Reflective Practice

International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives

ISSN: 1462-3943 (Print) 1470-1103 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

Practicum tutorials in initial teacher training:

conditions, strategies, and effects of reflective
practice

Andrea Ruffinelli, Silvana de la Hoz & Carolina Álvarez

To cite this article: Andrea Ruffinelli, Silvana de la Hoz & Carolina Álvarez (2020): Practicum
tutorials in initial teacher training: conditions, strategies, and effects of reflective practice, Reflective
Practice, DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2019.1708712

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2019.1708712

Published online: 20 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 49

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crep20
REFLECTIVE PRACTICE
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2019.1708712

Practicum tutorials in initial teacher training: conditions,

strategies, and effects of reflective practice
Andrea Ruffinelli , Silvana de la Hoz and Carolina Álvarez
Faculty of Education, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper systematizes the research findings of publications in the last Received 17 October 2019
5-years related to reflective practice in practicum tutorials in initial Accepted 19 December 2019
teacher training, by means of a literature review. The objective is to KEYWORDS
contribute new knowledge about reflective practice, structuring it Reflective practice; reflective
around its conditions, development strategies, and effects, considering learning; practicum tutorials;
metacognitive and generative factors, enriching theory about how to initial teacher training;
teach reflection. The results show there is progress in the field in terms literature review
of proposals for different devices and strategies to teach reflective
practice in initial teacher training, and emerging findings regarding its
effects.

Introduction/background information
Over the last 30 years, reflective practice has become one of the keys elements in initial
teacher training (ITT)1. The main argument to include this approach in ITT is its potential
to contribute to professional development in terms of improving teaching practices (Gün,
2011; Tomlinson, 1999). However, reflection has been understood polysemically and there
is no agreement on how it should be taught (Beauchamp, 2015).
The literature has transitioned from a reflective training approach supported by
theoretical exercises (Beauchamp, 2015; Eraut, 2004), or rather on assessments or inter-
ventions to measure levels of reflection without sufficient evidence to build theory (Alper,
2010; Beauchamp, 2006; Calderhead, 1989; Concha, Hernández, Romo, & Andrade, 2013;
Fendler, 2003; Guerra Zamora, 2009; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Marcos, Sanchez, & Tillemab,
2011; Nocetti & Medina, 2019; Russell, 2005; Silva, Rubio, Herrera, & Nervi, 2012; Thompson
& Pascal, 2012; Yaffe, 2010), towards a nascent construction of theory based on evidence
(Ruffinelli, 2017).
Various studies indicate that pre-service teachers ‘reflect’ without establishing relation-
ships with theory (Crichton & Valdera Gil, 2015; Diez-Fernández and Domínguez-
Fernández 2018; Larrivee 2008; Stîngu 2012; Weber, Gold, Prilop, and Kleinknecht 2018),
that they do not receive support to do so, and they do not go beyond the descriptive
dimension (Gelfuso & Dennis, 2014; Larrivee, 2008; Liston & Zeichner, 1993; Mansvelder-
Longayroux, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007; Van – Manen, 1977).
In Chile, the public policy promotes reflection as a tool for the professionalization of
teachers and its inclusion in the training curriculum (Ávalos, 2007; Galaz, Fuentealba,

CONTACT Andrea Ruffinelli aruffine@uahurtado.cl Faculty of Education, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. RUFFINELLI ET AL.

Cornejo, & Padilla, 2011). Training programs declare reflection to be one of their
cornerstones, but it has been shown that this occurs more on a declarative level than
in practice (Ruffinelli, 2018). Given this scenario, it is important to contribute to the
systematization of evidence on the way in which reflection is taught, and its effects on
teaching practice.
This article presents a review of the literature, published between 2015 and 2019,
on reflective practice in practicum tutorials in ITT: its conditions, strategies and
effects.

1. Conceptual framework and literature review

1.1. Three reflective traditions and one option
The literature identifies at least four traditions in the teacher’s approach as
a reflective professional: technique, reflective teaching, reflective practice, and cri-
tical reflection. The ‘technical’ rationality implies a cognitive understanding of
reflection (Beauchamp, 2015), linked to analytical skills and the use of theory to
solve pedagogical problems (Pascual, 1998). The ‘reflective teaching’ approach
(Cruickshank, 1987; Dewey, 1989) assumes a metacognitive understanding of reflec-
tion (Beauchamp, 2015), recognizing, in addition to theoretical knowledge, an
experiential knowledge that should be informed by theory, positing the ‘generative’
capacity of reflection, upon creating new professional knowledge. The approaches
of ‘reflective practice’ – reflection that generates professional knowledge and
improves practice (Schön, 1983), and ‘critical reflection’ -reflection through research
that transforms practice, considering social and contextual elements (Zeichner,
1993), share the metacognitive and generative understanding of reflection, adding
an element that goes beyond new knowledge: the transformation of practice (Gan &
Lee, 2016; Karlström & Hamza, 2019; Mena, García, Clarke, & Barkatsas, 2016; Mena,
Hennissen, & Loughran, 2017; Sheridan & Young, 2017; Weber et al., 2018). This
generative effect of reflective practice (Author, 2018) has been thematized less, and
is the perspective adopted in this review.

1.2. Generative reflective practice: what is it?

Epstein (1996) refers to the development of new behaviors to solve problems, as
a complex psychosocial construction that describes how an individual responds to social
demands, internal desires, conscious concerns, beliefs, and commitments, from
a generative perspective. This is related to the idea of transcending the link between
theory and practice, promoting the generation of new knowledge and practices to solve
pedagogical problems (Liu & Ball, 2019).
In this context, generative reflection would bring experiential knowledge closer to
theory with the mediation of a trainer, allowing the construction of new professional
knowledge and the improvement of teaching practice. In short, these two factors allow for
a discussion on generative reflection: new knowledge and improvement of professional
teaching practice (Author, 2018).
 REFLECTIVE PRACTICE 3

1.3. Condition for the generative reflective practice: link between theory and
practice
Possessing theoretical knowledge is essential for generative reflection, as it provides
a framework to analyze practice (Crichton & Valdera Gil, 2015; Diez-Fernández &
Domínguez-Fernández, 2018; Korthagen, 2010; Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007; Stenberg,
Rajala, & Hilppo, 2016; Concha et al., 2013;). In the absence of theoretical knowledge,
reflection would lead to practical or experiential knowledge based on common sense,
instead of creating new professional knowledge (Gelfuso & Dennis, 2014; Larrivee, 2008).
In order to achieve the objective of generative reflection – generation of new knowl-
edge and improvement of practice – the literature has described linking theory and
practice as its precursor, understood as a dialectal process that uses theory to problema-
tize practice, transforming both theory and practice (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Korthagen,
Loughran & Russell, 2006; Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007; Smagorinsky, Cook, and Johnson,
2003), and proposing that reflection should act as a bridge between them (Corbin Frazier
& Eick, 2015; Diez-Fernández & Domínguez-Fernández, 2018; Foong, Nor, & Nolan, 2018;
Schön, 1983; Stenberg et al., 2016).

1.4. Development of the generative reflective practice: the practicum tutorials

Courses on teaching practice are excellent educational opportunities to promote the
integration of theoretical and practical knowledge (Korthagen, 2017), just as the practi-
cum tutorials favor the promotion of reflective practice (Crichton & Valdera Gil, 2015;
Weber et al., 2018).
According to Calderhead and Gates (2003), both new and expert teachers are not
particularly aware of their own behavior or the reasons behind them, but the tutor can
promote generative reflection. Without this support, pre-service teachers develop more
descriptions than transformations (Kalk, Luik, Taimalu, & That, 2014). Empirical studies
indicate that the tutor tends to be associated both with a role that promotes reflection
and a bureaucratic one that obstructs professional development (Ruffinelli, 2018;
Falchikov, 2007). For this reason, investigating evidence about the way in which reflective
practice is capable of creating new professional knowledge and transforming practice
would help close the gap in knowledge about the conditions for reflective practice,
strategies for its development, and the effects of its implementation, which is the
objective of this review.

2. Methodology
The search for literature on reflective practice in ITT was conducted in three databases: Web of
Science, Scopus, and ScIELO. The keywords used were: reflexivity, reflective, pedagogical
practice, tutoring, and mentoring in a series of combinations, limited to a five-year span from
2015 to 2019. The inclusion criteria were: that the studies are contextualized in the practice
guidelines for ITT, focused on the relationship between the university tutor and the pre-
service teacher, and address at least one of the following dimensions of reflective practice:
conditions, teaching strategies and effects. From 942 abstracts, a total of 33 works were
selected from Europe (15), the United States and Canada (5), Oceania (1), Asia (4), and Latin
4 A. RUFFINELLI ET AL.

America (8), including three papers from Chile. Additionally, the journal Reflective Practice was
also reviewed over the same period, and another six articles were added. The full collection of
articles reached 38. The analysis was conducted through a combination of systematic proce-
dures for content analysis (Krippendorff, 1990) and the constant comparative method (Glaser
& Strauss, 1999)

3. Results
More than 90% of the reviewed research are qualitative, some are mixed and two are
literature reviews. There are two correlational studies and slightly less than half are
descriptive. A little more than half are cross-sectional studies and about half are long-
itudinal (interventions), unlike the previous period where the vast majority were assess-
ments of reflection and cross-sectional.
The documents are grouped into four topics, in order of their magnitude: Strategies for
reflective development, Generative reflection, General elements of reflection in ITT and
the Role of the tutor. The studies that test or describe strategies tend to address dialogic
processes on collective reflection (Foong et al., 2018; Godínez Martínez, 2018), the use of
videos and logs (Corbin Frazier & Eick, 2015; Crichton & Valdera Gil, 2015; Gan, Lee & Fung
King, 2016; Jons, 2019; Nagro, deBettencourt, Rosenberg, Carran, & Weiss, 2017), feedback
(Weber et al., 2018), linking theory to practice (Stenberg et al., 2016) and micro-teaching
(Karlström & Hamza, 2019; Serdar Tülüce & Çeçen, 2016).
The studies that address the generative dimension of reflection center on their
value for professional development (Ciavaldini-Cartaut, 2015; Körkkö, Kyrö-Ämmälä, &
Turunen, 2016; Kramer, 2018; Leijen et al., 2014) and the role of the tutorial
(Korthagen, Loughran & Russell, 2006; Hernández, 2015). The documents that con-
sider general aspects of reflection and ITT center on predictors (Estaji & Dezfoolian,
2018), opportunities (Author, 2018), representations (Nocetti & Medina, 2019) and
literature reviews (Author, 2017; Beauchamp, 2015); while the documents that refer
to the role of the tutorial are oriented toward paradigms, approaches and styles
(Diez-Fernández & Domínguez-Fernández, 2018; Mena et al., 2016; Mena et al., 2017;
Svojanovsky, 2017).

