Reflective Theory_and Practice in _Teacher Education

Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17 Robyn Brandenburg Kathryn Glasswell · Mellita Jones Josephine Ryan Editors Re ective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education

Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices Volume 17 Series editor John Loughran, Monash University, Clayton, Australia Advisory board Mary Lynn Hamilton, University of Kansas, USA Ruth Kane, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Geert Kelchtermans, University of Leuven, Belgium Fred Korthagen, IVLOS Institute of Education, The Netherlands Tom Russell, Queen’s University, Canada

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7072

Robyn Brandenburg  •  Kathryn Glasswell Mellita Jones  •  Josephine Ryan Editors Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education

Editors Kathryn Glasswell Robyn Brandenburg California State University Fullerton Federation University Australia Fullerton, CA, USA Ballarat, VIC, Australia Josephine Ryan Mellita Jones Australian Catholic University Australian Catholic University Melbourne, VIC, Australia Ballarat, VIC, Australia ISSN 1875-3620     ISSN 2215-1850 (electronic) Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices ISBN 978-981-10-3429-9    ISBN 978-981-10-3431-2 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936209 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Foreword Reflection is a topic that, over time, has consistently attracted attention in teaching and teacher education. John Dewey (1933) certainly drew serious attention to the notion of reflection in a powerful manner, not least because his views on the topic emerged at a time when differentiating between teaching as transmission and teach- ing for understanding was crucial to arguments about the nature, expectations and valuing of teaching itself. Over the last 100 years or so, the bandwagon of reflection (as Smyth (1992) once described it) has rolled through a number of times. Despite the bandwagon rolling though, the ideas of one of the most influential scholars, Donald Schön (1983, 1987), have endured because he, like Dewey before him, pushed back against tech- nical-rational approaches to practice and focused his attention on the often ‘unseen’ knowledge, skills and abilities essential to expertise. Through the ideas of reflection on and reflection in practice, Schön created a new way of seeing into the world of reflective practice. By introducing the ideas of fram- ing and reframing, he helped to make real and concrete the point that reflection is so much more than merely ‘looking back on an experience’ or wistfully thinking about events. Framing and reframing were ideas that helped to put problem setting in context and illustrated the importance of becoming better informed about situations rather than simply seeking a solution. The ability to see and develop alternative perspectives on situations as a conse- quence of a consideration of reframing illustrated well the centrality of reflection as a specialized aspect of expert practice. Further to this, Schön’s explication of reflec- tion in practice created new opportunities to better recognize, understand and por- tray the tacit knowledge that Polanyi (1966) identified as so important to teachers’ professional knowledge. For teaching and teacher education in particular, reflection in practice offered new insights into pedagogical reasoning and illustrated why teaching is so much more than simply the ‘act of doing’. Seeing beyond teaching as doing is one of the great challenges for teacher educa- tion. Teacher educators experience this challenge when working to meet the imme- diate needs of students of teaching whilst needing to go beyond those needs and set higher understanding of, and expectations for, practice. v

vi Foreword It has been well recognized that reflection is a cornerstone for a pedagogy of teacher education (Loughran, 2006). In working within the crucible of teaching and learning about teaching, the very experiences of learning to teach offer a context through which reflection comes to the fore. As teacher educators develop their knowledge of teaching through their practice, their pedagogy of teacher education develops. With reflection as a major shaping force in that development of knowl- edge and practice, students of teaching are given opportunities to see into their shared experiences of learning and teaching in ways that illustrate how teaching is so much more than doing. The authors of this book make clear that taking reflection seriously is crucial to developing deeper understandings not only of teaching but also of the complex work of teaching. Within these chapters, the insights into teaching and learning about teaching abound, not least because reflection is conceptualized, understood and practised as something more than a ‘teaching tool’, it exists in Deweyan terms as an attitude – an attitude that fosters the development of knowledge. When teaching and teacher education is well understood and highly valued, it is not surprising that reflection and reflective practice appear to be at its core. In the work of teacher education, it is not difficult to see how the rhetoric of reflection can create a bandwagon effect. It is important that teacher educators ensure that reflec- tion is not simply rhetoric; they need to continually model for their students of teaching how reflection shapes the development of expertise. It is not experience but reflection on experience that builds the knowledge, skills and abilities of expert practitioners. The editors of this book have brought together a strong group of authors who are striving to make that clear to those with whom they work and to those who follow their research efforts. This is a book that says much about reflection on teaching and learning and does so in a thoughtful and well-informed manner. It is a book that speaks well to the importance of teaching and teacher education and, in so doing, illustrates why they need to be more highly valued and prized. Monash University John Loughran Clayton, VIC, Australia References Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City: Doubleday. 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: Jossey-Bass. Smyth, W. J. (1992). Teachers’ work and the politics of reflection. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 267–300.

Acknowledgements The editors wish to acknowledge each of the authors contributing to this volume. You have each worked closely to our timelines and been exceptionally accommo- dating of our requests. Collectively, your contributions provide a rigorous and con- temporary look at the theories and practices of reflection in teacher education. Your work provides multiple paths forward for the effective use of reflective practice in the work of teacher educators, and it reflects your commitment to excellence in your own learning and teaching. A huge thank you to the reviewers who participated in the double-blind peer review that was undertaken for each chapter contributed to this volume. The feed- back provided on the initial drafts of each chapter was conducted in a constructive and timely manner. Your input has helped increase the quality of the work presented in this book. To our students and colleagues who question and challenge us and who support our work  – thank you for helping us maintain our own critical reflection on our practice. To our families who are forever enduring life with an academic – where would we be without you? vii

Blind Peer Each chapter presented in this book has undergone a double-blind peer review. Chapters were distributed without author identification to two reviewers, expert in the field of teacher education. Each author revised their work on the basis of these reviews. ix

Contents Part I  Big Picture Perspectives on Reflective Practice 1 Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory Practice.......................................................... 3 Kathryn Glasswell and Josephine Ryan 2 Reflective Practice: Epistemological Perspectives on Learning from Experience in Teacher Education............................ 27 Tom Russell and Andrea K. Martin 3 Let’s Stay in the Swamp: Poststructural Feminist Reflective Practice.................................................................................... 49 Lesley Coia and Monica Taylor 4 Reflective Practice: Ancient Wisdom and Practice— Australian Indigenous Reflections in Teacher Education Through Shared Storying........................................................................ 63 Nerida Blair and Brooke Collins-Gearing 5 Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative Self-Study................................................................ 85 Julian Kitchen Part II  Enacting Reflective Practice with Teacher Learners 6 How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice............................................................... 103 Joseph C. Senese 7 Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy in Primary Schools...................... 119 Karen McLean xi

xii Contents 8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action....................................................................................... 141 Erica Bowers, Barbara Laster, Debra Gurvitz, Tammy Ryan, Jeanne Cobb, and JoAnne Vazzano 9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Learning to Teach for Social Justice................................ 161 Sarah Schneider Kavanagh Part III  Enacting Reflection in Teacher Educator Practice 10 Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice........................................................... 179 Mellita Jones 11 The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice................................................................. 205 Mellita Jones and Josephine Ryan 12 Using Critical Incidents to Reflect on Teacher Educator Practice...................................................................................................... 223 Robyn Brandenburg and Sharon McDonough 13 Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision of Master’s Projects.......................... 237 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir, Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, and Karen Rut Gísladóttir Part IV  Conclusion 1 4 Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education............................................................................... 259 Robyn Brandenburg and Mellita Jones A uthor Index.................................................................................................... 275 S ubject Index.................................................................................................... 281

Contributors Editorial Team Robyn Brandenburg  Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC, Australia Kathryn Glasswell  California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA Mellita Jones  Australian Catholic University, Ballarat, VIC, Australia Josephine Ryan  Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Additional Authors Nerida Blair  Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, Australia Erica Bowers  California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA Jeanne Cobb  Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, USA Lesley Coia  Agnes Scott College, Decatur, GA, USA Brooke Collins-Gearing  University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia Karen Rut Gísladóttir  University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir  University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland Debra Gurvitz  Independent Education Consultant, Chicago, IL, USA Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir  University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland Sarah Schneider Kavanagh  University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Julian Kitchen  Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada xiii

xiv Contributors Barbara Laster  Towson University, Towson, MD, USA Andrea  K.  Martin  Queen’s University Faculty of Education, Kingston, ON, Canada Sharon McDonough  Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC, Australia Karen McLean  Australian Catholic University, Ballarat, VIC, Australia Tom Russell  Queen’s University Faculty of Education, Kingston, ON, Canada Tammy Ryan  Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, USA Joseph C. Senese  Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Monica Taylor  Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA JoAnne Vazzano  Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago, IL, USA

About the Authors Editorial Team Robyn Brandenburg Federation University Australia, Victoria, Australia Associate Professor Robyn Brandenburg is a teacher-educator/researcher in the Faculty of Education and Arts at Federation University Australia. For the past 15 years, she has taught mathematics education and professional experience courses in the Bachelor of Education. Her research, based on self-study methodology, has focused on developing ‘better pedagogies’ in tertiary education and particularly the role of reflective practice and student feedback in enhancing teaching quality and impact. She has published extensively and presented her research nationally and internationally. Her book, Powerful Pedagogy: Self-Study of a Teacher Educator’s Practice (Springer Publishing, 2008), has been widely acclaimed. Robyn has received many awards for her teaching and research, including the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Teaching Excellence (2011) and an Australian Learning and Teaching Council National Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning (2010), and in 2013, she was awarded an Australian Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) National Teaching Excellence Award. Kathryn Glasswell California State University Fullerton, California, USA Associate Professor Kath Glasswell works in reading and literacy education at California State University, Fullerton. Her research is focused on teacher learning and reflective practice for improving literacy outcomes in low socio-economic, cul- turally and linguistically diverse schools. She has extensive successful experience in building school-university partnerships for knowledge generation in Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Mellita Jones Australian Catholic University, Victoria, Australia Dr. Mellita Jones is the Deputy Head of Education (Victoria) at the Ballarat cam- pus of Australian Catholic University where she also teaches in science teacher education. Her research is concerned with effective teacher education where her xv

xvi About the Authors focus has been on school-university partnerships, reflective practice and authentic uses of technology for personalising learning. Her recent work has involved school-­ based approaches to science teacher education and practicum partnerships for rural and regional teacher education courses. She also has an interest in working with teachers in the Pacific region and has had significant involvement in the Solomon Islands. Mellita has won a number of teaching excellence awards including an Australian Learning and Teaching Council Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning and has reviewed and written teacher education units for UNESCO’s teacher education programme for the Pacific region. Josephine Ryan Australian Catholic University, Victoria, Australia Dr. Josephine Ryan is senior lecturer in English/literacy education at Australian Catholic University, Melbourne campus. Her lifetime engagement with English teaching has led to publication on reading in the contemporary multimodal text environment. As a committed teacher educator, she is currently researching success- ful approaches to teacher education, especially on the significance of school part- nerships and technology to enhance professional knowledge. Her leadership of an Office of Learning and Teaching project, Preservice Teacher Education Partnerships: Creating an Effective Practicum Model for Rural and Regional Preservice Teachers, led to a focus on the value of reflective practice in the online space to develop pre- service teacher learning. In 2014, with ACU colleague, Mellita Jones, she published an edited collection called Successful Teacher Education: Partnerships, Reflective Practice and the Place of Technology (Sense). Additional Authors Nerida Blair Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Associate Professor Nerida (Ned) Blair was born in the Kulin Nation, lives in Darkinjung Country and works in Cammeraygal Country. She is the national direc- tor of Indigenous education for the Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University. Nerida has spent three decades working in higher education institutions in NSW and Victoria and over one decade in the public service Canberra, Department of Education and Department of Foreign Affairs and with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Sydney. Ned’s research interests include Indigenous knowings and Indigenous research methodologies and research- ing in culturally relevant and appropriate ways and contexts. Education is Ned’s passion and she believes education is the most powerful tool that we as Indigenous peoples have to fully engage in a safe and fulfilling lifestyle, education that is par- ticipatory, imagined, creative, holistic, sensual and story based.

About the Authors xvii Erica Bowers California State University Fullerton, California, USA Associate Professor Erica Bowers is the chair of the Department of Literacy and Reading Education in the College of Education and the director of the CSUF Hazel Miller Croy Reading Center. She joined the faculty in the fall of 2006 after complet- ing her Ed.D. in literacy and language at the University of Southern California. Her research agenda includes academic language, English language learners, struggling readers and assessment practices. She has over 10 publications including a book entitled Building Academic Language Through Content Area Texts: Strategies to Support English Language Learners. Prior to her work at CSUF, Dr. Bowers was an elementary school teacher, district trainer and reading specialist. Jeanne Cobb Coastal Carolina University, South Carolina, USA Dr. Jeanne Cobb is professor of literacy education at Coastal Carolina University and director of the Chanticleer Center for Literacy Education. She earned her ­doctorate in literacy from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and has a com- bined total of 32 years in education as elementary school teacher, reading specialist, Title I teacher, university professor and reading clinic director. Dr. Cobb’s primary research interests are in the field of emergent literacy and intervention strategies for the improvement of literacy achievement of struggling readers. She has published articles in Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Journal of Students Placed at Risk, Journal of Reading Education and the NRC Yearbook and has presented research papers at international, national, state and regional conferences. She is the co-author of the textbook, Historical, Theoretical, and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States. Lesley Coia Agnes Scott College, Georgia, USA Professor Lesley Coia teaches a variety of courses in educational studies at Agnes Scott College, Georgia, USA.  She co-edited with Monica Taylor, Gender, Feminism, and Queer Theory in the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. In addition to her co/autoethnographic writing with Monica Taylor, her research inter- ests include identity issues in education, feminism and teaching for social justice. Her most recent work is on the role of trust in teaching and learning. Brooke Collins-Gearing University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia Dr. Brooke Collins-Gearing has Murri heritage, growing up in Kamilaroi Country. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Newcastle where she now lectures in English and writing, teaching children’s literature, postcolonial literature and Australian Aboriginal literature. She believes in the potential transformative power of listening to stories from Aboriginal ways of knowing country for all disci- plines and genres.

xviii About the Authors Karen Rut Gísladóttir University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland Assistant Professor Karen Rut Gísladóttir works in the School of Education at the University of Iceland. Her research interest lies in the area of sociocultural theo- ries of literacy teaching and learning. Dr. Gísladóttir has 10 years experience teach- ing in the Icelandic school system, as an Icelandic teacher of children who are deaf and more recently as a teacher educator. She has engaged in self-study to improve her practice both as an elementary teacher and as a teacher educator. As a teacher educator, Dr. Gísladóttir teaches courses on action research, literacy education and inclusive education. She is interested in finding ways to facilitate meaningful work with teachers in which they are empowered to work in the best interest of children. Recent publications are the book chapters ‘Confronting the Hearing Teacher in Deaf Education: Critical Friends in Self-Study’ in Polyvocal Professional Learning Through Self-Study and ‘Critical Friends, Critical Insights: Developing a Dialogic Understanding of Practice-Based Teacher Education’ in Mindfulness and Critical Friendship: A New Perspective on Professional Development for Educators. Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland Professor Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir lectures in general and special education as well as research methodology at the University of Iceland, School of Education (IUE). Dr. Guðjónsdóttir has an international reputation and has taught in countries includ- ing the USA, Australia and Latvia and has participated in Nordic and EU research projects focusing on inclusive and multicultural education. Her work within the field of self-s­ tudy of teacher education practices has been an important focus in her professional life, and she has published in the journal Studying Teacher Education, a journal of self-study of teacher education practices, and in books published by S-STEP. Dr. Guðjónsdóttir is the chair of the Self-Study Special Interest group of the American Education Research Association for the years 2015–2017 and was the programme chair for S-STEP at AERA 2008–2010. Debra Gurvitz Independent Education Consultant, Illinois, USA Dr. Debra Gurvitz is a published author and respected educator who speaks at international, national and local educational conferences. She holds an Ed.D. from National Louis University, was an associate professor in the reading and language programme and currently teaches clinical reading courses and directs the urban campus off-site summer reading programme. Prior to joining National Louis, she taught kindergarten, first and multiage 1–2, mentored classroom teachers as the building reading specialist/literacy coach and also served as the K-8 district reading specialist. Her research investigates urban education, clinical teaching and prepara- tion of reading specialists and literacy coaches. Her publications include Complete Guide to Tutoring Struggling Readers: Mapping Interventions to Purpose and CCSS (Fisher, Bates, Gurvitz, 2014), Advanced Literacy Practices: From the Clinic to the Classroom (Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association), Vocabulary Instruction: Struggling Readers Becoming Word Wizards (Volume 3, School-Based Interventions for Struggling Readers, K-8) and others.

About the Authors xix Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland Associate Professor Svanborg Rannveig Jónsdóttir teaches in arts and creative work in the School of Education at the University of Iceland. Before becoming a university teacher, she was a compulsory school teacher for 28 years. Dr. Jónsdóttir´s specialty is in the area of innovation and entrepreneurial education. She teaches courses in teacher education, research methods, inclusive practices, curriculum the- ory and innovation education. Her research focuses on creativity in education, cur- riculum development, innovations in education, supervision, teacher development, self-study, action research and collective teacher efficacy. Dr. Jónsdóttir has served in leadership roles at the School of Education (SoI) as the coordinator for the strengthening creativity as a pertinent and influential part of the education the school offers. She is the chair of the Centre for Research on Creativity in Education at the SoI. She is currently leading a two-year European project on developing practical assessment methods for entrepreneurship education, focusing on creativity and action. Sarah Schneider Kavanagh University of Washington, Washington, USA Dr. Sarah Schneider Kavanagh is a research scientist in curriculum and instruc- tion at the University of Washington in Seattle. Her work is centrally concerned with understanding the relationship between teaching as a professional practice and teaching as a social-justice mission. Her research interests include teaching prac- tices that actively interrupt patterns of inequity in schools and teacher education practices that prepare teachers to interrupt persistent inequitable patterns in schooling. Julian Kitchen Brock University, Ontario, Canada Dr. Julian Kitchen is a professor in the Faculty at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. His work in education extends to studying and sup- porting teachers and teacher educators. Dr. Kitchen is lead editor of Narrative Inquiries into Curriculum-Making in Teacher Education and Canadian Perspectives on the Self-Study ofTeacher Education Practices. He is lead author of Professionalism, Law and the Ontario Educator and was the editor of Brock Education, a peer-­ reviewed journal. Dr. Kitchen has been involved in several projects, including sev- eral funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council on Aboriginal education, as well as studies of queer issues in education. Dr. Kitchen was director of the Tecumseh Centre for Aboriginal Research and Education from 2013 to 2016. Barbara Laster Towson University, Maryland, USA Dr. B.  P. Barbara Laster is professor of education at Towson University in  Baltimore, Maryland. She teaches courses in literacy theory and practice, new literacies, disciplinary reading and writing, literacy interventions for special popula- tions and clinical practice. Her publications include work on aspects of comprehen- sion, teacher development, family literacy in reading clinics, service learning, emergent writing and religious diversity in public school classrooms. Dr. Laster has been a reading specialist in public schools in four states of the USA and at every

xx About the Authors grade level. Dr. Laster has served on the International Reading Association’s 2010 Standards Committee and the RTI Commission. She has been active on the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, Lifetime Achievement Award Committee of the Literacy Research Association (LRA) and the ethics committees of several professional organisations. A co-author of the children’s book, Wandering Wind, she provides professional development workshops to teachers nationally and internationally. Andrea K. Martin Queens University, Ontario, Canada Associate Professor Andrea K. Martin has taught in the Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, since 1997. Her background is in education and social work, and she has taught and worked with children and youth at the elementary and secondary levels with a particular focus on supporting excep- tional learners. Her research interests centre on teacher education, with an emphasis on the quality and impact of practicum learning experiences and on the process of collaboration and school-university partnerships, as well as on inclusive education and differentiating instruction for struggling readers in regular classrooms. She holds a B.A. degree from Smith College, a B.Ed. from Queen’s University, an M.A. from the University of Sussex, an M.Sc. in social administration and social work studies from the London School of Economics and an M.Ed. in educational psy- chology and a Ph.D. degree in cognitive studies and curriculum studies from Queen’s University. Sharon McDonough Federation University Australia, Victoria, Australia Dr. Sharon McDonough is an early career academic in the Faculty of Education and Arts at Federation University Australia where she is the programme leader for the Master of Education studies. In 2013, Sharon was awarded an Office for Learning and Teaching National Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning. Sharon researches in the field of self-study, teacher emotion and embodiment, men- toring and classroom observations. Karen McLean Australian Catholic University, Victoria, Australia Dr. Karen McLean is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education and Arts and member of the Learning Sciences Institute Australia at Australian Catholic University. Karen’s research investigates literacy and technology in early years and primary education, including pedagogical approaches, play-based learning and dig- ital technologies. She also has a research interest in pedagogical approaches to reflective practice in literacy teacher education. Tom Russell Queens University, Ontario, Canada Professor Tom Russell has taught in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University since 1977. In the period 2007–2010, he held a Queen’s University chair in teaching and learning. His teaching includes a graduate course on action research, a physics curriculum methods course for preservice teachers and supervision of

