EFFECTIVE REFLECTIVE PRACTICE IN SEARCH OF MEANING IN LEARNING ABOUT TEACHING

J . John Loughran Monash University

Reflective pmct ice has all allure that is scti llctive jll nntllre because it rings trill' for most people as sumdhillg useful tllld illformillg. However. for reflection to gellllillely be a lens into till' world of practice, it is importallt thai the nature of reflectiDlI be identified ill sitch (j way as to offer ways of qllestiulling /Ilkt!njnr-g rallIed assllmptions alld cncol/raging aile to see his or her practice through others' eyes. TIlt:' rdal iOl/ship between time, experience, alld expectations of It'llmillg IImJIIgl1 reflec­tioll is atl imporlall/ eil'IIlCIII of reflect iOll, alld to teacll about reflectitm rf.'l{lIirt'S cOIr tcxl llfllllncitors to make leortlillg I'l'isool:s meallillrifll i. Tllis article examillcs the naflln' of reflectiull a/ld suggests Jww it might l'fCOIt/I' effect iw rt:flcctive practice tlmt call be developed alld f'lIluIITced through teochrr rJrt'paration pmj{mms.

Reflection has developed a variety of meanings as the bandwagon hilS traveled through the wo rl d of practice. Its il llure is caught up in th~ seducti ve nnrure of a notion that rings true for most people as something useful and informing; in the developmen t and understanding of, in this case, teaching nnd lea rning in teache r edu­ca tion practices.

Reflective practice is a term that carries div~r~t' meaning (Grimmett & Erickson, 1988; Richard­son, 1992). For some, it simply means thinking ilbou t something, whereas for others, it is a we ll­defined and crafted practice that carries very specific meaning and associated action . Along this continuum there are many interesting inter­pretations, but one element of reflection tha t is common to many is the notion of a problt>11I (a puzzling, curious, or perplexing situatiun) . What that problem is, the way it is framed and (hopefully) reframed, is an impurtant aspect of understanding the nature of reflection and the value of reflective practice. It is alsu a crucial (but sometimes too easily overlooked) aspect of lea rning abou t teaching.

One uutcome resulting from the a ppeal of the idea uf reflecti ve prilctic(' has been the adoption of reflection as a founda ti on for many teacher ~duca tion programs (see, e.g., Richert, 1990; Russell , 1997; Tom, 1985; Va lli , 1993; Zeichner, 1983). A consequence of Ihis la rge-sca le uptake of reflection as a shaping pri ncip le for teacher educa tion program struclures is that the cynic may well a rgue that participants are simply encou raged t.o reflect. This issue is perhaps a t the heH rt of the nHture and va lue of re flection, as clea rly the "WHy in" to re fl ection- the need to re fl ect-the contex t, the nature of the problem, and the anticipated va lue of such reflection a ll impacton what is reflected on and for wha t pur­poSt'. Simply being encouraged to reflect is likely to be as meaningful as a Iccture on cooper­ati ve group work.

In this article, I sha ll exam ine the value of reflection as a meaningful way of approaching lea rning about teaching ~o thilt a better under­sland ing of teaching, and teaching about teach­ing, might develop. For reflection to lead to va luable learning ou tcomes for teacher educa-

Journal of TeolCher Education. Vol. 53, No. 1, January / l'ebruary 2002 3J--U Q 2002 by tlw Amerk,m A'<SO-.ri.ll ion of Colleges for Teacher Education

tors <lnd thcirstudents, I believt! it must b£'effcc­live reflective practice.

REFLECTION: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Across m<lny professions (sci~nc(', nursing, medicine, law, teaching) the nt!ed for individu­als to develop their undcrst,md ing i:lbou t thc way they cond uct their work, and to be ski llf'd practitioners through th(!i r work, has been important in informing the proft'ssion about a<; pects of prncticc. By so doing, thl:' knowledgt­base of the profession is developed and refined in ways that hclp the practitioner to be ,Ill effec­tive and informed professional.

The knowledge base (or some professions may bt' found in case books, h.1ndbooks of prac­tice, prect'dt!nts of lav." and so on. In rcecn t times, bo th nurSing (see, c.g., Newton, 2000; Rolft'. 1998) and teaching (sec. c.g., C landin in & COTUlt'lly, ]995; Lytle & Cochra n-Smith , 1992) havt' sought to better develop and articulate those aspt'Cls of practice that migh t bcdcscribcd as bt'ing d pMt of their knowledge base.

It is not surprising, then, tha t rt'fit'Ction con­linually emerges as a suggested way of helping practitioners be tter unders tand what the y know and do as they develop their knowledge of practice through reconsidering what tht!y learn in practice. Reflection, theil , places an emphasis on learning through questioning and investigation to lead to a development of under­standing (Smyth, 1992). purthermore, thert! has been a recognition that reflection is important in sustaining one's professional hea lth and com­petence and that the ability to exercise profe~­s iona l judgm ent is in fac t info rmed through reflection on practice (Day, 1999). Hence, fo r Ihose who sec profeSSional development partly as an emanCipation of prac ti ce by learning through practice, reflection is indeed a l the heart of thc matter and equally va luable regard­less of the profesSion.

In the fit'ld of teacher &iuc<1 tion, a wave of rt.'flective prnctice washed over the profession following Schon 's (1983, 1987, 1992) reminders of Ihe importu ncc of the link between reflection ;lIld practice. A number of books highlighted the variety of il ppTOilches to, and applica tions

of, reflection sllch that the idea uf reflt'Ction for some time was central to views of gocx.i practice (e.g., Calderhead & Gates, 1993; Clift, HOlls ton, & Pugach, 1990; Grimmett & Erickson, 1988; La Boskey, 1994; Loughran, 1996; Osterman & Ko ttkamp. 1993).

Brookfield (1995) reminded us that the reflec­ti ve prucHce li terature is import,lOt for two rea­sons. First, it offers a variety of approaches to examining practice in order that we might dis­cover and resea rch some of the taken- for­gran ted assumptions that influence our ap­proach to practice so that

WI' can \pam ubout, and ~I.lrl t..'xpt.:rimcnting w ilh, different .!ppro.lcht.'"S to .1SStlOlplion hunting. M~ny of these appm.lchp<; al"f' well .~uitpd 10 unearthing il~ ­

'lUmplions of power OlnJ hegclllonv .. landllhev "lsooulline ways in w hich " pr"O);ram for the ('nrour­agem('n! of n'nl'f"tive practice III uther~ can be !'oy~' te rIldhcdlly dc\·dopcd. (pp. 218-219)

Second, it provides opportunities for U~ to understand the stories of how teachers live­through reflective practice, many of which we identify with persona lly. These s tories help us to

reali7E' IhM what Wi' thought WI'n-' tdinsyncrahc fea­tures of our ()wn Critica lly reflective efforts arc paral­leled in Ih(· experiences of many of our cnl\l'agul'~. W('di<;cnvf'r that whllt we thought Wil~ ourowlI idio­syncratic difficulty is actually.lIl example of a wider structural problem or cu lll lr,,1 contradkhon. (p . 219)

It is therefore important that s ib~ificanct' and meaning continually accompany the construc­tion of purpose and application of reflectiun tu the world of practi ce so that the value of experi­ence can be realized by teacht'rs in ways that minimize the possibility that the problematic nature of practice might simply be routinized. To counter the likelihood that practice may be routinized, teacher educators and their student teachers need 10 pay particular attention to the natureof the problems they are confronted by in their teaching about teaching and their learning about teaching.

PROBLEM: A PUZZLINGI CURIOUS SITUATION

For teach('r educators. way~ of acting a nd the reasons that direct tha t action are made explicit

Journal of ItKlcher ~uucatlon. Vol. 53. No. I, Januory/Fobruory 2002

when attempting to help others see what it is that matters in one's own practice. An element of "making the tacit explicit" is the need and abil ity to recognize what draws one's attention to <l situat ion that might be viewed as problematic.

A Problem Is Unlikely to Be Acted On " If Is Not Viewed as a Problem

In the practice setting, developing <l range of ways of seeing: a problt.'nl is importan t. If 1.1

teacher educator s imply sta tes the problem for others (student teachers), il will nol necessaril y then make it visible lu them, as I he d ifferenccs in experience influence nut un ly what the problem is but also how it mighl be "ieen. There needs 10

be a reason to be able to see Ihe problem in dif· fcrent ways. Thi!:o ab il ity 10 frame a nd refralne (Schon, 1983, 1987) i!:o it most importan t aspect of developing rdlective practice as it influences the subseqwml actions in practice.

Rationalization May Masquerade as Reflection

Ratiunali.t.at ion of practice is most apparent when a problem is not (c.mnot) be viewed in other ways such tha t the existing perspecti ve dom inates lhe practice setting and the problem con tinues in its present form. In a similar vein, it is also important to distinguish between ratio~

n<'lliza lion and justification of practice. One might justify practice in terms of a particular way of approach ing a situation because of spe· cific knowledge or thoughts about that setting; however, rationalization is the dogged adher· ence loan approach almost despite the nature of the pmctice sctting because alternative ways of , seeing are not (cilnno t) be apprehended.

Cunsider, for example, a s tudent teacher (or, for that matter, a teal'her or tt"acher educiltor) who has a class that is perceived as being disin· tert""Sted in learning. The impact of th is percep­tion (the students' attitude) on the teacher could eaSily lead to a situ ation in which failure 10 engage the class in lcarni.ng, or to feel satisfied by or interested in ICuming, is attributed to the

s tu den ls' attitude. l lence, the teacher 's approach to the class, the manner of the teach· ing, the im pilc t (or lack thereof) on learning muld be explained .:lway as resulting from the students' alti tude. If th is were the case, it could lead to a view wherein the problem could be seen as residing within the students rather than in the practice setting itself. Therefore, if the problem is considered to be outside the practi. tioner 's control, there is little incentive for the practitioner to a ttempt to address the si tuation; hence, the natufC of the practice would be per· ccived as havi.ng li ttle impact on the problem.

EXPERIENCE ALONE DOES NOT LEAD TO LEARNING; REFLECTION ON EXPERIENCE IS ESSENTIAL

Experience can offer the s tudent teacher opportunities to live through alternative ways of approaching the practice setting, but there is litt le doub t that the inilin\ framing inevitably impacts on w hat is seen, the nature of the risks tnken, and the diversity in learning through nl'tion. Hence, it seems reilsonable to assert that how a student teacher engages with his or her actions wi thin the practice se tting, through reflection on those actions, must shape the pos· s ibilities for seeing as a result of experience. Reflection on experience enhances learning through experience such that divergent rather thnn convergent learning outcomes ilre encouraged.

This importnn t interpJolY bernreen experience and re(Jection is illso influenced by the time of reflect ion, which has n drJmatic impact on what can be seen and aeled on. Anticipatory, retro­spec t ive, and contemporaneous reflection demand differt"n l skills and framing abilities (Loughran, l<JYn) nnd interact wi th experience in a variety of ways. Suffice to say, the different demands associated with the time of reflection fa n influence s tud e nt teache rs' learning through experi ence.

Consider the following example of a teacher <IS she expla ins her approach 10 a particular sit-uation:

I assumed as a CUIl!>t."tjUCllCl' of my own lack of en· thusiasm that the s tudents had a negati\'f' r£'la tiOrl'

Journal of Teacher Education, VOL 53. No.1. January/FBbruory 2002 35

ship with the subject. I sought to Identify the factor~ contributin:o; to their experience and experiment with a ltemativf' ways of teaching based on the feed ­back I R!t:eived .... It W,lS in their [students' ] re­sponses. that I re,l!ized that my perceptions wert> not f'ntiri'ly accurate ... . I was surp rised to find thai the ~tudent$ gcncrillly felt positive towards the subject, bu t identified key elements that took away fmm their leanung experience .... nli~ milde [lie fed Cllll ­

fiden t that choosing to pursue ways of respondi ng 10 some of these "highlighted issue~" in my teach ing pra(ti(c (ould make theenvironmel1t more stimulat­ing for my s tudents. (Studen t's personal diary ac­count as shared With a teacher education dtls~, M<.IY 2000).

In this case, the teacher has demonstra ted the vCl lue in ques tioning her taken-for-granted as­sumptions o f p racti ce. Her reframing (and sub­sequent acti ons) have helped her to learn more about the practice selling in a way that has been helpful for a ll involved (teacher and s tudents). Clearly, then, her re nection has held an effec t on her p ractice it could be t'ega rded as effective renective p ract ice.

I contrast this notion of effective reflective practice w ilh rat iona I iz i ng one's pmctice, which I believe is commonl y misconstrued as re nee­tion. Reflecti on is effective when it lends the teacher to make mea ning from the s ituation in ways that enhance unders tanding so thn t she or he comes to see and understand the practice set­ting from n variety of viewpoin ts. Such lea ming can then impact on the development o f one's allitudes for reflection (Dewey's [1~331 open­minded ness, responSibility, and w ho lehearted­ness) nnd , in so doi.ng, it is possible to highlight the link between reflec tion and the develop­ment of a genuine wisdom-in-practice as the knowledge gained through reflection is recog­ni znb le and articula tive. One helpful ilppro.:lch for fa ci lita ting this is drawn from rcseard, on nnecdotes (van Manen 1995, 1999).

OTHER WAYS OF SEEING

In writing an Cl flecdote, the iluthor con­s tructs a persona l accoWl t of a s itua tion from his or her perspective as a central figure in a way that creates a sense of understand ing of the given s ituation. r have found anecdo tes to

be very powerfu l for st udent teachers as they quick ly identify w ith the author 's s ituntion (who, in va n Ma nen 's [ 1 ~~5, It}Y9] case, are usu­ally high school student s), and the ir reactions cons is te ntl y illust rate how be ing reminded about a student's perspective on the classroom helps tu reshape shldent teachers' views about their uw n approach tu teaching;.

Student teachers are also very capab le o f con­s tructing their own anecdotes about their expe­ri ences as learners, and, although I ha ve not for­ma lly pursued it, I do sec many possibilities in this approach for helping teacher educators to see their practice differently. For example, Lhe fo llowing anecdote illustrates how a professo r 's a pproach to teaching about an issue completely contrad icted the ve ry message he was a tte mpt­ing to deli ver.

A Lesson on Policy

Thf' h.ltorial room was 'lLJif't. <.mly the prof(>Ssor ·., voice broke the ~ il cl1cc. I h,IU to ~i1y !>Omcthing. I dis­<l!;rN'd with what he W,lS saying. 1 spoke lip. Tha t's what I thought we were supposed to be leammg to do. To be .1ctivl'\y cn9,aged in our leMning. To ques­tion our unclerstancling. We'rE' certainly expf'C ted to be doing Ihnt with our stuuents in ~hoo1.

" I don' t think that policy has to be about change! " I said, and I gave some examples to support my point of view. With that, others in the cl.1SS .llsa ~lartPd In contributf'.

"nlis b what the defini tiun is! Reputed research­ers agree!" was his rather forceful response.

Faced wi th that, w halelsp cou ld I say? He was the expert. He woulJ t.lke it as a pcr~o r1 al in~u lt if I <Igain r<l iSL'd issues, so I kepi my mouth shut. As the r(>St of the monologue surged forth , the class returned to its e.1rlief silence. I opened my notebook and wrote furi­oU!lly, " I disagrPe, I diSilgl"ff'."

WI..' hilU just ~-'Cn talki ng <Ibout induding peuple in discussions, acceptin:o; others' point of view, inclu­sion, un derstanding. I don't think that classrooms should be ]edL1J"C theatres. Te.Jdling is not (J one-way process. (Lough ran, 1\)<,17, pp. 5-h)

The p rofessor in this anecdute did nut :;~ what his response actua ll y t' reated in the mind of this pMticu lnr student teacher. If he were to be con­fron ted by nn anecdote of thi s kind , one won­ders whether he would link this type of scena ri o with his own actions. As a teacher educator,

36 Journal at Teacher Education. Vol. 53, No. 1, January/Fsbruary 2CXl2

how do YOli react to this anecdote? What does thilj anecdote make you think about in te rms of your own teaching practice?

A~ briefly noted at the outset of this arti cle, hdping student teachers come to see di ffe rentl y and thereby gain insights into how they might come to better understand and consequently va lue wisdom-in-practice is not as s imple as just highlighting the problem and telling them what it is they should know. I n teacher education pro­grams, student teachers are o ft en encouraged to tryout different teaching procedures and fee l what it is like to teach in a particular way. For example, student teachers o ften find it difficult to cond uct an interpretive discussion (Uaird & Northfie ld , 19Y2; Ha m es, ltJ75) because they struggle with their use of "wa il time."

When the s tuden t-teachers wi th whom I work depa rt for their school teaching experi­ences (practicum ), [encourage them to practice their use of wail time and feel what it is like to give their studen ts a chance to think before they (as teachers) rush to fill thai ever-50-brief moment of silence. As a resu lt of taking the risk, one of my student teachers wrote the following anecdote.

Waltnme

My first class. Palms sweating, breillhing shaltow, lie too tight, pulse too fast. I gupss I was kind of nN­\'ous. I had fully prepared the whole lesson in il1t ri­ca te detail. and cvcn rehe.1fscd certa in key sections. I shufflen my hnoks, wa tching thpm enter the rnom noisily, with attitude to burn. TIwy sat down. Even· hlillly, t swallowed .

"Good morning JOB! M y name is Mr. Burns, I'm il teacher from Monash University. Today we arc ... " and into the lesson I launchf'd. enol as a cucumhpr and smooth as a strawberry smoothie. I wrote on the board in big letters. "What Makes A t<jlm?"

H!l\'ing bonded with the students on an incrtxli­bly deep and sllbstantiallcveJ in the firs t three min­lIltO'S of the class, I swiftly and confidpn lly turned to face the elliSS. With il big sIIIi1e ulH.lthe most open of expfC'Ssions I cou ld m usler, I threw out my first question.

"Cm anyone lell me some elements of fi lm making?"

I pauSC\.i for the expected barrage of excited re­sponses. 1 waited and wai ted. Anyone? Longer and lunger. Help? It felt tike an hour. A w,"'Ck. A ye.1r.

Wuuld the wait be wurth it? A ... yes? Finally from b k f h I ' "U . t .?" the ac 0 tee ass. Ill ..• scnp s, Si r ,

'Thank you!'· t said, hopefully without too much desperation. TIle trickle of answers gradually be­c"me a w<lterfall . I was finally safe, splashing glee-­fully In the puddles of their intuitive responses, the d.10l of silence broken. (Student le.leher 's ane<dote. June 2(00)

By purposefull y holding b<1ck rather than main­tilining the flow of talk, new ways of seeing through experience emerged. The above anec­dote illus trates the qua litati ve difference in un­ders tnnding for the student teacher in practicing rnther than being told about the vnlueofwnit time. By experiencing the situation in the way he describes, a genuine learning ex­perience hns bcencreated, one that is an episode (Whi te, 1988) tha t carries personal meaning. As this student teacher demonstrated, by with­holding judgment about wha t might happen and choosing to find out about such action for himself, new ways of seeing emerged as he came to lea rn through the experience.

Furthermore, encouraging the episode to be recon sidered, developed, and a rticulated through writing an anecdote enhances the menning-making from the action in the practice setting and can unsettle some of the taken-for­granted assumptions abou t teaching that s tu­dent teachers have developed (are developing) and increase the likelihood that new ways of seeing might emerge.

LEARNING THROUGH EXPERIENCE

Effective re fl ecti ve pr(lct ice involves ca reful consideration of both "seeing" and "action" to e[lhance the possibilities of learning through experie nce. In the practice setting, it is not always easy to isolate these two components­and in some ways perhaps it is an arbitrary dis­tinction itself-as the flow of experiences, the constant demands of decision making, and the conscious and subconscious filtering of actions and responses influence that which is ap pre­hended. These demands of practice can be viewed as overcrowding and inhibiting factors or as possibilities for lea rning that may be grasped in different ways.

Journal of Teocher Educalion. Vol. 53. No. I. Januory/FebruOlY 2002 37

A common postpnlcticum leaching approach is for teacher educators to "extract" the learning from s tudent teachers' experiences so that it can be presented back to them in ways tha t might be helpful and offer insights that they had not pre­viously recogniLed. However, if the focus is genuinely on the student teacher as learner, then it is their abili ty to analyze and make mean­ing fro m experiencf' thnt mnttcrs most-as opposed tu wht'n the teacher educa tor filters, develops, and shane'S the know led ge with the s tudent teachers.

I have only recentl y l~ome to recognize and better unders tClnd thi s subtle di s tincti on, and it is not necessarily easy to grasp; and simply stat­ing it here does not guarantee that it now also has meuning for the reader. The difficulty is in the fact that the knowledge developed ma y weB be the same, but the process in developing the knowledge is very differen t. Who is doing the learning really matters and is directly related tu whe re the effective reflecti ve practice occurs.

So, consider again the traditional leaching round debriefing. Student teachers are often asked to share their practicum experiences in small g roups, a nd it is not unusua l that they find this to be (ltl interesting and engnging experi ­ence. rt !ieems re(lsofl(lble to quest ion what comes from such tasks beyond some form of support for knowing that others face the same cha llenges and dilemmas, or that ucknO\vledg~ ment th(lt the transition from s tudent to teacher is difficult, ur that some common issues can be tackled, and so un. However, if these smCllJ groups arc asked to develop assertions about their practice as a resu lt of thi s sharing, the out­cumes can be qual itative ly d i fferf'nt from that of the support and acknowledgment outcomes no ted above. This difference is ex tended even more when s tuden t teachers document and sha re these assertions with their peers.

Por example, the assertions in TClbie 1 were developed by s tudent teache rs in il session through w hich their practicum experiences became more meaningful because they devel­oppd ways of reconsidering their (and their peers') experie nces and uttempted to make sense of these not just as isolated events bu t as

events from which common understandings might be reached.

Although the knowledge developed through thi s process ma y no l necessa rily be new or di f­ferent for man y teacher educators, it wns new and mean ingful for the s tudent teachers who developed the table because of the ownership derived from tlw d irectlink to their experiences. In so doing, the ir e ffecti ve reflective practice is evidf'nt in tlw manner in which their possibili­ties for fu ture action nrc enhanced because of the nf'W perspectives they now conceive---their ta ken -fo r~gr<l nted assumptions about particular si tuations were challenged, and so their "nor­mill" a nd I or "developing" practice cou ld not so easily bf' rational ized . They may ha ve been ab le to juslify their practice nt that time, bu t they were not <lble to rationa lize it as the familiarwas milde unfamil iar through the reframing associ­ated wilh crea ting nssertions, thus encouraging and flc ting on the attitude of open-mindedness.

Table 1 represen ts an imporlanll"rans il"ion in thin king by s tudent teachers as lheir effedive reflective pmctice is e mbedded in wha t might be de~cribeLi as a beginn ing point in the deve l­opment of professional knowledge nboul the practi ct:' setting. Thi s ability to recognize, deve lop , and a rticulatf' a knowled ge <lbout practice is crucial as it gives <l rea l purpose for, and va lue in, efffftive reflect ive pmctice; il is n po\ve rful way of informing practice as it nwkes the ta ci t explicit, meaningful , and useful.

This point is perhaps best demonstra ted through considering the effecti ve reflective practice o f an experienced practitioner, Jeff Northfield, whu a~ a teacher educator chose to return to teach in a 10caJ high school to learn more about his teaching and its influence on hi s s tudents' learning. In so doing, he ca me to artic­ulate understandings of practice I'ha t may w ell be congruent with the notion of professional knowledge.

