Turning the mirror on ourselves: working with uncertainty in teaching reflection
M A Mackay and A V Tymon
University of Portsmouth Business School,
United Kingdom
Abstract
This working paper examines a teaching team involved in the innovative enhancement of an HRD unit. The research was stimulated by student resistance towards the explicit practice of reflection and an unsettling approach to HRD learning. A critical examination of the HRD unit triggered recognition that as lecturers we were on a deeper reflective journey that challenged our assumptions and teaching practice (Stewart, Keegan & Stevens, 2008; Rigg & Trehan, 2008; Holden & Griggs, 2010).
Method: This ongoing longitudinal study contributes to existing research in adding a qualitative approach to lecturers’ cumulative reflections. The case study employs an assessment tool (Larrivee, 2008) as an analytical framework and reflective self-study of teaching with a purposive sample of HRM students in a UK business school.
Initial Findings: Surfacing discomfort may enhance learning (Jordan, 2010; Kuchinke, 2007) and tension may productively support effective reflection. Working with uncertainty may be helpful conditions to stimulate critical thinking for lecturers in teaching HRD.
Implications: This working paper highlights the complexities of HRD teaching and constructively acknowledges the troublesome nature of reflection. Practice implications are that acknowledgement of learner resistance and lecturer tribulations may improve the exploration of HRD constructs.
Contribution: This longitudinal case study expands lecturers’ understanding of innovative teaching methods to promote ongoing reflection on HRD concepts.
Keywords: reflection, learners, HRD, innovative, lecturers, teaching practice
1. Introduction
Teaching practice warrants consideration of innovation and critical thinking approaches. Valentin (2007) argues that the teaching of Human Resource Development [HRD] accentuates this requirement for critical inquiry due to the subject nature. Valentin declares that a critical approach to HRD study:
‘should not simply be about how to do HRD, but also to reflect upon HRD. There should be a commitment to questioning the assumptions and ‘taken-for-granteds’ that are embodied in theory and practice (p.172).
Consequently, teachers of HRD need to develop a level of hyper-awareness and be conscious that they are teaching in practice what they espouse in theory. Simply put, HRD lecturers need to practice what they teach.
The HRD syllabus potentially extends from a macro focus of strategic HRD to a micro focus on the technical skills of training design. Yet current thinking on learning theories, developmental, experiential and constructivist learning needs to be examined in all HRD teaching practice. Thus critical reflection is highly important in the HRD teaching and learning process (Brockbank and McGill, 2007; Kuchinke, 2007; Trehan & Rigg, 2011). Moreover, Larrivee (2008) claims that reflective practice is often viewed as ‘the hall mark of professional competence for teachers’ (p.341).
This working paper discusses a revelatory case study of a teaching team embarking on an unplanned reflective journey. While still ongoing, the journey has led to a revised method of teaching HRD on a postgraduate professional programme. This paper will present self-analysis findings and initial learning of the teaching team in practising what they teach. The study runs concurrently with early evaluations of student feedback to new changes made in teaching methods.
The contribution of this research is the constructive acknowledgement of lecturers’ own theoretical frame in approaching the curriculum. Despite extensive literature on reflection, there is less research on the challenge for lecturers’ in both assessing and applying critical reflection in practice. By identifying with students’ frustration this challenged lecturers’ own approaches to reflection. The revelation of the dynamic and interdependent nature of student reflective learning has triggered our own deeper examination of an innovative approach to teaching HRD. The paper will first explore theoretical concepts, and then examine the case study dilemma of teaching HRD theoretical frameworks. The paper concludes with an analysis of the lecturers’ learning and practice implications.
2. Theoretical concepts
This section defines the concept of reflection, outlines the case for using reflection as a learning method in teaching HRD and presents an overview of a reflective self-assessment tool that proved valuable to the researchers in this case study.
The concept of reflection
This section defines the concept of reflection and outlines the case for using reflection as a learning method in teaching HRD. Reflection can be defined as both an active and deliberate process of exploration and discovery that involves a periodic stepping back to consider meaning and the connection between experience and learning (Boud et al., 1985; Gray, 2007; Raelin, 2005). Broadly this involves cognition and emotion and reflection may be stimulated by questions such as: How did that go? What went well? What didn`t? And why? These questions may guide a reflective conversation as a means to search for new understandings and perspectives and as a method of accessing sense-making of people’s experience (Schön, 1983).
What differentiates critical reflection from such rumination is that it encourages learning at a deeper level. By challenging assumptions critical reflection questions the theoretical frameworks that support educational perspectives and beliefs (Gray, 2007; Mezirow, 1990; Rigg & Trehan, 2008). A conversation to facilitate critical reflection could include additional questions such as: How do I feel about that? What theory underpins this? and What are my future options? Within a higher education context reflective learning is increasingly prominent as a method of assessment of student learning (Francis & Cowan, 2008; McKinlay Grogan, Sedakat McKinlay, 2010; Stewart et al., 2008) and as a research methodology (see e.g., Attard, 2008; Rigg & Trehan, 2008). Furthermore, critical reflection is encouraged in professional development practice (Smith, 2011) as evidence of practitioner competence in burnishing credentials and professional standards (see CIPD, HR Professional Standards Map, 2009). Reflection as a learning method to incorporate practice and reflection upon the conceptual nature of HRD is therefore perceived to be highly desirable (Holden & Griggs, 2010; Rigg and Trehan, 2008; Valentin, 2007).
Deliberate reflection as a learning method in HRD
Meyer & Land (2005) attest that knowledge is troublesome in revealing intellectual ambiguity and uncertainty. For many learners critical reflection may appear inaccessible and the language of HRD concepts obscure. This conceptual difficulty for HR management students challenges the teaching aim to open up thinking around inert knowledge through the practice of planned reflection. Yet, as previously discussed, the study of HRD in particular needs to incorporate practice and reflection upon HRD’s theoretical construction.
Although academic literature acknowledges that reflective learning is not easy, they suggest that the skills of critical reflection can be learned (Stewart et al., 2008; Smith, 2011). Merriam (2004) points out ‘most adults have not developed the theory capacities for criticising the underlying assumptions of their own thinking’ (p.65). By contrast, Moon (2007) argues that the experience of a reflective conversation can support the discipline of writing about reflection as a means to capture new learning. Huff (2002) attests that such writing and reflection helps support individual thinking and allows the author to tease out a new interpretation of experience. But this writing is often a painstaking exercise. Smith (2011) highlights many challenges with reflection including the dangers of becoming negative, overly self critical and isolated. An additional problem is the practitioner’s difficulty in finding time to reflect (Pohland & Bova, 2000). However, despite the discomforting nature of reflection the benefits of reflective practice are claimed for HRD teaching (Holden & Griggs, 2010; Anderson & Gilmore, 2010) as the link between the HRD syllabus (content of what is taught) and pedagogy (how it is taught) is interwoven.
Yet this obligation for HRD lecturers to both teach and demonstrate critically reflective learning throws up a contradiction between the deliberate practice of reflection in a classroom context and the spontaneous nature of much emergent learning (Tymon & Mackay, 2010). As lecturers we ask students to question the theoretical concepts, inquire into their experience and challenge their assumptions. Yet we do this within the imposed boundaries of a pre-determined curriculum that aligns with a university curriculum and professional body accreditation. The prescriptive structuring of reflection may inhibit, or restrict, the occurrence of unexpected learning and discovery. This contradiction sits alongside the recognition that unplanned reflection often occurs in the workplace as a result of unexpected experience or surprising realisations. Such was our experience as a lecturing team that our learning surfaced by chance when we caught sight of our reflection in a maze of pedagogical construction.
An assessment tool relevant to reflection
Although Mälkki and Lindblom-Ylänne (2011) assert that critical reflection is most closely associated with change and development, we acknowledge a caveat that deep reflection may not necessarily result in improvements to teaching. Another caveat is that this case study is a retrospective assessment based on cumulative reviews, debates and continuing conversations. This narrative of a learning journey may therefore overlay a coherent pattern that only appears with the benefit of hindsight. This review incorporated a complex series of movements back and forth across reflective states which oscillate in a spiral rather than a linear, systematic motion. A final caveat is that there are multiple models proposed in the literature as an assessment of reflection. There is not space here to consider alternative models but in order to clearly illustrate the narrative of turning the mirror to our own reflection, we have chosen to adapt Larrivee’s assessment questionnaire (2008, p.348) as an analysis of teaching practice.
Larrivee delineates four levels of reflection which the lecturing team applied as a lens to review their approach to teaching HRD. This assessment tool is shown in Table 1.
