Blogger’s Note: This reflection was written in response to
a class reflection
written by Carol Medrano for one of her courses in the graduate reading program. Carol’s essay may be read by clicking this link.
Carol–I appreciate this opportunity to engage in a little dialectical discussion
with you here, so thanks for asking me to take a look at your reflection. Several
thoughts . . . I’ll share a few (ah, summer, when I can play hookey from the
required task, whatever it is, and diverge a bit in some side roads of thinking
and discussion):
You do a wonderful job countering the myth that reflection is solely a private
activity. It’s social. You summarize many other features from the analysis of
Dewey, but the social aspect is your main focus.
As teachers, the challenge is, "How do we create spaces, opportunities, requirements/threats/cajolings/pleadings
for reflective action? for reflective dialectical action?" It’s challenging,
but I’m beginning to see ways whereby the whole class can be organized–at the
point of conception–around the needs/rewards/dynamics of reflection.
The challenge becomes not merely one of having a single "reflective action"
added on at the end of something, but to have the reflective attitude guide
the process of learning from the onset and throughout. Part of this can’t be
taught, of course. Some people are "naturally" more prone to reflective
stances than others, etc. But reflectiveness can certainly be coached in all….
And therein is the challenge.
There’s a similar problem with group work. How do you shift from an ineffective
and rather typical use of small groups (I’ll characterize this ineffective use
as isolated instances of small group work thrown in randomly from time to time
to address certain lesson needs) to a more effective practice in which the teacher
perpetually supports and coaches collaborative interaction as a genuine social/intellectual
skill and disposition? One solution, I think, is to start your pedagogical planning
(in July) with the principles of "group" in mind rather than the task
they’ll be doing. Our usual procedure is to start with the lesson, and from
there proceed to the method of group work for engaging in the lesson. I’m suggesting
we turn the planning around. Why not start all our planning with the idea of
the group as the pincipal thing? We then ask in our day-to-day planning, "What
activities support, challenge, grow the group….?" We design learning
goals, curricular approaches, activities, etc. with the idea of the group impact/dynamics
invovled. In essence, the group becomes the organizing principle of our teaching
rather than the lesson itself.
The same holds true for reflection. How do we organize things if our main objectives
are rooted in the processes of reflection rather than the external learning standards,
curricula, etc. that are handed over to the teacher (often with a flick and a
threat)?
I’m beginning to see ways of doing this kind of reversal of prioritization.
But it’s really more than merely making a "priority" of reflection
or collaboration. It’s deeper; it’s starting with reflection and collaboration
as founding principles that give rise to all else. And at this point, I’ll close,
and only suggest that yes, I’ve begun to glimpse ways of organizing this way
(and relegating standards, goals, curricula, and other externals to afterthoughts—serious
afterthoughts that exert powerful shaping influences, but that keep their place,
too :).
But I have an exit analogy–on a somewhat negative slope. I’m reminded of
other highly effective organizations that might serve as models for the planner
of reflective/collabortive pedagogies: the military, cults, and gangs. They
start out with organizing principles of the "group," the "unit,"
"loyalty," "obedience," "duty," etc. They build
the organization first, and then apply actions to this or that situation. But
there is nothing "ad hoc" about these groups (unlike us in school
who are often so perilously ad hoc). These organizations are modes of being;
they are so un-ad hoc that, on their surface, their routines apppear to be the
antithesis of pragmatic, efficient action. Rather than dealing with the specific
issue at hand ("today’s lesson") they deal with the organizaiton
itself–its needs, its values, its code. But ultimately pragmatism and
efficiency do get nailed, and big time. But what if–in thinking about how to
coach reflection and collaboration–we look to the rituals and principled modes
of organization of the military, cults, and gangs?