Embedded Files
Reflection arises from the interaction of three systems focused on Representation, Comparison and Causation passing information back and forth. This interaction does not necessarily happen in a particular sequence. It will depend on the nature of the information being processed and the purpose of the processing.
This is a functional model not a structural model. The systems and sub-systems described in this model do not correspond with particular individual brain regions or networks. In reality, there are a number of different systems in our brains, processing different types of information. This model groups these diverse systems together according to the role they play in processing information.
For example, the Attending system does not correspond to the attentional network of the brain. However, within the attentional network, the orienting network (directing our attention to particular inputs) serves a Representation function, the executive control network (prioritising salient inputs) serves a Comparison function and the alerting network (anticipating inputs) serves a Causation function.
The system runs in two modes:
Operational mode ('business as usual') in which it processes information from our senses, identifies and activates appropriate meaning schemas and use them adaptively to understand (descriptive), assess (evaluative) and respond to (directive) what is happening. In operational mode we are also monitoring the effectiveness of our meaning schemas by comparing their predictions with information from our perceptions and flagging up any discrepancies.
Reflective mode ('test and fix') in which it seeks to evaluate and resolve any discrepancies detected.
Each of these systems contribute different elements to the meaning schemas through which we interpret and make predictions about the world and to the resolution of discrepancies.Each system consists of a pair of sub-systems - one focused on gathering or generating information (generating sub-system) and the other focused on organising that information (organising sub-system). Information flowing from the generating sub-system to the organising sub-system involves a process of generalisation (bottom up, feed-forward). Information flowing from the organising sub-system to the generating sub-system involves a process of filtering (top-down, feedback).
All the systems operate across a range of conscious (explicit) and non-conscious (implicit) processing. The extent to which processing is conscious will depend on the degree and nature of the discrepancy that the system is attempting to resolve and the environmental conditions in which reflection is taking place. (See Incubation.) As a general rule, the organising sub-systems tend to operate at a slightly higher level of conscious awareness than the generating sub-systems.
Representation system
Representation system
The purpose of the Representation system is to manage the flow of information into and out of the reflection system. It controls the focus of our reflection and how we represent information in our reflections, which influences how we process it.
Attending
Attending
The attending (sensing) system determines what we are aware of in our external and internal worlds. It controls what sensory information we notice and what memories we are able to retrieve. It also determines what relevant meaning schema we activate in order to deal with particular situations.
Encoding
Encoding
The encoding (expressing) system determines how the products of reflection are stored internally in memories and meaning schemas or expressed externally in our behaviours and communication. It controls what sensory, conceptual and emotional information is stored in our memories and the language and non-verbal signals we use to express ourselves.
Read more on Representation
Comparison system
Comparison system
The purpose of the Comparison system is to prioritise information and organise it efficiently. It works out the degree to which one piece of information is more or less relevant to our goals and values than other information and it determines the degree of similarity or difference between phenomena.
Evaluating
Evaluating
The evaluating (sifting) system generates valuations by comparing different pieces of information using criteria identified as salient so that we can choose which information to focus on. It will often do this by attaching an emotional value to the information.
Grouping
Grouping
The grouping (sorting) system compares the characteristics of different phenomena to identify similarities and differences between them in order to group them into linked categories.
Read more on Comparison
Causation system
Causation system
The purpose of the Causation system is to identify connections in the information being processed and to generate causal models to account for them.
Correlating
Correlating
The correlating (connecting) system seeks spatiotemporal patterns in our perceptions and cognitions. It looks for signs of order and structure in information.
Extrapolating
Extrapolating
The extrapolating (explaining) system seeks to form causal models and heuristics that allow us to construct explanations of the patterns we perceive in phenomena and to predict future phenomena.
Read more on Causation
These three systems (Representation, Comparison & Causality) are roughly equivalent to:
The three dimensions of reflection described by Jay and Johnson (2002) — descriptive, comparative and critical.
The three forms of reflection described by Cranton (2005) — content, premise and process reflection.
The three reflective questions of Borton (1970), Driscoll (1994) and Rolfe et al (2001) — What? So what? Now what?
The three elements of the 3C technique from CBT — Catch it. Check it. Change it.
These processing systems are the basis for ReCoCa reflective analysis.
Selected literature
Selected literature
Burkholder, M. P. (2022). Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. In W. E. Sowers, H. L. McQuistion, J. M. Ranz, J. M. Feldman, & P. S. Runnels (Eds.), Textbook of CCommunitCCommunitommunityDriscollCCommunitCCommunitommunityDriscollommunityCCommunitCCommunitommunityDriscollCCommunommunity Psychiatry: American Association for Community Psychiatry (pp. 291–300). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10239-4_22
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults (2nd ed). Jossey-Bass.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8
Markett, S., Nothdurfter, D., Focsa, A., Reuter, M., & Jawinski, P. (2021). Attention networks and the intrinsic network structure of the human brain. Human Brain Mapping, 43(4), 1431–1448. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25734
Borton, T. (1970). Reach Touch and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Driscoll J. (1994). Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse, 13, 47–50.
Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (Eds.). (2001). Critical Reflection for Nursing and the Helping Professions: A User’s Guide. Palgrave Macmillan.
The 'pinball table' of reflection
The 'pinball table' of reflection
The reflective process is often presented as a linear sequences or an ordered cycle of stages.
This model is best visualised as being like a pinball table.
The topic of reflection (discrepancy) is injected into the reflective system and then is bumped backwards and forwards between the various systems and sub-systems which make iterative adjustments until a resolution is achieved (discrepancy falls below an acceptable threshold).
There is no pre-determined trajectory or fixed order. The next system activated will depend on what results from the current system. In this way, it may be similar to a Markov chain or system.
Image by Peter Pruzina from Pixabay
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse