African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and

Technology Education

ISSN: 1811-7295 (Print) 2469-7656 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmse20

Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions

in a Professional Learning Community: The
Development of Grade 8 Natural Sciences
Teachers’ Reflective Practice

Jenny Woolway, Audrey Msimanga & Anthony Lelliott

To cite this article: Jenny Woolway, Audrey Msimanga & Anthony Lelliott (2019)
Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions in a Professional Learning Community:
The Development of Grade 8 Natural Sciences Teachers’ Reflective Practice, African
Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 23:1, 1-13, DOI:
10.1080/18117295.2018.1555985

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1555985

Published online: 17 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 664

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmse20
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2019
Vol. 23, No. 1, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1555985
© 2019 Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education (SAARMSTE)

Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions in a

Professional Learning Community: The Development of
Grade 8 Natural Sciences Teachers’ Reflective Practice
a* a b
Jenny Woolway , Audrey Msimanga , and Anthony Lelliott

a
Wits School of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
b
Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
*Corresponding author. Email: ijkl@mweb.co.za

Learners come to class with a wealth of knowledge. Working with learner prior knowledge (LPK) is the
foundation upon which new concepts get their meaning. Yet some teachers find interacting with LPK
complex. Reflecting on practice, particularly within a professional learning community (PLC), has
resulted in improvements in teaching. The focus of this study was to explore how teacher participation
and the level of reflection changed as teachers collaborated in a PLC. Four Grade 8 Natural Sciences
teachers from a suburban high school in Gauteng were participants. Data was collected using a practical
action research, research design. Results from the reflect-and-plan sessions are reported. Cycle 1
focused on how teachers work with LPK in their baseline practices, with the following cycles focused on
the same content (effects of electric current), taught in successive years. Data collected from reflect-and-
plan sessions was audio-recorded. From the transcripts reflective episodes were identified. Reflective
episodes occurred where teachers reflected on an aspect of practice needing restructuring. Combining
Zeichner and Liston’s levels of reflection with O’Sullivan’s basic level of reflection, teacher utterances
were coded as indicating moral craftsperson, craftsperson, technician or basic technician. Results
showed that, as teachers attended more sessions, so their participation and the level of their reflection
increased. Teacher participation was dependent on a trusted environment. Inexperienced teachers were
reliant on a leader with sound content and pedagogical knowledge guiding sessions. The importance of
identifying motivated teachers to lead PLCs is highlighted.

Keywords: Collaboration; Participation; Level of Reflection; Professional Learning Communities

Introduction

Ideally high school Natural Sciences1 classrooms are places where learners and teachers question,
explore, discuss and explain the world we live in. Since learners already know some things about
their world from past experiences, it should be easy for teachers to teach Science drawing on this
knowledge. However, teachers do not find this easy to do. In reality, teachers focus on completing a
heavily loaded prescribed curriculum and preparing learners for the end of year exams (James &
McCormick, 2009). Even with this focus, learner achievement in South Africa remains low. Studies
report that learner understanding improves following teachers changing their practice having partici-
pated in effective continuous professional development and learning programmes, particularly pro-
grammes where teachers work collaboratively and there is a focus on teachers reflecting on
practice, learner achievement or understanding (Cordingley et al., 2015). When teachers reflect on
their practice or learner understanding, opportunities arise for teachers to be mindful of their
choices, and to subject these to critical analyses (Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf, &
Wubbels, 2001). Studies reporting on teachers’ reflective practices in Southern African countries
2 Woolway et al.

(Chikamori, Ono, & Rogan, 2013; O’Sullivan, 2002) have highlighted various factors influencing the
way teachers reflect, including the notion of there being little need to question or reflect on practices
as teachers receive instruction from the Department of Education and do as they are instructed.
Second, the historic background of many South African teachers has resulted in some teachers not
knowing how to reflect. This paper explores how teacher participation and the level of teacher reflection
changed as four Natural Sciences teachers engaged in collaborative sessions focused on improving
interactions with LPK.

Literature Review

Characteristics of Teacher Professional Development

Professional development (PD) has been defined as deliberate opportunities created by education
departments or schools that assist teachers to expand their knowledge and develop their competences
(Joyce & Calhoun, 2010). Some teacher PD programmes have been used as vehicles to change and
improve practices both locally (Reed, Davis, & Nyabanyaba, 2002) and internationally (Avalos, 2011).
Traditional PD programmes are often in the form of workshops led by expert(s) disseminating infor-
mation to teacher participants, in the hope that what is taught will be applied in the work place
(Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2011). Such programmes may result in limited
uptake from teachers as the context of teachers, learners and schools has not been taken into
account and the programme is brief and fragmented (Cordingley et al., 2015). Buma (2018) reported
how a short intervention programme (including a two-day workshop) that focused on improving tea-
chers’ pedagogical content knowledge by exploring ways of making science content relevant to lear-
ners was initially taken up by teachers with much enthusiasm. However, Buma acknowledged that
sustaining continued interest by teachers in using the intervention to develop future lessons was a
challenge. Buma suggested that a solution to assisting teachers in the long term may be found in creat-
ing communities of practice as both resources and experiences can be shared.
Cordingley et al. (2015) identified various features present in successful PD programmes: first, the
programme is long term; second, the PD takes the teachers’ specific school context into account, con-
sidering teachers’ experiences and at the same time creating opportunities for teachers to work with
the intervention; third, facilitators work with teachers as equals, encouraging the participants to take
over the leadership of the PD; fourth, the content of the PD allows teachers to easily introduce the inter-
vention into their classes and that teachers can evaluate the impact of the intervention on their learners’
learning; and fifth, collaboration is essential in successful PD programmes. Teachers need to be pro-
vided with opportunities to work with, grapple with, and reflect on the intervention together. A further
characteristic of successful PD programmes described by Borko (2004) is the development of a Pro-
fessional Learning Community (PLC). Professional learning, as in a PLC, shifts the responsibility for
learning to the teachers and their changing needs, whereas PD usually refers to training opportunities
arranged by experts for teachers (Durksen, Klassen, & Daniels, 2017).
Chauraya and Brodie (2017) defined a PLC as a space where teachers meet regularly with the
purpose of changing practices through their collective interaction. Teacher participation in a PLC is
recognised and endorsed by the South African Department of Education as a means of enhancing
teacher professional development (Department of Education, 2011).
Working with mathematics teachers, Brodie (2013) argued that successful PLCs possess the follow-
ing features. First, learning is professional in that data comes from teachers’ own experiences and are
related to each other’s school contexts and various forms of knowledge and research. When teachers
share similar experiences, critical reflection is made possible (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). Second,
collaborative learning needs support from leaders, e.g. heads of department, principals and district
education departments. Finally, successful PLCs are dependent on who is facilitating the group. Facil-
itators not only require skills to design and implement interventions, they also need to manage the col-
laborative process ensuring a safe, trusted environment allowing the community to grow and learn
together. A supportive and open atmosphere is essential in successful PLCs (Durksen et al., 2017).
This was confirmed by a study by Feldman and Fataar (2014) working with BEd Honours students
Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions in a Professional Learning Community 3

in a PLC at the University of Stellenbosch. The PLC in their study provided a safe space for reflection
on classroom practice using an action research approach, allowing for dialogue focused on improving
teachers’ classroom practice.
As highlighted by Brodie, an essential component of successful PLCs is providing teachers with
opportunities to reflect on their practice. Schön (1991) defined reflective practice as the way in
which professionals become mindful of their tacit knowledge and learn from their experiences. We
turn our discussion to considering teachers’ reflective practices within a PLC.

Teacher Reflective Practice

Teachers may reflect either during practice or once the action has happened. Schön (1991) differen-
tiates between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action arises as teachers
reflect on their actions as they occur. This contrasts with reflection-on-action, where teachers reflect
on practices that have previously taken place, contemplating what was successful and that which
needs improving. We are reporting on reflection-on-action.
Reflection is a component of good teaching (Zeichner & Liston, 2013). Reflecting on classroom prac-
tice is significant for the following reasons: reflection provides opportunities for teachers to link theory
and practice; and reflection supports self-directed professional growth and allows for analysis and criti-
cal evaluation of both the teacher and subject matter (Calderhead, 1988).
Zeichner and Liston (2013, p. xvii) claim, ‘it is through reflection on our teaching that we become
more skilled, more capable and in general better teachers’. Whilst research reports on improved prac-
tice following reflection (Cordingley et al., 2015; Durksen et al., 2017), instances are reported where
teachers struggle with reflecting on their practice. For instance, Ono and Ferreira’s (2010) study
with Mpumalanga teachers reported that teacher reflections using lesson study were primarily con-
cerned with curriculum completion. A later paper (Chikamori et al., 2013) reported how both teacher
participation and levels of reflection increased with successive reflective cycles. However, most reflec-
tions were voiced by the research leadership team, with teachers’ reflections making up less than 5%
of the total number of reflections. The research we are reporting on considers how teachers’ partici-
pation and level of reflection changed through continued attendance at PLC sessions. The research
questions our paper seeks to answer are: how does teacher participation and the level of teacher
reflection change as teachers engage in collaborative sessions focused on reflection?

Theoretical Framework

With teachers working collaboratively in a PLC reflecting on their practice, our research is justified by
aspects of Vygotsky’s theory on the social construction of knowledge, particularly the notion of ‘the
zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). The zone of proximal development has been defined as the
difference between what learners can do without help and that which they can do with help (Vygotsky,
1978). Transferring Vygotsky’s notions of the ZPD to the teacher, Warford (2011) referred to the zone
of proximal teacher development (ZPTD). Working with the ZPTD requires teachers to make explicit
what they already know and can do, thus facilitating the move to what teachers are unable to do on
their own. When teachers work collaboratively with their peers, opportunities are created where the
ZPTD can be explored in ways that are sensible to both novice and experienced teachers.
As our research is concerned with how, if at all, teachers’ reflective practices change with continued
participation in a PLC, we have grounded our research on teacher reflective practice on the writings of
Zeichner and Liston (1987) and O’Sullivan (2002), which describe various levels of teacher reflection.
Zeichner and Liston (1987) distinguish between three increasing levels of reflection: technician, craft-
sperson and moral craftsperson. Teachers reflect at a technician level when their focus is on complet-
ing that which has been decided by others, for instance curriculum completion. A craftsperson
reflective teacher is one who considers educational reasons for their classroom actions. They contem-
plate whether educational goals are being achieved and how well. A moral craftsperson reflective
teacher contemplates the moral and ethical implications of actions within a context. Zeichner and
Liston developed their three levels of teacher reflection from their US study of primary school pre-
4 Woolway et al.

service teachers. However, in her study working with Namibian teachers, O’Sullivan (2002) argued that
transferring Western reflective learning was not always possible in developing country contexts. Whilst
Namibian teachers were able to identify problems with their practices, they were unable to suggest sol-
utions to areas of concern. The Namibian teachers were reflecting at a level lower than Zeichner and
Liston’s technician level. O’Sullivan coined the term ‘basic technical awareness’ to describe the low
level of teacher reflection. However, we will refer to teacher reflections at the ‘basic technical aware-
ness’ level as ‘basic technician’ reflective teachers. O’Sullivan (2002) commented that where teachers
reflect at the ‘basic technician’ level there is an underlying social constructivist view of learning, as
more-skilled persons support novices in the learning of those reflective skills.

Methodology

An action research methodology has been used to conduct the research. Action research provided
opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively, reflecting on how they were interacting with
learner prior knowledge. Creswell (2012) categorises two types of action research: participatory
action research and practical action research. Participatory action research is large scale and
focuses on the emancipation of a community. Practical action research has two criteria: a narrow
focus and a small scale. The research we are reporting on was looking at the reflective practices of
four NS teachers, a narrow focus with few participants. Practical action research is concerned with tea-
chers changing their teaching practices in the hope of improving learner understanding (Mills, 2011). It
is through continuous cycles of reflecting, planning, acting (teaching) and observing, where opportu-
nities arise for teachers to think about and change practice. Like Walker (1994), it was hoped that
using an action research, research design would empower teachers to question and challenge what
they were doing in the classroom.
Data were collected over two years, with five cycles being completed in the larger project. This report
looks at how teachers reflected during cycles 1, 2 and 4. Cycle 1 was concerned with baseline prac-
tices (year 1) whilst the focus of cycles 2 and 4 was on the same content (LPK related to effects of an
electric current) over a two-year period: cycle 2 (year 1) and cycle 4 (year 2). The content for cycles 3
and 5 was ‘light’ in years 1 and 2 and has not been included, as this content knowledge was different
(see Table 1).

Research Sample
Four Grade 8 Natural Sciences teachers (Adele, Kate, Luke and the first author, Jenny), teaching at a
suburban high school south of Johannesburg were participants. Teachers were invited to participate in
the research and were free to leave at any time during the project. Except for Jenny, pseudonyms have
been used.
Luke is an experienced Electrical Technology teacher, who also teaches Natural Sciences. He
selected the content, ‘effects of an electric current’ for the research project as he recognised that
this content provided many opportunities to work with LPK, drawing on learners’ every day and
formal experiences. Luke was able to predict common misconceptions learners may have. This was
evident in his remark in the first reflect session:

You just say, ‘Right what are the effects of an electric current?’ And they will think sound, light and, and
that’s wrong obviously.’ (Luke, Reflect 1)

Adele and Kate have been teaching for less than five years. Both are Life Sciences specialist teachers
who teach Natural Sciences. Whilst Jenny is an experienced teacher, her expertise too lies in Life
Sciences. Having Luke be the expert for this section of work was ideal as it meant that Jenny was
teaching content where she was not an expert. The expectation that she would lead the group as
she was Head of Department and this was her research project was put to rest.
Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions in a Professional Learning Community 5

Table 1. Timing of cycles and focus of reflect-and-plan sessions

Focus of reflect-and-plan session

Cycle 1 Act 1
Baseline Observe 1
practices Reflect 1 How, if at all, do teachers work with LPK?
Cycle 2 Plan 2 Working with different sources of LPK
Effects of Act 2
electric current Observe 2
Year 1
Reflect 2 Using various communicative approaches to work with LPK
Cycle 3 Plan 3 Activities to work with LPK in various ways
Light Act 3
Observe 3
Reflect 3 Activities lacking as learners struggled to make meaning
Cycle 4 Plan 4 Rework activities taking into account learner misconceptions
Effects of Act 4
electric current Observe 4
Reflect 4 Use of low-order questions when working with LPK
Year 2
Cycle 5 Plan 5 Types of questions to proble LPK
Light Act 5
Observe 5
Reflect 5

Methods of Data Collection

The ‘Reflect’ and ‘Plan’ sessions with teachers were recorded using a digital audio-recorder. Record-
ings were transcribed. To increase validity of data, teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire at
the end of Cycle 2. The questionnaire asked teachers to reflect on their practices. Questions were
open, giving teachers room to reflect on their practices in as much depth as they wished. In year 2 tea-
chers were asked to reflect on their lesson plans.

Data Analysis
Transcripts of reflect-and-plan sessions were coded into ‘reflective episodes’. A reflective episode
occurred where a teacher suggested exploring an aspect of the lesson that required improvements
in the way of working with LPK. Data have been coded to identify which teacher initiated a reflective
episode (‘initiate’) and which teachers contributed to the ensuing reflective discussions (‘discussed’).
Teachers were only coded once in a reflective episode, even though there may have been much
back-and-forth discussion. Within each episode, the reflections of each individual teacher were
coded using Zeichner and Liston’s (1987) levels of reflection—technician teacher, craftsperson
and moral craftsperson—as well as O’Sullivan’s (2002) ‘basic technician teacher’. A teacher was
coded at the highest level of reflection in a reflective episode. Where a teacher initiated and contin-
ued to participate in the discussion of the same reflective episode, they were coded as ‘initiate’ and
the level of reflection recorded was the highest level of reflection coded for that reflective episode.
The excerpt in Table 2, taken from Reflect 2, illustrates the coding, where Adele initiated the discus-
sion raising a concern regarding learners’ inability to follow instructions when tackling an activity.
Jenny confirms the same concern. Luke justifies learners not following instructions as he believes
they are keen to move to the interesting parts of the worksheet, for instance connecting an electric
circuit.
6 Woolway et al.

Table 2. Example of reflective CODING OF D ata

Teacher Reflection transcript Level of reflection Explanation of coding

Adele I found that even though they are a really Initiate Basic technician Not following instructions:
nice class, some of them weren’t teacher problem stated, no
following instructions solution
Jenny … I also thought mine didn’t follow Discussed Basic technician Acknowledges learners
instructions, but they follow teacher don’t follow instructions
instructions in some places and not in
others
Luke They sort of jump the gun. … they Discussed Craftsperson Provides a reason for
actually jumped to the more interesting learners not following
parts instructions

Results

Number of Reflective Episodes

The number of reflective episodes did not increase with continued attendance at sessions (see Table
3, Reflect 1, Plan 2, Reflect 2, Plan 4 and Reflect 4). Instead the number of reflective episodes seemed
to be related to the type of activity (reflecting vs planning). The total number of reflective episodes
coded for the reflect sessions was much the same, ranging between 14 and 18 episodes. Many
more reflective episodes were identified in both plan sessions, 25 (Plan 2) and 35 (Plan 4), see
Table 3. The greatest number of reflection episodes (35, in Plan 4) was more than double the
number of reflections (16) in Reflect 1 (Table 3).

Combined Level of Reflections

Each reflection episode was initiated by a teacher making a statement or asking a question (see, for
example, Table 2). In most instances, this resulted in a discussion. Some discussions were concerned
with teachers confirming each other’s findings, others were more robust where differences between
learners or classes were discussed, as well as possible solutions to areas of concern. Participation
of teachers in a reflective episode they did not initiate was coded as a ‘discussed’ reflective.
Before looking at the level at which individual teachers reflected over the three cycles, it is useful to
get an overview of how the combined teacher reflections changed over the three cycles. Data from the
same type of sessions (reflect or plan) and whether the reflections were initiated or discussed have
been grouped together (see Figures 1–4). No reflections in any session were coded moral
craftsperson.
Whilst the number of reflection episodes was much the same in the reflect sessions, the level at
which teachers initiated the reflective episodes showed a slight decrease in the level of reflection,
with fewer ‘initiate craftsperson’ being coded when comparing Reflect 1 and Reflect 4 (see Figure 1).

Table 3. Number of REFLECTIVE EPI sodes

Reflective episodes
Reflection sessions
Reflect 1 16
Reflect 2 18
Reflect 4 14
Plan sessions
Plan 2 25
Plan 4 35
Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions in a Professional Learning Community 7

Figure 1. Combined levels of initiated reflections in reflect sessions.

With continued attendance at reflect sessions, an increase in teacher participation in reflection epi-
sodes occurred. The increase in teacher participation is shown in the increase in the number of ‘dis-
cussed reflections’ with each successive reflective session (see Figure 2). If all teachers
participated in each reflection episode, three discussed reflections would be coded for each reflection
episode. Of the 16 reflection episodes coded in Reflect 1, only eight instances of a discussed reflection
occurred (five craftsperson, three technician). However, during Reflect 4 of the 14 reflection episodes,
31 ‘discussed reflections’ happened, albeit most being coded ‘discussed basic technician’. The
comment written in field notes for Reflect 4 was: ‘Discussion was robust and worthwhile’.

Figure 2. Combined levels of discussed reflections in reflect sessions.

8 Woolway et al.

Figure 3. Combined levels of initiated reflections in plan sessions.

Figure 4. Combined levels of discussed reflections in plan sessions.

The extract in Table 4, taken from Reflect 4, is an example from one such reflection episode. The
focus of the session was on the ‘types of questions’ teachers could ask to explore learner meaning
making. Learners were struggling to link the deflection of a compass needle to the magnetic effect

Table 4. Teacher dialogue exploring types of questions improving learner understanding (reflect 4)

Teacher utterance Level of reflection

Jenny Ok now to get back to the types of questions you would ask. What would you Initiate Craftsperson
ask the children when you go around to their groups?
Luke Ok so the magnetic effect, ok. So, what equipment are you using? Why are Discussed Craftsperson
you using this equipment?
Adele And how are you using it? Discussed Craftsperson
Luke How, how would, how are we actually going to apply this to do something? Discussed Craftsperson
Adele What does it prove? Discussed Craftsperson
Luke What are you going to look for? Discussed Craftsperson
Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions in a Professional Learning Community 9

of an electric current. Previously, learners had been asked to identify a compass and state its functions.
They were made aware that movement of the compass needle was due to a magnetic field. Learners
had also completed a practical where they noted that copper wire was not magnetic. In this lesson, it
was hoped that learners would work with the knowledge from previous lessons and make the link that it
was the magnetic effect of electric current causing the compass needle to deflect. In the extract Jenny
initiates the reflection episode by asking what kinds of questions teachers could ask to help learners
link their prior knowledge of deflection of a compass needle to the magnetic effect caused by current.
Luke and Adele throw ideas back and forth, each working off the suggestion of the other. Only part of
the reflective episode is given; a total of 44 exchanges occurred.
The combined levels of reflection coded in ‘plan sessions’ are shown in Figure 3. Not only did the
number of reflection episodes increase from one year to the next, but the number of discussed reflec-
tions also increased (see Figure 4). A total of 52 ‘discussed reflections’ was coded in Plan 4 with 22
being coded ‘discussed craftsperson’. Further, the level at which teachers were reflecting also
increased from year 1 to year 2. Teachers were keen to identify problems and suggest solutions.
The focus of reflections had turned to improving learner conceptual understanding and less with curri-
culum completion.

Individual Level of Teacher Reflections

(a) Luke
Luke took the lead in the first reflect session: Reflect 1 (see Table 5). This is shown by the eight initiate
craftsperson and three initiate technician levels of reflection coded. Luke was also responsible for
initiating many of the reflection episodes in Plan 2 and Plan 4. Not only did Luke initiate many of the
reflection episodes, but he was an active participant in reflection episodes which he did not initiate
(see Table 6).
When Luke participated in a reflection episode, he tended to do so at a high reflection level, with few
episodes being coded as ‘basic technician’ reflective teacher. Not only was Luke able to predict mis-
conceptions that learners hold on to, but he identified problems with practice and often recommended
solutions. During Plan 4, Luke recognises that teachers need to explore the relationship between mag-
netic fields and the deflection of a compass needle (see Table 7). He initiates a reflective episode,
asking how you would use a compass, where Adele interrupts and offers ‘magnetism in a
compass’. A discussion between the teachers starts, and Luke suggests we merely ask learners to
‘name two methods to be able to see if there’s a magnetic field.’

Table 5. Levels of teacher-initiated reflections

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 4

Reflect 1 Plan 2 Reflect 2 Plan 4 Reflect 4
Luke Craftsperson 8 4 3 4
Technician 3 5 2
Basic Technician 1
Adele Craftsperson 2
Technician 1
Basic Technician 1 2
Kate Craftsperson 1 1
Technician 1
Basic Technician 2
Jenny Craftsperson 5 7 6 21 7
Technician 9 2 3 1
Basic Technician 3 1 2
Total number of reflections 16 25 18 35 14
10 Woolway et al.

Table 6. Levels of teacher discussed reflections

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 4

Reflect 1 Plan 2 Reflect 2 Plan 4 Reflect 4
Luke Craftsperson 1 2 3 8 3
Technician 1 1 3 3 4
Basic Technician 1 2 5
Adele Craftsperson 2 3 4 2
Technician 1 4 7
Basic Technician 1 6 9
Kate Craftsperson 8 1
Technician 1 4
Basic Technician 4 3 5 5
Jenny Craftsperson 2 2 2 2 1
Technician 1 1 3
Basic Technician 2 1 1
Total number of reflections 8 16 18 52 31

Luke was an active participant in reflect-and-plan sessions (see Tables 2, 4 and 7). He initiated many
reflection episodes. His most frequent level of reflection was ‘craftsperson’. Luke is an experienced
teacher and has sound content knowledge. Luke was motivated and a keen participant in the PLC.

(b) Adele
Adele did not initiate any reflection episodes in Reflect 1. She initiated few reflection episodes in
Reflect 2 and Reflect 4 (see Table 5). Two of the three reflection episodes that Adele initiated in
Reflect 2 were at the craftsperson level. The reflect episode that Adele initiated in Reflect 2 at the
basic technician level is shown in Table 2. During Reflect 4 Adele initiated three reflection episodes,
one at the technician level and two at the basic technician level. She was an active participant in epi-
sodes she did not initiate (see Table 6). Whilst Adele did not initiate any reflection episodes in either
plan session, she was an active participant (see Table 6). Both Adele’s participation and level at
which she reflected increased from Plan 2 to Plan 4. In Plan 2 all four of Adele’s reflections were
coded at the technician level, whereas four craftsperson reflections were coded in Plan 4. The
results indicate that both Adele’s participation and the level at which she was reflecting had increased
with participation in reflect-and-plan sessions.

Table 7. Teacher DIALOGUE during Plan 4

Level of
reflection Explanation of coding
Luke We must include here, compass. How would, how Technician Learners struggle linking
would you … how would you see … magnetism to deflection of a
compass needle
Adele Magnetism in a compass? Ja Suggests a question for learners to
make link
Luke Ja
Adele What does a compass do? Craftsperson Refines her question
Jenny Explain what is meant by a magnetic … Craftsperson Bounces back a question
Luke Ja. We must maybe see: ‘How would you be able Craftsperson Asks directly about a magnetic field:
to, how would you be able to see. Name two how you would know if one is
methods to be able to see if there’s a magnetic present
field.’
Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions in a Professional Learning Community 11

(c) Kate
Kate contributed to one of the 16 reflection episodes in Reflect 1 and this at the low technician level
(see Table 6). During Plan 2, Kate participated in four reflection episodes, all coded as technician
reflective teacher. Like Adele, the number of times Kate participated in reflection episodes increased
in cycle 4, 20 in Plan 4 and 7 in Reflect 4. Kate initiated three reflection episodes in Plan 4 and one in
Reflect 4 (see Table 5). When asked in her final interview how she had benefited from reflecting on
lessons, Kate spoke about feeling more confident teaching the content, as she became aware of
how her colleagues were teaching.

I think it made me more confident in this section. I think often times where, if you have the content, you need
the confidence to teach it and I think with this, you go over it and over it again. And you hear how other, other
people explain it. And then you realize, ‘Ok, I can do this now.’ (Kate Final Interview Year 2)

(d) Jenny
Jenny was aware of the cyclical nature of action research and that the purpose for using such a
research design was to focus on improving practices of interacting with LPK, by reflecting-on-action.
However, it was only after the reflect-and-plan sessions had taken place that a decision was made
on how to code the level of teacher reflections. Jenny scheduled all sessions and was motivated to
explore problems and develop strategies and activities allowing teachers to interact with LPK in a
meaningful way. This is the probable reason why she initiated so many of the reflection episodes,
with many being at the craftsperson level (see Table 5). However, when comparing the number of
reflection episodes and level of reflection between Jenny and Luke in Reflect 1, Luke initiated and
participated at a higher reflective level than Jenny. The same cannot be said for any of the other
reflect sessions. Jenny initiated many of the reflective episodes in both plan and reflect sessions
(see Table 5). Jenny was the only teacher to observe all teachers in their classrooms and was
aware of what had occurred in four classrooms and not just the class she taught.

Discussion and Conclusions

Working collaboratively within a PLC (reflect-and-plan sessions), focusing on improving teacher prac-
tice when working with LPK resulted in increased teachers’ participation in reflection episodes and the
level of reflection with successive cycles. Initially, teachers were dependent on an experienced subject
specialist taking the lead. As teachers became familiar with the content and gained experience, having
taught the content to many classes over a two-year period, teachers gained confidence and the
number of reflection episodes they participated in increased as the project continued. This may be
explained in terms of Warford’s (2011) ZPTD, where more skilled teachers supported novices in devel-
oping their skills. Indeed, the success of collaborative sessions was hugely dependent on at least one
person in the group taking the lead. In our study, Luke was the leader: his content knowledge was
sound, and he had a wealth of pedagogical content knowledge. He guided the group through its
initial sessions. The group depended on him to bounce ideas off. As teachers gained confidence in
the unfamiliar content, as well as in experience, both their participation and level of reflection improved.
These findings contrast with those of Chikamori et al. (2013) who reported a high level of participation
of a university professor (the leader) in their reflect sessions with little input from the teacher partici-
pants. In our study, Luke was the experienced, subject expert. He was not the researcher, suggesting
the significance of sound content and pedagogical content knowledge being a prerequisite for teachers
to reflect on their practice.
In their study, Reed et al. (2002) reported that it was only teachers with sound subject and pedago-
gical knowledge who were able to reflect on their practices. However, their study did not show gains in
participation, nor how the level of reflection had changed in teachers over the course of the research.
O’Sullivan’s (2002) Namibian study came to similar conclusions to Reed et al. in that teachers were
reflecting at such a low level, she introduced a level below Zeichner and Liston’s (1987) low technician
level of reflection. Both studies were conducted in the late 1990s with teachers who were either unqua-
lified or underqualified. Teachers had been educated in the apartheid years, resulting in poor training,
12 Woolway et al.

and were working in under-resourced schools. All teachers in our study were qualified to teach Natural
Sciences, albeit three were Life Sciences specialists. None of the participating teachers received
inferior teacher training. The school is a well-resourced public school. Yet similar findings to those
of O’Sullivan and Reed were found in the beginning cycles. Initially, both participation in reflective epi-
sodes and the level of reflection for inexperienced teachers was low. As teachers attended more ses-
sions so their participation and level of reflection increased, indeed inexperienced teachers were
starting to move through the ZPTD.
Reflection sessions were dependent on a motivated leader who initiated reflection episodes. Tea-
chers are sometimes hesitant to challenge authority and are content to ‘copy’ a person giving instruc-
tion (Walker, 1994). In the latter study this was blamed on the inferior education that the teachers had
received. The same could not be said of teachers in this study. Initially teachers lacked confidence.
However, once inexperienced teachers in our study gained in experience not only did their participation
and level of reflection in discussions increase, teachers started to initiate reflective episodes. The role
of the leader in the group cannot be overemphasised (Fazio, 2009). In many instances groups are
dependent on an outside facilitator, be it a researcher or department official, to run the professional
development. When this happens, it is likely that then the professional development will not continue
beyond the intervention time. However, where a leader does step up to manage the group, it is prob-
able that the group will continue beyond the intervention time (Hollins, McIntyre, DeBose, Hollins, &
Towner, 2004). As teachers in this study gained in confidence so it is likely that with more sessions
to reflect and with new inexperienced teachers joining the group that these teachers too will
become leaders, similar to the most experienced teacher who took on the role of leader in the first year.
When teachers work in small school-based groups collaboratively defining, discussing and finding
solutions, not only does practice improve (Joyce & Calhoun, 2010), but it is likely that the professional
development will be sustainable (Reed et al., 2002).Within two years of participating in the PLC, inex-
perienced teachers in our study who lacked confidence and were unable to reflect even at a low level
on their practices were initiating reflection episodes and actively participating in discussions.
Implications from the findings of this study are the importance of identifying, training and supporting
motivated leaders to develop PLCs within schools, where teachers are active participants in a trusted,
open learning environment.

Note

1. Natural Sciences is a subject taught in junior high school and includes chemistry, physics and biology.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation [grant number 90385].

ORCID

Jenny Woolway http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5451-6913

Audrey Msimanga http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7036-1181
Anthony Lelliott http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-5953

References

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher,
33(8), 3–15.
Brodie, K. (2013). The power of professional learning communities. Education as Change, 17(1), 5–18.
Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions in a Professional Learning Community 13

Buma, A. (2018). Reflections of science teachers in a professional development intervention to improve their ability
to teach for the affective domain. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 22(1), 103–113.
Calderhead, J. (1988). Teachers’ Professional Learning. London: Falmer Press.
Chauraya, M., & Brodie, K. (2017). Learning in professional learning communities: Shifts in mathematics teachers’
practices. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(3), 223–233.
Chikamori, K., Ono, Y., & Rogan, J. (2013). A lesson study approach to improving a biology lesson. African Journal
of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1–2), 14–25.
Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., & Coe, R. (2015). Developing great
teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Retrieved from: http://
www.curee.co.uk/files/publication/%5Bsite-timestamp%5D/DGT%20Full%20report%20(1).pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative
Research (4th edn). Cape Town: Pearson.
Department of Education (2011). Intergrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and
Development in South Africa. Pretoria Retrieved September 30, 2018 from http://www.dhet.gov.za/
Teacher20Education/Technical20Report20-20Intergrated20Strategic20Planning20Framework20for20Teacher
20Education20and20Development20In20SA,201220Apr%202011.pdf
Durksen, T., Klassen, R., & Daniels, L. (2017). Motivation and collaboration: The keys to a developmental frame-
work for teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 53–66.
Fazio, X. (2009). Teacher development using group discussion and reflection. Reflective Practice, 10(4), 529–541.
Feldman, J., & Fataar, A. (2014). Conceptualising the setting up of a professional learning community for teachers’
pedagogical learning. South African Journal of Higher Education, 28(5), 1525–1540.
Hollins, E. R., McIntyre, L. R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K. S., & Towner, A. (2004). Promoting a self-sustaining learning
community: Investigating an internal model for teacher development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 17(2), 247–264.
James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(7), 973–
982.
Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (2010). Models of Professional Development: A Celebration of Educators. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Korthagen, F. A., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking Practice and Theory: The
Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. London: Routledge.
Mills, G. E. (2011). Action Research—A guide for the teacher researcher (4th edn). Boston, MA: Pearson.
O’Sullivan, M. C. (2002). Action research and the transfer of reflective approaches to in-service education and train-
ing (INSET) for unqualified and underqualified primary teachers in Namibia. Teaching and Teacher Education,
18(5), 523–539.
Ono, Y., & Ferreira, J. (2010). A case study of continuing teacher professional development through lesson study in
South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 30(1), 59–74.
Reed, Y., Davis, H., & Nyabanyaba, T. (2002). Investigating teachers’‘take-up’of reflective practice from an in-
service professional development teacher education programme in South Africa. Educational Action
Research, 10(2), 253–274.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional development across the teach-
ing career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education,
27(1), 116–126.
Schön, D. A. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Ashgate.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities
on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Walker, M. (1994). Professional development through action research in township primary schools in South Africa.
International Journal of Educational Development, 14(1), 65–73.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 252–
258.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),
23–49.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (2013). Reflective Teaching: An Introduction (2nd edn). New York: Routledge.