Teacher reflection: the development of a typologywideworldreflect.wikispaces.com/file/view/Reflection...for instance, becoming a teacher is construed as primarily a matter of personal

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practiceVol. 14, Nos. 5–6, October–December 2008, 543–566

ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13540600802583713http://www.informaworld.com

Teacher reflection: the development of a typology

Johan Luttenberg* and Theo Bergen

Radboud University Nijmegen, The NetherlandsTaylor and FrancisCTAT_A_358539.sgm(Received 12 December 2005; final version received 30 April 2008)10.1080/13540600802583713Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice1354-0602 (print)/1470-1278 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis145/60000002008JohanLuttenberg

In this article, a contribution is made to the discussion of reflection on the part ofteachers. The discussion to date has shown that reflection must be broad and deep.However, just what constitutes broad and deep reflection and the relations between thetwo remain unclear. After consideration of the characteristics of broad and deepreflection, three domains of broad reflection are distinguished (i.e. the pragmatic, ethicaland moral domains). Closed versus open approaches to deep reflection are also thendistinguished which produces a typology of six reflection possibilities. Empiricalsupport for this typology was gathered via interviews with 11 experienced secondaryschool teachers. The content of the interviews addressed actual difficult decisionsituations which the teachers had experienced, and application of the constantcomparative method showed the teachers to indeed use the six reflection possibilitieswhen they reflected upon the difficult decision situations. A clear preference for closedtypes of pragmatic and ethical reflection over open or moral reflection was shown. Theconclusion is that the proposed typology can be used to map teacher reflection. Theresults further suggest that the breadth and depth of teacher reflection are in need ofdevelopment and that the relations between teacher reflection and their professionalbehaviour should be examined in greater detail.

Keywords: reflection in education; teacher reflection; teacher education; pragmaticreflection; ethical reflection; moral reflection

Introduction

It is generally acknowledged that reflection is an important part of the professional behav-iour of teachers and essential for the stimulation of their professional development (Clift,Houston, & Pugach, 1990; Liston & Zeichner, 1990; Reiman, 1999; Schön, 1983, 1987). Aplea for greater reflection may, in fact, sound rather cliché (Kelchtermans, 1999). Teachingand reflection occur in all kinds of combinations. Reflection can occur not only after butalso during the process of teaching (Schön, 1987). Teacher reflection can be instrumentalbut also moral in nature (Oser, 1994). Reflection can concern concrete problems or muchdeeper matters such as one’s professional identity (Korthagen, 2001). And reflection can berestricted to teaching in the classroom or extended to the social and political context ofteaching (Smyth, 1989; Young, 1989).

The reasons provided for the importance of reflection are numerous. Reflection canbroaden and deepen the professional development of teachers and thus their competence(Korthagen, 2001). Reflection can help teachers cope with the difficult aspects of theprofession (Hatch, 1999; Lange & Burroughs-Lange, 1994). And reflection allows teachers

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

544 J. Luttenberg and T. Bergen

to find solutions in their own practice to problems which experts cannot solve with theories(Schön, 1983).

Reflection also plays a critical role in teacher education although different programmescan entail different types of reflection (Zeichner, 1983). In a person-oriented programme,for instance, becoming a teacher is construed as primarily a matter of personal growth andpsychological maturation. Reflection can thus stimulate and guide such development. In abehaviour-oriented programme, the emphasis is on the acquisition of those teaching skillswhich are known to stimulate pupil learning. Reflection is then more technical and used todetermine the extent to which a particular action prompts effective learning (i.e. learning atthe intended level). In a research-oriented programme, the development of an inquisitiveteaching attitude stands central and concerns the teaching profession in general.

Of central importance is the question of what reflection entails. In the reflection litera-ture itself, it is agreed that reflection must be both broad and deep. But what exactly is broadreflection? And what exactly is deep reflection?

In the present article, it is attempted to answer these two questions via an analysis of thecharacteristics of teacher reflection. More specifically, a typology of teacher reflection isdeveloped and the applicability of the typology to the actual practice of teachers is examined.

Broad and deep reflection

Some authors adopt a temporal or spatial interpretation of broad reflection and thus considerreflection broad when it has any of the following characteristics: it is both internally andexternally oriented (Klaassen, 1994; Liston & Zeichner, 1990), attention is paid to both inte-rior and exterior factors (Korthagen, 2001) or both the past and the future are considered(Conway, 2001). Other authors adopt a more substantive interpretation and thus considerreflection broad when: it refers to the personal, cognitive and/or moral dimensions of teacherbehaviour (Harrington, Quinn-Leering, & Hodson, 1996), it is linked to responsibility (Ross,1989), both the ethical and moral bases of teaching are considered along with the broadsocial conditions of teaching (Dinkelman, 2000) or when the care aspect of teaching isconsidered (Goldstein & Lake, 2000; Greene, 1986; Noddings, 1986). The common elementunderlying this approach to reflection is that the breadth of the content determines thebreadth of the reflection. The broader the content, the broader the reflection. And for reflec-tion to be most broad, it must encompass the teacher’s entire field of action which includesthe social and cultural context of teaching.

Deep reflection can be construed as either a technique or a constructive process. Whenreflection is construed as a technique, the depth of the reflection is indicated by the cycliccharacter of the reflection. Well-known examples are the reflective cycle of Korthagen(2001) – with its five cyclic stages of action, retrospection, identification of essentialaspects, development of alternatives and experimentation – and the step-by-step models ofLoughran (1996) and Freese (1999) – with the anticipatory, contemporary and retrospectivestages of reflection. When reflection is construed as a constructive process, depth of thereflection is indicated by the accumulative levels of reflection. Technical, practical andcritical reflection are also often used to characterize the depth of reflection (Carr & Kemmis,1986; Handal & Lauvas, 1987; van Manen, 1977). Alternatively, one can speak of descrip-tive, comparative or critical reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002) and instrumental action,consultation or reconstruction (Grimmett, MacKinnon, Ericson, & Riecken, 1990). Otherresearchers mention description, information, confrontation and reconstruction as stages inthe deepening of reflection (Smyth, 1989) or rapid reflection, repair, review, research andre-theorizing as successive levels of reflection (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). According to the

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 545

foregoing characterizations, thus, the depth of reflection consists of a succession of differentphases or stages in the development of one and the same type of reflection or a hierarchy ofdifferent types of reflection. In each case, however, the depth of reflection is generallyindicated by the level of reflection.

The foregoing descriptions of the breadth and depth of reflection reveal a remarkablediversity of views. Breadth nevertheless appears to be largely associated with the content ofthe reflection while depth is largely associated with the nature of the reflection. Stateddifferently, the breadth of reflection concerns the same type of reflection with a greater orlesser amount of content; the depth of reflection concerns the same content viewed from ahigher or lower level.

With regard to the relations between the breadth (content) and depth (nature) of reflec-tion, the research on the development of teacher reflection shows a more complicatedpicture to exist. When the level of moral judging as measured by – among other things – theDefining Issue Test (Rest, 1986) is considered in relation to teacher interpretations of sucheducational matters as order, individualized instruction, group management, disciplinaryincidents, role-taking, teaching and responsibility (Boyd & Arnold, 2000; Higgins, 1995;Johnston, 1989; Johnston & Lubomudrov, 1987; Maccallum, 1993; Oser et al., 1991) forexample, teachers with different levels of moral judgement are found to interpret the samecontent in terms which clearly reflect their level of moral judgement. Such a seeminglysimple matter as the application of rules is viewed as a means to maintain social order byteachers with a low level of moral judgement but as a means to establish justice, foster soli-darity and encourage pupil involvement by teachers with a high level of moral judgement.Similarly, such a seemingly fundamental issue as anti-racist education is viewed as a matterof individual well-being and freedom to interact without interference by one teacher but asa matter of political justice by another. One group views teaching as simply the transfer ofknowledge while other groups view teaching as helping pupils to structure their knowledge.Sprinthall, Reiman, and Thies-Sprinthall (1996) and Reiman (1999) have also suggested onthe basis of their reviews of the judgement research that other forms of judgement such asepistemological judgement may also play a role. The common underlying factor in theteacher research, however, is recognition of the fact that a significant degree of coherenceexists between the nature and the content of teacher reflection. Given a higher level ofreflection, not only the nature of the reflection changes but also the content of the reflection(i.e. just how the matter to be reflected upon is defined).

Additional examples of the coherence between the nature and the content of reflectioncan be found in other research domains. Most well known is the work of Piaget (1978) whoreaches a similar conclusion for children’s cognitive development and the stages in thedevelopment of their formal thinking in particular. Inspired by Piaget, Kohlberg (1981,1984) has shown children’s moral judgement to develop from pre-conventional to conven-tional and from conventional to post-conventional. Loevinger (1976) has distinguished thedevelopment of self-knowledge and the ego. King and Kitchener (1994) have presented amodel for the development of epistemological judgement. Once again, the shared underlyingelement for these approaches is that with changes in the level of reflection, not only thenature of the reflection changes but also the content: Things are not only looked at differentlybut also seen differently.

In sum, consideration of the breadth (or content) of reflection and the depth (or nature)of reflection does not do complete justice to the coherence which exists between these twoaspects of reflection. This is consideration of the breadth and depth of reflection does notdo justice to the full content and nature of reflection because the two are so intricately inter-twined. The assumption of a one-to-one correspondence between the breadth and the


content of reflection, on the one hand, and the depth and nature of reflection, on the otherhand, is a simplification of what reflection entails. And the question which arises is just howreflection can best be construed in order to do justice to the coherence between the breadthand depth of reflection.

Proposal for a new typology of reflection

On the basis of a thorough review of the relevant research literature, Zeichner (1993)suggested that specific domains of reflection can be distinguished and that the nature andthe content of the reflection may thus vary depending on the domain of reflection. Similarly,Hatton and Smith (1995) concluded on the basis of their review of the literature and theresults of empirical research ‘that we have evidence for distinct forms of reflection, differ-ent, because of their defining characteristics, including goals and content … and possiblygenre’ (p. 45). Along these lines, Coultner (2001) has borrowed the division of the prag-matic, ethical and moral from Habermas (1991) to divide reflection into distinct domainsrepresenting the three most important schools of thought in western practical philosophy,namely: utilitarianism, virtue ethics and moral theory. Utilitarianism is primarily concernedwith the determination of the consequences of particular actions. Virtue ethics is concernedwith the so-called ‘good life’. And moral theory is concerned with justice and duty. Thedivision of the pragmatic, ethical and moral thus has a solid foundation in western thinkingand western culture. And within the field of education, the three domains of reflection canbe seen to play an important role (Luttenberg, Hermans, & Bergen, 2004; Oser, 1992). Ateacher must act in a purposeful manner (pragmatic) but also consider his own well-beingand that of the individual students (ethical) while taking responsibility for the general inter-ests, rights and duties of all those involved as well (moral). The three domains of teacherreflection distinguished here are closely related to the core components of professionalityidentified for teachers by Furlong, Barton, Miles, Whiting, and Whitty (2000), namelyknowledge, autonomy and responsibility, in the sense that knowledge refers to pragmaticdomain, autonomy to the ethical domain and responsibility to the moral domain.

For each of the three domains of reflection, the nature and the content of the reflectioncan indeed be seen to differ. In the case of pragmatic reflection, empirical knowledge of theobjective world is involved and placed within the context of cause-effect or means-endsrelations. The conclusion is, in principle, not obligatory: one can draw implications from theconclusion or simply leave it as it is. In the case of ethical reflection, existential knowledgeof the subjective world is involved and placed within the context of leading the life whichthe individual wants to lead or is currently leading. The conclusion is to a certain extentobligatory as the person reflecting cannot simply leave the conclusion as it is. In the case ofmoral reflection, normative knowledge of the social world is involved and placed within thecontext of the entire body of mutual interests, rights and duties. The conclusion is, in prin-ciple, obligatory for all of those involved: Individuals can appeal to the common interest,but they are also subject to it.

Yet another distinction made by many authors with respect to reflection is the distinctionbetween more open and closed approaches. Along these lines, Tom (1985), Taylor (1987),Guba and Lincoln (1989), and Howe (2001) have distinguished conventional approaches toreflection from constructivist approaches. In the conventional approach, the content of thereflection is treated as something objective and thus independent of the reflective self. Thevalidity of knowledge is thus independent of person, place and time. In the constructivistapproach, in contrast, the content of the reflection is treated as construction which emergesduring and as a result of reflection. The knower and that which is known are not separate


but intricately intertwined. Knowledge is situation bound, only valid under particularcircumstances and thus subjective. Bruner (1985) has similarly made a distinction betweenthe paradigmatic and narrative manners of knowing and reflecting. In the paradigmaticmanner of knowing and reflecting, knowledge is grounded in fixed procedures and para-digms; in the narrative manner of knowing and reflecting, knowledge remains ambiguousas a result of non-fixed procedures. Lyons (1990), Tippins, Tobin, and Hook (1993), andWebb and Blond (1995) similarly take the conventional and constructivist approaches toreflection to represent the poles of reflection. According to these authors, the conventionalapproach to reflection involves fixed knowledge and procedures which have an unambigu-ous foundation; the constructivist approach involves context-dependent and thus variableknowledge and procedures with an ambiguous foundation at best.

For all of the above authors, the conventional-constructivist distinction applies to reflec-tion in general and not to a particular type of reflection, which means that the distinctionbetween the open and closed approaches to reflection may apply to the pragmatic, ethicaland moral domains of reflection. It is possible to adopt a more open or closed approachwithin the three domains of reflection.

In conclusion, there are six types of reflection, namely three domains, which can bemore open or close. The question is whether these six possible types of reflection all occurin the actual practices of teachers and, if so, just which functions the different types ofreflection appear to serve for teachers. Stated more specifically, the following three researchquestions must be answered:

(1) Can the pragmatic, ethical and moral domains of reflection be detected in the practicesof 11 experienced teachers?

(2) Can the open and closed approaches to reflection be detected in the practices of 11experienced teachers?

(3) What role do the six types of reflection play in the practices of 11 experienced teachers?

Research method

Participants

A total of 11 secondary teachers (nine males and two females) teaching different subjects(see Appendix 1) with varying degrees of teaching experience (i.e. between 10 and 30 years)and varying ages (i.e. between 35 and 55 years) participated in the study. The recruitmentof the participants took place among 49 teachers coming from seven different secondaryschools in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands. The teachers were also all coachesparticipating in a teacher education programme at the Radboud University Nijmegen (TheNetherlands). The decision to invite coaches to participate in the study was based on theexpectation that such teachers would have a large amount of experience and would thereforebe able to articulate a wide range of considerations with respect to many aspects of teaching.Concise information about the research project was sent to the 49 teachers who were alsothen invited for an interview. A total of 20 teachers indicated a willingness to cooperate. Foran initial set of interviews, six of these teachers were selected to represent different schoolsand different subjects. In a second set of interviews, seven additional teachers were againselected to represent different schools and different subjects. The recording went wrongduring one of the interviews, and the quality of the recording for another interview was sopoor that accurate transcription was made impossible. These two interviews were thereforeomitted, which left a total of 11 teacher interviews for analysis.


Design of the study

The selected teachers were interviewed by the first author with regard to their consider-ations during a particularly difficult decision situation. The situations involved mattersjudged to be of major importance by the teacher him/herself (i.e. a situation in which eitherthe interests of the teacher or other people were at stake). The difficult decision situationwhich the individual teacher was asked about in the interview always involved a self-selected recent example from the teacher’s own experience in order to guarantee the ecolog-ical validity of the reflection process. The difficult decision situations generally required asolution while the teacher was faced with alternative possibilities and did not know the bestline of action to adopt and therefore had to make a reasoned decision. Difficult decisionsituations involving pupils, colleagues or the school leadership were opted for becauseempirical research has shown such difficult decision situations to be most common forteachers (Veenman, 1984). In Appendix 1, the difficult decision situations presented by the11 teachers are briefly described.

Data collection

After having made an appointment with the teachers for the interview, they were sentfurther written information about the aim of the interview. The type of situation to beconsidered in the interview and what will be discussed during the interview were bothexplicitly mentioned. In order to prepare for the interview, the teacher was more specificallyasked to think of two recent examples of a difficult decision situation from his or her ownteaching practice. The interviews were in depth and had a duration of about two hours.

