This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]On: 21 December 2014, At: 23:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

The nature of elementary preserviceteachers’ reflection during an earlyfield experienceMeagan Caridad Arrastiaa, Erik S. Rawlsa, Elizabeth HammondBrinkerhoffa & Alysia D. Roehriga

a Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida StateUniversity, Tallahassee, USAPublished online: 08 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Meagan Caridad Arrastia, Erik S. Rawls, Elizabeth Hammond Brinkerhoff& Alysia D. Roehrig (2014) The nature of elementary preservice teachers’ reflection during anearly field experience, Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 15:4,427-444, DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2014.900018

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.900018

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The nature of elementary preservice teachers’ reflection during anearly field experience

Meagan Caridad Arrastia*, Erik S. Rawls, Elizabeth Hammond Brinkerhoff andAlysia D. Roehrig

Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

(Received 5 August 2013; final version received 27 January 2014)

Teacher education assumes that the more time observing practising teachers, thebetter, but the value of observation (guided or unguided) in early field experi-ences is unknown. In this mixed-methods study, we examined the levels ofreflection, use of future-oriented reflection, and changes in the reflective writingof 90 preservice elementary education teachers enrolled in two sections of anearly field experience course (one of which received guided observation) at alarge university in the United States. While the level of reflection in the writingof 35% of the preservice teachers (PTs) increased in complexity over the span ofa semester, only 10% of the PTs ever demonstrated the deepest level of reflectionin their writing. Future-oriented reflection accounted for 6% of the language inthe assignments, with a majority of the instances documenting what PTs plannedto do in their future classrooms. PTs in the guided observation group demon-strated a significantly higher level of reflection than those in the unguided group.With these findings in mind, we present implications for teacher-education fieldexperiences and future research, such as providing scaffolding for future-orientedreflection.

Keywords: reflection; reflective learning; future-oriented reflection; teachereducation; early field experiences

Introduction

Teacher education programs are supposed to effectively prepare new teachers for thecomplex realities of the teaching profession, and teacher educators base many oftheir pedagogical practices on the theoretical relationship between teachers’ beliefsand practice (Loughran, 2005). Reflection through writing is a common practiceused in teacher education; it gained momentum when the model of the reflectivepractitioner (Schön, 1983) grew in popularity at the end of the twentieth century(Van Manen, 1995). According to Marcos and Tilema’s (2006) analytical review ofthe literature on reflection, the bridge between theory and practice has been referredto as reflection on action (Schön, 1983), wisdom of practice (Shulman, 1987),thoughtful action (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002), situational understanding(Bereiter, 2002), and situated knowledge (Leinhardt, 1988).

To some researchers the goal of reflection is to change beliefs about teaching inorder to improve practice (Tillema, 2000) and to develop a professional teaching

*Corresponding author. Email: marrastia@fsu.edu

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Reflective Practice, 2014Vol. 15, No. 4, 427–444, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.900018

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

identity (Conway & Clark, 2003); however, reflection can have many uses, includingthe application of information learned into hypothetical future scenarios to bridge thegap between theory and practice. Behavioral intentions expressed in such reflectivewriting may represent goal setting and planning, which comprise the forethoughtphase of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2000). Self-regulated learning practices(i.e. practices that allow one to control one’s own learning) are associated with aca-demic success as well as improved performance in a variety of fields (Zimmerman,2000). Thus, Manning and Payne (1993) theorized the connection between self-regu-lated learning and effective teaching. The future teaching behaviors of preserviceteachers (PTs) may be influenced by reflecting on the classroom practices of moreexperienced others and considering whether and how they may implement the prac-tices themselves in the future. In addition, the level of guidance needed to supportPTs’ reflection in this context is not well understood (Anderson, Barksdale, & Hite,2005). Therefore, in this study, we explored the nature of PTs’ reflections across twodifferent semesters of an early field experience course, which varied in the level ofguidance provided for PTs when they made their classroom observations.

Moreover, examining the development of reflection through the lens of self-regu-lated learning led us to examine PTs’ reflections for instances of future-orientedreflection (F-OR). F-OR is a form of prospective reflection that allows expression ofPTs’ intentions, beliefs, and values (Conway, 2001). Even though reflection is acommon practice in teacher education (Conway, 2001) and lesson study (Lewis,Perry, & Murata, 2006), Fendler (2003) noted that educational research on reflectionhas ignored F-OR. Thus, in this study we also explored the extent to which PTs usedwritten reflection to begin to develop their behavioral intentions.

Early field experiences

PTs’ field experience in schools has evolved over the years, yielding contrasting def-initions of field experience in teacher education. Since the 1970s, field experienceshave been a required component of teacher education in the US and abroad (Moore,1979), as they are considered to be necessary and useful (sometimes the most use-ful) aspects of teacher preparation (Aiken & Day, 1999). In these experiences, PTsare supposed to apply the pedagogical theory learned in the university classroom tothe K-12 classroom (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Zeichner & Melnick, 1996) byreflecting on their future practice (Erdman, 1983). By the 1980s, early field experi-ences (EFE) occurring before student teaching were found in almost all teacher edu-cation programs in the US (Ishler & Kay, 1981), and Denton (1982) found that anEFE positively affected performance in subsequent courses.

It has been assumed that some time observing teaching in school settings is bet-ter than not observing and that the more hours spent observing, the better (Guyton& McIntyre, 1990). At the beginning of the 1990s, the focus of research on EFEsincluded the concept of a cognitive apprenticeship (Zeichner, 1990). By the end ofthe century, however, the consensus was that merely observing teaching does notnecessarily give PTs ‘access to the thinking and decision-making processes of theirexperienced mentors (Zeichner, 2010, p. 91).

Researchers have found mixed effects of field-based experiences (Zeichner,1990), which is not surprising considering that ‘what students appear to learn duringfield-based experiences is often in conflict with the expressed intentions of those inboth the schools and universities and indicates that these experiences are often

428 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

miseducative rather than helpful’ (Zeichner, 1990, p. 51). In a more recent study,observing more exemplary practices was found to be positively associated with PTs’development of knowledge about effective literacy instruction, but more opportuni-ties to observe and accurately identify poor examples of practices was not related toknowledge gain (Roehrig et al., 2008). Mixed findings may also be due to the levelof guidance PTs receive, as field experiences can range from guided to unguided innature. In a guided approach, the PTs are instructed to look for certain characteristicsor instances of teaching and learning. Although the guided approach may limit therange of behaviors observed (Allison, 1987), other scholars contest that sitting andwatching a classroom teacher does not benefit PTs (Ben-Peretz & Rumney, 1991).This makes it unclear which approach is more beneficial for PTs (Anderson et al.,2005). The reflections for this study were collected from PTs who participated in theguided section of the EFE course described by Roehrig et al. (2008) and from stu-dents in an unguided section of the course during the previous semester.

Future-oriented reflection

Educational psychologists are interested in the future for many reasons. The futureimplies expectancies and anticipation about what might happen next, eliciting moti-vation (Husman & Lens, 1999). Furthermore, expectancies and anticipation aboutthe future serve as plans and implementations of goals (Nuttin & Lens, 1985). One’sperceptions of the future can help encourage and maintain such goals and motivationto learn (Bembenutty & Zimmerman, 2003). In the case of PTs, contemplating theimportance of their future roles and the relevance of their course work to those rolesmay increase their motivation and the likelihood of success in their futureclassrooms.

Outside the field of teacher education, future-oriented discourse is used as part ofthe self-appraisal component of performance evaluation in which an employee self-monitors in order to predict future performance (Campbell & Lee, 1988). AlthoughF-OR has been considered extensively in other fields, it has been overlooked in thefield of education (Fendler, 2003). Fendler attributed this to narrow misinterpreta-tions of Dewey’s (1993) original conceptualization that actually included the past,present and future, with reflection recommended ‘as a way of exercising the imagi-nation toward future possibilities’ (Fendler, 2003, p. 18).

Conway’s dissertation work was the first to address F-OR. In his study, whichwas later published, Conway (2001) conducted interviews and focus groups with sixelementary PTs at several points throughout their internship year. A discrepancybetween anticipated and actual experience was found that revealed that interns antic-ipated a smooth transition, becoming more comfortable as the semester progressed.Most notably, the interns projected a ‘happily-ever-after’ ending to their year asinterns. Building on the work of Conway (2001), Beauchamp and Thomas (2010)conducted a study to examine PTs’ future reflection in the form of notes ordrawings, as well as face-to-face interviews. Overall, the 48 PTs indicated personalcharacteristics (e.g. a calm demeanour or caring personality), not student- or school-characteristics, to describe their ideal selves, their teacher role, and relationship withlearners. For the purpose of teacher education in which misconceptions or unrealisticexpectations of teaching need to be addressed, anticipatory reflection (or F-OR)seems to be important for the development of a teaching identity because it involvesthe constant evaluation of practices (Conway & Clark, 2003).

Reflective Practice 429

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Another study examined discourse between 16 novice English as a Second Lan-guage teachers in a graduate intensive English language program and their mentor-ing teachers during one-on-one mentoring meetings (Urzúa & Vásquez, 2008). Thetranscripts were analyzed for future-oriented talk and the findings were categorizedinto the following taxonomy: planning, prediction, uncertainty and conditional. Onemajor finding of this study was that the majority of planning and predicting tookplace during mentoring meetings before observing practising teachers and consistedof self-referential speech. Once PTs observed and had context-specific examples,their reflection shifted from their future practice to a critique of the teacher observedand instances of uncertainty. Urzúa and Vásquez’s (2008) rubric informed our the-ory-driven coding of PTs’ written reflections for the current study.

The current study

The overarching purpose of this study was to explore the nature of PTs’ writtenreflection during an EFE. Questions guiding this investigation included thefollowing:

(1) What F-OR and levels of reflection were present in PTs’ written reflection dur-ing an EFE? Are F-OR and different levels of reflection related?

(2) How did PTs’ reflection change over the semester?(3) How did PTs’ reflection differ in the context of more or less guidance during

the EFE classroom observations?

Method

We examined reflection in PTs’ writing over time in a secondary data analysis utiliz-ing a convergent parallel mixed-method approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).To examine the frequency of F-OR in an existing dataset of reflective writing assign-ments, we used the coding rubric developed by Urzúa and Vásquez (2008). To alignthe reflection process studied to the methods chosen and ensure credibility (Shenton,2004), we chose to use Marcos and Tillema’s (2006) recommended guidelines ofanalyzing written documents with the assumption that they ‘determine action aboutprofessionals’ intentions with respect to subjective norms and experiences withinpractice’ (p. 115). Levels of reflection were investigated using the coding rubricdeveloped by Ward and McCotter (2004).

Participants

PTs (n = 90) consented to participate and provided access to written reflectionassignments completed in a 1 credit Directed Field Experience course. They repre-sent two cohorts majoring in elementary education at a large public university in thesoutheastern US. Data were collected over two semesters (Fall 2004 and Spring2005), when each cohort took the course during their second semester in the major.Students were admitted to the major at the beginning of their junior year, so theywere early in their teacher education program, but within one year of student teach-ing. The demographic distributions of the two cohorts were similar to one anotherand typical of the pattern found in the elementary education program at this univer-sity and in the US (i.e. 82% white, 98% female; Taylor & Sorbel, 2001).

430 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Calculation of power

A post hoc estimation of power (Stevens, 1980) was conducted using the G-Powersoftware (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Enough power (0.91) wasobtained to detect a large effect (w = 0.50) with chi-square tests (df = 12). Enoughpower (0.98) was also available to detect a large effect size (d = 0.80) in one-tailedindependent t-tests. A larger sample size would be required to detect smaller maineffects.

Context

The data used in this study were situated in the context of an EFE course and inactual field observations. PTs spent a minimum of 36 hours in public elementaryschools and attended a weekly one-hour class session (Roehrig et al., 2008). Classsessions included the following topics: teaching as a profession, effective teachercharacteristics, classroom management, instructional planning, teacher expectations,student motivation and classroom atmosphere. These topics formed the basis forobservation and reflection assignments completed by PTs in the field. For moredetail on the course context, see Roehrig et al. (2008).

The first semester (n = 42) did not receive observation guidance. The secondsemester (n = 48) included observation guidance structured around a research-basedmodel of exemplary elementary teaching (Roehrig & Christesen, 2010) that wasimplemented through modifications to the readings and assignments used in thecourse. Students in the second cohort were assigned readings about exemplaryteaching, as well as case studies of exemplary teachers. After they made their fieldobservations, they completed their journal entries, as described below.

Data sources

Essays

The essays were course assignments in a pre-/post- format. The directions for bothwere to write about the characteristics of ‘great teachers’ and ‘great teaching’. Theword ‘great’ was chosen purposefully to push PTs’ thinking toward the most impor-tant characteristics of effective teachers and effective teaching. PTs were stronglyencouraged not to use their pre-essay while writing the post-essay.

Pre-essays were due during the fourth week of classes, which was the first weekof field participation. Before pre-essays were due, PTs had attended lectures on orhad class discussions about teaching as a profession, effective teachers from variousperspectives and professionalism. Post-essays were due the last week of classes afterall PTs had completed their required field hours in elementary classrooms. One PTdid not complete a pre-essay and another did not complete a post-essay.

Journals

Three journals were assigned based on observation sheets covering three topics:instructional variety, classroom management and motivation. The PTs wereencouraged to purchase a notepad to record field and observational notes when inthe classrooms. In addition, they were instructed to read their notes at home andreflect on the overall experience in the classroom before writing journal entries.

Reflective Practice 431

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Once the PTs completed field hours, they were asked to write one overall metacog-nitive entry on each topic. These final write-ups were due the last day of class andcomprised the journal data analyzed in this study.

Data analysis

In addition to the two rubrics, open coding was used to analyze the PTs’ reflections.Quantitative analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests and Pearson correlations werealso conducted. Table 1 presents the three research questions and the correspondinganalyses.

Before official coding began, three undergraduate research assistants coded thefirst semester of data. Official coding commenced after training using the pilotresults as examples and points for discussion. All the essays and journals from bothsemesters were open-coded by three raters, as well as coded using theory-drivencodes. The raters were all graduate students in Educational Psychology, one ofwhom had 26 years of elementary school teaching experience. To establish consis-tency among raters, we randomly selected a sample of 5% of each type of writtendata across semesters for all three raters to code. We compiled the segments acrosscoders and discussed differences until we reached a consensus on each segment.

Theory-driven codes came from the F-OR categories (planning, prediction,uncertainty, conditional) of Urzúa and Vásquez’s (2008) rubric and levels/dimen-sions of reflection adapted from Ward and McCotter’s (2004) rubric. The dimensionsof Ward and McCotter’s rubric were focus, inquiry and change. The focus categoryinvolved the PTs’ concerns about practice. The inquiry category represented thePTs’ process of inquiry, and the change category addressed a change in perspective

Table 1. Research questions and corresponding analyses.

Research question Analysis

(1) What F-OR and levels of reflection werepresent in PTs’ written reflection duringan EFE? Are F-OR and different levelsof reflection related?

� content analysis and open coding ofessays and journals

� descriptive comparison of reflection levelsand F-OR

� chi-square of number of references codedwithin the levels of reflection acrosssources

� chi-square of number of references codedas F-OR across sources

� Pearson correlations between number ofreferences coded as F-OR and number ofreferences coded within each level ofreflection

(2) How did PTs’ reflection change over thesemester?

� descriptive comparison of reflection levelsand F-OR in pre- and post-essays

(3) How did PTs’ reflection differ in thecontext of more or less guidance duringthe EFE classroom observations?

� t-test comparing number of referencescoded within the levels of reflection

� t-test comparing number of referencescoded as F-OR

432 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

resulting from inquiry. The rubric also had four levels of increasing depth: routine,technical, dialogic and transformative. We coded each PT writing sample for eachdimension of reflection and the appropriate level (e.g. routine focus, technicalinquiry, routine change).

In general, any changes from lower levels to higher levels were coded asincreases and changes from higher levels to lower levels were coded as decreases inthe quality of reflection. We looked at the levels and dimensions of reflection presentin each of the journals in relation to the patterns of change emerging from the pre-to post-essays. We conducted further analyses to examine quantitative differences intypes of F-OR and levels of reflection across sources and semesters. Quotes fromreflections are included in the Results section with identification codes that includethe participants’ ID number for their pre- and post-essays, as well as the semesterthat they took the course (e.g. 5-121F).

Results

What F-OR and levels of reflection were present in PTs’ written reflection duringan EFE?

FO-RIn total, 162 instances of F-OR were coded across essays and journals (see Table 2).Over 13,000 words were included in the references coded as F-OR out of 216,221words in the documents overall. Overall, F-OR accounted for approximately 6% ofthe language in the reflections. The percentage of the references found across func-tions was calculated (see Table 3), as well as the percentage of the functions repre-sented across sources (see Table 4). There were no significant differences in thenumber of future-oriented references in each category across sources,χ2 (12) = 13.165, p > 0.05.

Planning. These references were the most common of the functions with 10,343words coded, approximately 76% of all the F-OR. The majority of these instancesinvolved PTs reflecting on what they planned to do in their future classrooms, while

Table 2. Number of future-oriented references across sources.

Function

Number of references by source

Total

Instructionjournals(n = 90)

Managementjournals(n = 90)

Motivationjournals(n = 90)

Pre-essays(n = 89)

Post-essays(n = 89)

PlanningPositive 8 16 6 45 22 97Negative 3 3 1 2 1 10

PredictionPositive 3 4 3 6 3 19Negative 2 2 0 1 0 5

Uncertainty 2 5 0 9 6 22Conditional 2 2 0 1 4 9

Total 20 32 10 64 36 162

Reflective Practice 433

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

the minority involved what they planned to avoid in their classrooms. Strategies toavoid were more prevalent in the instructional and management journals (seeTable 2).

What PTs will do. Three themes emerged from this subsample of PT reflections. Thefirst theme, found in the writing of 25 PTs, included a strong sense of replicating thedisciplinary strategies the PTs observed in the classroom in their future classrooms.However, the description of the strategies varied from very detailed to very vague.For example, one PT simply stated the following in her classroom management jour-nal without actually describing the plan: ‘From what I observed, the students reallywork well with this plan and I plan to implement a similar discipline plan in myclassroom’ (5-121F). In contrast, the following PT described the classroom manage-ment system in her journal in detail:

The whole fifth grade use a system called the “Cash Card”. The cash card is a way forstudents to earn play money so that they can buy certain things in the class store suchas, pencils, paper, and notebooks. Each day a student has the opportunity to earn up toa dollar in play money. If a student was off task or disruptive then the teacher will

Table 3. Distribution of future-oriented references within each source.

Function

Source

Instructionjournals(n = 90)

Managementjournals(n = 90)

Motivationjournals(n = 90)

Pre-essays(n = 89)

Post-essays(n = 89)

PlanningPositive 59.1% 51.3% 51.5% 79% 66.2%Negative 16.2% 7.4% 18.7% 3.8% 4%

PredictionPositive 8% 14.9% 29.8% 4.2% 13.1%Negative 7.2% 8.7% 0% 0.6% 0%

Uncertainty 7% 13.9% 0% 12% 11.1%Conditional 2.5% 3.8% 0% 0.4% 5.6%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 4. Distribution of future-oriented references across sources.

Function

Source

Total

Instructionjournals(n = 90)

Managementjournals(n = 90)

Motivationjournals(n = 90)

Pre-essays(n = 89)

Post-essays(n = 89)

PlanningPositive 20.9% 14.6% 13% 34.2% 17.3% 100%Negative 37.5% 13.7% 31.1% 10.8% 6.9% 100%

PredictionPositive 14.3% 21.4% 38% 9.1% 17.2% 100%Negative 48.3% 46.7% 0% 5% 0% 100%

Uncertainty 17% 27.2% 0% 35.8% 20% 100%Conditional 24.5% 30% 0% 4.8% 40.7% 100%

434 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

mark off a quarter from the cash card. The students really seemed to value the cardand did not want any of their quarters to be taken from them. All Mrs W had to saywas, “I am getting ready to mark cash cards!” and everyone would quickly correcttheir behavior. I thought that this was a great way to reward and discipline studentsbehavior. (126-151F)

This PT may be likely to remember the strategy and actually use it in the futuresince implementation was described with details, such as what was in the class store,how much money was docked per disruptive behavior, etc.

Another theme that emerged from the reflections of six PTs involved plans forhaving high expectations for their students, as well as themselves. This theme isexemplified by this quote, ‘As I seek to maintain high standards for all my students,I must also hold myself to high standards’ (110-165F; post). Another PT wrote inher motivation journal that ‘I want to let my students know my expectations forthem are high, and that they will achieve them. This is very important to rememberfor teachers, and is essential to be a great teacher’ (40-60S).

The third planning theme, found in the writing of four PTs, was also describedin vague terms; but this theme is most important for the reflective practitioner, as thePTs described planning to learn more. This PT admits that excellent teaching is com-plex by stating that ‘There are other important aspects of being a great teacher andother factors in teaching great, and as I further my teacher training experience I willlearn more’ (102-144F; pre). Another PT described improving her skills in class-room management, but admitted having more to learn:

Another thing that is important when teaching is control of the classroom. This is thehardest thing for me to do. The best way to learn to control the classroom is to prac-tice. I never thought I could do it until last semester. The students should have rulesand they should follow those rules. If they do not, there are consequences as well asrewards for when they do. I overcame my fear of classroom management and I knowthat as I continue throughout the program, I will only get better. (62-175S; post)

This PT’s reflection conveys confidence in her own improvement through furtherpractice.

What PTs will not do. More than half of the eight PTs that used this type of reflec-tion plainly stated in their journals that they do not plan on using the classroommanagement strategies they observed, such as this PT: ‘The classroom that I was inwas run much differently than I plan on running my own classroom’ (7-18S). Otherinstances varied from planning to do whatever it takes not to be a ‘mediocre teacher’(125-147F; pre) to not wanting to use certain curricula.

Prediction. The prediction references were less common than the planning function,with 1901 words coded, which represented approximately 14% of all the F-OR. Pre-diction was most saliently featured in the instruction journals, representing approxi-mately 15% of the F-OR in these pieces. Similar to the planning function, negativeprediction references were coded more often in the instruction journals.

What will work. Not surprisingly, just over half of the positive predictions made by19 PTs included what would make an effective teacher. Among the qualities thatresult in good teaching, PTs cited ‘being understood’ by students (5-121F; post),

Reflective Practice 435

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

being respected and admired (116-130F; pre), having ‘creative’ lessons (125-137F;pre), having ‘experience’ (127-137F; pre), and having ‘passion’ for teaching (94-157F; pre). The other four PTs focused on specific strategies that they believedwould work to motivate students. For example, one PT stated that ‘By giving stu-dents the opportunity to go on a nature walk or use the internet in the computer lablearning is facilitated outside the classroom walls’ (11-61S; post).

What will not work. Negative predictions were found in the writing of five PTs, alldealing with specific classroom management strategies. In this example below a PTcriticizes the teacher she is observing in her classroom management journal and pre-dicts that the strategy will not work if it is not consistent:

There is not much that she has done that is proactive everything seems to be morereactive. She does move students who may cause distractions and has their desks situ-ated so that there will be few interruptions. Some consequences that I have seen herenforce are for missing homework, disrespectfulness and talking, she will make thestudent miss free play completely or a portion of it. This is somewhat effective butthen the next day the same students are missing free play again. So I’m not sure if it iseffective enough to change certain behavior. (101-145F)

Uncertainty. Instances of uncertainty accounted for 1122 words, which was approxi-mately 8% of all the F-OR. The 16 PTs’ writing expressed what the PTs were unsureabout concerning their future teaching practice and their hopes for their future teach-ing experience. The most instances of uncertainty were found in the pre-essays.These represent their hopes, fears and uncertainty about being a good teacher in thefuture. It was in the journals that the PTs expressed being unsure about how thestrategies they observed would work in their future classrooms. For example, one ofthe 10 PTs to write about these strategies explains the token economy in the class-room:

Usually to start off her class she has the students get out their homework and then givepoints for those students that have their homework and debits for those who don’t. Thepeople with debits at the end of the week are not allowed to throw darts for prizes onFriday. Also, those that forget their homework have to sign the “book.” The book iswhere the students that didn’t do their homework have to sign saying they didn’t do it.They are given a couple chances to not bring their homework in before they get pointsdeducted. Mrs. A’s reasoning for this is because she knows that sometimes you justforget or you couldn’t do it and that it isn’t good to get punished or to be embarrassedin front of the whole class so she gives you a break by signing the book. I thought thiswas a good idea but I don’t know how it will work in my classroom. (124-143F)

Another PT questioned what to do with students for whom the classroom manage-ment strategy is not effective:

I believe that this system worked for the majority of the students. I did notice thatusually the same students had to make a mark by their name. I think that these stu-dents didn’t really care about how many X’s they received. This is an issue that Ithink needed to be addressed; however I’m not quite sure how I would go aboutdoing that. If the majority of the class is responding to the plan, then I believe thatit shouldn’t be changed. However, I do think something should be adjusted in orderto solve the discipline problems of the students who are not able to obey the rules.(96-140F)

436 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Conditional. The rarest form of F-OR was the use of the conditional with 273 wordscoded (2% of all F-OR). Only eight PTs used this type of reflection, with one PTusing it twice. In the classroom management and instructional variety journals, fivePTs take this opportunity to be critical of the teachers they observed. PTs wrote thatdifferentiated instruction (115-162F) and ‘group work could be very beneficial tothis classroom, if it was just implemented’ (113-154F).

In addition to criticisms, the pre-/post-essays of three PTs suggested theconditions of excellent teaching in the eyes of principals and students. One PTencouraged promoting autonomy by allowing students ‘to learn through their owninquiry’ (98-142F; post), while another PT suggested that excellent teaching occursif the teacher educates ‘the student as a whole’ (124-143F; post). Yet another PTspoke about the issue of teacher content knowledge as a condition of excellentteaching: ‘If you don’t have full understanding of it, the students can tell, becauseyou seem as if you are unprepared to teach’ (102-144F; post).

The relationship between F-OR and levels of reflection

The dimensions (focus, inquiry and change) were collapsed and the number of refer-ences found across sources is shown in Table 5. Number of references coded as rou-tine was significantly negatively correlated to number of references coded astechnical, dialogic, transformative and F-OR (p < 0.05). The number of referencescoded as dialogic was significantly positively correlated to F-OR (p < 0.05). A sig-nificant difference in number of instances coded within each level of reflectionacross sources was found overall, χ2(12) = 113.32, p < 0.005.

Table 5. References of levels and dimensions found across sources.

LevelDimension

Number of references by source

Total

Instructionjournals(n = 90)

Managementjournals(n = 90)

Motivationjournals(n = 90)

Pre-essays(n = 89)

Post-essays(n = 89)

Routine 72 148 120 73 42 455Focus 1 26 7 13 12 59Inquiry 41 81 67 23 18 230Change 30 41 46 37 12 166

Technical 177 147 133 165 195 817Focus 79 78 74 59 59 349Inquiry 46 19 20 60 69 214Change 52 50 39 46 67 254

Dialogic 15 26 10 19 30 100Focus 11 9 7 11 16 54Inquiry 2 5 1 3 4 15Change 2 12 2 5 10 31

Transformative 6 10 3 9 3 31Focus 0 2 1 7 3 13Inquiry 0 0 0 0 0 0Change 6 8 2 2 0 18

Total 270 331 266 266 270 1403

Reflective Practice 437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The writing demonstrated mostly technical reflection, although there were moreinstances of routine and technical reflection found in the journals, which served as alog of events, as compared to the essays, which typically included more supportedarguments. Subsequently, more instances of dialogic and transformative reflectionwere found in the essays overall. Only 22% of the PTs across both cohorts everdemonstrated dialogic reflection. Of those that demonstrated dialogic reflection, lessthan half or 10% of all PTs demonstrated transformative reflection. Three patterns orspecific combinations of foci, inquiries and degree of change demonstrated emergedfrom the coding of the PTs’ writing.

Pattern 1: descriptive reflection. The first pattern was characterized by superficialanalysis, no personal involvement and a focus on teaching tasks or behavior. Asshown in Table 6, this pattern was most prevalent in the motivation journals. Belowis an example in which the PT merely described what she saw objectively:

The teacher would outline the chapters in the books and provide the students with asummary that they highlighted key points from. For reading, she would read to them,then have them read on their own. When students were doing seatwork, the teacherwould play music occasionally for the students who need noise to concentrate. Herfavorite way of helping the students learn was to tie in a personal story to whatevershe was teaching. She would tell funny stories about herself that all the kids could allrelate to. (20-71-S)

Pattern 2: reflective reporting. The second pattern was also characterized by superfi-cial analysis, and a focus on teaching tasks, but included personal involvement inthe reflection. Pattern two was most common in the journals (see Table 6). The fol-lowing is an example of this type of reflection in which the PT personally respondedto the variety of strategies used in the classroom she observed:

During some of the lessons, she had the students sitting on the floor in front of her tak-ing notes, this gave them an opportunity to be out of their seats. They also had a tonof opportunities to do art projects, or to incorporate art into their work. She also hadthem do hands-on activities and experiments. I just think she did a great job of varyingthe activities that went on throughout the day. There wasn’t one day that the studentsstayed in their seats and just did book work the entire time. They were always up andactively involved in the lessons. She did a great job, and I can’t wait to use the differ-ent techniques that I observed. (14-65-S)

Pattern 3: analytical reflection. The third pattern was characterized by more sophis-ticated analysis, personal involvement, as well as a focus on teaching tasks. Thispattern was most commonly found in post-essays (see Table 6). Unlike patterns oneand two, this subsample tended to specify strategies, as well as evaluate them. For

Table 6. Percentage of PTs demonstrating patterns across sources (n = 90).

SourcePattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3

% of students (n)

Pre-essays 10% (9) 7% (6) 27% (24)Post-essays 6% (5) 4% (4) 44% (40)Instruction journals 24% (22) 16% (14) 29% (26)Management journals 23% (21) 30% (27) 10% (9)Motivation journals 44% (40) 20% (18) 11% (10)

Note: Not all PTs demonstrated one of these three patterns.

438 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

example, after describing the lessons that took place in the classroom and the com-puter lab, the PT wrote:

I think that it was a good idea for Mr. G to take them to the computer Lab, because Icould tell that they were bored with the repetitive work they were doing in class. Ithink that he used a great instructional method by switching up the environment andtype of lessons. (99-166-F)

How did PTs’ reflections change over time?

In terms of F-OR, there were about half the instances in the post-essays as comparedto the pre-essays (see Table 4). Although PTs demonstrated the aforementioned pat-terns across sources, over time they demonstrated different levels. When examiningthe change in level of reflection between pre- and post-essays, the PTs were catego-rized into four groups based on their pre- and post-essays. The four groups includedthose that increased, decreased and maintained complexity, as well as those thatincreased in at least one dimension and decreased in another. Table 7 shows thechange in complexity over time.

How did PTs’ reflection differ in the context of more or less guidance during theEFE classroom observations?

There was no significant difference in the number of F-OR coded between unguidedand guided observation groups, as well as for transformative reflection. Significantlymore references were coded as routine and dialogic in the guided observation groupas compared to the control group. Significantly more references were coded as tech-nical in the writing of the unguided versus guided observation groups. See Table 8for a comparison of the groups.

Table 7. Change in complexity of reflection from pre- to post-essays (n = 88).

Change Percentage of students Number of students

Increased 35% 31Decreased 30% 26Stable 32% 28Mixed 3% 3

Note: One PT did not have a pre-essay and one PT did not have a post-essay.

Table 8. Group comparisons of average number of references across sources (n = 90).

Type of referenceUnguided group Guided group

t dfM(SD) M(SD)

Future-oriented reflection 0.95(1.32) 1.33(1.89) -1.09 88Routine 3.98(1.62) 5.41(2.73) -3.09* 77.88Technical 9.93(1.81) 8.00(2.04) 4.71* 88Dialogic 0.76(1.31) 1.31(1.7) -1.98* 70.97Transformative 0.33(0.57) 0.29(0.58) 0.34 88

Note: * = p < 0.05.

Reflective Practice 439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Discussion

As previously stated, the purpose of this study was to examine the reflections of asample of elementary education PTs during an EFE with either guided or unguidedobservations. We examined PTs’ essays and journals for the presence of both F-ORand qualitatively different levels of reflection, filling a gap in the literature. The pre-vious F-OR research examined its oral form between PTs and mentors in meetingsand interviews (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2010; Conway, 2001; Urzúa &Vásquez,2008) as opposed to written modes of reflection. In addition, F-OR has not beenstudied in combination with levels of reflection.

We found that the amount of descriptive (routine) reflection was negatively cor-related to the amount of F-OR, whereas dialogic reflection was positively related toF-OR. While the level of reflective writing of 35% of the PTs increased in complex-ity over the span of a semester, only 10% of the PTs ever demonstrated the deepest(transformative) level of reflection in their writing. The reflections of PTs who par-ticipated in guided field observations did have significantly more dialogic reflectionsthan the reflections of PTs in the unguided condition. The PTs in the guided condi-tion, however, did not have significantly more future-oriented or transformativereflections. We found that F-OR accounted for only 6% of the language in the reflec-tion with a majority of the instances documenting what PTs planned to do in theirfuture classrooms.

The findings about the quality of PT reflection similar to other studies (e.g. Bean& Stevens, 2002). The content of the reflections was mostly technical, focusingalmost exclusively on the actions of teachers (rather than students), as was the focusof the course. The lack of future-orientation in the present study is also similar toprevious research findings on oral discourse in teacher education programs (Conway,2001; Urzúa &Vásquez, 2008). It is important to note that those in the guided earlyfield experience demonstrated more dialogic reflection, but more routine reflectionas well. In the guided condition, the instructors may have used the descriptivedetails to ask questions about teacher practice in a dialogic manner. As recom-mended by Bean and Stevens (2002), scaffolding could be a major component ofreflective practice for PTs.

Limitations

Not only is there a debate about studying written reflection as a representation ofthought processes, there is also the critical issue concerning the link betweenthought and action (Hatton & Smith, 1995), which may not be strong consideringthat the PTs in this study were not yet student teaching. Another limitation includesthe short duration in which the PTs were studied. This study only captures the PTs’reflections and beliefs during one semester, and does not include their ideas or expe-riences during actual student teaching. In addition, some have contested conceptual-izing reflection in levels as a hierarchy suggests one level is more important thananother (Hatton & Smith, 1995). We acknowledge that there may be different pur-poses for each level of reflection and have tried to avoid valuing one over the other.

440 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Future research and implications for field experience and observation

Taken together, these results suggest that major changes need to be implemented infield experience courses like the one we studied. With the requirement of hours inthe field, teacher education programs need to evaluate the effectiveness of all suchcourses and when they occur in relation to other courses and field experiences in theteacher preparation curriculum. Some studies actually indicate that reflecting afteraction is more effective than having PTs reflect before action (Tillema, 2000). Thepractice of reflection can become difficult to sustain, for PTs may see it as a ratheresoteric and useless diversion from mastering the technical skills and content ofteaching, which they regard as essential, especially early in their training (Zeichner,1990). Our findings remind us to be vigilant about the ‘connection between campus-based, university-based teacher education courses and field experiences’ (Zeichner,2010, p. 91). To help PTs reach deeper levels of reflection, teacher preparationinstruction (and programs) might be designed to challenge PTs to imagine applyingrelevant skills, strategies and approaches to their future teaching, with guidance andscaffolding offered to support their reflection.

Perhaps there should be more reflection done through the course of the teachereducation program to promote the reflective practitioner model (Schön, 1983). Forexample, teacher educators could allow PTs to compare and contrast their knowl-edge across time and apply this knowledge to their future classrooms. Even with thescaffolding suggested, observing ineffective strategies in the classrooms may still bedetrimental to the PT (Roehrig et al., 2008). Observations should be addressed by amentor to avoid excessive realism (Katz, 1974) in which PTs narrowly perceive thestrategies observed as the only possibilities.

In particular, development of writing prompts with theory-driven facets of reflec-tion should be tested for utility in terms of belief change by educators and students.Further exploration of reflection across different types of writing assignments andconcerning different types of teaching beliefs needs to be completed. Multiple mea-sures of reflection in a single study (e.g. written reflection and videotape of studentpractice reviewed using talk aloud protocol), and observations of actual teachingpractice (both during student teaching and in the field) at many time points duringthe PT education program could also help develop future teachers’ professional iden-tities and future practice. Using multiple measures, various assignment structuresand scaffolding procedures can be tested in experimental settings.

PTs can reflect without guidance or scaffolding, but ill-structured assignmentsmay not lead to deeper reflection. PTs need to learn to think reflectively to solveproblems in their classrooms, but certain skills need to be scaffolded (Gelfuso &Dennis, 2014). These skills may include general writing skills, identifying problemsboth in theory and practice, questioning fundamental assumptions, as well as theability to relate tasks to self or practice. In order to achieve this, teacher educatorsmight provide clear connections between classroom and field experience and includeinstruction on reflective thinking (self-talk) to build problem recognition andproblem solving skills (Bean & Stevens, 2002). Scaffolding may include reciprocaldiscussions with mentor teachers and peers, as well as instruction during course-work, so the PTs understand why teachers reflect on their practice and what teachersreflect on during their practice. More research is needed to compare ill-structuredreflective assignments with well-structured ones. We also need to better understandhow educators assess and scaffold reflection.

Reflective Practice 441

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Notes on contributorsMeagan Caridad Arrastia is a doctoral candidate in the Learning and Cognition program at theFlorida State University. She is also a Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training fellowthrough the Florida Center for Reading Research. Her research interests include self-regulation,motivation and reading among preservice teachers.

Erik S. Rawls is a doctoral student in Learning and Cognition program at the Florida StateUniversity. He became interested in reflection early on in his education studies, in particularin reflection as a tool for mediating theory and practice in teacher education and professionaldevelopment.

Elizabeth Hammond Brinkerhoff is a doctoral candidate in the Learning and Cognition pro-gram at the Florida State University. Prior to attending FSU as a full-time student, she taughtat the elementary level for 26 years. Her research interests include teacher quality, orallanguage and reading comprehension for students placed at risk for reading difficulty, anddevelopment of the classroom learning environment.

Alysia Roehrig serves as the Learning and Cognition Program Coordinator at the FloridaState University, and is also an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology. Her researchinterests include issues related to effective teaching. She primarily focuses on the professionaldevelopment of teachers and the literacy learning of students. She has published articles inThe Elementary School Journal, the Journal of Literacy Research, Science, and The TeacherEducator.

ReferencesAiken, I. P., & Day, B. D. (1999). Early field experiences in preservice teacher education:

Research and student perspectives. Action in Teacher Education, 21(3), 7–12.Allison, P. C. (1987). What and how preservice physical education teachers observe during

an early field experience. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58(3), 242–249.Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., & Hite, C. E. (2005). Preservice teachers’ observations

of cooperating teachers and peers while participating in an early field experience. TeacherEducation Quarterly, 32(4), 97‒117. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23478748

Bean, T. W., & Stevens, L. P. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inserviceteachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205–218.

Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2010). Reflecting on an ideal: Student teachers envision afuture identity. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 11,631–643.

Bembenutty, H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003, April). Relation of motivational beliefs andself-regulatory processes to homework completion and academic achievement. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chi-cago, IL. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED477449

Ben-Peretz, M., & Rumney, S. (1991). Professional thinking in guided practice. Teachingand Teacher Education, 7, 517–530.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

Campbell, D. J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Developmentversus evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 302–314.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.

Conway, P. F. (2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: From a temporally trun-cated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching andTeacher Education, 17(1), 89–106.

Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A re-examination ofFuller’s concerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education,19, 465–482.

442 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed-methodsresearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denton, J. J. (1982). Early field experience influence on performance in subsequent course-work. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 19–23.

Dewey, J. (1993). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to theeducative process. Boston: DC Heath.

Erdman, J. I. (1983). Assessing the purposed of early field experience programs. Journal ofTeacher Education, 34(4), 27–31.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statisticalpower analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. BehaviorResearch Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and politicalreverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16–25.

Gelfuso, A., & Dennis, D. (2014). Getting reflection off the page: The challenges of develop-ing support structures for pre-service teacher reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education,38, 1–11.

Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R.Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514–534). New York:Macmillan.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition andimplementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.

Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in student motivation. EducationalPsychology, 34, 113–125.

Ishler, R., & Kay, R. (1981). A survey of institutional practice. In C. Webb, N. Gehrke,P. Ishler, & A. Mendoze (Eds.), Exploratory field experiences in teacher education(pp. 15–22). Washington DC: Association of Teacher Educators.

Katz, L. (1974). Issues and problems in teacher education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Teacher edu-cation: Of the teacher, by the teacher, for the child. Washington DC: NAEYC.

Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy ofteacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 4–17.

Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.),Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 146–168). London: Falmer Press.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructionalimprovement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.

Loughran, J. (2005). Researching teaching about teaching, self study of teacher educationpractices. Studying Teacher Education, 1(1), 5–16.

Manning, B. H., & Payne, B. D. (1993). A Vygotskian-based theory of teacher cognition:Toward the acquisition of mental reflection and self-regulation. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 9(4), 361–371.

Marcos, J. J. M., & Tillema, H. (2006). Studying studies on teacher reflection and action: Anappraisal of research contributions. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 112–132.

Moore, C. (1979, November). A national survey query on early clinical experiences. Associa-tion of Teacher Educators Newsletter, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.ate1.org

Nuttin, J., & Lens, W. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and researchmethod. Hillsdale, NJ: Leuven University Press.

Roehrig, A. D., & Christesen, E. (2010). Development and use of a tool for evaluating tea-cher effectiveness in grades K-12. In V. J. Shute, & B. J. Becker (Eds.), Innovativeassessment for the 21st century: Supporting educational needs (pp. 207–228). New York:Springer.

Roehrig, A. D., Guidry, L. O., Bodur, Y., Guan, Q., Guo, Y., & Pop, M. (2008). Guided fieldobservations: Variables related to preservice teachers’ knowledge about effective primaryreading instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(2), 76–98.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.

Education for Information, 22, 63–75. Retrieved from http://www.iospress.nl/journal/education-for-information/

Reflective Practice 443

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review, 19(2), 4–14. Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/main/her/Index.html

Stevens, J. P. (1980). Power of the multivariate analysis of variance tests. PsychologicalBulletin, 88(3), 728.

Taylor, S. V., & Sorbel, D. (2001). Addressing the discontinuity of students’ and teachers’diversity: A preliminary study of preservice teachers’ beliefs and perceived skills. Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 17(4), 487–503.

Tillema, H. H. (2000). Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers:Immersion in practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(6),575–591.

Urzúa, A., & Vásquez, C. (2008). Reflection and professional identity in teachers’ future-ori-ented discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1935–1946.

van Manen, M. (1995). Epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theoryand Practice, 1(1), 33–50.

Ward, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teach-ers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 243–257.

Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: Looking ahead to the 1990s.Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 16(2),105–132.

Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experi-ences in college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,61(1–2), 89–99.

Zeichner, K., & Melnick, S. (1996). The role of community field experiences in preparingteachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Cur-rents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 176–198). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. InM. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, research, andapplications (pp. 13–39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

444 M.C. Arrastia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 23:

51 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014