Reflecting on my Developing Teaching Practice

Reflecting on my Developing Teaching Practice

‘Reflecting’ following the Oxford Dictionary (2006) is defined in the general sense to mean “serious thought or consideration.” Interestingly the word ‘reflecting’ derives from the Latin word “reflectere” which means to “bend back. However ‘reflecting’ in the teaching context is thought to go beyond mere ‘serious thought or consideration’. In fact, the concept of ‘reflective teaching’ is said to stem from Dewey (1933) who contrasted ‘routine action’ with ‘reflective action’. Dewey’s model will be examined below in this essay but is also instructive at this point as it defines ‘reflecting’ in the teaching context to cover a “willingness to engage in constant self-appraisal and development…..(implying) flexibility, rigorous analysis and social awareness” – Pollard (2008). Taking a combination of both the Latin definition of ‘bend back’ and Dewey’s ‘self-appraisal’ and ‘flexibility’, I have found that reflection is indeed a powerful tool to ‘bend’ and shape my developing teaching practice, especially as a new entrant to the Post Compulsory/Further Education (‘FE’) sector. Further this essay flows well from the previous work on ‘values in education’ because as stated in the previous essay, values can be clouded by subjectivity and personal bias. It is therefore important to constantly reflect on my teaching practice so as not to unconsciously hinder the attainment of my learners.

In order to effectively ‘reflect’ however, it is necessary to frame my self-appraisal and analysis by reference to models of reflection for teaching and learning. As this essay is constrained by a word count, it will only be possible to refer to a few models, and therefore this essay acknowledges its limitations. The reflective models referred to will include Brookfield’s (1990) 3 stage reflective process and his ‘Four Lenses’ work (1995), Dewey’s (1933) ‘Reflective Practice’; Schon’s (1983) ‘Reflection-in Action’ and Mezirow’s (1990) theory of ‘Transformative Learning’ using critical reflection. This essay will attempt to explain these models and apply them to illustrate their role in my developing teaching practice. This essay will then attempt to evaluate/criticise some of these theories and finally conclude with how to embed a reflective culture in teaching practice.

The model suggested by Brookfield (1995) is ‘the 4 lenses’ approach whereby teachers view their teaching practice through 4 separate yet interconnecting perspectives. The first lens according to Brookfield (1995) is said to be provided by “autobiographical reflection” (ie. the teacher’s personal experiences both as a teacher and as a learner them self); secondly, reflection is said to be possible from “our student’s eyes”; thirdly from the view of our colleagues, peers or critical friend and finally the fourth lens encourages reflection through the “lens of literature” where one reads to locate alternative theoretical frameworks to challenge and self-evaluate one’s own teaching practice.

Indeed even as a new entrant to the FE sector I have found myself already consciously and unconsciously reflecting on my teaching practice through all these 4 lenses; sometimes several lenses at the same time. There is the conscious process of self-evaluation and reflection when I complete my ‘Reflective Logs’ and there has been the ‘unconscious’ reflection and consequent ‘bending’/transformation/development as I challenge my own pre-existing assumptions of teaching and learning through the eyes of peers and students.

One development as a result of reflection has been my personal shift in acknowledging the equal importance of all 4 areas of feedback for reflection. Before beginning the PGCE and my teaching practice, I placed my own autobiographical reflection and reflections from distinguished literature as superior to reflections through the lens of ‘peers’ and ‘students’. Now, after only a few weeks of teaching practice, I feel the constructive feedback from my placement mentor is rapidly shaping my reflections and in turn developing my teaching practice and even my general personality. For example my mentor has taught me the value of planning clear lesson aims and objectives and the need for stretching and challenging learning. Equally important as mentioned by Brookfield (1995) is the view of my peers. Micro teach sessions and in class presentations followed by peer evaluation have been invaluable in rapidly shaping my reflections on my teaching practice. I have learnt for example the importance of adjusting teaching/delivery ‘on my feet’ to meet the needs of the audience and not merely presenting concepts/ideas as ‘pre-planned.’ My peers on the PGCE course have also allowed me an opportunity to share good practice and to learn from them in a non-intimidating supportive environment. Discussions with peers about our varied teaching placements and different experiences on the course have also formed the basis for reflections on developing my teaching practice.

