Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

How collaboration improves preservice teachers’ reflection: A case study

906 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Comunicación presentada en el simposium "Teachers’ reflection as a collaborative process" en el congreso EARLI 2017, Tampere (Finlandia), 30 agosto - 2 setiembre de 2017.

Publicado en: Educación
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

How collaboration improves preservice teachers’ reflection: A case study

  1. 1. How collaboration improves preservice teachers’ reflection: A case study Mauri, T., Clarà, M., Colomina, R., Onrubia, J., Martinez, A., Cubero, R. Tampere, August 29th – September 2nd 2017 Symposium: Teachers’ reflection as a collaborative process: Looking at how preservice teachers reflect together with knowledgeable others. This work was supported by the Spanish ‘Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad’ [grant EDU2013-44632-P] University of Barcelona, University of Lleida, Mondragon University, University of Sevilla
  2. 2. Introduction • In the context of teacher education, learning to reflect has proven to be hard • Collaborative reflection assisted by knowledgeable others has been argued to be highly beneficial… • …but research has also been suggested that what makes the difference is HOW people collaborate and HOW knowledgeable others provide assistance
  3. 3. Questions In a given case collaborative reflection: - How (in which sense) is there a progress in student teachers’ reflection? - How the social organization of interaction facilitates this progress? - How the individual assistance by the teacher educator facilitates this progress?
  4. 4. Antecedents: progress in student teachers’ reflection Discrepancies about the concept of reflection – Psychological nature of reflection – Pedagogical purpose of reflection
  5. 5. Antecedents: progress in student teachers’ reflection Discrepancies about the concept of reflection – Psychological nature of reflection • Is it a sequential process? Which are the phases? • How are theoretical ideas involved in the process? • What is the relation between decision making processes and reflection? Gaining clarity of an initially unclear and obscure situation (Dewey, 1986; Schön, 1983; Wertheimer, 1971; Clarà, 2015)
  6. 6. Antecedents: progress in student teachers’ reflection Discrepancies about the concept of reflection – Pedagogical purpose of reflection (Korthagen, 2001; Mansvelder- Longayroux et al., 2007) • Reflection to gain a theoretical view of the situation (Gelfuso, 2016; Korthagen, 2001) • Reflection to gain a political/ideological view of the situation (Daniel, Auhl, & Hastings, 2013; Liu, 2015) • Reflection to gain a better view of the practical tensions involved in the situation (Lampert, 1985; Yoon & Kim, 2009)
  7. 7. Antecedents: social organization of collaborative reflection • An aligned idea of the purpose of collaborative reflection (Tillema & van der Westhuizen, 2006; Attard, 2012; Yoon & Kim, 2009) • Trust among participants (Postholm, 2008; Wopereis, Sloep, & Poortman, 2010) • Several proposals of phases for collaborative reflection (Korthagen, 2001; Tillema & van der Westhuizen, 2006; Liu, 2015; Gelfuso, 2016)
  8. 8. Antecedents: social organization of reflection Proposed phases for collaborative reflection Korthagen Tillema et al. Liu Gelfuso 1.Action 1.Explicating existing beliefs 1.Assumption analyses 1.Setting the stage 2.Looking back 2.Using different perspectives 2.Contextual awareness 2.Opening the curtain 3.Awareness 3.Generation of conceptual artifacts 3.Imaginative speculation 3.The play 4.Creating 4.Reflective skepticism 4.The curtain closes 5.Trial 5.Reflection-based actions 5.The bow 6.Reflecting on the effects of reflection- based action
  9. 9. Antecedents: assistance to collaborative reflection • Specific questions are better than general (Kim & Silver, 2016; Whipp, 2003) • Evolution of assistance: less intervention by the teacher educator in the beginning of the process, more intervention towards the end (Kim & Silver, 2016) • Several types of assistance that seem to be important (Gelfuso, 2016; Tigelaar et al., 2008)
  10. 10. Antecedents: assistance to collaborative reflection Some important types of assistance Gelfuso, 2016 Tigelaar et al., 2008 Posing questions to create dissonance Guiding the conversation Creating juxtapositions Proposing an alternative Transitioning into synthesis Exploring an alternative Etc. Etc.
  11. 11. A case study - How (in which sense) is there a progress in student teachers’ reflection? - How the social organization of interaction facilitates this progress? - How the individual assistance by the teacher educator facilitates this progress?
  12. 12. A case study: setting – 5 sessions of collaborative reflection (videotaped) – 14 student teachers and 1 teacher educator – Practicum in schools four days a week, and sessions with the teacher educator (university) one day a week – Collaborative reflection on situations experienced by the student teachers in schools (8 situations) – After each session, student teachers had to write individual reflections on a new situation provided by the teacher educator
  13. 13. A case study: analysis • Content analysis: Applied to collaborative reflection and to individual reflection in order to study the progress in reflection (K=.917; K=.951) - Problematizing: discourse referring to an incoherence or problem in the situation - Action: discourse proposing alternative ways of action - Explanation: discourse proposing ways of understanding the situation - Evaluation: discourse with value judgments (political, moral, ethical)
  14. 14. A case study: analysis • Content analysis: Applied to collaborative reflection and to individual reflection in order to study the progress in reflection (K=.917; K=.951) • Interactivity analysis: Applied to collaborative reflection in order to study the social organization of interaction (K=.935) • Grounded-theory approach: Applied to collaborative reflection in order to study the assistance provided by the teacher educator
  15. 15. Results: progress in student teachers’ reflection Purpose of reflection: Understanding the situation, without making value judgments, by considering the tensions and dilemmas involved Tutor: …the idea is to try to understand the situation, OK? that’s the, let’s say, the purpose. The point of this is to try to understand what’s going on here, (…) to try to avoid making judgments, OK? the value judgments that we make instinctively, right, to try to stop that, (…) and to try to understand what’s in play here and why what’s happening is happening and why the teacher is doing what he’s doing, OK? to try to understand, understand the situation (as a whole), right? the different things that play a role, OK? (collaborative reflection, session 1) Tutor: ... the idea of this exercise about situations is not to solve the situation, (...) it’s not to give an opinion about the situation, it’s not to make a judgment of the situation, the basic idea of this exercise is trying to see the situation deeply, that is, without staying on the surface, it is trying to understand which are the internal tensions of the situation, which are the different elements that are playing there in this situation, ok?, this is the idea. (collaborative reflection, session 4)
  16. 16. Results: progress in student teachers’ reflection Progress of reflection (collaborative) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 2 3 4 5 (%ofsessiontime) EXP PROBL ACT EVAL
  17. 17. Results: progress in student teachers’ reflection Progress of reflection (individual) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 (%ofpreserviceteachers) PROBL EXP ACT EVAL PROBL or EXP
  18. 18. Results: social organization of collaborative reflection Four phases were consistently identified: 1.Clarification: The students ask short questions to the student who presented the situation (almost no intervention by the teacher educator) 2.Exploration: Dialogic interaction between the students (almost no intervention by the teacher educator) 3.Focalization: Dialogue strongly guided by the teacher educator 4.Interpretation: Monologic interaction centered on the teacher educator
  19. 19. Results: social organization of collaborative reflection Session Situation Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation 1 A No 0:16:43 0:35:32 No B No 0:13:16 0:12:57 No 2 C 0:02:59 0:07:36 0:07:45 0:07:19 D 0:07:29 0:03:03 0:06:35 0:04:11 3 E No 0:07:11 0:36:22 0:09:05 4 F 0:06:26 0:06:48 0:14:45 0:06:09 5 G 0:07:27 No 0:09:40 0:05:55 H 0:02:58 0:04:51 0:06:20 0:05:10 Cumulated 0:27:19 0:59:28 2:09:56 0:37:49 % 10,73 23,36 51,05 14,86
  20. 20. Results: assistance to collaborative reflection Quantitative evolution of teacher educator intervention in collaborative reflection (in a given reflection process) 3.21 11.77 44.83 73.58 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation (%ofcumulatedtimeineach phase)
  21. 21. Results: assistance to collaborative reflection Quantitative evolution of teacher educator intervention in collaborative reflection (through the five sessions) 40.29 23.93 68.40 40.77 33.69 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 2 3 4 5 (%ofsessiontime)
  22. 22. Results: assistance to collaborative reflection Qualitative evolution of teacher educator intervention in collaborative reflection (through the five sessions) Sessions Strategy Sessions 1-2 (Encouraging an explanatory stance) Framing Oppositional voice Counterpoising alternatives Sessions 2-5 (Encouraging a dilemmatic explanation) Asking for the dilemma Problematizing Modeling All sessions (especially 1, 4 and 5) Sharing the purpose of reflection
  23. 23. Conclusions • In order to study the progress of reflection, it is important to consider the aims pursued by participants in each specific process • Within a given collaborative reflection process, it seems that it may be beneficial to start with dialogical forms of interaction and advance to more monological forms • It seems to be important that the quantity and the quality of teacher educator’s assistance is contingent with the progress of student teachers’ reflection
  24. 24. Thank you so much
  25. 25. References Attard, K. (2012). Public reflection within learning communities: An incessant type of professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (2), 199-211. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643397 Clarà, M. (2015). What is reflection? Looking for clarity in an ambiguous notion. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 261-271, DOI: 10.1177/0022487114552028 Daniel, G.R., Auhl, G. & Hastings, W. (2013). Collaborative feedback and reflection for professional growth: Preparing first-year pre-service teachers for participation in the community of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 159-172. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.777025 Dewey, J. (1933/1986). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In . In J.A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey, Volume 8:1933. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. Gelfuso, A. (2016). A framework for facilitating video-mediated reflection: Supporting preservice teachers as they create “warranted assertabilities” about literacy teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 68-79. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.003 Kim, Y., & Silver, R.E. (2016). Provoking reflective thinking in post observation conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(3), 203-219. doi: 10.1177/0022487116637120. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55 (2), 178-194. Liu, K. (2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educational Review, 67(2), 135- 157. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.839546
  26. 26. References Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 47-62. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.033 Postholm, M.B. (2008). Teachers developing practice: Reflection as key activity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1717-1728. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.024. Schön, D. (1983/1991). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Arena. Tigelaar, D.E.H., Dolmans, D.H.J.M., Meijer, P.C., De Grave, W.S, & Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2008). Teachers’ interactions and their collaborative reflection processes during peer meetings. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 289-308. doi: 10.1007/s10459-006-9040-4. Tillema, H., & van der Westhuizen, G.J. (2006). Knowledge construction in collaborative enquiry among teachers. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 12(1), 51-67. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13450600500365403 Wertheimer, M. (1945/1971). Productive thinking. New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row. Whipp, J. (2003). Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers think deeply about field experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 321-333. doi:10.1177/0022487103255010 Wopereis, I.G.J.H., Sloep, P.B., & Poortman, S.H. (2010). Weblogs as instruments for reflection on action in teacher education. Interactive Learning Environments,18(3), 245-261. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2010.500530 Yoon, H-G., & Kim, M. (2009). Collaborative reflection through dilemma cases of science practical work during practicum. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 283-301. doi: 10.1080/09500690802516538
  27. 27. Framing 23 Tutor: Let’s do something. We’ll continue in a second. I’m just saying, let’s suppose… let’s think about this situation (…), but supposing that the mother isn’t doing this just to annoy the teacher, right? Framing 24 Olga: Why then? 25 Tutor: Because she really has a certain view about her child’s education, OK? Let’s think about that, or rather (…), let’s start with that assumption, OK?
  28. 28. Oppositional voice 60 Tutor: She [Elsa] said, [...] she said, “I can’t give my view on building a wall if I can’t do a construction worker’s job.” But is that a valid comparison? Think about it for a minute. Isn’t the mother educating the child, too? The teacher is educating the child, and the mother is educating the child, right? Who is more responsible for the child’s education? Oppositional voice
  29. 29. Counterpoising alternatives 68 Tutor: No, no. What I, what I’m trying to propose is to say “No, no, let’s not eliminate, that is, we can’t…”, let’s say, “We can’t get rid of the discrepancy, OK?” (…) Let’s not think of a solution that gets rid of the discrepancy, because such a solution is imaginary, OK? The discrepancy is there, so what I’m saying is, given that discrepancy, what do you think, which point of view should prevail? Framing + Contraposition
  30. 30. Asking for the dilemma 67 Tutor: What would you say is… the underlying dilemma in this situation, in other words, the dilemma underlying the decision that needs to be made? What would you say it is? Asking for the dilemma
  31. 31. Problematizing 98 Isabel: Autonomy and socialization. 99 Tutor: Autonomy and socialization, yes, that’s sort of what he [Jordi] was saying, and the other would be… 100 Olga: Cognitive 101 Tutor: Cognitive. Those are two possibilities, but, before, she [Olga] said, ‘Well, hold on, special education schools help them to be autonomous, too, also… in other words, and the school, here, they also make some progress.” I don’t, in other words, I’m not sure that the directions are so, I don’t know, let’s say… so simple. I don’t know. Problematizing
  32. 32. Modeling 118 Tutor: And when you said that, I saw how it was related to what you [Joana] said before, right? to say, sure, at the school, he sort of has to make a bigger effort, right? whereas the special education adapts to him in a way, right? and I don’t know, I get the feeling that maybe, really, the underlying dilemma isn’t… I don’t know if it’s so much cognitive (development versus) socialization, I don’t know if that’s really it. I think it’s more like, what she [Anna] said, right? to say, alright, do I want this person, my student, my son, to be someone who lives in an adapted world or do I want him to be someone… in an adapted world, for him to live comfortably in an adapted world, or do I want him to be someone who, with an effort, (lives) in a world that’s, let’s say… 119 Jordi: Normal. 120 Tutor: Yes, less adapted. I’m not sure what to call it. Do you know what I mean?
  33. 33. Sessi on Duration of session* Situation Description Time 1 1:18:28 A A mother questions how a teacher is doing her job, specifically, an activity where the children have to paint a picture. 00:52:15 B Parents do not want to medicate their ADHD child, and teachers think they should. 0:26:13 2 0:46:57 C In the last year of primary school there is a student with substantial learning difficulties; the teachers decide to pass her, allowing her to go on to secondary school. 0:25:39 D The mother of a child with autism spectrum disorder does not want him to combine ordinary school with a special school; the father disagrees (the parents are divorced). 0:21:18
  34. 34. Sessio n Duration of session* Situatio n Description Time 3 0:52:38 E There is a conflict between teachers about how to position children’s desks, in groups of two or in groups of four. 0:52:38 4 0:34:08 F An English-speaking father and a Catalan mother decide to use only English with their child. They believe that he is gifted. The child has problems with Catalan in school and anxiety problems. 0:34:08 5 0:42:21 G In a difficult class, a substitute English teacher has problems with children’s behavior. 0:23:02 H A usually quiet child pretends to have been beaten up by another child, who is usually more impulsive. 0:19:19
  35. 35. A case study: analysis Interactivity Analysis (Coll, Onrubia & Mauri, 2008) • Identifying “chunks” of interaction that work as a unity (Erickson & Schultz, 1977) • Inductively creating codes which describe “what the participants are doing together” • Describing the interactional structure of turn-taking of the participants Inter-rater reliability: K= .935
  36. 36. A case study: analysis Grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) Qualitative examination and coding of the teacher educator’s moves in order to identify relevant types of assistance

×