DEFINITION OF LEARNING JOURNAL Learning journal is “writing that is done progressively and regularly by students during a course, as a record of their learning” (Crème, 2005) Learning journal is a kind of self narrated development (Crème, 2005) Progressive learning journal is different from „reflective writing‟ where students relate theory to examples of their practice (Stierer, 2000) as in „reflection-in-action‟. However,
DEFINITION OF LEARNING JOURNAL Learning journals (more personal) = “You + course materials” (Crème & Lea, 2003) It tells a story of writer‟s engagement with course material & processes Learning journals always contain some element of writer self reflection as an aim (Qualley 1997, cited in Crème 2005)
CRÈME STATES 2 DIFFERING OPINIONS ONASSESSING LEARNING JOURNALS – Recognize and value different ways of constructing and writing knowledge Assessment may undermine the very qualities that we value in a journal[Students draw reflexively on their learning journal inorder to develop further their writing and learning]Crème suggests a compromise that we use a rangeof formative kinds of assessment for the journalsand then assess summatively a new final product.
Assessment & ReflectionKEMBER ET AL (2008)FISHER (2003)
SCOPE Summary of Kember et al (2008) paper Comments Summary of Fisher (2003) paper Comments
KEMBER EL AL (2008) Context – Professional Degrees Promote Course Aim Critical Reflection Reflective PracticesReflection Understanding Assessment Habitual Action / Non reflection
DEFINITION OF REFLECTION (P1-2) Observed by Atkins and Murphy (1993), and by Sparkes-Langers et al (1990) and among others “Formal Definition are not easy to find”
DEFINITION OF REFLECTION (P1-2) King and Kitchene r (1994) Jarvis (1987, 1992, 1995) Dewey (1933) Mezirow (1981, 1991, 1992)1930s Schon (1983, 1987) Kember et al. Now (2001, 2008) Boud and collaborators (1985, 1991)
SYNTHESIZED DEFINITION (P2) Ill-define problem Through stimuli Triggered by unusual case Arranged Revisit experience Re-examination & evaluation belief and knowledge Looking back (ROA)
SYNTHESIZED DEFINITION (P2) Reflect while doing (RIA) Few levels for reflection Highest level => new belief structure New perspective formed Takes time (initial observation to conclusion)
DERIVING PROTOCOL (P3-4) Examine suitable scheme Proposer Evaluation Sparks-Langer et al. (1990) Equated more to the linguistic structure of discourse Powell (1989) No details of coding procedure and its reliability or validity. Hahnemann (1986) Focus if answers to questions were correct, not evidence of reflection. Wong et al. (1995) 2-stage process makes scheme harder to employ Kember et al. (1999) 7 categories were too fine- grained.
DERIVING PROTOCOL (P3-4) Proposed 4 Categories protocol Critical Reflection Based on Kember et al. Reflection (2000) questionnaire Understanding Habitual Action / Non reflection Empirical evidence viable scheme to access
DESCRIPTION OF 4 CATEGORIES (P4-6) Habitual action / non-reflection Do without thinking (procedures) E.g. Professional practice Expertdoing routine task Novice strictly following steps E.g. Education Answer without trying to understand concept behind Completing essay by piecing information without trying to understand it, or forming a view.
DESCRIPTION OF 4 CATEGORIES (P4-6) Understanding Tryto reach an understanding of a concept. Concepts are understood as theory No personal meaning making Retention period may be limited. Writing rely on textbook or the lecture notes
DESCRIPTION OF 4 CATEGORIES (P4-6) Reflection Concepts are infused with personal experiences and knowledge. Theory applied to practical applications. Personal insights beyond theory provided by book.
DESCRIPTION OF 4 CATEGORIES (P4-6) Critical Reflection Change of perspective Manyactions are governed by beliefs and values, to undergone change in perspective requires people to recognize and change these presumptions. Seldom occur Especially topic is the main activities
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY Validity categories is derived from extensive body of literature. Reliability 4 independent assessor using it. Results of assessment shows good agreement among them.
USING PROTOCOL Assess whole paper Find highest level of reflection
USES OF PROTOCOL Journal Essays Online discussion Evaluation & research purposes (measure reflection as outcome)
COMMENTS Kember et al. (2008) attempt to show that their proposal is valid in view of the numerous references quote. However, there are biasness displayed with the usage of references References quote seems to be in the same community May make the validity of his proposal looks as “not so valid”. Kember‟s perspective is skew toward Reflection on Action (ROA).
COMMENTS Cross examining Kember et al. (2008) paper with Tan (2008) paper, seems to show that Authors‟ perspective of reflection is towards the notion of performative reflection (emphasis on certainty in process and outcome of reflection). The protocol proposed, we think it is used as complement to reflective activities. Under the critical reflection category, one of descriptor “Critical reflection is unlikely to occur frequently”. It is used to assess the level of reflection. It does not seems to be “correct”. As I would question, what does “unlikely to occur frequently” have to do with the level of reflection?
FISHER (2003) Context: Tertiary Education Social Science and Humanities (Economics) Emancipatory Educative Practices (liberal) Action research study into emancipator teaching of economics to social welfare & social science students Interest to define critical reflection. Offer suggestion on criteria for Critical Reflection (CR) Mentioned on the diverse views on the definition of reflection
DERIVING CRITICAL REFLECTION CRITERIA Approaches Review literature of CR in adult learning. Note gaps relation to definition and process. Examine multiple perspectives of CR to gain better understanding of CR concept. Examining assumptions and beliefs Ideology critique. Mezirow‟s perspective transformation Brookfield‟s contextual awareness & imaginative speculation Barnett‟s Critical Being (Knowledge, Self and Action => Critical Thinking, Critical Self Reflection, Critical Action) Brockbank and McGill‟s reflective dialogue
DERIVING CRITICAL REFLECTION CRITERIA Fisher “insights” on important indicators of capacity for CR from literature review Articulate contextual awareness of own position through identify impact own influences and background Identify own value, belief and assumptions Consider alternative views Identify own view‟s biasness that may privilege certain viewpoints. Able envision alternatives / possibilities
DERIVING CRITICAL REFLECTION CRITERIA Apply insight towards Research Conduct research based on derived “insights” on BSc Social Science at Southern Cross University Set 2 assignments that requires students to do critical reflections. Students are briefed on what constitute towards critical reflections prior to their assignment. Post-course analysis of the students‟ reflection aid Fisher to derive the Cr criteria.
FISHER’S CONCLUSION Teachers need to give clear guidance on requirements of CR Provide feedback on how to improve reflective capacities Argue against being labeled for taking “reductionist approach” IfCR is essential to fostering transformative learning, transparent criteria may prove important
COMMENTS For criteria derived based on the CR from the students, there might be possibilities that students are still not clear about requirements of CR even after explanation, thus skewing the results, that in turn affect the post-course analysis. The criteria derived seem to have some overlap. For example, would biases and missing perspective be similar where students identify missing perspective, can also infer identification of biases also?
COMMENTS We think that the process of bringing students through the “mechanics” of reflection (e.g. requirements of CR, etc) upfront prior to the assignment would provide a better scaffold for student to conduct their reflection. We agree with the author that to improve the students capacities for CR, transparency of the requirements of CR, and feedback on how to improved reflective capacities are important. While is it reductionist in nature, but it does address the “component” part of what constitute to reflective capacities. However, with that said, the criteria proposed needs to be clearly articulated to the teachers assessing, and students using the assessment.
COMMENTS Similar to Kember, Fisher‟s perspective is nearer to the notion of Reflection on Action. Fisher‟s criteria may be infused into the 4th Category of Kember‟s protocol to more robust.
QUESTION What is (are) your opinion (s) on the usefulness of the protocol or criteria provided in your assessment of the reflection? Restrictive? Helpfulin guiding thoughts? Can be improved? Which part?