The Influence of Collaborative Reflection and Think- Aloud Protocols on Pre-Service Teachers ...

13 Pages·2013·0.07 MB·English

by  Barry Croom

©Journal of Agricultural Education
Volume 54, Number 1, pp. 47 - 59
DOI: 10.5032/jae.2013.01047

The Influence of Collaborative Reflection and Think-
Aloud Protocols on Pre-Service Teachers’ Reflection:
A Mixed Methods Approach

Cory M. Epler
Nebraska Department of Education
Tiffany A. Drape
Thomas W. Broyles
Rick D. Rudd
Virginia Tech

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to determine if there are differences in pre-service teachers’
depth of reflection when using a written self-reflection form, a written self-reflection form and a think-
aloud protocol, and collaborative reflection. Twenty-six pre-service teachers were randomly assigned to
fourteen teaching teams. The teams taught a lesson that was videotaped and completed a written self-
reflection form while viewing their lesson. The participants were randomly assigned to a control group
or experimental group. The control group reflected individually using a written self-reflection
form. Experimental Group #1 reflected collaboratively using a written self-reflection form, and
Experimental Group #2 reflected individually using a think-aloud process while completing the written
self-reflection form. The reflection forms were analyzed for depth of reflection, and a one-way ANOVA
revealed significant differences in depth of reflection between the three groups. Participants also
engaged in focus group interviews to describe their experiences. Two significant themes emerged:
reflection on the teaching experience and reflection on the process used. We recommend that reflection
should be used to help pre-service teachers learn from experience. In addition, the use of collaborative
reflection and reflection using think-aloud protocols should be considered to promote deeper reflection
and understanding.

Keywords: reflection; pre-service teacher reflection; collaborative reflection; think-aloud protocol

Introduction/Conceptual Framework (2011) pointed out there is a disconnect between
the science of learning and the practice of
The challenges associated with preparing teaching. He explained that despite the solid
teachers for the 21st century are great. In fact, research base associated with learning, “a gap
the National Council for Accreditation of exists between the science of meaningful
Teacher Education (NCATE) recently reported learning and the practice of teaching for
that teacher education programs should be meaningful learning” (Doerfert, 2011, p. 22).
overhauled from subject-matter, theory-laden With this in mind, it is necessary for teacher
programs to programs rooted in experience and preparation programs to provide pre-service
clinical practice (National Council for teachers with meaningful learning opportunities
Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). The rooted in experience.
council reported that more emphasis should be One method teacher preparation programs
placed on “giving teacher candidates their sea can utilize to help pre-service teachers examine
legs by helping them develop and study their their teaching practices is reflection. Reflection
practice,” (NCATE, 2010, p. 3). Furthermore, in plays a central role in most teacher preparation
the National Research Agenda for the American programs and is a valuable component of
Association for Agricultural Education, Doerfert professional development (The Association of
47
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
Teacher Educators, 2003). Reflection is Using Dewey and Schön’s notions of
identified as a method that helps practitioners reflection as a guide, teacher educators continue
better understand what they know and do to employ strategies that promote the reflection
through a consideration of what they learn in of pre-service teachers. Despite doing so,
practice, and the process places an emphasis on teacher preparation programs are often
learning from doing (Loughran, 2002). It is scrutinized for not adequately preparing future
widely acknowledged that reflection is educators. The process of reflection, when
prerequisite for in-depth understanding and for integrated within teacher preparation programs,
furthering professional development (Tigelaar, is a tool that will help prepare future teachers
Dolmans, Meijer, De Grave & Van Der Vleuten, (Lee, 2005). The goal of reflection in teacher
2008). preparation is to develop a teachers’ reasoning
John Dewey, a key originator of the concept about why they used a certain instructional
of reflection, described reflection as a problem strategy and how they can improve their
solving process. The reflective process begins teaching to have a positive effect on students
when a person encounters an experience that (Lee, 2005). Many teacher education programs
involves “(1) a state of doubt, hesitation, claim to be reflective in their practice, but
perplexity, mental difficulty, in which thinking Rodgers (2002) pointed out this is often missing
originates, and (2) an act of searching, hunting, in a thorough exploration of teacher preparation
inquiring to find material that will resolve the programs. The experiences within teacher
doubt, settle and dispose of the perplexity,” preparation programs should broaden the field of
(Dewey, 1933, p. 12). Dewey’s work supported experience and knowledge, yet experiences
the notion that reflection is a cognitive process alone are not enough. The addition of reflection
and a special form of problem solving. This to pre-service teachers’ experience allows them
process resolves an issue through active to make meaning from experience. This enables
chaining, careful ordering, and linking multiple pre-service teachers to make sense and draw
ideas together (Hatton & Smith, 1995). conclusions from their experiences within a
Reflective thinking cannot be compared with teacher preparation program. Reflection is
simply “thinking things over,” (Rodgers, 2002). necessary to help make meaning from
Reflective thinking is a rigorous and disciplined experience (Rodgers, 2002). Even though the
way of thinking nested in scientific inquiry and importance of reflection is documented,
it requires attitudes that value the personal and Greiman and Bedtke (2008) reported in their
intellectual growth of the learner through the study of 31 agricultural education teacher
process. A more contemporary examination of education departments, only one department
reflection utilizes Schön’s conceptualization that utilized reflection as an instructional planning
reflection is intimately bound with action component.
(Schön, 1983). Schön emphasized that Authors of teacher preparation literature
professionals should learn to frame the problems described several strategies that help pre-service
they are facing, test various hypotheses to solve teachers become more reflective. Those
the problem, and modify actions as a result strategies include journaling, peer teaching
(Hatton & Smith, 1995; Schön, 1983). Often demonstrations, case studies, and action research
described as “reflection-on-action,” this requires projects (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Yost, Sentner,
implementation of solutions that stem from Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). A common strategy
reflecting after an action is completed (Schön, utilized in teacher preparation programs is
1983; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). reflective teaching. Reflective teaching
The process requires that individuals examine promotes growth through analysis and self-
performed tasks in order to review what directed evaluation (Calderhead, 1987). In
happened, and it provides an opportunity to many of these teaching experiences, teachers
examine the relationship and connection of one reflect individually using a written self-
experience to another (Kim & Lee, 2002; reflection form to capture their thoughts. In fact,
Rodgers, 2002). most reflective experiences utilize individual or
intrapersonal reflection (Kim & Lee, 2002). In
Journal of Agricultural Education 48 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
individual reflection, the learners deliberate and memory and is considered a direct
think to themselves about the experience. representation of an individual’s cognitive
While individual reflection is certainly processes (Corcoran, Narayan, & Moreland,
meaningful, in some cases, collaborative 1988; Sasaki, 2008). These reports allow an
reflection can promote deeper reflection. In individual to search for meaning, theorize, or
collaborative reflection, individuals reflect interpret his or her own behavior and actions.
through group discussion and discourse. The The process promotes deeper reflection as
experience is not purely an individual process, individuals use previously acquired mental
but it is a process in which learners construct representations to plan, evaluate, and reason
meaning in a situated context (Kim & Lee, between alternative solutions (Ericsson &
2002). Discussing and comparing experiences Simon, 1998).
with others deepens the learning experience. Finally, think-aloud protocols promote the
Collaborative reflection helps teachers refine strategic processing of information; therefore the
their teaching skills and approaches to teaching process may lead to a deeper understanding of
and provides a means for improvement (Martin the cognitive and metacognitive processes one
& Double, 1998). Essentially, working with a uses. Because learning to teach involves
partner allows a deeper level of analysis that complex interactions between cognitive and
might be impossible to obtain otherwise. metacognitive processes, the think-aloud process
Previous researchers revealed the positive facilitates reflection as a valuable learning
benefits of collaborative reflection and have experience for teachers (Calderhead, 1987).
concluded that collaborative reflection facilitates Even so, there remains a lack of research to
higher-order thinking when compared to examine think-aloud protocols and their
individual reflection (as cited in Kim & Lee, influence on teacher reflection. For example,
2002). Hawkey (1995) reported that pre-service the majority of research associated with think-
teachers expressed a desire to share experiences aloud protocols is used to gain insight into
and knowledge with their peers. They benefitted individuals’ reading processes in an attempt to
from the skills and support of their peers. help identify the differences between less able
Raywind (1993) concluded that collaborative and more able readers (Berne, 2004). With this
reflection helps facilitate professional growth in mind, incorporating think-aloud protocols in
and development. By reflecting together, reflective experiences should create a deeper and
teachers can take their knowledge to the next more meaningful learning experience.
level through deeper analysis, application, and
evaluation (Nicholson & Bond, 2003). Purpose and Objectives
Finally, a think-aloud protocol is a widely
used technique that provides information about Because reflection creates meaningful
individuals’ cognitive processes (Sasaki, 2008). learning experiences within teacher preparation
In an attempt to better understand how programs, the reflective experiences of pre-
professionals use knowledge to make decisions, service teachers should be examined.
researchers commonly used think-aloud Furthermore, teacher educators should create
protocols (Corcoran, Narayan, & Moreland, reflective experiences that maximize learning
1988). Think-aloud protocols are “retrospective through reflection. Drawing upon Dewey’s
reports,” wherein an individual reports his or her conceptualization of reflection and Schön’s
thoughts about a task after it has been completed notion of reflection-on-action, several questions
(Sasaki, 2008, p. 350). When thinking aloud, emerge related to the reflective experience of
individuals must maintain focus on the pre-service teachers. How can teacher educators
completion of the task and merely verbalize their create meaningful reflective experiences for pre-
thoughts (Ericsson & Simon, 1998). This can be service teachers? Are the reflective experiences
challenging because many specific tasks are of pre-service teachers designed to maximize
often automatic (Corcoran, Narayan, & depth of thinking and promote advanced critical
Moreland, 1988). A think-aloud report thinking skills? As collaboration and the use of
represents the information held in short-term think-aloud protocols promote greater cognitive
Journal of Agricultural Education 49 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
and metacognitive processing, will reflective Bachelor’s degree within their discipline specific
experiences utilizing collaboration and think- to their intended certificate. There were twenty-
aloud protocols lead to deeper reflection? The six participants. Twelve participants were
specific research questions that guided this study pursuing Agricultural Education certification,
include: ten were pursuing Business and Information
Technology/Marketing Education, and four
1. What are the differences in depth of participants were completing a concentration in
reflection for pre-service teachers when Family and Consumer Science Education.
using individual reflection, individual Seventy-three percent of the participants were
reflection using a think-aloud protocol, female (19 participants).
and collaborative reflection? Upon receiving university Institutional
2. How do pre-service teachers describe Review Board approval and obtaining written
their experience when reflecting consent from the participants, teaching teams
individually, collaboratively, and using (two participants per group) were randomly
a think-aloud protocol? assigned to teach the same pre-written lesson.
The teaching teams taught their lessons to their
Methodology peers in a teaching demonstration which was
videotaped. Following the peer teaching
To address the above research questions, We demonstration, the participants participated in a
selected a convergent parallel mixed methods reflective experience where they completed a
research approach (Creswell & Plano-Clark, written self-reflection form while viewing their
2011). The purpose of a convergent parallel videotaped lesson. The written self-reflection
design is to “obtain different but complementary form asked participants to reflect on three
data on the same topic” (Creswell & Plano- domains using three reflection prompts. The
Clark, 2011, p. 77). This particular design is reflection prompts included: (1) What were my
useful when the researcher wants to triangulate particular strengths in this area?, (2) What would
the methods by comparing and contrasting I change in regards to this particular area?, and
quantitative statistical results and qualitative (3) How could I go about making that change?
findings. In the convergent parallel design, The first domain asked the participants to
quantitative and qualitative data are collected analyze their ability to communicate with
and analyzed separately. The merging of the students. This domain included three sub-
two sets of data typically occurs as discussion or domains: (1) directions and procedures, (2)
as part of the conclusions based on data analysis explanation of content, and (3) expectations for
(Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). The method is learning (Danielson, 2007). The second domain
also particularly useful when the data are focused on the discussion techniques the
transformed from one type into the other type of participants used while teaching. This domain
data (i.e. transforming qualitative themes into had three sub-domains: (1) quality of questions,
quantitative counts). (2) discussion techniques, and (3) student
The convenience sample included pre- participation (Danielson, 2007). The final
service teachers enrolled in the Career and domain included an analysis of the ability of the
Technical Education teacher preparation pre-service teachers to demonstrate flexibility
program at a large university in the mid-Atlantic during their lesson. This domain included three
region. This teacher preparation program meets sub-domains: (1) lesson adjustment, (2) response
the requirements set forth by the state to students, and (3) persistence (Danielson,
department of education and upon completion of 2007).
the program, participants will have earned a Six participants were randomly assigned to
Master’s Degree in Career and Technical the control group. The remaining participants
Education (CTE), with a specialization in were randomly assigned to two experimental
Agricultural Education, Business and groups. Experimental Group #1 included 14
Information Technology, Marketing, or Family participants (seven teaching teams), and
and Consumer Sciences. All participants hold a Experimental Group #2 included six parti-
Journal of Agricultural Education 50 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
cipants. Experimental Group #1 participated in conventional minimum level of significance.
a collaborative reflective experience in which a The researcher developed categorization scheme
written self-reflection form was utilized. The and a description of each level follows.
seven teaching teams watched their videotaped
lesson and completed their written self-reflection Recall Level (R1)
form as a pair, and they were encouraged to
discuss the experience while completing the This level describes the characteristics of
written self-reflection form. Experimental “non-reflectors” who indicate a simple
Group #2 completed an individual reflective awareness of the experience (Lee, 2005;
experience using written self-reflection form and Mezirow, 1991; Wong et al., 1995). Participants
a think-aloud protocol. In this group, the six identified as non-reflectors and categorized
participants were asked to verbalize their within this level described what happened
thoughts before completing the written self- during the teaching experience, rather than
reflection form. The control group included six providing a rationale for why the happenings
participants who completed an individual occurred. In addition, the participants classified
reflective experience using only the written as R1 described their attempts at modeling
reflection form. The control group completed teaching methods they observed or were taught,
their written self-reflection form as they watched yet they focus on only recalling the experience
their videotaped lesson. To ensure consistency of using those methods. At this level, the
of the reflective experience and minimize participants referred to their thoughts and
distractions, the experimental groups and the feelings, but did not describe how or why those
control group watched their videotaped lesson in feelings were developed (Kember et al., 1999).
an assigned classroom on campus.
After the experimental groups and the Rationalization Level (R2)
control group completed the reflective
experience, we analyzed the reflection forms This level describes characteristics of
using a researcher-developed categorization “reflectors” who possess the ability to critique
scheme that was created from previous research perception, thinking, and judgment while
that analyzed depth of reflection (Facione, 1990; extracting meaning from an experience
Kember et al., 1999; Lee, 2005; Mezirow, 1990; (Facione, 1990; Lee, 2005; Mezirow, 1991;
Wong, Kember, Chung, & Yan, 1995; Yost, Wong et al., 1995). In this experience,
Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). Each sub- participants identified as reflectors interpreted
domain of the reflection forms were analyzed their teaching experience with a rationale for
independently for the control group and why happenings might have occurred. In
experimental groups. Scores were assigned addition, the participants examined the intended
ranging from one to three and half scores were and actual relationships between pieces of their
assigned if responses included characteristics of experiences and described their search for why
two levels. Each researcher categorized the self- happenings occurred. Reflectors were able to
reflection forms for all groups using a generalize their experiences and create guiding
categorization scheme synthesized from the principles for future lessons. At this level, the
literature. The categorization scheme allowed us participants referenced their thoughts and
to classify the depth of reflection based upon feelings, described how and why their feelings
three levels identified through previous were developed, and assessed the logical
research: (1) recall level: R1, (2) rationalization strength of their feelings (Facione, 1990;
level: R2, and (3) reflectivity level: R3 (Lee, Kember et al., 1999).
