Reflective Theory_and Practice in _Teacher Education

12  Using Critical Incidents to Reflect on Teacher Educator Practice 235 References Ballet, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Workload and willingness to change: Disentangling the experience of intensification. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 47–67. Berry, A. (2007, November). Reconceptualizing teacher educator knowledge as tensions: Exploring the tension between valuing and reconstructing experience. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 3(2), 117–134. Brandenburg, R. (2008). Powerful pedagogy: Self-study of a teacher educator’s practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2011). Transformational partnerships: A new agenda for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 29–40. Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2009). Co/autoethnography: Exploring our teaching selves collaboratively. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht: Springer. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regenry Co.. Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on reflective practice. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/ opencetl/files/opencetl/file/ecms/web-content/Finlay-(2008)-Reflecting-on-reflective-practice- PBPL-­paper-52.pdf Flanagan, J.  C. (1954). The critical incident technique. The Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. Higgins, D. (2011). Why reflect? Recognising the link between learning and reflection. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12(5), 583–584. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerabil- ity and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 257–272. Kosnik, C. (2001). The effects of an inquiry-oriented teacher education program on a faculty mem- ber: Some critical incidents and my journey. Reflective Practice, 2(1), 65–80. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and profes- sional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 899–916. Loughran, J.  J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through modelling. London: Falmer Press. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Abingdon: Routledge. Loughran, J.J. (2015). Teaching: Sophisticated business. Keynote presentation at International Study Association of Teachers and Teaching 17th biennial conference, 13–17 July 2015, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Loughran, J.  J., Hamilton, M.  L., LaBoskey, V.  K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lyons, N., Halton, C., & Freidus, H. (2013). Reflective Inquiry as transformative self-study for professional education and learning. Studying Teacher Education: A journal of self-study of teacher education practices, 9(2), 163–174. Martinez, K. (2008). Academic induction for teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 35–51. McDonough, S. (2015). Using ethical mapping for exploring two professional dilemmas in initial teacher education. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 16(1), 142–153.

236 R. Brandenburg and S. McDonough McDonough, S., & Brandenburg, R. (2012). Examining assumptions about teacher educator iden- tities by self-study of the role of mentor of pre-service teachers. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 8(2), 169–182. Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 125–142. Samaras, A. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. Los Angeles: Sage. Samaras, A., & Freese, A. (2006). Looking back and looking forward: An historical overview of the self-study school. In C. A. Lassonde, S. Galman, & C. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators (pp. 3–19). Rotterdam: Sense. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Segall, A. (2002). Disturbing practice: Reading teacher education as text. New York: Peter Lang. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2011). Teachers’ critical incidents: Ethical dilemmas in teaching prac- tice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 648–656. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group [TEMAG]. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/ teacher-education-ministerial-advisory-group Tripp, D. (2012). Critical incidents in teaching developing professional judgment. London: Routledge.

Chapter 13 Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision of Master’s Projects Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir, Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, and Karen Rut Gísladóttir Abstract  Completing a Master’s thesis is a part of becoming a professional teacher in Iceland, and teacher educators must prepare students for this challenge in an efficient way that empowers them throughout the process. Core reflection is a useful tool for teacher educators to use in analyzing and finding solutions to such a chal- lenge. In this chapter, we introduce research on collaborative supervision of Master’s students in the School of Education at the University of Iceland, the purpose of which was to understand how we as supervisors could use self-study and core reflection to develop both a learning community for Master’s students and our own professional identities as teacher educators. As three teacher educators, we con- ducted this collaborative self-study over a 3-year period in which we reflected on our supervision. We gathered knowledge about our development and discovered that, by working on supervisory issues together, we expanded our resources to respond to students’ challenges. We not only created a learning community for stu- dents; we also created an overlapping learning community for us to advance our efficacy as supervisors. We expanded each of our competencies and increased our supervisory repertoires by learning from each other. The use of self-study and core reflection allowed us to develop the collaborative supervision more consciously. The data gave us opportunity to revisit our experiences and increased our compe- tence to make changes based on the analysis of the data. 13.1  Developing Teacher Education Completing a Master’s thesis is a part of becoming a professional teacher in Iceland. Teacher educators need to prepare students for this challenge in an efficient way that empowers them throughout the process. Core reflection can be a useful tool for analyzing and finding solutions to such a challenge. In this chapter, we will H. Guðjónsdóttir (*) • S.R. Jónsdóttir • K.R. Gísladóttir 237 University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland 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_13

238 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. introduce research on collaborative supervision of Master’s students in the School of Education at the University of Iceland. The purpose of the research was twofold: firstly, to gather information about how we assisted the students as they worked on their Master’s projects and, secondly, to understand our own development as super- visors. The goal was to gain knowledge about how we could create an effective learning community both for Master’s students and for ourselves as supervisors. In 2008, the University of Iceland extended teacher education from a 3-year bachelor’s degree to a 5-year Master’s degree, with the first cohort of students from this new program graduating in 2014. The program guidelines required the students to have knowledge of the main research methods in the field of pedagogy and edu- cational studies, skills to use theoretical knowledge and research outcomes, and competencies to take an active part in the process of professional discourse. In their final year, each student submits a Master’s thesis demonstrating their “ability, skills and initiative to gather data … and analyze and evaluate the data according to accepted practices and research methods in the respective field” (University of Iceland, School of Education 2014). To meet these parameters, students work on a project where they use research methods to gain profound knowledge and under- standing of a specific phenomenon. The project is 30 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) points and is generally studied over the period of one academic year. Each student is assigned to a supervisor as he/she works. 13.1.1  Understanding Supervision of Master’s Projects Always when I was about to give up writing my thesis I attended a meeting, because deep inside I felt I wanted to continue. These meetings helped me find the positive sides of the work. They were ambitious, encouraging and often fulfilling. (Ticket out of the Classroom (TOC), 2015)1 Becoming a supervisor of Master’s projects in teacher education is an important part of the teacher educator’s role. The student’s words above illuminate the chal- lenges encountered when working on a Master’s thesis and the importance of belonging to a group of students going through similar experiences. During Fall 2012, we—Hafdís, Karen, and Svanborg—decided to organize a collaborative supervisory meeting for Master’s students to support them through this work. As our collaboration progressed, we began to identify challenges and tensions we expe- rienced during these collaborative supervisory meetings and brought them to the preparation meetings we organized in between. As we responded to these chal- lenges, we realized how a part of the solution was related to our insights and profes- sional ways of being. The core reflection approach (Korthagen and Vasalos 2010) trained us to reflect more deeply. By the end of the 2015 school year, we had orga- nized these meetings for the three academic school years to come. The concept of landscapes of practice was used to understand the process of the learning community we created for our students and ourselves (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner 2015). The central idea of landscapes 1 Ticket out of the Classroom (TOC) is a protocol the authors used with students asking them to articulate their learning before they leave the classroom session.

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 239 of practice is that learning is an activity situated in many different communities of practice. Landscapes of practice include community boundaries, the multimember- ships people belong to, and the challenges they face. Membership in different social communities where learning takes place is at the heart of this concept; in our con- text, it involved reflecting on how we could create a learning community for Master’s students as they worked on their theses (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner 2015). To change our practice and the way we teach and work with student teachers (Feldman 2003), we used Korthagen and Kessels’ (1999) idea of the realistic approach. The realistic approach turns traditional teacher education models upside down by creating a learning community focused on the experiences and questions student teachers and supervisors bring to and gain throughout their research pro- cess. We also aimed to support the student teachers in seeing how academic theories allowed them to develop alternative perspectives on their experiences. 13.1.2  Reflection and Critical Thinking Teacher education researchers widely value reflecting on teaching and learning as a meaningful way to better make sense of the complexities of learning about teaching. The discourse of reflective practice can be traced to Dewey and Schön, who empha- sized the importance of teachers integrating theory and practice, being aware of their decision making, and scrutinizing their practice (Harford and MacRuairc 2008). Many teacher education programs emphasize the idea of reflective practice in their learning outcomes. The course catalogue for teacher education at the University of Iceland states that student teachers are required to practice critical thinking and reasoning in their decisions and to base them on theories of teaching and learning (University of Iceland, School of Education 2014). Through continu- ous reflection and self-critique, students should explain their theory of practice, evaluate educational research and school development projects, and relate the find- ings to their work in the field (University of Iceland, School of Education 2014). Teacher educational policy in Iceland encourages teachers to reinforce critical thinking with their students, to be proactive, and, in collaboration with colleagues and specialists, find opportunities to research their practice (Iceland Teachers’ Union, n.d.). As teacher educators apply critical thinking and reflection, they model this kind of practice. On a daily basis, teachers need to be able to negotiate the complex realities they encounter within their classrooms. Critical reflection is the ability of teachers to think about their practice, question it, develop an understanding of it, systematically evaluate it, and make decisions to respond or act. Student teachers need a lot of practice to develop the ability to critically reflect on their own work and how it develops through feedback, by exploring theories of teaching and learning, and by planning for effective change (Loughran 2002; Watts and Lawson 2009). This ­ability to analyze and make meaning from experience is what matters in the devel- opment of professional knowledge.

240 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. Korthagen and Vasalos (2010) recognize that reflection is widely used now in educational settings, but does not always lead to optimal learning or the intended professional development. They point out that reflection is often used as a technical tool to achieve quick solutions to problems that are superficially defined. Teachers are not only guided by cognitive thinking but also by emotions and personal needs. If the person of the practitioner is considered to be the central instrument in teaching practice, we have to acknowledge personal frames of reference (Korthagen and Vasalos 2010). Korthagen and Vasalos argue that in order for teachers to make changes in their underlying sources of behavior, they need to touch upon how their mission as teachers influences their professional identities and the behavior and competences they develop to carry out their work within different environments. Korthagen and Vasalos build on earlier models of reflection by adding a framework for core reflection, involving reflection on six different levels, using an Onion Model to illustrate the action. In using core reflection to analyze and find solutions to the challenges Master’s students confront, we created opportunities to reflect on differ- ent layers of our professional identities. 13.1.3  C ore Reflection: The Onion Model Korthagen and Vasalos (2010) present the core reflection model as an “onion” with six layers that are equally important, each representing a part of our professional identities. We wanted our reflections and responses to be more than technical opera- tions to identify challenges and respond to them according to logic and linear ratio- nality. We wanted to excavate our ways of working more deeply, allowing both our own and our students’ needs to guide our work. The Onion Model can assist us to understand the different layers of a professional’s work by identifying them, naming them, and determining how they interact. Getting to know the core of your profes- sional identity can be empowering and liberating. Figure 13.1 represents the Onion Model for an individual in a given environment. In the Onion Model, “environment” is everything outside of the professional person: the conditions, events, and other people. In the case of a teacher educator, this includes the students, the learning environment, the focus of intent, and the institutional culture with all its implicit and explicit norms. Inside the person there are five different elements that influence how that person feels, thinks, and acts. Below we describe the five layers of the Onion Model in more detail. Layer 1: Behavior refers to how we work with students and respond to challenges in our work. Layer 2: Competencies refer to a person’s professional strengths. Layer 3: Beliefs are often unconscious assumptions about the world around us. Layer 4: Professional identity describes what kind of teacher a person thinks he or she is and what kind he or she wants to be. Layer 5: Mission covers the inspiration, meaning, and significance in work and life.

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 241 Fig. 13.1  The onion model (Korthagen and Vasalos 2010) When a person is more in touch with the inner levels, that core begins to influ- ence the outer levels. We find connecting to all the levels in the Onion Model to be important in strengthening the learning community, as the layered model better allows us to understand tensions and challenges. It provides opportunities to bring innovative ideas based on our insights into our practice, which allows both student teachers and supervisors to approach their work in alternative ways. We wanted to use our experience with students and our resources to develop as professionals. 13.2  M ethodology This self-study opens up for us what Jónsdóttir et al. (2015) refer to as a third space for professional development, a collaborative space in which we discuss and reflect on our practices as supervisors in the Masters’ program. In the study we, as research- ers, are both the resource and the topic of the research. This dual focus enables an ontological transformation of ourselves and of our practice (Samaras et al. 2012; Pinnegar and Hamilton 2010), something we achieve by collectively reflecting upon the challenges and tensions in our work. Through this reflective process, we devel- oped our individual professional identities into a more collective one as supervisors of Master’s students, drawing on each other as resources. In this study we illuminate how our collective professional identities unfolded as we assisted our Master’s students with their final projects. We wanted to understand how we created a learning community for students and ourselves as supervisors. We

242 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. look closely at how we developed a learning space for a group of Master’s students to work on their final projects. Ideas about education as empowerment guided our supervision and reflection on our data (Jónsdóttir et al. 2015; Shor and Freire 1987; Jónsdóttir and Macdonald 2013). Korthagen and Kessels’ (1999) ideas of the realistic approach, combined with the Onion Model (Korthagen and Vasalos 2010), encouraged deeper reflection on our data and our thinking. The following question guided our work: How do we as supervisors use core reflection to develop both a learning community of Master’s students and our professional identities? 13.2.1  P articipants We, the three authors of this chapter, Hafdís, Svanborg, and Karen, were the teacher educators involved in the self-study. We all had experience teaching in compulsory schools before entering teacher education. Our Master’s students were the partici- pants, as the supervisors’ activities were developed in close relation to students’ tensions. Each year, we supervised 15–18 students together. The group was a diverse mix of practicing teachers and students from different fields, including general edu- cation, art education, special education, administration, and psychology. 13.2.2  D ata Collection and Analysis When engaging in reflective practice, issues of validity arise because, as Feldman (2003) warns, we cannot be sure if what we see in the mirror is accurate. Therefore, a clear and detailed description of how data were collected and analyzed is impor- tant. To help ensure that we understand our work from more than one perspective, we collected different data from the Fall semester of 2012 until Spring 2015. Data collection and analysis included: 1. Researchers’ journals: reflective notes, field notes, and e-mail communication. 2. Reflective exercises: reflection on an issue using the Onion Model, individually and as a group. 3. Ticket out of the classroom (TOCs): at the end of each collaborative supervisory meeting, students were asked what they took with them from that meeting and what they would like to focus on in the next meeting. 4. Minutes and recordings from our reflective preparation meetings for collabora- tive supervisory meetings. We listened to and transcribed the recordings of these meetings. 5. Formal analysis meetings: longer meetings (2–8 h) to discuss data, emerging findings, and theories.

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 243 As our data grew, we organized analysis meetings in which we discussed student progress and reflected on the collaborative supervisory meetings, looked into the TOCs, and analyzed what was happening with the students and ourselves. Korthagen’s core reflection helped us to reach deeper into our professional and per- sonal identities, acknowledge feelings and frustrations, connect with our core quali- ties, focus more on the future than the past, and be present in the here-and-now (Korthagen and Vasalos 2010). Our collaboration, data collection, and analysis developed over the 3 years of the study. We worked our way through data by analyzing and interpreting it in a spiral pattern. This way of working with the data allowed us to respond to our interpreta- tion in practice parallel to the study (Creswell 2013; Martin and Dismuke 2015). We gradually became more focused and deliberate as we understood more of what was happening, or not—and why. At the analytical meetings, we critically reflected on specific moments, com- pared and discussed within the context of the study (Wolcott 2008), focusing on our reactions to students’ work, questions, requests, and emerging needs. Data collec- tion and analysis were cyclical, iterative, interactive, and often messy. Some types of data were consulted regularly and others only occasionally. We gradually drew out issues and challenges and reflected on them by consulting our own professional theories and those that Korthagen and Kessels’ (1999) term as “big T” theories. Reflection became more directed toward our own professional theories and identi- ties in the latter phases of analysis through the focused use of the Onion Model (Korthagen and Vasalos 2010). Korthagen and Kessels’ (1999) idea of the realistic approach to teacher education inspired us to plan our teaching and respond to what was appearing in our data. We also used realistic approach ideas to examine our supervision and collaboration in order to draw on our own resources and connect with theories to enlighten and understand our practice. In earlier findings about our collaborative supervision (Jónsdóttir et al. 2015), we had identified that we build our teaching on educational values of empowerment. Constantly scrutinizing our data enabled us to improve the learning environment that we had created using TOCs as a core indicator of students’ experiences and needs. We used the TOCs to ask how participation in the meetings supported stu- dents to become reflective and empowered professionals. We also explored our learning environment as supervisors within this collaboration, as well as how our collaboration expanded our resources. Core reflection supported us in collaborative meaning making and digging to the center of our personal and professional identi- ties as we strived to integrate academic and practitioner knowledge (McAnulty and Cuenca 2014; Taylor et al. 2014). In presenting our findings, we follow the elements of the core reflection approach.

244 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. 13.3  C reating and Developing Interconnected Learning Communities In this research, we wanted to shed light on our development as supervisors through creating a learning community for Master’s students and ourselves. Through ana- lyzing our findings, we realized that we had designed at least two connected learn- ing communities that each functioned in many layers and dealt with interconnected issues. We use Korthagen’s and Vasalos’s (2010) core reflection model to help us frame and make sense of our findings. We present our findings through the lens of the core reflection model beginning with the environment and then moving to describing our behavior, analyzing our resources, extracting our beliefs, presenting our professional identities, and unearthing our mission as teacher educators and individuals. 13.3.1  E nvironment: Learning Community The first level of the Onion Model is the environment: everything we encounter outside of ourselves. Collaborative supervisory meetings with students usually consisted of brief teacher instructions, presentations of student projects, and group work. Our goals as teachers and supervisors were to facilitate, guide, and encourage individual students to complete their Master’s thesis. We organized supervisor reflective preparation meetings between the student meetings to initiate and develop the student learning community. We came to design a three-part format for the collaborative supervisory meetings around students’ progress and the requirements of the Master’s program. The first part was our mini-lesson on practical matters and different information sought by the students. The second part provided time for small group work or an informal workshop to work on issues students or supervisors had identified. The third part was organized in different ways according to need. Sometimes we each met with our respective students. Other times, we grouped the students according to where they were in their project, and at other times, we grouped them randomly. Our inten- tion was to make the atmosphere relaxed and provide students with extra energy late in the day, and therefore we provided refreshments at every meeting. During the small group work, we supported students by listening to their conver- sations, participated in the discussions, asked questions, and provided suggestions. Since some of our students could not attend the meetings due to their distance from campus, we offered meeting opportunities online. Students could also participate in group work through Skype or Adobe Connect. Additionally, we recorded all the mini-lessons for students to access at any time. We organized the collaborative supervisory meeting jointly as a response to TOCs from students (Table  13.1) and discussed the process at our supervisors’ reflective preparation meetings. The content of the TOCs changed somewhat as the

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 245 Table 13.1  Examples of TOCs from our students Today I take with me – I learned Next time I would like More student group work It’s good to have an opportunity to come, take part in discussions …I look at this as a good To learn about the theoretical chapter start after taking a break this summer Methodology – questionnaire Next steps in my research More about what kind of permissions I have The theoretical chapter to attain and how How to construct a questionnaire New, quality articles about action research that About the organization of meetings and of the are accessible and good to read, i.e. Master‘s final project thesis The letter of permission – I can find an Support example on our Moodle area Group work  Keep my records well-organized  To talk about my project  I have to remember that I am doing research  Good advice Dozens of pieces of advice Report my research to the Data Protection Support Authority More organization More focus Data collection – practical matters More resourcefulness and courage Time plan Got answers – I have to ask permission to Look forward to continuing with my final interview my own students even if I have project permission for the research Got to know about “Monday-posts” Courage and confidence to continue with my research plan and finish my Master‘s studies academic year progressed, but typically there was a message of learning on one hand and a call for support on the other. We attempted to create a welcoming, interactive learning environment encourag- ing communication between supervisors and students, but also among students. This interactive learning environment allowed us as supervisors to develop a dia- logic pedagogy in which we were able to bring in and draw on each other’s resources and knowledge in the present moment to respond to students’ immediate concerns. Below is an example of one of these interactions. Svanborg is standing in front of a group of students, giving a mini-presentation about ana- lyzing qualitative data. She shows how to organize data using a table before starting to write up findings. “As you gather your data and start to analyze it, think about the process more as creative rather than technical. It is an emergent research design.” Then she explains how she began going through the data inductively and later deductively, using theories to help her create meaning of the data. She further explains how she got an overview of the large set of data and emerging themes. In doing so she displays a table with an example of how she organized emerging themes and where they were located in her data. (Authors’ jour- nals, February 2013) During the presentation Karen is making note of Svanborg’s ways of working with data. As Svanborg shows the table, Karen realizes that her ways of approaching

246 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. data were quite different and that she has difficulty sorting data using a table format. Her reaction to the table format is so strong that she experiences the feeling of suffocation. As Svanborg was about to finish her presentation Karen feels compelled to intervene, explaining how she would have gone through the analysis process differently in case any- one else is experiencing the same feeling. She says: “I find it very hard to think of my data in relation to tables. When I approach my data, I do look for themes and patterns, but I need to begin writing stories from it. I just write and write as I try to understand the message the data is sending me.” (Authors’ journals, February 2013) As Hafdís observes the interaction, she notices complete silence among the stu- dents, which she interprets as confusion. Surprising herself she grabs a basket full of small bits of textiles and pours them on the table and asks: What is this, can we make sense of it, can we group these bits and pieces? What could be our first steps?” This interplay of explaining the analysing seemed to regain the students’ attention, and we all gathered around the pile and began to move the bits of textiles around, discussing how they could be sorted, grouped, and rearranged, imagining these bits were our data. (Authors’ journals, February 2013) As we brought in and discussed different experiences of working with and ana- lyzing data, a dialogic pedagogy emerged within the learning environment, which in return gave students more opportunities—verbal, visual, and tangible—to think about working with data. Through this dialogic pedagogy, we felt we had better prepared students to relate their work to different analytical approaches. 13.3.2  Behavior: This Is How We Work The second level in the Onion Model was to look at our behavior in working with students: what we did and how we went about our work. In our preparation meet- ings, we used core reflection, our logs, and the TOCs to understand the processes students were going through in conducting their Master’s research and thesis writ- ing and how we could respond to their requests. According to the TOCs, the stu- dents appreciated the presentations and examples of how to work with data. After the meeting described above, several of the students asked for more of the same for the next meeting. This request came as a surprise to us and caused some irritation, since we had expected the students to be better versed in research methods. We discussed how we needed to respond to student needs and create opportunities to learn more about research methods. At the same time, we should remind them to review their textbooks. Focusing on our mission, we admitted that this was the reality and we needed to respond accordingly to actually connect to where students were and work from there. We decided that next time we would ask them to bring their data, so they could practice coding, grouping and finding their themes. Karen suggested they write short pieces from their data and share them in small groups. Svanborg drew up the time frame for the meet- ing to make sure we could cover all the tasks within the two-hour limit. (Reflective prepa- ration meeting, 2013)

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 247 This description gives an example of the different layers we peeled back in our core reflections and reflects how we drew on our different strengths and insights as we continuously negotiated the learning community with our students, allowing them to construct their identities as research-focused practitioners. Graduating students’ reflective notes indicated that they found collaborative supervisory meetings to be an important part of the research and writing process. The note below exemplifies the ones we received: The meetings in the group were professional, innovative, versatile and enjoyable. The supervisors were relentless in finding new and creative ways to approach the tasks, encour- age students, excite their curiosity, look for knowledge, dig deeper in their work, support students tackling difficult issues, give mental support and encouragement in so many ways - as well as a light kick in the butt when needed. The professional was always leading. (Student reflective note, 2015) In analyzing the reflective note above through the Onion Model, the student’s point of “how we as supervisors were relentless in finding new and creative ways to approach the tasks, encourage students, excite their curiosity and look for knowl- edge … as well as giving them a light kick in the butt when needed” gave us an alternative perspective on our practice. We noticed that students experienced our behavior in the meetings in line with the way we wanted to go about our teaching. 13.3.3  C ompetencies: Drawing on Each Other’s Resources The third level of the Onion Model highlights individual competencies—a person’s professional strengths. Although we were aware of our strengths as practitioners, we did not know beforehand how they would be utilized in our learning community. In the beginning of our collaboration meetings, Hafdís, who had the most experi- ence, gave a mini-lesson on the research process, highlighting the signposts and the importance of beginning to work on the project as soon as possible. After the meet- ing, Karen realized how good she felt during this first meeting. She wrote, “I feel like I am taking on the role of supervisor and that I am not alone in that process.” The benefit Karen saw in the collaboration was that she did not have to know every- thing about the process because she belonged to a community of supervisors and that she would sometimes take the lead and other times she would learn from her colleagues. As our experience and collaboration unfolded, we became more aware of how our shared resources could be utilized in our supervision. We soon came to recognize Karen’s strengths in designing and planning writing exercises for the students. As our experience increased, we took better care of the time allocated for this important part of meetings, assisting students to develop their voice through writing. Svanborg’s strengths in organizing and planning were useful in planning the meetings so all parts could be covered, including time for student writing. Hafdís’ strengths emerged in her inclusive thinking and willingness to col- laborate. Svanborg expressed her opinion of Hafdís’ and Karen’s strengths at one of the meetings:

248 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. I am grateful for what I have learned and been reminded of as I have been teaching with you both. I sometimes get caught up in complaining about the students’ lack of skills and knowledge, and you are quick to remind us that we have to work with them where they are at and use our creativity and knowledge to respond constructively. (Analysis meeting 2014) Each of us contributed different research experiences. Our scholarship involved qualitative research, action research, and self-study of teacher education practices. Through these different stances, we have developed different approaches to working with data and writing up findings. These have been useful to present to students as examples of the multitude of methods and views in research and to explain that methods must be chosen according to the research task or focus, as well as the research identities our students are forging. Early on, we had to acknowledge that we had expected the students to be more experienced in research methods and that we did not expect to have to teach these. We deliberately moved past our disappointment in order to support students where they were, drawing on our different strengths and emphases to develop the learning community we sought. Discussing the challenges of short- and long-term time pressures, we found that students often undermined our goals of supporting them in becoming independent and empowered professionals. Gradually, we became more aware of how we could work through these challenges and how we could use our time more effectively. We used precise schedules and timers in the collaborative supervisory meetings with some built-in flexibility. We made peace with the timers, although we still experi- enced the tendency to flow freely within the teacher input/lecture part of the meet- ings, as was encouraged by student responses. We introduced specialized schedules for completing the Master’s theses that dif- fered from those in the School of Education, but these were not always used. The students still had limited time to draft, finalize, and edit their theses. We continued to remind ourselves and our students that they tended to underestimate the overall time commitment of finishing a thesis. We still felt the competing pull of educating students through supervisor-led presentations (as students called for in TOCs) and letting the students work to construct their own identities as research-focused and reflective teachers. As we worked for 3 years on developing our collaborative group supervision, we gradually adopted each other’s strengths to some extent. We became more and more sensitive to student strengths in our teaching. We came to use Karen’s writing exer- cises in other courses as well as timers to hold us to schedule. All of us now feel equally capable of doing presentations for students on most, if not all, of the issues we have covered.

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 249 13.3.4  Beliefs The fourth level of the Onion Model focuses on beliefs—conscious and uncon- scious assumptions about the world. We experienced early on that the collaboration was helping us design and implement a learning community for students and our- selves. As we reflected on our supervisory practice, we realized trust was key for making our collaboration work. When we discussed incidents and prepared meet- ings, we became more invested in each other’s resources and skills. We gradually started to believe in our shared pedagogy, which could be seen in our respect for joint input and division of tasks. As we reflected on our work using the Onion Model, we realized that our col- laboration was built on our common core beliefs. The beliefs emerging through the data were our collective adherence to critical pedagogy and belief in the strengths of our different resources and those of our students. We believed that students would learn best by using their own resources (experience, strengths, and qualities), tack- ling problems and issues on their terms, learning by doing (writing), and supporting each other. We believed that learning should empower the learners by building on their resources and that students should not accept ready-made knowledge uncriti- cally (Analysis meeting, 2014). In reflecting on our preparation meetings through the Onion Model, we discov- ered that the trust that had developed between us allowed us to address inner con- flicts and tensions we were experiencing in the supervision process. Thus, the Onion Model allowed us a safe space to express feelings of desperation and inadequacy but also joy and accomplishment. At one meeting, Svanborg confessed that one of the students2 in the group was irritating her: I’m ashamed to admit that I feel irritated at Maria’s behavior in the meetings. She talks much longer than anyone else and when students are working quietly in the writing ses- sions, she talks out loud with the student next to her, interrupting them. She does not attend to her own work and disrupts all the others. (Analysis meeting, 2014–2015) In working through Svanborg’s irritation, we drew on our common belief that our practice needed to begin from where the students were. Therefore, we decided to look at the tasks from Svanborg’s point of view while also working at creating a space for the other students. We decided to give Svanborg the last word during dis- cussion and explained the importance of the writing sessions by appealing to her own knowledge and sense of constructive pedagogical approaches. Working from each other’s beliefs and resources created a collective vison that guided us in our work with the Master’s students. 2 The student represented here is a composite of several students, male and female.

250 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. 13.3.5  Professional Identities: Who We Are in Our Practice The fifth level of the Onion Model is professional identity, focusing on what kind of teacher individuals think they are or want to be. Our different work habits and expe- riences and the specialization we brought to the community provided students use- ful ways of approaching their research projects, as well as to contribute to our professional learning and development. Our professional identities became less individual and more collective as we learned and internalized each other’s skills. Svanborg acknowledged this in one of her reflective e-mails: “I can hardly imagine supervising on my own any more. Working this way has become a part of who I am as a supervisor and who I want to be.” Hafdís shared her understanding of our col- laboration during a meeting: We are not just dividing the work according to our strengths  - we identify each other’s strengths and try to internalize the skills and in so doing multiply our strengths as a group and as individuals as we use them in other settings. You are not only working on things you know you are good at but we are in the process of internalizing them also. The effect is not only synergy but becomes a multiplier or snowball effect. (Analysis meeting, 2015) The understanding of our professional theories developed within our collabora- tion. We acknowledged the inescapable struggles—both ours and our students’— which in turn helped us keep sight of the core of our pedagogy. To see if we adhered to our own ethics and visions, we had to analyze our interactions with students, drawing on stories from our own practice. Working within the time frame and demands of the University, while trying to respond to students’ individual chal- lenges, we questioned whether we were forcing academic identities on students who were enthusiastic teachers but did not want to become academic researchers. Karen expressed the tension she felt working within the frames and demands of the University, which could exclude alternative ways of expressing one’s knowledge and experiences: These demands are set by the academy from a masculine, middle-class perspective, and these parameters make it difficult for people that express themselves differently to enter this discourse, and they consequently feel inadequate. (Analysis meeting, 2014) We discussed this framework, how it is intended to ensure quality, and how it could be used creatively to support us as we deepen our understanding of the edu- cational issues students were examining. We acknowledged that these frames were a part of a dominant discourse that marginalized some of our students, and we agreed that we wanted to find ways to negotiate different ways of writing the research so students could be empowered by building on their own resources. Karen pointed out: We are so much there, with the framework. Our students criticize these institutional influ- ences and the question is how we can expand these institutional discourses – I mean, we introduce the framework and the criteria and then students bring on something else and we must encourage them to negotiate between these two and make it their own. (Analysis meeting, 2015)

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 251 We reflected on our intentions to empower students through their projects and how the conflicts and challenges of the academic demands were causing them, according to Svanborg, “… to pull their teeth out so that they looked at it as doing time, to deal with this theoretical chapter, whereas we see it as a way to empower them” (Analysis meeting, 2014). As our reflection continued, we came closer and closer to realizing what kind of ideologies and ethics guided us, gradually excavat- ing to the core of our beliefs. We acknowledged that we needed to present the framework and give guidance without taking agency away from the students. Though we acknowledged their right to self-determination, we did not throw them into the deep end of the pool with nothing to hold on to. Hafdís explained: We never let them deal with their tasks completely alone, but we create a space so they can work on their tasks by themselves. This relates to our professional theory. Our ethics rest on realising and acknowledging that we have taken on the role of being educators and that’s why we want to guide students to reach their goals. (Analysis meeting, 2014) We discussed and reflected on the importance of creating a space for students to negotiate their learners’ identities and the interplay between their prior experiences and the dominant institutional discourse. At the same time as we wanted to empha- size students’ agency within the research process, we saw that they consistently called for more input and knowledge from us. While this dependency surprised us, we acknowledged that it might be a learned behavior about what it means to learn. Karen described this as follows: Through their schooling students have taken on a certain learner identity, one as receivers of knowledge. The teacher’s role is to tell them what to do. There are also specific identities available to us as teacher educators. The most dominant one is the one who transmits knowledge to students. I find it interesting to explore what kind of identities we make avail- able for students in this process – have we already been written into specific identities as university teachers and we just play along? And are we really trying to negotiate different ideologies to give students more possibilities to develop their identities – even when we recognize through their call for more knowledge from us that students have already begun to develop a student identity through participation in a learning culture we really do not believe in (Analysis meeting, 2014). Through our core reflections, we recognized that there are social and institutional discourses that create preset social positions for teachers and students and tacitly control how we think and act. Through our work within the collaborative supervi- sory meetings and by reflecting on our practices, we were constantly trying to create a space that allowed us to listen to student voices and explore the tensions we expe- rienced between their ways of being and the social positions available in the research process. In deliberately engaging with these tensions, our aim was to negotiate and recreate these positions in the spirit of empowerment. The core reflection allowed us to engage critically with our experiences supervising Masters’ students, exploring ways to empower students to draw on their own and each other’s resources through the research process. Negotiating contrasting ideological forces in trying to recon- struct our roles as teacher educators is not easy but necessary if we are to develop our professional identities in relation to our mission.

252 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. 13.3.6  M ission The sixth level of the Onion Model concerns individuals’ mission: their inspiration, meaning, and significance in work and life. Doing self-study using core reflection, constantly looking at our work with students to come closer to our mission as teacher educators, we gradually excavated to the core. We discovered that the core of our goal in education is to support students to use their learning to feel they have control over their lives and not to feel that they have to fill molds designed by others (Analysis meeting, 2015). Hafdís reflected on her mission: My mission emerges in starting to find out what students bring with them, to build on their strengths and experiences. My role is not to pour knowledge into students. I want to support students expand what they have and to connect to the theories of others and find out how theories can help them in their own practice. I also want them to realize that they are not teaching subjects when they teach their own students and I want teach them the same way. I hope they transfer this to their own teaching, to have their learners interests at heart. That is my mission, to have the learners interests at heart, the learners in Iceland and the learners in the world. (Analysis meeting, Nov. 2015) We realized that this requires us to hold back what we know at times. We must be aware of when to offer our knowledge and experiences to students and when to support their endeavors in finding their own voice and power. Svanborg reflected on her mission as a teacher on different school levels and the supervisory collaboration: For some time, I have been realizing why I want to be a teacher and what drives my approaches and emphasis in what I do and want to do in the classroom, first as a compulsory school teacher and later in teacher education. I discovered what it was doing my doctoral research and it is what I analyzed there as emancipatory pedagogy and is in the same spirit as we are working in our collaborative supervision. It is about empowering learners through their studies; giving them agency, tools and choices to influence their education, their prac- tice and their lives. (Analysis meeting, 2015) In reflecting on her mission as a teacher educator, Karen realized how much she drew on her former experiences as a classroom teacher and a teacher researcher. In working as a teacher educator I want to emphasize what empowered me while I was working as a classroom teacher and teacher researcher. I think it is important for practitio- ner to be able to ask and explore their own questions in relation to practice. In my mind this allows them not only to improve their practice but to clarify their mission and develop their professional identity accordingly. Enacting our mission in practice, we have throughout the supervisory process tried to turn the theory-practice cycle upside down (Korthagen and Kessels 1999). We use students’ experience and research practice as a foundation of their learning in the collaborative supervisory meetings, and we draw on our knowledge of our practice to understand and expand theories so students can experience the empower- ment theories afford.

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 253 13.4  D iscussion and Conclusion As we analyzed our data through the core reflection approach, we realized how our collaboration helped us develop important supervisory issues. Our intention was to use the realistic approach (Korthagen and Kessels 1999) and create a learning com- munity emphasizing the experiences and questions students generate as they work on their thesis. By creating a space for the development of students’ voices, we sup- ported students to air their concerns and find ways to become empowered through writing their Master’s thesis. The TOCs at the end of each supervisory meeting guided our preparation for the following meeting, and by responding to them, we created a learning environment according to students’ requests. The findings of this research indicate that students found the learning community helpful as they worked on their projects. The loneliness that many students had experienced diminished as they collaborated and supported each other. The theoretical foundation, research methodology, and writing pathway challenged most of the students, but they had opportunities to embrace and tackle these with the support of supervisors and their participation in the meetings. They were members of a learning community where they were supported in expanding their boundaries and potential as teachers by tak- ing on a research-focused identity. Overlapping and interacting learning communities (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner 2015) for students and ourselves resulted in the development of collective efficacy (Goddard et al. 2000) in supervising a number of graduate stu- dents working toward their Master’s degrees. This becomes evident in the way in which we were able to develop dialogic pedagogy within the supervisory meetings where we reflected and built upon each other’s thoughts and actions; as well as in our analytical meetings where we reflected upon our experience in more systematic ways through the use of self-study and core reflection. It was not only the students who experienced collaboration and support that empowered them; we did as well. We are three different individuals bringing different strengths and experiences to the collaboration, and in our data we can see how we grew and became more confident in our supervision roles as we supported and encouraged each other. We have learned from each other, we respect time, and we are organized, sensitive to stu- dents, and focused on writing and empowerment. We created a framework for students that supported them to manage time, under- stand and connect theories and practice, and choose an appropriate methodology for their research. By developing the framework together, we used and expanded our resources and strengthened our collaboration. Using self-study and core reflection, our collective resources ignited ideas to support our students, and we used them in the collaborative supervisory meetings. We realized that our collaboration depended upon reciprocal trust. It allowed an opening to act on what we believe in, for our professional identities to emerge, and to help us to discover our collective vision as educators. Our belief in critical reflection and pedagogy, along with building on student strength and experience in our practice, brought us together in our collabo- ration (Harford and MacRuairc 2008).

254 H. Guðjónsdóttir et al. Our beliefs that students learn best by building on their experiences and strengths, and that this kind of learning empowers students, emerged through the data. By regularly reflecting on our practice, ethics, and vision, we uncovered the core of our beliefs as people and teachers and made our mission visible. We looked into under- lying sources of behavior and deeper layers by drawing out our emotions using the Onion Model (Korthagen and Vasalos 2010). Our professional working theory built on our experience, beliefs, and knowledge emerged through our core reflection. Our mission was to develop identities as emancipatory supervisors supporting different strengths in students. The core of our educational aim as teacher educators is to construct a learning space for students where they feel in control of their studies, where they can reflect on their learning and develop their work through continuous feedback (Watts and Lawson 2009). We have learned that, in order for students to become empowered, it is important to be aware of when to hold back and when to interfere. Through the self-study and core reflection, we learned about our development and discovered that working on supervisory issues together expanded our resources to respond to students’ challenges. As three individual supervisors working together, we felt that our competencies to supervise Master’s students grew. We not only cre- ated the community for students to learn; we also created an overlapping learning community for us to expand our efficacy to supervise. We expanded each of our competencies and increased our supervisory repertoires by learning from each other. The use of self-study and core reflection allowed us to develop the collabora- tive supervision more consciously. The data gave us the opportunity to revisit the experiences and increased our competence to make changes based on the analysis of the data. Acknowledgments  We want to thank the Teaching Development Fund of the University of Iceland for supporting the development of our community and the University of Iceland Research Fund for supporting our self-study. References Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Feldman, A. (2003). Validity and quality in self-study. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 26–28. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699831 Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, mea- sure, and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. Harford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1884–1892. Iceland Teachers’ Union. (n.d.). Iceland teachers’ union website in English. Retrieved from ­http:// ki.is/Iceland-teachers-union.

13  Collaborative Supervision: Using Core Reflection to Understand Our Supervision… 255 Jónsdóttir, S. R., & Macdonald, A. (2013). Settings and pedagogy in innovation education. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp.  273– 287). London: Routledge. Jónsdóttir, S. R., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Gísladóttir, K. R. (2015). Using self-study to develop a third space for collaborative supervision of Master’s projects in teacher education. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 11(1), 32–48. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the peda- gogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2010). Going to the core: Deepening reflection by connecting the person to the profession. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry (pp. 529–552). London: Springer. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In the search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. Martin, S. D., & Dismuke, S. (2015). Maneuvering together to develop new practices: Examining our collaborative processes. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 11(1), 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2014.1001356. McAnulty, J., & Cuenca, A. (2014). Embracing institutional authority: The emerging identity of a novice teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practice, 10(1), 36–52. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2010). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology and practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Samaras, A., Guðjónsdóttir, H., McMurrer, J. R., & Dalmau, M. D. (2012). Self-study of a profes- sional organization in pursuit of a shared enterprise. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practice, 8(3), 303–320. Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). What is the “dialogical method” of teaching?. The Journal of Education, 169(3), 11–31. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42741786 Taylor, M., Klein, E. J., & Abrams, L. (2014). Tensions of reimagining our roles as teacher educa- tors in a third space: Revisiting a co/autoethnography through a faculty lens. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practice, 10(1), 3–17. University of Iceland, School of Education. (2014). Course catalogue 2014–2015. Retrieved from https://ugla.hi.is/kennsluskra/index.php?tab=nam&chapter=namskeid&id=91050420146 Watts, M., & Lawson, M. (2009). Using a meta-analysis activity to make critical reflection explicit in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 609–616. Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Learning in landscapes of practice: A frame- work. In E. Wenger-Trayner, M. Fenton-O’Creevy, S. Hutchinson, C. Kubiak, & B. Wenger-­ Trayner (Eds.), Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practiced-based learning (pp. 13–30). London/New York: Routledge. Wolcott, H. (2008). A way of seeing. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield.

Part IV Conclusion

Chapter 14 Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education Robyn Brandenburg and Mellita Jones Abstract  This chapter advances the contention raised throughout the book, that reflective practice, despite its pervasiveness in teaching and teacher education, is often applied to a wide range of distinct, and sometimes incongruent practices. In this chapter, the work of the authors contributing to this volume is drawn upon, alongside extant literature in the field, to examine what is meant by “reflective prac- tice” and what forms of reflective practice are appropriate for whom, and when. Consideration is also given to who and what is driving the reflective practice agenda evident in teaching and teacher education, globally. The implications for teacher education and teacher professional learning of these considerations is examined, and a call for less politicized and more authentic and transformative approaches to reflective practice and its concomitant outcomes is argued. 14.1  I ntroduction Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education represents a diverse collection of reflective philosophies, theoretical approaches, critiques, and approaches to reflection implemented by teachers, teacher educators, and students in multiple edu- cational contexts. These international perspectives highlight the range of theoretical conceptions that underpin reflective practices and foreground the tensions practitio- ners experience as they seek to rationalize their practices with what is becoming an increasingly “circumscribed” practice that is linked to what Coia and Taylor (Chap. 3) describe as the “arrowed straight lines of causation and accountability.” There is a narrow focus with more value placed on finding immediate solutions than allowing time to explore the ambiguous and complex swampland of our practice (Coia & Taylor, Chap. 3). R. Brandenburg (*) Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] M. Jones Australian Catholic University, Ballarat, VIC, Australia © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 259 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_14

260 R. Brandenburg and M. Jones The compilation of chapters that constitute this volume depicts a myriad of ways in which reflective practice can be theorized and enacted to enhance the practice of teaching. In presenting such a compilation, we contend that critical reflective prac- tice is an essential element of professional “becoming” in the journey of a teacher’s development. A number of core themes are identified through the various approaches depicted. These themes, sometimes anticipated and sometimes surprising, guide the reader in the multitude of ways in which reflective practice can be constructed to respond to different purposes and contexts. Reflective practice is identified and dis- cussed in a range of ways including its use: for achieving praxis, as a social process, when underpinned by values, when informed by particular theories, and when uti- lized for purposes ranging from transactional to transformative. These various aspects and methodologies of reflective practice are presented through lenses that capture Western and Australian Indigenous perspectives. In identifying these per- spectives, we provide an overview of philosophies and theories underpinning reflec- tive practice, exemplars of ways in which reflective practice has been implemented alongside research-based evidence of its value, and, finally, the subsequent core function of reflective practice as a powerful means of ongoing learning about how to teach. This chapter advances the contention raised throughout the book that reflective practice, despite its pervasiveness in teaching and teacher education, is often applied to a wide range of distinct and sometimes incongruent practices. We draw on the work of the authors contributing to this volume as well as extant literature in the field, to examine what is meant by “reflective practice” and what forms of reflective practice are appropriate for whom and when. We also query who and what is driving the reflective practice agenda evident in teaching and teacher education, globally. Finally, we present what we see as the potential implications for teacher education and teacher professional learning and advocate for less politicized and more authen- tic and transformative approaches to enhance the quality of reflective practice and its concomitant outcomes. 14.2  Reflective Practice: The Policy Imperative “Reflective practice” has become somewhat term d’art in the field of teaching and teacher education and is ubiquitous in education policy worldwide. As the various contributions to this volume demonstrate, the definitions of reflective practice are as widespread in characterization as they are in application and as pervasive in rhetoric as they are in practice. This variety of application can make it difficult for even the most expert of practitioners to fully understand what is meant when claims are made that reflection is a core part of teacher practice. It also makes it difficult to provide novice and preservice teachers with a consistent and known form of reflective prac- tice within their teacher education courses, let alone between institutions and, even more broadly, within the profession as a whole. This creates confusion for novice and preservice teachers, who are invariably required to show evidence of reflective

14  Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education 261 practice for graduate and registration purposes, but who have had limited explicit modeling and often inconsistent expectations and experiences of what it entails. Governmental policy agendas and compliance with teacher standards have impacted the way in which reflective practice is both understood and implemented in teaching contexts. One of the core issues stems from a lack of consensus between stakeholders. This lack of consensus is based on questions relating to the core pur- pose of reflective practice, what constitutes effective reflective practice, and what counts as evidence for successful reflective practice. As Glasswell and Ryan report in Chap. 1, most education policies require some form of reflection in the standards set for teacher practice, and these are characterized in four key ways: (1) evaluative, (2) adaptive, (3) collaborative, and (4) transformational. As with many authors in the field (Brookfield 1995; Kreber and Cranton 2000; Moon 2013), Glasswell and Ryan also infer a hierarchy of form within these four approaches. This hierarchy is explored further below. Policy documents in which evaluation approaches to reflective practice arise are primarily concerned with compliance to a set of standards and expectations of a government or school. This form of reflection is generally accepted as base-level reflection as it does not encourage a critical view of what might be required in teach- ing and learning practices, but, rather, sets a tick-a-box protocol for measuring per- formance and “success.” Documents promoting adaptive approaches to reflection require practitioners to use their evaluative judgments to inform and enhance their practice. While this may elevate the level of reflection involved, it does not neces- sarily make explicit what is informing the practice(s) to be adapted and so is redo- lent of compliance-based models of reflection. Approaches in which collaborative reflection is encouraged, where the extent or outcomes of individual reflection are augmented by the inclusion of different voices, create a community of reflective practice. This approach to reflection potentially creates a further elevation given the research evidence that shows that multiple voices can enhance the scope and depth of reflection (Brookfield 1995). This approach may have transformative potential, depending on the kinds of voices that are brought to the discussion and the resources that mediate collective reflexivity. However, reflective practice for compliance pur- poses may be an underpinning motivation, and thus, it could be considered as base level and uncritical. Transformative processes for reflection present reflective prac- tice as the questioning and reframing of values underpinning practice linked to ethi- cal and social awareness. This suggests a far greater level of critique of oneself, of one’s practice, and of one’s impact on students and their learning. Inclusion of ethi- cal and social awareness demands a more holistic view of practice and, given the contextualized nature of different countries, towns, schools, and classrooms, cannot necessarily be described within a list of expected knowledge and behaviors that one can itemize as the other three approaches allow. Thus, the unbounded questioning and critical nature of transformative reflective practice are somewhat antithetical to the evaluative processes that predicate compliance-oriented agendas that essentially fortify and propagate the status quo. While research may purport that transformative approaches are more authentic and effective than alternate forms of reflective practice, Glasswell and Ryan (Chap.

262 R. Brandenburg and M. Jones 1) reveal that more perfunctory, evaluative forms of reflection are more prevalent in policy documents related to education. This worrying trend suggests the possibility that institutionalized reflective practice is used as a vehicle for the sanctioning of performance appraisal, rather than for transformational learning and improvement in practice. Indeed, this situation begs the questions: Do education authorities use “reflective practice” as a means of achieving compliance? Do preservice teachers see it as a “tick-a-box” hurdle requirement to graduate? Is it seen by anyone as a vehicle for transforming teaching practice and teacher identity? The contention pre- sented in this volume reflects the belief that the purpose of reflection needs to be much more than a routine, compliance-oriented practice if it is to be meaningful, effective, and transformative. 14.3  C reating Meaningful, Effective, and Transformational Reflective Practice Contributors to this volume present a range of perspectives and methodologies for enacting reflective practice. When the breadth of social influences and identity dimensions are considered in this collective, it is apparent that meaningful, effec- tive, and transformational reflective practice needs to be attentive to context, per- spective, purpose, and underpinning values of those involved in conducting and informing the practice of reflection. Even with these considerations, tensions remain. Moon (2013) notes that “[i]n education, the main interest in reflective prac- tice has come from teacher education more than those engaged in teaching or who are concerned about learning” (p. 57). Teacher educators have long been accused of a preoccupation with theoretical approaches to teaching at the expense of a “real-­ world” understanding of the classroom (e.g., Lortie 1975; Calderhead 1993; Lunenberg and Korthagen 2009). Similarly, teachers are often criticized for a lack of theory-informed decisions about their own pedagogy. This theory-practice gap is often claimed as key territory for engaging in reflective practice. 14.3.1  Theory-Practice Nexus and Transformation In teacher education research, reflective practice is often discussed in terms of con- necting theory and practice (see, e.g., Loughran 2010; Korthagen 2001), and this con- nection is addressed in many of the chapters in this volume (Brandenburg & McDonough, Chap. 12; Coia & Taylor, Chap. 3; Jones & Ryan, Chap. 11; McLean, Chap. 7; Kitchen, Chap. 5; Senese, Chap. 6). The role of reflection in linking theory and practice, or informing praxis, is a core objective for most teacher education courses. Praxis assumes a theory-informed ability to act in a certain situation, and in our case as teacher educators, this includes the lecture hall, tutorial room, online plat- forms, and, for our students, the school classroom. Its link with theory is important

14  Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education 263 given that acts of teaching need to be carefully considered, informed, and effective to meet their intended outcome – that of learning. Hartwig (2007) indicates that: Acts (or praxes) are the specific outcomes of the exercise of the power of intentional agency, the human counterpart of EVENTS in the non-human world: things that we do, as distinct from things that happen to us or just happen (events). (p. 19) The intentionality that Hartwig describes here is an important consideration for the achievement of praxis, and one that he argues is reliant on “transformative agency or intentional causality” (p. 22). We acknowledge that events in themselves may have transformative potential. However, our contention, following Hartwig’s argument, is that the nature and type of reflective practice become critical to the likelihood of achieving praxis and is representative of transformative reflective pro- cesses (Glasswell and Ryan, Chap. 1). The transformative processes evident at this level of reflective practice are ones that involve questioning the status quo; examin- ing the social, political, and ethical dimensions; and shifting personal and profes- sional worldviews in line with critical examinations of reality. These characteristics align with Hartwig’s (2007) description: In its broadest sense, transformative agency or praxis is the specifically human capacity for world-change or -building and self-change, centrally involving imagination and reason (practical as well as theoretical). (p. 22) Given that praxis is a core goal of teacher education, it is critical that transforma- tive processes akin to those that Hartwig describes underpin reflective practices. It is concerning that many countries’ education and teacher standard policies and documents do not encourage reflective practice at this transformative level and that indeed compliance – which is antithetical to transformative agency – is common- place. This makes it essential that agency and critical reflective capability are made integral in teacher education programs, practice, and pedagogy. How is agency and reflective capability introduced and supported in teacher edu- cation? Teaching preservice teachers to reflect in and on their practice is a recent focus and being introduced as a means to encourage preservice teachers to analyze what it means to be an effective, “expert” teacher (Loughran 2010). Kavanagh (Chap. 9) refers to the “practice turn” that requires teacher educators to understand and shape the practice of teaching, primarily through the identification of “core teaching practices around which teacher education and professional development can be organized.” Reid (2014) explains that such a focus in teacher education leads to teaching preservice teachers “how to study the practice of teaching, as well as the theory and policy that supports and structures education in general” (p.  127). In Chap. 2, Russell and Martin cite Schön who suggests that “competent practitioners know more than they can say. They exhibit a kind of knowing in their practice” (p. 14). This tacit understanding of what it is to teach is eloquently expressed by Reid (2014) who states that preservice teachers: need to have studied their craft carefully, observing, practicing and reflecting on how and why an expert teacher moves, arranges and uses her body in relation to the material ele- ments of her teaching space. … how, when and why an expert teacher speaks and is silent, says things and listens, comments and responds to learners; how and why she sequences and arranges ideas and activities to assist the learners; and how she connects and interacts in relation to them as individuals and as a group. (p. 127)

264 R. Brandenburg and M. Jones This implicit understanding of how to teach is an essential component of what Loughran (2002) describes as “making the tacit explicit, meaningful, and useful” (p.  38) and that critical reflective practice is the vehicle through which this is achieved. Indeed, without considering the how and why of these apparently intuitive behaviors of the expert teacher, we run the risk of what Mezirow (1990) describes as “thoughtful action without reflection” (p. 4). This is where one draws “on what one already knows in order to act” rather than critically examining the assumptions and beliefs that underpin the way we behave in order to think about why something went wrong (or indeed right) in our classroom teaching experience, what Loughran (2006) describes as “rationalization masquerading as reflection” (p. 131). As Russell and Martin (Chap. 2) highlight, Schön (1987) describes reflection-in-­ action as “the re-thinking of some part of our knowing-in-action that leads to on-­ the-s­pot experiment and further thinking that affects what we do” (p.  29). This cannot be achieved without a strong content knowledge of the subject; good theo- retical knowledge of pedagogy, both general and discipline specific; and Reid’s (2014) proposal of how to study “the practice of teaching” (p.  127). In this way preservice teachers are encouraged to notice the actualization of their tacit actions and develop a language to identify what Kavanagh (Chap. 9) reports as “learnable practices that maintain the integrity and complexity of teaching.” Therefore, it is important for knowledge, practice, and reflection to be intertwined. This entwine- ment should produce effective learning and support the establishment of the com- mon language for describing the act of effective teaching that Kavanagh, and others in the core practice movement, call for. Another contention raised in this volume is associated with the goal of reflective practice to “find an answer” or “solve a problem” about one’s teaching. Both Senese (Chap. 6) and Blair and Collins-Gearing (Chap. 3) highlight that reflective practice should not be focused on merely finding answers. Senese suggests that reflection should be concerned with fostering curiosity and inquiry into one’s own practice – inquiries that “embrace the inherent uncertainty and messiness of teaching.” Senese’s position here links to Raelin’s (2007) concern with academic epistemolo- gy’s construction of expectation through which preservice teachers develop a “haste in wanting to know,” where, in fact, reflection is an ongoing cycle of learning about one’s teaching in a lifelong manner and does not necessarily resolve issues, but perhaps generates even more questions and problems. This is redolent of Blair and Collins-Gearing who also veer away from reflective practice as an act of solving a problem or improving a situation and encourage practitioners to embrace the act of listening and of paying attention – an act, therefore, of noticing. This can be diffi- cult, especially for novice teachers who are often preoccupied with the emotional and physiological challenges of managing the classroom and who often regard “success” as “surviving the lesson” rather than providing rich and quality learning. Thus, the role of the teacher educator is to create opportunities for preservice ­teachers to explore the “craft” of teaching through reflective practice, experiencing it in meaningful, effective, and transformational ways, and develop a language to discuss and learn from it.

14  Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education 265 14.4  Reflection: Purpose and Practice In encouraging preservice teachers to explore the craft of teaching and, subse- quently, engage in reflective practice, teacher educators often assume that, because they have taught skills and approaches to reflection, preservice teachers will embrace and integrate them as their own and therefore have the ability, knowledge, and desire to transfer these skills to various contexts. Teaching about reflective practice needs to confront these assumptions and consider the social learning environment, the values and perspectives that individuals bring to reflective practices, and the experi- ential, theoretical, and cultural lenses that can shape and inform each individual person’s perspectives. The purpose of reflection must be carefully considered before the practice is enacted; this helps to ensure critical aspects of context, individual and social elements, and the lenses informing practice can be considered. Only then can the teacher educator be careful and cognizant of the role they play in the facilitation of reflective practice. The next few sections consider the importance of these differ- ent aspects and how they might shape and inform reflective practice. 14.4.1  Context Matters Much of what is researched and revealed through reflective practice and the theories that inform it emanates from a largely Western orientation or perspective (Loughran 2002). However, as the eclectic and diverse examples represented in this volume demonstrate, there cannot be a singular, all-encompassing response to the question of “What is reflective practice and how is it done?” Reflective practice is more than an act. It embraces one’s personal narrative, context, values, and interactions within a particular place and at a given point in time. This makes reflective practice an evolving, dynamic construct with no one beginning and no one end. A concept of reflective practice as having a single method is a fallacy that does not capture the complex sophisticated construct that context imposes. The complexity of context in shaping reflective practice is revealed, in particular, in the contributions from Blair and Collins-Gearing (Chap. 4) and Kitchen (Chap. 5) where the accounts of reflective practice are heavily influenced by race and gen- der identity. These and other authors challenge the notion of reflection as a demar- cated and singular process and provide alternative interpretations and practices that provoke teacher educators to question their assumptions, as well as their practices related to reflection. Blair and Collins-Gearing suggest that reflective practice “research and education per se within a Eurocentric domain is essentially about “searching” for an answer to a question not “paying attention” to what is around you” and, as such, is largely focused on problem identification and problem-­solving. The new learning most commonly results in changed actions, which ultimately lead to improvements in practice. From an Australian Indigenous perspective, Blair and Collins-Gearing suggest that the art of “listening” is the “simplest strategy [they]

266 R. Brandenburg and M. Jones have for embodying reflective practice” and that it is through a focus on the “space in-between,” where Western knowledge and Indigenous Knowings meet. This space emerges as an opportunity to explore and examine one’s understanding more deeply so as to see the intricacies and potential that a different approach has to offer. As they suggest “the differences do not showcase one as superior or one as inferior; rather they both exist in their own right, they co-exist and in so doing can create powerful and dynamic dialogue and discourse leading to transformational learn- ings, teachings and knowings.” Blair and Collins-Gearing (Chap. 4) show how the narrative that different people bring to their context can shape the experience of reflective practice. This is further illustrated by Kitchen (Chap. 5) who asserts that educators’ “stories of experience inform their identities and performative selves.” Indeed, Kitchen reminds us of the power that gender norms (and we would argue, any unexamined assumptions about culture, race, gender, or religion) “tacitly inform the practices of educators.” Together, these contributions, along with the highly contextualized contributions of others (e.g., Jones and Ryan in the online space; McLean in literacy education; Coia and Taylor through a post-structuralist feminist lens), demonstrate how reflec- tion is personally constructed and socially mediated within particular contexts. This means reflective practice is chameleon-like – looking different in different spaces and places. Privileging context in reflective processes is how we facilitate traction. Without traction, reflective practice risks being a mundane, routine, tick-a-box exer- cise. Traction is what transforms the mundane into the inspirational and the routine into remarkable. This makes the prevalence of base-level, evaluative, “tick-a-box” compliance forms of reflection in policy structures and frameworks of significant concern. We argue that these limited and limiting forms of reflection engender the routine and unremarkable and have little to no capacity to be inspirational let alone transformational. As such, we purport that context is one of, if not the most essential components of meaningful, effective, and transformational reflection. If this is the case, then singular, perfunctory forms of reflective practice cannot and should not have a place in teaching or teacher education. 14.4.2  Reflective Practice as a Social Process Reflective practice is a collaborative, social process. Whether reflection is focused on structured reflective protocols, roundtable reflective inquiry sessions, collabora- tive critical incidents identification, and analysis or collaborative narrative investi- gation, it is evident that collaboration is a powerful way to reflect on practice. As Guðjónsdóttir et al. (Chap. 13) report, By working on these issues together we utilized and expanded our resources and enhanced and strengthened our collaboration … Using Core reflection, our collective assets ignited ideas that help to support our students and we put these into practice … Our collaboration depended upon reciprocal trust … By regularly reflecting on our practice, ethics and vision, we uncovered the core of our beliefs as people and teachers and made our mission visible.

14  Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education 267 McLean (Chap. 7) also emphasizes the place of collaboration for effective reflec- tion, reporting how the Community Partnership Model (CPM) of reflective practice used in her literacy education unit enabled preservice teachers to learn about and value the contributions of all group members. The notion of collaboration may appear to be at odds with the generally accepted idea that learning from reflection requires individual experiences that privilege individual contexts. However, as Loughran (2002) relays, sharing experiences in practice-focused discussions assists the individual to view their experiences outside of their personal constructs and begin to consider their practice from a variety of viewpoints. The expansion of ideas emerging from discussion is where shared reflective practice creates the space for enhanced learning. Senese (Chap. 6) demonstrates this, reporting that the social practices embedded in his study “support[ed] teachers’ ability to listen and think more deeply about their practice.” These examples support the more broadly reported assertion that reflective prac- tice is most effective when it is conducted as a social process. As McLean (Chap. 7) urges, universities need to take a more holistic approach to teacher preparation and provide a structured reflective program, based on communities of practice. As her research shows, these holistic, collaborative approaches assist those engaged in reflection to identify their own learning and speak “confidently about enacting their future practice” and “embrace innovation.” What we learn from this is that transfor- mative reflective practice is individually constructed but socially mediated, and sharing ideas, experiences, and questioning one’s own, and one another’s assump- tions, can enable a deeper and more meaningful experience of reflection that has far more potential to lead to transformational learning than can the approaches that are more transactional in nature. 14.4.3  L enses for Reflective Practice Reflective practitioners use specific lenses to examine practice – be it consciously or subconsciously. Kitchen (Chap. 5) highlights this quite poignantly in his discussion of the subconscious reinforcement of gender-related stereotypes and subsequent expec- tations for particular behaviors in others. His narrative illustrated how subconscious lenses inform behavior and that these behaviors can implicitly, and sometimes danger- ously, have significant consequences for those who do not conform to the dominant stereotype being reinforced, such as those in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual (LGBTQIA) community. To heighten the conscious awareness of the lens(es) that are utilized and the behaviors that are subsequently manifested, Brookfield (1995) suggests that four critically reflective lenses should be adopted to inform, expand, and shape critical reflective practice. These four lenses are (1) our autobiographies as teachers and learners, (2) students’ eyes, (3) our colleagues’ experiences, and (4) theoretical literature (p. 29). According to Brookfield, examining practice from a variety of sources assists individuals in identifying and considering the appropriateness of the assumptions that guide their behaviors.

268 R. Brandenburg and M. Jones If we take each one of Brookfield’s (1995) lenses independently, we note that teacher educators often use various lenses, individually and collectively, to reflect on their practice. Senese (Chap. 6) notes the way in which our lenses become inter- nalized and ultimately become “habits of mind” not only directing the ways in which we interpret our practice but by also providing a focus for teachers and teacher educators to answer the question Senese poses: “How do I know what I think I know?” Using a co-/autoethnographic lens to frame their practice, together with Schön’s conception of the “swampy lowlands,” Coia and Taylor (Chap. 3) research their practice through the lens of poststructural feminism. Underpinning their contention is their belief that “The idea of reflective practice continues to face serious challenges that undermine its ability to act as a driving force in our efforts to improve our practice and prepare teachers to address issues of power and disrupt school structures that perpetuate inequities in society.” Kavanagh (Chap. 9) uses a social justice lens to discuss reflection, where she encourages the use of “a social justice frame” over “an instructional method frame” to inform the examination of teaching and teachers. In this discussion, Kavanagh purports that there is an almost exclusive focus on teacher beliefs and/or teacher characteristics in the research exploring those who successfully manage to interrupt social inequity and injustice. These examples from this volume demonstrate the importance of informing lenses in research and practice. In their discussion, Coia and Taylor (Chap. 3) propose that adopting Schön’s original conception of reflective practice, together with a poststructural feminist perspective, provides a method to address the authentic needs of “practitioners com- mitted to the goals of social justice.” Here, Coia and Taylor challenge the current US imperative whereby reflective practice is “circumscribed by instrumentalism” (as is also reported by Ryan & Glasswell in Chap. 1) and, as such, question the limited impact of reflection that proposes such a “narrow focus with more value placed on finding immediate solutions than allowing time to explore the ambiguous and com- plex swampland of … practice.” Here the conflicting lenses represented by Coia and Taylor’s discussion of the swamplands and that of the narrower and more instru- mental approaches encouraged by many government and teacher standard docu- ments become apparent. These more reductionist forms of reflection are also in disconnect with the “paying attention” rather than searching, examining, and listen- ing that is promoted in the Australian Indigenous lens shared by Blair and Collins-­ Gearing (Chap. 4). Indeed, the government and other official bodies purporting reflection as a part of core teacher practice seem to promote a very narrow lens for reflection compared to that which is reported through a wide body of research reported both in this volume and more broadly in the field of reflective practice that demonstrates effective and critical reflection. There is a need to modify and question the impact of reflective practice on stu- dent learning and, ultimately, identify if there is indeed any form of “reflective trac- tion” for students (Brandenburg 2008). As Segall (2002) questions with regard to educational and institutional learning more broadly, “How do students (or do they?) make sense of [the different discourses] … and how do these different discourses and practices position student teachers to conceive of, think through, and act on

14  Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education 269 education – their own education as students and the education they are to provide their own students in the future” (p. 47). We also ask: “Are teacher educators explicit about the lenses through which they encourage and teach reflective practice? In what ways are preservice teachers encouraged to identify their own assumptions and lenses; or to consciously identify and explore ones that are different? Are our intentions related to student learning about reflective practice met?” As Brandenburg and McDonough (Chap. 12) relate, through the identification and examination of critical incidents related to incidents and discussions with students, they were prompted to consider the nature of what the students had learned from them. Reflecting on pedagogical intentions and purpose, they were challenged to consider if their intentions were indeed met and in what ways. As Brandenburg and McDonough suggest, “Through developing our skills of noticing combined with collaborative talk, we understand more about our teaching, and the impact of researching teaching, on practice. In many ways we are now focusing on the pro- cesses through which ‘experts become expert’” through a range of lenses for reflec- tive practice. This introduces the notion of the role that teacher educators play in teaching reflective practice. 14.4.4  Role of the Teacher Educator What is the role of teacher educators in teaching novice and preservice teachers about reflective practice, and what evidence is there that this practice is both infor- mative and transformative? How can we know and understand more about the impact of reflective practice? Teacher educators as educational researchers reflect on their practice. They aim to systematically investigate practice, and this is not always a naturally acquired skill but rather an active and deliberate pursuit, with “skill, approaches, and tools” repertoire established over an extended period of time. As Brandenburg and McDonough (Chap. 12) suggest, 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 practitioners exhibit certain dispositions. There exists a pedagogical and experiential luxury whereby reflective data is accumulated, collegial communities are established, approaches are refined, theo- ries are examined for their practicality, and evidence of practice can be examined both “in the moment” and retrospectively. Brandenburg and McDonough provide an example of where retrospective collaborative reflection led to new and previously under-examined insights into the impact of reflective practice with preservice teach- ers. In seeking more clarity about the impact of reflective practice approaches, including roundtable reflective inquiry and group reflection, they both realized that little attention had been focused on the transformative nature of the process, the

270 R. Brandenburg and M. Jones change in attitude, and the possible transference of skills and approaches to new learning contexts. This acknowledgment led to changes in pedagogical practice and curriculum modification. However, what about the preservice teacher/novice experience? Teacher educa- tors are immersed in a culture and oftentimes an academic, social community of practice that aims to enhance self-knowledge, provides professional development, and is used as a lens to examine practice. A key aim, revealed in this volume, is for teacher educators to enhance student learning through reflective practice and not only be explicit about how reflective practice can assist preservice teachers in devel- oping their own teacher identities, but ultimately encourage them to use this knowl- edge to increase their understanding of themselves as teachers and transfer this learning to new contexts. As suggested, “Teacher education programs can no longer afford the “luxury” of masquerading as an invisible, innocent context within which prospective teachers naturally build ideas, knowledge, and skills” (Feinman-Nemser 1990; Lanier and Little 1986; Sarason et al. 1986 as cited in Segall 2002, p. 6). Points of tension are intriguing. Some researchers and practitioners begin from the notion that reflective practice is focused on problem identification, problem pos- ing, analysis, and finding solutions (Loughran 2002; Schön 1983); others suggest we also learn from reflecting on our successes (Jones 2014). Reflective practice is highly social for some (Loughran 2002); others stress the significance of self-­ reflexivity (Jones and Ryan 2014). Also emergent is the importance of the ways in which our concepts of reflective practice need to expand to allow for participation by a diversity of individuals and groups. A shared purpose in the contributions is to address education stakeholders’ need for evidence about how reflective practice might lead to enhanced learning on the part of preservice teachers, teachers, and school students. Educators have argued that evidence of the reflective practitioner’s work with students must be central to teacher evaluation to supplement the use of standardized test measures which may be blind to teachers’ contexts (Darling-­ Hammond 2012). 14.5  T oward Transformative Reflective Practice This chapter, “Toward Transformative Reflective Practice” advances the contention raised throughout the book that reflective practice, despite its pervasiveness in teaching and teacher education, is often applied to a wide range of distinct and sometimes incongruent practices. In drawing on the work of the authors contribut- ing to this volume, together with extant literature in the field, we have examined what is meant by “reflective practice” and what forms of reflective practice are appropriate for whom and when and how we adopt, either consciously or subcon- sciously, lens(es) that inform how and what we look for and how we interpret and enact the results of our reflective practices. We have queried who and what is driv- ing the reflective practice agenda evident in teaching and teacher education, globally.

14  Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education 271 This examination shows that there exists multiple references to binaries, includ- ing teacher educators and preservice teachers, novice and expert, theory and prac- tice, and transactional and transformational reflective practice. One challenge for teacher educators is to view teacher education from another or indeed multiple per- spectives and challenge the assumptions that may subconsciously shape reflective thinking and practice. If those involved in teacher education, including teacher edu- cators, preservice teachers, novice, and beginning and experienced teachers, reframe themselves as (co)learners, then the real possibility arises whereby reflective prac- tice enables curiosity and fascination about learning and teaching to advance prac- tice and skills and contribute to lifelong learning. Guiding principles and frameworks, however, are frequently used to justify and rationalize reflective practice. There exists an expectation that adhering to policy guidelines, structured frameworks, and models is sufficient. In applying a “transac- tional lens” to reflective practice uptake and impact, there exists an assumption that because structures and processes have been documented, there are active and infor- mative outcomes that are then transferred to multiple learning and teaching con- texts. In questioning what effective reflective practice is and what it is not, we understand more about the multifaceted approach and understandings that must accompany the “adopters” of reflective practice. There is a need to combine theory and practice as a means of achieving effective reflective practice. As Reid (2014) suggests, complex and sophisticated teaching practices are possibly invisible to those who are just beginning to teach or learning to teach. There is an imperative to identify the complexity through effective reflec- tion strategies. This volume offers particular examples of the ways in which theories do inform reflective thinking and ultimately shape practices and approaches for teacher educators, preservice, and beginning teachers. Reflective practitioners high- light the tensions they face in their attempts to implement reflective practices that remain authentic and meaningful and yet, concomitantly, responsive to professional, institutional, and policy expectations and requirements (Brandenburg and McDonough, Chap. 12, this volume; Coia and Taylor, Chap. 3, this volume; Glasswell and Ryan, Chap. 1, this volume). Collectively, the contributions reveal the inadequacy of frameworks alone, including teacher standards and governmental policy, and despite the comfort that this structured, unproblematic view of reflection might offer, we contend that the “messiness” that genuine questioning, curiosity, and systematic inquiry engender for authentic reflective practice engages us, and those we teach, with the “becoming” of our professional selves. Reflection in and on practice is a dynamic and discursive process that requires a critical identification and examination of a personal philosophy, lens, and approach to practice. The approach is informed and shaped by the learning and teaching institutional context and the political landscape, together with governmental policy imperatives. Learning how to be an “effective reflective practitioner” (Loughran 2002) is challenging. How, then, do we become an expert at our craft and facilitate expertise in others through reflective practice? As Ashwin et al. (2015) suggest, “an expert is characterized by the capacity to learn from experience, tacit knowledge and intu- ition, as opposed to rigid adherence to the rules and guidelines of others” (p. 333).

272 R. Brandenburg and M. Jones A diversity of approaches and orientations to reflective practice is evident within this volume, and the perspectives offered highlight the conclusion that there is no one appropriate model of reflective practice, there is no one theory that informs, and there is no one practice or framework that substantially meets all requirements. Thus, it is the “swamplands” that must be acknowledged, respected, and promoted by teacher educators as they work with practicing and preservice teachers to truly strive for transformational learning and attaining their “becoming” as effective teachers in a diverse and rapidly changing world. So what does this mean for reflective practice in teacher education? The contri- butions to this volume alongside the extant literature in the field demonstrate that context, theory, and informing lenses are essential elements for consideration in teaching and teacher education. From the examination of these elements in this concluding chapter, we purport that, firstly, as teacher educators, we need to be cognizant of our own lenses; secondly, that we need to model for our preservice teachers, the ways in which our assumptions and lenses inform our thinking and practice; and, thirdly, that we must encourage preservice teachers, both explicitly and through our modeling, to identify their own assumptions and lenses in order to obtain the traction they need to engage in critical reflective practice. To be success- ful, we need to provide time for this to occur – to guide preservice teachers into and through the swamplands, to embrace its “messiness,” and to “pay attention” to what is around them, to others, and, indeed, to what is within them, as they think about and share their experiences and, as a result, hone the craft of teaching through their reflective practice. Thus, as teacher educators, we need to consider and plan for the role we play in the duality of teaching about and achieving these outcomes. It is our hope that the various contributions to this volume have provided theoretical insights and practical examples of reflection on and in the practices of teacher educators from a range of settings internationally. What is exposed is that there are complex challenges and questions that underlie reflective practice, and these must be shared by practitioners across contexts. The multiplicities of purpose that reflective prac- tice serves require critical examination to ensure that it is ethical in nature, social in practice, and theoretically informed. Only then might the transformative potential of reflective practice be realized. References Ashwin, P., Boud, D., Coate, K., Hallett, F., Keane, E., Krause, K., Leibowitz, B., MacLaren, I., McArthur, J., McCune, V., & Tooher, M. (2015). Reflective teaching in higher education. London: Bloomsbury. Brandenburg, R. (2008). Powerful pedagogy: Self-study of a teacher educator’s practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Calderhead, J. (1993). Dilemmas in developing reflective teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20(Winter), 93–100.

14  Toward Transformative Reflective Practice in Teacher Education 273 Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Hartwig, M. (2007). Dictionary of critical realism. Abingdon: Routledge. Jones, M. (2014). Learning in the practicum: engaging pre-service teachers in reflective practice in the online space. In M. Jones & J. Ryan (Eds.), Successful teacher education: Partnerships, reflective practice and the place of technology (pp. 153–173). Rotterdam: Sense. Jones, M., & Ryan, J. (2014). Successful teacher education: Partnerships, reflective practice and the place of technology. Rotterdam: Sense. Korthagen, F. (2001). Teacher education: a problematic enterprise in linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.. Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476–495. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. 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. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York: Routledge. Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experience, theory, and practical wisdom in teaching and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 225–240. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and eman- cipatory learning. New York: Wiley. Moon, J.  (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Raelin, J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(4), 495–519. Reid, J. (2014). “Practice”: Foregrounding the study of teaching. In M. Jones & J. Ryan (Eds.), Successful teacher education: Partnerships, reflective practice and the place of technology (pp. 121–136). Rotterdam: Sense. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Segall, A. (2002). Disturbing practice: Reading teacher education as text. New York: Peter Lang.

