Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing technology to support reflection

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technology can play a powerful role in supporting student reflection. Sociocognitive theories provide a conceptual framework that we use to consider systems that afford reflective thinking. Reflective thinking involves actively monitoring, evaluating, and modifying one's thinking and comparing it to both expert models and peers. This requires a combination of both individual and collaborative reflection. These theoretical frameworks suggest four ways that technology can provide powerful scaffolding for reflection: (a) process displays, (b) process prompts, (c) process models, and (d) a forum for reflective social discourse. Each approach is presented with specific examples illustrating its design features. We argue that a systems approach that combines these different scaffolding techniques may be even more powerful. Modern technologies can provide students with rich resources for reflection and help students develop adaptive learning expertise through reflective practice. We conclude with a discussion of design issues that should be considered in the future.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J.R., Boyle, C.F., & Yost, G. (1985). The geometry tutor.Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1–5), Los Angeles, CA.

  • Barron, B.J.S., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zeck, L., Bransford, J.D., & CTGV. (in press). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning.Journal of the Learning Sciences.

  • Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.),Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning '97, (pp. 10–20). Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  • Bennett, D.A., King, D.T. (1991, May). The Saturn school of tomorrow.Educational Leadership, 41–44.

  • Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper's world 3.Educational Researcher, 7, 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (in press). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. To appear in C.M Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models, Vol.II. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  • Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P., & Brown, A.L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving.Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolt, Beranek, & Newman (1994). The Co-NECT project.Connections: Technologies for Learning and Technology, Spring, 2–4.

  • Bransford, J.D., Franks, J.J., Vye, N.J., & Sherwood, R.D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J.D., & Nitsch, K.E. (1978). Coming to understand things we could not previously understand. In J.F. Kavanaugh & W. Strange (Eds.),Speech and language in the laboratory, school, and clinic (pp. 267–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J.D., & Stein, B.S. (1993).The IDEAL problem solver. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J.C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognition (pp. 188–228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding In J.H. Flavell & E.H. Markman (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology: cognitive development (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.),Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S. (1985). Idea-amplifiers: New kinds of electronic learning.Educational Horizons, 63, 108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18, 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruer, J.T. (1993).Schools for thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development.Educational Researcher, 7, 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Boufi, A, McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1994).Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Manuscript.

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of Educational Psychology, (pp. 807–840). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. (1994).The effect of a teacher-designed assessment tool on an instructor's cognitive activity while using CSILE. Manuscript.

  • Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B.F. Jones (Eds.),Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 119–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.),International perspectives on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 347–361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCorte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Center for instructional psychology and technology. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933).How we think. Boston: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M., & Kelemanik, G., (1991, December).Electronic communication and community building. Paper presented at Telecommunication as a tool for educational reform: Implementing the NCTM Standards, The Aspen Institute.

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Martimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J.H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.),Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NN: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1986). Mathematics as an objective science. In T. Tymocyko (Ed.),New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 79–94). Boston: Birkhauser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., Turns, J., Rappin, N., & Carlson, D. (1995). Collaborative support for learning in complex domains. In J.L. Schnase & E.L. Cunnius (Eds.),Computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 157–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H.A.H. Stevenson, & K. Hakuta (Eds.),Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1992). Desituating cognition through the construction of conceptual knowledge. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.),Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 115–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C.E., & Day, R. (in press). Contextualize questioning to scaffold learning from simulations.Computers and Education.

  • Hmelo, C.E., & Lin, X.D. (in press). Becoming self-directed learners: Strategy development in problem-based learning. In D. Evensen & C.E. Hmelo (Eds.),Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Hume, G., Michael, J., Rovick, A., & Evens, M. (1996). Discourse generation for instructional applications: Identifying and exploring relevant prior explanations.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. InProceedings of ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction '98, Los Angeles, CA.

  • Jackson, S., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1996). Making System Dynamics Modeling Accessible to Pre-College Science Students.Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 233–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrik, D., Stern, J., & Linn, M.C. (1993).Computers as learning partner: An environment for reflection. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

  • Koschmann, T.D., Myers, A.C., Feltovich, P.J., & Barrows, H.S. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 225–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, J.G., and Coppola, R. (1996). GLOBE: Earth as our backyard.Geotimes, 41(9), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesgold, A.M., Lajoie, S.P., Bunzo, M., & Eggan, E. (1992). Sherlock: A coached practice environment for an electronic troubleshooting job. In J. Larkin & R. Chabay (Eds.),Computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: Shared issues and complementary approaches. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X.D., & Bielaczyc, K. (1998).Supporting metacognitive activities in learning about complex subject domains. Manuscript under review.

  • Lin, X.D., Bransford, J.D., Hmelo, C., Kantor, R., Hickey, D., Secules, T., Petrosino, A., Goldman, S.R., and the CTGV. (1995). Instructional design and the development of learning communities: An invitation to a dialogue.Educational Technology, 35, 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X.D., & Lehman, J. (in press). Supporting learning of variable control: On the importance of making students' thinking explicit.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

  • Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Reiser, B.J., Gomez, L.M., Edelson, D.C., & Russell, E. (1997). The progress portfolio: Promoting reflective inquiry in complex investigation environments. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.),Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning '97, (pp. 169–178). Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  • Means, B. (1997).Assessing what students learn in student-scientist partnerships. Paper presented at the National Science Teachers Association convention, Las Vegas, CA.

  • Miller, R.B. (1978). The information system designer. In W.T. Singleton (Ed.),The analysis of practical skills (pp.278–291). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R.D. (1993). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change.Educational Psychologist, 28, 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R.D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K. (1993). Tutoring systems and pedagogical theory: Representational tools for understanding, planning, and reflection in problem solving. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 143–177). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riel, M. (1990). Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic learning circles.Instructional Science, 19, 445–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990).Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies.Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon.Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering and development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In S.F. Chipman, J.W. Segal, & Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Adaptation and understanding: A case for new cultures of schooling. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.),International perspectives on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 149–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L., Raghavan, K., & Glaser, R. (1993). The discovery and reflection notation: A graphical trace for supporting self-regulation in computer-based laboratories. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 319–337). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilit, B.N., Golovchinsky, G., & Price, M.N. (1998). Beyond paper: Supporting active reading with freeform digital ink annotations. InProceedings of CH198.

  • Schön, D. (1990).The theory of inquiry: Dewey's Legacy to education. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Schwartz, D., Brophy, S., Lin, X.D., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Flexibly adaptive instructional design: A case study from an educational psychology course.Educational Technology Research and Development 47(2) 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwood, R.D., Petrosino, A.J., & Lin, X.D. (1998). Problem based macro contexts in science instruction: Design issues and applications. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.),International Handbook of Science Education, (pp.349–362). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N.B. (1996). Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(4), 297–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak I., & Reiser, B.J. (1997). Complementary roles of software-based scaffolding and teacher-student interactions in inquiry learning. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.),Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning '97, (pp. 289–308). Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B.Y., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students.Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S.M., Bareiss, R., & Reiser, B.J. (1996).ASK Jasper: A multimedia publishing and performance support environment for design. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York.

  • Wineburg, S.S. (in press). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts.Cognitive Science.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Department of Teaching and Learning and the Learning Technology Center, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville

    Xiaodong Lin

  2. the Department of Educational Psychology at the Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

    Cindy Hmelo

  3. the Department of Teaching and Learning and the Learning Technology Center, Peabody College, USA

    Charles K. Kinzer

  4. the Learning Technology Center, Peabody College, USA

    Teresa J. Secules

Authors
  1. Xiaodong Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cindy Hmelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles K. Kinzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teresa J. Secules
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The preparation of this article was supported by a Vanderbilt University Research Council grant and a Spencer Fellowship to the first author. The ideas expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the granting agencies. We thank John Bransford, Allan Collins, Ben Loh and Susan Williams for their insightful suggestions on drafts of this article. We also thank Eliot Soloway, Shari Jackson Metcalf and the highly interactive computing group at the University of Michigan for their permission to use the graphics of the Model-It program. Finally, we thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C.K. et al. Designing technology to support reflection. ETR&D 47, 43–62 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299633

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299633

Keywords

Search

Navigation