Making use of pedagogic models as reflective catalysts for investigating pedagogic practice

The notion of pedagogy for anyone in the teaching profession is innocuous. The term itself, is steeped in history but the details of the practice can be elusive. What does it mean for an academic to be embracing pedagogy? The problem is not limited to academics; most teachers baulk at the introduction of a pedagogic agenda and resist attempts to have them reflect on their classroom teaching practice, where ever that classroom might be constituted. This paper explores the application of a pedagogic model (Education Queensland, 2001) which was developed in the context of primary and secondary teaching and was part of a schooling agenda to improve pedagogy. As a teacher educator I introduced the model to classroom teachers (Hill, 2002) using an Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987) model and at the same time applied the model to my own pedagogy as an academic. Despite being instigated as a model for classroom teachers, I found through my own practitioner investigation that the model was useful for exploring my own pedagogy as a university academic (Hill, 2007, 2008). Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organisational life, in Passmore, W. and Woodman, R. (Eds) Research in Organisational Changes and Development (Vol 1) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp 129-69 Education Queensland (2001) School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS), Brisbane, Queensland Government. Hill, G. (2002, December ) Reflecting on professional practice with a cracked mirror: Productive Pedagogy experiences. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference. Brisbane, Australia. Hill, G. (2007) Making the assessment criteria explicit through writing feedback: A pedagogical approach to developing academic writing. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 3(1), 59-66. Hill, G. (2008) Supervising Practice Based Research. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 5(4), 78-87

A model for reflection in the pedagogic field of higher education

This chapter provides an introduction to the use of pedagogical patterns in capturing and sharing educational design experience. In higher education, helping students to learn to engage in productive reflection presents a complex set of challenges. Delicate balances must be found: too little structure and support for students’ reflective work can leave them floundering; too much, and some will remain dependent. Moreover, this is a dynamic teaching problem – scaffolding needs to be adjusted as students develop confidence and capability, which they will do at different rates. The model presented in this chapter embraces the three main elements that teachers can legitimately design, or help set in place, to support their students’ reflective activity: good tasks, the right tools, and appropriate divisions of labour. It delineates a complex, shifting architecture of tasks, tools and people, activities and outcomes associated with reflective learning. It shows how the designable elements of this complex mix can be described in patterns and pattern languages, which then become design resources for teachers’ own action, reflection and professional development.

Empirical reference points for Bernstein’s model of pedagogic rights: Recontextualising the reconciliation agenda to Australian schooling

In this chapter we use Bernstein’s (2000) model of pedagogic rights to examine the learning experiences for non-Indigenous teachers in two reconciliation projects. In the context within which we write, reconciliation is the process of establishing a culture of mutual respect between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous Australians. In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody linked the continuation of racism in Australian society to the weak coverage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in the school curriculum (Reconciliation Australia 2010). Nearly two decades later, the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians issued by the council of Federal, State and Territory Ministers of Education proclaimed that curriculum should enable all students to ‘understand and acknowledge the value of Indigenous cultures and possess the knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to, and benefit from reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians’ (MCEETYA 2008, 9). Education holds out promise not only of better life chances for Indigenous young people, but also of replacing myths with understanding and tackling prejudice and racism within the non-Indigenous population. Bernstein’s (2000) model of pedagogic rights promises some purchase on this pedagogic work by providing concepts for looking systematically at the participation of non-Indigenous teachers in education. As observed by Frandji and Vitale (Chapter 2, this volume), the model is not sufficient to achieve a democratic reality, ‘but simply provides a basis for problematizing reality and considering possibilities’.

Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education

The importance of reflection in higher education, and across disciplinary fields is widely recognised; it is generally included in university graduate attributes, professional standards and program objectives. Furthermore, reflection is commonly embedded into assessment requirements in higher education subjects, often without necessary scaffolding or clear expectations for students. Despite the rhetoric around the importance of reflection for ongoing learning, there is scant literature on any systematic, developmental approach to teaching reflective learning across higher education programs/courses. Given that professional or academic reflection is not intuitive, and requires specific pedagogic intervention to do well, a program/course-wide approach is essential. This paper draws on current literature to theorise a new, transferable and customisable model for teaching and assessing reflective learning across higher education, which foregrounds and explains the pedagogic field of higher education as a multi-dimensional space. We argue that explicit and strategic pedagogic intervention, supported by dynamic resources, is necessary for successful, broad-scale approaches to reflection in higher education.

Teaching Reflective Learning in Higher Education : A Systematic Approach Using Pedagogic Patterns

This book is about understanding the nature and application of reflection in higher education. It provides a theoretical model to guide the implementation of reflective learning and reflective practice across multiple disciplines and international contexts in higher education. The book presents research into the ways in which reflection is both considered and implemented in different ways across different professional disciplines, while maintaining a common purpose to transform and improve learning and/or practice. Readers will find this book innovative and new in three key ways. First, in its holistic theorisation of reflection within the pedagogic field of higher education; Secondly, in conceptualising reflection in different modes to achieve specific purposes in different disciplines; and finally, in providing conceptual guidance for embedding reflective learning and reflective practice in a systematic way across whole programmes, faculties or institutions in higher education. The book considers important contextual factors that influence the teaching of forms and methods of reflection. It provides a functional analysis of multiple modes of reflection, including written, oral, visual, auditory, and embodied forms. Empirical chapters analyse the application of these modes across disciplines and at different stages of a programme. The theoretical model accounts for students’ stage of development in the disciplinary field, along with progressive and cyclical levels of higher order thinking, and learning and professional practice that are expected within different disciplines and professional fields. The book provides: • A conceptual model for the application of reflection across disciplines in a variety of contexts. • Empirical examples of different modes and pedagogic patterns for reflection. • Guidance and support for embedding systemic pedagogical and curriculum change.

Using the TARL Model in Psychology: Supporting First and Final Year Students to Compose Reflections

Reflective thinking is an important skill in psychology, both as a tool in the therapeutic process and in professional development. The adapted 4Rs Model provides reflective writing structure and highlights the importance of Reporting & Responding, Relating, Reasoning and Reconstructing to students who are new to writing reflections. This chapter presents a case in which the 4Rs model (modified from the 5Rs model in Chap. 2 of this edition) was adopted to support reflective writing skills of undergraduate psychology students in a first year unit and in a final year unit. Although all students reflected on their learning within the units, the support activities leading up to the reflective tasks were adjusted to account for differences in the abilities of the cohorts and the focus of the units. In an evaluation survey, both groups of students endorsed statements about the importance of reflections and the utility of using the model. First year students also reported some difficulties understanding the 4Rs. This chapter will explore how first and final year students can be supported to develop reflection skills through scaffolding and modification of the same approaches and model.

The university and the knowledge network: A new educational model for 21st century learning and employability

The higher education sector is under ongoing pressure to demonstrate quality and efficacy of educational provision, including graduate outcomes. Preparing students as far as possible for the world of professional work has become one of the central tasks of contemporary universities. This challenging task continues to receive significant attention by policy makers and scholars, in the broader contexts of widespread labour market uncertainty and massification of the higher education system (Tomlinson, 2012). In contrast to the previous era of the university, in which ongoing professional employment was virtually guaranteed to university-qualified individuals, contemporary graduates must now be proactive and flexible. They must adapt to a job market that may not accept them immediately, and has continually shifting requirements (Clarke, 2008). The saying goes that rather than seeking security in employment, graduates must now “seek security in employability”. However, as I will argue in this chapter, the current curricular and pedagogic approaches universities adopt, and indeed the core structural characteristics of university-based education, militate against the development of the capabilities that graduates require now and into the future.

An approximate method for the solution of an influence function foil rolling model

Fleck and Johnson (Int. J. Mech. Sci. 29 (1987) 507) and Fleck et al. (Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 206 (1992) 119) have developed foil rolling models which allow for large deformations in the roll profile, including the possibility that the rolls flatten completely. However, these models require computationally expensive iterative solution techniques. A new approach to the approximate solution of the Fleck et al. (1992) Influence Function Model has been developed using both analytic and approximation techniques. The numerical difficulties arising from solving an integral equation in the flattened region have been reduced by applying an Inverse Hilbert Transform to get an analytic expression for the pressure. The method described in this paper is applicable to cases where there is or there is not a flat region.