1. 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,
2. 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)
3.
4. CRÈME STATES 2 DIFFERING OPINIONS ON
ASSESSING 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 in
order to develop further their writing and learning]
Crème suggests a compromise that we use a range
of formative kinds of assessment for the journals
and then assess summatively a new final product.
6. SCOPE
Summary of Kember et al (2008) paper
Comments
Summary of Fisher (2003) paper
Comments
7. KEMBER EL AL (2008)
Context – Professional Degrees
Promote
Course Aim Critical Reflection
Reflective
PracticesReflection
Understanding
Assessment Habitual Action / Non reflection
8. 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”
9. 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)
10. SYNTHESIZED DEFINITION (P2)
Ill-define problem
Through stimuli
Triggered by unusual case
Arranged
Revisit experience
Re-examination & evaluation belief and
knowledge
Looking back (ROA)
11. 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)
12. 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.
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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
18. 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.
20. USES OF PROTOCOL
Journal
Essays
Online discussion
Evaluation & research purposes (measure
reflection as outcome)
21. 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).
22. 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?
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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.
27.
28. 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
29. 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?
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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?
