Journal of Literacy Research

Journal ofhttp://jlr.sagepub.com/ Literacy Research

Reflection and Learning to Teach Reading: A Critical Review of Literacy and General Teacher Education Studies Kathleen Roskos, Carol Vukelich and Victoria Risko Journal of Literacy Research 2001 33: 595 DOI: 10.1080/10862960109548127 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/33/4/595

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Literary Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Literacy Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jlr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jlr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/33/4/595.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2001 What is This?

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

REFLECTION AND LEARNING TO TEACH READING: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF LITERACY AND GENERAL TEACHER EDUCATION STUDIES Kathleen Roskos JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY

Carol Vukelich UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE

Victoria Risko VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

Much has been hoped for and said about reflection as an essential attribute of effective literacy teaching. Equally as much remains muddled and confused, however, as to its purpose, development, and role in preparing new teachers of reading. How to help aspiring teachers become more reflective about their literacy teaching across the preparatory years is not clear, and proven strategies for improving reflection through professional education are lacking. This article provides a comparative analysis of 54 reflection studies (18 literacy; 36 general teacher education) with the goal of clarifying the concept of reflection as studied in the literacyfieldandfor informingfuture research. An inductive paradigmatic analysis produced descriptive observations that highlight similarities and differences between the two data sets and five interpretive patterns that characterize researchers' conceptualizations andproblem solving. Several guidelines are recommended for conducting research that deepens understandingof the concept and informs reading educators in their practice.

J LR V. 33 NO. 4 2OO1

PP. 595-635

should become reflective professionals is a dearly held ideal among teacher educators. Many envision preparing beginning teachers as problem solvers and meaning builders who consider multiple viewpoints and think logically and clearly about the practical and moral issues that swirl around literacy teaching. Inspired by Dewey, reading educators strive to develop literacy teachers who ultimately engage in deliberate practice, who think about what they are doing and why they are doing it every step of the way. Yet the realization of this ideal both within and beyond the confines of preparatory coursework in literacy instruction has not been easy to attain. How to help aspiring teachers become more reflective, for example, is not all that certain (Russell, 1993). Moreover it is not clear that even if beginners grew more reflective, to what extent this activity improves their teaching performance and positively impacts children's literacy achievement. The reflective teacher, in other words, is a noble ideal (and a long-standing one), but how to nurture such individuals through teacher preparation programs and why do so (for all practical purposes) are not well understood. To a large extent, the problem stems from the idea of "reflection" itself, which is a dense, multi-layered concept that can be examined from multiple perspectives and at multiple levels. As van Manen (1995) observed, reflection is a phenomenon (a lived experience with temporal qualities), a theory of professional practice (e.g., Schon's, 1983, reflection-in-action), and an intellectual construct that involves "a complex array of cognitively and philosophically distinct methods and attitudes" (pp. 33-34). Dewey (1901/ 1933) argued, for example, that reflection consisted of several mental steps (e.g., confusion, anticipation, analysis, elaboration, decision making, and action) and certain qualities of character (e.g., open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility). Others observe that reflection occurs at different levels of deliberation, such as technical, interpretive, and critical kinds of rational thinking (e.g., Guillaume & Rudney, 1993; van Manen, 1977; Zeichner & Liston, 1985). The "complex array" of ideas surrounding reflection has produced multiple definitions of what it is and means in the field of teacher education. Reflection and reflective activity are linked to teaching actions, thinking, development, awareness, beliefs, assessment, and educational reform. Little in the discourse on teacher education, in fact, has gone unmentioned in relation to this concept (Calderhead, 1992). But with all that has been hoped for and all that has been said in the name of reflection, much remains muddled and confused as to its purpose, development, and role in preparing new teachers of reading. In this article, we attempt to disentangle reflection as an object of study in the professional education of reading teachers. If we are to harness the power of reflection to develop thoughtful, deliberative beginning teachers THAT FUTURE TEACHERS OF READING

J LR Roskos, Vukelich, & Risko

596

of reading, then we need to secure a surer grip on what the concept is and how it functions in the "learning-to-teach" process. Specifically, we set out to compare reflection research reported in the literacy education literature with that in the general teacher education literature in hopes of finding direction for future research on literacy teacher preparation. Our goal is to conduct a comparative analysis of these two bodies of research in order to note likenesses and differences that might help to clarify the reflection construct for research work and inform instruction in reflection during the preparatory years. We also thought that a comparative approach would reveal engaging themes that provoke new insights on reflection in professional literacy education.

Background of the Critical Review Following on Dewey"s assertion that teachers' reflective abilities liberate them from the tyranny of technique (Dewey, 1901/1933), teacher educators have long espoused providing opportunity for students to think back on their learning-to-teach experiences and contemplate how these inform their pedagogic thinking. Venues for this kind of reflection include paper assignments and classroom discussions traditionally part and parcel of teacher education courses. Interest in reflection surged, however, with the advent of Schon's stunning book entitled The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1983). Here, in elegant detail, Schon described the process of "here and now" reflection, which he referred to as "reflection-in-action." Arguing that problem solving by way of technical rationality was insufficient for dealing with the uncertainties and complexities of real professional work, Schon tried to show how practitioners "stop and think" in action and thereby develop problem solutions from their own experience or, in Deweyean terms, "learn by doing." The idea captured the hearts and minds of teacher educators, who looked anew at reflection in all its dimensions as a means for developing more skillful, critically minded and thoughtful teachers. A spate of research ensued, reaching a peak in the early 1990s. The bulk of studies across this time period focused on two broad areas of inquiry: characteristics of students' reflective thinking and curricular or instructional strategies that supported or enhanced students' reflective abilities. In their influential work, Zeichner and Liston (1985), for example, identified four levels of logic in students' reflective discourse (factual, prudential, justificatory, and critical); they observed that students' reflecting was generally at a low level of logic - results corroborated in our own (Risko, Roskos, & Vukelich, 1999) and other studies of students' levels of reflective thinking (e.g., Sparks-Langer, Simmons, Pasch, Colton, & Starko, 1990).

597

J LR Reflection and Learning to Teach

JLR Roskos, Vukelich, & Risko

Teachers-to-be, it appears, describe, report, and query some, but they do not interpret, evaluate, and critique teaching activity very much in ways that deepen their understandings of the contextual and socio-political dimensions of teaching practice. Although a number of rationales are proposed to account for this tendency (e.g., stages of reflective judgment; King & Kitchener, 1994), few have been systematically pursued in teacher development. The research of this period also yielded six major instructional approaches in the learning-to-teach context that appeared to illuminate and influence students' reflective abilities. These include reflective teaching, action research, ethnography, writing, curriculum analysis/development, and supervisory approaches (Zeichner&Liston,i985).Cruikshank (1985), for example, developed a structured skills approach to reflective teaching, whereas Russell (1989), among others (e.g., Richert, 1992), focused on scaffolding the reflection process in the context of field work and student teaching. Likewise, Gitlin and Teitelbaum (1983) taught their prospective teachers ethnographic techniques (e.g., taking field notes) to sensitive them to the "hidden curriculum" in school routines. Afflerbach et al. (1988) involved their students in the analysis of their own writing to help them reflect on the writing process as a teaching strategy. Several instructional strategies also emerged as means for linking students' reflective thinking with their own or others' teaching actions, that is, journals (e.g., Brunner, 1994), case studies (e.g., Richert, 1991), portfolios (e.g., Borko, Michalec, Timmons, & Siddle, 1997), autobiographies (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995), and procedural cycles (e.g., Freiberg & Waxman, 1990). As in teacher education more generally, literacy educators incorporated a variety of these strategies into methods coursework for purposes of encouraging and enhancing students'reflections. Much of this strategy research, however, failed to carefully delineate the instructional features that influenced reflection, per se, and to specify procedures for implementation that assured fidelity to the instructional approach. As a result, strategies, and to some degree program approaches, were variously interpreted and liberally applied, leading Zeichner and Liston (1991) to charge that the reflection research sends the message that "as long as teachers reflect about something, in some manner" and then do something, "it's OK, since they have reflected about it" (p. 24). Clearly the burst of interest in reflection that followed from Schon's publication recharged this line of research with some good results.(e.g., descriptions of students'levels of reflective thinking and instructional techniques). However, it also stretched the construct considerably as a phenomenon, a process, and a practice. Reflection seemed to belong every-

598

where in teacher preparation and in all manner of forms. At the same time reflection became embedded in a wide variety of learning-to-teach approaches and techniques, each claiming its virtues. One of the more popular was journal writing, which pervaded learning-to-teach coursework. Thus, as the 1990s drew to a close, many definitions of reflection, many interpretations, many approaches, and many assumed outcomes peppered the reflection research, including studies that focused on improving the professional education of reading teachers. Liberal to a fault, the scientific approach to reflection seemed diffuse and scattered with little evidence in hand to show its significance for teacher development and performance. As an object of study in professional education, reflection, therefore, remains a large, blurry concept (van Manen, 1995). We know in our bones that it is important for teacher educators to teach reflection and for aspiring teachers of literacy to learn how to reflect in the context of their professional work. But it is a difficult concept to grasp and hold on to so as to get a good look at what it means for individuals who want to learn to teach and for a professional community that desires reflective practice in the everyday teaching of reading. We confronted this reality everyday in our professional work at both the course and program level. Much is said about reflection as an ideal, we found, but little is provided in the way of raw specifics that inform the teacher educator's practice, which led us to a critical review of reflection studies in our field (Roskos, Risko, & Vukelich, 2000). From a pool of 30 studies representing a 15-year period, we learned that although authors acknowledged the power of reflection as an intellectual tool and potential change agent, the line of inquiry generally lacked coherence between theoretical frame and method, sufficient data to warrant claims, and specificity about instructional tools. Well-intentioned and effortful, the work nonetheless failed to sharpen the edges of the reflection construct for research purposes and offered little in the way of a pedagogy of reflection for teacher educators. Yet this research activity contains information that should not lay fallow which prompted us to reorganize our approach. Scouring reflection studies in literacy education in combination with those of general teacher education, we reasoned, may offer up particulars in the form of ideas, patterns, trends, and methodological techniques that help give definition and shape to reflection as a construct for scientific scrutiny. A comparative review of the reflection literature challenges us to see anew, to discover what has escaped our attention, and to find out what has been missing from inquiry. It can yield information and insights that point the way forward for future research and for instruction in professional literacy education programs.

599


Method

JLR Roskos, Vukelich, te .R/sA:o

We organized our review of reflection studies for purposes of analytic comparison between general teacher education studies and those specific to literacy education from 1985 to 1999. Our interest in a comparative analysis arose from an earlier critical review of a set of 30 literacy studies in this same time period that examined reflection in preservice literacy education (Roskos, Risko & Vukelich, 2000). Results provided a set of observations that described the conceptual features and functions of reflection in the preparation of reading teachers, but also called into question the clarity, precision, coherence, and relevance of the line of inquiry. Comparing these literacy-specific observations to those in the broader arena of teacher education would help us to examine the literacy education line of reflection inquiry from another perspective and in ways that might inform and strengthen it. Data Collection The review focused on empirical studies (quantitative and qualitative) dealing with reflection in preservice teacher education that were published between 1985 and 1999. This 15-year period reflects seminal works on reflection and teacher education (e.g., Schon, 1987,1991) and the development of critical arguments for the inclusion of reflection activity in teacher preparationprograms(e.g.,Calderhead,i987;Cruikshank,i985;Zeichner & Liston, 1985). The selection and identification of reflection studies followed a two-step procedure that built on the search process conducted in our earlier literacy-focused review. Step one involved identifying reflection studies in general teacher education that paralleled the collection of 30 literacy studies gathered for the prior study. This literacy collection had resulted from three successive sweeps of the professional literature in teacher education. Initially, PsychlNFO, Acorn, and ERIC online databases were scanned for articles from 1985 to 1999 that met the inclusion criteria of reflection, teacher education, and preservice teacher education. This search yielded 602 abstracts that included theoretical papers, studies, book chapters, and dissertations. Sifting through these abstracts we located studies pertaining to the teaching of language arts and literacy and eliminated all others. In a second sweep, we added the term "literacy" to the descriptor string, which yielded 82 articles specific to professional education in literacy teaching. In examining this set, we eliminated those articles that did not provide empirical data on the role of reflection in the learning-to-teach-literacy process (e.g.,

600

position papers, theoretical descriptions, and professional essays). In our third sweep, we manually searched the National Reading Conference Yearbooks from 1985 to 1999, the College Reading Association Yearbooks for this same period, and the full text of retrieved papers for studies that did not emerge from the computer search. This strategy produced another 12 studies, some that duplicated those found in the prior searches. The pool of relevant studies was further narrowed to those that explicitly dealt with some aspect of reflection as it related to preservice teachers engaged in literacy education coursework and programs, that is, reflective thinking, reflective practice, reflective abilities, reflection awareness, and factors contributing to reflection development. Using this procedure we built a collection of 30 studies that appeared to offer sufficient descriptive evidence on reflection as a process and goal in the professional preparation of reading teachers. We grouped the studies into three time periods (1985-1989, 1990-1994,1995-1999). Similarly we built a collection of general teacher education studies of reflection. We returned to the pool of scholarly work gathered from our initial search of the literature and retrieved reflection research papers published or presented in the broader arena of teacher education. We eliminated theoretical papers, book chapters, and professional commentaries, yielding a collection of 363 studies across the 15-year period. The collection was further trimmed by including only those studies that explicitly addressed reflection in teacher preparation, specifically reflective thinking, reflective practice, and reflection development as these relate to preservice teachers. We also manually searched major teacher education journals, such as Teaching and Teacher Education, for research articles within the time frame specified. The final collection from the teacher education domain consisted of 284 published studies or presented papers between 1985 and 1999, which we grouped in the same three time periods as above. The two collections in hand - 30 literacy studies and 284 general teacher education studies - we next established criteria for selecting those studies relevant to our analytic purpose, specifically a comparative analysis, as step two in our procedure. To assure scientific quality, only studies published in research journals were retained, having had the benefit of peer review, and only those that identified reflection as the central investigative focus. Some studies, for example, include reflective activity in the pursuit of other research goals, such as evidence of students' critical thinking about pedagogy or their beliefs. Applying these criteria, the final collection of literacy studies consisted of 18 studies across the 15-year period and that of general teacher education included 36 studies in this time span. Studies in each collection were grouped into three time periods (1985-1989,1990-

601



1994. i995-i999)> and, following random assignment, each of us assumed responsibility for a time period, agreeing to become an expert in that subset for both collections. To organize both collections for easy reference and data analysis, we prepared summaries of the studies in our respective time periods (see Appendix). These provided the who, what, when, where, and why of each study and also briefly listed the results. We used this information to survey the content of the collections, to index key elements of each study, and to organize basic descriptive information as needed for data analysis. Data Analysis We analyzed the total of 54 studies following an inductive paradigmatic analysis process articulated by Polkinghorne (1995). We assumed this stance for three reasons. One, most of the studies we had gathered were descriptive in nature, relying heavily on qualitative methods and strategies for the treatment of data. The primary analytic task often involved finding and describing themes and structures in essentially prosaic text forms (e.g., journal writing). Thus, as a staple of qualitative methodology (e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 1990), an inductive paradigmatic analysis seemed well-suited to the fundamental research orientation of both collections. Two, we intended to compare and contrast the two collections for features indicative of conceptual as well as temporal qualities, that is, the historical continuity in ideas and theoretical stances. Three, we had used a similar analytic approach in our prior critical review and could build on this intellectual work. Briefly, the analytic work of inductive paradigmatic analysis involves classifying a particular instance or event as belonging to a category or concept. The goal is to develop a categorical scheme out of the data, which provides the basis for inducing relationships that hold between and among the established categories. Such relationships reveal "cognitive networks of concepts" that represent the formulations held by a culture or group. For our purposes, this approach allowed us to examine how reflection is conceptualized and studied in the professional education of future teachers. We used a two-step analytic procedure to derive categories and features reflective of the knowledge networks embedded in the studies. First, each of us read and reread our respective subset of studies to identify how reflection was conceptualized and systematically examined. We generated detailed synopses of the studies, including the researchers' theoretical perspectives, data collection and analysis techniques, and conclusions. We also analyzed each paper for its methodological strengths and weaknesses by assessing coherence in theoretical stance, method, and findings. To assess coherence we looked for evidence of accuracy and logic between the 602

theoretical frame, data collection and analysis procedures, results, and implications. Second, we all read and reread each other's synopses. We individually recorded emerging themes and features and discussed and negotiated our observations. From this, we adapted the coding matrix from the previous study to organize the information we were finding. It consisted of six thematic categories (theoretical frame(s), setting/situation, definitions, influential factors, methodology, and recommendations) and related features in each category. For example, the category of theoretical frame included six features, such as Reflection helps teachers bridge theory and practice and Reflection is socially constructed, as in discussions and interactions with others. We each applied the coding matrix to a sample study drawn from each time frame to clarify categories and to verify the features. Following further discussion that led to the collapsing of some features, word changes in others, and the addition of new features, we achieved an interrater reliability of 96% on the samples. Using the coding results per the matrix, we next each developed descriptive observations from our respective sets of studies based on the frequency of features in each thematic category. We further analyzed these observations to note patterns and themes that characterized a specific time period. Moving from these particulars, we developed, through discussion and consensus, a general set of descriptive observations for each collection of studies buttressed by coding tabulations. Through a comparisoncontrast analytic process, we then outlined the similarities and differences between the two collections. We then returned to the two sets of descriptive observations to induce a more conceptual overview of reflection as a topic of study. Our analytic strategy involved connecting both sets of descriptive observations together "with successive layers of inferential glue" to get at the conceptual networks guiding the research activity (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p. 238). In other words, we worked analytically to answer the question: What are the broader patterns that pull these descriptive observations together? We used an interpretive comment approach to discuss the patterns as conceptual networks that explain reflection as an object of study in professional education and to lay the groundwork for recommendations that might guide future research in the literacy field.

Results and Discussion To bring the reflection construct into sharper relief for scrutiny, we first compared its formulation in literacy studies with that of general teacher education studies and then examined its treatment from both these perspectives. The results are organized in two parts - descriptive observations and interpretive comments. Part one reports the discrete observations for 603



each collection of studies and the comparative analysis between the two collections. Part two provides an interpretation of the comparative analysis and the descriptive observations as a whole. Five patterns are discussed as a "cognitive network of concepts" that express the general principles, facts, and methods pertaining to reflection as an object of study in this body of teacher education and literacy education research. Descriptive Observations of the Two Collections Table 1 summarizes the coding results that constitute the particulars from which the descriptive observations were derived. The frequency of some particulars over others and how they cluster together provide evidence for making observations about the characteristics of reflection as well as the investigative effort used to study it. Particulars (descriptor items in Table 1) and their combinations are indicated in parentheses to help the reader track the evidence that supports the descriptive observations and related inferences. Our initial encounter with these data drew our attention to the qualities of the literacy studies, which, as we had observed in our earlier work, suggest certain strong tendencies in this line of inquiry (Roskos, Risko, & Vukelich, 2000). In terms of theoretical orientation, literacy researchers conceive reflection largely as a problem solving activity (1.1) that occurs in field-based activity (2.4) and attempt to describe the reflection that is invited around their teaching activities as a process of "learning by doing" (6.1), although they fall short of grounding their observations with actual data from these situations (6.3). A majority view reflection as a means of bridging theory and action (1.4), yet few provide data-driven analyses that make such thinking visible and demonstrate its emergence in real teaching experience (6.2). About half acknowledge the social embeddedness of reflective thought as shaped through social discourse and language in activity (1.6); some go even further to embrace reflection as an instrument of change (1.5). Despite these social constructivist leanings, however, reflection is treated primarily as a solitary, private act as indicated by the heavy emphasis on personal writing (not interpersonal dialogue) as the means of expressing and developing reflective thought (4.id, 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.2d, 4-2g). Relatedly, literacy researchers stress that reflection should engage future teachers in examining their past experience in light of new learning for purposes of extending their pedagogic thinking and actions (4.1a), but few describe coaching and instructional strategies that might scaffold students' thinking and doing beyond existing schemas (5.4,6.4). Only Bean and Zulich (1993) and Herrmann and Sarracino (1993) address the kind of instructional specifics that might help teacher educators

604

scaffold students' thinking to higher levels of reflection during the learning-to-teach-literacy process. That writing prevails as the dominant means of eliciting students' reflections is noteworthy along with the rapid rise in the use of portfolios to document students' reflective thinking and performance (4.2a). Clearly, literacy researchers prefer qualitative approaches to the study of reflection (5.2), with a distinct bias toward examining influencing factors (e.g., writing) over individual variables that might influence or direct the process. Individual differences in reflection development (1.2,1.3) and the influence of personal characteristics on reflective activity (4.1b), for example, have not received much attention until more recently (e.g., Lyons, 1998; Zulich, Bean, & Herrick, 1992). Although many authors gathered basic identifying information on their participants as subjects (4.1a), they tended not to go beyond this level of description. The collection of general teacher education studies shares some of these same characteristics. Most authors, for example, treat reflection as a problem solving activity (1.1), rooted in the Deweyean tradition, and examine it through this lens in the methods they employ to study it (5.5). They tend to emphasize environmental influences on reflection, such as the "learn to teach" curriculum (4.1c), the student teaching experience (2.5), and opportunities to write about it (4-id, 4.2b). Like their literacy counterparts, many embrace reflection as an intellectual tool for bridging theory and practice and central to the life of the effective educator (1.4). Few, on the other hand, espouse social constructivist ideas as investigative frames (1.5, 1.6), preferring to couch their theoretical rationales and stances in developmental process terms (1.2). Turner-Muecke, Russell, & Bowyer (1986), for example, track reflective activity over time and changes in the supervisor-student teacher relationships, and Knowles and Hoefler (1989) document the development of a student teacher. As in the literacy collection, the general studies provide little information on how to actually teach reflection as an outcome of investigative work (6.4),but MacKinnon (1987), among others (e.g., Bean & Zulich, 1993; Korthagen, 1985,1988), makes a move in this direction. General teacher education studies are also overwhelmingly qualitative (5.2), thus rich in description but rather sparse on explanation and verification of findings and recommendations (6.3,6.5). Apart from these likenesses between the two collections, there are qualities that sharply distinguish the two sets from one another, and thus turn up the observational lens on reflection. In the following, we describe these differences which highlight features of reflection and ways of seeing it that bring it more clearly into view. One striking difference is the greater use of discussion and interview in the general teacher education studies to elicit reflections, thus allowing for the oral expression of reflective thinking in the company of another or

605


Table 7. Percentage of Studies with Descriptor Items Literacy only Period 1 Period 2 Period 3

Description o

Genera/ only Total

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3

Combined Total


Total

Theoretical frames 100%

86%

60%

82%

69%

67%

45%

70%

100%

73%

50%

74%

1.2

20%

43%

40%

35%

45%

47%

63%

51%

38%

45%

56%

46%

1.3

20%

14%

40%

24%

9%

0%

18%

8%

13%

5%

25%

13%

Theory practice

1.4

100%

43%

40%

59%

45%

53%

45%

49%

63%

50%

44%

52%

Critical

1.5

0%

14%

40%

43%

36%

20%

9%

22%

25%

18%

19%

20%

Social

1.6

60%

57%

40%

53%

36%

20%

33%

27%

44%

32%

31%

35%

History

2.1

0%

43%

0%

18%

27%

33%

18%

27%

19%

36%

13%

24%

Intro course

2.2

20%

14%

20%

18%

27%

20%

0%

16%

25%

18%

6%

17%

Methods course

2.3

20%

0%

20%

12%

18%

7%

9%

11%

19%

5%

13%

11%

Methods field

2.4

40%

100%

60%

71%

55%

20%

18%

30%

50%

45%

31%

43%

Student teaching

2.5

0%

29%

20%

18%

55%

53%

45%

51%

38%

45%

38%

41%

3.1

60%

43%

100%

65%

91%

73%

82%

81%

81%

64%

94%

78%

Background

4.1a

40%

71%

40%

53%

18%

60%

36%

41%

25%

64%

38%

44%

Traits

4.1b

0%

0%

20%

6%

18%

0%

45%

19%

13%

0%

38%

15%

Problem solving

1.1

Developmental Individual differences

Setting

Definition Explicit Facilitating factors

Curriculum

4.1c

40%

71%

40%

53%

82%

67%

27%

59%

69%

68%

31%

57%

Writing

4.1 d

40%

86%

40%

59%

0%

87%

36%

46%

13%

86%

38%

50%

Portfolio

4.2a

0%

0%

60%

18%

0%

7%

9%

12%

0%

5%

25%

9%

Table 7. (Continued) Literacy only Description


Journal

4.2b

Prof, plans

4.2c

Dialog journal

4.2d

Videos

4.2e

20%

Discussions

4.2f

Written summaries

4.2g

Total


18%

45%

0%

0%

0%

29%

0%

0%

60%

57%

60%

43%

-

0%

0%

Quantitative

5.1

0%

0%

0%

Qualitative

5.2

80%

100%

100%

Mixed

5.3

20%

0%

0%

Coaching

5.4

20%

0%

Theory/method

5.5

60%

86%

Other

0%

Combined

Genera/ only Total

0%

0%.

0%

0%

9%

20%

0%

11%

6%

0%

13%

18%

11%

20%

47%

82%

80%

45%

20%

41%

55%

33%

36%

40%

12%

0%

60%

9%

27%

0%

0%

20%

18%

14%

0%

14%

13%

9%

94%

73%

67%

73%

70%

75%

77%

94%

81%

5%

27%

13%

0%

14%

25%

9%

0%

11%

0%

6%

36%

7%

27%

23%

31%

5%

19%

17%

40%

65%

82%

73%

64%

73%

75%

77%

56%

70%

91%

93%

55%

81%

88%

95%

50%

80%

0%

0%

20%

57%

31%

Total

45%

40%

43%

Period I Period 2 Period 3

40%

Wo

32%

44%

35%

0%

0%

0%

0%

13%

32%

0%

17%

6%

9%

13%

9%

70%

75%

73%

38%

63%

41%

56%

36%

31%

41%

0%

41%

19%

22%

Methodology

Recommendations

o

Desc. Process

6.1

80%

100%

40%

76%

Teaching link

6.2

60%

14%

80%

47%

55%

20%

45%

38%

56%

18%

56%

41%

Data support

6.3

0%

57%

40%

35%

36%

33%

27%

32%

25%

41%

31%

33%

How to teach

6.4

40%

0%

0%

12%

45%

0%

0%

14%

44%

0%

0%

13%

Data support

6.5

0%

14%

60%

24%

36%

7%

55%

30%

25%

9%

56%

28%

JLR Roskos, Vukelich, & Risko

others (4.2O. Although most of these authors do not make the case for socially constructed reflections theoretically - for example, only Bolin (1988) and Reiman (1999) actually refer to Vygotsky - 70% of them engaged students in collective dialogic processing of reflection, and some go on to talk about the importance of this shared activity to stimulate deeper thought and reflection (e.g., Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1991; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993) and to support the students' emotional development (Baird et al., 1991). Additionally several describe, rather explicitly, the reflective thinking occurring in partner to partner or group discussions (e.g., Baird etal.,i99i;Bolin,i988; Ferguson, 1989; Hill, 1986; Hillkirk & Dupuis, 1989; Knowles & Hoefler, 1989; Richert, 1990; Ross, 1989) and also the mutual development of reflection for both supervisor and student teacher (e.g.,MacKinnon,i987; Turner-Muecke et al., i986).Turner-Muecke et al. (1986), for example, document prospective teachers' reflections on learning to teach and the instructors' reflections on learning to supervise. Further, when interview was used as a methodology to elicit the understandings that students might employ in making sense of observed classroom practice or in guiding their own teaching, this dialogic exchange typically occurred at regular intervals, sometimes weekly, throughout the duration of the studies - rather than just at their end (e.g., Korthagen, 1985, i988;MacKinnon,i987;Richert,i99o;Sparks-Langeretal.,i99o;TurnerMuecke et al., 1986). A second notable difference is these researchers' attention to definition of terms (3.1). Most of them (81%) provide an explicit definition of reflection that sets up and guides the examination of the reflection process in students' thinking and activity. A consistent theme that threads through these definitions is the idea that reflection is a deliberate act that is undertaken for purposes of making well-reasoned choices and taking responsibility for those choices (Korthagen, 1988; MacKinnon, 1987; Ross, 1989). As Bainer and Cantrell (1993) have written, reflection is "the ability to assess situations and to make thoughtful, rational decisions" (p. 65). Several acknowledge the various definitions of reflection found in the literature (most of which relate to Dewey's inquiry-oriented concepts), and many draw heavily on Dewey, Schon, or Zeichner and Liston to build their definitions. Most take the additional steps to articulate specifically what they mean by reflection in their study and to link these features to their search for evidence in students' talk, writing, or teaching behaviors. Hatton and Smith (1995), for example, derive their definition of reflection from a rich, thick description of the research as well as sustained discussion amongst colleagues, defining it as "deliberate thinking about action with a view to its improvement" (p. 40). They then gathered evidence of reflection as expressed in students' writing, identifying three types of writing indicative

608

of reflection as defined - descriptive (reasons for action/improvement based on personal judgment), dialogic (discourse with oneself about possible reasons for actions/improvement), and critical (reasons for actions/ improvements that take into account broader sociocultural contexts). They go on to explore the issues of language use and knowledge and experiential bases in facilitating or inhibiting demonstrations of reflective thinking. Similarly, Sparks-Langer et al. (1990) described changes to their teacher education program as an outcome of rich discussions informed by the literature on teacher thinking and reflection as well as their own research. The researchers initially defined reflection as the ability "to apply educational principles and techniques within the framework of [one's] own experience, contextual factors, and social and philosophical values [to analyze] ones own and the class's performance" (p. 24). Next they gathered evidence of students' reflection as expressed in weekly interviews and daily teaching reflection journals. Finally, they analyzed the students' responses using a seven-level framework for assessing reflective pedagogical thinking, which had been derived from the multiple sources (e.g., cognitive psychology, teacher decision making, experiential learning theory). Their data revealed students' difficulties with critical reflection, that is, to carefully consider equity and justice issues in their teaching. As a result, the team reformulated their reflective thinking framework to accommodate these observations in their program. Three new definitional features of reflection also crop up in the set of general teacher education studies. One is the notion of "refraining," that is, to use reflection, not to abandon previous beliefs and understandings, but to expand on them and to take on new perspectives by problematizing situations and ideas. MacKinnon (1987), for one, extends features of reflection in this direction, describing "reframing," based on Schon's theory, as the reflective phase in which problems are reexamined from at least one theoretical perspective, maybe more. When working in this phase, perspective teachers do not necessarily abandon their own experiences and perspectives. Rather they analyze problems from different theoretical perspectives, and as they do, they come to deeper understandings about their own perspectives and adopt new theoretical "platforms" to examine problems. To MacKinnon, evidence of reframing serves as a "marker" to indicate reflection is occurring. Turner-Muecke et al. (1986) also discuss reframing as part of a cyclical problem-solving (and reflective) process - reconsidering or reframing the problem and then testing new solutions. Later, Wedman, Martin, and Mahlios (1990) build on this notion of reflection as reframing by identifying three dimensions to which students must attend in their reconsideration of a teaching problem: an inquiry orientation (considering alternatives to established practice), an inquiry process (identifying

