PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATORS THROUGH REFLECTION AND COMMUNICATION: A CASE OF INQUIRY AND GROWTH Hal Grunau University of Manitoba, Faculty of Education, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 grunau@cc.umanitoba.ca Erminia Pedretti OISE/UT, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning 252 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6 e_pedretti@tednet.oise.utoronto.ca Elgin Wolfe OISE/UT, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning 252 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6 elgin_wolfe@tednet.oise.utoronto.ca Don Galbraith OISE/UT, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning 252 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6 don_galbraith@tednet.oise.utoronto.ca Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Second International Conference Herstmonceux Castle. East Sussex, UK. August 16-20th, 1998

ABSTRACT

Teacher educators everywhere struggle to make the content of their courses relevant. Conditions may change, suggesting new needs, or the educators themselves may change as they gain new insight into research and practice and as they continually review, revise and update their courses. It was as a result of such concerns that the "Concept Presentation" assignment (Wolfe & Galbraith, 1996), central to this paper, was revisited in the context of the Intermediate-Senior (secondary) curriculum and instruction science courses in our respective teacher education programs. This paper is an account of our joint efforts, across universities, to review, analyze and improve the assignment and our practice more generally. More specifically, we examine our own insights into the reflective practice in which we are engaged, including reflection on the impact this has had on all of us. The terms "reflection" and "collaboration" characterize much of our work and emerge as important and parallel goals for ourselves and the pre-service students whom we teach.

Inquiring into and reflecting upon the programs, processes, and outcomes of teacher education determine the degree to which we actively practice what we advocate for our students. A commitment to research and evaluation by teacher educators, followed by spirited discussions of the results and implications of that research, may provide substantive reality to the image of teachers as reflective practitioners. (Clift et al., 1990, p. 220)

INTRODUCTION

Teacher educators everywhere struggle to make the content of their courses relevant. Conditions may change suggesting new needs, or the educators themselves may change as they gain new insight into research and practice, and continually review, and revise their courses. It was as a result of such concerns that the "Concept Presentation" assignment central to this paper, was revisited in the context of our respective teacher education programs.

The "Concept Presentation" (Wolfe and Galbraith, 1996), is one of the key components of our Intermediate/Senior curriculum and instruction science course. The "Concept Presentation" assignment asks pre-service teachers to work in pairs, with considerable assistance from their professors, to: research a particular science concept (in biology, chemistry or physics), suggest potential difficulties students might have (including incorporating literature and practice on students’ alternative frameworks or conceptions), identify resources, activities and demonstrations for teaching the concept, and illustrate some of the related teaching strategies to their peers. Presentations are videotaped, and the videotape together with peer evaluation forms, provide students with data to critique their own work.

What follows in this paper is an account of our joint efforts (across Universities) to review, analyze and improve this assignment and our practice more generally. More specifically, we will examine our own insight into the reflective practice in which we are engaged - including some reflection on the impact this has had on all of us. The terms, "reflection" and "collaboration" characterize much of our work and emerge as important and paralleled goals for the pre-service students we teach and for ourselves.

THEORETICAL LENSES

Understanding Reflection

The conceptual/theoretical lenses we have selected for this study include two dimensions of reflection, namely "knowledge constitutive interests" and "forms of reflection". Louden’s (1992) framework of Forms and Interests of Reflection recognizes Habermas and Schön (1983) for their "interests" in and "forms" of dimensions of reflection respectively, as shown in Figure 1.

Forms of Reflection à

Human
Interests ¯

	Introspection	Replay & Rehearsal	Enquiry	Spontaneity
Technical
Personal
Problematic
Emancipatory

Figure 1: Forms and Interests of Reflection

The term "interests" refers to the human goal or end in view of an act of reflection. According to Habermas each of three "traditions of inquiry" is associated with a different "interest" (i.e. a human "goal" or "end in view"):

1)empirical - analytic sciences serve interests of technicalcontrol such as fidelity to some theory or practice,

2) hermeneutic - historical sciences reflect interests of practical control such as providing deeper and clearer personal understanding and/or professional problem-solving or problematicinterestsin practice settings, and

3) critical sciences serve emancipatory interests such as reviewing the conditions of professional action, especially those which may constrain or limit, with a view to achieving greater personal (and societal) fulfillment.

In our work we focus mainly (but not solely) on Habermas’ interest of "practical control". For us, one of Louden’s contributions, beyond providing the broad framework of "interests" and "forms", is to divide Habermas’ interests of "practical control" into "personal understanding" and "problem-solving" categories. Together, these two help to situate (and differentiate) two major types (although related) of "historical-hermeneutic", or "interpretive" reflection that make up the "practical control" interest.

A particular act of reflection has both an interest and a form, and in principle all reflective acts may be described in terms of both dimensions. The term "forms" refers to the characteristics of the act of reflection. Following Louden (1992) they are:

1) introspection, i.e. examining one’s thinking and feeling

2) replaying or rehearsing professional action

3) systematic inquiry into action

4) spontaneous minded action.

The "dimensions of reflection" should provide a useful "scaffold" or "framework" to help in understanding this complex term, one that is often poorly understood by students even when they are asked to "reflect" about their work.

Understanding Reflection through Collaboration and Communication

Reflection considered in the broader context of collaboration and community offers further potential for teacher educators. Cinnamond and Zimpher (1990) base powerful ideas relative to reflection and community on the work of George Herbert Mead. Their interpretation of Mead is that reflective action is a function of community and all reflective thought arises out of real problems present in immediate experience. Furthermore, meaning which comes about from such reflective thought, is embedded in the connections or linkages of the social processes inherent in such lived experience. Meaning, in other words, is thought to come about through the "transformation of reflection". Communication, furthermore, is a set of actions directed at natural problems and cooperative mastering of problems. This calls for a consciousness of the relationship between one’s own actions and the responses of others to these actions. It is Mead’s (1934) primary thesis that a person not only becomes an individual "self" through such communication and relationships, but connected as s/he is through the social process, s/he influences the larger community. To listen and then respond to the dialogue of others, and in the process to generate new universals for the community is how change occurs. It is the consciousness of change that is the essential part of the reflective process.

OUR COLLABORATIVE STUDY

Guiding Research Questions

The following questions were posed to guide our case study work: 1) In the context of the Concept Presentation assignment, what problems can we focus on and attempt to solve to make the teaching/learning process more meaningful for our pre-service secondary science students? and 2) How can we progress in our understanding of the reflective processes involved in our own collaborative efforts to inquire into and improve our professional practice?

Method in Context

We four authors taught 118 students in five curriculum and instruction ("methods") classes. Of these four, one taught a section of secondary Biology at one university (during the Fall of 1996) while three taught a total of four sections of secondary science general methods (i.e. methods common to senior biology, chemistry and physics) at another university (all during the Winter of 1997). Each class was given the "Concept Presentation" as a course assignment (a copy of the assignment may be obtained from the authors). Three of the authors met beginning in early January, 1997. Erminia, the fourth, with research interests in action research, reflective practice and professional development, was invited to join the group about a month after it was formed. We continued meeting until mid-August. The following outlines the steps we took in our work together. Briefly:

1. We began by trying to focus on, locate and/or agree on a suitable "problem of practice."

2. Hal visited a number of Don’s classes (8) from January through April to experience students’ "Concept Presentations."

3. We developed and administered a Student Questionnaire at the end of the term designed to:
a) determine student perception of the perceived relevance and "importance" of the assignment and its components, and to
b) invite feedback about and changes to the assignment that they would suggest. (A copy of the questionnaire may be obtained from the authors).

4. Data were recorded, compiled and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.

5. We concentrated and reflected on specific aspects of the data that prompted our interests and immediate concerns.

6. We met regularly (averaging about once every two weeks from January to mid-August) to discuss the process, report on individual research responsibilities, interpret data and plan next steps.

REFLECTION AND COLLABORATION IN ACTION

The Student Questionnaire and New Directions

We spent four weeks and several meetings developing and refining a Student Questionnaire which, among other things, asked students to generate and list the goals of the Concept Presentations assignment as they perceived them. In general we noticed that students’ sense of assignment goals and their importance differed considerably from our own depending on whether there was "prompting" with instructions to rate the actual goals as we listed them for the students, or if students listed their own goals "without prompting". While we were genuinely surprised at the rankings and some of the other student comments based on an analysis of the extensive data collected, the interpretation of that data is beyond the scope of this paper and will be the subject of the related Pedretti, et. al. paper (in progress). Of the many tables and charts of data, including suggestions for improvement of the entire assignment, one concluding "note" is especially significant:

We believe that the critique is an important component of the Concept Presentation and one which needs to be extended. Instead of being asked to merely focus only on the strengths and weaknesses of their presentation and on any improvement strategies, we believe that each student should prepare a short reflection paper which highlights the above but also traces their philosophy and their growth as a teacher as a result of the assignment. Perhaps a long-term agenda for growth should also be outlined. (Elgin, May 1997 group meeting)

This new "reflective component" was eventually incorporated into the concept presentation description and assignment for our pre-service science students.

The data also indicated to us that our students were conceiving of teaching as "technical", i.e., too much a case of discreet activities, chosen from "good resources" and "implemented" through generalized strategies that, if used properly, would achieve the desired results. Was it that they saw "teaching" as being generally associated with fidelity to some theory, or at least with accepted and recognized norms (methods) of doing things "right"? We had not talked much about this concern. As clear as it was in Elgin’s analysis of the Student Questionnaire data, in the Schonian (Schon, 1983) sense we had not (yet) "framed" or accepted it as a problem to pursue by the group.

Engaging in Collaborative Dialogue

In the remainder of this section we have chosen to highlight deliberately, this new emerging concern, referred to in Elgin’s note (in the previous section) and in our thoughts expressed above. This "edited conversation" from our June 2, 1997 meeting will be presented in the form of a sample "dialogue", followed by some interpretive comments related to our efforts to develop our capacities as "reflective practitioners".

Hal (1): I don’t really know what you (Erminia) had in mind with your Response Paper idea (first mentioned in our March 19 meeting and now being raised again by Hal on his re-reading of the notes of that meeting).

Erminia (2): It should speak to evaluation they received from their peers, the video of their performance and what their presentation was like for them - and how the process changed them.

Elgin (3): Why not an overall goal something like this: What insights into teaching came through the concept presentation assignment? What did I learn as a teacher and/or learner? What did I learn about student learning? What did I learn: from my team (of eight presenters who worked on their plans together)?; from planning, implementing/teaching, critiquing and being critiqued?; from the video and from looking at my growth as a teacher of science?

Hal (4): And (generally) what I learned from consciously ‘being reflective’.

Don (5): So, are we asking them to include these (Figure 1) dimensions?

Elgin (6): (We need to) provide students with the background first, a modified and simplified version of Figure 1. Then something like:
- A lecture/discussion
- Trial use, followed by further discussion
- Concrete examples

Erminia (7): A scaffolding like this would be very helpful. Then we could build on it.

Elgin (8): At some stage they (students) will buy in. But you have to make it palatable.

Don (9): Theory can be a problem.

Elgin (10): It can get too theoretical too soon. Let’s keep it simple.

Erminia (11): I want them to realize that teaching is not (just) implementing stuff. I have the impression this year that there was too much of that.

Don (12): But let’s keep an eye on the imperatives ... We don’t have enough time to do everything. A lot of teachers out there are too busy to do much more than just ‘keep up’ (i.e. they have heavy loads, etc.).

Hal (13): Good teachers try to get better. This might be a way for our students to experience a usable framework.

Elgin/Hal(14): This (figure 1), simplified, modified and properly presented, is a framework for long term growth.

Don (15): The profession has to take a long term approach to professional development.

Elgin (16): Start (this way) but be realistic.

Hal (17): If they are introduced to this sort of thing now, some will take it a long way (i.e. during a pre-service year).

Elgin (20): So, operationalize it (i.e., let’s make a clear plan of action for ourselves).

Understanding Reflection in Our Collaborative Dialogue

In order to expedite analysis we will make reference to some of our own dialogue (in the previous section) using the "reference numbers". The intent in the following is more to illustrate how we came to new understanding of the "forms" and "interests" inherent in our ordinary conversation about our work than it is to classify each utterance "correctly".

Hal’s comment (1) served to give this particular meeting a focus, a re-framing, which would carry us through much of our meeting. By this point we had compiled, if not fully analyzed, data from the student questionnaires which we had administered earlier. (Also, in retrospect, it could be shown that we had not attached a great deal of significance to that part of it which dealt with "reflection"). Erminia’s comments (2) may be analyzed on two levels; namely her concerns about our work and secondly, what she advocates for students. Erminia’s own words (2) are clearly reflection with a Replay and Rehearsal form and a Problematic interest. For students, however, she is first advocating replay and rehearsal, leading to a more Introspective form (with her comment "how the process changed them") and also, with this comment, shifting from a problematic interest to a more personal interest.

Considered from our standpoint, Elgin (3) is clearly reflecting in a replay and rehearsal form with a problematic interest. Considering the student level he, much like Erminia, is asking for a shift from any of the forms of reflection which might have occurred to focus on the introspection form, and a consequent shift toward personal, problematic and even emancipatory interests.

Our collaborative conversation in (4) through (6) leads us through use of a replay and rehearsal form to consideration of a fairly broad "problem-oriented" assignment to an increasingly clearer vision of our ideas. Erminia’s comments (7) indicate her personal (affective and positive) reaction (introspective and personal) to the proposal, as well as further suggestions for practice. Elgin’s comments (8) speak not only to replay and rehearsal and problematic interests, but also to his deeper and more generalized understanding of the proposed assignment changes.

And so our analyses of the dialogue continued throughout our time together. Again, the intent of this brief analysis is to illustrate simply how we attempted to sharpen our own sense of the dimensions of reflectivity as it was expressed in our collaboration, its incidence in our normal speech about our professional work, and the specialized language (of interests and forms of reflection) which we used in the service of developing our understanding and practice.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Reflecting on the Concept Presentation Assignment

Ironically, while the earliest focus in our work together was an attempt to get students to understand and utilize more fully the "concept presentation," in the end it was we who underwent a pronounced shift in our understanding and use of the assignment and its relationship to our understanding of practice. This occurred in the sense that having worked together, we now saw as a major goal (i.e. the goal of "reflection") something that we had been aware of, but had not (we thought) sufficiently incorporated into our assignment or work in the past. Furthermore, we have begun to translate this goal into our teaching practice in the sense that we already have "rehearsed" in some detail the methodology for introducing these goals to students, along with some dimensions (approaching criteria) of the revised "Response Paper" assignment. Here we hope to see evidence of student growth in regard to clarifying their own perspectives and consequently demonstrating something of the growth they have experienced in the course. We (now) clearly see that introducing the "Forms and Interests of Reflection" (figure 1) and employing it as a kind of "scaffold" to help students reflect in the context of completing their entire "concept presentation" assignment would be valuable not only during their course, but as a kind of consciousness-raising for a lifetime of growth as a professional, thus suggesting an extension of our new emphasis on reflectivity.

The changes which we are considering and planning for should result in a better overall assignment and approach to science teacher education that reflects a philosophy rooted in becoming a reflective practitioner. Thus we will continue to strive for an appropriate "theory/practice" blend - with reflection - confident that we are thereby providing students with better teacher education, yet conscious that we do not overwhelm them with something that, at their stage, may be too abstract.

Understanding the Nature of Our Collaboration and Communication

Our work together has been very much parallel to what we envision for our students. We feel that our understanding, and modeling of this process, is important on several levels. Firstly, through our own use of it, we have developed confidence in the reflective process which we are advocating for our students. We hope that our students will experience, with us as collaborating colleagues, personal and group/class change through the process. Furthermore, we hope their new-found personal practical knowledge will be augmented by feelings of confidence and satisfaction that their reflective inquiries may bring - much like we have experienced ourselves in this collaborative inquiry into our practice.

REFERENCES

Cinnamond, J., & Zimpher, N. (1990). Reflection as a function of community. In R.T. Clift et al, (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs. (pp. 57-72). New York: Teachers College Press.

Clift, R. T., Houston, W.R., & Pugach, M.C. (Eds.) (1990).Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Louden, W. (1992). Understanding reflection through collaborative research. In A. Hargreaves and M. B. Fullan (Eds.) Understanding teacher development (pp. 178-215). New York: Teachers College Press.

Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self; and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basics Books.

Wolfe, T.J.E., & Galbraith, D. (1996). Assignment: Concept Presentation and Critique. Unpublished class material. Toronto: OISE/UT.