F. Questier, I. Joost, A. Libotton, Reflection skills in teacher education: an investigation into the nature of the written reflection on specific teaching situations in digital learning portfolios, Proceedings of 36th Annual Conference of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE), August 2011, Riga, abstract published

1. Reflection skills
in teacher education:
an investigation into the nature
of the written reflection
on specific teaching situations
in digital learning portfolios
Frederik Questier, Joost Ingels, Arno Libotton
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
ATEE conference 2011, August 2011, Riga

2. This presentation can be found at
http://questier.com
http://www.slideshare.net/Frederik_Questier

3. My background

4. Context:
teacher training

5. Flemish decree on teacher education
competencies based
The teacher as…
1.guide of learning and developing processes
2.educator
3.expert
4.organisator
5.innovator
6.partner of parents
7.member of a school team
8.partner of external institutions
9.member of the education community
10.participant of culture

6. Digital learning portfolio
6

7. Educational portfolios
Flexible instrument for
➢
students
➢
planning, reflecting, showcasing:
learning process, development of competences
➢
teachers
➢
coaching and assessing
➢
the development of competences
➢
course and year transcending

10. 10

11. Ref
lect
qua ion
lity?

12. Research study
➢ Analysis of
➢ 11 portfolios
➢ 47 reflection blocks
➢ Built a category system
➢ based on theory
➢ adapted to context

13. Korthagen's
ALACT cycle of reflection

14. Do students describe all steps
of the ALACT cycle?

15. Conclusions
➢ 3 first steps of ALACT
are more described
than 2 last ones (creating and trying alternatives)

16. How do students reflect?

17. Conclusions
➢ Reflection is described more from
a teacher perspective than from
a pupils perspective
➢ Reflection is more described for
“what did I / pupils do and think?” than for
“what did I / pupils want and feel?”

18. Onion model of Korthagen

19. Do students reflect
on all layers of the onion model?

20. Conclusions
➢ More reflection on
outer layers than on
inner layers (identity and mission)
This could cause frictions!

21. Division in 2 groups
➢ Group A (N=24)
➢ Reflection blocks with a description of any of the
following reflections:
➢ What did I want?
➢ What did I feel?
➢ What did pupils want?
➢ What did pupils feel?
➢ Group B (N=23)
➢ Reflection blocks without any of the above reflections
described.

22. Reflection
Group A vs Group B

23. Reflection
Group A vs Group B

24. Onion model layers
Group A vs Group B

25. Conclusions
➢ Reflection quality is higher when it includes
reflection upon “what do I/pupils want and feel?”
➢ Statistically significant:
➢ Awareness
➢ Create alternatives
➢ Trial
➢ Describe + reflect competencies
➢ Describe + reflect beliefs

26. General conclusions
➢ Competence oriented nature of this portfolio →
focus on demonstrating efforts for the
improvement of competencies
and less on the whole of personal development
➢ Not much core reflection

27. Recommendations
➢ Careful with too much emphasis on
competencies!
➢ Enough emphasis on own teaching experiences
➢ Stimulate full reflection cycles
➢ Stimulate reflection on what teachers and pupils
want and feel.
➢ Stimulate reflection on all onion levels

28. Additional copyright
acknowledgements
➢ Social Network CC-by by Frederik Questier
➢ ALACT cycle of reflection, copyright by Korthagen
➢ Onion model, copyright by Korthagen
➢ Chamilo logo by Chamilo
➢ Question? CC-by by Stefan Baudy

29. Questions? Comments?
Thanks!
See also http://questier.com
29