My evolving philosophy of adult education.

The first thing that has to be stated in this, my final post, is that the learning for me in this course has been exponential, and has elicited in me more than the occasional sense of disequilibrium. Never before have I pondered issues of power in education - whether that power was related to gender, race, social class, age, or culture. These ponderings have disturbed my sense of self in that I now question where I fit (in my social reality and lifeworld) in terms of my own power, or lack thereof (heaven forbid!). Additionally, I have a heightened sensibility towards those with whom I have contact - whether they be my students, my teachers, my colleagues - and even my husband. Being considerate of others is, I believe, a requirement for anyone in the business of education. However, being considerate of where students fit in power hierarchies is a different angle from which to approach an individual's situation. It is also, I have come to realize, extremely important. This knowledge informs teaching practices and can have a significant effect on the learning outcomes of our students.

All that being said, my purpose in this post is to attempt to verbalize my own evolving philosophy of adult education. I would not dare to lay down a crystallized philosophy since, first of all, I consider myself still very much in the process of learning. Secondly it seems to me that the field of adult education is itself an area of perpetual development. As society becomes increasingly globalized, as technology continues to (excuse the pun,) virtually mushroom around us, as gender and other inequities become increasingly scrutinized in a world that is moving faster than ever before in human history - so too does the need to explore how human behaviour is evolving to adapt to this new world. Therefore, I would contend that our understanding of learning, both adult and child, is in a state of evolution.

Before trying to explain my philosophy, I feel it is of foremost importance to consider the adult learner since it is the learner who, I believe, drives the learning in an ideal situation. Educators of adults should therefore accommodate their students by moulding, or adapting their role and even perhaps their philosophy to meet the learners' needs and interests, and to acknowledge the impact on their learning of the prior experiences, lifeworlds, and cultural contexts within which the learner exists. 

Additionally, it is important to recognize the various reasons for adults to engage in formal, informal or non-formal learning. According to Marsick et al. (2001), while formal learning is often institutional and highly structured; informal learning is "not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner". (Marsick et al. 2001, p.25). Incidental learning (Marsick, 2001) is another mode for consideration, as is the learning that takes place in the homeplace (Gouthro, 2005), better understanding of which may lead to greater emancipation of the female learner. One must also consider learners for whom education is a means by which to escape oppression or to gain power (as per Freire). It is possible, in the case of an average North American white male, that perhaps the reason for engaging in driving lessons is merely driven ('scuse the pun again) by a need to facilitate transportation - I do not want to consider this type of learning in my post. Why? Because in most other cases, this course has shown me that learning can, and should, lead to transformation, freedom from oppression, and/or the levelling out of power in some form.

Gloria Ladson Billings, in her TedTalk (I think it was?) spoke of the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy and advocated for three propositions to support this: 1. To support student learning; 2. to develop cultural competence; and 3, to encourage socio-political consciousness. Her talk resonated with me as she expanded on her ideas. Too often, the focus is on what teachers cover rather than what students learn. Courses are like sieves rather than what should exist in a culturally relevant pedagogical environment which results in teachers creating a net to catch all students and to focus on mastery rather than coverage. Additionally, she spoke of the desire to help a student to be firmly grounded in his/her culture of origin as well as fluent in at least one other culture. "All students should leave school multiculturally competent"(Ladson Billings). She then asks a provocative question: "What if our teachers are culturally incompetent?". The idea of helping students to engage directly in the social and civic concerns of their schools, communities, localities, the nation, and the world seem beyond the scope of most classroom teachers. Therefore, knowing more about the culture of our students makes one better able to reach them, to help them to learn, and to engage them in the pursuit of their own cultural competence (and that of others). 

Among the adult learning theories we have explored are the liberal, the behaviourist, the progressive, humanistic, and radical. Beginning with Knowles' principals of andragogy, and moving from Freire's transformative liberational ideas of education to develop autonomous thinking; to reflective practice and the theories of Dewey and Schön, to the principals of self-directed learning as espoused by Brookfield, we then considered the implications of cultural context, policy, gender, colour, and other factors affecting power, hierarchies, privilege and oppression. 

If I have learned anything, it is this: Adult educators should strive to understand "how their beliefs (i.e., their contextually adapted philosophies), associated learning objectives, and learners’ needs interact to impact the process of student transformation and emancipation, particularly in the practice of andragogy (the art and science of helping adults to learn)." (Wang, 2009). In attempting to consolidate my learning, I came across this article which truly does the job for me! Wang presents a model that illustrates the fact that even though adult educators may cling to one ideology, they necessarily assume various roles and employ various methods according to the needs of their students:

We have come a long way from the assumption that to teach is to transmit information. Rather, we (well, I) consider learning as socially constructed (as per Dewey) and the role of the teacher as that of facilitator. The teacher cannot treat all students equally in order to be either equitable or effective since each individual “exists in a continually changing world of experience of which he is the center” and “the organism reacts to the field as it is experienced and perceived” (Rogers, 1951, p. 1441, in Wang, 2009).  So once again, the focus is on the student rather than the teacher. Just as Ladson Billings pronounced that the teacher should be culturally competent and know her students, so does Brookfield in his ideas about self-directed learning focus on the requirement that the student drives the learning. Similarly, Knowles' ideas on andragogy have been labelled "the most learner-centered of all patterns of adult educational programming" (Henschke, 2010). In Rodgers' (2002) article on John Dewey and reflective thinking, she states that, according to Dewey "A reflective teacher who possesses an attitude of directness might well ask, "Where was the learning in today's work?" This is a very different question from "what did I teach today?"(Rodgers, 2002, p.860).  Again, the focus is on the learner not the teacher or the teaching. Tisdell (2006) in her article on spirituality, cultural identity, and epistemology cautions educators to "consider that learners construct knowledge in different ways. The construction of new knowledge not only is related to the rational and intellectual domains typical of higher education but also is a spiritual pursuit, related to learners' cultural identity, their personal experience, history, and relationship to the community (Dillars, 2000 in Tisdell, 2006, p. 23). Once again, the learner is the focus, not the educator. The educator is advised to know his/her students in order to maximize the learning experience.  In Tisdell (2013), a study of teacher beliefs and pedagogical practice, she notes that "successful FLE (financial literacy education) must address the beliefs and emotions that are part of the context of people's cultural lives" (Tisdell, 2013, p.342) and "one needs to take into account both the sociocultural context of the learners and the emotions that are attached to financial issues and money in teaching" (Tisdell, 2013, p.345). Among the teachers interviewed in this study was Vera whose opinion was reported as emphasizing "the importance of genuine caring and in learning about the community in trying to be culturally responsive" (p.350). Another teacher was quoted as saying: "I let the culture drive the lesson" and "I learn about the community" (p.350). Within Tisdell's concluding remarks are statements alluding to the need for educators to consider the cultural context that informs the financial realities and life circumstances of learners' lives in attending to curricular and pedagogical issues. "Indeed, such a concern is a hallmark of culturally responsive education in any setting." (Gay, 2010, Sealey-Ruiz, 2007, in Tisdell, 2013). The "culturally responsive" educators in the study made sure to adjust existing curricula, or to develop their own curriculum, in order to accurately reflect the lived experiences of their students. Once again, the focus is on the learner's experience rather than on the transmission of "canned" knowledge. 

In conclusion then, what is my philosophy of adult education? I have much yet to learn but in an effort to be succinct and quite possibly over-simplistic...

• To know our students informs practice in deep and meaningful ways.
• We must allow the knowledge we are privileged to glean about our students to lead us to adapt our espoused philosophy of education and our preferred teaching methods in order to maximize the learning potential and inherent success of our students.
• Succeeding in the above requires culturally relevant pedagogy which in turn should lead us as educators to help our students to become knowledgeable about other cultures.
• This should encourage students to think critically, indeed we must help our students to do so.
• All of the above would be impossible with reflection in, of, and as action (as per Dewey, Schön, and Day.

I will end with a final, full paragraph quote from Wang, 2009, whose article in its entirety sums up my thinking far more eloquently than the rambling meanderings that I've just subjected you to Laura!

"Adult educators are faced with the complex task of adjusting teaching to learning, often with little knowledge of teaching philosophies. Brookfield (1990) posited that flexibility could facilitate learning by better meeting the needs of the adult learners. Flexibility in adapting different philosophies could further facilitate learning by best meeting the needs of the adult learners.

With different philosophies in the adult education field as guiding principles, the role of adult educators as facilitators of self-directed learning must be redefined in this age of transformative learning. If educators of adults seek to transform adult learners, then humanistic and progressive adult educators themselves need to first adapt their individual philosophical perspectives. One’s philosophy needs to be adapted because it is determined by a plethora of factors. No single philosophy of adult education should dominate the field. Factors such as learner needs, learner styles, learner experience, and learner motivation all contribute to a working philosophy of adult education. Understanding the complex interaction of their students’ characteristics and their own personal philosophical perspec- tives will facilitate this transformative process." (Wang, 2009, p. 213).

Culturally relevant pedagogy.

In her address at the University of Colorado "The Best Should Teach Awards, 2012", Gloria Ladson Billings notes that knowing more about the culture of your students makes one better able to reach them and to help them to learn.  I think that most teachers already know this, although they may not term what they do as culturally relevant pedagogy. We are taught during our B.Ed. to "know your students" and while often this means know what they know, understand their learning needs, and be sensitive to their behavioural or emotional needs - a good teacher will instinctively take the time to understand the demographic of his school, the socio-political factors facing families, and the economics of the catchment area (I'm talking about K-12 more than adult education where students may emanate from a wider net than is possible to generalize), it almost goes without saying that he will also be sensitive to, and may educate himself on the cultural issues of his students.

In the 2013 Tisdell et al article that reported findings related to teaching beliefs and pedagogical practices of educators of FL, it is made abundantly clear that the role of the FL teacher is more than the commonly stated goal of "helping learners understand financial information" (Tisdell, 2012 p. 343). In this article, the authors look at FLE in underserved population groups in community-based settings. It was found that imparting financial knowledge does not lead to behaviour change. The learners' attitudes towards money are affected by social context, and behaviour with money only changes with examination of attitudes. Indeed, "dollars are not the legacy. The attitudes are the legacy." The educators who participated in interviews allowed culture to inform their teaching. The culturally responsive approach taken by these educators involved adapting the curriculum and the pedagogy to align with their students' culture. "It is impossible to change people's financial behaviour without considering the beliefs that inform the behaviour" (Tisdell, 2012 p. 351). The authors also state the importance of drawing on students' prior knowledge, of engaging them in the telling of personal stories, and involving them in small and large group activities - all of which contribute to the building of collaborative learning communities where students trust one another, take risks, and learn from each other. Clearly, a parallel can be drawn here to the K-12 classroom.

More challenging I believe is the situation of the adult educator who teaches online. Not only does he need to address the learning needs, the personal needs, and the cultural needs of the learner, but he must also be capable of aligning his pedagogy to the type of learning that is expected by the new generation of students. And culture in this case is more than that which is encompassed by family background or community or locality - but the culture of the digital native. No longer do young adults accept learning by rote, they balk at the notion of Googling information to spew forth in a traditional essay. Today's learners (adults and children) are not only consumers. They are producers and contributors to the digital world around them. They want to mash up, remix, sample, and re-image. Their ability to create is vast and the affordances of digital technologies lend themselves to this so seamlessly. The trouble is that this explosion in digital technologies and digital literacies has taken place at such a rapid pace that the teaching profession is having a very hard time keeping up. Many teachers are uncomfortable with the new technologies, those who have a comfort level with them may have concerns about how to use them effectively - in other words, how to implement a new technology in a transformational manner rather than simply replacing an old technology with a new technology. In addition, there are the concerns surrounding copyright - if you allow your students to complete an assignment which involves remixing other people's intellectual property - and if those people take issue with what your student has done - who is liable? The student? The teacher? The institution? Before the vast expansion of digital technologies, our conception of writing meant text via alphabetization, print on a page, black and white. Today, writing usually involves digital technologies and encompasses images, or sound, or video, as well as traditional text, and often all of these modes at the same time, remixed to express something new - and adding to our culture. The problem with this, legally speaking, is that pre-digital age copyright laws remain in effect. In an  educational institution, one can only imagine how emphatic would be the desire of bureaucrats, dean  principals and teachers to steer clear of legal entanglements and how fearful they might be that students would put them in delicate situations should remixing projects become widely accepted practice in schools. The fact of the matter is however that most of our children, teens, and young adults are already criminals according to copyright law. What teenager does not habitually download "free" music from YouTube, or have an enviable library of torrent downloaded movies from sites such as PirateBay? 

(Lessig, 2008)

Criminalizing those (mostly young people) who embrace our "read-write" digital culture (Lessig, 2008), is utterly pointless as well as potentially culturally crippling. However, until the law makers develop a way out of it, I have to assume that school boards will continue to be wary of allowing students to "plagiarize" even while these same students develop healthy online followings as creative digital remixers outside of school. That's kind of messed up - as my sons would say.

The big issue here is the chasm between the law makers/owners of copyright and the right of the people to engage in cultural practices that include the remix and mash up of existing works to produce new ones. It's not like this is a new concept, it's just that never before has it been so easy, so rampant, and so disconcerting to the holders of the "original" works. In the entire history of art, literature, drama, and even dance, it is understood that re-inventing, or appropriating, rewriting, retelling, adapting - whatever you want to label it - has, and always will be how culture is fashioned and how it is rewritten to echo the realities of the current population. Only now is it criminal to do so... Take Romeo and Juliet for example, here's what I gleaned from www.historicalfiction.com:

1440's  Masuccio Salernitano's poem Mariotto and Ganozza

1531    Luigi da Porto, Newly Found Story of Two Noble Lovers

1554    Matteo Bandello, Romeo e Giulietta

1562    Arthur Brooke, The Tragic History of Romeus and Juliet

1582    William Painter, Palace of Pleasure

1590    Lope de Vega, (Spanish version)

1590's  Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

Restoration, William Davenant, wrote a revision of his uncle's (Shakespeare) play

1679    Thomas Otway, The History and Fall of Caius Marius

1744    Theophilus Cibber, revision

IMDB indexes over 34 films based on the story. These include West Side Story (don't forget that was on Broadway too), and my personal favourite, Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet.

2010    Robin Maxwell's novel O Juliet

...but today we can't adapt, remix, retell, appropriate using digital technologies because the world has gone crazy...

evolving adult educational practices

I've also been enjoying the picture that has begun to reveal itself in my mind's eye of what adult learning could look like. In attempting to put it into words, I came across a quote from Sharan Merriam:

"After some 80 years of study, we have no single answer, no one theory or model of adult learning. What we have instead is a colourful mosaic of theories, models, sets of principles, and explanations that combined create the knowledge base of adult learning" (Merriam, 2004).

When I first read this, it meant nothing to me. However, with a head full of andragogy, transformative learning theory, reflective practice, SDL, SRL and PBL, as well as ideas of non formal and incidental learning; I now have a significantly greater appreciation for what she was stating. I do wonder whether we need one theory or model for adult learning. Why should we? There isn't a single solitary, globally accepted theory for pedagogy. Surely the more we question, the more we hypothesize and test, the more we try stuff out, and the more we discover and add to our understanding of how people learn; the richer the knowledge base from which to draw. Why subscribe to a single philosophy? What's wrong with a little pot pourri?

To add to this argument - something that you said Laura, has stuck with me... These theories have evolved around a need to compartmentalize and name what has already existed for hundreds of years. Yes, our society is ever evolving and new technologies (I don't just mean digital) are developed that alter the way that we teach and learn; however, people have been learning since people arrived on planet Earth! We just seem to be compelled to label everything and sometimes (sorry!) I feel just a tad exasperated by this! Does it serve a purpose? Maybe. Sure; where there are issues of gross inequality for example; but sometimes I think we should just let the learning happen naturally.

I'm clearly no expert, but the other point I wanted to make is that the study of education is surely muddied by the very unpredictability of human behaviour. It is not pure science. On that same point, but approaching from the opposite end, the individual learner comes with his or her own travelling trunk burgeoning with issues of culture, sociology, perhaps gender bias, learning expectations, perceptions of self-efficacy, individual goals, questions surrounding power and who holds it, and needs. In other words - each student is different and will experience more or less success according to a) her background, b) the teaching theory(ies) / strategies / philosophies employed, c) motivation, d) ability beliefs.

A head full of acronyms.

This week we appear to be filling our heads with acronyms - PBL, SDL, SRL and all the models, factors for success, theories, and positions that go along with them. It is challenging to absorb so much new information week after week and still remember what I've read well enough to refer back to it or to use it to synthesize new content... Nonetheless, I'll try!

I found all the articles on this week's list incredibly interesting (if slow reading - sometimes the same paragraph three or four times until it sunk in) and yet I find myself with more questions than answers...

- Aha, a problem. Could this be a deliberate circumstance? Is this part of the plan for this course in  Adult Education I wonder? Are we in fact following a loosely constructed problem based learning model while at the same time becoming self-directed learners as a result of participating in this course? I'm thinking that the answer might just be a "yes". Particularly after having read the Loyens & Rikers and the Silén & Uhlin articles. While we do not actually begin with a problem (we begin with readings); I suspect that one purpose of blogging is to provide a platform for questioning, thinking, and expanding our suppositions.  As per Loyens, we begin with limited prior knowledge, any discussion we have, either self-reflectively, with you Laura, or in the class discussions, leads us to formulate issues for further self-directed learning. In my case, I chose to look further into theories of motivation by reading articles by Garrison, Whitfield & Eccles, as well as Deci for further illumination (again, I have more questions than answers!) Therefore, if blogging serves as a spring board for SDL, the readings themselves provide much needed background information. During the online component, we are stimulated to inquire further into our learning and we engage in group work which "is a means of inquiring into the situation". One aspect of synchronous learning that I believe poses a significant challenge to the success of a PBL model is that of developing fully functional, collaborative groups. "In a group that functions well, each individual student can use the group to develop her/his own learning process as well as contributing to the common goals of the tutorial" (Silén, 2008, p. 469). In synchronous learning, students do not (I believe) have the opportunity to form meaningful working relationships that build the type of trust that I think would be required for an open exchange of "ideas, beliefs, and experiences concerning the [learning] situation"(Silén, 2008, p. 465).

I have not delved deeper into the impact of online learning to PBL models of teaching, however I suspect that I might be at least a little bit right... One reason for this belief is that it is during small group work (tutorials) that the students begin to take control over their learning process. As well, according to Silén, it is during these times that the tutor must observe and challenge the students' thinking and, above all, avoid superficial brainstorming behaviours that do not lend themselves to deeper inquiry. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult that would be for any professor, facilitator, or tutor in an online learning environment. Laura I admire you!

Fun intermission drive in footage from the '50s.
Irrelevant but more interesting than my blog!

Another online difficulty that I suspect with SDL or PBL models of learning is that of control and politics. The Brookfield article actually left me wondering why anyone would even bother to try to adhere to SDL at all. I understand and celebrate Gelpi's view that "self-directed learning by individuals and of groups is a danger for every repressive force, and it is upon this self-direction that we must insist .... radical change in social, moral, aesthetic and political affairs is often the outcome of a process of self-directed learning in opposition to the educational message imposed from without. (Gelpi in Brookfield, 1993, p. 229). However realizing SD teaching methods seems practically impossible, or at least fraught with roadblocks and tempting or invisible wrong turns. Why? Because on the one side you have the educator for whom is it "quite possible to advocate self-directed approaches in good conscience, only to discover later that our efforts have served to bolster the oppressive structures that we thought we were opposing. It is possible, too, to have a good heart, boundless energy, and a deep well of compassion, but to lack political clarity." (Brookfield, 1993, p. 229). Or consider "from a critical perspective, the co-opting of the early free spirit of self-direction into a masked form of repressive practice can be seen as yet one more example of the infinite flexibility of hegemony, of the workings of a coldly efficient repressive tolerance" (Brookfield, 1993, p. 228). So it would seem that from the point of view of the teacher or the institution, try as one might to give control to the learner, to be free from bias, to respect the learner's dignity and experiences, and to break from authoritarian forms of education, it is not a simple task at all. We naturally fall into the comfortable slots carved out for us by whatever culture we inhabit, often unaware of that "coldly efficient repressive tolerance". Scary.

Now the point of view of the learner. For a learner to be genuinely self-directed, she must be in control of her access to resources, to all educational decisions, to everything that relates in any way to her educational goal. This doesn't sound terribly difficult. However, I think it is! Brookfield points out that it is not so easy to exercise authentic control in a culture which is itself highly controlling. If the educator sets out course readings then we are controlled. We are not clean slates, free from cultural influences, neither are we autonomous or innocent. "The most critically sophisticated and reflective adults cannot escape their own biographies"(Brookfield, 1993, p. 236). The author offers many more examples but the key issue is this: "A fully developed self-directed learning project would have at its centre an alertness to the possibility of hegemony." (Brookfield, 1993, p. 234). This to me reeks of paranoia.

Nonetheless, it would appear that galloping to the rescue comes the practice of reflection! This makes sense of course since reflection provides the opportunity for the learner to critically review who she is and how her biases may cause "knee-jerk" reactions. Reflecting then, may lead to better, more balanced choices.

What I appreciated most about this article was the way that Brookfield clarified for me Bullock's statement regarding collective action. He said that "many SDL theorists suggest that SDL experiences should include some sort of reflection by learners on the socio-political structures in which their learning occurs and the SD experiences should lead to collective action." This left me needing more. On the surface I found the statement ridiculous. After all, how would self-directedness lead to collectiveness? Brookfield discusses the difference between learning for short-term personal gain and for long-term structural change. In other words, when exploring options for and making choices in a learning project, the students might choose to use her power differently. Rather than focusing on her own success, what if she looks at the bigger picture. In doing so, she may well discover that her problem is a large-scale problem shared by a collective. "In focusing our self-directed learning efforts on our own long term best inerests, we would realize that these lay in collective action." Brookfield, 2008, p. 235).

What does being a reflective practitioner mean in practical terms?

It's all very well to talk about reflection as a desirable practice for the superlative teaching professional, however, I believe that the very idea of reflection is fraught with misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and pre-conceived judgements (probably the fault of teacher education programmes which flog reflection like a dead horse - citation - me and UOIT! Don't tell!).

In addition, there is more than one definition of what reflection actually is, what it encompasses in terms of action, and what it affords the teaching profession. John Dewey had a pretty clear idea of what it is, and what it means to think - in fact he wrote a book about it (How We Think, 1933). In this book he discusses thought as belief, imagination, stream of consciousness, and reflection (Dewey, 1933). Reading Dewey is as heavy-duty as reading Mezirow (!) so I will cite the work of Carol Rodgers who "distilled" four criteria that represent his concept of reflection:

1. Reflection is a meaning-making process;
2. it is a systematic, rigorous, disciplined way of thinking, with its roots in scientific inquiry;
3. it is socially constructed; and
4. requires attitudes which value self-growth and that of others. (Rodgers, 2002, p. 846).

What strikes me the most, and what changed my attitude to reflection as a professional practice is point 2. that reflection is rooted in scientific inquiry. In fact, the models for reflective practice, the scientific method, and for inquiry-based learning are startlingly similar to the point of being almost transmutable and certainly complementary...

Inquiry Based Learning.

Schön's Reflection in and on action.

The scientific method.

Research and analysis, and asking, creating, and discussing can ostensibly all involve reflection on action.  All these models are cyclical - here's another one:

This is Stephen Kemmis' (in MacIsaac, 1995) model of the cyclical nature of the action research process. 

I started this blog entry yesterday and subsequently took part in our class on reflection. I mentioned the similarities I found in the various models for reflection, action research, and the scientific method. Laura pointed out that perhaps one difference would be the inclusion of collaboration. I've reflected (ha ha) on this and come to the conclusion that the models are still largely interchangeable. When collaborating in reflection we might be doing this alone or with a trusted partner or Critical Friend. This term is accredited to Desmond Nuttall (1970's) and was defined by Costa and Kallick (1993) as:

"A critical friend can be defined as a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of a person’s work as a friend. A critical friend takes the time to fully understand the context of the work presented and the outcomes that the person or group is working toward. The friend is an advocate for the success of that work."

I see this definition as applying, to a large extent, to the collaboration inherent in that which would take place between persons involved in inquiry based practices, as well as those involved in experimentation/exploration using the scientific method. It is rare that one would be involved in either of the latter processes in the absence of reflection - whether that reflection be on one's own or with a Critical Friend. 

Reflection, according to Dewey, is "that process of reconstruction and reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of experience" (Dewey, in Rodgers, 2002, p. 848). The function of reflection "is to make meaning: to formulate the relationships and continuities among the elements of an experience, between that experience and other experiences, between that experience and the knowledge that one carries, and between that knowledge and the knowledge produced by thinkers other than oneself" (Rodgers, 2002, p. 848).

To clarify Dewey's definition of an experience, it is "more than simply a matter of direct participation in events. It could be that, or it could be something as ephemeral as interaction with objects which one constructs in fancy. It could also be the solitary reading of a book or a discussion with others. What is important is that there is interaction between the person and his or her environment. The environment... is whatever conditions interact with personal needs, desires, purposes, and capacities to create the experience which is had" An experience, then, is not an experience unless it involves interaction between the self and another person, the material world, the natural world, an idea, or whatever constitutes the environment at hand" (Dewey, in Rodgers, 2002, p. 846).

Add to this, the description of experience per Aldous Huxley, "experience is not what happens to you, it's what you do with what happens to you" (Huxley, in Kegan, 1983, p. 11). 

So I would posit that the models I have offered for reflection, IBL, and the scientific method are almost interchangeable.

The next question is, why don't we all reflect. There is ample literature and there are, as demonstrated, numerous models and ways of engaging in reflection available to us. As discussed during class, the barriers to reflection in professional practice are many. Our group came up with:

1. Time

2. Organizational culture

3. Ignorance / education ... among others... (I've lost the notes we took... grrr). 

I'd like to focus on the second point since the first and last are both easy to understand and to overcome - if - point 2 is addressed.

"Working in bureaucratic settings has taught everyone to be compliant, to be rule governed, not to ask questions, seek alternatives or deal with competing values. People are supposed to follow orders from those at the top. Working to create more professional cultures in schools, however, calls upon people to engage in discussion to seek a collective vision and the practical means to achieve it. Instead of one leader and many followers, a leader ... works to facilitate leadership and encourage it among entire staff ... Developers, like others in the educational establishment, must define their success not by becoming yet another group of specialists, but rather by engaging in the building of a culture of inquiry and improved learning environments for students and teachers.' (Lieberman, 1989).

True, purposeful, and systemic reflexive practice cannot occur without the establishment of an organizational culture that supports collegiality (Handal, 1990). This to me equates with a model of shared leadership (Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, Csikszentmihalyi, 1998) which, when successful, leads to shared cognition, creativity, and flow. In an organization where shared leadership exists, I believe that the barriers of time and ignorance would be quickly overcome. In an educational context, time would be allotted for teacher-leaders, for the shared experiences of critical friends, and for true collaboration in a framework where decisions are truly synergistic. The barrier of ignorance would be slowly broken down as the organization transforms itself from (most likely) principal-centric hierarchy to one that is shared.

And that's my two cents!

Pure education or a vehicle for ideological propaganda??

How does the educator stay true to the needs of the learner (desired learning outcomes) in a culture of often conflicting educational priorities (politics, institutional purposes, personal bias)?


The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence. 
-- Amos Bronson Alcott

Motivation as a key factor for success?

Formerly a vocational trainer (1980s-90s) my experience taught me that adult learning success (in this field) was dependent upon individual motivation to learn which was often a result of organizational support, ongoing coaching / leadership, and overt organizational adherence to learning goals / cultural or organizational change.

