Reflective teaching and teacher education

Teschrn~ & Teacher Educmon. Vol. 5. No I, pp. 4S51.1989 0742~5lXA39 $3 OO+O.lJl~

Primed I” Great Bntam Pergamon Press plc

REFLECTIVE TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION

JAMES CALDERHEAD

University of Lancaster, U.K.

Abstract - The origins of the “reflective teaching” concept are explored. It is suggested that the term has been interpreted and defined in numerous ways, with contrasting implications for the design of teacher education programs. It is argued that the concept requires further examination in the light of empirical research on teaching and how teachers learn to teach, and that existing research on teacher cognitions, teachers’ knowledge, and the context of teachers’ learning has potential to extend our understanding of the role of reflection in teacher education.

“Reflective teaching” has become a widely used term in current discussion about the nature of professional training. There has been a recent proliferation of preservice training courses adopting “reflective teaching” as a basic philosophy or guiding,principle. In addition, a fast- growing and varied literature asserts the importance of reflection and self-direction, both in the initial process of learning to teach and in further professional growth (e.g., Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Eraut, 1985). Several recent text- books for use in teacher education have a focus on the promotion of reflection (e.g., Pollard & Tann, 1987), and policy on teacher education, in several countries, has begun to acknowledge the role of teachers’ reflection, professional judgement, and self-evaluation (Holmes, 1986; HMI, 1987; Carnegie, 1986; CTEC, 1986). The aim of this paper is to examine the nature of reflective teaching as espoused in current debate on teachers’ professional education, to consider its implications for teacher education practices, and to highlight areas in need of research to clarify our conceptual grasp of what reflection in learning to teach entails.

Defining Reflective Teaching

Reflective teaching approaches to professional training and development have been

associated with notions of growth through critical enquiry, analysis, and self-directed evaluation, and have sometimes been distinguished from behavioural skills or craft apprenticeship approaches which, in contrast, emphasise the acquisition of pre-determined classroom practices (Zeichner, 1983; May & Zimpher, 1985). More precisely, what reflective teaching amounts to, however, and what it implies for teacher education, is not so widely agreed. Terms such as “reflective practice,” “inquiry- oriented teacher education,” “reflection-in- action, ” “teacher as researcher,” “teacher as decision-maker,” “teacher as professional,” “teacher as problem-solver,” all encompass some notion of reflection in the process of professional development, but at the same time dis- guise a vast number of conceptual variations, with a range of alternative implications for the organisation and design of teacher education courses.

Much of the writing on reflection in teacher education derives from the concepts offered by a few key theorists, each emphasising different aspects of the process. Dewey’s (1933) concept of “reflection,” for instance, defined broadly as “active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9) was

43

44 JAMES CALDERHEAD

distinguished from the random “stream of con- sciousness” of everday experience. Action based on reflection was viewed as intelligent action, in which its justifications and conse- quences had been considered, as opposed to appetitive, blind, or impulsive action. The features of reflection which Dewey emphasised were the sense of wonder or unrest at a problem, and the purposeful, reasoned search for a solution: reflective thought was, according to Dewey, initiated by uncertainty and guided by one’s conception of a goal or end-point. Dewey suggested that the development of reflection involved the acquisition of certain attitudes

(e.g., of open-mindedness) and skills of thinking (e.g., reasoning and ordering thought).

Schon (1983, 1987) has stimulated a great deal of interest in teacher education with the concept of “reflection-in-action,” derived in part from Dewey’s notion of reflection. Schon argues against a view of professional action as an applied science in which the theories of the sciences are put to use in practical situations. He suggests that such a view undervalues the artis- try of the professional which he further elabor- ates as a process of reflection-in-action. Pro- fessionals can frame and reframe a problem as they work on it, testing out their interpretations and solutions, combining both reflection and action. “Reflection-in-action is a reflective conversation with the materials of a situation. Each person carries out his own evolving role . . . ‘listens’ to the surprises (‘back talk’) that result from earlier moves, and responds through on- line production of new moves that give new meanings and directions to the development of the artifact” (Schon, 1987, p. 31).

Reflection-in-action is viewed as the exercise of interactive, interpretative skills, in the analysis and solution of complex and ambiguous problems.

Other advocates of reflective teaching have drawn upon the work of recent philosophers of practical action, such as Gauthier (1963), Polanyi (1967), Wiggins (1978), and curriculum theorists who have applied this philosophy to teaching - Van Manen (1977) and Schwab (1971). Teaching is viewed as consisting of practical problems, requiring deliberation and action for their solution. Reflection or “deliberation” is a moral as well as rational process of

deciding what ought to be done in a practical situation, by “bring[ingJ to bear upon a situation the greatest number of genuinely perti- nent concerns and genuinely relevant consider- ations commensurate with the importance of the deliberative context” (Gauthier, 1963). Ac- cording to Gauthier, being able to establish reasons for one’s action, to deliberate in accor- dance with these reasons, and to act on one’s deliberation are essential aspects of responsi- ble, autonomous action.

Another major source of influence on concepts of reflective teaching is the Frankfurt School of Social Research. The work of Haber- mas (1974), in particular, has inspired a critical science concept of reflection as self-determination. Reflection is viewed as a process of becoming aware of one’s context, of the influence of societal and ideological constraints on previ- ously taken-for-granted practices, and gaining control over the direction of these influences. Such a concept has recently been used to support an action-research or teacher-as-researcher stance (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) in which it is suggested teachers gain greater professional self-determination through the heightened awareness and understandings that accompany research on their own situation.

Those writing about reflection in teaching and teacher education have drawn variously upon these theorists, emphasising to differing extents such features as problem-setting and problem-solving, the employment of particular knowledge bases, analytical skills, the attitudes facilitating a reflective approach, levels of self- awareness, self-determination, the examination of values and moral principles, and the appreci- ation of taken-for-granted ideology and constraints. Looking across the concepts of reflective teaching that have been employed in discussions of professional training, they vary in terms of how they view the process of reflection (e.g., reflection-in-action, curricular deliberation), the content of reflection (e.g., teachers’ own values, societal context, educational theory), the preconditions of reflection (e.g., the attitudes for reflection, the tutorial context in which reflection occurs), and the product of reflection (e.g., effective teaching, emancipation, an understanding of the relationship between values and practice). ’ There is also considerable variance in the way the concepts have

Reflective Teaching and Teacher Education 45

been justified and defended and related to the context of professional education. Reflective teaching has been justified on grounds ranging from moral responsibility to technical effective- ness, and reflection has been incorporated into teacher education courses as divergent as those employing a behavioural skills approach, in which reflection is viewed as a means to the achievement of certain prescribed practices, to those committed to a critical science approach in which reflection is seen as a means towards emancipation and professional autonomy. It would appear, in fact, that researchers, teacher educators, and other writers in the field hold a range of beliefs about teaching and teacher education into which they have incorporated their own particular notions of reflection.

Implications of “Reflective Teaching” for Teacher Education

Not surprisingly, different conceptions of reflective teaching form the basis for varied and sometimes quite contrasting teacher education practices. For example, in the case of school experience, Schon’s notion of reflection-in-action has been used to support the importance of “coaching,” emphasising the need for early experience in schools and discussions between teacher and student teacher about teaching (Furlong & Hirst , 1987; Russell, 1988). Critical science notions of reflection, on the other hand, have been used to justify the avoidance of early experience in school: exposure to the craft knowledge of the teacher is viewed in terms of its conservative effects, initiating the student teacher into taken-for-granted routines. In- deed, it has been recommended that student teachers build up critical skills and an understanding of the context in which teachers work, well before approaching the teaching task (e.g., Goodman, 1985). Similarly, different conceptions of the nature of reflection and its function in professional learning have led to student teachers’ thinking being directed to alternative areas. In some reflective teacher education courses, student teachers’ reflection is deliber- ately focused on themselves, their own beliefs and personalities and how these inform their classroom practice (e.g., Handal & Lauvas, 1987), or on the relation of their own action to educational goals (Erdman, 1983). In others it is

focused away from themselves towards the context in which they operate and the values implicit within it (Beyer, 1984).

Reflective teacher education courses have occasionally been informed by quite complex models of reflection. Zeichner and Liston (1987), for instance, describe a pragmatic and eclectic approach to the design of such a course, drawing upon Dewey’s notion of reflective action and Van Manen’s notions of levels of reflection, together with some ideas from critical science. They aim to provide a form of teacher education which enables teachers to develop technical competence but also to be able to analyse their practice, become aware of the ethical and moral assumptions within it and be able to direct their own professional growth as well as the development of the educational environment in which they work.

Whether any of the proposed models of reflective teaching, however, offer very adequate conceptions of professional learning as it occurs in classrooms, or of how it might occur, is largely unassessed. Evidence cited in support of particular models is often anecdotal, and one can as readily cite examples to refute as to support their applicability to real-life classroom practice. For instance, Schon’s notion of reflection-in-action might be readily applicable to some aspects of teachers’ practice, such as man- aging a class discussion or diagnosing and re- mediating a child’s learning difficulty in a one- to-one situation, but quite inapplicable to many others, perhaps necessarily intuitive, routine or less problem-focused aspects of teachers’ work. Similarly, teachers might well develop some aspects of their practice as a result of examining the values implicit in their daily routines in relation to such issues as racism, equality, and sexism, but it is also conceivable that emphasis on a critical evaluation of the implicit values in one’s practice might in some contexts be quite debilitating, lessening teachers’ capacity for appropriate action.

There is great difficulty in gaining any precise conceptual grasp of what reflection is or might be in teachers’ professional development. The only uniting theme in discussions of reflective teaching is the general emphasis on the cogni- tive, and to some extent moral or affective, aspects of learning to teach. The particular cog- nitive and affective processes involved, how-

46 JAMES CALDERHEAD

ever, have frequently been taken for granted. Definitions of reflective teaching have been analytically derived and are prescriptively oriented. Ideal models of reflection are offered but little is known about how they might operate in practice, how they compare with other forms of reflection, or in which contexts they might be appropriate. Although there is a growing body of research on teachers’ thought processes, there has been relatively little effort de- voted to testing models of reflection empirically, or to considering the implications of existing research evidence for how we might better conceptualise reflection in teaching. Yet for models of reflective teaching to have any con- structive impact on teacher education, and to be influential in informing teacher education programs, they will most likely have to be grounded in a more detailed and empirically defensible in- terpretation of teaching and teachers’ professional learning.

Research on Reflective Teaching in Teacher Education

Reflective teaching has become a slogan, dis- guising numerous practices and offering a variety of idealised models for the training of teachers. The question is what conceptual, theoretical, and practical contribution might research make in this situation. It is suggested that through an understanding of how student teachers do think about practice, why they think as they do, the substance of their thinking, how their thinking is affected by alternative course designs, and how attempts to change their ways of thinking have been influential, we may develop an improved understanding of the nature and potential of reflection. Research can provide both a valuable testing ground for current ideas on reflection and an insight into how reflection might figure in the task of learning to teach. Existing research which might inform our understanding of reflection and its role in teacher education might usefully be considered in terms of three major categories: research on teachers’ and student teachers’ cognitions; research on teachers’ knowledge; research on the teacher training context. It is in these three areas that many recent attempts to understand the processes of learning to teach have been focused.

Teachers’ Cognitions

The processes of planning and interactive thinking are well described by existing research (see Clark & Peterson, 1986), although the ap- plication of this work to teacher education has not been fully explored. Reflective teaching, however, is generally understood to concern more than the cognition involved in teaching, it concerns metacognitive processes of comparison. evaluation, and self-direction. The little research relating to these areas tends to suggest that student teachers’ reflection generally remains at a fairly superficial level even in teacher education courses which purport to be en- couraging reflective teaching (Borko, Livingstone, McCaleb, & Mauro, 1988; Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987; Calder- head, 1987). Student teachers would appear readily to circumvent opportunities to analyse and evaluate their practice, and are equally un- likely to appraise the wider ccntextual features of their situation. Several reasons have been suggested to account for this. To some extent, it may be attributable to the student teachers’ in- ability to confront practice. In teaching,, their attention is taken up so much in delivering a lesson that they have little time to consider how the lesson is actually going. In addition, student teachers often have a high level of “ego-involve- ment” in their conceptions of themselves as teachers: they are reluctant to be self-critical and dwell upon their weaknesses at a time when their confidence may well be under threat. Student teachers also appear to lack the analytical skills to examine their own practice - they lack a language for talking about teaching, and sometimes fail to understand the comments which supervisors make on their performance, and they lack the knowledge of a repertoire of alternative teaching approaches (and clear ideas about the criteria one might use in judging alternatives) which they might draw upon to evaluate their own teaching.

In a study of student teachers on a reflective teacher education course in Holland, Korth- agen (1988) suggested that student teachers differed in their learning orientation. Some, with an internal orientation, viewed learning to teach as a process of self-guided discovery, they could readily look upon their own practice objectively and attempt to evaluate it against a set

Reflective Teaching and Teacher Education 4-l

of criteria of their own choosing. Others, with an external orientation, however, modelled their teaching behaviour upon others, and ex- pected clear guidance from their tutors about how to teach. The process of learning to teach would seem to be influenced by certain attitudes and metacognitive skills (ways of thinking about learning) which do not appear to be developed easily. Some student teachers, for instance, seem to have great difficulty acquiring the de- tachment from their own practice that enables them to reflect upon it critically and objectively.

Russell (1988), having carried out a series of case studies of student and experienced teachers, suggests that the early stages of learning to teach are generally characterised by the mastery of classroom routines, and it may only be after achieving a basic mastery and a sense of comfort with their own practice that students are able to reflect upon their work. examining it in the light of their more abstract and theoretical knowledge about teaching. Reflection, in the general sense of an appraisal of one’s own work, may require not only the possession of certain knowledge, critical skills, and a way of conceptualising one’s own learning as a reflective process, but also a basic practical competence together with some degree of self-confidence.

Knowledge Use in Reflection

What type of knowledge is drawn upon when students engage in processes of analysis and comparison of teaching practice? What is the content of their reflection? Some research suggests that students approach teacher training with various beliefs, commitments, conceptions, or perspectives about teaching already in mind. These beliefs may have originated in student teachers’ experiences as pupils at school (Lacey, 1977; Zeichner, Tabachnick & De- nsmore, 1987), or from other life experiences which have influenced how they think about teaching (Clandinin, 1986; Butt, Raymond, McCue & Yamagishi, 1987; Knowles, 1987). It is suggested that these beliefs are highly influential in shaping what student teachers extract from their preservice training. how they think about teaching, and the kind of teacher they become within the classroom.

Conceptuahsing the particular areas and

forms of knowledge that student teachers acquire and use is a difficult task. Clearly teachers possess various areas of knowledge - about pupils, the curriculum, teaching strate- gies, educational aims-which are drawn upon in the development of plans for teaching (see Shulman, 1986; Wilson, Shulman. & Richert, 1987). The knowledge which more directly informs practice seems to be held in a form which cuts across these categories, however, and has been described using such concepts as belief sys- tems, implicit theories, schema, images, rules of practice, and scripts. The nature of this practical knowledge, how it is acquired and its relationship to other knowledge bases is an important area under current study.

“Image” is one term that has frequently been used to describe teachers’ practical knowledge, though this has been defined at different levels of abstraction. Connelly and Clandinin (1985), for instance, describe teachers’ personal practical knowledge in terms of images as powerful metaphors with affective and moral associations. An image, in this sense, is a way of conceptuahsing what teaching ought to be. They describe, for example, an infant teacher with an image of “classroom as home” which influences how she organises and manages her class, how she relates to the children, and how she arranges the classroom environment.

At a lower level of abstraction are the images that student teachers have sometimes been found to have of models of teaching. These are rather more partial and specific, but have been found to influence how student teachers interpret their own and others’ practice (Knowles, 1987; Calderhead & Robson, 1988). In the latter study, for example, one student teacher held a model in mind of a teacher who managed the class through her relationships with the children. The model was derived from the memory of a teacher whom the student had encountered as a pupil at school. The teacher had a warm, concerned, sympathetic relationship with children, which permeated the whole classroom environment. It had become so important to the children to get on well with the teacher that the teacher’s threat of “falling out” was itself suffi- cient to maintain control. The student viewed this model as an ideal to be achieved, and it was also influential in how she perceived other teachers at work. In commenting on videotapes

48 JAMES CALDERHEAD

of other teachers’ lessons, she would be very much more discriminating than other students about the quality of teacher-pupil relationships as indicated, for example, by their tone of voice, manner of address, physical proximity,and the teacher’s response to the moods of the children.

At a still lower level of abstraction are the lesson images noted by Morine-Dershimer (1979) who suggested that teachers have images or “mental pictures” of what an arithmetic, spelling, or practical science lesson, for instance, typically involves.

The concept of image has also been used to refer to the many visual memories, or snapshots of perception, of children, and situations that enter teachers’ minds in the course of everyday teaching (Eraut, 1985).

The term image has been variously used to describe teachers’ practical knowledge, though each usage emphasises the experiential basis of teachers’ working knowledge, and the importance of a large episodic, particularly visual, memory. There are also several other analog- ous concepts emerging from research on teaching. For example, Shulman (1986) has drawn attention to the case knowledge of teachers - a form of holding knowledge which is readily related to practical action. The concepts involved, however, have not been very precisely defined and the nature and structure of practical knowledge remains somewhat vague and in need of further research and clarification. Such research, however, seems likely to inform our ideas about the content of reflection and how this informs action.

Learning to teach clearly involves complex interactions amongst student teachers’ cogni- tive/metacognitive processes, their knowledge structures, affective predispositions, and their classroom practice. The student teachers’ cog- nitive/metacognitive skills both draw upon knowledge to guide practice and also generate knowledge from their observation and analysis of practice. Ensuring that student teachers are engaged in practical tasks in which they have the requisite knowledge, skills, interest, and moti- vation to take part, and in which their knowledge, skills, and attitudes may also be enhanced as a result, is an exceptionally difficult challenge for teacher education. Frequently in teacher education we seem to present student teachers with tasks which they in fact lack the approp-

riate skills and knowledge to complete, and which provide minimal learning opportunities, resulting in students’ devaluing and losing interest in their professional preparation. For instance, in initial periods of classroom observation, student teachers often have difficulty cue- ing in to classroom processes (Copeland, 1981; Calderhead, 1984, 1988). They lack the concepts with which to perceive what is going on in classrooms. They lack knowledge about teachers’ and children’s intentions and behaviour, knowledge about the curriculum and classroom working procedures, and need guidance to learn to discriminate the noise and activity of classroom life.

To cite a further example, it is fairly common practice to require student teachers to develop a scheme of work for a particular area of the curriculum prior to a school placement, with a view that this will prepare them for teaching. It is also a common occurrence for students to discover, once they enter school, that their scheme of work is inappropriate and unworkable. They have not taken into account the resources avail- able within the school, the children’s varied abilities, accepted practices within the school, and so on. Planning a scheme of work in fact requires knowledge which students often do not possess. To plan a scheme of work on a particular topic for 10 year olds, for instance, requires some knowledge of what 10 year olds are like - how classes of 10 year olds generally behave, what they are interested in, how they respond to different activities, of the ability range of a typical class-and of the various ways in’which the topic might be presented. With practising teachers, such typificatory knowledge has often only been built up after considerable experience in classrooms (see Berliner, 1987).

Similarly, the task of evaluating their own lessons -a task which is often of particular importance in a reflective teacher education course but which students often find difficult - depends on knowledge which students do not possess. To be able to answer such questions as “How well did I teach?“, “What were the effects of my teaching?“, “What assumptions have 1 made in teaching this way?“, “How else might 1 have taught the lesson?“, “How will I do it next time?” require the student teacher to draw upon knowledge of alternative teaching approaches, of children’s typical performance and achieve-


ment , of criteria for judging teaching. Students may well lack the knowledge that enables the necessary comparisons and evaluations to be made.

These difficulties highlight the need for teacher training courses to provide tasks of a nature and level where student teachers are both able to perform the given tasks and able to learn from them. This emphasises the importance of careful structuring of teacher training courses, and also indicates the need for research on the influence of alternative teacher education practices on student teachers’ professional learning.

The Effects of the Training Context

The enormous difficulties of introducing reflective teacher education programs into the existing structure of teacher education are becoming increasingly apparent. Some of the basic concepts of reflective teaching contrast sharply with taken-for-granted beliefs about teaching in schools and teacher education in- stitutions. Staffroom folklore, for instance, commonly purports that one learns to teach by being thrown in at the deep end and learning for oneself (Lanier & Little, 1986; Calderhead, 1987). In as far as this view emphasises the importance of acquiring practical knowledge and experience, it may have a commonsense appeal, but it clearly devalues the role of reflection, and the need for the analysis and evaluation of practice. Similarly, the need for certification in teacher education implies a set of established criteria against which student teachers will be assessed, and inevitably encourages student teachers (and perhaps tutors and supervising teachers as well) to perceive teacher training in terms of achieving a set of given goals or “pass- ing the test.” Even attempts to define the goals in terms of self-evaluative skills, in the belief that this might provide an appropriate incen- tive, have met with limited success (Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Beliefs about professional training appear to be well entrenched in school and college culture. The influence of alternative course structures, and their interaction with school and college beliefs and practices, on the growth of reflection in student teachers requires careful monitoring if reflective teacher edu-

cation courses are to bring about their intended effects.

Conclusion

Reflective teaching, as it is applied in the context of teachers’ professional development. has been defined and justified in numerous ways, informed by a variety of values and associated with diverse practices. On closer examination, it is clear that the processes of learning to teach are complex and, at present, inadequately con- ceptualised. While several idealised models of reflection are prescribed for teacher education purposes, the nature, function, and potential of reflection has yet to be fully explored.

It is suggested that empirical research on student teachers’ knowledge and thought processes, and how these are influenced by alternative approaches and designs in teacher education, might enable us to test out both the realities and possibilities of reflection in teacher education. In order to promote reflective teacher education, a clear conceptual grasp is required of what the processes of reflection involve what students might usefully reflect about, and how their reflection is going to be influenced by the nature of the tasks they are set and the kind of teacher education context in which they work. Existing research raises the possibility that student teachers may learn to teach in numerous ways, that different types of learning may characterise different phases in a teacher’s career, and that different types of professional learning tasks may be more or less appropriate for different students at different times. For instance, student teachers early in their training may need support in developing specific metacognitive analytical skills, on experiences with which they are quite familiar and in which they are confident. Our concepts of reflective teaching are at present insufficiently discriminating to take the complexities of students’ learning into account. Research on teachers’ professional learning holds promise for informing our concept of reflection, and changing “reflective teaching” from a general, widely used slogan to a practical, working principle. It is through our understanding of the processes of professional learning that we might begin to provide the structure and support that is needed to facilitate learning to teach.

so JAMES CALDERHEAD

1. Tom (1985) offers a framework for classifying concepts of reflection, using three dimensions: the arena of the prob- lematic, the model of enquiry, and the ontological status of educational phenomena. There are several additional, or alternative, means by which concepts of reflection could be discriminated - for example, the relationship which is as- sumed between theory and practice, thought and action, ends and means; or the notion of the ideal teacher that is implicit within concepts of reflective teaching and of how that ideal state is reached. The classification suggested here serves simply to highlight the variance in standpoints.

Connolly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.). Learning and teaching rhe ways of knowing. 84th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 174-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Copeland, W. D. (1981). Clinical experiences in the education of teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching. 7.3-17.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we rhink. Boston: D. C. Heath & co.

Eraut, M. (1985). Knowledge creation and knowledge use in professional contexts. &dies in Higher Educari&. 10. 117-133. References

Berliner, D. C. (1987). Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experienced teachers. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring reachers’ thinking. London: Cassell.

Beyer, L. E. (1984). Field experience, ideology and the development of critical reflectivity. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 36-41.

Borko, H., Livingston, C., McCaleb, J., & Mauro, L. (1988). Student teachers’ planning and post-lesson reflections: patterns and implications for teacher preparation. In J. Calderhead (Ed.). Teachers’ broiessionai learning. London: Falmer Press.

Butt, R., Raymond, D., McCue, G., & Yamanishi. L.

Association, San Francisco, 1986.

(1986, Aprii). Individual and collective interpret%ions of teacher biographies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

CTEC (Commonwealth Tertiarv Education Commission)

Erdman, J. 1. (1983). Assessing the purposes of early field experience programs. Journal of Teacher Educarion. 34(4). 27-31.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann. M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Educarion, 3.255-273.

Furlong, V. J.. & Hirst, P. H. (1987). School-based training in the P.G.C.E. Final Report, University of Cambridge Department of Education.

Gauthier, D. P. (1963). Practical reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice. London: Heinemann.

Goodman, J. (1985, April). Making early field experience meaningful: An alternative approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1985.

HMI (1987). Qualiry in schools: The initial training of teachers. London: HMSO.

(1986). Improving teacher education: Report of the Joint Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflective Review of Teacher Education. Canberra. Australia: teaching: Supervision in action. Milton Keynes: Society Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and for Research in Higher Education & Open University Commonwealth Schools Commission. Press.

Calderhead, J. (1984). Teachers’ classroom decision- Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s reachers: A reporf ofrhe making. London: Cassell.

teachers’ professional learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 10.269278.

Calderhead, J. (1988). Learning from introductory school

Calderhead, J. (1987). The qualitv of reflection in student

experience. Journal of Educarion for Teaching, 14. 75- 83.

Calderhead. J., & Robson, M. (1988, September). Images of teaching and learning: Student teachers’ early conceptions of practice. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Norwich.

Knowles. J. G. (1987, December). What student teachers’

Holmes G&p. East Lansing, Ml: The Holmes Group

biographies tell us: Implications for preservice teacher education. Paper presented at the joint conference of the

Inc.

Australian and New Zealand Associations for Research in Education, University of Canterbury. Christchurch. New Zealand.

Carnegie Foundation (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for rhe2Jsr cenrury. Hyattsville. MD: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming crirical: Education, knowledge and acrion research. London: Falmer Press.

Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in acrion. London: Falmer Press.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on reaching (3rd edition, pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Korthagen, F. A. J. (1988). The influence of learmng orientations on the development of reflective teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning. London: Falmer Press.

Lacey. C. (1977). The socialisarion of reachers. London: Methuen.

Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on reaching (3rd edition, pp. 527-569). New York: Macmillan.

May, W. T., & Zimpher, N. L. (1985. April). Perceptions of preservice field supervision: A call for theoretical recognition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1979). Teacher plan and classroom


reality: The S. Bay Study, part 4. Research monograph, Institute for Research on Teaching, University of Michigan.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The facif dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pollard, A., & Tann, S. (1987). Reflective reaching in rhe primary school. London: Cassell.

Russell, T. (1988). From pre-service teacher education to first year of teaching: a study of theory and practice. In J. Calderhead (Ed.). Teachers’ professional learning. London: Falmer Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective pructirioner. London: Temple Smith.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educaring the refi’ecrive practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. School Review, 79,493-543.

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry. 6.205-228.

Wiggins, D. (1978). Deliberation and practical reason. In J. Raz (Ed.), Practical reasoning (pp. 144152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, S. M.. Shulman. L. S.. cli Richert, A. E. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.). Exploring reachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.

Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 34(3). 3-9.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57.2.3- 48.

Zeichner, K. M., Tabachnick, B. R.. & Densmore, K. (1987). Individual, institutional and cultural influences on the development of teachers’ craft knowledge. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 21- 59). London: Cassell.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Tom, A. R. (1985, April). Inquiring into inquiry teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Received 26 September 1988 q

Documents

Reflective teaching and teacher education