Consideraciones de la Norma General Anti Elusión en Chile

Dewey contributed significantly to concepts related to reflection in the beginning of the 20th century when he first introduced his book How We Think. For Dewey, people’s beliefs always have a certain level of supposition. To say ‘I think so’ implies ‘I do not as yet know so’ (Dewey, 1933, p. 10). He argued that the process

of thinking is determined greatly by one’s experiences. Therefore, one’s current ideas are a consequence of one’s past experiences, and these ideas form a basis for future reactions. According to Dewey, the way people think is highly predictable as their experiences lead to the construction of ideas that are aimed at resolving current issues. This process forms a chain such that one idea leads to the generation of a new one, which becomes the basis for the next idea. In the long run, the final decision will be made when the series of ideas generated is analysed altogether (Jones, 2010; Hietanen & Järvi, 2015). Dewey (1933) called for teachers to take reflective action that is opposed to routine and would entail:

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 conclusion to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought. (p. 6)

Dewey’s insights are essential in guiding reflection for teachers because they note the distinction between routine and reflection (Farrell 2008). When teachers are driven by a certain routine, they operate in a way that the institution expects them to perform, without analysing critically the processes. They end up merely fulfilling institutional requirements without performing an analysis of their role in the teaching process (McDiarmid & Clevenger-Bright, 2008, p. 146) In contrast, reflection’s active, persistent, and careful evaluation of any belief guide practice and establish whether the goals are met. Therefore, such a reflective action provides an all-inclusive way of managing problems, with the active involvement of reason and emotion (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Ottesen, 2007). Dewey (1933) believed that reason and emotion are involved in reflection and elaborated on certain qualities that are related to how one thinks. He identified three qualities for RP, that is, open- mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheartedness (as cited in Rodgers, 2002, pp. 861–862) (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: Dewey’s main attitudes to the RP (as cited in Farrell, 2014, p. 2)

Open-mindedness Whole-heartedness

Open-mindedness prepares an individual to accommodate ideas from both sides of an issue and serves as the driving force for seeking appropriate options (Hare & McLaughlin, 1994). It is also a virtue that enables an individual to accept other people and their strengths and limitations. During the reflection process, there is space for questioning, challenging, and doubting views, and hence, the suggested interventions are supported by highest levels of evidence (Reushle, 2008).

Responsibility enables people to bear all consequences of their actions and adopt change where necessary (Robinson & Dowson, 2011). The ability to accept a wrongdoing is an appropriate beginning of solution-finding and adherence to proposed suggestions for better productivity. Teachers can assess their actions and consider their sources as being personal, academic, social, or political. Such

evaluations have widened the scope of reflection for INSET to focus on not only the classroom environment but also other factors that affect the education system. Wholeheartedness is the final drive that ensures that teachers implement the intended change after a critical analysis of the situation. It prepares the teachers to overcome fear and other ‘stumbling blocks’ towards ensuring that the evaluation of their actions relates to the change (Farrell, 2012, p. 15). Dewey (1933) viewed reflection as a mode of thought and identified five phases of thinking (i.e. suggestion, intellectualisation, guiding idea, reasoning, and hypothesis testing) when an individual corroborates or negates information (as cited in Farrell, 2012). Although they support Dewey’s point of view, Clark (2000) and Grossman and McDonald (2008) proposed that routine is also necessary in guiding our actions. Without routine, everyone will behave as they wish, and certain behaviours will be unmanageable. Routine also forms a basis upon which people are expected to act and react, and without it, the two actions will be inconsistent. Cohen (2007) reported a growing interest in recurring action patterns, such as routines and practices, in recent years. As Dewey derived the way humans think from daily activities, routine is an efficient platform for teachers to initiate their critical analysis skills. Therefore, routine forms the basis of thinking and leads to acceptance or rejection of the standards.

For the reflection process to be effective enough, Dewey believed that it must be systematic. ‘Systematic reflection’ assists in solving problems one after another

(Carol, 2002, p. 845). Social interaction is another means of developing an effective RP, as noted by Parsons and Stephenson (2005). It is also emphasised in chapter 8 as one of the principles of the proposed INSET framework. When student teachers interact with each other, they create an environment conducive to identifying their own common issues and reflecting on potential solutions. Peer visits and critical friends are good examples of how social interaction in the professional context can promote reflection. Reflecting on practice must be critical to be effective. Collin et al. (2013) argued that simply being instructed how to teach is contradictory to internalising and making sense of teaching. A critical reflection on practices is essential for student teachers who need support to translate a teaching practice into an effective one. Standards that do not deliver the expected outcomes must not be followed during practice.

In recent years, RP has become a common component of many INSET

programmes. Chapter 5 illustrates how RP was incorporated in the design of this study while section 6.2 presents the findings of RP instruments. However, it is important not to impose reflection on teachers. Hobbs (2007) noted that despite the recent trend among training providers to include a required RP assignment, ‘the very notion of forced and evaluated self‐exploration [raised] certain moral and practical issues that cannot be avoided’ (p. 405). Hobbs (2007) referred to research- documented hostile reactions to forced reflection. The same concept of teachers’ buy-in is emphasised by Vaughan (as cited in Collin et al., 2013), who described RP as ‘a state of mind that must be internalised by those who practise it’ (p. 21). Greene affirmed that reflection must not be based on procedures to which teachers must adhere (as cited in Zeichner & Liston, 2013, p. 10; St. Hill & Yazici 2014, p. 447). Reflection must be driven by the passion to make a change and ensure that the motive has been achieved. According to Greene (1986), emotion and passion are attributes that can transform significantly the education system through reflection.