Download pdf - Self-Study In Teacher Education: A Means And Ends Tool For Promoting Reflective Teaching

http://jte.sagepub.com/Journal of Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/54/1/6The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0022487102238654

2003 54: 6Journal of Teacher EducationTodd Dinkelman

Self-Study In Teacher Education: A Means And Ends Tool For Promoting Reflective Teaching

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

can be found at:Journal of Teacher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/54/1/6.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2003Version of Record >>

at COLUMBIA UNIV on November 14, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on November 14, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jte.sagepub.com/

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/54/1/6

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.aacte.org

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/54/1/6.refs.html

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/54/1/6.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



ARTICLE10.1177/0022487102238654Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 1, January/February 2003Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 1, January/February 2003

SELF-STUDY IN TEACHER EDUCATIONA MEANS AND ENDS TOOL FORPROMOTING REFLECTIVE TEACHING

Todd DinkelmanUniversity of Georgia

This article presents an argument for self-study of teacher education practices as a means and endstool for promoting reflective teaching. The assertion is that self-study serves a dual purpose: as ameans to promote reflective teaching and as a substantive end of teacher education. The argumentconsists of a five-part theoretical rationale for the use of self-study in reflection-oriented teacher ed-ucation programs. Taken together, the various components of this rationale suggest that the promo-tion of reflective teaching will require something other than an additive approach to teachereducation reform. Rather, self-study calls for a reconceptualization of the very process of teacher ed-ucation itself. When teacher educators adopt self-study as an integral part of their own professionalpractice, the terrain of teacher preparation shifts. Self-study becomes more than just a means to thetreasured aim of reflective teaching—self-study becomes an end of teacher education in its ownright.

The first social studies methods course I taughtserved the additional purpose of providing datafor a dissertation on preservice teacher develop-ment. This first attempt at methods was also myinitial, ambitious effort at building a classroomsetting characterized by critical discussion, thechallenging of assumptions, and anemancipatory discourse. These grandiose ef-forts were meant to send these beginning teach-ers into their student teaching semester chargedto lead the democratic transformation of publicschooling. In the middle of that semester, sev-eral class members let me know that my best in-tentions for the course were not being realized.On this particular day, as the class moved awayfrom a discussion of the appointed topic, multi-cultural education, and toward a forum for air-ing grievances with the course, one class mem-ber began her contribution by saying, “I don’tfeel safe in this classroom,” and burst into tears.I was taken aback, to say the least, if not totallysurprised. That our classroom had become a less

than welcoming environment for some was anunsettling sentiment I had detected in the priorweeks, but try as I might to figure out what wasso threatening about our class, I had few an-swers.

Then, 2 months later, after the semester cameto an unceremonious end, I was nearing com-pletion of an interview of Amy, a student/studyparticipant from that class. I asked why shethought some students did not feel free to speaktheir minds in class. Amy replied,

You have to have, like, a safe place, and where you’regoing to feel comfortable saying things, and you’regoing to feel like you can say stuff and you won’t geta funny face. I mean, you kind of have that wrinkledface when you look at people, like that right there. . . .You have a face. It’s stupid. It’s totally stupid. Itshouldn’t matter, but it does. Like, it shouldn’t mat-ter, but if you don’t care that I say it, I know that peo-ple have said, “And then you’re talking and he getsthis face like, and it looks like, what are you talkingabout? Like, are you stupid?” That’s what the facelooks like. . . . And it’s good to, like, criticize and look

6

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 1, January/February 2003 6-18DOI: 10.1177/0022487102238654© 2003 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

at COLUMBIA UNIV on November 14, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from


at critical parts and pick things apart, but I don’tthink there was that safe place and developed rela-tionship to do that yet . . . because some days whenwe were talking, some days, people around mewould say, “I’m scared to say what I’m going to say.”That’s pretty sad. People were scared to say whatthey had to say, that you would look at them funnyand look at them like, “What the hell are you talkingabout?”

I was stunned. This response was truly a revela-tion to me. Promotion of open discourse was,and is, one of the most valued objectives of myteaching, one that I was unknowingly squelch-ing. Immediately after the interview, I phonedseveral of my closest friends, all of whomworked outside the field of teacher education, toask them if they knew of this “look.” To a per-son, they did. One of my closest friends told mehe knew the look well. I asked, “What does itmean?” He explained that it meant I was think-ing very hard about what he was saying, tryingto deeply understand his point. He claimed itwas one of my most endearing qualities as afriend. I continued, “Could it mean anythingelse?” My friend continued, “Oh yeah, if I didn’tknow you very well, I’d think it means that youthink I’m stupid.”

Several years later, my efforts in teachingessentially the same methods course, with thesame aim of promoting critical reflection, meetwith far different results. I have since come tomore deeply appreciate the enormous complex-ity of a democratic teacher education project. Inmuch the same way as described by Cochran-Smith (2000), my competence as a teacher ofteachers has evolved as I have undertaken thesometimes painful work of carefully examiningthe assumptions I hold about progressive edu-cation. Many explanations account for myincreasing effectiveness as a teacher educator,but Amy’s words recall one particular change inmy professional practice—in the very first classmeeting of all of my classes, students hear meexplain “the look” and what it means. As aresult of this simple yet powerful discovery,subsequent groups of students have experi-enced this methods class far differently than didthat first group. In this case, my success is not somuch a result of using different techniques ofinstruction, although I have added different

strategies to my repertoire. Rather, I believe alarge part of the difference is accounted for byknowing something important about my prac-tice that I did not know before, something I onlycame to know about as a result of self-study.

