Mezirow's Theory Of Reflective Learning

Despite the plethora of information surround the concept of reflection it remains an ambiguous term; this is partly to do with a lack of sufficient definition and clarity with regard to the concept. Due to the lack on clarity it is often hard to compare different models/definitions of reflection, however the differences between authors ' accounts of the reflective processes are largely those of terminology, detail and the extent to which the processes are arranged in a hierarchy. Lets first look at some definitions of reflection:

Reflective learning is the process of internally examining and exploring an issue of concern, triggered by an experience, which creates and clarifies meaning in terms of self, and which results m a changed conceptual

This is not necessarily the case for all of the literature on Reflection; a brief overview will highlight the many contrasting theories that surround the concept: for example if we compare the process as described by Mezirow (1981) and Schon (1991).

Mezirow(1981) identifies seven levels of reflection that are placed within a hierarchy. Mezirow makes the distinction between reflective action and non-reflective action. Non-reflective actions are defined as Habitual Action, thoughtful Action and Introspection. With reflective actions ranging from reflectivity to theoretical reflectivity (which involves challenging one 's underlying assumptions resulting in a changed perspective). However Schon (1991) only identifies three stages those of conscious reflection, criticism and action Mezirow’s terminology is derived from the work of philosopher, and one of the first to discuss reflectivity, Dewey(1993). Dewey is often considered to be the originator of the concept of reflective thinking as an aspect of learning and education, with his definition of reflection being used

Due to the semi-generic nature of our project, I soon became aware of others posing similar ideas which highlighted the main problem for our idea: a lack of originality.

I called a quick meeting in which we agreed to get rid of the idea and recommence brainstorming. I think having already had one idea “fail” meant that we were now developing ideas through a far more critical lens and in a far more cautious and logical way. As such the ideas produced were both more original and viable in a commercial sense. Due to time constraints we headed into our pitch with barely any market research done, which the investor was quick to touch upon by asking if we were aware of a company providing a potentially very similar service to the one that we were describing. Not only was this embarrassing because it made us look very unprepared, especially because they were unaware of the extenuating circumstances, ie the last minute change of idea. Thankfully, despite the embarrassment, we took two huge things away; 1. Our idea was viable in a commercial sense 2. If we could successfully find a niche that meant we weren’t competing without big firms then