Dr. Merris Griffiths

Chapter 3: Teaching Development Commentaries

‘If we are to become more effective teachers, we need to become more reflective teachers’  (www, Webb, 1996: 30)

Abstract

This chapter begins by offering a brief overview of some of the common conceptions of what ‘reflection’ and ‘reflective practice’ mean in the context of higher education, together with an outline of how these concepts develop within this portfolio. After a basic discussion of the benefits of peer observation for prompting ‘reflection’, I will move on to present in detail three selected reflective cycles to demonstrate my competence as a ‘beginner lecturer’. Finally, I will present and analyse a ‘teaching innovation’ that I introduced and refined over the two-year period to which this portfolio pertains.

3.1 Reflective practice in the context of higher education

Given that the main remit of tHE Scheme is to prove oneself to be a competent university teacher and reflective practitioner, I think that it is appropriate at this stage (before introducing cycles and innovations) to clarify what it is that I understand by the term ‘reflective practice’.

3.1.1 Basic definitions of ‘reflection’

Two things become immediately apparent when one starts to delve into the literature. Firstly, ‘reflective practice’ is becoming increasingly commonplace in discourses of higher education, and secondly, there is no definitive description or explanation of what ‘reflection’ entails. Brown, Fry & Marshall (in Fry et al.: 1999: 206), for example, underline the importance of reflection by stressing its value, but also imply that the concept is frequently misunderstood and ‘abused’. Moon (1999: vii) also notes that the literature on reflection emanates from multiple sources (mainly in the fields of teaching and nursing), with little integration from one source to another.

The whole concept of ‘reflection’ seems to be awash with definitional vocabulary. Some definitions involve explicit statements such as ‘Reflection: a multi-sourced, honest and systematic analysis of an educational event’ (www, Mendeval). Other definitions involve endless lists of words said to be synonymous with the essence of the concept – ‘reasoning, thinking, reviewing, problem solving, inquiry, reflective judgement, reflective thinking, critical reflection, reflective practice’ (Kitchener, 1983, in Moon, 1999: viii). Alternatively, there is a counter argument that suggests much of the definitional vocabulary is deficient, with particular weaknesses in areas of ‘reflection in learning’ (ibid.), and, one might argue, ‘learning to teach’.

Despite the potential difficulties, however, it is possible to settle on a kind of ‘common sense’ definition based on a distinct overlap between the activities of ‘reflection’ and ‘thinking’ (Moon, 1999: 5), as well as being related to ‘thinking’ and ‘learning’ (ibid.: 10). As a practice, it is characterised by the ability to take one step back from a given (educational) situation and critically evaluate or ‘reflect’ on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the learning experience, connoting a sense of wisdom through ‘being reflective’. Moon (1999: 5) takes things one stage further by referring to Schön’s (1983) classic notion of the ‘reflective practitioner’, an idea captured by the phrase ‘thinking on your feet’. The spontaneousness of this idea implies that certain ‘reflective skills’ need to be internalised by the practitioner so that they become part of the teaching endeavour. This kind of ‘skills acquisition’ certainly becomes a conscious activity when one is expected to produce of a portfolio of this kind, which underlines one of the main reasons why this is an important undertaking for ‘beginner lecturers’.

‘Reflective practice’, in the sense of taking the time to think about teaching methods, aims and eventual outcomes, should become a habit. When one becomes accustomed to these levels of thinking and evaluation, reflection will become a ‘natural’ and valuable aspect of teaching practice, from the delivery of individual lectures and seminars to the overall structure of a module or the introduction of new methods of assessment. Perhaps what should be emphasised, however, is that ‘reflection’ is more pro-active than ‘thinking’, in the sense that one is expected to act upon and ‘solve’ any identifiable problems. It is this activity of periodic ‘over-haul’ and improvement that leads to better teaching quality and the desired level of professionalism and commitment (cf. Ramsden, 1992).

3.1.2 Theoretical background of ‘reflective practice’

Prominent theoreticians, primarily from the world of education, have fuelled discussion and debate about the notion of ‘reflective practice’. It is arguably important to consider where the roots of this concept lie, since understanding the background can help to contextualise application. Three names recur in the literature – John Dewey, Donald Schön and David Kolb – and each will be discussed in turn here.

Moon (1999: 12) offers an interesting overview of the classic work by Dewey (1933) on the nature of reflection and how it occurs. Dewey’s philosophies seem to correspond with the way in which I had always interpreted the notion of reflection, so his work seems inherently appealing to me. He talks about the way in which reflection is born of doubt or difficulty, which clearly ties in with the general feelings of uncertainty and ‘worry’ I have often experienced when delivering certain lectures or planning undergraduate modules for the first time. Reflection, in this context, becomes a kind of ‘hyper-sensitivity’ to whether things have worked or not (and if not, why not). However, feeling utterly perplexed can actually translate into a positive strength and a route to improved teaching, since one feels more determined to rectify any problems!

Basically, Dewey describes reflection as ‘the kind of thinking that consists in turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious thought’ (Moon: 1999: 12). However, the important point to note is that one has to have a specific aim in mind when one goes through a process of reflection; that it is rather like ‘targeted thinking’ with the hope of finding a clear conclusion. Moon (ibid.) further stresses that ‘reflection’ should be seen as a ‘process of operations’ that are generally determined by the task in hand. In other words, one’s reflections on clarity and pacing in a lecture scenario will be different in the nature of ‘operation’ to reflections on whether or not a seminar task facilitated and encouraged student interaction. This notion is neatly encapsulated by Moon (ibid.) who notes that ‘the anticipated outcome could be said to coincide with the purpose of reflection’.

Donald Schön (1987, 1991) adds another conceptual ‘layer’ to the notion of reflection. Schön is described as ‘the most quoted author of the field’ (www, Reflective Practice in HE) and refers to ‘reflection’ as a process with two key components. He refers to it as being a professional activity in which the (HE teacher) practitioner reflects both on-action (after the event) and in-action (during the event) to improve performance. This is a subtle activity, taking place on a kind of ‘sliding scale’, given that the teacher not only experiments methodologically but also monitors and notes all actions within a process of evaluation.

Schön argues that one should see teaching development as being part of a continuum (cf. Fry et al., 1999: 209). The ‘beginner lecturer’, for example, might exist only at the ‘on-action’ stage of the ‘sliding scale’ because of their position as ‘novice’. That is to say, relative inexperience means that the only opportunity to reflect and assess will be after the event, when one has something fairly tangible to reflect on and the stress of the teaching scenario has been dissipated. However, with growing experience and constructive ‘reflection’ on teaching as a method, the ‘beginner lecturer’ will soon be able to slide up the scale to the more demanding activity of ‘reflection in-action’. This requires monitoring teaching situations as they occur and adjusting method on-the-spot in order to rectify any problems (cf. Moon’s analysis of Schön, 1999: 5).

David Kolb (1984) is credited with producing the most well known diagrammatic representation of the concept of ‘reflection’, although his idea is actually an adaptation of work done much earlier by Lewin (1951) (see Cowan, 1998: 34). Kolb is said to frame reflection very much in terms of experience-based learning, implying that to learn from experience means to learn by reflecting on experience (see Healey & Jenkins, www).

Kolb’s cyclic model is arranged in four-stages showing how experience is translated, through reflection, into concepts. Beginning with ‘experience’ (either of teaching or learning), individuals should pass through a stage of reflection towards some generalised conclusions, before testing new ideas by adapting the subsequent (teaching or learning) experience. It is hoped, through assembling this portfolio, that I will demonstrate use of exactly this kind of process in the development of my teaching over the last two years.

Kolb’s model is conventionally represented in diagrammatic form as follows (with words in this instance paraphrased by Cowan, 1998: 34):

Figure 3.1.2.1: The Kolb Reflective Cycle

For the cycle to facilitate optimum effectiveness, anyone engaging in the reflective practice should repeat the process several times. However, one of the main shortfalls in Kolb’s model is that it does not convey the necessary sense of dynamism so often involved in reflective practice. Indeed, the main point of ‘reflection’ is not to move round and round in circles, but to move things along in an evolutionary way through changes, modifications and improvements in practice. This shifting sense of change is more appropriately captured by Cowan (1998: 38), in his adaptation of Kolb, in that his model is less cyclic, offering room for manoeuvre.

Figure 3.1.2.2 The Cowan Reflective Cycle

However, the important point to note in each of these diagrams is that the key activity of ‘reflection’ probably takes place along the lines between the words and is therefore not explicitly defined or explained (cf. Cowan, 1998: 35). This is demonstrative of two things. Firstly, it emphasises the fact that ‘reflective practice’ is often very personal, dependent on strategies developed within and because of unique circumstances, and therefore not something that can be universalised in a simple diagram. Secondly, it also emphasises that reflection is often a silent matter of what goes on inside one’s head and is therefore rarely made explicit. One could therefore argue that the main aim of a teaching portfolio arranged in terms of ‘reflection’ is to encourage practitioners to make their complex and subtle thought-processes more explicit.

3.1.3 ‘Reflection’ in the context of this portfolio

The way in which the word ‘reflection’ is commonly used suggests three key understandings (Moon, 1999: 4), which seem to echo for me the purpose of producing a portfolio:

1. The reflection seems to lie somewhere around the process of learning, considering things in more detail or re-present ideas in oral or written form.

2. To be of significance to study, we have to regard reflection as implying purpose (cf. Dewey, 1933), and leading to useful outcome.

3. Reflection also involves complicated mental processing of issues for which there is no obvious solution. 

However, it should be noted that this portfolio is concerned with my reflections on teaching, and is not about encouraging student reflection on their own learning (which is a very different remit). While there may be certain crossover instances (most apparent with student feedback and evaluations) and a sense that student reflection informs reflective practice in teaching, this portfolio is distinct. It demands a very specific focus on ‘me’ and the processes I have consciously (and not so consciously) gone through over the last two years, and this is the approach taken when reporting on my chosen reflective cycles later in this chapter.

3.2 Peer observation exercises

A component of this portfolio and a way of ensuring a move from the criticism that reflective practice is little more than ‘naval gazing’ (Fry et al., 1999: 207), is that of peer observation. In many ways, I found this element of tHE Scheme to be the most useful and positive, not just with regards to the constructive feedback received upon being observed by colleagues, but also with regards the insights gained from observing others. Perhaps I was fortunate in the sense that all those who observed me fostered a sense of trust and were non-threatening. They proved useful in telling me what I was doing ‘right’ as much as advising on where improvements might be made, which underlined for me the value of their input.

It is arguable that colleagues can often tell one more about one’s own teaching than one can observe for oneself (Fry et al., 1999: 209), and this is particularly true of elements that are difficult to gauge such as lecture pacing or student response. Indeed, I frequently found that the feedback I received from peer observations was a great help in terms of the ways in which I reflected on my teaching, and this will be clearly apparent during discussions of my chosen reflective cycles later in this chapter. Fry et al. (ibid.) also suggest that observing and being observed in this context reinforces the idea that teaching is all about dialogue and learning from experience.

3.3 Reflective Cycle 1: Student participation in the lecture context

3.3.1 Background information

The cycle that I will describe here occurred over two teaching years and relates to the delivery of a particular module on two separate occasions (once in each academic session, 2000-2). Policies and Issues in Education was a 10-credit module run for Level 1 students and had core status within the Education Department. Typically, the course attracted in excess of 60 students and introduced a range of insights into the education system in England and Wales, providing both an historical framework of developments and introductions to a number of ‘hot topics’ debated by politicians and covered by the media.

The running order of the ten lecture sessions, in which this reflective cycle occurred, were as follows:

One of the central premises of the module and a key concept that was interwoven in and around all the lecture topics was that we are all ‘products of the system’. That is to say, the educational experiences of those who have been schooled in England and Wales were/are dependent upon the very nature of the system (in terms of structures, processes and political legislation).

In order to help my students to understand the nature of the schooling they had received (as well as the education they continued to receive), I set up a scenario where, from the outset, they were actively encouraged to question and critique the education system. I emphasised that as ‘products of the system’ they had a right to adopt an analytical and critical approach. The main way in which I facilitated this approach was to interrelate the content of each lecture to personal experiences and subsequently demonstrate how certain features of institutional experiences can be explained and accounted for.

Throughout the module, my aim was to foster a sense of ‘empowerment’ in the students, so that they would feel confident about ‘taking possession’ of a system over which they had previously had very little control or critical engagement. Once the initial structure of the system had been described and explained (Lectures 1-5), the students were equipped with the necessary theoretical background to give them the basis for debate and analysis. Indeed, once the module reached the halfway stage, I wanted to create a distinct shift away from ‘Policies’ to a consideration of the ‘Issues’ (as per the module title), where knowledge of the former would enhance appraisal of the latter.

3.3.2 Reflective Cycle 1 – Introduction

I co-ordinated the Policies and Issues module for the first time in Semester 2, 2000-01, which was my first year as a full-time lecturer at UWA. This first run-through of the module was essentially an initiation ceremony and a steep learning curve. After the first few weeks I felt confident that I was able to present organised lectures, and knew that my rapport with and understanding of the students was well-established. However, I began to feel that I wanted to make the students work harder and think on their feet as a collective group, rather than simply sit politely through 50-minutes of lecture without having to demonstrate their thinking or processing of the lecture content.

Whilst the students already made active and thoughtful contributions within the context of smaller seminar groups, there was very little opportunity for them to contribute in the lectures where they seemed, for the most part, ‘passive’. Given that feedback from ‘outsiders’ proved consistently useful throughout the time of this tHE scheme, I invited a colleague from the Staff Development office to observe one of my lectures (see Observation 2).

The lecture to be observed – ‘Issue 2: Educational Standards’ – was carefully selected because the ‘issue’ is one that often provokes passionate reactions amongst commentators. Given the opportunity to do so, I felt that most of the students in the group would have been able to comment upon or make observations about the main elements of the debate. However, I was a little unsure as to how it would be possible to incorporate student thinking into the lecture format. With this ‘difficulty’ and uncertainty in mind, I requested that the observer pay particular attention to student reactions during the course of the lecture with the aim of finding ways in which I could encourage their active and critical engagement.

A substantial portion of the lecture focused on the notion of ‘scholastic underachievement’ and the current concern that boys do not seem to perform as well as girls. In order to suggest some of the possible reasons that might account for underachievement (at GCSE level), I referred to the results of an A-Level Sociology project published on the Internet. Those involved in the project distributed questionnaires to a group of teenagers who had recently completed their GCSEs, requesting that they reflect on the possible reasons for their (poor) performances. In summary, a small number of recurrent themes were identified and these were presented during the lecture (listed on an OHP) as follows:

This scenario was identified by the observer as the point at which the students could have been encouraged to participate, by being asked to describe some of their own perspectives on the possible reasons for underachievement in schools. One can clearly see the rationale behind such a suggestion. The majority of the students in the lecture theatre had only just emerged from the formal school system and the demanding rigours of GCSE and A-Level examinations. Therefore it would be reasonable to expect that many had formed opinions of their own about the demands for such an ‘achievement driven’ system and should arguably be allowed to articulate those observations. This approach also corresponded well with the overriding philosophy of the module in that we are all entitled to ‘take possession’ and be critical of our own educational experiences. It was therefore decided that this suggestion would be ‘put to the test’ when the module was convened for a second time.

3.3.3 Reflective Cycle 1 – Application

The module ran for a second time in Semester 1, 2001-2. Given that I had delivered the module once already, I had plenty to reflect on in terms of ‘degrees of effectiveness’ in my teaching approach as a whole. For the purpose of this account, however, I will focus on the application of the interactive lecturing approach identified during the aforementioned observation.

The conventional format for each of my lectures meant that I would habitually summarise the aims and scope of the session at the outset, to offer my students a sense of what to expect and a general overview of the issues at hand. On this occasion, however, utilising the theory of the ‘advanced organiser technique’ posited by Ausubel (see Anderson & Ausubel, 1965: 111; also Gibbs, 1992: 46 ff.), I forewarned by students that they would be expected to contribute to generating a list of possible reasons for underachievement. They were not only made aware of their expected contribution, but were also told that their input would be required immediately after our customary 2-minute break in the middle of the lecture session (cf. Gibbs et al.: 1987). This explicit structure gave them a quantifiable amount of time to ‘think’ about things and to discuss ideas with their classmates, ensuring that they would not feel phased by a ‘different’ approach to the one they had so far been accustomed to.

I encouraged the group to suggest ways in which academic achievement might be affected and the response was very pleasing indeed. As hands were raised and views were expressed, I ‘tracked’ their thinking by writing a summary of points on the whiteboard. This facilitated a sense of order, ensuring that the interactive session was controlled and ‘minuted’, and also provided the group with a ‘mind-map’ of their ideas that they could copy from the board at leisure (cf. Reflective Cycle 2).

What became immediately apparent was that the students were collectively able to generate a far more detailed list of possible influences on underachievement, drawing upon their own insights and observations, than that suggested by the Internet study I had previously used to illustrate the key points of the lecture. The detail generated is apparent when one compares the list below with the summary list of points provided in the lecture during the first teaching cycle:

In addition to generating a more detailed framework of possible influences, the points raised by the group were also evidently informed by the discussions and complex issues that had already been considered in lectures and seminars in the first half of this module. There was clear demonstration that the group was mindful of and engaged in some of the key debates in Education, as presented in this module. This proved useful for me as a way of gauging their levels of understanding and critical thinking. Finally, given that the points were generated and constructed through discussions and mutual agreement, it is arguable that the resultant list was more meaningful to and memorable for the group, and usefully representative of their collective educational experiences.

The contributions made by the students were later posted on the module website (cf. Teaching Innovation) in order to consolidate the learning experience and ensure that everyone had access to the information, which was particularly important for those who were unable to attend the session.

3.3.4 Reflective Cycle 1 – Assessment

I had two reservations about attempting to introduce a level of interaction into the lecture context. Firstly, in my experience, students tend to appreciate a level of predictability within the teaching context, and their relative behaviours tend to depend on the expectations or demands of the tutor. Given that my students were essentially used to having the work done for them, I was concerned about how they would react to the tables being turned. However, the initial set up of the lecture meant that the students had time to think and were consequently prepared to contribute. It became clear that, provided a ‘warning’ is given, most of the students in the group were able to confidently contribute in large-group discussion. Secondly, I had felt a little anxious about whether I would be able to retain control a large group once discussion was opened up, and was concerned that things might become unfocused as a result. This session, however, was surprisingly orderly and I was reassured that I should ‘have faith’ in my students! Organisation was also clearly helped by taking the time to list the key points on the whiteboard.

Asking the students to generate their own list of key points had a number of benefits. Most significantly, the student contributions made for a more insightful, interesting and personalised lecture session, demonstrating exactly how they might go about analysing and questioning their own educational experiences. One could argue that this epitomised the whole notion of ‘taking possession’, in that the students’ own ideas were given value and credence in the formal lecture scenario. Encouraging greater student interaction in lectures is certainly something that I would feel confident about trying again, particularly in contexts where students are able to draw on their own experiences (cf. Reflective Cycle 3)

3.3.5 Reflective Cycle 1: Summary

3.4 Reflective Cycle 2: Module structure presented as a ‘mind map’

3.4.1 Background Information

Throughout the teaching period to which this portfolio pertains, I regularly requested feedback from my students in the form of anonymous ‘exit slips’ (see McKenna, 1995). I operated what I called a ‘traffic light’ feedback system in that students were each provided with two slips of paper – one red and one green. On the red slips, the students were asked to note anything ‘negative’ about the module that they wanted me to ‘stop’ doing, and one green slips they were asked to note anything ‘positive’ that I should ‘go ahead’ and continue doing.

I decided, as a matter of routine in each of my modules, to request feedback from students after the third lecture session. In this way, the students had had a ‘taste’ of the module, but there was still ample opportunity for me to ‘correct’ or ‘modify’ any identifiable weaknesses before a substantial portion of the module had been delivered. Many of the students also appreciated the fact that I was both interested in their impressions of the module and willing to take their views and suggestions into consideration. It was evident from some feedback slips that ‘not many other lecturers care enough about feedback!’ Needless to say, being mindful of ‘what students think’ is very much in line with UWA policies and strategies for learning and teaching, where emphasis is placed on the importance of being ‘student centred’ (www, ‘Strategic Plan’).

Asking for regular feedback proved incredibly worthwhile and useful. Indeed, I found that the feedback received from Level 1 students taking Sociology of Childhood (a brand new module) truly informed my thinking on effective module structuring and clarity of ‘module shape’. A number of the red exit slips I received included comments like: ‘I find it hard to put all of the topics together, and see how they work together’ and ‘I have difficulty placing some topics in context’.

This kind of feedback alerted me to the fact that one needs to be mindful of how module content is holistically presented, so that students can see the inter-connectedness of the issues being identified and discussed. To be explicit about ‘where things are heading’ and how things ‘fit together’ is clearly a factor in the promotion of effective learning (cf. Anderson & Ausubel, 1965:111). This theory formed the basis for my second reflective cycle concerning the development of a ‘concept overview’ or ‘mind map’ for the module as a whole.

Sociology of Childhood was a 10-credit module run for Level 1 students in the Education Department. The module was launched for the first time in Semester 2, 2001-2, and attracted some 55 students. The module was designed to offer an introduction to the social, historical and cultural constructions of ‘children’ and ‘childhood’ with the Western sociological context, providing a paradigm or framework within which individuals could analyse and assess key issues.

The running order of the ten lecture sessions, in which this reflective cycle occurred, were as follows:

Throughout the module, my aim was to encourage the students to begin questioning the whole notion of ‘childhood’, and to start thinking analytically about the contrived ways in which children are perceived and positioned within society. After offering an historical overview of changing perspectives and other background issues pertaining to the whole question of what it means to be a child, the lectures moved towards looking at more specific issues such as the family, peer group, schooling and forms of legislation. Students were asked to evaluate and assess their own experiences of childhood as a way to transform some rather abstract notions into concerns of a more personal nature.

3.4.2 Reflective Cycle 2 – Introduction

As with any new module being delivered for the first time, deciding on the running order of lecture topics can be difficult, and one can often realise half way through the semester that certain amendments need to be made in order for things to ‘hang together’ properly (cf. Ramsden,1992: 123 ff.). It was this realisation, together with the feedback received from the students that prompted me to reflect on how things might be improved in the case of Sociology of Childhood.

