InsideHigherEd recently published a piece addressing severance packages offered to presidents by the institution’s governing boards.  In “Paid for Being Fired,” Kellie Woodhouse states:

“Severance packages are an oft-overlooked component of the increasingly sophisticated and complicated college executive compensation package. Yet as more and more governing boards seek to mirror the corporate world as they craft compensation agreements, severance packages may be on the rise at colleges and universities.

‘Severances are elements of retention packages that are very common in the corporate sector, so people on [governing] boards are very familiar with them,’ said Lucy A. Leske, managing partner of education practice at the executive search firm Witt/Kieffer. ‘Boards are becoming more professional in their approach, in how they recruit and obtain candidates. Severance is one of those key elements.”

This statement deserves greater emphasis:  …more and more governing boards seek to mirror the corporate world…

Could it be because the individuals appointed to these boards are imbedded in the corporate culture?  Typically, they are not academics, they are not scholars, they are not educators.  As the attacks on faculty (and organized faculty in particular) continue, where is the outrage over haphazard decisions such as those cited in Woodhouse’s article?  This goes far beyond “not really thinking through” the financial consequences for the institution.  Governing boards are engaging in a train of abuses that do a disservice to the students, to the faculty, and to the community at large.  The point is that decision making of this type is not limited to the private institution that dishes out thousands (if not millions) of dollars in unearned compensation.  Public institutions as well must suffer the consequences of corporate-minded individuals who sit on boards attempting to forge academic policies with which they are completely unfamiliar, some of which they deeply resent, and practices with which they have little or no understanding when it comes to a truly effective teaching and learning environment.  We as educators must shift the focus not only towards those who are appointed to the boards – but equally towards those who are doing the appointing!  Although it may have no real legal impact, a vote of no confidence is a powerful statement when it comes to the removal of a president who is deemed ineffective or incompetent, but when that vote includes the board of trustees – it speaks volumes (see the piece on Sweet Briar in the Washington Post).

Critical reflection “triggers” transformative learning.  The phrase “critical reflection” is commonly seen in our learning outcomes, in the various methods of assessment we employ, and in our course syllabi.  However, if critical reflection is not commonly present among we educators of adult learners and practiced regularly in the institution in which we teach, how then can it be successfully implemented as a pedagogical tool and encouraged among the learners of that institution?

Scholarship pertaining to transformative learning indicates that adult learning theory is a work in progress – specifically, in respect to the development and incorporation of critical reflection in teaching and learning. One of the leading scholars in this field, Dr. Stephen D. Brookfield, contends that “teaching critically brings us into conflict with many of the taken-for-granted assumptions and practices that currently define educational institutions” (Brookfield, 1995, p. 246). With this contention in mind, one may presume that there exist within the framework of the traditional educational institution a number of obstacles that not only present challenges, but sometimes serve as a direct impediment to the creation of a culture of reflection. This post attempts not only to define a culture of reflection, but to identify specific obstacles or “cultural barriers” as Brookfield labels them, and summarize methods for overcoming those obstacles.

Reflection has been defined as “intentional mental processing, used primarily with complicated or uncertain situations or ideas in order to fulfill a particular purpose in the present or future” (Lowe, Rappolt, Jaglal, and MacDonald, 2007, p. 143). In the most basic sense, “reflection is inquiry into one’s experience” (Fiddler and Marineau, 2008, p. 76). Based on the latter definition, a teacher who desires to create a culture of reflection is faced with an immediate challenge: how to foster the ability in students to convert their individual experience(s) into meaningful learning. “Meaningful learning,” according to Fiddler and Marineau, “involves questioning and examining one’s assumptions, beliefs, mental models, values, and a host of other qualities that characterize meaning” (p. 78). Similarly, Lamoreaux and Taylor (2008) explain, because intentions in teaching adult learners go beyond mastering behavioral skills or mastering content, helping learners create “meaningful connection[s] is – from the brain’s perspective – a more effective approach to teaching and learning than focusing primarily on how we, as educators and experts, understand the issue” (p.54). Critical reflection is the key to this process, however, in order for reflection to become common pedagogical practice and recognized as an institutional norm in both teaching and learning, a number of obstacles must be addressed.

Obstacles to Creating a Culture of Reflection

Brookfield (1995) identifies three cultural barriers, in particular, to critical reflection. These include 1) the culture of silence; 2) the culture of individualism; and 3) the culture of secrecy (p. 247). In considering the first barrier, Brookfield (1995) suggests that teachers’ lives are often “bound in chains of silence” (p. 247). Purposeful discussions about the process and meaning of teaching, classroom dynamics, personal experience as it relates to teaching, are rare and asking for help with teaching is often perceived as incompetence. In respect to the second barrier, the culture of individualism, Brookfield (1995) contends that “an anticollectivist orientation is rampant in college cultures” (p. 249). To this end, although the rhetoric of collaboration is often present in the institution, acts of collegial collaboration are somehow viewed as less credible because one has chosen to take the easy way out by working with others instead of tackling a task individually. Finally, Brookfield (1995) emphasizes that when and “where a culture of secrecy exists, reflection is doomed” (p. 251). Fostering a culture of critical reflection is often inhibited by an unwillingness on the part of participants – teachers, specifically, – to publicly disclose personal or private error out of fear of retribution. If penalty results from an admission of one’s mistakes, how then is it possible to truly learn from our mistakes? This fear in and of itself impedes the act of critical reflection on the part of the teacher, presenting even more of a challenge in encouraging and incorporating the act of critical reflection among learners. Therefore, a trustful atmosphere must exist in order for real critical reflection to happen.

Collectively, the three cultural barriers identified pose an important question: if critical reflection is not commonly present among teachers of adult learners and practiced regularly in the institution in which they teach, how then can it be successfully implemented as a pedagogical tool and encouraged among the learners of that institution? In order to overcome obstacles to creating a culture of reflection, teachers and administrators alike must be willing to both recognize the cultural barriers and actively participate in the implementation of methods to break down those barriers. This may involve developing a better understanding of resistance to critical reflection, creating a reward system for critical reflection, providing “real-life evidence” of reflection successfully at work, and/or conveying a legitimate and easily understood rationale for practices relating to the culture of reflection. In addition to those mechanisms, administrators and teachers serving as models of good critically reflective practices creates an environment of open-mindedness, self-evaluation, diversity of opinion, and discovery – all important components in creating a culture of reflection (Brookfield, 1995, pp. 251-263).

It is essential to examine the topic of critical reflection because it is the key to transformative learning. If adult learning theory is, indeed, a “work in progress,” we as educators of adult learners must be willing to foster the same critically reflective behaviors in ourselves that we wish to develop in our students. As educators, we not only must recognize barriers but possess a willingness to confront institutional contradictions in order to become critically reflective educators ourselves and create a true culture of reflection.

References

Brookfield, Stephen D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fiddler, M. and Marineau, C. (2008). Developing Habits of Reflection for Meaningful Learning.   New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 118, 75-85.

Lamoreaux, A. and Taylor, K. (2008). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119, 49-59.

Lowe, M., Rappolt, S., Jaglal, S., & MacDonald, G. (2007). The role of reflection in implementing learning from continuing education into practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 143-148.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.

This is a video from 2007 – I’m curious how much these facts and figures have changed, if at all, in the subsequent eight years.

“A fool’s brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education.”

Ahhhhh – the eloquence of George Bernard Shaw!  But what does this mean in 2015?  As one who has instructed students at a two-year institution for 15 years now, I have not only witnessed dramatic transformations among the student population, but within the academy as well.  While fifteen years may not seem like a long time to some of my colleagues who amazingly have forty years in, my meager fifteen is beginning to seem like a lifetime to me.  First and foremost, if it wasn’t for the love I have for my students and for teaching my students – I would have chosen my alternative profession of being a bartender at a beach bar long, long ago!  But with that said, my feelings of demoralization with higher education and the institution in general are beginning to get the best of me.  Why is that, you ask?  Well, my subsequent rants that follow will explain all of that.  Some of these rants will be short, little “blips” and others will be long, exhaustive diatribes about situations that I probably can do nothing about – but, it will be helpful to vent.  So, let’s begin, shall we?

My first post is meant to provoke feedback on the corporatization of higher education (a provocative piece on this topic as well in the Fall 2012 issue of Dissent: ).

The following excerpt is from my doctoral study:

According to Rhoades and Slaughter (2004), “academic capitalism in the new economy” involves colleges and universities engaging in “market and market-like” behaviors (p. 37). In this respect, institutions of higher learning are looking to generate revenue from their core educational and service functions (p. 37). This desire results in a change in practice, one that prioritizes revenue generation over the dissemination of knowledge in academic decision making (p. 38). In addition, as academic managers express the desire for greater control in such decisions, faculty have become more like managed professionals (p. 39). One of the growing shifts presented by academic capitalism includes moving faculty further away from the center of academic decision making and limiting the involvement of faculty in the curriculum (p.47). An organized faculty such as those in the AFT – coupled with a system of shared governance if it exists – can serve as the vehicle which faculty use to retain control of their traditional academic functions but even in the most optimum situations, there are many challenges to overcome.

I believe that when most people think of the notion of corporatization in the academic institution, they immediately think University – and the prestigious ones in particular (see Noam Chomsky’s “Academic Freedom and the Corporatization of Universities”).  But two-year institutions, community colleges, state schools, small liberal arts colleges are impacted as well both directly and indirectly by corporatization. I would like to point out one way that the corporate culture infiltrates and dramatically impacts the academic institution – and that is through the appointment of members of their Boards of Trustees.  Some of you may exclaim, “that’s old news” and it may very well be, indeed.  However, the decisions made by a politically-appointed board with absolutely no understanding of what allows for a productive teaching and learning environment can be detrimental to an academic institution.  These decisions are often motivated by the corporate-minded culture that sees institutions as extremely hierarchal in nature, students as “customers” and not as learners, and faculty as “employees,” not as scholars and certainly not as educators who are invaluable to the institution for their expertise in their respective disciplines.  Boards are often made up of executives from financial institutions, former government officials, lawyers, corporate managers, etc.  Academicians, educators, activists from organized labor and otherwise are visibly absent from most boards and that, of course, is for a very specific reason.  More and more, boards want greater control in the decision making of the institution, thus they too are academic managers.

So what does this mean for the “University education” of the 21st century?  What does this mean for students, for faculty, and for the college community at large?  I will address that in my next post…stay tuned!

Hello, world!  I am a professor at a community college on the east coast where I have taught history for 15 years, served on numerous boards and academic committees, and have crossed paths with a countless number of students.  I possess a Doctorate in Education (with an emphasis on higher education and adult learning), am active as a practicing historian where my interests include 19th century social history, immigration, industrialization, urbanization and organized labor, and I serve as an active member of my own union, the AFT.

Now that summer has finally kicked in, I have some time to spend working on this exciting new venture (or should I say “adventure?”) in the world of blogging…I’m a late-comer, I know!  To date, I have recorded my thoughts, frustrations, concerns, and disappointments along with my triumphs and achievements in the traditional manner – by jotting them down in a notebook, carefully preserving them for posterity.  But now and at long last, I’m ready to share them with the world in hopes of garnering like-minded souls to offer their insights and experiences in response to my own.  Welcome to my site and thank you for inspiring me to share my on-going and ever-changing views on the state of higher education!