This section comprehensively reviews the contribution of this PhD-work to the field of reflection-in-action and adjacent research strands. Based on this evalua- tion, research follow-ups are outlined.
General discussion | 169
Reflection-in-action
“Put simply, reflection is about maximising deep and minimising surface ap- proaches to learning.” (Hinett, 2002, p.3). Until recently, the effort to promote deep learning has largely been associated to post-practice reflective tools such as portfolios, learning diaries or blogs, and reflective dialogues. With the so- called “reflection amplifiers”, this dissertation brings in the forefront a different type of learning tool that targets reflection-in-action. RAs are brief, structured and repeated reflection affordances, interspersed in the learning material and activated during the first-order learning task at hand. These built-in opportuni- ties for reflection are purposed to offer stop-and-think episodes in the course of learning. This dissertation has enrolled these tinglings for reflection in efforts to: (a) strengthen learners’ engagement with the content, and (b) sharpen the visibility and the awareness of mental processes entailed by a learning activity performed “professionally”.
The dissertation provides the field with a concrete and ordered expression of reflective techniques (see Chapter 2). The proposed classification framework supports the mapping of existing or future RAs, enabling their detailed position- ing, qualification, and comparison. The framework has informed the empirical studies of this dissertation. It can also guide future research activities and create awareness among instructional designers and teachers about the different ap- proaches available.
Widget technology
This dissertation benefits from the efforts of a vast body of literature dedicated to architecture, interoperability, reusability, mash-up integration of existing widgets with institutional learning management systems. While these technical issues are important, they remain largely incomprehensible for the committed educator who sticks to a basic concern: what does it mean to work with these new technological artefacts and how does this improve the type of educational support that is offered to students? This PhD-work provides the education sector with concrete instances of widgets harnessed to clear instructional endeavours in formal learning contexts.
The capacity of the widgets to isolate, both graphically and cognitively, specific reflective behaviours to be practised while learning is one reason why the wid- get technology was favoured. The other reason was the promises of this tech- nology as for interoperability (Wilson, 2008; Wilson, Sharples, & Griffiths, 2008), flexibility, and aggregation. Widget technology allows a pick-and-mix approach that can match various needs for reflection affordances.
The reflection widgets created in the PhD-work embrace mainstream eLearning platforms (Moodle, Liferay), in order to maximize the possibility of re-use. Ad- ditionally, initiatives, not separately reported here (Verpoorten 2010a, 2010b; Verpoorten & Kelle, 2010), were undertaken to check whether RAs could be implemented with the learning technology specification IMS-Learning Design,
developed for enhancing the interoperability of learning scenarios across differ- ent eLearning systems. This approach was decided upon after the literature re- views (see Chapter 2 and 6), which revealed that most existing RAs were bound to local contexts and could not be exported to other environments. The afore- mentioned attempts with IMS-LD demonstrated that it was also possible to ex- press RAs with a standard descriptive language, what might have positive con- sequence as for their diffusion.
Instructional design
A key feature of RAs is that they are built inside the primary study task and put at its service. Such “reflection-inside” assignments take on Scardamalia and Bereiter’s prognosis about the rise of content-based approaches to reflection (1983, as cited by Watkins, 2007, p. 50):
We do not foresee courses in meta-cognition being taught in schools. Rather we foresee that instruction in many areas of intellectual skill might be enriched by designing activities so that they bring more of the cognitive processes out into the open where teachers and students can examine and try to understand them.
A fundamental condition to induce regular mental cueing for evaluating one’s learning and nurturing internal feedback is that RAs are deliberately incorpo- rated into the instructional design of the lesson. As can be inferred from the dis- ciplines tested in this dissertation (“Web usability” in Chapter 4, “Psychology” in Chapter 4 and 9, “Optics” in Chapter 7), RAs look like cross-domain tools. Their application to a variety of subjects (see also Section “RAs’ domains of application” and “Types of learning supported by RAs” in Chapter 6) demands to educators and instructional designers to have explicit considerations for the creation of guided opportunities to practise it rather than assuming that this re- flection will take place without supportive measures.
Because this dissertation provides insight in ways to orchestrate and implement reflection-in-action prompts in learning activity systems, approaching RAs from a systematic instructional design perspective would be a natural continuation of the work. For instance, a dialogue with the 4C/ID model (Van Merriënboer, Clark, & de Crook, 2002) would be worthwhile. According to Van Merriënboer, Jelsma, and Paas (1992), the 4C/ID model has been found effective for conduct- ing training that yields reflective expertise defined as the ability to make a con- scious use of cognitive schemata to solve unfamiliar aspects of the task. Several design patterns for RAs could probably be defined, in conjunction with this model. According to the type of reflective training needed, RAs could be de- signed differently: as learning tasks, supportive information, just-in-time infor- mation, or part-task practice, that is the four core components of the model.
General discussion | 171
Narrative approach to learning
If the knowledge economy imposes the training of reflective capabilities as a main challenge for tuition, it seems reasonable to state that the first object on
which the reflective skills could be exerted is the dominant activity of students: learning.
Learners should be able to tell their own story of what they have learnt, how and why, as well as being able to reel off their qualifications, the formal hurdles they have overcome. “Personalised learning” allows in- dividual interpretations of the goals and value of education. (Lead- beater, 2004, p. 69)
Following the ideas initiated by the narrative approach to learning (Watkins, 2006a) or the student’s voice movement (Creanor, Trinder, Gowan, & Howells, 2008; Lodge, 2005), the present work suggests that a way to sharpen reflective habits about learning is to imbue the daily exposure to the learning activities with structured opportunities for reflecting about them. Reflection is then mate- rialised in spontaneous descriptions of in-situ learning experience.
Additionally, the dissertation provides the field with an attempt to accredit nar- ratives of learning as a topic of investigation of its own. The students’ accounts
of learning experience have been used both as a measure instrument of the in- teraction with RAs (is the interaction with RAs mirrored in the accounts?) and as a learning goal (do the accounts become richer when students are confronted to RAs?).
Visualisation of tracked data
Learning analytics is often viewed as data processed at the level of the institu- tion in order to ground strategies and decisions in factual evidences (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine, & Haywood, 2011). For the purpose of compiling aggre- gated community indicators, this data is usually removed from its learning con- text, production time and individual properties. In this PhD-work, RAs based on the visualisation of learning interaction footprints take exactly the opposite ap- proach. They exploit the value of learning analytics in a highly situated and per- sonal context while minimising the time span between data capture and the moment of its presentation to the stakeholders in this context.
The factual and perceived advantages, drawbacks, shortcomings, improvements of studying with real-time visualisation of own actions should be further put under scrutiny by teachers, learners, and researchers. On the one hand, indica- tors and dashboards provide extra information for learners to piece together a “story” of their learning by associating “what I'm doing” with evidence of the things done (Laflaquière, Mille, Ollagnier-Beldame, & Prié, 2010). In practice, these new opportunities to document learning activities could make learners un- comfortable and could be perceived by them as intrusive. Johnson and Sherlock (2009) noticed that reflection flowing from learning analytics was not necessar- ily used or welcomed and that learners did not really want their practices ampli-
fied in this way. As A.W. Johnson says (personal communication, March 3, 2009): “there are some things which learners are not happy exposing, even to themselves!”
Which data to track and mirror in order to stimulate learners’ thinking is another challenge for future research. Since many metrics can virtually be recorded, clarity should be gained over what learner analytics should best be captured and mirrored for productive reflection in the moment of learning.