609



and applying alternatives), and educational phenomena (considering the social nature of education). A second feature is the activity of "debriefing" as an important aspect of the reflection process. For example, Knowles and Hoefler (1989) rely heavily on Joplin's (1981) model of experiential education in their discussion of debriefing. Viewed as the last stage of reflection, and to ensure education rather than miseducation or failure, the preservice teacher is expected to make "connections between knowledge and experience" (p. 19). They argue that this debriefing stage is often omitted in programs designed to enhance reflective development, often because instructors have difficulty talking about student teachers' strengths as well as their failures, in particular the times in which the student teacher is less than successful. Knowles and Hoefler argue for systematic analyses of the teaching experiences and sustained conversations with a supervisor as an "embryonic" state for developing new understandings and ways to resolve challenges. And a third feature contributing to the clarity of definition found in the general teacher education studies more so than in the literacy studies is a finer emphasis on reflection as an opportunity to examine the socio-political dimensions of schooling and to assess teaching actions for their contribution toward more equitable instruction (e.g., Wedman & Martin, 1986). Generalists with a social constructivist orientation, it appears, maintained their stance more specifically and exactly in crafting their definitions than their literacy peers. Winitzky's (1992) definition is illustrative: "Reflection is ... the ability to retrieve appropriate knowledge, to apply that knowledge in perceiving and analyzing causal relationships in classroom management events, and to connect such knowledge to larger social issues" (p. 3). Moving the socio-political elements of definition into program action, Gore and Zeichner (1991) describe an "emancipatory action research" project that purposively draws aspiring educators' attention to issues of equity and social justice through readings and other course activities. And, although their students greatly struggled with this dimension of reflection, they nonetheless were confronted with the political and moral aspects of teaching - a rare occurrence in teacher education. Such effort is also evident in the work of Sparks-Langer et al. (199 o), who pushed beginners' reflecting beyond the practical to the critical in the social reconstructivist sense. They concluded, "We are fairly successful in promoting the cognitive-micro-technical aspects of teacher thinking. It is harder, however, to develop critical reflection crucial for responsible professional practice"(pp. 31-32). A third difference distinguishing general teacher education from literacy studies is in the use of writing as a means of eliciting and documenting

610

reflection (4.1 d). For most, through 1995, writing is seen as a data collection device and not a process in and of itself for promoting reflective thought (see, e.g., Bolin, 1988 [journals]; Korthagen, 1985 [written responses to questionnaires]). A few exceptions to this point are Hatton and Smith (1995), Reiman (1999), and Hoover (1994) who comment on the intellectual demands of writing which may serve to further the development of conscious awareness and deliberative thinking. Reiman (1999), in particular, points out the value of writing, as in journaling, for framing language so as to express experience in new ways that promote deeper understandings. Further, Hoover (1994) contends that features of written text, such as the need for explicitness and integration of ideas, create fertile conditions for reflective thinking. Most researchers of reflection studies in general teacher education fields, however, do not view writing in this way; rather, they use writing as a data collection means toward a data analysis end. On the other hand, several of the literacy researchers (e.g., Afflerbach et al., 1988; Bean & Zulich, 1990,1991,1993) intimate that the writing process per se may be influential in the development of reflective thought, which may account for their heavier reliance on writing venues in prompting and promoting reflection in their research work (e.g., portfolios, journals, reflective summaries). A fourth difference between the two collections highlights the more precise methodology of the general teacher education studies. Illustrative in this regard is the more thorough treatment of coaching. With the exception of studies published in the 1990-1994 time frame, a fair number of these authors offered rather specific descriptions of the coaching done to develop reflection in novice teachers (5.4) - a methodological move directly tied to their more explicit definitions of the construct (3.1). They explained how students were actually guided to reflect through prompts and feedback - procedures rarely described in literacy studies (6% of studies). Reiman (1999), for example, discusses in considerable detail the matching and graduated mismatching procedures of guided reflection that induced reflection development in students'journal writing. Hillkirk and Dupuis (1989) provided guiding questions that focused preservice teachers' analytic thinking on their practicum teaching interlinked with their own personal histories. MacKinnon (1987) and Turner-Muecke et al. (1986) carefully describe the kind of supervisory talk that occurs between the teacher and the preservice teacher and the decisions made by the supervisor to guide thinking during each phase of problem solving and reflection. Interestingly, as noted earlier, the 1990-1994 set of studies are an exception to this trend. Only Gore and Zeichner (1991) provide a specific accounting of how they coached their students to develop reflection, describing

611


JLR Roskos, Vukelich, ed Risko

how they introduced students to action research as a way to "help [them] understand [their] own practice and to improve it" and see action research as "an integral part of their daily experiences in schools" (p. 127). A related methodological design feature is the better coherence found in the general teacher education studies. This is evident along two routes. One is the "fit" between the authors' theoretical emphasis on reflection as a developmental process (1.2) that is pulled forward through problem solving activity in dynamic situations, such as student teaching (2.5) and oral discussion (4.2O. Their attention to the details of coaching and process outcomes on students' reflective thinking attempt to follow through on these ideas in mutually supporting ways. A second is the concern for "clarity" as seen in the attempt to describe one's history with the topic (2.1), to provide explicit definitions (3.1), and to diversify method for purposes of accuracy and precision (5.1,5.3). Although these authors, like their literacy colleagues, often failed to accrue sufficient data to support their claims, they nonetheless worked to build trustworthiness into their investigative designs, and thus improve the significance of their findings. Concluding our comparison of these two sets of studies, we can see in their similarities common ground - reflection as problem solving (1.1) and "learning by doing" (2.4,2.5,4.1c); writing as the catchment of reflective thought (4.id); qualitative research as the route to truth (5.2); and description as evidence, albeit retrieved from a thin layer of factual data on students and conditions (6.1,6.3). Also both sets are disappointingly alike in their failure to provide specific information on how to teach reflection in preparing future teachers (6.4). In the differences that surface, we can observe interesting disparities in theoretical stance (1.2,1.5,1.6),definitional elaboration and explicitness (3.1), use of dialogue (4.2O, attention to detail in coaching (5.4), and coherence of methodological design. These differences highlight salient features of reflection as a construct that need to be considered and attended to in literacy research. Expanding the definition of reflection to incorporate theory and structure (reframing and debriefing aspects), for example, opens up new pathways for literacy researchers. Interpretive Comments Our initial analysis dealt with the "particulars" of two collections of reflection studies to construct a descriptive account of each for purposes of comparison. The generalist and the literacy specialist in teacher education, we found, can elucidate features and structures of reflective activity in similar and also quite different ways. Moving to a macro-level of paradigmatic analysis, which focuses on relationships across categories, we next treated the two collections as a

612

whole and searched for patterns that tied them together. Our analysis yielded five patterns that characterize the ways these researchers approach and resolve the reflection research "problem," tendencies in their investigative work, their handling of the search for evidence, and the significance of research solutions for advancing professional education. Below we discuss these patterns as interpretations grounded in the "particulars" and as conceptual threads that build understanding of reflection study. Where helpful, we again reference specific descriptor items in parentheses. The first, and perhaps the most compelling pattern, is the "thick on describing, thin on implying" approach to the study of reflection. In general, authors struggle with the weight of the construct, which may speak to its incredible complexity as an idea. Reflection, as van Manen points out, is challenging and "in the very nature of the pedagogical relation" (van Manen, 1995. P- 34)- Dewey, after all, spoke not only of reflection as thinking but also as a set of personal qualities, such as open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility. Zeichner (1987) would add: building the active, persistent and careful study of problems, purposes of action, and the educative and moral consequences of action. On the whole, authors of the general teacher education studies seemed to have coped with this complexity better than those of literacy studies (e.g., Bolin, 1988; Gore & Zeichner, 1991; Guillaume &Rudney, 1993; Hill, 1986; Korthagen, 1985,1988). Their theoretical explanations were often more consistent than those found in literacy studies. They focused more squarely on their data to explain what students were learning and doing and provided more information about their teaching or coaching. Yet in sorting out the complexity of the reflection construct, more often than not authors seemed to lose their way and to have difficulty systematically tracking the research problem through to a productive solution that addressed not only the problem, but also extended the "so what does this mean" for theory building or practice (6.3,6.5). It of course is never easy to build a good research "story" that starts and ends satisfactorily. But the study of reflection in the professional education of teachers, that specific to literacy and other areas as well, seems preoccupied with describing what reflection is and not enough with building, analyzing, and interpreting data in ways that build an evidentiary base. Although there are notable exceptions, for most studies reviewed here, this pattern holds true. A second is the"backloading of reflection research" into advanced field work (2.4) and student teaching (2.5). Most studies (84%) occur in the latter phases of the preparatory period, which leaves little to go on in the effort to understand the development of reflection in the learning-to-teach process from its start. That this tendency exists may be explained in part by the theoretical stance assumed by most reflection researchers, namely

613



that individuals "learn by doing," and therefore reflection is best constructed out of real classroom experience. However, there is some evidence that the intensity of real classroom experiences and the considerable emotion-live teaching it involves may cloud and even inhibit reflective abilities of beginners(Gleissman,i984).Asaconsequence,thedatagatheredunderthese conditions may not be the best evidence of developmental tendencies. Less real and more protected environments for reflective thinking, such as introductory and methods courses, may in fact provide a truer approximation of students' capabilities and build a foundation for thinking of problems and issues from multiple perspectives. Though some authors appear to express the belief that reflection develops over time (e.g., Baird et al., 1991; Ross, 1989), few pay any real attention to this notion in their research designs. There are, of course, exceptions. Baird et al. (1991), for example, followed a group of students during their last year of preparation and then followed three members of this group into their first two-years of teaching. Typically, however, reflection development is considered across a single semester or at best an academic year (e.g., Bolin, 1990; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993; Herrmann & Sarracino, 1993; Winitzky, 1992). Third, the trend over the 15-year period in studies from both collections is that "definitions matter." Authors of most of the general teacher education studies (81%) and more than half of those in the literacy studies (65%) take steps to define what they mean by reflection and ground their definitions firmly in the philosophical and empirical knowledge base. Studies in the last 5 -year period were the strongest in this regard. Dewey, Schon, and van Manen remain as stable organizers as definitions are shaped and honed around three main kinds of reflection - retrospective (on past action), anticipatory (on future action), and contemporaneous (in action; van Manen, 1995). Also notable is that authors of general studies describe their history with reflection work, thus enriching their definitions with programmatic and personal experience. A fourth pattern is the apparent struggle with the "person-environment dynamic." How do the influences of educational environment, such as 'learning-to-teach' experiences and assignments, interact with personal attributes, such as individual history and character traits, to more or less support the development of reflection as a skill and disposition? Thus far, studies in both sets have failed to grapple with the simultaneity and integration of these influences, favoring by far the exploration of environmental factors on reflection over person factors. The focus on tools underscores this point as many studies examine the influence of portfolios, journaling, and reflective summary writing on students' reflective status and thinking. By far, studies focus on writing as a vehicle for inducing reflection, for example, portfolios, journals, professional development plans, and reflective

614

summaries. A few authors, however, raise the possibilities of individual differences and reflective ability. Korthagen (1985,1988; Korthagen &Wubbels, 1995), for one, discusses internally driven versus externally driven learners. He argues that those future teachers who need external cues and lots of external direction for reflection from the teacher are often those who show weak reflection abilities in journaling and portfolio work. These are students who may drop-out of teaching, who fail to thrive as reflectors, and who complain loudly about lack of direction and help from their teachers and mentors. On the other hand, the internally driven student develops his/her own goals and directions and moves to deeper levels of reflection, ultimately succeeding in programs that are based on inquiry-driven, constructivist models (such as Dewey or Schon). In other words, what the educational environment affords as opportunities to learn may meet some students' needs and not others and consequent interactions may support or constrain individual development. Gore and Zeichner (1991) grapple with this as they reflect on why their preservice students failed to provide evidence of critically reflective teaching practice (that is, conduct action research which consider the moral and ethical implications of their teaching). They believe that personal attributes, which they label "biological factors," such as preservice teachers' generally unpoliticized view of schooling and the relative unimportance of academic work in students' lives, interact with "situational factors," such as the failure to be confronted with explicit discussions of the moral aspects of teaching and their temporary status in their teaching placements, along with "cultural factors," such as "technical rationality, individualism, and instrumentalism that dominate education thinking," to inhibit preservice teachers' development of critical reflection (p. 131). Thus, although a few have pointed to individual differences as factors, even fewer have taken up the challenge of exploring the person-environment interface and its meaning for preparing reflective teachers. A fifth pattern, and a troubling one, is an apparent lack of "historical continuity" in the research that builds a line of inquiry and develops a cumulative effect with the potential of informing practice. In framing their studies, authors reach back to Dewey, but tend not to bring foundational concepts and propositions forward into newer arenas of thought and knowledge. Attention to critical pedagogy and social constructivist ideas across all studies, for example, has not advanced very much (20% and 35% of studies respectively), despite the literacy researchers' surge of interest in Vygotsky in the 1980s (1.6) and social justice issues more recently (1.5). Even Schon's powerful ideas appear to lack punch as studies show a declining interest in coaching and a persistent focus on writing as the medium for reflection (in lieu of dialogic formats). Another clue suggestive

615



of stagnation is the lack of diversity in method, which actually shows a tendency for fewer mixed designs (from 31% to 19%). Although a focus on reflection as a developmental process has improved, especially among generalists, little has changed over time to more frontally examine who develops, when, and under what conditions and, most importantly, to observe if advanced reflection in teachers makes a difference in their practice. Are more reflective beginning teachers better teachers? Do children achieve literacy more fully, more thoroughly and more surely under their tutelage? Are some kinds of reflection more efficacious for advancing teaching performance than others? What develops in persons and environments to instill and foster reflective thinking about teaching? How do we teach for reflection? We are still waiting after 15 years for fruitful answers to these basic questions. Arising from our observations, these five patterns illuminate the network of motivation, preferences, ideas, problems and solutions that form the scientific meaning and value of the two collections. Mindful that these patterns are interpretations, they do offer an approximation of the formulation of the reflection research domain. As we can see, the research work is lively and thriving in some areas, such as attention to definition and to descriptions of reflection. But, unfortunately, it lacks novelty, diversity, and vigor in the handling of theoretical ideas, research problems, study designs, and prickly issues (e.g., the analysis of reflection as a change agent in the sociopolitical sense). Noticeably absent are robust efforts to understand reflection as a way to socialize future teachers into the culture of teaching (e.g., power struggles among teachers as described by Livingston, 1999) and to sensitize them to the social injustices that often inhibit students' learning in classrooms (e.g., Leland, Harste, & Youssef, 1997). Winitzky (1992, pp. 2-3) argues that this is caused by the mutual exclusivity of the "multiple organizing frameworks" used by researchers studying reflection. She suggests three frameworks have been used to guide reflection studies: a cognitive approach where the purposes of reflection are to "identify key factors affecting student learning, weigh their relative influence, clarify causal relationships, and make reasoned decisions about future actions"; a critical approach where researchers are interested in teachers' exploration of "the moral, social, and political implications, dilemmas, and trade-offs inherent in every teaching act"; and a narrative approach where researchers are interested in "teachers own descriptions of the circumstances under which they make decisions." Winitzky (1992) argues that although each perspective is important and should be acknowledged,"only one can come to the forefront for any given study" (p. 3). We would argue, though, that any investigation of particular reflective features or perspectives must be grounded in an examination of potential synergy among several perspec-

616

tives and a systematic analysis of multiple factors (e.g., context where reflection occurs, students' personal history and individual approach to reflection) that impact its development in dynamic ways. To do otherwise is to strip reflection of its meaning and complexity. J LR

Summary and Recommendations

Reflection

Reflection, as a thoughtful and a caring act, goes to the heart of the instructional relationship. It is not only a tool of skilled practice, but also a feeling that helps educators to teach effectively and intelligently rather than unthinkingly, dogmatically or prejudicially. Reflection, as Dewey (1964) pointed out, propels "intelligent action" (p. 211). But reflection is a difficult concept for beginners to grasp in the practical activity of learning to teach. And, as teacher educators, we found it hard to teach, because there is a lack of well-organized information on reflection development in those learning and starting to teach, and there is not much in the way of researchbased strategies to guide instruction in reflection. Faced with this practical reality, we continued our examination of reflection inquiry within the last 15 years to obtain a surer grip on the concept, to identify new research directions, and to glean information that might inform our instruction. We applied a qualitative strategy that treated the research domain of literacy and general teacher education studies in a figure-ground manner, so that features relevant to the study of reflection might stand out. Observations emerged from this analytic process that described similarities and also highlighted important differences in the formulation of the construct. Additionally, an holistic interpretation of these observations pointed to common elements that appear over and over, producing the "cognitive networks of concepts" that constitute knowledge - the known in this domain. But it also revealed elements that are missing or are incomplete and around which "cognitive networks of concepts" yet need to be constructed. Following this analytic trail, we were alerted to new features of the construct (e.g., reframing and debriefing) and exposed to the procedures and nuances of instructional techniques less familiar to us (e.g., coaching). Moreover we developed insights that open up new possibilities and directions for reflection research. Below, we offer these as guidelines that might chart the way forward for this line of inquiry in literacy professional education and lead to a more-informed pedagogy. First, studies should focus on gathering evidence of reflection development in those learning to teach with the goal of creating a developmental continuum that describes typical phases of cognitive and dispositional growth in relation to teaching work. This is essential, but as yet far too thinly described. Descriptive evidence is needed at three levels - at the

617

and Learning to Teach


onset of preparation, across the preparatory years, and into the first years of teaching. We need to ask: What does beginning reflection look like in future teachers of reading? How does reflective thinking change as novices shift from their student role to that of the teacher? What are the features of reflection in new teachers as they adapt to the realities of everyday practice? How do the developmental trajectories of reflection vary among individuals? Compiling these kinds of descriptive data contributes to an understanding of reflection development and provides indices of growth in reflection as a skill and disposition in the professional teaching of reading. Second, applied research is needed to identify and articulate proven strategies for improving students' reflective abilities within dynamic teaching-learning environments. These strategies need to be purposeful, sensitive to contextual factors, and responsive to students' individual approach to reflection. To "elicit" reflection is not enough to "improve" preservice teachers' reflective abilities as future professionals. Researchers in the literacy field need to design and validate instructional protocols that more deliberately scaffold reflective thinking to more critical levels. On this point, there is, in fact, little evidence that writing for oneself, as frequently used in the popular journal writing strategy, impacts the level of preservice teachers' reflective thinking. The data suggest, rather, that it is preservice teachers' socially constructed reflections - those built through the interactive tug and pull with a more informed other - that lead them to more in-depth considerations and penetrating ideas (Freire & Macedo, 1987). Reading pedagogy researchers, therefore, should turn more of their attention to studying dialogic relations between peers and between developing teachers and their instructors - relations which appear to prompt and encourage future reading teachers to think more deeply and critically about their role. Third, literacy researchers should more precisely identify the dimension(s) of reflection under scrutiny so as to build the theoretical foundations for the position taken and to align the methodology and findings with that position in order to gain scientific power. A clear statement of definition reflective of the literature and the researcher's circumstance or history seems particularly helpful as demonstrated in reflection studies outside the literacy field. Literacy researchers need to better frame the reflection problem under study as to its function (e.g., for personal, classroom practice, or professional outcomes), features (e.g., of problem solving, of teaching actions, of sociopolitical and ethical criteria), temporal qualities (e.g., anticipatory, in-action or retrospective), and structure (e.g., scaffolding, refraining, debriefing). Presently, what counts as reflection and how it is observed and categorized varies tremendously across studies, and to infer globally that all and any kind of reflection is good for future teachers is not helpful for improving professional education or literacy teaching practice.

618

Fourth, researchers should strive for diversity of method in their research designs. It is important to move from baseline description to more rigorous observational methods in order to establish and refine educational interventions that ultimately improve the teacher educators' practice. More complex and creative designs are also necessary for capturing the joint interactive effects of individual propensities and environmental factors on reflection development in the professional setting. To get at "jointness" of person-environment interactions, Rogoff (19 8 2), for example, describes a contextual event approach that relies on eclectic methods for examining setting and task features, person characteristics, and their integration. Such approaches help to generate more diversity of outcomes ones that account for developmental and learning differences of future reading teachers and ones that acknowledge particular characteristics of the context(s) within which reflecting occurs for these factors may foster different reflection attributes. Fifth, more attention needs to be paid to a sense of historical continuity in reflection research work so that studies build on one another in ways that bring traditional wisdom and past gains forward into new research efforts. Right now making the case for teaching reflection in preparing future literacy teachers rests largely on good ideas, not on proven results because of a scattered approach to the examination of foundational ideas. The fragmentation that has resulted makes it difficult to bundle findings into corroborating evidence that supports well-defined research problems and discriminating analyses that both continue and challenge conceptualizations of reflection. The need to establish a better sense of research history in the line of inquiry is critical for without one it will be very difficult to trail reflection as a phenomenon, process and practice into our professional teaching work and as a distinguishing feature of excellent literacy instruction. Taken all at once these guidelines indicate that there is much to do to improve the quality of reflection research in our field. The agenda seems so large. Yet it is also an attractive agenda, and an exciting one, because it presents plenty of possibilities for study that could be groundbreaking, imaginative, compelling, and beneficial for literacy research and pedagogy.

REFERENCES References marked with an asterisk indicate studies reviewed. Of those, references marked with an additional asterisk indicate literacy studies.

**Afflerbach, P., Bass, L., Hoo, D., Smith, S., Weiss, L, & Williams, L. (1988). Preservice teachers use think-aloud protocols to study writing. Language Arts, 65, 693-701.

