Abstract

Dialogue in learning, teaching, and research serves as a catalyst for inquiry, critical and creative thinking, knowledge construction, and meaningful reflection. This chapter examines the experiences of a multi-university, transdisciplinary team cultivating dialogue to enhance critical reflexivity in higher education. Collaborative Reflective Circles (CRCs) were created on the principles of social learning, deep listening, and verbal sharing to facilitate self-reflection and critical discussion. CRCs are designed to engage with inquiry topics that involve practical, cognitive, affective, and metacognitive dimensions, fostering a holistic approach to exploration and dialogue. We describe CRCs, discuss their implementation in graduate teaching via a case study. Considerations for applying dialogic inquiry in practice are informed by team members’ affiliations across computer sciences, information technology, engineering, social sciences, allied health, and higher education pedagogy. Our reflections highlighted affordances and challenges of implementing dialogic approaches across disciplines. As educators and researchers, our parallel journeys in exploring and implementing CRCs reveal their transformative powers, for example, scaffolding relational skills in teaching, exploring diverse perspectives, deepening disciplinary insights, aligning with industry expectations, promoting social and cultural inclusion, fostering collaborative sense-making, and enabling authentic voices. We conclude the chapter by rethinking CRCs within the evolving landscape of higher education, shaped by the integration and complexity of generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI). The emergence of genAI invites us to reconsider how CRCs as collaborative and critical inquiry can adapt to and harness this transformative technology. GenAI offers new possibilities for fostering deeper engagement, inclusivity, and innovation in teaching and research. Our ongoing interest remains with ways to create dynamic, personalised learning experiences that honour diverse cultural perspectives and where technologies have the potential to amplify underrepresented voices.

Keywords

Reflective practice, diversity, dialogue, inclusivity, transformative learning, collaborative

Introduction

This chapter examines the experiences of a multi-university, transdisciplinary team cultivating reflective thinking, reflective practice, and guiding reflective learning in higher education.^[1] It is a widely accepted idea that developing reflective practice requires educators to possess skills in reflective thinking and be capable of teaching reflective practice to their students (Schon, 1992; Boud, et al, 1985; Brookfield, 1995; Moon, 1999). Critical self-reflection invites both learners and educators to examine their underlying assumptions about the world, and for teachers, to craft learning experiences that are without bias and assumptions. However, reflective practice in academic settings is often misunderstood or inconsistently applied. For example, approaches can vary widely from teacher-directed models that are tightly bounded by institutional frameworks and assessment guidelines, to more open and collaborative approaches that prioritise student agency, authenticity, and co-construction of meaning. We describe the development of a dialogic-pedagogical model suited to teaching inclusivity through reflective practices which aims to accommodate approaches suited to various disciplinary contexts.

Introducing Collaborative Reflective Circles (CRCs) designed as a dialogic-pedagogic method which is inherently reflective, grounded in principles of social learning, deep listening, and collegial sharing. Our CRC focus is situated with teacher professional learning and applying CRCs in a graduate program for academics developing the skills and capabilities to become more inclusive educators in higher education. Principles supporting the design of CRCs for university staff becoming an inclusive practitioner are grounded in the following:

1. Implement and evaluate reflective practice conceptual frameworks/cycles for reflection in action, applying theory to practice and visa-versa.
2. Develop high-level facilitation skills in small group dialogues, and promote active, and respectful listening.
3. Establish and maintain an optimal psychologically and culturally safe(r) space within enquiry circles.
4. Undertake teacher critical self-reflection, and willingness to grow empathy and compassion for diversity.

In this chapter, we provide an overview of CRCs, explore the literature connecting dialogue, reflection and inclusion in teaching, outline CRC guidelines used in a CRC case study implementation in graduate teaching at one university, and offer emergent issues at the intersections of educational technology and reflective practice. Our reflections and propositions highlight affordances and challenges of implementing CRCs across disciplines informed by team members’ affiliations across computer sciences, information technology, engineering, social sciences, allied health, and higher education pedagogy. Our ongoing interest fosters reflective practice as an integrated learning experience, useful when promoting equity in shared participation, and making space for traditionally marginalised voices. Tutor and peer dialogue and feedback enable reflection to become a shared tool for creating inclusive learning communities that value multiple perspectives. Pedagogic practices fostering inquiry, critical thinking, and meaningful reflection can be paired with attentive and non-judgemental listening, and inclusive dialogues. Combined with tutor and peer feedback, reflective practice becomes a shared tool for creating learning communities that value multiple perspectives. We conclude the chapter by highlighting current and emergent issues that impact reflective practices in higher education teaching and learning.

Background and collaboration

Drawn together by a shared interest in reflective practice, the original project team consisted of academics from Central Queensland University, University of Newcastle and Kings Own Institute who developed an emerging CRC model in 2021 through a series of online reflective writing workshops. These workshops were designed on an educational scaffold by one of the authors, an experienced educational facilitator and presenter at cross-institutional and international educational events. The initial collaborative reflective meetings were structured with a purpose, communication guidelines, and one participant acting as the circle facilitator. Over several months, as participants reflective practice skills and confidence in the shared collaborative circle grew, the facilitator role repositioned as an equal participant.

The team’s motivation was centred on developing a pedagogical approach for educator academics to enhance their critical reflexivity as inclusive teachers (Lim & Thavar, 2021) and gathering evidence around experience and impact. Academic developers from the University of Technology Sydney joined the CRC following the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) conference in 2022, where the original members presented on their collaborative reflective practice community for educators, inviting wider implementation of the practice and its evaluation (Sabrina et al., 2022). Building on this momentum and aligning with the HERDSA Talking about Teaching and Learning (TATAL) initiative, the team were keen to further advance the CRC initiative (Sohail et al., 2023). Common among all members was a shared desire to strengthen dialogic skills for inclusive and reflective practice, skills that could be embedded into both curriculum and the classroom shaped by the diverse disciplinary affiliations of the team. Such diversity enriched the dialogue, offering multiple perspectives on how reflection and dialogue intersect in inclusive teaching contexts.

Literature review

This literature review will outline key concepts useful when developing reflection, introduce connections to dialogic methods, and their application within inclusive pedagogy. We commence our review of the literature honouring seminal work by Schön (1992), where reflective practices are known to promote critical thinking and learning. The legacy of the work by Schön in higher education institutions is vast and, on several levels, leveraging reflective practice in health and social care fields as a form of embodied learning, a method of aligning individual and disciplinary frames, privileging professional sociability and crafting wise action (Kinsella, 2010). Multiple scholars continue to work with and further develop the seminal approaches offered by Schön, particularly academic teachers who centre teacher reflexivity at the heart of their educational practices. Johns defines reflective practice as “being mindful of self, either within or after experience, to enable the practitioner to view and focus self within the context of a particular experience, in order to confront, understand and move toward resolving contradiction between one’s vision and actual practice” (2009, p.12). In the context of our work, the importance of self-reflective practice allows educators to understand their strengths and weaknesses, recognise their implicit or unconscious biases, and promote lifelong learning. Where reflection is recognised as a professional capability within academia and industry, the ability to self-assess and debrief situations, learn from lived experiences, and foster continued development raises the profile of reflective practices with developmental scaffolds (Fontaine, 2018; Johns, 2009, Schön, 1992). Cultivating sufficient reflective literacy among staff and students presents significant challenges (Chan & Lee, 2021) including concerns about student equity and retention, and educators’ proficiency in teaching reflection (Barton & Ryan, 2014; Crimmins et al., 2016).

Embedding reflective practice in learning and teaching activities and assessments is broadly established in higher education and shown to enhance students’ self-awareness contributing to life-long learning (Liew et al., 2021; Ryan, 2011). In contrast, the literature also emphasises that students are not provided with adequate opportunities to practice and embed reflective skills where there is limited ability to reflect on their learning and development (Barton & Ryan, 2014). Reflective expression may be confronting, difficult to accomplish, or inadequately facilitated and assessed. This may lead to poor experiences, hampering the development of this practice in students. These insights highlight that reflective practice requires educational support, facilitation and scaffolded opportunities to practice, especially if students are unfamiliar (Marshall et al., 2022).

Brookfield (1995) emphasised that critically reflective teaching can improve teacher pedagogic skills. As a method, academics themselves may require supportive training in reflective teaching skills for their own personal and professional development, particularly when teaching reflection with students (Gallagher et al., 2017; Harrison, 2016). Kennelly and McCormack (2015) emphasise the role of collaborative reflective practice in improving teaching pedagogy and quality to improve institutional cultures through collaborative reflective practice-based activities like talking about teaching and learning (TATAL). Teacher and student reflections are pivotal when it comes to improving teaching and learning outcomes, providing an opportunity for teachers to reveal their concerns related to pedagogical approaches and their teaching experiences (Jhaveri & Li, 2024). Notably, literature on the impact of professional development supporting educator engagement in reflective practices is scarce (Taylor et al., 2021) and predominantly anecdotal and subjective. How educators improve their reflective practice skills to facilitate effective student learning warrants further enquiry (Chan & Lee, 2021).

Similarly, professional development for educators fosters teaching improvement strategies that enhance student development of reflective skills, which may lead to improved academic outcomes (Chan & Lee., 2021; Ruge & Mackintosh, 2020). Reflective skills embedded in the curriculum supported by a reflection framework (e.g. Gibbs’ cycle, Kolb’s reflective cycle) and/or a developmental scaffolding throughout their learning journey achieve student learning outcomes across faculties and disciplines (Webster-Wright, 2013). Defining the purpose and expectations of reflective tasks helps students know exactly what is required of them, minimising misunderstandings and ensuring that tasks are completed efficiently. Professional bodies often require reflective skills in graduates to effectively work in professional practice. In other organisational settings, teachers and other professionals engage in collaborative reflective practices to improve learning, professional growth, and overall performance. Smith (2011) emphasises the importance of creating opportunities for co-reflective learning, where students engage in reflective practices together as a social learning activity. Moving towards critical reflexivity aims to authenticate self-reflection, “approaches and techniques of critical reflection can be taught, but students should also be made aware that the distinctly personal component of self-critical reflection is crafted at one’s own pace and to one’s own taste” (Smith, 2011, p. 221).

Recent studies evidence the diverse opportunities for students’ active and transformational learning by integrating reflective practice. These include reflective e-portfolios or reflective diaries, cooperative and collaborative reflective practice combined with developing professional skills (Beckers et al., 2016; Sener & Mede, 2023; Sultana et al., 2020). In addition, active participation and experiential learning (for example, in flipped learning environments) provide opportunities for students to reflect in action as they are developing their self-regulated and meta-cognitive learning skills (Robbins et al., 2020). These successes rely on the educator’s capabilities to design, demonstrate, facilitate and support their students’ reflective practice development, which takes practice and time (Barton & Ryan, 2014; Rodgers, 2002; Ruge & Mackintosh, 2020). Researchers identify a lack of priority in improving teaching quality through practicing and researching collaborative reflective practice. Kennelly and McCormack (2015) cite a tendency in universities to prioritise discipline and technical research with resources and incentives whilst teaching and learning scholarship and practice is disregarded. They emphasise that despite individual reflective practitioners advocating for teaching and reflective practice in the current higher education institutions, their impact is limited, needing bigger community support.

Taylor et al., (2021) agree on the potential benefits to both staff and students whereby a growing willingness to work within diverse teams may thrive through scaffolded reflective processes. Participants worked in small teams and with peers to develop these tools, however, the research relied on written reflection and assessment tasks rather than more formal reflective circle talk. In Webster-Wright’s (2013) mindful inquiry, there is a strong suggestion that attention to teacher reflexivity is difficult for busy academics with competing demands despite evidence which affirms that reflective practice is beneficial for academic success and to contribute to life beyond the university. For example, reflection supporting inclusive pedagogical principles and practices in higher education offers self-awareness strategies for embracing diversity and promoting equity of opportunity for students and educators (Advance HE, 2023). This can be approached by critically examining one’s own assumptions, unconscious biases in teaching practices, and implicit responses to student diversity. Through reflective practice, teachers become critically aware of how their cultural lenses and positionalities shape the learning environment, and such awareness may create culturally safer classrooms. Lim and Thaver (2021) explored reflexive practice in inclusive teacher education, using video triggers to initiate interactive conversations. Teachers were encouraged to reflect on their positionality regarding people with disabilities and to develop aspirational plans. They documented both positive and negative personal impacts in reflective journals. The researchers viewed this approach as innovative, as it facilitated internal dialogue, allowing teachers to engage with their multiple perspectives, thoughts, and emotions without external judgment. Similarly, scaffolded reflective processes have been found to foster inclusivity by surfacing staff and students’ awareness of their unconscious biases, and willingness to collaborate in diverse teams (Taylor et al., 2021). Community or shared reflective practices through open dialogue significantly helped in advancing the values of inclusion and diversity in learning and teaching (Tong, 2024).

Collaborative, peer-based reflective practice within professional learning communities helps educators develop expertise and build capacity to meet new professional demands (Mastenbroek et al., 2024). Sharing experiences within these communities fosters diverse perspectives, allowing individuals to reflect on their practices from different viewpoints and learn from one another (McCormack et al., 2017). This process cultivates shared knowledge and the ability to adapt practices based on constructive feedback. The supportive environment encourages reflective learning in a judgment-free space, helping educators and professionals embrace feedback positively. Engaging in reflective discussions enhances continuous professional growth, team collaboration, and performance (Zhang, 2024). For example, collaborative reflective skills are essential for industry practitioners incorporating socio-technical perspectives in responsible system design (Raats, 2024).

Multi-theoretical framing for CRC pedagogy

Our CRC pedagogical model was informed by the literature on reflective practice outlined above, and by Rogers (1995) work on humanistic psychology with the aim to communicate with absolute worth, affirmation, autonomy and empathy in all instances. In addition, inclusive practices used within motivational interviewing aim to strengthen personal motivation for being in a circle, co-creating an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion (Clifford & Curtis, 2015). Dialogic approaches supporting critical reflection were informed by methods supporting creative dialogue in group conversations (Bohm & Nichol, 1996), experiential learning circles in teacher education (Collay, 1998), and insights into culturally responsive talking circles within First Nations education (Brown & Di Lallo, 2020). For example, cultural observations of an anthropologist who lived with a North American Indian tribe of hunter-gatherers observed a collectivist approach to dialogue, “where from time to time the group met like this in a circle. They just talked and talked and talked, apparently to no purpose. They made no decisions. There was no leader. And everybody could participate” (Bohm & Nichol, 1996, p 16). Canadian based educators consider pedagogical talking circles a method to support equitable and relational reciprocity within a group or community (Barkaskas & Gladwin, 2021). These conceptual influences have traditionally guided the design and development of our pedagogical-dialogic method, alongside an acknowledgement of how contemporary circle dialogues draw from diverse traditions and educational practices. Our CRC approach is a hybrid of these forms, created and adapted to suit each curriculum and disciplinary context. These points are expanded in the case study below.

Moving from educational theory to pedagogical practice

The team drew on conceptual perspectives outlined above, with contextual discussions to meet the needs of a range of academic and industry foci. It became evident that dialogic models and reflective practices were constructed within disciplinary norms, industry requirements, and personal preferences. In some professional practice fields, there are little or no requirements for reflection as a professional capability, while other fields mandate critical reflexivity as a core graduate capability. A common theme identified among the team was that while the requirements for reflection varied, the need to develop dialogic skills was consistent across most professional fields. The academic development team intended to create equitable and open spaces for teachers and learners to experience inclusive practices in classrooms, promote a collectivist culture of learning, and explore reflective practices which are known to lead to deeper learning. As outlined in the case study below, the CRC at one university began as an inquiry shared by group members, followed by time for initial self-reflection prior to verbal shared perspectives. Individual reflective thoughts have time to arise and articulating responses and ideas within the circle acts as a form of public sense-making. By ensuring a warm, flexible and participatory space for critical thinking and transformative learning, the CRC offers participants the option to observe, listen, and reflect on their own innate wisdom, thereby developing both non-verbal and verbal communication skills.

CRC inquiry topics generally involve current issues which are practical, and can engage the cognitive, affective, and metacognitive dimensions of learning. CRCs aim to scaffold the development of authentic relational skills in listening and speaking in small group settings and provide learning opportunities to prepare participants for professional industry expectations, while promoting the social and cultural dimensions of collaboration. An important element of the CRC approach in the case study at The University of Technology Sydney was the development of a Facilitation Guide for educators and researchers. The Guide is grounded in the principles of equity, inclusion, and diversity with support from the Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion (CSJI) and outlines strategies for managing sensitivities that may be triggering for individuals when engaging in deeper conversations. It includes advice on briefing and debriefing CRCs and outlining protocols for safety and when distress may be experienced.

Case study: Implementing CRCs in a postgraduate curriculum

This case study describes a CRC approach in a professional graduate program for academic and teaching staff at one university. A reflection on the practical application of this case study invited involvement from members at each university in our collaboration, leading to contributions to the development of the CRC approach at a single institution.

CRCs were first implemented in the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (GCHETL) at The University of Technology Sydney. The degree aims to uplift teaching staff capabilities, skills and values in learning at teaching in higher education, where most teachers arrive at teaching via their research or professional career tracks. Most are new to academic teaching, curriculum, student experience and all are new to the rigour within the scholarship of teaching and learning. Some may have been introduced to reflective practice in their earlier coursework or research degrees, or within professional practice contexts, predominantly health and social care. All are new to teacher reflexivity which is embedded in professional learning pathways and integral to educational endeavours at university.

The GCHETL has 8 subjects (3 core and 5 electives) delivered in 6-week durations completed over 12-24 months. The final core subject, Evidencing Academic Practice, requires participants to curate a portfolio of evidence to meet the subject and course intended learning outcomes. This portfolio must contain evidence of reflexivity at the highest level on a reflective writing framework by Moon (1999), after an introduction and development of the framework in the earlier two core subjects. In 2022-23, delivery was modular with face to face and then online workshops and an academic mentoring program. An emphasis on peer and self-assessment aimed to foster reflective expressions, evaluative judgement and feedback literacy. The staff-student ratio was very low offering opportunities to work closely on participant development. Initial feedback from participants and the teaching team indicated that a heavy reliance on the final capstone assessment to assure all learning outcomes was challenging. Assessment mapping revealed a heavier reliance on written work despite a course learning outcome on the development of multimodal forms of expression. In addition, the development of dialogic methods in the GCHETL had two aims, as a pedagogical approach to explore course content for learners, and to upskill learners in their own facilitation/teaching practice. Apart from teacher-led small group discussions, in workshops and asynchronous online discussion forums, there was limited opportunity to develop a diverse range of dialogic facilitation skills. This lack of variety constrained the ability of educators to expand their repertoire and adopt innovative, inclusive, and dynamic approaches to fostering meaningful dialogue in educational settings.

Our initial CRC design aimed to address the issues raised above by offering a dialogic circle (online or in person) to explore content (meaning making aligned to a learning outcome), that would develop the dialogic and reflective practices required to successfully complete the capstone portfolio assessment. Our approach aimed to generate and support a formative peer learning process, not formally assessed, occurring prior to submission date. The CRC is human-centred to emphasise dialogic methods that stimulate a process centred on respect, narrative and critical reflexivity which included listening to self and others’ verbal sharing, turn-taking in a circle, and non-judgemental witnessing. Initially, joining a CRC was voluntary and offered in an online environment via Zoom with communication protocols emulating a face-to-face facilitation. There was no pressure for participants to join the circle practice, as the initial circles were offered to complement the core curriculum. Within the circle, ground rules for meaningful and respectful communication were outlined alongside guiding principles, offered in writing prior to the CRC and at check-in within the CRC introduction. This included the following points:

• We are here to share in silent, non-judgmental witnessing of individual reflections.
• There is no need to respond to another’s reflections or respond to previous comments.
• You should feel no pressure to speak if you are not ready or not comfortable to share at this moment.
• Reflections of up to 2 mins are usually applicable to keep the momentum going.
• To facilitate the circle, I recommend that everyone adjust their Zoom settings to view see the ‘Speaker’ view rather than the ‘Gallery’ view and please ensure that you mute your audio when you are not speaking.

It was important that the first round deliberately suspended interactive dialogue between participants, for example, there was no cross talk while each person took their time to share. Within the second or subsequent rounds participants could interact with another in a call and response dialogue, or, a participant could deepen their reflection from the first round, provided they waited their turn. The opportunity to pass was availed of, as required. A CRC offers a space to speak and listen free from expectations, judgement and institutional identities. At the same time, the method keeps the circle strong, and subsequent circles reflect the curiosity and engagement evidenced by participants (Lavery, 2016). Monthly topics were offered in 2023 with up to six participants attending each session, co-facilitated by two teachers which offered consistency and growth in articulating reflective practices and performing reflective pedagogy. Withholding the urge to speak in the first round appeared challenging for some people who preferred to blurt out responses and engage in more reciprocal dialogue. In this small group setting, listening attentively and using non-verbal cues was demanding for some participants.

In 2024, CRCs moved into two foundational core subjects and required a stronger conceptual framework. Drawing on the work of Bohm and outcomes from the literature review, we aligned with Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (1984; 2015) to inform a revised CRC approach supporting the capstone portfolio assessment task. We recognised that dialogic skills are individualised and developmental. Cultural nuances in communication skills play out in a circle dialogue and require the establishment of cultural safety protocols and clear guidelines for facilitators. Within the revised Kolb experiential learning model (2015), we adopted the ‘concrete experience’ stage as the CRC (in person or online) and ‘active experimentation’ stage when exploring a content topic. We felt both stages create the conditions for authenticity in dialogue and reflective practice.

Teaching team observations and reflections indicated that the circle dialogue activity was a valuable learning experience for participants, and that learning to lead a CRC expanded teachers’ repertoire of facilitation skills. Through inquiry-based learning, CRC participants were invited to reflect on their ideas and share their stance on the topic. The dialogic method offered an opportunity to reflect on diverse perspectives and individual learning journeys, which has been found to aid expression and clarity in the capstone assessment task. For example, the team noted a stronger alignment to the Course Intended Learning Outcomes (CILOs) through more sophisticated reflective practice and many participants referred to CRC experiences in their portfolio. Informal participant feedback on CRCs as an experiential learning activity indicated the experience was found to be more dynamic and thought-provoking, deeply reflective by design, holding space for meaning making through the act of speaking, even when individual thoughts were not well-formed. Impressions from anonymous survey data (2023 GCHETL cohort who attended at least four CRCs) indicated that participants were better able to find the time to reflect, valued a variety of perspectives on a topic even if that differed from one’s own, and appreciated the honesty and openness of the learning activity. One-quarter of respondents indicated they planned to implement CRC dialogues into their teaching, expressing confidence in facilitation skills. Their commitment to fostering inclusive conversations and developing reflective skills may better equip their students to achieve graduate attributes within the curriculum. In 2023 the teaching team at University of Technology Sydney collaboratively co-presented this CRC approach and outcomes at a local learning and teaching forum, and in 2023 and 2024 the cross-university research team presented virtually at three international higher education conferences, engaging higher education scholars and receiving valuable feedback.

Reflections on implementing CRCs in the GCHETL surfaced several issues underscoring the value of a skills-based approach to inclusive teaching fostering critical reflexivity. As we refined our practices, opportunities emerged for amplifying marginalised voices within class groups by co-creating safer spaces and allowing for challenge in a supportive environment. Teacher debriefs revealed a stronger sense of self as authentic and agentic educators, fostering confidence to role model these skills with colleagues and participants. Integrating CRCs into the core curriculum, rather than being complementary or additional, created equitable opportunities for learners. Experiences arising from this case study led towards a discussion on emergent themes across the multi-university reflective practice expert group and are outlined below.

Discussion: Implications for inclusive designers and educators

Emerging from the experiences outlined above, our multi-university reflective practice expert group identified emergent issues for teachers and academics planning inclusive CRCs at their institution. These are recommended guiding principles listed here and discussed below:

1. Inclusive protocols and relational pedagogical approaches remove the hierarchical premise of student-teacher interactions when facilitating equitable spaces for open discussions.
2. Foregrounding individual experiences within a group encourages sharing, insights and reflection in a strengths-based and appreciative dialogue.
3. Emergent changes in educational technology and pedagogies are impacting higher education teaching and learning in the digital learning environment and must be considered in terms of authentic learning and teaching.

Applying relational pedagogy and inclusivity principles

Relational pedagogical approaches reside at many levels of the teaching-learning interface and aim to mitigate against transactional relationships. Revisiting the work offered by scholars Nel Nodding and bell hooks we highlight the significance of care and respect in the teacher-student relationship through authenticity, meaningful connections and a high level of responsiveness (Gravett & Winstone, 2020; Bonehill & Jordan, 2024). In our case study, the students were our peers in postgraduate study, many of whom we also had working relationships with within their teaching and curriculum contexts, as we explored their experiences as learners. Navigating relationships through various roles in the academy required attention and reflection to mitigate feelings of alienation. While we understand our educational development work was staff-facing and may not be able to be replicated in all teaching contexts, the idea that CRCs represented a method to co-construct knowledge was foregrounded. Hence, the importance of teacher, peer, and learner interpersonal relations are highlighted alongside relationships with and to forms of knowledge. CRCs emerged from a philosophy that values individual perspectives within the circle process in a community-oriented environment, while simultaneously encouraging broader conceptualisations. We feel CRC methods emphasised the links between relational pedagogy, emergent ways of coming to know, empowering learners within transformative educational experiences. These reflections took place during a period when many teaching staff were experiencing a growing sense of disconnection and precarity, with their sense of belonging within the university increasingly under threat.

In curricula designed through inclusivity principles it is not teaching about or for inclusivity, which suggests the teacher holds a predominant position. Teaching aimed to foster inclusivity through dynamic process perform many or all the following strategies: (1) create safe(r) learning spaces, offer guidelines for inquiry, (2) promote participatory social learning practices drawn from action research methodologies, and (3) recognise the work of power, privilege and gender from feminist scholars and philosophers. That is the ideal. We feel CRCs are one way to promote social inclusion by appreciating the diversity within our own cultural identities and enhancing our cross-cultural communication skills. CRCs actively promote social inclusion and psychological safety by creating structured, respectful spaces where all voices are valued. Through principles of equity, deep listening, and shared dialogue, CRCs foster a sense of belonging and mutual respect among participants. These practices encourage open communication, reduce power imbalances, and build trust, allowing individuals to engage authentically without fear of judgment or exclusion. By prioritising inclusivity and emotional wellbeing, CRCs contribute to safer and more supportive environments in both educational and professional settings. According to Luu et al., (2024), the psychosocial safety climate in Australian higher education remains a significant risk for university staff. Their study at one university highlighted how academic, systemic, and relational complexities negatively impacted staff well-being. In response, University of Technology Sydney academics in this case study successfully trialled CRCs in small group staff meetings, demonstrating the model’s effectiveness in fostering a supportive environment.

Foregrounding individual experiences

As a multi-university group, we continually share our experiences in team meetings as we explore and apply reflective practice pedagogy in our respective teaching and curriculum. We are increasingly concerned with risks to the development of reflective practice skills in favour of embedding content knowledge in curriculum, particularly to perform inclusive practices due to a policy mandate. While we are fully supportive of national Australian higher education policy mandates and local university implementation, we urge for more skills development for teachers and curriculum designers involved in social justice change agendas. For example, when working to mitigate forms of systemic racism in higher education, there are real risks to incite systemic bias and covert racism if not facilitated well. As educators and instructional designers, we can never know what topics may trigger participants based on their past experiences, which authors and their stance may provoke anxiety, or whether linguistic capabilities hamper participation in challenging dialogues in the classroom.

In most technical disciplines (e.g., ICT, Engineering) the importance of reflective practice is generally overlooked as opposed to skill-based assessments. As technical fields are constantly evolving, equipping students to become lifelong learners, may be achieved through the practice of reflection. Therefore, incorporating reflective tasks into the curriculum is essential. Without ongoing self-reflection, graduates may find it challenging to keep pace with and make sense of industry advancements. The business of higher educational institutions could be revised to embed more reflective practice into curricula. Training educators, to effectively integrate reflective practice into their curriculum may be the way forward (Gallagher et al., 2017; Harrison 2016). CRCs may become a legitimate option to mitigate issues of academic integrity in assessment particularly suited to evidencing critical reflexivity.

Engaging in consultation before, during and after learning and teaching is critical. CRCs in the case study above offered an experiential space for skills development that involved teachers and students exploring critical issues and the development of their psychological safety and care protocol. Such a protocol centred the reality that staff and students may not be comfortable sharing their experience openly with their teachers, or peers in a circle talk. The focus on enhancing engagement has highlighted the need for more collaboration between staff and students. By developing professional relationships, students may see CRCs as an inclusive process where psychosocial safety is prioritised (Tong, 2024).

Educational technological change in higher education

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed higher education with a large portion of learning and teaching moving to a digital online environment. A need to create authentic ways for students to collaborate easily and be assessed emerged. Recently, the rising availability and sophistication of generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI), has spotlighted potential ethical and integrity concerns whereby authorship and voice may be difficult to pinpoint. This difficulty in attributing and acknowledging ownership of written and visual artefacts has been the focus of educators for the past two years. Universities and other educational providers are now expected to devise resources and strategies to ensure academic integrity, assure authenticity in student assessment, and will be held to account by national regulatory bodies. In Australia the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency has requested such compliance (TEQSA, 2024). GenAI-based technologies at the interface between humans and “intelligent” machines offer challenges and opportunities for teachers and students to integrate tools and platforms to support academic work (Markauskaite et al., 2022). While written reflection for assessment can be enabled by advancements in genAI-based tools, there are ethical concerns over authenticity, personal openness, and privacy (Lee et al., 2024). Where concerns for originality and authenticity pervade, an in person or online face-to-face viva could be a viable alternative, allowing students and teachers to deepen their own values and voices in conjunction with genAI informed learning (Smith, 2011)

Further work exploring the evolving nature of reflective practice and dialogue models in the context of genAI are questioning what authenticity means in this new landscape. Identified above, authenticity is central to CRC pedagogy and may be under threat where genAI tools are used in teaching, assessing or providing feedback on reflective practice. National leaders who authored the Australian TESQA quality audit examined the validity of genAI in human-centred learning requesting universities to consider technological advancements against authentic learning (TEQSA Toolkit, 2024).

Conclusion

This chapter set out to describe and reflect on an inclusive dialogic method designed to foster critical reflexivity in academia. While various dialogic methods serve different purposes in learning and teaching, our focus was on implementing and reflecting on a CRC pedagogical model aimed to facilitate reflective practice, the integration of diverse perspectives, merging disciplinary insights with industry expectations. By fostering a collaborative environment, CRCs in our case study enabled participants to draw on a wide range of viewpoints to tackle real-world challenges. Embracing multiple human perspectives in navigating complexity, addressing challenges, and driving meaningful change is crucial, as it enriches dialogue, broadens understanding, and strengthens the capacity to respond to evolving professional and societal needs. The literature review highlighted reflective practice and dialogic methods for inclusive practice, and the roles of educators and students. The review revealed that impact studies on reflective practices are not well reported or understood, which could be an imperative for pedagogy. Our case study highlighted significant lessons regarding relational pedagogy and the need to stay agile and critically self-reflective.

Current practices and emergent issues at the intersections of educational technologies and generative artificial intelligence raise questions of authenticity in reflective practice. As teaching and learning in higher education evolves through shifts in the educational socio-technical environments, CRC design will need to adapt. Potential future applications might include training an artificial intelligence agent to offer additional perspectives or facilitate a circle. However, such innovations raise important ethical and practical questions in relation to the humanistic goals of higher education. We finalise the chapter playing on the notion of learning and teaching as bounded/unbounded where inquiry, reflection, dialogue and collaboration remain authentic. We have strongly suggested in our case study and discourse above that ethical and instructional guidelines are required to implement a CRC pedagogy.

References

Advance HE, GuildHE, & Universities UK. (2023). Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education 2023. https://advance-he.ac.uk/knowledgehub/professional-standards-framework-teaching-and-supporting-learning-higher-education-0

Barkaskas, P., & Gladwin, D. (2021). Pedagogical talking circles: Decolonizing education through relational Indigenous frameworks. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 15(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v15i1.6519

Barton, G., & Ryan, M. (2014). Multimodal approaches to reflective teaching and assessment in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841650

Beckers, J., Dolmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2016). e-Portfolios enhancing students’ self-directed learning: A systematic review of influencing factors. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2528

Bohm, D., & Nichol, L. (1996). On dialogue (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203180372

Bonehill, A., & Jordan, M. (2024). Relational pedagogy and inclusion in higher education. In: Universitas Europaea: spre o societate a cunoașterii prin europenizare și globalizare, 16–18 octombrie 2024, Chişinău. Chişinău: Editura ULIM, Vol. 1., pp. 39–44. ISBN 978-5-86654-178-2

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. Reflection: Turning reflection into learning. London: Routledge.

Brown, M. A., & Di Lallo, S. (2020). Talking Circles: A Culturally Responsive Evaluation Practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214019899164

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.

Chan, C., & Lee, K. (2021). Reflection literacy: A multilevel perspective on the challenges of using reflections in higher education through a comprehensive literature review. Educational Research Review. 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100376

Clifford, D., & Curtis, L. (2015). Motivational interviewing in nutrition and fitness. Guilford Publications.

Collay, M. (Ed.). (1998). Learning circles: Creating conditions for professional development. Corwin Press.

Crimmins, G., Nash, G., Oprescu, F., Liebergreen, M., Turley, J., Bond, R., & Dayton, J. (2016). A written, reflective and dialogic strategy for assessment feedback that can enhance student/teacher relationships. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.986644

Fontaine, S. J. (2018). The role of reflective practice in professional development. The Veterinary Nurse, 9(7), 340–347.

Gallagher, L., Lawler, D., Brady, V., OBoyle, C., Deasy, A., & Muldoon, K. (2017). An evaluation of the appropriateness and effectiveness of structured reflection for midwifery students in Ireland. Nurse Education in Practice, 22, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.11.003

Gravett, K., & Winstone, N.E. (2020). Making connections: Alienation and authenticity within students’ relationships in higher education. In: Higher Education Research and Development, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1842335

Harrison, M. (2016). Release, reframe, refocus, and respond: A practitioner transformation process in a reflective consultation program. Infant Mental Health Journal, 37(6), 670–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21606

Jhaveri, A., & Li, E. (2024). Student reflections as a catalyst for teacher reflective practice in teaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Reflective Practice, 25(2), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2024.2305922

Johns, C. (2009). Becoming a reflective practitioner. John Wiley & Sons.

Kennelly, R., & McCormack, C. (2015). Creating more ‘elbow room’ for collaborative reflective practice in the competitive, performative culture of today’s university. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(5), 942–956. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.911259

Kinsella, E. A. (2010). The art of reflective practice in health and social care: reflections on the legacy of Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 11(4), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2010.506260

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D.A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Pearson Education.

Lavery, N.P. (2016). The power of circles: A guide to building peaceful, just, and productive communities – One circle at a time. Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications.

Lee, M., Gero, K. I., John, C., Shum, S. B., Raheja, V., Shen, H., Venugopalan, S., Wambsganss, T., Zhou, D., Alghamdi, E. A., August, T., Bhat, A., Choksi, M. Z., Dutta, S., Jin, Hoque, M. N., Kim, Y., Neshaei, S. P., Sergeyuk, A., & Shibani, A. (2024). A design space for intelligent and interactive writing assistants. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642697

Liew, C. P., Puteh, M., Mohammad, S., Omar, A. A., & Kiew, P. L. (2021). Review of engineering programme outcome assessment models. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1852533

Lim, L., & Thaver, T. (2021). Critical reflexivity as a pedagogy for inclusivity in teacher education. In Schuelka, M. J., & Carrington, S. (Eds.), Global directions in inclusive education: Conceptualizations, practices, and methodologies for the 21st century, (p. 183–199).

Luu, X., Rathjens, C., Swadling, M., Gresham, B., Hockman, L., Scott-Young, C., Leifels, K., Zadow, A. J., Dollard, M. F., & Kent, L. (2024). How university climate impacts psychosocial safety, psychosocial risk, and mental health among staff in Australian higher education: a qualitative study. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01376-x

McCormack, C., Gilchrist, J., Hancock, H., Islam, J., Kennelly, R., Northcote M. & Thomson, K. (2017). The alchemy of facilitation revealed through individual stories and collective narrative. Reflective Practice, 18,1, 42–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2016.1251407

Markauskaite, L., Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Howard, S., … Siemens, G. (2022). Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI? Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100056

Marshall, T., Keville, S., Cain, A., & Adler, J. R. (2022). Facilitating reflection: A review and synthesis of the factors enabling effective facilitation of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 23(4), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2022.2064444

Mastenbroek, N. J., Warman, S. M., & de Groot, E. (2024). Lifelong learning and reflective practice. In Pelzer, J.M. & Hodgson, J.L. (Eds.) Veterinary Medical Education: A Practical Guide, (pp. 455–468).

Moon, J.A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge.

Raats, K. (2024). Advancing Human-Centred Algorithm Design Through Reflective Practice. In proceedings of the 57th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2024.

Robbins, M. M., Onodipe, G. O., & Marks, A. (2020). Reflective writing and self-regulated learning in multidisciplinary flipped classrooms. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v20i3.27541

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00181

Rogers, C. (1995). What understanding and acceptance mean to me. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(4), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678950354002

Ruge, G., & Mackintosh, L. (2020). Facilitating reflective practice: Developing built environment educators’ capacity for teaching and learning. Construction Economics and Building, 20(3), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i3.7035

Ryan, M. (2011). Improving reflective writing in higher education: A social semiotic perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.507311

Sabrina, F., Azad, S., Thakur, S., & Sohail, S., & Ruge, G. (2022, 27–30 June). Professional learning from a reflective practice community in computer science [conference presentation], Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australasia Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Schön, D.A. (1992). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473

Sohail, S., Ruge, G. Sabrina, F., Lewis, M., Wehr, D., Thompson, R., Thakur, S., & Azad, S, (2023, 27–28 November). Role modelling Collaborative Reflective Circles [panel discussion], Te Puna Aurei LearnFest 23: Education Without Boundaries, University of Waikato and the University of Newcastle, Waikato, New Zealand.

Sener, B., & Mede, E. (2023). Promoting learner autonomy and improving reflective thinking skills through reflective practice and collaborative learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17(2), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2047694

Smith, E. (2011). Teaching critical reflection. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.515022

Sultana, F., Lim, C. P., & Liang, M. (2020). E-portfolios and the development of students’ reflective thinking at a Hong Kong University. Journal of Computers in Education, 7(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00157-6

Taylor, H., Bartels, L., Crowe, M., & Marshall, V. (2022). Yarning circles literature review: Insights into the unique cultural elements of yarning practices. Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University. https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/2022/10/Yarning_Circles_Literature_Review_F

Taylor, S., Ryan, M., & Elphinstone, L. (2021). Generating genuine inclusion in higher education utilising an original, transferable, and customisable model for teaching and assessing reflective learning. Reflective Practice, 22(4), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2021.1933408

TESQA. (2024). Gen AI strategies for Australian higher education: Emerging practice. TESQA, Australian Government: Canberra, ACT.

Tong, V. (2024). Advancing professional values through cross-community reflective practice. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(42), 1, 1–8. https://repository.brynmawr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1339&context=tlthe

Webster-Wright. (2013). The eye of the storm: a mindful inquiry into reflective practices in higher education. Reflective Practice, 14(4), 556–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2013.810618

Zhang, X. (2024) Reflective education in nursing practice: Promoting the development of clinical thinking and team collaboration skills in nursing students. International Journal of Social Sciences in Universities, 7(2), 62–66. http://www.acadpubl.com/Papers/Vol%207,%20No%202%20(IJSSU%202024).pdf