Although I can relate critical reflective thinking to being a performer, having trained for years it was a necessary method to be critical and want to always seek improvement, on this occasion I'm going to use my teaching as an example as I consider it more revelant as it's current and what I'm working towards. When, during teaching, does reflective thought occur? Donald Schön (1987) wrote about reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. This is an explanation from reader 2:
- Reflection-in-action is often fostered in artists who respond to what is happening as it happens, (if you are dancing across the floor and something is not working you change the steps as you are moving) it tends to be a ‘hands-on’ way of working. Reflection-on-action is often fostered in academics who respond to what is happening by going away to conceptualise it and look back at it. Dewey also makes this temporal distinction, looking at how the time impacts on how you engage with new ideas, ‘Present’ or ‘future’ being two distinct and different ways to engage with experience. (Jackson, 1998; Dewey, 1934).
The distinction... between future and present acknowledges Schon’s (1983) important differentiation between reflection-on- action (reflection on past event) and reflection-in-action (reflection in the midst of an ongoing action). The latter type is the more difficult to achieve, but the more powerful for improvement of practise because it results in “on-line” experiments to adjust and improve one’s professional actions. It is more difficult to achieve because the actor must simultaneously attend to performing the action and observe and analyse his or her action, as if from an external perspective. Further, in reflection-in-action the actor is the sole collector of data on the event.
Reflection-on-action is accomplished “off-line” at a time when full attention can be given to analysis and planning for the future without the imperative for immediate action... (Kottcamp, 1990)
For people in the arts I don't believe this to be the case. We can use both methods for equal measure. Over time, using ones experience, we can notice if a lesson needs changing or an exercise needs it's level of difficulty heightened or lowered to best suit the situation at hand. Even if it was a success there are still questions to be answered and lessons to be learnt. What did I learn from having to change the course of the lesson? Could I have adapted it in a different way? Is there a different way to adapt it? Both methods of reflection can be utilised fully in my professional practise but I believe it's something that can not be taught. It all comes from analysing and evaluating yourself and the methods which you use resulting in experience.
As we are well aware everyone is different so everyone will learn differently. Students will respond in varied ways when taught by different methods/techniques. Howard Gardner talked about the idea of Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic learners (VAK). This theory becomes relevant when teaching a physical art or sport. Some students need to see the exercise to learn it (visual), others to hear it to learn it (auditory) and others need to physically do it to learn it (kinaesthetic). Whilst teaching I try to use all three ways to benefit as many as the students as possible. When comfortable in my teaching technique I was able to study the students themselves noticing which particular students responded both positively and negatively to the various methods.
Having studied Kolb's learning cycle I couldn't help noticing the similarities in the two theories. People will enter the reflection process at different stages, as clearly shown in Kolb's cycle. It will be the way that suits them best, their preferred learning method. Some people start to learn when they are involved in a concrete
Critical reflection is a way of educating oneself by keeping a rational thought process. Dealing with the facts enables you to analyse and evaluate on an experience discovering the values which you hold strongest. The world is constantly changing. How do we know if we likeloathe something if we never reflect upon it rationally? How will will ever better ourselves? Reflection is a way of keeping up in both our personal and professional lives.
For people in the arts I don't believe this to be the case. We can use both methods for equal measure. Over time, using ones experience, we can notice if a lesson needs changing or an exercise needs it's level of difficulty heightened or lowered to best suit the situation at hand. Even if it was a success there are still questions to be answered and lessons to be learnt. What did I learn from having to change the course of the lesson? Could I have adapted it in a different way? Is there a different way to adapt it? Both methods of reflection can be utilised fully in my professional practise but I believe it's something that can not be taught. It all comes from analysing and evaluating yourself and the methods which you use resulting in experience.
As we are well aware everyone is different so everyone will learn differently. Students will respond in varied ways when taught by different methods/techniques. Howard Gardner talked about the idea of Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic learners (VAK). This theory becomes relevant when teaching a physical art or sport. Some students need to see the exercise to learn it (visual), others to hear it to learn it (auditory) and others need to physically do it to learn it (kinaesthetic). Whilst teaching I try to use all three ways to benefit as many as the students as possible. When comfortable in my teaching technique I was able to study the students themselves noticing which particular students responded both positively and negatively to the various methods.
Having studied Kolb's learning cycle I couldn't help noticing the similarities in the two theories. People will enter the reflection process at different stages, as clearly shown in Kolb's cycle. It will be the way that suits them best, their preferred learning method. Some people start to learn when they are involved in a concrete
experience, (doing something), some people can do something but start to learn about it when they are watching the people around them doing it (Reflective observation), some people need to “work it out in their head first” (Abstract conceptualisation) and some people start to learn when they start trying out ideas
(active experimentation). It stands to reason that if we learn from the VAK method of teaching that it would be applied to the way we identify and learn from reflection of our experiences.Critical reflection is a way of educating oneself by keeping a rational thought process. Dealing with the facts enables you to analyse and evaluate on an experience discovering the values which you hold strongest. The world is constantly changing. How do we know if we likeloathe something if we never reflect upon it rationally? How will will ever better ourselves? Reflection is a way of keeping up in both our personal and professional lives.
Hi Leon,
ReplyDeleteI really like how you discussed the VAK learning types and then related it to Kolb's learning cycle. Despite also writing about the cycle in my blog, I hadn't thought about people entering it at different points depending on what type of learner they may be. I also liked your point you made about disagreeing with Kottcamp's statement. I also disagree, I feel that although reflection-in-action may not receive your full attention span, you are making those decisions for a reason, so like you said, they ca be used in equal measure, and I believe they are just important as the critique we make in reflection-on-action.