Talk:Reflective practice/Archives/2011

Self publicity section

I've removed the following, that was added by Nickbowskill (talk · contribs) on 15 November [1], as apparent self-publicising of a random PhD student's own work, unless anybody can cite strong 3rd party evidence of wider interest for inclusion:

Bowskill's Shared Thinking 2008

Nicholas Bowskill and colleagues at the University of Glasgow (Steve Brindley, Vic Lally, Steve Draper and Quintin Cutts) have developed and implemented a process of collective reflection. Bowskill gave this social and dialogical approach the label 'Shared Thinking.' This approach transforms the idea and practice of reflection into a context-sensitive process. Rather than a focus only upon individual experience and the use of cyclical approaches to reflection (as below), Shared Thinking uses technology to leverage the diversity of experiences from reflective conversations in a whole-class, and to make them visible. By making them public in this way, the Shared Thinking approach creates a resource for cognitive and situative development. This interdependent approach allows each participant to use the group as a resource - for perspective-taking (Piaget). Each individual is able to get the 'take' of others for comparison with their own views and experiences.

In this way, Shared Thinking is a radical departure from the ideas and practices of reflection based around individuals thinking alone or in small groups. Here instead is a structured and transferable practice for collective reflection and organisational learning. Shared Thinking provides quantitative and qualitative measures of collective experience. Such measures and practices also offer a new whole-group pedagogy and a new research method for investigating experience at the collective level.

This is early doctoral research in an inter-disciplinary project funded by the Kelvin-Smith Scholarship at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. The work was influenced by the work of Walter Stroup (University of Texas, Austin) and a group of his colleagues/peers using shared computer simulations in class. It was equally influenced by the Making Learning Visible project at Harvard along with the work of David McConnell at Glasgow Caledonian University on Groups and Communities. Other influences include Piaget's Perspective-Taking and Alison King's work on student-generated questions.

Reference http://sharedthinking.info

Jheald (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs 1988

I felt the need to justify my rewriting of the section on Gibb's reflective cycle.

Here is what was in that section before I rewrote it:

"Gibbs’ model is a circular process of reflection where a practitioner must not only describe the experience but include an evaluation and analysis of how they were feeling during the experience. This examination of the emotions associated with the situation allows a practitioner to make sense of the situation and come to a conclusion of what else could be done, or what other options could have been taken. The important aspect of Gibbs’ model is the final stage whereby an Action Plan is formulated to examine what actions would be employed if the situation arose again."

and then the citation: <ref>Gibbs, G. (1988) ''[http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/gibbs/index.htm Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods]'', Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, [[Oxford Polytechnic]]. London: Further Education Unit. ISBN 1853380717. Section [http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/gibbs/ch4_3.htm#4.3.5 4.3.5].</ref>

I checked the reference provided and find that the following statements are not supported by any content in the citation, which is the online version of Gibbs' original work.

• "circular process of reflection": not supported by a statement of Gibbs; presumably derived from the diagram on the cited webpage; but the text itself does not portray the reflective cycle as a cycle, but as a process of stages to be worked through from beginning to end. There is no suggestion that the reflective process, per se, is circular.
• "must not only describe the experience but include an evaluation and analysis of how they were feeling during the experience": Gibbs does not present his structured debriefing stages as necessary stages that must be followed through; the use of "must not only" is misleading and sounds like a subjective personal interpretation of Gibbs' writing.
• "This examination of the emotions associated with the situation allows a practitioner to make sense of the situation and come to a conclusion of what else could be done, or what other options could have been taken.": this is misleading as Gibbs does not explicitly state that the logical flow of thought is as this sentence describes.
• "The important aspect of Gibbs’ model is the final stage": the citation provided does not provide any wording or evidence to support this assertion.

I sincerely hope that what I have discussed here sufficiently justifies my edit to the article. Thanks. Txsling (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above - I found that the previous text dates from this old revision of the article (dated 12 September 2010) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reflective_practice&oldid=384339398 - by an unnamed editor on IP address 120.18.162.126. It remained unchanged until today. Txsling (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)