I wanted to ruminate on some thoughts I had after our guest lecture by Dr Lesley Raven on reflective thinking.
Dewey is often credited with being one of the first to define reflective practices in his 1910 book ‘How We Think’; “turning a topic over in various aspects and in various lights so that nothing significant about it shall be overlooked – almost as one might turn a stone over to see what its hidden side is like or what is covered by it”.
All of this is very important – we learn and grow from our experiences, especially as teachers and technicians early in our career. However, as the lecture progressed the language being used became more and more technical to the point where, to me at least, if felt like we’d used so much jargon that the idea itself had been lost.
Dr Raven was talking about reflective practice, while displaying quotes from other academics on reflective practice, while in the chat participants were having conversations with each other while the lecture took place. Remarks such as “people view reflection in relation to time (perhaps this is an ontological relationship to narrative)” were being made, and perhaps this is more a reflection on my own lack of vocabulary but I felt very frustrated with how confusing things were getting – despite understanding our starting point of Dewey’s simpler definition.
The use of highly technical vocabulary is nothing new in the world of academia, but I find it interesting that we’ve spent so many of our other Pg Cert sessions talking about accessibility and how we can make sure our teaching is understood by everyone. Much of this boiled down to the use of language, especially with such a high proportion of students with English as a second language. Why then, in the absence of our own students, would we revert to inaccessible language?
I was interested in discovering Doran’s definition of UDL – Universal Design for Learning (2015) – a holistic approach to teaching incorporating multiple teaching methods and emphasising flexibility and adaptability, with a key core focus on being understood by everyone. UDL “is built on the principle that good instruction for these students goes beyond accommodations or modifications; it starts with ensuring maximum accessibility in all areas of instruction and assessment” (2015) meaning that individual accommodations are no longer necessary. Relating this to my point, I believe it means speaking and teaching in language that is accessible to anyone regardless of their academic background or proficiency in English.
Myers and Martin (2017) also advocate for ‘Plain Language Summaries’ (PLS) of academic texts and lectures to ensure maximum understanding to their audience; “educators, administrators, paraprofessionals, students, and students’ families – bring with them a diversity of cognitive and linguistic needs that may limit their access to research” and therefore accessible language is necessary to their understanding.
To link back to the initial topic, I wish Dr Raven’s lecture had perhaps felt a bit more accessible to those from a non-academic background, or that I was able to understand more of the discussion in the chatroom. Incorporating UDL principles or PLS could have further enhanced understand from all members of the audience, while not being at detriment to anyone who didn’t struggle.
(539 wrods)
References:
Dewey, J. (1910) How we think. Lexington: D. C. Heath. (Cited from Dr Raven’s lecture slides)
Doran, P.R. (2015) ‘Language Accessibility in the Classroom: How UDL Can Promote Success for Linguistically Diverse Learners’, Exceptionality Education International, 25(3), pp. 1–12. Available at: file:///C:/Users/jsstuart/Downloads/JIPE+Introduction+April+2021_FINAL_04282021.pdf (Accessed: 12 March 2025).
Myers, B. and Martin, T. (2017) ‘Why Plain Language? Linguistic Accessibility in Inclusive Higher Education’, Journal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education, 3(1). Available at: file:///C:/Users/jsstuart/Downloads/JIPE+Introduction+April+2021_FINAL_04282021.pdf (Accessed: 12 March 2025).