21

Click here to load reader

Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

  • Upload
    barbara

  • View
    214

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

This article was downloaded by: [Open University]On: 29 April 2013, At: 03:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

Development of a tool to assessteachers’ level of reflective practiceBarbara Larrivee aa Department of Language, Literacy, and Culture, California StateUniversity, San Bernardino, California, USAVersion of record first published: 01 Aug 2008.

To cite this article: Barbara Larrivee (2008): Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level ofreflective practice, Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9:3,341-360

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Page 2: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective PracticeVol. 9, No. 3, August 2008, 341–360

ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14623940802207451http://www.informaworld.com

Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Barbara Larrivee*

Department of Language, Literacy, and Culture, California State University, San Bernardino, California, USATaylor and FrancisCREP_A_320912.sgm10.1080/14623940802207451Reflective Practice1462-3943 (print)/1470-1103 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis93000000August [email protected]

This article describes the development, validation process, and construction of aninstrument to assess a teacher’s level of reflection. It discusses the need for a commonlyshared language to categorize the various levels involved in becoming a criticallyreflective teacher. The research design for the creation of the Survey of reflectivepractice: A tool for assessing development as a reflective practitioner initially called foridentifying individuals who had conducted research on the development of reflectivepractice and then soliciting their expert judgment in establishing specific descriptors todefine levels of reflective practice utilizing an online interactive format. The aim of thisassessment tool is to provide a way to gauge how a prospective or practicing teacher isprogressing as a reflective practitioner to serve as a vehicle for facilitating thedevelopment of structures to mediate higher order reflection.

Keywords: reflective practice; teacher reflection; critical reflection; professionaldevelopment; assessment; survey instrument

Introduction

The need to prepare professionals who will be reflective practitioners has gained wideacceptance, increasingly being adopted as the standard to aspire to across numerous profes-sions. Many view reflective practice as the hallmark of professional competence for teach-ers (see, for example, Cole & Knowles, 2000; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Jay, 2003; Larrivee,2006a; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Reagan, Case, & Brubacher, 2000; Schön, 1983;Smyth, 1992; York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, & Montie, 2006; Zeichner & Liston, 1996).

While professional standards for teachers in many countries advocate teachers beingreflective practitioners, escalating pressure to be accountable for students reaching imposedstandards of performance increases the likelihood of teachers using teaching strategies thatprioritize efficiency and expediency, which may come at the expense of ongoing reflectionon teaching practices. Such demands can leave teachers feeling powerless. However, thebest antidote to take control of their teaching lives is for teachers to develop the habit ofengaging in systematic reflection about their work.

Defining reflective practice

Throughout the literature the term reflection, and consequently reflective practice, is beingused to describe practices ranging from analyzing a single aspect of a lesson to consideringthe ethical, social and political implications of teaching practice. Practice refers to one’srepertoire of knowledge, dispositions, skills, and behaviors. The term reflective practice

*Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 3: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

342 B. Larrivee

refers to the on-the-job performance resulting from using a reflective process for daily deci-sion-making and problem-solving.

This expansive range of meanings makes it difficult to decipher research findings andhas led to attempts to define differing types of reflection. References to numerous levels,stages, dimensions, or types of reflection are indicative that reflection is generally viewedas an incremental process. Currently there is no generally accepted terminology used todefine the various levels in the development of reflective practice, suggesting a need for acommon language.

The earliest attempts to define levels or types of reflection were Van Manen (1977) andSchön (1983). Van Manen proposed a hierarchical representation of three levels, namelytechnical, practical, and critical reflection. Schön distinguished between reflection in action,or simultaneous with action, and reflection on action, looking back on and learning fromexperience or action. He posited that it may be too challenging to reflect in the momentgiven the multiple demands teachers juggle and that reflection often requires a perspectiveof a ‘meta-position,’ a looking back after the action has taken place. For instance, focusingattention on completing a lesson may distract from paying attention to the way a teacherinteracts with students.

Based on an extensive review of the literature, the various definitions evolving overseveral decades most commonly depict three distinct levels of reflection (see, for example,Day, 1993; Farrell, 2004; Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Van Manen,1977). The three levels are:

(1) an initial level focused on teaching functions, actions or skills, generally consideringteaching episodes as isolated events;

(2) a more advanced level considering the theory and rationale for current practice;(3) a higher order where teachers examine the ethical, social and political consequences

of their teaching, grappling with the ultimate purposes of schooling.

These three levels provided the conceptual framework for the development of theassessment tool described in this article. Also, because much of the literature contrastsreflective practitioners with non-reflective (pre-reflective) teachers, four levels of reflectionwere defined, adopting the terminology of pre-reflection, surface reflection, pedagogicalreflection, and critical reflection (Larrivee, 2004).

Pre-reflection

At the pre-reflective or non-reflective level developing teachers react to students and class-room situations automatically, without conscious consideration of alternative responses.They operate with knee-jerk responses attributing ownership of problems to students orothers, perceiving themselves as victims of circumstances. They take things for grantedwithout questioning and do not adapt their teaching based on students’ responses and needs.Unfortunately, there are those pursuing teaching careers who fall into this category. It isespecially important to find ways to facilitate their development of reflective practice.

Surface reflection

At the level of surface reflection teachers’ reflections focus on strategies and methods usedto reach predetermined goals. Teachers are concerned with what works rather than with anyconsideration of the value of goals as ends in themselves. For this level, the term technical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 4: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 343

has been most used (see, for example, Day, 1993; Farrell, 2004; Hatton & Smith, 1995;Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997). It has also been referred to as descriptive (Jay & Johnson, 2002).The term surface was chosen to depict a broader scope than technical concerns whileconnoting that values, beliefs, and assumptions that lie ‘beneath the surface’ are not beingconsidered at this level of reflection.

Pedagogical reflection

At this level practitioners apply the field’s knowledge base and current beliefs about whatrepresents quality practices. This level has probably the least consensus in the literature asto its composition and label. It has been variously labeled practical (Van Manen, 1977),theoretical (Day, 1993), deliberative (Valli, 1997), comparative (Jay & Johnson, 2002), andconceptual (Farrell, 2004). The term pedagogical was selected as a more inclusive term,merging all of the other concepts to connote a higher level of reflection based on applicationof teaching knowledge, theory, and/or research. At the level of pedagogical reflection teach-ers reflect on educational goals, the theories underlying approaches, and the connectionsbetween theoretical principles and practice. Teachers engaging in pedagogical reflectionstrive to understand the theoretical basis for classroom practice and to foster consistencybetween espoused theory (what they say they do and believe) and theory in use (what theyactually do in the classroom).

Critical reflection

At this level teachers reflect on the moral and ethical implications and consequences of theirclassroom practices on students. Critical reflection involves examination of both personaland professional belief systems. Teachers who are critically reflective focus their attentionboth inwardly at their own practice and outwardly at the social conditions in which thesepractices are situated. They are concerned about issues of equity and social justice that arisein and outside the classroom and seek to connect their practice to democratic ideals.Acknowledging that classroom and school practices cannot be separated from the largersocial and political realities, critically reflective teachers strive to become fully consciousof the range of consequences of their actions.

The term critical reflection has the most consensus in the literature as a level of reflec-tion examining the ethical, social, and political consequences of one’s practice. Althoughthere is considerable variability regarding the inclusion of self-reflection, or challengingone’s own belief system. While some definitions fail to acknowledge this dimension, othersconsider it to be embedded in the category of critical reflection. And others conceptualizeself-reflection as a separate entity. Hatton and Smith (1995) referred to this type of reflec-tion as dialogic, Valli (1997) as personalistic, and Day (1999) as intrapersonal, all highlight-ing the aspect of dialogue with oneself. Similarly, Cole and Knowles (2000) distinguishedbetween reflective and reflexive inquiry. Underpinning reflective inquiry is the notion thatassumptions behind all practice are subject to questioning. Reflexive inquiry is tantamountto self-reflection and is defined as reflective inquiry situated within the context of personalhistories in order to make connections between personal lives and professional careers andto understand personal (including early) influences on professional practice.

Based on the presumption that understanding oneself is a prerequisite to understandingothers, self-reflection is conceptualized here as a crucial dimension of critical reflection.Hence, the category labeled critical reflection includes both democratic principles as well asself-reflection. Self-reflection involves examining how one’s beliefs and values, expectations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 5: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

344 B. Larrivee

and assumptions, family imprinting, and cultural conditioning impact on students and theirlearning (Larrivee, 2005). It entails deep examination of values and beliefs, embodied in theassumptions teachers make and the expectations they have of students. Beliefs aboutstudents’ capacity and willingness to learn, assumptions about the behavior of students, espe-cially those from different ethnic and social backgrounds, and expectations formulated on thebasis of the teacher’s own value system drive teacher behavior.

Developing reflective practice

Reflective practice is generally viewed as developing in stages, although an individualteacher’s progression is not necessarily linear. Teachers may reflect at different levels simul-taneously, interweaving various levels. Reagan et al. (2000) advocated that the process ofengaging in reflection should be seen as an ongoing spiral in which each element of reflectivepractice is constantly involved in an interactive process of change and development.

While each dimension of reflection can be useful in its own right, there is an implicitdistinction in the quality of reflection, with layers of quality moving from trivial, to signif-icant, to potentially profound. Increasing levels involve higher forms of thought, movingfrom issues of practicality to values and beliefs (Jay, 2003). The three levels described inVan Manen’s representation might also be thought of as paralleling the growth of an indi-vidual teacher from novice to expert to master. They can also be characterized as fallingalong an ‘efficiency–value–worth continuum.’ At the first level the concern is mainly withmeans rather than ends, entailing selection and use of instructional strategies primarily fortheir expediency. The second level adds questioning the assumptions as well as conse-quences of particular strategies. Here teachers apply criteria to assess classroom practices tomake individual and independent decisions about pedagogy. Teaching choices are based ona value commitment to a particular interpretive framework. The teacher analyses and clari-fies individual and cultural experiences, meanings, assumptions, prejudgments and presup-positions for the purpose of making instructional decisions based on an interpretiveunderstanding of what represents quality educational experiences. At the highest level ofdeliberation the worth of knowledge is in question. The teacher pursues worthwhile educa-tional ends of self-determination based on the principles of justice and equality. Hence,decisions at the surface level of reflection are made for efficiency, decisions at the pedagog-ical level are based on a value judgment, and decisions made at the critical level are basedon a worth judgment. Teachers move from initially asking ‘Am I doing it right?’ to eventu-ally asking ‘Is this the right thing to do?’

Many advocates of reflective practice take the position that teachers should not onlyreflect on behaviors and events within the confines of the classroom but should include theinfluence of the larger social and political contexts. They deem teaching as ultimately a moralpursuit concerned with both means and ends and therefore consider critical reflection to beimperative for teaching in a democratic society. Teaching is first and foremost an ethicalenterprise where teachers are called on daily to confront issues of ‘goodness and truth’(Larrivee, 2006b). Many believe that taking this broader view will enable teachers to becomechange agents who both understand what is and work to create what might be (Bartlett, 1990;Cole & Knowles, 2000; Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Jay, 2003; Larrivee, 2000; Osterman &Kottkamp, 2004; Parker, 1997; Reagan et al., 2000; Schön, 1987; Smyth, 1989).

Although the developmental span for both prospective and practicing teachers will varyconsiderably, it is important for teachers to progress through the levels of reflective practiceto ultimately become critically reflective teachers who pose the important questions of prac-tice. For example, teachers engaging only in surface reflection may question how to limit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 6: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 345

the transition time between reading groups but unless they move to the next level of peda-gogical reflection they may never question whether placing students in reading groups is themost effective organizational structure. Furthermore, unless they engage in critical reflec-tion they may not consider the larger issue of whether that structure limits the potential forsome students from different cultural backgrounds. According to Cole and Knowles the aimof reflective practice is to think critically about oneself, one’s assumptions, and one’s teach-ing choices and actions. While not all teachers will become critically reflective teachers,nonetheless it is the desired goal to reach over the course of one’s professional career.

Mediation to promote higher order reflection

Much of the literature grapples with either getting teachers to reflect at all or moving thembeyond the surface level of reflection. Even with interventions specifically designed toenhance reflective practice many attempts fail (see, for example, Korthagen & Wubbels,1991; Smith & Hatton, 1993; Valli, 1992). Despite exposure to specific scaffolding intendedto develop reflective practice, reflections of pre-service teachers tend to be mostly descrip-tive, failing to connect to a theoretical framework or societal issues (see, for example, Collier,1999; Pultorak, 1993; Wunder, 2003). The generally accepted position is that without care-fully constructed guidance, prospective and novice, as well as more experienced, teachersseem unable to engage in pedagogical and critical reflection to enhance their practice.

Based on their research Hatton and Smith (1995) suggested that teacher progressionthrough the levels of reflection appears to be developmental in that teachers may need toreflect first on areas of technical skill before being able to compare different teaching strat-egies and weigh their relative merit. However, Smyth (1989) advocated that taking the posi-tion that higher order reflection is not accessible to inexperienced teachers dismisses theirhistory of being treated in certain ways as students, arguing that such histories are worthy of‘unpacking’ for the more just and humane alternatives they are likely to uncover. The positiontaken by this author and others is that even novice teachers can deepen their level of reflectionwith powerful facilitation and mediation within an emotionally supportive learning climate.

There is an emerging consensus that pre-service and novice teachers can be helped toreflect at higher levels with multifaceted and strategically constructed interventions (see, forexample, Brookfield, 1995; Cole & Knowles, 2000; Griffin, 2003; Hoover, 1994; Hunter &Hatton, 1998; Johnson, 1994; Putorak, 1996; Rhine & Bryant, 2007; Rudney & Guillaume,1990; Russell, 2005; Yost, Forlenza-Bailey, & Shaw, 1999). Such mediation processes asjournaling with specific structures, such as providing deliberate prompts and strategicallyposing non-judgmental questions, have been found to promote higher order reflection bycreating authentic dialogue (Dobbins, 1996; Ross, 1990; Smyth, 1991; Spalding & Wilson,2002; Thorpe, 2004; Trotman & Kerr, 2001; Wiltz, 1999; Yost, 1997). Likewise, research-ers have found that helping prospective teachers acknowledge, articulate, and challengetheir beliefs enhances reflection (Boyd, Boll, & Brawner, 1998; Nais, 1987; Walkington,2005; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998; Yost, Sentner, & Forlanza-Bailey, 2000).

Reflection is an abstract construct with its existence being assumed on the basis ofobserved performance and expressed beliefs. The capacity for reflection is embedded invalues, assumptions, and expectations. The assessment tool described here can providebenchmark indicators of key behaviors of reflective practitioners. Providing a more concreteprocess for assessing a developing teacher’s level of reflection can help teacher educatorstarget specific attitudinal and behavioral characteristics necessary for reflective practice. Byidentifying key behaviors, attitudes, and practices that need to be developed they can moreexplicitly tailor intervention strategies to promote higher order reflection.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 7: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

346 B. Larrivee

This instrument can provide a structure to guide developing teachers through a discov-ery process by strategically prompting them to think and act in new ways. However, provid-ing such facilitation will require teacher educators to become aware of their own thinkingprocess and to learn to trust in others’ ability to come up with their own solutions and appli-cations. In essence, they must be reflective practitioners themselves, capable of remainingopen to viewpoints different from their own, letting go of the need to be right, and acknowl-edging their own limiting assumptions (Larrivee, 2008).

Research design, methods, and procedures

The research design for development of the instrument to assess teachers’ level of reflectioninvolved several stages.

Stage 1. Conceptual framework and initial scale development

In the process of reviewing hundreds of articles, chapters and texts, descriptions used todescribe non-reflection, levels of reflection, and reflective practice were recorded. Manyauthors described at great length the thinking process involved in reflective practice; otherscontrasted reflective practitioners with those who were non-reflective; others conceptual-ized reflection as being evident to varying degrees, putting forth labels for each level. Asmentioned earlier, based on efforts to categorize types of reflection over the period from1977 to 2004, most typically three levels were identified. Yet there has been no attempt tooperationally define the various levels beyond brief category descriptors or to systemati-cally delineate the composition of these categories by providing in-depth descriptions oftypes of behaviors and dispositions characteristic of each level of reflection that might beused for assessment purposes. The development of this tool was intended both to fill thisvoid and also offer a common terminology for levels of reflection.

Using this three level framework, with the addition of a pre-reflection category, thecollected descriptions were sorted into these four categories. With elimination of synony-mous descriptions and editing for similar sentence structure these became the quality indi-cators or items represented. From this compilation of descriptive phrases an inclusivedefinition of each level was composed that represented the range discussed in the literature.These served as the descriptions provided to respondents.

Stage 2. Identifying the sample

Phase 1 (March 2004–August 2004)

From a review of the literature over the past several decades 98 individuals worldwide wereidentified who had conducted research or written on the subject of teacher development ofreflective practice. These authors were solicited via email to participate in this researchproject by providing their expert judgment to establish specific descriptors to define levelsof reflective practice. They were asked to contribute to this unique opportunity to participatewith others in the field to create an assessment tool to aid teachers in developing as reflec-tive practitioners.

After identifying the original database, the next step involved locating email addressesfor the identified authors. This process resulted in the elimination of 17 names because emailaddresses could not be located, were invalid, or the authors were not available for the timeallotted to complete the survey (e.g. on sabbatical, leave, or vacation). This reduced the actualpool of respondents to 81. Thirty-two respondents completed the survey, a 40% response rate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 8: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 347

Phase 2 (September 2004–March 2005)

In a second phase of data collection an additional 21 authors were identified from anexpanded search of the literature, 20 of whom were reached by email and were added to thesample pool. Because this focus was on recent publications, nearly all email addresses wereaccessible. These authors were added to replace those previously eliminated in an attemptto increase the sample size. Ultimately, of the total pool of 119 the survey reached 101authors, of whom 40 completed the survey. Although it is possible that because the mailingwas a ‘mass mailing’ some emails may have been filtered out, identified as ‘spam’. It is alsolikely that some emails were not opened by the recipients, rendering the response rate actu-ally much higher.

Stage 3. Instrument construction

Descriptors used in the literature to describe various levels of reflection were compiled andcategorized according to the four levels of reflective practice defined. A draft instrumentwas constructed and piloted with five education faculty members who agreed to bothrespond to the items and to be interviewed to solicit feedback on the items, as well as theconceptual framework and definitions of the four levels.

Based on the feedback from the pilot test, revisions were made to clarify level descrip-tions and revise, delete, or add items. The resulting survey consisted of 76 items, with 18conceptualized as pre-reflection, 20 as surface reflection, 18 as pedagogical reflection, and20 as critical reflection.

To gauge item and rater consistency 24 items were selected to be repeated, 6 from eachlevel. This resulted in a survey comprising 100 items. In order to facilitate the rating task,quality indicators (items) were clustered into 20 sets, each with 5 indicators arranged inrandom order.

In composing the survey several decision rules were applied to counteract establishingan expectancy set. To control for response bias items were randomly assigned to sets anditems were arranged so that items for each level were equally distributed in the first, second,third, fourth, and fifth positions across the 20 sets. Each set of five items was constructed toinclude a minimum of three of the four levels and a maximum of two items per level. Inaddition, the first eight sets (40 items) contained no repeat items. The 24 repeat items werearranged such that each was placed a minimum of five sets away from its original position.This was done so that no repeat item would be visible on a single web screen, which typi-cally displayed from 1 to 4 sets at a time.

Stage 4. Procedures

Selected participants were sent an email to request their expert judgment in establishingspecific descriptors to define levels of reflective practice. For their contribution participantswere offered a summary of the data analysis and a copy of the resulting assessment instrument.The survey was posted on a website and all responses were submitted online. Participantswere provided with an ID code to access the website. Based on the pilot test, completion ofthe survey generally took about 15 minutes.

Participants were directed to go to the link provided, read the descriptions of each desig-nated level of reflection, examine each ‘quality indicator,’ and assign the indicators to oneof four levels. They were also given the option to select an undecided category. The followinglevel descriptions were provided.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 9: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

348 B. Larrivee

Level 1. Pre-reflection

At this level the teacher interprets classroom situations without thoughtful connection toother events or circumstances. The teacher’s orientation is reactive, believing that situa-tional contingencies are beyond the teacher’s control. Beliefs and positions about teachingpractices are generalized and not supported with evidence from experience, theory, orresearch. The teacher’s perspective is undifferentiated and general regarding the needs oflearners.

Level 2. Surface reflection

At this level the teacher’s examination of teaching methods is confined to tactical issuesconcerning how best to achieve predefined objectives and standards. Beliefs and positionsabout teaching practices are supported with evidence from experience, not theory orresearch. The teacher’s view of learners is somewhat differentiated, acknowledging theneed to accommodate learner differences.

Level 3. Pedagogical reflection

At this level the teacher is constantly thinking about how teaching practices are affectingstudents’ learning and how to enhance learning experiences. The teacher’s goal is continu-ously improving practice and reaching all students. Reflection is guided by a pedagogicalconceptual framework. Beliefs and positions about teaching are specific and supported byevidence from experience, as well as being grounded in theory or research. The teacher’sview of teaching and learning is multidimensional, connecting events within a broaderframework.

Level 4. Critical reflection

At this level the teacher is engaged in ongoing reflection and critical inquiry concerningteaching actions as well as thinking processes. The teacher holds up both philosophicalideologies and teaching practices for continuous examination and verification. The teacherconsciously considers how personal beliefs and values, assumptions, family imprinting, andcultural conditioning may impact on students. The critically reflective teacher is concernedwith promoting democratic ideals and weighs the ethical and social implications of class-room practices.

The level descriptions were presented in a ‘split-screen’ format, allowing for simulta-neous viewing with each set of five indicators. The interactive format utilizing ‘radiobuttons’ allowed respondents to change their selections and have only their final selec-tion recorded for compilation. Respondents were also prompted prior to their finalsubmission to return to specific items that they had left blank. This feature ensured nomissing data.

Stage 5. Data analysis

Because the selected sample of authors and researchers was considered to have significantexpertise, a majority opinion was deemed sufficient for assignment of items to each level.This was operationally defined as more than 50% of the raters, or a minimum of 21 (52.5%)of 40 raters. Using this criterion, 63 (82.9%) of the original 76 items were assigned to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 10: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 349

one of the four levels. For repeat items the higher number of the two ratings was used.Generally, for repeat items the number of respondents was either the same or greater for thesecond rating. This may have indicated a ‘learning’ factor.

Items were assigned by the majority of the raters as originally conceptualized by theauthor, with the exception of 5 items assigned by raters to Level 1 but conceptualized asLevel 2 items. Table 1 presents the placement of the items and the percentage of raters whoselected that level for all items with rater agreement >50%.

Discussion of the results of the data analysis

Although the respondents had the option to select an undecided category if they were unableto decide about the placement of an item, they seldom did. As evidence of considerable facevalidity, for 68 of the 76 items (89.5%) 5% (2 respondents) or less selected the undecidedcategory rather than one of the four levels.

It was anticipated that the most difficult distinctions would be between pedagogical andcritical reflection, followed by distinctions between surface and pedagogical reflection.However, the distinction between pre-reflection and surface reflection proved to be the mostproblematic. Apparently the most difficult distinction for respondents was between noreflection (pre-reflection) and a minimal amount of reflection (surface reflection). Thiscould have also been a function of inappropriate items, rather than conceptual, or a combi-nation of both. In fact, five of the items conceptualized as surface reflection items were actu-ally categorized by the majority of the raters as pre-reflection. This resulted in many moreitems for Level 1 (22 items) than for Level 2 (11 items).

Stage 6. Final survey construction

The following guidelines were established for construction of the final survey.

(1) Select items using the initial criteria of agreement of the majority of respondents.Using this criteria resulted in 22 items for Level 1, 11 items for Level 2, 16 itemsfor Level 3, and 14 items for Level 4.

(2) Apply an additional cut-off of a maximum of 14 items per level, selecting items withthe highest agreement, in order to keep the number of items relatively consistentacross levels.

In analyzing item contents, 14 items sufficiently represented the full range of theintended content and scope of Levels 1 and 3. The resulting format had 14 itemsfor Levels 1, 3, and 4 and 11 items for Level 2.

(3) Reorder items to equally distribute negatively worded items and to place similarlyworded items distant from each other.

(4) Include both observer rating and self-rating components.By design the items of the survey included both external factors (i.e. behaviors,actions, practices) as well as internal factors (i.e. beliefs, values, assumptions).Accordingly, a dual rating format was constructed with an external observerrating augmented by a self-rating.

(5) Add an action plan for improved practice to facilitate accomplishment of the desiredchange.

The final result is a three part tool including a facilitator assessment, a self-assessment,and an action plan for improved practice (see Figure 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 11: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

350 B. LarriveeTa

ble

1.R

atin

gs f

rom

sur

vey

of r

eflec

tive

prac

tice

for

ite

ms

wit

h >

50%

agr

eem

ent.

Pra

ctic

e in

dica

tors

Per

cent

of

rate

rs

Lev

el 1

. Pre

-ref

lect

ion

Ope

rate

s in

sur

viva

l m

ode,

rea

ctin

g au

tom

atic

ally

wit

hout

con

side

rati

on o

f al

tern

ativ

e re

spon

ses

97.5

0V

iew

s st

uden

t an

d cl

assr

oom

cir

cum

stan

ces

as b

eyon

d th

e te

ache

r’s

cont

rol

95.0

0D

ism

isse

s st

uden

ts’

pers

pect

ives

wit

hout

due

con

side

rati

on92

.50

Is w

illi

ng t

o ta

ke t

hing

s fo

r gr

ante

d w

itho

ut q

uest

ioni

ng87

.50

Att

ribu

tes

owne

rshi

p of

pro

blem

s to

stu

dent

s or

oth

ers

87.5

0F

ails

to

reco

gniz

e th

e in

terd

epen

denc

e be

twee

n te

ache

r an

d st

uden

t ac

tion

s85

.00

Enf

orce

s pr

eset

sta

ndar

ds o

f op

erat

ion

wit

hout

ada

ptin

g or

res

truc

turi

ng b

ased

on

stud

ents

’ re

spon

ses

85.0

0F

ails

to

cons

ider

dif

feri

ng n

eeds

of

lear

ners

85.0

0D

oes

not

thou

ghtf

ully

con

nect

tea

chin

g ac

tion

s w

ith

stud

ent

lear

ning

or

beha

vior

82.5

0S

ees

ones

elf

as a

vic

tim

of

circ

umst

ance

s82

.50

Doe

s no

t su

ppor

t be

lief

s an

d as

sert

ions

wit

h ev

iden

ce f

rom

exp

erie

nce,

the

ory

or r

esea

rch

82.5

0Is

pre

occu

pied

wit

h m

anag

emen

t, co

ntro

l an

d st

uden

t co

mpl

ianc

e80

.00

Des

crib

es p

robl

ems

sim

plis

tica

lly

or u

nidi

men

sion

ally

77.5

0D

oes

not

see

beyo

nd i

mm

edia

te d

eman

ds o

f a

teac

hing

epi

sode

72.5

0F

ocus

es o

n is

olat

ed f

acts

, eve

nts,

or

data

wit

hout

bro

ader

und

erst

andi

nga

67.5

0D

efen

ds r

athe

r th

an a

naly

zes

teac

hing

pra

ctic

esa

65.0

0R

espo

nds

to c

onfl

icts

wit

h po

wer

ass

erti

ons

rath

er t

han

enga

ging

in

prob

lem

-sol

ving

a65

.00

Just

ifie

s te

achi

ng m

etho

ds w

itho

ut e

xplo

ring

alt

erna

tive

sa65

.00

Res

pond

s to

cla

ssro

om s

itua

tion

s w

itho

ut c

onne

ctin

g th

em t

o ot

her

even

tsa

62.5

0A

ppli

es p

rede

term

ined

tex

t te

mpl

ates

for

ass

essi

ng i

nfor

mat

iona

62.5

0M

akes

dec

isio

ns b

ased

on

imm

edia

te c

ircu

mst

ance

s fa

ilin

g to

ant

icip

ate

for

the

futu

rea

60.0

0U

ses

self

-con

firm

ing

reas

onin

g ra

ther

tha

n co

nsid

erin

g al

tern

ativ

e pl

ausi

ble

expl

anat

ions

a57

.50

Lev

el 2

. Sur

face

ref

lect

ion

Rea

cts

to s

tude

nt r

espo

nses

dif

fere

ntia

lly

but

fail

s to

rec

ogni

ze p

atte

rns

90.0

Lim

its

anal

ysis

of

teac

hing

pra

ctic

es t

o te

chni

cal

ques

tion

s ab

out

teac

hing

tec

hniq

ues

82.5

Mod

ifie

s te

achi

ng s

trat

egie

s w

itho

ut c

hall

engi

ng u

nder

lyin

g as

sum

ptio

ns a

bout

tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng82

.5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 12: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 351Ta

ble

1.(C

onti

nued

).

Pra

ctic

e in

dica

tors

Per

cent

of

rate

rs

Adj

usts

tea

chin

g pr

acti

ces

only

to

curr

ent

situ

atio

n w

itho

ut d

evel

opin

g a

long

-ter

m p

lan

80.0

Sup

port

s be

lief

s on

ly w

ith

evid

ence

fro

m e

xper

ienc

e80

.0P

rovi

des

lim

ited

acc

omm

odat

ions

for

stu

dent

s’ d

iffe

rent

lea

rnin

g st

yles

75.0

Que

stio

ns t

he u

tili

ty o

f sp

ecif

ic t

each

ing

prac

tice

s bu

t no

t ge

nera

l po

lici

es o

r pr

acti

ces

72.5

Impl

emen

ts s

olut

ions

to

prob

lem

s th

at f

ocus

onl

y on

sho

rt-t

erm

res

ults

70.0

Mak

es a

djus

tmen

ts b

ased

on

past

exp

erie

nce

65.0

Fai

ls t

o co

nnec

t sp

ecif

ic m

etho

ds t

o un

derl

ying

the

ory

52.5

Pro

vide

s so

me

diff

eren

tiat

ed i

nstr

ucti

on t

o ad

dres

s st

uden

ts’

indi

vidu

al d

iffe

renc

es52

.5

Lev

el 3

. Ped

agog

ical

ref

lect

ion

See

ks w

ays

to c

onne

ct n

ew c

once

pts

to s

tude

nts’

pri

or k

now

ledg

e85

.0A

naly

zes

the

impa

ct o

f ta

sk s

truc

ture

s, s

uch

as c

oope

rati

ve l

earn

ing

grou

ps, p

artn

er, p

eer

or o

ther

gr

oupi

ngs,

on

stud

ents

’ le

arni

ng82

.5

Ana

lyze

s re

lati

onsh

ip b

etw

een

teac

hing

pra

ctic

es a

nd s

tude

nt l

earn

ing

80.0

Ack

now

ledg

es w

hat

stud

ent

brin

gs t

o th

e le

arni

ng p

roce

ss75

.0H

as c

omm

itm

ent

to c

onti

nuou

s le

arni

ng a

nd i

mpr

oved

pra

ctic

e75

.0H

as g

enui

ne c

urio

sity

abo

ut t

he e

ffec

tive

ness

of

teac

hing

pra

ctic

es, l

eadi

ng t

o ex

peri

men

tati

on a

ndri

sk t

akin

g72

.5

Rec

ogni

zes

the

com

plex

ity

of c

lass

room

dyn

amic

s72

.5S

earc

hes

for

patt

erns

, rel

atio

nshi

ps a

nd c

onne

ctio

ns t

o de

epen

und

erst

andi

ng70

.0Id

enti

fies

alt

erna

tive

way

s of

rep

rese

ntin

g id

eas

and

conc

epts

to

stud

ents

70.0

Str

ives

to

enha

nce

lear

ning

for

all

stu

dent

s70

.0E

ngag

es i

n co

nstr

ucti

ve c

riti

cism

of

one’

s ow

n te

achi

ng65

.0C

onsi

ders

stu

dent

s’ p

ersp

ecti

ves

in d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

62.5

Adj

usts

met

hods

and

str

ateg

ies

base

d on

stu

dent

s’ r

elat

ive

perf

orm

ance

57.5

See

s te

achi

ng p

ract

ices

as

rem

aini

ng o

pen

to f

urth

er i

nves

tiga

tion

55.0

Ack

now

ledg

es g

ap b

etw

een

wha

t is

bei

ng a

ccom

plis

hed

and

wha

t ne

eds

to b

e ac

com

plis

hed

a52

.5A

ccep

ts r

espo

nsib

ilit

y fo

r on

e’s

prof

essi

onal

pra

ctic

e an

d le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

a52

.5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 13: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

352 B. LarriveeTa

ble

1.(C

onti

nued

).

Pra

ctic

e in

dica

tors

Per

cent

of

rate

rs

Lev

el 4

. Cri

tica

l re

flec

tion

Cha

llen

ges

stat

us q

uo n

orm

s an

d pr

acti

ces,

esp

ecia

lly

wit

h re

spec

t to

pow

er a

nd c

ontr

ol97

.5V

iew

s pr

acti

ce w

ithi

n th

e br

oade

r so

ciol

ogic

al, c

ultu

ral,

hist

oric

al, a

nd p

olit

ical

con

text

s97

.5A

ddre

sses

iss

ues

of e

quit

y an

d so

cial

jus

tice

tha

t ar

ise

in a

nd o

utsi

de o

f th

e cl

assr

oom

95.0

Con

side

rs t

he e

thic

al r

amif

icat

ions

of

clas

sroo

m p

olic

ies

and

prac

tice

s87

.5A

ckno

wle

dges

the

soc

ial

and

poli

tica

l co

nseq

uenc

es o

f on

e’s

teac

hing

82.5

Ack

now

ledg

es th

at te

achi

ng p

ract

ices

and

pol

icie

s ca

n ei

ther

con

trib

ute

to, o

r hi

nder

, the

rea

liza

tion

of

a m

ore

just

and

hum

ane

soci

ety

82.5

Obs

erve

s se

lf i

n th

e pr

oces

s of

thi

nkin

g67

.5Is

aw

are

of i

ncon

grue

nce

betw

een

beli

efs

and

acti

ons

and

take

s ac

tion

to

rect

ify

65.0

Cha

llen

ges

assu

mpt

ions

abo

ut s

tude

nts

and

expe

ctat

ions

for

stu

dent

s62

.5E

ncou

rage

s so

cial

ly r

espo

nsib

le a

ctio

ns i

n th

eir

stud

ents

62.5

Rec

ogni

zes

assu

mpt

ions

and

pre

mis

es u

nder

lyin

g be

lief

s60

.0Is

an

acti

ve i

nqui

rer,

bot

h cr

itiq

uing

cur

rent

con

clus

ions

and

gen

erat

ing

new

hyp

othe

ses

60.0

Cal

ls c

omm

only

-hel

d be

lief

s in

to q

uest

ion

60.0

Sus

pend

s ju

dgm

ents

to

cons

ider

all

opt

ions

57.5

a Ite

m n

ot i

nclu

ded

in fi

nal

surv

ey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 14: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 353

Pra

ctic

e In

dic

ato

rsF

or e

ach

indi

cato

r, se

lect

the

ratin

g th

at r

epre

sent

s th

e cu

rren

t pra

ctic

e of

this

teac

her/

teac

her

cand

idat

e.

yltne

uqerf

nIse

mitem

oS

yltne

uqer

FN

OIT

CE

LF

ER-

ER

P : 1 L

EV

EL

Ope

rate

s in

sur

viva

l mod

e, r

eact

ing

auto

mat

ical

ly w

ithou

t con

side

ratio

n of

alte

rnat

ive

resp

onse

s

Enf

orce

s pr

eset

sta

ndar

ds o

f op

erat

ion

with

out a

dapt

ing

or r

estr

uctu

ring

bas

ed o

n st

uden

tsÌ r

espo

nses

Doe

s no

t sup

port

bel

iefs

and

ass

ertio

ns w

ith e

vide

nce

from

exp

erie

nce,

theo

ry o

r re

sear

ch

Is w

illin

g to

take

thin

gs f

or g

rant

ed w

ithou

t que

stio

ning

Is p

reoc

cupi

ed w

ith m

anag

emen

t, co

ntro

l and

stu

dent

com

plia

nce

Fails

to r

ecog

nize

the

inte

rdep

ende

nce

betw

een

teac

her

and

stud

ent a

ctio

ns

Vie

ws

stud

ent a

nd c

lass

room

cir

cum

stan

ces

as b

eyon

d th

e te

ache

rÌs

cont

rol

Attr

ibut

es o

wne

rshi

p of

pro

blem

s to

stu

dent

s or

oth

ers

Fails

to c

onsi

der

diff

erin

g ne

eds

of le

arne

rs

Sees

one

self

as

a vi

ctim

of

circ

umst

ance

s

Dis

mis

ses

stud

ents

Ì per

spec

tives

with

out d

ue c

onsi

dera

tion

Doe

s no

t tho

ught

fully

con

nect

teac

hing

act

ions

with

stu

dent

lear

ning

or

beha

vior

Des

crib

es p

robl

ems

sim

plis

tical

ly o

r un

idim

ensi

onal

ly

Doe

s no

t see

bey

ond

imm

edia

te d

eman

ds o

f a

teac

hing

epi

sode

yl tne

uqerf

nIse

mi tem

oS

yltne

uqer

FN

OIT

CE

LF

ER

EC

AF

RU

S : 2 L

EV

EL

Lim

its a

naly

sis

of te

achi

ng p

ract

ices

to te

chni

cal q

uest

ions

abo

ut te

achi

ng te

chni

ques

Mod

ifie

s te

achi

ng s

trat

egie

s w

ithou

t cha

lleng

ing

unde

rlyi

ng a

ssum

ptio

ns a

bout

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

Fails

to c

onne

ct s

peci

fic

met

hods

to u

nder

lyin

g th

eory

Supp

orts

bel

iefs

onl

y w

ith e

vide

nce

from

exp

erie

nce

Prov

ides

lim

ited

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

stu

dent

sÌ d

iffe

rent

lear

ning

sty

les

Rea

cts

to s

tude

nt r

espo

nses

dif

fere

ntia

lly b

ut f

ails

to r

ecog

nize

pat

tern

s

Adj

usts

teac

hing

pra

ctic

es o

nly

to c

urre

nt s

ituat

ion

with

out d

evel

opin

g a

long

-ter

m p

lan

Impl

emen

ts s

olut

ions

to p

robl

ems

that

foc

us o

nly

on s

hort

-ter

m r

esul

ts

Mak

es a

djus

tmen

ts b

ased

on

past

exp

erie

nce

Que

stio

ns th

e ut

ility

of

spec

ific

teac

hing

pra

ctic

es b

ut n

ot g

ener

al p

olic

ies

or p

ract

ices

Prov

ides

som

e di

ffer

entia

ted

inst

ruct

ion

to a

ddre

ss s

tude

nts'

indi

vidu

al d

iffe

renc

es

Cop

yrig

ht 2

006

© B

arba

ra L

arri

vee

Ass

essm

ent

Cri

teri

a

Su

rvey

of

Ref

lect

ive

Pra

ctic

e: A

To

ol f

or

Ass

essi

ng

Dev

elo

pm

ent

as a

Ref

lect

ive

Pra

ctit

ion

er

Fac

ilita

tor

Ass

essm

ent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 15: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

354 B. Larrivee

����������������

��������������� ����������

���������

���

��

������������

����������

����������������������

���

�����

���

����

��

� ��

����

��

���

��

��

��

��

���

��

��

��

��

!�

����

���

��

������

����

���

��

�� ��

���

���

����

��

����

��

����

����

���

��

����

����

���

��

��

����

���

��

���

��

������

���

�����

��

��

����

���

��

����

�����

���

���

���

���

����

���

��

���

���

����

���

��

���

��

���

���

�����

����

��

����

����

����

���

���

���

���

�����

����

����

��

���

����

���

��

����

���

��

�� ��

�� �

��

��

���

���

��

����

����

����

�����

��

���

���

��

���

����

����

���

���

���

��

���

��

���

����

� ��

�����

���

���

����

���

����

��

��

����

���

����

���

��

�����

�!��

��

���

���

� ��

��

��

��

���

������

���

���

������

����

����

���

����

���

���

���

���

���

���

���������

���

���

���

���

��

���

��

���

"���

���

����

��

���

��

���

��

���

������

����

���

���

���

��

��

����

#��

�����

��

���

����

���

��

����

����

�����

���

���

���

������

� �

�����

��

���

���

����

���

����

$����

��

��

����

�!��

����

����

�����

����

��

����

���

��

�� ��

���

���

����

��

�����

�����

���

�����

���

���

���

�����

���

����

��

� ��

����

��

���

��

��

��

��

����

��

�"

��

!�

%��

��

��

���

��

� ��

��

���

����

���

���

�����

���

�� ��

��

����

���

�������

���

��

��

$����

��

��

��

���

���

���

����

��

����

����

������

����

���

���

��

����

����

����

����

�&���

���

����

�� �

���

��

���

����

����

���

��

����

����

$ ��

������

��

��

&��

���

���

���

���

�����

���

�����

��

���

���

���

���

���

��

'���

���

����

��

���

����

��

��

���

"���

��

��

����

���

����

��

���

����

����

���

������

���

����

�����

��

���

���

���

������

����

����

��������

���

���

&���

���

��

���!

��

�� ��

"���

�����

��&��

����

���&

���

���

��

��

���

���

���

���

���

��

���

���

���

����

$ ��

������

����

������

�����

����

���

���

���

�����

��

�����

����

����

����

���

���

���

��

���������

#��

�����

����

���

�����

���

��

���

������

����

����

����

$��

����

��

����

� ��

����

����

���

&���

���

���

���

������

���

��

���

���

����

�������

����

���

���

����

���

��

��

��

����

���

���

��

��

��

���

��

���

����

��

����

��

���

����

����

���

����

���

������

��

��

�����

�����������������

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 16: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 355

����������������

��������������� ���������������������� ������ ��

�������������������

���

����������������������

����

��������

���

����

���

�������

��

����������

����

������

��������

��

������

����

����

����

�� ��������

��������

�������������������������

����

�������

���������

�����������������������

����������������������

�����

�������

����

����

���

������������

�����������������

���

�����

���������

�����

������������

����������

��������������������������������

��������

�������� �

���

�����

�����

�����

���

����

��

�����

������

�� �����������

���

��������

����

���

������

���

����

!��������

��

���������

���� ���

�����

���

���������

���"�

������

#��������������

���������� ���

����

����������

�����

����

�����

����������

�����������

$��

���������

������

������ ���

���

��� ���������

��������

�������

����������

���������

����

��������������

��

�����

�����

������������

������������

�����

���������

������ ��� �����������

�����

��������

����

��������

���

��

����

��

����������

�����

�����

��������

���

����

���

� ������

��

���������

�� �

�!��

"�����

%�

����

������������

������������

������

����

���������

������

�������

����

&�����������

���������������������

�����������������

�������

������

����

�������

�����

����

��

���

������

��������

�����������

��

$�������������

���

������

���

�����

���������

'�������

�� ����

����

��������������

�����������������������

(��

�����

����

�����

�����������������

���������

����

�� ��������

#�)�������

������������

���

���

���

�����������������

����������*���

���

� ��� �

����

�������

������ �����

���

����

���

���*���

���

���

&��

����

)�� �

�������

�������

�������

+���������������

����

������

����

������������

������

����

��������

�����������

'�������

�� ��������������

����������

�������

����

��,��������

���������

���#� ����������#���������� ������� ������$%�#���&��������������#������������

���� ��������

����������������

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 17: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

356 B. Larrivee

Pra

ctic

e In

dic

ato

rs

For

eac

h in

dica

tor,

sele

ct th

e ra

ting

you

thin

k be

st r

epre

sent

s yo

ur c

urre

nt p

ract

ice.

I am

a te

ache

r/te

ache

r ca

ndid

ate

who

:

y ltne

uq erf

nIse

m item

oS

y ltne

uqer

FN

OIT

CE

LF

ER

LA

C IG

OG

AD

EP : 3

LE

VE

L

Ana

lyze

s re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n te

achi

ng p

ract

ices

and

stu

dent

lear

ning

Stri

ves

to e

nhan

ce le

arni

ng f

or a

ll st

uden

ts

Seek

s w

ays

to c

onne

ct n

ew c

once

pts

to s

tude

nts'

pri

or k

now

ledg

e

Has

gen

uine

cur

iosi

ty a

bout

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

teac

hing

pra

ctic

es, l

eadi

ng to

exp

erim

enta

tion

and

risk

-tak

ing

Eng

ages

in c

onst

ruct

ive

criti

cism

of

one'

s ow

n te

achi

ng

Adj

usts

met

hods

and

str

ateg

ies

base

d on

stu

dent

s' r

elat

ive

perf

orm

ance

Ana

lyze

s th

e im

pact

of

task

str

uctu

res,

suc

h as

coo

pera

tive

lear

ning

gro

ups,

par

tner

, pee

r or

oth

er g

roup

ings

, on

stud

ents

í lea

rnin

g

Sear

ches

for

pat

tern

s, r

elat

ions

hips

and

con

nect

ions

to d

eepe

n un

ders

tand

ing

Has

com

mitm

ent t

o co

ntin

uous

lear

ning

and

impr

oved

pra

ctic

e

Iden

tifie

s al

tern

ativ

e w

ays

of r

epre

sent

ing

idea

s an

d co

ncep

ts to

stu

dent

s

Rec

ogni

zes

the

com

plex

ity o

f cl

assr

oom

dyn

amic

s

Ack

now

ledg

es w

hat s

tude

nt b

ring

s to

the

lear

ning

pro

cess

Con

side

rs s

tude

ntsí

per

spec

tives

in d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

Sees

teac

hing

pra

ctic

es a

s re

mai

ning

ope

n to

fur

ther

inve

stig

atio

n

yl tne

uqerf

nIse

mitem

oS

yltne

uqer

FN

OIT

CE

LF

ER

LA

CITI

RC : 4

LE

VE

L

Vie

ws

prac

tice

with

in th

e br

oade

r so

ciol

ogic

al, c

ultu

ral,

hist

oric

al, a

nd p

oliti

cal c

onte

xts

Con

side

rs th

e et

hica

l ram

ific

atio

ns o

f cl

assr

oom

pol

icie

s an

d pr

actic

es

Add

ress

es is

sues

of

equi

ty a

nd s

ocia

l jus

tice

that

ari

se in

and

out

side

of

the

clas

sroo

m

Cha

lleng

es s

tatu

s qu

o no

rms

and

prac

tices

, esp

ecia

lly w

ith r

espe

ct to

pow

er a

nd c

ontr

ol

Obs

erve

s se

lf in

the

proc

ess

of th

inki

ng

Is a

war

e of

inco

ngru

ence

bet

wee

n be

liefs

and

act

ions

and

take

s ac

tion

to r

ectif

y

Ack

now

ledg

es th

e so

cial

and

pol

itica

l con

sequ

ence

s of

one

ís te

achi

ng

Is a

n ac

tive

inqu

irer

, bot

h cr

itiqu

ing

curr

ent c

oncl

usio

ns a

nd g

ener

atin

g ne

w h

ypot

hese

s

Cha

lleng

es a

ssum

ptio

ns a

bout

stu

dent

s an

d ex

pect

atio

ns f

or s

tude

nts

Susp

ends

judg

men

ts to

con

side

r al

l opt

ions

Rec

ogni

zes

assu

mpt

ions

and

pre

mis

es u

nder

lyin

g be

liefs

Cal

ls c

omm

only

-hel

d be

liefs

into

que

stio

n

Ack

now

ledg

es th

at te

achi

ng p

ract

ices

and

pol

icie

s ca

n ei

ther

con

trib

ute

to, o

r hi

nder

, the

rea

lizat

ion

of a

mor

e ju

st a

nd h

uman

e so

ciet

y

Enc

oura

ges

soci

ally

res

pons

ible

act

ions

in th

eir

stud

ents

Ass

essm

ent

Cri

teri

a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 18: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 357

Act

ion

Pla

n f

or

Imp

rove

d P

ract

ice

Sel

ecte

d R

efle

ctiv

e P

ract

ice

Ind

icat

ors

Act

ion

Ste

ps

F

acili

tato

r/M

ento

r:

T

each

er/T

each

er C

and

idat

e:

Fig

ure

1.S

urve

y of

ref

lect

ive

prac

tice

: a

tool

for

ass

essi

ng d

evel

opm

ent

as a

ref

lect

ive

prac

titi

oner

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 19: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

358 B. Larrivee

Figure 1. Survey of reflective practice: a tool for assessing development as a reflective practitioner.Potential use of the survey

The purpose of this research was to construct an assessment tool that could be used toestablish the level of reflection engaged in by a teacher candidate or a practicing teacher.Establishing an entry level would allow a supervisor/mentor to then develop interventionstrategies to facilitate movement towards higher levels of reflection.

This instrument can provide a more concrete process for assessing how a prospective orpracticing teacher is developing as a reflective practitioner and can serve as a tool for creat-ing explicit structures to mediate higher order reflection. With strategic scaffolding devel-oping teachers can be helped to reflect on, and modify, their teaching practices to addressclassroom concerns.

A potential use of the Survey of reflective practice: A tool for assessing development asa reflective practitioner could be in a collaborative dialogue format to jointly set goals thatwould facilitate movement towards becoming a reflective practitioner.

One recommended process to utilize the survey as an effective assessment and planningtool would be to engage in the following steps.

● Step 1. A teacher candidate/teacher and supervisor/mentor independently complete theirrespective versions of the survey. (Note it is assumed that the teacher candidate/teacherwould have knowledge from their teacher education program regarding development ofreflective practice as well as the specific categories of reflection defined in the survey.)

● Step 2. In a collaborative dialogue format they share and discuss their ratings.● Step 3. They jointly set mutually agreeable goals that would lead to greater reflection

on teaching practices.● Step 4. They complete the action plan for improved practice, identifying selected

reflective practice indicators and the action steps both will take to accomplish thedesired change.

Notes on contributorBarbara Larrivee is a Professor in the College of Education at California State University. Her currentresearch focuses on developing structures for enhancing critical reflection on classroom behavior andinfusing personal beliefs and values into a professional identity. Other areas of interest include creat-ing a learning community based on respectful dialogue and authentic communication, classroommanagement, and conflict resolution.

ReferencesBartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J.C. Richards & D. Nunan

(Eds.), Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Boyd, P.C., Boll, M., & Brawner, L. (1998). Becoming reflective professionals: An exploration of

preservice teachers’ struggles as they translate language theory into practice. Action in TeacherEducation, 19(4), 61–75.

Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Cole, A.L., & Knowles, J.G. (2000). Researching teaching: Exploring teacher development through

reflective inquiry. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Collier, S.T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching experience.

Journal of Teacher Education, 50(3), 173–181.Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development.

British Educational Research Journal, 19, 83–93.Day, C. (1999). Researching teaching through reflective practice. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching

teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 215–232). London:Farmer Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 20: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

Reflective Practice 359

Dobbins, R. (1996). The challenge of developing a ‘reflective practicum’. Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 24(3), 269–280.

Farrell, T.S. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflective breaks for busy teachers. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Griffin, M.L. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in preserviceteachers. Reflective Practice, 4(2), 207–220.

Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching. Milton Keynes, UK: Open UniversityPress.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implemen-tation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 22–49.

Hoover, L.A. (1994). Reflective writing as a window on preservice teachers’ thought processes.Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 83–93.

Hunter, J., & Hatton, N. (1998). Approaches to the writing of cases: Experience with preservicemaster of education students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 235–246.

Jay, J.K. (2003). Quality teaching: Reflection as the heart of practice. Lanham, MD: ScarecrowPress.

Jay, J.K., & Johnson, K.L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice forteacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 73–85.

Johnston, M. (1994). Contrasts and similarities in case studies of teacher reflection and change.Curriculum Inquiry, 24(1), 9–26.

Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1991, April). Characteristics of reflective practitioners: Towards anoperationalization of the concept of reflection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher.Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307.

Larrivee, B. (2004, June). Assessing teachers’ level of reflective practice as a tool for change. Paperpresented at the Third International Conference on Reflective Practice, Gloucester, UK.

Larrivee, B. (2005). Authentic classroom management: Creating a learning community and buildingreflective practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Larrivee, B. (2006a). An educator’s guide to teacher reflection. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Larrivee, B. (2006b). The convergence of reflective practice and effective classroom management.

In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice,and contemporary issues (pp. 983–1001). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Larrivee, B. (2008). Meeting the challenge of preparing reflective practitioners. The New Educator,4(2), 1–20.

Nais, J. (1987). Learning from difference: A college approach to change. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Educatingteachers (pp. 137–152). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Osterman, K.P., & Kottkamp, R.B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Improving schoolingthrough professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Parker, S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the postmodern world: A manifesto for education in post-modernity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Pultorak, E.G. (1993). Facilitating reflective thought in novice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education,19, 288–295.

Pultorak, E.G. (1996). Following the developmental process of reflection in novice teacher: Threeyears of investigation. Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 283–291.

Reagan, T.G., Case, C.W., & Brubacher, J.W. (2000). Becoming a reflective educator: How to builda culture of inquiry in the schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rhine, S., & Bryant, J. (2007). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ reflective practice with digitalvideo-based dialogue. Reflective Practice, 8(3), 345–358.

Ross, D.D. (1990). Programmatic structures for the preparation of reflective teachers. In R.T. Clift,W.R. Houston, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analy-sis of issues and programs (pp. 97–118). New York: Teachers College Press.

Rudney, G., & Guillaume, A. (1990). Reflective teaching for student teachers. The Teacher Educator,25(3), 13–20.

Russell, T. (2005). Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice, 6(2), 199–204.Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:

Basic Books.Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013

Page 21: Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice

360 B. Larrivee

Smith, D., & Hatton, N. (1993). Reflection in teacher education: A study in progress. EducationResearch and Perspectives, 19, 13–23.

Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal ofTeacher Education, 40(2), 2–9.

Smyth, J. (1991). Teachers as collaborative learners. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Smyth, J. (1992). Teacher’s work and the politics of reflection. American Education Research

Journal, 29(2), 267–300.Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that

encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1393–1421.Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5(3),

327–343.Trotman, J., & Kerr, T. (2001). Making the personal professional: Pre-service teacher education and

personal histories. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(2), 157–171.Valli, L. (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques. New York: SUNY Press.Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United States.

Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67–88.Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry,

6(3), 205–228.Walkington, J. (2005). Becoming a teacher: Encouraging development of teacher identity through

reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 53–64.Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to

teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of EducationalResearch, 68(2), 130–178.

Wiltz, N.W. (1999, April). Reflective journaling: A tool for promoting professional development instudent teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Montreal, Canada.

Wunder, S. (2003). Preservice teachers reflections on learning to teach elementary social studies.Reflective Practice, 4(2), 193–206.

York-Barr, J., Sommers, W.A., Ghere, G.S., & Montie, J. (2006). Reflective practice to improveschools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Yost, D.S. (1997). The moral dimensions of teaching and preservice teachers: Can moral disposi-tions be influenced? Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 281–292.

Yost, D.S., Forlenza-Bailey, A., & Shaw, S.F. (1999). The teachers who embrace diversity: The roleof reflection, discourse, and field experience in education. The Professional Educator, 21(2), 1–14.

Yost, D.S., Sentner, S.M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of criticalreflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal ofTeacher Education, 51(1), 39–48.

Zeichner, K.M., & Liston, D.P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ope

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

47 2

9 A

pril

2013