reflective teaching: theory within classroom practices
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 11 November 2014, At: 14:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20
Reflective teaching: theory withinclassroom practicesFernando Rodriguez-Vallsa
a Division of Education, SDSU-Imperial Valley Campus, Calexico,CA, USAPublished online: 04 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Fernando Rodriguez-Valls (2014) Reflective teaching: theory within classroompractices, Teaching Education, 25:3, 294-308, DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2014.889669
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.889669
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Reflective teaching: theory within classroom practices
Fernando Rodriguez-Valls*
Division of Education, SDSU-Imperial Valley Campus, Calexico, CA, USA
(Received 22 March 2011; accepted 3 April 2013)
The core of the Senate Bill 2042 (1998) was designed to provide the guidelinesneeded to prepare teachers who can meet the needs of a diverse K-12 studentpopulation in California. Following the guidelines marked by this bill, facultyworking in Teacher Credential Programs across California are designingactivities to prepare candidates with a deep understanding of effectivepedagogies applicable to a full range of students. A key component in thispreparation is to provide teacher candidates with opportunities to critically readand reflect on theory and research. Understanding the importance of thiscomponent, I designed an assignment, Quadruple Entry Journals (QEJ), whichasks teacher candidates to first, critically read texts on theory; secondly, to reflectand analyze those texts; thirdly, to reflect on the reflections of their classmates;and, finally, to connect these theoretical reflections with practice. In this article, Iexplain the pedagogy followed when implementing QEJ with teacher candidates.Their feedback showed that when theory and research are cooperatively analyzedby teacher candidates, they better understand the connection between theory andpractice, thus creating a deep understanding of what to teach and how to teach.
Keywords: critical reading; reflection; theory; classroom practices
Introduction
To meet the needs of a culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse K-12student population, teachers must know how theory informs their classroompractices. Darling-Hammond (2006), in her research of effective teaching credentialprograms, has found that programs that provide candidates with “explicit strategiesto help [candidates] confront their own deep-seated beliefs and assumptions aboutlearning and students … [along with] content pedagogy” (pp. 6–7) are betterprepared to face the challenges they will encounter when working with diversestudents. In practice, however, it is not unusual to hear comments such as the onemade by Santos,1 a multiple subject teacher candidate: “I know what I want to teach.I can see how I will teach it. The problem comes when I have to relate my teachingwith theory. To me they are two different ball games.” Thus, it becomes imperativefor teacher educators to develop vehicles to help teacher candidates not onlyunderstand theory, but to link theory with classroom practice.
In order to ensure that the goal of linking theory and practice was being met inCalifornia, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) confirmed the fullimplementation of Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA), which requires allcandidates to pass a written assessment in order to earn their credential. Since the
*Email: [email protected]
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Teaching Education, 2014Vol. 25, No. 3, 294–308, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.889669
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bill was signed in 1998, as part of Senate Bill 2042, until its full implementation inJuly 2008, three models of TPA have been developed and piloted: California TPA,Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST), and Performance Assessment forCalifornia Teachers (PACT). Though they vary in specific methods of assessing thepedagogical competence of teacher candidates, all three models require candidates tocritically analyze and reflect on theory and to explicitly explain the link betweentheory and teaching practices.
Meeting these expectations created challenges for faculty who work with teachercandidates, since those students must now explicitly demonstrate their understandingof the connection of theory and practice in their TPA in order to earn a teachercredential. This article traces one teacher-educator’s analysis of the challenge, adescription of a method devised to enhance teacher candidates’ ability to link theoryand practice, and the results of the implementation. While some basic concepts arepresented in these opening remarks, further literature and theoretical frameworks areembedded within the middle sections of this article (i.e. in descriptions of therelevant stages of the methodology).
In devising a method of encouraging students’ connecting theory and practicethat would be consistent across several courses, a few fundamental concepts werepreliminary to the search. The first (what) required defining critical reflection; thesecond (how) examined methods of teaching critical reflection in a way that wouldreally help teacher candidates make the link between theory and practice, and thethird (why) confirmed the importance of critical reflection for teachers.
For the first, Murray and Kujundzic (2005) provide a definition of criticalreflection as a three-dimensional process that requires analyzing, reconsidering, andquestioning ideas within a broad context. Analyzing how critical reflection shouldbe modeled, Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2005), in their research ofexemplary pedagogies, explain that the key to educating candidates in theteacher-researcher-reflective model relies on faculty members creating processes thatallow teacher candidates to articulate the interconnection between their acquaintancewith what needs to be taught and their attentiveness to a full range of studentsparticipating in their lessons. As the third foundation, Gay and Kirkland (2003)present a confirmation of significance when they state that through critical reflectionteacher candidates increase their knowledge and awareness about the content, themethodology, and the audience – students and parents – of their teaching practices.Having established a basis for definition, method, and significance – that is, what,how, and why – the next step was to apply these understandings to a strategy thatwould work with teacher candidates across various classes.
Quadruple entry journals
Combining these elements highlighted in literature – the multidimensionality ofreflection and the consideration of audience and context – I created the QuadrupleEntry Journal (QEJ), an assignment that calls for critical reading, reflecting on thesereadings, reflecting on the response of others, and connecting theory and reflectionswith practice. QEJ is an expanded version of a double-entry journal. The latter is adialectical journal that creates a conversation between the author and the reader,requiring the reader to “talk back” to the author through a reflection (Francis, 2009).Typically, to create a double-entry journal, the reader divides a page of paper intotwo vertical columns. In the left-hand column, the reader writes a quotation that has
Teaching Education 295
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
captured her/his interest. Then, in the right-hand column, the reader writes her/hisreflection, which may include comments, objections, and/or questions on what she/he has read (Markline, 1999). In adapting this strategy for the purpose of helpingteacher candidates link theory and practice, the QEJ adds two important columns(Figure 1) to the initial dialogue between the author and the reader. In the thirdcolumn, the reader extends her/his conversation with the author by including peersand bringing in different voices, which have to respond to each other. This processof having to listen to the other voices deepens and expands the conversation, andclarifies or moderates one’s own views. The fourth column is the space where thereader connects her/his own responses and those of others with classroom practices,which creates a bridge between theory and praxis. According to Brookhart (2009) inher analysis of higher-order thinking skills, self-evaluating these bridges drivesteacher candidates to ask the following question: What does this bridge betweentheory and practice suggest I should do next? The answer to this question is key todeveloping effective practices that meet the needs of all the students participating inthe learning processes.
My goal when designing QEJ was to provide teacher candidates withopportunities to first, critically read texts on theory and research-based practices;secondly, to reflect on those texts; thirdly, to reflect on their own analysis and theresponses of their classmates; and finally, to connect these theoretical reflectionswith classrooms practices. By doing that, I am facilitating a conversation that willhelp teacher candidates when using research, theory, and reflection on teaching andlearning to guide their own classroom practices.
Figure 1. From double entry journal to QEJ.
296 F. Rodriguez-Valls
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Quadruple Entry Journals were utilized over three semesters – Fall 2008, Fall2009, and Fall 2010 – with one-hundred and thirty-six teacher candidates.Eighty-eight of these teacher candidates were multiple subject candidates workingon their credentials to teach elementary grades (kindergarten through 8), andforty-eight were single-subject candidates whose credentials authorize them to teachspecialized subjects (e.g. Mathematics, Social Sciences, Biology) in secondaryschools (grades 9 through 12).
Evaluation of the impact of QEJ on future teaching practices included analysisof teacher candidates’ self-reporting, the instructor’s narrative records of discussion,and observations of classrooms practices. Throughout each semester, every teachercandidate completes an ongoing assessment of her/his own progress in achievingstudent learning outcomes (SLO), in which they explain: (a) what they have learnedwhen working on the core assignments (e.g. QEJ, research projects); (b) how theyhave acquired competency in the skills – reflection, communication, active listening– required to complete these assignments; and (c) why these core assignments couldincrease the effectiveness and impact of their teaching practices. The entries werebrainstormed and discussed weekly. At the end of the semester, once all the coreassignments were completed, teacher candidates presented their analysis of theirwork to their peers, and we discussed the commonalities and differences of theseanalyses. I kept a written record of these conversations. Their voices helped me torefine and to modify entry journals as tools to construct effective teaching withcritical acuity. I then rephrased the question posed in the introduction: to find asingle overarching assignment that would assist in linking theory and practice. Mygoal was to understand the context of their reflections, and the basic actions teachercandidates would take to imbed teaching practices with a solid theoreticalfoundation. Since the focus of this process was to deepen students’ theoreticalperspective, throughout each step of the process, I was attuned not only to thedegree to which students understood and appreciated the readings, but also to thedegree to which – as they proceeded with the carefully constructed activitiesdescribed herein – they learned to connect the theory in the readings and theirpractice in the classroom.
Step one: critical reading
The first stage of the QEJ involves critical reading, which is contextualized within abroader framework of critical literacy. McLaughlin and DeVoogd (2004) underscorethe importance of “examining the point of view from which [the] text is written …[and] questioning both the author’s intent and the information as it is presented inthe text” (p. 16) in order to critically read and analyze written text. Similarly,Vasquez (2004) calls the why reading, as a process in which the reader approachesthe text with critical eyes, which provides her/him with a deeper understanding ofhow the author utilizes the language and how literacy is constructed, depending onthe context, the participants, and the environment (Green, 2001). I asked teachercandidates to switch from the idea of reading to answer questions to the practice ofreading to ask questions. When reading to answer questions, the readerunconsciously “runs” through the text with the idea that reading is exclusively theachievement of the objectives set by the instructor. Such reading, as explained byMcGee (2009), not only lacks originality and creativity, but also “forces” the readerto conform to the instructor’s norms. On the other hand, when teacher candidates
Teaching Education 297
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
“walk” through the text to ask questions, inquiry and a sense of freedom guide theirsearch for ideas that later solidify into the foundation of their personal philosophiesof teaching (Ayers, 2005). Moreover, reading to ask questions turns teachercandidates into genuine philosophers of education, defined by Badiou and Zizek(2009) as “someone who decides on his own account what the important problemsare” (p. 2). Mastering this idea of reading as an inquiry process helps teachercandidates to generate ideas that later feed dynamic classroom practices, whichconstantly evolve depending on the students’ needs, prior learning experiences, andlevels of language proficiency, among other factors. For example, while reading oneof the required books –Negotiating Critical Literacies with Young Children(Vasquez, 2004) – for the multiple subject methods course, Paloma, one of theteacher candidates commented,
I used to read thinking that I have to learn what the author is saying. Reading to askquestions is more than questioning what is being read; it is reading to create meaning.When I was reading Vasquez’s book, I saw myself as someone observing the practicesthat she explains in her book. I wanted to ask, “How do you guide students throughcritical literacy?” This really helped me when I wrote PACT and I had to support myteaching practices with theory. I adapted Vasquez’s practices to build my teachingstyle.
Paloma’s first sentence portrays a challenge I face as faculty working with teachercandidates. A large number of these teacher candidates come to the program withthe idea that reading is an activity the main goal of which is to be able to respond toquestions related to the text. I once heard a teacher candidate say, “The book has allthe answers.” Though it is important to be able to respond to questions after readingand understanding the text, reading to find answers is only the surface outcome ofthe reading activity. The meaning of critical reading lies within the idea of readingto create knowledge.
After reading one of the required books, Real Reading, Real Writing:Content-Area Strategies (Topping & McManus, 2002), Lupe, a single-subjectcandidate, shared with me in an office meeting, “The more I ask myself questionsthe more confused I am. You are telling me to create questions and I want answers.It is frustrating.” As I listened to Lupe’s struggle, it became clear that asking mystudents to critically read theory and research, which later will support theirclassroom practices, requires more than assigning books and asking them to reflect.It asks for a sequence of activities that provide the space for teacher candidates toreflect, listen, refine, and apply what they have read.
As Gallagher (2009) explains in his book Readicide, “There is a hugedifference between assigning reading and teaching reading, and students needteachers who recognize the balance between chopping books to death andhanding books to students with the proper level of support” (p. 87). Thisobservation is as true for teacher candidates as it is for younger students. QEJsprovide the space for the aforesaid sequence of activities. Reading to askquestions was the foundation for an entire sequence of activities: first, it providedthe core of teacher candidates’ reflections; secondly, it provided a basis forcomparing their reflections with other candidates’ reflections; and mostimportantly, reading to ask questions was conducive to the application of theoryand research into practice (Brookfield, 2006).
298 F. Rodriguez-Valls
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Step two: the argument of theory
This stage of the QEJ establishes an explicit dialogue between the teacher candidateand the author. After critically reading the text, teacher candidates actively reflect onthe text, posing questions and arguing rather than just agreeing with what the authoris saying. hooks (2010) stresses the key role reflection plays in preparing a newgeneration of teachers on ways to discuss any subject from different points of view.If we are to teach candidates how to use theory to support their teaching practices,we have to show them that after critically reading about theory and researchpractices, the next step to be taken is to argue about what they have read. By doingthat, teacher candidates will design their own reflective practices rather than merelyduplicating and following what is said in the textbook.
The QEJ allowed teacher candidates to reflect on different levels. On the firstlevel, teacher candidates selected quotations from the assigned readings andreflected/argued about those quotations. In creating the first and second columns ofthe QEJ, students chose a quotation from the assigned reading and responded to it.For the usual classroom journal entry in this process – double-entry journal – stu-dents might be asked to make connections, to predict, to focus on literary devices orword choice, etc. In adapting this method for our purpose, however, I askedcandidates to question the readings from three different perspectives: as former K-12students, from the teacher’s standpoint, and as if they were administrators and/orpolicy-makers. As Valli (1992) states in her research on teacher thinking andreflectivity, education is in need of “teachers who can make wise classroomdecisions and who can help the direction of schooling” (p. xiv). The goal was toargue the readings utilizing different lenses.
From the first standpoint, that of a student, candidates compared and contrastedthe strategies utilized by their former teachers and the ones described in the weeklyreadings. Sandro, a multiple subject candidate, when reflecting on Purcell-Gates’sresearch described in her book Other’s People’s Words: The Cycle of Low Literacy(1997) wrote,
As a student I never realized that some of my classmates at elementary school wereilliterate. It seemed to me that everyone was learning because the teacher was teaching.Reading Purcell-Gates’s research, I can see the impact of knowing your students so wecan differentiate instruction.
This level of reflection helped to reinforce the idea that effective teachers are firstactive learners. Becoming a teacher begins by seeing oneself sitting among the audi-ence that the teacher has before her/him when she/he is teaching (Codell, 2009).
From the stance of a teacher, candidates had to debate the theory and researchand their implementation in the classroom. Katy, a single-subject candidate, afterreading a section of Teaching Reading to English Language Learners, Grades 6–12:A Framework for Improving Achievement in the Content Areas (Espino Calderon,2007), wrote,
As a native speaker I had a hard time understanding Espino Calderon’s idea aboutcreating access to content area vocabulary when designing a lesson for EnglishLanguage Learners (ELL). However, the other day I was substituting for a Historyteacher in a high school and half way through his lesson plan I observed that thestudents were lost. I stopped and asked them about it. And they told me that they werehaving a hard time following the lesson because the vocabulary was too difficult. Then
Teaching Education 299
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
I decided to go online to find pictures to explain the vocabulary. The change on theirfaces was amazing. From being bored, they began to ask questions and becameengaged with the concept that was being taught.
Reading Katy’s reflection, it is evident that her choice to change the lesson wasbased on a reflective process when analyzing Espino Calderon’s research onEnglish Language Learners (ELL). Katy’s personal experiences had constructed ateaching style based on the idea that vocabulary is a given when teachingcontent. However, connecting research and her experiences as a classroom teacherallowed Katy to rethink, to redesign her pedagogy as a classroom teacher.Content-area vocabulary, which she had taken for granted, became a priority inher teaching. Valdés (2001) identifies these transformations of teaching practicesas the essence of philosophies of education guided to make a difference in thestudents’ learning processes.
From the last perspective, playing the role of an administrator and/orpolicy-maker, teacher candidates reflected on the readings from a broader point ofview. It is crucial when understanding theory and practice that teacher candidatessee beyond their own classrooms. Successful practices are the ones that can beduplicated, with adaptations, in other settings. Genesis, a multiple subject candidate,when reflecting on one of the chapters of Scaffolding Language, ScaffoldingLearning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom(Gibbons, 2002), wrote,
Reading about field, tenor and mode as contextual factors that define language, Ithought about an ideal principal who knows the field – meaning she knows about whatteachers are doing. She also knows the tenor of relationships between teachers, staff,parents and students. And she also knows about the mode, how to effectivelycommunicate with everyone. All these principles can also be applied when designingeffective classroom management.
Genesis’s linking of theory and practice epitomizes the goal of QEJ, which is toconstruct comprehensive practices that include the views of all the participants inthe learning process (Tulloch, 2001). Moreover, Genesis’ words display whatBransford, Darling-Hammond, and LePage (2005) describe as an essential skill forbeginning teachers, which is the “need to have a command of critical ideas andskills, and, equally important, the capacity to reflect” (p. 3). Genesis’s reflectionmakes it evident that her ability to critically read and reflect on Gibbons’s book wascreating the foundation of a knowledgeable classroom management style andphilosophy of education.
The argument of theory from different perspectives helped candidates to refinethe effectiveness of their pedagogies. Oftentimes, we educators find ourselvesduplicating and/or eliminating what we experienced as students, what we saw otherteachers doing, and what administrators tried to implement in schools. On the otherhand, teaching is in some sense the art of refining and questioning previouspractices. If candidates have to create theory-based practices, they have to argue.The idea of reading and just teaching what you read results in an educational systemwhere teachers just follow “teacher’s guides” instead of being creators of their ownpractices. A reflective teacher must argue before she/he teaches. Rewriting Kant’sideas on enlightenment: a reflective teacher is a scholar before she/he faces theteaching world.
300 F. Rodriguez-Valls
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Step three: cooperative learning
In the third stage of QEJ, teacher candidates reflect on their peers’ reflections.Dunlosky and Metcalfe (2009) explain that a first reflection on a written textproduces a meta-cognitive knowledge including “those facts and beliefs … that [aperson] can state verbally” (p. 2). In order to extend the depth of this initialreflection, teacher candidates pondered their classmates’ considerations in the thirdcolumn. The goal was to build a cognitive bridge between the first personal, internalreflection with a second collective, external reflection product (Ming Tsang, 2007).The challenge in this process was to be prepared to listen what others have said andwritten, but most importantly to reflect on another person’s thoughts, valuing theseideas equally as the ones stated by the author of the required reading.
Valentina, a teacher candidate, describes the aforesaid challenge:
It is easier for me to reflect on what the author said than to reflect on what myclassmates are saying. The first reflection is somehow impersonal; reflecting on myclassmates’ thoughts involves overcoming that the writer [the classmate] is sitting nextto me.
Acknowledging the difficulty in accurately perceiving the comments of one’speers, I established that the goal of this new level of reflection was to create thespace where every candidate would listen and challenge their peers, constructivelyresponding to reflections written by others. I anticipated that actively listening,analyzing, and challenging the reflections of others would generate communicativeactions to find meaning and a collaborative understanding about the nature ofeffective teaching (Habermas, 2001). Kuh, Chen, and Laird (2007) considerparticularly important this second level of metacognition to promote among students[teacher candidates] “deep approaches to learning … in ways that help them makequalitative distinctions about the merits of data [research]-based claims or thepersuasiveness of logic-based arguments [made by other teacher candidates]”(p. 40). Teacher candidates’ responding to their classmates’ reflections from the twoviewpoints highlighted by Kuh et al. (2007) – data-based assertions and/orlogic-based arguments – help to build the essence of a learning community amongteacher candidates. When measuring the value and the articulateness of thestatements made by their classmates, teacher candidates analyzed those two conceptsbased on the applicability of such statements when designing lesson plans.
Ramon, a multiple subject teacher candidate, explained the value of this secondlevel of reflection stating,
When I was reading and reflecting on Armando’s reflection, I felt like adding newmeaning to my reflection on Gibbons’s (2002) definition of scaffolding. His analysis ofGibbons’s idea helped me to understand better the difference between supportingstudents’ learning and scaffolding new concepts. I will definitely use his (Armando’s)analysis when writing my lesson plans.
Reading Ramon’s words and others shared by their classmates, it is evident that thethird column of QEJ promoted the idea of teacher candidates as enduring learnerswho are constantly refining their analysis of research and theory by comparing theirown investigations with that of colleagues. Furthermore, the second level ofmetacognition – reflections on reflections – permitted teacher candidates to integrateinto their practices not only their own views on the theory and research but also the
Teaching Education 301
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
reflections of their peers on the same topics. Zoraida, a multiple subject candidate,emphasizes the long-term positive effects of reflection and learning to sharequestions and insights with colleagues:
A key aspect of reflection is accepting constructive criticism from peers or colleagues.Setting all egos aside and listening and learning from what others might say is a goodattribute to possess because others may see things in a different light. This outcome isimportant to me because I want my students to leave my classroom with a betterunderstanding of the content that I am teaching. Educating others is a learning processin which I will need to be flexible and willing to change … I want to improve myteaching practices through soliciting feedback and engaging in cooperative planning,teaching, reflecting, and applying new strategies. In addition, utilizing reflection andfeedback to devise and organize goals in order to enhance my teaching effectivenesswill prepare me in becoming a better teacher.
Hence, the requirement to present one’s reflections to classmates not only had theeffect of eliciting further thinking through broadening the conversation, but it alsohad the effect of establishing a strong collaborative professionalism.
Step four: applicability of theory
After reading, “talking” to the author, and listening to others, candidates are tobridge the first three columns with what happens in a real classroom. Ball (2000)underscores the idea of providing spaces where teachers can translate knowledgeinto practice as a key factor for effective teaching. The fourth column of QEJ asksteacher candidates to articulate how they would utilize the ideas they had gatheredthrough their critical reading and multiple levels of reflection when they designedlesson plans. In this column, teacher candidates described how the ideas in the read-ings would inform the choices they would make when creating activities that ensureeffective and differentiated instruction for a full range of learners (including ELLsand Special Education students). This last component of the reflection sequence builtthrough QEJ offers candidates the opportunity to show, rephrasing Payne andSchad’s (2003) analysis of literary studies, that effective teaching follows criticallyreading and analyzing theory.
Providing teacher candidates with the opportunity, prior to designing their lessonplans, to visualize how the theory and research which they had analyzed individuallyand as a group through QEJ would support their teaching practices, eased the pro-cess of linking theory with practice. The QEJ process is congruent with the observa-tion made by Wells (1999): “Knowledge construction and theory development mostfrequently occur in the context of a problem of some significance and take the formof a dialogue in which solutions are proposed and responded to with additions andextensions or objections and counterproposals from others” (p. 51). Throughout thethree semesters that this reflection process – QEJ – was implemented, manycandidates shared that the struggle when conceptualizing lesson plans was neither toidentify strategies nor to create activities; the challenge had been to link theory andresearch with classroom practices. Santos, the multiple subject teacher candidatewho initially saw theory and practice as “two different ball games”, wrote later inthe semester, “Writing about how theory and research would look in my classroomis not only helping to link those two with my idea of teaching, but it is also openingnew opportunities for why, what and how I want to teach.” Richard and Renandya
302 F. Rodriguez-Valls
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
(2002) define this transformation as the process teachers take to replace the idea offinding an ideal method of teaching for the continuous search for an effectivepedagogy. They explain that “[method] implies a static set of procedures, whereas[pedagogy] suggests the dynamic interplay between teachers, learners, and instruc-tional materials during the process of teaching and learning” (p. 6).
Teacher candidates who reflected on theory, listened to how others responded tothe ideas, and applied those reflections to design practices, seamlessly began todevelop individual pedagogies, which guided their ability to link their teachingpractices with theory and research. An example of this continuum of reflections thatdemonstrates the development of a strong theoretical foundation of teachingpractices was the QEJ of Clara (Figure 2), a single-subject candidate, reflecting onReal Reading, Real Writing: Content-Area Strategies (Topping & McManus, 2002):
Clara’s progression from posing questions on Topping & McManus’s book todrafting the underlying guidelines of her planning was informed by her ability toreflect on theory as well as the capacity to listen and learn from her classmates.These two abilities laid the foundation to develop teaching practices based on theidea that effective teachers read, think, and reflect before they teach (Ryan &Cooper, 2007). Establishing the idea of thinking before teaching helped teachercandidates to understand that developing a pedagogy of teaching is a personalinquiry in which teacher candidates ask questions to find answers that will informtheir practices, rather than a passive absorption of strategies and activitiestransmitted by the instructor. The last column of QEJ fueled teaching practices witha personal and cooperative in-depth reflection on the link between theory andpractice, which helped to close the gap for teacher candidates who had initially
Figure 2. Teaching after theory.
Teaching Education 303
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
visualized theory as a set of principles and practice as a group of actions. WithinQEJ, theory and practice coexisted in a symbiotic relationship to sustain the ideathat one is a scholar prior to becoming a teacher.
Outcomes
Of course one hopes that the ultimate outcome of such a practice as the QEJ is ateacher who is a lifelong reflective practitioner, who reads and thinks critically, whounderstands the needs of her/his own real-life students, and who collaborates withcolleagues to develop and deliver meaningful content to her/his own students.Whether this ultimate outcome is a possibility can be suggested by the outcomesthus far observed in the candidates’ own self-assessment, the coursework for theMethods class, and actual classroom practice.
More than eighty percent of teacher candidates evaluating the effectiveness ofQEJ underscored in their SLOs how this assignment had enriched their pedagogy ontwo different levels. They first explained how reflecting on theory drew a muchclearer link between theory and practice. This connection solidified the idea thatteacher candidates valued the importance of having a strong theoretical foundationfor their teaching practices (Krippendroff, 2005). Secondly, they saw the possibilityof applying QEJ to promote critical thinking when teaching their future students.This reinforced the idea of transferring learning experiences developed in theTeaching Credential Program to K-12 classrooms. It became clear that criticalthinking is an essential, not optional, part of assuming teacher responsibilities.Manu, a single-subject teacher candidate, emphasized the importance of criticalanalysis when he wrote,
Accepting whatever material I am reading, as being valid, could be fairly devastating,not because of the effects it will have on me, but more importantly the effects it couldpotentially have on my students. They would by extension unintentionally come tolearn whatever I believed to be accurate, which although was not presented incorrectpurposefully, it would still be incorrect. This is why it is also important for me as aneducator to teach my students how to critically reflect and analyze information on theirown because in doing so the student gets to construct his or her own convictions aboutthe topic.
Manu’s comment illustrates the effect QEJ had on teacher candidates’ emergingpedagogies.
It appears that teacher candidates did benefit from this reflective process thatasked them to read, reflect, expand, and apply theory when constructing theirclassroom practices.
In the Methods classes, the main objectives teacher candidates should masterthroughout the semester are correlated to the common goal that the TPAs requireteacher candidates to master, which is to critically analyze and reflect on theoryand to explicitly explain the link between theory and teaching practices. QEJ isone of several assignments for the class, but it is an ongoing weekly assignment.Discrete assignments include Testimonios, lesson plans, and a case study.Moreover, candidates are required to draw on what they write in the QEJ tosupport their arguments in the other assignments. Having QEJ as the nexus acrossassignments provides candidates with an opportunity to relate the readings, theirreflections, and the reflections others have on their thinking with the specific
304 F. Rodriguez-Valls
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
requirements of each assignment. For example, when writing Testimonios, a paperin which students reflect on their experiences as K-12 students, a candidate mayexpand the narrative of these experiences by identifying whether their formerteachers utilized some of the strategies explained in their readings and analyzedin their reflections.
When reflecting on the practicality and effectiveness of their coursework, teachercandidates were asked to touch upon three topics: were the assignments useful todevelop your pedagogy? If they were, how can you duplicate some of theseassignments when teaching your students? And why are they important in develop-ing your pedagogy? If the assignments lacked the informative impact that I hadexpected when designing them, the teacher candidates and I searched for moreeffective ways to meet their needs as future educators. The main goal for our jointanalysis of SLOs was, once again, to cultivate the idea that reflecting on teaching isthe first step toward efficacy (Allen & Casbergue, 1998).
The extent to which such exercises carry over to actual practice can bemeasured when I watch former students in their own classrooms. In fact, theexperiences of these new teachers are shared with the current class. Every semester,I invite former teacher candidates who were enrolled in my methods courses to sharetheir insights on how they transitioned from the Teaching Credential Program totheir first job as classroom teachers. The main goal of these presentations is toprovide teacher candidates with examples from the daily life of a classroom teacher,where having a clear understanding of how theory and practice are linked hasimproved their practices. An example of this was Esperanza’s presentation to theteacher candidates. Esperanza is a third grade teacher in one of the local schools andwhen she came to talk to the teacher candidates, she explained:
When I was taking the methods class, many times, I thought, why is it so important toknow the theory behind my teaching. For me the connection between reading, thinkingand doing was not clear. I wanted strategies. Now that I am teaching, I can see theoryreflected in my lesson plans, especially when I review my lessons. To meet the needsof all my students I have to be knowledgeable; and knowledge starts with theory.
It appears, reading Esperanza’s words and comments made by other candidates whosuccessfully passed their TPAs, that the QEJ helped them to critically analyze andreflect on theory and clarified to them the link between theory and teachingpractices. It is true that most of the candidates became more fully aware of theimportance of linking theory with practice once they began to work in theirclassrooms and with their own students. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the QEJprepared the students by planting the seeds of critical analysis, reflection on theory,and the link between theory and practice.
When candidates completed their TPAs, they utilized the tools exploredthroughout QEJ. When I asked several candidates who had taken my literacymethods courses and successfully completed their TPAs if QEJ had helped themwhen writing their TPAs, most of them concurred that working on the QEJ was aneye-opening experience in approaching theory with appreciation. Estefania, amultiple subject candidate, shared, “When I was writing my TPA, I went back andchecked several of my QEJ entries. Reviewing my reflections built a context for myanswers. Reading what I had written and what others wrote responding to myreflections added an extra edge to my answers.”
Teaching Education 305
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conclusions
Educating the new generation of teachers has encouraged faculty working inTeaching Credential Programs to review past practices in light of new measures; thesuccess of teaching in K-12 settings has been increasingly defined by accountabilityin teaching performance and student achievement. Out of this analysis and to alignpractices with the requirements set by CTC, the technique of using QEJ wasdesigned to ensure that teacher candidates in Teaching Credential Programs inCalifornia have the tools and knowledge to critically read and analyze theory and tolink this to classroom practices. QEJ aims to strengthen the theoretical foundationthat teacher candidates have when developing lesson plans that meet the needs of alltheir students.
Teacher candidates are constantly reminded that becoming an outstanding teacheris a lifelong experience, yet oftentimes they are rushed to show proficiency whenthey are still emerging and progressing in their search for effective pedagogies.Teacher candidates enter Teaching Credential Programs looking for paths thatreinforce their dreams of becoming effective teachers. They come with theirpreconceived ideas on teaching, which are the product of their experiences asstudents and the outcome of a vast array of interactions with other educationalagents (i.e. principals, counselors, instructional assistants). Our role as faculty shouldbe to develop assignments in which teacher candidates can support or refute theirunderstanding of theory and research by constantly refining and expanding suchideas. Through this process, as explained in this article, teacher candidates developsystematic pedagogies, understanding that meaningful and effective teaching is morethan a simple idea taught in the classroom. Exemplary teaching comes fromscholarly analysis of research and theory to be fused with classroom practices.
The implementation of QEJ is a work in progress intended to open a more fluidchannel between theory and practice. The implementation of QEJ changed over thefive semesters, in which I utilized this assignment in my methods courses. Listeningto the students, watching them interact, and analyzing theory has given me manyideas on how to modify, adapt, and tailor this assignment to meet the needs of mystudents. Every semester, I shared with my students what the previous studentsthought about this assignment. Moreover, I explain the theory behind QEJ. The veryprocess of sharing past experiences and how these have reshaped the assignment hashelped me to model the message that any given classroom practice, even if it is wellsupported with theory, must have the prospect of being reconstructed.
Note1. All people’s names in this article are pseudonyms.
ReferencesAllen, R. M., & Casbergue, R. M. (1998). Evolution of novice through expert teachers’
recall: Implications for effective reflection on practice. Teaching and Teacher Education,13, 741–755.
Ayers, W. (2005). Teaching toward freedom. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Badiou, A., & Zizek, S. (2009). Philosophy in the present. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and
learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241–247.
306 F. Rodriguez-Valls
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond,J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds.), Preparing teachers for achanging world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1–39). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2006). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in theclassroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brookhart, S. M. (2009). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Codell, E. R. (2009). Educating Esmé: Diary of a teacher’s first year. New York, NY:Algonquin Books.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal ofTeacher Education, 57(2), 1–15.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2005). A good teacher in every classroom:Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Espino Calderon, M. (2007). Teaching reading to English Language Learners, grades 6–12:
A framework for improving achievement in the content areas. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
Francis, P. (2009). Inspiring writing in art and design: Taking a line for a write. Bristol:Intellect Books.
Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can doabout it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural and critical consciousness andself-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42, 181–187.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second languagelearners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Green, P. (2001). Critical literacy revisited. In H. Fehring & P. Green (Eds.), Critical literacy:A collection of articles from the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association (pp. 40–57).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Habermas, J. (2001). On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in thetheory of communicative action. (B. Fultner, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
hooks, b. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. New York, NY: Routledge.Krippendroff, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL:
Taylor & Francis Group.Kuh, G. D., Chen, D., & Laird, T. F. N. (2007). Why teacher-scholars matter: Some insights
from FSSE and NSSE. Liberal Education, 93, 40–45.Markline, J. (1999). Thinking on paper: A reading-writing process workbook. Florence, KY:
Wadsworth.McGee, P. (2009). Theory and the common from Marx to Badiou. New York, NY: Palgrave
MacMillan.McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. L. (2004). Critical literacy: Enhancing students’
comprehension of text. New York, NY: Teaching Resources.Ming Tsang, N. (2007). Reflection as dialogue. Journal of Social Work, 37, 681–694.Murray, M., & Kujundzic, N. (2005). Critical Reflection: A textbook for critical thinking.
Québec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Payne, M., & Schad, J. (2003). Life after theory. London: Continuum.Purcell-Gates, V. (1997). Other people’s words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.Richard, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Approaches to teaching. In J. C. Richard & W. A.
Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice(pp. 1–5). Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Ryan, K., & Cooper, J. M. (2007). Those who can, teach. Boston, MA: Wadsworth CengageLearning.
Topping, D. H., & McManus, R. A. (2002). Real reading, real writing: Content-areastrategies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Teaching Education 307
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Tulloch, M. (2001). Promoting comprehensive education. In C. Chitty & B. Simon (Eds.),Promoting comprehensive education in the 21st century (pp. 25–36). London: TrenthamBooks.
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Valli, L. (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques. New York, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.
Vasquez, V. M. (2004). Negotiating literacies with young children. New York, NY:Routledge.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory ofeducation. Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
308 F. Rodriguez-Valls
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
Car
olin
a] a
t 14:
16 1
1 N
ovem
ber
2014