MEd: Argue Problem and Method

Dianne Allen (Assignment 1) RESUBMISSION: ARGUE PROBLEM & METHOD; DESIGN & METHOD IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH p.
RESUBMISSION: ARGUE PROBLEM & METHOD (Assignment 1)
Overview:..................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction and Background: ..................................................................................... 2 PART 1: ....................................................................................................................... 3 What is the problem? ............................................................................................... 3 Why should this topic be researched? How can its worth be justified to others, and what contribution will it make to educational research at large? .................... 10 What key concepts am I working with and how do I want my readers to understand these terms? ......................................................................................... 11 What has already been done in this field of research? Of what value is this research to me? How does it fit with my research? How does my research build on it?....................................................................................................................... 12 PART 2: ..................................................................................................................... 13 Summarising the three key papers ......................................................................... 13 Kressel, K "Practice-Relevant Research in Mediation........................................... 14 Power, Mary R "Educating Mediators Metacognitively" ...................................... 15 Giddings, J. (1999). Using Clinical Methods to Teach Alternative Dispute Resolution: Developments at Griffith University. ............................................... 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY:..................................................................................................... 18
Dianne Allen, 2000
Dianne Allen (Assignment 1) RESUBMISSION: ARGUE PROBLEM & METHOD; DESIGN & METHOD IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH p.2
Overview:
Dispute Resolution coursework at UTS relies heavily on the use of role-plays to simulate the experience of the practice of mediation. In view of the amount of time devoted to that, in a time-scarce environment, the question arises: what value are students getting from such a focus? There are indications in the literature that the process of reflection, a part of the action research cycle, is particularly important to gain maximum learning from experience. This paper explores what are some of the issues that are involved in encouraging students to undertake this reflective work, in the course, and ancillary to course attendance. One such issue is the extent to which students and presenters recognise their current engagement in reflective practices in learning, and what, if anything, can be done to be more deliberate and conscious about utilising these to gain more from this experiential teaching/learning environment. This is a learning-to-learn issue, and one which has implications for professional formation, development and renewal of mediators (or third party intervenors), as well as for other professions where a significant component of the practice involves engagement with interpersonal interactions.
Introduction and Background:
The current Australian mediator training scene is just at the point where it is entering into another debate about training for mediators and issues of accreditation (NADRAC, 2000). While that debate sometimes operates as if mediation (or third party intervention) was something unique, with its own unique training and education issues, it is my view that mediation is a generic process, involving a complex integrative approach to interpersonal issues. The study of mediation, etc, therefore needs to draw on the work of a range of disciplines. As a focused discipline, the experience with mediator training is relatively undeveloped, and literature on mediation training is consequently quite scant. By comparison, the experience and literature of professional formation in other related disciplines which have a recognised practice component is deeper. Even so, there are admissions in this literature that there still are issues with the theory and practice nexus, and with
how to research, or learn from, the experience that develops in practice for practical reasons and useable answers (Baskett & Marsick, 1992).
I have been drawn to this topic because of, primarily, my experience of learning from the Dispute Resolution course work at UTS, and my frame of being a teacher. The Dispute Resolution course work at UTS has a large element of role-play and simulation in it. In my view this weighting is entirely appropriate for this kind of learning. In my judgement, the course I experienced (1996-7) did not provide me with adequate tools to tap the full potential for learning from those experiential exercises. As I have observed this course work being presented a number of times since then, I have observed a shift in emphasis and timing. More adequately structured debriefs are now used, and these use the material from the role-plays and simulations and endeavour to address the issues raised by them within a theoretical structure something which was not apparent to me in my first experience. However, there is, I think, more to be learned from the experiential component of role-plays and simulations. And, if, as I think, more learning can be achieved by working on the information available from experience, then the mechanism/s used to do this will be valuable tools for other professional practices. So there is the potential of a wider application of study in this area (Fook, 1996; Gummesson, 1991; Hoshmand, 1994;).
PART 1: What is the problem? The problem for me, revolves around what is involved in endeavouring to introduce the explicit and intentional use of reflective techniques into the Dispute Resolution course work, in order to enhance the learning available from role-plays and other experiential components of the course work.
Stating the problem in this way assumes that role-play work is vital and relevant to studies in dispute resolution. It further assumes that the use of reflective techniques will enhance the learning available from role-plays. Both of these assumptions have an element of the problematic in them. It is not as straightforward as saying: do it.
The fact is that in the UTS course work, at present, role-play simulations is a significant component. There is an occasional mention made of the value of reflective work, but only during some of the dispute resolution courses, and only by some of the presenters. Work on the principles of adult education indicate that reflective work is one of the learning strategies of adults (Burns, 1995, Scott, 1998). Why then, do I claim that more could, and should be done? It is only if more could, and should be done, that it is worth going the next step and asking: how then do we do it?
When looking at the issue of learning from role-plays in education and training, developed for mediators engaged in assisting resolve disputes, a number of aspects arise. There is the aspect of curriculum and method what are the curriculum objectives that result in the role-play being the chosen, and predominant method for the key core unit/s? If this is the predominant method, what is being done about the mobilisation of knowledge from experience and development of knowledge in experiential learning contexts? what mechanisms assist us do this as well as possible?
At the student level there are issues about what is the reasonable but challenging cognitive work commensurate with the level of competence/ accreditation being sought, and which is adequate preparation for engaging in any professional practice in this arena. If the role-play takes up a significant proportion of the class time available, are students being assisted to make the most of the learning available?
For the presenters, questions and problems arise in how to design learning contexts and mechanisms. If the role-play is a significant component of this learning, and if present techniques are not making the most of the learning opportunity, what other mechanisms need to be mobilised to enhance the present level of learning from the potential available? If what is required is innovative, what can be done to test that any proposed innovation is (or is likely to be) effective before implementing it? Innovations need to be soundly based (vis--vis practice needs and curricular objectives) and practical, both in the learning context of coursework, and as a possible tool for ongoing independent learning in the professionals practice context.
As a result of work done in research into practice and practice issues, Kressel (1997:156-7) has some suggestions for mediator training. He suggests that the use of reflective information about mediator actions and the thinking informing actions, and then working in a peer context at enunciating and testing and refining theoretical understandings about this thinking and doing, is not only a potential research model, it is also a pedagogical opportunity. It is an activity which is likely to increase the pool of practice relevant knowledge. This is of particular interest to Kressel, given his previous involvement in mediation research (Kressel & Pruitt, 1989). The implications are that the design of educational activities around practice issues, and in a practice-related context, is an important aspect of mediator training. Role-plays and simulations can provide opportunities for some of these conditions to be met. In the absence of access to other practice-related learning contexts, they can provide a safe environment for trying out different strategies. With alert parties involved, and with an appropriate teaching/learning framework, role-plays can give learners the experience of both trying to mediate between disputing parties, and being disputants and having the feel of what it is like to have another party engaged in trying to help resolve that dispute. Information from both sides of the experience can inform the learning of how to do mediating effectively.
The work of those engaged in developing an understanding of learning from experience (various contributors in Boud, Keogh & Walker, 1985; Boud, Cohen & Walker, 1993; and Boud & Miller, 1996) suggests that reflective work is an essential component of such learning. However, the practicalities of designing effective reflective work, within a course context, are not at all clear cut or settled.
The student body coming to Dispute Resolution study is diverse. This mirrors both the inter- and multi-disciplinary nature of dispute resolution and the need for knowledge of how-to in a variety of professional contexts: legal, business, management, policing, community development, teaching, to name but a few. This creates particular problems for education and training in the field: what kind of prior knowledge can be assumed, if any? What, from a range of options, is to be the focus, for content, for process? Further, so far as prior exposure of how to learn
from role-plays, there is even less certainty. Learning from role-plays is not a regular part of most curricula/ method approaches. While it is a component of learning in some disciplines (eg psychology and social work, especially for case work), not all students have that kind of background. Learning from role-plays can occur at a variety of levels (Phillips & Fraser, 1982). But also, role-plays can be engaged in, without learning anything, and only having prejudices consolidated (Power, 1992). In this context, two issues arise: what, of the content possibilities, can be left to the student to explore at their own discretion, to the level relevant to their practice, and by resort to the literature, and by work on written assignment tasks?; and: what must be done in class, and how is this adequately prepared for and supported by activities, by resources, by time to engage in that process, etc? Having decided for role-plays and process as a focus in the core Dispute Resolution units, as well as (perhaps) the framework in which content needs to be introduced, even if only as teasers, the question of preparation and support, particularly for debriefing and reflective work becomes much more significant.
Despite the view that reflective work is seen by some as a significant component of learning (Kolb, 1984, Dewey, 1933 and Schon, 1983 are other well respected supporters of this view), mechanisms to do this effectively are not necessarily part of the current students (or presenters) explicit learning (and teaching) tool-kit. Indeed, work with the deliberate use of reflective techniques in a tertiary learning context suggests that a variety of techniques are useful (Bish & Dick, 1992), while focusing on one technique journalling raises difficulties for some students (Morrison, 1996, Walker, 1985). One of the significant transitions which need to be made in engaging reflectively with a situation, if reflective work is part of the learning process, is the move from the descriptive level of reflection to the analytical level (Walker, 1985:61-2, Heron, 1996:85). Another of the operating factors, particularly for successful reflection of the activity of self in a situation, is the liberty to choose to engage with the situation in that way or not (Grundy, 1982 cited in Boud et al, 1985). Sanford (1970) suggests that there may be some developmental prerequisites which play a part in how effective this work might be.
Schon (1983, 1987, 1991) champions reflection as a significant aspect of the development of professional expertise. Part of the value of his work has been making explicit what has not been explicitly acknowledged before, or which has been devalued or overlooked in the midst of the pressures to master other knowledge content and skill development. Others working on the development of expertise have found evidence of written reflective work being pivotal to the practice of some experts, being part of the way they grappled with the problems arising from their practice (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991). This gives us some justification to seek to start working at this process deliberately, to improve the process for those for whom it is a natural response and to help those who would like to develop this way of going about their learning.
However, in its use in Dispute Resolution studies there is another issue: the nature of the complexity of the phenomenon being studied. Kressel (1997:147-8) remarks that one of the difficulties of researching the practice situation (and perhaps a reason why other research routes, which are more manageable, are used as first resort) is its complexity, its richness, the impact of clinical noise. Knowing which of the incidents or aspects of the mediation are worth looking at with this level of intensity, is by no means self-evident (Kressel, 1997:157). This is exactly the dilemma of using the role-play and its debrief in a coursework context, especially when time constraints are significant. Also, students background here will affect what they might be alert to, and/or interested in studying. Meeting the needs of such a diversity of interest is a significant practical issue for things like plenary sessions. Mechanisms which acknowledge these issues, and can mobilise their potentialities to enrich the learning experience are needed.
Looking at the issue from the presenters point of view, yet other concerns come into play. A persons practice is composed of a number of factors. There is what they do because they have learned it by mimicking a model. There is what they have learned from raw experience: by action-response and how they learned from those eg avoidance of pain/ discomfort, or a conscious working at seeking understanding. Then there is what they have thought through and consciously endeavoured to construct and deliver on. This latter may well have been informed by formal and
informal studies. The factors which come into play here are: initial professional education and initiation and socialisation; ongoing professional development and responses to changes in understandings within the relevant field; and studies and/or interests outside the obvious discipline which are perceived to be able to contribute to the practice. Exploring the present practice to introduce continuous improvement is one thing, and produces certain gains. Working outside the box, and endeavouring to implement an approach, which, for the presenter at least, is innovative, is a different order of risk.
Change, and the efficacy of an attempt to deliver change in such practice, may well depend on which of the above levels we are addressing. The mimicked model may be so embedded as to be almost untouchable. The action-response patterns, especially those forged in dealing with pain (physiological or psychological or social) may also be so entrenched that they will be (1) difficult to expose/ make explicit, and (2) difficult to dislodge and replace. Something like the aversion therapy approach may be needed.
There is a model of layers describing what is going on here, and which is used in one of the Dispute Resolution studies (Gibson, 1998). In this model the outer layer is Attitudes, the next layer in is Beliefs, and the inner most core is Values. The values are the most stable. Attitudes are the sorts of things that can be influenced by the current social milieu media debate etc. Beliefs are more stable than attitudes but less stable than values. Beliefs are able to be articulated, and amended by convincing, persuasion. Values are more difficult to enunciate and make explicit, are often un-articulated, and may only appear in unexpected reactions and behaviour when they are challenged. Indeed, Northrup (1989), in her discussion of the intractability of disputes, points out that when a dispute touches on self-identity, and self-identity includes these cherished values, there is a greater potential that such a dispute will prove intractable, than if other conditions prevail in the dispute. Consequently, different mechanisms will be needed to unearth values, and if change is necessary, different mechanisms will be needed to change them. This, I think, is basis of the thrust of Argyris (1982) work on Model I and Model II behaviour patterns and interventions to deliver change in interpersonal interactions. My
position, with this work involving research and change, is to try and get those values out into the open, so that the possessor understands them, and then can choose to change them or not, and is free to go either way. Then, based on that choice, they may be able to recognise what actions they can and cannot then attempt in order to deliver more effective action, ie Argyris Model II free and informed choice, based on valid information.
Of these various problems associated with the use of role-plays in the study of dispute resolution, two seem to be pivotal to the successful implementation of reflective techniques as a part of the course work.
The first of these is the work necessary to assist a presenter move to a position where they are enabled to implement the proposed enhancement: the use of reflective techniques as a significant adjunct of the present coursework. The second is the work necessary to assist students engage in the kind of reflective work that is likely to be most useful for present and ongoing studies of disputes and their resolution.
So the questions that are then indicated as appropriate to take forward this exploration seem to me to be:
For the presenter component:
To what extent does the presenter understand their current practice of mediating and teaching mediating to consist of reflective practice (and/or action research)? If reflective practice (and/or action research) is recognised as a pivotal component of their own practice effectiveness, what tools, etc, are needed to assist them introduce students to and/or develop students in the use of these techniques as an integral part of the professional formation of a mediator? Does the experience of exploring these questions provide any general suggestions for the introduction and/or development of reflective practice and/or action research in other professional formation training?
For the student component:
To what extent does the student recognise reflective work (and/or action research) to be a component of their present learning approach or something they would like to be able to do (or do perhaps better/ differently) to learn more effectively? Are there different reflective mechanisms to suit different student learning styles; and of these, which mechanisms are most effective for learning about the issues relevant to effective mediator practice as a professional endeavour? Are there particular reflective mechanisms and foci that are suited to learning about the issues relevant to effective mediator practice at different stages of a mediators career? Such stages which structured learning might address include: at initial professional formation; for enhancement of an established practice; for breaking through on perceived limitations; for being able to transfer learning, or other tertiary tasks (like research). In order to try and meet the constraints of this assignment, I will now focus my attention on the presenter aspect.
Why should this topic be researched? How can its worth be justified to others, and what contribution will it make to educational research at large? One of the questions I faced in seeing this as a research issue, was related to my initial, primitive, understanding of research. Is the work involved in investigating the understanding of what is going on for a presenter, research? From the interpretive perspective it is. Is the work of testing that when the reflective work is understood explicitly, and when the experienced practitioner/ teacher is involved in exploring the design of innovative ways of introducing this to students, then sufficient conditions are established to allow change to be implemented, research? From the empirical perspective it is.
Can its worth be justified to others? At a personal level, I would like to see the potential of the present course work attained, and the learning available from roleplays enhanced. The reasons for this partly relate to my vocation of teacher wanting to see the best possible use made of learning opportunities. As a student of dispute resolution I want to be equipped to fulfil my role as a practitioner as effectively as possible. Within the dispute resolution field, whatever can contribute to the development of more capable mediators is something worth striving for for
the benefit of the mediators, the parties to the dispute, and other stakeholders having an interest in seeing the dispute resolved effectively. Depending on the nature of the dispute, such stakeholders include: family members of the individuals to the dispute, courts, organisations, communities. In some situations even nations may be involved.
What key concepts am I working with and how do I want my readers to understand these terms? As noted before, there are various strands I am working with in seeking to address this issue. They include: Reflective practice and reflective techniques Role-plays, simulations and other experiential components used in course work engaged in the teaching and learning about the variety of aspects associated with interpersonal interactions; Why there is this need for the interaction of reflective work with practice: the practice that involves complexity, uncertainty, uniqueness and conflictual Schon (1995); and dealing with three levels: emotional, procedural, substantive Raffles (2000) Improvement: professional development; professional formation (technical, practical, ethical/critical/emancipatory); developmental stages Learning; enhancement of learning; processes consistent with/ congruent with demands of practice
The key concept is reflective practice and reflective techniques. The focus of the reflective practice that I am concerned with is that involved in the practitioner being able to be more consciously aware of their thinking which is informing/directing their practice responses. It is reflection focused in part on self. It is reflective work that has moved beyond the descriptive to the analytical/ critical. It is reflective work that is open to the testing of their perceptions with peers who have experienced the same event (Boud et al, 1985:37).
In the literature there are currently mixed messages, particularly about the applicability and usefulness of Schons concepts of reflective practice (Ferry & RossGordon,1998; Quicke, 1996; Grimmett & Erickson, 1988). There is a lot of rhetoric, and a lot of fuzzy use of the terms (Clift, Houston & Pugach, 1992?; Korthagen, 1993; Dick, 2000). Kressel (1997) seeks to specify what is involved, at least in the research of mediation practice, and makes specific suggestions about how to bring some traditional empirical standards for rigour into the process (p.149, 150-1, 152-3, 157).
What has already been done in this field of research? Of what value is this research to me? How does it fit with my research? How does my research build on it? As noted before, very little research has been done in the field of mediator education and training, and particularly concerning the specifics of the effective use of roleplays in such training. The early literature has focused on exploring the nature of mediation and the skills required. Powers review (1992) covers some of this ground. Her contribution to this issue is the way in which she addresses the issues associated with the use of role-plays in such training. She identifies the kind of risk of adopting such an approach uncritically, either because of tradition, or as an endeavour to hang onto the apprentice aspect of practice training. But she also highlights her particular concerns about the ways necessary to make the learning from them more effective. In her terms, this is by the use of metacognitive
learning. This is something that can also be described as reflective work before going into a learning event part, but not all of, the task of briefing for a role-play.
However, as noted before, there is material, research and study of other disciplines and education and training for other professional practices, which does have something to offer. The trick here is again, to engage in the kind of critical evaluation of ways and means on offer, and in the light of what are the necessary and foundational aspects of education and training for the mediator. There are no signs that this work has been done in the past. Kressels (1997) work frankly admits its preliminary nature and indicates areas where more work needs to be done. One of these areas is the design and use of templates and protocols to make the reflective
work as productive as possible for the learning of knowledge that is reliable enough to be used in the practice situation (Kressel, 1997:155-8).
PART 2: Summarising the three key papers The three key references I have chosen deal with mediator education. My choice is based on their impact on my alertness to this issue (Power, 1992 & Kressel, 1997) and in the case of the third one, (Giddings, 1999) selection is based on its currency and relevance to the Australian mediation training scene. There may be other papers which would have fulfilled the role of being key to this discussion. I have based my choice of the Giddings article on (1) UTS Dispute Resolution studies are now based in the Faculty of Law. When I commenced studies (1996), the Centre for Dispute Resolution was a combined enterprise of the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Business. So, current considerations about course work, curricula, etc, will be determined by those engaged in legal education. Arguments directed to that area will need to be cognisant of current trends in that area. (2) This is an Australian example. Others have made a case for the Australian practice of mediation operating at a different level to that of the USA or Britain, the usual pole stars for Australian developments [Scott and Raffles in conversations]. (3) It is the most recently reported discussion on mediator training, responding in part to the Australian Law Reform Commissions Issues Paper, 1997 Rethinking Legal Education and Training.. I might note that since this article, the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council has recently released (March 2000) a discussion paper entitled The Development of Standards for ADR. Included in this is an overview of the current situation of mediator training and education and some questions for further discussion for the key players in the field. These questions address issues of types of training, forms of accreditation (qualification, attributes and practice), and qualifications etc of trainers. The ADRA Biennial Conference in November 1999 was on the issue of innovation innovation required in practices to keep providers in the race.
The first key research text which has challenged me and my practice, and become a stimulus for my current concerns in the field of education, especially in the area of developing professional expertise, and amongst mediators, is Kressel, K "Practice-Relevant Research in Mediation: Toward a Reflective Research Paradigm" Negotiation Journal, 1997, 13 (2) p.143-160 In this article, Kressel reviews his experience with a team of three other mediators operating in a practice dealing with the mediation of co-parenting disputes. Kressel is operating out of the empirical tradition, but is alert to the limitations of the traditional approaches and perceptions of that tradition, when faced with having to research the messy practice context, and while engaged in practice. This alerting gives cause for Kressel to reflect on just what the Essex Project team did in researching their practice and how they did it, and what guidance their experience is able to give others. The review includes consideration of methods and critiques of method and traditional viewpoints about method, and in concluding, proposes: (p.155)
I have attempted to demonstrate that an articulated paradigm for conducting mediation research can be built upon Schon's notion of the reflective practitioner. The aim of such a paradigm is to give us systematic access to the potentially codifiable knowledge contained in the wisdom of everyday mediation practice. The paradigm I have sketched is built around mediator-researcher self-study, using the case study as the unit of analysis and the research team as the vehicle of reflection. The paradigm makes use of systematic case study protocols to direct the team's attention to certain types of critical case episodes; emphasises the importance of distinguishing among mediators of differing levels of competence; and argues for the necessity of subjecting reflective hypotheses about effective practice schema to experimental probes
Kressel also comments (p.156) on how the elements of this approach could be used in the interest of pure pedagogy. It was this challenge, and the practicalities of how to then achieve it within current course work frames, which has fueled my interest, and the development of this research.
The second key paper instructing me in the area of educating mediators is
Power, Mary R "Educating Mediators Metacognitively" (1992) 3 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal, 1992, Vol 3, 214-226 In this paper Power is arguing for the development of mediator training which recognises the nature of mediation and what is then involved in the fuller formation of a mediator capable of principled adaptability (p.215)
[The] model advanced here is that beginning mediators be taught to be "metacognitive", that is, to "plan, initiate, and evaluate their own learning experiences", to integrate them with prior experience to facilitate the growth of independent, reflective problem solvers who are not limited by past practices and conventions but are constantly subjecting their own performance to scrutiny to improve it.
Her paper deals with mediation and education from the empirical perspective, with some critical analysis, and looks to the achievement of observable improvement. Power reviews and summarises the findings of a number of sources, relevant to this topic. Her review scans the skills identified in the literature of those experienced with mediator training, both from within the legal tradition and other contributing fields: communications studies, community work, counselling and other social services fields. She draws on work evaluating adult education practices. She gives particular attention to the practice of learning from role-plays and simulations. She mounts the critique that if such learning situations are not also deliberately framed to encourage learning beyond current implicit understandings, then (p.217) There is a danger that a mere role-play can dramatise the participants usual ways of viewing a situation leaving their prejudices and implicit theories unchallenged.
Powers critique addresses the issue of the limitations of the mimicked model. She proposes the kind of education which is required to assist a learner move from the mimicked model to a more self-reliant approach which has the level of principled adaptability required to maintain and enhance professional standards of practice.
The third paper selected is:
Giddings, J. (1999). Using Clinical Methods to Teach Alternative Dispute Resolution: Developments at Griffith University. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 1999, vol.10, no.3, pp.206-215
This paper is a descriptive piece, with commentary drawing on the current literature of mediator training. It describes the elements, and first round student experience, of a course offered at Griffith University called Alternative Dispute Resolution Clinic. This is a collaborative effort between Griffith Universitys Faculty of Law and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General.
The description is framed in an empirical perspective, and evaluations of course effectiveness and of particular aspects of the course presentation are provided, though with little indication of the nature of the evidence supporting such evaluations. Beyond the description, the paper looks at some of the supportive literature which raises the issues associated current legal training programs, and with clinical legal education. Support for elements of the course is drawn from major writers and theorists, some of whom are engaged in mediator training, especially from the US (Sander, Bush, Menkel-Meadow are of note). The main theme tapped is the need to develop course work which assists students with the learning required to be equipped for dealing with the realities of the practice situation, and especially the nature of mediation in practice.
There were three matters of particular interest to me, since they touch on aspects of my argument in this proposal.
One was the recent, but growing, development of a notion of engaging in (legal) education by the use of clinical methods. This gives some access to practice, and provides for structured evaluation of issues raised in and by practice, within a learning/training regime (p.206-7). It is notable that preparations for the clinic included teaching involving role-plays and simulations (p.210-211). In this instance there were two levels simulations by experienced practitioners, and impromptu challenges of students of how would you.. and where other students participated in the role-play. Their experience re-iterated the need for students to be given guidance on the purpose of role-playing for learning, and ways to make the most of such a learning opportunity. However there is no sign of any recognition that the
deliberate use of reflective techniques would make any additional contribution to such studies. I would argue that if this were enhanced by training which recognised the value of reflective processes, and the power of team reflective analysis, then there would be the capacity to build this as a normal part of ongoing practice habits. I suspect it happens, but at an informal level. Without there being some deliberate recognition of it as an important adjunct to the learning process, these informal behaviours may or may not be continued with in the practice context. When they are left behind at the university they will become but a memory of the good time. The pity is that this doesnt need to be left behind, it can be nurtured and developed.
The second point of interest was the remarks about expertise, and course presenters, and the need to work at a collaborative effort to overcome legal trainers reluctance to move into unfamiliar territory (p.207). Part of the strategy of proceeding with the research focused on the presenters understanding is that it may serve to deal with some of this reluctance. More importantly, if there are good and cogent reasons to not give reflective work the emphasis I am proposing, then this mechanism will allow them to become explicit. Once explicit, they available: to inform me for one, and others thinking about such an approach. The results will either lay to rest the wishful thinking about reflective practice in such a context, or will provide a spur for further research to understand what is going on, and/or to see more exactly what needs to be in place before attempting to implement justifiable change.
Thirdly, Bushs contributions (cited on p. 208), about in-class situations, was an affirmation of another of my perceptions of difficulties in a plenary session. Here a few can become engaged in debate about a practice situation, but others can opt out, since the matter at issue is not seen to be relevant to them at the time. Whether there are mechanisms to more adequately meet the needs of different individuals with particular interests, is another of my concerns in suggesting in-class reflective work.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
The Action Research Reader [Melb]:Deakin Univ Pr, 3rd ed c1988 Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: a Behavioural Science View. Reading, Mass: AddisonWesley, 1970 Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning and Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982 Argyris, C Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1974 Baskett, HK Morris, Victoria J Marsick (eds). (1992). Professionals' Ways of Knowing: New Findings on How to Improve Professional Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992 New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Number 55, 1992 Bish, A., and Dick, B. (1992). Reflection for everyone. A paper delivered at the Reflective practices in higher education conference, Brisbane, 1992. Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Boud, D. Keogh, R. Walker, D. (1985). Promoting Reflection in Learning: a Model in Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Boud, D, Cohen, R, Walker, D. (1993). Using Experience for Learning. London: SRHE and Open University, 1993 Boud, D. Cohen, R. Walker, D. (1993). Introduction: Understanding Learning from Experience in Boud, D, Cohen, R, Walker, D Using Experience for Learning. London: SRHE and Open University, 1993 Boud, D. & Walker, D. (1993). Barriers to Reflection on Experience in Boud, D, Cohen, R, Walker, D Using Experience for Learning. London: SRHE and Open University, 1993 Boud, David & Nod Miller, eds (1996). Working with experience: animating learning. London: Routledge, 1996 Burns, R. (1995). The adult learner at work: a comprehensive guide to the context, psychology and methods of learning in the workplace. Sydney: Business & Professional Publishing, 1995 Candy, Philip, Sheila Harri-Augstein, Laurie Thomas (1985). Reflection and the Self-organized Learner: a Model of Learning Conversations p.100-116 in Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Carr, W Kemmis S (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research [Melb]: Deakin Univ Pr, rev ed c1986 Clift, RT, Houston, WR, Pugach, MC (eds.) (1992?). Encouraging Reflective Practice in Education Dewey J (1933). How We Think: a Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: DC Heath, c.1933 (original 1910) Dick, B. (1998). Reflective mechanisms [On line]. Available at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/reflmech.html , based on Bish, A., and Dick, B. Reflection for everyone. A paper delivered at the Reflective practices in higher education conference, Brisbane, 1992. Dick, B. (2000). The change process and action research. Session 2 of Areol- action research and evaluation on line. URL http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/areol/areol-session02.html Ericsson KA and J Smith. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. New York: Cambridge UP, 1991 Fook, J (1996). The reflective researcher: social workers' experience with theories of practice research. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1996 Gibson, D. (1998). Model and experiential exercise used by Dianne Gibson in Family Dispute Resolution, 1998 Giddings, J. (1999). Using Clinical Methods to Teach Alternative Dispute Resolution: Developments at Griffith University. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 1999, vol.10, no.3, pp.206-215 Grimmett, PP Erickson, GL (1988). Reflection in Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Pr., 1988 Gummesson, E (1991). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, c.1991 Heron, John (1996). Helping whole people learn. p.75-91 in Boud, David & Nod Miller, eds (1996). Working with experience: animating learning. London: Routledge, 1996 Hoshmand, LT (1994). Orientation to inquiry in a reflective professional psychology Albany: SUNY Pr, 1994 Kasl, E. Dechant, K. Marsick, V. (1993). Living the Learning: Internalizing Our Model of Group Learning in Boud, D, Cohen, R, Walker, D Using Experience for Learning. London: SRHE and Open University, 1993 Kemmis, Stephen (1985). Action Research and the Politics of Reflection p.139-163 in Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Kemmis, S McTaggart R (1988). .The Action Research Planner [Melb]: Deakin Univ Pr, 3rd ed c1988 Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). The scientific approach, Chap 4 in Foundations of Behavioural Research. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston. 4th edition. Knights, Susan (1985). Reflection and Learning: the Importance of a Listener p.85-90 in Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984
Dianne Allen (Assignment 1) RESUBMISSION: ARGUE PROBLEM & METHOD; DESIGN & METHOD IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH p.19 Korthagen, FAJ "The Role of Reflection in Teachers' Professional Development." in Teacher Professional Development: A Multiple Perspective Approach edited by L Kremar-Hayn, HC Vonk, and R Fessler, 133-45. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets 7 Zeitlinger, BV, 1993 Kriesberg, L Northrup, TA Thorson, SJ (1989). Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation. [?]: Syracuse Univ Pr, [?1989] Kressel, K Pruitt, DG (1989). Mediation research: the process and effectiveness of third-party intervention. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1989 Kressel, K (1997). "Practice-Relevant Research in Mediation: Toward a Reflective Research Paradigm" Negotiation Journal, 1997, 13 (2) p.143-160 Main, Alex (1985). Reflection and the Development of Learning Skills p.91-99 in Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Mason, J. (1993). Learning from Experience in Mathematics in Boud, D, Cohen, R, Walker, D Using Experience for Learning. London: SRHE and Open University, 1993 Miller, N. (1993). How the T-Group Changed My Life: A Sociological perspective on Experiential Group Work in Boud, D, Cohen, R, Walker, D Using Experience for Learning. London: SRHE and Open University, 1993 Morrison, Keith (1996). Developing Reflective Practice in Higher Degree Students through a Learning Journal Studies in Higher Education. Vol.21,No.3,1996, p.317-332 Mulligan, J. (1993). Activating Internal Processes in Experiential Learning in Boud, D, Cohen, R, Walker, D Using Experience for Learning. London: SRHE and Open University, 1993 National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) (2000). Discussion Paper: The Development of Standards for ADR. Canberra: Ausinfo, 2000. Northrup, TA (1989). "The Dynamic of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict" in Kriesberg, L Northrup, TA Thorson, SJ Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation. [?]: Syracuse Univ Pr, [?1989] Pearson, Margot and David Smith (1985). Debriefing in Experience-based Learning p.69-84 in Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Powell, J P (1985). Autobiographical learning p.41-51 in Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Power, Mary R. (1992). "Educating Mediators Metacognitively" (1992) 3 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal, 1992, Vol 3, 214-226 Sanford, N "Whatever happened to action research?" originally Journal of Social Issues. vol.26, no.4, 1970, pp.3-23, reproduced in The Action Research Reader [Melb]:Deakin Univ Pr, 3rd ed c1988, p.132-3 Scardamalia, M Bereiter, C (1991). "Literate Expertise" in Ericsson KA and J Smith. Toward a general theory of expertise. New York: Cambridge UP, 1991 Schon, DA (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983 Schon, DA (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987 Schon, DA (ed) (1991). The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991 Schon, DA. (1995). "The new scholarship requires a new epistemology." Change. 1995, 27:6, p.26-29 Scott, G. (1998). Draft quality assurance framework for developments in learning design and delivery in higher and further education. Working paper shared, January 1998. Usher, R. (1996). A critique of the neglected epistemological assumptions of education research. Chap.2 in D. Scott and R. Usher (eds). Understanding Educational Research. London: Routledge UTS Faculty of Education 1998, Learning Guide Research Perspectives in Education. UTS Faculty of Education, Sydney, revised 1999. UTS Faculty of Education 1999, Learning Guide Design & Method in Educational Research. UTS Faculty of Education, Sydney, revised 1999. UTS Faculty of Education 1998, Reading Guide Research Perspectives in Education. UTS Faculty of Education, Sydney, 1998 Walker, David (1985). Writing and Reflection p.52-68 in Boud, D Keogh, R Walker, D (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985 Wildman, P (1995) "Research by Looking Backwards: Reflective Praxis as an Action Research Methodology" p.171-192 in Moving on: creative applications of action learning and action research. Upper Mt Gravatt, Qld.: ALARPM, 1995 Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1995) Models for Action Research in Moving on: creative applications of action learning and action research. Upper Mt Gravat, Qld.: ALARPM, 1995

MEd: Argue Problem and Method

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MEd: Argue Problem and Method

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Dianne Allen (Assignment 1) RESUBMISSION: ARGUE PROBLEM & METHOD; DESIGN & METHOD IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH p.

RESUBMISSION: ARGUE PROBLEM & METHOD (Assignment 1)

Dianne Allen, 2000

Introduction and Background:

For the presenter component:

For the student component:

The second key paper instructing me in the area of educating mediators is

The third paper selected is:

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi