Critique of Brookfield’s Four Lens Model of Critical Reflection

In preparation for this blog I am unable to find any critical sources for Brookfield’s model and shall rely on Brookfield’s own self-critique and my own observations.

Brookfield appears to recognise in part how his four-lens model for critical reflection may be seen as slightly simplistic and perhaps misleading. To this end, he has perhaps felt the need to identify apparent risks: Firstly being publicised as an imposter due in part to the fact that, among teachers, “there is a general lack of confidence, a pervasive feeling of vulnerability, a fear of being ‘found out’” (Lieberman & Miller). Secondly, a risk of being placed on the periphery and seen as a “troublemaker”. Thirdly, having to undergo the downfall of any sense of conviction and lastly, a feeling of “being left in limbo” (Brookfield, 1995).

These are quite fear-provoking risks for any teacher and perhaps a little too alarmist. In addition, it could be argued Brookfield’s model is as much a tool for protecting practitioners from their own negativity and depression – which Brookfield all but suggests teaching brings about – as it is for improving teaching practices. Just as Schön’s model is critiqued for not looking to the future, perhaps Brookfield’s four lens model is equally at risk of this. For example, the autobiographical lens is very experiential with teachers reflecting back on some aspect of their own teaching or learning. Some may argue reflection through the lens of students’ ‘eyes’ can only ever be positioned in the past. I would suggest however, the experience has to have occurred in order to share or articulate it. There is also a question about being able to see through the lens of the students’ eyes, that it is perhaps to some extent our own interpretation, and we really stand outside our immediate self?

Brookfield’s four lens model lacks the explicit link of reflection for future action which Wilson commented upon about Schön’s Model (2008, p. 177). Neither model appears to take into account the situatedness of the practitioner nor how this may influence what or how the practitioner reflects. Brookfield appears to see all teaching and learning taking place in the classroom and does not consider the more informal settings for teaching and learning.

Brookfield’s Four Lens Model of Critical Reflection

Stephen Brookfield has brought to the world of education a wealth of literature from his research in adult learning, teaching and critical thinking. Brookfield believes teachers do what they do to “change the world” (1995, p. 1). Brookfield suggests, through their own practice, teachers model respect, democracy and justice in the hope students will learn to treat each other and the environment with kindness, acceptance and equality. Brookfield goes on to suggest this is a somewhat innocent view of teaching and warns:

One of the hardest things teachers have to learn is that sincerity of their intentions does not guarantee the purity of their practice (1995, p. 1)

Brookfield believes that to teach in such an “innocent” manner is to ignore the intricacies of “cultural, psychological and political” influences on the learning process. Brookfield believes these complexities together with the fragile dynamics of “power” leads to the potential for oppression, which means teaching can never be innocent (1995, p. 1).

Central to Brookfield’s model is the exposure of assumptions which he believes all teachers have, and suggests teachers can never have complete consciousness of their reasoning and motivation or accurate perception of how students see and interpret their practice (1995, p. 1). Brookfield suggests this lack of complete consciousness can lead to teachers into a state of what he terms “demoralization” and “ self-laceration” when intent does not go according to plan and leads to a cycle of blame and feelings of failure; even when according to Brookfield “… it is not of our own making” (1995, p. 2).

Brookfield classifies three categories of assumptions: Paradigmatic, prescriptive and casual. Paradigmatic assumptions, Brookfield suggests, are the most difficult to expose and may not be recognised as assumptions even when they have been pointed out, but are the conceptual adages teachers use to “order the world”. Brookfield describes prescriptive assumptions as reflective thoughts about what “ought to be happening” in a given context, whilst casual assumptions, Brookfield suggests are predictive and enable understanding of how word situations connect with teaching and learning. Casual assumptions Brookfield claims, are the easiest to expose (1995, p 2:3).

Reflective practice alone according to Brookfield is not enough to expose these assumptions – in particular, the paradigmatic and prescriptive assumptions that teachers often see as common sense assumptions. Although Brookfield acknowledges the value of reflective practice, critical reflection, he advocates, will almost certainly help expose “paradigmatic, structuring assumptions (1995, p. 8).

The latter type of assumptions Brookfield refers to as “hegemonic”. He goes on to suggest:

… teachers take pride in acting on the very assumptions that work to enslave them. In working diligently to implement these assumptions, teachers become willing prisoners who lock their own cell doors behind them (1995, p. 13).

Those teachers who reflect critically, according to Brookfield, “see the insanity of aspiring to ways of teaching that, in the end, seriously threaten their own well-being” (1995, p.28).

Brookfield believes that to be critically reflective and expose assumptions and hegemony, requires that teachers explore what they do from as many alternative perspectives as is possible. To do this Brookfield advocates a model of critical reflection whereby the teacher stands outside their immediate self and view what they do through four discrete lenses. Each lens reveals a different aspect of practice such as that when they are combined “they throw into sharp relief the contours of our assumptive clusters (1995, p. 28).

The first of the discrete lenses is the teacher’s own autobiography as both a teacher and learner, which Brookfield suggests, brings about an awareness of paradigmatic assumptions that frame how the teacher works. The teacher assessing their own practice through “student’s eyes” is the second of Brookfield’s four lenses which enables teachers to identify the power dynamics of their relationships as well as checking students’ perception of the teacher’s own intent. Brookfield refers to the third lens as “Our colleagues experiences” enabling teachers to gain a new perspective to their practice by inviting colleagues to become critical friends who watch   their practice and engage in critical dialogue. Brookfield’s final lens is that of “theoretical literature”. Through this lens Brookfield suggests the teacher can understand their own ideological experiences through multiple understandings (1995, p.p. 29:30). Although any one of these lens may prove beneficial as a tool for reflection, Brookfield’s intention is that they are used as a whole to give multiple perspectives.

Next time Brookfield’s critique of his own theory.

Critiques of Schön’s Reflection-in-Action/ Reflection-on-Action Model

Although Schön’s premise of ‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection-on-action’ has been very influential, especially in education (Boud, 2010), it is the subject of considerable criticism. Eraut suggests ‘reflection-in-action’ is no more than the ability to make speedy responses when faced with challenging incidents. Others criticise Schön for his lack of consideration for what they term as ‘reflection-for-action’, suggesting Schön’s theory does not encourage the practitioner to contemplate future incidents. This looking to the future is according to Thompson &Thompson on (2008) is necessary for future planning.

This is supported by Wilson (2008) who states:

“…he would appear to have given less consideration to how humans reflect and contemplate on how things might be in the future and how these possibilities might be achieved”.

 

It is suggested we are perhaps ‘too close’ (Wilson, 2008) to the situation to fully appreciate the ‘hidden or submerged knowledge’. Wilson goes on to suggest the demands and increasing workloads of professionals leaves little time for reflection on past activity. As a consequence this lack of ‘reflection-for-action’ reduces the opportunity for learning and development of performance. Greenwood (1993) on the other hand, suggests Schön’s model is unsound because it does not recognise the thinking required before action. However, this ‘reflection-before-action’ may bring into question Schön’s premise about intuitive action.

 

Others have criticised Schön for his exclusive focus on the individual and excluding important factors such as wider social implications and the many political issues at play in the workplace and beyond. This is perhaps supported by Brookfield (1995) who states:

“Reflection in and of itself is not enough; it must always be linked to how the World can be changed”.

Next week we will explore Brookfield’s theory about critical thinking.