At the start of the interview, one of the two difficult decision situations described by theteacher was selected for further consideration. This was done via mutual consultation andon the basis of the extent to which the teacher felt involved in the situation and the teacher’sassessment of the importance of what was at stake in the situation. The following pointswere then addressed in a semi-structured manner during the course of the interview:

(1) description of the difficult decision situation and an overview of the alternativecourses of action considered;

(2) pros and cons of various alternatives;(3) report of the consideration process and decision made; and(4) evaluation of the situation and the decision made.

All of the interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and checked by the interviewer(i.e. the first author). The interview transcripts were also presented to the interviewed teachersfor authorization.

Analyses

For the analysis of the transcripts, the constant comparative method was used (Glaser &Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Use was also made of Wester’s (1991) elaborationof the symbolic-interactionist method which has made the method particularly useful foranalyses of the meaning of what people say.

All of the interview fragments for which one can speak of the provision of a foundationand/or justification for the considerations and decisions made by the teacher were analysed.More than 4000 fragments initially met these criteria. For quantification purposes in the


end, only those fragments which could be clearly categorized as representing one of the sixtypes of reflection were considered in the end.

The data analyses involved two successive cycles. The first cycle was exploratory innature; involved the first six interviews; and resulted in a conceptual model containing thepragmatic, ethical and moral domains of reflection. The second cycle of analyses involvedthe next five interviews and elaboration of the initial model. After the second round of anal-yses using the elaborated model, it was decided to reanalyse the first set of interviews usingthe elaborated model as well. This resulted in the identification of open and closedapproaches to reflection for the three domains of reflection.

In the subsequent reduction and integration stages of the analyses, the descriptions ofthe different domains of reflection and approaches to reflection were made clearer andmore specific with explicit identification of both the connections and differences betweenthe different types of reflection.

The analyses were conducted by the first author in close co-operation with two otherresearchers. Certain parts of the analyses were conducted by the three researchers indepen-dent of each other and then compared. The intervening steps and results were reported anddiscussed via memos. In addition to such peer debriefing, the inter-rater reliabilities werecalculated for the intermediate and final phases of the analyses. The intermediate and finalreliabilities averaged 75% and 95% across the six types of possible reflection, respectively.

Results

Question 1: the pragmatic, ethical and moral domains of reflection

The results show the pragmatic, ethical and moral domains of reflection to all be present inthe interviews in which 11 experienced teachers were asked to reflect upon a self-selecteddifficult decision situation. In order to make the presentation of the results as meaningfuland concrete as possible, the results for the different domains of reflection will first bepresented below together with an illustration from the interviews. After that, the frequenciesof the different types of reflection of interview fragments for the 11 teachers will bepresented.

Domain of pragmatic reflection

One can speak of pragmatic reflection when the reflection upon a situation occurs in termsof objectives and means. Given particular objectives, the appropriate means to realizethese objectives are searched for. A means is considered suitable when it is judged to beeffective and efficient, and this is determined on the basis of empirical knowledge whichmay be knowledge derived from personal experience or scientific knowledge. In bothcases, empirical knowledge is used to determine which means is most suited to attain aparticular objective.

Example 1 (Teacher 10). An example is as follows. Teacher 10 has been forced bycolleagues to use standard tests and answer models which are judged to be of a poor qualityand therefore short-change pupils in his opinion.

I: Why do you consider a good answer model necessary?R: I mean, I uh … when I have a good answer model, then I can evaluate the children accu-

rately, I can discuss things adequately with them and I don’t have any argument at all.Well, guys, this is the question and those are the criteria you have to meet, this is how you


did things, and I can judge you accurately. If you don’t do something like this, as a teacher,you don’t know where you are, you just drift around and it remains to be … well, umm …stick your finger up in the air and see where the wind is coming from.

The teacher in the example has a clear objective in mind: Pupils should receive adequateevaluation. The means to achieve the objective is also crystal clear: A good answer form.The suitability of the means was evaluated on the basis of empirical knowledge or, in thiscase, cause-effect relations. If a good answer form is available (cause a), then a good eval-uation without argument is possible (effect a). If a good answer form is not available (causeb), then a good evaluation without argument is not possible and one is left to drift about(effect b).

On the basis of empirical knowledge, the teacher has established a clear image of theobjective and a suitable means to achieve this objective. He knows which means is mostsuitable to achieve the given objective.

Example 2 (Teacher 1). The second example concerns Teacher 1 who, as advisor/mentor,has to do with a pupil who is not working very hard and is performing poorly but claimsthat she works hard. One of the possibilities for dealing with the situation is the pedagogicalapproach.

R: The pedagogical method is the first method to try.I: Why should it be tried first?R: Um, to prevent conflicts. The more risks you take, the greater the chances of conflict with

the pupil, the parents or the school. It depends. So, that is the safest method, yeah, that ishow to handle it, according to the book. And, um, try to find a solution. And then, later,you will never be attacked for handling things badly …

R: That is indeed the first manner which one tries. But then I was past the pedagogical stage.I had tried it with her on a number of occasions during the past year, you know, becauseI was her mentor for the second year.

The teacher considers the pedagogical approach to be a tried and true method which requiresno further foundation, a method straight out of the book with the major advantage that itentails very few risks. The teacher’s experience, however, is that the approach does notwork or only rarely works for some pupils. When the teacher realizes that he is dealing withsuch a pupil, he discards the pedagogical approach as an option and opts for an alternative,more direct approach.

In this example, the teacher examines the situation with a clear objective in mind: Getthe pupil back to work. On the basis of empirical knowledge, he knows the possibilities andlimitations of a few means for this purpose. On the basis of his own personal experientialknowledge with respect to, among other things, the pupil in question, he decides upon themost suitable means.

Summary. An important characteristic which distinguishes the domain of pragmatic reflec-tion from the domains of ethical or moral reflection is that there is no compelling coherencebetween the conclusion reached via pragmatic reflection and subsequent actions. Knowingwhich means is most suitable does not automatically mean that one should adopt that partic-ular means. While a good answer model may be the best means to evaluate the performanceof pupils from a pragmatic perspective, the teacher can nevertheless decide for other reasonsto use the – in his eyes poorer – answer models of his colleagues. And while the teachersuspects that the pedagogical approach will no longer work, he may still adhere to it forother reasons.


Domain of ethical reflection

One can speak of ethical reflection when the situation is interpreted in terms of what isgood. The question is what one, as a person, should do in order to lead a good and happylife. Certain values may touch upon the teacher’s own self-understanding, identity andmanner of living and therefore not be ignored. Another question is the extent to which whatone does, has done or is going to do corresponds to the values which one has in mind as aperson and wants to realize or instil in others. For ethical reflection, existential knowledgemay be used or, in other words, the knowledge and experience which one has acquiredfrom leading the life which one has led. The objective of ethical reflection is to establish aguideline for a manner of living which is good and realizable within the possibilities whichone has.

Example 1 (Teacher 2). The following example concerns Teacher 2 who as part of a curric-ulum innovation has tried a particular instructional approach for the first time and thus givenpupils greater responsibility for their own learning. The teacher sees that the approachworks for the majority of the pupils but that one pupil is almost completely lost and there-fore asks himself if he should continue with the approach or make an exception.

R: Yeah, as teacher, the image which I have of myself as a teacher is that, no matter howimportant I think that children being given and taking their own responsibility may be, inthe end – when push comes to shove – I am the one responsible for them.

I: For what precisely?R: For their functioning as a whole, thus for both the achievements which they produce on

tests but also for how they totally function in the class and what they can further learnthere, I feel responsible for this …

I: Can you say what you understand this to be, under responsibility? What that means for you?R: For me, responsibility is, in any case, a feeling – a feeling that the children have the right

to function as well as possible and the right to have me do all which I can to allow themto function as well as possible. So I feel happy when I actually succeed and unhappy whenI do not succeed. And that is not something which I cannot just shake off like that, like‘Okay, hurrah for me, X is gone’. It really preoccupies me.

The above fragment is very typical of the domain of ethical reflection. To start with, thereis a cohesive set of norms and values. The value involved for this teacher is responsibilityfor pupil learning and the associated norm is that one should do everything in one’s powerto allow pupils to function as well as possible. Living and acting in keeping with this valueand norm are a prerequisite for being able to continue feeling good and happy about one’swork as a teacher. The matter is not an informal matter which may simply depend on coin-cidental circumstances for this teacher but, rather, a demand which he imposes upon himselfas a prerequisite for living a good and happy life.

