Morton-Cooper and Palmer (2000) explain that experiential learning is about engaging in cycles of enquiry followed by experimentation or testing of new ideas in practice. Learning from experience also involves piecing together fragments of real life experience and deriving ‘ways of knowing’ (p. 155) through interpreting patterns and links. Such learning involves reflective practices. Reflection is not a new concept, asserts Klopper (1999). It is about looking back and producing a likeness to contemplate about, to mull over. Like mirrors deflecting light, reflection also illuminates and helps one see more clearly. Klopper (1999) differentiates between reflection-in-action (think about and evaluate what one is doing while doing it) and reflection-on-action (a post-mortem or action replay, in the light of the outcomes). Morton-Cooper and Palmer (2000) emphasise that in order for learning from experience through reflection to become a fundamental practice, there need to be an organisational measure and vehicles to facilitate such reflective learning. They recommend a recording process by means of portfolios (reflective diary or journaling); active reviewing followed by reflection. Like a three-directional (recording, reviewing and reflection) revolving door situated between practice and context. Klopper (1999) also suggests three phases: awareness, critical analysis of the situation, and development of a new perspective. She associates four terms with the second phase: critical analysis, namely association, integration, validation and appropriation. She emphasises that the outcome of reflection is learning.
In contrast to the foresaid, Ramsey (2005) presents a relational or social constructionist perspective. She finds David Kolb’s all too familiar learning cycle (concrete experience, observation and reflection, forming abstract concepts, and testing in new situations) problematic in that in that its realist assumptions imply a single reality. This negates the possibility of multiple realities that could be narrated. She rejects the notion of ‘concrete experiences’ and refers to constructed relational processes. Instead of concrete experiences, she moves to use narrative, which provides a metaphor where audience and narrator meet. Reality, from a constructionist perspective, is an ongoing performance. Reality is not distinct from us; it is not something that happens to us. She therefore finds observation and reflection problematic. The narrating of past events makes it a current performance of those events. Narrative includes the hearing of alternative voices and a more communal reflection on events. She argues that it is possible to locate all our actions within stories, which free us from the ‘truth game’ to reduce multiple stories to a supposedly correct one. People often find it difficult to tell a story with another person’s ‘voice’. Each of the different narratives offers a different perspective. This offers a new way of reflective learning, to lay oneself open for the other narratives.
Having taken cognisance of other narratives, it is possible to re-narrate future performance paths by coordinating with other persons. Action is never individual, but all the time influenced by other parallel narratives. This is where joint action comes in, it is crucial for the relational learning cycle of Ramsey (2005), illustrated in the figure below. She concludes that it would be incongruent to claim the narrative learning cycle is right and others are wrong, instead it is offered as alternative to the individualistic learning cycle of Kolb.
Klopper, H. 1999. Nursing education: a reflection. Pretoria: Amabhuku.
Morton-Cooper, A. & Palmer, A. 2000. Mentoring, preceptorship and clinical supervision: a guide to professional roles in clinical practice. 2nd edition. London: Blackwell Science.
Ramsey, C. 2005. Narrative, from learning in reflection to learning in performance. Management Learning, 36(2), 219-235.