The reflective practicum in the process of becoming a teacher: the tutor’s discursive support

education sciences Article The Reflective Practicum in the Process of Becoming a Teacher: The Tutor’s Discursive Support Rosario Cubero-Pérez 1,* , Mercedes Cubero 2and Miguel Jesús Bascón2 1Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Sevilla, 41018 Sevilla, Spain 2Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Sevilla, 41018 Sevilla, Spain; cuber[email protected] (M.C.); [email protected] (M.J.B.) *Correspondence: rcuber[email protected] Received: 3 April 2019; Accepted: 29 April 2019; Published: 2 May 2019   Abstract: Interest in reflective practices, within the broader framework of teachers’ professional knowledge, has been ongoing in educational research for the past few decades. The idea from which reflection itself stems is that of teachers’ agency in their own professional development. The initial positivist approach viewed the relationships between teachers’ theoretical knowledge and educational practice in terms of hierarchical reductionism. We analyze the relationships between different types of knowledge from a historical-cultural perspective, which requires locating them in the context of the cultural activities. Our aim is to analyze the discursive interactions, which take place during collaborative seminars, within a reflective practicum, and to identify how the university tutors support and foster reflection on practice. We use a multiple case design in which each case is a classroom unit made up of a tutor and his or her students. An analysis of the tutors’ discourse revealed an ongoing promotion of students’ active engagement through highly structured classroom participation, a strong focus on interpreting students’ personal experiences during teaching practice and significant interventions aimed at establishing links with academic knowledge. Results invite us to rethink the ways in which we can contribute to processes of reflection among trainee teachers. Keywords: teacher training; reflective practicum; tutor’s support; teachers’ agency; discursive interactions; cultural-historical perspective; case study 1. Reflection as a Teacher-Training Tool Interest in reflective practices, within the broader framework of teachers’ professional knowledge, has been ongoing in educational research for the past few decades [ 1 – 3 ]. Indeed, reflection has always been a key element in educational ideas and principles, and was discussed in detail during the previous century by such influential thinkers as Dewey [ 4 ], Freire [ 5 ], and Habermas [ 6 ]. As some authors have already stated [ 7 ], the book entitled "The reflective practitioner", published by Schön in 1983 [ 8 ], marked a milestone in the reemergence of this focus of interest within the field of teacher training. It is important to highlight that no commonly-accepted definition of what those in the educational field understand by the term “reflective practitioner” or “reflective teacher” exists; nor is there any consensus regarding the different types of reflection which may be engaged in, in accordance with context and the individuals involved. Schön [8–10] referred to the appearance of surprise. Reflection in action occurs as an immediate situation, linked to the experiences of the moment in a teaching situation. It arises from surprise in the face of the unexpected and the need to resolve uncertainty. Another type of reflection is also possible, namely that which occurs after the event, in the context of a different activity, in which the teacher analyzes their own practice and processes of reflection in that practice. Jaworsky [ 11 ] points out the strong link between reflection and action, in which reflection is not only a process that happens after action, but as a distancing process that can cause change Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96; doi:10.3390/educsci9020096 www.mdpi.com/journal/education Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 2 of 21 and future action. Understood in this way, the act of reflecting is the activity that allows gathering experience and learning from that experience. Nolder and Johnson [ 12 ], in fact, identify reflection as a tool in monitoring professional change. In such activity, both practical and academic knowledge would be called upon to analyze, identify, interpret, criticize, and reconstruct the past intervention. Not all voices converge in the same descriptions. Several authors have extensively discussed and criticized the conceptual framework by Schön and others under the umbrella of reflective practitioner because of its lack of definition or for not taking into account the context of reflection [ 13 ]. The discussion on the components of reflection has led authors as Mezirow, Brookfield, and Fook to propose a revision of its nature beyond the mere thinking about experiences. From the perspective of critical reflection, it is argued that reflection may tend to remain at the level of relatively undisruptive changes in superficial thinking [ 14 ]. Instead, a deconstruction of our own beliefs and values is necessary in order to be conscious of the ideological assumptions behind professional actions, and to develop new interpretations of past and future practices for social change [ 15 – 17 ]. From a critical perspective, the importance of understanding reflection as action-oriented and placing it in a context of social, collaborative and ideological construction is also highlighted [18]. Proposals that advocate the advantages of reflection as a teacher-training tool often refer to a series of common elements, such as the fact that knowledge derived from academic theories or others’ practice is insufficient to ensure effective and autonomous professional practice. Other recurring issues include the need to link theoretical principles to practical resources, the improvement of teaching practice thanks to a critical analysis of one’s own practice and the development of refection strategies that help students learn from their own teaching experience [ 19 , 20 ]. The idea from which reflection itself stems is that of teachers’ agency in their own professional development. Schön’s work and the plethora of papers published on the theme of the reflective practitioner [ 20 – 22 ] imply not only a change in the nature of the relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge, but also, in our opinion, a fundamental change in our ideas about who actually generates knowledge that is valid and useful in a classroom setting. This in turn implies a change in the way we see the relationship between the academic and practical scenarios through which we build professional knowledge. Another point to remember, which is closely linked to that outlined above, is that the study of processes of reflection has developed in parallel with the characterization of the nature of the knowledge that practitioners use in their teaching practice. The initial positivist approach viewed the relationships that exist between teachers’ theoretical knowledge and educational practice in terms of hierarchical reductionism. In this explanatory context, theories are compendiums of generally applicable knowledge that serve to characterize educational practice which, having a lower hierarchical status, is reduced to a mere application of theoretical principles. However, as argued by Clar á and Mauri [ 1 ], the facts challenge not only these principles but also the very nature of this hierarchical conception, since there is an evident discontinuity between the theoretical knowledge shared by the academic community and real educational practice. The rejection of this positivist rationality has therefore prompted authors to rethink how they view the relationships which exist between theory and practice in the educational field. It is in this discourse that teachers’ processes of reflection come to the fore as a useful and beneficial tool for teacher training, and it is on this idea that our study is based. In this paper, we understand the relationships that exist between different types of knowledge from a cultural-historical perspective [ 23 ]. This requires locating the relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge in the context of the cultural activities of which they form part. Both types of knowledge can be thought of as specific constructions of cultural contexts characterized by their participants, activity structures, means of communication, motives and goals, etc., all of which are different. We therefore propose a framework for conceiving the relationship between different types of knowledge in which it makes no sense to talk about superior and inferior hierarchical levels. Rather, in our model, each semiotic option is constructed in accordance with the “here and now”, the motives underlying the activities in which the participants are involved and their demands and Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 3 of 21 requirements [ 24 – 26 ]. Scientific or academic knowledge used in academic contexts are originated from the structured and organized activity that takes place in formal education. It involves a process of generalization and inclusion of particular elements within a system. This kind of knowledge is different from that which is constructed in other activities, as is the case of what takes place in professional practice. These different ways of knowing and constructing reality have their own functions and criteria of correction, but are complementary and, in any case, one is reducible to each other [ 24 , 27 – 29 ]. In relation to the topic that we are discussing here, both the academic knowledge in teacher training, as well as the students’ personal experience acquired in the practicum, are sources of knowledge equally valid and necessary for the professional development of teachers. According to our approach, there is a functional relationship between the activity scenarios in which individual development takes place, and the way in which the demands present in said scenarios are met; different activities imply different knowledge and resources. The activities that take place in a teacher training classroom at university, or those that occur during the study of the theoretical principles of different key scientific disciplines within the field of education, are not the same as those that take place in an actual classroom, in which the teacher him or herself must actually teach a group of students. These are different practical and knowledge-building scenarios, with different agents, motives, and interests, etc., and, as such, each has a unique set of interactions and a unique discourse. Thus, according to our perspective, teacher training should include educational interventions aimed at generating contexts that combine both theoretical models and an analysis of real practice. The nature of the situation and the circumstances under which knowledge is built influence its acquisition and the probability of it being used by the student in other novel situations [ 30 , 31 ]. As argued above, from a sociocultural perspective, context forms part of the learning or knowledge acquisition situation. Thus, the transfer of some situations to others (from a university classroom to a primary school classroom, for instance) is co-constructed by the situation and circumstances, the way in which subjects interpret these circumstances, their ability to extract abstract meaning from situation-specific knowledge (within a community of practice), their perception of when it is appropriate to use that knowledge in other circumstances, and the construction and negotiation of meaning that occurs during dialog-based interactions. The training of new teachers and their professional practice could, therefore, be thought of as their participation in communities of practice [ 32 ] which are either proximal or in which the activities carried out have shared characteristics. The learning that takes place through these activities and classroom practice sessions involves the development of an identity within this community, as well as the development of a discourse and a series of methods for defining problems, all of which helps trainee teachers become active members of their community of practice [ 33 ]. The educational discourse is the element that not only enables the construction of knowledge in the classroom, but also the construction of the classroom reality itself. Rather than show a mere static representation of reality, it works by constituting facts and carrying out actions, all aimed at generating relationships and exchanges which occur in a specific situation of social interaction [ 34 – 36 ]. It is in this complex framework of discussion that our paper is located, since it is based on recent research into the need to support processes of reflection among trainee teachers. These scenarios for reflecting on and analyzing ones’ practice can be materialized in the Practicum. We see the Practicum as an ideal context for processes of reflection and the perfect opportunity for students to come face to face with, reflect on, and attempt to interpret their own initial classroom experiences as trainee teachers. The practicum is an opportunity to test joint processes of reflection on action, since it enables students to experience real teaching practice situations in schools, and then to reflect on them with their fellow trainees and tutor [ 37 ]. It is not, however, the same classroom action context as that in which a teacher teaches a class, with his or her specific motives, interests, and demands. It is not our aim here to simplify the description, or to substitute the hierarchy of scientific knowledge over practical knowledge for any other kind of equally academic hierarchy. We are not referring to practical knowledge itself or to knowledge in action [ 8 ]. Nevertheless, a practicum in which students are given the chance to reflect on and try to interpret their classroom experiences may be a means of Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 4 of 21 helping trainee teachers to analyze problems and understand the reasons underlying their actions in the classroom, encouraging them to talk to the teachers at the placement school about their decisions and measures and to discuss the validity of certain theoretical concepts for understanding or managing specific situations. In short, it is an opportunity to work on values and aims, to develop new strategies for action, test out these actions in practice and experience, and reflect upon the consequences [ 38 ]. A practicum of this kind would necessarily require students to view collaborative reflection activities as a positive means of questioning their teaching practice and enabling them to attain a certain level of reflection and knowledge, which will help them identify different possibilities for action [ 7 , 39 , 40 ]. In short, we are talking about a type of learning situated in cultural practices that are similar to and significant for subsequent professional practice. Our specific aim, therefore, is to analyze the discursive interactions that take place during these classroom sessions (collaborative seminars) within a reflective practicum, and to identify how the university tutors support and foster reflection on practice among their students. The conclusions shed light on how discursive interactions evolve towards interpretative elements and allow us to rethink the status afforded to reflection in practical professional experience. 2. Methodological Strategy and Educational Intervention 2.1. Participants The research project entitled Knowledge construction aids in teaching practicums: joint reflection for improving the relationship between theory and practice is an exploratory study with a multiple case design [ 41 ], in which each case is a classroom unit made up of a tutor and his or her students. Eight cases from three different universities were selected according to theoretical criteria, with the aim of ensuring adequate analytical generalization. All cases participated in activities carried out within the practicum of the undergraduate Teacher Training Course. Specifically, this paper analyses Case F and Case H. The sample group comprised two classroom units from the Primary Education Teacher Training degree, made up of one tutor and 15 students, and one tutor and nine students, respectively. Each case encompassed five sessions, each lasting approximately ninety minutes, in which a learning activity was carried out with the aim of encouraging students to reflect on their practice with the aid of their tutor. In each session, the analysis focused on one or more situations linked to students’ teaching practice in the classroom (this is explained in more detail below, in the procedures section), and tutor-student interactions were recorded in vivo. To select the tutors, and therefore the case studies, an initial in-depth interview was held with potential candidates in order to explore their teaching and didactic strategies, as well as to determine the importance they attach to reflection within said strategies. Candidates were also asked about their interest and willingness to participate in a project of these characteristics. We believe that the general nature of the project justifies the selection of tutors considered promoters of good educational practices, and with extensive teaching experience within the practicum activity. In this sense, the sample selection process corresponds to what Goetz and LeCompte [ 42 ] call criterion-based selection and Patton [ 43 ] calls purposeful sampling. In other words, we selected those cases that we believed would provide the most abundant information on the subject under study. After selecting the cases, the study protocol was initiated, with the corresponding institutional permits being obtained, along with tutors and students’ informed and voluntary consent to participate in the research project and data gathering procedure. 2.2. Study and Intervention Tools A number of different situations were used during the joint reflection process. Students were asked to provide an individual written description of a situation they had experienced in their Practicums, which had particularly caught their attention. They were asked to describe the situation in as much literal detail as possible, and to try to avoid interpretations. To help them in this task, students were given a description of a first class designed by the research team to serve as an example. Students Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 5 of 21 analyzed this example together in the classroom, with their tutor. Table 1is an overview of the issue dealt with in each situation. It should be noted that Case F analyzes twice as many situations as Case H. Table 1. Situations discussed by the group. CASE F CASE H C1. Controversy over a decision made by the management team to make three students retake a year. C1. Controversy over a decision made by the management team to make three students retake a year. C2. Refusal by the parents of a Down Syndrome student to let him/her receive extra support from the school services. C2. Difference of opinion between the classroom tutor and trainee teacher about working with an ADHD student. C3. Measures taken by a classroom tutor in relation to a student who lies about being threatened by two other classmates. C3. Difference of opinion between the classroom tutor and a mother about a student’s inappropriate behavior in class. C4. Xenophobic behavior of a 5th grade primary student and the measures taken by the school in response. C4. Conflict resolution by a classroom tutor in response to a fight between three students, one of whom has ADHD. C5. Learning difficulties experienced by a girl in 1st grade of primary, with a de-structured family (parents separated). C5. A classroom tutor decides to stop using the number-based algorithm method to teach mathematics, because of cognitive dissonance. C6. A 2nd grade primary student needs remedial support outside the classroom, which is not provided owing to family breakdown. C7. Controversial situation arising between a classroom tutor and a father over a 4th grade primary student with behavioral and academic problems. C8. Collaborative work agreement between the classroom tutor and parents in relation to a violent and aggressive 2nd grade primary student. C9. 1st grade primary student with special educational needs who is not provided with adequate attention due to a lack of resources. C10. 5th grade primary student with low academic performance, who is in a remedial support and classroom integration program. 2.3. Category System The data gathered in relation to the two cases studied were processed and organized using a category system designed specifically for this research project by the working team from the three participating universities. The unit of analysis used to code and demarcate the discursive extracts was individual interventions or turns, i.e., what was said by any participant when they had the floor. A category system was used to identify the different Interactivity Segments (SI), i.e., the different ways in which the activity was organized in the joint reflection sessions. This method enabled the research team to describe the classroom sessions in terms of shared activity segments, each with a specific function and profile. The differentiation criterion in this case was the structure of the participation, with changes in segments corresponding to changes in the subject matter being discussed and the way in which participants spoke, along with the intention, aim and meaning of the conversation. To do this, the system developed by Coll et al. [ 44 ], and Coll, Onrubia, and Mauri [ 45 ] was followed, although said system was discussed and reformulated by the research team in order to adapt it to the aims of the present study. Thus, the initial category system comprised 27 different interactivity segments [ 3 , 46 ], of which 22 were coded in our study (Table 2). The interactive segments were then grouped into four dimensions in accordance with the orientation of each intervention: Introduction of the activity, Exploration of the elements of the situation, Interpretation of the situation, and Closure. Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 6 of 21 Table 2. Interactivity segments. Introduction of the Activity SIA. Introduction of the activity SRC. Presentation/reminder of the activity instructions SIC. Introduction of the activity and presentation of the activity instructions SCS. Contextualization of the situation SCS_T. Contextualization of the situation by the tutor SLS. Interpretation of the situation SLS_T. Interpretation of the situation by the tutor SCE. Clarification of elements of the situation SCE_T. Clarification of the situation by the tutor EXPLORATION SEC. Joint exploration of the situation SEG Exploration of the situation guided by the tutorSDP. Pedagogical discussion SEE. Exploration of an element of the situation SPP. Responses to the tutor’s questions SFE. Focusing INTERPRETATION SIS. Tutor’s interpretation of the situation SID. Tutor’s interpretation with debate SIP. Tutor’s interpretation supported by questions SUC. Use of academic knowledge CLOSURE SS. Summing up SC. Closure of the session A coding manual for the category system was developed, which included the different codes, their definitions, the general operational criteria common to all and individual specifications for application. The reliability of the category system was determined by calculating the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for inter-observer agreement, with optimum values of between 0.85 and 0.87 being obtained. For this purpose, 30% of the data were coded in parallel sessions by two observers, and any discrepancies were resolved through the intervention of a third observer. After obtaining satisfactory reliability values for each category, the entire system was applied to 100% of the data. As regards the development of the category system, members of the research team, who read and re-read the transcription several times, verified each category. This mechanism gave rise to an iterative process between the generated categories and their re-analysis, resulting in a network of categories being established through saturation [ 47 ]. In this sense, the group analysis sessions held to ensure agreement can be understood as a means of ensuring the reliability of the qualitative procedures. 2.4. Study Phases The study was divided into several different phases: Phase I: Development by the research team of tutor guidelines regarding the instructions to be given to students, and the organization and sequencing of the sessions (S) [2,3,46]. Phase II: The aim of the research project and the procedure to be followed were discussed with tutors. Tutors undertook to abide by a series of action principles designed to foster reflection among their students. The result was an innovative activity that was included in the practicum itself. Phase III: In general, terms, the innovative activity aimed to help students link their descriptions and interpretations of their classroom experience with their academic knowledge, through a process of joint reflection involving both fellow trainee teachers and the tutor [ 2 ]. More specifically, in each session, discussions were held between students and the tutor, beginning with an interpretation of the written situation (s) presented by a student. In each session, one or more students were called upon to present their interpretations, meaning that one or more analysis situations could be explored in each session. Next, the debate was opened up to the entire group, so that students could interact, debate Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 7 of 21 and reflect jointly upon the situation presented. The tutor’s role was to guide the conversation, based on a set of action principles previously agreed upon with the research team [ 2 ]. All 10 sessions (five for Case F and five for Case H) in which the activity was carried out were recorded (video and audio). The content of this phase is what is analyzed in this paper. Phase IV: Once the sessions had been completed, students were asked to answer a questionnaire, and individual interviews were scheduled with each tutor in order to explore their views regarding the innovative experience. The data from this last phase are not presented in this paper. 2.5. Analyzing Teaching Practice Through Interactivity Segments The ATLAS.ti V.7 software program for qualitative data analysis (Scientific Software Development, Technische Universität Berlin. Berlin, Germany) was used to systematize the data gathered from the classroom discussions. This software package facilitates the analysis of complex phenomena in unstructured data sets. Its use enabled us to locate and code both in vivo elements and those created a priori, assess their importance and weight, establish relationships and generate families [ 48 ]. The category system was created and applied in order to identify and systematize the interactivity segments. 3. Results and Discussion This section presents the analysis of the way in which the two tutors constructed and organized the joint activity with their students when asked to foster reflection on their classroom experiences within the practicum. We focus here on Cases F and H. With the aim of identifying possible evolutions in the distribution and relevance of the different interactivity segments, as well as any regularities or patterns in their relationship with each other, the information obtained has been organized according to the following analysis factors: • The presence or absence of interactivity segments in each individual session and in the series of sessions and situations. • The position of the session and situation within the intervention, and the sequence in which the different interactivity segments appear. •The time spent by participants on each interactivity segment. 3.1. Analysis of Case F The data corresponding to the presence of interactivity segments in each session (S) and situation (s) are provided on the interactivity map, which is a graphic representation of the duration and distribution of the different segments within the different sessions and situations, providing a global overview of the joint activity, its organization and evolution, thus enabling an initial interpretation [ 44 , 45 ]. Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix Apresent the data corresponding to each segment’s duration, frequency of appearance and percentage of each situation and session analyzed. In Case F, over the course of the five sessions the tutor and students analyzed 10 specific educational situations. 3.1.1. Patterns Regarding the Introduction of the Situation A study of the different analysis factors reveals a clear evolution of the presence of the interactivity segment Introduction of the activity and presentation of the activity instructions (SIC) throughout the course of the sessions. This segment is only present in the three first sessions. During the fourth and fifth sessions, the activity is introduced through the interactivity segment Introduction of the activity (SIA), without students being reminded of the instructions. Students are explicitly reminded of the instructions on three occasions during the first session, twice at the beginning (an SIC followed by an SRC—Presentation and reminder of the activity instructions) and again almost at the end (a new SRC). The SIC segment appears on two occasions during the second session, the second time when there is a change of situation (i.e., the specific case being analyzed). Finally, it appears again twice during the Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 8 of 21 third session, although here both appearances are located at the start of the first situation, and the tutor does not remind students of the instructions once again during the change of situation, nor indeed in any of the subsequent sessions (Table A1). The presence of other segments related to the introduction of the specific situations being analyzed, such as the segment Clarification of elements of the situation by either the tutor (SCE_T) or the students (SCE), is scarce, particularly if we consider the percentage of time spent on such segments throughout all five sessions (1.16% and 0.87%, respectively). The same can be said of the segment Contextualization of the situation (SCS), which only corresponds to 0.64% of the total time of all five sessions together. 3.1.2. Patterns Regarding the Exploration and Interpretation of the Situation In relation to the parts of the conversation which fall into the SI Interpretation of the situation by the tutor (SLS) (i.e., that which occurs during the interpretation of the situation being analyzed), two SI patterns or structures can be identified. The first consists of a time sequence comprising Introduction of the activity and presentation of the activity instructions (SIC)/Introduction of the activity with no activity instructions (SIA) plus Interpretation of the situation (SLS) plus Exploration of the situation guided by the tutor (SEG). This SIC/SIA+SLS+SEG pattern mainly occurs during the first and second sessions. The characteristic segment that follows the interpretation of the situation is Exploration of the situation guided by the tutor (SEG). This is a very important structure for the development of the sessions, since the SEG is the second-most common SI as regards total time duration, accounting for 17.96% of the overall discussion time for all sessions in Case F (S1s1: 20.34%; S2s2: 69.39%; S2s3: 51.42%; S2s4: 50.72%; S3s6: 11.01%; S4s7: 24.80%) (Table A2). In the first session, this segment meant that the exploration of the different elements of the situation was carried out gradually and was controlled by the tutor through questions targeted at one or various students. During this process, the tutor asked about partial aspects linked to the situation and organized the debate by focusing on specific, successive elements. In these cases, students participated by responding to the questions asked, offering interpretations or solutions, asking questions in turn, stating their agreement or disagreement with the comments and observations made by their fellow students and assessing the different elements of the situation described. During the second session, the Introduction of the activity and presentation of the activity instructions (SIC) segment and the Interpretation of the (first) situation (on this occasion by a single student) (SLS) were followed by two brief and consecutive interventions within the Contextualization of the situation (SCS) and Clarification of elements of the situation (SCE) segments, before moving on to a long SEG. This SIC/SIA+SLS+SEG pattern emerged again in the second and third situations analyzed during this second session. In addition, in S2s4, the pattern SIC +SLS +SEG clearly emerged once again. In S2s3, the pattern is somewhat more complex, although it is still possible to identify the basic relationship which exists between the Introduction of the activity (SIC/SIA), the Interpretation of the situation (SLS) and an Exploration of its elements, guided by questions asked by the tutor (SEG). In this case, however, we find up to three SEGs, which together account for 51.42% of the time spent on this situation. S2s3 is more complex because the three SEGs are separated by another 3 SIs: Exploration of an element of the situation (SEE), Use of academic knowledge (SUC) and Responses to the tutor’s questions (SPP). We refer to these SIs later on, when we analyze their specific profile. The SIC/SIA+SLS+SEG pattern also occurs in the third session, but takes up a much smaller percentage of the time dedicated to the specific situation. Moreover, it is found in only the second of the two situations analyzed (S3s6). The second basic pattern regarding what occurs in the classroom debate once the situation has been interpreted is defined by the presence of the SI Tutor’s interpretation of the situation supported by questions (SIP). This is the moment in the interaction when the tutor asks the student who has written the descriptive text of the situation a series of questions. Based on the answers to questions focused on elements that are not known to either the tutor or the other students in the group, but which require clarification, the tutor engages in partial interpretations or assessments of the situation, and offers partial Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 9 of 21 solutions to the problem posed. It is mainly the student who is the one who describes the situation and responds and participates in this exchange, although other students may also contribute to it. It is an SI in which further information is obtained regarding the case being analyzed, information that the tutor considers relevant and which she incorporates into the conversation with specific, targeted questions. In this way, new information is incorporated into the discourse, along with very partial interpretations by the tutor and partial solutions linked to the various aspects discussed. Sometimes a series of related solutions may be offered which, while not constituting a global framework, nevertheless respond to various specific elements. The SIP segment is very important as regards the percentage of time dedicated to it. Indeed, it is the largest segment as regards time percentage, since it accounts for 29.81% of the total time of all five sessions in Case F. Although it appears three times in S1 (Table A1), the duration in all cases is very brief (9.21% of the whole session period). The segment only becomes more relevant from S3 onwards, when it becomes the most important segment (from a time perspective) for the remainder of the activity, accounting for 36.64% in S3s5, 63.16% in S4s7, 52.69% in S4s8, 66.76% in S5s9 and 42.71% in S5s10 (Table A2). From the third session onwards, the SIC/SIA+SLS+SEG pattern is replaced by the SIA+SLS+SIP pattern, which is repeated on 5 occasions (Table A1). On one of these occasions, this pattern is extended to include the SEG segment, adopting the SIA+SLS+SIP+SEG format (S4s7). In S3s5, the SIA+SLS+SIP pattern accounts for 46.77% of the time dedicated to the situation; in S4s8, this figure is 62.85%; in S5s9, it is 83.80%, and in S5s10, it is 54.86%. The extended SIA+SLS+SIP+SEG pattern accounts for 100% of the time dedicated to S4s7. The results reveal that, in all cases, after introducing the activity (and, at the beginning of S3 only, reminding students of the instructions) and interpreting the situation, the tutor controls large periods of the discussion by asking questions aimed at either the student who provided the written description of the situation (an interaction which enables the tutor, as described above, to offer some partial interpretations and solutions) or at the group in general. These questions focus on specific, consecutive aspects of the situation, and are produced to build an accumulative interpretation. Due to the predominance of the SEG segment, in which the different elements of the situation are explored in a guided manner by the tutor’s questions, with a strong input from that figure, other segments that also explore the elements of the situation but more through dialog between the students themselves, appear less frequently in the discourse. Much the same occurs with the segment Joint exploration of the situation by students (SEC), and the segment Exploration of an element of the situation (SEE) identified by the tutor, but again focused on student participation. Indeed, the interactivity segment Joint exploration of the situation (SEC), in which the tutor intervenes by encouraging students to contribute to the conversation, prompting them to participate in the reflection by pointing out different elements of the situation and stating their agreement or disagreement with the comments made by their classmates, only appears in two sessions. As stated earlier, this type of intervention is qualitatively different from that which takes place in SEG segments. The SEC segment only accounts for 2.36% of the total time of all five sessions, and only appears in Session 3, accounting for 12.68% of S3s5 and 4.36% of S3s6. For its part, although the interactivity segment SEE (Exploration of an element of the situation) appears in four out of the 10 situations which make up the intervention, in three of them its weight relative to the other, more relevant, categories of the sessions is lower: 7.09% in S1s1, 10.25% in S2s3, and 9.56% in S3s5. In session S4s8, however, the presence of the SEE segment is much greater (34.78%), which is why we believe this session is worth analyzing in more detail. If we analyze session 4 in its entirety, we see that it consists of the discussion of two situations (s7 and s8). Both are characterized by the emergence of the basic SIA+SLS+SIP pattern, which was described earlier in this section. In the first of the two situations analyzed in Session 4, we find the extended SIA+SLS+SIP+SEG pattern, which takes up 100% of the time dedicated to S4s7. In other words, following the introduction of the activity and the interpretation of the situation, the tutor asks the student who provided the written description a series of questions and, based on the answers provided, offers partial interpretations of Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 16 of 21 Table A1. Cont. SESSION 1 SESSION 2 SESSION 3 SESSION 4 SESSION 5 Total Minutes f SITUATIONS s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 SUC Use of academic knowledge 0:03:35 0:03:35 1 SDP Pedagogical discussion 0:09:33 0:05:26 0:07:47 0:22:46 3 SS Summing up 0:00:54 0:00:54 1 SC Closure of the session 0:00:10 0:01:07 0:01:28 0:01:06 0:01:28 0:05:19 5 SCNR Conversation not related to session content 0:06:13 0:04:01 0:10:14 2 TOTAL 1:01:06 0:25:19 0:32:21 0:16:06 0:58:54 0:28:19 0:43:37 0:46:43 0:49:28 0:30:03 6:31:55 79 SESSIONS DURATION 1:01:06 1:13:46 1:27:13 1:30:20 1:19:31 Table A2. Minutes and percentage of each segment identified in the sessions and situations analyzed in the case F (S =Session; T =Total). S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 SITUATIONS s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 T SIA Introduction of the activity 57 2.94% 242 6.85% 39 2.30% 67 3.38% 66 2.35% 187 6.30% 53 2.94% 711 3.11% SRC. Presentation/reminder of the activity instructions 156 4.25% 156 0.68% SIC Introduction of the activity and presentation of the activity instructions 164 4.47% 109 7.18% 72 7.45% 345 1.51% SCS Contextualization of the situation 22 1.45% 57 2.94% 62 3.65% 141 0.62% SLS Reading of the situation 197 12.97% 132 6.80% 148 15.32% 116 3.28% 146 8.59% 172 8.67% 219 7.81% 184 6.20% 166 9.21% 1480 6.47% SLS_T Reading of the situation by the tutor 241 6.57% 241 1.05% SCE Clarification of elements of the situation 137 9.02% 56 1.89% 193 0.84% Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 17 of 21 Table A2. Cont. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 SITUATIONS s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 T SCE_T Clarification of the situation by the tutor 40 1.09% 161 4.56% 56 1.89% 257 1.12% SEC Joint exploration of the situation 448 12.68% 74 4.36% 522 2.28% SEG Exploration of the situation guided by the tutor 746 20.34% 1054 69.39% 998 51.42% 490 50.72% 187 11.01% 1113 56.10% 1410 47.51% 5998 26.21% SEE Exploration of an element of the situation 260 7.09% 199 10.25% 338 9.56% 975 34.78% 1772 7.74% SPP Responses to the tutor’s questions 554 15.11% 283 14.58% 135 13.98% 972 4.25% SFE Focusing 584 15.93% 934 26.43% 1518 6.63% SIS Tutor’s interpretation of the situation 404 23.78% 259 14.36% 663 2.90% SIP Tutor’s interpretation supported by questions 338 9.21% 1295 36.64% 632 31.85% 1477 52.69% 834 28.10% 770 42.71% 5346 23.36% SUC Use of academic knowledge 215 11.08% 215 0.94% SDP Pedagogical discussion 573 15.63% 326 19.19% 467 25.90% 1366 5.97% SS Summing up 54 5.59% 54 0.24% SC Closure of the session 10 0.27% 67 6.94% 88 5.18% 66 2.35% 88 4.88% 319 1.39% SCNR Conversation not related to session content 373 21.95% 241 8.12% 614 2.68% TOTAL MINUTES 3666 100% 1519 100% 1941 100% 966 100% 3534 100% 1699 100% 1984 100% 2803 100% 2968 100% 1803 100% 22883 100% Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 18 of 21 Table A3. Duration and frequency of each segment identified in the sessions and situations analyzed in the case H (S =Session; f=Frequency). S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Total Minutes f SITUATIONS s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 SIA Introduction of the activity 0:00:54 0:00:54 1 SRC Presentation/reminder of the activity instructions 0:02:25 0:06:05 0:01:01 0:01:26 0:10:57 4 SIC Introduction of the activity and presentation of the activity instructions 0:00:47 0:02:01 0:02:48 2 SCS Contextualization of the situation 0:01:31 0:01:41 0:03:12 2 SCS_T Contextualization of the situation by the tutor 0:00:52 0:01:37 0:02:29 2 SLS Reading of the situation 0:03:47 0:01:57 0:02:07 0:02:12 0:10:03 4 SLS_T - Reading of the situation by the tutor 0:02:28 0:02:28 1 SEG Exploration of the situation guided by the tutor 0:09:19 0:23:16 0:20: 39 0:13:47 0:04:30 1:11:31 11 SEE Exploration of an element of the situation 0:04:38 0:11:24 0:03:40 0:04:39 0:24:21 6 SPP Responses to the tutor’s questions 0:02:24 0:08:13 0:10:37 3 SIS Tutor’s interpretation of the situation 0:06:25 0:04:54 0:11:19 2 SIP Tutor’s interpretation supported by questions 0:11:51 0:11:51 1 SUC Use of academic knowledge 0:02:42 0:02:26 0:02:36 0:04:10 0:12:00 7 SDP Pedagogical discussion 0:50:16 0:42:17 0:23:35 0:32:48 0:26:30 2:55:26 15 SC Closure of the session 0:00:39 0:00:48 0:00:41 0:00:21 0:00:27 0:02:56 5 SCNR Conversation not related to session content 0:13:35 0:13:35 1 TOTAL 1:31:26 1:20:21 1:20:19 1:08:28 0:45:47 6:06:21 67 Table A4. Minutes and percentage of each segment identified in the sessions and situations analyzed in the case H (S =Session; T =Total). S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 SITUATIONS s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 T SIA Introduction of the activity 54 0.98% 54 0.24% SRC Presentation/reminder of the activity instructions 145 2.64% 365 7.57% 61 1.27% 86 2.77% 657 2.94% SIC Introduction of the activity and presentation of the activity instructions 47 0.86% 121 2.51% 168 0.75% SCS Contextualization of the situation 91 1.89% 101 2.46% 192 0.86% SCS_T Contextualization of the situation by the tutor 52 1.27% 97 3.13% 149 0.67% SLS Reading of the situation 227 4.14% 117 2.43% 127 2.64% 132 3.21% 603 2.70% SLS_T Reading of the situation by the tutor 148 4.77% 148 0.66% SEG Exploration of the situation guided by the tutor 559 10.19% 1396 28.96% 1239 25.71% 827 20.13% 270 8.71% 4291 19.21% Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 19 of 21 Table A4. Cont. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 SITUATIONS s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 T SEE Exploration of an element of the situation 278 5.07% 684 14.19% 220 5.36% 279 9.00% 1461 6.54% SPP Responses to the tutor’s questions 144 2.62% 493 12.00% 637 2.85% SIS Tutor’s interpretation of the situation 385 7.99% 294 7.16% 679 3.04% SIP Tutor’s interpretation supported by questions 711 14.75% 711 3.18% SUC Use of academic knowledge 162 2.95% 146 3.03% 156 3.24% 256 8.26% 720 3.22% SDP Pedagogical discussion 3016 54.98% 2537 52.62% 1415 29.36% 1968 47.91% 1590 51.29% 10526 47.13% SC Closure of the session 39 0.71% 48 1.00% 41 0.85% 21 0.51% 374 12.06% 523 2.34% SCNR Conversation not related to session content 815 14.86% 815 3.65% TOTAL MINUTES 5486 100% 4821 100% 4819 100% 4108 100% 3100 100% 22334 100% References 1. Clar à , M.; Mauri, T. How triadic dialogue allows transfer of responsibility in dyadic tutoring. Hum. Dev. 2013,56, 325–340. [CrossRef] 2. Mauri, T. Memoria Cient í fico-T é cnica del Proyecto I+D “Ayudas a la Construcci ó n del Conocimiento en el Practicum de Maestros: La Reflexi ó n Conjunta para Mejorar la Relaci ó n Teor í a-Pr á ctica”; EDU2013-44632-P; Proyectos de I+D Excelencia, Subprograma de Generaci ó n de Conocimiento; Ministerio de Econom í a y Competitividad: Madrid, Spain, 2013. 3. Mauri, T.; Cubero, R.; Basc ó n, M.J.; Colomina, R.; Cubero, M.; Jim é nez, O.; L ó pez de Arana, E.; Onrubia, J.; Usabiaga, A. Integrating Practices and Theories. Tutors’ Assistance to Joint Reflection on Practice among Student Teachers. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Sevilla, Spain, 16–18 November 2015; G ó mez, L., L ó pez, A., Candel, I., Eds.; IATED: Sevilla, Spain, 2015; pp. 8275–8279. 4. Dewey, J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relations of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process; DC Heath: Boston, MA, USA, 1933. 5. Freire, P. Education for Critical Consciousness; Seabury: New York, NY, USA, 1973. 6. Habermas, J. Knowledge and Human Interests; Heineman: London, UK, 1971. 7. Zeichner, K. A critical analysis of reflection as a goal for teacher education. Educ. Soc. 2008 ,29, 535–554. [CrossRef] 8. Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983. 9. Schön, D. Teaching artistry through reflection-in-action. In New Thinking in Organizational Behavior; Tsoukas, H., Ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1994; pp. 235–249. 10. Argyris, C.; Schön, D. Organizational Learning II. Theory, Method and Practice; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1996. 11. Jaworski, B. The Professional Development of Teachers—The Potential of Critical Reflection. J. Serv. Educ. 1993,19, 37–42. [CrossRef] 12. Nolder, R.; Johnson, D. Professional developments: Bringing teachers to the centre of the stage. Math. Sch. 1995,24, 32–36. 13. Boud, D.; Walker, D. Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Stud. High Educ. 1998,23, 191–206. [CrossRef] 14. Fook, J.; White, S.; Gardner, F. Critical reflection: A review of contemporary literature and understandings. In Critical Reflection in Health and Social Care; White, S., Fook, J., Gardner, F., Eds.; Open University Press: Maidenhead, Berks, UK, 2006. 15. Brookfield, S. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1995. Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 20 of 21 16. Fook, J. Beyond reflective practice: Reworking the ‘critical’ in critical reflection. In Beyond Reflective Practice Approaches to Professional Lifelong Learning; Bradbury, H., Frost, N., Kilminster, S., Zukas, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 37–51. 17. Mezirow, J. How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning; Mezirow, J., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1990. 18. Kemmis, S. Action Research and the politics of reflection. In Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning; Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D., Eds.; Kogan Page: London, UK, 1985. 19. Feiman-Nemser, S. From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2001,105, 1013–1055. [CrossRef] 20. Orland-Barak, L.; Yinoh, H. When theory meets practice: Student teachers’ reflections on their classroom discourse. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2007,23, 857–869. [CrossRef] 21. Calderhead, J. Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 1989,5, 43–51. [CrossRef] 22. Calderhead, J.; Gates, P. Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Development; Falmer Press: London, UK, 1993. 23. Wertsch, J.V.; Toma, C. Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In Constructivism in Education; Steffe, L.P., Gale, J., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 159–174. 24. Cubero, M.; de la Mata, M.L.; Cubero, R. Activity settings, discourse modes and ways of thinking: On the heterogeneity of verbal thinking. Cult. & Psych. 2008,14, 403–430. 25. Cubero, M.; Contreras, R.; Cubero, R. Cultural origins and schooling influence on scientific and everyday concepts: The case of border and citizen on the border concepts. Cult. & Psych 2016,22, 182–205. 26. Tulviste, P. Activity as explanatory principle in Cultural Psychology. In Activity Theory and Social Practice: Cultural-Historical Approaches; Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., Jensen, U.J., Eds.; Aarhus University Press: Aarhus, Denmark, 1999; pp. 66–79. 27. Bruner, J. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. 28. Cubero, R. Perspectivas constructivistas. La intersecci ó n entre el significado, la interacci ó n y el discurso; Gra ó : Barcelona, Spain, 2005. 29. Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and Language; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. 30. Billet, S. Situated learning: Bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorizing. Learn. Instr. 1996 ,6, 263–280. [CrossRef] 31. Wertsch, J.V. Mind as Action; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998. 32. Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. 33. Matusov, E.; Hayes, R. Building a Community of Educators versus Effecting Conceptual Change in Individual Students: Multicultural Education for Preservice Teachers. In Learning for Life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education; Wells, G., Claxton, G., Eds.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2002; pp. 239–251. 34. Edwards, D. Discourse and Cognition; Sage: London, UK, 1997. 35. Edwards, D.; Potter, J. Discursive Psychology; Sage: London, UK, 1992. 36. Potter, J. Representing Reality. Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction; Sage: London, UK, 1996. 37. Clar à , M.; Mauri, T. The development of teaching practice: A working hypothesis based on Cultural-Historical Psychology. Int. J. Learn. 2009,16, 275–286. 38. Matusov, E.; Alburquerque, M. Ontological teaching. In Proceedings of the IISCAR Conference, Acting in Changing Worlds: Learning, Communication and Minds in Intercultural Activities, Sevilla, Spain, 20–24 September 2005. 39. Feiman-Nemser, S.; Beasley, K. Discovering and sharing knowledge: Inventing a new role for cooperating teachers. In Transforming Teacher Education: Reflections from the Field; Carroll, D., Ed.; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 139–160. 40. Asare, A.S. Reflective Collaborative Practices: What Is the Teachers’ Thinking? A Ghana Case. Creat. Educ. 2012,3, 448–456. [CrossRef] 41. Yin, R. Case Study Research, Design and Methods; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1989. 42. Goetz, J.P.; LeCompte, M.D. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1984. 43. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation Method; Sage: London, UK, 1980. Educ. Sci. 2019,9, 96 21 of 21 44. Coll, C.; Colomina, R.; Onrubia, J.; Rochera, M.J. Actividad conjunta y habla: Una aproximaci ó n al estudio de los mecanismos de influencia educativa. Infancia y Aprendizaje 1995,59–60, 189–232. [CrossRef] 45. Coll, C.; Onrubia, J.; Mauri, T. Ayudar a aprender en contextos educativos: El ejercicio de la influencia educativa y el análisis de la enseñanza. Rev. Educ. 2008,346, 33–70. 46. Mauri, T.; Clar à , M.; Colomina, R.; Onrubia, J.; Cubero, R.; Martinez, A.; Cubero, M.; Usabiaga, A. Collaborative reflection and tutor’s assistance in teacher education. Two Case studies on case-based reflection settings. In Proceedings of the 10th European Association for Practitioner Research on Improving Learning Conference, Belval, Luxemburgo, 24–27 November 2015; pp. 131–142. 47. Clarke, A. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005. 48. Lewins, A.; Silver, C. Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide; Sage: London, UK, 2007. 49. Bakhtin, M.M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays; Bakhtin, M.M., Holquist, M., Eds.; University of Texas Press: Austin, TX, USA, 1981. 50. Bakhtin, M.M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays; Emerson, C., Holquist, M., Eds.; University of Texas Press: Austin, TX, USA, 1986. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).