Rowanne Fleck | r.m.m.fleck@sussex.ac.uk

Interact Lab | University of Sussex | Brighton | UK

Work funded by the EPSRC through the Equator Project (www.equator.ac.uk) Introduction

Reflection is considered to be an important part of the learning process and there are many theories about what reflection is and why it is so important especially for learning from experience, developing the skills of professional practice and for the development of meta-cognitive skills which are said to enhance learning. Recently there has been increased exploration into the ways technology can be used to support reflection in these areas (Loh, Radinsky et al. 1997; Seale 1998). There has also been exploration into how technology can be used to support reflection in other ways for other purposes, for example some pieces of interactive art claim to provoke reflection in a contemplative way, where the viewer is not asked to learn anything, just consider and enjoy this process (Gaver, Beaver et al. 2003; Höök, Sengers et al. 2003). I am interested in attempting to put some of these latter theories into practice and investigate whether they can be used to inform the design of technology to support reflection and learning in a way that has been little explored in the literature so far. Where it has been touched on, there is scant explanation and understanding of why or what the reflection being supported is, and how that in turn is supporting learning.

What is Reflection?

Reflection, in the sense defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘to think deeply or carefully about’, is a term used frequently in everyday language. We usually think it will involve looking back over ideas or experiences, and consider ourselves ‘reflecting’ rather than just ‘thinking’ in situations where the material is complicated and we don’t really know what the outcome will be. Dewey, one of the earliest people to consider the nature of reflection regards it as an active thought process which is provoked by situations of uncertainty, doubt or difficulty and involves “an act of searching, hunting, inquiring, to find material that will resolve the doubt, settle and dispose of the perplexity” (1933, p12).

In the field of reflective practice, reflection is described as a type of thinking about which enables a kind of problem solving involving the construction of an understanding and reframing of the situation to allow professionals to apply and develop the knowledge and skills of their profession. Reflection is also considered to play an integral role in learning from experience and a number of researchers have developed learning cycles where the learners have a ‘learning experience’ and then reflect on this. Kolb (1984) for example suggests that the reflection allows the learners to form abstract concepts from their experience in order to guide active experimentation and further learning experiences. In this field reflection has been defined as ‘to think for an extended time about a set of recent experiences looking for commonalities, differences, and interrelations beyond their superficial elements’ (Gustafson and Bennett), and as ‘a term for intellectual and affective activities of explaining experiences to get new understandings from’ (Boud, Keogh et al. 1985).

Art work is often said to ‘provoke’ or ‘invite’ reflection. By looking at or interacting with the art work, artists claim that you are drawn to consider what they are presenting, saying, suggesting or asking. In interactive art especially the work can even surprise or confuse (Hindmarsh, Heath et al. 2002; Sengers, Liesendahl et al. 2002; Gaver, Beaver et al. 2003). This use of the term reflection seems similar to Dewey’s use (1933); thought provoked byuncertainty and perplexity to resolve doubt: Though perhaps in the case of art, more an attempt to order thought or even enjoy the discord. Reflection is used loosely to describe ‘thought about’ or ‘contemplation’ of an issue raised.

How can reflection be supported?

Going through the literature there are a myriad of techniques and theories about how reflection should be supported and I suggest a number of general themes emerge which to some extent imply a definition of reflection. The first of these emphasises the restructuring and integration of knowledge. The second is the idea of the need to raise awareness; of incomplete knowledge, of inconsistencies in knowledge, of assumptions and of what is known. Raising awareness in this way makes it possible to restructure disjointed knowledge to form a whole, but restructuring or reframing knowledge can also be a way to raise awareness. The third is the importance of seeing from multiple perspectives which again can raise awareness in the ways discussed above.

The techniques suggested to support reflection can also be grouped. For example: • Guidance Techniques: e.g. the use of reflective questions in journals, portfolios or face to face, setting challenges, supporting the restructuring/reframing of knowledge and experiences and help in linking goals to feedback.

• Discussion: e.g. peer face-to-face or web/email forums

• Recording Techniques: including speech capture tools, journaling, portfolios, videoing or email/web discussion forums

• Presentation/re-representation of knowledge and thinking: e.g. by writing, talking or mind-mapping

• Self-explanation: there are now a number of software programs which have been developed to support this particular approach to reflective learning (REFS).

• Looking back over and remembering techniques: e.g. old photographs or trigger images

• Causing confusion or surprise: e.g. use of ill-structured material, techniques used in interactive art work and novel physical-digital coupling.

This final section is the area I am most interested in, in terms of my thesis. Gaver et al. (2003) present a framework for using ambiguity in interaction design. They suggest that ambiguous situations require people to take part in making meaning, that this is inherently pleasurable and leads to a deep appropriation of the article. Three types of ambiguity are suggested along with techniques for creating and using them in design; ambiguity of information, ambiguity of context and ambiguity of relationship. Sengers et al. (2002) created an interactive art work called Influencing Machine and experimented with providing different amounts of feedback to the users to try and find the balance between an intriguing ambiguity and a frustrating experience. I would like use these ideas to try and get the technology to raise the questions that spur reflection in a less explicit or verbal way than many of the techniques listed above.

Evaluation

This still needs a lot of thought – reflection by any definition is essentially an internal process and evaluating when it is happening will require me to firstly define precisely what I mean by reflection and the reflection I’m looking for and then to find external pointers which show this kind of thought is taking place. Asking participants to work in pairs is one technique Iplan to use so I can analyse their natural conversation for evidence of reflection. Other indicators may include periods of silence or any outputs from the exercise. I will be comparing the effects of a number of situations on levels of reflection as I have defined it. The data I collect is likely to be largely qualitative although it may be possible to identify a number of quantitative measures which could be relevant. Initially I hope to carry out a number of small exploratory investigations.

Putting theory into Practice

I am presently looking at an existing piece of educational software, ‘Belvedere’, which is designed to support critical inquiry by providing a framework for building evidence and concept maps of ideas based on information collected from various sources. I am hoping to use it to investigate the effects of structure and detail of material on triggering reflective thought. Trying to find ways to use some of the abstract ideas discussed, for example those in the ambiguity paper, in real situations has proved quite tricky and I’m hoping this approach will provide a way into exploring some of these concepts.

I have tried to base my research on theory, but am finding it hard to expand upon and use. I think this is partly because the area of reflection is more confused than I initially anticipated. It is not a simple case of lifting a theory from one place (e.g. the ambiguity in interactive art ideas) and applying to another (supporting reflective learning) because the first theory is too vague and there is a very muddled definition of what reflective learning is.

References

Boud, D., R. Keogh, et al. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning. Reflection: Turning experience into learning. D. Walker. London, Kogan Page: 18-40.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA, D C Heath.

Gaver, W. W., J. Beaver, et al. (2003). Designing design: Ambiguity as a resource for design.

CHI.

Gustafson, K. L. and W. J. Bennett Issues and Difficulties in Promoting Learner Reflection: Results from a Three-Year Study. http://it.coe.uga.edu/~kgustafs/document/promoting.html.

Accessed: 30/10/02

Hindmarsh, J., C. Heath, et al. (2002). Creating assemblies: Aboard the Ghost Ship. CSCW, New Orelans, Louisiana, USA.

Höök, K., P. Sengers, et al. (2003). Sense and Sensibility: Evaluation and Interactive Art.

CHI, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the science of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Loh, B., J. Radinsky, et al. (1997). The progress portfolio: Promoting reflective inquiry in complex investigation environments. Proceedings of computer supported collaborative learning, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Seale, J. K. (1998). Using learning technologies in psychology education to encourage reflection. http://www.sohp.soton.ac.uk/jks1/CPI98paper.htm. Accessed: 30/10/02 Sengers, P., R. Liesendahl, et al. (2002). The Enigmatics of Affect. Designing Interactive Systems, London, ACM.下载本文