3.1. Conditions for reflective practice in practicum tutorials: contextual and

internal
Two types of conditions are revealed: contextual (social, institutional, and training pro-
grams) and internal to the practicum tutorial. Among the social and institutional con-
textual conditions, it is suggested that neither society (Beauchamp, 2015; Corbin Frazier &
Eick, 2015) nor universities (Svojanovsky, 2017) have reflection as a core focus, which
hinders its practice in ITT.
As regards the contextual conditions of the training programs, the promotion of early
development of reflection skills is considered key (Beauchamp, 2015; Nocetti de la Barra &
Medina Moya, 2019), as well as the consideration of cognitive and affective factors
(Beauchamp, 2015). Also important is the establishment of collaborative relationships
between the mentoring teachers (at the school) and the professor tutors (at the
 REFLECTIVE PRACTICE 5

university), consolidating a shared understanding of reflective practice among educators

(Nocetti de la Barra & Medina Moya, 2019; Stenberg et al., 2016).
In terms of the internal conditions of tutoring, of note are: the learning environment,
the availability of theoretical knowledge and willingness of the pre-service teacher, the
characteristics and/or attitudes of the tutor and/or the pre-service teacher, and pedago-
gical principles that support this area.
It is important to have a safe and contained environment (Foong et al., 2018; Sheridan
& Young, 2017), in which the pre-service teacher feels comfortable and legitimized
(Svojanovsky, 2017). Yagata (2017) highlights the importance of narrowing the power
gap and taking into account the pre-service teachers’ opinions regarding their own
possibilities for improvement. Also relevant is the tutor’s involvement and commitment
to the student (Nocetti de la Barra & Medina Moya, 2019), that requires willingness and
specific training (Foong et al., 2018; Nocetti de la Barra & Medina Moya, 2019; Sheridan &
Young, 2017; Yagata, 2017). It is also particularly crucial that the tutor has the time to and
is open to meeting with the pre-service teacher (Bjuland & Helgevold, 2018; Corbin Frazier
& Eick, 2015; Diez-Fernández & Domínguez-Fernández, 2018; Foong et al., 2018).
Another internal condition of tutoring is the availability of theoretical knowledge as
a framework to analyze the practice (Crichton & Valdera Gil, 2015; Diez-Fernández &
Domínguez-Fernández, 2018; Stenberg et al., 2016; (Mauri et al., 2016), which allows
tutors to use theoretical language as a mediator between practical experiences and the
language to reflect on them (Stenberg et al., 2016).
Finally, the literature reveals some pedagogical principles as conditions for reflective
practice: a) acknowledgement of the social, interactive and contextual nature of learning
(Hernández, 2015; Vygotsky, 1962), b) interaction based on real situations (Stenberg et al.,
2016), c) ‘scaffolding’ of the reflective practice (Diez-Fernández & Domínguez-Fernández,
2018) with an active role of the pre-service teachers in a dialogical relationship whose
explicit aim is to improve the teaching practice (Corbin Frazier & Eick, 2015). This
scaffolding consists of building a framework for this space (Nocetti de la Barra & Medina
Moya, 2019) in the context of a dynamic process of progressive autonomy, in which tutors
transfer responsibility and control to the pre-service teachers for their own reflective
process (Beauchamp, 2015; Mauri et al., 2016; Svojanovsky, 2017).

3.2. Strategies to develop reflective practice in the tutorial: directive,

constructivist and progressive
The strategies have been systematized considering those for which there is evidence of
positive results in the pre-service teacher’s reflective development. Methodological
devices and pedagogical strategies are identified. The devices propose a combined set
of procedures for reflective practice, whereas the strategies operate in isolation and have
been classified as directive, constructivist, and progressively directive/constructivist.

3.2.1. Directive strategies

In this review, four directive strategies were identified: a) ‘feedback’ (Crichton & Valdera
Gil, 2015; Jons, 2019; Nagro et al., 2017) as a form of retrospective reflection for classroom
observations; b) ‘describe’ or narrate what the tutor observes in certain situations (Jons,
2019; Mena et al., 2017; Yagata, 2017), although its directive nature is under discussion; c)
6 A. RUFFINELLI ET AL.

‘model’ or show the content in the act of teaching, which is used to transmit it (Dickerson,
Thomas, Jarvis, & Levy, 2018; Russell, 2018); and d) ‘assess’ or monitor learning by making
a judgment to identify weaknesses and strengths (Diez-Fernández & Domínguez-
Fernández, 2018; Jons, 2019).

