An agile literature review on reflective learning for managerial intellectual learning (MIL) research

 

Working paper: jh-2021-4-3-a (https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/04/an-agile-literature-review-on.html)

 

 

An agile literature review on reflective learning for managerial intellectual learning (MIL) research

 

 JOSEPH KIM-KEUNG HO

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Dated: April 3, 2021

 

Abstract: Literature review, performed in an agile way, is helpful to part-time undergraduate students who typically are busy. More fundamentally, the topic of agile literature review is an important topic in the research theme of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) as propounded by the writer. In this regard, this article has academic and pedagogical value by (i) providing an illustration on how an agile literature review exercise on reflective learning is conducted, (ii) contributing conceptually to the research venture of MIL and (iii) offering a concise study material on reflective learning.

 

Key words: agile literature review, managerial intellectual learning (MIL), reflective learning.

 

 

Introduction

Literature review, as a topic in Research Methods, is very often, a difficult one for part-time undergraduate students to learn and a challenging one for the lecturer, like this writer, to teach to these students. Both for teaching and research interest in intellectual learning, notably on managerial intellectual learning (MIL) (Ho, 2014; 2021), this writer is interested in developing literature review that is agile. Literature review, being agile, is particularly useful to part-time undergraduate students who typically have a busy pace of life. This motivates the writer to write this article, which presents an agile literature review exercise on reflective learning with the aims to (i) provide an illustration on how to conduct an agile literature review exercise and (ii) find out how the academic literature on reflective learning can support a more complicated comprehension on the research theme of managerial intellectual learning (MIL). The next section is to present the agile literature review findings on reflective learning. It is followed by a brief exploration on how the findings can allow for a more complicated comprehension on the research theme of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) as propounded by the writer.

 

An agile literature review on reflective learning

This agile literature review exercise was conducted by the writer form April 1 to 3, 2021. Agile implies being nimble, lightweight and responsive in this regard. It is a desirable feature of literature review mainly to part-time undergraduate students who typically have a busy pace of life. The literature search for this exercise made use of Google Scholar and two U.K. university e-libraries. The objective of the exercise is to gather some useful academic ideas on reflective learning to contribute to the study of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) of Ho (2014; 2021). The literature review findings on reflective learning are presented in Table 1.

Table 1:  A set of gathered academic ideas related to reflective learning, grouped in three categories

Categories	Academic ideas of reflective learning
Category 1: the basic nature of reflective learning (idea 1.1)	“Henderson, Napan, and Monterio use the term reflective learning to describe consciously thinking about and analyzing actions. Reflective practice is the process of obtaining new insights through self-awareness and critically reflecting upon present and prior experiences. More recently, reflective learning has been defined as a process of holding experiences up to a mirror in order to examine them from different perspectives, whereas reflective practice assists one to explore what exists “just beyond the line of vision.” (Jacobs, 2016).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.1)	“Johnson states that reflection is necessary to determine how one learns and one thinks, make sense of information, think critically, view problems from varying perspectives, develop new insights, bridge theory and practice, and understand one’s strengths and weaknesses” (Jacobs, 2016).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.2)	“As scholars have suggested, unexamined experience is an unreliable source of learning because we often make wrong judgments about our actions and what they mean (Reynolds and Vince 2007; Lambie 2009). However, when experience is reflectively examined, it helps learners to cross beyond impressions and immediate judgments, transforming the experience into a source for improved action and behaviour (Raelin 2001; Sadler 2010)” (Perusso et al., 2020).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.3)	“Schon (1987) distinguished two types of problems that practitioners encounter: instrumental and ill-defined. Managing the first type of problems requires a modus operandi Schon called ‘knowing-in-action’: an automatic execution of performance without reflection on the actions taken. However, often enough practitioners meet unexpected situations that interfere with their knowing-in-action, transforming an instrumental problem into an ill-defined one. To solve it, practitioners must re-think their knowing-in-action in ways that go beyond rules, facts and theories. They must restructure strategies and invent ‘on-the-spot’ experiments to test new understanding: reflection-in-action” (Perusso et al., 2020).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.4)	“Moving from understanding and interpreting experience to a more critical perspective, in the 1980s Edward Cell conceptualized “retroactive reflection” as a process through which we could “overcome distortions” in our experiential knowledge (Mezirow, 1991, p. 101). Jack Mezirow, drawing on the legacy of Paulo Friere and Habermas, took this further in his concept of “transformative learning.” He conceptualized reflection as a process “grounded in cognition and content” through which we can transform the “meaning perspectives” that we have and that we are not comfortable with. Stephen Brookfield argued that a process of “critical reflection” through which we challenge our assumptions is essential for such a transformation (Illeris, 2007, pp. 62-63)” (Jordi, 2011).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.5)	“Learning from experience needs to be responsive to the specific internal rhythms of each individual or collective—it is “learner centered”—rather than being reliant on any external teaching or development agenda. This suggests being in touch with deep internal processes of development as the driving force of meaning making and change (Kaplan, 2002). It is only by being fully in their rhythm or in their “flow” that people can be present to their tacit knowledge and meaningfully engage with it (Stelter, 2005)” (Jordi, 2011).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.6)	“Although scholars generally agree on what reflection should not target, they disagree over what it should. In their review of reflection in social work, psychology, and teacher education, Van Beveren et al. (2018) found reflection’s expressed purposes varied. They found three levels on which researchers justify its use: (a) the personal, (b) the interpersonal, and (c) the sociostructural level. On each, reflection purportedly changes what a person knows or does relevant to the aims of that level. Given such diversity, people should explain why they are using (or promoting) reflection” (Roessger, 2020).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.7)	“The range of skills and knowledge one targets when assessing reflective learning has limitations. Consider Moore et al.’s (2009) framework for clinical skill assessment of health professionals …..   They argue that a comprehensive assessment of professional services should consider declarative knowledge (knows), procedural knowledge (knows how), contrived performance (shows how), and authentic performance (does). Each level contains myriad targets for assessment. But the lowest almost exclusively involve instrumental learning …., a process whereby emerging professionals construct understandings aligned with those of their profession (Roessger, 2015). Minimal support exists for reflection in this domain” (Roessger, 2020).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.8)	“Reflection, or reflective practice, has a long tradition and stems from philosophy, particularly the work of Dewey (1933) on reflective thinking for personal and intellectual growth. Dewey’s approach is considered to be psychological and is concerned with the nature of reflection and how it occurs. A more critical and transformative approach to reflection, which is rooted in critical social theory, is evident in the work of Freire (1972), Habermas (1974) and others who have followed their lead (see, e.g., Hatton & Smith, 1995; Mezirow, 1990). Scho¨n’s (1983) work on the ‘reflective practitioner’ has also influenced many scholars interested in the work of professionals and how ‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection-on-action’ can influence their professional education” (Ryan and Ryan, 2013).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.9)	“Most researchers and commentators agree that there are different types or hierarchical levels of reflection. Grossman (2008) suggests that there are at least four different levels of reflection along a depth continuum. These range from descriptive accounts, to different levels of mental processing, to transformative or intensive reflection. He argues that students can be scaffolded at each level to produce more productive reflections” (Ryan and Ryan, 2013).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.10)	“The process of reflection is usually characterized by the inference course where learners attempt to identify, analyze, and solve the problems (Dewey, 1963; Edwards, 1996; Park & Son, 2011). It is the mental and emotional activities that individual engages in searching and probing for prior experiences in the attempt to solve the problems (Boud, Keogh, &Walker,1985). During the process, learners are allowed to face a dilemma and consider what is needed to address the problem through the steps of reflection, which are vital to learn (Henderson, Napan, & Monteiro, 2004; Park & Son, 2011; Potting, Sniekers, Lamers, & Reverda, 2010). Jay (1999) suggested that reflection can be treated as problem-solving strategy” (Koong et al., 2014).
Category 2: the ingredient concepts of reflective learning (idea 2.11)	“Dewey (1933) sees reflection as involving an integration of attitudes and the skill of judgement in methods of inquiry, and attempts to resolve problems through rational thought processes. Therefore, Dewey is concerned with the process and experience of learning as well as the ability to solve problems. Kolb’s model of experiential learning draws on the work of Dewey. Both Dewey and Kolb theorise reflection as experiential learning. In the ‘cycle of experiential learning’, Kolb (1984) identifies how experience, observation and reflection can help learners understand concepts and develop new concepts through experimentation” (Harrison et al., 2003).
Category 3: the application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.1)	“As a researcher and reflective practitioner, I strive toward a classroom community in which learners feel safe and welcome to express their individual and, frequently, changing views. Creating a cohesive community requires acknowledgement of cultural diversity, accommodation for a range of (disjabilities, and sensitivity to gender, race, and class identities. "In this experience the beautiful, the decent, and the serious form a circle with hands joined" (Freire, 1998, p. 32). The students who come together as a group of "different equals" are united in their bond of self-discovery as well as learning new ways of being in the world” (Soleil, 2000).
Category 3: the application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.2)	“Reflection is necessary to improve the depth of individual learning to support development of self-insight and growth, however this research identified that it can result in an uncomfortable experience for participants. While most participants seemed to understand the significance of reflection, they mentioned that reflection was difficult. For example Rhys said ‘I battled to reflect…this is difficult for me’ and Mbali said ‘I am pretty bad at it.’ Participants recognised that reflection is not an easy process as they are not accustomed to taking time to reflect as they are often so busy” (Robertson et al., 2019).
Category 3: the application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.3)	“Reflective learning has become a central feature of management and professional education, supported and influenced by many professional bodies. Anderson (2003) suggests that critical reflection is a ‘hallmark’ of Masters level management education, and authors such as Reynolds (1998) see a management curriculum embracing reflection as indicative of a more critical curriculum, challenging the traditional, functionalist orientation,  with its emphasis on the transmission of knowledge. Yet the curriculum remains problematic. One of the challenges of teaching reflective practice that has been noted in the literature is a lack of student engagement. Relevance is questioned (see, for example, Halton, Murphy, and Dempsey 2007) and practices such as the need for learning logs perceived as unnecessary (Samkin and Francis 2008)” (Griggs et al., 2018).
Category 3: the application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.4)	“Approaches to reflection may involve reflective journals, logs, portfolios, and self-writing (Barney & Mackinlay, 2010; Carrington & Selva, 2010; Moon, 2004). They proffers a elaborate list of information that are intended to help learners understand how to learn reflectively. However, it is relatively hard to check if the students do actively reflect (Ryan & Ryan, 2013). Collaborative reflections, on the other hand, can help students actively reflect though different reflective skills. Through information sharing, helping each other, discussion, and evaluating one another’s ideas can help students to improve the reflection efficiently” (Koong et al., 2014).
Category 3: application considerations of reflective learning (idea 3.5)	“Through reflection, however, the practitioner “can surface and criticize the tacit understandings . . . and can make new sense of the situations of uncertainty or uniqueness which he may allow himself to experience” (Schön, 1991, p. 68).3 Apparently, the “uncertainty” and “uniqueness” of practice, rendering it unfit for technical rational knowledge, are not immediately available to the practitioner as practice is filtered and mediated by “tacit knowledge” (cf. Polanyi, 1966). If the tacit knowledge is not questioned, Schön argues, we end up with “unreflective practitioners . . . [who are] limited and destructive” as they do not learn from the “feedback” inherent to practice (Schön, 1991, p. 290)” (Ratner, 2013).

 

A collection of academic ideas, grouped into three categories, is listed in Table 1.  A brief summary of the ideas with key words in bold font is provided as follows:

On “the basic nature of reflective learning” (category 1), reflective learning is about conscious and analytical thinking on actions and experience from different perspectives.

On “the ingredient concepts of reflective learning” (category 2), the academic literature utilizes a plethora of notions, including: (i) reflection, including critical reflection, (ii) experience transformation, (iii) instrumental and ill-defined problems, (iv) knowing-in-action and reflection-in-action, (v) transformative learning, (vi) retroactive reflection, (vii) purposes of reflection usage, (viii) personal and intellectual growth, (ix) critical social theory, (x) reflective practitioner, (xi) depth levels of reflection, and (xii) reflection as problem-solving strategy and experiential learning model.

On the application considerations of reflective learning (category 3), some examples of topics include (i) “different equals” groups, (ii) individual learning depth, (iii) a “hallmark” on management and professional education, (iv) reflection approach, (v) “tacit understanding” surfacing and critique, and (vi) “practice feedback” learning.

All in all, as revealed by the agile literature review performed by the writer, the academic literature on reflective learning comprises a growing repository of analytical and empirical ideas on learning. These ideas can now be explored further to foster a richer intellectual examination on the managerial intellectual learning theme (Ho, 2014; 2021) as propounded by the writer. This is taken up briefly in the next section.

 

Enriching the managerial intellectual learning (MIL) process model with the reflective learning literature

Managerial intellectual learning (MIL) is a research theme proposed by the writer to study personal learning on academic literature on management disciplines using the critical systems thinking and multi-perspective, systems-based research lens to build up intellectual competence. Managerial intellectual learning is interested in examining individual learning that is practice-based, reflective and engaging in order to improve intellectual learning competence and support the pursuit of scholar-practitioner in business management as a prime life-goal (Ho, 2014; 2021). The scope of MIL research is portrayed in the MIL process model as shown in Figure 1.

(re: Ho, 2014)

 

With reference to the MIL process model (re: Figure 1), there are a number of MIL sub-topics that are associated in a process model of an evolutionary kind. In this case, the literature review findings on reflective learning are directly related to the study of the two components of “Phase*: practice-based intellectual learning” and “feedback” (re: Figure 1). The academic ideas (re: Table 1) enable a more complicated and critical comprehension of these two MIL process model components under a systemic and evolutionary process model on MIL. As such, this agile literature review exercise on reflective learning has academic value by contributing to the conceptual enhancement of the MIL research theme.

 

Concluding remarks

The agile literature review exercise on reflective learning provides an illustration on how it is conducted. The literature review finding itself should be of interested to those interested in the topic of reflective learning. Learners on the subjects of literature review and managerial intellectual learning could also find this article helpful. Lastly, this article has academic value for its intellectual contribution to the advancement of the MIL research venture.

 

References

Griggs, V., Holden, R., Lawless, A. and Rae, A. 2018. “From reflective learning to reflective practice; assessing transfer” Studies in Higher Education 43(7): 1172-1183.

Harrison, M., Short, C. and Roberts, C. 2003. “Reflecting on Reflective Learning: The case of geography, earth and environmental sciences” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 27(2): 133-152, DOI: 10.1080/03098260305678.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014. “An empirical study on managerial intellectual learning (MIL) and managerial intellectual learning capability-building mechanism (MILCBM)” European Academic Research 2(8) November: 10564-10577.

Ho, J.K.K. 2021. “An updated account of the research theme status of managerial intellectual learning (MIL)” Joseph KK Ho e-resources March 4 (url address:  https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/03/an-updated-account-of-research-theme.html).

 Jacobs, S. 2016. “Reflective learning, reflective practice” Nursing 46(5): 62-64.

Jordi, R. 2011. “Reframing the Concept of Reflection: Consciousness, Experiential Learning, and Reflective Learning Practices” Adult Education Quarterly 61(2): 181–197.

Koong, C.S., Yang, T.I., Wu, C.C., Li, H.T. and Tseng, C.C. 2014. “An investigation into effectiveness of different reflective learning strategies for learning operational software” Computers & Education 72:  167–186.

Perusso, A., Blankesteijn, M. and Leal, R. 2020. “The contribution of reflective learning to experiential learning in business education” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 45(7): 1001-1015, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1705963.

Ratner, H. 2013. “The Social Life of Learning Theory: The “Ideal” and “Real” of Reflective Learning” International Journal of Public Administration 36(3): 200-209, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2012.749280.

Robertson, J., Le Sueur, H. and Terblanche, N. 2019. “An account of practice: employing drawings and stories to enable reflective learning, Action Learning” Research and Practice 16(1): 77-86, DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2019.1562702.

Roessger, K.M. 2020. “Assessment Strategies for Reflective Learning in the Workplace:  A Pragmatic Approach” Adult Learning 31(4) November: 175-184.

Ryan, M. and Ryan, M. 2013. “Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education” Higher Education Research & Development 32(2): 244-257, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.661704.

Soleil, N. 2000. “Toward a Pedagogy of Reflective Learning: Lived Experience in Research and Practice” Journal of College Reading and Learning 31(1): 73-83, DOI: 10.1080/10790195.2000.10850103.