Revising the guide for reflective practice problems and readiness

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (1.44 MB, 13 trang )

Trang 1<div class="page_container" data-page="1">

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/crep20

Revising the guide for reflective practice: problemsand readiness

Scott W. Greenberger

To cite this article: Scott W. Greenberger (28 Feb 2024): Revising the guide for reflective

practice: problems and readiness, Reflective Practice, DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2024.2321512

To link to this article: online: 28 Feb 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 82

View related articles

View Crossmark data

</div>Trang 2<div class="page_container" data-page="2">

Revising the guide for reflective practice: problems and readiness

Scott W. Greenberger

Department of Research and Grants, Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

This article provides a revision, further clarification, and minor updates to the published Guide for Reflective Practice (GRP). As an executive editor for a journal that uses the GRP as an author guide, I recognize the need to continually modify and update the guide to keep it relevant. First, based upon recent published work on reflective orientation, a reflective readiness section was added. Next, through coaching faculty on its use, I have noticed the need to provide greater clarity on how to identify, define, and articulate problems of practice, so further clarification is provided on this section of the GRP. Lastly, minor updates to the guide since its last publication are provided. Recommendations for future research include creating ancillary material to explain difficult concepts in the working ideas, evaluation of ideas, and decision sections; addi-tional research on reflective readiness, such as examining the role of practical and spiritual disciplines in enhancing the attitudes for reflection; and developing a Dewey-based model for reflective practice as a research method.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 10 July 2023 Accepted 16 February 2024

KEYWORDS

Reflective practice; Dewey; reflective readiness; problem of practice; guide for reflective practice

The benefits of faculty reflection are many. Self-awareness (Alt & Raichel, 2020), decision- making (Pope et al., 2018), problem-solving (Hong & Choi, 2015), personal wellbeing (Stevenson, 2020), self-efficacy (Kayapinar & Alkhaldi, 2023), and compassion (Brownlie,

2023) are some of the important benefits of reflective practice. Documenting reflection for publication can provide practical and scientific insights that go beyond mere best practices, providing rich details that can enhance practice and expedite scientific inquiry (Greenberger, 2020). Even though reflective practice is an assumed practice in higher education, faculty still encounter challenges engaging in reflection, including time con-straints (Hora & Smolarek, 2018), faculty motivation and/or fatigue (Burt & Morgan, 2014; Hurd & Singh, 2020), and faculty expertise to reflect (Beauchamp, 2015). When poorly conceptualized and with limited guidance, some faculty may be left confused on how to engage in structured reflective practice (Beauchamp, 2015; Greenberger, 2020; Marshall,

2019). The Guide for Reflective Practice (GRP) was created to provide clearer conceptua-lization of reflective practice, step-by-step instructions to document reflection, and a pathway for practitioners to publish their reflective insights (Greenberger, 2020), but

CONTACT Scott W. Greenberger

class="text_page_counter">Trang 3<div class="page_container" data-page="3">

as with any guide, there has been ongoing need for revision to enhance its usability. Greenberger et al. (2022) provided the first major revision, adding the reflective-narrative section, and Greenberger and Or (2022) provided an augment to the original version that incorporated reflective readiness as a ‘pre-step’ to reflective practice. The present manu-script offers the second major revision.

Purpose of the article

The main purpose of this inquiry is to outline the most recent major revisions made to the GRP, and provide theoretical and practical justification for these changes. As an executive editor for a journal that uses the GRP as an author guide, I recognize the need to continually modify and update the guide to keep it relevant. Faculty have used the GRP as a structured reflective process in a variety of disciplines, including pre-service teacher training (Maguire, 2021), active learning strategies in a science course (Tucker & Pingerelli,

2018), diversity and inclusion in higher education (Anderson, 2021), women in leadership (Seeley & Rahm, 2020), and spirituality in leadership development (Racette, 2022). The GRP has also been adapted for use in empirical studies (Anderson, Or, Greenberger, et al.,

2023; Anderson, Or, Maguire, et al., 2023). In the present article, three major themes will be introduced: (a) a deeper explanation of the problem section, (b) the replacement of the purpose section with reflective readiness, and (c) some terminology changes to sections for ease of use.

Identifying and defining problems

There is a need to further clarify how to define a problem using the GRP. Since the writing of the original paper on the GRP (Greenberger, 2020), my editorial team and I have coached many authors on using the guide. Through these experiences, we have encoun-tered many challenges in both (a) explaining what Dewey meant by problematic situa-tions and (b) helping authors interpret what this means in defining their own problem in documenting their reflective practice. In this section, I would like to revisit what Dewey meant by problematic situations, and then offer some strategies for defining a problem of practice in documenting reflective practice for publication.

Greenberger (2020) first provided an interpretation of Dewey’s seminal thought on reflective thinking to create the GRP. To reiterate, Dewey (1938/1986) referred to proble-matic situations as having confusing, obscure, or conflicting attributes. Specifically, Dewey (1938/1986) explained the following about problematic situations:

If we call [a situation] confused, then it is meant that its outcome cannot be anticipated. It is called obscure when its course of movement permits of final consequences that cannot be clearly made out. It is called conflicting when it tends to evoke discordant responses (p. 110) As such, from Dewey’s perspective, problematic situations cannot be anticipated, their outcome is unclear, or they tend to foster inharmonious or incongruous outcomes. For this reason, Greenberger (2020) interpreted problematic situations as ‘indicating unex-pected outcomes or having some inherently unknown quality that makes the situation seem obscure or conflicting’ (p. 465). There are four points of clarification I would like to offer to help future authors who use the GRP to define their problem: (a) genuine

</div>Trang 4<div class="page_container" data-page="4">

problems can be subtle and often grow out of mundane circumstances; (b) experienced genuine problems are just that, experienced, not abstract or writ large experience; (c) regulating subjectivity is an important step in identifying and defining a problem; and (d) problems do not always denote ‘negative’ circumstances. They can also denote ‘positive’ circumstances calling for an answer.

Subtle, mundane circumstances of problems

In coaching authors on writing manuscripts with the GRP, my team and I are often asked questions about what would be a worthy problem. Implicit in this question is the notion that only ‘certain’ highly complex and pervasive problems are worthy of inquiry (reflec-tion). Dewey was very keen to note that something as subtle as the experience of sudden change can warrant reflection. For example, something as mundane as a sudden change in weather (change in temperature) could be the basis for inquiry (Dewey, 1933/1989). As Dewey (1933/1989) stated:

‘but if we are willing to extend the meaning of the word problem to whatever—no matter how slight and commonplace in character—perplexes and challenges the mind so that it makes belief at all uncertain, there is a genuine problem, or question, involved in [something as mundane as] experience of sudden change’ (p. 121)

Dewey’s example makes explicit that such change does not even need to be pervasive; it

can be slight and commonplace. Suppose as a faculty member you observe a slight change

in behaviour in one of your students, or as a team lead in a sales department, you observe a slight change in behaviour in one of your team members. In these cases, if the slight change provokes a pause or moment to think on ‘why’ this change occurred, you may have stumbled upon a genuine problem to explore with reflective practice. From this perspective, there is no circumstance so subtle or mundane that could not be entertained as a problem of practice. The guiding force for such a decision is whether (a) the subtle change is expected given normal functioning based upon prior experience and (b) that the change is actually experienced (observed) by you as the reflective inquirer.

Experienced problems

I once worked with an author who wanted to reflect upon toxic leadership in corpora-tions. In asking whether the author personally experienced (observed) toxic leadership, the answer was ‘of course, many times’. However, in reviewing their problem statement, it was clear that the author was not tying the problem of toxic leadership to an actual situation. Rather, the author drew upon a mixture of different experiences, creating an ‘abstract’ problem that lacked detail and focus. It was clear the author was passionate about toxic leadership, but could not clearly describe any one particular experience of such a situation. It was as if the author created a stereotype of toxic leadership in their mind, and wanted to use that caricature as the basis for their problem.

For purposes of the GRP, genuine problems must actually be experienced. To define the problem requires providing rich details about experiencing the problem. For example, as a faculty member, this could entail recalling and describing an instance of a challenge in coaching a student or difficulties transitioning to a new teaching modality (online or

</div>Trang 5<div class="page_container" data-page="5">

remote instruction), providing rich details about those situations. Furthermore, as experi-enced, there may have been multiple instances of the same problem. It is important for purposes of defining the problem to resist the urge to combine all of the problematic situations into one stereotypical experience. As Dewey (1938/1986) stated, ‘personal states of doubt that are not evoked by and are not relative to some existential situation are pathological’ (p. 109). Part of what Dewey means is that there needs to be a specific ‘existential situation’ to which we refer when describing the problem of practice. Focus on just one experience, and then after rich details are given about that problematic experi-ence, providing additional details about similar recurrences of the same problem can be helpful for the reader to grasp the context.

Regulating subjectivity

In addition to the need for the problem to be experienced, it emerges from practical knowledge and, as such, is not merely subjective. In the workplace, practical knowledge accrues as practitioners encounter problems, find solutions, and move on to new chal-lenges. This deep level awareness of the context lends the practitioner all sorts of information to draw upon when encountering new problems. For example, experienced online college instructors have an abundance of knowledge about their teaching mod-ality, including how to use the online learning platform, how to employ active learning strategies, and how to provide formative and summative written feedback in writing assignments. This range of knowledge raises the awareness of the instructor and provides them with a conceptual template of what to expect and how to respond in the online teaching modality. This deep level practical knowledge helps with identifying real, as opposed to imaginary or inherently subjective, problems.

While introspection and subjective states of thought are a part of the reflective process, merely perceiving a problem that has no objective grounding is not. When Dewey (1938/ 1986) stated, ‘personal states of doubt that are not evoked by and are not relative to some existential situation are pathological’, he also meant that while we do introspect and we do have our perspective on events, those events indeed reside in existential situations that can be pointed toward, described, and confirmed by others (p. 109). For this reason, in trying to elaborate a problem of practice there are certain steps that practitioners should take to identify and clearly define their problem.

Practitioners can employ strategies to ground inner thoughts while defining the problem of practice. Three examples include reflective journaling, peer debriefing, and mentor feedback. Reflective journaling has a long history of enhancing self-awareness and providing a baseline to regulate it (Alt & Raichel, 2020). Such journaling can help with documenting ideas, sorting through past experience, and narrowing down a defining the problem of practice. Peer debriefing is a process of obtaining verbal or written feedback from peers within an organization (Greenberger et al., 2022). Such debriefing is a useful way of confirming the problem with a colleague who has direct knowledge of the context. Lastly, mentor feedback can further help with defining the problem of practice. Choosing mentors with some general knowledge about the workplace context, but limited specific experience with the problem, can help with confirming the nature of the problem and further defining it. It can also help in obtaining an unbiased perspective. In this way, reflective journaling helps with sorting

</div>Trang 6<div class="page_container" data-page="6">

through subjective ideas, and the peer and mentor feedback can help with confirming those ideas in light of the context and other considerations. For specific steps on using these tools, see Table 1.

Negative and positive of problems

As previously mentioned, as conceptualized in the GRP, problematic situations involve unexpected outcomes and unknown qualities. In coaching an author on defining their problem statement, my team and I use the heuristic of ‘unexpected’ and ‘unknown’ as the starting point for discussion. We ask: ‘What was unexpected outcome or unknown quality in the problematic situation you are describing?’ It is important to note that in defining the problem as an unexpected outcome, we do not imply that the experienced problem was merely perceived or subjective. As Dewey (1938/1986) stated, ‘it is the situation that has these traits. We are doubtful because the situation is inherently doubtful’ (p. 109). As such, when thinking in terms of ‘unexpected outcomes’ we are not referring to merely ‘personal states of mind’ (Dewey, 1938/1986, p. 110). Rather, we are referring to outcomes that at least some other practitioners might observe as unexpected given the circumstance.

Unexpected outcomes can be conceived as either negative or positive. In fact, the original Latin etymology, which derives from the Greek, defines a problem in an explicitly neutral sense, as ‘a question propounded for a solution, a set task’ (Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 1971/1989, p. 2310). However, problems are often conceived as negative, not neutral. Persisting unsolved (or difficult) problems reinforce this stereotype of problems as negative. However, problems can also be conceived as positive. Take for example the concept of unexpected outcomes. As a practitioner, I can have both a negative and positive unexpected outcome. For example, as a faculty member, suppose I implement a new teaching strategy. If it works beyond expectations, I would be unexpectedly and positively surprised, and I would want to know why it worked so well – for purposes of sustaining the outcomes with other students. If it did not work to expectations, giving existing circumstances, I would be unexpectedly and negatively surprised. Here too I would want to know why it did not work as expected. Thinking of unexpected outcomes this way can help practitioners who use the GRP define their problem of practice. Again, the main focus for exploring a positive unexpected outcome is to determine ‘why’ it occurred, so as to know how to sustain its use, to ensure the positive outcome persists.

Table 1. Steps to regulate subjective thoughts.

1.Write down thoughts about something that was unexpected or unknownReflective Journaling2.Think about those thoughts in relation to your practical experience in and outside the

Reflective Journaling3.Formulate the problem of practice to explore and discuss the problem with one or

more colleagues to further define it

Peer Debriefing4.Discuss the problem with one or more mentors to obtain an unbiased perspectiveMentor FeedbackWhile this is a suggested order, regulating our thoughts is an iterative process, so the practitioner should use these steps

in the order that most helps them in identifying and defining the problem.

</div>Trang 7<div class="page_container" data-page="7">

Original section: purpose

Greenberger (2020) presented a ‘purpose section’ that included two main parts: (a) reflective lens and (b) intended outcome”. See Figure 1 for specific information regarding the original purpose section. The rationale for the reflective lens was based upon the following assumption: ‘I found it important to provide the researcher with the freedom to utilize discipline-specific reflective practice theories to guide their thinking within the conceptual scaffolding of the GRP’ (Greenberger, 2020, p. 464). As I reflected on this choice, and thought about my interactions with authors using the GRP since its publica-tion, it became clear the choice of including a ‘reflective lens’ produced more confusion than clarity.

The confusion about the reflective lens was mainly due to the difficulty of aligning a reflective lens within the reflective conceptual scaffolding of the GRP. When Greenberger (2020) stated that Dewey’s reflective thinking framework was used as the conceptual scaffolding for the guide, I meant that Dewey’s theory of experience and sequential steps were used to frame the guide. In effect, the GRP already provides a reflective lens (Dewey’s reflective thinking model). In most cases, Dewey’s reflective lens aligns quite well with other reflective thinking models (e.g. Kolb, Mezirow). However, the alignment is never perfect, and to ask the author to use a reflective lens within a reflective conceptual scaffolding many times produced confusion for the author, especially in cases where the lens differed to some degree (e.g. Brookfield,

1995; Johns, 2017). For this reason, I decided to substantially revise this section. However, I knew there was still a need to outline the ‘intended outcome’ of the reflection.

Essentially, structured reflection implies an intended outcome, and this intended out-come is tied to the nature of the problem. As Dewey (1933/1989) stated, ‘The nature of the problem fixes the end of thought, and the end controls the process of thinking’ (p. 123). This is the rationale for including an intended outcome as a preface to the reflective practice. Nonetheless, in rethinking the reflective lens, I determined there was a need for further clarification on how to conceptualize the intended outcome. In light of both the need to substantially revise the reflective lens and for further clarification on the intended outcome, I made the decision to fully transform the purpose section into something new, with the goal of improving the preparation of authors using the GRP to document their reflective practice.

New section: reflective readiness

In short, the Purpose Section was replaced with the Readiness Section. The two parts of the Readiness Section include (a) learning objectives and (b) reflective readiness. The idea

Figure 1. Original purpose section. Reproduced with permission from Greenberger (2020).

</div>Trang 8<div class="page_container" data-page="8">

for clarifying the concept of an ‘intended outcome’ as a learning objective came from reflecting on the definition of reflective practice as a “method that creates a learning situation and ensures a learning outcome” (Fergusson et al., 2019, p. 291), which was adopted as part of our definition of reflective practice in Greenberger (2020). The learning objective is a statement of what the reflective practitioner wants to learn during the reflective practice. The learning objective provides direction for the reflection. It is the aim of the reflective practice. See Table 2 for examples of learning objectives. The next part of this section focuses on the faculty orientation to the problem of practice, what we call reflective readiness.

We developed the idea of reflective readiness from Dewey’s (1933/1989) concept of attitudes for reflection. Dewey identified three attitudes necessary for effective reflection, including open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility. See Table 3 for a summary of these attitudes. Greenberger and Or (2022) conceptualized the alignment of Dewey’s attitudes for reflection and the characters strengths model, intruding the term

reflective readiness, and Anderson, Or, Greenberger, et al. (2023) empirically measured the readiness of community colleges students to reflect on refugee simulations. These three attitudes for reflection have been added to the Readiness Section to allow the authors using the GRP to explore their readiness to rigorously explore a problem of practice through the systematic reflective process. Readers are encouraged to review Greenberger and Or (2022) for more information on strategies to enhance reflective readiness. In addition to this major revision, there have also been terminology changes in the new GRP that are worth noting.

Table 2. Alignment of problem with learning objectives.

Problem Example

Type of

ProblemExamples of Learning Objectives1. Teaching strategy was not

UnexpectedEvaluate the merits of the factors that may have affected the teaching strategy not working

2. University assessment initiative was successful

UnexpectedEvaluate the merits of the factors that may affected the success of the university assessment initiative

3. The current teaching tool does not work

UnknownEvaluate the strategies to implement a new teaching tool4. There is a need to improve faculty

support services

UnknownEvaluate strategies to implement the new faculty support services

Learning objective format adapted from Bloom’s Taxonomy; see Chatterjee and Corral (2017).

Table 3. Summary of reflective readiness attitudes.

Open-mindedness ‘an active desire to listen to more sides than one . . . to give full attention to alternative possibilities; to recognize the possibility of error, even in the beliefs that are dearest to us. They (mental sluggishness, selfconceit, unconscious fears) can best be fought by cultivating that alert curiosity and spontaneous outreaching’ Dewey (1933/1989, p. 136).

Wholeheartedness ‘When anyone is thoroughly interested in some object and cause, he throws himself into it; he does so, as we say, “heartily”, or with a whole heart . . . When a person is absorbed, the subject carries him on . . . a genuine enthusiasm [for a subject] is an attitude that operates as an intellectual force’ Dewey (1933/1989, p. 137).

Responsibility‘Intellectual responsibility secures integrity; that is to say, consistency and harmony in belief . . . To carry something through to completion is the real meaning of thoroughness, and power to carry a thing through to its end or conclusion is dependent upon the existence [of responsibility]’ Dewey (1933/1989, pp. 137–138).

Adapted from Greenberger and Or (2022).

</div>Trang 9<div class="page_container" data-page="9">

Summary of revisions: new GRP version

Greenberger’s (2020) version of the GRP has undergone several minor revisions since its publication. The purpose of these revisions has always been to improve the guide for usability. My team and I have incorporated lessons learned from coaching faculty on using the GRP and strived to improve the fidelity of the guide to the conceptual scaffolding of Dewey’s (1933/1989) reflective thinking model. Table 4 shows the progression of revisions that have occurred since its first publication in 2020. These revisions include both major changes (reworking sections) and minor changes (changing terminology).

The revisions have culminated in the most recent version, which is shown in Figure 2. The new GRP includes the following sections: Problem, Readiness, Working Ideas, Reflective-Narrative, Decision, and Reflective Critique. The deeper explanation of the Problem Section is intended to help authors more effectively identity and describe their problem of practice. The introduction of the Readiness Section is intended to help the author define a learning objective and establish attitudinal readiness for effective reflec-tion. The changed section title of the Working Ideas Section was intended to better align with Dewey’s (1933/1989) terminology on ‘guiding ideas’ (p. 202). The Reflective-Narrative Section (see Anderson, Or, Greenberger, et al., 2023) provided much more structure for the author to provide the reader with rich details about the context of the problem of practice, which is critical for transferability of lessons learned. The Decision Section presents the author with warranted assertations, meaning judgments based upon evi-dence, not merely introspection, and the Reflective Critique Section allows the author to reflect upon the entire reflective process, discern lessons learned, and make recommen-dations for future research and practice.

Reflective critique

The journey of creating, modifying, and improving the use of the GRP has been both fulfilling and challenging. I have felt a great sense of accomplishment as a scholar and

Table 4. Progression of revisions to the GRP since 2020.

Activity/Project Description

Reflective- Narrative

Reworked the entire section to establish more guidelines and narrative structure to describing the context of the problem of practice. Section was

renamed Reflective-Narrative. Changes published in Greenberger et al.

(2022).Reasons for the Problem Working

Revised the title of the original section to align more closely with Dewey’s (1933/1989) seminal theory of reflection. Section was renamed Working

Ideas. This change is being introduced here, and has not been previously

Revised the title of the original section to align more closely with Dewey’s (1933/1989) seminal theory of reflection and to align with the new

Working Ideas Section title. Section was renamed Evaluating Ideas. This

change is being introduced here, and has not been previously published.Statement of ProblemProblem Revised the section heading to Problem, and clarified that the problems of

practice can be subtle or mundane occurrences, that problems must be experienced (not abstract), and that problems can be positive or negative.Statement of PurposeReadinessAs introduced in this article, the Readiness Section replaces the Statement of Purpose Section, and it introduces the learning objective and attitudes for readiness.

</div>Trang 10<div class="page_container" data-page="10">

executive editor of an academic journal in publishing my journey of creating the GRP. Some of this fulfilment has been derived from working with creative and thoughtful collaborators. To each of you who have helped me along the way, I thank you for your interest and persistence in experiencing this journey with me. I have also experienced many challenges along the way.

My main challenge has been in ensuring the fidelity of the GRP with the conceptual framework of Dewey’s (1933/1989) reflective thinking model. In growing my deeper understanding of Dewey’s model, I have found the need to constantly clarify the rationale

Figure 2. New Guide for Reflective Practice (GRP) version.

</div>