Studying Teacher Education Examining Teacher

This article was downloaded by: [Williams, Judy] On: 26 July 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 924779023] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studying Teacher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713727674

Examining Teacher Educator Practice and Identity through Core Reflection Judy Williamsa; Kerith Powera a Monash University, Australia

Online publication date: 26 July 2010

To cite this Article Williams, Judy and Power, Kerith(2010) 'Examining Teacher Educator Practice and Identity through

Core Reflection', Studying Teacher Education, 6: 2, 115 — 130 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2010.495888 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2010.495888

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Studying Teacher Education Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2010, 115–130

RESEARCH ARTICLE Examining Teacher Educator Practice and Identity through Core Reflection Judy Williams* and Kerith Power

Downloaded By: [Williams, Judy] At: 23:37 26 July 2010

Monash University, Australia This article reports a self-study that used a model of core reflection to examine the identity and practices of two teacher educators. Core reflection is a process by which teachers reflect on their practice, incorporating an examination of personal beliefs, mission and identity. During three sessions of core reflection we examined the experiences of one of the participants in relation to her teaching ideals, perceived difficulties or obstacles to achieving these ideals, and sense of self as a teacher educator. We concluded that the use of core reflection was valuable in supporting collegial and reflective conversions in a trusting environment. The process also helped us to identify the importance of qualities such as confidence and authenticity and to recognise how acknowledgement of such qualities can help teacher educators to understand their practice and identities more deeply. Keywords: teacher education; core reflection; self-study; authenticity; identity

This article examines the experiences of two teacher educators using a process known as Core Reflection (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005). Both authors are early-career researchers: Judy is a former primary school teacher who has been a teacher educator for two years; Kerith is a former early childhood teacher who has been an academic for seven years. The article is presented as a continuation of the conversations that took place during our application of the core reflection model to our work. Each researcher’s voice is prominent at different times in the article, and this approach to writing continues the dialogue of core reflection as we each provide a particular interpretation of the professional learning that emerged from our collaboration. Background to the Study As a primary school teacher new to the role of teacher educator, I (Judy) was keen to examine ways in which I could make sense of my new professional identity and contribute to my learning about my practice as a teacher educator. In particular, my involvement in self-study was a means by which I felt I could explore the literature in this area and interrogate some of the issues and concerns I had as a beginning teacher educator. One self-study activity in which I had participated was a workshop conducted by Fred Korthagen and Angelo Vasalos on core reflection. This workshop and the principles underlying core reflection strengthened my belief that acknowledgment of

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1742-5964 print/ISSN 1742-5972 online q 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2010.495888 http://www.informaworld.com

116

J. Williams and K. Power


emotions in the work of teachers and teacher educators and one’s search for authenticity in practice are keys to effective learning and teaching. Learning about core reflection led me to consider how I might use this approach to examine my practice, and to collaborate with colleagues in ways that would help in the construction of my new professional identity as a teacher educator, a concept that I had been struggling with during my initial period as an academic (see Williams, 2008). Fortunately, I was able to establish a trusting relationship with Kerith, who was eager to explore the core reflection model in relation to her own teaching. This experience helped us both to develop our skills in, and understandings of, this particular method of professional reflection and to more critically identify and analyse issues, concerns and dilemmas in our practice. Literature Review Reflective practice in education generally, and in teacher education in particular, is well documented in the literature. The seminal work of Scho¨n (1983) provided a conceptual understanding of reflective practice on which many later researchers have based their work. For example, Ghaye and Ghaye (1998) took Scho¨n’s notions of technical rationality, knowledge-in-action and reflection-on-action to produce an enabling model of reflection-on-practice, leading to decisions and actions that help teachers to understand teaching and learning. Ghaye and Ghaye argued that by reflecting on their practice, teachers are enabled to make “wise and principled decisions” (p. 3) that are based on self-knowledge and experience. These decisions lead to improvements in teachers’ practice and in their understanding of the complexity of their students’ and their own learning. Ghaye and Ghaye also argued that professional reflection should be not only a solitary practice, but also a social endeavour in which the knowledge produced “has the potential to enlighten and empower teachers” (p. 3). Such reflection may be reflection-in-action (rapid interpretation and action in the moment) or reflection-onaction (after the event). The latter type of reflection is perhaps the most common in the literature, where researchers, particularly self-study researchers, reflect on their professional practice in hindsight, often with trusted colleagues. Ghaye and Ghaye promote the idea of reflective conversations that move the reflective process away from the private and into the public domain, and broaden the learning from the individual to the wider education community. In recent years, the teacher education literature has placed increasing prominence on self-study as a means of facilitating professional learning in teacher education. Loughran (2004) argued that self-study is a means by which personal reflections can be made public, much as Ghaye and Ghaye (1998) argued that reflection should be as publicly accessible as possible. Many self-studies examine the importance of reflection for teacher educators individually and with colleagues, and for their students. Trumbull (2006) discussed the dialectical notion of reflection as a means by which a teacher educator’s ideas about teaching and learning are examined and reconstructed through recourse to personal experience and the experiences of others. She argued that “this transformative process enables one to surface and question previously taken-for-granted assumptions about the self” (p. 73). The importance of the emotional dimension of reflection was highlighted by Moore (2003) when he argued that: “by addressing, including and putting us more in touch with our ‘feelings’ [reflection] is a vital tool in broadening our perspectives . . . [and] is arguably a prerequisite to becoming not just ‘better’ . . . but happier and more fulfilled in the work that we do” (p. 581). Views such as these promote reflection as more than a



117

cognitive process but rather, a process involving the whole person, including emotions. As Trumbull suggested, it is not just an examination of practice, but an examination of the self. Loughran and others (Loughran, 2006a; Loughran & Russell, 2002) have argued that reflection can help to promote a pedagogy of teacher education by making the underlying principles of teacher educators’ practice explicit to students of teaching. By reflecting on their own practices, beliefs and assumptions, teacher educators are better placed to understand these practices and to make them clearer to their students. Loughran (2006b) argued that: “modelling, reflection and inviting critique of one’s own practice are all issues that should drive the manner in which teaching about teaching is conceptualised so that students of teaching are able to see that which they are being encouraged to do in their own teaching is central to their teacher educator’s practice” (p. 170). The value of reflection is, therefore, not only for teacher educators themselves, but also for their students, as the reflection process can lead to improvements in the ways in which students of teaching are educated. Brandenburg’s (2008) self-study uncovered hidden assumptions in her teaching of student teachers and unpacked these using structured self-reflection and by promoting selfreflection in her students, drawing heavily on Korthagen’s (2001) ALACT framework (see the next section for explanation). Brandenburg found that through reflection there emerged a, “reconceptualised approach to learning and teaching [and that] more has been exposed about how examining the ordinary can lead to extra-ordinary insights about teaching and learning about teaching” (p. 179). She argued that reflection for teacher educators, and for teacher education students, is a powerful way to research the teaching and learning nexus, and to improve the professional practice of both teacher educators and prospective teachers in schools. Likewise, Berry (2007) examined her teaching practices and found that by reflecting privately and publicly with her students and with a trusted colleague, she was able to reframe her taken-for-granted assumptions about teaching and learning (drawing on the work of Scho¨n, 1983), and to respond more appropriately to the needs of her teacher education students. She also “learn[ed] about my ‘self’ through developing my self-understanding and self-awareness [as] a prerequisite to helping others see themselves in ways that enable them to help themselves” (p. 163). Here, the importance of the self emerges for Berry, as it did for Moore (2003) and Trumbull (2006), and again, emphasises the value of a holistic approach to self-reflection. Studies such as these point to the value of reflection in teaching and teacher education. Whether these are examples of reflection-in-action or reflection-on-action, personal or collaborative reflections, it appears that reflecting on one’s own beliefs, assumptions and practices in teaching is essential if teachers and teacher educators are to advance their work and that of the profession more broadly. To be most effective, it appears that some type of structure or systematic process is important to guide the reflection and to ensure that it does not merely become navel-gazing or “just thinking about what you do” (Ghaye & Ghaye, 1998, p. 3). In the reflective process on which the current article is based, a structured model of reflection was used that built on the ALACT model developed by Korthagen. The model is described in the next section. Theoretical Framework The model of core reflection used in this study was developed by Korthagen and Vasalos as an extension of Korthagen’s earlier reflective model, known as the ALACT model (Korthagen, 2001). In the ALACT model, Korthagen proposed that teachers (including


118


teacher educators) follow a five stage, cyclical reflective model. This began with stage (1): Action, and was followed by: (2) Looking back on the action; (3) Awareness of essential aspects; (4) Creating alternative methods of action; and (5) Trial of new practices. This then leads back to a new Action phase, and so on. While maintaining that this particular model is valuable, Korthagen reconceptualised it, claiming that the original ALACT model focused too much on how teachers think about their experiences and not enough on how they feel about these experiences and their responses to them. The core reflection model incorporates deeper levels of reflection that implicate the teacher’s sense of mission in their work, and their perceptions of professional identity. This approach, argued Korthagen, develops a greater awareness of the “less rational sources of teacher behaviour” (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005, p. 5) and provides a more holistic approach to teachers’ reflective practice, as discussed by Berry (2007) and others. To illustrate the levels on which reflection can take place, Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) provided the analogy of an onion. In this model the concentric circles or layers of the onion represent the various depths of a person’s qualities, starting with the more superficial layers of behaviours and competencies, followed by beliefs, identity and mission, as illustrated in Figure 1. Korthagen and Vasalos argued that much teacher reflection involves the outer layers of behaviour and competencies, and it is at this level that teachers are often evaluated in respect to their teaching quality. Korthagen and Vasalos (2004) maintained that it is at the deeper levels, particularly those of identity and mission, where the true essence of a teacher resides. Core reflection aims to explore and examine the practice of a teacher or teacher educator at the outer level, but more importantly at these deeper levels too. As Figure 2 illustrates, core reflection aims to identify the participant’s ideal situation (their aim or goal for their teaching) and the limiting factors, or obstacles that they can identify as preventing them from achieving their ideal. Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) also argued that:

Figure 1. The onion model in core reflection (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005, p. 54).


119

Ideal

Flow

Problem situation

Core qualities

Obstacle


Figure 2. Core reflection workshop model (Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 2008, p. 27). . . . by formulating the ideal situation, together with the factors experienced as inhibiting the realisation of that condition, the person has become aware of an inner tension or discrepancy . . . The essential thinking here is for the teacher to take a step backward, and to become aware of the fact that she has a choice whether or not to allow these limiting factors to determine her behaviour. (p. 10, italics in original)

According to Korthagen and Vasalos (2005), awareness of such a choice contributes greatly to a person’s professional and personal growth. Core reflection aims to bring the teacher’s core qualities to the fore, so that these can be identified and utilised to overcome obstacles, and to achieve their ideal teaching situation. Core qualities may be constituted as blends or intersections of three elements: thinking (for example, clarity, creativity, objectivity); feeling (openness, sensitivity, care, compassion); and wanting (strength, commitment, intention, initiative), and can be used to explore the authentic self that teachers invest in their work. This aspect of Korthagen and Vasalos’ work draws heavily on the work of so-called positive psychologists such as Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) who focus on people’s strengths rather than their deficits. The role of the facilitator of core reflection, which is very pertinent to this study, is discussed by Korthagen and Vasalos (2005). They cautioned against the blurring of the boundaries between reflection and counselling, and recognised that “most teachers are rightly careful not to act as therapists” (p. 3), and that the role of a facilitator in core reflection is not to expose trauma and negative feelings, but to “recognise and promote the development of core qualities” (p. 14). This involves focusing on the participant’s ideal situation as well as the limiting factors and showing empathy and an ability to concretise the situation, so that the participant may see ideals and qualities in real terms. Korthagen and Vasalos also advocate a degree of confrontation to promote core reflection, to help participants “become aware of the tension between the ideal situation and limiting factors” (p. 15). This requires skill, empathy and self-awareness on the part of the facilitator, to ensure that the process remains safe and supportive. The core reflection model was used as the theoretical framework for analysis of the data in the current study, and enabled reflective conversations (Ghaye & Ghaye, 1998) to be better understood and the implications for teaching practice to be examined.

Context of the Study Judy The self-study that is featured in this article was undertaken following my attendance at a self-study retreat at Warrenmang winery, Victoria, Australia in February 2008, at which

120



Fred Korthagen and Angelo Vasalos presented their core reflection model. I was interested in pursuing the idea of emotions within the context of reflection on practice, as in my experience as a beginning teacher educator, conversations that tapped into the emotional dimensions of teaching and learning were not commonplace. After considering how I could apply Korthagen and Vasalos’ model in my own work, I decided to propose a trial of the use of the core reflection model with a teacher educator colleague, Kerith. For me, the main aim of undertaking this pilot self-study was to gain insights into the core reflection process, to practise my skills as a facilitator, and to explore some tensions and dilemmas about teaching and learning in teacher education that were apparent in my work. It was also important to identify ways in which I could use the core reflection model to build a professional relationship with a colleague, a process which I had previously identified as another essential element in my evolving identity as a teacher educator (Williams, 2008). One of my aims was also to make the study public so that findings could be shared with a wider audience of teacher educator colleagues. Kerith My reasons for participating in the study were to explore and improve my practice through conversations with Judy, mainly about my teaching in a Literacy Education unit for firstyear undergraduate students in a Bachelor of Education (Primary) course and postgraduate students in a Graduate Diploma (Early Childhood) course. The main differences between the two student cohorts lay in the range of academic, professional and life experiences they (in general) had encountered to date. When Judy first approached me with the idea of engaging in a structured reflective process about my teaching in the first semester of 2008, I believed that the timing was excellent. I had just completed my first year of teaching in a new institution and my confidence about teaching was low. In the new position, I had co-taught the large first-year cohort in literacy education mentioned above, and the unit evaluations had scored in the low range compared with the same unit of study taught on a different campus by different lecturers. While I knew that I was not personally responsible for the design of the unit, I was concerned that my inexperience in the content and novice level institutional knowledge could have contributed to students’ low estimation of the quality of the unit. I also had a real fear that I would be judged a poor teacher if the students’ perceptions did not change in the second year. Methodology The self-study presented in this article occurred over the course of the first semester of 2008. Our conversations consisted of three one-hour reflections about Kerith’s teaching over the course of the semester – in February, May and July. Core reflection is intended to be a more sustained process, over a longer period of time. However, in this study only three sessions were conducted because it was conceived as a preliminary study to determine the effectiveness of using core reflection to a greater extent in future studies. Conduct of the Sessions Judy When facilitating the conversations/reflections I prompted Kerith to discuss and elaborate upon key elements of her teaching, in relation to the core reflection workshop model



121

provided by Korthagen and Vasalos (see Figure 2). There was no formal interview schedule, but the foci of discussion were: teaching background; beliefs about learning and teaching that influenced Kerith’s practice; her ideal teaching/learning environment (that is, what was important to her in her pedagogy); and possible obstacles and problems that might be preventing Kerith from achieving her ideals. I referred to the elements of the core reflection workshop model to take the conversation towards uncovering how these elements might have influenced Kerith’s perceptions of her teaching practice. For example, when I believed that particular core qualities were emerging from the conversation, these were made explicit, and woven into the conversation so that Kerith could consider these qualities, and how, from her perspective, they impacted on her practice. During the conversations, and when reflecting on the sessions afterwards, I also mentally referred to Korthagen’s core reflection onion model (see Figure 1) to examine Kerith’s experiences, particularly at the levels of beliefs, identity and mission. These models were not made explicit to Kerith, and in hindsight I think should have been. Also in hindsight, the conversations should have been audio-taped, but were not, because I believed this to be a trial or pilot study, and I did not anticipate the data would be as rich as they turned out to be. Kerith I did not really need to know explicitly the detailed models as I had prior professional experience of the usefulness of structured conversations. I was genuinely concerned about improving my teaching and felt a high degree of confidence to reveal teaching concerns and difficulties as well as successes in a peer conversation in a research context, as opposed to doing so, for example, in a formal performance supervision context with a senior academic. The informed consent process had allowed me to size up Judy’s personal trustworthiness and I knew that in any case I would be free to withdraw from the research at any time should it become uncomfortable. Data Data for this pilot study consisted of notes taken at each meeting, entries in a research diary in which Judy wrote personal reflections after each session, and Kerith’s reflections on her experience of the core reflection process which were emailed to Judy at the end of the semester. The session notes were elaborated into full written text, and together with diary entries and personal reflections, were analysed with reference to the literature, and in particular, to Korthagen and Vasalos’ core reflection model. The data were examined according to references made by participants to elements of the core reflection model, and links were made to the literature on reflective practice. This analytical framework enabled ideas to emerge that were grounded in the data, but it also strongly focused the analysis on the key ideas of core ideals and obstacles, which are central to the core reflection model. Results and Discussion In this section the results from the three core reflection sessions, and subsequent personal reflections, are presented and discussed by each participant. Firstly, Judy presents her findings from each session from the perspective of facilitator, based on her notes taken during the sessions. These are followed by the corresponding entries in her research diary, which were written after each session. These are followed by Kerith’s thoughts on the core

122



reflection process, which were emailed to Judy after the three sessions had been concluded, but before she had read Judy’s interpretation of the data and her diary entries. At the end of the section, final thoughts about the core reflection process are presented by Judy and Kerith. Session 1 occurred on 14 February 2008, Session 2 was held on 10 April 2008, and Session 3 took place on 2 May 2008. Judy’s Interpretation of the Data in Session 1 In the first session, Kerith expressed concerns about her teaching practice in a first-year unit due to student evaluations in the previous year not being as good as Kerith had hoped for. Her aims for the first semester of 2008 were to improve her pedagogy and her relationships with students. It emerged that one of Kerith’s core beliefs concerned the centrality of the students and of their experiences and voices in the learning process. When asked what her ideal learning environment was, Kerith responded that this would involve student teachers making their own links between theory and practice, and between what they were presented with at university and what they experienced in the field on practicum. Unfortunately, Kerith did not have great “faith in students making their own links” so she felt that she had to make some of these links for them. This was, however, contrary to her ideal of foregrounding students’ own voices and experiences, and appeared to be a tension in her teaching that Kerith was aware of and that caused her some anxiety. While she believed that learning should be student centred, she often felt that she had to teach students in a transmissive way rather than enabling them to take responsibility for their own learning. This appeared to be a barrier or obstacle to Kerith achieving her ideal teaching situation. When asked what she would like to achieve in the first semester of teaching, Kerith responded that she “wants a safe learning environment, where students take intellectual and emotional risks.” Her ideal was to “achieve a safe learning environment for all and to get to know students early in the semester.” She said it was important to get to know students early so that she could incorporate who they were into her teaching. She expressed a very strong belief that students’ voices and experiences should form the basis of their learning about learning and teaching, and she was “already doing this through thorough planning, and changing my previous approach.” When teaching in the unit previously, Kerith felt that she did not have the opportunity to get to know her students as part of her pedagogical approach. This year she was “attempting to incorporate students’ experiences into my teaching” as she was aware of the diverse backgrounds of these students. She felt, however, that she “doesn’t always do this in practice.” From my perspective as facilitator, it appeared that Kerith was having difficulty resolving some of the tensions she felt in her teaching at the outer layer of Korthagen’s onion model, that is, environment, behaviour and competencies, particularly in regard to the new institutional context in which she was working. She felt the need to address these dimensions of her work, so that she could then focus on the inner dimensions of beliefs, identity and mission in order to achieve her ideal of student-centred teaching. When discussing her teaching practice, Kerith used several words that uncovered the emotional level at which she engaged with her students and in her practice. In the same unit the previous year, Kerith was working with another lecturer who coordinated the unit and provided readings and most lecture content. Therefore, she had little sense of ownership of the content of the unit, and she stated that she felt “embarrassed” and “anxious” in teaching situations such as these. When the teaching and learning situations for students are not managed by Kerith herself, she feels a certain lack of control over her


123

pedagogy and a consequent unease in her teaching and relationships with students. She “feels obliged to project an image” of having a certain expertise, but it appeared that in this situation there was a lack of authenticity that made Kerith feel anxious, embarrassed and uncomfortable. This seemed to be a result of the teaching context not being her ideal; she was trying to project an image of someone she was not rather than having a sense of ownership and being herself in the role of teacher educator.


Judy’s Reflections on Session 1 Kerith is a very open and supportive participant in this research. She is willing to talk openly about her teaching experiences and to expose vulnerabilities and feelings, for example in the use of words such as “I feel embarrassed, anxious when teaching” and the fact that she thinks students find her “intimidating.” This is unfamiliar language in teacher education discussions, as far as I am aware. Kerith is very keen to improve her teaching, which she says she often finds difficult. I felt quite comfortable using the core reflection model, although I should have delved a bit more deeply when Kerith used ‘emotion words’ such as those above. I will try to tease these ideas out more next time, as I think that her lack of confidence in the teaching role could be a key to some of her difficulties in teaching – needing to be well organised and structured to avoid having to improvise, although she believes that this alienates some students. I think that if Kerith can identify this for herself (which seem to be the outer layers of the onion, i.e. what she does), then she might be perceived by students as being more approachable – perhaps let students get to know her better (who she is), as she intends to get to know them better (one of her goals). We identified similar concerns in this area – I am often anxious and lacking in confidence in teaching, even after all these years. So this process might be good for me too in terms of my own teaching, and how I perceive myself in my role as teacher educator. I can see a clear connection between self-belief, emotions, ideals, identity and teaching practice (all the layers of the onion) – so much of who we are goes into our teaching. If Kerith is hesitant to let students know who she is, then maybe this is an obstacle that needs to be overcome. This is my perception after just one session – to what extent do I let my perceptions lead the way in the discussion, rather than let Kerith find these connections for herself? This is one of the questions that will guide me in the core reflection process over the next few months. I found this first session to be very positive, and hopefully it will be of benefit to both of us, and to our students.

Kerith’s Reflections on Session 1 The initial session was very helpful to me as some of the questions were about my feelings and I had not really realised the extent of my fear of being negatively judged and the low level of my confidence. It also helped me in planning terms, as I think having a sympathetic professional listener is a really effective way to elicit good planning. It seems a bit like having a clinical supervision session. I’m not sure where the cut-off is between Judy’s personal qualities as a good listener and the structure of the questioning process, that is, the specific questions she asked. It was really good value for the effort it took, it seems like a very low key “natural” process for the participant.

Judy’s Interpretation of the Data in Session 2 During our second meeting, it was apparent that Kerith was feeling more confident and comfortable as the semester progressed. She was more familiar with the content of the units that she was teaching, which for Kerith was a key factor in her feeling confident in her teaching, and mostly concerns the outer layers of the onion model. Kerith had introduced a project approach to teaching in one of her units, which was intended to allow students to choose and research topics of their own choosing as a way of them taking


124


ownership of the key concepts in the unit by relating them to their own interests. This approach enabled Kerith to begin to achieve her ideal teaching situation as referred to in the first reflection session, that is, where students take more control of their intellectual development. Kerith felt that the students in this unit (the Graduate Diploma) were more adaptable and knowledgeable than the first-year undergraduates that she taught, and she was able to tap into these qualities to achieve her own ideal of student-centred learning, in which the focus was on students’ learning rather than on her teaching. This appeared to be more concerned with the inner layers of the onion model (belief, mission, identity). As I noted after the first session, it seemed that Kerith needed to feel that the outer layers were under control so that she could then focus on achieving her goals derived from the inner layers. This appeared to be starting to happen. Kerith said that during this semester she has felt more familiar with the institution in which she worked, and was more in tune with people and processes (environment). She was teaching three different groups of students – the first-year Primary students, the mature age Graduate Diploma students mentioned above and a small cohort of third-year Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) students. Kerith felt an increased level of confidence in teaching them all. When asked to explain her increased confidence, Kerith stated that several factors contributed to this. She was working with a small team of staff in each unit, and had received good feedback from them and from some students. She also felt more authoritative due to greater familiarity with the content of the units, and was able to respond early to students’ concerns. An important change in Kerith’s experience compared to how she felt in the previous year was that she no longer believed that students found her intimidating. This more balanced relationship with students, which could be described as more relaxed and autonomous on the part of the lecturer, appeared to be a key to Kerith coming closer to achieving her ideal of a “safe learning environment” for all, including herself. When asked how she was achieving her ideals during this semester, Kerith explained that she had revised her units of study, which included negotiated assessment and bringing the variety of life experiences of students into her (and their) teaching. Kerith strongly believed that autonomy, engagement, and equal relationships with students were essential if she was to achieve her ideals in teaching. Interestingly, Kerith linked one of the obstacles she had identified in her teaching to ways in which she could achieve one of her ideals of teaching. An obstacle that Kerith had identified in the first session was uncertainty in her content knowledge of the unit. During our discussion in this second session, it became apparent that Kerith actually used this uncertainty as a means to share intellectual ownership with students. She explained that she did not present herself as an expert to her students, and did not presume to tell them about the content of the unit. She tended to stand back and encourage her students to find their own answers, and to gain some intellectual control over their own learning. I would like to elaborate on this in the next session. When asked about her uncertainty over her content knowledge, Kerith talked about the difference between knowing and being wise. One of her dilemmas in teaching student teachers was a “fundamental lack of confidence about whether or not my knowledge is important to students’ lives. They need to make that decision.” This dilemma, although worrying, appeared to open up Kerith’s thinking about her teaching. Kerith was comfortable asking questions in class and not being seen by the students as the expert, as she saw this as a strategy to build relationships and trust with students. It appeared that by being honest and open with her students, and relying on their own funds of knowledge and experiences, Kerith was able to improve the quality of her teaching and to come closer to


125

achieving her ideal teaching situation, while overcoming her lack of confidence. At the end of session two, Kerith said that she was now feeling “pretty confident” in her teaching. Judy’s Reflections on Session 2 This conversation was quite different from the first one . . . I detected a growing confidence in Kerith as she talked about her teaching, although a lack of confidence was still a subject of her conversation. She was, however, talking about it in a more ‘distanced’ and analytical way, rather than talking about how she was feeling just at the moment. She seemed to be making more sense of how she was feeling rather than just describing how she was feeling, and the impact this was having on her teaching. I was glad that she was feeling more confident in her teaching as the semester progressed, and wondered to what extent the core reflection process had influenced this.