Developing Profe5sionol Knowledge

Much has been written about the need to value teachers' professional knowledge, and dif­fe ren t interpretations of whJ t that knowledge is abow1d (Curter & Doyle, 1987; Cochran-Smith &

Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 53. No.1 , January/February 2002

TABLE 1 Student TeAchers ' Assertions About PractlclI

The medium of Instruction Influences the success (or failure) of the lesson. The Sludents have a management script; you have to deprogram betore you reprogram. Sometimes you teach in ways you don·llik.e because il helps you cope. Teaching In a way Ihal works Isn't elways a way thai you·d like to be leaching. Too much enthUSiasm (sludent and leacher) may tead to olher problems. Siudents and teachers can have dllferent ideas 01 what is lun and e)(citlng. Siudents have mora control ovor what wolils in the classroom than Ihe leacher Siudents have to m .. ka connections betwoen their school work and their existing knowledge for Ihe tasks to be meaningful. Clear e)(pectations and guidelines are Important for students to know how to act/learn. The success of teaching slrategies is dependent on sludents' skills-they mayor may not have these skills.

Lytle, 1990, 1999; Connelly & C1,mdinin, 2000; Fenstermacher, 1997). Hmvever, it i ~ difficu lt to find examples of what that knowledge actually is. Through the notion of effective reflective practice, it is possible to consider teacher knowl­edge through particular concrett:' examples. Just as the s tudent teachers above were beginning to articulate their learning, effective reflective practice can be viewed as that which encapsu­lates a knowledge of the practict:! setting ga ined through reflection on practice, such that the way it is documented ctl rries meaning and offers insights into wisdom-in-practice.

As a teacher educator returning to teach sev­enth grade in a local high school in Melbourne, Australia, Jeff Northfield maintained a journal of his teaching and learning in concert with that of his shldents' learning. In the collaborati ve ventu re derived from the analysis of this work (Loughran & Northfield, 1996), Jeff reconsid­ered the year's experiencl's in ways similar (although perhaps more infurmt:!d and sophisti ­ca ted) to that de!SCribed abuve by the studt"n l teachers.

As is consisten t with the arguments in this article, as an experienced practitioner, it is rea­sonable to assert that he is likely to have many ways of seeing; question taken-for-granted assumptions; learn through experience; and distinguish between rationa lization, justifica­tion, and reflection on practice. Hence, careful examination of his approach is a window into effective reflective prnctice.

Purp058, Framing, and Articulation

At the outset, Jeff decided that his return to a high school classroom net:!ded to involve more

than just the experience of be ing a schoolteacher again. He had a purpose that drove nol only what he did but why he did it.

In his teacher education classes at univerllity hecom­monly lLscd PEEL-type Jctivities to encollTJ?,e his students to tak(' mor(' responSibility for th('ir own learning ... returning tu !>ccundary schuul lu lcadl . .. offcrlc-dl Jeff ,l\1 opportunity to pursue tPliching for undprstanding with younger students in the very w<ly he <ldvoc,ltcd ill the h.:rliMy level. (Loughran & Northfield , lW6, p . 5)

To gai n alterna tive perspec tives on s itua tions (10 frame and rdrame episodes), he invited <1n­other teacher into his classroom so lhat shared cornlllon experiences could be viewed through another set of eyes. He also maintained a jour­na l, had regu lar discuss ions about his teaching and his studenl-;' learn ing wi th colleagues at the school and lhf' univerSity, and sought a variety of forms of s tudent feedback. All of these situil­tions led to different forms of field notes thilt were ab le to be considered ilnd reconsidered in developing his understanding of Whilt was hap­pening in his classroom.

In essence, he was finding ways to cap ture his class room experiences so that he could learn from them. This meant that as he framed his Icnrning through these experiences, he could sec things tha t werc hitherto tacit, or implicit, in his practice and begin to articulate them in ways that ca rried meaning not only for himself but also fo r others. For example, the Project for the Enhancement of Effective Learning (PEEL) ap­proach that he was using to guide his teaching i ~ based on the adoption of teaching procedures that enhance s tudents' metacognition (set' Baird & Mitchell, 1986; Baird & Northfield, 1992; Loughran , 1999). As Jeff persisted with

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53. No 1. January/February 2002 39

teaching in this way, bolh he and his students strugglt:'d with the demands thai such changes carrit:'d in tl:'nns of the expec la t ions of class room teaching and learning.

TIlfough these daS51..'S Ueffl is now ,1ble to see ,1n im­portant diff<.renCf' bE'twf'f'n hi<; hopes for student~' learmng, and their individual views . . .. He seeks 10 change the s tudents ' dt t itude towards learn­ing . .. which does not feinfofc~ the notion of ICdrn­ing for undcrst.lndillF, ... it may be that it is in fact easier for them to accommodatf' this persistcncl:' rather than to ml:'et the re<ll c."I(}.x·c!<1tions. (Loughran & Northfield , 1996, p. 34)

At the time, Jeff desc ribed this situation as "breaki..ng set," yet he d id not really know what it meant. It was a situation in wh.ich his expecta­tions for his students' learning werl:' noti ceably different than the normal routine of school. In retrospect, he Cilme to sec breaking set a5 a direct challe nge to Lhe normal rou tine of school, a chal­lenge tha l ca used discomfort and unease. When tmderstood i.n that way, studen ts' responses, ilt­titudes, and behaviurs made sense to him, as what they were expected to do (question, think , learn for understand ing, accept responsibi lity for their own learning) clashed with their well­developed passive approaches to learning that hnd been fos tered through their p revious years o f schooli.ng. At the Lime, brenking set WilS not so clearly framed, su many episodes led to con­flicting cues and sumetimes out-of-cha ra cter studen t responses and behaviors.

Quite dl:'arly mo:;t ~tudcnts have a view of them­selves as individuals and as a class which they wish to maintain ... thl:'y did not want to be st!Cn <I:'

"squares" or "goody .";oodics" and this led to major changes in their behaviour and appmach to learn­ing. (Loughriln & Nurthfield, 1996, p . 75)

This understa nding, li ke many others from the yea r 's leaching, bemme clearer through reflec­lion bO lh during the year and il t the end of the year, when Jeff reconsidered the wealth of expe­riences in his journal and o ther data sources. The most striking example of learning through this effective reflective practice is d emonstrated in the comprehensive list of assertions abuut practice he developed as he reviewl:'d his expe­riences (as doctunen ted in his journa l, etc.).

