Slides for dissertation defense of Dr. Brian J. Dixon focusing on reflective video journals.

1. Reflective Video Journals Dissertation Defense by Brian J. Dixon

2. Background A popular website as an innovative learning tool?

3. Statement of the Problem How might reflective video journals be used to enhance students’ metacognitive reflection?

4. Literature Review Metacognitive theory Measuring metacognition Traditional journals Reflective video journals http://flickr.com/photos/donkerdink/567265873

5. Literature Review Kolb’s learning cycle (1984)‏

6. Literature Review Brown’s metacognitive framework

7. Literature Review Reflective journals http://flickr.com/photos/noellhyman/457816932

8. Methodology Formative experiment (six-phase methodology)‏ allows researchers to test, modify, and develop pedagogical theories through innovative instructional interventions (Moll & Diaz, 1987; Reinking & Bradley, 2004)‏ especially useful for studying new technology innovations (Newman et al., 1989; Reinking & Pickle, 1993; Reinking & Watkins, 1996)‏

9. Phase One Determining the pedagogical goal -increased metacognitive reflection of adolescent students Planning the intervention -six session after school reflective video journaling program Recruiting the participants -twelve high school students from a representative public charter school

10. The study participants

11. Phase Two Creating a “thick description” of the setting using ethnographic methods -description of school setting -student population -teacher technology survey

12. Phase Three Establishing a baseline Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory Technology attitudes survey

13. Phase Three Teachers and students technology usage

15. Phase Five: Results Content Analysis Mid-study survey Metacognitive Awareness Inventory

16. Phase Five: Results Play video clips

17. Content analysis Mitchell and Coltrinari's (2001) Reflective Journaling Map

18. Content analysis Hatton and Smith's (1995) Reflective Writing Framework

19. Content analysis Terrance

20. Content analysis Chad

21. Content analysis Sean

22. Content analysis Juliana

23. Content analysis Annette

24. Content analysis Amy

25. Content analysis Kyle

26. Mid-study survey

27. Metacognitive Awareness Inventory

28. Phase Six Consolidating findings

29. Factors that enhance the intervention Highly structured prompts Privacy during production Content over production value

30. Inhibiting factors and modifications made Student autonomy Voluntary nature of this study Prompts not tied to content area

31. Unanticipated effects Positive: students discovered an outlet for personal expression understanding the role of technology in our changing society Negative: students complaining about teachers students answering prompts without forethought

32. Recommendations Classroom practice School policy Teacher education Future research

33. Recommendations for classroom practice Provide opportunities for student reflection -proposed model Integrate today's technology tools into daily curricular activities

34. Model for reflective journaling process

35. Recommendations for school policy Updated approach to technology -open access -open source -open dialogue Support innovative tools -upgrade hardware -change approach

36. Recommendations for teacher education Awareness of tools available today Training to use these tools daily

37. Recommendations for future research Further studies on social software tools Updated approach to approving online research More "teacher as designer" studies

38. Generalizability and limitations Small number of participants Relatively short period of study Unique structure of school site

39. What's next? Present findings at SITE conference Reflective video journals at the GSE Longitudinal study of student vloggers Further studies on social software

40. Selected References Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 1 , 77 – 165. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: DC Heath and Company. Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses and benefits of journal writing. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education , 90 , 19-26. Hubbs, D.L., & Brand, C.F. (2005). The paper mirror: understanding reflective journaling. Journal of Experiential Education, 28 (1), 60-71. King, F.B., & LaRocco, D.J. (2006). E-Journaling: A Strategy to Support Student Reflection and Understanding. Current Issues in Education [On- line], 9(4). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume9/number4/ Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . Englewood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Moon, J. (1999). Learning journal: A handbook for academics, students and professional development. London: Kogan Page. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

41. Selected References Phipps, J. J. (2005). E-journaling: Achieving interactive education online. Educause Quarterly 28(1). Retrieved March 12, 2008 from: http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm05/eqm0519.asp?print=yes Reinking, D., & Bradley, B.A. (2008). On formative and design experiments : approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press. Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (2000). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students ’ independent reading. Reading Research Quarterly , 35 , 384 – 419. Schraw, G., & Dennison (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 19 , 460 – 475. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Walters, J., Seidel, S., & Gardner, H. (1994). Children as reflective practitioners: Bringing metacognition to the classroom. In C. Collins-Block and J. Mangieri (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives . Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

42. Questions?