(Week 12) Larrivee's Levels of Reflection

For my last post in my Learning Log for Lorayne's course "Critical and Reflective Practice in Education", I would like to use Larrivee's assessment tool to describe my own level of reflection, both past and present.

Early in my teaching career, before 2008, I was, as the above card accurately portrays, mainly in the Pre-Reflection (Level 1) and Surface Reflection (Level 2) stages.  Why do I think so?  Well, I taught my classes with the express purpose of relaying information with minimal support from any established theories, research or best practices.  As such, I was very teacher-centered considering most of my beliefs were based on my own classroom experience.  My focus was on short-term results and did not recognize the different learning needs of students.  As described in the article, my concern was, "mainly with means, rather then ends".

Since this time, I have been engaging in much higher levels of reflection.

Based on the following descriptors, in Larrivee's article, I would say that I'm currently navigating between Levels 3 and 4:

To break this down even further, before Lorayne's class, my practice indicated I was more in Level 3.  Having completed an M.Sc. in Linguistics at Aston University, in 2008, I developed a good habit of questioning my own assumptions and strategies based on theory and research in the field of TESL including how:

•  ELL's successfully acquire a second language, 
• to measure learning needs 
• to implement different methodologies such as Problem-Based Learning
• to assess students fairly, 
• to involve students' prior knowledge, 
• find alternative ways to represent information, and;
• constructively criticize my own learning

However, it wasn't until I moved back to Canada, in 2012, when I started to think beyond the classroom and different theories to look very seriously at what it means to have a quality educational experience and reflect upon the principles of justice and equality.  In Lorayne's course, my Critical Incident group used my current situation as the "International Student Support Officer" to address the "low retention rates of International students at Algoma University".  Based on the realities of my job, I've encountered a great deal of diversity, and because of this, I've had to seriously reexamine and question my own set of believes and learn how to suspend judgement - all of which, according to Larrivee, are descriptors of Critical Reflection!  

(Week 7) Alternative ways of learning

The reading by Eisner (1997) provided a lot of information about alternative forms of representation which can be used to convey what we have learned about the educational world.   It also addressed their limitations. The first part of the article which caught my eye was the bottom of page five where he mentions that, "research does not belong to science alone".  I agree, especially when you consider qualitative research which has continued to grow in popularity especially at graduate levels of study.  In week 5, the article by Ulrich (2000) talked about bridging the divide between the "professional" and the "laymen" and I feel that part of this answer would be to consider other forms of representation whether it be stories, pictures, diagrams, drama or theater.  In one of the breakout sessions during this class, our group had a very interesting discussion about the power of art and of photography in relaying messages and/or information.  We talked about how the terminology used by academics in quantitative research is, by nature, very exclusive of the average person.  

This line of thinking also makes makes me reflect back on my post for Week 3 where Schon talked about the differences between the higher ground and the swamp and how academics are so far removed from the everyday issues/problems common people face in the world.  All this begs the question, "What is the best method to advance human understanding?".  In the field of education, we should be more open to alternative forms of representation such as "Action Research" which, in my option, supports the growth of ideas at the classroom level.  All too often we overlook the firsthand knowledge the teachers bring to the table based on authentic experiences for what is written in academic journals.  I agree with how  Eisner describes research as a way for people "to reduce what we have learned to text and number" and how we "often talk about knowledge as if it is consisted of measurable units".  This, unfortunately, often describes what information we widely accept and which we do not.  

Week 3: Schon's High-ground vs. Swamp

In the assigned readings for Week 3, Donald A. Schon uses the metaphor of the "high-land" and the "swamp" to explain the difference between the rigors of science and real world problems.  This description of the swampy lowland which is "messy" and full of the "real-world problems" as separate from the higher ground, where science prevails is very powerful for me.  My family grew up on a farm where the common lay person, who faces the problems did not (and still does not) have much say in the decision making.

Reading this article, I can not help but to reflect on a situation which occurred at Algoma University when I first started working here in the Fall of 2012.  Around this time, our university was able to secure a big contract with the Saudi Arabia Cultural Bureau to start accepting Saudi students into our academic programming.  From the high ground, the university saw this as a quick way to increase our enrollment and made easy revenue. Over the next two years, we accepted over 250 Saudi students into our university, mostly in Computer Science and Business, resulting in first-year classes which were between 80-90% Saudi.  Talk about messy!  As the higher administration focused on the #s and $, hence "the business model", the problems in the trenches were left up to the staff and faculty to sort out which really impacted the quality of our offerings.      

As a new employee of the school, I saw this situation as a ticking "time bomb" because our university had put all their energy into recruiting student while committing few resources dedicated to retention efforts.  The students, not fault of their own, often came ill equipped with the skills competences and language proficiency required to pass first-year academic classes.

As a knee-jerk reaction, the University decided to open a Foundations Program to help prepare the students for first year classes which was poorly designed and managed which compounded to problem.  To make things even messier, our university, with the help of a government grant, decided to conduct research into whether or not the Foundations program was in fact meeting the needs of the Saudi students even though everyone who was involved with these students at the school knew that it was failing.  Talk about bureaucracy!

Hired as the part of the International Support Team at this time, I was thrown into the swamp where I ended up conducting focus groups for the Saudi students to help understand why their attrition rates were so high at AU.  In these focus groups, I found out that many of them were accepted into AU because our institution had some of the lowest entrance requirements in Ontario especially for Proof of Language Proficiency.  At that time, many of our pathway partners (ESL providers) in Southern Ontario were also sending us Saudi students who were well below the IELTS 6.0 entrance requirement for academic study.

The solution to all the above problems, from the lowland, was a cry to raise our entry requirements and a better monitoring system for the quality of our pathway partnerships.  However, the argument from our higher administration was along the lines that if we cast out a smaller net, we wouldn't be able to catch as many fish.

It is no secret that any smaller institutions within Ontario, and across Canada are facing steep decline in enrollment.  As universities accept more foreign students to bolster their enrollments numbers, I beg to ask the question - What happens to the quality of education?   I really enjoyed Schons article because I work in a university where there is a big divide between higher administration and staff/faculty.  I wonder if other publicly funded universities in Ontario are experiencing the same problems.