Penny M. Rowea* , Lea Fortmannb, Timothy L. Guascoc , Aedin Wrightd, Amy Rykene , Emma Sevierf, Grace Stokesg, Amanda Mifflind , Rachel Wadeh, Haiyan Chengi, William Pfalzgraffj , Justin Beaudoink, Isha Rajbhandarib, Kena Fox-Dobbsf & Steven Neshybad a NorthWest Research Associates, Bellevue, Washington 98052b Economics, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington 98416c Chemistry, Millikin University, Decatur, Illinois 62522d Chemistry, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington 98416e Education, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington 98416f Geology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington 98416g Chemistry & Biochemistry, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California 95053h Physics, Edmonds Community College, Lynnwood, Washington 98036i Computer Science, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon 97301j Chemistry, Chatham University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15232k Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington 98402

Increasingly, humans are an urban species prone to plant blindness'. This demographic shift and situation has implications for both individual and collective perceptions of nature, as well as for addressing ecophobia' and encouraging biophilia' through education. Contemporary humanity occupies a world in which extensive physical change, both in the landscape and its related organisms, is occurring . Education-related debates on these issues links to the noted phenomenon of a bubble wrap generation' growing up within nature-deficit' childhoods in megalopolitan cities'. Indeed, some commentators consider that 'nature has already disappeared' and exists only in protected spaces. Such perceptions have consequences for education in presented world' settings such as zoos, botanic gardens and natural history museums. This editorial, and its associated collection of papers, considers the critical relationships between nature, culture and education in contemporary botanic gardens and the ways in which visitors navigate their journeys, as demonstrated by research.

Developmental Frameworks and Reflective Practice Thirty years ago, Schon (1983) described practitioner reflection as a process of framing and reframing problems, creating reflective conversations with oneself and with others, taking actions to change one's practice, and evaluating the consequences of those changes. Like many teacher educators, we teach and model reflection on teaching practices, and we observe a range of ways that our teacher candidates engage in the reflection process. Yet a consistent finding in the research on teacher reflection that higher of reflection are rarely observed among teacher candidates (Klein, 2008; Larrivee, 2006; Lee, 2005; Mena-Marcos, GarciaRodriquez, & Tillema, 2013; Pedro, 2005; Shoffner, 2008; Ward & McCotter, 2004) or practicing teachers (Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013). For example, teacher candidates may remain focused on themselves, pondering the demands of the profession and of taking on new responsibilities: How much am going to put into this job/student teaching? The job/student teaching extends outside the classroom and the regular hours, and the question where I'm going to draw the line. How far outside of regular hours? (J. S., January 31, 2012) Other candidates may react with frustration to issues that have multiple layers, such as assessment practices interact with perceptions of student ability: I feel like it so unfair to have a test with six long story problems when many students can't read very well (A. H., March 5, 2013). Preservice teachers face a dizzying array of questions, practical issues, and new responsibilities as they learn to acclimate to the intensity of a complex profession. How can we validate candidate efforts to reflect on practice and support candidates to grow in their capacities to reflect? How can we understand a wide range of teacher reflection practices, especially those that do not appear to exhibit much depth? As we examine and engage the literature on teacher reflection, we note a focus on naming different kinds of reflection, often in a sequence or continuum. For example, Larrivee (2006) described a continuum of reflection, noting that teachers can reflect at different simultaneously. At a nonreflective level, the teacher focuses on one explanation or solution. Surface reflection involves posing questions about strategies that maintain an efficient classroom, for example, how can limit transition time? Pedagogical reflection focuses on questioning assumptions and biases and posing questions about theory, beliefs, and actions in the classroom, for example, should use reading groups? In critical reflection, the teacher poses questions about the ethical and social equality implications of classroom practices, for example, is my classroom promoting a sense of agency and freedom in all of my students? Although Larrivee suggested that teachers can reflect at different continuously, throughout the literature, we see models that describe levels and levels of reflection. In Figure 1, we contrast four theories that describe of reflective and then note patterns among these models for reflection. As we consider these models for reflection, we note several consistencies: All the models describe low and high of reflection and equate low of reflection with narrative or accounts, lack of questioning, and a focus on the self; alternatively, the highest of reflection are associated with abstraction, a critical stance, and engaging multiple perspectives. One concern we bring to these patterns that framing reflection as low level or high level, while describing a trajectory of growth, can also contribute to deficit perspectives about the developing capacities of teacher candidates. Likewise, Clara (2015) warned about conceptualizing reflection prescriptively as a series of steps, highlighting that reflection a descriptive notion that refers to spontaneous, common, real thinking (p. …

In this article the author shares conversations she has had with elementary students inquiring about her gender identity to make visible the daily-ness of conversations about sameness and difference and to surface her own struggles with, and pedagogical deliberations about, these conversations. The conversations are conceptualized as both the unit of participation and analysis. Analyzing transcripts of conversations creates a tool for teacher reflection and proactively surfaces discussions about identity and social participation.

In this documentary account, a kindergarten teacher and teacher educator describe our efforts to explore how young children think and reason about gender expression in and beyond the classroom. We describe our ongoing collaboration to develop a framework for teacher-initiated and student-initiated conversations about gender, which often result from students’ spontaneous remarks and questions about gender norms. We explore the question, How can educators create relevant and engaging learning opportunities to invite young learners to discuss gender norms within the classroom? In this paper we share kindergartners’ conversations about gender and three examples of their writing about this topic. We conclude that an inquiry approach to teaching, that aims to be respectful of and responsive to students developing ideas about gender identity, is both possible and necessary. efforts to explore how young children think and reason about gender expression in and beyond the classroom. We describe our ongoing collaboration to develop a framework for teacher-initiated and student-initiated conversations about gender, which often result from students’ spontaneous remarks and questions about gender norms. We explore the question, How can educators create relevant and engaging learning opportunities to invite young learners to discuss gender norms within the classroom? In this paper we share kindergartners’ conversations about gender and three examples of their writing about this topic. We conclude that an inquiry approach to teaching, that aims to be respectful of and responsive to students developing ideas about gender identity, is both possible and In this documentary account, a kindergarten teacher and teacher educator describe our efforts to explore how young children think and reason about gender expression in and beyond the classroom. We describe our ongoing collaboration to develop a framework for teacher-initiated and student-initiated conversations about gender, which often result from students’ spontaneous remarks and questions about gender norms. We explore the question, How can educators create relevant and engaging learning opportunities to invite young learners to discuss gender norms within the classroom? In this paper we share kindergartners’ conversations about gender and three examples of their writing about this topic. We conclude that an inquiry approach to teaching, that aims to be respectful of and responsive to students developing ideas about gender identity, is both possible and necessary.

How might teachers be supported as professional learners, in activities and conversations that assist, rather than distract from, the complex work they do each day? In this article we describe a public school/university partnership model designed to support practice-oriented communication among educators– where professionals from various roles, institutional affiliations, and experience levels, communicate together about the details of their teaching. We outline the principles behind our approach and describe the specific practices we use to promote communication that engages teachers’ pedagogical thinking. We share how teachers’ own practice can become a centerpiece of professional development, and how authentic questions and evidence help educators develop insights into the relationship between their own assumptions, curriculum materials, and student understanding.