This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A Reflective Journal
Tutor: Dennis Sale
An assignment submitted by Ng Hwee Kiat to the Division of Education The University of Sheffield in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Education (Higher Education) Degree 10 April, 2012
A Reflective Journal
Introduction In the recent years, there has been a movement by educational researchers and academics to counter the proletarianisation (Riseborough 1997, pp. 18-20) of the teaching profession. This proletarianisation comes about from the greater regulation, accountability and directed control from the educational governing bodies (Lawn, 1981). The result is teachers having less control over the educational process. Part of this reaction against proletarianisation has taken the form of promoting teaching as a profession rather than teaching as a vocation or occupation. The theoretical base for this reaction makes use of Schön’s Reflective Practitioner (Schön 1983, 1987) as the model for teacher’s professionalism. The argument is that professional practice requires reflection on top of technical competence. Teaching, being a complex, problematic, interactive and social profession, suits the model of the professional making use of reflective practice to be effective. When teachers take on the role of the reflective practitioner, they also take on the role of the professional. This paper argues that Reflective Practice is a necessary part of the teaching profession and shows how reflection via a Reflective Journal can be achieved. Why is Reflection Necessary in Professional Practice? There are three main reasons why reflection is a necessary part of effective professional practice. Firstly, professional practice is complex and problematic. The present dominant view of professional practice is what Schön terms the technical rational model. Table 1 summarises the main differences between the Technical Rationalist and the Reflective Practitioner in professional practice. The technical rational approach is essentially a scientific and engineering approach at work.
Technical Rationalist View of knowledge Type of Problems suited Professional Knowledge as Knowledge Development Professional Action as Professional Activity as Objectivist well-defined facts, rules, procedures from research to practice separated from knowledge decision making, problem solving
Reflective Practitioner Constructivist ill-defined, complex tacit, knowing-in-action social construction of knowledge reflection-in-action problem setting
Table 1. Technical Rationalist vs. Reflective Practitioner Schön argues that the technical rational model is inadequate for effective professional practice. Problem setting is as much a part of professional practice as problem solving. In real world practice, problems do not present themselves to the practitioner as givens. They must be constructed from the materials or problematic situations that are puzzling, troubling and uncertain. (Schön 1983, p. 40) The difficult part in problem solving is not to search for and solve problems but to construct the problem, namely the “problem setting in which, interactively, we name the things to which we will attend and frame the context in which we will attend to them” (Schön 1983, p. 40). Well-defined problems can be easily solved by the technical rational approach, whereas illdefined problems require a more intuitive from of reasoning (Maughan 1996, p. 3). Secondly, professional practice involves being able to deal with new situations. These new situations in professional work are generally unpredictable. In his day-to-day practice he makes innumerable judgements of quality for which he cannot state adequate criteria, and he displays skills for which he cannot state the rules and procedures. Even when he makes conscious use of research-based theories and techniques, he is dependent on tacit recognitions, judgements, and skillful performances. (Schön 1983, pp. 49-50) Dealing with these unpredictable situations requires reflection-in-action which is an interaction with a ‘live’ problem as it unfolds (Maughan 1996, p. 3).
Thirdly, continual learning is one of the important attributes of effective professional practice. Reflective observation, being one of the key learning process or skill in Kolb’s experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984), plays an important part in professional learning. Kolb’s learning cycle model starts with the learning experience, moves through a process of reflective observation, to the formation of abstract concepts and generalisations, which in turn is applied to new situations thereby forming new experiences and starting a new learning cycle. Does Teaching fit into the Reflective Practitioner Model of Professionalism? Teaching as a profession is highly complex, highly interactive and contain many unpredictable aspects. This makes a technical rational approach to teaching inadequate. Teaching is not just a simple transaction between teacher and student (Elliot 1996, p. 7). Many complex issues come into play that will affect the teacher, the student and the teaching process. Firstly, the teacher needs to take on many different roles. The teacher has to assume the roles of adviser, mentor, role model, consultant, coach, counselor, friend and teacher (Grossblatt, 1997) to students. In addition, the teacher has administrative roles such as controller, disciplinarian, administrator, public relations officer, project manager and resource manager, etc. Secondly, the teacher needs to interact not only with students but also with colleagues, school administrators, parents, school boards, auditors, industry, etc. Each interaction demands a different approach and role. Thirdly, although teachers work within the framework of the well-defined school environment and curriculum, there is the informal and hidden curriculum which is much more complex and difficult to grasp or understand (Riseborough 1985, pp. 209-215).
Fourthly, in teaching practice, the teacher needs to decide which teaching methods or strategies to use, how to motivate students, how to reconcile personal beliefs of education with practice, how to cover the curriculum, how to cope and survive, etc. Lastly, there is the issue of school or teaching culture (Paulsen 1995, pp. 19-37), with its many political and influencing processes that are not easily visible or apparent. All these are complex issues that cannot be easily dealt with by using the technical rational approach towards teaching. It is precisely these complex issues that justify the reflective practitioner approach when the teacher tries to perform as an effective profession. What do I mean by a Reflective Journal? Everybody reflects in one way or other and we can view reflection in three levels; 1. Everyday Reflection which is not more than thinking, remembering or talking about things. 2. Deliberate Reflection where one reflects on or about action which may contribute to development in practice. Examples are journal writing, talking with critical friend or mentor. 3. Deliberate & Systematic Reflection where reflection takes place through action as well as on and about action. Examples are action research and action learning. (Hall 1997, p. 7) I will not be elaborating on the first and third levels of reflection in this paper but on the deliberate reflection and especially the use of a Reflective Journal for personal reflection in my teaching practice. What then is Reflective Teaching? Critically reflective teaching happens when we identify and scrutinize the assumptions that undergird how we work. The most effective way is to become aware of these assumptions is to view our practice from different perspectives. Seeing how we think and work through different lenses is the core process of reflective practice. (Brookfield 1995, p. xiii). Brookfield suggested that teachers can view their practice through four lenses; autobiographical reflection, our students’ eyes, our colleagues’ perceptions and experience
and finally literature (Brookfield 1995, p. xiii). I shall be attempting to view these incidents through these different perspectives as suggested by Brookfield. Schön identifies reflection as something that occurs in or during action; namely, the reflection-in-action. This reflection-in-action is conscious, has a critical function and gives rise to on-the-spot-experiment (Schön 1987, pp. 28-29). Reflection-on-action refers to the process of making sense of an action after it has occurred, and possibly learning something from the experience which extends one’s knowledge base. It may affect future action, but cannot affect the action being reflected upon because that has already passed (Brown 1995, p. 5). I will be using both forms of reflection as I believe that both are of value in my teaching practice. This Reflective Journal is a record of some of my thoughts, feelings and reactions and how they affect me as a lecturer. In this journal, I will attempt to address some of the following questions in each incident. What is the situation that is causing me to feel uneasy? What did I expect would happen? What actually happened? What allowed or caused it to happened? Critical Incidents ‘are produced by the way we look at a situation: a critical incident is an interpretation of the significance of an event’ (Tripp 1993, p. 8). How am I approaching the problem? Why is the situation problematic? The question of how to respond to a given classroom situation must be related to the questions about the why of the situation: why do pupils act as they do, why does this make me feel uncomfortable, why do I react in a particular way, etc. (Korthagen 1988, p. 35) What am I really trying to do in this situation? “Diagnosing a critical incident is one way to ensure that our reflection and evaluation is grounded in reality” (Tripp 1993, p. 31)
What would happen if I . . .? Supposing that happens, what should I do then? “The point is that how one acts in an incident, what one learns from it and the judgements one makes about it, all depend upon interpretation” (Tripp 1993, p. 29) What would the literature say to do? How is this like or unlike the cases described in theory? My Reflective Journal The journal begins with my personal reflection of a few critical incidents. I have included my reflections on this Reflective Journal at the end to record my personal views in learning about the reflective practitioner approach in my professional development. Incident 1 “Test feedback to students”
It was the week after the mid-semester Test. I am all ready to provide feedback on the test results for Logic Design. I have just completed my M.Ed. assignment on the purposes of assessment and how assessment can be used to improve learning. I have recognised the importance of feedback in assessment and am willing to go beyond what I usually do when I return test papers, i.e., just going through the correct answers. I have decided to provide individual feedback to each student. The feedback will include what they have done well, what they need to improve on and what they need to learn. This will definitely take more time but I think the learning opportunity will be worth the time spent. I will also take the opportunity to get feedback from the students on my teaching, their learning and other possible problems. What do I hope to achieve with all these ‘additional’ work? By going through their papers individually, I hope to show concern for their learning and at the same time build up rapport with them. If they feel that I am interested in their results, they are more likely to sustain
motivation in the subject. The feedback on their work will definitely help them to identify areas for improvement. What are the responses or results? Most of the students are just interested in the marks for the test. I do not find this surprising due to the examinations oriented system here in Singapore. I emphasized the learning aspects of the test and advised them not to focus too much on the results. Some students were surprised by the individualised attention. There were a few favourable comments but no unfavourable feedback as I went through the test paper individually. The whole process took much longer than what I would normally have done. What could I have done better? As I was going through each paper individually, I could have set assignments for the other students who were waiting to see me. This will make better use of their time. I could highlight common problems as a class and invite the class to identify solutions collectively. What have I learnt from the students? During the student feedback on staff, one of the students commented favourably on my use of individual feedback. I felt encouraged and would probably carry on using this approach in my feedback of mid Semester Test results. Some students who do not like to ask questions or give feedback in a class setting feel more comfortable with a one-to-one feedback. I find this to be especially true in our Asian context, where questions, comments or feedback tends to be less forthcoming in group setting. Incident 2 “Student Feedback on Staff”
Today in my email, I received a memo informing me of the results of the student feedback conducted the last semester. Ever since the feedback session, I have been curious about how the students would rate me as a lecturer.
