Assessing the Perceived Value of Reflective Practice in two different modules.

1. Assessing the Perceived Value of Reflective Practice in two different modules. Sue Will & Bob Smale July 2007

2. Aims of the session: • To report two small research projects conducted in two different taught modules, in order to assess how students perceived the value of reflective practice, when compared with other pedagogic techniques. • To encourage a discussion in which participants question the relative value of using various reflective practices in comparison with other pedagogic techniques.

3. Warm up activity • Working in groups of three people from different academic areas, take a couple of minutes to identify three benefits of reflective practice to the student. • Feedback from warm up-activity.

4. The background • We teach on a range of taught programmes at Brighton Business School and use a variety of reflective techniques with different cohorts of students. • In June 2006 we attended a BMAF (Business , Management, Accounting & Finance Subject Centre of the HEA) workshop at Portsmouth run by Prof George Allen on reflective learning journals. This both renewed and encouraged our interest in reflective practice.

5. The Modules • We identified two dissimilar programmes for this piece of work, namely: • Managing Organisations & People (MOP), a double module for full-time students studying undergraduate courses in finance, accounting and law. • Managing for Results (MfR), a single module for part-time students studying for the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development) Licentiate.

6. The research • We have undertaken research with both cohorts in which we used questionnaires to: • Ask respondents to recall their learning styles, which they have all previously identified using the categories established by Honey and Mumford (1982). • Identify which pedagogic techniques they had used and which they favoured. • Make a qualitative assessment of, and to collect qualitative comments upon, their experience of reflective practice.

7. Limitations of our studies • We had hoped to correlate learning styles and preferred study methods, but our samples proved too small once they were broken down by learning style to be statistically significant. • However, in our attempts to find such correlations there was no clear association of learning style and study methods. • Both cohorts were in the first year of their courses, most students were new to higher education and reflection may therefore perhaps be a skill they have yet to develop.

8. What is reflection? • Before reporting our findings, it may be useful to give some theoretical background including: • The domains of learning • Distinction of hard and soft learning • Doubler loop learning • Levels of learning

9. The Three Domains of Learning an Integrated Model Emotions Knowledge Actions Brockbank & McGill (1998) – Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education pg. 43.

10. Hard & Soft Knowledge Hard Knowledge – Cognitive • Lectures • Books / Journals • Working with the ideas of others Soft Knowledge – Cognitive • Grained by active involvement • Personal experience • Reflection Feelings & Emotions – Affective

11. Double-Loop Learning Emergent Knowing New Understanding Paradigm Shift Reflection Experience Generalization Testing Brockbank & McGill (1998) – Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education pg. 45

12. Levels of Learning – Deep & Surface Learning • Noticing • Making sense • Making meaning • Working with the meaning • Transformational learning Moon J. (2000) Reflection in Learning & Professional Development pg. 138

13. Reflective methods used in our modules • MOP - Reflective Learning Journals. These are not assessed, but rather a used as a form of post lecture / pre-seminar preparation (see Appendix 1). • MFR - Reflective Statements. Students are given themes to write about which are assessed. e.g. the practice of management.

14. Research Methodology • We used similar questionnaires with both cohorts • We asked a variety of quantitative questions with some scope for qualitative comments. • The MOP questionnaire was distributed a few weeks prior to the end of the module in taught sessions. • The MFR questionnaire was distributed at the end of the module in a taught session.

15. MOP – the sample • The sample size was 52 of 120-130 enrolled. • Gender: Male 42% Female 58% • Age: 18-21: 63% 21-24: 25% 25+:12% • Origin: UK: 81% EU: 4% Other:15% • Students reported that last year they were at: School: 15% College: 37% Uni: 6% Work: 25% Gap Year: 12% Other: 6%

16. MOP – learning styles • Students reported that their strongest learning styles were: Activist 15% Reflector 39% Pragmatist 10% Theorist 12% Don’t know / can’t recall 39% • Some students, correctly cited more than one learning style, giving a total of morethan 100%

17. MOP – learning methods experienced • Students reported that they had experienced the following learning methods: Lectures: 98% Seminars: 98% Self directed learning / reading etc. 86% Reflective Learning Journals 71% Online or computer based learning: 44% Other methods 10%

18. MOP – most and least effective learning methods • Students reported that they considered the most and least effective methods in developing their learning to be: Method Most Least Seminars 44% 2% Lectures 25% 13% Self directed learning / reading etc. 25% 12% Reflective Learning Journals 0% 40% Online or computer based learning 2% 25% None / no response. 4% 8%

19. MOP – first, second & third most & least effective methods

20. MOP – view of reflection • Students gave the following results when asked, “how successful is reflective practice as a method of learning for you?” Not successfulVery Successful

21. MOP – view of reflective learning journals • Students gave the following results when asked, “how useful have you found the reflective learning journal provided?” Very usefulNot very useful

22. MOP Qualitative Comments • Responses to the question ‘What are your views of reflective practice as a tool for learning?’ can be summarised as follows: Generally useful / helpful 50% Not generally useful / waste of time 25% Mentioned exam revision and or memory 23% Other comment 4% No comment 29% • This would suggest a more positive attitude to reflection, than was apparent when MOP students scored reflection against other methods.

23. MfR– learning styles Students reported that their strongest learning styles were: Activist 16% Reflector 42% Pragmatist 21% Theorist 0% Don’t know / can’t recall 21%

24. MfR– learning methods experienced Students reported that they had experienced the following learning methods: Lectures: 100% Seminars: 95% Self directed learning / reading etc. 86% Reflective practice 89% Online or computer based learning: 79%

25. MfR– learning methods favoured Students reported that they considered the most and least effective methods in developing their learning to be: Method Most Least Lectures 37% 15% Seminars 47% 5% Self directed learning / reading etc. 42% 10% Reflective Learning Journals 10% 15% Online or computer based learning 5% 42%

26. MfR – view of reflective practice Students gave the following results when asked, “how successful is reflective practice as a method of learning for you?” Not successfulVery Successful

27. MfR – view of producing reflective statements Students gave the following results when asked, “how easy or difficult they found it to produce reflective statements for assessment purposes” Very easy Very difficult

28. MfR Qualitative Comments • Responses to the question ‘What are your views of reflective practice as a tool for learning?’ can be summarised as follows: Generally useful / helpful 24% Not generally helpful / difficult 36% Other comment 20% No comment 20% • This might suggest a slightly more positive attitude to using reflection, than was shown when MfR students scored reflection against other methods of learning.

29. MfR Qualitative - Sample of Comments • It can be interesting to look back but can feel rather contrived. • Sometimes it has provided real clarity. • Reflection best done in your head and spontaneously rather than being forced. • I find it extremely difficult to write reflectively and am not sure of the benefits. • Looking back on incidents and analysing my behaviour is a good learning tool. • Probably more value to people who have spent more years in the workplace.

30. Conclusions • That many of our students do not like reflective practice and that some find it difficult to do. • In MOP, reflective practice was perceived as a valuable revision technique by many students. • In MfR, where students are assessed directly upon their reflective work, this might perhaps create a further set of problems and perhaps a barrier to this value. • However, we consider that although many students dislike reflective practice it might still be seen as a valuable developmental tool.

31. Discussion points • Do we perhaps overate the value of reflective practice to our students? • What is the value of reflective practice, if some students are reluctant / don’t want to engage with it? • What might be done to make reflective practice more relevant / effective for more students.

32. Post session work & further contact. Post session work: • Try completing the attached reflective learning journal. • Email us and let us know how it went or if you have any suggestions for improvements if you want. Further contact: • Bob Smale B.G.Smale@brighton.ac.uk • Sue Will S.A.Will@brighton.ac.uk

33. Bibliography. Brockbank, A. & McGill, I. (1998), Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education. Honey, P. & Munford, A. (1982), Manual of Learning Styles, 3rd Ed, Maidenhead. Moon, J. (2000) Reflection in Learning & Professional Development, Kogan Page.