Author Index A Bové, P., 55 Adler, S., 80 Bowers, E., 142–159 Airton, L., 98 Bowers, K.S., 40 Akbari, R., 80 Boyatzis, R., 211 Akerson, V., 181 Bradley, B.A., 144 Altbach, P., 206 Brandenburg, R., 123, 124, 127, 136, 208, Anderson, L., 184, 186 Angelici, G., 142, 159 224, 226 Appleton, K., 181 Braun, V., 7, 9, 128 Aram, J., 39 Britzman, D., 55 Arbon, V., 64, 70 Brookfield, S., 225, 226, 228, 233, 261, Argyris, C., 40 Arrows, F., 70 267, 268 Ashwin, P., 271 Brookfield, S.D., 185, 187 Atkinson, J., 71 Brooks, G.R., 87 Bullock, S., 180–193, 195–202 B Burgoyne, J., 40 Ball, D.L., 164 Burns, R.B., 189 Ballet, K., 230 Butcher, J., 230 Banks, C., 166 Bybee, R.W., 191 Banks, J., 166 Banks, J.A., 166–170 C Barnes, D., 38, 39 Cajete, G., 70 Batsleer, J., 50, 54 Calderhead, J., 30, 44, 262 Battiste, M., 67, 70 Carnes, R., 65, 67, 68 Bazeley, P., 128 Carter, G., 181 Bell, D., 78 Clandinin, D.J., 85, 89, 90, 93, 97 Benterrak, K.M., 77 Clarke, V., 7, 9, 128 Berry, A., 106, 227, 231–234 Cobb, J., 142–159 Biggs, J., 182–186, 202 Cochran-Smith, M., 122, 124, 131, 133, 136 Biggs, J.B., 122–124, 129, 131, 136 Coia, L., 52, 55, 57, 58, 89, 234 Bird Rose, D., 75 Collis, K., 183 Blair, N., 64, 68, 69, 71, 75–77 Colton, A., 4 Bleakley, A., 50 Colton, A., 5 Connell, M.T., 104, 111 Connell, R.W., 88, 91, 96 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 275 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

276 Author Index Connelly, F.M., 85, 89, 90, 93, 97 Goodrum, D., 180, 181 Cook-Sather, A., 42 Gore, J.M., 49, 54, 55 Cornish, L., 104, 112 Graziani, F., 171 Country, B., 70 Grbich, C., 128 Covey, S., 127 Gregory, S., 206 Cranton, P., 4, 5, 147, 156, 207, 209, 211, Grossman, P., 164–166, 169, 172 Gurvitz, D., 142–159 212, 261 Gutiérrez, K., 119 Creswell, J.W., 243 Cuenca, A., 243 H Hackling, M., 198, 201 D Hail, C., 110, 111 Danielson, L., 155 Hamachek, D., 23 Darling-Hammond, L., 18, 20, 182, 206, 207, Hamilton, M.L., 241 Hanlen, W., 69 213, 259–272 Harford, J., 6, 239, 253 Daynes, J.G., 89 Harrison, M.D., 66 De Leon, L., 142 Hartwig, M., 263 Dennis, D., 207, 208 Hattie, J., 121, 135 Dewey, J., 4, 5, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 80, Hattie, J.A.C., 38, 39 Hatton, N., 30 85, 154, 159, 207, 225, 231, Hibbard, S., 209, 214 233, 234 Hiebert, J., 163 Diekman, A.B., 87 Higgins, D., 226 Dismuke, S., 243 Hodgson, J., 120 Dozier, C., 147 Hokari, M., 67, 71, 74, 76, 78, 81 Dyment, J., 208 Honan, E., 120 Hooks, B., 53 E Huggan, G., 73 Ecclestone, K., 54 Humphries, B., 50, 54 Edwards, G., 15, 23, 24, 33 Huntington, O.H., 70 Elder, W.B., 87 Ellsworth, E., 56 F J Farkas, T., 87 Jay, J., 15 Feldman, A., 239, 242 Jay, J.K., 32, 105, 107, 112, 113 Fendler, L., 29, 51, 54 Jenkins K.A., 104, 112 Finlay, L., 226 Jian, W., 143 Fixico, D., 76 Johnson, K.L., 32, 105, 107, 112, 113 Forzani, F., 164 Johnson, K., 15 Freese, A., 97, 226 John-Steiner, V., 124 Freire, P., 60, 167, 242 Jones, M., 5, 20, 80, 151, 180–193, 195–202, G 209, 213, 266, 270 Garcia, L., 56 Jónsdóttir, S.R., 242, 243 Garrison, J., 207, 209, 213 Gee, J., 121 K Gelfuso, A., 207, 208 Kaasila, R., 110 Gibbs, J., 127 Kavanagh, S.S., 161–174 Glaser, B.G., 147 Kazemi, E., 170 Glasswell, K., 3–11, 13–24 Keene, E.K., 127 Goddard, R.D., 253 Kelchtermans, G., 229, 230 Kemarre Turner, M., 76

Author Index 277 Kendall, H., 143 Liston, D.P., 5 Kennedy, A., 23 Liu, K.Y., 33 Kennedy, M., 43 Lortie, D.C., 207, 262 Kennedy, M.M., 165 Loughran, J., 5, 80, 120–124, 127, 129, Kenny, J., 180, 181 Kessels, J.P., 239, 242–244, 252, 253 134–136, 180, 182, 185, 188, Killion, J.P., 4, 6 199, 207, 209, 262–265, 267, Kindt, I., 181 270, 271 King, T., 76, 77 Loughran, J.J., 37, 49, 54, 85, 105, 106, 112, Kiselica, M.S., 87, 88 114, 224–227, 233, 234, 239 Kitchen, J., 85, 86, 88, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98 Lunenberg, M., 262 Klienfeld, J., 165 Lupinski, L., 107, 108 Korthagen, F., 5, 14, 21, 23, 24, 182, 185, Lyons, N., 32, 33, 225 Lyons, T., 181 199, 262 Lytle, S.L., 122, 124, 131, 133, 136 Korthagen, F.A.J., 238–240, 242–244, M 252–254 Mac an Ghaill, M., 97 Kosnik, C., 127, 227, 228, 233 Macdonald, A., 242 Kottkamp, R., 185 MacKinnon, C., 53 Kottkamp, R.B., 5 MacRuairc, G., 6, 239, 253 Kotzee, B., 105 Mahn, H., 124 Kovach, M., 64, 66 Male, T., 224 Krathwohl, D., 184, 186 Martin, A.K., 27–45 Kreber, C., 4, 5, 147, 156, 207, 209, 211, Martin, K., 70 Martin, S.D., 243 212, 261 Martinez, K., 224 Krueger, R., 127 Martino, W., 87 Kuhn, D., 40 Märtsin, M., 20 Kuzmic, J.J., 92 Maxwell, G., 6 Kwaymullina, A., 70, 76 Mayer, D., 182, 184, 186, 200 McAnulty, J., 243 L McConchie, M., 75 LaBoskey, V., 104, 180, 185, 187, 188, 196 McDonald, M., 162, 164, 169–171 LaBoskey, V.K., 227 McDonough, S., 224, 226 Ladson-Billings, G., 165 McLean, K., 119–137 Lam, C., 208, 209 McTighe, J., 183 Lampert, J., 65 Means, B., 209, 216 Lampert, M., 164, 165, 167, 171 Mertler, C.A., 107 Langer, E.J., 40 Mezirow, J., 207, 264 Langton, M., 72, 75 Mijung, K., 181 Larrivee, B., 30 Miles, M., 211 Lasky, S., 229 Miller, J., 56 Laster, B., 142–159 Miller, J.L., 86, 89 Lather, P., 55 Mills, G.E., 107 Lauriala, A., 110 Milner, M. Jr., 95, 97, 98 Lave, J., 238 Minha-ha, T., 59 Lawson, M., 239, 254 Monette, P., 96 Leaper, C., 87 Moon, J., 261, 262 Lee, C.D., 168 Morris, A.K., 163 Lee, S., 209, 218 Mueller, A., 180, 181 Lemov, D., 166 Munby, H., 38, 41 Levant, R.F., 87 Murphy, C., 123–125, 136, 137 Lewin, L., 35 Murray, J., 224 Lichtman, M., 127 Light, G., 182, 183

278 Author Index N S Nakata, M., 68 Salipante, P., 39 Neary, M., 184 Salmon, G., 206, 209, 220 Neidjie, B., 78, 79 Samaras, A., 97, 180, 185, 188, 226, 227, 241 Sanders, T., 181 O Santagata, R., 142, 159 O’Connell, T., 208 Santoro, N., 23 O’Sullivan, M., 147 Sarason, S., 30, 270 Orr, D.W., 70 Schön, D., 4, 5, 18, 80, 85, 207, 225, 226, 233, Osterman, K., 185 Osterman, K.F., 5 263, 264, 268, 270 Schön, D.A., 28–36, 38–44, 49–53, 55–57, 60, P Pariza, J., 152, 159 105, 123, 124, 127, 129, 137 Parsons, M., 207, 208 Schuck, S., 29 Pascal, J., 23 Schwartz, J., 208, 214 Pascoe, C.J., 86, 95–97 Segall, A., 233, 268, 270 Pena, C., 142 Sellars, M., 4 Phillips, J., 65 Senese, J.C., 105, 107 Pinnegar, S., 89, 241 Senge, P., 40 Pleck, J.H., 87 Shanahan, L., 143, 151, 159 Plecki, M., 206 Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., 226, 227 Prain, V., 198, 201 Shiva, V., 73 Shor, I, 242 R Shulman, L., 37 Raelin, J.A., 28, 39–41, 45, 264 Siebel, J., 86 Ramsden, P., 182–184, 186, 199, 200 Silverman, D., 212 Randall, B., 71 Singh, P., 20 Razfar, A., 119 Skamp, K., 180, 181 Reid, J., 263, 264, 271 Skuthorpe, T., 67 Reinking, D., 121, 144 Smith, D., 30 Reynolds, M., 112 Smith, P., 60 Rich, P., 143, 147 Snyder, I., 121 Richards, L., 189 Sparks-Langer, G., 4, 5 Richardson, V., 29, 50 St. Pierre, E., 55 Richmond, K., 87 Steinberg, M., 87 Risko, V.J., 159 Stephenson, M., 207, 208 Rittel, H., 182 Strauss, A.L., 147 Rodgers, C., 30 Street, B., 121 Ropers-Huilman, B., 54 Stringer, E.T., 107 Rose, G., 49 Sveiby, K.E., 67 Rosean, C.L., 142, 147 Swan, K., 216 Roth, W.M., 125 Szabo, Z., 208, 214 Russell, S.T., 167 Russell, T., 27–45, 85 T Russell, T.L., 180–193, 195–202 Tabachnick, B.R., 4, 80 Ryan, J., 3–11, 13–24, 80, 119, 151, 208–211, Tan, K., 181 Tang, C., 182, 183 213, 266, 270 Tang, C.S., 122–124, 129, 131, 136 Ryan, T., 103–105, 142–159 Tang, E., 208, 209 Taylor, M., 52, 55, 57, 58, 89, 234, 243 Thomas, G., 15, 23, 24, 33 Thompson, N., 23

Author Index 279 Thoreau, H., 60 Watkins, J., 144 Tiffin, H., 73 Watson, A., 70 Tochelli, A., 143, 151, 159 Watson, I., 75, 76 Todnem, G.R., 4, 6 Watts, M., 239, 254 Tremmel, R., 28, 36, 37, 43 Webber, M., 182 Tripp, D., 225, 226 Weedon, C., 55 Tripp, T., 143, 147 Wenger, E., 238 Trudgen, R., 77 Wenger-Trayner, B., 238, 253 Tsangaridou, N., 147 Wenger-Trayner, E., 238, 253 Tuhiwai Smith, L., 67 Wheatley, M.J., 103, 104 Tytler, R., 198, 201 Whitehead, J., 97 Wiggins, G., 183 U Wilshire, B., 77 Ungunmerr-Baumann, M.-R., 71, 79 Wilson, S., 64 Winch, C., 104, 108 V Windschitl, M., 170 Valli, L., 29, 31, 32 Wolcott, H., 243 Van de Ven, A., 39 Wood, D., 126 van Manen, M., 4, 31, 147, 148, 156 Vasalos, A., 238, 240, 243, 254 Y Vavrus, M., 98 Youngblood Henderson, J., 67, 70, Vazzano, J., 142–159 Vazzano, J., 152, 159 76–78 Vince, R., 112 Youngblood Henderson, S., 67, 70 Vygotsky, L., 123, 124 Z W Zeichner, K., 29, 33, 37, 80, 182, Warwick, P., 20 Wass, R., 151 207, 208, 210, 216, 220 Zeichner, K.M., 4, 5 Zimmerman, S., 127 Zwozdiak-Myers, P., 4