619


J LR Roskos, Vukelich, &Risko

**Allen, V., Freeman, E., & Lehman, B. (1989). A literacy education model for preservice teachers: Translating observation and reflection into exemplary practice. In S. McCormick & P. O'Keefe (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction. Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 473-480). Chicago: National Reading Conference. *Bainer, D.L., & Cantrell, D. (1992). Nine dominant reflection themes identified for preservice teachers by a content analysis of essays. Education, 112, 571-578. *Bainer, D.L., & Cantrell, D. (1993). The relationship between instructional domain and the content of reflection among preserve teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20 (4), 65-76. *Baird, J.R., Fensham, P.J., Gunstone, R.F., & White, R.T. (1991). The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning. New York: John Wiley. **Bean, T.W., & Zulich, J. (1989). Using dialogue journals to foster reflective practice with preservice, content-area teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 33-40. **Bean, T.W., & Zulich, J. (1990). Teaching students to learn from text: Preservice content teachers' changing views of their role through the window of studentprofessor dialogue journals. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms. 39th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 171-178). Chicago: National Reading Conference. **Bean, T.W., & Zulich, J. (1991). A case study of three preservice teachers' beliefs about content area reading through the window of student-professor dialogue journals. In C.K. Kinzer & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Viewsfrom many perspectives. 40th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 463-474). Chicago: National Reading Conference. **Bean, T.W., & Zulich, J. (1993). The other half: A case study of asymmetrical communication in content-area reading student-professor dialogue journals. In D.J. Leu & C.K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice. 42nd yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 289-296). Chicago: National Reading Conference. *Bolin, F.S. (19 88). Helping student teachers think about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (2), 48-54. *Bolin, F.S. (1990). Helping student teachers think about teaching: another look at Lou. Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (1), 10-19. *Borko, H., Michalec, P., Timmons, M., & Siddle, J. (1997). Student teaching portfolios: A tool for promoting reflective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 48 (5), 345-357. Brunner, D.D. (1994). Inquiry and reflection: Framing narrative practice in education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. *Calderhead, J. (1987). The quality of reflection in student teachers' professional learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 10 (3), 269-278. Calderhead, J. (1992). The role of reflection in learning to teach. In L. Valli (Ed.), Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques (pp. 139-146). Albany,NY:State University of New York Press. *Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum settings: Reflective practice under scrutiny. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 243-261. *Collier, S.T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teach620

ing experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (3), 173-181. Cruikshank, D.R. (19 85). Uses and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 704-706. **Danielson, K. (1989). The autobiography as language reflection. Reading Horizons, 29, 257-261. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: C.C. Heath. (Original work published 1901) Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey selected writings. New York: Modern Library. *Ferguson, P. (1989). A reflective approach to the methods practicum. Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (2), 36-41. Freigberg, H.J., & Waxman, H.C. (1990). Reflection and the acquisition of technical teaching skills. In R. Clift, W.R. Houston, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs (pp. 119138). New York: Teachers College Press. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York: Bergin & Garvey. *Galvez-Martin, M.E., Bowman, C.L., & Morrison, M.A. (1998). An exploratory study of the level of reflection attained by preservice teachers. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 11 (2), 9-18. Gitlin, A., & Teitelbaum, B. (1983). Linking theory and practice: The use of ethnographic methodology by prospective teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 9 (3), 225-234. Gleissman, D.H. (1984). Changing teaching performance. In L.G. Katz & J.D. Raths (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 95-111). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. *Gore, J.M., & Zeichner, K.M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 119-136. *Guillaume, A.M., & Rudney, G.L. (1993). Student teacher's growth toward independence: An analysis of their changing concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 65-80. *Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teachingand Teacher Education, 11, 33-49. **Herrmann, B.A., Sarracino, J. (1993). Restructuring preservice literacy methods course: Dilemmas and lessons learned. Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (2), 96-106.

**Hill, S. (1986). Language education and field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (3), 56-59. *Hillkirk, K., & Dupuis, V. (1989). Outcomes of a teacher education curriculum module that emphasizes inquiry and reflection. The Teacher Educator, 24 (3), 20-27.

*Hoover, L.A. (1994). Reflective writing as a window on preservice teacher's thought process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 83-93. Joplin, L. (1981). On defining experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4 (1), 17-20. **Kasten, C.K., & Padak, N.D. (1997). Nurturing preservice teachers' reflection on literacy. In C.K. Kinzer, K.A. Hinchman, & D.J. Leu (Eds.) Inquiries in literacy theory and practices. 46th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 621



335-346). Chicago: National Reading Conference. King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. *Knowles, J., & Hoefler, V. (1989). The student teacher who wouldn't go away: Learning from failure. The Journal of Experimental Education, 57 (4), 14-21. *Korthagen, F. (1985). Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the Netherlands. Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (5), 11-15. *Korthagen, F. (1988). The influence of learning orientations on the development of reflective teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers'professional learning (pp. 35-50). New York: Falmer Press. *Korthagen, F.A., & Wubbels, T. (1995). Characteristics of reflective practitioners: Towards an operationalization of the concept of reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1 (1), 51-72. **Leland, C.H., Harste, J.C., & Youssef, O. (1997). Teacher education and critical literacy. In C.K. Kinzer, K.A. Hinchman, & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practices. 46th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 385-396). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Livingston, G. (1999). Beyond watching over established ways: A review as recasting the literature, recasting the lived. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 9-20. **Lyons, N. (1998). Reflection in teaching: Can it be developmental? A portfolio perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 115-127. *MacKinnon,A. (1987). Detecting reflection-in-action among preservice elementary science teachers. Teachingand Teacher Education,3, 135-145. *Metcalf, K.K., & Kahlich, P.A. (1998). Nontraditional preservice teacher development: The value of clinical experience. Journal of Research and Development in Education, (2), 69-82. Miles, M., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang. Polkinghorne, D.E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J.A. Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 5-23). London: Falmer Press. *Pultorak, E.G. (1993). Facilitating reflective thought in novice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (4), 288-295. *Pultorak, E.G. (1996). Following the developmental process of reflection in novice teachers: Three years of investigation. Journal of Teacher Education, 47 (4), 283-291. *Reiman, A.J. (1999). The evolution of the social roletaking and guided reflection framework in teacher education: Recent theory and quantitative synthesis of research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 597-612. *Richert, A.E. (1990). Teaching teachers to reflect: A consideration of program structure. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22 (6), 509-527. Richert, A.E. (1991). Case methods and teacher education: Using cases to teach teacher reflection. In B.R. Tabachnich & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices

622

in inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp. 130-150). London: Falmer Press. Richert, A.E. (1992). The content of student teachers' reflections within different structures for facilitating the reflective process. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 171-191). London: Falmer Press. J LR **Risko, V., Roskos, K., & Vukelich, C. (1999). Making connections: Preservice Reflection teachers' reflection processes and strategies. In T. Shanahan & F. RodriguezBrown (Eds.), Forty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. and Learning to Teach 412-422). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Rogoff, B. (1982). Integrating context and cognitive development. In M.E. Lamb & A.L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 125-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Roskos, K., Risko, V., & Vukelich, C. (2000). A critical review of reflection in the professional education of future teachers of reading. In T. Shanahan & F.V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.). Forty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. *Ross, D. (1989). First steps in developing a reflective approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (2), 22-30. Russell, T. (1989). Documenting reflection-in-action in the classroom: searching for appropriate methods. Qualitative Studies in Education, 2 (4), 275-294. Russell, T. (1993). Critical attributes of a reflective teacher: Is agreement possible? In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 144-153). London: Falmer Press. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Schon, D. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press. *Sebren, A. (1995). Preservice teachers' reflections and knowledge development in a field-based elementary physical education methods course. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education Methods Course, 14, 262-283. **Sibbett, J., Wade, S., & Johnson, L. (1998). Preservice teachers' reflective thinking during a case discussion. In D.J. McIntyre & D.M. Byrd (Eds.), Strategies for career-long teacher education. Teacher Education Yearbook VI (pp. 26-39). Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. *Sparks-Langer, G.M., Simmons, J.M., Pasch, M., Colton, A., & Starko, A. (1990). Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 23-32. *Stoiber, K.C. (1991). The effect of technical and reflective preservice instruction on pedagogical reasoning and problem solving. Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (2), 131-139. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. **Truscott, D.M., & Walker, B.J. (1998). The influence of portfolio selection on reflective thinking. In E.G. Sturtevant, J. Dugan, P. Linder, & W.M. Linek (Eds.),

623


Literacy and community. Commerce, TX: College Reading Association. Tsangaridou, N., & O'Sullivan, M. (1994). Using pedagogical reflective strategies to enhance reflection among preservice physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 13-33. *Turner-Muecke, L., Russell, T., & Bowyer, J. (1986). Reflection-in-action: Case study of a clinical supervisor. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2 (1), 4 0 49. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228. Van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice. 1 (1), 33-50. **Walker, B.J. (1991). A descriptive study of the reflective statements of preservice teachers. In T. Rasinski, N. Padak, & J. Logan (Eds.), Reading is knowledge (pp. 97-103). Pittsburgh, KS: College Reading Association. **Walker, B.J., & Ramseth, C. (1993). Reflective practice confronts the complexities of teaching reading. In T. Rasinski & N. Padak (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 171-177). Pittsburgh, KS: College Reading Association. *Wedman, J., & Martin, M. (1986). Exploring the development of reflective thinking through journal writing. Reading Improvement, 23 (1), 68-71. *Wedman, J.M., Martin, M.W., & Mahlios,M.C. (1990). Effect of orientation, pedagogy and time on selected student teaching outcomes. Action in Teacher Education, 12 (2), 15-23. *Winitzky, N. (1992). Structure and process in thinking about classroom management: An exploratory study of prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 1-14. *Winitzky, N., & Arends, R. (1991). Translating research into practice: The effects of various forms of training and clinical experience on preservice student's knowledge, skill, and reflectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (1), 5265. Zeichner, K. (1987). Preparing reflective teachers: Tensions between abstractions and realities. Journal Teacher Education, 3 (1) 25-31. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1985). Varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 155-174. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1991). Traditions of reform in U.S. teacher education. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED320905) **Zulich, J., Bean, T.W., & Herrick, J. (1992). Charting stages of preservice teacher development and reflection in a multicultural community through dialogue journal analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 345-360. Manuscript received: August 28, 2000 First revision requested: December 11, 2000 Final revision received: December 11, 2000 Accepted for publication: December 19, 2000

624

Appendix. Summary of Reflertion Studies in Preservice Education - 1985-1999 (Note: * Indicates Literacy Studies) Author® (date)

OS

Participants & setting

Data source(s)

Research goal 1985-1989 Study the writing process

Results Reflection helps students recognize challenges of writing process for children.

