Critical Reflection: Going Beyond The experience changed me

forever

There are several misconceptions concerning the concept of

reflection. Often, reflection is seen as superfluous and time-consuming.
Many students roll their eyes at assignments such as discussion board
reactions or debriefing journal entries. However, reflection is also
commonly romanticized, creating the false assumption that only
poetic, pensive individuals are capable of quality reflection. Indeed, a
simple Google image search for reflection produces countless
depictions of individuals deep in thought, often projected onto celestial
or majestic backgrounds.
John Dewey laid the foundation for research on reflection,
defining the process as the active, persistent, and careful
consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge (Dewey,
1933 pp. 16). A plethora of researchers have posited similar
definitions, claiming that reflection is a systematic inquiry into ones
own practice (Lucas, 1991), or an inner dialogue with oneself
whereby a person calls forth experiences, beliefs, and perceptions
(Cambell-Jones and Cambell-Jones, 2002 p. 134). Although definitions
differ in their nuances, the literature is clearly defines reflection as an
active process which goes far beyond looking in the minds mirror.
The inner dialogue of reflection both informs and transforms
knowledge and action, encouraging individuals to restrain from simply

doing things the way they have always been done (Risko, Roskos, &
Vukelich, 2002).
Researchers often distinguish between different types of
reflection, sorting them into levels or modes. These modes and levels
are helpful when describing reflection and considering methods to
promote reflective thinking, but it is imperative not to consider
reflective thinking to be hierarchical in nature. While critical reflection
is typically considered the most sophisticated form of reflection, other
forms of reflective thinking provide the appropriate scaffolding for the
transformative thinking of critical reflection to occur. As Brookfield
(1995 from 7) suggested, just because reflection is not critical does
not mean it is unimportant or unnecessary (pp. 79).
Van Manen (1977) proposed three levels of reflectivity: technical
rationality, practical action, and critical reflection. At the technical
level, individuals focus on the application of knowledge and principles,
and often neglect to consider the over-arching context of the
experience. For example, a student teacher may reflect on her
struggles with classroom management and consult educational
textbooks, but fail to recognize that behavioral issues may be the
result of complex, contextual situations such as community ]or social
issues. Van Manen refers to this level as the empirical-analytical
paradigm, emphasizing that students often over-emphasize empirical
explanations and fail to consider the situation from a holistic, open-

minded perspective. Valli (1990,) suggested that technical rationality is

non-reflective, claiming that individuals are not truly reflecting until
they react to technical issues (as in Van Manens second level, Practical
Action). Collier (1999) referred to technical rationality as simple
reaction, highlighting the fact that most reflections at this level are
direct reactions to experiences. Similarly, Jay and Johnsons (2002)
first dimension, descriptive reflection, involves the intellectual process
of setting the problem (pp. 77). Thus, individuals may describe the
problem in detail, but do little to go beyond simple description and
reaction.
Practical action involves clarifying and questioning the
assumptions that underlie goals and actions (Zeichner & Liston, 1987).
Many researchers have described practical action as reflection on the
contextual level, highlighting the relationship between theory and
context of practice (see Van Manen, 1977 for the original description
and Marzono, 2012 for a review). Instead of following strict guidelines,
students begin to question their own behaviors through both
introspection and outside research. Often, theoretical truths
contradict experiences, and students must adjust their goals and
expectations. Students begin to question what they have blindly
accepted as fact, which can be both a terrifying and exhilarating
experience. Thus, the non-problematic nature of the technical level is
shattered at the contextual level; individuals recognize personal biases

when they consider situations in context. Underlying assumptions are

clarified, and consequences of actions are considered within realworld, rather than textbook contexts.
Marzono (2012) claimed that teachers who reflect at this level
often improve immensely, since they consider how to adjust teaching
methods to best fit the unique needs of their students. As any
educator is quick to point out, it is not possible to simply repeat a
lesson from last year, since student population is so diverse and
student dispositions change day-to-day. Reflecting at the contextual
level ensures that teachers develop lesson plans that are tailored to
the unique needs of students. Instead of solely relying on existing
theories, educators begin to develop their own rules of thumb as the
weld together personal experiences and academic knowledge. Indeed,
this level is comparable to Jay and Johnsons (2002) suggestion of
comparative reflection, which emphasizes that individuals deliberate
the issue from multiple perspectives in order to formulate a more
sophisticated understanding.
While critical reflection, Van Manens final level, is often viewed
as the most sophisticated form of reflective thinking, it is imperative
not to deemphasize other types of reflection. In order to critically
reflect, individuals must be able to elaborately describe their
experiences and feelings (technical reflection), as well as their unique
contexts (practical action). Indeed, each type of reflection builds upon

the last: individuals lay the foundation for critical reflection as they
describe their experiences and reactions in detail, construct the
framework for critical reflection as they consider these experiences in
context, and finally engage in transformative thinking as they integrate
their personal understandings and the diverse viewpoints of others.
Thus, while critical reflection is often the ultimate goal, other types of
reflection are equally useful and important.
Killion and Totdnem (1991) suggested the reflective process is
continually spiraling, resulting in constant re-analysis of experiences
and transformation of understandings. They distinguished three types
of reflection: reflection on practice, in practice, and for practice.
Reflection on practice, similar to Van Manens technical level of
reflection, is mainly reactive in nature. This reflection typically takes
place immediately after an event, in which individuals simply describe
their experiences. Reflection in practice is also characterized by
reaction, but this type of reflection occurs in the midst of practice.
Finally, reflection for practice guides future action; individuals revisit
the past and engage in reflective processes for the purpose of guiding
future action. Thus, reflection is not simply a retroactive process to
review the past, but rather an active process to inform the future.
Reflection on, in, and for practice function as a continual spiral.
Reflecting during and after practice facilitates future decision-making,

guiding the individual to change according to what he or she has

learned.
Perhaps the most well known framework for reflective practice is
Rolfe et als (2001) What?, So what? And Now what? model. The
series of questions are meant to guide individuals from novice to
advanced reflection. The first level is mainly reactive; the individual
describes the situation in detail. The So what? level is characterized
by the development of personal theory and knowledge; individuals
reflect on their experiences and construct new understandings as
theory and reality are simultaneously considered. Finally, based on
these previous reflections, the Now What? level requires individuals to
prepare for future action.

Critical Reflection: Unearthing Assumptions

Critical reflection is generally described as the process of

analyzing, reconsidering ad questioning experiences within a broad
context of issues like ethical practices, learning theories and use of
technologies (Boody, 2008). It is transformative power that sets critical
reflection apart from mere reaction. Individuals go beyond describing
their emotional reactions to their experiences, analyzing their motives
and transforming future actions. According to Van Manen (1977),
critical reflection is characterized by open-mindedness to both moral

and ethical dilemmas. Individuals are concerned with the worth of

knowledge in relation to unique social circumstances. Thus, critical
reflection is not distorted by personal bias, because individuals are
able to see beyond their opinions and appreciate diverse viewpoints.
Critical reflection requires individuals to consult personal
knowledge and experiences in order to transform and reframe current
understandings. This type of reflection is often intimidating, as many
students have the urge to simply Google the answer, rather than
question why they believe what they believe. Many individuals find
critical reflection intimidating and nebulous, seeking a clear outcome
from the process. This is especially notable in an educational setting, in
which students are so focused on earning the grade that they safely
frame reflective assignments in a manner that suggests reflection, but
doesnt truly scratch the surface of critical reflection. There is no
correct outcome of critical reflection. Indeed, two individuals can
reflect on the same experience and reach extremely different
conclusions. Critical reflection is contemplative; instead of establishing
clear and concise descriptions of ones views, individuals are
encouraged to remain open-minded (Collier, 1999).
Critical reflection only occurs when an individual is faced with a
real problem that needs to be solved (Brubacher, Case, & Reagan,
1994). Unlike many hypothetical textbook scenarios, most real-world
problems do not fall into neat categories. Individuals must draw from

various theories and viewpoints to successfully solve these problems,

integrating what they has learned and discovered in the past to form
new and improved solutions (Jay & Johnson, 2002). Thus, critical
reflection cannot be accomplished solely from official research
strategies. Individuals must challenge themselves to consider
problems from multiple viewpoints and create their own unique
solutions (Grimett et al, 1990).
As individuals progress to critical reflection (the Now What
stage of Rolfes model), they shift from passive reaction to active
implementation of new ideas and understandings. Students progress
beyond simply looking in the mirror and describing what they see.
Instead, through intentional introspection, individuals are able to
recognize that their reflections may not appear as expected. As
Mezirow (1991) explained, learning typically involves attributing an old
meaning to a new experience, but transformative learning that occurs
through critical reflection requires one to reinterpret an old experience
(or a new one) from a new set of expectations (pp.11). Critical
reflection unearths assumptions that taint the formation of clear
understandings of our experiences. However, as these assumptions
are realized, they can be transformed to guide future action and
encourage deep learning. Case and colleagues (2012) described
various types of assumptions that can be transformed through critical
reflection. Figure 1 describes these assumptions in detail, and

illustrates how critical reflection can be harnessed to transform these

assumptions into opportunities for growth.

Insert Figure 1

Reflection: What it is, and What it is Not

1. Reflection is not limited to the individual level.
While reflection is typically seen as an individual experience (many
students believe that reflection is synonymous with journaling in a
quiet, open area), critical reflection is not possible without considering
the context in which one is learning. The thoughts and past
experiences of the individual interact with unique social and cultural
contexts, and thus no two situations are identical. It is this flexibility
and uniqueness that can be both overwhelming and exhilarating.
Indeed, reflection challenges us to question even our most basic
expectations, but also provides the scaffolding and framework for new,
rich learning to occur.
2. Reflection does not always serve the same purpose.
Moon (2006) distinguished between academic and personal
reflection, proposing that academic reflection typically involves a
conscious and stated purpose. Academic reflection is transformative in
nature; students progress beyond simple knowledge telling, actively
transforming their understandings through continual questioning and
theorizing (Ryan, 2011).
3. Reflection is not a clean process.
4. Reflection is not meant to lead to clear understandings.

Many individuals view reflection as a time to gather ones

thoughts and deepen understandings. While reflection does indeed
allow time for deeper processing, it is essential to realize that critical
reflection seldom leads to the immediate formation of clear
understandings. At first glance, this statement seems counterintuitive. Isnt one of the main purposes of critical reflection to
confront assumptions that underlie our personal biases, and thus
establish deeper understandings that are not limited to narrow
viewpoints? While this is a central purpose of critical reflection, the
process is never clean-cut. Indeed, Dewey (1933) claimed that
problematizing is central to critical reflection. Thus, it is quite possible
(and often ideal!) that critically reflecting leaves the individual with
more questions than answers. The reflection process has no clear end;
as individuals continually reflect, they uncover more and more
questions to address. Thus, reflection drives curiosity, encouraging
individuals to consider multiple viewpoints and challenge themselves
to take on active roles in their surroundings.
5. Reflection is not bound by time.
6. Reflection does not require a leather journal and fountain
pen.
7. Reflection is not meant limited to experts.
Many novices reflect primarily at the technical level, since this
type of reflection does not require individuals to consult past
experiences. As individuals gain experience in specific fields, they

construct repertoires of information to consult when faced with nonroutine experiences. For example, a seasoned teacher who has
experienced confrontations with parents and guardians in the past can
consider these past situations when facing difficult parent-teacher
relations. While a novice teacher may have never called home to
discuss behavioral issues with a parent, experienced teachers can
create successful action plans when dealing with such situations,
through reflecting on these past experiences. However, it is important
to highlight that expertise does not always facilitate the reflective
process. At times, experts rely to heavily on past response sets, simply
repeating actions that have worked in the past. Thus, while novices
have fewer experiences to draw on, they may be more open-minded to
consider innovative action (Marzono el al, 2012 ).
8. There is no right way to reflect
It is essential to realize the personal nature of reflection. Indeed, it
is quite likely that ten students who experience the same situation will
report diverse observations and identify different problems within the
same context. Reflection is both a cognitive and affective process, and
thus depends on the unique experiences and emotional reactions of
students (Calderhead & Gates, 1993). One student may find a situation
life-changing, while another may glaze over the situation with lack of
enthusiasm. This is not necessarily due to a lack of effort on the part of
the student, but rather a result of the fluctuating nature of reflection.

Educators are continually encouraged to craft lessons that appeal to

diverse learners, tapping into the unique needs and interests of each
student. Any well-seasoned teacher can convey the difficulty of this
charge, since student interests are constantly changing, and their
perceptions of situations fluctuate continuously. Thus, rather than
focusing on creating learning experiences that appeal to individual
learners, it is essential that educators provide the time and resources
for students to reflect on learning opportunities and describe situations
based on their personal experiences. This is the difference between a
teacher crafting the perfect learning experience for each student, and
providing them with the tools to reframe any learning experience in the
lens of their own unique interests and needs.

The Reflective Process

Dewey (1910)described three general stages to the reflective
process. The first revolves around the description and analysis of the
situation, which facilitates both identification and definition.
Reflections at this stage are primarily reaction based: individuals
describe what they see, hear, and feel. The stage is often
characterized by the juxtaposition between expectation and reality;
students realize that textbook scenarios may not translate neatly to
the Real World. Dewey claims that a felt difficulty, ranging from
mild uneasiness to intense shock, challenges student conceptions,

instilling intrinsic motivation to reach equilibrium and fit new

experiences into existing understandings (Calderhead & Gates, 1993).
Valli (1993) reiterated the importance of critical description and
analysis, claiming that problematizing is the key to reflection. While
it is tempting to encourage students to quickly move beyond this stage
and generate solutions to and/or implications for the problems they
observe, it is essential not to rush this stage of the reflective process.
This stage lays the foundation for critical reflection. As students
become aware of the unique context of situation, they realize that they
have an active role in the outcome of the problems they identify.
Thorough analysis and description of ones situation is the difference
between watching through a window and considering oneself as an
active player in the unique context of the situation at hand.
After describing and analyzing the situation, Dewey suggests
that reflection shifts into an evaluative stage. Students are
encouraged to gather information from various sources in order to
facilitate the formation of alternative solutions and potential
implications of the identified problems. It is at this stage that students
require perhaps the greatest amount of scaffolding, as they often need
assistance in selecting appropriate, diverse resources for their
investigation of the problem. It is important to note, however, that
while research is an essential component to critical reflection, it is not
necessary to follow an official research process or consult specific

types of sources. Indeed, students can gather and evaluate related

information from their peers, social media, or even past experiences. In
a sense, reflection is research of ones self. Thus, students must
consult their past understandings, current misconceptions, and diverse
outside resources in order to develop new and sophisticated
understandings of experiences. Ample time must be allowed for this
stage of the reflective process, encouraging students to engage in
deep processing and question why they believe what they believe.
Deweys (1910) final stage of reflection is the integration of ones
experiences, reactions, and research. Students reframe their beliefs
based on their experiences, and formulate the framework for
generalizations. Unlike convergent problem solving, there is no
correct answer for the reflective process. Thus, students should not
be expected to describe what they are learning in a few sentences, or
develop concise, final thoughts. Indeed, reflection never actually
ends. An impactful outcome of the final stage, for example, may be
the realization that one needs to research a new interest or continue
investigating personal misconceptions. Thus, Deweys three stages of
reflection should be viewed as a recursive, rather than linear process.
One should not spend time solely identifying problems, introspectively
conducting research, or proposing alternative solutions. Rather, the
stages should feed into one-another, resulting in a reflective way of
thought, rather than a linear progression through predefined steps.

Brookfield (1988) proposed four learning processes that facilitate

critical reflection: assumption analysis, contextual awareness,
imaginative speculation, and reflective skepticism. Individuals build
contextual awareness as they analyze the assumptions that underlie
their behaviors and thoughts processes. For example, a seasoned
teacher may require students to follow regimented routines, simply
because they have always done things a certain way. However, if
this teacher stops to consider why he or she enforces this routine (i.e.
perhaps he or she believes that students need as much structure as
possible in order to remain well-behaved), it will quickly become
evident that the underlying assumptions may not apply to all contexts.
As teachers attempt to explain their assumptions within their unique
contexts, they develop a greater understanding of the realities, which
govern their behavior and relationships (Stein, 2008). Imaginative
speculation involves brainstorming and implementing alternative
methods that challenge existing strategies. As individuals question
their current understandings and develop new ideas, they become
skeptic about what they have always accepted to be true.
Skepticism involves the questioning of unexamined patterns of
interaction, and challenges the individual to remain open-minded (Lord
& Lormicka, 2007).

References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Brookfield, S. (1995) Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. (1988). Training Educators of Adults. New York:
Routledge.
Brubacher, J.W., Case, C.W, & Reagan, T. G. (1994). Becoming a
reflective educator. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
Boody, R. M. (2008). Teacher Reflection as Teacher Change, and
teacher change as moral response. Education, 128(3), 498-506.
Calderhead, J. & Gates, P. (1993). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher
development. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.
Cambell-Jones, B. & Cambell-Jones, F. (2002). Educating african
american children: Creditability at a crossroads. Educational
Horizons, 80(3), 133-139.
Case, J., Backes, E., Babu, S., White, A., & Jennings, E. (2012). A
Pedagogical strategy to facilitate interdisciplinary reflective
thinking and practice in rehabilitation counseling students.
Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 21(2-3), 271-282.
Collier, S.T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the
student teaching experience: An evolutionary approach. Journal
of Teacher Education, 50(3), 173-181.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, D.C.: Health and Co.,
Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1933) How we think: A restatement of the relation of
reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: DC Heath
and Company.
Grimmett, P.P., Erickson, G.L., Mackinnon, A.M., & Riecken, T.J. (1990).
Reflective practice in teacher education. In R.T. Clift, W.R.

Houston, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in

education: An analysis of issues and programs (pp. 20-38). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Haynega, A., & Corpus, J. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations: A person-centered approach to motivation and
achievement in middle school. Motivation & Emotion, 34(4), 371383.
Jay, J. K. and Johnson, K. L. (2002) Capturing complexity: A typology of
reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18: 7385.
Killion, J., & Todnem, G. (1991). A process for personal theory building.
Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14-16.
Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2007). Foreign Language Teacher Preparation
and Asynchronous CMC: Promoting reflective teaching. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 513-532.
Lucas, P. (1991) Reflection, New Practices and the Need for Flexibility
in Supervising Student-Teachers, Journal of Further and higher
Education, 15(2), 84-93.
Marzono, R. J., Boogren, T.H., Heflebower, T., Kanold-McIntyre, J. &
Pickering, D. J. (2012). Becoming a Reflective Teacher.
Bloomington, IN: Marzono Research.
Mewborn, D. S. (1999). Reflective thinking among pre-service
elementary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 30(3), 316-341s.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/749838
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to
transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Meziro, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San
Fransisco: Josey-Bass.
Moon, J. (2006). Learning Journals: A Handbook for Reflective Practice
and Professional Development. London, England: Routledge.
Ostorga, A. N. (2006). Developing teachers who are reflective
practitioners: A complex process. Issues in Teacher Education,
15, 520.

Risko, V., Roskos, K. & Vukelich, C. (2005). Reflection and the selfanalytic turn
of mind: Toward more robust instruction in teacher education. In
K. Kinnucan- Welsch, S. Israel, C. Block & K. Bauseman (Eds.),
Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment,
instruction, and professional development. (pp. 313-335).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey
and reflective teaching. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842866.
Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D. & Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection for
nursing and helping professions: A users guide. Basingstoke,
Palgrave MacMillan.
Ryan, M. (2011). Improving reflective writing in higher education: A
social semiotic perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 16,
99111.
Stein, D. (2008). Teaching Critical Reflection. Retrieved May 30, 2008,
from http://www.inspiredliving.com/business/reflection.htm
Valli, L. (1990). Moral approaches to reflective practice. In R. Clift, W.
R. Houston, and M. Pugach (Eds.). Encouraging Reflective
Practice in Education (pp. 39-56). New York: Teacher College
Press.
Valli, L. R. (1993). Reflective teacher education programs: An analysis
of case studies. In J. Calderhead and P. Gates (Eds.).
Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Development (pp. 11-22).
London: Falmer.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being
practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.
Wentzel, K.R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of
perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89 (3), 411-419.
Ziechner, M. K., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to
reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23-48.

Figures/Tables
Table 1
Types of Assumptions and Illustrations of
2012)
Type of
Example
Assumption
In order to be
Narrative:
successful, I must make
assumptions
everyone else happy.
regarding the
(Taken from a personal
self
journal entry)
Systemic:
assumptions
regarding the
Cultural and
social systems
in which one
lives and
learns

Covering academic
content is more
important that
embracing tradition and
encouraging students
to understand and take
pride in their culture.
(Taken from journal
entries written while
teaching abroad in
Ecuador)
Graduate students are

Corresponding Reflections (Case, Backes, Babu, White, & Jennings,

Reflection that Maintains the
Assumption
I have a lot of decisions to
make about my future research
goals, so Ill ask as many
people for advice as possible. If
I follow everyones advice, I
ensure that they will support
me if things dont work out.
I was shocked when the
teacher left early and I was in
charge of all thirty students in
the one-room school.
However, even though the
teacher was preparing for the
cultural celebration that
weekend, I was thankful I was
there to keep teaching the
students and ensure they
learned the material for the
upcoming test.
I know that Im stressed trying

Critical Reflection which

Questions the Assumption
I cant possibly make everyone
happy. If I try to do so, I lose
myself along the way. Maybe the
best way to help others is to help
myself first.
As an American, it's easy to come
into a place like this full of
passion and eager to help. But
what will indigenous children do
with geometry? And who am I to
tell these children what to learn?
It's all about preserving culture
there...learning traditional dances
is much more important than
measuring angles. It's a very
eye-opening experience.
There is a definite imbalance

Organization
al:
assumptions
regarding the
workplace

MoralEthical:
assumptions
regarding
ethical
decision
making

Therapeutic:
assumptions
regarding
feelings and
dispositions

expected to balance
research and teaching
practice; this helps
prepare them for jobs in
academia. (Taken from
journal entries
discussing my doctoral
studies at the
University of Georgia)
Students living in
poverty need more
things in order to feel
appreciated and
encouraged. (Taken
from journal entries
written while serving on
a mission trip in Haiti)

One of my kindergarten
students is always
angry and misbehaving.
He must feel unloved at
home, because he is
obviously trying to get
attention. (Taken from

to balance my classwork and

teaching, but this is what life
will look like when I get a real
job. Im going to improve my
time management skills so I
can better prepare for my
future.

between my research and

teaching. However, I have a
greater passion for teaching, and
I want to pursue this further.
Maybe I dont have to take the
traditional route for my future.
This imbalance could actually
work in my advantage, because it
illustrates my dedication to the
students.
I was so upset our supervisor
Maybe I dont actually know what
wouldnt let us give the
these children need to feel
students a prize for their
appreciated. I may think that
positive behavior. So many of
giving them prizes makes them
these students live in poverty,
feel loved, but really they just
and I wanted to give them a
want me to hug them and spend
tangible reward.
time with them. Helping those in
need doesnt mean solving their
problems in the way I would
want them to be solved. In fact,
many of these students dont see
their lack of material possessions
as a problem at all.
I have a wonderful opportunity The little boys anger may seem
to make a positive impact in
like a cry for attention, but how
this boys life. I can support
do I know this for sure? Maybe it
him and love him
isnt unconditional love that he
unconditionally, helping him
needs. I cant assume that I know
realize that he doesnt need to why he misbehaves. I should talk
act rashly to earn my attention. to him and get a better sense of

journal entries written

while working with
kindergarten students
through the FYO
course)

the factors underlying his anger.

Just because I become angry and
confused when I feel unloved
doesnt mean that everyone else
reacts in the same manner.