Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Critical reflection
In the previous sections of this chapter I have indicated that many authors (Beaty, 1998; Clegg, Tan & Saeidi, 2002; Harrison, Lawson & Wortley, 2005; Loughran, 2002; Quinn, 2003; Savaya & Gardner, 2012) agree on the centrality of reflection in the professional development. Related to this I have found that reflection and critical reflection are intensely used and studied concepts. A plethora of frameworks appear to co-exist with lack of a consensual and precise definition of these concepts. What is not clear is the direction of the causality within connection. Still within such a profusion of studies, it is possible to identify common themes and issues that surround the field. Literature shows that the main studies within the field of reflection are related to issues such as the definition of critical reflection as confronted with reflection (Ash & Clayton, 2009; Brookfiled, 2009; Fook et al., 2006), conditions for reflection (Calderhead & Gates, 1993; Houston & Clift, 1990; Moon, 1999; Van Halen-Faber, 1997), tools to promote reflection (Brookfield, 1995; Crow & Smith, 2005 Glazer, Abott & Harris, 2004; Moon, 1999; Walkington et al., 2001), and critical reflection as connected to non-rational processes (Boud et al., 1985,1996; Clarke, James & Kelly, 1996;Houston & Clift, 1990; Korthagen, 1993; Leitch, 2006; Moon, 1999; Valli, 1993; Van Woerkom, 2010).
In this section I do not mean to do a thorough review of all these themes. Hence I focus on those aspects that have a bearing on my research questions. Accordingly, I first take a glance at the issue of definition, which is necessary to promote shared understanding (Evans, 2002). Afterwards I will take a look at tools to promote critical reflection. This option is guided by the research question on how can I (we) encourage critical reflection in HEIs.
Finally I will concentrate on literature about the link between reflection and the whole-brain. The rationale for this decision is the intention to conceive a model of Learning Styles Flexible Reflection (LSFR).
Reflection and critical reflection
The field of education has witnessed a growing interest in the concepts of reflection and critical reflection. Such interest is confirmed by the existence of specific journals dealing with these issues. These two processes are largely acknowledged to be essential elements of professional learning. Still researchers are far from unanimous about their definition as diverse authors come with their own proposals grounded in their different backgrounds and points of view. Nevertheless, most scholars recognise its roots as linked to Dewey and Schön. For Dewey (1910) reflective thought involves not simply a sequence but a consequence of mutually supportive ideas. It consists of a set of facts, study, scrutiny and revision of evidence, working out the implications of various hypotheses and the comparing of theoretical results. Thus, for him, reflection consists of an active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends (Dewey, 1910:6).
Dewey states that in our daily activities we face situations that require routine procedures and others that, being unexpected, elicit a state of doubt. In response to the surprise, we may engage in the process of reflection, turning the experience in the head in order to identify and recognise facts that will solve the problem behind such perplexity. The occurrence of reflection is associated with three lecturer attitudes: open-mindedness, responsibility and wholeheartedness. Open-mindedness allows the lecturer to be tuned to different sources of information; responsibility means considering the consequences of theactions while wholeheartedness is implied in the commitment with the decision the lecturer takes (Walkington et al., 2001).
Schön (1983) criticises the technical rationality model. He advances reflection as the new epistemology of professional practice. He points out that, within the professional practice, when something does not go according to expectations and there are surprises, we respond through reflection-in-action, which involves operations such as restructuring of the relevant understanding, reframing of the problem and the development of a new manner of performing. It occurs when the professional reflects on practice while he/she is in the midst of it (Schön, 1983). Thus reflection stresses the need to foster the lecturer‟s experimental attitude toward practice; and it highlights his/her creativity and holistic functioning in the context (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1991).
CHAPTER 1: Orientation to the Study
1.1 Statement of the innovative idea informed by my academic context
1.2 My practice as informed by educational values
1.3 Mozambican context and its higher education
1.3.1 Geography and demography of Mozambique
1.3.2 Higher education sub-system in Mozambique
1.3.3 Mozambican HE as shaped by globalisation, internationalisation and massification
1.3.3.1 Globalisation
1.3.3.2 Internationalisation
1.3.3.3 Massification
1.4 Rationale
1.5 Research questions
1.6 Limitations of the study
1.7 Research design
1.8 Research sites
1.9 Explanation of concepts
1.10 Chapter demarcation
CHAPTER 2: Theoretical Framework
2.1 Introduction
2.2 My idiosyncratic model of professional development
2.3 Professional development
2.3.1 Contemporary discourses in professional development
2.3.2 Models of professional development
2.4 Professional development as informed by learning theories
2.4.1 Constructivist theories of learning
2.4.2 Situated learning
2.4.3 Transformative learning theory
2.4.4 Andragogy – the adult learning theory
2.4.5 Adult collaborative learning
2.4.6 Professional development as experiential learning
2.4.7 Professional development as self-regulated learning
2.5 Peer mentoring
2.6 The whole-brain model
2.6.1 The four quadrant dominances
2.6.2 Learning Style Flexibility
2.6.3 Research related to the whole brain model
2.7 Multiple intelligences
2.8 Critical reflection
2.8.1 Reflection and critical reflection
2.8.2 Towards a model of critical reflection
2.8.3 Tools for reflection
2.8.4 Reflection and (or within) the whole-brain model
2.9 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: Action Research Design
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research paradigm
3.3 Action research
3.3.1 Types of action research
3.3.2 Matching action research and LSF
3.4 Mixed-methods approach
3.5 Research sites
3.6 Sampling
3.6.1 Senior lecturers and lecturers occupying management positions
3.6.2 Lecturers for questionnaires
3.6.3 Lecturers participating in learningshops
3.7 Case studies
3.8 Data collection techniques
3.8.1 Semi-structured interviews
3.8.2 Audio and video-recording
3.8.2.1 Video-recording
3.8.2.2 Audio-recording
3.8.2.3 Photographs
3.8.3 Questionnaire on innovative practice
3.8.4 Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument
3.8.5 Personal journal
3.9 Data analysis
3.10 Triangulatio
3.11 Validity and reliability
3.12 Ethical considerations
3.13 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: Findings from empirical Study
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and implications
CHAPTER 6: Meta-reflection on the Action Research Process
