Literature review – Service-learning
2.9 Critical reflection
2.9.2 Critical reflection in the service-learning context
As mentioned above, despite the lack of clarity regarding the concept of reflection, much has been written about critical reflection practices in service-learning. Critical reflection involves moving beyond merely reflecting on experience to asking critical questions about the conditions that led to that experience. It involves a shift in the nature of one’s political and social awareness. Fisher (2003) described a hierarchy of three types of reflection:
• Firstly, there is technical reflection which involves reflection on the efficiency and effectiveness of means to achieve certain ends.
• Secondly, there is practical reflection which allows for the examination of goals and assumptions, and recognises that meanings are negotiated through language.
• Thirdly, at the tip of the hierarchy, is critical reflection, which Fisher (2003) described as adding moral and ethical criteria (such as justice and equity) and which involves locating the analysis of personal action within a wider historical, political and social context.
Critical reflection engages students not only in thinking about experience, but in theorising about it, in the sense of considering problematic questions associated with power, history and agency.
Ash and Clayton (2004) provided a detailed model of how to enhance critical reflection.
They claimed their model “results in a rigorous reflection framework that maximises learning and helps to refine reflective skills” (p. 140). The DEAL model consists of three general phases of: description, analysis and articulation of learning outcomes. Within each
phase, the student is required to reflect on three categories: academic, personal and civic (pp. 140-142). This model is indeed comprehensive, with detailed questions at each phase and within each category to guide students’ thinking. As with many other writings in the field, it provides a good ‘how to’ guide for practitioners who are struggling to develop the skill of critical reflection – both for themselves and for their students. Ash and Clayton (2004) described this model as involving “efforts to develop a rigorous, adaptable, learner- centred approach that both challenges and supports students in learning through reflection on experience” (p. 151).
There are many resources available to assist with the practicalities of the reflection process.
There is a multitude of techniques available ranging from individual critical incident journals, web applications to reflective processes. This chapter focuses on the critical reflection discussion group as the particular technique in question. There are many ways in which critical reflection can take an oral form (storytelling, peer interviews, audio recordings); a discussion group is where the participating students meet with the faculty
member/facilitator to discuss their experiences at their community sites.
The previous chapter documented the meta-analyses of student outcomes from service- learning; many of these are attributed to the critical reflection process. Through critical reflection, students are said to gain a deeper understanding of what they learn, and the ability to apply their learning to other contexts and situations. In addition, higher level thinking and problem solving skills are believed to be developed (Billig, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999). Eyler (2002) claimed that knowledge and deep understanding are developed as a result of reflection as well as the capacity to effectively address new problems and issues.
Conrad and Hedin (1987) reported personal or social development outcomes such as increased self-awareness, an enhanced sense of community and an improved sense of personal agency. Billig (2000) reported increased respect and tolerance for diversity, a sense of efficacy and improved relationships. With respect to civic engagement outcomes, Eyler and Giles (1999) reported that reflection enabled the development of new systemic perspectives, an openness to new ideas, and a commitment to solving social problems and social justice aims.
2.9.2.1 The guiding philosophy/ideology/framework
The more complex approaches to service-learning discussed previously (Kiely, 2005) provide some indication of how this range of transformations is brought about in students. Many authors cite a disorienting/disruptive/dissonant dilemma which results in uncertainty and disequilibrium in the student, requiring exploration of assumptions and alternatives in an effort to quell the doubt and regain equilibrium. What is largely ignored, even by those who provide detailed accounts, is a reflection on the guiding framework within which
experiences or learnings are interpreted. Brookfield (2009) emphasised that critical reflection is a contested idea, and that the way in which it is used reflects the ideology of the user.
The ideology or predominant discourse determines who asks the questions and what kinds of questions are asked (LaDuke, 2004). Those who argue for more edgy, radical approaches are usually more explicit about the political framework and discourses that serve to
construct student experiences in particular ways. In the main, this framework is often not made explicit. As Butin (2006) noted, “service-learning has positioned itself as a
universalistic and thus neutral practice” (p. 486). Practitioners may not be consciously aware that the ‘neutral’ practices they are engaging are strategically promoting a particular
ideological agenda (Butin, 2006).
Therefore, service-learning practitioners need to examine and explicate the frameworks they use to construct the critical reflection process. Currently, these ideological frames tend to remain unexamined. As Butin (2006) emphasised: “The point is not that service-learning should stop having an ideological agenda… Rather, it is that service-learning embodies a liberal agenda under the guise of universalistic garb” (p. 485).
In addition to foregrounding the ideological frame of the service-learning endeavour, it is critical to examine which voices are heard, which questions are allowed and which
perspectives are validated through the critical reflection process. It is therefore important to reflect on who participates in this process and how the interactions are guided.
2.9.2.2 The participants in the critical reflection process
According to the normative standards for service-learning, in theory, there should be at least three voices that are heard in the critical reflection process: the voice of the student, the voice of the faculty/facilitator, and the voice of the community (Jacoby, 1998). As highlighted in the previous chapter, communities’ voices are often not heard and community partners are often not included in the critical reflection process (Stoecker, 2016). Critical reflection may happen in a variety of contexts – between students and community members at the site, between and among students themselves, between the faculty member and the community and between the faculty member and the students.
Although efforts are sometimes made to provide opportunities for community perspectives to be part of the critical reflection process, it is seldom that all three parties are in the same conversation at the same time (Preece, 2013). Often, community perspectives are brought to the critical reflection process either by the students or the faculty member, and as a result, these have already been diluted, processed or dissipated.
Given the lack of attention to communities’ voices in the service-learning literature, the theorising about communities of practice (Gilbert, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991) offers some insights in this regard. Gilbert (1997) described a process of change agents joining with a focal community to create a new community of practice. He emphasised that we must recognise that both the change agent and the existing community enter the development process with existing practices and activities including tasks, goals, actions and tools. He warned against change agents imposing their perspective and in so doing alienating the focal community from traditional practices which served functional purposes. The other potential outcome is that with inappropriate engagement, the focal community rejects the change agents altogether and continues with practices which may not be in the interests of the common good.
Gilbert (1997) postulated that joint activity can lead to a new shared community of practice.
Although the ideal of a new community of practice may seem idealistic given the inequities that persist in the real world, this model appears to mirror what is being attempted in service-learning initiatives where “learning partnerships between universities and
communities … are deliberately shaped to make communities active participants in knowledge activities – in its creation, dissemination and utilisation” (Bawa, 2003, p. 48).
The following figure (Figure 2.7) is adapted from Gilbert (1997) and illustrates this notion of a new community of practice.
Figure 2.7: The development of a new community of practice.
(Adapted from Gilbert, 1997, p. 287)
In applying this perspective to service-learning and the critical reflection process, it seems that universities often believe that they are the change agents, and that faculty and
students go into the community to effect change in the interests of the common good. The communities they engage with are therefore the focal community requiring the
intervention. Alternatively, communities may believe that they are the change agents who make themselves available to the focal community (students) who require shaping through real world experiences and dilemmas. Communities perceive that they have an important role to play in preparing students for relevant engagement with life beyond the university’s
Community of practice Activities:
• tasks
• goals
• actions
• tools
Community of practice Activities:
• tasks
• goals
• actions
• tools
Focal community Change agent’s community
Joint
activity
New community of practice New Activities:
• tasks
• emergent goals
• actions
• new tools
protective shield, and for improving their employment prospects (Mitchell & Humphries, 2007). Further, communities engage with universities with the intention of shaping future curriculum decisions to ensure that graduates emerge appropriately informed and skilled (Mitchell & Humphries, 2007). The application of this model is, however, limited by the lack of communities’ voices in the critical reflection processes, which is largely an academic exercise. These ideas are developed further below.
The facilitation of the critical reflection process determines which voices are included and validated and which perspectives are privileged. The claims about service-learning as a student-centred discovery-based approach are relevant here. For example, Ash and Clayton (2004) wrote about their “efforts to develop a rigorous, adaptable, learner-centred
approach that both challenges and supports students in learning through reflection on experience” (p. 151; emphasis added). The critical reflection process may appear to be learner-centred in terms of the degree to which students are given freedom to direct their own learning and practice. Their actual agency and capacity to exercise their freedom may be disputed; this is explored below.
Hatcher, Bringle and Muthiah (2004) also noted that “specifically, reflection that is structured, regular and clarifies values independently, contributed to the quality of the educational experience for students” (p. 42; emphasis in original). This emphasis on
independence, and therefore freedom to choose, may obscure what is actually taking place in the reflection process. In order to clarify values, the students must have a normative standard against which this evaluation is made. Who sets this normative standard, and how independent are students in choosing whether to clarify their values?
If service-learning is discovery-based learning, and students do indeed clarify values
independently, an examination of the role of the facilitator in the critical reflection process is warranted.
2.9.2.3 The role of the facilitator
In critical reflection, the facilitator appears to be a guide towards a particular way of thinking. Mike Brown (2004) described how the facilitator is often presented as the benevolent guide where students are “apparently free to draw valid and meaningful conclusions from their own experiences” (p. 163). What is often overlooked is that the benevolent guide is not neutral and is approaching the reflection from a particular
ideological perspective, one which prescribes which kind of meaningful conclusions can be drawn. Brown (2004) disputed the notion of a benevolent guide and provides evidence from his adventure education context of how the facilitator initiates reflection and consequently evaluates students’ responses.
With regard to initiating reflection, Brown (2004) claimed that the facilitator’s introduction and framing of the process constrained the range of responses students could make. He explained that by stipulating the boundaries of the discussion, the facilitator was ensuring that the students would provide the right answers, and indeed guiding the students to getting the answers right. In responding to students’ replies, Brown (2004) observed a process of evaluation and then formulation or paraphrasing of students’ responses into an appropriate response. He stated that this modification process allowed the student to avoid a negative evaluation or the disagreement of the facilitator, and attempted to provide a positive experience of the reflection/discussion. He thus observed an I-R-E (initiation-reply- evaluation) sequence that others have termed “the workhorse of direct instruction”
(MacBeth, 2000, p. 37). His argument was that the use of the I-R-E sequence served to direct students towards the facilitator’s desired meaning.
Further, Brown (2004) argued that paraphrases and formulations permit the facilitator to
“accept, reject or modify student contributions” (p. 169) and that students’ replies were shaped into the ‘right answer’ rather than exploring the student's thinking. He therefore concluded that “the apparently student-centred talk in facilitation sessions does not mean that the student's knowledge is necessarily valued” (Brown, 2004, p. 169). His questions in this regard are thought provoking:
Why is it that, as leaders, we consider it necessary to re-voice what a student has already said, other than to fix or change the meaning in some way? Why do we feel the need to call on students to answer a question of our choosing and then evaluate the appropriateness of their reply? Whose learning is favoured in these sessions and, more importantly, what is being learned? Are we engaging in word games in facilitation sessions or the enculturation of students into our world view? (Brown, 2004, p. 170)
Boud and Walker (1998) wrote that the most likely outcome of this process is compliance
“in which participants go through the motions of reflection without revealing (sometimes even to themselves) what are the real learning issues” (p. 103). In their article, Boud and Walker (1998) described the ways in which reflection processes can result in negative outcomes, emphasising that we continuously operate from within a particular frame. This frame, which is constructed through a world we take as given, imposes normative processes on critical reflection, which determine the outcomes for students and faculty.
Billig et al. (1988) discussed the educational process - the questioning, the debates, the hints and disagreements - and arrived at a notion of ‘cued elicitation’ where “what is apparently elicited is often surreptitiously introduced, by gesture, assumption or implication, by the teacher” (Billig et al., 1988, p. 61). Mercer (2001) also referred to cued elicitation in his description of the various techniques teachers use to direct learning. He also described an I- R-F sequence (initiation-response-feedback) which mirrors Brown’s (2004) observations above. Mercer (2001) argued that the I-R-F sequence is the archetypal structure of classroom talk; in addition, he identified other techniques that teachers use. Whilst
acknowledging that an utterance can perform more than one function, he stated that when teachers elicit knowledge from learners, they usually use direct elicitation (a straightforward request) or cued elicitation (a drawing out of the information they are seeking by providing visual and verbal hints and clues). In responding to what learners say, teachers can use confirmations (“yes, that’s right”), rejections (“no”), repetitions (to draw attention to a significant answer), reformulations (to offer a “tidied up” (Mercer, 2001, p. 247) version, more in line with the sought response), and elaborations or amplifications (expanding on a point to emphasise significance). In addition, to these devices to draw attention to
important aspects of learning, teachers may use explanations and recapitulations. Mercer
(2001) also described how ‘we statements’ are used to signify common experience and shared knowledge to learners.
Drawing from these detailed analyses of educational talk in different contexts, facilitators of the critical reflection process therefore need to be aware of the ways in which they cue their students towards particular learning outcomes which they have deemed as ‘good’.
This exploration of the key mechanism in service-learning reveals that, even though the concept is disputed, it is widely used in a variety of educational and professional fields. Even though it is viewed as a beneficent practice, upon closer examination, it appears to be a device for coercing participants towards particular ideological or political goals. This is done through effective use of apparently neutral techniques like discussion, participation and sharing.