Читать книгу Becoming a Reflective Practitioner - Группа авторов - Страница 18

Imagine the practitioner’s cry – ‘tell me what reflection is so I can do it!’ However, it is not as simple as that. It is more complex than simply applying a technique, although on the surface, it might seem that a prescription is just what is required. Indeed, many practitioners and educators may misguidedly view it as such. If so, reflection becomes a task to be done rather than something meaningful and transformative.

When I first explored reflective theories, I discovered the work of Schön (1983, 1987), Boud et al. (1985), Boyd and Fales (1983), Gibbs (1988), and Mezirow (1981). It is not my intention to review these theories in any depth. The reader is directed to the primary sources to explore these theorists more deeply and explore more recent ideas.

All models of reflection should be viewed through a sceptical lens. Rather like the skilled craftsman, the practitioner will choose the tool that is most helpful. Models are not prescriptions for reflection. They must always be viewed as a heuristic, as a means to an end. In a technical rational society, reflective models are likely to be grasped as authoritative. The risk, from this perspective, is that practitioners will fit their experience to the model of reflection rather than use the model creatively to guide them to gain insight. It is easy to get wrapped up in the technology of reflection, especially in a learning culture dominated by technical rationality. It is a Western technological addiction (Rinpoche 1992).