Questioning the Limits of “Reflection” in Teaching Development
Macfarlane and Gourlay (2009) present a provocative critique of reflective practice in higher education. While reflection is widely promoted in teaching development programmes, the authors argue that it can become a performative exercise in which educators reproduce expected narratives rather than critically interrogate their practice. They describe this phenomenon as the “reflection game”, where participants demonstrate confession, transformation, and alignment with dominant pedagogical discourses to satisfy institutional expectations.
This argument challenges the assumption that reflective writing automatically produces meaningful professional learning. Instead, the authors suggest that reflective assignments may encourage conformity with accepted educational ideologies, like student-centred learning, rather than genuine critical engagement. In some cases, reflection becomes less about questioning teaching practices and more about demonstrating compliance with prevailing pedagogical norms.
Reading this article prompted me to reconsider how reflection functions within my own professional development as a lecturer. As part of the PgCert programme, reflective writing has been an important element of documenting teaching practice. However, the critique offered by Macfarlane and Gourlay raises an important question: to what extent are reflections shaped by institutional expectations about what “good teaching” should look like?
In my teaching context, I often draw upon a mixture of lectures, case discussions, and applied activities linked to industry practice. Some sessions inevitably require the structured delivery of theoretical concepts before students can apply them in seminars. Yet within contemporary pedagogical discourse, lectures are sometimes framed as inherently less desirable than participatory learning approaches. This creates a tension between pedagogical ideals and the practical realities of teaching complex disciplinary content.
The article therefore encourages a more critical understanding of reflection itself. Rather than presenting teaching development as a simple narrative of improvement, from “teacher-centred” to “student-centred”, reflection can also involve questioning dominant assumptions about pedagogy and considering how different teaching strategies function within specific disciplinary contexts.
In my own practice, this perspective encourages a more balanced approach to reflective writing. Instead of framing reflection solely as personal transformation, it can also serve as a space to interrogate educational norms and evaluate whether widely promoted teaching practices genuinely support learning in particular contexts. For example, in fashion business education, combining structured lectures with interactive seminar activities may be more appropriate than adopting a single pedagogical model.
Going forward, I plan to apply this idea by approaching reflection more critically when evaluating my teaching practice. Rather than assuming that certain pedagogical approaches are inherently superior, I will consider how different strategies function within the realities of large postgraduate cohorts and industry-focused curricula. This may involve documenting both the benefits and limitations of different teaching approaches and discussing these reflections with colleagues during peer observations or teaching development activities.
Ultimately, this reading highlights the importance of critical reflection rather than performative reflection – a distinction that is particularly relevant for educators navigating institutional expectations alongside disciplinary teaching realities.
Reference
Macfarlane, B. and Gourlay, L. (2009) ‘The reflection game: Enacting the penitent self’, Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), pp. 455–459.