Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0031-3831 (Print) 1470-1170 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Supporting the Construction of Teacher’s Practical

Knowledge Through Different Interactive Formats
of Oral Reflection and Written Reflection

Raili Allas, Äli Leijen & Auli Toom

To cite this article: Raili Allas, Äli Leijen & Auli Toom (2016): Supporting the Construction
of Teacher’s Practical Knowledge Through Different Interactive Formats of Oral
Reflection and Written Reflection, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, DOI:
10.1080/00313831.2016.1172504

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1172504

Published online: 21 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 82

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20

Download by: [Newcastle University] Date: 13 January 2017, At: 08:32

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1172504

Supporting the Construction of Teacher’s Practical Knowledge

Through Different Interactive Formats of Oral Reflection and
Written Reflection
Raili Allasa, Äli Leijenb and Auli Toomc
a
Institute of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia; bCentre for Teacher Education
and Higher Education, Institute of Education, University of Tartu, Estonia; cCentre for Research and Development of
Higher Education, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The relevance of initial teacher education is a widely recognised concern. Received 15 June 2015
Researchers are striving to find innovative pedagogies that would better Accepted 28 March 2016
prepare student teachers for actual day-to-day teaching. In this study, a
KEYWORDS
guided reflection procedure is presented that aimed to support student Guided reflection procedure;
teachers in constructing practical knowledge and linking this with teachers’ practical
research-generated knowledge. In all, 21 student teachers at an Estonian knowledge; initial teacher
university participated in the guided reflection procedure. Their lessons education; student teachers
were video recorded, two meaningful events (one empowering and one
challenging) selected, and oral (alone or with a peer or supervisor) and
written reflections carried out. Differences between students’ practical
knowledge as presented in (1) oral and written reflections and (2) in
three oral reflection conditions were investigated. Results indicated that
the procedure supports the construction of different types of practical
knowledge. Moreover, the practical knowledge gained could be more
easily transferred to other situations when the oral reflection was carried
out with a peer or supervisor.

Many researchers have highlighted the concern that teacher education does not prepare teachers
well enough to relate the theories taught in teacher education institutes to practical situations in
the classroom (e.g., Altan & Sağlamel, 2015; Caspersen & Raaen, 2014; Grossman, Hammerness,
& McDonald, 2009; Kansanen et al., 2000; Korthagen, 2001; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell,
2006; Lohmander, 2015; Meijer, 2010; Onnismaa, Tahkokallio, & Kalliala, 2015). As a result, begin-
ning teachers often experience difficulties when dealing with certain situations encountered in every-
day teaching practice (e.g., Grossman et al., 2009; Meijer, 2010) and feel inadequately prepared to deal
with the challenges of their profession. Beginning teachers often therefore experience a significant
amount of stress and burnout related to their work (e.g., Eisenschmidt, Oder, & Reiska, 2013;
Hong, 2012; Löfström & Eisenschmidt, 2009; Poom-Valickis, 2007; Tynjälä & Heikkinen, 2011). Feel-
ing burnt-out may even begin during initial teacher education (Fives, Hamman, & Olivarez, 2007). In
this article, the term initial teacher education (also known as pre-service teacher education) refers to
the basic higher education required to become a teacher. Owing to this overwhelming emotional load
and without adequate support, a considerable number of beginning teachers leave the profession
during their first years at work (Council conclusions … , 2009; Fantilli & McDougall, 2009; TALIS,
2009, 2013). In response to these challenges, great emphasis is placed by educational researchers

CONTACT Raili Allas raili.allas@ut.ee Institute of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tartu, Salme 1a, Tartu
50103, Estonia
© 2016 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
2 R. ALLAS ET AL.

on initial teacher education programmes and innovative pedagogies to bridge the gap between theory
and practice via supporting the construction of different types of knowledge (Grossman, 2007;
Meijer, 2010) and linking these together in a way that is relevant for the practical work of teaching.
This integration of different types of knowledge is relevant for the practical work of teaching. More-
over, additional research is needed to find out which conditions are best suited to the construction of
different types of knowledge and how to best support the construction of such knowledge during
initial teacher education to better prepare beginning teachers for their future work.

Theoretical Framework
Teacher’s Practical Knowledge
In recent decades, researches have become more interested in the knowledge and beliefs that form
the basis of teaching. In order to emphasise teaching as a profession, researchers during the 1980s
started to focus on the knowledge specific to the practice of teaching (e.g., Grossman et al., 2009;
Loughran, 2010). Researchers’ interest then shifted from immediately observed behaviour and skills,
to teachers’ cognition and knowledge (Grossman et al., 2009; Meijer, Verloop, & Beijaard, 1999), an
aspect that teachers themselves had difficulty in articulating (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989;
Shulman, 1987). Especially significant was Shulman’s (1987) conception of pedagogical content
knowledge, which he distinguished as being important specialised knowledge related to teaching a
subject in addition to knowledge of that subject matter or general pedagogical knowledge. Such
specialised knowledge is often referred to as a teacher’s practical knowledge (Meijer, 2010).
Teacher’s practical knowledge refers to the knowledge experienced teachers have about their own
teaching (Leinhardt, 1990). Teacher’s practical knowledge has been constructed based on the knowl-
edge acquired from different sources – especially practical experiences – to meet the practical
demands of a variety of teaching situations. Through constantly analysing and deliberating upon
one’s own actions, experienced teachers have developed complex knowledge systems that enable
them to react quickly in everyday situations (Fenstermacher, 1994; Meijer, 2010). Teacher’s practical
knowledge is the knowledge that guides everyday teaching activities (Shulman, 1986) and enables
experienced teachers to act effectively in the constantly changing environment of the classroom
(Meijer et al., 1999; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). Therefore, teachers’ practical knowledge
enables one to understand what teachers know and how they use such knowledge to manage the
complexity of their work (Meijer et al., 1999). Consequently, teachers’ practical knowledge should
form the core of teacher education programmes (Shulman, 1987).
Teacher’s practical knowledge is by its very nature tacit knowledge that they themselves are not
used to putting into words (Brown et al., 1989; Shulman, 1987). Despite its implicit origin, teachers’
knowledge is expressed by their behaviour (Meijer, 2010) and more easily observable to others via
discussions in which teachers explain and give reasons for their actions and decisions (Grimmett
& MacKinnon, 1992). Therefore, teacher’s practical knowledge can be characterised by the types
of knowledge they present in reflections on their teaching activities. By analysing student teachers’
reflections on their practical teaching experiences, Mena, García, and Tillema (2013) and Mena,
García, Clarke, and Barkatsas (2016) identified four types of knowledge communicated in the reflec-
tions: recalls, appraisals, rules, and artefacts. Knowledge types were distinguished based on the
potentiality to use such knowledge in different future situations. Mena et al. (2013, 2016) defined
recalls and appraisals as a type of knowledge closely connected to a specific experience, and rules
and artefacts as knowledge that can be transferred to different contexts. More precisely, recalls
are considered as exact reproductions of practical experiences (Mena et al., 2016), for example,
“I organised the classroom in two groups” (Mena et al., 2016, p. 5). Appraisals express the value
judgements on the situations, explaining the success or failures in their teaching (Mena et al.,
2013, 2016), for example, “Children finally remained silent in the auditorium” (Mena et al., 2013,
p. 11). Rules are understood as methodological strategies or abstract statements that derive from
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3

practice and may guide future teaching (Mena et al., 2013, 2016), e.g., “We should manage pupils”
(Mena et al., 2016, p. 5). Artefacts are referred to as instruments, physical supports, or tools that tea-
chers create to guide their teaching, based on their rules and practical principles (Mena et al., 2013;
2016), for example, “I will hang a poster on the classroom board with the four agreed-upon behav-
ioural norms” (Mena et al., 2016, p. 5).
Regarding knowledge, Fenstermacher (1994; see also Toom, 2012) emphasised the importance of
justification, and distinguished between two types: practical justification, for example:
I preferred to agree with his wish, because I wasn’t so familiar with the kids and I felt that I did not know how to
establish myself with him.

and theoretical justification, for example:

For kids that age it is important to know what to expect, therefore, I could have repeated already at breakfast
that when we finish breakfast, we will move to the morning circle.

Fenstermacher (1994) distinguished the types of justification according to their level of generalisation.
More specifically, theoretical justification is based on research-generated knowledge and it does not
depend on any specific context, whereas practical justification is connected to concrete situations
and it helps to explain what took place in this situation (Fenstermacher, 1994; Toom, 2006, 2012).
By reviewing the literature, Leijen et al. (2015) developed six types of teachers’ practical knowledge:
recall, appraisal, rule or practical principle, artefact, practical reasoning, and theoretical reasoning. The
authors emphasise that all six types of knowledge are important to understand teaching. Similarly to
Fenstermacher (1994) and Mena et al. (2013, 2016), Leijen et al. (2015) also differentiated types of
knowledge according to the extent that they could be transferred to different situations and contexts.
Narrative knowledge (recalls and appraisals) is the most context-centred and helps to understand
specific experiences; inferential knowledge (rules or practical principles and artefact) guides teachers’
activities and supports teachers in making changes to their practices; and reasoned knowledge (prac-
tical and theoretical reasoning) is the most generalisable, helping teachers to construct theories of
action based on personal practical experience to guide their future decisions and actions (Leijen
et al., 2015). Therefore, beginning teachers should be supported in extracting more inferential and
reasoned knowledge from their practical experiences in order to construct their own practical knowl-
edge (Fenstermacher, 1994; Leijen et al., 2015; Mena et al., 2013, 2016; Toom, 2012).

Reflection as a Means to Facilitate the Construction of Teacher’s Practical Knowledge

It is generally understood that beginning teachers should be supported in constructing their own
practical knowledge during initial teacher education as part of their overall professional development
(e.g., Altan & Sağlamel, 2015; Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2011; Schepens, Aelterman, & Van Keer, 2007).
Beginning teachers need to be supported in constructing their own knowing-in-action (Schön,
1983) or code of practice (Mena, García, & Tillema, 2011) by extracting ‘patterns’ and strategies
from their practical activities and constructing their own theory of action based on that knowledge.
This knowing-in-action (Schön, 1983) or code of practice (Mena et al., 2011) is the knowledge that is
communicated in practice and that guides teacher’s decisions and actions, but is often tacit (cf.
Toom, 2006). Therefore, such abstraction can contribute towards finding potentially effective strat-
egies, rules, or principles for practice (Shulman, 1987). By constructing their own practical knowl-
edge, beginning teachers learn not only how to use their knowledge to guide their actions and
decisions (Bronkhorst, Meijer, Koster, & Vermunt, 2011), but also how to adjust their knowledge
according to actual teaching situations (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005).
Therefore, it is important to understand the knowledge that guides teachers’ actions (Schön,
1983) and how such knowledge relates to research-generated knowledge (e.g., Kansanen et al.,
2000; Meijer, 2010). Moreover, specific methods are required to support beginning teachers in con-
structing their own practical knowledge.
4 R. ALLAS ET AL.

Reflection assignments are often employed in initial teacher education to support beginning tea-
chers to learn from their own practice and link such knowledge to research-generated knowledge
(Korthagen, 2001, 2004; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005; Korthagen & Wubbels, 1991, 2000; LaBoskey,
2010). In general, reflection is defined as a cognitive process carried out individually or with the help
of others to extract knowledge from experiences (Benammar, 2004; Dewey, 1933; Hébert, 2015;
Korthagen, 2001, 2004; Mezirow, 1991; Schön, 1983) and consequently support profound learning
(Moon, 2004). Although reflection is a focal method to support teachers’ learning and development,
by itself reflection does not ensure the construction of new knowledge and or understanding (Shul-
man & Shulman, 2004). Teachers, especially beginning teachers, need help to construct knowledge in
reflection process (Beijaard, Meijer, Morine-Dershimer, & Tillema, 2005; Hammerness et al., 2005;
Shulman & Shulman, 2004). Moreover, Schön (1983) found that teachers engage in two types of
reflection – reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action – in which experience and reflection are
related differently. Reflection-in-action refers to a reflection that takes place while teaching when
‘doing and thinking are complementary’ (p. 280), whereas in reflection-on-action the reflection fol-
lows the teaching experience. In particular, support is needed to enhance reflections that take place
during teaching (reflection-in-action) and that enables to use the knowing-in-action flexibly to
address the different situations encountered in everyday teaching (Schön, 1983). Several authors
have emphasised that reflection should take place in interaction with others (e.g., Benammar,
2004; Dewey, 1933; Leijen, Valtna, Leijen, & Pedaste, 2012; Procee, 2006). Interaction enables indi-
viduals to share their own experiences and learn from those of others, which helps beginning tea-
chers (re)interpret and develop their own perspectives further. Moreover, in this paper the
supportive role in the reflection process of supervisors and peers is emphasised (e.g., Danielowich,
2014; Lamb & Lane, 2012; Leijen et al., 2012; Meijer, Zanting, & Verloop, 2002; Nielsen, 2015;
van Ginkel, Oolbekkink, Meijer, & Verloop, 2016; Zanting, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2001).
The role of peers in reflection is generally associated with a supportive environment and critical
feedback (Danielowich, 2014; Fund, 2010; Lamb & Lane, 2012). The sense of equality that results
from reflecting with someone at the same stage and of the status, provides a safe and comfortable
setting to share ideas, discuss alternative viewpoints and collaborate on the construction of new
ideas about one’s own teaching (Danielowich, 2014; Lamb & Lane, 2012). Research has suggested
that peer feedback can raise the overall quality of students’ reflection (Fund, 2010; Leijen et al.,
2012). A student’s supervisor, however, is generally expected to be the most important source of
information (Meijer et al., 2002). As with peers, supervisors are seen to provide emotional support
and encouragement, but beginning teachers are often particularly interested to learn tips and rules-
of-thumb from their supervisors, and get their advice, suggestions, and evaluation. In addition,
supervisors are expected to stimulate beginning teachers’ learning and make their experienced tea-
chers’ tacit knowledge explicit by sharing what underlies teachers’ observable actions (Meijer et al.,
2002; Zanting et al., 2001). In either case, including another person in the reflection process can con-
tribute to the conscious construction of knowledge of all involved.
It has also been found that certain methods are potentially more effective for constructing tea-
cher’s practical knowledge. The use of guiding questions (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005; Sööt & Leijen,
2012; Wetzel, De Arment, & Reed, 2015; see Kori, Pedaste, Leijen, & Mäeots, 2014) and stimulated
recall interviews (Meijer et al., 2002) has been shown to improve reflection from being a mere
description of practice to being a more critical evaluation and re-framing of one’s understandings.
Similarly, guided reflection procedures, in which a stimulated recall interview and guiding questions
are divided into different stages over a longer period of time, has shown to support beginning tea-
chers in developing a profound and diverse understanding of their own thoughts and actions (Husu,
Toom, & Patrikainen, 2008; Toom, Husu, & Patrikainen, 2015). Consequently there are many ways
to support reflection as a means of learning during initial teacher education, but they have until now
not been intentionally implemented to support teachers’ practical knowledge construction. There-
fore a guided reflection procedure – including several support methods – was developed based on
previous research to enhance the construction of beginning teachers’ practical knowledge (Leijen
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5

et al., 2014) and to study any relationships between the implemented support methods and the types
of practical knowledge communicated in the reflections.
The aim of the study was to examine how the developed guided reflection procedure (see Leijen
et al., 2014) supports student teachers in constructing practical knowledge. More specifically, we
addressed the following research questions: (1) How did the type of reflections (oral reflection
and written reflection) differ in terms of the practical knowledge student teachers communicated?
and (2) How did the three oral reflection conditions (reflecting alone, reflecting with a peer, or
reflecting with a school supervisor) differ in terms of the practical knowledge student teachers com-
municated in their oral and written reflections?

Methods
Context: Estonian Teacher Education
In Estonia, teacher education is regulated at national level, with the requirements for teacher
education established in the Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded’ (2013). According to national require-
ments, teachers are educated at a higher education level at university. All teacher education curricula
include general education and psychology studies, subject and methodology studies, and teaching
practice (for more information see Jakku-Sihvonen, Tissari, Ots, & Uusiautti, 2012; Niikko & Ugaste,
2012). Class teachers follow a five-year bachelor’s and master’s level integrated curriculum (300
European credit points [ECTS]) and kindergarten teachers follow a three-year bachelor’s level cur-
riculum (240 ECTS). In class teachers and kindergarten teachers’ education, subject and method-
ology studies have been simultaneously accompanied by general education and psychology
studies, and teaching practice has been carried out throughout the studies. Subject teachers, however,
are educated in a 3 + 2 system, that is, bachelor’s studies in one subject area are followed by a two-
year teacher education programme at master’s level. Their education is more theory-driven, with an
emphasis on subject and methodology studies but less time dedicated to general pedagogical studies.

Participants
The sample was selected based on the sampling principles criterion of Patton (1990). Student tea-
chers who were carrying out their teaching practice during the period of the current study (Spring
2013) were selected from one institute at an Estonian university. In total, 21 student teachers par-
ticipated in the study (all female, aged 21–49 years; average age 25). The demography of the partici-
pants represented the student teachers’ population in Estonia well. The participants were following
three different teacher education curricula: eight student teachers followed the subject teacher in
basic education curriculum; six students followed the class teacher curriculum; seven students fol-
lowed the kindergarten teacher curriculum. For student teachers following the class teacher or sub-
ject teacher curriculum, the guided reflection procedure was a compulsory practice assignment. For
student teachers following the kindergarten teacher curriculum, the guided reflection procedure was
introduced as a voluntary practice assignment alongside all the compulsory ones.
During the study, all participants carried out their regular teaching practicum, but they differed in
terms of their previous teaching experience. Student teachers following the subject teacher curricu-
lum carried out their first teaching assignments during their first short-term teaching practice. Stu-
dent teachers following the two other curricula had more teaching experience; they were carrying out
their final teaching practice (kindergarten teacher curriculum students) or one of their main teaching
practices with an age group (class teacher curriculum students). All the student teachers were asked
to sign an informed consent to confirm that they allowed the use of their practice assignment
materials for research purposes. To ensure participants’ confidentiality in the study, each student tea-
cher was given a code (S1 to S21).
6 R. ALLAS ET AL.

Data Collection
Data was collected during the spring of 2013 using the guided reflection procedure (Leijen et al.,
2014; adapted from Husu et al., 2008; Toom et al., 2015) developed during an international European
Union project. The guided reflection procedure used in the study is shown in Figure 1.
During the first phase, the researcher filmed one lesson of each student teacher. Student teachers
had complete liberty to choose which lesson they wanted to be videoed. The researcher, however,
guided student teachers to keep in mind their personal aims for the teaching practice and the specific
area of pedagogical skills they especially wanted to develop. In addition, researcher told to all par-
ticipant that the lesson was not meant as a showcase, but rather as a source for their learning.
Based on this guidance, each student chose a lesson taught by themself alone to be filmed. Before
filming, the researcher collected informed consent from the school and kindergarten directors
and from all the parents of the children involved in the lesson in order to guarantee that the
study was carried out ethically. At the end of this phase, the researcher gave each participant a
video recording of their lesson.
During the second phase, the researcher guided student teachers to selected meaningful events that
had occurred during the filmed lesson for reflection. The term “meaningful event” is used in this study
to refer to an everyday situation that is chosen by the student teacher. The significance and meaning of
this event derives from the analytical interpretation that could affect the student teacher’s thinking and
actions (e.g., Angelides, 2001; Griffin, 2003; Toom, 2006; Tripp, 1993). Two days after filming, the
researcher asked student teachers to view the recorded lesson and select two meaningful events for
further reflection. One event had to be positive and empowering; student teachers had to find an aspect
or event from the lesson that they were very satisfied with. The second event had to be ‘a challenge’;
the student teachers were asked to identify an aspect of the lesson that they wished to address.
Researcher collected the timecodes of every participants’ meaningful events and cut out the videoclips.
During the third phase, researcher asked the student teachers to orally reflect on their meaningful
events one week after they had selected them. The student teachers carried out the oral reflections
alone (n = 8), with a peer (n = 6), or with a supervisor (n = 7) based on each student’s preference.
All the oral reflections were audio recorded by the participants, even the oral reflections that student
teachers carried out by themselves. The researcher asked participants to discuss the chose meaning-
ful events during their oral reflection following the guiding questions (see Appendix 1). Researcher
provided the questions for oral reflection phase to encourage the student teachers to think about the

