Reflective Theory_and Practice in _Teacher Education

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 185 and, specifically, the use of data regarding an issue or problem that an individual seeks to change in the professional setting (Osterman and Kottkamp 2004; Korthagen 2001). Loughran (2010) advises that reflective practice ‘is about examining, learn- ing and responding’ (p. 164), something akin to action research (Biggs 2003). The examination aspect of critical reflection is explicated by Brookfield (1995) through four key components or ‘lenses’. These four lenses involve perspectives sought from the theoretical literature, one’s students, one’s colleagues and personal percep- tions of one’s own teaching. The close examination of one’s practice from these multiple perspectives assists in the identification and explanation of the assump- tions influencing actions and ways one might consider to respond and (where neces- sary) improve. Moreover, examination of practice through multiple lenses assists in collecting a variety of data that can confirm and/or challenge conceptions formed by an individual engaged solely in personal reflection and thus provide greater confi- dence and rigour in the conclusions that might be drawn from the reflective process. These multiple viewpoints also provide the robustness of a sound self-study design (Samaras 2010). Like reflective practice, self-study is a method for studying professional practice settings in a manner that is self-initiated and focused, improvement aimed and inter- active (LaBoskey 2004). Self-study is a student-focused, process-oriented and inquiry-based practice (LaBoskey 2004) that draws on a practitioner’s experience and calls on both personal and interpersonal sources (Samaras 2010). These features align well with Brookfield’s lenses for reflective practice as well as with the aims of a constructivist, process-oriented approach to learning. However, whilst self-study draws on the processes of reflective practice, LaBoskey (2004) tells us that it is not actually the same thing as reflective practice. According to LaBoskey, the main distinguishing characteristic that sets self-­ study apart from reflective practice is that self-study researchers have a simultane- ous concern for both their own and their students’ learning in order to achieve enhanced understanding of teacher education. Reflective practice tends to look back on a problem and consider its causes and possible solutions. Self-study does this and then seeks to put into practice the ideas and solutions devised as a fundamental part of the process for the purposes of improving the skills and abilities of them- selves as we well as those of pre-service teachers. This extends the notion of reflec- tive practice, which tends to focus on self, to a focus on self and one’s students. This helps to address the complexity that teacher educators face in reflecting on their teaching about how to teach. This extension of reflective practice in the self-study context is linked to its origins in teacher education and the recognition that teacher educators serve as powerful role models (Loughran 2004). La Boskey (2004) tells us that this means that teacher educators need to overtly reflect on their practice, consider theories underpinning their practice and continually demonstrate the ways in which they are seeking to improve their practice – i.e. practice what they preach. Only then is it likely that students of teacher education will adopt similar habits in their own practice. If these are the markers of good teaching and role modelling, then it was important for me to be cognisant of them in the design of this self-study.

186 M. Jones 10.5  T he Study Design In response to the concerns about science teaching and learning, and science teacher education outlined above, I have endeavoured to follow the principles of construc- tive alignment, deep learning and authentic assessment to create an effective teach- ing, learning and assessment experience in my fourth-year PSTs’ science education unit that aims to build PSTs’ confidence to teach science in the primary years and enhance their attitudes towards science as an important part of the primary school curriculum. The design of the task attempts to provide coherence between the con- tent/curriculum of the unit (which focuses on learning about models of science teaching, learning and assessment and the Australian Science curriculum) and the teaching strategies adopted (which needed to reflect social constructivist, inquiry principles, deep learning, higher-order thinking, authentic assessment and reflection on learning). The redesign of the task into the school setting seemed to provide greater opportunities to meet these goals than the previous ‘microteaching’ experi- ences I was trying to provide in science education tutorials, where small groups of students presented a science mini-lesson to one another. I thought the move to a school-based task increased authenticity in the manner in which PSTs could experi- ence children’s reaction to science teaching, gain opportunities for authentic assess- ment of children’s learning and apply their university-based learning for extended planning and teaching of a science mini-unit. These elements of design address the five-element criteria that Mayer (2015) describes in the ‘Authentic Teacher Assessment’ discussed earlier. In developing this experience, I was also mindful of the need to actively involve students, a criterion that Biggs (2003) and Ramsden (2003) identify as necessary for deep learning, as well as the need to incorporate Bloom’s revised higher-order thinking skills of applying, analysing, evaluating and creating (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001) within the learning outcomes and the activities. SOLO taxonomy was also evident in my planning of the science education unit as a whole, where individual ideas for effective science teaching were introduced and modelled (unis- tructural); multiple theories were compared and contrasted (multistructural); activi- ties were analysed for evidence of different theories (relational); and ultimately, PSTs synthesised and applied their learning to the design implementation, assess- ment and reflection on the culminating mini-unit they delivered in schools (extended abstract). The resulting task required PSTs to work in small groups of 4–5 (interactive learning) to design a mini-unit of science (creative higher-order thinking), using an inquiry learning approach introduced earlier in the unit (application of learning). PSTs were assigned a class of children in a school local to the university in which they implemented their mini-unit of work. Each PST was responsible for the moni- toring, assessment and reporting on learning for a small group of children within the class (application and analysis of their own and others’ learning). PSTs collected photographs and work samples from their small group of children to aid the report- ing process and to reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching and assessment

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 187 ­strategies (evidence-based learning for assessment and reflection). In conducting this reflection on their own learning, PSTs were required to discuss their learning from their personal perspectives, from evidence collected through the children’s work artefacts, from discussion with/observation of one another and by linking their ideas and experiences to literature in the field (analytical and evaluative thinking linked to Brookfield’s four lenses). This helped to emphasise the need for collecting evidence when engaged in assessment and reflection. In some ways, this process may be likened to a self-study methodology embedded in the PSTs’ task. However, as the task lacks the opportunity for immediate application of improvement ideas that is essential to self-study (LaBoskey 2004), the self-study remains largely with how the study informed my practice rather than what PSTs were accomplishing through the experience. 10.5.1  Structure of the Unit The science education unit for pre-service teachers consisted of a 1 hour lecture and a 2 hour tutorial each week for 12 weeks. The early part of the unit was dedicated to exploring and modelling inquiry approaches to science teaching and learning (uni- and multistructural learning outcomes). From this background positioning, PSTs were charged with the task of analysing science learning using the different theo- ries/frameworks discussed (relational learning outcomes) and ultimately designing their mini-unit of work, which had to run for 1–1.5 hour per week for the last 5 weeks of the science unit. For these 5 weeks, tutorial time was given in lieu of the time spent in schools, and attendance at the lecture was provided in lieu of the expectation that mini-unit planning was adjusted in response to PST reflection on children’s progress and learning each week. Collectively the planning, implementa- tion and reflection in which PSTs were engaged was informed by the literature to ensure that elements of deep learning, constructive alignment and reflective practice were strongly embedded in the task. However, questions remained in relation to students’ experience of the task and whether it could be better designed and/or bet- ter managed in order to maximise the potential for effective learning and what types of evidence could be collected in order to measure the success of the task in improv- ing PSTs’ attitudes towards and confidence to teach science. Thus, the research question framing the self-study was: How can I improve my teaching of a science teacher education unit to increase PST levels of confidence to teach science and enhance their learning about science teaching in a school-based science teacher education program?

188 M. Jones 10.6  M ethodology The self-study methodology entailed a reflection on the design and implementation of the task using student feedback and examination of the literature as sources of data and evidence to interpret my practice. The theoretical underpinnings informing my practice are based on social constructivist approaches to learning and critical reflective practice. This fits within the theoretical framework of self-study given its link to reflection based on data (LaBoskey 2004; Samaras 2010). To examine the influence of the task I designed, I collected both qualitative and quantitative data when exploring the student feedback facet of this self-study. Loughran (2004) indicates that there is no single best method or approach to self-study: self-study tends to be methodologically framed through the question/issue/concern under consideration so that it invokes the use of a method(s) that is most appropriate for uncover- ing evidence in accord with the purpose/intent of the study. (p. 17) 10.6.1  Participants As a self-study research project, technically I was the sole participant of the study. However, I did draw on data from a total of 87 PST participants to inform my reflec- tion on my own practice. The PSTs providing feedback came from four, approxi- mately equal-sized tutorial groups across two consecutive iterations of the task in 2009 and 2010. Each PST provided two forms of data: consensogram data and a written evaluation. The data for all four groups were collapsed to create a single set of participants who were considered for two scales: attitude and confidence. Groups were collapsed because I was the sole teacher/tutor for each of them, which ensured that the delivery of lectures and tutorials and the implementation of the task at the centre of the self-study were common across each of them. 10.6.2  D ata Collection and Analysis Multiple sources of data were collected to ensure that the multiple viewpoints Samaras (2010) calls for in the self-study process were included. These included both quantitative and qualitative data from PSTs, my own personal perceptions and reflection on the implementation of the programme and on the feedback from PSTs and analysis of the design and implementation in light of these data in relation to seminal and current literature informing best practice approaches in the field.

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 189 10.6.2.1  PST Feedback Quantitative data was collected as a part of PST feedback through a ‘consensogram’ that was conducted before and after the implementation of the task. The consenso- gram (Fig. 10.1) involved PSTs placing a sticker on a set of axes to represent their confidence to teach science (vertical axis) and the importance they believed science to have in the primary school curriculum (horizontal axis). A grid was then used as an overlay to aid the measurement on a continuous scale of the vertical and horizon- tal distance (in centimetres) from the centre of each sticker to the axes (Fig. 10.1). These measurements were averaged and used to statistically analyse differences in the before and after averages. To test the statistical significance of average changes, it was planned that an independent samples t-test would be used. The assumptions behind the t-test include that sample sizes are equal and normally distributed, that measurements are made on an interval scale and that the standard deviations of the before and after groups are approximately equal (Burns 2000). Summary statistics and Levene’s test for homogeneity were used to test these conditions. Where Levene’s test was statistically significant, an independent samples t-test for unequal variance was used. The second component of PST feedback was the qualitative data which PSTs provided through written feedback regarding the strengths/benefits of the task and the weaknesses/areas for improvement. This provided feedback that contributed to the evaluation of both the design of the task and the way it was implemented and managed. The process of analytical induction (Richards 2009) was applied to PSTs’ written feedback in order to identify themes within the categories of strengths and weaknesses of the task. Analytical induction involves multiple passes of the data as they are sorted into themes, where these themes are reviewed for further separation or collapse as more data are revealed. Fig. 10.1  Scaled grid overlay to aid consensogram measurements

190 M. Jones Table 10.1  Coding for Code Category categories applied to PST responses RU Remember/understand AP Apply AN Analyse EV Evaluate CR Create The written feedback from PSTs was collected through a template designed using the revised Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework. Questions in the template covering the categories of Remember/Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate and Create included: 1 . What is the main thing you remember/understand as a result of this task? (Remember/Understand) 2 . What have you learnt from this experience that you will apply in your future teaching? (Apply) 3 . What aspect(s) of your teaching might be different as a result of this experience? (Analyse) 4 . Was the teaching in schools a valuable way for you to learn about how to teach and assess science? Why/why not? What would have made it a better learning experience? (Evaluate.) 5 . To prepare you to be the best science teacher possible, what would you suggest this unit needs: –– more of? –– to be done differently? –– to get rid of? (Create) Responses were coded according to the Bloom’s category with which they were associated (Table 10.1). After this initial coding, analytical induction was applied to identify themes within each category. These themes were identified by the sorting of responses according to the similarity of their content. 10.6.2.2  Personal Perceptions and Reflection Personal perceptions and reflection were achieved in two parts. As the programme was implemented, I noted my personal perceptions of the aspects of the task that seemed to be working well and those that I thought I might improve on. These per- ceptions were noted in a diary that I kept as I visited the classrooms in which PSTs were implementing their mini-units. In these classroom visits, I observed PSTs as they provided whole group instruction and as they implemented small group science activities. I also spoke with the classroom teachers about the science units and how the PSTs were going. I spent a minimum of 30 min in each classroom and generally visited each class every second week over the 5-week period of implementation. After each set of visits, I made notes in a personal diary to reflect what I perceived

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 191 to be working well and what I thought I needed to address to improve further itera- tions of the programme. The second part of the personal reflection occurred throughout the assessment process. Assessment consisted of a group and an individual component that together equated to 60% of the unit’s assessment. The group component entailed each group’s unit plan assessed against how well it demonstrated evidence of accurate planning to the 5Es instructional framework (Bybee 1989), use of effective and engaging hands-on learning activities, inclusion of higher-order questioning and relevant embeddedness of different forms of assessment. Groups were not assessed on their actual teaching, only on the documentation of their planning. The individ- ual component of assessment entailed learning journals that PSTs completed for each child in the class (where each PST monitored and reported on approximately four children each) and their individual reflection on their own learning. Throughout the assessment of these final submissions, I made further notes in my diary of areas I perceived the PSTs to have or have not addressed well in the task. The personal perceptions data were analysed by reading and sorting my diary notes into themes. These aspects of data, PST feedback and my own perceptions, together with the extant literature informing the field of teacher education, both generally and specific to science, were used to inform reflection on the design and implementation of the task. 10.7  Results This section presents the quantitative and qualitative data collected from the student feedback as well as the personal reflections I noted in my diary after each set of classroom visits and throughout the assessment process. 10.7.1  Student Feedback: Consensogram Data The consensogram used at the beginning and end of the unit provided a measure of PSTs’ confidence to teach science and of their attitude towards the importance of science education. It was administered both before and after undertaking the learn- ing and assessment task requiring them to plan, implement, assess, report and reflect on a mini-unit of science. Figure 10.2 shows the before and after images for each group of participants, and the summary statistics for the data from the collapsed groups is presented in Table 10.2. Results in Table 10.2 show what appear to be large differences in variance of the before and after data. Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was applied and found that the assumption of equal variances did not hold (p < 0.01), so the t-test for unequal variance was applied to determine whether or not the mean response was

