This article was downloaded by: [Marshall University]On: 13 August 2013, At: 06:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Reflective Theory and Practice: AConstructivist Process for Curriculumand Instructional DecisionsEdward Jadallah aa Bowling Green State University, USA

To cite this article: Edward Jadallah (1996) Reflective Theory and Practice: A ConstructivistProcess for Curriculum and Instructional Decisions, Action in Teacher Education, 18:2, 73-85, DOI:10.1080/01626620.1996.10462835

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1996.10462835

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

Action in Teacher Education Summer 1996, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, pp. 73-85

Reflective Theory and Practice: A Constructivist Process for Curriculum and Instructional Decisions

Edward Jadallah Bowling Green State University

Abstract

This study investigated the reflective insights secondary education preservice teachers constructed about their curriculum and instructional practices during a teacher education course and related field experiences. The course was grounded by the principles and assumptions of a constructivist learning theory in which meaning is constructed through the reflective analysis of experiences. A qualitiative research design was used for the data collection and analysis of six preservice teachers' lesson plans, reflective analysis papers, videotaped lessons, and interviews. A dialectical process followed throughout the interviews served as a catalyst for reflection and allowed the preservice teachers to explore the conceptual understandings being constructed about their experiences. Through these discussions the meanings of ideas were explored and interrelationships between teacher's ideas and practices were examined for clarity and consistency.

Throughout the last decade there has been an emphasis in teacher education on the relevance of reflective practice to pedagogy (Adler, 1991; Goodman, 1986; Ross, 1992; Schon, 1987; Tom, 1985; Valli, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). It is believed that through a reflective process teachers can make curriculum and instructional decisions most appropriate for a particular learning context (Beyer, 1992; Jadallah, 1994; McCutcheon, 1992). This premise is based on the reality that individual students, classrooms, and schools have diverse educational needs and interests. Therefore, if teachers are expected to make sound curriculum and instructional decisions,they must develop their ability to reflectively analyze and evaluate teaching and learning contexts. If one agrees with this premise teacher education programs need to involve preservice teachers in learning experiences which promote reflective practice. The basic questions in this endeavor are how to make conceptual understandings of reflective practice into operationalized learning experiences and to determine whether reflective practice actually contributes to a teacher's ability to reason and justify curriculum and instructional decisions that are most appropriate for a particular educational context.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reflective insights secondary education preservice teachers construct about their curriculum and instructional practices during a teaching education course and related field experiences. The course incorporated specific learning activities designed to involve preservice teachers in a reflective analysis of teaching and learning. The concept of the teacher as a reflective practitioner and the assumptions, principles, and values of a constructivist learning philosophy (Fosnot, 1989; O'Loughlin, 1991; Wertsch, 1991) provided

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

the educational framework for this course. The focus was to challenge preservice teachers to examine the beliefs, values, and ideas that shape their conceptual and operational definitions of teaching and learning. Reflective practice involved them in the "active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends" (Dewey, 1933, p. 46). The ultimate outcome of this reflective practice is to evaluate how one's decisions contribute to individual and societal welfare and to be proactive in developing educational practices that are equitable, meaningful, and relevant for students and society (Ayers, 1992; Giroux, 1990; Green, 1986; McLaren, 1987; Zeichner, 1992).

Course Description

This course involved secondary education preservice teachers in examining and developing their knowledge and skills of curriculum and instructional practices. The course was comprised of a weekly seminar and a field experience at a local junior high school. These course components were interrelated through assignments and activities which involved preservice teachers in examining the assumptions and principles that undergird personal and formal theories of curriculum and instruction. The two hour weekly seminar involved preservice teachers in examining and evaluating the implications curriculum and instructional decisions have for student learning. Their field experience observations and teaching experiences became the substance for seminar discussions.

During the field experience, along with their varied responsibilities as a teacher's aide, students completed three specific course assignments. They included the planning and teaching of four formal lesson plans, writing a reflective analysis paper on the teaching and learning interactions that occur in each lesson, and developing a portfolio that documented and explained the value of their participation in specific field experience activities. All of these assignments were interrelated with the particular themes discussed during seminars. For example, themes related to learning styles, motivation and learning, and questioning and discussion involved the preservice teachers in interpreting theory as it related to actual curriculum and instructional practices. Each lesson was videotaped so that a careful and thorough review of the teaching and learning interactions could be made. Following each review, a reflective analysis paper was written which involved a thoughtful critique of the personal and formal theories that guided lesson planning and instructional practices. The paper was designed to integrate the three goals of reflective practice that were previously identified. These teaching experiences and subsequent reflective analyses provided opportunity for each preservice teacher to construct meaning about teaching and learning on the basis of their own particular experiences within the context of a specific classroom. This constructivist learning process continued to evolve through seminar discussions where the preservice teachers discussed and questioned theory in relation to their experiences. The knowledge gained from these experiences guided the planning and teaching of subsequent lessons. Learning about teaching thus becomes, as Dewey (1938) once stated, "a continuity of experience.

Methodology

A basic assumption of this study was that teachers actively construct theories about teaching and learning as they interpret the interactions that occur within their classrooms and school contexts (O'Loughlin, 1989, 1992). In essence, the preservice teachers in this study were involved in constructing and reconstructing their understandings of what it means to teach and learn. Therefore, it was important to use a research methodology that would allow for the ideas,

74

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

beliefs, values, attitudes, and perspectives of the participants to emerge and evolve throughout the course of the study. Considering the focus and nature of this study, qualitative research methods with an emphasis on an interpretive research design provided the most appropriate research methodology.

Participants

The course Theory and Practice of Secondary Education provided the framework for this study. The study was explained during the first class meeting, and all sixteen preservice teachers who were enrolled in the course volunteered to participate. The volunteers included twelve females and four males with six concentrations in mathematics, four in science, four in social studies, and two in English. From the sixteen participants, a sample population was selected using a purposeful sampling strategy which Patton (1990) refers to as maximum variation sampling. The purpose of this strategy was to identify intentionally individuals who represented varied experiences and perspectives within the common course and field experience structure. This form of purposeful sampling allowed the investigator to explore the variations in the preservice teachers' experiences and to identify the mutually common experiences. The actual sample population included two preservice teachers in science, two in social studies, one in English, and one in mathematics. Three of the sample participants were female and three were male.

Data Collection and Analysis

The specific methods used for data collection and analysis are based on qualitative research designs described by Guba and Lincoln (1989), Glaser and Strauss (1967), Patton (1990) and Strauss and Corbin (1990). Data collection techniques included document analysis, observations of videotaped lessons, and formal and informal interviews. The documents included the preservice teachers' four lesson plans and their written reflective analysis of each lesson. These documents provided the main source of information regarding the preservice teachers' reflective insights into their curriculum and instructional decisions. The four lesson plans and subsequent reflective analysis papers were distributed throughout the sixteen week term. This provided the researcher with an emerging description of the evolvement of the preservice teachers' ideas and perspectives. The lesson plans and videotaped lessons provided the researcher with specific examples of their curriculum and instructional practices, and the reflective analysis papers provided insight into their understanding and interpretation of the teaching and learning processes that occurred in their lessons.

The lesson plans and reflective analysis papers were examined using a constant comparative method of data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Excerpts from the lesson plans and reflective analysis papers were first coded into tentative conceptual categories. Through the constant comparison and analysis of the data, specific themes, categories, and patterns emerged and in some instances the initial categories were reconstructed or integrated with other categories.

Throughout the primary document analyses one formal (audio taped) and two informal interviews were conducted in which the preservice teacher discussed his or her curriculum and instructional decisions with the researcher. The interviews used an open-ended questioning strategy and the tentative analysis of each preservice teacher's lesson plans and reflective analyses served as a questioning source. The formal interviews were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. The analysis of these interviews followed the guidelines for open coding suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990). The interviews served two important purposes. One was to further explore and

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

clarify the preservice teachers' ideas, assumptions, and principles which guided their curriculum and instructional decisions. Through the interview process, the researcher was able to develop a better understanding of the preservice teachers' perceptions and interpretations of their teaching and learning processes. The second purpose of the interview was to develop a member check (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). A member check provides a way to check the credibility and trustworthiness of the researcher's interpretation of the data. Throughout the interview process the researcher shared the conceptual categories and interpretations that were being constructed through an analysis of the lesson plans and reflective analysis papers. The preservice teachers were encouraged to support, refute, or modify the researcher's interpretation of the data. Hence, the interview data served to generate new information and clarified the perceptions and interpretations that emerged throughout the study.

Data Interpretation

Through an analysis of the research data three themes emerged which served to classify the preservice teachers' insights into their curriculum and instructional practices. It is important to note that although the focus is mainly on teaching methods, it is within the context of their interpretation and application of these methods where one finds relevant distinctions. Concerns, issues, and questions regarding how and why particular methods of instruction might influence student learning within a particular social and educational context became the real focus of their reflective insights. Fictitious names are used when reporting the narrative data.

Ouestioning and Learning

Questioning students was identified as a foundational cornerstone for developing lessons that were meaningful and relevant to students' needs and interests. Teachers' and students' questions were perceived as essential for promoting meaningful learning. Through a questioning process the preservice teacher could promote and challenge students' thinking; increase students' motivation to learn by relating the content to their interests and past experiences; examine students' perspectives and understandings; and involve students in constructing their own understandings through inquiry. These insights were expressed throughout the preservice teachers' reflective analyses. However, through a careful examination of the six sample participants' lesson plans and videotaped lessons, specific distinctions were found in how the preservice teachers actually interpreted and applied a questioning process. The translation of a theoretical idea, questioning students to stimulate thinking, into practical teaching applications took on varied interpretations.

Emily and Lauren, both science educators, emphasized the relevance of involving students in a questioning process to promote "higher order thinking. "

In my lesson I tried to elicit higher order thinking than just simple recall. I asked more convergent questions as opposed to just cognitive memory questions. For example, I asked questions like, When cumulonimbus clouds accompany a cold front, what type of weather do you think results?" Thus asking them to establish a relationship between cold fronts, clouds, and resulting weather. This forced them to discover for themselves how such things were related, beginning the movement from concrete operations into formal operations. (Reflective Analysis Paper # 1 , Lauren)

Lauren's insight into the significance of questioning to learning is clearly articulated through the use of key concepts derived from her understanding of formal theory. The concepts

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

of guided discovery, intrinsic motivation, higher order thinking, convergent questions, and formal operations are all used in an informative and accurate context. Based on the insight demonstrated in her reflective analysis, one might assume that her lessons involved students in much higher- order thinking and guided discovery. An analysis of her lesson plans and observations of her videotaped lessons supported this conclusion. The following excerpt from her first lesson illustrates how she combined experiential activities and a questioning process to involve her students in thinking about the lesson's concepts.

Ask them to imagine that the room is a galaxy, and that I am an astronaut--the astronaut of the sun's past. I will be taking them on a journey through the sun's life, from its birth to its death.. . .Walking through the classroom, now a galaxy, I will describe the conditions before the sun was born. I will encounter gas and dust particles. The students sitting at their desks will serve as these particles ... I will go back into the galaxy and tell the students that there are very dense pockets of matter inside the nebula. Ask the class what causes this? (Lesson Plan # 1, Lauren)

Emily also emphasized the relevance of questioning to student thinking.

The questions I asked were dispersed throughout the entire lesson in order to keep the students actively involved in the learning process. Asking questions is a strong point in my lessons. I do this to keep the students actively thinking throughout the lesson. Although I am pleased with the number of questions, I noticed that throughout the lesson I never asked the students if they understood the concept I was explaining. Often the questions I asked are of little importance to the purpose of the lesson, but are used only as a tool to motivate listening. (Reflective Analysis Paper # 1, Emily)

Similar to Lauren, Emily emphasizes the relevance of using a questioning process to "keep the students actively thinking throughout the lesson." An analysis of her lesson plans and observations of her videotaped lessons provided a clearer and more detailed description of how the questioning process was translated into a more direct lecture approach with an emphasis on factual questions and telling students information.

Ask students how they think a simple animal that looks like a plant can build up a reef (student responds then teacher gives mini lecture). Ask students how they think algae benefit from living in th'e pores of coral (student responds then teacher gives mini lecture). Ask students if they think the algae living in the coral harms or helps the coral live (student responds then teacher gives mini lecture). Ask students how they think it benefits the coral to have the algae live in it (student responds then teacher gives mini lecture). (Lesson Plan # 1, Emily)

In their reflective analyses, both Lauren and Emily emphasized the importance of involving students in a questioning process to promote higher order thinking. However, their lesson plans demonstrated different interpretations regarding how to translate theory into practice. Their application of a questioning process involved different ways of learning and promoted different levels of thinking. These differences between expressed theory and actual instructional practices were explored throughout the interview process with all six participants. The preservice teachers were asked to explain how their lessons promoted student thinking through questioning. Naturally, the responses to this inquiry were as varied as the actual lesson plans. However, when comparing a preservice teacher's interview data with his or her reflective analysis and lesson plan

77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

data a relatively constant theme began to emerge. The preservice teachers who could go beyond the use of conceptual labels and clearly explain their reasoning for using a questioning process to promote thinking were more likely to involve students in experiential learning and include divergent and evaluative questions throughout their lessons. This was exemplified throughout the analysis of Lauren's lessons and reflective analysis data. Or, as in Emily's case, those preservice teachers who could use academic terminology but had difficulty clarifying their reasoning were more likely to use factual knowledge type questions through a direct lecture/discussion process.

Motivation and Learning

The importance of creating a learning environment in which students were motivated to learn was another theme which emerged in five of the six sample participants' reflective analyses. Their analyses focused on how curriculum and instructional methods aroused students' interests and motivated them to become involved in the learning process. The preservice teachers related student motivation to the extent a lesson promoted active participation; subject matter which caused students to experience cognitive dissonance; and subject matter which related to students' past experiences.

Through a careful examination of the reflective analyses, it became evident that two of the preservice teachers had very narrow and specific ideas regarding how motivation affected student learning. They emphasized involvement in the lesson as the primary indicator of student motivation. The assumption was that by being actively involved in the lesson the students were demonstrating their motivation. The idea of actively involving students in the learning process was advocated throughout course discussions and in many of the assigned readings. Therefore, it was not surprising that this idea would be applied in the preservice teachers' lessons. However, the interpretation that "active involvement" in and of itself constituted student motivation indicated either an incomplete understanding of the theory or selective application of particular ideas.

One of the most important things in teaching is involving the students in your lesson. If you do not involve your students, you will more than likely lose their interest. I tried to involve as many students as I could by calling on them for answers and by asking them to do problems on the board. (Reflective Analysis # 2, Phillip)

In the follow-up interviews the preservice teachers were asked to clarify their reasoning for actively involving students in their lessons. Both Phillip's and Emily's responses focused more on a concern for controlling and managing the classroom than on motivation and learning. A review of their lesson plans and videotaped lessons indicated that they defined motivation simply by the amount of student participation and did not design lessons that attempted to create cognitive dissonance or relate to their students' past experiences. In contrast to this limited perception of motivation and learning, Jordan and Jim developed a more holistic understanding which incorporated the idea of active involvement with students' needs and interests. A review of their reflective analyses demonstrated an understanding that motivation to learn is related to the particular needs and interests of their students.

As I opened my lesson, I immediately tried to gain the students' interest. I did this by using factual examples to relate the use of ratios to their daily lives. As I asked about their outside activities, I immediately gained their attention. My activity encouraged students to begin the lesson by drawing on some of their past experiences. By relating the information to their past, I was able to make the lesson much more meaningful to them.

78

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

I hoped that this intrinsic motivation would help the students to create new schemata by buiding on what they already knew. (Reflective Analysis # 3, Jim)

A review of Jim's lesson plans and videotaped lessons demonstrated active invovlement along with student interest. Motivating student learning was conceptually and operationally defined as involving students in the lesson by relating it to their particular interests and needs. Creating a classroom environment that is conducive for student learning was related to the preservice teacher's ability to relate the subject matter to students' prior knowledge and past experiences. During Jordan's and Jim's interviews they cited questioning strategies, use of examples, and providing relevant and meaningful experiences as ways of using the student's frame of reference to construct new understandings.

Learning Stvles

The ability to design lessons which accommodated students' varied learning styles was another category which emerged in four of the six sample participants' reflective analyses. In these analyses the focus was on how to present subject matter in ways that accommodated a variety of senses. The methods of instruction should be varied and provide auditory, visual, and tactile sensory experiences in order to accommodate and strengthen varied learning styles. The assumption was that a teacher would increase the probability for most students to learn by using methods of instruction which accommodated all of the senses.

Learning style theories were discussed during seminars and were included in the assigned readings. Through our discussions we reviewed how the senses and the particular developmental characteristics of students can play an important role in student learning. However, in reviewing the lesson plan, reflective analysis data, and subsequent interview data, two of the sample participants made no reference to the developmental characteristics of students. Instead, they limited their interpretation to the idea of using methods of instruction that provided varied sensory learning experiences.

Another way I tried to facilitate learning was the use of stimulus variation. In class, we discussed the different learning styles present in the classroom. Consequently, I tried to adapt my teaching methods by using worksheets and overheads for visual learners while using lecture and group discussion for auditory learners. This not only allowed each student to learn in the manner most comfortable for him or her,but also allowed them to practice skills in other learning styles. (Reflective Analysis Paper # 3, Kathy)

During the interviews, both Kathy and Jim were asked to explain further the relevance of their instructional practices to student learning styles. Their responses focused mainly on the idea that, because students learn in different ways, teachers need to provide varied learning experiences. Their focus was limited to "teaching practices" or the "how to" aspects of learning style theory. They both had difficulty explaining the relationship between the developmental characteristics of students and their learning styles. In essence, the depth of their understanding of learning style theory appeared to be limited to the idea that a teacher should provide varied sensory learning experiences simply because this increased the probability that most students would learn.

A more indepth interpretation of learning style theory was expressed in the reflective analyses written by Emily and Lauren. They identified the significance of varying instructional practices and related their ideas to the particular developmental characteristics of their students.

79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

In other words, they were able to explain "how to" provide varied learning experiences and "why" these instructional practices were appropriate for their particular students.

Many students had trouble understanding the relative humidity table when 1 was explaining how to use it. I passed one out to each of them,but this was not enough. Because many students at this age are visual learners, I should have used an overhead of the table in explaining how to use it. This would have provided the students with a concrete visual experience, thus leading to a better understanding. (Reflective Analysis Paper # 2, Emily)

During the interviews, both Emily and Lauren expressed the importance of providing students with varied sensory learning experiences and recognized the relevance of learning styles to students' developmental characteristics.

The middle school philosophy is based on the idea that the student is a transescent learner. That is , they are in-between the elementary level and the high school level. They are undergoing many growth changes, including physical, social, mental, and emotional. These developmental characteristics will influence the way students learn and each student may have a specific learning style strength.. . . . The learning style theory recognizes the differences among students and how they learn best. These differences are not discriminated against, but are positive aspects to the learning process. By creating lessons that have a variety of techniques, you are accounting for the various learning styles of your students. (Interview # 1, Lauren)

Implications of the Study

As depicted in the preceding data analysis, the preservice teachers perceived themselves as responsible for creating a learning environment which facilitated student learning. Their analyses focused mainly on how their curriculum and instructional practices influenced teaching and learning processes. This focus was limited in that very little attention was given to the social, cultural, and economic factors that also affected student learning. Of course, the preservice teachers were limited in the amount of time they spent at their field experience site, which made it difficult for them to develop a thorough understanding of individual students' backgrounds and of the particular classroom and school characteristics. Consequently, the preservice teachers focused specifically on their teaching methods because this was an area in which they had immediate control. In fact, the themes which emerged from the data analysis parallelled the topics that were discussed during the class seminars. At first impression this all might seem rather contrived, and one would have to wonder whether the preservice teachers were genuinely reflecting or simply reiterating the formal theories discussed in class. However, it is important to note that although the focus is mainly on teaching methods, it is within the context of their interpretation and application of these methods where one finds relevant distinctions.

A primary trend evident throughout the data analysis was the differences in the abilities of preservice teachers to communicate clearly their reasoning for curriculum and instructional decisions. During the interview process, the preservice teachers were involved in a discussion of their reflective analyses and lesson plans. They discussed the specific ideas about teaching and learning identified in their reflective analyses and described how and why these ideas were implemented in their lesson plans. Through these discussions specific distinctions began to emerge between those preservice teachers who could clearly explain, reason, and justify their ideas and those who tended to be ambiguous. The preservice teachers who focused mainly on "how to"

80

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

apply teaching methods expressed concern about their abilities to implement procedures accurately. Their conceptual understanding of particular teaching methods was reduced to prescriptive operational definitions. For example, the idea of questioning students was simply perceived as a process of asking questions and getting answers. It was assumed that if a questioning process was implemented, and students participated, then higher-order thinking would naturally occur. These preservice teachers had difficulty identifying and explaining how specific types of questions could elicit different levels of thinking. When asked to justify their reasoning for using a questioning process, the common rhetoric of higher-order thinking, checking for understanding, relating to students' past experiences, and making learning meaningful and relevant was expressed. However, these same preservice teachers had difficulty explaining specific examples of a questioning process that would accomplish this type of learning. In essence, it appeared that they had learned terminology and definitions but did not develop an indepth understanding of the learning principles which undergirded specific concepts.

In contrast, preservice teachers who had developed a conceptual understanding of a teaching method beyond a prescriptive operational definition were able to identify and explain the ways in which particular methods of instruction affected learning. They also were able to justify their reasoning for using a method of instruction on the basis of specific learning goals. For example, the idea of questioning students was discussed with the common rhetoric, but the rhetoric was substantiated with clear illustrative examples. As stated in the findings, the preservice teachers who were able to go beyond conceptual labels and clearly explain their reasoning for using specific curriculum and instructional practices were more likely to develop and implement lessons consistent with their conceptual understandings. Hence, a lesson designed to elicit higher-order thinking would purposefully incorporate a variety of divergent and evaluative type questions. The concept of motivating students to learn went beyond simply actively involving students to actively involving students on the basis of their needs and interests. The goal for accommodating varied learning styles was not simply using audio, visual, and tactile teaching methods, but rather relating specific teaching methods to the developmental characteristics of particular students.

The specific implication of these findings is the relevance the preservice teachers' conceptual understandings had on their curriculum and instructional practices. The issue here was not a dichotomy between theory and practice (Griffiths, & Tann,1992) nor was it the degree or level of reflective thinking (Schon 1987; Van Manen 1977). Rather, the research data suggest that a preservice teacher's limited, indepth, or erroneous understanding of a teaching idea affected the development and implementation of his or her lessons. In this sense, one's frame of reference about teaching and learning influenced the preservice teachers' reflective insights. Reflective thinking was guided by one's frame of reference which was comprised of interpretations of pedagogical knowledge and past and present experiences. The reflective insights that the preservice teachers discussed in the reflective analysis papers and further explained during the interview process were representations of the meaning they were making about their experiences. Hence, if a preservice teacher's understanding of a pedagogical concept was limited it may mean that he or she was not involved in experiences that allowed for the development of a more thorough and indepth understanding. The contextual factors of a particular class and school influenced the type of experiences a preservice teacher had and the development and focus of his or her conceptual understandings. This does not necessarily indicate a "gap between theory and practice, I' or "a level of reflectivity, but rather a conceptual understanding based on particular or limited experiences.

81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

The findings of this study are consistent with Shulman's (1987) ideas regarding how teachers' knowledge is used to make curriculum and instructional decisions and with cognitive research on novice and expert teachers' interpretations of classroom events (see Sparks-Langer & Colton, 1991, for a synthesis of this research). For example, Lenhardt and Greeno (in Sparks- Langer & Colton, 1991), found that novice teachers' interpretations of classroom events were not as indepth and interrelated as those of expert teachers. These differences are attributed to the development of schemata (cognitive structures) which serve as a frame of reference for understanding and interpreting one's environment. Schemata or one's frame of reference are constructed and deconstructed through interactions with our environments. Hence, the type and depth of interactions one has in a particular environment will affect the depth and interrelations of our conceptual understandings.

Assumptions and Interpretations

The analysis of this study offers several implications for teacher education programs and courses that advocate constructivist learning and reflective practice. The following assumptions and interpretations were constructed on the basis of this study.

Teachers Construct Their Understanding of Teaching and Learning Bv Interpreting Experiences

Given the significance of particular experiences to conceptual development, it is important for teacher education programs to provide preservice teachers opportunities for meaningful learning experiences. Meaningful is understood in the sense that the preservice teacher observes and participates in a variety of educational contexts that are deemed relevant for the development of ideas, beliefs, and values about teaching and learning. For example, in this particular study none of the preservice teachers reflected on how social, cultural, and economic diversity influences curriculum and instructional practices. One probable reason is limited amount of time spent at the field site which did not allow for the development of an indepth inquiry into the students' individual characteristics. However, even if there had been more time, the majority of students attending this particular school came from very similar backgrounds. Considering how important it is for teachers to develop an understanding regarding the relevance of social and cultural diversity to teaching and learning it would be essential for preservice teachers to have educational experiences in socially and culturally diverse settings. This experience does not have to be limited to the classroom and school context but can include a variety of community experiences with human and social service organizations.

In addition to providing relevant learning experiences, the nature and depth of each experience should be carefully planned and organized. Simply placing preservice teachers in particular educational settings for a designated amount of time does not mean that meaningful understandings are being constructed. The preservice teachers who participated in this study varied in their ability to clearly communicate their reasoning for curriculum and instructional decisions. Although specific data were not collected to substantiate this premise, informal observations and interviews indicate that the preservice teachers who demonstrated indepth conceptual understandings spent more time with their peers and cooperating teachers discussing and reflecting on the ideas from their readings and classroom experiences. Hence, experience in and of itself will not necessarily constitute relevant knowledge; rather, relevant knowledge is dependent on the quality of interactions one has within the context of meaningful and relevant experiences.

82

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

Reflective Teaching is a Process of Analvzing and Evaluating the Relevance of Curriculum and Instructional Practices for Student and Societal Welfare.

A teacher education program that advocates reflective practice and a constructivist learning philosophy emphasizes experiences as its main subject matter. In this sense, subject matter is not perceived as an established body of knowledge that claims to operationally define "effective teaching" and should be "mastered" by prospective teachers. To presume that there is a particular "teaching method" or "systematic procedure" that is appropriate for all classrooms is a faulty assumption. Rather, knowledge about teaching and learning is constructed and reconstructed through the reflective analysis of experiences. Teachers need to be able to adapt and modify their instructional practices to meet the particular needs of a particular classroom. Through the reflective analysis of experiences one acquires the ability to reason and justify "why" a particular method of instruction is appropriate or inappropriate for student learning in a particular educational context. By questioning the reasons and justifications for making curriculum and instructional decisions teachers begin to examine the assumptions and principles that ground formal and personal teaching and learning theories.

A Dialogical Process Facilitates the Development of Reflective Insights.

The interview dialogues served as a catalyst for reflection and allowed the researcher and participants to explore the conceptual understandings that the preservice teachers were constructing about their experiences. Through formal and informal interviews, the preservice teachers were involved in a reflective conference which allowed them to identzb and explain what they perceived as issues, concerns,and questions about their teaching experiences; reason and just@ the relevance of their curriculum and instructional practices to student learning; and generalize and conclude how the insights obtained from their experiences might be applied to future lessons. This reflective conferencing process allowed the preservice teachers to examine the consistency between their ideas and values about teaching and learning and their actual curriculum and instructional practices. It was through these discussions that meanings of ideas were explored and the interrelationships between teacher's ideas and practices were clarified.

References

Adler, S . (1991). The reflective practitioner and the curriculum of teacher education. Journal

Ayers, W. (1992). The shifting ground of curriculum thought and everyday practice. Theory

Beyer, L. (1992). The personal and the social in education. In E. W. Ross, J. C. Cornett, &

of Education for Teaching, I7(2) , 139-150.

into Practice, 31 (3), 259-263.

G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 239-256). Albany: State University of New York Press.

educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath. Dewey, J . (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Fosnot, C. T. (1 989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for

Giroux, H. (1990). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy. Granby, MA: teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bergin & Garvey.

83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine

Goodman, J. (1986). Making early field experience meaningful: A critical approach. Journal

Green, M. (1986). In search of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 427-

Griffiths, M. , & Tann, S. (1992). Using reflective practice to link personal and public

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:

Jadallah, E. (1994). A call for a dialectic in the social studies (Review of the book Teacher

Publishing Co.

of Education for Teaching, I2(2), 109- 125.

441.

theories. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18( l) , 69-84.

SAGE Publications Ltd.

personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research). Theory & Research in Social Education, 22, 22 1-233.

Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 191-206). Albany: State University of New York Press.

McLaren, P. L. (1987). Education as counter-discourse: Toward a critical pedagogy of hope. The Review of Education, 13(1), 58-68.

0' Loughlin, M. (1989). The influence of teachers ' beliefs about knowledge, teaching, and learning on their pedagogy: A constructivist reconceptualization and research agenda for teacher education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339 679)

problematics of teacher socialization. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338

McCutcheon, G. (1992). Facilitating teacher personal theorizing. In E. W. Ross, J. C.

O'Loughlin, M. (1991). Beyond constructivism: Toward a dialectical model of the

559) 0' Loughlin, M. (1992). The discourse of pedagogy and the possibility of social change.

Patton, M. Q . (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury

Ross, W. (1992). Teacher personal theorizing and reflective practice in teacher education. In

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 349 283)

Park, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

E. W. Ross, J . C. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacherpersonal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 179- 190). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22

Sparks-Langer, G., & Colton, A. (1991). Synthesis of research on teachers' reflective thinking. Educational Leadership. , 37-44.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J . M. (1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Tom, A. (1985). Inquiring into inquiry-oriented teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 35-44.

Valli, L. (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.

84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.

Zeichner, K. M. (1992). Connecting genuine teacher development to the struggle for social

Zeichner, K . , & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Hurvard

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

justice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 344 881)

Educational Review, 57, 23-48.

Edward Jadallah is Assistant Professor of Educational Curriculum and Instruction at Bowling Green State University. He specializes in constructivist teacher education and reflective conferencing.

85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:11

13

Aug

ust 2

013