Use Of The Reflective Judgment Model As A Reference Tool For Assessing The Reflective Capacity Of Teacher Educators In A College Setting

Rachel Wlodarsky*, Howard Walters**
*Associate Professor, Educational Foundations, Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio
**Associate Professor, Educational Foundations, Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio
Periodicity:May - July'2010
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.4.1.1219

Abstract

Among the most critical professional characteristics of teacher educators is that of reflectivity. The ability to self-judge our own practice context, capability, and performance against the broader professional contexts of practice by teacher educators has been noted by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). The capacity for teacher educators to demonstrate professional reflection and to inculcate this capacity in pre-licensure candidates in colleges of education is among the standards for accreditation in the NCATE criteria (NCATE, Standard 2). As a consequence, research designed to uncover this reflective capacity, to scale it for comparative study, and to relate it to standard measures of program quality are viewed as critical to a more realistic understanding of the capability of faculty in higher education (teacher educators) to meet the reform goals for K-12 education broadly. The purpose of this study was to determine whether it was possible to distinguish among reflective strategies of teacher educators’ divergent types or levels of reflective practice. The findings indicated that The Reflective Judgment Model (King and Kitchener, 1994) is a reliable and valid conceptual model; therefore it would be appropriate to directly compare reflective scores for teacher educators to other professions which have been studied with this same RJM. It was determined that teacher educators were more typically at the center of the epistemic scale. Given this finding, there is room for professional development work to enhance the evolution of teacher educators with respect to reflective capacity.

Keywords

How to Cite this Article?

Rachel Wlodarsky and Howard Walters (2010). Use Of The Reflective Judgment Model As A Reference Tool For Assessing The Reflective Capacity Of Teacher Educators In A College Setting. i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 4(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.4.1.1219

References

[1]. American College Personnel Association (1994). The student learning imperative. Washington, DC: Author.
[2]. Butler, D. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers' professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 435-455.
[3]. Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teaches: A guide for state policymakers. Washington DC: National Governors' Association through a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
[4]. Dale, J. L. (2005). Reflective judgment: Seminarians' epistemology in a world of relativism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33 (1), 56-64.
[5]. Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development. British Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 83-93.
[6]. Friedman, A. A. (2004). The relationship between personality traits and reflective judgment among female students. Journal of Adult Development, 11 (4), 297-304.
[7]. Glenn, D.D. and Eklund, S. S. (1991). The relationship of graduate education and reflective judgment in older adults. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Bloomington, Indiana, April 1991.
[8]. Guthrie, V. L., King, P. M., and Palmer, C. J. (2000). Cognitive capabilities underlying tolerance for diversity among college students. Unpublished manuscript cited in King and Kitchener (2004).
[9]. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13 (4), 353-383.
[10]. Ilacqua, J. A. and Prescott, M. E. (2003). Knowing economic theory: Applying the reflective judgment model in introductory economics. Education, 124 (2), 368-375.
[11]. King, P. M. and Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39 (1), 5-18.
[12]. King, P. M. and B. C. Shuford (1996). A multicultural view is a more cognitively complex view. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), 153-165.
[13]. King, P. M. and Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
[14]. Livneh, C., and Livneh, H. (1999). Continuing professional education among educators: Predictors of participation in learning activities. Adult Education Quarterly, 49(2), 91-106.
[15]. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1997-2008). Revised NCATE Unit Standards in effect in fall 2008. http://www.ncate.org / documents /standards/UnitStandardsMay07.pdf p. 30-35.
[16]. Pirttila-Backmän, A. and Kajanne, A. (2001). The development of implicit epistemologies during early and middle adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 8 (2), 81-97.
[17]. Pirttila-Backman, A. M. (1993). The Social Psychology of Knowledge Reassessed: Toward a New Delineation of the Field with Empirical Substantiation. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
[18]. Wlodarsky, R. and Walters, H. (2007). The event path for professional reflection: The nature and characteristics of reflective practice among teacher education faculty. Journal of Cognitive Affective Learning, 4 (1), 25-31.
[19]. Wlodarsky, R. and Walters, H. (2006). The reflective practitioners in higher education: The nature and characteristics of reflective practice among teacher education faculty. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 16 (3), 1-16.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.