Although this classification of types of reflection is helpful in understanding the timing of reflective activity, ‘it does not shed much light on the conceptualization of reflection for the researcher interested in pursuing the phenomenon’ (Scanlan, et al, 2002, p.137). In particular, the literature on preservice teacher education to develop more reflective teachers seems to lack any theoretical explanation of how persons learn from experience (Copeland and Birmingham, 1993; Oser, 1994; Chitpin, 2006; Romano, 2006). One current challenge for educational research, then, is to identify relevant theory and interventions that can be used to guide the development of reflection (Reiman, 1999).
3.3.4.2: Vygotsky on ‘Reflection’
While Dewey shows why reflection is important for teachers, Vygotsky provides a theoretical framework to aid this reflection (Kaywork, 2011). Claiming that people develop within their social world, Vygotsky stresses the importance of social interaction as a means of fostering higher cognitive levels. The goal of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory is to gain a better understanding of mental processes so that educational programmes can maximise the potential of all learners (Manning and Payne, 1993). Lantolf (2000) claimed that Vygotsky finds a significant role for what he calls ‘tools’ in humans’ understanding of the world and of themselves. According to Vygotsky, these tools are created by humans ‘artefacts’ under specific cultural and historical conditions, and as such they carry with them the characteristics of the culture in question. He argues that cognitive development involves both social support for interaction and improvement of skills in the use of sociocultural tools. The skills needed to use cultural tools such as language must be developed through interaction with others (Rogoff, 1993).
In addition, Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), has important implications for concepts in teacher education such as peer coaching and mentoring. Vygotsky believed that improving ZPD relies on the quality of ‘the actual verbal interaction with a more experienced member of society’ (Manning and Payne, 1993, p. 364). In a TEP context, these may include supervisors, mentors, teacher educators or peers at a more advanced level (ibid.).
According to Nardi (1996), sociocultural theory is useful for understanding historically what was wrong rather than in predicting what may go wrong. In particular, it is useful for understanding why activity systems do not always achieve the desired outcome, or even the same results in different contexts. Cole (1996) illuminates this issue, claiming that sociocultural theory ‘rejects cause and effect, stimulus response, explanatory science in favour of a science that emphasises the emergent nature of mind in activity and that acknowledges a central role for interpretation
53
in its explanatory framework’ (p. 104). Case studies that pursue a deeper understanding of the history and development of practice accord with the overall aims this theory.
In seeking to enhance PSTs’ reflection through oral and written interaction as a tool to improve teaching, Vygotsky’s framework seems useful as a basis for analysing participants’
reactions while paying due attention to the cultural scope of the phenomena (Jonassen, 2000; Nardi, 1996). Noting the popularity of RP in Western education research, Williams and Burden (1997) observed that sociocultural theory emphasises that education is informed by cultural values and beliefs constructed by explicit and implicit messages and practices. Consequently, the interaction between teachers and students in the classroom (and in the study case between supervisor and trainees) should embody those beliefs.
There seems little point, then, in attempting to improve on current approaches without taking account of the social structures that influence the use of particular tools, leading in turn to particular styles, methods and pedagogies. In the context of teacher education, the sociocultural perspective can support analysis of the outcomes of different professional development approaches (Edwards, 2010). For present purposes, this perspective serves to highlight the current potential of RP in the contribution of supervision and other contextual elements of teaching practice to professional development of trainees.
3.3.4.3. Communities of Practice (CoP)
In recent years, the concept of CoP has increasingly provided a foundation for the continuous professional development (CPD) of in- and pre-service teachers. This concept of learning was first introduced by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in the late 1980s and early 1990s(Lave and Wenger, 1991). Their view of education differed from the prevailing idea of learning as an individual process. They also reframed the assumption that learning ‘has a beginning and an end; that it is best separated from the rest of our activities; and that it is the result of teaching’
(Wenger 1998, p. 3). Instead, in their book Situated Learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991), they proposed that learning involves a process of engagement in a ‘community of practice’. Wenger later expanded significantly on the concept in his book Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998).
CoP are formed by people who wish to engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavour. CoP share a concern or a desire for something they do and seek to learn how to do it better through frequent interaction (Wenger, 2007). In our case, STs, teachers and supervisors are engaged in such a learning process, working on similar problems in pursuit of effective teaching approaches.
54
The characteristics of CoP vary. While some are quite formally organised, others are fluid and informal. CoP must exist in real life, where ‘members are brought together by joining in common activities and by what they have learned through their mutual engagement in these activities’ (Wenger, 1998, cited in Smith, 2009). According to Wenger (2010), three key features distinguish CoP from other groups and communities: domain, community and practice. That is, each member of the group should have an identity defined by a shared domain of interest and must engage in joint activities, discussions and information sharing.
Moreover, CoP members are practitioners who share stories of addressing and resolving their problems through sustained interaction with others (Wenger, 2010).
3.3.4.4. Lesson Study
More recently, a form of collaborative teaching practice has emerged as a school-based professional development initiative. Called Lesson Study (LS), it aims to improve teaching and learning through the methodology of professional sharing of practice (Burghes and Robinson, 2009). According to Dudley (2013), LS involves a group of teachers seeking to enhance their approach to teaching a particular item or concept, or to improve how learners learn it, by collaboratively analysing how this can be done. Having put their analysis into practice in the classroom, they document what happened and what they found and then pass this on to other interested teachers. This can be done either through demonstration of the new practice or by publishing their findings.
LS apparently draws on aspects of reflective practice and communities of practice. For instance, the framework supports reflection on pedagogy and encourages PSTs to shift from ‘teaching as telling’ to ‘teaching for understanding’ (McDowell, 2010). Additionally, teachers are encouraged to generate new knowledge in their interactions within the LS group. These interactions are crucial for the development of insights that may inform future practice (McDowell, 2010).
One of the main advantages of the LS approach is that it expands PSTs’ pedagogical content knowledge (Sibbald, 2009) through ‘reflective immediacy’ (Shulman, 2003) while sitting in a classroom, immersed in a teacher’s practice (Wagner, 2003). It can be argued that this systematic approach to learning can only show teachers how to teach a particular topic to a particular class in a particular school, and that the professional knowledge of teaching so generated is therefore no more than a case study (Elliot, 2009). According to Stenhouse’s idea of ‘the teacher as a researcher,’ this is not only an epistemological problem but also a psychological and social issue because teachers need to able to handle both self-criticism and criticism from others (Elliot, 2009). It follows that ‘in order for teachers to capture and
55
express their emerging insights to each other, they needed to develop a common vocabulary of concepts and a syntax of theory. Such a theoretical framework of concepts should be testable by teachers and open to the development of new concepts and theory’
(Stenhouse 1975, cited in Elliot, 2009, p. 1)
In turn, this process can create a rich knowledge base that can inform and support innovative educational practice. Both CoP and LS approaches can be strengthened by the participation of researchers and teacher educators, teachers, supervisors and trainees,
‘thereby stimulating the interchange of theory and practice and hence increasing the potential for learning and development’ (Alenizi, 2012, p. 68). These arrangements differ substantially from the dominant theory-practice relationship in KSA, where PSTs and even ISTs are commonly provided with ready-made answers by so-called ‘experts’, based on theoretical or technical solutions to complex classroom issues (Alenizi, 2012, p. 68).
Chapter summary.
This chapter has examined three aspects of the relevant literature: teacher education, supervision of PSTs and theoretical perspectives on reflection. The first section explored the concept of critical reflection as a model of teaching that aligns with contemporary views of the teaching process as always requiring new initiatives (Shulman, 1987). There is growing evidence of the value of such reflection, especially in its compatibility with modern constructivism, which has significantly influenced trends in teacher education. Current teacher education in KSA appears not to follow this trend (see Chapter Two).
This section also highlighted the long-running debate about how good teachers are made—
through theory-based education in universities or practice-based education in schools.
Granted international differences in this regard, there is a general desire to close the gap between theory and practice in teacher education, but this seems more difficult to achieve because of the current separation between universities and schools. In recent times, there have been increasing calls for the participation of teachers in the core process of producing teaching knowledge.
The second section discussed the importance of the supervision process for trainees’
teaching. Among the main challenges for supervisors, a conflict was identified between the two main functions of supervision (evaluation and development), yielding varied classifications of supervision models and supervisors’ roles.
56
The idea of reflection in teacher education was considered under two main headings. First, a general literature review examined the concept’s definition, its importance to teachers, and models, levels and components of reflection. There followed a theoretical conceptualisation of reflection on which the present study is based, encompassing Schon’s distinction between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and the concept of communities of practice. All of these influenced the selection of methods of data collection and analysis and interpretation of findings as presented in Chapter Four.
57