Reflection exercise

Within any model of action research the reflective phase is very important because it is the primary catalyst to change. Whilst the Deakin model, as presented, might suggest that the four phases of the model occurs in sequence what happens in practice is often different. Reflection in various guises occurs throughout the entire cycle. Interventions can alter as a result of reflection-in- action, during the action phase, as well as a result of reflection-on-action at the conclusion of the cycle (Scanlan, Care & Udod, 2002). This ability to alter an intervention is a feature of the action research design.

Reflection on practice is said to contribute to a number of important pedagogical and personal factors for the classroom teacher, including increased job satisfaction and the ongoing quest of linking theory and practice (Page & Meerabeau, 2000). Teachers use tacit knowledge in their practice that they have developed from a variety of sources including experience, assumption and philosophy. Reflection is believed to assist with raising this tacit knowledge to the conscious so that the teacher is able to examine it and if found in need of change, the teacher will attempt to change it (Scanlan et al., 2002). Improving and maintaining the level of collaboration is viewed as a positive outcome of reflection where more than one person is involved in the reflection (Salisbury & McGregor, 2002).

A model which was used to guide the researcher in reflective thinking was a three tier model developed in New Zealand (Teekman, 2000). This model which was constructed from his research in nursing, contains three levels the base of which is

reflective thinking-for-action which is focussed on “the nature of the situation, and choose from a range of options ... considered to be the most appropriate intervention” (p.1131). In the classroom this would have the effect of facilitating the smooth running of a teacher’s programme allowing for problem solving and consideration of options. Issues of a technical nature including accountability and effectiveness would be considered by the teacher at this level of reflective thinking. Reflective thinking-for-evaluation, the second stage in the hierarchy, has as its main focus “analysing and clarifying individual experiences, meanings, and assumptions in order to evaluate both actions and beliefs”. (p.1131). Reflecting at this level allows the teacher both to understand their own practice and also their practice in relation to the totality of their classroom and school. In the practical situation of the classroom, the teacher would consider their own teaching, the students’ reaction to it and its success in terms of both the students’ achievements and the teacher’s own objectives.

At the apex of the hierarchy is reflecting for-critical-enquiry which is considered by Teekman to be emancipatory because it allows the reflector to examine the circumstances of their thinking and become reflexive. Here the tacit knowledge that guides personal and professional actions is considered. Whilst this level of reflection is desirable it is also difficult to obtain because it requires the teacher to stand aside from their teaching and consider the deeper and wider picture. It also requires them to consider attitudes, beliefs and opinions that may have been developed and shaped over a long period. Because inclusive pedagogy is about ensuring that all children are encouraged to contribute and participate, how the teacher structures the classroom environment to achieve this, will depend on what tacit knowledge is guiding their pedagogy. Being able to examine these deeper behaviours through reflection, therefore, becomes important.

Some cautions are also voiced around the practice of reflection. One such concern is that the teacher may have to alter some cherished practice or belief. Power imbalances can also inhibit the change that a teacher wishes to make following reflection and this may lead to frustration and a diminution of the practice of reflection (Page & Meerabeau, 2000). For example, the teacher might

wish to change a practice that is a long standing practice of a school dictated by the principal or a deputy.

Using a framework to guide reflective practice is suggested by some writers (Bulman & Schutz, 2004; Scanlan et al., 2002). As a template for the framework, Bulman & Schutz (2004) suggest that Gibbs (1988) reflective cycle is appropriate (see Appendix T). In the reflective cycle are six stages including: a description of what happened, the reflector’s feelings and thoughts, an evaluation of the experience, an analysis of the experience, a conclusion (what else could have been done that was not), and an action plan (what could be done another time).

Although Bulman & Schutz (2004) stress that the framework is a guide and not a prescription, I decided that a reflection exercise prior to beginning their action research projects might be a worthwhile exercise for the teachers. The exercise was prescriptive in that it asked questions based on the reflective cycle above and because the teachers did not have the time or ability to undergo a more extensive training in reflection. Consequently, I devised a template (Appendix J) and asked that the teachers choose a classroom activity and reflect on it using the template. It was anticipated that completing this exercise in reflection would assist the teachers when it came to reflecting on their action research projects. Each teacher completed several reflections over a two month period. As a critical friend I fed back my thoughts as each reflection was emailed to me. I did this with each teacher as I visited their classrooms. As a researcher, I analysed the reflective journals for further evidence of the themes I was constructing or for emergent themes. The reflection exercise was Cycle 2 of the major research.