Paragraph 1: Teachers, it is thought, benefit from the practice of reflection, the conscious act of thinking deeply about and carefully examining the interactions and events within their own classrooms. Educators T. Wildman and J. Niles (1987) describe a scheme for developing reflective practice in experienced teachers. This was justified by the view that reflective practice could help teachers to feel more intellectually involved in their role and work in teaching and enable them to cope with the paucity of scientific fact and the uncertainty of knowledge in the discipline of teaching.

Paragraph 2: Wildman and Niles were particularly interested in investigating the conditions under which reflection might flourish–a subject on which there is little guidance in the literature. They designed an experimental strategy for a group of teachers in Virginia and worked with 40 practicing teachers over several years. They were concerned that many would be “drawn to these new, refreshing”conceptions of teaching only to find that the void between the abstractions and the realities of teacher reflection is too great to bridge. Reflection on a complex task such as teaching is not easy. The teachers were taken through a program of talking about teaching events, moving on to reflecting about specific issues in a supported, and later an independent, manner.

Paragraph 3: Wildman and Niles observed that systematic reflection on teaching required a sound ability to understand classroom events in an objective manner. They describe the initial understanding in the teachers with whom they were working as being “utilitarian …and not rich or detailed enough to drive systematic reflection.”Teachers rarely have the time or opportunities to view their own or the teaching of others in an objective manner. Further observation revealed the tendency of teachers to evaluate events rather than review the contributory factors in a considered manner by, in effect, standing outside the situation.


Paragraph 4: Helping this group of teachers to revise their thinking about classroom events became central. This process took time and patience and effective trainers. The researchers estimate that the initial training of the teachers to view events objectively took between 20 and 30 hours, with the same number of hours again being required to practice the skills of reflection.


Paragraph 5: Wildman and Niles identify three principles that facilitate reflective practice in a teaching situation. The first is support from administrators in an education system, enabling teachers to understand the requirements of reflective practice and how it relates to teaching students. The second is the availability of sufficient time and space. The teachers in the program described how they found it difficult to put aside the immediate demands of others in order to give themselves the time they needed to develop their reflective skills. The third is the development of a collaborative environment with support from other teachers. Support and encouragement were also required to help teachers in the program cope with aspects of their professional life with which they were not comfortable. Wildman and Niles make a summary comment: “Perhaps the most important thing we learned is the idea of the teacher-as-reflective-practitioner will not happen simply because it is a good or even compelling idea.”


Paragraph 6: The work of Wildman and Niles suggests the importance of recognizing some of the difficulties of instituting reflective practice. Others have noted this, making a similar point about the teaching profession’s cultural inhibitions about reflective practice. Zeichner and Liston (1987) point out the inconsistency between the role of the teacher as a (reflective) professional decision maker and the more usual role of the teacher as a technician, putting into practice the ideas of theirs. More basic than the cultural issues is the matter of motivation. Becoming a reflective practitioner requires extra work (Jaworski, 1993) and has only vaguely defined goals with, perhaps, little initially perceivable reward and the threat of vulnerability. Few have directly questioned what might lead a teacher to want to become reflective. Apparently, the most obvious reason for teachers to work toward reflective practice is that teacher educators think it is a good thing. There appear to be many unexplored matters about the motivation to reflect –for example, the value of externally motivated reflection as opposed to that of teachers who might reflect by habit.

教师被认为受益于反思实践——有意识地更深入思考、仔细地检查发生在他们自己教室里的事件和相互影响。教育家T •怀尔德曼和J. •奈尔斯（1987)描述了一个在资深教师中开展反思实践的方案。这是合理的，因为人们认为反思的实践可以帮助老师们更加理性地对待他们的角色和从事的事业，并可以让他们能在教学准则中处理科学事实的缺乏和知识的不确定。 怀尔德曼和奈尔斯都特别喜欢研究在哪种情况下反思可能大量出现——一个几乎没有任何文献指导的课题。他们给弗吉利亚的一组教师设计了一个实验策略，并在几年内研究了这一组的40位教师。他们担心很多人可能认为沉浸在这种全新的教育概念中的结果就是，发现教师反思的抽象概念和现实之间的鸿沟太大而无法逾越。要反思像教学这样复杂的事件不是容易的。老师们都参加了关于教学事件计划的讨论，紧接着在工作人员的协助下去反思具体问题，然后是独立反思。 怀尔德曼和奈尔斯观察到系统教学反思需要一种以客观的方式来理解教室里发生事件的能力。他们起初认为参与研究的教师们太功利，并不是足够丰富和详细以促使系统反思的产生。教师们很少有机会和时间去客观地观察他们自己和其他老师的教学。更深的研究发现教师们更愿意评价事件而不是站在事件之外洞察一个事件的促进因素。 帮助这组教师修订他们关于课堂事件的认识变成了关键问题。这个过程需要时间和耐心以及有效的受训者。研究者认为训练同一个教师使他客观地看待事情需要大约20到30小时，而反思技巧的练习同样需要这么多时间。 怀尔德曼和奈尔斯确定了促进在教学环境中实现反思行为的3个原则。第一就是来自教学系统管理层的支持，这使得教师们明白反思实践的必要条件，并知道它与教学之间的联系。第二就是需要足够的时间和空间。项目中的教师们抱怨说让他们放弃别人当时的要求而为自己腾出时间去提升自己的反思能力是很困难的。第三就是以其他教师的支持为基础的亲密无间的环境。项目中的教师同样需要支持和鼓励以帮助他们去应付他们职业生活中的不如意的方面。怀尔德曼和奈尔斯作出了一个总结性的评论：“或许我们学到的最重要的观点就是教师不会因为这是好的，或者甚至是不可或缺的观念而自发地开展教学反思。” 怀尔德曼和奈尔斯的工作表明认识进行反思的某些困难的重要性。也有其他人知道这个，并指出相似的关于反思行为的教学职业文化阻碍。Zeichner 和Liston（1987)指出作为一个决策者的教师和作为一个将其他人观念付诸实施的教师之间，存在着角色上的不一致。比文化问题更基本的是动机问题。成为一个反思教学的执行者需要额外的付出（Jaworski,1993）而且只有一个模糊的目标，甚至不仅没有显而易见的回报，反而有易受责难的威胁。很少人直接质疑什么可能让一个教师想变成反思型教师。显然，使教师朝着反思行为奋斗的最直接的原因是师资培训者认为这是一件很好的事情。关于反思的动力存在许多未知的问题，例如外部驱动的反思的价值与通过习惯进行反思的价值是不同的。