Teacher reflection: the development of a typology

Abstract

In this article, a contribution is made to the discussion of reflection on the part of teachers. The discussion to date has shown that reflection must be broad and deep. However, just what constitutes broad and deep reflection and the relations between the two remain unclear. After consideration of the characteristics of broad and deep reflection, three domains of broad reflection are distinguished (i.e. the pragmatic, ethical and moral domains). Closed versus open approaches to deep reflection are also then distinguished which produces a typology of six reflection possibilities. Empirical support for this typology was gathered via interviews with 11 experienced secondary school teachers. The content of the interviews addressed actual difficult decision situations which the teachers had experienced, and application of the constant comparative method showed the teachers to indeed use the six reflection possibilities when they reflected upon the difficult decision situations. A clear preference for closed types of pragmatic and ethical reflection over open or moral reflection was shown. The conclusion is that the proposed typology can be used to map teacher reflection. The results further suggest that the breadth and depth of teacher reflection are in need of development and that the relations between teacher reflection and their professional behaviour should be examined in greater detail.

Exploring scientific, artistic, moral and technical reflection in teacher action research

“…These results show that the domains of reflection distinguished are used in relation to education in general (Coldron and Smith 1999), in relation to important phases in the professional development of teachers (Luttenberg, Imants, and van Veen 2013) and in relation to difficult situations which require the decision of teachers (Luttenberg, Hermans, and Bergen 2004;Luttenberg and Bergen 2008). In fact, the results of these studies are similar to those of this study in which we focus on teachers doing action research.…”

“…Luttenberg and Bergen (2008) show that various views on reflection can be distinguished which either focus on the content of reflection or on the nature of reflection. They indicate the importance of taking both content and nature of reflection into account because these are intricately intertwined and cannot be separated; we therefore focus on domains of reflection in this article.…”

“…Finally, knowledge involves the body of specialized knowledge that professionals have and use. The four domains of reflection also seem to cover the domains of reflection that teachers use for making difficult decisions in education (for example, Luttenberg and Bergen 2008;Luttenberg, Imants, and van Veen 2013).…”

Comparing Stress Levels of Graduate and Undergraduate Pre-Service Teachers Following Their Teaching Practicums

“…Inextricably professional experience connects the world of the pre-service teacher with reflective practices where meanings are constructed through personal and social experiences. A typology of reflection developed by Luttenberg and Bergen (2008) describes the pragmatic, ethical and moral dimensions that foreground the development of teacher identity. Offering a means to expand upon the open or closed nature of reflection, this typology helps to make sense of the type of understanding that follows the application of new concepts (Hedberg, 2009;Matoti & Junqueira, 2013;Parsons et al, 2011;Shoffner, 2011).…”

Pre-service Teachers’ Views of Inquiry Teaching and Their Responses to Teacher Educators’ Feedback on Teaching Practice

“…Instructor (Follow-up group interview, Group B) As confirmed in previous studies, reflective discussion played an essential role in students sharing their ideas on inquiry teaching, interpreting the experts' feedback, and guiding future changes in peer teaching (Clandinin & Connelly, 1991;Luttenberg & Bergen, 2008;Mattingly, 1991;Nichols, Tippins, & Wieseman, 1997;Zeichner, 1994). Through reflecting on their own conceptions, views, and actions, pre-service teachers critically question, think, contextualize and reform their understandings and practice (Abell et al, 1998;Daniealowich, 2007;Schön, 1983).…”