Tables 2 and 3 illustrate how he was able to frame (ilnd reframe through grouping) some of these assertions in Wi1ys that helped him to reconceptualize important aspects of the prac­Lice se tting. This knowledge from practice offers powerfu l WilyS of understanding a school teach­ing and learning env ironment and illustrates a wisdom-in-practice that, itcan be argued, could only be d eveloped through a serio lls reconsid· eration of concrete examples-a reconsidera­tion that helped to build this teacher 's profes­sioni11 knowledge.

Clearly, the ability to be an effectiVl:' reflective practitioner is crucial in the development of knowledge of this kind, and it is this knowledge that is documented thilt he lps to highlight the distinction between reflection and rationalizi1-lion of practice. By being able 10 see the practice setting in the way that it is framed in Tables 2 and 3, jeff's ability to approach prob lems in the practice setting is undoubtedly enhanced.

The professional kn owledge developed throug h effec ti ve refl ec tive practice offers a window in to the practice setting whereby the contradicto ry nature of the two views (st udents ' and teacher's) creates a diversity of ways of see· ing actions in the classroom teaching and learn­ing environment. Moreover, it offers a way of interpreting problematic si tuations that dra­matically diminishes the need to rationalize one's be havior. Through this framing, attempts to add ress problems need nol be assigned as nw re failure (Dewey, 1933) but as possibiUties for enhanced meaning making, thus further informing one's wisdom-in-practi ce.

CONCLUSION

This article has attempted to show how an appropriate focus on experience in teacher edu­ca tion can be influential in the development of effective reflective p ractice (as il lustrated by the studen t teacher eX<lmplcs of anecdo tes, asser­tions, etc.) and how effec ti ve reflective prac tice migh t be important in the deve lopment of one's profe~siona l knowledge (as illuslrated th rough the Northfield examples). In particular, Tables 1, 2, and 3 highlight how the development of

'0 JournOI of Teacher Education. Vol. 53. No. 1. Januory/February 2002

TABLE 2 Students' View of Teaching and Learning

learning is associated with gaming right answers, and th inklllg and personal understandmg are just different and allen frustrallng ways of achieving the required outcomes.

The learning procoss and thinking are dilficult to associate with school work. and te)(\s alld notes aro Important indicators that school loarning is occurring.

linking experiences is very demanding and unreasonable when added to the classroom demands for students. The final grade is the critical outcome and the basis by which progress Is judged. Enjoyment Is not always associated with schoollearnlng-real learning Is hard and not usually enjoyed. Learning Is done to students. and teachers have a major responsibility for achieving learning.

TABLE 3 Teacher '5I View of Teaching and Learning

Where possible. students should have opportunities to be active and think about their learning experiences. Students should experience success in learning and gain the confidence and skills to bifCOmB better learners. Lmkmg experiences 'rom both with in and outSide schoot groatly assists loarning_ Effort and involvemont aro important outcomes of school activitios. and students nood to gain credit and oncouragement lor their el· forts. Enjoyment and satisfaction with learning are important outcomes. Learning involving the above features requires learner consent.

knowledge through experience (from ~tlldlmt teacher to experienced teacher), as a re~lIJt of effective reflective practice, can lead to a recog­nition and articulation of professional knowl­edge indica tive of the intertwining of theory and practice in ways that finally begin to chal­lenge the normal view of these as dichotomous (Korthagen, 2001), a view that has produced the notion of a theory-practice gap consistently noted in the research literature.

Challenging this distinction bctwccn thcory and pmctice is important, and a conceptualiza­tion of effective reflective practice is onc Wily of beginning to help tCilchcr prcparation programs integrate the two in meilningfu l ways. Some of the most rcccnt s tud ies (e.g., Korthagcn, 2001 ; Korthagcn & Kcssels, 1999) note that tcacher ed­Uctition in many countrics con tinuilUy struggles with whether to start with theory or pmcticc and thilt, in thc " traditional" ilpproilches to teilchcr prcpafiltion, the notion of integration of the two is largely ignored, which impacts pro­grams ' effectiveness. Korthagen and Kessels (1999) compared the Realis tic Teacher Educa­tion Program with the traditional teacher edu­cation program and stated that

In F rcudcnth.:r I' s term::. one could say that in tlti::. tfil ­ditional approach, knowledge about teaching is con­sidl!rt!<J as a CIl!att!ci subj~t and nol as il subjt!ct to bt!

crea ted by the I"arner, that is, the s tud ent teacher. An lIpprum:h mort! in lillt! with Frt! udl!nthal's idt!as about INrning would take its s tarting point in real problems encountered by s tud ent teachf'fs during field experiences. TIle student teacher would liH.:n develop his or her own k.nowledge in a process o f r(.'­flt!ctiun on tht! pradical si lua tiuns in which a per­son<ri need for Ic<rrnjn~ was crc,lted .. . the cmph<rsis shi ft~ towards inq uiry-oriented activities, intprac­tion ':lInongsllcilTnerS, and \.he development of re­flective skills. ,. During the learning processes involvt!d, the leacher educator has an important role, <rlthouF;h complctdy different from lhe tradi­ti onal role o f the l(>("tuwr. ·rhe kind of support tha t he or ~hc ::.hould offt!r (indudin g tht!ury!) has to be very much adjusted to the specific problems the student tt!achcr.; are having. (p . 7)

Therefore, an important issue raised through this view is the positioning of the student teacher as a learner in a curriculum constructed as a result of real experiences and reconstructed through interaction behveen learners. This is not, however, a "reinventing of the wheel" but a way to make learning more meaningful and fruitful for student teachers.

