reflective practice in teacher education

Upload: joycepeter

Post on 14-Apr-2018

227 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/30/2019 Reflective Practice in Teacher Education

    1/5

    Australian Journal of Teacher Education

    Volume 18 | Issue 1 Article 2

    1993

    Refective Practice in Teacher EducationJohn SmythFlinders University of South Australia

    http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajtehttp://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol18http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol18/iss1http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol18/iss1/2http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol18/iss1/2http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol18/iss1http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol18http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte
  • 7/30/2019 Reflective Practice in Teacher Education

    2/5

    Allstraliall JOllrnal ofTeacher Edllcatioll

    Gore, J. (1987). Reflecting on reflective teaching.journal ofTeacher Education, 38(2), 33-39.Henry, J.A. (1983). Collaborative relationshipswithin school based experiences. In D.A. Riceand B.J. Ungerer (Eds.). Thirteenth An11lwlC O l ~ f e r e n c e Proceedings, South Pacific Conferenceof Teacher Education, Brisbane.Hirsch, E.D. (1987). Cultural Literac1f: What Even!A/llerican Should Know. Boston, M.A.: Houghto;1Mifflin.Hopkins, D. and Reid, K. (Eds.). (1985).Rethinking Teacher Edllcation. London: CroomHelm.KiIlen, L.R. (1989). Reflecting on reflectiveteaching: A response. jourllal of Teacher Edllcation,40(2),49-52.Mouton, J. and Blake, R. (1984). Synergog!l. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.Price, D. (1989). The practicum: A recent reviewof the literature. TIle SOlltll Pacific jOllrllal ofTeacherEdllcation, 17(2), 13-26. . .Rowell, P.M. and Prophet, R. (1990). Curriculumin action: The 'practical' dimension in Botswanaclassrooms. Illternatiollal JOllrnal of EdllcationalDevcloplIlellt, 10(1),106-112. .Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflectil'e Practitioner: Hot'Professiollals Thillk in Actioll. New York: BasicBooks.Schon, D.A.. (1987). Educatillg the RL:flcctivcPractitioller: Towards a New Desigll for Teaching andLearning in thc Professions. San Francisco: JosseyBass.Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustainingcritical reflection in teacher education. jOllrnal ofEducation Policy, 4(4), 343-361. .Smyth, J. and Garman, N. (1989). Supervision asschool reform: A critical perspective. jOllrllalofEdllcation Policy, 4(4), 343-361.Stones, E. (1984). Sllpervision in Teacher Education.London: Methuen.The Hilgate Group (1989). Learnillg to Teach.London: The Claridge Press.

    ---Tinning, R. (1985). Student teaching as apedagogy of necessity. Paper presented at theAIESEP International Conference in PhysicalEducation and Sport, Adelphi University, NewYork.Tu rn ey, C. (1982). Supcrl'isor DeveloplI/('llfProgra111mes: Role Halldbook. Sydney: SydneyUniversity Press.Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of n o w i n ~with ways of being practical. Curriclllu/ll InquirY,6(3),205-228.Walker, S. and Barton, L. (1987). Changillg Policies,Challging Teachers: New Directions for Schooling.Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Zeichner, K. (1981). Reflective teaching and fieldbased experience in teacher education.Intercilange, 12, 1-22.Zeichner, K. and Teitelbaum, K. (1982).Personalized and inquiry-oriented teachereducation: An analysis of two approaches to thedevelopment of curricula for field experiences.jourllal Educatioll for Teachillg, 8(2), 106-112.Zimpher, N. (1988). A design for the professionaldevelopment of teacher leaders. JOllrllalofTeac/l('rEducation, 39(1),53-60.

    Allstraliall JOllmal of Tencher Edllcatioll-----.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------REFLECTIVE PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION

    John SmythFlinders University of South Australia

    INTRODUCTIONIn this paper I want to raise four issues:1. Why the interest in reflective approaches,now?2. What is to be gained from this approach?3. What are some of the advantages?4. What are the drawbacks?The basic argument of the paper is that the notionof "reflective practice" has generally ha d apositive history and connotation in schools, andthat it is worth persisting with, bu t unless wedevelop some touchstone principles to guide usas to what it means to act reflectively, there is adistinct danger that a constructive and usefulapproach will be "at risk" as good ideas areappropriated by governments for other ends -ones that are not necessarily in the interests ofstudents or teachers.I want to conclude by canvassing some of theprinciples that might underlie a re-assertion ofwhat it is that is fundamentally important aboutreflective approaches .WHY THE INTEREST?There are a number of major changes occurringacross a range of professions and professionalgroups that are having a profound impact on theshape and nature of professional knowledge.Perhaps the major factor has been the breakdownof traditional forms of production (the so-calledFordist notions) and their replacement with muchmore flexible forms of specialisation, and ways ofresponding to customers and clients. With thedramatically increased speed of communicationand the ne w micro-technology, it is now mucheasier for capital to move around so as to takeadvantage of global comparative advantage.The effect of this has been that rigid, centralisedforms of production are no longer the mostappropriate. We have a dramatically changedsets of conditions. Donald Schon (1991) capturedthe essence of these changes for education whenhe indicated that disciplined-based forms ofknowledge, which in the past had been used totry and construct grand theories of the way the

    world works, are no longer relevant. What wehave in their place, are much more locally-basedtheories that recognise the idiosyncrasies of sitespecific circumstances, and that acknowledge theintegrity and worth of knowledge won by peopleat the workface. This represents a major shift inthe centre of gravity of knowledge. The view thatthere are particular elite groups in our societywhose responsibility it is to develop knowledgefor and on behalf of others, has endured for a longtime (and even now is only dying slowly in somequarters). What characterises these new locallybased approaches is the much more negotiated(even devolved) ways, in which the people whodo the work are given a much more significantstake in it. As 8chon (1991) pu t it in his mostrecent work, what we have is a "reflective turn",in which practitioners are all owed to give voice tothe reasons that lie behind what they do. Whatthis means, essentially, is that t h o ~ s e of us inuniversities and other educational agencies haveto grapple with a changed role for ourselves -namely, how to work with practitioners inassisting them to observe and describe what it isthey do, and with what effect. Schon (1991) pu t itin terms of "exploring tile llnderstandings revealed bythe patteJ'1ls of spontaneOllS nctic>ity that 11Iake IIppractice" (p.5). Our role, therefore, becomes one ofhelping insiders to l11ake scnse ofexperience, often inquite strange and puzzlingly new sets ofcircumstances - rather than telling them whatthese experiences ought to look like.This is quite a different emphasis to the pastwhere "practice" was regarded mainly as a fieldof application, where ideas were developed bysomeone else (who usually wore the label oftheorist or policy maker), then exported back tothe field of practice to be implemented. Theemphasis in the reflective approach is uponpractitioners being assisted to theorise their ownaccounts of practice, and how they might use thatas a springboard for action. What this changedoes is turn the world dramatically on its head.The issue is no t "what is best for practitioners todo", but rather "what do practitioners need toknow, and what do they already know orunderstand that might help them gain thoseinsights?". Herein lies the really interesting (anddaunting) aspec t to the reflective turn - there is nouniform approach!!

