Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 21, No.

1, Fall 1996

Assessment and Reflective Teaching

Susan G. Nummedal

Introduction

Diane Gillespie's critical event introduces us to a university pro-

fessor who is preparing to teach a psychology course she has taught
several times before9 At the beginning of the event description, we
learn that she has thought deeply about the content and structure
of the course itself and about how the course in t u r n fits into the
broader university curriculum. She is confident about the integrity
of the course and feels %y and large prepared" for what lies ahead.
She is aware that most of her energy will "go into keeping the stu-
dents involved--doing the reading and writing" (p. 7). She is pre-
pared to help the students meet the challenges they will face. And
yet, a few weeks into the course, it is she who is challenged by
Roberta, a student who questions the relevance of a particular psy-
chological theory. She finds herself "feeling trapped and constrained"
partly by Roberta but more '%y the structure of the course" itself.
At the conclusion of the event description, we find the instructor
thinking deeply about her teaching practice and about herself:
9 . . Roberta was challenging more than the theories; she was ques-
tioning the very way in which I had gone about thinking about the
course9 Suddenly, I started questioning myself at very basic lev-
els . . . . (p. 9)
This critical event is the centerpiece of the journal. However, dif-
ferent aspects of its "underlying story" (Schon, 1991) shape the dis-
cussion in each article. For Silverman and Welty, it is the "nature
of the problems presented" in the event and what the event is "a
case of' that inform their discussion of transforming the event into
a case (p. 25). For Gillespie, the narrative process as a method of
reflection lies in the fact that it opens context, reorients one's actions,

Susan G. Nummedal is currently Professor of Psychology at California State

University, Long Beach. She received her B.A. from the University of California,
Berkeley and her Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. Her special interests are
the development of critical thinking, the improvement of student learning, and the
development of reflective teaching and learning.

39 9 1996 Human SciencesPress, Inc.

40 INNOVATIVEHIGHER EDUCATION

and invites dialogue. And for this article, the discussion of assess-
ment and reflection is shaped by the instructor's changing perception
of the problems she faces. The discussion center on an analysis of
the instructor's ongoing proces of problem reframing (Schon, 1983)
and the associated changes in her form of practical deliberation (van
Manen, 1977). Indeed, Silverman and Welty hope that their case will
prompt a discussion among teachers that will lead them to reframe
their understandings of the situation in the case and encourage de-
liberation on the teacher's actions as well as their own. This article
explores how the professor's changing understandings of the teaching
situation--and herself--can be deepened through the use of authen-
tic, teacher-directed assessments and how these new understandings
can, in turn, inform future classroom research projects.

Reflection and A s s e s s m e n t

In general, situations are identified as problematic when "there is

doubt, uncertainty, hesitation, or challenge" (Copeland, Birmingham,
de la Cruz, & Lewin 1993, p. 350). Situations such as these are ripe
for reflection. But, as Dewey (1933) reminds us, they only become
occasions for reflection when a decision is made to face the situation,
explicating the conditions to be accounted for (what he calls the "facts
of the case") and generating possible solutions to the difficulties in-
herent in those conditions. The reflective process centers on "this con-
tinuous interaction of facts disclosed by observation and of the
suggested proposals of solutions and the suggested methods of deal-
ing with the conditions" (Dewey, 1933, p. 104). The process of estab-
lishing the "facts of the case" is what today we would identify as
"assessment," that is, the means by which we "focus our . . . atten-
tion, examine our assumptions, make expectations and standards for
quality explicit . . . , systematically gather evidence" (Angelo, 1995,
p. 11). Thus, assessment is a major component of reflection.

Forms o f Practical Deliberation

The reflective process itself can take different forms depending

on the particular teaching situation. Van Manen (1977) has identi-
fied three such forms, or levels, of reflection, each corresponding to
a different interpretation of the nature of practical deliberation (i.e.,
 Assessment and ReflectiveTeaching 41

the nature of the problem to be solved). Each form of deliberation

"embrace[s] different criteria for choosing among alternative courses
of action" (Zeichner & Liston, 1987, p. 24). By allowing the critical
event to unfold slowly with an eye toward identifying points of "prac-
tical deliberation," we will be able to see different starting points
for reflection. We will then be able to discuss ways in which assess-
ments can enhance the reflective process.

Technical-Rationality: Selecting Appropriate Means to an End

In the opening paragraph describing the teaching situation, we find

a professor faced with the practical concern of "keeping students in-
volved--doing the reading and writing." She begins by identifying
student involvement as an important goal. The question is how to
ensure this goal is met. However, we do not learn whether this ques-
tion becomes an occasion for reflection because a second problem
emerges to supplant it: "Two weeks into the semester I could tell
that they were an exceptional class; many actively participated.
About this time Roberta started objecting to the first theory that
we were s t u d y i n g . . . " . The problem situation rapidly has been re-
framed. Before tracing this refraining process and considering this
new concern, let us focus on her initial question, examining the na-
ture of practical deliberation inherent in answering it and the ways
in which assessment might enhance the deliberative process.
To answer the question of how best to ensure student involvement
is to engage in a deliberative process which is fundamentally about
"the practical task of achieving certain objectives" (van Manen, 1977,
p. 206). The value of student involvement is not in question; how to
achieve it is. Van Manen (1977) suggests that with practical delib-
erations of this type, there is "an instrumental preoccupation with
techniques, control, and with means-ends criteria of efficiency and
effectiveness" (p. 209). In order to understand a reflective process that
begins with this type of practical deliberation, let us assume that
the professor does "face the situation." How might she think about
it? How might assessment help her explicate the "facts of the case?"
How might she go about generating possible solutions to the diffi-
culties inherent in the situation? And, finally, what should she actu-
ally do to ensure student involvement?
In my experience, there is broad agreement among faculty on the
importance of motivation and involvement for improving student
learning. Faculty understand that active involvement (e.g., active
42 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

processing of material, active participation in class activities and dis-

cussion, etc.) leads to better learning. What faculty do not agree on
is how best to achieve this goal. One reason for this may be that
faculty are concerned about student involvement in specific contexts.
That is, they want to ensure particular students are motivated and
involved as they engage particular material in particular courses.
They recognize that strategies that might work well in one instruc-
tional context might not work so well in another. They also recognize
that it is unreasonable to expect all students in the same context to
be involved to the same degree.
Understanding the context-dependent nature of student involve-
ment opens the door to a variety of assessments that can enhance
the reflective process whereby strategies are considered and ulti-
mately selected. One way to begin this process is to learn something
about the students in question. In the context of the critical event,
the professor might want to know answers to questions such as:
9 What kinds of motivations do these students already have for
being in the course? How might I use these motivations to
increase their involvement?
9 What are the limits imposed by other d e m a n d s on these
students, such as work or family responsibilities? What are the
various ways in which these d e m a n d s might r e s t r i c t the
involvement of different students in this course?
Answers to questions such as these can provide important grist for
the deliberative process centering on finding the most effective and
efficient means of achieving the goal of student involvement in a spe-
cific instructional context. Inevitably, they also will lead to additional
questions, such as:
9 How will I actually know if the goal has been met?
9 When and how will I "monitor" progress toward the goal?
In their handbook, Classroom Assessment Techniques, Angelo and
Cross (1993) provide a wealth of assessment strategies appropriate
for monitoring progress toward the goal and discuss ways to ap-
proach questions such as when and how best to do this. Through
the use of these techniques, assessment can become an instrument
of instruction as students engage in a process of reflection about
their own learning process. Faculty frequently find the feedback use-
ful. However, it is rare that the feedback automatically brings clo-
sure. More commonly, it opens up additional questions, thus
 Assessment and Reflective Teaching 43

becoming p a r t of the reflective cycle Dewey described as "continuous

interactions of facts disclosed by observations and suggested propos-
als of solutions and the suggested methods of dealing with condi-
tions . . . til some suggested solution meets all the conditions of
the case and does not r u n counter to any discoverable feature of it"
(1933, p. 104).
In addition, and j u s t as commonly, some of these questions t u r n
out not to be of the technical-rational type. Rather, they are questions
such as who should be responsible for motivating students and to
w h a t degree, questions about which strategies should ultimately be
used. Let's consider the question about which strategies should be
used in more detail.
Faculty recognize there are basically two motivational strategies
available to them: extrinsic and intrinsic. These are captured in an
exchange which is undoubtedly familiar to all of us. One professor
begins by saying.
You're concerned about how to involve students in your class? I know
how you feel. I've experimented with all sorts of things. I've finally
found something that works. I simply force my students to come to
class prepared. I tell them that during the semester, there will be "pop"
quizzes. Boy, does that get their attention!

In response, the second professor says,

I could never do that in my class. That's coercive. It gets students to
do things for the wrong reasons. I want them to want to learn--to be
self motivated--not just reactive to a system of rewards and punish-
ments I set up.

