Student Teachers’ Reflection During Teaching Practicum: A Diary Study

• In Event: Sometimes My Teaching Just Flows: Emerging Research on Teachers’ Emotions and Motivation

Abstract

Objectives. The aim of the present study is to investigate how student teachers’ reflection changes during teaching practicum.
Theoretical framework. Teacher reflection has been identified as a key component of the ways in which teachers make sense of themselves, their teaching and interaction with students. Despite several theoretical distinctions of the concept, no empirical operationalization has, to the best of our knowledge, been proposed in the literature. To integrate existing models of reflection into an action-theoretical framework, we distinguished between volitional and non-volitional reflection. Following Schön (1983), we distinguished between two volitional modes of reflection; reflection in action (i.e., during teaching) and reflection on action (i.e., after teaching). Two non-volitional aspects were identified: a sense of flow (Beard & Hoy, 2010) or “being on autopilot” in teaching during which no reflection takes place, and rumination (Hong, 2007): a sense of not being able to let go of the (typically negative) events that have occurred during the day.
Sample. Forty South Korean student teachers in one teacher education department participated in a diary study. They were asked to complete a one-page diary questionnaire at the end of each of the 13 days of practicum. We calculated the average daily alphas in order not to conflate intrapesonal stability with internal consistency. Participants completed scales for reflection in action (mean internal consistency by day: five items e.g., ‘During my lessons today, I consciously evaluated my lesson and made changes where necessary.’ mean internal consistency by day: Malpha = .84; SDalpha = .06), reflection on action (five items e.g., ‘After my lessons today, I identified what worked well and why.’ Malpha = .87; SDalpha = .03), flow (two items e.g., ‘During my lessons today, my teaching felt automatic’ Malpha = .90; SDalpha = .02) and rumination (two items e.g., ‘After my lessons today, I thought about the events of the day over and over again.’ Malpha = .88; SDalpha = .06). We also included scales for forethought, agency belief and positive and negative affect.
Methods. We carried out multilevel models for change (MLM; time-points nested within student teachers), and lagged analysis.
Results. Student teachers increased in both reflection in action and reflection on action. Student teachers differed in both their levels and rate of change over time. Also, rumination increased over time, whereas changes in flow were not significant. Daily agency and forethought were strong predictors of both reflections. Forethought and negative affect were strongly associated with rumination and flow with negative affect.
Significance of study. Student teachers’ reflection was theorized and operationalized into four constructs. Distinctive individual trajectories were found for all four constructs. It can suggest avenues of approach of providing more useful practicum experiences to student teachers.

Authors

• Minjeong Song, University of Oxford

• Lars-Erik Malmberg, University of Oxford