|
Index | Editorial Staff | Submissions | Resources | Archives |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reflection in the Writing Classroom
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reflection as Observation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As we turn to examine how reflection works in a networked computer setting, we immediately see the expanded social environment for reflection. Donna Qualley's definition for "reflexivity" best describes reflection in this different environment:
Typically, in a traditional writing classroom the most important "other" a student engages with is the teacher; however, the networked environment changes this teacher-centric dynamic. To illustrate the difference, we can look at Fred Kemp’s description of a writing cycle from his article “Computer-Mediated Communication: Making Nets Work for Writing Instruction” in The Dialogic Classroom. The table below charts out the sequence of activities done in class and out of class during one model writing cycle:
Kemp calls this sequence of assignments "the writing-feedback-adaptation-writing cycle (or 'writing feedback loop')" (Kemp "Instructional Manual for Topic"). What I noticed as I examined this writing cycle--and others similar to it that I had used in my teaching in a computer classroom environment--is the level of “shared discourse.” Students were sharing their writing and reviewing each other’s writing throughout the essay cycle. In my own article “The Shared Discourse of the Networked Computer Classroom,” I proposed that the learning for the students, the social construction of knowledge, was increased through an extension of this shared discourse, and that this extension occurred through a repeated sequence of invention, reflection, and reinvention (Irvin "Shared Discourse"). My origin for the use of the terms invention and reinvention was inspired by Paolo Freire’s essay “The Banking Concept of Education”: “Knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention, through the restless impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (213). Perhaps another way to express what I saw in Kemp’s writing cycle could be better described by Dewey’s learning triad, “the most effective student learning is based on a three-pronged approach: doing, observing the doing, and reflecting on the observation” (Swain). Students do, then observe and reflect upon that doing, and then redo—and then repeat the sequence (in Kemp’s example, five times!). A further echo of this sequence of learning can be seen in D.A. Kolb's Learning Styles as articulated in his 1984 book, Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development. James Atherton in an excellent site reviewing the experiential learning cycle, points out that Kolb builds his theories from the work of Lewin:
Two things become clear as we look at Dewey, Kolb, and at Kemp’s example writing cycle—the central, mediating role of reflection, and the extremely social context for this reflection. We can see in Kemp’s sequence of assignments the same unique features of a computer networked environment that Joel English became excited about in his article “MOO-based Metacognition...”: "I have found that online writing conferences—which begins with an interactive dialogue-based form of writing, produces a learning text (the log of the conversation), and finally allows writers to read back through, respond to, and learn from the online activity—combines attributes of learning which, to my knowledge, have never before come together." We see in Kemp’s example similar episodes where students take transcripts of synchronous discussions, self-reflective texts, or peer responses and then look at them again as they prepare for revising their work. What English and Kemp both stress about the computer networked environment is the mechanical advantage computers provide:
Computer networks, then, by the ease with which they record texts and make these texts available offer new vistas for reflection. But, as many have
noted, computer networks also enable a greater degree of “socialization.”
The importance of social reflection has already become a tenet of the
thinking on reflection (Hughes, Bolton, Fey, Yancey,
Qualley) as Terry Underwood confirms:
“Although reflection can occur in isolation, it is the act of explaining
ourselves to ourselves through expressing ourselves to others that enhances
learning and that clearly locates reflective analysis in the social arena.”
Underwood goes on to assert: “The moral of the story for the teaching
of writing is that reflection in isolation isn't enough; reflective analysis
must be done within a community of writers for a student to profit from
it.” In other words, for the full benefit of reflection’s transformative
power, students need to reflect with and to others. For most writing
classrooms the recognition of the importance of reflecting within a social
context is met through small peer groups sharing their reflections and
reflecting together or through developing a dialogue between the teacher
and the student. The moral to this paper is that computer networks provide
a richer social environment where reflection can thrive. Three categories
describe the nature of reflection in an electronic writing classroom:
reflection as observation, reflection as refraction, and reflection as
coherence. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction | The Importance of Reflection
| Reflection as a Catalyst |
Reflection in the Writing Classroom | Reflection in the E-Writing Classroom | Reflection
as Observation | Reflection as Refraction
| Reflection as Coherence | Conclusion | Works Cited |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||