Lee, Wai Heng & Tan, Sok Khim. (2004). Reflective Practice in Malaysian Teacher Education: Assumptions, Practices, and Challenges. Reviewed by David Pang, Auckland, New Zealand

Lee, Wai Heng & Tan, Sok Khim. (2004). Reflective Practice in Malaysian Teacher Education: Assumptions, Practices, and Challenges. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic. Pp. ix + 214 ISBN 981 210 320 1 Reviewed by David Pang Auckland, New Zealand April 26, 2006 Reflective Practice in Malaysian Teacher Education: Assumptions, Practices, and Challenges is a qualitative study of teaching as a reflective profession in Malaysia. Its primary task is to capture the Malaysian experience in promoting teacher reflection as a “mandated practice” (p.145) in the teacher education practicum. Drawing on existing literature on reflective practice published predominantly in the west and utilizing information gathered from a case study of six student teachers, the two Malaysian authors, Dr Lee Wai Heng of Sultan Abdul Halim Teachers Training College in Kedah and Associate Professor Tan Sok Kim of Universiti Sains Malaysia in Penang, Malaysia, found that the uptake of reflective practice by student teachers was in a state of flux. The book is replete with the idea that a policy-to-practice review of reflective practicum is inevitable if teacher education is to become a strategic site to grow reflective practitioners in Malaysia. There are eight chapters in this book. They are arranged in a research reporting format with the framework of the study and literature survey canvassed first followed by the reporting of the field work and the discussion of the issues arising in the later chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the book. It points out that the implementation of reflective practice in Malaysia is part of a bigger process of incorporating “new training ideas” (p.2) into the teacher education system. The concept of reflective practitioner became part of the teacher education curriculum at the college level in 1989 “when clinical supervision was implemented in the student teaching component” (p.3). Teaching practice was subsequently called the “practicum” with reflection as “its key feature” (p.2). The Practicum Model is the principal mechanism of “guidance for promoting reflection in the practicum” (p.8). The implementation efforts are under the purview of Bahagian Pendidikan Guru (Teacher Education Division), a department within the Malaysian Ministry of Education. The chapter outlines three specific objectives of the book: to study how reflection was implemented, experienced, and understood by lecturers, co-operating teachers, and student teachers; to explore aspects of student teachers’ professional knowledge that were developed through their reflections; and to carry out a detailed and critical analysis of the Practicum Model (p.9). The authors acknowledge that the absence of a definitive meaning of reflection and the fluidity of the meaning of teacher reflection, presented them with a challenge. Critical to their concern was: “How could we go about studying a phenomenon that was vaguely defined and/or so widely interpreted?” (p.12). They addressed the problem by identifying four critical attributes from the literature on reflective practice “as criteria to define and distinguish reflection from ordinary forms of thinking” (p.12). They were examinations of practice, reflexivity, a constructive process, and a process of transformation. According to the authors, “one can say that reflection has occurred if one of these four attributes has taken place” (see pp.12-16 for a full description of the attributes). These four attributes became the “organizing framework” (p.16) of the research. Chapter 2 is a literature survey of reflective practice in teacher education. John Dewey (1933) and Donald Schon (1983) were described as “the paradigm movers” of the concept of the reflective practitioner/teacher. References were also made to more recent writers. A persistent theme that runs through the chapter is that, despite the “formidable challenge” of “operationalising reflection” (p.17), it is now generally acknowledged that the ability to be reflective is “a core prerequisite for teachers who want to improve their own teaching” (p.18). But such abilities are not “natural occurrences”, and the authors suggest that there may be a need “to promote the concept of readiness for reflection” (p.32). Generally, the literature demonstrates that reflective teaching is a western concept and practice. The authors acknowledge that too few Malaysian efforts have been directed at conceptual deliberations and understanding. Consequently, student teachers themselves claimed that they “were insufficiently prepared” to write their reflective journals, and lecturers and co-operating teachers self-reported that “they had the least mastery in guiding reflective practice” (p.37). The authors hope that their study will form part of an emerging discourse about reflective teacher education in Malaysia. Chapter 3 provides a helpful overview of the research framework and methodology. It is the authors’ intention that this chapter “contains sufficient details to enable readers to follow the research trail that led from conceptualization of the study, through the data collection and analysis stages, to the findings and conclusions that follow in the subsequent chapters of this book” (p.63). The study was “exploratory and descriptive” in orientation and “aimed at gaining insights into student teachers’ understandings and practices of reflection” (p.41). Each participant was given the maximum space to speak with their own voices about their experiences – in addition to observation and document analysis. The authors’ experiences in conducting qualitative research were worth noting. They reported that “despite all our elaborative planning, things were very different in the field” (p.63). This scenario parallels Mason’s (1996)’s assertion that “Qualitative research should be strategically conducted, yet flexible and contextual” (p.5; italics in the original). What this means is that qualitative researchers should, in addition to ensuring a sound research methodology, be constantly conscious of the changing circumstances in which research is located. Accordingly, the authors advise readers that rather than regarding the emerging events as disruptive, “researchers can capitalize on these unanticipated events to enrich their data” (p.63). The next two chapters (chapters 4 and 5) primarily present a view of reflective practice by weaving together personal accounts of six student teachers and the interpretations of the two authors. Reflective practices gleaned from the individual case studies were reported and analysed using the authors’ attribute framework. For reasons of readability, the authors have chosen not to present all the individual case stories in full. Chapter 4 describes a single case study of Anne to give readers a comprehensive understanding how she struggled to make sense of her beliefs and practices in the practicum. The experiences of the remaining five participants of the research were condensed into a single chapter. It is not clear from the study why Anne was given a single-chapter treatment in contrast to the other participants of the study. Pivotal to the study was the question of how big a part of the practicum was about acquiring technical skills of teaching and what opportunities were provided to help students to engage in discourse and reflect on their practices with a view to enhance their confidence in making a difference to their teacher identity. It is evident from the participants’ accounts that there were easily identifiable factors which inhibited reflective practices. Chief among these was the instrumental tendencies of the practicum where problem-solving was masqueraded as reflective thinking. The authors opine that developing teachers’ reflective capabilities is “a seductive idea fraught with uncertainties” (p.129). They describe the situation this way: The stories of our six student teachers in the practicum remind us of the story of swans swimming in a lake. From afar, swans appear to be swimming and turning gracefully without much effort. It is only when one ventures below the surface of the water that one is able to appreciate the tremendous efforts required of these beautiful swans to keep their grace (p.129). Chapter 6 focuses on the linkages between ‘contexts’ and reflective practice. The authors have identified contexts that have the potential of shaping the student teachers’ reflective practices. They are the “interpersonal contexts”, “personal dispositions”, “post conference contexts”, “school contexts”, and the “college contexts”. Generally, the authors found that reflective practice was a very individualistic and unsupported affair and was treated “casually” (p.132). And in the words of the authors, “so much sincere effort expended with so little gain” (p.143). Again, this dismal outcome is attributed to a lack of conceptual understanding of reflective practice and the inclination to regard practicum as basically a site for assessment and evaluation of the student teachers’ performance. The authors suggest that this approach is a “potent recipe for disaster” (p.139) and warn that steps must be taken urgently “to re-invent reflective practice before it faded into oblivion’ (p.143). Chapter 7 concerns the critical role the Practicum Model played in implementing the reflective dimension of the practicum. The guiding question was, “To what extent was the Practicum Model a source of guidance to the supervisors?” (p.145). The findings “paint a very bleak picture” (p.149) of reflective practice reflecting the “murky path” (p.155) that reflection has taken. According to the authors, in their 34 interviews with the supervisors, no one had actually made any specific reference to the Practicum Model. The supervisors’ silence was not unexpected as they had a management and evaluation perspective of reflection. As the authors stated, “The model is essentially a skeletal framework still devoid of conceptual muscles. It is essentially a piece of work in progress” (p.146). According to them, “fleshing out of the Practicum Model [is] a matter of priority” (p.149). Chapter 8 is the closing chapter. The study has found that there is little evidence to show that reflection is “a widespread and institutionalized practice” (p.160). It confirms that reflective practice is a murky concept and its implications have still not been thoroughly understood in teacher education. In concluding with a forthright statement that ‘reflective practice is still in its infancy’ (p.197), the authors thus set an agenda for reform that is predicated upon a solid partnership between stakeholders in teacher education. And they also foresee that “the road ahead will not be easy” (p.181). A major strength of this book lies in its insiders’ views provided by Lee and Tan, who are experienced Malaysian educationists. They have successfully brought the assumptions, practices, and challenges of reflective practice in Malaysian teacher education to a more sophisticated level, but clearly more is yet to be investigated and written. Readers need to be reminded here that any attempt to generalize the findings as a nation-wide situation should be engaged cautiously because the participant pool is too limited in numerical terms to represent the totality of experiences of other teachers in the country. However, this should not prevent the case studies being used as exemplars to illustrate the problems and prospects of integrating reflective practice in teacher education on a wider scale. The potential of this volume lies in providing “the basis for local researchers and the teacher education community to engage in discussions, and argue about how we should move forward” (p. 197). One possible consideration is to examine more robustly the processes of implementation. Although not explicitly expounded in the study, this book underlies the need for teacher educators in non-Western cultures to take cognizance of contextual factors when importing educational models or borrowing ideas and concepts from the west (see for example, Minnis, 1999, pp172-185). In this instance, reflective practices are foreign to Malaysian teachers. It is common knowledge that they are more inclined or accustomed to follow prescriptions or comply with directives from the Ministry of Education than to work in an environment of critical inquiry and reflective practice. From a learning perspective, teachers cannot embrace an idea or implement a policy without an understanding of what it entails in practice. As one practitioner puts it, “It cannot simply be a matter of promulgating ideas and assuming these will be put into place. In fact, the more novel or difficult the idea, the less likely it is to be implemented without learning on the part of the people involved” (Levin, 2001, p.150). Indeed, promoting meaningful change in education requires more than duplicating an idea or practice. This book represents a promising trend of serious research being done by scholars in Asia on contemporary education in the region. Given the fact that there is still a striking absence of locally produced research study or literature relating to education in Asia, this undertaking is a significant development. It is pleasing to note that this book is part of a range of titles in Asian education which has already been published under the “Teaching and Learning” and “Contemporary issues in Education” series by Marshall Cavendish Academic, a major academic publisher in Singapore for work done in Asia. The book should be accessible to a wide range of readers. While the text has the tendency to repeat similar information in various parts of the book, readers should find the research protocols and the non-technical narratives relatively easy to follow. As expected, the book will have important implications for policy makers and teacher educators in Malaysia. For academics and postgraduate students of comparative education in the west, it will raise new questions about reflective practices and offer the scope for wider comparisons. References Levin, B. (2001). Reforming education: From origins to outcomes. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Minnis, J. R. (1999). Is reflective practice compatible with Malay-Islamic values? Some thoughts on teacher education in Brunei Darussalam. Australian Journal of Education, 43(2), 172-185. About the Reviewer David Pang is an educational researcher based in Auckland, New Zealand. He has a PhD in education from the University of Auckland. His current interests include researching and writing on teaching about Asia in schools, immigration and education, globalization and education, and comparative and international education. He has lived and worked in Malaysia and Brunei as an educationist for many years. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.