The instrument was created by using criteria I had isolated from the literature on
reflection with specific reference to the theories of Dewey and Schön. Each criterion I
isolated for this purpose became a specific code or analytic lens to see how reflection
was used. An example of this would be to actively connect thought and action in an
exploratory and purposeful way. The greater influence for this framework was from my
study of Dewey who was quite specific in his description of reflective thinking,
including identifying 5 phases of reflection. Six codes were fashioned from my analysis
of the literature. Each of these codes is shown in Table 12 with some corresponding or
161
relevance of new learning for the future’, comes from my understanding of the literature
that reflection is future-oriented.
Table 12 Codes used to create an instrument to identify reflection in a written report
Codes from the Literature
Quotes on reflection (all emphasis in the quotes below are mine)
Reflecting on a puzzle ‘An intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity that has been felt (directly experienced) into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought’ (Dewey 1933: 107)
The practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation. (Schön 1983: 68)
Connect thought with action
‘dialogue of thinking and doing through which (...) [professionals] become more skilled’ (Schön 1987: 31)
Show some reframing of ideas
‘There is no intellectual growth without some reconstruction, some reworking’ (Dewey 1938: 64).
‘We think critically about the thinking that got us into this fix or this opportunity; and we may, in the process, restructure strategies of action, understandings of phenomena, or ways of framing problems’ (Schön 1987: 28-29)
Reveal new learning ‘That he have opportunity and occasion to test his ideas by application, to make their meaning clear and to discover for himself their validity’ (Dewey 1916: 192). ‘Competent professional practitioners often have the capacity to generate new knowing-in-action through reflection-in-action undertaken in the indeterminate zones of practice’ (Schön 1987: 40).
Show evidence of the method used in the exploration
‘While we may speak, without error, of the method of thought, the important thing is that thinking is the method of an educational experience. The essentials of method are therefore identical with essentials of reflection’ (Dewey 1916: 192)
‘The use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis, to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material’ (Dewey 1933: 107)
Show relevance of new learning for the future.
‘Suggestions, in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution’ (Dewey 1933: 107)
162
The MA class criticised the instrument as being unreliable: they wondered what they
could use as a basis for determining when to use a particular scale, since the scales could
not be accurately and consistently used to get the same result when used on the same
report by different persons. Following this feedback, I modified the instrument.
Originally it integrated the following codes: reference, style, mode and tone. This was to
analyse the way the reports were written (Table 13).
Feature Scale Method 0 1 2 3 Reference 0 1 - 3 Style 0 1 2 3 Mode 0 1 2 3 Tone 0 1 2 3 Perplexity/doubt/pro blem 0 1 2 3 Evidence of engaging in reflective thought 0 1 2 3 New learning 0 1 2 3 Looking forward 0 1 2 3 Total 0 9 16 27
*0 = none 1 = weak/vague 2= explicit/medium 3= more explicit/strong
Table 13 Codes and quantification scales used in the original instrument
Table 13 shows the codes and rating scale used for each feature (code). This was
163
explicit/strong (3) following the descriptors (codes) which were derived from my
analysis of the literature on reflection. Method was used to represent the use of and more
rigorous thought and action processes for classroom explorations. Reference showed if
participants used first person, second person or third person (0= 3rd person; 3= 1st and
second person or 1st person only). The number 2 was deliberately taken out of the scale.
Schön (1992) identifies the importance of not being a spectator in one’s own reflective
inquiry when he says: ‘the inquirer does not stand outside the situation like a spectator.
He is in it and in transaction with it’. (1992: 122) I therefore considered the use of the
first person (I) in reporting the classroom exploration as important for describing the
transaction. In a key word analysis of Professional Practice text data from MA TESOL
students, Wharton (2012: 495) identifies ‘I’ as a frequently occurring word. According
to Wharton:
In the concordances for I, three salient groupings were found. The first was
around the mental process of learning, with the items learn / find / discover / realise (that) … occurring 21 times in total. The second grouping was again around a mental process, that of belief. The items believe / think / feel / know (that) … appeared a total of 15 times. A third frequent pattern was the item BE plus an attribute: (I am creative, I was supportive). This pattern occurred with 17 instances of I (2012: 495).
In the context of her study, Wharton suggests that ‘I’ could be more frequently
associated with learning than with beliefs or attributes. Thus in the context of reflection,
a teacher’s discourse identity (dynamic roles taken in discourse, e.g. responder or
questioner) may be more central than situated (culturally recognised roles: e.g. teacher)
or transportable (real or claimed attributes, e.g. ethnicity) identities which Zimmerman
164
as well as looking for evidence that the reflective thinking process would inform future
practice. Where a report raised new questions but was not explicit about how new
knowledge or awareness would be connected to future practice, a score of 2 was given
to show possibility of further cycles of reflection which were not explicitly stated. After
each report was rated a total score was given and compared with the highest possible
score in the rating scale (27). I used high inference to create this instrument which I was
later to understand was flawed (5.1.2.2).