Assessment tool(Larrivee, 2008:348) / Lecturers’ illustrative responses
Level 1. Pre-reflection / Let’s get through this
This cohort will soon be moving on
Level 2. Surface reflection / Let’s improve our technique
Let’s do it again but better
Level 3. Pedagogical reflection / Let’s select authoritative research that backs this up
There’s definitely some conceptual theory on this
Level 4. Critical reflection / Just what is our frame of reference?
What do we believe?
How does this condition our practice?
Are we doing what we say students should do?
Table 1: Assessment of reflection adapted from Larrivee, 2008:342.
A brief description of each level follows which is then applied to the lecturers’ responses in the teaching context. Larrivee identifies a reactive response of pre-reflection (Level 1) which is essentially a knee-jerk response to students’ problems This resonates with Jordan’s (2010) contrastive research of ‘reflection-in-action and knowing-in-action’ where experienced practitioners operating in a specific context respond and address issues in a tacit manner relying on experience (p.392).
The next level, (Level 2) of surface reflection focuses on technical methods to achieve specific goals. The response is tactical and amounts to damage limitations in finding a solution to meet short-term results. Teaching strategies may be modified to improve efficiency but there is no questioning of whether these are the right goals. We consider ourselves to be reflective practitioners but reflection may be unconscious. Although Larrivee differentiates pre-reflection from surface reflection, in practice these may occur simultaneously as the two are closely intertwined.
Larrivee’s definition of pedagogical reflection (Level 3) is based on the application of theoretical concepts to teaching knowledge, theory and research. At this stage the HRD teacher may attempt to take a learner’s perspective and constructively critique a teaching approach. Finally, critical reflection (Level 4) involves what Larrivee (2008) perceives as a:
“deep examination of values and beliefs, embodied in the assumptions teachers make and the expectations they have of students” (p.344).
This critical reflection extends to lecturers’ own thinking and philosophical beliefs as well as assumptions about the students` capacity and willingness to learn. Although this assessment tool implies a systematic progression, the cognitive filtering of the teaching team’s reflections were haphazard, incremental and occasionally startling. Nonetheless, Larrivee’s assessment offers a useful lens to facilitate our milestone review in this longitudinal study. The next section goes on to demonstrate how this tool was applicable to our journey, starting with an overview of the context, and then progressing to look at the four levels in turn.
3. The case study dilemma
As with many deep learning experiences it started with a disorienting dilemma (Merriam, 2004; Mezirow, 1994). Following a regular end of year unit review, a new approach to teaching HRD was introduced in the academic year 2008/9. For the university concerned it was, at the time, innovative (McKinlay et al., 2010). The new approach involved extensive use of student-delivered learning replacing a more conventional teacher-centred approach. Despite lecturers’ infectious enthusiasm, this innovative approach met with negative student feedback as reported by Anderson and Gilmore (2010). Students requested a return to lecturer-led sessions as they perceived that use of experiential learning resulted in off-putting workloads and reduced subject clarity. Students voiced anxiety and were disconcerted by an imperceptible link between group participation sessions and the individual nature of the assessment (Anderson and Gilmore, 2010). The impact of the assessment method on HRD learning was particularly influential as documented (see e.g., Butler and Reddy, 2010; Moon, 2007; Kuchinke, 2007).
In summary, as lecturers recounted the problematic and time-consuming nature of facilitative teaching, students expressed exasperation. The intended benefits of an innovative approach were not felt by either the students or the lecturers. As such the new teaching approach seemed to please no-one. The dilemma appearing was to revert to conventional lecturer direction or to continue ahead with student-led sessions.
Situation ugly: initial responses
The initial response by ‘new business academics’ teaching the course was cursory, almost unconscious reflection, attributing problems to the students’ attitude and instrumental orientation towards the HRD curriculum. This response was characterised by the comment: ‘Let’s get through this...this cohort will soon move on’; indicating a professional concern for orderly management. This relates to Larrivee’s (2008) pre-reflection (level 1) where as business academics we sought to control the situation and limit negative repercussions. In conducting our review we asked: ‘Were we preoccupied with management control and student compliance?’ In the face of student difficulties and criticism it would have been easy for the lecturing team to revert to traditional methods described by Brockbank and McGill (2007) as a focus on lecturer transmission. For academic lecturers this may represent a more comfortable ground of knowledge authority and expert legitimacy. Moreover, industry experience shaped our assumptions that business students will prefer to await a management briefing, or an orienteering map, before navigating the maze.