Relocating reflection in the context of practice David Boud University of Technology, Sydney Want to end the conference by looking beyond problem-based learning as we presently know it. PBL has been extraordinarily successful in transforming initial professional education and it has influenced teaching and learning in higher education more widely. It has introduced the notion of an explicit pedagogy to pursue clear purposes in area s in in which it has always been taken for granted. I want to speculate on what we might take from other areas of research and scholrship that have taken an interest in areas closely related to professional education to see what cross-fertilisation might take place. I will imagine for the purposes of this presentation that they have not yet made an impact. I know from past experience that when one articulates anything new someone has already done it. So please feel free to give your own examples at the end. I am no longer involved directly in PBL—my research interests have taken me into areas of assessment and workplace learning. I therefore come here not as someone who knows where the latest PBL developments are happening, but as somewhat as an outsider revisting a place where fond memories are to be had, but with a different pair of eyes.

Earlier use of reflection New awareness of ‘practice’ Outline What is the problem? Earlier use of reflection New awareness of ‘practice’ Changing context of professional practice Implications for reflection now These are the main questions I want to address. It is important to start from understanding why PBL has been such a successful innovation and be honest with ourselves about this. Many of the reasons are not because of the intrinsic excellence of what it purposrts to do, but because it ‘fits’ can be made to fit with with the historical practices of universities. I want to suggest that some aspects of it have been more successful than others and point to some area in which we might focus attention further. The main one of these I will suggest is the transition to professional practice. That is, the interface between courses and practice as qualified practitioners. The classic features of PBL have been very successful in establishing a pedagogy at the front end of professional education, but it is not clear that this follows through as elegantly at the back end. Finally, I want to raise some issues about the directions in which these ideas might take us. We should celebrate the success of PBL but be mindful that if it is going to continue to be successful it must address a wider range of concerns.

1. Why do we need to revisit ideas of reflection? Become commonplace—do we know what we mean anymore? Bad habits have become established in courses A generative idea has become fixed Needs to be rethought for new circumstances Be clearer about why we are using the notion

2. Earlier use of reflection Questionning experience An individual focus even when others involved Use in courses sometimes distorted the idea eg. reflection as recipe following, reflection without learning, over intellectualising reflection and uncritical acceptance of learners’ experience. Those using reflection with students not necessarily applying it to their own practice Fundamentally different conceptions of reflection were in use without this being apparent

What can we take from this? Some aspects of what has been called reflection should be rejected (the overly instrumental) Focus on what it is good for and not over extend its role (ie. for dealing with complex embodied events)

3. New awareness of practice New conceptualisations of practice; new positioning of practice in knowledge development the ‘practice turn’ has followed the ‘reflective turn’. Make sure I separate general problems with PBL from those about the transition Notwithstanding its successes, what are its limitations? In addition to these limits there is also a suggestion that some programs have withdrawn from PBL because they couldn’t find a sustainable funding model and have reverted to didactic approaches for reasons of money and lack of imagination of of educational leaders.

Key features of a practice view Practice is necessarily contextualised it cannot be readily discussed independently of the settings in which it occurs Practice is necessarily embodied it involves whole persons including their motives and feelings, discussion of it in isolation from the person who practices is to misunderstand practice

Stages of expertise Novice Advanced beginner Competence Proficiency Mastery Practical wisdom (Dreyfus & Dreyfus)

4. Changing context of professional practice Collective rather than individual nature Multidisciplinary and, increasingly, transdisciplinary character Co-production of practice; co-construction of knowledge Interestingly, there haven’t been any studies of teachers’ conceptions of assessment that parallel those of students’ conceptions of learning and teachers’conceptions of teaching. I have therefore had to improvise here using a composite of generally expressed views in the literature and a study of teachers’ conceptions of students’ self-assessment. I look forward to an empirical study to see if my hunch is correct.

5. Implications for rethinking reflection Notion of productive reflection

Elements of ‘productive reflection’ 1. An organisational rather than an individual intent and a collective rather than individual orientation 2. Reflection is necessarily contextualised within work, it connects learning and work 3. It involves multiple stakeholders and connects players 4. It has a generative rather than instrumental focus and a developmental character 5. Reflection is an open, unpredictable process, it is dynamic and changes over time We summarised some of the features of productive reflection as it emerged from the examples we were looking at: 1. The focus is not primarily on individuals learning. It is on how a group of people can reach a common understanding for action based on reflection together. 2. The context of work and the particular responsibilities there frames the process and provides a common starting point. 3. The stakeholders in the process are not just the members of the work entity reflecting together but other players in the organisation, customers, suppliers and so on. It connects these rather than treats them as separate units of concern. 4. Reflection has always been described in generative terms, that is, it leads to further reflection, learning and action rather than an immediate instrumental outcome. However, it is necessary to emphasise that while there usually are some operational outcomes in a work setting, the process of reflection itself is undermined if it is approached in an operational fashion. 5. There are no guarantees in reflection. It may lead into completely unexpected directions. While it can be fostered the outcomes cannot be planned. Indeed one of the reasons for using such an approach is that systemic, rationalistic processes are necessarily limited. These features are elaborated in the book in terms of different practices in different settings. Productive reflection is not a defined set of practices, but a way of viewing learning in work settings that involves workgroups, meets the needs of production and recognises the vital role of reflexivity at every level even in otherwise rationally designed and systematic work processes. Reflexivity is not just about a knowing-self … but about [say more here about it]

Conclusion We cannot act only on ideas of reflection from the 1980s Productive reflection is just one manifestation of what is likely to be much rethinking of reflection Large task is to examine professional practice and what is needed to sustain reflexive practice for the longer term

Some questions for consideration What does it mean to take the notion of embodied learning seriously, and how might this challenge some of our assumptions about learning for professional practice? How do we sufficiently account for the realities of practice in the activities that prepare learners for it, and what does this imply for what is highlighted in courses? How will we deal with reflection in the context of co-construction of knowledge when the partners in the process have radically different power positions and normal conditions for reflection are not obviously met? How can we bracket the necessary imperative of operationalisation to ensure that a zealous emphasis on procedural requirements does not undermine the very processes we are trying to foster?

References Boud, D. and Walker, D (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of context, Studies in Higher Education, 23, 2, 191-206. Boud, D., Cressey, P. and Docherty, P. (Eds.) (2006). Productive Reflection at Work: Learning for Changing Organizations. Routledge, London. Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: a model. In Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (Eds) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, Kogan Page, London, 18-40. Dreyfus, H. L. and Dreyfus, S. E. (2005) Expertise in Real World Contexts, Organization Studies, 26, 5, 779–792. Reynolds, M. and Vance, R. (Eds.) (2004). Organizing Reflection. Ashgate, Aldershot. Schatzki, T, Knorr Cetina, K & von Savigny, E (Eds) (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, Routledge, London. Schwandt, T (2005) On modelling our understanding of the practice fields, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13, 3, 313-332.