Characteristics of Reflective Practitioners-Korthagen1995

This article was downloaded by: [Purdue University]
On: 05 July 2013, At: 05:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20
Characteristics of Reflective
Practitioners: towards an
operationalization of the concept
of reflection
a a
Fred A. J. Korthagen & Theo Wubbels
a
Utrecht University
Published online: 28 Jul 2006.
To cite this article: Fred A. J. Korthagen & Theo Wubbels (1995) Characteristics of
Reflective Practitioners: towards an operationalization of the concept of reflection, Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1:1, 51-72
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060950010105
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1995 51
Characteristics of Reflective Practitioners:

towards an operationalization of the
concept of reflection
FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN & THEO WUBBELS
Utrecht University
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 05:25 05 July 2013
ABSTRACT This article reports about a research project on reflective teaching in a

preservice teacher education program. The program is based on an explicit view of good
teaching and a theory of mathematics education. Reflective teaching was conceptualized
accordingly. Four studies were carried out: an initial overall evaluation, a longitudinal
study into developmental processes in student teachers, a study into correlates of
reflectivity as measured with the aid of a questionnaire, and a quasi-experimental study
into the effects of the program. These studies reveal a number of critical attributes and
correlates of reflectivity, thus offering building blocks for a theory in which empirically
based relationships are established between good teaching, the concept of reflection and
characteristics of reflective practitioners.
1. Introduction
During the last decades, reflection has become part of the language of teacher
education (Gore, 1987; Calderhead, 1989). Such terms as 'reflection', 'reflective
teaching', and 'the teacher as a reflective, inquiring professional' are now widely
used in journal articles, and at teacher education conferences. This popularity at
first perhaps reflected a shift in teacher education programs away from an
emphasis on mastery of technique and the learning of theoretical principles, but
it is becoming increasingly clear to professionals in the field that the goal of
teacher education programs should be to make students teachers both technically
competent and reflective and self-critical (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1989). Although there
seems to be a growing consensus about this twofold aim of teacher education, no
clear connection between reflective skills and technical skills has yet been demon-
strated. In our view, one important fact is often forgotten: that it is worthwhile to
pursue reflection in teaching only to the extent that it contributes to better
teaching. Obviously, the question of whether or not reflection is useful is closely
related to the question of what good teaching is. In this regard the literature on the
subject is somewhat confusing. The various approaches to the development of
reflective teachers differ substantially on a number of issues (Tom, 1985), one of
which is the underlying view of what constitutes good education, and what the
1354-0602/95/010051-22 © 1995 Journals Oxford Ltd

52 F. A. J. Korthagen & T. Wubbels
role of the teacher should be in that education (Korthagen, 1993a). Authors who
propose different objects of reflection often have differing views on what good
teaching is. For this reason, we believe that there are two questions which must
be answered before any agreement can be reached as to the meaning of the term
'reflective practitioner':
1. What is good teaching?
2. What is the role and nature of reflection in good teaching?
The answers to these questions are crucial to an investigation of the central
question of this article:
3. What are the critical attributes which distinguish reflective teachers from their
colleagues?
Some authors clearly state their views on what constitutes good teaching, while
others are less explicit. We will look at several examples.

In the approach which sees reflection as critical inquiry, advocated by such
authors as Zeichner (1983), and Carr & Kemmis (1986), the objects of reflection are
primarily the moral, ethical, political, and instrumental issues embedded in
teachers' everyday thinking and practice. Established patterns used in teaching
situations are not taken for granted, but are made explicit. It is fairly clear that
these authors see a good teacher as a critical, inquiring professional. This view is
linked to a specific view of the aims of education in schools, i.e. to make students
critical, responsible citizens.
Ross (1987) relates reflection to rationality and responsibility; in her view
reflection is a way of thinking about educational matters which involves the
ability to make rational choices, and to assume responsibility for those choices. In
this respect, she appears to see the teacher as a professional who is accountable for
the way he or she teaches.
In the approach employed by Cruickshank et al. (1981), the object of reflection
is the effectiveness of instructional strategies in attaining given ends. This techni-
cal approach is most probably based on a view of the teacher as a component,
highly technical person (see Gore, 1987), although the authors also state that the
aim is to develop in students good habits of thought about teaching, so that they
become wise as teachers. It is not clear what their underlying view of education
is. It could be a technical and instrumental philosophy of education, which
regards mastery of skills by the students as the primary aim of education.
For Schön (1983, 1987) reflection involves some form of experimentation, in
which practitioners constantly interpret situations by means of problem-setting
and problem-solving, a process which can lead to a reframing of the situation.
Schön's descriptions do not make explicit his interpretation of good teaching. It
is conceivable that he stresses the experimental nature of good teaching, and
does not attach a particularly high value to teachers' use of the theoretical
underpinnings of their teaching.
Regardless of whether an author explicitly states his or her views on what
constitutes good teaching, it is clear from the above examples that statements
Characteristics of Reflective Practitioners 53
about the nature of reflection are linked to fundamental views on good teaching.
We would argue, therefore, that prescriptive statements about reflection are often
questionable, simply because individual views on the aims of education are
questionable. Prescriptive statements may be of importance to someone who
shares those views, but even this is not always true, since such statements often
lack a sound theoretical basis. The relationship between a teacher's reflective skills
and the quality of his or her teaching has to be explored in more depth (Kennedy,
1990, p. 850; Wubbels & Korthagen, 1990, p. 29). Thus we may conclude that until
now reflection is a concept which is simply too big, to vague and too general for
everyday application (the Goldilocks Principle, Katz & Raths, 1985). Analyses of
the concept of reflection in relation to underlying views on good teaching might
help to ward off this danger. What is needed are coherent theories in which
this relationship is made explicit; in this way the theories can be tested, and
prescriptive statements developed which do have an adequate empirical basis.
The aim of the present article is to contribute a number of building blocks for
the construction of such a theory, by answering (in Section 4) the question: What
are the critical attributes which distinguish reflective teachers from their col-
leagues? We will draw on empirical material gathered in ten years of research
focusing on a teacher education program that seeks to promote reflective teaching.
The designs of these studies are summarized in Section 3. It will be clear from the
preceding remarks that we must first address the other two questions (1 and 2) in
relation to this teacher education program (Section 2). Thus in attempting to
define guidelines which will enable us to recognize a reflective teacher, we will
confine ourselves to the kind of reflective teacher which this particular education
program aims to produce. During our research we also found some indications
that certain teacher characteristics are correlated to reflective capacities and
attitudes, and a number of these will be described in Section 5. In Section 6 we
present additional comments about the reported research.
2. A Program for the Preparation of Reflective Teachers

We can start to develop a theory on reflection, as referred to in Section 1, by
making use of promising research spots, such as institutions for teacher education
where the promotion of reflective teaching is considered an important aim.
Between 1971 and 1988 there was one such spot in Utrecht, in the Netherlands. It
was the mathematics department of a teacher education college called the SOL,
where a program for the preparation of secondary school mathematics teachers
had been developed, in which the promotion of reflective teaching was a basic
goal. It was a 4 ½-year program where student teachers selected a second subject,
in addition to mathematics. A total of 1 year, distributed over the 4 ½-year period,
was devoted to the professional preparation.
We have reconstructed the views of the staff of the mathematics department
(which during the period in question consisted of 10-13 teacher educators),
focusing on secondary education (mathematics) and teacher education. For pur-
poses of this reconstruction we made use of document analysis (there were a great
many formal and informal papers available, written by staff members), and
interviews with members of staff. A verification of this reconstruction was carried
out by means of a study among graduates of the SOL program, who were asked
to give the characteristics of their preparation program (Korthagen, 1982). More-
over, the reconstruction of the views of the staff was translated into a question-
naire consisting of 46 statements, which were scored by the teacher educators on
a five-point scale. These checks resulted in a confirmation of the conclusions
which had been drawn (Korthagen, 1988).
The result of the reconstruction is described in Korthagen (1982, 1985). The
promotion of reflection appeared to be a basic principle underlying the SOL
program. To clarify which conception of reflection is meant here, we have
summarized the answers to the first two questions posed in Section 1, i.e. what
was the view of the staff on 'good teaching', and what role does reflection play in
that view?
2.1. What is Good Teaching?

The reply given by the individual members of the staff to this question was
strongly influenced by the context of Dutch secondary school mathematics edu-
cation, which in the seventies saw a surge in the direction of realistic mathematics
education. This entails the use of problems and real-world contexts. The student
is taught to translate reality into a mathematical model, to apply mathematical
techniques within that model, and then to translate the mathematical solution into
the best possible solution in the real world. The student is required to analyze, to
distinguish between matters of major and minor importance, to structure, to
combine theory and practice, and to devise creative alternative solutions and
methods of problem-solving. Collaborative learning and metacognitive strategies
are of prime importance here, and are given explicit consideration (for more
details of this development towards realistic mathematics education, see Freuden-
thal, 1991; Treffers, 1987).
This process-oriented view of mathematics education was not without its
influence on the thinking of the teacher educators in the mathematics department
of the SOL. In retrospect, we can say that their outlook was characterized by the
following views:
1. Good education is learning-oriented: it focuses on the learning process of the

student; the teacher is the facilitator of that process.
2. One of the main tasks of the teacher is to present real and concrete problems
which the student then approaches by means of analysis, structuring and the
testing of alternative solutions.
3. Education should devote considerable attention to problem-solving, collaborative
learning, metacognitive strategies and learning how to learn.
4. The ultimate goal of good teaching is the promotion of conscious and strategic
learning and problem-solving.
5. The relationship between the teacher and the student is a helping and
cooperative relationship in which the teacher offers a climate of security and

challenge, and only as much structure as each individual student needs.
6. The process towards more independent learning by the student requires a
strategy of gradualness in which the student is given more and more responsi-
bility for the learning process.
7. Teachers should be capable of committing themselves purposefully, con-
sciously, and methodologically as an instrument in the teaching and learning
situation.
8. Teachers should themselves be able to deal with mathematics in a conscious and
systematic manner.
9. Teachers should be able to analyze and develop their interpersonal relationships
with the students, with a view to attaining the ideal helping and cooperative
relationship.
10. Teachers should be conscious of their own strong and weak points, and direct
their own development in the direction of the nine principles formulated above.
2.2. The Role and Nature of Reflection

It will be clear from the 10 principles above that the fostering of an inquiry-ori-
ented attitude and the promotion of the ability to analyze, to structure and to
devise creative solutions were among the basic educational goals both for students
in mathematics classrooms in secondary education, and for prospective teachers.
As regards the student teachers, these goals were pursued not only in the
mathematics component, but also in the professional preparation component of
the program. The aim was to produce student teachers who would ultimately be
capable of independently tracing a process consisting of the following phases
(Korthagen, 1985):
1. Action: confrontation with a concrete situation which requires action.
2. Looking at or looking back on the situation (analysis).
3. Awareness of essential aspects.
4. Creation of alternative solutions or methods of action.
5. Trial.
Phase 5 also forms the first phase of a new cycle. This is a spiral model, known as
the ALACT model (after the initial letters of the five phases). The process described
by means of this model may be seen as the SOL conception of the process of
reflection. The crux of this process lies in phase 3, where a mental structure is
formed, or an existing mental structure altered. In our reconstruction of the SOL
concept, we have therefore opted for the following definition of reflection:
reflection is the mental process of structuring or restructuring an experience, a problem
or existing knowledge or insights (Wubbels & Korthagen, 1990).
Thus in the view of the SOL teacher educators, reflective teachers have the
capacity to tracing the ALACT cycle for all aspects of the teaching and learning
situation, but focusing on reflection on mathematical situations, interpersonal
relationships in the classroom, and their own functioning as a teacher. During the
preparation program student teachers should develop a reflective attitude, thus

fostering a capacity to direct their own professional development.
The contents of the SOL program put special emphasis on learning to act in, and
reflect on countless different situations, either independently or in collaboration
with others. Thus students were confronted with a great many teaching situations,
cooperative assignments, and interpersonal problems, as well as mathematically
oriented problems.
3. Four Studies Focusing on a Reflective Teacher Education Program

We carried out four research studies within the framework of the SOL program
described above. These will be discussed in brief in the present section.
Study 1
The first study (1982) was set up as an initial overall evaluation of the program.
I consisted of a written survey of 116 graduates of the SOL and 13 student teachers
on the point of graduating, supplemented by interviews with 10 of them. The
most important questions in the questionnaire were:
(1) What have you learned during your teacher education?
(2) What do think was missing from your teacher education?
(For details of this study, see Korthagen, 1982, 1985.)
There emerged from this study a distinction between preferences for two
different ways of learning. Internally oriented practitioners want to use their own
knowledge and values to structure problems and experiences themselves. Externally
oriented practitioners ask for guidelines and structuring from outside (from the
teacher educators, for example). On the basis of the definition in Section 2,
internally oriented practitioners might be termed reflective practitioners.
Study 2
The phenomenon of internally and externally oriented student teachers prompted
our decision to carry out a second study, this time with a longitudinal design. This
study was initiated in 1984, and has been continued. We followed a group of 18
students during their teacher preparation, using questionnaires, interviews and
video recordings of supervisory conferences. In addition, we regularly inter-
viewed their teacher educators and asked them to fill out questionnaires about the
student teachers (for details of this study, see Korthagen & Verkuyl, 1987;
Korthagen, 1988). This study again brought to light a difference between intern-
ally and externally oriented student teachers. To illustrate this difference we will
give some examples of statements by respondents, taken from studies 1 and 2.
The respondents with an internal learning orientation made the following
statements, when asked what they had learned during their training:
—I have learned to reflect on my teaching. I think this is important because I think

it can be helpful when I am teaching on my own. How can I correct myself?
What did I do well? What did I do wrong? Why? I think that the ability to do
this can be important in difficult classroom situations.
—I have learned to learn, as best I can, from my experiences.
—I have learned to look at my mistakes and to improve myself.
—I have discovered that it helps, and that it is necessary to keep asking myself
why I do things in a certain way.
—I have learned to evaluate myself.
—I think the most important thing I've learned is to look at myself, to solve
problems myself, or at least to work out the first steps toward solving a
problem.
—I have learned to act self-reflectively, to regularly look back on the way in which
I function as a teacher, and to attach to these actions both conclusions and
guidelines for the future.

—Externally oriented respondents made the following statements on the SOL
program:
—There are too many things you have to find out for yourself.
—It should be clearer what you are supposed to learn, when something is good
enough, what is right and what is wrong.
—Those teachers are always asking questions.
—You have to keep telling them what your opinion is, and what you are thinking
or feeling.
—Too much has to come from the group, and there is not enough explanation.
—There is no structure.
—I would rather have had a course with the ordinary things you come across
every day, like refusing to work, cribbing, and cutting classes.
—How do you deal with situations that have to do with a lack of motivation on
the part of the students?
The longitudinal study showed that after one and a half years most of the
externally oriented student teachers in the research group of 18 had left the SOL
program. Although this was often due to poor results in mathematics, the fact that
the structure they desired was lacking appeared to be a major motive for the
decision to drop out (Korthagen, 1988). Of the 18 student teachers in the group, 8
gave up their studies before the end of the second year. We continued the
longitudinal study with the remaining 10 student teachers.
Study 3: the IEO test

After distinguishing between internally and externally oriented student teachers,
we then devised a questionnaire for measuring these learning orientations
of teachers and prospective teachers. It was known as the IEO test for internal/-
external orientation (Korthagen, 1988, 1993b). There are two versions of this test:
one designed for student teachers in the initial stage of the preparation program,
and the other intended for teachers or student teachers who have already done
some classroom teaching. Version 1 consists of six subscales, concerned with
internal and external learning orientations in the following domains: (1) the
prospective teacher himself; (2) the fellow students; and (3) the subject matter in
the program (mathematics) (see Korthagen & Verkuyl, 1987 for more information
about the choice of these domains). We recall the fact that reflection on these
domains was emphasized in the initial stages of the SOL program. Version 2 of the
IEO test (for teachers or student teachers with teaching experience) consists of
eight subscales, namely two scales (for the degree of internal orientation and the
degree of external orientation) for each of the following domains: (1) the prospec-
tive teacher himself; (2) the pupils in the school; (3) the subject matter at school
(mathematics); and (4) the school context. In both versions of the IEO test items
are scored on a five-point scale (ranging from 'strong disagreement' to 'strong
agreement'). We used version 1 of the IEO test (for students in the initial stages
of their preparation program) to determine how the degree to which prospective

teachers are internally or externally oriented in the domains 'self', 'fellow stu-
dents' and 'mathematics' is correlated to the variables age, previous schooling,
and gender. For this purpose the test was administered to 138 students in three
different colleges for teacher education (Korthagen, 1993b).
Study 4: a comparison of the effects of two teacher education programs

Finally, a fourth study was carried out in which graduates of the SOL program
were compared with graduates of another program, which was more subject-mat-
ter oriented (Wubbels & Korthagen, 1990). The graduates of the SOL program
(n = 37) and of the other program (n = 36) had been teaching between 1 and 10
years. They were compared on the basis of reflective attitude, using the IEO test
(the internal scales of the version for teachers), their inclination towards inno-
vation, their job satisfaction (both of these measured by means of a teacher
questionnaire), the quality of the interpersonal relationships with the students
in their classes as measured through student perceptions, and the adequacy of
the teachers' perceptions of these relationships as measured by determining
the difference between the students' and the teacher's perception of those
relationships.
Although none of the four studies was explicitly designed to answer the
question of how to recognize a reflective practitioner, each of them provides some
information on the subject. First, they brought to light several critical attributes of
reflective student teachers. These attributes are, in our opinion, generic character-
istics of reflective student teachers. They are the operationalization of the process
described in the definition of reflection given in Section 2. We assume that these
attributes hold true not only for student teachers, but also for teachers actually
involved in professional teaching, but this extrapolation will require further study.
These 'critical attributes' are presented in Section 4. Second, it appears from out
data that student teachers who possess these critical attributes to a high degree
differ in other ways from their less reflective colleagues. These features are not
characteristic of the process of reflection, but may accompany the critical
attributes. We refer to them as correlates. These correlates will be discussed in
Section 5. We emphasize that both the attributes and the correlates were
the results of rather small-scale studies. Therefore they should be regarded as
hypotheses for follow-up studies.
4. Critical Attributes of Reflective Student Teachers

We selected two student teachers from the longitudinal study (study 2) who in
comparison with the others made the greatest number of statements which, on the
basis of our definition of reflection (Section 2), displayed the major attribute of a
'reflector':
Attribute 1. The reflective student teacher is capable of structuring situations and

problems, and considers it important to do so
We coded these reflectors as Rl and R2. They completed the course of training,
finishing in less than 5 years. We will illustrate this attribute by means of several
of their statements during the interviews.
Interviewer (in the second year): Do you consider the process of reflecting on
yourself just as important as the teacher educators here?
Rl: Yes, I do think it's important. Later, when you're teaching, it doesn't make
any difference how much math you know, if you can't keep order in the
classroom. To do that it's important to learn how to stop and think: why did
things go wrong, and what did I do that I could have done differently? That's
why I think it's so important to stop and think about yourself.
During an interview at the end of the course the same student teacher said:
During a lesson you just react to the situation, do whatever occurs to you.
Later, thinking back, I want to work it out for myself. Not just ask someone
else's opinion. I feel sort of like, well, I could have figured that out for myself,
and then I don't like hearing it from someone else. Or else later you think,
what I really meant was such and such, because he didn't understand why I
reacted the way I did. Once I've got it all clear in my head, then I wouldn't
mind hearing it from someone else, if they were there at the time. And if I
have an idea about what went wrong, but I'm still not sure, then I'd like to
hear what a more experienced person has to say. So first I need to be clear in
my own mind what happened, and decide whether I'm satisfied with the way
I reacted, and after that I'll listen to what someone else has to say about it.
Interviewer: Suppose you've just finished a lesson that didn't go too well. What do
you do afterwards?
R2: I try to figure out for myself why things went wrong. By thinking back, trying
to remember what went wrong, what I did, what I was trying to do. What
was all right, what wasn't. I try to find a solution—I'm so sure of myself that
I think I can! If it were during my student teaching period, and I couldn't
figure things our for myself, then in the end I'd ask for help. I know, because
during the student teaching period I really had problems when I was teaching
Dutch. First I spent a week mulling it all over in my mind, trying to decide
what to do. Finally I went to see the cooperating teacher. I know I tend to be
too selfconfident, always thinking I can figure things out for myself.
From the group of 10 student teachers who continued their studies we selected
one individual whom we considered less reflective. The view of this student
(coded as L) was quite different:
Interviewer (a year and a half into the course): As I understand it, the teacher
educators want you to reflect on yourself.
L: In what way?
Interviewer: By thinking about on your own functioning, how you work on math,
the relationship with you fellow students, with your pupils. Does that sound
familiar to you?
L: Oh, you mean what was on the questionnaire? No, I never really noticed.
Interviewer: (at the end of four and a half years): Suppose that during a field
experience you had a class that didn't go well. What would you do afterwards?
L: I'd talk about it with other student teachers. Ask about other ways of dealing
with the problem.
It will be clear from the above statements by the student teachers Rl, R2 and L
how, in selecting the reflectors, we operationalized the characteristic 'structuring
the situation yourself. We verified our choice of these three student teachers by
having an independent researcher evaluate all 10 student teachers on the basis of
the interviews. She was asked to rate the degree of internal orientation in the
domains 'oneself, 'fellow students' and 'mathematics' for every student teacher
on a five-point scale. The two reflectors whom we selected had the highest total
scores (Rl: 13, and R2: 14). The lowest score (10) was registered by three
individuals, among them the student teacher L, whom we had selected.
A second check was performed by calculating the mean of all the scores on the
internal scales from the IEO test that had been administered every year during the
longitudinal study. Table I gives the scores for the 10 student teachers. The
respondents selected on the basis of high reflectivity rank 1 and 3 respectively,
while the less reflective student teacher whom we interviewed recorded the
lowest score. These results reinforced our confidence in the previous labeling of
Rl and R2 as highly reflective and L as a less reflective student.
The excerpts from the interviews with Rl and R2 reveal another characteristic
of the reflectors which is familiar to us from our own experience as teacher
educators:
TABLE I. Mean of all the scores recorded on the internal scales of the IEO test by 10
student teachers during the longitudinal study
Students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 mean
Rl R2 L
Mean reflection score 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.5
Attribute 2. The reflective student teacher uses certain standard questions when
structuring experiences
Structuring always takes place from a certain perspective. This perspective is
translated into one or more questions: what happened, why did it happen, what
did I do wrong, what could I have done differently, etc. We believe that it is
important that during their training student teachers are taught to deal with such
questions. The specific questions selected for such training will reflect the educa-
tional views in which the course is rooted (cf. Section 1). Thus in the SOL program
a great deal of attention was given to the way the teacher's actions during the
lesson influence the interpersonal relationship with the students.
Attribute 3. The reflective student teacher can easily answer the question of what he or she
wants to learn
The structuring of experiences and situations can also be directed towards one's
own learning process. We found that this manifests itself most clearly in the fact
that reflectors are less dependent on the teacher educators when it comes to
choosing learning goals. A few examples from the interviews follow here:
Rl: ... like during the first short field experiences. You become aware of certain
problems, you start to think of certain things as important, and that's when
you're able to say: that's what I want to learn. I like the structure they use in
the mathematics department, where you start off with little things, and later
on you're able to formulate real learning goals, and to start working on them.
Interviewer: Can you decide for yourself how you want to learn something? Or do
you need a teacher educator to provide suggestions?
Rl: I'd prefer to figure our for myself what I want to learn, and decide how I want
to learn it, because you know better than anyone else what the best way of
learning is for you. I would read something on the subject, try out a few
things myself, not too much at first. No, I don't think I really need a teacher
educator to help me. If a teacher were to offer unsolicited advice, I'm not sure
whether I would appreciate it. No, I don't think I would.
Interviewer: If you look at your own development as a teacher, and then consider
the future, what would you like to learn, or learn to do better?
R2: Classroom work could be more structured, more under control. Sometimes I
get the impression that I don't have everything in my grasp. I know what's
going on in class, at least for 20 of the 30 pupils, but the other
10 . . . Sometimes they escape me, and I want to get hold of them too (. . . .)
And devote more attention to a quiet atmosphere in the classroom. I try to do
that by speaking directly to individuals wherever I can. Asking a group at the
back of the class that's getting a bit noisy to come to the front, and talking to
them there, instead of reprimanding them by raising my voice. Or separating
groups, usually boys and girls who are just beginning to get interested in each
other. At that age, that always leads to whispering, clowning, and a lot of
noise.
By way of contrast, here is an excerpt from an interview with the less reflective
student teacher (during the last stages of the preparation program):
Interviewer: Would you know an answer if I asked you: what do you want to
learn?
L: I guess I'd like to learn more in practical situations.
Interviewer: Is it a difficult question for you?
L: Yes, it is a difficult question. Maybe later, after I've done some teaching, there
will be situations that I find difficult. But I'll manage. I have no idea what else
I should learn. I just have to get on with the work.
Attribute 4. The reflective student teacher can adequately describe and analyze his or her
own functioning in the interpersonal relationships with others
Of the various possible objects of reflection, the SOL program focused on the
student teacher's own performance in the interpersonal relationships with others
(in particular pupils and fellow teachers). According to the SOL view, good
teachers are able to analyze their performance in the interpersonal relationship
with others (see Section 2, principle 9). Thus they reflect in particular on interper-
sonal relationships. Such concerns are not usually apparent until a later stage in
the professional development (Fuller & Brown, 1975). This was confirmed by the
results of our longitudinal study (study 2), which showed that attention shifted
from 'concerns about survival', to 'teaching situation concerns', and 'concerns
about the pupils'. Attribute 4 was apparent from Study 1, where reflective
graduates voiced such views as:
—During my training I have examined, often in depth, my own performance. I
have decided for myself exactly how I help others. I have taught myself to
develop, and learned to think about myself with respect to certain theoretical
frameworks, in relation to myself as well as to others. This ability is quite well
developed, and it is of great help to me as a starting teacher.
—At the SOL I learned to look at myself, to see what effect my behavior has on
the children, and to be consciously involved in the situation of the moment. This
attitude has gradually become second nature to me.
—(On the influence of the program) You gain insight into your own performance,
what you do and don't do in a group, and how others see your actions. This
way I've gained a much clearer picture of myself, and this helps me to
determine my attitude in the class. It also makes itself felt in contacts with
colleagues and the school management.
In study 4 we also collected quantitative data which show that SOL graduates
with more than two years' experience have a more adequate perception of their
own performance in their interpersonal relationships with the pupils than experi-
enced graduates of another, more subject-oriented preparation program (Wubbels
& Korthagen, 1990). In two classes taught by each teacher, the students' percep-
tion of the functioning of the teacher in his relationship with the students was
measured by means of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (the QTI, see

Wubbels & Levy, 1993). The teacher also filled out the QTI for the two classes,
indicating how he perceived his own performance in the glass. For each class of
a particular teacher we calculated the sum of the absolute differences on the eight
scales of the QTI between the average student score in that class and the teacher
score. The averages of these difference scores in the group made up of SOL
graduates, and the group made up of graduates from the other program, were
then compared by means of a t-test. These averages did not differ significantly in
the case of teachers with 1 or 2 years' experience. Among those who graduated
more than 2 years before however, there was a significant difference: the dis-
crepancy between teacher and student perceptions of the teacher-student relation-
ship was significantly smaller in the SOL group than in the control group. The
scores were 3.1 and 3.8 respectively on a five-point scale (t = 2.2, p = 0.02, effect
size about 0.5 standard deviation). We concluded that the teachers who graduated
more than 2 years before from the SOL had a more adequate perception of their
interpersonal relationships with students in the classroom than the teachers in the
control group who also had more than 2 years' experience.
5. Correlates of Reflectivity
In this section we will present a number of characteristics which, on the basis of
the four studies, may be considered correlates of reflectivity. These characteristics
are in some cases the consequences of the critical attributes, and in other cases the
antecedents. They may even be related to the critical attributes in a circular
manner, in that they reinforce the critical attribute and are, in turn, reinforced by
it. The correlates are, however, not a generic aspect of reflection.
Correlate 1. Reflective teachers have better interpersonal relationships with students than
other teachers
According to this correlate, reflective teachers are capable only of adequately
analyzing their interpersonal relationships with students (attribute 4), but also
succeed in making those relationships better.
In study 4 interpersonal relationships of SOL graduates were compared with
graduates of another preparation program (Wubbels & Korthagen, 1990, pp.
36-37). Judging by the students' perceptions, measured by means of the QTI, the
SOL graduates scored higher on all the scales which are positively linked to
cognitive and affective learning outcomes. This was reported in one measure on
which the SOL graduates scored significantly higher than the other graduates
(t = 1.9, p < 0.05, effect size 0.6 standard deviations). This difference was above all
a long-term effect, i.e. the difference was not significant for teachers who had
graduated less than 3 years before.
Correlate 2. Reflective teachers develop a high degree of job satisfaction

The comparative study (study 4) also showed that teachers who graduated from
the SOL 3 or more years before had a significantly higher level of job satisfaction
than teachers in the control group who had likewise graduated 3 or more years
before (3.9 and 3.3 respectively, on a five-point scale, t = 2.4, p < 0.01, effect size
0.6 standard deviations). The difference was not significant for teachers who
graduated less than 3 years before.
We propose the following theoretical explanation for the correlation between
reflectivity and job satisfaction. As Schon says (1983, p. 61), the more routine the
activities of practitioners become, the more acute is the danger that they no longer
think very much about what they are doing. We believe that teachers who get into
this kind of rut will ultimately lapse into patterns of behavior that can no longer
be corrected. This can lead to boredom and burn-out, which can result in a low
level of job satisfaction.
Correlate 3. Reflective student teachers also consider it important for their students to
learn by investigating and structuring things themselves
It would appear that student teachers who consider reflection important for
themselves also stimulate their pupils to reflect. The following statements made
by student teachers involved in the longitudinal study will illustrate this point.
R1: There's one thing that I think is especially good. In class when someone has
a question, you don't just give the answer, or part of the answer. You help
them to think again, or ask another question which will get them on the right
track. That's what I liked about my student teaching. Whenever a question
was asked, I'd think 'Now don't just tell them the answer. Stop and think how
to get them to figure it out for themselves.'
R2: During my field experiences I noticed that if you make your pupils think, they
make much faster progress. Just writing down more examples on the black-
board isn't going to help them much. If you let them work it out for
themselves, it may take twice as long, but the second, third and fourth time
it'll go ten times as fast. And in the end you get much better results. I'm
convinced that it not only works in theory, but in practice too. I do it without
even thinking.
By way of contrast, we will give the views of the less reflective student teacher
recorded during the longitudinal study. In his opinion, the SOL did not put nearly
enough emphasis on group teaching, explaining a point to the class as a whole.
L: It's only when there are problems that he [the teacher educator] gives you a
clue, and even then you have to figure out the rest yourself.
Interviewer: Would you like to teach that way?
L: No, I don't think so.
Correlate 4. Reflective student teachers have previously been encouraged to structure their
experiences, problems, etc.
This may indicate that the person in question has been through a difficult period
in his or her life, or has for example been confronted with powerful cultural
differences. This correlate was suggested by the words of a very reflective
graduate of the SOL program whom we interviewed in study 1. Talking about the
extreme stress he had experienced as a starting teacher, he said:
And yet it's difficult to prepare yourself for such stress during your
training. If you've never experienced a situation of great stress in your
private life, where it's you against the rest, then you don't have any idea
what it's like.
Similar views were voiced by reflective student teachers in our longitudinal study
(study 2):
Interviewer: Are you the sort of person who reflects on himself?
R2: Well, I was more or less forced to. I was out of work for two years, and then
when I got back in the running ... that sort of makes you stop and think
about yourself.
Interviewer: And how about the subjects?
R2: Yes, especially pedagogy. Like for kids from lower social classes.
Interviewer: Why does that interest you?
R2: Well, I come from a working-class background. My parents are just ordinary
working-class people. I went to a pretty fancy school, and that meant that I
was part of a group that wasn't entirely accepted.
This same sort of personal confrontation with a different cultural background
was recounted by another reflective student teacher:
Rl: Most of the teachers here have a fairly open attitude, but even so they
sometimes make certain comments. I'm a Christian, and people can make
very insulting and hurtful remarks about the Christian faith that are abso-
lutely untrue. They paint a kind of caricature of a group of people, to make
them look ridiculous. Then I just withdraw into a sort of shell. If I had a
problem, I would never go to a teacher like that, because he's destroyed my
confidence in him. And that's a shame, because most of the time I know that
the teacher is really OK, he just doesn't know what he's doing to other people.
For purposes of comparison, we also present the view of the less reflective
teacher from the longitudinal study:
Interviewer: Strange, isn't it, that you weren't that increased in the reflection
practicum in your first year?
L: That's probably because of the way things were at home. We never talked
much, and you certainly didn't put forward any opinions. And when you get
here, and all of a sudden people start expecting you to have opinions of your
own, then it's really hard. The first year it just didn't work; I dreaded all those
discussions. Very gradually things have improved, and I've managed to
change the way I feel.
Thus it is important for teacher educators who aim to promote reflection to
realize that in many cases reflective practitioners in our studies seemed to be
already reflective before they started their training. As we concluded earlier
(Korthagen, 1985), a preparation program aiming at the promotion of reflection
would seem to be most beneficial to those student teachers who are already
somewhat reflective . . .
Correlate 5. Reflective student teachers have strong feelings of personal security and
self-efficacy
The relationship between reflection and self-efficacy has a theoretical basis. For,
reflection is a form of meta-cognition, which has been shown to be related to
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; McCombs, 1988). It is well-known from the work of
developmental psychologists that reflection may form a threat to the self-image.
Laying your own performance open to inspection makes you vulnerable, threat-
ens your survival within your own inner reality. Thus for reflection high degree
of self-efficacy is necessary. This is illustrated by the following statements from
the interviews in the longitudinal study:
Rl: In the course of my training I've gradually become more sure of myself. I
don't know whether it has to do with the course or not. I find it much easier
to speak up. In secondary school, if there was something I didn't understand,
I'd go home and try to work it out. I did that the first couple of years here too,
but now I put on the brakes, and just say that I don't understand. Three out
of four times you discover that you weren't concentrating, or that it was some
minor point that you missed. But sometimes it's a good thing you put on the
brakes, because there are a lot of others who don't understand either, or
because I missed a couple of essential steps. I'm not hesitant about doing that
any more. I think that the same thing is true in classroom situations. Your first
student teaching period, you're explaining something and you think, let it go
for now, and check again in a couple of minutes. But now if you've explaining
something, you say 'Jane, would you mind putting that diary away for now?'
and just go on talking. You look to see if they do it, and if necessary you tell
them a second time. Whereas in the beginning you'd just let it go.
R2: I think being articulate and sure of yourself are closely related. These are
things that I still think about, that are a kind of leitmotiv running through my
training. I try to go through things systematically, and I feel sure of myself
when I'm able to put something into words. I know that I'll learn how to do
it in the end, but now I'm starting to grasp certain things, so that the pieces
are starting to fall into place.

For purposes of comparison, here is the story of our less reflective student
teacher:
L: I often feel as if I don't really have anything to contribute. When I start to say
something I think, no, that's not really important. And then later when
someone else says the same thing, it gets used after all. A lot of the time
there's a thought circling around in my head, but I just can't get it out. (...)
In the group I found it very difficult to talk, especially about myself. I'd
start to perspire, and I hated it. It's still not easy for me, but it's a lot better
now. It's as if they expect it of you; they don't say so, but you can feel it.
Everyone talks about their own feelings, so why shouldn't I?
Correlate 6. Student teachers with teaching experience who have a high degree of
self-efficacy focus in their reflections about their teaching on the students. When they have
a low sense of self-efficacy they focus on the self
An analysis of the quantitative data suggests that when the prospective teachers
have teaching experience, the relationship between reflection and self-efficacy is
somewhat more complicated. For more experienced student teachers there seems
to be a link between self-efficacy and the object of reflection. Student teachers who
emphasize their own functioning when they reflect about their teaching, have a
relatively low sense of self-efficacy. If they emphasize the students in their
reflections, they have a relatively high sense of self-efficacy. This hypothesis about
the relationship between reflectivity and self-efficacy is based on the results of
both the longitudinal study and the comparison study, which are presented in
Table II.
There appear to be consistently positive correlations between the degree of
self-efficacy and the internal scale 'pupils' of the IEO test. For the internal scale
'self of the IEO, these correlations are usually negative. These findings are in line
with results found by Ashton et al. (1989). For the other domains (mathematics,
TABLE II. Correlations between the self-efficacy scalea and the internal scales of the
IEO test for the domains 'self and 'students'
Longitudinal study
'Comparison study' 3rd year 5th year

Self Students Self Students Self Students
Self-efficacy -0.04 0.31** -0.75* 0.14 -0.37 0.57

n = 72 n = 10 n = 10
*p < 0.05, **p< 0.01.

a
Self-efficacy was measured with an adaptation by Brekelmans (1989) of a
questionnaire of Cloetta & Hedinger (1981).
school, etc.) the correlations are near zero. These results would seem to make
sense, as high concerns for the self can indicate a lower quality of interpersonal
relationships in the classroom, and thus a lower sense of efficacy. If these
interpersonal relationships are positive, then teachers can allow themselves to
reflect more on their students.
Correlate 7. Reflective student teachers appear to talk or write relatively easily about their
experiences
The reflective teachers and student teachers in our studies appeared to talk and
write easily. In the longitudinal study (study 2), the answers of the two reflectors
(Rl and R2) to the open questions in the interviews were approximately twice as
long as those of the less reflective student teacher, who said that he had never
been much of a talker (see his statements under correlate 5). In the comparative
study (Study 4) we asked graduates of the SOL program and of another program
to mention a number of characteristics of their preparation program. Graduates of
the SOL program gave twice as many characteristics (on average 4.6) as did the
graduates from the control group (on average 2.3).
6. A Few Comments
In the present section, we first mention some relationships between reflectivity
and other variables which we expected, but for which we have not obtained
confirmation. We also discuss the validity of the IEO test. Finally we will examine
differences between practitioners who are at different stages of their career.
6.1. Age
In study 3 we found no strong correlations between age and reflectivity for the
domains 'self and 'mathematics', as we had expected on the basis of indications
in study 1. There was a negative correlation, however, between age and the
internal orientation regarding fellow students (r = — 0.29, p < 0.01). Thus older
student teachers are somewhat less inclined to reflect on their fellow students and
their relationships with them.
6.2. Previous Schooling

On the basis of the results of study 1, we had hypothesized to find that student
teachers who had a higher level of schooling were more reflective. In study 3,
however, this relationship could only be demonstrated for reflection on math-
ematics. An ANCOVA with previous schooling as factor and age as a covariate
showed a significant main effect of the factor previous schooling on the scale
'external orientation regarding mathematics' (df= 4, F = 2.93, p < 0.02). When the
student teachers' level of previous schooling is high, then they are slightly less
externally oriented in the domain mathematics.
6.3. Inclination Towards Innovation

In our comparative study we found no indication of a link between reflectivity
and inclination towards innovation, as we had expected. Such a link has been
suggested by Zeichner (1983, p. 6), and Zeichner & Liston (1987). It is possible that
the difference between the operationalization of the concept of reflection in the
SOL program, and that in the Wisconsin program have resulted in fundamental
differences. In any case, we know of no empirical results that show that the
Wisconsin operationalization of reflection is correlated with an inclination to-
wards innovation.
6.4. The IEO Test

It must be observed that in our comparative study (study 4), we were not able to
demonstrate that SOL graduates score significantly higher on the internal scales of
the IEO test than the graduates in the control group. On the other hand, we have
many other indications that SOL graduates are indeed more reflective (Wubbels &
Korthagen, 1990, p. 41). We believe that the present form of the IEO test is not as
adequate as we would like it to be. To begin with, the IEO test suffers from the
familiar drawback of many attitude tests, namely, that respondents are asked to
indicate how often or in what way they usually do something. Obviously, this
does not have to agree with what they actually do. Moreover, it is conceivable that
distortion occurs when respondents are influenced by a comparison of their own
reflective orientation with a norm which says how reflective they ought to be. That
norm is no doubt influenced by the teacher education program, and such
influence may affect one student more than another. Moreover, we feel that, since
the construction of the IEO test, we have gained more insight into the concept of
reflection. Our present conceptualization of reflection has not yet been completely
operationalized in the versions of the test which we used so far.
For these reasons we believe that the results recorded for study 3 should
be interpreted with some caution. The same holds true for the attributes and
correlates: further research is needed before we can speak of firm conclusions.
6.5. Reflectivity and the Reality Shock

Finally, we believe that the view of reflection as a purely rational process is too
limited. Emotions and attitudes play a crucial role (cf. correlates 5 and 6). We are
convinced that the stimulus to engage in reflection is almost always rooted in a
need to get a better grasp of the situation. However, when fear of the situation
becomes too great, as often happens during the 'transition shock' (Muller-
Fohrbrodt et al., 1978; Corcoran, 1981), reflection may disappear altogether. One of
the graduates whom we interviewed in the course of Study 1 put it like this:
It is as if the capacity for reflection is pushed away when you're

confronted with an accumulation of conflicts. You feel empty. I no longer

had any point of reference.
Our longitudinal study of the development of student teachers in the SOL

program also provided indications of a relapse, a lessening of the ability to reflect,
when an individual actually enters the teaching profession. And yet in studies 1
and 2 we found indications that the capacity for reflection returns after about a
year. This would seem to point to the existence of a kind of latency period. The
comparative study (study 4) confirmed this. It appears that at the beginning of
their professional career there were almost no differences between the graduates
of the SOL program and those of the program which was more oriented toward
subject matter. After a few years, however, the SOL graduates have a more
adequate self-perception (attribute 4), better interpersonal relationships with their
students (correlate 1), and a higher degree of job satisfaction (correlate 2). All in
all, there is sufficient reason for researchers in the field of reflective teaching
to distinguish between student teachers, teachers in the initial stages of their
teaching career, and experienced teachers.
7. Concluding Remark
This article offers a number of initial building blocks for a theory in which
empirically based relationships are established between a definition of reflection,
characteristics of reflective practitioners and principles of good teaching. These
building blocks have arisen from the definition of reflection for which we have
opted. However, no small amount of empirical research will be required to
establish a sound theoretical basis for teacher education based on the aim of
promoting reflection. We believe that also for other approaches of the concept of
reflection a great deal of empirical research will be needed if we are to leave
behind the realm of vague notions and beliefs about the benefits of reflective
teaching and the effects of programs designed to promote it.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Petra van de Broek, Rob Houwen and Hildelien Verkuyl
for their contributions to this article.
Correspoindence: Fred A. J. Korthagen and Theo Wubbels, IVLOS Institute of

Education, Utrecht University, PO Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tel: (030) 532194; Fax: (030) 532741; Email: f.kort5hagen@ivlos.ruu.nl.
References
ASHTON, P., COMAS, J & Ross, D. (1989) Examining the relationship between perceptions of
efficacy and reflection, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.
BANDURA, A. (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, American Psychologist, 33, pp.
344-358.
BREKELMANS, M. (1989) Interpersoonlijk Gedrag van Docenten in de Klas. (Utrecht, WCC).
CALDERHEAD, J. (1989) Reflective teaching and teacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education,
5, pp. 43-51.
CARR, W. & KEMMIS, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research (London,
Falmer Press).
CLOETTA, B. & HEDINGER, U.K. (1981) Die Berufssituation junger Lehrer (Bern, Haupt).
CORCORAN, E. (1981) Transition shock: the beginning teachers's paradox, Journal of Teacher
Education, 32(3), pp. 19-23.
CRUICKSHANK, D. R., HOLTON, J., FAY, D., WILLIAMS, J., KENNEDY, J., MYERS, B. & HOUGH, J. (1981)
Reflective Teaching (Bloomington, IN, Phi Delta Kappa).
FREUDENTHAL, H. (1991) Revisiting Mathematics Education (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
FULLER, F. F. & BOWN, O. H. (1975) Becoming a teacher, in: K. RYAN (Ed.) Teacher Education, the
Seventy-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago, University
of Chicago Press).
GORE, J. M. (1987) Reflecting on reflective teaching, Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2), pp. 33-39.
HOY, W. H. & WOOLFOLK, A. E. (1989) Supervising student teachers, in: A. E. WOOLFOLK, (Ed.)
Research Perspectives on the Graduate Preparation of Teachers, pp. 108-131 (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, Prentice Hall).
KATZ, L. & RATHS, J. D. (1985) A framework for research on teacher education programs, Journal
of Teacher Education, 36(6), pp. 9-15.
KENNEDY, M. M. (1990) Choosing a goal for professional education, in: W. R. HOUSTON (Ed.)
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, pp. 813-857 (New York, Macmillan).
KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1982) Leren Reflecteren ah Basis voor de Lerarenopleiding ('s-Gravenhage,
Stichting voor Onderzoek van het Onderwijs).
KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1985) Reflective teaching and pre-service teacher education in the
Netherlands, Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), pp. 11-15.
KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1987) Intern en extern gestuurd leren in de opleiding van onderwijs-
gevenden, in: J. J. PETERS & H. H. TILLEMA (Eds) Scholing in Onderwijs en Bedrijf pp. 23-34
(Lisse, Swets en Zeitlinger).
KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1988) The influence of learning orientations on the development of
reflective teaching, in: J. CALDERHEAD (Ed.) Teachers' Professional Learning, pp. 35-50
(London, Falmer Press).
KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1993a) The role of reflection in teachers' professional development, in: L.
KREMER-HAYON, H. C. VONK & R. FESSLER (Eds) Teacher Professional Development: a multiple
perspective approach, pp. 133-145 (Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger).
KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1993b) Measuring the reflective attitude of prospective mathematics

teachers in the Netherlands, European Journal of Teacher Education, 16, pp. 225-236.
KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. & VERKUYL, H. S. (1987) Supply and demand: towards differentiation in
teacher education, based on differences in learning orientations, paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
MCCOMBS, B. L. (1988) Motivational Skills Training: Combining metacognitive, cognitive and
affective learning strategies, in: C. E. WEINSTEIN, E. T. GOETZ & P. A. ALEXANDER (Eds)
Learning and Study Strategies, Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation, pp. 141-169.
(San Diego, Academic Press).
MÜLLER-FOHRBKODT, G., CLOETTA, B. & DANN, H. D. (1978) Der Praxisschock bei jungen Lehrer
(Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta).
Ross, D. D. (1987) Teaching teacher effectiveness research to students: first steps in developing
a reflective approach to teaching, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
SCHON, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action (New York, Basic
Books).
SCHON, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

TOM, A. (1985) Inquiring into inquiry-oriented teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education,
36(5), pp. 35-44.
TREFFERS, A. (1987) Three Dimensions (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
WUBBELS, TH. & KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1990) The effects of a preservice teacher education program
for the preparation of reflective teachers, Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(1), pp. 29-43.
WUBBELS, TH. & LEVY, J. (1993) Do You Know What You Look Like? (London, Falmer Press).
WUBBELS, TH., KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. & BROEKMAN, H. (1991) Pedagogical content knowledge in
secondary mathematics teacher education: characteristics and strategies for change, paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
ZEICHNER, K. M. (1983) Alternative paradigms of teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education,
34(3), pp. 3-9.
ZEICHNER, K. M. & LISTON, D. P. (1987) Teaching student teachers to reflect, Harvard Educational
Review, 57, pp. 23-48.

Characteristics of Reflective Practitioners-Korthagen1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characteristics of Reflective Practitioners-Korthagen1995

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characteristics of Reflective Practitioners-Korthagen1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Purdue University]

On: 05 July 2013, At: 05:25

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060950010105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Characteristics of Reflective Practitioners:

ABSTRACT This article reports about a research project on reflective teaching in a

1354-0602/95/010051-22 © 1995 Journals Oxford Ltd

others are less explicit. We will look at several examples.

2. A Program for the Preparation of Reflective Teachers

2.1. What is Good Teaching?

1. Good education is learning-oriented: it focuses on the learning process of the

cooperative relationship in which the teacher offers a climate of security and

2.2. The Role and Nature of Reflection

preparation program student teachers should develop a reflective attitude, thus

3. Four Studies Focusing on a Reflective Teacher Education Program

—I have learned to reflect on my teaching. I think this is important because I think

guidelines for the future.

Study 3: the IEO test

of their preparation program) to determine how the degree to which prospective

Study 4: a comparison of the effects of two teacher education programs

4. Critical Attributes of Reflective Student Teachers

Attribute 1. The reflective student teacher is capable of structuring situations and

measured by means of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (the QTI, see

Correlate 2. Reflective teachers develop a high degree of job satisfaction

are starting to fall into place.

'Comparison study' 3rd year 5th year

Self-efficacy -0.04 0.31** -0.75* 0.14 -0.37 0.57

*p < 0.05, **p< 0.01.

6.2. Previous Schooling

6.3. Inclination Towards Innovation

6.4. The IEO Test

6.5. Reflectivity and the Reality Shock

It is as if the capacity for reflection is pushed away when you're

confronted with an accumulation of conflicts. You feel empty. I no longer

Our longitudinal study of the development of student teachers in the SOL

Correspoindence: Fred A. J. Korthagen and Theo Wubbels, IVLOS Institute of

KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1993b) Measuring the reflective attitude of prospective mathematics

SCHON, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.