Levels of Reflectivity
Any Course Participant (CP), who is selected in AKU-IED masters program either taught for or had a leadership role in education for at least two years prior to their admission. So, its very much likely that CPs might have preformed good or not good in some part of our leadership practices and or teaching a class. The best practices that I have learned in this masters program is to be reflective, the reflexivity is a new change in my personal and professional life. Reflexivity includes a new level of thinking and understanding the concept. This gives a practitioner a chance to get better and better each time s/he is preforming tasks of leadership or teaching. The reflexivity or the level of reflection is beautifully categorized by Van Manen (1977) for instance, Level one: Technical Rationality, Level two: Practical action and Level three: critical reflection. This models represent a schematic description of a theory, or phenomenon. The following work by Van Manen (1977) attempts to aid the practitioner in reflecting on past teaching, management and leadership events to enhance future interactions within the classroom or in a office environment.
Levels of Reflectivity
A framework for understanding the development of reflectivity has been developed by Van Manen (1977). These categories serve as a benchmark for monitoring progression and growth as a teacher's level of self efficacy (i.e. your perceived belief in your ability to succeed at a certain task) enhances their reflective practice. These levels are:
Level One: Technical Rationality
An educator considers only the technical application of educational knowledge and basic curriculum principles for the purposes of attaining a given end. At this level the contexts of the classroom, school, community, and/or society are not seen as linked to the problem. Van Manen (1977) labels this level as the "empirical-analytical paradigm and classifies it as the lowest level of reflection.
Level Two: Practical Action
The teacher becomes concerned with clarifying assumptions and predisposition's underlying competing pedagogical goals while assessing the educational consequences toward which a teaching action leads (Zeichner & Liston, 1987). At this level, described by Van Manen (1977) as the "hermeneutic-phenomenological paradigm, the teacher analyzes student and teacher behaviors to see if and how goals are met.
Level Three: Critical Reflection
At this level educators are concerned with worth of knowledge and the social circumstances useful to students without distortions of personal bias. Critical reflection is viewed as a non defensive stance in remaining open-minded to moral and ethical considerations to educational processes. Pultorak (1993) has developed the following reflective questions to aid the teacher in this stage of critical self analysis. These are:
Levels of Reflectivity
A framework for understanding the development of reflectivity has been developed by Van Manen (1977). These categories serve as a benchmark for monitoring progression and growth as a teacher's level of self efficacy (i.e. your perceived belief in your ability to succeed at a certain task) enhances their reflective practice. These levels are:
Level One: Technical Rationality
An educator considers only the technical application of educational knowledge and basic curriculum principles for the purposes of attaining a given end. At this level the contexts of the classroom, school, community, and/or society are not seen as linked to the problem. Van Manen (1977) labels this level as the "empirical-analytical paradigm and classifies it as the lowest level of reflection.
Level Two: Practical Action
The teacher becomes concerned with clarifying assumptions and predisposition's underlying competing pedagogical goals while assessing the educational consequences toward which a teaching action leads (Zeichner & Liston, 1987). At this level, described by Van Manen (1977) as the "hermeneutic-phenomenological paradigm, the teacher analyzes student and teacher behaviors to see if and how goals are met.
Level Three: Critical Reflection
At this level educators are concerned with worth of knowledge and the social circumstances useful to students without distortions of personal bias. Critical reflection is viewed as a non defensive stance in remaining open-minded to moral and ethical considerations to educational processes. Pultorak (1993) has developed the following reflective questions to aid the teacher in this stage of critical self analysis. These are:
- What were essential strengths of the lesson?
- What, if anything, would you change about the lesson?
- Do you think the lesson was successful? Why?
- Which conditions were important to the outcome?
- What, if any, unanticipated learning outcomes resulted from the lesson?
- Can you think of another way you might have taught this lesson?
- Can you think of other alternative pedagogical approaches to teaching this lesson that might improve the learning process?
- Do you think the content covered was important to students? Why?
- What moral or ethical concerns occurred as a result of the lesson?
Below is the letter for permission from Oregon State University for using the above mentioned three level of reflection.