192 M. Jones Fig. 10.2  Before and after consensograms for each participant group Table 10.2  Statistics summary for PST’s attitudes towards and confidence to teach science Scale N Sum Average Std.Dev Variance Attitude before 87 2077.6 23.880 6.333 40.111 Attitude after 87 2631.5 30.247 3.939 15.516 Confidence before 87 989.7 11.376 3.462 11.987 Confidence after 87 1611.4 18.522 2.522 6.359 Table 10.3  t-test for unequal variance for PST’s attitudes towards and confidence to teach science Attitude Df pa t Confidence 143.87 157.206 0.00 −7.962 ap < 0.01 0.00 −15.562 the same for students before and after their school experience. The results from the t-test for unequal variances for each scale (attitudes and confidence) are reported in Table 10.3. Table 10.3 data shows that there is a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.01 level in both attitudes towards and confidence to teach science after the in-­ schools experience. This suggests that the overall experience of planning, imple- menting and reflecting on a mini-unit of science had its desired effect of improving PSTs’ attitudes about the importance of science education (p < 0.01) and increasing levels of confidence in their ability to teach science (p < 0.01). Not only did attitude scores and levels of confidence increase significantly, but the variability in responses within the group decreased significantly (p < 0.01), indicating that the improved levels of attitude towards and increased confidence to teach science were more con- sistent after the school-based teaching experience. The quantitative data reported above provides a good insight to the overall impact of the learning and assessment task on PSTs’ attitudes towards and confidence to teach science. However, it does not show which particular elements of the task were more or less effective than others or in what ways PSTs experienced success or felt improvement was needed. Hence, qualitative data, provided through PSTs’ written

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 193 evaluations, was used to provide a richer data set for the self-study analysis and reflection. 10.7.2  Student Feedback: Written Evaluations Written responses were provided in answer to five key questions based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy, outlined earlier. Responses in the middle-order questions dealing with what PSTs felt they would apply in their own teaching and what they thought would be different as a result of their experience were similar for the 87 participants who completed the written evaluation; consequently, these categories were col- lapsed into one. In contrast, the higher-order categories of Evaluate (was the experi- ence valuable…) and Create (what should there be more of/done differently/ removed) yielded different response types. PSTs tended to identify a range of ben- efits when responding to the Evaluate section of the evaluation, and in the Create section, responses were more concerned with ideas for improving the task and expe- rience. The themes emerging from each of the lower, middle and higher levels of thinking are shown in Tables 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7, respectively. Each theme is reported in order of prevalence alongside comments that were aligned with the iden- tification of each theme and corresponding response frequencies. Some PSTs pro- vided more than one comment and hence the total number of responses sum to more than the number of PSTs who commented. Table 10.4  Low-order responses: what PSTs remember and understand about science teaching Theme Sample comment Frequency of Approach to teaching and response assessing science Different approaches to science teaching, e.g. 99 (52%) Authentic classroom 5Es & PoLT [RU14] 29 (15%) experience Being in a school and actually being able to 20 (11%) Student engagement apply my knowledge in a real-world 18 (9%) environment [RU46] 11 (6%) Content knowledge 8 (4%) How engaged and enthusiastic the students Team teaching were [RU22] 3 (2%) 2 (1%) Being prepared Concepts associated with ‘Push and Pull’ – 190 (100%) gravity, force, air resistance [RU21] Science can be fun and easy to teach Gaining more experience teaching in a team Diversity of student ability [RU34] Total To always be well prepared and have a strong knowledge of the content you are teaching [RU35] That it doesn’t have to be so complicated, you can make it simple [RU12] Students identify science in various ways and have many different opinions [RU49]

194 M. Jones Table 10.5  Middle-order responses: what PSTs will apply or change in their future science teaching Theme Sample comment Frequency of Approach to teaching response science The 5Es – really worked well when incorporating 84 (50%) these in the unit of work [AP50] Increased confidence 28 (17%) I have seen that students learn so much more and Reporting and remember more from hands-on experiences rather 16 (10%) assessment strategies than worksheet activities [AP25] 12 (7%) Allowing time 8 (5%) I feel a lot more confident about teaching science 6 (4%) Classroom and will probably be more likely to teach it often 5 (3%) management [AN22] 5 (3%) Integrated curriculum 3 (1%) My assessment strategies will mimic that of this 167 (100%) Being prepared assessment [AN19] Ensure relevance Better planning to allow students time for thinking and taking control of their learning [AN43] Team teaching Total Classroom and small group management strategies when conducting experiments [AP26] I will attempt to teach science as an integrated topic [AN35] Always plan and know several ways of explaining things [AP2] I have learnt you need to link science with the real world [AP42] Team teaching [AP14] Table 10.6  Higher-order responses: evaluating the in-schools learning and assessment task Theme Sample comment Frequency of Beneficial to have an response authentic experience It gave a real experience of what it will be like in 44 (52%) schools. Not simulated with peers who have to show Beneficial to see how an interest [EV2] 13 (15%) students respond It gave me a true indication if what I was explaining 11 (13%) Developed skills of was making sense to kids due to the way they 7 (8%) assessment answered questions and conducted experiments Developed teaching [EV3] 6 (7%) skills 4 (5%) It helped me to understand better about ways in 85 (100%) Built confidence which I can assess children’s work [EV6] Working as a group It enabled me to practice, plan and most importantly evaluate my planning to better assist my delivery of Total science lessons [EV39] It allowed me to teach in a group environment to build confidence in a ‘safe’ environment [EV7] Because we were able to reflect as a group to get a broader idea of the best strategies to use [EV34]

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 195 Table 10.7  High-order responses: improving the in-schools learning and assessment task Theme Sample comment Frequency of response Would like more: Having more time in the classroom [EV35] 44 (30%) Time in schools More examples of how to teach certain topics. The 31 (21.5%) Content at Uni topics that are required set out in each VELS level [CR2] 12 (8%) Opportunities to Resources/kits/books/etc. to aid our planning [CR30] debrief Maybe some time to share our science in-school 10 (7%) experiences with one another. Share different Guidance for learning approaches, what worked/what didn’t [EV12] 10 (7%) journals More of a focus on how to write teacher comments and learning journals as I felt I was making it up as I 4 (3%) Knowledge of students/ went along [CR32] 4 (3%) schools Knowing how the school runs beforehand. Knowing 1 (.5%) the students learning background – what have they 116 (80%) Feedback from already covered? [EV3] 8 (6%) classroom teacher Getting feedback from the classroom teacher about Time for assessment how our lesson ran [CR37] 4 (3%) task Time in class to work on learning journals, e.g. 1 h Other tute time as well as going to schools [CR4] 2 (1%) Subtotal Better group cohesion and communication 1 (.5%) Would like less: 1 (.5%) PSTs in groups Smaller groups – 2–3 – requiring higher levels of 16 (11%) class control and able to teach more than one lesson, 13 (9%) Less report writing to trial different strategies [CR23] Having less journals to report on. I think focusing on 145 (100%) Emphasis on 5Es one or two students would be a better approach [CR13] Multiage classrooms Not having to follow the 5Es when sequencing our lessons [EV48] No submission after Work with a straight grade. I found the multiage week 12 classroom very challenging Subtotal Not having to hand things in in the holidays. Start it No change earlier [EV20] Total I liked the unit the way it was as it gave me a lot of new ideas and skills to become a more confident science teacher [CR1] In the Evaluate category, PSTs were asked to judge whether the in-schools approach was a valuable way to learn about how to teach and assess science and what would have made it a better learning experience. All 87 PSTs returned their written responses and indicated that the experience was a valuable one. Of the 87 responses provided, 85 (96%) also gave a reason as to why the experience was valu-

196 M. Jones able. Six types of reasons emerged from the analysis of these responses (Table 10.6). There were no responses providing feedback on what would have made the task a better learning experience in this category, but Table 10.7 outlining the responses to what they would like more of, less of and done differently does provide feedback on potential areas for improvement. 10.7.3  P ersonal Perceptions Themes emerging from the reading and sorting of my diary notes led to the identi- fication of eight themes. As often occurs in self-study research (LaBoskey 2004), most of these themes were associated with areas for improvement rather than aspects that were working well. Identified themes along with sample excerpts from my diary that show a representation of each theme is reported in Table 10.8. 10.8  Discussion 10.8.1  Strengths/Benefits of the Task The results in Tables 10.4 and 10.5 reflect that the strongest area of recall and under- standing for PSTs was associated with approaches to teaching science. They felt that they understood and intended to apply the approaches they were exposed to and/or trialled for themselves in their future teaching. Coupled with the main benefit PSTs identified of having an authentic teaching experience (Table 10.6), this suggests that building understanding of and confidence in using best practice approaches such as the 5Es inquiry framework (Australian Academy of Science 2009) can be attributed to the first-hand, practical experience provided by the school-based component of the unit. This inference is reinforced by the other benefits PSTs identified such as devel- oping assessment, reporting and teaching skills, which suggests increased belief in their abilities in these areas. Further evidence that beliefs/attitudes were positively impacted can be drawn from the responses that provide explicit identification of con- fidence as something that increased when PSTs analysed their experience (Table 10.5) and as a benefit of the experience (Table 10.6) and that some saw that science can actually be ‘fun’ and ‘easy’ to teach [or at least more fun and easier than they thought it would be] (Table 10.4). These written responses are also supported by the consen- sogram data where significant increases in confidence and attitudes towards science were obtained. My personal perceptions also allude to this as reflected in the excerpt dealing with confidence (Table 10.8). This excerpt was one of the many that had the PSTs telling me how surprised they were that the children loved science so much and that they had never had the sort of reaction to learning in other subject areas they had previously taught on rounds. I could also see their confidence growing, albeit, this was more obvious to me when they were working with their small groups and did not really notice my watching them.

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 197 Table 10.8  Personal perception themes Theme Sample excerpt Use of questioning Today it was really obvious that they don’t know how to scaffold PST confidence learning through questioning. There isn’t enough wait time and they [PSTs] just tell them [the children] the answer …too many Inclusivity closed questions. I really need to address questioning in the uni work to improve this Research the content Equipment/resources I can see that they [PSTs] are a bit nervous with me in the room, Encouraging especially during the whole group instruction time. In the small self-reflection group work, they relax a bit more, and I can see them enjoying the Contribution to group activities they have designed for the children. I think their work confidence is growing. One of them said they couldn’t believe how Comment writing much the kids loved them coming and it made them want to keep teaching science as they hadn’t experienced that sort of reaction on rounds before Had a horrible moment today watching the Gr 3 class involved in a ‘recycling race’ to sort ‘rubbish’ into landfill/recyclable/ compost…Not too bad an activity generally speaking – except for the poor child in the wheelchair who could not participate in the racing … I really need to emphasise the need for activities to be inclusive of all children in the class. Need to know what to cater for before the planning takes place The Earth rotates around the moon! Can’t believe they said it… how can I emphasise the critical importance of background research into the content??? These were my lazy group mind you K (teacher) told me today that the group arrived with none of their photocopying done. I did emphasise that they needed to go prepared – do I need to break this down into individual aspects of preparation – prac equipment, photocopying, etc.? Painful today watching B (PST) hold the children (Gr 2) on the floor for 40 min just talking at them! …How can I encourage B to reflect on this without damaging her confidence? The reflection is serving as a whinge fest for how much they did and other group members didn’t do. I think I need to separate the reflection and the contribution to group work and try to structure each to elicit the level of detail I am hoping for None of them have annotated the learning journals properly – do they know what annotation means? Lots of slang in the comments and comments are more about behaviour and enjoyment than learning These results also confirm what the literature already suggested about the design of the task appearing to allow for the deep, constructively aligned learning experi- ence intended. PSTs highlighted a number of important aspects of their learning such as increased understanding of the theories and strategies covered in university sessions when they were able to apply this knowledge in the classroom: ‘Being in a school and actually being able to apply my knowledge in a real world environment’ [RU46]. A range of learning that indicated deepening of understanding of effective science teaching was also identified. Evidence of this learning was represented in themes from Table  10.4 such as realising the diversity of student ability and the

198 M. Jones increased content knowledge they gained. In considering what they would apply or what will change in their practice (Table 10.5), there were a number of PSTs who identified their intention to adopt the 5Es framework and/or other hands-on teaching approaches, adopting authentic assessment practices such as those they applied as a part of this unit’s assessment. PSTs also mentioned their increased understanding of how to manage the classroom and small group work when completing science experiments, allowing students time for thinking and discussing, and the need to make links between teaching topics and the real world so that students could see the relevance of their learning. Although I was not there for all the lessons, I did notice that the time for thinking could be improved in most cases, as is reflected in the excerpt dealing with ‘Use of Questioning’ (Table  10.8). Towards the end of the school-based teaching time, I had a few PSTs commenting that they were recognis- ing their questioning needed improvement. Generally, the ideas and approaches identified by PSTs are consistent with a range of best practices in science teaching and learning such as inquiry approaches (Hackling and Prain 2005) and the Science in Schools (SiS) components (Tytler 2002). That PSTs were readily able to identify these types of ideas suggests that the learning experience is constructively aligned the unit’s learning outcomes. The level of PST engagement in the task and their identification of the authenticity of the experience as the key benefit of the task demonstrate an active learning approach consistent with the ideas behind deep learning. Together these results provide evi- dence that my explicit use of background literature regarding effective teaching and learning has been fairly successful in translating to my design of the task. The PST responses show the increases in confidence and attitude hoped for and also reflected PSTs’ tendency to discuss their own teaching of science with reference to the approaches and frameworks being covered. That is, they seem to be learning how to be effective teachers of science. I am really affirmed by these positive results and encouraged to keep the task as a key component of the teaching, learning and assess- ment of the unit. 10.8.2  A reas for Improvement In the final question of the written evaluation, PSTs were asked to respond to a ‘Create’ level question probing for ways they might create a better learning experi- ence through the identification of what they thought there should be more of, less of and none of in the task. The overwhelming response was that PSTs wanted more time in schools, closely followed by the desire for more content and examples at university. Within the time available, I see these two suggestions as being in direct competition, and whilst each would be ideal, there are a number of limitations inhibiting action on these sugges- tions. For example, the university has a 12-week semester, and only 10 weeks over- lap with school terms due to the way holidays are structured in the two systems. This leaves limited time to strike a balance between an appropriate level of prepara-

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 199 tion for science teaching (unistructural, multistructural and relational learning out- comes) and the practical experience that serves to consolidate this theoretical knowledge through application and analysis (extended abstract learning outcomes). As Korthagen (2001) points out, ‘both practice on its own, and theory alone are incomplete … one can only really understand the former if one knows about the latter and vice versa’ (p. xi). Adding any more content or time in schools would not allow for sufficient learning time to be given, which would impede the modelling and application of best practice teaching approaches that I currently model. In addi- tion to this, the final 5 weeks of the PSTs’ university semester falls in the first 5 weeks of the school’s second term. The 2 week period preceding this is usually the school holidays, and prior to this, it is too early in the semester for PSTs to have covered sufficient theory in order to apply it effectively to develop their mini-unit. I do not see any functional way to achieve these suggestions without compromising the quality of the learning experience, which could potentially ‘undo’ some of the deep learning and student satisfaction with the experience that is currently being achieved. I do wonder, however, whether the involvement of a colleague to assist in reflective discussion and/or analysis of students’ data might help provide alternative perspectives that are otherwise limited due to the solitary nature of the reflection I am involved in when examining these data. This could be a design flaw in the self-­ study methodology that I need to address in my ongoing self-study research. The next three suggestions PSTs identified in the written feedback for additions to the task included opportunities to debrief, guidance on the learning reports and knowledge of the students/school (Table 10.7). Once they began in schools, PSTs had limited opportunity to share with anyone outside their immediate group mem- bers and myself when I visited the classes they were teaching. Loughran (2002) discusses effective reflective practice as the consideration of ‘teacher knowledge through particular concrete examples’ (p. 39), which can lead to a bridging of the theory-practice gap. He highlights the importance of ‘positioning the student teacher as a learner in a curriculum constructed as a result of real experiences and recon- structed through interaction between learners’ (p. 41, emphasis added) as a strategy for achieving this. It was the reconstruction through interaction that was limited in my design of the task. Incorporating greater opportunities for PSTs to interact with one another during and after their school-based experience would deepen their abil- ity to connect theory and practice ideas and to build a wider repertoire of ideas for approaching science teaching. It would also further support the achievement of deep learning as it provides a framework for ongoing feedback; something Ramsden (2003) tells us encourages deep learning. The task is currently designed with both lectures and tutorials given as time in lieu of the 5 weeks in schools. As one student suggests, 1 hour of this time in lieu could easily and legitimately be incorporated back into university time to enable greater facilitation of the reflection and sharing to maximise the learning potential from the experience. I believe this alteration in the delivery/implementation might also help to address some of the issues I had documented in my diary. For example, the themes dealing with the writing of com- ments and the encouraging self-reflection (Table 10.8) could be addressed if there were ongoing, concurrent time back at university throughout the school-based

200 M. Jones period. Some of this university time could be instructional (e.g. how to write a good report comment) and other time might be used to facilitate critical self-reflection. This feedback has helped me identify the need to teach students’ how to reflect and that critical self-reflection needs facilitation. PST feedback also highlighted that more guidance on completing learning reports was needed. This stems from the limited opportunities the overall course provides for PSTs to write reports on student learning for a parent audience. A sample of a good report is used to help illustrate how they can be effectively con- structed, but additional guidance could further support learning and achievement. The use of model answers like this is encouraged by Ramsden (2003) to help stu- dents understand what counts as good evidence. Whilst time for this is restricted in the initial weeks of the unit before the school experience begins, as discussed above, providing some concurrent university time throughout the school-based period would support greater scaffolding of the report writing task. This aspect of the task has highlighted to me how little opportunity PSTs have to assess and report on chil- dren’s learning in their initial teacher education course. I was both shocked and amazed by some of the comments that PSTs thought would be appropriate for par- ents’ reading. Initial teacher education does not generally provide authentic experi- ences of writing for a parent audience, and this is something difficult to achieve through contrived examples. I have become aware of the power of providing an authentic need to write to the parent audience about children’s learning and how much this also needs to be facilitated for novices. The current design of the task sees PSTs selecting a topic and developing it knowing only the grade level they are to teach and how many children are in their assigned class. Increased knowledge of the class and children could be gained with better liaison with classroom teachers before the school experience begins. This would help to address feedback PSTs provided about the disadvantage of not know- ing their class (Table 10.7) as well as my own observations about needing to plan for inclusivity (Table  10.8), which requires early knowledge of any special needs. Information regarding special learning needs due to disability would need to be done carefully in order to protect sensitive and/or confidential student data. Other prior information that could enhance this component of the task might include find- ing out what topics would fit with other learning themes running in the classroom and/or to avoid topics that have already been covered. Obtaining information about how the school runs could be achieved by encouraging PSTs to meet their class- room teacher and/or the class in their own time prior to the commencement of the official teaching experience. Incorporation of these ideas would better address the first of the five elements Mayer (2015) lists in the Authentic Teacher Assessment Model associated with knowing the context. Some care would be needed in this too, as increasing expectations and workload on classroom teachers could impact on their willingness to be involved in the programme. The main suggestion in the areas PSTs wanted less of was the number of mem- bers in their team teaching group. Whilst this would increase the teaching time for individuals, which is one of the main reasons given for wanting this reduction, it would also increase the number of children each PST was responsible for monitor-

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 201 ing and reporting on. This would increase the manner in which the task reflects the environment PSTs are likely to face as practising teachers; however, it would also conflict with the next most prevalent suggestion in this category, which was to reduce the number of learning reports each PST has to prepare. These two sugges- tions would need to be considered together alongside university requirements on what constitutes reasonable student workload and how this could be maintained with equity to both the PSTs and the children in the class. It would, for example, be inequitable for a few children to receive a learning report and not others, as the sug- gestions tend to indicate (see sample comment in Table 10.7). If the requirement to hand the learning reports back to the schools was removed from the task, the authen- ticity of this component of the task might be compromised. The size of the report, however, could be reduced to ensure that report writing skills are still practised, each child/parent could receive a report and the workload for PSTs would  remain fair and manageable. This is also something that I could trial in future iterations of the programme. The only other suggested reductions in the experience came from a very small number of PSTs and included suggestions that would be difficult or impractical to achieve. The first, not to use the 5Es stands in contradiction to the overwhelming number of responses that highlighted this framework as both beneficial and some- thing they intended to apply in their future practice. It would also contradict best practice literature about effective science teaching practice (e.g. Australian Academy of Science 2009; Hackling and Prain 2005). However, the task could be written to encourage the incorporation of other best practice ideas, e.g. SIS (Tytler 2002) and PoLT (DEECD 2007), so students do not think they need to be exclusive in applying the 5Es in their planning. The use of multiage classrooms cannot be avoided. Turning down a volunteer teacher on this basis could threaten the university’s rela- tionship with the school and have implications beyond this relatively small school-­ based project. Teaching in multiage classrooms is also a skill that is important for PSTs to develop and practice given the prevalence of this arrangement in Australian schools. Not submitting work after week 12 (which, in contrast to the comment provided, is not in PSTs’ holidays) is difficult to avoid due to the timing of the uni- versity and school calendars. Moreover, submission in the study week, which fol- lows the final week of classes for the semester, is within the university’s assessment policy and procedures. Overall, there appear to be a number of areas for improving the design and implementation of this task that could potentially increase its effectiveness and abil- ity to achieve deep learning and improved confidence to teach science. The core of these that relate to my own teaching pedagogy is in how I need to incorporate the teaching of good questioning, appropriate report writing that focuses on children’s learning rather than behaviour and enjoyment and how important it is to provide as much information and opportunity for PSTs to know the class of children they will be teaching, especially given the short time that they are in schools for the imple- mentation of this task. A number of these aspects of effective teaching seem obvious to me at this end of the self-study, but without the close examination of my practice and the translation of that in my PSTs’ enactment of their learning, I would not have been as acutely aware of these key elements of enhancing my teaching.

202 M. Jones 10.9  C onclusion Overall, the self-study analysis and critical reflection on PST responses in light of theoretical ideas about best practice teaching and learning, both in science and in higher education contexts, have provided useful data for enhancing my practice as a science teacher educator. The study sought to explore how I could improve my teaching of a science teacher education unit to increase PST levels of confidence to teach science and enhance their learning about science teaching in a school-based programme. Results suggest that the school-based teaching experience is successful in improving PSTs’ confidence to teach science and their belief in their ability to teach it – that is, it appears to enhance their readiness as teachers of primary science. It also improved their general attitude towards the importance of science in the pri- mary school curriculum. These results were demonstrated through statistically sig- nificant increases in confidence and attitude in the consensogram data and in the responses to the written evaluation where approaches to teaching science, confi- dence and the opportunity for an authentic teaching and assessing experience fea- tured as prevailing themes about what PSTs felt they understood better and analysed as areas that would influence change in their future teaching practice. These results suggest that the design of the task is quite sound. It appears to reflect a number of Biggs’ (2003) criteria for achieving deep learning and constructive alignment. However, there were also a number of valuable suggestions and personal insights for how I could improve my practice. Some of these suggestions were administra- tive in nature and some more pedagogical in focus. The core ideas I take from the study to enhance my pedagogical practices as a science teacher educator are con- cerned with teaching about questioning, facilitating critical self-reflection and the need to know the students you will be teaching  – especially when the teaching contact time is relatively short. Consideration of these suggestions will be built into ongoing iterations of the task that has otherwise been a positive and effective change in my design and teaching of this science education unit. I will continue to engage in self-study research to examine the effect of these improvement ideas on PST development and my own teaching pedagogy. Overall, this study provides strong indicators that school-based experiences that are embedded in teacher education units have the potential to better achieve a nexus between theory and practice; align teaching, learning and assessment in more ­meaningful ways; and allow for critical reflective practice that enhances both the teacher education experience and the learning achieved by PSTs. Finally, I think this study highlights the potential for self-study research to assist the design and imple- mentation of enhanced teaching, learning and assessment experiences for science teacher candidates. My modelling of evidence-based reflection on the learning PSTs experience shows them that it is important to question your effectiveness as a teacher and demonstrates some strategies for engaging in critical self-reflection. Ultimately, this can only benefit the quality of these teacher candidates over the course of their careers and enhance the profile and experience of primary school science, although examination of such longitudinal impacts currently remains the seed for yet another study.

10  Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 203 References AITSL. (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl. edu.au/docs/default-source/apst-resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_ final.pdf Akerson, V. (2005). How do elementary teachers compensate for incomplete science content knowledge? Research in Science Education, 35, 245–268. Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Appleton, K. (2003). Pathways in professional development in primary science: extending science PCK. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Melbourne Australia, 10-12 July 2003. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999). Why teach primary science? Influences on beginning teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 155–168. Australian Academy of Science. (2009). Primary connections: An introduction. Department of Education, Science and Training and Australian Academy of Science. Retrieved from http:// www.science.org.au/primaryconnections/images/intro-to-pc.pdf Biggs, J.  (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). New York: Open University Press. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest: Longman-Pearson Education Australia. Bybee, R. W. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: The National Centre for Improving Instruction. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. DEECD. (2007). The principles of learning and teaching (PoLT). Retrieved from http://www.edu- cation.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/support/Pages/teaching.aspx Department for Education U.K. (2011). Teachers’ standards. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283566/Teachers_standard_infor- mation.pdf Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs: Canberra. Hackling, M., & Prain, V. (2005). Primary connections: Stage 2 research report. Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science and Department of Education Science and Training. Jones, M., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.  1067–1103). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.. Kenny, J. (2010). Preparing pre-service primary teachers to teach primary science: A partnership approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1267–1288. Korthagen, F. (2001). Teacher education: A problematic enterprise in linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.. LaBoskey, V. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-­ study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Light, G., Cox, R., & Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

204 M. Jones Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. Loughran, J. (Ed.). (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Springer. Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Lyons, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., Parnell, A., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia the SiMERR national survey: A research report. Armidale: Department of Education, Science and Training, National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia, University of New England. Mayer, D. (2015). An approach to the accreditation of initial teacher education programs based on evidence of the impact of learning teaching. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/initial-teacher-­ education-resources/ite-reform-stimulus-paper-1-mayer.pdf National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2014). National board standards. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/national-board-standards Neary, M. (2002). Curriculum studies in post-compulsory and adult education: A teacher’s and student teacher’s study guide. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Osterman, K., & Kottkamp, R. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional develop- ment to improve student learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer. Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage publications. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Russell, T. L., & Bullock, S. (1999). Discovering our professional knowledge as teachers: Critical dialogues about learning from experience. In J.  Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp.  132–151). London: Falmer Press. Samaras, A. (2010). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Sanders, T. (2004). No time to waste: The vital role of college and university leaders in improving science and mathematics education. In: Teacher Preparation and Institutions of Higher Education: Mathematics and Science Content Knowledge, United States Department of Education, Washington, DC. Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). Student teachers’ conceptions about effective primary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 331–351. Tan, K., & Mijung, K. (2012). Issues and challenges in science education research. In K. Tan & K.  Mijung (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward (pp. 1–4). Dordecht: Springer. The General Teaching Council for Scotland [GTC]. (2012). The standards for registration: Mandatory requirements for registration with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. Retrieved from http://www.gtcs.org.uk/web/FILES/the-standards/standards-for-registration- ­1212.pdf Tytler, R. (2002). School innovation in science (SIS). Focusing on teaching. Investigating, 18(3), 8–12. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J.  (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.

