Conflictos en la aplicación de la Cláusula

Dewey’s writings formed a basis for subsequent scholars, including Donald Schon (Collins et al., 2010; Vachon et al., 2013). Schon defined the way professionals solve their work-related problems using two notions, namely, ‘reflection-on-action’

and ‘reflection-in-action’ (Schon, 1983, p. 102). The process of finding a lasting solution to a problem involves framing the problem and developing practical solutions to it rather than depending on theoretical frameworks. To a certain extent, the two notions tend to build on Dewey’s work, that is, a solution is based on past experiences. Reflection-in-action involves a situation whereby there is an individual interpretation of an immediate problem in one’s own context, for example, while teaching in the classroom. Connections are made through a reflection on the

individual’s feelings and emotions. Individuals eventually develop a solution to the problem, by evaluating their past experiences, which they use to manage directly the immediate situation (Schon, 1983).

Reflection-on-action involves an analysis of an experience after it happens and then incorporates all reasons around such experience. The analysis is conscious and involves the feelings and reactions of a professional and the consequences of all actions that could follow or could have been taken (Attar, Shahabi, & Amlashi, 2016; Wasson et al., 2015). Reflection-on-action entails questioning the theories and underpinnings of what people do and looking for arguments to support their judgements. The essence is to explore all possible causative agents and the

reasoning behind the actions (Moon, 2013; Zwozdiak-Myers, 2012). Schon’s (1983) presentation of his two types of reflection as separate processes was criticised by Moon (2013). Moon (2013, p. 43) identified confusing inconsistencies in Schon’s distinction and ‘woolly edges’ between reflection in and on action. She referred to the ‘stop and think’ example proposed by Schon in certain articles as reflection in action and in others as reflection on action. She concluded that reflection on action may occur ‘during’ action. She also criticised Schon’s model for excluding

reflection before action. The pre-action stage is an important stage to anticipate potential problems and try to pre-emptively avoid them.

Schon used the notions of reflection in and on action to demonstrate that individuals begin to experience professional growth when they begin to analyse events

critically. To a certain extent, this analysis may bring doubt, and reflectors may consider themselves the main causative factor of the problem, using the reflection- in-action concept. When individuals question their behaviour, they begin to consider it as a problem that does not meet the required standards of their practice

(Peltier, Hay, & Drago, 2006). However, reflection-on-action creates a scenario in which possible problems and their causes are eliminated. Therefore, an individual can settle, and doubts are removed if he/she is not part of the problem. The result of the elimination is that people can then contribute to the situation based on their knowledge. The contributions are expected to produce better outcomes, and ways of achieving them will be suggested (Schon, 1983; Kasturiratne, Lean, & Phippen, 2012). To conclude, Schon developed practical applications of reflection in the field professional development through his exploratory rather than finite process (as cited in Jackson, 2004). For Schon, ‘[an e]xploratory experiment is the probing, playful activity by which we get a feel for things. It succeeds when it leads to the discovery of something there’ (as cited in Jackson, 2004, p. 59).

Kolb (2014) developed Dewey’s ideas further into a more interactive cycle of experiential learning. His experiential learning theory (ELT) emphasises the role that an experience plays in learning, and provides a holistic model of the learning process and a multilinear model of adult development (Kolb et al., 2001, p. 227) (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.3: Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Konal et al., 2014, p. 13)

There are many applications of ELT. In INSET, experimentation can take place in the pre, during, and post stages. However, it is more important to undertake experiential activities in the delivery stage to engage participants and boost

Abstract Conceptualisation The learner attempts to generalise a model of what is

interaction. Table 3.2 provides an overview of possible educational applications for Kolb’s ELT.

Table 3.2: Applications of experiential learning theory

Note. Source: Kolb (2014, p. 18)

Kolb’s experiential learning partly inspired the development of Gibbs’ reflective cycle, which places emphasis on both one’s own and other people’s perceptions (Gibbs, 1988). Gibbs’s model (see Figure 3.4) relates to empathy because it enables one to have a first-hand feeling of other people’s feelings and views on a certain experience (as cited in Quinton & Smallbone, 2010, p. 126). His model is in the form of a structured interrogation that involves six elements that aid in the

reflection of a learning process (Anderson, Knowles, & Gilbourne, 2004). Having empathy makes people reason beyond their actions, incorporating how other people feel about their actions and the different perceptions they might be having (Hilden

& Tikkamäki, 2013).

Figure 3.4: Reflective cycle model (Gibbs, 1988)

Lawrence-Wilkes’s REFLECT model is based on the word ‘reflect’, which is an acronym representing various procedures that can be used for reflection (Lawrence- Wilkes & Ashmore, 2014). The acronym consists of seven steps that offer a

conclusive guide through reflection (see Table 3.3).

Table 3.3: REFLECT Model

Remember Review past experiences to note those that were intense.

Experience Give an account of whatever happened and note important happenings. Focus Identify who or what was involved, and where it occurred. Include roles of

various participants.

Learn Identify reasons for the experiences and the feelings they induced.

Evaluate Recognise the outcomes of the events, including their strengths and weaknesses. Consider Assess whether there are possibilities for change.

Trial Experiment on the proposed changes.

Note. Source: Lawrence-Wilkes & Ashmore (2014)

Description Feelings Evaluation Analysis Conclusion Action Plan

Borton’s model offers a simplified learning cycle with a flexible RP protocol (as cited in Stonehouse, 2011; Jasper, 2003). His model involves three questions that guide reflection and ask the educator what, so what and now what? The teacher describes an event and his/her scrutiny helps articulate the implications of the event; after which, a way forward is generated. Therefore, ways of improving the

consequences generated by the experience are reflected upon and implemented (Stonehouse, 2011).

Figure 3.5: Borton’s reflective model (as cited in Stonehouse, 2011, p. 300)

Reflection models were introduced in other disciplines, too. Johns (1995), a nursing professor, developed a reflection model that aids practitioners in comprehending their practice. Due to the nature of the health sector, the model emphasises the swiftness with which an experience becomes learned knowledge through

collaboration with a colleague or a mentor. According to Johns (1995), it is easier for practitioners to transform an experience into knowledge when empirical methods are used.

The single- and double-loop learning models were developed by Argyris (1976). These models are mainly based on the processes around the recognition of an error until its resolution. In single-loop learning, an error occurs and is rectified, but current methods continue to be used when the problem resurfaces. In contrast, double-loop learning involves the invention of new strategies and policies to solve the problem when it reoccurs.

Finally, the RP models discussed above share a common emphasis on critical problem solving that is expected to improve practice. It is important to note the

What

So

What

What

intertwined relationship between AR and RP in these models. Leitch and Day (2000) posited the view that ‘[b]oth, in their various forms, are considered…critical dimensions of the professional development of teachers’ (p. 179). Leitch and Day stated that the two came into this strong relationship through Stenhouse’s (1975) notion of the teacher-as-a-researcher in which an educational AR was encouraged and held different kinds of reflection at its centre. Reason & Bradbury (2001) questioned an AR that does not involve reflection; they argued that an ‘action without reflection and understanding is blind, just as theory without action is meaningless’ (p. 2).