Osterman & Kottkamp (1993) versus Kolb (1984)

The final blog has us looking at a particular model of reflection and using it to reflect on an aspect of our practice that has been enhanced, developed, challenged, through the Mind Lab process.  I thought I would make life a bit easier for people and summarise Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993) model of reflective practice, as well as Kolb's (1984) experiential learning model - the clear inspiration for that model.  I have included learning styles that come from Kolb's (1984) model because they could equally be applied to that of Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993).  Here goes ...

Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993) model of reflective practice (Figure 1) is primarily based in Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory (Figure 2).  As such the theoretical underpinnings of Kolb’s theory translate easily to that of Osterman & Kottkamp.

Importantly, the performer/learner places greater emphasis on one particular stage which tends to reflect their learning style. All stages are essential in learning – but some are more important for the individual (Figure 3). 

Figure 1

Figure 2

In essence, Kolb (1984) proposed a model that suggests learning is a cyclical process that begins with experiencing an action and then evaluating it in preparation for another attempt.  Each of the four stages brings with it certain characteristics:

1. Concrete Experience in which a new experience or situation is encountered, or (since it is a cyclical process), a reinterpretation of existing experience.

2. Reflective Observation in which we make observations of the new experience.  Of particular importance are any inconsistencies between experience and understanding.  In other words, “What are the gaps?”

3. Abstract Conceptualization in which the previous stage of reflection gives rise to new ideas/approaches, or a modification of an existing abstract concept.

4. Active Experimentation in which the learner applies them to the world around them to see what happens as a result.

Importantly, the performer/learner places greater emphasis on one particular stage which tends to reflect their learning style. All stages are essential in learning – but some are more important for the individual (Figure 3). 

Figure 3

Diverging learners are feelers and watchers and tend to be imaginative and emotional.  They are good at coming up with ideas and are able to see things from different perspectives with relative ease.  They prefer to watch than do.

Assimilating learners are thinkers and watchers and tend to integrate different perspectives to form a new or modified whole.  They are concise and logical.  The ideas and concepts that underpin their thinking are more important than the people as they are primarily research driven.

Converging learners are thinkers and doers and enjoy the process of decision making and problem solving because they are keen to come up with solutions.  They are process and outcome oriented.

Accommodating thinkers are feelers and doers.  They enjoy the trial and error nature of problem solving rather than the research, thought and reflection phases.  They tend to be intuitive in their thinking and prefer discovery learning (learning through doing).

The benefits of recognising these learning styles comes to the fore when considering collaborative goals such as when two or more teachers work together to address the same issue in their practice.  The strengths each brings to reflection/inquiry may well complement weaknesses.  For example, an accommodating thinker (because they tend to be intuitive and "gut thinkers") may circumvent the process of research informed practice or cast their net widely in terms of thinking about alternative strategies.  A collaborator who is an assimilating learner can help that person think through the basis on which they intend to act.  Equally, the accommodating thinker can help the assimilating learner from risking paralysis by analysis.

These foundations are valuable when considering the following steps of Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993) model of reflective practice.

Stage 1:  Problem Identification:

The beauty of problems is they tend to poke our personal paradigms and, as such, we tend to speak in the language of our world view.  In doing so, we open ourselves up to challenge and critique which aids personal/professional growth and development.

Of course this stage is reliant on teachers being able to recognise the problem when it arises.  As we become increasingly comfortable in our working environment, we tend to become more insular and less open to what is going on around us.  It is easy to dismiss incidents or issues in the classroom as unimportant or the fault of others.  Turkay Nuri Tok et al (2014) point out that it is important teachers are open minded in recognising problems in their practice as it not only develops self confidence in solving the day-to-day problems in teaching, but also forms the foundation of problem solving as part of reflective practice.  In effect, we can become better teachers if we are open to recognising our problems rather than choosing to tactically ignore them as an indicator of failure.  Failure is essential.  FAIL means First Attempt In Learning.  We must fail if we are to succeed.

Stage 2: Observation and Analysis:

This involves the bringing together and critical analysis of the experience that generated the problem.  Why did this happen?  What evidence do I have for this? What assumptions am I making?  What inferences am I making?  This is after all the essence of critical analysis/thinking – the challenging of taken for granted assumptions on the basis of evidence.  This evidence may be quantitative (scores, data, trends etc.) or qualitative (student voice, observations, parental feedback etc.).

Osterman & Kottkamp (1993, p.74) suggests we should, “stand back from the experience itself and assume a detached stance to describe it fully and critically”.  This is epistemologically problematic – and extremely difficult to do.  In effect we are being asked to be objective in our analysis.  This cannot be done.  We have been intimately involved with the problem.  We have interacted with the data and, as such, changed it.  Our retelling of the situation within our own internal monologue or when we describe it to others is steeped in subjectivity.  We cannot be objective in our thinking because we are emotionally invested in it.  We make subjective inferences because we are human.  

Let me explain it with the following scenario.  As a Junior Dean, I often have to deal with situations in which there is a dispute between the teacher and student regarding an action on the part of the student and a consequence put in place by the teacher.  Invariably only parts of both the recollection from both the teacher and student align.  When working with students, we ask them to imagine there is a video camera in the classroom that is filming the whole classroom.  We ask them to describe what the video would show if we played it back with others watching.  Even in this case, there are omissions and embellishments.  However, this may be a way to move towards the notion of taking a more detached stance from the experience – a critical friend.  Someone who can challenge, question, draw out from you the nature of the experience.  This in of itself is a considerable skill to possess.

Stage 3: Reconceptualisation or Abstract Theory:

This stage of the process takes time.  The quality of the observation and analysis phase can impact markedly on the quality of subsequent steps.  Time is also needed because the education is a complex field and presents “complex problems” (Fullan & Miles, 1992, p.746).  Time invested in these complex problems avoids risking superficiality in the reflective process.

This involves a consideration of alternate ways of thinking and acting.  It should be based in both evidence and research.  What could I do?  How can I do it better?  What other ways are there of doing it better?  What could be the outcomes?  How will I know?  In the case of reflective practice it may lead to a modification or even a removal of some aspects of practice with the expectation it will bring about improved outcomes for both the teacher (professionally) and the learner.

Just as in the previous stage, the willingness to be open-minded to new ideas, theories and practice is important.  This is not to say they should be included when reconceptualising practice, but they should be critically considered.  I would suggest that the degree of open-mindedness to new ways of doing things comes about through having the subjective rather than objective mind-set in the previous stage.

Working in conjunction with others either collaboratively on a similar/shared problem or using the critical friend approach may prove beneficial in thinking through how we intend to reconceptualise practice.  It also allows for critical analysis to take place to ensure we have cast our net widely when considering alternative ways of doing things.

Stage 4: Active Experimentation:

This sees the completion of one cycle and the beginning of another iteration (as part of an ongoing process).  Active experimentation is not carried out for the sake of carrying something out rather it will be informed by the learning of Stage 3.  Evidence needs to be collected as our plans are put into action.  Once again, open-mindedness is required.  By this we mean ensuring we make note of all changes, not just those that inform the positive outcomes of the actions carried out.  Often, negative outcomes can be more informative than those that reinforce our initial thinking.  Once again, peer observation of plans in action may be beneficial when reflecting on the nature of our actions.

References:

Fullan, M.G. & Miles, M.B. (1992).  Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesn’t.  Phi Delta Kappan, June (1992), 745-752.

Gholami, K. (2011). Moral care and caring pedagogy: Two dimensions of teachers’ praxis. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19(1), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.548995

Kolb, D.A. (1984).  Experiential Learning.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McLeod, S. (2018). Kolb's Learning Styles and Experiential Learning Cycle | Simply Psychology. Simplypsychology.org. Retrieved 15 March 2018, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html

Osterman, K. & Kottkamp, R. (1993). Reflective Practice for Educators. California: Corwin Press, Inc. Retrieved on 7th May, 2015 from http://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files.

Rethinking sociological craft in an age of austerity – an interview with Les Back. (2013). Mark Carrigan. Retrieved 17 March 2018, from https://markcarrigan.net/2013/01/12/rethinking-sociological-craft-in-an-age-of-austerity-an-interview-with-les-back/

Türkay Nuri Toka, Şükran Tokb, & Sevda Doğan Dolapçıoğluc (2014).  The Perception Levels of the Novice Teachers’ Problem Solving Skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116 (2014 ), 415 – 420.

Wideman, M. (2011). Caring or collusion? Academic dishonesty in a school of nursing. Canadian Journal of Higher Education Revue Canadienne, 41 (2), 28–43.