Critical Metareflection



What do students learn from creative writing for critical thinking? This chapter presents the results from the in-depth study, highlighting learning outcomes in terms of different types of critical thinking, depending on discoursal identity. Each profile is based on patterns found in the data and explained by examples from the study, as in Chap.  6. It turns out that there are different types of critical metareflection: one is instrumental, oriented to critical evaluation of certain tools the writer has used; one is self-oriented, focusing identity, and one is critical/analytical in regard to language. This new way of understanding variation in learning outcomes calls for new ways of thinking about educating for learning through writing.


Critical metareflection Learning outcomes Writers’ profiles Educating critical metareflection 


  1. Billig, Michael (1996). Arguing and Thinking; A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Elbow, Peter (1994). Teaching Two Kinds of Thinking by Teaching Writing. In: Kerry S. Walters (ed.). Re-thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
  3. Engeström, Yrjö (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsingfors universitet: Pedagogiska institutionen, Chaps. 2, 3, 4. Downloaded in March 2013 from
  4. Gee, James Paul (2008). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. 3rd ed. London/New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, pp. 3–5, 155–162.Google Scholar
  5. Ivanič, Roz (1998). Writing and identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ivanič, Roz (2004). Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language and Education 18/3: 220–245. Downloaded in March 2010.Google Scholar
  7. Ivanič, Roz (2006). Language, Learning and Identification. In: R. Kiely et al. (eds.). Language. Culture and Identity in Applied Linguistics. University of Bristol: British Association for Applied Linguistics. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  8. Kaptelinin, Victor (2005). The Object of Activity: Making Sense of the Sense-Maker. Mind Culture and Activity 12/1: 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mezirow, Jack (1997). Perspective Transformation. Studies in Adult Education 9: 153−164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Molloy, Gunilla (2001). De kulturbundna metaforerna. In: Texten bakom texten. Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 5–26.Google Scholar
  11. Nussbaum, Martha Craven (1997). Cultivating Humanity; A Classical Defence of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Nussbaum, Martha Craven (2001). Upheavals of Thought; The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 304–326, 401–405.Google Scholar
  13. Sannino, Annalisa; Daniels, Harry, & Guitérrez, Kris D. (eds.). (2009a). Editor’s Introduction. In: Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xi–xxi.Google Scholar
  14. Säljö, Roger (2000). Lärande i praktiken; ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Stockholm: Prisma.Google Scholar
  15. Vygotsky, L. S. (1999 [1934]). Tänkande och språk. Translated into Swedish by Kajsa Öberg Lindsten. Preface by Gunilla Lindqvist. Göteborg: Daidalos.Google Scholar
  16. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society; The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (eds.). Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Södertörn UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations