skip to main content
10.1145/3105726.3105745acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Tools to Support Data-driven Reflective Learning

Published:14 August 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Reflection is a process of "critical review" of previous experiences to inform future action. Reflection has its origins in design and engineering but has gained traction in education as well. Reflective learning affords students the opportunity to reflect critically on their learning and develop metacognitive skills. Scaffolding is necessary as students adopt a reflective practice, but few tools support this process. Our prior work with teams suggests that students have difficulty estimating their turn-taking behaviors during peer learning activities and reflecting on such misconceptions might be detrimental to the development of social and metacognitive skills. I propose two tools that support data-driven student reflection: BloomMatrix and IneqDetect. BloomMatrix allows students to encode their perceived cognitive processes in an interactive version of Bloom's Taxonomy Matrix. This supports individual reflection, and an aggregated peer heatmap shows other students' perceptions. IneqDetect uses lapel microphones and signal processing to encode live conversations into turn-taking behaviors. In each case, students can reflect about themselves and also about others.

References

  1. BS Bloom, DR Krathwohl, and BB Masia. 1984. Bloom taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Stephen Brookfield. 1987. Developing critical thinkers. Open University Press Milton Keynes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Joelle K Jay and Kerri L Johnson. 2002. Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and teacher education 18, 1 (2002), 73--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. David R Krathwohl. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice 41, 4 (2002), 212--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Colleen M Lewis and Niral Shah. 2015. How Equity and Inequity Can Emerge in Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 41--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Stephen MacNeil, Celine Latulipe, Bruce Long, and Aman Yadav. 2016. Exploring Lightweight Teams in a Distributed Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 193--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Adam Stankiewicz and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2016. $1 Conversational Turn Detector: Measuring How Video Conversations Affect Student Learning in Online Classes. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning at Scale. ACM, 81--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Martin Valcke, Bram De Wever, Chang Zhu, and Craig Deed. 2009. Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of Bloom's taxonomy as a labeling tool. The Internet and Higher Education 12, 3 (2009), 165--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Tools to Support Data-driven Reflective Learning

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        ICER '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
        August 2017
        316 pages
        ISBN:9781450349680
        DOI:10.1145/3105726

        Copyright © 2017 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 August 2017

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • abstract

        Acceptance Rates

        ICER '17 Paper Acceptance Rate29of180submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate189of803submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        ICER 2024
        ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
        August 13 - 15, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader