Structuring Reflection as a Tool in Qualitative Evaluation
Carmel M Diezmann and James J Watters
Queensland University of Technology
AUSTRALIA
Reflective practice is an approach widely adopted by professionals in evaluating their practices.
It has been used at all levels of education in particular to judge the quality of teaching.
Reflective practice involves teachers’ examination of the efficacy of their practices. Various
broad processes have been advocated by researchers including reflection-in-action, reflectionon-action and reflection-about action which focus attention on the present, past and future of
activities respectively. However, concern has been expressed that practitioners have difficulty
stepping out of their pre-existing mind sets to challenge pre-conceived beliefs and to seek
evidence that affirms or refutes the assumptions underpinning their practice. In this paper, we
undertake “market research” on reflection as a cognitive tool. We identify four features of
reflection as a tool: components of reflection, scope of reflection, types of reflection, and
reflection through writing. We “test drive” and demonstrate the efficacy of this model by
applying it to a Graduate Certificate (Higher Education) course. The features of the tool
variously contributed to a better understanding of the course. A focus on features of reflection
provides a necessary structure and specificity to guide reflective practice in higher education.
Introduction
It is widely accepted that the context of teaching in higher education has significantly changed in
the past decade. Calls from industry and the professions have highlighted concerns about the quality
of graduates and the extent to which universities are producing the graduates with the necessary
skills to meet the needs of a post-industrial information age. Despite well engrained perceptions that
teaching in higher education is a burdensome annoyance and distraction from the main game
namely research (e.g., Ramsden, Margetson, Martin, & Clark, 1995), many institutions are
confronting the challenge of improving the quality of teaching through targeted professional
development strategies. One such initiative is the accreditation of university lecturers through
Graduate Certificate courses. The ongoing challenge for those implementing such strategies is to
ascertain their effectiveness in a context where data sources are diverse and often difficult to gather.
Reflective practice is one common approach to ascertaining the effectiveness of teaching. In the
school sector and higher education, reflective practice has acquired high standing as a process of
monitoring effectiveness based on the assumption that practitioners should be thoughtful and
analytic about their teaching (e.g., Amundsen, Saroyan, & Frankman, 1996; Bolton, 2000; Boud &
Walker, 1998; Brookfield, 1995; Cranton, 1996, 1998; Hatton & Smith, 1995; McAlpine, Weston,
Beauchamp, Wiseman, & Beauchamp, 1999; McAlpine & Weston, 2000; Trigwell, Martin,
Benjamin, & Prosser, 2000). Here, we take up the challenge of exploring reflection as a cognitive
tool for enhancing teaching effectiveness in higher education. Paralleling practices in evaluating
and reporting on the qualities of a physical tool, we undertake “market research” on reflection as a
cognitive tool, we “test drive” reflection as a tool to enhance teaching practice in higher education,
and finally, we present our conclusions on reflection as a tool for qualitative evaluation.
Market Research: Perspectives and Practices
Perspectives on Reflection
Reflection, as a tool for enhancing understanding, dates back to at least Confucius:
By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by
imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. Confucius (551 BC 479 BC) [emphasis added]
1
In the modern era, John Dewey was one of the first writers to focus our attention on reflection and
the process of reflective thinking. According to Dewey (1933), “reflection is something that is
believed in, not on its own account, but through something else which stands as evidence” (p. 8).
He went on to argue “the ability to seize on what is evidential or significant and to let go the rest is
the mark of an expert, the connoisseur, the judge, in any matter” (p. 104). That is, being able to let
go of preconceived ideas, beliefs or opinions, suspend judgment and accept evidence that
challenges an individual’s practice is central to reflection. For Dewey, reflective thinking was about
solving problems through controlled thinking. However, he appears to have provided little guidance
for channelling such thought into action.
Much later, Schön (1983, 1987) expanded the concept of reflection by identifying two types of
reflection, namely, reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection in-action was perceived
as a spontaneous process in which the practitioner deals with the here and now using experience and
intuition. For example, when problems arise during a teaching episode, a teacher spontaneously
analyses the situation and responds accordingly. As Dewey had acknowledged earlier, accumulated
prior experience, craft knowledge or teacher expertise enables practitioners to reflect spontaneously
on events in this way. Reflection on-action is retrospective thinking in which teachers use structured
reflection to analyse their practice. The notion of structured reflection implies the application of
some strategies that enable the practitioner to step outside their pre-conceived beliefs and to seek
evidence that affirms or refutes the assumptions underpinning their practice.
Schön’s model (1983, 1987) has two limitations. Firstly, there is a lack of forward thinking implicit
in Dewey’s writings. Reflection in-action and reflection on-action should go beyond revisiting the
past or being metacognitively aware of one’s actions to be proactive and to inform future action
(Killion & Todnem, 1991). Reflection-for-action links the reflective thinking process to future
action. This theme was taken up by Carr and Kemmis (1986), who, from a critical theorist
perspective, saw reflection in terms of action research:
Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social
situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their
understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out. (p.
162)
Secondly, in Schön’s model (1983, 1987), the discursive or dialogical dimension of thinking and
the social context of practice are ignored (Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
The premise that reflection is an individualistic process is at odds with contemporary theory about
learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978) which proposes that learning is social process.
Thus, these writers argue that teachers need to reflect by engagement in discourse with colleagues
and students in a community so that their ideas and interpretations of actions are subject to
discussion, argument and consideration of alternative viewpoints. Reflecting in a community
requires practitioners to become critical of the assumptions underlying their intentions, values,
beliefs, and feelings (Mezirow, 1997). Mezirow had argued that reflection was a process to change
beliefs through transformative learning. He described a person’s experiences and the assumptions
which are used to interpret experience as “frames of reference”, which:
Selectively shape and delimit expectations, perceptions, cognition, and feelings. They set our
“line of action.” Once set, we automatically move from one specific activity (mental or
behavioral) to another. We have a strong tendency to reject ideas that fail to fit our
preconceptions, labeling those ideas as unworthy of consideration—aberrations, nonsense,
irrelevant, weird, or mistaken. (p. 5)
The nature of these discourses depends on the community and each community creates a specific
perspective for interpreting their world (Ovens, 2002). Nevertheless, such conversations within a
community generate assertions and counter assertions which challenge practitioners’ accepted
2
views and foster “overcoming the inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions at face value”
(Dewey, 1991, p. 13).
These limitations to reflection can be addressed with attention to reflection to guide future action
and the role of reflection within the social process of learning. However, turning our attention
specifically to education further challenges emerge.
Reflective Practice in Education
Reflective practice in teacher education and other professional training courses has acquired high
standing as a process of monitoring effectiveness based on the assumption that practitioners should
be thoughtful and analytic about their teaching (e.g., Boud & Walker, 1998; Hatton & Smith, 1995).
However, despite these compelling arguments for the benefits of reflective practice, concerns have
been expressed about exactly what reflective practice means and how to implement it effectively
(Boud, 2006; Clark, 2001; Day, 2000; Kreber, 2004, 2005). To move forward we shift our focus
from the purpose of reflection, namely for enhancing our understanding of teaching, to the features
of reflection as a tool.
Features of Reflection as a Tool
There are four features of reflection that can variously be used to provide insight into teaching,
which is a multi-faceted and complex activity.
The first feature is the components of reflection. Drawing on the work of Mezirow (1991), Kreber
and Cranton (2000) proposed that reflection focuses on three components: content, process and
premise. Content reflection helps us to describe our beliefs about what we know and should be
teaching. It involves examining the actions we take, for example by exploring course design,
intended learning outcomes and the instructional materials used to support the course. In essence,
we confront our assumptions about the course and what bodies of knowledge are appropriate. By
engaging in process reflection, we seek to validate what we do. The focus on the process
component is the teaching and learning assumptions underpinning our practice. In essence, how do
we engage students as active learners? To obtain evidence of our practice, we collect data from
students on how they engaged in the course, and the professional benefits and outcomes for them.
Finally, engaging in premise reflection requires us to examine why we teach the way we do by
reconceptualising the issues, justifying the approaches taken or suggesting alternatives.
The second feature of is the scope of reflection. Watson and Wilcox’s (2000) framework for
reflection developed for the process of reading can be adapted to help practitioners reflect on their
experiences. Watson and Wilcox propose that in reading stories the subtleties and complexities of
the text can be understood if a reader applies three processes or modes to their reading. Firstly, a
“quick reading” provides an initial impression of the range of issues in the text. Secondly, by
“zooming in”, we are able to pursue a fine grained analysis of a particular aspect of the issue. The
purpose is to ask questions of the text. Finally, a synthesis and evaluation of the text is obtained by
a “zooming out” to enable a reconciliation of conjectures and a restructuring of our sense of issues
and the relative significance of these issues. Thus, zooming out extends reflection from the local
level to the social political context in which a practice occurs (e.g., Carr & Kemmis, 1985).
The third feature is the types of reflection. In a study of effective school principals, Day (2000)
identified five types of reflection as contributing to effective leadership: the holistic, pedagogical,
interpersonal, strategic and intrapersonal. Within each of these kinds of reflection the principals
were able to reflect in, on, about and for action. This categorisation provided a useful structure to
describe the work of these people and to foster further reflection by colleagues and researchers
examining the study. Additionally, it highlights the multiplicity of reflections that are relevant in
any situation at the individual and community levels.
3
The final feature is reflection through writing. Writing is advocated frequently as a means to
stimulate reflection for example through narratives, journals and portfolios. This writing process
can range from superficial engagement with ideas and experiences to deep engagement. CampbellEvans and Maloney (1998) argue that individuals should be encouraged to reflect deeply on ideas
by working through writing cycles that progressively involve reporting, reviewing and refocusing,
analysing, and reconceptualising, which is the highest level of engagement (See Table 1).
Campbell-Evans and Maloney’s levels provide some insight into the advantages of narrative
writing. Narratives allow practitioners to express and explore their own experiences through story
telling in ways which help them to understand their practices and develop them further (Bolton,
2000). These levels of writing also indicate why a lack of challenge in some writing tasks, for
example in portfolios, can fail to engage individuals in coordinated and critical thinking as
envisaged by Dewey and Schön.
Table 1 Levels of Writing
Type
Reporting
Reviewing and
refocusing
Definition
Describing; giving a factual recount of critical events, workshops, lectures
Considering; making simple suggestions for alternatives; making plans for
action; explaining; as in cause and effect; low-level questioning;
reworking intentions and outcomes, making plans.
Analysing
Interpreting events, problems or activities; making sense of an activity,
situation or event; figuring it out and presenting a reasoned argument or
answer; diagnosing a problem; comparing and evaluating; questioning
answers and proposing follow-up actions.
Reconceptualising
Reworking views and ideas; drawing upon others’ ideas and elaborating;
stating a philosophy or vision of teaching a subject based on evidence,
theory or valid experience; developing an image of teaching and teachers;
insights into how students learn; stating a purpose for teaching a particular
subject.
Based on Campbell-Evans and Maloney (1998).
These four features of reflection should neither be considered as exhaustive nor discrete. However,
they should provide some guidance into how to undertake systematic reflection about teaching.
Test Drive: Enhancing Higher Education through Reflection
A “test drive” is integral to the assessment of a physical tool and provides firsthand experience of
the tool. As stated earlier, according to Confucius, experience together with reflection and imitation
are the three methods of obtaining wisdom. Hence, our next step is to test drive reflection as a tool
for enhancing teaching in higher education.
The Context and Data Sources
The course under review is a Graduate Certificate course in Higher Education, which has operated
for some ten years at the institution where this study was undertaken. Its main purpose is to provide
structured professional development for university academics whose participation is sponsored by
the university. Participants in the course are generally early career academics, or sessional staff.
They are drawn from a range of faculties including traditional sciences, health, social sciences,
business, education and humanities. These students are characterised by their high commitment and
enthusiasm but in many cases are confronting multiple pressures of young families, coping with, or
seeking new jobs, and institutional performance demands. Thus, they are often loaded with heavy
teaching schedules and subject to considerable pressure to perform in research.
4
The data sources for the evaluation of the course consist of documents, survey responses, written
reflections and artefacts. Documents consisted broadly of the literature and specifically of Course
documentation. Survey responses were obtained from university stakeholders and course
participants. University stakeholders were invited to contribute information related to relevance of
the course, its value and impact on teaching and learning in various faculties, and how the Course
might be strengthened. In addition, the co-author who was a course participant provided artefacts in
the form of a set of assignment materials and related writing.
Testing the Features of Reflection as a Tool for Enhancing Teaching Practice
Reflection as a tool for enhancing understanding about teaching practice in higher education
required three critical tests. The first test related to the utility of reflection as a tool for enhancing
understanding of teaching because the primary purpose of reflection is insight. The second test
checked for trustworthiness. Criticisms of reflection include the uncritical acceptance of learners’
experiences (Boud, 2006; Boud & Walker, 1998) highlight the importance of establishing
trustworthiness of a qualitative investigation. The third test focussed on the role of writing in
reflection. In higher education, there is a heavy emphasis on various forms of reflective writing.
Test 1. What insight does reflection provide about the quality of the course?
An examination of the course in relation to the components of reflection (i.e., content, process,
premise) and the scope of reflection (i.e., quick reading, zooming in, zooming out) provided
confidence that the course was generally of high quality but also indicated avenues for improvement
(See Watters & Diezmann, 2005 for details). Adopting the approach of reflecting on content,
process and premise provided an opportunity to describe and analyse the alignment of the course
with the expected professional development objectives of the university. In reflecting on content, a
holistic perspective was gained by examining the structure of the course and the articulated aims,
goals and key concepts being taught through the screening of recommended course readings. In
addition, a review of relevant literature on course evaluation provided standards against which we
could compare the course content.
In zooming in, we were able to explore what the participants said about the course, its value and
how the content equipped them to perform various functions in teaching. This zooming in phase
drew heavily on data collected purposefully through open-ended surveys and incidentally through
assignment work and unsolicited commentary. In analysing these data, we were cautious to gain
extensive understandings of what participants were saying in unison as well as idiosyncratic
feedback. Hence, corroborating evidence to support claims was sought and dissenting voices noted.
In zooming out general conjectures were postulated and their applicability tested.
In reflecting on process, we noted several features emerged from a quick read of structures and
modes of delivery. The process dimension explored modes of delivery, purposes and intended
outcomes. Data informing a more focussed analysis include survey information on the operation of
the course and reflections of a focus participant who was one of the authors (CMD). This process
revealed limitations with the course delivery and issues around the use of technology to support
learning. In zooming out, we identified the extent to which this course achieved its goals by the
faithfulness of the implementation. Although alignment with institutional goals appears to be
acknowledged, issues emerged with the implementation, which were addressed in subsequent
implementations of the course.
Finally, in reflecting on premises we examined the assumption that professional development
through a formalised Graduate Certificate taught by academic staff is necessary to ensure quality of
educational experiences for tertiary students. Scanning the literature the evidence in support of this
assumption was equivocal. Zooming in on our assumptions led us to believe the model of basic
teacher education is effective. The course is providing a comprehensive and acceptable avenue for
5
staff to engage in gaining qualifications in teaching in higher education. The course addresses
praxis, that is, it integrates theory and practice in ways that accommodate individual disciplinary
styles. Emerging from the qualitative data is an endorsement of the effectiveness and value of a
course of this nature for the professionalisation of teaching. Zooming out provided a broad
perspective, which endorsed the view that with guidance or support structures academic staff in
non-education faculties will engage in the discourse of education.
Test 2. How trustworthy is the reflection on the quality of the course?
The trustworthiness of the findings of the quality of the course reported in Watters and Diezmann
(2005) were established in two ways. Firstly, the assessment included attention to each of the types
of reflection (i.e, holistic, pedagogical, interpersonal, strategic, intrapersonal), for example,
zooming out is strategic and oriented towards future action. Thus, various stakeholders’ viewpoints
and types of data were represented within the study. Secondly, the reflection fulfils Lincoln and
Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability. Credibility of the findings was established by articulating the alignment between the
interpretations of data and the conceptual framework for the study (see Watters & Diezmann, 2005).
Transferability is apparent because similar approaches can be used to examine reflection on other
teaching situations. Dependability was ensured through the alignment of the theory, data collection
and analysis approaches. Confirmability was established because the findings are supported by
specific examples drawing on a range of data sources
Test 3. What role has writing played in the assessment of the quality of the course?
Writing has assumed a major role in the reflection on the quality of the course. In the past year,
three manuscripts have been authored variously incorporating the four levels of reflective writing
(i.e., reporting, reviewing and refocusing, analysing, reconceptualising) (Campbell-Evans &
Maloney, 1998). An internal report (Watters, 2005) was prepared for a professional audience and
primarily focused on reporting, and reviewing and refocusing the course. A research paper
comparing the intended and experienced curriculum focused primarily on analysis of evaluative
data (Watters & Diezmann, 2005). This current paper focuses on reconceptualising the role of
reflection in teaching by structuring reflection as a tool in qualitative evaluation. The inclusion of a
co-author on these latter two papers provided further scope for learning in two ways. Firstly, a coauthor provided opportunities for dialogue and discussion of alternative interpretations (Mezirow,
1991). Secondly, the selection of a co-author who was a student and focus participant rather than an
instructor in this course provided broader stakeholder representation in writing. Thus, progressively
these pieces of writing have contributed to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the
quality of the course.
Concluding Comments on Reflection as a Tool for Evaluation
The “market research” and “test drive” revealed that reflection is a tool with high potential for
insight but one that requires expertise in order to use this tool effectively. The features of the tool
variously contributed to understanding about teaching. However, these features need to be used
judiciously depending on what type of understanding is sought. For example, although there is a
place for intrapersonal reflection, an understanding of the broader contextual issues in education
requires strategic reflection. This need for alignment between the understanding sought and the
particular feature of reflection raises a concern about the value of some of the types of reflection
currently undertaken in education and provide explanations for critiques of reflective practice as
recipe following, and being over intellectualised (Boud, 2006; Boud & Walker, 1998). Thus, if
reflection is to lead to professional learning the features of the tool need to be understood and
employed judiciously. The focus on features of reflection addresses Clark’s (2001) concern that
reflective practice has been adopted by educational researchers and teachers in all manner of ways
to the point where the term has lost all specificity.
