Evolution of novice through expert teachers' recall: Implications for effective reflection on...

Pergamon Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 741 755, I997 if) 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0742-051X/97 $17.00 + 0.00

PII: S0742-051 X(97)00018-8

E V O L U T I O N O F N O V I C E T H R O U G H E X P E R T T E A C H E R S ' R E C A L L : I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R E F F E C T I V E R E F L E C T I O N O N P R A C T I C E

R U T H M. ALLEN

Metairie Park Country Day School, New Orleans, U.S.A.

RENI~E M. CASBERGUE

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of New Orleans, U.S.A.

Abstract--Accuracy/thoroughness of recall is a necessary precursor to teachers achieving the capability of effective reflection. This study examined the evolution of accuracy/thoroughness of novice through expert teachers' recall of their own and their students' behaviors. Classroom observations of novice, intermediate, and expert elementary school teachers were followed with structured interviews. Teachers progressed in thoroughness of recall along different paths and at different rates. Since specific recall is the question that initiates the process of reflection, findings have implications for the planning of reflection-oriented teacher education/inservice programs. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Introduction

The development of effective teachers is a primary goal of teacher education programs. Reflective teaching is viewed as a paramount vehicle for enhancing the development of effective teachers; therefore, it is the aim or salient theme of a vast and increasing number of teacher education programs (Kennedy, 1989; Loughran, 1995; Richardson, 1990; Ross, 1989; Wildman, Niles, Magliaro & McLaughlin, 1990). Grimmet, MacKinnon, Erickson, and Riecken (1990) and Laboskey (1994) agree that many teacher educators seem to be persuaded that reflection is a worthy aim in teacher education. Calderhead (1989) states that there has been a recent proliferation of preservice training courses adopting reflective teaching as a guiding principle or a basic philo- sophy, and Smyth (1989) describes the emer- gence of reflectivity as a conceptual thrust in teacher education.

There is a general consensus that reflectivity leads to professional growth (Van Manen, 1991). Wildman et al. (1990) not only state

that reflectivity leads to professional growth, they argue that professional growth is unlikely without systematic reflection. Cruickshank, Kennedy, Williams, Holt0n, and Fay (1981) and Ferguson (1989) also emphasize the impor- tance of reflection by stating that it is unlikely that full professional growth can be achieved without reflection on one's teaching. Reflection allows teachers to be self-directed, i.e. to take responsibility for their own growth (Irvine, 1983; Lindop, 1985; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). The practice of reflection allows and results in the prospective teachers' progress through cognitive-development stages, the growth from novice to expert teacher, that enables them to view teaching from a more interpretative and critical perspective (Frieberg & Waxman, 1990). Reflective teaching, defined by Zeichner, and Liston (1987) as a process of assessing the origins, purposes, and consequences of one's work at all three of Van Manen's levels of reflectivity, typically results in increments in cognitive growth, positive self-concepts, and a feeling of power over one's own learning (Posner, 1993; and Wildman & Niles, 1987).

741

742 RUTH M. ALLEN and RENI~E M. CASBERGUE

For many teachers, especially experienced teachers, self-directed assessment of one's self as a teacher is the primary method for effecting improved teaching performance and, therefore, growing in expertise (Loughran, 1995; and Irvine, 1983). Self-directed assessment necessi- tates an accurate view of reality.

Since reflection is given a role of vital impor- tance in a large and increasing number of teacher education programs, it is important to investigate its foundations or components. The definition of reflection that frames this study is that of Van Manen (1977). Van Manen suggests that reflection occurs and progresses in three stages or levels: technical rationality, practical action, and critical reflection. The first level of reflectivity, technical rationality, is primarily concerned with efficient and effective application of pedagogical knowledge. The second level, practical action, involves the progressing beyond technical rationality and becoming concerned with explicating and clari- fying the assumptions and predispositions underlying competing pedagogical goals and assessing the educational consequences of a teaching action. At level three, critical reflection, moral and ethical criteria, such as whether important human needs and purposes are being met, are incorporated into the discourse about practical action.

Specifically how is this type of reflection accomplished? What steps are involved? Different researchers state different sets of questions as guides in the process of reflection. However, the initial questions concerning exactly how one begins the process of reflection are remarkably similar in each instance. Smyth (1989) states that one begins with the question, "What do I do?" Or, for a specific point in time, i.e. one class period, the first question would be phrased as, "What did I do?" Roth (1989) states that one. begins to reflect by questioning what, why, and how one does things and what, why, and how others do things. Eisner (1991) believes that reflection begins with asking, "What happened?" According to Noordhoff and Klein- feld (1990), at the heart of reflecting on effects of one's teaching and redesigning one's practice is the guiding question, "What's going on here?" Loughran (1995)) states that retrospective reflection allows the teacher to ask, "What happened during class?"

In each of these suggested first questions, the essence of the question which initiates the reflective process is recall of specifies. Each of the questions used to initiate the process of reflection implies that accurate/thorough recall is necessary in order to proceed to subsequent questions in the reflective process. If accurate and thorough recall is a necessary first step in the reflective process, then the quality of recall is likely to influence, for better or worse, the quality of reflection. Is this a problem? Are some teachers better equipped to engage in reflection by virtue of better recall ability? Do novice teachers, in particular, have adequate ability to accurately/thoroughly recall specific behaviors occurring in a complex dynamic classroom? How does their recall ability compare with that of experienced teachers? If novices cannot accurately/thoroughly recall and more experienced teachers can, then when and how on their journey toward expertise do teachers progress beyond the novice level and develop this ability to accurately/thoroughly recall specific classroom behaviors which in turn should lead to higher quality reflection?

Experience supervising student teachers suggested to these researchers that these novices often lacked accurate/thorough recall of their own and their students' specific classroom behaviors. In debriefing conferences it was noted that self-realization of problems in the classroom by the novices did not occur; often these novices were equally unaware of their own strengths. In fact, their strengths, e.g. clar- ification skills, were often self-diagnosed as problem areas; and their problem areas, e.g. classroom management, were self-diagnosed as strengths. Preliminary investigation indicated that expert teachers did not share this problem (Allen, 1993). Thus it is possible that differences in recall between expert and novice teachers might impact novices' ability to reflect.

Research concerning differences in recall between experts and novices, and the theory of the development of expertise developed by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) and its subsequent application to teachers' growth in skill development by Berliner (1986, 1988, 1994); Borko and Livingston (1989); Bruer (1993); Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein and Berliner (1988); Carter, Sabers, Cushing, Pinnegar, and Berliner

Evolution of Novice Through Expert 743

(1987); Leinhardt, and Greeno (1986); Living- ston, and Borko (1989); Peterson, and Comeaux (1987); and Sabers, Cushing, and Berliner (1991), suggest support for our observations about teachers' recall abilities.

Cognitive scientists study how we think, remember (recall), and learn; typically their research studies compare experts with novices (Bruer, 1993). Since this study focused on recall, the cognitive scientists' definition of an expert will be used. According to Bruer, an expert is defined as any individual who is highly skilled or knowledgeable in a given domain. Bruer also stated that many years of experience in the area of expertise are a prere- quisite for becoming an expert. This supports the conclusion of Stepich (1991) that all experts have become particularly proficient in a skill through experience or practice.

Studies of teacher expertise reveal that experts recall more meaningful classroom events that occur in a complex, dynamic classroom than inexperienced teachers (Carter et al., 1987; Clarridge and Berliner, 1991; Peterson and Comeaux, 1987; Sabers et al., 1991). In addition to not being able to recall as many meaningful classroom events as expert teachers, novices demonstrated an inability to recall seeing blatant unacceptable behavior in some situations. It seemed that the novices used either a process of selective perception, or a process of repression to suppress unacceptable memories (Clarridge and Berliner, 1991). Morris (1988) described this repression of a memory as a type of reconstructive memory used for personal self-defense.

Typically, teachers grow in cognition in their years of teaching and possess rich schemata which allow them to demonstrate significantly better recall ability of meaningful classroom occurrences than novices (Allen & Casbergue, 1995; Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, and Campione, 1983; Carter et al., 1987, 1988; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Chase & Simon, 1973; Clarridge & Berliner, 1991; de Groot, 1965; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980; Livingston & Borko, 1989; Peterson & Comeaux, 1987). Schemata are described as abstract generalized knowledge structures located in long term memory. They are orga- nized in terms of large scale functional units which can contain perceptual patterns or

chunks that summarize information about many particular cases and connect related information. This organization of units allows one to make accurate inferences and predic- tions. Schemata provide structure for memory, creating associations and meaning. To be more specific, it is the patterns or chunks in the intermediate or expert teachers' schemata (Bruer, 1993) that give meaning to items and allow the chunking of individual items observed in the experts' area of expertise (Chase & Simon, 1973). This chunking allows more items to be remembered and explains the differences in the recall of novices and expert teachers.

This research on recall suggests that novices may have limited ability to accurately/thoroughly recall specific behaviors that occur in the classroom. Therefore, if the first question that initiates the process of reflection is concerned with specific classroom behaviors, the novice might not be able to effectively answer it. This may explain why novice teachers have the limited ability to reflect and analyze noted by Berliner (1988, 1989, 1994), Livingston and Borko (1989), and Wildman and Niles (1987).

While the research on experts' and novices' recall has shed light on teachers' development, it is not without limitations. Although it is apparently important for teachers to focus on their own specific classroom behaviors in order to understand the role they play in the dynamics of the classroom, none of the previous research has focused on the teachers' recall ability concerning their own specific behaviors when they were teaching a class. Previous research in education has focused instead on the teachers' recall of specific classroom behaviors other than their own (Clarridge & Berliner, 1991; Peterson & Comeaux, 1987; Sabers et al., 1991), or on teachers' recall of the amount and types of information they remember about students (Carter et al., 1987). None of the studies were conducted in an actual classroom situation in which the subjects were teaching.

Although Bullough (1989, 1995) and Bullough and Baughman (1993), in an ongoing longitu- dinal study, documented one teacher's transi- tional stages of development, most previous research has tended to focus exclusively on novices and experts. Insight into the differences in recall between teachers with varying degrees


of experience teaching in a natural situation will provide information necessary for understanding the noteworthy shifts and changes that occur in the recall ability of novices as they gain experience in teaching and progress in their journey toward expertise. Accurate/thorough recall of classroom behaviors is important in order for teachers to know what to abandon, what to maintain, and what to modify concerning their methodology. While it is recognized that reflection is a much broader and deeper process than that of a technical approach, i.e. recalling specific classroom behaviors, such recall has consistently been described as a first step in reflection. Given the important role of specific recall in answering the questions that initiate reflection, we chose to focus our research on the first question in the first level of reflection as defined by Van Manen (1977).

Research Questions

This study was designed to answer the following overarching research question: What effect does teaching experience have on the accuracy/thoroughness of teachers' recall of their own and their students' specific classroom behaviors? In order to achieve the purpose of this study, the answers to the following specific research questions were sought.

Research Question 1: When novice teachers are actively teaching a class, what are the simi- larities and differences in accuracy/thoroughness of their recall of their own and their students' specific meaningful classroom behaviors when compared with the list of meaningful classroom behaviors compiled by an observer?

Research Question 2: When intermediate teachers, i.e. teachers with 1 to 6.5 years of teaching experience, are actively teaching a class, how will the accuracy/thoroughness of their recall of their own and their students' specific meaningful classroom behaviors relate to the list of meaningful classroom behaviors compiled by an observer?

Research Question 3: When expert teachers, i.e. skilled, effective teachers who have a

minimum of 10 years teaching experience, are actively teaching a class, how will the accuracy/thoroughness of their recall of their own and their students' specific meaningful classroom behaviors relate to the list of meaningful classroom behaviors compiled by an observer?

Research Question 4: How will the accuracy/ thoroughness of the recall of novice, intermediate, and expert teachers' own and their students' specific meaningful classroom behaviors relate to each other?

Design of the Study

The current study was designed to address the limitations in the previously discussed research by investigating the effect of teaching experience on the changes in the accuracy/thoroughness of teachers' recall of their own and their students' specific meaningful classroom behaviors while they are actively teaching a class. Data was collected via observation and ethnographic interviews. The primary researcher assumed the role of an outside onlooker. She engaged in overt observations in which each teacher was aware of being observed as well as the purpose of the observation (Marshall & Rossman, 1989).

Sample

The study was conducted in actual elementary classroom teaching situations; four novices, five intermediate teachers, and four expert teachers initially participated. However, one expert was dropped from the study due to medical problems. Teachers described by their principals as "talka- tive" were selected because they would most readily share their total recall of a situation. The novices were student teachers in their last year of a 4-year program in education at an urban university. The intermediate teachers were teachers who had earned a bachelor's degree in education and had completed 1 to 6.5 years of teaching. The expert teachers were cooperating teachers for a local university program; they were recommended by their principals as effective teachers who exhibited excellent teaching skills and had a minimum of 10 years teaching experience. Participation in the study was totally voluntary for each group.


Methods

All teachers were observed by the primary researcher as they taught for one class period. All but one of the observed teaching sessions lasted for 50 minutes; one novice was observed for a 35 minute period. Class size ranged from 25 to 28 children. Small group and whole class instructional activities were used by some teachers in each group. Two of the novices primarily engaged the whole group activities for the full period; the other two used a mix of small group and whole group activities. Three of the intermediate teachers used whole group activities, while the other two used both small group and whole class procedures. Likewise, two of the expert teachers did whole class activities, while the remaining expert used a mix of small group and whole class activities.

Data Collection

Detailed narrative field notes of the observed specific classroom behaviors of both students and teachers during that class period were taken by the researcher. The time was periodically noted in the margin of the narrative. A checklist (Figure 1) was designed by the researcher to cate- gorize and quantify students' and teachers' behaviors. A time sampling procedure was used to record behaviors on this checklist; behaviors of both teachers and students were recorded every five minutes during the class session. The time was recorded on the checklist to aid in its synchronization with the behaviors observed in the narrative during later comparison of the two records. The class period was also audiotaped. Every two to five minutes the digits on the tape recorder counter were entered in the margin of the two written records to facilitate their cross- checking with the audiotape. These three methods of documenting classroom behaviors provided the triangulation necessary to enhance the degree of accuracy in the researcher's observations. From these three sources, the researcher later constructed a sequential list of specific teacher and student classroom behaviors.

Immediately following the observation, a structured interview was conducted to determine teachers' recall of their own and their students' specific classroom behaviors. This interview was also audiotaped and transcripts

of the interviews along with the researcher's notes of teachers' responses were used to document teachers' recall of specific behaviors. The teachers' responses were subsequently used to determine a match between the researcher's list of behaviors and those recalled by the teachers.

The interviewer began the structured interview by saying:

This study has nothing to do with evaluation. ! am only interested in examining the specific classroom events/behaviors teachers recall that occurred while they were teaching a class. Everything that you say is important to me. And, because tape recorders sometimes malfunction, as insurance I will take notes while you are recalling. Please do not take offense if I am writing and not looking at you. Relax now and make yourself comfortable. Close your eyes if you wish, and take a minute to remember back to the last class period you taught when I observed your class. During this part of the interview, the emphasis is only on you. We will begin with your first teaching method which was (a brief description was given, e.g. you were giving instructions for starting the spelling lesson). Please recreate with as much detail as possible, step-by- step, where you were standing, what you did physi- cally during this segment of the class period, and what you said.

Except for smiling or nodding to indicate the teacher was doing well, no reinforcement was provided while the teacher was recalling. When the teacher finished describing her classroom behaviors, the interviewer prompted the teacher with additional questions such as, "Can you tell me more?" or "Is there anything you want to add?"

When the recall of each teacher was completed, the interviewer said, "During this teaching method when you were _, what were you mentally focusing on?" When the recall of what the teacher was focusing on during the teaching method was completed, the interviewer said, "Now we will change your focus to the classroom behaviors of your students during the teaching method you just recalled. Please tell me everything you can recall concerning your students' behaviors, verbal and physical, in as much detail as possible, step-by-step."

As before, except for smiling or nodding to indicate the teacher was doing well, no reinforcement was provided while the teacher was recalling. When the teacher finished describing her students' classroom behaviors, the interviewer said, "Would you estimate the percent

r~

SCAN NUMBER

TIME / ~ "~ ° ~ ~

TEACHER POSITION

INFORMATION GIVING

ASKING QUESTIONS

GIVING ANSWERS ,.q ;~

~- t"n

PRAISING

r~ DIRECTION GIVING ~ ""

LISTENING ~ r-

MONITORING

SCOLDING

WATCHING AND/OR LISTENING

,..q

DOING m

TALKING ..]

NOT WATCHING AND ----. NOT LISTENING

NOT DOING rn :z

TALKING

©

7~ r~ Z t")

-]

~tf'ID~I~/ltSVD "IAI 3~N3~I pue NT:i"I'-IV "I5I HZlq~I 91rL


of students that were on task during this teaching method?" When the teacher answered the question, the interviewer prompted the teacher with one of the following additional questions: "Can you tell me more?" or "Is there anything you want to add?"

The researcher's detailed narrative was used to construct a sequential list of specific teacher and student behaviors. The audiotape was then carefully and repeatedly listened to and compared with the list of behaviors compiled from the narrative. Additions to the latter list were made as needed. The list was subsequently compared to the checklist for additional validity. The teachers' recall was then compared to the researcher's recorded observations in order to determine the accuracy and thoroughness of their recall. Accuracy refers to the "correctness" of what teachers recalled. An example of inaccurate recall occurred when one novice reported that she did not use her written notes or. lesson plans as she taught, when in fact she held her notes and appeared to be completely absorbed in them on three different occasions during the session. Thor- oughness refers to the percentage of observed behaviors (as documented by the researcher) mentioned by the teachers as they recalled the class session.

I f a behavior was recalled out of sequence within a teaching method being discussed, it was considered part of the thoroughness of recall; but when the accuracy of the recall was considered, it was determined to be inaccurate. I f a behavior was recalled correctly and an incorrect name was given as being responsible for the behavior, it was considered part of the thoroughness of recall; but when the accuracy of the recall was considered, it was determined to be an inaccu- racy. I f a behavior was recalled that the primary researcher had not recorded, the researcher again carefully listened to the audiotape to determine if there was an audio record of the behavior. I f there was an indication on the audiotape that the behavior had occurred, the behavior was noted as such in the written records, and the teacher's response was credited as being accurate and part of the thoroughness of recall. I f there was no indication on the audiotape that the behavior had occurred, the teacher's recall of the behavior was not credited with being thorough or accurate.

For purposes of this study, when itemized notes on classroom behaviors were compared to the itemized behaviors recorded in the interviews of each teacher, the intensity of the descriptors used to describe differences in accuracy and thoroughness of recall were determined in the following manner. Differences of 0 % - 5 % were designated as "minimal", and differences of 6 % - 10% were designated as "notable". Differences of 11-20% were designated as "substantial". Differences over 20% were designated as "extreme". Subsequently, these descriptors were also applied when: (1) teachers' recall of their own behaviors was compared with their recall of their students' behaviors; (2) differences in recall were compared among teachers in one group; and (3) differences in recall were compared between groups.

Findings

Accuracy of Recall

Analysis of the data produced the following findings. When teachers' verbal memories of behavior in the classroom were compared with the researcher's recorded data, the novices' recall was usually accurate. Each of them, however, was occasionally inaccurate concerning the sequencing of behaviors or their recall of specific behaviors. The most substantial inaccuracies among the novices occurred with the impression of on/off task behaviors as recalled by the two novices who appeared to be the least confident and had the most problems with classroom management. For example, one novice recalled that a girl was off-task one time, while it was documented that the child had her head down and was not paying attention for most of the class period.

The intermediate group of teachers, with one exception, exhibited only minimal inaccuracies in the behaviors they recalled. The intermediate teacher with 6.5 years of experience and each of the expert teachers were 100% accurate in their recall when compared to the researcher's documented observations.

Thoroughness of Recall

Overall the novice teachers recalled more of their own behaviors than their students' beha-

748 RUTH M. ALLEN and RENEE M. CASBERGUE

viors. Novices ' thoroughness of recall of their own behaviors clustered a round 47%, and recall of their s tudents ' specific behaviors clustered a round 40% as compared with the researcher's recorded observations, with the exception of one novice, designated an outlier, who recalled 82% of her own behaviors, and 56% of her s tudents ' behaviors. All the novices primari ly recalled only neutral behaviors, such as procedures and their locat ion in the classroom.

With the exception of one outlier, the intermediate teachers' thoroughness of recall of their own behaviors clustered a round 71%; recall of their s tudents ' behaviors clustered a round 76% when compared to the researcher's recorded observations. The teacher with two years experience was designated an outlier because she recalled dramatical ly less thoroughly than her peers; in fact, she recalled less thoroughly than the novices. She recalled 30% of her own specific behaviors, and 26% of her s tudents ' behaviors. With the exception of the outlier, these teachers thus recalled substan- tially to extremely more of their own and their s tudents ' behaviors when compared with the novices ' recall; however, they all overtly demonst ra ted the effort this level of recall necessitated.

The expert teachers' general recall clustered at 52% for their own behaviors and at 48% for their s tudents ' behaviors. They superficially appeared lacking in expected thoroughness. However, upon further analysis of the interviews, it was noted that when asked, albeit rarely, if they could be more specific with a part icular general s tatement, they were able to give specific detail.

Focus of Recall

The novice teachers reported that their focus was on the content of their lessons and their own roles. O n e novice, for example, offered the following descript ion of her focus dur ing interactive teaching.

Where is that in my lesson plan? What did I have ,written underneath there 'cause I knew I was supposed to be comparing the thesaurus to the dictionary. And so I'm trying to make a mental note. Did I do that? Did I do it properly? Did I explain to them what a synonym was? Did I get it across clearly? So, that's what was going through

my head--where was I in my lesson plan? Had I covered what I was supposed to do?

The intermediate group, with the exception of the outlier, reported that they focused on their s tudents ' unders tand ing of the concept being taught. They also stated that they had no need to think abou t content , i.e. what they had to say. The following excerpt illustrates this focus.

What's important is that they're following directions, because if they're following directions, then they're going to understand. Because if I, if they don't understand directions, they can't possibly get the concept of what, you know, they can't possibly get what's meant for them to get.

The expert teachers reported that their focus was on their s tudents ' as well as on their own behaviors while they were teaching. Accord- ingly, two of the three experts recalled their own and their s tudents ' behaviors with m i n i m u m differences. The remaining expert exhibited notable differences between her recall of her own and her s tudents ' behaviors, recalling more of her own behaviors. The following excerpt illustrates how an expert teacher recalled her focus being on both the students and the content she was teaching.

On what I was saying and what they were responding to as to whether I had to go in deeper or whether I had done enough. Some of the lessons, I gave them all examples and some of them I didn't, like the cause and effect. I know for sure I did not give all of the examples in the book, because they knew what happened and what made it happen.

Fluidity and Certainty

The novices were clearly s training to recall what had happened in the classroom: their language was hesi tant and uncer ta in as is evident in the following excerpt from one interview. Note that each period represents a pause of approximate ly one third second as suggested by Mishler (1986).

And, I asked what animal might have scales, and Mary I believe believe told me fish ..... ah ..... Then I asked what type of animal might have a shell ........... no I think it was ...... Paul ........... or Harold. I think it was Harold that told me the turtle ... the shell ...... no no, AI told me the shell, and ....... ah Harold told me that ..... when I asked him to name a animal that has a shell, he said turtle or snail ...... Turtle and snail, I should say.


The intermediate group of teachers exhibited a fluidity of recall that was closely aligned to the fluidity characteristic of experts. However, often they displayed visible effort in recalling, as indicated by their body language, which typi- fied the novices. The teacher with 6.5 years experience appeared to recall with more ease than the others. The expert teachers were consistent and fluid in their recall of their own and students' behaviors.

Cons&tency

Sporadic recall was noted when the interviews of the novices were analyzed. Entire sections, albeit usually small ones, of teacher and/or student behaviors and/or procedures were randomly omitted by each of the novices at some time during the interview. For example, one novice did not verbally recall a large section of the homework check, and another did not verbally recall working with antonyms. Another did not verbally recall changing the designated routine to personally calling out four answers due to a shortage of time.

In general, the intermediate and expert groups of teachers were consistent in their recall of their own and their students' behaviors. Their consistent recall included procedures, directions, content, and behaviors.

General vs. Specific Recall

Novices' responses ranged in a continuum from general recall extremely lacking in thoroughness to very specific thorough recall. One novice, for example, primarily generalized throughout the interview, using minimal specifies when speaking of her own and her students' behaviors. Two novices, however, generalized one set of procedures and behaviors, while specifically recalling another set of procedures and behaviors. The examples that follow depict one novice's switching from general recall of her behavior during one teaching method to specific recall of her behaviors during a different teaching method.

Umm, okay, that 's when we started in with the thesaurus. I asked them if they knew what a thesaurus was. Umm.. . what else did I do? I walked up and down. I don ' t know what else I did. I just did a lot of teaching, talking, asking them what it was, trying to.. comparing it to the dictionary...

The following is the same novice's description of her behavior during a different teaching method when the students were applying what they had discussed previously.

I walked over to Liz to help Liz, because Liz wasn ' t sure where to look it up. She raised her hand and asked me. She told me she didn't know what she was doing, and then when I was there by her, A1 who sits next to her..., no, let me see what happened. I walked back and said, "AI, what are you doing?" and he said, "I don ' t know what I 'm doing." So then l walked back to A1. He doesn' t raise his hand. He just blurts out. Umm, and A1 asked me for help so then I tried to explain to him what he was looking up. And I showed him the different synonyms in the book. And he says, "Oh, okay."

A fourth novice was basically specific and detailed throughout most of the interview, with minimum general recall. In this respect, her recall mirrored that of the intermediate teachers whose recall was typically very specific. An example of an intermediate teacher's recall follows.

A little boy ..... Collin, he said that ~flammable meant that something caught on fire." We talked--we discussed further that it was something that, "an item that could be caught on fire easily was flammable." And they also---also reviewed the word "frayed". And a little boy said .... that frayed meant tha t - - tha t the wires are poking out. Then I demonstrated on a good plug.., and showed them how frayed would be, and what happened if the wire was frayed.

Overall, the experts recalled in a general manner any typical classroom occurrences, i.e. procedures, questions they asked and the answers they received, routines, and common off-task behaviors. However, when probed for specifics after giving a general response, the teachers demonstrated that they were aware of specifies. The following is an excerpt of an expert teacher's discussion of students who routinely are a problem in class, in response to a question about whether she had reprimanded any children.

Expert teacher: At one point there was a little boy and girl who were talking and they had been talking on and off most of the morning. I had given verbal, um, you know, I called their names out couple of times...and I did finally get up put a mark on their behavior card, because they just kept on talking.Re- searcher: Who was that? Expert teacher: Henrietta and Harold.

There were, however, exceptions to this general recall. When experts recalled atypical


behaviors or procedures, such as the use of new manipulative, their initial recall was more specific. For example, the following expert illu- strated very specific recall of an atypical situation.

I noticed that a couple were not on task. I think I noticed about two--Veronica was one and Allison. And Veronica told me when I went to her desk, I went to her desk twice. And um it really caught me that I noticed that each time I went to her desk, she had the same bean in the same position you know. And one of them was 13-7...and on her frame she had 8 so I knew she wasn't on task, so I, I stood here until she showed me 13-7.

What Was/Was Not Verbally Recalled

Novices typically recalled neutral behaviors, that is, their movements and classroom procedures, albeit in different degrees of specificity and thoroughness. Three of the four recalled a few relatively inconsequential inappropriate behaviors, but omitted the major problems, such as the times when the entire class was out of control or when they were very visibly agitated or perplexed.

The intermediate and expert teachers both recalled neutral behaviors, as well as positive behaviors (i.e. students enjoying the lesson and being eager to answer questions) and negative behaviors (i.e. students being off task or having problems with the concept being taught).

Summary of Findings

A comparison of novice through expert teachers' accuracy/thoroughness of recall is shown in Table 1.

In general, novices and intermediate teachers exhibited only minimal inaccuracies in their recall of their own and their students' behaviors. One intermediate teacher and all of the expert teachers were extremely accurate in their recall.

It was noted that novice teachers were more likely to recall their own behaviors than those of their students, while the intermediate group was more likely to focus on their students. These findings coincide with the novices' statements that they focused on their role and the content, and the intermediate teachers' statements that they focused on the students' understanding of the concept being taught. The

continued increase in experience led to a more holistic focus among the experts that included the teachers' role in the realization of their objectives as well as a focus on their students. This focus was reflected in their recall.

Teachers progressed from being hesitant, uncertain, and inconsistent in their strained recall (novices) to fluid, certain, consistent, yet strained recall (three intermediate teachers) to being fluid, certain, consistent and recalling with relative ease (teacher with 6.5 years experience and the experts). The findings indicated that a continuum existed in the demonstrat ion of the teachers' progression from general recall lacking thoroughness, to specific and thorough recall, to general and thorough recall. However, the teacher with 6.5 years experience and the experts recalled in a very specific manner when atypical behaviors were encountered or when manipulative were used.

The findings indicated that novices primarily recalled neutral behaviors, but in different degrees of specificity and thoroughness. It was noted that the two teachers who had sporadi- cally recalled some negative behaviors were apparently more confident than the teachers who did not, and that they had relatively few negative behaviors to recall. Four of the five teachers in the intermediate group, and the expert teachers recalled holistically, that is positive, neutral, and negative behaviors, but with different levels of thoroughness. The intermediate group and the experts omitted some small sections of their lessons, but usually these omitted behaviors were routine and typical.

Discussion

It would seem clear from these findings that, in general, teachers develop in their ability to accurately and thoroughly recall their own and their students' behaviors as they gain experience in teaching. This development may be related to teachers' increasingly sophisticated pedagogical schemata which organize knowledge structures into large scale functional units containing perceptual patterns or chunks that provide structure for memory and create associations and meaning (Bruer, 1993).

That the recall of novices and the inter-


Table 1

Comparison of the Novice Through Expert Teachers" Accuracy/Thoroughness of Recall

Variables of observation Novices Middle group Experts

Accuracy of recall Usually accurate Usually accurate [1 thru 3.5 Accurate years experience]

Accurate [6.5 years experience]

Impressions of on/off task Significant differences [2] Minimal differences behavior **

Minimal differences [2]

Own behaviors 47%

Student behaviors 40%

Thoroughness of recall

Reported focus during interactive teaching

Fluidity or hesitancy/certainty or uncertainty/ease of recall

Consistency/inconsistencyof recall

General versus specific recall

What was/was not recalled

On content and their role

Hesitant and but uncertain

Recalled with effort

Inconsistent

Continuum

Recalled neutral behavior

Own behaviors 71% ** Student behaviors 76%

On student's understanding ofthe concept

6.5 years--plus her role

Fluid and certain recalled with effort

6.5 years--less effort

Consistent

Very specific recall with minimal general recall

6-5 years--overall general recall, but specific with atypical behaviors

Recalled neutral negative and positive behaviors

Minimal differences

Own behaviors 52%

Student behaviors 48%

On content and their role/ On students' understanding of the concept

Fluid and certain recalled with little or no effort

Consistent

Overall general recall of behaviors but specific with atypical behaviors

Recalled neutral negative and positive behaviors

media te teacher des igna ted an out l ier was less t ho rough than the in te rmedia te and exper t teachers, and tended to focus on their own more than their s tudents ' behaviors is consistent with a poss ible lack o f pedagog ica l schemata . I t is r easonab le to theor ize tha t a cer ta in level o f experience is necessary before sufficient pedagog ica l schemata develop and subsequent ly become well connected, render ing teaching behaviors ra ther a u t o m a t i c and a l lowing teachers to focus p r imar i ly on their s tudents .

The relat ive deve lopmen t o f pedagog ica l

schemata is also likely re la ted to differences in pa t te rns o f fluidity, cer ta inty , consis tency, holis t ic recall, i.e. recall o f neutra l , posi t ive and negat ive behaviors , and general and specific recall exhibi ted by the teachers with different levels o f experience. The t h o r o u g h and specific recall o f three in te rmedia te teachers would indicate the presence o f well deve loped and connec ted pedagog ica l schemata . The general but t h o r o u g h recall demon- s t ra ted by the in te rmedia te teacher with 6.5 years experience and exper t teachers could be the result o f pa t t e rn fo rma t ion in the teachers '


pedagogical schemata which resulted in behaviors being subsumed into broad statements about classroom occurrences. It is further concluded that while the expert teachers recalled in a general manner, they were subsuming behaviors and had the ability to be extremely more thorough when asked additional probing specific questions. It is also notable that the teacher with 6.5 years experience and the experts became much more specific when atypical behaviors were recalled. It is reasonable to conclude that this more specific recall was due to the fact that atypical behaviors were not yet chunked within their pedagogical schemata.

Of particular interest is the intermediate teacher who appears to represent a transition from intermediate to expert status. The teacher with the 6.5 years experience was more accurate than her intermediate peers, recalling with total accuracy as did the experts. More in keeping with experts, this teacher's recall was general; yet unlike the experts, she was as thorough as her intermediate Peers in recalling specific behaviors. Like the experts, she reverted to specifics when recalling atypical behaviors. It was concluded that her general yet . thorough recall indicated that she had begun pattern formation in her schemata, i.e. the subsuming of behaviors which according to Peterson and Comeaux (1987) is characteristic of expert teachers. Her recall was as fluid and certain as her peers and the experts, yet she recalled classroom behaviors with the apparent ease more typical of the experts. Like the experts, she focused on students' understanding of concepts and her own role in their learning. Thus, the teacher with the 6.5 years experience appears to be the bridge between the intermediate group and the experts.

Limitations

This is a preliminary investigation based on a small sample of teachers chosen to represent a continuum of experience. The novices included in the study represent a sample of convenience; i.e. they were those student teachers to whom the primary researcher had access based on their placement in schools she regularly visited. While this is not a problem for a qualitative study, as with all qualitative work with small

samples, any generalizations to a broader popu- lation should be made with extreme caution.

Another limitation of the study is the use of one observer to establish criteria for accurate and thorough recall against which participants' recall would be measured. While triangulated data collection was used to generate lists of classroom behaviors that were as accurate as possible, there is always some possibility that the observer's observations were not a completely true representation of what occurred in the classroom.

A related limitation is that there was no systematic attempt to ascertain each participants definition of on- and off-task behavior. It is possible that some differences between the observer's and the participants' recall of these behaviors was due to differing perceptions of what constitutes on- or off-task behavior, rather than an effect of differences in recall.

Significance of This Research

This is a preliminary investigation with a small sample of teachers chosen to represent a continuum of experience. Thus, any generalizations from this research should be made with extreme caution. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that the effect of the relationship between teachers' experience and the accuracy and thoroughness of teachers' specific recall of their own and their students' behaviors has implications for the design and evaluation of reflection-oriented programs for both beginning teachers and for more experienced teachers.

As previously stated, the essence of the first question in the process of reflection is concerned with the recall of specifies, There- fore, teacher education programs that stress reflectivity need to consider the possible differences between the accurateness/thoroughness of the recall of novice, intermediate and expert teachers concerning their own or their students' specific classroom behaviors. The shifts and changes that occur in recall ability of novices as they move toward expertise has immediate significance for decisions regarding the assis- tance students will need if they are expected to engage in reflective teaching. These findings demonstrate when teachers can be expected to


develop accurate/thorough recall which enables these teachers to effectively answer the questions addressed in the first level of reflection and to subsequently progress to the second and third levels of reflection (Van Manen, 1977) as effective reflectors on practice. Prior to this time, teachers may be reflecting on inaccurate/incomplete recall; and, therefore, their conclusions would not produce enlightenment of true problem areas or awareness of strengths. Teacher educators who expect effective reflection from teachers prior to the teachers' development of accurate/thorough recall would need to rethink their goals. The results of this study may supply support for revision of current teacher education programs to include curriculum and instruction which most effectively promote and enhance novices' accurate/thorough recall ability, and/or necessi- tate teacher educators' reconsideration of their goals so as not to expect too much from novices t o o soon .

Nonetheless, while we agree with many other researchers that novices have insufficient pedagogical schemata to be capable of effective reflection, we feel that teacher educator programs should actively promote the development of reflective practices. As noted by Wildman and Niles (1987), it is unlikely that current schools, school-systems, and staff development practices will systematically address reflective practices during inservice years. We cannot rely on teachers' natural development to attain this goal (Valli, 1993). Therefore we would encourage teacher education programs to habituate prospective teachers to reflective practices that become more effective as pedagogical schemata develop from experience.

The results of this study also suggests that reflective elementary teachers in the intermediate group, rather than experts, may be more effective mentors for teacher education programs that stress the development of reflective practices. Guided/modeled reflective practices are needed. Given that the first question in the process of reflection is concerned with the recall of specifics and that preservice teachers need guidance to recall in an holistic and thorough manner in order to effectively reflect, it is likely that teachers who typically exhibit specific/thorough recall, i.e. intermediate teachers, would be the better choice for modeling reflection on prac-

tice. The general recall of the expert teachers would not necessarily provide as effective a guide to the development of thorough recall and, hence, effective reflection.

While this general recall is typical of the expert teachers in our sample, this does not imply that those professionals are less able to reflect. It is likely instead that technical recall of classroom events has become so automatic as to be uncon- scious. Rather than hindering reflection, this automaticity may in fact facilitate experts' rapid movement to reflection at levels two and three (Van Manen, 1977) by freeing conscious attention from a focus on detail. As with most processes, however, those for whom the components occur automatically are not always well equipped to model that full process or to understand the struggles of those less proficient.

Data from this study can also serve as a guide to school systems and administrators when they plan inservice training programs. Too often, beginning teachers are assumed to have more similar than different needs based on their novice status. These findings indicate that teachers vary in their ability to reflect, regardless of their experience. Therefore, the cognitive development of teachers must be understood by those who plan and evaluate programs so that teachers, regardless of their years of experience, can be met where they are in their development and be provided with the most appropriate activities to promote and ensure the continuance of each teacher's journey toward expertise.

References

Allen, R. M. (1993). Differences in expert and novice teachers, unpublished manuscript, University of New Orleans, Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations, New Orleans.

Allen, R. M. & Casbergue, R. M. (1995). Evolution of novice through expert teachers" recall. Presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 681).

Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), .5-13.

Berliner, D. C. (1988, February). The development o f expertise in pedagogy. Charles W. Hunt Memorial Lecture. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Asso- ciation of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 217 008).

754 R U T H M. A L L E N and RENI~E M. C A S B E R G U E

Berliner, D. C. (1989). Implications of studies of expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. In New directions for teacher assessment. Proceedings of the 1988 ETS Invitational Conference. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: the wonder of exemplary performances. In Mangieri, J. N. & Collins, C. (Eds.) Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: diverse perspectives. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvi- sation: differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 473-498.

Brandt and , R. S. (1986). On the expert teacher: a conversation with David Berliner. Educational Leader- ship, 44(2), 4-9.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A. & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.) Handbook of child psychology (pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley.

Bruer, J. T. (1993, summer). The mind's journey from novice to expert. American Educator, 1(2), 6-15, 38- 46.

Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1989). First year teacher a case study. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bullough, R. V. Jr., & Baughman, K. (1993). Continuity and change in teacher development: First year teacher after five years. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2), 86-95.

Bullough, R. V. Jr. (1995). Changing contexts and expertise in teaching: First-year teacher after seven years. Teaching and Teacher Education, ••(5), 461-477.

Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berline r, D. (1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom stimuli. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 25-31.

Carter, K., Sabers, D., Cushing, K., Pinnegar, S., & Berliner, D. (1987). Processing and using information about students: a study of expert, novice, and postulant teachers. Teacher and Teacher Education, 3(2), 147-157.

Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(1), 43-51.

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Cate- gorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121 152.

Clartidge, P. B., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Perceptions of student behavior as a function of expertise. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26(1), 1-8.

Cruickshank, D. R., Kennedy, J. J., Williams, E. J., Holton, J.,"& Fay, D. E. (1981). Evaluation of reflective teaching outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 75(1), 26- 32.

de Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hagoe: Mouton.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Dreyfus, H. L. & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine.

New York: Free Press. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: qualitative inquiry

and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.

Ferguson, P. (1989). A reflective approach to the methods practicum. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 36-41.

Frieberg, H. J., & Waxman, H. C. (1990). Reflection and the acquisition of technical teaching skills. In Clift, R. T., Houston, W. R. & Pugac, M. C. (Eds.), Encouraging reflectivepractiee in education (pp. 119-137). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Grimmet, P. P., MacKinnon, A. M,, Erickson, G. L. & Riecken, T. J. (1990). Reflective practice and teacher education. In Clift, R. T., Houston, W. R. & Pugach, M. C. (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education. (pp. 20-38). New York: Teachers College Press.

Irvine, J. J. (1983). The accuracy of pre-service teachers' assessments of their classroom behaviors. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17(1), 25-31.

Kennedy, M. M. (1989). Reflection and the problem of professional standards. NCRTE Colloquy, 2(2), 1-6.

Laboskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(20), 1335-1342.

Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75- 95.

Lindop, C. (1985). Evaluating effectiveness in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 11(2), 165-176.

Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: a cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 36-42.

Loughran, J. (1995). Windows into the thinking of an experienced teacher. Exploring the influence of spontaneous "talk aloud" in practice. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Research in Education, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED 383 681).

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Morris, C. G. (1988). Psychology: An introduction (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Noordhoff, K. & Kleinfeld, J. (1990). Shaping the rhetoric of reflection for multicultural settings. In Clift, R. T., Houston, W. R. & Pugach, M. C. (Eds.) Encouraging reflective practice in education. (pp. 163-185). New York: Teachers College Press.

Peterson, P. L., & Comeaux, M. A. (1987). Teachers" schemata for classroom events: the mental scaffolding of teachers' thinking during classroom instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), 319-331.

Posner, G. J. (1993). Field experience: a guide to reflective teaching. New York: Longman Publishing Group.

Richardson, V. (1990). The evolution of reflective teaching and teacher education. In Clift, R. T., Houston, W. R. & Pugach, M. C. (Eds.) Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 3 19). New York: Teachers College Press.

Ross, D. D. (1989). First steps in developing a reflective approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 22-30.


Roth, R. A. (1989). Preparing the reflective practitioner: transforming the apprentice through the dialectic. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 36--41.

Sabers, D., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differ- ences among teachers in a task characterized by simulta- neity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 63-88.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 2-9.

Stepich, D. (1991). From novice to expert: implications for instructional design. Performance and Instruction, 30(6), 13-17.

Valli, L. (1993). Reconsidering technical and reflective concepts in teacher education. Action in Teacher Educa- tion, XV(2), 35-44.

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.

Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching." The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. State University of New York Press: Albany, New York.

Wildman, T. M., & Niles, L. A. (1987), Reflective teachers: tensions between abstractions and realities. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 25-30.

Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. S., Magliaro, S. G. & McLaughlin, R. A. (1990). Promoting reflective practice among beginning and experienced teachers. In Clift, R. T., Houston, W. R. & Pugach, M. C. (Eds.) Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 139-162). New York: Teachers College Press.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 32-48.

Submitted 21 August 1996 Accepted 12 May 1997

Evolution of novice through expert teachers' recall: Implications for effective reflection on...

Documents

Transcript of Evolution of novice through expert teachers' recall: Implications for effective reflection on...