I find it very interesting to read the three comparisons of Marianne’s reflections of a presentation (Jennifer Moon, 2004), because that, more than anything else before, gave me a much clearer understanding of a deep engagement with reflection and reflective writing. I find that most of my reflections fall under category B – to analyse the events somewhat, but mostly to just list them, and I don’t ever expand on my thoughts and feelings. Category C is what I should be aiming for to get the most out of reflecting on an event – to not just engage with what happened, and how it made me feel, but why it made me feel that way, how I acted in response, and why I acted how I acted. In all, I have to explore more of ‘why’, in order to better determine the ‘how’ in later times.
The other point, which I suppose isn’t entirely new to me, but seems to be a recurring point, is to not let your initial assumption taint everything else after it. I have to do this, but when I read these points made in Moon (2004)’s rewriting of Marsick and Watkins (1990), I immediately remembered the plot from 22 Jump Street where, (SPOILER ALERT) Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum realized that, because of the initial assumption that the victim was the buyer, not the dealer of drugs, that they had gotten the whole investigation wrong. Similarly, Marsick and Watkins make and reiterate the point: Never let your initial assumption or impression shape the way you view a person, item or event later on. They elaborate on this through requesting the writer/reflector to step away from themselves, and to also take on the counsel and thoughts of people around them, in order to best create a situation where there is both dialog and questions that are being raised that can challenge pre-conceived and pre-concreted notions. In this way, the best reflections can exist independently from the writer.