=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Fostering Reflective Practice with Mobile Technologies
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-931/paper7.pdf
|volume=Vol-931
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/TabuencaVTWS12
}}
==Fostering Reflective Practice with Mobile Technologies==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-931/paper7.pdf
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
Bernardo Tabuenca, Dominique Verpoorten, Stefaan Ternier, Wim Westera, and
Marcus Specht
Open University of The Netherlands, PO Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands.
{bernardo.tabuenca; dominique.verpoorten; stefaan.ternier; wim.westera;
marcus.specht}@ou.nl
Abstract.
During 2 school days and 2 days off, 37 college pupils were offered a daily re-
flection and reporting exercise about how (intensity and channels) they learnt in
the day. This pilot experiment had 2 purposes: a) to assess the extent to which
the mobile phone can be used as an instrument to develop awareness about
learning and b) to explore how young people attend to their identity as (life-
long) learners when they are prompted to reflect on this theme. Results show
that students accepted to answer questions about learning on own mobile appli-
ances and outside school hours. The study also provides indications that getting
aware of and reflecting about their identity as (professional) learners is not a
common and/or understood practice for the participants. These findings, which
questions the common life of young people from a learning perspective, are dis-
cussed in the light of the call to breed mindful, responsible and committed
learners.
Keywords. Reflection; awareness; mobile technologies; lifelong learning
1 Introduction
Average European pupils have spent, at the end of college, about 13000 hours on the
school benches (OECD, 2011). There is no doubt about the quantity of academic con-
tent that they have acquired as students. Less sure and explored is how they have
developed an identity as learners. Yet, the acquisition of such an identity, and the
associated reflective transversal skills, grows in importance in a “lifelong learning
society” (EuropeanCommission, 2006), a context precisely wherein learning attitudes
and behaviours become central assets of individuals and organizations. Research on
the akin notions of “learning to learn”(Claxton, 2006), “meta-learning” (Jackson,
2004) or “meta-cognitive development” (Aviram, 2008) have put various levels of
emphasis on the social and pedagogical relevance of promoting thinking about think-
ing. Most often however this call to more thoughtful learning have centered on me-
chanics and methods learning, usually purposed to train the self-as-a-performer
(Azevedo, 2005; Csapó, 1999). Recently, emerging research strands like the narrative
approach to learning (Watkins, 2006) or student’s voice (Lodge, 2005) have proposed
87
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
to also question the educational needs of the self-as-a-learner. If learning becomes a
critical part of life, it is expected that those who practice it can conceptualize all these
hours of tuition as a specific activity that they are able to qualify, describe, distinguish
and practice from others. Developing this kind of awareness goes along what could be
called a “student professional development”. Its provision implies to make room for
issues like the meaning of the daily life at school (student’s “common life” as defined
by Lasch (1997)), the personal commitment to knowledge or students’ conceptions of
the relationship between elements of the environment and learning (Elen & Lowyck,
1998). This holistic approach suggests that a way to sharpen reflective habits about
learning is to problematise the daily exposure to the learning activities. This approach
recommends that students do not simply think of their interactions with learning op-
portunities as a process of “performing” them but also pay attention to the personal
internalization of these experience (Le Cornu, 2009), in an effort to steadily see own
intellectual growth as a product of intentions and choices rather than externally-
imposed or incidental entities. The current study tests an instructional setting deemed
to stimulate students to make what they live at school a deliberate object of attention
(Watkins, 2001) through the use of reflection amplifiers instantiated by smartphones.
1.1 Reflection amplifiers
Training the self-as-a-learner implies to attend to learning processes with increased
time, attention and resources. There is therefore a challenge in finding ways to pro-
vide pupils opportunities to mentally evoke what they have lived throughout the day
with regard to learning, so that this experience can be turned into a deliberate object
of attention and reflection. One possible way is offered by Verpoorten, Westera and
Specht (2011) in their work on “reflection amplifiers” (RAs). This expression refers
to compact and well-considered prompting approaches that offer learners structured
opportunities to examine and evaluate their own learning. Whereas the promotion of
reflection is often associated with post-practice methods of experience recapture
(Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985) through portfolios or learning diaries, RAs are pre-
sent as structured and repeated introspective episodes, offered in the course of action
and meant to make learning visible (Hattie, 2008) and to nurture internal feedback
(Butler & Winne, 1995). Such instructional practice does not simply aim at engaging
learners at the level of presenting information for understanding and use, but also
direct them at meta-levels of learning. The concise reflection, which they call for
further characterizes RAs. As support to condensed reflective processes, RAs operate
though miniature Web applications providing a single engagement point with a de-
fined type of reflection, here the daily SMS about their learning day. So far, RAs have
been tested in regular formal online learning. Furthermore, the “learning to think”
approach enacted by RAs have concerned academic reflective skills like summarizing
or self-assessing. This study transposes the RAs to mobile (meta-)learning, after-
school setting and analytical scrutiny onto one’s learning day.
88
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
1.2 Mobile technologies
This pilot study builds upon 3 core-features of mobile technologies, and of
smartphones in particular:
• Smartphones represent the only technology that students have permanently inside
and outside the classroom. In this way, smartphones appear as possible mediations
between scholarly and after-school contexts. These appliances therefore recom-
mended themselves in a study aiming at developing awareness of learning (Marton
& Booth, 1997), both formal and informal.
• They are likely to promote a more personalized approach to learning because they
represent a direct channel to the learner and one that is open at all time. Not only
are the reflection prompts received on personal devices but the targeted reflection
bears on the deepening of the personal relationship of the smartphone owner to
knowledge and self-growth (Ranson, Boothby, Mazmanian, & Alvanzo, 2007).
• They increase the chance of learning in unconventional contexts (waiting times,
transportation, etc.) with the virtual promise of replacing this perceived "lost time”
into perceived "productive time". If it is impossible to know beforehand where and
when the participants to this study will use their smartphone for meta-learning, it is
nevertheless likely that this reflection break will offer an opportunity for learning
from reflection in a non traditional context.
1.3 Research questions
In an exploratory study, students have been assigned to amplify their reflection about
the learning affordances offered to them throughout the day. Three main research
questions have guided this pilot:
1. Will students react actively to invitations to reflect on personal learning sent on
their own device and outside the school hours (participation)?
2. What insight does this sampling of experience bring regarding how learning takes
place in students’ today common life (channels of learning)?
3. What effects (or lack thereof) of these structured episodes of introspective reflec-
tion can be pinpointed on dimensions of the learning (familiarity, appreciation per-
ceived learning, account of the learning experience)?
2 Method
2.1 Outline of the experiment
Context and assignment (daily reflection exercise).
The study took place in an “Experiment day” which offered students to discover the
work of the Learning Media Laboratory (the authors’ workplace) through the partici-
pation to empirical experiments. At the end of the day, a presentation provided an
overview of mobile technologies for learning. Afterwards, the corresponding author
89
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
introduced the participants to the exercise to be done in the next 4 days. The experi-
ment was described to students as a reflection exercise in which they were encouraged
to amplify their awareness of their daily activity as learners. The famous speech of
Steve Jobs (whose recent death had received much attention from medias) at the end
of the year session at Stanford1 was used as a stance on the importance to take a step
backward and consciously attend to one’s own life and personal identity, here as a
learner. The assignment was written as follows:
How many years have you invested studying and learning in your life?
Maybe it is time to reflect in your mirror for some days and ask yourself: “If
today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do
today?”
I offer you to live Steve Jobs’ experience during the next 4 following
days, so you can be aware of your learning and decide if you need to change
anything. In our case, the mirror will be your mobile phone so you will re-
ceive a daily SMS asking you about your personal learning day. It could be
anything you learned at school or during leisure time.
The experiment required using both an SMS messaging system2 that would alert them
about the reflection moment of the day, and a student response system3 where they
should answer the questions they were going to be asked. An in-situ demo was per-
formed so students could solve doubts about the interaction with these tools. The
students went back to school with a paper wrapping up the goal, the assignment and
the practical processes information about the study.
Sample.
The study enrolled 37 students (mean age = 17 years old, 37% female, 63% male)
from two colleges (Connect College, Echt, The Netherlands and European School,
Mol, Belgium). An iTunes voucher of 15 euros rewarded their participation in the
experiment. The voucher was delivered to students that at least completed both the
pre-questionnaire and the post-questionnaire.
Timing.
The daily reflection exercise was performed during 4 consecutive days (Thursday,
Friday, Saturday, Sunday) after the presentation of the experiment. This setup was
designed to evenly distribute the reflection exercised within 2 days at school and 2
days out of school. It allowed to encompass the awareness of and reflection on both
formal and informal learning and to provide contrast to the descriptions of the learn-
ing experience.
1
Steve Jobs at University of Stanford 2005. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoUfvIb-9U4
2
Text Magic. SMS broadcast system. http://www.textmagic.com/
3
Socrative. Student personal response system. http://www.socrative.com/
90
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
The virtual classroom was opened everyday 30 minutes before sending the SMS (Fig.
2.a) in order to have the “Student paced quiz” ready when students would login (Fig.
1.a). An SMS was sent to students every day at 8 p.m. alerting them that the student
response system was ready to receive answers with their reflections. Students that had
smartphone with Internet connection could push the link and perform the reflection
exercise within the platform in that moment. The ones that did not have an Internet
connection in their mobile devices could do it later until 7 a.m. of the next day when
the activity was closed. This platform lets the teacher monitorize how many students
are performing the activity in every moment (Fig. 1.b).
a. Tutor starting daily reflection exercise in b. Tutor monitoring daily reflection exercise
classroom 91351
Fig. 1. Personal response system
Tooling.
In order to prompt every student to perform the reflection exercise, no regard to the
mobile device they were using, it was decided to use SMSs notifications. In a first
design of the experiment, a missing-calls response system4 was evaluated in order to
be used as reflection virtual environment. Although it supports multiple-choice ques-
tions and it is free of cost, it was discarded since it does not support long text answers.
The student personal response system that was selected includes a series of educa-
tional exercises (multiple choice questions, short and long answers) and games via
smartphones, tablets, laptops and personal computers. It is necessary to be connected
to the Internet to perform the reflection exercise.
4
Votapedia. A missing-calls response system. http://www.urvoting.com/
91
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
2.2 Measure instruments
Pre-questionnaire.
The pre-questionnaire gathered perceptions of students about the intensity of their
learning in the previous week and the channel they use for learning. Additionally,
they were asked to provide an account of their learning in the previous week.
Daily questionnaire.
The daily questionnaire, received daily on individual smartphone, was the reflec-
tion amplifier of the study. It comprised one question about the perceived intensity of
the learning day (Fig. 1.c) and one question about the main channel of learning used
in the day (Fig. 1.b).
a. Daily SMS received by b. What were your main c. How intense was your
students. learning channels today? learning day?
Rate it from 1 to 5.
Fig. 2. Student reflective practice
Post-questionnaire.
The post-questionnaire, left active during one week, had 2 versions. The one sent
to the students who performed the reflective exercise at least once presented the very
same questions as in the pre-questionnaire, plus some questions deemed to collect
students’ evaluative data regarding the daily reflection exercise. The other version
was sent to students who dropped out, these are, students who did not complete any of
the 4 daily reflection exercise. It raised the three same questions as in the pre-
questionnaire, plus one asking them the reason why they did not participate.
92
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
3 Results
The processing of closed questions was performed with the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20. The analysis of the questions requesting a coding
of the answers was done thanks to the “Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis” (Erkens,
2005).
3.1 Acceptance
Research question 1: “To what extent will students react actively to invitations to
reflect on personal learning sent on their own device and outside the school hours
(participation)?”
The decrease in participation was quite visible from the first to the 4th iteration of the
daily questionnaire (Fig. 3) but was not as severe as the dropout rate from the pre-
questionnaire to the mere entrance in the exercise. The 29 recorded post-
questionnaires comprised both the participative (56% [n=16]) and the drop-out ver-
sions (44% [n=13]).
Fig. 3. Evolution of student’s participation during experiment
Main invoked reasons for dropouts (n=13) were for 46% “I did not receive any SMS”
and 38% “I had no internet connection in that moment”. No respondent selected lack
of interest, boredom of the intrusive character of the experiment as justifications for
not participation. The SMS tool confirmed the weight of technical failures: an average
of 15% of the SMS were not delivered, a large majority thereof caused by a wrong
phone number given by the student right from the start but also caused by malfunc-
tions in the broadcasting (especially in day 3 where a restart of the whole activity was
93
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
necessary). Some loss happened also (mainly 6 in day 2). Additionally, the monitor-
ing tool also displayed how many students were connected to the platform filling-out
the questionnaire in every moment. From these observations, it can be concluded that
the majority of the students completed it in the same moment they received the SMS.
3.2 Today’s learning
Research question 2: “What insight does this sampling of experience bring regarding
how learning takes place in students’ today common life (channels of learning)?”
Table 1 wraps up the answers given by students in the pre-questionnaire and in the
daily reflection exercises. School and Internet were the most important sources of
learning.
School Internet Conversations Leisure Other
Pre-quest. (n=37) 65% 27% 3% 0% 5%
Day 1 (n=19) 26% 53% 11% 5% 5%
Day 2 (n=17) 73% 9% 9% 9% 0%
Day 3 (n=13) 0% 31% 7% 31% 31%
Day 4 (n=11) 0% 46% 9% 9% 36%
Table 1. Main channel of learning
3.3 Reflection
Research question 3: “What effects of the structured episodes of introspective reflec-
tion can be pinpointed?”
Familiarity with reflective practice.
Looking backward on one’s life as a learner is not a deep-rooted habit in students if
the answer to the question “before the start of this experiment, can you remember the
last time you thought about your learning day?” is taken as an indicator. 81% of the
participants (n=16) answered “No”.
Appreciation of reflective practice.
When asked whether they liked the reflection ritual implemented through their
smartphone, 69% (n=16) answer positively. Four categories emerged from the justifi-
cations of students valuing the experience:
• Gains in meaning (18%). E.g. participant #18: “It helps you realise that your day
has much value. It is eventually about my life”.
• Gains in self-assessment (29%). E.g. participant #5: “You look critically at what
you have learnt and how you might improve. Evaluating yourself adds to the learn-
ing experience itself”.
94
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
• Gains in consciousness without further details (24%). E.g. participant #7: “My
interest steadily grew because it made me more conscious”.
• Other answer (29%). E.g. participant #9: “Very interesting and well done”.
Only a few students gave reason for their dislike of the experiment: “no learning
comes from the reflection” (participant #6), “the reflection is quickly forgotten” (par-
ticipant #20), “my reflection on learning takes place in the moment of learning and
not afterwards” (participant #21), “I reflect on other things” (participant #10), “I’ve
often asked myself before if I learnt at school and often came to this conclusion: noth-
ing” (participant #2).
Perceived learning.
Perceived learning was rated on a 3-point Likert scale: “I learnt less than usual”, “I
learnt as usual” and “I learnt more than usual”. A higher relative frequency of the
answer “I learnt more than usual” was found for the group of students who partici-
pated to the reflection exercise and filled in the post-questionnaire (N = 19) than for
the group of students who did not show up for the exercise but took the post-
questionnaire (N = 10): 31% versus 7% respectively. However, a Mann-Whitney test
granted no significance to this observation: U = 79, p = .12, r = .03
Mean intensity SD N
Perceived learning for the week before the experiment 1.8 .6 37
Perceived learning reported in the daily reflection exercise (all days) 1.7 .8 56
Intensity rating for the week of the experiment (non participants) 1.8 .5 13
Intensity rating for the week of the experiment (participants) 2.2 .6 16
Table 2. Perceived learning
Description of learning experience.
When asked to describe their learning experience during the week, participants to the
daily reflective exercise produced longer accounts: 112 characters on average versus
88 for the non-participants. However, from a t-test, it turned out that these differences
were not significant, t(26)= 1.12, p= .26, d = 0.29. The same conclusion was drawn
from a chi-square test bearing upon the level of complexity of the accounts, assessed
with a three-level coding rubric.
4 Discussion and further research work.
This section gives an interpretation of the results and locates them in a broader educa-
tional context. The discussion and the suggestions for future research follow the order
of the 3 guiding research questions of this study.
95
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
4.1 Use of private phones to raise awareness about learning
It is possible to use smartphones to stimulate meta-learning about common life as a
learner. A proportion of pupils accepted and was able to use their personal
smartphone for “serious” messages coming from the researcher outside the school
hours. Whilst it can seem obvious, this pre-condition does not speak for itself. Hardy
(Hardy et al., 2008) shows that even when undergraduates do have a good level of IT
competence and confidence, they tend to be conservative in their approaches to uni-
versity study, maintaining a clear separation between technologies for learning and
for social networking. Margaryan and Littlejohn (2009) lean on their findings on the
low level of use of and familiarity with collaborative knowledge creation tools, virtual
worlds, personal Web publishing, and other emergent social technologies, to cast
doubts on the ability or the wish of students to use complex digital tools in their learn-
ing practice. On the other hand, Jones, Edwards, & Reid (2007) report that, despite
being unaccustomed to using their mobile phones for academic study, students will-
ingly accepted SMS reminders – focused on time management and not on learning
consolidation – from their tutor via a bulk texting service).
4.2 Fragmentation of the learning sources
Despite the mounting gulfs of literature stressing the emergence of a “Net Genera-
tion”, “Homo Zappiens”, or “digital natives”, despite the growing interest for infor-
mal learning which can go in its extreme form to the prediction of a disappearance of
physical institutions like schools (Miller, Shapiro, & Hilding-Hamann, 2008) under
the pressure of the fragmentation of the traditional education landscape into thousands
of personal learning environments, this study suggests that learners still perceive
school as a major vector of learning. Indeed, its monopoly over learning processes
seems to be challenged by the emergence of a rich ecosystem outside school walls as
heralded by Internet (see Table 1). Of particular concern for future research would be
to ascertain how school and other vectors of education contribute to youth’s intellec-
tual growth (Facer, 2011). In such an investigation, student’s voice is obviously criti-
cal. And to express it, young people will have to learn to think as learners in order to
provide valuable accounts of what they are living as learners in multiple contexts.
This need to be able to reflect on common life as learners takes us back to the what
motivated this study: defining methods and tools designed to make learning an object
of attention and reflection.
4.3 Acceptance and effects of reflective practice
Three findings emerge from this study regarding reflective practice in students’ com-
mon life:
a) There is no anchored habit in the students to see themselves as learners and to
develop a “professional” awareness (see section “Familiarity with reflective practice”)
about their daily activity/job at school (Ertmer & Newby, 1996; Sternberg, 1998) and
the learning opportunities after school;
96
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
b) Providing time to perform reflective activities on this topic is appreciated by
about half of the sample (see section “Appreciation”) for reasons relating to sense-
making and professional development as a student;
c) The stop-and-think beacons offered here are considered as useless or superflu-
ous by a good deal of students, even when they have been designed not to last a long
time (for similar attitudes of rejection of reflection see (Johnson & Sherlock, 2009)
and (Watkins, 2001) p. 9). Further research is needed to disentangle the profile of the
people ready or not to devote time to self-awareness development (Baeten, Kyndt,
Struyven, & Dochy, 2010), and the consequences thereof. In order to get a grip on
what young people live day after day as learners, finding concrete ways to make
learning visible and externalize perceptions of it is also a challenge for research. The-
oretical and empirical work must also concurrently be conducted regarding the rela-
tionship between self-awareness and learning and the kind of new knowledge con-
veyed by episodes of introspection intended to help students to sharpen awareness of
themselves as learners.
4.4 Limitations of the study
The sample in this study has shrunk for technical reasons but also for reasons proba-
bly tied to the importance granted to reflection (the high drop-out right from the start
of the experiment). These reasons should be investigated for themselves and subse-
quent study should be carried out with bigger samples. This study also prompted stu-
dents only four times. More investigation is needed into the tension of intruding into
the pupils' out-of-school time it has already been shown that many university students
don't like their academic studies to intrude into personal time or their social network-
ing activities. The SocialLearn5 project at the Open University (UK), that uses social
networking for learning and has been well received by its students to date (however,
OU students are often not "typical" undergraduates so this might change the perspec-
tive on the work).
The invitation to reflect did not come from patented teachers but from researchers
unknown to the participants. A better integration of the reflection amplifiers in the
school context as well as attempts to take the frequency of the prompting as inde-
pendent variables would cast more light on the possible interplay between action and
thought. A last limitation must be mentioned: the data was processed only according
to between-subjects comparisons. Any within-subjects analysis was impossible due to
the inability of the Socrative system to track who answers.
5 Conclusion
In this study, a reflection amplifier modeled as an evaluation questionnaire of daily
learning, was relayed to the students through personal smartphones with the purpose
5
SocialLearn. Learning Through Social Connection. http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/sociallearn/
97
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
of stimulating the opening up of and the reflection upon learning activities, contexts
and channels. These structured educational encounters between opportunities to learn
and opportunities to make them visible and conscious in the mental realm of the
learners aimed at encouraging students not to merely “learn” but also to put various
dimensions of this experience into sharp focus. It should be further investigated
whether the actualization of true learning is not at the confluence of this combination
of experiences (action) and thought (reflection).
6 References
Aviram, R. (2008). Navigating through the Storm: Education in Postmodern Demo-
cratic Society. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer Environments as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing
Learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193-197.
Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred
learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors en-
couraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review,
5(3), 243-260.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection, Turning Experience into
Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A The-
oretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.
Claxton, G. (2006). Expanding the Capacity to Learn: A new end for education? Uni-
versity of Bristol. Keynote speech, British Educational Research Association
Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2005, .
Csapó, B. (1999). Improving thinking through the content of teaching. In H. Hamers,
J. van Luit & B. Csapó (Eds.), Teaching and learning thinking skills (pp. 37-
62). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1998). Students' views on the efficiency of instruction: An
exploratory survey of the instructional metacognitive knowledge of universi-
ty freshmen. Higher Education, 36(2), 231-252.
Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple episode protocol analysis (MEPA). Version 4.10. The
Netherlands: Utrecht University
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1996). The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and
reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.
EuropeanCommission. (2006). Proposal for a recommendation of the European Par-
liament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning.
COM(2005)548 final. Brussels.
Facer, K. (2011). Learning Futures: Education, technology and social change. Lon-
don: Routledge
Hardy, J., D. Haywood, Bates, S., Paterson, J., Rhind, S., Macleod, H., & Haywood,
J. (2008). Expectations and Reality: Exploring the use of learning technolo-
gies across the disciplines. Paper presented at the Sixth International Confer-
ence on Networked Learning, Halkidiki, Greece.
98
Fostering reflective practice with mobile technologies
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to
Achievement. London: Routledge.
Jackson, N. (2004). Developing the Concept of Metalearning. Innovations in Educa-
tion and Teaching International, 41(4), 391-403.
Johnson, M., & Sherlock, D. (2009). Learner reflexivity, technology and making our
way through the world. International Journal of Continuing Engineering
Education and Life-Long Learning, 19, 352-365.
Jones, G., Edwards, G., & Reid, A. (2007). Supporting and Enhancing Undergradu-
ate Learning with m-learning tools: an exploration and analysis of the po-
tential of Mobile Phones and SMS. URL
http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/PDF
s/Jones_162-170.pdf.
Lasch, C. (1997). Women and the Common Life: Love, Marriage, and Feminism. New
York, USA: Norton.
Le Cornu, A. (2009). Meaning, Internalization, and Externalization. Adult Education
Quarterly, 59(4), 279-297.
Lodge, C. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: problematising stu-
dent participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change,
6(2), 125-146.
Margaryan, A., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Stu-
dents’ use of technologies for learning. URL
http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/anoush/documents/DigitalNativesMythOrRe
ality-MargaryanAndLittlejohn-draft-111208.pdf.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, N.J, USA: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Miller, R., Shapiro, H., & Hilding-Hamann, K. E. (2008). School's Over: Learn-
ing Spaces in Europe in 2020: An Imagining Exercise on the Future of
Learning.: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies, European Commission.
OECD (2011). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Paris, France: OECD Pub-
lishing.
Ranson, S. L., Boothby, J., Mazmanian, P. E., & Alvanzo, A. (2007). Use of personal
digital assistants (PDAs) in reflection on learning and practice. Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 27(4), 227-233.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What
makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26(1), 127-140.
Verpoorten, D., Westera, W., & Specht, M. (2011). Reflection Amplifiers in Online
Courses: A Classification Framework. Journal of Interactive Learning Re-
search, 22(2), 167-190.
Watkins, C. (2001). Learning about Learning Enhances Performance. London: Insti-
tute of Education, University of London.
Watkins, C. (2006). Explorations in metalearning from a narrative stance. Paper
presented at the Second bi-annual conference of the European association for
research on learning and instruction - Special interest group 16: Metacogni-
tion, Cambridge, UK.
99