premature closure and guided reinvention: a case study in a web-based learning environment

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 17 October 2014, At: 07:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Premature closure and guidedreinvention: a case study in aweb‐based learning environmentAnne Bannink a & Jet Van Dam aa University of Amsterdam , The NetherlandsPublished online: 02 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Anne Bannink & Jet Van Dam (2007) Premature closure and guided reinvention:a case study in a web‐based learning environment, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,13:6, 565-586

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600701683499

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600701683499

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practiceVol. 13, No. 6, December 2007, pp. 565–586

ISSN 1354-0602 (print)/ISSN 1470-1278 (online)/07/060565–22© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13540600701683499

Premature closure and guided reinvention: a case study in a web-based learning environmentAnne Bannink* and Jet Van DamUniversity of Amsterdam, The NetherlandsTaylor and Francis LtdCTAT_A_268210.sgm10.1080/13540600701683499Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice1354-0602 (print)/1470-1278 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis136000000December [email protected]

Just as linguistic errors have provided insights into the nature of linguistic competence(s), detailedanalyses of blind spots or marked trajectories in the reflection cycles of novice teachers may providea window on their underlying beliefs, and thus on relevant zones of proximal development. In thispaper we analyse a case study in an experimental web-based learning environment in which a noviceteacher demonstrably just reproduces the assumptions she started out with rather than re-inspectingthem. Having located a problem of motivation uniquely inside the learners’ heads, she pointedlyignores hints in the feedback that her own verbal and nonverbal behaviour in the classroom mightbe a relevant domain of enquiry. Our findings show the need for structural interventions within apriori hypothesized, linearly ordered, stages in reflection models. We report on two small-scaleexperiments that implement suggested changes in the architecture of the web site which yield morecontext-sensitive ways of scaffolding reflection. In conclusion we argue that detailed discursiveaccounts of successful and less successful reflection trajectories are needed to refine and furtherdevelop models in teacher thinking.

Keywords: Cognitive-affective filter; Discourse analysis; Electronic learning environment; Guided reflection; Micro-ethnography

Introduction

In the reflective approach to teacher education (e.g. Korthagen & Kessels, 1999;Clarke & Hollingworth, 2002; Jay & Johnson, 2002), novice teachers’ professionaldevelopment is predicated on the assumption that, at some stage during the reflectioncycle, they re-inspect their original assumptions about what was going on in a class-room situation that they experienced as problematic. This process of enquiry isscaffolded by others (peers, school-based and university supervisors), and ideally their

*Corresponding author. English Department, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210, Amsterdam1012VT, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4

566 A. Bannink and J. Van Dam

feedback should feed into a readiness to consider alternative interpretations of thesesituations. Such a renewed perspective, we argue, is possible only if it is based onenhanced awareness: a sufficiently rich notion of what are the data to reflect upon.Since student-teachers’ beliefs and emotional involvement may constrain what can beseen (‘blind spots’), there is a problem in predominantly cognitive orientations toteacher development (Pennington, 1996; Hargreaves, 2000; Leitch & Day, 2000). Ifessential features in understanding a particular classroom situation are not includedin the initial definition of ‘the’ matter for reflection, there is the danger of prematureclosure (cf. Cousin, 2000; Phelps & Hase, 2002): a priori assumptions about where theproblem is located may be reproduced rather than investigated in the subsequentreflection trajectory—in spite of cues in the feedback. There is the risk reflecting teach-ers settle for reductionist solutions to complex problems (cf. Larsen-Freeman, 1997;Florio-Ruane, 2002). The claim that feedback from trusted others in a safe environ-ment routinely succeeds in breaking down psychological barriers and in raising aware-ness should not be taken for granted and needs to be investigated (cf. Wajnryb, 1998).

In this article, we analyse a case of premature closure in student-teacher thinkingin an experimental web-based learning environment in which novice teachers importdigitalised video data of their own lessons (streaming video). We discuss both thepractical and the theoretical implications of our findings and argue that detailedempirical accounts of successful and less successful reflection trajectories are needed torefine and further develop models of teacher thinking.

For our analyses, we use a framework that is multi-disciplinary and discourse-based. It emphasises the context-sensitivity of what people say and do both in theembedded classroom domain (the action domain reflected upon; cf. Van Dam, 2002)and the institutional world in which the reflection and feedback data are produced.The investigation includes non-verbal features of talk-in-interaction as data andapplies Goffman’s (1979, 1981) insights about the complexity of speaker and hearerroles to reflection on teacher learning in institutional multi-party settings (Bannink &Van Dam, 2006, 2007).

Reflection in teacher education: issues and dilemmas

In most models of teacher education reflecting upon one’s classroom experiences isconsidered a precondition for professional growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002).It is assumed that reflection is triggered by the confrontation with ‘perplexities’(Dewey, 1933): key events in institutional situations that are puzzling and beg to besolved. For novice teachers, the first step into the reflective process is to describe salientfeatures of these puzzling or problematic situations that give direction to the trajectoryof enquiry they subsequently should embark upon. Peers and supervisors may scaffoldthe reflection process by, e.g. asking for clarification, suggesting alternative interpre-tations or widening the range of observations that are relevant to the issue at hand.But it is up to the student-teachers themselves to actively engage in problem-solving.Learner agency is crucial: it is felt that student-teachers need to be active learners whoshape their own professional growth. The outcome of the reflection trajectory should

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Premature closure and guided reinvention 567

be an enhanced awareness and understanding of the situation, which eventually feedsinto the exploration of alternative courses of action that will lead to better outcomes.Ideally, this reflection process is cyclical and involves ‘the constant returning to one’sown understanding of the problem at hand’ (Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 79). It is implied,of course, that ‘returning’ entails critical thinking about the problem under investiga-tion in order to arrive at an updated, richer understanding. Thus, the ‘naïve’, ‘everyday’theories about learning and teaching that students start out with will progressivelyevolve into ways of thinking that approximate those of disciplinary experts (cf. Gee,1994).

If we accept this description of the reflective process, a number of issues arise. Thefirst concerns the identification of the matter for reflection. In principle there areendless possibilities, from classroom-related dilemmas to higher-order lesson goalsand the cultural, moral or personal beliefs that guide (novice) teachers’ work; in fact‘[any] puzzling, or troubling or interesting phenomenon with which the individual istrying to deal’ (Schön, 1983, p. 50; cited in Jay & Johnson, 2002). Initially, noviceteachers are often most concerned about the practical classroom problems they areconfronted with in their everyday teaching practice. Some authors have suggestedthese are relevant only to ‘technical’ dimensions of reflection on teaching/learningprocesses and professional development (e.g. Shkedi & Laron, 2004, p. 709). It isimplied that they are peripheral to core issues in the reflective teacher paradigm anddo not systematically relate to critical thinking and professional growth. On the basisof our findings in the case study we will question that view.

Once the matter for reflection has been identified, it needs to be described. Bydefinition, this presupposes some representation of the action or reality involved(Rosenstein, 2000). In most teacher education programmes, the ‘data’ to reflect uponare reconstructed from memory in writing assignments or in post-lesson face-to-facedialogues between learners and others such as school-based and university supervi-sors or peers. Audio and video data may be useful extras in that they provide more‘objective’ and detailed representations, which may help student-teachers in identify-ing the parameters of the particular ‘puzzle of practice’ (Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 77).Such scaffolding is often necessary since, in interpreting events, we are all inevitablyselective. We do not view everything that happens in a particular situation as relevantlyhappening (Goffman, 1974; Goodwin, 1981). A whole variety of actions that do notcount as part of the ‘main track action’ may nevertheless have an impact on the courseof events (Kendon, 1992). Therefore, triangulation with other parties is often neces-sary to make ‘the picture’ (the reflection base) as complete as possible. In our globalevaluation of the website, this was one of the issues we addressed: was there evidencethat the web-based learning environment, in facilitating multiple viewings of troubleepisodes, provided a good reflection base?

The next stage in the reflection cycle concerns the interpretation of the data. It isgenerally assumed that student-teachers’ personal theories of teaching may colourand constrain their interpretation of events. Their prior experiences as classroomlearners have resulted in an implicit belief system that acts as ‘the filter through whichnew knowledge, ideas, and experiences are perceived’ (Zanting et al., 2001, p. 726).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Wideen et al. (1998, p. 145) refine this point by referring specifically to cognitivedimensions of the reflection process: ‘beliefs act as filters to screen out […] experi-ences that are cognitively incompatible’ (see also ‘cognitive dissonance’; Day et al.,1990; Kagan, 1992). Pennington (1996) argues that not only cognitive but also affec-tive dimensions are involved in the extent to which novice teachers can take on boardnew information. Other researchers have taken this point even further and proposethat teachers’ emotional involvement in classroom events co-determines the way theseare stored in memory and thus constrains what they are able to see (e.g. Hargreaves,2000; Leitch & Day, 2000). Cultural bias, moreover, may also play a role and couldlead to blind spots, selective noticing and narrow interpretations (‘cultural blindness’;e.g. Jackson, 1995; Varenne & McDermott, 1998).

All of the above proposals emphasise through metaphors associated with the notionof the ‘filter’ or ‘seeing and not seeing’ how difficult it is for reflecting agents to imple-ment the comparative dimension of the reflection cycle: ‘reframing the matter forreflection in the light of a number of alternative views, others’ perspectives, research,etc.’ (Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 77). Hatton and Smith (1995) emphasise the impor-tance of peers as ‘critical friends’ at this stage of the process. Korthagen and Kessels(1999) see a crucial role for teacher-educators and school-based supervisors. Theyborrow the idea of ‘guided reinvention’ from mathematics education (Freudenthal,1973) to characterise a type of intervention that might open student-teachers’ eyes tonew dimensions of teaching/learning situations. Clearly, in our evaluation of thewebsite as a learning tool, we also looked for evidence that such re-framing took place,and if so, what type of interventions had triggered it.

Finally, but importantly, the reflective paradigm is based on the premise that thechanged perspectives and beliefs that are the outcome of a successful reflection cyclelead directly to changed classroom practices. Wideen et al. (1998), however, state thatthis assumption has not been sufficiently examined.

Although widely accepted, the reflection model described above has been subjectto criticism. Leitch and Day, for instance, challenge the cognitive orientation of manycurrent models of reflection that tend to ignore the role of emotions ‘as powerfuldeterminants of thinking processes’ (2000, p. 187). They propose a holistic approachto reflective practice that acknowledges the interconnectedness of thinking, feelingand acting. Also, the assumption that the various types of reflective activities arelinearly ordered is not uncontested (e.g. Fullan, 1982; Clarke & Peter, 1993; Wideenet al., 1998). What is modelled, some critics say, may be the beliefs of the authors whodesign the educational programmes rather than any empirically validated trajectoriesof change. Guskey (2002) argues that changes in beliefs and attitudes may typicallytake place after teachers have ‘field-tested’ evidence that the proposed changes indeedproduce changed (better) learning outcomes.

Research framework and research questions

Our investigation of the reflection data in the experimental website is multi-disciplinaryand discourse-based. We started out making minimal a priori assumptions about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


where we should be looking and what we should find. Our global research questionwas the one that often underlies educational action research: ‘does it work?’ Thefirst sub-question was: does the website work as a learning environment and learningtool for reflection and professional development? And the second: can we identify weakspots and/or suggest improvements in the architecture of the site? Since triangulationwith the subject of the case study proved impossible, we tried to make up for this regret-table lack of metadata by trying out suggested improvements with another cohort ofnovice teachers. We will briefly report on the results of these small experiments below.

The criterion we used to operationalise whether or not a reflection trajectory wassuccessful was that there should be evidence of change: that an earlier stance, obser-vation or interpretation had been abandoned or modified or had become richer andmore complex as a result of completing the assignment. This meant that we had tobe able to relate reflection data across discourse worlds and discourse domains, i.e.the embedded classroom world reflected on (the video data); the world in which thereflections are shared with others (the entries in the website), and the institutionalworld in which they are evaluated (researchers’ comments). The dynamic discoursemodel we use accepts both verbal and non-verbal behaviours as data and allowscontexts of interpretation to be recursively embedded. It also provides procedures formodelling the notions ‘re-analysis’ and ‘updating’. We hope to show that such a toolis clearly valuable in articulating the discursive contexts of learning (cf. Bannink &Van Dam, 2006). Since the investigation also, crucially, involves the learning envi-ronment or the contextual parameters of the reflection task, proposals in the area ofsituated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) are potentially relevant.

While keeping in mind the successive stages hypothesised in the reflection modelsoutlined above, we did not take them as our point of departure—if only because wedid not have real world data of the final stage: whether and how any insights gainedas a result of the reflection assignment were implemented in the student-teachers’school practice. We were interested, however, in the extent to which the existence ofthese discrete stages and their ordering was empirically validated, i.e. emerged from in-depth analyses of the protocols entered in the website. We will thus refer to discursiveelements that cue or identify any of the stages outlined above when relevant.

Context and background to the study

As mentioned above, the investigation reported upon in this article arose from aperplexity we were confronted with in our practice as teacher-educators, when wefirst looked at novice teachers’ reflection data in a newly developed website at theGraduate School of Teaching and Learning of the University of Amsterdam.1 Theelectronic learning environment had been designed with a view to improving the qual-ity of the novice teachers’ reflection trajectories. However, when we first looked at thereflection data entered in the experimental website we intuitively felt that thisassumption might have to be questioned. We undertook an in-depth analysis of thepilot data in order to verify our intuitions. The case study presented below reports onour findings which we claim (but cannot corroborate in the scope of this article) are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


representative of the type of short cuts we also found in other reflection trajectories inthe pilot.

The novice teachers who enter the Graduate School have completed an MAdegree, usually in one main subject, and now follow a one-year teacher educationcourse. It involves teaching at a practice school and simultaneously attending classeson methodology, pedagogy, etc. Traditionally, the methodology course has requiredthe student-teachers to tape two of the lessons they teach, one at the beginning andone at the end of their teaching practice. They then selected three short episodes thatcontain some problem or ‘perplexity’ (Dewey, 1933) that they wished to reflect upon.They were invited to motivate their choice and discuss the problem in a face-to-faceviewing session with their supervisor and/or peers on the basis of an explicit questionfor feedback. To round off the assignment they handed in a written report in whichthey described and evaluated what they had learnt by doing the reflection assignment.

A few years ago a project was launched to explore the affordances of a web-basedenvironment for this task. The assumption was that the website would provide a richfeedback environment as it facilitates revisiting the data as well as online scaffoldingof reflection processes: in principle, it would allow intensive triangulation. The designof the pilot closely mirrored existing procedures for the face-to-face reflection tasksince the results had to be comparable. The idea was to get the site started, and thenevaluate the pilot and refine and enrich the programme on the basis of the findings.

Eight students volunteered for the experiment. They imported three episodes froma lesson they had taught as digitalised video data (streaming video) into the (guarded)website. In line with the format of the original task, the students were required to: (1)motivate their choice of the episodes; (2) identify a problematic and a positive aspectin the footage; and (3) ask a specific question for feedback. The student-teachersselected and invited their own feedback group (‘critical friends’, ‘trusted others’;Hatton & Smith, 1995, p. 41). A final report on their reflective activities and whatthey had gained by doing the assignment had to be handed in and discussed with theirmentor.

We analysed the reflection trajectories on the basis of what had been entered in theexperimental website. We describe the successive stages in accordance with the pathwe followed through the data: what the student-teachers wrote about the nature oftheir problem and what was their question for feedback; what we saw when viewingthe video data of the episodes selected for reflection; what feedback the student-teachers received from minimally two trusted (invited) others; and the final report inwhich the student-teachers evaluated what insights they had gained from doing theassignment.

We found that many of the student-teachers said they had just acted on theconcrete suggestions for alternative behaviours (‘tips’) provided to them in the feed-back. There was no evidence that they had followed up cues to hitherto unnoticeddimensions of the teaching/learning situation by having another look at the footage.Nor was there any indication that the feedback had functioned as a starting point forfurther enquiry, had prompted the student-teachers to inspect their assumptions crit-ically or to consider alternative interpretations. Overwhelmingly, they adhered to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


their initial hypothesis about what was going on without elaborating on specificaspects of the situation. Some students briefly reported on what happened when theyput into practice alternative courses of action. In fact, our analyses seemed to provideweak evidence for the claim that reflection may routinely follow the trying-out of newbehaviours rather than prompting it (cf. Guskey, 2002). Below we will report on aspecific case that illustrates the type of problem that we encountered more generallyin the pilot.

The case study

The case study to be analysed in this article concerns reflection data and metadataabout an episode from a lesson taught by Jo, a biology teacher. In the footage she isteaching a class about the nervous system to a group of 14/15-year-olds. Jo has nearlycompleted the teacher education programme and has come to know this particulargroup of students well: she has been teaching them on and off for the past ninemonths. Having introduced the lesson topic to the learners, she proceeds to set themquestions that they are to discuss in groups of two or three. At this stage, the teacherwalks around the room and assists the students whenever necessary. The episode wewill focus on shows the group work stage of the lesson.

Jo’s entries that contextualise the problem for reflection

[I have selected this episode because]: This is typical for the ‘we won’t do any work’attitude of a lot of the students in this class.

[Positive aspect]: I succeed in getting three students to think about the subject matter.

[Negative aspect]: Oops, I give a student the finger!

[Question for feedback]: Those 15 minutes that the students work independently, Iwalk around the room and help them. I stop and talk for a long time with just acouple of students (but that’s positive because those are the only moments I have realcontact with the students). I think that many of the students only work if I stand nextto them and talk to them about the assignments. How can I make them more inde-pendent?

The video data

When the video begins Jo is rounding off an interaction with the students of GroupA (see Figure 1) at the back of the class. We first see her bending over while talkingto the students of Group A (Figure 2). Without looking up she then walks over toGroup B. Figure 3 shows that, throughout her trajectory from Group A to Group B,her back is turned towards the other students in class and her gaze is directed towardsthe target group. When she arrives at Group B, she bends over to create conversa-tional proximity with Students B1 and B2, but blocks Student B3’s participation indoing so (see Figure 4). During the entire episode she consistently has eye contactonly with students she verbally interacts with.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Figure 1. Layout of the classroom. Arrow indicates trajectory of Jo from Group A to Group B

Figure 2. Teacher Jo working with Group A

Figure 3. Jo moving from Group A to Group B

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Figure 1. Layout of the classroom. Arrow indicates trajectory of Jo from Group A to Group BStudent B3 sits back with his arms crossed but continues looking at the interactingothers. For 29 seconds the teacher has eye contact with Students B1 and B2, but notwith B3. Then Student B3 interrupts (it is not clear what he says). The teacherresponds by turning her head in his direction without shifting position, briefly makingeye contact and saying ‘You are not even trying, so mind your own business’. Shethen resumes her interaction with the other two students.

After another 25 seconds Student B3 interrupts a second time (again it is not clearwhat he says). Jo makes eye contact and gives him the finger. Immediately after this,she looks away again and continues the interrupted interaction with Students B1 andB2. Forty-eight seconds later Student B3 looks over his shoulder (into the directionof the video camera) and starts pulling Student B2’s arm. Jo reacts to this by brieflymaking eye contact with Student B3 without saying anything. She once again resumesher interaction with the other two. After another 30 seconds she walks away: here thevideo segment ends.

Analyses: teacher assumptions and teacher beliefs

We can identify some basic assumptions in Jo’s definition of the nature of the prob-lem. Her first entry shows that she has selected this lesson episode because it displayssome aspect that she considers essential or even typical for this class: most of thestudents just ‘won’t do any work’. This formulation locates the problem as one intrin-sic to the learners (learners as closed systems; cf. Leather & Van Dam, 2003): moti-vations and attitudes that globally apply to these students irrespective of the specific localcircumstances.

She refers to her interaction with the three students in one of the groups as a positiveaspect of the lesson episode, since she succeeds in ‘getting them to think about thesubject matter’. Under ‘negative aspect’ of the lesson episode, she mentions hersemiotic gesture or put-down with respect to one of the students. Its salience for heris in evidence. Thus, the expectation is warranted that it will trigger reflection oncausal chains, e.g. why the ‘wrong move’ escaped her; what could be the effect of the

Figure 4. Teacher Jo working with Group B

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


infelicitous signal on the subsequent behaviour of the student; what would be alter-native ways of acting.

In her question for feedback, Jo introduces the assumption that her proximity orsurveillance of the students at close range is a condition sine qua non for them to work.In view of her wish to make them more independent (the feedback question itself) thispremise leads to pragmatic dilemmas: clearly it is not physically possible to stand nextto all of the students or groups simultaneously. And also: is such close monitoringcompatible with independent learning? There is indeed a perplexity here to beunpacked and reflected upon.

People’s beliefs can only be accessed by what they say and do. Jo frames the problemsof motivation to be reflected upon as invariable learner attributes and introduces a rela-tionship between non-verbal parameters of interactions (e.g. spatial configurations inthe classroom) and getting the learners to work. The following a priori assumptionscan be extrapolated from her definition of the problem for reflection:

1. Most of these students just will not work.2. If they work, they only do so under my personal surveillance, when I stand next

to them.3. Real contact with the students presupposes conversational proximity.

Jo’s entries not only tell us what she thinks but also give us some indication of howshe feels. The fact that she gives one student the finger is evidence of feelings of exas-peration that overrule her ‘professional self’ (Day & Leitch, 2001). Shame about thisloss of decorum is reported in a different stance or ‘footing’ (Goffman, 1979, 1981).Her ‘oops’ (cf. ‘response cries’; Goffman, 1981) contextualises this move as one thatshe distances herself from: in her professional on-action reflection stance shecomments on her in-action behaviour (cf. Schön, 1983, 1987).

We will explore the impact of these a priori assumptions and emotions on laterstages of the reflection trajectory.

The feedback entries

Jo receives feedback from two respondents who have been personally invited by herto react: a peer and her university supervisor. They are the ‘critical friends’ or ‘trustedothers’ (Hatton & Smith, 1995, p. 41) whose role is to scaffold Jo’s reflectionprocesses by inviting her to refine her observations and questions; to critically inspecther own interpretation of classroom events; and to consider alternative readings of thesituation and/or new ways of acting.

Feedback 1 (peer): It’s funny Jo: your class seems to be fairly quiet and attentive duringteacher-fronted episodes and reluctant to work when they have the opportunity to do so.With me it’s just the other way around! The segment I’ve just watched makes me wonderwhat you’re saying to them. It looks like you’re doing a lot of explaining. I find it worksreally well if I ask students a follow-up question. Let them think for a minute, ask one ofthem a question and then ask another if he agrees. … By asking questions instead of givinganswers you force them to think. As for the finger: the learner does not seem to be a bitsurprised! Do you do this more often? :-)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Feedback 2 (university supervisor): In this episode something funny is going on: you inter-act with two of the students but not with the third—well, except by giving him the finger.When you approach the group you briefly glance at the middle boy (B2); the left one inthe red jacket joins in but the right one (B3) stays out of it altogether and you leave it likethat; or rather giving him the finger confirms it! I wonder: did you ask all three how theywere doing? One way to get them to work more independently is to put the group as awhole on a certain track and make them jointly responsible for working out a solution.That way, no individual learner has the excuse that he’s out of his depth. But basicallyI think the skills necessary for independent learning can only be acquired by lots of prac-tice: just continue in the way you are doing right now.

Analyses of the feedback

It is significant that both respondents begin their feedback with a remark about some-thing that struck them as ‘funny’. Since Jo’s question for feedback sets the agenda forwhat can legitimately be talked about, the respondents have the problem that anycomments that do not directly relate to that question are in some sense dispreferred:for those types of moves relevance has to be constructed online. Similarly, tacitassumptions underlying the question that contextualise and constrain what can beseen cannot be directly addressed. The first respondent frames her observation thatJo’s students are quite attentive and on task during teacher-fronted episodes as onethat is relevant because it contrasts with her own expectations and experiences. Butin doing so she also implicitly calls into question Jo’s assumption that the students areglobally unwilling to work and introduces the notion that learner attitudes may besensitive to local conditions.

When she zooms in on the group work episode of the lesson and the question forfeedback proper, she leaves the interpretation of ‘what really happened’ in Jo’s hands(‘I wonder what you are saying to them’). This may be interpreted as an indirectnessor politeness strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It functions as a preface to her mainpoint: the observation that it all seems to be a rather long monologue on Jo’s part. Shefollows up this mild critique by suggestions drawn from her own teaching practice:she finds it ‘works’ to ask more questions, insert pauses (cf. ‘wait time’; Rowe, 1986;Roth et al., 1999) and invite currently uninvolved third parties to evaluate their peers’contributions, rather than to hold the floor herself. Her feedback amounts to therecommendation to implement a greater variety of interactional roles and footings(Goffman, 1979): be the ‘coach’ rather than the ‘speaker’. If Jo stimulates student–student interaction, the learners do not need her to monitor the interaction—and maybecome more independent. The feedback clearly promotes a comparative and criticalstance on what happened. It is finely tuned to Jo’s question and scaffolds a moredynamic-interactional perspective on her problem: as locally occasioned rather than(wholly) predetermined in the attitudes of the students.

Her comment on ‘the finger’ enquires about the extent to which it is habitual forJo to show her irritation towards a learner in this way. It indirectly hints at—ratherthan making an explicit point about—the shared discourse history between Joherself and Student B3 and long-term effects that might be involved. The smiley

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


she closes off with is not randomly placed: it mitigates any offence Jo might experi-ence in the suggestion that her own interactional behaviour towards Student B3might be structural rather than incidental. Inserting such an emoticon compensatesfor her inability to display face-to-face mitigation strategies such as smiling or into-nation contours. It can be interpreted as a politeness strategy.

The second respondent has noticed an inconsistency between Jo’s reading of thesituation and his own observations based on the video data: it seems to him she interactsonly with two of the members of Group B, not with the third. This is an invitation forJo to review the data and check her original interpretation of what happened. He thenrepairs his initial comment that she did not communicate with Student B3 but onlymentions the ‘finger’. This is striking in view of the fact that Jo did communicate withStudent B3 repeatedly, both verbally and non-verbally. The oversight mirrors Jo’sinterpretation when she includes B3 in the group of students-on-task. It raises inter-esting issues about what can be ignored as data in the course of an ongoing interactionand the ambiguous parameters of interactions that result in inclusion/exclusion.Having excluded B3 from the task-oriented interaction with Students B1 and B2 bytelling him to mind his own business and giving him the finger, Jo has effectively framedhim as an outsider. Whatever he does or does not do after that can be constructed asnot relevantly happening in that interaction: Jo’s point. Like the previous respondent,the supervisor introduces a more dynamic interactional perspective on what happenedand why. He suggests that some action on her part might have remedied the situationand could have involved B3 into the group discussion. By saying that giving him thefinger just reinforces his role as an outsider, he implicitly refers to the phenomenonof self-fulfilling prophecy (cf. Good & Brophy, 1987). In order to get them to workindependently, he suggests Jo try treating them more like a group. Finally, he encour-ages her to continue exactly as she has been doing: if the students have enough practice,they will master the required skills in the long run.