Equally, reflections through the lens of my students have been shaping my teaching practice. I am aware now for example that just because a learner says he/she understands does not necessarily mean that he/she actually does and that I should always apply independent learning checks to assess a student’s learning. I now also look to feedback on whether the students are learning ‘through their lens’ in the form of their ‘silence’ or gestures or eye contact (or the lack of it). Further when reflecting on preparing resources for my students I now try to look through their lenses and try to engage them with topics that I believe would interest them as well as stretch them.

Perhaps the method that I have already been using for many years now, although not with a formal label, is the ‘autobiographical lens’. As Brookfield (1995) states, this lens stems from my personal experiences as a student and a teacher. For example when dealing with students now, I try to be the teacher I most admired in the past. Therefore when reflecting on my teaching practice I try to see how I could model myself after this role model. The positive impact of role modelling on learning is seen in research by Erkut (1984) where students look to find models that motivate and encourage them as they seek to actualise their goals – Goldstein (1934). My past experience is therefore informing and shaping my teaching practice now as I am aware how students will be looking to me perhaps unconsciously to act as their role models.

Increasingly too, I am confirming the importance of reflection through the ‘lens of literature’ in shaping my reflections and in turn developing my teaching practice. Petty’s work entitled ‘Teaching Today’ (2009) for example, has been a useful ‘lens’ through which to form my reflections on my teaching practice. Equally for example, my teaching practice is being shaped by reflections on literature on the ‘humanist’ theory of learning where proponents like Maslow (1967) and Rogers (1969) state that people (or learners in this context) perform best (‘self-actualisation’) when their ‘basic needs’ for self-worth and dignity are first met. This has been important for me in my reflections to affirm why I am teaching in the first place – reminding myself always to value leaners as individuals with these needs.

Brookfield’s (1995) ‘four lenses’ work does however raise criticisms. In fact Brookfield himself identifies several ‘risks’ in applying his four lenses approach and it is important to contend with these criticisms as I try to apply his approach and navigate through real life teaching practice. One such criticism of his approach is the fact that his work assumes that acknowledging one’s weaknesses openly to peers is a positive exercise. This is not always the case as studies by Brems (1994) have pointed out that teachers who had admitted to struggling or who asked for support were likely to be viewed as less competent. In fact Brems (1994) points out that students mistrust a teacher who openly admits they are ‘unsure’ about a point. Another possible downside of Brookfield’s model is that it supposes that management, peers and the establishment actually want a teacher questioning the order of things. In reality following Miller (1990) these teachers who become critically reflective risk being isolated and are often seen as ‘troublemakers’. Indeed as soon as I arrived in my current teaching placement I was made aware of the ‘politics’ and ‘culture’ of the place and well-meaning teachers were gently implying how much and what support was ‘acceptable’ for me to ask for and what was not. I was also quickly briefed about the ‘politics’ of the place and ‘who to avoid’. Likewise reflecting through the lenses of students, literature and my own ‘autobiographical’ lens are all fraught with possible elements of subjective and negative bias. In fact my autobiographical lens has the potential to distort my reflective process more than any of the other 3 lenses because it will be based on underlying long held beliefs and assumptions – not all of which are necessarily based on sound reasoning (challenging assumptions will be dealt with below)

Perhaps in light of all these criticisms, what I have to do to navigate through all these obstacles safely is to use the ‘critical friend’ ( Petty, 2009) and not air my need for support so quickly to everyone. Likewise I need to ensure that my reflective processes frame any feedback even from the critical friend, in a positive manner so that even negative or destructive feedback or events ultimately develop my teaching practice positively.

Indeed Brookfield (1990) in an earlier piece of work and Mezirow (1978), explain that effective critical reflection should involve 3 stages. The first stage is to identify assumptions (eg. taken for granted ideas), the second stage is to evaluate and scrutinize the validity of these assumptions and the third stage is to transform any ‘new’ learning resulting from the earlier evaluation to become inclusive and positively develop our future practices. I analyse stage 1 and 2 below –ie. identifying and dealing with ‘assumptions’ but for now will illustrate Stage 3 – ie. transforming even ‘unpleasant’ experiences into positive new learning. For example, I was recently with no prior notice, expected to ‘cover’ for a teacher who did not turn up at my placement College. I was nervous and unprepared but upon reflection can see how it has taught me ‘think on my feet’ in the classroom and also taught me to ensure that I always have ‘backup resources’ of a general nature that I can use for any ‘filler’ classes that I need to do in the future.

