The effect of social context on the reflective practice of preservice science teachers: incorporating a web-supported community of teachers.

This study examines the use of electronic networking technologies in the context of a secondary science methods course and an accompanying student teaching experience. Specifically, we examined the effects of social context on the student teaching reflections written by students randomly assigned to one of three different online settings: (a) a private journal, (b) an asynchronous discussion forum, and (c) a discussion forum within a web-supported community of teachers. The results indicate that these different online social contexts had effects on reflections themselves, as well as how the students perceived the assignment. Students in the private journal wrote better initial reflections than the other two groups; however, both of the discussion forum groups reflected on their teaching in their initial posts and in the responses that they wrote to other students. Furthermore, only the students using the discussion forum within the web-supported community of preservice and inservice teachers found both the assignment and reflection in and of itself to be of value. This study has implications with regards to how one can structure online interactions for preservice teachers in a way that will encourage meaningful reflection and collaboration.

**********

"Reflective teaching" and "teachers inquiring into their own practice" are slogans that have been firmly embraced by both teacher educators and educational researchers over the past 15 years. Teacher educators have invested a significant amount of time trying to restructure teacher education programs, college and university courses, and teacher professional development workshops in manners that prepare teachers and future teachers to be more thoughtful and analytic about their teaching (Boud & Walker, 1998; Hatton & Smith, 1994; McMahon, 1997). At the same time, educational researchers have attempted to understand better the conditions that affect the quality and nature of teacher reflections (Bos, Krajcik, & Patrick, 1995; Erickson & Mackinnon, 1991; Xiaodong, Hmelo, Kinzer, & Secules, 1999).

Currently, many teacher educators are experimenting with the use of electronic networking technologies to scaffold and or facilitate the reflection process (reviewed in Barnett, 2002). However, how best to leverage these technologies and how different contexts impact the nature and process of reflection is an important topic about which we have yet much to learn.

In this study, we examine how the online social context in which reflections are shared and discussed affects the nature of teacher reflections and the perceptions that individuals have on such reflections when participating in different online social contexts, each of which reflected a different theoretical perspective (described in more detail later). Within these contexts the students shared, and sometimes discussed, personal reflections on their student teaching experiences. One third of the students used an online discussion forum as a personal journal. Only the professor and the students had access to this private journal (individualistic cognitive perspective). The second group of students were within a private discussion forum to which only the professor and these individuals had access. This provided these students with a private place to share and discuss their student teaching experiences (social constructivist perspective). Finally, a third group would have a similarly structured discussion forum within a "public" space in the Inquiry Learning Forum website. The Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF) is a video-centered, web-based learning forum designed to support a community of inservice and preservice science and mathematics teachers interested in developing a better understanding of inquiry-based teaching and inquiring into their own teaching practice (Barab, MaKinster, Moore, Cunningham, & the ILF Design Team, 2001). The discussion forum situated within the Lounge of the ILF was intended to serve as a more authentic and socially interactive setting because any and all ILF members (inservice teachers, preservice teachers, and teacher educators) could read and participate in their discussions (situated cognition perspective). The goal of this design was to develop an understanding of how different online social contexts influence both the nature of student reflections and their perceptions of such an assignment and experience. We will briefly discuss the relevant literature that has informed our views of reflective teaching practice and present our theoretical commitments regarding learning, knowing, and community participation, which are grounded in situativity theory.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Reflective Teaching Practice

Despite the intense recent interest in reflective practice, it remains somewhat difficult to define concisely. Dewey (1933) saw the concept of reflection as a special form of problem solving that was thinking in order to resolve a problem or issue in a way that carefully ordered ideas so as to link them with their predecessors. In other words, reflective thinking entailed an orderly chain of ideas, a defining purpose or problem framing the activity, and a certain amount of personal examination and inquiry. He was careful to make the point that if there was not a central problem or issue, then reflective thinking would not occur. As humans we "think" about things in a variety of different ways; however, according to Dewey, reflective thinking is a response to a particular problem or situation. It is through this type of thinking that a person can modify their beliefs, understandings, and actions in an attempt to solve, rectify and even learn from a particular problem.

Schon (1983, 1987) also viewed reflective practice as distinct from the type of practice where one is engaging in spontaneous and routinized actions. In his view, reflective practice necessitates that one respond to an unexpected problem or outcome during which he or she uses prior experiences and creative problem solving to develop strategies or actions that may address the problem or situation. This reaction is an "on-the-spot" experiment of its own in which an individual is able to test his/her ability to yield the intended results. At one level, reflection addresses practical problems and allows for doubt and uncertainty prior to reaching a potential solution. More importantly, Schon argued that it is through reflection that we develop context-specific theories that can further current understandings and actions as well as inform future practice. However, there continues to be significant debate about how people learn from experience and how to identify experiences that are potentially educative.

There are several different dimensions to reflective thinking that one must consider prior to discussing how to facilitate formal and/or informal reflection. Killion and Todnem (1991) drew the distinction among reflection-on-practice, reflection-in-practice, and reflection-for-practice. Reflection in teacher education is often associated with the idea of looking back in time and analyzing a particular teaching experience and its consequences (Shulman & Colbert, 1989). This type of reflection can be referred to as "reflection-on-practice." However, there is also the possibility of examining something that one plans to do and using prior knowledge and experience to inform one's future actions (Conway, 2001; Hatton & Smith, 1994; Van Manen, 1995). Such reflection prior to action can be referred to as "reflection-for-practice." This may seem somewhat at odds with the term reflection; however, reflection can refer to remembering one's own experiences as one anticipates future experiences, not simply looking back in time (Conway). Finally, one can also consider reflection to occur in the present as one reflects on their practice in vivo and modifies their teaching based on the immediate consequences of their actions. This type of reflection can be referred to as "reflection-in-practice" (Hatton & Smith). For example, a jazz musician playing an improvisation piece is constantly playing off the actions and music of the other players. There is little time for conscious reflection on songs played in the past or what is coming up beyond the immediate future. The musicians play off of one another continuously and sometimes respond to the ideas and sounds of one or two individuals.

In this study, we consider reflection to entail at least one of the three different types of reflection described by Killion and Todnem (1991). Data analysis for this study focuses on student reflections and associated online discussions. We were most concerned about examining how these students reflect-on-practice and reflect-for-practice. It is very difficult to capture reflection-in-practice by any teacher, especially by using a written retrospective analysis as the basis for reflection. However, recognition of these three temporal elements provides a framework within which we can examine student reflections and discussions as the basis for reflection, as is done in this study.

Situativity Theory

Situated cognition offers a set of assumptions about cognition that view engagement and active participation in physical and social settings as inseparable from learning. Knowing is an activity that is distributed among the knower, the content, the context, and active participation (Barab et al., 1999; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). One of the most important aspects with regards to this study, is that situated cognition views the thinking and the construction of knowledge as "situated" within a particular context and the interactions between the individual and the context determine the meanings and understandings that are developed (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Brown et al., 1989). This perspective views all activity as situated and emphasizes a comprehensive understanding involving the whole person, rather than focusing on an individual "receiving" a body of factual knowledge about the world.

From the perspective of situated cognition, knowledge must be viewed, not as an entity, but as the active relationship between the individual and the environment or context in which she resides and/or co-constructs (Young, 1993). It would be misleading to argue that the characteristics of the environment or the details of the context in which learning takes place simply influence thinking and knowledge. Thinking and knowledge can only be best understood by characterizing both the individual and the attributes of the environment of which the problem solver is a part (Young). These attributes translate to information received by the individual that influence his/her responses, thinking, and actions. Considering the context is essential in that it reciprocally determines the knowledge and thinking that occurs across the individual, the context and the content. Therefore, knowledge is no longer something that is "stored in the head," but it is "an interaction in a specific context in which 'intelligent' activity is meaningful and appropriate" (Young).

One means of providing students with the aforementioned opportunities is by creating "authentic" learning environments. Such a view expands the traditional notion of authenticity and places authenticity not simply in the individual, but views it as interactions among the learner, the task at hand, and the environment (Barab, Squire, & Dueber, 2000). In this way, authenticity cannot exist prior to learner participation. Authenticity "emerges" as a learner participates within an environment that has the "appropriate boundary conditions" (Barab et al., 1999). In other words, under certain constraints and conditions, an individual is likely to engage in certain practices and negotiate various meanings that are of value to both the individual and the community. It is when the individual and/or the community perceives these practices and meanings to be of value that one can refer to them as authentic.

This notion of authenticity creates significant challenges for preservice educators who are accustomed to more traditional classroom-centered learning environments. Educators are challenged to support the emergence of authenticity by creating opportunities and circumstances in which it is likely that students will find value in their participation and the community of which they are a part will value their participation (Barab et al., 2000). This situation will require students to transcend the boundaries of their classroom and participate in larger, real-world communities of teachers who are engaged in similar practices and meaning negotiations.

STUDY CONTEXTS

Secondary Science Methods Course

The participants in this study were students in a secondary science methods course at a large Midwestern university. Undergraduate and graduate students take this course during their student teaching semester. During the Spring 2001 semester, the course consisted of 12 undergraduate and graduate students, 5 male and 7 female. The students spend a portion of the first six weeks in the classroom of their cooperating teacher (~50 hours) and the rest of their first six weeks (~3-5 hours / day) in this secondary science methods course. After the sixth week, the students are student teaching in the classroom of their cooperating teacher full-time. The overarching goal of the course is to provide preservice teachers with a series of opportunities to think about teaching and learning science. There are a number of assignments in this class that support students in this process, most of which are compiled at the end of the class into a student teaching portfolio. One assignment that in the past had been required in addition to this portfolio was having students write and e-mail weekly reflections about their student teaching experience. Within their reflections, students were almost always able to articulate what it was that they did and observed during the week. However, most of the students were seldom able to discuss how their experience could inform their future teaching practice. In other words, the students provided primarily descriptive accounts and were often not able to articulate how their experiences could serve to inform their conceptions of teaching or how they might deal with a similar situation in the future. One focus of this study was to implement changes in the reflection assignment that would result in the students reflecting more deeply on their experiences.

Based on the nature of the student reflections from past semesters, the professor of this course decided to use a "KWL" structured reflection assignment for the weekly reflections. KWL refers to a learning model that can be used to support students during a particular lesson that supports them in asking the following questions before, during, and after the experience: What do I know? (K), What do I want to know? (W), What did I learn? (L). The professor believed that this structure was something with which the students were already familiar, because they had discussed the KWL model within the course in the context of student learning and would enable them to more clearly articulate what they learned from their experience. Students earned 6 points for each week of participation. They were expected to make at least 16 posts over the eight week period in which this study took place constituting 20% of their grade. The KWL reflection assignment was as follows:

Each week you will confront an endless number of situations in which decisions are made regarding teaching and learning. Your assignment is to choose one or two of those situations and to describe:

1. What happened or what decisions were made? (What you know)

2. What questions and thoughts you have about the situation? (What you want to know)

* Make connections to concepts, ideas, and experiences that you already understand or have experienced

3. What you might do differently next time? (What you learned)

* Your response should be thoughtful and thorough as you address each of the above three items in depth.

The Inquiry Learning Forum

The ILF consists of a variety of participant structures, all related to encouraging online dialogue and collaboration (Figure 1). One of the primary areas of interest in the ILF is the ILF Classrooms space that enables ILF members to virtually visit the classrooms of other teachers. When an ILF member selects a specific classroom lesson they can view seven to eight video segments of the implemented lesson. Additionally, they can read an overview of the lesson, reflective commentary from the teachers, descriptions of teaching activity, lesson plans, students examples, and connections with both state and national standards. Another area of interest in the ILF is the Workroom. The ILF Workroom is a space in which groups of teachers can come together in an online space and collaborate in writing an electronic document or engage in private discussions around some collective experience and/or curricular interest. The Lounge contains general electronic discussion forums that are not tied to a particular classroom and that are viewable to all ILF members--it in this public space that those students assigned the Public Discussion condition posted their reflections.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In addition to the Classroom, Workroom, and lounge spaces, there are also three other virtual spaces in the ILF designed to support the professional development needs of ILF teachers. The ILF Office is the place where new participants can secure a password (the site is password protected), get help with technology, or make suggestions about features of the site. The Auditorium is a space where members can view the videocast and replay of special events. The Library is where teachers can access resources and reference materials of interest, including teaching materials (lessons, software, other classroom artifacts such as the graphing calculator, manipulatives, sensory probes), state and national standards, grants, applied research and theory, relevant state initiatives, and other materials the ILF teachers identify as relevant. Finally, My Desk is the teacher's desk (since entry into ILF is password protected, the system recognizes each user) in which he/she can store bookmarks to resources and classrooms that are of personal relevance.

It is important to point out that the ILF website is an evolving and ever changing entity (Barab et al., in press; Barab et al., 2001; Barab, MaKinster, & Scheckler, 2004; MaKinster, Barab, & Keating, 2001). The status of the ILF previously described reflects its state during the spring semester of 2001. Since that time, some of the structures and features of the site have gone under significant revision. The ILF project was conceived as a design experiment (Brown, 1992) that involves continuous cycles of design, implementation, research, and redesign to move the project forward on the basis of research-based decisions and recommendations. For example, the ILF Workroom has since developed into the Collaboratory, which enables users to not only organize documents and discussions, but facilitates keeping track of private and ILF discussions, ILF classrooms of interest, ILF resources of interest, relevant documents, external websites, and entails several other features. Any reference to the features or technical components of the ILF in this study refers to the ILF as it existed during the fall and spring semesters of 2000 and 2001.

METHODS

Reflection Groups

All of the students in this study had the same experiences during the first six weeks of the semester. For the purpose of examining the effect that different online social contexts had on the nature of their reflections and student perceptions, the students involved in this study were then randomly assigned to one of three reflection groups for the remainder of the semester (Private Journal--4 students, Private Discussion Forum--4 students, ILF Lounge Discussion Forum--4 students). Each of these groups was to represent a different online social context. Although all of the students were using the same KWL reflection assignment for writing their reflections, each group was in a different type of electronic space to the extent it was collaborative and publicly accessible.

Each of the students in the Private Journal group had their own discussion forum board in the Workroom of the ILF that was accessible only by themselves and the professor. They were to post weekly reflections on their experiences using the KWL structured reflection assignment previously described. Each discussion board was to serve as a private online journal for their reflections and students did not read or respond to other students' posts. The students in the Private Discussion Forum had their own private discussion board in the Workroom of the ILF accessible only by themselves and the professor. These students were to post KWL structured reflections every other week and respond to the reflections of their peers during intervening weeks. Since there were four students in this group, during the first week two students would post their reflections and the other two students would respond to them. The following week, these students would trade roles and the second two students would reflect on their experiences and the first two students would respond to their reflections.

The students in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum had the same assignment structure and roles as the students in the Private Discussion Forum. These students were to post reflections one week and then serve as critical friends as they gave feedback to their peers the next week. However, the unique characteristic of this setting was that the discussion forum was located in the Lounge area of the ILF and was accessible by all ILF members. At the time (March 2001), the ILF membership included a total of 583 inservice teachers, preservice teachers, and university educators. The students in this group accessed their reflections in the same manner as any other ILF member. They had to log into the ILF, go to the ILF Lounge, and then scroll down and click on their discussion forum.

It is important to point out that the three online social contexts were intended to reflect three different theoretical perspectives of knowing and learning. Each group was structured in a manner that reflected the implications of each theoretical perspective. First, the Private Journal group reflects a more individualistic cognitive approach to education in that the student is producing some artifact or outcome that is shared in a one-on-one basis with the professor. Second, reflecting a social constructivist perspective (Driver & Bell, 1986: Latour, 1987; Vygotsky, 1978), the Private Discussion Forum provided students with opportunities to engage in dialogue with their peers and collaboratively explore their conceptions of teaching and learning. Such collaboration enables us to test our own understandings as we examine the understandings of others, engage in dialogue, and work towards developing convictions and more robust understandings of the issues or phenomena at hand (Savery & Duffy, 1996). Finally, having a group of students post their reflections, the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum acknowledged a situativity theory perspective by asserting that it is not only important for students to engage in collaboration and social interactions when developing understandings, but we must carefully consider the context in which such activity occurs (Barab et al., 1999; Greeno, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The ILF serves as a potentially more authentic context for the students to reflect on their teaching in that they are reflecting not only in collaboration with one another, but in the presence of the rest of the ILF community.

Research Methodology

This study used qualitative methods as the basis for developing grounded interpretations of the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Guba & Lincoln, 1983; Scriven, 1983). The data used in this study included all student reflections and the associated asynchronous discussion transcripts. In addition, post interviews were conducted with each student to assess their positive and negative perceptions of the experience, feelings of connectedness, influence on their teaching philosophy and practice, and perceptions of the ILF website and community. Electronic copies of the reflection assignments and interview transcripts were collected and entered into a HyperResearc[h.sup.[^.a]] (data analysis software) database for this project. HyperResearc[h.sup.[^.a]] allows the researcher to code, analyze, and sort sections of data based on the categories created by the researcher (HyperResearch, 2000).

The resulting data were examined using qualitative approaches after compilation of descriptive statistics. The quantitative data from the online discussion forums established a baseline for qualitative comparisons made among the different contexts. The quantitative characterizations of student reflections and resulting discussions provided an overall picture of student participation. The qualitative analysis was able to reveal the perceived factors that underlie the differences among groups and subjects and occurred in two separate stages, using two different methodologies.

The online reflections and associated discussions were analyzed using a predetermined coding scheme that was based on a scheme used by Bonk, Hansen, Grabner-Hagen, Lazar, & Mirabelli (1998) (stage one). The modified coding scheme in this study (Table 1) has three different foci that align with the primary interests of this study: Reflection Topics, Student Reflections, and Peer Responses. There are also five other codes that cut across these categories and enable the researcher to identify the type of question being asked, whether there is off-task dialogue, and the use of humor. Based on initial pilot tests of the coding instrument, several additional codes were added for categories specific to the nature of the reflections and peer responses in this study.

For the purposes of this study, we chose to use a specific referent for each type of post within the electronic discussion forums. A reflection refers to a first level post that a student completed based on his or her assignment for that particular week. For the Private Journal Group, this is the only type of post that they had. A response is any second-level student or inservice teachers' post that was made to a reflection. These are typically the posts that students wrote in response to the reflections of their peers. Finally, a reply is any post that an individual posted to a second-level post or higher. For example, Gary would post his reflection for a particular week. Then John and Kelly would post responses to his reflection. Finally, both Gary and Martha (an inservice teacher) chose to reply to both John and Kelly's posts. Any further posts within this particular thread would also be referred to as replies.

In terms of the online dialogue, only the reflections and the responses were analyzed for this study. This decision was based on the fact that the reflections and responses were the only two levels that one could be sure would be present in almost every thread. This allowed for a more reasonable comparison among the groups. Incorporating the replies into the analysis would result in greater differences between groups in terms of the number of posts analyzed and the number of sentences coded for each group. 1 The coding scheme (Table 1) was used to code every sentence in both the reflections and student responses. A trial-coding run was performed prior to beginning the actual analysis and several codes were added to the original scheme.

In contrast to the predetermined, interpretive lens used for the online discussions, a Constant Comparative Method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967) approach was used on the postinterview data (stage two). Specifically, we used the pattern of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1990).

This type of grounded analysis was essential to understand the complexities within this type of study (Silverman, 2000). Guba and Lincoln (1983) referred to this type of process as a "hermeneutic-dialectic process." The term hermeneutic is intended to communicate the interpretive nature of the analysis and dialectic refers to the process of comparing and contrasting data and findings in an effort to synthesize ideas into an integrated whole (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). This process entails viewing theories and explanations as dynamic constructs that change, sometimes radically, over time and with further investigation. We took several deliberate steps to promote the reliability of the analyses, including triangulation of data collection methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1986) (e.g., classroom and seminar observations, interviews, internet technologies), triangulation of types of data (electronic discussion posts, e-mail, interviews, fieldnotes), and member checking (the professor of the course and three students).

RESULTS

Overall Patterns

All of the participating students exhibited at least a moderate level of activity in this assignment (Table 2). The students in the Private Journal group were to post a reflection each week and only received feedback or responses from the professor. Several of the students in this group did not complete the assignment after a certain number of weeks (Table 2) and tended to write shorter reflections as time progressed. The students in both the Private Discussion Forum and the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum completed almost all of their assigned reflections (five per person) and responded to their peers with a reasonable amount of regularity (Table 2). Like the students in the Private Journal group, some of these students also wrote shorter reflections as the semester progressed, but this trend was not as pervasive. The professor responded to the reflections of students in all three groups, but tended to pay slightly more attention to students in the Private Journal group (Table 2). The levels of interaction were somewhat limited overall. In particular, the number of replies that students received back to their responses (from the person that posted the initial reflection) were relatively limited (Table 2). There were two students in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum that were very good about replying to the responses that they received; however, this seemed to have little effect on the willingness of the other two students in this group to do the same.

A total of 2441 sentences from the online dialogue were coded using the predetermined coding scheme presented (see Table 1). These codes were distributed across the settings in the following manner: Private Journal = 498, Private Discussion Forum = 1031, ILF Lounge Discussion Forum = 912.

The codes for the reflections and their relative frequencies in each setting are presented in Table 3. Students in the Private Discussion Forum had the greatest amount of text describing the particular situation they were discussing. The higher frequencies of descriptions in both the Private Discussion Forum and the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum were not surprising, given that they had specific audiences to which they were writing and were expecting someone to respond to their reflections. Despite the lower number of overall codes, the dialogue in the Private Journal group had the highest frequency of codes in five of the seven categories that exhibited trends (Table 3). In addition, all but one of these categories (Reflection or Self-Appraisal) exhibited a decreasing trend in code frequency from the Private Journal, to the Private Discussion Forum, to the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum.

The codes that exhibited frequency trends in Table 3 are also some of the most important categories in terms of characterizing the nature and depth of a reflection. The Private Journal students appeared to be stating the problem or situation more often, were much better about making recommendations regarding a particular situation, much more frequently reflected on their actions or made statements of self-appraisal, and very often explained how they would deal with a certain situation in the future. Finally, they also had very specific questions about the situation that they would ask in the context of their reflections. At times these questions were directed at the professor; however, at others they were simply part of a thought process. Most of the other categories did not exhibit any clear trends or patterns.

Trends or patterns in the coding data are much less clear when one examines the responses to the reflections that were received in the Private Discussion Forum and the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum (Table 4). Since the total number of codes for each setting are very close, only raw counts of these data are presented. Students in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum displayed much more empathy and encouragement towards their fellow students. Many students spent a significant amount of time describing their own experiences with similar situations. Overall, there were no clear differences in the student responses of the Private Discussion Forum and the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum.

However, there were some differences among students within a particular group and many of those differences will be presented and discussed next.

Constant Comparison Method of Identifying Patterns

The Constant Comparison Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) served as a means to identify relevant themes from the post interviews across and within each group. Open coding of the post interview transcripts resulted in 295 coded passages (typically 1-20 sentences) within 39 unique categories. We identified core issues by looking across the generated codes and associated interview transcripts in an effort to identify and recontextualize common themes (axial coding). Redundant codes were collapsed and additional codes were added when necessary. These codes were then sorted into categories that reflected each of the emerging themes and subthemes. For example, several of the codes were categorized under the heading "feedback." However, it was necessary to distinguish between those students who were stating that they valued the opportunity to get feedback and those students were stating that they desired the opportunity to get feedback. During this process we continually went back and forth between examining the data, revising the themes and categories, coding new data, examining the literature, reflecting on the process, and beginning the cycle again. From the final 41 coding categories and 367 coded passages, three central themes were identified. These issues served to focus the analysis within each of the cases developed for each group or setting. The two issues that were discussed within each case were:

* The desire to and value of receive feedback on one' reflections

* The nature and perceptions of the responses received from others

Cross Case Comparisons

As part of the analysis, the first author developed indepth cases for each of the aforementioned settings (MaKinster, 2002). Due to space limitations and readability considerations, we omitted the full cases from this manuscript, but have chosen to integrate results from each case into the three cross case comparisons presented. Specifically, the two issues we focus on are the effects of different online social contexts on student reflections and the effects of different online social contexts on the student perceptions. In doing so, we shall attempt to answer the research questions that guided this study and discuss several issues that emerged during the course of our analysis.

Effects of different online social contexts on the student reflections.

As previously discussed, the student reflections were clearly effected by the online social context in which they were shared. The reflection assignment required students to not only describe a problem and identify the questions that they had about the situation, but also to discuss what they learned and how they would deal with the same problem in the future. As such, the assignment was designed to support students in reflecting both on-practice and for-practice (Killion & Todnem, 1991) with regards to their teaching. Students in the Private Journal setting tended to write reflections that entailed each of the three assigned parts to the reflection assignment. The students in the Private Journal setting tended to briefly describe their problem or situation and then spent a significant amount of time reflecting on their experience, making recommendations about how to deal with this problem, and presenting ideas about how they would handle a similar situation in the future. For example, Sam and Kay did an excellent job in terms of including each assigned portion of their KWL reflection. They both described the situation, articulated what they had questions about, and often described what they would do when they encountered the same situation again in the future. One of Kay's best reflections was the following:

  I teach 2 periods of Algebra III-IV, one of my periods has a really
  large distribution of ability. Most of the students are B/C students
  but there are some A students (and of course some D/F) students. There
  are four bright male students in my fourth period that have pretty
  large attitudes and I would guess are pretty typical teenage boys,
  except they feed off each other when they get together. These four
  tend to pick up on new concepts pretty quickly.

  Thursday, I was explaining a new concept that many of the students
  were having trouble with and some were even panicking about a little.
  Fortunately, instead of turning off, many of the students were asking
  a bunch of questions (i.e., O.k. so that's what you do if it looks
  like that, but what if it's like this? etc.) I was comfortable enough
  with the topic to be able to handle the questions, and it seemed to be
  helping some of the students, but one of the foursome of boys made a
  comment similar to "keep on going until the dumb people understand."
  My back was turned and I knew it came from one of the four. I was
  pretty sure who, but I didn't know for sure. Two other students in the
  class made comments on the comment-one saying that what he said was
  totally inappropriate and another girl started to argue with one of
  the four. The kept bickering until I turned around, gave the girl a
  look, and threatened to separate the four boys. When the bell rang for
  them to leave, I called the one boy up privately and told him that it
  was totally unacceptable to call or refer to anyone as dumb in the
  class. He completely denied it, then practically bolted out of the
  room. As he was walking away, I told him to pass on what I said to his
  friends.

  How could I have handled this differently? I admit that I was not 100%
  sure that it was the particular kid that I talked to-should I have
  just let it go? Even though I didn't punish the student or yell at
  him, I even waited until everyone had left to talk to him, how much
  damage did I cause? He is in both my math and chemistry classes and
  could be a real pain in the butt if he really wanted to? Should I let
  this motivate me at all?

  Next time I might stop what I was doing immediately after I heard the
  comment, and not pick out anyone individually, but state that calling
  anyone dumb or stupid is unacceptable behavior and that if I hear it
  again I will do something about it. I also kind of off the cuff
  threatened to separate the four boys, it was more of a threat than
  something that I actually want to have to do. I should think before I
  let something leave my mouth for sure. (Kay--3/4/01)

In this reflection Kay does an effective job of describing the situation in an enough detail so that the reader can appreciate the problem. She sounds honest in her appraisal of the situation and of herself. She also articulates a number of the questions she has before describing how she might have dealt with this particular situation differently.

Although the Private Discussion Forum students did a good job with most of the reflection assignment, they spent very little time explaining how they would deal with similar situations or problems in the future. These students tended to include a variety of details and were careful to ask specific open-ended questions about their particular problem. At the end of their reflection they would often post questions such as "What can I do to make students read the instructions?" (Kristen--3/10/01). This provided for a natural lead-in from their reflection to the responses of their peers. However, only Kristen spent anytime explaining future strategies and that still only occurred in about half of her reflections.

In a similar manner, the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum students were good about describing their experience and reflecting on the situation; however, they almost never articulated what they would do differently. In addition, they tended to ask relatively few open-ended questions about the situation.

  This week has went over pretty well. I think I am getting the hang of
  the whole classroom management thing. It is interesting because I am a
  lot more strict than I ever thought I would be. I also find myself
  caught off guard a lot and in situations when I have absolutely no
  clue what to do or say. For example, what do I say when a girl
  announces to myself and the whole class that she tried to kill
  herself? Or what to do when someone drops a giant glass beaker and it
  shatters all over the floor? Both of these things happened and I had
  no clue what to do. However, I guess I will learn as time goes on.

  My main problem concerns a certain student who has a horrible
  attitude. He will not listen, cooperate, or shut up. I hate to say
  that I don't like him but I don't. The kids are working on a mock
  trial for tomorrow and he wanted a main part. However, the other
  people in his group didn't want him to have the part because all he
  does is goof off. I agreed with them and I told him that he just had
  to be part of the jury. He then started to cry and he sat on the
  counter for the whole period saying I wasn't fair and that I didn't
  even give him a chance. I had explained to him the previous day that
  he demonstrated to me he couldn't work in groups well. I feel really
  bad but should I have given him a chance even though his behavior has
  been horrible the whole time I have been there and even though he
  hasn't shown me he can work in groups?? Any input would be helpful, as
  I don't enjoy making students cry!!! (Kendra--3/20/01)

Kendra spends a lot of time describing her situations and problems. She also sounds very sincere in her plea for help and several times steps back and reflects on her own personal views, such as "I hate to say that I don't like him but I don't." However, there is very little diversity in her reflections. Kendra seldom states the problem in a very straightforward manner. She never makes her own recommendations about how to deal with the problem, she infrequently explains why certain decisions were made, and never explains how she might deal with a situation differently in the future. This type of reflection was typical of the students in the ILF Discussion Forum.

There are several factors that may explain why the students in the Private Journal group were much better about actually reflecting on their experiences in the initial reflection posts. First, there are certain assumptions and expectations that people have when participating in conversations (Have, 1999). Discussion participants present ideas or situations, often followed by questions, that elicit some response from others. The student teaching reflection assignment was not originally designed to be used as a catalyst for discussion. The nature of the initial reflection assignment itself, if done correctly, might actually inhibit conversation, rather than promote it because students are asked to write answers to the questions that they have about the situation. The assignment asks each student to describe a situation, state the questions that they have about that situation and then asks them to put forth potential answers and responses to these questions as they think about current and future strategies. If a person wishes to initiate discussion around some topic, it is best not to try and completely answer any questions that you have before you give another person a chance to voice their opinions. This in fact seems to be what the students in the discussion forum settings were trying to avoid. Several of the students in Private Discussion Forum and the ILF Discussion Forum explained that when they wrote their reflections, they would often try and write them in a manner that facilitated responses. It is likely that these students chose to avoid writing about future strategies so that their peers would have an easier time coming up with suggestions to include in their responses.

It is incorrect to assert that the students in the Private Discussion Forum and the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum did not completely reflect on their teaching. It is true that the initial reflections of these students seldom entailed discussions about how they would deal with particular problems in the future; however, the responses that these students wrote to the reflections of their peers could certainly be characterized as reflective. For example, the responses written by students in the Private Discussion Forum were typically very good. The students in this setting provided praise or positive affirmation regarding an action performed by the person reflecting (see Table 4). They also often restated the problem in a manner that provided another way of looking at the situation and they were good about coming up with potential solutions or suggestions (see Table 4).

  Well, as to the problem with the "formula" sheets--definitely the
  teacher should have been consistent all day long. It shouldn't matter
  whether the information was on the test or not, that's really not the
  point. If the students are clear on the rules in advance, then any
  breach of those rules should revoke the right. Now, that might sound
  harsh, but honestly, I think a lot of times teachers can be too
  lenient. You shouldn't have to be lenient if you have clear
  expectations and objectives--and students should not expect you to be.
  There are cases for leniency, but in GENERAL, I don't think it should
  be necessary in this case, or in many of the other cases you hear
  about. Be firm. I think this helps students to become better students.
  Leniency opens more gateways to wheedling and whining and excusing
  oneself for NOT doing the assigned work. Just some thoughts! (Kristen
  responding to Sean--3/5/01)

In this response, Kristen does a nice job of providing positive reinforcement about what Sean had said. She then states several personal opinions of her own and makes some generalizations about teaching, teachers, and students. There is also a good deal of passion and sincerity in this particular reply. This appeared to be characteristic of the responses and replies in this discussion forum. Very often the reflections themselves felt somewhat scripted and segmented as the students covered each portion of the assignment. However, the responses were much more free flowing, sincere, and personal.

One characteristic of the responses that stood out was how students used their own personal experiences as a means to either make a point or communicate how they dealt with a similar situation or problem in their own classrooms.

  Sorry that this is so late. I have had the same problem with my class
  TESTING me, but I nipped it in the butt early. Basically, let them
  know that you are the teacher, not the student teacher. Maybe it will
  take sending someone to the office, maybe it will take not showing a
  movie, the bottom line is that it is your class and you make the
  rules. I give proficiency quizzes in chemistry and I am thinking about
  doing it in bio. You do not get a grade for it until you get a 75% or
  better. I give a date when you have had to pass it or no grade in
  general. I give them as many chances as they need, but most of them
  only need 2 chances if that. I feel this is a great way to do things
  because it is on their time schedule and it also makes you not have to
  change your lesson plans around. Regarding the class being lazy, I
  think that is a virus that all classes, especially this time of year
  have. The kids are starting to turn off since spring break is coming
  up. Don't think that it is you, I think they are just a little fried
  from a long year. Be strong ... it is YOUR class. Your goal is to
  teach them. They may not like it, but in the long run, it will pay
  off! (Ron responding to Sean--3/21/01)

Ron uses his own experience to provide Sean with a couple of other alternatives about how he might deal with the situation. The students commonly cited their own experiences, provided a good bit of detail about their own circumstances and discussed how they have handled similar situations. In this response Ron also puts forth a number of his own opinions and at the end tries to encourage Sean to "be strong" and continue to work with his students. Similar patterns were also observed among other students in the ILF Discussion Forum.

The responses in both the Private Discussion Forum and the ILF Discussion Forum were representative of reflections-on-practice in that the responses of these students very often included descriptions of personal experiences with similar situations or problems. The students would then describe either how they dealt with that situation or how they worked to prevent such a situation from occurring in their own classroom. The responses also often included personal opinions and critiques which enabled the person responding to put forth and articulate his or her own perspectives as a teacher. In addition, the students were reflecting (through their written responses) on topics that were prompted by the reflection topics of their peers. In some ways, this circumstance is actually advantageous. It ensured that the students were not simply choosing some mundane topic or situation that was easy to talk about and use as a prompt for dialogue. The responses served as a means for students to reflect on particular situations, provide potential solutions, discuss how they have dealt with similar situations in their own classroom, and articulate their identity as teachers through the nature and content of their responses. The responses written by these students entailed descriptions of prior occurrences, personal opinions, detailed suggestions or solutions, as well as explicit statements of personal reflection. In other words, the explicit reflections of these students were not missing, but were simply translocated from the reflections themselves to the responses that they were writing for other students. However, and with this said, the initial postings of students assigned the private journal condition were more consistent with what many academicians would characterize as a high quality reflection.

Effects of Different Online Social Contexts on Student Perceptions

The students in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum felt that the student teaching reflection assignment was definitely of value. Lisa, Mike, and Sean spoke very positively about the experience. Lisa had almost nothing critical to say about the experience and many of Sean's suggestions were to expand the scope of the assignment and the number of inservice and preservice teachers participating. Mike really liked having access to not only to his peers, but the rest of the teachers on the ILF. He enjoyed posting his reflections and waiting to see what responses he would receive. Only Seth stated that he sometimes felt the assignment was a burden on top of everything else he had to do and at times wrote reflections with relatively little investment in time and effort. Seth did state that he would have rather been in a different group, but his reasoning focused on his perceptions that the other groups had a smaller workload for the assignment.

The ILF Lounge Discussion Forum students, including Seth, were the only students to consistently talk about the value of reflection. For example, Mike, when talking about how the reflection assignment had influenced his teaching philosophy, summarized how reflection was valuable to him as a teacher both now and in the future.

  I mean I think that kind of works with the reflections ... being in
  the ILF and the reflection assignment. It was being able to think back
  about what I had done, and what had went well and what I hadn't done
  so well, that I could kind of make note of that and maybe the next
  time around I teach this. I am sure I will teach genetics wherever I
  am at somewhere along in my career, that I can look back at that and
  say, well you know this didn't go so well, what can I do maybe a
  little bit differently so ah ... the kids understand me a little bit
  better, maybe I went a little too fast, or need to slow this down.
  (Mike--Interview)

Mike's description is aligned with the three-part structure of the assignment itself. The KWL framework seemed to serve as a useful framework for helping students to reflect on their teaching. Lisa felt that the structure of the assignment and even the process of writing the reflection helped her to really think about the successes and failures in her teaching.

  Sometimes I wouldn't even know what I (thought) about a certain lesson
  until I sat down and wrote my reflection on it. I was like, hmm, I
  need to change something or, just switch things around. So it
  definitely gave me time to think about where I was coming from as a
  teacher. (Lisa--Interview)

Lisa's statement suggests, as some have argued (W. M. Roth, personal communication), that thinking and writing are inextricably linked. Students often made comments about how having to write out their thoughts and actions in a manner so that somebody else could understand them served as a very useful experience in and of itself.

Lisa and Mike also thought that the ILF was a community of teachers and that the student teaching reflection assignment enabled them to feel like legitimate members of the community. Mike stated, "So I think I was part of the community just as much as the next person what was in it." Both of them stated that as preservice teachers they felt like they were a minor part of the larger community, but that they definitely had the opportunity to contribute their ideas and experiences to the community and get feedback from others. Mike saw value, not only in his own experience, but in the ILF as a potential resource for preservice teachers in general, and valued the feedback that he received from several different inservice teachers and clearly saw how similar relationships and interactions would be beneficial to the professional development of preservice teachers.

The students in the Private Discussion Forum had fairly positive to mixed attitudes about the reflection assignment and they were critical about several elements. All of the students in this group stated that overall they found the reflection assignment to be a valuable experience. However, the strength of their assessment varied from one student to the next. Ron saw almost no value in the assignment at times, believed that the reflections were often very superficial, did not feel like the responses he received were of much help, but stated that the reflection assignment forced him to "sit down and really think about the week." Sean, on the other hand, was very enthusiastic about the assignment and valued the process of reflection as well as the responses he received. He liked being able to discuss teaching and classroom management strategies with his peers and get their opinions on the problems he was experiencing in his classroom. In addition, Sean saw reflection and self-criticism as very valuable. He had tried to establish a democratic classroom and allowed his students to evaluate everything that they did as well as inform Sean of how they would like to learn a particular topic.

The opinions of Amanda and Kristen about the assignment lay between the perspectives of Ron and Sean. Kristen felt that reflection was extremely valuable and liked that she was able to discuss her teaching with her peers; however, she did not find the responses she received to be of much value. She stated that the responses seldom said anything that she did not already think of herself. Amanda, on the other hand, started off not liking the assignment at all and simply saw it as an extra burden; however, by the end of the semester she had grown into really liking it and felt that it was a valuable way to connect and share experiences with her peers in addition to getting insight into different experiences, classrooms, and schools.

All of the students in the Private Journal group expressed a very negative attitude about the reflection assignment and thought that it was of little personal value. These students completed the assignment simply so they could "get the points that it was worth." Deadlines were often a problem and the students in this group seldom turned their reflections in on time, if at all. The students often stated how the assignment seemed like an extra burden on top of all of the other things that they had to do in terms of completing their portfolio.

Some of the Private Journal students did mention a few positive aspects to the reflection assignment. Sam felt that the assignment gave him a chance to look back over the week and pick out one circumstance that seemed to stand out and have some significance. Several students also felt that the private nature of the reflection journal was nice because you could feel free to say anything you wanted to say about your school, students, your cooperating teacher, and not worry about how it might be perceived by anyone but the professor.

When asked in what ways the reflection assignment was problematic to them, all of the students in this group expressed a desire to talk with their peers or other teachers about their reflections, rather than simply posting their reflections to the professor.

  And I would have liked (discussing my experiences) with other people
  in my class. I could have talked with them, and seen what they were
  doing. I don't know if I would have liked being in the real open
  people's where anyone could read it and talk, but having a group of
  peers, especially close peers that were in class with me, and be able
  to talk with them. I would have liked that. But, I don't know. I guess
  I can see how it could be good, but for me, I didn't really ... get
  anything out of it. It really, it was like a chore that I had to do on
  Sunday night. If I remembered to do it at all. (laughs) (Kay--Post
  Interview)

Such sentiments were common among the students in this group. A significant part of the reasoning behind statements such as this was that these students felt they had received limited feedback about their reflections from the professor. The Private Journal students stated that they felt isolated, detached, and didn't like the lack of interactivity with their peers and experienced teachers. The limited feedback from the professor most likely exacerbated the negative feelings about these and other problems.

Students in all three settings talked about the value of receiving feedback from experienced inservice teachers. The absence of feedback from "actual teachers" was at the heart of several criticisms leveled by the students in the Private Discussion Forum. These students almost seemed slighted in that they were not provided with the opportunity to get feedback from more experienced teachers. On the other hand, the presence of inservice teachers in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum seemed to create a certain sense of authenticity in both the nature of the discussions that took place, the discussions looked and felt more like free flowing conversations, and in how the students perceived the assignment. These students were able to see value in the assignment itself and the discussion forum as a legitimate means to communicate with people (inservice teachers) with whom they would have otherwise not been able to interact.

In summary, student perceptions of the reflection assignment varied with the online social setting in which they shared and discussed their reflections. Students in the ILF Discussion Forum clearly valued the reflection assignment and often articulated the value of reflection in and of itself. These students tended to value the responses that they received even more than the reflections. They enjoyed getting feedback from their peers, but especially from the inservice teachers in the ILF. The students in the Private Discussion Forum saw some value in the assignment, but were also very critical at times. Whereas the students in the Private Journal group had little positive to say about the assignment and found it to be a source of frustration that contributed little to their personal and professional development. These patterns were surprisingly consistent among all members within each group.

CONCLUSIONS

With the development and proliferation of web-based environments, we as teacher educators are provided with a virtually endless number of communication tools and resources that can be used to support the philosophical and practical development of preservice science teachers. Preservice teachers are using e-mail, web-based asynchronous discussion boards, chat rooms, and at times even broadband video to communicate with others during their courses and student teaching experiences (reviewed in Barnett, 2002; Bos et al., 1995; Gunn, 1995; Levin & Waugh, 1998; Roddy, 1999; Bonk et al., 1998; Bonk, Malikowski, Angeli, & East, 1998). It is clear that such opportunities provide new and often exciting ways for developing teachers to interact with their colleagues and experienced teachers and researchers have documented many of the benefits and challenges afforded by these tools (reviewed in Barnett; Bos et al., 1995). However, we are only beginning to understand how to use these web-based tools effectively in the context of web-supported communities.

The results indicate that these different online social contexts had effects on reflections themselves, as well as how the students perceived the assignment. Students in the private journal wrote better initial reflections than the other two groups; however, both of the discussion forum groups reflected on their teaching in their initial posts and in the responses that they wrote to other students. Furthermore, only the students using the discussion forum within the web-supported community of preservice and inservice teachers found both the assignment and reflection in and of itself to be of value. Reflecting on our data more generally, below we forward three assertions with regards to this study. These three assertions emerge from the data and results of this study and are contextualized using relevant research literature. The assertions are not intended to be broad generalizations, but study specific conclusions, that other researchers can use to assess the relevance of this work to their own and decide whether the results herein are relevant to and can inform their own research and efforts. In addition, each assertion provides direction and possibilities for future research and development.

Reflection Can Take Many Forms

The typical notion of what it means to reflect on one's teaching needs to be expanded. As educators, we often discuss reflection as an internal conversation with oneself, a spoken conversation with a colleague, or written examination of one's teaching and experiences (reviewed in Zeichner & Liston, 1996). In teacher education, this typically involves some specifically scaffolded task that requires a student to write about his or her experiences during a field or student teaching experience. Alternatively, reflection might involve a conversation between an experienced inservice teacher and a preservice teacher who just finished teaching a lesson. Many would interpret such a conversation as an inservice teacher serving as the mentor and helping the preservice teacher reflect on his or her experiences. However, during such conversations, and almost all conversations about specific teaching episodes, both parties are engaged in reflection. It is virtually impossible for an individual to discuss teaching, or a specific teaching episode, without thinking about, often articulating, and reflecting on their past experiences.

Although the perspective of reflection as social practice has been discussed and acknowledged in the literature (Solomon, 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1996), it has yet to become a common way to think of and discuss reflection. Schon (1983, 1987) has been criticized for his lack of attention to dialogical reflection on teaching and learning (Day, 1993). He acknowledged the conversations that teachers have about their teaching; however, he failed to discuss how one might encourage such conversations to occur on a regular basis (Zeichner & Liston). It was clear in this study that the students in the discussion forums were reflecting on their own teaching by writing responses to their peers. This form of reflection has been acknowledged in other settings as well (Zeichner & Liston); however, many teacher educators continue to focus on reflection simply in terms of internal conversations, private journals, or culminating portfolios (Collier, 1999; Freese, 1999; Hatton & Smith, 1994). Teacher educators must also examine both face-to-face and online discussions as opportunities for reflection and consider the extent to which we are providing students with the opportunity to articulate, discuss, and refine their perspectives and identities as teachers. It is within dynamically unfolding conversations around real-world problems or circumstances that one's beliefs, convictions and understandings are truly challenged. When participating in these settings, one must examine his or her beliefs and understandings in light of the current conversation and articulate a response and is grounded in both personal and practical experience.

At the same time, one should not consider any discussion of a teaching episode or experience to be reflection. For reflection to occur, teacher educators must structure and facilitate discussions in a manner that encourage preservice students to critically examine and attempt to solve dilemmas in their classrooms, consider the values and assumptions that they bring to the situation, and consider the culture of the classroom, school and district of which they are a part. Most importantly, they need to be provided with the time to engage in conversations with others as they build their own knowledge and skills within a supportive learning community (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998). In other words, we must provide our students with experiences and opportunities to develop "habits-of-mind" that enable them to regularly engage in such reflection and examine teaching and learning as an activity that is influenced by a multitude of factors.

Context Affects Students Valuing of The Learning Process And Experiences

For learning environments to foster life-long learning habits, they must enable students to progressively refine their ideas within a socially embedded, supportive, and scaffolded environment (Linn & Muilenburg 1996). Traditional student to professor assignments do not provide such opportunities. Students are often asked to complete assignments in isolation and then required to turn them in to the instructor of the course. This type of experience lacks many of the elements necessary to provide students with learning experiences that are personally transformative (Resnick, 1987). Teacher educators must provide preservice students with sustained opportunities to put forward and test the viability of their ideas, explore new information, and continually engage in both personal and social reflection. Through such experiences, students are able to refine their identities and view teaching as a continual, lifelong search for new and better ideas. Educational researchers have made significant progress in terms of providing engaging and relevant classroom learning opportunities for preservice students; however, we now need to focus on providing future teachers with supportive systems and communities that serve as ongoing mechanisms for learning.

Web-supported learning communities of preservice and inservice teachers can provide opportunities for authentic and meaningful participation. Preservice teachers in these settings are able to interact with inservice professionals through web-based discussion forums, chat tools, and at times, web-based video. Course assignments can create certain boundary conditions and require students to complete certain tasks that necessitate their sustained engagement within such a community. Barab et al. (2000) found that by using web-based technologies to enable their students to collaborate with experienced inservice teachers, that the university students moved from simply engaging in classroom-based assignments to participating in authentic learning environments that required them to negotiate the development trajectory of their group. The students were able to draw on their own experiences, skills, and abilities and legitimately contribute to their group and, ultimately, the resources and opportunities in the inservice teacher's classroom. As a result, the preservice teachers viewed their participation as both valuable and meaningful.

It was apparent that the nature of the student teaching reflection assignment in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum provided a learning context that was motivating and engaging. The students in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum were engaged in activities and meaning negotiations not only with one another, but also with inservice and preservice teachers that were part of a larger web-supported community. Most of the preservice teachers in this group clearly saw their participation as meaningful and valuable. In addition, the unsolicited participation of three different inservice teachers implies that they too saw the experience as valuable. Inservice teachers have little free time and would be highly unlikely to discuss the experiences and reflections of student teachers if they did not see value in such a discussion. It is very difficult to design a course assignment that engages a student's personal interests. Barab and Duffy (2000) argued that for meaningful learning to occur "students must be introduced to the context of the problem and its relevance, and this must be done in a way that challenges and engages the students" (p. 33).

In the reflection assignment, the students were provided a framework within which they were to present and reflect on problems or situations of concern. The assignment required and necessitated that students provide a thorough description of the context and situation. The students in the discussion forums chose to add open-ended questions to their reflections that served as prompts for discussion and suggests that students desire dialogue with others about their teaching. The students responding to the reflections of their peers were explicitly challenged to provide helpful feedback in a manner that was supportive, yet at times critical (serve as critical friends). In addition, having inservice teachers and other ILF members as potential contributors to the conversations served as a legitimizing factor. The students enjoyed getting feedback from practicing teachers that had experienced similar situations in their own classrooms. For these students, the reflection assignment for the students in ILF Lounge Discussion Forum was no longer simply a solitary exercise for a course, but involved participating in a discussion and community, that reached beyond the walls of their preservice classroom.

Different Contexts Support Different Goals And Outcomes

The results of this study highlight the importance of the social environment in which learners interact with their peers and others (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Latour, 1987; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978) and challenges the perspective that the presence of others is incidental to learning (Schifter, 1996). The student reflections and perceptions in this study were, at times, dramatically effected by the social context within which their participation occurred. Within each context the students appeared to adopt a different set of rules, norms and expectations in terms of the reflections and their participation. In turn, the students developed very different perceptions of the experience from one group to another.

The fact that the students in the Private Journal group were able to write complete reflections, entailing all three required elements of the assignment, but did not value or internalize their reflections or the process of reflection to any appreciable extent is of considerable significance and cause for concern. Teacher educators commonly have students write journal-like reflections on their teaching experiences (Collier, 1999; Freese, 1999; Hatton & Smith, 1994). However, solely relying on this type of individually focused experience is incongruent with current understandings of how to develop learner practices that carry over into the practices of their everyday lives (Resnick, 1987). Van Zee and Roberts (2001) argued that there is value in having their students write individual reflections on prior science learning experiences; however, they used these reflections as the basis for both small group and whole class discussions. Allowing reflections to serve as the basis for conversation, social engagement, and reflective planning can enable students to more easily see the relevance of teacher education classroom-based lessons and activities. Clearly there is value in having students write individual reflections, but teacher educators should not view such experiences as the only means for supporting reflection.

Finally, as teacher educators, it is one of our ultimate goals to help preservice students view themselves as life-long learning professionals (National Research Council, 1996). Contexts such as the ILF enable students to participate in communities of teachers and educators that extend beyond their preservice and student teaching classrooms. Discussions within such a setting are no longer simply an exchange of ideas between private groups of individuals, but take place in a more public arena. In addition, online asynchronous discussion responses are often posted permanently or semi-permanently within a website, giving them life beyond the duration of the conversation. These features result in a unique and potentially valuable context within which student teachers can share their experiences and ideas with their peers, while at the same time, have access to feedback from experience inservice teachers and other educators. As evidenced by the results of this study and others (reviewed in Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998), it is by enabling students and inservice teachers to build their own knowledge and skills within a supportive learning community that we can help them to view teaching as a life-long learning endeavor.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study, while based on a small sample size, point to the value of using web-based, collaborative discussion forums as a means to foster meaningful and engaged reflection. The ILF Lounge Discussion Forum students were clearly engaged in personal and professional reflection when responding to the reflections of their peers. The student responses entailed detailed descriptions of personal experiences and forced these students to describe situations and circumstances in which they felt like they made good decisions. As such, these students were acknowledging and verbalizing their identity as teachers.

Reflecting on one's teaching by participating in online discussions with experienced others is an ideal situation in a preservice experience. The students were required to examine their own identity as teachers through written reflections, to explore and share in the experiences of their peers, and to articulate their experiences, identity, and beliefs through responding to the reflections of their peers. The National Science Education Standards argue that teachers, both preservice and inservice, should be provided with "regular, frequent opportunities for individual and collegial examination and reflection on classroom and institutional practicer," should "receive feedback about their teaching ... and apply that feedback to improve their practice," and "use various tools and techniques for self-reflection and collegial reflection" (National Research Council, 1996, p. 68). The students in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum were provided with these experiences and also found them to be personally meaningful and relevant.

This study informs how we might use web-supported learning communities, such as the ILF, as a means to facilitate reflections and discussions among preservice and inservice teachers in the future. The students in this study found great value in having experienced teachers as part of their conversation. However, these same students often felt that the public nature of the ILF Lounge prevented them from talking about certain topics or concerns. In the future, we would recommend having at least two different discussion forums for student reflections. The first would be semi-private in nature. Only the students and several invited inservice teachers would have access to this forum. This would provide the preservice teachers with a place in which they can feel comfortable voicing any and all concerns among peers and more experienced teachers with whom they have established a certain level of trust and confidentiality. Second, preservice teachers need to have a space or discussion forum within the larger ILF community that they can use to ask for help or more generally reflect on their experiences.

In light of this and other studies, it is troubling that teachers and researchers seldom attempt to, or have time to, assess whether or not students valued the learning process and experiences within a particular lesson or unit. As students progress from elementary school, to middle school, to high school, to college, they become more and more adept at doing assignments and assessments from the perspective of "what the teacher wants" rather than their efforts being grounded in their own personal beliefs, understandings, and experiences (Kirschenbaum, Napier, & Simon, 1971). In this study, the extent to which students valued both the experience and the focus of this assignment, reflecting on one's teaching, varied dramatically across the three settings. This is important not only in and of itself, but it also highlights the importance of capturing and presenting the articulated perspectives of students during educational research (Brantlinger, 1993). Teacher educators need not only to focus on the tangible outcomes of education, but the affective and personal engagement of the students if we wish to ultimately promote sustained engagement and encourage life-long learning.

References

Barab, S.A., Baek, E., Schatz, S., Scheckler, R., & Moore, J. (in press). Illuminating the braids of change in a web-supported community: A design experiment by another name. In A. Kelly & D. Lesh (Eds.), Design-based research II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barab, S.A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett, S., Shaw, R., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: Learning as participation in autocatakinetic systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3 & 4), 349-390.

Barab, S.A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barab, S., MaKinster, J.G., Moore, J., Cunningham, D., & the ILF Design Team. (2001). Designing and building an online community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71-96.

Barab, S.A., MaKinster, J.G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Characterizing online community. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Barab, S.A., Squire, K., & Dueber, B. (2000). Supporting authenticity through participatory learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37-62.

Barnett, M. (2002). Issues and trends concerning electronic networking technologies for teacher professional development: A critical review of the literature. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Bonk, C.J., Malikowski, S., Angeli, C., & East, J. (1998). Web-based case conferencing for preservice teacher education: Electronic discourse from the field. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(3), 269-306.

Bonk, C.J., Hansen, E.J., Grabner-Hagen, M.M., Lazar, S.A., & Mirabelli, C. (1998). Time to "connect: Synchronous and asynchronus case-based dialogue among preservice teachers. In C.J. Bonk and K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bos, N.D., Krajcik, J., & Patrick, H. (1995). Telecommunications for teachers: Supporting reflection and collaboration among teaching professionals. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 14(1-2), 187-202.

Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-206.

Brantlinger, E. (1993). Adolescents' interpretations of social class influences on schooling. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 28(1), 1-12.

Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Collier, S.T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(3), 173-181.

Conway, P.F. (2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: From a temporally truncated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 17(2001), 89-106.

Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development. British Educational Research Journal, 19(1),83-93.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company.

Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443-456.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., & Allen, S.D. (1993.) Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Erickson, G.L., & MacKinnon, A.M. (1991). Seeing classrooms in new ways: On becoming a science teacher. In D. Schon (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in professional practice (pp. 15-36). New York: Teachers College Press.

Freese, A.R. (1999). The role of reflection on preservice teachers' development in the context of a professional development school. Teaching & Teacher Education, 15(8), 895-909.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Greeno, J.G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1983). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In G. F. Madaus, M.S. Scriven., & D.L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 195-220). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Gunn, C. (1995). Telecommunication projects designed for preservice students. In D.A. Willis, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1994). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 23-32.

Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.

HyperResearch [Computer software]. (2000). Randolph, MA: Research-Ware Incorporated.

Killion, J.P., & Todnem, G.R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14-16.

Kirschenbaum, H., Napier, R.W., & Simon, S.B. (1971). Wad-ja-get?: The grading game in American education. New York: Hart.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levin, J., & Waugh, M. (1998). Teaching teleapprenticeships: Electronic network-based educational frameworks for improving teacher education. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 39-58.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Linn, M.C., & Muilenburg, L. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation? Educational Researcher, 25(5), 18-23.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

MaKinster, J.G. (2002). The effect of social context on the reflective practice of pre-service science teachers: Incorporating a web-supported community of teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University.

MaKinster, J.G., Barab, S.A., & Keating, T.M. (2001). Design and implementation of an on-line professional development community: A project-based learning approach. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(3). Retrieved February 5, 2006, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/makinsteretal.html

McMahon, T.A. (1997, March). From isolation to interaction? Network-based professional development and teacher professional communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Resnick, L.B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(6), 13-20.

Roddy, M. (1999). Using the internet to unite student teaching and teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 257-267.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Schifter, D. (1996). A constructivist perspective on teaching and learning mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 492-499.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scriven, M.S. (1983). Evaluation methodologies. In G.F. Madaus, M.S. Scriven., & D.L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 229-260). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Shulman, J.H., & Colbert, J.A. (1989). Cases as catalysts for cases: Inducing reflection in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 11(1), 4-52.

Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 812-834). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Solomon, J. (1987). New thoughts on teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 13(3), 267-274.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Manen, M. (1995). Epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 1(1), 33-50.

van Zee, E.H., & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learning to teach: Prospective teachers' perceptions of positive science learning experiences. Science Education, 85, 733-757.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Xiaodong, L., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43-62.

Young, M.F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 41(1), 43-58.

Zeichner, K.M., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Note

1. For example, two of the students in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum chose to always reply to anyone that responded to their initial reflections. In addition, the students in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum also tended to have more discussion threads that went beyond two or three levels. These two circumstances would have resulted in many more replies being present in the ILF Lounge Discussion Forum than in the Private Discussion Forum.

JAMES G. MAKINSTER

Hobart & William Smith Colleges

Geneva, NY USA

[e-mail]

SASHA A. BARAB

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN USA

[e-mail]

WILLIAM HARWOOD

University of Northern

Iowa Cedar Falls, IA USA

[e-mail]

HANS O. ANDERSEN

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN USA

[e-mail]

Table 1 The Electronic Coding Scheme That Was Used to Code the
Electronic Posts and Discussions

Electronic Dialogue Coding Scheme

T = Reflection Topics
  Td = Description
  Tsl = Science Learning
  Ta = Assessment
  Tcm = Classroom management
  Tct = Cooperating teacher
  Tp = Past experience
  Tin = Inclusion or tracking
  Tps = Student(s) problem
  Tr = Resources at the school
  To = Other

R = Student Reflections -- student teaching reflections portion of
  assignment
  Ri = Introduction of situation
  Rd = Describing situation
  Rg = General talk, may be tangentially related
  Rsp = Statement of problem or situation
  Rc = Linking or connecting to prior experiences
  Rev = Evaluation of situation and/or decisions
  Rr = Recommendations or potential solution
  Rxd = Explanation of why decisions were made
  Rxf = Explanation of future strategies
  Rrsa = Self-appraisal or reflection
  Rdl = Desire to learn
  Rpo = Personal opinion
  Rs = Salutation
  Rsit = Stating situation

PR = Peer Responses -- any response to the reflections
  PRc = Critique of action or decision
  PRca = Counter assertion or counter argument to previously made
  statement
  PRrc = Request for clarification
  PRem = Empathy
  PRen = Encouragement
  PRex = Describe their own experience with a similar situation
  PRg = Generalization
  PRi = Introduction
  PRn = Negative feedback, non-constructive
  PRp = Praises or provides positive affirmation regarding an action or
  decision
  PRpo = Personal opinion
  PRpr = Personal reflection
  PRr = Restates problem or situation
  PRs = Provides suggestions, potential solutions
  PRsa = Supporting argument
  PRus = Unsure of what to do
  PRcl = Closing statement
  PRgc = General comment

Q = Questions -- any unprompted question/request about the task.
  Qc = Closed-ended yes or no question about reflection-related
  information
  Qo = Open-ended request for reflection-related information/direct
  attention/assistance/feedback
  Qr = Rhetorical/sarcastic/esoteric questions

OT = Off Task -- off-task talk or dialogue.
H = Humor

Table 2 Total Number of Reflections, Responses, and Total Posts Written
by Each Student

                                            Responses
                                            from Group
Student   Group                Reflections  Members

Danielle  Private Journal      8            --
Sam       Private Journal      7            --
Kay       Private Journal      7            --
Kari      Private Journal      4            --
Kristen   Private Discussion   5            10
Amanda    Private Discussion   5             7
Ron       Private Discussion   4             6
Sean      Private Discussion   5             7
Lisa      ILF Lounge Discuss.  5            10
Kendra    ILF Lounge Discuss.  4             7
Seth      ILF Lounge Discuss.  5             8
Mike      ILF Lounge Discuss.  5             7

          Responses  Responses
          from       from the   Replies to
Student   Outsiders  Professor  Responses

Danielle  --         4          --
Sam       --         5          --
Kay       --         4          --
Kari      --         3          --
Kristen   --         1           2
Amanda    --         2           3
Ron       --         3           0
Sean      --         2           2
Lisa       3         0           3
Kendra     2         1           8
Seth       0         0           0
Mike       3         2          10

Table 3 Coding Instances (Sentences) Within Student Teaching Reflections
for Each Setting

                                  Private      Private      ILF Lounge
                                  Journal      Discussion   Discussion

Introducing the situation          19 (4.1%)    16 (3.1%)    14 (3.6%)
Describing the situation*         164 (35.7%)  249 (48.9%)  210 (53.7%)
Talking generally (may be          36 (7.8%)    45 (8.8%)    30 (7.7)
  related)
Stating problem or situation*      33 (7.2%)    26 (5.1%)    13 (3.3%)
Connecting prior experiences        2 (0.4%)     1 (0.2%)     1 (0.3%)
Stating a personal opinion         19 (4.1%)    23 (4.5%)    19 (4.9%)
Making recommendations*            10 (2.2%)     2 (0.4%)     3 (0.8%)
Explaining why decisions were       7 (1.5%)     5 (1.0%)     8 (2.0%)
  made
Evaluating decisions                1 (0.2%)     4 (0.8%)     0 (0.0%)
Reflection or self-appraisal*      77 (16.8%)   48 (9.4%)    47 (12.0%)
Explaining future strategies*      28 (6.1%)    11 (2.2%)     5 (1.3%)
Salutation                          2 (0.4%)     7 (1.4%)     1 (0.3%)
Asking a specific question*        56 (12.2%)   37 (7.3%)    23 (5.9%)
Asking an open-ended question*      1 (0.2%)    18 (3.5%)    10 (2.6%)
Asking a rhetorical question        2 (0.4%)     3 (0.6%)     0 (0.0%)
Commenting about off-task topics    2 (0.4%)    14 (2.8%)     7 (1.8%)
Totals                            452          509          391

* Categories in which there reasonably different results or clear trends

Table 4 Coding Instances (Sentences) Within the Responses to Student
Teaching Reflections for Each of the Two Discussion Forums

                                       Private     ILF Lounge
                                       Discussion  Discussion

Critique of action or decision           0           0
Counter assertion or counter argument    9           4
Request for clarification               14          12
Empathy*                                 4          20
Encouragement*                           1          16
Describe their own experience*          97          82
Generalization                          18          14
Introduction                             3           2
Negative feedback, non-constructive      0           0
Praises or positive affirmation *       51          39
Personal opinion                        54          50
Personal reflection*                    11          27
Restates problem or situation*          24          14
Provides suggestions or solutions*      91          71
Supporting argument*                     8          22
Unsure of what to do                     8          12
Off Task*                               26           8
Closing*                                 5          13
General Comment                          0           6
Totals                                 424         412

* Categories in which there reasonably different results or clear trends