Subject Index A Co/autoethnography, 50, 57–59 Aboriginal Australians, 67, 68, 75 Collaborative, 18–21, 57–59, 106, 109–111, Academy, 32, 35, 67, 71, 80, 250 Accountability, 15, 18, 20, 51, 52, 55, 120, 114, 124, 125, 127, 129, 136, 137, 151, 152, 154, 159, 172, 209, 228, 230, 231, 130, 259 233, 234, 237–254, 266, 267, 269 Action research, 4, 35, 37, 43, 106–109, 111, Collaborative discussions, 146 Collegial, 20, 122, 125, 129–131, 143, 114, 185, 248 152, 269 Approximation of practice, 172 Colonial, 67, 68, 78 Artefact of reflection, 187 Commodification, 5, 6 Assumptions, 9, 23, 27, 28, 37, 39, 40, 43, Community partnership model (CPM), 120, 122, 124–137, 267 54, 55, 59, 88, 97, 104, 107, 109, 115, Community service agency, 125 156, 157, 170, 185, 189, 191, 211, Competency-based teacher education, 166 224, 226, 233, 240, 249, 264–267, Complicit masculinity, 88 269, 271, 272 Consensogram, 188, 189, 191–193, 196, 202 Australian Indigenous education, 81 Constructive alignment, 180–184, 186, Authentic assessment, 180, 184, 186, 198 187, 202 Authorizing voice, 42, 45 Content integration, 167, 168 Autobiography, 52, 89, 93–97, 267 Content reflection, 210, 211, 217 Autoethnography, 59 Core practices, 161, 163–174, 264 Core reflection, 254, 266 B Co-teaching, 123–127, 129, 137 Beliefs, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 33, 38, 54, 55, 70, Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), 8, 17, 19 88, 89, 106, 108, 109, 125, 163, 165, Country, 3, 6–8, 11, 17, 18, 20, 24, 64–81, 169, 174, 180, 196, 202, 225, 226, 233, 261, 263 240, 244, 249, 251, 254, 262, 264, 266, Critical incident, 92, 127, 223–234, 266, 269 268 Critical reflection, 4, 23, 24, 30, 31, 39–41, Blog, 210, 212–214 45, 97, 109, 129, 155–157, 180, 182, Brick Wall, 69–71, 75, 80 185, 202, 205–207, 210, 220, 239, 253, 268 C Critical thinking, 239–240 Case-based methods, 165 Cultural identity, 68–74 Cisgender, 88, 90, 98 Culturally responsive teaching, 119, 125 Clinical practicum, 152 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 281 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

282 Subject Index Culture, 18, 38, 65–67, 77, 78, 86–88, 95, 96, Heteronormative, 87, 88, 98 98, 113, 149, 151, 167, 168, 233, 240, Higher-order, 127, 183, 184, 186, 191, 193, 251, 266, 270 194, 211, 213 D Homophobic, 87, 94, 96–98 Debrief protocol, 152 Deep learning, 137, 180–184, 186, 187, 198, I Identity, 53, 55, 58, 64, 68–74, 86, 88–92, 199, 201, 202 Description, 5, 7, 9, 11, 34, 89, 120, 129, 136, 94–98, 162, 163, 174, 229–230, 251, 253, 262, 265 145, 207, 211, 242, 247, 263 Inclusive, 23, 197, 247 Digi-tell, 126–128, 132, 133 Indigenous knowings, 64, 68, 69, 74–77, 266 Double-loop learning, 40 Inductive approach, 128, 147 Inquiry, 5, 7, 10, 15, 22, 24, 32, 35, 41, 44, E 86, 87, 89, 92, 97, 103, 104, 106–109, Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 111, 120, 122, 123, 126, 131, 132, 137, 144, 147–149, 159, 185–187, 196, 198, 8, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 208, 209, 225–227, 231–234, 264, 266, Emotional, 43, 88, 91, 213, 214, 264 269, 271 Emotions, 43, 87, 92, 112, 240, 254 Instructional activities, 171–174 Epistemology, 28, 30–36, 38–42, 44, 45, Instructional context, 150, 151, 159 Instrumental, 51, 52, 54, 159, 220, 268 92, 264 Epistemology of practice, 28, 31, 38–41, J Journal, 37, 52, 53, 59, 90, 93, 94, 129, 191, 44, 45 Equity pedagogy, 168 195, 197, 208, 228, 242, 245, 246 Ethical, 4, 18, 21, 90, 91, 104, 230, 261, K 263, 272 Knowledge, 5, 52, 64, 85, 104, 120, 143, 180, Ethics, 23, 250, 251, 254, 266 Explicit instruction, 40, 45, 133 181, 183, 184, 193, 195, 197, 199, 200, 205, 224, 238, 261 F Knowledge construction, 167, 168, 170 Femininity, 87, 88, 95 Feminism, 50, 54–57, 59, 60, 87 L Flora and fauna, 67 Learning clubs, 120, 125–127, 129, 131, Formative design methodology, 144, 147 Formative experiment, 144–147, 132, 136 Learning community, 20, 35, 109, 238, 239, 154–156, 158 241, 242, 244–254 G Learning cycle, 169–171, 174 Gender, 53, 58, 86–88, 90–92, 96–98, Learning format, 147, 149–151, 158 Learning log, 127, 128, 131 265–267 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer General Teaching Council for intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA), 86, 88, Scotland, 7, 8 96, 98 Googlesites community, 147 Lilyology, 64, 68–74, 76–78 Listening, 30, 34, 41–42, 45, 53, 56, 64–66, H 71, 73, 77, 79, 80, 112, 115, 127, 130, Habits of mind, 42, 45, 268 233, 244, 264, 265, 268 Hegemonic masculinity, 86–98

Subject Index 283 Literacy, 14, 57, 119–137, 143, 181 Performance Assessment for California education, 120, 121, 126, 127, 145, Teachers (PACT), 184 266, 267 teachers, 119–121, 128, 132–137 Personal perceptions, 185, 188, 190–191, 196, 197 M Masculinity, 98 Policy, 3, 5–7, 11, 19, 21, 23, 42, 60, 67, 68, Master’s projects, 241, 251, 254 168, 201, 224, 227, 229, 230, 234, Mastery, 39, 41 260–263, 266, 271 Mindfulness, 28, 36, 37, 43–45, 79 Misogynistic, 87 Political, 4, 21, 23, 54, 57, 58, 60, 79, 104, Mission, 23, 27, 240, 244, 246, 251, 252, 207, 220, 234, 263, 271 254, 266 Poststructural feminism, 49–60, 268 Multicultural education, 162, 166–169, 173 Practice turn, 263 Multiliterate, 121 Practice-based teacher education, N 162, 164, 169 Narrative, 53, 57, 59, 98, 134, 168, 173, Practicum, 28–31, 35, 38, 41, 42, 125, 129, 265–267 131, 132, 134, 181–183, 205, 206, Narrative self-study, 98 208–217, 219 National Board for Professional Teaching Pragmatics, 155 Praxis, 121, 123–125, 132–137, 220, 260, Standards (NBPTS), 7–10, 14, 262, 263 184, 206 Prejudice reduction, 167, 168 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Premise reflection, 207, 210, 211, 214–216, Education (NCATE), 8 218, 219 National Institute of Education, Singapore, Pre-service teachers (PSTs), 19, 24, 64, 111, 7, 8, 10 120–137, 142, 162, 165, 166, 170, Novice educator, 24 171, 173, 174, 180–182, 184–202, 205–220, 230–234, 260, 262–265, O 267, 269–272 Onion model, 240–244, 246, 247, 249, 250, Prevent strategy, 22 Process reflection, 207, 210–212, 215 252, 254 Professional identities, 6, 58, 224, 240–244, Online forum, 206, 212, 216, 219 250–253 Online learning, 206, 209, 220 Professional practice, 16, 19, 20, 22, 32, Online pedagogy, 220 34–35, 41, 44, 49, 98, 122, 125, 153, Online reflections, 209–210 162, 163, 169, 170, 185, 234 Ontology, 65–69, 72, 74, 241 Professional registration, 6, 9 Oral culture, 66, 77 Professional standards, 3–11, 13–25, 205 Protocol, 106, 109–116, 144, 147–149, P 151–155, 159, 211, 261, 266 Partnership, 120, 124–127, 132, 209, 230, Protocol for Peer Analysis of a Data Set, 114–116 231, 234 Patriarchy, 86–88, 91, 92 Q Pedagogy, 15, 18, 31, 32, 42, 43, 64, 73, 85, Qualitative research, 128, 211, 248 89, 104, 120, 121, 123, 125, 136, 137, R 143, 144, 147, 157, 167–172, 174, 201, Reading laboratory, 143 202, 205–220, 224, 226, 227, 229, Recall, 45, 93, 94, 104–105, 158, 196 231–234, 238, 245, 246, 249, 250, 252, Reflection as adaptive, 4, 15–18 253, 262–264, Reflection as collaborative, 18–21 269, 270 Reflection as evaluative, 13–15 Peer debriefing, 110–112 Reflection as transformative, 21–24 Reflection-in-action, 28–36, 38, 40–45, 52, 55, 123, 264

284 Subject Index Reflection in isolation, 105 T Reflection-on-action, 38 Tacit knowledge, 39, 41, 42, 45, 224, 271 Reflection rubric, 51, 149, 155–159 Teacher as researcher, 4, 228, 232–233 Reflective conversations, 35, 109–110, 145, Teacher education, 7, 27, 49, 81, 86, 104, 119, 151, 152, 159 142, 162, 180, 205, 223, 237, 259 Reflective practice, 3, 27, 49, 64, 85, 86, 97, Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group 104, 105, 107, 108, 111–113, 119–137, (TEMAG), 119, 121, 124, 129, 132, 143, 162, 180, 205–209, 219, 220, 133, 135, 136, 208, 220, 223, 230 223–226, 233, 239, 242, 259, 263, 265, Teacher Education Model for the 21st Century 270, 271 (TE21), 8, 10 Reflective teaching, 4, 10, 36, 44 Teacher education pedagogy, 169–171 Reflective turn, 33–34, 43, 44 Teaching artistry, 44 Rehearsal, 172 Technical rationality, 28, 31, 35, 36, 42–44, Research Article Protocol, 110, 114–115 52, 54, 148, 158 Restory, 90–95, 97 Tell Tales, 126–128, 133, 136 Retrospective reflection, 4 Thematic analysis, 7, 9–11, 128 Rhizomes, 69, 71 Theory, 4, 30, 31, 35, 39, 40, 43, 44, 49, 90, Rubric, 51, 147, 149, 155–159, 209 104, 120, 144, 162, 180, 207, 211, 213, 214, 216, 224, 232–234, 238, 251, 253, S 259 School-based, 180–193, 195–202, 207 Theory-practice, 31, 137, 180, 182, 199, 207, Science, 94, 123, 163, 180, 211 208, 210, 232, 252, 262–264 Science education, 180–193, 195–202 Threaded discussion, 210, 212–215 Screening video, 43 Transcription, 143, 149, 152, 154–155, 159 Self-study, 37, 85–98, 180, 182, 184–185, 187, Transformative, 5, 21–24, 272 Turn to practice, 163–171 188, 193, 196, 199, 201, 202, 224, 226–228, 232, 234, 241, 242, 248, V 252–254 Values, 5, 9, 14, 15, 20–24, 32, 38, 43, 51, 52, Self-study methodology, 180, 184, 185, 187, 188, 199, 227 58, 89, 90, 107, 114, 121, 122, 129, Social construction, 58, 90 132, 133, 144, 148, 149, 153, 157, 159, Social justice, 21, 22, 29, 49–54, 56, 57, 59, 206, 224–226, 228–234, 239, 243, 60, 98, 161–174, 268 260–262, 265, 267, 268 Social justice teacher education, 162, Video analysis, 144, 172 164–165, 174 Video-based reflection, 142, 174 Sociocultural theory, 120, 123, 124, 126 Video–reflection, 142–145, 147–152, 158, 159 Songs, 67 Standards, 3, 51, 120–122, 129, 132, 133, 135, W 164, 184, 205, 261 Western, 33, 64, 66–68, 70, 71, 73–75, 77, 78, Stillness, 79 Story, 40, 43, 64, 89–94, 97, 133, 173 80, 260, 265 Storytelling, 76, 89–92, 126 Western knowledges, 64, 68, 71, 266 Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome Whiteness, 67 (SOLO) taxonomy, 183, 186 Wisdom, 41, 45, 63–81 Superficial reflection, 158 Supervision, 151, 254 Z Swampland, 50, 51, 53–57, 59, Zen Buddhist, 36 268, 272