This story serves as an introduction to themain argument of this article—an argument forself-study of teacher education practices as ameans and ends tool for promoting reflectiveteaching. The assertion is that self-study servesa dual purpose: as a means to promote reflectiveteaching and as a substantive end of teachereducation in its own right. As reflective teach-ing has grown to become a treasured aimamong growing numbers of teacher educatorsover the past three decades, a concurrent inter-est has developed in the manner by which thisaim is effectively advanced among bothpreservice and experienced teachers. There hasbeen a rush to share experiences of what worksin promoting reflective practice, and a growingbody of research has addressed particular tech-niques and strategies for promoting reflectiveteaching (e.g., Calderhead & Gates, 1993;LaBoskey, 1994; Valli, 1992).

The past decade has also witnessed a rapidlydeveloping interest in self-study of teacher edu-cation practices. Over this time, many teachereducation researchers have constructed a richtheoretical and empirical case for the power ofself-study as a reform tool in rethinking howteachers learn to teach (Hamilton, 1998). Forexample, Olson (1995, 1996) related her experi-ence using narrative inquiry to investigate theways in which her work as a teacher educatorleads preservice teachers to examine and explic-itly link their own narrative understandingswith the professional knowledge they encoun-ter in school and university settings. Similarly,Knowles and Cole (1994, 1995; Knowles, Cole, &Presswood, 1994) investigated their own devel-opment as teacher educators and drew connec-tions between such self-study inquiries andtheir developing expertise in working withbeginning teachers. Hamilton (1995) reviewedsalient readings about action research andargued the merits of “self-reflective, inquiry-based study of practice” (p. 81) for school anduniversity-based teachers alike. Other accounts

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 1, January/February 2003 7 at COLUMBIA UNIV on November 14, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from


illuminate how self-study has lead teacher edu-cators to deeper understandings of the aims,methods, and outcomes of their work withbeginning teachers (Guilfoyle, Hamilton,Pinnegar, & Placier, 1995; Hamilton, 1998;Loughran & Russell, 1997; Placier, 1996).

The simultaneous rise in interests in bothreflective teaching and self-study is not coinci-dental. An argument can be made that there areclose conceptual and practical ties betweenthese two movements in teacher education. Inthis article, I explore these ties by casting self-study as a way to promote reflection that is notso much a stand-alone technique as it is anapproach to the work of teacher education. Self-study is not a direct intervention done withbeginning teachers in the same way as arrow-in-the-quiver methods such as dialogue journals(Stephens & Reimer, 1993), structured curricu-lum tasks (Beyer, 1984; Hatton & Smith, 1995),or the use of case and ethnographic studies(Fueyo & Neves, 1995; Gitlin & Tietlebaum,1983). Yet the potential benefits of self-study byteacher educators are so compelling that self-study should be considered a viable and power-ful strategy, a means of teacher education, forpromoting reflective teaching in its own right.At the same time, self-study can itself be under-stood as a reflective end for those teacher educa-tors who aspire to encourage reflectiveapproaches to teaching.

By self-study, I mean intentional and system-atic inquiry into one’s own practice.1 Includedin this definition is inquiry conducted by indi-vidual teacher educators as well as groupsworking collaboratively to understand prob-lems of practice more deeply. Clearly, the storyof my own experience is one piece of evidence tostrengthen the argument for self-study, but inthis article, an attempt is made to build abroader case grounded in more than anecdote.My aim is to advance a five-part theoretical ra-tionale for the use of self-study to promote re-flective teaching, while selectively drawing onthe experiences of teacher educators and re-searchers who have reported results of study-ing their own practice. The rationale rests on thefollowing:

• the congruence of reflection with the activity ofteaching;

• the potential of self-study for knowledge produc-tion, of value for both local contexts and the broaderteacher education research community;

• opportunities to model reflective practice;• value of self-study participation for preservice stu-

dents;• possibilities for programmatic change.

Each part of this rationale contributes to an ar-gument for the more widespread practice ofteacher educator self-study in programs for thepreparation of teachers that feature an emphasison reflective teaching.

THE CONGRUENCE OF REFLECTIONWITH THE ACTIVITY OF TEACHING

The first part of the argument is a normativeconception of teaching that puts reflection at thecenter. It is common for those who advocatereflective and critically reflective approaches toinstructional practice to draw on the work ofJohn Dewey. From the large body of workDewey produced on the nature of thinking,problem solving, democracy, and educativegrowth, an idea of teaching emerges that fusesthe process of reflection with the process of edu-cation such that the two become difficult to ana-lytically separate. Dewey (1916) wrote, “Thesole direct path to enduring improvement ofmethods of instruction and learning consists incentering on the conditions which exact, pro-mote, and test thinking. Thinking is the methodof intelligent learning” (p. 153). Although it mayserve our purposes in day-to-day discourse tospeak of reflection as something distinct fromteaching, for Dewey, the concepts intertwine tothe point that separating them becomes an arti-ficial act leading to serious and damaging con-sequences in practice. In other words, educationis a construct unified with the idea of reflection.This conceptualization of teaching, includingteaching done by teacher educators, makes adefinitional case for self-study. That is, if teach-ing is what teacher educators do, and teachingmust include reflection, then self-study, as aform of reflection, ought to be an essential partof the activity of teacher educators. Thus, the

8 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 1, January/February 2003 at COLUMBIA UNIV on November 14, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from


process of teaching reflects the process of reflec-tion. The process of reflection reflects the pro-cess of teaching. In this same vein, Grumet(1990) maintained that teaching is research.

Dewey’s (1933) theory of reflective thinkinginvolves both a process and a set of attitudinaldispositions brought to that process. The pro-cess is represented by the steps of confronting apuzzling situation; identifying a problem posedby that situation; forming a hypothesis aboutwhat might be done to solve that problem; con-sidering the hypothesis by drawing on experi-ences, linking understandings, and combiningideas; and testing the hypothesis against therealization of desired ends. These steps oftenoverlap and are not meant to describe a mechan-ical, lockstep process. This theory of thinkingcould very well serve as a template for framingthe activity of teaching. Equally important, themethod of thinking, to be meaningful, requiresthat people approach the task with three essen-tial attitudes, identified by Dewey (1933) asopen-mindedness, wholeheartedness, andresponsibility. As these attitudes provide thedepth and life to the process of reflection, so toodo they infuse the activity with meaning andvitality.

Self-study takes Dewey’s theory of reflectivethinking and brings its features into sharp relief,setting them apart for the purposes of a moremindful consideration than is typically experi-enced by teacher educators in the daily activityof their work. In some sense, all teachers arereflective in that one cannot perform the activitywithout thinking about it. Schön’s (1983) idea of“reflection in action” captures the thinking thatteachers bring to their work in the moment ofteaching. However, self-study is reflection of adifferent sort. By distancing oneself from theimmediacy of the classroom, by deliberatelypursuing understanding—via the intentionalframing of a problem, collection of data, andtesting of hypotheses—self-study highlights thereflective process and yields knowledge aboutpractice that does not arise from daily practicealone (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Self-study is notthe whole of teaching, but it mirrors and system-atizes that part of pedagogy that is reflection.Contrary to cliché, experience teaches nothing

to the nonreflective practitioner. As I have con-ducted systematic inquiries into my work withbeginning teachers, I have come to appreciatehow the so-called mindfulness present when Iconduct self-study is the same sort of reflectionfound in the best classroom and field-basedteaching moments. Thus, the very nature of theactivity of both teaching and reflection is anargument for self-study by teacher educators. Inone very important sense, teacher educationself-study, the systematic and intentionalinquiry into practice by those who prepareteachers, is an ends-oriented tool for promotingreflection by virtue of its congruence with thenature of teaching itself.

POTENTIAL FORKNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

A second argument for self-study in teachereducation follows closely on the heels of theconceptual congruity between reflection andteaching. Once again, we return to Dewey, whosuggested that reflective thinking is always pur-poseful; it has an end; a problem is solved; adeeper understanding is formed; new possibili-ties are seen. Yet these outcomes are never endsin themselves. Rather, they add to our intelli-gence such that subsequent experience is influ-enced. For Dewey (1916), the very test ofwhether an experience is educative rests inwhether that experience makes possible adeeper appreciation for, and intelligence about,future experiences. He defined education as“that reconstruction or reorganization of expe-rience which adds to the meaning of experience,and which increases ability to direct subsequentexperience” (p. 76). In teacher education, then,the knowledge yielded by self-study not onlyprovides insight into the particular issue underinvestigation but also helps us to recast ourfuture efforts to encourage reflective growth inpreservice teachers.

If our aim is to produce teachers who arereflective about professional practice, then self-study can generate knowledge that is useful intwo ways. First, there is knowledge about theapplication of specific techniques to promotereflection. For example, self-studies mightexplore how the use of videotaped teaching epi-



sodes stimulates the reflection of student teach-ers. Second, and at least as important, theteacher educator/researcher, in the process ofinvestigation, stands to acquire a deeper, moresophisticated theory of promoting reflectionthat can be brought to bear on problems of prac-tice extending beyond those posed by the par-ticular instance of research. This is true not onlywhen the question under study involves pro-moting reflective practice but when other ques-tions are pursued as well. My own experienceswith self-study have taught me that challengingbeginning teachers to understand and claimtheir agency as reflective teachers is taxing andcomplex work. In short, the argument here isthat deeper, more sophisticated understandingsof teacher education practice put teacher educa-tors in a position to meet their aims, including,of course, the promotion of reflective teaching.

Examples of teacher educators using self-study to produce useful knowledge about fur-thering reflective practice are becoming moreprevalent. Heichel and Miller (1993) workedcollaboratively as a pair of researchers, consist-ing of university supervisor and studentteacher, to examine the question of whether theuse of journals during the student teachingsemester promoted various kinds of reflection.The project helped them grow in their knowl-edge of reflective writing in journals and themanner as well as their ability to reflect on prac-tice. Through self-study and reflective dialogue,Rosaen and Gere (1996) developed new ideasabout how they might link methods and fieldexperiences in secondary English teacher edu-cation. Stanley (1995) utilized self-study in herwork with preservice physical education teach-ers. She investigated her attempts to raise ques-tions of multicultural education via a methodshe described as “critical-emancipatory actionresearch.” In this same vein, several descrip-tions of action research used by teacher educa-tors to promote critical reflection are found inTabachnick and Zeichner’s (1991) Issues andPractices in Inquiry-Oriented Teacher Education. Inaccounts of self-study, researchers usuallyreport developing new knowledge about theparticular questions that frame the studies.Importantly, they also tend to describe how the

research process enhanced their more generalunderstandings of the ways in which teachereducation can work to enhance professionaldevelopment (Hamilton, 1998).

That teacher educator/researchers are find-ing outlets for the publication of their work is ofno small consequence for the appearance of self-study research in forums accessible by thebroader teacher education research communitymeans knowledge that once was of use primar-ily to self-study researchers now becomes avail-able to many others. Journals such as Action inTeacher Education, Teaching and Change, andTeaching Education have editorial policies thatencourage submissions of self-study research.As traditionally less action-oriented journals inthe field, such as Teaching and Teacher Educationand the Journal of Teacher Education, and otherresearch and professional journals outside ofteacher education make space available forteacher educators who are researching theirown practice, the production of knowledgemoves from localized settings to a much largerpotential audience. As well, in hundreds of con-ferences from local to international levels,teacher educators are disseminating the knowl-edge generated by self-study. Since its forma-tion just 8 years ago, the American EducationalResearch Association special interest group,Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, hasgrown to become one of the largest special inter-est groups in the entire organization.

Although there have been questions raisedabout the extent to which knowledge generatedby self-study meets traditional standards ofresearch rigor (and thus adds to the knowledgebase on teacher education), there is no denyingwhat self-study researchers claim the processdoes for generating knowledge that is useful inimproving their own work (Cochran-Smith &Lytle, 1990; Zeichner, 1993). Furthermore, thegrowing audience for reports of self-study mayattest to the manner in which other teacher edu-cators are finding value in exposure to accountsof teacher education self-study research.Although more traditional educationalresearchers debate the academic rigor of self-study, whether carried out in teacher educationor school settings, its rapid acceptance in the



research literature has been nothing short ofastonishing. As Zeichner (1999) described in areview of the “new scholarship” in teacher edu-cation, self-study is “probably the single mostsignificant development ever in the field ofteacher education research” (p. 8).

Thus, this piece of the rationale for teachereducation self-study suggests that self-studyproduces knowledge of two different sorts, bothuseful for promoting reflective teaching. In thefirst case, there is the knowledge produced bypractitioners that helps them understand howbetter to approach problems in their own imme-diate contexts and teaching situations. In thesecond case, there is a more generalizable kindof knowledge that teacher educators in othersettings can draw on and adapt to their ownteacher education settings. Richardson (1994)saw this distinction as the product of two differ-ent kinds of research—practical inquiry and for-mal research. She argued that both forms ofresearch could play important roles in shapingthe practice of preparing teachers, but in differ-ent ways. What exactly is the line that separatesthe knowledge produced by self-study inquiryfrom that produced by more formal, academy-bound scholarship? This is a question futureresearchers need to address. However, for thepurposes of this argument, if one goal of self-study research is to improve teacher educationpractice, particularly with reference to the pro-motion of reflective teaching, and teacher edu-cators are, in large numbers, reporting that theknowledge produced by self-study is helpingthem do just that, then the question of self-studyas formal research very well may be, in effect,truly academic.

OPPORTUNITIES TO MODELREFLECTIVE PRACTICE

A third argument for viewing self-study as atool for promoting reflection stems from the roleof modeling in teaching. Learning theoristshave long understood that students learn morethan just the subject matter content of the curric-ulum. Subject matter is but one feature of aneducational setting.2 Other features of the set-ting shape what is learned as well, in ways bothintended and unintended. Significant among

these various features are the methods teachersemploy in presenting, or making available forstudents, the content of a teaching episode. Themedium of instruction, typically established inlarge part by the manner and activity of theteacher, is a large part of what is taught.McLuhan’s famous dictum “the medium is themessage” amplifies this relationship. The wayteacher educators approach their work becomesa significant feature of the hidden curriculum ofteacher education (Ginsburg & Clift, 1990).

If indeed students learn from the methodsand manner of their teachers, and reflectivethinking is an aim of instruction, then teachersshould consider the ways in which their ownwork models reflective thinking. Simply put,students learn reflection from watching theirteachers reflect. The point was not lost onDewey, who wrote, “It is not too much to saythat the most important thing for the teacher toconsider, as regards his present relations to hispupils, is the attitudes and habits which his ownmodes of being, saying, and doing are fosteringor discouraging in them” (Dewey, quoted inArchambault, 1964, p. 326). For teacher educa-tors who wish to promote reflective practice, animportant tool then becomes reflective practiceitself. Self-study by teacher educators, a form ofdeliberate and systematic reflection that isoftentimes visible to students, promotes reflec-tive teaching by the very example it sets.

Teacher educators model, or fail to model,their reflection in various ways in their dailyactivity (Valli, 1989). For example, students seereflection when a teacher educator pauses inclass to consider a remark or through the careand effort a supervisor puts into an observationvisit postconference. These instances of reflec-tion are important, but self-study exemplifies adifferent sort of reflection. As a deliberate andmore formalized form of reflection, self-studysends a message that reflective teaching is morethan a hollow slogan and that teacher educatorsare disposed to practice what they preach. Itestablishes that they genuinely believe in themethod they recommend and the philosophythey advocate. In my work with beginningteachers, I make no secret of the ways in which Iam looking critically at my teaching. In turn,



several preservice students have told me thatmy willingness to question my own work hashelped them see that learning to teach meansmore than learning a set of tasks and proce-dures. Learning to teach means learning toinquire.

The idea of modeling reflection to promotereflection is supported by the findings ofLoughran (1996). He sought to investigate theways in which his own efforts to systematicallyreflect were understood by student teachers inhis preservice teacher education course. Heused what he called a “thinking aloud” ap-proach in the classroom. He also shared his jour-nal writing about his teaching with classmembers and gave them an opportunity to re-spond to his now public struggles with hispractice. Through extensive interviews, hequestioned students on how they came to seehis efforts to put reflection into practice. Hefound that these student teachers not only rec-ognized his efforts to make his reflection acces-sible to them, but they used his attempts atmodeling to acquire a sense of how reflectionmight find a place in their own developing prac-tices. Loughran noted,

The value of reflection for these student-teachers isthat it gives them the confidence to test their hypoth-eses about their teaching and their students’ learn-ing. They are able to think about what they are doingand why, and reason through their problems so thattheir pedagogy is more appropriate to the given situ-ation. (p. 50)

To the extent that self-studies are made visibleto students, Loughran’s work adds evidence tosupport the idea of self-study as a modelingtechnique to promote reflection among begin-ning teachers.

VALUE OF SELF-STUDYPARTICIPATION FOR STUDENTS

A fourth rationale for self-study as a tool topromote reflective teaching applies only to cer-tain types of practitioner-based research—thosethat directly involve students in the process ofinquiry. When teacher educators examine theirwork through self-study, they often rely on stu-dents to knowingly supply data for the investi-

gation or invite students into the research as col-laborators or coresearchers. Not all self-study isof this type. For example, a teacher educatorcould do a document analysis of work turned inby students as part of a particular assignment.In this case, the students may not even be awareof how their work is being used. Or a methodsteacher could look back after the course hasended at his or her notes taken during thesemester in an attempt to systematically exploreand more fully understand an identified con-cern. However, another form of self-studydesign actively seeks out student participation.In these kinds of studies, the nature of the partic-ipation in and of itself can serve as a powerfulforce for professional development along reflec-tive teaching lines.

The study that led to my story about “thelook” was an action research/case study intothe question of the development of criticalreflection and critically reflective teaching dur-ing a methods and student teaching semester(Dinkelman, 1999, 2000). I wanted to ascertainthe presence and substance of the critical reflec-tion exhibited by three preservice social studiesteachers. In addition, the inquiry was intendedto uncover aspects of their experiences thatappeared to influence that development. In-depth interviews were conducted with thestudy participants, and evidence was collectedfrom the field to locate the factors that lent sup-port to, or distracted from, my attempts to pro-mote a critical, democratic conception of socialstudies and the broader activity of teaching. Thelist of factors produced by this research drawsattention to the complexity of preservice teachereducation, as some factors worked to promotereflection for all three preservice teachers,although other factors were peculiar to eachcase. An unsurprising, if unintended, findingemerged when each participant testified thattheir participation in the study was one of themost influential experiences with respect todeveloping their notions of critical reflection.More specifically, six times during the schoolyear, they sat down with me for interviews inwhich they faced difficult questions about theirdeveloping theories of practice. These weretimes apart from the normal ebb and flow of



classroom life. Here, issues concerning criticalreflection were raised, and the process of theinterview was an additional opportunity toreflect.

The students valued the requirement thatthey periodically pull back from their immedi-ate situation and reflect on critical issues. Onestudy participant stated that returning to thevery question of reflection over and over againhelped him further develop his conception ofcritically reflective teaching: “It’s been a matterof writing and of speaking on these topics, andkeep coming back to them, and it refines it. Itnarrows it down” (Dinkelman, 1997, p. 246).Another preservice teacher felt the interviewshelped him to “articulate what I’m doing andwhy I’m doing it. So, I think it’s a good process”(Dinkelman, 1997, p. 266). For still a third partic-ipant, study participation worked in two waysto help her become more critically reflective.Amplifying her peers’s claims, this study partic-ipant (Dinkelman, 1997) explained,

I think because we talk about this, it’s kind of a spe-cial thing. . . . I mean, you bring it up every time. Andthen I think about it when I go home, and I think,“Hmm, am I really being critically reflective? Am Ibeing reflective at all? If I am, then what am I reflect-ing on?” (p. 201)

As well, she felt the additional contact she hadwith the teacher educator/researcher, resultingfrom her study participation, helped to build alevel of trust and support that she was not surewould have been there otherwise. She felt such arelationship with a mentor was crucial if shewas to explore critically reflective issues to-gether. Thus, in this work, the activity of self-study helped foster a productive relationshipand gave cause to revisit the matter of reflection.In these ways, self-study was a tool for promot-ing reflective practice.

In a similar fashion, Gore and Zeichner (1991)used self-study as a tool for promoting reflectivepractice by examining the ways their practicefacilitated critical reflection in their studentteachers. More precisely, they wished to exam-ine the extent to which the practice of one uni-versity supervisor of student teachers (Gore),including her guidance of student teachersthrough a semester-long action research project,

resulted in the development of reflective prac-tice in her students. Here, self-study on herfacilitation of her students’ action research pro-jects (sometimes called “second-order” actionresearch) achieved a twofold purpose. Self-study promoted reflective practice in studentteachers through the facilitation and program-matic support of their own self-study projects,and it promoted reflective practice in theteacher educator as she guided her studentsthrough the self-study process.

POSSIBILITIES FORPROGRAMMATIC CHANGE

A fifth argument for the use of self-study topromote reflective teaching centers on its poten-tial to generate programmatic change. In animportant sense, every time a teacher educatoremploys genuine self-study, program changehappens. As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993)noted, “In every classroom where teachers arelearners and all learners are teachers, there is aradical but quiet kind of school reform in pro-cess” (p. 101). Yet more noticeable forms ofchange are also possible. Teacher educationhappens in the relationship between individualteacher educators and their students, but theaccumulation of these experiences across schooland university settings and through a plannedcurriculum of teacher preparation establish thecontext of initial teacher socialization. Which-ever particular strategies promote reflectivepractice among beginning teachers, their great-est efficacy stems from their coordinationwithin a coherent program of teacher education.When teacher educators develop understand-ings about their own work in promoting reflec-tive practice through self-study, they generateknowledge that is potentially useful in reform-ing teacher education programs. Thus, even theimpact of lone teacher educators closely study-ing their own practice extends outward toinform the work of others within a program.

Teacher education is always situated prac-tice. That is, the work of preparing teachers forinitial practice always takes place in a particularlocation shaped by a unique set of personal,institutional, and social characteristics. By



working toward similar goals in the same teach-ing and learning space, all members of a teachereducation program bring knowledge andunderstandings unique to their own experi-ences. Yet, at the same time, this expertise isnever entirely idiosyncratic because it is alwaystied to the particulars of a common teacher edu-cation setting. The understandings generatedby self-study are, in a sense, custom-made forthat setting. Localized knowledge that comesfrom the study of problems tied to an immediatecontext suggests opportunities for a more pow-erful examination of the larger teacher educa-tion setting. One’s own efforts to promotereflection among beginning teachers yieldinsights into how an entire program promotesreflective practice. When teacher educatorsstudy their own practice, they make changes intheir pedagogy and can suggest changesthrough conversation and collaboration withpeers. The process is reflexive. As self-studyinforms an immediate context, teacher educa-tors can see the results of direct application oftheir research efforts, and programs becomemore effective in promoting reflection. In short,self-study fosters the production and develop-ment of knowledge that can help create changein programs as well as changes in pedagogy.

The extent to which the knowledge producedby teacher educator self-study acts as a force forprogrammatic change is dependent on severalfactors. Among these are the channels of com-munication open to the participants in that pro-gram, the determined use of these channels byprogram participants, and institutional sup-port. Knowledge about promoting reflectivepractice spreads among teacher educators invarious ways, from informal conversation withcolleagues and students to more formalizedinteraction, such as department meetings. Per-haps at no other time is the potential for self-study to influence programmatic change morepowerfully felt than when self-study is donecollaboratively. Systematic inquiry into one’sown practice is often made more productivewhen alternative perspectives are brought tobear on questions under study. From a pro-grammatic standpoint, collaborative self-studygoes beyond merely establishing opportunities

to bring diverse viewpoints to the problem ofpromoting reflective teaching, helpful as that isin its own right.

Indeed, self-study can bring together ways ofseeing reflective teaching that are rooted in ashared context, characterized by common expe-riences stemming from participation in a mutu-ally constructed set of teacher education activi-ties. Collaborative self-study takes advantage ofthis special sort of insight through a process thatencourages greater familiarity with theapproaches to inquiry and practice employedby participants in the surrounding teacher edu-cation program. In a sum-is-greater-than-its-parts manner, effective and collaborative self-study enables program participants to bringtogether expertise about promoting reflectiveteaching. These collaborations create under-standings that can lead to program changes tai-lored to particular teacher education settings.The potential for such deep understandings ledRichardson (1996) to conclude, “Practicalinquiry should be considered as an essential ele-ment of the work of individual and groups offaculty members and other teacher educators inunderstanding and improving their teachingand programs” (p. 727).

In many ways, the argument for self-study asa means to program development parallelsrecent shifts in emphasis found in the teachereducation research community and, even morebroadly, in educational research as well. As theprocess-product research orientation of the1960s and 1970s proved inadequate to the taskof fully explaining the mystery of teacher edu-cation, teacher education researchers moved tomore interpretive forms of research, approachesto inquiry that honor the complexity of learningto teach (Zeichner, 1999). Reflecting the shift inresearch orientations, the simultaneousdecreasing popularity of competency-basedteacher education speaks to the shifting terrainof teacher preparation. The contemporaryembrace of qualitative and critical forms ofresearch is fueled by the growing acceptance ofan important educational proposition—contextcounts. The argument for self-study builds onthis realization by elevating the local and imme-diate context to a position of prominence in



investigations of teacher education. Of course,models of program effectiveness developedapart from specific teacher education situationscan suggest important program modifications.Yet, reflective teacher education never takesplace in the abstract. Self-study broadens therange of inquiry tools available to teacher edu-cators looking for ways to better developteacher education programs for reflectiveteaching.

Numerous examples highlight the power ofcollaborative self-study to promote reflectivepractice, professional development, and pro-grammatic change. Ward and Darling (1996)investigated the extent to which they promotedreflective practice in their preservice teachersthrough the design and teaching of an inte-grated elementary social studies and languagearts methods course. They offered insightreceived through reflective dialogue and articu-lated changes that arose in both their studentsand themselves because of their collaborativeself-study. Importantly, Ward and Darlingnoted that the change was twofold, occurring atboth the individual and programmatic level: “Col-laboration allowed us to construct new frame-works for teaching, and conversation helped usto evaluate them. We became self-conscious inthe best sense of the word” (p. 86).

Rosaen and Gere (1996) worked together toexamine ways to increase richer, more reflectivelearning in their preservice secondary Englishstudents. They shared their perceptions of theweaknesses in their institution’s teacher educa-tion program. They also identified problems intheir own practice through reflective dialogueand continuing self-study. As a result, the pro-gram underwent a marked change. For exam-ple, methods classes became linked to highlyinteractive field experiences. Moreover, Rosaenand Gere noted how these programmaticchanges resulting from their own self-study fos-tered more critical reflection in their preservicestudents. They required students to conductmini self-studies and analyses as part of theirfieldwork and to share valuable journal entries,effectively highlighting the increase in criticalreflection.

On a larger level of programmatic change,self-study is becoming increasingly recognizedas an important factor in national teacher edu-cation reform efforts. Organizations such as theNational Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation (NCATE), for instance, require thatinstitutions seeking its seal of approval demon-strate evidence of self-study among their fac-ulty as they develop and articulate a conceptualframework and rationale for their programs(Tom, 1997). Similarly, the National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards lists self-studyamong its five essential propositions of accom-plished teaching (Riley, 1998). In addition, vari-ous organizations, including the U.S. Depart-ment of Education’s Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement (OERI), havestarted sponsoring efforts to support teacherresearch through direct funding (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993).

Although it is encouraging to witness thegrowing respect for self-study as a viable meansto achieving programmatic change, it is impor-tant to note a potential danger of such nationalrecognition. The very spirit of self-study may becompromised if it becomes institutionallyrequired and backed by funding sources. Genu-ine self-study is generated and initiated byteacher educators at the local levels becausethey are curious about something in their ownpractice and wish to systematically study it.Advocates for self-study as a tool for promotingreflective practice and programmatic changemust also be cognizant of ways in which mecha-nisms of top-down control that seek to regulateself-study projects are contradictory to thenotion of self-study. Preserving the potentialof self-study for program reform requiresguarding against the risks posed by itsinstitutionalization.

CONCLUSION

Self-study is a powerful tool that can beemployed to serve any number of purposes inthe preparation of teachers. The rationaledescribed in this article suggests that self-studyby teacher educators serves some ends better



than others. This argument for self-study buildson the claim, as described by Elliott (1993), thatthe ability of teacher educators “to supportreflective practice in schools is dependent onthe extent to which they operate as reflectivepractitioners themselves” (p. 10). The reflectiveturn in teacher education of the past twodecades calls for more than an introduction ofnew techniques and practices designed to pushbeginning teachers toward personal theories ofteaching that value reflection. The call is furtherreaching in that it asks teacher educators tothemselves approach their work reflectively.Self-study systematizes, channels, and givesform to such reflection. Understood in thissense, there is little surprise that the growinginterest in self-study of teacher education prac-tices has paralleled the increasing popularity ofreflective teaching among those educating newteachers.

The five-part rationale sketched here beginsto address the power of self-study as an integralpart of teacher education for reflective practice.Self-study has the potential to animate the ideaof teaching as reflection, generate knowledgeabout promoting reflective practice, model aninquiry-based approach to pedagogy, provideopportunities for beginning teachers to reflecton learning to teach, and generate rich under-standings that can be used to facilitate programchange. Teacher education researchers continueto develop compelling accounts of what self-study has taught them about the practices theypromote in the service of reflective teaching(Hamilton, 1998).

As someone who has taken up the work ofpreparing teachers who will begin their careersasking powerful questions about their role inmaking democratic education something morethan an empty slogan, I have come to see moreclearly that I too have to ask these same sorts ofquestions. The process of looking critically atone’s own practice over a sustained period oftime is not always easy, nor does it always leadto insights that are dramatically transformative.Yet self-study has helped me understand morefully the challenges and difficulties of reflectiveteacher education—those related to thepreservice teachers with whom I work; those

inherent in the institutional, political, and socialaspects that influence the context of my practice;and, perhaps most important, those embeddedin the untested ideas, assumptions, and beliefs Ibring to teacher education as part of my ownself.

Taken together, the various components ofthis rationale suggest that the promotion ofreflective teaching will require something otherthan an additive approach to teacher educationreform. Leading new teachers to see the value ofreflective approaches to teaching involvessomething more than merely adding the rightexercises and techniques to a teacher educationcurriculum. Rather, self-study requires areconceptualization of the process of teachereducation itself. When teacher educators adoptself-study as an integral part of their own pro-fessional practice, the terrain of teacher prepara-tion shifts (Adler, 1993). Self-study becomesmore than just a means to the treasured aim ofreflective teaching—self-study becomes an endof teacher education in its own right. In thissense, self-study situates itself as a reflexive andmutually informing means and ends compo-nent of teacher education for reflective practice.Whether the outcome of self-study is as com-plex as a retheorizing of the foundations of one’swork as a teacher educator, or as simple as therealization that a “look” given to a student inclass discussion can be threatening, this ratio-nale is a call for the increasing presence of self-study in the evolving landscape of preparingbeginning educators as reflective teachers.

NOTES1. As used in this article, self-study shares much in common

with popular notions of teacher research and action research. Al-though certainly not synonymous, these forms of inquiry are re-lated in important ways. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) definedteacher research as “systematic, intentional inquiry by teachers”(p. 5). Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) defined action research assystematic inquiry by practitioners into their own practice, usu-ally proceeding by way of a spiraling, recursive series of at leastthese four steps: plan, act, observe, and reflect. Variations on theseterms abound. There is significant debate over what should andshould not be included under these headings. Questions center onthe purpose of the inquiry, whether collaboration is an essentialfeature, who benefits from the research, the use to which resultingknowledge is put, and the intended audience. In this article, I em-ploy an inclusive, broad definition of self-study because the argu-ment for self-study presented in this article applies to a wide rangeof forms of formalized inquiry by teacher educators into their own



practice. A framework for understanding types of self-study/ac-tion research is provided by Rearick and Feldman (1999).

2. Here, I refer to subject matter content as conceptually dis-tinct from the methods of teaching. It is this same analytical dis-tinction that allows us to consider curriculum as somethingdifferent from instruction. Dewey challenged this either-orideation among other binaries he found harmful to thinking abouteducation. Archambault (1964) noted Dewey’s analysis is “a dy-namic conception of subject matter, or the content of instruction,as consisting not only in the sentences, ideas, and propositionspresented, but the way in which they are presented by the teacher,and the way in which they are treated by the pupil” (p. xxvi). Idraw the distinction here to help clarify the argument for the valueof self-study as a form of modeling.

REFERENCESAdler, S. A. (1993). Teacher education: Research as reflec-

tive practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(2), 159-167.Archambault, R. D. (Ed.). (1964). John Dewey on education:

Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Beyer, L. E. (1984). Field experiences, ideology, and the

development of critical reflectivity. Journal of TeacherEducation, 35(3), 36-41.

Calderhead, J., & Gates, P. (Eds.). (1993). Conceptualizingreflection in teacher development. London: Falmer.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). Blind vision: Unlearning racismin teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(2),157-190.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teach-ing and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educa-tional Researcher, 19(2), 2-11.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside:TEACHER research and knowledge. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction tothe philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.Dinkelman, T. D. (1997). Critically reflective teacher education

in secondary social studies: A preservice case study. Unpub-lished doctoral thesis, University of Wisconsin—Madison.

Dinkelman, T. D. (1999). Critical reflection in a social stud-ies methods semester. Theory and Research in Social Edu-cation, 27(3), 328-356.

Dinkelman, T. D. (2000). An inquiry into the developmentof critical reflection in secondary student teachers.Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 195-222.

Elliott, J. (1993). Introduction. In J. Elliott (Ed.), Restruc-turing teacher education: Teacher development (pp. 1-12).London: Falmer.

Fueyo, V., & Neves, A. (1995). Pre-service teacher asresearcher: A research context for change in the hetero-geneous classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 16(4),39-49.

Ginsburg, M. B., & Clift, R. T. (1990). The hidden curricu-lum of pre-service teacher education. In W. R. Houston(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 450-465). New York: Macmillan.

Gitlin, A., & Tietlebaum, K. (1983). Linking theory andpractice: The use of ethnographic methodology by pro-

spective teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 9(3),225-234.

Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research andreflective teaching in preservice teacher education: Acase study from the United States. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 7(2), 119-136.

Grumet, M. R. (1990). Generations: Reconceptualist curric-ulum theory and teacher education. Journal of TeacherEducation, 40(1), 13-17.

Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., Pinnegar, S., & Placier, M.(1995). Becoming teachers of teachers: The paths of fourbeginners. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teacherswho teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education (pp. 35-55). London: Falmer.

Hamilton, M. L. (1995). Relevant readings in actionresearch. Action in Teacher Education, 16(4), 79-81.

Hamilton, M. L. (Ed.). (1998). Reconceptualizing teachingpractice: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher educa-tion: Towards definition and implementation. Teachingand Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.

Heichel, L. G., & Miller, T. M. (1993). The importance ofreflection in decision-making. In L. Patterson, C. MinnickSanta, K. G. Short, & K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers areresearchers: Reflections and action (pp. 173-182). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research plan-ner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (1994). We’re just like thebeginning teachers we study: Letters and reflections onour first year as beginning professors. CurriculumInquiry, 24(1), 27-52.

Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (1995). Teacher educators reflect-ing on writing in practice. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen(Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teachereducation (pp. 71-94). London: Falmer.

Knowles, J. G., Cole, A. L., & Presswood, C. S. (1994).Through preservice teachers’ eyes: Exploring field experi-ences through narrative and inquiry. New York: Merrill.

LaBoskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: Astudy of preservice teachers. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learningabout teaching and learning through modeling. London:Falmer.

Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (1997). Teaching about teaching:Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education. Lon-don: Falmer.

Olson, M. (1995). Conceptualizing narrative authority:Implications for teacher education. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 11(20), 127-142.

Olson, M. (1996). Linking personal and professionalknowledge of teaching practice through narrativeinquiry. Teacher Educator, 35(4), 109-127.

Placier, M. (1996). An action research approach to a contra-diction in teaching: Reconciling grades with democraticeducation. Action in Teacher Education, 18(3), 23-32.



Rearick, M. L., & Feldman, A. (1999). Orientations, pur-poses and reflection: A framework for understandingaction research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(4),333-349.

Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice.Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5-10.

Richardson, V. (1996). The case for formal research andpractical inquiry in teacher education. In F. B. Murray(Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowl-edge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 715-737). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Riley, R. (1998). Promising practices: New ways to improveteacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

Rosaen, C., & Gere, A. R. (1996). Both sides of the desk: Col-laborative self-study in teacher education. Action inTeacher Education, 18(3), 56-67.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionalsthink in action. New York: Basic Books.

Stanley, L. S. (1995). Multicultural questions, actionresearch answers. Quest, 47, 19-33.

Stephens, D., & Reimer, K. M. (1993). Explorations inreflective practice. In L. Patterson et al. (Eds.), Teachersare researchers: Reflections and action (pp. 160-172). New-ark, DE: International Reading Association.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (1991). Issuesand practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education. Lon-don: Falmer.

Tom, A. R. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany:State University of New York Press.

Valli, L. (Ed.). (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases andcritiques. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Valli, L. (1989). Collaboration for transfer of learning: Pre-paring preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly,16(1), 85-95.

Ward, A., & Darling, L. (1996). Learning through conversa-tion: Areflection on collaboration. Action in Teacher Edu-cation, 18(3), 80-86.

Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Action research: Personal renewaland social reconstruction. Educational Action Research,1(2), 199-219.

Zeichner, K. M. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher edu-cation. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4-15.

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

Todd Dinkelman is an assistant professor in theDepartment of Social Science Education at the Universityof Georgia. His teaching and research interests center onsocial studies and democratic teacher education.

