For me, higher-order thinking and learning such as critique, synthesis etc are not really ‘explained’ by thinking about them at the neural level. And they’re also not well ‘explained’ by the social network beyond that it has a role in it.

When I referred to reflective practice I was thinking along these lines: http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/reflective.htm – the concept has been around for a while but I feel it still has value.

Since I”m involved in professional development of teachers, I’m concerned with how learners change and develop their practice. Connectivism seems much more focused on knowledge, and in that sense it seems not very progressive or central to my work.

Diego, many thanks for your input – I’m really enjoying this debate, and your comments and questions have led to further ‘reflection’ on my part!

Paul

My 0.002 cents on this (draft thoughts, a little confusing, maybe):

There are several network levels (brain, environment). Recognizing something in the world means to develop the neuron connections required to recognize it (as I tried to discuss in a post in my blog). Thus, developing a specific practice reflects in the development of neural connections in the brain.

But, the neural connections are updated each time you “practice” (John Medina explains this in a very clear way), so in the end you have a continuous updated practice (with neuron connections strengthened or dulled by positive or negative experiences) . Of course, that doesn’t mean it is reflective.

Then again, what is reflection? Does reflection mean “thinking about practice”? I think it could be useful to precise a little more what do we really mean by “reflection”, in order to try and develop the argument a little more.

I hope this makes any sense.. :D