ESTRUCTURA DEL PROCESO DE ACREDITACÓN DE LA CNEP CONFEDEC.

The key principles of dialogic reflection are the mediating discourse, democratic dialogue and its participants as individual knowers and enquirers. The mediating discourse grounds the reflectors in value dimension. It emphasises the need to understand the purpose and use of the research. Grounding the reflectors in this dimension, reflectors then depart to develop the theoretical and practical discourses. As enquiry of this nature is value-based, its purpose is not to develop a completely consensual theory amongst the researchers rather it is about developing an understanding that is meaningful and valuable to the individual reflectors. These reflectors bring to the enquiry their own knowledge and experiences hence they should be respected as unique knowers and enquirers and not as a collective. Due to these differences, knowledge can only be constructed in dialogic reflection if democratic dialogue is present. While like Co-operative Inquiry, dialogic reflection can be hierarchical, members should feel comfortable enough to actively share their thoughts and feelings and through that, participate in the knowledge construction that is meaningful to them. These are the key principles of dialogic reflection and they are evident in dialogic reflection as an approach to enquiry

Even though in Chapter Five I had mentioned that dialogic reflection was not a method of enquiry until session six, it was suggested in session one.

… what do you think a collaborative reflection would look like? [Me in group one] Well … this! [Sarah in group one]

Sarah was referring to the research session being a dialogic reflection. This possibility of dialogic reflection as an approach to enquiry was already introduced very early in the research however both groups did not explore this until much later in the research. At that point of the research we were still theorising what dialogic reflection was and were rather focused on exploring what it was like to reflect dialogically, not realising that there were already doing it in the process. I had revisited this idea in my own reflective logs for both groups:

129

It is also very interesting to note in relation to methodology, both groups have exhibited signs that they are reflecting on the topic of reflection and collaborative reflection ... Perhaps this very act of participating in this reflection is also “action” in this action research. [My reflective log of session one]

The previous groups meeting seemed rather reflective in the sense that the members were reflecting on reflection and their experience of its use in practice and university hence I thought that by allowing the discussion to go where the group members take it would encourage them to reflect naturally … [My reflective log of session three]

When writing this, I was still perceiving dialogic reflection as a technique that featured in the interactions between the co-researchers and me, not as a method nor as a methodology. In my mind, we were still conducting a Co-operative Inquiry using action research where reflection is a technique and a phase within action research. I was still able to see very clear cycles of knowing, which was characteristic of a Co-operative Inquiry (Heron and Reason 2001). Perhaps it can even be argued that the groups had started the research using dialogic reflection since the beginning except this cyclic structure of knowing eventually dissolved in the later sessions.

8.1.1. A Preference for a Free-Flowing Discussion

Since the start, both research groups had expressed a preference for free discussion in the research and dialogic reflection.

I kind of like it free form, just chuck it out, because it is not forced then… [Karen in group one]

I think if it is more natural, it is usually something that you feel strongly about reflecting on so being less structured would allow for a more real reflection … more natural, more meaningful. [April in group one]

This discussion was about how we should structure the research and it was rather clear from the start that both groups desired a relaxed and candid environment for sharing their reflections. Co-researchers in group one believed that such an environment would allow “real reflection” to

130

emerge, alluding to the idea of true reflection as described in Chapter Seven. This true reflection is characterised by being more meaningful and natural.

When you reflect on your own do you think of "I think I am going to use Gibbs today, I’m just going to run the Gibbs’ cycle in my head very quickly" it doesn’t happen that way … what’s more important is what you take home from the reflection … it is less to do with how many theories you are aware of or use. [Nicola in group one]

Nicola noted that reflection does not necessarily follow a structure like models of reflection may recommend. Similarly, in the research about dialogic reflection, it would have been unnatural to structure it using a model of reflection. Once again, this hinted that at the idea of dialogic reflection as a method of natural enquiry.

I had introduced both groups to the research conducted by Tigelaar et al. (2008) where a structured way of conducting dialogic reflection was used. Alicia quite sharply critiqued that:

Is that to avoid all the dialogue? Is that why they are doing it like that? To make it more efficient? Because when you reflect there is a lot of a lot of input whereas this sounds like very rigid, there is no cross analysis. [Alicia in group two]

This critique of Tigelaar et al.’s (2008) work indicated two possible points of conflict when structuring dialogic reflection: dialogue and efficiency.

Firstly, it is important to consider how a structure in a dialogic reflection affects the democratic dialogue in the reflection. While structures may be useful in encouraging participation, it is also a double-edged sword that may limit democracy and emancipation in the reflection.

Enforcing a structure for reflection can help include those who may find it hard to take part in discussions.

If you have got somebody who feels that he or she can’t contribute for all sorts of reasons I think having structured questions makes things easier … I used to be very shy and I think in my undergrad, it took me a long time to come out of my shell and take part in group

131

work because I could not feel like I could jump in and having a structure, having someone say, "alright it’s your turn, answer the question" just got me to do it. [Sarah in group one]

Both groups agreed that structuring dialogic reflection can aid in getting the group started with sharing reflections especially early stages when group members are not as comfortable in doing so. Structures may allow equal space for each member to contribute however it may also limit those who choose to share more.

In doing that you are forcing participation at the same time people who share too much would be limited … Structures can’t last forever and can become too awkward to move on with. [Me in group one]

Both groups felt that while structures are useful to start with, they are nonetheless antithesis to natural dialogue hence it is not sustainable in the long run.

If you got those quieter figures or people who can’t think of anything to say then having a structure especially at the beginning at the start of the group would perhaps encourage other people to contribute. But going back to it, I think it is quite an unnatural. [May in group one]

It was recommended by both groups that a dialogic reflection starts with a structure, using a model of reflection to get over the initial reticence and eventually transition to a more free- flowing discussion.

Secondly, it is also important what the purpose of these structures and how they support the purpose of a dialogic reflection. In the discussion about Tigelaar et al.’s (2008) research, Isabella in group two noted it seems like a “more productive” way of reflecting however may appear to be more detached. An unstructured dialogic reflection, on the other hand, was described by some co-researchers as “in the moment” [Sarah in group one] and “impulsive” [April in group one]. However, I questioned if reflections were even meant to be productive in the first place. Reflection is inefficient and requires one to halt to think and experiment way of doing things which are only sometimes better, it is a process of trial and error (Schön 1983). In this vein,

132

reflection is anathema to organisations that prioritise efficiency. Reflections are perhaps productive in the long run as improvements are made as a result of it however these require a certain acceptance that some inefficiencies are required. If a dialogic reflection was structured such that it would be a more productive or efficient way of reflecting, then it would be arguably contradictory to what dialogic reflection is.

I had noted in my reflective log,

I have started this group where the members have already spent approximately nine months with each other in the curriculum, hence they are comfortable with each other and trust each other to a certain extent. It would be very different if I were to do this research with a new group of students who just joined the course. At present discussions about structures being useful for new groups and building trust through a structure are purely speculative and theoretical as we have not experienced it in the research. [My reflective log of session four]

Heron (1999) classified a highly structured group such as Tigelaar et al.’s (2008) research as Apollonian, which is characterised by having a detail pre-defined programme. This research, which was loosely structured, on the other hand would be considered as Dionysian where decisions on activities or topics of discussions are dependent on the feel and motivations of the group (Heron 1999). This Dionysian planning that the research groups had used was heavily influenced by what we found of interest for discussion. For example, in first session, both groups decided that we wanted to better understand dialogic reflection and at that time, my co- researchers had just returned from a placement. Hence, separately and incidentally, both groups arrived at the same decision to conduct a dialogic reflection about dealing with difficult educators in session two. Later in the research, my co-researchers were more predominantly involved in PBL modules, dialogic reflections on PBL became more topical. I had noted in my reflective log,

133

Despite all the redirection and discussion about the differences between PBL and dialogic reflection, I have noticed that PBL experiences still remain the main topic of discussion during the dialogic reflection sessions. While we have had interesting reflective sessions about placement experiences earlier, they have not been recurring nor have they been as stirring as the reflective sessions about PBL. I think it is time to acknowledge this phenomenon … that in a dialogic reflection, it is more natural or perhaps even helpful to talk about something that is affecting the members at that point in time. [My reflective log of session five]

I had tried on a few occasions to draw the differences between PBL reflections and dialogic reflections however I still noticed that the groups tended to veer towards talking about PBL issues. By session five, I had come to accept that this was an effect of Dionysian mode that the research groups found themselves in. My co-researchers in both groups agreed that dialogic reflection is rather naturally about what is topical. It appears that a dialogic reflective group prefers the Dionysian mode of enquiry and this corroborates with the recommendations that both groups had arrived at: to have a natural and free-flowing dialogue. The Dionysian mode is important for learning that features “strong emotional and personal growth dimensions” (Heron 1999, p. 80) and this is certainly true for dialogic reflection. The emotional and personal growth dimensions of dialogic reflection will be elaborated in Chapter Ten.