Internal deliberation and learning environments

Peter KahnUniversity of Liverpool

A theoretical interest ...

• Margaret Archer’s account of human reflexivity and social mobility– inter-play between

structure and agency in explaining why an individual acts ‘so rather than otherwise’ in a given social situation.

Socio-cultural structures

Reflexive deliberation Reflexive deliberation

Concerns → Projects → Practices

The mediation of structure to agency, after Archer (2003)

• Modes of reflexivity play a key role in Archer’s account:– Communicative reflexivity, autonomous reflexivity, meta-

reflexivity, fractured reflexivity.– Distinctive modes of reflexivity emerge within given socio-

cultural contexts (e.g. on becoming immersed within a new context)

• Application to professional learning in Kahn et al (in press)– also highlights the role of social interaction in the

educational context.

Reflexivity in learning

• Triggers for reflexivity– Entering the unknown (in relation to knowledge,

pedagogy or other aspects of learning); responsibility to progress a learning project.

• Student concerns– Relative priority vis a vis other activity; tolerance

of ambiguity; overlaps with characteristic mode of reflexivity in the more open setting (e.g. communicating with others).

Distinctive modes of reflexivity

• Restricted reflexivity– Learning projects are closed down through a lack of tolerance

for ambiguity or the inability to find ways forward.• Extended reflexivity

– Reflexivity is directly linked to the student’s capacity to carry out further mental processes.

– Scope is present for different forms and expressions of reflexivity within the extended mode.

• Fractured reflexivity– Anxiety emerges as a dominant response (e.g. how do you

pursue a group project where communication is absent or fractious?)

.. and a practical application

• Linking student engagement to structure– High-impact practices (Kuh et al, 2008); authentic

learning (Stein et al, 2004); powerful learning environments (Vermetten et al, 2002).

• Accounting for student engagement– High-impact practices build in a need for extended

reflexivity on the part of the student, with support also integrated.

– Offers a rich account of why students are engaged, rooting this in distinctive modes of reflexivity.

References • Archer, M. (2003) Structure, agency and the internal conversation.

Cambridge: CUP.• Kahn, P.E., Qualter, A. & Young, R.G. (2012) Structure and agency in

learning, Higher Education Research and Development 31(6) pp. 859-71..• Kuh, G.D., Schneider, C.G. & Universities, A. of A.C. and, 2008. High-

impact educational practices: what they are, who has access to them, and why they matter, Association of American Colleges and Universities.

• Stein, S., Isaacs, G. & Andrews, T. (2004) Incorporating authentic learning experiences within a university course, Studies in Higher Education, 29:2, 239-258.

• Vermetten, Y.J., Vermunt, J.D. & Lodewijks, H.G., 2002. Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and instruction, 12(3), pp.263–284.