2005). Data were recorded in the written form
by each researcher and converted to an Excel Reflectivity Level (R3)
file. The data were analyzed using JMP 8.0 for
WindowsTM statistical package. We established Participants classified within the R3 level –
a priori a minimum significance level of 0.05. “critical reflectors” – approached the experience
According to Coolidge (2006), this is the with the intention of changing/improving their
Journal of Agricultural Education 51 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
teaching in the future (Lee, 2005; Mezirow, triangulation enhanced the reliability and
1991; Wong et al., 1995). As a result of the trustworthiness of the data (Patton, 2002). Each
reflective experience, the critical reflectors were researcher completed initial thematic analysis to
able to form strong hypotheses based upon the increase the reliability of the analysis. Following
evidence at hand (Facione, 1990). Additionally, the initial thematic analysis, We discussed the
the participants provided justification for preliminary coding scheme in order to reach
multiple perspectives as they examined the consensus regarding inconsistencies among the
issues they faced while teaching. Critical codes.
reflectors appear amendable to change, and they
described how their teaching might influence Findings
their students’ behaviors and actions.
Furthermore, critical reflectors framed their The reflection forms were analyzed using a
decisions within the broader ethical, moral, researcher developed categorization scheme
political, and historical decisions behind their based upon previous researchers’ efforts to
actions (Yost, Sentner, Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). analyze depth of reflection. A one-way between
Following the reflective experiences, focus subjects ANOVA compared the effect on type of
groups were conducted. The focus groups reflective experience on the raters’ overall mean
allowed the participants to have time to reflect scores. There was a significant difference on the
and recall experiences in a group setting where type of reflective experience according to the
one response can trigger additional feedback raters’ overall mean score at the p<.05 level for
from the rest of the group (Lofland, Snow, the three experiences [F(2, 16) = 6.81, p =
Anderson, & Lofland, 2006). We conducted 0.007]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey-
three separate semi-structured focus group Kramer HSD test indicated that the raters’
interviews, and each focus group interview had overall mean score for the control group (written
one facilitator. Homogeneous groups were reflection only) (M = 1.65, SD = 0.31) was
selected by us to ensure participants within each significantly different than Experimental Group
focus group experienced either the control or #1 (collaborative reflection) (M = 1.22, SD =
treatment groups. The focus groups lasted 30 0.16). An effect size of 1.73 indicates a non-
minutes. Data analysis for the focus group overlap of 75.4% in the two distributions
interviews began during the interviews with (Cohen, 1988). Experimental Group #2 (think
probing and follow-up questioning. All aloud) (M = 1.47, SD = 0.10) did not
interviews were audio recorded and transcribed significantly differ from the collaborative and
verbatim by us. Researchers employed the individual reflection groups. Table 1 provides
comparative analysis method to analyze the data the total mean score for the control group and
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Investigator experimental groups.

Table 1
Total Mean Scores of Control Group and Experimental Groups
n M (SD) d
Control 6 1.65* (.31) 1.73
Experimental Group #1 14 1.22* (.16)
Experimental Group #2 6 1.47 (.10)
Note. Control group completed an individual reflective experience using only the written reflection form.
Experimental Group #1 participated in a collaborative reflective experience in which a written self-
reflection form was utilized. Experimental Group #2 completed an individual reflective experience using
written self-reflection form and a think-aloud protocol. Possible score range is 1-3. *p < .05.

Journal of Agricultural Education 52 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
Table 2
Mean Scores of Constructs for Control Group and Experimental Groups
Communicating Discussion Flexibility
With Students Techniques During
Teaching
M (SD) d M (SD) M (SD) d
Control (n = 6) 1.70* (.11) 5.04 1.72 (.13) 1.53* (.09) 4.46
Experimental Group #1
1.17* (.10) 1.31 (.12) 1.15* (.08)
(n = 14)
Experimental Group #2
1.47 (.11) 1.52 (.13) 1.41 (.09)
(N = 6)
Note. Control group completed an individual reflective experience using only the written reflection
form. Experimental Group #1 participated in a collaborative reflective experience in which a written self-
reflection form was utilized. Experimental Group #2 completed an individual reflective experience using
written self-reflection form and a think-aloud protocol. Possible score range is 1-3. *p < .05.

As depicted in Table 2, a one-way between to the identified themes are described next with
subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the direct quotations.
effect on type of reflective experience on the
raters’ domain mean scores. There was a Reflection on the Teaching Experience
significant difference in the type of reflective
experience on raters’ domain mean score of Participants in the control group and both
communicating with students at the p<.05 level experimental groups described in detail their
for the three experiences [F(2, 16) = 6.36, p = reflection on their teaching experience.
0.009]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey- Participants pointed out the value in reflecting
Kramer HSD test indicated that the raters’ on their peer teaching demonstration. “It helped
domain mean score for control group (written me to see things that I did or didn’t…did or
reflection only) (M = 1.70, SD = 0.11) was didn’t flow well” [9]. Another participant
significantly different than Experimental group agreed that reflection provided an opportunity to
#1 (collaborative reflection) (M = 1.17, SD = examine the overall effectiveness of the
0.10). In addition, there was a significant lesson. “…it just allowed us to see how things –
difference in the impact of the type of reflective what aspects went well and what didn’t go
experience on raters’ domain mean score of well…” [18:19]. The reflective experience
flexibility during teaching at the p<.05 level for helped the participants recall their teaching, and
the three experiences [F(2, 16) = 4.88, p = 0.02]. it helped them to validate the changes they felt
Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey-Kramer they needed to make in future teaching. “After
HSD test indicated that the raters’ domain mean we taught, my partner and I had already seen
score for control group (written reflection only) what we really needed to change and started
(M = 1.53, SD = 0.09) was significantly doing that. Then we watched the video – it
different than experimental group #1 reiterated and made me more confident about the
(collaborative reflection) (M = 1.15, SD = 0.08). changes we needed to make”
Finally, based on three focus groups, two [341:343]. Another participant expressed
major themes emerged from the analysis of the similar feelings. “I kind of noticed things that I
qualitative data. These categories are used as a hadn’t even thought that I wasn’t doing right. It
framework for organizing the discussion. The showed me that I was doing things that I thought
themes will be discussed separately. However, I was doing right the whole time”
they are not experienced independently of one [440:442]. “…[the reflective experience] gives
another but holistically. The two major themes you a list of things you were working on…you
were reflection on the teaching experience and could be consciously thinking ‘Okay, I’m trying
reflection on the process used. Content related to do this. I’m trying to do this’”
Journal of Agricultural Education 53 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
[430:432]. Additionally, as a result of the Even though participants expressed several
reflective experience, participants indicated they challenges associated with thinking-aloud, they
would change how they taught this particular were able to express how the process helped
lesson. “…it allowed us to see how we could them reflect. “…I didn’t mind it at all. It was
alleviate those problems when we taught again” actually kind of neat because there were no
[20]. Participants also described specific distractions. I could think about exactly I
changes they would make in their lesson as a wanted to say and say it” [146:148]. Another
result of the reflective experience. “We took out participant described how the think-aloud
one of the activities because we realized two of process helped her elaborate upon her thinking.
them were very similar and the students didn’t “It’s easy to elaborate upon yourself when
really understand the different between the two you’re talking aloud rather than just writing it
during the practice teach. We just combined down…if you’re talking, you kinda come up
them into one” [44:46]. Another participant also with everything as you’re speaking. You keep
described a potential change to their lesson plan. diverging into it – keep coming up with newer
“…we had it broken up where one person did ideas” [187:190]. The think-aloud process
one activity and the next person did another helped the participants process the peer teaching
activity. We found when that happened the demonstration and helped them identify ways to
other person was just standing in front of the change or improve their teaching. “…having to
room, so we modified it” [53:55]. talk to yourself about it, just made you think or
look back on what you did and what you could
Reflection on the Process Used do better. It was kinda cool”[177:178]. Another
participant anticipated the differences between
While the participants described the benefits using only a written self-reflection form and
of the reflective experience, there were notable using a think-aloud process. “When you’re
differences in the experiences of the control talking…it gives you more flow rather than just
group and the experimental groups. Specifically, writing it down, which is what we normally do
control group participants described the benefits when we do reflection. Talking aloud and
of completing only the written self-reflection hearing yourself say something is different”
form. “It just helped me to think about things in [408:410].
a way that I hadn’t” stated one participant [82]. The collaborative reflection experience
Another participant corroborated his or her participants (Experimental Group #1) also
colleague’s feelings. “I think writing in general described the advantages of working with
kind of makes you have to come full circle with partner to reflect. Reflecting with a partner
your thoughts, so I think it just makes it more provided an opportunity for the participants to
complete” [85:86]. Additionally, the written brainstorm how they could improve their
self-reflection process was described as teaching. “Me and my partner discussed all the
beneficial. The form itself provided “structure,” things that we saw and all the things we can
and it gave the experience “organization.” improve and change” [423:424]. Another
The use of a think-aloud process provided participant described the same result of
both benefits and challenges for the participants reflecting with a partner. “…we were able to, I
in Experimental Group #2. “I thought it was guess, talk about it and come up with new ideas
awkward at first,” stated a participant [146]. at the same time. I guess two heads are always
Others in the think-aloud group described this better than one in coming up with new, creative
same sentiment. “Well, I thought it was ideas how to fix things” [584:586]. Additionally,
awkward, and I was a little self-conscious,” one the collaborative reflective experience provided
participant described [135]. They explained: “It an opportunity to gain another perspective on
was weird sitting there talking to the computer how the peer teaching demonstration went. “We
screen. You didn’t want someone to talk could get both perspectives. ‘To me, it looks like
by…they might say ‘What’s she doing in there? I did bad. What do you think?’” [572:573]. By
Who is she talking to? Wait a minute. That’s reflecting with a partner, the pre-service teachers
just her in there taking to herself’” [240:243]. indicated the reflection process was “easier,”
Journal of Agricultural Education 54 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
and it created more opportunities to figure out the pre-service teachers in both the control and
“…what we were going to fix for the next time” experimental groups.
[546]. Although the collaborative reflective The analysis of the written self-reflection
experience had notable benefits, it presented forms revealed that the participants’ depth of
some challenges for the participants. The reflection ranged from recall (R1) to the
process was described as “distracting” and some rationalization level (R2). The R1 level
felt it was difficult to focus during the describes characteristics of “non-reflectors,”
experience. “It was kind of distracting to work while the R2 level describes characteristics of
with someone else because at the same time, we “reflectors.” The mean scores for the written
were laughing at ourselves. So that was kind of self-reflection forms ranged from 1.22 to 1.65.
distracting…” [591:592]. This indicates that the participants in this study
merely described a simple awareness of what
Conclusions happened during their teaching. The participants
referred to their thoughts and feelings, but they
The objective of this study was to determine did not describe how or why those feelings
the differences in depth of reflection for pre- developed. This was confirmed through the data
service teachers when using individual generated from the focus group interviews. One
reflection, individual reflection using a think- participant described their awareness of their
aloud protocol, and collaborative reflection. The teaching. “I noticed that I’m not a very good
conclusions of this study are not generalizable describer of activities” [24]. Another pre-
beyond the population in this particular study. service teacher described a similar depth of
We made the following conclusions based on the reflection. “We had to change one of the games
data collected. The findings support the idea because we saw that it didn’t work at all. So we
that reflection is a valuable experience for pre- completely made a new system for selecting
service teachers. As a result of reflecting upon groups” [492:493]. However, some participants
their teaching, participants in both the control indicated depth of reflection in their written self-
and experimental groups indentified changes reflection forms. While thinking about why
they would make to the lesson plan and their things happened, some pre-service teachers were
teaching methods. “I definitely reflected on also actively looking at the relationships
what I could have done better,” said one between the “why” and creating guiding
participant. “I really thought about the different principles for future lessons. This is a
things I did, and what I didn’t do” [64:65]. In characteristic of R2 reflection. This depth of
fact, one pre-service teacher went as far to say reflection was illustrated by the data. “So after
that that reflection, “improved my teaching” [teaching the lesson] – this was almost a week
[423]. Furthermore, the reflection process itself later that we saw it, I’d already been working on
provided the pre-service teachers with structure my lesson, thinking to myself ‘Well, I’m not
and organization, which promoted deeper gonna ask these questions anymore. I’m gonna
reflection. “Because [the reflection forms] had do this – gonna ask these questions’” [333:334].
different sections, it made you reflect on the There was not a significant statistical
whole. It made me think about things that I difference between the mean scores of the
could do differently,” described one participant written self-reflection forms of Experimental
[74:75]. Another pre-service teacher elaborated Group #1 (collaborative reflection) and
on how the structure of the process helped Experimental Group #2 (reflection using think-
him/her reflect. “It gave me more ideas to aloud protocol). In fact, previous researchers
reflect upon. I probably wouldn’t have thought have indicated that both methods promote deep
of some of those questions or reflected on processing (Corcoran, Narayan, & Moreland,
certain aspects of the lesson. The form helped 1988; Ericsson & Simon, 1998; Kim & Lee,
me think about things that I probably would 2002; Martin & Double, 1998; Nicholson &
have [without them]” [93:94]. It can be Bond, 2003; Sasaki, 2008). The qualitative data
concluded that reflection facilitated a supported the conclusion that both methods
consideration of change in teaching practices for enhanced the pre-service teachers’ reflective
Journal of Agricultural Education 55 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013
Epler, Drape, Broyles, Rudd The Influence of Collaborative…
experience. For example, one participant improve their teaching in order to help students
described the benefit of using a think-aloud succeed. In this particular study, the pre-service
process. “It was a way to be really honest when teachers articulated how the reflective
you critiqued your teaching. You didn’t have to experience helped them improve their teaching.
say what somebody else wanted to hear. It was Furthermore, the participants expressed that the
really way to be honest and really reflect” reflective experience will influence how they
[184:185]. In addition, another participant approach teaching in the future. “After we teach
discussed the benefit of reflecting a class, we can go back in our lesson plans and
collaboratively. “We could discuss what would write notes of things that we could change,
be best for us. It was easier to collaborate and things we liked, or things that went really well.
change the lesson since we did it together” Reflecting like that would be beneficial,” said
[556]. one participant [516:518]. With that in mind,
The mean scores for the control group’s teacher educators should continue to embed
written self-reflection forms (M = 1.65) were reflective experiences into teacher preparation
higher than the collaborative group (M = 1.22) programs.
and think-aloud group (M = 1.47), thus Working collaboratively and using a think-
indicating the control group had the greatest aloud process has been identified as a method
depth of reflection. With this in mind, it was that promotes greater cognitive and
also noted that the participants in both metacognitive processing (Corcoran, Narayan,
experimental groups described collaborative & Moreland, 1988; Ericsson & Simon, 1998;
reflection and reflection using a think-aloud as Kim & Lee, 2002; Sasaki, 2008). With this in
distracting and awkward. For example, one mind, pre-service teachers should be encouraged
participant recounted being uncomfortable using to utilize these methods when reflecting.
a think-aloud process. “It occurred to me that However, as illustrated in this study, working
people could be walking by, seeing me talking to collaboratively and using a think-aloud process
myself. I felt that as inhibiting” [136]. Another can be distracting. Therefore, teacher educators
participant described the distracting nature of the should provide training for how to use both
think-aloud process. “I kinda forgot at times to methods. The think-aloud process should be
say what I was thinking. I had to go back and modeled, and pre-service teachers should be
catch up on what I was thinking” [154]. One given the opportunity to practice the method
pre-service teacher that reflected collaboratively before beginning the reflective experience. In
also indicated being distracted. “[My partner addition, to fully understand the impact think-
and I] were like ‘Oh my gosh! I can’t believe aloud protocols have on reflection, the think-
we sound that way! That’s what we look like? aloud verbalizations can be recorded and
That’s what we sound like?’ That was transcribed. Analysis of the transcripts would
distracting” [593:594]. As a result, We help researchers understand which information
concluded that the distractions and awkwardness the participants attended to, how they processed
of collaborative reflection and the think-aloud the information, and the manner in which they
process played a role in the level at which combined information to make decisions.
participants reflected. This was supported by Finally, in order to ensure the accuracy of the
the qualitative data as participants described the written self-reflection forms to what is actually
distracting nature of the collaborative reflection experienced during collaborative reflection, the
process and the awkwardness experienced collaborative reflection experience should also
during the think-aloud process. be recorded and transcribed. This would help
researchers determine if there was a discrepancy
Recommendations between what was verbalized and what was
written on the reflection form. By doing so, the
Pre-service teachers should be provided with researcher would be able to determine if the
opportunities to reflect on their teaching depth of reflection (as indicated by the written
throughout their teacher preparation program. self-reflection form) was influenced by working
This will help them identify ways they can with a peer.
Journal of Agricultural Education 56 Volume 54, Number 1, 2013