  • 7/30/2019 Reflective Practice in Teacher Education

    3/5

    Allstm/illn jOllrllll/ of TCllchcr Edllcation

    WHAT IS TO BE GAINED?Perhaps of most significance for me in thisreflective turn, is the opportunity it provides for agenuine shift in power over who determines wha tcounts as knowledge. The move is from adeterministic (one might even say, a patriarchal"father knows best" mentality), to one in whichthere is considerable scope for genuine dialogueabout the nature of work. There can be littledoubt that this is occurring in contexts (notalways altruistic), bu t in which there is at least amodicum of understanding (albeit heavily tingedwith self-interest), that knowledge about workpractices actually does inhere at low levels withinorganisations. This startlingly simple dictumcomes as a major revelation to some groups andindividuals.In speaking of this I am reminded of an incidentfrom David Halberstam's novel "The Reckoning"(the story of the economic battle between thetitans of the car industry, Ford of Detroit andNissan of Japan). Hal Sperlich, an executi ve ofFord, on one of his visits to Japan in the early1970s, noticed that there were no repair bays inwhich to shunt cars that were defective and inneed of fixing:

    "Where do YOlll'epllir YOllr cars?" Spcl'liclJ IIskedthe engineer with him."We don't hllvc to rcpllir 0111' Cllrs," the engineerIInswered."Well, then" Sperlichllsked, ",l'hcre IIrc YOllrinspectors? ""The workers IIrc the inspectors," his guideIInswered. (Halberstam, 1986, p.716)

    This little example makes the point rather nicelythat things are different. It is not that there hasbeen a wholesale capitulation to workplacedemocracy, so much as a shift in the nature ofsocial control over work. Workers as "reflectivepractitioners" has been a central part of thatredefinition. Whatwe are coming to experience isa ml/ch less direct, overt slIrveillllnce over work, and111 11ch 11I0re indirect 01'11IS of control through devicessuch as team work, partnerships, collaboration,quality circles, total quality management, an d thelike. What has come to characterise theseapproaches, at least in industry where they arereceiving a lot of attention at the moment, is no tthat they are fundamentally committed to workerdemocracy (although they may sometimes give

    the appearance that this is the case). Rather, theyare about shifting the axis of control throughninety degrees - from vertical and bureaucraticforms, to more lateral, horizontal and, I mightadd, humane forms of work relations. In thisregard, let's make no mistake, the new set of workrelations are a shift decidedly for the better.In schooling reflective approaches are bu t onemanifestation of the more general post-Fordistshift in the nature of work that is occurringgenerally. It may be that schools over the past 10-15 years, through various collaborativeapproaches to curriculum development andreflective ways in which teachers have analysedtheir work, have been considerably ahead of thegame elsewhere.As a way of arriving at a considered position inwhich we are able to be clear about what is worthretaining in reflective approaches to teaching,there are certain matters we need to be mindful ofit we are no t to finish up in a situation in whichreflection can mean anyt hing anybody wants it tomean. Being aware of the advantages anddrawbacks may be an important part of theprocess of deciding what is worth f ighting for andpersevering with.SOME OF THE ADVANTAGES1. The kind of knowledge-base that is beingdeveloped through reflective approaches, ismuch more comprehensive because it isdirectly tuned into what workers actuallyknow about the work.2. Because the knowledge-base emerg es ou t ofwhat workers know, it provides theopportunity for rapid and progressive refocussing - a quali ty tha t is impera ive in thisnew era of flexible specialisation;3. Workers' ideas and beliefs are listened to

    much more attentively in the reflectiveapproach than under the Fordist regimes, inwhich those higher up in the organisationwere deemed to know best. Fortunately, thisbureaucratic view of knowledge is on thewane, although it has by no meanscompletely disappeared. The effect of thisnew approach ha s been to uplift worker'sself-esteem and morale;

    4. Strategic planning within the organisation isable to be much more grounded in a realisticsense of what is feasible, practicable andworkable. The people who generate the

    ideas are seen as having a concrete stake intheir successful implementation;5. What becomes important is not thatknowledge is a product, so much that it is aprocess by which a workforce continuallykeeps itself up-to-date. When anorganisation equips itself to become an"educat ive organisation" it is able to harnessthe very considerable reservoir of talent andenergy invested in its workfo rce. Selfenergising, self-renewing organisations, weknow, are ones th at are also more successful.