About the Authors xxi teacher candidates during practicum placements. His research focuses on how peo- ple learn to teach and how teachers improve their teaching, with special reference to learning from experience in the teacher education practicum and the first year of teaching. Tom has co-edited several books, including Self-Studies of Science Teacher Education Practices, Enacting a Pedagogy of Teacher Education and the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices. Since its inception in 2005, he has been a co-editor of the journal Studying Teacher Education. Tammy Ryan Jacksonville University, Florida, USA Dr. Tammy Ryan is an associate professor of reading education and teacher prep- aration in the School of Education at Jacksonville University. She has over 15 years of teaching experience in public and private elementary and middle school class- rooms. Her research investigates vocabulary development, uses of digital technolo- gies and preparation of highly qualified teachers of reading. Her publications include articles in The Reading Teacher, Kappa Delta Pi, Record and Journal of Reading Education and chapters in the Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association, The New Literacies: Multiple Perspectives on Research and Practice, Advanced Literacy Practices: From the Clinic to the Classroom and others. Joseph C. Senese Northwestern University, Illinois, USA Dr. Joseph C. Senese has taught for 36 years in both public and private elemen- tary and secondary schools as well as in the Master’s programme in education at Northwestern University (USA) for the last 16  years. He founded the Action Research Laboratory at Highland Park High School (IL) in 1995 and has presented his own classroom research as well as conducted workshops on the action research process nationally and internationally. He contributes to educational journals and books on the topics of action research, self-study of teacher education practices and reflective teaching practices. Monica Taylor Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA Associate Professor Monica Taylor began her career as a middle school Spanish/ French teacher in New York City and is now working in the doctoral faculty in the Department of Secondary and Special Education at Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA. With a strong focus in urban education, teaching for social justice and self-study, she has published several books including Whole Language Teaching: Whole-Hearted Practice; Gender, Feminism, and Queer Theory in the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices; and most recently A Year in the Life of a Third Space Urban Teacher Residency: Using Inquiry to Reinvent Teacher Education. JoAnne Vazzano Northeastern Illinois University, Illinois, USA Dr. JoAnne Vazzano is an associate professor of literacy education in the College of Education at Northeastern Illinois University located in Chicago. For the past decade, she has taught graduate courses focused on literacy assessment and inter-

xxii About the Authors vention and has actively participated in federal and local grants to support literacy teachers in Chicago. As the director of the NEIU Literacy Center and as president of the Chicago Area Reading Association, she has guided future literacy coaches during clinical practicum to hone literacy assessment and intervention abilities. Her research has studied the potential of video to foster future reading specialists’ skills to support teachers’ literacy intervention pedagogy.

Introduction: Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education For the editorial team of this book, the decision to work together on an international research collection focused on the theory and application of reflective practice emerged from a stimulating moment in our professional lives. We were part of a conference symposium examining research on this often taken-for-granted practice. During the session, we realised the complexity and richness of the discussion about what reflective practice is and how it can be developed, and, more fundamentally, we began to question the evidence for how important it is. From this moment, the present volume grew. In inviting writers to be part of the collection, we had a number of aims in view. Central to our goals was that the chapters examine evidence for the power of reflec- tive practice to shape better educational outcomes. In the contemporary educational context, there is a particular need to apply research rigour to reflective practice because reflective practice is now enshrined in compulsory teacher standards in many countries. When a practice is mandated, it is important that there is under- standing about what it means and what is expected. With this in mind, the opening section of our book presents Big Picture Perspectives on Reflective Practice. This section gathers together chapters that seek to define reflective practice. Inevitably this is a contested and complex picture. It begins with an examination of the con- temporary phenomenon of reflective practice being instantiated in standards that teachers must meet for professional registration and advancement. Authors Glasswell and Ryan analyse the professional standards documents of six countries highlighting the often limited perspectives on reflective practice that tend to appear in materials that are used for accountability. The remaining chapters in this section serve to challenge circumscribed understandings of reflective practice. In Chap. 2, Russell and Martin ask questions about how educators can conceptualise knowl- edge about practice, arguing that reflective practice needs to be seen as much more than a simple ‘looking back’ but rather should include such practices as mindfulness and teaching artistry. Chapter 3 in this section, by Coia and Taylor, discusses epis- temological questions that are important for practice. Their chapter ‘Let’s Stay in the Swamp: Poststructural Feminist Reflective Practice’ argues for a view of reflec- tive practice as situated and complex and not something that can be reduced to xxiii

xxiv Introduction: Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education instrumentalist and unproblematic processes. Kitchen’s reflections on masculinity in education add to this and encourage us to look beyond traditional ways of con- ceiving and practising reflection, especially in light of the power structures that exist in reinforcing gender stereotypes and expectations. In the final chapter in this sec- tion, Blair and Collins-Gearing take us further from the comfort zone (for many) of traditional Western reflective practice and show the possibilities that exist within the distinctive purposes and practices of reflective Australian Indigenous educators. As the first section of the book seeks greater conceptual clarity about reflective practice, so the second section, Enacting Reflective Practice with Teacher Learners, is designed to illustrate some of the ways in which teacher educators are using reflective practice to create more expert teachers. Four chapters in this section provide detail about working within a particular teacher education curriculum con- text in which reflective practice is being investigated. Our journey begins with Senese who analyses teachers enrolled in master’s programmes. McLean is next, looking at the professional preparation of literacy teachers, followed by Bowers and colleagues who focus on the affordances of video reflection to enhance the skills of teachers of reading. Finally Kavanagh presents a practice model for developing teachers who promote social justice in their teaching. Each of these writers researches the value of a variety of pedagogies of reflective practice. Our goal as editors was to provide readers with research-based studies that promote a renewed view of teacher education practices for reflection. In the third section of our book Teacher Educators Engaging in Reflective Practice, we shift the perspective to show teacher educators at work as they place the focus on themselves as key subjects of their own inquiry. Jones takes a self-­ study approach in her work as a teacher of science education looking to improve her teaching through reflective practice. Brandenburg and McDonough analyse the ben- efits of self-study practices; in particular, they deploy a critical incident analysis to enable them to find their way through professional challenges. Guðjónsdóttir and colleagues, who are supervising master’s students, present an account of how they decided to develop collaborative supervisory meetings with associated reflective practices in order to improve their capacity as supervisors. Jones and Ryan analyse their pedagogical journey throughout various iterations of promoting reflective practice in the online teaching space. Through their inquiry, they reach conclusions about how best to work reflectively in this critical contemporary context. All chap- ters in this section raise questions about how reflective practice might be developed as a useful process for both novice and experienced educators as they seek to develop as professionals. It is evident that more experienced educators need to dem- onstrate the power of reflective practice to develop their own understandings of the process and outcomes of engaging in reflection. As editors, we see this section of the book as offering important perspectives on the value of systematic reflection for all teacher educators. Having given voice to so many potentially contradictory definitions of reflective practice as well as myriad ways of enacting it, in the final chapter of Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, we offer readers an analysis that aims to bring together key themes, approaches, underlying values and the ultimate impact

Introduction: Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education xxv of that which has been presented so far. The well-trodden paths and new trajectories provide an argument for what might be seen as the best of reflective practice tradi- tions. Here, the authors explore the possible dangers in the contemporary educa- tional milieu whereby reflective practice has become almost institutionalised in teacher education programmes and government requirements. The chapter title ‘Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education’ indicates that as editors of, and contributing authors to, this volume, we see ongoing renewal of reflective theory and practice in teacher education as essential for learning in the profession. Federation University Australia Robyn Brandenburg Ballarat, VIC, Australia Kathryn Glasswell California State University Fullerton Mellita Jones Fullerton, CA, USA  Josephine Ryan Australian Catholic University Ballarat, VIC, Australia  Australian Catholic University Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Part I Big Picture Perspectives on Reflective Practice

Chapter 1 Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory Practice Kathryn Glasswell and Josephine Ryan Abstract  This chapter analyses the contemporary phenomenon of the inclusion of reflective practice in the national professional standards for teachers in a range of countries. Through exploring the teacher standards of Australia, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore and the United States of America (USA), the chapter documents the various ways in which reflective practice is characterised by policy- makers, showing the theoretical and everyday elements evident in these construc- tions of reflective practice. It argues that there is a tension in mandatory standards documents between the expectation that teachers are to be encouraged to be criti- cally aware of teaching practices and the standards’ purposes as documents of regu- lation. That is, while the standards promote critical reflection, they rarely suggest that teachers be reflective about the larger sociopolitical aspects of schooling and education systems. 1.1  I ntroduction This chapter analyses the contemporary phenomenon of the inclusion of reflective practice in the national professional standards for teachers in a range of countries. We are interested how reflective practice for teachers has shifted from a desirable disposition to a mandatory activity now instantiated in standards for teachers. Presenting our analysis in the context of the current discussion about both standards and reflective practice, we consider representations of teacher reflection contained in the teaching standards of six English-speaking education systems, namely, Australia, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore and the United States of America (USA). As we proceed, we raise two issues. The first issue relates to the way in which reflective practice is characterised by policymakers. We explore the K. Glasswell (*) 3 California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Ryan Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 R. Brandenburg et al. (eds.), Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_1

