Best of Three Pieces of Writing - Essay Example

REFLECTIVE WRITING Introduction The assignment in this paper is to comment on the reason why a particular level of reflective writing is the best ofthe lot. It aims to provide understanding of what is good reflective writing. The idea is to study three different levels of reflective writing, identify the best and explain why it is so perceived. The student has written three versions of his experience at a Moot. The task is to their effectiveness as reflective writing and as an aid to further the education of the writer and comment on his best piece of writing. Best of Three Pieces of Writing The best of the three pieces of writing is the third one. There are different reasons for this assessment. It is firstly to be noted that the third version is by far the longest, with 1093 words. The first version has 415 words and the second has 640. Further, the first sentence of the exercise itself tells that it is written two days after the Moot. This in itself proves that the writer has given more time and consideration to this version. The distance between the experience and reflective writing in terms of time, perception and objectivity are important factors that decide the quality of that particular piece of writing, and the writer has done his best in keeping that distance. There is also a detailed questioning of the writer’s own reasons for doing some particular act. For instance, he gives detailed reasons for his decision to use Power Point. A few times in the essay the writer has put asterisk mark on important areas which need his consideration later on. This means that he is going to refer to this exercise again. The writer implies also that he has written about the experience earlier, and has now changed his opinion. These two things point to the fact that referring to earlier reflective writing helps one understand things better than previously. The concluding sentences of all three versions are also indicative of the gradual increase in confidence; the conclusion of the first writing ends with somebody’s suggestion (for improvement), the second with a hope for a better presentation the next time, whereas the third one is a plan for a change for the better - the writer has identified areas in his presentation which require improvement. The assessment in the Comments on passages recognize the importance to the longer period of time for reflection and deeper analysis, the later of which I had not considered. Then the assessment points to the internal debate through which the writer arrives at the conclusions, the deliberation in his mind to search the reasons for his actions in the Moot and the reaction of the judge to it. The writer understands the importance of the previous experiences in predicting current situations; for example, the writer notes that the behaviour of the lead counsel Ana is annoying, but can be changed by tackling it properly – the writer actually thinks of improving her performance as part of the team. The assessment happily agrees with my opinion about the distancing of the writer from the experiment, the impartiality of the writer is evident from the change in thinking which gradually goes from description of despair to hope for a better experience the next time; to the extent that he can observe in an amused manner that he can actually improve Ana’s position. It is to be noted that the interference of Ana in her answering questions directed at the writer was in his estimate a big factor in the bad perception that he has of his performance. Nowhere in his writing does the writer reveal the outcome of the Moot – there is no reference to the expression of feelings by the judge, though the third version has the writer saying that a friend of the writer remarked that he had handled Ana’s interference well. The use of asterisks is the most striking difference between the third version and the earlier two which look like mere description of events with little or no analysis of the significance thereof. There is a list of things that the writer has done or resolved to do for his improvement. He has read Pope and Hill’s book, an authority on mooting and sought information on the web about the use of Power Point. He plans to read a book on conflict management and assertiveness. He also has resolved to spend more time on preparation. The writer’s evident tendency to revisit points again and again is evidence of his willingness to improve upon his previous performance. I have decided that I will write a version of the experience as soon as practicable after the experience, and having read that after two days or so, write a longer version which will include change of any opinion that I had earlier and the reason for that change. I have learnt from this piece of writing that it needs to be as detailed as possible and that observation of the learner and his feelings about the experiment needs to be informed by external sources. It will also be useful to have inputs from others about their perception about the exercise. It is also to be understood that the reaction to the judge’s questioning about unexpected aspects of the topic can make you unsure as can the assuming an attitude while going in for moot. One needs to be flexible to counter such situations. There are a number of differences that reading this exercise will make on my reflective writing. The first is the extent of the details in the analysis of events that have negatively influenced my perception. I will more keen to find out what went wrong. I see the honesty with which the writer expressed his shortcomings and I will be more honest in my reflection about a particular experience. I have also learnt that if the performance of the team in any experience is hampered by a member, the attitude of that member should be corrected instead of accepting it as just another negative factor and doing nothing about it. Another major way in which I will improve my reflective writing is the understanding the concept of ‘learning to learn’. Read More