•Afflerbach, Bass, Hoo, Smith, Weiss, & Williams (1988)

5 elementary ed. students; professor

Think-aloud transcripts

•Allen, Freeman, & Lehman (1989)

27 students in language arts methods course

Written responses to class & discussion Develop a model to link theory & practice

•Bean & Zulich (1989)

Undergraduate students Dialogue journals; observations enrolled in author's contentarea reading course with field experience

Reflect on discrepancy between content areas & universally applied reading strategies

Bolin (1988)

1 elementary ed. student teacher; university supervisor

Implemented effectively, journals can reveal & Discover how preservice teachers' thoughts develop over time as revealed facilitate preservice teachers reflective & critical in reflective journals kept during growth over time. student teaching

Calderhead (1987)

10 postgraduate teachers Interviews; reflective summaries involved in field experience for teaching students ages 8-13

Preservice teachers passed through 3 stages during Pinpoint how preservice teachers interpret & reflect on teaching practices student teaching, but did not naturally demonstrate as a means of learning how to development of reflective thought. encourage this skill

•Danielson (1989)

Students in author's courses

Autobiographical accounts of language development

Examine role of autobiography in understanding influences on children's language development

Ferguson (1989)

Preservice teachers enrolled in social studies methods course in a cooperative teaching practicum with master teachers

Questionnaire; reflective summaries; discussion between preservice teacher & master teacher; lesson plans; practicum field notes; conferences; seminars

All preservice teachers demonstrated ability to Evaluate course outcomes by finding evidence of preservice teachers making function at Van Mannen's 2nd level of reflective connection between theory learned in rationality, some at the 3rd. methods course & practice in the field; additionally, to examine whether or not preservice teachers were able to assess the value of the learned instructional methods on their own teaching

Reflective dialogue journal; interviews

Reflection was facilitated by videotaping & interaction with classroom teachers. Dialogue journals can effectively encourage reflection & bridge distance between content-area subculture & reading strategies.

Autobiographical journaling helps students identify teaching strategies.

Appendix. (Continued) Authorfs) (date)


Data source(s)

Research goal

Results

*Hill (1986)

Primary ed. preservice teachers Reflective summaries; seminar in language arts seminar & discussions; interview; questionnaire related field component

Explore unique elements of reflective Preservice teachers learned to think reflectively about approach to the field-based program & young children's language development & assess their effectiveness demonstrated critical thinking as a result of the field experience tutoring 1 child.

Hillkirk & Dupuis (1989)

2 sections of "The Teaching Biography of " course; the 2nd semester of a generic methods course with a 5-week practicum

Seminar observations; weekly meeting with instructors; written student evaluations; written instructor evaluations

Examine & assess effects of generic methods course redesigned to make better use of field experience & encourage deep reflection

Knowles & Hoefler (1989)

1 student teacher

Journal entries; instructor's clinical notes Compare 1 student's failure in the student teaching experience to the Experiential Education Model proposed by Joplin

Korthagen (1985)

116 graduated participants & 13 students approaching graduation from a 4.5-year reflective teaching program

Questionnaire; interviews

Korthagen (1988)

18 prospective math teachers

Standardized interview with teacher Document effects of reflective teacher External-oriented learners expressed dissatisfaction educators; questionnaire; Kelly's ed. program on students with different with the program & often dropped out. repertory grid; interviews with students; learning orientations IE0 test

MacKinnon (1987)

Undergraduate science methods students

Lesson transcriptions; discussions between preservice teachers & supervisors

Measure the effectiveness of Schon's model of reflection-in-action to study the way the preservice teachers "make sense of their teaching performances"

Schon's model is an effective way of accessing the thought processes of preservice teachers.

Ross (1989)

26 undergraduate students enrolled in elementary ed. course that encourages the development of reflection

Theory-to-practice papers

Evaluate the ways that preservice teachers learn to reflect when participating in an education course that intends to foster reflection

Many students have the capability to reflect at high levels, but may vary in their reflective tendencies.

Journals of students who participated in the teaching biography were more analytical & reflective than those of the control group.

Reflection can turn a negative teaching experience into a beneficial learning experience.

Evaluate the effectiveness of a reflective Program effectiveness is dependent on students' teaching program in the Netherlands innate ability to reflect. Those not predisposed to reflective thinking do not benefit.

Appendix. (Continued) Author® (date)


Turner-Muecke, Russell, & Bowyer (1986)

1 graduate student who served as clinical supervisor; 1 student teacher with MA in English

Wedman & Martin (1986)

23 elementary & secondary ed. Journal entries (randomly selected) students

Bainer & Cantrell (1992)

96 preservice teachers in ed. psych. & general pedagogy

Bainer & Cantrell (1993)

75 preservice teachers in ed. psych. & general pedagogy

Reflective essays

Discover whether the amount of reflection &/or the content of reflection varies based on the instructional domain of the lesson used during the reflective experience

Content should not be the primary consideration in selecting a reflective experience. The amount of reflection did not vary across different instructional domains.

Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, & White (1991)

13 science student teachers, 14 novice & experienced science teachers, 14 science students in grades 8 through 11, & the authors

Diaries, written evaluations, interviews, discussions, & questionnaires.

Observe whether collaborative reflection could enhance teaching & learning of science by generating desirable cognitive, metacognitive, & affective outcomes

2 common features were found in the personal development experienced by the participants: the importance of reflection for intellectual development & the importance of collaboration for fostering this reflection.

*Bean & Zulich (1990)

3 preservice teachers enrolled in a secondary content-area reading course

Student-professor dialogue journals

Explore the changing views of a required course of content-area teachers through the use of student-professor dialogue journals

The competing forces of discipline & school-based cultures, as well as individual development, play uncharted roles in a preservice teacher's efforts to function successfully within the profession.

*Bean & Zulich (1991)

3 education students enrolled in a content-area reading course.

Student-professor dialogue journals & interviews

Consider the beliefs & practices of Subjects expressed a real interest in implementing preservice content-area teachers about content reading strategies & a concern about their the required course & the relationship ability to implement them in a field experience. to field experience & to explore the use Differences were noted also based on personal of actual content-area reading strategies biographies brought into the class.

Data source(s) Verbatim transcripts of classroom instruction; graph of student participation; transcriptions of supervisory conferences; supervisor's reflective journal

Research goal

Results

Determine the value of the supervisor's Supervisor became aware of personal biases & the own reflection in action as she value of careful documentation of supervision process. attempts to encourage reflection in a student teacher Discover extent to which students reflect

Students reflect at technical level.

1990-1994 Group discussions & reflective essays Define the content of reflection through Analysis found that preservice teachers reflect mainly studying what preservice teachers on the process of teaching (particularly planning & reflect about after a clinical experience implementation).

Appendix. (Continued) Author(s) (date) oo

•Bean & Zulich (1993)

Participants & setting Data source(s) 3 education students enrolled Student-professor dialogue journals in a content-area reading course.

Bolin (1990)

1 preservice student teacher

Gore & Zeichner (1991)

18 elementary student teachers

Guillaume & Rudney 19 elementary student (1993) teachers

•Herrmann & Sarracino (1993)

13 preservice early childhood & elementary students

Research goal

Results

Discover the extent to which the Found that the professor's responses did not create a symmetrical dialogue. Instead, they focused these on content-area reading professor's response created a symmetrical dialogue extending student thoughts, answering questions, & acknowledging skills.

Dialogue journal, interview with Discover, in the form of a case study, if supervisor, autobiography, & evaluations the researcher's conclusions from the 1st case study still hold true & are the recommendations made still valid Action research project Analyze student teacher's research projects for evidence of the favored view of reflective thinking

The researcher's conclusions from the 1st case study were found to be the same & the recommendations valid. The case study student focused more on description rather than reflection in his writings.

Dialogue journals & discussions

Found that the students express a variety of concerns that can fit into 6 categories: lesson planning & evaluation, discipline, working with pupils, working with cooperating teachers & adjusting their classrooms, working with others in the profession, & transitions from the student to professional teacher. Also found that changes in concern showed participants growing from student to teacher. Final finding indicated that student teachers reflect when given structured opportunities.

Investigate the changing concerns of student teachers by an extensive analysis of their reflective journals

Professional dialogues, questionnaires, & Discover the preservice students' overall reaction to the restructured course & reflective summaries changes in their self-perceptions, conceptual understandings, & theoretical perspectives about literacy teaching & their instructional actions

Little evidence was found with attention to the critical domain of reflection. The study suggested possible changes in the student teaching course as a result of the analysis.

3 major categories emerged: cognitive shifts (changes in conceptual understandings of literacy teaching), social shifts (changes in association or interaction with peers, parents & students), & emotional shifts (changes in affective aspects of literacy teaching).

Appendix. (Continued) Author® (date)


Data source(s)

Hoover (1994)

2 secondary ed. student teachers

Questionnaires, interviews, journals, & videos

Pultorak (1993)

31 student teachers enrolled Journals & interviews in a K—12 teacher preparatory program

Richert (1990)

12 preservice secondary ed. teachers

Sparks-Langer, Simmons, Pasch, Colton, & Starko (1990) Stoiber (1991)

12 elementary & 12 secondary Journals & interviews preservice methods students

Research goal Results Written assignments were more useful in making Describe an in-depth analysis of the writing of 2 secondary preservice participants' cognitive processes explicit than in their teachers involved in assignments actively constructing knowledge about teaching & designed as a programmatic feature to learning. promote reflective thinking during a university teacher ed. practicum. Investigate reflection in written form over a short period of time, facilitate reflection over a longer period of time, determine if student teachers could reflect within certain categories

Portfolios, journals, interviews, reflective Examine the effect of particular aids to A structured opportunity to reflect time, & safety all emerged as central in encouraging teachers to reflect reflection on the reflections of novice summaries, & questionnaires in ways that they found helpful in understanding teachers their experiences in classrooms. Design & pilot test an interview schedule & various forms of "think aloud" reflection journals to be used during the teaching week

67 preservice teachers majoring in elementary ed.

Video-stimulated interview & inventory Compare the effects of technical & reflective instruction in classroom management on preservice teachers' reasoning & problem solving

36 junior phys. ed. majors enrolled in a secondary pedagogical course

Written reflective logs, written video commentaries, & interviews

OS

to

Tsangaridou & O'Sullivan (1994)

Daily journals produce reflections similar to characteristics of 3 categories: technical rationality, practical action, & critical reflection. Journals generated reflections that were thematic in nature. Visitation journals were less thematic. Reflective interviews led to reflection in all 3 categories.

Describe how specific reflective pedagogical strategies influence preservice phys. ed. teachers to reflect on their practice

Students appeared to be meeting the program goal of using pedagogical principles & some contextual information to analyze teaching events (but only 1 student was at the highest level of 7). Participants in the reflective condition provided more reasons for their decisions, expressed a greater sense of responsibility for motivating student learning & establishing a positive learning environment & used strategies more often to solve problems than participants in the technical & control conditions. New pedagogical reflective strategies are successful in promoting preservice teachers' reflective abilities.

o

Appendix. (Continued) Author(s) (date)


Data source(s)

Research goal

Results

•Walker (1991)

18 preservice teachers

Diagnostic narratives, daily observations, Explore the reflective statements of information interviews, literacy artifacts preservice teachings during a reading clinic situation

Discovered 10 categories of reflective statements

•Walker & Ramsey (1993)

25 preservice elementary ed. teachers

Diagnostic narratives with 4 aspects (plans, rationales for plans, observations during instruction, & reflections after instruction), field notes from direct observations & literacy artifacts

Examine the development of reflectivity Discovered which aspects of instruction the preservice to understand how preservice teachers teachers contemplated. "see" problems when teaching problem reading & if they make reflective statements that show the complex relationship among competing variables when teaching

Wedman, Martin, & Mahlios (1990)

Students enrolled in student teaching during the 3rd 9-week academic period at 2 different Midwestern universities (23 in experimental; 26 in control)

Teacher Beliefs Inventory & 2 instruments designed by the researchers

To assess the extent to which an inquiry-oriented student teaching program influenced student teachers' reflective practices

Winitzky (1992)

Ordered tree technique & reflective15 elementary preservice teacher candidates enrolled in thinking interview a 1-year graduate program in teacher ed.

The experimental group's reflective teaching practices were primarily technical; control group did grow in its reflective thinking practices,

Determine if increases in preservice There was a positive correlation between the teachers' cognitive structures are preservice teachers' complexity of knowledge coupled with corresponding increases in structure & their ability to reflect. their ability to reflect, analyze, & reason

Appendix. (Continued) Author(s) (date)


Winitzky & Arends (1991)

Study 1:37 preservice teacher ed. students enrolled in a secondary general methods course. Study 2:39 preservice teachers enrolled in a secondary general methods course. Study 3:36 preservice teachers enrolled in a secondary general methods course.

*Zulich, Bean, & Herrick (1992)

8 preservice teachers, each from 3 stages of a postbaccalaureate program

Data source(s)

Research goal

Study 1:20-item multiple-choice test; video-tapes of micro-teaching; investigator-made test where student wrote about the strengths & weaknesses of their microteaching lessons & justified their responses. Study 2: Ordered-tree technique; reflective essay (Study 1); knowledge test (Study 1). Study 3: Researchermade multiple-choice tests to measure knowledge acquisition; planning a lesson to measure skill; analysis of a videotaped lesson of a teacher performing a strategy to assess reflection; vocabulary test to measure verbal abilities. Weekly dialogue journals

Results

Examine the relationship between students' pedagogical knowledge & their reflective abilities

Candidates with more organized & complex knowledge structures were more able to reflect on classroom management events at all levels.

Examine programmatic & personal dimensions that interact to shape a future teacher's beliefs & practices

Preservice teachers pass through 3 states: introductory, intermediate, & immersion. Their biographies interact with other dimensions, including discipline subculture & the quality of preservice experience in the classrooms which help or impede their ability to negotiate & then to reflect on the competing demands of becoming a teacher.

1995-1999 Borko, Michalec, Timmons, & Siddle (1997)

MA+ program: 21 students participating as a cohort

Written reflection by all 21 students & interviews with 8 students

Investigate whether student teachers' construction of portfolios would enhance their reflection on practice

15 of 21 students described the portfolio as a tool for reflection; 11 said it allowed them to make connection between theory & practice; & 10 characterized it as a step toward a professional portfolio. None of the student teachers considered their portfolios to be complete.

Appendix. (Continued) Author® (date) Clarke (1995)

Collier (1999)

Participants & setting 4 student teachers on a 12-week practicum

4 Student teachers

Data source(s) Video recall sessions

Research goal Identify what student teachers reflect about, what precipitates reflection, & factors that enhance or constrain reflective practice

Results 15 reflective were themes documented. Students were engaged in purposeful inquiry leading to the resolution of a problem or the management of dilemma.

Reflective journals, reflective interviews, Examine reflective characteristics that 4 peer observation conferences, & group elementary school student teachers exhibit during their 8-week clinical field seminars placement

Reflective practice is a unique & individual developmental process. 3 of the 4 participants typically functioned from a reactive vs. proactive stance. Student teachers were subjective in their perceptions of clinical experiences. 1 student teacher demonstrated a more open-minded approach to her experiences. All student teachers demonstrated at least 2 levels of reflection over the course of the placement regardless of their epistemological orientation. Student teachers became aware of the sound & character of their own voices & learned how they think & how they convey what they think to others through their words & actions. Investigate achieved levels of reflection Over 2 quarters, even without training, the avg. levels over time by preservice teachers when of reflection on readings increase significantly from Ross' lowest to moderate levels. Over 3 quarters, it they were asked simply to reflect on their field experiences & course content increased from lowest level to intermediate.

Galvez-Martin, 21 preservice teachers in a Bowman, & Morrison graduate elementary teacher (1998) certification program

Reflective journals

Hatton & Smith (1995)

Teacher ed. students undertaking the 4-year secondary Bachelor of Ed. degree. Cohort of 26 students & 4 cohort of 34 students

Written report, self-evaluations, videotapes, & 20-minute interview

*Kasten & Padak (1997)

29 preservice ed. students enrolled in the last literacy course in their programs

Reflection in 2 different ways: writing Understand how preservice teachers about their lessons; writing a 3-4 page reflect when they reflect & if they reflection as part of a personal portfolio reflect critically

Investigate the nature of reflection in teaching, define specific forms of reflection, & evaluate the strategies in terms of the degree to which they facilitate particular types of reflection

4 types of writing were identified, 3 of which were characterized as different kinds of reflertion. The most common type of reflertion was descriptive with a high incidence of multiple perspectives. Students are reflective according to some definitions of reflection as well as authors' definition. Context of reflections makes a difference. The directions students are given about how to reflect are important.

Appendix. (Continued) Author(s) (date) Participants & setting Data source(s) Research goal Korthagen & Wubbles Meta-analysis of 4 studies & 1 Written survey, questionnaire, interview, Answer the question: What are the (1995) new study N = 360 (all critical attributes that distinguish videotapes, IE0 test studies) reflective teacher from their colleagues? Evaluate the authors' own approach to "Leland, Harste, & 16 undergraduate teacher ed. Journals teacher ed. & determine whether they Youssef (1997) students needed to make a more deliberate effort to call students' attention to issues of equity & justice, or whether these topics would emerge from their own reflections on educational issues & observations of classroom life •Lyons (1998)

10 participants (4 undergraduates, 6 interns)

Portfolios & interviews

Metcalf & Kahlich (1998)

18 preservice teachers enrolled Semistructured interviews & guided in an intensive program of written reflection secondary teacher ed. for nontraditional students

Results The study reveals 4 critical attributes & 7 correlates of reflectivity. 1,465 entries (12.41%) met the criterion for being considered critical. There was a difference between the type of critical journal entries made, with instructional entries dominating during semesters 2 & 3. There was also an increase across the 3 semesters in the overall amount of critical entries, with students becoming increasingly aware & critical of the invisible forces that operate on meaning making within schools in general.

Critical conversations interrogating portfolio entries & Describe how reflection has been their significance foster teachers' consciousness of discussed in teacher ed. & what developmental elements are involved in their knowledge of practice. Teaching practice identified as part of one's teaching philosophy. The reflection process of reflection that comes through public, collaborative inquiry, involves learning about the self, about the values one holds for teaching & learning. Examine the professional growth & development of preservice teachers

Nontraditional preservice teachers' development is similar to that of traditional preservice development but seems to progress more quickly; their conceptions of good teaching & of themselves as teachers begin & develop in highly predictable way; & on-campus clinical experiences seem to provide unique & valuable opportunities for self reflection & professional growth.

Appendix. (Continued) Author(s) (date) Pultorak (1996)

Participants & setting 82 novice teachers (71% elementary; 29% secondary) during their 16-week final field-based teaching experience

Data source(s) Reflective journals, reflective interview

Research goal

Results

Reiman (1999)

Synthesis of 7 studies on Dialogue journals with instructor & guided reflection conducted by peers the author & colleagues with preservice & in-service teachers

Add focus to the developmental process At 1st contact with teaching, novice teachers are of the presence & character of teacher most concerned about their survival skills such as reflectivity in novice teachers class control, mastery of content, & evaluation of supervisors. They appear to become more autonomous & structured in their deliberations regarding moral & ethical imperatives during this stage. Examine the effects of guided reflection The guided reflection framework prompted modest framework as an approach to reflection growth in more complex problem solving & interpersonal maturity. Participants in treatment on moral development, conceptual groups gained professional skills associated with more complexity, & interpersonal maturity effective & responsible practice.

*Risko, Roskos, & Vukelich (1999)

30 preservice teachers enrolled Double-entry journals & interviews in literacy method courses at 3 different university locations.

Describe the nature of students' reflective activity, specifically their strategies & level of reflection

The frequency of each level of reflection did not change. Most students recognized that reflection was helpful for remembering & processing course information. They could elaborate on reasons for reflection, steps they followed, & how they approached the task.

Sebren (1995)

7 preservice teachers during a Audiotapes of weekly 1-hour reflection field-based elementary sessions, nonparticipant observation of methods course methods course meetings & field experiences, 3 interviews, & documents

Analyze & describe preservice teachers' reflections & knowledge development during a field-base elementary methods course. Consider the potential influence of reflection experiences on the preservice teachers' development

The preservice teachers: (a) made managerial decisions in relation to their effect on the learning environment; (b) planned lesson content in relation to past & future lessons; (c) considered the children's prior learning & skillfulness in relation to subject matter decisions; (d) connected their choice of words & actions to the children's perspective. They did not however develop the ability to respond pedagogically to students during an actual lesson.

Appendix. (Continued) Author(s) (date) •Sibbet, Wade, & Johnson (1998)

•Truscott & Walker (1998)


Data source(s)

28 preservice teachers enrolled Small- & large-group case discussion in a required secondary teacher ed. course

63 undergraduate student teachers from various disciplines

Portfolios

Research goal

Results Conscientious effort to understand the perspectives of Examine the reflective process of future students with limited English proficiency & to analyze teachers & their discussion of case how teachers' roles affect the teaching & learning studies context. Their reflection moved from a teachercentered urgency to solve the problem to an openminded, responsible, & whole-hearted approach, in which students were willing to grapple with the complexities of the problems & issues they saw in the case. Describe the kind of artifacts student teachers selected for their cumulative portfolio, which artifacts they viewed as most important in describing them as a teacher, & which types of reflective thinking the artifacts represented

955 included artifacts that involved technical reflection: 88% included experiential-based items, e.g., implemented lessons; 44% stated that the Philosophy Toward Teaching Essay, which involved conceptual & critical reflection, was the most important item in describing them as a teacher.