49

THEME

Reflecting on ReflectiveTeaching: A Response

Lindsay Roy Killen

Criticisms of Cruickshank’s Reflective

Teaching are described by Killen as ill-founded and indicative of a narrow view

of the technique. Killen asserts that thereal limitationsto Reflective Teaching arethe supervising teacher educator’s po-tential lack of insight and enthusiasm.He counters the criticism that Reflective

Teaching is artificial or engenders a

technocratic rationality.

riticisms of Cruickshank’s ap-~ proach to Reflective Teaching~ are often unnecessarily harsh.An excellent example of sucha critique is Gore’s (1987) article thatappeared in the Journal of Teacher Educa-tion. Gore condemned Cruickshank forhis &dquo;technocratic rationality&dquo; (p. 34),arguing that his approach does not

allow an appropriate consideration ofsubject matter knowledge or the ethi-cal and political issues underlyingteaching and society itself. It shouldbe quite clear from Cruickshank’s writ-ing (Cruickshank, 1985; Cruickshankand Applegate, 1981) that he did notintend Reflective Teaching to be a

vehicle for consideration of these is-sues. Such considerations certainly be-long in teacher education programs,but not necessarily in the part of theprogram designed to develop the skillsof planning, teaching, and assessment- the issues with which Reflective

Teaching is primarily concerned.The introductory section of Gore’s

paper is misleading. She attributes thedevelopment of Reflective Teaching tothe effort of both Zeichner and Cruick-shank and then claims that &dquo;Zeichnerhas actually disassociated himself fromCruickshank’s concept of reflective

teaching&dquo; (p. 33). She implies that thetwo were formerly associated; in fact,the two have never collaborated.

Rather, they simply have disparate con-ceptions of reflective teaching; neithershould be criticized purely on the basisof being different from the other.

Gores philosophy on teacher reflectionseems to be the basis for her rejectionof Cruickshank’s approach. There arecertainly others who support the notionthat Cruickshank’s Reflective Teachingcan be employed very productively ina range of instructional situations (forexample, Armaline, 1985; McKee,1986). Further, with little deviation

from his approach it is possible to useReflective Teaching as a vehicle for

exploring the philosophical issues withwhich Gore is concerned.

The Content-Free Lesson ArgumentGore’s first and major criticism is

that Cruickshank &dquo;divorces subjectmatter from teaching method and [thatReflective Teaching] is, therefore, a nar-row extrapolation of Dewey’s ideas&dquo; (p.33). It is true that the teaching tasksused by Cruickshank are &dquo;content-free&dquo;in that they are deliberately selectedfrom subject areas that would not nor-mally be familiar to the participants,but this is a strength, not a weakness.As McKee (1986) points out, the useof &dquo;content-free&dquo; materials overcomes

many problems in peer teaching situa-tions and forces the teacher to carefullyanalyze what has to be taught in orderto select the most appropriate method.Far from divorcing subject matter frommethod, Reflective Teaching compelsthe teacher to carefully consider therelationship between content andmethod, and the relationship betweenmethod and student learning. This ap-proach creates a situation in which allparticipants in the Reflective Teachingexercise &dquo;can deliberate on their actionsand openmindedness, wholeheartedness,and intellectual responsibility&dquo; (Cruick-shank, 1987, p. 8). My experience isthat teachers are far more willing toparticipate in such reflection when theyare not involved with the teaching ofsubject matter that they would nor-mally teach, partly because the situa-tion is less threatening. An in-depthdiscussion of a lesson from the teacher’sarea of specialization can easily leadteachers to feel that their subject exper-tise is being questioned, when in factit is their teaching that is being dis-cussed. This is particularly the case

Killen is Policy Coordinator, Hunter Insti-tute of Higher Education, Australia.

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on December 18, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

50

when peer teaching is being used withinservice teachers.

The Criticism ofTechnocratic Rationality

The claim by Gore that Cruickshank&dquo;restricts the focus of attention to

means ... and in so doing, risks thesemeans becoming ends in themselves&dquo;

(p. 33) is a very narrow view of Cruick-shank’s approach. It is Cruickshank’scontention that Reflective Teachinghelps teachers to &dquo;be made more

thoughtful and wiser about their teach-ing&dquo; and to become &dquo;lifelong studentsof teaching&dquo; ( 1987, p. 13). The means(of achieving student learning througheffective teaching) are, of necessity, animportant aspect of Cruickshank’s ap-proach. However, as with any other ap-proach to teacher education, the use ofReflective Teaching is instructor-depen-dent. The instructor must ensure that

adequate attention is given to all as-pects of teacher development, includ-ing the development of the ability todistinguish means from ends in a teach-ing situation and the wisdom to decidewhat ends ought to be pursued. Per-

haps it is fair to say that Cruickshank’sapproach makes it easier to considermeans than ends, but it is not fair to

say that the approach is simply &dquo;tech-nocratic rationality,&dquo; which does notallow for a consideration of ends.

Zeichner (1981-82) takes a differentapproach to reflection than does Cruick-shank, but it is debatable whetherZeichner’s approach is &dquo;better&dquo; in thesense of its producing better teachers.It seems more appropriate to simplyacknowledge that each approach hasmerits and limitations. As Gore indi-cates, Zeichner has expanded &dquo;Dewey’snotion of reflection at the classroomlevel to include consideration of ethi-cal, moral, and political principles&dquo; (p.33). While Cruickshank acknowledgesthat such issues are important, he sim-ply chooses to develop reflection in

another direction, leaving individualinstructors to address other issues as

they see fit.Cruickshank’s approach to reflectiv-

ity is designed to assist teachers in de-veloping skills and techniques that willmake them better able to facilitate stu-dent learning, but it is also designedto make them lifelong students of

teaching. In that sense, his approachis not simply technocratic. Teachingreflectively is not just about learningfacts and skills; it is also about learningattitudes and values. Indeed, reflectiveteaching sessions of the type used byCruickshank provide ideal vehicles forconsideration of ethical, moral, andpolitical issues related to education. Itis the direction provided by the super-visor, not the Reflective Teachingmethod itself, which either aids or pre-vents consideration of such issues.

Gore claims that technocratic ration-

ality (and by implication, Cruick-shank’s approach) interferes with a

teacher education program that aimsto develop reflectivity. Such a claim

ignores the fact that considerations ofethical, social, political, and moral&dquo;ends&dquo; can be presented as parallel toconsiderations of means. Teachers canlearn to reflect critically on their ac-tions and the effects their actions haveon students as they learn to improvetheir teaching techniques. Reflective

Teaching does provide some scope forthe consideration of ethical and politi-cal issues, since the stimulus questionsthat Cruickshank suggests for the

small-group discussion generally in-

clude, for example, consideration ofhow the lesson was influenced by theteacher’s view of teaching.As Ross and Hannay ( 1986) suggest,

the purpose of having teachers becomereflective thinkers is to have them&dquo;learn to expose their thinking to

others and open themselves to criticismfrom peers as well as authority&dquo; (p.13). Whether or not reflection of thetype suggested by Cruickshank and re-flection of the type suggested by Zeich-ner should be encouraged in an inte-grated or parallel form is debatable. Itcould be argued that the importantmatters of ethics and politics in teach-ing are better dealt with in a forumdevoted to such issues, and that thetime allocated to Reflective Teachingis best spent considering whether ornot the teachers are improving thoseskills that Reflective Teaching was

primarily designed to develop.

Acceptance ofCruickshank’s Approach

By suggesting that &dquo;there is little

support for the general notion that Re-

flective Teaching is better than the prac-tice teaching experiences currently pro-vided&dquo; (p. 35), Gore errs on two

counts. First, she implies that Reflec-tive Teaching is a substitute for otherforms of practice teaching experience;it is not. It should complement, not re-place, in-school student teaching.Second, she ignores (or is perhaps sim-ply not aware of) the growing supportfor Reflective Teaching both in theUnited States and in Australia.

Reflective Teaching has been usedextensively, and with considerable suc-cess, at Newcastle College of AdvancedEducation (see McKee, 1988), at the

University of Newcastle, and at

Monash University. In addition to itsgeneral application in preservice andinservice teacher education programs,it is also being used in industrial train-ing programs, in staff developmentprograms for college lecturers, and inthe training of flight instructors.

Gore rightly points out that&dquo;Cruickshank’s claims about Reflective

Teaching are in advance of any solidempirical evidence&dquo; (p. 35). However,some research has been conducted (seeCruickshank et al., 1981; Beeler et al.,1985; McKee, 1988), and the numer-ous claims about the benefits of Reflec-tive Teaching cannot be easily dis-missed. Until more empirical evidenceis provided, it is reasonable to be skep-tical, but it is unfair to ignore claimsbased on observation. Obviously, muchmore investigation is required to re-

solve the conflicting claims about Re-flective Teaching. Cruickshank ( 1987)recognizes this and suggests some di-rection that such research might take.Research currently being undertaken(Killen, 1988) suggests that ReflectiveTeaching is a very effective and efficientmeans of producing statistically signif-icant changes in teachers’ classroom be-havior.

Is Reflective Teaching Artificial?Gore disputes Cruickshank’s claim

that Reflective Teaching is role takingrather than role playing and objects tothe restrictions that are &dquo;not consistentwith the classroom role of teachers&dquo; (p.36). Parker ( 1984) explains that &dquo;role

taking is fundamentally different fromrole playing because in role taking therole occupant is not pretending ...

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on December 18, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

51

[andl the experience is direct and ac-

tive, not vicarious and indirect&dquo; (p.222). In this sense, Reflective Teachingis clearly role taking since Cruick-shank’s (1987) claim that Reflective

Teaching contains all the variables ofa normal teaching situation, i.e., &dquo;a

teacher, a teaching method, curriculumobjectives, curriculum materials,learners, an instructional setting, andtests&dquo; (p. 66) cannot be disputed. Be-cause the teacher really is teaching andthe learners are engaged in learning,there can be no claim that they arepretending.

The real restrictions on the conductof a Reflective Teaching episode are sim-ply that the teacher must (a) teach togiven objectives, (b) fit the lesson toa specified time, and (c) use a pre-scribed method of assessment. Theother claimed restriction is on groupsize, but this is not a real issue, sinceReflective Teaching can be used withgroups larger than the four or five, asindicated by Gore. For example, Beeleret al. ( 1985) suggest that the optimumgroup size is five to eight. There is noreason why the tasks cannot be usedwith larger classes; the group size doesnot limit the potential performance ofthe teacher, merely the amounts of feed-back that each participant can providein whatever time is available. A consid-eration of the &dquo;real&dquo; restrictions (objec-tives, assessments, and time) soon

reveals that they do not change theReflective Teaching session from one ofrole taking to one of role playing -these restrictions simply make Reflec-tive Teaching a manageable and con-trollable experience.

Providing teachers with a set of ob-jectives forces them to analyze the

given &dquo;content&dquo; in light of the objec-tives and to make informed decisionsabout teaching methods, including thegeneration of suitable examples to illus-trate the concepts being taught. Onewould hope that such an analysis ofcontent is indeed part of the role ofteachers. Similarly, providing an objec-tive test for the teacher to administer atthe end of the Reflective Teaching ses-sion is a means of helping teachers seehow their approach to analyzing thecontent and presenting the lesson

helped the learners to achieve the objec-tives. Assessment is part of a teacher’s

role; providing the test simply ensures

that it is matched to the objectives andmaximizes the use of available time.The time restriction is perhaps artificialin that it is shorter than most schoollessons. Nevertheless, because it is

necessary for all teachers to plan lessonsto fit a specified time frame, this couldhardly be called role playing.

Gore’s further claim that the artifi-cial nature of Reflective Teaching causesthe student to &dquo;feign interest&dquo; and notto be serious about learning lacks sup-port. Experience at Newcastle Collegeof Advanced Education has shown that

participants in Reflective Teaching aregenerally far more interested and en-thusiastic about Reflective Teachingthan about other forms of peer teach-

ing. However, it must be added thatthe participants’ enthusiasm often de-pends heavily on the commitment ofthe supervisor. Like any other approachto teaching skills, Reflective Teachingrequires careful planning, thorough or-ganization, and continued zeal andcommitment by the supervisor. Giventhese inputs, it has the potential toengender enthusiasm for teaching andfor the study of teaching. Because Re-flective Teaching also provides a valu-able opportunity for the participantsto study the learning process from theperspective of learners, the supervisorhas a further obligation to ensure thatthe learners are sufficiently seriousabout the activity not to lose the oppor-tunity.

In choosing to criticize the OrigamiTask, Gore is again taking a narrowview of Reflective Teaching. This taskis one of 36 tasks that Cruickshankrecommends and, like all the other

tasks, was designed for a specific pur-pose. To suggest that it is merely alesson on how to make paper butterfliesis to miss the point. The supervisormust be able to show the participantsthat by considering the teaching envi-ronment and the type of knowledgethat has to be taught (a procedure inthe Origami task), it is possible to de-velop effective teaching strategies to

match that form of knowledge both inthe Reflective Teaching setting and innatural classrooms. Moreover, becausethe form of knowledge is different inother tasks (the Rules and Laws Task,for example, involves the teaching ofconcepts) a different approach to teach-ing is needed even when other teach-

ing variables have not changed. Givenappropriate preparation and guidance,participants can benefit from ReflectiveTeaching regardless of the task. How-ever, if tasks such as the Origami Taskare in fact treated as nothing more thandemonstrations of how to make paperbutterflies, the potential benefits of Re-flective Teaching will not be realized.

Gore’s Suggested ModificationsIt is difficult to agree with Gore’s

suggestion that &dquo;Reflective Teaching re-quires significant modification if it isto be worth saving&dquo; (p. 36). Still, itis quite sensible to consider modifica-tions to Reflective Teaching that willretain its essential characteristics while

improving its utility as a means of de-veloping teachers who are students ofteaching. I cannot agree that &dquo;the

major modification [needed} is that Re-flective Teaching Lessons no longer bestructured as content-free&dquo; (p. 37),since I believe that this is one of its

strong points. As McKee ( 1986) pointsout, the content-free lessons overcomea number of problems encountered inother forms of peer teaching, such asmicroteaching. Although content-free,the tasks contain many different formsof knowledge and provide an opportu-nity for discussing the epistemologicallinks between a number of disciplines.The content-free tasks provide an idealvehicle for developing teachers’ skillsin content analysis and decision mak-ing ; experience at Newcastle is indicat-ing that these skills transfer to the plan-ning of everyday lessons.

I agree with Gore’s observation that&dquo;a single experience with ReflectiveTeaching or any other program is un-

likely to produce critically reflectiveteachers&dquo; (p. 38). Any serious attemptat using Reflective Teaching needs tobe structured so that each teacher hasthe opportunity to present at least threelessons that can be followed by instruc-tor observation of the teacher’s perfor-mance in a natural classroom setting.By providing exposure to tasks that

sample the various forms of knowl-

edge, Reflective Teaching helps preser-vice teachers to develop effective ap-proaches to lesson planning and presen-tation. Again, it should be seen as anadjunct to student teaching, not a sub-stitute for it, as Gore implies.

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on December 18, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

52

Conclusion

Because Reflective Teaching allowsthe teaching situation to be controlled,it enables the supervisor to relate theoutcomes of each teaching episode toresearch on teacher effectiveness and todo this in a planned sequence. Whilesuch an approach is perceived by some,including Gore, as technocratic ration-ality, it is, nevertheless, one useful wayof helping new teachers to gain someunderstanding of the complex natureof the interactions that occur in class-rooms. Any prescriptions based on

teacher effectiveness research are opento the criticism that they are merelytechnocratic. However, to imply thatall such approaches are as narrowly fo-cused as Gore suggests when she quotesGibson (1986) is to deny that individ-ual teacher educators have the abilityto successfully integrate a number ofapproaches.

Reflective Teaching is not, and wasnever intended to be, a cure for all theills of teacher education programs.However, its advantages over otherforms of peer teaching experience faroutweigh the criticisms leveled byGore. Constructive suggestions for theimprovement of Reflective Teachingwould be welcomed by all who are in-volved in its application, but such sug-

gestions should not destroy the funda-mental precepts upon which Reflective

Teaching is based.

References ―――――――

Armaline, W (1985, April). The use ofclinical experiences in the analysis andimprovement of teaching associate instruc-tion. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of American Educational Re-search Association, Chicago.

Beeler, K., Kayser, G., Matzner, K.,& Saltmarsh, R. (1985). Reflective

Teaching: Reflections on college class-room experiences. Education Journal,18 (1), 4-9.

Cruickshank, D. R. (1985). Uses andbenefits of Reflective Teaching. PhiDelta Kappa, 66 (10), 704-706.

Cruickshank, D. R. (1987). ReflectiveTeaching: The preparation of students ofteaching. Reston, VA: Association ofTeacher Educators.

Cruickshank, D. R., & Applegate,J. H. (1981). Reflective Teaching asa strategy for teacher growth. Educa-tional Leadership, 38 (7), 553-554.

Cruickshank, D. R., Holton, J., Fay,D., Williams, J., Kennedy, J.,Myers, B., & Hough, J. (1981). Re-flective Teaching: Instructor’s manual(Part IV, Participants’ Guide).Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Doyle, W (1983). Academic work. Re-view of Educational Research, 55 (2),159-199.

Gibson, R. (1986). Critical theory andeducation. London: Hodder and

Stoughton.Gore, J. M. (1987). Reflecting on Re-flective Teaching. Journal of TeacherEducation, 38 (2), 33-39.

Killen, L. R. (1988). Doctoral researchproject in progress. The University ofNewcastle, Australia.

McKee, A. (1986). Reflective Teachingas a strategy in TAFE teacher education.Paper presented at the South PacificAssociation of Teacher Education An-nual Conference, Perth, Australia.

McKee, A. (1988). Reflective Teachingas a technique for developing teachereffectiveness. Unpublished minor

thesis, The University of Newcastle,Australia.

Parker, W C. (1984). Developingteachers’ decision making. Journal ofExperimental Education, 52 (4), 220-226.

Ross, E. W , & Hannay, L. M. (1986).Towards a critical theory of reflectiveinquiry. Journal of Teacher Education,37 (4), 9-15.

Zeichner, K. M. (1981-82). Reflectiveteaching and field-based experiencein teacher education. Interchange, 12

(4), 1-22.

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on December 18, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from