College Teaching

ISSN: 8756-7555 (Print) 1930-8299 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20

Reflect And Improve: Instructional Development

Through A Teaching Journal

Josh Boyd & Steve Boyd

To cite this article: Josh Boyd & Steve Boyd (2005) Reflect And Improve: Instructional
Development Through A Teaching Journal, College Teaching, 53:3, 110-114, DOI: 10.3200/
CTCH.53.3.110-114

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.3.110-114

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 75

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vcol20

Download by: [Zagreb University] Date: 17 April 2017, At: 03:47

 REFLECT AND IMPROVE
INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A TEACHING JOURNAL
Josh Boyd and Steve Boyd

Abstract. This article recommends the teaching jour- also that they are useful for experienced
instructors, and not just beginners. The
nal as a method of instructional improvement. Drawing teaching journal is a text that can improve
a teacher both as it is written and, later, as
on teacher education literature, the article reviews the it is read (Hobson 1996). Both authors of
concept of reflective teaching and then describes uses this essay have used teaching journals
with classes both large and small, gradu-
of the teaching journal for college instructors in ate and undergraduate; we draw on our
descriptive, comparative, and critical dimensions. experiences to provide specific applica-
tions of reflective practice for the college
Teaching journals can improve the teaching not only of instructor (see table 1 for sample entries
beginners but also of experienced instructors. from our teaching journals).

Reflective Practice and

M any years ago when teaching a

brand-new Listening class, one
of the authors tried to prepare for the pos-
sibility that he would someday teach the
same class again. He needed to keep track
of what worked and what did not so that
he could apply the lessons of those expe-
riences. The answer to his quandary was
his first experience with a teaching jour-
nal. At the time, he did not have a name
for it; he knew only that he wanted to
keep track of what happened in class and
make note of both his and his students’
reactions to curriculum and exercises.
But after more than twenty years of using
and adapting teaching journals, we are
both convinced that they are effective
tools for improving instruction at the col-
lege level.
Josh Boyd is an assistant professor at Purdue
University, Department of Communication. Steve
Boyd is a professor at Northern Kentucky
University, Department of Communication.
Though teacher training for elementary
and secondary teachers is extensive, for-
mal training for university educators is
often quite thin. There may be special
training for new teaching assistants, and
perhaps graduate students will take a
course or two in pedagogy, but learning
by osmosis and self-education seem to be
two of the most common approaches to
learning how to teach at the college level.
This article offers a tool for continuing
self-education: the teaching journal.
Teacher education programs have relied
on teaching journals for more than twen-
ty years, but the recommended users have
been primarily elementary and secondary
teachers in training. These programs have
concluded that reflective practices lead to
better teaching (Heichel and Miller 1993;
Risko, Roskos, and Vukelich 2002). We
will extend this research by suggesting
that teaching journals are valuable for
university instructors in addition to ele-
mentary and secondary instructors, and
Teaching Journals
Development of “Reflective Teaching”
The idea of “reflective teaching,” with
the goal of helping teachers evaluate their
own teaching behaviors in order to
improve, emerged in the 1980s as part of
preservice and in-service teacher educa-
tion (Cruickshank 1985; Heichel and
Miller 1993; Schon 1983). University
instructors, of course, all rely on some
type of “reflection”—every time a course
is revisited, instructors revise based on
what they remember from previous course
offerings. Teacher education programs
have attempted to formalize reflective
practice through structured exercises and
writing, the most common type of writing
being journal writing (Ross 1990).
Types and Uses of Teaching Journals
Gorman (1998) calls his “teacher jour-
nal” an “idea keeper,” a place for recording
the events of everyday teaching, student

110 COLLEGE TEACHING


struggles and successes, instructional
brainstorming, and self-critique. This is an
excellent general explanation of what a
teaching journal entails. There are no rules
for such a journal, and its usefulness
depends on the instructor using it. Some
scholars have, however, suggested less
free-form approaches to journal writing.
Three more structured types of reflective
journals are guided journals, double-entry
journals, and dialogue journals.
Focused, or “guided journals” have the
potential to produce greater critical reflec-
tion by turning reflection away from the
natural tendency toward emotional release
(Gorman 1998). Gorman, for instance,
chose to focus his journal on just four spe-
cific areas of concern in his teaching. Hob-
son (1996) suggests writing about ques-
tions that might bring to light assumptions
and biases in teaching: “Who are three of
your ‘best’ students? Why do you consider
them ‘best?’ What do your choices say
about you as a teacher?” Another such
question is, “Describe yourself as a
teacher. How would one of your average
students describe you as a teacher?” (9). In
the Collaboration for the Improvement of
Teacher Education (CITE) program, one
assignment given to students was to write
down both a successful and an unsuccess-
ful teaching event, why each did or did not
succeed, what contexts affected outcomes,
and what more substantive issues those
Vol. 53/ No. 3
events raised (Sparks-Langer et al. 1990).
These guided journals are more structured,
but also more focused in their resultant
insights into instructional methods.
“Double-entry journals” involve a two-
step writing process (Hobson 1996;
Risko, Roskos, and Vukelich 2002). On
one page, a teacher describes what hap-
pened in class. On the opposite page, the
teacher reflects critically on that descrip-
tion. Though more time-consuming than
an open-ended journal, these journals
force at least two levels of reflection.
“Dialogue journals” are journals that
will be shared with others. In most cases,
the “dialogue” will be with a supervisor
(Stephens and Reimer 1993). Dialogue
can also be with peers, however, and in
the sense of intrapersonal communica-
tion, any rereading of a journal by its
author creates a type of dialogue.
Most scholarship about teaching jour-
nals assumes that these journals will be
used in training new teachers. In one pro-
gram, for example, reflection is a formal
teaching technique, and teachers in train-
ing are required to edit and polish their
written reflections as part of an official
portfolio (Jay and Johnson 2002). Even
when journaling is suggested for experi-
enced teachers (see Wildman et al. 1990),
the purpose of journaling is only to help
them become better mentors to new
teachers. Heichel and Miller (1993) limit
their study to teachers in training, but
they acknowledge that “reflective think-
ing is an ongoing process and should con-
tinue after the student teaching experi-
ence” (182). Gorman (1998) is one of the
few scholars to justify and describe teach-
ing journals for established teachers, but
his focus is still not on university level
instruction. In the rest of the article, we
provide suggestions for how university
instructors—new and experienced—
might use teaching journals to reflect on
their teaching and improve it.
Using a Teaching Journal:
Dimensions of Reflection
As a framework for considering the vari-
ous products of reflective journals, we use
the dimensions of reflection suggested by
Jay and Johnson (2002): descriptive, com-
parative, and critical. These dimensions
clearly owe a debt to earlier typologies of
reflective practice. Van Manen (1977) pro-
posed technical, practical, and critical levels
of reflection, and Grimmett, MacKinnon,
Erickson, and Riecken (1990) observed
three perspectives on reflection: reflection
as instrumental mediation of action; reflec-
tion as deliberating among competing
views of teaching; and reflection as recon-
structing experience. Although these three
conceptualizations are not perfectly paral-
lel, the dimensions applied in this article
certainly share several elements of the ear-
lier models.
There clearly is implied progress in all
of these conceptualizations, with “critical
reflection” the highest order of reflection;
Heichel and Miller (1993) explicitly iden-
tify the goal of reflective journals as help-
ing teachers think more critically about
their teaching. Hobson (1996), however,
has observed that each person’s journal is
unique. Instructors should adopt journal
styles (critical or otherwise) that are
adapted to their instructional needs.
Descriptive
Hobson (1996) calls the teaching jour-
nal a “textbook of emergent practice”
(10), and Sparks-Langer et al. (1990)
found the most basic kind of reflective
practice to be concerned with practical
and technical aspects of teaching (such as
planning lectures, creating exams, and
managing students). This level has been
very useful in our journaling.
111
 One basic way to benefit from the
descriptive dimension of a journal is sim-
ply to record in it material covered in
class. No one wants to use the same illus-
tration, do the same exercise, or tell the
same joke or story again three weeks after
using it the first time, and a journal record
helps prevent such repetition.
When tracking class material, it is help-
ful to include the overall impact of illus-
trations and activities. Did students really
become engaged in an exercise? Did the
illustration seem to help them understand?
Did they laugh at the joke and get the
point? In-class assignments also find a
place of record in a teaching journal. One
of us assigns a lot of ungraded in-class
writing to generate discussion and the
journal keeps track of what subjects stu-
dents have written about and discussed.
On the first anniversary of the September
11 attacks, public relations students wrote
in class about how they would or would
not commemorate the anniversary if they
worked in corporate public relations;
future public relations students whose
classes are in the fall semester will proba-
bly get to address the same question. We
refer to our journals not only as we work
through a course, but also to decide which
material to revisit when we teach the class
in future semesters.
The simple description of what we
teach and assign each class period gives
us confidence about the structure and
content of the course because we can
check with our journals to clear up uncer-
tainties. This information is particularly
important to instructors who, as is the
case with one of us, teach four classes
each semester—with some of the same
students in different classes and multiple
sections of the same class. It is critical to
keep track of the variety of directions dif-
ferent classes take; otherwise, the classes
and content can run together and create
unintentional repetition or omission.
Avoiding repetition and omission is
just one way that the content-descriptive
function of a journal helps instructors
stay organized. At the end of each entry
we also make notes about what we need
to do next time, or a reminder that we still
have not covered a specific piece of infor-
mation. Looking back at a recent series of
such entries helps structure preparation
for the next class. It is also very helpful in
112
constructing test questions and recalling
how different sections of the same course
might have addressed slightly different
topics. If it is in the journal, it was defi-
nitely covered. This eliminates some of
the uncertainty involved in creating an
exam when you are not sure how well
your recollection of specific details
matches what you intended to cover from
your notes.
Another descriptive dimension of jour-
naling involves writing down comments
of students and exchanges with them dur-
ing class discussions. Instructors learn
much from students who take different
perspectives on a familiar subject and
make penetrating comments, but that
learning is often lost when it is not
recorded. We try to write down each sig-
nificant comment or exchange just as the
student said it. Several years ago one of
us was teaching the mechanics of manu-
script speaking. After we gave just three
or four examples of using visual
reminders within the script, the class
came up with twice that number. Because
the students’ new ideas were recorded in
the journal, they have been added to the
lecture in many classes since.
Other student comments might not help
us teach the class in the future, but they
will help us learn students’ names and
keep track of class participation. They also
remind us about the range of perspectives
in a class. In answering the September 11
question mentioned above, for instance,
students’ responses ranged from “have a 9-
11 sale” to “give everyone the day off to
memorialize.” These comments (and the
students who made them) are remembered
because they are written down.
Comparative
The comparative dimension of journal-
ing goes beyond writing down simply
what happens in class to examining the
class from different perspectives (Jay and
Johnson 2002). How are classroom
instruction and exercises affecting stu-
dents with diverse learning styles? How is
this class different from the way other
instructors teach it? Is there anything that
can be learned from others’ approaches?
How well is this class serving the func-
tion it has in the overall curriculum or
major? These comparative reflections can
lead from description of the present class
to ideas for improving the class in the
future. One comparative use Gorman
(1998) found for his journal was a way to
keep track of “unexpected revelations”
and ideas for teaching methods to use in
the future. Hobson’s (1996) list of teach-
ing journal functions is largely compara-
tive: a journal “suggests questions, iden-
tifies new areas to explore, reveals
meaningful absences, and uncovers
recurring patterns” (16). In all of these
senses, the comparative dimension of a
teaching journal provides a way for
instructors to compare their current prac-
tices against alternatives: other pedagogi-
cal approaches and theories, or simply
new ideas for teaching a familiar course.
Some of our best ideas for teaching a
class a second time come from the intellec-
tual challenge of remembering and putting
into words our impressions and interpreta-
tions of the content of a particular class
meeting. Journaling provides an opportunity
to recall which areas students had difficulty
understanding, and consequently, which
areas we need to emphasize or explain
more in the future. Comparing our instruc-
tion with the misunderstandings that might
have resulted enables us to consider student
perspectives; bad test questions (and why
they were confusing or misleading), for
instance, also find a place in the journal so
that future exams will be better. As we
write in our journals, we sometimes get
ideas on how to improve on what we are
writing about, and those ideas go into the
journal for consideration the next semester.
At the end of each semester, our journal
comparisons of how we teach to how other
instructors might teach or how students
might better learn provides us with a rich
resource for possible changes and revisions
in the course.
In graduate classes, this comparative
function is particularly useful in evaluat-
ing course readings. Since one of us
began keeping a journal, he has been able
to do a much more effective job of evalu-
ating the usefulness of individual course
readings in graduate seminars. Not only
does he note which readings did not gen-
erate good discussion or had become
redundant or outdated, he also notes new
reading possibilities that he finds or that
students suggest for future incarnations
of the course. Sometimes, students sug-
gest eliminating a group of readings, and
COLLEGE TEACHING
the journal (and the distance gained from
revisiting it in a future semester) offers a
perspective from which he can make
judgments about the comparative merits
of a group of readings. Based in part on
student comments and his own impres-
sions the last time he taught one course,
for instance, he has decided to eliminate
four essays from an edited volume and
replace them with more recent, engaging
journal essays. On the other hand, feed-
back and reflection in the journal has also
helped affirm the continued use of a few
pieces that, although older, are classic
works worth reading every time. Taking
into account others’ perspectives and sug-
gestions is an important way to fulfill the
comparative dimension of reflection.
Critical
The highest-order thinking occurs in
the critical dimension of reflection. There
are two different ways in which reflective
teaching can be “critical”: in the sense of
considering broader implications and
deeper meaning of classroom instruction
(Jay and Johnson 2002), and in the sense
of self-critique and continuous learning
and improvement.
In trying to prompt different kinds of
reflective thinking by teachers in training,
Sparks-Langer et al. (1990) asked journal
writers to consider “what moral or ethical
issues were raised” in their teaching expe-
riences (26). Both of us teach courses that
deal, in some way, with persuasion.
Because there are so many potentially
unethical applications of persuasion, both
publicly and interpersonally, our students
often raise important issues about what we
are teaching and how that teaching might
be used. In reflecting on the significance of
what we teach, unintended consequences
and implications for students who do not
share the same values that we do should be
addressed as critical dimensions of our
instruction. Some of the critical reflection
of this dimension will come not only in the
writing of the journal, but also in the read-
ing of the journal. Student evaluation com-
ments might well send us back to our jour-
nals looking to see how we might have
created a certain impression or communi-
cated an approach that we did not intend.
When teaching metaphor recently, one
of us referred to the archetypal light/
dark metaphor (Osborn 1967). After
Vol. 53/ No. 3
class, one student raised the issue of how
this metaphor has been used as a tool of
oppression in race relations (see table 1,
day 14). This productive discussion
influenced the lecture for the next class
meeting and will surely influence future
versions of the course by bringing a
broader, more critical perspective to the
topic of metaphor.
The other sense of a critical approach
to reflection is in self-critique. When we
teach in large lecture environments, we
struggle with the appropriate use of tech-
nology. How many PowerPoint slides are
too many? What concepts did we need a
visual aid for that we did not have? Sepa-
rate from technology questions, we eval-
uate how we spent time in a class. “Pet
topics” can easily drain far too much
instructional time. We consider whether
we went off on tangents or did not effec-
tively balance our time so that the most
coverage went to the most important top-
ics. Which topics created resistance or
discomfort in the class? A critical
approach means that we do not necessar-
ily eliminate the coverage of those topics,
but perhaps we allow more time for dis-
cussion and provide more detailed evi-
dence in support of our own perspectives.
We might not always have better alterna-
tives, but we at least have a record of our
own self-critique so that perhaps, when
we return to the class months or years
later, we will know the areas in which we
need to do more research and preparation.
One other helpful self-critique for us
regards the wording of assignments. Stu-
dents bring perspectives and interpretations
to assignments that we never considered,
and the journal allows us a place to make
sure we reach better understanding the next
time. On one assignment last semester, for
instance, a small number of students were