6
Notwithstanding, these concerns about reflection as a tool, it has high market appeal. Reflection is
already widely used albeit not necessarily effectively (e.g., Clark, 2001). Additionally, other
measures of teaching effectiveness, such as student evaluation and peer review are problematic.
Student evaluation of teaching has burgeoned over the past decade despite considerable debate
about the authenticity and reliability of such practices (Henkel, 1998). Peer review is perceived as
an alternative evaluation process that should contribute to improved quality of teaching but also
suffers from concerns about its relationship to appraisal and career development (Lomas &
Nicholls, 2005). Given the widespread use of reflection and the lack of a viable alternative for
measuring effectiveness, the way forward is to improve the use of reflection. The description of
features of reflection provides the starting point for this process. Each of the features identified here
contributes in some way to an understanding of practice but further research is needed to identify
other features of reflection and to produce a comprehensive model of reflection that incorporates
these features.
Postscript
Our original intent was to write a paper about reflection articulating and justifying the
methodological approach adopted in assessing the quality of a course (Watters & Diezmann, 2005).
However, in the process of working and reworking the ideas in this paper, writing about reflection
was supplanted by writing through reflection (emphasis added). To us, this endorses the power of
writing in the reflective process.
References
Amundsen, C., Saroyan, A., & Frankman, M. (1996). Changing methods and metaphors: A case
study of growth in university teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(3), 3-42.
Bolton, G. (2000). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Boud, D. (2006). Relocating reflection in the context of practice: Rehabilitation or rejection.
Keynote address to Standing Conference on University teaching and research in education of
adults.
Trinity
and
All
Saints
College,
Horsforth,
Leeds.
[http://www.leeds.ac.uk/medicine/meu/lifelong06/papers/P_DavidBoud.pdf Accessed 13/6/06]
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of
context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-206.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell-Evans, G., & Maloney, C. (1998). An analysis framework for reflective writing.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 23(1), 29-38.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge and action research,
Lewes: Falmer.
Clark, C. (2001). Carr and Kemmis' reflections. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(1), 85-100.
[http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Confucius/2/index.html Accessed 25/06/06]
Cranton, P. A. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Cranton, P. A. (1998). No one way. Toronto, ON: Wall & Emerson.
Day, C. (2000). Effective leadership and reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 1(1), 113-127.
Dewey, J. (1933/1991). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Hatton, N. & Smith D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.
Henkel, M. (1998). Evaluation in higher education: Conceptual and epistemological foundations.
European Journal of Education, 33(3), 285-298.
Killion, J. P., & Todnem, G. R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational
Leadership, 48(6), 14-16.
Kreber, C. (2004). An analysis of two models of reflection and their implications for educational
development. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 29-49.
7
Kreber, C. (2005). Reflection on teaching and the scholarship of teaching: Focus on science
instructors. Higher Education, 50(2), 323–359.
Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. Journal of Higher
Education, 71(4), 471-495.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
Lomas, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching.
Quality in Higher Education, 11(2), 137-149.
McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (2000). (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors’
teaching and students' learning. Instructional Science, 28(5-6), 363-385.
McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, C.; Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, J. (1999). Building a
metacognitive model of reflection. Higher Education, 37(2), 105-131.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.),
Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice (pp. 5-12). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Osterman, K. F. & Kottkamp R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: professional
development to improve student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ovens, A. (2002). Discourse communities and the social construction of reflection in teacher
education. In the Annual Conference proceedings of the Higher Education Research
Development society of Australia, Research and Development in Higher Education: Quality
Conversation, Volume 25 (pp. 505-511). Canberra: HERDSA.
Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. & Clark, S. (1995) Recognising and rewarding good
teaching in Australian higher education, a project commissioned by the Committee for the
Advancement of University Teaching Canberra, Government Printer
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: a model.
Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 155–168.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Watson, J. S., & Wilcox, S. (2000). Reading for understanding: Methods of reflecting on practice.
Reflective Practice, 1(1), 57-67.
Watters, J. J. (2005). Review of Graduate Certificate (Higher Education): Report to Faculty of
Education course coordination committee. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Watters, J., J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2005). Accrediting university teachers: Contrasting the
intended and experienced curriculum. Paper presented at British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005.
[http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/151340.doc Accessed 25/06/06]
Zeichner, K. M. & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
8