Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for teacher education

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Reflection has become an integral part of teacher education, yet its elusive boundaries make it difficult to define and teach. Examining the various facets of reflection with respect to teaching clarifies the concept, making it more accessible to pre-service teachers learning to reflect on their practice. This article explores those facets and provides a typology designed to guide teacher educators in teaching reflection to pre-service teachers.

Introduction

Reflection, the current grand idée in teacher education (Webb, 1999) plays a central role in the preparation of many new teachers (Schön, 1983; Schön, 1987; Valli, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Its value has become generally accepted, for teaching preservice teachers to reflect is in many ways teaching them to “think like a teacher” (Kleinfeld, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). However, the concept is not clearly defined. If the concept itself seems difficult to characterize, it is even more difficult to teach. In our endeavor to understand and encourage reflective practice, we need to clarify our understanding of reflection. Yet, this must be done without oversimplifying the concept, for in its complexity lies its worth.

The question of “how to teach reflection” has been the subject of quite a bit of educational research. However, even a brief review of the literature on teaching reflection reveals tremendous variation. Some have studied the content of reflection, or what teachers reflect upon (Brubacher, Case, & Reagan, 1994; Liston & Zeichner, 1987; Valli, 1997; Zeichner, 1994; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Others have studied the process of reflection, or how teachers think about their practice (Richert, 1991). Still others have studied programmatic features of reflection in the context of various programs (Ladson-Billings, 1999; Ross, 1990; Sparks-Langer, 1992). Although each of these strands of research has contributed meaningfully to an understanding of the place of reflection in teacher education, the focus of this article is a more specific and concrete look at the pedagogy of reflection.

Among the varied approaches to thinking about and teaching reflection, many follow a common theme: the complexity of reflection makes it difficult to teach. A way of responding to this involves the development of typologies. In part of her review of the literature on reflection, McKenna (1999b) writes, “Current theory and research efforts in the development of teachers’ capacities as reflective practitioners attempt to further describe and delineate reflective practice through the development and application of typologies of reflection, outlining the many dimensions and settings which characterize its practice” (p. 9).

Despite the growing body of research on reflection, however, there is still a need to continue building a repertoire of practice for teaching reflection. The reasons for this are twofold. First, “reflection” is an ambiguous term, and its use does not always connote the same understanding (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). By describing how reflection is understood and taught, a more consistent understanding of the concept may emerge. Second, the complexity of the concept can be difficult to articulate in a way that helps preservice teachers learn the skill. In one anecdote describing a floundering attempt to teach reflection, McKenna (1999a) describes an exchange between an instructor and a student in which the absence of specific language to talk about the skills of reflection resulted in a breakdown of communication and learning. In this case, the instructor kept insisting that the student reflect “deeper,” while the student struggled to figure out what “deeper” meant. There is an understandable tendency in the thinking about reflection to avoid being so specific in describing the process of reflection that it becomes constrained and systematized. In an effort to argue against a technical rationality view of practice, this caution is warranted; it is, however, difficult for novices to learn what their instructors fail to describe.

The goal of this paper is to describe a pedagogy of reflection that addresses some fundamental questions: How do we capture the complexity of reflection in a way that reflects what teachers do in their practice? How can we give students some tools for learning reflection without reducing it to a technique? These questions have guided our attempts to keep reflection authentic while describing it concretely enough to teach reflection to new teachers. The approach we describe is born out of the ongoing work of teacher educators and teaching assistants at the University of Washington's Teacher Education Program (TEP), in which reflective practice is a central feature (Hess, 1999; McKenna (1999a), McKenna (1999b)). First, we situate our conceptual understanding of the definition, process, and content of reflection in a body of theoretical work upon which we have relied heavily in teaching reflection. Second, we present a typology of reflection that serves as a tool in the pedagogy of reflection in the University of Washington TEP. Third, we discuss the use of the typology using an example from our own teaching practice. Although our typology is but one approach, we believe it holds promise for other teacher educators grappling as we are with efforts to teach reflection.

Section snippets

Definition: what is reflection?

One of the most powerful tools in effective teaching is the presence of a well-defined image of what is to be learned. A valuable definition of reflection comes from John Dewey's (1933) description in How We Think. Dewey originally defined reflection as the “active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9).

Dewey's description of reflection has undergone much

Theory into practice: a typology of reflection

A typology of reflection developed by instructors in TEP at the University of Washington bridges theory and practice in an effort to teach reflective practice to preservice teachers. The typology profiles three dimensions of reflective thought: descriptive, comparative, and critical.

The teaching of reflection

In the University of Washington's TEP program, reflective practice and its development are integral pieces to the puzzle of learning to teach. Reflective practice and strategies are modeled within coursework by the instructional staff. The students also meet in a weekly seminar with a TEP Teaching Assistant (TA) to engage in the development of reflective practice. These seminars are a credited class for the students and are the opportunity to work on understanding reflective practice and its

Example of the typology in action

The reflective seminars and the completion of the portfolio are the explicit teaching opportunities in which the typology of reflection is put into practice. The typology provides a framework through which a structure for reflection can be created. It is not meant to be rigid in that all modes of reflection must be present at all times, but it is meant to provide an outline in which the discourse of individuals or groups may be articulated and examined.

When students are confronting their

Important reminders in the teaching of reflection

We believe our success with this tool has implications for other teacher educators struggling to teach reflective practice. However, we qualify our own use of the typology with several important reminders.

First, we must continue struggling with the tension between providing supportive scaffolding for learning the process of reflecting without reducing it to a series of steps. Our typology merely categorizes dimensions of reflection for the purpose of instruction. This does not reduce the

Conclusion

This review of the content and process of reflection was designed to clarify the concept of reflection without oversimplifying it; our typology and the example of its use is offered to contribute some ideas about teaching reflection to new teachers. While our understanding of reflection continues to grow and change, our efforts are powerfully motivated by the potential of reflective practice to create effective teaching. To this end we recommend further study into the practices that are the

References (24)

  • J.W. Brubacher et al.

    Becoming a reflective educator

    (1994)
  • Buckley, J. (1999). Multicultural Reflection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of...
  • Coldron, J., & Smith, R. (1995). Teaching as an amalgam of discourses and the consequent need for appropriate modes of...
  • J. Dewey

    How we thinkA restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process

    (1933)
  • Hess, D. (1999). Developing a typology for teaching preservice students to reflect: A case of curriculum deliberation....
  • J. Kleinfeld

    Learning to think like a teacherThe study of cases

  • G. Ladson-Billings

    Preparing teachers for diversity

  • D.P. Liston et al.

    Reflective teacher education and moral deliberation

    Journal of Teacher Education

    (1987)
  • Loughran, J. (1995). Windows into the thinking of an experienced teacher: Exploring the influence of spontaneous “talk...
  • McKenna, H. (1999a). Educating for social justice: Reflection and preservice teacher educators. Paper presented at the...
  • McKenna, H. (1999b). A pedagogy of reflection: Pathfinding in a time of change. Paper presented at the annual...
  • H. Munby et al.

    Metaphor in the study of teachers’ professional knowledge

    Theory into Practice

    (1990)
  • Cited by (442)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text