3.2.2. Constructivist strategies

A total of 15 constructivist strategies were identified that correspond to four groups:

Group 1) Dialogic strategies: a) ‘reflect’, understanding reflection as a practice and not as

teachable knowledge (Svojanovsky, 2017); b) ‘listen’ (Mena et al., 2017), c) ‘open-ended
questions’ (Mena et al., 2017; Yagata, 2017), which can be of various kinds: probing (tell
me . . .) (Nagro et al., 2017), descriptive (what?) (Hernández, 2015; Mena et al., 2017),
confrontational (justification, substantiation, explanation, why?), or linked to reformula-
tion (proposals for change or improvement, how can I do it better?) (Jons, 2019). On
a more complex level: d) ‘genuine dialogue’ (Nocetti de la Barra & Medina Moya, 2019;
Sheridan & Young, 2017; Yagata, 2017) understood as interaction in order to co-
construct new points of view; e) ‘non-directive feedback’, which provides evidence
and opportunities to rationalize the knowledge, beliefs and positions that guide practice
(Nocetti de la Barra & Medina Moya, 2019), or, in the words of Svojanovsky (2017),
‘guide’, without directing the conversation, and f) ‘help’ from the tutor, of three kinds:
dialogic, interpretative, and to establish links between theory and practice (Mauri et al.,
2016).
Group, p. 2) is related to Written products: a) ‘reflective journal’, b) ‘reflective writing’, c)
‘autobiography’ (Crichton & Valdera Gil, 2015; Mena et al., 2017; Nocetti de la Barra &
Medina Moya, 2019; Svojanovsky, 2017), d) ‘teaching portfolio’ and e) ‘video analysis’,
although the latter two do not have to be solely written. The portfolio could contain
reflections, class designs, or interviews (Körkkö et al., 2016). Video analysis can be used
to generate dialogue and provide reflection (Mauri et al., 2016; Nagro et al., 2017). This
latter strategy provides particularly relevant alternatives, ‘stimulated memory’ or ‘self-
confrontation’ (Ciavaldini-Cartaut, 2015; Mena et al., 2017); through interviews on the
video recording of one’s own class, the pre-service teacher is confronted with the
content of theoretical learning in the training program, in order to verbalize what he
or she has gained professionally with this reflection.
Group 3) provides a real and protected context for reflection: a) ‘micro-teaching’ in
which students plan a brief unit, teach it to their peers, and then reflect on it
(Karlström & Hamza, 2019); b) ‘problematizing practice’, which involves conducting
innovation and experimentation actions to overcome a problematic situation
(Nocetti & Medina, 2019), and c) ‘self-evaluation’, assigning oneself to different
levels of reflection: describe, analyze, judge, and apply (Nagro et al., 2017).
Group 4: a) ‘Progressive’ strategies, previously lacking in the literature, which advance
from directive strategies (initially offering more answers) towards constructivist
strategies (allowing the student to investigate possibilities), depending on the
context, the stage in training, and the student’s needs, providing a scenario of
progressive autonomy (Author, 2018; Svojanovsky, 2017).
 REFLECTIVE PRACTICE 7

In comparison to previous reviews (Author, 2018; Guerra Zamora, 2009), this study
demonstrates a smaller presence of directive strategies, of the kind involving feedback,
judgments, and suggestions from an expert, and a tendency towards increased construc-
tivist strategies, supported by dialogue based on questions that are free of judgment to
promote knowledge.

3.2.3. The methodological devices

Various methodological devices for teaching reflective practice were identified, which in
general are based on approaches inferred to be dialogic. The devices differ in the number
of phases, that is, in the quantity and type of stages and the strategies considered in each
stage. They have between two to seven phases, tending to coincide in three of them: a)
describe, b) assign meaning/confront, and c) reformulate.
Two, two-phase devices were found: a) ‘three-way dialogue’ through joint reflection
among teacher guide, tutor, and pre-service teacher (Foong et al., 2018) and b) ‘collective
reflection’ based on the principle of double stimulation (Vygotsky, 1962), where the first
stimulus is a problematic situation in the practice and the second is a conceptual lens that
enables a new view of that situation (Kramer, 2018).
Five three-phase devices were found: a) ‘narration, challenge, and reformulation’
through modeling (Russell, 2018), b) ‘describe, evaluate, and create alternatives’ (Weber
et al., 2018); c) ‘selection of two events, deferred and guided oral reflection with questions,
and deferred written reflection with questions’ (Leijen et al., 2014); d) ‘launching, structur-
ing of exploration, or analysis of the situation and structuring (closure)’ (Mauri et al., 2016)
and e) ‘identify instances, approximation to error, and perception of the observed teacher’
for classroom observations among peers (Hernández, 2015).
Three four-phase devices were also found: a) ‘memories, assessments, rules, and
artifacts’ (Mena, 2015); b) ‘describing, what did I do?; informing, what does what I did
mean?; confronting, how did I become like this?; and reconstruction, how could I do it
differently?’ (Crichton & Valdera Gil, 2015, based on Hernández, 2016; Smyth, 1989); and c)
‘explanation (describe), impact (observe difficulties), theoretical reference (adjust
a theoretical framework to understand the identified situation), and set goals for the
next session of classes’ (Corbin & Eick, 2015).
Similarly, three five-phase devices were also identified. Two of them are intended to be
implemented throughout the entire teacher training process: a) ‘teaching theory and
research methods, application in their practices, appraisal of the theory in relation to their
practical experience and pedagogical portfolio’ (Körkkö et al., 2016), and b) ‘communicat-
ing the training model, implementing training devices for reflection, guiding learning
through training assessment tutorials, and evaluating the students’ perception of the
training model’ (Diez-Fernández & Domínguez-Fernández, 2018). The third five-phase
device, based on ‘dialogic movements,’ is more specific and considers: ‘obtaining infor-
mation, making supportive contributions, expressing shared ideas, providing evidence,
and challenging ideas’ (Bjuland & Helgevold, 2018).
Finally, two seven-phase devices were found: a) an ‘onion model’ or Core reflection
(Korthagen, 2017) made up of layers based on the questions: What am I facing? To what
do I refer? What am I competent in? What do I believe? Who am I? What inspires me? With
which higher entity do I have a connection?, guiding reflection towards meaning; b)
based on the double stimulation (problematic situation and conceptual lens) proposed by
8 A. RUFFINELLI ET AL.