Example 2 (Teacher 10). The following fragment comes from the aforementioned Teacher10 who presented an example of pragmatic reflection when forced to use – in his eyes – poorquality tests and answer models.

R: Now I have generally, look, it’s harder now but, in principle, the pupils are used to mereturning their stuff in the next lessons. And that is a wonderful exchange: When the pupilssee that the teacher has all his work done as expected, then something like a consciencearises on their part as well.

When the teacher does not return the work for say three or four weeks, it is logical that the pupilthinks ‘Now, yeah, but we have to work’. It is not fair to say to pupils the next day ‘You haven’t


done your homework; there are sanctions on this’ while the teacher – free as a bird – takesweeks to mark a test.

I didn’t know what to do with that principle.And that was the reason for why I thought ‘Well, then, I’ll make one myself’.

You’re allowed … you have to show them who you are, that you also have faults and that youcan also make mistakes, which really doesn’t matter. But you should at least have the intentionof setting a good example, in any case at school.

With regard to values, the teacher is concerned with reciprocity and honesty. The associatednorms are, among others, that the teacher should fulfil the same demands as he imposes onthe pupils and therefore not apply a double standard. The teacher also does not perceivethese norms and values as something non-committal because they are part and parcel of hisfunctioning as a teacher and the educational situation.

Summary. An important characteristic of ethical reflection is that it is based on existentialknowledge of the subjective world. Existential knowledge is highly personal and related tothe value which one places on one’s own life. The conclusions reached via ethical reflectionnevertheless produce a certain degree of commitment to them. Self-insight is gained by self-understanding and critical investigation of the life which one has led thus far in light of howone wants to develop as a person. One cannot simply ignore the results of ethical reflectionand, in this sense, ethical reflection differs from pragmatic reflection where the conclusiondoes not obligate one to anything. Insight into what is good with reference to one’s ownpersonal life requires acceptance of these conclusions and application of this knowledge toone’s own life-practice. When a person reaches a conclusion via ethical reflection but doesnot act in accordance with this conclusion, thus, the person may have other (i.e. better)reasons for acting otherwise, inadequate reflective skills or simply not be in a position to behonest with him/herself.

Domain of moral reflection

One can speak of moral reflection when the teacher interprets a situation in terms of whatis just. A rule or guideline which takes the interests or possible interests of all parties intoconsideration is sought and this is done in such a manner that all parties can hopefully agreeto the rule. The reflection concerns answers to such questions as: Which norm does justiceto the interests of all parties involved? What behaviour can we expect and require from oneanother? What rights and obligations do we have towards one another? And how can weagree on the solution of conflicts?

When compared to pragmatic and ethical reflection, moral reflection involves the subor-dination of personal-private interests to general interests. Individual interests, objectives andhappiness make way for the general interest and well-being of all those involved. What theindividual wants is subordinated to what is correct from the perspective of the shared interest.

Example 1 (Teacher 9). Teacher 9 is participating together with a number of colleagues ina project aimed at giving pupils greater responsibility. The teacher instructed pupils to workindependently and later discovered that they had done nothing.

R: In the background, yes, there is that nagging overtone, perhaps of loyalty to yourcolleagues. ‘If I don’t do what we agreed upon, it will be more difficult for them to do it.


Put your foot down’ … I owe that to the environment, the school, myself, my colleaguesand perhaps to the pupils. … I think that the school management … yeah, what you wantto propagate together, you have to propagate explicitly at a moment like that. And youhave to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. You join a project. You’re given time to do that. So you have tocooperate and not place the burden on the shoulders of those one or two colleagues whohappen to be enthusiastic.

As a participant in a project, according to this teacher, you have a shared responsibilityand duty to stick to the agreements which are made. This creates obligations for everyoneinvolved and thus for the teacher himself. In the present situation, this concretely means thatthe teacher must be loyal to his colleagues in the project and stick to his guns in order toavoid making things more difficult for his colleagues despite the fact that this may actuallyhave some rather unpleasant consequences for himself at the same time.

Example 2 (Teacher 3). The teacher in the second example within the domain of moralreflection, Teacher 3, has the pupils conduct an experiment in groups of four and write areport on this. The teacher notices that two of the four pupils simply give up, and this isreflected in the quality of the report which is written. The teacher considers not passing thetwo pupils despite the fact that the agreement had been made that the report would be eval-uated as a whole. At the same time, however, he sees the problems which this can prompt.

I: What do you think of the consequences?R: Yeah, they are inherent. That is, someone who makes decisions always has two sides of

the story to consider and I don’t mind that, you can’t mind that ‘cause otherwise this busi-ness is impossible. I think it’s rotten, ‘cause it’s never nice to, let’s say, elicit resistancebut I think it is … I would almost say it’s my duty.

I: Your duty? Why?R: Yeah, now, it boils down to something like honesty, justice … or something like that.I: And that is more important than keeping someone on your good side?R: Yes, definitely. No doubt about it.

According to this teacher, being honest and just are one’s duty. And sticking to one’sduties is in the interest of the pupil’s education as a whole and all of those involved in this.Simple matters of personal well-being or the maintenance of friendly relations between theteacher and pupils are subordinate to this.

Frequencies for each of the three domains

The frequencies of occurrence for the three domains of reflection in the various fragmentsfrom the interviews with the teachers are reported in Table 1.

While all of the teachers used each of the three domains of reflection on occasion, thenumbers of interview fragments representing the pragmatic and ethical domains of reflec-tion, on the one hand, and the moral domain of reflection, on the other hand, differedgreatly. Fragments involving moral reflection clearly occurred less frequently.

Table 1. Absolute and relative numbers of interview fragments per domain of reflection (n = 840).

Pragmatic domain Ethical domain Moral domain

Absolute number 388 343 109Relative number 46% 41% 13%


Question 2: closed and open approaches to reflection

In the following, examples of the open and closed approaches to reflection will first bepresented. Thereafter, we will present examples, which show both the closed and openapproaches to reflection to be used within each of the three domains of reflection. Finally,we will present the frequencies of the open and closed approaches to reflection used in thefragments from the interviews with the 11 teachers.

Closed approaches to reflection

One can speak of a closed approach to reflection when a fixed idea exists of the most suit-able, good or just and the path to this. Closed forms of reflection are largely convergent andsteer in the direction of a solution, which logically follows from a given interpretation of thedifficult decision situation. Already existing empirical, existential or normative knowledgeis always judged to be correct or at least usable.

Examples of a closed approach to reflection within the three domains

Closed reflection occurs within each of the three domains of reflection. This is illustratedby the examples below.

Example 1 (Teacher 9). The first example concerns the pragmatic domain. Teacher 9 is theteacher who has had his pupils work independently and sees that they have actually donenothing. He considers the possibility to step back and proceed further with the pupils.

I: What reasons did you have to consider that possibility at that point?R: The first reason was ‘what do I stand to gain if we skip it’ as that is what happens in fact.

In the end, I want, just as a craftsman, that when … that they are busy with it, with soundspeaking and listening skills. What I mean by ‘sound’ is not solid speaking and listening,which is – of course – an objective in and of itself, no, what I mean is that they are reallybusy with it, really ask questions about it. And if I just say, ‘well, that’s too bad’, then Iam simply denying that aspect, like … ‘he apparently does not think that it is importantthat that component be considered’.

The objective in the above example is clear: sound mastery of speaking and listening skillsby students. The problem is that the pupils didn’t do it independently. The teacher thereforeinitially considers letting them take responsibility for the consequences of their inaction.Examination of the possibility being considered from the objective/means perspectivemakes the problem clear. Having the students take responsibility – that is, that the teacherno longer feels responsible – offers little guarantee that the subject will be sufficientlytreated and therefore offers too little certainty that the objective will be reached. On thegrounds of this consideration, the teacher decides to drop this possibility and adopt a differ-ent means to achieve his objective: step back and proceed further with the pupils. Thereflection is closed in the sense that there is no doubt about the suitability of the objectiveand the means.

Example 2 (Teacher 5). An example of a closed form of reflection within the ethicaldomain comes from Teacher 5 who had to deal with pupils complaining about a poorlyfunctioning colleague who does not stick to agreements. A sense of responsibility standscentral here.


