8
This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo] On: 11 October 2014, At: 16:34 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20 REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION M.K. BendixenNoe a & Gilbert L. Naizer b a The Ohio State University b Texas A&M UniversityCommerce Published online: 03 Aug 2006. To cite this article: M.K. BendixenNoe & Gilbert L. Naizer (2000) REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 21:3, 365-371, DOI: 10.1080/0163638000210307 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163638000210307 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 11 October 2014, At: 16:34Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVETEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOODTEACHER EDUCATIONM.K. Bendixen‐Noe a & Gilbert L. Naizer b

a The Ohio State Universityb Texas A&M University‐CommercePublished online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: M.K. Bendixen‐Noe & Gilbert L. Naizer (2000) REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVETEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION, Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducation, 21:3, 365-371, DOI: 10.1080/0163638000210307

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163638000210307

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING ANDEARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

M. K. Bendixen-NoeThe Ohio State UniversityGilbert L. NaizerTexas A&M University-Commerce

INTRODUCTION

This exploratory study examined earlychildhood preservice teachers' level of reflec-tion using established lessons in the ReflectiveTeaching Program established by Cruickshank(1991, Reflective teaching, Bloomington, IN:Phi Delta Kappan) and lessons developed bystudents. Findings suggest that the use of bothtypes of lessons may be beneficial for differentelements necessary in teacher development.Early childhood students, however, had amore favorable attitude toward the lessonsthey developed. In conclusion, the use of theReflective Teaching format did enhance re-flective thought.

Dewey (1933) introduced the concepts ofreflection and reflective thinking for teachersas a component of his laboratory school in the1920s. Since that time, preparation of reflec-tive teachers has long been a goal in teachereducation (Archmuty, 1980; Schafer, 1967;Zeichner, 1981-1982). Dewey (1904) re-minded us that it is more important to make

teachers thoughtful, alert students of educationthan it is to help them gain immediate jobproficiency. Many (e.g., Giroux & McLaren,1986; Zeichner, 1983) have echoed this beliefthat preservice preparation must initiate theprocess of helping novices in becoming life-long students of teaching. Reflecting on teach-ing also shows promise in improving instruc-tion and seems critical to teacher growth(Fisher, Fox, & Paille, 1996).

If early childhood preservice teachers areencouraged to become reflective practitioners,they must be provided with numerous oppor-tunities to engage in teaching and reflectionupon their experiences. This seems consistentwith Schon's (1983) philosophy, which saysreflection is discovered through action. Of pri-mary importance is ensuring that reflection onteaching begins early in preservice preparationand is nurtured throughout its duration andbeyond (Holmes Group, 1986; Schon, 1987;Zeichner, 1983). A leader in promoting reflec-tion in preservice teacher education is Zeich-

• M. K. Bendixen-Noe, 1179 University Drive, The Ohio State University, Newark, OH 43147 Tel.: (740) 366-9469;E-mail: bendixen-noe.1 @osu.edu

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION, 2000, pp. 365-371 ISSN 0163-6388Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

6:34

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 3: REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

366 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION Vol. 21, No. 3, 2000

ner, who states teacher education programsshould emphasize

the preparation of teachers who areboth willing and able to reflect on theorigins, purposes, and consequencesof their actions, as well as on thematerial and ideological constraintsand encouragement embedded in theclassroom, school, and societal con-texts in which they work. These goalsare directed toward enabling studentteachers to develop the pedagogicalhabits and skills necessary for self-directed growth and toward preparingthem, individually and collectively, toparticipate as full partners in the mak-ing of educational policies.

—Zeichner & Liston (1987, p. 23)

One technique developed to help studentsof education begin to become reflective is theReflective Teaching Program developed byCruickshank (1981). The purpose of the pro-gram is to provide an on-campus laboratoryexperience at the preservice level where a peerteaching experience is acquired in a nonthreat-ening environment "with immediate feedbackand under experienced supervision" (Cruick-shank, 1985, p. 704). This program consists ofteaching situations wherein a participantteaches a brief lesson containing explicit ob-jectives to small peer groups attempting tomaximize their learning and satisfaction. Theprocess of the program is a system of severalstages to enable "teachers" the opportunity toreflect on their teaching. The phases include:preparation, teaching, evaluation, and reflec-tion in the small "teaching" group and follow-ing in whole-class discussion. The experiencebecomes the focus of in-depth consideration ofteaching, learning, and reflection.

Since the inception of reflective teaching,various researchers have attempted to gain abetter understanding of the process and how itcan best contribute to teacher preparation.Findings indicate that students become morereflective as they progress throughout severalreflective teaching sessions (Holton & Nott,

1980; Troyer, 1988; Williams & Hough,1980); students become more analytical re-garding teaching (Cruickshank, et al., 1981);students exhibit reflection about not only"how" to teach, but also "what" and "why" toteach (Bainer & Cantrell, 1992; 1994); andstudents report a high level of satisfaction withthe reflective teaching sessions (Bainer &Cantrell, 1992; McKee, 1986; Peters, 1980;Peters & Moore, 1980; Williams & Kennedy,1980). Additionally, students report reflectiveteaching reduces feelings of anxiety aboutteaching during field experiences (Cruick-shank et al., 1981; Williams & Kennedy,1980).

The lessons of the reflective teaching areconsidered content free; that is, the content isrelated neither to the professional curriculumnor to any field that would require any ad-vanced knowledge. Some teacher educatorsquestion the merits of content free lessons, buthave few studies to back their suppositions.Therefore, we have undertaken this study toanalyze whether content-based lessons usingthe reflective teaching approach yield greaterlearner satisfaction and higher levels ofteacher reflectivity than content-free episodes.

The purpose of this exploratory study is todetermine whether the use of student choice ofsubject matter content influences the earlychildhood preservice teachers' statements re-garding teaching and learning and their levelof reflectivity. The vehicle used to help stu-dents in this endeavor was a modification ofthe Reflective Teaching Program (Cruick-shank, 1991).

METHOD

The subjects for this study were students(n = 44) enrolled in a graduate-level earlychildhood teacher preparation program on aregional campus of a large midwestern univer-sity. The students were required to participatein the reflective teaching lessons in conjunc-tion with their Science Methods and Pedagog-ical Studies courses. One section—the control

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

6:34

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 4: REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

Reflections on Reflective Teaching and Early Childhood Teacher Education 367

Teaching Strategies(TS)

Planning (P)

Learners (L)

Evaluation (E)

Application (A)

Teachers (T)

- writing the terms on the board was helpful- choral response works well- visuals help a lot

- preparation is all important-1 had to really study this material myself- plans don't always go exactly as expected

- students do unexpected things- some students welcome help, while others want to figure it out bythemselves

- it's crucial to make up tests that are clear & accurate- the testing process does not always go as smoothly as expected- assess along the way so you'll know when to formally assess

- learning that can be applied to various situations must beundertaken- it's more interesting if there is a reason to learn something- it helps to relate the topic to the lives of the students

- any lesson can be improved- sometimes the words I want to use will not come out of my mouth-1 realized that values interplay on selection of what to teach

FIGURE 1

Categories from teaching and learning journals with sample statements

group—used a lesson assigned from the pub-lished reflective teaching lessons. The secondsection decided on their own content for theteaching experience. The "content free" pub-lished lessons were selected by the course in-structors.

All students were required to teach a briefreflective teaching lesson to a small group oftheir peers within their section using the re-flective teaching format. Each lesson had anobjective, an evaluation, and the actual teach-ing of either a skill, attitude, or basic informa-tion. In addition, both the "teacher" and thelearner answered questions related to theteaching and learning during the episode. Thediscussion following the teaching episode fo-cused on the planning behind the teachingepisode, the actual methods used in teaching,the effectiveness of the teaching, and an eval-uation of self as teacher.

The "Teaching and Learning Journal"forms used as the basis of discussions werereviewed independently by two teacher edu-

cators. The statements representing "fivethings I learned about teaching and learning"were categorized using groupings thatemerged through content analysis (Figure 1).Discrepancies in the categorization were dis-cussed by the raters until a consensus wasreached. The Teaching Strategies (TS) cate-gory focused on strategies/methods that wereused in the teaching, whereas the Teaching (T)category focused on self-evaluation. The rela-tive frequency of statements in various cate-gories were examined using t tests to deter-mine differences between the groups.

In addition, these journals were examined todetermine the level of reflectivity. The levelswere slightly modified from those developed byCole, Messner, Swonigan, & Tillman (1991) forrating reflectivity level in teacher education port-folios. For this study, the "what I learned aboutteaching and learning" statements were holis-tically read and assigned a level of reflectivity(Figure 2). Discrepancies in the ratings werediscussed by the raters until consensus was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

6:34

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 5: REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

368 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION Vol. 21, No. 3, 2000

Level I Heavy focus on specific techniques/issues directly related to the lessontaught. Minor (if any) focus on the educational and psychologicalimplications and consequences of teaching decisions and actions. Minor(if any) evidence that the individual can critically assess her/his ownbeliefs and actions.

Level II Substantial focus on specific techniques/issues directly related to thelesson taught. Some focus on the educational and psychologicalimplications and consequences of teaching decisions and actions. Littleevidence that the individual can critically assess her/his own beliefs andactions.

Level III Limited focus on specific techniques/issues directly related to the lessontaught. Substantial focus on the educational and psychologicalimplications and consequences of teaching decisions and actions. Someevidence that the individual can critically assess her/his own beliefs andactions.

Level IV Limited focus on specific techniques/issues directly related to the lessontaught. Heavy focus on the educational and psychological implicationsand consequences of teaching decisions and actions. Substantial evidencethat the individual can critically assess her/his own beliefs and actions.

FIGURE 2

Criteria for determining level of reflectivity

reached. The levels of reflectivity for the con-trol and experimental group were comparedusing t tests to determine if there was a dif-ference in the level of reflectivity.

A questionnaire for evaluating students at-titudes toward the reflective teaching processwas developed by the researchers and admin-istered to both groups. The questionnaire in-cluded open-ended questions about the useful-ness, benefits, suggested improvements, and aLikert scale item about the students' overallopinion of the reflective teaching process.Representative comments and average ratingsof the overall opinion item are presented.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The content analysis category with thehighest frequency is the TS category with over40% of the comments in this area. This wasexpected because of the nature of novice earlychildhood teachers focusing heavily on thetask at hand. Next most frequent are the twocategories of Learners (L) and Teachers (T),

with 50% less comments in these categories.The categories of Evaluation (E) and Applica-tion (A) are the most infrequent. The controland experimental groups have similar numbersof statements in the TS and L categories, withdifferences in the remaining categories. Ap-proaching significance, it appears that individ-uals who developed their own lessons (cate-gory Planning) were more focused onplanning than their peers who were given les-son topics to teach. These same individualsalso appeared to emphasize their own teachingperformance (category T) when comparedwith the control group (Table 1).

Individuals who were aided in the planningprocess by using provided lessons appear tohave slightly more focus in the E and A cat-egories. Although statistically significant, thedifferences in the E (and A) categories areinteresting, but because of the infrequency ofthese types of comments no strong conclu-sions can be made. Overall, it seems that in-dividuals who developed their own lessons weremore concerned with planning, whereas those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

6:34

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 6: REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

Reflections on Reflective Teaching and Early Childhood Teacher Education 369

TABLE 1

Number of Responses in Each Category

Croup

ControlExperimental

•Significant at .05 level.

TeachingStrategies (TS)

4647

Planning(P)

920

Learners(L)

2323

Evaluation(E)*

92

Application(A)

72

Teachers(T)

1625

who used the published "content free" lessonsshowed more emphasis in the E and A aspects.

The level of reflection for the teaching andlearning journals was clustered at Levels IIand III representing some focus on both im-mediate tasks strategies and implications ofteaching. There was very little difference inreflectivity level between the groups. No re-flection at Level IV (heavy focus on implica-tions and self-assessment) was evident in ei-ther group. This is not surprising because thisreflective teaching experience was early in thefirst quarter of methods courses and the earlychildhood preservice teachers reflectivity wasjust beginning to emerge (Table 2).

The groups using the assigned "contentfree" reflective teaching lessons tended to giveless favorable ratings about the process thanthe group choosing their own topics. In the"content free" section, no one gave a " 1 "(highest rating), and seven students gave arating of "4" or "5." In the group choosingtheir own content, only one gave a rating of"4" or "5." On a five point scale, averageratings of 3.1 from the "assigned" group com-pared with 2.2 from the experimental groupregarding their feelings using the reflectiveteaching process (Table 3).

Representative comments from the controlgroup were less favorable:

"The idea/concept can be useful. . .However it is important to teachsomething valuable."

"The lessons we heard/participatedin were contrived and silly at best."

"I think if the content is realisticallysomething we would teach, yes (itshould be included in the curriculum)."

"It was a waste of time. I couldhave spent the time working on some-thing more meaningful."

"It was useful, because it forced meto do a lesson from a prescribed cur-riculum. "

"It (the subject) was boring buteasy to teach."

Although a few of the comments were pos-itive, most of them reflected negatively on theuse of predetermined "content free" topics.

Comments from the group choosing theirown content tended to be more favorable:

"/ liked the fact that I got immediatefeedback from my peers."

"It helps me to focus in a little moreon some specific areas where I need toimprove."

"Yes (it is valuable) if it includesinstructor feedback."

"People need to see what they ini-tially look like as a teacher so they

Frequency

Group Level

Control 2Experimental 3

TABLE 2

of Reflective Level

/ Level II Level III

14 78 10

Level V

- 0 -- 0 -

TABLE

Frequency of Overall

Group

ControlExperimental

•Highest rating.

1* 2

0 93 10

3Opinion

3 4

6 35 1

Rating

5

40

Avt*.

3.12.2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

6:34

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 7: REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

370 JOURNAL OF EARLY CfflLDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION Vol. 21, No. 3, 2000

can correct problems before they be-come a habit."

