Chapter 4, titled "Introduction: Reflective Practice in Transition," delves into the concept of reflective practice in the context of teaching and teacher education. The author discusses various tools for professional development, including reflective practice, action research, evidence-based practice, and participatory research, but argues that these tools are insufficient. The chapter explores the dominant model of reflective teaching, its limitations, and the need for teachers to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
The author identifies social trends, theories, and practices that shape the understanding of reflective practice. They discuss criticisms of reflective practice to determine what is helpful and unhelpful about it. They argue that for teachers to critically examine their work and address structural inequalities in education, they need a background in educational theory and a platform to voice their experiences. The chapter emphasizes that teachers need both knowledge and a voice but are constrained by the conditions in which they work.
In Section 4.1 the author presents two critiques of reflective teaching by Smyth and Parker, suggesting ways to reform reflective practice. They argue that these critiques have been largely overlooked because they use language that is alien to reflective practice advocates. The chapter discusses the role of critical reflection and critical pedagogy in addressing these gaps but acknowledges the challenges in linking theory and practice for classroom teachers, particularly in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Despite criticisms, the author finds reflective practice, particularly Brookfield's model of four lenses on practice, valuable in teacher education. This model encourages teachers to gather data from their autobiographical recollections, students, colleagues, and literature to challenge assumptions, power dynamics, and hegemony in teaching. However, the author questions the impact of these models due to systemic constraints on teacher autonomy.
The chapter concludes by proposing forms of ongoing teacher education that go beyond focusing solely on classroom practice and suggest collapsing the distinctions between theory, practice, and research. This approach aims to make teachers and students more active participants in collective knowledge construction.
In summary, Chapter 4 explores the limitations of reflective practice in teacher education, critiques its current application, and offers suggestions for more effective models that bridge theory and practice while addressing broader educational and social goals.
Section 4.2 discusses John Smyth's perspective on reflective practice, particularly its political implications within the context of capitalism. Smyth's paper, "Teachers' work and the politics of reflection: Or, reflections on a growth industry" presented in 1991 and later published in 1992, is examined. Smyth highlights the emergence of reflective practice in the 1980s during a period of New Right ideologies promoting free-market capitalism.
Smyth argues that reflective practice has grown within a context of political rhetoric that emphasizes devolution, autonomy, and local management in schools. He points out the use of this rhetoric in describing teachers as autonomous, empowered, collaborative, and reflective. However, Smyth questions the depth of these claims and their alignment with the actual experiences of teachers.
Smyth suggests that there has been a sudden enthusiasm for reflective approaches in teacher education, even though the concept of reflective action has existed for much longer. He avoids defining what reflective teaching "actually" is and acknowledges the post-structural view that it may exist only within rhetoric and texts.
Smyth doesn't accuse reflective practitioners of being knowingly or unknowingly complicit in a grand plan. Instead, he frames his discussion within the context of macroeconomic trends, capitalism, and the role of the state. However, he raises the issue of teachers inadvertently contributing to the perpetuation of societal patterns they might want to oppose.
Smyth contends that reflective practice, rather than being emancipatory for teachers, can entrap them within the New Right ideology of radical interventionalism. Reflective teaching, according to Smyth, becomes a way for educators to focus on predetermined ends rather than actively contest and debate the nature of those ends.
The text discusses how Smyth's work is relatively unnoticed in the reflective practice literature, and the reasons for this silence are explored. The section ends with a presentation of four critical questions proposed by Smyth, which teachers can use to critically analyze and potentially change the forces that inhibit and constrain them.
Smyth's work is seen as a valuable contribution to the understanding of reflective practice's political dimensions and its impact on teaching within capitalist societies. His critical questions encourage educators to consider the broader implications of their actions and practices in the classroom.
Section 4.3 discusses Stephen Parker's critique of reflective teaching in his text "Reflective Teaching in the Postmodern World." Parker argues that reflective teaching perpetuates modernist assumptions. The section explains that Parker's writing is complex and challenging, which might explain its lack of popularity in the reflective teaching literature. Parker identifies the philosophical positions underlying reflective practice, which oppose technical rationalism and emphasize personal autonomy, emancipatory concerns, and reason. He uses deconstructive methods to show how these positions reinforce realism as a metaphysical thesis, and he critiques realism as a foundation for reflective teaching.
