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)