ReCoCa analysis

ReCoCa = Representation, Comparison, Causation

ReCoCa reflective analysis is an approach which not only allows you to reflect on your experiences but also to reflect on your reflections (meta-reflection).

It is based on the understanding that the reflective process is not a linear or cyclical series of stages. It is a complex dynamic system which arises from the interactions of three major functional components.

Analysis is based on a variety of prompting questions aimed at exploring the function of these components and the interactions between them. The aim is to increase our awareness of the reflective process (much of which happens without our conscious awareness).

There is no particular order in which to consider these questions. The recommended approach is to skim through the questions until you come across one that grabs your attention and stimulates interesting thoughts. Then see where that takes you.

Analysis is presented in three levels. Again not a sequence, just levels of complexity and increasing meta-cognition. Although Level 1 is fundamental, you may not be able to answer the questions here until after you have done some exploration in the other Levels. There's nothing stopping you leaping in at Level 3.

Level 1 — Discrepancy analysis

The purpose of the reflective process is to identify and resolve discrepancies between our expectations (predictions of our meaning schemas) and our actual experiences.

Discrepancies drive reflection.

The fundamental reflective question

How does your experience of something differ from what you were expecting that experience to be?

Supplementary questions

Where did your expectations come from? Was it a particular past experience, a set of experiences, tendencies you have noticed from a range of experiences, or particular beliefs you have about how things should work?
How comfortable do you feel about actively looking for evidence that your expectations were wrong?
What assumptions did you make and how valid were they?
How explicit and detailed were your predictions about what would happen?
Have you rewritten your memory of what you expected to align with your subsequent experience and reduce cognitive dissonance (hindsight bias)?
How many alternative outcomes did you consider and what would have happened if they came true instead?
How could your predictions have been more accurate?

See Working with discrepancies

Level 2 — Component analysis

This is just a way of focusing on each of the reflective system elements individually to examine how they are contributing to the reflective process. How does the system element convert its inputs into outputs?

These are just some possible questions to consider for each element. You may be able to think of others.

Representation

See Working with Representation

Attending — focusing and sources

What details can you remember clearly from the experience (and what is fuzzy)? What does this reveal about what you tend to notice?
What sensory elements can you recall (sights, sounds, smells, sensations)?
Can you construct a sequence of events from start to finish? Are there any gaps? What are you focusing on and what are you overlooking?
Now narrow/wide is your field of view?
What point of view are you taking?
What information is introduced and where does it come from?
What role do perceptions of current events, memories of past events and creations of imaginary events play?
How are your expectations shaping your perceptions?

Encoding — expressing and symbols

What are you attempting to articulate?
How are you articulating it and how else could you do that?
How are your behaviours driven by your assumptions?
What codes are you using and are they commonly understood?
What words or images do you associate with the experience?
If you were to give the experience a name, a title or a label, what would it be? Would other people give it a different name?
How would you describe the experience differently to different audiences (adults vs children, people who’ve experienced something similar vs people who haven’t, friends vs enemies, etc.)?

Comparison

See Working with Comparison

Evaluating — valuing and referents

Why is this important to you? What things are more important, less important or equally important?
Has it always been as important and will it continue to be as important?
What emotions do you associate with the experience? Were they the same for everyone involved?
How would you rate the relative significance of this experience for you or others?
In order to evaluate this, what are you comparing it to?
What criteria are you using to evaluate this phenomenon and what happens if you use different criteria?
What does your evaluation of the experience reveal about what is important to you?
What could have made the experience better or worse for you or for others?

Grouping — categorising and boundaries

How are you categorising this phenomenon?
What are the similarities and differences between this experience and other relevant experiences?
What other phenomena does this belong with?
Can you think of an experience in a completely different context that was similar in some way to this?
How are you separating this event or phenomenon from its context?
Are you engaging in either-or thinking or black-and-white thinking?

Causation

See Working with Causation

Correlating — patterning and connections

What patterns have you noticed?
What other connections are possible?
Would the patterns appear different from a different perspective?
What happens to the pattern if you zoom in or zoom out (physical, temporal, emotional distance)
How confident are you about the patterns you noticed and why?
If you assume that your preferred pattern is just a coincidence, what other patterns do you notice instead?
Are you projecting patterns onto random coincidence?
Can you connect this experience to other events?
Is this something that has happened repeatedly? Under what circumstances?

Extrapolating — map predicting and intentions

Can you identify different possible causes for the experience – your actions, other people’s actions and chance happenings?
Are you seeking someone to blame when it's just something that happened?
What’s your preferred explanation for the experience – and what would change your mind about this?
What does your explanation reveal about your underlying beliefs about how the world works?
What have you learnt from the experience that could be useful in the future?
How will you change your thinking and behaviours as a result of this experience?

Level 3 — Interaction analysis

This examines interactions between system components. What happens when information is passed from one element to another? How does the output of one system element affect the functioning of another system element?

These are just some possible questions to consider for each interaction. You may be able to think of others.

Attending and Encoding

How does what you pay attention to affect the way you describe things?
How does the way you describe things affect what you notice?

Evaluating and Grouping

How do the criteria you use to value things affect the similarities and differences you notice between them?
How does the way you categorise something affect the extent to which you value it?

Correlating and Extrapolating

How do the patterns you tend to notice affect the explanations you tend to give for things?
How do your preferred explanatory models affect the patterns and connections you observe?

Attending and Evaluating

How does what you tend to notice or remember affect the way you evaluate things?
How does the relative value you assign to things affect the amount of attention you pay to them?

Attending and Grouping

How do the things you pay attention to affect the similarities and differences you notice between them?
How does the way you tend to categorise things affect what you notice or remember about things?

Attending and Correlating

How does the amount of attention you pay to things affect the connections you notice between them?
What types of connections do you tend to look out for and pay most attention to?

Attending and Extrapolating

How do the things you tend to notice affect your ability to explain and predict events?
How do your favourite explanations influence what you pay attention to?

Encoding and Grouping

How do the words you use to describe things change the categories into which you group them?
How do the categories that you group things into affect the way you remember them?

Encoding and Evaluating

How does the way you conceptualise things affect the criteria you use to evaluate them?
How does the relative value you assign to things affect the quality and quantity of information you remember about them?

Encoding and Correlating

How does the way you describe things affect the connections you notice between them?
How do the connections you perceive between things affect the way you think about them?

Encoding and Extrapolating

How does the language you use to describe something influence your understanding of why it happened?
How do your favourite assumptions about cause and effect influence the language you use to describe events?

Evaluating and Correlating

How does the relative value you assign to things affect the relationships you notice between them?
How does your awareness of familiar connections and patterns affect the extent to which you consider something important?

Evaluating and Extrapolating

How does the extent to which you value something affect your desire to explain or predict it?
How does your ability to explain or predict something influence the value you put on it?

Grouping and Correlating

How do the categories you put things into constrain the connections you notice between them?
How do the connections you notice between things affect your ability to identify similarities and differences between them?

Grouping and Extrapolating

How do perceived similarities between events affect your explanation of the causes and effects of those events?
How do your preferred explanations influence the way you categorise things?

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse