- Email: [email protected]
Reactions of students to reflective learning in a technical report-writing course
Pergamon
English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 211-227, 1997 © 1997The American University. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0889-4906/97 $17.00+0.00
PII: S0889-4906(96)00025-7
Reactions of Students to Reflective L e a r n i n g in a T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t . W r i t i n g Course Belinda Ho
Abstract--This study operationalized some concepts related to reflective learning in a technical report-writing course under institutional and curriculum-related constraints. It looked at how two groups of first year computer students at a university in Hong Kong reacted to tasks invoMng different degrees of reflectivity in this 14-week course. The major tasks designed for both groups were the same, but additional tasks were added to the intervention classrooms to stimulate reflective thinking. The comparison group was taught in a less reflective way. Each group's reactions to different kinds of tasks were elicited in questionnaires and taped discussions. The results arising from the examination of this data show that students found almost all tasks, including the reflective ones, helpful and relevant though the intervention group did not really like the reflective tasks, especially those at the metacognitive level. The reasons for the students' preferences are discussed as well as the implications for the teaching of ESP. © 1997 The American University. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
Reflective Learning Following a movement from the traditional way of teacher-directed language learning in the classroom to communicative language learning with the help of peers, a recent trend seems to signal a shift towards more "experiential and reflective activities which involve learners in a monitoring and evaluating of their own learning capacities and styles" (Main 1985: 91). To Kohonen (1992) and many other advocates of experiential learning, personal experience is the point of departure for learning. Reflection is an important activity in the processing phase of learning during which people "recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it" (Boud et al. 1985b: 18). Boud et al. (1985b: 18) define "reflection in the context of learning" as:
Address correspondence to: Belinda Ho, English Department, City University of Hong Kong, 83, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected].
211
212
B. Ho a generic term for those intellectual and affecfive activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations. It may take place in isolation or in association with others.
Reflective learning involves reflection during the learning process. Reflection helps both the intellectual and affecfive domains and can take place either individually, in pairs or in groups. These notions about reflection are particularly useful in constructing tasks for the classroom. Boud et al. (1985a) suggest that effective learning can be enhanced ff activities are organized along the lines of the reflective aspect of learning. Tarvin and A1-Arishi (1991) encourage reflection in communicative language teaching in the EFL classroom. It would be interesting to find out whether these notions about reflective learning could be extended to an ESP classroom that aims at preparing students for their future profession. Students in such a course need to face the complexity and rapidity of changes in this highly technological society (Wenden 1987) and to be aware of the differences in expectations of different institutions, for example, regarding the format of technical writing (Houp & Pearsall 1984). It seems that such a course should aim at equipping the students with the ability to adapt and respond to these societal, technical and institutional changes besides teaching them the skills needed to perform the writing tasks. It would be helpful if they could learn to reflect on the use of these skills. However, thus far, almost no work has been done on the carrying out of reflective tasks in an ESP classroom. This paper reports on an attempt to build and implement a reflective learning model for a technical report-writing course. It describes the model, how it was implemented and students' reactions to tasks designed with different degrees of reflectivity based on the model. Implications for the teaching of ESP are discussed.
The E S P s t u d e n t s The ESP students in this study were two groups of first year students in Computer Studies at a university in Hong Kong. One was the intervention group (n = 41) and the other was the comparison group (n = 40). Analysis of the biodata of the students shows that both groups were broadly similar in terms of sex, age and English proficiency.
The E S P c o u r s e The ESP course in this study was a 14-week technical report-writing course that was assigned by the syllabus designer with the goal of preparing Computer Studies students for the communication skills needed in their future profession. It had a special purpose of teaching the students how to write a technical report in the computer field. The skills included those needed to identify formal elements of a technical report: to decide on a
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
213
narrowed topic, purpose and audience; to collect information through reading literature related to computer studies; to take notes on note cards in the form of summary, paraphrase and quotation; to write an outline; to write a draft; to give feedback on a draft and to edit a draft. The teacher-researcher had to teach the course based on the guidelines given in the syllabus and on the basic course materials written by the course designer. The two groups of students were taught the same technical-report writing course. However, for research purposes, the comparison group was taught the course in a more teacher-directed way, whereas the intervention group was given additional reflective activities in their classes.
The Research Question In this study, an attempt was made to implement reflective learning in the above technical report-writing course based on a reflective learning model developed by the teacher-researcher. The main research question was to find out how students reacted to reflective learning.
The Reflective Learning Model The reflective learning model as shown in Fig. 1 was developed by the teacher-researcher based on the notions drawn from the experiential learning models suggested by Further Education Curriculum and Development Unit in the Department of Education and Science in London (1981), Kolb (1984), Boud et al. (1985b) and Kohonen (1992). According to this reflective learning model, reflection can be carried out at two levels, the rnetacognitive level and the cognitive level. The focus of the students' reflection at the metacognitive level is on the "metacognitive strategies" which are defined by O'Malley and Chamot (1990: 44, citing Brown et al., 1983) as "higher order executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity". The cognitive level refers to the learning of skills needed in performing a task, such as a reading or writing task. The cycle of reflective learning starts when students are given an "existing experience" to go through. The existing experience is one in which students are given a task to do and have to learn the skills needed to perform it. At the metacognitive level, when a task is assigned, the students are given a chance first to draw on their past experience and reflect on the ways that they may use it to tackle the task and the reasons for their choices before they progress into the three stages of learning at the cognitive level. Stage one is the input-giving stage during which the students obtain input on how to perform a task. Stage two involves conceptualization of the skills learned through the input obtained. Concepts are formulated at this stage. In Stage 3, students apply the skills conceptualized in Stage 2 of tasks. After they have accomplished the three stages and completed the task, they reflect
214
B. Ho OVERALLEXPERIENCE .....
- Im~ New
Meta- cognitive Level
Old
/
',
t
i
t
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EVALUATIVE REFLECTION
PLANNING REFLECTION
on skills used
on how to do the task
,
.
1 /
EXISTINGEXPERIENCE
m
",
[Task
completed
Task given to be ]
[ Stage 3
,'
,'
[done
Cognitive Level
Stage 1
INPUT APPLICATION
I
with different levels , of r_efl_ectjvit_y_.. .....
(of skills to task)
Stage 2
', :
- Material-guided * self-discovery * peer-sharing - Material & teacher-guided - Teacher-directed
CONCEPTUALIZATION ~ . . . ~ / ' } (of skills) Figure
1. The Reflective
Learning Model
(1995).
again at the metacognitive level by evaluating how they have performed it, and they work out ways to do the same task more effectively in the future. What they have learned from this existing experience will become new experience for them. The new experience will become part of the "overall experience", which is a source from which they can draw when they have to go through another existing experience, such as being given another task to do in future. For research purposes, a framework to identify different degrees of reflectivity of a task at the input-giving stage (that is, Stage 1 at the cognitive level) was developed by the teacher-researcher. This continuum was developed from two similar continua, one derived from the work of Kohonen (1992) and one from that of Tarvin and Al-Afishi (1991), as shown in Fig. 2.
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
Kohonen's framework:
Traditional
II
rarvin & A1-Arishi's framework: 1st notion response
II
[-I0'$ framework:
2 15
< ....... >
Experiential
< ....... >
Reflective thinking
Non-reflective < ....... >
II II
Reflective
tasks designed with different degrees of reflectivity:
• ss
/
|
Figure 2. Tasks designed with different degrees of reflectivity on a continuum of degrees of reflecfivity. Key--T: teacher; S: student; M: material; TSS: interaction between the teacher and the students of the whole class; TS: interaction between the teacher and a student; MSST: interaction between the material, student +-~student and the teacher; MST: interaction between the material, a student and the teacher; MS ~ MSST: interaction between the material and a student first and then interaction between the material, student ~ student and the teacher; MSS: interaction between the material and student ~ student; MS: interaction between the material and a student; MS ~ MSS: interaction between the material and a student and then interaction between the material and student ~ student.
Kohonen's continuum (1992) places the traditional model (behaviourism) towards one end and the experiential learning model (constructivism) towards the other. According to Kohonen, the traditional model of learning assumes that the teacher plays the dominant role in the classroom. Expefientialism, on the other hand, is associated with the self-directed "experiential learning cycle" within the self, in which the learner progresses individually through the complete process of experiential learning, and also with a "shared partnership" in learning, in which the learner shares opinions with other learners. Along this continuum, tasks that are teacher-directed lie more towards the non-reflective end of the continuum of reflectivity, and those that are accomplished through self-discovery or peer-sharing methods lie more towards the refective end. The principles of the second continuum are adapted from Tarvin & AlArishi (1991). They advocate that students should be allowed to introspect before interacting with other students, to eliminate "first-notion responses" (that is, immediate response without reflective thinking) before performing tasks. Thus, on this second continuum, tasks that have an orientation towards first-notion responses are more towards the non-reflective end of the continuum of reflecfivity, and those that have an orientation towards "reflective-thinking" are placed more towards the reflective end. Along the continuum of reflectivity developed by the teacher-researcher, three sets of tasks can be roughly located at three positions, one at each end and one in the middle, as shown in Fig. 2 where the label "T" refers to teacher, "S" refers to students, and "M" refers to materials. Each type of task is described in detail.
216
B. Ho
In ascending order of degree of reflectivity along the continuum, the first set of teacher-directed tasks (the TSS or TS tasks) are those performed or led by the teacher, such as the teacher giving a lecture to the class (TSS) or written feedback to an individual student (IS). Transmission of knowledge mainly comes from the teacher. Student participation is minimal The second set of tasks (the MSST, MST and M S ~ MSST tasks) refers to activities in which students are guided by the material (such as worksheets) throughout the process, but the teacher provides them with the model answer afterwards. Students may work only in groups (MSST) or only individually (MST) before the teacher provides them with the model answers, or they may be given materials to work on, first individually, and later to discuss in groups before the teacher gives the class the model answers (MS~MSST). The third set of tasks (the MSS, MS or MS~MSS tasks) includes those that are materiai-guided. The students may discuss the material (such as worksheets) with their peers immediately without being given any chance to think about how to perform the task individually first (MSS), or may work on the materials individually themselves (MS). The MS~MSS tasks require students to interact individually with the material first and then with their peers. Along the continuum of reflectivity developed by the teacher-researcher, between the non-reflective end and reflective end, some tasks can be postulated as more non-refective or more reflective according to what students are required to do. On such a basis, the tasks may fall roughly into three categories. Tasks that are led by the teacher are held to be relatively nonreflective. Those guided by both the materials and the teacher are held to be semi-reflective. Those guided by the materials and involve students' individual reflection or cooperative experiential learning are held to be relatively reflective. The rationale for such definition of reflectivity is that when the teacher departs from the fronting and authoritative position in the classroom and lets the students be guided by the materials, students can enjoy greater freedom, participate more actively in the activity and learn better. When students perform these tasks led by the materials, the most ideal situation is if each student can be given a greater chance and longer time to progress through his or her own experiential learning cycle (Kohonen 1992: 28) first; to involve himself/herself in reflective thinking; to "abstract, generalize, synthesize" (Tarvin & Al-Arishi 1991: 17); and finally to "integrate" and come to a final "judgement" (p. 16) before he or she is exposed to input or stimulation from his or her peers. This is to ensure that each student is really given an opportunity to attain the deepest level of reflective thinking within himself/herself first and to minimize the chances of having to be driven by the views of dominating members of the group when discussion starts. However, it must be borne in mind that this continuum of reflectivity can only be a loose one because the reflectivity inherent in the reflective tasks
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
217
may not equate with the actual engagement in reflection by the learners when performing the tasks. Any unexpected incident that happens may suddenly turn a reflective task into a semi-reflective or non-reflective one and vice versa. Nevertheless, the importance of having a metaphorical continuum of reflectivity as a starting point for the establishment of a basis for categorization of tasks should not be understated.
The Methods Implementation of the Model In this study, a technical report-writing course based on the above reflective learning model was taught to the intervention group. The comparison group was taught the course in a less reflective way for comparison purposes. In other words, to return to the Reflective Learning Model illustrated in Fig. 1, the intervention group was allowed to progress through a complete reflective learning cycle. They were given planning and evaluating tasks of reflection at the metacognitive level; the tasks given at the input-giving stage of the cognitive level were also designed with a higher degree of reflectivity. The comparison group, however, needed only to progress through the three stages at the cognitive level and were given less reflective tasks at the input giving stage. In fact, the major tasks carried out in each class were basically the same. These tasks included watching video programmes, analysing a sample report, participating in group discussions, doing worksheets in class, giving peer feedback, self-editing of drafts, and listening to lectures and instructions. How these tasks were carried out differently in each group is shown in Table 1. It can be seen from the table that the tasks were divided into three categories: the non-reflective tasks, the semi-reflective tasks and the reflective tasks. The relatively non-reflective tasks, that is, all the teacher-directed activities, were carried out in more or less the same way in both groups. The teacher gave lectures and instructions to the whole class but gave individual feedback to students in their writing and in teacher-student conferences. However, the so-called lectures in the intervention group were mini-ones (usually not more than 5-10 minutes long). The intervention group received more written feedback from the teacher than the comparison group because the teacher also gave them written comments on their reflection sheets. With regard to the semi-reflective tasks, the task of analysing samples was carried out in similar ways in both groups. Because of the lack of time, when analysing sample reports, neither group was given any chance to discuss their answers with their peers after completing the worksheets. The teacher gave them the answers immediately. The other semi-reflective tasks (for example, watching a video programme or doing individual worksheets) were carried out slightly differently in each group. When watching video programmes, in the comparison group, after the students had individually
218
B. Ho
TABLE 1 The Frequency of Different Tasks Actually Carried out in the Classrooms of the Comparison and Intervention Groups Non-reflective tasks Tasks
Groups
Lecture/minilecture
Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group
Teacher giving instruction Teacher giving feedback Teacherstudent conference Analysing sample Watching video programme Doing individual work Self-editing of draft Reading student manual by themselves Peer feedback
Group discussion
Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group
Task type
Frequency
TSS
7
TSS
3
TSS
10
TSS
3
TS
4
'IS
10
"IS
3
TS
1
Semi-reflective tasks Task type
Frequency
MST
1
MST
1
MST
1
MS
1
MSST MST
6
Reflective tasks Task type
Frequency
MS
27
MS
1
MS
1
MSS MS MSS MS MSS
1 4 1 4 2
MS
1
MSS MSS
4
MS
7
Key--T: teacher; S: student; M: material; TSS: interaction between the teacher and the students of the whole class; TS: interaction between the teacher and a student; MSST: interaction between the material, student ~ student and the teacher; MST: interaction between the material, a student and the teacher; MS ~ MSST: interaction between the material and a student first and then interaction between the material, student ~ student and the teacher; MSS: interaction between the material and student *-* student; MS: interaction between the material and a student; MS --, MSS: interaction between the material and a student and then interaction between the material and student ,-~ student.
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
2 19
completed the worksheets, the teacher gave answers to the students immediately. Each student in the intervention group, however, was given a chance to work out the answers on the worksheet himself/herself before discussing the answers with his/her peers. Then, the teacher went over the answers with them. When doing individual work, the comparison group received direct instructions from the teacher on how to complete the worksheets; they then performed the task accordingly, and were given feedback by the teacher immediately. This was in fact a semi-reflective (MST) task. The intervention group, however, had to discover how to do things with the help of the worksheets or the reflection sheets that had been provided. Thus, this became a relatively reflective (MS) task. Among the other relatively reflective tasks, the tasks of self-editing of drafts and reading the student book were carried out in basically the same way in both groups. Students edited their own drafts individually, and they read the student manuals by themselves or discussed what they had read in groups in class. When engaged in peer feedback and group discussions, students in the comparison group were not given any chance to reflect individually first but were asked to engage in group discussions immediately, whereas students in the intervention group were given a chance to think about how to do things by themselves before they were asked to discuss this with their peers. An overview of the frequencies (as shown in Table 2) of each category of tasks indicates that more tasks designed with greater chances for reflection were carried out in the intervention group than the comparison group. The tasks carried out in the comparison group were relatively nonreflective.
Collection and Analysis of the Data To keep a record of what happened in each class in the intervention group and the comparison group, lesson plans were kept for all classes of each TABLE 2
Frequency of Tasks of Each Degree of Reflectivity Carried Out in the Comparison Group and the Intervention Group Frequency of types of tasks carried out Tasks with different degree of reflectivity Non-reflective Semi-reflective
Task type TSS "IS MST MS
Comparison group 17 7 8 0
24 8
Intervention group 6 11 1 1
17 2
--->
Reflective
MSST MSS MS MS ---4
MSS
7 5 0
12
1 32 8
41
220
B. Ho
group for reference. The teacher's talk and the students' discussions in class were recorded on audio-tape for checking purposes when necessary. To investigate the students' reactions to the tasks in this course, both groups of students were given a questionnaire to complete at the end of the course. The questionnaire asked for students' opinions on whether they liked the tasks and how interesting, helpful, easy and relevant they found each task on a five-point scale. Discussions about their opinions of the course tasks in teacher-student conferences were also taped. Quantitative data from the questionnaires were analysed with the statistical package SPSS PC+ Version 2.0 (Norusis 1988). Because insufficient responses were observed at values 1 and 5 of the items on the questionnaire, the data were polychotomized into the categories of High, Mid and Low to help clarify the patterns. Chi-square was computed to compare the opinions of the students in the intervention group and comparison group on different types of tasks. The answers to the open-ended questions were analysed by quantifying qualitative data using a key concept technique, which is a "key word analysis ... generating categories from the statements made by the respondents" (Nunan 1992: 146). The data from taped discussions were analysed through content analysis, which is done by "fairly simple classifications or tabulations of specific information" (Borg and Gall 1989: 520). The students' reactions to the activities were examined in terms of data from the questionnaires and the taped discussions.
The Findings Results from the Questionnaire The frequency of both groups' opinions on the helpfulness and relevance of almost all tasks fall into the High category. In other words, in general, both groups found almost all activities, including the reflective ones, helpful and relevant, though not all tasks were felt to be equally interesting and easy by each group. Results of the Chi-square test show another finding: The two groups of students had significantly different opinions about only three aspects related to five tasks, which are indicated in Table 3. In this paper, only items that are significantly different in each category of task in both groups are examined. The reasons for the students' preferences are discussed with reference to how the tasks were actually carried out in class, to their frequencies as shown in Table 1, and also to the comments that the students made on the questionnaire. In Table 3, it can be found that, among the non-reflective tasks, students in the comparison groups found the teacher giving instructions (~2 = 7.396, df=2,
221
Reactions of S t u d e n t s to Reflective Learning TABLE 3
The Significant Differences in Opinions Between the Two Groups Items over which the opinions of the comparison group were significantly more positive ( < p =0.05) than those of the intervention group Task types Non-reflective
Tasks Teacher giving feedback Teacher student conference
Semi-reflective
Watching video programme
Reflective
Doing individual work Peer feedback
Interesting ff = 7.396 df= 2 ~ = 7.168 df= 2 X2= 6.606 dr=2 ~='= 11.791 df=2
Helpful
Easy
X2= 6.997 df=2 X2= 7.219 df=2 X2= 7.274 df=2
to them were deliberately cut to the minimum. They were expected instead to work out how to do things by themselves. One student commented on the questionnaire that the instructions were too brief. Similarly, they might not find teacher-student conferences as interesting as the comparison group because the comparison group was given more exposure to this kind of activity than the intervention group. Since they only had one experience of a short but fast-paced teacher-student conference due to the lack of time, the intervention group might not have developed enough feel for the task to be able to find it interesting. Among the semi-reflective tasks, the comparison group found watching video programmes more interesting (•2 = 6.606, df = 2,
222
B. Ho
answer from the teacher on questions related to audio-visual programmes that were not easy for them to understand might have been more welcome. Within the reflective category, one task worth discussing was doing individual work. The comparison group found doing individual work more interesting (;(2= 11.791, df=2,
Results from Taped Discussions The opinions expressed by the students in the discussions were similar to those reported on the questionnaires. Content analysis of the students' opinions, as expressed in the discussions, shows that both groups found the course helpful. The comparison group was happy with almost all kinds of tasks. The intervention group reported that they found reflection helpful but they did not like to do the planning and evaluative reflection sheets in writing because it was hard and boring work. They preferred reflections done through discussions in class. During the teacher-student conferences, stu-
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
225
dents were asked to express immediately their reactions to the tasks. It could be assumed, then, that these opinions represented the reasons that they had foremost in their minds. The data from the discussions support the findings of the questionnaire and help to bring out the focus of their concerns more clearly.
The Implications This study seems to suggest that, although students with experience of performing reflective tasks found them helpful and relevant, they did not like the planning and evaluative reflections at the metacognitive level. The reasons for their dislike seem to arise from the design of the tasks. One major obstacle that affected the design and implementation of the tasks was the constraints from the course and the institution. In this institution, teachers had to teach according to the syllabus and from the materials designed by the course designer. New elements could only be added to the existing course from which nothing could be deleted. Assignments and assessment had to be standardized across all classes or students would complain. Thus, all additional tasks in the intervention group had to be finished within class time, resulting in stress and hard work. The problem was further intensified since all classes were held in the afternoon when students were tired. Possible solutions to these problems can be examined in terms of pedagogy and course design.
In Terms of Pedagogy The findings of this study seem to suggest that, although students do not like reflective tasks at the metacognitive level, reflective tasks at the cognitive level are not unwelcome by either group. Reflective tasks that involve peer participation, such as group discussion, are especially popular. Students in both groups also seem to find most tasks, including reflective ones, helpful and relevant. This seems to suggest that it is worthwhile introducing reflective tasks to the students and that, when introduced more gradually, the reflective tasks will be better liked by students. The challenge is how to design and carry out these tasks. In the first place, sufficient reflective tasks must be given to the students so that they can get a full feel of the experience. Ample time must be given to the students to reflect during the implementation of the reflective tasks. Providing more chances for students to discuss in pairs or groups after reflecting by themselves may make the activity more interesting. To add to the interest of the students, reflection may be done through computer programmes particularly designed for this purpose. Another finding of the study seems to suggest that students find the tasks helpful and interesting when they are given close guidance. Even if the tasks are not directed by the teacher, they still wish to have some detailed guidance in the form of teaching materials. Students do not like to be given an
224
B. Ho
entirely free hand to discover things for themselves. This is understandable, especially in situations as in Hong Kong where students are trained to learn through direct transmission of knowledge from their teachers in secondary school. In such situations, it may be too demanding to ask students to break away abruptly from the learning method that has been expected of them for years. To help the students move away from teacher-dominated learning to more self-directed learning, the teacher can replace the "authority" with teaching materials and aids, that are in fact a "transparent teacher" who can do the job of the teacher. However, this is a more distanced way that pushes the students to the front line and encourages them to take up more responsibility for learning themselves. Once the students have become less dependent on their teacher, reflective learning will take place more easily and effectively. Organized reflection at the input-giving stage in the reflective learning model seems to be a good place to start introducing reflective tasks into a course. Different degrees of reflectivity can be introduced to the students through different ways of carrying out the tasks. The amount of reflectivity given to the students can be adjusted by the teacher according to their needs and reactions through a choice of input-giving methods. The amount can be gradually increased whenever the teacher thinks it appropriate by, for example, replacing teacher-directed tasks with material-gnided activities through self-discovery or peer-sharing methods. When reflective learning is first introduced to a class, it may be a good idea to start with reflective tasks at the cognitive level first and then extend the students' reflective capacity to the metacognitive level when appropriate.
In Terms of Course Design To implement this innovative approach more successfully, these activities must be seen as part of the overall curriculum. A comprehensive curriculum in which a whole range of interventions are systematically introduced and evaluated may need to be designed. These interventions may include asking students to reflect on course goals. Explicit instructions in a range of cognitive and communicative strategies, as well as opportunities for self-evaluation and for reflective journal keeping are desirable. It may also be a good idea to extend the course so that extra time can be given to students to carry out reflective tasks both inside and outside classes. To make such major changes in the curriculum, support is needed at the institutional and administrative levels. It is important to convince administrators, teachers and students of the value of reflective learning so that such a curriculum can be offered to all classes in the same year. Their support during the process of implementation would give students no cause for complaint, and the implementation of the reflective approach would not be thus hindered.
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
225
New Understanding about Learning The results of this study also seem to suggest that, when an innovation is to be introduced, contextual constraints comprise an important factor that cannot be ignored. Such constraints greatly affect the implementation of the innovation and thus the outcome of learning. After implementing the original reflective learning model in this course, the teacher-researcher modified the model slightly as shown in Fig. 3 to make it more realistic and applicable to wider contexts. The figure strikes a seemingly pessimistic note that the whole process of
i
..........
i
CONTEXT
! OVERALL EXPERIENCE I . ~ New Old
..
m
............ Meta- cognitive Level
i
i
r" i
iI
?
', EVALUATIVE ', REFLECTION
', on skills
i i
i i
t
i i
,,
i
i
', am
i i r
EXISTING EXPERIENCE
i
/
•
,..
~
Task completed ..
. . . . . .
t
i i
used
t-
' PLANNING ' REFLECTION , on how to do the , task
I
I
m
I- . . . . . . . .
Task given to Idone
/ Stage 3
m&mmm
he|
m
Cognitive
,'
Level
Stage 1 INPUT
APPLICATION
1
with different levels
', . of re_fle_ctivity_. . . . . _,'
(of skills to task)
- Materiai-guided * self-discovery * peer-sharing
X
Stage
~ ' ~ .
.
.
.
.
.
Material & teacher-guide, - T~'~ehm'-dir~.eted
2
{CON--"-CEPTUALIZATIONq .
;
i
/
;
F i g u r e 3. The Revised Reflective Learning Model
.
.
.
(1996).
.
.
.
.
•
226
B. Ho
reflective learning needs to be subsumed under the constraints of "context". In reality, however, it alerts innovators to this important factor which, if carefully considered in their pedagogical and curriculum design, will bring about greater success in their innovation. This awareness of "context" is important not only for ESP teachers but also for educators in disciplines beyond ESP and for contexts beyond the one discussed here.
The Limitations This study is only an initial attempt to explore the results of operationalizing concepts of reflective learning in an ESP classroom. As the sample size was small and the subjects were not randomly chosen, the results are not meant to be generalized to all computer students at this level. It is hoped that future empirical studies can be conducted to help generalize findings. However, the findings in this study definitely help to throw light on this unexplored area of reflective learning, especially when reflective learning is carried out with students in similar disciplines and in similar learning contexts. Insights into the importance of context in relation to an innovation are applicable to learning contexts in many disciplines and in many places.
Concluding Remarks It is hoped that the experience and results shared in this paper will give teachers and educators some insights into more effective ways of bringing about reflective learning, especially when this approach is introduced to students for the first time and when ESP courses are taught under institutional and curriculum-related constraints. The reflective learning model proposed in this paper may help solve problems involved in implementing such a learning approach; it may also be one step closer to the ultimate goal of helping students benefit from reflective learning. Finally, it is hoped that the experience and results described in this study will help innovators be more alert to the importance of the "context" factor when designing and implementing an innovation so that greater success of their innovation can be ensured. (Revised version received June 1996)
Acknowledgements--I would like to thank Dr Vijay Bhatia, Dr Paul Bruthiaxu, Prof. Chris Candlin, Dr Gall Schaefer Fu, Prof. David Nunan, Prof. Jack Richards and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
REFERENCES Borg, W., & Gall, M. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Reactions of Students to ReflectiveLearning
2 27
Boud, D., Keogh, & Walker, D. (1985a). What is reflection in learning? In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 7-17). New York: Nichols Publishing Company. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985b). Promoting reflection in learning a model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.) Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18-40). New York: Nichols Publishing Company. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. V. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell, & M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 77166). New York: Wiley. Further Education Curriculum and Development Unit. (1981). Experience, reflection, learning. London: Department of Education and Science, Further Education Unit. Ho, B. (1995, Jan.). Students' reactions to tasks designed with different levels of reflectivity in a technical report-writing course. Paper presented at Thai TESOL Fifteenth Annual Convention in Bangkok, Thailand. Houp, K. W., & PearsaU, T. E. (1984). Reporting technical information (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 14-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kolb, D. (1984). Experimental learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Main, A. (1985). Reflection and the development of learning skills. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D, Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 91-99). New York: Nichols. Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norusis, M. J. (1988). SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics V2.0 for the IBM PC/XT/AT & PS/2. Chicago: SPSS. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarvin, W., & A1-Arishi, A. (1991). Rethinking communicative language teaching: Reflection and the EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 927. Wenden, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 3-14). New York: Prentice Hall. Belinda Ho is Associate Professor in the Department of English at City University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include journal writing, reflective teaching, reflective learning, diary studies, writing and issues related to the teaching of EAP and ESP. She has publications in these areas.
English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 211-227, 1997 © 1997The American University. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0889-4906/97 $17.00+0.00
PII: S0889-4906(96)00025-7
Reactions of Students to Reflective L e a r n i n g in a T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t . W r i t i n g Course Belinda Ho
Abstract--This study operationalized some concepts related to reflective learning in a technical report-writing course under institutional and curriculum-related constraints. It looked at how two groups of first year computer students at a university in Hong Kong reacted to tasks invoMng different degrees of reflectivity in this 14-week course. The major tasks designed for both groups were the same, but additional tasks were added to the intervention classrooms to stimulate reflective thinking. The comparison group was taught in a less reflective way. Each group's reactions to different kinds of tasks were elicited in questionnaires and taped discussions. The results arising from the examination of this data show that students found almost all tasks, including the reflective ones, helpful and relevant though the intervention group did not really like the reflective tasks, especially those at the metacognitive level. The reasons for the students' preferences are discussed as well as the implications for the teaching of ESP. © 1997 The American University. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
Reflective Learning Following a movement from the traditional way of teacher-directed language learning in the classroom to communicative language learning with the help of peers, a recent trend seems to signal a shift towards more "experiential and reflective activities which involve learners in a monitoring and evaluating of their own learning capacities and styles" (Main 1985: 91). To Kohonen (1992) and many other advocates of experiential learning, personal experience is the point of departure for learning. Reflection is an important activity in the processing phase of learning during which people "recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it" (Boud et al. 1985b: 18). Boud et al. (1985b: 18) define "reflection in the context of learning" as:
Address correspondence to: Belinda Ho, English Department, City University of Hong Kong, 83, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected].
211
212
B. Ho a generic term for those intellectual and affecfive activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations. It may take place in isolation or in association with others.
Reflective learning involves reflection during the learning process. Reflection helps both the intellectual and affecfive domains and can take place either individually, in pairs or in groups. These notions about reflection are particularly useful in constructing tasks for the classroom. Boud et al. (1985a) suggest that effective learning can be enhanced ff activities are organized along the lines of the reflective aspect of learning. Tarvin and A1-Arishi (1991) encourage reflection in communicative language teaching in the EFL classroom. It would be interesting to find out whether these notions about reflective learning could be extended to an ESP classroom that aims at preparing students for their future profession. Students in such a course need to face the complexity and rapidity of changes in this highly technological society (Wenden 1987) and to be aware of the differences in expectations of different institutions, for example, regarding the format of technical writing (Houp & Pearsall 1984). It seems that such a course should aim at equipping the students with the ability to adapt and respond to these societal, technical and institutional changes besides teaching them the skills needed to perform the writing tasks. It would be helpful if they could learn to reflect on the use of these skills. However, thus far, almost no work has been done on the carrying out of reflective tasks in an ESP classroom. This paper reports on an attempt to build and implement a reflective learning model for a technical report-writing course. It describes the model, how it was implemented and students' reactions to tasks designed with different degrees of reflectivity based on the model. Implications for the teaching of ESP are discussed.
The E S P s t u d e n t s The ESP students in this study were two groups of first year students in Computer Studies at a university in Hong Kong. One was the intervention group (n = 41) and the other was the comparison group (n = 40). Analysis of the biodata of the students shows that both groups were broadly similar in terms of sex, age and English proficiency.
The E S P c o u r s e The ESP course in this study was a 14-week technical report-writing course that was assigned by the syllabus designer with the goal of preparing Computer Studies students for the communication skills needed in their future profession. It had a special purpose of teaching the students how to write a technical report in the computer field. The skills included those needed to identify formal elements of a technical report: to decide on a
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
213
narrowed topic, purpose and audience; to collect information through reading literature related to computer studies; to take notes on note cards in the form of summary, paraphrase and quotation; to write an outline; to write a draft; to give feedback on a draft and to edit a draft. The teacher-researcher had to teach the course based on the guidelines given in the syllabus and on the basic course materials written by the course designer. The two groups of students were taught the same technical-report writing course. However, for research purposes, the comparison group was taught the course in a more teacher-directed way, whereas the intervention group was given additional reflective activities in their classes.
The Research Question In this study, an attempt was made to implement reflective learning in the above technical report-writing course based on a reflective learning model developed by the teacher-researcher. The main research question was to find out how students reacted to reflective learning.
The Reflective Learning Model The reflective learning model as shown in Fig. 1 was developed by the teacher-researcher based on the notions drawn from the experiential learning models suggested by Further Education Curriculum and Development Unit in the Department of Education and Science in London (1981), Kolb (1984), Boud et al. (1985b) and Kohonen (1992). According to this reflective learning model, reflection can be carried out at two levels, the rnetacognitive level and the cognitive level. The focus of the students' reflection at the metacognitive level is on the "metacognitive strategies" which are defined by O'Malley and Chamot (1990: 44, citing Brown et al., 1983) as "higher order executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity". The cognitive level refers to the learning of skills needed in performing a task, such as a reading or writing task. The cycle of reflective learning starts when students are given an "existing experience" to go through. The existing experience is one in which students are given a task to do and have to learn the skills needed to perform it. At the metacognitive level, when a task is assigned, the students are given a chance first to draw on their past experience and reflect on the ways that they may use it to tackle the task and the reasons for their choices before they progress into the three stages of learning at the cognitive level. Stage one is the input-giving stage during which the students obtain input on how to perform a task. Stage two involves conceptualization of the skills learned through the input obtained. Concepts are formulated at this stage. In Stage 3, students apply the skills conceptualized in Stage 2 of tasks. After they have accomplished the three stages and completed the task, they reflect
214
B. Ho OVERALLEXPERIENCE .....
- Im~ New
Meta- cognitive Level
Old
/
',
t
i
t
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EVALUATIVE REFLECTION
PLANNING REFLECTION
on skills used
on how to do the task
,
.
1 /
EXISTINGEXPERIENCE
m
",
[Task
completed
Task given to be ]
[ Stage 3
,'
,'
[done
Cognitive Level
Stage 1
INPUT APPLICATION
I
with different levels , of r_efl_ectjvit_y_.. .....
(of skills to task)
Stage 2
', :
- Material-guided * self-discovery * peer-sharing - Material & teacher-guided - Teacher-directed
CONCEPTUALIZATION ~ . . . ~ / ' } (of skills) Figure
1. The Reflective
Learning Model
(1995).
again at the metacognitive level by evaluating how they have performed it, and they work out ways to do the same task more effectively in the future. What they have learned from this existing experience will become new experience for them. The new experience will become part of the "overall experience", which is a source from which they can draw when they have to go through another existing experience, such as being given another task to do in future. For research purposes, a framework to identify different degrees of reflectivity of a task at the input-giving stage (that is, Stage 1 at the cognitive level) was developed by the teacher-researcher. This continuum was developed from two similar continua, one derived from the work of Kohonen (1992) and one from that of Tarvin and Al-Afishi (1991), as shown in Fig. 2.
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
Kohonen's framework:
Traditional
II
rarvin & A1-Arishi's framework: 1st notion response
II
[-I0'$ framework:
2 15
< ....... >
Experiential
< ....... >
Reflective thinking
Non-reflective < ....... >
II II
Reflective
tasks designed with different degrees of reflectivity:
• ss
/
|
Figure 2. Tasks designed with different degrees of reflectivity on a continuum of degrees of reflecfivity. Key--T: teacher; S: student; M: material; TSS: interaction between the teacher and the students of the whole class; TS: interaction between the teacher and a student; MSST: interaction between the material, student +-~student and the teacher; MST: interaction between the material, a student and the teacher; MS ~ MSST: interaction between the material and a student first and then interaction between the material, student ~ student and the teacher; MSS: interaction between the material and student ~ student; MS: interaction between the material and a student; MS ~ MSS: interaction between the material and a student and then interaction between the material and student ~ student.
Kohonen's continuum (1992) places the traditional model (behaviourism) towards one end and the experiential learning model (constructivism) towards the other. According to Kohonen, the traditional model of learning assumes that the teacher plays the dominant role in the classroom. Expefientialism, on the other hand, is associated with the self-directed "experiential learning cycle" within the self, in which the learner progresses individually through the complete process of experiential learning, and also with a "shared partnership" in learning, in which the learner shares opinions with other learners. Along this continuum, tasks that are teacher-directed lie more towards the non-reflective end of the continuum of reflectivity, and those that are accomplished through self-discovery or peer-sharing methods lie more towards the refective end. The principles of the second continuum are adapted from Tarvin & AlArishi (1991). They advocate that students should be allowed to introspect before interacting with other students, to eliminate "first-notion responses" (that is, immediate response without reflective thinking) before performing tasks. Thus, on this second continuum, tasks that have an orientation towards first-notion responses are more towards the non-reflective end of the continuum of reflecfivity, and those that have an orientation towards "reflective-thinking" are placed more towards the reflective end. Along the continuum of reflectivity developed by the teacher-researcher, three sets of tasks can be roughly located at three positions, one at each end and one in the middle, as shown in Fig. 2 where the label "T" refers to teacher, "S" refers to students, and "M" refers to materials. Each type of task is described in detail.
216
B. Ho
In ascending order of degree of reflectivity along the continuum, the first set of teacher-directed tasks (the TSS or TS tasks) are those performed or led by the teacher, such as the teacher giving a lecture to the class (TSS) or written feedback to an individual student (IS). Transmission of knowledge mainly comes from the teacher. Student participation is minimal The second set of tasks (the MSST, MST and M S ~ MSST tasks) refers to activities in which students are guided by the material (such as worksheets) throughout the process, but the teacher provides them with the model answer afterwards. Students may work only in groups (MSST) or only individually (MST) before the teacher provides them with the model answers, or they may be given materials to work on, first individually, and later to discuss in groups before the teacher gives the class the model answers (MS~MSST). The third set of tasks (the MSS, MS or MS~MSS tasks) includes those that are materiai-guided. The students may discuss the material (such as worksheets) with their peers immediately without being given any chance to think about how to perform the task individually first (MSS), or may work on the materials individually themselves (MS). The MS~MSS tasks require students to interact individually with the material first and then with their peers. Along the continuum of reflectivity developed by the teacher-researcher, between the non-reflective end and reflective end, some tasks can be postulated as more non-refective or more reflective according to what students are required to do. On such a basis, the tasks may fall roughly into three categories. Tasks that are led by the teacher are held to be relatively nonreflective. Those guided by both the materials and the teacher are held to be semi-reflective. Those guided by the materials and involve students' individual reflection or cooperative experiential learning are held to be relatively reflective. The rationale for such definition of reflectivity is that when the teacher departs from the fronting and authoritative position in the classroom and lets the students be guided by the materials, students can enjoy greater freedom, participate more actively in the activity and learn better. When students perform these tasks led by the materials, the most ideal situation is if each student can be given a greater chance and longer time to progress through his or her own experiential learning cycle (Kohonen 1992: 28) first; to involve himself/herself in reflective thinking; to "abstract, generalize, synthesize" (Tarvin & Al-Arishi 1991: 17); and finally to "integrate" and come to a final "judgement" (p. 16) before he or she is exposed to input or stimulation from his or her peers. This is to ensure that each student is really given an opportunity to attain the deepest level of reflective thinking within himself/herself first and to minimize the chances of having to be driven by the views of dominating members of the group when discussion starts. However, it must be borne in mind that this continuum of reflectivity can only be a loose one because the reflectivity inherent in the reflective tasks
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
217
may not equate with the actual engagement in reflection by the learners when performing the tasks. Any unexpected incident that happens may suddenly turn a reflective task into a semi-reflective or non-reflective one and vice versa. Nevertheless, the importance of having a metaphorical continuum of reflectivity as a starting point for the establishment of a basis for categorization of tasks should not be understated.
The Methods Implementation of the Model In this study, a technical report-writing course based on the above reflective learning model was taught to the intervention group. The comparison group was taught the course in a less reflective way for comparison purposes. In other words, to return to the Reflective Learning Model illustrated in Fig. 1, the intervention group was allowed to progress through a complete reflective learning cycle. They were given planning and evaluating tasks of reflection at the metacognitive level; the tasks given at the input-giving stage of the cognitive level were also designed with a higher degree of reflectivity. The comparison group, however, needed only to progress through the three stages at the cognitive level and were given less reflective tasks at the input giving stage. In fact, the major tasks carried out in each class were basically the same. These tasks included watching video programmes, analysing a sample report, participating in group discussions, doing worksheets in class, giving peer feedback, self-editing of drafts, and listening to lectures and instructions. How these tasks were carried out differently in each group is shown in Table 1. It can be seen from the table that the tasks were divided into three categories: the non-reflective tasks, the semi-reflective tasks and the reflective tasks. The relatively non-reflective tasks, that is, all the teacher-directed activities, were carried out in more or less the same way in both groups. The teacher gave lectures and instructions to the whole class but gave individual feedback to students in their writing and in teacher-student conferences. However, the so-called lectures in the intervention group were mini-ones (usually not more than 5-10 minutes long). The intervention group received more written feedback from the teacher than the comparison group because the teacher also gave them written comments on their reflection sheets. With regard to the semi-reflective tasks, the task of analysing samples was carried out in similar ways in both groups. Because of the lack of time, when analysing sample reports, neither group was given any chance to discuss their answers with their peers after completing the worksheets. The teacher gave them the answers immediately. The other semi-reflective tasks (for example, watching a video programme or doing individual worksheets) were carried out slightly differently in each group. When watching video programmes, in the comparison group, after the students had individually
218
B. Ho
TABLE 1 The Frequency of Different Tasks Actually Carried out in the Classrooms of the Comparison and Intervention Groups Non-reflective tasks Tasks
Groups
Lecture/minilecture
Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group
Teacher giving instruction Teacher giving feedback Teacherstudent conference Analysing sample Watching video programme Doing individual work Self-editing of draft Reading student manual by themselves Peer feedback
Group discussion
Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group Comp. Group Int. Group
Task type
Frequency
TSS
7
TSS
3
TSS
10
TSS
3
TS
4
'IS
10
"IS
3
TS
1
Semi-reflective tasks Task type
Frequency
MST
1
MST
1
MST
1
MS
1
MSST MST
6
Reflective tasks Task type
Frequency
MS
27
MS
1
MS
1
MSS MS MSS MS MSS
1 4 1 4 2
MS
1
MSS MSS
4
MS
7
Key--T: teacher; S: student; M: material; TSS: interaction between the teacher and the students of the whole class; TS: interaction between the teacher and a student; MSST: interaction between the material, student ~ student and the teacher; MST: interaction between the material, a student and the teacher; MS ~ MSST: interaction between the material and a student first and then interaction between the material, student ~ student and the teacher; MSS: interaction between the material and student *-* student; MS: interaction between the material and a student; MS --, MSS: interaction between the material and a student and then interaction between the material and student ,-~ student.
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
2 19
completed the worksheets, the teacher gave answers to the students immediately. Each student in the intervention group, however, was given a chance to work out the answers on the worksheet himself/herself before discussing the answers with his/her peers. Then, the teacher went over the answers with them. When doing individual work, the comparison group received direct instructions from the teacher on how to complete the worksheets; they then performed the task accordingly, and were given feedback by the teacher immediately. This was in fact a semi-reflective (MST) task. The intervention group, however, had to discover how to do things with the help of the worksheets or the reflection sheets that had been provided. Thus, this became a relatively reflective (MS) task. Among the other relatively reflective tasks, the tasks of self-editing of drafts and reading the student book were carried out in basically the same way in both groups. Students edited their own drafts individually, and they read the student manuals by themselves or discussed what they had read in groups in class. When engaged in peer feedback and group discussions, students in the comparison group were not given any chance to reflect individually first but were asked to engage in group discussions immediately, whereas students in the intervention group were given a chance to think about how to do things by themselves before they were asked to discuss this with their peers. An overview of the frequencies (as shown in Table 2) of each category of tasks indicates that more tasks designed with greater chances for reflection were carried out in the intervention group than the comparison group. The tasks carried out in the comparison group were relatively nonreflective.
Collection and Analysis of the Data To keep a record of what happened in each class in the intervention group and the comparison group, lesson plans were kept for all classes of each TABLE 2
Frequency of Tasks of Each Degree of Reflectivity Carried Out in the Comparison Group and the Intervention Group Frequency of types of tasks carried out Tasks with different degree of reflectivity Non-reflective Semi-reflective
Task type TSS "IS MST MS
Comparison group 17 7 8 0
24 8
Intervention group 6 11 1 1
17 2
--->
Reflective
MSST MSS MS MS ---4
MSS
7 5 0
12
1 32 8
41
220
B. Ho
group for reference. The teacher's talk and the students' discussions in class were recorded on audio-tape for checking purposes when necessary. To investigate the students' reactions to the tasks in this course, both groups of students were given a questionnaire to complete at the end of the course. The questionnaire asked for students' opinions on whether they liked the tasks and how interesting, helpful, easy and relevant they found each task on a five-point scale. Discussions about their opinions of the course tasks in teacher-student conferences were also taped. Quantitative data from the questionnaires were analysed with the statistical package SPSS PC+ Version 2.0 (Norusis 1988). Because insufficient responses were observed at values 1 and 5 of the items on the questionnaire, the data were polychotomized into the categories of High, Mid and Low to help clarify the patterns. Chi-square was computed to compare the opinions of the students in the intervention group and comparison group on different types of tasks. The answers to the open-ended questions were analysed by quantifying qualitative data using a key concept technique, which is a "key word analysis ... generating categories from the statements made by the respondents" (Nunan 1992: 146). The data from taped discussions were analysed through content analysis, which is done by "fairly simple classifications or tabulations of specific information" (Borg and Gall 1989: 520). The students' reactions to the activities were examined in terms of data from the questionnaires and the taped discussions.
The Findings Results from the Questionnaire The frequency of both groups' opinions on the helpfulness and relevance of almost all tasks fall into the High category. In other words, in general, both groups found almost all activities, including the reflective ones, helpful and relevant, though not all tasks were felt to be equally interesting and easy by each group. Results of the Chi-square test show another finding: The two groups of students had significantly different opinions about only three aspects related to five tasks, which are indicated in Table 3. In this paper, only items that are significantly different in each category of task in both groups are examined. The reasons for the students' preferences are discussed with reference to how the tasks were actually carried out in class, to their frequencies as shown in Table 1, and also to the comments that the students made on the questionnaire. In Table 3, it can be found that, among the non-reflective tasks, students in the comparison groups found the teacher giving instructions (~2 = 7.396, df=2,
221
Reactions of S t u d e n t s to Reflective Learning TABLE 3
The Significant Differences in Opinions Between the Two Groups Items over which the opinions of the comparison group were significantly more positive ( < p =0.05) than those of the intervention group Task types Non-reflective
Tasks Teacher giving feedback Teacher student conference
Semi-reflective
Watching video programme
Reflective
Doing individual work Peer feedback
Interesting ff = 7.396 df= 2 ~ = 7.168 df= 2 X2= 6.606 dr=2 ~='= 11.791 df=2
Helpful
Easy
X2= 6.997 df=2 X2= 7.219 df=2 X2= 7.274 df=2
to them were deliberately cut to the minimum. They were expected instead to work out how to do things by themselves. One student commented on the questionnaire that the instructions were too brief. Similarly, they might not find teacher-student conferences as interesting as the comparison group because the comparison group was given more exposure to this kind of activity than the intervention group. Since they only had one experience of a short but fast-paced teacher-student conference due to the lack of time, the intervention group might not have developed enough feel for the task to be able to find it interesting. Among the semi-reflective tasks, the comparison group found watching video programmes more interesting (•2 = 6.606, df = 2,
222
B. Ho
answer from the teacher on questions related to audio-visual programmes that were not easy for them to understand might have been more welcome. Within the reflective category, one task worth discussing was doing individual work. The comparison group found doing individual work more interesting (;(2= 11.791, df=2,
Results from Taped Discussions The opinions expressed by the students in the discussions were similar to those reported on the questionnaires. Content analysis of the students' opinions, as expressed in the discussions, shows that both groups found the course helpful. The comparison group was happy with almost all kinds of tasks. The intervention group reported that they found reflection helpful but they did not like to do the planning and evaluative reflection sheets in writing because it was hard and boring work. They preferred reflections done through discussions in class. During the teacher-student conferences, stu-
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
225
dents were asked to express immediately their reactions to the tasks. It could be assumed, then, that these opinions represented the reasons that they had foremost in their minds. The data from the discussions support the findings of the questionnaire and help to bring out the focus of their concerns more clearly.
The Implications This study seems to suggest that, although students with experience of performing reflective tasks found them helpful and relevant, they did not like the planning and evaluative reflections at the metacognitive level. The reasons for their dislike seem to arise from the design of the tasks. One major obstacle that affected the design and implementation of the tasks was the constraints from the course and the institution. In this institution, teachers had to teach according to the syllabus and from the materials designed by the course designer. New elements could only be added to the existing course from which nothing could be deleted. Assignments and assessment had to be standardized across all classes or students would complain. Thus, all additional tasks in the intervention group had to be finished within class time, resulting in stress and hard work. The problem was further intensified since all classes were held in the afternoon when students were tired. Possible solutions to these problems can be examined in terms of pedagogy and course design.
In Terms of Pedagogy The findings of this study seem to suggest that, although students do not like reflective tasks at the metacognitive level, reflective tasks at the cognitive level are not unwelcome by either group. Reflective tasks that involve peer participation, such as group discussion, are especially popular. Students in both groups also seem to find most tasks, including reflective ones, helpful and relevant. This seems to suggest that it is worthwhile introducing reflective tasks to the students and that, when introduced more gradually, the reflective tasks will be better liked by students. The challenge is how to design and carry out these tasks. In the first place, sufficient reflective tasks must be given to the students so that they can get a full feel of the experience. Ample time must be given to the students to reflect during the implementation of the reflective tasks. Providing more chances for students to discuss in pairs or groups after reflecting by themselves may make the activity more interesting. To add to the interest of the students, reflection may be done through computer programmes particularly designed for this purpose. Another finding of the study seems to suggest that students find the tasks helpful and interesting when they are given close guidance. Even if the tasks are not directed by the teacher, they still wish to have some detailed guidance in the form of teaching materials. Students do not like to be given an
224
B. Ho
entirely free hand to discover things for themselves. This is understandable, especially in situations as in Hong Kong where students are trained to learn through direct transmission of knowledge from their teachers in secondary school. In such situations, it may be too demanding to ask students to break away abruptly from the learning method that has been expected of them for years. To help the students move away from teacher-dominated learning to more self-directed learning, the teacher can replace the "authority" with teaching materials and aids, that are in fact a "transparent teacher" who can do the job of the teacher. However, this is a more distanced way that pushes the students to the front line and encourages them to take up more responsibility for learning themselves. Once the students have become less dependent on their teacher, reflective learning will take place more easily and effectively. Organized reflection at the input-giving stage in the reflective learning model seems to be a good place to start introducing reflective tasks into a course. Different degrees of reflectivity can be introduced to the students through different ways of carrying out the tasks. The amount of reflectivity given to the students can be adjusted by the teacher according to their needs and reactions through a choice of input-giving methods. The amount can be gradually increased whenever the teacher thinks it appropriate by, for example, replacing teacher-directed tasks with material-gnided activities through self-discovery or peer-sharing methods. When reflective learning is first introduced to a class, it may be a good idea to start with reflective tasks at the cognitive level first and then extend the students' reflective capacity to the metacognitive level when appropriate.
In Terms of Course Design To implement this innovative approach more successfully, these activities must be seen as part of the overall curriculum. A comprehensive curriculum in which a whole range of interventions are systematically introduced and evaluated may need to be designed. These interventions may include asking students to reflect on course goals. Explicit instructions in a range of cognitive and communicative strategies, as well as opportunities for self-evaluation and for reflective journal keeping are desirable. It may also be a good idea to extend the course so that extra time can be given to students to carry out reflective tasks both inside and outside classes. To make such major changes in the curriculum, support is needed at the institutional and administrative levels. It is important to convince administrators, teachers and students of the value of reflective learning so that such a curriculum can be offered to all classes in the same year. Their support during the process of implementation would give students no cause for complaint, and the implementation of the reflective approach would not be thus hindered.
Reactions of Students to Reflective Learning
225
New Understanding about Learning The results of this study also seem to suggest that, when an innovation is to be introduced, contextual constraints comprise an important factor that cannot be ignored. Such constraints greatly affect the implementation of the innovation and thus the outcome of learning. After implementing the original reflective learning model in this course, the teacher-researcher modified the model slightly as shown in Fig. 3 to make it more realistic and applicable to wider contexts. The figure strikes a seemingly pessimistic note that the whole process of
i
..........
i
CONTEXT
! OVERALL EXPERIENCE I . ~ New Old
..
m
............ Meta- cognitive Level
i
i
r" i
iI
?
', EVALUATIVE ', REFLECTION
', on skills
i i
i i
t
i i
,,
i
i
', am
i i r
EXISTING EXPERIENCE
i
/
•
,..
~
Task completed ..
. . . . . .
t
i i
used
t-
' PLANNING ' REFLECTION , on how to do the , task
I
I
m
I- . . . . . . . .
Task given to Idone
/ Stage 3
m&mmm
he|
m
Cognitive
,'
Level
Stage 1 INPUT
APPLICATION
1
with different levels
', . of re_fle_ctivity_. . . . . _,'
(of skills to task)
- Materiai-guided * self-discovery * peer-sharing
X
Stage
~ ' ~ .
.
.
.
.
.
Material & teacher-guide, - T~'~ehm'-dir~.eted
2
{CON--"-CEPTUALIZATIONq .
;
i
/
;
F i g u r e 3. The Revised Reflective Learning Model
.
.
.
(1996).
.
.
.
.
•
226
B. Ho
reflective learning needs to be subsumed under the constraints of "context". In reality, however, it alerts innovators to this important factor which, if carefully considered in their pedagogical and curriculum design, will bring about greater success in their innovation. This awareness of "context" is important not only for ESP teachers but also for educators in disciplines beyond ESP and for contexts beyond the one discussed here.
The Limitations This study is only an initial attempt to explore the results of operationalizing concepts of reflective learning in an ESP classroom. As the sample size was small and the subjects were not randomly chosen, the results are not meant to be generalized to all computer students at this level. It is hoped that future empirical studies can be conducted to help generalize findings. However, the findings in this study definitely help to throw light on this unexplored area of reflective learning, especially when reflective learning is carried out with students in similar disciplines and in similar learning contexts. Insights into the importance of context in relation to an innovation are applicable to learning contexts in many disciplines and in many places.
Concluding Remarks It is hoped that the experience and results shared in this paper will give teachers and educators some insights into more effective ways of bringing about reflective learning, especially when this approach is introduced to students for the first time and when ESP courses are taught under institutional and curriculum-related constraints. The reflective learning model proposed in this paper may help solve problems involved in implementing such a learning approach; it may also be one step closer to the ultimate goal of helping students benefit from reflective learning. Finally, it is hoped that the experience and results described in this study will help innovators be more alert to the importance of the "context" factor when designing and implementing an innovation so that greater success of their innovation can be ensured. (Revised version received June 1996)
Acknowledgements--I would like to thank Dr Vijay Bhatia, Dr Paul Bruthiaxu, Prof. Chris Candlin, Dr Gall Schaefer Fu, Prof. David Nunan, Prof. Jack Richards and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
REFERENCES Borg, W., & Gall, M. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Reactions of Students to ReflectiveLearning
2 27
Boud, D., Keogh, & Walker, D. (1985a). What is reflection in learning? In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 7-17). New York: Nichols Publishing Company. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985b). Promoting reflection in learning a model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.) Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18-40). New York: Nichols Publishing Company. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. V. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell, & M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 77166). New York: Wiley. Further Education Curriculum and Development Unit. (1981). Experience, reflection, learning. London: Department of Education and Science, Further Education Unit. Ho, B. (1995, Jan.). Students' reactions to tasks designed with different levels of reflectivity in a technical report-writing course. Paper presented at Thai TESOL Fifteenth Annual Convention in Bangkok, Thailand. Houp, K. W., & PearsaU, T. E. (1984). Reporting technical information (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 14-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kolb, D. (1984). Experimental learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Main, A. (1985). Reflection and the development of learning skills. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D, Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 91-99). New York: Nichols. Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norusis, M. J. (1988). SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics V2.0 for the IBM PC/XT/AT & PS/2. Chicago: SPSS. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarvin, W., & A1-Arishi, A. (1991). Rethinking communicative language teaching: Reflection and the EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 927. Wenden, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 3-14). New York: Prentice Hall. Belinda Ho is Associate Professor in the Department of English at City University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include journal writing, reflective teaching, reflective learning, diary studies, writing and issues related to the teaching of EAP and ESP. She has publications in these areas.