The difficulty for many teacher preparation program~ i~ in en~uring that student teachers' real ~ituations encompass more than "just" their ~chool teaching experience (practicurn). In te rms of efft>('ti ve reflecti ve practice, then, work­ing with rea l situati ons is crucia l if creating

Journal 01 Teacher Education. VOl. 53. No. 1, January/February 2002 41

learning through expe rience is genuinely to lead to an tmdecstanding and development of professional knowledge. And, for professional knowledge to be valuable to teachers, it clearly needs to be meaningful. Therefore, teacher preptlration offers one way of sens itizing begin­ning teacher!:> to such a process of knowing and, in so doing, empowering them as professionals.

Reflection is one key practice that has long been recogni7ed as an important and valuable cognitive pruces!:>, dnd it continua lly resurfaces in conceptua lizing the practice setting (Hode, 1940; Doud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Dewey, 1933; Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Russell & Munby, 1992). Man y teacher education programs have incorporated views of reflection into their course s tructllfes, but the effectiveness nnd forms of adoption may weU be limited by the large ly tmditional nature of the programs to begin with. Hence, reflection m ay too often be a subject that has been crented rather than a sub­ject to be created by the learners.

Because reflection is eminently sensible and reasonable in developing one's understanding of the practice setting, it is inev itab ly band ied about, misunderstood, and reint~rpreted as ;t ;s used by different people in d ifferent ways to highlight particular aspects of practice. in part, it was this diversity of views and understand­ings that led me to preface reflective practice with a qualifier of practice effective-in order to begin to focus attention on the action as well as the outcome of reflection.

Effective reflective practice is drawn from the ability to frame and reframe the practice setting, to develop and respond to this framing through action so that the practitioner's wisdom-in­action is enhanced a nd, as n particulnr outcome, articulatio n of professional knowledge is encouraged. What is learned as a result of reflec­tion is, to me, at least equally as valuable as reflection itself. It is through the development of knowledge <lnd understanding of the practice setting and the ability to recognize and respond to such knowledge that the reflecti ve practitio­ner becomes tru ly responsive to th e needs, issues, and concerns that ac~ so important in shaping practice.

S0r~n Kierkegaard was noted as saying, "The irony of life is that it is lived forward but under­stood backward." The danger for reflect'ion is that if practice is limited to understanding it backwards, then forwiHd practice rnfly remain uninformed . I.f learning through practice mat­ters, then reflection on p rdctice is cruci al, a nd teacher preparation is the obvious place for it to be init iated and nurtured.

REFERENCES B;l i rd, J. R., & M i h:hell, \. J . (Ed s.). (1986). I III provi I/~ I he qua/­

ify of leachinK ami IMming: An A 1I_lralum ca"" ~/lIdy-Tllc flEFt PrfJJCcl. Melbnurne, AlL';trdlia: Munash Unjvt!r~ity Printery.

Baird, J. I{ ., & Nnrthfit'ld,). I{ . (Eds.). (1992).l1arnmgfrom tilt: PEEL expcricnn·. Melbuurne, Australia: Monash Prinl 5c1"Viccs.

Ihrnes, D . (11,17:;). / mill WllII'llIIIIWI)(J1I la cufficlIllIIlI. Lun­lIun: Pe nguin.

Bode, O. (1940). I low we /,'anl New York : II .. ath . Ikmd , D., Kpogh, R. , & Walker, D. (1985). Rl..jkctiun: Tumill!!;

experience illio /mmillg. London: Kog.m Pagc. Orookfield, S. D. (11,11,1 :;) . I!"rfllllilig a ailirally rfjl,>ctlVe

lel/ciler. San Franciscu: Jusscy-Bu%. Ca ldcrhcad, j., & C,ltCS. P. (Eds.). (1993). COllceptllllllSill>;

reflec/iml 11/ /euc/wr dI'fN/()pm"II f. Rristol, r A: Fa I mer. Carter, K. , & Duyle, W. ( 1987). lc,lchcr..' knuwledge Siruc­

turcs and comprehension processes. In J. Ca ld(>fh(,,1d

(En.), r.xf1IDrll!g leacll.:rs ' Ihmkillg. London: Cassel!. Clundinin, D. J., & Cunnelly, F. M. (Eds.). (1995). Ti'l/chers '

,Professiollal blOwledKe imu1sclIT't'S . New York: '1(>i'lchefS College Press.

Clift, R. 1., Houston, W. R., & Pug,lch. M . C. (Eds.). (l9QO). [lwlIIragillg ref/I'r/m!' r'racficp; All a"IIJy.~ls ()f ; .. slles alld

progrtlllls. New Yurk: Teuchers Col\egc Press. Cochran-Smith. M ., & Lytle, S. L. (I mI. Research on teach­

ing and tpacher re-.earch: The issues that divide. Eduw­/io/lIIt R~':it'ardJ['r, 19(2), 2· 11.

Cochran-Smith, M. , & Lytle, S. L. (lY9':l ). I{elationship s of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in cummuni­ties. In A Ir<ln-Ncjad & P. D Pearson (Eds.), Revit'w lif rt'Sl'lIrriI ill I'dllcalinll (Vol. 24, pro 249-:mS). Washington, DC: Ament'an Edu..:ational RC:>CMCh Association.

Connelly. F. M., & Cl;lndinin, J. (2000). N.1ITi'ltive under­standings of teacher knowledge. fmmllli vf CurriCllIIIIII IlIId Sllp~'wisiorl. 15(4), 315-331.

D.1Y, C . (1999). l{e5C"MChing tf'i'lching through I"f'flpcti\'p pnu..1ilc. In J. J. Luug,hril!l (Ed.), Rl'smrcir;IIX il?l!chi'lg: MrtlIod()/ogif'S and practirY~ fM Imdmtrmdlllg pedagogy. Londun: F'l lmer.

Dewey, J. (1933). How 1W Ihink. New York: I leath. F(>nstenTli'lchpr, (;. D. (1997). Foreword. In J. L{\u ghran &

1. Rus::;cll (Eds.), Trachi/IJiI abolll tcadlill,~: Pllrposc. passion mId f"'dagngy III If'aciIl'r I'ducatlrlll. London: ralmer.

Journol of Teacher Education. Vol. 53. No.1 , January/February 2OJ2

Crimmett, P. 1'., & Erickson, C. l. (1988). Reflr!ctioll ill teac/I,'r I'ducatioll. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hullfi::.h, H. c., & Smith, P. C. (196 1). Reflectille thillkill~: The mellllld of rdtmlfioll. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company.

Korth.lgen, EA.J. (with Kessels, J., Koster, £3., L.lgerwerf, £3., &. Wublx>ls, T.). (2'1111) . Lmkillg practicelmd theory: The peda­gogy of realistic leadwf edrlcalioll. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Earlbaum .

Korthangen, F.A.J., & Kcs:.ds, J .P.A.M. (1999). Linking tnt!­ory .1Ild practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher eflucation. F.dl.cutimwl Rrsearclrer, 28(4), 4-1 7.

LaBuskt! y, V. K. (1994). D~'Velo,m/('1II of n:f/ccliVt' pmctice: A st1ldy of pre-sen,ice tt'acilt'rs . New York: Teachers College Press.

Lou)'ihran . j . J. (1996) . Oevt'lopinl{ reflective !'ractitimr,'rs: l.raming about teae/lillg mId learnillg tJrrotjgJr IIIm/ellillg. London: Falmt!r.

Loughran, J. J. (1997). An introduction to purpose, passion and pedagogy. In J. J. Loughran & T. l. Rus~ll (Eds.), Tt'IIcJ1inX aoolll leadlin~t Pr/rpose, passion 1II1d pedagogy (pp. :l-"J). London: Fa lmer.

Luughran, J. J. (1999). Professional developmenl for teach­ers: A growing concern. }mlnral of Irl-S/,n!;rt' I:dllca timl, 25(2),261-272.

Lo ughran, J. J .. & North field, J. R. (1996). Opf'll illS fire class· rooll! donr: -li'acllt'r, rt'SI'IIrI:irer, Jeamer. London: Falmer.

Lvtle, S., & Cuchrilll-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher rcscard, as a ~

wayof knowing. I lanlf1rd ['dllcatimral Ut'lIInlJ, 62, 447-474. Newton, J. M. (2000). Uncovering knuwing in p rnctice

amongst J group of undergraduate student nurscs. UI'f/l'ctir", Practice, 1(2), Hn-NH.

O:;tenmll1, K. F, & Kottiwmp, R. 6. (1993). Reflcctive practicl.' for educators: 1/IIImmillg sc/roo/rug through profi·.~s imral

develupmerlt. Thuusand Q,lks, CA: Curwin Pn.'S9. Richardson. V. (1992). The evolution of reflective teaching

and teacher education. In R. T. Clift, R. W. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.). EIICOllfllgillg reflectiv-r practicl' ill edllcatioll: All allalysis of issues and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Richert, 1\. E. (1990). Tc.1ching teachers to reflect: A consid­('ra tion of programme structure. {Oil mal of CurriCllirml Studies, 22(6), 509-527.

Rolfe, G. (1998). L"xpalJditJg nursing krulwil'dgt'. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann.

Russell, T. L. (1997). Teaching teachNs: How I teach IS the message. In I.j. Loughran &T. L. Russell (Eds.), Trochiug

aoou/ leaching; Pllrpose, passion and pedagogy in leae/ler edllcafioll. London: Falmer.

Russell, T., & Munby. H. (1992). Teachers alld leachillg: From cla.,~mnm tn reflreti(m. l .ondon: Falmer.

Schon, D. A. (1983). Tlu~ reflct."tivl: practitirmu; HIJUI profes­simrals tllink ill acli(lll. New York : Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (19R7). EdHcutilZg the reflectIve practitiuner: Towarlill /lew desiR /1 jor f~adli 11F. mrll/earn ill~ in the profes­.~imrs. San Francisco: JossPy-Bass.

~hun, D. A. (1992). nil' n:flcctivc film; Case s/udh'S irllllld all educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Smyth, W. J. (1992). Teachers' work and the politics of refleclion. AmericlIlI fducatiO/lII1 R(.<Si.'arcll !olmUl'- 29(2), 267-301.1.

Tum, A. R. (1 985). 1nyuiry intu inyuiry-oriented teacher edl1c~tion . {(!IInlal ofTI'aclltr [ducatiml, 36(5), 35-44.

Valli, L. (1993). ReflL-ctive teacher education prograrru: An anillysis of case st udies. in J. CJlderhead & P. C ... lcs (Ed s.), C()/!cpp t!l ali.~il!g rt'f/f'Clir1l[ il1 (paelrer dn!/'lrrplf!l'lrt. Londun: Faimer.

van Manen , M. (1995). Ped~gogical politics? Political peda­gogy? In S. Miedema, G. Biesta, B. Boog, A. Sma ling, W. Wilrdekker, & B. Levering (Eds.), n", politics oflHllrlali scie /!c/'. Brussels, Belgium: VURl'R FSS.

van Mallt!n, M. (1999). The language of pt!dagogy and pri­macy of s tudent experience. in j . j . Loughran (Ed.), Researcl1l11g teaching: Metlrodologies and practice fo r ul1der­stllndillg pedagoKII. London: Faimer.

While, 1( . T. (llJ8K).Ii'artlilrg <;dwce. London: Hlackwell. ZeidlOcr, K. M. (1983). Altt!r!wtivt! paradigms uf tt!acher

education. Journal of Teacher Edl1catiol1, 34(3), 3-9.

/ . /01111 Loughran works in tile Faculty ofEducatioll at MUfWSIr University. He has been actiudy invuhh'd ill feadler education for the past deCflde OlrOlW" his teaclling in scicnce alld teaching alld Icarning in pre-service tcaclier education. His re.~earclr interests include teacher as researcher, rej1ecfive practice, scielrce cdr/cation, alld teaching atld leamillg. ReeellJ pllbUeatiolls ille/ude Developing Reflective Practice, Open ing the Class­room Door (witlr J. R. Norflrjield), IIIrd Teaching About Tcnching (with T. L. RIISSCI/) (all publislled by Falmer Press).

Journal of Tsacher Education. VaL 53. No.1. January/February 2002