No abstract

In this article, a contribution is made to the discussion of reflection on the part of teachers. The discussion to date has shown that reflection must be broad and deep. However, just what constitutes broad and deep reflection and the relations between the two remain unclear. After consideration of the characteristics of broad and deep reflection, three domains of broad reflection are distinguished (i.e. the pragmatic, ethical and moral domains). Closed versus open approaches to deep reflection are also then distinguished which produces a typology of six reflection possibilities. Empirical support for this typology was gathered via interviews with 11 experienced secondary school teachers. The content of the interviews addressed actual difficult decision situations which the teachers had experienced, and application of the constant comparative method showed the teachers to indeed use the six reflection possibilities when they reflected upon the difficult decision situations. A clear preference for closed types of pragmatic and ethical reflection over open or moral reflection was shown. The conclusion is that the proposed typology can be used to map teacher reflection. The results further suggest that the breadth and depth of teacher reflection are in need of development and that the relations between teacher reflection and their professional behaviour should be examined in greater detail.

Knowing and doing history are two major approaches in teaching history. Although widely recognized as important, the integration of both remains difficult for teachers and students.In this article we propose a conceptual framework for combining the two in a pedagogy focused on the teaching of historical contextualisation. The framework describes the relationship between students' epistemological stance about history and elements involved in knowing and doing history. This relationship shifts from a copier stance looking for one correct copy of the past, in which both knowing and doing history are fixed, into a criterialist stance, where elements of knowing and doing history are both debatable components of the task of establishing a historical context.Based on this framework, three major design principles are identified for combining knowing and doing history in teaching historical contextualisation: challenge historical knowledge by creating a cognitive incongruity; stimulate substantiated considerations and scaffold students' learning. It is argued that these principles, specified in a larger set of sub principles, can help students to develop their epistemic beliefs and the integration of knowing and doing history. Suggestions are made for an on-going design study on a pedagogy of Active Historical Thinking.

No abstract

No abstract