The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ...

Work, learning and reflection: theoretical background
presented by Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985a; 1985b), who extend Kolb‟s learning
cycle and go further into details on the constituent elements of reflection.
Figure 5: A model of the reflective process. From (Boud et al. 1985a)
Experiences(s) is what is reflected upon, including behaviour, ideas and feelings. (One
may for instance think of the experience of collaborating with others in a project over a
period of time.) The reflective process consists of returning to experience, attending to
feelings, and re-evaluating experience (e.g. considering what was good and bad about a
project process). Theis model indicates a possible iteration between experiencing and
reflecting. Outcomes include new perspectives on the experience reflected upon, change
in behaviour, readiness for application, and commitment to action (e.g. to change an
ongoing project in another direction or to make sure to do a certain task in a certain
phase of the next project). The authors stress that an instance of reflection need not
contain all the elements outlined in the model. Also, there is no fixed sequence of steps
in the process. Still, with its checklist of elements of a reflective process and its
grounding in learning theory, the model can be used both to understand reflective
processes and to aid the design for them. In the thesis, the model has been used in the
research presented in P6 and P7.
From a DCog perspective, reflection can be understood as an intrinsic aspect of how
information is used (i.e. through simultaneous consideration of multiple representations,
internal and external). Information is seen as interactive and “used cognitively and
socially. By interactive, it is meant that external representations used in situ are
interpreted in coordination with the implicitly shared and individual knowledge of
current events and work practices” (Rogers and Ellis 1994, p.131). Bruner, in
accounting for human meaning making (Bruner 1990), touches upon similar issues. He
argues that meaning making is about negotiating and renegotiating by the mediation of
narrative interpretation: “ [] human beings, in interacting with another, form a sense of
the canonical and ordinary as a background against which to interpret and give narrative
meaning to breaches in and deviations from „normal‟ states of the human condition”
15