspects of their practice. S imply put, in this study, student-teacher reflection was enhanced when the students made explicit their past experiences as learners. Sponsor teacher related factors O f the factors that were identif ied as enhancing or constraining reflection, a number were specifically related to the sponsor teachers. These factors fell wi th in two broadly defined categories: inquir ing into rather than reporting on the students' practices, and trust, support, and confidence in the student. Inquiring into rather than reporting on practice. One of the assumptions inherent in the notion of supervision of student-teachers is 'reporting on' (in the formative sense) a student's practice. Such reports provide 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 wi th their students they were alarmed at the extent to which their reporting left little time for the students to actively interact, react, or even act, dur ing the discussions. The sponsor teachers framed this reporting 'phenomena' in terms of dominating the discussions wi th their students. Each sponsor reflected on his or her dominance i n different ways. For example. Cliff saw his dominance in terms of wanting to f i l l the gaps in the discussion; Jason framed it in terms of his failure to model the very practice that he was asking Susan to demonstrate in her classroom, and L i n d a saw her dominance, part icularly later in 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 repor t ing o n to i n q u i r i n g into the students' practices. A s this change occurred the students became more actively involved i n discussions wi th their sponsor teachers and began setting their o w n agenda for those discussions. The importance of inquir ing into practice is an essential component of Schon's second and th i rd models for coaching reflective practice (i.e.. Joint Experimentation and H a l l of Mirrors) . In short, the sponsor teachers' shift from 'reporting on' to 'inquiring into' the students' practices enhanced the students' reflection on their practices. Trust, support, and confidence. A characteristic of the student-teachers' reflections, as identified in this study, was the focus on problems and difficulties encountered i n the practice setting. Rarely d i d the student-teachers' reflections focus on their classroom successes. Further, their reflection tended to emphasize the uncertainties and doubts they faced in 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 dur ing their practica. They were confident, assured, and reflective teachers. Three conditions were identified that enhanced the students' confidence in and reflection upon their practices, namely, the trust, support, and confidence that the sponsor teachers had in 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 withdraw and hold tacit their concerns about their teaching. The importance of a supportive environment, such as this, for the development of reflective practitioners has been noted by a number of researchers (Erickson & MacKinnon , 1991; Schon, 1988; Wi ldman et al., 1990). It was clear, i n this s tudy , that the sponsor teachers' trust, support, and confidence in the students' abilities enhanced the students' reflection on their practices. One factor that facilitated these conditions, that was identified i n this study, was the sharing of activities by both sponsor and student beyond the classroom; this sharing inc luded activities that were both cur r i cu la (workshops, etc.) and extra-curricula (coaching sporting teams, etc.) in nature. This is consistent wi th reports that indicate reflection is enhanced when the students begin to appreciate the 'cultural mi l ieu ' i n wh ich their teaching takes place (e.g., Atwel 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 l inked theory to practice. Method courses that l inked theory to practice. It became apparent in the first year of the study that the science method courses which both Sally and Tina took had a considerable impact on their reflection. This was evident in the themes on ' pup i l learning' (Tina), 'questioning style' (Tina), and 'teaching orientation' (Sally) The courses went beyond methods per se and related the methods to specific theoretical perspectives on teaching and learning. The association between theory and practice provided Sally and Tina w i t h a heuristic for examining different teaching practices^^. The importance of method courses in 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 in this study indicates that Schon's notion of reflective practice is applicable to the professional development of student-teachers in practica settings. There are three areas in which this study extends Schon's conception of reflection as it applies to the practicum setting, namely: the thematic nature of student-teacher reflection, the ownership 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 When this study was first conceptualized, it was couched in terms of identifying reflective incidents. There was an expectation by the researcher, for reasons that w i l l be explored shortly, that it wou ld be possible to identify reflection during the course of a single interview or stimulated recall session. However , it soon became apparent that the term reflective incident was both misleading and inappropriate. Consider Figure 13 which 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 ful l thirteen weeks. In particular, different components of reflection arose as incidents w i t h i n cycles, and 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 in a lesson, discussions with a sponsor teacher, the video recall of a pre- or post-lesson discussion, etc. These incidents were critical as they often resulted in the students bringing new frames to bear on issues related to their practices^''. For example, the Mar ia incident in the case of Jona resulted in 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 in 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 inc iden t and theme 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 in terms of its thematic nature has important implications for the supervision of student-teachers. For example, it wou ld 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. Alternat ive 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 na tu re of reflection (i.e., 'why' and 'how' people reflect upon their practice) (Campbell et al., 1990; Grimmett, 1988; Krough , 1987; La l ik et al . , 1989; Louden, 1989 MacKinnon , 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 provided insights into both of these areas; the former is addressed above, this discussion w i l l now consider the latter. The intent of research question one - What is it that student-teachers' reflect upon? - was to investigate the subs t ance of the student-teacher reflection. Previous studies on student-teacher reflection have shown that students typically reflect upon lesson content (Borko et al, 1987; Russell, 1988) and pup i l learning (Freiberg & Waxman, 1990; Wi ldman , 1987; Erickson & M a c K i n n o n , 1991). These results are consistent w i th one of the main categories of description that emerged from this study. The category entitled 'the way pupils learn' embraces the students reflections upon both lesson content and pupi l learning. It was the second main category of description that emerged from the analysis of the data, that stands in 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 in teacher reflection (regardless of the theoretical perspective adopted) were often conducted wi th in-service A brief discussion of some practical issues related to the identification of incidents and themes is contained in Appendix D. teachers for whom ownership of practice may not have been an issue. Thus, as studies on reflection moved from the in-service to the pre-service setting, the issue of ownership may have been subsumed under existing categories or not recognized as an issue peculiar to pre-service setting. Another explanation may be the context in which 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 in this study upon which the students reflected. The students' reflections upon ownership were manifest i n 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 with the question of ownership, an interesting counter-situation emerged. The sponsor teachers began to ask themselves similar questions. Enmeshed within 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 taking responsibil i ty of tests and assignments, and so on.). This was particularly evident i n the reflective themes that traced the students' shift from 'a dependence upon ' to 'an independence from' the sponsor teacher. Central to this particular issue is that ownership must not only be g iven (i.e., by the sponsor) but must also be taken (i.e, by the student). For example, there were times when the sponsors were reluctant to give up ownership but the students were wanting to take it, and conversely, times when the sponsors wanted to give up ownership but the students were reluctant to take it. The contribution that this study has to make in this regard is that: (1) ownership of one's practice, in its various forms, constituted a substantial component of the student-teachers' 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. Broadly conceived, the notion of ownership, as used i n this study, reflects the way in wh ich the students referred to the development of a practice that was uniquely their own. Clear ly though, referring to this development i n terms of ownership (or a transfer of ownership), whi le useful for the students as they made sense of their practica experiences, is o v e r l y s impl i s t i c . O w n e r s h i p entails many things, for example: responsibi l i ty , authori ty, and autonomy. A n d w i t h i n each of these dimensions there are varying perspectives, for example, responsibility might be examined from a legal, moral , or educational perspective. Thus, whi le ownership emerged as a central issue i n the reflective themes documented in this study, a more detailed examination of ownership in terms of its various dimensions wou ld be useful in further explicating student-teacher reflection i n practica settings. P lanning vs. performance and Schon's coaching models The teaching practica that was the basis for this study, provided a more complex dynamic than the settings i n which Schon first explicated his notions of reflective practice. Schon's work was p r imar i ly in 'c l inical ' settings in which students were provided wi th relatively risk-free 'virtual ' wor lds i n which to experiment. Further, these settings were p r imar i ly planning settings in which teacher and student worked on a particular task (e.g., the design of a bui lding, the preparation of a musical performance, etc.). In these instances, the action upon which the students reflected was their planning in a virtual world . The teaching practica, as reported in this study, included both the p lann ing setting and the performance setting (i.e., putting into practice that which was planned). Therefore, the students' reflection inc luded both planning as action in a vir tual wor ld and performance as action in the 'real' wor ld . What was particularly striking between Schon's rendering of reflective practice from the perspective of action in a vir tual w o r l d and this study's examination of reflection as both action in a virtual wor ld (of planning) and the real wor ld (of performance) was the tenuous nature of the relationship between teacher and student that was associated wi th the movement between these two worlds. The safety of the v i r tua l w o r l d i n which the student and sponsor planned lessons was, i n part, consistent wi th Schon's description of the relationship between student and 'coach.' For example, there were instances of the first two coaching models. Fo l low M e and Joint Experimentation. What seemed to upset this dynamic was the student's movement from the virtual of planning to the real wor ld of performance. In all four case studies, when the students moved from planning to performance, the relationships between student and sponsor oscillated enormously. Trust and comfort that was evident dur ing a planning session suddenly became scepticism and distress in the performance setting. The shift from planning to performance was indeed, i n the words of the students, a reality check! Assurances about p u p i l behaviour proved to be incorrect; advice on activities seemed to be insufficient; assistance wi th 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 marked by periods of silence (or non-participation) by the students dur ing the pre- and post-lesson discussions; at other times, by quiet acquiescence to established routines and procedures; and yet at other times, by a radical departure from the advice that had been offered. Interestingly, the tensions i n the relationships between the students and sponsors was significant in terms of precipitating a number of reflective themes in this study. But this tension is not readily apparent in 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 model to another, that was evident in the planning settings characteristic of Schon's work, was markedly absent as the students moved from planning to performance settings in this study. Thus, while Schon's three coaching models appear to capture the essence of the relationship between student and sponsor in the vi r tua l w o r l d of p lanning , the models do not ful ly account for the interactions between student and sponsor as the student moves from the vir tual wor ld of planning to the real wor ld of practice. The results of this study suggest that the conceptualization 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 setting and reflection upon action in a performance setting. A review of this k i n d might provide a more comprehensive picture of the potential contribution that supervisors are able to play in the development of the reflective practices of student-teachers. III. Implications for practice If teacher educators value reflection they must also address how reflection might be realized within the practicum setting. Clearly, time needs to be allocated to provide the students wi th an opportunity to reflect (Cole, 1989; Ki lbourn , 1990; Nolan , 1989). However, allocating time, in and of itself, is insufficient to ensure that students become reflective practitioners; students must be provided wi th 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 provid ing opportunities for student-teachers to reflect upon their practices. These opportunities are addressed under the fol lowing headings: mul t ip l ic i ty of perspectives, intense examination of practice, theorizing about practice, and entertaining uncertainty. Mul t i p l i c i t y of perspectives The issue of seeing things from 'different perspectives' was prevalent in many of the reflective themes identified in this study. Access to different perspectives contributed to the students' framing or reframing of their practices. This is consistent wi th the research by Wi ldman et al. (1990) and Ross (1990). The different perspectives were gleaned from a number of sources: student-teacher networks, video tapes, interactions wi th pupi ls , making explicit one's beliefs about teaching and learning, etc. Access or exposure to mult iple perspectives stands in 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 in this study suggests that the role for supervisors in enhancing reflective practice may not be so much in pointing out what it is that students should reflect upon but in providing opportunities for students to view their practice from a multiplicity of perspectives. Intense examination of practice The reflective teaching cycle was not intended as a model for the supervision of student-teachers but was to be used to gain insights into student-teacher reflection. However , the reflective teaching cycle d i d provided 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 in terms of p rov id ing the students wi th an opportunity to explore, in-depth, a number of issues related to their practices. Such in-depth exploration may not be possible wi th the more traditional weekly or fortnightly classroom observations by supervisors. Further, the students' reactions to the video tapes of the pre- and post-lesson discussions over the three day period, that encompassed the reflective teaching cycle, were quite fruitful i n terms of enhancing 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. Theoriz ing about practice Another aspect of reflection that emerged as a trend in this study was the student-teachers' attempts to theorize about practice. These theories were not super-ordinate to practice but were grounded in and immediately relevant to the practices of the ind iv idua l students. The students' d i d not reflect on issues related to the broader educational practices; for example, school policy, curr icula organization, resource management, etc. (although these d i d impinge on their practice). The students typically addressed problems wi th in their own realm. Several factors contributed to this trend. The most significant was the students' attempts at problem setting as opposed to technical problem solving. When the students began to attend to the particulars of their own practice (problem setting) they began to theorize about practice rather than drawing upon generic approaches to teaching (technical problem solving). Another factor was the students active participation and agenda setting i n the discussions about their practice. When this occurred, the students began to articulate personal theories about teaching and learning. The students use of 'negative cases' also provided an opportunity to theorize about practice by beginning wi th what was familiar and then constructing theories about the unfamiliar. Further, in the cases of Sally and Tina, methods courses that l inked theory to practice provided the students wi th a heuristic for examining both current and developing theories about their practice. In turn, theorizing about practice provided the basis for substantive discussions about teaching practices that underlay many of the reflective themes identified in the study. Thus, // reflective practice is to be an important 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 upon which 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 overr iding criterion i n many 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. O n l y by entertaining uncertainty d id the students in this study reflect on many of the themes identified. Further, for the students to entertain uncertainty they need to feel comfortable in the their practica settings. The degree of comfort is determined, in 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 wh ich to place student-teachers dur ing their practica. Thus, entertaining uncertainty and the setting in which the practica takes place are interrelated and cri t ical in the development of students as reflective practitioners. Therefore, the practicum should be a setting in which the opportunity for entertaining uncertainty is supported and recognized as an important element of professional development through reflection. V . Further research There were two areas that emerged during the analysis that are worthy of further research attention: the idiosyncratic factors emerging from the cases, and 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 in this study that were idiosyncratic to particular cases. The first emerged in the case of Jona, namely, brief, unrecorded, and unfocussed observations resulted in a technical emphasis upon practice (i.e., a 'what works' approach to teaching) by both sponsor and advisor. In the case of Jona, when the supervision of the student was casual it was the technical aspects of teaching that received the most attention in 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 had 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 student-teacher reflection might i l luminate this issue and provide suggestions for appropriate supervisory strategies in the practicum setting. The second and third idiosyncratic factors, both of which arose i n the case of Sally, are related: the tacit nature of the sponsor's knowledge-in-action and the sponsor's emphasis on experiential learning. The central issue in 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 in the practice setting; the emphasis being that the 'learning is in the doing.' The experience of this researcher suggests that this approach is prevalent in many practica settings. The knowledge that practitioners tacitly hold and how this knowledge might be communicated to the student is addressed by Schon. However his approach differs to that of the sponsor teacher in the case of Sally. Instead of an immersion in practice, Schon argues that the sponsor teacher should use modell ing as a first step in attempting to communicate this tacit knowledge. A research project wi th an emphasis on the sponsor teachers' tacit knowledge and the ways in they attempt to communicate this knowledge to the students might elucidate some of these issues. The practicum as professional development for the sponsor Al though 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 own teaching practices. The potential for professional development in this regard has been noted by other researchers (Garman, 1982; M a c K i n n o n & Erickson, 1988). The manner in which 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 Typical ly, the sponsor teachers reflected on their own practices when they became curious about particular incidents in the students' practices. Such incidents triggered the recall of similar incidents in the sponsors' own 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 had problematized these aspects of their practice. For example, L inda , as she attempted to explain an aspect of Tina's practice in terms of her o w n practice commented: Linda: I have been doing it . . . for seven years. These things you take for granted. A n d it is k ind 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 own practice they then returned to the original incident in the student's practice and drew upon the knowledge they had surfaced about their own practice in 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 study has highlighted aspects of this development of student-teachers, the interplay between sponsor teacher and student-teacher for combined professional development in the practicum is worthy of further research attention. References Acheson, K . , & G a l l , M . (1987). Techniques in the cl inical supervision of teachers. N e w York: Longman. Alderman, 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 Angl ia , Nor ich . Applegate, J., & Lasley, T. (1982). Cooperat ing teachers' problems w i t h preservice field experience students. Journal of Teacher Education. 33(2), 15-18. A twe l l , W . (1988, October). Strengthening the dialectical relationship between teacher's personal knowledge and their professional knowledge through autobiography and object relations. Paper presented at the Conference on Reflective Inquiry in Education, Orlando, Florida. Benham, B. (1979, A p r i l ) . The effect of reflective wr i t ing on ident i fying maintenance in student teachers. A paper presented at the annual meet ing of the Amer i can Educat iona l Research Assoc ia t ion , 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 manv faces of beginning teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Windsor, Ontario. Bol in , F. (1987). O n defining supervision. Journal of C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 2(4), 368-380. Borko, H . , Livingston, C , McCaleb, J., & Mauro , L . (1988). Student-teachers' p lanning and post-lesson reflections: Patterns and implicat ions for teacher preparation. In Calderhead, J. (Ed.), Teacher's Profess ional 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. Brookhar t , S., & Loadman , W . (1989, March) . S c h o o l - u n i v e r s i t y collaboration: W h y it's mult icul tural education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Brown, K . (1990, June). What is the role of the university supervisor in practice teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, British Columbia. Calderhead, J. (1988, Apr i l ) . Reflective teaching and teacher education. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amer ican Educat ional Research Association, N e w Orleans, Louisiana. Calderhead, J. (1989). [Review of Promoting reflective teaching: Supervis ion in action, & Reflection in teacher educat ion] . International Journal of Oualitative Studies in Education, 2(4), 375-378. Calderhead, J. (1992). Representations of teachers' knowledge. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Campbell , 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 Columbia. 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., & Zimpher , N . (1990). Reflectivity as a function of community. In R. Clift, R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), E n c o u r a g i n g reflective practice in education (pp. 57-72). N e w York: Teachers College Press. C l a n d i n i n , J., & Connel ly , M . (1988). Studying teachers' knowledge of classrooms: Col laborat ive research, ethics, and the negotiat ion of narrative. The Journal of Educational Thought, 22(2A), 269-282. Clarke , A . (1991). Reflective Practice as a Col labora t ive Enterprise: Implications for Student, Sponsor, and A d v i s o r . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Educat ion Conference, Queens University, Ontario. Clift, R., Nichols , C , & Marshall , F. (1987, Apr i l ) . Turning opportunities into problems: Anger and resistance in teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D .C . Cochran-Smith, M . , & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2). 2-11. Cogan, M . (1973). Cl in ica l supervision. Boston: Houghton Mif f l in . Cole, A . (1989, March). Mak ing explicit implicit theories of teaching: Starting points in preservice programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Comeaux, M . , & Peterson, P. (1988, October). Teacher evaluation as a n opportunity for promoting reflection. Paper presented at the Reflective Inquiry Conference, Orlando, Florida. Conne l ly , M . , & C land in in , J. (1986). O n narrative method, personal philosophy, and narrative unites in the story of teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 23(4), 293-310. Court , D . (1988). Reflection-in-action: Some definitional problems. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 143-146). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Crow, N . (1987, Apr i l ) . Hidden curriculum in a teacher education program: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amer ican Educational Research Association, Washington, D .C. Doyle , W . (1990). Themes i n teacher education. In R. Hous ton (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 3-24). N e w York: M a c m i l l a n . 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). Implementing the knowledge base: Redesigning the function of cooperating teachers and college supervisors. Tournai of Teacher Education, 34(3), 14-17. Erdman, 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: Macmil lan . Erickson, G . (1988). Explorations in 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 . , & MacKinnon , A . (1991). Seeing classrooms i n new ways: O n becoming a science teacher. In D. Schon (Ed.), The Reflective Turn: 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.), Handbook of Teaching and Pol icv (pp. 150-170). N e w York: Longman . Feiman-Nemser, S. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M . Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 505-526). N e w York: M a c m i l l a n . Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual. In W . Houston (Ed.) Handbook of Research in Teacher Education (pp. 212-233). N e w York: M a c m i l l a n and the Associa t ion of Teacher Educators. Fenstermacher, G . (1988). The place of science and epistemology in Schon's conception of reflective practice. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 39-45). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Firestone, W . (1987). Meaning in method: the rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21. Freiberg, J., & Waxman, H . (1990). Reflection and the acquisition of technical teaching skills. In R. Clift, R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 119-138). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Ful lan, M . , & Connelly, F. (1987). Teacher education in Ontario: Current practice and options for the future (a position paper written for the Ontario Teacher Education Review). Ontario: Minis t ry of Education and Minis t ry of Colleges and Universities. Gage, N . , (1980). N e w prospects for educational research. A u s t r a l i a n Educational Researcher, 7(4), 7-25. Garman, N . (1986). Reflection, the heart of clinical supervision: A modern rationale for professional practice. Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 2(1), 1-24. Garman, N . (1990). Theories embedded in the events of clinical supervision: A hermeneutic approach. Tournai of Cur r i cu lum and Supervision. 5(3), P. 201-213. Garrison, W. (1986). Some principles of postpositivistic philosophy of science. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 12-18. Gaskel l , J. (1985). Developing an analytical perspective dur ing student teaching: A case study. In P. A r l i n (Ed.), Research on teaching and the supervis ion of teaching, (pp. 50-65). Centre for the study of teacher education. University of British Columbia , British Columbia. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. N e w York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge. N e w York: Basic Books. Gil l iss , G . (1988). Schon's reflective practitioner: A model for teachers?. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 47-53). N e w York: Teachers College Press. G i l t i n , A . , Ogawa, R., & Rose, E. (1984). Supervis ion, reflection, and understanding. Tournai of Teacher Education. 35(3), 46-52. Gi roux , H , & McLaren , P. (1986). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling. Ha rva rd Educat ional 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: Ald ine -Ather ton . Gl ickman, C (1985). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon. G l i ckman , C . (1988). Knowledge and uncertainty in the supervision of instruction. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 57-66). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Goldhammer, R. (1969). Cl in ica l supervision. N e w York: Hol t Rienhart and W i n s t o n . Goodlad , J. (1988). Studying the education of educators: Values-dr iven inquiry. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10). 104-111. Goodman, J. (1983). The seminar's role i n the education of student teachers. Tournai of Teacher Education, 34(3), 44-49. Goodman, J. (1988, October). Univers i ty constraints to reflective teacher educat ion. Paper presented at Reflective Inquiry Conference, Orlando, Florida. Grimmett , P. (1988). The nature of reflection and Schon's conception i n perspective. 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 view of reflection. Tournai of Cur r icu lum and Supervision, 5(1), 19-28. Grimmett, P., & Creehan, P. (1990). Barry: A case study of teacher reflection in clinical supervision. Tournai of Curr icu lum and Supervision, 5(3), 214-235. Grimmett, P., Erickson, G . , MacKinnon , A . , & Riecken, T. (1990). Reflective practice in teacher education. In R. Clift, R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging 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 National Association for Research in Science Education. San Francisco. Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press. Handal , G . & Lauvâs , P. (1987). Promoting reflective practice: Supervision in practice. Mi l ton Keynes: Open University Press. Hargreaves, A . (1988). Teacher quality: A sociological analysis. Journal of Curr iculum Studies, 20, 216-224. Hargreaves, A . (1989, June). Cont r ived collegial i ty and 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. Rowan (Eds.). Human inquiry: A Source of new paradigm research. N e w York: John Wil ley. Har r i s , I. (1989). A Cr i t ique of Schon's v iews on teacher education: Contributions and issues. Journal of Cur r i cu lum and Supervision, 5, (1), 15-18. Hayes, L . , & Ross, D. (1988, October). Trust versus Control : The impact of school leadership on teacher reflection. Paper presented at the Reflective Inquiry Conference, Orlando, Florida. Holland, P. (1987, October). Conflicting conceptions of coaching: Bruce Toyce's coaching as transfer of technical rationality, and Donald Schon's coaching as a hermeneutic process. Paper presented at the Bergamo Conference on Curr iculum Theory and Classroom Practice, Dayton, Ohio. Hol land , P. (1989a). Implicit assumptions about the supervisory conference: A review and analysis of literature. Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m and Supervision, 4(4), 362-379. Hol land , P. (1989b). Reading between the lines: Explor ing the supervisory conference through discourse analysis. Tournai of C u r r i c u l u m a n d Supervision, 4(4), 380-381. Housego, B. (1987). Crit ical incidents in the supervision of student teaching in an extended practicum. The Alberta Tournai of Educational Research, 33(4), 247-257. Houston, R., & Clift, R. (1990). The potential for research contributions to reflective practice. In R. Cl i f t , R. Hous ton , & M . Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging Reflective Practice In Education (pp. 208-222). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Howe, K . , & Eisenhart, M . (1990). Standards for qualitative (and qualitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-9. Hunter, M . (1984) Knowing , teaching, and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.), Us ing what we know about teaching. Alexandria , Virg in ia : Association for Supervision and Cur r icu lum Development. Johnson, D. , Johnson, R., & Holubec Johnson, E. (1986). Circles of Learning. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company. Joyce, B., & Showers, B (1982). The coaching of teaching. E d u c a t i o n a l Leadership, 40,7-10. Kagan , S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, December, 12-15. Kel i ip io , K . , Prentice, M . , Shapson, S., Sprungman, S., Squire, G . , Steinmann, L . , Toms, M . , & Wideen , M . (1990, June). Cr i t i ca 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 Columbia. BCilbourn, B. (1982). Linda: A case study in clinical supervision. C a n a d i a n Journal of Education, 7(3), 1-24. Ki lbourn , B. (1988). Reflecting on vignettes of teaching. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 91-111). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Ki lbourn , B. (1990). Constructive feedback: Learning the art. Torronto: OISE Press. K o z i o l , S., & Burns, P. (1986). Teachers' accuracy in self-reporting about instructional practices using a focused self-report inventory. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(4), 205-209. Krogh , S. (1987, Apr i l ) . Reflection on reflective thinking in methods classes: Where the buck finally stops. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D . C . LaBoskey, V . (1989). From studio to classroom - or not? Journal of Cur r icu lum and Supervision, 5(1), 29-33. LaBoskey, V . , & Wilson, S. (1987, Apr i l ) . The gift of case study pickle: Case wr i t ing in the education of reflective teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amer ican Educational Research Associa t ion, Washington, D .C. Lal ik , R., Niles , J., & M u r p h y , S. (1989, March). Us ing your heart and your head: A study of a process for promot ing reflection among student teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amer ican Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Lieberman, A . , & Mi l l e r , L . (1984). Teachers, their wor ld , and their work: Implication for school improvement. Alexandria, Va . , A . S . C . D . L inco ln , Y . , & Cuba , E. (1985). Natura l i s t ic I n q u i r y . Cal i fornia : Sage Publications. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Louden, W . (1989). Unders tanding Teaching: Mean ing and method in collaborative research. Unpubl ished doctoral dissertation. Universi ty of Toronto, Ontario. M a c K i n n o n , A . (1987). Detecting reflection-in-action among preservice elementary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 135-145. M a c K i n n o n , A . (1989). Concep tua l i z i ng a 'reflective p r a c t i c u m ' i n constructivist science teaching. Unpubl i shed doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia , British Columbia. M a c K i n n o n , A . , & Erickson, G . (1988). Taking 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. MacKinnon , A . , Kuhn , K . , «& Gurney, B. (1988, December). The mode l l ing process in a reflective practicum. Paper presented at the School Based Research and Constructivist Science Teaching Conference, Univers i ty of British Columbia, B.C. M a l t z , D . and Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and Social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. M a y , W. & Zimpher , N . (1986). A n examination of three theoretical perspectives on supervision. Journal of Cur r i cu lum and Supervision, 1(2), 83-99. McLaugh l in , H . , & Phelan, A . (1992). Dialogue wi th dominant discourses: The case of new teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Mertz , M . , & McNeely, S. (1992, Apr i l ) . Pre-exisiting teaching constructs: H o w students 'see' teaching prior to training. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educat ional Research Assoc ia t ion , San Francisco, California. Mi les , M . , & Huberman, A . (1984). Drawing val id meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 12-30. Mishler, E. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ni les , J., McLaugh l in , R., Wi ldman , T., & Magliaro, S. (1989, March). The influence of collaboration on the th inking and practice of mentor teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. No lan , J. (1989). Can supervisory practice embrace Schon's v iew of reflective supervision? Journal of Curr icu lum and Supervision, 5(1), 35-39. No lan , J., & Huber, T. (1989). Nur tur ing the reflective practitioner through instruct ional supervis ion: A review of the literature. Journal of Curr icu lum and Supervision, 4(2), 126-145. Noordhoff, K . , & Kleinfeld, J. (1990). Shaping the rhetoric of reflection for mult icul tural settings. In R. Clif t , R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 163-185). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Novak, J., & Gowin , A . (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O 'Gorman, R. (1989). K n o w i n g is in 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 given at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, British Columbia . Omstein, A . (1990). Strategies for effective teaching. Harper Coll ins: N e w York. Pajak, E. (1988, Apr i l ) . Cl in ica l supervision: Emerging models or muddles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amer ican Educational Research Association, N e w Orleans. Louisiana. Partington, J. (1982). Teachers in school as teaching practice supervisors. Journal of Education for Teaching, 8, 262-274. Ph i l l ips , D . (1983). After the wake: Postpositivist educational thought. Educational Researcher, 12(5), 4-12. Pugach, M . , & Johnson, L . (1990). Developing reflective practice through structured dialogue. In R. Clif t , R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging Reflective Practice In Education (pp. 186-207). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Richards, J., & Gipe, J. (1987, A p r i l ) . Reflective concerns of prospective teachers in 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). Psychological dimensions of prospective teachers' reflective abilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Frandsco, California. Richardson, V . (1990). The evolution of reflective teaching and teacher education. In R. Clift , R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), E n c o u r a g i n g Reflective Practice In Educat ion (pp. 3-19). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Ross, D . (1987, October). Reflective teaching: Meaning and implications for preservice teacher educators. Paper presented at the Reflective Inquiry Conference, Houston, Texas. Ross, D . (1990). Programmatic structures for the preparation of reflective teachers. In R. Clift , R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), E n c o u r a g i n g reflective practice in 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). Learning the professional knowledge of teaching: Metaphors, puzzles, and the theory-practice relationship. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 67-89). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Russell, T. (1987, Apr i l ) . Learning the professional knowledge of teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amer ican Educational Research Association, Washington, D .C . Russel l , T. (1988, October). D o c u m e n t i n g re f lec t ion- in-ac t ion . Paper presented at the Reflective Inquiry Conference, Orlando, Florida. Ryle, G . (1949). The concept of mind. London: 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 in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schon, D . (1988). Coaching Reflective Teaching. In P. Gr immet t & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 19-29). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Schon, D. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. N e w York: Teachers College Press. Schubert, W. (1980). Recalibrating educational research: Towards a focus on practice. Educational Researcher, 9(1). 17-24. Schwab, J (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, Z8(l), 1-23. Selman, M . (1988). Schon's gate is square: But is it art. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 177-192). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Sergiovanni, T. (1985). Landscapes, mindscapes, and reflective practice in supervision. Tournai of Curr icu lum and Supervision, 1(1), 5-17. Sergiovanni , T. (1986). Unders tanding reflective practice. Tournai o f Curr icu lum and Supervision, 1(4), 353-359. Shulman, L . (1981). Discipl ines of inqui ry in education: A n overv iew. Researcher, 10(6), 12-23. Shulman, L . (1984). The practical and eclectic: A deliberation on teaching and educational research. Curr iculum Inquiry. 14(2), 183-200. Shulman, L . (1986a). Paradigms and research programs i n the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M . Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-36). N e w York: Macmil lan. Shulman, L . (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 15(2), 4-14. Shulman, L . (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review. 57(1), 1-22. Shulman, L . (1988). The nature of reflection and Schon's conception i n perspective. In P. Grimmett & G . Erickson (Eds.), Reflection i n teacher education (pp. 31-37). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Simmons, H . (1980). The case study method i n social inqui ry : 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, Univers i ty of East AngUa, Nor ich . Simmons, J., Sparks, G . , & Colton, A . (1988, October). A-ha moments whi le grappling with the question: "What do we mean by teacher reflective t h i n k i n g ? " Paper presented at the Reflective Inqui ry Conference, Orlando, Florida. Smyth, J. (1989a). A n alternative v is ion and an "educative" agenda for supervision as a field of study. Journal of Curr icu lum and Superv is ion , 4(2), 162-177. Smyth, J. (1989b, March). P rob lemat iz ing teaching through a 'cr i t ical ' perspective on cl inical s u p e r v i s i o n . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educa t iona l Research Assoc ia t ion , San Francisco, California. Soltis, J. (1984). O n the nature of educational research. E d u c a t i o n a l Researcher. 13(9), 5-10. Stake, R. (1980). The case study method in social inquiry. In Simons, H . (Ed.), Towards a science of the singular (pp. 64-75). Centre for App l i ed Research in Education, University of East Ang l i a , Nor ich . 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. Phi Delta Kappan, December, p. 324-327. Tabachnick, R., Popkewitz, T., & Zeichner, K . (1979). Teacher education and the professional perspectives of student teachers. Interchange. 10(4), 12-29. Tom, A . (1985). Inquiring into inquiry-oriented teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 36(5), 35-44. Tuckwell , N . (1982). Stimulated recall: Theoretical perspectives and practical and technical considerations (Occasional Paper Series: Technical Report 8-2-3). Alberta: University of Alberta, Centre For Research in Teaching. V a l l i , L . (1990). M o r a l approaches to reflective practice. In R. Clif t , R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 39-56). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Van Manen, M . (1977). L ink ing ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curr icu lum Inquiry, 6(3), 205-228. von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Constructivism. In Husen & Postlewaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Wideen, M . , Holborn, P., & Desrosiers, M . (1987, Apr i l ) . A critical review of a decade of Canadian research on teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Educational Research, Washington, D .C . W i l d m a n , T., & Ni les , J. (1987). Reflective teachers: Tensions between abstractions and realities. Tournai of Teacher Education. 38(4), 25-31. W i l d m a n , T., Magl ia ro , S., N i l e s , J., & M c L a u g h l i n (1990). Promot ing reflection among beginning and experienced teachers. In R. Clif t , R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 139-162). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Wi len , W . (1984). Implications of research on questioning for the teacher educator. Tournai of Research and Development in Education, 17.,31-32. Wilson, K . (1990). Partnership schools: The student and cooperating teacher experience. Presentation given at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, British Columbia. Yee, A . (1968). Interpersonal relationships in the student-teaching triad. The Tournai of Teacher Education. 19(1). 95-112. Y i n , K . (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Yinger, R. (1990). The Conversation of practice. In R. Clift, R. Houston, & M . Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in educat ion (pp. 73-94). N e w York: Teachers College Press. Zeichner, K . (1980). Myths and realities: Field-based experiences in preservice teacher education. Tournai of Teacher Education. 31(6), 45-55. Zeichner, K . (1987a). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Tournai of Teacher Education, 34(3), 3-9. Zeichner , K . (1987b). Prepar ing reflective teachers: A n overv iew of instructional strategies which have been employed in preservice teacher education. International Tournai of Educational Research. 11(5), 565-575. Zeichner, K . , & Lis ton, D . (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1). 23-48. Zeichner, K . , & Tabachnick, R. (1981). A r e the effects of university teacher education 'washed out' by school experience. Tournai of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7-11. Zeichner, K . , Liston, D. , Mahl ios , M . , & Gomez, M . (1987, A p r i l ) . T h e structure and goals of a student teaching program and the character and quality of supervisory discourse. A paper presented at the annual meet ing of the A m e r i c a n Educa t iona l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D .C. Appendix A - The D u a l Role of Advisor and Researcher In this study, the researcher was not only responsible for collecting the data but also acted as faculty advisor to the students. There was a potential for conflict between these two roles. For example, wou ld the students be wi l l i ng to share their uncertainties, doubts, and concerns wi th someone who w o u l d ultimately evaluate their performance on the practica (Cole, 1987; Gurney, 1989; Nolan , 1989). Whi le there were potential disadvantages i n having the researcher as faculty advisor, student comments appeared to indicate that these problems d id not eventuate to any large degree. O n the contrary, students saw advantages in the researcher acting as the faculty advisor; they had an advisor who had a 'stake' in their practica experience. The students viewed this relationship as a positive sign that the university was actively involved in their practica. For the researcher, the foremost advantage was that there was less variation and greater consistency in the supervision of the students, that is, the researcher was able to ensure that the influence of the faculty advisor was similar across all four cases. Further, by combining the two roles, the researcher had an addit ional 'w indow' into the student-teachers' reflections on their practice. To min imize any detrimental effects that might result f rom the researcher as faculty advisor, every attempt was made to develop a relationship between student and researcher that allowed the students to feel as comfortable as possible in their work wi th the researcher. The intent of this was twofold: to minimize the 'fear of evaluation,' and to reassure the students that expressing doubts and concerns w o u l d not be judged as a weakness or failure on their part. To gauge the success or otherwise of these attempts an independent researcher interviewed each of the participants at the end of the practicum. The sections of the interviews relating to possible role conflict have been excerpted below. In general, the tenor of the students' comments indicated that there was little conflict between the dual roles played by the researcher. Sal ly Interview III (excerpt p. 4) Bruce: H o w did you feel when you went into the project? Sally: A h , 1 was actually hesitant at first, but since Tony was sort of marking me as wel l l ike it wouldn' t be a good thing to say 'No. ' So it was O K , I thought it was quite valuable by the end, I think that everyone, practicum teachers as wel l , should be having a really close look, sort of an objective look, at how they are doing and what they are doing in the classroom, and what is actually happening, not just their perceptions. L ike having a look at the overall classroom dynamics I thought was very valuable. Bruce: H o w d id you feel about Tony being an evaluator too? Sally: I forgot about Tony being an evaluator actually. H e is not an evaluator, he is more Hke a friend, I never saw h i m as an evaluator, I saw h im as being one of my guides; helping me out? Bruce: Coach? Sally: Yeah, basically a coach, he is a coach. Bruce: D i d you see h im in two roles? Sally: N o , no, he was basically Tony, my coach, my friend, the same guy-Tina Interview III (excerpt p. 6) Bruce: H o w d id you feel about Tony being involved, I can count at least three people, as a researcher, he was an advisor, and a sort of 'off the record' telling you about his own ideas when you asked him. But d id you find those roles k ind of confused at all? D i d one get in the way of another, or d id you actually see h im in those different roles? T ina : I don't think they got in the way, I only saw it in separate roles when we would actually have a discussions watching the tapes and I wou ld actually ask h im "This is what happened to me when Wendy and I discussed this," or if I have a problem wi th what came up "Is this the way it should be", you know, I wou ld ask a question about something, the [video] tape wou ld go off, and then we would have a discussion about something. So, in that way that is the only separation that 1 saw. But I don't think it got too confused Bruce: H o w about in terms of evaluation because at the end of it al l your supervisor has to do a summative evaluation, and was conducting some research as wel l . Was there anything i n there? T ina : I am not sure, I wondered I guess at the time if maybe from doing it if he was more critical of the two of us [Sally and Tina] because he has seen so much, so many problems that we wou ld have, so many good things that we would do; was he more critical? Or was he more comfortable wi th the two of us because he had seen so much of us. I am not sure. That crossed my m i n d but I have no idea how it effected our evaluation. Bruce: Wel l , you certainly d id very well . T ina : H m m , mhh. Steve Interview III (excerpt p. 5) Bruce: What was his role in this? It seems to me he had a couple of roles, didn't he? Steve: Yeah, he was, 1 would bounce ideas off him, he is not a science person per se but general teaching and application things, l ike, 'I am thinking of doing this, what do you think?' H e was there, I think to provide support and he d id . To point out things that you are doing wel l to bui ld up your confidence. Bruce: A n d yet he was also a researcher? Steve: Yeah, exactly. Bruce: He had a project of his own. Steve: Yeah. Bruce: So, w i th al l the information he was gathering all the way through he probably had a really clear understanding of your practice, he observed you so much and collected so much documentation, but he also gets into a phase where he has to get into an evaluation. Steve: H m m , hmm. Bruce: D i d you find those two at cross purposes at all? Steve: N o , I didn't get any sense that he was there for him. L ike he was doing a lot of things for himself, granted he is doing his research, and it is primari ly why he is here. But I never got a sense of that. He was primarily there to help me. Bruce: Yeah. Steve: Which sort of goes against that thing, [the suggestion I just made] that he d id for himself, providing data for h im. But I wouldn't say that was the case at all . He was there to support myself and Jona. Bruce: A n d you felt that you could trust h im really wel l . Steve: Definitely. I feel that it if I had a problem I could go to h im and say 'OK, I have this problem,' even something out of school context, it never happened but I feel that I could go to him. Jona Interview III (excerpt p. 5) Bruce: Tony was in k ind of a different set of roles than what most faculty advisors would ever be in , he was both a researcher and a faculty advisor, he seemed to wear those two different roles. Jona: M h h , h m m Bruce: D i d you ever feel that they were in conflict, how d id y o u feel about that? D i d you see h im in those two roles first of all? Jona: U m , a lot of times I w o u l d sort of forget that he was a researcher st i l l . Y o u know, he was my faculty advisor, he would watch me, sometimes you even forget that because he was around so often. H e was around a lot and at [another high school] where he had his other students. H e was out there quite often but because he had all his equipment at our school, he was doing his work at our school. He was, of course, there most of the time so he was like a staff member almost. Bruce: Yeah Jona: So, you almost forget that he has any of those roles. It was a great situation wi th Tony because he was around so much. I knew that if he came in to watch me in a class, there wasn't this, you know, 'Oh my god, it's my faculty advisor, I have got to do really wel l because he only comes in four times in the semester and if I blow this one!' Bruce: You have got to make them count. Jona: I am going up in smoke. If I blew this class, I could say to Tony, you know 'Can you come back i n tomorrow because I am doing it again tomorrow wi th a different class and there are some things that I want to change,' and he w o u l d be there. Unless he had some other commitment he w o u l d be there. A n d I'd know that I could b low a class and that he wouldn' t necessarily take that as a representation of what k ind of teacher I was. So, it was a terrific situation in that also sort of removed the fear of those two words 'faculty advisor ' wh ich some people had. Bruce: Yeah. Jona: So, in a lot of ways just his attitude is, his presence, you w o u l d almost forget that he was either one. But again he was my faculty advisor and he fulfilled that role extremely wel l . H e helped me so much. Bruce: A n d yet at the end of it all he had to pass some judgement. Jona: Yeah, he was terrific, he really helped me a lot in my teaching, good comments both critical and he had praise for me as wel l , so he was very good at that. A s far as a researcher, this you would sort of forget sometimes because he w o u l d blend in so well whenever he d id his research, it just sort of happened. Bruce: M h h , hmm. Jona: That as far as being a researcher it was hard to see sometimes. Appendix B - T w o Outcomes of the Member Checking Process The primie purpose of the member checking process was to confirm that analysis of the data resonated with the participants in the study. There was a m i n i m u m of three mailings of the case study chapters to the participants. The feedback that the participants p rov ided after each ma i l i ng was incorporated into subsequent drafts of the chapters. The degree of resonance between the researcher and the participants in the final document indicates that the accounts rendered herein are a reasonable interpretation of the reflective practices of the students during their practica. In relation to member checking process there were two outcomes. The first was an init ial defensiveness that most participants exhibited on first reading the analysis. It appeared that this was due, in part, to the substance of the students' reflections; that is, typical ly , the students reflected upon difficulties they encountered in their practica. The students were defensive because the themes highlighted these difficulties and d id not report the many successes that also occurred during the practica. The sponsor teachers were defensive because aspects of the analysis exposed their doubts and concerns about their own supervisory practices. In hindsight, it wou ld be have been useful to forewarn the participants that an analysis of reflective practice tends to focus on problems encountered and, therefore, provides only one aspect of the total experience. Thus, researchers should be aware of the potential reactions to the first-draft-analysis and forewarn the participants of contents therein. The second outcome was related to the process of negotiation that occurred between the participants and the researcher. The first draft of the analysis was for the 'participants' eyes only. ' This was part of the ethical agreement that was established wi th each participant at the beginning of the project. As a result, despite the best attempts by the researcher, some poorly written material went out to the participants (poorly written in the sense that some edi t ing and rewording by an independent reviewer w o u l d have markedly improved the reception of the first-draft). When a researcher works alone wi th a document for an extended period of time, 'researcher blindness' tends to occur (at least for this researcher); words and phrases which have come to mean a particular thing to the researcher through the many hours of analysis, may mean something completely different to a first-time reader of the analysis. Some of the difficulties in this regard might have been avoided if an independent reviewer had read the analysis prior to it being shared wi th the participants. Thus, it w o u l d have been useful to include i n the original ethical contract (between the participants and the researcher) an opportunity for an independent reviewer to vet the analysis before it was sent to the individual participants. Appendix C - The Merging of Pre- and Post-Lesson Discussions Interview excerpt demonstrating the merging of post-lesson discussions into pre-lesson discussions. T /L C4.6 Post, pp. 5 - 8 Beginning of section Line # Participant response 1 10 15 20 Linda: T ina : Linda: T ina : Linda: Tina : Linda: Tina : Linda: Tina : Linda: Tina : Linda: Talk to me about how you felt about block C. H o w d id I feel about it? M h h , hmm. I didn't get done what I wanted to get done, that was one thing. I find that this scientific method is really tough. For them to understand? Yeah. H o w do you know that it is tough? Because when you, um, wel l the actual questions on this work, trying to get the answers out of them was really hard. But a lot of that is maybe just because it is jargon. They may have an idea about it but it, maybe a different word or concept of what I am actually wanting them to think about, but some of the questions are hard for them. Like one of the things that we had on there was 'three controls.' Yeah. A n d they couldn't. They kept wanting to say that the room temperature was the control, because that makes sense, I mean to most people that is hke. This is the same mould experiment that they d id for me in Grade 8. Really [with much surprise]. Yeah, my Grade 8's when we d id the scientific method, all of my Grade 8's at [the junior high] school had that exposure, so that would include people like [my last student-teacher], but all the [the junior high] people got this in Grade 8. A n d even in Grade 10 through a couple of other science teachers, and there was also a resource activity 30 that was in a resource binder quite a while ago. The kids should have been familiar [sic]. D i d you feel that in your questioning that you could have actually pul led out all their knowledge about what was the scientific method. What were the components, and what the actually 35 components meant. Tina : Yeah. Linda: Do you think that your questioning actually pulled it all out. T ina : Wel l , no, not in talking about it afterwards, I mean I didn't. When I handed it out I had two handouts to give them and I 40 thought at the time that, O K , this is like end of segment and we are going to start this. 