Many of the comments focused on thevalue of rinding a topic and planning the les-son, although several did not see teaching topeers as valuable as teaching "real" students.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this exploratory study led toseveral implications. As a goal of Cruick-shank's Reflective Model is to increase a pre-service teachers' reflectivity, it appears to notmatter if the early childhood student uses thepublished or self-developed lessons with re-gard to the level of reflectivity. However, dif-ferences did appear in two areas that are veryimportant to the teaching process. If planningis the focus area, instructors may want stu-dents to develop their own lesson plans. If theemphasis is on application and evaluation,perhaps the published lessons should be used.Multiple reflective teaching sessions during anearly childhood preservice teacher educationprogram may be a good alternative. Whileusing the reflective teaching process, studentsshould perhaps begin with developing theirown lessons and at a later date should use thealready-published lessons. This may enhancethe effectiveness of the process and allow agreater breadth and depth of reflectivity. Ifstudent attitude toward the assignment is ofvalue, the use of provided "content-free" les-sons is seen as a less useful option.

REFERENCES

Archmuty, J. J. (1980). Report on the national in-quiry into teacher education. Canberra: Austra-lian Government Publishing Service.

Bainer, D. L., & Cantrell, D. (1992). Nine dominantreflection themes identified for preservice teach-ers by a content analysis of essays. Education,112(4), 571-578.

Bainer, D. L., & Cantrell, D. (1994). The relation-ship between instructional domain and content

of reflection among preservice teachers.Teacher Education Quarterly, 20(4), 65-76.

Cole, P., Messner, P., Swonigan, H., & Tillman, B.(1991). Portfolio structure and student profiles:An analysis of education student portfolio re-flectivity scores. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago, IL.

Cruickshank, D. R. (1981). Reflective teaching. Fi-nal report for the Ohio State University/ExxonEducational Foundation Project. Columbus:Ohio State University.

Cruickshank, D. R. (1985). Uses and benefits ofreflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(10),704-706.

Cruickshank, D. R. (1991). Reflective teaching.Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan.

Cruickshank, D. R., Kennedy, J., Williams, J., Hol-ton, J., & Fay, D. (1981). Evaluation of reflec-tive teaching outcomes. Journal of EducationalResearch, 75(1), 26-32.

Dewey, J. (1904). The relationship of theory topractice in education. In C. A. McMurray (Ed.),The third yearbook of the National Society forthe Study of Education. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA:Heath

Fisher, C , Fox, D. L., & Paille, E. (1996). Teachereducator research in English language arts andreading. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of re-search on teacher education (pp. 410-441).New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1986). Teachereducation and the politics of engagement: Thecase for democratic schooling. Harvard Educa-tional Review, 56(3), 213-238.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. EastLansing, MI: Author.

Holton, J., & Nott, D. (1980). The experimentaleffects of reflective teaching on preserviceteachers' ability to think and talk criticallyabout teaching and learning. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of American EducationalResearch Association, Boston.

McKee, A. (1986). Reflective teaching as a strategyin TAFE teacher education. Paper presented atthe South Pacific Association of Teacher Edu-cation conference, Perth, Australia.

Peters, J. (1980). Effects of laboratory teachingexperience on students views of themselves asteachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

6:34

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 8: REFLECTIONS ON REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

Reflections on Reflective Teaching and Early Childhood Teacher Education 371

of the National Agriculture Education ResearchAssociation, New Orleans.

Peters, J., & Moore, G. (1980). A comparison oftwo methods of providing laboratory experi-ences for student teachers in agriculture educa-tion. ERIC Document ED, 019 847. Lafayette,IN: Purdue University.

Schafer, R. J. (1967). The school as a center ofinquiry. New York: Harper & Row.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: Howprofessionals think in action. New York: BasicBooks.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practi-tioners. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Troyer, M. (1988). The effects of reflective teachingand a supplemental theoretical component on-preservice teachers' reflectivity in analyzingclassroom teachng situations. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation. The Ohio State University:Columbus, OH.

Williams, E., & Hough, J. (1980). The pre-experi-

mental development and field testing of reflec-tive teaching lesson. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Boston.

Williams, E., & Kennedy, J. (1980). Variations inpreservice teachers' mode of reflection aboutteaching according to their conceptual levelsand participation in reflective teaching. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Amer-ican Educational Research Association, Bos-ton.

Zeichner, K. M. (1981-82). Reflective teaching andfield-based experience in teacher education. In-terchange, 12(4), 1-22.

Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms ofteacher education. Journal of Teacher Educa-tion, 34(3), 3-9.

Zeichner, K. M., & Listen, D.P. (1987). Teachingstudent teachers to reflect. Harvard EducationalReview, 57(10), 23-48.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

6:34

11

Oct

ober

201

4