Using a Metacognitive Approach with Case-Based Instruction to Enhance Teacher Reflection and Promote Effective Educational Pra

Many teacher educators have enthusiastically embraced case-based instruction in teacher education programs. However, the research base on whether pre-service and inservice teacher educators’ case-based reflections on educational issues is comprehensive and critical manner is equivocal. This study explores the use of a metacognitive strategy, the Case Decision Making Scaffold (CDMS), in the context of recommended case-based practices to determine what aspects of reflective practice are revealed by their written responses. Furthermore, the study examines whether students report that their experience of analyzing case studies using the CDMS to promote reflection helps them create educational environments that are inclusive and responsive to diverse student populations. The results indicate that graduate students who use the CDMS are capable of considerable reflective skills on issues regarding diverse student populations: however, only half the students had a positive response to using the CDMS. Modifications and appropriate use of the CDMS are discussed. Case-based instruction in teacher education has been enthusiastically embraced by many who believe this approach can bridge theory and research (Miller & Kantrov, 1998; Shulman, 1996; Sudzina, 1999). The assumption is that by grappling with multidimensional, situated cases, students will acquire practical knowledge or “knowledge-in-action” in an apprenticeship provided by the context of a case analysis (Schön, 1987, 1991). Furthermore, advocates for the use of teaching cases claim this pedagogy promotes skills of reflection that extend beyond the classroom and instructional decision-making (Harrington, 1995; Kleinfeld, 1998; Lundeberg, Levin, & Harrington, 1999). Exactly what constitutes effective reflective practice in teacher education is still evolving. Many researchers would assert that reflection involves recognizing a problem, framing and reframing the problem (i.e., moving from standard assumptions to a carefully considered perspective), making decisions, and taking action (Loughran, 2002; McAlpine, Weston, Beauchamp, Wiseman & Beauchamp, 1999; Schön, 1987). Furthermore, a teacher’s rationale for action should be informed by the educational community and the moral, social, cultural, and political context of schooling (Genor, 2005; Hatton & Smith, 1995; McAlpine et al., 1999; Liston & Zeichner, 1990). Reflection may occur in different time frames and focus on varying levels of problem complexity. Schön (1987) refers to adjusting instruction while teaching as reflection-in-action whereas reflection-on-action is planning before instruction or evaluation afterwards. While it is possible for expert teachers to both reflect-in-action and on-action (McAlpine et al., 1999), there is general agreement that pre-service or novice teachers need to be provided with meaningful opportunities such as case–based instruction to reflect-on-action (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Shulman, 1996). For the purposes of this study we have drawn from the McAlpine et al. model, which views reflection as an ongoing iterative process involving action, knowledge, goals, monitoring, decision making and corridor of tolerance. We define reflection as the process of linking knowledge and action based upon careful monitoring of the teaching and learning environment in a case study and making decisions to improve educational goals. Research on the Case-Based Instruction Despite enthusiastic support for case-based instruction, the research on its effectiveness as a means for promoting reflection and, subsequently, development as a teacher is mixed (Lundeberg, Levin & Harrington, 1999; Moje & Wade 1997; Powell, 2000). Faculty who use the case study approach overwhelmingly believe that it enables their students to think critically, view an issue from multiple perspectives, make connections across content areas, and show more engagement in learning (Lundeberg & Yadav, 2006). While faculty perceptions are extremely positive, studies that report on what and how students have learned are less encouraging and somewhat equivocal (Copeland & Decker 1996; Flynn & Klein, 2001; Lundeberg, 1999). In particular, studies of pre-service and in-service students’ responses to dilemma-based cases found their solutions were constrained by their own educational experiences, a technical view of teaching, and unquestioned assumptions about students’ abilities, needs, ethnicity, class or gender (Moje & Wade, 1997; Powell, 2000). These studies suggest that case instruction must encourage teachers to consider the educational literature, rethink their assumptions about pedagogical knowledge, develop metacognitive learning strategies, and think about teaching as a moral and political endeavor. Case Problem Solving and Metacognition Typical case-based instructional methods include (1) reading or viewing the case and relevant literature; (2) preparing for case discussions; (3) discussing the case in class; and (4) responding to the case. To ensure the effectiveness of case studies as a teaching tool, research indicates the need of a competent facilitator, meaningful discussion groups, and broadly based theoretical and practical grounding to avoid solutions that are narrowly focused (Harrington, 1995; Lundeberg, 1999). Even with this pedagogy in place, many students are unable to offer responses that challenge conventional experience and beliefs, examine multiple perspectives, propose alternative solutions, determine consequences and critique solutions (Harrington, 1995). One explanation for the apparent inability of some students to reflect on complex cases and suggest a grounded and comprehensive response is their lack of a metacognitive strategy for reflective practice (Clift, Houston, & Pugach, 1990). The importance of deliberately teaching students metacognitive skills essential to reflection can be found in Ertmer, Newby, and MacDougall’s (1996) study where students with high self-regulation were more persistent and more likely to value case-based instruction than those with low levels of self-regulation. This suggestes that case-based instruction might be more effective for individuals lacking selfregulation when they are taught a strategy that scaffolds the reflection process. Various definitions and models for metacognition have been advanced (Flavell, 1976), but only recently have there been attempts to compare metacognition with reflection (McAlpine et. al., 1999; Risko, Roskos, & Vukelich, 2005; Wilson & Clarke, 2004). While reflection is typically viewed as a more general term, metacognition involves more specific cognitive activities such as knowledge of one’s own thinking and self-regulation of cognition (Brown, 1980). The latter is often referred to as executive skills, including the learner’s ability to evaluate a task, set goals, choose strategies or actions, monitor progress, and make modifications. The ability to self-regulate has been shown to be essential to successful performance of a variety of cognitive tasks and many studies suggest that individuals lacking self-regulatory skills can be taught metacognitive strategies through modeling or scaffolding them through the reflective process (Butler, 1998; Meltzer, & Montague, 2001; Westby, 2006). Because metacognition is not normally associated with teacher development and definitions of reflection are still evolving, studies on what might qualify as a metacognitive strategy for improving teacher reflection are primarily descriptive and focus on instructional approaches such as journals or portfolios (Risko, Roskos, & Vukelich, 2005). Only two models of decision-making strategies for case analysis have been suggested (Mauffette-Leenders, Erskine, & Leenders, 1997; Stivers, 2003). Stivers (2003) utilized a framework for case analysis involving the following habits of mind: consider multiple perspectives, examine evidence critically, make connections, seek alternatives, and find meaning. This approach requires students to examine other individuals’ viewpoints, base assertions on facts in the case, question assumptions, strengthen their professional knowledge base, consider long and short term consequences of alternatives, and reflect on changes in their thought process. MauffetteLeenders, Erskine, and Leenders (1997) described a detailed ten-step problem-solving process. Although both strategies follow a problem-solving paradigm, neither has been tested empirically. This study used a Case Decision-Making Scaffold (CDMS) designed by the first author that outlines five basic metacognitive tasks involved in analyzing a case with several accompanying questions (see Figure 1) (Taylor & Whittaker, 2003). The CDMS was designed to serve as a framework for group discussions and an organizational structure for written case responses. Figure 1.1. Case Decision Making Scaffold Recognize the Problem Is there a trigger event that causes an individual to recognize a problem? What facts do we know about the individuals, the school, the family, and the community? What discrepancies exist between the school's expectations and actual events? Reframe the Problem What is the perspective of the problem or issues held by various individuals? What underlying assumptions, values, or beliefs do individuals involved hold? How can we reframe the problem to address the important issues? Search for Alternatives What can we learn about the issues from those who have experience and expertise? What alternative goals might address the important issues involved in the cases? What short and long term consequences will each alternative goal have for the student, school, family, and community? Which goals best address the important issues? Develop and Implement a Plan of Action How can we prioritize the goals to facilitate implementation? What activities, referrals, resources, and strategies must be included in the plan of action to address the goals? Who is responsible for performing the various components of the plan of action? What criteria will we use to evaluate progress?