Conference Agenda

Reflection and/or reflexivity are discussed as means to foster processes of professionalization of student teachers in teacher education at university level in various European countries, e.g. for Scotland (Huang, Klein & Beck, 2020), Austria and Germany (Groß Ophoff & Cramer, 2022; Kunze & Reintjes, 2022). The definitions thereby vary because of diverse theories used to describe reflection and/or reflexivity. Some authors also use these terms as synonyms (e.g. Hauser & Wyss, 2021), others not (e.g. Bohnsack, 2017). To support the development of student teachers´ ability to reflect the didactic approach of Inquiry-based learning (Pedaste et al., 2015) has recently enjoyed much popularity in teacher education (e.g. Spernes & Afdal, 2021). It is presumed, that such ability can be gained by passing through a whole research process (Healey, 2005), from developing a research question, identifying and planning an appropriate research approach, collecting data in the context of school, analysing this data by using methodical steps to find answers to the research question, presenting the results in a report and to the schools and/or other stake holders involved. Rethinking such experiences might be the starting point for reflections: on teaching and learning, on school, but also on one’s own learning process and the role of a prospective teacher. Doing so, this might support the process of professionalization, e.g. for developing a reflective, research-based attitude or habitus.

The sparse available evidence on inquiry-based learning in teacher education (Ophuysen et al., 2017) is somewhat sobering and it remains open as to how reflection and/or reflexivity can be fostered by inquiry-based learning in teacher education. Against this backdrop, this symposium considers two questions: (1) whether and under which conditions the described expectations about reflection and/or reflexivity in the context of inquiry-based learning in teacher education can be fulfilled. Furthermore, a methodological question occurs: (2) Which methodological approaches are suitable to investigate reflection and/or reflexivity in the context of inquiry-based learning?

The symposium addresses both questions by bringing together three current research projects in which forms of reflection and reflexivity are analysed by using different methodical approaches. Each paper presents in a first step an overview on the discourse on reflection by inquiry-based learning in teacher education in the respective country having in mind the diversity of teacher education programs across Europe and explaining the underlying understanding of reflection and/or reflexivity. In a second step the relation between using certain research methods and gaining empirical results will be focused. Finally, the papers give an outlook for consequences for further research and teacher education.

By comparing the three papers, commonalities and differences will become evident that might become the starting point of an international discussion on the potentials and limitations of inquiry-based learning to foster reflection and/or reflexivity in teacher education.

The concept of the reflective practitioner is well established, but to move beyond reflection to strategic action can be seen as risky. Engaging in and with research (Cordingley, 2015) through cycles of practitioner enquiry is seen as one way to facilitate this active stance (Hall & Wall, 2019), with the assumption being that the process of asking questions will align with grassroots professional learning (Mintrop et al., 2018). For these reasons practitioner enquiry has become a central feature of initial teacher education (ITE) across Scottish universities (Forde, 2015). While reflective practice and enquiry-based learning have been consistent features of ITE for some time in Scotland (Menter et al., 2010), there is now more of an explicit focus on enquiry as essential to teacher preparation (Donaldson, 2011) following growing awareness of the connection between research-engagement and professionalism. Its role in the ‘professionalisation’ of teachers is further reinforced by the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s (GTCS) Professional Standards (GTCS, 2021), which state that teachers must demonstrate knowledge and understanding of enquiry to meet the standard for provisional registration. While this positioning might suggest unified acceptance of its importance, there is divergence in its conceptualisation (Forde, 2015). Although this might not immediately present as problematic, there is the possibility that it could lead to tensions within practice. These conceptualisations fit broadly into two themes: ‘project’ and ‘stance’ (Wall, 2018). A potential key difference is the role of reflexivity, with it playing a more significant role in the latter. We argue that reflexivity, within a practitioner enquiry frame, is the cumulative, reflective and strategic narrative that connects and overlays cycles of enquiry. This ensures enquiry is embedded across professional learning trajectories with a metacognitive narrative thread that makes the learning explicit (Porthillo & Medhina, 2016). This paper is embedded in a larger project on the knowledge politics of the ‘Teacher-as-Researcher’ in Scotland and explores the extent to which different models of practitioner enquiry might facilitate a reflexive stance. We draw on data collected from three Scottish universities over two phases: 1) document analysis of handbooks from ITE programmes; and 2) semi-structured interviews with teacher educators in those universities. Using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2020) for dataset analysis, we explore the extent to which ‘reflexivity’ is framed as an integral part of enquiry in ITE courses and compare conceptualisations across ITE models.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 328-352. Cordingley, P. (2015). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 234-252. Donaldson, G. (2011). Teaching Scotland’s Future. Scottish Government. Forde, C. (2015). Research and professional practice in Scottish education. In M. Baguley et al. (Eds.), Meanings and Motivation in Education Research (pp. 138-154). Routledge. GTCS (2021). Professional Standards for Teachers. https://www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-standards/professional-standards-for-teachers/ Hall, E., & Wall, K. (2019). Research methods for understanding professional learning. Bloomsbury Academic. Menter, I. et al. (2010). Literature Review of Teacher Education for the Twenty-First Century. Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/publications/literature-review-teacher-education-21st-century/ Mintrop, R. et al. (2018). Teacher evaluation, pay for performance, and learning around instruction: between dissonant incentives and resonant procedures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 3-46. Portilho, E., & Medina, G. (2016). Metacognition as methodology for continuing education of teachers. Creative Education, 7(1) 1-12. Wall, K. (2018). Building a bridge between pedagogy and methodology: Emergent thinking on notions of quality in practitioner enquiry. Scottish Educational Review, 50(2), 3-22.

Reflection ability requires knowing and using adequate terminology, interpreting, and appraising available information, and drawing valid conclusions (Paseka et al., 2021). Due to its conceptual proximity to the understanding of research as knowledge-based problem-solving, and the traditional link between research and teaching in university-based education, inquiry-learning opportunities (ILO; Rueß et al., 2016) are regarded as promising to support student teachers’ reflexivity (Fichten, 2010). This is considered key to teacher professionalization (KMK, 2019), but the assessment of reflection ability, and related to that, the investigation of the proposed benefit of ILO remains a challenge (Wessels et al., 2019). In this presentation, an approach will be presented, in which reflection is operationalized as generic aspect of Educational Research Literacy (ERL), that is the ability to access, comprehend, and reflect research information as well as apply the resulting conclusions to educational decisions (Groß Ophoff et al., 2017). While some evidence for the construct-related validity of this test instrument has been reported already, this contribution aims at investigating criterial validity, that is, whether the number of the seized ILO is of incremental validity for the prediction of teacher training students’ ERL and with it, their reflection ability. Findings from three studies will be reported. In Study 1, 104 German students in the field of education (mainly teacher training) participated during summer semester 2014. However, results indicated an inadequate operational validity of assessing specific ILO. In reference to the ILO taxonomy by Rueß et al. (2016), a compilation of 12 ILO was contrived and used as operationalization in Study 2 and Study 3. Study 2 was conducted online in 2018 (N = 126 education or social sciences students from various German higher education institutions). The new measure proved to incrementally contribute to the variance explanation of ERL: The more ILO were reportedly seized, the more research-proficient, and thereby reflexive study participants turned out to be (β = .08; p < .05). In Study 3 (2018-2021), 298 teacher training students at ten German universities were investigated (paper-surveys). Preliminary results corroborate with the findings from Study 2 (β = .25; p < .05). Even though the results give cause for optimism, cross-institutional intervention studies are needed to clarify whether these effects are not rather an expression of personal traits. In this line of reasoning, as early as 1999 Weinert fundamentally questioned, whether such higher-order thinking skills can be learned at all.

Fichten, W. (2010). Forschendes Lernen in der Lehrerbildung. In U. Eberhardt (ed.), Neue Impulse der Hochschuldidaktik (pp. 127-182). VS. Groß Ophoff, J., Wolf, R., Schladitz, S., & Wirtz, M. (2017). Assessment of Educational Research Literacy in higher education. Construct validation of the factorial structure of an assessment instrument comparing different treatments of omitted responses. JERO, 9(2), 35-66. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In Reshaping the university (pp. 30-42). Open University Press. Kultusministerkonferenz. (2019). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.12.2004 i.d.F. vom 16.05.2019. Paseka, A., Hinzke, J. H., Feld, I., & Kuckuck, K. (2021). Zur Entwicklung von studentischer Reflexionskompetenz im Rahmen Forschenden Lernens. In D. Kemethofer, J. Reitinger & K. Soukup-Altrichter (Eds.), Vermessen? Zum Verhältnis von Bildungsforschung, Bildungspolitik und Bildungspraxis (pp. 143-160). Waxmann. Rueß, J., Gess, C., & Deicke, W. (2016). Forschendes Lernen und forschungsbezogene Lehre–empirisch gestützte Systematisierung des Forschungsbezugs hochschulischer Lehre. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 11(2), 23-44. Weinert, F. E. (1999). Concepts of Competence. Manx Planck Institute for Psychological Research. Wessels, I., Gess, C., & Deicke, W. (2019). Competence Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning. In H. Mieg (Ed.), Inquiry-Based Learning–Undergraduate Research (pp. 59-69). Springer.

In the discourse on teacher education, there is a tendency to emphasize the ability to reflect with the aim to promote professionalization processes of preservice teachers. However, the understanding of what ‘reflection’ might be, differs. Going back to Schön (1983), two options exist: reflection-on-action as process when professionals look back in a distance mode at a situation and their actions (e.g. Häcker 2017 for Germany) and reflection-in-action as rethinking a concrete situation when decisions have to be made to go on in a process. In the last years, Bohnsack (2020) has developed the concept of practical or implicit reflection based on the sociology of knowledge of Karl Mannheim and the system theory of Niklas Luhmann. Such a practical reflection has to be distinguished from an explicit reflection which is embedded in theoretical knowledge that is used for argumentation but does not guide the habitual practices of social actors. However, both modes of reflection are able to broad perspectives by using comparative horizons whereas reflexivity is defined as using existing horizons. Against this background, the paper follows the question which forms of reflexivity and reflection can be found in discussions of preservice teachers and whether these forms can be the starting point for professionalization processes. Findings from a research project on inquiry-based learning courses in teacher education carried out at two German universities (see Hinzke et al. 2023; Paseka et al. 2023) will be presented. In such courses, the preservice teachers go through an entire research process in the context of teaching and schooling (Pedaste et al., 2015). In our research project ‘ReLieF’, funded by the German Research Association, 15 group discussions at the beginning (t1) and at the end (t2) of the Masters’ two-semester courses were carried out. The group discussions were analysed by using the documentary method, a qualitative-reconstructive method for data analysis (e.g. Bohnsack et al., 2010). In this presentation, we enquire for forms of reflexivity as well as implicit and explicit reflection. First results show that the preservice teachers at t1 mostly use quite established knowledge when talking about ‘research’ and their research experiences so far. This can be analysed as expression of reflexivity in the sense of reproduction. Nevertheless, in some groups, forms of theoretical as well as of practical reflection could be found. These results will be discussed in light of professionalization processes as well as of consequences for teacher education via inquiry-based learning courses.

Bohnsack, R. (2020). Professionalisierung in praxeologischer Perspektive. Budrich. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, V. (eds.) (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Budrich. Häcker, T. (2017). Grundlagen und Implikation der Forderung nach Förderung von Reflexivität in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. In C. Berndt, T. Häcker & T. Leonhard (eds.), Reflexive Lehrerbildung revisited. Traditionen – Zugänge – Perspektiven (S. 21-45). Klinkhardt. Hinzke, J.-H., Boldt, V.-P., Damm, A., & Paseka, A. (2023, accepted). Lehramtsstudierende reflektieren über Forschen. Praxeologisch-wissenssoziologische Analysen zu studentischen Wissensbeständen als Ausgangspunkt Forschenden Lernens. In M. Kowalski, D. Wittek, J. Korte, & J. Schröder (eds.), Dokumentarische Professionalisierungsforschung im Kontext des Lehramtsstudiums. Klinkhardt. Paseka, A., Hinzke, J.-H., & Boldt, V.-P. (2023, in preparation). Learning through Perplexities in Inquiry-based Learning Settings in Teacher Education. Teachers & Teaching. Pedaste, M. et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.