| |
Temple University Associate Professor Catherine Schifter’s use of RC represents one example of a highly successful preservice teacher reflective project initiated by MAR*TEC. She used RC during two semesters of her ED 388 Senior Seminar course as a vehicle for reflective practice as well as for the development of e-portfolios. Schifter (2004) indicates that the 21 students in her Fall 2003 class and the 22 students in her Spring 2004 class were already familiar with the concept of “reflective practice” since this was one of the six general performance standards for all courses in the teacher certification program. However, Schifter’s class marked the first time that preservice students were asked to collect student work from the lessons they taught for the specific purpose of reflecting on their teaching practices. Likewise, students were new to the Tuning Protocol (Allen & McDonald, 2003) used by Schifter to critically look at student work in order to inform practice.
To familiarize her students with collective reflection, Schifter encouraged asynchronous dialogue at the beginning and middle of the course and directed students to initially reflect on an event or activity that occurred in the classroom and then to relate the classroom events to the standards discussed in class.
To assess students’ level of reflection, Schifter used van Manen’s “levels of reflectivity” model (van Manen, 1977). Van Manen uses a three-level hierarchical scale. The first level, technical reflection, examines the efficiency and the effectiveness of means to achieve certain ends. The second level, practical reflection, involves examining the means as well as the ends, questioning the assumptions and the actual outcomes. The third level, critical reflection, considers the moral and ethical issues attached to the first two levels. This model is directly linked to Schifter’s (2004) own beliefs about reflective practice, as she states that “for students to become lifelong reflective teachers, the skills to move from simple reflective practice to truly moral and ethical reflective practice are not intuitively obvious, but need to be made more explicit throughout the teaching education program” (p. 9).
In general, Schifter introduced three new concepts to her ED388 students regarding the concept of reflective practice: group reflection, the Tuning Protocol, and e-portfolios. Regarding RC’s role, Schifter (2004) noted that RC did in fact facilitate students’ development of reflective groups; however, more remains to be done in the area of looking at student work for the purpose of improving practice.
In this preservice pilot training, RC played a more significant role than it did in inservice pilot trainings described earlier. It promoted collaboration within small online learning communities with consistent and focused collegial discourse. It is important to place students into groups where their reflections become public postings rather than private ones seen only by the individual student and the instructor (Schifter, 2004). Although more time was needed to reflect on student work, RC enabled the students to experience uninterrupted posting, divergent perspectives, a balanced power relation between teacher and students, and an equitable environment. There were valuable lessons learned from the preservice study:
- Looking at student work and reflecting on ways to improve practice is not intuitive and requires attention through an established protocol.
- A set number of required weekly postings are essential to continuous use.
- Submitted lessons and uploaded student work generated from those lessons should be posted early in the course in order to allow time for reflection and feedback
- Active attention from the instructor serves to encourage student participation.
Despite the implementation problems in the RC pilot studies, MAR*TEC staff believes that if the external controls needed to support CMC are in place, then RC can serve as a model tool to enhance collaborative and reflective practice in professional development and preservice training.
References
Allen, D., & McDonald, J. (2003). The tuning protocol: A process for reflection on teacher and student work. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/54
Fauske, J., & Wade, S. E. (2003–2004). Research to practice online: Conditions that foster democracy, community, and critical thinking in computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2).
French, K. (2004). An examination of email based novice teacher mentoring: Proposing a practitioner-oriented model of online reflection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Schifter, C. (2004, April). ReflectionConnection with student teachers and e-portfolio. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Selwyn, N. (2000). Creating a “connected” community? Teachers’ use of an electronic discussion group. Teachers College Record, 102(4).
Wade, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 243–257.
van Manen, M. (1997). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.
Previous Page
1
2
3 4 |
