Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Learning Logs and the efficacy of autonomous reflecting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Educational Research for Policy and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the educational impact of a prepilot study on the “Learning Logs” literacy strategy as it was used in Louisiana. The study examined how students’ conceptual understanding of kinematics and Newton’s laws were impacted in a ninth-grade physical science course. The findings address a gap within the current research literature concerning the efficacy of the strategy in the high-school physics classroom. Pre- and posttesting evidence demonstrated that participating in the end-of-class activity of autonomous reflection, without instructor feedback, resulted in negative learning gains and reinforcement of misconceptions. The data collected demonstrate a need for a more standardized feedback system to better inform students and teachers on conceptual mastery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, C. W. (1999). Inscriptions and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 973–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anson, C. M., Schwiebert, J. F., & Williamson, M. M. (1993). Writing across the curriculum: An annotated bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audet, R. H., Hickman, P., & Dobrynina, G. (1996). Learning Logs: A classroom practice for enhancing scientific sense making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. R., Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1991). The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, H. J. (2003). The Learning Log. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14, 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brozo, W.G. (2012). Content literacy strategy descriptions for the Louisiana comprehensive Curriculum, 2008 and 2012 revisions. Retrieved 6/5/15 from http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/uploads/11056.doc.

  • Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., & Liu, C. C. (2011). Effects of matching teaching strategy to thinking style on learner’s quality of reflection in an online learning environment. Computers & Education, 56(1), 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesters, S. D. (2012). The Socratic Classroom. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chirema, K. D. (2007). The use of reflective journals in the promotion of reflection and learning in post-registration nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 27(3), 192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Alexandria, VA.

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1984). Anti-Oedipus, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane.

  • Demaree, D. (2006). Toward understanding writing to learn in physics: Investigating student writing (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Retrieved 6/5/15 from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1158689605&disposition=attachment.

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiSessa, A. A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6(1), 37–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L., Morgan, C., O’Reilly, M., & Parry, S. (2003). The student assessment handbook: New directions in traditional and online assessment. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, N. M., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). An inquiry into Schön’s epistemology of practice: Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(2), 98–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 101–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2015). Aspects of Teaching and Learning Science: What students’ diaries reveal about inquiry and traditional modes. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2113–2146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Wong, F. K. Y. (2008). A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, D. Y., & Kember, D. (2003). The relationship between approaches to learning and reflection upon practice. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M., & Wray, D. (Eds.). (2014). Literacy in the secondary school. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louisiana Department of Education (2005) Louisiana comprehensive curriculum: Physical Science, Revised 2008. Retrieved 6/5/15 from https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/academic-curriculum.

  • Luft, J. A., & Dubois, S. L. (2017). Essential Instructional Practices for Science Teaching. In Science Education (pp. 235–245). SensePublishers.

  • Lunsford, E., & Melear, C. T. (2004). Using scoring rubrics to evaluate inquiry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(1), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, V. J. (1997). Global science literacy: An earth system view. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057–1073.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, M. E., & Draper, R. J. (2001). Using Learning Logs in mathematics: Writing to learn. Mathematics Teacher, 94, 554–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, 1, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., & Kost-Smith, L. E. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: a classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2009). Scientific literacy. Handbook of research on literacy (pp. 271–285).

  • OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework. Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy.

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugalee, D. K. (2015). Effective content reading strategies to develop mathematical and scientific literacy: Supporting the common core state standards and the next generation science standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowell, P. M. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Ayala, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). Evaluating students’ science notebooks as an assessment tool. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1477–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Looking into students’ science notebooks: What do teachers do with them?. Los Angeles: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. (1985). Learning Logs: A communication strategy for all subject areas. Educational Leadership, 42, 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoon, P., & Cafolla, R. (2003). Toward a new model of instructional design. In Society for information technology and teacher education international conference (Vol. 2003, No. 1, pp. 684–687).

  • Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of science literacy. NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual differences of learning approaches: the effects of assessments. Human Learning, 3, 227–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. J. (2009). Effectiveness of Ninth-Grade Physics in Maine: Conceptual Understanding. The Physics Teacher, 47, 234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, J. A. (2012). Do learning logs have an impact on the conceptual mastery of force and motion? In Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College) Retrieved 6/5/15 from http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07102012-133351/.

  • Van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 885–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Wright, J. (1992). Reflections on reflection. Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wygant, H. (2014). Integrating the Common Core Literacy Skills in Science Classes. California Classroom Science a publication of the California Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from http://www.classroomscience.org/integrating-the-common-core-literacy-skills-in-science-classes on 1/3/2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Partial support for this work has been provided by the National Science Foundation under Grant EPSCoR Cooperative Agreement No. EPS-1003897. We wish to thank the Physics Department at the Louisiana State University, Dr. James Madden for his valuable, support and the Louisiana Math and Science Teacher Institute (LAMSTI) program. We also want to extend our thanks to the Louisiana Alliance for Simulation Guided Materials Application (LASIGMA) as well as the site school and its teachers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, 84058, USA

    C. Slezak

  2. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA

    C. Slezak, J. Underwood & J. Moreno

Authors
  1. C. Slezak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Underwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Slezak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Slezak, C., Underwood, J. & Moreno, J. Learning Logs and the efficacy of autonomous reflecting. Educ Res Policy Prac 18, 167–180 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-018-9238-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-018-9238-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation