Fig. 1: A diagram I drew on my first reading of Dewey to illustrate the similarities between the double diamond design process and Rodger’s 4 phases of reflection.
“For Dewey, reflection must include action.”
In the class’s reading of Rodgers and Dewey, we learned that effective reflections necessitate experimentation and action after interrogating one’s experiences. Drawing parallels to the double diamond design process that I use in engineering, I likened ‘experiences’ to challenges that I wanted to solve. For me, proper reflection culminates in a ‘solution’; experimentation was seen as a final step that assigns value to the experiences, enabling self-improvement. In other words, reflection is a process that yields ‘better’ actions for one to take. Reflection begins when I look back upon an experience, allows me to find a ‘problem’ to improve and ends with me creating an actionable hypothesis that prevents this problem from occurring again. Moreover, Rodgers points out that “the process is cyclical”. After reflecting and acting upon the lessons, “testing [the hypothesis] becomes the next experience”, creating a positive feedback loop of reflection and better actions. On paper, this theory promises reflection that accomplishes significant perpetual self-improvement. If one continually reflects on collected experiences, one will have a stream of experiments that provides more ‘fuel’ for reflection. However, in practice, my experiences with reflection suggest that reflection is not always a unidirectional meaning-making process with clear next steps. In this post, I seek to expand the reflection process by reflecting on my experiences in USR.
At the beginning of the semester, I led a panel discussion on the topic of reflection. Together with a partner, we planned to take 15 minutes to run through the prepared content. However, as it was our first time leading a panel discussion, we struggled to manage time effectively and were unable to guide the class authoritatively towards a final wrap-up. With the post-panel-discussion feedback highlighting that we gave the impression of “prepar[ing] too much material for 20 minutes, then forgot to watch time”, I had an experience to reflect on. Understanding this experience as a problem of not knowing how to wrap up a discussion I was leading authoritatively, I hypothesized that by keeping a keener eye on the time and developing ‘ending’ strategies (e.g., wrapping up a discussion by stating “unfortunately, we seem to have run out of time, if any of you would like to continue, we can bring the discussion online to Telegram”), I would be able to overcome the said problem.
For the experiment step of the reflection process, I was able to act by testing out strategies I developed in the collaborative teaching stint that happened in the second half of the semester. Here, to ensure better time management, a detailed timed agenda (Fig. 2) was created. Steps were also taken to ensure that we could skip slides during the class and conclude the discussion “at the end of 10 minutes […] even if we have not finished”. We allocated a buffer time and set up a stopwatch on the computer that we were presenting from.
Fig. 2: An excerpt of the time-management planning created for the collaborative project
Yet, despite our best efforts, the 7-8-minute discussion session stretched out to nearly 17 minutes. This overflow was caused by an unexpected snag: when the discussion was being led by a team member, the other two of us were on the opposite side across the projector screen. While the two of us knew that the discussion was going over the allocated time, we were unsure of how we could step in and communicate with the member leading the discussion.
Fig. 3: The reflection phases with the added ‘reflection in-action’ and ‘intuition’ steps
Dishearteningly, the snag meant that the experiment did not bear fruit. Instead, a new problem was created—having to decide between letting time overrun and finding a method to communicate inconspicuously—requiring me to return to spontaneous interpretation. As I did not have the luxury of time to go through the Rodger phases of reflection, I jumped to another form of reflection: reflection-in-action. Then, my decision to let the discussion continue was based on my intuition that stepping in would reduce the authority of the member leading the discussion. As the class has spotlit authority as a key presentation skill, my experiences listening to previous panels (and leading my own) guided me to make the decision I did. Looking at the feedback received, I feel at peace with my decision to prioritize safeguarding authority. The feedback received communicated that we “displayed a good degree of control & authority” during the discussion.
As reflection continued (with my decision becoming a new experience), I struggled to find an alternative action that included both stepping in and maintaining the authority of the other groupmate. Even though I identified the problem, I found myself unable to generate possible next steps that would have worked well in the situation.
Fig. 4: The reflection phases with the added ‘reflection in community’ step
To get around the reflection roadblock, I approached my classmates to discuss the class my group led. While I remain far from the stage of ramifying selected hypotheses, communicating with others and reflecting in community allowed me to come up with some ideas of what I could have done better. Moreover, reflecting in community had another benefit. As Rodgers rightly argued, “interpretation can be fuller and more complex when generated in community”. As I reflected on my own performance with others, different interpretations of my actions were given, allowing me to form a fuller understanding of what I achieved (or failed to achieve). The written feedback received also serves as another form of community reflection. With a compilation of comment snippets from the class and the professor, the feedback served as a conduit that helped improve my interpretation of an experience.
Fig. 5: The reflection phases with added ‘communicating actionable ideas’ step
With the lessons from post 1 included in the reflection map, I started to wonder if the lessons from post 2 were applicable as well. Looking back at my USR journey so far, it is apparent that communicating ideas and sharing knowledge serves as another worthwhile path to reflect. While crafting my 3 reflection posts to share the knowledge I have distilled, discoveries were made, distillations grew stronger, and I became better at communicating my ideas. Furthermore, both the written work and the process of reflecting became yet another experience that I can reflect on and grow further.
“The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty: not knowing what comes next.” ~ Ursula K. Le Guin in The Left Hand of Darkness
On a concluding note, the iterative nature of reflection implies that the reflection map that I have created thus far is open to even more additions and changes. New reflection paths may be discovered as I grow out of student life and assimilate myself into the professional working world. Learning from new experiences and learning from the wisdom of others may shift the way I currently define the reflection phases. As I gain temporal distance from the experiences I have reflected upon thus far, the conclusions I reach may also differ. Thus, the aim of my portfolio is not to tell you what reflection should look like for you. Instead, I hope that in my attempt to concretise the lessons I have learned into a personal framework, I have kickstarted your attempts to make sense of your actions in this rather large world.
Epigraph taken from: “Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking” (Rodgers 2002)