Having just watched Paolo Freire's last recorded interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFWjnkFypFA), I was left pondering the nature of people and how their self-perception and positions in society, or in their particular lifeworld or circumstance affect their approach or their ideas towards learning. 

The comment that I made in the first paragraph applies not only to adults, but also to children and I now understand, or suspect, that the motivation of which I wrote is directly dependent upon the individual learner's self-perception. This self-perception is necessarily affected by the individual's context "a person's history, future, and surrounding social institutions and structures" (Course reading: Merriam, 2004, p.204). This is echoed by Spear and Mocker's model (1988, in Merriam) "that takes into account opportunities for learning found in one's environment, past or new knowledge, and chance occurrences", defined as the "organizing circumstance". (Spear and Mocker 1984). 

Therefore, while I have been arguing (exhaustively!) for the argument that all that matters is motivation - it appears that motivation itself is a symptom of a greater issue. Freire, in the conversation referenced above, talks about tolerance as a duty of the person who desires to learn. It is, according to Freire, the practice of tolerance that allows one to learn different things from different people. In addition, he describes himself as once a curious boy and later a curious man. Curiosity is indeed a prerequisite to learning, in my humble opinion... Curiosity in fact would appear to be intrinsically linked to motivation as without it, why would one wish to learn? And without tolerance, how could one hope to learn?



The question remains however, how do we influence the tolerance and motivation of our students (adult or child) when there are so many factors outside the control of the teacher which influence, positively or negatively, their ability (desire, motivation, readiness, history, sociocultural situation, etc.) to learn? 

If I take a step back to consider not the individual learner, but the institution in which learning takes place; whether it be an elementary school, a university, or an adult vocational training centre; my thoughts return to the impact of the institution on the willingness, motivation, and ability of the learner to learn. Layered on top of the effects of individual context is the context of the institution itself, its leadership structure, and the extent to which its employees adhere to that culture. There are a myriad theories of leadership, all of which enjoy greater or lesser success depending upon the ability of those practising it to disseminate its message - and once again - to MOTIVATE its employees. The power exerted by leaders of such institutions can be EMpowering or crippling. According to Owen and Demb (Change Dynamics and Leadership in Technology Implementation, Journal of Higher Education, 75, 6, 2004) leadership needs to be shared and non-hierarchical. Perpetual learning needs to exist in a culture of champions and risk-takers who focus on changing the focus of education from one of product to process. In doing so, the ownership of power moves from the heads of the institution to the teachers and eventually to the students. Students who have the privilege of taking control of their own learning could be students who direct that learning in ways that are more meaningful, more motivating, and more applicable to their needs and their circumstances.

“Our postmodern society requires shared leadership informed by dynamic models through which to inform the process of educational renewal” 

(Davis 2006, p.254).

Too much, and probably without really paying attention to it, our educational institutions remain steeped in the ideals generated during the Industrial Revolution wherein education was a vehicle for developing economic power through the training and indoctrination of the proletariat, or the working class (Hodgkinson, 1991). It is this legacy that keeps classrooms teacher-centric and, as stated by Mezirow "the very definiton of education itself is almost universally understood in terms of an organized effort to facilitate behavioural change".  

He goes on to state later however that "education becomes indoctrination only when the educator tries to influence a specific action as an extension of his will, or perhaps when he blindly helps a learner blindly follow the dictates of an unexamined set of cultural assumptions about who he is and the nature of his relationships. To show someone a new set of rules, tactics, and criteria for judging which clarify the situation in which he or she must act is significantly different from trying to engineer learner consent to take the actions favoured by the educator within the new perspective. This does not suggest that the educator is value free. His selection of alternative meaning perspectives will reflect his own cultural values, including his professional ideology - for adult educators one which commits us to the concept of learner self-directedess as both the means and the end of education." I absolutely couldn't agree more with this statement and yet I see very little light at the end of this tunnel... I suspect that true educational reform will take several generations more before it is truly self-directed and generally free from power relationships that impact learner perspectives and their success.

"Substantial cultural change in an institution occurs at a glacial pace" (Change dynamics and leadership in technology implementation, Owen and Demb, 2004, p651)