A Taxonomy of Reflection
First, to reflect is NOT to communicate. Reflection is metacognition, not communication. When we ask students to write a reflection paper, we are asking them to communicate, not reflect. They are two separate things.
Yes, writing can be and is usually an excellent reflective device (not for everyone), but we don't really grade them on the reflection, but on how they write it up. If they use writing to reflect, the product will not be in a form that necessarily follows rhetorical forms and makes sense to a reader. If the reflector is too concerned about making sense to another, he/she will miss out on the depth and truthfulness of the reflection.
Reflection must first examine the experience fully, then do something with it. In reflection papers we really want students to evaluate, not reflect, so they are skipping the real steps of reflection.
When we think of reflection, we should think of a mirror. How many of us have looked at every pore and wrinkle and freckle on our faces? Not every time, but over time we have. I know the brown patches and white spots on my forehead, and you do too. Reflection is first close inspection. The reflector must first look at an experience, either in real time or in retrospect, in detail.
And let me add, this reflection of our pores and wrinkles takes place in private! (or should!)
Then the reflector can do something with it. In fact, once the reflector has really examined the experience, what to do with it will be pretty clear, probably. Such things as contrasting, comparing, taking apart, applying, predicting, assessing, evaluating, and creating something new can come from the examination, and will probably logically grow from it.
When we reflect on a text, we are reflecting on our experience of it as well as what is really in the text.
Deep reflection of one thing may be worth shallow reflection of five or more things. Reflection takes time and we value output and speed rather than depth.
Yes, writing can be and is usually an excellent reflective device (not for everyone), but we don't really grade them on the reflection, but on how they write it up. If they use writing to reflect, the product will not be in a form that necessarily follows rhetorical forms and makes sense to a reader. If the reflector is too concerned about making sense to another, he/she will miss out on the depth and truthfulness of the reflection.
Reflection must first examine the experience fully, then do something with it. In reflection papers we really want students to evaluate, not reflect, so they are skipping the real steps of reflection.
When we think of reflection, we should think of a mirror. How many of us have looked at every pore and wrinkle and freckle on our faces? Not every time, but over time we have. I know the brown patches and white spots on my forehead, and you do too. Reflection is first close inspection. The reflector must first look at an experience, either in real time or in retrospect, in detail.
And let me add, this reflection of our pores and wrinkles takes place in private! (or should!)
Then the reflector can do something with it. In fact, once the reflector has really examined the experience, what to do with it will be pretty clear, probably. Such things as contrasting, comparing, taking apart, applying, predicting, assessing, evaluating, and creating something new can come from the examination, and will probably logically grow from it.
When we reflect on a text, we are reflecting on our experience of it as well as what is really in the text.
Deep reflection of one thing may be worth shallow reflection of five or more things. Reflection takes time and we value output and speed rather than depth.
Comments
Post a Comment