Wiki contents


2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

As the competitive rollover for MikesBikes begins I will use Daudelin’s stages of reflection to describe the transition from a practice round to the now more intense, daunting and competitive round. 

The first stage of Daudelin’s stages of reflection is articulating a problem. As my team began the discussion to strategize, I realised we all were nervous and maybe slightly less free in terms of being able to make any decision we wanted as this was now a competitive round. This as described by John Dewey is “a state of doubt, hesitancy, perplexity, or mental difficulty” (Daudelin, 1996, p. 40). 

Analysing the problem is the second stage in Daudelin’s stages of reflection. We analysed our problem by stating which difficulties we were facing such as whether our advertising was sufficient enough, or our price was too competitive or niche. 

The third stage is the formulation and testing of a tentative theory to explain the problem. As a group, I feel that we were congruent with a shared leadership style which “entails a simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence process within a team, that involved the serial emergence of official as well as unofficial leaders” (Pearce & Manz, 2005, p. 134). This style of leadership allowed us to form a strategy that was consistent with the strategy we formed in our practice rounds as a team. 

Action or deciding whether to act is the last stage of Daudelin’s stages of reflection. Using our shared leadership style we as a team decided to follow certain aspects of both practice rollovers to form a strategy was neither too risky nor too safe. 

As a result, we received an SHV that was average given our strategy however, we realised where we went wrong and aim to improve that in the coming weeks. 

Reference list:

Daudelin, M. W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36-48.

PEARCE, C., & MANZ, C. (2005). The New Silver Bullets of Leadership:. The Importance of Self- and Shared Leadership in Knowledge Work34(2), 130-140. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.03.003







  1. Hi Sasha,

    What a great journal! Your referencing was fabulous, and you backed up your arguments with facts which is awesome.

    I would love to see some more of your feelings coming through, to add a personal touch.

    How did this problem make you feel? What were some practical outcomes because of this?

    Other wise, fantastic job!

  2. Hi Sasha,

    This is a great journal, and you seem to have grasped how to use Daudelin's framework to effectively reflect.

    But I must agree with the above comment from Olivia, adding your feelings as to how the problem made you feel and what resulted from it would improve this and complete the reflection to an even higher standard!

    However, you've done a great job and keep it up!


  3. Hi Conor Whyte & Olivia Humphrey

    I'm going to offer some feedback to the both of you since you have both responded more or less identically to Sasha Khurana's post. You've both used a fairly standard CRC method for your feedback (also known as the sh!t sandwich) in which you've started with a commendation, sandwiched in a recommendation and then ended with a (kind of 'feel good') commendation. This is a well known way to deliver kind feedback and certainly a tone of kindness comes through clearly.

    That said, I think that you could have both offered more valuable recommendations if you had dug deeper into why your recommendation matters. Put differently, why does it matter that Sasha's feelings don't come through strongly? Pausing to think through and flesh out the reasoning behind your recommendations can help you offer more meaningful feedback. In this instance, let's move past the temptation of a superficial "reflections should be personal" response here and analyse Sasha's feedback in terms of what would have conveyed genuine learning as outlined both in Daudelin and in Peter's blog posts. Here's what I'm thinking...

    One reason that Sasha hasn't been too personal in this reflection is that this reflection is largely about what the team did, structured through the daudelin framework. I think that this is the reason it matters that this reflection wasn't as personal as we might have wanted/expected. What is missing is a sense of Sasha using theory to question, analyse and formulate personal insights to then prompt new actions. Instead there is almost a sense of telling a story about the team through the lens of theory but this could have been developed considerably more to reflection on the right here, right now, what am I discovering I could try and do differently. That, for me, would have conveyed learning more and is therefore why I think it matters that the personal was missing.

    You might have come up with a different reason too. But what I would invite you to do more of is back up your recommendations (which were spot on) with some reasons why they matter.