Task 2c: Reflective Theory

‘Reflective practice describes the process that occurs when persons are apprenticed to any meaningful activity’ (Edwards & Thomas, 2010, p 403). It has become increasingly popular as part of education in the last thirty years (Cowan, 2014). Reflection is also a key aspect of many health professions (Koole et al, 2011) and particularly in teacher training reflective practice, ‘has been considered an important competency that teachers should acquire during teacher training and implement in teaching throughout their professional lives’ (Fund et al 2002). Yet, many contrasting theories of reflective practice exist that offer wide-ranging views that regard reflection as either imperative or detrimental to learning. These views can act as an access tool into this form of learning, giving the learner possible links to their current practices.

In the first instance, Dewey (1916) considered the interest with an experience essential to learning. He also believed that the quality of education was linked to the level of engagement of the learning (1933). This poses an interesting point, as it acknowledges that without actively engaging with any life experience, a person cannot learn and develop within society. His belief that interaction with the arts led to a unique experience is highly relevant in terms of the BA Professional Practice course (1934) and even links with Robinson’s (2010) views on the reform need in the current compulsory education system, a controversial but thought-provoking theory.

Cowan (2014) poses that the work of practitioners, such as Dewy, has been followed for educational and professional development purposes blindly for years. When considering Dewey’s views he states that, ‘the literature virtually presumes the effectiveness of reflective practice in developing metacognition (thinking about thinking)’ (Cowan, 2014, p54). This presents a further argument if events are not considered in enough depth, ‘Journal writers often fail to probe their experience and thinking rigorously’ (Cowan, 2014, P54) which results in a lack of reflective depth. This is an interesting view of Dewey’s work and I believe there is note in his ideas as there is an automatic assumption that by engaging with an event you are achieving the right level of reflection, but many of his arguments are based upon this premise alone.

In terms of my professional practice working in a school Academy, I have found that Dewey’s (1933) theory linking engagement level and learning, applied to my professional practices teaching drama. When I was offered the opportunity to teach a drama class, I had no prior experience of teaching this subject, even though my training was in performing arts. I had to learn how to teach the curriculum successfully by learning on-the-job. Dewey’s theory of, ‘being without capacity for thought is moved only by instincts and appetites’ (Dewey, 2007, p14) related to my professional practice. If I had not had the desire to become a more skilled teacher, through the process of learning better classroom management, behaviour management skills and gaining a better knowledge of the curriculum, I would not have improved my knowledge and skills.

This desire to improve then started a reflective process where I would reflect upon each lesson by recording my thoughts and feelings about how successful the lesson was and what could be improved upon in the next lesson. This way, I could think of strategies to improve classroom management and alternative ways to teach certain games/tasks with more success, often by seeking advice from more experienced teachers. I also asked other members of staff to observe my lessons and provide feedback at the end of the lesson, which I would include into my own reflective entries. Still, it was not until I began studying this module that I discovered Dewey’s theory, and therefore began to gain an understanding that it was my passion to become a more accomplished teacher initiated this learning process.

Dewey’s work informed the ideas of Kolb (1984). Kolb built upon Dewey’s work, as he placed the importance on identifying an experience, not just simply having an interest in a specific event (Kolb 1984). Kolb’s Learning Cycle shows how each learning experience is linked to the next, and these do not occur as separate instances. It is based on four key stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation (Kolb 1984). Nevertheless, the point at which we enter this cycle, by recognising we are having or had a learning experience, is different depending on the person and this is often regarded as our learning style (Kolb 1987).

Kolb is regarded as influential in the reflective field, yet, interestingly, there are still numerous contrasting views concerning his Reflective Cycle. Beard & Wilson (2006) present various critiques of Kolb’s work, arguing that the learning cycle that Kolb created was selective of certain material and did not represent the evidences of reflection. Firstly, Kolb did not distinguish between Dewey’s concepts of the implication of habit (Miettinen cited Beard & Wilson, 2006). This meant that a full representative of reflection could not been seen in his visual cycle because, ‘Habits are powerful factors in our lives... they constantly, daily, express our character and produce our effectiveness… or ineffectiveness’ (Covey 2004, p46). Furthermore, the sequencing of the cycle fails to incorporate the key aspect of emotion in reflection, ‘which plays a significant role in the ability to learn’ (Holman cited Beard & Wilson, 2006, p 42). Finally, the theory that our lives are run on autopilot and this, ‘prevents our conscious brains becoming overwhelmed’ (Beard & Wilson, 2006, p 41). Kolb does not take into account the false conclusions that occur when a person is trying to understand and explain change, which results in rigid thinking (Beard & Wilson, 2006). I find it interesting that these critiques have identified the lack of emotion in Kolb’s cycle because I too thought that it was a very clinical form of reflection compared to other theories presented in Boud (2004) and Moon (2004) and I struggled to relate to his cycle because of this lack of emotion. Additionally, the rigidity mentioned above pressed me into thinking that I needed to enter the cycle at the same point, but I have discovered that this in not the case.

I have noticed that in my reflective practices to date that I enter Kolb’s Reflective Cycle at different stages and this changes depending on the task or event I am reflecting upon. For example, with the completely new challenge ahead of me like teaching a new drama topic, I entered the cycle at Reflective Observation. I approached this by visiting the Head of Drama teaching a similar group (Reflective Observation) and took notes on the lesson structure, sequence of exercises and timings. I then took this knowledge away with me to reflect on how I could use this in my own lesson, therefore moving to the next stage of the cycle (Abstract Conceptualisation).

In contrast, when teaching something that I felt more confident with, like an English Intervention lesson, I would enter the cycle at Active Experimentation. In my reflective journal, I have written an entry about a student who was struggling to understand the concept: ‘what makes an inference’. In the middle of the lesson I recognised that the student did not understand the way I was trying to improve their knowledge on this subject with a PowerPoint. I quickly decided to change my approach by explaining the concept through diagrams and flashcards instead. I could then assess if the student understood this teaching more clearly through Concrete Experience. To summarise my professional practice, it seems that my entry point into Kolb’s Reflective Cycle depends on how confident I am with the task that lies ahead of me and whether it is a practical or theoretical subject.

Schön (1987) introduced the idea of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action is defined as reflection that takes place while you are experiencing an event, whereas reflection-on-action is the process in which you reflect on event after the event has ended (Schön, 1987).

On the other hand, an opposing view is that ‘reflection-on-action now finds itself at the bottom of the hierarchy of evidence on which to base practice, and reflection has become just another technical tool’ (Rolfe, 2002, p 21). When referring to Schön’s reflection-in-action theory, Cowan warns that, ‘Journal writers should consciously consider the potential for their learning of a combination of approaches with complementary purposes’ (Cowan, 2014, p56). I feel this last case does apply to my professional practice because, as I explain below, it is not always possible or indeed appropriate to use reflection-in-action.

I have actually found that within my work place, I use both reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action equally, but under different circumstances. At the end of a lesson, I write ‘Lesson Notes’ which is short reflection on whether the outcomes of the lesson were achieved and what will need to be covered in the next lesson to ensure the students make progress; this is reflection-on-action because I am reflecting on events after they have occurred. I also used reflection-on-action more in my reflective journal when reflecting upon events that have taken place throughout the day. Dissimilarly, I observed that I have been using reflection-in-action in the middle of teaching lessons. For example, I taught a drama lesson on cemetery statues incorporating spooky sounds. I was observing the many group members were moving around as they were creating their sounds and not keeping to the instruction of still statues. I reflected on what I saw and decided to bring the group back together to talk to them about the task and I used my planned questioning to do this. By asking them my planned question, I was able to use Assessment for Learning and ensure all students understood the task clearly so they could progress and reach the lesson outcomes. Assessment for Learning is part of the teacher standards (Department for Education, 2011) so I am used to this concept; I had not realised that this was a form of reflection-in-action before researching the theories of Schön.

Kottcamp (1990) likens the theory of on-line and off-line reflection to reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. He states that on-line reflection is harder to achieve than off-line reflection (Kottcamp, 1990).

This introduces an opposing idea to Kottcamp’s view that on-line reflection is harder. As Tharp and Reiter (2006) suggest, there are some types of reflection that, as performers, happens innately and I believe all dancers can relate to this. This is called tacit knowledge. This challenges Kottcamp’s views because this means the profession and purpose for which you are using the reflection, has an impact of the way you reflect.

As an example, when performing a script in a teacher-in-role drama lesson, I realised that I was not exaggerating mannerisms to demonstrate characterisation (this was an innate feeling), so I adapt this by exaggerating certain characteristics like hand gestures and introducing habits like adjusting the glasses I was wearing; this all happens during the performance as tacit knowledge. Therefore, the situation you are reflecting in, may dictate your choice of reflection type. Generally, performers will find on-line reflection easier because they have a greater tacit knowledge. Therefore it is the more obvious choice of reflection, as it is nearly impossible sit down and consider how that feeling could have been performed better after it has happened (off-line reflection).

Moon (2006) states that Dewey’s concern was ‘the initiation of reflective thinking in a state of doubt’ (Moon, 2004, p12), yet Moon (2006) believes that a major part of reflective practice is finding a way to record reflective processes clearly and effectively, even if this is difficult in instances of reflection-in-action. The way this occurs does not necessarily have to be a written process, but she states finding a way to communicate ideas is key to reflective success (Moon, 2006). She also poses that the process of writing a reflective journal is a, ‘different quality of learning from that when a person writes reflectively’ in a personal diary (Moon, 2006, p 17). This notion is key when approaching a reflective journal as the purpose forms the basis of writing style to guide the learning.

Cowan (2014) believes that dialogue with an influential person is key in a learning experience. However, in the case of Moon’s journal writing, ‘isolation precludes instrumental contributions to the socio-cognitive process. Probing must instead be delegated to the instrumental level of reflective dialogue with the alter ego of self, often prompted by a structured format’ (Cowan, 2014, p57). I believe this is true because I often find that I need to seek advice to solve problems that arise in my reflective practices. Nevertheless, I do not believe Moon is implying that a journal can completely replace the vital conversations that help a person find the desired answer to a reflective process. It merely helps you look inwardly at your own actions before reaching out to others; therefore you are not solely relying on others to develop your professional practices.

I have found in my practices, that Moon’s theories are definitely applicable. It is often very difficult to recorded an event in words in my reflective journal, especially in a practical subject and finding a way to puzzle through often means using peculiar methods in my reflective journal to puzzle through events.

In conclusion, by analysing both the positive and negative aspects of reflection, I have realised that there are not necessarily right and wrong categories in the theories of reflective practice. Through this, I realise that I need to place full importance on the thinking process to try and achieve a real depth in my reflection, avoiding some of the disputes mentioned by the critics above. I can understand the criticism surrounding reflective practice as an immeasurable form of study and I do believe that it can never fully replace academic knowledge. However, in the developing world of work in which we live, I believe it is imperative to find ways to continue to develop professionally, as it not always presented formally in a place of work. In my case, I received no formal training for my current role, so reflective practice acts as a way to identify issues that arise in my place of work, address these and improve my knowledge and effectiveness as a practitioner.

Reference List

Beard, C. & Wilson J. P. (2006) Experimental Learning: A Best practice Handbook for Educators and Trainers. 2^nd Edition. Great Britain: Kogan Page Limited.

Boud, David (2001) ‘Using Journal Writing to Enhance Reflective Practice’
in (English and Gillen (eds.) (2001) Promoting Journal Writing in Adult Education, New Directions in adult Education No. 90 San Francisco: Josse Bass, 9-18.

Boud, David (1985) ‘But what tools do you need to be engaged’ in Boud, David, Keough, R., and Walker, D. (1985) Turning experience into learning, London: Kogan Page.

Cowan, J. (2014) Noteworthy matters for reflection in reflective journal writing. Active Learning in Higher Education. Volume 15 Issue No 1. 2014 pp. 53-64

Covey, R (2004) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Free Press

Dewey, John (1933) How we Think, 2007 reprint, Champaign: Standard Publications, Inc.

Department for Education (2011) Teachers’ Standards [Internet] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teachers-standards [Accessed on 19 March 2015]

Dewey, John (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, facsimile of edition 2010, Charleston: Nebu.

Dewey, John (1934), Art as Experience,1958 reprint, New York: Putnam.

Edwards, G. & Thomas, G. (2010) Can reflective practice be taught? Educational Studies, Volume 36 Issue 4, October 2010 pp. 403-414.

Fund, Z., Court, D. & Kramarski, B (2002) Construction and Application of an Evaluation Tool to Access Reflection in Teacher-Training Courses. In: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. December 2002 Vol 27, Issue No. 6. pp. 485-499

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood NJ: Prentice Hall. Kottcamp, R. B. (1990). Means for Facilitating Reflection. Education and Urban Society, 22, 182-203.

Koole, S., Dornan, T., Aper, L., Scherpbier, A., Valckle, M., Cohen-Schotanus, J. & Derese, A. (2011) Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review. BMC Medical Education. Volume 11 Issue No. 104

Moon, J. (2006) Learning Journal: A Handbook for Reflective Practice and Professional Development. 2^nd Edition. New York: Routledge. 

Moon, J. (2004) Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. 2^nd Edition. USA: RoutledgeFalmer.

Robinson, K. (2010) Changing education paradigms [Internet] Available from: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms [Accessed on 19 March 2015]

Rolfe, G. (2002) Reflective Practice: where now? Nurse Education Practice. Vol 2, Issue No 1. March 2002 pp. 21-19.

Schön, Donald (1987) Education the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: Josse Bass

Tharp and Reiter (2006) The Creative Habit, New York, Simon and Schuster.