Meta Project

Towards the Development of a
Digital Portfolio Aid:
Using ICT to Support Reflective Practice
& Self-evaluation in Teaching

Abstract

This study contributes to research on professional portfolio development and reflective practice in teaching. Due to the limited scope of the present study, one element of the reflective practice spectrum is addressed. Specifically, the study explores the use of a digital artefact to aid teachers in planning and evaluating lessons. It is envisaged that these self-evaluations will form part of a broader portfolio of teacher experience. The development of this portfolio is identified as an area for further research. The artefact designed for the study, referred to here as a Digital Portfolio Aid (DPA), is designed to assist in the preparation of lesson plans and lesson evaluations. The study suggests that while the motivation to critically reflect on one's teaching may be intrinsic, ICTs can be used to support reflective practice.

(The DPA artefact can be downloaded here. MS Access 2000 required.)

Contents

Introduction. 2

Review of Literature: Outlining a Theoretical Context 3

Reflective Practice in Teaching. 3

Some Organisational-level Influences on Teaching. 5

The Teacher Portfolio. 7

Lesson Planning & Evaluation. 9

Methodology. 10

Modelling the Digital Portfolio Aid (DPA) 10

Participants in the Study. 15

Data Gathering: Structured Interviews. 17

Some Reflections and Observations. 17

Discussion & Review of Findings. 21

Conclusion. 22

List of Tables

Table 1: Relationships between key database elements. 10

List of Figures

Figure 1: Schematic of Relational Database Design for Lesson Planning & Evaluation  11

Figure 2: User Details Interface. 12

Figure 3: Teaching Group Details Interface. 12

Figure 4: Interface for Lesson Plan Details. 13

Figure 5: Lesson Evaluation Interface. 14

Introduction

This study contributes to research on professional portfolio development and reflective practice in teaching. Reflective practice is considered an important area of research, as it is associated with the idea of the teacher as a ‘public intellectual’. [1] Here, the teacher is charged with the development of a critical perspective not only on his or her own practice, but on the various influences that shape this practice. One of the key assumptions underpinning this study is that engagement in critical-reflective practices is an important professional developmental strategy for teachers. Furthermore, it is suggested here that it is possible to incorporate activities into the work of teachers that will support reflective practice. Due to the limited scope of the present study, one element of the reflective practice spectrum will be addressed. Specifically, the study will explore the use of a digital artefact to aid teachers in planning lessons and which will in turn facilitate self-evaluation on completion of these lessons. It is envisaged that these self-evaluations will form part of a broader portfolio of teacher experience.

The artefact designed for the study, referred to here as a Digital Portfolio Aid (DPA), is based on a relational database. The DPA is designed to assist in the preparation of lesson plans and lesson evaluations. The user can create a catalogue of teaching groups and create a database of lessons and evaluations for these groups. These can, if required, be prepared as HTML documents to facilitate sharing of these data over a computer network.

Four practicing teachers agreed to use the DPA over a two-week period. This period is not sufficient to allow the longer-term influences of using the artefact to be explored. However, the data provided by the participants through structured interview suggest that there is a number of inter-related issues that may fruitfully be explored in future research.

Review of Literature: Outlining a Theoretical Context

Reflective Practice in Teaching

The classroom is a primary site for research, reflection and decision-making in teaching. The practitioner must make decisions on how to achieve the immediate aims of the lesson and on how to contribute to the achievement of the broader aims of the programme of education. These actions are the subject of research within a number of educational fields, including curriculum development, action research, school-based curriculum development, school evaluation, teacher self-evaluation and professional development.

There is a significant body of literature exploring the concept of the teacher as a ‘reflective practitioner’ and, concomitantly, the concept of ‘reflective practice. The ‘reflective practitioner’ is associated closely with the work of Schön. Central to Schön’s work is ‘knowing-in-action’ which is described as the ‘sort of know-how we reveal in our intelligent action’. Schön argues that ‘knowing-in-action’ is revealed by the skilful and spontaneous performance of the practitioner. Furthermore, we are characteristically unable to clearly articulate the type of knowledge or skill that is at play during these actions. However, it is possible, through reflecting on our actions, to describe the knowledge and skill that is implied by our actions.[2] On the underlying principles, McKernan asserts that

Perhaps the most outstanding feature of the professional is the capacity for self-evaluation and self-improvement through rigorous and systematic research and study of his or her own practice.[3]

Similarly, Ross suggests that reflection is ‘a way of thinking about educational matters that involves the ability to make rational choices and to assume responsibility for those choices’.[4] In essence, reflective practice necessitates a critical disposition with regard to the materials, methodologies and aims associated with a programme. With particular regard to teaching, reflective practice suggests a view where ‘teaching is not a knowledge-bound set of competencies which are learned during student teaching’.[5] Rather, adopting a questioning attitude towards policies and practice are crucial both to initial teacher training and to ongoing professional development. Consideration of reflective practice typically introduces the practitioner to material on action research. However, the caveat raised by McMahon, where he suggests that there are important differences between action research and reflective practice, is raised here:

Action research is distinguished by a deliberate and planned intent to solve a particular problem (or set of problems). By its nature, action research involves strategic action. Such strategic action is not integral to the reflective practitioner model of learning and teaching (though, of course, it may result). [6]

Therefore, while reflective practise may mirror some of the methodologies of action research, it may not exhibit the more systematic and rigorous techniques associated with action research. Specifically, reflective practice in teaching may not have as its starting point the identification of a specified problem. More generally, then, Emberson suggests that certain attributes are required of the teacher to undertake reflective practice. These are:

Seeing teaching as problematic;

Seeing the theory/practice relationship as problematic;

Realising that personal experience of teaching in individualistic;

Having a will to learn;

Having an ability to 'notice' (i.e. learn from observation of practice). [7]

Thus, the attributes and attitudes that are central to reflective practice have a significant personal dimension. In practice, the manner in which an individual teacher views reflective practice, and how they engage with it, will be influenced by many factors.

Some Organisational-level Influences on Teaching

It is unlikely that a rationalistic perspective will account for variations in teaching pratice. In attempting to account for variations in individual teacher practice, a host of macro- and micro-level influences may be considered. As complex social organisations, there are many factors that will influence the practice of teaching. Historically, the activities of teachers can be linked to the core values of a society.[8] Broadfoot & Osborn suggest that there are national differences in conceptions of professional responsibility. Thus, national contexts can have a significant influence on the day-to-day practice of teachers. Furthermore, these differences in national conceptions of professional responsibility ‘reflect cultural assumptions that are so pervasive that they are never articulated’.[9] However, a number of organisational-level factors may be identified. Within individual schools it is possible to identify a number of dimensions that will influence the practice of teaching and learning. Four such dimensions are identified here:

            Spatial Dimension

The design of school buildings reflects and reinforces assumptions regarding the nature of teaching and learning. Meighan identifies the ‘hidden curriculum of space’ and suggests that the relative permanence of school buildings may outlive the theories that they were initially intended to facilitate.[10] The compartmentalisation of school buildings both reflects and reinforces the practice of teachers working in relative isolation.

            Procedural Dimension

The 1991 OECD report on Irish Education makes the following observation:

Despite the variety of religious and secular authorities… the organisation of teaching and learning in primary and secondary schools seems highly consistent throughout the country. This consistency is not accidental and demonstrates the continuing weight of tradition and a tacit set of values and expectations regarding education.[11]

Schools adopt characteristic practices that reflect not only broad societal values but also the individual philosophies of individual school authorities.[12]

            Technological Dimension

It is generally argued that the introduction of microcomputers and audio-visual aids to classroom will encourage innovative teaching methodologies. However, the effect that the use of these technologies has on patterns of practice in the classroom is uncertain. Hodas, for example, suggests that technologies (which is deemed to include traditional technologies such as the chalkboard)

All enhance the teacher’s authoritative position as information source, and reduce the physical effort required to communicate written information so that ore energy can be devoted to the non-didactic tasks of supervision, arbitration and administration.[13]

While Hodas does not cite research data to support his hypothesis, it is reasonable to suppose that some technologies offer the promise of reducing the labour of teaching. However, technologies also facilitate the development of constructivist learning environments and are integral to the development of rich learning materials.

            Cultural Dimension

Culture is considered here to encompass the ‘social and phenomenological uniqueness of a particular organisational community’ and to include aspects such as values, philosophies and ideologies.[14] Culture may also be individualistic; personal histories and dispositions can have significant influences on educational practice.

These factors are detailed here to suggest some of the influences that may shape teaching practice. It is in the midst of such influences that reflective practice is situated.

The Teacher Portfolio

With a desire to increase the range of developmental and evaluative tools used in education, the use of the portfolio has received attention. Doolittle suggests that the teacher portfolio can be regarded as follows:

A teacher portfolio is an educational tool, which is primarily used in two ways. First, portfolios are used as a means of authentic assessment in evaluating the effectiveness of a teacher for licensure and/or employment decisions. Second, teacher portfolios are used to provide feedback for teachers so that they may improve their teaching and level of professionalism.[15]

The author suggests that a teacher portfolio may include all or some of the following: teacher background; class description; written examinations; a personal statement of teaching philosophy & goals; documentation of effort to improve one's teaching; implemented lesson plans, handouts, etc.; video/audio tape of classroom practice; colleague observation records; photographs of projects and chalkboards.[16].

Similarly, Hom offers the following description of the teaching portfolio:

A teacher portfolio is basically an organized collection of information that documents the teacher's accomplishments attained over a period of time, across a variety of contexts, and provides evidence of his/her effectiveness. The contents tie together the personal history and values of the teacher, teaching environment, planning skills, classroom management techniques, evaluation skills, creativity, and organizational talents. Classroom samples of teaching performances along with the teacher's explanations and reflections provide an authentic and multifaceted view of the actual teaching that took place as well as insight into the thinking behind the teaching.[17]

Thus, throughout a teacher’s career, a wide variety of artefacts and materials may be prepared or acquired. It is selected examples of these materials, together with an ongoing articulation of goals and reflections, that are central to the portfolio.

Barrett suggests that there are five key stages in the development of a portfolio:

Collection - teachers/students save artefacts that represent successes in their day-to-day teaching and learning.

Selection – teachers/students review and evaluate the artefacts they have saved and identify those that represent achievement of specific standasrds.

Reflection – teachers/students become reflective practitioners and evaluate their own growth.

Projection – teachers/students compare their reflections to performance indicators.

Presentation – teachers/students share their portfolios with their peers.[18]

The professional teacher portfolio may also be developed to serve different purposes. Three inter-related purposes are suggested here.

The Portfolio as Evidence of Professional Achievement

Teacher accountability and assessment is a recurrent theme in research and policy formulation. The portfolio may be used to support a claim that stated criteria have been met with regard to professional competencies. Both teachers in training and qualified teachers could be involved in portfolio development as part of initial training and ongoing profession development, respectively. The portfolio could contain professional references as well as documents relating to career achievements, experience and professional qualifications.

The Portfolio as Repository of Key Teaching Materials

Beyond supporting a claim to the achievement of certain competencies, the portfolio may be used to catalogue important teaching and learning materials. Lesson plans, schemes of work, bibliographies, worksheets and other artefacts such as multimedia presentations may be included fore personal reference of to allow for sharing with colleagues.

The Portfolio as Critical-Reflection Tool

The teacher portfolio supports the development of critical perspectives with regard to both personal and systemic performance. A portfolio facilitates the recording of reflections, perhaps in the form of post-lesson appraisals and observations on classroom activities. Reflections on related issues, such as a review of a particular teaching group or an analysis of some aspect of school policy. The portfolio can contain documents outlining, for example, a personal mission statement or educational philosophy. Other documents may include reflections on classroom practice, school policies and curriculum development concerns. While it is possible to offer guidance in the structuring of a professional portfolio, there is a high degree of individuality inherent in its preparation.

Lesson Planning & Evaluation

Lesson planning and evaluation are two key skills of the teacher. Planning and evaluation in education is problematic and the associated difficulties are linked with curriculum development. How the curriculum is conceptualised and made manifest in the practice of individual schools has an influence on teacher work.  At a first level of analysis, we can identify two contrasting models of the school curriculum. In one model, the curriculum is conceptualised as a corpus of valuable and useful knowledge. The main task of the school is to preserve and transmit this knowledge. The social interactions that characterise schooling are shaped to maximise the learning of skills and knowledge that are embodied in the individual subjects on the school curriculum. The emphasis is, therefore, on curriculum content. A contrasting model views the curriculum as being associated less with discrete subjects. Rather, the emphasis is placed on action and interaction in the classroom. The curriculum here reflects a concern to support the ‘procedural principles’ underlying teaching and learning. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘process model’ of curriculum.[19] This model sees the complex phenomenology of the classroom as an integral part of the school curriculum

Associated with different perspectives on curriculum is the specification of educational objectives. A detailed consideration of the specification of objectives in education is beyond the scope of this study. However, the present researcher supports the view that the pre-specification of behavioural objectives is inappropriate.[20] The behavioural objectives approach to planning promotes a rationalistic approach to education. As such, this approach is largely at variance with, for example, a constructivist perspective or a ‘process’ oriented education. While the difficulties associated with adherence to behavioural objectives are noted here, it is also possible to develop objectives that are of an open-ended, affective or expressive nature. Objectives of this type can avoid the charge of supporting a positivistic view of human nature. In addition, the identification of objectives for programmes of learning provide a framework within which teacher and student activity can be reflected upon.

Methodology

Modelling the Digital Portfolio Aid (DPA)

Supporting lesson planning and evaluation is one element of the proposed Digital Portfolio Assistant. The DPA is a relational database constructed in Microsoft Access 2000™. Data is added to the database via user interfaces (forms) and a number of standard reports are included for output. The database can be modified or customised as necessary by the user.

The database uses a cascading hierarchy that sees ‘one-to-many’ and ‘one-to-one’ relationships between key elements. The relationships between these elements are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Relationships between key database elements

A schematic of the database, including reporting capabilities, is outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Schematic of Relational Database Design for Lesson Planning & Evaluation

The DPA at present includes five main sections. These sections are described briefly here.

User Details
The user is assigned a unique numeric identification number. This is hidden from the user and is required to allow future development of the DPA as a multi-user artefact. Users must identify themselves by a first name and a surname.

Figure 2: User Details Interface

Teaching Groups
Each user can have any number of teaching groups, subject to the limits of the Microsoft Access 2000™ progamme. Each group must have a unique name/identifier. A textual description may also be entered. The interface allows details relating to each group to be modified. A list of all groups entered is shown on the form.

Figure 3: Teaching Group Details Interface

Lessons
The DPA allows each group to be associated with one or more lessons. Each lesson may included the following information:

Group Name (as entered in the Groups table)

Lesson Title/Name

Date of Lesson

Time of Lesson

Lesson Aim

Lesson Objectives (One of more objectives for the lesson can be entered)

Resources (The user can list key items, equipment and resources needed for the lesson)

Methodology (A description of the key activities to be undertaken during the lesson can be detailed).

The lesson plan may be printed if necessary. The key categories in the lesson planning section can be viewed in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Interface for Lesson Plan Details

Lesson Evaluation
The teacher can evaluate each lesson, as she or he requires. The interface outlined in Figure 5 below structures this assessment under a number of headings.

Figure 5: Lesson Evaluation Interface

The headings used here are based in part on the heading used for the Teacher Self-Appraisal Schedule included in the Department of Education & Science report of the Irish participation in the European Union Pilot Project on Evaluating Quality in School Education.[21] The lesson evaluation section is divided into six sub-sections, each with a number of specific areas relating to teaching. Apart from the final ‘general comments’ section, each teaching area can be self-evaluated by the teacher. The teacher may enter a textual comment or, for convenience, an option button may be used to enter one of three standard comments: ‘good/very good’, ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’. On completion of the evaluation, a report may be printed or, if required, exported in HTML format.

Lesson Delivery

Lesson Introduction

Pacing of Lesson

Quality/Duration of Teacher Talk

Distribution and frequency of questions

Lesson Presentation

Quality of questioning

Dealing with Pupil Difficulties

Dealing with pupil ideas

Summary and conclusion to the lesson.

Personal Competence

Language use and diction

Subject competency

Teacher enthusiasm

Teacher self-confidence

Suitability of class work.

Classroom Climate

Classroom ‘warmth’

Reinforcement/praise of students

Teacher/pupil cooperation

Classroom management

Suitability of teaching methodologies

Use of Resources

Use of audio/visual equipment

Use of textbook

Use of pre-prepared notes

Professional Behaviour

Punctuality

Teacher dress/personal appearance

General Comments

General comments and reflections may be recorded.

Participants in the Study

Four teachers working in a co-educational post-primary school participated in the study. Teaching experience ranged from 3 years to 17 years. There was an initial group meeting where the research project was outlined and the DPA was introduced. Each of the study’s subjects has had, as part of their initial teacher preparation, training in lesson planning and evaluation. However, from the initial interviews with the participants, the consensus is that as they gain in experience, the preparation of written, structured lesson plans is infrequent. The participants agreed with each other that they felt that there was little to be gained for them in terms of professional or personal development in undertaking such evaluations. Reasons for this view varied. However, there appeared to be general consensus that as they gained in experience and in confidence in their practice, such planning and evaluation was unnecessary.

The following issues were discussed and agreed to by each participant:

The study is concerned with the use of a digital artefact (the DPA) intended to support reflective practice in teaching and to determine if using the artefact gives rise to qualitative changes in teacher thinking and practice. Importantly, such changes will be considered within a framework of research on reflective practice in teaching.

The DPA facilitates the preparation of lesson plans and the evaluation of lessons. The categories used are based on the Teacher Evaluation Schedule used in the EU Pilot Project on School Self Assessment referred to earlier. The data and self-evaluation comments as entered here are private to the participants, save where they wish to make them available to this researcher or other parties.

Following use of the artefact for an agreed period, structured interviews will be held between researcher and participants. These structured interviews are the primary data-gathering method for the study.

Due to concerns raised by the participants relating to the time involved in the use of the artefact, it is agreed to conduct the study over a two-week period. Each participant agrees to use the artefact to plan and evaluate at least one lesson per day.

Each of the subjects participating in the project has a ‘base room’ at the school. By agreement with the school principal, each of these teachers is given the use of a personal computer that will be based in their rooms for the two-week period.

Data Gathering: Structured Interviews

While the DPA would be a significant data source, it is an important principle of the study that such data as entered by participants remains private. The primary data for this study is gathered through structured interview and centres on the use of the DPA and identifying, where possible, qualitative influence in practice. In particular, exploring the role of the DPA is supporting reflective practice is the objective. The structured interview is an important qualitative data-gathering method, albeit not without shortcomings. It is considered to be particularly significant where research is concerned with human motivation, actions and attitudes. Central to the structured interview is a checklist or schedule designed to ensure that the researcher does not fail to gather important data. [22]

Each participant was interviewed with questioning concentrating on the following areas:

Perspectives on reflective practice

What are the participants’ views on self-evaluation in teaching?
What is their understanding of ‘reflective practice’ and similar concepts?

Qualitative changes in practice

Did the participant identify any qualitative or quantitative changes in their practice during the trial?
How might these changes (if any) be articulated and described?
Did the participant feel that they would continue to undertake the activities?

Using the Digital Portfolio Assistant

Did the use of the DPA pose a technical challenge for the user?
Can the participants identify changes to the DPA?
Did the DPA serve its primary purpose of support and encouraging reflective practice?

Some Reflections and Observations

Following on from the structured interviews, the following synopses were prepared.

Teacher S
A total of 10 classes were planned and evaluated by Teacher S, but not all of these were entered into the DPA. Teacher S was concerned about the necessary investment in time that using the DPA might entail. Making reference to the exercise of planning and evaluating lessons for his Higher Diploma in Education, he was concerned that detail planning and evaluation of all lessons might become a mechanical exercise. Teacher S also questioned the relevance of sections of the self-evaluation pages that refer to Teacher Competence. In particular, he questioned the use of the sections on ‘teacher diction’ and ‘teacher self-confidence’. In essence, the difficulty of meaningful self-assessment in these areas was raised:

Those are areas [where] a teacher might be marked poorly from the view of another observer and they might be unaware themselves that they are performing badly in this area.

Teacher S suggested that a useful addition to self-evaluation and/or reflective practice is the inclusion of peer evaluation in the process. Colleagues could be a useful and supportive resource in undertaking a review of practice and would be regarded as less ‘pressurised’ than including a ‘outsider’ in the process.

When the interview turned to the matter of reflective practice on a wider scale, Teacher S was of the opinion that a useful focus for reflection was on the matter of whole school policies (such as timetabling, assessment and discipline) and that if looking at these areas via the DPA could be facilitated then this would e a useful improvement. Teacher S also suggested the addition of three sections to the Lesson Planning section of the artefact. Specifically, the DPA should allow for the planning of teaching methodology by way of facilitating the recording of descriptions of (i) Lesson Introduction (ii) Main Body of Lesson and (iii) Lesson Conclusion.

Teacher S was anxious that the use of the DPA could

Move beyond being [purely] a private exercise. It would be beneficial to colleagues if lesson plans could be shared.

