Reflection on teaching and epistemological structure: reflective and critically reflective processes in ‘pure/soft’ and ‘pure/hard’ fields

Abstract

We empirically explored whether academics from pure/soft and pure/hard fields engage in reflective practice on teaching differently and, if so, whether these differences could be partially explained by the epistemological structure of their discipline. Interview data from academics in pure/hard (N = 30) and pure/soft fields (N = 10) were deductively analyzed according to different types and domains of reflection as well as the nature of learning underlying these reflections. The greatest differences between the two groups were found with respect to reflection on core beliefs as well as within the domain of educational goals and purposes, both being more common in soft fields. Soft and hard fields engaged in instrumental, communicative as well as emancipatory learning about teaching but to different degrees. We propose that teaching expertise requires a disposition to engage in reflection on core beliefs, particularly but not exclusively within the domain of goals and purposes, the latter involving both communicative and emancipatory learning. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.

The surprising persistence of Biglan's classification scheme

“…While the scheme has been used for research in countries as varied as Korea (Shin, 2011), Australia (Smith & Miller, 2005) and Canada (Kreber & Castleden, 2009), there appears to have been little previous attempt to see if the same classification scheme applies in these other countries, let alone see if the link between disciplines and the classification scheme matches up. This study provides strong support for suggesting that the pure/applied and hard/soft classifications do retain validity in the UK context and that the match between disciplines and classification is very close.…”

“…While Jones (2011) places it alongside the model from Smart, Feldman, and Ethington (2000), Biglan's scheme is cited more than five times as often, even accounting for its earlier publication. It has received widespread use in many analyses within higher education including teachers' reflective practice (Kreber & Castleden, 2009); the relationship between class size and grades (Johnson, 2010) and even the proportion of positive result reported in hypothesis testing papers (Fanelli, 2010).…”

University Pedagogy: A New Culture is Emerging in Greek Higher Education

“…Rotidi (2016) also found that critical reflection of assumptions (Mezirow, 1991), which is the highest level of critical reflection and the most important precondition for the transformation of a teaching perspective, was not common in any of the three knowledge domains of academics' knowledge (Kreber, 2004;2005;Kreber and Castleden, 2009). Greek academics, mostly coming from Soft fields, provided evidence of premise reflection, more frequently observed within the domains of Pedagogical and Instructional Knowledge.…”

Employee Transition Throughout an Appreciative Inquiry Intervention

“…Content reflection is described by Mezirow (1991) as a process in which we "are not attending to the grounds or justification for our beliefs but are simply using our beliefs to make an interpretation" (p107). Kreber and Castleden (2009) dimensions on an equal footing with cognitive and rational components" (pp. 66-67).…”