Edev_501 Response wk10_6

Thanks for introducing the Strebel and Keys book. Like C, I couldn’t locate an online version. However, I liked the figure you made/ adapted and have reproduced it here for discussion.

strebel and keys

I particularly like this because of the way step 4 links with step 1. It shows clearly how the process of change is to be effected. If the text, “This is the new challenge” were added after “What must I change?” in step 4, the link would be extremely clear, but I suppose that people will recognise that implication without it. The repeated cycle shares the iterative aspect of Dewey’s model of experiential learning as presented in Kolb (1984):

deweys model of experiential learningDewey’s four stages differ from Strebel and Key’s. In the model as presented, Dewey assumes a target, a final purpose. S&K describe a continually evolving (pun intended) environment although their starting question may lead to a single target. The degree to which impulse overlaps with challenge, investigation with observation, construct with knowledge and change with judgement can be debated. Arguably, there is a high degree of similarity between each four set of terms, but I won’t discuss that here. What is more important to note is that both describe the mechanism of change.

Also as W has shown, both models can be tied into the reflection discussion by observing that stage 1 may be achieved either through individual personal agency (by noticing a problem) or through the imposition of a problem from outside (by having others direct the attention to the problem). In personal agency there is a link to reflection-in-action and by outside direction to the need for reflection-on-action. Stage 2, observation and investigation, potentially blurs some of the demarcation lines as reflection-on-action is one aspect of the actions involved.

Neither model directly mentions Wilson’s future reflection (Wilson, 2008), although an interpretation of stage 2 can imply the consideration of alternative actions and outcomes. It would be difficult to support a reading of stage 3 without a sense of how the knowledge derived in stage 2 would be utilised. Hussein (2008) rephrases Wilson’s reflecting-on-the-future to reflection-for-action (p. 415). He also adds a category that includes any reflection done prior to the critical incident being reflected upon. Hussein’s reflection-to-action (p. 415) supposes a cycle of reflections and incorporates earlier judgements into the current cycle thereby making explicit the intersection between S&K’s and Deweys stage 4 and 1.

Hussein, J. W. (2008). An existential approach to engaging adult learners in the process of legitimizing and constructing meanings from their narrative knowledge. Action Research, 6(4), 391–420. http://doi.org/10.1177/1476750308097026

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wilson, J. (2008). Reflecting-on-the-future: a chronological consideration of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(2), 177–184. http://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802005525

About theCaledonian

Scot living in north Japan teaching at a national university.
This entry was posted in EDEV_501, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s