Journal of Education for Teaching

International research and pedagogy

ISSN: 0260-7476 (Print) 1360-0540 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Analysis of interaction patterns and tutor

assistance in processes of joint reflection in pre-
service teacher education

Martinez Agurtzane, Agirre Nerea, López de Arana & Bilbatua Mariam

To cite this article: Martinez Agurtzane, Agirre Nerea, López de Arana & Bilbatua Mariam
(2019) Analysis of interaction patterns and tutor assistance in processes of joint reflection
in pre-service teacher education, Journal of Education for Teaching, 45:4, 389-401, DOI:
10.1080/02607476.2019.1639259

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2019.1639259

Published online: 22 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjet20
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING
2019, VOL. 45, NO. 4, 389–401
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2019.1639259

Analysis of interaction patterns and tutor assistance in

processes of joint reflection in pre-service teacher education
a a b a
Martinez Agurtzane , Agirre Nerea , López de Arana and Bilbatua Mariam
a
Department of Teaching-Learning Processes, Mondragon University, Gipuzcoa, Spain; bDepartment of
Didactics and School Organisation, University of the Basque Country, Gipuzkoa, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The great majority of teacher training programmes incorporate Received 22 July 2017
reflective practice as a fundamental professional competence Accepted 10 October 2018
since reflection is considered to be a key element in professional KEYWORDS
development. However, in the literature reflection is conceptua- Processes of joint reflection;
lised in multiple ways, making it difficult to determine what types tutor assistance; interaction
of contexts facilitate the activity of joint reflection. The present patterns; theoretical-
study aims to shed light on this debate, identifying the strategies practical relationship;
of educational assistance given by tutors to a group of students collective scaffolding
during the process of reflection. To this end, we analyse the
interactive dynamics and educational assistance in two cases of
joint reflection between tutors and students (10 students in Case 1
and 13 in Case 2). In each case, five sessions, each lasting approxi-
mately one hour, were recorded and analysed. Different phases in
the process of reflection were identified, as were different specific
types of assistance to address joint reflection. In both cases, the
assistance of the tutor was found to be necessary in collective
scaffolding for the establishment of relationships between situa-
tional and academic representations, even though the data sug-
gest a progressive increase in the students’ control of the task.

1. Introduction
The great majority of teacher training programmes incorporate reflective practice as
a fundamental professional competence (Korthagen 2010), since reflection is considered
to be a key element in professional development (Melief, Tigchelaar, and Korthagen
2010; Wang 2014). The practicum in pre-service teacher training is a context that
facilitates reflective practice and dialogue between students and the coach to educate
the reflective practitioner (Schön 1987).
In the literature, there are disagreements regarding the definition of reflection, the
character of reflective processes and the way in which they should be fostered. The
concept and purpose of reflection in the training of the reflective professional remain
topics for debate (see, for example, Adler 1991; Gilroy 1993; Beauchamp 2015). It is
difficult to arrive at a single concept given that the use of the concept, and therefore its
perceived meaning (Gilroy 1993), seem to be associated closely with the beliefs that the
instructors hold regarding teaching and their specific interests in teacher training.

CONTACT Agurtzane Martinez amartinez@mondragon.edu

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
390 A. MARTINEZ ET AL.

Regarding the process of reflection and its mode of development, discussion in the
literature focuses on whether the phases through which reflective thought passes
should be considered to be attempts to describe the processes of reflection (Dewey
[1933] 2006; Tessema 2008), or whether they should be considered to be a prescriptive
model of the way in which the phases are organised, and therefore should be taught
(Gelfuso and Dennis 2014; Korthagen 2010). There is also debate about models of
reflection (Rolfe, Freshwater, and Jasper 2001), about the role that the assistance offered
by tutors plays in evoking complex levels of reflection (Gelfuso 2016), and about the
importance of the context in which reflection is developed and the mechanisms used in
that reflection (Gilroy 1993; Wells 1999).
In the present work it is assumed that, in educational contexts, there are underlying
internal tensions that are represented in the form of dilemmas that must be analysed
(Clandinin 1986; Mälkki 2012). Under this framework, the activity of reflection consists of
the analysis of the tensions that generate those dilemmas. This definition is not so
different from the view of classical thinkers such as Dewey ([1933] 2006) or Schön (1983,
1987), who argue that reflection responds to the need to transform an indeterminate
situation into a clear and determinate one. However, the coherence, solution, and
clarification are analysed from the perspective of the ethical and political consequences
of the curriculum and of the pedagogical practices developed as part of the analysed
practices (Zeichner 1981). We share with Korthagen (2010) the idea that reflection in the
early stages of teacher training should include establishing relationships between prac-
tical knowledge and theoretical knowledge of an academic type. The extensive research
that has been carried out shares the idea that future teachers use in practice a type of
knowledge that is different from the academic knowledge that they learn at the
university (Clandinin 1986; Elbaz 1981; Korthagen 2010). With regard to the relationship
between theoretical and practical knowledge, this paper adopts the proposal by Mauri
et al. (2017), based on a more constructivist epistemological reconceptualisation,
whereby practical knowledge is defined not as practice itself or as actions, but rather
as knowledge about specific situations ‘that allows practitioners to define and construct
the specific situations of their practice’ (Clarà and Mauri 2010, 133). They further argue
that this relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge does not consist of
transposing or appropriately transferring the latter representations to the former ones,
but rather that the two representations converge in a dialectical relationship that leads
us to understand and reflect, i.e. to reframe the practice (Clarà and Mauri 2010).
Along these lines, the research that has examined the contexts of teacher training and
the strategies used in that research to connect academic knowledge with practice and the
promoting and increasing students’ reflective capacity have documented the potentiality
and contribution of collaboration (Liakopoulou 2012; Jones and Jones 2013) and joint
reflection on action for the development of future teachers as well as for a certain
improvement in the relationship between theory and practice (Hammerness et al. 2005).
As argued by Pleschova and McAlpine (2015), such collaboration requires the creation
of practice communities (Lave and Wenger 1991), defined by a group identity and shared
methods (Matusov and Hayes 2002) that facilitate joint reflection and situated learning.
Pedagogical studies and applications of sociocultural theory (Lantolf 2000;
Vygotsky 1978) focus their attention on the intermediary function of interaction,
the importance of scaffolding in the Zone of Proximal Development (Wood, Bruner,
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 391

and Ross 1976), and the mechanisms of educational influence that operate on the
joint activity of the participants (Mercer 2000; Wells 1999). Scaffolding is temporary,
gradually transferring more responsibility to novices so as to promote eventual
appropriation of knowledge and abilities, as well as self-regulation. This allows
novices to progress from ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ to assuming a more
central role over time as competent participants in their communities of practice
(Lave and Wenger 1991).
Several studies recognise that the interaction and assistance of experts are funda-
mental in the production of levels of deep reflection (Harford and MacRuairc 2008; Yoon
and Kim 2010; Jones and Jones 2013), and that informal interactions among colleagues,
discourse among equals, observations among fellow participants, and feedback have an
impact on the improvement of practice (Ngang, Nair, and Prachak 2014) and on teacher
development (Manouchehri 2002).
In the field of teacher training, Lawson et al. (2015) and Mena Marcos, Sanchez, and
Tillema (2011) considered that the processes of joint reflection about action have been
little studied from the point of view of educational assistance and the interaction
patterns from which this assistance operates, or from the point of view of the discursive
mechanisms that articulate them. The authors of the present article consider this to still
be the case in 2018. Given the above, the research presented here is intended to
contribute to the description and understanding of these interactive dynamics and of
educational assistance by studying the nature of interaction in these processes of joint
reflection and by identifying the different types of assistance offered by the tutor within
the collective scaffolding and the ‘forms’ or interactivity patterns that are constructed in
joint activity.

2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Two cases were analysed, each corresponding to a group of trainee teachers, currently
on placement, and their tutors. Case 1 included 10 students and two tutors (all females),
and Case 2 included 13 students and two tutors (all females). The study was carried out
in the context of the fourth-year Practicum subject in the Faculty of Education, which is
part of the curriculum in primary and preschool education. As part of the practicum, the
student teachers spend an 11-week period (330 h) at a school and attend five twice-
monthly tutored group seminars at the university. The tutors were university lecturers
with experience in this role. The discussion and analysis of the situations the student
teachers had experienced while on placement took place during these five tutorial
sessions, each of which lasted for about an hour and half. All students gave their
informed consent to participate in the research process and had the chance to withdraw
from the study at any time. The students’ participation in the present research was not
taken into consideration in evaluating their performance in the course.
392 A. MARTINEZ ET AL.

2.2. Materials and procedures

The five tutorial sessions were videotaped but only the time spent on joint reflection of
case analysis was analysed. Table 1 shows the duration of this joint reflection in each
session for each of the two cases.
The situations to be reflected upon were real events experienced by the participants
in their practicum. Each student selected one situation from her practicum (Kilgour,
Northcote, and Herman 2015) that she wanted to discuss in the collaborative reflection.
Following the process described by Glesne (1999), the students were asked to record
handwritten field notes during the experience and then rewrite them within several
hours to ensure that sufficient detail could be recalled and documented.
The time during the scheduled seminar session that was dedicated to discussion of
these situations began with the student responsible for the account of a particular
situation reading her account precisely and aloud. This was followed by
a conversation among all the participants, who, guided by the tutor, reacted to what
they had just heard about the situation and about the different aspects of teaching
practice evoked by that situation.

Table 1. Duration of joint reflection and number of situations analysed in each session for the two cases.
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Total time
Case 1 Time spent on joint reflection 1:25:29 1:30:16 1:05:26 1:35:05 1:27:01 7:03:17
No. of situations 1 1 1 1 1 5
Case 2 Time spent on joint reflection 1:00:44 0:42:16 0:40:18 0:48:07 0:20:21 3:41:46
No. of situations 1 1 1 1 1 5
Total Time spent on joint reflection 10:45:13
No. of situations 10

Table 2. System of categories derived from an analysis of the interaction in the two cases.
Segments of interactivity Definition
Clarification of the elements of the The student completes the information about the situation provided in
situation (SCA) the reading by contributing further data at the request of the other
students attending the tutorial.
Joint exploration among students (SJE) The student participants among themselves identify and analyse the
different elements that constitute the situation.
Exploration guided by the tutor (SGE) With the help of the tutor, the students among themselves identify and
analyse the different elements that constitute the situation.
Exploration of an aspect of the situation The tutor suggests focusing the conversation on some element or factor
(SEA) of the situation.
Response to questions posed by the tutor The group focuses the conversation on other educational procedures
to solve the situation (SRQ) that would be possible in the situation under consideration.
Focalisation (SFE) The tutor redirects the students’ discussion by suggesting that it be
focused within an interpretative framework of the situation that will
be of interest in reaching an understanding of that situation.
Use of academic knowledge (SUA) The tutor incorporates academic knowledge in the joint reflection so
that the students can identify its connections with the situation that
is the object of the reflection.
Tutor’s interpretation of the situation (SIS) The tutor presents his or her interpretation of the situation to the
students.
Tutor’s interpretation of the situation with The tutor presents his or her interpretation of the situation to the
discussion (SID) students, and the students comment on it.
Joint summary (SRJ) The tutor and the students together recall some of the elements that
were brought up in the joint reflection.
Tutor’s summary (SRT) The tutor recalls some of the elements that were identified by the
participants during the course of the session.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 393

Table 3. System of categories of tutor assistance.

Dimension Category
Assistance with the dialogic nature of the Presents and/or explicitly recalls the dialogic nature of the
conversation (AC) conversation (CD)
Bounces a question or request formulated by a student teacher back
to the group (CR)
Opens the conversation to group members (CM)
Considers a student teacher’s contributions to the conversation
(CST).
Considers the contributions of different student teachers to the
conversation (CDST)
One of the tutors considers the contribution of the other tutor to
the conversation (CT)
Asks a student teacher to expand upon (complete) her contribution
to the conversation (CE)
Assistance with the interpretive nature of the Presents and/or recalls the interpretive nature of the reflection (II)
conversation (AI) Encourages the incorporation of new factors in the reflection on the
situation (IAF)
Identifies new factors in the reflection on the situation (IIF)
Recalls an explicitly established factor (IRF)
Encourages the identification of a new interpretive framework for
the situation (IAFM)
Proposes or establishes a new interpretive framework for the
situation (IIFM)
Recalls the explicitly established interpretive framework (IRM)
Assistance with the establishment of Encourages the establishment of relationships with academic
relationships (AR) knowledge (RAA)
Establishes relationships with academic knowledge (REA)
Encourages the establishment of relationships with experiential
knowledge (RAE)
Establishes relationships with experiential knowledge (REE)
Encourages the establishment of relationships with other situations
(RAS)
Establishes relationships with other situations (RES)

The five seminars in which the joint reflection activity took place were filmed and
recorded for subsequent analysis with Atlas.ti 7. More specifically, two analyses were
performed: an analysis of interactivity to analyse the activity of joint reflection, and
content analysis. Interactivity Analysis (Coll, Onrubia, and Mauri 2008) is a technique for
the analysis of joint activity in educational settings, strongly based on the idea of
participation structures (Erickson and Schultz 1977), which uses social units of analysis.
The aim of applying this analysis to our data was to characterise and understand the
phases of collaborative reflection occurring in each process of collaborative reflection. In
short, this analysis involved three steps. First, we identified chunks of interaction that
functioned as units; second, we coded each of these units of interaction by means of
inductively created categories which described ‘what the participants are doing
together;’ third, we described each of these units of interaction according to the
structure of turn-taking among the participants. These segments of interaction are
known as segments of interactivity (SIs). Once the data were segmented, the typical
pattern of interaction for each segment was described, and the segment was named
accordingly. The full procedure is highly inductive and technically similar to the ‘selec-
tive coding’ phase of Grounded Theory Analysis (Mauri et al. 2017)(see Table 2).
Content Analysis (Krippendorff 1980) was used to identify tutor assistance. The unit of
analysis used was the tutor’s speaking turn. In order to establish satisfactory reliability
within each team, 30% of the videotapes were coded. Each of the cases was analysed by
394 A. MARTINEZ ET AL.

a pair of researchers and validated by another codifying pair, in groups of four research-
ers, to guarantee the consistency of the analysis. Discrepancies were resolved by a third
judge after reliability was calculated. With respect to the results of this codification,
a Cohen’s kappa coefficient was calculated (Cohen 1960); this coefficient was found to
be 0.90 and was considered to show good agreement (Landis and Koch 1977). Once
satisfactory reliability of the system of categories was obtained, the categories were
applied to 100% of the videotapes.
The final category system for this research project included 26 different forms of
assistance, of which 20 were coded in these cases (see Table 3).

3. Results
Seventeen SIs were identified in Case 1, and 24 in Case 2. Some of these SIs appeared
only occasionally and others preceded reflection on the situation. SIs that referred to the
analysis of the situation itself were selected, since the objective of the present research
was to analyse the processes of joint reflection. Participation structures were formed by
the groupings of segments that show the five phases that represent the dominant
activity exhibited by the participants during joint reflection (see Tables 7–8); each of
these phases had its own function in reflection and in all phases there is variety in the
type and amount of assistance offered Differences were observed between the two
cases with respect to the amount of time occupied by tutor assistance and the time
occupied by student participation (see Table 9) and respect to the type of assistance in
each of phases (see Table 10). The two patterns of SI identified in the data begin with
the same segment (exploration), which consists of a free dialogue among the students
about what they think and about the aspects they see as important in the situation. The
assistance utilised in this phase was varied and corresponded to the three aspects
described above, but in both cases, different types of aid are prioritised. (see Table 8).
After this first segment, the two patterns diverge. In both cases, there were differences in
the characterisation of the phases that represented the dominant activity demonstrated by
the participants during the activity of joint reflection. Thus, in Case 1, the phase of

Table 4. Structure of the sequence of joint activities in Case 1.

Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation Focalization Interpretation Synthesis

S1
SCE SEI SEG SEC SEG SFE SID SPP SEE SRJ SRT SUC SRT

Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation Synthesis

S2
SCE SEC SPP SRT SPP SFE SUC SRV SRT

Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation Exploration Interpretation Synthesis

S3
SCE SEC SRT SEC SPP SEE SFE SUC SEG SEC SIS SEE SRT

Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation Synthesis Focalization Interpretation Exploration Synthesis

S4
SCE SEC SEE SFE SPP SIS SRJ SFE SPP SIS SEG SRJ SRT SRJ

Clarification Exploration Focalization Exploration Interpretation Synthesis Exploration Focalization Synthesis

S5
SCE SEC SRJ SEE SFE SRT SEG SRT SEE SIP SUC SRT SRJ SEE SPP SRJ
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 395

Table 5. Structure of the sequence of joint activities in Case 2.

S1 Clarification Focalization Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation Synthesis

SCE SDP SCE SEE SFE SIS SS SRV SRT

S2 Clarification Exploration Interpretation Synthesis Focalization Interpretation Synthesis

SCE SEC SID SS SRT SFE SID SCC

S3 Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation Focalization Interpretation Synthesis

SCE SEC SEG SEC SPP SUC SIS SFE SIS SRJ

S4 Exploration Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation Focalization Interpretation Synthesis

SEC SEG SCE SEC SFE SIS SFE SIS SRJ

S5 Exploration Interpretation Focalization Interpretation

SEC SEG SID SFE SIS

Table 6. Percentages of time occupied by tutor assistance and percentages of time occupied by student
reflection according to the amount of time dedicated to analysis of the situation in each session.
Percentages: Tutor ssistance session number Percentages: Student reflection Session number
Case S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Case 1 16.0% 36.5% 18.3% 22.1% 42.5% 18.3% 27.2% 48.3% 36.4% 55.7%
Case 2 89.1% 70.0% 72.2% 63.6% 58.1% 10.1% 29.3% 27.2% 36.9% 12.1%

Table 7. Percentages of instances of tutor assistance by type in each phase of the process of reflection.
Clarification Exploration Interpretation Focalisation Synthesis
Aspects of assistance Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2
Assistance related to discussion 100.0% 56.5% 67.5% 57.8% 54.9% 60.5% 52.4% 66.6% 72.0% 40.4%
Assistance related to 41.3% 30.7% 32.1% 28.2% 30.5% 23.5% 23.4% 20.1% 45.2%
interpretation
Assistance related to 2.1% 7.6% 10.0% 16.8% 8.8% 24.0% 9.8% 7.7% 14.2%
theoretical-practical issues

Focalisation was the most characteristic. In this phase, two SIs were developed, one of which
concerned questions posed by the tutor to resolve the situation and the other of which was
centred on discussion. The order of appearance of these two segments within the phase
varied and the interpretative framework was reached through different instances of assis-
tance. In the first case, more assistance was given to relate theory and practice and in the
focalisation segment, more assistance was offered in analysing the situation from an
interpretative framework this was the phase in which the most assistance was offered for
the theoretical–practical relationship (see Table 9).
In Case 2, on the other hand, the most characteristic phase was Interpretation, which
allowed debate about what happened in the situation. The assistance offered corre-
sponds to interpretation and to establishing relationships with technical knowledge and
396 A. MARTINEZ ET AL.

Table 8. Exemplification of SJE in the exploration phase.

Student/Tutor Transcription Assistance
ST1 I thought the pentacidad approach in the classroom was interesting, but when
you say that a book is used, that seems like a contradiction to me. We talk
a lot about emotional intelligence and I don’t understand how one can work
on that with a textbook.
STL Well, pentacidad is a more extensive project. Every day we work on identifying
feelings, synthesis, and things like that but then there are some topics that we
work on from the point of view of theory, and there are textbooks for that.
ST2 That’s a bit contradictory, talking about competencies but working on content . . .
ST3 I think it’s strange that on the one hand you’re working on active listening,
empathy in the class, but on the other hand, they don’t respect that. You’re
using the book to work on those competencies but it looks like they don’t
respect that in class.
STL Yes, but that could be because we did it badly, couldn’t it?
ST2 Yes, but that’s a contradiction.
T And how did you as a teacher respond to that situation? How did you ‘listen’ to CA
your students?
STL Well . . . the fact of the matter is that I didn’t stick around with them to ask them
why they were interrupting the class. It was the end of the hour and then . . .
yes . . . I saw that I had to do that better. Another time I should ask them why
they don’t like it, or what I could do . . . and not tell them directly how to
change their behaviour, but ask them what they’d like.

Table 9. Exemplification of SFE in the focalisation phase.

Student/Tutor Transcription Assistance
T How do we deal with error during an activity? CM/IAM
ST1 Sometimes I give them an exercise that I corrected badly and I tell them to look
over it to see if everything is okay so that they see that I also make mistakes.
I use my own mistakes so that they’ll see that it’s normal.
T What function does error have in the learning process? Can we think about how CM/IM
mistakes were used in this situation?
ST2 She said it sent a positive message.
ST3 Okay . . . but maybe in that classroom it didn’t work. The teacher already crossed
it out, but for the child what she did was bad. He gets frustrated and says he
doesn’t want to keep working.
T In addition to what Ane is saying, in your experience have you seen other ways of CE/CM
using mistakes? RAS
ST3 For example, when they write a composition, indicate elements that are
expressed correctly and comment on them in the larger group. The teacher
marked what was wrong like a hypothesis to confirm.
T So you’re saying that the teacher marks what’s right . . . How would the rest of the CE/RES
children use that?
ST3 To contrast it with what they did.
T What do we call this process? CM
ST1 Positive reinforcement.
T In addition to this, when we allow the students to identify their mistakes by CM/IIF
analysing their work, what is the teacher in training exercising?
ST1 Self-regulation?

serves to identify the explanatory framework of the situation under consideration. It was
in this phase when the students showed greater participation.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 397

Table 10. Exemplification of SIS in the interpretation phase.

Student/Tutor Transcription Assistance
T If the analysis focuses only on the child, how can we address the situation? CE/CM/IIF
ST6 I think we can’t. We would have to address the situation in the regular classroom.
T But Maialen tells us that they take the child out of the regular classroom quite often. Is CE/CM
it necessary to take him out so much?
ST4 He’s not able to do the same exercises as the rest.
T At no time in our reflection have we said that everyone has to do the same exercises at CE/RES/CM
the same time. We’ve talked about different alternatives and about needing to
change the context so that all of the children participate and learn. You’ve said many
times that you as practicum support teachers go into the classroom, you sit down
next to the children that need help, and you help them do what the teacher says.
Could that be done another way?
ST4 Yes, reorganise the context to respond to everyone.
T In that case the discussion wouldn’t be about whether the child has to be in the CE/IRM/CM
classroom or not, but about what contexts need to be designed so that everyone
participates and to foster their development. Is that what we’re saying?

4. Discussion and conclusions

In this study, it was found that the phases through which reflective thought passed
in these cases (Exploration, Focalisation, Interpretation, and Synthesis) and their
structures of interaction did not follow a prescriptive model throughout the five
sessions. The data seem to support contributions that referenced the phases as
attempts at description of the processes of reflection (Dewey [1933] 2006; Tessema
2008) more than as a prescriptive process (Korthagen 2010).
In both cases, the activity of joint reflection on practical situations focused reflection
on a retrospective analysis of knowing in the action (Schön 1983) although our results
suggest that both tutors showed differences in relation to the focus of the reflection. In
Case 1, data such as (i) the high percentage of assistance related to discussion in all
phases; (ii) the greater number of instances of assistance that encouraged students to
identify factors and frameworks of interpretation, and to relate to experiential knowl-
edge and theory and practice; (iii) the greater amount of time occupied by student
participation in the Interpretation phase; (iv) the importance that the segment ‘ques-
tions to propose possible educational procedures’ acquired in the presented case; and
(v) the relationship with academic knowledge upheld by these procedures, suggest that
the purpose of the activity of joint reflection was to co-construct defended responses for
the improvement of the situation presented. In Case 2, the focus of the joint reflection
was intended to reveal a possible dilemma within the situation in order to be able to
identify the factors that influenced it, and Interpretation was thus the phase that
acquired the most relevance in puzzling out knowing in the action without involving
a decision or action (Schön 1987). In this case, a referential framework was established
by the tutor, who guided the analysis and the joint explanation of the situation by
offering the students a new framework in which to re-interpret their practice.
The identified instances of assistance reveal differences in the two cases related to
type, degree, distribution, and scaffolding. In both cases and in all phases of reflection,
facilitation of assistance of all three types explained above (assistance related to discus-
sion, related to interpretation, and related to the theoretical–practical relationship) was
found, but these instances of facilitation differed in the specific weight that each took on
in each phase in each case. In this sense, support of the dialogical nature of joint
398 A. MARTINEZ ET AL.

reflection was provided by the tutors in both cases, but instances of assistance aiming at
the interpretative nature of reflection and the connection between theory and practice
appeared to a lesser degree and, when such instances did appear, they were directed
more at connecting the events with previous experiences. Experience and the knowl-
edge of the group became fundamental in the realisation of inferences (Dewey [1933]
2006), and in collective scaffolding. In both cases, the distribution of instances of
assistance related to the relationship between theory and practice seemed to indicate
that academic knowledge informed reflection by helping to re-frame practice.
In Case 1, assistance was more firmly rooted in encouraging theoretical–practical
relationships and in identifying factors and frameworks as well as in inspiring the partici-
pation of group members in order to obtain a collective scaffolding. In the Focalisation
phase, the segment in which the students answered questions from the tutor to resolve the
situation produced this difference since assistance for the purpose of establishing relation-
ships with academic knowledge occupied more time than interpretative assistance. In this
direct relationship with each one of the students, the tutor tried to establish relationships
between the contributed solutions and academic argumentation of factors that were
identified in those solutions in order to arrive at an interpretative framework of the
situation. In this case, the participation of the students in the joint reflection was greater
than that of the tutor. There was a certain distribution of assistance in the interactions
between tutor and students that facilitated adaptation to the needs that arose during the
process of joint activity (Van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen 2010).
In Case 2, it was the Interpretation phase that inspired deeper reflection as assistance
of all three types was offered, and both assistance related to interpretation and that
related to theoretical knowledge served to identify the explanatory framework of the
case in question. It was tutor assistance that referred to the identification of the
interpretative factors that appeared most frequently. In this case, tutor assistance of
the other types took on greater importance as it served to identify and establish factors/
frameworks, and there were segments in which tutor involvement predominated and
was significantly greater than student involvement.
Tutor assistance was found to be essential in collective scaffolding for the establish-
ment of relationships between situational and academic representations in both cases
(Harford and MacRuairc 2008). The conduct of the tutor in the conversation was oriented
toward promoting situational representations, providing support, and guiding the ana-
lysis and the reflection on professional practice through inquiry.
The present results suggest a progressive increase in control of the task by the
students, demonstrated as an increase in their participation throughout the case and
facilitated by the evolution and adaptation of the assistance offered during each of the
described phases, which was aimed at constructing shared meanings that were more
and more complex in each of the sessions of joint reflection (Mercer 2000; Wells 1999).
The results of the present exploratory study need to be proven and further investi-
gated in future studies given the small sample size in the present study, and the phases
and processes of reflection should be identified with all due caution. The interaction
patterns and assistance offered in those phases as well as the hypotheses about its
function signify yet another step in our understanding of reflection and of how to help
students in the development of their abilities.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 399

The present study confirms the importance of certain elements in encouraging reflection
in initial training, specifically: (i) the importance of clarification on the part of the instructors
of their views on education and on professional training, given that those views determine
both the object and the reflection process that arise in the group; (ii) the importance of tutor
assistance in the tutor’s role as a facilitator of opportunities for students to learn indepen-
dently, express ideas, and develop points of view through dialogue and collaboration; (iii)
the importance of reinforcing the idea of the collective aspect of the joint construction of
knowledge among equals by developing strategies of dialectical inquiry and scaffolding
that allow entry into phases of reflection that are both more interpretative and related to the
dialectical relationship between theory and practice.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported in part by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under
grant EDU2013-44632-P.

ORCID
Martinez Agurtzane http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3927-3025
Agirre Nerea http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0999-8607
López de Arana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6962-5469
Bilbatua Mariam http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5408-2852

References
Adler, S. 1991. “The Reflective Practitioner and the Curriculum of Teacher Education.” Journal of
Education for Teaching 17 (2): 139–150. doi:10.1080/0260747910170203.
Beauchamp, C. 2015. “Reflection in Teacher Education: Issues Emerging from a Review of Current
Literature.” Reflective Practice 16 (1): 123–141. doi:10.1080/14623943.2014.982525.
Clandinin, D. J. 1986. Classroom Practice: Teacher Images in Action. Philadelphia, PA: Palmer Press.
Clarà, M., and T. Mauri. 2010. “El conocimiento práctico: Cuatro conceptualizaciones constructivis-
tas de las relaciones entre conocimiento teórico y práctica educativa” [“Practical Knowledge:
Four Constructivist Conceptualizations of the Relationships between Theoretical Knowledge
and Educational Practice”]. Infancia y Aprendizaje 33 (2): 131–141.
Cohen, J. 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological
Measurement 20: 37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104.
Coll, C., J. Onrubia, and T. Mauri. 2008. “Ayudar a aprender en contextos educativos: El ejercicio de
la influencia educativa y el análisis de la enseñanza.” [“Supporting Learning in Educational
Contexts: The Exercise of Educational Influence and the Analysis of Teaching”].” Revista de
Educación 346: 33–70.
Dewey, J. [1933] 2006. How We Think. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Davis.
Elbaz, F. 1981. “The Teacher’s ‘practical Knowledge’: Report of a Case Study.” Curriculum Inquiry 11
(1): 43–71.
Erickson, F., and J. Schultz. 1977. “When Is a Context? Some Issues and Methods in the Analysis of Social
Competence.” Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development 1: 5–10.
400 A. MARTINEZ ET AL.

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:10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.003.
Gelfuso, A., and D. V. Dennis. 2014. “Getting Reflection off the Page: The Challenges of Developing
Support Structures for Pre-service Teacher Reflection.” Teaching and Teacher Education 38: 1–11.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.10.012.
Gilroy, P. 1993. “Reflections on Schön: An Epistemological Critique and a Practical Alternative.”
Journal of Education for Teaching 19 (4): 125–142. doi:10.1080/0260747930190413.
Glesne, C. 1999. Becoming Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Hammerness, K., L. Darling-Hammond, J. Brandsford, D. Berliner, M. Cochran-Smith, M. McDonald,
and K. Zeichner. 2005. “How Teachers Learn and Develop.” In Preparing Teachers for a Changing
World. What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, edited by L. Darling-Hammond and
J. Brandsford, 358–389. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Harford, J., and G. MacRuairc. 2008. “Engaging Student Teachers in Meaningful Reflective Practice.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 1884–1892. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.010.
Jones, J. L., and K. A. Jones. 2013. “Teaching Reflective Practice: Implementation in the
Teacher-Education Setting.” The Teacher Educator 48 (1): 73–85. doi:10.1080/
08878730.2012.740153.
Kilgour, P., M. Northcote, and W. Herman. 2015. “Pre-service Teachers’ Reflections on Critical
Incidents in Their Professional Teaching Experiences.” In Research and Development in Higher
Education: Learning for Life and Work in a Complex World, Vol. 38, Paper presented at the Higher
Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) International Conference,
Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC), Melbourne, 6–9 July, edited by
T. Thomas, E. Levin, P. Dawson, K. Fraser, and R. Hadgraft, 383–393. Milperra, Australia:
HERDSA. http://herdsa.org.au/research-and-development-higher-education-vol-38
Korthagen, F. 2010. “How Teacher Education Can Make a Difference.” Journal of Education for
Teaching 36 (4): 407–423. doi:10.1080/02607476.2010.513854.
Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical
Data.” Biometrics 33: 159–174.
Lantolf, J. P. 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, T., M. Çakmak, M. Gündüz, and H. Busher. 2015. “Research on Teaching Practicum –
A Systematic Review.” European Journal of Teacher Education 38 (3): 392–407. doi:10.1080/
02619768.2014.994060.
Liakopoulou, M. 2012. “The Role of Field Experience in the Preparation of Reflective Teachers.”
Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37 (6): 41–54. Accessed 25 June 2017. http://ro.ecu.edu.
au/ajte/vol37/iss6/4
Mälkki, K. 2012. “Rethinking Disorienting Dilemmas within Real-life Crises.” Adult Education
Quarterly 62 (3): 207–229. doi:10.1177/0741713611402047.
Manouchehri, A. 2002. “Developing Teaching Knowledge through Peer Discourse.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 18: 715–737. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00030-6.
Matusov, E., and R. Hayes. 2002. “Building a Community of Educators versus Effecting Conceptual
Change in Individual Students: Multicultural Education for Preservice Teachers.” In Learning for
Life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education, edited by G. Wells
and G. Claxton, 239–251. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mauri, T., M. Clarà, R. Colomina, and J. Onrubia. 2017. “Patterns of Interaction in the Processes of
Joint Reflection by Student Teachers.” Journal of Education for Teaching 43 (4): 427–443.
doi:10.1080/02607476.2017.1296542.
Melief, K., A. Tigchelaar, and F. Korthagen. 2010. “Aprender de la Práctica” [“Learning from
Practice”].” In Creando mi profesión. Una propuesta para el desarrollo profesional del profesorado
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 401

[Creating My Profession. A Proposal for the Professional Development of Teaching Staff], edited
by O. Esteve, K. Melief, and A. Alsina, 19–38. Barcelona: Octaedro.
Mena Marcos, J., E. Sanchez, and H. H. Tillema. 2011. “Promoting Teacher Reflection: What Is to Be
Done.” Journal of Education for Teaching 37: 21–36. doi:10.1080/02607476.2011.538269.
Mercer, N. 2000. La construcción guiada del conocimiento. El habla de profesores y alumnos [The
Guided Construction of Knowledge. The Speech of Teachers and Students]. Barcelona: Paidós.
Ngang, T. K., S. Nair, and B. Prachak. 2014. “Developing Instruments to Measure Thinking Skills and
Problem Solving Skills among Malaysian Primary School Pupils.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 116: 3760–3764. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.837.
Pleschova, G., and L. McAlpine. 2015. “Helping Teachers to Focus on Learning and Reflect on Their
Teaching: What Role Does Teaching Context Play?” Studies in Educational Evaluation 48: 1–9.
doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.10.002.
Rolfe, G., D. Freshwater, and M. Jasper. 2001. Critical Reflection for Nursing and the Helping
Professions: A User’s Guide. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
ISBN 9780465068784; 0465068782.
Schön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and
Learning in the Professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tessema, K. A. 2008. “An Exploration for a Critical Practicum Pedagogy: Dialogical Relationships
and Reflections among a Group of Student Teachers.” Educational Action Research 16 (3):
345–360. doi:10.1080/09650790802260299.
Van de Pol, J., M. Volman, and J. Beishuizen. 2010. “Scaffolding in Teacher-Student Interaction:
A Decade of Research.” Educational Psychology Review 22 (3): 271–296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-
9127-6.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, S. 2014. “Facilitating Reflection with Supporting Groups: A Model of Collective Teaching
Reflection.” Delta Journal of Education 4 (1): 115–131.
Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education.
Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Wood, D., J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.” Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89–100.
Yoon, H. G., and M. Kim. 2010. “Collaborative Reflection through Dilemma Cases of Science
Practical Work during Practicum.” International Journal of Science Education 32 (3): 283–301.
doi:10.1080/09500690802516538.
Zeichner, K. 1981. “Reflective Teaching and Field-Based Experience in Teacher Education.”
Interchange 12: 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF01807805.