I want to share an example from my own teaching experience that resonates with mimesis → synthesis → reflexivity.

In a middle school science class, students began by imitating (mimesis) the methods of naturalists: keeping field journals, carefully sketching plants, and using teacher-modeled observation protocols. This aligned with Thayer’s “Learning about Bark” and Confucius’ notion of practicing with exemplars.

Then, the class moved toward synthesis: groups compared their data, created visual displays of local biodiversity, and connected observations with textbook ecology. This resembles Bruner’s idea of reorganizing prior knowledge and Froebel’s stress on creative construction.

Finally, we built in reflexivity: students wrote reflective blogs where they critiqued their own methods (“I only sketched leaves, but I missed the bark texture”), asked questions about scientific authority, and suggested changes for future fieldwork. This echoes Vygotsky’s ZPD (internalizing social dialogues) and the Reggio Emilia principle of documentation as reflection.

Analysis
This cycle showed me that learning isn’t a linear movement from imitation to independence, but a spiraling interplay. Students need the grounding of modeled practices (mimesis), the creativity of making connections (synthesis), and the habit of critical self-awareness (reflexivity). Without the first step, learning floats without anchors; without the last, it risks rote reproduction.