According to Van Manen (1977), technical reflection focuses on efficiency and effectiveness as a means to accomplish certain goals. These goals are not open for criticism or adjustment. At this level, technical reflection is a source of knowledge whereby the teacher’s decisions are grounded on different kinds of sources which includes research, the experiences of other educators, values and attitudes.
Technical reflective teachers focus also on their behaviour, the subject, their relationship with learners and the culture of the school. Similarly, Roynolds (2015) describes technical reflection as surface reflection whereby the focus is on strategies and methods employed to achieve stipulated goals.
Teachers at this level are worried with what works for them instead of considering the value of goals.
This suggests that the teacher is concerned about which techniques or strategies he or she should implement in the classroom in order to achieve the desired goals or outcomes. At this point, the teacher is working towards achieving the goals, and if a particular teaching strategy is not working or not giving the preferred outcomes, the teacher applies other strategies until the outcomes are achieved. For example, the goal for teaching GIS is to promote the use of new technology; the teacher may ask learners to use the internet to differentiate between spatial and spectral resolution. At the end of the lesson, learners will be able to use technology to meet the expected goals. Other examples of technical
20
reflection may be new teachers who know how to use the state's assessment instruments to evaluate whether the lessons taught were successful or not. These technical reflective teachers should have technical skills, have an ability to maintain order, provide clear instructions, and provide students with constructive feedback. Teachers at this point are able to implement and manage new programs they have received from the workshops or training (Valli, 2009). The next section will include the second level of reflection: practical reflection and GIS
2.3.2 Practical reflection
According to Van Manen (1977) practical reflection is open for investigation not only of means, but also for goals to be achieved, furthermore it examines the assumptions upon which these goals are based, and the defined outcomes. Practical reflection is different from technical reflection in that the identified meanings are not static, but are included in through language. The study conducted by Lyons (2015) on reflection in teaching shows that teachers are failing to distinguish between analysis, description and reflection. This suggests that practical reflection focuses on goals rather than teaching methods used by teacher to achieve desired outcomes. The teacher at this level considers the possibility and feasibility of achieving results. For example, the goal for teaching GIS is to promote the use of new technology, although outcomes are to promote the use of technology, the teacher will have ask him or herself these questions: are the teaching and learning materials available? Are my learners able to use computers? What can I do to have a successful lesson? With these few questions in mind, the teachers may start to challenge the classroom environment she or he is teaching in, and change teaching methods if the need arises in order to achieve the desired goals. Moving further to the third level of reflections, critical reflection; this level of reflection is seen as the most important and most helpful to teacher development.
2.3.3 Critical reflection
According to Roynolds (2015), critical reflection is a commitment to seek clarity, and raise questions that are moral and technical in nature. For example, grounding the idea of power dynamics and ideology that exist within the social fabric; these include measures, implications, and way that inequality in power connects with issues of race, age, class and gender. Critical reflection is concerned with the perspectives that people are socially connected instead of existing in isolation from an individual perspective. The primary aim is to understand where society is, based on fairness and democracy, and these must imitate education and social life as a whole. Similarly, Larrivee (2008) states that at this level, a critical reflective teacher includes the investigation of both personal and professional belief
21
systems. Again, from a critical reflective position, emphasis is based on their own practice and also social conditions. The aim is not only focused on understanding, but also on improving the quality of life of those who are least powerful. Critical reflection entails the distribution of power in the classroom, allowing learners to question and learn to solve problems inside and outside the classroom environment. At this level, learners are actively involved in the creation or production of knowledge instead of being passive recipients of information (Dehler, Welsh & Lewis, 2001).
Moving further, teacher reflection focuses on how positive teachers can reason. It encourages teachers to contextualise their understanding of teaching where teachers learn to make decisions and choices about learning goals (Kennedy, 1989). Reflective teaching, or the reflective teacher involves the teacher having abilities to think about teaching, his/her actions and the context in which teaching is taking place. Teachers can reflect, make judgment about the situation or themselves, and from there, action is taken to rectify the mistake or to improve on their teaching.
The third category of reflection is critical reflection and it has three levels. The first level of critical reflection is based on the methods used to achieve results. According to Rosenberg (2004), an example of this level is whereby a teacher makes surface reflections based on particular activities within the lesson. The comments made are usually unsupported judgments and do not attempt to question aspects of the curriculum or the context in which the learners live and learn. The second level of critical reflection is centred on specific experiences, views, understandings and influences they have on practice activities or action. The third level of critical reflection is the critical investigation of the methods used to achieve results.
The fourth category of reflection as described by Boody (2008) are the concepts of ‘reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action’. These categories focus on decisions made during the teaching and learning process. Schon (1983) concurs with this statement by stating that teachers make decisions during the process of teaching and learning, and that these decisions are grounded on practical knowledge in most cases, and practical knowledge is a result of their experiences. Knowledge is also informed by context, classroom situation or environment, values and beliefs systems and these will allow the teachers to reflect on their actions.
On top of the above discussed types of reflection and their levels or categories, Vall (2009) presents deliberative reflection and personalistic reflection. Deliberative reflection is when decision-making is based on different sources such as experiences, research, beliefs and values and advice from other
22
teachers. A reflective teacher must make decisions and should be able to give reasons for the decision that was made. Deliberative teachers consider teaching behaviour, relationship with students, subject matter and the school’s organisation, including the culture and climate of the school. Personalistic reflection, according to Vall (2009), is when a teacher reflects in a personal way, and combine professional and personal lives. Teachers think about their lives and/or their own students. They are not only concerned with the academic performance of their students but also about life in general. The personalistic reflective teacher wants to understand their students and be prepared to act on giving the best for their students’ personal interests, concerns, and hopes for the future. This kind of reflection has less emphasis about students’ success on tests.
According to Sparks-Langer, Pasch, Starko, Colton and Simmons (2010), teachers are failing to integrate ideas across the three levels of reflection namely, critical, practical and technical reflection.
Teachers focus more on two forms of reflection when there are teaching technical and practical aspects. This suggests that teachers are concerned about reaching an unexamined goal. Also teachers want to know how they can plan their lessons and manage learners. The critical level of reflection is limited if teachers are not considering moral and ethical issues of the lesson. Sparks-Langer et al.
(2010) suggest that in order to improve teachers in all three levels of reflection; teachers should create field activities whereby they are able to discuss social issues and issues of power. These issues will allow development of values and morals and automatically they embrace the third level of reflection which is critical reflection.