Eur J Psychol Educ

DOI 10.1007/s10212-014-0231-8

Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective

competencies in their own teaching

Juliette D. G. Goldman & Peter Grimbeek

Received: 30 April 2014 / Revised: 4 August 2014 / Accepted: 3 October 2014

# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
2014

Abstract Much contemporary educational literature exhorts teachers, at all educational levels,
to undertake continuous self-reflection on their teaching practices. However, at pre-service
university level, many student teachers do not appear to understand the concept very deeply.
Teacher educators and student teachers could benefit from knowing more about the charac-
teristics and scope of student teachers’ reflective competencies. This paper explores the
competencies identified by primary school student teachers in their abilities to self-reflect on
their own teaching capacities during practice teaching. Some 166 student teachers each wrote a
1500-word essay focusing on their reflective competencies. These essays were subjected to a
Narrative Content Analysis using a modified version of Bain et al’s. theoretical framework, with
six components containing 19 levels of reflection. The results show that most of these student
teachers were able to reflect in terms of reporting, responding, and relating, but were unable to
do so in terms of reasoning, reconstructing, and representing reflection. Females generally
performed better except in terms of responding, where males were more likely to respond in
terms of significant aspects of teaching the incident or issue, to make judgments about the
incident or issue, or to pose questions or identify problems. These outcomes have implications
for teacher educators and pre-service students in terms of developing higher quality self-
reflections about teaching and learning.

Keywords Primary school teacher education . Student teachers . Reflection . Self-assessment

J. D. G. Goldman : P. Grimbeek
Griffith University, Nathan, Australia
P. Grimbeek
e-mail: p.grimbeek@griffith.edu.au

J. D. G. Goldman (*)
Faculty of Education, Griffith University Gold Coast, PMB 50 Gold Coast Mail Centre, Bundall,
Queensland, Australia 4222
e-mail: j.goldman@griffith.edu.au

P. Grimbeek
Griffith Graduate Research School, Griffith University Nathan, Nathan, Queensland, Australia 4111
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

Introduction

The word “reflect” comes from the Latin “re” meaning backwards, and “flectere”, to bend, and
so one can “cast back… after incidence” (Macquarie Dictionary 2001, p. 1590). However, “re”
also means “afresh… especially in order to alter or improve or renew” (Concise Oxford
Dictionary 1984, p. 860). Accordingly, reflection may be defined as the “active, persistent and
careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that
support it” (Dewey 1933, p. 9), and this definition will be used here. The process of reflection
involves learning from one’s own learning through a post-period of consolidation, consulta-
tion, explanation, and justification (McLeod and Reynolds 2007), as well as thinking about
one’s thinking or metacognition (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001; see also Soffe et al. 2011).
This reflection process, where the strategy of thinking (cognition) about learning meets the
body of knowledge learned, leading to the application of future learning by challenging,
extending, and creating, is necessarily continual (McLeod and Reynolds 2007) and so forms
a hermeneutic spiral (see Ricoeur 1981). Consciously, self-interpretative and considered
reflection start with formal learning in primary school, although it likely occurs earlier in the
tacit sense, with the child’s development of a theory of mind (see Berger 2004; Robson 2012).
However, this paper concerns reflection as a process for teachers, specifically student-teachers,
who may not have previously recognized or used a structured reflective process to examine
their responses and actions, or confront their attitudes and assumptions, about learning and
teaching (see Whitton et al. 2004). Thompson and Pascal (2012) used the word “reflexivity”
for this mirroring of practice, as “factoring ourselves as players into the situations we practice
in” (p. 319), while Ryan (2013) names “transformative reflection” as the “self-referential
bending back” of a thought, idea, or experience and its “reimagining” for future personal and
social benefit (pp. 145–6).

Teacher noticing

An area of recent research is that of teachers’ ability to attend, analyse, and respond to student
thinking (Sherin et al. 2011), or, after Ryan (2013), to discern, deliberate, and delineate an
issue. That is, what do teachers notice in their students’ cognition or learning, which child/
children exhibit deficits, weaknesses, or confusion, when do these occur or recur, where in the
lesson do cognitive diversions occur, why does the student think like that, and how can I, as
teacher, remediate the problem? Such teacher self-questioning is the key to “teacher noticing”
on their teaching experiences (see Sherin et al. 2011).
The broad aim of this study, then, is to audit a cohort of primary school pre-service student
teachers, for their perceptions of their ability to develop and employ such reflective skills, and
to self-evaluate their “teacher noticing” and understandings of their teaching and associated
pedagogies in the school classroom, at both the micro or individual level, and at a wider,
macro, global context of teaching (Smith and Lovat 2006; see also Eby et al. 2009; Gipps et al.
2000; Pollard 2006). “Self-evaluation is the hallmark of professionalism” (Barry and King
1998, p. 409; see also Beauchamp and Thomas 2010).

Purpose and process of reflection in teaching

One key purpose of reflection in teaching is to ensure that learners, whether school students or
student teachers, experience quality teaching (see Smith and Lovat 2006). Without the ability
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

to notice and to self-reflect, teachers may become complacent and accepting of the status quo,
fail to increase their understanding of what is required to improve their students’ learning
experiences, and, in turn, fail to evaluate their own performance as professional educators (Eby
et al. 2009; Smith and Lovat 2006; Whitton et al. 2004). Improving teachers’ self-critique
capacities, and encouraging them to take risks by trying out new ideas and considering
alternative ways of teaching, may engender and legitimate their willingness and commitment
to continual professional growth (see Evans 2002; Goldman 2005; Goldman and Grimbeek
2008; Pollard 2006; Stenberg 2010).
The process of reflection enables the teachers and student teachers to act voluntarily and
deliberately to address a range of educational issues and practices, for example, to gather data,
often from action research (see Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
(AITSL) 2011, 2012; Hatton and Smith 1995). Such data helps the teachers to understand
students’ learning strengths and weaknesses, to identify individual students’ needs, to analyse
and determine the most effective pedagogies, the optimum classroom conditions, and educa-
tional environment, and to address particular concepts in a positive and productive manner for
teacher and students alike (see Allen 2004; Eby et al. 2009; Evans 2002; Pollard 2006; Smith
and Lovat 2006). Action research itself is a dynamic form of reflective inquiry based on spiral
research cycles of planning, actioning, and solving real-time problems, while at the same time
observing, learning, and reflecting, undertaken by the participants who are “exercising moral
imagination” (Soffe et al. 2011, pp. 213–4) to improve the rational and justified flow of their
evidence-based practice, in this case, classroom learning and teaching (see Bolton 2010).
More than 100 years ago, Dewey recognized that if a teacher neglects this practice towards
professional growth, “[s]he may continue to improve in the mechanics of school management,
but [s]he cannot grow as a teacher, an inspirer and director” (1904, cited in Bain et al. 2002, p. 7;
see also Gipps et al. 2000; Grant and Vansledright 2001; Schon 1983; Stenberg 2010). Indeed,
Thompson and Pascal (2012) argued that the contemporary and growing interest in reflectivity
(and also leadership) is largely a reaction against the loss of professional autonomy, trust, and
respect, wrought by “dehumanising” discourses and closer managerial control (p. 321), in
pursuit of target/outcome settings and efficiency/productivity ratings. The culture of
managerialism may itself be connected to the rising tide of sociopolitical conservatism,
status-seeking, and the marketization and privatization of education. This is particularly evident
in contemporary Australia where more than a third (34.9 %) of students now attend non-
government schools (ABS 2014), although all schools receive government funding.
Reflective teaching requires Dewey’s attitudes of open-mindedness, responsibility, and
“wholeheartedness” (1933, cited in Whitton et al. 2004, p. 220), where the teacher engages
in constant self-appraisal in situations that are commonly in a state of flux, where there may be
no definitive “answer” to problems posed, or where knowledge is being created. It may also
involve the teacher seeking other perspectives to gain insight on new challenges or changed
circumstances. Such reflection may be conceptualized to extend along a continuum from self-
reflective metacognitive approaches to socially critical approaches (Pollard 2006, cited in
McLeod and Reynolds 2007, p. 4), or as Smith (2011, p. 217) shows, from personal thoughts
and actions, through the interpersonal as interactions with others, and the contextual as
concepts, theory, and methods, up to the critical reflective questioning of political, ethical,
and social contexts. Further, the reflective skills of teachers are conceptualized as having an
impact on the whole school’s performance, so that

Effective schools have highly developed management arrangements in relation to inquiry

and reflection… and well-developed classroom arrangements in relation to authentic
relationships, establishing expectations, curriculum development, the repertoire of
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

teaching approaches and self-evaluation (Barry and King 1998, p. 270, italics added; see
also Allen 2004; Eby et al. 2009; Goldman and Grimbeek 2008).

The “professional artistry” (Schon, cited in Thompson and Pascal 2012, p. 314) of teacher
reflection has thus become an important characteristic and process to help to elevate the quality
of learning in schools and to enhance their overall effectiveness.
Reflection can occur at all stages in the teaching process. According to McLeod and
Reynolds (2007), teachers should reflect about their teaching before, during, and after each
teaching experience (e.g., a lesson). When planning for a learning experience, teachers need to
reflect upon their aims, philosophies, the concepts they expect to employ, what they are
expected to teach in the prescribed curricula, what they know about their learners, and the
relevance or appropriateness of the content (see Pollard 2006). However, Smith and Lovat
(2006) noted that an “approach based on critical reflection is one that is very demanding of the
time, energy, resources, and commitment of the practitioner” (2006, p. 163). Hatton and Smith
(1995) have defined reflection as “deliberative thinking about action with a view to its
improvement” (1995, p. 40; see also Ward and McCotter 2004). The first part of this definition
integrates well with Dewey’s “active, persistent and careful consideration” (1933, p. 9), as
observed above. But Hatton and Smith’s (1995) definition also specifies the aim of improve-
ment, which is integrated with the contemporary desired outcome of action research as the
gathering and analysis of data generated from “any belief or supposed form of knowledge”
(Dewey 1933, p. 9). In the contemporary busy school, whether primary or secondary, with its
crowded curriculum (Blake 2008), teachers may be pressured to relegate reflection, and
especially its concomitant action research evidence-based practice, to lower order priority.
Ward and McCotter (2004) argued that the fundamental shift in both teaching and learning,
from an input model to a standardized “value-added” (p. 244) output model, leaves little time
or inclination for deliberative thinking, or questioning, particularly for early-career teachers.
Smith (2011) highlights the tension between students using critical reflection to subjectively
explore framing assumptions and “find voice”, and educators developing an inflexible,
objective form of reflectivity assessment that requires “the learner to conform to the reality
of the assessor” (p. 218). Schon’s original critique of “technical rationality” (Thompson and
Pascal 2012, p. 313) as applied to education, where teachers may instruct students “to the test”,
is still valid and very potent (Ward and McCotter 2004, p. 243).
Further, Smith and Lovat (2006) distinguish between micro- and macro-reflection. Micro-
reflection refers to identifying technical problems related to strategies, planning, implementa-
tion, and resources (see also Hatton and Smith 1995; Marsh 2008). Such issues appear to be,
perhaps naturally, of dominant concern for student teachers, especially prior to and during their
first practicum (also called practice teaching) period during their university training. These
first-year student teachers’ micro-reflections on planning for learning and teaching may be
additionally burdened by considerations of outcomes and assessments for their students in
primary schools and for themselves as university students. Macro-reflection refers to “the sort
of reflection which allows the teacher to locate her or his own actions, or the actions of the
local group, in the wider historical and socio-political context of teaching” (Smith and Lovat
2006, p. 163). For student teachers, then, macro-reflections may include sociocultural assump-
tions and values about learning, institutional norms of discourse and behaviour, discipline-
specific opportunities, and/or constraints for learning and meaning making, and power differ-
entials between teachers and students. Macro-reflection may also extend beyond these con-
texts, to include “provocative features” such as respecting doubt and uncertainty, distrusting
formulaic, or superficial solutions, and engaging with issues of power and control (Boud and
Walker 1998, p. 192).
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

Requirements for reflection in teaching

The importance of reflection in teaching, particularly in teacher education, is now widely

recognized (Stenberg 2010; Yost et al. 2000) and is “one reform effort that has taken hold in
the education community” (Pedro 2005, p. 49). In Australian jurisdictions, for example, the
New South Wales Institute of Teachers (2004) defined one of the three domains of teachers’
work as “Professional Commitment: The capacity of teachers to reflect critically on their own
practice accompanied by a commitment to their own development…” (cited in McLeod and
Reynolds 2007, p. 148 italics added; see also Evans 2002). In Queensland, one of the ten
professional standards produced by the Queensland College of Teachers, the State’s Teacher
Registration Board, requires teachers to “Commit to reflective practice and ongoing profes-
sional renewal” (QCT 2007, p. 16, italics added). Further, reflection has become a necessary
and important policy requirement of teacher registration, applicable to student teachers, and
qualified practising teachers in every Australian educational jurisdiction.
Three recent nation-wide documents provide an energetic transfusion into Australian
schools, school teaching, and pre-service education, thus reinvigorating the role of reflection
in quality education. As Ward and McCotter (2004) noted, “Expecting preservice teachers to
relate their teaching behaviors to student learning rather than to their own performance
represents an important shift from a focus on self to a focus on others… [where they] think
about the moral enterprise of teaching and what is ‘taken-for-granted’ [in their work]” (pp.
244–5; see also Reynolds 2011). In the first of these documents, the Australian National
Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011), seven standards “inform the development
of professional learning goals, provide a framework by which teachers can judge the success of
their learning and assist self-reflection and self-assessment” (p. 2, italics added). In particular,
Standard 6 mandates that teachers “Engage in professional learning and reflection” (p. 3, italics
added). The second document, the Australian Charter for the Professional Learning of
Teachers and School Leaders (AITSL 2012), provides a mechanism for teacher, educator,
parental, and public discussion on the professional learning of teachers (previously called
Professional Development). “Professional learning will be most effective when it is relevant,
collaborative and future focused, and when it supports teachers to reflect on, question and
consciously improve their practice” (2012, p. 4, italics added).
However, the third and most visible educational transformation is the first-ever Australian
Curriculum, introduced in 2012. By setting out what students need to learn, what will be
taught, and the quality of the teaching and learning outcomes, the new Australian Curriculum
(v7, Australian Curriculum & Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2014)) aims to bring excel-
lence, equity, consistency, and transferability to the eight existing state and territory educa-
tional jurisdictions. New curricula for the LAs of english, mathematics, science, history, and
geography are currently being implemented from Foundation (or preparatory) level to Year 12,
albeit to varying timetables in different jurisdictions, with the LAs of the arts, economics and
business, civics and citizenship, technologies, and health and physical education (HPE), and
four of 11 languages are now available to teachers. In most LAs, content description specif-
ically direct teachers to develop, observe, and assess their students’ reflective capacities.

Informed critical reflection

In contemporary educational literature, the adjective “critical” often precedes the term “reflec-
tion” in order to emphasise skills of inquiry, self-examination, reviewing, and deconstruction
(see Hatton and Smith 1995). Teachers who are critically reflective are seen as having the
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

ability to take “responsibility for their own actions, being analytical and critical of those actions,
and at times examining the relationship between those actions and the organisation and societal
context in which they work” (Calderhead 1987, cited in Whitton et al. 2004, p. 224). That is,
teachers are exhorted to be able to examine their role and agency in the broader educational,
social, gender, and political macro milieu (Smith and Lovat 2006; see also Goldman 2005, 2008,
2011; Goldman and Bradley 2011; Goldman and Grimbeek 2008; Pollard 2006). For Boud and
Walker (1998), this context is framed by the “total cultural, social and political environment” in
which reflection occurs, which necessarily includes the learning “pretext (the legitimation for an
activity), and subtext (values which are not normally articulated)” (p. 198).
More recently, the term “critical reflection” has developed into “informed critical reflec-
tion”. This emphasises that critical reflection should not be based on ad hoc or routine
reactions to a teaching situation, but be informed by sound theoretical and hermeneutical
perspectives (Thompson and Pascal 2011), evidence found in action research in the classroom
(see AITSL 2012), and by the literature and educational research evidence (see Evans 2002;
Reynolds 2011; Ryan 2013; Smith 2011; Ward and McCotter 2004). Thus, informed critical
reflection provides qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method research-based data, directed
towards improved analytical reflection to enhance evidence-based practice.

Types of reflection

McLeod and Reynolds (2007, p. 80) identify three types of reflection in teaching that address
present, past, and future teaching and learning, namely;

& Reflection in action, conceptualized as the intuitive and reactive type of reflection that may
occur during a teaching situation, while a teacher notices how their teaching of the lesson
changed from the initial plan. Teachers are exhorted to constantly reassess the learning that
is taking place and modify the experience, as necessary, to ensure that the learning is
maximized (see AITSL 2012; Smith and Lovat 2006). That is, that the assessment is for
learning.
& Reflection on action, occurring after the teaching experience, where teachers reflect on
what they have taught and how effective it was in terms of students’ learning. McLeod and
Reynolds (2007) have two foci for this reflection; “strategic questioning” on cognition and
“factual questioning” on knowledge content (2007, p. 42; see also Anderson and
Krathwohl 2001). Smith and Lovat (2006), in placing reflection in both a micro and
macro milieu, as mentioned earlier, also use the term “action on reflection” (2006, p. 242;
see also AITSL 2012).
& Reflection for action, occurring after the program’s implementation, when the focus is on
the question of application and (McLeod and Reynolds 2007, p. 42) and forethought
(Thompson and Pascal 2012, p. 317). That is, how the teaching and learning from this
program should direct the planning, and improvement, of the next educational action or
future program, including remediation, that is, data-driven pedagogy.

Thus, the imperatives of noticing, questioning, planning, and reflecting require this
audit of a pre-service student teacher cohort’s ability to employ such reflective skills; to
self-evaluate beliefs, perceptions, and understandings of the classroom/school’s teaching
and associated pedagogies; and to find evidence of reflection in teaching in both micro
and macro contexts (Smith and Lovat 2006; see also Eby et al. 2009; Gipps et al. 2000;
Pollard 2006).
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

Theoretical reflective framework adapted from Bain et al. (2002)

This study applies an adapted theoretical framework assessment scale for analysing reflective
writing and thinking about the practice of teaching, developed by Bain et al. (2002), known as
the “5Rs Reflective Framework” (2002, p. 13). Written permission is granted for its use, and its
modification. Bain et al. hierarchical scale comprises five major components of reflection,
through which an individual teacher may progress. The five components and their internal
graduated levels, to which has been added a sixth component with its levels, are shown here in
brief, from the most basic (lowest level) component 1 to the more complex (highest level)
component 6. Detailed characteristics of the graduated levels are shown in the Results section.

& Component 1: Reporting (micro-reflection), describing or reporting what happened, or

what the incident or issue involves. This component’s three levels range from reporting
minimal or broad descriptions, up to details sufficient for conclusions.
& Component 2: Responding (micro-reflection), responding to the incident or issue by
making observations, expressing feelings or asking questions. The three levels range from
responding to significant aspects, and making judgements, up to extending interrogations.
& Component 3: Relating (micro-reflection), relating or making a connection between the
incident or issue and the writer’s own skills, experience, learning, or understanding. The
three levels range from relating to personal experience or learning, and with a limited
discussion, up to an extended insight.
& Component 4: Reasoning (micro-reflection), highlighting in detail the significant factors
underlying the incident or issue and shows why they are important to an understanding of
it. The three levels range from reasoning about at least one relevant factor, and possible
alternatives or combinations, up to theoretical insights or new perspectives.
& Component 5: Reconstructing (micro-reflection), understanding developed through rea-
soning is used to reframe or reconstruct future practice or professional understanding. The
four levels of this component range from reconstructing an incident/issue to a conclusion
or future action plan, considering relevant reasons or implications, and also possible
different impacts, up to integration with one’s own approach or theory of teaching.

Thus, the further a teacher or student teacher progresses through the graduated components
and sub-levels, the higher the quality of self-evaluation and the deeper, thoughtful reflection,
becomes. Reaching reflection at the highest grades is an ideal situation, and one that could
probably not be immediately achieved by all student teachers. However, with time, practice,
and a conscious effort by a nascent teacher to nurture and develop reflection, it may become
habituated in everyday practice (see Evans 2002; Hatton and Smith 1995; Pollard 2006).
All of these five components include micro-reflection (Smith and Lovat 2006). However,
macro-reflection does not immediately appear to be evident. It may be interpreted as being
located in Component 5, at level 4, but ideally a macro level would seem to be an essential
inclusion. So, a higher level, called Component 6 representing, has been added here. It is called
representing because it has evidence that represents socially and even philosophically critical
micro- and macro-reflections, and its details, holistically (see Boud and Walker 1998; Smith
and Lovat 2006).

& Component 6: Representing (macro-reflection), promoting critically informed social,

ethical, moral, and global macro-reflection. The three levels range from representing the
teacher/school agency and influence in education at local to regional levels, then in
national contexts, and up to global contexts.
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

A teacher committed to quality professional reflective practice would aim to achieve

component 6. “Any society that values creativity also needs to enable criticism” (Christenson
2001, cited in Thompson and Pascal 2012, p. 321), through speaking to power and questioning
the status quo, and our own values. This adapted six-level theoretical framework of Bain et al.
(2002), now with 19 levels, is used below in a Narrative Content Analysis of essays written by
a cohort of primary school student teachers.

Method

Aim

This research aims, specifically, to explore the self-reflective and analytical competencies
exhibited in essays written by a cohort of primary school student teachers, on evidence for their
own teaching competencies, their noticing development, and pre-service skills growth. An
audit of these essays, using a Narrative Content Analysis based on the modified six-level
theoretical framework of Bain et al. (2002), detailed above and shown in Box 1, examined the
student teachers’ “micro-reflective” abilities, that is, reflections about their learning and
teaching experiences during professional education and practice teaching (practicum) periods
in primary schools, and also their more broadly contextual “macro-reflective” development as
socially-critical teachers in contemporary Australian and/or globalized educational settings
(see Smith and Lovat 2006). Such information can be diagnostically useful for student
teachers, teachers, and teacher educators.
Ryan’s (2013) investigation of lecturers’ pedagogies for teaching reflection to a mixed
faculty sample of university students also used Bain et al. theoretical framework. However,
that study was predicated on students’ work examples at only four levels of Bain et al.
framework, after collapsing the first two levels of reporting and responding together. Narrative
Content Analysis itself has been found to be a productive means of establishing meaningful
and valid subjectivities for study (Daniels 2008; see also Thompson and Pascal 2012).
In light of the fact that a search for published literature on gender differences in reflection
competencies has proved fruitless, and since gender has been found to be a significant factor in
the development of learning and literacy (Duschene et al. 2013), an additional aim here is to
explore gender differences across the six components of the theoretical schema. For example,
researchers suggest that boys tend to be “systematisers” (2013, p. 390) who prefer spatial-
visual reasoning and analytical modes of learning and form relationships of in-group posi-
tioning, whereas girls tend to be “empathisers” (p. 396) who perform better in language-related
skills and focus more on dyadic (one-to-one) relationships (p. 391). However, boys are more
likely to self-sabotage schooling, while girls report significantly higher anxiety levels around
school “failure” (p. 281). So, an additional aim of this paper is to explore if there are gender
differences across these six components of reflection.

Sample

The sample consists of 166 graduate primary school student teachers undertaking a postgrad-
uate degree, namely a Master of Teaching, at an urban south-east Queensland State public
University. Participants self-reported their gender as 130 females and 36 males. All of these
graduates are international students from another English-speaking country, where nearly all
obtained their Bachelor’s degree in a range of disciplines, but predominantly in social sciences,
health, and psychology.
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

Instrument and analysis of data

At the end of the student teachers’ first practice teaching bloc of 6 weeks in a government (public)
or a private primary school, the student teachers were asked to write a 1500-word reflective essay.
The question was worded to elicit a self-reflective analysis of evidence of their developing
competencies and capacities as pre-service primary school teachers. Each student teacher’s essay
was Narrative Content Analysed for evidence of any of the six reflective components and 19
different levels of thought processes, adapted from Bain et al. (2002). Using this hierarchy, two
scorers assessed any evidence of reflective characteristics in each student teacher’s essay to identify
the competencies of the student teacher and determine which level of reflection the student teacher
had reached. The presence of evidence in any of the 19 levels was given a score of 1.
For example, if a scorer identified an instance where a student teacher had given a minimal
descriptive account of an incident or issue, for example, “I asked the 8 year-old boy what is the
capital city of Australia, and he said Brisbane, but the answer, which was taught in my previous
Social Studies lesson, was Canberra” (male student teacher), this would be noted as component
1 reporting, level 1. If a student teacher showed evidence of detailed and insightful analysis of
an incident or issue, including third-party perspectives or theoretical insights into their reflective
evaluation, it would be noted as component 4 reasoning, level 3, for example, “Along with
Glasser’s Choice Theory, I observed my practicum teacher referring to Jones’s theory on body
language. Mrs X (teacher) would diminish unwanted behaviour by delivering instructions or
teaching near the students who were misbehaving. This is an effective technique I learned to use
on a daily basis…” (female student teacher). A pretest was undertaken by the two scorers, who
independently coded ten reflective essays using the agreed criteria and the theoretical
framework outlined earlier. Scores were correlated, and scorer reliability was found to be at
satisfactory levels, with most at 0.90 levels. Following discussions between the scorers, slight
adjustments were made to the coding process. SPSS v.20 was used to analyse the data.

Results

The Narrative Content Analysis statistics from each component and level of Bain et al. (2002)
adapted framework, for these graduate student teacher reflective essays, are shown in boxes 1
and 2, and also in the histograms in Figs. 1 and 2. Box 1 provides an analysis of the magnitude
data by components 1 to 6 in the theoretical reflective framework, by mean, standard
deviation, and minimum/maximum. This analysis concludes with one-way ANOVAs of the
six components as shown in box 2.
Box 1 also shows the responses from the 166 graduate student teachers in terms of the
magnitude of scores obtained for all the components and their levels, starting with the first and
lowest reflection component 1, namely reporting.
Box 1: Evidence of reflection found in student-teacher essays using Narrative Content
Analysis with Bain et al. (2002) modified 6Rs theoretical reflective framework

Six component variables and 19 levels Mean Standard Minimum Maximum

deviation
Component 1: Reporting
1. Minimal description 2.58 1.81 10.00
2. Broad description 1.40 1.37 9.00
3. Detailed description 2.52 1.93 12.00
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

Mean score 2.17 1.08 0.00 7.33

Component 2: Responding
1. Significant aspects 4.25 3.11 19.00
2. Also makes judgment 1.42 1.52 7.00
3. Also poses question/identifies problem 1.86 1.81 10.00
Mean score 2.51 1.50 0.00 8.33
Component 3: Relating
1. Related to self 6.91 3.56 36.00
2. Includes superficial rationale 1.93 1.58 9.00
3. Includes extended rationale 1.97 1.48 6.00
Mean score 3.60 1.51 0.00 15.33
Component 4: Reasoning
1. One relevant factor analysed 0.40 0.78 5.00
2. Also considers alternative experiences 0.08 0.29 2.00
3. Also includes different perspectives 0.18 0.41 2.00
Mean score 0.22 0.32 0.00 1.67
Component 5: Reconstructing
1. Discussion leads to plan of action 0.12 0.55 6.00
2. Also considers reasons for action plan 0.01 0.08 1.00
3. Also considers impacts of different circumstances 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Also integrates personal teaching approach 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mean score 0.03 0.14 0.00 1.50
Component 6: Representing
1. Metacognitive examination of agency and influence at 0.01 0.11 1.00
local, state, and regional level
2. Metacognitive examination of agency and influence at 0.00 0.00 0.00
national level
3. Metacognitive examination of agency and influence at 0.00 0.00 0.00
global level
Mean score 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.33

Source: adapted from Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., & Lester, N.C. (2002).
Reflecting on Practice: Student Teachers’ Perspectives. Flaxton, Queensland: Post Press
Each of these six components of the adapted theoretical reflective framework will now be
addressed.

Component 1: Reporting

Box 1 shows that student teachers obtained fairly similar scores across the first three levels of
this component 1 reporting, with a mean score across the three levels of 2.17 (SD=1.08).
Examples include:

& Level 1. Give a minimal description of the incident/issue (mean 2.58), “Throughout my
practicum I followed the classroom procedures for behaviour management” (male student
teacher).
& Level 2. Give a broad description, with limited elaboration of potentially significant details
(mean 1.40), “I feel it is beneficial that I had the opportunity to work with a diverse range
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

of students alongside an experienced teacher, rather than facing my first challenging

environment on my own” (female student teacher).
& Level 3. Give a detailed description so readers can draw their own conclusions (mean
2.52), “One specific behaviour management was a cross-country run on the back of the
classroom wall… The objective of the game [five trails, each allocated to a team of five
students] was to encourage students to work as a team (and individuals) to reach the finish
line while simultaneously grappling certain barriers such as hills and water on the tracks, as
well as certain cues such as ‘wrong way go back!’ Ultimately the students were monitoring
and altering behaviours and attaining short term goals (intrinsic rewards)” (female student
teacher).

Component 2: Responding

Box 1 also shows the student teacher responses for component 2 responding. Here, student
teachers obtained significantly higher scores for Level 1 of this component, with a mean score
across the three levels of 2.51 (SD=1.50). Examples include:

& Level 1. Notice significant aspects or express feelings about the incident/issue (mean 4.25),
“Some examples of games that we played were Jeopardy where they received points for
answering questions correctly, matching digital and analogue times to an actual teaching
clock” (female student teacher).
& Level 2. Also make judgments about it (mean 1.42) “Using this modeling method to
explicitly go through the thinking process aloud made it much easier for some students to
comprehend the activity” (male student teacher).
& Level 3. Also pose a question or identify a further problem (mean 1.86), “This was
something that I highly agree with in theory, but after four weeks of trying to teach nine
year old boys how to find relevant information in a book and then… [paraphrase it], I’d
have to say that this independent research idea needs a bit more dependence and a little less
independence” (female student teacher).

Component 3: Relating

Box 1 also shows responses for component 3 relating. The mean score across the three levels is
3.60 (SD=1.51), with significantly higher scores for level 1. Examples include:

& Level 1. Relate the incident/issue to one’s own strengths, weaknesses, or personal learning,
or to professional matters, or future practice (mean 6.91), “I feel that having that as a
project helped to develop what is an essential skill for becoming a teacher” (male student
teacher).
& Level 2. Include a superficial rationale or limited discussion of, the connection (mean
1.93), “My goal is to be able to design and implement better learning experiences for the
higher achievers so that they do not lose interest and become bored and distracted” (female
student teacher).
& Level 3. Include an extended rationale with insight and/or understanding (mean 1.97),
“Through exercising teacher skills of valuing careful explanation of expectations to
students in turn enabled me to consistently engage children and effectively manage those
who may disrupt” (female student teacher).
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

Component 4: Reasoning

Box 1 also shows responses for component 4 reasoning. Student teachers obtained minimal
scores in this component, with a low mean score across the three levels of 0.22 (SD=0.32).
Examples include:

& Level 1. Analyse in detail at least one relevant factor underlying the incident/issue (mean
0.40), “By incorporating more of the technology strand into my teaching lesson I found
that students became more interested and engaged in the lesson and were more able to
participate…As a result, I believe that incorporating a variety of resources… motivates
students to… achieve a better understanding of the content” (female student teacher).
& Level 2. Consider or compare possible alternative experiences, and/or interrelationships
between factors, or combinations (mean 0.08), “I have learned the importance of providing
a well-rounded and supportive school environment that fulfills academic and emotional
needs of all students… of imparting not only direction and knowledge, but also providing
strong support systems and opportunities for favourable relationships… must possess a
clear recognition of individuals (on emotional, social and academic levels) and adapt their
learning techniques to encompass [their] differences and diversities… possess the ability to
modify and adapt lessons when necessary… assessing situations on an ongoing basis…”
(female student teacher).
& Level 3. Incorporate insights from a different perspective, e.g., a theoretical perspective
and/or a personal/student/learning perspective (mean 0.18), “When the class had difficulty
understanding latitude and longitude and time around the globe, I could try using an
excursion to the Planetarium, or for children to do their own research, or for me to become
more knowledgeable on it before I teach it again” (male student teacher).

Component 5: Reconstructing

Box 1 also shows responses for component 5 reconstructing. Student teachers recorded a mean
score across the three levels of 0.03 (SD=0.14). Examples include:

& Level 1. Reasoned understanding/discussion leads to a conclusion or plan of action

(mean=0.12), “I have pretty high standard interpersonal skills and was very comfortable
on this Prac [Practice Teaching] dealing with parents, however I realise my listening skills
really need to be better developed and my ability to anticipate repercussions. I’d like to
find a course which offers some psychology, assertiveness, leadership and listening skills
to make me more accountable to parents, fellow staff, friends, family and the community
in general” (female student teacher).
& Level 2. Gives reasons for, or possible implications of, the conclusion or plan (mean=
0.01), “On reflection… I have decided to work to ascertain a level of formal respect when I
go into my teaching post… when going into a new class (or job) it is important to establish
a formal authority… I will work… to negate the playing up or testing-out process which I
expect from my new students. To do this I will keep in mind six basic points to improve
assertiveness and make people comfortable with it.” (female student teacher).
& Level 3. Considers the possible impacts of different circumstances (mean=0.00).
& Level 4. Integrates new, reasoned, understanding with the theory of, or the writer’s
personal approach to, teaching (mean=0.00, SD=0.00). Significantly, no student teachers
recorded scores for these two highest levels of component 5.
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

Fig. 1 Mean scores by component. Source: adapted from Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., & Lester, N.C.
(2002). Reflecting on Practice: Student Teachers’ Perspectives. Flaxton, Queensland: Post Press

Component 6: Representing

Last, box 1 shows responses from the 166 student teachers in terms of the magnitude of scores
obtained for the added, informed, socio-critical micro- and macro-reflective component 6

Fig. 2 Mean scores by component and gender. Source: adapted from Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., &
Lester, N.C. (2002). Reflecting on Practice: Student Teachers’ Perspectives. Flaxton, Queensland: Post Press
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

representing. The student teachers’ mean score across the first level was 0.01, and across the
remaining two levels was 0.00 (SD=0.04), for example;

& Level 1. Metacognitive examination of teacher/school agency and influences at local, state,
and/or regional levels (mean=0.01), “From the very beginning I would have zero tolerance
for this (students making inappropriate comments to fellow students) and was not afraid or
too shy to reprimand students… Teachers have the unique opportunity to influence
children from 9-3 pm every day. It is our ethical obligation to foster and teach not only
curriculum but how to become upstanding and kind people in the classroom and out in the
community” (female student teacher).
& Level 2. Metacognitive examination of agency and influences for national education,
socioeconomic, and political contexts (mean 0.00).
& Level 3. Metacognitive examination of agency and influences for global contexts (mean
0.00). Again, no student teachers recorded scores for these levels 2 and 3, which measured
self-reflective and informed socio-critical micro- and macro-reflections in the Australian
national context and in the global context, respectively.

Mean scores by components

Figure 1 shows the graph of distribution of mean scores by component, in a histogram.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of identified characteristics of this sample of graduate
primary school student teachers, according to the Narrative Content Analysis and the modified
6Rs reflective framework. On average, participants obtained higher mean scores for compo-
nent 1 reporting at 2.17, component 2 responding at 2.51, and component 3 relating at 3.60,
but very low mean scores for component 4 reasoning at 0.22 and component 5 reconstructing
at 0.03, and zero score for component 6 representing at 0.00. The grand mean, a composite of
the three higher and three lower scores, is quite low at 1.37.

Components by gender, and by one-way ANOVAs

Figure 2 shows the histogram of mean scores by component and gender.

The 166 graduate student teachers comprised of 130 females and 36 males. Figure 2 shows,
with respect to the mean scores per component, that the 130 females obtained slightly higher
mean scores than males on five of the six categories, namely reporting (2.22 for females vs. 1.99
for males), relating (3.63 for females vs. 3.53 for males), reasoning (0.22 for females vs. 0.2 for
males), reconstructing (0.04 for females vs. 0.02 for males), and representing (0.01 for females
vs. 0 for males). Notably, while females obtained slightly higher scores on average across all
other components, males obtained higher mean scores on component 2 responding (3.92 for
males vs. 2.12 for females) and for the grand mean (1.16 for males vs. 1.37 for females).
Box 2 shows one-way ANOVAs of the six components and their constituent levels.
Box 2: One-way ANOVAs with the six components and grand mean as dependent variables
(DVs) and gender as the independent variable (IV)

Component variables (df=1164) F value Significance level

1. Reporting 1.25 NS
2. Responding 52.72 p<0.001
3. Relating 0.12 NS
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

4. Reasoning 0.08 NS
5. Reconstructing 0.28 NS
6. Representing 0.56 NS
Grand mean 7.09 p<0.01

NS Nonsignificant
Source: adapted from Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., & Lester, N.C. (2002).
Reflecting on Practice: Student Teachers’ Perspectives. Flaxton, Queensland: Post Press
Box 2 shows that scores for component 2 responding (p<0.001) and the grand mean
(averaged scores across all six levels) (p<0.01) were statistically significant. That is, males
obtained significantly higher scores than females for the second component, responding, and
for the grand mean (average of all six components).

Discussion

It seems clear that the student teachers in this sample were most at ease in reflecting on the first
three levels of reflection, namely components 1, 2, and 3, reporting, responding, and relating,
respectively, but were capable of only minimal levels of response beyond that. That is, these
student teachers were able to provide evidence of reflection using reporting, responding, and
relating. However, they were unlikely to provide reflective responses on components 4, 5, and
6, reasoning, reconstructing, and representing. The outcomes are consistent with these student
teachers experiencing difficulty in identifying reflections on their teaching at higher levels.
This suggests that student teachers might not have been taught about how to conceptualize
reflection, what constitutes reflection, or to what levels student teachers could and should
become cognisant about. That is, these student teachers need to develop their conceptualization
of reflection, not just at the lowest micro-level, but also towards the macro-level and the
metacognitive level (see Anderson and Krathwohl 2001).
The statistical difference for gender in favor of males with regard to the grand mean of all six
components could well be an artifact of the outcomes for component 2 responding. That is, the
magnitude of the observed difference in male versus female scores for component 2 so outweighed
other differences in favor of females, that the grand mean also was significantly biased in favor of
males. It seems reasonable to surmise that gender differences were not generally significant except
in relation to responding. Given the lack of published literature found on gender differences in
reflection capabilities, the present outcome might either represent a statistical fluke or might, on the
other hand, turn out to be a potentially useful expression of gender-related reflective practices.
The steep drop in student teacher identification of components to about zero in components
4, 5, and 6, reasoning, reconstructing, and representing, respectively, is of more concern. One
might have expected more capable graduate student teachers to obtain higher scores through to
component 5 reconstructing or component 6 representing. This lacuna in the pattern of
outcomes suggests that, as part of pre-service education, more directed learning might be
required to address these components.

Conclusion

The results show that these graduate primary school student teachers are able to self-
identify in their reflection essays at only the three lowest levels of reflection, namely,
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

reporting, responding, and relating. It may well be, as Hatton and Smith (1995, p. 36)
noted, that it is “too soon in their pre-service”. That is, more time and experience may
well be required to assist student teachers to improve their reflective capabilities.
“Students expect to write for assessment [of] what they know, not reveal what they
don’t know” (Boud and Walker 1998, p. 194).
However, these results should sound a warning for teacher educators who wish to
address the upper three components of reasoning, reconstructing, and representing, as the
literature suggests these components most assist student teachers to enhance the quality
of their reflection capabilities and competencies (see Goldman 2005, 2011; Smith and
Lovat 2006). “Effective teaching is a spiral with evolving cycles of practice” (McLeod
and Reynolds 2007 p. 4; see also Bolton 2010; Ricoeur 1981), but the reflective
imperative needs to be evidenced early in teachers’ careers, and the pathways to such
an imperative need to be made clearer. As Ryan’s (2013) study found, reflective
pedagogies/assessments by higher education lecturers that prioritize some elements or
levels over others, may well lead to gaps in students’ knowledge and evidence, breaks in
cognitive continuity, and loss of opportunities to apply their “reconstructive strategies
with active experimentation” (p. 154) towards teaching and learning improvement (See
Anderson and Krathwohl 2001).
Ward and McCotter (2004) argued that frameworks for assessing this evidence need “a
tool… that gives shape to the general principles of reflection, helps teachers visualise how
reflection can improve their practice, and explicitly links reflection to student learning” (p.
246). This six-level adapted reflective theoretical framework (see Bain et al. 2002) used here
may well have the capacity to be used by student teachers themselves to notice and identify
areas for their own self-enhancement and self-improvement, and to identify ways in which
they might progress towards the highest level and the optimum level of quality self-reflective
ability.
The importance of teacher reflection is noted by Smith and Lovat (2006) as “practical
action on reflection which is oriented to change, change for the betterment of self, others and
the world” (2006, p. 242). It is recommended that in order to enhance student teachers’
conceptualization of this concept reflection, and the importance of the role of reflection in
quality teaching, that it be included as part of an early course in pre-service education, to
address, for example, what reflection is, what it can entail, how it can be conceptualized, and
so on, to help student teachers use experiential learning to become competent reflectors. Both
theory and practice should be discussed by student teachers, before, during, and after practice
teaching blocs to assist them to reach higher levels of both collaborative and individual
reflection.
… a truly critical approach…by teachers to their curriculum practice, especially if done
in collaboration with others who are also engaged in such reflection, is likely to produce
not only a more effective practice, but one that is more educationally desirable and
justifiable in humane and ethical terms (2006 p. 165).
This ideal goal may be assisted by ongoing use of such a theoretical framework, as used
above, to analyse the components of teachers and student teachers’ reflective competencies to
better guide and generate quality evidence-based reflection practices that enhance both
teachers’ teaching and students’ learning, and thus school effectiveness. Finally, educators
need to ensure that both males and females are equally cognisant of the full range of reflective
competencies.
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

References

Allen, J. (Ed.). (2004). Sociology of education: Possibilities and practices. Southbank: Cengage Learning
Australia.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of
bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. (2014). 4221.0 – Schools, Australia, 2013. Canberra: Australian
Government.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2014). The Shape of the Australian
Curriculum. Version 7, October. Retrieved from www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2011). National Professional Standards for
Teachers. Canberra: Author.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2012). Australian charter for the
professional learning of teachers and school leaders: A shared responsibility and commitment.
Canberra: Author.
Bain, J. D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., & Lester, N. C. (2002). Reflecting on practice: Student teachers’
perspectives. Flaxton: Post Press.
Barry, K., & King, L. (1998). Beginning teaching and beyond (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: Thomson.
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2010). Reflecting on an ideal: Student teachers envision a future identity.
Reflective Practice, 11(5), 631–643.
Berger, K. S. (2004). The developing person through the lifespan (5th ed.). New York: Worth.
Blake, S. (2008). There’s a hole in the bucket: the politics, policy and practice of sex and relationships education.
Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional Development,
26(1), 33–41.
Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of context. Studies in
Higher Education, 23(2), 191–206.
Concise Oxford Dictionary. (1984). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Daniels, J. (2008). Negotiating learning through stories: Mature women, VET and narrative inquiry. Australian
Journal of Adult Learning, 48(1), 93–107.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process
(Revth ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath.
Duschene, S., McMaugh, A., Bochner, S., & Krause, K.-L. (2013). Educational psychology: For learning and
teaching (4th ed.). South Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Eby, J. W., Herrell, A. L., & Jordan, M. (2009). Teaching in the elementary school: a reflective action approach
(5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Evans, L. (2002). Reflective practice in educational research. London: Continuum.
Gipps, C., McCallum, B., & Hargreaves, E. (2000). What makes a good primary school teacher? London:
Routledge Falmer.
Goldman, J. D. G. (2005). Student-teachers’ learning about child sexual abuse strategies for primary school: An
exploratory study of surface and deep learning. Sex Education, 5(1), 79–82.
Goldman, J. D. G. (2008). Responding to parental objections to school sexuality education: A selection of 12
objections. Sex Education, 8(4), 415–438.
Goldman, J. D .G. (2011). An exploration in health education of an integrated theoretical basis for sexuality
education pedagogies for young people. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 26(3), 526–541.
Goldman, J. D. G., & Grimbeek, P. (2008). Student-teachers’ understanding of departmental policy behavioural
directives concerning the reporting of child sexual abuse; Findings from one Australian state. Educational
Research, 50(3), 291–305.
Goldman, J. D. G., & Bradley, G. L. (2011). Assessing primary school student-teachers’ pedagogic
implementations in child sexual abuse protection education. European Journal of Psychology of
Education (Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 479–493). Netherlands: Springer.
Grant, S. G., & Vansledright, B. (2001). Constructing a powerful approach to teaching and learning in
elementary social studies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 33–49.
Macquarie Dictionary. (2001). (Rev. 3rd ed.). North Ryde, NSW: The Macquarie Library.
Marsh, C. (2008). Studies of society and environment: Exploring the teaching possibilities. Sydney: Pearson.
 J.D.G. Goldman, P. Grimbeek

McLeod, J. H., & Reynolds, R. (2007). Quality teaching for quality learning: Planning through reflection. South
Melbourne: Thomson.
Pedro, J. (2005). Reflection in teacher education: Exploring pre-service teachers’ meanings of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice, 6(1), 49–66.
Pollard, A. (2006). Reflective teaching (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Queensland College of Teachers [QTC]. (2007). Professional standards for Queensland teachers. Toowong:
Author, State of Queensland.
Reynolds, M. (2011). Reflective practice: Origins and interpretations. Action Learning: Research and Practice,
8(1), 5–13.
Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation. (J.B.
Thompson, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robson, S. (2012). Developing thinking and understanding in young children: an introduction for students (2nd
ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Ryan, M. (2013). The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education. Teaching in Higher
Education, 18(2), 144–155.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2011). Situating the study of teacher noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V.
R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York:
Routledge.
Smith, E. (2011). Teaching critical reflection. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 211–223.
Smith, D., & Lovat, T. J. (2006). Curriculum: Action on reflection. South Melbourne: Thomson.
Soffe, S. M., Marquardt, M. J., & Hale, E. (2011). Action learning and critical thinking: a synthesis of two
models. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 8(3), 211–230.
Stenberg, K. (2010). Identity work as a tool for promoting the professional development of student teachers.
Reflective Practice, 11(3), 331–346.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2011). Reflective practice: an existentialist perspective. Reflective Practice:
International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12(1), 15–26.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice: International
and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 13(2), 311–325.
Ward, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 20, 243–257.
Whitton, D., Sinclair, C., Barker, K., Nanlohy, P., & Nosworthy, M. (2004). Learning for teaching: Teaching for
learning. South Melbourne: Thomson.
Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection:
Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1),
39–49.

This research was supported by a competitive University Faculty of Education Grant

Juliette Goldman PhD, ACM

Current themes of research:

Student-teachers. Pre-service training. Student-teachers’ sexuality education. Student-teachers’ education about

child sexual abuse.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Goldman, J. D. G. & Coleman, S. J. (2013). Primary school puberty/sexuality education: Student-teachers’ past
learning, present professional education, and intention to teach these subjects. Sex Education, 13(3), 276–
290.
Goldman, J. D. G. (2013). International guidelines on sexuality education and their relevance to a contemporary
curriculum for children aged 5–8 years. Educational Review, 65(4), 447–466.
Goldman, J. D. G. & Bode, A. (2012). Female survivors’ perceptions of lifelong impact on their education of
child abuse suffered in orphanages. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(2), 203–221.
Pre-service primary school teachers’ self-reflective competencies

Goldman, J. D. G. & McCutchen, L. E. (2012). Teenagers’ web questions compared with a sexuality curriculum:
An exploration. Educational Research, 54(4), 357–373.
Goldman, J. D. G. & Bradley, G. L. (2011). Assessing student-teachers’ pedagogic implementations in child
sexual abuse protection education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(4), 479–493.

Peter Grimbeek, PhD, MAPS

Current themes of research:

Educational research methods. Data integrity. Software for use in quantitative and qualitative data analysis.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Goldman, J. D. G. & Grimbeek, P. (2014). Child sexual abuse and mandatory reporting intervention preservice
content preferred by student-teachers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23(1), 1–16.
Goldman, J. D. G. & Grimbeek, P. (2011). Sources of knowledge of departmental policy on child sexual abuse
and mandatory reporting identified by primary school student-teachers. Educational Review, 63(1), 1–18.