Running head: AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
1
Reflective Practice that transforms a clinical nursing expert into a learner-centered educator
AE510 Literature Review
Linda Cavanaugh
St. Francis Xavier University
May 20, 2014
Adult Education 510
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
2
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction
3
Foundations in Adult Education
4
Critical Reflection and Transformative Learning
Foundations of reflective thought
5
Critical reflection
7
Transformative Learning
9
Reflective Practice
12
Reflective Practice and Professional learning
16
Teaching and Facilitating Learning
22
Learner Centered Teaching
24
Teaching for Transformation
29
Authenticity
31
Self- Study Research
34
Improving teaching practice through self-study
35
Reflective practice and transformation through self-study
36
Self-study methodology
37
Summary
40
References
41
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
3
Introduction
Nurse educators are trained to be nurses. Does their clinical experience qualify them to be
educators of future generations of nurses? That answer isn’t as obvious as one might think. They
come as content experts. If anyone knows nursing, it is nurses. Does that make them good
educators? The majority of nurse educators have a nursing background not an education
background. In fact, of the current nursing faculty in Canadian universities, only 22% have
advanced degrees in disciplines other than nursing (CNA, 2008). Which of those “other” degrees
are in education is not known, but if numbers are similar to the US, it would be between 2 and
4% (NLN, 2002; Schoening, 2013).
How then do we support nurse educators when they move from being clinical experts to
novice educators? Evidence suggests the transition is not easy (Weideman, 2013; Spencer, 2013)
and lack of teaching preparation is a large part of that reason (Anderson, 2009; Roberts,
Chrisman & Flowers, 2013). While there are recommendations to support novice educators with
mentorship programs and better orientations (Anderson, 2009; Spencer, 2013; Reid et al, 2013)
the fact is most new faculty are left to learn their new role in informal and self-directed ways
Duffy, 2013; Roberts et al, 2013; Foley et al, 2003).
The field of adult learning has much to offer novice educators as adult education has long
supported the concepts of informal and self-directed learning as part of professional development
and workplace learning (Knowles, 1980; Merriam and Caffarella, 1991; Hrimech, 2005). The
purpose of this literature review is to synthesize the literature around adult learning concepts that
have supported my transition from clinical nursing expert to learner-centered educator. The
specific concepts of reflective practice, transformative learning and authenticity will be
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
4
summarized for their potential to impact and facilitate learner centered teaching environments,
with learner centered teaching environments being the hallmark of “good” educators
(Fitzmaurice, 2008; Terry, 2008; Weimer, 2002). The literature around learner centered teaching
environments will be synthesized and self-study as a research methodology will be discussed as a
way to investigate the inter-relationship of these concepts.
Foundations in adult education
“Over the decades since Lindemann’s (1926) The Meaning of Adult Education was
published, adult learning has evolved into a complex, multifaceted set of theoretical perspectives.
Early adult educators (Moses Coady, Myles Horton, and Paulo Freire, for example) focused on
emancipatory learning and achieving freedom from oppression, but when humanism became the
prevailing philosophy underlying education in the 1960’s, many theorists turned toward
understanding individual learning processes (Cranton, 2012, p. 4).
Malcolm Knowles was a major contributor to providing a construction of the adult
learner through his concept of andragogy (Pratt & Nesbit, 2000, p.120; Knowles, 2005).
Knowles credits learning this term from a Yugoslavian educator in the mid-sixties and first used
it himself in 1968, after which it became a regular term in the literature. It was a term meant to
distinguish the teaching of adults as something different from the teaching of children (Knowles,
1980, p.42).
One idea that Knowles identified as integral to the individual learning process was that of
self-directed learning (Knowles, 1980, p.19; Harris, 1989, p.102). Mezirow (1985) echoed this in
saying, “Self-directed learning is the goal of andragogy” and “no concept is more central to what
adult education is all about then self-directed learning” (p.17) “The third contribution to adult
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
5
learning that helped define what is different about learning in adulthood, is transformational
learning” (Merriam, 2005, p.44). “In summary, andragogy, self-directed learning, and
transformational learning have come to define much of adult learning today” (Merriam, 2005,
p.45).
A key component in each of these concepts is reflection. Knowles (1980) stated, “A
growing andragogical practice is to build into the early phases of a course, workshop,
conference, institute, or other sequential educational activity an “unfreezing” experience, in
which the adults are helped to be able to look at themselves more objectively and free their
minds from preconceptions” (p.51).
Harris argued that reflection is the key element in self-directed learning (Harris, 1989,
p.102). And Pilling-Cormick (1997) connects all three when she says, “In self-directed learning,
learners determine, investigate, and evaluate their needs. When considering needs, the learner
must reflect on his or her learning processes. When this reflection moves beyond simple
questioning and becomes more critical, the potential for transformative learning exists (p.76).
It becomes clear then that a key component of individual learning is the process of
reflective practice.
Foundations of Reflective Thought
Before one can define and come to an understanding of the many different faces and
mechanics of reflective practice, one must understand the foundations that support it. To do that,
it is best to start at the beginning. And many authors, including Chapman & Shaw Anderson
(2005), Rodgers (2002), and Finlay (2008), agree the beginning was the work of John Dewey.
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
6
Rodgers (2002) argues that “Dewey is mentioned consistently in books, and articles
written on reflection, teacher education, and student learning, but an extensive examination of
what he actually meant by reflection is missing from the contemporary literature” (p. 843).
John Dewey was a philosopher and educator in the early 20th century who first defined
reflective thought in his text “How We Think” originally published in 1910 and updated in 1933.
He defines reflective thought as “Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or
supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further
conclusions to which it tends…” (Dewey, 1933, p.9).
In Dewey’s work we can find the foundation of much of today’s writing on reflective
practice, critical reflection, and reflection for transformation.
Of reflective thinking he said, “…it emancipates us from merely impulsive and merely
routine activity…” it “…enables us to direct our activities with foresight and to plan according to
ends-in-view, or purposes of which we are aware” (Dewey, 1933, p.17). This serves as a
foundation of Schon’s work.
Schon is credited with bringing reflective practice to the forefront of professional
practice. “…it is Donald Schon who drew wide-spread attention to it (reflective practice) in the
1980s, long after some had put it aside (Lyons, 2010, p. 13). In his book, The Reflective
Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Schon was concerned that the impact of routine
and repetitive action in our professional lives would result in action without thought. “…as a
practice becomes more repetitive and routine, and as knowing-in-practice becomes increasingly
tacit and spontaneous, the practitioner may miss important opportunities to think about what he
is doing” (Schon, 1983, p.61). Schon was interested in using reflective practice to improve
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
7
professional practice “by understanding how to apply wisdom, artistry and personal practical
knowledge gained through experience, as well as professional, academic knowledge” (Chapman
& Shaw Anderson, p. 543). Schon spoke of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Smith
(2001) does a good job of explaining Schon’s thinking in regards to these terms. “The former is
sometimes described as ‘thinking on our feet’….We can link this process of thinking on our feet
with reflection-on-action. This is done later-after the encounter…The act of reflecting-on-action
enables us to spend time exploring why we acted as we did, what was happening in a group and
so on. In doing so we develop sets of questions and ideas about our activities and practice”
(Reflective practitioner section, para.2). In other words Schon was concerned with outcomes
(Duffy, 2007).
This is one goal of reflection (Chapman & Shaw Anderson, 2005; Lyons, 2010) but there
are others. The second goal of reflective practice is “…improving practice through the use of
more critical techniques, that is, by better understanding the workings of power and ideology in
institutions, practices and structures of work and thus aiming for more equitable and less
oppressive conditions” (Chapman & Shaw Anderson, 2005, p.543). This is also known as critical
reflection.
Critical Reflection
Brookfield (1995) says that “critical reflection is one particular aspect of the larger
process of reflection” (p.1), He states that “reflection becomes critical when it has two distinctive
purposes. The first is to understand how considerations of power undergird, frame and distort so
many educational processes and interactions. The second is to question assumptions and
practices that seem to make our teaching lives easier but that actually end up working against our
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
8
own best long term interests-in other words, those that are hegemonic“ (Brookfield, 2005, P.3).
Dewey (1933) quotes Bacon and Locke in making the same point.
…social conditions tend to instigate and confirm wrong habits of thinking by authority,
by conscious instruction, and by the even more insidious half-conscious influences of language,
imitation, sympathy, and suggestion. Education has accordingly not only to safeguard an
individual against the besetting erroneous tendencies of his own mind its rashness, presumption,
and preference of what chimer, with self-interest to objective evidence- but also to undermine
and destroy the accumulated and self-perpetuating prejudices of long ages (p.25).
It was not Brookfield who first made this distinction between reflection and critical
reflection. It was Paulo Freire. “Freire’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, was first published in
1970. It has come to influence the idea of reflection to incorporate this notion of critical
reflection (Lyons, 2010, p. 16). Freire knew that education could not be separated from the
society and power structures that supported it. And while he believed that liberation came from
education, education was often a perpetuator of the very oppression it was meant to overcome.
“Education as the exercise of domination stimulates the credulity of students with the ideological
intent (often not perceived by educators) of indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of
oppression” (Freire, 2002, p.78). The key then to liberation came through reflection that led to
action…”liberation is praxis: the actions and reflections of men and women upon their world in
order to transform it” (Freire, 2002, p. 78).
Speaking of Freire, Lyons (2010) said, “He made it apparent that neutral, uncommitted,
apolitical education practice does not exist. Now contexts of living and learning had to come
under scrutiny, including political, social and cultural contexts” (17). And Freire believed that
uncovering and questioning such power relationships was the first step in changing them (Lyons,
2010, p.18).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
9
Brookfield adds to Freire’s ideas of critical reflection when he explains the importance of
uncovering our personal assumptions.
So much of what we think, say and do in the context of adult life is based on
assumptions about how the world should work, and what counts as appropriate, moral action
within it that we have developed in childhood and adolescence. Yet, frequently these
assumptions are not recognized for the provisional understandings that they really are. Ideas and
actions that we regard as common conventional wisdoms are often based on assumptions
regarding the credibility of authority sources. Some person, institution, or authority that we either
trust or fear has told us that “this is the way things are,” and we accept their judgement
unquestioningly (Brookfield, 2010, p.217).
Brookfield (1995) states that, “…the most distinctive feature of the reflective process is
its focus on hunting assumptions” (p.2) and “central to the reflective process is this attempt to
see things from a variety of viewpoints” (p.7). He believes this allows for better teaching as well
as life relations. “Becoming alert to the oppressive dimensions of our practice (many of which
reflect an unquestioned acceptance of values, norms and practices defined for us by others) is
often the first step in working more democratically and cooperatively with students and
colleagues” (p.9). “Critical reflection urges us to create conditions under which each person is
respected, valued and heard” (p.27). And finally, “…critical reflection involves us recognizing
and researching the assumptions that undergird our thoughts and actions within relationships, at
work, in community involvements, in avocational pursuits, and as citizens” (Brookfield, 2010, p.
216). Both Freire and Brookfield’s works seem integral to the third goal of reflection.
Transformative Learning
That third goal of reflection is transformation (Lyons, 2010) or transformational learning
and perspective shifts (Chapman & Shaw Anderson, 2005).
Transformational educators believe that the primary aim of critically reflective practice
should be to emancipate the learner from outmoded, un-useful, and possibly destructive,
perspectives and assumptions acquired during childhood in a frequently unjust society, and that
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
10
transformation has not occurred unless the learner is able to move the transformed perspective
into identifiable action (Chapman & Shaw Anderson, 2005, p. 544).
We can also see this underlying theme in Dewey’s work. “The distinction between
information and wisdom is old, and yet requires constantly to be redrawn. Information is
knowledge which is merely acquired and stored up; wisdom is knowledge operating in the
direction of powers to the better living of life” (Dewey, 1933, p.63).
Further evidence of reflection for transformation is found in his caution around
understanding the forces that influence thinking, including; superstition, the tribe, the market
place, the cave and the theatre (Dewey, 1933, p. 23).
One finds evidence of these same ideas in Mezirow’s thoughts on meaning perspectives.
As early as 1978 he said, “We learn to become critically aware of the cultural and psychological
assumptions that have influenced the way we see ourselves and our relationships and the way we
pattern our lives” (Mezirow, 1978, p.101). He sees challenging these assumptions as key to
critical reflection and necessary for transformation to occur (Mezirow, 1990, p.8). Patricia
Cranton echoes these thoughts. “Transformative learning occurs when, through critical selfreflection, an individual revises old or develops new assumptions, beliefs or ways of seeing the
world” (Cranton, 2006, p.4).
Mezirow was the first to define transformational learning in 1991 (Baumgartner, 2012;
Cranton, 2002; Mezirow, 2000). He believed that “formulating more dependable beliefs about
our experience, assessing their contexts, seeking informed agreement on their meaning and
justification, and making decisions on the resulting insights are central to the adult learning
process” (Mezirow, 2000, p.4) and that “transformation theory attempts to explain this process”
(p.4).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
11
He saw the focus of transformation theory as learning to act on our own purposes, values
and meanings instead of those uncritically assimilated from others with the result being more
democratic individuals and societies. He believed the way to do this was through reflective
discourse (Mezirow, 2000, p.8). Baumgartner (2012) explained the integral elements of his
theory included: taking the perspectives of others, making a critical appraisal of the assumptions
underlying our roles, priorities and beliefs, and deciding whether to act on new perspectives
(p.102).
Mezirow first began to formulate his theory after working with women re-entering the
work force in 1978 (Mezirow, 2000; Baumgartner, 2012). It has been strongly influenced by the
field of adult education (Cranton, 2012; Baumgartner, 2012) and Mezirow doesn’t hesitate to
include Kuhn (1962), Freire (1970), Gould (1978) and Habermas (1984) as major influences on
his work (Mezirow, 2000).
It is also equally true that his theory has been integral to the field of adult education.
Taylor (2000) offers that “in the twenty years since transformative learning emerged as an area
of study in adult education it has received more attention than any other adult learning theory…”
(p.285). It is a theory that has been “assessed and reassessed by colleagues in professional
journals, through correspondence, in national conferences, and through the participation of Jack
Mezirow and others in scores of conferences and seminars dealing with transformative
learning…”( Aalsburg Wiessner, Mezirow & Smith, 2000, p.345).
This attention has led to the continued evolution of transformative learning theory over
the last 35 years. Baumgartner (2012) highlights this is in large part due to several critiques of
his theory that it focused solely on the individual and not society (Collard and Law, 1989), that it
didn’t account for the influence of power on perspectives (Brookfield, 1991), or account for
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
12
gender, class and culture (Clark and Wilson, 1991) to name a few of those critiques. However,
Cranton (2012) points out that all of these perspectives can co-exist. “The outcome is the same or
similar-a deep shift in perspective leading to a more open, more permeable, and better justified
meaning perspectives (Mezirow, 1978)-but the ways of getting there can differ depending on the
person or people and the context of the situation” (p.3).
In responding to the many different perspectives and criticisms of his work, Mezirow has
been a living example of his own work. “Only time will tell how Mezirow’s transformative
learning theory will evolve. What is certain that over the past thirty-five years, Mezirow’s
transformative learning theory has become more inclusive and integrative. Colleagues’ critiques
have caused Mezirow to expand the theory” (Baumgartner, 2012, p. 112).
But at its core, Cranton (2002) argues that transformative learning theory is elegantly
simple. It involves becoming aware that one is holding a limiting or distorting view, critically
examining that view, exposing that view to alternatives and changing the way we see things.
This means we have transformed some part of how we make meaning out of the world (p.64).
This brings us to the “how” of reflection. Mezirow said, “Critical reflection is not
concerned with the how or the how-to of action, but with the why, the reasons for and the
consequences of what we do” (Mezirow, 1990, p.9).
Reflective Practice
This implies that there is a process of “how to”. How does one “operationalise”
reflection? What does that process look like? How does one engage in reflective practice? Can
anyone do it? Are there required attributes or characteristics?
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
13
Dewey believed that reflective thought wasn’t automatic or easy. “Dewey reminds us that
reflection is a complex, rigorous, intellectual, and emotional enterprise that takes time to do
well” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 844).
Dewey (1933) believed that people could be taught how to critically reflect but that
doesn’t mean students will engage in it. He believed that the ability to critically reflect required 3
specific attitudes: open-mindedness, whole heartedness, and responsibility (p. 29-30).
Rodgers (2002) explains what Dewey means by these attitudes as well as adding the
attitude of directness that she believes is referred to in his work without being explicitly
identified by him (p. 859). Lyons (2010) offers that directness was added by Dewey in his text
Democracy and Education (p.40).
In summarizing Dewey’s work, Rodgers (2002) interpreted whole-heartedness as ‘single
mindedness’, ‘no holds barred enthusiasm about one’s subject matter’ (p858), directedness by
describing what it isn’t. “It is not self-consciousness, distractedness, or constant preoccupation
with how others perceive one’s performance” (p.859-860), open-mindedness as ‘a willingness to
entertain different perspectives, coupled with an acceptance of the “possibility of error even in
the beliefs that are dearest to us” (p.861), and responsibility as the ‘reality check’. It is the being
aware that our thoughts lead to action (p.862). She adds curiosity and the desire to grow as two
other attitudes necessary for readiness to engage in reflection. Of these attitudes she says,
“Without these, the courage required for truly reflective work would be absent. Truly to inquire
into one’s practice in a whole-hearted, direct, open-minded, responsible way demands the
courage to release not only what one holds dear but the elements of one’s very identity” (p.863).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
14
How does one inquire into one’s practice? Are there certain steps to be taken? Most
authors, in discussing the process of reflection identify steps or phases in the reflective process
(Atkins & Murphy, 1993, p.1189).
Rodgers (2002) offers six phases (p.851), and Lyons (2010) five phases based on
Dewey’s work (p.485). Cranton (2020) identifies seven phases based on Mezirow’s work (p.66).
Findlay (2008) highlights several models and frameworks that offer stages, steps and phases of
reflective practice that are based on Schon’s work. These include Boud, Keogh and Walker
(1985), Boyd and Fales (1983), and Atkins and Murphy (1993). Brookfield (2010) identifies four
interrelated processes (p.217).
But there are several others. Gibbs (1988) cycle of reflection identifies 6 stages.
Christopher John’s (1995) created a model based on Carper’s ways of knowing using 5 cues.
