Reflective Teaching: A Realistic Approach to Teacher Educational Development in Nigeria

Name Dr. Famogbiyele TaiwoAddress Plot 117, Karu FHA Phase 2 Abuja NigeriaE-mail [email protected] number +234-80-62114980

Reflective Teaching: A RealisticApproach to Teacher Educational

Development in Nigeria

Abstract

Today, the concept of reflection has come to bepopularly recognized as a crucial element in variousfields (law, nursing, teacher education, e.t.c). Inteacher education (TE) especially, the concept hasbecome a generally accepted one. Its value indeveloping teachers’ knowledge, skills anddispositions in TE has been underscored inliterature. Commentators like LaBoskey, for example,affirm that in TE the main value of reflectiveteaching lies in its potential to transform theteaching and learning beliefs into those moreconducive to pedagogical thinking. However in theNigerian TE context it appears the concept has notyet found root. This is because teaching whether atin-service or pre-service levels in Nigeria do notseem to have married reflection with its teaching and

1

learning goals. Rather, what seem to be operating isa situation where teaching is methodologicallytraditional (skill based/ technical). This articletherefore argued for the introduction of reflectiveteaching in the training of teachers in Nigeria withthe potential to: help enhance pre-service teachers’motivation, independence and confidence; bring aboutdeeper understanding of the teachers’ own teachingstyle and, ultimately lead to professionalcompetence.

Introduction

Today, the concept of reflection has come to be popularly

recognized as a crucial element in various fields (law,

nursing, teacher education, e.t.c). In teacher education

(TE) especially, the concept has become a generally

accepted one. Reflection in TE is not easy to define;

neither is it easy to interpret. This makes it all the

more complex to comprehend, which has implications for

the way it is viewed in TE. In spite of the problems

highlighted above, its value in developing teachers’

knowledge, skills and dispositions in TE has been

underscored in the literature. This paper shall firstly

2

examine the concept of reflection as it is discussed in

the literature with a view to presenting an understanding

of it. Next, some of its values and challenges in TE will

be stated; and finally, the paper will take a critical

look at both its value as well as the challenges it is

likely to pose to TE in the Nigerian context.

Models of Reflection

There are various models of teacher training notably the:

craft, applied science, and reflective models. However,

according to most commentators (Calderhead & Gates, 1993;

Korthagen, 2001; Ward & McCotter, 2004), the reflective

model is now the preferred. Reflection or reflective

teaching as a model of conceptualizing TE emerged as a

result of the perceived inadequacies of the traditional

ways of teaching, which Bullough & Giltin, (1991, p.37)

regard as faulty because: they provide a constricted view

of teacher intellect; they place more emphasis on

techniques, and promote an extreme form of individualism.

Calderhead & Gates (1993:1)., therefore, see this

alternative model as an ‘attempt to understand more fully

3

what is distinctive about teachers‘ professional

development and come to terms with its complexity’.

Or still, as one that brings about ‘growth through

critical enquiry, analysis, and self directed evaluation’

(Calderhead, 1992, p.43). Many models of reflection do

exist in literature. There are, for example, the

‘conventional model’ put forward by (Wallace, 1991),

‘ALACT model’, (Skemp, 1979); ‘enriched model’, (Ur,

1996) and ‘pragmatic eclectic model’, (Zeichner & Liston,

1987). The focus of this paper shall, however, be on that

of Wallace (1991) and Ur (1996) because of the

limitations of this paper.

Wallace’s (1991) model is referred to by Ur (1996) as a

‘conventional’ model of reflection. It integrates

received knowledge and experiential knowledge in

practice. In turn, this integration is expected to lead

to professional competence. Received knowledge, as

described in the literature, is a body of information and

skills which the professionals see as essential to

4

perform effectively in practice; whereas experiential

knowledge is the implicit understanding of teaching and

learning which teachers derive through experiences. For

Ur, her model of ‘enriched reflection’ goes further than

that. Reflection, apart from benefiting from received

knowledge and experiential knowledge, needs to be

‘enriched’ by other knowledge such as peer observation,

inputs from professional research and theorizing as well

as other people’s experiments. All these, she says, will

almost always make sound our practice. (See appendix 1

for the diagrams of the models).

Reflection: A Definition

The concept of reflection or reflective teaching in TE is

difficult to define, interpret and conceptualise

(Calderhead, 1989, 1992; Ward & McCotter, 2004; Court,

1988; Korthagen, 2001). Calderhead, (1989, p.43) noted

that these difficulties might not be unconnected with the

fact that each theorist emphasizes different aspects of

the reflection process. Korthagen, (2001, p.57) also

corroborated this fact but chose to call it a

5

‘sociopedagogical’ problem. LaBoskey, (1993, p.37) sees

the problem not from the definition point of view but

rather as having more to do with ‘lots of meanings and

variations’. In addition to these, Valli, (1992:216),

thought that the problem is with how to nurture

reflection in practitioners.

If writers recognize these problems, how do they go about

defining and conceptualizing reflection in the

literature? Dewey cited in Calderhead, (1989, p.43) and

justifying the importance of reflection defined it as:

active persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds

that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends.

For SchÖn, (1983, 1987) who is said to have expanded on

Dewey’s work and a range of other writers, the position

is that professional practice would benefit if

practitioners were encouraged to reflect more actively

upon their actions. To him reflection is like a

‘conversation” with the problematic situation; and ‘…in

this reflective conversation, the practitioners’ effort

to solve the reframed problem yields new discoveries

6

which call for new reflection-in action (SchÖn, 1983,

p.132). SchÖn identified two types of reflection: the

first, which he called reflection-in-action, occurs when

the practitioner is engaged in a situation that is

puzzling while in practice, with a view to ‘reframe’ it;

the second type, reflection-on-action, places emphasis on

the period after the event might have happened; it is an

ordered, deliberate, systematic approach to a problem in

order to resolve it. What control we can exercise comes

through reflection on reflection-in-action.

Lucas (1991) cited in McIntyre (1993, p.42) sees

reflection as: ‘a systematic enquiry into one’s own

practice to improve that practice and deepen one’s

understanding of it. For Calderhead (1992, p.10)

reflection is ‘a matter of critically examining one’s

own and other’s educational beliefs, and developing a

coherent articulated view of teaching and learning’ . To

Korthagen (2001, p.58) reflection is a ‘mental process of

trying to structure and restructure an experience, a

problem, or existing knowledge or insights’.

7

From these definitions, it can be seen that reflection

does not just occur; something usually causes it to

happen. Next is the examination of the process of

reflection and its levels of focus in reflective

practice.

Process and Levels of Reflection

Reflection in reflective teaching does not just occur;

something usually causes it to happen (LaBoskey, 1993).

Dewey (1910) cited in LaBoskey (1993, p.25), observed

that the process of reflection is set in motion by a

‘felt difficulty’ followed by a ‘reasoning process’ which

would eventually bring about a solution for the

problem(s) identified. In the same vein LaBoskey (1993)

maintained that there must be a reason, purpose, desire

and motivation to engage in it. This inner desire or

motivation is what he described as the ‘internal factor’

necessary for reflection to take place.

8

With regards to the levels of focus in reflective

practice, most commentators (Manen, nd; Goodman, 1991;

McIntyre, 1993; Ward & McCotter, 2004) agree that there

are three levels. They are: technical (in which the focus

is on the most efficient means to attain an objective);

practical (which focuses on the beliefs and assumptions

behind actions); and critical (which addresses the

ethical, moral and political issues). The first two are

often described as the lower levels (in which the novice

is helped to develop the skills of writing, thinking, and

talking about the practice) and the last, as the higher

level, in which the practitioner is expected to have

become skillful in synthesizing, analyzing and evaluating

his practice.

So far attempt has been made to look at the models, the

definitions, process, and levels of reflection. Looking

at the plethora of definitions and the models available,

one cannot help but have an overwhelming feeling of

frustration: what really should count as reflection or

what does it entail? However, this feeling of frustration

9

appears to have been reduced by the fact that certain

common features in reflective practice can be pointed to

which seems to make the concept clearer; it is to this

that the work now turns.

Common Elements of Reflection

Earlier in 1933, Dewey cited in Grimmet, (1988, p.7)

observed that there are ‘two indispensable and

correlative factors’ of reflection; observation (either

made by oneself or others in a directly experienced

situation), and the possible courses of action open to

the practitioner. Calderhead & Gates (1993:8-9), possibly

drawing on these earlier themes, suggested other common

features as involving values, attitudes, (open-

mindedness, responsibility and wholeheartedness) beliefs;

and cognitive skills. Korthagen, (2001, p.58) confirmed

this when he said that ’the picture [of reflection]

becomes clearer when we adopt a cognitive-psychological

point of view’ as does Calderhead (1989, p.45): ‘the

uniting theme [of reflection] is the general emphasis on

the cognitive and to some extent moral aspect’.

10

Added to these is one other common feature. Ward &

McCotter, (2004: 245) identified this as ‘cyclic in

nature’ in the many frameworks of reflection. Bailey,

(1977) described this cyclical nature as the ‘key

component’ of reflection models. On SchÖn’s (1983, p.9)

part, it is a critical aspect ‘for new understanding of

the situation [which] precipitates further reflection and

appreciation’. Wallace (1991, p.56) would, however, want

to see it as being ‘a shorthand way of referring to the

continuing process of reflection on received knowledge

and experiential knowledge in the context of professional

action (practice).

From the foregoing, what seems to come out clearly is

that there are certain requirements expected of

reflective teachers in TE. Ur’s model (see appendix 1) is

particularly clear about what is required of reflective

teachers: he/she would need to ‘enrich’ his/her received

knowledge with experiential knowledge and other

knowledge, for example, peer observation to achieve

professional competence and sound practice. Also, seeing

11

the requirements from the perspective of Calderhead

(1992), such teachers should have the capacity to,

analyze own practice and the context in which it occurs;

stand back from their own teaching to evaluate their

situation and take responsibility for their own future

action. Richards & Lockhart (1994) cited in Bailey (1997,

p.2), however see such teachers as having the ability to

‘collect data about teaching, examine their attitudes,

beliefs, assumptions and teaching practices, and use the

information obtained as a basis for critical reflection

about teaching.’

Values and Challenges of Reflection

Reflection has been criticized by writers for a number of

reasons. Gilliss (1998, p.55), for example, believes that

reflection does not rest on what he called a ‘firm

technical foundation’ and dismissed it by saying that it

must wait for an ‘enlightened future’ In the same vein,

Calderhead (1992, p.46) stated that, it ‘will most likely

have to be grounded in a more detailed and empirically

12

defensible interpretation of teaching and teachers’

professional training’. Ferarro’s (2001) criticism,

citing Clift et al (1990), is that good as it is, its

main focus is ‘on the process of reflective practice

while sacrificing important content in teacher

education’.

Despite these criticisms, writers (Korthagen, 2001;

Khortagen & Wubbells, 2001; Hinnet, 2002) are somewhat

unanimous in their belief that reflection in TE is

invaluable to both the experienced teacher educators and

the novice teachers. Korthagen (2001, p.51) submits that

reflection is fundamental to TE because it helps teachers

to embrace a more analytical approach to their language

teaching; appreciate that teaching is socially and

politically situated in the context in which they work,

and to appraise the moral and ethical issues embedded in

classroom teaching. More importantly, it enables autonomy

and growth in teachers, with greater understanding of the

application of educational theories and practice. In this

way teachers become better prepared to face a more

13

challenging future. The evidence for all these, Korthagen

says, lies in the fact that reflection can ‘help teachers

become aware of their mental structures, subject them to

a critical analysis and if necessary restructure them’ on

their road to professional competence.

Still with respect to the values of reflection;

Macfarlane (1998) cited in UKCLE (2000, p.2) pointed out

that teaching ‘students to develop self-conscious habits

of reflectiveness in order that they might become

ultimately intuitive is critical to education and

training…’. Hinnet (2002), writing in the area of legal

education, also agreed that the potential of reflection

to transform learning for students is great. She

suggested that reflective practice can: significantly

increase student motivation for learning; enhance and

develop forms of collaborative learning and enhance

confidence. To Valli (1992), the value of reflection

resides in its ability to attend to aspects of teaching

which the other orientations separate; whereas Korthagen

& Wubbels (2001, p.48), see the value in its being a

‘realistic approach’ of narrowing the gulf between theory

14

and practice. For Cunningham (2001), reflection is

beneficial because it engenders professionalism; and as

for Bullough Jr. and Gitlin (1991, p.39), reflection

‘holds the most promise for …clarifying educational means

and ends, holds them up to critical scrutiny’.

Yet there are some challenges posed to the actualization

of the values that have been highlighted above. One of

the major challenges, according to Korthagen (2001), is

that looking at all the models of reflections offered;

not very much is known about how reflection might be

judged in practice. Hatton & Smith (1995) cited in

Korthagen (2001, p.57) confirms this:

...it has been a considerable challenge to develop means ofgathering data so that the evidence shows unequivocally thatreflection has taken place.

Another challenge to reflection has to do with what the

outcome should be in TE. This outcome or ‘new

comprehension’, according to LaBoskey (1993), does not

often result in product but when it does there appears to

be a change in belief about specific issues. Reflection,

15

therefore, ‘is a process involving judgments in

indeterminate situations and so the quality of the result

will vary’ (LaBoskey, 1993, p.35).

Yet another is the one posed by the need for commitment

on the part of the practitioner for continued self-

development (Cunningham, 2001). This challenge would seem

to come from the time and energy needed to be devoted to

the practice of reflection for professional development.

Also, since each problem is unique on its own and

requires possibly different reasoning processes and time

span, Gillis (1991, p.48) posited that ’it is very

unlikely that they [practitioners] will engage in lengthy

reflection.’

Calderhead (1992:142-144) looked at the challenges from

the perspective of the school. To him, developing

reflective practice here places heavy demands upon both

the teachers and supervisors. In many schools where

reflection is not supported, and teachers fail to take

into account various beliefs about teaching and what

16

individuals bring to their learning, developing

reflection can be very challenging, he maintained.

Reflective practice also requires reflective teachers.

Teachers should be able to model good practice which will

enable their students to realize that there is, indeed, a

gap between theory and practice and modeling reflection

for them is one way of doing this.

Further still, the process of learning to teach

reflectively is complex and at present inadequately

conceptualized by the models (Calderhead, 1992). This, he

maintained, is because the models are designed to

describe a process, rather than to identify or recognize

the qualities of reflection that are related to

improvement of practice. Above all, reflection is a skill

which needs to be taught and nurtured. True as it is

that, ‘learning to teach in this way is a life-long

process of professional development’ (Calderhead, 1992,

p.146); yet from all indications, it is a daunting and

challenging task.

17

Thus far, this paper has explored the values and

challenges reflection holds in store for its

practitioners; but is the development of reflection in TE

an appropriate and worthwhile goal in the Nigerian

context? To this issue paper now turns.

Values and Challenges: the Nigerian Context

As a teacher educator in pre-service training (PRESET),

the idea of reflection in teaching, to me, is novel. The

PRESET program, which I became involved in a couple of

years ago, does not seem to have married reflection with

its teaching and learning goals. Rather, what we seem to

have is a situation where teaching is methodologically

traditional (skill based/ technical). The introduction of

a model of enriched reflective teaching in the training

of teachers would no doubt be challenging to the existing

status quo. Hinnet (2002, p.1) described the challenges

as ‘pedagogical, practical and political’.

In Nigerian context, the writer foresees resistance from

the student teachers and fellow teachers alike.

18

Calderhead & Shorrock (1997) also acknowledged this fact

but they added that factors within the individual and the

training programme would also come into play. Still, it

is not going to be easy to escape the influence of the

old training methods as they are deeply rooted in our

[the teachers] thinking (Bullough Jr, & Gitlin, 1991).

Looking at all the problems highlighted above, can

reflection be seen as as a practical and worthwhile goal?

From the discussion so far about reflection and in the

face of the consideration of its values/challenges, the

writer’s answer would seem to be in the affirmative. In

the first place, looking at the challenges, they do not

appear insurmountable. For the writer, the determinant

factors for success would be the teacher educators’

‘attitude of open mindedness’ (LaBoskey1993, p.30);

commitment, determination, enthusiasm, doggedness to

succeed and encouragement of novice teachers. In

addition, teacher educators must be able to create

certain conditions for reflection to thrive. These

conditions, according to Mackinnon & Erickson (1988)

19

entail: making explicit some of the underlying beliefs

and principles of reflection that directs their own

practice; articulating and demonstrating a coherent and

constructive perspective of teaching practice and

providing a supportive climate.

Though the writer quite agrees with commentators like

LaBoskey (1993, p.27), who for example, affirm that in TE

‘the main value of reflective teaching lies in its

potential to ‘transform the teaching and learning

beliefs… into those more conducive to pedagogical

thinking’; and Macfarlane (1998) cited in Hinnet, (2002)

that ‘reflection appears to clearly offer a more

sophisticated and comprehensive model for education and

professional development’; yet the conviction that

reflection is a worthwhile goal has more to do with the

writer’s belief that reflection has a further vital role

to play in the daily lives of Nigerians: Green (1986)

cited in Richert (1991, p.133) puts it more succinctly:

Our [ability to reflect is our] hope for change and new visionfor our nation …having safe and open space for questioningwhat we are doing [and ] towards what end…

20

Conclusion

The paper started by stating that reflection as defined

in TE is fuzzy which makes it difficult to conceptualize.

Be that as it may, there are certain core elements which

could help teachers focus on what reflection is. The

introduction of reflection as a realistic approach to TE

in Nigeria has the potential to: help enhance pre-service

teachers’ motivation, independence and confidence; bring

about deeper understanding of the teachers’ own teaching

style and, ultimately lead to professional competence.

Yet, there is no doubt that the introduction might be

fraught with challenges. However, these challenges are

surmountable, given teacher educators attitude of open

mindedness and a supportive climate. Getting to this

stage will take time; but the joy of seeing teachers

becoming reflective in practice and its possible

extension into the improvement of our daily lives in

Nigeria outstrips the effort that would have been put

into establishing and developing it. What better time is

there to pick up the gauntlet than now?

21

Appendix 1

Enriched ReflectionEnriched Reflection

Enriched Model of Reflection (Ur, 1996)

22

Reflective M odelReflective M odel

Conventional Model of Reflection (Wallace, 1991).

References

Bailey, M. K. (1997). Reflective teaching: situating our stories.

Retrieve from http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ajelt/vol7/art1.html

Bullough Jr., R. V. & Gitlin, A. D. (1991). Educative communities and the

development of reflective practitioner. In B. R. Tabachnick & K. M Zeichner (Eds.). Issues and practices in inquiry- oriented teacher education (pp. 35-55). London: The Falmer Press.

Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education.

Teaching and Teacher Education 5, (1):43-51.

Calderhead, J. (1992). The role of reflection in learning to teach. In L. Valli (Ed.).

Reflectice teacher education: cases and critiques ( pp. 139-146). NY: State University of New York Press.

Calderhead, J. & Gates, P. (1993). Introduction. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates

23

(Eds.). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development ( pp. 1-10). London: The Falmer Press

Calderhead, J. &Shorrock, S. B. (1997). Understanding teacher education: case

studies in the professional development of beginning teachers. London: The Palmer Press.

Court, D. (1988). “Reflection in action”: some definitional problems. In P. P. Grimmet

& G. L Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education ( pp. 143-146). New York: Teachers College Press

Cunningham, F. M. (2001). Reflective teaching practice in adult ESL settings.

Retrieved from http://www.ericdigest.org/2001-4/est.html

Ferraro, J. M. (2001). Reflective practice and professional development.

Retrieved from www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/reflective.htm

Gilliss, G. (1988). SchÖn’s reflective practitioner: a model for teachers. In Grimmet,

P. P. & Erickson, G. L. (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp 47-56). New York: Teachers College Press

Grimmet, P. P. (1988). The nature of reflection and SchÖn’s conception in perspective. In

Grimmet, P. P. & Erickson, G. L. (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp 5-15). New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodman, J. (1991). Using a method course to promote reflection and inquiry among

preservice teachers. In B. R. Tabachnick & K. M Zeichner. (Eds.). Issues and practices in inquiry- oriented teacher education (pp. 56-76).. London: The Falmer Press.

Hinnet, K. (2002). Developing reflective practice in Legal education.

Retrieved from http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/reflection/arp.pdf

Korthagen, F. A. J. (1993). Two models of reflection. Teacher and Teacher Education 9 (3): 317-326.

24

Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). Reflection on reflection. In Korthagen, F. A. J. (Ed.).

Linking practice and theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp 51-68.

Korthagen, F. A. J. & Wubbel, T. (2001). Learning from practice. In F. A. J. Korthagen,

(Ed.). Linking practice and theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education (pp. 32-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

LaBoskey, V. K. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice teacher

education. In J.Calderhead & P. Gates, P. (Eds.). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp.23-38) London: The Falmer Press.

Mackinnon, A. M. & Erickson G. L. (1988). Taking SchÖn ideas to a teaching

practicum. In P. P. Grimmet & G. L. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education(pp.113-135). New York: Teachers College Press.

Manen, M. V. (nd). On epistemology of reflective practice.

Retrieved from http://www.phenomenologyonline.com/max/practice.htm

McIntyre, D. (1993). Theory, theorizing and reflection in initial teacher education. In

J. Calderhead & P. Gates, P. (Eds.). Conceptualizing reflectionin teacher development. London: The Falmer Press.

SchÖn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action.

London: Temple Smith.

SchÖn, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner towards a new design for

teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

UKCLE (2000). Reflective practice: What’s in it for you?

25

www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/reflection/you.html Retrieved on February 25 2005.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Valli, L. (1992). ‘Afterwards’. In Valli, L. (Ed.). Reflectiveteacher education: cases and

critiques. pp.213-225. NY: State University of New York Press.

Ward, J. R. & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visibleoutcome for preservice

teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20: 243–257

Zeichner, K. M. and Tabachnick, B. R. (1991). Reflections on reflective teaching. In

B. R. Tabachnick & K. M Zeichner. (Eds.). Issues and practices in inquiry- oriented teacher education (pp. 1-21). London: The Falmer Press.

26