Critical Incident Analysis in Teaching Research Paper

The description and analysis of critical incidents

Introduction

Even outside the teaching profession, individuals are faced with incidents that require reflective thinking. Reflective thinking is a concept that dates back to early 20^th century. According to Dewey (1933), reflection denotes ideas originating from feelings of uncertainty generated by experienced situations.

In simple terms, Dewey (1933) provided a paradigm for problematising an incident. Schön (1983; 1987) expanded Dewey’s reflection paradigm to provide a practice-based notion of reflection. Schön (1983; 1987) based his theory on two perspectives: reflection-in-action, which is more concerned about thinking through the incident; and reflection-on-action, which is more concerned about contemplation once the practice is concluded.

These perspectives have since been considered important theoretical framework for educators when understanding the contexts of critical incidents. To further refine this theory, Tripp (1993) provided four important approaches for educators to use when analyzing critical incidents. This section presents a descriptive analysis of a critical incident with respect to improving teaching practice in students with behavioural issues.

In this section, I describe through personal experience how Tripp’s approaches to critical incident analysis can be used to critically evaluate incidents through reflective thinking. Critical incident analysis begins by describing the nature of the incident as follows:

“During School Experience A, I was placed in a school in Barking and Dagenham. The school had just come out of special measures. The class I was placed in had behavioural issues and their class teacher was quite strict. During week four of my placement, I went to get the class back from their break. Child X was told repeatedly by me to ‘be quiet’. Child X continued to just talk to their self. I then approached the child, and said, ‘X, shut up’ quite firmly, although I did not shout. Child X was stunned and the only reason I realised that I should not have said that is because of the way Child X looked at me. I started a conversation with Child X as we were walking back to class just to make sure they were ok and the child was ok. ”

Incident Analysis

While advocating for critical thinking, Tripp (1993) stated that when something is wrong we not only need to ask what happened, but also what caused it to happen. In this regard, critical incidents have to be analyzed using structured models. Ferrel (2008) defines critical incidents as “any unplanned event that occurs in class, which if reflected on helps teachers to uncover new understandings of teaching and learning” (p. 3). Tripp (1993) provided a structured framework for analyzing critical incidents as described below.

Thinking strategies

Tripp’s (1993) reflective paradigm provides a framework for categorization of critical incidents to allow for different levels of analysis especially with regard to thinking strategies.

Thinking strategy one-‘plus, minus and interesting’

Every incident has both good and bad points surrounding it as well as points that are neither good nor bad (Tripp, 1993). The good points are referred to as plus while the bad points are minus. Interesting are points that are neither good nor bad.

Plus:

• Child X will benefit from the conversation I initiated and understand that it is wrong to disobey the teacher’s instructions.
• Student X looked at me in a manner that made me realize that I should not have reacted the way I did.
• I gained firsthand knowledge and experience from the students. For instance, I learned that students are uncomfortable with stern actions from the teacher. I also learned that engaging students in a conversation is the best way to understand their behavioural problems.

Minus:

• Child X’s class teacher is always strict when dealing with students
• Students in this class have behavioural issues. They have very little respect for their teachers.
• Student X kept on talking to their self even after I repeatedly told him to be quiet.
• I lost my control when dealing with student X’s behavioural issue.

Interesting:

• The school had just come out of special measures
• Student X has behavioural issues, but can be cooperative if handled is friendly manner.
• Student X’s class teacher’s strictness has done very little towards correcting his behavioural issues.

From this thinking strategy three important critical incidents stands out: child X’s misconduct, the class teachers strictness as way of handling poor behaviour, and the school coming out of special measures even when students still have behavioural issues.

Thinking strategy two- ‘Reversal’

Reversal, as a thinking strategy, seeks to explore the opposite point of view. In school Experience A, educators of students with behavioural issues (including me) consider such students undisciplined, troublesome and hard to deal with. However, this view point can be reversed; for instance, student X’s poor behaviour provides an opportunity for me to practice my teaching profession, which also entails helping students develop good behaviours.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with behavioural issues are entitled to positive interventions to help them improve their poor behaviours and function in an inclusive classroom (IDEA, 2004). Does student X’s behaviour qualify for intervention under IDEA? Am I providing positive interventions that can help student X change his poor behaviours in my teaching practice?

Were the special measures helpful in addressing behavioural issues? Exploring the reverse can help me realize the disparities that exist in my professional values and assumptions. By reversing the view point, am I able to challenge my professional values and adopt a more rigorous view point? The answer is yes. The reverse view point helps me understand that being firm or rather strict is not the best way to handle behavioural issues.

From my conversation with the students, it was clear that I was biased in my teaching practice and thus should have approached the incident in a better way. I ought to have understood that I was dealing with a class with behavioural issues and thus needed to handle them in a manner that would help them improve on their poor behaviours rather than make them uncomfortable.

Thinking strategy three-‘other point of view’

While reversal explores the alternative point of view, ‘other point of view’ is more concerned about others’ viewpoints especially participants in the critical incident. Reflective thinker in this case tries to explore the views of participants in a critical incident. For instance, did student X react the way I expected him to? Why did he react the way he did? What were his views about the critical incident in question? What about the views of the other students involved in this incident?

What were the views of their class teacher? Finding answers to these questions would help me understand what others think of the critical incidents including what they think of my handling of the incidents. As Grifiths (2008) puts it “learners hold their beliefs to be true and these beliefs then guide how they interpret their experiences and how they behave” (p. 121). It is only after analyzing other point of view that I will be able to make a fair conclusion of the critical incident.

The Why? Challenge

The ‘why? Challenge’ provides another analysis approach that analyzes a critical incident through answering a series of ‘why’ questions. According to Tripp (1993) asking ‘why?’ forces critical reflectors to question their responses to critical incidents.

Hence, the ‘why?’ questions challenge my response to the critical incident and allow me to pose this question to my responses; ‘that is how it should be?’ Gibbs (1988) also advocates for the ‘why?’ challenge in his reflective cycle. Using both Gibbs (1988) and Tripp (1993) paradigms, I am able to explore the critical incident in a systematic way that helps me realize that my tendency for firm actions against students with behavioural issues may hinder my ability to analyze the critical incident.

With relation to the critical incidents, the following are some of the ‘why?’ questions.

Why should I be concerned about student X’s conduct?

Because he appears to have behavioural issues:

Why?

He appears to be disrespectful

Why?

He keeps on talking to the other students even after I repeatedly told him to be quiet

Why?

He disobeys my instructions

Why?

He prefers to be approached in a friendly manner

Why?

He reacts in a manner to show that he is offended when I became more firm with him

The second incident would be analyzed as follows:

Why should student X’s class teacher be firm?

Because students in this class have behavioural issues

Why?

He believes it is the best way to deal with poor behaviour

As for the third incident:

Why did the school come out of special measures even when students still have behavioural issues?

Because it did not solve the intended problem

Why?

Students did not change their poor behaviours

Using the reversal thinking strategy, the answers to the ‘why?’ challenge would take the following route.

Why should I be concerned about student X’s conduct?

Because I feel he should be assisted to improve on his poor behaviours.

Why?

Student X and other students with behavioural issues are entitled to positive interventions to help them improve their poor behaviours.

Why?

His poor behaviours can affect his performance as well as those of his classmates.

The second incident would be analyzed as follows:

Why should student X’s class teacher be firm?

Because he feels students in this class have behavioural issues.

Why?

They should be assisted to improve on their poor behaviours.

These two approaches provide different answers to the ‘why? questions, which challenges the appropriateness of the schools policy on behavioural issues. According to IDEA, students with behavioural issues are entitled to positive interventions, i.e. motivations and incentives, to help them change their poor behaviours.

Following this law presents me with a dilemma; should I be strict when dealing with student X and others with behavioural issues as provided for in the class policy or should I rather be friendly and offer them positive motivations and incentives? In trying to break such dilemmas, Francis (1997) provides the reflective algorithms similar to Tripp’s (1993) ‘why?’ challenge. However, Francis (1997) uses the ‘What?’ and ‘How?’ questions instead of Tripp’s ‘why? practice.

It is clear from both Tripp (1993) and Francis (1997) that whatever the approach one adopts, dilemmas are inevitable in the analysis of critical incidents. Hence, incident analysis must involve dilemma identification and personal understanding of the incident (Louden, 1991).

Dilemma identification

According to Tripp (1993) and Louden (1991), recognizing a situation that appears rather uncomfortable as a dilemma enables one to deal with it more clearly. Tripp (1993) adds that the source of the discomfort does not result from the teacher’s shortcomings, but rather created by the dilemma for the teacher.

Dilemma identification as an approach to critical incident identification has further been developed by Wildy et al (2000) who provided a framework for identifying ethical dilemmas in teaching practice. School Experience A can be evaluated as follows using dilemma identification approach.

Student X had behavioural issues. He was disrespectful and could not stop talking to his classmates even after I repeatedly told him to be quiet. The student, however, believed that there was a better way of handling his misconduct. In trying to be firm on student X, I may have worsened the situation obviously because I felt I must have not handled the situation in the best way and had to find a friendly way to intervene.

A question of discipline verses positive motivation arises. Taking what I perceived to be the most appropriate course of action, which would have been to punish student X and let it serve as an example to other undisciplined students, is more threatening as this would have made students feel uncomfortable around me.

Taking the alternative approach of providing positive interventions may have worked out, but students may as well feel intimidated when they are unable to improve on their poor behaviours. Besides, the school had just come out of special measures and t taking the alternative action would have meant that I go against the school policy. It would have also meant that I go against the class teacher’s policy on dealing with behavioural issues.

Personal theory analysis

It is the rules inherent within a person that forms the final judgement of a critical incident. When presented with a dilemma, it is the personal theory that will lead to professional judgement and hence make one chose one course of action over another. The dilemmas identified above demonstrate a conflict between professional ethics and rules.

My teaching profession dictates that I use positive means to help students develop good behaviours. Hence, my judgement on this incident is that I should use positive interventions to help student X and others change their poor behaviour. My judgement is further influenced by provisions of IDEA which also advocates for positive intervention.

Commentary

“Reflecting on what we do is essential to the development of professional judgement, but unless our reflection involves some form of challenge to and critique of ourselves and our professional values, we simply reinforce existing patterns and tendencies” (Tripp, D., 1993, p. 12)

Introduction

Everyday practice exposes teachers to a myriad of critical incidents, which requires their reflection and professional judgement. While reflection is important for professional judgement, incidents have to be problematic to test teachers’ professional awareness, challenge their subjective values and guide objective professional judgement.

Tripp (1993) wraps this notion in the above quotation. Tripp goes ahead to warn that reflection is never carried out in a social vacuum hence teachers’ professional and cultural values are likely to affect the process and the eventual judgement. Professional judgement in this case is judgement that is influenced by new forms of knowledge as opposed to existing assumptions (Richards & Ferrell, 2005). It is judgement that is not only unbiased, but also contributes to professional development of teachers.

Teaching practice is a complex profession that exposes teachers to new experiences and pedagogical knowledge on a daily basis (Kolb, 1984). Even as teachers reflect on their experiences, their judgement is sometimes influenced by their personal and professional values. Unless these values are challenged during the reflection process, we end up enforcing existing patterns and tendencies.

Hence, we must endeavour to challenge ourselves and our professional values during the reflection process. It is only through such challenges and critiques that reflection can lead to professional judgement. In this regard, this section provides a commentary on the above quotation with reference to the critical incidents described in the previous section.

Reflective practice

Tice (2004) defines reflective teaching to mean “ looking at what you do in the classroom, thinking about why we do it, thinking about if it works” (par. 1). Reflective practice is a relative term with varied meaning (Grimmett & Erickson, 1988; Richardson, 1992). While some scholars take it to simply mean thinking about an incident, others believe that reflective practice is a more organized concept that not only involves thinking about something, but also the associated actions (Loughran, 2002).

According to Loughran (2002), the effectiveness of reflective practice is determined by the nature of the problem and the anticipated outcome of reflection. Challenging problems leads to more critical reflections, which are able to challenge individual values and help teachers develop professionally. Reflective practice is thus an essential tool in the professional development of teachers.

While trying to advocate for reflective practice, Tremmel (1993) compared teaching practice to a journey:

…the way of teaching demands a long journey that does not have any easily identifiable destination… It is a journey that I believe must include a backward step into the self and it is a journey that is its own destination. (p. 456)

Tremmel (1993) considered teaching practice as a profession that cannot be carried out without reflection and at the same time full of unclear challenges that demands that teachers critique both their individual and profession values to end up with professional judgement. It is through these unclear challenges that teachers are forced to challenge their personal and professional assumptions by hunting new assumptions and finally end up with professional judgement.

If there were no unclear challenges, then teachers would simply repeat existing patterns and tendencies. It is through dilemma identification and personal theory analysis that teachers are able to be more objective and make professional judgements (Farrel, 2008). Dilemmas force teachers to challenge their normal way of doing things and in return seek new horizons of knowledge. This also requires that teachers not only recognize the problematic nature of incidents, but also understand their professional awareness.

As a teacher, I first need to understand what behavioural issues entail in educational context and how to deal with the issue in a professional way rather than just jump into conclusions that students with behavioural issues should be dealt with firmly. When analyzing the critical incident above, I would have simply made a judgment based on my personal values and that of the class teacher’s concerning poor behaviour.