The possibility of preparing HTML versions of lesson plans and evaluation was discussed as a possible way of making materials more readily available within the school.

Teacher M
At the outset, Teacher M expressed concerns about the use of a PC and was of the opinion that she did not have the necessary experience to use the DPA or the PC in general. Over the course of the two-week trial period, she stated that her confidence and competency grew. However, the necessity to save or export files to a floppy disk to allow for printing at another PC remains problematic. All participants refer to the lack of readily available printing facilities and identify improved access as an important improvement. Teacher M suggested that the DPA was a significant ‘motivator’ in that the presence of a PC on her desk was a constant reminder of her agreeing to participate in the project. Teacher M felt that the two-week period of the project was too short to make a definitive ‘judgement’ on any long-term effect using the DPA had on her teaching. However, Teacher M associated the use of the DPA with teacher evaluation and ‘teacher accountability.’ In recent years in the context of Irish education, the topic of ‘teacher accountability’ has been the subject of discussion. Teacher M was of the opinion that the use of the DPA could assist in the proposed Whole School Evaluation project that is currently underway on a pilot basis in a number of schools. This programme envisages that school self-assessment be an integral part of the process. Therefore, Teacher M suggests:

The [teacher] Unions won’t settle for evaluation where an Inspector [from the Department of Education & Science] will be the only person making a judgement. They [the teacher unions] will insist that teachers play a role in evaluating themselves.

Teacher M sees the matter of teacher evaluation, including self-evaluation, as a politically sensitive issue.

Teacher P
Teacher P is competent with regard to ICT use and uses a variety of ICT tools for lesson preparation. Teacher P expressed the opinion that the timing of the research project (May 2001) was not an ideal time as there had been significant disruption to this school year as a result of industrial action. This resulted in rescheduled examinations and ‘a very pressurised final month in school.’ Teacher P suggested that the impact and effectiveness of a new initiative such as the use of the DPA would be reduced when introduced at this time of the school year. However, the artefact itself was considered a ‘useful tool’ for self-evaluation:

The [DPA} database is a good starting point for self-evaluation. I can see how after a while you might customise it to suit your own needs…It certainly helps you to question your own practice.

The actual design of the DPA was considered clear and logical but Teacher P felt that the initial ‘talking through’ the use of the artefact was important. However, he also questioned whether all practicing teachers would use such a devise on a regular basis:

I can see that using something like this [the DPA] could encourage teachers to take a more critical look at their teaching, but I’m not sure that there is any incentive for them to do this.

A suggested refinement to the ‘lesson evaluation’ section is the use of a larger number of possible comments, rather that the current three (‘Good/Very Good’, ‘Satisfactory’ and ‘Unsatisfactory’). Using a numeric scale, perhaps from 1 to 5, would allow for data to be interpreted over time and that some indication of perceived performance could be indicated.

Nevertheless, Teacher P was of the opinion that wider use of artefacts such as the DPA would ‘improve the professionalism’ of teachers and that efforts to encourage self-evaluation are significant. However, there is a need, in the view of Teacher P, to allow for the reflective process to included data gathered over a larger time frame, perhaps over months or years. He also suggested that there is a place to include students in the process, perhaps by way of the use of an anonymous questionnaire that would ask them to evaluate a previous lesson.

Teacher Y
Teacher Y, due to a combination of circumstances, found in difficult to engage with using the PDA for the two-week period. Teacher Y bases her teaching on comprehensive schemes of work, which were made available for the researcher to examine. While no individual lesson plans were in evidence, the scheme did structure the work in her subject area.

Teacher Y found it difficult to engage with the underlying philosophy of the DPA, that is, to use the artefact to support and encourage reflective practice. Teacher Y agreed that the ‘discipline’ of having to compete a lesson plan and a related evaluation did lead to a feeling of being better prepared for her teaching. However, she stated that she only used the DPA on ‘two or three occasions’ and did not make any overall written comments or observations. Teacher Y felt ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘embarrassed’ by her limited ICT skills. She felt that the use of a ‘check box’ structure for the lesson-evaluation section of the DPA was of great benefit. However, the lesson planning section entailed a greater amount of direct input via the keyboard and this was considered difficult and time consuming. Teacher Y also considered the practice of ‘logging on’ to a workstation ‘complicated’ and on a number of occasion took three or more attempts before successfully accessing the software. Nevertheless, difficulty in using the technology was not seen as something that would have detrimental effect on her teaching in the short or medium term.

For Teacher Y, ‘reflective practice’ is closely associated with teacher evaluation by outside bodies or individuals.

Discussion & Review of Findings

Identifying qualitative changes in thinking or practice from the available data is difficult, not least because of the nature of the issues at hand. The findings identified here are supported by observations and data arising from the study. Given the small population involved in the study, no substantive claims as to the influence of using the DPA can be made. However, the qualitative data arising from the structured interviews during the course of the research do point towards a number of conclusions.

Educational research on teacher development suggests that critical reflection on their practice is an important aspect in teacher development.[23] The subjects participating in the present study did indicate differing perspectives on reflective practice. The participants were not immediately familiar with reflective practice as a term used in educational research. However, during the course of the study, some of the practices in evidence are clearly situated within the reflective practice tradition. Examples include an expressed desire to undertake long-term evaluation of classroom practice, a desire to include colleagues and/or students in the evaluation process and indications that involvement in the study stimulated reflection on their own teaching practice.

Each participant agreed that the (novel) presence on a personal computer in the classroom served as a reminder to use the DPA. It is noted here that the act of participating in the study itself will undoubtedly have an influence on participants’ attitudes to reflective practice. With the noted exception of one participant, teachers stated that both the planning and reflective practice elements supported by the DPA had a positive influence on their teaching practice. This is supported where participants state that the using the DPA served to focus their thinking on certain aspects of their practice. In addition, some of the participants identify changes to the DPA that would facilitate more in-depth reflections and reflection over a longer period of time.

Two of the participants anticipated the need to make a ‘dimensional’ change to the DPA. Not only must the artefact allow for long-term evaluations, but also it should facilitate a more in-depth examination of practice, perhaps with regard to a particular group or a specific aspect of their practice.

It is clear from the experience of at least one of the participants that a lack of familiarity with basic IT, while identified as a source of frustration, was not seen as a major impediment to her work. It is possible, in the view of this participant, to fulfil adequately existing expectations and requirements of the teaching role without the introduction of ICT.

Conclusion

The present writer suggests that reflective practice is grounded in the professional disposition of the individual. This disposition is influenced by a host of factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Reflective practice may manifest itself in many teacher activities and practitioners must seek to articulate the role of reflective practice in their teaching. However, the nature of reflective practice is such that it cannot readily be mandated for.

While the motivation to critically reflect on one’s teaching may be intrinsic, this study suggests that ICTs can be used to support reflective practice. In this instance, the ICT artefact was a relational database designed to facilitate lesson planning and evaluation. It is anticipated that a future study will seek to integrate this database into a more comprehensive artefact designed to facilitate the preparation of a reflective teacher portfolio.

Books

Apple, Michael and Weis, Lois (1983) Ideology & Practice in Schooling, Philadelphia: Temple University

Aronowitz, Stanley & Giroux, Henry A. (1993) Postmodern Education: Politics, Culture and Social Criticism, Philadelphia: Temple University

Best, John W. & Kahn, James V. (1989) Researach in Education (6th Edition), London: Allyn & Bacon

Clift, Renne T., Houston, Robert W. & Pugach, Marleen C. (Editors) (1990) Encouraging Reflective Practice in Education:An Analysis of Issues and Programs, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University

Department of Education & Science, Ireland (2000) Evaluating Quality in School Education: A European Union Pilot Project, Dublin: Evaluation Support & Research Unit

Drudy, Sheelagh & Lynch, Kathleen (1993) Schools and Society in Ireland, Dublin: Gill & Macmillan

Government of Ireland (2000) Evaluating Quality of School Education at Second Level: Report on the Irish Experiences of the European Pilot Project on Evaluating Quality in School Education, Dublin: Department of Education & Science Evaluation Support and Research Unit

Hargreaves, Andy & Fullan, Michael G. (Editors) (1992) Understanding Teacher Development, New York: Teachers College Press

Huberman, Michael (1989) The Lives of Teachers, New York: Columbia University

Jackson, Philip W. (Editor) (1992) Handbook of Research on Curriculum, New York: Macmillan

Kelly, A. V. (1986) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice (2nd edition), London: Harper

MacBeath, J., Meurnet, D., Schratz, M. and Bo Jackobson, L. (1999) Evaluating Quality in School Education: A European Pilot Project Final Report, : European Commission

McKernan, James (1999) Curriculum Action Research (2nd Edition), London: Kogan Page

Schon, Donald A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: Josey-Bass

Willis, Dee Anna, Price, Jerry D., & Willis, Jerry (Editors) (2000) Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, : Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Articles in Books

Goodson, Ivor F., (1992) ‘Sponsoring the Teacher's Voice: Teachers' Lives and Teacher Development’ in Understanding Teacher Development, edited by Hargreaves, Andy & Fullan, Michael G. (Editors), New York: Teachers College Press

Jackson, Philip W., (1992) ‘Conceptions of Curriculum and Curriculum Specialists’ in Handbook of Research on Curriculum, edited by Jackson, Philip W. (Editor), New York: Macmillan

Louden, William, (1992) ‘Understanding Reflection Through Collaborative Research’ in Understanding Teacher Development, edited by Hargreaves, Andy & Fullan, Michael G. (Editors), New York: Teachers College Press

Pugach, Marleen C. & Johnson, Lawrence J., (1990) ‘Developing Reflective Practice Through Structured Dialogue’ in Encouraging Reflective Practice in Education:An Analysis of Issues and Programs, edited by Clift, Renne T., Houston, Robert W. & Pugach, Marleen C. (Editors), New York: Teachers College, Columbia University

Ross, Dorene D., (1990) ‘Programmatic Structures for the Preparation of Reflective Teachers’ in Encouraging Reflective Practice in Education:An Analysis of Issues and Programs, edited by Clift, Renne T., Houston, Robert W. & Pugach, Marleen C. (Editors), New York: Teachers College, Columbia University

Journals

Cordingly, Philippa ‘Constructing and Critiquing Reflective Practice’ in Educational Action Research Vol. 7 No. 2 1999 pp. 183 - 191

Drudy, Shelagh ‘The Social Background and Career Profiles of irish Teachers’ in Irish Educational Studies Vol. 12 1993 pp. 179 - 195

Emberson, John W. ‘Teachers' Thinking and Reflective Teaching: Issues for Teacher Training in Ireland’ in Irish Educational Studies Vol. 12 1993 pp. 122 - 133

Kelly, A.V. ‘Schools, Teachers and Curriculum Planning at a Time of Economic Recession’ in Compass 17 No. 2  pp. 7 - 29

McMahon, Tim ‘Is Reflective Practice Synonymous with Action Research?’ in Educational Action Research Vol. 7 No. 1 1999 pp. 163 - 169

McNamara, Gerry, O'Hara, Joe & Rousi, Hannele ‘The Pedagogical Challenges of Constructivist Theory and Empowerment in Learning and Information Technology’ in Irish Educational Studies Vol. 17 1998 pp. 17 - 38

Reynolds, M. J. ‘Self-Evaluation and Teacher Competence: A Secondary School Principal's Perspective’ in Irish Educational Studies Vol. 14 1995 pp. 13 - 22

Touhy, David ‘Teacher Self-Evaluation - Discipline or Dyslexia in a Learning Organisation’ in Irish Educational Studies Vol. 14 1994 pp. 64 - 82

Zembal-Paul, Carla & Dana, Tom ‘Making the Case for Science Teacher Learning: An Analysis of Argument and Evidence in Electronic Portfolios’ in Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & teacher Education  2000

Electronic Sources

Barrett, Helen C. ‘Electronic Portfolios = Multimedia Development + Portfolio Development: The Electronic Portfolio Development Process’, ,  
URL: <http://transition.alaska.edu/www/portfolios/aahe2000.html> Date Accessed: 01/06/2001

Doolittle, Peter ‘Teacher Portfolio Assessment’, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 4 No. 1 1994
URL: <http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=4&n=1> Date Accessed: 14/03/2001

Hodas, Stephen ‘Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools’, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 1 No. 10 September 1993
URL: <http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n10.html> Date Accessed: 26/05/2001

Hom, Alice ‘The Power of Teacher Portfolio for Professional Development’,August 1997
URL: <http://www.teachnet.org/ntpi/research/growth/hom.htm> Date Accessed: 28/04/2001

Williams, John et al ‘The Triangulationof Researcher Interpretations of Interview Data: Cross-Gender Friendships’
URL: <http://www.coe.uga.edu/quig/proceedings/Quig92_Proceedings/williams.92.html> Date Accessed: 04/06/2001