D BING 1107160 Chapter2

(1)

Sitti Nurfaidah, 2016

EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTION: A CASE STUDY IN AN INDONESIAN INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia| repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter reviews the theoretical and empirical literature from the areas of reflection and reflection practice: elements, level, and issues concerned in the reflection; the English language teacher education, the teacher knowledge and its relation to the reflective teaching practice; and relevant research that has been conducted about pre-service teachers and their development in reflective teaching practice. The intention is to establish an analytical framework for this present study.

2.1 Reflection and Reflective Practice

Many works of literature talked about definitions of reflection, reflective thinking, and reflective practice. However, such conceptions on reflection and reflective practices have come to ―loose and fuzzy treatment‖ of the concept (Fath‘i & Behzadpour, 2011, p. 245). The tradition of reflection or reflective practice can be traced back to Dewey‘s (1910, 1933) ideas about reflection and reflective inquiry. Reflection or reflective inquiry to Dewey (1933) is considered as ―active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends [that] constitutes reflective thought‖ (p. 16, as cited in Farrell, 2012). His philosophical stance on reflection for personal and intellectual growth is considered to be psychological (Ryan, 2012). His approach is closely related to ―the nature of reflection and how it occurs‖ (Ryan, 2012, p. 208). Later, in 1970s, Freire‘s (1972) and Habermas‘ (1974) works lead the others‘ works on critical reflection (see Brookfield, 1995; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Mezirow, 1990). The notion of reflection was then further developed by Schon (1983, 1987) by proposing the concept of ―reflection-in-action‖ and ―reflection-on-action‖.

(2)

values, beliefs, and assumptions in the context he/she is dealing with. ―Technical rationality‖ (Farrel, 2004, p. 31) deals with technical knowledge and cognitive aspects of teaching practice by beginning teachers, as applies as well to the pre-service teachers.

To summarize Dewey‘s (1933) conception on reflective teaching, it is about: active concerns; cyclical process; monitoring, evaluating and revising practice continuously; evidenced-based classroom inquiry; attitudes of open-mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheartedness; teacher judgement based on evidences and insights; collaboration and dialogue with colleagues; and creative mediation of teaching and learning framework.

Zeichner and Liston (1987) argue that reflection lends itself to the ―way of thinking about educational matters that involves the ability to make rational choices‖ (in Ying & Leng, 2002, p. 3) which summarized by Calderhead (1989) as the activity in which the teacher educators do the interaction, interpretation in the analysis and solution of complex and ambiguous problems they encounter in the classroom. Furthermore, Chitpin, Simon and Galipeau (2008) argue that the kind of knowledge-base that is being developed through reflective approaches is much more comprehensive because it is directly tuned into what the teachers actually know (Clarke & Otaky, 2006; Cornford, 2002; Fatemi, Shirvan, & Rezvani, 2011; Generett & Hicks, 2004) about the teaching and learning process in the classroom. A decade later, Brookfield (1995) has established that critical reflection is very important aspect of the larger process of reflection and that without the habit of critical reflection, the risk of making poor decisions and bad judgement has existed.

(3)

data about their teaching and make use of the data as source of information of their decision making. In this study, therefore, reflection is defined as the process in which problems pertaining to classroom teaching contexts came into the participants‘ mind, and the time when their assumption, beliefs, and ideas were challenged by situation as regard solution to be sought.

Reflection and reflective practice have been established by many philosophers, theorists, teacher educators and researchers. John Dewey, Donald A. Schön, and Stephen D. Brookfield are the key theorists foregrounding concepts of reflection and reflective teaching. They have influenced the writings on reflection in teacher education (Edge, 2011; York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, & Montie, 2006; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Therefore, reflective thinking and reflective practices could not be discussed without including the theories and practices of Dewey, Schön, and Brookfield.

2.1.1 Dewey’s Influence and Criticism on his Work

According to Dewey (1933), reflection has held the implication that something is either believed in or disbelieved in through another source which could guarantee as the grounds of belief or disbelief. He defines reflection as a particular way of thinking in which judgement has been suspended during further inquiry. The function of reflective thinking has been to make meaning out of the encountered experiences and the ability to make sense of and assign value to events which occur in someone‘s life (Rodgers, 2002).

In teaching context, Dewey (1933) stresses the importance of teaching being a process of problem solving and that reflective thinking led to a better quality of teaching (Kirk, 2000; Farrell, 2012). He argues that teachers who were proficient in their teaching skills, but who lacked an inquiring and curious mind, experienced staleness in their professional development and growth (Mewborn, 1999; Pishghadam, Zabihi, & Kermanshahi, 2012). Dewey has reminded mankind that reflection, nevertheless, can be rigorous, complex, intellectual, and emotional, and that it takes time to do it well (Rodgers, 2002).

(4)

of reflection implies a sense of linearity and sequencing as if reflection is a plan for action. They also noticed that his perspective on reflection is not an interactive or dialogical process since he takes it for granted that a given ―individual student teacher learns to reflect on a particular experience individually‖ (p. 58). In a similar vein, Rorty (1987) argues that Dewey had defined reflection in such a way as to indicate that ―a correct account of the nature of thought would make possible the sort of improvement in thinking which had been promised in the past by others‖ (p. xvii). Moreover, Dewey failed to include individuals' emotions in his definition of reflection (Salzberger-Wittenberg, Henry, & Osborne, 1983).

2.1.2 Schön’s Influence and Criticism on his Work

Schön (1983, 1987) has emphasized the value of uncertainty as an important aspect of professional reflective practice. Schön‘s comprehensive elaboration relative to intuitive reflective practitioners has been in contrast with Dewey‘s association of reflective thinking with the scientific method (Fendler, 2003). The definition of reflection that has been pronounced by Schön has generally been understood to be artistic and based on practice (Fendler, 2003; Schön, 1983, 1987). Moreover, Schön (1987) has implied that the relationship between practice competence and professional knowledge needs to be explored in order to make better use of handling professional artistry.

(5)

practitioners deal with after they came across the situation. It takes place sometime later after a particular event when there is time when the practitioners reframe and restructure their thinking related to what they have come to deal with (Schön, 1983). Journal writing or reflective teaching journal writing, therefore, is considered as one of the act of reflection-on-action (Rayford, 2010).

However, there are several criticisms addressed towards Schön's conceptualization of reflection. Eraut (1994), for instance, argued that when the task is to be performed in a very short time, the scope for reflection will definitely be very limited. In addition, Munby and Russell (1989) expressed doubts about the psychological reality of reflection-in-action. Nevertheless, Schön's conceptualization of reflection has been really significant in that many training and education programs adopted it not only in organizing experiences but also in the teaching of content.

2.1.3 Brookfield’s Influence on Becoming Critically Reflective Teacher

Brookfield (1995) has emphasized that the most important feature of critical reflection was to focus on hunting assumptions. Assumptions have been defined as obvious beliefs that give meaning and purpose, yet have been taken for granted without the need to be stated explicitly (Brookfield, 1995). The challenge has been to become aware of implicit assumptions that have determined how and why individuals think and act a certain way. Further, Brookfield (1995) has distinguished between three broad categories of assumptions.

(6)

However, developing these three assumptions has become a puzzling and somewhat contradictory task (Brookfield, 1995).

Reflective thinking, as Brookfield (1995) further states, has become critical thinking when it has included the two distinctive purposes of understanding how considerations of power have distorted educational processes and interactions, and how questioning assumptions and practices, that should make teachers‘ lives easier, have worked against their best long-term interests. At times, teachers have been confronted with the possibility that the assumptions they have been experiencing have not really fit their situations. Having the ability to recognize the difference between ―what is‖ and ―what should be‖ has often been the beginning of being able to reflect critically (Brookfield, 1995).

As regards critical reflection, there are four critically reflective lenses have been developed by Brookfield. The four lenses have included autobiographies as learners and teachers, teachers seeing themselves through their students‘ eyes, sharing colleagues‘ experiences, and exploring theoretical literature (Brookfield, 1995). Through the use of personal self-reflection, teachers have been made aware of deep commitments and motivations they have possessed as teachers (Brookfield, 1995). Further, according to Brookfield (1995), the problem with teachers trying to see themselves through their students‘ eyes has led students to be reluctant about being honest with their teachers. Despite the reluctance of students to share honestly, a teacher who has experienced seeing his/her practice through students‘ eyes has helped the teacher to teach more responsively (Brookfield, 1995). Although most critical reflections have started individually, the need to share with colleagues has become a collective endeavor. Sharing about teaching experiences with colleagues has been reassuring and has helped teachers to realize that the problems they have experienced were not unique (Brookfield, 1995).

(7)

though most people would be tempted to use the autobiographical means for reflective thinking, Brookfield (1995) has emphasized that in order to be a critically reflective teacher one has to look through all four critically reflective lenses.

2.2 Elements of Reflection

Dewey (1933) described reflection in terms of a sequence of five phases (suggestions, problem, hypothesis, reasoning and testing). These elements of reflection in the thoughts of the pre-service teachers can be discerned. Although the five phases need not occur in a set order, the five together are what Dewey considers to be a reflective sequence and are the ‗indispensable traits of reflective thinking‘ (Dewey, 1933).

In outlining his five phases of reflection, Dewey (1933) discusses ways in which the phases may overlap one another and how some phases might be expanded depending on the problem at hand. He places the phases of reflection in context by referencing the learning to both past and future actions and experiences; reflection is not only ‗looking back‘ and it can persist for extended periods of time. The systematization of reflective inquiry into teaching as suggested by Dewey (1933) is ―structured to suggest that teachers look at their experiences, review and examine these in light of what evidence they can collect from their practice, and then plan what action they want to take as a result‖ (p. 10).

2.2.1 Suggestion

(8)

which resulting in the need to postpone judgement because they stimulate further investigation.

In classroom settings, as Loughran (1996) illustrates, the teachers often do things without stopping to consider why they do them. However, when a situation arises which causes the teacher stop his/her activities and think, options for action begin to come to his/her mind. In this state, when the teacher considers two or more ideas, he/she is inhibited from doing action directly. These suggestions, therefore, need to be examined so that the most appropriate course of action may be followed. In teaching, as Loughran (1996) further describes, such situations may be commonplace. In this case, it is important for the teacher to stop his/her actions for a moment to consider these suggestions if a course of action is to be carefully considered.

2.2.2 Problem

Dewey describes problem as the intellectualization of a mere emotional quality by noting clearly the situation that ignite the trouble and then cause the stoppage of action (Dewey, 1933). In other words, intellectualization is the state where difficulty or perplexity of the problem that has been felt (directly experienced) is intellectualized into a problem to be solved. Flower (1981), in a more practical way, defines problem as

―a situation that occurs when you are in Point A but you want to be some place else, at Point B, and

there is an obstacle in your way … a problem is only a problem for someone; it is not impersonal situation waiting for a solution. A problem only exists when someone feels a conflict or

dissonance‖ (Flower, 1981: 19-20).

Young, Becker and Pike (1970) argue that problem does not exist independent of individuals, that there are only problems for someone. They continue stating that

―Problems arise when features of the image are perceived to be inconsistent with one another, to clash in some way … when he discovers something in the nature of the world doesn‘t ‗fit‘ his conception of it … When a person becomes aware of such inconsistency, he finds himself in what might be called a problematic situation. The uneasy feeling that accompanies this awareness is

characteristic of the earliest stages of inquiry‖ (Young, Becker & Pike, 1970: 90).

(9)

situation, the position may at first be viewed as a difficulty. This may lead the teacher to reinspect the conditions which have led to the problematic situation. When this happens, the situation becomes further defined and intellectualized so that the teacher views it as a problem.

2.2.3 Hypothesis

Hypothesis is the action of using one suggestion after another as a leading idea to initiate and guide observation and other operation in collection of factual material (Dewey, 1933). In other words, in this aspect, a suggestion becomes a more definite supposition that is testable and perhaps measurable. This guiding idea (Farrell, 2012) is used as a leading idea, or hypothesis where the initial suggestion can be used as a working hypothesis to initiate and guide observation and other operations in the collection of factual material.

As further elaborated, the phase of reconsidering suggestion relative to the implementation and outcome needs examination on the testing level by scrutinizing more information and performing more observations (Zwozdiak-Myers, 2009). This state, in a scientific sense, as Loughran (1996) elaborates, the data relative to the problem helps to modify, adjust and develop the suggestion so that the situation begins to take shape as a hypothesis. In a real sense, he further describes, what was once seems to be just a possibility becomes something that could be tested, validated or negated.

2.2.4 Reasoning

(10)

previous experience or knowledge. Hence, hypotheses, suggestions and tests could be further developed.

Loughran (1996) states that in the learning and teaching context, reasoning draws on the observations and experiences that are used to build the learners‘ or teachers‘ store of knowledge. Their reasoning through a situation leads to the linking of ideas and these links are enhanced by drawing upon their storage of knowledge. Reasoning, he further explains, may also be a method in reinforcing or better articulating the learners‘ or the teachers‘ belief. This may be by comparing their views to their observations and experiences.

2.2.5 Testing

Testing is the phase when the hypothesis is being tested overtly or covertly (Dewey, 1933) in order to give verification. Dewey further elaborates that testing ―either brings to light a new problem or helps to define and clarify the problem on which he has been engaged. Nothing shows the trained thinker better than the use he makes of his errors and mistakes‖ (p. 114). In other words, hypothesis testing takes place when the refined idea is reached, and the testing of this refined hypothesis takes place which can be by overt action or in thought (imaginative action) (Farrell, 2012).

(11)

Figure 2.1 Levels of use of the reflective phase (cited from Loughran, 1996, p. 87)

Figure 2.1 illustrates the levels of use of reflective phase or elements of reflection as suggested by Loughran (1996). Loughran argues that suggestions, problem, and hypothesis exist in the first phase of reflective cycle, while

reasoning and testing occur in the second phase of reflective cycle. It is because the teacher‘s reflection is mostly engaged with the first three elements (suggestions, problem, hypothesis), while reasoning and testing sometimes occur in the teacher‘s reflection process due to their challenge for more justification for the acts taken, being taken, and will be taken.

2.3 Levels of Reflection

(12)

Van Manen (1977) categorized the level or focus of reflection into three. They are first, technical rationality, which contains context free generalizations about teaching and learning which is not connected to any specific incident from the classroom experience but rather about teaching or classroom in general. Second, practical rationality, which contains context specific reflection, about teaching

and learning based on the example of classroom experience, incidents, and specific students‘ actions. Third, critical rationality, which contains multi-contextual covering specific incidents or actions across other teaching context.

Van Manen‘s (1977) level of technical reflection is characterized by the application of tacit knowledge in order to attain the rigid objective and efficient performance on daily basis. Teachers only focus on concerns about aspects of their own practice while social contexts are being of less consideration. This, as Tinning (1995) says, is parallel to Grimmett et al.‘s (1990) first level of reflective teaching of applying research finding into practice where teachers are concerned with technical application of knowledge and basic curriculum principles, such as whether students are on-task.

Van Manen‘s (1977) level of practical reflection is identified by the process in which assumptions, experiences, goals, meanings and perceptions which underpin teaching and learning activities are analyzed and clarified. Teachers become more concerned with clarifying assumptions while addressing educational consequences, for example if and how goals are being met. Hatton and Smith (1995) describes this level as where the teachers‘ assumptions as well as teaching and learning process are embedded in, and negotiated through, language. Grimmett et al.‘s (1990) second level of reflective teaching, that reflection is a careful consideration among choices of good teaching, is parallel to this level (Tinning, 1995).

(13)

from delusions or distortions, is the ideal of a deliberative rationality that pursues worthwhile educational ends in self-determination, community, and on the basis of justice, equality, and freedom‘ (Van Manen, 1977, p. 227). Tinning (1995) view the similarities of this level with Grimmett et al.‘s (1990) third level of reflective teaching when the teachers begin to further develop their new understandings of their practical actions. In other words, in this level the teachers is concerned with worth of knowledge without a personal bias by posing such question as whether the content was important to the students or not.

Developing Van Manen‘s level of reflection, Hatton and Smith (1995), in their study at the University of Sydney focusing on reflective teaching, investigated the nature of reflection in teaching with the purpose to identify types of reflection in students‘ writing. They categorized four types of reflection in the student teachers‘ writing. They are descriptive writing, descriptive reflection, dialogic reflection, and critical reflection (see Appendix 2 for the criteria). For the purpose

of this study, the following summarizes Hatton and Smith‘s (1995) theoretical framework of level of reflection and related theory pertaining to Hatton and Smith‘s (1995) descriptive reflection and dialogic reflection which was modified in this study.

2.3.1 Descriptive Writing (Non-Reflective Writing)

(14)

2.3.2 Descriptive Reflection

Hatton and Smith (1995) suggest that descriptive reflection writing is reflective in nature, as there is not only a description of events presented but there are some attempts in the writing to provide reason/justification for events or actions but in a reportive or descriptive way. Hatton and Smith (1995, p. 48) pose a related example such as 'I chose this problem solving activity because I believe that students should be active rather than passive learners'. In this way, the

teacher gave his/her justification for his/her action to choose certain activities for the students. This is what the researchers say as reflection which is based generally on one perspective/factor as rationale.

Moreover, in this type of writing, as Hatton and Smith (1995) further state, it is a common for the recognition of alternate viewpoints in the research and literature which are reported. Such related extract Hatton and Smith (1995, p. 48) chose from their study is 'For example, Tyler (1949), because of the assumptions on which his approach rests suggests that the curriculum process should begin

with objectives. Yinger (1979), on the other hand argues that the 'task' is the

starting point.' This is what Hatton and Smith (1995) argue as reflection which is

based on the recognition of multiple factors and perspectives.

In this study, this level was modified as regards the participants‘ data of reflection. Such modification was established as data indicated that within Hatton and Smith‘s (1995) categorization in this level, there are three types of data occurred. First, data revealing description of phenomenon/phenomena with simple justification/reasoning and presented in descriptive way, was therefore categorized as Low Level (L1), as illustrated by the following vignette.

―Another problem I faced in the classroom was when I was presenting my teaching material, the

In-focus suddenly was in trouble and I couldn‘t go further with my explanation in detail and clearly.‖ (Extract from PST 1‘s reflective journal).

The above example contains simple justification for the phenomenon (in this case a problem) took place in the PST‘s class during her teaching and learning process.

Second, data exhibiting description of phenomenon/phenomena with more complex justification/reasoning and presented in descriptive way, was therefore categorized as High Level (L2), as exemplified in the following extract.

(15)

were still not aware of the benefit of discussion with their friends. They were more sure that the right answer is from the teacher. However, I helped them by mingling around guiding each group

and checked the things they didn‘t understand.‖ (Extract from PST 1‘s reflective journal).

The abovementioned extract contains more complex reasoning for the teaching and learning process which took place in the PST‘s classroom.

Third, data showing description of phenomenon/phenomena with mental realization (emotional reaction) but only provided with insufficient reasoning to satisfy the category of dialogic reflection was therefore categorized as Transition Level (TL), as illustrated by the following example.

―In my teaching, at first I thought Oh, teaching a small class and quiet class is fun. My second teaching was speaking and still the continuation of the first meeting about expressing satisfaction

and dissatisfaction.‖ (Extract from PST 2‘s reflective journal).

In the aforementioned example, the blue typed is the sentence indicated as transition level category because it does contain mental realization I thought,

which characterizes dialogic reflection; however, this evaluative sentence does not contain sound reasoning for why she thought that teaching small and quiet class was fun as evident from the following sentence which talks about a different context.

Pertaining to the modification to this level, another scrutiny was attempted into Halliday and Mathiessen‘s (2014, p. 603) functional grammar relative to ―the lexicogrammatical resources of cohesion‖. Following Halliday and Mathiessen‘s (2004, 2014) suggestion in text analysis using functional grammar, each entry was divided into each sentence in order to locate the two fundamental relationships of logico-semantic relation, i.e. expansion (elaboration, extension, and enhancement) and projection (locution and idea).

(16)

Regarding the modification in this level, further categorization along with samples from PSTs‘ data can be traced in Appendix 4.

2.3.3 Dialogic Reflection

In this level, Hatton and Smith (1995) suggest that the reflection demonstrates a 'stepping back' from the events/actions leading to a different level of mulling about, discourse with self and exploring the experience, events and actions using qualities of judgement and possible alternatives for explaining and hypothesizing.

Such reflection is analytical or/and integrative of factors and perspectives and may recognize inconsistencies in attempting to provide rationales and critique. Such example of student teachers‘ writing they pose as:

'While I had planned to use mainly written text materials I became aware very quickly that a number of students did not respond to these. Thinking about this now there may have been several reasons for this. A number of the students, while reasonably proficient in English, even though they had been NESB learners, may still have lacked some confidence in handling the level of language in the text. Alternatively a number of students may have been visual and tactile learners. In any case I found that I had to employ more concrete activities in my teaching.' (Hatton & Smith, 1995, p. 19)

In this state, the student teacher was confronted with a situation which made her stop and think about some possibilities why it happened. She tried to justify the situation by coming with the reasoning and hypothesis.

This level of reflection also comes in two forms: (a) reflection which is based generally on one perspective/factor as rationale, or (b) reflection which is based on the recognition of multiple factors and perspectives. In this study, however, this category was modified in light of data found in the participants‘ reflection. Such modification was established as Hatton and Smith‘s (1995) categorization in this level could not accommodate the range of pre-service teachers‘ dialogic reflection which covered from the simple ones, provided with only simple reasoning with mental realization, to more complex ones, occurred with complex analysis, reasoning, justification which might contain alternatives and metacognition.

(17)

a) Description is the objective recording of the phenomena, where the phenomenon is education reality. The basis of this is the interactions between the teacher and the child/children; however, it can be divided into partial areas such as aims, educational content, methods and forms, etc. It is a basic mental operation, the quality of which determines the quality of all the other stages of reflection. In other words if the description is not of sufficient quality there cannot be awareness of the real level of one‘s own professional skills.

b) Analysis means analyzing and researching more complex realities by breaking them up into more simple ones. It is the ability to divide educational reality into simple parts, e.g. using questions like: ―What did I do and why? How did the child/children react? What was the situation about? What was the aim of the situation? etc.‖ There is an assumption regarding the ability to identify (describe) unambiguous facts.

c) Evaluation is the state of one´s being aware of the causes of the identified phenomena, or it is the explanation of the causes of the discovered problems or successes. Evaluation is the sign of understanding the educational reality, which presupposes extensive theoretical knowledge as well as personal capabilities enabling the person to be sincere to themselves. It means that the evaluated person takes a position regarding themselves — either positive or negative, looking for the answer to the question ―Why?‖ For example, Why did I act this way? Why did the children react that way?

d) Proposing alternative procedures presupposes that the teacher has managed the previous levels of mental operations and that he/she has had enough theoretical knowledge as well as practical experience to be aware what action could be more efficient, or what changes could support educational results of a higher quality.

(18)

f) Metacognition is thinking about mental processes. It is also the ability to recognize how we react in stressful situations; where we prefer emotions to sense. Metacognition focuses especially on assessing the decisive processes, which means that the teacher is learning via this mental operation how he/she solves problems, reacts and decides. This self-knowledge leads to a better efficiency via auto regulative processes. Metacognition could also be described as an ability to predict certain mistakes and limits of the human mind with the aim of avoiding them or finding ways to get over them. It can be referred to as self-reflection. (Pisova, 2005, as cited in Syslova, 2015, p. 76).

Therefore, by modifying Hatton and Smith‘s (1995) dialogic reflection using Pisova‘s stages of reflection, it was established throughout the data analysis that pertaining to dialogic reflection there were three categories, i.e. Low Level (L3), Moderate Level (L4), and High Level (L5).

Low Level (L3) in dialogic reflection covers reflection containing with mental

realization about phenomenon/phenomena or evaluating the phenomenon/ phenomena using qualities of simple judgement/analysis/reasoning (containing description and/or analysis, and simple evaluation) such as in the following example:

―It was my first teaching at class XI IPA2 on Tuesdays. I was really nervous because I left home

early in the morning with intention to accompany my teaching partner at class XI IPS2 as she was

scheduled to teach at 7 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. and I was scheduled to teach at the second session at XI IPA2. But because of the class was not attended by the scheduled teacher, I was asked by the

English teacher to teach in the class. Actually I was very nervous ever since the commencement day of our field teaching.‖(Extract from PST 2‘s reflective journal).

The aforementioned example of reflective unit contains an evaluation about the PST‘s anxiety towards her first day of teaching. The identified mental realization I was really nervous is then followed by simple justification.

Moderate Level (L4) in dialogic reflection refers to mental realization about

phenomenon/phenomena or evaluating the phenomenon/phenomena using qualities of more complex judgement/analysis/reasoning (containing more complex analysis and evaluation). The following vignette from PST‘s data exemplifies this category.

―Considering the lesson plan, I felt it didn‘t go as I planned before since whenever I asked them to

(19)

examples using media. I found out that they are having trouble with grammar. For example, out of the two sentences I asked them to make, none of them was correct. At last, I ended up explaining

grammar rather than focusing on what I have planned before. So, my lesson plan didn‘t work at

all.‖ (Extract from PST 2‘s reflective journal).

The above extract contains evaluation about the lesson plan that the PST implemented in her instructional setting. The evaluative phrase I felt it didn’t go as I planned before is then followed by a course of reasoning and justification, which was more complex than that of simple justification provided in Low Level (L3).

Meanwhile, High Level (L5) in this level of reflection means reflection which deals with mental realization about phenomenon/phenomena or evaluating the phenomenon/phenomena using qualities of more integrative analysis and evaluation (containing alternative, generalization and/or metacognition) as the following extract depicts.

―After the third meeting, I started to feel a bit annoyed since it seems that the students don‘t know or perhaps they don‘t want to appreciate what I have done for their class so far; from preparing and

making teaching media, preparing teaching materials and explaining in front of the class until my

mouth went dry. But now, as I‘m reflecting it, I start to think about many things like: (a) the ways to

make them understand the material I‘m delivering to them because as far as I‘m concerned they still don‘t get whatever I deliver to them, (b) the ways to make them want to do the tasks that I assign them to do, or (c) maybe they‘re bored with the way I teach since I always use teaching media which I put on the whiteboard and pair work technique.‖ (Extract from PST 2‘s reflective journal).

The above example illustrates PST‘s evaluation on the students‘ response and respect towards her and her teaching. This reflective thought unit covers an integrative analysis, evaluation and metacognition.

2.3.4 Critical Reflection

In this highest level, Hatton and Smith (1995) suggest that reflection demonstrates an awareness that actions and events are not only located in, and explicable by, reference to multiple perspectives but are located in, and influenced by, multiple historical, and socio-political contexts. The related example of student teacher‘s writing such as the following indicates the ability of the student teacher to link the classroom situation with power relationship in wider context seeing the classroom components, the teacher and the students, as part of the social institutions within the society.

(20)

This considered-highest level of reflection, however, is not easy to attain by reflective practitioners since this quality of reflection requires many experiences in developing reflective practice and ultimately takes time for a reflective practitioner to maintain critical reflection in their practices (Farrell, 2009; Pishghadam, et al., 2012).

2.4 Reflective Teaching Practice

In the early 1990s, there was ―only a small portion of the pre-service education programs feature reflection as a key aim and among these programs reflective teaching has remained elusive‖ (Ali, 1998, p. 2). As the consequences of post-method debate, reflective practices have been growing extensively over the past decade (Farrell, 2012; Prabhu, 1990; Kumaravadivelu, 1994, 2001, 2003, 2006), especially where higher education is concerned (Brockbank & McGill, 2007; Campbell & Norton, 2007; Lyons, 2010), either as a practice to the teachers or to the learners. As far as the teachers are concerned, being reflective assists the teachers‘ lifelong professional development, enabling them to criticize teaching and make better-informed teaching decisions (Cruickshank & Applegate, 1981; Farrell, 2006; Valli, 1997).

(21)

process); 2) learner reﬂection (involving learners in self-assessment); and, 3) appropriate target language use (modeling and scaffolding different kinds of discourse) (Little, et al., 2007).

Research shows that reflective teaching leads to professional development in many ways (Akbari, 2005, 2007; Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Smyth, 1993). As the teachers interact with the students and gets involved in their teaching, reflection becomes a tool in rethinking, reshaping, and reviewing what had been done during the teaching process. In effect, reflection has been of great importance and has received noticeable attention in teacher education and teachers' educational development in recent years and is a key component of teacher development (Clarke & Otaky, 2006; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Vieira & Marquez, 2002).

As Richards and Lockhart (1996) argues that reflection-driven exploration of teaching can have many merits. It can facilitate the process of gaining better insights into teaching from both a theoretical and a practical perspective; it can enrich teaching and learning processes; it can act as a springboard for self-appraisal and consequently is extremely crucial when it comes to professional development.

Jackson‘s (1968) preactive is the time preceding the teaching, when teachers are planning the lesson as well as evaluating and selecting teaching methods and materials. Jackson‘s (1968) interactive is the time when teachers are interacting with the students in the classroom. Clark and Peterson‘s (1986) postactive is the time when teachers reflect on their teaching after a lesson and make decisions about the following teaching. Therefore, reflections on teaching in the postactive phase usually become input for planning in the preactive phase. Decision-making in preactive phase and interactive phase are inextricably linked and it is sometimes not easy to distinguish between the two.

(22)

the ―problem of teacher readiness‖ rather than ―the problem of program and institutional context‖ (Ali, 1998, p. 2). Moreover, some studies found that attempts to encourage reflection during the pre-service years are misguided (Berliner, 1998, as cited in Ali, 1998). Nevertheless, reflective practice is believed to be essential in teacher education due to the urgency of raising reflection as an issue in pre-service teacher education because, given the social condition of schooling, it is unlikely that critical dispositions will develop during in-service years (Valli, 1993, as cited in Ali, 1998).

2.4.1 Reflective Teaching Practices in Indonesia

The rise of reflective teaching practice in L2 teacher education since the emergence of L2 teacher education and teacher development as a field of inquiry, marked by Richards and Nunan‘s (1990) edited volume on L2 teacher education (Tsui, 2011), has also triggered the discussion in Asian classrooms context. Richard‘s (1991), Gaudart‘s (1991), and Day‘s (1991) articles published in Sadtono‘s (1991) edited volume addressing issues in L2 teacher education, particularly the teaching of ESL and conditions in the Asia-Pacific region, have been considerably referred to in discussing reflective practices in language teaching and learning. Meanwhile, in Indonesian setting of EFL teaching and teacher development, albeit the introduction of reflective teaching practices during early 1990‘s, such practices has only evidenced in early 2000s, a decade later. Such development of scholarly works and empirical studies of reflective teaching in Indonesian classroom setting can be seen in the following presentation.

(23)

teacher educators (Nurkamto, 2004; Tarjana, 2002; Widodo, 2004) argue for the importance of reflective teaching practices for English language teachers.

Table 2.1 List of scholarly works on reflective teaching practice in Indonesian classroom contexts

2013 Caterine*  Language in India

Haenilah* PGSD Unpublished

2012 Suratno*   US-China Education

Review

(24)

Mathematics and Science Teacher Education Project (Saito, et al., 2006). Lesson

Study is considered as one of reflective practices in the instructional settings. It was deeply rooted in the Japanese tradition of teacher professional development model based on ―collaborative intellectual process rather than the output of isolated products such as a collection of model lessons (Chokshi & Fernandez, 2004 as cited in Lenski & Caskey, 2009). The Plan, Do, See cycle based on collegiality and mutual learning (Suratno & Iskandar, 2010) is reflective in nature. Such a collaborative reflection, however, is not without hindrances, even though collaborative action is closely related to Indonesian culture gotong royong. Lesson Study‘s collaborative nature requires the teachers to allocate their time (Vandeweghe & Varney, 2006 as cited in Lenski & Caskey, 2009) and routine for collaborative planning, observing, and reflecting on the lessons which might be seen as a demanding task within heavy teaching workload (Hidayah, 2014).

Despite the seemingly onerous task, recent collaborative reflective practice of Lesson Study has been of prominence among teachers educators all over the world, as, for example, evidenced in the United States (Cheung & Wong, 2014; Lenski & Caskey, 2009) as well as in Indonesia (Hendayana, Supriatna, Purnawarman, Suratno, & Rahman, 2014); and not only limited to science subjects, but also other subjects, including language learning. As the case in Indonesia, Lesson Study was introduced during the period of 2006-2011 under the auspices of Japan International Coorporation Agency (JICA) and has been practiced in Indonesian classroom settings ever since (Suratno, 2012; 2013; Suratno & Iskandar, 2010; Suyanta, Sumardi, Kadarisman, Mahmudi, & Sukarna, 2014).

In English language teaching context, however, the notion of reflective practice and reflective teaching was still on discussion level in early 2000s as appeared in TEFLIN Journal, a peer-reviewed journal of English language teaching in Indonesia (see Tarjana, 2002; Widodo, 2004).

(25)

integrating cooperative learning in reflective practice, which she perceives as relevant to be implemented in the Indonesian cultural context ―where collectivism is a dominant feature‖ (p. 157). She argues that working in a reflective group will benefit the learners in terms of practicing their critical thinking and developing their personal confidence for the future individual projects (Tarjana, 2002).

Meanwhile, Widodo (2004), in his article Teacher Self-Evaluation Models as

Authentic Portfolio to Monitor Language Teachers’ Performance, intends to

inspire the teachers with the ideas of self-evaluation models in order to identify the needs of language teachers, using portfolio as the means to raise the teachers‘ awareness to become reflective teachers. He suggests that self-evaluation models be considered for the language teachers since they can help them to control of their own teaching, assess their own strengths and weaknesses, help the teachers set their own realistic goals of teaching to reflect their own teaching, and help them make decisions on their instructional plan. In line with Tarjana (2002) who argues that reflective practice ―accepts the concept of gotong-royong‖ (p. 161), Widodo (2004) also asserts that the self-evaluation models could encourage the teachers to improve their teaching performance collaboratively, indicating the applicability of reflective practice as shared experiential learning in the classroom.

After these two published articles, there was a paucity of reflective teaching studies in the same journal until 2014 when Astika and Kuswandono respectively discussed their empirical studies relative to reflective teaching practice of the EFL pre-service teachers. Astika (2014), in his empirical study explored teaching reflections that the pre-service teachers wrote during their field teaching practice program utilizing reflective journals. Using Smith‘s (2011) analytical framework of four domains of critical reflection, he found that the PSTs were more attended to the personal domain (i.e. personal perception and judgements) and contextual domain (i.e. teaching performance) rather than interpersonal and critical domains. While Kuswandono‘s (2014) research-based article Voices of Pre-Service English Teachers: Reflecting Motivations during Practicum Learning focuses on

(26)

to the importance of reflective teaching practices in Indonesia is undoubtedly still undervalue (Suratno & Iskandar, 2010).

A study conducted by Caterine (2013), for example, in her attempt to investigate the English lecturers‘ reflective teaching practice in a public university, found that most of the teachers were aware of what was happening in the classroom but only a few assessed their action during the teaching and learning process. Furthermore, in terms of reflection on teaching, most of the teachers chose to talk about their teaching experience to their colleagues over keeping teaching journals. In conclusion, she argues that being aware of the theory and the importance of being reflective teacher is not enough because such awareness does not guarantee the teachers to apply their knowledge into their classroom and teaching life. Her study relied on questionnaire as the main instrument consisting of two parts, asking about demographic background of the participants and asking about their reflective teaching practice. However, it is not clear how the questionnaire was developed as no further elaboration in the method of the study on which theories generated the instrument development.

2.4.2 Empirical Studies of Reflective Teaching Practices in English Language Teaching Education in Indonesia

Having talked about the development of reflective teaching practice in Indonesian classroom contexts, it is important to specify the studies pertaining to reflective teaching practice in English Language Teaching Education setting in Indonesian classroom contexts (see Appendix 5 for the summary and Appendix 6 for comparison of the studies conducted during practicum).

Table 2.2 List of empirical studies on reflective teaching practice in English Language Teaching Education in Indonesian classroom contexts

Year Researcher PST Unit of Course Instrument

2015 Nurlaelawati 35 TEYL Reflective Teaching Journal, Pre-video Analysis, Questionnaire

Ragawanti 10 Practicum (at school) Reflective Teaching Journal

2014 Astika 40 Practicum (at school) Reflective Teaching Journal, Group Reflection Kuswandono 13 Microteaching Reflective Teaching Journal, Questionnaires,

Interview, Autobiography, Focused-Group Discussion

2013 Mustaqima 35 TEYL and Practicum (at school)

Reflective Teaching Journal, Observation

(27)

Table 2.2 presents the relevant empirical studies on reflective teaching practice in English language teaching education in Indonesian classroom settings. All the presented studies share similar instrument that is reflective teaching journal as one of their tools in documenting the PSTs‘ reflections.

The first reviewed related study is Palupi‘s (2011) study investigating on how self-reflection assists pre-service teachers develop critical thinking on the issues raised in their Micro Teaching class and to give an account on the focus of the participants‘ teaching reflections. As much as 12 third and/or fourth year students English teacher education program of a private university in Central Java participated. The study took place during Micro Teaching course for about 14 weeks which aimed to prepare the students for a teaching practice program conducted at school or language teaching institutions near the university. Moreover, the course intended to give the students opportunities to work on their individual teaching skills necessary in their teaching practicum later on as well as learning experiences throughout the course in form of lectures, writing both pre- and post- teaching reflections, and conducting three mini teaching practices. In her study, the pre-service teachers were required to write a reflection journal before and after their teaching practices which were all video-recorded in light of the quality of their teaching instruction, teaching materials, class activities, social and personal matters significant to student teachers during their teaching practices. Palupi (2011) found that reflective practice contributed to the development of the participants‘ language teaching skills; and therefore, involving student teachers in conducting self-reflection is beneficial to help the future teachers become life-long learners. The study, however, did not explain the role of the author, the amount of total reflective teaching journal collected and in which language was the journal was asked to write. Moreover, the article failed to discuss the analytical framework the author used in analyzing the reflective writings as source of data.

(28)

English teachers were asked to form a small group of 4-5 students and then were assigned to engage in peer observation, peer feedback, writing report of the observation in form of reflection of practicum at the end of their field teaching practice. The narrative inquiry study used Clandinin and Connelly's (2000) conceptual framework and Hewitt-Taylor's (2001) constant comparison analysis to analyze data gathered from the participants' reflective journals. The study discovered that the pre-service teachers' learning evidence in form of knowledge of teaching aspects, instructional skills, teaching knowledge and skill still need improvement. The study expected that the research could inspire teachers in doing reflection as well as teacher training institute to improve the teaching practice quality of their pre-service teachers in TEYL field by the practice of reflective teaching. Similar to Palupi‘s (2011) study, Mustaqima‗s (2013) failed to give appropriate elaboration on data collection and data analysis since it was not clear how many reflective teaching journals were collected to be of analysis, in what language were the journals written, and whether the data analysis process went through ongoing analysis as the course went on or not.

(29)

PSTs submitted in the end and the language of written instruction in the reflective accounts.

Meanwhile, within the same volume but different issue of TEFLIN Journal, another study devoted to reflective practice in English language education in Indonesian EFL setting conducted by Kuswandono (2014) was published. He investigated the problems encountered by pre-service teachers' motivation to become teachers in Indonesian setting. He explored thirteen pre-service teachers' emerging professional identities and professional learning through reflective journals, questionnaires, individual interviews, autobiography, and focused-group discussion. The reflective journals were submitted on weekly basis as part of Practice Teaching 1 course (Microteaching) containing descriptions of and reflections about their professional identity and learning. Data from journal entries was then analyzed using Bakhtinian's "double-voiced discourse" while data from interview was analyzed using Mishler's (1991) framework as "authentic social discourse". The result of the study signifies that teacher education needs to provide more reflective dialogues to shape pre-service teachers‘ identity and professionalism considering the fact that so many pre-service teachers in due course entered the English Education Study Program (EESP) and struggled to make meaning of their identity may be related to the fact that their decision to pursue a teaching career was not one they expected to be making. In his study, Kuswandono (2014), as the other researchers in the aforementioned related studies, did not attempt to provide any information on the language of instruction of the reflective teaching journals. It was also uncertain whether the PSTs wrote their weekly reflective teaching account based on the same questions pertaining to their professional identity and learning or not.

(30)

PSTs reflection. The qualitative study collected total 60 entries to be analyzed by scrutinizing the management problems, how the PSTs dealt with them and how reflection could help them improved their classroom management skills. Ragawanti (2015) found that the most reported management problem reflected by the PSTs in their journal entries was critical moments, i.e. handling the students‘ noise and silence. She also found that reflective journal could help the PSTs examined their teaching, found the pattern of the problem in managing the classroom, and therefore helped them improve their classroom management skill. She concluded that since managing classrooms can be problems for PSTs during their field teaching, therefore the teacher educator should pay more attention when designing syllabus by considering more space for knowledge about practices in managing a classroom (Ragawanti, 2015).

Another most current empirical study regarding reflective practice area in Indonesian English language education instructional setting was presented by Nurlaelawati (2015) in an international seminar. Relatively similar to Mustaqima‘s (2013) study but different in the mode of submitted reflective journal, in which Nurlaelawati‘s used online journal, it was conducted to 35 primary English language PSTs who were taking TEYL course in Indonesia University of Education in order to identify the levels of online reflective teaching journal to optimize pedagogic competence construction of primary English language by PSTs and to reveal the advantages and shortages of online reflective journal. Using online reflective journal, which the PSTs submitted using online facility provided by the university called SPOT right after their classroom sessions, she analyzed the levels of PSTs reflection and the advantages and shortages of keeping online reflective journal. The case study collected total 140 entries from four topics to be analyzed by using Lee‘s (2008) analytical framework.

(31)

could identify some important aspects of TEYL in Indonesian context such as exposures of English in the classroom and classroom management. Some benefits of keeping online reflective journals, as she found in her study, are PSTs have free time and space to complete the task and they are not awkward, shame and fear. The weaknesses found among others are similar style and content of the writing, and no sufficient feedback from the lecturer on their reflection. She therefore suggested that more well-planned program should be considered by increasing the tutor‘s involvement to give feedback and more systematic design for the task.

(32)

2.4.3 Reflective Teaching Journal

One of the ways in engaging into reflective practice is through maintaining the written accounts of teaching experience. Being common in other disciplines, the potential of writing personal account of experiences has also been recognized widely in teacher education (see Cohen-Sayag & Fischl, 2012; Ligadu, 2012; Powell, 1985; Ragawanti, 2015; Simoncini, et al., 2014). As reflective teaching has been the essential part in teacher education programs, writing reflective journals has become almost a standard requirement (Farrell, 2006; Hoover, 1994; Richards & Ho, 1998; Richards & Lockhart, 1996) in form of intrapersonal (Burton & Carroll, 2001), e.g. learning diaries (Bailey, 1990; Calderhead, 1989; Jarvis, 1992), or dialogic (Yesilbursa, 2011), e.g. dialogue journals (Barkhuizen, 1995; Zeichner, 1987). Writing, therefore, can offer more than a strategy for documentation: writing is a composing process, which means that it actually involves reflections. It can also document reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action (Schön, 1983, 1987). Therefore, in itself writing has the potential to function as a uniquely-effective reflective tool.

As unique tool, journal writing can be used in helping the teachers promoting reflective inquiry (Farrell, 2006; Fatemipour & HusseingholiKhani, 2014; Hoover, 1994; Maaroof, 2007; Rodriguez & McKay, 2010). Most reports of journal writing emphasize the positive benefits for both student teachers and instructors (Griffiths, 2000; Harun & Al-Amin, 2013; Kabilan, 2007; Lee, 2008; Maaroof, 2007; Moon, 2006). From an account of learning logs in teaching practice, Thornbury (1991) stresses the value of journal writing in documenting trainees‘ developing theories of teaching and in stimulating the development of craft knowledge. In addition, as Murray (2009) argues, keeping a teaching journal would help the teachers identify the success and unsuccessful aspects in their instructional settings through detail examination on the journal.

(33)

creative interaction between the participant and the self-development process that is taking place, between the participant and other participants who are also in the process of self-development, and between the participant and the facilitator whose role it is to foster such development (Bailey, 1990; Powell, 1985).

In addition, Brock, et al. (1992) identify the beneficial sides of journal writing to the teachers in their professional development since: a) it is an effective means of identifying variables that are important to individual teachers and learners; b) it serves as a means of generating questions and hypothesis about teaching and learning process; c) it enhances awareness about the way a teacher teaches and a student learns; d) it is an excellent tool for reflection; e) it is simply to conduct; f) it provides a firsthand account of teaching and learning experiences; g) it is the most natural form of classroom research in that no formal correlation are tested and no outside observer enters the classroom dynamic; h) it provides an ongoing record of classroom events and teacher and learner reflections; i) it enables the researcher to relate classroom events and to examine trends emerging from the diaries; and, j) it promotes the development of reflection teaching.

However, Burns (1995) reports teachers‘ comments on some weaknesses of keeping a writing journal. The teachers say that: a) it is time consuming; b) the activity is considered as artificial, unless the teacher is a regular journal writer and enjoy this form of communicating with themselves; c) comments given from the others or expert are unfocused; d) it was an initially interesting, but ultimately tiresome, activity; and, e) journals are difficult to analyze and interpret.

Furthermore, Jarvis (1992) and Barkhuizen (1995) identify problems encountered in some journal entries that the participants found difficulties in moving beyond description to a more reflective mode of writing (see also Nurlaelawati, 2015; Roux, et al., 2012). The entries that teachers made sometimes fail to make links between what they write about and their own classroom practices, and that sometimes little sense of ―reflection of practice‖ is evident let alone towards the elements of being critical reflective teachers (Barkhuizen, 1995; Jarvis, 1992; Nurlaelawati, 2015; Roux, et al., 2012).