Reflective Practices for Teacher Education

Paulus Kuswandono


Studies on reflective practice in teacher education are increasingly getting more attention at least in the last 2 decades. This article discusses concepts of reflection and how it is implemented in educating pre-service teachers on their early stage of professional learning. The purposes of doing the reflection for pre-service teachers are not only for illuminating their professional learning experiences, but also to critically reflect their vocation as teachers, including the values which may be dictated to them through rigid regulations. Reflection in teacher education is crucial as it connects well with learning in that learners use reflection to exercise their mind and to evaluate their learning experiences. Besides, this article also highlights some perceived difficulties to implement reflective practice, as well as ways how to promote reflection.



Reflective practice, critical reflection, pre-service teachers, teacher education

Full Text:



Allington, R.L. (2009). Literacy policies that are needed thinking beyond No Child Left Behind. In J.V. Hoffman & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times: An historical perspective (pp. 266-280). NY: Routledge.

Apple, M. (1979). Curriculum and reproduction. Curriculum Inquiry, 9 (3), 231-252.

Apple, W. (2009). Is there a place for education in social transformation? In H.S. Shapiro (Ed.), Education and hope in troubled times: Vision of change for our children's world (pp. 29-46). New York: Routledge.

Baines, L., & Foster, H. (2006). A school for the common good. Educational Horizons, 84(4), 221-228.

Borden, L.M., Stone, M., & Villarruel, F.A. (2004). Public policy and human development. Encyclopedia of Applied Developmental Science. SAGE Publications. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from

Chall, J.S. (1989). "Learning to read: The great debate" 20 years later: A response to 'Debunking the great phonics myth.' The Phi Delta Kappan, 70(7), 521-538.

Coles, G. (2001). Reading to read -"scientifically". Rethinking Schools Online, 15(4). Retrieved October 8, 2011 from http://www.rethinking Costa, A.L. & Kallick, B. (2010). Getting used to: Rethinking curriculum for the 21st century. In H.H. Jacobs, Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world (pp. 210-226). Alexandria, VA: ASCD Diamond, J.B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285-313.

Eldesky, C. (1990). Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller. Educational Researcher, 19(8), 7-11.

Fowler, F.C. (2006). Struggling with theory: A beginning scholar's experience with Mazzoni's arena models. In V.A. Anfara & N.T. Mertz (Eds.) Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 39-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garan, E.M. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel Report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan, 500-506.

Goodman, K.S. (1989). Whole-language research: Foundations and development. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 207-221.

Goodman, Y.M. (1989). Roots of the whole-language movement. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 113-127.

Harrison, C. (2010). Why do policy-makers find the simple view of reading so attractive, and why do I find it so morally repugnant? In K. Hall, U. Goswami, C. Harrison, & J.S. Soler (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on learning to read: Cognition, culture and pedagogy (pp. 207-218). New York: Routledge.

Hess, F. (2006). Tough love for schools: Essays on competition, accountability and excellence. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

Hess, F.M., & Petrilli, M.J. (2006). No Child Left Behind Primer. New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc.

McNeil, J.D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum: In thought and action (6th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Meyer, R.J. (2003). Captives of the script - killing us softly with phonics: A critical analysis demonstrates that scripted phonics programs hold students and teachers as curriculum hostages. Rethinking Schools Online, 17(4). Retrieved October 8, 2011 from

Moorman, G.B., Blanton, W.E., & McLaughlin, T. (1994). The rhetoric of whole language. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 308-329.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instructions, reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from nrp/upload/report.pdf No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title I: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged. (2001). Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, George Washington University.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pearson, P.D. (1989). Reading the whole-language movement. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 230-241.

Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy,18(1), 216-252.

Perlstein, L. (2008). Tested: One American school struggles to make the grade. New York: Holt.

Shaker, P. (2008). Education, policy and politics. Encyclopedia of Social Problems. Sage Publications. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from .

Shannon, P. (2007). Reading against democracy: The broken promises of reading instruction. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Shannon, P., Edmonson, J., Ortega, L., Pitcher, S., & Robbins, C. (2009). Fifty years of Federal Government involvement in reading education. In J.V. Hoffman & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times: An historical perspective (pp. 251-265). NY: Routledge.

Slavin, R.E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247-284.

Smith, F. (1992). Learning to read: The never-ending debate. The Phi Delta Kappan, 73(6), 432-435, 438-441.

Sunderman, G. L. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Taubman, P.M. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Wilson, S.M., & Tamir, E. (2008). The evolving field of teacher education: How understanding challenge(r)s might improve the preparation of teachers. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feinman-Nemser, D.J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed. pp. 908-935). New York: Association of Teacher Education.

Yatvin, L. (2000). Minority view. In National Reading Panel, Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction, reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from




  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 Paulus Kuswandono

Indexed and abstracted in:



LLT Journal Sinta Certificate (S3 = Level 3)

We would like to inform you that LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching has been nationally accredited Sinta 3 by the Ministry of Research Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia based on the decree SK No. 30/E/KPT/2018. (Validity: Vol 20 No 1, 2017 till Vol 24 No 1, 2021 [5 years])



This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License


Free counters!

 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching is published twice a year, namely in April and October by the English Language Education Study Programme of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.