=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Reflective Learning at Work - A Position and Discussion Paper
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-790/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-790
}}
==Reflective Learning at Work - A Position and Discussion Paper==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-790/paper4.pdf
Reflective Learning at Work - A Position and
Discussion Paper
Viktoria Pammer1 , Kristin Knipfer2 , Birgit Krogstie3 , Daniel Wessel2 , Michael
Prilla4 , and Stefanie Lindstaedt1,5
1
Know-Center, Graz, Austria
2
Knowledge Media Research Center, Tübingen, Germany
3
Deptmt. of Computer and Information Science, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
4
Information and Technology Management, University of Bochum, Germany
5
Knowledge Management Inst., TU Graz, Austria
Abstract. The relevance of reflection for learning has long been recog-
nised, and there is a substantial body of theoretical work on reflection.
However, many questions regarding reflection at the workplace are still
open, especially regarding the actual occurrence of reflection in different
workplaces, and the efficient support for reflection.
In our ongoing work to examine the relevance of reflective learning at
work in various organisations and to design technological support, we
have collected and discussed existing literature on reflective learning.
Within this paper, we discuss relevant and open issues in four major
topical areas that are relevant to the above research goal, namely (i) the
reflection process , (ii) the various scopes of reflection such as individual
and organisational learning, (iii) the context or setting in which reflection
might take place and (iv) how we can facilitate and scaffold reflection
by means of technology. We aim to provide a basis for discussion and to
illustrate that research on reflection, especially in the context of work, is
far from finished.
1 Introduction
The relevance of reflection for learning has long been recognised, and there is a
substantial body of theoretical work on reflection. Within the project MIRROR
- Reflective Learning at Work 6 , our goal is to facilitate learning by reflection
at the workplace using state-of-the-art information technology. However, many
questions regarding reflection at the workplace are still open, especially regard-
ing the actual occurrence of reflection in different workplaces, and the efficient
support for reflection.
Within this paper we discuss four major topics that need to be considered from
a theoretical viewpoint when tackling the challenge of providing technological
support for reflective learning at work. These are (i) the reflection process itself,
(ii) the various scopes of reflection such as individual and organisational learn-
ing, (iii) the context or setting in which reflection might take place and (iv) how
6
http://www.mirror-project.eu
46
Reflective Learning at Work
we can facilitate and scaffold reflection by means of technology. These topics
also provide the structure of the present paper. For each topic we will explain
our current understanding and present issues for discussion.
2 The Reflection Process: Triggers, Object, Process, and
Outcomes of Reflection
Daudelin defines reflection as “the process of stepping back from an experience
to ponder, carefully and persistently, its meaning to the self through the devel-
opment of inferences; learning is the creation of meaning from past or current
events that serves as a guide for future behavior” [3]. Reflection has the potential
to lead to a better understanding of ones own work practice and work-related
experiences and can guide future behaviour [10]. For our purposes, we thus con-
sider reflection and reflective learning to be the same thing.
We start our discussion of the reflection process with the input-output-oriented
model of reflective learning proposed by Boud et al. [2], see Fig. 1. This model
outlines a three-step process of reflective learning: The learner re-evaluates past
experience by attending to its various aspects such as feelings and ideas, thereby
producing outcomes such as a better undertstanding of an experience or be-
havioural change. However, it does not specify the content of reflection, the
triggers for reflection, the reflection process itself, and the outcome of reflection.
These aspects need to be better understood, in order to design efficient support,
both technological and non-technological, for learning by reflection at work, and
in order to illustrate clearly the benefits of learning by reflection for individual
learners and teams in organisations, and the organisation itself.
Fig. 1. The process of reflective learning [2]. Note that this illustration redrawn fol-
lowing the original drawing.
47
Reflective Learning at Work
The Content of Reflection: Experience(s) In Boud’s reflective learning
process (illustrated in Fig. 1) we can consider the experience returned to as
a single experience or as a conglomeration of single experiences. We follow [2]
in defining a single experience as “the total response of a person to a situation,
including behavior, ideas and feelings”. In everyday as well as academic language
“experience” refers both to a single experience within the context of a specific
event or situation and general experience in the sense of (tacit) knowledge, skills
or attitudes that have been developed over time. In workplace learning, we can
thus specify work-related experience as the content of reflection: The subject
matter of reflection is likely to be ones own work practice. Reflection in a team
context might be based on shared experience instead of individual experience.
It is still an empirical question, which aspects of work practice are typically
reflected upon, for instance whether it is on task performance, on communication
with clients or colleagues, or on one’s own reaction to experiences.
Triggers for Reflection Reflective learning does not automatically occur dur-
ing the course of daily working routines. Reflection arises from the flow of expe-
rience prompted by some kind of cue that draws attention to a concrete instance
of experience. All typical occasions for reflection that we have found in the liter-
ature have in common that they elicit a state of discrepancy. This discrepancy
can arise from experiencing a knowledge or skill gap, the mismatch of an in-
dividual’s expectation and the actual environment, experiencing contradicting
information, difference in individual understanding, involvement in social con-
flicts, a positive change in work processes, improvement in productivity, etc.
From a psychological viewpoint, we can thus understand discrepancy between re-
ality and expectation as the trigger for reflection. This discrepancy leads to inner
discomfort; reflection is one possible, and highly benefical, strategy for dealing
with such discomfort. For practical reasons, we would like to have a more fine-
grained distinction between triggers. A practically applicable categorization of
triggers is therefore one of our ongoing research endeavours.
Personal and Situational Factors that Influence Whether and How Re-
flection Takes Place The same situation may make one person reflect wheras
another person does not experience a need for reflection at all. We can safely
assume that this is influenced by a complex interplay between situational fac-
tors and personal factors. On an abstract level, it is reasonable to assume that
a person’s need, (cognitive) ability and opportunity as well as characteristics of
the situation in which reflection takes place influence whether and how reflec-
tion takes place. In our future work, we want to identify this interrelationship
more precisely. This is the pre-requisite for designing a work environment that
fosters learning by reflection, such as establishing reflective practice or tweaking
organisational culture so that it holds reflective learning in higher regard.
Reflection and Learning Based on the re-evaluation of a past experience, re-
flection leads to a new and better understanding of the experience and allows for
48
Reflective Learning at Work
deriving implications, conclusions, or ’lessons learned’. Reflection thus includes
processes of drawing conclusions with regard to future situations. This, in turn,
requires the generalization and abstraction from the concrete experience. The
outcome of reflective learning can be cognitive, affective, and/or behavioural
(in line with [2]). A resolution or lesson learned is a core part of the reflective
process; this constructive element of reflection differentiates it from repetitive
thought and rumination (cp. Martin & Tesser [9, 8] for research into rumination),
although the outcome does not necessarily have an immediate and/or observable
impact on work practice. Thus, following our definition of reflection, reflection
always leads to learning.
We aim at a comprehensive categorisation of reflection outcomes that are mea-
surable. This is an essential pre-requisite to evaluate any interventions.
Indicators for the Occurrence of Reflection In general, reflection is consid-
ered to be the conscious re-evaluation of one’s own experience. Reflection is “a
form of mental processing with a purpose and/or an anticipated outcome that is
applied to relatively complicated or unstructured ideas for which there is not an
obvious solution” [10, p98]. The reflective process is deliberate/careful (active,
purposeful), rational (systematic, situated sense-making) with an affective side
(attending to feelings, values and attitudes), and includes the rational evaluation
of knowledge and beliefs.
Unfortunately, most models of reflection do not specifiy the concrete mental
operations, which would be necessary to assess reflection. However, identifying
whether reflection occurs or not will be crucial for any research purposes that
involve evaluation of interventions. Our goal is therefore to identify indicators
of the reflective process such as perspective taking, counterfactual thinking, and
generation of behavioural intentions. Addditionally, available models of reflec-
tion focus on individual reflection and thus neglect communcation activities that
become relevant in collaborative settings. Hence, we need to further consider in-
dicators for reflection in collaborative settings. Relevant indcators might be the
ones proposed by van Woerkom & Croon [13] such as questioning groupthink,
giving and receiving feedback etc.
Reflection and Task Performance The work of Schön [12] explains how
knowledge, experience and reflection at the workplace are linked. According to
Schön, there are several steps involved in reflective work practice: Knowing-in-
action, surprise, reflection-in-action, experimentation, and reflection-on-action.
Knowing-in-action refers to the kind of knowledge we can only reveal in the way
we carry out tasks and approach problems, e.g., tacit knowledge. Reflection-in-
action happens as an integral aspect of work, triggered by situations that chal-
lenge knowing-in-action. Solutions to these challenges emerge as an outcome of
reflection and are tried out, e.g., enacted in practice (experimentation). This ex-
perimentation is re-evaluated through reflection-on-action taking place after the
event. The result of reflection is improved knowing-in-action. Although, Schöns
model sheds light on the connection between reflection and the task performance
49
Reflective Learning at Work
process, we believe that time and opportunity to reflect is essential. Some emo-
tional and cognitive distance to an experience seems also to be necessary for
generalization and abstraction from a single experience, e.g., “the role of emo-
tions as possible barriers to reflection” are explicitly mentioned in [2].
We thus think it is difficult to link Schön’s reflection-in-action to the reflection
process that we assume based on Boud’s model of reflection. Reflection-in-action
in the sense of Schön’s defintion seems to be related to problem solving during
task performance instead. Dealing with disturbances or challenges during task
completion should, in our opinion, not be regarded as reflection as long as there
are no lessons learned that guides future behavior. This is, however, an issue for
discussion as there is some disagreement in available literature with regard to
the relationship of reflection and problem solving during daily work.
3 The Scope of Reflective Learning: Individual,
Collaborative, and Organisational Learning
Especially in the context of organisational learning, reflection should not only be
considered as an individual cognitive process. Since most business organisations
strive to implement teams to successfully face the rapid changes and challenges
in business life, we argue that also collaborative reflection should be considered
more comprehensively [6]. However, there is little literature that collects how and
when transitions between individual and collaborative reflection, or from individ-
ual and collaborative reflection to organisational learning and vice versa happen
(exceptions include [4, 5]). Rather, existing literature often deals with one single
aspect only, such as developing self-reflective capabilities and supervised reflec-
tion in educational settings (i.e. individual reflection), with team learning and
reflection in work settings (i.e. collaborative reflection), or with organisational
learning from a quality management perspective. On the other hand it is highly
relevant in the context of workrelated learning to investigate which paths are
“travelled” in the real world, in order to efficiently support existing reflection
and transfer best practices to other workplaces. Established paths are necessary
so that results of reflection by individuals can be shared with a team or the
whole organization.
Individual and Collaborative Reflection We suggest a reciprocal relation
between reflection within a group and the individual reflection processes: For
reflection to be collaborative, participants share experiences. With regard to the
outcome of reflection, we need to further specifiy who learns from reflection: Be-
sides individual learning, reflection may also lead to team learning. Team learn-
ing through reflection leads to team development for the purpose of improving
team performance in the future. We would like to point out here, however, that
team learning is not only the result of a whole team reflecting collaboratively to-
gether, but implications for team work practice might, of course, be also derived
by a single team member or perhaps by the team lead while reflecting solitar-
ily on his/her personal understanding of team work. Outcomes of collaborative
50
Reflective Learning at Work
learning can be, e.g., social norms, implicit or explicit rules for communication,
coordination or cooperation, etc.
Reflection and Organisational Learning Reflective learning can also be
viewed in an organizational scope. Organizational learning, an organizations im-
provement of its performance over time [1], can be seen as a consequence of the
learning taking place within the context of daily work. Learning includes both
individual and team learning. We consider this kind of organisational learning to
result from staff’s learning experiences as a bottom-up process. For bottom-up
organisational learning, continuous evolution of best practice must be stimulated
by regular review of organizational routines and practices. Sharing of individual
work practice should be encouraged so that others can profit from individual
good practice. On the other hand, organisational learning can also be initiated
in a top-down approach, when work processes are reflected on at a managerial
level. Management responsibles may reflect on the organisation’s overall perfor-
mance as well as specific organisational standards and routines on the basis of
performance data. This data may originate from work processes directly, or may
stem from from reflection processes of single staff members or teams.
4 The Context of Reflection at the Workplace: The
Reflection Session
By reflection session we refer to a time-limited activity framing and supporting
reflection. Reflection sessions range from individual and spontaneous pauses in
between work tasks to scheduled and facilitated reflection meetings in teams.
By using the term “reflection session”, we distinguish the mental process of re-
flection within a single learner or the social process of reflection within a team
respectively (“reflection”), from the setting in which reflection happens (“reflec-
tion session”).
Following-up on our earlier discussion of different aspects of learning by re-
flection, we propose five sets of characteristics (aspects) for a reflection session.
The five sets of characteristics include the three elements in Boud’s model[2], but
add characteristics of the learner and contextual information about the reflection
session. Such aspects are necessary to compare reflection sessions, study com-
monalities and differences between reflection sessions, and subsequently build
appropriate support for different reflection settings. We have already begun test-
ing the usefulness of the conceptualisation below on existing empircial data [11,
p22ff], but future, continued validation is needed.
Content Characteristics By content we refer to the object of reflection, the
past experiences.
– Does the reflection address a single experience or a conglomeration of
experience?
– Who owns, or “made”, the experience?
– Which work process(es) are in focus?
51
Reflective Learning at Work
– Which aspect of the experience is reflected on?
Characteristics of Reflection Process This refers to the question how and
by whom the activities in the reflection session are being conducted.
– Who participates in the reflection process? Is the process individual or
collaborative? What are the participants’ roles in this process?
– Which data is accessed to support reflection?
– Are there specific reflection techniques to facilitate reflection?
Outcome Characteristics Outcomes are any results of reflection sessions. They
target both what the learners have actually learned, as well as the tangible
artefacts that have been produced.
– What is the scope of reflection? Which actors must ideally learn and
change?
– Which (kind of) knowledge is constructed?
– Which tangible artifacts are produced?
– How are outcomes sustained?
– What actual changes in work practice result from reflection?
Learner Characteristics Learner characteristics describe the learning actor(s),
which may be a single person, a team or group of people, or an organisation.
Naturally there are different characteristics for all these “kinds” of learner.
For example:
– Personal disposition, such as need or ability to reflect.
– Group dynamics, e.g., culture of giving respectful feedback.
– Organisational culture.
Characteristics of Reflection Situation The reflection situation encompasses
concrete situational factors of the reflection session, such as time and place
where the reflection process takes place.
– When does the reflection happen?
– Was the reflection session planned?
– How long does the reflection session take?
– Where does the reflection session take place?
Organisational and Technical Support for a Reflection Session Facili-
tation and “design” of reflection sessions require knowledge about the specific
effects of the above discussed characteristics. Although we have already identi-
fied these characteristics of a reflection session, we do not know exactly which
options are adequate for which purpose. In some cases, for example, it might be
good to have an individual reflection opportunity before the team comes together
and shares individual pre-understandings - in other cases, sharing individual ex-
periences and discussion interpretations might be useful in a team context from
the beginning (e.g., when single individuals do not have access to information
relevant or knowledge applicable). Involvement of a line manager might be useful
if she can provide objective feedback but it might hinder a thorough analysis of
a specific situation. Some incidents might require an immediate analysis, while
in other cases it might be more helpful to wait until emotions have calmed down.
52
Reflective Learning at Work
5 The Role of Tools in Reflection At Work
Tools may have different roles in supporting reflection at work. Two broad cate-
gories of tool use for workrelated reflection have been identified as (i) gathering
data from the work process and (ii) providing support for the reflection session
in [7]. From this starting point, we go on to expand the conceptualisation of
different roles of tools along the model of reflection of Boud et al. [2] considering
the experiences, the reflection process, and the outcomes:
Experiences Here, we can consider technology that captures data about a
learner’s experiences, which can be used as a basis for reflection in a re-
flection session. Such technology may or may not support the work tasks,
e.g., a subversion repository supports a developer’s work and also produces
log data whilst a video camera does not support the a fireman’s work but
produces log data that can be used as a basis for reflection. Finally there are
manual data capture tools, e.g., note-taking tools, which serve not only to
capture experiences but also serve as a first step in a reflection process since
they require an explicit engagement on the learner’s part with an experience.
Reflection Process Technology can also be used to support the reflection pro-
cess itself. Given the current technological state-of-the-art, the following
ideas come to mind:
– Data analysis tools: Data analysis technology can help making sense of
complex data that describe the experience that is the object of reflection.
– Reflection recommendation: Assuming that it is possible to automati-
cally identify triggers for reflection, e.g., by detecting emotions, or dis-
crepancies between an actual work process and the prescribed work pro-
cess, it is possible to recommend a learner to reflect on an experience.
– Scaffolding / reflection guides: Tool support for the reflection session may
take the form of process guidance, i.e. scaffold each reflection step. For
example, tools may scaffold articulation of individual pre-understandings
for the purpose of collaborative reflection. Tools may highlight disagree-
ment and conflicts among individual understandings of an experience.
Finally, tools can support the generation of reflection outcomes.
Outcomes In a successful reflection process, returning to an experience and
abstracting from it is followed by integrating the extracted findings into ex-
isting knowledge. This integration can be viewed as knowledge construction,
and thus as learning. Technology can support such knowledge integration, for
instance by pro-actively searching for artefacts that contain related knowl-
edge and providing them to the learner. Technologies for knowledge sharing
foster the transition from individual learning to team learning.
Challenges for Developing Technological Support for Reflection at
Work Some of the described technologies for supporting reflection present tech-
nical challenges, such as gathering meaningful data about work experiences, or
identifying triggers and recommending users to reflect. Other technologies, such
as technologies for knowledge sharing, are technologically well-established.
53
Reflective Learning at Work
However, with all envisioned technologies, we face the challenge that little re-
search exists concerning technological support for reflection. A lot of literature
deals with how manual note-taking, such as diary-writing, supports reflection.
Other work deals with life-logging, which is becoming increasingly popular be-
cause of the availability of life-logging consumer goods, such as smartphones,
pulse meters, pedometers, etc. Emphasis is often placed on the technical possi-
bility of logging data, but less on which data is actual meaningful for learning.
Additionally, we are faced with the challenge of supporting not only scheduled
reflection sessions, but to also provide suppport for spontaneous reflection. We
can only assume that scheduled and spontaneous reflection sessions follow dif-
ferent processes and hence require differently shaped support.
6 Summary
To summarise briefly, we see open issues for future research on learning by re-
flection in the workplace mostly in (i) making theory more applicable which will
be done by studying more closely the content of reflection, triggers for reflec-
tion, personal and situational factors that influence reflection and by developing
methods to identify and assess reflection that occurs at work, (ii) widening the
perspective to investigate the interrelationship between individual, collabora-
tive and organisational learning by reflection, and (iii) developing appropriate
technological support for reflection. Additionally, fitting reflection into already
tight schedules of workers, and identifying clearly the benefits of learning by
reflection are two overarching challenges for reflective practice in workplaces.
Organizational culture often does not give reflection the time and space it de-
serves in the work processes. By facilitating reflection however, organisations
can use these powerful learning opportunities in everyday work for individual,
collaborative and organizational benefit.
Acknowledgements
The project “MIRROR - Reflective learning at work” is funded under the FP7
of the European Commission (project number 257617). We thank the members
of the MIRROR Consortium for lively discussions and input. The Know-Center
is funded within the Austrian COMET Program - Competence Centers for Ex-
cellent Technologies - under the auspices of the Austrian Federal Ministry of
Transport, Innovation and Technology, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Econ-
omy, Family and Youth and by the State of Styria. COMET is managed by the
Austrian Research Promotion Agency FFG.
References
1. Argyris, C., Schön, D.A.: Organizational Learning II. Addison-Wesley, Reading
(MA) (1996)
54
Reflective Learning at Work
2. Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D.: Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning,
chap. Promoting Reflection in Learning: a Model., pp. 18–40. Routledge Falmer,
New York (1985)
3. Daudelin, M.W.: Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dy-
namics 24(3), 36–48 (1996)
4. Høyrup, S.: Reflection as a core process in organisational learning. Journal of Work-
place Learning 16(8), 442–454 (2004)
5. Järvinen, A., Poikela, E.: Modelling reflective and contextual learning at work.
Journal of Workplace Learning 13(7/8), 282–290 (2001)
6. Knipfer, K., Prilla, M., Herrmann, T., Cress, U.: Computer support for collabora-
tive reflection on captured teamwork data. In: Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. pp. 938–939 (2011)
7. Krogstie, B.: A Model of Retrospective Reflection in Project Based Learning Utiliz-
ing Historical Data in Collaborative Tool, chap. Volume 579, pp. 418–432. Springer
Verlag (2009)
8. Martin, L.L., Tesser, A.: Unintended thought: The limits of awareness, intention,
and control., chap. Toward a motivational and structural model of ruminative
thought., pp. 306–326. Guilford Press, New York (1989)
9. Martin, L.L., Tesser, A.: Advances in social cognition, vol. 9, chap. Some ruminative
thoughts., pp. 1–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (1996)
10. Moon, J.A.: Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and Prac-
tice. Routledge (1999)
11. Pammer, V., Fessl, A.: Results of the user studies and requirements on ”individual
reflection at work”. MIRROR Deliverable 4.1, Know-Center (June 2011)
12. Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, 1 edn. (1984)
13. van Woerkom, M., Croon, M.: Operationalising critically reflective work behaviour.
Personnel Review 37(3), 317–331 (2008)
55