confused about whether the assignment
was a choice of two options or an assign-
ment with two required parts. When the
assignment came up in the current semes-
ter, it was reworded so that no one misun-
derstood the requirements this time.
Conclusion
Implications for Instructional
Development
As Gorman (1998) argues, “The likeli-
hood of change in instructional decision
making is greater because the teacher is
more accountable for actions” (435).
Keeping a journal and, more important,
reading that journal, create more account-
ability and preserve observations and
ideas about teaching so they can benefit
future students. Used most effectively, a
journal is not just about reflection, but
about reflection that leads to action, and
action that creates improvement (see table
2 for a summary of suggested elements of
journal entries following Jay and John-
son’s [2002] typology). Training for
teaching assistants would benefit from the
use of reflective journals, following the
pattern of reflective journal use in teacher
training at the elementary and secondary
levels. Teaching journals are not just for
beginners, however; as we have found in
our combined forty-six years of university
teaching, a journal gives even experienced
113
university instructors the power to change
instruction for the better.
A final benefit of journaling is that it
provides motivation. Some days, enthusi-
asm for teaching is difficult to find. A
quick read of past journal entries some-
times reveals something from an earlier
class that provides a new idea for a cur-
rent class. Reading about past successes
and lessons increases our energy level
and helps us look forward to teaching in
spite of ourselves. Returning from spring
break or a holiday, we may not have
thought about the class for several days.
Reading the journal entries helps us get
back into the context of the class and
renews our enthusiasm for the students
and the course.
For us, keeping a journal is as much a
part of teaching as the actual class prepara-
tion—in fact, reviewing our journals to
remember what happened last week is a
part of our preparation for class this week.
Reflection is already a part of most instruc-
tors’ preparation to teach, but a teaching
journal helps make that reflection more
directed and effective. The teaching journal
is one of the simplest yet most productive
methods of self-education and continued
instructional improvement.
114
Key words: teaching journal, reflective
practice, development
REFERENCES
Cruickshank, D. R. 1985. Uses and benefits of
reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 66
(10): 704–06.
Gorman, D. 1998. Self-tuning teachers:
Using reflective journals in writing classes.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy
41:434–42.
Grimmett, P. P., A. M. MacKinnon, G. L.
Erickson, and T. J. Riecken. 1990. Reflec-
tive practice in teacher education. In
Encouraging reflective practice in educa-
tion, ed. R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, and M.
C. Pugach, 20–38. New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Heichel, L. G., and T. M. Miller. 1993. The
importance of reflection in decision-making.
In Teachers are researchers: Reflection and
action, ed. L. Patterson, C. M. Santa, K. G.
Short, and K. Smith, 173–82. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Hobson, D. 1996. Beginning with the self:
Using autobiography and journal writing in
teacher research. In Teachers doing
research: Practical possibilities, ed. G. Bur-
naford, J. Fischer, and D. Hobson, 1–17.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jay, J. K., and K. L. Johnson. 2002. Capturing
complexity: A typology of reflective prac-
tice for teacher education. Teaching and
Teacher Education 18:73–85.
Osborn, M. 1967. Archetypal metaphor in
rhetoric: The light-dark family. Quarterly
Journal of Speech 53:115–26.
Risko, V. J., K. Roskos, and C. Vukelich.
2002. Prospective teachers’ reflection:
Strategies, qualities, and perceptions in
learning to teach reading. Reading
Research and Instruction 41:149–76.
Ross, D. D. 1990. Programmatic structures for
the preparation of reflective teachers. In
Encouraging reflective practice in educa-
tion, ed. R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, and M.
C. Pugach, 97–118. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schon, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner.
New York: Basic Books.
Sparks-Langer, G. M., J. M. Simmons, M.
Pasch, A. Colton, and A. Starko. 1990.
Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can
we promote it and measure it? Journal of
Teacher Education 41 (4): 23–32.
Stephens, D., and K. M. Reimer. 1993. Explo-
rations in reflective practice. In Teachers
are researchers: Reflection and action, ed.
L. Patterson, C. M. Santa, K. G. Short, and
K. Smith, 160–72. Newark, DE: Interna-
tional Reading Association.
Van Manen, M. 1977. Linking ways of know-
ing with ways of being practical. Curricu-
lum Inquiry 6:205–28.
Wildman, T. M., J. A. Niles, S. G. Magliaro,
and R. A. McLaughlin. 1990. Promoting
reflective practice among beginning and
experienced teachers. In Encouraging
reflective practice in education, ed. R. T.
Clift, W. R. Houston, and M. C. Pugach,
139–62. New York: Teachers College Press.
COLLEGE TEACHING