Reflective Teacher

Regarding T.H. McLaughlin’s “Beyond the Reflective Teacher”

The essay begins with the appeal to the underlying educational practitioner philosophy of reflection. Author McLaughlin thinks that there needs to be a shift away from the notion of a reflective teaching practitioner and advocates moving beyond to a more comprehensive model. He believes the current conception of a ‘reflective teacher’ has become a mere slogan used to gain appeal and consensus about the methods of teaching.

His inquiry looks into the concept of ‘reflection’, begging critical questions such as how reflection should be understood, what value it possesses, and how reflection is properly developed. From there he gives an in depth analysis that addresses the concepts and processes involved with the practice of teaching. His aim is to reconcile the current demands of teaching with training, a difficult task when using the current conception of reflection. In the end he establishes a need to address the individuality of teachers as a vital component of teaching. To him, character and personality, integral to a teacher’s individual traits, supersede the ability of mere reflection to facilitate knowledge to pupils.

This essay was a provoking call to reexamine the semantics of educational theory and root them in a practical working understanding that combines a refined definition of reflection borrowed from Aristotle’s notion of phronesis, coupled with personal character qualities of individual teachers.

Having recently reflected on ‘reflection’ myself, I was intrigued by the dilemmas McLaughlin brought to light. Academic words like ‘reflection’ are all too often thrown around without much thought that a consensual and pragmatic understanding of such words are up to date. One is inclined to think of reflection as almost synonymous with learning, but this, as McLaughlin says, is the very fault of the ‘reflections’ current paradigm.

Regarding its educational applications, reflection is loaded with relative meaning. It is not simply the act of ‘thinking’. It contains varying complexities that manifest according to the intention of reflection, as well as when material being reflected upon. McLaughlin pulls apart the explicit and intuitive functions of reflection called for specific applications. He refers to Aristotle’s notion of the techne to illustrate how skilled professionalism, such as research, requires skill derived from explicit reflection.

Additionally, there is a further spectrum concerned with the proximity of objects under reflection. Not only does reflection vary in application, it varies in the scope and object of reflection as well. This is on a continuum ranging from specific, present and particular, matters, to more general, contextual, matters. These levels emerge as important for framing reflection to suit the object of reflection. By not recognizing these levels, there is an inherent danger of limiting the scope in which matters are considered, leading to potentially overlooking interconnections among parts.

As McLaughlin moves on in his critique, he arrives at the dilemma of establishing a definitive value of reflection as it relates to effective classroom performance. Establishing the connection of phronesis as ‘uniting good judgment and action’ with effective teaching, there arises the question of defining what it means to be a good teacher. This brings him to the dilemmas of researching the dynamics of teacher and pupils as well as the very quality of their reflection in question.

His last critique relates educational theory’s innate duty to establish rational principles. While this duty appears to be a sincere and worthwhile undertaking, there is the threat of post-modernism that ridicules the possibility of rationalism that leaves to any sort of ‘general standards of judgment’ from existing at all. To most, it would seem absurd to abandon such a duty. However, this forces the question of issues concerning evaluative basis of education itself.

Lastly, McLaughlin moves beyond the analysis and inquiry to formulating a position of launching a new paradigm that he refers to as ‘beyond reflection’. As aforementioned, he stresses the importance of valuing the qualities of character that each individual teacher possesses. These qualities, he believes, are what consider the relation between teacher and student, and bridge a gap that allows for the connection of the teacher as a ‘whole person’ with the pupils.

Continuing with this connection, while retaining the conviction in reflection as phronesis, he constructs a position that emphasizes the role of rooted, established communities unified by mutual commitments. Because of contemporary educations concern with pluralism and diversity, the utility of these communities have yet to be fully explored.

In conclusion, McLaughlin does wonderful work analyzing the varying semantic of reflection, and presents a convincing platform for the further analysis of reflections role in unified communities that emphasizes a strong link to a teacher character in effective education.