From this exchange, we can see t h a t even knowing something

about w h a t might motivate particular students in particular instruc-
tional contexts, deciding on the appropriate mix of intrinsic and ex-
trinsic motivational strategies necessarily involves deliberation of
another kind, one which focuses on the value commitments inherent
in choice. Indeed, it is not difficult to see how what begins as a de-
liberation about the practical task of achieving a specific goal easily
can evolve into a more complex deliberative process, one which fo-
cuses on exploring assumptions underlying particular choices, as well
as possible consequences stemming from these choices.
Silverman and Welty could have chosen to write a case study t h a t
focused more on the technical parts of Gillespie's event description.
Such a case might have led case discussants to assess, in a m a n n e r
similar to t h a t j u s t described, w h a t her students know and what she
44 INNOVATIVEHIGHER EDUCATION

knows about her students. That they chose explicitly to examine the
beliefs and assumptions of the professor and Cress-Welsing indicates
clearly that they want their case to produce a discussion that goes
beyond means-ends considerations. Let us now turn to the type of
deliberative process which does this and focus on what can happen
when it serves as the starting point for reflection.

Hermeneutic-Phenomenological: Surfacing Underlying Assumptions

This form of reflection provides a different interpretative approach
to the practical. It "assume[s] that every educational choice is based
on a value commitment" (van Manen, 1977, p. 226). Reflection cen-
ters on explicating the assumptions and presuppositions underlying
alternatives. "At this level of the practical, the focus is on an inter-
pretive understanding both of the nature and quality of educational
experience and of making practical choices" (van Manen, 1977, p.
226-7). Here, reflection is far less about a "problem to fix" and more
about asking questions that bring into focus some of the more fun-
damental assumptions one is making about the teaching process. As-
sessment can help focus on the layers of meaning inherent in this
process and deepen reflection.
The first time Roberta plays her "Eurocentric" card and begins ob-
jecting to the relevance of Freudian theory, she does so in the middle
of class--in the middle of the action, so to speak. Her remarks and
the professor's response to them serve to reshape the discussion as
other students join in with questions about Eurocentricism. At this
point in the critical event, we see a professor reflecting-in-action, that
is, allowing her thinking to reshape what she is doing while she is
doing it (Schon, 1987). Rather than ignore Roberta's comments or
suggest they be discussed "later," she quickly assesses the situation
and decides to abandon her usual approach to the material. She
moves into a discussion that she describes "as a first for me." She
finds herself "floundering" as she tries to keep a space open for
Roberta and at the same time tries to "move the discussion along in
such a way that everyone could follow the flow of comments." In the
end, she feels her efforts are not working. Rather than resolving the
dilemma she faces, she finds herself "feeling trapped and con-
strained."
In this phase of the critical event, the deliberation shifts more di-
rectly to questions about the assumptions underlying her choices. The
most appropriate assessments do not seem to be those which center
 Assessment and Reflective Teaching 45

on student experience. One could argue that she might do well to

seek information about how students are experiencing the course. It
would not be at all surprising to find that they have a different "take"
on what is happening. Still, one suspects that whatever feedback she
receives, she will still be in conflict with herself. Being "at odds" with
oneself opens the door to self-investigation (Pendlebury, 1995). We
see an exampale of her engaging in a process of self assessment as
she reflects on her decision to keep the space open for Roberta: "I
was aware that she could easily be stereotyped as an aggressive Af-
rican-American woman. I wanted to support Roberta's assertiveness
and her leadership role in the class. Yet I was stymied by that fact
that I was having to address issues before they could be adequately
treated" (pp. 8-9). At this point in her deliberations, she has become
what Morgan (1993) calls her own "dialogic partner (p. 115)." The
conversation she is having with herself reflects the different positions
that she occupies with respect to the "same" situation. According to
Hermans, Kempen, and van Loon (1992), "even as one deliberates
alone, . . . reflection is often an internalized conversation among
the various voices of one's conscience" (p. 30).
Still, her deliberations are being carried out without the benefit of
feedback from others who might help her see different facets of the
situation, surface questions that have not occurred to her, and think
through more clearly what is happening in the situation. The case
that Silverman and Welty have constructed seems to play up her
isolation, including a (fictitious) retreat from her husband, to encour-
age case discussants to explore the kinds of feedback they would
want to give her. In the case study, her perspective remains narrow,
giving participants the opportunity to reframe it. In the critical event
itself, it is when Gillespie finally consults with her colleagues that
she is able to reframe the situation and come to understand it more
fully. She does so through a process of what van Marten calls critical
reflection.

Critical Reflection: Examining Moral and Ethical Foundations

Critical reflection "incorporates moral and ethical criteria into the

discourse about practical action. Here both the teaching (ends and
means) and the surrounding contexts are viewed as problematic--
t h a t is, as value-governed selections from a larger universe of pos-
sibilities" (Zeichner & Liston, 1987, p. 25). This form of reflection
centers on questions about the "worth of knowledge and . . . the
46 INNOVATIVEHIGHER EDUCATION

social conditions necessary for raising the question of worthwhile-

ness in the first place" (van Manen, 1977, p. 227).
In turning to her African-American colleagues, the professor in-
vites the voices of others into her own i n t e r n a l conversation.
Through her assessment of their understanding of Cress-Welsing's
work, she gains valuable information about the various ways the
work can be viewed. As she reflects on this feedback, she takes what
Schon (1991) would describe as a "reflective turn," moving the cur-
riculum to the center of her deliberations. In so doing, she comes
to realize that the problems she has been experiencing stem from
the structure of her class, that is, from the Eurocentric framework
she had been using.
The questions Gillespie raises at the close of the event reveal her
in deliberation about the moral and ethical foundations of the course
she has structured. These are questions located in the web of con-
nections among the curriculum, her sense of self, and her ethics. Her
self knowledge, as revealed in her description of her own personal
learning history, provides what Markus (1986) describes as an inter-
pretative framework for making sense out of what has been happen-
ing, "a context of additional meaning for [her] current behavior" (p.
955). It is not surprising that her deliberations lead her to question
herself "at very basic levels." According to Markus, we are most vul-
nerable when we are immersed in a situation that communicates new
and inconsistent information about the self. It is also in these situ-
ations that we are most responsive to change.
Gillespie uses the ambiguities of the critical event to face the moral
question head on: "Am I doing the right thing?" This is the very
question that van Manen says characterizes this last level of reflec-
tion. In contrast, Silverman and Welty have constructed a case that
stops short of explicitly raising this question. It leaves Stephanie
Clark distressed and paralyzed by her moral dilemma thereby invit-
ing case discussants themselves to raise questions about Stephanie's
experiences. Through discussion of the case, Silverman and Welty
hope participants will become more open to seeing the ways in which
their own values frame interpretations of their classroom experi-
ences.
In her article in this journal, Gillespie explains that self knowledge
is necessary for authentic classroom research that grows out of one's
own practice. In the critical event, we learn that as the professor
continues to reflect on the teaching situation and seeks anwers to
the questions she has raised, she can do so within a new interpretive
 Assessment and Reflective Teaching 47

framework. And from Gillespie's article, we learn that her decision

to restructure the curriculum opens up the opportunity for authentic
classroom research on the effects of this new curriculum on student
learning.
Notice, too, that as she pursues this new direction, the distinctions
between van Manen's three levels of reflection begin to blur. She will
find h e r s e l f operating at all three levels simultaneously, as she
changes what she is doing in her course and at the same time reflects
on the impact of these changes on her students' learning.

Closing Thoughts About Assessment and Reflection

This critical event shows us the power of "just" one student to

prompt deep reflection about our practice. Who hasn't had the expe-
rience of being profoundly disturbed by an interaction with one stu-
dent that leads to sleepless nights? Colleagues m a y caution that too
much importance is being attached to this one student. They m a y
offer gentle reminders to think of the rest of the students and focus
less on the one. But all of us know better when that one student
has touched something deep within us, causing us to question our
practice and ourselves.
In these kinds of situations, we have seen that we need to rethink
the ways in which assessment can enhance the reflective process. In
their discussion of basic assumptions of classroom assessment, An-
gelo and Cross (1993) seem to be making the assumption that know-
ing one's goals and objectives, and making them explicit, will lead
one to appropriate assessments and ultimately closer to the goal of
improving student learning. What we have learned through the ex-
ploration of Gillespie's critical event is that the assessment enterprise
is more complex than this. It requires, as van Manen argues, that
one go beyond the technical-rational. While not ignoring the fact that
ultimately we must find the means to our ends, in doing so we in-
evitably find ourselves drawn into a process of self assessment about
our underlying assumptions about both the means and the ends and
about the very moral and ethical foundations of our practice. Assess-
ments that help reveal this underlying structure of our practice do
indeed have the potential for enhancing the reflective process and
leading to improvement in our students' learning.
48 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

References

Angelo, T. A. (1995, April). Reassessing assessment: Embracing contraries, bridging

gaps, and resetting the agenda. AAHE Bulletin, 47(8), 10-13.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for
college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Copeland, W. D., Birmingham, C., de la Cruz, E., & Lewin, B. (1993). The reflective
practioner in teaching: Toward a research agenda. Teaching & Teacher Education,
9, 437-359.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: Health & Co.
Hermans, H. J. M., Kempen, H. J. G., & van Loon, R. J. P. (1992). The dialogical
self: Beyond individualism and relationalism. American Psychologist, 47, 23-33.
Markus, H., & Nurius, R (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Morgan, B. (1993). Practical rationality: A self-investigation. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 25(2), 115-124.
Pendlebury, S. (1995). Reason and story in wise practice. In H. McEwan & K. Egan
(Eds.). Narrative in teaching, learning, and research (pp. 50-65). New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Cur-
riculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. R (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 23-48.