PhD
student, Kairat Kurakbayev
Eurasian National University,
Kazakhstan
The role of reflection on
teacher learning in the context of higher education
The article discusses
relations between the concept of reflection, the teacher learning process and
the learner’s intention in the learning process. It then emphasises the role of
reflection in helping the learner to move from ‘surface’ learning to ‘deep’
learning and thus achieve the highest stages of learning. The whole discussion
of the article occurs in the social context of Kazakhstani higher education of
pre-service teachers and points out its specific issues of teacher training .
We believe reflection plays a crucial role in teacher learning.
Firstly we feel bound to clarify this term. There are a great many theorists
and educationalists who have tried to clarify this concept (Moon 1999:
vii). Boud, et al., for instance,
define it in the following way, “reflection is an important human activity in
which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and
evaluate it” (1985: 19). In a broader sense, we can state that reflection is a
part of the learning process. But reflection is not enough for the person to
learn something. In their definition, Boud, et al. mention the term
‘experience’. In learning to teach, student teachers are likely to go through
many learning experiences. One could state that experience means a physical
action such as doing a classroom activity. But I think it implies not only our
actions, but also our perceptions of learning materials. For instance,
attending a lecture could provide the trainee with personal experience which is
valuable in the reflecting process. Going through an experience develops one’s
certain attitudes, ideas and feelings towards it (ibid.: 20). I think
experience serves as the focus of reflection. As Moon contends, “reflection is
a form of response of the learner to experience” (1999: 18). For the reflective
process to take place, the learner needs to go through the experience herself
(Kolb 1984). I do not think reflection occurs if we leave our experiences with
our prior thoughts and feelings, and not revisit them and develop them further.
One engages in learning by
adopting either surface or deep approaches. As Boud, et al. point out, “those who
adopt a surface approach tend to memorize information and focus on the
requirements of tests and examinations” (1985: 24). On the other hand, “the
deep approach is one in which students seek an understanding of the meaning of
what they are studying, relate it to their previous knowledge” (ibid.: 24). On
the basis of this surface/deep learning divide, Moon (1999: 116) differentiates
five stages of the learning process. The stages are namely (1) noticing; (2)
making sense; (3) making meaning; (4) working with meaning; (5) transformative
learning. This view of the learning process has an element of hierarchy between
stages. However, in the real world we do not go through these stages in a
one-way route. One reaches an ability of performing new learning experiences,
but she can return to the ‘noticing’ stage to make sense of other particular
features of the learning material not considered earlier. So “there is not
really a distinct jump from surface to deeper learning, nor distinct shifts
between the stages”, as Moon suggests (ibid.: 135). But for the sake of
clarity, she presents the learning stages in hierarchy (see figure 1). In terms of the surface/deep learning
divide, Moon suggests that the first two stages of ‘noticing’ and ‘making
sense’ find their place in the surface approach (1999: 135). The stage of
‘making meaning’ is a common element of both surface and deep learning, while
‘working with meaning’ and ‘transformative learning’ belong to the deep
approach. If we see the stages of the learning process as a potential sequence
of learning outcome, then we can perceive reflection as “integral to a deep
approach to learning” (ibid.: 152). In this way, I perceive reflection as ‘a
guide’ that lets the learner move through the stages of the learning process
and perform a new action in the learning cycle (Kolb 1984). Therefore, I also
view reflection as means of upgrading the learning process (Moon 1999: 153). If
we can upgrade learning, then learning outcomes could also be upgraded.
Different learning conditions influence the quality of reflection and hence
learning. One of the conditions is the learner’s intention and attitude towards
the learning material.
·
noticing – one becomes aware of what is to be learnt.
“It is a ‘gate-keeping’ phase where attitudes towards the material of
learning, motivation and the emotional state have initial effects (…)”. The
learner could say here, ‘I’ve just noticed the bit of information that I
need’. ↓ ·
making sense – at this stage, the learner does
not only notice specific details but starts to organise and order the
learning material, sorting out her ideas. The learner could say here, ‘I
think that we have enough facts to work out the solution to this problem’. ↓ ·
making meaning – the new material of learning
is assimilated into the existing knowledge. The learner tries to make sense
of the new learning material relying on what she already knows. The learner
could say here, ‘This ties in with what I have been thinking’. ↓ ·
working with meaning – the original material of
learning may have been modified in the process of accommodation. This stage
is a means of developing further understanding that cannot occur unless
there is some understanding in the first place. The learner could say here,
‘Let me sort out my thoughts on this matter and then I will give you an
answer’. ↓ ·
transformative learning – this stage is seen as a
further development of the previous stage. The learner is capable of
evaluating the nature of her own and other others’ knowledge and the
process of knowing itself. She can restructure the learning situation and
see the learnt points from new perspectives. The learner can experiment
what she has learnt in the real world. The learner could say here, ‘I can
see that my view was biased in the past. Now I am reconsidering the
situation’.
Figure 1: Stages of learning (from Moon
1999:141-146)
Moon’s concept of ‘best possible
representation’ of learning describes ideal learning qualities (1999: 125).
Figure 2 illustrates interdependent relationships between learning stages,
deep/surface learning and the learning outcomes. I think the stage of ‘making
sense’ arranges conditions for reflection to take place. I view this stage as a
threshold to deep learning. Reflection helps the learner move from surface
learning to deep learning. But, importantly, this transfer process would depend
on the learner’s intent and attitude towards the learning material. The
transfer is possible “(…) if the learner deliberately recalls the material
processed to the stage of ‘making sense’ and then consciously relates these
somewhat isolated ideas to what they know already” (ibid.: 147). I think that
paying due attention to the stage of ‘making sense’ is crucial in the learning
outcomes. The subtle issue here is that the learner’s intention towards the
material defines if the further learning stages will take place.
|
Stages of
learning Deep/surface
learning Best possible representation of learning
(BPR) |
Transformative learning Meaningful,
reflective, restructured
by learner - Deep idiosyncratic
or creative ↑ learning Working with meaning Meaningful,
reflective well
structured ↑ Making meaning Meaningful,
well integrated,
ideas linked ↑ Making sense Surface Reproduction of ideas, learning ideas not well
linked ↑ Noticing Memorised
representation
Figure 2: A map of learning
stages and the representation of learning (after Moon 1999: 138)
In our practices, the trainee makes sense of
the learning points through textbook materials and lecture notes. This can be
called assimilation - the intake of information from the environment (Moon
1999: 25). Going beyond this learning stage, we have to think of techniques
helping the trainee appropriate the learnt material to her existing personal
experience and knowledge. As Boud, et al. point out, “the new information which
has been integrated needs to be appropriated in a very personal way” (1985a:
33). The appropriation of the new knowledge to the existing one helps a trainee
develop and build her personal theory of practice (Moon 1999, Turbill 2002).
Reflecting on the newly learnt material in terms of existing experience and
knowledge helps the learner to personalise new knowledge. Correspondingly, the
student can look afresh at what she has already learnt from a standpoint, based
on her new ideas. In this case, the process of accommodation takes place.
Also, our traditions of
assessment could define the trainee’s attitude towards the learning material.
As Moon points out, “learning tends to be driven by assessment” (1999: 130). As
stated earlier, in our current initial teacher training programme (ITT), the
trainee’s learning intention is typically to pass an examination or gain a good
mark at the seminar. Also, as Britten (1988: 6) observes that, “the
methodological exam can be mere recitation; and self-reporting of attitudes,
for instance in an oral exam, is no test of subsequent commitment”. This
reflects the established view of absolute knowledge in our
teaching-and-learning context. For example, during the examinations we
typically ask trainees to present factual responses.
As long as the trainee reasonably delivers the
factual data of the learning material we are satisfied with the reached
learning outcome. This is of course crucial for the trainee teacher as she
tends to familiarise herself with different factual concepts of teaching. As
Kagan points out (1992: 162):
“novices may engage in technical rationality
rather than other
levels of reflection, because that is where
their developmental
needs lie: in understanding what works and why
it works”
But our point here is that trainees “need to be
in a state of ‘alternative theory of availability’, not duly wedded to any set of
ideas as a way of making sense of the experience” (Heron 1985: 134). In this
case, we see a relationship between upgrading the learning and the learning
cycle (Moon 1999: 149). Going through Kolb’s learning cycle implies developing
a personal action. In order to perform an action, one needs to understand the
learnt material (received knowledge) and develop an idea how to use it in the
real world (experiential knowledge). Instead of stopping at the recitation
stage, the learner teacher could move on to experiment with the presented
material in action. But, instead of offering a drastic change, we feel there is
room for compromise here. Recitation as evaluation of the first-year trainee is
likely to be fruitful while she tries to come to grips with professional
concepts. The fourth-year trainee could move further from this stage and her assessment
should reflect that. Our point is that we cannot use recitation as a universal
examination means. Suggesting new modules on the basis of experiential
learning, we hope to create an environment “(…) opening initial teacher trainees to a range of
different thinking skills, or ways of behaving” (Wright 1996:9).
To sum up, the article has addressed a strong
influence of technical rationality in our Kazakhstani context. We have
accentuated a need for enabling the trainee to involve in reflection and learn
from direct personal experience and argued that they have an important role in
the ITT course
References
Boud, D., R, Keogh and D.
Walker (1985) Promoting reflection in learning: a model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh
and D. Walker (1985) (eds) Reflection:
Turning Experience into Learning.
London: Kogan-Page.
Britten, D. (1988) Three stages in teacher training. ELT Journal, 42/2.
Heron, J. The role of reflection in a co-operative inquiry. In D. Boud,
R. Keogh
and D. Walker (1985) (eds) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning.
London: Kogan-Page.
Kagan, D. (1992) Professional growth among preservice and beginning
teachers.
Review of Educational
Research, 62/2.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning as the Science of
Learning and
Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (3rd
edition).
Moon, J. (1999) Reflection in
Learning and Professional Development. London:
Kogan Page.
Turbill, J. (2002) The role of a facilitator in a professional learning
system: The Frameworks project. In
G.F. Hoban (2002) (ed) Teacher Learning
for
Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Wright, T. (1996) Changing roles, changing teachers: The Development
Puzzle.
Plenary paper delivered at 1st
MICELT Conference, Penang, Malaysia.
Mimeo: Unpub.