Finding My Path

Reflective Practice in the Reality of Teaching

Introduction

Completing Barbara Larrivee's Survey of Reflective Practice this week has been both validating and sobering. With seven years of teaching experience across three major Georgia school districts—Fulton County, Gwinnett County, and Atlanta Public Schools—I've worked as both a special education teacher (six years) and a general education teacher (one year). My experience spans general education, co-taught, and self-contained classroom settings in mathematics (Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Advanced Math Decision Making) and sciences (Biology, Environmental Science).

What struck me most about this survey wasn't just what it revealed about my current reflective capacity, but how it illuminated the gap between individual professional growth and institutional reality. The survey assumes collaborative reflection opportunities that, in my experience, rarely exist in functional forms. This disconnect has shaped both my development as a reflective practitioner and my understanding of why such development often must happen in isolation.

My Assessment of the Larrivee Survey

The Survey of Reflective Practice impressed me with its specificity. Rather than asking vague questions about whether I "reflect on my teaching," it presents concrete, observable behaviors across four developmental levels. This approach eliminates much of the ambiguity that makes honest self-assessment difficult.

What I appreciate most is the survey's recognition that reflection exists on a continuum. The three-point scale (Frequently, Sometimes, Infrequently) acknowledges that moving from technical reflection to critical reflection represents substantial professional development rather than simple skill acquisition. As Larrivee (2008) found in her research, the most difficult distinction for educators was between pre-reflection and surface reflection, suggesting that even beginning reflective practice requires conscious effort.

However, the survey's assumption of collaborative reflection opportunities reveals a significant limitation. The tool was developed with the expectation that educators have access to what Johns (2017) describes as the fourth dialogical movement—"dialogue with guide(s) and peers to challenge and deepen insights." My experience across multiple districts suggests this assumption doesn't match reality for many teachers.

What My Results Reveal

Most Frequent Tallies: Level 3 (Pedagogical Reflection) - 10 "Frequently" responses

My strongest performance at the Pedagogical Reflection level makes sense given my unique position as a special education teacher who chose to develop genuine content expertise. Unlike many special education teachers who might be placed in any classroom regardless of content knowledge, I made deliberate efforts to master the subjects I taught.

This choice was born from necessity. In 2016, when I started teaching, general education teachers often didn't know how to collaborate with special education teachers. I frequently learned lessons at the same time as students, which made providing meaningful accommodations and interventions nearly impossible. To survive, I had to become genuinely proficient in algebra, biology, and advanced mathematics decision-making while simultaneously applying special education methodology.

This dual focus demanded constant analysis of what worked for students with diverse learning needs. Each class period required integrating content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and disability-specific interventions simultaneously. The survey indicators I scored highly on—analyzing relationships between teaching practices and student learning, striving to enhance learning for all students, and maintaining curiosity about teaching effectiveness—reflect this necessity-driven development.

Most Sometimes Tallies: Level 4 (Critical Reflection) - 8 "Sometimes" responses

My inconsistent performance at the Critical Reflection level tells a more complex story. This level addresses broader sociological, cultural, and political contexts of education—exactly the kind of thinking that examines not just whether teaching is effective, but what broader implications our choices have for different student populations.

The "sometimes" pattern doesn't reflect a lack of capability but rather the institutional reality I navigated. I consistently encountered resistance when attempting to engage colleagues in meaningful reflective dialogue. General education teachers often viewed collaboration requests as questioning their content expertise. Conversations with other special education teachers frequently devolved into sharing "war stories" rather than systematic analysis of practice.

I experienced this resistance most acutely during my year as a general education Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 teacher in Atlanta Public Schools. Despite district directives to use research-based resources like OpenUp Math and Illustrative Math, colleagues refused to engage with these materials meaningfully. During planning meetings with instructional coaches and administrators present, we'd discuss the curriculum. The moment leadership left, conversations shifted to social chat.

Using my Christmas break, I searched for research-based practices I could use in my math class and found Peter Liljedahl's work on thinking classrooms, and raised nearly $2,000 through DonorsChoose to implement his strategies. The approach worked—my students showed significant engagement and growth. However, instead of curiosity about my methods, I encountered low-key hostility from colleagues who saw my success as implicit criticism of their approaches.

The breaking point came when the materials I created were secretly used by other teachers while they publicly refused to collaborate with me. This pattern—wanting the benefits of reflective practice without engaging in the process—exemplifies why my critical reflection remains inconsistent. It's difficult to maintain a systematic analysis of social and political consequences when the system punishes you for acting on those insights.

Most Infrequent Tallies: Level 1 (Pre-Reflection) - 11 "Infrequently" responses

The positive news is that I rarely engage in pre-reflective behaviors like operating in survival mode, enforcing preset standards without adaptation, or dismissing students' perspectives. This suggests substantial movement beyond entry-level teaching practice.

However, I initially misassessed one indicator: "Does not support beliefs and assertions with evidence from experience, theory, or research." I marked this "frequently," but reflection reveals this was incorrect. Throughout my career, I've consistently grounded decisions in research—from implementing thinking classrooms to developing content expertise in subjects I was assigned to teach. This mis-assessment highlights the importance of careful self-reflection in professional development.

