Post on 27-Dec-2019
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Swets Content Distribution]On: 20 January 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 925215345]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Reflective PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713443610
Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of reflective practiceBarbara Larriveea
a Department of Language, Literacy, and Culture, California State University, San Bernardino,California, USA
To cite this Article Larrivee, Barbara(2008) 'Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of reflective practice', ReflectivePractice, 9: 3, 341 — 360To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14623940802207451URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Reflective PracticeVol. 9, No. 3, August 2008, 341–360
ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14623940802207451http://www.informaworld.com
Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice
Barbara Larrivee*
Department of Language, Literacy, and Culture, California State University, San Bernardino, California, USATaylor and FrancisCREP_A_320912.sgm10.1080/14623940802207451Reflective Practice1462-3943 (print)/1470-1103 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis93000000August 2008BarbaraLarriveeblarrive@csusb.edu
This article describes the development, validation process, and construction of aninstrument to assess a teacher’s level of reflection. It discusses the need for a commonlyshared language to categorize the various levels involved in becoming a criticallyreflective teacher. The research design for the creation of the Survey of reflectivepractice: A tool for assessing development as a reflective practitioner initially called foridentifying individuals who had conducted research on the development of reflectivepractice and then soliciting their expert judgment in establishing specific descriptors todefine levels of reflective practice utilizing an online interactive format. The aim of thisassessment tool is to provide a way to gauge how a prospective or practicing teacher isprogressing as a reflective practitioner to serve as a vehicle for facilitating thedevelopment of structures to mediate higher order reflection.
Keywords: reflective practice; teacher reflection; critical reflection; professionaldevelopment; assessment; survey instrument
Introduction
The need to prepare professionals who will be reflective practitioners has gained wideacceptance, increasingly being adopted as the standard to aspire to across numerous profes-sions. Many view reflective practice as the hallmark of professional competence for teach-ers (see, for example, Cole & Knowles, 2000; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Jay, 2003; Larrivee,2006a; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Reagan, Case, & Brubacher, 2000; Schön, 1983;Smyth, 1992; York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, & Montie, 2006; Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
While professional standards for teachers in many countries advocate teachers beingreflective practitioners, escalating pressure to be accountable for students reaching imposedstandards of performance increases the likelihood of teachers using teaching strategies thatprioritize efficiency and expediency, which may come at the expense of ongoing reflectionon teaching practices. Such demands can leave teachers feeling powerless. However, thebest antidote to take control of their teaching lives is for teachers to develop the habit ofengaging in systematic reflection about their work.
Defining reflective practice
Throughout the literature the term reflection, and consequently reflective practice, is beingused to describe practices ranging from analyzing a single aspect of a lesson to consideringthe ethical, social and political implications of teaching practice. Practice refers to one’srepertoire of knowledge, dispositions, skills, and behaviors. The term reflective practice
*Email: blarrive@csusb.edu
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
342 B. Larrivee
refers to the on-the-job performance resulting from using a reflective process for daily deci-sion-making and problem-solving.
This expansive range of meanings makes it difficult to decipher research findings andhas led to attempts to define differing types of reflection. References to numerous levels,stages, dimensions, or types of reflection are indicative that reflection is generally viewedas an incremental process. Currently there is no generally accepted terminology used todefine the various levels in the development of reflective practice, suggesting a need for acommon language.
The earliest attempts to define levels or types of reflection were Van Manen (1977) andSchön (1983). Van Manen proposed a hierarchical representation of three levels, namelytechnical, practical, and critical reflection. Schön distinguished between reflection in action,or simultaneous with action, and reflection on action, looking back on and learning fromexperience or action. He posited that it may be too challenging to reflect in the momentgiven the multiple demands teachers juggle and that reflection often requires a perspectiveof a ‘meta-position,’ a looking back after the action has taken place. For instance, focusingattention on completing a lesson may distract from paying attention to the way a teacherinteracts with students.
Based on an extensive review of the literature, the various definitions evolving overseveral decades most commonly depict three distinct levels of reflection (see, for example,Day, 1993; Farrell, 2004; Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Van Manen,1977). The three levels are:
(1) an initial level focused on teaching functions, actions or skills, generally consideringteaching episodes as isolated events;
(2) a more advanced level considering the theory and rationale for current practice;(3) a higher order where teachers examine the ethical, social and political consequences
of their teaching, grappling with the ultimate purposes of schooling.
These three levels provided the conceptual framework for the development of theassessment tool described in this article. Also, because much of the literature contrastsreflective practitioners with non-reflective (pre-reflective) teachers, four levels of reflectionwere defined, adopting the terminology of pre-reflection, surface reflection, pedagogicalreflection, and critical reflection (Larrivee, 2004).
Pre-reflection
At the pre-reflective or non-reflective level developing teachers react to students and class-room situations automatically, without conscious consideration of alternative responses.They operate with knee-jerk responses attributing ownership of problems to students orothers, perceiving themselves as victims of circumstances. They take things for grantedwithout questioning and do not adapt their teaching based on students’ responses and needs.Unfortunately, there are those pursuing teaching careers who fall into this category. It isespecially important to find ways to facilitate their development of reflective practice.
Surface reflection
At the level of surface reflection teachers’ reflections focus on strategies and methods usedto reach predetermined goals. Teachers are concerned with what works rather than with anyconsideration of the value of goals as ends in themselves. For this level, the term technical
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 343
has been most used (see, for example, Day, 1993; Farrell, 2004; Hatton & Smith, 1995;Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997). It has also been referred to as descriptive (Jay & Johnson, 2002).The term surface was chosen to depict a broader scope than technical concerns whileconnoting that values, beliefs, and assumptions that lie ‘beneath the surface’ are not beingconsidered at this level of reflection.
Pedagogical reflection
At this level practitioners apply the field’s knowledge base and current beliefs about whatrepresents quality practices. This level has probably the least consensus in the literature asto its composition and label. It has been variously labeled practical (Van Manen, 1977),theoretical (Day, 1993), deliberative (Valli, 1997), comparative (Jay & Johnson, 2002), andconceptual (Farrell, 2004). The term pedagogical was selected as a more inclusive term,merging all of the other concepts to connote a higher level of reflection based on applicationof teaching knowledge, theory, and/or research. At the level of pedagogical reflection teach-ers reflect on educational goals, the theories underlying approaches, and the connectionsbetween theoretical principles and practice. Teachers engaging in pedagogical reflectionstrive to understand the theoretical basis for classroom practice and to foster consistencybetween espoused theory (what they say they do and believe) and theory in use (what theyactually do in the classroom).
Critical reflection
At this level teachers reflect on the moral and ethical implications and consequences of theirclassroom practices on students. Critical reflection involves examination of both personaland professional belief systems. Teachers who are critically reflective focus their attentionboth inwardly at their own practice and outwardly at the social conditions in which thesepractices are situated. They are concerned about issues of equity and social justice that arisein and outside the classroom and seek to connect their practice to democratic ideals.Acknowledging that classroom and school practices cannot be separated from the largersocial and political realities, critically reflective teachers strive to become fully consciousof the range of consequences of their actions.
The term critical reflection has the most consensus in the literature as a level of reflec-tion examining the ethical, social, and political consequences of one’s practice. Althoughthere is considerable variability regarding the inclusion of self-reflection, or challengingone’s own belief system. While some definitions fail to acknowledge this dimension, othersconsider it to be embedded in the category of critical reflection. And others conceptualizeself-reflection as a separate entity. Hatton and Smith (1995) referred to this type of reflec-tion as dialogic, Valli (1997) as personalistic, and Day (1999) as intrapersonal, all highlight-ing the aspect of dialogue with oneself. Similarly, Cole and Knowles (2000) distinguishedbetween reflective and reflexive inquiry. Underpinning reflective inquiry is the notion thatassumptions behind all practice are subject to questioning. Reflexive inquiry is tantamountto self-reflection and is defined as reflective inquiry situated within the context of personalhistories in order to make connections between personal lives and professional careers andto understand personal (including early) influences on professional practice.
Based on the presumption that understanding oneself is a prerequisite to understandingothers, self-reflection is conceptualized here as a crucial dimension of critical reflection.Hence, the category labeled critical reflection includes both democratic principles as well asself-reflection. Self-reflection involves examining how one’s beliefs and values, expectations
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
344 B. Larrivee
and assumptions, family imprinting, and cultural conditioning impact on students and theirlearning (Larrivee, 2005). It entails deep examination of values and beliefs, embodied in theassumptions teachers make and the expectations they have of students. Beliefs aboutstudents’ capacity and willingness to learn, assumptions about the behavior of students, espe-cially those from different ethnic and social backgrounds, and expectations formulated on thebasis of the teacher’s own value system drive teacher behavior.
Developing reflective practice
Reflective practice is generally viewed as developing in stages, although an individualteacher’s progression is not necessarily linear. Teachers may reflect at different levels simul-taneously, interweaving various levels. Reagan et al. (2000) advocated that the process ofengaging in reflection should be seen as an ongoing spiral in which each element of reflectivepractice is constantly involved in an interactive process of change and development.
While each dimension of reflection can be useful in its own right, there is an implicitdistinction in the quality of reflection, with layers of quality moving from trivial, to signif-icant, to potentially profound. Increasing levels involve higher forms of thought, movingfrom issues of practicality to values and beliefs (Jay, 2003). The three levels described inVan Manen’s representation might also be thought of as paralleling the growth of an indi-vidual teacher from novice to expert to master. They can also be characterized as fallingalong an ‘efficiency–value–worth continuum.’ At the first level the concern is mainly withmeans rather than ends, entailing selection and use of instructional strategies primarily fortheir expediency. The second level adds questioning the assumptions as well as conse-quences of particular strategies. Here teachers apply criteria to assess classroom practices tomake individual and independent decisions about pedagogy. Teaching choices are based ona value commitment to a particular interpretive framework. The teacher analyses and clari-fies individual and cultural experiences, meanings, assumptions, prejudgments and presup-positions for the purpose of making instructional decisions based on an interpretiveunderstanding of what represents quality educational experiences. At the highest level ofdeliberation the worth of knowledge is in question. The teacher pursues worthwhile educa-tional ends of self-determination based on the principles of justice and equality. Hence,decisions at the surface level of reflection are made for efficiency, decisions at the pedagog-ical level are based on a value judgment, and decisions made at the critical level are basedon a worth judgment. Teachers move from initially asking ‘Am I doing it right?’ to eventu-ally asking ‘Is this the right thing to do?’
Many advocates of reflective practice take the position that teachers should not onlyreflect on behaviors and events within the confines of the classroom but should include theinfluence of the larger social and political contexts. They deem teaching as ultimately a moralpursuit concerned with both means and ends and therefore consider critical reflection to beimperative for teaching in a democratic society. Teaching is first and foremost an ethicalenterprise where teachers are called on daily to confront issues of ‘goodness and truth’(Larrivee, 2006b). Many believe that taking this broader view will enable teachers to becomechange agents who both understand what is and work to create what might be (Bartlett, 1990;Cole & Knowles, 2000; Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Jay, 2003; Larrivee, 2000; Osterman &Kottkamp, 2004; Parker, 1997; Reagan et al., 2000; Schön, 1987; Smyth, 1989).
Although the developmental span for both prospective and practicing teachers will varyconsiderably, it is important for teachers to progress through the levels of reflective practiceto ultimately become critically reflective teachers who pose the important questions of prac-tice. For example, teachers engaging only in surface reflection may question how to limit
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 345
the transition time between reading groups but unless they move to the next level of peda-gogical reflection they may never question whether placing students in reading groups is themost effective organizational structure. Furthermore, unless they engage in critical reflec-tion they may not consider the larger issue of whether that structure limits the potential forsome students from different cultural backgrounds. According to Cole and Knowles the aimof reflective practice is to think critically about oneself, one’s assumptions, and one’s teach-ing choices and actions. While not all teachers will become critically reflective teachers,nonetheless it is the desired goal to reach over the course of one’s professional career.
Mediation to promote higher order reflection
Much of the literature grapples with either getting teachers to reflect at all or moving thembeyond the surface level of reflection. Even with interventions specifically designed toenhance reflective practice many attempts fail (see, for example, Korthagen & Wubbels,1991; Smith & Hatton, 1993; Valli, 1992). Despite exposure to specific scaffolding intendedto develop reflective practice, reflections of pre-service teachers tend to be mostly descrip-tive, failing to connect to a theoretical framework or societal issues (see, for example, Collier,1999; Pultorak, 1993; Wunder, 2003). The generally accepted position is that without care-fully constructed guidance, prospective and novice, as well as more experienced, teachersseem unable to engage in pedagogical and critical reflection to enhance their practice.
Based on their research Hatton and Smith (1995) suggested that teacher progressionthrough the levels of reflection appears to be developmental in that teachers may need toreflect first on areas of technical skill before being able to compare different teaching strat-egies and weigh their relative merit. However, Smyth (1989) advocated that taking the posi-tion that higher order reflection is not accessible to inexperienced teachers dismisses theirhistory of being treated in certain ways as students, arguing that such histories are worthy of‘unpacking’ for the more just and humane alternatives they are likely to uncover. The positiontaken by this author and others is that even novice teachers can deepen their level of reflectionwith powerful facilitation and mediation within an emotionally supportive learning climate.
There is an emerging consensus that pre-service and novice teachers can be helped toreflect at higher levels with multifaceted and strategically constructed interventions (see, forexample, Brookfield, 1995; Cole & Knowles, 2000; Griffin, 2003; Hoover, 1994; Hunter &Hatton, 1998; Johnson, 1994; Putorak, 1996; Rhine & Bryant, 2007; Rudney & Guillaume,1990; Russell, 2005; Yost, Forlenza-Bailey, & Shaw, 1999). Such mediation processes asjournaling with specific structures, such as providing deliberate prompts and strategicallyposing non-judgmental questions, have been found to promote higher order reflection bycreating authentic dialogue (Dobbins, 1996; Ross, 1990; Smyth, 1991; Spalding & Wilson,2002; Thorpe, 2004; Trotman & Kerr, 2001; Wiltz, 1999; Yost, 1997). Likewise, research-ers have found that helping prospective teachers acknowledge, articulate, and challengetheir beliefs enhances reflection (Boyd, Boll, & Brawner, 1998; Nais, 1987; Walkington,2005; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998; Yost, Sentner, & Forlanza-Bailey, 2000).
Reflection is an abstract construct with its existence being assumed on the basis ofobserved performance and expressed beliefs. The capacity for reflection is embedded invalues, assumptions, and expectations. The assessment tool described here can providebenchmark indicators of key behaviors of reflective practitioners. Providing a more concreteprocess for assessing a developing teacher’s level of reflection can help teacher educatorstarget specific attitudinal and behavioral characteristics necessary for reflective practice. Byidentifying key behaviors, attitudes, and practices that need to be developed they can moreexplicitly tailor intervention strategies to promote higher order reflection.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
346 B. Larrivee
This instrument can provide a structure to guide developing teachers through a discov-ery process by strategically prompting them to think and act in new ways. However, provid-ing such facilitation will require teacher educators to become aware of their own thinkingprocess and to learn to trust in others’ ability to come up with their own solutions and appli-cations. In essence, they must be reflective practitioners themselves, capable of remainingopen to viewpoints different from their own, letting go of the need to be right, and acknowl-edging their own limiting assumptions (Larrivee, 2008).
Research design, methods, and procedures
The research design for development of the instrument to assess teachers’ level of reflectioninvolved several stages.
Stage 1. Conceptual framework and initial scale development
In the process of reviewing hundreds of articles, chapters and texts, descriptions used todescribe non-reflection, levels of reflection, and reflective practice were recorded. Manyauthors described at great length the thinking process involved in reflective practice; otherscontrasted reflective practitioners with those who were non-reflective; others conceptual-ized reflection as being evident to varying degrees, putting forth labels for each level. Asmentioned earlier, based on efforts to categorize types of reflection over the period from1977 to 2004, most typically three levels were identified. Yet there has been no attempt tooperationally define the various levels beyond brief category descriptors or to systemati-cally delineate the composition of these categories by providing in-depth descriptions oftypes of behaviors and dispositions characteristic of each level of reflection that might beused for assessment purposes. The development of this tool was intended both to fill thisvoid and also offer a common terminology for levels of reflection.
Using this three level framework, with the addition of a pre-reflection category, thecollected descriptions were sorted into these four categories. With elimination of synony-mous descriptions and editing for similar sentence structure these became the quality indi-cators or items represented. From this compilation of descriptive phrases an inclusivedefinition of each level was composed that represented the range discussed in the literature.These served as the descriptions provided to respondents.
Stage 2. Identifying the sample
Phase 1 (March 2004–August 2004)
From a review of the literature over the past several decades 98 individuals worldwide wereidentified who had conducted research or written on the subject of teacher development ofreflective practice. These authors were solicited via email to participate in this researchproject by providing their expert judgment to establish specific descriptors to define levelsof reflective practice. They were asked to contribute to this unique opportunity to participatewith others in the field to create an assessment tool to aid teachers in developing as reflec-tive practitioners.
After identifying the original database, the next step involved locating email addressesfor the identified authors. This process resulted in the elimination of 17 names because emailaddresses could not be located, were invalid, or the authors were not available for the timeallotted to complete the survey (e.g. on sabbatical, leave, or vacation). This reduced the actualpool of respondents to 81. Thirty-two respondents completed the survey, a 40% response rate.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 347
Phase 2 (September 2004–March 2005)
In a second phase of data collection an additional 21 authors were identified from anexpanded search of the literature, 20 of whom were reached by email and were added to thesample pool. Because this focus was on recent publications, nearly all email addresses wereaccessible. These authors were added to replace those previously eliminated in an attemptto increase the sample size. Ultimately, of the total pool of 119 the survey reached 101authors, of whom 40 completed the survey. Although it is possible that because the mailingwas a ‘mass mailing’ some emails may have been filtered out, identified as ‘spam’. It is alsolikely that some emails were not opened by the recipients, rendering the response rate actu-ally much higher.
Stage 3. Instrument construction
Descriptors used in the literature to describe various levels of reflection were compiled andcategorized according to the four levels of reflective practice defined. A draft instrumentwas constructed and piloted with five education faculty members who agreed to bothrespond to the items and to be interviewed to solicit feedback on the items, as well as theconceptual framework and definitions of the four levels.
Based on the feedback from the pilot test, revisions were made to clarify level descrip-tions and revise, delete, or add items. The resulting survey consisted of 76 items, with 18conceptualized as pre-reflection, 20 as surface reflection, 18 as pedagogical reflection, and20 as critical reflection.
To gauge item and rater consistency 24 items were selected to be repeated, 6 from eachlevel. This resulted in a survey comprising 100 items. In order to facilitate the rating task,quality indicators (items) were clustered into 20 sets, each with 5 indicators arranged inrandom order.
In composing the survey several decision rules were applied to counteract establishingan expectancy set. To control for response bias items were randomly assigned to sets anditems were arranged so that items for each level were equally distributed in the first, second,third, fourth, and fifth positions across the 20 sets. Each set of five items was constructed toinclude a minimum of three of the four levels and a maximum of two items per level. Inaddition, the first eight sets (40 items) contained no repeat items. The 24 repeat items werearranged such that each was placed a minimum of five sets away from its original position.This was done so that no repeat item would be visible on a single web screen, which typi-cally displayed from 1 to 4 sets at a time.
Stage 4. Procedures
Selected participants were sent an email to request their expert judgment in establishingspecific descriptors to define levels of reflective practice. For their contribution participantswere offered a summary of the data analysis and a copy of the resulting assessment instrument.The survey was posted on a website and all responses were submitted online. Participantswere provided with an ID code to access the website. Based on the pilot test, completion ofthe survey generally took about 15 minutes.
Participants were directed to go to the link provided, read the descriptions of each desig-nated level of reflection, examine each ‘quality indicator,’ and assign the indicators to oneof four levels. They were also given the option to select an undecided category. The followinglevel descriptions were provided.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
348 B. Larrivee
Level 1. Pre-reflection
At this level the teacher interprets classroom situations without thoughtful connection toother events or circumstances. The teacher’s orientation is reactive, believing that situa-tional contingencies are beyond the teacher’s control. Beliefs and positions about teachingpractices are generalized and not supported with evidence from experience, theory, orresearch. The teacher’s perspective is undifferentiated and general regarding the needs oflearners.
Level 2. Surface reflection
At this level the teacher’s examination of teaching methods is confined to tactical issuesconcerning how best to achieve predefined objectives and standards. Beliefs and positionsabout teaching practices are supported with evidence from experience, not theory orresearch. The teacher’s view of learners is somewhat differentiated, acknowledging theneed to accommodate learner differences.
Level 3. Pedagogical reflection
At this level the teacher is constantly thinking about how teaching practices are affectingstudents’ learning and how to enhance learning experiences. The teacher’s goal is continu-ously improving practice and reaching all students. Reflection is guided by a pedagogicalconceptual framework. Beliefs and positions about teaching are specific and supported byevidence from experience, as well as being grounded in theory or research. The teacher’sview of teaching and learning is multidimensional, connecting events within a broaderframework.
Level 4. Critical reflection
At this level the teacher is engaged in ongoing reflection and critical inquiry concerningteaching actions as well as thinking processes. The teacher holds up both philosophicalideologies and teaching practices for continuous examination and verification. The teacherconsciously considers how personal beliefs and values, assumptions, family imprinting, andcultural conditioning may impact on students. The critically reflective teacher is concernedwith promoting democratic ideals and weighs the ethical and social implications of class-room practices.
The level descriptions were presented in a ‘split-screen’ format, allowing for simulta-neous viewing with each set of five indicators. The interactive format utilizing ‘radiobuttons’ allowed respondents to change their selections and have only their final selec-tion recorded for compilation. Respondents were also prompted prior to their finalsubmission to return to specific items that they had left blank. This feature ensured nomissing data.
Stage 5. Data analysis
Because the selected sample of authors and researchers was considered to have significantexpertise, a majority opinion was deemed sufficient for assignment of items to each level.This was operationally defined as more than 50% of the raters, or a minimum of 21 (52.5%)of 40 raters. Using this criterion, 63 (82.9%) of the original 76 items were assigned to
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 349
one of the four levels. For repeat items the higher number of the two ratings was used.Generally, for repeat items the number of respondents was either the same or greater for thesecond rating. This may have indicated a ‘learning’ factor.
Items were assigned by the majority of the raters as originally conceptualized by theauthor, with the exception of 5 items assigned by raters to Level 1 but conceptualized asLevel 2 items. Table 1 presents the placement of the items and the percentage of raters whoselected that level for all items with rater agreement >50%.
Discussion of the results of the data analysis
Although the respondents had the option to select an undecided category if they were unableto decide about the placement of an item, they seldom did. As evidence of considerable facevalidity, for 68 of the 76 items (89.5%) 5% (2 respondents) or less selected the undecidedcategory rather than one of the four levels.
It was anticipated that the most difficult distinctions would be between pedagogical andcritical reflection, followed by distinctions between surface and pedagogical reflection.However, the distinction between pre-reflection and surface reflection proved to be the mostproblematic. Apparently the most difficult distinction for respondents was between noreflection (pre-reflection) and a minimal amount of reflection (surface reflection). Thiscould have also been a function of inappropriate items, rather than conceptual, or a combi-nation of both. In fact, five of the items conceptualized as surface reflection items were actu-ally categorized by the majority of the raters as pre-reflection. This resulted in many moreitems for Level 1 (22 items) than for Level 2 (11 items).
Stage 6. Final survey construction
The following guidelines were established for construction of the final survey.
(1) Select items using the initial criteria of agreement of the majority of respondents.Using this criteria resulted in 22 items for Level 1, 11 items for Level 2, 16 itemsfor Level 3, and 14 items for Level 4.
(2) Apply an additional cut-off of a maximum of 14 items per level, selecting items withthe highest agreement, in order to keep the number of items relatively consistentacross levels.
In analyzing item contents, 14 items sufficiently represented the full range of theintended content and scope of Levels 1 and 3. The resulting format had 14 itemsfor Levels 1, 3, and 4 and 11 items for Level 2.
(3) Reorder items to equally distribute negatively worded items and to place similarlyworded items distant from each other.
(4) Include both observer rating and self-rating components.By design the items of the survey included both external factors (i.e. behaviors,actions, practices) as well as internal factors (i.e. beliefs, values, assumptions).Accordingly, a dual rating format was constructed with an external observerrating augmented by a self-rating.
(5) Add an action plan for improved practice to facilitate accomplishment of the desiredchange.
The final result is a three part tool including a facilitator assessment, a self-assessment,and an action plan for improved practice (see Figure 1).
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
350 B. LarriveeTa
ble
1.R
atin
gs f
rom
sur
vey
of r
eflec
tive
prac
tice
for
ite
ms
wit
h >
50%
agr
eem
ent.
Pra
ctic
e in
dica
tors
Per
cent
of
rate
rs
Lev
el 1
. Pre
-ref
lect
ion
Ope
rate
s in
sur
viva
l m
ode,
rea
ctin
g au
tom
atic
ally
wit
hout
con
side
rati
on o
f al
tern
ativ
e re
spon
ses
97.5
0V
iew
s st
uden
t an
d cl
assr
oom
cir
cum
stan
ces
as b
eyon
d th
e te
ache
r’s
cont
rol
95.0
0D
ism
isse
s st
uden
ts’
pers
pect
ives
wit
hout
due
con
side
rati
on92
.50
Is w
illi
ng t
o ta
ke t
hing
s fo
r gr
ante
d w
itho
ut q
uest
ioni
ng87
.50
Att
ribu
tes
owne
rshi
p of
pro
blem
s to
stu
dent
s or
oth
ers
87.5
0F
ails
to
reco
gniz
e th
e in
terd
epen
denc
e be
twee
n te
ache
r an
d st
uden
t ac
tion
s85
.00
Enf
orce
s pr
eset
sta
ndar
ds o
f op
erat
ion
wit
hout
ada
ptin
g or
res
truc
turi
ng b
ased
on
stud
ents
’ re
spon
ses
85.0
0F
ails
to
cons
ider
dif
feri
ng n
eeds
of
lear
ners
85.0
0D
oes
not
thou
ghtf
ully
con
nect
tea
chin
g ac
tion
s w
ith
stud
ent
lear
ning
or
beha
vior
82.5
0S
ees
ones
elf
as a
vic
tim
of
circ
umst
ance
s82
.50
Doe
s no
t su
ppor
t be
lief
s an
d as
sert
ions
wit
h ev
iden
ce f
rom
exp
erie
nce,
the
ory
or r
esea
rch
82.5
0Is
pre
occu
pied
wit
h m
anag
emen
t, co
ntro
l an
d st
uden
t co
mpl
ianc
e80
.00
Des
crib
es p
robl
ems
sim
plis
tica
lly
or u
nidi
men
sion
ally
77.5
0D
oes
not
see
beyo
nd i
mm
edia
te d
eman
ds o
f a
teac
hing
epi
sode
72.5
0F
ocus
es o
n is
olat
ed f
acts
, eve
nts,
or
data
wit
hout
bro
ader
und
erst
andi
nga
67.5
0D
efen
ds r
athe
r th
an a
naly
zes
teac
hing
pra
ctic
esa
65.0
0R
espo
nds
to c
onfl
icts
wit
h po
wer
ass
erti
ons
rath
er t
han
enga
ging
in
prob
lem
-sol
ving
a65
.00
Just
ifie
s te
achi
ng m
etho
ds w
itho
ut e
xplo
ring
alt
erna
tive
sa65
.00
Res
pond
s to
cla
ssro
om s
itua
tion
s w
itho
ut c
onne
ctin
g th
em t
o ot
her
even
tsa
62.5
0A
ppli
es p
rede
term
ined
tex
t te
mpl
ates
for
ass
essi
ng i
nfor
mat
iona
62.5
0M
akes
dec
isio
ns b
ased
on
imm
edia
te c
ircu
mst
ance
s fa
ilin
g to
ant
icip
ate
for
the
futu
rea
60.0
0U
ses
self
-con
firm
ing
reas
onin
g ra
ther
tha
n co
nsid
erin
g al
tern
ativ
e pl
ausi
ble
expl
anat
ions
a57
.50
Lev
el 2
. Sur
face
ref
lect
ion
Rea
cts
to s
tude
nt r
espo
nses
dif
fere
ntia
lly
but
fail
s to
rec
ogni
ze p
atte
rns
90.0
Lim
its
anal
ysis
of
teac
hing
pra
ctic
es t
o te
chni
cal
ques
tion
s ab
out
teac
hing
tec
hniq
ues
82.5
Mod
ifie
s te
achi
ng s
trat
egie
s w
itho
ut c
hall
engi
ng u
nder
lyin
g as
sum
ptio
ns a
bout
tea
chin
g an
d le
arni
ng82
.5
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 351Ta
ble
1.(C
onti
nued
).
Pra
ctic
e in
dica
tors
Per
cent
of
rate
rs
Adj
usts
tea
chin
g pr
acti
ces
only
to
curr
ent
situ
atio
n w
itho
ut d
evel
opin
g a
long
-ter
m p
lan
80.0
Sup
port
s be
lief
s on
ly w
ith
evid
ence
fro
m e
xper
ienc
e80
.0P
rovi
des
lim
ited
acc
omm
odat
ions
for
stu
dent
s’ d
iffe
rent
lea
rnin
g st
yles
75.0
Que
stio
ns t
he u
tili
ty o
f sp
ecif
ic t
each
ing
prac
tice
s bu
t no
t ge
nera
l po
lici
es o
r pr
acti
ces
72.5
Impl
emen
ts s
olut
ions
to
prob
lem
s th
at f
ocus
onl
y on
sho
rt-t
erm
res
ults
70.0
Mak
es a
djus
tmen
ts b
ased
on
past
exp
erie
nce
65.0
Fai
ls t
o co
nnec
t sp
ecif
ic m
etho
ds t
o un
derl
ying
the
ory
52.5
Pro
vide
s so
me
diff
eren
tiat
ed i
nstr
ucti
on t
o ad
dres
s st
uden
ts’
indi
vidu
al d
iffe
renc
es52
.5
Lev
el 3
. Ped
agog
ical
ref
lect
ion
See
ks w
ays
to c
onne
ct n
ew c
once
pts
to s
tude
nts’
pri
or k
now
ledg
e85
.0A
naly
zes
the
impa
ct o
f ta
sk s
truc
ture
s, s
uch
as c
oope
rati
ve l
earn
ing
grou
ps, p
artn
er, p
eer
or o
ther
gr
oupi
ngs,
on
stud
ents
’ le
arni
ng82
.5
Ana
lyze
s re
lati
onsh
ip b
etw
een
teac
hing
pra
ctic
es a
nd s
tude
nt l
earn
ing
80.0
Ack
now
ledg
es w
hat
stud
ent
brin
gs t
o th
e le
arni
ng p
roce
ss75
.0H
as c
omm
itm
ent
to c
onti
nuou
s le
arni
ng a
nd i
mpr
oved
pra
ctic
e75
.0H
as g
enui
ne c
urio
sity
abo
ut t
he e
ffec
tive
ness
of
teac
hing
pra
ctic
es, l
eadi
ng t
o ex
peri
men
tati
on a
ndri
sk t
akin
g72
.5
Rec
ogni
zes
the
com
plex
ity
of c
lass
room
dyn
amic
s72
.5S
earc
hes
for
patt
erns
, rel
atio
nshi
ps a
nd c
onne
ctio
ns t
o de
epen
und
erst
andi
ng70
.0Id
enti
fies
alt
erna
tive
way
s of
rep
rese
ntin
g id
eas
and
conc
epts
to
stud
ents
70.0
Str
ives
to
enha
nce
lear
ning
for
all
stu
dent
s70
.0E
ngag
es i
n co
nstr
ucti
ve c
riti
cism
of
one’
s ow
n te
achi
ng65
.0C
onsi
ders
stu
dent
s’ p
ersp
ecti
ves
in d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
62.5
Adj
usts
met
hods
and
str
ateg
ies
base
d on
stu
dent
s’ r
elat
ive
perf
orm
ance
57.5
See
s te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
as
rem
aini
ng o
pen
to f
urth
er i
nves
tiga
tion
55.0
Ack
now
ledg
es g
ap b
etw
een
wha
t is
bei
ng a
ccom
plis
hed
and
wha
t ne
eds
to b
e ac
com
plis
hed
a52
.5A
ccep
ts r
espo
nsib
ilit
y fo
r on
e’s
prof
essi
onal
pra
ctic
e an
d le
arni
ng o
utco
mes
a52
.5
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
352 B. LarriveeTa
ble
1.(C
onti
nued
).
Pra
ctic
e in
dica
tors
Per
cent
of
rate
rs
Lev
el 4
. Cri
tica
l re
flec
tion
Cha
llen
ges
stat
us q
uo n
orm
s an
d pr
acti
ces,
esp
ecia
lly
wit
h re
spec
t to
pow
er a
nd c
ontr
ol97
.5V
iew
s pr
acti
ce w
ithi
n th
e br
oade
r so
ciol
ogic
al, c
ultu
ral,
hist
oric
al, a
nd p
olit
ical
con
text
s97
.5A
ddre
sses
iss
ues
of e
quit
y an
d so
cial
jus
tice
tha
t ar
ise
in a
nd o
utsi
de o
f th
e cl
assr
oom
95.0
Con
side
rs t
he e
thic
al r
amif
icat
ions
of
clas
sroo
m p
olic
ies
and
prac
tice
s87
.5A
ckno
wle
dges
the
soc
ial
and
poli
tica
l co
nseq
uenc
es o
f on
e’s
teac
hing
82.5
Ack
now
ledg
es th
at te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
and
pol
icie
s ca
n ei
ther
con
trib
ute
to, o
r hi
nder
, the
rea
liza
tion
of
a m
ore
just
and
hum
ane
soci
ety
82.5
Obs
erve
s se
lf i
n th
e pr
oces
s of
thi
nkin
g67
.5Is
aw
are
of i
ncon
grue
nce
betw
een
beli
efs
and
acti
ons
and
take
s ac
tion
to
rect
ify
65.0
Cha
llen
ges
assu
mpt
ions
abo
ut s
tude
nts
and
expe
ctat
ions
for
stu
dent
s62
.5E
ncou
rage
s so
cial
ly r
espo
nsib
le a
ctio
ns i
n th
eir
stud
ents
62.5
Rec
ogni
zes
assu
mpt
ions
and
pre
mis
es u
nder
lyin
g be
lief
s60
.0Is
an
acti
ve i
nqui
rer,
bot
h cr
itiq
uing
cur
rent
con
clus
ions
and
gen
erat
ing
new
hyp
othe
ses
60.0
Cal
ls c
omm
only
-hel
d be
lief
s in
to q
uest
ion
60.0
Sus
pend
s ju
dgm
ents
to
cons
ider
all
opt
ions
57.5
a Ite
m n
ot i
nclu
ded
in fi
nal
surv
ey.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 353
Pra
ctic
e In
dic
ato
rsF
or e
ach
indi
cato
r, se
lect
the
ratin
g th
at r
epre
sent
s th
e cu
rren
t pra
ctic
e of
this
teac
her/
teac
her
cand
idat
e.
yltne
uqerf
nIse
mitem
oS
yltne
uqer
FN
OIT
CE
LF
ER-
ER
P : 1 L
EV
EL
Ope
rate
s in
sur
viva
l mod
e, r
eact
ing
auto
mat
ical
ly w
ithou
t con
side
ratio
n of
alte
rnat
ive
resp
onse
s
Enf
orce
s pr
eset
sta
ndar
ds o
f op
erat
ion
with
out a
dapt
ing
or r
estr
uctu
ring
bas
ed o
n st
uden
tsÌ r
espo
nses
Doe
s no
t sup
port
bel
iefs
and
ass
ertio
ns w
ith e
vide
nce
from
exp
erie
nce,
theo
ry o
r re
sear
ch
Is w
illin
g to
take
thin
gs f
or g
rant
ed w
ithou
t que
stio
ning
Is p
reoc
cupi
ed w
ith m
anag
emen
t, co
ntro
l and
stu
dent
com
plia
nce
Fails
to r
ecog
nize
the
inte
rdep
ende
nce
betw
een
teac
her
and
stud
ent a
ctio
ns
Vie
ws
stud
ent a
nd c
lass
room
cir
cum
stan
ces
as b
eyon
d th
e te
ache
rÌs
cont
rol
Attr
ibut
es o
wne
rshi
p of
pro
blem
s to
stu
dent
s or
oth
ers
Fails
to c
onsi
der
diff
erin
g ne
eds
of le
arne
rs
Sees
one
self
as
a vi
ctim
of
circ
umst
ance
s
Dis
mis
ses
stud
ents
Ì per
spec
tives
with
out d
ue c
onsi
dera
tion
Doe
s no
t tho
ught
fully
con
nect
teac
hing
act
ions
with
stu
dent
lear
ning
or
beha
vior
Des
crib
es p
robl
ems
sim
plis
tical
ly o
r un
idim
ensi
onal
ly
Doe
s no
t see
bey
ond
imm
edia
te d
eman
ds o
f a
teac
hing
epi
sode
yl tne
uqerf
nIse
mi tem
oS
yltne
uqer
FN
OIT
CE
LF
ER
EC
AF
RU
S : 2 L
EV
EL
Lim
its a
naly
sis
of te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
to te
chni
cal q
uest
ions
abo
ut te
achi
ng te
chni
ques
Mod
ifie
s te
achi
ng s
trat
egie
s w
ithou
t cha
lleng
ing
unde
rlyi
ng a
ssum
ptio
ns a
bout
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
Fails
to c
onne
ct s
peci
fic
met
hods
to u
nder
lyin
g th
eory
Supp
orts
bel
iefs
onl
y w
ith e
vide
nce
from
exp
erie
nce
Prov
ides
lim
ited
acco
mm
odat
ions
for
stu
dent
sÌ d
iffe
rent
lear
ning
sty
les
Rea
cts
to s
tude
nt r
espo
nses
dif
fere
ntia
lly b
ut f
ails
to r
ecog
nize
pat
tern
s
Adj
usts
teac
hing
pra
ctic
es o
nly
to c
urre
nt s
ituat
ion
with
out d
evel
opin
g a
long
-ter
m p
lan
Impl
emen
ts s
olut
ions
to p
robl
ems
that
foc
us o
nly
on s
hort
-ter
m r
esul
ts
Mak
es a
djus
tmen
ts b
ased
on
past
exp
erie
nce
Que
stio
ns th
e ut
ility
of
spec
ific
teac
hing
pra
ctic
es b
ut n
ot g
ener
al p
olic
ies
or p
ract
ices
Prov
ides
som
e di
ffer
entia
ted
inst
ruct
ion
to a
ddre
ss s
tude
nts'
indi
vidu
al d
iffe
renc
es
Cop
yrig
ht 2
006
© B
arba
ra L
arri
vee
Ass
essm
ent
Cri
teri
a
Su
rvey
of
Ref
lect
ive
Pra
ctic
e: A
To
ol f
or
Ass
essi
ng
Dev
elo
pm
ent
as a
Ref
lect
ive
Pra
ctit
ion
er
Fac
ilita
tor
Ass
essm
ent
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
354 B. Larrivee
����������������
��������������� ����������
���������
���
��
������������
����������
����������������������
���
�����
���
����
��
� ��
�
����
��
���
��
��
��
��
���
��
��
��
�
��
!�
�
����
���
��
������
����
���
��
�� ��
���
���
����
��
����
��
����
�
�
����
���
��
����
����
���
��
��
����
�
���
��
���
��
������
���
�����
��
��
����
���
��
����
�����
���
���
���
���
����
���
��
���
���
����
���
��
���
��
���
���
�����
����
��
����
����
����
���
���
���
���
�����
����
����
��
���
����
���
��
����
���
��
�� ��
�
�� �
��
��
���
���
��
����
����
����
�����
��
���
���
��
���
����
����
���
�
���
���
��
���
��
���
����
� ��
�����
���
���
����
���
����
��
��
����
�
�
���
����
���
��
�����
�!��
��
���
���
� ��
��
��
��
���
������
���
���
������
����
����
���
����
���
���
�
���
���
���
���
���������
���
���
���
���
��
���
��
���
�
"���
���
����
��
���
��
���
��
���
������
����
���
���
���
��
��
����
�
#��
�����
��
���
����
���
��
����
����
�����
���
���
���
������
� �
�����
��
���
�
���
����
���
����
$����
��
��
����
�!��
����
����
�����
����
��
����
�
���
��
�� ��
���
���
����
��
�����
�����
���
�
�����
���
���
���
�����
���
����
��
� ��
�
����
��
���
��
��
��
��
����
��
�"
��
!�
�
%��
��
��
���
��
� ��
�
��
���
����
���
���
�����
���
�� ��
��
����
���
�������
���
��
��
$����
��
�
��
��
���
���
���
����
��
����
����
������
����
���
���
��
����
����
����
����
�&���
���
����
�� �
���
�
��
���
����
����
���
��
�
����
����
$ ��
������
��
��
&��
���
���
���
���
�����
���
�����
��
���
���
���
���
���
�
��
'���
���
����
��
���
����
��
��
���
�
"���
��
��
����
���
����
��
���
����
����
���
������
���
����
�����
��
���
�
���
���
������
�
����
����
��������
���
���
&���
���
��
���!
��
�� ��
�
"���
�����
��&��
����
���&
���
���
��
��
���
���
���
���
���
��
���
���
���
����
$ ��
������
����
������
�����
����
���
���
���
�����
��
�����
�
����
����
����
���
���
���
��
���������
#��
�����
����
���
�����
���
��
���
������
����
����
����
$��
����
��
����
� ��
����
����
���
&���
���
���
���
������
�
���
��
���
���
����
�������
����
���
�
���
����
���
��
��
�
��
����
���
���
��
��
��
���
��
���
����
��
����
��
���
����
����
���
����
���
������
��
��
�����
�
�����������������
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 355
����������������
��������������� ���������������������� ������ ��
�������������������
���
����������������������
����
��������
���
����
���
�������
��
����������
����
������
��������
��
������
����
����
����
�� ��������
��������
�������������������������
����
�������
���������
�����������������������
����������������������
�����
�������
����
����
���
������������
�����������������
���
�����
���������
�����
������������
����������
��������������������������������
��������
�������� �
���
�����
�����
�����
���
����
��
�����
������
�� �����������
���
��������
����
���
������
���
����
!��������
��
���������
���� ���
�����
���
���������
���"�
������
#��������������
���������� ���
����
����������
�����
����
�����
����������
�����������
$��
���������
������
������ ���
���
��� ���������
��������
�������
����������
���������
����
��������������
��
�����
�����
������������
������������
�����
���������
������ ��� �����������
�����
��������
����
��������
���
��
����
��
����������
�����
�����
��������
���
����
���
� ������
��
���������
�� �
�!��
"�����
%�
����
������������
������������
������
����
���������
������
�������
����
&�����������
���������������������
�����������������
�������
������
����
�������
�����
����
��
���
������
��������
�����������
��
$�������������
���
������
���
�����
���������
'�������
�� ����
����
��������������
�����������������������
(��
�����
����
�����
�����������������
���������
����
�� ��������
#�)�������
������������
���
���
���
�����������������
����������*���
���
� ��� �
����
�������
������ �����
���
����
���
���*���
���
���
&��
����
)�� �
�������
�������
�������
+���������������
����
������
����
������������
������
����
��������
�����������
'�������
�� ��������������
����������
�������
����
��,��������
���������
�
���#� ����������#���������� ������� ������$%�#���&��������������#������������
���� ��������
����������������
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
356 B. Larrivee
Pra
ctic
e In
dic
ato
rs
For
eac
h in
dica
tor,
sele
ct th
e ra
ting
you
thin
k be
st r
epre
sent
s yo
ur c
urre
nt p
ract
ice.
I am
a te
ache
r/te
ache
r ca
ndid
ate
who
:
y ltne
uq erf
nIse
m item
oS
y ltne
uqer
FN
OIT
CE
LF
ER
LA
C IG
OG
AD
EP : 3
LE
VE
L
Ana
lyze
s re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
and
stu
dent
lear
ning
Stri
ves
to e
nhan
ce le
arni
ng f
or a
ll st
uden
ts
Seek
s w
ays
to c
onne
ct n
ew c
once
pts
to s
tude
nts'
pri
or k
now
ledg
e
Has
gen
uine
cur
iosi
ty a
bout
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
teac
hing
pra
ctic
es, l
eadi
ng to
exp
erim
enta
tion
and
risk
-tak
ing
Eng
ages
in c
onst
ruct
ive
criti
cism
of
one'
s ow
n te
achi
ng
Adj
usts
met
hods
and
str
ateg
ies
base
d on
stu
dent
s' r
elat
ive
perf
orm
ance
Ana
lyze
s th
e im
pact
of
task
str
uctu
res,
suc
h as
coo
pera
tive
lear
ning
gro
ups,
par
tner
, pee
r or
oth
er g
roup
ings
, on
stud
ents
í lea
rnin
g
Sear
ches
for
pat
tern
s, r
elat
ions
hips
and
con
nect
ions
to d
eepe
n un
ders
tand
ing
Has
com
mitm
ent t
o co
ntin
uous
lear
ning
and
impr
oved
pra
ctic
e
Iden
tifie
s al
tern
ativ
e w
ays
of r
epre
sent
ing
idea
s an
d co
ncep
ts to
stu
dent
s
Rec
ogni
zes
the
com
plex
ity o
f cl
assr
oom
dyn
amic
s
Ack
now
ledg
es w
hat s
tude
nt b
ring
s to
the
lear
ning
pro
cess
Con
side
rs s
tude
ntsí
per
spec
tives
in d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
Sees
teac
hing
pra
ctic
es a
s re
mai
ning
ope
n to
fur
ther
inve
stig
atio
n
yl tne
uqerf
nIse
mitem
oS
yltne
uqer
FN
OIT
CE
LF
ER
LA
CITI
RC : 4
LE
VE
L
Vie
ws
prac
tice
with
in th
e br
oade
r so
ciol
ogic
al, c
ultu
ral,
hist
oric
al, a
nd p
oliti
cal c
onte
xts
Con
side
rs th
e et
hica
l ram
ific
atio
ns o
f cl
assr
oom
pol
icie
s an
d pr
actic
es
Add
ress
es is
sues
of
equi
ty a
nd s
ocia
l jus
tice
that
ari
se in
and
out
side
of
the
clas
sroo
m
Cha
lleng
es s
tatu
s qu
o no
rms
and
prac
tices
, esp
ecia
lly w
ith r
espe
ct to
pow
er a
nd c
ontr
ol
Obs
erve
s se
lf in
the
proc
ess
of th
inki
ng
Is a
war
e of
inco
ngru
ence
bet
wee
n be
liefs
and
act
ions
and
take
s ac
tion
to r
ectif
y
Ack
now
ledg
es th
e so
cial
and
pol
itica
l con
sequ
ence
s of
one
ís te
achi
ng
Is a
n ac
tive
inqu
irer
, bot
h cr
itiqu
ing
curr
ent c
oncl
usio
ns a
nd g
ener
atin
g ne
w h
ypot
hese
s
Cha
lleng
es a
ssum
ptio
ns a
bout
stu
dent
s an
d ex
pect
atio
ns f
or s
tude
nts
Susp
ends
judg
men
ts to
con
side
r al
l opt
ions
Rec
ogni
zes
assu
mpt
ions
and
pre
mis
es u
nder
lyin
g be
liefs
Cal
ls c
omm
only
-hel
d be
liefs
into
que
stio
n
Ack
now
ledg
es th
at te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
and
pol
icie
s ca
n ei
ther
con
trib
ute
to, o
r hi
nder
, the
rea
lizat
ion
of a
mor
e ju
st a
nd h
uman
e so
ciet
y
Enc
oura
ges
soci
ally
res
pons
ible
act
ions
in th
eir
stud
ents
Ass
essm
ent
Cri
teri
a
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 357
Act
ion
Pla
n f
or
Imp
rove
d P
ract
ice
Sel
ecte
d R
efle
ctiv
e P
ract
ice
Ind
icat
ors
Act
ion
Ste
ps
F
acili
tato
r/M
ento
r:
T
each
er/T
each
er C
and
idat
e:
Fig
ure
1.S
urve
y of
ref
lect
ive
prac
tice
: a
tool
for
ass
essi
ng d
evel
opm
ent
as a
ref
lect
ive
prac
titi
oner
.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
358 B. Larrivee
Figure 1. Survey of reflective practice: a tool for assessing development as a reflective practitioner.Potential use of the survey
The purpose of this research was to construct an assessment tool that could be used toestablish the level of reflection engaged in by a teacher candidate or a practicing teacher.Establishing an entry level would allow a supervisor/mentor to then develop interventionstrategies to facilitate movement towards higher levels of reflection.
This instrument can provide a more concrete process for assessing how a prospective orpracticing teacher is developing as a reflective practitioner and can serve as a tool for creat-ing explicit structures to mediate higher order reflection. With strategic scaffolding devel-oping teachers can be helped to reflect on, and modify, their teaching practices to addressclassroom concerns.
A potential use of the Survey of reflective practice: A tool for assessing development asa reflective practitioner could be in a collaborative dialogue format to jointly set goals thatwould facilitate movement towards becoming a reflective practitioner.
One recommended process to utilize the survey as an effective assessment and planningtool would be to engage in the following steps.
● Step 1. A teacher candidate/teacher and supervisor/mentor independently complete theirrespective versions of the survey. (Note it is assumed that the teacher candidate/teacherwould have knowledge from their teacher education program regarding development ofreflective practice as well as the specific categories of reflection defined in the survey.)
● Step 2. In a collaborative dialogue format they share and discuss their ratings.● Step 3. They jointly set mutually agreeable goals that would lead to greater reflection
on teaching practices.● Step 4. They complete the action plan for improved practice, identifying selected
reflective practice indicators and the action steps both will take to accomplish thedesired change.
Notes on contributorBarbara Larrivee is a Professor in the College of Education at California State University. Her currentresearch focuses on developing structures for enhancing critical reflection on classroom behavior andinfusing personal beliefs and values into a professional identity. Other areas of interest include creat-ing a learning community based on respectful dialogue and authentic communication, classroommanagement, and conflict resolution.
ReferencesBartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J.C. Richards & D. Nunan
(Eds.), Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Boyd, P.C., Boll, M., & Brawner, L. (1998). Becoming reflective professionals: An exploration of
preservice teachers’ struggles as they translate language theory into practice. Action in TeacherEducation, 19(4), 61–75.
Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Cole, A.L., & Knowles, J.G. (2000). Researching teaching: Exploring teacher development through
reflective inquiry. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Collier, S.T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching experience.
Journal of Teacher Education, 50(3), 173–181.Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development.
British Educational Research Journal, 19, 83–93.Day, C. (1999). Researching teaching through reflective practice. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching
teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 215–232). London:Farmer Press.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
Reflective Practice 359
Dobbins, R. (1996). The challenge of developing a ‘reflective practicum’. Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 24(3), 269–280.
Farrell, T.S. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflective breaks for busy teachers. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Griffin, M.L. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in preserviceteachers. Reflective Practice, 4(2), 207–220.
Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching. Milton Keynes, UK: Open UniversityPress.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implemen-tation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 22–49.
Hoover, L.A. (1994). Reflective writing as a window on preservice teachers’ thought processes.Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 83–93.
Hunter, J., & Hatton, N. (1998). Approaches to the writing of cases: Experience with preservicemaster of education students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 235–246.
Jay, J.K. (2003). Quality teaching: Reflection as the heart of practice. Lanham, MD: ScarecrowPress.
Jay, J.K., & Johnson, K.L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice forteacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 73–85.
Johnston, M. (1994). Contrasts and similarities in case studies of teacher reflection and change.Curriculum Inquiry, 24(1), 9–26.
Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1991, April). Characteristics of reflective practitioners: Towards anoperationalization of the concept of reflection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher.Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307.
Larrivee, B. (2004, June). Assessing teachers’ level of reflective practice as a tool for change. Paperpresented at the Third International Conference on Reflective Practice, Gloucester, UK.
Larrivee, B. (2005). Authentic classroom management: Creating a learning community and buildingreflective practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Larrivee, B. (2006a). An educator’s guide to teacher reflection. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Larrivee, B. (2006b). The convergence of reflective practice and effective classroom management.
In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice,and contemporary issues (pp. 983–1001). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Meeting the challenge of preparing reflective practitioners. The New Educator,4(2), 1–20.
Nais, J. (1987). Learning from difference: A college approach to change. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Educatingteachers (pp. 137–152). New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Osterman, K.P., & Kottkamp, R.B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Improving schoolingthrough professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Parker, S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the postmodern world: A manifesto for education in post-modernity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Pultorak, E.G. (1993). Facilitating reflective thought in novice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education,19, 288–295.
Pultorak, E.G. (1996). Following the developmental process of reflection in novice teacher: Threeyears of investigation. Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 283–291.
Reagan, T.G., Case, C.W., & Brubacher, J.W. (2000). Becoming a reflective educator: How to builda culture of inquiry in the schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rhine, S., & Bryant, J. (2007). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ reflective practice with digitalvideo-based dialogue. Reflective Practice, 8(3), 345–358.
Ross, D.D. (1990). Programmatic structures for the preparation of reflective teachers. In R.T. Clift,W.R. Houston, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analy-sis of issues and programs (pp. 97–118). New York: Teachers College Press.
Rudney, G., & Guillaume, A. (1990). Reflective teaching for student teachers. The Teacher Educator,25(3), 13–20.
Russell, T. (2005). Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice, 6(2), 199–204.Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011
360 B. Larrivee
Smith, D., & Hatton, N. (1993). Reflection in teacher education: A study in progress. EducationResearch and Perspectives, 19, 13–23.
Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal ofTeacher Education, 40(2), 2–9.
Smyth, J. (1991). Teachers as collaborative learners. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Smyth, J. (1992). Teacher’s work and the politics of reflection. American Education Research
Journal, 29(2), 267–300.Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that
encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1393–1421.Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5(3),
327–343.Trotman, J., & Kerr, T. (2001). Making the personal professional: Pre-service teacher education and
personal histories. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(2), 157–171.Valli, L. (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques. New York: SUNY Press.Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United States.
Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67–88.Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry,
6(3), 205–228.Walkington, J. (2005). Becoming a teacher: Encouraging development of teacher identity through
reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 53–64.Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to
teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of EducationalResearch, 68(2), 130–178.
Wiltz, N.W. (1999, April). Reflective journaling: A tool for promoting professional development instudent teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Montreal, Canada.
Wunder, S. (2003). Preservice teachers reflections on learning to teach elementary social studies.Reflective Practice, 4(2), 193–206.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W.A., Ghere, G.S., & Montie, J. (2006). Reflective practice to improveschools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Yost, D.S. (1997). The moral dimensions of teaching and preservice teachers: Can moral disposi-tions be influenced? Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 281–292.
Yost, D.S., Forlenza-Bailey, A., & Shaw, S.F. (1999). The teachers who embrace diversity: The roleof reflection, discourse, and field experience in education. The Professional Educator, 21(2), 1–14.
Yost, D.S., Sentner, S.M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of criticalreflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal ofTeacher Education, 51(1), 39–48.
Zeichner, K.M., & Liston, D.P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:57 20 January 2011