Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative

  • Joyce Yukawa


This article presents findings from a comparative case study of the learning experiences of two graduate students in an online action research course. The key roles played by reflection and co-reflection, an emerging concept, are identified through the use of narrative analysis. Co-reflection is a collaborative critical thinking process mediated by language, broadly construed to include all meaningful signs. Two types of co-reflection are proposed: tacit and active. Regardless of type, the evidence shows that co-reflection involves cognitive and affective interactions in synergy with relationship building. To the study of group cognition, this study contributes evidence of the potential of co-reflection as a core process. The simple, flexible software tools used in the course (wiki-style collaborative software and simple email and chat programs) effectively supported inquiry learning and co-reflection by allowing learners to freely and easily create their own web pages and to adapt the tools for their different communication and learning styles.


Affective domain Co-construction of knowledge Collaborative learning Co-reflection Distance learning Higher education Narrative analysis Reflection Wiki 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, C. (2004). Life with alacrity: Tracing the evolution of social software. Available at; Accessed December 1, 2005.
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, Texas: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 11(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18–40). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, District of Columbia: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. Mineola, New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  10. Engestrom, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franzosi, R. (2004). From words to numbers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Volume one—Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Volume two—Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon.Google Scholar
  14. Heidegger, M. (1959/1971). On the way to language. New York, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  15. Herman, D. (2003). Stories as a tool for thinking. In D. Herman (Ed), Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences (pp. 163–192). Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  16. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Boston, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: An activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kohler Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leont'ev, A. A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  22. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed), Learning as transformation (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Nardi, B. (Ed). (2001). Context and consciousness. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.Google Scholar
  24. Ricoeur, P. (1974). The conflict of interpretations: Essays in hermeneutics. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  26. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.Google Scholar
  27. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Suthers, D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 662–671). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Toolan, M. J. (1988). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing to ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information & Computer Sciences, Library and Information Science ProgramUniversity of HawaiiHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations