DÉCIMA PRIMERA.- TERMINACIÓN ANTICIPADA

each of Charly’s narratives, “surface reflection” is most visible early in the school year and as she “tries” new ideas, finding herself consumed with logistical questions regarding “what to do, when to do it, and how to do it” (Handal & Lauvas, 1987, p. 31). In her narrative of engagement, Charly calls herself initially “reactive” to Joshua, focusing on what to do to “make him stop,” rather than striving to understand practical or theoretical considerations for his behavior. Moreover, as characteristic to novices, responses to him are based on unfounded assumptions rather than reflection; for instance, involving the assistant principal under the belief Joshua “probably needs a male role model” (Chan & Elliot, 2004; Deal & White, 2009; Schön, 1983; 1987). However, a shift becomes visible in the story when Charly describes an “out of body experience” amid Joshua’s outburst, leading her to reflect on the situation to gain a “different perspective.” She begins to question the group’s reactions, asking herself, “how engaged could they possibly be if they’re thinking that whatever type of nonsense he is doing is funny?” and “What is it that I could be doing differently that could make my kids want to learn and be doing what they need to be doing in the classroom?” This purposeful thinking taps into a deeper level of reflection according to Handal and Lauvas (1987), and is indicative of Schön’s (1987)

perspective that reflection must be a “conscious” mindset, whereby practitioners ask themselves “What is this?” and “How have I been thinking about it?” thus, questioning themselves to better understand the problem (pp. 28-29).

Likewise, surface reflection is seen when Charly initially journals about the problem, “makings different lists” of strategies to try. The reflection deepens as she uses the journal to

142

write about her “tough days” and rereads past entries to question her “frustrated” reactions, as well as ways she “could have done” things differently. It appears her lists of ideas evolve into strategies with purpose. For instance, when considering the book study on Number the Stars, Charly contemplates a practical reason for the decision stating, “this book opens the door to go across the curriculum and talk about geography, and history. I have so many places I can go with this.” Similarly, when deciding to use food to motivate students to work, she comes to the realization that due to their daily “impoverished situation,” students “would want to do” anything for it. Interestingly though, while this instructional decision leads her to reflect on such practical considerations, Charly is never led to deeper levels of reflection by questioning the ethical considerations underlying it (Handal & Lauvas, 1987). She does, however, intentionally reflect on the ethical use of the book Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, worrying that using the text would introduce racial discrimination and vocabulary students might feel is “ok… to use.”

When navigating her problem of practice with Ms. Recluse, reflection across Handal and Lauvas’ (1987) levels is apparent, though unlike the first narrative, Charly’s reflection is not written in a journal. While she doesn’t clarify why, she shares that journaling would have brought her “more discomfort than anything.” Recalling her reflective moments, she discusses the initial thought that the “work partner” relationship would ensure collaboration and

“professional growth.” She imagined, “I might do something that works really well that she might want to try, or she might do something that works really well that I might want to try.” Learning Ms. Recluse did not “have the same viewpoints,” Charly reflects on practical considerations for why the collaborative relationship was necessary, including their

“departmentalized” arrangement required “sharing the same kids.” Moreover, she offers a moral rationale for her non-confrontational approach, stating, “I just didn’t want any sort of negativity

143

coming into that classroom because the kids feel that.” When responding to the situation, Handal and Lauvas’ (1987) deeper level of ethical reflection surfaces, as she decides to support the students through their “disadvantage,” and keeps her actions quiet, believing it “isn’t right” for the principal to learn from her that Ms. Recluse was “refusing to do her job.” (Table 5.6 summarizes Charly’s levels of reflection throughout narratives, as discussed in this section.)

Table 5.6

Summary of Charly’s levels of reflection throughout narratives

Inquiry Disposition Charly

Reflection Reflection is evident across narratives (Schön, 1987)

Shifts from surface reflection to deeper reflection with theoretical, moral or ethical considerations present in narratives 1 with engagement and 2 with Ms. Recluse (Handal and Lauvas, 1987)

Only surface reflection is visible throughout narrative 3 with guided reading

In her guided reading narrative, Charly’s reflection is predominantly surface reflection, as the narrative is consistently guided by the logistical query of what guided reading should “look like.” Turning to professional colleagues, she asks, “How are you finding time to do this? How are you pulling your groups?” She never explores theoretical considerations for the practice except when saying, “research out there…says…guided reading is essential for the growth of good readers.” Uncharacteristically (to novices), Charly does not abandon reflection altogether despite the “time” constraints, lack of knowledge for the practice of guided reading, and

144

1995). The moral consideration that she is not going to “let the kids down” leads Charly to pull groups, reflecting on students’ individual needs to arrange them daily.