One ongoing challenge I have is around how to increase the depth of reflection on teaching practice (or indeed other professional practices) within the context of formal development programmes. Sometimes we use models of reflection to assist, including Gibbs, Johns and Greenaway’s models. However existing models, and even free flow writing, have not always yielded in-depth reflections. Based on my own experience of supporting reflection across different professional groups I have summarised three limitations of existing models of reflection.
1) A tendency to focus on iterative improvement with less emphasis on validation of practice
Models tend to steer the reflector to assess any issues that require a change in approach (plan-do-review and variations thereof); change is king. Based on experience, sometimes colleagues find that they don’t need to change but instead they can take value from affirming their practice and recognising what they do as effective or good. Affirmation and confidence in practice are as important as identifying points for change and development.
2) A limited engagement with the idea of governing variables
Reflection models can tend to encourage single loop learning as critical incidents are located and considered. I always encourage anyone reflecting to consider what is within their remit and control, and to focus their attention accordingly rather than locating issues within the practice of others, particularly when this leads to a sense of blame or the shifting of responsibility for personal practice. Nevertheless, it can be very useful for some attention to be given to the constructive consideration of challenging the status quo and the operational norm. New(-ish) practitioners can often assess the context in perceptive ways as they have not necessarily been acculturated and institutionalised. To encourage a focus on the constraints and context of practice is very different than shifting the focus of a micro reflection to others because it may be easier than examining one’s own practice. It means standing back and asking what are the things around me that I need to challenge? (challenge is key here, and the answers may not be to hand, challenge – not change). Possible areas to challenge include policy and established ways of working. Whilst senior staff may be able to act on these realisations, new lecturers (or practitioners in other fields) may be less empowered or confident to take action. However, if institutional staff development is joined up, then the issues raised through these reflections can filter through course leaders and assessors for discussion elsewhere.
3) A tendency to focus on incidents rather than wider periods of personal transformation and growth.
A third issue with existing models of reflection is that they tend to focus on an incident by incident basis i.e. take a critical incident and consider it in depth, resulting in a learning or a change. This approach can be simplistic and fail to make connections between a range of events and practice. The resulting reflection therefore tends to be overly descriptive and sometimes forced. Instead I am now encouraging a ‘compound reflection’ – to look back over a series of events or a time period and consider the resultant personal and professional growth. This is especially powerful for identifying personal learning about practice, and the recognition of evolving beliefs and values. It should also provide a chance to review meta-learning, asking what happened across this period to assist my learning? I am not convinced that this depth occurs on an incident by incident basis.
I am proposing an alternative reflection model to capture some of the points above. Essentially this encourages the focus on either an event/incident or a period of time identified by the reflector (e.g. across one term, or after a CPD programme). In the model focus is drawn to three areas, which align to the UK Professional Standards Framework Dimensions of Practice. Individuals should separately attend to their activities/practice, knowledge and values/beliefs. The actual dimensions of practice can be used to further frame thinking. For EACH of those three areas stimulating questions can be asked to encourage external or internal conversation. Affirmation, challenge and meta-reflection are all evident.
|EXPERIENCE||Single events, multiple events, or reflections on
|FOCUS||1. Knowledge||2. Activity||3. Beliefs|
|QUESTIONS (to be applied to Knowledge, Activities and Beliefs)||• Affirmation: What knowledge, practice or beliefs have been reinforced? Where is the evidence that gives me confidence? How can I share this practice?
• Question: What questions have been generated? Which should be prioritized?
• Change: What changes have I made? What is the impact?
• Research: What information do I need to move forward? Why do I need this? How might I get this?
• Challenge: What forces constrain my knowledge, practice or beliefs? Which of these can I change? Which might I alert others to? Which must I accept?
• Meta-reflection: How do I learn at my best? What role to colleagues play in my learning? How can I ensure that I keep learning? What learning routines should I maintain or change?
Of course this is an early attempt at shaping up a framework to assist reflection, so any thoughts by reply are very welcome.