To create opportunities for greater professional development
and personal growth, facilitators can consider including reflective practice in
their facilitative processes.
According to Bolton (2010), to generate
developmental insights, one needs to reflectively and reflexively examine his
facilitative practice by ‘paying critical attention to the practical values and
theories which inform' him of his faciltative actions.
Instead of formal education or training,
the facilitator acquires and enlarges his knowledge, skills, emotional and
experience bases in facilitation by staying in action – that is by constantly
and consistently engaging in creating, developing and conducting facilitative
conversations, and by reflecting on their execution and outcomes, before,
during and after these events.
Schon (1983) stated that reflective practice is
‘the capacity to reflect on action so as to engage in a process of continuous
learning’.
Definitions of Reflection
Reflective thinking involves the consideration
of ‘personal achievements and failures, and asks what worked, what didn’t, and
what needs improvement’ (Given, 2002). It asks the facilitator to think about
his own thinking.
Dewey (1933) was the person to bring the term
'reflective practice' to the public discourse. He described reflective thought
as an 'active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed
form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further
conclusions to which it tends'.
Hatton & Smith (1995) have identified four
essential issues concerning reflection:
· Our thoughts should be
systematically extended by examining our actions some time after they have
taken place,
· We need to direct our reflective
practices towards finding solutions that address specific problems,
· We should frame and reframe
complex or ambiguous problems, test out various interpretations, and then
modify our actions consequence to these analysis, and
· We should consciously account
for the wider historic, socio-cultural, and political values or beliefs while
framing practical problems to arrive at solutions.
This is the reason Habermas (1971) suggested that the ‘power of reason
is grounded in the process of reflection’.
Many learning theorists have recognised the contributions of
Dewey and Habermas, and continued to study and analysis the topic to further
provide clarification on reflection. Van Manen (1977), Schön (1983, 1990), Boud
et al. (1985), Mezirow (1990), and Brookfield (1995) have concluded that the
practice of reflection is an important tool in the learning process.
Applying Reflection
Schon (1983) indicated that there are three
kinds of reflective actions:
· Reflection-in-action, which
requires us to look at what is happening during the event
·
Reflection-on-action, which
requires us to look back after the event has ended, and
· Reflection-for-action, which
is reflecting for the purpose of planning the next action.
Let's explore these in greater detail.
Reflection-in-action
Greenwood (1993) has further clarified this
reflection as ‘thinking about what one is doing whilst one is doing it’.
Usually, the facilitator conducts this type of
reflection when he is surprised, confused or puzzled by his audience's responses
- where the expected outcome is outside of his knowing-in-action (which forms
the basis of his assumptions), whilst he is executing his course of action. It
requires him to ‘think on his feet’, and to draw on his knowledge, experience
and emotional bases to build new understandings and to inform him of his
follow-ups – to continue, modify or stop the activity, as the event unfolds.
Reflection-in-action allows the facilitator to redesign and re-orientate his
plans and actions on the fly, and is a skill commonly associated with very
experienced reflective practitioners.
According to Fitzgerald (1994),
reflection-on-action is ‘the retrospective contemplation of practice undertaken
in order to uncover the knowledge used in practical situations, by analysing
and interpreting the information recalled’.
This is the traditions of reflective practice -
reflecting after the fact by bringing to mind the processes that were deployed,
the outcomes they had created, and the drivers behind these outcomes.
Boyd & Fales (1983) also suggested that
reflection-on-action is the ‘process of creating and clarifying the meanings of
experiences in terms of the self in relation to both self and world. The
outcome of this process is changed conceptual perspectives’.
Here, they have alluded to the importance
reflection-on-action has on self-development. Reflection is posited as the
mechanism for challenging our knowledge, experience and emotional bases so that
we do not just see more (assimilative learning) but also see differently
(accommodative and transformational learning). Reflection-on-action promotes
future innovations and change.
Atkins and Murphy (1994) have went a step
further to suggest that the real differences between actions happen when we
stay committed to our actions. By staying in action, we give ourselves the raw
material to conduct reflections and to growth our facilitative practices.
Reflection-for-action
Schon (1983) defined reflection-for-action as
the critical framing and reframing of ideas with the intent of developing an
action. This is the desired outcome arising from applying the first two kinds
of reflection. It engages one in reflection to guide his future actions.
However, it is problematic and incomplete to totally rely on
these three kinds of reflection for development and growth. They ignore the
prior knowledge, experience and emotional bases of the facilitator, and they do
not recognise his abilities, when well informed, is capable of contextualising
his plans and course of action before the new event. These definitions make no
mention about the importance of reflection-before-action.
Reflection-before-action
Nepo (2011) stated that we can ‘take the time to
reflect on the methods of our art, before we even begin the art’. This
acknowledges the importance of reflection in preparation for professional
action. This enables the facilitator to identify relevant theories and
underpinning knowledge, past experiences and emotions, and skills and resources
that may be helpful in carrying out the planned action.
Depths of Reflection
Argyris and Schön (1978) have proposed several
frameworks that allow us to reflect at various depths.
Sticking to the Norms Single-Loop Learning
In single-loop learning, an entity adjusts its
behaviours to narrow the gaps between expected and actual outcomes. Here, the
focus is determining the gaps and reducing the discrepancies. The entity
introduces rigid strategies, policies and procedures, and spends resources
detecting and correcting deviations from their norms. Organisations operating
in this realm tend to correct an action to solve or avoid a mistake.
Breaking the Norms Double-Loop Learning
In double-loop learning, the entity questions the values,
assumptions and policies that drive their reactions to a given gap. They
ask whether the 'norms' are keeping with time and thereby correcting the
underlying causes of a problematic action. This kind of learning involves more
than just 'thinking outside the box'. It is learning about the single-loop
learning. This learning helps the entity understand the reasons of a working
solution in solving a problem or achieving a goal. There is learning even when
things fall into place. Double-loop learning is essential for organisations facing
rapid changes.
Double-loop learning requires the skills of
self-awareness and self-management, and the willingness to candidly inquire
into the reasons behind an event, without becoming defensive, blaming,
reasonable, and politically correct or any other autonomous or unconscious
patterns of behaviour that may block honest feedback, inquiry and learning. In
other word, for double-loop learning to work, we must stay responsible to
ourselves.
Learning About Knowing Triple-Loop Learning
Triple-loop learning involves 'learning how to
know'. Not only do we reflect on the 'norms' and whether they should be
changed, we also reflect on how we learn to become aware of these
'norms'. This form of learning helps us understand more about ourselves
and others regarding our and their beliefs and perceptions. Triple-loop
learning can be explained as double-loop learning about itself.
Models
of Reflection
There
are several models which we could use to guide our reflective practice in
facilitation. These are:
Gibbs’ Reflective
Cycle
The
Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) describes a process of conducting a structured
analysis of a given event through the use questions.
This
reflection model mirrors the stages of the Kolb’s Experiential Cycle (1984),
and are presented in the following stages:
·
Stage 1: Event Description
Describe, in detail,
the event that we are reflecting on. The questions we may use to facilitate our
reflection in this stage include:
- Where was I?
- Who else was
there?
- Why was I there?
- What was I
doing?
- What were other
people doing?
- What was the
context of the event?
- What happened?
- What was my part
in this?
- What parts did
the other people play?
- What was the result?
·
Stage 2: Feelings Identification
In the stage, we
recall the inner thoughts or conversations that we carried out from the time
the situation had happened.
We may use these
questions to explore the drivers that make the event sticks in our minds:
- How was I
feeling when the event started?
- What was I
thinking about at the time?
- How did it make
me feel? How did other people make me feel?
- How did I feel about the outcome of the event? What do I think about it now?
·
Stage 3: Event Evaluation
Here, we try to
evaluate and make a judgement about what has happened. We consider what was
good about the experience and what was bad or has not went well.
·
Stage 4: Analysis
In Stage 4, we break
the event down into its component parts so they can each be explored
separately.
We may explore the
outputs of the last stage, and ask:
- What went well?
- What did we do
well?
- What did others
do well? What went wrong or did not turn out how it should have done?
- In what way did we or others contribute to this?
·
Stage 5: Conclusion
In this stage, we ask
what we could have done differently. This calls for a detailed analysis of the
knowing we have gathered from the previous stages, and applies an honest
exploration of issues from different angles to develop insights into our and
others' behaviors that may have contributed to the outcome of the event.
·
Stage 6: Action Plan
In the final stage,
we think about what we should do - to act differently or to do the same, when
we encounter the event again. Basically, now, we plan what we would do so that
we know what to do when it happens again.
John’s Structured
Reflection Model
John’s
model of Structured Reflection (2006), which is guided by Carper's (1978)
Patterns of Knowing, is an analyse of the dialogues between the reflective
practitioner and his or her supervisor (guide), who works with him and her
throughout his or her learning experience.
The
model contains the original Casper's patterns of:
·
Aesthetics, which is a dialogue of knowing
the art of what we do
·
Personal, which is a dialogue of knowing
about ourselves
·
Ethics, which is a dialogue of knowing the
moral principles that guide our actions
· Empiric, which is a dialogue of knowing the
science of what we do
To
strengthen his model, John also has also added:
·
Reflexivity, which is a dialogue of knowing
how the current experience connects with previous ones
Borton’s Three
Stem-Questions Model
Borton’s
(1970) 3 Stem-Questions of 'What?', 'So What?' and 'Now What?' were first
developed by Driscoll. Driscoll (1994) has added stem-questions to the stages
of a typical experiential learning cycle to trigger reflection throughout the
learning.
These
stem-questions help the facilitator analysis the event:
·
What…
- … is the purpose
of returning to this situation?
- … happened?
- … did other
people do who were involved in this?
- … did I see/do?
- … was my reaction to it?
·
So what…
- … did I feel at
the time of the event?
- … are my
feelings now, after the event? Is it any different from what I experienced
at the time?
- … were the
effects of what I did (or did not do)?
- … positive
aspects now emerge for me?
- … have I noticed
about my behaviour by taking a more measured look at it?
- … observations
does any person helping me to reflect on my practice make of the way I
acted at the time?
- … is the purpose of returning to this situation?
·
Now what…
- …are the implications
for me and others in facilitative practice based on what I have described
and analysed?
- …difference does
it make if I choose to do nothing?
- …is the main
learning that I can take from reflecting on my practice in this way?
- …help do I need
to get to 'act' on the results of my reflections?
- …aspect should
be tackled first?
- …additional information
do I need to get when I face a similar situation again?
- …modifications
do I need to make to my practice if a similar situation arises again?
- …should I do to keep noticing that I am different in the practice?
Enhancing Your Level of Reflective
Practice in Facilitation
Facilitators should strive to reach deeper levels of learning across all types of reflective action.
Here, the ThinkInnovation's Deep Reflective Action Map
(DRAM)TM can provide facilitators insights into their current
level of reflective practice across all dimensions of their reflective actions,
which will inform them on the actions they could take to build mastery into
their facilitative practices.
Documenting Our Reflections
By recording the reflective actions, and our
thoughts and feelings we have about them, we can:
· Think about our own thinking
to give us greater clarity over the topic of our reflection
· Be informed of the changes
we want for ourselves to give meaning to our reflective practices
· Track, over time, our
progression in order to trend our professional development and personal growth
There are a few ways to document our reflection. These include:
Critical Incident File
This is a log-book used for developing our
understanding of the critical events and issues arising during the course of
the facilitation.
The file may contain notes on the events, actions or episodes
as having happened and which we may experience
Action Research Journal
This is an effective way to identify starting points for improving practice. It can be used to:
·
Follow interests and record
situations
·
Face the problems and accept
challenges by:
·
Clarifying the situations,
aims and outcomes
·
Overcome difficulties by:
·
Finding solutions
·
Implementing proven ideas
·
Critiquing them
·
Modifying common techniques
·
Making improvements
·
Changing routines
·
Inventing variations
·
Replicating successes and assuring
quality outcomes
Planning for Change
Change is an important aspect of the reflective process. You may consider:
·
Keeping the outcomes
realistic
·
Working with evidence that
informs on the success of the change
·
Use critical friends to help
you find patterns that limits your mental models
·
Using ideas that produce quick-wins
Reflective practice, whether a formal or
informal process, can help us become better facilitators. Although the
professional development may be slow process, it offers real satisfactions in elevating
facilitation into the art of promoting engagement and understanding.
This article was written by Anthony Mok on Aug 2012.
Copyright 2012. Anthony Mok. All Rights Reserved.
References
Atkins, S. & Murphy, K. (1994). Reflective Practice. Nursing Standard, 8 (39), pp49-54
Bolton, G (2010) Reflective Practice, Writing and Professional Development (3rd edition), SAGE publications, California. ISBN 184860212X. Page xix
Atkins, S. & Murphy, K. (1994). Reflective Practice. Nursing Standard, 8 (39), pp49-54
Bolton, G (2010) Reflective Practice, Writing and Professional Development (3rd edition), SAGE publications, California. ISBN 184860212X. Page xix
Borton,
T. (1970). Read, touch, and teach: Student concerns and process education. New
York: McGraw Hill, Inc.
Boud, D. et al (eds.) (1985) Reflection. Turning experience into learning, London: Kogan
Boyd, E. & Fales, A. (1983).Reflective Learning: the key to learning from experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23 (2), pp99-117
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised edn.), Boston: D. C.
Fitzgerald, M. (1994). Theories of Reflection for learning. Reflective Practice in nursing, A Palmer and S Burns (eds). Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit. Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford.
Given, B. K. (2002). Teaching to the brain’s natural learning
systems. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington, DC
Greenwood, J. (1993). Reflective practice - a critique of the work of Argyris & Schon. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, pp1183-1187
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston: Beacon Press.
Johns,
C. (1995). Framing learning through reflection within Carper's fundamental ways
of knowing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22: 226–234
Nepo, M. (2011). The Practice Before the Practice. Building Leadership Bridges 2011, Barbour, J.D. & Hickman, G.R. (eds). International Leadership Association, 2011
Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books,
New York
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.
