Should reflective inquiry be taught?

Convery (2001) suggests that there are teachers who claim allegiance to Schön’s

reflective practice and yet remain ‘locked into limited and immediate problem solving’;

these are inflexible teachers who follow routine rather than creative practice. Indeed

there are teachers who remain in ‘reactive rather than reflective practice’ (2001: 135)

who are advocates of a practice they do not understand. New attitudes of openness,

trustworthiness and responsibility may need to be taught as Dewey (1933) suggests

alongside reflection and teachers can be encouraged to engage with themselves and with

their socio-political reality. According to Freire:

every human being, no matter how 'ignorant' or submerged in the 'culture of silence he may be, is capable of looking critically at his world in a dialogical encounter with others. Provided with the proper tools for such encounter, he can gradually perceive his personal and social reality as well as the contradictions in it, become conscious of his own perception of that reality, and deal critically with it (Freire 1990: 13).

85

Above Freire argues about the capability of all persons to critically look at their world,

but suggests that people have to be provided with the right tools to do so. The idea that

people need the right tools for reflection is supported by Russell (2005) when he says:

‘fostering reflective practice requires more than telling people to reflect and then simply

hoping for the best’ (Russell 2005: 203). He argues that reflection needs to be taught.

Loughran is more explicit and argues that reflection is ‘a meaningful way of

approaching learning about teaching so that a better understanding of teaching, and

teaching about teaching, might develop’ (2002: 33). It is clear therefore, that reflection

will need to be guided for novice teachers or trainees and be taught in all TEd

programmes in more explicit ways. However, Jay and Johnson (2002: 73) remind us that

it is difficult for novices to learn what their own trainers cannot describe. This suggests

that teacher trainers need to fully understand what reflection is before they begin to use

the techniques with their own students.

Although reflection appears to be a complex phenomenon, it is accessible and easy to

carry out if one recognizes that all humans have the ability to reflect (Freire 1990, Moon

1999, Wheatley 2006). However, Wheatley (2006) suggests that reflection is not what

most people tend to do. Here lies the problem of teacher education. The challenges of

reflecting are clearly articulated by Wheatley (2006) when she says:

It’s hard to look at modern life and see our capacities for reflection or meaning- making. We don’t use our gifts to be more aware or thoughtful. We’re driven in the opposite direction. Things move too fast for us to reflect, demanding tasks give us no time to think, and we barely notice the lack of meaning until forced to stand still by illness, tragedy, or job loss. But in spite of our hurry, we cannot stop life’s dynamic of self-reference or the human need for meaning. If we want to

86

influence any change, anywhere, we need to work with this powerful process

rather than deny its existence. (2006: 147).

The comments above may illustrate the contradictions in the practice of teaching and

teacher education. We are often too busy to reflect. However, we will reflect intuitively

when the need arises.

Akbari (2007) decries the paradox of teaching teachers that reflection is emancipatory,

yet requiring that it be carried out in the ways that are prescribed by academics and

researchers. However, reflection will may to be taught. This need for reflection to be

taught is emphasized by Ward and McCotter (2004: 255) when they say:

We have often asked our students to reflect on field experiences without ever discussing the qualities of good reflection, often with disappointing results. Students do not automatically know what we mean by reflection; often they assume reflection is an introspective after-the-fact description of teaching. Reflection, meant to make teaching and learning understandable and open, has itself been an invisible process to many of our pre-service teachers. (Ward & McCotter 2004: 255).

According to Ward and McCotter, the inability of trainee teachers to reflect comes from

an assumption that in a teacher education context, trainees will naturally know how to

reflect with little or no input from educators about reflection. The structures and rigours

which are demanded for qualitative reflections, will need to be taught more explicitly.

To enhance the use of reflection in teacher development, new ways may need to be

identified for peculiar contexts. In the following sub-sections I discuss briefly about

some of the important processes, which can be used in developing reflection in teacher

87 3.4.2. Experiential learning

According to Dewey, education ‘must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of

experience (…) the process and goal of education are one and the same thing’ (Dewey

1897: 79). This perception of the importance of experience in reflection and educational

practice by Dewey informs Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning which he

defines as: ‘the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of

experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming

experience.’ (Kolb 1984: 41) Kolb’s experiential learning theory emphasizes ‘the central

role that experience plays in the learning process, an emphasis that distinguishes

experiential learning theory from other learning theory’ (Kolb et al 2001: 227). It is built

on six suppositions:

1. Learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes

2. All learning is relearning.

3. Learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed

modes of adaptation to the world.

4. Learning is a holistic process of adaptation to the world.

5. Learning results from synergetic transactions between the person and the

environment.

6. Learning is the process of creating knowledge (Kolb and Kolb 2005: 193).

Kolb’s ideas about learning are not in opposition to AR or RP and are, rather,

complimentary because they view learning as a social transaction that is contextual,

dialectical and, a process of knowledge creation. Ultimately, experiential learning theory

like AR and RP all come from the same conceptual framework traceable to Plato,

Aristotle, and Confucius and in recent times, Dewey. To further explain his theory, Kolb

88

integrated with learning through reflection. It is essentially a process of reflecting on

action through different cycles as Figure 5 shows. However, I adapted this model

following Wright and Bolitho (2007: 33) to clearly show that it represents a process of

reflective inquiry.

Figure 3 Adaptation of Kolb’s Experiential Cycle

When a diagonal line is drawn across Figure 3 from top to bottom; separating active

experimentation and concrete experience from abstract conceptualization and reflective

observation, it splits Kolb’s Cycle of Experiential Learning into thought and action,

thereby illustrating how the two are inseparable (Dewey 1933) but significant in

practice. Kolb’s cycle can be used in TEd programmes to generate discussions about

reflection, including what might be considered as starting points: theory or practice. It

also shows the interconnection between theory and practice and the possibilities for

THOUGHT

89

reflective thinking, reflective practice and critical reflection. The experiential cycle is

also useful for explaining learning processes to teachers who overlook the importance of

learning process in classrooms because they are more used to content-led approaches to

teaching. In addition Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning can be used to explore and

challenge teachers’ personal theories, beliefs and assumptions. Thus an understanding of

teacher cognition is important.