How can deeper Critical Reflection be encouraged: A case for the educative mismatch

The idea of mismatching as a goal of shared portfolio development or dialogue journals is borrowed from Snow's (1987) work with the ATI model. The ATI concept (attribute treatment interaction) as applied to colleagues and their reflections means that journal responding must be differentiated depending on the current system of reasoning of the person. Matching means starting where the intern is. But does this aid in growth and deeper reflection or does a match keep the intern at his/her current level? Mismatching implies that the mentor should gradually shift the journal responding (as well as all assistance strategies) to a slightly more complex level in order for the intern to think in more complex ways and to develop. The slightly higher responding creates a kind of knowledge disturbance for the intern or beginning teacher. As the novice educator resolves or accommodates to the higher level of complexity, they experience developmental growth. But how do these concepts translate into coaching, mentor, and guided practice?

If a novice educator perceives the teaching/learning process as either effective or ineffective and enjoys only highly structured learning experiences, then the goal for the mentor or coach is to gradually mismatch the novice by raising questions and ideas that are slightly above the intern's current "worldview." Again using the categories outlined in Figure 1 as a guide, the more experienced colleague would want to increase Gary's awareness of feelings, gradually build greater confidence so that less encouragement is needed, promote deeper examination of the multiple dimensions of teaching and learning, encourage greater application and analysis, prompt increased acceptance of responsibility, and offer only moderate structure.