    Taken together these are a package offeatures that have important and farreaching consequences for the wayneophytes are inducted into a range ofprofessions, and for the kind of practicalexperiences they receive in their educationalprograms . I know this to be particularly thecase in my own field of teacher education.These were ideas rehearsed in MinisterBeazley's (1993) recent statement on teachereducation entitled, appropriately, TellchingCOl/lltS. To that end it is worth brieflyamplifying the relevance of reflectiveapproaches to teaching and teachereducation:

    1. It is clear that the views of practisingteachers and the theories that underpin theirwork, will play a much larger part than theyhave in the past, in the way teachers of thefuture are educated;

    2. This presents those of us in teachereducation with a significant new challengehow to develop robust school-based andschool-focussed ways of working that avoidthe unfortunate aspects of theapprenticeship model we left behind severaldecades ago;

    3. The thrust towards competency-basedteacher education which h as received a lot ofpublicity (although in this post-Mabocontext of some States vigorously reasserting their rights Federal initiatives areno longer a foregone conclusion), must beseen as an opportunity for us to engage withschools in the re-definition of what thenotion of competency means 011 tellchers'tel'11Is. We need to regard this as a means bywhich to capture and publicly assert thecomplexity of teaching, by working withteachers to better articulate how it is thatreflective teachers make sense of their work.

    Allstl'l7/il1ll JOllrHll/ of TCl1chcr EdllClltiOIl

    In doing that we need to struggle hardagainst the entrenched and simplistic viewsthat still abound as to what constitutesteaching. What we need is some sharplyfocussed public re-education of the rightful(but much more limited) role of teachers,based on evidence gleaned from carefullyresearched instances of competent practice;

    4. By elevating the status of teachers asinformed, articulate, and reflective theoristsof their own work, we need to struggle tohead off impositions by outsiders as to whatthey misguidedly think teaching is or oughtto be. There are some ill-informed viewsabout on what constitutes teaching, and weneed to robustly confront those;

    5. If we embrace, rather than reject outright,some of the policy initiatives beingtrumpeted by government, then perhaps wemight have a chance of being able to shapewhat teacher education might look like inthe 21st century. If we walk away from it,then it will be shaped for us, and what wesee may not be a pretty sight.WHAT ARE THE DRAWBACKS?I certainly don't want to give the impression thateverything is "sweetness and light" with thereflective approach to knowledge generation -that is far from the case. Indeed, ther e are somequite substantial dangers that can, if we are notcareful, turn reflective approaches into another"iron case". When I hear governments singingthe virtues of what might be gained throughbecoming reflective (as is happening at themoment), I become sllspicious. Governmentsnever give up power, no matter what it mightlook like on the surface!! Indeed, whengovernments start talking about schools beingmore "autonOlTIOUS", "self-managing" and"reflective" as they are at the moment, I have thisoverwhelming impulse to reach for my "crapdetector" (to use Garth Boomer's phrase).It is becoming clear that the shift to reflectivepractice is occurring in contexts in which there aremoves away from direct, prescriptive forms ofsurveillance and control, towards moreautonomous and indirect methods (see Smyth,1993). For example, we are hearing a lot aboutteaching increasingly being defined in terms of"co-operation" , "temTIwork" and "partnerships"as teachers are urged to display "collegiality",and work as part of groups and teams in thepolicy making and decision making process inschools.

  • 7/30/2019 Reflective Practice in Teacher Education

    4/5

    Austmliall Journal afTeacher Educatioll--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Martin Lawn and Jenny Ozga (1986, p. 226) in theUK use an interesting analogy in which theyborrow the term "indirect rule" from Britishcolonial administration, as a way ofcharacterising what is happening at the moment.Drawing from that earlier historical period, theypoint to "the appearance of dcccntralisation anddevolution, with a quasi-autonolllous rolc for the'natipes' which ensured their co-optio1l, whilc thelIIajor powers of gove/'1llllcnt rClllaincd firlllly inBritish hands".Within education this has taken the form of whatappears to be the gradual withering away ofcentral control and the dismantling of educationalbureaucracies, and in its place a process that ismuch more reliant on engineering broad forms ofconsensus. Lawn and Ozga (1988, p. SS) note thatas with the colonial experience, emancipation isonly for parts of the system - it does no t meanendangering "real tactical control", bu t ratherdispensing with some of the more burdensomeaspects of unnecessary central power.My point here is that we need to be careful aboutschemes that preach about reflective appro aches,because they may in substance be little differentfrom the traditional approaches they replace. Letme see if I can illustrate this through four of thedifficulties I have with reflective approaches:First, there is something commonsensical, natural,almost indisputable about the suggestion thatteachers should be thoughtful and reflectiveabout their work. Jean Rudduck (1984, pp. 5-6)argues that the debilitating effect of teachingitself, makes it imperative that teachers keep ontheir toes. In her words:

    What teaching is vulncrable to is the ,t7attening~ f f e c t oflwbit. Habit is seducti"uc: it is sootizing,lIOn-productive and anxiety free... Goodteaching is essentially cxperi11lental andexperi11lent entails rcscuing at least part (:fonc'sworkfro11l the predictability of routine .. Not toexa11linc one's practice is irresponsible: to regardteaching as an experi11lent and to 11I0nitor onc'speliorll/ance is a responsible professiolwl act.

    Pu t in these sort of terms, what starts ou t as aprocess intended to liberate teachers from thedrudgery of habit leaves open the possibility ofbeing turned back on them and used as a way ofensuring conformity to narrow and instrumentalways of construing teaching. To not act accordingto some undefined canons of reflectivity can betantamount to gross dereliction of duty. Whocould possibly be against reflection; it's an

    indisputable notion like "quality" and"excellence". Her ein lies it's major problem.My secol1d problem is that reflection can mean allthings to all people, and because it is used as akind of umbrella or canopy term to signifysomething that is good or desirable to do inrespect of teaching, it runs the real risk of beingtotally evacuated of all meanin g. Every body hastheir own (usually undisclosed) interpretation ofwhat reflection means, and they use that as thebasis for enunciating the virtues of it in a way thatmakes it sound as virtuous as motherhood.What occurs is a kind of conceptual colonisationin which terms like reflection have become suchan integral part of the educational jargon that tonot be using it is to run the real risk of being outof educational fashion. Everybody climbs aboardunder the flag of convenience an d the term isused to describe anything at all that goes on inteaching. What is no t revealed is the theoretical,politicd, and episte11lological baggage people bringwith them.Hugh Munby and Tom Russell (1989, p. 76) forexample, argue that Lee Shulman's work onreflection lies within an undeclared "technicalrntionlllitY1110dcl of knowledge prodllction and IIse"and that his language gives away his "cogllitiveprocessfra11lcwork". To take an even more concreteexample, the Holmes Group Report (HolmesGroup, 19S6), on teachers and teacher educatorsin the USA, also argues the importance of havingreflective teachers if schooling is to improve andthe economy undergo the supposed necessaryrevitalisation. But, apart from mouthing thewords, it is clear from the report that the onlykind of reflection that is to occur is that whichconforms to an undisclosed preferred model ofreflection that is inextricably connected to stateand national guidelines on what constitutesacceptable qualities and standards of goodteaching, and with teachers being subjected toincreased forms of surveillance and appraisal.The same can be said of our ow n NBEET SchoolsCouncil's (1990) Australia's Teachers: An Agcl1daforthe Next Decade. It is replete with instances thatexhort teachers to be "reflective", bu t in aparticular constrained way - one that conforms tocommunityvalues. In the words of Kevin Crowe(1993, p. 6) in the inaugural issue of Teaching andTeachers' Work, the report puts the view thatteachers should be less inflexible, less intellectual,rely less on unscientific craft-type knowledge, beless wedded to outmoded work practices, mindtheir manners more, be polite, punctual and serve

