Introduction
This essay explores reflective practice in the context of a beginner teacher in a primary school setting, specifically in an Intermediate Phase (IP) Year 4 classroom (ages 8-9). Drawing on the scenario where learners struggled with division in a mathematics lesson, despite detailed explanations, the discussion addresses key concepts of reflection, its purpose for professional growth, application of Shulman’s model of teacher knowledge, and a comparison of colleagues’ advice. The aim is to demonstrate how reflective practice can enhance teaching effectiveness, supported by academic sources. This analysis is grounded in the field of reflective practitioner studies, highlighting its relevance for novice educators.
Concept of Application
Reflection, in my own words, is the deliberate process of thinking back on an experience to gain insights and understand its implications (Schön, 1983). In the scenario, this involves reviewing the division lesson to identify why learners were disengaged or held misconceptions, such as confusing division with subtraction.
Reflective practice extends this by systematically applying reflection to improve professional actions, often through cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Gibbs, 1988). Linked to the scenario, it means analysing the lesson’s shortcomings— like inadequate engagement strategies—and adjusting future approaches to better address learner needs.
A reflective teacher is one who actively engages in this practice, questioning their methods and seeking continuous improvement (Brookfield, 1995). In this context, as a beginner teacher, I would embody this by examining my explanation of division and adapting it based on observed struggles, fostering a more responsive teaching style.
Purpose of Reflection
Reflective practice is crucial for professional growth in this situation because it encourages self-awareness and adaptability, helping novice teachers like myself transition from rote delivery to effective pedagogy. By reflecting, I can identify gaps in my teaching, such as over-relying on abstract examples, which led to misconceptions. This process promotes lifelong learning and resilience, aligning with educational standards that emphasise teacher development (Department for Education, 2011). Indeed, without reflection, repeated failures could erode confidence; however, it provides a structured way to build expertise.
Two concrete examples illustrate how reflecting on this lesson could improve future mathematics lessons. First, reflection might reveal that visual aids were insufficient, prompting me to incorporate manipulatives like counters for division in the next session, enhancing conceptual understanding (Shulman, 1987). Second, analysing disengagement could lead to integrating group activities, encouraging peer learning and addressing diverse needs, thereby increasing participation and reducing misconceptions.
Shulman’s Model
Shulman’s model of teacher knowledge categorises what educators need to know, including content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), among others (Shulman, 1986). Applied to the scenario, the model highlights deficiencies in my lesson: for instance, while I had content knowledge of division, I may have lacked PCK to transform it into accessible forms, resulting in learner struggles and disengagement.
Three specific knowledge categories relevant here are content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and PCK. Content knowledge involves deep understanding of division as sharing or grouping; reflecting on this guides me to ensure my grasp is solid, preventing misinformation in explanations (Shulman, 1987). Pedagogical knowledge refers to general teaching strategies, like classroom management; reflection could reveal poor engagement techniques, prompting better questioning to clarify misconceptions. Finally, PCK combines content and pedagogy, such as knowing how to represent division visually for Year 4 learners; this can guide reflection by encouraging adaptations like real-life examples (e.g., dividing sweets), making abstract concepts concrete and improving outcomes.
Comparing Views of Reflection
Colleague A’s advice to “just repeat the same method tomorrow until they get it” reflects a non-reflective, transmission-oriented approach, which risks reinforcing misconceptions without addressing underlying issues (Schön, 1983). In contrast, Colleague B’s suggestion to “think about different ways of presenting the content to meet learners’ needs” embodies reflective practice, promoting adaptation and learner-centred teaching (Brookfield, 1995). Arguably, Colleague B’s view is more effective, as it encourages critical analysis over repetition, aligning with evidence that varied methods enhance understanding in mathematics (Department for Education, 2011). Therefore, adopting B’s perspective could lead to more inclusive lessons.
Conclusion
In summary, reflective practice, as defined and applied through Shulman’s model, is essential for addressing teaching challenges like the division lesson scenario. It fosters professional growth by enabling improvements such as varied presentations and targeted strategies. The comparison of colleagues’ advice underscores the value of reflection over rigidity. Implications for educators include enhanced learner outcomes and personal development; however, limitations exist, such as time constraints for busy teachers. Ultimately, embracing reflection positions novice teachers as adaptive professionals in dynamic classrooms.
References
- Brookfield, S. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Jossey-Bass.
- Department for Education (2011) Teachers’ Standards. UK Government.
- Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Further Education Unit.
- Schön, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
- Shulman, L. S. (1986) Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), pp. 4-14.
- Shulman, L. S. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp. 1-22.
