EARLI Conference 2007

Web-logsas Instrument forReflection-on-Actionin Teacher Training

Iwan WopereisOpen University of the NetherlandsEducational Technology Expertise Centre

Sybilla PoortmanFontys University of Professional EducationDepartment of Teacher Education

1

“600.000 internet users in the Netherlands keep a ‘web-based diary’ (blog)”Metro, april 2006

“World-wide 70.000.000 blogs exist; every day 120.000 new blogs ‘emerge’”Technocrati, April 2007

2

• Problems with reflective activity in (higher) education (Bennamar, 2005)– Procedures and instruments fall short

with regard to reflection and learning to reflect

– ‘Boring activity’, often postponed…

• Maybe Weblogs can help to overcome some problems

Overview presentation

• Introduction– weblogs and reflection

• Method– materials, design, procedure, analysis

• Main results– reflection, interactivity, continuity reflection process

• Conclusion / Discussion

Introduction

• Weblog (success / characteristics):– Wijnia (2005)– Du & Wagner (2006; in press)– Anderson (2007)– Shoffner (2006)

• Reflection / Reflection tools- Korthagen (1993, 1999)- Mansvelder-Longayroux (2007)- Benammar (2005)- Schön (1983)

Conversation

Registration

Consultation

Weblog

Introduction

• Point of departure exploratory study:– Weblogs are web-based journaling tools– They resemble authentic logbooks (cf. Korthagen, 1993,

1999) – But offer new opportunities for promoting reflection

Introduction

For instance

Since:• weblogs are instruments to make processes more explicit

(registration)

• weblogs do promote interactivity (consultation and conversation)

• weblogs have a positive effect on motivation behavior (ownership)

they may have a positive effect on (the continuity of) reflective activity

Introduction

Main question in this exploratory study:

Are weblogs suitable instruments for reflection-on-action?

Where reflection-on-action is defined as (Schön, 1987; Ertmer & Newby, 1996; Benammar, 2005):

• the active process of making sense of past experiences for the purpose of orienting oneself for current and/or future thought and actions;

• reconstruction or reorganisation of experience and knowledge

Introduction

• Did students reflect-on-action?• Did interactivity occur and did it promote the reflection

process?• Did students postpone their reflective activities?

Method

• Subjects: 20 student teachers of two institutions:– Fontys 1: n=8; 20.4 years old– Fontys 3: n=9; 23.5 years old– VU: n=3; 31.7 years old

• Using weblogs during an eight-week internship• 2 reflective writings and 2 feedback writings a week• Instructional support: workshop and teacher/coach• Three instruments for data collection

Student 1

Student 5 Student 4

Student 3

Student 2

DocentDocent

RSS RSS

RSS

RSS

RSS

Materials

ReallySimpleSyndication

Last 3 reflective posts

Student 1

Student 5 Student 4

Student 3

Student 2

DocentDocent

RSS RSS

RSS

RSS

RSS

Link

Link Link

Link

Link

Materials

KLIK

KLIK

Links to students and teacher

KLIK

KLIK

Feedback on reflective writings

Some design aspects

• Promoting reflection by promoting interaction• Promoting reflection by offering structure (writing)

Results: Did the students reflect?

Group Posts Comments

N per student per week N per student per week

Fontys 1

- Students (n=8) 98 12.25 (5.31) 1.53 (0.66) 48 6.00 (5.10) 0.75 (0.64)

- Teachers (n=1) 0 0 0 26 26.00 (x.xx) 3.25 (x.xx)

Fontys 3

- Students (n=9) 27 3.00 (1.41) 0.38 (0.18) 47 5.22 (3.63) 0.65 (0.45)

- Teachers (n=2) 0 0 0 24 12.00 (1.41) 1.50 (x.xx)

VU

- Students (n=3) 37 12.33 (6.35) 1.54 (0.79) 32 10.67 (4.16) 1.33 (0.52)

- Teachers (n=1) 4 4.00 (x.xx) 0.5 (x.xx) 16 16.00 (x.xx) 2.00 (x.xx)

Overall

- Students (n=20) 162 8.10 (6.16) 1.01 (0.77) 127 6.35 (4.53) 0.79 (0.57)

- Teachers (n=4) 4 1.00 (2.00) 0.13 (0.25) 66 16.50 (6.66) 2.06 (0.83)

Results: Did the students reflect?

• Main competencies: interpersonal and organizational• Main topics: survival and classroom

management• Developm. phase: survival• Depth of reflection: mainly describing: evaluation• Type: critical incidents, not really thematic

Results: Delay

Postponement

group time (average; days) range

Fontys 1 4.49 0-34

Fontys 3 3.17 3-7

VU 0.65 0-4

Overall 3.80 0-34

Results: Delay

0-2 days 3-5 days 5-10 days > 10 days missing data

Fontys 1 (8) 4 1 1 1 1

Fontys 3 (9) 1 4 4

VU (n=3) 3

Overall (20) 8 5 1 1 5

Results: Interaction (feedback)

VU s1 s2 s3 t sums1 3 2 1 6s2 2 4 3 5 14s3 9 1 2 12sum 2 16 6 8 32

from

to

Results: Interaction (feedback)

F1 s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 sums1 2 1 2 1 6s2 1 1 1 1 4s3 0s4 2 1 3 4 1 11s5 0s6 2 2 2 2 1 3 12s7 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 12s8 1 2 3sum 4 8 3 8 5 6 8 6 48

to

from

Results: Interaction (feedback)

F3 s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 sums1 1 1 2s2 1 1 1 1 4s3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 12s4 1 1 2s5 1 1 1 1 4s6 2 2 3 1 8s7 1 1s8 1 1 1 1 4s9 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 10sum 3 7 3 4 6 5 7 6 6 47

to

from

Results: Interaction

• Students give feedback, but this does hardly result in a discussion

• Students do occasionally respond to comments (feedback)• Students said the feedback of peers was useful for future

action

Conclusions

• Well implemented, weblogs have potential• They promote reflection-on-action• They promote interactivity• They promote continuity of the proces

Integration with e-portpolio? (Tosh et al., 2004): yes, but…

More information?

iwan.wopereis@ou.nl

www.reflectieblogs.info