Three Areas for Strategic Growth

Based on my survey results and the institutional realities I've navigated, I've selected three indicators that maximize my reflective development while protecting my professional well-being:

Item 44 (Critical Reflection): "Observes self in the process of thinking" - Currently: Frequently

While I already practice this frequently, I chose to deepen this strength because metacognitive awareness provides the foundation for all other reflective practices. Johns (2017) emphasizes that effective reflection requires commitment, curiosity, and intelligence—prerequisites I can develop independently regardless of institutional support.

This indicator offers safety in that it focuses on internal processes rather than external collaboration. I can develop sophisticated protocols for observing and documenting my thinking without requiring colleague participation or institutional permission.

Item 46 (Critical Reflection): "Acknowledges social and political consequences of one's teaching" - Currently: Frequently

My special education background makes this indicator particularly significant. Having taught mathematics and science to students with disabilities, I've witnessed how instructional choices either expand or limit opportunities for already marginalized students. Mathematics education serves as a gatekeeper for future opportunities; when you add disability status, the social and political consequences become even more critical.

Working in co-taught environments exposed me to how general education teachers' attitudes and expectations could either support or undermine students with disabilities. While I have awareness in this area, I need systematic frameworks for analysis rather than relying on insights that emerge from challenging situations.

Item 33 (Pedagogical Reflection): "Searches for patterns, relationships and connections to deepen understanding" - Currently: Sometimes

This indicator addresses a clear growth area while supporting the other two. My "sometimes" rating suggests I engage in pattern recognition intuitively but lack systematic approaches for transforming experience into professional knowledge.

In special education co-teaching, patterns are everywhere—which accommodations work for different disabilities, how general education teachers respond to collaborative approaches, and what modifications actually improve access versus simply making work easier. Developing structured methods for identifying and analyzing these patterns will enhance both my metacognitive awareness and my analysis of social consequences.

My Self-Directed Action Plan

Since collaborative reflection has proven problematic in my experience, I've developed a self-directed approach that builds accountability without requiring external support. This approach draws on Johns' (2017) dialogical movements, beginning with individual self-dialogue and systematic reflection on experience.

Weekly Metacognitive Awareness Protocol will address Item 44 through structured documentation of my thinking processes during learning activities. Each week, I'll complete templates that trace initial perspectives, trigger moments for new understanding, thinking shifts, and meta-analysis of cognitive approaches. This builds on what Johns describes as a dialogue with self and a dialogue with the story text.

Bi-weekly Social Justice Analysis will develop Item 46 through a systematic examination of course materials and teaching scenarios, with particular attention to disability equity issues. I'll use frameworks that examine power dynamics, access barriers, and broader social consequences of educational practices.

Pattern Recognition Framework will build Item 33 capacity through monthly comprehensive analyses of collected data. I'll use structured templates to identify patterns related to student learning differences, effective instructional strategies, and the intersection of content mastery with special education methodology.

Integration with Course Requirements

My plan integrates strategically with course requirements. For video analysis assignments in Weeks 2, 4, and 7, I'll select teaching videos from the NCU Library and apply all three reflection indicators to my observations. This allows systematic analysis practice without the vulnerability of examining my own current teaching.

I'll maintain this blog throughout the course, documenting insights from protocol work and tracking development. By Week 7, when I retake Larrivee's survey, I'll have substantial evidence of growth across all three indicators.

Looking Forward

Tannebaum, Hall, and Deaton (2013) demonstrate that reflective practice represents an enduring approach to professional development rather than a temporary trend. Their historical analysis shows that reflective practice has an "expansive and unique history," indicating its "impact on modern thought" and establishing that it is "neither a trend nor a temporary solution" (p. 242).

This perspective gives me confidence that the self-directed development I'm pursuing connects to a scholarly tradition larger than individual professional improvement. While my experience has shown that institutional collaboration often isn't available, the commitment to systematic examination of practice remains valuable.

Johns' (2017) emphasis on the prerequisites of commitment, curiosity, and intelligence provides practical guidance for maintaining rigor in independent reflective development. His six dialogical movements demonstrate that meaningful professional growth can begin with committed self-dialogue, even when collaborative elements aren't available.

Conclusion

This assessment has confirmed that my reflective development represents both personal growth and survival strategy. My movement from strong Pedagogical Reflection toward emerging Critical Reflection places me within a developmental trajectory that scholars identify as essential for effective education, but my experience reveals why this development often must happen independently.

The three indicators I've chosen—metacognitive awareness, acknowledgment of social/political consequences, and pattern recognition—work together strategically. They build the kind of systematic, socially conscious practice that serves students while protecting my professional well-being in potentially low-key, hostile institutional environments.

My seven years across multiple districts and roles have provided a unique foundation for understanding both the necessity and the challenges of reflective practice. The transition from classroom teacher to graduate student offers opportunities for systematic development without the institutional pressures that previously limited my growth.

The goal isn't perfection but progression—developing sustainable practices for thoughtful, systematic, and socially conscious educational practices that can survive and thrive regardless of institutional support. This course represents not just academic requirements but professional preparation for contexts where reflection might actually be valued and supported.

--------------------------

References

Dewey, J. (1933). How do we think? A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised edition). Boston, MA: Heath and Co.

Johns, C. (2017). Becoming a reflective practitioner (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451

Tannebaum, R. P., Hall, A. H., & Deaton, C. M. (2013). The development of reflective practice in American education. American Educational History Journal, 40(2), 241-259.