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

This week has been an interesting one in management 300. Usually by third week of a course I am well and truly settled in the course, know what I’m doing and have found my feet. This course is not the case; my feet are well and truly lost. That’s not to say I am not enjoying this course, I really am starting to. However my issue lies in getting comfortable with this course, there is definitely still something that still isn’t sitting right. Unfortunately while I found these weeks readings interesting, they did not really apply to what this week’s learning experiences I have had so they will not be included sorry.

So in order to reflect on my learning this week i need to use Daudelin's (1996) structure to do an analysis my problem so therefore i can learn from the problem. So what is the problem? I am very happy with my team, we are all really motivated and seem to genuinely get on so its not that aspect. Mikes Bikes? Well we are all having issues with that one. I think my problem is trying to figure out how everything fits together in this course. I feel like i need to figure out how everything links together so then i can figure out what am i meant to be getting out of the readings, the group work and Mikes Bikes. I feel like i need to figure this out now so when it comes to writing my 80% learning journal it is easy because i am on the right track from now.

How to work through these issues? To follow Daudelin's (1996) structure i need to test a theory/ solution to my issue. My theory is to somehow figure out what i want from this course personally and how the different aspects link together. I am doing this because as my first reading reflection and the suggested solution failed. My solution to my issues around ambiguity is just to embrace the course and its ambiguity of what it wants from us. This unfortunately hasn't worked out, but i think the issue was in the solution. I can't decide to just embrace it, i need to work through why i have these issues with the course. So this is what i have done above, now i need to figure out what i want from this course so then i can relate and link my learning together. So i start with the title of this paper 'Management in Dynamic Contexts'. I am taking from the title, the dynamic context would Mikes Bikes. So alone from the title of this course, it is figuring out how to manage ourselves (using readings) and people (using teams) in a dynamic context such as Mikes Bikes stimulation. So that is what for me how the course links itself together. It is applying the relevant theories from not only this paper but also our previous experiences to a real life situation, and then reflecting on how the stimulation is helping us understand these concepts. My second part of my solution is to figure out what i want personally. First of all i want to succeed, second of all i want to understand how all my learning from university can link together and i feel like this course could very well achieve this!

The fourth step in Daudelin's (1996) structure is to follow though with the action, which i have done, and also reflect on what it has made you learn, From working through these steps I have shown that i have learnt something very important this week, what i want out of this course and how all the different aspects link together. To me this is probably the most beneficial learning i will have this whole semester, and i might even use this reflection process to figure out what i want from my other courses so i can be more focused and narrowed in on my learning for the semester.


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


  1. You thoughtfully ask "Are the readings just there to help us understand what is happening in our groups? Because that’s what it is feeling like." And I say, "Yes. Kind of". We have a general sense of the progress/challenges that teams tend to face, and the readings tend to be relevant for many at they time they are given. Having said that, for some folk and teams, the readings might miss the mark. In those cases, the people involved might find other articles in the reading list more useful to them — and so they might talk about something else entirely. That can be fine.

  2. Thanks for your apology right from the outset of your learning journal for week 3, as a clear sign-post that you have chosen not to use the readings for this week.  I would have liked to hear how you have gelled with your new team?  And, if you are a follower or a leader?  I noticed that you have drawn from your own expectations in your learning to date and gained value from it - which is great.  Thus, I believe you are not the only one coming to terms how the readings, team dynamics and the MikesBikes simulation are interrelated with one another; and I like your analysis using Daudelin's structure in search of your own solution.  Nevertheless, I think you may want to refrain from using ''i'' when you need to use ''I'' instead, and in the last paragraph, first sentence - I think you mean ''The fourth step in Daudelin's (1996) structure is to follow though with the action'' which should read ''is to follow through'' and not though.  Again, the word for stimulation is simulation - is this correct?  It appeared strange and I know I am not suppose to be too picky because you made some very important comments in regards to your learning and these little things distracted me from your personal view.  Can I suggest that your next learning journal highlights not so much of your personal feelings but your take, in relation to the theory?  As I feel, the solution is in the theory for the ambiguity - as you have stated, for best practice to achieve the success you are in search of. 

    1. Thanks heaps for all your comments! I really do want to reflect on those readings, except i don't feel like they really related to me this week so they might come in at a later date. As shown in Peter's comment above, that's fine. Also yes I'm pretty sure it is is simulation, i should of done some more proofreading and corrected that and the i's. Thanks for the input though, was genuinely really helpful!

  3. Hi there,

    Thank you for your honesty about the readings and clearly stating your problems with them as some students wouldn't be able to. It is clear to me as a reader that you are struggling to understand this course as a whole and how it can help you for the future which I believe you're not alone on this. I liked the way you talked about your personal thoughts about this course and questions what the purpose of having readings, I believe to improve your experience with this paper is to maybe talk to someone who has a thorough understanding of the course or try your best to find out whether this course is for you or not.

    Your journal could be improved by actually doing the readings and if you don't agree with it then you could express why and how it can be improved/changed. I hope you don't take this as negative feedback, I'm just here to provide useful  for the future. All the best for next week

    1. Hi Jessie.

      Definitely don't take this negatively (smile). I really enjoy getting any feedback. Just letting you know that I did do the readings and I do agree with what they are saying, I just chose not to speak about them because it didn't relate to what I learnt this week. And as shown above Peter said that's fine if I go on another track. Thanks heaps for your feedback, definitely found it useful!