Comunicación presentada en el simposium "Teachers’ reflection as a collaborative process" en el congreso EARLI 2017, Tampere (Finlandia), 30 agosto - 2 setiembre de 2017.

1. How collaboration improves
preservice teachers’ reflection: A
case study
Mauri, T., Clarà, M., Colomina, R., Onrubia, J.,
Martinez, A., Cubero, R.
Tampere, August 29th –
September 2nd 2017
Symposium: Teachers’ reflection as a collaborative process: Looking at how
preservice teachers reflect together with knowledgeable others.
This work was supported by the Spanish ‘Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad’ [grant
EDU2013-44632-P]
University of Barcelona, University of Lleida, Mondragon University,
University of Sevilla

2. Introduction
• In the context of teacher education, learning to
reflect has proven to be hard
• Collaborative reflection assisted by knowledgeable
others has been argued to be highly beneficial…
• …but research has also been suggested that what
makes the difference is HOW people collaborate and
HOW knowledgeable others provide assistance

3. Questions
In a given case collaborative reflection:
- How (in which sense) is there a progress in student
teachers’ reflection?
- How the social organization of interaction facilitates
this progress?
- How the individual assistance by the teacher
educator facilitates this progress?

4. Antecedents:
progress in student teachers’ reflection
Discrepancies about the concept of reflection
– Psychological nature of reflection
– Pedagogical purpose of reflection

5. Antecedents:
progress in student teachers’ reflection
Discrepancies about the concept of reflection
– Psychological nature of reflection
• Is it a sequential process? Which are the phases?
• How are theoretical ideas involved in the process?
• What is the relation between decision making processes and
reflection?
Gaining clarity of an initially unclear and obscure situation
(Dewey, 1986; Schön, 1983; Wertheimer, 1971; Clarà, 2015)

6. Antecedents:
progress in student teachers’ reflection
Discrepancies about the concept of reflection
– Pedagogical purpose of reflection (Korthagen, 2001; Mansvelder-
Longayroux et al., 2007)
• Reflection to gain a theoretical view of the situation (Gelfuso,
2016; Korthagen, 2001)
• Reflection to gain a political/ideological view of the
situation (Daniel, Auhl, & Hastings, 2013; Liu, 2015)
• Reflection to gain a better view of the practical tensions
involved in the situation (Lampert, 1985; Yoon & Kim, 2009)

7. Antecedents:
social organization of collaborative reflection
• An aligned idea of the purpose of collaborative
reflection (Tillema & van der Westhuizen, 2006; Attard, 2012; Yoon & Kim, 2009)
• Trust among participants (Postholm, 2008; Wopereis, Sloep, & Poortman,
2010)
• Several proposals of phases for collaborative
reflection (Korthagen, 2001; Tillema & van der Westhuizen, 2006; Liu, 2015; Gelfuso,
2016)

8. Antecedents:
social organization of reflection
Proposed phases for collaborative reflection
Korthagen Tillema et al. Liu Gelfuso
1.Action 1.Explicating
existing beliefs
1.Assumption
analyses
1.Setting the stage
2.Looking
back
2.Using different
perspectives
2.Contextual
awareness
2.Opening the curtain
3.Awareness 3.Generation of
conceptual
artifacts
3.Imaginative
speculation
3.The play
4.Creating 4.Reflective
skepticism
4.The curtain closes
5.Trial 5.Reflection-based
actions
5.The bow
6.Reflecting on the
effects of reflection-
based action

9. Antecedents:
assistance to collaborative reflection
• Specific questions are better than general (Kim & Silver, 2016;
Whipp, 2003)
• Evolution of assistance: less intervention by the
teacher educator in the beginning of the process,
more intervention towards the end (Kim & Silver, 2016)
• Several types of assistance that seem to be
important (Gelfuso, 2016; Tigelaar et al., 2008)

10. Antecedents:
assistance to collaborative reflection
Some important types of assistance
Gelfuso, 2016 Tigelaar et al., 2008
Posing questions to create
dissonance
Guiding the conversation
Creating juxtapositions Proposing an alternative
Transitioning into synthesis Exploring an alternative
Etc. Etc.

11. A case study
- How (in which sense) is there a progress in student teachers’
reflection?
- How the social organization of interaction facilitates this
progress?
- How the individual assistance by the teacher educator
facilitates this progress?

12. A case study: setting
– 5 sessions of collaborative reflection (videotaped)
– 14 student teachers and 1 teacher educator
– Practicum in schools four days a week, and sessions with
the teacher educator (university) one day a week
– Collaborative reflection on situations experienced by the
student teachers in schools (8 situations)
– After each session, student teachers had to write
individual reflections on a new situation provided by the
teacher educator

13. A case study: analysis
• Content analysis: Applied to collaborative reflection and
to individual reflection in order to study the progress in
reflection (K=.917; K=.951)
- Problematizing: discourse referring to an incoherence or problem in
the situation
- Action: discourse proposing alternative ways of action
- Explanation: discourse proposing ways of understanding the situation
- Evaluation: discourse with value judgments (political, moral, ethical)

14. A case study: analysis
• Content analysis: Applied to collaborative reflection and
to individual reflection in order to study the progress in
reflection (K=.917; K=.951)
• Interactivity analysis: Applied to collaborative reflection
in order to study the social organization of interaction (K=.935)
• Grounded-theory approach: Applied to collaborative
reflection in order to study the assistance provided by the
teacher educator

15. Results:
progress in student teachers’ reflection
Purpose of reflection:
Understanding the situation, without making value judgments,
by considering the tensions and dilemmas involved
Tutor: …the idea is to try to understand the situation, OK? that’s the, let’s say, the purpose. The
point of this is to try to understand what’s going on here, (…) to try to avoid making judgments,
OK? the value judgments that we make instinctively, right, to try to stop that, (…) and to try to
understand what’s in play here and why what’s happening is happening and why the teacher is
doing what he’s doing, OK? to try to understand, understand the situation (as a whole), right?
the different things that play a role, OK? (collaborative reflection, session 1)
Tutor: ... the idea of this exercise about situations is not to solve the situation, (...) it’s not to give
an opinion about the situation, it’s not to make a judgment of the situation, the basic idea of this
exercise is trying to see the situation deeply, that is, without staying on the surface, it is trying to
understand which are the internal tensions of the situation, which are the different elements
that are playing there in this situation, ok?, this is the idea. (collaborative reflection, session 4)

16. Results:
progress in student teachers’ reflection
Progress of reflection (collaborative)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
(%ofsessiontime)
EXP
PROBL
ACT
EVAL

17. Results:
progress in student teachers’ reflection
Progress of reflection (individual)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
(%ofpreserviceteachers)
PROBL
EXP
ACT
EVAL
PROBL or EXP

18. Results:
social organization of collaborative reflection
Four phases were consistently identified:
1.Clarification: The students ask short questions to the student who
presented the situation (almost no intervention by the teacher
educator)
2.Exploration: Dialogic interaction between the students (almost no
intervention by the teacher educator)
3.Focalization: Dialogue strongly guided by the teacher educator
4.Interpretation: Monologic interaction centered on the teacher
educator

19. Results:
social organization of collaborative reflection
Session Situation Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation
1 A No 0:16:43 0:35:32 No
B No 0:13:16 0:12:57 No
2 C 0:02:59 0:07:36 0:07:45 0:07:19
D 0:07:29 0:03:03 0:06:35 0:04:11
3 E No 0:07:11 0:36:22 0:09:05
4 F 0:06:26 0:06:48 0:14:45 0:06:09
5 G 0:07:27 No 0:09:40 0:05:55
H 0:02:58 0:04:51 0:06:20 0:05:10
Cumulated 0:27:19 0:59:28 2:09:56 0:37:49
% 10,73 23,36 51,05 14,86

20. Results:
assistance to collaborative reflection
Quantitative evolution of teacher educator intervention in
collaborative reflection (in a given reflection process)
3.21
11.77
44.83
73.58
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Clarification Exploration Focalization Interpretation
(%ofcumulatedtimeineach
phase)

21. Results:
assistance to collaborative reflection
Quantitative evolution of teacher educator intervention in
collaborative reflection (through the five sessions)
40.29
23.93
68.40
40.77 33.69
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5
(%ofsessiontime)

22. Results:
assistance to collaborative reflection
Qualitative evolution of teacher educator intervention in
collaborative reflection (through the five sessions)
Sessions Strategy
Sessions 1-2
(Encouraging an explanatory stance)
Framing
Oppositional voice
Counterpoising alternatives
Sessions 2-5
(Encouraging a dilemmatic explanation)
Asking for the dilemma
Problematizing
Modeling
All sessions (especially 1, 4 and 5) Sharing the purpose of reflection

23. Conclusions
• In order to study the progress of reflection, it is
important to consider the aims pursued by participants
in each specific process
• Within a given collaborative reflection process, it
seems that it may be beneficial to start with dialogical
forms of interaction and advance to more monological
forms
• It seems to be important that the quantity and the
quality of teacher educator’s assistance is contingent
with the progress of student teachers’ reflection

24. Thank you so much

25. References
Attard, K. (2012). Public reflection within learning communities: An incessant type of professional development. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (2), 199-211. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643397
Clarà, M. (2015). What is reflection? Looking for clarity in an ambiguous notion. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 261-271, DOI:
10.1177/0022487114552028
Daniel, G.R., Auhl, G. & Hastings, W. (2013). Collaborative feedback and reflection for professional growth: Preparing first-year
pre-service teachers for participation in the community of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 159-172.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.777025
Dewey, J. (1933/1986). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In . In J.A.
Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey, Volume 8:1933. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Gelfuso, A. (2016). A framework for facilitating video-mediated reflection: Supporting preservice teachers as they create
“warranted assertabilities” about literacy teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 68-79. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.003
Kim, Y., & Silver, R.E. (2016). Provoking reflective thinking in post observation conversations. Journal of Teacher Education,
67(3), 203-219. doi: 10.1177/0022487116637120.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55 (2),
178-194.
Liu, K. (2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educational Review, 67(2), 135-
157. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.839546

26. References
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by student
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 47-62. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.033
Postholm, M.B. (2008). Teachers developing practice: Reflection as key activity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1717-1728.
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.024.
Schön, D. (1983/1991). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Arena.
Tigelaar, D.E.H., Dolmans, D.H.J.M., Meijer, P.C., De Grave, W.S, & Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2008). Teachers’ interactions and
their collaborative reflection processes during peer meetings. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 289-308. doi:
10.1007/s10459-006-9040-4.
Tillema, H., & van der Westhuizen, G.J. (2006). Knowledge construction in collaborative enquiry among teachers. Teachers and
Teaching: theory and practice, 12(1), 51-67. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13450600500365403
Wertheimer, M. (1945/1971). Productive thinking. New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row.
Whipp, J. (2003). Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers think deeply about field
experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 321-333. doi:10.1177/0022487103255010
Wopereis, I.G.J.H., Sloep, P.B., & Poortman, S.H. (2010). Weblogs as instruments for reflection on action in teacher education.
Interactive Learning Environments,18(3), 245-261. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2010.500530
Yoon, H-G., & Kim, M. (2009). Collaborative reflection through dilemma cases of science practical work during practicum.
International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 283-301. doi: 10.1080/09500690802516538

27. Framing
23 Tutor: Let’s do something. We’ll continue in a second. I’m just
saying, let’s suppose… let’s think about this situation (…), but
supposing that the mother isn’t doing this just to annoy the
teacher, right?
Framing
24 Olga: Why then?
25 Tutor: Because she really has a certain view about her child’s
education, OK? Let’s think about that, or rather (…), let’s start
with that assumption, OK?

28. Oppositional voice
60 Tutor: She [Elsa] said, [...] she said, “I can’t give my
view on building a wall if I can’t do a construction
worker’s job.” But is that a valid comparison? Think
about it for a minute. Isn’t the mother educating the
child, too? The teacher is educating the child, and the
mother is educating the child, right? Who is more
responsible for the child’s education?
Oppositional
voice

29. Counterpoising alternatives
68 Tutor: No, no. What I, what I’m trying to propose is to say
“No, no, let’s not eliminate, that is, we can’t…”, let’s say, “We
can’t get rid of the discrepancy, OK?” (…) Let’s not think of a
solution that gets rid of the discrepancy, because such a
solution is imaginary, OK? The discrepancy is there, so what
I’m saying is, given that discrepancy, what do you think,
which point of view should prevail?
Framing +
Contraposition

30. Asking for the dilemma
67 Tutor: What would you say is… the
underlying dilemma in this situation, in
other words, the dilemma underlying the
decision that needs to be made? What
would you say it is?
Asking for
the dilemma

31. Problematizing
98 Isabel: Autonomy and socialization.
99 Tutor: Autonomy and socialization, yes, that’s sort of what
he [Jordi] was saying, and the other would be…
100 Olga: Cognitive
101 Tutor: Cognitive. Those are two possibilities, but, before,
she [Olga] said, ‘Well, hold on, special education schools
help them to be autonomous, too, also… in other words, and
the school, here, they also make some progress.” I don’t, in
other words, I’m not sure that the directions are so, I don’t
know, let’s say… so simple. I don’t know.
Problematizing

32. Modeling
118 Tutor: And when you said that, I saw how it was related to what you [Joana] said
before, right? to say, sure, at the school, he sort of has to make a bigger effort, right?
whereas the special education adapts to him in a way, right? and I don’t know, I get the
feeling that maybe, really, the underlying dilemma isn’t… I don’t know if it’s so much
cognitive (development versus) socialization, I don’t know if that’s really it. I think it’s
more like, what she [Anna] said, right? to say, alright, do I want this person, my
student, my son, to be someone who lives in an adapted world or do I want him to be
someone… in an adapted world, for him to live comfortably in an adapted world, or do
I want him to be someone who, with an effort, (lives) in a world that’s, let’s say…
119 Jordi: Normal.
120 Tutor: Yes, less adapted. I’m not sure what to call it. Do you know what I mean?

33. Sessi
on
Duration of
session*
Situation Description Time
1 1:18:28 A A mother questions how a teacher is doing her
job, specifically, an activity where the children
have to paint a picture.
00:52:15
B Parents do not want to medicate their ADHD
child, and teachers think they should.
0:26:13
2 0:46:57 C In the last year of primary school there is a
student with substantial learning difficulties;
the teachers decide to pass her, allowing her to
go on to secondary school.
0:25:39
D The mother of a child with autism spectrum
disorder does not want him to combine
ordinary school with a special school; the
father disagrees (the parents are divorced).
0:21:18

34. Sessio
n
Duration of
session*
Situatio
n
Description Time
3 0:52:38 E There is a conflict between teachers about how
to position children’s desks, in groups of two or
in groups of four.
0:52:38
4 0:34:08 F An English-speaking father and a Catalan
mother decide to use only English with their
child. They believe that he is gifted. The child
has problems with Catalan in school and
anxiety problems.
0:34:08
5 0:42:21 G In a difficult class, a substitute English teacher
has problems with children’s behavior.
0:23:02
H A usually quiet child pretends to have been
beaten up by another child, who is usually more
impulsive.
0:19:19

35. A case study: analysis
Interactivity Analysis (Coll, Onrubia & Mauri, 2008)
• Identifying “chunks” of interaction that work as a unity
(Erickson & Schultz, 1977)
• Inductively creating codes which describe “what the
participants are doing together”
• Describing the interactional structure of turn-taking of
the participants
Inter-rater reliability: K= .935

36. A case study: analysis
Grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
Qualitative examination and coding of the teacher educator’s
moves in order to identify relevant types of assistance