Catalana Comps1 Initialsubmission 10 2

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:
ENCOURAGING CRITICAL REFLECTION IN PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS
When Reflections Dont Match Expectations: Encouraging

Critical Reflection in Pre-Service Teachers
Sarah Marie Catalana
The University of Georgia

I love good hair days. Something about the fact that your hair actually falls in the
right places and frames your face correctly can do wonders for confidence. Such was the
case one Friday during my junior year of high school. My mom had taken me shopping
the previous weekend, so I was wearing a new outfit and feeling on top of my game. My
hair was perfectly curled under and flipped out in all the natural places. While I waited
for the bell to ring, my friend lent me her lip-gloss, which I graciously applied to my lips.
I felt like a million bucks.
I was not the popular girl in high school. However, on certain days (when you
are wearing a new outfit and your hair is flawless) even the nerdy girl can get a boost of
confidence. On my way out of school, I distinctly remember waving to my crush and
wishing him a good weekend. I threw my book-bag in my trunk, opened my door, and
jumped in the car. After sticking the key in the ignition, I flipped down the mirror to
check myself out. The face looking back at me was not the flawless one I had envisioned.
Somehow, my perfect ponytail was ruined and a large piece of hair was sticking straight
up from the top of my head. I didnt know the lip-gloss I had graciously applied to my
lips was tinted, so I was sporting large, red, clown-lips! Needless to say, my reflection
surprised me.
So often, we equate the act of reflecting to simply looking at our thoughts in the
mirror. We gaze into the mirror of the mind, attempting to deeply analyze our thoughts
and actions. However, what truly categorizes critical reflection is the ability to realize
that our reflection doesnt match our expectations. We may feel that we have well
constructed, theoretical and personal understandings of our experiences, but when we
critically reflect, we often realize we are not as put-together as we think. We look in the
mirror, only to be surprised by the assumptions and misunderstandings that underlie our
thoughts. In short, we think we are having a good hair day, but in reality our hair is a
mess and we are parading around with clown lips.
Critical Reflection: A Critical Concept with an Illusive Definition
A plethora of areas in professional practice and development advocate the
importance of promoting critical reflection in the workplace. One of the fields in which
critical reflection is most prominent is that of teacher preparation (Killeavy and Moloney,
2010; Rodgers, 2002; Shoffner 2009). Indeed, several boards, commissions, and
foundations dedicated to teacher development have standards that specifically emphasize
the importance of reflection and inquiry in future teachers (i.e. NCTAF, 1996, 2007;
NFIE, 1996). However, while teacher educator programs enthusiastically embrace the

importance of critical reflection, there is no clear definition of the concept, and thus
criteria to enhance critical reflection in pre-service teachers can be quite vague (Rodgers,
2002, Choy & Oo, 2012). As Rodgers (2002) claimed, in becoming everything to
everybody, it [reflection] has lost its ability to be seen (pg. 843).
The literature on reflective thought finds its roots in the work of John Dewey
(1933), who defined critical reflection as
the active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed
form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the
further conclusions to which it includes a conscious and voluntary effort to
establish belief upon a firm basis of evidence and rationality (p. 16).
According to Dewey, reflection blossoms from real world problems that disquiet the
thinker, motivating her to resolve the issue by persistent and reasoned thinking (Sellars,
2014). He refers to reflection as the thread that knits together experiences, resulting in
continuous learning and motivating individuals to improve themselves and society
(Dewey, 1910, 1933). Rodgers (2002) points to four criteria for reflection in her review
of Deweys work: 1) Reflection is a meaning-making process, 2) Reflection is a
sophisticated way of thinking with roots in scientific inquiry, 3) Reflection occurs in
interaction with others, and 4) Reflection requires attitudes that value personal and
intellectual growth of oneself and of others (p. 845).
While Dewey laid the foundation for the investigation of reflective thinking, a
plethora of others have adapted and built on his theories, claiming that reflection is a
systematic inquiry into ones own practice (Lucas, 1991), or an inner dialogue with
oneself whereby a person calls forth experiences, beliefs, and perceptions (CambellJones and Cambell-Jones, 2002 p. 134). In an effort to fully explain reflection, many
researchers have proposed multiple levels of reflection, in which critical reflection is

typically considered the ultimate, most sought after level (i.e. Valli, 1990; Van Manen
1977). Others emphasize the importance of process, explaining the steps through which
learners typically cycle in order to engage in critical reflection (i.e. Boud et. al, 1985;
Gibbs, 1988; Kolb, 1984; Rolfe et. al, 2001). However, since the majority of researchers
propose their own explanations of the reflective process, the true meaning of critical
reflection has been buried by a surplus of definitions, theories, and conceptual
frameworks (Rodgers, 2002). Figure 1 describes the evolution of critical reflection, in
hopes to unearth a more unified, holistic understanding of the concept. While specific
models and processes of reflection will be discussed, this Figure is meant to provide the
reader with an understanding of how various works in the literature have informed and
built on one-another.
Insert Figure 1
While reflection is an essential component of many fields, this review serves to

investigate the importance of critical reflection in pre-service teachers, in hopes to
elucidate how reflection can prepare future teachers to work with diverse populations.
After a brief description of the pre-service teacher population, models and frameworks of
reflection will be discussed in detail.
Pre-Service Teachers: Who are they and who are Their Future Students?
The term pre-service teachers (PSTs) is used to refer to students preparing to enter
the field of education. The term encompasses a fairly large population, ranging from
students with minimal exposure to teaching, to those who are participating in full-time

student teaching (Allen & Wright, 2014). For the purpose of this review, the terms preservice teacher and student teacher are used interchangeably. In the Fall of 2014,
Americas public schools reached a demographic mile stone: for the first time, the overall
number of Latino, African-American, and Asian students in public K-12 classrooms
surpassed the number of non-Hispanic whites (Maxwell, 2014). This demographic is far
from that of pre-service teachers, which still remains predominantly white and female.
As the demographic profiles of both Americas students and teachers continue to change,
it is clear that teacher preparatory programs must cultivate teachers who are sensitive to
and ready to embrace cultural and ethnic differences in the classroom. Preparing teachers
to engage in ongoing, critical reflection ensures that they remain aware of and open to
embracing these differences.
Demystifying Reflection
Framework Models of Reflection
Van Manen (1977) was the first to propose a hierarchical framework to describe
the development of reflection. The first level, technical rationality, is often labeled the
empirical-analytical paradigm, emphasizing that students often over-emphasize empirical
explanations and fail to consider the situation from a holistic, open-minded perspective.
Pre-service teachers reflecting at this level do not consider the diverse context of the
classroom, school, community, and/or society. They are likely to attempt to apply one
size fits all solutions to the classroom, neglecting to consider the unique strengths and
needs of their students.
As they progress to level two, practical action, teachers begin to recognize and
unearth the assumptions that underlie competing pedagogical goals, while simultaneously

investigating the outcome of teaching action. Van Manen termed this level the
hermeneutic-phenomenological paradigm, pointing to the fact that teachers must
investigate their perceptions of circumstances, exploring the diverse experiences that
have led them to produce certain beliefs. Many researchers have described practical
action as reflection on the contextual level, highlighting the relationship between theory
and context of practice (Marzano, 2001; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Instead of following
strict guidelines, students begin to question their own behaviors through both
introspection and outside research. Often, theoretical truths contradict experiences, and
students must adjust their goals and expectations. Students begin to question what they
have blindly accepted as fact, which can be both a terrifying and exhilarating experience.
Thus, the non-problematic nature of the technical level is shattered; individuals recognize
personal biases when they consider situations in context. Underlying assumptions are
clarified, and consequences of actions are considered within real-world, rather than
textbook contexts.
Finally, when teachers engage in critical reflection (level three), they begin to
transform the assumptions uncovered through practical action and create new
understandings. Reflection at this level is characterized by open-mindedness; teachers
confront their assumptions and consider the unique needs of their students without the
distortion of personal biases. Marzano and his colleagues (2012) claimed that teachers
who reflect at this level often improve immensely, since they consider how to transform
teaching methods to best fit the needs of their students. As any educator is quick to point
out, it is not possible to simply repeat a lesson from year to year, since the student
population is so diverse and student dispositions change day-to-day. Critical reflection

ensures that teachers consider learning in context and develop lesson plans that are
tailored to the unique strengths and needs of students. Instead of solely relying on
existing theories, educators begin to develop their own rules of thumb as they weld
together personal experiences and academic knowledge, investigating how experience
fluctuates with social and cultural change.
Donald Schons (1983) book, The Reflective Practitioner, translated Deweys
investigation of inquiry to the education field. Schons work primed the way for massive
amounts of research both in the United States and abroad that investigated how to prepare
students to be reflective teachers (i.e. Habermas, 1971; McLyntre, 1993; Valli, 1993).
Rather than suggesting distinct levels, Schon (1983) distinguished between two types of
reflection: reflection in action and reflection on action. Reflection on action finds its roots
in Deweys works; teachers investigate problems that arise in the classroom and attempt
to make meaning of their experiences. The proposition of reflection in action, however,
was a new concept that had a significant impact in the education field. According to
Schon, reflection and action are combined, and the problem is continuously framed and
reframed as a solution is reached. Thus, teachers do not simply take time to reflect, but
rather reflect continuously throughout practice. Schon addresses both the process and
type of reflection in his model, suggesting that reflection in action requires the teacher to
apply critical reflection, along with other distinctive types such as technical and practical,
as a situation is unfolding. Reflection in action is crucial for teachers to successfully
reach diverse populations. While they may enter the classroom with presuppositions
concerning their students, they must remain open and flexible to reflect on and adapt their
teaching as they grow to understand their students unique needs and interests.

Valli (1990) suggested five types of reflection: technical, reflection in and on

action, deliberative, personalistic, and critical. Technical reflection is characterized by the
direct application of research to teaching without consideration of contextual issues. Valli
suggested that this type of reflection is merely driven by external expectations, and
should be seen as more reactive than reflective in nature. Indeed, Collier (1999) referred
to technical rationality as simple reaction, highlighting the fact that most reflections at
this level are direct responses to experiences. Reflection in and on action can be drawn
back to Schons work; teachers continuously engage in both action and reflection
throughout their practice. Deliberative reflection is characterized by flexibility; teachers
consider multiple viewpoints and formulate alternative solutions to be implemented in the
future. This type of reflection is essential to working with diverse populations. Instead of
assuming that all students learn in the same manner, teachers consider learning
experiences from multiple viewpoints, seeking the help and direction of other
professionals from different backgrounds.
The notion of personalistic reflection illustrates the importance of the affective
component of the reflective process. Valli recognized that reflection is not purely
cognitive; teachers must investigate their emotions and self-knowledge in order to
develop an understanding of the relationship between their personal growth and that of
their students. Vallis framework is unique in that it explicitly acknowledges the impact of
feelings and personal attributes on cognition. Investigation of such feelings primes
teachers to engage in critical reflection, which Valli described as a focus on social, moral,
political and ethical issues. Teachers must remain open-minded and utilize creative

thinking in order to engage in this type of reflection; rather than making quick
conclusions, they investigate their beliefs and consider multiple viewpoints.
In an effort to address both the type and quality of reflection, Gore and Zeichner
(1991) proposed four varieties of teacher reflective practice. The academic variety
focuses on the teachers knowledge of specific content, and her ability to present the
content in a manner that is highly accessible to diverse student needs. The social efficacy
variety considers unique learning contexts; teachers translate research-based practices
into their classrooms. Developmental reflection requires teachers to consider the
developmental stages of their students, and plan learning experiences with necessary
modifications to meet student needs. Finally, social reconstructionist reflection (which
many equate to critical reflection) investigates political and social issues of schooling,
aiming to promote student equity and justice.
Jay and Johnson (2002) proposed three dimensions of reflection: descriptive,
comparative, and critical. Teachers progress from merely describing their experiences, to
reframing experiences in light of alternative views, and finally considering the
implications of unique viewpoints and establishing a renewed perspective on the
situation. Descriptive reflection is similar to Van Manens (1977) level of technical
rationality; individuals describe the experience in detail, but do little to go beyond simple
description and reaction. Comparative reflection can be considered in conjunction with
practical action, the type of reflection that Van Manen described as characterized by the
clarifying and questioning of assumptions. Teachers deliberate the issue from a number
of diverse viewpoints in order to develop a better understanding of the situation. Critical
reflection is the end result of thinking about these issues; one makes a judgment or a

10
choice among actions, or simply integrates what one has discovered into a new and better
understanding of the problem (Johnson & Johnson 2002, p. 79).
Kember (2008) and his colleagues proposed four levels of reflection: habitual
action, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. Habitual action occurs when
individuals perform a procedure with little thought. Teachers rely on routine procedures
to solve classroom management issues without truly considering the diverse
circumstances underlying the situation. For example, if a student speaks out of turn
repeatedly, teachers are often quick to label them as disruptive and disrespectful, rather
than engaging in thought and trying to understand the underlying cause of the behavior.
Perhaps the student speaks out of turn because she is highly motivated or interested in the
content, or lacks confidence and hopes to gain verbal support. However, if teachers rely
purely on habitual action and fail to truly think about the situation, they are unlikely to
make these realizations and meet the needs of the student. The next level, understanding,
is characterized by the ability to grasp a particular topic or concept. However, at this
stage, concepts are often understood in theory without being related to personal
experience or real-life applications (Kember et. al, 2008 p. 373). As teachers progress
towards reflection, they have a firm understanding of the content and are able to relate it
to personal experiences, applying theory to practice. Finally, critical reflection is
characterized by a transformation of perspective. Kember and his colleagues (2008)
commented,
Many of our actions are governed by a set of beliefs and values that have
been almost unconsciously assimilated from our experiences and
environment. To undergo a change in perspective requires us to recognize
and change these presumptions (p. 374).

11
It is transformative power that sets critical reflection apart from mere reaction.
Individuals go beyond describing their emotional reactions to their experiences, and
progress to analyzing their motives and transforming future actions. Critical reflection is
characterized by open-mindedness to both moral and ethical dilemmas (Van Manen,
1977). Individuals are concerned with the worth of knowledge in relation to unique social
circumstances. Undistorted by personal bias, they are able to see beyond their opinions
and appreciate diverse viewpoints.
While it is helpful to distinguish between various types of reflection, it is
imperative not to consider reflective thinking to be solely hierarchical in nature. While
critical reflection is typically considered the most sophisticated form of reflection, other
forms of reflective thinking provide the appropriate scaffolding for the transformative
thinking of critical reflection to occur. Indeed, each type of reflection builds upon the last:
individuals describe their experiences and reactions in detail, construct the framework for
critical reflection as they consider these experiences in context, and finally engage in
transformative thinking as they integrate their personal understandings and the diverse
viewpoints of others. Thus, while critical reflection is often the ultimate goal, other types
of reflection are equally useful and important. As Brookfield (1995) suggested, just
because reflection is not critical does not mean it is unimportant or unnecessary (p. 79).
In order to better understand the development and progression of reflection, we will now
turn to a review of models that describe the reflective thinking process.
Process Models of Reflection

12
According to Dewey (1933), reflection is a meaning-making process that mirrors

scientific inquiry. Reflection begins with a spontaneous interpretation of a real world
experience. Next, through a process known as intellectualization, the individual names
the question or problem that arises. The quality of the question is directly dependent on
the description and complexity of the situation. Thus, learners must remain observant,
collecting as much data related to the situation as possible. After naming the question,
multiple potential explanations are generated. These explanations are then synthesized to
create hypotheses, which are experimented and tested.
As previously discussed, Schon (1983, 1987) suggested that reflection and action
feed into one-another; learners reflect on past experiences in order to inform future
actions. As Schon (1983) suggested, reflection in action necessarily involves
experiment (p. 141). However, while Dewey proposed a formal process rooted in
scientific theory, Schon suggested that reflection is ongoing; teachers reflect both in and
on action. Thus, reflection informs action; individuals do not simply think about their
experiences.
Killion and Totdnem (1991) suggested that the reflective process is continually
spiraling, resulting in constant re-analysis of experiences and transformation of
understandings. Building on Schons (1983) work, they distinguished three types of
reflection: reflection on practice, in practice, and for practice. Reflection on practice,
similar to Van Manens (1977) technical level of reflection, is mainly reactive in nature.
This reflection typically takes place immediately after an event, in which individuals
simply describe their experiences. Reflection in practice is also characterized by reaction,
but this type of reflection occurs in the midst of practice. Finally, reflection for practice

13
guides future action; individuals revisit the past and engage in reflective processes in
order to inform the future. Thus, reflection is not simply a retroactive process to review
the past, but rather an active process that affects the future. Reflection on, in, and for
practice function as a continual spiral. Reflecting during and after practice facilitates
future decision-making, guiding the individual to change according to what he or she has
learned.
Kolbs (1984) Experiential Learning Cycle includes four stages through which
learning occurs by the transformation of experience (p. 38): concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. After a
new experience is encountered, learners reflect on the situation, noting any differences
between expectations and outcomes. The analysis of the contradiction between
expectation and reality leads to abstract conceptualization, which is characterized by a
modified understanding of an existing concept. Individuals confront outcomes that
surprise them, questioning what they thought to be true and creating new beliefs. These
beliefs are then applied to the real world in a process known as active experimentation.
New learning opportunities blossom from this active experimentation, and thus the cycle
repeats itself. While it is possible to enter the model at any stage and follow its logical
sequence, the cycles are inter-connected and thus function holistically. Thus, if reflection
does not lead to conceptualization and ultimately new action and experiences, it is not
transformative in nature.
Boud and colleagues (1985) proposed an interesting model that elaborates on how
to confront assumptions, freeing the learner for analysis void of personal judgment.
Individuals first reflect by mentally playing back the experience in as much detail as

14
possible. This exercise is meant to be purely descriptive; learners are expected to focus on
replaying exactly what happened, rather than related perceptions. This stage is
particularly important to teachers working with diverse populations. It is imperative that
they describe what happened, and not what they perceived to happen, based on
stereotypical assumptions. Next, the individual attends to feelings that are triggered by
this experience. How did the teacher feel when the students failed the test? What
emotions are associated with the last day of a clinical field experience? Addressing such
emotions prepares the learner to re-evaluate the experience through four substages:
association (relating new information to prior experiences), integration (establishing new
connections between concepts), validation (evaluating new ideas and investigating
contradictions), and appropriation (taking personal ownership of learning). Unearthing
and evaluating emotions facilitates critical reflection, helping individuals appreciate the
difference between what is true and what they perceive to be true. However, it is
important to note that this model places little emphasis on action; learners evaluate their
new ideas, but most of this evaluation seems to take place in the mind, rather than
through experience.
Gibbss (1988) reflective cycle is commonly used in teacher education programs.
The following six stages are meant to lead individuals through the reflective process:
description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and creation of an action plan. The
action plan outlines changed behavior; learners articulate what they would do differently
if they encountered a similar situation. This stage is especially useful for pre-service
teachers. Free from the immediate pressures associated with first-time teaching, they are
able to thoughtfully consider their actions and plan for future improvement. Since pre-

15
service teachers often lack the prior-experience that is necessary for reflection in action,
taking time to thoughtfully consider their experiences and change their behavior is
essential for professional development (Ash & Clayton, 2009). Creating action plans
requires them to consider unique learning contexts, devising strategies to meet diverse
student needs rather than relying on rote procedures laid out in textbooks. These action
plans form an arsenal of experiences to which teachers can refer as they develop the
ability to reflect in action (Schon, 1983).
Atkins and Murphy (1993) proposed a similar model. The process begins with an
awareness of discomfort, an action, or experience. Much like Deweys proposition that
reflection is a natural result of the internal desire to make sense of the unexpected, Atkins
and Murphy suggest that deep reflection allows learners to develop an understanding of
their experiences. Awareness leads to description, during which observations, thoughts,
and feelings are explored and in detail. Next, feelings and knowledge are analyzed,
leading to the evaluation of the relevance of knowledge. Teachers consider the experience
from multiple viewpoints, examining how different students would view the knowledge
presented. Finally, teachers summarize their learning. While this step seems like a simple
restatement of what has been learned and accomplished, teachers must remain openminded and synthesize information in order to develop new understandings. Reflection
opens the eyes to recognize and explore new opportunities for growth. This helps
teachers dig deeper into the culture of their classrooms; the more extensive the reflection,
the more open and able they become to recognizing opportunities for growth and
learning.

16
Perhaps the most well-known framework for reflective practice is Rolfe et al.s
(2001) What?, So what? And now what? model. Built on Bortons (1970)
developmental model, the series of questions are meant to guide individuals from novice
to advanced reflection. The first level is mainly reactive; the individual describes the
situation in detail. The So what? level is characterized by the development of personal
theory and knowledge; individuals reflect on their experiences and construct new
understandings as they simultaneously consider theory and reality. Finally, based on these
previous reflections, the Now What? level requires individuals to prepare for future
action. Diverse experiences present opportunity for transformational learning, but to take
advantage of these opportunities students must engage in ongoing reflection that shift
them from passive observers to active learners.
It is beyond the scope of this review to explain every model of reflection in detail
(interested readers are encouraged to consult texts such as Ashwin et al., 2015 and
Marzano et al., 2012), but the preceding analysis has revealed the following over-arching
criteria of critical reflection:
-
It is based on real-world experience

It requires an open mind and the ability to recognize need for growth
It is both a collaborative and individual process
It blossoms from ongoing, rather than sporadic reflection
It is a meaning-making process with both affective and cognitive components
It is transformative in nature, requiring both thought and action
Critical Reflection: The Pathway for Change

While pre-service teachers enter their program of study as students, they aim to
leave as professionals. As Irwin and Boulton (2010) proposed, through the year they

17
need to undergo a transformation so by the end of the year they identify with being a
teacher, and less with being a student (p. 23). Research suggests this transformation
begins with an examination of ones own cultural assumptions and/or biases, which stem
from our education, experiences with diverse groups, and our own student experience as
part of a minority or majority population (Markos, 2012 p. 43). As student populations
continue to diversify, pre-service teachers are confronted with increasingly multinational
and multicultural issues (Colley, Bilics, & Lerch, 2012). The lack of resemblance
between teachers who are primarily European American and the increasingly diverse
student population calls for the cultivation of culturally responsive teaching in the
classroom (Gay, 2000).
According to Ford and colleagues (2014), Culturally responsive teaching offers
ways to best support diverse learners in an inclusive classroom as it approaches education
by looking at the whole child where students are empowered intellectually, socially,
emotionally and politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and
attitudes (p. 57). While stand-alone courses that emphasize diversity and multicultural
education increase diversity awareness of pre-service teachers, the transition to culturally
response teaching occurs with exposure to diverse student populations that is coupled
with critical reflection (Valentiin, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Akiba (2011) proposed four components of teacher-preparatory programs that
create culturally responsive teachers: learning communities, instruction modeling
culturally responsive teaching, field experiences that expose pre-service teachers to
diverse populations, and opportunity for reflection. Critical reflection unearths
assumptions, motivating pre-service teachers to reconsider dispositions and engage in

18
transformative learning. Empirical evidence has demonstrated that teacher dispositions

are equally important for student achievement as pedagogical and content knowledge
(Singh & Stoloff, 2008). As pre-service teachers engage in critical reflection, they
develop a better understanding of themselves, as well as their students. Reflection
involves both cognitive and affective factors, uniting knowledge of teaching with passion
and purpose. Thus, cultivating critical reflection in pre-service teachers promotes ongoing
learning and engagement, paving the way for change.
Can (and Should) Critical Reflection Be Assessed?
While there are a plethora of methods to assess reflection, none have been widely
accepted and many are limited to specific data sources such as written reflections and oral
interviews (Kember et. al, 2008). Since reflection has its roots in qualitative inquiry there
have been few well-developed approaches to operationalize reflective practice (Gore,
1987). Mixed methods approaches are most commonly used to investigate the level and
nature of reflection; Collections of language produced during reflective practice
activities are analyzed as a corpus in quantitative and qualitative ways. (Farr & Riordan,
2015, p. 18).
Pre-service teachers are encouraged to reflect in a multitude of ways such as
reflective journals (Richards, Sylvester & Farrell, 2005), professional development
portfolios (Farr & Riordan, 2015), cooperative discussions (Edge 2002, 2010), and blogs
or electronic portfolios (Pryor & Biter, 2008).
Cooperative Discussions
Kroath (1990) proposed that teachers work together as critical friends in order
to examine practices and engage in cooperative, reflective learning. Just as Torbert (1976)

19
proposed, it is essential to have friends who are willing to act as enemies. Critical
Friend Groups (CFGs) provide a safe environment for peers to confront assumptions and
challenge set beliefs. Groups typically consist of 8-12 educators who meet with a trained
coach in order to engage in reflective inquiry and improve practice. The National School
Reform Faculty support CFGs through a website, professional development offerings,
and even an online journal in which teachers share their experiences and engage in blogs
in order to enhance reflective practices. CFGs can be an effective method to diversify the
reflective experience, encouraging individuals to consider multiple points of view. When
students share their experiences with peers from different backgrounds, they are more
able to uncover assumptions and engage in transformative, critical reflection (Ramsey,
2004). This strategy can also be employed in less formal situations, such as peer
interviews with fellow student teachers each day after a practicum experience (see Hatton
& Smith, 1995). These discussions could provide a valuable springboard on which
student teachers can structure and complete more formal written assignments.
Guided Reflection
Guided reflection provides the appropriate scaffolding for pre-service teachers to
uncover and transform their assumptions (see Ash & Clayton, 2009 for an extensive
illustration of guided reflection techniques). Teachers select diverse learning experiences
that are meant to guide students through the reflective process. Activities such as mock
trial, for example, can encourage individuals to consider circumstances from multiple
points of view. Carefully selected reading assignments expose pre-service teachers to
areas outside of their comfort zone, encouraging them to integrate learning across
disciplines. Group work and discussion groups require individuals to share their opinions

20
in a safe environment, exposing them to other ideas expressed by their peers. Quick
write activities create structure, encouraging ongoing reflection and requiring pre-service
teachers to remain active in the reflective process. These quick writes can be revisited
and evaluated for midterm or final course evaluations, providing opportunities for
metareflection (Markos, 2012). As evidenced by the diversity of guided reflection
strategies described, this technique is both practical and powerful in the classroom.
Reflection should not be seen as an extra activity, but rather a natural outcome and
component of learning. Thus, selecting appropriate learning activities that guide
reflection is a highly effective manner of promoting critical reflection in educational
settings.
Writing Tasks
Written reflection, most commonly in the form of journaling, is the most popular
method of reflection for pre-service teachers (Kuiper & Pesut, 2004). The writing process
helps students find their voice (Freidus, 1991), requiring them to make thoughts explicit
and fueling future action (Andrews &Wheeler, 1990 from 52). Written reflections vary
greatly in their structure; some pre-service teachers are simply instructed to reflect about
their experiences, while others are required to follow specific frameworks to promote
critical reflection. When reflection is guided, it is more likely to give rise to multiple
types of learning (Ash & Clayton, 2009). In order for reflective writing to be effective,
students must see writing as a vehicle for learning, and come to appreciate the value of
the development, rather than reproduction, of ideas.
Professional Development Portfolios

21
Portfolios can be powerful tools to promote reflection for, in, and during practice.
Teachers collect multiple forms of evidence related to their teaching, and choose certain
material to reflect on and inform future action. Portfolios provide an open space for preservice teachers to reflect in a creative manner, unrestricted by particular modalities.
These portfolios can serve as powerful tools for metareflection; as pre-service teachers
flip through their work they can trace the progression of their reflective teaching skills
(Fox et al., 2015).
Online Tools
Online environments provide a non-threatening environment for reflective
thinking, promoting both interaction and collaboration. Blogs foster narration and identity
expression, while chats often promote emotional and affective engagement (Hughes,
2007, Hanson-Smith, 2006).
Mair (2009) developed an online, structured spreadsheet to guide pre-service
teachers through critical reflective practice. Students entered reflections across rows,
guided by column heads and questions meant to promote critical reflection, such as How
can I apply what I have learned in other contexts? This method was particularly unique
in that it promoted metareflection: since reflections were entered across rows, students
were encouraged to investigate how their ideas changed and influenced one-another.
Reflecting on past reflections, as well as current experiences, promoted reflection both on
and in practice and ensured that it was a meaning-making process. To encourage
disclosure, the reflections were neither read nor assessed. However, students have
demonstrated improvement in metacognitive awareness following the use of the

22
reflective spreadsheet, as shown by a significant increase in MAI (Metacognitive

Awareness Inventory) scores throughout the study.
Attempts to Schematize Reflection for Assessment Purposes
Many methods of assessing reflection aim to sort reflective data sources (i.e.
formal papers, interview transcripts, or blogs) into categories or levels (i.e. the levels
proposed by Van Manen, 1977).
The Framework for Reflective Thinking (Sparks-Langer et.al, 1990) is a model
used to both promote and assess reflection in teachers. The model consists of seven
levels, the final four of which are considered to be reflective: 1) No descriptive language,
2) Simple, layperson description, 3) Events labeled with appropriate terms, 4)
Explanation with tradition and personal preference given as the rationale, 5) Explanation
with principle or theory given as the rationale, 6) Explanation with principle/theory and
consideration of context, and 7) Explanation with consideration of ethical, moral, or
political issues.
Liss (2011) suggested teacher education programs use the Framework for
Reflective Thinking in conjunction with videotaped mini-lessons. After students are
taught how to use the Framework (discussing the levels of reflective though, reviewing
corresponding questions to promote reflection, and participating in a model reflection
section), they are required to videotape themselves teaching short, 7-10 minute minilessons, and then complete a written reflection while viewing their work. Supervisors
then watch the videos and review the written reflections before engaging in verbal
reflection with the student. This process is repeated, eventually with longer lessons, and
students are required to focus on higher levels of reflective thought.

23
Wong et al. (1995) composed a scheme to categorize reflectivity in student

writing. Based on the conceptual framework of Boud et al. (1985) and Mezirow (1991),
the protocol first calls judges to identify instances of the following elements of reflection:
attending to feelings, association, integration, validation, appropriation, and outcomes of
reflection. Students are then classified into three categories: non-reflector, reflector, and
critical reflector. This coding scheme was tested, revealing a reliability coefficient of
0.88. However, it is difficult to identify instances of the elements of reflection without a
firm grasp of the literature, and thus some would argue that the model is difficult to apply
(Kember et. al, 2008).
Ash & Clayton (2009) created the DEAL Model for Critical Reflection. This
framework leads students through critical reflection concerning service-learning
experiences. Students are first required to describe the experience, answering who, what
where, when, and why. Next, they examine these experiences in light of particular
learning goals, guided by questions designed to move them to a deeper understanding of
the meaning of diverse experiences. Finally, students produce a formal articulated
learning statement, in which they answer the following questions: What did I learn? How
did I learn it? Why does this learning matter?, and What will/could I or others do in light
of this learning? The learning statement is meant to capture the end result of reflection,
communicating what has been learned about a particular personal characteristic, an aspect
of civic engagement, or an academic concept.
Ash and Clayton provide specific reflection prompts that are tailored to address
one or more of the goals of service-learning: personal growth, civic learning, and
academic enhancement. Pairing these learning goals with the standards of critical

24
thinking (Paul & Elder, 2010) guide both the content and depth of written reflections.
This model provides a well-structured framework for critical reflection in pre-service
teachers. Reflection prompts are strategically written to center reflection on specific
learning goals, and the critical thinking standards encourage students to dig deeper,
extending beyond the technical or practical levels of reflective thinking. However, the
process is quite formal and could be seen as both intimidating and unrealistic. The
emphasis on producing well written articulated learning statements could actually trap
pre-service teachings in reflection on action, distracting them from engaging in ongoing
reflection in action. Since the articulated learning statements are seen as mini-essays that
communicate the end result of reflection, students are likely to view the reflective process
as hierarchical, rather than cyclical.
Lee (2005) explained the convoluted relationship between content and depth of
reflection. One can reflect in depth on technical/practical issues such as academic
content and be considered at a lower level, while those who reflect on moral and ethical
issues, such as human rights, without truly considering the context and implications of
such issues, are often considered to be at a higher level. In order to overcome this barrier,
Lee proposed a coding scheme to assess both content and depth in verbal and written
reflections.
Depth was analyzed on three levels: R1: Recall, which describes experiences
based on recall and no consideration of alternative explanations, R2: Rationalization,
which investigates relationships between experiences and attempts to rationalize why the
experience occurred, and R3: Reflectivity, which is characterized by an intent to analyze
experiences for the purpose of changing and improving the future. While no coding

25
scheme was proposed for content of reflection, Lee revealed that depth of reflection
varied with content, as well as reflective method (i.e. verbal vs. written). Content of
reflection was highly based on context, in support of Boud and Walkers (1998) assertion
that Context is perhaps the single most important influence on reflection and learning. It
can permit or inhibit working with learners experience (p. 196). Indeed, one of Lees
summaries of reflection content indicated that the instructional approaches and comments
of cooperating teachers guided the content of student teachers reflection (p. 711).
Rather than assigning reflective data to categories or levels, Erwin and Boulton
(2010) investigated written reflections for indications of identity formation as student
teachers completed off-campus field placements. Discourse analysis was utilized to
examine pronoun usage (we and us) in reflective posts. During the first semester,
participants used we/us to identify as student teachers, but in the second semester they
were more likely to refer to themselves as professional teachers. This shift in pronoun
usage indicated that the student teachers identified more as professionals. While critical
reflection was not assessed directly, identity formation can be seen as an ongoing
transformation accomplished by the reflective process (Farr et. al, 2015). Thus, instead of
viewing critical reflection as the end goal, emphasis is placed on what can be achieved
through the critical reflective process. This method investigates the slow evolution of
identify formation through reflection, rather than attempting to place reflective writing
into constricted, hierarchical categories. Thus, reflection is viewed holistically, rather
than in segments that collapse onto one-another. However, this assessment method only
investigates a specific transformation: that of identity formation in teaching. Critical
reflection can result in many other transformations, such as uncovering and confronting

26
stereotypes or creating a new understanding of the purpose of teaching. Methods that

assess the development of critical reflection, rather than one outcome of critical
reflection, may be more informative.
Many educators question the criteria for assessing levels of reflection for many
reasons (Kember et al., 1999; Lee, 2000, 2005; Mezirow, 1991). Since reflection is an
ongoing process, categorizing reflective can be both constricting and unnatural. As Lee
(2005) asserted, Stages of the process of reflective thinking should not simply indicate
progress towards the solution of the problem, but rather the degree of awareness of the
situation: the process and progress must be viewed together (p. 713). Furthermore,
researchers who are unfamiliar with students are often incompetent in analyzing data and
evaluating levels of reflective thinking (Kember et al., 1999). The ability to appropriately
categorize reflection requires a firm understanding of the literature; judges are likely to
mislabel reflective data if they do not truly grasp the difference between concepts such as
technical, practical, and critical reflection. Since several Frameworks propose multiple
levels of reflection, it is quite possible that students and teachers get bogged down in the
details, missing the forest for the trees. As previously discussed, the level of reflective
thinking is often decided based on the content of reflection; individuals who reflect on
moral issues are likely to be considered at high levels of reflection, despite a likely lack
of depth in their reflective thinking.
Instruments that Measure Components of Reflective Thinking

Since assessing reflective data itself can be both cumbersome and subjective,
many quantitative measures investigate reflective ability by assessing its related

27
components. Table 2 outlines some of the most commonly used instruments, as well as
advantages and disadvantages for use with preservice teachers.
Insert Table 2
The following scales are proposed to be the most effective for investigation of reflection
in the population of pre-service teachers:
Reflective Questionnaire (Kember et al., 2000): Kember and his colleagues
have conducted several studies investigating the nature and assessment of reflection in
teacher education (Kember, 2001; Kember et al., 1999, Kember et al., 2000). After
proposing a seven-category protocol that seemed too detailed (see Kember et al., 1999),
the authors hoped to create a simpler protocol that was easy to follow and not limited to
use by those with a firm understanding of the literature. They created a questionnaire to
measure levels of reflective thinking, and confirmatory factor analysis indicated good fit
to a four-factor model, validating its four scales: habitual action, understanding, reflection
and critical reflection (Kember et al., 2000). This questionnaire provided empirical
evidence for a viable, four-category scheme to assess levels of reflection. In 2008,
Kember and his colleagues developed a protocol to sort written reflections into the
subsequent categories, ranging from habitual action (non-reflective) to critical reflection.
These levels were discussed in detail, with specific emphasis on how they are likely to be
manifest in written form. A transitional category was also added between each of the
levels in efforts to address the fact that individuals are often in-between levels of
reflective thought.

28
In order to investigate the reliability of the protocol, reviewers independently read

and sorted four sample reflection papers into the categories. Although Kember and his
colleagues (2008) reported a very good agreement among the assessors (p. 376), the
sample size was extremely small and additional measures of reliability are suggested.
However, since the protocol is the result of several years of research, and was developed
based on empirical support of the four-factor questionnaire, this method of assessment
should be seen as a valuable tool in teacher education. Since there are transitional
categories between each of the four levels, the protocol does not force reflective writing
into unnatural categories. However, it should be noted that since the measure focuses
only on written reflection, it does not address the notion of reflection in action, and could
potentially present a verbal bias for those who prefer to express themselves in other
manners.
English Language Teaching Inventory, ELTRI (Akbari et al., 2010):
Although Akbari and colleagues developed the ELTRI in attempts to operationalize
foreign language teacher reflection, its diverse subscales make it an attractive option for
use in general, teacher education settings. The original inventory had 42 items based on
six elements of reflective teaching: a practical element which refers to tools related to the
practice of reflection, cognitive element which relates to academic professionalism,
affective element which considers student emotions, meta-cognitive element that
investigates personal beliefs and emotions, critical element that refers to socio-political
aspects of pedagogy, and moral element that considers the moral and ethical
considerations of reflective practice.

29
During confirmatory factor analysis, the moral dimension was deleted from the model
and the affective dimension was reduced from 7 to 3 items. It is surprising that the moral
dimension had to be deleted, given the relationship between reflective practice and
improvement to society as a whole (see Akbarie, 2007). However, as any educator is
quick to explain, a busy workload and heavy emphasis on cognitive components of
education often leaves the importance of moral aspects of teaching in the background
(Sanger & Osguthorpe, 2011). It is also not surprising that the affective component was
problematic, given the emphasis on cognition, rather than emotion in teacher education
(Golombek & Johnson, 2004).
This assessment tool is particularly inviting due to the diversity of its subscales.
It could be used as a formative assessment, informing teachers of future educators which
components of reflection need to be improved in order to prepare pre-service teachers to
be reflective practitioners. It is important to note that while confirmatory analyses
support the reliability and validity of the measure, the majority of these studies have been
conducted within Turkish higher education environments, and thus results may change
when the measure is used in different cultural settings.
Teacher Reflection Scale, TRS (Kayapinar & Erkus, 2009): The TRS consists
of 22 problematic situations that are structured to assess reflection in two settings: the
classroom setting (RCS), and the colleagues and school management setting (RCMS).
Response categories are structured around three positions: 1) Reflection on the problem,
2) Attribution of the problem to external causes, and 3) A lack of concern of the problem.
Although the scale was designed to have two factors (reflection in the classroom and

30
through interaction with colleagues), it was reduced to a one-factor structure after

significant factorial structure was not revealed by various rotations.
The authors investigated criterion-related validity of the measure by correlating
scores on the Teacher Reflective Scale with those on a responsibility measure (Erku &
Snbl, 2007), led by the assumption that teachers that demonstrate a high degree of
reflectivity should also demonstrate a high degree of responsibility. A significant
correlation (p < 0.006) revealed that as responsibility scores increased, reflection scores
also increased. Scores were also correlated with Rotters (1966) Internal-External Locus
of Control Scale; teachers who demonstrated an internal locus of control scored higher on
reflection scores than those with an external locus (p < 0.002). Reflection scores also
increased with experience (p < 0.005).
Scores on the TRS do not differ between gender or subject area (see Kayapinar &
Erkus, 2009), and thus the measure is ideal for investigating general reflective ability.
The TRS has a one-factor structure, and the authors suggest the reflection attribute is
revealed both in a classroom setting and a colleagues/management setting, as illustrated
by the internal consistency and factorial structure of the scale. Furthermore, since the
items require individuals to explain how they would respond to problematic situations,
rather than directly assess their reflective capability, results are less likely to be
convoluted by teacher perceptions of their beliefs.
Critical Reflection for work with Unique Populations
With an increasingly global world, pre-service teachers are confronted with
multinational, multicultural, complex issues (Colley, Bilics, & Lerch, 2012). In order to
teach in a manner that not only addresses, but also embraces diversity in the classroom, it

31
is essential that teachers have a firm understanding of their personal beliefs (Kendall,
1996). Since transformation lies at the heart of critical reflection, it follows that
promoting critical reflective techniques in teacher preparation programs should cultivate
teachers that are prepared to embrace the diversity in todays classrooms (Smyth, 1989;
Van Manen, 1995; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Teachers beliefs are predictors of their
behavior, influencing perceptions, judgments, and practices (Darling-Hammond &
Bransford, 2005). Thus, in order to prepare pre-service teachers to serve diverse
populations, it is essential to promote positive, well-informed understandings of diverse
populations.
Bennett (2004) created the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
(DMIS) to describe the various manners in which individuals react to cultural differences.
The model is composed of six stages: denial of difference, defense against difference,
minimization of difference, acceptance of difference, adaptation to difference, and
integration of difference. At the denial stage, individuals are uninterested in other cultures
and content to accept their culture as the most important. The defense stage is often
characterized by dualistic thinking; individuals believe their culture is right, and all
others are wrong. Individuals at the minimization stage attempt to see unity amongst all
cultures, assuming that a respect for popular morals will allow one to recognize and
respect all cultures. This stage is characterized by the assumption that there are
universal truths that all individuals, across all cultures will accept. These assumptions
are shattered as individuals begin to accept differences and create an expanded worldview
through the adaptation stage. Finally, integration of difference is characterized by a
flexible, yet well-developed image of self that can shift from one culture to another.

32
It is beyond the scope of this review to summarize the literature on diversity and
education (interested readers are encouraged to consult texts such as Banks & Banks,
2009), but it should not go unnoticed that critical reflection is one of the most powerful
vehicles to enhance cultural awareness and promote transformation of misunderstandings
in pre-service teachers. Indeed, Van Manens (1977) levels of reflection directly correlate
with Bennetts (2004) Model of Intellectual Sensitivity. Reflection at the technical level is
unaware of context; teachers are focused on achieving pre-determined goals, with no
consideration of context. This type of reflection mirrors the denial stage of intercultural
sensitivity. Teachers simply teach the way they were taught, failing to consider how
strategies should be changed based on the unique needs and interests of their students.
They are often unaware that they are operating under misconceptions, assuming that their
students have the same experiences that they did while in school. At the practical level of
reflection, teachers begin to consider teaching goals in context, attempting to make sense
of their beliefs by viewing experiences from multiple perspectives. Individuals at this
level may be at the defense against or minimization of difference stage in Bennetts
framework. Individuals often grow uncomfortable as they begin to uncover their
assumptions (Rodgers, 2002). Some may respond by defending their view, declaring it to
be the best answer, or attempting to minimize the difference between their personal
beliefs and what may be true for others.
Finally, as individuals progress to critical reflection, they adapt to and integrate
differences. Critical reflection is characterized by not only the recognition, but also the
transformation of assumptions. Thus, individuals accept that their beliefs are not

33
universally true, adapting to different environments and experiences and transforming

their beliefs from narrow assumptions to integrated understandings.
Working with diverse student populations can be both difficult and intimidating
for pre-service teachers (Harry & Klingner, 2006 ). Kendall (1996) challenged teachers
to take the emotional risk and consider how their deeply rooted beliefs could affect how
they treat their students. As previously discussed, reflection aids in the formation of
identity (Farr & Riordan, 2015), helping students develop confidence in working with
diverse populations. As teachers confront their discomfort through self-reflection, they
become aware of prejudices and biases, seeking guidance in how to reach new
understandings by consulting multiple perspectives. Critical reflection helps in the
formation of multicultural efficacy; teachers develop confidence in their ability to interact
with and meet the needs of diverse students.
While review of the literature did not reveal any measures to assess reflection
concerning interactions with specific populations, there are several assessments that
could be used in tandem with reflection assessments in order to investigate reflection
concerning interactions with unique populations. For example, the Multicultural Efficacy
Scale (MES) can be utilized to investigate teacher identity formation in relation to
working with diverse populations (Guyton & Wesche, 2005). The measure consists of 35
items on a Likert-type scale, which measure facets of preservice teachers multicultural
perspectives based on three subscales: individual experience in multicultural
environments, attitudes toward teaching in multicultural conditions, and efficacy for
teaching in multicultural environments. Similar measures included the Cultural Diversity

34
Awareness Inventory (Larke, 1990), and the Multicultural Attitude Questionnaire (Barry
& Lechner, 1995).
In order to transform deficit to dynamic thinking in education, it is essential to
cultivate reflective thinking in future teachers. As Ramsey (2004) proposed, we need to
know ourselvesto honestly see our reaction to other individuals and the larger world
and to analyze our underlying assumptions (p. 20). The next section summarizes
important findings from empirical investigations of reflection and investigates how this
work shapes the future for critical reflection in education.
Empirical Findings about Critical Reflection that Inform the Future
The teacher preparation field has embraced the power of critical reflection to
transform the future of education, as illustrated by an influx of empirical work that
continues to shape the understanding and development of reflective thinking. Since
empirical work on reflection analyzes data from a multitude of diverse sources (reflective
journals, blogs, chats, interviews, etc.), findings can seldom be related from one study to
another (Sellars, 2014). However, one general conclusion is a steady lack of evidence of
critical reflection on the part of student teachers, most of whom demonstrate technical
and practical reflective thinking (Farr and Riordan (2015; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Sellars,
2014; Yang, 2009). Indeed, King (1997) reported,
Teaching candidates usually have not recognized or reflected critically
upon the ideological qualities of their knowledge and their own
misunderstandings and alienation from the struggle for justice. They have
no concrete understanding of or commitment to teaching for change (p.
157).
While Yang (2009) found that student teachers were more descriptive, rather than critical
in their reflections, he also pointed to the importance of scaffolding: educators were able

35
enhance reflection by positing questions that encouraged critical deliberation. Choy and
Oo (2012) communicated similar findings in their investigation of teacher reflection.
Study participants (N=71 teachers) completed a 33-item Likert scale questionnaire that
assessed Brookfields (1988) four learning processes for critical reflection: assumption
analysis, contextual awareness, imaginative skepticism, and reflective skepticism.
Analysis revealed that teachers engaged in self-assessment simply to ensure they did their
jobs properly, and seemed ambiguous to using student feedback to inform and improve
their teaching.
Hatton and Smith (1995) analyzed reflection essays of student teachers, coding
them for various types of reflective units. Essays varied in length and reflection; the
smallest number of reflective components for a single piece was 2, while the largest was
52. Results revealed that the largest proportion (60-70%) of coded units indicated
descriptive reflection, while instances of critical reflection were quitee rare. Indeed, only
eight instances of critical reflection were identified in the entire sample (Readers should
be aware that the authors did not provide the percentage equivalent of critical reflection
instances, and thus this number could be deceiving). Although the majority of reflections
were descriptive, Hatton and Smith indicated that nearly 50% of reflections also
demonstrated multiple perspectives, which is a central ability to critical reflection. Thus,
while there may have been low counts of critical reflections in the essays, this does not
mean that students failed to demonstrate the ability to engage in such reflection.
Farr and Riordan (2015) also identified large quantities of descriptive reflections
in their investigation of reflective practices across various online modes. Once student
teachers had participated in various reflection activities (blogs, chat sessions, online

36
discussion forums, and face-to-face discussions), a corpus was compiled for analysis
using WordSmith Tools (Scott, 2004). The authors identified twenty descriptive
reflections, but just ten critical reflections in data collected from face-to-face reflection
sessions conducted at week five of student teaching. However, at week eleven, counts of
descriptive reflections changed slightly (from 20-24), while critical reflections nearly
doubled, (increasing from ten to eighteen). The authors suggested that the student
teachers ability to appropriately describe their experiences actually primes the way for
critical reflection; thus descriptive reflection is a necessary precursor to other types of
reflection (p. 120).
This finding supports Hatton and Smiths (1995) description of the embedded
nature of reflection. Individuals often begin with descriptive reflection, progressing
towards dialogic reflection, which is characterized by inner dialogue and consideration of
multiple explanations of experiences. This dialogue and the ability to embrace multiple
perspectives gives rise to critical reflection. Thus, various types of reflection feed into
one-another. An extensive amount of descriptive reflections should not be seen as
alarming. Educators working with pre-service teachers should provide appropriate
scaffolding to encourage the continuation of the reflective process, leading the preservice teachers to build on their descriptions and slowly progress to critical reflection.
In order to promote critical reflection and transformative thinking in the
classroom, educators must first guide pre-service teachers to combat assumptions they
may hold about reflection itself. As Spalding and Wilson (2002) suggested, we must
actively teach and model reflective skills in a variety of ways if we are to demystify
reflection (p. 1393). Reflection is seldom associated with working as a teacher (Elbaz,

37
1988, McNamara, 1990), and many pre-service teachers see reflection as something extra
and, at times, useless (Hall, 1985; Jung, 2006; Zeichner, 1990). Reflection is often
romanticized, creating the false assumption that only poetic, pensive individuals are
capable of quality reflection. It is tempting to view reflection as demonstration of
learning, rather than a valuable vehicle through which learning can be deepened. Indeed,
a simple Google image search for reflection produces countless depictions of
individuals deep in thought, often projected onto celestial or majestic backgrounds.
Although reflection is unique to each learner, it does not occur by chance. Educators
must provide exercises, strategies, and practical tools to promote reflective thinking
(Harrison et al, 2003). Explicit explanation of reflection, focused on the nature of
reflective practice, as well as when and how to employ reflective strategies, creates
student awareness and promotes feelings of control over learning (Hartman, 2001). Preservice teachers are already juggling immense responsibilities, often fulfilling the roles of
both student and teacher. Critical reflection requires ample cognitive space; individuals
must recognize and engage in learning opportunities, consider multiple perspectives, and
assess both student learning and personal growth. Without direct instruction and guidance
in meeting such diverse demands, student teachers are likely to remain stuck in lowerlevels of reflection (Correia & Bleicher, 2008).
It is not enough for pre-service teachers to simply identify their assumptions, they
need guidance to consider the ways in which these assumptions shape their starting
points for practice (Banks et al., 2005, p. 242). Markos (2012) investigated the effect of
guided reflection on pre-service teachers beliefs and understanding of English Language
Learners. Qualitative analysis of anecdotal records, documentation of classroom

38
activities, student artifacts and personal teaching journals provided substantial evidence
of change in pre-service teacher beliefs throughout guided reflection activities such as
mock trials, self evaluations, and quick-writes. Analysis revealed that pre-service teachers
entered the course with deficit and narrow understandings of ELLS, which were based on
past experiences. Quick-writes from the beginning of the course included statements such
as I know ELLS, I went to school with a bunch of them, and I think of someone who
is Hispanic as only speaking Spanish (Markos, 2012 p. 50).
At the end of the semester, Marko returned the quick writes from each week to the
pre-service teachers and asked them to discuss their development with their peers before
completing a formal, self-evaluation. Responses indicated significant recognition and
transformation of underlying assumptions. Understandings moved beyond narrow ideas
and deficit thinking, towards openness and desire to learn more. One student reported,
"On my Initial Reaction Questionnaire, I wrote that I felt an ELL was
anyone who is learning the English language. That was literally my
answer. It was short and brief I think the reason for this was because I was
ill-informed. Honestly, I had no idea what an ELL student was (Markos,
2012 p. 52).
If these pre-service teachers were simply required to keep a reflective journal and turn it
in at the end of the semester, it is highly unlikely that such transformative learning would
occur. Guided reflection activities ensured that the pre-service revisit their beliefs,
challenge them, and ultimately transform them.
Farr and colleagues (2015) asked student teachers to report their favorite mode of
reflection. The majority (55%) preferred blogs, while 18% chose chats, 9% discussion
forums, and 18% did not report a preference. It is interesting to note that the blogs were
private and only read by peer tutors. This suggests that while working in collaborative

39
groups is beneficial to reflection (the student teachers in the study also reflected through
collaborative chats and discussion forums), it is also important that individuals have a
private space to reflect. Critical reflection requires vulnerability; it can be uncomfortable
to uncover misunderstandings and begin to question what one has always thought to be
true. This discomfort may increase when working with diverse students; many preservice teachers may realize they have been operating under deficit thinking, expecting
individuals from certain backgrounds to perform at lower levels (Ford et. al., 2002).
These types of realizations are difficult to manage; pre-service teachers may feel guilty,
or even doubt their ability to be effective teachers. Evidence has shown that students
attempt to demonstrate knowledge and hide ignorance if they know their reflections are
reviewed by tutors or other individuals in authority (Boud, 1999; Sumsion & Fleet,
1996). Pairing private and collaborative reflection provides an avenue for pre-service
teachers to sift through these feelings, while also gaining support from and being
challenged by cooperative discussions.
In her analysis of pre-service teachers, Lee (2005) recognized that participants
reflective thinking levels were affected by the mode of communication: while some
thrived in written reflections, others demonstrated strength in the verbal format. These
findings support Spalding and Wilsons (2002) conclusion that no single pedagogical
strategy was best and that students responded differently to different strategies (p. 1393).
Limiting pre-service teachers to one mode of reflection hinders them engaging in critical
reflection; they may get so caught up in demonstrating reflection that they actually fail to
reflect!

40
We will now consider how these findings can inform teacher preparatory
programs that aim to enhance critical reflection in teachers working with the gifted
population.
From Thought to Action: Suggestions for Preparing Future Teachers to Serve
Americas Brightest Students
In light of the current focus on closing the achievement gap, one unique group of
students that is often forgotten in todays schools is the gifted population (Gallagher,
2015). Since giftedness is manifest in diverse ways, it is essential that pre-service
teachers have a firm understanding of the characteristics and needs of these bright
children that is unclouded by misunderstandings and assumptions.
The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC; 2014) defined gifted
individuals as those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an
exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or
achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains (para. 5). Although all gifted
students are unique, the population shares common characteristics such as intense
emotions and sensitivity to mature topics, motivated pursuit of knowledge (often
unrelated to material presented in school settings), advanced sense of humor and
vocabulary that is easily misunderstood, propensity to learn quickly, and ability to make
connections easily across disciplines (Clark, 2012; Hebert, 2011; Rogers, 2007;
VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2007;). Upon considering such diverse characteristics of
gifted children, it should come as no surprise that the stereotypical image of a wellbehaved, motivated gifted student is both ill informed and unrealistic. Indeed, gifted
students often underachieve, and many are misdiagnosed with social or learning needs

41
such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression if their needs are

not being met (Webb et al., 2005).
Issues of under-achievement and misdiagnosis are prevalent amongst gifted
students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds. Underrepresentation continues
to be an alarming issue in gifted education. Ford and King (2014) recently reported the
vast underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic children in gifted programs throughout
the country, describing issues regarding both recruiting and retaining students from these
unique populations (Ford 2005, 2010). It is especially important that teachers and
counselors collaborate in order to understand and meet the unique needs of gifted
students from low-income backgrounds, as well as those who are culturally different
(Ford, 2010). Indeed, gifted students are less likely to succeed when their economic,
cultural, socioemotional, affective, and developmental needs are not appropriately
addressed (Stambaugh & Ford, 2015).
As Stambaugh and Ford (2015) suggested, teachers working with the gifted need
to be aware of their own personal assumptions and biases about intelligence and gifted
individuals (p. 197). Drawing upon the research in critical reflection that is summarized
in this review, suggestions for preparing pre-service teachers to work with the unique
population of gifted students are as follows:
Embed reflection assignments throughout teacher preparation programs
In order to encourage reflection in practice, pre-service teachers should engage in
reflection as often as possible. When reflection is seen as a meaning-making, rather than
knowledge-reporting process, pre-service teachers are able to grasp its importance to
continual professional development. The perceived paradise of working with gifted

42
students must be seen in a realistic manner. Various reflective assignments that are a
natural part of teacher preparatory courses allow pre-service teachers to dismantle and
transform the assumptions that frame this paradise, preparing them to meet the unique
needs of gifted students.
Provide direct instruction for reflective techniques and strategies
It is alarmingly easy for pre-service teachers to reflect without uncovering or
transforming assumptions. While statements such as the experience changed me
forever, and I was a pillar of hope for these students seem encouraging, they actually
convey narrow, unchallenged understandings. Direct instruction for critical reflection
should address the following: assumption analysis, contextual awareness, imaginative
skepticism, and reflective skepticism (Brookfield, 1988). Since the ability to consider
multiple viewpoints and alternative solutions is a key component of critical reflection,
creativity training would also prepare pre-service teachers to become reflective
practitioners. For example, the Incubation Model of Teaching could provide a framework
to guide students through critical reflection, while also promoting creative thinking skills
(see Torrance, 1979; Torrance & Safter, 1990). Indeed, several of the strategies in the
Incubation Model are directly related to reflective ability (i.e. Looking Twice, Digging
Deeper, and Crossing out Mistakes). While many models of reflection point to the
importance of creative thinking, review of the literature did not reveal a reflective
framework that unites explicit instruction for creative thinking with reflective techniques.
Promoting creative abilities such as flexibility, divergent thinking, and resistance to
closure could have a profound impact on the ability to engage in critical reflection.

43
Challenge stereotypical assumptions concerning giftedness

One of the most challenging aspects of critical reflection is recognizing ones
assumptions and misunderstandings. While it is important to expose pre-service teachers
to diverse environments, it is imperative to recognize that these experiences alone cannot
promote critical reflection and transformative thinking. Beliefs are not based on
experiences, but rather ones perceptions of these experiences (Ingram et al., 2007).
Thus, if pre-service teachers are exposed to diverse populations with no corresponding
guidance to help them understand these populations, it is likely they will maintain their
assumptions. This is especially important when considering the preparation of teachers
who will work closely with the gifted. Many teachers have a narrow view about how
giftedness manifests (Ford, 2010). However, while some gifted individuals may be
stereotypical, well-behaved and high achieving students, giftedness comes in all shapes
and sizes. Indeed, many gifted individuals from culturally and ethnically diverse
backgrounds are not recognized as gifted because their giftedness manifests in an
unexpected manner (Frasier, 1991). Unless pre-service teachers are explicitly taught how
to recognize giftedness in diverse populations, it is likely that many of Americas
brightest children will remain underserved. Guided reflection for pre-service teachers
working with the gifted should not only lead them through the reflective process, but also
expose them to valuable, research-based information concerning the manner of
giftedness.
Provide informative feedback to guide the reflective process
Pre-service teachers are quite accustomed to completing reflection assignments,
but few have actually received any direct instruction focusing on defining and improving

44
reflective technique (Rodgers, 2002). Pre-service teachers can benefit from low-stakes
reflective assignments that provide them with valuable feedback concerning how to
improve their reflection. When outside readers (peers, administrators, etc.) review
reflections, their fresh eye allows them to recognize underlying assumptions, pointing
the reflector in a direction that confronts, rather than maintains, these misunderstandings.
Educators who are well trained in the field of giftedness can guide pre-service teachers to
recognize misunderstandings concerning this unique population. If pre-service teachers
are expected to simply reflect internally, without ever sharing their thoughts, it is likely
that they will neither recognize nor transform their misunderstandings. As William James
(as cited in Brubacher, Case, and Reagan, 1994) proclaimed, Too many people think
they are thinking when all they are doing is rearranging their prejudices.
Emphasize the reflective process, rather than product
Assessment of reflections is often interpreted as judgmental (Kettinger & Grover,
1997). Educators should refrain from assessing final reflective products without
considering student background. How did the pre-service teacher grow over the
semester? Do various reflective data (informal discussions, blogs, formal writings, etc.)
illustrate improvement? How has the pre-service teacher challenged herself to get out of
her comfort zone? Assessment can produce anxiety for pre-service teachers who are
already likely to be overwhelmed by the duties associated with being both a student and
teacher. In order to reflect successfully, teachers must have a firm knowledge base of the
nature of reflection, as well as diverse experiences on which to reflect (Hatton & Smith,
1995). Since reflection is developmental in nature, students should see the reflective
process as a means to enhance, rather than a rote explanation of learning. Emphasizing

45
the reflective process provides the freedom for pre-service teachers to delve deeply into
learning, investigating the many facets of gifted education. Without the pressure of
creating a formal reflection product, pre-service teachers are free to reflect continually,
discussing multiple experiences that challenge their expectations concerning gifted
students.
Provide appropriate time for reflective practice
It is essential to provide appropriate time for pre-service teachers to develop and
exercise the metacognitive skills necessary for critical reflection (McNamara, 1990;
Noffke & Brennan, 1988). As pre-service teachers engage in reflection, they gradually
build a base of prior knowledge that informs ongoing reflective practice. However, if
teachers are burdened by the task to complete multiple reflective assignments, they are
likely to hastily complete them and fail to benefit from reflective practice. Educators
working with pre-service teachers should not rush the reflective process, but rather
provide appropriate scaffolding for the development and improvement of reflective
technique.
Encourage reflection in multiple modalities
Pre-service teachers should be encouraged to reflect across multiple modalities,
ranging from visual journals to collaborative discussions. It is imperative that the mode
of reflection does not complicate the reflective process. For example, highly verbal
students may feel intimidated by visual assignments, while shy students may not enjoy
group discussions. Providing a multitude of reflection activities ensures that students
work both in an out of their comfort zones. Thus, they are challenged to express their
feelings in new and often uncomfortable ways, but still have the opportunity to reflect in

46
a manner that is both familiar and comfortable. Reflection through multiple modalities
encourages pre-service teachers to consider problems from multiple points of view,
hindering them from reflecting without really thinking. Such diverse modes of reflection
could help pre-service teachers consider the multi-faceted nature of giftedness. For
example, visual journals could be used to reflect about the socio-emotional needs of
gifted students, while cooperative discussions may provide a platform for discussions
centered on recognizing gifted students in underrepresented populations.
Provide opportunities for students to reflect with peers
Student teachers form a unique population. The limbo between student and
teacher can feel awkward; it is important to feel both supported and understood
throughout the teacher preparation process. Providing opportunities to collaborate with
peers through discussion groups or critical friends is essential to providing the support
pre-service teachers require. If trust is established, pre-service teachers feel free to share
feelings with one-another and discuss student needs in detail. This casual form of
reflection can be especially beneficial for pre-service teachers working with the gifted, as
this population is both unique and challenging. Pre-service teachers can unpack
assumptions together, as they are likely to share experiences that have contradicted their
expectations.
Use tools that guide pre-service teachers to shift from deficit to dynamic thinking
Critical reflection is the vehicle for the shift from deficit to dynamic thinking.
Since gifted students act and respond differently than same-aged peers, pre-service
teachers working with these populations must be well informed of the meaning of their
students behavior. Frasier and her colleagues (1995) created a tool known as the TABs to

47
recognize student traits, aptitudes, and behaviors that are indicative of giftedness. The ten
core attributes (motivation, interest, communication skills, problem solving ability,
memory, inquiry, insight, reasoning, imagination/creativity, and humor) are manifested in
unique manners. For example, a gifted student may demonstrate motivation by insisting
to investigate personal interests, thus rejecting schoolwork and potentially disrupting the
classroom. The TABS guides teachers to shift from deficit to dynamic thinking,
considering how potentially disruptive behaviors could actually be indicators of
giftedness. Using the TABS in tandem with guided reflection would aid pre-service
teachers as they develop a more holistic understanding of gifted and talented students.
A Final Look in the Mirror
Critical reflection both informs and transforms knowledge and action,
encouraging individuals to restrain from simply doing things the way they have always
been done (Risko, Roskos, & Vukelich, 2002). Given the ever-changing student
population in Americas schools, it is clear that we must cultivate teachers who refrain
from simply teaching the way they were taught. We must cultivate reflective teachers
who not only question and transform their own assumptions, but also consider the unique
needs of their students. Indeed, teachers must be prepared to look in the minds mirror
and recognize that their experiences dont match their expectations.

48
References
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflection on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in
L2 teacher education. System, 35, 192-207.
Akbari, R., Behzadpoor, F., & Dadvand, B. (2010). Development of English Language
Teaching Reflection Inventory. System, 38, 211-227.
Akiba, M. (2011). Identifying program characteristics for preparing pre-service teachers
for diversity. Teacher's College Record, 113(3), 658-697.
Allen, J., & Wright, S. (2014). Integrating theory and practice in the pre-service teacher
education practicum. Teachers & Teaching, 20(2), 136-151.
Andrews, S., & Wheeler, P. (1990, November). Tracing the effects of reflective classroom
practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national reading
conference, Florida.
Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Learning through critical reflection: A tutorial for
service-learning students. Raleigh, NC.
Ashwin, P., Boud, D., Coate, K., Hallett, F., Keane, E., Krause, K. L., Leibowitzlain, B.,
MacLaren, J. McCune, V., & Tooher, M. (2015). Reflective Teaching in Higher
Education. UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Atkins, S., & K. Murphy (1993). Reflection: a review of the literature. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 18, 11881192.
Aukes, L. C., Geertsma, J., Cohen-Schotanus, J., Zwierstra, R. P., & Slaets, J. P. J. (2007).
The development of a scale to measure personal reflection in medical practice and
education. Medical Teacher, 29(2-3), 177-182.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives.
John Wiley & Sons.
Banks, J. A., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L. C, Richert, A., Zeichner, K. M., LePage, P., et
al. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford
(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and
be able to do (pp. 232-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J.S. Wurzel (Ed.) Toward
multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education. Newton, MA: Intercultural
Resource Corporation.

49
Boody, R. M. (2008). Teacher Reflection as Teacher Change, and teacher change as moral
response. Education, 128(3), 498-506.
Boud, D. (1999). Situating academic development in professional work: using peer
learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 4(1), 3-10.
Boud, D., Keogh, M., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The
challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-206.
Brookfield, S. (1995) Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Brookfield, S. (1988). Training Educators of Adults. New York: Routledge.
Brubacher, J.W., Case, C.W, & Reagan, T. G. (1994). Becoming a reflective educator.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
Calderhead, J. & Gates, P. (1993). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development.
Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.
Cambell-Jones, B. & Cambell-Jones, F. (2002). Educating african american children:
Creditability at a crossroads. Educational Horizons, 80(3), 133-139.
Case, J., Backes, E., Babu, S., White, A., & Jennings, E. (2012). A Pedagogical strategy
to facilitate interdisciplinary reflective thinking and practice in rehabilitation
counseling students. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 21(2-3),
271-282.
Choy, S.C., & Oo, P.S. (2012). Reflective thinking and teaching practices: A precursor for
incorporating critical thinking into the classroom? Online Submission.
Clark, B. (2012). Growing up gifted (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Colley, B. M., Bilics, A. R., & Lerch, C. M. (2012). Reflection: A key component to
thinking critically. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 3(1), 213-224.
Collier, S.T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching
experience: An evolutionary approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(3), 173181.
Correia, M. G., & Bleicher, R. E. (2008). Making connections to teach reflection.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14, 41-49.

50
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of

Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining highly qualified teachers What
does scientifically-based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher,
31(9), 13-25.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, D.C.: Health and Co., Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1933) How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: DC Heath and Company.
Edge, J. (2002) Closings. In: Edge, J. (ed.), Continuing Professional Development. Some
of our perspectives. Whitstable: IATEFL, 115119.
Edge, J. (2010) Elaborating the monolingual deficit. In: Nunan, D. and Choi, J. (eds.),
Language and culture: Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity.
London: Routledge, 8996.
Elbaz, F. (1988) Critical reflection on teaching: Insights from Freire. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 14(2), 171-181.
Farr, F., & Riordan, E. (2015). Tracing the reflective practices of student teachers in
online modes. ReCALL: Journal of Eurocall, 27(1), 104-123.
Fook, J., White, S. and Gardner, F. (2006) Critical reflection: a review of contemporary
literature and understandings. In S.White, J.Fook and F.Gardner (eds.) Critical
reflection in health and social care. Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press.
Ford, B. A., Stuart, D. H., & Vakil, S. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching in the 21st
century inclusive classroom. Journal of the International Association of Special
Education, 15(2), 56-62.
Ford, D. Y. (2005). Welcoming all students to room 202: Creating culturally responsive
classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 28, 24-39.
Ford, D. Y. (2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Theory,
research and practice (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Ford, D. Y., (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted
education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the
future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31-35.
Ford, D. Y., Harris III, J. J., Tyson, C. A., & Trotman, M. F. (2002). Beyond deficit
thinking. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52.

51
Ford, D. Y., & King, R. A. (2014). Desegregating gifted education for under-represented
Black and Hispanic students: Equity promotes equality. Teaching for High
Potential,1,13-16.
Fox, R. K., Muccio, L. S., White, C. S., & Tian, J. (2015). Investigating advanced
professional learning of early career and experienced teachers through program
portfolios. European Journal Of Teacher Education, 38(2), 154-179.
Frasier, M. M. (1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 234-245.
Frasier, M. M. (1995). A New Window for Looking at Gifted Children. National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Freidus, H. (1991, April). Critical issues in the curriculum of teacher education
programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Freire, P. Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury, 1973.
Gallagher, J. J. (2015). Political Issues in Gifted Education. Journal for The Education Of
The Gifted, 38(1), 77-89.
Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further
Education Unit, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
Golombek, P. R., & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Narrative inquiry as a meditational space:
examining emotional and cognitive dissonance in second-language teachers
development. Teachers and Teaching, 10(3), 307-327.
Gore, J., (1987). Reflecting on reflective thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2),
33-39.
Gore, J. & Zeichnew, K. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice
teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 7(2), 119-136.
Grant, A. A., Franklin, J., and Langford, P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: a
new measure of private self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality
30(8), 821 836.
Grimmett, P.P., Erickson, G.L., Mackinnon, A.M., & Riecken, T.J. (1990). Reflective
practice in teacher education. In R.T. Clift, W.R. Houston, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.),
Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs
(pp. 20-38). New York: Teachers College Press.

52
Guyton, E. M., & Wesche, M. V. (2005). The Multicultural Efficacy Scale: Development,
item selection, and reliability. Multicultural Perspective, 7, 21-29.
Habermas, J. (1973). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.
Hall, G. (1985). A stages of concern approach to teacher education. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Hanson-Smith, E. (2006). Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher
education. In: Hubbard, P. and Levy, M. (eds.), Teacher education in CALL.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 301315.
Harrison, M., Short, C., & Roberts, C. (2003). Reflecting on reflective learning: The case
of geography, earth and environmental sciences. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 27, 133-152.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special
education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J.
Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research and
Practice (pp. 33-63). Boston: Kluwer.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.
Haynega, A., & Corpus, J. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: A
person-centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school.
Motivation & Emotion, 34(4), 371-383.
Hebert, T. (2011). Understanding the social and emotional lives of gifted students. Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Hughes, G. (2007) Being and belonging: The importance of identity in online learning
groups and in teacher preparation. Teaching and Teacher Education 25, 783789.
Ingram, Ilene L. and Walters, Toni S. (2007). A Critical reflection model to teach
diversity and social justice. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 2(1),
233-240.
Irwin, B. and Boulton, H. (2010) Analysing the development of professional identity in
blogging discourse. In: Rust, C. (ed.), Improving student learning: For the
twenty-first century learner. Proceedings of the 17th Improving Student Learning
Symposium. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, 2232.

53
Jay, J. K. and Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective

practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18,7385.
Kalk, K., Luik, P., Taimalalu, M., & Taht, K. (2014). Validity and reliability of two
instruments to measure reflection: A confirmatory study. Trames, 18, 121-134.
Kayapinar, U. & Erkus, A. (2009). Measuring teacher reflection: development of TRS.
Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 37, 144158.
Kember, D., D.Y.P. Leung, A. Jones, A.Y. Loke, J. McKay, K. Sinclair, H. Tse, C. Webb,
F.K.Y. Wong, M.W.L. Wong, and E. Yeung. 2000. Development of a questionnaire
to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education 25(4), 381395.
Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Yuet Wong, F. K. (2008). A four-category scheme
for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369-379.
Kendall, F. E. (1996). Diversity in the classroom: New approaches to the education of
young children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kettinger, W.J. & Grover, V. (1997). The use of computer-mediated communication in an
inter- organisational context. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 513555.
Killeavy, Maureen and Anne Moloney (2010). Reflection in a social space: Can blogging
support reflective practice for beginning teachers?. Teaching and Teacher
Education 26, 1070 1076.
Killion, J., & Todnem, G. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational
Leadership, 48(6), 14-16.
King, J. (1997). "Thank you for opening our minds": On praxis, transmutation, and black
studies in teacher development. In J. King, E. Hollins & W. Hayman (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for cultural diversity. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Kroath, F. (1990), The Role of the Critical Friend in the development of teacher
expertise, Communication prsente au symposium international : Research on
effective and responsive teaching, Universit de Fribourg (Suisse).
Kuiper, R. & Pesut, D. (2004). Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reflective
reasoning skills in nursing practice: Self-regulated learning theory. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 45(4), 381-391.

54
Lee, H.-J. (2000). The nature of the changes in reflective thinking in preservice
mathematics teachers engaged in student teaching field experience in Korea.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the America Educational Research
Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000.
Lee, H.-J. (2005). Reflection and teaching: A taxonomy. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 699-715.
Liss, J. M. (2011). Using a reflection framework and videotaped lessons in special
education teacher preparation practicum courses. Retrieved from
http://www.nssa.us/tech_journal/volume_2-1/vol2-1_article8.htm.
Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2007). Foreign Language Teacher Preparation and
Asynchronous CMC: Promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 15(4), 513-532.
Lucas, P. (1991). Reflection, new practices and the need for flexibility in supervising
student-teachers. Journal of Further and higher Education, 15(2), 84-93.
Mair, C. (2012). Helping students succeed through using reflective practice to enhance
metacognition and create realistic predictions. Psychology Teaching Review,
18(2), 42-46.
Markos, A. M. (2012). Mandated to learn, guided to reflect: Pre-Service teachers'
evolving understanding of English Language Learners. Issues in Teacher
Education, 21(1), 39-57.
Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Marzano, R. J., Boogren, T.H., Heflebower, T., Kanold-McIntyre, J. & Pickering, D. J.
(2012). Becoming a Reflective Teacher. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.
Maxwell, L. A. (2014). U.S. schools become majority minority. Education Week, 34 (1),
1-16.
McIntyre, D. (1995). Initial teacher education as practical theorising: A response to Paul
Hirst. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43 (4), 365-383.
McNamara, D. (1990). Research on teachers thinking: Its contribution to educating
student teachers to think critically. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(2) 147160.
Mewborn, D. S. (1999). Reflective thinking among pre-service elementary mathematics
teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(3), 316-341.

55
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative

and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meziro, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Fransisco: JoseyBass.
Moon, J. (2006). Learning journals: A Handbook for reflective practice and professional
development. London, England: Routledge.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2014). Definitions of giftedness. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/resourcespublications/resources/definitions-giftedness?
id=574
National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for Americas future. New York: Author.
National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for Americas future. New York: Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2007). Professional standards
for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/Standards/ProgramStandardsandReportForms/tabid/676/Def
ault.aspx.
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers take charge of
their learning. Washington, DC: Author.
Noffke, S., & Brenna, M. (1988, April). The dimensions of reflection: A conceptual and
contextual analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Ostorga, A. N. (2006). Developing teachers who are reflective practitioners: A complex
process. Issues in Teacher Education, 15, 520.
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (October 2010). Foundation for critical thinking. Retrieved from
www.criticalthinking.org.
Pryor, C. R. and Bitter, G. G. (2008). Using multimedia to teach inservice teachers:
Impacts on learning, application, and retention. Computers in Human Behavior,
24, 26682681.
Ramsey, P. G. (2004). Teaching and learning in a diverse world. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Reynolds, M. (1998) Reflection and Critical Reflection in Management Learning.
Management Learning, 29(2), 183-200.

56
Reynolds, M. and Vince, R. (2004). Organising reflection. Aldershot, Surrey: Ashgate.

Risko, V., Roskos, K. & Vukelich, C. (2005). Reflection and the self-analytic turn
of mind: Toward more robust instruction in teacher education. In K. KinnucanWelsch, S. Israel, C. Block & K. Bauseman (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy
learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. (pp.
313-335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective
teaching. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Rogers, K. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis
of the research on education practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382396.
Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D. & Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection for nursing and helping
professions: A users guide. Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan.
Ryan, J. (2005). Working toward inclusive leadership. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada.
Ryan, M. (2011). Improving reflective writing in higher education: A social semiotic
perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 99111.
Sanger, M. N., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2011). Teacher education, pre-service teacher
beliefs, and the moral work of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27,
569-578.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Schon, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith Tools Version 4.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sellers, M. (2014). Reflective practice for teachers. London: SAGE.
Shoffner, Melanie (2009). The place of personal: exploring the affective domain through
reflection communities. The Twelfth Cambridge Conference on Open and
Distance Learning, available:
http://www.cambridgedistanceeducation.org.uk/conference/CambridgeConference
Papers2.pdf [accessed 14/07/11].
Singh, D. (November, 2006). Preparing general education teachers for inclusion. Paper
presented at the 29th Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children and the second annual Technology and Media Division joint conference.
San Diego, CA.

57
Smith, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 2-9.
Sobral, D. T. (2000). An appraisal of medical students reflection-in-learning. Medical
Education 34, 182187.
Spalding, E. & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical
strategies that encourage reflective writing. Teachers College Record, 104 (7),
1393-1421.
Sparks-Langer, G., & Colton, A. (1991). Synthesis of research on teachers reflective
thinking. Educational Leadership, 3, 37-44.
Sparks-Langer, G. M., Simmons, J. M., Pasch, M., Colton, A., & Starko, A. (1990).
Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? Journal
of Teacher Education, 41(4), 23-32.
Stambaugh, T., & Ford, D. Y. (2015). Microaggressions, multiculturalism, and gifted
individuals who are black, Hispanic, or low income. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 93(2), 192-201.
Stein, D. (2008). Teaching critical reflection. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from
http://www.inspiredliving.com/business/reflection.htm.
Sumsion, J. & Fleet, J. (1996). Reflection: Can we assess it? Should we assess it?
Assessment and Evaluation, Higher Education, 21, 12130.
Torbert, W. R. (1976). Creating a Community of Inquiry: conflict, collaboration,
transformation. New York: Wiley.
Torrance, E. P & Safter, T.H. (1990). The Incubation model of teaching: Getting beyond
the aha! Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Torrance, E. P. (1979). An instructional model for enhancing incubation. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 23(1), 23-35.
Valentin, S. (2006). Addressing diversity in teacher education programs. Education,
127(2), 196-202.
Valli, L. (1990). Moral approaches to reflective practice. In R. Clift, W. R. Houston, and
M. Pugach (Eds.). Encouraging Reflective Practice in Education (pp. 39-56).
New York: Teacher College Press.

58
Valli, L. R. (1993). Reflective teacher education programs: An analysis of case studies. In

J. Calderhead and P. Gates (Eds.). Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher
Development (pp. 11-22). London: Falmer.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.
Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.
Van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and
Teaching, 1(1), 33-50
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2007). Overlooked gems: A national perspective
on promising students of poverty. Washington DC: National Association for
Gifted Children.
Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. R., & DeVries, A. R. (2007). A parents guide to
gifted children. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Wentzel, K.R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived
pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (3), 411-419.
Wong, F. K. Y., Kember, D., Chung, L. Y. F., & Yan, L. (1995). Assessing the level of
student reflection from reflective journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 4857.
Yang, S. H. (2009) Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice.
Educational Technology & Society, 12(2): 1121.
Yeung. 1999. Determining the level of reflective thinking from students written journals
using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of
Lifelong Education 18(1), 1830.
Ziechner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 23-48.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. (1990). Traditions of reform and reflective teaching in US
teacher education. Michigan: National Centre for Research in Teacher Education,
Michigan State University.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Table 1
The Evolution of Critical Reflection
Author
Discussion of Critical Reflection
Dewey, 1933 Defined critical reflection as the Active, persistent and careful
consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the
light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to
which it includes a conscious and voluntary effort to establish
belief upon a firm basis of evidence and rationality (p. 16).
Van Manen,
Proposed three levels of reflection, Technical Rationality, Practical
1977
Action, and Critical Reflection. Critical reflection requires an open
mind to question and transform misunderstandings, investigating
the worth of knowledge in relationship to specific contexts, free
from the distortions of personal bias.
Schon, 1983
Proposed reflection both in and on action. Reflection-in-action is

quite demanding and often requires the learner to apply critical
reflection along with other distinctive types of reflection (technical,
descriptive, etc.) as a situation is unfolding.
Mezirow,
1990
Suggested that critical reflection is a key component to

transformative learning. While reflection enables us to
correct distortions in our beliefs and errors in problem
solving, critical reflection involves a critique of the
presuppositions on which our beliefs have been
built(p. 1). Thus, critical reflection involves
challenging the established definition of the
problem; students are free to break down and
transform misunderstandings (p. 12).
Grimmett et
al., 1990
Suggested that the highest level of reflection is dialectical, which is

comparable to critical reflection. Dialectical reflection considers
theory and context simultaneously. Practitioners contemplate both
ethical and political concerns.
Referred to critical reflection as social reconstructionist reflection.
This reflection focuses on political and social issues of schooling
and on classroom interactions designed to promote greater student
equity and justice (p. 121).
Gore and
Zeichner,
1991
SparksLanger and
Colton, 1991
Defined three distinctive ways of looking at teaching/teacher

education: cognitive, narrative, and critical. The critical approach
requires ethical and moral reasoning, taking account to both social
and political contexts.
Valli, 1992
Referred to five types of reflection: technical, reflection-in-action,

reflection-on-action, deliberative, personalistic, and critical
reflection. Similar to the work of Gore & Zeichner (1991), critical
reflection focuses on social, moral, political and ethical issues, and
involves the development of open-mindedness, rational judgment
and creativity.
Loosely used the term critical reflection to refer to constructive
self-criticism of ones actions with a view to improvement.
Calderhead
and Gates,
1993
McLyntre,
1993
Proposed three levels of reflection: technical, practical, and

emancipatory, which is synonymous to critical reflection, which is
rooted in ethical, social, and political issues.
59

Reynolds,
1998
Suggestedfourcharacteristicswhichdistinguishcriticalreflection
fromotherversionsofreflection:(1)itsfocusonquestioning
assumptions;(2)itssocialratherthanindividualfocus;(3)the
particularattentionitpaystotheanalysisofpowerrelations;and
(4)itspursuitoffreeingoneselfformisunderstandings
Jay and
Johnson,
2002
Proposed three dimensions of reflection: descriptive, comparative,

and critical. Critical reflection is the end result of thinking about
issues, whereby one makes a judgment or a choice among actions,
or simply integrates what one has discovered into a new and better
understanding of the problem (p. 79).
Ryan, 2005
Proposed that critical reflection is characterized by increased

skepticism towards established truths. Critical reflection requires
skills that allow one to discern the basis of truth claims, the
assumptions underlying assertions, and the interests that motivate
people to promote certain positions (p.11)
Fook et al.,
2006
Kimber, et.
al, 2008
Ostorga,
2006
Boody, 2008
Case, 2012
Assertedthatcriticalreflectioncanenablesocialchange,beginning
attheleveloftheindividual.Onceindividualsbecomeawareof
thehiddenpowerofideastheyhaveabsorbedunwittinglyfrom
theirsocialcontexts,theyarethenfreedtomakechoicesontheir
ownterms.(p.9)Thus,akeycomponentofcriticalreflectionis
theconnectionoftheindividualwithsociety.
Suggested a four-category scheme for assessing reflection in
written work: habitual action, understanding, reflection, and critical
reflection. Critical reflection implies the transformation of a
perspective. The process takes time, as learners must recognize and
transform the set of beliefs and values that have been almost
unconsciously assimilated from our experiences and environment
(p. 374).
Asserted that critical reflection in teachers is characterized by moral
and ethical reflections about the educational practice, and is a
means through which teachers develop a more sophisticated
understanding of the beliefs and values that underlie their teaching
decisions.
Suggested that critical reflection precludes learners from relying on
quick fixes. Rather than simply doing things the way they have
always been done, the critical reflection process requires learners to
analyze and reconsider their beliefs questioning experiences within
a broad context of issues.
Elaborated on the power of critical reflection to transform
assumptions, proposing six types of assumptions that learners
combat throughout the reflective process: assumptions we hold
regarding the self (narrative), the cultural systems in which we live
and learn (systemic), our workplaces (organizational), our ethical
decision making (moral-ethical), or feelings and dispositions
(therapeutic).
60
Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS: ENCOURAGING CRITICAL

REFLECTION IN PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS
Table 2
Instruments to measure reflection (adapted from Validity and reliability of two measurements of reflection: A confirmatory study, by K. Kalk, P. Luik, M.
Taimalu, and K. That, 2014, Trames, 18, p. 124.)
Instrument
Description
Reliability
Pros for use in Teacher Education
Cons for use in Teacher Education
(Cronbahs
alpha)
Reflection
16 items on a 50.62-0.76
-Corresponding protocol for sorting -Does not address reflection in action
Questionnair
point scale
written reflections into categories
-Pilot study conducted in disciplinary
e
(Definitely disagree
related to scales of questionnaire,
context of accounting; scales may not
Kember et
to definitely
with transitional categories that
operate as expected when used in
al., 2000
agree); four scales:
address ongoing nature of
different field
habitual action,
reflection
understanding,
-Developed based on several years
reflection, critical
of research
reflection
Reflection in
14 items of a 70.84 (at
-Require students to assess their
- Both of these measures were
Learning
point response
start of
ability to reflect; could be given
developed for use in the Medical
Scale (RLS)
scale (1=never,
term) and
repeatedly to help students track
Field; measure may not translate
Sobral, 2000
7=always). In
0.86 (at end
their development of self-efficacy
effectively to the education field
------------------- addition to the 14
of term)
for reflective thinking.
-Questionnaires assess individual
items, the
----------------perception of reflective ability, rather
Groningen
instrument
0.83 (1st
than accessing the qualities of the
Reflection
includes a 4-point
measureme
reflections themselves
Ability Scale
global scale with a
nt) 0.74 (2nd
(GRAS)
view to assessing
measureme
Aukes et al.,
personal efficacy
nt)
2007
for reflection on
learning (ranging
from restricted to
maximal).
--------------------------One-dimensional
scale with three
relevant aspects of

that dimension:
Self-reflection,
empathetic
reflection and
reflective
communication.
Contains 23 items
on a 5-point Likert
scale.
SelfReflection
and Insight
Scale (SRIS)
Grant,
Franklin and
Langford,
2002
English
Language
Teaching
Inventory
(ELTRI)
Akbari et al.,
2007
20 statements on a
6-point scale
(ranging from
strongly disagree
to strongly agree).
Contains 2 scales:
self-reflection and
insight
0.77 (SelfReflection
Scale)
0.78(Insight
Scale)
-The Insight scale is meant to

address the individuals knowledge
of his or her understanding or
performance, which could serve as
an indicator of the awareness of
assumptions/need for growth that
is essential for critical reflection.
-Focus on self-reflection minimizes the

transformative component of critical
reflection. The measurement focuses
on introspection, but does little to
emphasize reflection on interacting
with others.
-Developed for use in a more clinical,
rather than educational setting
29 items on a 5point Likert scale

(1=Never to 5=
Always). Contains
5 scales: practical,
cognitive,
affective, metacognitive, and
critical
0.84
-Addresses both cognitive and

affective components of reflection
-Addresses self-reflection, as well
as reflection related to larger
issues outside of the self
-The original measure also had a
moral scale, which addressed
moral and ethical issues and is
quite related to the transformative
nature of critical reflection. While
this scale was eliminated after
CFA, it would be interesting to
revisit this scale in order to
investigate moral reflectivity.
-The scale was developed to access

reflective thinking of English
Language Teachers in Turkey. Since
research has shown that reflective
practice is highly influenced by
western beliefs, it would be ideal to
investigate the validity and reliability
of the measure in more diverse
participants.

Teacher
Reflection
Scale
Kayapinar &
Erkus, 2009
(Reliability
study by
Armutcu &
Yaman, 2010)
22 items
0.84
-Reflectivity scores do not differ

with gender or content area (see
sources)
-Criterion-validity established by
comparing scores to responsibility
scores and loci of control scores
-Measures reflection as a onefactor structure that is translatable
to different settings

Catalana Comps1 Initialsubmission 10 2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Catalana Comps1 Initialsubmission 10 2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

ENCOURAGING CRITICAL REFLECTION IN PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS

When Reflections Dont Match Expectations: Encouraging

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

While reflection is an essential component of many fields, this review serves to

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Valli (1990) suggested five types of reflection: technical, reflection in and on

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Process Models of Reflection

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

According to Dewey (1933), reflection is a meaning-making process that mirrors

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

It is based on real-world experience

Critical Reflection: The Pathway for Change

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

transformative learning. Empirical evidence has demonstrated that teacher dispositions

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

reflective spreadsheet, as shown by a significant increase in MAI (Metacognitive

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Wong et al. (1995) composed a scheme to categorize reflectivity in student

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

stereotypes or creating a new understanding of the purpose of teaching. Methods that

Instruments that Measure Components of Reflective Thinking

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

In order to investigate the reliability of the protocol, reviewers independently read

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

through interaction with colleagues), it was reduced to a one-factor structure after

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

universally true, adapting to different environments and experiences and transforming

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression if their needs are

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS:

Challenge stereotypical assumptions concerning giftedness

Running head: WHEN REFLECTIONS DONT MATCH EXPECTATIONS: