Dialogic Reflection

The literature has indicated that the typical lecture-and-listen method is not an effective way to teach and learn about reflection (Russell 2005). Reflection is nebulous and ill-defined (Schön 1983). Unlike the study of human anatomy, there is no right and wrong answer to it (Wong et al. 2016). It should not be straightforward and also should not be treated as such in education. Learning about reflection and how to do it is important to occupational therapy practice. However, reflecting on what reflection means to the individual and his or her practice takes precedence. Unfortunately, this answer is only found in oneself and not determined by the regulatory body, professional body nor the higher education institutions. Thus, the only way to do so is to practice it and reflecting on the meaning of the reflective process to the individual (Russell 2005), conducting a meta-reflection.

Arguably, reflection cannot be taught in a rote manner (Wong et al. 2016). The concept can be introduced to students, and they can also be lectured on the theories about it. However, it should be something that students learn from experiencing it according to Russell (2005). Schön’s (1983) reflective practice paradox also indicated that to understand reflective practice,

38

one has to practice it. This is perhaps an idea that is challenging to educators that prefer the more instrumental and didactic method of teaching where one has to understand before one can practice.

Reflection should not be taught, rather it should be guided (Russell 2005). However, this begs the question of who is best to do so. Boniface’s (2002) study indicated the supervisor may not be an ideal person do so as he or she may sit in judgement of the student from a position of superior knowledge, experience and power over the student’s academic path. If reflection is something that is required to be experienced, developed over time, guided but not supervised, then perhaps it is possible that reflection in a peer setting would be the best environment to learn reflection and be supported on it.

3.3.1. Reflection as A Dialogic Process

Reflection is often seen as a monological process (Clouder and Sellars 2004). Schön’s (1983; 1987) examples of reflection in his works depicted scenes where professionals appear to be talking to a superior however the reflective conversation is between the professional and the situation, not with the superior. Johns (2013) described that reflection is necessarily on the self while Boud et al. (1985) described reflection as a process that one conducts in isolation. Dewey (1933) called reflection as reflective thinking as it is an internal cognitive process. There are strong arguments for the reflective process to be something implicit and self-driven.

However, there are also indications that reflection can perhaps be treated as something that can be done with someone else as well. Boniface’s (2002) study suggested that there are certain people that individuals are more comfortable reflecting with. Driscoll (1994) encouraged nurses to make use of group situations such as discharge planning as settings for reflections to occur. Gibbs (1988) mentioned that stages of his reflective cycle can be done with different groups of people. Fish et al. (1991) provided a model of reflection for use between the teacher and student.

39

Research has suggested that reflection can perhaps be done with others (Gibbs 1988; Driscoll 1994), however, little is done to explicate the reflective process that occurs when it is done as a dialogue. In comparison, reflection as a monologue is widely theorised and utilised. Theories that suggested that it could be conducted in groups provided some explanation on the process of reflection itself that one of the members in the conversation undertakes but they do not consider the dialogic aspect of it (Gibbs 1988; Driscoll 1994). As a result, they seem to have only provided another theory of reflection and not reflection as treated as a dialogue.

3.3.1.1. Glazer et al. (2004)

Glazer et al.’s (2004) research into collaborative reflection indicated that it is valuable to the development of teachers. Their research also showed that facilitation is important to drive the group and to ensure a safe environment. However, the role of the facilitator can shift in the group as members start to take on the leadership role. Though initially designed to be structured, their groups had behaved differently; one group designed the group reflection to be the structured linearly, brainstorming, grouping topics for discussion, reflection and finally closure. The other group, however, found it hard to follow the linear structure as designed by the first group and approached it more dynamically. Nonetheless, Glazer et al. (2004) had not theorised the process of reflecting in this manner nor did they offer a more in-depth explanation about the dynamics and how the interaction had resulted in reflection. Glazer et al.’s (2004) research also seemed to have focused on finding a solution to problems that the members had voiced and it is questionable whether their use of reflection is for problem-solving or professional or personal development. There is little indication of how the teachers had developed even though they noted that it was a valuable and positive experience. Hence while they had offered suggestions on how it can be carried out, they had contributed little to understanding the dynamic process of reflecting in groups, the personal or professional development it may have triggered and what actually happens when the reflective process is approached collaboratively.

40

Glazer et al. (2004) carried out their research in two steps, first to build a framework for collaborative reflection and then to test it out. Initially, a group of five teachers and three researchers met to explore the nature of professional reflection and to develop a process of reflection as productive professional development. These meetings were open-ended discussions and the collaborative group decided on the steps required to organise and structure collaborative reflection. These decisions were then tested with another different group of teachers and who met to reflect collaboratively as structured by the previous group. A final meeting was then devoted to the discussion about the process.

Glazer et al. (2004) had two distinct phases in their research: a design phase and an experimental phase. While I felt that it was collaborative to recruit participants to design the execution of the collaborative reflection, there was no continuity in the experimental phase because the group of participants involved in the design phase was different from that of the experimental phase. They have concluded that the process of the collaborative reflection had differed quite significantly from how it was initially designed. Perhaps the major cause of this was the fact that the participants who designed it did not experience it and those who experienced it were not involved in the designing phase. The lack of continuity throughout the entire research process is perhaps the reason behind incongruity between the intended design of the group reflection and the actual execution. The researchers also analysed collaborative reflection without collaborating with either group of participants. With reference to the paradigm of dialogic reflection discussed later in Chapter Four, I saw a clear mismatch between the method of research and the topic Glazer et al. (2004) intended to theorise.

3.3.1.2. Tigelaar et al. (2008)

Tigelaar et al. (2008) researched into the teacher interaction process and collaborative reflection process during peer meetings. Five experienced teachers and a teacher trainer met thrice to understand and improve their teaching practice. The meetings were held two months apart lasting forty-five minutes each. The meetings were videotaped and transcribed. The relationship

41

between the types of interaction and the content of collaborative reflections were analysed using two frameworks. The meetings were conducted using the following structure:

1. Phase one: Reading of all critical incidents submitted by members and one account was selected for discussion and analysis

2. Phase two: Clarifying questions were prepared over a short break, no solutions or alternatives were implied or suggested

3. Phase three: All clarifying questions were asked and answered by the presenter whose account had been selected in phase 1

4. Phase four: Analysis and advice was prepared over a short break 5. Phase five: Advice and analysis were given

6. Phase six: Positives and negatives of the advice and analysis were discussed

7. Phase seven: The presenter of the account selected the most suitable solution and analysis

8. Phase eight: Participants evaluated what had been discussed.

Tigelaar et al.’s (2008) research appeared to contradict the natural process that Glazer et al.’s (2004) research group had preferred. It is also questionable if the interactions in Tigelaar et al.’s (2008) research, while may appear to be collaborative, can be considered dialogic because of how each phase was isolated from each other. Such an approach was not indicative of any exchange of ideas and seemed rather one-sided where the participants reflected for the presenter rather than reflect with the presenter. Additionally, there was no indication of the use of reflection as more than a problem-solving method even though non-technical aspects such as emotions and morals were discussed. Tigelaar et al.’s (2008) research failed to shed light on the collaborative process as they had claimed or show the value of reflecting in groups to the development of teachers, whether professionally or personally.

42

Unlike Glazer et al. (2004), Tigelaar et al. (2008) had designed their peer meeting using the critical incident method (Hendriksen 1997). This resulted in a highly structured process of reflection that was collaborative but perhaps not dialogic. Additionally, there is little equality in this reflective process because one incident was nominated out of five to be reflected upon, suggesting that some participants had experiences that are more worth reflecting upon than others. Similar to Glazer et al.’s (2004) research, the researchers did not participate in the collaborative reflection.

Glazer et al. (2004) and Tigelaar et al. (2008) were key influences of this research, both of whom had carried out their research in the form of peer meetings. While they served as suggestions as to how a research about dialogic reflection can be conducted, they also served as cautionary tales of the implications of approaching my research in an unco-operative manner.

Both Glazer et al. (2004) and Tigelaar et al. (2008) had not described their research paradigm or their research methodology even though they had detailed the process of conducting their research. From their research designs, I inferred that they were conducting peer meetings as a form of action research. However, both research designs were not participatory as the researchers were theorising dialogic reflection by studying the behaviours and actions of their participants. I found this rather troubling as having considered the paradigm of this research it would have been contradictory to craft an understanding about dialogic reflection in an unco- operative manner.

I had designed the research similar to how Glazer et al. (2004) and Tigelaar et al. (2008) had conducted theirs, however, there were some areas I had chosen to deviate from. Peer meetings appeared to be the trend in the research about the topic. Appreciating the nature of dialogic reflection and the paradigm of my research, I decided that this was the best method to conduct this research. However, unlike Glazer et al. (2004) and Tigelaar et al. (2008), I wanted the

43

research to involve the co-researchers as much as possible in my action research. Co-operative Inquiry hence became the obvious methodology of choice.

3.4. Conclusion

The literature review elicited that reflection, even when suggested that it could be done collaboratively, is still an internal and monologic process. There appeared to be some inherent difficulties in understanding reflection as a collaborative, dialogic process and how it contributes to one’s development. While Glazer et al.’s (2004) and Tigelaar et al.’s (2008) research had suggested methods in which it can be organised for teachers they had not explicated the dynamic nature of reflection in this manner. Burton (2000) had critiqued that

Nurses are now directed to reflect effectively and practice effectively. When there is scant evidence to support the use of reflection, why does the United Kingdom Central Council, English National Board for Nursing and Midwifery and Health Visiting and institutes of nurse education insist that nurses at all levels of experience reflect. (Burton 2000, p. 1)

While it is important to understand how to conduct dialogic reflection, the more important question to answer is if dialogic reflection will contribute any professional development to the participating individuals. If not, it renders the former question moot. It is vital that dialogic reflection steers clear from being a concept that is applied blindly in education, just because it is another variant of reflection and assumed to be beneficial to professional growth. The value of dialogic reflection was thus of great importance to this research.

45

Part Two: Developing This Study

About Dialogic Reflection

This part of the thesis concerns the methodological considerations of this research. It introduces the research question along with the paradigm of this research. I also discuss my position on the purpose of enquiry. This guided me to developing a research study on dialogic reflection that was highly collaborative and reflective.

Chapter Four explains the research question and objectives. The participatory paradigm is

introduced, and research methodologies is also discussed.

Chapter Five describes research as it was conducted, from literature review to conclusion of the

47

Chapter 4. Paradigm and Purpose of