4 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan different ways in which discourses of teacher reflection and reflective practice are translated, or decoded and recoded, in the standards documents. Our intention in doing this is to engage in critical analysis of the ways in which these different stan- dards promote constructions of teacher reflection. We also note the ways in which they might draw on theories of reflection that are specific to teachers’ work in class- rooms with students, their interactions with colleagues and their development as professionals. Our second issue relates to whether some professional standards documents are more helpful than others in terms of guiding teachers towards what research and theory tell us about the potential of reflective practice to help teachers engage with issues relating to the social, moral, political and ethical purposes of teaching (Dewey 1916). 1.2  R eflection and Reflective Processes Professional and research interest in reflective practice can be traced back decades to Dewey’s work involving the processes of thinking and reflection in teaching (Dewey 1910, 1916). In the years following, the construct of reflective practice was explored, extended and challenged by many. Since the 1980s there has been an exponential growth in research and writing about reflective practice (Zwozdiak-­ Myers 2009) as scholars aimed to challenge the “overly technical and simplistic views of teaching that dominated the 1980s” (Sparks-Langer and Colton 1991, p. 37). This new view of expert teaching as a reflective activity brought with it a proliferation of models, typologies and articulations of frameworks, including sug- gestions of phases and hierarchies (Kreber and Cranton 2000; Sellars 2014; Zeichner and Tabachnick 1991). The work of many and different scholars have interacted to create a complex concoction of ideas related to what it means to reflect and to be a reflective practitioner. Searching for a single definition for reflective practice is likely to lead to as much confusion of ideas as it does to clarity. As Sellars (2014) usefully points out, there are multiple models of reflection. Researchers and teachers alike use terms such as The Reflective Practitioner (Schön 1983, 1987), teacher as researcher, action research, reflection, reflective teaching and reflective practice to denote processes of reflection undertaken by teachers in and about the act of teaching. Theories of reflection involve discussions of various types of reflection teachers undertake, such as practical, technical and critical reflection (van Manen 1977). Others consider the timing and context of reflection such as reflection in or on action (Schön 1987) and reflection undertaken for future adaptive purposes (Killion and Todnem 1991). In van Manen’s view these types, timings and purposes matter because “retrospective reflection on (past) experiences differs importantly from anticipatory reflection on (future) experiences” (van Manen 1991 as cited in van Manen 1995, p. 2). What is clear from a review of these contributions to the discus- sion is that what constitutes reflection and when it most usefully takes place can be difficult to anchor to a single action or timeframe.

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 5 Other theories have given central importance to reflective processes. Dewey, for example, described reflection as a method that involves the act of looking at and describing experience. He likened this process to a physician identifying symptoms (Dewey 1910), adding that such examination needs to be augmented with consider- ation of multiple ways of understanding the experience being studied. Indeed, many accounts since Dewey suggest that reflection must include an experience or data description stage. In practical terms this means that reflective practice for teachers must begin with teachers taking a step back from their work to look at it, with a view to identifying and solving problems (Loughran 2002; Schön 1983); or, some argue, identifying successes is also useful (Jones and Ryan 2014). Further to noticing and describing, some advocates of reflection as an inquiry process argue for the impor- tance of contextual analysis and active experimentation (Osterman and Kottkamp 2004), suggesting that teachers make judgements about effectiveness, test hypoth- eses and implement new adaptations (Sparks-Langer and Colton 1991). While some contributors see reflection as a highly personalised cognitive and metacognitive activity, other commentators view reflective practice as a highly social activity (Loughran 2002); others stress the significance of self-reflexivity with the proviso that there is a knowledge of multiple theories of interpretation (Jones and Ryan 2014). The result of this consideration is the concept of changed/ improved/transformed practice that emerges from critical analysis of the possibili- ties (Kreber and Cranton 2000). Theorists exploring this critical aspect of reflective practice stress the significance of teachers identifying what is important for them in the learning and teaching process. A number of scholars have focused on the transformation that is possible through reflection as educators consider the role of values in reflective practice. Zeichner and Liston (1987) argue that in order to be truly reflective, teachers need to consider how instructional and institutional practices contribute to a socially just society. More recently, Korthagen’s (2004) work asks educators to consider their core values as they reflect. These ideas about the transformative power of reflection echo early work by Dewey, which suggested that the values of a democratic society are critical to understanding contexts and deciding upon any course of future action (Dewey 1916). The complexity of the construct of reflection is illustrated through the multiple aspects of reflective practice described above. The task we set ourselves in trying to understand how policymakers might construct reflection for teachers meant that we had to take into account that we were likely to encounter multiple definitions and dimensions of reflective practice within and across standards documents. Examining teacher standards to identify instances of reflection had us approach the task with a certain openness to multiple interpretations (Dewey 1916). For us any productive definition of reflective practice must include ideas about thoughtful analysis of experience and consideration of multiple perspectives leading to improved action; and it must also include exploration of personal and social values without which judgement and action can lack direction. More recently, research and theory about reflective practice have been translated to inform educational policy documents. The commodification of reflective practice

6 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan as an essential attribute of the good teacher is becoming commonplace in mandates about teacher performance. However, tensions undoubtedly exist between reflective practice and managerialist perspectives of the competency-driven agenda of perfor- mativity (MacRuairc and Harford 2008). In spite of these tensions, many countries are making expectations around teachers’ reflective practices clearer to their work- forces and to the teaching profession as a whole. 1.3  S tandards for Teachers In line with these research, theory and policy moves, reflective practice is being explicitly referred to in teacher registration and professional standards, making it central to teachers’ work and their professional identities. While standards do not always have the status of compulsory assessment tools used to define teachers’ achievements, they do have the role of defining desirable attitudes and behaviours that teachers should take account of as responsible professionals. The pervasiveness of mandatory reflective practice in teacher standards has been seen as a means of elevating teachers’ work to match that of other professions. As Killion and Todnem (1991) put it, “Reflection can alter our common perspective of education and elevate our work to the status of a profession” (p. 16). This chapter considers the commodi- fication of reflective practice in teaching standards and the attendant implications of considering it mandatory professional activity for teachers. Our decision to examine standards was driven by a desire to understand the expectations or guidelines under which teachers operate in their daily professional lives. Teaching standards can have several uses and can be defined in a number of ways (Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education [CEPPE] 2013). For the purposes of this analysis, we viewed the standards as both content and perfor- mance standards. Content standards specify the extent of the domain being covered (CEPPE 2013), in this case the required knowledge within the discipline of teach- ing. Content standards for teacher certification/registration detail the specific con- tent that teachers should know in order to be considered competent. Performance standards detail the criteria by which to judge whether a standard has been met. According to Maxwell (2009), standards can differ. Some standards add to their content descriptors, performance descriptors that link the standards to actions that when performed to a certain level can show that show that the standard has been achieved. While not all standards documents are designed to be used as guides to judge the professional performance of teachers, the potential for them to be used for this task by some other authority is created. For example, the Scottish teacher stan- dards document includes the statement: The scope of this document is limited to defining the SPR [Standards for Provisional Registration] and SFR [Standards for Full Registration] and does not address in detail how judgements will or should be made. It is not intended that the Professional Actions should be used as a checklist. In broad terms, the person reviewing the work of the teacher needs

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 7 to be reassured that the capabilities described by the professional standard are achieved. (General Teaching Council for Scotland [GTC] 2012, p. 2) At this point, it is important to note that while standards documents contain much more than reflective practice, and other authors have undertaken a comprehensive international comparative review encompassing learning standards for students as well as teachers (CEPPE 2013), our analysis is limited to descriptions of what teachers are expected to know and be able to do. 1.4  M ethodology 1.4.1  Overview We began our inquiry process by identifying nationally utilised standards in Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Singapore and the USA. These coun- tries were chosen as varied contexts in terms of educational history and because they had publically accessible standards documents written in English. Having selected the documents for analysis, our method in this investigation was to under- take a thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke 2006) to explore the way in which reflective practice was constructed within each. This involved sorting and labelling the statements related to reflective practice in standards documents to identify, analyse and report patterns or themes related to our focus. A more detailed description of the method follows. 1.4.2  Selection of Documents The types of documents we reviewed included official government websites for departments of education, downloadable policy documents and teacher guidelines, and reports available to the public explaining frameworks and rationales. Documents we included in the analysis were, in most cases, created by government instrumen- talities that accredit teachers. In Singapore the country’s only teacher education provider, the National Institute of Education, works with government to create teacher standards; hence it has government imprimatur. In the USA where teachers are certified by state and there are numerous state-based standards relevant to teach- ers, we identified two national sets of standards for use with teachers that included reference to professional expectations. They were the Five Core Propositions for Teaching from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. The NBPTS, while a professional rather than a government body, administers a range of teacher education activities and oversees a process through which teachers apply for the high-status national certification (NBPTS 2016). The Board describes the Five Propositions as the basis for all more specific areas of certification (NBPTS

8 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan Table 1.1  Document sources and writers Country Document writers Document Australia Australian professional standards for teachers Australian Institute of Reflection on practice tool Singapore Teaching and School Leadership (2012, 2013) A teacher education model for the 21st Century. A Report. The report includes Graduand Teacher National Institute of Competencies for initial teacher preparation Education, Singapore (2009, programs 2012) A teacher education model for the 21st Century. NIE’s journey from concept to realisation. An England Department for Education implementation report Scotland (2012) Teacher standards New General Teaching Council The standards for registration: Mandatory Zealand for Scotland (2012) requirements for registration with the General USA Teaching Council for Scotland Education Council of Practising Teacher Criteria and Graduating USA Aotearoa New Zealand Teacher standards (2016) National Board for Five Core Propositions for Teaching Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS] (2016) CAEP Accreditation standards Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP] (2013) 2016). For the USA we also chose to examine teacher education standards, which exist at a national level. We had two choices: the unit standards used by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE 2014) and the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) 2013). Both CAEP and NCATE standards were designed to examine the quality of teacher education programs that prepare candidates for teaching. We chose to focus on CAEP because they are cur- rent in 2016 and because NCATE standards are being phased out. While the CAEP standards are not national standards used for evaluating teacher performance in their schooling systems, they do include specific reference, under the heading of CAEP standard #1, to the national inTASC standards. The inTASC standards provide rec- ommendations to state education bodies for required knowledge and skills for teachers (Council of Chief State School Officers 2016) (Table 1.1). On initial examination of the standards, we found that they varied widely in expressed purposes and specificity. Some standards were simply laid out for all teachers in very few statements (e.g. England), while others (e.g. Australia, Scotland and New Zealand) detailed different phases of teacher development and provided standards and indicators/descriptors for each phase. In the case of Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] 2013), the document encompassed standards for “Graduate”, “Proficient”, “Highly Accomplished” and “Lead Teachers”. Similarly, the Scots

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 9 divided standards into categories for student teachers and for practising teachers. Scotland also provided a fairly extensive description of what “professional actions” might be expected in each category (GTC 2012, p. 7). Like Scotland, New Zealand developed two sets of criteria for guiding teacher professionalism and for the appraisal of teachers. The Graduating Teacher Standards were designed to outline the essential professional knowledge, skills and values that graduates of initial teacher education programs should master on entry to the profession. The Practising Teacher Criteria describe what experienced teachers must demonstrate at appropri- ate levels of expertise to allow them to renew their practising certificates. Variation in teaching standards extended beyond their proposed purposes or uses and showed differences in the levels of specificity across jurisdictions. Where there were sets of standards for different groups of teachers, we examined all sets except in the case of the USA NBPTS, which has 24 sets of specific standards covering all areas from Arts, Generalist to World languages (NBPTS 2016), making them impractical to explore in this investigation. While we did exclude the specific NBPTS standards in this analysis, it needs to be recognised that differences in how standards are expressed matter because the degree to which standards are generic or specific influ- ences the way in which those standards might be interpreted. While there are advan- tages in developing a generic framework that could accommodate all teachers, such an approach can be problematic. As CEPPE (2013) authors point out Standards for teachers can be classified into two large categories according to their degree of specificity. Generic standards describe good teaching practices in general terms without detailing how, in practice, these are to be demonstrated in the different teaching disciplines, distinct student grade levels or stages of professional development. Specific standards typ- ify good practices for teachers of different subjects, grade levels (nursery, primary, or sec- ondary teachers) and even for different stages of their professional development (graduating standards, full registration, advanced teaching practice, leadership roles). (p. 33) 1.4.3  Thematic Analysis Overview Coding and theme development was deductive, based on latent concepts and assumptions underpinning the data (Braun and Clarke 2006). For example, we made an assumption that the teacher standards would make some references to teacher reflection and reflective practices within the documents as well as the assumption that the documents themselves were to be used as a focus for reflecting on compe- tence. The thematic analysis proceeded in phases. At first we developed our knowl- edge of the standards and their supporting documents by reading and rereading them. Next we identified and collated examples of words/phrases that were com- monly used in the documents, and that we felt connoted ideas of reflection and reflective practice. In this way, we identified important features of the data that might be relevant in helping us understand how reflection was being represented in the whole corpus of data (e.g. reflective practice as seen in seven sets of documents), as well as how different documents represented reflection (e.g. Scotland’s

10 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan construction of reflective practice). Next we began searching for themes among the statements, that is we examined the wordings of statements and collated them into clusters to identify significant preliminary themes. After this, we took time to review themes and the statements coded under them. Finally, we worked on defining and naming our themes with more specificity. 1.4.4  I dentifying Reflective Practice Statements An initial sweep of the seven sets of standards alerted us to the fact that in some cases the phrase “reflective practice” was used, pointing explicitly to a particular way of describing teacher work with its attendant academic analysis. For example, Scotland, Standard 3.4.2 asks teachers to “Engage in reflective practice to develop and advance career-long professional learning and expertise” (GTC 2012, p. 19). Singapore’s National Institute of Education, which educates all teachers in Singapore, has produced A Teacher Education Model for the 21st Century [TE21] (NIE 2009, 2012). Within the approach NIE has adopted “the Reflective Teaching Model as a common framework” for all graduates (NIE 2009, p.  24). While the Australian Professional Standards for Teaching (AITSL 2013) do not mandate reflective practice in its standards, AITSL includes on its website a “Reflection on Practice Tool” which enables teachers and school leaders to use reflection to iden- tify what they have and have not achieved in terms of meeting the AITSL Standards. Some teacher standards, however, do not explicitly mention reflective practice but instead use more everyday language, which seems to be pointing to a similar activ- ity. In the UK’s Department for Education [DfE] (2012), for example, teachers must “reflect systematically on the effectiveness of lessons and approaches to teaching” (DfE, Standard 4). The USA National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS 2016, Proposition 4) states that teachers must “think systematically and learn from experience”. Given that there are differences in the ways that standards themselves are con- structed as well as the lack of agreement on how we might name the concept of reflection, our task in this aspect of the analysis became one in which we had to delineate the concept of reflection through a close examination of what each docu- ment included. We made the decision to include any and all statements that made reference to forms of reflection covered by a broad definition of reflection, encom- passing a range of theoretical perspectives. To do this we looked closely at the standards and their elaborations (where pres- ent) to determine what kinds of statements might be considered to be referring to the processes and tools that reflective teachers might engage in to come to new under- standings about what, how and why they teach and to whom. Words were flagged for attention (e.g. reflect, appraise, evaluate, adjust, analyse, justify, improve, ongo- ing learning, inquiry, investigation, interpret, critique, refinement, examine, feed- back (from others), dialogue, learn from experience) and we searched the documents for examples of their use. These examples were collated into a spreadsheet, though

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 11 not coded in any other way. At this point in our analysis, we were not classifying statements; rather we were more concerned with identifying the range of ways that reflection might be represented. Sometimes words in the reflection family appeared (reflect, reflection, reflecting), but the use of these words was not as common as we had initially expected. Next, the statements gathered were grouped with other like-statements; that is, statements using similar wordings and/or expressing similar ideas or activities. As they were grouped together, checking was undertaken to ensure that all statements had a common anchor in a particular aspect of reflective practice. Sometimes sub-­ themes were developed to take account of similarly linked but somewhat different constructs. We grouped the statements in terms of their expression in discourse, characterised by the use of words related to particular ways of describing reflective practice. For example, ideas related to reflection as a process of evaluating one’s own practice were classified under one of three sub-themes: (a) evaluate against standards, (b) evaluate their own professional knowledge and (c) evaluate their own curriculum and lessons. Since the major point of connection here was that teachers made a “judgement” or “evaluated” themselves, they were kept in the same major theme but delineated by sub-theme. As we worked we checked the content inclusions of the emerging themes against the standards documents to determine if they were similar or dissimilar to those not included in the analysis sub-theme. We also checked statements against those in other categories to establish where groupings of statements had common ground. This sometimes resulted in statements being rejected and moved among categories or new statements being added. We worked in an iterative process of reviewing the statements and the extant reflective practice literature to develop a detailed descrip- tion of each theme, including what were grounds for inclusion of a statement in that theme. It should be noted that we did not aim to develop a picture of “how much” of any particular theme was present in any given set of standards; rather we sought to develop a picture of whether certain reflective framings were present or not present in each country’s approach. We did this to understand how reflective practice is being framed for teachers within the standards mandated for them. 1.4.5  N aming Themes In the next phase of thematic analysis, we concerned ourselves with creating descriptive accounts of the theme. Our goal here was to elaborate on how reflection is constructed in the standards as well as consider the likely sources of ideas and theoretical approaches underpinning those standards and policy statements. We developed four major themes with 11 associated sub-themes. See Fig. 1.1.

Teacher Reflective Practice 12 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan in National Standards Reflection as an Evaluative Reflection as an Adaptive Reflection as a Reflection as a Process Process Collaborative Process Transformational Process Teachers evauate their Teachers reflect on Teachers work together to Teacher reflect on the own teaching against instruction to make reflect on and achieve social, political, ethical and adjustments for different standards improvements in teacher moral issues in teaching Teachers evaluate their learner groups and learning and adjust their thinking in Teachers reflect on own professional teaching to improve it. Teachers lead other response to reflection. knowledge (e.g expert teachers in reflecting on Teachers examine their content knowedge) and skills against standards teaching and learning own attitudes and dispositions and adjust them as needed. Teachers evauate their Teachers reflect on data in Teachers learn from others curriculum and lesson order to make adjustments and improve their practice plans against standards and prescribed content to teaching and learning (e.g. observing and feedback) Fig. 1.1  Reflective themes and associated sub-themes in standards documents

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 13 1.5  F indings and Discussion: Reflective Themes in Teacher Standards In the following sections, we describe the categories we developed for reflective practice and unpack the views of reflection that are constructed through the content and linguistic expression of the standards. As we proceed, we will discuss how this construction reflects current research and theory for understanding the nature and process of reflection in teachers’ work. 1.5.1  T heme One: Reflection as an Evaluative Process The first major theme concerns the idea that teachers need to make judgements about their daily work and their professional lives as to whether or not their own teaching and professional performance meet the standards. These judgements did not include any call to action or an expectation that a teacher might do something about any evaluation/judgement once made; rather the tenor of these statements was more in line with considering and analysing data. 1.5.1.1  F indings We classified these ideas about reflection as an evaluative process into three subcat- egories or sub-themes. First there were statements that set out the expectation that teachers should evaluate the way they teach. In this category we included statements that made specific reference to reflecting on and evaluating classroom practices or teaching. Wordings such as “evaluate” were most obvious for inclusion (e.g. from the Australian Standards: “Evaluate personal teaching and learning programs using evidence, including feedback from students and student assessment data, to inform planning” (AITSL 2013, Standard 3.6)). A second set of statements referred to teachers evaluating the levels of their own professional knowledge. Key to these evaluative statements were references to what teachers should know and be able to do. These statements underscore the impor- tance of disciplinary knowledge to the reflective teacher. For example, the Scottish standards include the expectation that qualified teachers “have secure knowledge and detailed understanding of learning theories and draw on these systematically in planning, teaching and learning” (GTC 2012, p. 12). In some of the standards docu- ments, for example, in Singapore, there is more explicit reference to theories of learning and teaching, indicating a recognition that there are contested views of how learning might occur. The NIE model states “Reflecting on classroom experiences and relating these to the theories learnt will facilitate learning” (NIE 2012, p. 8). In most cases the standards suggest that knowledge of discipline will ensure appropri- ate teaching strategies. For example, the English Teacher Standards state that

