Teaching Core Practices: A Framework for Reflection-in-Action in Teacher Education

• In Event: Core Practices in Social Studies Teacher Education: Promises and Pitfalls

Abstract

Purpose
Teacher education’s re-turn to practice (Zeichner, 2012) has exposed the amorphous nature of the term “practice” and generated demands for more precise language to describe teacher educators’ (TEs) pedagogy (Forzani, 2014; Author, 2019). This paper offers a conceptual framework for TEs’ pedagogies of practice. Drawing from research on reflective practice, I focus on reflection-in-action, the metacognitive exertion of active problem-solving (Schön, 1983). Reflection-in-action is distinguished from the automaticity of experts (Berliner, 2001) and retrospection, or reflection-on-action. Schön (1983) theorized that reflection-in-action was critical for the development of expertise and that it might be encouraged by immersing novices in realistic practice under the supervision of mentors, precisely the kind of practice that practice-based teacher education advocates.

Methods
The data in this paper is drawn from a larger comparative study of TE pedagogy that observed social studies and English Language Arts TEs at three urban institutions purposely selected to represent a range of pedagogical approaches including practice-based, progressive, and alternative certification approaches to teacher education. Each TE was observed between three and six times. Observations were coded according to the kinds of reflectivity novices engaged in, distinguishing between reflection-in-action, when novices enacted teaching behaviors within a bounded timeframe, and reflection-on-action, when novices were asked to think back upon previously enacted teaching (Schön, 1983).

Findings
The framework for reflection-in-action consists of two intersecting spectra describing tensions within TEs’ design and facilitation of opportunities for reflection-in-action. The first tension emerged from TEs’ objectives. Some TEs initiated reflection-in-action to develop mastery, which typically involved TEs detailing desired teacher moves and prompting novices to rehearse and internalize them. Other TEs, however, used reflection-in-action to explore instructional dilemmas. These TEs celebrated novices’ struggles as prompts for reflection and the development frameworks for future pedagogical decision-making.

The second tension described TEs’ exertion of control as they facilitated reflection-in-action. Some TEs directly supervised reflection-in-action, frequently intervening in their novices’ approximations of instructional practices. Other TEs chose to distribute responsibility, sending novices to “practice” in small groups. All the TEs described reflection-in-action as an onramp to teacher ownership, but their actions expressed different views of novices’ developmental trajectories to that end.

Significance
The framework is a bid to treat TE pedagogy with greater precision. All the TEs worked on “core practices,” but the differences in their teaching demonstrate that “practice-based” teaching is a broad category with important differences in purpose and pedagogy. Being able to speak precisely about pedagogy is necessary for future research (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016). Researchers are exploring how novices learn from reflection-in-action (e.g., Metz et al., 2020; Munson et al., 2021), but, without precise language, scholars may inadvertently be studying different pedagogical practices engendering different kinds of learning. Amorphous language contributes to the isolation of teacher education. Already, practitioners work with limited training and support (Loughran, 2014) and face constant public skepticism (Grossman, 2008). A nuanced professional vocabulary can bolster practice, research, and advocacy.

Author

• Lightning Jay, Binghamton University - SUNY
  Presenting Author