    well. The problem with our schools, so the reporttells us" is that teachers are out of sync withcommunity expectations and values, and that thesolution is that teachers mllst be more reflectiveon how they can achieve a IICZl' ('allle COIIseIlSIlS.One of the proposed ways of doing this, we aretold, is for each school to develop a "Charter forTeaching" in which teachers will justify to parentsthe value of what they teach. Because schoo lingcosts so much, and because the gap between theviews of teachers and the wider community is solarge, teachers are the problem, and they need tobe re-tooled (perhaps through being taught "keycompetencies"?). The difficulty, of course, witharguments of this kind is that they break downprecisely because they are: (a) not founded onevidence - rather, persistent assertion; and (b)they are predicated on solutions to the fabricatedproblem which is seen as lying in the creation o f amore docile, compliant teaching force - one that isreflective of (and upon) a perceived consensus ofcommunity values.My third (and no t unrelated) difficulty is thatprocesses like reflection that give the outwardappearances of modernity and teacher autonomy,can in fact be used as rhetorical flourishes and avery effective cover with which to acquire evengreater control over teachers. As French poststructuralist Michel FOl1cault (1980) argues, thecentres of power in contemporary society havebecome even more remote and the svstem ofsurveillance even more c o m p r e h e n s i ~ ' e . Thesurface appeal of appearing to be democratic andempowering belies the deeper manipulativeintent. There is very real risk with reflectiveapproaches of providing what Wayne Ross an dLynne Hannay (1986, p. 11) call a "detailed step-b)lstep" process that reifies a technical linearapproach to problem solving, at the expense offailing to upset or at least uncover "the SYStc111 11 lidinstitlltions that created the proble111 ill thefirst place".Proceduralising reflection in this kind of linearway, leaves the way open to appropriating thelanguage of enlightenment, while perpetratingthe practices of instrumentalism by constrainingteachers to operate within il particularparadigmatic framework of teaching.My claim is that all of this goes considerablybeyond conceptual confusion. If we stop andlook at the wa y in which the term reflection hasevolved from largely ind ivid uillistic/psychologistic origins, then perhaps we can comea little closer to understanding what is occurring.By illdje'idllalising the pro/Jle111 (:f "quality" and"excellence" in education by leaving it to

    Australillll 'oul'Illll o(Tcllchcr EduClltioll

    illdi('idllai teachers to reflect on their practice,what we are doing is handing them is aninstrument which manv will turn on themselvesin the hopeless s e a r c l ~ for what's wrong witheducation. By labelling the problem in this way(i.e., the need for teachers to be more reflectiveabout teaching) we have nicely quarantined theproblem. Portraying the problems confrontingeducational institutions as if they were du e insome measure to a lack of competence on the partof teachers and as if they were resolvable byindividuals (or groups of teachers), is toeffectively divert attention away from the realst1'llctllral proble111s that are deeply embedded insocial, economic and political inequalities. Ratherthan empowering teachers, what individualreflective processes actually do is to send teacherson guil t trips in the vain search for the alchemists'equivalent of the philosopher's stone. In effect,"the pr0111ise of' rcscarch illto teacher effecti,'cnesswhich d0111inaft:d the sixties and Sl'l'clltics appears 1I0Wto have bel'li cxhausted" (Martinez, 1989, p.3) andhas been replaced by reflective processes byteachers.My fOllrth (and final) problem is that the kind ofreflection likely to have most appeal to manyteachers is one grounded in pragmatism, and weknow that forms of reflection that place stress on'relevance' can easily lack a wider socialawareness of conseque;1Ces and fail to face up toand reflect on the value issues involved. AsAndrew Pollard (1987, p. 58-9) argues, we need"to lillk the personal experiences of indit'idll17ls witizsocial, ccon0111ic and political st1'lfctllrcs and trcnds"within which those practices occur.CONCLUSIONAs a way of drawing together some of the pointsI have made in this paper, there are six keyprinciples that ought to underpin reflectivepractice, and that might be useful to dwell upon.While each of these might be extracted from themore positive aspects of our encounters withreflective approaches up to this point, we need tobe especially mindful of them if we are to avoidthe situation in which reflection can meananything we want it to mean:1. Reflection should not to be restricted to

    examining only teciznical skills; it shouldequally be concerned with the etizical, social,and political context within which teachingoccurs;

  • 7/30/2019 Reflective Practice in Teacher Education

    5/5

    AlIstraliall /ollnIal Of Tracltcr EdllCt1tioll

    2. Reflection should not be restricted toteachers rct1cctilw indipidualllj upon theirteaching' there n ~ e d s to be a ~ ' o l l c c t i I ' c andcollabor;tive dimension to it as well;

    3. Reflection is a process that is centrallyconcerned with c1li711cllgillg the dominantnlljths, assumptions alld hiddell messagesystems, implicit in the wa y teaching an deducation are currently organised;

    4. Reflection is also fundamentally aboutcreating improvements in educational practice,and the social relationsilips that underlie thosepractices;5. Reflection is founded on the belief thatknowledge about teaching is in a tentative alldincomplete state, and as such, is continually

    being modified as a consequence of practice;6. Reflection occurs best when it begins witil tileexperiences ofpractitioners as they are assisted

    in the process of describing, informing,confronting and re-constructing their theoriesof practice (Smyth, 1992).

    REFERENCESBeazley, K. (1993). Teaching COllnts. A MinisterialStatement. Canberra: Australian GovernmentPublishing Service.Crowe, K. (1993). Re-defining the profession: theapproach of a government policy docun;ent toteachers in Australia. Teaching and Teachers Work,1(2).Foucault, M. (1980). Micilel Foucauit:Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and OtilerWritings. C. Gordon (Ed.). New York: Pantheon.Halberstam, D. (1986). The Reckoning. New York:Avon.Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's Teachers: AReport of he Holmcs Group. East Lansing, MI.Lawn, M. & Ozga, J. (1986). Unequal partners:.Teachers under indirect rule. British Journal ofSociolog1J of Education, 7(2), 225-38.Lawn, M. & Ozga, J. (1988). the educationalworker? A reassessment of teachers. In Ozga,].(Ed). Schoolwork: approaches to tile Labour Processof Teaching. Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.

    Martinez, K. (September, 1989). CriticalReflection in Teacher Education. Paper to theTeacher Education Practicum ConferenceRockhampton. 'Munby, H. & Russell, T. (1989!. Educating thereflective teacher: An essay reVIew of two bOoksby Donald Schon. Journal ofCurricululll StlJdies,21,71-80.NBEET (Schools Council). (1990). Australia'sTeachers: An Ac;;enda for the Next Decade. Canberra:Australian G o ~ ' e r n m e n t Publishing Service.Pollard, A. (1987). Reflective teaching -sociological contributio n. In Woods, P. & Pollard(Eds.). Sociology and Teaching: A New Challenge fortile Sociology (:f Education, (pp. 53-73). London:Croom Helm.Ross, W. & Hannay, L. (1986). Toward a criticaltheory of reflective inquiry. !ourllal of TeacherEducation, 37, 9-15.Rudduck, J. (1984). Tl.'I7ching as an Art,Research, and Research-based Teacher Educatio1l.Second Annual Lawrence Stenhouse MemorialLecture. University of East Anglia.Schon, D. (1991). The Rl:flectil'e Tum: Case Studiesin and 011 Educational Practice. New York:Teachers College Press.Snwth, J. (27 April 1992). CCOl;ceptualisations of Teaching and TeaWork: Implica tions for ProfessiDevelopment. Paper to the Seven OaksSymposium Series, Manitob a, Canada.Smyth, J. (1993). A Socially Critical View of he SelfManaging School. London: Falmer Press.Note: Some of the ideas in this paper ha d theirgenesis in my "Teachers' w ~ r k and the politics ofreflection" American EducatIOnal Research JOl29(2),1993, pp. 267-300 that receive? t!1eO. Johnson Award for the most dIstl11gcontribution to educational research publishedthe American Educational Research Associationin 1992.

    Allstraliall JOllnInl o(Teaclier EdllCtltioll

    11 WASN'T AWARE, UNTIL I WAS AWARE': TEAC HIN G GENDER EQUITYTO SECOND YEAR EDUCATION STUDENTSLesley Newhouse-Maiden and Susan Cull enEdith Cowan University

    ABSTRACTThe study sought to ascertain the success of a preservice unit in which one module focussed ondeveloping 'gender fair' attitudes in educationstudents. The subjects of the study were studentsin their second year of a Bachelor of Ed uca tiondegree studying the 'Social Justice and Equity inSchools' unit. Collaborati ve action researchmethods were used to collect da ta over a three1110nth period. It was found that 85'1., of studentsattempted to use gender fair approaches andmaterial when observed on teaching practice.While the outcome of pre-service teachereducation was positive, it was acknowledged thatthere wa s always the problem of achievingeffective change in their future role as prJctisingteachers in a loosely coupled, conserva tiveeducation system.INTRODUCTIONThe issue of gender and schooling has receivedintermittent attention over the past 16 years inAustra lian schools. Little is known of the successof pre-service courses focussed on the creation of'gender fair' attitudes and predispositions. In themodule 'Gender Equity', we sought to addressthe issues of girls in purportedly masculinesubject areas, the problem of limited career pathsand inequalities in the classroom.The 1990 second year Education Studies unit forpre-service teachers was entitled 'Social Justiceand Equity in Schools and Society'. Criticaltheory was taught alongside specific modules onequi y. Issues rela ted to the Aboriginal,multiculturalism and gender were addressed.The text was Understanding Schooling by Henry etal. (1988) and eminently suitable for the unit.The unit was planned on a three modularsequence so that during the course of the semesterwe taught three distinct groups, each in a fourweek block of time. This was a fortuitousarrangement from the point of view ofconducting collaborative action research. Ou rresearch proceeded through the action researchspiral of planning the first module run,monitoring an d discussing each session,

    reflecting, rethinking, evaluJting and modifyingas appropriate for the two repeats of the module(Kemmis, quoted in Oja and Smulyan, 1989: 19).According to these writers, action researchinvolves

    the application the tools and lIIethods socialscience to illllllcdiate practical problellls with thegoals of contributing to thl'Ory IIlld knowledge inthe field of education and illlprouing practicc insclz;Jols. .We ha d three general aims in the gender equityaction research:1. Our own professional development aslecturers in the area of gender equity.2. Improved school practice as a result of

    educating our students in the module andsubsequent practice in the schools.

    3. Modifications to and elaboration of theoriesof teaching and learning in gender inclusivecurriculum in university and schools.Our paper begins with an explanation of thephilosophy underlying the unit, and details theissues we address while engaged in actionresearch. Finally we discuss the findings of ourdata collection.The compulsory Education Studies unit enabledus to raise issues of sexism and gender inequity.The lectures focussed on cultural limitations facedby girls. The conditions were setrenegotiating knowledge in the classroom WIththe emphasis placed on 'democratisation' of thecurriculum, classroom management, classroominteraction, preferred learning styles, resourcesand career education. The module was based onSocial Feminism, a philosophy defined by Jaggerand Struhl (1978: 225) as

    Social FClllinist theory (if society is characterised171/ IIn emphasis on the inextricableil"zterconnectedness of hO!lle and work, privateand public, persona( and political, fll III ily andecono!llic system, wO!llen's oppression and classsociety. Tt attempts to synthesize the important