As pointed out above, ‘theory’ and literature have limitations and on their own cannot fully prepare one for actual teaching in practice. Hence as stated above, there is the need to reflect from several different perspectives or lenses. This leads me to discuss another model of reflection for teaching and learning (stated earlier in the ‘Introduction’ of this essay) which is Dewey’s model of ‘reflective action’. As stated above, Dewey (1933), contrasted ‘reflective action’ with ‘routine action’. According to Dewey, ‘routine action’ was a result of “tradition, habit, authority and institutional definitions” – Pollard (2008). Dewey therefore felt that routine action was “unresponsive to changing priorities and circumstances”- Pollard (2008). On the other hand, as stated in the opening paragraph of this essay, ‘reflective action’ showed a willingness to engage in constant self-appraisal and development…..(implying) flexibility, rigorous analysis and social awareness” – Pollard (2008). Dewey’s model of ‘reflective action’ is further developed by other writers like Brookfield (1990) as we saw above in his 3 stage critical reflection model and Schon (1983) in his ‘Reflection in-Action’ model. Brookfield (1990) in his model explains how to conduct reflective action for example by challenging long held assumptions. Schon (1983) also underlines how important it is to challenge underlying assumptions like ‘technical rationality’ (which will be explained below) but goes further to describe the practitioner as becoming a “researcher” in his own right and encourages the practitioner to ‘create’ new knowledge or theories based on his reflections while carrying out tasks.

In developing Dewey’s model of ‘reflective action’, Schon (1983) and other writers like Pollard (2008) all emphasise that the practitioner (teacher) is competent in creating new theory when reflecting on his own practice. Indeed Schon (1983) believes that the traditional view that reflection can only occur after a practitioner has mastered some superior ‘scientific or technical knowledge’ is flawed. Schon and the other writers believe that ‘new knowledge’ can come whilst performing a task as much as before or reflecting after the task. Indeed Schon is quite abrasive when he describes practitioners who believe that they are already ‘experts’ and ‘have nothing to learn from practice’ saying that they have become in fact experts at “selective inattention.”

Applying Brookfield (1990) and Schon’s model of reflection about challenging long held assumptions on my own teaching and learning has been interesting. For example, one large obstacle I faced when initially entering the FE sector was my view on the ‘superiority of knowledge’. I believed that emphasising ‘knowledge’ in teaching was more important than anything else. This ‘superiority of knowledge’ assumption is described by Schein (1973) as a belief in the superiority of “an underlying discipline or basic science upon which practice rests upon, rather than belief in the ‘skills or experiential know how that comes from practise itself”. Perhaps my reason for believing that teaching should focus only on imparting knowledge, was because my own ‘autobiographical experiences’ at university lectures seemed to show that universities were emphasising knowledge rather than skills, needs or anything else. This ‘distortion’ in my misplaced belief system as to the nature and use of knowledge is nothing new, according to Kitchener and King (1994), as universities and the professions continue to ascribe to the ‘superiority of knowledge’ approach.

I was therefore surprised that FE teaching emphasised on so many other aspects and less on imparting ‘knowledge’ to students. In the short time I have been doing my teaching practice I have quickly realised that learners are to be encouraged to do independent learning and gain ‘new knowledge’ largely by themselves- Petty (2009). My role as a teacher, according to Rogers (1969) is to facilitate this learning by teaching the learners among other things, the skills of thinking and evaluation –Petty (2009.). Although initially reticent to accept that FE learners learnt best when emphasising less on imparting ‘subject knowledge’, I feel I am slowly changing my view on the ‘superiority of knowledge’. I still do however believe that acquiring theory or knowledge is important for learning but perhaps now see the learner more in line with Roger’s (1969) and Maslow’s (1967) humanist ‘lens’ as a ‘whole person’ with skills and needs. A reference to Bloom’s Taxonomy (1984) is instructive in placing knowledge and reflection in the right sequence (ie. knowledge at a lower level and reflection at a higher level) in order for learning to take place.

Another area where I have had to challenge my long held but misguided beliefs and assumptions is in the area of assessment. School and university for me always emphasised summative rather than formative assessment (Petty, 2009). However I have begun to realise from my instruction during the PGCE course and from my own teaching practice that formative assessment does indeed appear to be more powerful in producing and evidencing learning. In fact I now view many forms of summative assessment as being counterproductive. I was in fact quite ignorant at the start of the course and start of my placement about the benefits of formative assessment. Following instruction on the course and my personal research, I was especially drawn to Black and Williams (2009) research findings that said that ‘grading degraded learning’. Indeed I could see the validity of this from my own personal experience as a student - I remember how I would always focus on the grade when I got back any work from my teacher and not on comments for improvement. Equally valuable is evidence based research on the benefits of peer and self-assessment–(Petty 2009).

Interestingly Schon (1983) does criticise his ‘Reflection-in Action’ model by saying that sometimes deliberate reflection in the midst of action can actually hinder progress and may in fact lead to a type of ‘paralysis of action’. Schon even admits that at times, in rare emergency situations, reflection might actually be time consuming and therefore dangerous. Overall though he counters it by saying that even apparent intuitive action is still nevertheless a result of ‘reflection in action’. Indeed I agree that to deliberately pause and think in mid-flow of a lesson can be disruptive although I feel I already practise ‘reflection in action’- thinking ‘on my feet’ in the classroom as I continuously reflect during my lesson how to meet different needs and situations that arise during a lesson.

A final model of reflection that will be referred to in this work is that of Mezirow’s (1990) theory on transformative learning. According to Mezirow, effective reflection leads to learning. He defines learning as “the process of making a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of an experience”. This theory therefore states that learning occurs when there is a deep change of negative assumptions/habits/feelings and a focus on a positive reference point. The need to challenge negative assumptions and habits have already been referred to above. Indeed as illustrated above, I have been reflecting and challenging my ‘negative assumptions’ to develop my teaching practice. Also in line with Mezirow’s requirement of focus on a positive reference point to promote reflection, I have tried to focus on sound evidence based research (eg. in the area of assessments).

In conclusion, in order to become and remain an even more effective reflective teacher, I believe I have to embed a culture of reflection into my teaching practice. Brookfield (1995) alludes to this ‘culture of reflection’ where he states that institutions for learning should encourage ‘Talking Teaching’ sessions where teachers can share good practice and ask for support without feeling embarrassed or marginalised. He also believes that appropriate training and information on how to effectively reflect as well as updating teachers on the benefits of reflective teaching should be pursued by all educational institutions. I will therefore endeavour to find appropriate forums and take part in continuous training to share good practice as well as improve my reflective skills.

(3004 words)

______________________________________________________________

Bibliography

Oxford Dictionary 3^rd Edition (Oxford University Press, 2006)

Dewey, ‘How We think’ (New York: D.C. Heath and Company, 1933)

Pollard, ‘Reflective Teaching’ (Continuum Publishing, 2008)

Brookfield, ‘Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood’ (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco,1990)

Brookfield, ‘Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher’ (Jossey-Bass Publishers, CA, 1995)

Schon, ‘The Reflective Practitioner’ (Maurice Temple Smith Ltd, 1983)

Mezirow ‘How Critical reflection triggers transformative learning’ (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1990)

Erkut, ‘Professors as models and mentors for college students’ (American Educational Research Journal 21, 1984)

Goldstein, ‘The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man’  (New York: Zone Books 1934)

Petty, ‘Teaching Today’, 4^th Edition (Nelson Thornes, 2009)

Maslow, ‘Self Actualisation and Beyond’ in Challenges of Humanisitc Psychology (McGraw Hill, 1967)

Rogers, ‘Freedom to Learn; Studies of the Person’ (Charles Merrill, 1969)

Brems, ‘The imposter syndrome as related to teaching evaluations’ (Journal of Higher Education, 1994)

Miller, ‘Creating spaces and Finding voices’ (State University of New York Press, 1990)

Schein, ‘Professional Education’ (McGraw Hill New York, 1973)

King & Kitchener, ‘Developing Reflective Judgment’. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994)

Bloom, ‘Taxonomy of Educational Objectives’ (Addison Wesley,1984)

Black and Williams, ‘Assessment for Learning’ (IOE Press, 2009)