Vygotsky (1962), with seven cyclical movements of the theory of expansive learning:
‘question, analyze, model, test, implement, reflect, modify the practice’ (Kramer, 2018).
This latter device is the only one that, in one of its phases, specifically considers the
modification of practice as a product of reflection.

3.3. Effects of the strategies: self-awareness and generative effects

Unlike previous reviews, four effects of strategies or devices were identified, with varying
degrees of consistency: a) on professional identity; b) on professional self-awareness -the
most frequent- self-awareness of one’s role and responsibility as a teacher, professional
self-confidence, ability to identify and propose professional knowledge, professional self-
assessment, focus on student learning, linking theory to practice; c) on the generation of
new professional knowledge; and d) on the transformation of practice. The latter two refer
to what we have pointed to as generative effects.
The strategies and devices that stand out, due to their effects on identity and self-
awareness, as well as their generative effect, include: the reflective journal (Gan & Lee,
2016), questions (Mena et al., 2016, 2017), self-confrontation (Mena et al., 2016), the
device ‘theory and methods of research, application, theory-practice and portfolio con-
frontation’ (Körkkö et al., 2016), use of videos (Godínez Martínez, 2018), and dialogue
(Foong et al., 2018). There is evidence of the generative effect of the first four on
professional knowledge, while for the last two there is evidence about their generative
effect in improving practice.
The report on the generative effect of the device that integrates the strategies of ‘narration,
challenge, and reformulation’ (Russell, 2018) is particularly interesting, both in terms of the
generation of new professional knowledge and in the improvement of practice.

3.3.1. Generative effects of reflective practice: generation of new professional

knowledge and improvement of practice
The generation of new professional knowledge was reported using the following strate-
gies: a) giving an opinion and asking questions (Mena et al., 2016, 2017), allowing for the
generalization of experiences; b) genuine dialogue (Sheridan & Young, 2017), leading to
a shared understanding of teaching; c) summarizing and making suggestions, attaining
new understanding and knowledge about practice (Yagata, 2017); d) self-confrontation
(Mena et al., 2016), which would allow knowledge abstraction and achievement at the
inferential level; e) micro-education, which would generate changes in perspectives and
pedagogical decision-making (Karlström & Hamza, 2019); f) reflective journaling, which
would generate recognition and articulation of professional knowledge (Gan & Lee, 2016);
and g) use of videos, which would have an impact on general pedagogical knowledge
(Weber et al., 2018).
The same generating effect for professional knowledge is reported after using two
devices: a) ‘theory and methods of research, application, theory-practice and portfolio
confrontation’ (Körkkö et al., 2016), which has an impact on increasing knowledge about
psychological and educational development, and seemingly more significant, also exerts
an effect on the development of practical theory; and b) ‘narration, challenge, and
reformulation’ (Russell, 2018), which reveals the generation of new knowledge and new
 REFLECTIVE PRACTICE 9

frameworks for action, in addition to evidence of a reformulation of implicit knowledge,

and best practices.
Whereas the generative effect of improving practice was reported, after using the following
strategies: a) self-confrontation (Ciavaldini-Cartaut, 2015), which could allow the activity to be
reorganized, modify professional responses, and improve classroom management; and b) use
of videos and collaborative reflections (Godínez Martínez, 2018), which could lead to changes
in practices. The use of devices also shows an effect on best practices: a) ‘narration, challenge
and reformulation’ (Russell, 2018); b) ‘describe, evaluate and create alternatives’ (Weber et al.,
2018) helped improve classroom management; and c) ‘three-way dialogue’ (Foong et al.,
2018), which caused changes in the behavior, affectivity, beliefs, and values of pre-service
teachers. This also managed to promote contextualized teaching strategies.
In summary, the review reveals particular progress in the field: while there are fewer
conclusions about the effects of reflection in general, more can be said about the
strategies or devices for their development, although sufficiently robust evidence is still
lacking. Ambiguity tends to persist, regarding the concept of reflection that underlies the
studies, such as in Sheridan and Young (2017) and Jons (2019), or rather, some depart
from the metacognitive or generative approach as in the case of Mauri, Clarà, Colomina,
Onrubia, and Ginesta (2013).

4. Conclusions
This review shows that the studies are empirical constructions through the implementation
of certain strategies or devices, unlike in the previous decade, which was more focused on
assessment (Author, 2017, 2018). The works reviewed identify conditions, strategies, and
effects of reflective practice. They also recognize the social, institutional, training program,
and mentoring conditions, such as the need to install a reflective culture, provide reflective
training early in the program, and standardize training criteria among universities and
schools. They also mention conditions for the learning environment, the availability of
theoretical knowledge and the willingness, characteristics, and/or attitudes of the tutor
and/or pre-service teacher.
The reported strategies are diverse. The devices tend to coincide on their dialogic nature
and on three essential phases: a) describe, b) assign meaning/confront, and c) reformulate.
Isolated strategies were also identified, from directivity to greater autonomy and
constructivism – with a predominance of constructivist strategies, unlike previous reviews
(Guerra Zamora, 2009), although there is frequent coexistence of both types, or
a constructivism that is more discursive than practical. In spite of its low presence in the
analyses, it seems particularly interesting to look at the idea of graduating from directive
strategies towards more constructivist ones, in such a way that they favor the develop-
ment of reflective autonomy, in which students assume responsibilities, according to their
educational progress and needs.
In terms of the strategies’ effects, the most frequently refer to self-awareness, particu-
larly the ability to link theory to practice and professional self-assessment. Among the
strategies that have generative effects, of particular note are questions, self-confrontation,
use of videos and dialogue, and devices of ‘theory and methods of research, application,
theory-practice and portfolio confrontation’ (Körkkö et al., 2016), and ‘narration, chal-
lenge, and reformulation’ (Russell, 2018).
10 A. RUFFINELLI ET AL.

It is only fair to indicate that a significant group of strategies/devices still show

insufficiently robust evidence of their effects, although significant strides have been
made in describing them. Overall, these findings permit a more nuanced understanding
of how to promote a dimension of generative reflection, the generation of new profes-
sional knowledge. However, the development of the field has been less consistent in
describing evidence about the other generative dimension of reflection, related to the
transformation of practice. Thus, there is a need to design new studies that will strengthen
theory derived from evidence in the field and contribute to advances in the construction
of a model or teaching approach for generative reflective practice that allows for a better
understanding of the way in which transformation of practice is produced, the role-played
by new professional knowledge and how said knowledge is constructed.

Note
1. Study supported by CONICYT Chile, under FONDECYT subsidy, Initiation into Research,
Project 11180352.

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

Funding
This work was supported by the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico [11180352].

Notes on contributors
Andrea Ruffinelli is a PhD in Education from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Faculty of
Education, Santiago, Chile. Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, Universidad Alberto Hurtado,
Santiago, Chile. She develops research on training topics for reflective teachers, particularly in the
lines of practice, and initiation of beginning teachers.
Silvana de la Hoz is a professor of Spanish language and communication at the Alberto Hurtado
University, Chile. She received her master's degree in Specific Didactics by the University of Valencia,
Spain. She is a student of the Doctorate program of Specific Didactics of the same university, where
she investigates about the development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in the initial and
continuous training of language teachers.
Carolina Álvarez is a professor of History and Geography at the University of Chile, Chile. She
received his Master’s degree in Social Sciences, mention sociology of modernization by the
University of Chile, Chile. She is a student of the Doctoral Program in Education from the Alberto
Hurtado- Diego Portales Universities, Chile, where she investigates the experience of students
benefiting from the free policy in universities of high prestige in Chile.

ORCID
Andrea Ruffinelli http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9096-6463
Carolina Álvarez http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0402-5072
 REFLECTIVE PRACTICE 11

References
Alper, A. (2010). Critical thinking disposition of pre-service teachers. Egitim Ve Bilim-Education and
Science, 35(158), 14–27.
Ávalos, B. (2007). El desarrollo profesional continuo de los docentes: Lo que nos dice la experiencia
internacional y de la región latinoamericana. Revista Pensamiento Educativo, 41(2), 77–99.
Retrieved from http://www.pensamientoeducativo.uc.cl/files/journals/2/articles/417/public/417-
934-1-PB.pdf
Beauchamp, C. (2006). Understanding reflection in teaching: A framework for analyzing the
literature. Review Literature And Arts Of The Americas.(Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from https://
digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1579034720433~329
Beauchamp, C. (2015). Reflection in teacher education: Issues emerging from a review of current
literature. Reflective Practice, 16(1), 123–141.
Bjuland, R., & Helgevold, N. (2018). Dialogic processes that enable student teachers’ learning about
pupil learning in mentoring conversations in a lesson study field practice. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 70, 246–254.
Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5
(1), 43–51.
Calderhead, J., & Gates, P. (Eds.). (2003). Conceptualising reflection in teacher development. London,
UK: Routledge. Retrieved from https:/doi.org/10.4324/9780203209851
Ciavaldini-Cartaut, S. (2015). Moving beyond the reflectivity of post-lesson mentoring conferences
in teacher education and creating learning/development opportunities for pre-service teachers.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 496–511.
Concha, S., Hernández, C., Romo, F., & Andrade, L. (2013). Reflexión pedagógica en base a casos
y dominio de lenguaje académico en estudiantes de cuarto año de pedagogía en educación
básica/Pedagogic reflection based on cases and command of academic terms in students taking
the fourth year of elementary teaching. Calidad En La Educación, 38, 81–113.
Corbin Frazier, L., & Eick, C. (2015). Approaches to critical reflection: Written and video journaling.
Reflective Practice, 16(5), 575–594.
Crichton, H., & Valdera Gil, F. (2015). Student teachers’ perceptions of feedback as an aid to reflection
for developing effective practice in the classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4),
512–524.
Cruickshank, D. (1987). Reflective teaching: The preparation of students of teaching. Reston, VA:
Association of Teacher Educators.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57(3), 300–314.
Dewey, J. (1989). Cómo pensamos. Nueva exposición de la relación entre pensamiento reflexivo y
proceso educativo. Barcelona: Paidós.
Dickerson, C., Thomas, K., Jarvis, J., & Levy, R. (2018). Changing practice in Malaysian primary schools:
Learning from student teachers’ reports of using action, reflection and modelling (ARM). Journal
of Education for Teaching, 44(2), 194–211.
Diez-Fernández, Á., & Domínguez-Fernández, R. (2018). El Tutor Universitario como Impulsor del
Aprendizaje Reflexivo de los Alumnos Durante las Prácticas Docentes * University Tutors as
Facilitators of Student-teachers’ Reflective Learning During their Teaching Practice. Estudios
Pedagógicos XLIV, 2, 311–328. Retrieved from https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/estped/v44n2/0718-
0705-estped-44-02-00311.pdf
Epstein, J., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies. social science from de bottom up.
Washington D.C: MIT Press.
Eraut, M. (2004). Practice based evidence. In R. Pring & G. Thomas (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in
education (pp. 80–91). Maidenhead: Open University Press. ISBN 9780335213344.
Estaji, M., & Dezfoolian, S. (2018). EFL teacher’s pedagogical knowledge base as a predictor of
teacher’s reflectivity: Comparing different components and perceptions. International Journal of
Instruction, 11(3), 491–510.
12 A. RUFFINELLI ET AL.

Falchikov, N. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. Rethinking Assessment in Higher
Education: Learning for the Longer Term,128–143.
Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and political
reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16–25.
Foong, L. Y. Y., Nor, M. B. M., & Nolan, A. (2018). The influence of practicum supervisors’ facilitation
styles on student teachers’ reflective thinking during collective reflection. Reflective Practice, 19(2),
225–242.
Galaz, A., Fuentealba, R., Cornejo, J., & Padilla, A. (2011). Estrategias reflexivas en la formación de
profesores y de formadores de profesores. (Lom). Retrieved from https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/
1735/173533385001.pdf
Gan, Z., & Lee, F. K. J. (2016). Understanding ESL student teachers’ learning of classroom practices in
the practicum: A case study in hong kong. The Asia-pacific Education Researcher, 25(2), 251–266.
Gan, Z., & Lee, F. K. J. (2016). Understanding ESL student teachers’ learning of classroom practices in
the practicum: A case study in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(2), 251–266.
Gelfuso, A., & Dennis, D. V. (2014). Getting reflection off the page: The challenges of developing
support structures for pre-service teacher reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 1–11.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyer.
Godínez, M. J. M. (2018). How effective is collaborative reflective practice in enabling cognitive
transformation in English language teachers? Reflective Practice, 19(4), 427–446.
Guerra Zamora, P. (2009). Revisión de experiencia de reflexión en la formación inicial de docentes.
Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia), 35(2). doi:10.4067/S0718-07052009000200014
Gün, B. (2011). Quality self-reflection through reflection training. ELT Journal, 65(2), 126–135.
Hernández, L. (2015). Making sense of SLA theories through reflection. Lenguaje, 43(1), 137–158.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85.
Jons, L. (2019). The supportive character of teacher education triadic conferences: Detailing the
formative feedback conveyed. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 116–130.
Kalk, K., Luik, P., Taimalu, M., & Täht, K. (2014). Validity and reliability of two instruments to measure
reflection: A confirmatory study. Trames: A Journal of The Humanities & Social Sciences, 18(2), 121–
134.
Karlström, M., & Hamza, K. (2019). Preservice science teachers’ opportunities for learning through
reflection when planning a microteaching unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 44–62.
Körkkö, M., Kyrö-Ämmälä, O., & Turunen, T. (2016). Professional development through reflection in
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 198–206.
Kortaghen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher
education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020–1041. Retrieved
from https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022
Korthagen, F. (2010). La práctica, la teoría y la persona en la formación del profesorado. Revista
Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 68 (24.2), 83–101.
Korthagen, F. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional develop-
ment 3.0. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 387–405.
Kramer, M. (2018). Promoting teachers’ agency: Reflective practice as transformative disposition.
Reflective Practice, 19(2), 211–224.
Krippendorff, K. (1990). Metodología de análisis de contenido. Teoría y práctica. Barcelona: España.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflective
Practice, 9(3), 341–360.
Leijen, Ä., Allas, R., Toom, A., Husu, J., Marcos, -J.-J. M., Meijer, P., . . . Krull, E. (2014). Guided reflection
for supporting the development of student teachers’ practical knowledge. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 112(Iceepsy 2013), 314–322.
Liston, D. P., & Zeichner, K. M. (1993). La formación del profesorado y las condiciones sociales de la
enseñanza. Morata. Madrid.
Liu, K., & Ball, A. F. (2019). Critical reflection and generativity: Toward a framework of transformative
teacher education for diverse learners. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 68–105.
 REFLECTIVE PRACTICE 13

Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for
stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 47–62.
Marcos, J. M., Sanchez, E., & Tillemab, H. H. (2011). Promoting teacher reflection: What is said to be
done. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 21–36.
Mauri, T., Clarà, M., Colomina, R., Onrubia, J., & Ginesta, A. (2013). Guiding dialogic joint elaboration
of student teachers’ situational representations. In 15th biennial conference of the European
Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, August (pp. 27–31). Germany.
Mauri, T., Martínez, A., López de Arana, E., Álvarez, R., Onrubia, J., & Bascón Díaz, M. (2016).
Construyendo relaciones entre la teoría y práctica Análisis de ayudas del tutor para favorecer la
reflexión y construcción del conocimiento. In J. L. Castejón (Ed.), Psicologia y Educación: Presente
y futuro (pp. 1016–1025).
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.
Mena, J., Hennissen, P., & Loughran, J. (2017). Developing pre-service teachers’ professional knowl-
edge of teaching: The influence of mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 47–59.
Nagro, S. A., deBettencourt, L. U., Rosenberg, M. S., Carran, D. T., & Weiss, M. P. (2017). The effects of
guided video analysis on teacher candidates’ reflective ability and instructional skills. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 40(1), 7–25.
Nocetti, A., & Medina, J. (2019). Significados de reflexión sobre la acción docente en el estudiantado
y sus formadores en una universidad chilena. Revista Educación, 43, 152–169.
Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2007). When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from
guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 957–
969.
Pascual, E. (1998). Racionalidades en la producción curricular y el proyecto curricular. Pensamiento
Educativo, 23, 13–72.
Ruffinelli, A. (2018). Reflexión docente: Oportunidades de desarrollo en la formación Inicial.
(Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from https://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/22001
Ruffinelli, A. (2017). Formación de docentes reflexivos: Un enfoque en construcción y disputa.
Educação E Pesquisa, 43(1), 97–111.
Ruffinelli, A. (2018). Reflexión docente: Oportunidades de desarrollo en la formación inicial. (Doctoral
thesis). Retrieved from https://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/22001
Ruffinelli, A., Morales, A., Montoya, S., Fuenzalida, C., Rodríguez, C., López, P., González, C. (On Press.
Tutorías de prácticas: Representaciones acerca del rol del tutor y estrategias pedagógicas.
Ruffinelli, A. (On Press). Oportunidades para aprender a ser profesor reflexivo en el currículum
formativo.
Russell, T. (2005). Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice, 6(2), 199–204.
Russell, T. (2018). A teacher educator’s lessons learned from reflective practice. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 41(1), 4–14.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Serdar, T. H, & Çeçen, S. (2016). Scrutinizing practicum for a more powerful taechaer education: A
longitudinal study with preservice teachers. educational sciences. Theory & Practice, 16, 127-151.
Sheridan, L., & Young, M. (2017). Genuine conversation: The enabler in good mentoring of
pre-service teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(6), 658–673.
Silva, A., Rubio, G., Herrera, V., & Nervi, H. (2012). Modelo para el desarrollo de capacidades reflexivas
y didácticas en estudiantes de Educación Parvularia y Básica durante la práctica profesional.
Santiago: Fonide Mineduc. Retrieved from https://centroestudios.mineduc.cl/wp-content/
uploads/100/2017/07/Informe-Final-F611145-UMCE-Alejandra-SILVA.pdf
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The Twisting Path of Concept Development in
Learning To Teach. Report Series.
Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 40(2), 2–9.
14 A. RUFFINELLI ET AL.

Stenberg, K., Rajala, A., & Hilppo, J. (2016). Fostering theory–Practice reflection in teaching practi-
cums. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 470–485.
Stîngu, M. M. (2012). Reflexive practice in teacher education: Facts and trends. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 33, 617–621.
Svojanovsky, P. (2017). Supporting student teachers’ reflection as a paradigm shift process. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 66, 338–348.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 13(2),
311–325.
Tomlinson, P. (1999). Conscious reflection and implicit learning in teacher preparation. Part II:
Implications for a balanced approach. Oxford Review of Education, 25(4), 533–544.
Van - Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6
(3), 205–228.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Weber, K. E., Gold, B., Prilop, C. N., & Kleinknecht, M. (2018). Promoting pre-service teachers’
professional vision of classroom management during practical school training: Effects of
a structured online- and video-based self-reflection and feedback intervention. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 76, 39–49.
Yaffe, E. (2010). The reflective beginner: Using theory and practice to facilitate reflection among
newly qualified teachers. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 381–391.
Yagata, K. (2017). A failure of dialogue? A critical reflection on a discussion between a teacher trainer
and a pre-service second-language teacher. Reflective Practice, 18(3), 326–338.
Zeichner, K. (1993). El maestro como profesional reflexivo. Cuadernos De Pedagogía, 220, 44–49.