Fluent Essays

Week 1 - Assignment: Asking the Hard Questions InstructionsComplete the readings for this week under resources. After reading Larrivee’s article, complete the Survey of Reflective Practice tool to assess your development as a reflective practitioner. The survey will help develop a baseline from which to build. The survey contains four levels: pre-reflection, surface reflection, pedagogical reflection, and critical reflection. There are several indicators for each level with a space to assess yourself on each indicator: Frequently, Sometimes, and Infrequently. As you complete each level, you can tally up your assessment marks. Whichever column has the most tallies suggests your competency at that level of reflection. On the last page of the survey, there is a space to make a plan for which indicators you wish to work on. Choose three indicators to work on during this course. In the bottom box, discuss what action or actions you will do to work on these indicators. When you revisit this survey in Week 7, you will be able to determine how much you have progressed on these three indicators in particular as well as others. Once the survey is completed, begin your reflective online journal via your blog using the survey. Discuss the following in your blog post:Your personal assessment of the survey instrument.Discuss which level you had the most frequent tallies, the level with the most sometimes tallies, and the level with the most infrequently tallies.Discuss which three indicators you have chosen to focus on and why. Include which level or levels these indicators are located.Discuss the action you will take to achieve this goal.Length of blog: 1000+ wordsYour blog must be effectively designed and meet the following criteria:Locate a website that your professor can easily access. It is suggested that you use a free website such as http://www.wordpress.com/.Your blog should contain text that is legible (e.g., appropriate size of font, type of font, contrasts with background, contains sufficient white space).Be sure to include information within the blog that supports the assignment.In addition to creating your blog, you will also submit a copy of your blog, along with the link to your blog, as you would with other written assignments.Your blog should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your submission should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards where appropriate. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral Universitys Academic Integrity Policy. tysonb_ct_5011_week1.docx development_of_a_tool_to_assess_teachers_level_of_reflective_practice.pdf survey_of_reflective_practice_tool_form.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview After reading Larrivee’s article and taking the survey, I found the level of assessment on a common playing field that can allow for instructors to regulate through the process of how they think of reflection of their work. While taking it, you begin right away thinking of your daily practices and what competencies you are successful in, and then other ways you struggle in practicing deep reflection. I received the most infrequently tallies in pre-reflection. As I am ending my seventh year of teaching, I believe that I have finally taken hold into controlling the circumstances within the classroom. I found that this indicates the ability I possess in proper planning and classroom management. Level 1 focuses on how a teacher sets up the classroom for success, and the choices they make in regard to varying events and circumstances in the classroom. I received the most sometimes tallies in surface reflection. I found that I do not frequently see patterns in student behavior, and, in my opinion, I don’t always provide enough differentiated instruction to reach all students. This is a step up from living in pre-reflection, however, it represents some ways where I am not flexible regarding my teaching strategies. I received the most frequently tallies in pedagogical reflection. I find that I’m versed in effective teaching strategies and methods to drive rigor in the classroom. In addition, I find continuing learning is essential in teaching. Education is an everchanging endeavor, so it is important to continue to enlighten oneself. The passion for education determines how frequently a person would use the indicators in the level to reflect on their style. Critical reflection fell somewhat in the middle of surface and pedagogical reflections. Although I am able to see how my own actions reflect equity in the classroom, I don’t believe I’ve thought about it as it in depth as the indicators on this level provide. The three indicators that I will work on are as follows: Level 3: Pedagogical Reflection- Consider students’ perspectives in decision making Level 2: Surface Reflection- Provides some differentiated instruction to address students’ individual differences Level 4: Critical Reflection- Challenges assumptions and premises underlying beliefs. Reflective Practice ISSN: 1462-3943 (Print) 1470-1103 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20 Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice Barbara Larrivee To cite this article: Barbara Larrivee (2008) Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice, Reflective Practice, 9:3, 341-360, DOI: 10.1080/14623940802207451 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451 Published online: 01 Aug 2008. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 6370 View related articles Citing articles: 86 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crep20 Reflective Practice Vol. 9, No. 3, August 2008, 341–360 Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice Barbara Larrivee* Department of Language, Literacy, and Culture, California State University, San Bernardino, California, USA Reflective 10.1080/14623940802207451 CREP_A_320912.sgm 1462-3943 Original Taylor 9302008 blarrive@csusb.edu BarbaraLarrivee 00000August and & Article Francis Practice (print)/1470-1103 Francis 2008 (online) This article describes the development, validation process, and construction of an instrument to assess a teacher’s level of reflection. It discusses the need for a commonly shared language to categorize the various levels involved in becoming a critically reflective teacher. The research design for the creation of the Survey of reflective practice: A tool for assessing development as a reflective practitioner initially called for identifying individuals who had conducted research on the development of reflective practice and then soliciting their expert judgment in establishing specific descriptors to define levels of reflective practice utilizing an online interactive format. The aim of this assessment tool is to provide a way to gauge how a prospective or practicing teacher is progressing as a reflective practitioner to serve as a vehicle for facilitating the development of structures to mediate higher order reflection. Keywords: reflective practice; teacher reflection; critical reflection; professional development; assessment; survey instrument Introduction The need to prepare professionals who will be reflective practitioners has gained wide acceptance, increasingly being adopted as the standard to aspire to across numerous professions. Many view reflective practice as the hallmark of professional competence for teachers (see, for example, Cole & Knowles, 2000; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Jay, 2003; Larrivee, 2006a; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Reagan, Case, & Brubacher, 2000; Schön, 1983; Smyth, 1992; York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, & Montie, 2006; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). While professional standards for teachers in many countries advocate teachers being reflective practitioners, escalating pressure to be accountable for students reaching imposed standards of performance increases the likelihood of teachers using teaching strategies that prioritize efficiency and expediency, which may come at the expense of ongoing reflection on teaching practices. Such demands can leave teachers feeling powerless. However, the best antidote to take control of their teaching lives is for teachers to develop the habit of engaging in systematic reflection about their work. Defining reflective practice Throughout the literature the term reflection, and consequently reflective practice, is being used to describe practices ranging from analyzing a single aspect of a lesson to considering the ethical, social and political implications of teaching practice. Practice refers to one’s repertoire of knowledge, dispositions, skills, and behaviors. The term reflective practice *Email: blarrive@csusb.edu ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online © 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14623940802207451 http://www.informaworld.com 342 B. Larrivee refers to the on-the-job performance resulting from using a reflective process for daily decision-making and problem-solving. This expansive range of meanings makes it difficult to decipher research findings and has led to attempts to define differing types of reflection. References to numerous levels, stages, dimensions, or types of reflection are indicative that reflection is generally viewed as an incremental process. Currently there is no generally accepted terminology used to define the various levels in the development of reflective practice, suggesting a need for a common language. The earliest attempts to define levels or types of reflection were Van Manen (1977) and Schön (1983). Van Manen proposed a hierarchical representation of three levels, namely technical, practical, and critical reflection. Schön distinguished between reflection in action, or simultaneous with action, and reflection on action, looking back on and learning from experience or action. He posited that it may be too challenging to reflect in the moment given the multiple demands teachers juggle and that reflection often requires a perspective of a ‘meta-position,’ a looking back after the action has taken place. For instance, focusing attention on completing a lesson may distract from paying attention to the way a teacher interacts with students. Based on an extensive review of the literature, the various definitions evolving over several decades most commonly depict three distinct levels of reflection (see, for example, Day, 1993; Farrell, 2004; Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Van Manen, 1977). The three levels are: (1) an initial level focused on teaching functions, actions or skills, generally considering teaching episodes as isolated events; (2) a more advanced level considering the theory and rationale for current practice; (3) a higher order where teachers examine the ethical, social and political consequences of their teaching, grappling with the ultimate purposes of schooling. These three levels provided the conceptual framework for the development of the assessment tool described in this article. Also, because much of the literature contrasts reflective practitioners with non-reflective (pre-reflective) teachers, four levels of reflection were defined, adopting the terminology of pre-reflection, surface reflection, pedagogical reflection, and critical reflection (Larrivee, 2004). Pre-reflection At the pre-reflective or non-reflective level developing teachers react to students and classroom situations automatically, without conscious consideration of alternative responses. They operate with knee-jerk responses attributing ownership of problems to students or others, perceiving themselves as victims of circumstances. They take things for granted without questioning and do not adapt their teaching based on students’ responses and needs. Unfortunately, there are those pursuing teaching careers who fall into this category. It is especially important to find ways to facilitate their development of reflective practice. Surface reflection At the level of surface reflection teachers’ reflections focus on strategies and methods used to reach predetermined goals. Teachers are concerned with what works rather than with any consideration of the value of goals as ends in themselves. For this level, the term technical Reflective Practice 343 has been most used (see, for example, Day, 1993; Farrell, 2004; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997). It has also been referred to as descriptive (Jay & Johnson, 2002). The term surface was chosen to depict a broader scope than technical concerns while connoting that values, beliefs, and assumptions that lie ‘beneath the surface’ are not being considered at this level of reflection. Pedagogical reflection At this level practitioners apply the field’s knowledge base and current beliefs about what represents quality practices. This level has probably the least consensus in the literature as to its composition and label. It has been variously labeled practical (Van Manen, 1977), theoretical (Day, 1993), deliberative (Valli, 1997), comparative (Jay & Johnson, 2002), and conceptual (Farrell, 2004). The term pedagogical was selected as a more inclusive term, merging all of the other concepts to connote a higher level of reflection based on application of teaching knowledge, theory, and/or research. At the level of pedagogical reflection teachers reflect on educational goals, the theories underlying approaches, and the connections between theoretical principles and practice. Teachers engaging in pedagogical reflection strive to understand the theoretical basis for classroom practice and to foster consistency between espoused theory (what they say they do and believe) and theory in use (what they actually do in the classroom). Critical reflection At this level teachers reflect on the moral and ethical implications and consequences of their classroom practices on students. Critical reflection involves examination of both personal and professional belief systems. Teachers who are critically reflective focus their attention both inwardly at their own practice and outwardly at the social conditions in which these practices are situated. They are concerned about issues of equity and social justice that arise in and outside the classroom and seek to connect their practice to democratic ideals. Acknowledging that classroom and school practices cannot be separated from the larger social and political realities, critically reflective teachers strive to become fully conscious of the range of consequences of their actions. The term critical reflection has the most consensus in the literature as a level of reflection examining the ethical, social, and political consequences of one’s practice. Although there is considerable variability regarding the inclusion of self-reflection, or challenging one’s own belief system. While some definitions fail to acknowledge this dimension, others consider it to be embedded in the category of critical reflection. And others conceptualize self-reflection as a separate entity. Hatton and Smith (1995) referred to this type of reflection as dialogic, Valli (1997) as personalistic, and Day (1999) as intrapersonal, all highlighting the aspect of dialogue with oneself. Similarly, Cole and Knowles (2000) distinguished between reflective and reflexive inquiry. Underpinning reflective inquiry is the notion that assumptions behind all practice are subject to questioning. Reflexive inquiry is tantamount to self-reflection and is defined as reflective inquiry situated within the context of personal histories in order to make connections between personal lives and professional careers and to understand personal (including early) influences on professional practice. Based on the presumption that understanding oneself is a prerequisite to understanding others, self-reflection is conceptualized here as a crucial dimension of critical reflection. Hence, the category labeled critical reflection includes both democratic principles as well as self-reflection. Self-reflection involves examining how one’s beliefs and values, expectations 344 B. Larrivee and assumptions, family imprinting, and cultural conditioning impact on students and their learning (Larrivee, 2005). It entails deep examination of values and beliefs, embodied in the assumptions teachers make and the expectations they have of students. Beliefs about students’ capacity and willingness to learn, assumptions about the behavior of students, especially those from different ethnic and social backgrounds, and expectations formulated on the basis of the teacher’s own value system drive teacher behavior. Developing reflective practice Reflective practice is generally viewed as developing in stages, although an individual teacher’s progression is not necessarily linear. Teachers may reflect at different levels simultaneously, interweaving various levels. Reagan et al. (2000) advocated that the process of engaging in reflection should be seen as an ongoing spiral in which each element of reflective practice is constantly involved in an interactive process of change and development. While each dimension of reflection can be useful in its own right, there is an implicit distinction in the quality of reflection, with layers of quality moving from trivial, to significant, to potentially profound. Increasing levels involve higher forms of thought, moving from issues of practicality to values and beliefs (Jay, 2003). The three levels described in Van Manen’s representation might also be thought of as paralleling the growth of an individual teacher from novice to expert to master. They can also be characterized as falling along an ‘efficiency–value–worth continuum.’ At the first level the concern is mainly with means rather than ends, entailing selection and use of instructional strategies primarily for their expediency. The second level adds questioning the assumptions as well as consequences of particular strategies. Here teachers apply criteria to assess classroom practices to make individual and independent decisions about pedagogy. Teaching choices are based on a value commitment to a particular interpretive framework. The teacher analyses and clarifies individual and cultural experiences, meanings, assumptions, prejudgments and presuppositions for the purpose of making instructional decisions based on an interpretive understanding of what represents quality educational experiences. At the highest level of deliberation the worth of knowledge is in question. The teacher pursues worthwhile educational ends of self-determination based on the principles of justice and equality. Hence, decisions at the surface level of reflection are made for efficiency, decisions at the pedagogical level are based on a value judgment, and decisions made at the critical level are based on a worth judgment. Teachers move from initially asking ‘Am I doing it right?’ to eventually asking ‘Is this the right thing to do?’ Many advocates of reflective practice take the position that teachers should not only reflect on behaviors and events within the confines of the classroom but should include the influence of the larger social and political contexts. They deem teaching as ultimately a moral pursuit concerned with both means and ends and therefore consider critical reflection to be imperative for teaching in a democratic society. Teaching is first and foremost an ethical enterprise where teachers are called on daily to confront issues of ‘goodness and truth’ (Larrivee, 2006b). Many believe that taking this broader view will enable teachers to become change agents who both understand what is and work to create what might be (Bartlett, 1990; Cole & Knowles, 2000; Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Jay, 2003; Larrivee, 2000; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Parker, 1997; Reagan et al., 2000; Schön, 1987; Smyth, 1989). Although the developmental span for both prospective and practicing teachers will vary considerably, it is important for teachers to progress through the levels of reflective practice to ultimately become critically reflective teachers who pose the important questions of practice. For example, teachers engaging only in surface reflection may question how to limit Reflective Practice 345 the transition time between reading groups but unless they move to the next level of pedagogical reflection they may never question whether placing students in reading groups is the most effective organizational structure. Furthermore, unless they engage in critical reflection they may not consider the larger issue of whether that structure limits the potential for some students from different cultural backgrounds. According to Cole and Knowles the aim of reflective practice is to think critically about oneself, one’s assumptions, and one’s teaching choices and actions. While not all teachers will become critically reflective teachers, nonetheless it is the desired goal to reach over the course of one’s professional career. Mediation to promote higher order reflection Much of the literature grapples with either getting teachers to reflect at all or moving them beyond the surface level of reflection. Even with interventions specifically designed to enhance reflective practice many attempts fail (see, for example, Korthagen & Wubbels, 1991; Smith & Hatton, 1993; Valli, 1992). Despite exposure to specific scaffolding intended to develop reflective practice, reflections of pre-service teachers tend to be mostly descriptive, failing to connect to a theoretical framework or societal issues (see, for example, Collier, 1999; Pultorak, 1993; Wunder, 2003). The generally accepted position is that without carefully constructed guidance, prospective and novice, as well as more experienced, teachers seem unable to engage in pedagogical and critical reflection to enhance their practice. Based on their research Hatton and Smith (1995) suggested that teacher progression through the levels of reflection appears to be developmental in that teachers may need to reflect first on areas of technical skill before being able to compare different teaching strategies and weigh their relative merit. However, Smyth (1989) advocated that taking the position that higher order reflection is not accessible to inexperienced teachers dismisses their history of being treated in certain ways as students, arguing that such histories are worthy of ‘unpacking’ for the more just and humane alternatives they are likely to uncover. The position taken by this author and others is that even novi ... Purchase answer to see full attachment