It was a great privilege to get this opportunity, hosted by l2l in DIT Bolton St. to attend a workshop with Jenny Moon. She, in a way, started out this teaching and reflection thing for me c.13 years ago via a workshop I attended in Griffith College arranged by Dr. Fiona O’Riordan then working part time in lecturer support. I was looking for a real insight into how much, if at all I had grown. I also retain few specific memories of the actual workshop! Plus I have always struggled with reflection and self-awareness.
It was interesting for me to see how she introduced the concept of reflection and the specific focuses she brought. And also the literature that she conspicuously didn’t refer to. And again, as with all the “structured non-accredited” that we have here, it’s always a pleasure to see how another person teaches, to be a student again.
The largest part of the workshop was the case study on four successive iterations of a reflection. I enjoyed it, and was interested in how it revealed the process of self-examination and how self-examination can lead to compassion when continued, rather than mere empathy. Though I think I was the only person who saw it quite in that light at the workshop. For example others took the case study as ending up with the subject of the examination being placed in the centre, whereas for me, the author (doctor) was at the centre but having reevaluated their experience and empathising with the patient they were able to relate the patient’s experience to their own autobiography. This to me is more realistic, empathetic, and capable of producing compassion than an elision of the author for a not possible patient or student centred approach. This is, in part, why I have appreciated the experience of being a student several times during this project: it helps me empathise and relate my students’ experience with my own.
Of less interest and impact to me was the element Jenny felt was most important, and that we should take away and use: the epistimology of thought and learning section. I suppose we should have been an ideal audience for this being librarians and currently quite obsessed with fake news, media literacy, criticality etc. I need to take a further look at these materials to see what insight I can gain. I have a huge bias against psychological “types” I admit. And the process of categorising brief statements into different levels of critical perception seemed quite arbitrary and, divorced of concept, not hugely useful to me. I don’t think you can make a deep distinction based on keywords popping out of sentances. It needs much more and deeper investigation.
I will do this however, as I will review the case study that she did as I may use it with my RPD group next year.