Kim (1999) had 3 phases.
Atkins & Murphy (1993) believe that what appears to be many different accounts of
reflective processes are actually differences in terminology and if one analyzes the different
models, there are essentially 3 stages. The first stage is an experience that triggers uncomfortable
feelings and thoughts when there is an awareness that the knowledge on hand doesn’t explain the
situation. The second stage requires an analysis of that experience using existing knowledge and
new knowledge to explain the experience. The third stage involves the development of a new
perspective on the situation (p.1190). Freshwater (2008) supports this conclusion.
Cavanaugh & Topola (2012) also see similar components in these models and
frameworks: an experience that gives pause for thought, the analysis and interpretation of that
experience (which may include questions of underlying power structures (Brookfield, 2010) or
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
15
an investigation of the underlying beliefs and assumptions that we bring to the experience
(Mezirow,1998), finding appropriate knowledge to support or challenge our interpretation of the
experience, and finally changed perspectives leading to action.
What then is reflective practice? Is there a concise definition? Many argue that reflective
practice is not clearly defined (Rodgers, 2002; Finlay, 2008; Hickson, 2011; Moon, 1999; Atkins
& Murphy, 1993; Freshwater, 2008). Chapman & Shaw Anderson (2005) argue that how you
define reflective practice depends on the end goal you have in mind (p.543).
Moon (1999) says that reflective practice is reflection in the context of practice (p.vii).
Black and Plowright (2010) state that, “Reflection is the process of engaging with
learning and/or professional practice that provides an opportunity to critically analyse and
evaluate that learning or practice. The purpose is to develop professional knowledge,
understanding and practice that incorporates a deeper form of learning which is transformational
in nature and is empowering, enlightening and ultimately emancipatory” (p.246)
There are other definitions. Kinsella (2001) shares definitions by Schon (1983), Osterman
& Kottkamp, 1993) and Jarvis (1992). Williams (2001) shares definitions by Dewey (1993),
Boyd and Fales (1983), Boud et al (1995) and Mezirow (1990). Lyons (2010) identifies that
several others have created definitions including; Hansen (2006), Brookfield (1995), Hatton and
Smith (1994), Atkins and Murphy (1993), Kim (1999), LaBoskey (1994), Loughran (2006) and
Rodgers (2002).
One begins to grasp why authors are highlighting the growing criticism of reflective
practice (Jones, 1995; Duffy, 2007).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
16
Reflective practice and professional learning
Why are there so many definitions, models, & frameworks? Findlay argues that the
proliferation of different versions and models to operationalise reflection results from a lack of
clarity and consensus about reflective practice (2008, p.7).
Moon states, “One of the many difficulties of studying the literature on reflection is that it
emanates from many different sources. Some of those sources are distinct disciplines, such as
education, psychology, philosophy and sociology….” (Moon, 1999, p. vii). And “the work on
reflection in practice-reflective practice-originated mainly in the professions of teaching and
nursing, but there is little integration of these two sources and relatively few professional
educators have crossed boundaries” (Moon, 1999, p.vii). Moon (1999) does offer that “apparent
differences in reflection are not due to different types of reflection-in other words, to differences
in process itself, but to differences in the way that it is used, applied or guided”(p. 5). Chapman
& Shaw Anderson (2005) seem to echo this conclusion when they say of reflection that it, “is
best to select a focus consonant with one’s philosophical approach to the practice of adult
education in one’s professional setting” (p.543)
Despite these challenges, reflective practice is a well–established mechanism for
professional learning. “Reflective practice has burgeoned over the last few decades throughout
the various fields of professional practice and education. In some professions it has become one
of the defining features of competence…” (Findlay, 2008, p.1). Kinsella (2001) and Mann,
Gordon & McLeod (2009) support this statement. Taylor (2010) identifies the growth of
reflective practice into such diverse fields as architecture, engineering, politics, business,
organizations and institutions, management and leadership, psychology and counselling, social
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
17
work, occupational therapy and medicine as further proof of reflective practice as a mechanism
for professional learning (pp 7-8).
Brookfield (2010) summarizes why this is so. “In most areas of professional work, where
legislation, professional codes and requirements, practitioners’ own commitments and
philosophies, and the pressure to meet prescribed targets combine to make daily practice a
whirlwind of contradictions, the need to be able to step back from cases and situations and view
them from different perspectives becomes crucial” (p. 215).
Loughran (2002) argued, “Across many professions (science, nursing, medicine, law,
teaching) the need for individuals to develop their understanding about the way they conduct
their work, and to be skilled practitioners through their work, has been important in informing
the profession about aspects of practice. By so doing, the knowledge base of the profession is
developed and refined in ways that help the practitioner to be an effective and informed
professional” (p. 34).
Lyons (2010) said, “Reflective inquiry, then can reveal important valued beliefs at the
core of professional education and learning: uncovering needed perspectives; identifying critical
moral and ethical dimensions of practice; encouraging collaborative inquiries; deliberating about
underlying professional purposes and possibilities-all valued aspects of professional education
that might otherwise be missed if reflective inquiry were lacking, not endorsed and practiced”
(p.8).
The need for professionals to reflect on their practice was inspired by Schon’s text The
Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1983) (Loughran, 2002; Kinsella,
2001; Moon, 1999).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
18
In his text, Schon (1983) identified a growing lack of confidence from the general public
in professionals’ abilities and knowledge and a loss of faith in professional judgment by both the
lay population as well as professionals themselves as a key consideration in professionals
reflecting on their practice (p. 3-5).
In his follow up text, Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in the Professions (1987), he cites this same lack of confidence in
schools that educate professionals. “The crisis of confidence in professional knowledge
corresponds to a similar crisis in professional education. If professions are blamed for
ineffectiveness and impropriety, their schools are blamed for failing to teach the rudiments of
effective and ethical practice” (Schon, 1987, p. 8). He recognized that, “what aspiring
practitioners need most to learn, professional schools seem least able to teach. And the school’s
version of the dilemma is rooted, like the practitioners’, in an underlying and largely unexamined
epistemology of professional practice” (Schon, 1987, p.8).
Schon was instrumental in the growth of reflective practice for many. “Schon’s work
promoted discussion in many different areas-among professionals, among the theorists on the
professions and other work, among the educators of professionals, among those with interests in
professional practice methods and among those whose interest lie more specifically with
reflection” (Moon, 1999, p. 46).
While his work is not without criticism (Moon, 1995; Findlay, 2008), there is a consensus
that his work has been hugely influential in how reflection is applied to professional practice,
training and education (Findlay, 2008; Loughran, 2002; Clegg, Tan & Saeidi, 2002).
In looking at how his work has been applied, Moon (1999) argues there are some key
considerations to keep in mind. These include the fact that a “precise identification of a role for
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
19
reflection in practice was not the main task of Schon’s work… there is a tendency for
interpretation of reflection-on-action to be broader than Schon’s own use of the term….a
tendency to adopt Schon’s model as ‘fact’ and theorize on this basis rather than treat the model
as speculative” (p. 54-55).
In looking at how his work has been applied specifically in professional development of
teaching and nursing (as this is the focus of my self-study), there are other key points to keep in
mind as summarized by Moon. Moon (1999) highlights that the majority of reflection on practice
originated in teaching and nursing. She offers the reasons for this lies in the nature of the
professions. Specifically, both professions deal “with subject matter that is interpretative and not
rooted in fact to the same extent that scientific disciplines are” (p.55). “Another reason is that
practice in these professions is often based on rapid action and the proof of expertise in the
subjects emerges from the actions taken, not the quality of thought that might have gone into
these actions” (p. 55). In other words “action is what counts” (p.55). Politics and empowerment
are other reasons for interest in reflection. She cites Richardson (1990) to suggest “adherence to
the notion of reflective practice raises the status of a profession” (p.56).
She also points out that how reflective practice is applied within these disciplines is not
uniform and very much contextual. “In education, the main interest in reflective practice has
come from teacher education more than those engaged in teaching…” (p.57). “In contrast, in
nursing, the ideas about reflective practice have been applied more in the professionalism of the
nurse and less in nurse education” (p.57).
A key critique of the use of reflection in these professions “is the fact that there is
relatively little concern for the effect of reflective practice on the subjects of the professional’s
action-the learners, patients or clients…” (Moon, 1999, p.57).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
20
Jones, (1995) offered similar thoughts in saying of reflection in nursing, “…its use by
qualified nurses as a method for improving patient care may have its dangers” (p.787) and
quotes Newell (1994) as saying, 'There are currently almost no accounts which describe the
effect of reflection upon professional practice as it affects clients' (italic added)” (p.787)
McIntosh (1998) went so far as to say, “The use of reflection as a learning strategy or tool
for professional development in seriously flawed. Its terms, concepts and framework for
implementation lack basic clarity. Where it has been attempted, within both education and
clinical settings, its impact is unclear, and it seems unlikely that reflection will stand the test of
time” (p.556).
Reflection as a learning strategy and tool for professional development has stood the test
of time. Lyons (2010) asserts that the skepticism about professional practice that Schon
identified in his work remains relevant today (p.5). She also cites recent reform movements in
several professions as the increasing need for reflective inquiry in professional education (p.7).
Black and Plowright (2010) argue that the use of reflection is not straightforward or
simple but that research can provide a “significant contribution to an understanding of reflection
for learning and professional development” (p.245). Clegg et al (2010) believe that “reflective
practice provides a model that upholds the distinctive nature of professional knowledge and
know how” (p.132).
In summarizing Schon’s influence, Lyons (2010) says, he “brought the rapid discussion
and adoption of reflecting on practice to the attention of many professionals and encouraged their
exploration. He helped to support a new scholarship of teaching” (p.16).
She also believed “it was the next generation of scholars who helped to push reflective
inquiry into a more complex role. Paulo Freire, Jack Mezirow, and David (sic) Brookfield saw
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
21
more radical necessities for reflective inquiry-that is, the very transformation of the world”
(Lyons, 2010, p.16).
Is this evolution of reflective inquiry for transformation evident in professional practice?
In his review of the literature for the period 1999-2005, Taylor (2007) identifies the
growing number of peer –reviewed articles in a variety of disciplines across countries to provide
evidence that it is. The term used to identify this resultant transformation is one discussed earlier,
transformative learning.
Mezirow, Taylor & Associates (2009) define transformative learning as “an approach to
teaching based on promoting change, where educators challenge learners to critically question
and assess their deeply held assumptions about how they relate to the world around them”
(preface, p.xi). They argue that transformative learning has become the dominant teaching
paradigm within adult education and that it is no longer just an adult teaching construct but a
standard of practice among a variety of disciplines and educational settings (preface, p.xi).
Franz (2010) argues for the integration of transformative learning in organizational
development of employees. Cranton and King (2003) identify transformative learning as a
professional development goal in teaching. Daley (2000) identifies transformative learning as a
key component in continuing professional development for nurses and lawyers.
In speaking to reflective practice and transformation in the professional development of
the adult educator Cranton and King (2003) offer that critical reflection is at the heart of
transformation and is key to professional development given that “educators of adults are in a
unique position among professionals in that they often have not had the opportunity to learn how
to do their jobs. Most educators of adults come into their positions through a circuitous route,
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
22
one that does not include teacher training” (p.31). Doyle (2008) echoes this is a similar reality for
faculty in higher education institutions (p.3).
In recognizing the role of teaching in higher education institutions, Trigwell and Shale
(2007) summarize that a growing number of scholarship of teaching models for higher education
include the concept of reflection for transformation as a fourth concept alongside pedagogic
content knowledge, scholarly activity and pedagogic research (p.525). Cranton (2011) argues
that including critical reflection in the scholarship of teaching and learning “has the potential to
yield a deep shift in perspective on teaching and learning at both an individual level and a social
level” (p.76). All of these authors seem to provide evidence that reflective inquiry has indeed
evolved into a more complex role.
As an educator in a higher institution of learning, reflective practice helps me to critically
question and reflect on what I do, how it works and why I believe it is important. Cranton (1996)
and Brookfield (1995) say asking such questions is at the heart of becoming a transformed
educator.
In understanding my role as educator a great deal of my questions revolve around what I
believe about teaching, facilitating learning, the environments that support learning, and the
goals of learning. In order to critically reflect on these questions I must know what others say
about these topics.
Teaching and facilitating learning
What is teaching? Pratt (2005) opinions that defining teaching is not a simple process.
Different parts of the world define it differently and we see terms such as andragogy, facilitation,
instruction, pedagogy, and training to refer to teaching (p.610). His definition is simple.
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
23
“Teaching refers to the intentional facilitation of someone’s learning” (Pratt, 2005, p.610). He
makes it clear that while this may be a simple definition, the act of teaching is anything but
(Pratt, 2005, p.610).
Brookfield (2006) captures this when he says, “…teaching is frequently a gloriously
messy pursuit in which shock, contradiction and risk are endemic. Our lives as teachers often
boil down to our best attempts to muddle through the complex contents and configurations that
our classrooms represent” (p.1).
Doyle (2008) offers that teaching is not just challenging but difficult. He says, “It is
especially difficult for higher education faculty, because so few of us have had any formal
development in teaching practice.” (Doyle, 2008, p. 3) Schoening (2013) echoes this difficulty in
teaching nursing for similar reasons (p.171).
Pitkaniemi (2009) opinions that one cannot separate teaching from learning and it is not
enough to define teaching. One needs to analyze whether teaching produces learning (p. 274).
Boyer (1990) concludes that teaching becomes relevant only as it is understood by others. He
says, “Teaching is also a dynamic endeavor involving all the analogies, metaphors, and images
that build bridges between the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learning” (Boyer, 1990,
p. 23).
Does the literature distinguish between good and poor teaching?
Boyer says that great teachers “stimulate active, not passive, learning and encourage
students to be critical, creative thinkers, with the capacity to go on learning after their college
days are over (1990, p.23).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
24
Doyle (2008) says that his best teachers “were not only encouraging and supportive, but
they also taught me how to learn” (p.xv).
This seems to fit with the growing demand in higher education that teaching supports
effective and more student focused learning (Cranton, 2011; Ginns, Kitay & Prosser, 2008;
Lueddeke, 2003; Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin & Prosser, 2000; Trigwell & Shale, 2004).
Student centered learning/Learner centered teaching
There is mounting evidence that student-centered learning is an approach to teaching that
yields the best results in terms of student learning (Doyle, 2008; Lea, Stephenson & Troy, 2010;
Weimer, 2002; Weimer, 2013). These results include: an increased motivation to learn,
independence and responsibility in learning, increased engagement, increased quality of work,
more analytical graduates and the fostering of life-long learning (Attard, Di lorio, Geven &
Santa, 2010, pp. 7-11). Heise and Himes (2010) offer that student-centered learning empowers
students to take a more active role in their learning (p. 343). Weimer (2013) says, “there is
growing evidence that learner-centered approaches produce a different kind of learning, develop
learning skills, and move students in the direction of autonomy and independence as learners”
(p.viii).
The benefits of learner-centered teaching are not just for students. The evidence supports
benefits to the educator as well. Those benefits include increased job satisfaction and personal
growth and learning (Weimer, 2002) as well as a more interesting role for the teacher, positive
impact on working conditions, a solution to the growing diversity of the student body,
continuous self-improvement and professional development for academia (Attard et al, 2010,
p.9-10).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
25
What is student-centered learning or learner-centered teaching?
O’Neill and McMahon (2005) trace the history of the concept of student-centered
learning from as early as 1905 in the works of Hayward through Dewey in 1956. They point to
Carl Rodgers as expanding this approach into a general theory of education and as a term more
recently associated with Malcolm Knowles (p.27).
O’Neill and McMahon (2005) as well as Lea, Stephenson and Troy (2010) point out that
there is disagreement and confusion around the definition of student-centered learning resulting
in many synonyms that include learner-centered education, flexible learning, self-directed
learning, and experiential learning to name a few.
Weimer (2013) speaks to the importance of choosing learner-centered teaching as the
term of choice when she says “what we call something will guide how we thing about it-so what
something is called matters. Calling this learning-centered teaching keeps us focused on what
this way of teaching is about” (p.vii).
Because the literature is filled with both terms you will see both here.
How is learner-centered teaching or student-centered learning defined?
O’Neill and McMahon (2005) offer this conclusion after reviewing the many definitions
in the literature: “…it appears from the literature that some view student-centred learning as: the
concept of the student’s choice in their education; others see it as being about the student doing
more than the lecturer (active versus passive learning); while others have a much broader
definition which includes both of these concepts, but, in addition, describes the shift in the
power relationship between the student and the teacher” (p.29).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
26
Aware of the multiple definitions of student-centered learning, Attara et al (2010) created
this working definition for higher education institutions:
“Student centered learning represents both a mindset and a culture within a given higher
education institution and is a learning approach which is broadly related to and supported by,
constructivists theories of learning. It is characterized by innovative methods of teaching which
aim to produce learning in communication with teachers and other learners and which take
students seriously as active participants in their own learning, fostering transferable skills such as
problem-solving, critical thinking and reflective thinking” (p.5)
Doyle (2008) defines the concept of learner-centered teaching this way; “learner-centered
teaching means subjecting every teaching activity (method, assignment, or assessment) to the test
of a single question; ‘Given the context of my students, course and classroom, will this teaching
action optimize my students’ opportunity to learn?’” (p.5).
MacKeracher (2004) says this about learner-centered teaching, “The learning centered
approach focuses primarily on the learning process and the characteristics of the learner, and
secondarily on teaching and the characteristics of those who help the learner learn” (p4).
In other words, student centered learning focuses on “how students learn instead of how
teachers teach” (Wohlfarth, Sheras, Bennett, Simon, Pimentel & Gabel, 2008, p.67).
Despite the benefits of learner-centered teaching there are many challenges with this
approach.
These challenges seem to fall into three categories in the literature: understanding and
perceptions about what student centered-learning mean, resistance from students and resistance
from educators.
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
27
In speaking to the many definitions and perceptions of learner-centered teaching Paris
and Combs (2007) warn this lack of clarity limits our ability to communicate effectively within
and outside the educational community about the benefits of student centered learning (p. 572).
Lea et al (2003) offer the opinion when understanding of student-centered learning is muddled,
institutions and educators believe they are practicing student-centered learning when they are not
(p.322). O’Neill and McMahon (2005) conclude that the many different understandings of
student-centered learning can lead to seeing learning as “this dualism of either student-centered
learning or teacher-centered learning” and miss the reality that the situation is less black and
white and that it would be more useful to see these terms on either end of a continuum with
educators finding themselves somewhere on that continuum (p.29).
Attara et al (2010) summarize some common preconceptions and misconceptions about
student-centered learning. They include: student-centered learning requires a higher amount of
resources, is not appropriate to teach a large and diverse student body, undermines the teaching
profession, students have more to do, teachers have more preparatory work to do, problem-based
learning is the same as student-centered learning, it is not suitable to all academic fields, students
learn very little subject matter and not all teachers can teach in a student-centered way (p.61).
These perceptions may explain the resistance to the practice of learner-centered teaching.
In terms of resistance to learner-centered teaching Weimer (2002) states, “student and
faculty resistance is all but a guaranteed response to learner-centered teaching” (p.149).
Some of the reasons for student resistance include: learner-centered approaches are more
work, threatening, involve losses and may be beyond students (Weimer, 2002, p.150-151). Other
reasons Doyle (2008) found in his work with faculty trying to implement learner-centered
approaches include: learning is not a top reason students give for attending college, students do
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
28
not like taking learning risks, learner-centered teaching does not resemble what students think of
as school, students do not want to put forth the extra effort required, and students’ mindsets
about learning make adapting to learner-centered teaching more difficult (p.18-19). Doyle (2008)
summarizes that learner-centered teaching environments require students to take on new learning
roles and responsibilities that are much different from the roles they were used to in the teachingcentered learning environments they come from. He adds these changes are difficult for students
leading students to feel anywhere from uncomfortable to hostile towards these new roles and
responsibilities (pp.xv-xvi). O’Neill and McMahon (2005) support this concern in looking at the
influence of students’ beliefs about learning. “Students who value or have experienced more
teacher-focused approaches, may reject the student-centered approach as frightening or indeed
not within their remit” (O’Neill & McMahon, 2005, p.33).
Students aren’t alone in feeling threatened by a learner-centered approach and Weimer
(2013) highlights this as one reason for faculty resistance to implementing this approach. There
are other reasons for faculty resistance and these include: concerns that it diminishes learning
(Weimer, 2013; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005), negative attitudes towards change (Attara et al,
2010), high pressure, competitive academic environments (Moore, 2005), limited empirical
support for learning-centered models (Wohlfarth et al, 2008; Cox, McIntosh, Reason &
Terenzini, 2011), faculty cultures that support research over teaching (Cox et al, Weimer, 2013,
Ginns et al, 2008), and increasing workloads of faculty (Attara et al, 2010).
It would seem that embracing student-centered learning involves a process of
transformation as previous thoughts and ideas are questioned and challenged. Attara et al
(20008) say, “Student centered learning is also akin to transformative learning which
contemplates a process of qualitative change in the learner as on ongoing process of
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
29
transformation which focuses on enhancing and empowering the learner, developing their critical
ability” (p.2). Weimer (2013), Attara et al (2010), and Paris & Combs (2006) argue this process
of transformation is equally relevant for the educator and that brings us back to transformative
learning in the context of practical considerations.
Teaching for transformation
“Wearing the title or moniker of transformative educator should not be taken lightly or
without considerable personal reflection” (Taylor, 2006). “Educators need to be aware of their
own goals and desires with respect to transformative learning to ensure that it does not become
brainwashing, coercion, or indoctrination. Educators are cautioned to think critically about why
they might choose to engage with transformative models of education” (Moore, 2005, p. 86).
As this literature review has shown in regard to reflective practice and student centered
learning, transformative learning is also not without its challenges and concerns.
Deciding which theoretical perspective to view transformative learning through is one
such challenge identified by Taylor (2009). He discusses two theoretical frameworks: the first
theoretical framework emphasizes personal transformation and growth of the individual. This
framework is supported by authors such as Jack Mezirow, Laurent Daloz, John Dirx, Robert
Kegan and Patricia Cranton. The second theoretical framework emphasizes social
transformation. This framework is supported by Paulo Freire, Elizabeth Tisdell, Juanita JohnsonBailey and Mary Alfred (p.5). Critical reflection as a core element of transformative learning
looks different in each of these frameworks. In the personal growth framework critical reflection
“emphasizes self-critique of deeply held assumption, which leads to greater personal awareness
in relationship to others” (Taylor, 2009, p.5). Critical reflection in the social transformation
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
30
framework focuses more on an ideological critique, where learners develop an awareness of
power and political consciousness to transform society (Taylor, 2009, p.5).
The literature identifies another significant concern with transformative learning, that of
ethical implementation. “Transformative learning is based on the notion of recreating underlying
thoughts and assumptions about the systems, structures, and societies that we are a part of”
(Moore, 2005, p.86). “Do educators have the right to ask people to examine and change their
basic assumptions as part of our educational programs? Should one expect learners to seek this
kind of learning experience? Is it justified to pose real-life dilemmas that force examination of
one’s life story and lived assumptions? And do adult educators have the expertise to lead
participants through the transforming experience?” (Ettling, 2006, p.63). Moore (20005) asks
similar ethical questions. “What are we transforming students into? Are we biased toward certain
outcomes for the transformation? Is it only students who transform or teachers as well?” (p.86).
Moore (2005) points out that Mezirow (1991) himself raised similar questions. “Is it ethical for
an educator to decide which of a learner’s beliefs should be questioned or problematized? Is it
ethical for an educator to present his or her own perspective, which may influence the learner? Is
it ethical for an educator to facilitate transformation when the consequence may include
dangerous or hopeless actions?” (p.87).
Taylor (2006) offers that the most significant challenge associated with teaching for
transformation relates to the role of the educator. He goes so far as to opinion that it “may be
necessary for one to undergo some form of self-reflection and transformation in order to teach
transformation” (p.92). He says, “It means asking, Are we willing to transform ourselves in the
process of helping our students transform” (p.92).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
31
When we consider these significant questions we start to ask who is doing the teaching.
Palmer (2007) notes, “good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher” (p.10).
and Boyle (2006) offers that developing a more authentic teaching practice is a key consideration
in becoming a transformative educator (p.92).
Authenticity
What is authentic teaching practice? What does authenticity mean?
Taylor (2006) states that, “Cranton provides the most definitive work on authenticity and
teaching…” (p.92) so her work seems a good place to start.
In her research with Carusetta, Cranton (2004) shares that her interest in authenticity
grew out of her work with transformative learning. With Carusetta, they reasoned that
perspectives on teaching are an expression of personal beliefs and values that are often formed
through careful reflection and that critical reflection is central to transformative learning and
much of our important learning about teaching is transformative in nature (p. 6). She concluded,
“When we critically reflect on social norms about teaching, and disengage ourselves from the
norms we do not accept, we are differentiating ourselves from the collective of teachers, and this
is the development of authenticity-knowing who you are as separate from (and the same as) the
collective of humanity” (Cranton & Carusetta, 2004, p.6).
In their research with educators they identified that authenticity is a multifaceted concept
with at least four parts: “being genuine, showing consistency between values and actions,
relating to others in such a way as to encourage their authenticity, and living a critical life”
(Cranton & Carusetta, 2004, p.6).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
32
Cranton (2006) cites Palmer (2000) and Brookfield (1997) in her work and we can see
evidence of this theme of authenticity with these authors.
Palmer, in his texts Let Your Life Speak (2000) and The Courage to Teach (2007),
doesn’t use the word authentic but we find several references to the concept in his work. “I must
listen to my life telling me who I am. I must listen for the truths and values at the heart of my
own identity, not the standards by which I must live-but the standards by which I cannot help but
live if I am living my own life” (Palmer, 2000, pp.4-5), “…knowing my students and my subject
depends heavily on self-knowledge. When I do not know myself, I cannot know who my
students are. I will see them through a glass darkly, in the shadows of my unexamined life-and
when I cannot see them clearly, I cannot teach them well (Palmer, 2007, p.3).
Brookfield’s work also speaks to the concept of authenticity and he offers a picture of
what that authenticity looks like to students when he says, “Students recognize that teachers are
authentic when the teacher is perceived to be an ally in learning who is trustworthy, open, and
honest in dealing with students…colloquially, students often say that such teachers “walk the
talk”, practice what they preach and have no hidden agenda” (Brookfield, 2006, p.6). Through
his evaluation of what is most important to students he identified four common indicators of
authenticity; congruence (that is congruence between words and actions), full disclosure (making
public the criteria, expectations, agendas and assumptions that guide teaching practice),
responsiveness (demonstrating clearly that teaching is done so it is most helpful to students, that
is student-centeredness), and personhood (the concept that the teacher is a flesh-and-blood
person with a life outside of the classroom) (Brookfield, 2006, pp. 7-10).
These authors are not the only ones who address the concept of authenticity; Kreber,
Klampfleitner, McCune, Bayne and Knottenbelt (2007) do an excellent job of summarizing not
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
33
only Cranton, Palmer and Brookfield but many other authors on the subject of authenticity in
their literature review. These authors include: Chickering, Dalton & Stamm (2006), Dirkx
(2006), Grimmet & Neufeld (1994), Rogers (1983) and Tisdell (2003) to name a few.
This literature review offers the opinion that authenticity is an important, yet underresearched phenomenon and that authenticity does not always mean the same thing to everyone.
At the conclusion of their extensive literature review the authors don’t offer a simple definition
but share their observations about what features it involves based on the work of the authors
covered. These features include: “consistency between values and actions… presentation of a
genuine self as teacher… care for students… care for the subject and interest in engaging
students with the subject around ideas that matter… care for what one’s life as a teacher is to
be… self-knowledge, and confronting the truth about oneself… being defined by oneself rather
than other’s expectations… critically reflecting on how certain norms and practices have come
about… making educational decisions and acting in ways that are in the important interest of
students…promoting authenticity of others, reflecting on purposes in education and teaching…”
(Kreber et al, 2007, p. 39).
If authenticity is as important as these authors believe, one might ask, “Why is it
important? What does authenticity do in our teaching lives?”
Wright (2013) argues that great teachers have the ability to impact others and that
education plays a key role in the moral development of society. They summarize that
authenticity is a quality that involves morals and being true to oneself allowing that impact to be
one that benefits others (p.36). Frego (2006) believes that authenticity allows for the building of
trusting and caring relationships that can “increase learning-by motivating, engaging, or reducing
anxiety and increasing confidence” (p.50). Cranton (2006) believes that authenticity fosters
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
34
transformative learning. “Fostering transformative learning in the classroom depends to a large
extent on establishing meaningful, genuine relationships with students” (Cranton, 2006, p. 5).
Kreber and Klampfleitner’s (2013) study offered evidence that authenticity led to students
wanting to learn, being involved in learning and enjoying the learning process (p.483).
Authenticity in the classroom is not without its challenges and Brookfield (2006) speaks
to these when he discusses the very reality that often times students are asked to do things they
don’t want to do. In this regard going against the students’ wishes may seem to be unresponsive,
one of the four main indicators of authenticity students identify (p.14). Kreber, Klampfleitner,
Mccune, Bayne and Knottenbelt (2007) seem to address this concern when they say, “Certain
acts (which on the surface may look like acts of caring) do not qualify as true acts of caring if
they diminish the independence or development of the other” (p.30). Brookfield (2006) himself
believes that being authentic does not mean we don’t push students to challenge themselves,
quite the opposite, not doing so means we are not being authentic in our responsibility to
students and in the end he concludes that he is willing to accept this contradiction (p.16).
Self-Study
As I review this literature from the beginning, one consistent theme seems to emerge
again and again in all the topics covered; that of self-awareness. It has been identified as a key
component in reflective practice, student-centered learning, teaching for transformation and
authenticity. The final section of this literature review will summarize a research method that
seems most conducive to the investigation of self; that of self-study.
Lyons (2010) appears to agree when she says, “A primary avenue for practitioners to
engage in inquiry is through investigations into their own professional practices. This area of
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
35
research, usually referred to as self-study, has advanced so rapidly some claim that it is the
fastest growing area of research in teaching and teacher education” (p.41).
Self-study is a method of qualitative research with qualitative research methodology
being well suited for investigations in applied fields as the understanding of experiences can lead
to improved practice (Merriam & Simpson, 2000, p.97). Qualitative researchers are concerned
with understanding individual perceptions with a focus on insight rather than statistical analysis
(Bell, 2000, p.7).
LaBoskey and Hamilton (2010) summarize the work of many others in creating a
definition of self-study;
Self-study is the thoughtful, systematic, critical exploration of the complexity of one’s
own learning and teaching practice (Dinkelman 2003; Samaras and Freese 2006).
Autobiographical and bound in a particular history, culture, and political structure (Hamiliton
and Pinnegar, 1998), teacher educators bring their personal practical knowledge (Elbaz 1983;
Connelly and Clandinin 1985), their personal stories, and their voice (Goodson and Walker,
1991) to self-study. In self-study, the self has a part in this work, but the focus is on the spaces
where self, practice and context (Bullough and Pinnegar 2004) intertwine, serving to diminish
the gap between theory and practice (Bullough 1997; Hamilton 2004) (p.334).
Samaras (2011) offers a more concise definition from Sell (2009); ”I believe self-study
to be a personal, systematic inquiry situated within one’s own teaching context that requires
critical and collaborative reflection in order to generate knowledge, as well as inform the
broader educational field (p.10).
Improving teaching practice through self-study
Russell (2004) sees self-study as both necessary and inevitable to teaching in tracing
important shifts in perspective with respect to educational practice and research (p.1191). These
perspectives include: the behaviorist stance (relationship of teacher behavior to children’s
learning), theory-practice gaps, and gaps between rhetoric and school realities (Russell, 2004, p.
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
36
1192-1195). Given that the teacher is in the center of these challenges, self-study became an
approach to investigating practice (Russell, 2004).
Another significant reason for self-study is that teachers have a deep desire to improve
their work, improve student learning and contribute to productive social change (LaBoskey &
Hamilton, 2010; Trumbull, 2004).
Several authors have identified why self-study is particularly useful to educators. It
improves practice and creates legitimacy for teachers (LaBoskey, 2004). Palmer (2007) supports
that view by saying, “Whatever self-knowledge we attain as teachers will serve our students and
our scholarship well” (p. 3). It contributes to professional development as well as a professional
knowledge base for educators (LaBoskey & Hamilton, 2010; Lunenberg, Zwart & Korthagen,
2010; Samaras, 2011). LaBoskey (2004) argues that self-study can lead to transformation in the
educator but can also help educators to monitor and understand the facilitation of transformation
in others (p.832). It empowers professionals to be accountable for their own practice while
generating knowledge useful for others (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 841). A better
understanding of our teaching practices can better position us to understand learning (Samaras,
2011, p.5). It can help educators know and understand their professional identity (Samaras,
Hicks & Berger, 2004, p.905). Self-study redefines teachers as researchers, redefines teachers as
learners, opens the classroom doors, fosters good teaching, nurtures personal and professional
growth, reshapes beliefs that produce change, creates partnerships with students, benefits student
learning, and values student contributions (Austin & Senese, 2004, pp.1237-1247). And lastly, it
is an ethical imperative to investigate our individual practices when we ask it of our students
(LaBoskey & Hamilton, 2010, p.343).
Reflective practice and Transformation in Self-Study
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
37
It would seem evident that reflection is central in the self-study process. LaBoskey (2004)
argues that, “reflective practice is foundational to self-study”…and “a vital feature of reflective
teaching involves challenging the previously held assumptions about all aspects of the
educational process” (p.828).
The purpose of such reflection in self-study is not just to understand the behaviours we
bring to our teaching practice or accumulate knowledge of subject matter but to orchestrate
transformation (Iftody, 2013, p.392; LaBoskey, 2004, p. 832; LaBoskey & Hamilton, 2010,
p.347).
Teaching is influenced by what a teacher believes and what a teacher believes or assumes
is strongly influenced by lived experiences. In addition many of these assumptions are implicit,
deeply held and ultimately connected to our identities as educators (LaBoskey, 2004, Brookfield,
1995; Cranton & King, 2003).
Trumbull (2004) highlights it is for these reasons that self-study is crucial in uncovering
these assumptions and beliefs or we are at risk of acting through unconscious mechanisms that
can ultimately harm students (p.1222).
If self-study is an appropriate method of research what does it look like? What does it
entail?
Self-study Methodology
As mentioned earlier, self-study is a qualitative research method. LaBoskey (2004)
distinguishes self-study from other methodologies in identifying the following characteristics: “it
is self-initiated and focused; it is improvement-aimed; it is interactive; it includes multiple,
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
38
mainly qualitative methods; and, it defines validity as a validation process based in
trustworthiness (p.817).
In speaking to these characteristics, understanding the “who” is paramount. “A critical
identifying feature of the methodology of self-study involves the question of “Who?”-both who
is doing the research and who is being studied. In self-study the self is necessarily included in the
response to both queries” (LaBoskey, 2004, p.842). This does not mean the self is the sole focus
(LaBoskey, 2004) and Samaras (2011) argues that self-study requires collaboration (p.4).
Bullough and Pinnegar (2001) support this view on self-study when they say, “such study does
not focus on the self per se but on the space between self and the practice engaged in…the study
is always of practice, but at the intersection of self and other…” (p.15). This is what LaBoskey
means by interactive (LaBoskey, 2004, 1171).
In terms of multiple qualitative methods, LaBoskey (2004) makes a distinction between
methodology and methods when she says, “self-study is a methodology, a stance toward research
that employs many methods” (p.1173). Samaras (2011) echoes that position.
These methods include: narrative research traditions such as the self-narrative or
autobiography (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001, pp.15-16), action research (LaBoskey, 2004),
developmental portfolio, personal history, living educational theory, collective self-study, arts
based self-study, and memory work self-study (Samaras, 2011, p.67), auto ethnography and auto
fictive (Gingras, 2012), biographies, core reflection and Socratic dialogue (Koster & van de
Berg, 2014, p.86).
Considering the many methods of engaging in self-study, Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009)
highlight that self-study is seen as controversial by some researchers. One reason is “the
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
39
perception that there is a disconnection between self-study methodology and the research
methods employed by self-study of teaching…another is lack of agreement on a single definition
for self-study of practice research” (p.1).
Lunenberg, Zwart and Korthagen (2009) identify that participants in self-study
experience friction as well. Some of these frictions center around difficulty taking their own
research seriously when they worry their own practice is not interesting enough for research, the
courage and vulnerability needed to study one’s practice (p.1284), the challenge in putting and
keeping the self in the study, the fear in studying one’s own practice and sharing those results,
the transition from experienced educator to novice researcher, and the concern whether the
practice of one person could be taken seriously or considered a reliable methodology (p.1287).
Lunenberg and Samaras (2011) identify similar findings in their study with self-study
participants.
These concerns bring us to LaBoskey’s (2004) final characteristic of self-study; validity.
She defines validity as trustworthiness (p.817) and Bullough and Pinnegar (2001) opinion that
this redefinition of validity as trustworthiness was one development in educational research that
led to remarkable transformation in the understanding of the nature of research (p.13).
Lunenberg, Zwart and Korthagen (2009) opinion that while it is ultimately the reader
who assesses the reliability and validity of the self- study, “there are guidelines to increase the
scholarship of self-study research (p.1281). They identify 4 characteristics of scholarship; the
scholar is informed, the work is intentional, scholars understand their contributions are tentative
and theory-laden, and documentation is such that it allows others to evaluate the work without
having been present (p.1281).
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
40
Bullough and Pinnear (2001) also support the scholarship of self-study methodology
when they say, “Although the label of ‘self-study’ makes evident the centrality of the researcher
self in the article and in the methodology, the standards of scholarship of the embraced tradition
still must be met” (p.15).
Challenges with self-study occur as a result of blended methods, what counts as data, and
analyzing one’s experience honestly (Bullough & Pinnear, 2001, p.15). Ultimately, all these
concerns mentioned bring us back to the self in self-study; thus “self-study researchers inevitably
face the added burden of establishing the virtuosity of their scholarship within and through the
writing itself; lacking an established authority each researcher must prove herself as a
methodologist and writer (Bullough & Pinnear, 2001, p.15).
In the end, it would seem fitting that self-study is the methodology of choice when
investigating reflective practice, transformative learning, authenticity and learner-centered
teaching; as the ‘self’ is at the center of all these concepts.
Summary
This literature review introduced the challenges facing an expert clinical nurse when
transitioning to the role of educator. Based on these challenges, reflective practice is identified as
a key component in the transition to this new role. This adult education concept was summarized
from the literature leading to the summarizing of the interconnected concepts of transformative
learning, authenticity and student-centered learning as being equally vital components in the
transition. Finally, self-study was summarized as a research methodology that educators use to
study their own practice.
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
41
References
Aalsburg Wiessner, C., Mezirow, J., & Smith, C. (2000). Theory building and the search for common
ground. In J. Mezirow, & Associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a
theory in progress (pp. 329-358). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, J. (2009). The work role transition of expert clinician to novice academic educator. Journal of
Nursing Education, 203-208. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20090401-02
Atkins, S., & Murphy, K. (1993). Reflection: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18,
1188-1192. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18081188.x
Attard, A., Di lorio, E., Geven, K., & Santa, R. (2010). Student-centered learning: Toolkit for students, staff
and higher education institutions. Brussels: The European student's Union, Education
International.
Austin, T., & Senese, J. (2004). Self-study in school teaching: Teachers' perspectives. In J. Loughran, M.
Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching
and teacher education practices (pp. 1231-1258). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baumgartner, L. (2012). Mezirow's theory of transformation learning from 1975 to present. In E. Taylor,
P. Cranton, & Associates, The Handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 99-115). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bell, J. (2000). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social
science (3rd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Black, P., & Plowright, D. (2010). A multi-dimensional mode of reflective learning for professional
development. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 11(2), 245258. doi:10.1080/14623941003665810
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Brookfield, S. (2006, Fall). Authenticity and Power. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education(111), pp. 5-16. doi:10.1002/ace.223
Brookfield, S. (2006). The Skillful teacher: On technique, trust and responsiveness in the classroom (2nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of
reflection and reflective inquiry (pp. 215-236). New York, NY: Springer.
Brookfield, S. (2010). The Getting of Wisdom. Retrieved February 22, 2014, from Purdue University:
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~reid21/CDM/supporting/Brookfield%20Critically%20Reflective%20T
eaching.pdf
Bullough, R., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study
research. Edcuational Researcher, 30(3), 13-21. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594469
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
42
Canadian Nurses Association & Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing. (2010). Nursing Education in
Canada Statistics 2008-2009. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from Canadian Nurses Association:
http://www.cna-aiic.ca/~/media/cna/page-content/pdfen/education_statistics_report_2008_2009_e.pdf
Cavanaugh, L., & Topola, L. (2012). Reflective Practice guidelines. Edmonton.
Chapman, V.-L., & Shaw Anderson, B. (2005). Reflective Practice. In L. English (Ed.), International
encylopedia of adult education (pp. 541-548). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Clegg, S., Tan, J., & Saeidi, S. (2002). Reflecting or acting? Reflective practice and continuing professional
development in higher education. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary
Perspectives, 3(1), 131-146. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.10.1080/14623940220129924
Cox, B., McIntosh, K., Reason, R., & Terenzini, P. (2011). A culture of teaching: Policy, perception, and
practice in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 52(8), 808-829. doi:10.1007/s11162011-9223-6
Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning: New perspectives for teachers
of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P. (2002, Spring). Teaching for Transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, pp. 63-71. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.50
Cranton, P. (2006, Spring). Fostering authentic relationships in the classroom. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education(111). doi:10.1002/ace.203
Cranton, P. (2006). The many dimensions of adult learning. In P. Cranton, Understanding and promoting
transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults (2nd edition ed., pp. 3-20). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P. (2011, February). A transformative perspective on the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1), 75-86. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.536974
Cranton, P., & King, K. (2003, Summer). Transformative learning as a professional development goal.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, pp. 31-37.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.97
Cranton, P., & Taylor, E. (2012). Transformation learning theory: Seeking a more unified theory. In E.
Taylor, P. Cranton, & Associates, The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 3-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Daley, B. (2000, Summer). Learning in professional practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education(86), pp. 33-42. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.8604
Dewey, J. (1933). How We think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. New York, NY: D.C. Heath & Company.
Dirkx, J. (2006, Fall). Authenticity and imagination. New directions for adult and continuing
education(111), pp. 27-39. doi:10.1002/ace.225
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
43
Doyle, T. (2008). Helping students learn in a learner-centered environment. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Duffy, A. (2007). A concept analysis of reflective practice:determining its value to nurses. 1400-1407.
Retrieved February 21, 2014, from
http://content2.learntoday.info/shu/NU385_Summer_2011/Media/Week_01/concept%20analy
sis%20of%20reflective%20practice.pdf
Duffy, R. (2013). Nurse to educator? Academic roles and the formation of personal academic identities.
Nurse Education Today, 33(6), 620-624. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.07.020
Ettling, D. (2006, Spring). Ethical demands of transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 109, pp. 59-67. doi:10.1002/ace.208
Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on Reflective practice. Practice-based professional learning centre. Milton
Keynes, UK: The open university. Retrieved from
http://www.open.ac.uk/opencetl/resources/pbpl-resources/finlay-l-2008-reflecting-reflectivepractice-pbpl-paper-52
Fitzmaurice, M. (2008, June). Voices from within: Teaching in higher eduction as a moral practice.
Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 341-352.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510802045386
Foley, B., Redman, R., Horn, E., Davis, G., Neal, E., & Van Riper, M. (2003). Determining nursing faculty
development needs. Nursing Outlook, 51, 226-231. doi:10.1016/s0029-6554(03)00159-3
Franz, N. (2010, Spring). Catalyzing employee change with transformative learning. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 21(1), pp. 113-118. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20033
Frego, K. (2006, Fall). Authenticity and relationships with students. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education(111), pp. 41-50. doi:10.1002/ace.226
Freire, P. (2002). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition ed.). New York, NY: The
Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
Freshwater, D. (2008). Reflective Practice: the state of the art. In D. Freshwater, B. Taylor, & G.
Sherwood (Eds.), International textbook of reflective practice in nursing (pp. 1-18). Oxford, UK:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford, UK: Further
Education Unit, Oxford Brookes University.
Gingras, J. (2012). Embracing Vulnerability: Completing the autofictive circle in health profession
education. Journal of Transformative Learning, 10(2), 67-89. doi:10.1177/1545968312460632
Ginns, P., Kitay, J., & Prosser, M. (2008). Developing conceptions of teaching and the scholarship of
teaching through a graduate certificate in higher education. International Journal for Academic
Development, 13(3), 175-185. doi:10.1080/13601440802242382
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
44
Harris, R. (1989). Reflections on self-directed adult learning: Some implications for educators of adults.
Studies in Continuing Education, 11(2), 102-116.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158037890110202
Hickson, H. (2011). Critical reflection: reflecting on learning to be reflective. Reflective Practice:
International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12(6), 829-839.
doi:10.1080/14623943.2011.616687
Hrimech, M. (2005). Informal learning. In International encyclopedia of adult education (pp. 310-312).
New York, NY: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Iftody, T. (2013). Letting experience in at the front door and bringing theory through the back: Exploring
the pedagogical possibilities of situated self-narration in teacher education. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 382-397. doi:10.1080/13540602.2013.770229
Johns, C. (1995). Framing learning through reflection within Carper's fundamental ways of knowing in
nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 226-234. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.13652648.1995.22020226.x
Jones, P. R. (1995). Hindsight bias in reflective practice: An empirical investigation. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 21, 783-788. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21040783.x
Kim, H. S. (1999). Critical reflective inquiry for knowledge development in nursing practice. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 29, 1205-1212. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01005.x
Kinsella, E. A. (2001). Reflections on reflective practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(3),
195-198. doi:10.1177/000841740106800308
Knowles, M. (1980). The Modern Practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago, IL:
Association Press Follett publishing company.
Knowles, M., Holton III, E., & Swanson, R. (2005). The Adult Learner: The definitive classic in adult
education and human resource development (6th ed.). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Koster, B., & van de Berg, B. (2014). Increasing professional self-understanding: Self-study research by
teachers with the help of biographies, core reflections and dialogue. Studying Teacher
Education: A Journal of Self-study of Teacher Education Practices, 10(1), 86-100.
doi:10.1080/17425964.2013.866083
Kreber, C., & Klampfleitner, M. (2013). Lecturers'and students' conceptions of authenticity in teaching
and actual teacher actions and attributes students perceive as helpful. Higher Education, 66,
463-487. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9616-x
Kreber, C., Klampfleitner, M., McCune, V., Bayne, S., & Knottenbelt, M. (2007). What do you mean by
"authentic"? A comparitive review of the literature on conceptions of authenticity in teaching.
Adult Education Quarterly, 58(22), 22-43. doi:10.1177/0741713607305939
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). Moving the methodology of self-study research and practice forward: Challenges
and opportunities. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.),
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
45
International handbook of self-study on teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 11691184). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. Loughran,
M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of
teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817-869). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
LaBoskey, V., & Hamilton, M. L. (2010). "Doing as I do": The role of teacher educator self-study in
educating for reflective inquiry. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry
(pp. 333-350). New York, NY: Springer.
Long, H. (1991). Evolution of a formal knowledge base. In J. Peters, P. Jarvis, & Associates, Adult
education: Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study (pp. 66-96). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning and teaching. Journal
of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33-43. doi:10.1177/0022487102053001004
Lueddeke, G. (2003). Professionalizing teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary
variation and 'teaching scholarship'. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213-228.
doi:10.1080/0307507032000058082
Lunenberg, M., & Samaras, A. (2011). Developing a pedagogy for teaching self-study research: Lessons
learned across the Atlantic. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 841-850.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.008
Lunenberg, M., Zwart, R., & Korthagen, F. (2010). Critical issues in supporting self-study. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1280-1289. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.007
Lyons, N. (2010). Approaches to portfolio assessment of complex evidence of reflection and reflective
practice. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of
knowing for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 473-488). New York, NY: Springer.
Lyons, N. (2010). Part 1: Reflection and Reflective Inquiry. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of Reflection and
Reflective Inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 1-3). New
York, NY: Springer.
Lyons, N. (2010). Reflection and Reflective Inquiry: Critical issues, evolving coneptualizations,
contemporary claims and future possibilities. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and
reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 3-22). New
York, NY: Springer.
Lyons, N. (2010). Reflective Inquiry: Foundational issues. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and
reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 25-44). New
York, NY: Springer.
Lyons, N. (2010). Reflective Inquiry: Foundational Issues-"A deepening of conscious life". In N. Lyons
(Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional
reflective inquiry (pp. 25-44). New York, NY: Springer.
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
46
MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.
Mackintosh, C. (1998). Reflection: A flawed strategy for the nursing profession. Nurse Education Today,
18, 553-557. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0260-6917(98)80005-1
Mann, K., Gordon, J., & McLeod, A. (2009). Reflection and Reflective practice in health professions
education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 595-621.
doi:10.1007/s10459-007-9090-2
Merriam, S. (2005). Adults as learners. In L. English (Ed.), International encyclopedia of adult education
(pp. 43-45). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Merriam, S., & Caffarella, R. (1991). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., & Simpson, E. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainors of adults (2nd ed.).
Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, XXVIII(2), 100-110.
doi:10.1177/074171367802800202
Mezirow, J. (1985, March). A critical theory of self-directed learning. New Directions for Continuing
Education, pp. 17-30. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719852504
Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J. Mezirow, & Associates,
Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning
(pp. 1-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Mezirow, J. (1998, Spring). On Critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 185-199.
doi:10.1177/074171369804800305
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J.
Mezirow, & Associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress
(pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J., Taylor, E., & Associates (Eds.). (2009). Transformative learning in practice: Insights for
community, workplace and higher education. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in learning & professional development: Theory and practice. Abingdon, VA:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Moon, J. (2006). Learning journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional development (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Moore, J. (2005). Is higher education ready for transformative learning. Journal of Transformative
Education, 3(1), 76-91. doi:10.1177/1541344604270862
National League for Nursing. (2002). Shaping the future of Nursing education. Retrieved February 21,
2014, from National League for Nursing:
http://www.nln.org/aboutnln/PositionStatements/preparation051802.pdf
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
47
O'Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and
lecturers? 27-36. (G. O'Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin, Eds.) Dublin, UK. Retrieved from
http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/oneill-mcmahon-Tues_19th_Oct_SCL.html
Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life peak. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. (2007). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paris, C., & Combs, B. (2006). Lived meanings: What teachers mean when they say they are learner
centered. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 5, 571-592. Retrieved from
htpp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600600832296
Pilling-Cormick, J. (1997, Summer). Transformative and self-directed learning in practice. New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, pp. 69-77. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.7408
Pitkaniemi, H. (2009). The essence of teaching-learning conceptual relations: How does teaching work.
Scandinavian Journal of Education Research, 53(3), 263-276. doi:10.1080/00313830902917311
Pratt, D. (2005). Teaching. In L. English (Ed.), International encyclopedia of adult education (pp. 610-615).
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pratt, D., & Nesbit, T. (2000). Discourses and cultures of teaching. In A. Wilson, & E. Hayes (Eds.),
Handbook of adult and continuing education (p. 131). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reid, T., Hinderer, K., Jarosinski, J., Mister, B., & Seldomridge, L. (2013). Expert clinician to clinical
teaching: Developing a faculty academy and mentoring initiative. Nurse Education in Practice,
13, 288-293. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2013.03.022
Roberts, K., Chrisman, S., & Flowers, C. (2013). The perceived needs of nurse clinicians as they move into
an adjunct clinical faculty role. Professional Nurse, 29(5), 295-301.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2012.10.012
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining Reflection: Another look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking. Teachers
College Record, 104(4), 842-866. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00181
Samaras, A. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative Inquiry.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Samaras, A., Hicks, M., & Berger, J. (2004). Self-study through personal history. In J. Loughran, M.
Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching
and teacher education practices (pp. 905-942). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schoening, A. (2013). From bedside to classroom: The nurse educator transition model. Nursing
Education Perspectives, 34(3), 167-172. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-34.3.167
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Harper
Collins Publishers.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in
the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
48
Smith, M. K. (2001). Donald Schon; learning, reflection and change. Retrieved Feb 21, 2014, from infed:
www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm
Spencer, C. (2013). From bedside to classroom: From expert back to novice. Teaching and Learning in
Nursing, 8(1), 13-16. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2012.10.004
Taylor, B. (2010). Reflective Practice for health care professionals: A practical guide. Berkshire, UK: Open
University Press, McGraw Hill House.
Taylor, E. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: a critical review of the empirical research
(1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173-191.
doi:10.1080/02601370701219475
Taylor, E. (2008, Fall). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, pp. 5-15. doi:10.1002/ace.301
Taylor, E. (2009). Fostering Transformative learning. In J. Mezirow, E. Taylor, & Associates (Eds.),
Transformative learning in practice: Insights for community, workplace and higher education
(pp. 3-17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, E. W. (2000). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow, & Associates,
Learning as transformation (pp. 285-328). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Trigwell, K., & Shale, S. (2004). Student learning and the scholarship of teaching. Studies in Higher
Education, 29(4), 523-536. doi:10.1080/0307507042000236407
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher
Education Research & Development, 19(2), 155-168. doi:10.1080/072943600445628
Trumbull, D. (2004). Factors important for the scholarship of self-study of teacher edcuation practices. In
J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of selfstudy teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1211-1230). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Weideman, N. (2013). The lived experience of the transition of the clinical nurse expert to the novice
nurse educator. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 8(3), 102-109.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2013.04.006
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Williams, B. (2001). Developing critical reflection for professional practice through problem-based
learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(1), 27-34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.13652648.2001.3411737.x
Wohlfarth, D., Sheras, D., Bennett, J., Simon, B., Pimental, J., & Gabel, L. (2008). Student perceptions of
learner-centered teaching. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 67-74. Retrieved from
http://insightjournal.net
AE510 LITERATURE REVIEW
49
Wright, C. (2013). Authenticity in teaching and leadership. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 13(2), 3644. Retrieved from http://www.na-businesspress.com
Zeichner, K., & Liu, K. Y. (2010). A critical analysis of reflection as a goal for teacher education. In N.
Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 67-84). New York, NY: Springer.