ASSESSING STUDENT TEACHER’S
REFLECTIVE
THINKING AND PRACTICE
Dr. Loren Weybright
Assistant Professor of Elementary
Education
Metropolitan College of New York
New York, New York
lweybright@mcny.edu
1
Central Questions


What reflective thinking skills are revealed in graduate
student teacher’s journals, lessons and action research
projects (Constructive Action projects )?
How can the instructor best foster reflective thinking in
students teacher’s investigations into their own learning
and teaching?
2
Literature Review


Dewey (1933) observed that reflective thinking enabled
teachers to consider the outcome of their actions in light of
their past experiences. Without that reflection, teachers
would mindlessly repeat their prior actions.
Schon (1987), building on Dewey and others, proposed a
design for educating the reflective practioner where the
primary task for novice (and his/her coach or supervisor)
was to reflect on his/her own actions and the underlying
assumptions that prompt those actions.
3
Literature Review (continued)

Schon (1987) also called for research on coaching (field
supervision) and on learning by doing in the practicum. The
professional schools must also determine the relationship
between courses offered and the needs of the beginning
teacher in the field.

Taggart & Wilson (1998) define reflective thinking as the
process of making informed and logical decisions about one’s
own practice, then assessing the consequences of those
decisions.
4
Participants




Data were obtained from all the graduate students in one
cohort, totaling 14 women candidates, during their first
semester of student teaching, Spring 2006 Semester.
Age range: Mid-20s to late 30s
Ethnic origins:, 7 African-Americans, 5 European-Americans
and 2 Hispanics.
Work experience: All had some experience with groups of
children prior to admission. Careers: Part-time teaching,
business, media, and the health and human service
professions. Two students were admitted upon graduation
from BA programs, without prior careers.
5
Program Description

This study was part of the documentation of the one-year
M.S. in Education Program, leading to Childhood Education
Certification (Gr.1-6), at Metropolitan College of New York,
a small private college located in lower Manhattan.
6
Program Description (Continued)

Students enter program as a cohort, following the 3semester program as a group. Students design and
complete a Constructive Action (CA) project each
semester as part of their integrative seminar. The action
research projects during their first semester of student
teaching, focused on a series of lessons taught in literacy
or mathematics, are designed to integrate course work
with field experiences.
7
Procedure



This qualitative case study examines students’ critical
thinking as revealed in lessons, journals, and their
Constructive Action Projects.
Data was collected from January through April 2006.
The seminar and student teaching supervision was
designed by this instructor to provide a forum for students
to discuss and share their written and oral reflections
about their practice teaching, and to solve problems in
their practice.
8
Procedures

(Continued)
Used multiple sources of data, following Cochran-Smith
and Lytle’s (1993) typology for teacher research:
 Journals: Students completed at least six journals,
describing and reflecting on their student teaching.
Instructor critiqued each journal and students revised as
necessary. (See Appendix C in paper copy for Journal
Guidelines.)
First and last journals analyzed for level of critical
thinking skills. (Appendix A: Reflective Thinking Scale
from Sparks-Langer and Colton, 1991.
 Supervisor’s Observation of Lessons: Journals included
reflections on 3 observed lessons, allowing for student
and instructor’s review of reflective practice.
9
Procedures




(Continued)
Constructive Action (CA) Project: Each student
designed a small action research study to document
their student teaching and children’s responses in a
specific curriculum area. Examples of topics include:
A case study of a second grade girl’s beginning reading
skills.
Second graders’ comprehension of the “main idea” in
non-fiction.
Documenting first graders’ writing skills, using graphic
organizers and accountable talk.
10
Procedures
(Continued)
Essays.
The six journals on the student teaching in one
focused topic were summarized into an essay for the
Results section. Students were directed through a
descriptive review or analysis of their journals to identify
patterns in children and teacher behaviors and to integrate
their findings with other course work and related research.
11
Procedures

(Continued)
Reflective Thinking Scale: Sparks-Langer & Colton’s
(1991) seven-point scale:
1. No Description, 2. Layperson’s description, 3.
Identified pedagogical strategies, 4. Explanations only
used personal reference, 5. Explained pedagogical
principles, 6. Added context of classroom, 7.
Ethical/moral considerations.
12
Procedures

(Continued)
Reflective Practice—Work Sample Analysis:
Review of children and student teachers’ work samples,
using protocol adapted from Pat Carini’s structured
inquiry process, the Descriptive Review (Himley &
Carini, Eds., 2000).
A example of work sample analysis follows:
13
Procedures: Work Sample Analysis

Protocol for Analysis of Child or Adult Work Samples*:
1. Presenter introduces child/teacher work sample, providing context
of the assignment and author.
2. Facilitator begins first round, asking each group member for a
response: What do you see?
3. Facilitator records group responses on chart or
projects on classroom computer/screen.
4. Facilitator categorizes responses.
5. Facilitator asks, in second and third round:
What else do you see, or what can be inferred?
6. Facilitator and group summarizes responses and identifies next
steps
14
Work Sample Analysis (Continued)

Further questions to ask of the work:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What skills/knowledge do you see in evidence?
What did the teacher expect of the students?
What did the teacher/child appear to value?
What 'in the work connects to students' real life?
What can we assume about the student's thought
process? The teacher's?
*Adapted from Coalition of Essential Schools:
http://search.essentialschools.org/cgi-bin/htsearch
15
Work Sample Analysis (Continued)

Work Sample: “Shauna,” a first grader in an urban school,
as documented by Mr. M., Student Teacher,
Spring, 2007:
Shauna wrote in her journal, 11/06:
“Shauna
Class 1-214
“Today we are going to fancy up our writing
[She writes in carefully formed print, with uneven spacing
and letter sizing, but with proper capital “T” and period.]
16
Work Sample Analysis (Continued)

Shauna work sample, 4/07:
Independent reading assignment: What was the problem
and how did they solve it?
“Emma had a problem. She “climend” a rope and ladder
but it did not work when “sping” came she got a rope
and the ladder and boxes and Sam’s Trampoline & her
Problem was gone.”
Illustration shows tree, rope ladder and girl.
17
Work Sample Analysis (Continued)
Group Analysis of Shauna’s 2 work samples,
first and second rounds, categories in bold:
For follow up: “fancy up” May have been teacher’s
language. Mr. M. will ask Shauna later.
Attention to detail: content, shaping & spacing of letters
Clearly identified “Problem” and “Problem gone”
Shows improvement over time in: Response to assigned
task, attention to detail, quality of printing, depth of
conceptualization of story.
Shauna reveals herself as a capable, above average first
grader.

18
Work Sample Analysis (Continued)

Mr. M. took the group analysis of Shauna’s work back to his
classroom to advise his instruction, and the composition of
his final project report (Constructive Action document).
19
Results



Reflective Thinking Levels: Preliminary results indicate a
steady increase in level of reflective thinking in student
journals and student teaching. (See Table 1.)
Wide range in reflective thinking levels, from several
students’ lows in the 3-5 range, to highs in the 6-7 range.
Modest gains at top of range and a 2.5 step gain among
those students starting at level 3.
20
Results—Content Analysis

Used contextual factors when explaining pedagogical
principles:
“Although she reads and speaks well, it is obvious from
observing her that reading and writing are not her
preferred activities, and it is not likely that they are
actively encouraged at home. Without this reinforcement,
continued progress will be very difficult.”
(“Iris,” CA 2006.)
6/14 students achieved Level 6 on Sparks-Langer & Colton
Reflective Thinking Scale.
21
Results—Content Analysis

Integrates reflections with developmental/pedagogical
theories:
“The thing that stunned me most was the peer mediation
that occurred in the group of children, and how one group
member was able to take of the direction of the group.”
(“Tamara,” Second journal. Peer mediation was the
subject of her CA in the previous semester.)
13/14 students made references to theories and practice
from other research—a requirement for the CA.
22
Monica’s Summary: First grader’s study
of community helpers with read-aloud
texts and writing




In sum, I chose to organize the lessons with read-alouds, webs and
interactive writing because the children were already accustomed to
this format of learning.
The children learned about community helpers, as seen by: Drawing
and listing tools each community helper uses, by identification of a
list of community helpers in their neighborhoods, by the Community
Helper books each child made.
I learned that we as teachers need to be flexible and go back to the
drawing board if there is need to meet the needs of the students.
I would modify my teaching in the future by being conscious of how
important time is and how essential planning is, because if I would
have had the time I would have planned more creative and more
interesting lessons. The evidence for my success was being able to
hear and read the children responses to the questions about
community helpers during read-alouds and KWL charts, and finally,
the development of a book by each child.
23
Stella: Comparing 1st and Last
Journals

In comparison, my first and last CA journals had some
differences. My first journal was more descriptive about
teaching strategies. My last journals included children’s
actions and reactions to the lessons. I also included, by
the end, examples of children’s dialogue and of their
work.
24
Results—Content Analysis

Adapted practice to meet needs of children:
“Working with Sandy forced me to reevaluate my
approach to at risk students and therefore strengthen my
teaching practices and beliefs. I hope I have provided
Sandy with some of the tools and the confidence to
continue to succeed not only in spelling, but also in other
areas of her education.”
14/14 students cited similar examples.
25
Results—Content Analysis

Accurately predicted how children would respond to an
activity and adjusted instruction accordingly.
9/14 students could make predictions about their
children’s behavior. Kagen (1990) finds that such
predictions are important indicators of effective teaching.
26
Limitations and Future Research

Reflective Thinking Scale: Any numbered scale of
reflective thinking places complex critical and creative
thinking on a linear scale, which cannot capture the
breadth and depth of these non-linear behaviors.
An alternate scale that will be used future studies is based
on M.J.Bierman’s work, and has been has been validated
with similar populations. (Schweiker-Marra, Holmes, &
Pula, 2003).
27
Limitations and Future Research
(Continued)


Sample Size: This is the beginning of a longitudinal study.
Approximately 30 students will be added in the second
year of the program.
Validity and Reliability: Several measures will be taken to
strengthen the design:



Establishing inter-rater reliability
Triangulation of measures of participant,
instructor and outside rater assessments of
reflective thinking
Interviews of a sampling of participants
28