Reflective practice and action?

In the model of situational learning presented by Dealtry (2004) , I find myself involved quite regularly in all four categories of learning.

Situation
		Familiar	Unfamiliar
Learning task	Familiar	A A learning task in an area you know well (low risk)	B A familiar learning task but applying it to a new situation (moderate risk)
	Unfamiliar	C An unfamiliar learning task but in a familiar work situation (moderate risk)	D New learning in a new part of the organisation (high risk)

In my case, Box A represents courses of mine that are popular and well established, which customers request on a regular basis. The learning that takes place on/after these events is driven by feedback from participants, which encourage me to consider making small modifications to the way I facilitate the course. Box B learning takes place when one of these familiar and popular courses is booked by a new client. The preparation needed in this case is to research the new context, including interviewing typical course delegates. This research provides material for reflection, which will be converted into modifications to the way that the course is delivered; content, style, duration, assessment etc. Both Box A and Box B are well established routines in my company. Box C is my company's preferred forum for Product Development. We get feedback from our regular market research that there is a potential demand for a 'new' course. Having conducted our research, we would aim to find an existing client who would be willing to partner us in prototyping the event. This means that the only learning that needs to take place is learning about the impact of the new course. Box D is altogether more risky, and would not be my chosen place of learning. However, in order to make that Box as safe as possible, putting a lot of effort (would that be reflection?) into getting to know the context by researching and interviewing the client's business, invariably gives a new course a better chance of success.

The Clegg et al (2002) model of reflective practice in academics has less obvious application in my practice.

	Action	Reflection
Immediate	A Immediate action that follows workshops, often characterised by an instrumentalist approach to instruction	B Reflection-on-action, most usually by experienced practitioners with relevant and immediate opportunities for reflection
Deferred	C Action following reflection does not happen because there is no immediate opportunity to put anything into practice	D Reflection following action is often prompted by formal assessment processes – this also happens after a period of rumination

Reflection takes place in a number of situations; following an event, to respond to a new client need, to respond to competition in the market place, to create a new dynamic in my own business, as a result of fresh research, reading etc. 

Perhaps because my clients are business people, there is a tendency to value tangible ideas, rather than theoretical ones, and whilst many clients require a report at the end of a course or courses, they would expect a series of action recommendations based on our experience. That seems to me to put these reflections in Clegg et al's Boxes B and D. However, in both cases the reflection would result in action, so the separation of these two activities feels forced in my situation.

One other situtation bears consideration; reflection to stimulate action. In my experience, committing to make a presentation or facilitate a course on an unfamiliar subject is a valuable method of forcing myself (or colleagues) seriously to engage in Deep Learning about a subject, and to integrate it into my existing knowledge base. 

Both of these models (Dealtry, 2004 and Clegg et al, 2002) have reflective journals as a key mechanism through which reflection takes place. In my case, summaries of my learning are made, but rarely purely as a learning journal. Much more typical is that the learning is recorded as part of the report given to a client, or appears when the next proposal for a course of a similar type is written for a new client. This may practice may lack academic rigour, but in my experience, it does inform and support the incorporation of my learning into future projects. This enables me to discover whether my reflections had any validity. However, the weakness of this approach means that the drive towards CPD is left to chance.

In creating my e-portfolio for H808, I hope to experiment with creating new routines around reflection that I can incorporate in my professional career.

References

Clegg, S., Tan, J. and Saeidi, S. (2002) ‘Reflecting or acting? Reflective practice and continuing professional development in higher education’ (online), Reflective Practice, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 131–46. Available from: http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940220129924 (accessed 4th December 2009).
Dealtry, R. (2004) ‘Professional practice: the savvy learner’ (online), Journal of Workplace Learning, vol. 16, no. 1/2, pp. 101–109. Available from: http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13665620410521567 (accessed 3rd December 2009).