I: What does that responsibility mean then?R: That means, if you thus take on the responsibility, that there are certain consequences for

your behaviour and you can only keep this up if it is really your opinion. You can resolveto do something and do it at the moment when you think of it, but you are really onlyconsistent when it comes from within you and you … when it, for example, determinesthe attitude which you adopt towards the outside world.

This means that you … that I thus in principle try to play a positive role in the context in whichI am functioning at the moment – whatever it may be. And it need not be an active role in theforeground; that’s possible, but you can also exude a positive involvement.

In the above example, the teacher is concerned with a fixed resolution based on a particularvalue – namely, responsibility – and a particular manner of acting. There are no doubts aboutthe value or the associated resolution. It is the teacher’s opinion, something which comesfrom within and something which provides a starting point for acting. It is something whichis picked up and used in every situation to determine what is the best which one can do.

Example 3 (Teacher 4). An example of a closed form of reflection within the moral domainis found for Teacher 10 who thinks that teachers should challenge pupils, which entails –among other things – the development of one’s own tests instead of standard tests whenneeded. One of the problems is that this costs extra time and some teachers may not bewilling to invest their time in such an activity.

R: But I’m not thinking so much of the extra work, that is just work. Other people and that is… what is extra work? That is exactly the question which should be raised for discussion.

I: Yeah, and what is your answer?R: Work is just everything you have to do in order to allow the children under your umbrella

to … in this manner take in all of the education which they can.

According to the teacher, education is obligated to offer pupils optimal opportunities tolearn. Children must be challenged and well prepared for society. Translated into her work,this simply means that teachers should do everything in their power to allow pupils to gainthe most from their education. Other matters, such as the personal situation or workload ofthe teacher, are subordinate to this objective. And this obligation holds for the teacher in thepresent situation without a doubt.

Open approaches to reflection

One can speak of an open approach to reflection when some doubt or uncertainty existsabout the most suitable, good or just and the route to this. Open forms of reflection areusually divergent and may therefore point to more than one solution in a difficult decisionsituation. The available empirical, existential or normative knowledge is not considered theonly fitting or correct knowledge beforehand. The possibility of other knowledge is keptopen. In the following, three examples of an open approach of reflection within the threedomains are presented.

Example 1 (Teacher 3). The first example is open reflection within the domain of pragmaticreflection and concerns Teacher 3 who had students perform an experiment in groups offour and later detected that two of the students in one of the groups hadn’t done anything.The teacher wants to give them a low mark, which is certainly allowed, but considers otherpossibilities.


R: I don’t know in which direction that should be. Yeah, one possibility is to assign the entiregroup a low grade, boom. They knew how it worked, that’s it. And then one can say – evenstricter – that, if some people don’t do too well, that’s both their and your problem. Butyou can also say that the members of the groups are going to rotate, which means a differ-ent group for the next experiment. These are all little techniques, possibilities to avoid theassignment of different marks.

The objective is, in any case, to undertake some action in order to make it clear that thisbehaviour is undesirable. The question is which action is the most suitable means to achievethe objective.

Example 2 (Teacher 9). An example of open reflection within the ethical domain comesfrom Teacher 9, who wanted to have his pupils work independently but found it not tohappen.

R: My concern has to do with mine … with certain dilemmas: Should I stick to my ownprinciples no matter what it costs or to … umm, they are norms which you contribute, youknow … to my own norms, and the norm is that you should do your work properly. That’swhat I think. But I also think that a good atmosphere in the class is extremely important.And if you … and I think that it cannot be good when you are rigid …

R: Let’s see … let’s go back. It’s not that bad.I: ‘It’s not that bad’. What do you mean by that?R: Now, imagine that I had decided to pick things up where we had left off … the possibility

which we were just discussing … what other factors play a role? I, umm, my son is in anupper grade of secondary school and, when I orally examine a pupil, I often see my ownson sitting across from me. Thus, I find them mostly nice, the pupils, and think, yeah okay,you also want to play soccer, you’re busy with other things, yeah, a mildness comes overme.

Once again, the issue is having the class work independently and the later discovery thatthis has not happened. The teacher is indignant at first. The teacher considers doing one’swork properly to be important, sees that the pupils have not done this and wants to let thepupils know that this is unacceptable. But then the doubts arise and thus the dilemma. Hecan stick to his principles, but this will occur at the cost of something which he considersequally valuable within the given situation, namely: a good atmosphere in the class. Thereis also the mildness. The teacher places himself in the position of the pupils. He realizes hownice he really thinks they are, how playful they are still and – partly on the basis of thisrealization – are prepared to not let their negligence weigh too heavily.

The original resolution is examined from the perspective of the different values of bothhimself and others. This leads to refinement of the reflection and revision of the originalresolution such that a different outcome based on a different value is made possible.

Example 3 (Teacher 11). The third example of an open form of reflection involves themoral domain and concerns the situation in which Teacher 11 is called by the father of apupil who has been given a failing mark for a make-up test due to absence without a credibleexplanation for the absence. The father has an explanation which sounds credible but cannotbe verified. The teacher wants to find a fair solution but also wants to avoid being fooled bythe father and son at the same time.

For the teacher, being fair and honest is a duty, which means for the teacher – amongother things – that you reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour. In this sense, theteacher’s intentions are clear. It is for this reason that the teacher adheres to failing mark,on the understanding that the pupil receives a second chance to take the re-test, when that


failing mark can lead to problems with the transition. The latter is a solution, which sufficesfor the moment but clearly remains open to doubt.

R: The solution is, umm, also relevant for a sense of fairness. Thus, I do not know if this isthe best solution or not. Look, it’s like this. The problem remains. Imagine that the guywas really completely mixed-up on such a Wednesday afternoon and therefore really forgets,then that failing mark should naturally be gone already. Yeah, that’s what it boils down to.

The teacher realizes that by wanting to behave fairly towards other pupils, he may have tobehave unfairly towards the pupil in question. By giving him yet another chance, he tries totake the sting out of the problem. At the same time, however, he also realizes that the possi-bility continues to exist that this solution is not really fair to the pupil in question. Whetherhe has done justice to this pupil by opting for the procedure followed thus remains unclear.

Frequencies of the closed and open approaches to reflection

The frequencies of the use of the closed and open approaches to reflection for the 11 teach-ers are presented in Table 2.

While all of the teachers used both the closed and open approaches to reflection, theclosed approaches can be seen to clearly occur more frequently in 665 or 79% of the frag-ments. The open approaches of reflection occur in only 175 or 21% of the fragments. Thismeans that the 11 teachers show a strong orientation towards a fixed foundation and mannerof grounding things.

When the three domains of reflection are combined with the closed and open approachesto reflection, six types of reflection can indeed be empirically distinguished. The frequen-cies of the use of the six types of reflection are presented in Table 3.

The results show the closed approaches of reflection within the pragmatic and ethicaldomains to occur most frequently (i.e. in a total of 575 or 69% of the interview fragments)while the open approaches of reflection in the moral domain occurs least frequently (i.e. inonly 19 or 2% of the interview fragments). The 11 teachers thus show a strong orientationtowards fixed objectives and means or fixed values and norms in their reflection upondifficult decision situations.

Question 3: what role do the six types of reflection play in the practices of 11 experienced teachers?

In order to answer Question 3, we present two extended examples of approaches to reflec-tion. In these two examples, components of the decision-making process can be related tospecific types of reflection.

The first example is from Teacher 5 who is the co-ordinator for a school project groupdevoted to experimentation with new instructional forms to encourage pupils to work moreindependently. The teacher has to do with pupils who are not satisfied with the manner in

Table 2. Absolute and relative numbers of interview fragments for the open and closed approachesto reflection (n = 840).

Closed approach Open approach Total

Absolute number 665 175 840Relative number 79% 21% 100%


which a few teachers have handled the project. The policy of the project group is to discussall project matters openly. And for this reason, the matter is quickly discussed with three ofthe four aforementioned teachers. The problem concerns the fourth teacher who has alreadyfunctioned poorly for years and is now hiding behind the current project by claiming thatthe pupils cannot handle things. Previous attempts to speak with the teacher about his func-tioning produced no change or only an unpleasant situation.

R: Now, I think the problem is that he has a management problem during his lessons and isnot capable of introducing any changes in this. He sees the problems, thus, but projectsthem onto the pupils. He does not draw conclusions such as ‘I need to prepare my lessonsdifferently’ or ‘Perhaps I should tackle things differently’. No, all of the responsibility forwhat has gone wrong is placed with the pupils and stays with the pupils, and I think thatthat is the crux of the problem.

And the problem was also that we knew that even if we undertook a discussion with him, oneof us, it probably wouldn’t do any good. That in the most unfavourable case, we’d end up in afight with him and, in the most favourable case, no change whatsoever would be brought about.And that, we really wanted to change the situation but completely different things needed tooccur for this and were not within our power.

The teacher being interviewed reflects upon the situation within the pragmatic domain. Theobjective is to bring about a positive change. The reflection makes the cause of the problemclear (poor class management) and just why a particular means which appears to be quitesuitable for use with other teachers (open discussion of the problem with colleagues) doesnot appear to be suitable in this case.

At the same time, the teacher entertains other considerations relevant to the situationwithin the moral domain.

I: My question was why it was more of a problem for you?R: Now, it was also a problem for me because I, knowing the prior history, really also knew

that I would probably be utterly powerless. And the desire to do justice to the pupils, thatwas really a problem …

I: What did you have at stake at that point?R: In any case, my credibility in the eyes of the pupils. I thought that they had a right to

serious treatment of a very justified complaint. That was at stake in any case.

In the above, the existing social norms (credibility, fairness) can be seen to constitutethe basis for the teacher’s duty to act in such a manner that justice is done to the interests ofthe others, in this case the pupils.

As a solution, the teacher suggests that the complaint be handled by someone from theschool management within the context of an evaluation of the problematic teacher. Withinthe pragmatic domain of reflection, this can be construed as consideration of a new meansto handle the dilemma.

After the aforementioned decision was indeed made and the problem was shifted to theschool management, the process of reflection continued and took a different course.

Table 3. Absolute and relative numbers of interview fragments for six types of reflection (n = 840).

Pragmatic domain Ethical domain Moral domain

Open approach 94 (11%) 62 (7%) 19 (2%)Closed approach 294 (35%) 281 (34%) 90 (11%)


R: We had said to each other right from the beginning that no matter what kind of resistanceoccurred, everything is legitimate, we take everything seriously, we take everything intoconsideration. This does not mean that you constantly have to try to please everyone butthat everyone should always feel safe within the project …

R: As school project group, we function as well as we do because no one feels threatened.We have absolutely no power, everything must be built from scratch and via consultation,consensus and the willingness of colleagues.

In the continuation of the preceding course of reflection, the teacher observes the following.

R: … that it was a crucially mistaken approach to the problem, the detour involving an eval-uation meeting … When you start using coercive means and an evaluation is a coercivemeans or at least a potentially coercive means, then you, as school project group, becomeparty to the coercion. And you can thus become threatening for certain people. We real-ized that, cost what it may, we had to avoid this, that we must never choose sides and neverbe threatening. And that everything which went on between the school project group andthe teachers should stay there and not be passed on to superiors.

The new situation, which arose as a result of the first decision, i.e. the decision thecomplaint be handled by someone of the school management, is now reflected upon by theteacher within the ethical domain. Values such as safety, willingness, equality and sincerityappear to be critical values for a good atmosphere in the class and adequate functioning ofthe project group. The associated norms don’t do anything which could result in teachersfeeling threatened, do not use coercive means (i.e. power manoeuvres), remain open underall circumstances, do not entertain hidden agendas and keep all matters related to the projectgroup within the project group itself. The teacher realizes that the selected means is inconflict with these values and norms and that it therefore can damage the irreproachablestatus of the school project group. For this reason, it is decided to repeal the decision to havethe school management hold an evaluation meeting with the problematic teacher and tohave someone from the project group undertake an informal, open discussion with theteacher instead. The subsequent discussion goes fine but does not change much.

Looking back, the interviewed teacher considers it very important that the independentstatus of the school project group was maintained. However, the teacher considers it unsat-isfactory that sufficient justice could not be done to the pupils. With regard to himself, theteacher reports having learned to handle his own responsibilities better, to keep things pureand to place responsibility where it belongs. In other words, the use of different forms ofreflection produces a more subtle determination of one’s position, which provides – in oureyes – an indicator of the degree of teacher professionality.

The second example concerns Teacher 8 who was asked to become the chair of hisdepartment in order to solve a number of ongoing conflicts. The teacher had been veryactive within the school up until that time and was therefore judged to have sufficient expe-rience and goodwill to be trusted with the task at hand. The point, however, is that theteacher had just decided to cut back on his workload in order to have more time to himself.He also wanted to limit himself to teaching at the micro-level as this gave him the mostsatisfaction at the end of the day. The teacher thus asks himself whether it is wise, in lightof the resolutions which he had already made, to involve himself in such a hornet’s nest andinitially decides against doing this.

R: I have the feeling that I want to concern myself more with the actual task of teaching …We need to teach pupils greater independence, for example. I am extremely happy withthis; I think it is a good development; I want to exert myself on the behalf of this; and I canget enthusiastic about doing this. I think it is a really good development. But I also see


many problems there and want to help solve the problems. I find doing this really fasci-nating. That is … that is a choice, which I make.

And why would I take on tasks again, take on a task for which I have previously said that I donot want it again … If I play a prominent role in that, I definitely run the chance of gettingentangled in all kinds of complications and I’m definitely not interested in that, in ending upbetween two fields of tension … Yeah, look, I think that teachers just as pupils have rights andduties. And I think that it is extremely important for people to be stimulated to take responsi-bility in life … and not pass the buck to the community or the state …

R: Now, I think that, umm … I think that the main motive was my insight that this is perhapsthe only way to make the situation at least workable within the department again. I wasthus convinced that I could play a crucial role in this and that it, well … would only bearwitness to cowardice and egoism if I did not take responsibility and continued to teach inonly the periphery of the department.

The request is reflected upon here within the moral domain. From such a perspective,the request becomes a matter of joint interest to which one’s own well-being must be subor-dinated and, on the basis of this reasoning, the teacher thus decides to seriously consider therequest again.

R: And then I thought, ‘Hey, I can actually combine the one with the other quite easily’.I then went to the school management and said: ‘What is now a plan of attack for whichyou can compensate with hours and are willing to do so?’ …

R: A few links were then made …R: And then I thought …R: And we thus created a proposal and submitted it to the school leadership …R: At the same time, a pot of money appeared to be available for the school leadership within

a framework of innovation and each department with plans could draw upon this resource.And then I thought, ‘Now, imagine that I suggest that the department submit a proposal.We will then have the facilities’ …

R: And then, yeah, it started to become abundantly clear that the proposal was certainlyviable and that I could probably get the department to agree to it. And then, at a certainpoint, you have the feeling that it can … that you can really save things. The picture isclear. Yeah, that should be possible and things don’t look so bad.

On the basis of his contacts, goodwill, experience and knowledge, this teacher creates anumber of the prerequisites for an arrangement which can indirectly reduce the conflictsconsiderably and, at the same time, give him sufficient space to protect his own well-being.When this has all become clear to him, the teacher decides to agree to the request. Therequest is thus evaluated within the domain of pragmatic reflection here: An effective andefficient means to achieve the desired objective is sought.

In sum, the two extended examples above demonstrate the role of the types of reflectionin educational practice. The examples help to clarify the considerations of teachers in situ-ations requiring particularly difficult decisions, what is at stake, how teachers justify theirdecisions and why they act as they do. The six types of reflection can also be seen to playa promising role in making those considerations which teachers use to act professionallymore explicit.

Conclusions and discussion

The analyses in this article were initially undertaken on the basis of the widespread assump-tion that reflection must be both broad and deep. A serious problem with this assumption,


however, is that the breadth of reflection is directly related to the content of reflection whilethe depth of reflection is directly related to the nature of reflection. That is, direct one-to-one correspondences between the breadth and the content of reflection, on the one hand, anddepth and nature of reflection, on the other hand, are presumed. Unfortunately, the assump-tion of such one-to-one correspondences constitutes a simplification of what reflectionentails and the question of just how reflection should best be understood thus remains to beanswered.