By the end of the first teaching cycle – Lecture 10, Semester 2, 2001-2 – I had a clear overview of how things should be arranged and how each of the topics might be represented in terms of a ‘mind map’ (Buzan, 1991). As a way of pulling all the conceptual threads together, I incorporated the ‘mind map’ idea into the closing lecture, and it is true to say that I heard many pennies dropping as I began to explain how certain factors interacted and corresponded.

It occurred to me that presenting the structure of a module in this way worked well to cater for different types of ‘thinker’ and different approaches to ‘learning’. For example, seeing ‘the big picture’ of how all the themes and concepts interrelate would appeal to so-called ‘global thinkers/learners’. Such individuals need to ‘see the whole before they understand the parts’ and ‘respond well to pictures and diagrams’ (www, Teaching Excellence in Distance Learning, Abiator’s Online Thinking Styles Summary). At the same time, so-called ‘analytical thinkers/learners’ are still being accounted for, given that they need to ‘see the parts – usually in sequential order – before understanding the whole’ and often ‘need visual reinforcement’ (ibid.). One can also add a subtle reference here to three further sub-categories of thinkers – Visual (seeing), Auditory (hearing) and Kinesthetic (feeling) – where the first two are clearly catered for in the ‘mind map’ approach of images-with-running-commentary.  Needless to say, this approach might also be beneficial and have many positive repercussions for dyslexic students (cf. Buzan, 1991, who’s ‘mind map’ approach is often used as a learning strategy for dyslexics).

Given the positive response from the students of seeing ‘the big picture’, I decided that the future delivery of the module would be much improved if the opening lecture framed the entire module in this explicit way. The ‘mind map’ idea was accompanied by slight amendments to the running order to the lecture programme.

3.4.3 Reflective Cycle 2 – Application

The module ran for a second time in Semester 1, 2002-3. In the opening lecture, the concepts of ‘children’ and ‘childhood’ were closely scrutinised and placed in the context of the planned lecture programme and module content. In order to consolidate some of these initial ideas and observations about the so-called social ‘constructions’ of the concepts, as well as an acknowledgement of the factors that impact upon these ‘constructions’, the ‘mind map’ idea was introduced under the somewhat dubious title: ‘The Sociology of Childhood is like an Onion’.

The main premise of the ‘mind map’ as an illustration of and an explanation for the dynamics of the module was to demonstrate how and why the concept of ‘childhood’ can be seen as a central concern for sociologists. ‘Childhood’, at the heart of debate in this module, is by its very embeddedness in society, tightly bound by other sociological considerations. Hence, just like an onion, the concepts of ‘childhood’ have many layers, both independent of and interdependent within a given framework.

OHP acetates were used in an innovative way to produce the desired presentational effect and focus explanation. The first acetate comprised the single key word ‘Childhood’ in the middle of the page, framed in a box. A second sheet of acetate was then placed over the first in order to ‘add a layer’, which read ‘Historical shifts’ – the so-called the next level of consideration. This was followed by a third layer, entitled ‘Family’, with subsequent layers reading as follows: Peer group, Education, Legislation, Media & Globalisation, and Erosion/Conflict.

This basic structure of concentric layering worked well to illustrate the perspectives from which the concept of ‘childhood’ can be studied in this academic context. The ordering of the layers also followed the amended running-order of the lecture schedule, offering students a very clearly defined ‘way forward’ in terms of what they could expect to encounter. An added dimension to the process of layering also outlined the ways in which some layers have potentially more impact on the central concept than others might i.e. the layers closer to the centre of the model have a more profound and direct impact on ‘childhood’.

However, it was also important and desirable for the students to realise that the so-called ‘sociology of childhood’ is a dynamic and cyclic process of change, and not something that can sit statically within a formal framework. A final layer was therefore added to the ‘mind map’, tying in with the central arguments presented in the core text for the module – the notion that ‘childhood’ is both constructed and reconstructed by the social forces that impact upon it (cf. James & Prout, 1997). The complete ‘mind map’ is shown in Figure 3.4.3.1, overleaf.

Figure 3.4.3.1: ‘Mind map’ of Sociology of Childhood

‘The sociology of childhood is like an onion’

3.4.4 Reflective Cycle 2 – Assessment

I was able to assess the relative success of this ‘mind map’ approach on a number of different levels, across the two teaching cycles. In the first teaching instance, when the ‘map’ was introduced at the very end of the module to tie all the different concepts together, ‘instant feedback’ indicated very positive responses. I had a particularly illuminating conversation with one of my dyslexic students, who explained how things were much clearer for him when I used a combination of visuals and running commentary to ‘deconstruct’ the key issues and to make the main ideas within the module more explicit and identifiable.

In the second teaching instance, when the ‘map’ was used at the end of the very first lecture, things seemed to fall into place most appropriately. The main part of the lecture involved introducing the students to the proposed constructions of ‘childhood’ as formulated by two different groups of sociologists, providing them with a framework or paradigm in which to locate their arguments. The ‘map’ was then introduced as a module-specific paradigm, to be added to the other frameworks for a comprehensive overview of the issues to be discussed. In many ways, this ensured that the students could place the module content within the context of broader debates, as well as locate the broader debates within the more focused approach of the module.

The impact upon the students was immediately apparent in the seminar context, where individuals framed their comments in light of the ‘map’, and acknowledged how the relative components fitted together to produce ‘the big picture’. It seemed to me that the students dealt with the discussion material more confidently because they already had an idea of where things were heading and what the module aims and intentions were. Interestingly, there were also far fewer queries about the essay questions than in the previous teaching cycle, so it is arguably possible to conclude that explicit frameworks can assist in organising both thought patterns and written work.

Periodically, throughout the course of the second teaching session, I decided that it would be useful to revisit the ‘mind map’ as a way of tracking the development of the module. It was particularly useful to reintroduce the ‘map’ in the first lecture after the reading week (i.e. Lecture 6), since the module had reached the half-way stage and I was able to recap on where we had already been and where we would be going during the remaining five weeks. It was also relevant to demonstrate how we had dealt with ‘immediate’ issues in the child’s world (such as family, peer group and school) and that the sociological issues were about to open out into the wider spheres of legislation, globalisation and the mass media. Our concerns were shown to be moving from the inner to the outer layers of the ‘onion’, as it were.

It was most encouraging to note at the very end of the teaching semester that this careful forward planning in the second cycle did not go unnoticed by the students. When I worked through the departmental evaluation forms for the module, I stumbled upon a comment that read as follows: ‘Good structure, not just in lectures but for the whole module’. This just goes to show that many students appreciate being given a strong idea of what their studies involve, as well as a clear sense of how the various components of a module fit together.

3.4.5 Reflective Cycle 2: Summary

3.5 Reflective Cycle 3: Experiential learning

3.5.1 Background Information

The cycle I will describe here was prompted by feelings of dissatisfaction after delivering a less than engaging lecture session – ‘The beginnings of writing’. This particular lecture was scheduled for the eighth teaching week in the second semester 2001-2, as a component of a Level 3 Education module entitled Literacy in Young Children.

The running order of the ten lecture sessions, in which this reflective cycle occurred, were as follows:

This module focused predominantly on the ways in which young children acquired reading and writing skills, together with an assessment of how these skills are encouraged and promoted in the primary classroom context. Two sessions were planned for the discussion of developing writing skills, and the first session (to which this cycle refers) involved introducing some of the preliminary stages in early writing development (in the context of developing motor skills).

One of my main concerns as the session drew to a close was that any real substance seemed to be lacking, since considerations were introduced on a descriptive rather than critical level, and the students remained generally passive throughout. I was concerned that a session of this kind would leave little lasting impression and not really engage the students in any analytical way, so I knew that something needed to be done to ‘re-vamp’ before re-introducing it in Semester 1 2002-3.

Fortunately, I had invited a departmental colleague (who happened to specialise in literacy acquisition) to sit in on this particular session and complete a peer observation exercise (see Observation 5). We discussed possible ways in which the lecture could be introduced in a different, more memorable way, and our conversation informed my later thinking on style and method.

3.5.2 Reflective Cycle 3 – Introduction

When ‘The beginnings of writing’ was delivered for the first time, it was done in a traditional lecture format. I extracted examples of young children’s first efforts at writing from a number of key texts, and showed them to the group as a whole by copying them onto OHP acetates (as well as their lecture handouts). These were done in a sequential way, together with running commentary about the kinds of developments and changes that they should note within each of the examples. In a sense, I was doing all the work by offering the students this simple outline; there was no challenge in terms of making them think carefully about things or offer analytical observations. Given that this was a Level 3 module, I felt that the students needed to be encouraged to participate in the process of constructing their own ‘knowledge bank’, and knew that a traditional lecture would not facilitate this level of engagement.

Therefore, during the second teaching cycle of this module, I aimed to build two new elements into the structure of the session, which were essentially hands-on in nature, in order to encourage the students to think and evaluate. Rather than beginning the session by giving a traditional lecture followed by some form of discussion, I decided that the first new element would involve the students being asked to immediately engage in a workshop activity. The group would be required to demonstrate, before receiving a formal lecture, the extent of their knowledge and understanding about the most likely stages of progression made by young children during initial writing activities. The students would be given copies of the writing examples (as per the OHP acetates) and be asked to place the examples in the most likely developmental order. Given their Level 1 grounding in Child Development (including classic theories posited by individuals like Piaget and Vygotsky), it was felt that the student already had the tools to tackle this kind of task.

The second new element to be built into the session would involve what I call ‘cognitive regression’! In other words, I aimed to take the students on a journey back into early childhood, to the point where they first picked up a writing implement, with the intention of encouraging them to recall some of the feelings they might have experienced at the time. Appropriate to the context of the lecture under scrutiny, the students would be asked to write their names and addresses using the hand they do not normally use to write with, whilst being asked to monitor the feelings and sensations experienced. The main reason for incorporating this element in to the session was to demonstrate and emphasise (in a meaningful way) the complex nature of the motor skills involved in the writing process.

In order to justify the effectiveness of an experiential learning approach of this kind, I need look no further than the classic theories posited by individuals such as the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1978) and the progressive educationalist/philosopher John Dewey (1933). Both emphasised the effectiveness of ‘learning through doing’ (cf. Kolb, 1984; Jarvis et al., 1998: 46 ff.). Through the two newly introduced activities, I hoped that the students would not only find the lecture more memorable but would be prompted to recall their own childhood experiences as a way to bring some of the more abstract concepts to life.

3.5.3 Reflective Cycle 3 – Application

At the start of the session, I explained to the students the change in format and what would be required of them as a consequence (cf. Anderson & Ausubel, 1965: 111). The students were asked to divide into groups of about 4 or 5, and each group was given a ‘pack’ containing randomised copies of the various writing samples. Instructions were given for the students to place the different samples into the order that they deemed appropriate, whilst discussing and recording their rationale. That is to say, the students were being guided towards making decisions for themselves about such things as developments and changes in children’s writing, rather than simply being told by me. The groups were then asked to report back and general discussion followed, demonstrating a level of consensus about certain key issues.

Once the students had tackled the task and done some thinking for themselves, their reflections and ‘learning experiences’ were consolidated by my delivering the lecture, where the examples were reintroduced, explained and analysed. However, once the examples had been covered and placed in the context of both cognitive and physical development, I stopped the lecture and engaged the students in the second stage of the modified approach – writing with their ‘other hand’. Whilst reference to the ‘complex motor skills’ needed for undertaking a writing task might be defined as an abstract concept not immediately meaningful to anyone, setting up a scenario in which the complexities of such skills can be felt and remembered through first-hand experience is arguably more memorable and understandable.

As the students wrote their names and addresses (an activity that young children practice almost obsessively!), they were asked to think about how they felt and reacted both mentally and physically to the challenge. A number of very useful and illuminating observations were noted (and recorded on the whiteboard) offering a comprehensive and thought-provoking assessment of the challenges faced by young children when they first enter school.

3.5.4 Reflective Cycle 3 – Assessment

The slight change in session format resulted in some pleasing reactions from the students. The opening exercise worked well as a way of challenging the students to critically engage with the writing samples in their own terms and from their own perspectives. Applications of logic and common sense ensured that they scrutinised the samples carefully and reached their own conclusions. Simultaneously, they were also placed in a situation where they had to re-evaluate their ‘assessment criteria’ in terms of how and why they decided upon the running order of development and progression.

The second element of this reflective cycle was perhaps the most unconventional and provoked the most interesting feedback. During the course of the exercise, there was evidently much ‘unexpected’ enjoyment at having to ‘go back in time’ and try to remember the original feelings experienced at the early writing stage. Many of the students reported feeling sensations of utter frustration and clumsiness – wanting to ‘chuck the pen’ and shake their hand/arm to relieve tension! One student even explained that her ‘head hurt’ having to concentrate on doing something that felt so strange. These kinds of reactions arguably brought the group much closer to an empathetic understanding of the ‘traumas and challenges’ faced by young children in the classroom, as well as personalising and making more memorable the content of a session that had been distinctly forgettable during the first teaching cycle.

3.5.5 Reflective Cycle 3: Summary

3.5 Teaching Innovation – Module Web Pages: A ‘Virtual File’

3.5.1 Background Information

As an individual with interests in the applications and vast potential of new technologies within the teaching context, I was particularly eager to begin developing web resources for the use of any students taking my modules. Even before taking up a lectureship post, I had experience of web page design (using a standard web composer) and had published selected research articles on-line. For example: I recently published a synopsis of my PhD, entitled Children’s Toy Advertisements, and this page alone has received 1,579 hits (as on 8-11-02) in the six or so months that it has been available on-line. The power of the Internet as a medium to both excite and educate has been underlined for me by the amount of positive feedback I have received from individuals who have found my research material useful and interesting.

I have always believed in offering students a wide variety of teaching approaches and resources (from handouts and OHPs, to workshops, summaries and brainstorming sessions), based purely on the theory that choice and diversity is more likely to be able to cater for multiple learning and thinking styles. I have always regarded the Internet as an interesting and dynamic addition to the methods typically utilised in course delivery, and strongly believe that building web resources into course design can open up many teaching and learning possibilities. Additionally, with current emphasis on students acquiring IT and ‘transferable skills’ (outlined in terms of UWA aims, objectives and learning outcomes for all taught modules), encouraging students to use web pages to find out module information ensures that this issue is addressed and promoted in a relevant and meaningful way.

Initially, I had contemplated utilising UWA Blackboard software as a way to promote on-line learning, but after undertaking training I quickly realised that the software capabilities were somewhat limited when compared with web composers such as Frontpage. ‘Flexibility’ was the main reason for opting to construct specific module web sites, but they also complemented the other web-based resources in the Education Department as well as approaches used by other undergraduate tutors. Our students were always encouraged to refer to the departmental web pages for information, so it was most appropriate to add links to the module-specific pages from the Education Department’s main page.

3.5.2 Teaching Innovation – Introduction

One always has to be mindful of the concept of ‘user’ when one sets about designing web pages. Essentially, any web page needs to be easily and efficiently navigable, whilst providing all the necessary information and links in a relevant and useful way (see Lynch & Horton, 2001; Nielsen, 2000). One thing I decided upon early in the design process was that all my module pages would follow exactly the same format, so that all students who registered on my module/s would quickly become accustomed to the set up. In order to add some element of differentiation between the modules, however, I colour-coded page backgrounds to create some kind of obvious distinction e.g. Policies and Issues in Education was ‘yellow’, Sociology of Childhood was ‘blue’, Literacy in Young Children was ‘green’ and Major/Minor Dissertations was ‘red’!

To access the module web pages, students clicked on the module title from the current undergraduate course listings on the Education Department web site. Each of the modules had an identical ‘index’ or ‘welcome’ page.

By following the links, students could access and view the relevant module information in a contained and economical way. For example, ‘Course Outline’ linked to a page that contained a summary of the information kept on the UWA module database. This was deemed necessary because (in the first year at least) very few students realised that the module database existed and, when asked about it during a Staff/Student Consultative Committee meeting, looked very vague and puzzled!

‘General Reading’ linked to a page that offered a summary of the general bibliography pertaining to the course. However, in an attempt to meet the differing needs of students at different stages in their degree, the ‘Reading’ link on the Literacy in Young Children page (a Level 3 module) was further broken down into ‘General Reading’ and ‘Lecture Specific Reading’. This was done in order to be more specific and focused, and to assist those students who wished to read-up on key issues prior to the lecture.