Parker's critique focuses on the unrealistic and abstract nature of the reflective teacher portrayed in the literature. He emphasizes the postmodern nature of reflective teaching, describing a postmodern person as having multiple selves and living in a world where all truths are created and contingent. The section points out that Parker's critique does not engage with current practices in reflective teaching, yet it highlights the need for transformation. Parker calls for teachers to become deconstructive in their readings of educational texts, repudiate bureaucratic imperatives, embrace literary enterprise, and engage in creative literary writing. He suggests that teachers should use theory as non-convergent literary offerings, embrace educational pluralities, and participate in the creation of educational values and ends.
The text acknowledges that Parker's writing is not easily accessible, and teachers may find it challenging, but it also recognizes the significance of his critique. Parker's ideas are not well-integrated into the reflective teaching literature, which mainly focuses on personal, practical experiences of teachers. However, the section emphasizes that Parker's substantive critique of reflective teaching should not be ignored.
In Section 4.4, the author discusses their experiences teaching post-graduate teachers in a course called TL811. The author first provides some context about the course and its participants, who come from diverse backgrounds and locations. The course uses an interactive teaching site on the Internet to facilitate communication and discussions among participants.
The author highlights their role in fostering an environment for teachers to engage in reflective practice. The participants are encouraged to explore their own teaching experiences, beliefs, and assumptions, allowing them to critique their practice. The author discusses the challenges they face in helping teachers overcome their fears of sharing and reflecting on their teaching experiences.
The author employs various models and theories of reflective practice in the course, including Brookfield's four lenses, but also points out the limitations of these models, particularly their focus on individualistic reflection. Smyth's critique of reflective practice is introduced, focusing on four main problems: the assumption that reflection is essential, the lack of clear meaning for the term "reflective practice," its emphasis on individualism, and the risk of constrained pragmatism. The author acknowledges that these problems can be particularly relevant in the context of teaching and teacher education.
The section concludes with the author expressing their concern about the structural constraints and workload that teachers face, which can make it challenging for them to engage in deep, critical reflection. They argue that more collective and creative strategies are needed to address these structural issues effectively.
The text discusses patterns observed in teaching and teacher learning, primarily focusing on the tensions between three key elements: (1) common sense and community-based knowledge, (2) authoritative knowledge from experts, and (3) the skepticism that knowledge is complex, unstable, and collectively constructed.
The author highlights the three conceptions of teacher learning as proposed by Cochran-Smith and Lytle: knowledge-for-practice, knowledge-in-practice, and knowledge-of-practice. These conceptions offer different perspectives on the role of knowledge in teaching, but they coexist and intermingle. The author presents a trivector model to illustrate these conceptions, emphasizing that they are all relevant to discussions on teaching and teacher education.
The text suggests that the value of these models lies in understanding the power dynamics within educational conversations, such as the location of knowledge, the relationship between inquiry and practice, and how professional work can enhance teaching. The author also shares their own experience of teaching using Brookfield's lenses, emphasizing the importance of communal spaces for teachers to engage in deep discussions about their work.
Furthermore, the text emphasizes that these discussions and reflections were not meant to lead to a final conclusion or closure but rather to foster ongoing learning and experience. The author appreciates the importance of theory in guiding collective practice and suggests that a new vocabulary may be needed to challenge the dominance of individualism and the search for universal truth in education.
Overall, the text explores the complexities of knowledge in teaching and the importance of engaging in ongoing, collective, and reflective practices to improve teaching.
In Section 4.5, the author discusses the concept of "family resemblances" as introduced by Wittgenstein in the context of language and meaning. Wittgenstein's idea is that meanings are not defined by strict boundaries, and resemblances between various elements indicate relatedness even without clear definitions. The author applies this notion to practitioner research, emphasizing that different forms of research related to teaching practices share a family resemblance, even though they don't conform to the objectivity requirements of positivist research.
The author delves into critical pedagogy, highlighting its limitations in addressing the fundamental critiques of reflective teaching. Critical pedagogy, like reflective practice, tends to focus on individual teachers and their classroom practices, without addressing broader structural issues in education.
The text suggests that to make progress, teachers need to move beyond reflective practice and create a more collective and networked approach to teaching. The author emphasizes the importance of solidarity and community in addressing the challenges in education. The text also references the need to transcend the constraints of reflective practice and suggests characteristics of a more effective reflective community that focuses on teaching for social justice.
In conclusion, the text explores the limitations of reflective practice and critical pedagogy in addressing the complexities of education. It advocates for a more collective and networked approach to teaching and a reflective community that can address substantive issues and challenges in education.
In Section 4.6, the author reflects on their thesis, acknowledging the multitude of problems and issues they've encountered. They express a strong attraction to their argument, focusing on the emergence of collaborative research activity. The author suggests that prevailing knowledge paradigms have influenced thinking and knowing, and they aim to challenge deeply-held beliefs about the relationship between research and practice.
The author acknowledges that their work is not entirely novel, as the evidence they are gathering is publicly available, yet the juxtaposition of this material is unique. They emphasize that their work is both novel and grounded, theoretical and experiential, and it impacts teaching and research.
The research is exploratory and flexible, emphasizing the need for collective forms of research to address new questions. The author draws a parallel to Copernicus and Kant, advocating for a shift in perspective, a "Copernican turn," to view reality as socially constructed and emerging within communities.
The author suggests a move from focusing on individual practitioners as the subjects of research to collective interpretation of social practices, with a focus on pragmatic understandings of research processes. They emphasize the need for emerging location-specific criteria for evaluation and highlight the importance of language and context in post-structural theory.
The author introduces the concept of "praxitioners," including teachers constructed through discourse, researchers emerging in action, and community members sustained through communicative praxis. They recommend a shift from theory to praxis, where context-informed criteria replace rule-governed criteria. The author advocates for a shift toward collective praxis in teacher education, where knowledge is constructed in the context of learning, teaching, research, and policy-making, all within a community that offers genuine options for each participant.
The next two chapters will explore how this collective praxis can be achieved in teacher education.
Summary of all of the above:
Chapter 4, titled "Introduction: Reflective Practice in Transition," explores the concept of reflective practice in the context of teaching and teacher education. The author discusses various tools for professional development, including reflective practice, action research, evidence-based practice, and participatory research, but argues that these tools are insufficient. The chapter delves into the dominant model of reflective teaching, its limitations, and the need for teachers to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
The author identifies social trends, theories, and practices that shape the understanding of reflective practice and discusses criticisms of reflective practice to determine what is helpful and unhelpful about it. They argue that teachers need both knowledge and a voice but are constrained by the conditions in which they work.
Sections within this chapter explore the critiques of reflective teaching by John Smyth and Stephen Parker, offering suggestions for reform. Smyth's critique addresses the political implications of reflective practice within a capitalist context, while Parker's critique focuses on how reflective teaching perpetuates modernist assumptions. The author highlights the importance of these critiques, even if they use challenging language, as they shed light on the limitations of reflective teaching.
The chapter also delves into the author's own experiences teaching post-graduate teachers and using various models of reflective practice, like Brookfield's four lenses. The author emphasizes the structural constraints and workload that teachers face, making it challenging for them to engage in deep, critical reflection.
The text also explores the complexities of knowledge in teaching, drawing on the conceptions of teacher learning proposed by Cochran-Smith and Lytle. It highlights the coexistence of different perspectives on the role of knowledge in teaching and suggests the need for more collective and creative strategies to address structural issues effectively.
Additionally, the text introduces the concept of "family resemblances" from Wittgenstein, applying it to practitioner research and the need for a more collective and networked approach to teaching.
In the final section of this chapter, the author reflects on their thesis, emphasizing the novelty and grounded nature of their research. They advocate for a shift from focusing on individual practitioners as the subjects of research to collective interpretation of social practices, with a focus on pragmatic understandings of research processes. The author highlights the importance of language and context and introduces the concept of "praxitioners," who engage in praxis to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
The chapter concludes by proposing forms of ongoing teacher education that go beyond focusing solely on classroom practice and suggests collapsing the distinctions between theory, practice, and research. This approach aims to make teachers and students more active participants in collective knowledge construction.
No comments:
Post a Comment