Doctoral Research Study – Part 2g

My journey continues….

~DLP Pro Image Fun 5b small.20141020
(Page 2014)
This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2015a) for the previous blog.

Year 2015: 2nd Observation Part g

2nd Observation.P2a.renamed

Bordering my music-making practice

As mentioned in the previous blog, I came to understand within the first few months I needed to broadly explore the fields and disciplines of contemporary music-making, in order to border – and define – my music-making practice. Following exploring the breadth and rapid exponential growth of the music-making industry over the past century in the previous five (5) blogs, I continue to examine an aspect of my practice – me as a practitioner – outlining:
d. Changing motives of practice
and then outline my specific site/s:
e. My sites: my DIY Studio Production setup/s.
I will then conclude with:
f. Defining the Music Production process
g. Defining a holistic DIY Music Production process

Changing motives of practice

Given my current motives for practice are very much exploratory – research and investigation – not volume sales-based, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to categorise my music-making practice as per the industry definition of professional practice. In looking for an alternative classification to define my music-making practice, I considered the classifications for my practice of: professional, semi-professional, amateur or hobbyist (Rogers 2013). Could it be semi-professional, as I earn multiple small income streams from various forms of music-making practice? Or is it amateur, referring to my current status as a music producer where I am earning minimal income at present because of my current pursuits of creative industry education, and full-time doctoral studies? Referencing Kuznetson and Paulos’s article, I am reluctant to assume the title of expert for my music-making practice, as I consider myself a generalist across a breadth of skills and experiences. (Kuznetson and Paulos 2010, 295). However, I daresay my clients, the Institute that employs me as a Senior Lecturer, and my students may see that differently. What I do however accept is who I am: highly motivated, possessing an impassioned commitment to my practice, with a very high level of focus on developing my knowledge, skill level and technology. After four decades of music-making practice, I seek to learn on a daily basis: newly released creative technologies, applying them in a variety of creative locations; familiarising my self with new music styles; developing new practice workflows; better understanding my motives, and my self. I engaged in this doctoral research study to investigate my practice, in order to develop greater understanding and workflows. I therefore am of the opinion I exhibit qualities and attributes that reflect an attitude of professionalism. For these reasons, not with standing my experience, knowledge and skills accumulated and developed to date, both within the field and discipline of music and sound, and all other experiences in life, I also classify my self as an aspiring music practitioner.
As I continued my investigations, I began to recognise I approached my music-making with physical instruments in a different manner to my approach to music-making using virtual technologies (using my laptop to make music for example). In drilling down I determined that much of this was how I viewed both devices. I commenced my music-making practice with acoustic and analogue technology, developing a workflow that reinforced my musical literacy, instrumental skills and personal taste in music. However, as technology developed in the mid to late 1980’s, and alternative music-making devices became available, I moved from acoustic to digital technologies. In the early 2000’s my development of alternative devices included digital virtual technologies.
I viewed virtual technologies very differently. The actual device that housed the music-making application software (DAW) was a computer (a laptop for example). I saw a laptop as a device that houses many many application software that enabled me to record data and/or make transactions. I used computer technologies for administrative purposes (applications such as i-Note, word, excel, etc); organisation purposes (applications such as iCal, reminders, etc); and everyday personal and business management (services such as the internet-based social media sites, banking sites, utility sites to pay bills, etc). I viewed the music-making application software (DAW) as somewhat removed from me. It was housed in a aluminium and plastic case, that I could see, but not touch. The virtual keyboards were   engaged by pressing a computer keyboard letter; or perhaps a key on a plastic physical keyboard controller. Neither devices are derived directly from nature. They are manufactured. A computer and a keyboard controller are physical devices which also have natural resonant qualities. They only minimally expand and contract in extreme conditions, with such occurrences perhaps likely to render these devices inoperable. There is also a slight delay between the time you touch the key and having the sound emitted out of the computer monitors. They are not what I consider to be large resonant devices that can be embraced and/or feel the resonant qualities as they are played, such as I experience with a piano or guitar.
Moving from acoustic to digital and digital virtual technologies in recent decades, I observed the vastly different technologies and associated workflows that lend themselves to creative locations and music styles. This transition impacted my music-making practice, hindering the realisation of my creative productions: my EPs. I am compelled to learn more about my practice, and my practitioner self. I continue to practice a variety of music styles across multiple sites, motivated by multiple motives, developing my knowledge, skill level and technology. Whilst I have found my self at various times asking a number of questions in isolation, I now find myself seeing them as connected issues within a more global problem as I proposed for this doctoral research investigation.
Despite my four decades of practice, I have my eyes very much on the future. I still have a lifetime of music goals still to realise: songs to write and arrange; sonic textures to explore; creative productions to develop; and engage with both my peers and the public to a far greater degree than I have to date. I am hopeful of continuing my journey with music as an integral part of my life, core to my being, accompanying me wherever I am – wherever I choose to go.

My DIY Music Production setup

I have two music-making setups: a portable studio setup; and a project studio setup.
My portable setup includes:
An Apple MacBookPro 17” laptop[1] sits before me as a multi-dimensional tool for music production. It is portable, with me using it daily in a range of sites, from my project studio, the staffroom, a classroom, the waiting room of a professional service provider such as a doctor, on a train station while waiting for a commuter train, on a bus, on an airplane, in a park, or on the beach during my recreational time. The device includes a 2.5 Ghz intel processor, 16 gigabytes of random access memory (RAM) operating at 1,333 Megahertz, 1.75 terrabytes of storage, with an Intel high definition 512 megabytes graphics card. It has in excess of 170 applications installed on it {and to name but a few applications}, allowing me to use the device as a word processor, a multi-media player for both movies and music, a recording device, a multi-track recorder, or an instrument. And not just one instrument, but just about any instrument you can imagine, from an acoustic – European[2] or world[3] – instrument to a synthetic instrument[4]. In addition, I carry a two terabyte external hard drive with my laptop shoulder bag which stores my numerous and varied sample libraries[5] that allows me to have numerous instrumentation options wherever I am. Irrespective of the size, material, weight or value of that instrument, the need for electricity or batteries to operate it, or the technique and skill level required to play it, I have these instruments with me anytime I choose to travel to any location, and can choose to integrate any one of them into my music productions, as my creativity desires.
But such choices were not always available. I could not even begin to imagine in 1987 when I purchased my first digital recording console[6], with relative limited options, flexibility, speed, and quality that such a device with its enabled process and workflow would be possible. Several decades later, in 2004 when I purchased my first digital virtual audio recording workstation (DAW)[7], I did not imagine that I would be able to procure a device, the equivalent of a large note pad, and with it hanging lightly over my shoulder, be able to board a plane with such a powerful music production tool, with exponential more options, flexibility, speed, and quality in just another 8 years. My mind now ponders what I will be able to do in another 8 years time?
My project studio setup:
a 27” iMac has five (5) TB of internal hard drive with many TBs of samples. It runs a the industry standard DAW operation software (Pro Tools 11), and is supported by a 32 channel console with multiple monitors and a number of external analogue and digital audio processing devices. This setup allows extreme flexibility to be able to record and produce just about any style of acoustic or synthetic-based music possible.
I have practiced as a musician and a music producer in a number of locations globally for the greater part of my life. Irrespective of my geographical base, I approached these roles quite independently in my formative years. However, over the past decade I observe I am increasingly being drawn to attempt to fuse these two roles into what I would refer to as a singular, interdependent practice – musician as music producer. How I do this, and how I can do it more effectively is to be the basis on my Doctoral Research Study topic: “Holistic DIY Music Production: The effective integration of acoustic instruments with synthetic instruments during DIY Music Production in the digital environment[8].”

Defining the Music Production process

In order to explore these changes and new relationships, and what the implications have been on the process of music creation and production, we need to define the stages.
Raimond et al differentiates the music creation process (the musician composing) with that of the performance and recording process, whilst labeling them both under the ‘Music Production workflow’ (Raimond et al. 2007). Within the audio engineering industry, via anecdotal conversations with my audio engineering colleagues over many years, it is generally accepted that the Music Production process is divided into 3 main stages: Pre-Production, being prior to Production where the recording session is planned, and all logistics and all equipment confirmed; Production, being the actual recording process; and Post-Production, being the process following recording, up to having a ‘completed audio product’ in hand. This definition of the Music Production process is confirmed in such industry recognised texts as the “Art of Music Production”(Burgess 2013, 60-75), but I was unable to find such a suitable audio industry-based graphic, I am drawing on a similar practice described in a film industry document. Apple’s film digital workstation Final Cut Pro 7’s manual describes the process in terms of 5 stages {see graphic below}, with the two additional stages being ‘Scripting’ {what could be argued as the film equivalent of the music creation process with the film scriptwriter composing the film’s narrative – storyline and dialogue}, and Distribution {that which comes after the completed film product/artifact is in hand} (Apple 2010).

Production process.20150729.png

(Apple 2010)
It was common to have multiple roles for the various specialist technical skills along the music and audio industry production chain. Some of the specialist roles were: songwriters/composers, artists, arrangers, recording engineers, tape operators, console operators, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, and producers (Leach 2011).

Defining a Holistic DIY Music Production’ process

I will therefore refer to these five (5) stages both the Music Creation and Production stages, as the Holistic DIY Music Production process, including:
  1. the music creation stage (musician composing, lyrics and orchestrating the musical piece);
  • the three stages of the audio engineering process of,
  1. Pre-Production – pre-meetings to the actual performance and recording of that performance, planning the logistics of the production session, organising the ‘event’ including studio and equipment bookings, staffing, coaching people, setting up the session;
  2. Production – the actual performance and recording of that performance, control room and live room management, tracking, overdubbing, discussing the arrangement, creating an environment or space that will elicit the best out of the musicians
  3. Post-Production – following the completion of the actual performance and recording of that performance, an process that may include: arrangement, orchestration, decision to re-track, re-overdub, editing, mixing, embellishing all elements of the mix (including FX and interest), mastering, etc up to having a ‘completed audio product’ in hand;
    • and the final stage,
  4. Distribution – with the ‘completed audio product’ in hand, how this product will be released or distributed to the consumers or marketplace (irrespective of whether it is a commercially-motivated product, or not) 
[1] I purchased this in February 2012. The system came with a 250 gigabyte hard drive and cost my the equivalent of AUD$4,000 at the time. I currently have a 1.75 terrabyte hard drive capacity installed within it.
[2] Such as a double bass which I have seen many times in both European music orchestras and contemporary Jazz bands, but never played one
[3] Such as a Kenyan instrument – the Nyatiti – which I have only ever seen in Kenya during one of my trips in the early 1980s.
[4] Such as a Jupiter-8 synthesiser which I saw being played live in Japan in the late 1980s
[5] Sample libraries such a ‘symphonic orchestras’, ‘marching bands’, and ‘kitchen pot’ sets. I have compiled my sample libraries via purchases (about $10,000, including multiple instruments or play engines), creating samples from my recorded stock, and also trading via my peer network. I currently have approximately 2 Terrabyte of samples available for my use in music production at this time
[6] A TEAC Tascam Porta-4 Studio digital console. It cost me the equivalent of AUD$200 at the time.
[7] Referred to as a DAW, I purchased Pro Tools 6 and shortly after Logic Pro 7 multi-track software in August 2004, installed on a Mac Tower with a Digidesgn 002 interface. The system came with a 150 gigabyte hard drive, and cost me the equivalent of AUD$5,500 at the time
[8] As part of that KK59 Doctoral Research Study, I will necessarily need to define the ‘musician as music producer’ process, and intend to include both the Songwriting/Composition stage, and the Distribution stage in what I currently refer to as a Holistic DIY Music Production process. However, for the purposes of this KKP623 Essay “Assignment #2 Contextual Review of currents and trends that are shaping Effective Practice”, I will use the more common industry definition of Music Production as discussed by Burgess (1997, 64) in the “Art of Music Production”, excluding any extensive discussion of these two ‘additional’ stages of Songwriting/Composition and Distribution
This blog series is planned to continue next month with Doctoral Research Study – Part 2h (Page 2015b). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.
Apple. 2010. “Final cut pro 7 manual. Accessed 10th May, 2015.
Burgess, Richard James. 2013. The art of music production: the theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, Richard James. 1997. The art of record production. London: Omnibus Press.
Kuznetsov, Stacey and Eric Paulos. 2010. “Rise of the Expert Amateur: DIY Projects, Communities, and Cultures.” In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland, October 16-20, 2010, edited, 295-304. ACM.
Leach, Joel. 2011. A concise guide to music industry terms. Missouri: Mel Bay Publications.
Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 15th December, 2014
Page, David L. 2017 2nd Observation image courtesy of David L Page  Created 10th June, 2017
Page, David L. 2015b. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2h  Accessed 5th September, 2015
Page, David L. 2015a. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2f  Accessed 20th May, 2015
Page, David L. 2014. image courtesy of David L Page.  Created 15th December, 2014
Raimond, Yves, Samer A Abdallah, Mark B Sandler and Frederick Giasson. 2007. “The music ontology.” In ISMIR, edited, 417-422: Citeseer.
Rogers, I. 2013. The hobbyist majority and the mainstream fringe: the pathways of independent music-making in Brisbane, Australia. In Redefining mainstream popular music, edited by Sarah Baker, Andy Bennett and Jodie Taylor, 162-173. New York: Routledge.
– @David L Page 29/07/2015
– updated @David L Page 05/09/2015
– updated @David L Page 10/06/2017
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.








Educational Philosophy Part 3c

On track to develop mastery of one self, what is your approach to education and learning? (contd)

Continuing on from my previous blogs in this series: it is my desired goal to develop a collaborative, collegial, safe learning environment. Trust and respect are core to this process.
As mentioned in the previous Layer, prior to the learning practice session I need to be in a position to pre-assess the learning group. In instances where I do not have the required background information – which I admit to being the majority of cases – I would need to structure my initial class room activities to include activities which enable me to educe the range of background information and understanding I consider relevant and useful. To facilitate the needed getting to know my learners phase, I find being open with my learners along similar levels of information and behaviour that I expect of them. I consciously invest time in the initial stages of the learning experience with a new group of learners to develop an appropriate learning session culture, which includes confirming the agreed learning outcomes. This step is necessary to ensure the learner’s expectation and the learner facilitator’s expectations are aligned; and if not, to take the opportunity to discuss and address any misaligned of expectations at the earliest opportunity. The ultimate goal of a learning experience is to optimise the effective student learning experience of the particular learners. In clarifying both the learner’s and my learning facilitation expectations, I am in my experience removing possible issues or objections that may arise later. Even if issues or objections regarding levels of expectations do arise later in the learning experience, at least there has been prior dialogue – a conscious reference point from the outset – to return to and continue discussion. This process is all part of developing trust and respect for a collaborative, collegial, safe learning environment.
Learner assessment – during session delivery
Throughout the learning experience I will be informally assessing the progress of the learner group, and as much as humanly possible, the progress – in real time assessment –  of each of the individual learners. My goal at any point in time thought the learning experience is to confirm all of the learners are engaged and are being presented with a learning experience that is compatible with their personality type, their thinking approach, their intelligences, and their learning styles (Light et al 2009, 77). I need to confirm the learner’s understanding independently throughout the learning experience by a range of means. Two such means are via questioning techniques; and observing students in action. Concept checking questioning techniques (CCQ) and instruction checking questions (ICQ) enable me to effectively and efficiently achieve this, ensuring that I systematically include all participants within the particular learning experience – as appropriate (Fisher and Frey 2007; Angelo and Cross 1993). Observing of students carrying out a task can also confirm to you as the learning environment facilitator that your instructions were clear. But such observation allows you to also confirm the student’s approach to a particular function; the degree of competence that may or may not have with that particular function; any gaps in knowledge they may or may not have; and the opportunity for you as their learning facilitator to further assist them in order to optimise their effective learning experience. This later observation in the environment of audio training used to be conducted in workplace training contexts (the apprenticeship model), but in the contemporary environment, much of this type of training is now conducted in formal education programs (Billett 2001): formal education programs such as SAE Institute’s Creative Media degree, Bachelor of Audio Production program (SAE Institute, 2015).
As a learning experience facilitator, my desired goal is to develop a collaborative, collegial, safe learning environment. Trust and respect are core to this process. As part of this process, my aim is to reveal my self as candidly as is appropriate – socially and culturally. In my experience, the more I know my self as a practitioner, the more congruent I can be with others – including my students; and the more potential I have to be able to optimise the effective student learning experience of those particular learners.

Layer 10: Evaluation of the learning practice

The evaluation of the learning practice session is what I consider to be one of the most important stages of the education & learning process. The purpose of this stage is to have the learners evaluate the learning session in terms of the content and/or processes.
I have observed many novice education and learning practitioners in many different scenarios overlook this stage, unaware of the importance of this stage. I have laid this evaluation section out in the following five (5) parts.

Layer 10a: Evaluation of the learning practice Pt1

This process commences at the conclusion of the central learning practice session. Often, I will have a break at the end of the central learning practice session, before I commence the evaluation stage.
In preparing for this stage prior to the commencement of the learning session, I need to consider how I am planning to have the learning session evaluated in terms of the content and/or processes. I consider how I will effectively and efficiently draw the education & learning practice session to a logical conclusion so that the learners can effectively and efficiently evaluate what they have learnt.
The evaluation process can be either a formal or informal process. However for best practice, I would advocate to include both a formal or informal process in the evaluation stage.
  • An example of an informal process could include a cohort-wide round table debrief of “what I learnt today?” I have be known in this stage to make notes down as they share; or if i feel this to be intrusive, then I may make mental notes that I will jot down immediately after the learning session has ended.
  • An example of a formal process could include a pre-arranged summative evaluation tool such as a feedback form that the learners respond to questions regarding the various aspects of the learning session.  The primary benefit of this confidential response of each individual if that one may elicit some responses that a informal round table debrief may not.
Once I have completed this evaluation process, I end the learning session officially – restating any expected action or practice required prior to a further learning session. I then dismiss the learners.

Layer 10b: Evaluation of the learning practice Pt2

Once the learning session has concluded, I then need to consider the evaluations.  For the formal process, this will include considering the quantifiable or qualitative responses in order to draw conclusions of the learner’s evaluation of the learning session.
For the informal process, this may include revisiting some jotted down points during the actually learning session round table debrief; or if considered an intrusive process, actually noting down learners’ comments that were made during that session.
This evaluation process could also include a third party observer who may have been sitting in on the learning session. Such a third party observer’s observations and input could be very beneficial in the event that there is a difference of opinion as to the usefulness of the learning sessions content and/or processes, between some of the learners; or some of the learns and you as the facilitator of the learning session.
Irrespective of what tool or party provided the evaluation of the learning session, my aim is to gather data regarding the following questions:
Did the learners realise the aims and objectives of the learning session?
How do I know they did?
How did I know they didn’t?
Anecdotally what was the feedback?
In terms of summative feedback, what was the evaluations?
Were there any observers in attendance in the learning session?
Intuitively, how did the learners realise the aims and objectives of the learning session?
Did some learners realise the aims and objectives of the learning session, but others not?
Why do I think this did/did not occur?
Did the learners realise the learning session objectives?
Why/why not?
How do I know this?
Did the learners feel they realised the learning session objectives?
Why/why not?
How do I know this?
Once I have completed the data gathering stage, I need to take time to reflect on the evaluation of the learning session.

Layer 10c: Reflective practice following the learning practice Pt3

There are benefits of reflecting on a learning practice session once it has concluded. The degree to which one can reflect is dependent upon one’s knowledge of the content or the different learning theories and approaches. You can only reflect on what you know. It is very difficult if not impossible to reflect on an aspect of your practice that you are not yet aware of. Whilst i feel this is obvious – common sense – I think the point is lost of some education administrators.
My practice covers the three disciplines of creative (music) practice, education and learning practice, and my most recent engagement, research practice. In Layer 5 I noted that my approach to all of these forms of practice, I “make time to reflect every day at some time upon some aspect of my diverse practice, referenced against other practitioners, whether peers or those who I value their cultural production. My focus is to gain clarity, greater understanding, increased insight, considering possible alternative workflows I could have pursued, and decide what form of practice I will pursue the next opportunity a similar circumstance arises” (Page 2004). I also noted my daily practice is to engage in both reflective practice and reflexive practice.
        Reflective Practice – introduction
Many novice practitioners may consider casual options of reflection; such as on the way home on the bus or in the car whilst listening to music, as being sufficient to develop their practice. Haseman differentiates casual reflections and conscious planned reflective practice as the difference between navel-gazing and what he terms forensic reflective practice (2015). The goal of reflective practice should be to turn experience into learning (Boud et al 2013). Therefore a deliberate activity to consider a past practice event, and then analyse it critically, appears to be the minimal criterion that defines robust reflective practice. A practitioner should consciously make time and space at a specific part of the day when where they can engage undisturbed in reflective practice; considering what they did, or didn’t do in that lesson; or what you did or didn’t do in terms of the agreed aims and objectives contained within your learning experience plan.
Specifically, education and learning practice needs to be considered in terms of the respective andragogies or pedagogies of the learning group.  In order to avoid the ill-disciplined habit of informal reflection, it should be the aim of the practitioner to have clear and transparent processes so that they can be examined closely as to their value, limitations and assumptions (McKee, 2003). The result could be a practitioner’s reflective practice toolbox, offering a range of strategies for: reflection-in-action (Schön 1983), reflection-on-action (Schön 1983) and reflection-for-action (Pascal & Thompson 2012): demonstrated by real world examples across any of the common aspects of teaching, such as: curriculum design; learning experience planning; delivery; and post-delivery evaluation.
Figure II – Reflective Practices Summary (Anderson et al 2015)
There are a number of possibilities of focus to reflect on following the learning practice. One can reflect on the experience of the learner; your experience as the practitioner; or your experience as a participant observer (Griffiths 2010). Brookfield’s theoretical framework for reflective practice is provided to examine these pedagogical practices through four different lenses – through our own eyes; through your student’s eyes; through our fellow professionals’ eyes; and through established theoretical views (Brookfield, 1995). This reflective practice process should at best inform and and enrich ones’ education and learning practice, allowing the discovery of innovative or creative practices, while also acknowledging contemporary literature on the subject.
Roth’s model could also be used for unpacking the reflective process, encouraging greater depth of analysis and further investigation as required (Roth, 1989). Together, these conceptual frameworks provide several perspectives and facilitate ways in which to think critically about teaching, and uncover effective practice. This framework could provide a platform for revealing a desired result of reflective andragogical or pedagogical practices in line with industry standards.
  • Questioning what, why, and how one does things and asking what, why, and how others do things 
  • Seeking alternatives 
  • Keeping an open mind 
  • Comparing and contrasting 
  • Seeking the framework, theoretical basis, and/or underlying rationale 
  • Viewing from various perspectives 
  • Asking “what if…?” 
  • Asking for others’ ideas and viewpoints 
  • Using prescriptive models only when adapted to the situation 
  • Considering consequences 
  • Hypothesising 
  • Synthesising and testing 
  • Seeking, identifying, and resolving problems
 Reflective Practice – specific to an education & learning practice session plan
The process I follow at the end of a education & learning practice session includes the following areas, with accompanying questions:
I do this process in two stages. The first stage is on-site, immediate post-practice. The benefit of this process is that the practice events are still fresh in my mind. I can scribe the physical, visual, auditory or emotional events of the day with a high degree of detailed recollection due to the currency of the events that have just been experienced or observed. In many ways, it is very much an stream of consciousness process – scribing without considering too much or judging my responses.  In terms of a detail of recollection I find this on-site, immediate post-practice reflective practice session is very beneficial as an initial data collection exercise. This process commits to my sub-conscious content for consideration, and until the point that I make time to return to the second stage of the deliberate reflective process, my mind will be turning over that data, and distilling the less significant events from the more prominent and significant events.
The range of questions I ask of myself to scribe my immediate first responses are:
  • Did the learner realise the aims and objectives of the learning session?
  • How do I know they did?
  • How did I know they didn’t?
  • Anecdotally what was the feedback?
  • Intuitively what was the feedback?
  • Did some learners realise the aims and objectives of the learning session, but others not?
  • Why do I think this did/did not occur?
  • Did the learners realise the learning session objectives?
  • Why/why not?
  • How do I know this?
  • Did the learners feel they realised the learning session objectives?
  • Why/why not?
  • How do I know this?
The second stage is away from site, and after some time has lapsed post-practice. I find it is crucial to conduct this second stage reflective practice in a different site to that of the practice session, as it allows a separation of any possible automated response that may be activated by the actual practice site that I am reflecting about. Additionally, the amount of time expired between the actual practice session and this reflective practice session may vary in each circumstance: I have found over doing this process over many decades that it has to be an appropriate amount of time to allow my mind to turn over that data, and distil out the less significant events from the more prominent and significant events. Sometimes this takes a few days, and at others times, it has taken several weeks. I am experienced enough in this process now to trust my inner time clock to know which particular practice session I will choose to reflect upon in any of the regular scheduled evening reflective practice sessions I hold.
As inferred, the benefit of this process is that the practice events become distilled in my mind, with the more prominent or significant events rising to prominence in my mind. This stage of reflective practice also allows for any emotion around that particular practice session to recede to a level where perhaps a greater degree of perspective can be applied to the event. With distance and time away from the practice, I find I scribe the prominent or significant physical, visual, auditory or emotional events of the last practice session with a greater degree of critical thinking due to the distance – time and place – from the events that had previously been experienced or observed. I generally do this process once I have concluded my responsibilities of the day – when the house is quiet, when my mind is free of other responsibilities. I may or may not have a hot beverage, and I sometimes conduct this exercise against a backdrop of soothing music which I find allows my mind to delve into depths of thought and analysis. In contrast to the stage of on-site, immediate post-practice stream of consciousness process gathering of recollection data, I scribe very consciously, analysing what and how I respond. I certainly consider why I have acted in practice – and also responded – in the ways I do, dissecting each and every prominent or significant event within my practice session. It is a rigorous process that I find is both mentally exhausting, but also satisfying due to the crystallisation of thoughts and ideas that I find usually occurs.
In this Part 2 stage, the range of questions I ask of myself to scribe my second round of very considered responses are very similar – if not the same – set of questions as outlined above. However, I definitely drill down within each question to a far greater level of depth, looking for insightful distinctions about my practice. The question words of what, how and why are instrumental in this process. In doing this second round of reflective practice, I find is that I am far more detailed in the scribing process, critically analysing to a depth that is absent from my on-site, immediate post-practice initial data collection reflection process. It is within this reflective practice session that I crystallise my thoughts and understandings, and gain fresh levels of clarity about my practice.
Given the above reflection on student learning, I ask myself the following questions:
  • Were the learning session outcomes realised?
  • How satisfied am I with the learning outcomes?
  • If not completely satisfied: why/why not?
  • Do I consider any changes need to be made in the next education & learning session of the similar aims and objectives? 
  • What were the strengths and weaknesses of the learning sessions?
  • How was the timing or the flow of the education & learning practice session? 
  • What worked?
  • What and why?
  • What didn’t work?
  • What and why?
  • Had I planned for this event/factor to happen?
  • Was it conceivable that it could occur?
  • What was the percentage of time between facilitator-talk (Ft) and learner-talk (Lt)?
  • Was this as planned and described in the education & learning practice session plan?
  • Why?
  • Why not?
  • How useful was the education & learning practice session plan?
  • What was?
  • What wasn’t?
  • How closely did I stick to the education & learning practice session plan?
  • What happened that forced the change?
  • Why hadn’t I planned for this change to happen?
  • Was it conceivable that it could occur/arise?
In terms of the education & learning approach:
  • How effective was the particular pedagogical/andragogical approach?
  • What worked?
  • What and why?
  • What didn’t work?
  • What and why?
  • In terms of the methods/tasks/processes:
  • How effective was the particular methods/tasks/processes implemented?
  • What worked?
  • What and why?
  • What didn’t work?
  • What and why?
  • What changes will I make for the next education & learning session of the similar aims and objectives? 
  • Are their any techniques or skills in terms of teaching practice I need to develop to better faclitate the education & learning session?
  • How could I further develop Ir learning session plan to accommodate unexpected events when they arise?
  • If I were working within a team, are there any issues related to the teaching team that I need to follow up on?
  • Did the learner meet the assessment requirements of the learning session?
  • How do I know they did?
  • How did I know they didn’t?
  • What assessment strategy did I use?
  • How effective was tthat approach in Ir opinion?
  • What worked?
  • How do I know it worked?
  • What didn’t work?
  • How do I know it didn’t work?
  • What changes will I make for the next education & learning session of the similar aims and objectives? 
  • Are their any techniques or skills in terms of assessment planning I need to develop to better faclitate the education & learning session requirement realisation?
  • Did the learners absorb the required learning session content?
  • How do I know they did?
  • How did I know they didn’t?
  • Based on the pedadgogical/andragogical approach:
  • How effective was tthat approach in Ir opinion for this particular content?
  • What worked?
  • How do I know it worked?
  • What didn’t work?
  • How do I know it didn’t work?
  • What changes will I make for the next education & learning session of the similar aims and objectives? 
  • Are their any techniques or skills in terms of content I need to develop to better faclitate the education & learning session?
  • Are there any content questions I need to follow up with the learners? 
  • Were there any factors outside of the educational and learning facilitator’s control that impacted the session in any way?
  • Negative? 
  • What?
  • Positive?
  • What?
  • What technology or tools will I need to have prepared prior to class (physical, IT)?
  • What digital tools and/or resources will I use in this education & learning practice session?
  • Will I need any technical support? If so state when, where and when.
  • Do I need to contact IT support prior to my education & learning practice session?
  • Do I need to schedule time to load computer programs or learning technologies prior to class? 
  • What resources or materials will I need to have prepared prior to class (human, physical)?
  • What tools and/or resources will I use in this education & learning practice session? 
  • If so what, where and when. 
  • What did I learn or observe about Ir self during this education & learning practice session now that I have considered all aspects of the practice session in detail?
  • Do I still hold the same opinions regarding the education & learning practice session now that I have discussed the practice session with my critical friend?
  • What did I learn or observe about my self during this education & learning practice session now that I have discussed the practice session with my critical friend?
  • Do I still hold the same opinions regarding the education & learning practice session now that I have engaged education & learning literature in terms of my specfiic education & learning practice session?
  • What did I learn or observe about my self during this education & learning practice session now that I have engaged education & learning literature in terms of my specific education & learning practice session?

Layer 10d: Reflexive practice following the learning practice Pt4

Returning to Brookfield’s approach as outlined above, once a practitioner has engaged in reflective practice, irrespective of whether that evaluative data has been internally generated, from the learner group within or post the central or evaluatiion session, observed and feedback from either a supervised observer, a peer observer, a critical friend, derived from reading literature, or from engaging in either informal or formal forms of professional development programs; unless something is decided upon to be trailed into one’s practice, in order to develop that practice, then I would question the usefulness or the validity of that reflective practice. As introduced in my Music Practitioner – Part 3 blog, Haseman outlines that for practice to be forensic reflective practice, the reflective practice must progress to and include the extra step of developing one’s practice to include aspects that have been reflected on, and decided that are in need of improvement. Aspects that are thought will enrich ones’ education and learning practice, and developing one’s experience in different learning theories and approaches.


Figure III – Forensic reflective practice chart (Haseman 2015)
Therefore I would ask my self the following questions to complete this process of reflective practice, preparing for reflexive practice – actually applying development and change to my practice.
  • What are there areas of my education & learning practice that I need to develop prior to my next education & learning practice session? 
    List these areas in detail:
  • Of these, what will I select to focus on?
  • What do I need training and development in, in order to realise these developments in practice?
  • How will I know when I have successfully achieved this desired development?


Layer 11a: Reflective professional practice in contemporary higher education

Finally, I want to conclude with Light et al’s proposition of three (3) paradigms of academic development of educators and learning practitioners in a contemporary Higher Education environment (Light et al 2009, 12). Light et al describes a practitioner in terms of: their relative lack of engagement in their education and learning practice on a professional level; their relative lack of reflection and level of engagement with the context of the education and learning field and discipline; and finally, their engagement as a professional practitioner who also considers wider social and cultural issues and realities. As you read these, I request that you consider which one best describes your approach or situation to your learning experience practice:
  1. ad hoc paradigm: “is located primarily within the individual teacher, and essentially asserts that a good teacher is born, not made”. “Teaching is something one picks up and grasps informally and individually. It is non-reflective in the broader sense. The teacher is left to her own devices and draws upon past experience of being taught, trial and error, help from sympathetic colleagues when available, and her own natural affinities for teaching”(Light et al 2009, 12). Note: the self is at the centre of this paradigm;
  2. skills paradigm: “the development of teaching is an add-on process and rests in the accumulation and reproduction of performance and communication skills, competencies and tips. These skills are generic and provided by trainers and consultants who often have no formal experience of the discipline in which the trainers are working or even of higher education training”(Light et al 2009, 12). Note: both the self and the institution are at the centre of this paradigm;
  3. professional paradigm: “the location of the professional paradigm goes beyond the practitioner’s self and institution to embrace wider issues raised by society”: “professional status derives from the value that society places on higher education, the inclusion of specialised knowledge and the reliance on higher-order abilities critically to acquire, apply, reflect on and elaborate that knowledge. As such, it is essentially a reflective paradigm” (Light et al 2009, 13). Note: the self, the institution and society are at the centre of this paradigm.
    Which one best describes your approach or situation to your learning experience practice?
    Given this, in what ways can you develop as a professional practitioner?

Layer 11b: Reflective professional practice values statements

As developed across the 11 Layers of my approach to education and learning, I believe a contemporary practitioner needs to develop an understanding of their self – as a person, and as a practitioner. I believe the more self knowing a practitioner has of who they are in terms of their personality; their various thinking, learning orientations and intelligences; their values, beliefs and biases, the more congruent a practitioner can be with others. Ultimately, the more potential the practitioner is able to assist their learners in the learning experience – to develop their content, information knowledge base and skills level – the more opportunity the practitioner can guide the learner to maximise their development, their personal empowerment, in order for those learners to ultimately realise their full life potential. I consider this approach integral to becoming a professional practitioner.
The following statements are what I consider to be central to my reflective professional practice; values that I apply across all forms of my practice, whether it be education and learning, music practice, research practice, or life practice.

Know one self, develop mastery of one self

Take a proactive approach with your education and learning, investing in developing and advancing your content, information knowledge base and skill level 

A professional practitioner: 10,000 hours of practice, reflect, develop, practice, reflect, develop, practice, reflect, develop,practice, reflect, develop, practice..

As a reflective professional practitioner, embrace the wider social and cultural context rather than just the institution’s desired outcomes

Anderson, C, Carolyn Carattini, Heather Clarke, Gail Hewton, David Page 2015 QUT KKP623 Reflective Practice in Action Group Presentation submission Accessed October 24, 2015.
Angelo, Thomas A and K Patricia Cross. 1993. “Classroom assessment techniques: A handbookfor college teachers.” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Billett, Stephen. 2001. Learning in the workplace: strategies for effective practice. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Boud, David, Rosemary Keogh and David Walker. 2013. Reflection: turning experience into learning. New York: Routledge.
Brookfield, Stephen D. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass
Esposito, Emily 2015 The Essential Guide to Writing S.M.A.R.T Goals  Accessed 20th November 2015
Fisher, Douglas and Nancy Frey. 2007. Checking for understanding: formative assessment techniques for your classroom. New York: ASCD.
Griffiths, Morweena. 2010. “Research and the self.” In The Routledge companion to research in the arts, edited by M Biggs and H Karlsson, 167-185. London: Routledge.
Haseman, B 2015. “Forensic reflective practice: effecting personal and systemic change.” Accessed May 24, 2015.
Light, Greg, Susanna Calkins and Roy Cox. 2009. Learning and teaching in higher education: the reflective professional. London: Sage.
McKee, Alan. 2003. Textual analysis: a beginner’s guide. London: Sage
Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 28th March 2015
Page, David L. 2015a. Music Practitioner Part 3 Accessed 28th March 2015
Pascal, J., & Thompson, N. 2012. Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 311. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2012.657795
Roth, Robert. 1989. “Preparing the reflective practitioner: transforming the apprentice through the dialectic“. Journal of Teacher Education 40 (2): 31-35
SAE Institute, 2015 SAE Institute Accessed 28th March 2015
Schön, Donald A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Aldershot, England: Arena.
Springer, Sally P and Georg Deutsch. 1993. Left brain, right brain. 4 ed. New York: WH Freeman & Company.
Armstrong, Thomas. 1999. 7 Kinds of Smart: Identifying and Developing Your Multiple Intelligences. New York: Plume Books.
Ashwin, Paul. 2006. Changing higher education: the development of learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.
Bradbury, Helen, Nick Frost, Sue Kilminster and Miriam Zukus. 2010. Beyond reflective practice: new approaches to professional lifelong learning. New York: Routledge.
Brookfield, Stephen D. 2006. The skillful teacher: on technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. 2 ed. San Francisco: The Jossey Bass.
Brookfield, Stephen D. 2002. “Using the lenses of critically reflective teaching in the community college classroom.” New Directions for Community Colleges 2002 (118): 31-38.
 Brookfield, Stephen. 1986. Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Chopra, Deepak. 1996. The seven spiritual laws of success: a practical guide to the fulfilment of your dreams. New York: Random House.
Covey, Stephen R. 2013. The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Covey, Stephen R. 1991. Principle centered leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Covey, Stephen R. 1989. The 7 habits of highly effective people. Melbourne: The Business Library.
Dyer, Wayne W. 1992. Real magic: creating miracles in everyday life. Sydney: Harper Collins.
Entwistle, Noel and Paul Ramsden. 1983. Understanding Student Learning. New York: Routledge Revivals.
Gardner, Howard and Thomas Hatch. 1989. “Multiple Intelligences go to school: educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences.” Educational researcher 18 (8): 4-10.
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences image courtesy of:  Gardners’ MI   Accessed 28th March 2015
Gawith, Gwen. 1991. Power learning: a student’s guide to success. Melbourne: Longman Chesire.
Gerber, Michael E. 2005. E Myth Mastery. New York: Harper Audio.
Gerber, Michael E. 1999. The e-myth manager: why management doesn’t work – and what to do about it. New York: Harper Business.
Gerber, Michael E. 1988. The E Myth. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Grace, S and R Ajjawi. 2010. Phenomenological research: Understanding human phenomena. Researcing practice: A discussion on qualitative methodologies. Rotterdam: Sense.
Knowles, Malcolm S, Elwood F Holton III and Richard A Swanson. 2012. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 7 ed. New York: Routledge.
Lawrence-Wilkes, L. & Chapman, A. 2015. Reflective Practice. Accessed March 28th, 2015
Littauer, Florence. 1986. Your personality tree. Dallas: Word Publishing.
Markova, Dawna and Anne R Powell. 1996. How your child is smart: a life-changing approach to learning. Los Angeles: Conari Press.
Merriam, Sharan B. 2001. “Andragogy and self‐directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory.” New directions for adult and continuing education 2001 (89): 3-14.
Millwood, Richard. 2013. Learning Theory v6_Millwood.D2.2.1.20130430  Accessed 20th July 2015
Page, David L. 2004. Educational Philosophy Part 1 Accessed 28th March 2015
Page, David L. 2015a. Educational Philosophy Part 2 Accessed 28th March 2015
Parker, A and J Cutler-Stuart. 1986. Switch on your brain: a guide to better reading, concentration and coordination. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.
Pedagogy versus Andragogy chart courtesy of: Pedagogy vs Andragogy chart Accessed 28th March 2015
Peters, Thomas J. 2003. Re-imagine! London: Dorling Kindersley.
Peters, Thomas J and Nancy Austin. 1985. A passion for excellence. The leadership difference. London: Dorling Kindersley.
Peters, Thomas J, Robert H Waterman and Ian Jones. 1982. In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. London: Dorling Kindersley.
Pieper, Martha Heineman and William Joseph Pieper. 1999. Smart love: the compassionate alternative to discipline that will make you a better parent and your child a better person. Boston: Harvard Common Press
Robbins, Tony. 1991. Awaken the giant within: how to take immediate control of your mental, emotional, physical and financial. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ryan, Mary Elizabeth. 2014. Reflective practice in the arts. In Literacy in the Arts, edited by G Barton, 77-90. London: Springer.
Schön, Donald A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 355 + xvii pages.
Sperry, Roger W. 1975. Left-brain, right-brain. Saturday Review 2 (23): 30-32.
– ©David L Page 21/07/2015
– updated ©David L Page 20/11/2015
Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.