Home » Posts tagged 'schon'

Tag Archives: schon

How people learn and the implications for design

Had this been the title of a post-graduate diploma in e–learning it would have been precisely what I was looking for a decade ago – the application of theory, based on research and case studies, to the design and production of interactive learning – whether DVD or online.

A few excellent, practical guides did this, but as a statement of fact, like a recipe in a cook book: do this and it’ll work, rather than suggesting actions based on research, evidence-based understanding and case studies.

Mayes and de Frietas (2004) are featured in detail in Appendix 1 of Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (2007) Beetham and Sharpe.

Four types of learning are featured:

  • 1. associative
  • 2. constructive (individual)
  • 3. constructive (social)
  • 4. and situative.

Of these I see associative used in corporate training online – with some constructive (individual), while constructive (social) is surely the OU’s approach?

Situative learning may be the most powerful – through application in a collaborative, working environment I can see that this is perhaps describes what goes on in any case, with the wiser and experienced passing on knowledge and know how to juniors, formally as trainees or apprentices, or informally by ‘being there’ and taking part.

Each if these approaches have their champions:

Associative – Skinner, Gagné (1985).

Constructive (individual) – Piaget (1970), Papert (1993), Kolb (1984), Biggs (1999).

Constructive (social) – Vygotsky (1978).

Situative – Wenger (1998), Cole (1993), Wertsch. (Also Cox, Seely Brown). Wertsch (1981), Engestrom (), Cole and Engeström (1993)

Beetham and Sharpe (2007:L5987) – the ‘L’ refers to the location in a Kindle Edition. I can’t figure out how to translate this into a page reference.

How people learn and the implications for design

Associative – Skinner, Gagné (1985) (in Mayes and de Frietas, 2004)

Building concepts or competences step by step.

The Theory

People learn by association through:

  • basic stimulus–response conditioning,
  • later association concepts in a chain of reasoning,
  • or associating steps in a chain of activity to build a composite skill.

Associativity leads to accuracy of reproduction. (Mnemonics are associative devices).

  • Routines of organized activity.
  • Progression through component concepts or skills.
  • Clear goals and feedback.
  • Individualized pathways matched to performance.
  • Analysis into component units.
  • Progressive sequences of component–to–composite skills or concepts.
  • Clear instructional approach for each unit.
  • Highly focused objectives.

For Assessment

  • Accurate reproduction of knowledge.
  • Component performance.
  • Clear criteria: rapid, reliable feedback.
  • Guided instruction.
  • Drill and practice.
  • Instructional design.
  • Socratic dialogue.

FURTHER READING (and viewing)

Brown, J.S. (2002) The Social Life of Information

Brown, J.S. (2007) October 2007 webcast: http://stadium.open.ac.uk/stadia/preview.php?whichevent=1063&s=31

+My notes on this:

http://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/viewpost.php?u=jv276&time=1298439366&post=0

+The transcript of that session:

http://learn.open.ac.uk/file.php/7325/block1/H800_B1_Week2a_JSBrown_Transcript.rtf

REFERENCE

Biggs, J (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: The Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.  (Constructive alignment)

Cole, M. and Engestrom, Y. (1993) ‘A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition’, in G. Salomon (ed.) Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, New Work: Cambridge University Press.

Conole, G. (2004) Report on the Effectiveness of Tools for e-Learning, Bristol: JISC (Research Study on the Effectiveness of Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-Learning Activities)

Cox, R. (2006) Vicarious Learning and Case-based Teaching of Clinical Reasoning Skills (2004–2006) [online], http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ esrcinfocentre/ viewawardpage.aspx?awardnumber=RES-139-25-0127 [(last accessed 10 March 2011).

Engeström, Y (1999) ‘Activity theory and individual and social transformation’, in Y. Engeström, R, Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eraut, M (2000) ‘Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70:113-36

Gagné, R. (1985) The Conditions of Learning, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J. and Wagner, W.W. (1992) Principles of Instructional Design, New Work: Hoplt, Reihhart & Winston Inc.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development, (Kolb’s Learning Cycle) Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Littlejohn, A. and McGill, L. (2004) Effective Resources for E-learning, Bristol: JISC (Research Study on the Effectiveness of Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-learning Activities).

Mayes, T. and de Frietas, S. (2004) ‘Review of e–learning theories, frameworks and models. Stage 2 of the e–learning models disk study’, Bristol. JISC. Online.

Piaget, J. (1970) Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child (Constructivist Theory of Knowledge), New Work: Orion Press.

Papert, S. (1993) Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, New Work: Perseus.

Piaget, J. (2001) The Language and Thought of the Child, London: Routledge Modern Classics.

Seely-Brown, J.S and Duguid, P. (1991) ‘Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation’, Organizational Science, 2 (1): 40-57

Schon, D (1983) The Reflective Practioner: How Professional Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.

Sharpe, R (2004) ‘How do professionals learn and develop? In D.Baume and P.Kahn (eds) Enhancing Staff and Educational Development, London: Routledge-Flamer, pp. 132-53.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986) Thought and Languages, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1981) (ed.) The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, Armonk, N

Appendix and references largely from Beetham, H, and Sharpe, R (2007) Rethinking Pedagogy in a digital age.

See also Appendix 4: Learning activity design: a checklist

How people learn and the implications for design

Had this been the title of a post-graduate diploma in e–learning it would have been precisely what I was looking for a decade ago – the application of theory, based on research and case studies, to the design and production of interactive learning – whether DVD or online.

A few excellent, practical guides did this, but as a statement of fact, like a recipe in a cook book: do this and it’ll work, rather than suggesting actions based on research, evidence-based understanding and case studies.

Mayes and de Frietas (2004) are featured in detail in Appendix 1 of Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (2007) Beetham and Sharpe.

Four types of learning are featured:

  • 1. associative
  • 2. constructive (individual)
  • 3. constructive (social)
  • 4. and situative.

Of these I see associative used in corporate training online – with some constructive (individual), while constructive (social) is surely the OU’s approach?

Situative learning may be the most powerful – through application in a collaborative, working environment I can see that this is perhaps describes what goes on in any case, with the wiser and experienced passing on knowledge and know how to juniors, formally as trainees or apprentices, or informally by ‘being there’ and taking part.

Each if these approaches have their champions:

Associative – Skinner, Gagné (1985).

Constructive (individual) – Piaget (1970), Papert (1993), Kolb (1984), Biggs (1999).

Constructive (social) – Vygotsky (1978).

Situative – Wenger (1998), Cole (1993), Wertsch. (Also Cox, Seely Brown). Wertsch (1981), Engestrom (), Cole and Engeström (1993)

Beetham and Sharpe (2007:L5987) – the ‘L’ refers to the location in a Kindle Edition. I can’t figure out how to translate this into a page reference.

How people learn and the implications for design

Associative – Skinner, Gagné (1985) (in Mayes and de Frietas, 2004)

Building concepts or competences step by step.

The Theory

People learn by association through:

  • basic stimulus–response conditioning,
  • later association concepts in a chain of reasoning,
  • or associating steps in a chain of activity to build a composite skill.

Associativity leads to accuracy of reproduction. (Mnemonics are associative devices).

  • Routines of organized activity.
  • Progression through component concepts or skills.
  • Clear goals and feedback.
  • Individualized pathways matched to performance.
  • Analysis into component units.
  • Progressive sequences of component–to–composite skills or concepts.
  • Clear instructional approach for each unit.
  • Highly focused objectives.

For Assessment

  • Accurate reproduction of knowledge.
  • Component performance.
  • Clear criteria: rapid, reliable feedback.
  • Guided instruction.
  • Drill and practice.
  • Instructional design.
  • Socratic dialogue.

FURTHER READING (and viewing)

Brown, J.S. (2002) The Social Life of Information

Brown, J.S. (2007) October 2007 webcast: http://stadium.open.ac.uk/stadia/preview.php?whichevent=1063&s=31

+My notes on this:

http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/viewpost.php?post=60469

+The transcript of that session:

http://learn.open.ac.uk/file.php/7325/block1/H800_B1_Week2a_JSBrown_Transcript.rtf

REFERENCE

Biggs, J (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: The Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.  (Constructive alignment)

Cole, M. and Engestrom, Y. (1993) ‘A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition’, in G. Salomon (ed.) Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, New Work: Cambridge University Press.

Conole, G. (2004) Report on the Effectiveness of Tools for e-Learning, Bristol: JISC (Research Study on the Effectiveness of Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-Learning Activities)

Cox, R. (2006) Vicarious Learning and Case-based Teaching of Clinical Reasoning Skills (2004–2006) [online], http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ esrcinfocentre/ viewawardpage.aspx?awardnumber=RES-139-25-0127 [(last accessed 10 March 2011).

Cox, R. (2006) Vicarious Learning and Case-based Teaching of Clinical Reasoning Skills (2004–2006) [online], http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ esrcinfocentre/ viewawardpage.aspx?awardnumber=RES-139-25-0127 [(last accessed 10 March 2011).

Engeström, Y (1999) ‘Activity theory and individual and social transformation’, in Y. Engeström, R, Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eraut, M (2000) ‘Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70:113-36

Gagné, R. (1985) The Conditions of Learning, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J. and Wagner, W.W. (1992) Principles of Instructional Design, New Work: Hoplt, Reihhart & Winston Inc.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development, (Kolb’s Learning Cycle) Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Littlejohn, A. and McGill, L. (2004) Effective Resources for E-learning, Bristol: JISC (Research Study on the Effectiveness of Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-learning Activities).

Mayes, T. and de Frietas, S. (2004) ‘Review of e–learning theories, frameworks and models. Stage 2 of the e–learning models disk study’, Bristol. JISC. Online.

Piaget, J. (1970) Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child (Constructivist Theory of Knowledge), New Work: Orion Press.

Papert, S. (1993) Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, New Work: Perseus.

Piaget, J. (2001) The Language and Thought of the Child, London: Routledge Modern Classics.

Seely-Brown, J.S and Duguid, P. (1991) ‘Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation’, Organizational Science, 2 (1): 40-57

Schon, D (1983) The Reflective Practioner: How Professional Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.

Sharpe, R (2004) ‘How do professionals learn and develop? In D.Baume and P.Kahn (eds) Enhancing Staff and Educational Development, London: Routledge-Flamer, pp. 132-53.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986) Thought and Languages, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1981) (ed.) The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, Armonk, N

Appendix and references largely from Beetham, H, and Sharpe, R (2007) Rethinking Pedagogy in a digital age.

See also Appendix 4: Learning activity design: a checklist

The Challenge Facing Course Design – a 2012 view on a 1997 paper

This is an old topic, even for e-learning when it was called online and distance learning.

Fifteen months can see the rise or demise of a value online tool, fifteen years feels like a century ago when it comes to learning.

Are things so different though?

Social Constructivism might suggest that formalised social learning platforms will take off; my experience is that such constructs are, of necessity, highly personalised. My social learn milieu includes this and other blogs, Facebook with friends and family where I’d never mention the ‘L’ word, Twitter and StumbleUpon. I struggle, despite my best efforts, with Linkedin groups. The dynamic is a tricky thing to get right, a handful of passionate, engaged, informed people who want to share and collaborate is required.

My best OU experiences (2001, 2010-present) have almost all been OU Student Forums where the unit in the module has provided parameters and resources, and by chance the six in the sub group, through inclination, motivation, time zone and peer pressure have made a regular, constructive contribution. This contribution would alos represent a variety of roles were you to look at it from a team perspective.

Other invaluable experiences of socially constructed learning online have included three of us (in the US, UK and Japan) who read each other’s blogs and shared ideas on writing fiction between 2002 and 2004. And with a couple of others sharing in FlickR pictures of a grandparent who served in the First World War and helping each other track this person’s progress and experiences.

‘Social context, roles and relationships are central to what is learned’. (Carugati and Gilly, 1993)

Mary Thorpe’s paper ‘The Challenge Facing Course Design’ (1997), in simplistic terms, puts ‘plausible reasoning’, intuition and perception over logic. (Winn, 1990) Sounds to me like James T Kirk’s way has more credibility as an approach to learning than Spock.

Learning is dynamic and unpredictable. (Thorpe, 1997:175)

I’m struck by the suggestion made by Thorpe (1997:175) that because learning is dynamic and unpredictable, the idea of designing a course in advance for successive cohorts of learners is undermined.

I offer a solution, that can be realised in 2012 though not possible when I was reading this text formally in 2001. Namely, to have (for some units as to do this with an entire module strikes me as too complex) students offer a rewrite, update or offer an alternative learning experience as part of an assignment. The same learning objectives, but with a current or different context, using the tools that are viable and readily available today (rather than have students use tools that in some instances have long ago been superseded).

This, picking up the warning from Thorpe, isn’t to suggest that one model replaces another, as is the case with the current Social Learn initiative at The OU, what educators and educational institutions need to do is to offer a smorgasbord, a set of choices and alternatives, just as the student will chose their own hardware (desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone or mobile) so they will want to have tools they are familiar with or come to enjoy as part of their personal learning environment (PLE).

Here’s a sentence you won’t hear being used today, though this doesn’t negate the quality of writing in the article.

‘The rich resources of a CD–ROM or an interactive videodisc are only as good as the enquiry frameworks that the learner brings to them’. (Laurillard, 1993). Whose model requires, which is as relevant today (p176):

  • Interaction
  • Reflection
  • Feedback

Winn (1990) stresses the important role of the teacher in an iterative learning process to assess and analyse, something that is supported today through increasingly sophisticated learning analytics which could and will take–over to some degree, or complement the role of an e–moderator, who may, be able to manage increasingly large groups of students from a distance given the benefit of the learning management systems and collaborative learning tools we now have.

N.B. There should always be a person at the point of delivery, as was/is the perspective of the OU (Perry, 1976, pp.115-118)

REFERENCE

Carugati, F. and Gilly, M. (1993) ‘The multiple sides of the same tool: cognitive development as a matter of social constructions and meanings’, European Journal of Psychology of Education, (8) 4.

Laurillard, D (1993) Rethinking University Teaching

Perry, W (1976) The Open University

Thorpe, M (1997) The Challenge Facing Course Design in Open and Distance Learning (ed. Frank Lockwood)

Winn, W.D (1990) ‘Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design’, Instructional Science, 19.pp. 53–69

Curiosity, Forgiveness, Love … everyday attributes of the innovative organisation?

B822 BK 2 C6 Precepts

Especially actions that DISCOURAGE speculation/creativity Henry (2010:93)

Curiosity Charles Handy (1991) Creativity in Management, Radio 1, B822
Forgiveness Charles Handy (1991)
Love Charles Handy (1991)
A sense of direction Schon, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner

Some ‘Set Breakers’ Henry (2010:96)

1. Develop broad background experience and many interests

2. Find and challenge your own blind spots

3. Explore many different perspectives

4. Challenge yourself

5. Develop good browsing facilities

6. Change techniques or different mental modes

7. Seek out people with other points of view

8. In a group

Relevance bias

1. Dry Run

2. Quota of alternatives

3. Inverse optional question

4. Checklist of transformations

5. Reverse the problem

6. Boundary relaxation

7. What difference?

8. Get several people to try it

9. Deep questioning

10. Challenge

11. Fresh eye

6.4 Value of Play

1. Play is key to learning activity

2. The objects of play are both objective and subjective

3. The ability of play helps create the sense of independence.

4. Play offers a protected area of illusion

5. Plays is a way of managing unfulfilled need.

6. Play can lead to a particular state of mind.

7. Play breaks down outside certain emotional limits.

8. Shared play builds relationships

A. Choice of Setting

B. Choice of team members

C. Climate to aim for

D. Don’t demystify

E. Management of coping mechanisms

F. An aid to team building

McCaskey (1988)

· Problem finding (experience)

· Map building

· Janusian Thinking

· Controlling and not controlling

· Using domain and direction

· Planning rather than goal-directed planning

· Humour that oils

· Charisma

· Using ad hoc structures such as task force and project teams

· Using a core group embedded in a network of contracts and information

· ‘Turbulence management’

N.B. Creativity needs space vs. time pressure, interruption

· Create Space

6.8 involve others

The more participants you have, the more ideas you get.

‘Successfully creative people are often deeply committed to a particular domain, that has strong internal significance to them, and they focus very firmly on particular goals’. (e.g. Tessa Ross, Lionel Wigram, William Hague)

‘Passion and persistence can motivate sustained work; attract the loyalty of helpers; create awareness of you and your project in people who have relevant resources; and reassure those who need to take risks on your behalf.’ Henry (2010:114)

CATWOE p115

  • Blind chance
  • Wide-ranging exploration
  • The prepared mind
  • Individualised Action

6.12 Manage the Process Henry (2010:1113)

· Get the parameters right

· Record

· Sustain pace and energy

· Develop trust

· Keep the experience positive

· Plan

· Do – analyse either side and separately

· What?

· Why?

Learn from experience of others

  • Experiment

REFERENCE

Adams, J.L. (1987) Chase, Chance and Creativity: The Lucky Art of Novelty; New York; Columbia University Press.

Austin, J.H. (1978) Chase, Chance and Creativity: The Lucky Art of Novelty: New York: Columbia University Press.

McCaskey, M.B. (1988) ‘The challenge of managing ambiguity’, in Pondy, L.R, Boland, R.J and Thomas, H (eds) Managing Ambiguity and Change, new York, pp 2-11

Schon, A.A. (1983) The Reflective Practioner: How Professionals think in Action, London: Temple Smith

Wetherall, A. and Nunamaker, J (1999) Getting Results from Electronic Meetings

Winnicott, D.W (1972) Playing and Reality. Harmondsworth (1983) Davis, M and Wallbridge, D (1983) Boundary and Space: An Introduction to the Work of D.W. Winnicott. Harmondsorth.

Precepts

From Ou MBA Module B822 ‘Creativity, Innovation & Change’ BK 2 C6 

Especially actions that DISCOURAGE speculation/creativity Henry (2010:93)

Curiosity Charles Handy (1991) Creativity in management, Radio 1, B822
Forgiveness Charles Handy (1991)
Love Charles Handy (1991)
A sense of direction Schon, D.A. (1983) The Reflective practitioner

Some ‘Set Breakers’ Henry (2010:96)

  • 1. Develop broad background experience and many interests
  • 2. Find and challenge your own blind spots
  • 3. Explore many different perspectives
  • 4. Challenge yourself
  • 5. Develop good browsing facilities
  • 6. Change techniques or different mental modes
  • 7. Seek out people with other points of view

8. In a group

Relevance bias

  • 1. Dry Run
  • 2. Quota of alternatives
  • 3. Inverse optional question
  • 4. Checklist of transformations
  • 5. Reverse the problem
  • 6. Boundary relaxation
  • 7. What difference?
  • 8. Get several people to try it
  • 9. Deep questioning
  • 10. Challenge
  • 11. Fresh eye

6.4 Value of Play

  • 1. Play is key to learning activity
  • 2. The objects of play are both objective and subjective
  • 3. The ability of play helps create the sense of independence.
  • 4. Play offers a protected area of illusion
  • 5. Plays is a way of managing unfulfilled need.
  • 6. Play can lead to a particular state of mind.
  • 7. Play breaks down outside certain emotional limits.
  • 8. Shared play builds relationships

A. Choice of Setting

B. Choice of team members

C. Climate to aim for

D. Don’t demystify

E. Management of coping mechanisms

F. An aid to team building

McCaskey (1988)

  • · Problem finding (experience)
  • · Map building
  • · Janusian Thinking
  • · Controlling and not controlling
  • · Using domain and direction
  • · Planning rather than goal-directed planning
  • · Humour that oils
  • · Charisma
  • · Using ad hoc structures such as task force and project teams
  • · Using a core group embedded in a network of contracts and information
  • · ‘Turbulence management’

N.B. Creativity needs space vs. time pressure, interruption

  • · Create Space

6.8 involve others

The more participants you have, the more ideas you get.

‘Successfully creative people are often deeply committed to a particular domain, that has strong internal significance to them, and they focus very firmly on particular goals’. (e.g. Tessa Ross, Lionel Wigram, William Hague)

‘Passion and persistence can motivate sustained work; attract the loyalty of helpers; create awareness of you and your project in people who have relevant resources; and reassure those who need to take risks on your behalf.’ Henry (2010:114)

CATWOE p115

  • Blind chance
  • Wide-ranging exploration
  • The prepared mind
  • Individualised Action

6.12 Manage the Process Henry (2010:1113)

  • · Get the parameters right
  • · Record
  • · Sustain pace and energy
  • · Develop trust
  • · Keep the experience positive
  • · Plan
  • · Do – analyse either side and separately
  • · What?
  • · Why?

Learn from experience of others

  • Experiment

REFERENCE

Adams, J.L. (1987) Chase, Chance and Creativity: The Lucky Art of Novelty; New York; Columbia University Press.

Austin, J.H. (1978) Chase, Chance and Creativity: The Lucky Art of Novelty: New York: Columbia University Press.

McCaskey, M.B. (1988) ‘The challenge of managing ambiguity’, in Pondy, L.R, Boland, R.J and Thomas, H (eds) Managing Ambiguity and Change, new York, pp 2-11

Schon, A.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals think in Action, London: Temple Smith

Wetherall, A. and Nunamaker, J (1999) Getting Results from Electronic Meetings

Winnicott, D.W (1972) Playing and Reality. Harmondsworth (1983) Davis, M and Wallbridge, D (1983) Boundary and Space: An Introduction to the Work of D.W. Winnicott. Harmondsorth.

Reflection in Higher Education (Notes on reading)

Reflection in Higher Education. Jenny Moon

The nature of reflection – how it is seen in theory and how theoretical views are related to the common sense view of reflection.

In other words, it suggests that reflection is a simple process but with complex outcomes that relate to many different areas of human functioning. (p4)

Personal development planning (PDP) can involve different forms of reflection and reflective learning.

We are using it extensively in a range of contexts in learning and professional development in higher education.

There is no point in defining reflection in a manner that does not relate to the everyday use of the word if further confusion is not to be created.

·We reflect on something in order to consider it in more detail.

·Usually we reflect because we have a purpose for reflecting – a goal to reach.  Goal orientated. Having a purpose and focus.

·Sometimes we find ourselves ‘being reflective’ and out of that ‘being reflective’, something ‘pops up’.   I am in the ‘pop-up’ camp.

·Seeking understanding and clarity where we had none. We reflect on things that are relatively complicated. Where there is not an obvious or immediate solution.

·Emotion. Some theorists see the role of emotion in reflection as very significant and frequently neglected (eg.  Boud, Keogh and Walker, 1985).

·a means of working on what we know already

·We put into the reflection process knowledge that we already have (thoughts, ideas, feelings etc), we may add new information and then we draw out of it something that accords with the purpose for which we reflected.

Reflection is a form of mental processing – like a form of thinking – that we use to fulfil a purpose or to achieve some anticipated outcome.  (based on Moon 1999):

Reflection is theorised in so many different ways that it might seem that we a looking at range of human capacities rather than apparently one.

·Dewey saw reflection as a specialised form of thinking. ‘a kind of thinking that consists in turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious thought’. (Such churning, such composting, requires plenty of matter, words, and time)

·‘Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and further conclusions to which it leads…it includes a conscious and voluntary effort to establish belief upon a firm basis of evidence and rationality’ (Dewey, 1933).

Jurgen Habermas (1971) focused on the way in which humans process ideas and construct them into knowledge.

– instrumental knowledge – where we know ‘how’ or ‘that’ and where the concern of the knowledge is to understand and thereby function within, and control our human environment.

– knowledge that is concerned with the interpretation of human action and behaviour.  We largely ‘interpret’ in the social sciences in order to better our understanding of society and human behaviour.

– knowledge that is a way of working with knowledge, acting on the first two forms of knowledge.  This form of knowledge is developed through critical or evaluative modes of thinking and leads towards the emancipation or transformation of personal, social or other situations.  It concerns the quality of the bases on which we make judgements.

David Kolb (1984) is well known for his development of the Kolb cycle – or cycle of experiential learning.

Concrete experiencing

(have an experience)

Active experimentation                                                Reflective observation

(try out what you have learned)                                  (reflect on the experience)

Abstract conceptualising

(learn from the experience)

i.e. learning from experience

Like CBT.

The cycle revolves with new learning undergoing active experimentation and ‘recycled’ through new experiencing.  In this way what was a cycle becomes a spiral (Cowan 1998).

A kind of cognitive ‘housekeeping role’ as well as generating new learning (Moon, 1999a).

Donald Schon focused on reflection in professional knowledge and its development (1983, 1987).  They build up an expertise from their practice (theory-in-use) by being reflective.

Making  this ‘knowing-in-action’ explicit so that it can be the subject of further reflection and conscious development.

Many others have written about reflection, most developing ideas from those mentioned above.

Examples are:

Boud, Keogh and Walker, 1985;

Boud and Walker, 1998;

Cowan, 1998,

Brockbank and McGill, 1998.

A ‘deep’ approach and a ‘surface’ approach to a learning task.

A deep approach is where the intention of the learner is to understand the meaning of the material.

A surface approach to learning is where a learner is concerned to memorise the material for what it is, not trying to understand it in relation to previous ideas or other areas of understanding.

These approaches to learning are not ‘either or’ situations, but at extremes of a continuum and the same learner may choose to learn differently according to the task at hand.

E.G Dexion, What is the problem? What is the problem? What is the problem? What is the problem? What is the problem? Repeatedly until you get to thr crux of the problem. ‘Tha swallowed the fly, that ate the dog, that …. etc

Making sense – getting to know the material as coherent – but only in relation to itself.  Facts may be fitted together like a jigsaw but not related to previous understandings.  Representation is coherent reproduction, but not related to other ideas and not processed.

Making meaning.

Working with meaning

Transformative learning

On the basis of this model, There are at least three ways in which reflection might be seen as relating to learning.

1.Reflection has a role in the deeper approaches to learning – the last three stages described above, but not in surface approaches to learning (the first two stages);

2.We learn from representing learning – when we write an essay or explain something or draw a picture of it, we represent it to ourselves and learn from the re-processing (Eisner, 1991).  This is a reflective process;

3.We ‘upgrade’ learning.  For example, we can go back to ideas learnt only to the stage of ‘making sense’ (eg in the form of facts – bits and pieces) and can reprocess those ideas through reflection, integrating them with current understandings (Vygotsky, 1978).  This might be conceived as a kind of ‘chewing the cud’ exercise  – or cognitive housekeeping (see earlier).

A well functioning tutorial system is an example of a means by which we encourage students to upgrade their learning (3).  Preparation for and involvement in a tutorial is the opportunity for many students to reflect on and process their learning into a more meaningful state – in other words, to ‘re-file’ it.

Revision for examinations is another opportunity for review of previous learning such that understanding is deepened (Entwistle and Entwistle, 1992).

Reflection slows down activity, giving the time for the learner to process material of learning and link it with previous ideas.

Reflection enables learners to develop greater ‘ownership’ of the material of learning (Rogers, 1969).  It will also enhance the student’s ‘voice’ in her learning (Elbow, 1981).

A particularly important means by which reflective activity generally supports learning is through the encouragement of metacognition.  (Ertmer and Newby, 1996).  Study skills programmes that support learner’s awareness of their learning processes seem to be more successful than those that focus on techniques (Main, 1985).

We suggested above that reflection occurs when we are dealing with material that is relatively complicated – or ill-structured.  (King and Kitchener, 1994).

METHODS pp8

On the assumption that reflection has a valuable role to play in higher education, the methods below serve as vehicles for reflection within the curriculum.

Just asking students to write a learning journal, for example, may bring benefits, but they will be haphazard.

learning journals, logs, diaries … with the intention of improving or supporting learning but are of many different forms.  used successfully in most disciplines including the sciences and mathematics (Moon, 1999a).

Portfolios … unreflective compilation of work, to collections of coursework and reading with reflective comments, to coursework with an attached overview, to something very akin to a learning journal.

reflection on work experience … to develop employment skills, or to use the experience as a basis for learning about self and personal functioning (eg Colling and Watton, 2000, Watton and Moon, 2002 – in preparation)

reflection in work-based learning. (Boud and Garrick, 1999).

reflective exercises:   Examples are contained in Angelo and Cross, 1990; George and Cowan, 1999; Moon, 1999 and 1999a).

in peer and self assessment:  self or peer assessment they are likely to be reflecting on the work in relation to their perception of how they think it should appear

in careers or personal development.

in APEL (accreditation of prior experiential learning

It has had a particularly strong role in professional education and development – with nursing, teacher education and social work as the principle examples.

An impetus to the thinking that underlies this section is the frequent observation that not all students find reflection easy when it is introduced as a specific requirement

Some, however, who may be good students otherwise, will not understand what is meant by it – and will ask ‘what is it that you want me to do?’

The discourses of some subjects are, by nature, more likely to require reflective activity ‘on paper’.

Academic reflection will be more structured.

We may be giving structures – such as the Kolb cycle – to follow.

In our private reflections, we do not systematically describe what we are about to reflect on – we just do it

From Moon (1999a)

Academic reflection is, therefore, more structured and more formal than what we will term ‘informal’ reflection.

Reflection can be superficial and little more than descriptive or can be deep and transformative (and involved in the transformative stage of learning).

Reflection is used to make sense of unstructured situations in order to generate new knowledge.  It is important to be clear that the activity might be introducing the skill of reflective learning or generating knowledge by using reflection to make sense of something.

Most students will have learnt that they should not use the first person singular in an academic environment.  (Which is where I feel my ‘voice’ is being compromised by obliging me to speak in a certain way.)

Most students will have learnt that they should not use the first person singular in an academic environment.

Descriptive writing:  This is a description of events or literature reports.  There is no discussion beyond description.   This writing is considered not to show evidence of reflection.  It is important to acknowledge that some parts of a reflective account will need to describe the context – but in this case, writing does not go beyond description.

Descriptive reflection:  There is basically a description of events, but the account shows some evidence of deeper consideration in relatively descriptive language.  There is no real evidence of the notion of alternative viewpoints in use.

Dialogic reflection: This writing suggests that there is a ‘stepping back’ from the events and actions which leads to a different level of discourse.  There is a sense of ‘mulling about’, discourse with self and an exploration of the role of self in events and actions.  There is consideration of the qualities of judgements and of possible alternatives for explaining and hypothesising.  The reflection is analytical or integrative, linking factors and perspectives.

Critical reflection:  This form of reflection, in addition to dialogic reflection, shows evidence that the learner is aware that the same actions and events may be seen in different contexts with different explanations associated with the contexts.  They are influenced by ‘multiple historical and socio-political contexts’, for example.

(developed from Hatton and Smith, 1995)

.  A fair question is that since reflection is an encouragement for learners to follow the lines of their own thinking, to work without a curriculum – how can it be marked?

i.e. as the institution hasn’t put in place adequate systems to monitor my progress why don’t I do it myself and give myself marks out of ten too?

The message of this section is essentially that there is no one way to assess reflective work.  There are no clearly agreed generic criteria for reflection since different people see reflection as different processes (as has been demonstrated in the early sections) and they set reflective tasks in order to achieve different purposes.

To encourage a student to be reflective is to encourage the development of a habit of processing cognitive material that can lead the student to ideas that are beyond the curriculum, beyond learning defined by learning outcomes, and beyond those of the teacher who is managing the learning.

Boud, D and Walker, D (1998)

‘Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of context’, Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), pp191 – 206

Reflection and the need or otherwise of compulsory interaction in e-learning

Assessing your capacity to reflect ‘on your development’

  • In the Masters in Open and Distance Education Course Guide for module H808 (p.7) it says that “we regard [the reflective commentary] as equally academic because it deals with knowledge that is constructed during the course. (Although this knowledge is more subjective and not intended to be confirmed or refuted, rather it is self-knowledge for the writer)”
  • Cognitive Housekeeping

    • Moon (2001) draws on other theorists such as Schon, Dewey and Kolb in her paper. I had never questioned why certain work events make me reflect and others do not, but I think the point about reflecting on complex and challenging issues/events, as a means of ‘cognitive housekeeping’ resonated with my personal experience. A Student.
    • I think assignments are designed as prototype reflections for the final course assignment, perhaps to help with the unfamiliarity/unease and get us used to reflective writing before the assignment (as Moon suggests, reflection as a gradual process aimed at getting students started, then deepening their reflections). Another Student.

    ‘involving emotions helps to promote reflectiveness.Moon (2002) cited in Salmon (2002)

    Moon (2005) describes reflection as an essential component of good quality learning and the representation of that learning. A Student

    (Moon, 1999a) as the reflection itself helps learners realize the depth of their knowledge and understanding therefore the notion of reflection functions as means of learning something new as well as harmonizing prior knowledge and experiences in the process. A Student

    This process of arriving at an idea of what is absent on the basis of what is at hand is inference. What is present carries of bears the mind over to the idea and ultimately the acceptance of something else.” (Dewey 1933:190) A Student

    Jenny Moon suggests that learners undertake either a deep or surface approach towards a learning task.

    A deep approach is seen when the learner understands the meaning whilst a surface approach focuses on memorizing the material as it is by not trying to connect it with previous understanding. Developing a deep approach to a learning task as an ideal path can be well achieved with the help of giving learners the chance to represent learning in different ways, in the form of a presentation, graphic display, mind mapping, essay writing, forum posting, keeping a learning journal, logs, diaries, portfolios, peer-reviewing and personal development planning. Another Student

    Phyliss Creme (2005) The compulsory nature of core activities might support the underlying approach that reflective activity “should be recognized part of the assessment process; otherwise students would not take them seriously”

    Building our professional development portfolio in four areas of competency; practice-related, communication-related, technology-related and research-related support formal assessment with different ways of thinking rather than the traditional means.

    Especially at initials stages of a reflective activity learners would need a reader to reach at for feedback and this is possible with the help of blogging tools.

    As Creme (2005) observes in the 10-week course, “One or more of the two-hour seminars was given over to the students reading each other’s journals. This was generally very productive, the most useful outcome being the students’ growing respect for each other’s work and realizing how diverse each other’s experiences, thinking and way of writing could be”.

    REFERENCE

    Crème, P. (2005) ‘Should student learning journals be assessed?’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 287–96. Available from: http://www.informaworld.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/smpp/section?content=a713605501&fulltext=713240928 (accessed 30 Sept 2010).

    Moon, J. (2001) ‘PDP working paper 4: reflection in higher education learning’ (online), The Higher Education Academy. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id72_Reflection_in_Higher_Education_Learning.rtf (accessed 25 Sept 2010).

    Moon, J. (2005) ‘Guide for busy academics no. 4: learning through reflection’ (online), The Higher Education Academy. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id69_guide_for_busy_academics_no4.doc (accessed 28 Sept 2010).

    Salmon, G (2002) E-tivities
    Smith, M. (1996) ‘Reflection: what constitutes reflection – and what significance does it have for educators? The contributions of Dewey, Schön, and Boud et al. assessed’ (online), The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-reflect.htm (accessed 21 Sept 2010).

    %d bloggers like this: