=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-790/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-790
}}
==Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-790/paper8.pdf
Stimulating reflection through engagement
in social relationships
Kamakshi Rajagopal, Steven Verjans, Jan Van Bruggen, and Peter Sloep
Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, Open Universiteit,
Valkenburgerweg 177, AT 6649 Heerlen, Netherlands
{kamakshi.rajagopal,steven.verjans,
jan.vanbruggen,peter.sloep}@ou.nl
http://www.celstec.org
Abstract. Reflection on one’s own behaviour and practice is an impor-
tant aspect of lifelong learning. However, such practice and the under-
lying assumed principles are often hidden from the learner’s vision, and
are therefore difficult to evaluate. Social interactions with others stimu-
late the learner to re-asses and reflect on the nature of the learner’s own
behaviour and practice, such as in professional networking contexts and
intercultural encounters. This paper describes the prerequisites of learn-
ing from these interactions and the possibilities of technological support.
It presents one approach to providing support for developing the required
skills, with the example of the CEFcult tool, which supports intercultural
communicative competence building.
Key words: reflection, learning, social interaction, communication, net-
working skills, intercultural skills
1 Introduction
Reflection on one’s own practice is an important aspect of lifelong learning [1].
For professional lifelong learners, this means questioning their professional prac-
tice (way of working), the self-created and organizationally-imposed structures
they operate in, and the processes they use in their daily professional life [4].
However, such practice and the underlying principles are often hidden from the
surface, and therefore, difficult to evaluate [2].
In discourse comprehension theory, the description of situations and practice
is described in the terms of ”schema” and ”script” [6, 7]. A schema is a mental
semantic representation of a situation or of an event. It is a prototypical story-
book, a ”what is to be expected”. Schemata describe the unmentioned rules in
a social interaction, depending on the context. The peculiarities of the instance
decide the actual scripts used. These different layers of context have an influence
on the way language is used to convey meaning and conduct conversations.
Socially agreed frameworks can be called into question in interactions with
others, namely in those formal, non-formal and informal conversations between
two or more individuals. These interactions can occur with particular learning
80
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
goals in mind, but do not need to. A clear example of this are conversations in an
intercultural setting, where speakers may belong to different social groups. Their
social identities will determine the underlying context of the conversation [8]. In
professional settings, the underlying context of interactions are formed by the
professional identities of the dialogue partners. These interactions occur in face-
to-face networking activities, and even more so in online networking activities.
We define professional networking as the act of making connections with other
professionals, with or without the intention of making long-term ties with them
[9, 10]. Such interactions can create the setting for misunderstandings, needing
clarification and explanation, and consequently leading to situations where learn-
ing can take place [5]. The resulting dialogues creates a possibility for negotiation
of common ground between the speakers. The level of trust between the dialogue
partners can also influence the occurrence of misunderstandings and the extent
to which they can be negotiated [17]. Also, a cognitive model of the partner will
be created by each speaker, as complete as it is needed for achieving individ-
ual goals [5]. In short, dialogue with such others can be learning environments
where the learners are encouraged to explain their practice more completely and
potentially even redefine their own behaviour in a larger framework.
In the following sections, we will first describe the skills needed to engage
in these interactions, from a perspective of learning and how technology can
support the development of these skills. Next, we will describe the example of
technology in the CEFcult project, which aims to support the development of
intercultural communicative competence. Finally, we will look at future research
steps.
2 Understanding the context and skills required
Social interactions can put lifelong learners in settings in which their underlying
assumptions can be questioned and reflected on. But do all social interactions
trigger reflection and learning? And does merely engaging in a social interaction
automatically result in a learning situation? Can these social interactions be sup-
ported with technology? There appear to be some prerequisites for this type of
learning: below, we discuss some situational requirements and skill requirements
in the learner. We do not aim to be exhaustive in this discussion, but to describe
some aspects that are relevant for technology design. Further research is needed
to define a clearer picture of the nature of social interactions as learning settings.
2.1 Situational requirements
Not all social interactions necessarily result in a reflective learning situation.
There are some situational requirements that need to be fulfilled.
Firstly, for learners’ assumed schemata and scripts to be questioned, there
needs to be sufficient and relevant differences between the dialogue partners.
In circumstances where the partners are alike, it is more likely to have shared
schemata and less misunderstandings, creating less opportunity to learn from
81
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
each other . However, too many differences between the dialogue partners will
create little opportunity for creating common ground. (In other words, the di-
alogue partners need to be in each others’ ”zone of proximal development”
[16]). Differences between dialogue partners can occur due to differences in so-
cial and cultural background, language differences, differences in professional
backgrounds and interests, etc.
Secondly, the context in which the social interactions take place (particu-
larly, time, place, social setting, etc.) can also play a role. For example, profes-
sional networking often occurs in work-related settings, where new encounters
are made. Intercultural encounters can take place within different aspects of
personal and professional life. However, the extent to which people are willing,
able or required to engage in or dismiss professional or cultural differences can
depend on the environmental setting [11]. Relatedly, the extent to which these
interactions trigger reflection on one’s own behaviour can also follow from this
setting.
In recent years, Web 2.0 technologies, especially blogs and social networking
sites, have created virtual environments where people can interact and enter into
dialogue with many different people of various backgrounds. Research is ongoing
in how far these new connections create learning situations for lifelong learners.
2.2 Required skills
Even when dialogue partners portray sufficiently interesting differences, this does
not necessarily entail a learning situation. For a learning situation to occur (as
opposed to a conflict for example), dialogue partners need to trust the other,
and her intentions [17]. Learners also need to have the necessary reflective skills
to be able to identify and understand the differences between themselves and
their dialogue partners. For practicality, we have paraphrased the required skills
as follows:
1. ”I can see that the other is talking from a different point of view”: This
involves the learners skills to be able to observe that the other person has
different assumptions than ones own. It follows from being able to under-
stand the other’s language and infer the underlying worldview from the other
person’s messages [6, 5]
2. ”I understand the intention of the other in expressing a different point of
view and trust her willingness to enter into dialogue about this issue”: This
involves the level of trust that exists between the dialogue partners. The
learner needs to be able to assess the intentions of the other in their will-
ingness to negotiate their point-of-view, in order to set up common ground.
The learner needs to be able to identify the other’s boundaries and her own
[17].
3. ”I can understand that different point of view : This refers to the learners
skills to be able to understand and re-assess the conversation in light of
the other persons framework. Meanings are negotiated in and during the
interaction with the other person [12].
82
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
4. ”I can take up that different point of view and different perspective, as and
when needed”: This refers to the ability of the learner to understand the
worldview of the other person and the ability to take the perspective of the
other person, as far as it is needed and as far it is possible [6, 5]
Examples of these scaffolded reflective skills can be seen in intercultural
competence development and networking competence as well. Research in in-
tercultural competence development shows that knowledge, skills, attitudes and
awareness of values are key factors in developing intercultural competence [8].
Figure 1 illustrates Byram’s Model of Intercultural Competence Development
[13]. Advanced intercultural skills entail the ability to show appropriate and ef-
fective behaviour in culturally sensitive issues [14]. This follows from the ability
to ”take the others’ perspective.” An interesting aspect to these interactions is
that the learner also becomes self-aware of her own culture and cultural values.
This is echoed in [5] when talking of ”mutual modelling” in interactions. Similar
reflective skills are involved in networking and personal network building [15]. By
engaging in professional networking interactions, learners can explore and un-
derstand others’ professional identities and define their own [18, 19]. Although
quite some literature exists on the benefits of networking in professional con-
texts, more research is needed to explore the nature of professional networking
and the required networking skills.
Learners develop these reflective skills often through self-reflection or guided
reflection, triggered by social interactions. As more and more of these type of
interactions take place online, it creates the opportunity to engage much more in
this type of learning. The interest of the authors is to explore how technology can
play a role in supporting the development of these reflective skills and promote
this type of learning.
3 Issues in technological support
Technology can be used to train learners in their reflective skills of recognising,
understanding and appropriating other peoples perspectives. The goal of using
technology here is to capture a learner’s behaviour in a particular social interac-
tion (with at least one other person) and to provide feedback on this behaviour,
taking into account some aspects of the other participant. When looking to de-
sign technological support to develop these skills, there are a number of issues
to consider.
We will illustrate these technological issues with a running example: Suppose
the feedback system is aimed at supporting journalists in training their interview
techniques for live television interviews. In live interviews, these professionals
have only limited time and opportunity to extract key statements from their
interviewees. They need to perform to their best in these circumstances, picking
the relevant issues from their interviewee’s answers and building on them with
the most appropriate questions. The feedback system is designed to support these
journalists in training the relevant skills to perform better in live interviews.
83
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
Fig. 1. Byram’s Model of Intercultural Competence Development
84
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
– The technological support is aimed at training individuals in evaluating the
behaviour they portray in social interactions, for example in the live in-
terview. The users of the technology should therefore be able to exhibit
their authentic behaviour within the environment, so that it can be scruti-
nized and reflected upon. In our example, the feedback system is a learning
space, where the journalist should have the freedom to make mistakes in
a (mock) live interview setting (without feeling bad about it) and to learn
from these mistakes. As using technology for learning still forms a barrier for
many people, the challenge here is to provide the learner with a sufficiently
safe environment to confidently engage in the learning experience,
without inhibitions.
– The technological support should also ensure that the elicited behaviour is
the one that needs to be trained and that it is authentic. In our example,
the feedback systems needs to allow journalists to portray their interviewing
skills as they would in a real live interview. The challenge for the technol-
ogy here is to create settings in which the targeted behaviour is
triggered or elicited from the learner in an authentic way.
– The technological support has several possibilities to give feedback on the
behaviour in the social interactions. In our example, the feedback on the
journalist’s behaviour can be regarding (i) the questions she asks, (ii) her
responses to the answers given or (iii) even her language skills. The challenge
for technology designers here is to explore and define the different kinds
of evaluation or assessments possible in the development of these
highly reflective skills, and to determine the most effective ways to
provide this feedback within the technical environment.
These challenges need to be addressed in the design choices of technological
support environments for social learning.
4 Example: supporting intercultural communicative
competence development
In this section, we take a closer look at the approach taken in the CEFcult
project to support the development of intercultural communicative competence.
The CEFcult project (http://www.cefcult.eu) aims to promote intercultural
professional communication with foreign language users by means of an assess-
ment tool, based on Web 2.0 principles. The online environment designed in the
project aids the assessment of speaking skills and intercultural competence in
professional communication.
The tool consists of a web-based platform on which learners can go through
observation or production tasks. In observation tasks, the learner is asked to
view a recording of an event of intercultural interest and reflect on it using the
provided assessment grid. The issues identified by the learner can then be com-
pared with the model results. In production tasks, learners can create recordings
of their own intercultural performance, following a text-based question or audio-
visual prompt (figure 2). They can then self-assess these performances by using
85
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
the provided assessments grids. They can also invite others to assess their perfor-
mance using the same assessment grids (figure 3). This social evaluation can give
learner a more complete view of how their performance is perceived by different
individuals. Evaluations can also be extracted from the platform to be included
in individual ePortfoilo’s.
Fig. 2. Production Task in CEFcult tool
The training process embedded in the design of the CEFcult tool hinges on
the following four principles:
1. Scaffolded eliciting of behaviour: the learner can follow predetermined
scenarios, with specified tasks related to performance in intercultural set-
tings. Scenarios consist of observation tasks followed by performance tasks.
This simulated performance or reflective exercise can be captured in a video
recording, for further processing in the environment.
2. Guided observation of behaviour: in observation tasks, learners are pro-
vided with the necessary tools for learning to observe instances of interesting
intercultural behaviour. These include assessment grids with task-specific
descriptors pinpointing the issues of interest in a particular task. Learners
can go through observation tasks, assess what they see and compare their
assessments with model-assessments.
3. Accepted Instruments for self-assessment and peer assessment: the
CEFcult tool uses the CEF scales (Common European Framework of Ref-
erence) for assessing oral language skills and the INCA scales for intercul-
86
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
Fig. 3. Assessing a Production Task in CEFcult tool
tural competence skills, which operationalises Byram’s Model of Intercul-
tural Competence Development. Learners are also obliged to include textual
annotations to the recording as part of their assessment. This forces them
to express part of their reflections in a textual form.
4. User control over performance and extraction to ePortfolio: Learn-
ers can invite their selected peers to assess their performance according to the
linguistic and intercultural scales. Only those peers invited by the individual
learner can access the learners performance. Trust again plays a role here, as
learners on the platform need to identify who can give them valuable feed-
back on their performance . The platform needs to enable learners in making
these decisions, by giving them the information they need [17]. This gives
the learner a high level of control over their own content on the platform.
As a consequence, the CEFCult can also be used purely as a self-assessment
platform.
Coming back to the technological issues raised in section 3, the principles
followed in the CEFcult tool address the three issues in the following way: (i)
the safe environment is ensured by giving more control to the user over their
own performance videos and their choice of assessors, (ii) the authenticity of the
elicited behaviour is targeted by the use of scenarios grounded in real situations
and the use of role play and (iii) the feedback on the portrayed behaviour is
guided through the assessment schemas based on known language and intercul-
tural competence assessment frameworks, but allows for individual assessors to
give personalised feedback through the annotations.
87
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
The CEFCult tool offers an approach that combines individual performance,
individual reflection together with guided and controlled social feedback on an
individuals performance. Similar approaches could be taken to support other
contexts where these reflective skills are required. For example, to develop net-
working skills, a technological platform could be designed based on the same
principles.
5 Conclusion: Further Research Steps
In this paper, we discussed how reflection on one’s own behaviour and prac-
tice is triggered by social interactions. We described this process against the
background of discourse comprehension, with examples from intercultural com-
petence development and networking. We then looked at the prerequisites for
social interactions for learning. Finally, the technological approach taken in the
CEFcult project was described, which combines the individual training platform,
with controlled social interaction.
Further research steps include developed understanding of social interactions
as settings for learning and the design and development of similar technological
platforms for the support of networking skills.
Acknowledgements. Part of the research described in this article has been
conducted within the CEFCult project, which runs from November 2009 until
October 2011. The project is funded with support from the European Commis-
sion, under the Lifelong Learning Programme of the Education, Audiovisual &
Culture Executive Agency (key activity 2: Languages). The views expressed here
are only of the authors of the article. The European Union is not responsible for
any use that might be made of its content.
References
1. Schön, D.A.: Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco
(Calif.) (1990)
2. Watson J.S., Wilcox, S.: Reading for Understanding: Methods of Reflecting on Prac-
tice, Reflective Practice, 1(1), 57-67, (2000)
3. Brown J.S., Duguid P.: Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: To-
ward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science
2(1) Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by) James G.
March 40-57 (1991)
4. Wenger E.: Communities of Practice. Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker,
http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml (1998)
5. Dillenbourg, P.: What do you mean by ”collaborative learning”? In: P. Dillenbourg
(Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches Vol. 1 1-15.
Oxford: Elsevier. (1999)
6. Kintsch W. , van Dijk T.A.: Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Psychological review, 85(5), 363. American Psychological Association (1978)
88
Stimulating Reflection through Engagement in Social Relationships
7. Schank R.C., Abelson R.P: Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum (1977)
8. Byram M., Gribkova, B. , Starkey H.: Developing the Intercultural Dimension in
Language Teaching. A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe (2002)
9. Compton, M. Cast Your Net: Networking Best Practices and Beyond. Women In
Business, 61(2) (April/May 2009), 30-31 (2009)
10. Tempest, S., Starkey K.: The Effects of Liminality on Individual and Organiza-
tional Learning, Organization Studies, 25(4), 507-527 (2004)
11. Bennett, M.J.: Defining, measuring, and facilitating intercultural learning: a con-
ceptual introduction to the Intercultural Education double supplement. Intercul-
tural Education, 20(sup1), S1-S13. (2009)
12. Fox, B.: Interactional reconstruction in real-time language processing. Cognitive
Science, 11(3), 365-387 (1987)
13. Byram, M: Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Cleve-
don, England: Multilingual Matters (1997)
14. Bennett, M.J., Castiglioni, I.: Embodied ethnocentrism and the feeling of culture:
a key to training for intercultural competence. In The handbook of intercultural
training, ed. D. Landis, J. Bennett and M. Bennett, 3rd ed., 24965. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage (2004)
15. Rajagopal, K., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Van Bruggen, J., Sloep, P.B.: Understand-
ing Personal Learning Networks: their structure, their content and the networking
skills needed to optimally use them (submitted)
16. Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind and society: The development of higher psychological pro-
cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1978)
17. Rusman, E., Van BruggenJ., Sloep, P.B., Valcke, M., Koper, R.: The Minds Eye
on Personal Profiles; How to Inform Initial Trustworthiness Assessments in Virtual
Project Teams, In: G. Kolfschoten, T. Herrmann and S. Lukosch (editors), Collabo-
ration and Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 6257. Proceedings
of the 16th International Conference CRIWG 2010. September, 20-23, 2010, Maas-
tricht, The Netherlands. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 297-304 (2010)
18. Dulworth, M.: Enhancing Personal and Professional Development: The Role of
Peer Networks. Employment Relations Today, 33(3), 37-41(2006)
19. Krattenmaker, T.: A Blueprint for Constructing a Personal and Professional Net-
work. Harvard Management Communication Letter, 5(4), 3-4 (2002)
89