The importance of and an approach to comprehensive reflective practice

Abstract

Reflective practice, the continuous process of self-evaluation and analysis of how we teach, is central to our continuous development and improvement as effective educators. Despite it pedagogic importance, an understanding of and commitment to the routine pursuit of comprehensive reflective practice can be lacking. This commentary was triggered by my recent undertaking of a graduate diploma in academic practice, run by our university in support of the ongoing professional development of its staff. With 15 years of teaching industrial biochemistry and a university award for excellence in teaching under my belt, I felt comfortable with my approach to teaching. Engagement with the program quickly divested me of my complacency and challenged me in a number of ways. The importance and benefits of comprehensive reflective practice represented one significant outcome and I believe it to be a topic worthy of increased consideration by our community of teachers. Most academics within the third level sector are expected to pursue research as well as undertake teaching and administration/service duties. In effect this makes most of us part time teachers, part time researchers, and part time administrators. The combined and often conflicting demands of these roles can, for some, render teaching an exercise in delivering a prescribed curriculum in as time-efficient a manner as possible, leaving little space for ‘ancillary’ activities such as reflective practice. The pedagogic literature clearly illustrates reflective practice to be a central element of developing effective teaching skills. For example, the authors of a study focusing upon excellence in science teaching concluded that purposeful reflective practice constituted the ‘hub’ characteristic of excellent teachers in that it provided a means to integrate the different dimensions of and characteristics contributing to such excellence [1] Although first outlined by Dewey in the 1930s [2], the work of Schon [3] elaborated upon the concept of reflective practice in a more modern context [3]. Since that time its importance to effective teaching has been increasingly emphasized [4-8] and various categorizations of and approaches to reflective practice have been described [3, 5, 7-10] For me, and for many of my colleagues, reflective practice traditionally equated to making a note to improve or update some aspect of lecture content or delivery, with the occasional undertaking of a generalized student questionnaire. While such an approach provides genuine scope for improving effectiveness as teachers, it remains somewhat limited, particularly in light of the pedagogic literature pertaining to this field. The substantive nature of this body of literature, the various categorizations and approaches proposed and, for some, the purist pedagogic language, in which some publications are couched, can render it difficult to gain a comprehensive insight of the subject area, particularly in the context of accommodating this in an already busy work schedule. Having grappled with a substantial portion of the literature I have adopted an additional, more ‘strategic’ layer of reflective practice to that described earlier, with the aim of improving my own teaching approach. The approach draws from several of the literature references already cited. I outline this approach in the hope that some may find it useful, or at least that it will trigger the reader's further interest in and engagement with this topic. The approach suggested initially entails the identification of a specific assumption, value or issue relating to current teaching practice with which the teacher is unhappy (or the identification of a potential teaching innovation the teacher wishes to explore). Examples of such issues that I have personally reflected upon include ‘should I teach more interactively, and if so, how?’, ‘how can I encourage deeper student learning’ and ‘should I better integrate my research and teaching?’). Once identified, consideration of the assumption or question to arrive at some form of conclusion or answer entails subjecting it to four different perspectives or ‘lenses’ [5] – the autobiographical or personal lens, the student lens, the colleague lens, and the literature lens. Traditionally many and perhaps most of us tend to rely almost exclusively upon the first two such lenses. Many of our often fundamental assumptions or approaches to teaching are informed by or based upon how we ourselves were taught, our own values as individuals, etc. (our ‘lay theories’), as well as by our own particular experiences as teachers. In the context of a busy and pressurized work schedule many never think to question these fundamental drivers of how we teach. Though deeply and sincerely held, many personal pedagogic beliefs and teaching philosophies may be biased or limited. Proactively making time to reflect upon a specific topic/question (the autobiographical lens) can help expose such limitations. Student feedback can be sobering sometimes but incredibly valuable reflective practice resource. Through carefully designed surveys, we can gain an insight into how students perceive our actions, if the pedagogic approaches we pursue are effective and achieving the intended effect, and so on. Moreover, the advent of internet-based survey sites such as www.surveymonkey.com renders straightforward the execution of such surveys. An alternative or perhaps a complementary approach to soliciting student feedback can be the use of the critical incident questionnaire (CIQ; [5, 11]). As outlined by Brookfield [5], the CIQ entails regularly surveying the students using the following five question: (a) at what moment in the class did you feel most engaged with what was happening? (b) at what moment did you feel most distanced? (c) what action taken by anyone (teacher or student) did you find most affirming or helpful? (d) What action taken by anyone did you feel most puzzling/confusing, (e) what surprised you most about the class? Colleagues too (particularly experienced colleagues) represent an obvious but often underutilized pedagogic resource to us as teachers. On a cautionary note, most who solicit colleague's views tend to approach colleagues within their own broad disciplinary areas. Such colleagues have likely been socialized into the discipline in a similar way to the questioner and have shared similar experiences. Inevitably therefore, many are likely to share similar assumptions and views, potentially leading to the reaffirmation of prejudices & stereotypes. Soliciting views from a mixture of colleagues from both within and outside of one's discipline, is likely a more balanced approach to generating the colleague lens. Colleagues from outside of one's own discipline can provide particularly challenging feedback for critical reflection. The peer reviewed educational literature can be a particularly useful and authoritative lens, as it is invariably based upon rigorous and systematic study, quality controlled by referees. Despite this, it is usually the least applied lens. This can be because consulting the educational literature is not part of the ‘social norm’ of the discipline [5, 12], because of time constraints upon busy academics, or because some find pedagogic discourses ‘difficult going’. However, for many of us, the advent of electronic databases such as the web of knowledge puts the pedagogic literature at our fingertips. Articles published in education journals aimed at the science ‘practitioner’ (e.g. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Journal of College Science Teaching, Journal of Chemical Education, and Microbiology Education Journal) can be particularly useful and accessible. Furthermore, consulting education review or commentary papers, or textbooks aimed at a general teaching audience (e.g. [13]) can represent an accessible and time-efficient literature lens. The adoption of a broad and multifaceted reflective approach to the analysis of almost any teaching topic should result in the identification of a balanced and comprehensive conclusion. The rigorous and systematic nature of the approach greatly increases the probability of identifying the most satisfactory or authentic end point possible. Having personally applied this approach to five issues/topics, I found my current practice or initial lay theories to be incomplete or at odds with the final conclusions I reached in three instances. For example, one such reflection was triggered by a colleague who espoused the routine consideration of general societal issues/impacts when teaching biotechnology. Although I traditionally included passing reference to societal considerations when discussing selected biotech topics (e.g. transgenics), my ‘lay theory’ saw my role as providing a purely scientific/technical education. A survey of my final year industrial biochemistry students provided the first surprise. All 16 students ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the thesis that more routine consideration of societal issues should be a standard feature of my lectures. The perspective of colleagues was more divided, with three expressing a lay theory similar to my own (interestingly all were scientists), while two other colleagues took the alternative view (interestingly both were from the humanities). My literature lens suggested that the philosophical view of education as a means of developing a more rounded character has been somewhat eroded by the growing tendency to view higher education as central to sustaining economic development. Additionally it suggested that linking academic theories or concepts with practical applications or societal consequences can elicit increased student interest and understanding. As a result of these deliberations, I have altered my own practice by incorporating increased consideration of societal impacts when discussing biotechnological innovations and these considerations can certainly prompt lively discussion within the classroom. The approach to reflective practice as described, however, is not without its own potential difficulties and limitations. The exact detail and level of systematic rigour applied to reflecting on any issue will influence how previous assumptions are challenged and in turn will influence any conclusions or implications for practice reached. Moreover, even after such rigorous and systematic analysis, a clear answer may not actually emerge or may convert a ‘black and white’ initial view into one of multiple shades of grey. For me, the trick is not to be paralyzed by indecision as a result. It is important too that any practice-based innovations introduced on foot of the reflection process should be evaluated to ensure the intended effect is being achieved, without unintended negative consequences. For many, finding sufficient time to undertake this approach may prove dissuasive. However, the potential benefits to both students and lecturer can be very significant indeed. Pragmatically, the full approach could be reserved only for particularly fundamental or significant issues. Moreover, the approach can be less time consuming that one might first imagine. Electronic student surveys are quick and uncomplicated. In some instances it may be appropriate to solicit student opinion as part of a standard class (even by a simple show of hands for some questions). Colleague opinions can often be solicited over routine coffee breaks. Electronic database searches facilitate the identification of relevant literature within minutes and it is often sufficient to consult two to three relevant review articles (as opposed to trawling through masses of primary literature). Overall, the more I engage with the reflective process as outlined, the more I appreciate how its systematic and rigorous nature can provide comprehensive, evidence-based data on which to evaluate current practice, challenge previous assumptions and provide a platform for future innovation.