14 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan ­teachers should “know when and how to differentiate appropriately, using approaches which enable pupils to be taught effectively” (DfE 2012, Standard 5). Proposition 4 from the US National Board Certification document is included within this evaluative category. Proposition 4 states that “Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience” (NBPTS 2016). While there is an inference here that teachers might adapt or adjust or even enhance their teaching, there is no explicit call for them to do so. It seems it is possible to learn that some aspects of one’s practice are less effective without necessarily engaging in an effort to change that practice to something more effective. In the third subcategory of the evaluation theme, we included statements with references to teachers making judgements about their curricula and lesson plans. The English document also included such statements. For example, teachers are expected to “reflect systematically on the effectiveness of lessons” (DfE 2012, Standard 4). 1.5.1.2  D iscussion We viewed all these evaluative statements as broadly related to Dewey’s (1910) notion that reflection is based on stepping back from a problem and looking at the evidence. Indeed, as Dewey argues, there is a sense in which all thinking is reflective, that is, it requires some analysis and synthesis of a situation or problem. For teachers to evaluate how well they are delivering content or teaching lessons, they are required to make judgements based on evidence. This idea, as noted above in relation to defi- nitions of reflective practice, is where all the taxonomies of reflective practice begin, with observing and describing. We note, however, that some proponents of reflective practice challenge the idea that Dewey’s notions of reflection are reliable in their method. They argue that even though teachers gather and reflect on data, these actions are not value-free (Korthagen 2004). This can relate to expectations about certain groups of learners, or about how learning in a specific domain proceeds. Teachers choose what they see as important, whether consciously or not. For example, a lit- eracy specialist, who knows a great deal about how readers develop, observes differ- ent things when she looks at a classroom of readers than someone who does not have the same training and knowledge. A specialist, for example, understands that chil- dren who look at pictures in a book before they start to read may well be engaging in just as effective reading behaviour as a child who earnestly looks at individual letters and words to come to meaning, a conclusion that a novice is unlikely to come to. Our point here is a simple one. While teachers are exhorted to evaluate their practices against the standards to determine their own effectiveness, the degree to which all teachers can do this is likely to differ. So, when the standards include a statement such as “Apply knowledge of the content and teaching strategies of the teaching area to develop engaging teaching activities” (AITSL 2013, Standard 2), one teacher’s capacity to understand what that knowledge of content and teaching strategies might be could be very different to another’s.

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 15 In being relatively silent on the issue of completing theoretical analyses of expe- rience, some of the reflective practice statements run the risk of describing a process that lacks important critical perspectives that might actually lead to the generation of new knowledge and perhaps reformed actions (Jay and Johnson 2002). Singapore standards are unique in this set of documents because they elaborate and provide theoretical support for a particular model of reflective practice that teachers need to develop. The NIE (2009, p. 73) stipulates three levels of reflection: technical, practi- cal and critical. It also provides a model that defines what sorts of data about the learner, the context and the teacher that need to be considered in the reflective pro- cess (p. 72). While Singapore’s standards institutionalise belief in the power of reflective practice, commentators such as Edwards and Thomas (2010) argue that it is danger- ous to have faith in reflection as a useful skill in addressing educational issues. They claim that it is useless to teach someone to reflect separately from a context and prefer to suggest it is possible to assist someone to be part of a community of prac- tice or to understand the vocabulary, language and activities of professionals or experts; but teaching of reflective practice as generic process is not meaningful. In the Scottish standards, teacher reflection is located in specific sections of the docu- ment. It is in Standard 1, which relate to professional values and personal commit- ment, but there is scant mention of reflection in descriptors relating to Standard 2 Professional Knowledge and Understanding. This raises the question of what is “up” for reflection and whether it constructs teachers’ real reflective work as mainly about pedagogy. In some instances teachers are encouraged to be critically aware of teaching practices and how their teaching is meeting students’ needs, but they are not necessarily encouraged to be reflective about the larger issues of the purposes of schooling. As we will argue, the institutionalisation of reflective practice within standards used by systems for accountability purposes will always present possible contradictions between the inquiring individual and the requirements of the system. 1.5.2  T heme Two: Reflection as an Adaptive Process In this theme we were capturing the idea that reflection can be more than an evalu- ative or judgement-making process. Theme Two identifies statements that make ref- erences to teachers engaging in problem-solving processes around teaching and learning.

16 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan 1.5.2.1  Findings In Theme One, we described statements that we identified as expecting teachers to use the standards to reflect and make judgements about the correctness or “compli- ance” to the standards of their teaching practices, curriculum/lesson design and their own professional knowledge. The ideas we wanted to capture with Theme Two extend beyond these judge- ments to encompass the notion that the effective teacher must be able to evaluate experience, but then also take appropriate action as a result of this thoughtful con- sideration. In this theme, taking action (through adapting, adjusting, changing, improving, refining or enhancing) was identified as a key element in the standards statements. As we collated statements from all standards documents, we further classified the statements into three sub-themes. These sub-themes seemed to distinguish related but subtly different aspects of an adaptive process that teachers would deploy to improve their practices. Those are that teachers should (1) reflect in order to make adjustments based on student needs, (2) reflect generally on teaching with the pur- pose of improving or enhancing it and (3) reflect on data or evidence in order to make adjustments to teaching and learning. The first sub-theme relates to teachers reflecting on and adapting instruction/les- sons in order to meet the needs of different learner groups. This sub-theme seemed to relate to the notion of differentiation. To differentiate effectively, teachers need to reflect on the needs of different groups of learners and make appropriate adjust- ments to teaching in light of those needs. For example, Standard 5 in the English document requires teachers to reflect and match their practices to learners as needed. Standard 5 expresses the broad view that teachers must “adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils”, which is elaborated with the idea that teachers must “have a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs; those of high ability; those with English as an addi- tional language; those with disabilities; and be able to use and evaluate distinctive teaching approaches to engage and support them” (DfE 2012). In Scotland, the standards require both student and registered teachers to be open to ideas for improving practice in ways that benefit all learners. Student teachers need to work on Standard 3.1.3: “demonstrate the ability to justify and evaluate professional prac- tice, and take action to improve the impact on all learners” (GTC 2012). In addition, Standard 3.1.3 expects registered teachers to: “justify consistently and evaluate competently professional practice, and take action to improve the impact on all learners” (GTC 2012). With a similar concern for meeting the needs of all learners, the New Zealand Practicing Teacher Standard 9iii states that teachers should “Modify teaching approaches to address the needs of individuals and groups of ākonga” (Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand 2016). In a second sub-theme of Theme Two, we identified more general references to improving/investigating or challenging practice through a process of reflection. For example, Singapore’s core competencies require that “The teacher seeks opportuni- ties to take initiative to improve his/her professional practices” (Core Competency

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 17 4.2). In some statements the overlap among themes is evident. For Scottish Registered Teachers, Standard 3.4.2 requires them to: “Evaluate, and adapt their classroom practice rigorously and systematically, taking account of feedback from others, to enhance teaching and learning” (GTC 2012). Theme Two’s third sub-theme made explicit reference to the use of data, assess- ment information or evidence as a source for changing/adjusting practice. In such statements, the references to data were almost always linked to a discourse for instructional improvement. Standards for Scotland, Australia and New Zealand made frequent and specific references to using data for instructional improvement, while other countries covered this aspect of reflective practice in more generic state- ments. For example, New Zealand practising teacher standards includes extensive reference to assessment, how and why teachers might reflect on it but stops short of making it clear that teachers should use assessment data for instructional improve- ment. In New Zealand’s Standard 11 for practising teachers, it states that teachers should “Analyse and appropriately use assessment information, which has been gathered formally and informally”. Key indicator (i) adds more detail “analyse assessment information to identify progress and ongoing learning needs of ākonga” (Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand 2016). Here data are important for evaluating needs, but their relation to teachers using assessment information to change practice is implicit. Other systems included specific and explicit reference to the idea that data were to be used in the improvement of teaching. For example, the Scottish standards refer to the use of data for improving learning for both student and registered teachers. Standard 2.1.5 requires that teachers: “have extensive knowledge and a secure understanding of the principles of assessment, methods of recording assessment information, the use of assessment in reviewing progress, in improving teaching and learning, identifying next steps and the need to produce clear, informed and sensi- tive reports” (GTC 2012). For England, Standard 6 and its associated subheadings encompass ideas related to using data for instructional adaptation or improvement. Standard 6 articulates the belief that teachers should be able to “Make accurate and productive use of assessment” (DfE 2012). Subheadings directly related to using data include “use relevant data to monitor progress, set targets, and plan subsequent lessons” and “make use of formative and summative assessment to secure pupils’ progress”. For the USA, CAEP’s use of the InTASC standards as a guide for what teachers should know and be able to do includes reference to InTASC standard #6 related to the use of assessment information for adjusting instruction, “Assessment. The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor learner progress, and to guide the teacher’s and learn- er’s decision making”.

18 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan 1.5.2.2  D iscussion Overall, the idea that reflection is a thoughtful adaptive process was supported in the standards of all countries, though they were not all necessarily represented in each sub-theme. In emphasising the active, adaptive role of teachers, the standards pro- mote Dewey’s view of the teacher with his insistence on the ethical responsibility that a teacher has to deliberate on the options and take appropriate action to guide students to develop their best selves (Dewey 1916). It is also the view influentially articulated by Schön (1983, 1987) in his conceptualisation of the professional capa- bility that involves expert problem-solving and decision-making. Schön’s articula- tion of the skill of the teacher to take reflective action has been important in promoting a view of teachers as more than simple purveyors of content (Darling-­ Hammond 2016). The standards certainly embody this view of teachers’ profes- sional expertise. In the AITSL documents, which formulate expectations from graduate to lead standard, a difference between a graduate and a proficient teacher is that the graduate may have knowledge of a range of appropriate pedagogical strategies, but the proficient teacher will “implement” them (AITSL 2013, Standard 1.3). The focus in this theme is on the individual teacher as an expert able to thought- fully consider their own practice and make appropriate responses. Such an emphasis on the individual is appropriate in documents that in part are designed as tools of accountability. Given this individual focus, one of the questions that we had in view- ing the standards was related to how countries viewed reflective practice in terms of teachers engaging with others in a reflective practice culture. Findings in Theme Three explored the question of the extent to which reflective practice was con- structed as essentially an individual, or as a social activity. 1.5.3  Theme Three: Reflection as a Collaborative Process Dewey (1916) argued that investigating other points of view is very important to reflective thinking. To be a reflective practitioner, new ideas are needed to enable someone to think differently. Those ideas might come from actively engaging with others, or from reading the ideas of others. In the standards from most countries, we identified specific reference to the idea that teacher reflection might take place with others. Three sub-themes were identified in Theme Three. The first relates to teach- ers reflecting with others to improve teacher learning. The second involves teachers leading others in their teacher community to reflect, and the third is related to how teachers learn to improve practice through advice and feedback from others.

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 19 1.5.3.1  Findings In sub-theme one of Theme Three, we classified statements that made generic refer- ences to collaborating with others to enhance teacher knowledge and skill. For example, The Singapore Graduand Teacher Competencies mandates professional engagement with colleagues, emphasising a view that reflective practice can be taught and is best learned in interactions with others. Competency 6.2 Working with Teams states that “The teacher actively seeks out opportunities for professional col- laboration within and beyond the school” (NIE 2009). This is elaborated further by bullet points describing teacher actions. “The teacher: cooperates with and supports colleagues; shares information and good ideas; expresses positive expectations of others; and, speaks positively of team members” (NIE 2009). Similarly, New Zealand offers Criteria 4 for fully certificated teachers to “demonstrate commitment to ongoing professional learning and development of personal professional prac- tice”. The bulleted subheadings add more detail such as “initiate learning opportuni- ties to advance personal professional knowledge and skills” (Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand). For English system teachers, Standard 8 “Fulfil wider pro- fessional responsibilities” includes reference to teachers being able “to develop effective professional relationships with colleagues, knowing how and when to draw on advice and specialist support” (DfE 2012). Illustrating sub-theme two that teachers should lead others in reflecting on teach- ing and learning are statements from Australia, the USA, Scotland and New Zealand. Notable here is the inclusion in the Australian (AITSL) standards for lead teachers. These standards make direct and specific references to how expert teachers are sup- posed to lead others in various ways including in collaborative reflection on profes- sional practice. For example, AITSL 6.2 states: “Initiate collaborative relationships to expand professional learning opportunities, engage in research, and provide qual- ity opportunities and placements for pre-service teachers” (AITSL 2013); again in AITSL 6.1: “Use comprehensive knowledge of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers to plan and lead the development of professional learning policies and programs that address the professional learning needs of colleagues and pre-service teachers” (AITSL 2013). For Scottish teachers the GTC (2012) includes Standard 3.4.2: “Work collaboratively to contribute to the professional learning and development of colleagues, including students, through offering sup- port and constructive advice and through disseminating experience and expertise, seeking opportunities to lead learning”, indicating that teachers are expected to be both givers and receivers of advice on expert teaching. CAEP’s Standard 1 includes reference to social activity and collaboration through InTASC Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration. The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportu- nities to take responsibility for student learning and development, to collaborate with learn- ers, families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession. CAEP (2013) For Singapore’s graduating teachers, Competency 5.3 encapsulates the idea that “The teacher takes initiative to support peers and colleagues” (NIE 2009). For New

20 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan Zealand’s fully certificated teachers, Criteria 4 again captures this dimension of reflection through the statement “demonstrate commitment to ongoing professional learning and development of personal professional practice” (Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand 2016). Elaborated subheadings suggest that they (i) “iden- tify professional learning goals in consultation with colleagues, and (ii) participate responsively in professional learning opportunities within the learning community” (Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand 2016). Finally, in sub-theme three of Theme Three, we included all references to teach- ers learning from each other to improve practice. Unlike inclusions in Theme Two that made reference to adapting or improving practice in general, these statements had as their main focus collaboration with others. That is, they highlighted the social nature of reflection, rather than simply the adaptive nature of it. This kind of value accorded social learning for improvement is explicitly recognised in some of the standards analysed. It is view of learning supported by Dewey (1910) and mirrors recent research on how teachers might access the ideas of others to improve their practice (Jones and Ryan 2014). AITSL, for example, includes the general standard “Engage with colleagues and improve practice”, which for the proficient teacher means to “Contribute to collegial discussions and apply constructive feedback from colleagues to improve professional knowledge and practice” (AITSL 2013, Standard 6.3). Similarly AITSL requires that teachers “Structure teaching programs using research and collegial advice about how students learn” (AITSL, Standard 1.2)and “Engage with colleagues to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher professional learn- ing activities to address student learning needs” (AITSL Standard 6.4, AITSL, 2013). England’s Standard 8: “Fulfil wider professional responsibilities” includes the bulleted statement that teachers should “take responsibility for improving teach- ing through appropriate professional development, responding to advice and feed- back from colleagues”. 1.5.3.2  D iscussion Collaboration with others for reflective purposes was evident in every country’s standards, and while some made more of it than others, it is evident that the prevail- ing view is that teacher learning can and does occur as teachers work together in communities of practice. As Warwick (2007) notes, there is a powerful case for considering reflection as a socially-mediated process in which interactions with oth- ers create opportunities for open discussion and drive forward the development of shared understandings and increased awareness. Citing Solomon (1987), Warwick (2007) argues that it is in the articulation of ideas to others that those reflecting develop a critical perspective on their own actions and thinking. When this reflec- tion takes place with a more skilled other or mentor teacher, possibilities for learn- ing are increased (Singh et  al. 2013). The recognition that schools work as communities appears uncontroversial. But questions about the extent to which and with what instruments the teacher should be judged as an individual for their school performance has arisen in the contemporary discussion about teacher accountability (Darling-Hammond 2016). The instantiation of the significance of supportive

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 21 colleagues in guiding teacher development in the standards documents seems a valuable counter to the view that teachers work or indeed reflect autonomously. 1.5.4  T heme Four: Reflection as a Transformative Process In only two standards documents (New Zealand and Scotland) did we identify spe- cific examples of reflective practice that included reference to reflection underpin- ning the transformative functions of education and, involving critical consideration of a teacher’s values, or the values embodied by education systems. 1.5.4.1  Findings To classify a statement as indicating a transformational approach to teacher reflec- tion, we identified wordings that referred to teachers using information to critically reflect on the social, political, moral and ethical implications of their work (Dewey 1916). The idea of reflection related to the transformative functions of education was not explicitly evident in all documents, but it was given detailed consideration in others. The standards we included in Theme Four showed a consideration of teachers as change agents and as critically self-reflexive individuals. Our rationale here for considering a new and independent category of transformative reflection was that encouraging teachers to reflect on the contexts and purposes for education as well as their own attitudes and dispositions highlights the ethical role of teachers in society. Dewey (1916) argued that teachers are integral to developing an equita- ble, democratic society. In this category, we wanted to capture the idea that the standards constructed teacher reflection and social justice as intimately related. In some standards, we found evidence of Dewey’s (1916) and Korthagen’s (Korthagen 2004) approaches that made reference to reflection as an act involving the values of the teacher subject and resulting in some desire for transformative action. In our work on developing Theme Four, we created two sub-themes. The first included references to teachers examining, critiquing or engaging with the broader (external) context of education and its societal purposes. These standards included references to teachers reflecting on the social, moral, political and ethical issues in teaching and adjusting their thinking in relation to these. The second category we built from standards that made reference to teachers reflecting (internally) on their own attitudes, values and dispositions in relation to their teaching practices. In sub-theme one, for example, we included the GTC of Scotland’s extensive reference to the moral responsibilities of teachers in both looking out and looking inward. Scottish Standard 1 advocates a critically aware stance to professional life in the form of this statement: Professionalism also implies the need to ask critical questions of educational policies and practices and to examine our attitudes and beliefs. Values, and the connections between values and practices, need to be regularly re-appraised over the course of teachers’ careers

22 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan as society and the needs of learners change and as understanding develops. This is central to the adaptability, responsiveness and relevance of the profession. (GTC 2012) However, as noted in relation to Theme One, Reflection as Evaluation, the Scottish standards like all of the documents reveal internal tensions between teacher as individual inquirer and the needs of the social system of schooling. Indeed, the Scottish authorities appear to recognise this in giving attention to the exploration of values in conjunction with the standards. For example, the website’s discussion of teachers’ values notes that teachers need to critically examine “the connections between personal and professional attitudes and beliefs, values and practices to effect improvement and, when appropriate, bring about transformative change in practice” (GTC 2012, p. 6). Oddly, there is no consideration of the possibility that the two might clash. Sub-theme two included references to teachers examining their own beliefs, val- ues and dispositions as they might influence teaching and learning decisions. For New Zealand, the Practising Teacher Criteria include the following statement under Criteria 12iii “critically examine their own beliefs, including cultural beliefs, and how they impact on their professional practice and the achievement of ākonga” (Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand 2016). While the GTC for Scotland is keen to leave teachers’ consideration of values as an open-minded, intellectually free process of reflection, England and Singapore seem to adopt an approach to values that is more related to compliance than agency. For example, the English standards document tends to restrict reflective processes to values that are agreed to and are traditionally (and perhaps uniquely understood as) British values. For English system teachers, it was expected that they should behave in ways “not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance of those with differ- ent faiths and beliefs” (p. 14). The wording of this statement alludes to how fraught the whole question of standards related to values is. In the glossary attached to the standards, it is noted that the definition of these British values has been taken from the “definition of extremism as articulated in the new Prevent Strategy” (DfE 2012, p. 3). Similarly, the Singapore document requires that graduating teachers engage with Competency 4.2: Cultivating Knowledge with a Future Focus, to demonstrate that they are “…committed to environmental sustainability, social justice and equity”. Further in Competency 5.1, Winning hearts and Minds: Understanding the Environment, the teacher must show that she/he demonstrates “critical awareness of the norms and values inherent in the Singapore system of education” and “under- stands the Desired Outcomes of Education; and, is aware of the role of school rules, and is committed to understanding and abiding by the operating procedures and organisation structure of the school to which he/she is appointed” (NIE 2009).

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 23 1.5.4.2  Discussion Dewey (1910) argues that “Genuine freedom is intellectual; it rests in the trained power of thought to turn things over, to look at matters deliberately” (p. 66). For him “To cultivate unhindered, unreflective external activity is to foster enslavement” (p.  61). One might argue that there is a compliance inherent in the English and Singapore standards that encourages an adherence to a culturally specific set of values, rather than a critical questioning of such values and policies. We held related concerns about the AITSL standards, where questions of ethics and appropriate conduct are circumvented by referring to other documents that define these values. For example, AITSL 7.1 states that teachers must “Meet codes of ethics and conduct established by regulatory authorities, systems and schools”. We did not include examples of teacher compliance with social norms in this category, since no critical reflection on values seemed to be required. The examples from England and Singapore are discussed as non-examples. In calling attention to non-examples as much as examples, we hope to highlight the point that any notion of reflection that is not very circumscribed will include the capacity to question or doubt any set of values, ethics and politics. As Thompson and Pascal (2012) argue, it is important that values and assumptions are scrutinised in the reflective process. Korthagen (2004) proposes that reflection needs to be about peoples’ “core” con- cerns, what Korthagen calls their “mission” (p.  89). That is, reflection cannot be value-free. This seems to present a problem for a diverse, multicultural society in that people may have diverse values and therefore their reflection takes them in different directions. An investigation of national teacher standards in terms of their discourse on cultural diversity (Santoro and Kennedy 2016) highlighted the privileging of some cultural groups over others in the standards discourses suggesting the potential for standards to be divisive rather than inclusive in their impact. In this vein, Korthagen (2004) quoting Hamachek (1999) suggests that “Consciously, we teach what we know; unconsciously, we teach who we are” (Hamanchek (1999) cited in Korthagen, 2004, p.79). Educational philosophers, like Edwards and Thomas (2010), argue that teachers need to be encouraged to examine their core values. The various standards documents generally do not indicate that such a process of in-depth exami- nation of values is important. For instance, the Australian Reflection on Practice Tool (AITSL 2012), which allows teachers to complete a questionnaire and receive an indication of their present level of achievement of the standards, takes the process of reflection somewhat out of teachers’ hands, an approach, which would appear to undermine the spirit of searching inherent in critical reflection. If teacher critique is eliminated, the achievement of the standards can be seen as an instrument of state socialisation rather than an instrument of teacher professionalism. Looking at teacher standards overall, there is an evident pattern for teachers to be encouraged to be criti- cally aware of teaching practices and how their teaching is meeting students’ needs, but they are not encouraged to be reflective about the larger sociopolitical aspects of schooling and education systems. They are simply required to “know” and “understand” the contexts of schooling and the ­curriculum. They do not negotiate

24 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan that, seek deeper understanding of it or reconcile incoming information with current beliefs – they simply accept it. 1.6  Conclusions This examination of the place of reflective practice among teacher education stan- dards documents revealed that, in all systems, reflection is seen as key to improve- ment in teaching. Ideally (and in a distributive account of its power), it is a process involving collaborative and systematic evaluation of experience, leading to adapta- tion and possibly transformative action. In the majority of the standards, the process by which this occurs is stated generally, only Singapore’s documents outline a model through which this should take place (technical, practical and critical reflec- tion). In the Singapore documents, there is inclusion of “the habit of mind of critical inquiry” (NIE 2012, p. 17). The Singapore approach is interesting because, as we have noted, there is also emphasis in their documents on maintaining the values of Singapore as well as deliberately developing teachers’ capacity to think critically. Perhaps both elements are needed for an effective education system. As noted in this chapter, commentators have been concerned that mandating a process for reflection does not encourage the systematic and critical analysis of what is important in edu- cation that seems integral to a thoughtful professional (Korthagen 2004; Edwards and Thomas 2010). But with this warning in mind, for those of us who work in the fields of teacher learning and teacher credentialing, engaging in notions of teacher reflection as a means for improving practice, improving schools and improving outcomes of com- munities is essential. A teacher educator encountering a pre-service teacher over- whelmed by their first teaching experiences needs to foster the capacity to step back and reflect in the light of professional knowledge as is outlined in the professional standards of all countries. Moreover, as we have also argued, this is where a com- plex view of reflection is essential in that there will be multiple analyses that might apply to any teaching moment. The novice educator needs to be aware of the com- peting theories that might guide their reflection. We believe that a comparative analysis of standards such as we have undertaken here highlights that some standards can obscure rather than recognise the complex questions about educational goals and directions which are at stake in classrooms. Hence it is important that those charged with promoting teacher standards present them in conjunction with complex educational debate. The question of how the individual manages to be/think for her/himself in a social world or education system is one that preoccupied Dewey in Democracy and Education (Dewey 1916). For Dewey, reflection allows the individual to consider the various views of experience and come to his/her own view. The mature thinker is able to enter into others’ expe- rience to make their own decisions, based on their values. The ways that the different system standards deal with the complex process of reflection are revealing of the possible tensions between individual and social norms

1  Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards: Reflection as Mandatory… 25 in educational contexts. If reflective practice is recommended to, or even mandated for, teachers who are employed in a particular context, there seems value in being explicit about what reflective practices looks like because this is likely to facilitate the development of these capacities in teachers. References AITSL. (2012). Reflection on practice tool. Retrieved from http://www.selfassessment.aitsl.edu. au/ AITSL. (2013). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl. edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education [CEPPE]. Chile. (2013). Learning stan- dards, teaching standards and standards for school principals: A comparative study (OECD Education Working Papers No. 99). OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/5k3tsjqtp90v-en Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2013). CAEP Accreditation stan- dards. Retrieved from http://www.caepnet.org/standards/introduction Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). The interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC). Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/resources/programs/interstate_ teacher_assessment_consortium_(intasc).html Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83–91. Department for Education (DfE). (2012). Teachers’ standards. Retrieved from http://media.educa- tion.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/t/teachers%20standards.pdf Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York: D.C. Heath. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/ howwethink000838mbp#page/n25/mode/1up Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Wikisource. Retrieved from https://en.wikisource. org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2016). Practising teacher criteria and graduating teacher standards. Retrieved from https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/ registered-teacher-criteria Edwards, G., & Thomas, G. (2010). Can reflective practice be taught? Educational Studies, 36(4), 403–414. General Teaching Council for Scotland [GTC]. (2012). The standards for registration: Mandatory requirements for registration with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. Retrieved from www.gtcs.org.uk Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73–85. Jones, M., & Ryan, J. (2014). Learning in the practicum: Engaging pre-service teachers in reflec- tive practice in the online space. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 132–146. Killion, J.  P., & Todnem, G.  R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14–16. Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97. Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476–495. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.

26 K. Glasswell and J. Ryan MacRuairc, G., & Harford, J. (2008). Researching the contested place of reflective practice in the emerging culture of performativity in schools: Views from the Republic of Ireland. European Educational Research Journal, 7(4), 501–511. Maxwell, G. (2009). Defining standards for the 21st century. In C. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cummins (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 263–286). London: Springer. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (2016). Five core propositions for teaching. Retrieved from http://boardcertifiedteachers.org/about-certification/ five-core-propositions National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE]. (2014). National unit stan- dards. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Home/tabid/680/Default.aspx National Institute of Education [NIE]. (2012). A teacher education model for the 21st century. NIE’s journey from concept to realisation. An implementation report. National Institute of Education. http://www.nie.edu.sg/files/booklet_web.pdf National Institute of Education, Singapore [NIE]. (2009). A teacher education model for the 21st century. A report. National Institute of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nie.edu.sg/files/ spcs/Te21_online_ver.pdf Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Santoro, N., & Kennedy, A. (2016). How is cultural diversity positioned on teacher professional standards? An international analysis. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 208–223. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Education Council. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Sellars, M. (2014). Reflective practice for teachers. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Singh, P., Märtsin, M., & Glasswell, K. (2013). Knowledge work at the boundary: Making a dif- ference to educational disadvantage. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(2), 102–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.02.001 Solomon, J.  (1987). New thoughts on teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 13(3), 267–274. Sparks-Langer, G., & Colton, A. (1991, March). Synthesis of research on teachers’ reflective thinking. Educational Leadership, 48, 37–44. Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 311–325. doi:10.1080/14623943.2012.657795. van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205–228. van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 33–50. Warwick, P. (2007). Reflective practice: Some notes on the development of the notion of profes- sional reflection. Higher Education Academy. Subject Centre for Excellent ESCalate. Retrieved from www.escalate.ac.uk/ite/help Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 23–48. Zeichner, K.  M., & Tabachnick, B.  R. (1991). Reflections on reflective teaching. In B.  R. Tabachnick & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher educa- tion (pp. 1–18). New York: Falmer Press. Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2009). An analysis of the concept reflective practice and an investigation into the development of student teachers’ reflective practice within the context of action research. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Brunel University, London.

Chapter 2 Reflective Practice: Epistemological Perspectives on Learning from Experience in Teacher Education Tom Russell and Andrea K. Martin Abstract  The argument presented in this chapter begins with the suggestion that reflective practice involves epistemological challenges that have not been ade- quately addressed in the context of traditional assumptions about the design and conduct of teacher education programs. An analysis of literature about technical rationality, reflection-in-action, and the central issues of reflective practice is fol- lowed by a discussion of the significance of mindfulness. We propose that one way to address the neglected epistemological challenges involves a new epistemology for professional practice generally and for teaching and teacher education specifi- cally. We pose a series of significant questions arising from the argument, and we suggest various points of entry for teacher educators willing to accept the complex epistemological challenge that we have identified. Relevant concepts include mind- fulness, habits of mind, teaching artistry, explicit instruction, listening, authorizing voice, reflective teaching, tacit knowledge, critical reflection, and mastery. Because teacher educators possess teaching experience that their students do not, it falls to teacher educators to introduce and model an epistemology of practice for those learning to teach. 2.1  I ntroduction We begin this chapter with six assumptions about reflection and reflective practice that indicate our starting points; taken together, they are intended to be provocative: 1 . Most preservice teacher education programs include reflection and reflective practice in their mission statements and course content. T. Russell (*) • A.K. Martin 27 Queen’s University Faculty of Education, Kingston, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 R. Brandenburg et al. (eds.), Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_2