Figure 1. The guided reflection procedure (Leijen et al., 2014; adapted from Husu et al., 2008; Toom et al., 2015).
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7

chosen events from different perspectives. The researcher guided the student teachers to reflect on
their own as well as their pupil’s activities. Additionally, the researcher aimed to encourage the stu-
dent teachers to reflect on the reasoning behind their actions. The researcher also asked student tea-
chers to think about the causal relationships between their own and the pupils’ behaviour. Moreover,
the researcher guided the student teachers to relate these causal relationships to their theoretical
knowledge. Finally, the researcher asked student teachers to formulate what they had learnt from
the events to support their own knowledge construction. Researcher collected all participants’
audio recordings of their oral reflections via email.
During the fourth phase, the researcher asked the student teachers to carry out written reflections.
This final phase took place one to two weeks after the oral reflection. During this phase, the
researcher asked the student teachers to reflect on the meaningful events in an individual writing
assignment following a second set of guiding questions (see Appendix 2). The written reflection
phase focused on integrating the knowledge extracted from the meaningful events to their existing
knowledge systems. Whilst the researcher guided the student teachers to link each meaningful event
with their theoretical knowledge, they were also asked to think about how the new knowledge gained
via the reflection process related to their personal principles and aims. The researcher collected all
participants’ written reflections via email.

Data Analysis
Data were collected during the oral and written reflection stages. The oral reflections were audio
recorded and transcribed verbatim following the methodology of Oliver, Serovich, and Mason
(2005). Mayring’s (2000) deductive qualitative content analysis procedure was employed for analys-
ing the transcripts and written reflections, following a pre-defined coding scheme (based on Fenster-
macher, 1994; Mena et al., 2016; Toom, 2012) containing six categories: recall, appraisal, rule or
practical principle, artefact, practical reasoning, and theoretical reasoning. The coding scheme is
shown in Table 1.
In the current study, a unit of thought was defined as the smallest unit that carried an independent
meaning (Berg, 2001). First, the units of thought in the written reflections were decided upon by the
first and the second author of the current paper following Eisner’s (1991) consensual validity
method. All units of thought from the written reflections were discussed and coded by appointing
one type of practical knowledge after these two authors had agreed upon a specific type of practical
knowledge. To each unit only one type of practical knowledge was appointed. To check for consist-
ency, all the coded units were re-examined by the first author and if necessary discussed again with

Table 1. Types of practical knowledge (based on Toom, 2012; Fenstermacher, 1994; Mena et al., 2016).
Type of practical
knowledge Definition Example from this study
Recall Direct reproduction of what has been “I am explaining the tasks from the worksheet and I am
experienced (i.e., images from the lesson as showing where to find the necessary information.”
recalled from memory). (S16)
Appraisal Constitute evaluations or value judgments of the “In general, everything is running smoothly.”(S10)
action being recalled.
Rule or practical Methodological strategies student teachers “Children learn through play and active involvement.”
principle extract from their experiences. (S20)
Artefact Instruments and physical support teachers “Next time, I would use shorter sentences.”(S13)
envisage from what they experienced.
Practical Teachers’ practical arguments for their claims “Because I have participated in many group studies, then
reasoning based on their experiences. I know how important the instructions are for a
successful group study.” (S3)
Theoretical Teachers’ theory-related arguments for their “Because I ask questions on different levels, then pupils
reasoning claims based on their experiences. were able to be quite active while answering the
questions.” (S1)
Note: S = Student teacher
8 R. ALLAS ET AL.

the second author to reach an agreement regarding the type of practical knowledge each unit rep-
resented. A total of 436 units were coded from the written reflections. The transcripts of oral reflec-
tions were then analysed in the same manner by the first author. A total of 621 units were coded from
the oral reflections. All 1,057 coded units were then re-examined by the first author to check for con-
sistency within the types of practical knowledge. To assess the reliability of the coding, 107 units of
thought (approximately 10%) from the written and oral reflections data in total were randomly
selected and analysed by the second author following the coding scheme (see Table 1). The agree-
ment between the coding decisions of the first and second researchers was 0.84 (Cohen’s kappa),
indicating a high agreement between the researchers (Viera & Garrett, 2005).
Following the coding procedures, Pearson’s chi-square tests were used to ascertain whether there
were differences between the types of practical knowledge student teachers communicated (1) in
their oral and written reflections and (2) in the three different oral reflection groups. A Pearson’s
chi-square test was used because the types of practical knowledge are not hierarchical. The types
merely represent the different kinds of knowledge teachers need to understand, interpret, and
learn from their practical experiences.

Results
The Types of Created Practical Knowledge in Student Teachers’ Oral and Written
Reflections
Chi-square analysis showed that oral and written reflections were significantly different in terms of
the practical knowledge types student teachers communicated as part of these reflection processes
(χ 2 = 93.9, p < 0.01, df = 5). The chi-square statistic exceeded the critical value for degrees of freedom
(χ2 = 16.8) (Howell, 2006) and none of the expected frequencies was less than five.
All types of practical knowledge presented in the oral and written reflections were significantly differ-
ent (see Table 2). In their oral reflections, student teachers communicated more recalls (SR = 3.4),
appraisals (SR = 3.5), and practical reasoning (SR = 3.4) than in their written reflections. More precisely,
the presentation of recalls such as ‘pupils are working along’ (S10) or ‘I am standing and listening to
pupils who present the result of their groups’ study’ (S3), and practical reasoning such as ‘pupils stopped
their work, because I asked them to stop’ (S1) or ‘I go along with this happily, because the kids are so
joyfully doing it’ (S14), were greater by half in the oral compared to written reflections. Similarly, student
teachers communicated nearly twice as many appraisals such as ‘I felt good giving this lesson’ (S5) and ‘It
really disturbed me that one child’s name sounded all the time’ (S15) in their oral reflections.
In their written reflections, student teachers communicated a higher number of examples of rules
or practical principles (SR = 5.1), artefacts (SR = 4.1), and theoretical reasoning (SR = 5.2). Specifi-
cally, student teachers reported theoretical reasoning such as:
By doing this, I hope to get an answer to my question and if a pupil does not know how to go forward, then by
helping him/her a bit he/she can continue, which means he/she stays in the zone of proximal development
necessary for learning. (S14)

Table 2. Types of practical knowledge student teachers communicated in their oral and written reflections.
Types of practical knowledge
Rule or practical Practical Theoretical
Recall Appraisal principle Artefact reasoning reasoning Total
WR Frequency (%) 59 (14) 39 (9) 143 (33) 54 (12) 102 (23) 39 (9) 436 (100)
SR −3.4 −3.5 5.1 4.1 −4.3 5.2
OR Frequency (%) 135 (22) 101 (16) 118 (19) 33 (5) 222 (36) 12 (2) 621 (100)
SR 3.4 3.5 −5.1 −4.1 4.3 −5.2
Total Frequency (%) 194 (18) 140 (13) 261 (25) 87 (8) 324 (31) 51 (5) 1057 (100)
Key: WR = written reflection
OR = oral reflection
SR = standardised residual
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9

over four times as frequently, and artefacts such as ‘another solution is to set the test sheets as a fla-
bellum so that I can see the names and then I can give the test to a pupil next to whom I am standing’
(S5) more than twice as frequently in their written than oral reflections. Additionally, the presen-
tation of rules or practical principles such as ‘in the future I will know that there is always something
that you are not prepared for’ (S14) and ‘a teacher must act in the best interest of pupils’ (S5) were
greater by half in written compared to oral reflections. The results showed that the oral reflection
assignment resulted in more descriptions of practice, value judgments, and practical reasoning,
and the written assignment questions seemed to trigger practical knowledge such as rules and arte-
facts and seemed to facilitate theoretical reasoning in relation to their practical experiences.

The Types of Practical Knowledge Created Under Different Oral Reflection Conditions
Chi-square analysis was used to ascertain how the types of practical knowledge presented differed
between the oral reflection conditions (alone, with a peer or with a supervisor). Moreover, the prac-
tical knowledge that the student teachers communicated in their reflections in general, and specifically
in their oral and written reflections, was studied. First, the types of practical knowledge student tea-
chers communicated in their oral and written reflections in general was compared with the type of
oral reflection conditions. The results showed that the types of practical knowledge student teachers
created in their oral and written reflections were significantly differently based on the oral reflection
conditions (χ 2 = 21.0, p < 0.05, df = 10). The chi-square statistic exceeded the critical value of the
degrees of freedom (χ 2 = 18.3) (Howell, 2006) and none of the expected frequencies was less than five.
A significant difference of the self-reflection condition was related to the communication of
appraisals (SR = 2.1) and rules or practical principles (SR = 3.1) (see Table 3); more precisely, student
teachers who carried out the oral reflection alone in general presented more appraisals such as ‘this
was really nice part of the lesson’ (S4) and ‘kids are having fun’ (S20) and fewer rules or practical
principles such as ‘it is important that students feel free to say to teacher what they really think’
(S7) and ‘I will try to find a trick for each student that will help to discipline or motivate him/
her’ (S19) in their oral and written reflections than student teachers who underwent other oral reflec-
tion conditions (with peer or with supervisor).
For the peer reflection condition there was a statistically significant difference for expressing rules
and practical principles (SR = 2.4); student teachers who carried out the oral reflection with a peer in
general created in their oral and written reflections more rules or practical principles such as ‘you
always have to prepare for the lessons thoroughly’ (S6) and ‘it is important to attract kids’ attention
when the interest seems to disappear’ (S17) than student teachers who reflected alone or with a super-
visor. A statistically significant difference was also found for the supervisor condition (SR = −2.7);
specifically, those student teachers who carried out the oral reflection with a supervisor presented
fewer appraisals such as ‘kids are quite restless’ (S18) and ‘it was very disturbing’ (S11) in their reflec-
tions than student teachers who reflected alone or with a peer. Altogether, these results showed that, in

Table 3. Types of practical knowledge student teachers who underwent different oral reflection conditions communicated in their
oral and written reflections.
Type of practical knowledge
Rule or practical Practical Theoretical
Recall Appraisal principle Artefact reasoning reasoning Total
Self-reflection Frequency (%) 82 (17) 73 (16) 93 (20) 41 (9) 147 (32) 29 (6) 465 (100)
SR −0.5 2.1 −3.1 0.6 0.6 1.9
Peer reflection Frequency (%) 56 (17) 44 (14) 95 (30) 22 (7) 94 (29) 10 (3) 321 (100)
SR −0.5 0.3 2.4 −1.1 −0.6 −1.7
Supervisor Frequency (%) 56 (21) 23 (8) 73 (27) 24 (9) 83 (31) 12 (4) 271 (100)
reflection
SR 1.1 −2.7 1.0 0.4 0.0 −0.4
Total Frequency (%) 194 (18) 140 (13) 261 (25) 87 (8) 324 (31) 51 (5) 1057 (100)
Key: SR = standardised residual
10 R. ALLAS ET AL.

Table 4. Types of practical knowledge student teachers who underwent different oral reflection conditions communicated in their
written reflections.
Type of practical knowledge
Rule or practical Practical Theoretical
Recall Appraisal principle Artefact reasoning reasoning Total
Self-reflection Frequency (%) 26 (12) 33 (15) 62 (28) 24 (11) 56 (25) 24 (11) 225 (100)
SR −1.2 4.3 −2.4 −1.1 0.8 1.3
Peer reflection Frequency (%) 17 (15) 4 (4) 42 (38) 13 (12) 29 (26) 7 (6) 112 (100)
SR 0.6 −2.3 1.2 −0.3 0.7 −1.2
Supervisor Frequency (%) 16 (16) 2 (2) 39 (39) 17 (17) 17 (17) 8 (8) 99 (100)
reflection SR 0.9 −2.7 1.6 1.6 −1.7 −0.3
Total Frequency (%) 59 (14) 39 (9) 143 (33) 54 (12) 102 (23) 39 (9) 436 (100)
Key: SR = standardised residual

general, student teachers who carried out the oral reflection alone were more evaluative and descriptive
in their reflections than the student teachers who carried out the oral reflection with a peer or a super-
visor. The results indicate that when carrying out the oral reflection alone, it is somewhat more difficult
to communicate in oral and written reflection knowledge that is generalisable to different situations.
Second, differences between the types of practical knowledge student teachers presented in their
oral reflections was studied more specifically across the different types of reflection conditions. The
differences in the types of practical knowledge student teachers presented in their oral reflections in
relation to the type of oral reflection condition was compared. Chi-square test results showed that the
types of practical knowledge student teachers communicated in their oral reflection were not signifi-
cantly differently according to the type of oral reflection condition (p > 0.05). This indicates that the
oral reflection condition does not provide instant support to student teachers in their construction of
practical knowledge, rather the role of support becomes evident in the later phase.
Finally, the differences between the types of practical knowledge student teachers presented in their
written reflections were compared with the type of oral reflection conditions. Chi-square test results
showed that the three groups (self-reflection, peer reflection, and supervisor reflection) were signifi-
cantly different with reference to the practical knowledge types created during the written reflections
(χ 2 = 28.8, p < 0.01, df = 10). The chi-square statistic exceeded the critical value of the degrees of free-
dom (χ 2 = 25.2) (Howell, 2006) and none of the expected frequencies was less than five.
For the self-reflection condition, statistically significant differences were found in expressing
appraisals (SR = 4.3) and rules or practical principles (SR = −2.4) in their written reflections (see
Table 4); the results revealed that student teachers who carried out the oral reflection alone presented
more appraisals in their written reflections (SR = 4.3) such as ‘I think that it is positive’ (S7) and ‘they
like the idea of the game’ (S10) than student teachers who underwent peer (SR = −2.3) or supervisor
(SR = −2.7) reflection conditions.
Self-reflecting student teachers communicated fewer rules or practical principles (SR = −2.4) such
as ‘definitely should begin more playfully’ (S21) and ‘it is important that teacher says at the beginning
that the work has to be presented to the class’ (S3) in their written reflections than student teachers
who were supported in their oral reflections. The results indicate that the oral reflection condition
was significantly related to the practical knowledge student teachers constructed based on their prac-
tical experiences during the written reflection phase. Moreover, peer and supervisor support in the
reflection process seemed to help shift the focus of student teachers’ reflections from real world situ-
ations to conceptions about teaching in general.

Discussion and Conclusion

The current study was derived from the shared observation of many educational researchers that
initial teacher education programmes do not sufficiently prepare student teachers for their future
work as teachers (e.g., Hammerness et al., 2005; Korthagen, 2001; Lieberman & Pointer Mace,
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11

2009; Meijer, 2010). Therefore, in order to enhance the relevance and meaningfulness of initial tea-
cher education and support more effective teacher training, a guided reflection procedure was devel-
oped (Leijen et al., 2014, adapted from Husu et al., 2008; Toom et al., 2015) and implemented during
regular teaching practice at an Estonian university. The procedure aimed to support student teachers
in constructing their own practical knowledge, an aspect that several authors (e.g., Hammerness
et al., 2005; Meijer, 2010; Mena et al., 2013; Shulman, 1987) have pointed out as a key component
in learning to think and act as a teacher. The first aim of the study was to examine how the developed
guided reflection procedure supported student teachers in constructing their level of practical knowl-
edge based on an analysis of their reflections.
The results indicated that the developed guided reflection procedure supported student teachers
in constructing different types of practical knowledge based on their own experiences. More pre-
cisely, student teachers communicated in their oral and written reflections all six types of practical
knowledge. The results are in accordance with Husu et al.’s (2008) findings that indicated that with
proper guidance, student teachers are able to reflect on their experiences on different levels (e.g.,
related to the concrete situation in order to understand it better or, on a more general level, to under-
stand the principles and reasoning behind this situation). Moreover, the results of this study suggest
that the developed guided reflection procedure supports the construction of knowing-in-action
(Schön, 1983) or a code of practice (Mena et al., 2011) that will form the base of student teachers’
own theory of action.
In order to find out the effect of different reflection conditions on the construction of teacher’s
practical knowledge, two types of reflection stage were implemented in the developed guided reflec-
tion procedure. The oral reflection stage is aimed to encourage student teachers to find potentially
effective strategies, rules, or principles for practice (for more information see Shulman, 1987) and the
written reflection stage to relate such practical knowledge to the educational theories taught in uni-
versity programmes. The results of the current study show that during oral reflections, context-
related knowledge, such as recalls, appraisals, and practical reasoning, was most often presented.
These results indicate that in the proximate reflection, interpretations are relatively quick and
emotional, focusing on thoroughly understanding the situation and the emotions and the feelings
that the teaching causes (Husu et al., 2008). In contrast, during written reflections inferential knowl-
edge (rules or principles and artefacts) and theoretical reasoning was more frequently communi-
cated. The former refers to the importance of prolonged reflection that allows developing
understanding and interpretation based on the concrete situations (Husu et al., 2008). These findings
suggest that while the oral reflection stage allowed a detailed revisiting of real-world incidents, the
written reflection stage permitted students to reflect at a more abstract level and extract more gen-
eralised knowledge from the same incidents. These findings are in line with Husu et al.’s (2008)
results indicating that with proper guidance student teachers are able to construct different knowl-
edge via the reflection process.
Three different oral reflection conditions were included in the guided reflection procedure to
ascertain if there was any difference in their effectiveness to support the construction of teachers’
practical knowledge. One group carried out oral reflection activities by themselves, which is a com-
mon format for reflection in teacher education programmes; drawing on the work of Meijer et al.
(2002), a second group carried out oral reflections with a supervisor; following Leijen et al.
(2012), a third group carried out their oral reflections with a peer. The results of the current
study show that student teachers who carried out the oral reflection alone presented more con-
text-related knowledge and less knowledge that could guide them in future teaching activities during
both their oral and written reflections. In contrast, reflecting with somebody else helped student tea-
chers to move their focus from the actual real-world experiences to the rules and principles that
underlie them. These results are in line with several previous studies highlighting the positive effect
of supervisor (e.g., Meijer et al., 2002) and peer (e.g., Danielowich, 2014; Fund, 2010; Lamb & Lane,
2012; Leijen et al., 2012) input on the reflection process. More precisely, arising from the same pro-
fessional position (including lack of experiences, knowledge and skills, uncertainties, and fears),
12 R. ALLAS ET AL.

some aspects of learning to teach are easier to discuss and share with peers. The emotional support
and the absence of evaluative tendency allows discussion of aspects of teaching that would not be
brought up with supervisors (e.g., Danielowich, 2014; Lamb & Lane, 2012). On the other hand,
supervisors are experts in teaching and they explicate their practical knowledge for student teachers,
and thus, support the construction of their own theories of action. (e.g., Meijer et al., 2002; Zanting
et al., 2001). Therefore, both peers and supervisors have their unique and important role in con-
structing teacher’s practical knowledge.
In an effort to provide more detailed information about the effect of the three oral reflection con-
ditions on the construction of practical knowledge, a more in-depth analysis was carried out to com-
pare the differences in knowledge types between the oral and written reflections. Although the type
of oral reflection condition affected the type of support the student teachers received, no statistically
significant differences were found in the types of practical knowledge presented at the oral reflection
stage; however, differences did become evident at the written reflection stage. Therefore the results of
this study suggest that it may take time until collaboratively constructed knowledge attained during
peer or supervisor discussions becomes internalised and can be used to create one’s own theory of
action. These results indicate that reflection has to take place in interaction with others (e.g., Dewey,
1933; Moon, 2004), which enables individuals to share and learn from their experiences and ideas
from the perspective of others, which will in turn lay the foundation for re(interpreting) and devel-
oping their own perspectives further.
In conclusion, this study offers a new insight into the ways student teachers can be supported in
their learning of practical knowledge. First, the results of this study provide evidence that, with
proper guidance, student teachers are able to reflect on their practical experiences and construct
different types of knowledge. Second, by comparing different reflection conditions, suggestions
might be made on how to best support student teachers in constructing their own theory of actions.
The results indicate, therefore, that proximate oral reflection can be effectively used to construct an
understanding of real-world practical experiences, but prolonged written reflection is more effective
in facilitating the construction of underlying rules and theories of practice. Similarly, the results pro-
vide grounds to expect the developed procedure to be especially helpful for student teachers to
articulate generalised practical knowledge in cases where the oral reflection is carried out with a
supervisor or a peer. The study emphasises the value of different types of support in the reflection
process in constructing teacher’s practical knowledge. To ensure teacher’s professional development,
reflection during initial teacher education should take place in various conditions and in professional
interaction with peers and experienced teachers. Therefore, this study offers several research-based
suggestions on how to implement guided reflection procedures to better support student teachers’
learning of practical knowledge from their own teaching experiences.

Limitations of the Study

When interpreting the results of this study, some limitations must be taken into account. This study
was based on data collected from student teachers who carried out their regular teaching practice
during the period of the current study (Spring, 2013). At that time, all the student teachers from
the selected teacher education curricula were female. The participation of only female student tea-
chers can be considered as a limitation of our study. However it is typical in the Estonian context
that the vast majority of student teachers are female, especially for the selected teacher education cur-
ricula. In addition, the study was conducted with a relatively small sample of student teachers from
three different teacher education curricula. Further, no data was collected related to the student tea-
chers’ initial level of reflection or the types of knowledge they had presented in their previous reflec-
tion. Finally, the student teachers were divided into oral reflection condition groups by self-selection,
which might make the initial equal level of different oral reflection groups disputable. Therefore, the
results of this study should be interpreted with caution.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13

Suggestions for Future Research

Taking into account the limitations of this study, further research is required to confirm the suppor-
tive effect that the developed guided reflection procedure appears to have on student teachers’ con-
struction of practical knowledge. Nevertheless, by exploring the types of practical knowledge student
teachers communicated in different formats of reflection, our study is an important contribution to
the future development of a pedagogy of reflection in teacher education. For more comprehensive
understanding on how to use the developed guided reflection procedure to support the construction
of teacher’s practical knowledge, further research is needed to explore the relation between the tea-
cher education curricula and the types of practical knowledge student teachers communicate in their
reflections. Similarly, further research is needed to explore how to support the construction of begin-
ning teacher’s practical knowledge during their first years at work.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
This study was carried out with the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union [grant num-
ber 526318-LLP-1-2012-1-EE-COMENIUS-CMP] and the Estonian Science Foundation, [grant number ETF9221].

ORCiD
Auli Toom http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3261-3376

References
Altan, M. Z., & Sağlamel, H. (2015). Student teaching from the perspectives of cooperating teachers and pupils. Cogent
Education, 2(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2015.1086291
Angelides, P. (2001). The development of an efficient technique for collecting and analyzing qualitative data: The
analysis of critical incidents. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 429–442.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., Morine-Dershimer, G., & Tillema, H. (2005). Trends and themes in teachers’ working and
learning environment. In D. Beijaard, P. C. Meijer, G. Morine-Dershimer & H. Tillema (Eds.), Teacher professional
development in changing conditions (pp. 9–23). Dordrecht: Springer.
Benammar, K. (2004). Conscious Action through conscious thinking - reflection tools in experiential learning. Public
seminar. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for social sciences (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 238–267.
Bronkhorst, L., Meijer, P. C., Koster, B., & Vermunt, J. D. (2011). Fostering meaning-oriented learning and deliberate
practice in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1120–1130.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18
(1), 32–42.
Caspersen, J., & Raaen, F. D. (2014). Novice teachers and how they cope. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
20(2), 189–211.
Council conclusions of 26 November 2009 on the professional development of teachers and school leaders (2009).
Official Journal of the European Union, C 302/04, 6–9.
Danielowich, R. M. (2014). Shifting the reflective focus: Encouraging student teacher learning in video-framed and
peer-sharing contexts. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 20(3), 264–288.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Eisenschmidt, E., Oder, T., & Reiska, E. (2013). The induction program – Teachers’ experience after five years of prac-
tice. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 21(3), 241–257.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The englightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York:
Macmillan.
Fantilli, R. D., & McDougall, D. E. (2009). A study of novice teachers: Challenges and supports in the first year.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 814–825.
14 R. ALLAS ET AL.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L.
Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education, 20 (pp. 3–56). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Fives, H., Hamman, D., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Does burnout begin with student-teaching? Analyzing efficacy, burnout,
and support during the student-teaching semester. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 23(6), 916–934.
Fund, Z. (2010). Effects of communities of reflecting peers on student-teacher development – including in-depth case
studies. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 16(6), 679–701.
van Ginkel, G., Oolbekkink, H., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2016). Adapting mentoring to individual differences in
novice teacher learning: the mentor’s viewpoint. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(2), 198–218.
doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1055438
Griffin, M. L. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflectiv thinking in preservice teachers. Reflective
Practice, 4(2), 207–220.
Grimmett, P. P., & MacKinnon, A. M. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of teachers. Review of Research in
Education, 18(1), 385–456.
Grossman, P. (2007). The teaching of practice in teacher education. In J. Butcher & L. McDonald (Eds.), Making a
difference: Challenges for teachers, teaching and teacher education (pp. 55–65). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learnand develop. In L. Darling-
Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be
able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hébert, C. (2015). Knowing and/or experiencing: A critical examination of the reflective models of John Dewey and
Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 16(3), 361–371. doi:10.1080/14623943.2015.1023281
Hong, J. Y. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay? Understanding teacher resi-
lience trough psychological lenses. Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 417–440.
Howell, D. C. (2006). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
Husu, J., Toom, A., & Patrikainen, S. (2008). Guided reflection as a means to demonstrate and develop student tea-
chers’ reflective competencies. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(1), 37–51.
Jakku-Sihvonen, R., Tissari, V., Ots, A., & Uusiautti, S. (2012). Teacher education curricula after the Bologna process –
a comparative analysis of written curricula in Finland and Estonia. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
56(3), 261–275. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581687
Kansanen, P., Tirri, K., Meri, M., Krokfors, L., Husu, J., & Jyrhämä, R. (2000). Teachers’ pedagogical thinking.
Theoretical landscapes, practical challenges. New York: Peter Lang.
Kori, K., Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., & Mäeots, M. (2014). Supporting reflection in technology-enhanced learning.
Educational Research Review, 11, 45–55.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). A broader view of reflection. In F. A. J. Korthagen, J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Lagrwerf, & T.
Wubbels (Eds.), Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education (pp. 231–238). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97.
Korthagen, F. A. J., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education pro-
grams and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020–1041.
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional
growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 47–71.
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbels, Th. (1991). Characteristics of reflective practitioners: Towards an operationalization of
the concept of reflection. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago. ERIC-nr. ED 334 183.
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbels, Th. (2000). Are reflective teachers better teachers? In G. M. Willems, J. H. J.
Stakenborg, & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Trends in Dutch teacher education (pp. 131–141). Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant.
LaBoskey, V. K. (2010). Teacher education and models of teacher reflection. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 629–34, vol. 7). Oxford: Elsevier.
Lamb, P., & Lane, K. (2012). Enhancing the spaces of reflection: A buddy peer-review process within physical edu-
cation initial teacher education. European Physical Education Review, 19(1), 21–38.
Leijen, Ä., Allas, R., Toom, A., Husu, J., Mena Marcos, J.-J., Knezic, D., … Pedaste, M. (2015). Preservice teachers’
experiences of empowering and challenging events of teaching practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, Illinois, April 16–20, 2015).
Leijen, Ä., Allas, R., Toom, A., Husu, J., Mena Marcos, J.-J., Meijer, P., … Krull, E. (2014). Guided reflection for sup-
porting the development of student teachers’ practical knowledge. The European Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 112, 314–322.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 15

Leijen, Ä., Valtna, K., Leijen, D. A. J., & Pedaste, M. (2012). How to determine the quality of students’ reflections?.
Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 203–217.
Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 18–25.
Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2009). The role of “accomplished teachers” in professional learning commu-
nities: Uncovering practice and enabling leadership. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 459–470.
doi:10.1080/13540600903057237
Löfström, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2009). Novice teachers’ perspectives on mentoring: The case of the Estonian induc-
tion year. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 681–689.
Lohmander, M. K. (2015). Bridging ‘the gap’ – linking workplace-based and university-based learning in preschool
teacher education in Sweden. Early Years, 35(2), 168–183. doi:10.1080/09575146.2015.1025712
Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. London,
New York: Routledge.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 1–10. Art. 20.
Meijer, P. C. (2010). The teacher education knowledge base: Experienced teachers’ craft knowledge. In E. Baker, P.
Peterson & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 642–649, vol. 7). Oxford: Elsevier.
Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching
reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(1), 59–84.
Meijer, P. C., Zanting, A., & Verloop, N. (2002). How can student teachers elicit experienced teachers’ practical knowl-
edge? Tools, suggestions, and significance. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 406–419.
Mena, J., García, M., Clarke, A., & Barkatsas, A. (2016). An analysis of three different approaches to student teacher
mentoring and their impact on knowledge generation in practicum settings. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 39(1), 53–76. doi:10.1080/02619768.2015.1011269
Mena, J. M., García, M. L. & Tillema, H. (2011). Revealing practical knowledge through deliberate reflection in student
teaching. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning
and Instruction (Exeter, United Kingdom, August 30-September 3, 2011).
Mena, J. M., García, M. L., & Tillema, H. H. (2013). Student teacher reflective writing: What does it reveal? European
Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 147–163.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moon, J. A. (2004). Reflection in learning and professional development. New York: Routledge-Falmer.
Nielsen, B. L. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ meaning-making when collaboratively analysing video from school practice
for the bachelor project at college. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 341–357. doi:10.1080/02619768.
2014.983066
Niikko, A., & Ugaste, A. (2012). Conceptions of Finnish and Estonian Pre-school teachers’ goals in their pedagogical
work. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(5), 481–495. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.599424
Oliver, D. G., Serovich, J. M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription:
Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces, 84(2), 1273–1289.
Onnismaa, E.-L., Tahkokallio, L., & Kalliala, M. (2015). From university to working life: An analysis of field-based
studies in early childhood teacher education and recently graduated kindergarten teachers’ transition to work.
Early Years, 35(2), 197–210. doi:10.1080/09575146.2015.1011065
Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded [Framework requirements for teacher education] (2013). Riigi Teataja I, 2, 381.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp. 169–186). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Poom-Valickis, K. (2007). Novice teachers’ professional development across their induction year. Tallinn University,
Dissertations on Social Sciences, 33.
Procee, H. (2006). Reflection in education: A Kantian epistemology. Educational Theory, 56(3), 237–253.
Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2011). Constructing practical knowledge of teaching: Eleven newly qualified language teachers’
discursive agency. The Language Learning Journal, 39(3), 365–379.
Schepens, A., Aelterman, A., & Van Keer, H. (2007). Studying learning processes of student teachers with stimulated
recall interviews through changes in interactive cognitions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 457–472.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),
1–23.
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
Sööt, A., & Leijen, Ä. (2012). Designing support for reflection activities in tertiary dance education. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 448–456.
TALIS. (2013). Results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris: OECD Publishing.
TALIS: Õpetaja professionaalsus ning tõhusama õpetamis- ja õppimiskeskkonna loomine. (2009). [Teacher profes-
sionalism and creation of efficient teaching and learning environment]. K. Loogma, V.-R. Ruus, L. Talts, &
K. Poom- Valickis (Eds.).Retrieved from http://www.hm.ee/index.php?048181
16 R. ALLAS ET AL.

Toom, A. (2006). Tacit pedagogical knowing: At the core of teacher’s professionality. Research reports 276. University of
Helsinki: Department of Applied Sciences of Education.
Toom, A. (2012). Considering the artistry and epistemology of tacit knowledge and knowing. Educational Theory,
62(6), 621–640.
Toom, A., Husu, J., & Patrikainen, S. (2015). Student teachers’ patterns of reflection in the context of teaching practice.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 320–340. doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.943731
Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. London: Routledge.
Tynjälä, P., & Heikkinen, H. L. T. (2011). Beginning teachers’ transition from pre-service education to working life.
Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(1), 11–33.
Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The Kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37
(5), 360–363.
Wetzel, A. P., De Arment, S. T., & Reed, E. (2015). Building teacher candidates’ adaptive expertise: Engaging experi-
enced teachers in prompting reflection. Reflective Practice, 16(4), 546–558. doi:10.1080/14623943.2015.1064380
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in
teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). Sussex: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). Student teachers’ beliefs about mentoring and learning to teach
during teaching practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 57–80.

Appendix 1. Guiding Questions for the Oral Reflection

1. What is happening?
1.1 What can you see/hear yourself doing?
1.2 What can you see/hear the students doing?
1.3 Is there a relationship between what you are doing and what the students are doing?
2. Why do you think this is happening?
2.1 Which student behaviours are caused by your behaviour?
2.2 Which behaviour of yours is caused by the students’ behaviour?
2.3 What makes the incident a critical incident for you?
3. Relating the incident to theory.
3.1 Which teacher role does the incident relate to?
3.2 How does the literature support your causal explanation for section 2 (in the case of the
empowering incident)?
3.3 What suggestions does the literature offer for solving this problem (in the case of the chal-
lenging incident)
4. What have you learnt from this event so far? How will you make use of the things that you have
learned from this event?

Appendix 2. Guiding Questions for the Written Reflection

1. Relating the incident to theory.

1.1 Which teacher role does the incident relate to?
1.2 How does the literature support your causal explanation for section 2 (in the case of the
empowering incident)?
1.3 What suggestions does the literature offer for solving this problem (in the case of the chal-
lenging incident)?
2. What will be your future action?
2.1 What will be your future action regarding this incident?
2.2 What do you hope to achieve by this action?
2.3 What personal principles underlie your choice of action?
3. How will you make use of the things you have learned from this event?