In broad terms, reflection is about thoughtful teaching and thinking about practice (Schon, 1983). Effective teachers continually evaluate their own practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on their students; and adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner informed by increasingly sophisticated use of research, professional literature, and evidence from their own practice (Danielson, 2013).
The purpose of reflection is to increase understanding of teaching through analysis and interpretation (Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen 2007); fostering metacognition and self-regulation (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley & Wilkinson, 2004). Reflection is considered so important to teacher development and continuous improvement that it is incorporated into each of the national standards for teaching (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013) and is an element of in each of the UVEI teaching standards.
Reflection involves metacognitive thinking including:
Dimensions of Reflection:
Pedagogical reflection (sometime paired with descriptive reflection as a lower inference basis on which to build towards pedagogical reflection) is the dimension most associated with continuous improvement and effectiveness as a teacher, and which correlates with levels three and four on the TCAP. Pedagogical reflection involves both a sophisticated conceptual framework and metacognition.
A conceptual framework refers to the ability to organize understandings, ideas, and evidence into a schema or mental model that facilitates retrieval and application, based on a foundation of knowledge (National Research Council, 2000). In terms of teacher reflection that aids in continuous improvement, conceptual frameworks are drawn from relevant literature (as opposed to solely professional judgement) and are used as a lens to organize, analyze, and evaluate practice. Such frameworks are most effective when they are the organizing frame for practice, as opposed to using literature to justify or rationalize practice that originates from professional judgement (Larivee, 2008).
Metacognition refers to teachers’ abilities to be self aware about areas of strength, areas for improvement, and potential directions for action that are likely to lead towards increased learning, as well as the ability to monitor current levels of mastery and understanding. Practices congruent with a metacognitive approach to learning include those that focus on sensemaking; self-assessment; and analysis of what worked and why, and what needs improving and why. These practices have been shown to increase the degree to which people are able to transfer their learning to new settings and events (National Research Council, 2000), including new teachers ability to transfer from their learning to teach context to their novice teaching context (Nagle, 2009).
Cyclical reflection. Reflection is best when it occurs in cycles (Senge, 2000; Argyris, 1997; Boyd, Boll, Villaume & Brawner 1998); with an intentional pattern of learning (in formal seminars, from colleagues, and with a mentor/coach), planning (independently and collaboratively with colleagues, a mentor, or a coach), practicing (in the classroom, sometimes while being observed by a mentor/coach), and reflecting on evidence from practice (individually, with colleagues, with course instructors and/or with a mentor or coach) (Tompkins, 2011). In fact, the plan, teach, reflect cycle in teaching has been described as the cornerstone of clinical learning in the teaching profession (Sullivan & Glanz, 2005).
References
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). InTASC model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. Retrieved from Washington, DC:
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). InTASC model core teaching standards: A resource for State Dialogue. Retrieved from Washington, DC:
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8
Lee, H.-J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 699-715. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.007
PACT Consortium. (2014). Performance Assessment for California Teachers. Retrieved from Palo Alto, CA:
Warren, K., Mitten, D., & Loeffler, T. (Eds.). (2008). Theory and practice of experiential education. Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Education.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing Action Research In Your Own Organization: Second Edition. Los Angeles: Sage.
Senge, P. (2000). Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares about Education. New York: Doubleday.
Argyris, C. (1997). Learning and Teaching: A Theory of Action Perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 9-26.
Boyd, P., Boll, M., Villaume, S., & Brawner, L. (1998). Becoming reflective professionals: an exploration of preservice teachers' struggles as they translate language and literacy theory into practice. Action in Teacher Education, 19(4).
Tompkins, R. P. (2011). Mentor and intern teacher boundary practices: Integrating theory and practice in effective alternative certification programs. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2005). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques, 2nd Edition (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2008). The reflective educator's guide to professional development: Coaching inquiry-oriented learning communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The Learning Way: Meta-cognitive Aspects of Experiential Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297-327. doi:10.1177/1046878108325713