The theoretical differentiation of three domains of reflection (i.e. the pragmatic, ethicaland moral) which can each be approached in an open or closed manner was found to providea typology of the six types of reflection which teachers have at their disposal. The typologyalso allowed us to describe the breadth and depth of teachers’ reflection in such a mannerthat greater justice was done to the connections, which clearly exist between the nature andthe content of reflection.

In terms of the typology, reflection can be characterized as broad when the teacherreflects upon the pragmatic, ethical and moral aspects of educational situations. Dependingon the domain of reflection, both the nature and content of the reflection can differ. Broadreflection in the sense of reflection across different domains thus means that differentcontent is examined in a number of different manners.

Reflection can be characterized using the proposed typology as deep when the teacheris in a position to reflect upon the pragmatic, ethical or moral aspects of a difficult deci-sion situation at different cognitive levels or, in the present case, in both an open andclosed manner. This may mean that the teacher is prepared to reflect upon a particulareducational situation not only from the perspective of his or her own subjective practice,but also from the perspective of more scientific theory. It may also mean that the teacherconsiders a situation from the perspectives of different theories developed within a partic-ular domain. In other words, a greater depth of reflection may entail a shift in both thenature and the content of the reflection: Things are not only looked at differently but alsoseen differently.

By explicitly acknowledging the underlying connections between the nature and thecontent of reflection, the present typology avoids simplification of the breadth and depth ofteacher reflection. And, in such a manner, the present typology thus contributes to a moreprecise description of what constitutes qualitatively good reflection.

The combinations of the three domains of reflection with the open and closedapproaches to reflection could all be discerned in the practices of the 11 teachers who westudied. The moral domain was utilized considerably less during consideration of the diffi-cult decision situations than the other two domains of reflection. Similarly, both the openand closed approaches to reflection were used within the different domains of reflection butthe closed approaches were used more often than the open approaches. Stated differently,the 11 teachers used the six different types of reflection but showed a preference for the useof closed pragmatic and closed ethical reflection in connection with particularly difficultdecision situations in their professional practices.

To explain the observed patterns of reflection on the part of the teachers, teacher-relatedfactors and the characteristics of their working environments may be of critical importance.Research by, among others, Selman (1980), Habermas (1984), Johnston (1989), Johnstonand Lubomudrov (1987), Oser et al. (1991), Maccullum (1993), Higgins (1995), Sprinthallet al. (1996) and Reiman (1999) show a close relation between the level of reflection, on theone hand, and the capacity to consider a situation from different perspectives, on the otherhand. It is thus possible that the level of reflection was not sufficiently high to enable theadoption of a more open approach in many of the cases presented by the teachers.


With the aid of the typology developed here, important components of the decision-making process can be identified. The perspective adopted by the teacher (namely, thepragmatic, ethical or moral) to reach a conclusion using an open or closed approach can thenbe discerned. It can be recognized that different types of reflection can lead to differentviews of a difficult decision situation, different definitions of the problem involved andconsideration of different behavioural alternatives. The typology presented here does notinvolve a hierarchy in which one type of reflection is preferred over the rest. Each type ofreflection has its own functions and thus reasons for use. The present results also show howthe insights reached via the different types of reflection need not remain separate and canthus be productively related to each other. Reflection in one domain can lead to insights inother domains. Similarly, the pros and cons of particular behavioural alternatives can bemade much clearer for subsequent reflection in other domains or renewed reflection withinthe same domain.

The results of the present study are limited to difficult decision situations and certainlytherefore not representative of the professional practices of teachers as a whole. The presentstudy nevertheless concerned experienced teachers with a high level of professionalism,which means that they should have been adequately prepared to reflect upon and articulatea wide variety of teaching considerations. Dealing with dilemmas and the uncertaintiesassociated with such dilemmas is certainly part of the teaching profession (Hatch, 1999;Lange & Burroughs-Lange, 1994). The question, of course, is to what extent the difficultdecision situations presented as part of this study are representative of other professionalpractices and thus how the reflection of teachers manifests itself under other professionalsituations. Additional empirical research in other professional situations is needed toaddress this question.

In the context of the teacher education and the professional development programmesfor teachers, the typology is in our view a useful mean and a powerful learning opportunityfor the broadening and deepening of reflection on the part of teachers. The broadening ofreflection concerns learning to reflect within three domains: the pragmatic, ethical andmoral domain. Via instruction and practice, the distinctions between the different domainsof reflection can be mastered. Teachers can appeal to these domains to consider examplesof difficult decision situations from actual educational practice. The examples can bespecifically prepared for instructional purposes and thus concern characteristic dilemmasfrom the teaching profession and require teachers to reconstruct and justify the consider-ations, assessment process and decision or conclusion in relation to the different domains ofreflection. The examples can also be actual decision situations drawn from the teacher’sown educational practice with explicit linking of the relevant considerations, assessmentprocess and decision-making to the three domains of reflection. Gaps can be filled bymaking implicit considerations explicit and searching for additional considerations. It isimportant that the teacher learns to make supple transitions between the different domainsof reflection as the insights provided by one domain of reflection can have consequences forthe insights provided by other domains of reflection; that is, the teacher must consider thedifferent domains of reflection in conjunction with each other and not separately. Theteacher must relate the insights gained from the different domains of reflection to each otherin order to gain a sufficiently comprehensive perspective. And in doing this, the followingquestions must be answered more or less simultaneously:

(1) In what sense is the conclusion suitable?(2) In what sense is the conclusion good?(3) In what sense is the conclusion just?


The deepening of reflection concerns learning to reflect from different perspectiveswithin the same domain of reflection. Depending upon the relevant perspectives, the deep-ening can be tackled in different manners. The ‘perspectives’ may concern the referenceframeworks of those individuals more or less directly involved in the situation beingreflected upon. The task in this case is to make the perspectives of the different individualsas explicit as possible – either on the basis of one’s own experiential knowledge or with theaid of those involved. The ‘perspectives’ also may concern the different theoreticalapproaches which exist within a particular domain of reflection. Within the pragmaticdomain, different theories of learning such as those of Bruner and Ausubel or a moresocial-constructivist approach may be involved. Within the ethical domain, differentvisions of happiness and well-being such as those expressed in the virtue ethics ordiscourse ethics may be involved. And within the moral domain, different interpretationsof justice such as those provided by the duty approach of Kohlberg or the care approach ofNoddings may be involved. Teachers should be acquainted with these schools of thought,learn to entertain them as possible perspectives within a particular domain of reflection andlearn to justify their own selected perspectives with respect to such alternative perspectives.The typology can highlight how the different initiatives stand in relation to each other andsupport each other. And this can give both educationalists and teachers a greater grip onreflection.

In conclusion, the present typology provides a useful tool for the identification of theactual patterns of reflection used by teachers and the provision of feedback with regard tothese patterns. The typology can illuminate how individual teachers reflect in actual practiceand suggest alternative possibilities. And in such a manner, the present typology can beutilized to stimulate reflection on the part of teachers during not only their preservice educa-tion but also during their professional development.

ReferencesBoyd, B., & Arnold, M.L. (2000). Teacher’s beliefs, antiracism and moral education: Problems of

intersection. Journal of Moral Education, 29, 23–45.Bruner, J. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. Learning and teaching the ways of

knowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research.

London: Falmer.Clift, R., Houston, W.R., & Pugach, M. (Eds.). (1990). Encouraging reflective practice in education.

New York: Teachers College Press.Conway, P.F. (2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: From a temporally truncated

to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 17, 89–106.

Coultner, D. (2001). Teaching as communicative action: Habermas and education. In V. Richardson(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed) (pp. 90–98). Washington, DC: AERA.

Dinkelman, T. (2000). An inquiry into the development of critical reflection in secondary studentteachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 195–222.

Freese, A.R. (1999). The role of reflection on preservice teachers’ development in the context of aprofessional development school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 895–909.

Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C., & Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher education in transition:Reforming professionalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Goldstein, L.S., & Lake, V.E. (2000). ‘Love, love and more love for children’: Exploring preserviceteachers’ understandings of caring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 861–872.

Greene, M. (1986). Reflection and passion in teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2,68–81.


Grimmett, P., MacKinnon, A., Ericson, G., & Riecken, T. (1990). Reflective practice in teachereducation. In R. Clift, W.R. Houston, & M. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice ineducation (pp. 20–38). New York: Teachers College Press.

Guba, M.E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.Habermas, J. (1984). Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kummunikativen Handelns

[Preliminary studies and supplementations on the theory of communicative action]. Frankfurtam Main: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. (1991). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik [Justification and application: Remarks ondiscourse ethics]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching: Supervision in action. MiltonKeyes: Open University Press.

Harrington, H.L, Quinn-Leering, K., & Hodson, L. (1996). Written case analyses and critical reflec-tion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 25–37.

Hatch, J.A. (1999). What preservice teachers can learn from studies of teachers’ work. Teaching andTeacher Education, 15, 229–242.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implemen-tation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 33–49.

Higgins, A. (1995). Teaching as a moral activity: Listening to teachers in Russia and the UnitedStates. Journal of Moral Education, 24, 143–158.

Howe, K.R. (2001). Qualitative educational research: The philosophical issues. In V. Richardson(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed) (pp. 201–208). Washington, DC: AERA.

Jay, J.K., & Johnson, K.L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice forteacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73–85.

Johnston, M. (1989). Moral reasoning and teacher’s understanding of individualized instruction.Journal of Moral Education, 18, 45–59.

Johnston, M., & Lubomudrov, C. (1987). Teachers’ level of moral reasoning and their understandingof classroom rules and roles. Elementary School Journal, 88, 65–78.

Kelchtermans, G. (1999). Reflectie, mag het wat meer zijn? Pleidooi voor reflectie in de breedte enin de diepte vanuit een onderzoeksgerichte houding. Lezing viering 10 jaar UNILO [Reflection:Can it be more? A plea in favour of broad and deep reflection from a research attitude. Lectureat the tenth anniversary of UNILO]. K.U. Nijmegen, 10 June 1999.

King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promot-ing intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Klaassen, C. (1994). Herwaardering van de professionaliteit en de Pedagogische Opdracht[Revaluation of professionality and pedagogical responsibility]. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 5/6,439–455.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: The philosophy of moral development. Moralstages and the idea of justice (Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: The psychology of moral development – Thenature and validity of moral stages (Vol. 2.). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Korthagen, F.A.J. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lange, D.J., & Burroughs-Lange, S.G. (1994). Professional uncertainty and professional growth: Acase-study of experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 617–631.

Liston, D.P., & Zeichner, K.M. (1990). Reflective teaching and action research in preservice teachereducation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, 235–254.

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Loughran, J.J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning

through modelling. London: Falmer.Luttenberg, J., Hermans, C., & Bergen, T. (2004). Pragmatic, ethical and moral: Towards a refine-

ment of the discourse approach. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 35–55.Lyons, N. (1990). Dilemmas of knowing: Ethical and epistemological dimensions of teachers’ work

and development. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 159–180.Maccallum, J.A. (1993). Teacher reasoning and moral judgement in the context of student discipline

situations. Journal of Moral Education, 22, 3–17.Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education and research for teaching. Harvard

Educational Review, 56, 496–510.


Oser, F. (1992). Morality in professional action: A discourse approach for teaching. In F.K. Oser, A.Dick, & J.L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 109–125).San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oser, F. (1994). Moral perspectives on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of researchin education (pp. 57–127). Washington, DC: AERA.

Oser, F., Patry, J-L., Zutaven, M., Reichenbach, R., Klaghofer, R., Althof, W., et al. (1991). DerProzess der Verantwortung. Berufsethische Entscheidungen von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern(Bericht zum Forschungsprojekt 1.188-0.85 und 11.25470/2) [The process of responsibility.Moral decisions of teachers (Report of a research project)]. Freiburg (Schweiz): PädagogischesInstitut der Universität Freiburg.

Piaget, J. (1978). The essential Piaget. London: Routledge.Reiman, A.J. (1999). The evolution of role taking and guided reflection framework in teacher educa-

tion: Recent theory and quantitative synthesis of research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15,597–612.

Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Ross, D.D. (1989). First steps in developing a reflective approach. Journal of Teacher Education,

40, 22–30.Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Selman, R.L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press.Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of

Teacher Education, 40, 2–9.Sprinthall, N.A., Reiman, A.J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional development. In

J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education(pp. 666–703). New York: Macmillan.

Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures andtechniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Taylor, C. (1987). Interpretation and the sciences of man. In P. Rabinow & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Inter-pretive social science: A second book (pp. 33–81). Los Angeles, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Tippins, D.J., Tobin, K.J., & Hook, K. (1993). Ethical dimensions at the heart of teaching: Makingsense from a constructivist perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 22, 121–140.

Tom, A. (1985). Inquiring into inquiry-oriented teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,36, 35–44.

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry,6, 205–228.

Veenman, S.A.M. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of EducationalResearch, 54, 143–178.

Webb, K., & Blond, J. (1995). Teacher knowledge: The relationship between caring and knowing.Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 611–625.

Wester, F. (1991). Strategieën voor kwalitatief onderzoek [Strategies of qualitative research]. 2nd

edition. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Young, R.E. (1989). A critical theory of education: Habermas and our children’s future. Sydney:

Harvester Wheatsheaf.Zeichner, K.M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,

34, 3–9.Zeichner, K.M. (1993, August). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective prac-

tice in teaching and teacher education. Keynote address presented at the 6th InternationalConference of the International Study Association on Teacher Thinking, Göteborg, Sweden.

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


Appendix 1. Overview of difficult decision situations provided by 11 teachers

Teacher 1 (male, gym, mentor) has a pupil who is not working hard and is not achieving very wellalthough the pupil says that he is working hard. The teacher knows that the pedagogical approach isno longer going to work and wonders what to do.

Teacher 2 (male, physics) uses a new nationally implemented instructional approach for the first time.He sees that it is working quite well for all of the pupils with the exception of one pupil. He wonderswhether he should continue using the approach with this pupil or perhaps make an exception.

Teacher 3 (male, chemistry) has pupils conduct an experiment in groups of four and write a jointreport. In one group, he sees two of the pupils just sit back and do nothing, which is confirmed by thequality of the report. He wonders how to make the unacceptability of this situation clear to the pupilsin his evaluation.

Teacher 4 (female, geography) thinks that teachers should challenge pupils at the appropriate level.As section leader, she is involved in a merger with teachers who think differently on this matter. Thedifference of opinion really stands out when at the end of the school year school-wide examinationsmust be developed, that must be used by all teachers.

Teacher 5 (female, English, coordinator) is confronted with pupil complaints about the functioningof a colleague and the failure of the colleague to stick to agreements. The teacher sees a few possi-bilities but, at the same time, recognizes the problems associated with each of the possibilities. Shewonders which option to choose.

Teacher 6 (male, economics) has a pupil who is not performing well and is also not his favourite. Ifthings continue as they are, the chances are quite large that the pupil will have to repeat the year inpart because of his subject. He cannot decide between open consultation or simply flunking the pupil.

Teacher 7 (male, math) is asked by the directorate to coordinate a project at his school. He would liketo do this but thinks that the associated decision-making and facilitation are unjustified. He wonderswhether he should do it or not under such circumstances.

Teacher 8 (male, math) is asked by the school directorate to become department chair and thus solvea number of long and drawn-out conflicts within the department. He considers himself qualified todo this and recognizes the necessity of such an intervention but also foresees the problems which willarise. His question is whether he should opt for the interests of the department or his own peace ofmind.

Teacher 9 (male, Dutch language) has had his pupils work independently and sees that they haveactually done nothing. He thinks that – just as everyone else – pupils should do decent work andwants to make this clear to them. After a rocky period, however, he has also just established goodrelations with the class again. Getting angry carries the risk of disturbing these recently establishedgood relations. Just ignoring things runs counter to his convictions, however.

Teacher 10 (male, history) is forced to use tests and answer models which have been formulated bycolleagues and are, in his opinion, of poor quality. He is wondering how he should react to thesituation.

Teacher 11 (male, history) is called by the father of a pupil who has been given an F for a make-uptest because he did not show up and has no credible explanation for not showing up. The father hasan explanation which sounds credible but cannot be confirmed. The teacher wants to find a fairsolution but also does not want to be fooled by father and son.

Documents

Teacher reflection: the development of a typologywideworldreflect.wikispaces.com/file/view/Reflection...for instance, becoming a teacher is construed as primarily a matter of personal