'I am going to give you this handout,' yak, yak, yak, but when I started talking to them I was quite disappointed that they were just reading it off the paper. 45 Linda: D i d you want them to use the paper at al l , or d id you want them to put it away and you were just feeling them out for what they knew. Tina : Yeah, I wanted them to just give me ideas, and then hopefully I was going to get the words out of that. A n d then 50 I wanted their own ideas. I wanted them also to just make note of the ones that we had decided that were important, so ideally they would have all yak, yak, yak, yak, and when I put something down they would all say ' O K , that word is down there.' 55 Linda: So, I was a bit confused as to what the purpose was of giving them the handout and then having them star or circle underline the key words, and then having them become original because automatically they w i l l start looking for the answers. 60 Tina : Yeah. Linda: A n d if the intention of the activity was to find out what they knew of the scientific method, then I wou ld have had them put like on the back side of the page, right, I would have asked them 'As far as you know the scientific method, 65 list all the steps that are necessary, and where possible define the terms. That could have been a quick two minute thing, and they would have laid their cards on the table. Tina: M h h , hmm. Linda: A n d then what you could do is to go through that cycle you 70 had on the overhead and showed the loop where it says if you reject the hypothesis you go back and test it some more. If you had maybe shown that as a cycle, and just shown them the things, and then let them turn to the written part, then they could have identified the parts. But I guess 75 instinctually the kids tend to look ahead, read ahead, when like today in biology 11 when they didn't know the terms, they didn't know how to select, they started looking through their books. Tina : Yeah. 80 Linda: That's k ind of automatic. They know how to use resources now, what does she mean, am I interested at all , so I think that is what happened in biology 12, you gave them the stuff so they automatically started looking. Tina : Yeah. 85 Linda: A n d then you had also given the direction of staring, or underlining, the words as we go through them, so the easiest way out for them I think, to not maximize your thinking is to look at what was available. So, I think that's what probably what happened. 90 Tina : Yeah, it was. Linda: I wou ld have said, you know how you said 'I don't want you to read this from the paper.' That wou ld have been the perfect opportunity to say put it away and see what we can do. 95 Tina : I sort of felt that at that point 1 was doing 'Here it is' [referring to the student looking up the answers on the sheet], and for one 1 thought, I wonder, to me it is something that is really shaky for them to verbalise. Linda: Yes. 110 Tina : A n d I was wondering too if we would have had the verbal, um, explanations. 120 Linda: Tina : Linda: T ina : Linda: Tina : Y o u mean have them talk? H o w would you have increased their verbal interaction? I think probably a quick brain-storming would have been the best. Yeah. From the beginning, anything you can think of, and just. Brain-storm to you as the recorder, or brain-storm to their own individual tables. They could have talked about it first, and then we could have had a jumble of words all over the place, and then try and sort them out. End of section. Appendix D - Identifying Reflective Practice Identifying student-teacher reflection was more difficult than had been anticipated. Lit t le was immediately apparent! Schon's analogy of the 'swamp' to describe 'the field of professional practice' aptly captured the complexity of practicum. Dur ing the analysis, three issues were identified that hindered the process of identifying reflection: non-sequential disclosure of the components of reflection, the interrelatedness of the themes, and 'non-articulation' of one's thoughts. One issue was identified that facilitated the process: a 'shift' in the student's appreciative system. Each of these points is addressed below. A n assumption, made by this researcher, was that the four components used i n this study to define a reflective theme (precipitant, frame, reframe, and p lan for future action) w o u l d be disclosed by the participants i n sequential order. It soon became apparent that this was not to be the case. For example, on occasions an ini t ial frame was disclosed only after a student reframed an issue. Similarly, there were occasions when a student framed an issue and only later indicated what precipitated his or her framing of the issue. In short, identifying reflective themes was difficult because the students d i d not always disclose sequentially the various components of reflection. A second difficulty that arose during the analysis of the data concerned interrelatedness of the themes. The students often drew upon different aspects of one theme as they reflected upon another theme. For example, i n the case of Tina, her reflections on 'pupi l knowledge' and 'questioning style' were almost inextricably inter twined dur ing the practicum. A similar situation occurred in the case of Steve and his reflections on 'ownership' and 'elicitation.' Thus, identifying reflective themes was difficult because the themes were rarely discrete entities in and of themselves^^. The reader is reminded that the themes identified in this study have been treated as being distinct and discrete for analyHcal purposes only. The old adage of 'think before you speak' also made it difficult, in some instances, to identify the individual components of reflection. For example, Steve often articulated a plan for future action without verbalising the intermediate steps he had used i n developing that plan (the assumption being that there were intermediate steps). This was in sharp contrast to the other students who articulated their struggles while attempting to make sense of their practice. It was easier to identify reflective themes, in terms of the four components of reflection, when the students articulated their thoughts as they worked through an issue or a problem. Final ly , one common point that emerged and which assisted i n the process of ident ifying reflective themes was the sh i f t i n the students' appreciation of different phenomena. A n example of a shift that occurred i n al l four cases was the shift in the student's appreciation of learning from a student-teacher's perspective to a pupil 's perspective. Another example, i n the cases of T ina , Steve, and Jona was a shift from dependence to independence in the ownership of their o w n practices. In the case of Sally and Jona, another shift was from a novice to an experienced practitioner's v i e w of the practice setting^o. This notion of a shift i n the students' appreciation of phenomena is, of course, parallel to the notion of framing and reframing that constitutes an important aspect of Schon's (1983, 1987) definition of reflective practice. As a first-level analysis, or rule-of-thumb, recognizing reflection as a shift in the students' appreciation of phenomena might be easier than t rying to identify specific frames or reframes. This notion of a shift was particularly helpful ' in the field' when access to video or transcript data was not readily available. For a further explication of these shifts see the conclusions to research question three. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086534/manifest

Comment

Related Items