Kerith’s Reflections on Session 2 In the second session my confidence had increased and I think by that time the students had submitted assignment one, and their natural anxiety about their first ever University assignment had dissipated. Much of the planning effort and energy had paid off, as I thought from marking some of the work that the quality of student work had improved from the previous year, so my personal approach in leading the unit could be credited with some of that. I honestly don’t know to what degree the core reflection process specifically helped me to identify limiting factors on my teaching performance. I am sure that my increasing confidence in Judy’s discretion and trust that I could safely talk about my uncertainties influenced the process.

Judy’s Interpretation of the Data in Session 3 We began the third session by discussing the two key themes that I believed had emerged from our previous discussions as being essential to Kerith’s identity as a teacher educator – confidence and authenticity. These core qualities appeared to be strongly linked to Kerith’s belief that she had to have a good grasp of the content she was teaching and an understanding of the institutional context (environment), and to be well prepared in advance to feel confident to approach her teaching (competencies), and to be herself as a teacher educator (identity). During our discussion, Kerith likened herself as a teacher educator to her experience as a performer. Kerith had previously worked as a singer/songwriter, and she believed that lecturing was the equivalent academic role. Kerith made some interesting parallels between being a performer and being an academic, for example, the essential need for thorough preparation and to be well rehearsed, but also the need to be authentic and to take risks. Kerith commented on the link between “our personal and professional selves,” and how core reflection had shifted her thinking about herself “as a person and as a teacher.” During this session, Kerith began to talk of her childhood, particularly her relationship with her father. He was a boarding school head, and was described by Kerith as a “charismatic leader.” However, she was adamant that she did not want to be like him as a teacher, because she disagreed with his values. It was interesting that Kerith made reference to her early relationship with her father (also a teacher) in the context of core reflection. At this point, I was unsure about the extent to which I should explore Kerith’s feelings in relation to her father, so I decided not to pursue this line of discussion for very long. After allowing Kerith to talk briefly about her father, I steered the conversation back towards how she was achieving her goals in her own teaching. In this session, we again explored the notion of Kerith’s ideal teaching situation. Her expressed ideal was to see her students as “co-constructors of knowledge,” rather than her


126


being the expert in a transmissive learning environment. It emerged that she had a very strong belief that it was important to have a professional relationship with her students in which she facilitated their learning “through taking students’ own funds of knowledge and adding to it so they produce something new.” Kerith believed that one obstacle to doing this with her first-year students was the fact that there were too many students (approximately 150), a situation over which she had no control. She felt that the best she could do was to provide some tools and ideas with which the students could begin to take responsibility for their own learning, although this was far from Kerith’s ideal. In this situation she appeared to feel that she was not able to achieve a learning environment that reflected her personal beliefs about learning and teaching, and that she had to compromise in order to get through the semester. Another ideal teaching situation to which Kerith aspired was to design her own unit of work based on her own research expertise. In such a case, she would have the confidence “that I know what I am talking about” and could therefore teach it more effectively. Kerith believed that such a situation “opens up who I am – dialogue and conversation rather than transmission of information.” This desire for authenticity appeared to be linked to feelings of confidence in teaching – if Kerith believed she was projecting “who I really am,” then her confidence in her work increased. This comment highlighted the importance of the identity and mission layers of the onion in Kerith’s teaching. Other core qualities emerged during this discussion which appeared to stimulate increased enthusiasm in Kerith about her teaching and her relationship with students. She used words such as experimental, risky, interesting, exciting, connecting with students. As we explored this further, Kerith acknowledged that her lack of confidence affects how she sees herself, that is, her identity as a teacher educator, and this impacts on her practice. She believed that in many ways this was a good thing – “I embrace uncertainty as theoretical position.” It appeared to be a driver for her professional learning and in some ways (perhaps subconsciously) she used her lack of confidence to further the learning of her students. For example, Kerith believed that “vacating the space” helps students to step in and take control of their own learning, and in the meantime, helps to establish an atmosphere of trust in her classes. It also helps her to deal with her lack of confidence by handing over the expertise to the students. This extended one of the ideas raised in session two, where one of the obstacles identified by Kerith (lack of confidence/context knowledge) was used to her students’ advantage by Kerith handing over greater intellectual control to them. What began to emerge from the conversation, from my perspective as facilitator, was evidence that Korthagen and Vasalos’ core qualities such as vulnerability and authenticity ( feeling qualities) and commitment and determination (wanting qualities), were part of Kerith’s practice and identity as a teacher educator. Our reflective conversations had also tapped into Kerith’s inner layers of mission, identity and beliefs. In this final session, she was talking less about her competencies and behaviours (outer layers of the onion) and more about deeper issues related to her sense of purpose as a teacher and researcher (inner layers). Judy’s Reflections on Session 3 Our final conversation took place after teaching had finished for the semester. I noticed a change in Kerith in two significant ways – less fearful when talking about her teaching, and a more relaxed persona in the core reflection situation. For the first time, Kerith began to talk about more personal things, beyond her work as a teacher educator, but to her, closely related. She spoke about her father and the uneasy relationship she had with him, and also about her life as a performer (singer/songwriter). This was the first time that Kerith had ventured to make these connections, unprompted by me. It indicated that reflecting on teaching cannot always be


127

separated from other life experiences, and is no doubt shaped by them. My challenge was to know how far to take this direction in the conversation – do I explore these further and risk getting out of my depth (I am not a counsellor, although I have done some counselling training and have a personal interest in this area) or do I steer away from such a discussion and keep the reflection purely on teaching and teacher education? This is something that I will need to confront in future core reflection experiences, and was evidence that the core reflection process provoked tensions in me as facilitator, as well as in Kerith as participant.

Kerith’s Reflections on Session 3


By the third session I think we had completed the teaching cycle and my attention had moved on, as it must do, to other priorities, i.e. research. Comparing the unit evaluations for the first year unit between 2007 and 2008, has confirmed that students agreed with my impression that my teaching was more successful and I believe that the [core] reflection process was influential in this improvement. I am also grateful for the opportunity to share with a colleague in this way and am planning to take the ALACT model and use it with others for a small research project of my own.

Judy’s Final Reflections on the Study When reflecting on her participation in the core reflection process a couple of months after the last session, Kerith responded that it was “good to be listened to” and that it had shifted her thinking about herself as a person and a teacher. She noted that personal traits are also professional ones, and that it was important for teacher educators to be reflective and to “step outside the school fence” where, in her opinion, many teacher educators still resided. Kerith also raised the issue of needing to be aware of the boundary between core reflection and counselling (as I had done in my diary reflection), an issue also raised by Korthagen and Vasalos (2005). They noted that “core reflection will sometimes inevitably touch upon issues beyond the professional domain,” but that while professional learning through core reflection does aim to go deeper, it should not emphasise negative feelings such as those “connected to traumatic childhood experiences.” Rather, core reflection should focus on “the richness of one’s inner potential [and] one’s inner sources of inspiration” (p. 20). It is interesting to note that some of the observations that Kerith included in her written reflections after the conversations had finished (which were written before she saw my reflections) were very similar to my observations during and immediately after the sessions, especially in respect to Kerith’s awareness of her lack of confidence. Kerith commented that she was not previously as aware of the extent of her fear in regard to her teaching, and that the structured core reflection process helped her to identify this key aspect of her teaching. Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) argued that teachers naturally reflect on their practice, but that often the prevailing teaching context and pressures of work “encourages a focus on obtaining a ‘quick fix’ . . . rather than shedding light on the underlying issues” (p. 4). It appeared from Kerith’s experiences that core reflection helped her to shed light on the underlying issues of lack of confidence and the importance of authenticity in her teaching. It also highlighted the fact that the layers of the onion model are all interrelated and that functionality at one level is often connected to functionality at other levels. For example, when Kerith felt confident in her teaching environment (outer layer) and in her teaching competencies (third layer), then she felt that her beliefs (fourth level) and mission (inner layer) in teaching could be more fully realised. Kerith’s Final Reflections on the Study After reading the Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) article expanding on the ALACT model of reflection to include core reflection and having more comprehension of what Judy was


128


trying to achieve in my professional development, reading Judy’s interpretations using the onion metaphor of levels of reflection makes more sense. While I have some reservations about the concept of a unitary self, implicit in psychological explanations of human behaviour, and would rather subscribe to concepts involving multiple re-positionings in response to changing contexts, the core reflection technique seems to have helped to improve my teaching. While I was not explicitly aware of the model Judy was using during our three discussions, I think the fact that similar questions were repeated in each of the three sessions set up a cyclical process that allowed my reflections to deepen more towards the core of the onion. Her skill as a facilitator set up a safe interpersonal environment in which I could take risks, without being drawn into revelations that were so personal that they might later lead to embarrassment. Increased confidence seemed to contribute towards my ability to relate more openly and less defensively in the classroom. This confidence was also due to more familiarity with the institution and the students the second time around. For me, a lack of context knowledge, rather than content knowledge, seems to be quite a disadvantage to effective teaching. During the semester in which we were carrying out the reflections, I felt more confident in how the course and unit objectives and structures at the university intersected with my prior content knowledge and experience as a practitioner and lecturer. Unless I am aware of the specifics of the students’ teaching contexts I have to work hard to establish my credibility with them. This is important if one’s teaching depends, as mine seems to, on the relationships we construct together in the classroom. Core reflection helped me to examine some of the contextual issues that were troubling me at the time, and to improve my teaching in light of these new understandings. Although I raised my teacher father by way of providing a negative example of teacher identity from a previous generation, there did seem to be strong personal feelings involved. I remember that Judy overtly re-focused the conversation on professional issues rather than on personal memories, and that was helpful in increasing my sense of trust in the reflection process. If I were to engage in professional reflection with colleagues, I would choose deliberately to concentrate on the outer layers of the onion by initially concentrating on the basic ALACT model, because, unlike Judy, I have not completed a workshop and would not feel confident or as skilled to redirect a deliberate exploration of colleagues’ emotions back to a professional context. As a follow-on from my successful experience with Judy, I have now integrated the core reflection model into my own teaching with students in a professional experience unit of study, and have designed a small research project working with three colleagues who are interested in reflecting on their implementation of off-campus learning strategies.

Conclusions The findings from this self-study suggested that the core reflection model was a valuable tool for the participants in seeking to understand their practice and to improve their pedagogy, and in turn, to improve their students’ learning in teacher education. We draw two conclusions. (1) The social dimension of reflecting on our work as teacher educators is very important, as are opportunities to engage in collegial conversations and to establish trust as the basis for further discussions about practice and pedagogy. These conversations provide opportunities to explore not only our teacher education practices but also our teacher educator identities.



129

The study illustrated the importance of opportunities for genuine reflective conversations (Ghaye & Ghaye, 1998) and for teacher educators to be listened to by trusted colleagues. Research has shown that there is a strong connection between professional identity, selfefficacy and collegiality (Dinkelman, Margolis, & Sikkenga, 2006a, 2006b; Ritter, 2007; Williams, 2008), and that opportunities for collegial interactions are an important part of the development of a professional identity as a teacher educator. Results from this selfstudy suggest that core reflection was a valuable means by which the authors were able to facilitate their learning and identity construction as teacher educators in a collegial context. As implied in the discussion of the core reflection sessions, the pressures on Australian academics to excel in and give priority to research activity can lead to a devaluing of teaching. The findings of this study support making deliberate efforts to establish reciprocal collegial conversations as part of our professional culture, and the core reflection process as a valuable strategy. As Korthagen and Vasalos (2008) argued, identification of a person’s core qualities or character strengths functions as a link between the individual and the learning context or environment, promoting a sense of “this is who I am” (p. 5). Such a sense of authenticity is a vital ingredient in the mix of experiences and processes that characterise a person’s journey of becoming a teacher educator, and this was particularly evident in Kerith’s experiences. Also, as facilitator, Judy became aware of parallels between Kerith’s experiences and her own, which suggests that the core reflection sessions benefitted her own understanding of her teaching as much as they benefitted Kerith. (2) It is important to identify core qualities that influence our practice and identity as teacher educators. This self-study provided evidence that identifying core qualities can help in examining one’s practice in teacher education. For Kerith, the importance of authenticity and confidence in her work, and how her teaching and research interests connect and intersect to inform her pedagogy, provided a platform on which to build more meaningful practice for herself and her students. The study highlighted the importance of Kerith’s need to be “who I really am.” Kerith’s reflections regularly returned to issues of authenticity, confidence, trust, risk-taking and relationship-building, which she sees as central to good teaching practice. The core reflection sessions provided an opportunity for her to examine some of her beliefs, values and emotions, and to approach her teaching in a somewhat different way as a result. The structured model and the trust and openness between facilitator and participant contributed valuably to our understanding of our practices as teacher educators. We conclude that core reflection is a valuable way of exploring our identity and practice as teacher educators. Implications for Teacher Education The use of core reflection in teacher education foregrounds the importance of the whole person in the learning and teaching process and the importance of enabling teacher educators to tap into their emotions and values in positive ways that enhance the authenticity of their work. While such opportunities are not to be seen as quasi-counselling sessions, this study has shown that exploring practices within teacher education from an holistic, humanistic perspective is essential if teacher educators are to be empowered in their practice. The literature suggests that professional learning opportunities for teacher educators are relatively limited. Our experiences strongly support the use of the core reflection process as a means by which practice and identity as teacher educators can be

130


examined in a purposeful way. This self-study highlights the importance of recognising the funds of knowledge and unique individual qualities that teacher educators bring to their work. It recognises that teacher educators are learners too, and that the principles of learning through reflection that we encourage in our student teachers should also be applied to our own professional learning and identity. By acknowledging and exploring our vulnerabilities and beliefs, our core qualities and the obstacles that prevent us from engaging in authentic teaching, it is possible for teacher educators to improve their teaching and learning practices.


References Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Brandenburg, R. (2008). Powerful pedagogy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006a). From teacher to teacher educator: Experiences, expectations, and expatriation. Studying Teacher Education, 2(1), 5 – 23. Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006b). From teacher to teacher educator: Reframing knowledge in practice. Studying Teacher Education, 2(2), 119– 136. Ghaye, A., & Ghaye, K. (1998). Teaching and learning through critical reflective practice. London: David Fulton. Korthagen, F.A.J. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Korthagen, F., & Lagerwerf, B. (2008). De sleutel van onderwijsverbetering: Coachen op kwaliteiten en talenten [The key to improving education: Coaching on qualities and talents]. Onderwijsvernieuwing, 5, 1 – 51. Korthagen, F.A.J., & Vasalos, A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77 – 97. Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 47 –71. Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2008, March). Quality from within as the key to professional development. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Loughran, J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In J.J. Loughran, M.L. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of selfstudy of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Loughran, J. (2006a). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge. Loughran, J. (2006b). Teaching about teaching. In P. Aubusson & S. Schuck (Eds.), Teacher learning and development: The mirror maze (pp. 163– 175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2002). Improving teacher education practices through self-study. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Moore, R. (2003). Re-examining the field experiences of pre-service teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31 – 41. Ritter, J. (2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 3(1), 5 – 22. Scho¨n, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5 – 14. Trumbull, D. (2006). Sharing my teaching journal with my students. In P. Aubusson & S. Schuck (Eds.), Teacher learning and development: The mirror maze (pp. 67 – 82). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Williams, J. (2008, August). Self study as a means of facilitating a new professional identity: From primary teacher to teacher educator. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on SelfStudy of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, UK.