This article was downloaded by: [Macquarie University]On: 10 November 2014, At: 14:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20

Reflection: can we assess it? Should we assess it?Jennifer Sumsion a & Alma Fleet aa Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University , AustraliaPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Jennifer Sumsion & Alma Fleet (1996) Reflection: can we assess it? Should we assess it?, Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 21:2, 121-130, DOI: 10.1080/0260293960210202

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293960210202

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1996 121

Reflection: can we assess it? Should weassess it?

JENNIFER SUMSION & ALMA FLEET, Institute of Early Childhood,Macquarie University, Australia

ABSTRACT This paper reports on a study undertaken by two university-based teachereducators into an aspect of professional practice. The feasibility and desirability ofassessing reflection demonstrated by student teachers studying early childhood literacywas investigated. While reaffirming the importance of developing reflective practitioners,the study highlighted the difficulties of equitably or meaningfully assessing reflection.Use of alternative methodologies was called for in future research into reflection.

The ability and willingness to reflect on one's practice is valued by many as a means ofdealing with the complexities, challenges and uncertainties inherent in professionalpractice (Calderhead & Gates, 1993; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1991; Russell & Munby,1992). Reflection is assumed to enhance professional practice (Schon, 1983, 1987) andmany professional preparation programmes, particularly in the fields of education andnursing, aim to promote reflection amongst developing professionals (e.g. Valli, 1992;Farrar, 1993; Mclean, 1994). Despite the current emphasis on reflection, however, itremains a problematic notion (Copeland et al., 1993; Laboskey, 1994; Hatton & Smith,1995). Currently, there is little agreement about what reflection is. Little is known abouthow it might best be promoted or measured, or, indeed, whether it can be promoted ormeasured. Nor is there evidence to indicate whether reflective professionals are necess-arily more effective than non-reflective professionals. Similarly, there is little evidenceto indicate the success, or otherwise, of programmes which seek to promote reflection.

Although described variously in the literature (Copeland et al., 1993; Laboskey,1994), in this study reflection was considered a generic term for processes involved inexploring experience as a means of enhancing understanding (Boud et al., 1985). Theseprocesses include looking back on experiences, decisions and actions; recognising valuesand beliefs underlying these actions and decisions; considering the consequences andimplications of beliefs and actions; exploring possible alternatives; and reconsidering

0260-2938/96/020121-10 ©1996 Journals Oxford Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

122 J. Sumsion & A. Fleet

former views. Processes such as these are expected to lead to informed, thoughtful anddeliberate analysis or contemplation of one's beliefs and actions. As such, they areexpected to enhance professional practice.

However, because of the general lack of agreement about what constitutes reflection,there is considerable uncertainty about implications for practice in professional prep-aration programmes. There is, for example, no widely accepted means of identifying orassessing reflection (Calderhead & Gates, 1993). Nor is it clear whether attempts shouldbe made to assess the degree of reflection demonstrated by the developing professional.In addressing these issues, this paper reports on a study which investigated issuesassociated with the assessment of reflection in a preservice early childhood teachereducation program.

Aims and Purpose of the Study

The study had three aims. It sought to:

(1) investigate the extent to which student teachers enrolled in an early childhoodliteracy unit (a 1-year course) demonstrated a reflective approach to their pro-fessional development;

(2) trial the effectiveness of an instrument for identifying evidence of reflection; and(3) explore the potential relationship between the academic grade awarded to student

teachers for the unit, and their propensity to reflect about their learning whileenrolled in the unit.

The results of the study would be used to review a previous decision by the teachereducators not to assess reflection or include evidence of reflection as a criterion forassessment in assignments. In addition, it was anticipated that the data collected wouldbe useful in unit evaluation and revision.

Context

The study was undertaken in an Australian university. It involved 124 final year earlychildhood student teachers enrolled in a compulsory early literacy unit as part of theirpreservice program. Following graduation, the student teachers intended to work withchildren from 3 to 8 years of age in long day care, preschool, or the first years of school.Scheduled over two 13-week semesters, the unit required weekly attendance at a 1-hourwhole group lecture, and a 2-hour tutorial in groups averaging 25 student teachers.

Unit Assessment

Unit assessment focused on the student teachers' ability to integrate their pre-existingknowledge of child development with an understanding of the processes involved inlearning to read and write. They were required to demonstrate an ability to plan forindividual children, using high quality children's literature as a key component of theirprogramming, an approach supported by many in the literacy field (Unsworth, 1994).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reflection 123

Assessment comprised three assignments: a newsletter to parents outlining the studentteacher's approach to the teaching of literacy in terms of their philosophical stance; acase study documenting a selected child's literacy development and outlining planningimplications; and a literature programme which demonstrated an awareness of thepotential of children's literature as a basis for literacy development. In addition, 10% ofthe final grade for the unit comprised a self-nominated mark.

Reflection was not assessed, nor was evidence of reflection used as a criteria forassessment of assignments. This decision was made for a number of reasons. First, theteacher educators had been unable to find a simple means of identifying reflection(suitable for use with a large number of student teachers), which acknowledged thecomplexity of reflection (Sumsion, 1995). A pilot study (Fleet & Sumsion, 1991) hadhighlighted the limitations of available instruments. These included difficulty in achiev-ing intercoder reliability; failure to account for all instances of reflection identified; andunsuitability for use with a large number of student teachers. In addition, an extensivereview of the literature about reflection (Sumsion, 1993) had failed to find more suitablealternatives. Given the difficulties inherent in identifying reflection, it seemed inappropri-ate for student teachers' grades to be influenced by their teacher educators' perceptionsof their reflectivity. Second, the teacher educators were concerned about the possibleimpact on student teachers' willingness and ability to reflect in a context in which theirreflection would be assessed.

On the other hand, demonstrated capacity for reflection is vitally important for earlychildhood teachers of literacy. Early childhood education is based on commitment tounderstanding and valuing children as individuals. Thus, student teachers need to masterspecific observational and planning skills in order to identify individual children'sstrengths, interests and areas of need, and plan appropriately for them. This requires asound knowledge of child development theory and approaches to literacy learning. Aswell as mastering specific skills and acquiring a predetermined body of knowledge,however, student teachers must also develop the ability to make complex professionaldecisions. For example, they need to be able to locate themselves within the ongoing,often passionate, debate about the nature of literacy development and how literacy mightbest be taught, and to ensure that their teaching strategies are consistent with theirphilosophical stance. Similarly, because of the emphasis on individual differences, earlychildhood student teachers are unable to rely on predetermined curricula or commercially-produced programmes for teaching literacy but must engage in complex, pro-fessional decision-making. Schon (1983, 1987) argues that reflection is fundamental todecision-making of this type. Given its importance, it could be argued that demonstratedcapacity of reflection should be rewarded in unit assessment.

Monitoring the development of knowledge, understanding and skills traditionally takesplace through assessment. Monitoring the development of reflection, however, is moreproblematic. For example, assuming reflection could be identified and assessed, whatrelative assessment weighting should be given to mastery of unit content versusdemonstrated capacity for reflection? The teacher educators were faced with a dilemma.They valued reflection highly; they wanted to highlight its importance; and they wantedto reward those student teachers who demonstrated the capacity to reflect. Yet they wereuncomfortable about doing so through assessment. Instead they emphasised the import-ance of reflection through other aspects of their teaching practice, such as modellingreflective practices in tutorial sessions. They remained interested, however, in exploringways in which evidence of reflection might be more readily and reliably identified, andpossibly incorporated into future assessment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

124 J. Sumsion & A. Fleet

Participants

All 124 student teachers enrolled in the unit participated in some part of the study.Because data comprised compulsory tutorial tasks, in effect participation in the studywas obligatory. The student teachers were aware that the data would be used for avariety of purposes, including future planning by unit coordinators. They were notinformed specifically, however, that the data would be analysed for evidence ofreflection. Originally, it was anticipated that data would be obtained from studentteachers on four occasions throughout the year long unit. Because of illness and otherunforeseen circumstances, however, a full set of four pieces of data was obtained fromonly 73 student teachers. The data from these 73 student teachers is analysed andpresented below.

Data Collection

Doubts have been expressed about the value of data from written sources in determiningevidence of reflection (Smith & Hatton, 1993). Concerns focus on the difficultiesinvolved in differentiating between reflection and mastery of a reflective writing genre.Some students teachers who are reflective, for example, may not be able to write in astyle which is generally recognised as reflective. Conversely, student teachers witheffective writing skills may be able to appear to write reflectively, without actuallyengaging in reflection. The relationship between the ability and willingness to bereflective about one's professional development, and one's ability and willingness towrite reflectively is, therefore, unclear. Despite these concerns, however, the number ofparticipants and the limited funding available for the study made it impractical to collectdata through interviews or critical pairs discussion as advocated by Smith & Hatton(1993) and Francis (1992). Consequently, data consisted of written responses to specifictutorial tasks as suggested by Fleet & Sumsion (1991).

Mindful of the concerns associated with identifying evidence of reflection fromwritten sources, an informal approach was adopted when collecting data from the studentteachers. They were reminded that the tutorial tasks were intended primarily as a basisfor discussion and a guide for further study. While they were expected to respondthoughtfully, their responses would not be assessed when arriving at their grade for theunit. Consequently, they could use whatever writing style they preferred. Anxiety,therefore, was probably minimal. For some student teachers, however, commitment tothe task may also have been minimal.

Data were collected from student teachers four times during the year long unit.Student teachers were asked to reflect on literacy programmes observed during theirpracticums and their own development as teachers of literacy. The focus of each roundof data collection varied as follows:

Round 1

The initial data were collected in the first week of the first semester (March). The studentteachers were asked to comment on their impressions of the literacy programmeoperating in the K-2 classroom in which they had undertaken their first school practicumthe previous November. Specifically, they were asked to identify what they saw to be themost effective, and least effective aspects of the programme, and to justify theirresponses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reflection 125

As a means of highlighting for the student teachers the need to reflect on past experience,they were also asked to comment on what they felt they now knew about youngchildren's literacy development as a result of that introductory practicum. To emphasisethe expectation that they take considerable responsibility for their own learning, studentteachers were asked to indicate what they perceived they needed to learn about literacydevelopment prior to their next practicum.

Round 2

The second pieces of data were collected the following week. Prior to the tutorial,student teachers were asked to interview a young child. The purpose of the interview wasto gain some understanding into the child's perceptions of the nature of reading andwriting; attitudes towards literacy; perceptions of self as reader and writer; and under-standing of the learning process. When writing up the interview, the student teacherswere asked to list three issues arising from the child's responses which had surprised,puzzled or challenged them. These issues were intended to provide a focus for furtherreading and reflection. From the beginning of the unit, student teachers were expectedto be developing an understanding that teaching literacy is problematic. Despite theextensive research and related literature about this field, appropriate interactions withparticular children cannot be rule-governed or predetermined due to the complexity offactors involved.

Round 3

The third collection of data were by survey at the end of the first semester. Studentteachers were asked to reflect about their development as early childhood literacy duringthe past semester. They were given access to the data collected previously and askedabout the extent to which their ideas had changed, and about factors which had helpedor hindered their understanding of teaching literacy. In addition, they were invited tocomment on any frustrations or dilemmas they had during their recent practicum, and todiscuss how they might work towards overcoming these.

Round 4

The final data were collected during the last week of the final semester, as part of studentteacher evaluation of the unit. Student teachers were asked to describe two aspects ofyoung children's literacy learning which they had found thought-provoking, and toexplain why. This data were analysed after student teachers' grades for the unit werefinalised.

Data Analysis

The most appropriate way to analyse the data was discussed at length. In a pilot studyinvolving a previous cohort of student teachers (Fleet & Sumsion, 1991), the teachereducators used Sparks-Langer et al.'s (1990) seven-point scale for measuring pedagogi-cal language and thinking. This was not particularly useful, however, as it appearedunable to account for all instances of reflection identified, especially those which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

126 J. Sumsion & A. Fleet

appeared particularly intuitive or emotive. There were doubts about the authenticity ofranking the intentions underlying the student teachers' writing. In addition, the sevenlevels of the scale made intercoder reliability difficult to achieve.

Consequently, the coding systems used in a number of previous studies wereconsidered. Those developed by MacKinnon (1987) and Ross (1989) were rejectedbecause they focused only on the analytical aspects of reflection. Others', Louden (1992)and Rovegno (1992), appeared unsuitable for use with large numbers of participants.Eventually it was decided to use a three-point coding system similar to that used bySurbeck et al. (1991) to identify degrees of reflection in student teachers' journal writing.An instrument of this type appeared likely to be suitable for use with a large number ofstudent teachers, and its relative simplicity suggested that intercoder reliability might beachieved with little difficulty.

The descriptive terms used for this purpose were highly reflective, moderatelyreflective, and not reflective. Data was categorised using criteria derived from Boud etai's. (1985) conceptualisation of reflection referred to previously. To ensure intercoderreliability, the data were coded by each of the teacher educators and a research assistant.Following an initial meeting of the three coders to establish consistency, coding wasundertaken blind. Where different ratings were assigned subsequently to the same data,the ratings were averaged. This resulted in the creation of additional categories whichwere referred to by the general terms more-than-moderately reflective and less-than-moderately reflective.

Findings

Despite attempts prior to coding to ensure intercoder reliability, only 50% intercoderreliability was achieved. Possible reasons for this low level are discussed later in thepaper, along with implications for future research. Thus the findings, presented asanswers to the questions outlined in the aims and purposes section of the paper, need tobe interpreted with caution.

Did the Student Teachers Demonstrate a Reflective Approach to their ProfessionalDevelopment?

Given the low level of intercoder reliability, the answer can be only a qualified 'yes'.Nevertheless, working from the averaged results, of the 73 student teachers whose workwas coded, 57 were seen to be either highly reflective or more-than-moderatelyreflective; 12 were rated as moderately reflective; while only four were regarded asless-than-moderately reflective or unreflective.

Was the Instrument Effective in Identifying Evidence of Reflection?

The simplicity of the instrument facilitated its use with a relatively large number ofstudent teachers. At the time of coding, it appeared a useful tool for obtaining globalimpressions of the student teachers' reflection, although of limited use in providinginsights into the nature of their reflection, or an appreciation of the complexity ofreflection. In retrospect, however, the low level of intercoder reliability raised doubtsabout the effectiveness of the instrument.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reflection 127

TABLE 1. Tabulation of academic grade by reflection rating (n = 73)

Scale of reflectivity

Highly reflectiveMore-than-moderately reflectiveModerately reflectiveLess-than-moderately reflectiveNot reflectiveTotals

AOutstanding

712

——10

No. of students

BAbove average

791

——17

by grade awarded for unit

CSatisfactory

62343

— .36

CQMarginal pass

1311

—6

FFail

12

—14

Total

21371041

73

Was there any Relationship between Grades and Reflection Ratings?

For student teachers who did well academically, there was a generally positive relation-ship between grades and reflection ratings (See Table 1). However, for student teacherswho did poorly academically, there was a weaker relationship between grades andreflection weighting.

Of the ten student teachers awarded an A (outstanding) grade for the unit, seven alsoreceived the highest reflection rating. The remaining three student teachers were rated atleast moderately reflective. Of the 17 student teachers awarded a B (above average)grade, seven received the highest reflection rating, while the remaining 10 were at leastmoderately reflective. A similar pattern emerged for the 33 student teachers awarded aC (satisfactory) grade. Of these, proportionately fewer student teachers (a total of six)received the highest reflection rating, although all but three were rated at leastmoderately reflective.

The general pattern of a positive relationship between academic grade and reflectionrating did not apply to the student teachers who failed the unit or to those who wereawarded a marginal pass. Of the four student teachers who failed, three were rated as atleast moderately reflective, while only one was rated not reflective. Of the six studentteachers awarded a marginal pass, one received the highest reflection rating, four wereseen as at least moderately reflective, and only one student teacher was rated as less thanmoderately reflective. Because the pattern for the 10 student teachers who received lowgrades differed so noticeably from those receiving average to high grades, the data fromthese student teachers were revisited.

Checks were made to see whether any previously overlooked factor might explain thediscrepancy between the generally positive relationship between academic grade andreflection rating for the more academically able student teachers and the lack of a strongrelationship between grade and rating for the apparently less academically able studentteachers. Aware that factors other than lack of understanding of unit content mightcontribute to low grades, the teacher educators called upon their professional knowledgeof the eight student teachers with low grades but moderate or high ratings for reflection.They were unable to find an explanation, however. Of these eight student teachers only onehad been unable to make a substantial commitment to the unit due to personal circum-stances. Thus seven student teachers, or 70% of those who received low grades, appearedto contradict the general trend for a positive relationship between academic grade andreflection rating noted previously. There appeared to be no obvious explanation for thiscontradiction. It may be that a reflective orientation, or skill in demonstrating reflection, isassociated with academic success but is not a guarantee of academic success.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

128 J. Sumsion & A. Fleet

Implications for Assessment of Reflection

Despite the limitations of the coding scheme utilised, the study raises a number ofimplications concerning the assessment of reflection. First, it suggests that reflectionappears unsuited to quantitative measurement. Instruments such as those used in thisstudy, and others trialled previously, are unlikely to result in a high degree of intercoderreliability. Thus, decisions involving potentially far reaching consequences (includingthose related to assessment) are unlikely to be made with equanimity. If an instrumentis to be used to identify reflection, however, it may be preferable for it to be used byonly one coder, rather than averaging the ratings of several coders.

Because coding reflection is dependent on a high degree of interpretation, there maybe more consistency (but also more bias) if only one coder is involved. In terms offairness to those whose reflection is being assessed, however, this option is alsoproblematic.

Second, because rating scales depend on ease and reliability of use for theireffectiveness, they may tend towards simplistic, rather than complex, conceptualisationsof reflection. Consequently, even if they are able to provide a reliable means ofidentifying evidence of reflection, they may be unable to provide many insights into thecomplex nature of reflection or guidance about how to more effectively promotereflection. In that case, the information provided by rating scales may be of limited valuefor future planning. Assessment might be more usefully confined to the traditional areasof knowledge acquisition and mastery of skills where outcomes can be more readilyincorporated into ongoing planning. This is not, however, a satisfying conclusion forthose who wish to promote (and perhaps subsequently reward) reflection.

Third, the findings of the study suggest that it is possible to be reflective without beingacademically able. Thus, if reflection is to be assessed, strategies which are not restrictedto, or reliant on, traditional measures of academic competence should be used. Relianceon written reflection, for example, would seem likely to disadvantage those who have notmastered an appropriate reflective writing genre. If they also have difficulty with otherwritten genres commonly required for assessment tasks, then their disadvantage is likelyto be compounded. If reflection is to be assessed, therefore, it seems important to do sofrom a broader perspective than typically apparent in academic assessment. Strategieswhich appear to hold potential for recognising different forms of reflection includeindividual and small group discussions, and drawing and other diagrammatic representa-tions (Korthagen, 1993). These strategies may not be feasible, however, when largenumbers of student teachers are involved.

Conclusion

The study reaffirmed the teacher educators' previous decision not to include evidence ofreflection as a component of unit assessment. At present, there are substantial difficultiesinvolved in attempting to identify and assess reflection. Given current methodologicaland pragmatic limitations, the assessment of reflection raises complex issues of consist-ency and equity, as well as broader pedagogical and ethical concerns. Hence, thosecommitted to the preparation of professionals through an emphasis on reflective practiceare in a difficult position. Until more is known about reflection, identification andassessment are problematic. Yet until reflection can be identified and assessed, evidenceto support the belief that reflection can and should be promoted will not be forthcoming.Without research evidence to support their stance, professional preparation programmes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reflection 129

which emphasise reflective practices are vulnerable to criticisms about their credibility.Thus further research into the identification of reflection, and implications for assess-ment, is needed.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to express their appreciation to Jean Ashton who was the majorResearch Assistant for this study. We are also grateful to the Institute of EarlyChildhood, Macquarie University for the Research Grant which made the data manage-ment possible.

Notes on Contributors

JENNIFER SUMSION (MEd, University of Sydney) is a lecturer at the Institute of EarlyChildhood, Macquarie University. She is currently undertaking doctoral research intothe development of reflection in early childhood student teachers. Correspondence:Jennifer Sumsion, Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, NSW 2109,Australia. Tel: +61 2 850 7111. Fax: +61 2 850 9890.

ALMA FLEET (PhD, University of Sydney) is a senior lecturer at the Institute of EarlyChildhood, Macquarie University. She is the co-author of several books on earlychildhood teaching practice including Making it Work, Thinking it Through, andWhat's in a Day? Her current research focuses on the use of case study in teachereducation.

REFERENCES

BOUD, D., KEOGH, R. & WALKER, D. (Eds) (1985) Reflection: turning experience into learning (London,Kogan Page).

CALDERHEAD, J. & GATES, P. (Eds) (1993) Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Development (London,The Falmer Press).

COPELAND, W. D., BIRMINGHAM, C, DE LA CRUZ, E. & LEWIN, B. (1993) The reflective practitioner inteaching: toward a research agenda, Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, pp. 347-359.

FARRAR, P. D. (1993) Designing a reflective clinical practicum in nursing, paper presented at the NationalPracticum Conference, Sydney, February.

FLEET, A. & SUMSION, J. (1991) Empowering teachers through reflective practices, paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the NSW Reading Association, Sydney, July.

FRANCIS, D. (1992) The reflective journal: a window to pre-service teachers' practical knowledge, paperpresented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Ballina, June.

HATTON, N. & SMITH, D. (1995) Reflection in teacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education, 11,pp. 33-49.

KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1993) Two modes of reflection, Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, pp. 317-326.LABOSKEY, V. L. (1994) Development and Reflective Practice: a study of preservice teachers (New York,

Teachers College Press).LOUDEN, W. (1992) Understanding reflection through collaborative research, in: HARGREAVES, A. &

FULLAN, M. G. (Eds) Understanding Teacher Development, 179-215 (New York, Teachers CollegePress).

MACKINNON, A. M. (1987) Detecting reflection-in-action preservice elementary science teachers,Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, pp. 135-145.

MCLEAN, B. (1994) Reflection in Australian teacher education institutions, paper presented at the AnnualConference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Brisbane, July.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

130 J. Sumsion & A. Fleet

ROVEGNO, I. (1992) Learning to reflect on teaching: a case study of one preservice physical educationteacher, The Elementary School Journal, 92, pp. 491-510.

RUSSELL, T. & MUNBY, H. (Eds) (1992) Teachers and Teaching: from classroom to reflection (London,The Falmer Press).

SCHON, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action (New York, BasicBooks).

SCHON, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: towards a new design for teaching andlearning in the profession (San Francisco, Jossey Bass).

SMITH, D. & HATTON, N. (1992) Towards critical reflection in teacher education, paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Ballina, June 1992.

SMITH, D & HATTON, N. (1993) Reflection in teacher education: a study in progress, EducationalResearch and Perspectives, 20(1), pp. 13-23.

SPARKS-LANGER, G. M., SIMMONS, J. M., PASCH, M., COLTON, A. & STARKO, A. (1990) Reflective

pedagogical thinking: How can we promote and measure it?, Journal of Teacher Education, 41,pp. 23-32.

SUMSION, J. (1993) A review of aspects of the literature about reflection in teacher education, unpublishedpaper submitted to the University of Sydney.

SUMSION, J. (1995) Reflection in early childhood student teachers, Australian Research into EarlyChildhood Education Journal, 21, pp. 131-140.

SURBECK, E., HAN, E. P. & MOYER, J. E. (1991) Assessing reflective responses in journals, EducationalLeadership, 48, pp. 25-27.

TABACHNICK, B. R. & ZEICHNER, K. M. (Eds) (1991) Issues and Practices in Inquiry-oriented TeacherEducation (London, The Falmer Press).

UNSWORTH, L. (1994) Managing the Language Program: children's literature in the primary classroom(Melbourne, MacMillan Education Australia).

VALLI, L. (Ed) (1992) Reflective Teacher Education: cases and critiques (New York, State University ofNew York Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014