Guided Structured Reflection Model versus Reflective Cycle Model - Case Study Example

 Guided Structured Reflection Model vs. Reflective Cycle Model Compare and Contrast two theories of reflection Introduction Since its inception, reflective practice has involved practitioners being very attentive to critical aspects of experience in order to make sense of them within the context of their work (Richards and Edwards, 2008). Generally, reflective practice enables practitioners to effectively know themselves and as consequence, learn to become increasingly effective. In 2001, Paget carried out a longitudinal, combined-method study of reflective education and from his findings, majority of respondents expressed that reflective education influenced outcomes of reflective practice (Bulman and Schutz 2004). At the same time, respondents felt that reflective practice influenced their clinical practice, enabling them to learn (Bulman and Schutz 2004). According to them, they had experienced personal, broad and long-term changes and continued to change even after formal reflection and supervision had ended (Bulman and Schutz 2004). According to another study done on Master of Science Advanced Nursing students, who had embraced reflective education, their experience indicated that the students had developed greater awareness and appreciation of what nursing was, had become more realistic, open and confident, more assertive and enlightened hence pushing the boundaries of the practice (Bulman and Schutz 2004). Reflective practice operates on numerous theories and schools of practices drawn from psychoanalysis, behavioral and humanistic backgrounds. Such models include: Kolb’s experiential learning cycle model; Boud, Keogh and Walker’s model of reflection (three-stage model) Gibb’s reflective cycle model, and John’s guided structured theory (Davies, Finlay and Bullman 2000). The guided structured reflection model was developed by John Christopher in 1995 (Kember 2001) while the Reflective cycle model developed by Gibbs G in 1988 (Richards and Edwards 2008). The essence of this essay is therefore to compare and contrast between these two theories of reflective practice, although in past they have appear to be similar certain aspects makes them to be different. Comparison Guided structured reflection model by Christopher John was as a result of intensive work in the Bunford Nursing Development unit in the dawn days of 1990s (Jasper 2003). Since then, the model has gone through numerous processes of developments and presentations. In developing the theory, John constructed the model based on three components of: utilizing the model of structured reflection, supervision and structured reflective diary (Jasper 2003). Commenting on this model, John observes that, “guided structured model consists of a series of questions which aim to tune the practitioner into her experience in a structured and meaningful way. It emerged as a natural sequence through which practitioners explored their experiences in supervision “(cited in Jasper 2003, p.84). Reflective cycle model was developed by Gibbs in 1988 and the understanding of the model is that reflective practice takes place in six steps: description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan (Richards and Edwards 2008). The two theories are common in that, both recognize reflection in practice as the basis for professional growth and development. The two theories identify and explore the importance of experiential knowledge that is derived from reflection. The exploration of the concept of reflection within the two theories borrows heavily from Schon’s (1983) understanding of reflection, where reflection is seen to have two components: reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action (Richards and Edwards 2008). According to Schon, reflection-in action takes place when an event is taking place and which a practitioner is involved in while reflection-on action involves looking back after event has already taken place (Richards and Edwards 2008). The two theories show similarities in the understanding of these two reflection concepts in that they view reflection-in action to require any professional or practitioner to engage in redesigning the professional aspects he or she is involved in while the particular events are taking place (Richards and Edwards 2008). With regard to reflection-on action the two models postulate that a practitioner should always engage in “retrospective contemplation of practice undertaken in order to uncover the knowledge used in practical situations, by analyzing and interpreting the information recalled” (Fitzgerald 1994 cited in Richards and Edwards 2008, p.15). Another similarity of the two theories is that both view reflective practice to be a process of learning from experience. For instance, according to Gibb’s Reflective Cycle there is description of the situation that a practitioner may be confronted with, process of analyzing feelings then followed by process of evaluating the experience which then usher in the making sense of the experience and after the this process conclusion is considered and other possible options considered and reflection done on experiences with aim of examining what would be the professional’s immediate action in the event the issue re-occur (Richards and Edwards 2008). On the other hand, John’s guided structured reflection model has been used as a guide for analyzing of critical incident or general reflection on experience. According to the model, learning experience by any practitioner was basically for uncovering and making explicit knowledge necessary in the profession. Guided structured model understanding of learning from experienced is guided and explained through adoption of borrowed ways of knowing from Carper (1978) work, that is, learning experience centers on aesthetics, self-awareness, moral knowledge empirics, and reflexivity (Richards and Edwards 2008). Further, Gibb’s Reflective Cycle model and John’s Guided Structured Reflection model express or provide an intellectual conviction that by going through the processes of reflection, a practitioner has the opportunity to embrace life long learning where reflection is seen to be contributing to promotion and development of independent, qualified and self-directed professionals. How does this happen? This may be the basic question to ask, but consider for moment the processes that have to be fulfilled and which are proposed by the models, where they are seen to encourage knowledge acquisition which guides the professional activities of the practitioner almost in a limitless span of period. At the same time, the processes of reflection the two models advocate for encourage development and refinement of theories which in turn guide the professional development and performance of practitioners in long-term period. Participating in long-term reflection, the two theories see the process to largely involve forming multiple views about a situation or experience which through reinforcement become solid. Through these processes the two theories see the need for the individual practitioner to remain or be committed to a range of actions that he or she considers important for his or her professional growth and development. In order to experience professional growth and development, the two models show much similarity in observing and encouraging professional empowerment through reflection. The understanding is that, empowerment that is generated from reflection enables the practitioners to confront and solve many arising conflicts, remain committed and become understanding which all combine to empower the practitioner to take decisive actions based on insightful reflection (Anonymous n.d). Contrast Generally, the main area that the two theories differ has to do with fact that reflective cycle theory is a staged framework for working through the exploration of an experience; it arose from a generalized educational framework, hence not practice-focused; and it stops at the stage of framing action (Jasper 2003). On the other hand, guided structured reflection model arises from practice based. Having education background, Reflective Cycle mode describes the cycles a profession or practitioner has to go through as part of reflection: Description, Feelings, Evaluation, Analysis, Conclusion and Action plan (Richards and Edwards 2008). Description stage involves thorough analysis, description and evaluation of event a practitioner is reflecting on. Feelings on the other hand, generally involve thoughts about self (self-awareness) and involve practitioner recalling and exploring those particular feelings dominating the minds during a particular event. In addition, evaluation basically deals and involves an individual making judgments about what happened and outlining what could have been good or bad about the experience. Moreover, analysis involves exploring the whole event and identifying the success and failures resulting from the event. Conclusion is the stage that dwells much on synthesis of information with aim of forming judgment based on the particular event. Action Plan involves making future plan and necessary preparedness in case the same event was to occur again (Richards and Edwards 2008). John’s model of Guided Structured Reflection on the other hand differs to this model in that it borrows heavily from Carper’s work of 1978 and the basis of the model has rested on need to uncover and develop explicit knowledge that can be useful in the practice. The models utilize and explores reflective practice basically within the reams of ‘ways of knowing’ and related cues (Jasper 2003). The five main cue questions dwell on: Aesthetics, Personal, Ethics, Empirics and Reflexivity (Jasper 2003). The cue questions are further divided into more focused questions that intention of the process is to promote detailed reflection. The five cue questions constitute: Description of the experience, which involve describing phenomenon, causal, context, and clarifying; Reflection on how past event was handled; Influencing factors where both internal and external factors are explored; Could I have dealt with the situation better? This is a question that forms basis for interrogation of numerous choices; Learning, drawing experiences from the reflected event and improving (Jasper 2003). Therefore looked upon in these main dimensions the two models are seen different mainly on the fact that Reflective Cycle model is theoretical in nature as it utilizes mainly education experiences while Guided Structured Reflection is practice based as much of its evidence draws from practice (Jasper 2003). As a process of reflection takes place, Guided Structured Reflection encourages the collaboration of learner and supervisor so as to ensure the reflection process is productive, on the other hand Reflective Cycle model is silent on the aspect of mutual collaboration hence conclusion is that reflection process that takes place through the model’s cycle are purely on individual basis. Guided Reflection model sees the supervisor’s role as vital in providing the necessary feedback which in turn become vital in enriching the education curriculum (Delany and Molloy 2009). The supervisor provides feedback on the progress of the student where at the same time the student is expected to reflect both verbally or through written self-assessment. As a result supervisors facilitate learner’s reflective capacity through use of questions and prompts (Delany and Molloy 2009). Reflective diaries also forms important reflective process of Guided Reflection model where reflective diaries or journal writing learners are able to establish a firm habit of reflection and be encouraged to develop ongoing skills in reflection (Delany and Molloy 2009). Since it is practice-based model, Guided Reflection encourages collaboration but differs mainly from Reflective Cycle model on the fact that Reflective Cycle is theoretical in nature hence no genuine establishment of any form of collaboration to be involved. Another contrast between the two models is reflected in the fact that Gibb’s model constitutes expressive knowledge (Hillier 2005) as a result of carrying out evaluation and analysis through the various cycles of reflection. The model in final conclusion suggests that Action plan forms the last step of reflection process where any practitioner has to come up with alternative strategies to go about in the eventual moment of the re-occurrence of the event. The assumption is that reflective process cannot be successful if at the end of it there is no genuine action of plans to be undertaken (Hillier 2005). On the other hand John’s model put emphasis on experienced knowledge where the practitioner is vested with responsibility of accessing and adequately understanding reflective information that in large part are acquired through empirical means (Johns and Joiner 2002). Experienced knowledge the model emphasize in greater part has to originate from patterns of knowing which constitute part of incorporated aspects of guided reflection. Experienced knowledge enables the practitioner to effectively analyze the aesthetic, personal, ethical, empirical and reflexive elements greatly experienced through a particular situation (Johns and Joiner 2002). Further the model explains that through experienced knowledge a practitioner has that capacity to carry out his or her reflection of ‘looking in’ and ‘looking out’ at the specific situation being experienced (Johns and Joiner 2002). Conclusion Reflective practice has evolved as professional practice that has capacity to enable practitioners learn from experience about themselves, their work and largely the way they relate to home and work, significant others and wider society and culture (Bolton 2010). In sense reflective practice establishes strategies with intentions of bringing out to the open various things, while at the same time frame appropriate and searching questions that have not been addressed before. On overall reflective practice has been regarded to provide safe and confidential ways of exploring and expressing experiences that in actual sense would be difficult to communicate. Within this respect reflective practice has been at forefront in challenging assumptions, ideological illusions, damaging social and cultural biases, inequalities, and further questioning of personal behaviors within practitioner’s practice (Bolton 2010). In trying to facilitate the above stated goals, reflective practice has operated within specific theories and models that have perceived and enhanced reflective practice as life-long learning experience where the learner is presented with opportunity to analyze various experiences in order to deduce information and learn from them. The formation of such theories has largely reflected the need for practitioner reflection on various experiences hence the theories propagate the idea of reflection. On overall, the theories due to their formation background appear to spearhead a common ground but once analysis of their processes is done it become clear that they manifest some contrasting ideas. Such example theories are: Reflective Cycle model by Gibbs formulated in 1988 and Guided Structured Reflection model developed by John on 1994. As much the two models shows similarities evidence shows that their major contrasting areas originate from the fact that Gibb’s theory originate from education context hence theoretical in nature thus gives little as much as practitioner practice is concerned. On the other hand John’s model is practice-based model and much of its assumptions are based on the practice. Therefore the relevance of understanding similarities and differences of reflective practice theories has to do with the need to improve critical thinking skills on the part of practitioner while at the same time gain deeper knowledge of reflective practice. Reference List Anonymous. N.d. Becoming Reflective. (Online). Available from: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:otfrfl9lwRAJ:blackwellpublishing.com:443/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9781405118330/ChapterOne.pdf+SIMILARITIES+BETWENN+REFLECTIVE+CYCLE+MODEL+AND+GUIDED+STRUCTURED+REFLECTION&hl=en&gl=ke&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgGDMzchLveMD7tjEzq_Sul0D3nkfD5Z0IL3Is1Y9m_iqw6NR5y1v_nTBTOe6Tm3dHFDxwjAn4pfG4quJBGND7OM5-jdsrz_DC-x80JirKElrCZ6V1jPw0N9ldulppI1spe18eG&sig=AHIEtbRD5wwIxkEsTo2yONnP (Accessed 05 December 2010). Bolton, G., 2010. Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development. NY, SAGE Publications Ltd. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=XSNiMpiHuwcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Reflective+practice&hl=en&ei=Qpb8TIKrN8qj4QbbrL2gBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed 05 December 2010). Bulman, C. and Schutz, S., 2004. Reflective practice in nursing. MA, Wiley-Blackwell. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=EXdrkh5PjY4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Reflective+practice+in+Nursing&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=c8f7TNS2OsOT4ga06_HFBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed 05 December 2010). Davies, C., Finlay, L., and Bullman., 2000. Changing practice in health and social care. NY, SAGE. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=9SxxPhq3uR4C&pg=PA84&dq=Reflective+cycle+model++and+guided+structured+reflection+model&hl=en&ei=u-37TMbpA6OW4gbVkJXPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Reflective%20cycle%20model%20%20and%20guided%20structured%20reflection%20model&f=false (Accessed 05 December 2010). Delany, C. and Molloy, E., 2009. Clinical Education in the Health Professions. Elsevier Australia. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=9K7bIfQUYHoC&pg=PA6&dq=differences+between+John%27s+and+Gibb%27s+models+of+reflection&hl=en&ei=IoX8TMeWLcXc4wbHucSyBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed 05 December 2010). Hillier, Y., 2005. Reflective teaching in further and adult education. NY, Continuum International Publishing Group. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=kPCdEIjbXGAC&pg=PA9&dq=Reflective+cycle+model&hl=en&ei=pJL8TJqHCsaJ4Qaax6HvBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=true (Accessed 05 December 2010). Jasper, M., 2003. Beginning reflective practice. Nelson Thornes. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=FKroWQSJ7z4C&pg=PA84&dq=USING+REFLECTIVE+MODEL+OF+NURSING+AND+GUIDED+REFLECTION&hl=en&ei=2pj7TLmkOImz4Qa_8L3pBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=USING%20REFLECTIVE%20MODEL%20OF%20NURSING%20AND%20GUIDED%20REFLECTION&f=false (Accessed 05 December 2010). Johns, C. and Joiner, A., 2002. Guided reflection: advancing practice. MA, Wiley-Blackwell. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORs0YHycJB0C&pg=PA9&dq=gUIDED+sTRUCTURED+rEFLECTION+MODEL&hl=en&ei=PZT8TJeCK5Lj4gbqoLXfDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gUIDED%20sTRUCTURED%20rEFLECTION%20MODEL&f=true (Accessed 05 December 2010). Kember, D., 2001. Reflective teaching & learning in the health professions: action research in professional education. MA, Wiley-Blackwell. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=tSprFZmJAxAC&pg=PA24&dq=USING+REFLECTIVE+MODEL+OF+NURSING+AND+GUIDED+REFLECTION&hl=en&ei=2pj7TLmkOImz4Qa_8L3pBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=USING%20REFLECTIVE%20MODEL%20OF%20NURSING%20AND%20GUIDED%20REFLECTION&f=true (Accessed 05 December 2010). Richards, A. and Edwards, S. L., 2008. A Nurse's Survival Guide to the Ward. Elsevier Health Sciences. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=ytmEHQjia0AC&pg=PA15&dq=Learning+by+doing:+A+guide+to+Teaching+and+Learning+Methods&hl=en&ei=0Zz7TIi-Ns334gaDn4ynBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Learning%20by%20doing%3A%20A%20guide%20to%20Teaching%20and%20Learning%20Methods&f=false (Accessed 05 December 2010). Read More