Chapter 11 The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice Mellita Jones and Josephine Ryan Abstract  This chapter will investigate the complexities of designing an optimum online learning environment in which pre-service teachers can reflect on their pract- icum teaching experiences and come to critical understandings about their practice. It charts the pedagogical journey of two teacher educators engaged in a series of teaching initiatives implemented with a view to fostering critical reflective practice in pre-service teachers during the potentially isolating practicum component of their course. To counter this isolation, online forums were established to promote critical reflection among pre-service teachers, and lecturers monitored the impact of the pedagogical choices. Findings point to the need for teacher educators engaged in promoting online discussion with pre-service teachers during practicum to maintain a delicate balance between addressing pre-service teachers’ social and cognitive needs. 11.1  I ntroduction This chapter charts our journey, two teacher educators, engaged in critical reflection on a series of teaching initiatives we implemented with a view to fostering critical reflective practice in our pre-service teachers during the practicum component of their course. The importance of teachers being skilled reflective practitioners is espoused in a number of teacher professional standard documents around the world. For this reason, among others, pre-service teacher education must teach the skills of reflection as part of programmes so that novice teachers begin their professional careers with sufficient knowledge and experience of reflective practice. It is during their professional experience or practicum in schools that pre-service teach- ers are best situated to develop their powers to think critically about their practice. M. Jones (*) 205 Australian Catholic University, Ballarat, VIC, Australia 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_11

206 M. Jones and J. Ryan Yet it is also during this time that they are most isolated from their peers and univer- sity lecturers. This isolation limits their contact with others, and the possibilities for supportive professional exchange, which is one key aspect of successful reflective practice for teachers. To counter this isolation, we established online forums through which we aimed to promote critical reflection among pre-service teachers during their practicum. In addition to supporting our students during practicum, we wanted to identify a strong pedagogy for promoting reflective practice through the use of online discussions. Our findings point to the need for a delicate balance between pre-service teach- ers’ social and cognitive needs and careful attention to both the choice of topic for online discussion and the role of lecturers as participants in the discussion. Examination of the results of the pedagogical initiatives shows that achieving suc- cessful reflective practice among pre-service teachers is a teaching challenge that teacher educators must navigate with purpose and conviction. 11.2  C ompetencies and Conceptualisations of Reflective Practice Internationally, reflective practice is well established as a key competency for teach- ers (Department for Education [DfE] 2013; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS] 2002). Governments and teacher education authori- ties place faith in the teacher who is able “to acquire and employ a repertoire of instructional methods and strategies, yet remain critical and reflective about their practice” (NBPTS 2002, p.  21). In an era when large-scale, value-added assess- ments of teacher competence are popular (Plecki et al. 2012), the capacity for pre-­ service teachers to show their professional thinking about their teaching decisions is seen as explicit evidence of the significance of teacher judgement in enhancing student learning and therefore a critical inclusion in any measure of teacher stan- dards (Darling-Hammond 2012). It is noteworthy that reflective practice is a skill to be developed rather than a talent with which teachers might be naturally equipped. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] recognises this and says to new teachers: “To effectively reflect on your practice is a learned skill and the key to continual improvement” (AITSL 2012). Another imperative for contemporary teacher educa- tors is that of utilising the online space in their teaching. This is a requirement both to achieve the flexibility and ongoing social participation favoured by twenty-first-­ century learners (Salmon 2013) and to achieve the kinds of efficiency of delivery to individuals and cohorts separated by physical distance, particularly during practi- cum placements, that universities require (Altbach et  al. 2009; Gregory 2014; Salmon 2013). The dual foci of reflective practice and online learning are therefore appropriate inclusions in a book that examines reflective practice in the current

11  The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice 207 teacher education context, where the theory-practice nexus and the implementation of practicum are under scrutiny and criticism. Reflective practice for teachers has been powerfully conceptualised by Dewey when he described learning as a reconstruction of experience (Dewey 1933; Garrison et al. 2012) and argued that we learn by engaging in the problems of our experience and developing propositions about them. Schön (1987) described the way in which this process is crucial for teachers, as it is for any professional intent on improving their practice. In the same way as their intellectual forebears, contemporary propo- nents of reflective practice see it as a cognitive process in which the learner engages in consideration of a problem and formation of theories of explanation and solution, enabled through the process of communication with others (Gelfuso and Dennis 2014). For pre-service teachers who are learning about teaching, the opportunity to be exposed to multiple explanations of their early classroom experiences is essential if they are to avoid simply reproducing the perspectives and practices derived from their apprenticeship of observation (Lortie 1975). The professional necessity of reflective practice has led to a body of research that is concerned with deconstruct- ing reflective practice and refining ways in which it might be promoted. Analyses of reflection in the teaching context have typically categorised it in terms of a three-stage process involving teachers or pre-service teachers describing a teaching situation, considering possible approaches to the situation and arriving at a reasoned understanding of the situation to inform a plan to act accordingly (Loughran 2002; Schön 1987). The final stage involves the most informed and criti- cal analysis of what is occurring. Expert teachers are able to articulate their profes- sional judgments in theoretical analyses of teaching and learning (Loughran 2002). A framework describing this hierarchical view of reflection is provided by Kreber and Cranton (2000) who base their work on Mezirow’s (1990) transformational learning theory. Reflection for Kreber and Cranton begins with “content” reflection in which a problem is described without analysis (i.e. identifying “what is the issue”); next is when a teacher considers ways to address the problem, a level of reflection termed “process” reflection (i.e. “what might be done”); and, finally, a teacher might assert a position that incorporates some consideration of why one particular approach might be taken over another, a perspective on teaching and learning in general, often drawing on theoretical notions (i.e. “why will this work”), what Kreber and Cranton call “premise” reflection. Research on pre-service teacher reflective practice has found that pre-service teachers’ critical or premise reflection is not usually highly developed; more preva- lent is the identification and description of teaching problems (Parsons and Stephenson 2005). Designing instructional strategies that encourage critical reflec- tion on practice is a role that has been seen as important for teacher educators to embrace (Darling-Hammond 2012; Zeichner 2010a). In the current educational and political milieu where teacher educators experience considerable pressure to increase the amount of time pre-service teachers spend in school-based activities and decrease the time in university classrooms (British Education Research Association [BERA] 2014; Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group

208 M. Jones and J. Ryan [TEMAG] 2014; Zeichner 2010b;), pre-service teachers’ capacities to engage in reflective practice seem to be more important than ever. Such a change in teacher education programmes places at risk the role of teacher educators in fostering criti- cal reflection through highlighting the theoretical perspectives that expert teachers use to think about and discuss their practice. So whilst there is acknowledgement that classroom-based practice is an important component of teacher preparation, there is also strong recognition that the theory-practice link is indispensable in effective teacher education. Therefore, the expertise of those whose role it is to focus on the theoretical underpinnings of practice-based experiences is essential for pre-service teacher learning (Gelfuso and Dennis 2014; Zeichner 2010a). In order to facilitate pre-service teacher reflection, teacher educators have been known to use a range of pedagogical strategies, such as incorporating learning jour- nals (Dyment and O’Connell 2011), teaching portfolios (Tang and Lam 2014), structured online discussions with peers informed by professional literature (Szabo and Schwartz 2011) and using more knowledgeable others to guide the inquiry (Brandenburg 2004; Gelfuso and Dennis 2014). One common feature of a number of analyses of reflective practice is the demonstration that it is developed socially, whether in interaction in a round-table type of situation with a number of peers/ mentors (Brandenburg 2004) or through discussion with one to two more experi- enced mentors (Gelfuso and Dennis 2014). Those concerned with pre-service teacher learning have emphasised the signifi- cance of this social interaction in developing the professional reflection that opti- mises the learning experience associated with practicum. Such concerns stem from the frequent situation in which the novice teacher is isolated from lecturers and peers during the practicum component of their course, especially if they are placed in regional/rural or remote locations (Ryan 2014). Geographic isolation can limit their opportunities to discuss the challenges they face with their peers and lecturers. This socially mediated aspect of reflection is thought to be crucial to reaching new understandings about teaching practice (Parsons and Stephenson 2005). Teacher supervisors of pre-service teachers are usually responsible for assessing the practi- cum, and whilst these people are best placed to observe competency and capability over the duration of the practicum, their assessment role can make open communi- cation problematic, especially when it comes to the challenges that pre-service teachers invariably face as novice teachers in someone else’s classroom. The absence of effective ways to support learning during the practicum because of the disjuncture between the school and university contexts has been the subject of long-­ standing teacher education concern and of innovation to create better connections (Zeichner 2010a; Gelfuso and Dennis 2014).

11  The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice 209 11.3  O nline Reflections One contemporary strand of investigation to address this practicum problem has been the potential of online communication and in particular online discussions. Online discussions offer a medium through which the gap between pre-service teachers and their lecturers may be bridged during the practicum experience. Whilst contemporary social media connections may have only limited capacity to bring university and schools into stronger partnerships, it can offer opportunities for pre-­ service teachers to remain in connection with more experienced mentors, and with one another, during the challenges of their practicum (Tang and Lam 2014). As in the face-to-face context, the optimum pedagogy of online reflection is not straight- forward to summarise (Means et al. 2010). Key pedagogical issues include how to create social connections between participants as well as how to direct discussions towards learning (Salmon 2003). The community of inquiry model proposes that to create learning among participants in the online space, there is a need for teachers to provide attention to the social relationships of the group as well as to encourage considerations of theory (Garrison et al. 2010; Lee 2014). These issues are not dis- similar to those encountered in the face-to-face context (Loughran 2002). Although reflective practice in the online space is social, it is important to note that high-level reflection can be an individual affair in which the process of engaging with experi- ence, as well as with the ideas of others, can lead to insight by an individual that is not followed up by others (Jones and Ryan 2014; Lee 2014). Thus, the online space appears to offer opportunities for a range of reflective experiences. Many teaching initiatives have been identified as important in creating higher-­ level thinking in the online space, including provision of discursive models of what such discussion looks like, the use of rubrics to guide students and investigation of appropriate group size (Lee 2014). Some styles of student participation can discour- age collaborative learning in that lengthy monologues may be met with disengage- ment (Jones and Ryan 2014; Lee 2014) and participants can fail to go beyond courteous comments such as “well done” and/or “I agree” (Hibbard et al. 2010). A meta-analysis of studies comparing online with face-to-face learning found that instructors in online settings who address comments to the group rather than the individual may increase the level of interaction in the discussion but not the quality of the interaction in terms of learning, a finding that highlights the importance of appropriate instructor activity in the online space (Means et al. 2010). The complexities of designing an optimum online learning environment in which pre-service teachers on practicum can reflect on their teaching experiences and come to critical understandings of their practice are the focus of this chapter. As the research- ers of this study, we have evaluated the success of three iterations of teaching activity in relation to online discussions during practicum within a consistent conceptualisa- tion of reflective practice, monitoring the impact of each pedagogical decision. We adopted Kreber and Cranton’s (2000) analysis of reflection as the analysis tool. Kreber and Cranton’s conceptualisation of reflection is useful in the context of teacher education because it was designed to describe the development of expert

210 M. Jones and J. Ryan teaching practitioners who may begin by giving an account of their teaching experi- ences, problems and successes (content reflection); proceed to think about what pedagogical strategies might be appropriate in the circumstances (process reflec- tion); and, finally, come to a principled justification of their approach in terms of teaching and learning generalisations informed by theory (premise reflection). As researchers of our own practice, we asked ourselves which online teaching pedago- gies were more likely to lead our pre-service teachers towards discussion of their teaching at this more critical, or premise, level. To achieve premise level reflection among pre-service teachers is a professed aim of all teacher education programmes, and yet, as noted, teacher education is frequently seen as unable to develop gradu- ates who can think at this level of sophistication (Zeichner 2010a). The findings of this study produce evidence that online discussion during practicum can assist pre-­ service teachers to bridge the theory-practice gap, but, as will become apparent, the pedagogical journey was not a straightforward one. 11.4  Methodology The methodology selected for the study was qualitative in that it was concerned with our reflection on the online discourse of pre-service teachers during their pract- icum. The sites of analyses were the online discussion forums that we established and facilitated during pre-service teachers’ practicum placements over 3 successive years, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (see Table 11.1). In the first two stages (pilot and Iteration 1), the student participants were pre-­ service teachers enrolled at two Australian universities in the state of Victoria. They were brought together through a joint online platform. The impetus for the collabo- ration between the two universities stemmed from their respective “regional cam- pus” status, resulting in most of the pre-service teachers undertaking practicum in rural or regional areas, where the extent of isolation from peers and lecturers is known to be more profound than in metropolitan settings (Ryan 2014). To address both this isolation and to promote learning through critical reflection on practice, lecturers from each university (including ourselves) aimed to create a shared Table 11.1  Online pedagogical focus for different iterations Iteration Date Online pedagogical focus Context and sample numbers Pilot 2010 8 pre-service teachers (PSTs) Open blog and a topic-defined allocated to two discussion groups Iteration 1 2011 threaded discussion with a focus on during 4–5-week practicum which format was “better” 84 PSTs in four discussion groups Iteration 2 2012 during a 5-week practicum Topic-defined threaded discussions with a focus on the nature of the 25 PSTs during a 5-week topic question practicum Topic-defined threaded discussions with a focus on instructor questioning

11  The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice 211 Table 11.2  Sample of protocol coding Level of Description of level Sample contribution reflection Discussion of a situation: what I “The class sizes are what I find difficult to 1. Content do, what I use, what the problem manage. My Year 10 science class has 29 reflection is students [sic], and this number of teenagers in one room is a lot!” 2. Process Discussion about why an approach reflection worked or did not work: effective “I put [up] the Japanese ten useful classroom pedagogy, why it works, reason I expression posters. I have created these 3. do it posters to enhance the usage of target Premise language in the classroom” reflection Discussion makes links to underlying theories of teaching “I believe using their names makes them feel and learning: why it is important, like part of the class and not ‘just another the general merit and functional student that the teacher doesn’t know’. And relevance of the strategy in terms when they feel like part of the class, they are of teaching and learning more open to contributing to discussions, sharing their work or ideas” ­learning community among the group. The pre-service teachers were usually the only individuals undertaking practicum at their schools. These schools were often long distances from their university, and this isolation, typical of the rural practi- cum, posed a threat to the quality of their teacher education (Ryan 2014). Their courses were 1-year secondary teaching qualifications involving practicum place- ments of 4–5 weeks. Findings from the two interuniversity phases led to a further iteration involving pre-service teachers from a single university in 2012. All three stages of the investigation utilised data in the form of transcripts of the online discussions that took place during the practicum. These transcripts were ana- lysed using protocol coding against Kreber and Cranton’s (2000) levels of reflection (content, process and premise). Protocol coding is “the coding of qualitative data according to a preestablished, recommended, standardized or prescribed system” (Miles et al. 2014, p. 78). The pre-established levels of content, process and premise reflection are appropriate for protocol coding as they meet guidelines outlined by Miles et  al. (2014) such that the categories have been previously developed and field-tested in qualitative research and where “another researcher’s assumptions, projections, and biases” (Boyatzis 1998, p. 37) have been accepted. The investiga- tions under discussion in this chapter were based on Kreber and Cranton’s (2000) foundational work. An example of the coding approach for each level of reflection is outlined in Table 11.2. In a number of instances, pre-service teachers made a content level observation that developed into a process and/or premise level reflection within a single contri- bution. Such contributions were coded as a single premise level reflection. As Lee (2014) argues, analysing discourse for evidence of higher-order thinking is a chal- lenging activity that depends on identifying units of meaning. Within a particular unit of meaning, there can be a number of elements. For example, the following comment from a pre-service teacher placed in a small, isolated school:

212 M. Jones and J. Ryan The students did not have any text books for all of there [sic] subjects, and most had only one notebook to cover the four core subjects. The positive for them with this setup was that they could really see how integrated the whole program was, and could reflect easily and readily on past learning. However in the regular school setting this would generally be impractical I think – organisation is a bit [sic] part of effective learning. The pre-service teacher’s comment incorporates all three levels of Kreber and Cranton’s (2000) reflection: content, process and premise. This is evidenced when she begins with a content level discussion of what is occurring in her school (no textbooks and all subjects integrated into one notebook). This leads to process reflection (when she notes the link to reflection on past learning), and then she com- pletes her comments with a broader, general philosophical perspective about the importance of organisation (premise level reflection). Such a contribution would be counted as a single premise level reflection in the analyses. In analysing the data, three researchers coded the transcripts independently, cross-checked with discussion of the decision-making process and recoded accord- ing to the consensus. This process assisted in ensuring consistent coding and increased inter-rater reliability (Silverman 2014). As is typical in studies that focus on the world of actual teaching practice, the three phrases of the research reported here are not replicas of each other as might be the case in experimental designs. However, there were consistent features that enabled us to analyse the influence of our teaching decisions as well as develop understandings about the nature of teach- ing in the online teaching setting. For example, we were two of the three lecturers involved in the analysis of all three iterations, providing consistency in the interpre- tation of the language and style of individual posts. The overall goals of providing avenues for communication and reflection were also consistent. 11.5  Results and Discussion 11.5.1  P ilot Phase: Blog Versus Threaded Discussion As a prelude to the investigation about ways in which the isolation of the practicum could be addressed through linking pre-service teachers in online discussions, the first “pilot” phase of the research, conducted in 2010, was designed to investigate which kind of online forum might be most appropriate for the larger study (Iteration 1). The pilot set up a comparison between pre-service teachers’ participation in a blog style set-up in which individuals were invited to initiate dialogue on topics of their choice, and a threaded online discussion, in which the lecturers defined the topics for discussion. As noted earlier, the discussion groups were made up of pre-­ service teachers from two universities. Participants from each university did not know one another before engaging in the online forums. One blog space and two threaded discussion forums were created. The blog space invited open discussion, whereas the two threaded discussions contained set topics: one focused on classroom management and the other on teaching strategies.

11  The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice 213 The research findings (Jones and Ryan 2014) showed that pre-service teachers appreciated the opportunity to discuss their teaching experiences in both the blog and the threaded discussion; however, consistent with studies reported elsewhere (Garrison et al. 2010), there was little evidence of premise level discussion in either forum. Pre-service teachers, in other words, did not articulate their experiences with reference to educational theory in any consistent or meaningful way. The threaded discussion approach, rather than the blog, had the appearance of being more suited to encouraging discussion to reach higher cognitive levels since it could be used to direct students to respond to a theoretical issue. This was attempted through the wording of the discussion topic: Discuss strategies and resources that have worked well, haven’t worked well, why you think they did/didn’t work. Ensure you provide ideas for each other and try to link these ideas to different learning theories you have studied to help justify/guide your thinking. Despite the purposeful direction in this topic to link their contributions with learning theories, in most instances the pre-service teachers did not justify their thinking with any theoretical underpinnings. Moreover, in terms of number of posts, the pre-service teachers showed a preference for the blog style forum with its struc- ture that foregrounds individual recount of experience, that is, content level reflec- tion. The blog format also had a much higher incidence of long posts that tended to offer little more than a recount of the day. The outcomes led us to think, as has also been noted elsewhere, that the achievement of higher-order thinking within a dis- cussion requires considerable teaching presence in directing the discussion in order to shape it towards this cognitive goal (Garrison et al. 2010). This finding steered us towards a threaded discussion for the next iteration of the work, since the threaded setting provided increased opportunity for us to shape the discussion and less incidence of excessively long recounts. Furthermore, the use of the threaded discussion simplified the pedagogical choices that we had to make, as well as reducing the amount of time spent reading through posts. In saying this, we still recognised the importance of the social/emotional needs of pre-service teachers and responded to these needs as they arose. Findings of the pilot demonstrated that pre-service teachers needed to “download” their experiences with an audience and receive support, and this was able to occur in both the blog and threaded discussion formats. The concern to be supportive was evident in the exchanges in the practicum forums with both lecturers and peers offering encouragement and appreciation such as “Congrats at [sic] getting through” (PST blog Pilot) or “I am very envious of you attending the PD.  Thanks for sharing with us what you did” (PST blog Pilot). Lecturers also participated in this kind of supportive exchange, especially in the blog settings. The aim of making the practicum the site of professional learning for pre-service teachers cannot be disassociated from the aim of providing emotional support for them throughout the demanding experience of learning on the job (Darling-Hammond 2006). Therefore, it is important to remain cognizant of the purpose of online discussions during practicum when making teaching decisions about their optimum design and, when responding to any given post, deciding whether emotional or cognitive support is more appropriate as the focus.

214 M. Jones and J. Ryan Because of these distinct issues, coupled with our understanding of the research that stresses the need for high instructor presence for cognitive growth in online students (Hibbard et al. 2010; Szabo and Schwartz 2011), in the next stage of our project, we chose to adopt threaded discussions as our platform. In doing this we aimed to remain mindful of pre-service teachers’ need for recount and sharing in order to receive emotional support but to also maximise the potential of threaded discussion to shape the dialogue towards more in-depth, critically reflective discus- sions of teaching and learning. 11.5.2  I teration 1: A Topic Focus Once it was decided on the basis of the pilot findings that a threaded discussion would be used for this iteration of the project, the focus shifted to formulating pro- ductive topics for pre-service teachers to respond to. This goal led to the construc- tion of a different discussion topic for each of the 5 weeks of interaction during the practicum. The topics (Table 11.3) were formulated to connect with issues such as classroom management, which preoccupy novice teachers, as well as lecturers’ con- cern for the development of theory-based practice. In this iteration there were four participating lecturers, including ourselves. As in the pilot, we counted the incidence of content, process and premise reflec- tions and examined conditions that appeared to lead to premise reflection. In the first stage of data collection, we monitored whether pre-service teachers’ contributions showed evidence of achievement of premise level reflection as part of individual reflective statement or whether the premise insights emerged as part of an interac- tive discussion among the pre-service teachers and/or with lecturers. Table 11.3  Iteration 1 threaded discussion topics Week Topic 1 Briefly highlight one issue/incident you have experienced this week in relation to 2 classroom management or a teaching and learning approach you used. Was it an 3 effective/ineffective approach? What do you think made it effective/ineffective? 4 Everyone should then comment on what could be done to enhance/improve a situation like this next time and provide evidence that supports these improvement ideas 5 Share your reflections on week 2 of the practicum here! What are the top three strategies for creating a productive and effective learning environment, and why do they work? We have selected the following quote for you to think about, and then respond to our question below: “We’re walking into schools full of all this knowledge on ‘research done on the Middle Years of Schooling’, ‘Teaching–Best practice’, etc., and yet, what we’re seeing and being forced to be a part of is almost a polar opposite”  Question: This is one rather pessimistic image of schools today. What are you seeing (or what will you do in your classroom) that gives you hope that schools are giving students what they need for living in contemporary society? What are the most crucial things you have learned about students, about schools and about how to best engage students in learning over the past 4–5 weeks?

11  The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice 215 As was true during the pilot, premise reflection was less evident than either con- tent or process reflection in this iteration. However, the decision to opt for a threaded discussion rather than a blog appeared to reduce the number of individual recounts of experience. As shown in Table 11.4, only in the first week of the practicum was there a very high number of content level contributions. Whilst this might be explained as the impact of it being their first week in schools, which may have engendered a greater need to debrief, further analysis of the pattern of contributions suggested a another possible explanation. Week 1’s topic was a lengthy three-part question, and the pre-service teachers generally only responded to the first part: “Briefly highlight ONE issue/incident you have experienced this week …”. This contrasted with the week 3 question asking about pre-service teachers’ “top three strategies … and why do they work?” The week 3 topic, which targeted process level reflection (why it works, the reason I do it), had the result of producing a correspondingly high level of process reflection. Investigation into the number of contributions at the various levels also highlighted the relatively high number of premise level reflections during week 4. The week 4 topic, which invited a generalised discussion of contemporary education and thus appeared to be more directed towards a premise level of reflection, indeed, produced a greater level of premise level reflection than the other topics. For example, one pre-service teacher wrote: Student-centred learning is fostered by an approach that begins from prep or students won’t have the skill-base to learn in this way in later years. Student choice also lets students develop abilities to manage their learning which provides self-motivation and self-respect which fosters respect for others (Pre-service teacher contribution, Week 4). Also noteworthy was whether premise level interaction came from individuals thinking through an issue seemingly on their own (we say seemingly, as it is difficult to tell what factors may influence the thinking process, which may have included reading others’ posts without necessarily responding to them) or whether it came as part of interaction with others in the forum. Table 11.5 shows the results of analys- ing contributions with this focus. Table 11.4  Incidence of content, process and premise reflection in Iteration 1 Level of reflection W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 Total Content 151 116 57 93 79 496 (45%) Process Premise 92 92 94 100 87 465 (42%) 9 32 32 44 19 136 (12%) Table 11.5  Conditions leading to premise reflection in Iteration 1 Condition PLT1 PLT2 PLT3 PLT4 Total Reached on own 21 24 28 15 88 (65%) Reached after interaction with peers 15 13 11 7 46 (34%) Reached in response to lecturer contribution 0 1 0 1 2 (1%) Total 36 38 39 23 136

216 M. Jones and J. Ryan Premise level reflection was not reached as frequently from peer interaction as it did when individuals were (seemingly) thinking and writing on their own. As noted, however, it is difficult to know in what ways the concurrent discussion of the group might have led an individual to form a particular thought and make a subsequent contribution. Moreover, the presence of the lecturers in the discussions may have been significant, even if the pre-service teachers did not respond to lecturer contri- butions directly. With these considerations in mind, it remains striking that the con- ditions impacting on the nature of pre-service teachers’ reflections saw the lecturers playing a direct role in inspiring premise level contributions through their own post- ings in only two cases. The lack of apparent influence of lecturer contributions lead- ing to premise reflection led us to analyse our practice in more depth and find that not only did pre-service teachers not respond in premise ways to our contributions, but that they largely ignored our comments altogether. Ninety-three percent of lec- turers’ comments did not elicit any direct response from pre-service teachers at all. At first these findings may appear to endorse criticisms regarding the role of teacher educators and subsequent propositions to move to a more apprentice-based model of teacher education (Zeichner 2010b). However, knowledge of professional findings about the need for instructors to take an active role in extending the dis- course to a deeper cognitive level (e.g. Swan et al. 2008) prompted further analysis of the apparent redundancy of our role as teacher educators and facilitators of reflec- tion in the online forum. This analysis found that only 14% of the lecturer contribu- tions involved posing a question to direct pre-service teachers to reflect further on their initial statements. Rather, as noted in relation to the pilot, there were frequent incidences of lecturers providing affirmation and support through comments, for example, “Well done on adopting ‘wait time’” (PLT 3, Aug 22). Whilst, as argued in relation to the pilot, such a supportive stance is important when pre-service teach- ers are engaged in a demanding practicum, if one goal of the discussions is to encourage the development of theories of learning, then support needs to be aug- mented with instruction. There was evidence too that one of the four lecturers’ engagement in the discus- sion tended to be addressed to the group rather than the individual; as noted earlier, meta-analysis of instructors’ contribution to learning in online discussions suggests that facilitator’s comments make the most difference to learning when they are directed to individuals rather than general statements directed to the group (Means et al. 2010). In other words, in this iteration of the study, there was evidence that lecturers were not following best practice research findings about ways to create learning through their own participation in the online space. 11.5.3  Iteration 2: Focus on Questions As a result of the Iteration 1 findings that demonstrated negligible occurrences of questioning from facilitators, the next iteration of the online discussions during the following semester’s practicum was planned to encourage lecturers’ adoption of an

11  The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice 217 optimal teaching role in the online space. In particular we were concerned with find- ings of the previous iteration about the impact of particular topics on the nature of pre-service teachers’ contributions and the evidence suggesting lecturers’ failure to take cognitive leadership in the discussions through the nature of their posts, in particular, through the lack of questioning. There were practical constraints in this iteration in that the unit available in which to build on previous findings was a group of 22 secondary pre-service teach- ers from a single university enrolled in a unit called Diversity in the Classroom. Three lecturers, including the practicum coordinator and ourselves, participated in the forum. Rather than changing topics each week, which had not always assisted pre-service teachers to connect theory with practice, we posed the same forum topic for the duration of the practicum. This topic directed pre-service teachers towards defining their ideas about teaching and learning and thus, we hoped, was phrased in a manner that would encourage premise level reflection: Reflect on your observations/teaching experiences to identify ways in which diversity and social/cultural issues have impacted on learning either positively or negatively. In relation to your own teaching/observations and in response to the examples of others, discuss how more positive experiences could be created through the selection of particular teaching and learning strategies. The particular pedagogical strategy encouraged for lecturers in this iteration was to pose questions about pre-service teachers’ contributions, asking them to think about multiple explanations and make links between these explanations and educa- tional theory. There was also an intentional effort to avoid giving responses that solely or predominantly focused on encouragement or affirmation (although this was still employed when deemed important). An example of such a move in response to a pre-service posting about a student with a mental illness in class, one lecturer wrote: Thanks for your interesting post. I have just finished reading one from Jake about a child with a disability so it’s good to continue the conversation. I haven’t (as far I know) had students with bipolar disorder in my school class (but as you suggest I might not have realised as some rarely seem different). I do have a friend with bipolar. Knowing him leads me to feel angry that society is so discriminatory about mental illness. Should other chil- dren be told about other students’ illnesses? Why/not? When/How? The impact of the emphasis on questioning saw a significant increase in the extent of lecturer questioning within their posts. In fact, there was a 94% incidence of questioning in this final iteration compared to 8% in the first. Tables 11.6 and 11.7 illustrate the changed approach and the subsequent influence on pre-service teachers’ responses, where there was an increased incidence of premise level ­reflection. In comparison to Iteration 1, the incidence of content reflection decreased, and process and premise level reflection increased (Table 11.6). In suggesting that the lecturers succeeded in raising the level premise level reflection through the emphasis on questioning, it is important to note that the num- ber of pre-service teachers involved in Iteration 2 (n=22) was somewhat fewer than in the first (n=84). There is evidence that group size has an impact on the nature of

218 M. Jones and J. Ryan Table 11.6  Incidence of Type of Frequency Frequency content, process and premise reflection Iteration 1 reflection in Iterations 1 and (N = 84) Iteration 2 (N = 22) 2 Content 28 (26%) Process 496 (45%) 54 (51%) Premise 465 (42%) 24 (23%) Total 136 (12%) 106 (100%) 1097 (100%) Table 11.7  Nature of lecturer contribution and pre-service teacher response Conditions leading to Frequency Frequency premise reflection Iteration 1 (N = 84) Iteration 2 (N = 22) Lecturer input leads to 2 (1%) 12 (39%) premise reflection 10 (6%) 13 (42%) 153 (85%) 6 (19%) Lecturer input leads to 14 (8%)a 29 (93.5 %)a non-premise reflection 165 (100%) 31 (100%) Lecturer input does not elicit a response Lecturer poses a question in contributiona Total aThe data relating to “lecturer poses a question” is not counted towards the totals as these contribu- tions are included in the data reported in Rows 1–3 discussion (Lee 2014). However, in Iteration 1 (n=84), pre-service teachers were placed into smaller discussion groups, each consisting of approximately 20 partici- pants. This makes the number of pre-service teachers within the groups of Iteration 1 commensurate with the single group of 22 pre-service teachers in Iteration 2. What was different in Iteration 2 was the larger ratio of lecturers to pre-service teachers. Iteration 2 had three lecturers working with 22 students compared to one lecturer to 20 students in Iteration 1. This greater teaching presence may have resulted in an increased cognitive presence in the discussion overall. Further analy- sis of the discussions suggested that there were particular kinds of engagement that may have also contributed to the difference. Table 11.8 indicates that a key factor in increasing the number of premise level reflections may also be linked to the nature of the lecturer’s questioning. Most of the questions asked of pre-service teachers were low-order “what ..?” questions, asking what pre-service teachers did/would do about a particular teaching situation (see Table 11.8). Such a question is most likely to lead to a process level response: what I did to deal with a problem. Rarely did lecturers ask “why..?” they chose a particular action and in what way theory may have informed their choice. Such a focus may have positioned the discussion to elicit more premise level responses. Revealingly, when the premise level responses from pre-service teachers were reviewed, the data showed that in every instance of a lecturer posing a “why” ques- tion, a premise level response was always the result. There were also additional

11  The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice 219 Table 11.8  Nature of lecturer questioning and pre-service teacher response Type of question Frequency Frequency (Iteration 1 N = 84) (Iteration 2 N = 22) What question (content) 14 (100%) 15 (52%) How question (process) 0 (0%) 4 (14%) Why question (premise) 0 (0%) 10 (34%) Total 14 (100%) 29 (100%) premise level responses (24 in total – see Table 11.6), and there were non-premise questions posed by lecturers that in two instances also led to premise reflection. But in all ten cases of a lecturer posing a premise level question, premise level reflection occurred in the response. One example is: Lecturer Hi J, Can you expand on your last comment a bit and share why it is important for students to understand how others feel and why inclusion is a great way to learn/live –particularly learn? Pre-service teacher Thanks M, In an ideal learning environment, every student is learning and participating on a consistent basis. But not only learning but encouraging others to do the same… If every student shares an experience where they had the feeling of isolation and exclusion every student would be on the same page…. 11.6  Conclusion The findings of this study suggest the need for instructors to be conscious of the direction in which they encourage pre-service teachers’ thinking. Both the type of forum and the wording of the stimulus for response can encourage or inhibit the extent of recount and the level of reflection reached. Perhaps more powerful, how- ever, is the capacity of the lecturer to shape discussion towards more critical levels of reflection through the nature of their questioning. The evidence of the influence of instructors on the nature of pre-service teachers’ reflective practice in the online space adds to existing research on ways in which teacher education programmes can promote critical reflective practice. It is important to note that the evidence is lim- ited to pre-service teachers’ capacity to express their understandings of teaching and learning in written form, which may not translate into being able to act on these understandings. Moreover, whilst some individuals in the discussions did show a capacity to be critically reflective about teaching, there were many in the groups who did not. These findings signal the need for additional research into the minutiae of how a lecturer designs and participates in an online forum to support pre-service teacher learning during practicum. The findings across three iterations of our practice indi-

220 M. Jones and J. Ryan cate that the purpose of the forum needs to be clearly defined and made explicit to all lecturers involved in the facilitation. Lecturers also need to be cognizant of the quality as well as the quantity of questions they are using in their efforts to facilitate critical reflection. Finally, our findings highlight the fundamental importance of teacher educators being involved in concurrent reflective practice with pre-service teachers throughout the practicum if pre-service teachers are to engage in critical reflection and optimal learning about the success/failure of their practice. Without the lecturer interaction or without a structured format for discussion, pre-service teachers tended to offer a recount of their activities and, at best, engaged in low-­ level descriptive reflection. Careful composition of forum topics appeared to play a role in the level of critical reflection, as did, most importantly, the nature of the contributions made by the lecturer. Our findings clearly indicate that increased high-­ order questioning is more likely to engender premise level reflection in pre-service teachers. This emphasises that whilst the role of practice and experience of teaching in the school setting is essential in providing context, the role of the teacher educa- tor in facilitating and optimising the learning from the immersion in this context is paramount. This is an important finding in the current educational and political milieu where the role of the university and the lecturer in teacher education is under scrutiny and criticism (BERA 2014; TEMAG 2014; Zeichner 2010b) and where online learning is becoming increasingly prevalent (Salmon 2013). Ongoing research into the impact of teacher educators in optimising sophisticated praxis is needed to create a clearer picture of the state of teacher education. Finally, the other essential feature that this research highlights is the need for teacher educators to critically analyse not only the contributions of their pre-service teachers, which is often enough likely to occur through assessment practices, but to also critically reflect on their own practice. As we tell our pre-service teachers, criti- cal reflection on experience is fundamental to improvement and success as an effec- tive teacher, and so it is true that similar levels of reflection are instrumental in shaping effective and successful teacher educators throughout their careers. Acknowledgements  The authors wish to acknowledge the Australian Learning and Teaching Council for their support of some aspects of the research reported in this paper. References Altbach, P., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution, A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 world conference of higher education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2012). Developing a profes- sional mindset. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/induction-registration/ learning-from-practice-workbook-series Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code develop- ment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

11  The Online Space: Developing Strong Pedagogy for Online Reflective Practice 221 Brandenburg, R. (2004). Round table reflections: (Re)defining the role of the teacher educator and the preservice teacher as ‘co-learners’. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 166–181. British Education Research Association [BERA]. (2014). Research and the teaching profession. Building the capacity for a self-improving education system. Final report of the BERA-RSA inquiry into the role of research in teacher education. Retrieved from https://www.bera.ac.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BERA-RSA-Research-Teaching-Profession-FULL-REPORT-­ for-­web.pdf?noredirect=1 Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Department for Education [DfE]. (2013). Teachers’ standards. Retrieved from https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/teachers-standards Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company. Dyment, J., & O’Connell, T. (2011). Assessing the quality of reflection in student journals: A review of the research. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 81–97. doi:10.1080/13562517.2 010.507308. Garrison, J., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Shing Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31–36. Garrison, J. Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (2012). John Dewey’s philosophy of education: An introduc- tion and recontextualization for our times. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=405002 Gelfuso, A., & Dennis, D. (2014). Getting reflection off the page: The challenges of developing support structures for pre-service teacher reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 1–11. Gregory, S. (2014). Authentic and engaging virtual practice teaching for rural and remote pre-­ service teachers. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 254(3), 15–27. Hibbard, S., Bellara, A., & Vermette, P. (2010). Evaluating the use of online discussion boards for pre-service teacher learning. The International Journal of Learning, 17(6), 1–13. 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. Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476–495. Lee, S. (2014). The relationships between higher order thinking skills, cognitive density, and social presence in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 41–52. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development: Washington, DC. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and eman- cipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source- book (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/documents/certifi- cates/what_teachers_should_know.pdf Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student teachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 95–116.

222 M. Jones and J. Ryan Plecki, M., Elfers, A., & Nakamura, Y. (2012). Using evidence for teacher education improvement and accountability. An illustrative case of the role of value-added measures. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 318–334. Ryan, J. (2014). Linking rural and regional communities into teacher education. In M. Jones & J. Ryan (Eds.), Successful teacher education: Partnerships, reflective practice and the place of technology. Sense: Rotterdam. Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.). Abingdon/ Oxon: Routledge Falmer. Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. New York: Routledge. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). London: Sage. Swan, K., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J.  (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. e-mentor, 2(24). Retrieved from http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul_v2.php?numer=24&id=543 Szabo, Z., & Schwartz, J. (2011). Learning methods for teacher education: The use of online dis- cussions to improve critical thinking. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 79–94. Tang, E., & Lam, C. (2014). Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blog-based teaching portfolios. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 79–85. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group [TEMAG]. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Retrieved from http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/teacher-education-ministerial- advisory-group Zeichner, K. (2010a). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. Zeichner, K. (2010b). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1544–1552.

Chapter 12 Using Critical Incidents to Reflect on Teacher Educator Practice Robyn Brandenburg and Sharon McDonough Abstract  The purpose of this chapter is twofold  – first, to examine the ways in which critical incident identification and analysis can reveal more about the sophis- ticated complexity of teaching and, second, to provide an exemplar of reflective practice inquiry in teacher education based primarily on experience and reflection (Dewey J, How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Henry Regenry Co., Chicago, 1933). In this chapter we examine the influence of using critical incident identification and analysis to reflect in and on our practice as teacher educators. Critical incidents were defined as incidents in our practice as teacher educators that caused us to pause and reflect on our work and were collated during an intense period of institutional change. Using self-study methodology, we collated and analysed 32 critical incidents and identified key themes including: the tensions evident in institutional and personal expectations, contrived versus organic collaboration and valuing the teacher as a researcher. In this chapter, we highlight the way the combination of a reflective inquiry lens, a research methodology (self-study of practice) and custom-designed strategies and tools highlights the practicalities and powerful influence of reflective practice. 12.1  Introduction The work of teacher educators is increasingly under scrutiny with government reviews of teacher education occurring in national and international contexts. In Australia, the most recent of these reviews resulted in the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group [TEMAG] report (TEMAG 2014). This report expli- cates the need for teacher educators to identify the effectiveness of their programmes and practice and challenges the field to build an evidence and research base. Researchers within the field of teacher education draw upon a wide range of meth- odologies and approaches in an attempt to capture the complexity of the work they undertake. One of the approaches that teacher educators draw on is that of reflective R. Brandenburg (*) • S. McDonough 223 Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC, Australia 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_12

224 R. Brandenburg and S. McDonough practice. As teacher education researchers, we engage in reflective practice as a way to research practice, disturb the status quo and highlight the sophisticated complexi- ties inherent in our work. In doing so, we are able to articulate the elements of our practice and the impacts on students and the field more broadly. 12.1.1  A Way of Doing Reflective Practice The policy environment demands a need for teacher educators to “articulate the tacit underpinnings of teaching” (Martinez 2008, p. 42), with this providing a base for understanding the practice of teacher educators. As Loughran (1996) suggests, the work of teacher educators is not widely understood or appreciated, and “special knowledge of teaching about teaching is tacit knowledge, knowledge easily over- looked by others, taken for granted by teacher educators themselves, and conse- quently neither sufficiently understood or valued” (p. 4). As Martinez (2008) and Murray and Male (2005) suggest, much of the work of teacher educators is invisible and poorly understood and yet represents some of the most sophisticated learning and teaching. In this chapter we use data collected as part of an ongoing study into our work as teacher educators to highlight the way reflective theory and practice can be utilized to make explicit our pedagogy as teacher educators. 12.2  C ontext and Questions As teacher educator researchers in a regional university in Australia, we experi- enced changes in our work environment as the university underwent a major restruc- ture that resulted in the formation of new faculties and schools. As teacher educator colleagues, we have a commitment to examining our own practice through self-­ study and reflective practice methodologies and have previously worked together on projects that examined the way our assumptions mediated our understandings of our professional identities and our pedagogy (McDonough and Brandenburg 2012). As our institution underwent restructure and the policy environment of teacher educa- tion continued to shift, we engaged in reflective practice to examine the ways our work was impacted by these changes. In this chapter, we examine two questions: How does the identification and analysis of critical incidents enable us to reflect on our practice? And how does this process deepen understanding of reflective theory in teacher education practice?

12  Using Critical Incidents to Reflect on Teacher Educator Practice 225 12.3  L iterature 12.3.1  R eflective Theory and Practice There are multiple definitions, frameworks and models for reflective inquiry, and many of these reflective interpretations and applications in practice emanate from the seminal works of Dewey (1933), Schön (1983) and Brookfield (1995). Reflective practice is a term that invokes diverse meaning and interpretation, from a stance where one deliberates about past experiences to consciously adopting a practice “that carries very specific meaning and associated action …[and] one element of reflection that is common to many is the notion of a problem” (Loughran 2002, p.  33). For others, reflective practice refers to a more generic interpretation that involves sense-making from learning and using this learning to inform practice, and key questions asked by teacher educators include “What am I doing?” and “Why am I doing this?”. The act of reflection is deliberate, and while there is not one all-­ encompassing definition that represents the practices of educators, there is what could be defined as a coalition of thought and action related to the concept itself. This coalition of thought about reflective practice includes concepts such as an understanding that reflection is deliberate, it is systematic and integral to practice, the stimulus is a puzzling action or a problem or critical incident and reflective prac- titioners exhibit certain dispositions. Reflective inquiry is an “intentional act of mind, engaging a person alone or in collaboration with others in interrogating a puzzling situation or subject of teaching or learning to construct an understanding of its meaning that will shape action” (Lyons et al. 2013, p. 165). This focus on shaping actions is essential to reflective inquiry processes, with Tripp (2012) arguing that unless there is “some form of challenge to and critique of ourselves and our professional values, we tend to simply reinforce existing patterns and techniques” (p. 31). Our approach has been informed by Dewey (1933), and it presupposes that learning is socially constructed and expe- rience based, is reflection driven and requires the dispositions of open-mindedness, wholeheartedness and intellectual responsibility. Open-mindedness has under- pinned our approach to reflective practice, and it has required a systematic challeng- ing of (often) firmly held beliefs. As Dewey (1933) stated, open-mindedness: requires troublesome work to undertake the alteration of old beliefs … [as] … unconscious fears also drive us into purely defensive attitudes that operate like a coat of armour not only to shut out new conceptions but even to prevent us from making a new observation. (pp. 30–31) Being attuned and sensitive to the unexpected in the daily work as teacher educa- tors prompts a response to critical incidents that demands that these incidents are reviewed in a deliberate and focused manner, whereby alternative ways of thinking and acting are identified and discussed. Being aware of the benefits of reflective practice did not preclude an awareness of the possible demerits and limitations of reflective inquiry in teacher education. While defining the term reflective practice has captured attention of researchers and

226 R. Brandenburg and S. McDonough practitioners, other key issues include the notion that not all reflection leads to new learning and deeper understanding of pedagogy and that reflection can sometimes masquerade as rationalisation, justification or validation of a belief, philosophy or practice (Loughran 2002). However, while approaches, strategies, underpinning philosophical orientations and perspectives vary, there is broad agreement about the need for reflection and the value of integrated reflective practice in preparing stu- dents for professions and life-long learning (Finlay 2008) and in assisting teachers and teacher educators to understand more about pedagogy. There is extensive research literature based on the merits of reflective practice and integration of reflection in teacher education courses (Brandenburg 2008; Loughran 2006; McDonough 2015; Samaras and Freese 2006). Higgins (2011) argues that “learning can be enhanced through the use of reflection by surfacing and critiquing tacit understandings or taken-for-granted assumptions” (p. 584), and this has been an important aspect of our approach to reflective inquiry as we seek to understand our practice as teacher educators. We use reflective inquiry as a lens to examine our practice (Brookfield 1995; Schön 1983) and integrate the identification and analysis of critical incidents to study our teaching and inform our learning. Our contention is that “teaching is sophisticated business” (Loughran 2015), and we use self-study of our teaching practice and structured and systematic reflective inquiry to make explicit the complexity of understanding our work and the impact of our work in teacher education. 12.3.2  Critical Incidents While there are multiple definitions of what constitutes a critical incident, common understandings include a disturbance, an unexpected or unanticipated response or interaction, an event, an incident or an interaction to which there is no immediate resolution. For this study, we have drawn from the work of Tripp (2012) who argues that incidents can be everyday events but who contends that “critical incidents are produced by the way we look at a situation: a critical incident is an interpretation of the significance of an event” (p. 28). In our study, some of the incidents we describe may appear as everyday elements of teacher education practice, but it is in writing and reflecting on them that we turn a critical lens to identifying what is associated with them. Tripp (2012) contends that in examining critical incidents we explore what happened and “what allowed or caused it to happen” (p. 28). In the second stage of exploring what caused or enabled an incident to occur, wider contextual factors and structures are normally identified and examined. In defining critical inci- dents in this way, we have been able to reflect on everyday elements of our practice and to consider what we can learn from them. The identification and analysis of critical incidents have gained a widespread acceptance as an effective and meaningful way to examine the intricacies and com- plexities of professional learning (Brandenburg 2008; Brookfield 1995; Lishchinsky 2011; Tripp 2012). The critical incident technique was created post-World War II by

12  Using Critical Incidents to Reflect on Teacher Educator Practice 227 Flanagan (1954) and has had widespread application in a range of professions, although it has only been recently that the power of critical incident identification and analysis has been extensively adopted and embraced in education research (Shapira-Lishchinsky 2011). Examining critical incidents encourages researchers to maintain a heightened sensitivity to both the identification of and the personal response to situations as they arise and allows a deeper and more examined insight into the impact of incidents on professional growth. During times of significant restructure and policy shifts, critical incidents occur, with our self-study seeking to explore the impact of these on our practice as teacher educators. As part of a self-­ study drawing on reflective inquiry, Kosnik (2001) developed a three-column chart that enabled the recording and analysis of critical incidents. This framework for the reporting, identification and analysis of critical incidents has framed our approach to the generation and analysis of data, and we discuss this in more detail in the fol- lowing section of this chapter. 12.4  M ethodology and Method 12.4.1  S elf-Study of Teacher Education Practices As a means of researching practice, we have drawn on self-study methodology, whereby researchers conduct an investigation of their own practice (Berry 2007; Loughran et al. 2004). Self-study methodology is characterized by five elements: the research is self-initiated, improvement aimed, interactive at multiple levels, employs multiple methods of data collection (primarily qualitative) and the data is valid and trustworthy (LaBoskey 2004). An additional characteristic, as suggested by Loughran (2006), is that there is an enactment in practice and that the outcomes of research contribute knowledge to the field of teacher education. One of the key questions that underpins self-study research is “How can I improve my practice?”, and in doing so, what impact will this improvement have on the students that I teach? In order to generate collective, rather than individual understandings of prac- tice, self-study researchers systematically document and disseminate the processes and outcomes of research to the broader education community. Samaras (2011) argues that the presentation and generation of knowledge through self-study “con- tributes to the accumulation of pedagogical, content, and issue based knowledge and serves to build validation across related work” (p.  11). Samaras (2011) also contends that self-study researchers must make the process of data generation and analysis clear and transparent in order to develop systematic understandings of practice and of method, and in the following section of the chapter, the approach to data generation and analysis is outlined.

228 R. Brandenburg and S. McDonough 12.4.2  D ata Generation and Analysis We collected data for our self-study during the formation and implementation of our new faculty (2010–2014). Critical incident data was recorded in reflective journal entries, critical incident questionnaires and email correspondence. The critical inci- dent questionnaire was adapted from Brookfield (1995) and used to record incidents as they occurred, and the five prompts included the following: (1) At what moment in your work this week did you feel most engaged with what was happening? (2) At what moment in your work this week did you feel most distanced from what was happening? (3) What action that anyone (teacher, student) took this week did you find most affirming and helpful? (4) What action that anyone (student, teacher) took this week did you find most puzzling or confusing? (5) What about your work this week surprised you the most? (This could be something about your own reactions to what went on, or something that someone did, or anything else that occurs to you.) In this chapter we examine 32 critical incidents (Sharon (S) n20, Robyn (R) n12) that, as identified earlier, were everyday elements of practice. These incidents have been coded, with the identifier S (Sharon), or R (Robyn), along with the num- ber of the incident, for example, S10 signifying this as Sharon’s incident number 10. These critical incidents were analysed using Kosnik’s (2001) critical incident analy- sis framework, and the analysis was guided by Kosnik’s (2001) two questions: “What is my response to the event saying about me? What are the values inherent in my decision and the situation?” (p. 69). After responding to these initial questions, we then reflected on the implications for teacher educators and teacher education more broadly. As self-study of teacher education practices requires ongoing, systematic and collaborative engagement with data, we engaged in a second stage of independent data analysis and reduction. In this stage we independently coded each of the 32 critical incidents, identifying the focus of the incident together with the category (e.g. reflection, teacher research). From these initial coding categories, we identified three key themes, (1) institutional and personal expectations, (2) contrived versus organic collaboration and (3) valuing a teacher as researcher, and we examine these themes in the following section of the chapter. 12.5  A nalysis and Discussion Using self-study as a methodology to research practice, the critical incident identi- fication and analysis provided us with a framework to reflect on our practice as teacher educators.

12  Using Critical Incidents to Reflect on Teacher Educator Practice 229 12.5.1  Institutional and Personal Expectations: Holding on to Your Identity in a New World Order The analysis of the data indicated that critical incidents were recorded when we were challenged by changing institutional structures and policies. New structures and policies disrupted the status quo and demanded new approaches to practice, pedagogy and engagement. As a newly amalgamated faculty, a forum was held that involved approximately 100 education and arts staff. Through roundtable discus- sion, staff members were encouraged to articulate their goals and vision for the new faculty. We both independently identified this as a critical incident in our profes- sional lives, writing reflections about our personal responses. Sharon wrote: Staff spoke about having a sense of disappointment in a system that rewards on the number of publications rather than the nature of the research – giving examples of ways in which our work has changed the lives of others – qualitative stories that cannot be quantified in numbers. In the table discussions, what emerged were understandings of our work as aca- demics and what emerged was a dissatisfaction with a system that forces us to focus on outputs and data and something which ‘makes us less human’. Some staff suggested they want to be brave, to reclaim the humanity of our work – but how to do this? (S10) Robyn wrote: Our newly formed school – not an amalgamation of three schools. How will this work when we have all developed our separate identity/ies for many years? Looking around, I see some familiar faces but struggle to name them. We seat ourselves around tables and surprisingly, they are mixed – people feel comfortable. We chat. We laugh. We anticipate … There is a tension for me between the broader landscape of universities where researchers need to obtain external grants, and my valuing of something more … individuals need to be valued for who they are, what they bring. It is more than grant dollars. I squirm. Is this realistic? How do I reconcile who I want to be …can I really follow my passion as a teacher researcher? If I do, what implications will this have for me? (R6) Analysis of this incident identified the way our personal value frameworks were juxtaposed against the values and expectations of the broader institutional setting. We experienced a dissonance between the two sets of values, with our critical inci- dent analysis illustrating that we were questioning if both sets of values could com- fortably coexist in our practice. We sought to find new options and ways to reconcile this tension without surrendering our personal values in deference to institutional expectations. Reflecting on the incidents, we identified that each of us values the opportunity to experiment with new ways of being and doing, but that these ways need to be in alignment with our personal values and interpretive frameworks (Kelchtermans 2009), which act as an “anchor” (Lasky 2005, p. 912) in a changing environment. We were not willing to sacrifice our academic and professional auton- omy in order to satisfy the expectations of the system, and so we questioned and challenged ways that we might reshape the system to better suit our personal values, which act “as a lens through which teachers look at their job, give meaning to it and act in it” (Kelchtermans 2009, p. 260). As an early career academic, Sharon contin- ued to question her role in relation to institutional expectations writing:

230 R. Brandenburg and S. McDonough I was told that I need to learn to say no, learn to be more strategic, that I need to think about my career trajectory and what will work best for me. This comes in the same week that two other people have told me things I should do, things that they said “will be good for me” … I don’t have a well planned out career trajectory it is true. I do things because I enjoy them. If I don’t like them, I don’t do them. It’s as simple and as hard as that. (S7) The tension underpinning this incident relates to Sharon’s continual develop- ment of her identity and practice as a teacher educator as she sought to find a bal- ance between the expectations of her colleagues, of her school, of the university more broadly and of her own personal values, something which was represented in her critical incident analysis when she wrote “I want to maintain my own sense of ethical behavior in the face of a system that forces us to be competitive” (S7). Ballet and Kelchtermans (2007) argue that teachers seek to find a balance between their personal philosophies, private lives and the demands of organisational structures, turning to what they refer as “creative coping” (p. 64) in order to do so. The analysis of the incident reveals that Sharon is motivated in her practice by the things which sustain her personally and that she feels and identifies a tension at having to engage in tasks that may not align with her personal values or sense of fulfilment. For both of us, reflecting on critical incidents enabled us to identify the ways we seek to remain true to our own values around our practice as teacher educators while also working within the broader expectations of the institution and the university sector. The desire to align our practice and values was also present in the second theme identified in the data about the nature of collaboration. 12.5.2  C ontrived Versus Organic Collaboration: Finding Commonalities In a policy environment where partnerships between schools and universities, and pre-service teachers (PSTs), academics and teacher educators are promoted (TEMAG 2014), there exist challenges in forming and fostering collaborations. The identification of our critical incidents reflected the nature of the collaborative rela- tionships we were experiencing and attempting to foster. Self-study research is self-­ initiated, improvement aimed and interactive and, as such, is not externally imposed. In examining our critical incidents, it is these qualities that we also began to identify in the effective collaborations with which we were involved. Butcher et al. (2011) contend that transformational partnerships are those “with a moral dimension in which the partners come together to pursue common purpose and create the possi- bility of generative growth and change” (p.  31). This concept of transformation differs from a transactional partnership where each party is concerned with the ful- filment of their own individual goals, and it is these elements that we seek in col- laborative relationships, both within and outside of the university. Each of us recorded a critical incident through email correspondence that high- lighted questions related to the nature of organic and effective collaboration in

12  Using Critical Incidents to Reflect on Teacher Educator Practice 231 research partnerships. Robyn emailed a message to Sharon – “you re-energize me” and “look what a team we make”. Sharon reflected: I’d been thinking that other people were seeing me in the same way I was still seeing myself, as “the new kid on the block, with so much to learn”. I’d loved writing the paper together – I liked the way we seemed to work in a similar way, spending time nutting out the right word for a particular sentence … I’d walked away from our sessions feeling inspired, invigorated and excited about the work we were doing … The results and benefits were there for both of us, we feed off the ideas of the other and we walk away from writing sessions full of possibility. Robyn replied: I’ve been questioning the nature of the research/writing relationship: What qualities are important for a successful partnership? There is an honesty, trust and respect for the person and the endeavour. Collaboration provides alternative perspectives about pedagogy; varied experience and knowledge base; and recognition in the form of a published article. Our analysis of this incident and of others (R3, R5, S4) highlighted the value we ascribed to collaborative work when it is underpinned by qualities such as trust, respect, shared responsibility, critical appraisal/feedback/critique and what Dewey (1933) describes as openness and willingness. In these collaborative relationships, we identified an ongoing need and focus for authentic research collaborations and critical reflective inquiry. While our collaborative research partnership was an example of an organic and effective collaboration, analysis of our data indicated that this was not always the nature of the collaborations with which we were involved. In our teaching practice, we also identified a tension (Berry 2007) in fostering these kinds of relationships among our pre-service teachers when collaboration was required as part of a group task. Analysis indicated that tensions for pre-service teachers arose when insufficient time and scaffolding were provided by us as teacher educators to foster and support collaborative relationships. Organic collaborations emerge as a result of a joint desire for improvement, while contrived collaborations result from a requirement to meet outcomes and standards that are integral to mana- gerial frameworks or in the case of our PSTs as part of an assessment requirement. Sharon recorded a critical incident that related to the need for collaboration among pre-service teachers as part of a group work task in the Bachelor of Education (physical education) programme. The analysis of the critical incident indicated that she valued the opportunity for pre-service teachers to collaborate and reflect on their participation and involvement with group work. Sharon reflected: “we had been working with the ALACT model for reflection and so I was encouraging them to think about how they could learn, even from situations that were challenging and difficult” (S1). She continued, “I think that reflection is a valuable way of identify- ing new learning”, but also noted that “it made me think about the need to build in explicit discussion of working in teams” as she identified that she had missed a valuable opportunity for teaching about the nature of effective and successful col- laborations. Reflective inquiry and analysis using the critical incident technique provided Sharon with the impetus to enact a change in her future practice when establishing group work with pre-service teachers.

232 R. Brandenburg and S. McDonough 12.5.3  Valuing Teacher as Researcher Analysing critical incidents (R1, R2, R5, R6, S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S11) enabled us to identify and articulate our values and reflect on how those values influenced our pedagogical practices. As teacher educator researchers, we have a commitment to model our research practices with our pre-service teachers and make our learning explicit. In this way we hope to encourage them to value researching practice and thereby encourage them to become reflective practitioners. During the data-­ gathering period of this self-study of teaching, we identified critical incidents that occurred during orientation week when pre-service teacher mentors were introduc- ing first year students to the university, facilities and staff. Sharon described the following critical interaction: I was returning to my office and came across Tim1, a pre-service teacher I’d taught last year. He had a group of new first years with him and he introduced me to them saying, “This is Sharon, she taught at school until last year, so she knows what it’s like ...”. This comment stuck in my head, as I was interested in the implications of what it meant. I have a focus on trying to address issues of translating theory into practice, researching my practice and of trying to ensure that the pedagogical approaches I adopt are relevant to my pre-service teachers. (S11) On the same day, Robyn had also met Matt* in the corridor, and she reflected on the way he introduced her to the new students: “This is Robyn. Will you be teaching in first year?” I replied that yes, I would be teaching maths in the first year course. Matt turned back to the group of first years and said “Robyn will teach you about a fantastic practice of roundtable reflections. They really help you to reflect and she has an article that she has written about it. I have downloaded it and found it really helpful”. The fact that this introduction was spontaneous, and not prompted, showed his recall and sharing of learning in a positive way. It highlighted that as a teacher you can influence learning in meaningful ways and that research as a teacher educator matters, not only to the researchers, but as a model for pre-service teachers to research their own prac- tice. (R2) The analysis of these incidents illustrates how our personal and professional val- ues drive our teaching and research focus. Sharon’s approach of seeking to address the theory practice nexus by creating pedagogical approaches that are informed by her research and her practice as both a school and a university practitioner underpins her work. Analysis of the critical incident above, however, left her reflecting if this was something that she successfully made explicit to her pre-service teachers. She wondered if they perceived this as a privileging of her school teaching experience, and a show-and-tell approach to pedagogy (Berry 2007), rather than a pedagogical approach that is framed by understandings generated through both practice and research. Robyn’s critical incident interaction illustrates the way in which she has successfully made her role as a teacher educator researcher explicit to her pre-­ service teachers and the way that she has modelled this to them as an approach that they can use as they become critical, reflective inquirers into their own practice. 1 denotes pseudonym.

12  Using Critical Incidents to Reflect on Teacher Educator Practice 233 12.5.3.1  Collaborative Talk: Research Improves Teaching and Learning Maintaining a reflective inquiry approach to teaching practice requires openness and wholeheartedness (Dewey 1933), and the ongoing scrutiny of pedagogy neces- sarily creates some dissonance and deep questioning about many taken-for-granted assumptions (Brookfield 1995). During a whole staff forum, there was extensive discussion about the word “disturbing” where as a team we were challenged to dis- rupt the status quo and disturb practices, both for our pre-service teachers and our- selves. One member of the discussion team stated “Disturbing is not considered positive in our culture” and yet another commented “Is that the message we want to give new university students, directly out of year 12?”. Following the extended dis- cussion, Robyn became aware of the discomfort of a number of participants in this discussion and was challenged to reconsider her interpretation of “disturbing”, which for her meant to challenge and move away from habitual practice and under- standing, to create a “wobble”. Listening to the interaction, Robyn realized that challenging the status quo is not a natural nor a cultural predisposition for some academics. She was prompted to reflect on the role of culture and experience when disturbing practice (Segall, 2002). Robyn reflected: “scrutinizing my practice for a decade has influenced the degree to which I feel at ease with the discomfort and ‘messiness’ that can result from disturbing and disrupting my practice and beliefs” (R4). The analysis of this critical incident revealed that Robyn does value others’ perspectives, and she appreciates the integral role of experience in learning about teaching: I value life-long learning. I have come to value the role of theory and research in under- standing more about pedagogy and it is difficult to alter our assumptions, even when they have been identified. Analyzing this prescriptive assumption [Brookfield 1995) represents how I believe things should be done. This leads to further questions – alternative perspec- tives can be appreciated and acknowledged but ultimately if they are based in deep cultural/ experiential roots, should we, or can we change? (R4) 12.6  New Learning and Understandings As we return to our initial questions that framed the research in this chapter – How does the identification and analysis of critical incidents enable us to reflect on our practice? And how does this process deepen understanding of reflective theory in teacher education practice – we recognize the value of enacting a reflective orienta- tion, one that has become integral within our teaching and our research programme. We acknowledge the influence of theorists such as Dewey (1933), Schön (1983) and Brookfield (1995) and education researchers including Loughran (2006), Segall (2002) and Berry (2007) on the development of reflective practice and theory as teacher educators. This chapter illustrates the ways in which the identification and analysis of critical incidents (adapted from Kosnik’s 2001 framework) have enabled us to reflect on our practice and understand more about the impact of university

234 R. Brandenburg and S. McDonough restructure and policy reform. For example, together with raising questions about personal and professional “fit” or alignment (Theme 1), our data indicates that ten- sions between faculty values and a broader university mission are mediated by a professional and personal framework. Organic learning and teaching and research collaborations (Theme 2) are both productive and essential. Rather than contrived associations, these collaborations need to be based on qualities such as respect, trust, shared responsibility and critical reflective feedback. Through adopting self-study as both a lens and a methodology to research and reflect on our practice, we have revealed deeper understanding and insights into the complexity and “sophisticated business” (Loughran 2015) of teacher education and the role of reflection in teacher education. Through the systematic and ongoing examination of data, we identified tensions (Berry 2007) experienced in our work as teacher educator researchers. We continue to collaborate and research our teaching and the impact of our new learning with pre-service teachers. The reflective inquiry process is non-linear, messy, open for critique and scrutiny and evidence based. As other teacher-educator researchers have documented it is often conversations that aid the understanding of tensions in practice (Coia and Taylor 2009). Through systematically examining our practice and experiences, we have come to a greater understanding of the ways in which our personal and professional val- ues are manifested in our professional actions, pedagogy and practice. There is value in identifying, defining and analysing critical incidents and the impact of these incidents on our professional practice and sharing these in collaborative research partnerships. A political climate where teachers and teacher educators are subject to ongoing scrutiny and performative demands, reflective theory and inquiry and critical incident identification and analysis enables teacher educators to articu- late practice and to contribute to wider knowledge of practice, pedagogy and learn- ing in teacher education. How then does this reflective inquiry process deepen understanding of reflective theory in teacher education practice? The combination of a reflective inquiry lens, a research methodology (self-study of practice) and custom-designed strategies and tools (critical incident questionnaire and analytic framework) has enabled the devel- opment of a model of reflective inquiry appropriate for teacher education. This model provides for us a practical framework to make intangible elements of teacher educator practice tangible, and it also makes the seminal concepts of reflective theo- rists accessible, meaningful and grounded in context. Identifying and reflecting on everyday incidents in teacher education and teacher educator practice enable broader and deeper understanding of pedagogy and the need for “openness, whole- heartedness and intellectual responsibility” (Dewey 1933), especially during times of institutional and policy reform.