‘Assignments’ linked to a page that was broken down into five further options, providing students not only with a list of current essay topics, but also with advice on how to go about writing academic essays. Here I provided my own module-specific suggestions (with links to additional reading lists where necessary) as well as a link to the undergraduate guidelines set out by the Education Department, together with a list and explanation of our assessment criteria. This section of the web site also contained a page offering examples of well-written essays by students who had already taken the module. I wanted to include on-line copies of students essays as a way to give current students an explicit idea of ‘what it takes’ to gain good marks, as well as to provide a useful revision resource for those wishing to answer exam questions on particular topics.

Perhaps the most used of all the links was that for ‘Handouts’. This opened out to a page on which the running order of the lectures was summarised in a table, together with active links to electronic versions of all the handouts (including those for seminars). From general comments made by students, many appreciated being able to access handouts in this way, particularly when unable to come to lectures due to illness or when at home for reading/assignment weeks. The final two links were available to offer a little background information on myself, together with contact details and a list of all the modules I taught, and a general space for announcements and news about the module (such as preparation tasks for seminars and updates on reading materials).

A full printed example of the basic format for module web pages (for Sociology of Childhood) is included in Appendix C, to give a clearer idea of how things fitted together.

3.5.3 Teaching Innovation – Application

During the very first lecture at the beginning of each module, I would, as a matter of course, provide students with a summary sheet containing all the relevant module details and a ‘schedule of teaching’ (see Appendix C.2.2.1). This introductory sheet was used as the main way to publicise the existence of the module web pages, with the link provided in full. This was also backed up in the lecture context, in that I would stress the existence of the pages as a resource that the students should take advantage of. I explained to the students that I would add copies of lecture handouts to the web site on a weekly basis, immediately after the relevant lecture, to emphasise the dynamism and immediacy of the medium.

One of the main advantages of using the Internet as a teaching tool is that it is incredibly flexible. In order to take advantage of the possibilities and as a way to consolidate the student learning experience, I would make a point of enhancing lecture handouts by including some of the graphic illustrations used in the lecture context. Inserting images in the relevant places was done as a way to help student ‘pin-down’ their learning by demonstrating how things fitted together (cf. Reflective Cycle 2) and essentially recreating the lecture scenario in a virtual context. This was useful on two levels: to jog the memories of those who had attended lectures, and to ensure that those unable to attend did not miss out on too much. Active links to relevant web pages elsewhere on the Internet were also included in the reference list at the end of each ‘handout’, to save students having to key in the URL for themselves!

A further advantage of using the Internet is that it can be used responsively according to student need (see Ramsden, 1992: 97). The importance of being responsive came to the fore during my second full-time year as lecturer, when I team-taught on a Child Development module. The module co-ordinator was suddenly taken ill and his absence left the students somewhat reeling and in a state of shock in the run-up to their examinations! In order to calm the sense of mounting panic, I posted some revision notes on the web site, taking advantage of group e-mail technology to circulate the web link to all those registered on the module. The feedback I received from students was very positive indeed, and many commented on how quick and easy it was to locate and print off the notes.

Given that departmental photocopying budget was a very real issue, I also took advantage of the module web sites to provide additional information for students without drowning them in a sea of paper! Posting ‘virtual handouts’ for seminars was a particularly useful practice. The students would often be set group tasks within many of the seminar contexts in order to generate discussion. On a number of occasions, the students were asked to outline or construct arguments about different issues, and to pool their ideas in the second half of the seminar session. I was, however, mindful of the fact that the notes accumulated by students would be somewhat ‘bitty’, in the sense that their focus points were narrow and specific to their group, and that the ‘quality’ of the notes would often depend upon group dynamics (see Jaques, 1991). In answer to this potential ‘problem’, I would keep brief notes on the arguments outlined by the students on a given topic across all the seminar groups and then construct a general summary ‘handout’ as a record, which would be posted on the web site. Again, group e-mail was used to alert the students to the existence of the summaries, and the URL would be included with the message.

Finally, another useful application of module web pages was to ‘demystify’ the Major- and Minor-Dissertation options in the Education Department. I frequently suspected that my students, when confronted with the prospect of writing up to 10,000 words on a topic of their choice, would be intimidated and confused to the point of simply not knowing where to start or what they ought to be aiming for. I therefore set about collecting copies of the strongest examples of well-written and well-researched dissertations and created a web page to display the work. Then, during the preliminary stages to describing and explaining to my tutees what they needed to do for their piece of work to constitute a dissertation, I would refer them to the on-line examples. This proved especially useful in terms making explicit the overall organisation and layout of the work. On occasion, I also found myself encouraging students taking some of my other modules to refer to the dissertations if certain research topics were relevant. For example, a dissertation on Gendered Reading Preferences at KS2 proved useful in terms of ‘reviewing the literature’ in the context of my Literacy in Young Children module.

3.4.4 Teaching Innovation – Assessment

Overall, the students seemed to very much appreciate the existence of the module web pages and frequently mentioned them as a positive aspect of my courses on exit slips and departmental feedback/evaluation forms (see Appendix D.1-2 for examples). Once they were initiated into logging-on they did so on a regular basis. I tracked the number of ‘hits’ on the Index page for each module using a web counter, and the average tended to be about 30 per week (which, theoretically, was approximately half the group in each of my modules). It is likely that the number of ‘hits’ was more than this, given that many students were sent direct links to other pages that were not tracked by web counters. As far as I was concerned, this was proof enough of the importance of maintaining and updating the module pages as a valuable and used teaching resource.

Positive feedback on the pages even filtered through to the Staff/Student Committee, where comments were received about their usefulness. One student aptly described the pages as a ‘virtual file’ that could be accessed anytime and anywhere (either within the UWA network or from home). One of the main benefits, as far as she was concerned, was being able to look up lecture- and essay-specific reading whilst in the library, and be able to find the books easily without having to lug a heavy file around with her!

3.4.5 Teaching Innovation: Summary

This page was last modified 12 Dec 2005