OU blog

Personal Blogs

Design Museum

Reflection or projection? An insight through Vygotsky

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Jonathan Vernon, Friday 21 December 2012 at 06:27

On Reflection

I can appreciate that a psychologist or therapist can guide someone through patterns of thinking and behaviour in order to resolve issues. However, reflection without guidance, without parameters, might simply re-enforce the underlying patterns of behaviour and thinking.

Does it help to dwell on the past?

Might it be no better than what Vygotsky calls ‘ideal woolgathering’? (1998:23)

Might it not be better to worry more about what you do next, your mood, behaviour and attitude in the future – this you can effect, the past you cannot. If reflection is used in any way as a form of assessment then it is inviting the student to expose themselves, to provide a biased insight into how they go about things.

If psychologists are to be understood, as well as the views of some very successful woman, whilst men will overplay their skills and abilities, women will underestimate them. If used as a tool to form a view of a student’s successful acquisition of subject knowledge will such reflection therefore tend to favour men over women?

Would we not achieve more if we treated this reflection as an audit, an objective statement of what took place in the past?

Then, instead of reflection we ‘project,’ we envisage, predict or plan, simple set-out what we’ll do next, do in the future? i.e. we put more thought, if not most of our energy, into thinking what we are going to do, rather than what we did.

I come to this conclusion after three decades of keeping a diary, often reflective.

Far from reassuring me about the value of reflection to change behaviour I detect patterns of behaviour that are so repetitive it becomes boring – too much navel gazing. Some successful people I know don’t give the past a moment’s thought, indeed, I do wonder if it is this that allows them to be successful. Instead of travelling with their head constantly turning to look back, their thoughts and actions are fixed firmly on the future.

Or is reflection of the moment? It is neither of the past or the future. Is it simply a mulling over of things? How prescribed can it be? Is it an objective or subjective exercise? Could someone else do it for you, or of you? Would the views of someone else not in fact be of greater value? Instead therefore of ‘looking at yourself in a mirror,’ you look into the eyes of someone else and ask them what they see.

Most importantly, by reflecting on the past, you plan your future actions, trying to build on experience and to avoid making the same mistakes.

REFERENCE

Vygotsky, L.S. (1998). Child psychology. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 5. Problems of the theory and history of psychology. New York: Plenum.

Permalink
Share post

Comments

A picture of Russell Larke

Reflection as a Feedback Loop: Single-Loop, Double-Loop, and the Projection Alternative

Reading back through older posts for inspiration, this one stopped me. The question Jonathan raises is not a philosophical one. It is a structural one. Is reflection a balancing feedback loop or a reinforcing one? Argyris and Schön made the distinction explicit. Single-loop learning corrects behaviour within an existing set of assumptions. Double-loop learning questions the assumptions themselves. Jonathan's observation that reflection without guidance might simply reinforce underlying patterns is a description of single-loop learning operating on a loop that needs double-loop correction. The diary keeps producing the same insights because the structure of the reflection is not changing. The patterns are repetitive because the loop is closed. The leverage point is not more reflection. It is reflection on the reflection. The shift from reflection to projection is a boundary decision. Reflection draws the boundary around the past. Projection draws it around the future. Jonathan's argument is that the second boundary is more useful because the first is not actionable. That is a systems claim about where intervention is possible. The past is a stock. The future is a flow. You can only act on the flow. The point about assessment is the sharpest part. If reflection is used as an assessment tool, the system is measuring the wrong variable. It is measuring the student's ability to narrate their process, not the process itself. That is a proxy measure, and proxy measures distort the system they are meant to observe. The distortion is not random. Jonathan identifies a gendered pattern. That is a system output, not an individual failing. The mirror and the eyes of another is the boundary problem in its simplest form. A mirror is a closed loop. The eyes of another introduce an external observer. That is the difference between a system that can correct itself and one that cannot. The external observer is not a luxury. It is a structural requirement for double-loop learning. Regards,
Russell Larke
BA (Hons) Business Management | MSc Candidate (Systems Thinking)
Trading Beyond Charts