However, that would have meant that I reinforce existing patterns. It is through my critical reflection that I was able to challenge these assumptions and end up with a professional judgement that children with behavioural issues should be helped to change their poor behaviour through positive interventions.

The role of reflective practice in the professional development of teachers

Teachers need to realize professional growth in their teaching practice (Melanie, 2007). This means that teachers should be able to learn from their day to day experiences and become better teachers. It is only through reflection that teachers are able to challenge what they already know and explore new theories that best explain their experiences (Brookfield, 1987).

This calls for critical reflection in a manner that is able to challenge ourselves and professional values to lead to professional judgement. According to Day (1993), reflective practice is considered essential in the professional development of teachers for three basic reasons: the nature of teaching, personal development, and growth of teachers as action researchers. Considering the nature of teaching, teachers are not only supposed to teach, but also learn in the process of teaching.

These two complex processes present various challenges to teachers that can only be solved through reflective practice, which allows educators to meditate on their past experiences and current practices (Grimmett et al. 1990).

Such reflection leads to practice improvement and hence professional judgement. Without the challenges, which make reflective practice problematic teachers will blindly follow school programs and reinforce existing patterns and tendencies and hence jeopardize professional judgement (Leitch & Day, 2000).

In terms of personal development, reflective practice provides a means to greater self knowledge and challenge (Johnston & Badley, 1996). By analysing personal theories and values, reflection challenges our responses and opens up our minds to professional judgement.

For instance, through my reflection in the critical incidents above, I was able to explore the reversal point of view, which challenged my personal values and assumptions with regard to handling behavioural issues and helped me develop a more professional judgement. Were it not for challenging my values and assumptions, I would have simply reinforced the class teacher’s policy of behavioural issues.

As for the growth of teachers as action researchers, reflective practice shapes teachers to be inquirers of information from within and outside the school setup hence teachers are freed from being mere implementers of theories (Peters, 1985). The incidents thus have to be challenging and problematic to invoke research.

It is through such research that teachers are able to challenge their personal values and assumptions using new forms of knowledge and hence develop professional judgement. As Brookfield (1995) puts it, reflective practice provides an approach though which teachers are not only able to examine their teaching practice, but also research on assumptions that influence teaching practice. Hence, reflective practice allows teachers to question assumptions that have been left for granted.

How reflection leads to professional judgement

Asking “what and why” questions give us a certain power over our teaching. We could claim that the degree of autonomy and responsibility we have in our work as teachers is determined by the level of control we can exercise over our actions. In reflecting on the above kind of questions, we begin to exercise control and open up the possibility of transforming our everyday classroom life. (Bartlett, 1990, p. 267).

Reflective practice is only effective when teachers are able to move beyond routine practices and challenge their assumptions concerning a problem by asking the ‘what and why’ questions. While teachers often reflect on their day to day practice, it is the most challenging and problematic incidents that force teachers to move beyond normal routines and analyze incidents in a manner that promotes both learning and professional judgement (Jolly, 1999).

Less problematic incidents are likely to be analyzed in a less critical manner that reinforces existing patterns and tendencies. It is through critical incident analysis that educators are able to classify incidents as critical and thus choose on whether to reflect on them or not. Tripp (1993) dedicated his book to reflection and how it contributes to professional judgement.

Tripp (1993) acknowledges that reflection never takes place in a vacuum thus influenced by many factors including ourselves and professional values. Unless we are able to question these values and assumptions during the reflection process, our reflection may contribute very little to the development of professional judgement.

Teachers have to be more critical of their selves when analyzing critical incidents. In this regard, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2009) states that professional practice is dependent on professional judgement, which is a factor of critical reflection:

Skilful practice, whether of a surgeon, a judge, a teacher, a legal counsellor, or a nurse, means involvement in situations that are necessarily indeterminate from the point of view of formal knowledge. Professional practice… [therefore] depends on judgment in order to yield an outcome that can further the profession’s intended purposes…. The mark of professional expertise is the ability to both act and think well in uncertain situations. (p. 8-9)

Reflection on critical incidents is thus important for professional judgement and practice. It is how effective teachers reflect on critical incidents that will determine their professional judgement and hence their professional practice. Hence, teachers should consider critical incidents as perfect media for developing their professional judgement. In my view, professional judgement is like a journey whose perfection depends on reflection.

Following from critical incidents analyzed in section A above, behavioural issues present a powerful critical incident that its analysis promotes reflection, pedagogical reasoning and learning. The dilemma presented by the critical incidents compels me to challenge my personal values and that of others and take an objective approach in making professional judgment. For instance, I am forced to challenge my belief as well as that of the class teacher’s that children with behavioural issues should be dealt with firmly.

By challenging my subjective assumptions, I am able to be more critical in my reflection and analyze the incident in a manner that allows me to generate new knowledge, become more professional and make professional judgement. Were it not for challenging my personal and professional values, I would have just followed the class teacher’s policy and be strict when dealing with students. This would have been just a repeat of the routine practice and would have contributed nothing to my professional practice.

As a teacher, I need to understand that dealing with students with behavioural issues is a challenging practice that if not handled well might jeopardize my teaching profession. I also need to understand that the experiences presented before me by these critical experiences are essential in challenging my personal and professional beliefs and develop myself as a professional teacher.

Conclusion

Tripp (1993) provides a powerful framework for teachers to reason, reflect on and learn from their day to day teaching experiences. Tripp (1993) informs teachers that they have to be critical in their reflection and challenge their personal and professional beliefs in order to develop professional judgement.

Through reflecting on critical incidents, teachers are transformed from mere enforcers of existing patterns and tendencies to action researchers capable of generating new forms of knowledge. As a teacher, I find Tripp’s quote analyzed in this section powerful as it urges me to be critical when reflecting on critical incidents.

It urges me to challenge my values and explore new forms of knowledge when developing professional judgement. Tripp also informs me that it is through reflection on critical incidents that I can develop my professional judgement. I relate to this quote especially after realizing that it is through critical reflection on my school experience A that I was able to question my professional and personal beliefs and made a professional judgement.

Reference

Bartlett, L., 1990. Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J.C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds), Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 2002-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brookfield, S. D., 1987. Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D., 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2009. Preparation for the Professions Program at 1-2. Web.

Day, C., 1993. Reflection: a necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development. British Educational Research Journal, vol. 19, pp. 83–93.

Dewey, F., 1933. How we think. Chicago Press: Henry Regnery.

Farrel, T.S.C., 2008. Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training. ELT Journal, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 3-10.

Farrell, T., 2008. Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training. ELT Journal, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 3-10.

Francis, D., 1997. Critical incident analysis: A strategy for developing reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, vol. 3, pp. 169-188.

Gibbs, G., 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. London: Further Education Unit.

Griffiths, C., 2008. Lessons from Good Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grimmett, P. P., MacKinnon, A. M., Erickson, G. L. & Riecken, T. J., 1990. Reflective practice in teacher education. In R. T. Clift, R. W. Houston & M. C. Pugach (Eds) Encouraging reflective practice in education: an analysis of issues and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grimmett, P. P.,&Erickson, G. L., 1988. Reflection in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), 2004. Web.

Johnston, R. & Badley, G., 1996. The competent reflective practitioner. Innovation and Learning in Education, vol. 2, pp. 4–10.

Jolly, L., 1999. Challenging hegemony: Reflections on reflections. Paper presented at the ‘Effective Courses/Effective Teaching at University/Reflection on Practice/Practice for Reflection’ conference, Teaching and Educational Development Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. Web.

Kolb, D., 1984. Experiential Learning; experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Leitch, R. &Day, C., 2000. Action research and reflective practice: towards a holistic view. Educational Action Research, vol. 8: 1, pp. 179-193.

Louden, W., 1991. Understanding teaching: Continuity and change in teachers’ knowledge. London: Cassell.

Loughran, J.J., 2002. Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 53, no 1, pp. 33-34.

Melanie, J., 2007. Professional development, reflection and decision-making. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Peters, J. L., 1985. Research in reflective teaching: a form of laboratory teaching experience. Journal of Research and Development in Education, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 55–62.

Richards, J.C. & Ferrell, T.S.C., 2005. Professional development for language teachers: strategies for teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, V.,1992. The evolution of reflective teaching and teacher education. In R. T. Clift, R. W. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schön, D. A., 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tice, J., 2004. Reflective teaching: Exploring our own classroom practice. London: British Council. Web.

Tremmel, R., 1993. Zen and the art of reflective practice in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, vol. 63, pp. 434-458.

Tripp, D., 1993. Critical incidents in teaching: Developing Professional Judgement. London: Routledge.

Wildy, H., Louden, W., and Robertson, J., 2000. Using cases for school principal performance standards: Australian and New Zealand experiences. Waikato Journal of Education, vol. 6, pp. 169-194.