Saturday, October 18, 2008

Reflection and the Self-Organized Learner: A Model of Learning Conversations

Candy, Philip, Sheila Harri-Augstein, and Laurie Thomas. “Reflection and the Self-Organized Learner: A Model of Learning Conversations.” Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. eds. David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. London: Kogan Page, 1985. 100-116.

This article discusses work undertaken by the Centre for the Study of Human Learning at Brunel University started in 1968 on “developing a model of 'learning to learn' using a range of approaches which help people to become reflective self-organized learners” (101). Using as an analogy the growth in sports of using video tape to help athletes improve their performance, the authors' main point is that getting students to examine and reflect upon some record of their behavior or performance is important: “In each case, the learner has access to a behavior record—a sort of reflected image—on which to base future improvement. The idea in each situation is the same: if people are aware of what they are presently doing, and can be encouraged to reflect on it and to consider alternatives, they are in an excellent position to change and to try out new ways of behaving” (100). The authors stress that the learner should be independent and given the responsibility to learn.

The article describes various techniques and devices to help learners examine and review their learning (which they acknowledge is not an easy activity to capture). One such technique is “Learning Conversations” which sounds very similar to Knights ideas about listening and “free attention” as well as “thinking aloud.” This conversing, they believe, will help the learner internalize what they have talked about so they are able to review and reflect on these experiences themselves. They point to studies that show how difficult it is to change patterns of behavior. After training there is often a drop in competence, and, unless there is the right support or persistence, the performance will return to the old level. Hence, the importance of internalizing the new skills to reach a higher new level of skill. The authors believe in “the need for different types of dialogue at different points along the learning curve” (104).

The authors also describe other techniques for providing a learning record: The Brunel Reading Recorder, The Flow Diagram Technique, The Structure of Meaning Technique, and The Repertory Grid. The authors provide a good summary at the end of their position and their technique, so I will quote it in full:
“Our experience leads us to believe that much potentially valuable learning is 'lost' because learners have not developed the skills of recreating or reliving learning episodes which they experience. For most people, their responses to learning events tend to be habitual and unquestioned, and practice (even repeated practice) does not allow them to make explicit the connection between what Argyris and Schon (1974) call their 'theory in use' and their actions. What is required, it seems to us, is the opportunity for learners to reflect on their performance, but reflection is not facilitated simply by allowing time for it, or even by offering questions to encourage thinking and critical self-awareness. No, in the first instance, reflection is facilitated by providing some sort of behavioural record (such as a video tape, an observation sheet or a computer analysis) of the learner in the learning situation” (114-115).

Assessment
This article is significant for two reasons. First, it advocates verbal discussion as a valid form of “articulation” (a la Eisner) to promotes reflection. Here we have the possible conflict between verbal vs written reflection, but the key for each one is self-expression in language. The second interesting thing about this article is its belief that reflection only really happens when the reflector has some objective representation of themselves to reflect upon (like watching the video tape of themselves). These author's approach seems right in line with Dr. John Tenny and his 7/29/08 comment to one of my blog posts. As the head of the Education Program at Willimette University, he developed what he calls the Data-Based Classroom Observation Method. Here is one comment from his blog post: “I found that when I shifted from feedback in the form of anecdotal notes to providing objective data on what was happening in the classroom, the students/student teachers shifted from a defensive/deflective or accommodative response to one of independent reflection (definition above), problem solving, and change.” He goes on to contend, “I believe that 'reflection' is shallow and surface when the person does not have the factual basis for understanding what occurred.” (http://thespeculum.blogspot.com/2008/06/pre-dissertation-proposal.html) Tenny and the authors of this article agree that learners to engage in what we might call productive reflection or deep reflection need that objective, factual record or representation to reflect upon. The challenge is how to generate such records/representations.

1 comment:

John Tenny, Ph.D. said...

Referring to your closing statement, "Tenny and the authors of this article agree that learners to engage in what we might call productive reflection or deep reflection need that objective, factual record or representation to reflect upon. The challenge is how to generate such records/representations", my approach is based on these steps:

1. determine the goal. This can be an item in a formal list of standards, a target behavior for a specific student, the implementation of a best practice strategy, etc.
2. identify the observable behavior when the goal is being met. I'm not referring to a goal of a higher test score, but an observable event such as engaged students, a safe classroom (emotionally), being a supportive teacher. The task is to identify those behaviors that we are using (or should be using) when we make a determination that success is at hand.
This will entail reflection (what are the behaviors we are using to base our judgments on?; are they the best for that purpose - are they meaningful?) and careful evaluation of our values.
3. Describe the set/range of behaviors related to the goal. There can be multiple behavior sets related to a goal. For example, student engagement might be measured by on/off task behavior, or by the level of questions they ask related to the topic at hand, or by tracking body language, or by individual level of activity when in a small group, etc.
4. Using either a pencil/paper/stopwatch system or with my eCOVE Software, collect baseline data.
5. Implement any desired changes to accomplish the goal.
6. Gather follow up data to determine if the efforts are effective.

You now have an objective, action research representation of the goal and a process for verifying both the fidelity of implementation of an intervention or other change, the impact of that change on the goal, and the level of accomplishment in meeting the goal.

The task of determining what our goals look like in actual behaviors is not an easy one. There are lots of stereotypes and commonly held beliefs that must be carefully examined and evaluated. That conversation is the basis for our formal and informal research, and the hallmark of progress in education.

About Writing

Writing is always more precise and less precise than our thoughts: that is why our writing pieces glow with being and beckon with the promis...