Summary and discussion

In both cases the ‘critical friends’ zoom in on details of Jo’s interactional behaviourthat they consider salient in the context of the problem for reflection. Theircomments are phrased in terms that are mostly implicit or indirect: they have toreconcile the social and goal-oriented imperatives of being both ‘critical’ and ‘afriend’ (‘pragmatic ambivalence’; Wajnryb, 1998). But the cues they give clearlyinvite Jo to consider alternative interpretations of the situation, i.e. interpretationsthat do not reside solely in a priori, monolithically ‘given’ attitudes of the learners.They effect this, for instance, by noting an inconsistency between their own observa-tions and Jo’s account of the situation: Jo claimed that she got all three of the learnersinvolved in the task, but did not the third student stay rather out of it all? Such aninconsistency begs to be addressed, responded to. It is marked for the recipient partyto just ignore it. In that sense the feedback seems to fulfil the requirements for guidedreinvention: it guides Jo to salient features of the situation that she may have over-looked but leaves it up to her ‘to find out how [she] could re-invent what [she] is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


expected to learn’ (Freudenthal, 1973, preface). So it makes sense to screen the restof the reflection trajectory for evidence that Jo has had another look at the video dataand has addressed the issues raised by her critical friends.

Final stage of the reflection assignment: Jo’s self-report

In her final report, Jo evaluates the reflection assignment and reports on what she haslearned by doing it. She writes:

I put into practice some of the suggestions I received. There is no need to address my ques-tions any further, since X and Y have responded (and I have read their feedback). Otherteachers have told me they also find it difficult to get this group to stay on task.

We learn that Jo has tried out new behaviours by acting upon some of the sugges-tions she received. These new behaviours probably involve asking questions wheninteracting with groups of students rather than indulging in monological explana-tions (see Feedback 1), and introducing elements of cooperative learning (see Feed-back 2). Whether they helped solve her problem we do not know. There is noevidence that the feedback prompted Jo to review the footage or reconsider her ownrole in the proceedings. In fact, the third sentence suggests that she primarily seeksconfirmation from experts or more experienced colleagues of the beliefs she startedout with. If everyone agrees the problem lies with the learners there is no need forher to reflect upon her own in-class behaviour: ‘these students are just difficult tomotivate—nothing to do with me’.

Apparently the amount of ‘cognitive dissonance’ (Day et al., 1990; Kagan, 1992)this teacher could take on board is limited. She seems to be unable to take in obser-vations and cues in the feedback that cast doubt upon those a priori beliefs: they arefiltered out, ignored. And since the website basically has a one-time linear triadicstructure: (1) (Student) Question; (2) (Peer and Tutor) Feedback/Answer(s); (3)(Student) Evaluation of the Answer(s), there is no opportunity for continued dialogueon these issues. The student teacher’s firmly held beliefs result in a narrow notion ofwhat are relevant data to reflect upon. Thus the reflection cycle is aborted: if there isnothing to re-inspect, we have a clear case of premature closure.

Discussion

Jo’s case illustrates the considerable barriers that may be involved in questioning orre-thinking one’s initial beliefs about a teaching situation (e.g. Pennington, 1996;Hargreaves, 2000; Leitch & Day, 2000). In terms of Pennington’s (1996) proposalswe would have to conclude that these mental or psychological barriers—the ‘cogni-tive-affective filter’—were too high for her to adopt a changed perspective towardsthe course of events. For instance, she was apparently unable to consider a readingof the situation that included her own interactional (non-verbal) behaviour as partof the problem to reflect on. Pennington suggests that emotional barriers can be‘made permeable’ through reflection (Pennington, 1996, p. 342). There seems to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


be a deadlock and circularity here, however. Reflection is the key to lowering thecognitive-affective filter, but at the same time some key interactional behavioursmay already have been filtered out as relevant data at the very beginning of thereflection cycle.

What the reflecting novice teacher did not herself discursively introduce in herinitial definition of the problem she can ignore or resist later on: frame as irrelevant(‘noise’) in the context of her own question for feedback. It is thus difficult for thefeedback givers to address issues that were not explicitly introduced by the reflectingstudent herself. How can these cognitive, affective and discursive dilemmas in reflec-tion trajectories be dealt with and, if possible, remedied? In the following sections, wewill discuss these issues in the context of the web-based reflection assignment.

The claim that (streaming) video in itself facilitates a more distanced stance orperspective (Rosenstein, 2000) on the part of novice teachers and enables them toperceive classroom events from a new angle is neither corroborated nor contradictedby our findings. We have reason to believe that Jo—and many others in the pilot—didnot bother to have another look at the footage, even if cues and explicit comments inthe feedback suggested that they might have overlooked or misread salient features inthe situation. Thus, any direct beneficial effect that (streaming) video might have asa reflection tool that creates affordances for enhanced awareness cannot be confirmedand needs to be further investigated.

In our case study the feedback was provided by critical friends: they had both beenpersonally invited by the novice teacher. Even so their comments only implicitlytouched upon personal or emotional dimensions of teacher Jo’s behaviour. Possibly,this provided Jo with exactly the psychological and discursive space she needed to beable to ignore, filter out, any observations that were incongruent with her own memo-ries and beliefs. The interactional parameters of supervision discourse and the complexface issues involved (Wajnryb, 1998) also deserve further investigation.

Theoretical and practical implications of the case study

Our analyses of the case study data yield a number of observations and hypothesesthat have both theoretical and practical implications. They mainly concern thecontextual parameters of effective feedback and reflection slots. The discourseapproach we recommend, in being able to articulate hypotheses about where prob-lems are located, also facilitates the search for finely tuned solutions. We will brieflydiscuss some theoretical notions that may be pertinent to the phenomenon of prema-ture closure and procedures to remedy or prevent it which we will assemble underFreudenthal’s term ‘guided reinvention’ (Freudenthal, 1973; Korthagen & Kessels,1999). We will then relate these notions to proposed changes in the architecture ofthe electronic learning environment.

Premature closure, we hypothesise, may result from dilemmas inherent in reflectionmodels. On the one hand, one’s personal theory of teaching is primary and literallydetermines what can be seen (the ‘theory-dependence of data’; cf. Mellor, 2001). Onthe other hand, reflecting agents are supposed to question or even abandon their initial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


beliefs and develop new perspectives. Clearly, such an exercise requires a complexnotion of ‘self’—as already implied in Schön’s (1983, 1987) reflection-in-action andreflection-on-action stances—for what is, at some other level, one reflecting agent. If thedilemmas resulting from that structural complexity are not somehow resolved, almostinevitably one’s prior beliefs and emotions block new ways of seeing.

Dowrick and Biggs (1983, quoted in Rosenstein, 2000, p. 382) touch upon roughlythe same issues when they say that it may be necessary for (novice) teachers to‘migrate’ even further away from their own memories, emotions and beliefs. That isa fine metaphor but how can such a notion be operationalised?

One author who made seminal contributions to developing a dynamic approach tothe notions of self and other in discursive contexts is Erving Goffman. His ‘footing’notion provides a tool to capture the different selves we assemble as we play differentroles in different social situations (Goffman, 1979, 1981). These roles can change ona moment-by-moment basis and also be stacked, laminated: one role inherits anearlier one and makes it more complex. Thus, we can think of a reflective practitioneras a person who inherits the beliefs and emotions of a situated self in the embeddedclassroom domain reflected on as similar to the way an adult inherits the memoriesand beliefs of his or her childhood or relates to a picture of him- or herself taken at anearlier date (Goffman, 1981). The experiences of this embedded narrated self (both‘same’ and ‘other’) can be relived or reframed as a result of inputs from others, aswhen we hear new stories about what we did or said or what was happening in acertain situation. The challenge, then, is to figure out how reflecting teachers may belured into revisiting the embedded story world of the classroom on a completelydifferent footing: a self that has momentarily shed its earlier self and discourse historyand is therefore able to look at the situation with new eyes. Literacy conventions canmediate such a different stance. It might also be triggered by cognitive inputs thatmay cause one to reinterpret and recontextualise past events and one’s own role inthem in a screened-off discourse world.

Below we will suggest some ways in which the footing notion can be pressed intoservice to mediate between the reflection-in-action and the reflection-on-action stances.Since reasons for premature closure may originate both in the cognitive and the affec-tive domains, our suggestions pertain to both of these domains and also build uponaffordances of the web environment.

Guided reinvention in the affective domain

Internet communities abound in plays on identity. By building upon the culturalroutines and literacy conventions of the web, opportunities can be created to embeda more complex stance or footing that escapes the self-other dichotomy and extendsthe range of peer- or expert-initiated exchanges. The novice teacher and the feedbackgivers can both be requested to construct a personal narrative from the point of viewof another participant in the situation, for instance Student B3 in our case study(cf. also ‘heteroglossia’; Bakhtin, 1981; Kamberelis, 2001). They enter their storiesin the website and compare observations and interpretations: what exactly does

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Student B3 do? What does he think? How does he feel? In this way, a reason to reviewthe video data is provided that merges ‘self’ and ‘other’ perspectives in a new, morecomplex reflective stance. It yields hypothetical metadata that involve more fine-grained observation and that can be compared with how a peer or ‘critical friend’constructs the situation (multiple voices). Such reflective narratives may mediateawareness since they preserve the reflector’s autonomy and face (cf. Wajnryb, 1998)while providing feedback givers with more initiative and scope in drawing attentionto salient features of situations in which richer interpretations are possible.

Guided reinvention in the cognitive domain

In the case study data there is evidence of selective noticing on the part of Jo in the domainof non-verbal communication and the reciprocal dimension of interactional behav-iours. It is clear that some features of non-verbal behaviour are already salient for Jo(she claims an effect of proxemics on students’ motivation; her semiotic gesture vis-à-vis Student B3). However, gaze and the coordination of bodily orientation in multi-party settings are not yet in focus. When one of the feedback givers (see Feedback 2)calls into question whether she interacted with all three students in response to teacherJo’s claim that she succeeded in getting three students to think, the observation triggersno response. A similar fate befell a question that hinted at possible long-term effectsof gestures that are evidence of negative teacher expectations (Feedback 1) and aninvitation to reflect upon the reciprocal nature of exclusion/inclusion (self-fulfillingprophecy) in determining learner behaviours.

This selective noticing suggests that effective feedback trajectories may be emergentin the discourse rather than a priori defined. The oversight itself discursively creates aslot for finely tuned guidance and scaffolding: theoretical inputs can be offered thatmay raise awareness in a domain of enquiry that is already primed, in focus. Thus, arelevant zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986) is constructed that buildsupon the novice teacher’s current state of awareness while at the same time explicitlyalerting her to ‘blind spots’.

Proposed changes in the architecture of the website

Our findings suggest there is a case for building in structural loops to scaffold reflectionwhile the definition of the problem is still in progress: before proceeding to any hypothesisednext stage in a reflection cycle. We therefore proposed some changes in the architectureof the programme that invite multiple viewings and build upon affordances of the web.Feedback givers are now asked to provide entries for either Option 1 or Option 2 belowbefore responding to any specific question for feedback:

1. Building in an incentive to review the footage with a new focus. Review some specificfootage in the video data with a new focus, e.g. from the point of view of anotherparticipant in the situation. Briefly report back about your findings in any wayyou choose.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


An alternative structural move could exploit affordances of the web environmentby asking feedback givers to search for relevant sources of information that couldshed new light on the nature of the problem. These sources could be accumu-lated in a learner-generated database to be consulted by other members of theemerging electronic learning community.

2. Exploiting internet-based sources to provide finely tuned theoretical inputs. Try andidentify one or more areas of research that could be pertinent to the type of issuesraised in the presentation of the problem. Search for relevant sources on the weband select one or two that are clear and concise.

In view of our emphasis on the empirical validation of models of teacher developmentwe would have liked to try out the suggested changes with the subject of the casestudy. This turned out to be impossible: she had finished the programme and had left.We decided to test out (a simplified version of) the projected changes in the design ofthe task in two small-scale experiments with two new groups of student-teachers.

Inputs in the cognitive domain: trial run of Option 2

We conducted a trial run of Option 2 during a workshop with a group of 12 student-teachers who had only just started the teacher education programme. Working inpairs, they were asked to respond to four video-taped episodes on the website, includ-ing the episode discussed in the case study, in two different conditions.

In the first viewing condition, they were invited to just look at the case study datawith an open mind and enter any comments that they considered relevant aboutwhat they saw (zero condition; no input). In the second viewing condition, theywere given some information retrieved from the internet on aspects of non-verbalbehaviour and its coordination in face-to-face interactions (Honolulu CommunityCollege, 2004), or on self-fulfilling prophecies in educational settings (Grimes,2002). Having read these materials they reviewed the episode and entered addi-tional comments or revised their initial ideas about what was going on—if they sawreason to do so.

The results were striking. Below we give the comments (reflection protocols) of twostudent pairs on the case study episode: first in the zero condition, then in either ofthe two guided viewing conditions. Condition 1A: theoretical inputs on bodylanguage and non-verbal behaviour; Condition 1B: theoretical inputs on self-fulfillingprophecy in educational settings.

First pair, first protocol (unguided): She [the teacher] doesn’t pay attention to the rest of theclass, just busies herself with two students. She gives a student the finger, which sets a badexample.

First pair, second protocol (guided): She [the teacher] totally ignores the student in the blueshirt; she makes no effort to involve him in any way. Her body is turned away from him sohe wouldn’t be able to follow the interaction even if he wanted to. She completely focuseson the others by way of her bodily orientation. She ignores the rest of the class anyway bystanding bent over the desks. She keeps this position for quite some time so she cannot see

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


whether the other students in the classroom are on task. The student himself is not coop-erative but giving him the finger only makes it worse. Sometimes it is very hard to involvestudents but this works the wrong way.

Second pair, first protocol (unguided): She [the teacher] stands right in the middle of thegroup. That’s not such a bad thing because the student in the blue shirt [Student B3] isnot on task and is distracting his neighbour. She doesn’t do anything about this as far aswe can see, but she does ask him a question eventually to which he doesn’t really respond.The two others are on task, though.

Second pair, second protocol (guided): The boy in blue and the teacher probably have quitea history together. And this results in her ignoring him or giving him negative attention.This gives him no other choice but to try and get her attention by displaying negativebehaviour. The finger simply is not on. She expects negative behaviour from him andtherefore provokes him into behaving in this way.

We were astonished by the responses in the second viewing condition. In all theprotocols there was clear evidence of enhanced awareness and/or more fine-grainedobservation. Locally relevant theoretical inputs indeed mediated enriched interpreta-tions and a search for causal connections that was largely lacking in the first condition.In the second protocol of the first pair, there is even a hint that ‘the problem’ may bereproduced at multiple levels of the interaction (cf. the notion of ‘scaling’ in chaos andcomplexity theory; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Agar, 2004): the exclusion of Student B3through the teacher’s bodily orientation in the sub-group interaction may be echoedin her (perceived) lack of orientation towards the other students in class. She does notonce look in their direction and consistently has her back turned towards them (seeFigures 2–4). Not being ‘seen’ (included in her gaze) may also affect their motiva-tion—is what these novice teachers suggest.

Of course these results are not valid reflection data in the context of the presentcase study. We do not know how Jo herself would have responded to these inputs orto the much more direct, unmitigated feedback. She might have closed upcompletely. The participants in the trial run, on the other hand, would probablyhave mitigated their feedback had Jo been the recipient, in order to minimise therisk to her face. The findings are not ecologically valid (Cole et al., 1997) also in adifferent sense: they involve different settings and circumstances. Sharing observa-tions in a joint viewing session facilitates noticing (Rosenstein, 2000, p. 382) andthere is no guarantee that reviewing the data alone would have generated equallyrich observations. Also, for lack of time in the lab we supplied the focal issuesourselves rather than inviting the novice teachers to discover them and initiate asearch themselves.

There is support, though, for the assumption that, in principle, cognitive updatescan facilitate noticing, enhanced awareness and critical reflection.

Inputs in the affective domain: trial run of Option 1

During another small-scale experiment we conducted a trial run of Option 1. Weasked a group of 11 novice teachers to comment on a video segment showing a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


teacher (again) interacting with a small group of students. We see him in his role of‘coach’ of a group of three students, a boy and two girls. By asking questions and bysupplying hints he tries to lead them to the solution to a particular science problem.One of the girls is very dominant: she stands quite close to the teacher and speaks ina rather loud voice. The other girl does not say anything, but the boy, who hoversbehind the dominant girl in the periphery of the group, supplies very helpful sugges-tions, whenever he has the chance to do so. His contributions, however, are not audi-bly or visibly acknowledged by the teacher, who seems to be focusing solely on thegirl. At the end of the episode the dominant girl comes up with the ‘final’ answer. Intheir first response (unguided), all students focused on the teacher’s coaching skills:they praised the way in which he succeeded in leading the group to the right solutionwithout providing the answers himself. We subsequently asked them to describe thesituation from the perspective of one of the other participants in the situation and togive a voice to his or her thoughts and feelings. The students unanimously chose theperspective of the boy in the group and wrote how they imagined he felt ignored,excluded and, as a result, perhaps demotivated.

Although, again, these results do not allow us to draw any definite conclusion (forthe reasons mentioned above), they do provide tentative evidence that this type ofintervention can draw viewers’ attention to previously unnoticed dimensions oflearning situations.2

Conclusion and wider implications

This case study illustrates a phenomenon we widely encountered when evaluatingreflection data of student teachers in a newly created web-based learning environ-ment. Our investigation shows that a priori beliefs on the part of a novice teacherabout a particular classroom situation can constrain or distort what can be seen in thesubsequent reflection trajectory. Dilemmas inherent in the requirement that reflec-tion and feedback trajectories both build upon and call into question current teacherbeliefs remained unresolved and resulted in premature closure. If initial hypothesesabout where a particular problem originates are not questioned or refined, no fully-fledged reflection cycles may be possible.

In the second part of the article we pursue both the practical and theoretical impli-cations of our findings. What type of interventions in the cognitive and affectivedomains might remedy premature closure? What structural changes in the architec-ture of the web site are called for? We report on two small-scale experiments thatimplement envisaged changes and that yielded encouraging results. They cruciallyinvolve building in structural loops at the very beginning of the reflection trajectory thatinvite students to review the footage from a different perspective before proceeding toany hypothesized next stage in the reflection cycle.

New ways of seeing crucially involve the need to distance oneself from an earlierself, as Schön (1987) implicitly recognised when coining the reflection-in-action andreflection-on-action stances for what is, at another level, one reflecting agent. Wesuggest that one way to guard against premature closure could be to introduce more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


complex footings (Goffman, 1979) that explicitly invite novice teachers to migratefurther away from their current self. Exploiting the affordances and literacy conven-tions of the web, scaffolding could involve peers and others in co-authoring the narra-tive voice of a participant in the situation (Kamberelis, 2001) to mediate richerinterpretations and a more distanced perspective. Cognitive dissonance might bediminished or even resolved by offering theoretical inputs that are contingent uponthe student teacher’s current understanding of and focus in a particular situation.

A different type of issue that was highlighted when we analysed the outcomes ofone of the follow-up experiments is whether feedback givers necessarily be criticalfriends. The participants in the workshops were not stakeholders in the episode andnot personally acquainted with teacher Jo. They were therefore less troubled by faceconcerns. Indirectness or mitigation strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987) to recon-cile task-oriented demands of the situation with the social imperative to guard againstloss of face or hurt feelings were not in evidence (Wajnryb, 1998). By the same tokena reflecting student may well be less concerned by negative feedback from anonymousothers. What is a safe environment and what are optimal roles to scaffold reflectionneed to be investigated for each situation, not taken for granted (cf. Bullough &Draper, 2004).

Our main conclusion is that rather than positing a priori linear reflection trajectoriesor predetermined strategies to implement ‘guided reinvention’, reflection data maythemselves discursively construct a relevant zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,1978; see also Reiman, 1999) that builds upon what is and is not seen. Not thediscrete items but their interconnectedness across consecutive moves in ongoingdiscourses must be investigated to trace the underlying Gestalt (cf. Korthagen &Kessels, 1999) that informs novice teachers’ observations and interpretations andprovides a window on their thinking.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers of thisarticle.

Notes

1. The project group consisted of Judith Jansen (project manager), Anne Bannink, Gee van Duin,Anne-Martine Gielis, Peter Klencke and Anjo Roos.

2. The outcomes of a pilot in which the proposed changes in the architecture of the websitehave been fully implemented will be analysed and evaluated in Bannink and Van Dam(forthcoming).

References

Agar, M. (2004) Ethnography as scientifically-based research: implications for educational policyand practice (Keynote speech), paper presented at the 25th Annual Ethnography in EducationForum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The dialogic imagination: four essays (Austin, TX, University of Texas Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Bannink, A. & Van Dam, J. (2006) A dynamic discourse approach to classroom research, Linguisticsand Education, 17(3), 283–301.

Bannink, A. & Van Dam, J. (2007) Bootstrapping reflection on classroom interactions: discoursecontexts of novice teachers’ thinking, Evaluation and Research in Education, 20(2), 81–99.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: some universals in language use (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press).

Bullough, R. V. & Draper, R. J. (2004) Making sense of a failed triad, Journal of Teacher Education,55(5), 407–420.

Clarke, D. & Hollingsworth, H. (2002) Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth, Teachingand Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.

Clarke, D. & Peter, A. (1993) Modelling teacher change, in: B. Atweh, C. Kanes, M. Carss & G.Booker (Eds) Contexts in mathematics education (Queensland, Mathematics EducationResearch Group of Australasia), 167–175.

Cole, M., Hood, L. & McDermott, R. P. (1997) Concepts of ecological validity: their differingimplications for comparative cognitive research, in: M. Cole, Y. Engeström & O. Vasquez(Eds) Mind, culture and activity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 49–56.

Cousin, G. (2000) Strengthening action-research for educational development, EducationalDevelopments, 1(3), 5–7.

Day, C. & Leitch, R. (2001) Teachers’ and teacher educators’ lives: the role of emotions, Teachingand Teacher Education, 13, 403–415.

Day, C., Pope, M. & Denicolo, P. (Eds) (1990) Insights into teachers’ thinking and practice (Bristol,PA, Falmer Press).

Dewey, J. (1933) How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educativeprocess (Boston, MA, Heath).

Florio-Ruane, S. (2002) More light—an argument for complexity in studies of teaching andteacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 205–215.

Freudenthal, H. (1973) Mathematics as an educational task (Dordrecht, Reidel).Fullan, M. (1982) The meaning of educational change (New York, Teachers College Press).Gee, J. P. (1994) First language acquisition as a guide for theories of learning and pedagogy,

Linguistics & Education, 6, 331–354.Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).Goffman, E. (1979) Footing, Semiotica, 25, 1–29.Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of talk (Oxford, Basil Blackwell).Good, T. & Brophy, J. (1987) Looking in classrooms (New York, Harper & Row).Goodwin, C. (1981) Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers (New York,

Academic Press).Grimes, C. F. (2002) The self-fulfilling prophecy: pygmalion effect at work. Available online at: http://

www.iloveulove.com/psychology/pygmalion.htm (accessed 12 August 2004).Guskey, T. R. (2002) Professional development and teacher change, Teachers and Teaching: Theory

and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.Hargreaves, A. (2000) Mixed emotions: teachers’ perception of their interactions with students,

Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(8), 811–826.Hatton, N. & Smith, D. (1995) Reflection in teacher education: towards definition and implemen-

tation, Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.Honolulu Community College (2004) Six ways to improve your nonverbal communications.

Available online at: http://Honolulu.edu/intranet/committeees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/commun-1 (accessed 12 August 2004).

Jackson, J. E. (1995) ‘Déjà entendu’—The liminal qualities of anthropological fieldnotes, in:J. Van Maanen (Ed.) Representation in ethnography (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 36–78.

Jay, J. K. & Johnson, K. L. (2002) Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice forteacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73–85.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Kagan D. M. (1992) Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers, Review ofEducational Research, 62(2), 129–169.

Kamberelis, G. (2001) Producing heteroglossic classroom (micro)cultures through hybriddiscourse practices, Linguistics and Education, 12(1), 85–125.

Kendon, A. (1992) The negotiation of context in face-to-face interaction, in: A. Duranti & C.Goodwin (Eds) Rethinking context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 326–334.

Korthagen, F. & Kessels, J. (1999) Linking theory and practice: changing the pedagogy of teachereducation, Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition, AppliedLinguistics, 18, 141–165.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning—legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press).

Leather, J. & Van Dam, J. (2003) Towards an ecology of language acquisition, in: J. Leather & J.Van Dam (Eds) Ecology of language acquisition (Dordrecht, Kluwer), 1–29.

Leitch, R. & Day, C. (2000) Action research and reflective practice: towards a holistic view,Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179–193.

Mellor, N. (2001) Messy method: the unfolding story, Educational Action Research, 9(3), 465–484.Pennington, M. (1996) The ‘cognitive-affective filter’ in teacher development: transmission-based

and interpretation-based schemas for change, System, 24(3), 337–350.Phelps, R. & Hase, S. (2002) Complexity and action research: exploring the theoretical and meth-

odological connections, Educational Action Research, 10(3), 507–523.Reiman, A. (1999) The evolution of social roletaking and guided reflection framework in teacher

education: recent theory and quantitative synthesis of research, Teaching and Teacher Education,15, 597–612.

Rosenstein, R. (2000) Video use for program evaluation: a conceptual perspective, Studies inEducational Evaluation, 26, 373–394.

Roth, W.-M., Masciotra, D. & Boyd, N. (1999) Becoming-in-the-classroom: a case study ofteacher development through co-teaching, Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 771–784.

Rowe, M. B. (1986) Wait time: slowing down may be a way of speeding up!, Journal of TeacherEducation, 37, 43–50.

Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action (New York, BasicBooks).

Schön, D. A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learningin the profession (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

Shkedi, A. & Laron, D. (2004) Between idealism and pragmatism: a case study of student teach-ers’ pedagogical development, Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 693–711.

Van Dam, J. (2002) Ritual, face, and play in a first English lesson: bootstrapping a classroomculture, in: C. Kramsch (Ed.) Language acquisition and language socialization (New York,Continuum), 237–265.

Varenne, H. & McDermott, R. (1998) Successful failure: the school America builds (Boulder, CO,Westview).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (Cambridge,MA, Harvard University Press).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986) Thought and language (Cambridge, MA, MIT).Wajnryb, R. (1998) Telling it like it isn’t—exploring an instance of pragmatic ambivalence in

supervisory discourse, Pragmatics, 29, 531–544.Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. & Moon, B. (1998) A critical analysis of the research on learning to

teach: making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry, Review of Educational Research,68(2), 130–178.

Zanting, A., Verloop, N. & Vermunt, J. (2001) Student teachers eliciting mentors’ practical knowl-edge and comparing it to their own beliefs, Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 725–740.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:07

17

Oct

ober

201

4

premature closure and guided reinvention: a case study in a web-based learning environment

Documents