What is the purpose of this student feedback? The student feedback is to be used in conjunction with other tools such as Teaching Appraisal and Self-Evaluation to improve the quality of learning & teaching. The students were asked to “feedback on specific attributes of the teaching process” (Anon 1996, p.29). Staff with poor ratings would be ‘counselled’ by their respective section heads.
Q1. I feel that the lecturer knows his/her subject matter well. Q2. The lecturer explains clearly. Q3. The lecturer makes an effort to make the subject interesting. Q4. I feel that the lecturer is concerned for my learning. Q5. I feel that the lecturer manages his/her class well.
Table 2. Questions used in the Student Feedback on Staff Are the questions useful? Can the results be presented in a more useful form? Table 2 shows the questions used in the student feedback of staff. I felt that the questions are quite general and are quite subjective. Questions 1, 4 and 5 are based on students’ feelings. Can we expect the students to be able to make an assessment of the lecturer’s subject knowledge? The questions are of not much use as it does not help me to identify which specific aspects of my teaching needs improvement although it helps to serve as an indication in a general manner. Why do I feel that this is problematic? My concern is how much weight is being given to this ‘voice of the student’ in my appraisal? My ‘unease’ about the situation comes from the ‘power of evaluation’ wielded by these students in the feedback process. I have encountered students who threatened poor feedback to lecturers who have scolded them for bad or inconsiderate behaviour. The anonymous nature of the student feedback allows for irresponsible comments and assessment. On the other hand, without anonymity, the students would not give an honest feedback due to fear of reprisals. Is it fair to get my students to assess my teaching? Are they in a position to assess if I know my subject well? Can the students provide an objective and fair assessment? It can be argued
that students being on the receiving end of the teaching process are in the best position to provide the best evaluation of the teaching process. The issue is whether the students are able to assess the quality of the teacher or teaching process in an objective and fair manner. From the student’s perspective, unless the teacher has done a really good job or a really bad job, I would not really bother racking my brains over what ratings to give. What is the effect on teaching as a whole in Singapore Polytechnic? Haskell argued that student evaluation would threaten academic freedom (Haskell, 1997). This may not be exactly relevant in Singapore Polytechnic’s context where academic freedom has been virtually non-existent all along. He also pointed to research indicating lowering of grading standards and course level, modification of instructional behaviour in order to improve evaluation scores. (Haskell 1997, p. 5). I find this to be very true and from conversations with colleagues have found indications of this happening. On a more positive note, studies quoted by Paulsen (1995, pp. 53-61) indicated with positive evidence that student feedback led to improved teaching. I would like to believe this to be true in SP as well but there is no research being done to verify that this is indeed happening. How does this affect me and what changes have I made? Stake believed that ‘student evaluations can strongly influence the behaviour of teachers’ (Stake 1977, p. 1). I did change my teaching style. I am also more aware of student feelings. I also felt that I have been more accommodating towards the students and I would think twice before I censure any students as they can ‘get back’ at me through their feedback. I have also recognised that there may be some truth in the results of the feedback and it has indicated areas where my teaching can be improved. The rating by itself does not serve much value as I am unable to tell where I stand with respect to other lecturers. Am I much worse or better compared to other lecturers? Should I be concerned about this comparison?
How do I feel about the result of the feedback? Like most teachers, I take pride in my teaching and the effort I have put into my teaching practice. Adverse feedback can be demoralising and upsetting. However, I can take consolation in recognising that the complexities of learning and the presence among students of diverse personalities, cultural backgrounds, genders, ability levels, learning styles, ideological orientations and previous experiences make a perfect ten impossible to achieve. (Brookfield 1995, p. 17) Incident 3 “I don’t understand”
This was at week 3 of the new academic term. It was the end of the lecture and I felt that the lesson has gone on quite well. Most students seem to have understood what I am getting across and I have gotten sufficiently good feedback, in terms of responses, from most of the class. A student approached me, “Sir, I don’t understand anything about this lesson at all!” Temporarily taken aback, I responded, “What is it that you do not understand?” “Everything in this lesson," she replied. These are all whom we can consider ‘mature students’, working adults, doing the course on a part time basis in the evenings from 6 to 10 p.m. Perhaps she does not have the time to read up and prepare for class, I thought. “Am I going too fast?” I asked. There was no reply. I paused for a while thinking how to respond. “I think it’s all right. I suppose if I go back and read about it, I should be able to understand.” It was about 9:30 p.m. and I had a feeling that she did not want to impose on me to stay back to explain to her. I was also feeling tired after a long day so I let it go at that. I really felt upset after all my efforts to make the class interesting. Why did I feel upset? She should have let me know when the lesson was in progress. I remembered giving them time to
respond if they are able to understand the lesson. I tried to make sure that they understood each stage before I progressed to the next stage and this is not the first lesson! Is it the student’s fault or my fault that the student does not understand? Perhaps I am teaching above the students? But most of them are able to understand! Do I have to make sure each and every one of the students is able to understand the lesson? There are two contrasting views on learning difficulties in literature; 1. The developmental perspective supports the view that there is something wrong with the child which prevents learning taking place. 2. The behavioural psychology perspective asserts that the cause(s) of failure can be located in some aspects of the child’s learning environment, rather than the child. (Powell 1990, pp. 50-51) So based on the developmental view, the problem lies with the student, while based on the bahavioural psychology view, the problem lies with the learning environment, which basically points to my failure as a teacher to provide the appropriate learning environment. Both interpretations are equally unpalatable to me. A third interpretation, which I can subscribe to, says that “the learning process is a conjunction of what the learner brings to the situation as well as the teacher” (Powell 1990, p. 126). Teachers are not always in control of what pupils do and learn, for example. Pupils themselves can sometimes determine or negotiate the nature of the activities presented to them. (Calderhead 1984, p. 51) Calderhead suggested that we need to interpret the “wider learning context of the classroom” in order to come out with the relevant strategies to improve student’s learning. This includes careful observation and evaluation. (Calderhead 1984, p. 66). I will need to find out more from talking to the student to identify the real problem and hopefully come out with a strategy to improve her learning.
I began to notice this student in my class and at times directed my teaching towards her. I had another opportunity to talk with her and managed to identify that she is indeed a slow learner and, coupled with lapses of concentration during class, has difficulty following the lesson. She has already repeated some of her previous modules due to the same problems. I have the fear that the subject may be beyond her due to the pace. How can I help her or other similar students? Is it within my scope as a lecturer to provide individualised attention to individual students? Can I possibly cope if more of such students surfaced? I do not have any easy answers. Incident 4 “Going for Prayers”
Muhammed was late for class again, for the second time running this term. He was 1 hour late for a 2 hour tutorial. I questioned him, “Why are you late?” “I went from prayers," he answered. “Oh, okay!”, I accepted his reply and left it at that. Being a Malay Muslim, he attends mosque for prayers on Fridays. Upon reflection, I asked myself whether I should just accept his explanation and justification that it is all right to skip class for prayers. He had not asked for my permission to be excused but assumed that it is within his right to attend prayers at his mosque. In Singapore’s context where multi-racialism exists, and racial and religious tolerance is expected, Muslim workers are allowed to perform their Friday religious obligations of prayers at the mosque without question. If Singaporean society can accept that Muslims are allowed to fulfill their religious obligations within working hours, should Singapore schools, and Singapore Polytechnic allows Muslim students to do likewise during their school hours?
Would I be racially and religiously discriminating if I disallowed him to continue his practice? After all, he is here to study and not to attend prayers. I would be practicing reverse discrimination if I grant him the ‘privilege’ of being absent for one hour every week. This is not justifiable according to Goldman (1979, pp. 76-94). However, if I want to be fair, I would have to give due consideration to his needs. As Wringe says, “... justice involves not only treating equals equally, but also treating relevantly different individuals differently” (Wringe 1983, p. 111). Does that mean that I have to give him special attention in my class? That would be at the expense of the other students in my class! How can I give him special attention without affecting the rest of the class? If I allow the him to skip 1 hour every week, would this have adverse effect on his learning? I only have tutorials with this class once every week for two hours. His learning would definitely be affected as he would have only half the contact hours of this peers. How else can I deal with this situation? Perhaps he can transfer to another class that does not have scheduled classes on Friday afternoon. He may prefer to keep to the same class as he is familiar with his classmates. I would suggest his to him and gauge his response. Perhaps he can also ask his Imam, or religious teacher, to excuse him from Friday noon prayers and make up for it after school. Has the Polytechnic any guidelines on this issue? I do not think that this is a new issue that I am grappling with. I believe other staff and the Polytechnic as a whole has encountered and tackled this issue. However, the resolution, if any, has not been made known. At least not to me! Classes with Muslims could be timetabled to avoid lessons on Friday afternoons. There could also be other implications with timetabling or class grouping which I am not aware of.
Reflecting on my Reflective Journal Clearly, it is one thing to be able to reflect-in-action and quite another to be able to reflect on our reflection-in-action so as to provide a good verbal description of it; it is still another thing to be able to reflect on the resulting description. (Schön, 1987, p. 31). What have I gained from the Reflective Journal exercise? The Reflective Journal allows me to record things I might not want to share in a group or with others. I am able to review and process my thoughts and personal theories at a later stage when my emotional attachment to the incident is at a lower level. I can stand back and look at my own actions and their impact on the students. I can link reflections on particular areas to what literature says as and when I come across them in my research. The issue as pointed out by Tripp (1993, p. xiv) is that of making the connection between published research and teaching practice. As teachers and lecturers, we tend to be bogged down by the day to day classroom management problems to get answers to our problems from researchers. Reflecting on critical incidents helps me to relate research to my teaching by making me think about my assumptions, situations and value system. Putting my observations and reflections into writing also helps to clarify my thinking and reasoning. Another benefit is that the Reflective Journal provides a record of my professional development as a lecturer. Would I be able to continue my Reflective Practice? Without the push from having to submit the Journal as an assignment, I believe that I will have difficulty continuing the practice of keeping the Reflective Journal. This is due to the ever increasing demands on time and the setting up of the Quality Assessment culture in the Singapore Polytechnic. Appraising lecturers on teaching will undermine reflective practice in SP as it would be assessing delivery of curriculum rather than the teaching process. My performance as a lecturer would be appraised based on performance of certain criteria. Reflective teaching, though not being discriminated against, is not being valued. “The ultimate foundation of all reflective practice
or self-reflection is the ability and opportunity to engage in self-evaluation or self-assessment” (Paulsen 1995, p. iv). Reflecting on my reflective journal, I have identified several conditions necessary for reflective practice to succeed. Firstly, there must be a motivation to reflect. The motivation to reflect is an intrinsic one and has to come from the teacher himself or herself. Teachers with this intrinsic motivation will probably be doing reflection already in one way or another. Secondly, reflection without a valid aim may prove to be wasted journey in the swamps of reflective practice. Wringe argues that “the problem of unsatisfactory educational experience may lie in the lack of sense of what the point is in teaching” (Wringe 1988, p. 4). He added that even with the teacher’s “armoury of knacks, dodges and elements of personal style acquired in the course of training & experience”, the teacher needs an “acceptable rationale for the many activities and diverse aspirations in the pursuit of which they are engage.” (Wringe 1988, p. 4). I would like to suggest as a reflective practitioner, our assumption and interpretation of the aims of education are of paramount importance. This will allow us as teachers to focus on the relevant critical issues and not reflect aimlessly. Thirdly, technical rationality must be present before reflective practice can be a reality. The basic teaching methods and strategies should be available before reflection. There has to be something to reflect on. Reflective practice does not mean the demise of technical rationality. In most cases, basic training starts with the technical rational model. Subsequently, experiential learning through reflective practice may be introduced (Maughan 1996, p. 12). Perhaps we learn to reflect-in-action by learning first to recognize and apply standard rules, facts and operations; then to reason from general rules to problematic cases, in ways characteristic of the profession; and only then to
develop and test new forms of understanding and action where familiar categories and ways of thinking fail. (Schön 1987, p. 40). Fourthly, subject mastery must be present. Russel’s research showed that theory is often meaningless to teachers until they have mastered practice. Beginner teachers need to establish routines to ‘operate’ the classroom before they can think about theory and relate it to their own experiences (Russell 1988, pp. 13-34). I felt that I have been better able to reflect when teaching subjects in which I am comfortable with, where I have ‘mastery’ of the subject. In ‘new’ subjects where I am doing it for the first time, I am too concerned about getting the contents across to be able to practice reflective observation. Fifthly, a supportive school environment and culture are necessary. I can identify with the studies by researchers quoted in Sheard (1996, pp. 11-12) in which ‘reflective practice is submerged under the pressure of time and demands’ of being a lecturer. The school environment is as important a dimension as the personal dimension for a reflective practice culture to succeed (Clegg 1997, p. 4). There must be time and opportunity for open ended reflection (Gillis 1988, p. 52). Reflective teaching must also be valued and recognised by the school. Finally, a collegial support group for support is vital in reflective practice. Teaching is basically an isolating and solitary job (Webb 1985, pp. 83-85). Teachers are in many ways the most isolated of professionals. Reflective practice can increase the insularity of teachers unless it is developed together with a collegial support group. I have found it a lonely experience in my short tryst with reflective practice without anybody to share the triumphs or failures. Renewed teaching relies on being able to generate new ideas and on having opportunities to examine one's own teaching. I would also like to see how other lecturers react to and resolve similar incidents and so learn from their experiences.
Although I have no problem with reflective practice, others may prefer not to use a reflective approach in self evaluation. Reflective practice generally appeals to those ‘who prefer to learn in an active and reflective way’. Under the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) of personality types, introverts have a more reflective learning style, whereas extraverts prefer a more active social engagement. Extraverts or those with an ‘external orientation’ expect to be told how to practice. On the other hand, those with an ‘internal orientation’ readily use their knowledge and values to examine and evaluate their practice (Korthagen 1988, pp. 35-50). We will have to acknowledge the existence of other learning orientations that are prejudiced against reflective practice. Conclusion The technical rational view of teaching encourages the use of enterprise methods in education. This assumes that teaching is a science where precise and efficient methods can be used to churn out quality products, that is, students. This ignores the fact that students and teachers are complex beings and bring a complex background and interaction to the education arena. Teaching methods, learning theories are all very well to start with. As we develop our teaching practice, it will become more apparent that, with the increasing complexity of teaching practice, methods and theories are insufficient. Reflective practice is basically a “constructivist view of knowledge” and “is seen as a means by which a practitioner appreciates, or apprehends practice.” (Grimmet 1988, p. 12). The teacher develops his/her own theory based on his/her own critical evaluation of his/her practice. This can be achieved in a variety of ways; reflective journals, reflective practicum (Schön 1983, 1987), peer or tutor feedback on practice (after observation of teaching) as an input to reflection, and action research involving personal experimentation. It does not matter which method is being used as long as we are able to notice what is going on in our teaching
and we adopt a self-critical approach to developing practice. To be recognised professionally, the teacher as a professional needs to be characterised by • • • the committment to systematic questioning of one’s own teaching as a basis for development; the committment and the skills to study one’s own teaching; the concern to question and to test theory in practice by the use of those skills. Stenhouse (1975, pp. 143-144)
In the final analysis, it is the complex interaction of the student and teacher that will produce the desired educational outcomes. Like the works of the artist, composers, writers, the teacher makes use of known methods and improvises on the malleable materials, that is, students to come out with the quality product. Like all these artists, the passion and feeling for their tools and materials and the ensuing results have to be present. This can only come by through constant reflection.
References Anon (1996) A Guide to Standards & Criteria in Teaching, Singapore, Singapore Polytechnic Educational & Staff Development Department. Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, London, Kogan Page. Brookfield, S. D. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, San Francisco, JosseyBass. Brown, R. B. (1995) “Multiple Mirrors: Reflecting on Reflections”, HEC Conference, Beyond Competence to Capability and the Learning Society, Nov 1995, UMIST, Manchester. [ONLINE] http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000014.htm Calderhead, J. (1984) Teacher’s Classroom Decision-Making, Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Clegg, S. (1977) “Reflecting on Reflective Practice: The experience of using journals with research awards supervisors”, Education-Line, National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, UK. [ONLINE] http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000083.htm Elliot, G. (1996) “Teaching in post-compulsoty education: profession, occupation or reflective practice?” BERA Conference, Septermber 1996, Lancaster University. [ONLINE] http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000104.htm Gillis, G. (1988) “Schön’s Reflective Practitioner: A Model for Teachers” in Grimmet, P. P. & Erickson, G. L. (Eds)(1988) Reflection in Teacher Education, New York, Teacher’s College Press, pp. 47-53. Goldman, A. H. (1979) Justice & Reverse Discrimination, Princeton, Princeton University Press, quoted in Wringe, C. A. (1988) Understanding Educational Aims, London, Unwin Hyman, p. 109. Grimmet, P. P. (1988) “The Nature of Reflection and Schön’s Conception in Perspective” in Grimmet, P. P. & Erickson, G. L. (Eds)(1988) Reflection in Teacher Education, New York, Teacher’s College Press, pp. 5-15. Grossblatt, N. (Ed) (1997) Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science & Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, National Academy Press. [ONLINE] http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/mentor Hall, S. (1997) “Forms of Reflective Teaching Practice in Higher Education” in Pospisil, R. & Willcoxson, L. (Eds) (1997), Learning through Teaching - Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1997, pp. 124-131. Haskell, R. E. (1997) “Academic Freedom, Tenure and Student Evaluation of Faculty: Galloping Polls in the 21st Century”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 5, No. 6. [ONLINE] http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v5n6.html
Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning, New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Korthagen, F. (1988) “Learning Orientations on the Development of Reflective Teaching” in Calderhead, J. (Ed) (1988), Teachers’ Professional Learning, London, The Falmer Press, pp. 35-50. Lawn, M. & Ozga, J. (1981) “The eduational worker? A reassessment of teachers”, in Ozga, J. (Ed) (1988) School work: Approaches to the Labour Process of Teaching, Milton Keynes, Open University Press. Maughan, C. (1996) “Problem-Solving Through Reflective Practice: The Oxygen of Expertise or Just Swamp Gas?” Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, Issue 2, 24 March 1996, London, Blackstone Press Ltd. [ONLINE] http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~nlawww/1996/issue2/maughan2.html Paulsen, M. B. & Kenneth, A. F. (1995) Taking Teaching Seriously: Meeting the Challenge of Instructional Improvement, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2, Washington, D.C., The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Powell, M. & Solity, J. (1990) Teachers in Control - Cracking the Code, London, Routledge. Riseborough, G. (1985) “Pupils, Teachers’ Careers and Schooling: An Empirical Study” in Ball, S. & Goodson, I. (eds)(1985) Teachers’ Lives and Careers, East Sussex, The Falmer Press, pp. 202-265. Riseborough, G. (1997) “The Crisis of Teachers’ Lives and Careers”, Module 3, Unit 7, Teachers & Teaching, Sheffield, University of Sheffield Division of Education. Russell, T. (1988) “From Pre-service Teacher Education to First Year of Teaching: A Study of Theory and Practice” in Calderhead, J. (Ed) (1988), Teachers’ Professional Learning, London, The Falmer Press, pp. 13-34. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York, Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Sheard, D. (1996) “Teachers & Reflective Practice”, Module 3, Unit 9, Teachers & Teaching, Sheffield, University of Sheffield Division of Education. Stake, J. E. (1997) “Response to Haskell: Academic Freedom, Tenure and Student Evaluation of Faculty”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 5, No. 8. [ONLINE] http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v5n8.html Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London, Heinemann Educational. Tripp, D. H. (1993) Critical Incidents in Teaching, London and New York, Routledge.
Webb, R. B. (1985) “Teacher Status Panic: Moving Up the Down Escalator” in Ball, S. & Goodson, I. (eds)(1985) Teachers’ Lives and Careers, East Sussex, The Falmer Press, pp. 7888 Wringe, C. A. (1988) Understanding Educational Aims, London, Unwin Hyman.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.