Section 6.2 Need for Reflection

Section 6.2 Need for Reflection

Section 6.2 Need for Reflection

Hendry and Dean (2002) support Ramsden’s (1992) assertion that any development in teaching requires lecturers to learn, and that before they can learn, they have to reflect on what constitutes good teaching, how this compares to their current practice, and how this integrates with student feedback from SET.

Harris, Driscoll, Lewis, Matthews, Russell, & Cumming (2010) propose a cycle of review and development (see below), in which teaching is continually adapted to reflect changes in the curriculum, learning experiences, and educational context. It is suggested that academics engage in regular, two-way communication with relevant parties to evaluation where students/the curriculum is at in relation to the proposed outcomes, creating a cycle of review and development where evaluation has an educative role, informing curriculum refinement and delivery practices.

6.2 reflection & evaluation cycle.jpg

The model was designed to closely parallel Stufflebeam’s Context-Inputs-Processes-Products (CIPP) model (see Section and emphasises the importance of evidence-based decision-making and communication with peers, colleagues, and other stakeholders to ensure a match between the intended, implemented and attained (Harris, Driscoll, Lewis, Matthews, Russell, & Cumming, 2010).

Activity 6.2

How does the review cycle detailed above fit with the performativity vs. professionalism distinction discussed in section 6.1?

How does each stage of the cycle differ depending on the purpose of the evaluation?

Stage Performativity Professionalism

Back to 6.1 Continue to Section 6.3 Back To Section 6

Page tools