W7000 Advanced Academic Study & Writing | Week 2.1
Teachin g in Highe r Education , Vol . 7, No . 3, 200 2
Re ectin g on Practice : usin g
learnin g journal s in highe r an d
continuin g educatio n
ARTHU R M. LANGE R
Teacher s College , Columbi a Universit y in th e Cit y of Ne w York , 20 3 Lewisoh n Hall ,
Mai l Cod e 4114 , 297 0 Broadway , Ne w York , NY 10027 , US A
A BSTRACT Th e purpos e of thi s stud y is to repor t on th e us e of learnin g journal s as vehicle s fo r
encouragin g critica l re ectio n amon g non-traditiona l student s an d to compar e variance s wit h
studie s amon g traditiona l students . An objectiv e of th e stud y wa s to understan d ho w adul t
student s in a ‘ technical ’ compute r clas s responde d to th e requiremen t fo r learnin g journals .
Qualitativ e researc h focuse d on whethe r learnin g journal s prov e to be an effectiv e teachin g too l
in science-based , adul t learning . Th e stud y wa s conducte d at Columbi a University ’ s Compute r
Technolog y programm e in Continuin g Education . Result s sugges t tha t non-traditiona l student s
ar e mor e skeptica l tha n traditiona l student s abou t usin g learnin g journal s an d mor e likel y to us e
the m as stud y tools . An implicatio n of thi s stud y is tha t studen t perceptio n an d skepticis m of th e
assignmen t ca n affec t th e objectiv e of developin g re ectiv e thinking . Thi s implicatio n stresse s th e
nee d to accoun t fo r studen t perceptio n in studie s on learnin g journal s an d critica l re ection .
Introduction
Th e us e of learnin g journal s as a metho d fo r engagin g traditiona l student s in critica l
re ectio n ha s bee n widel y discusse d in th e literature . However , thei r us e in assistin g
adul t non-traditiona l students , particularl y thos e wh o ar e engage d in profession-ori -
entate d educationa l programme s of continuin g highe r educatio n ha s receive d com -
parativel y littl e attention . Thi s pape r focuse s on th e questio n of ho w th e us e of
journal s impacte d th e learnin g proces s of adul t student s of th e latte r categor y an d
ho w thi s impac t compare d to tha t of student s of th e forme r category . Speci Ž cally ,
th e stud y focuse d on student s attendin g a compute r technolog y class . Th e class ,
Compute r Architecture , is a require d cours e in an 18-mont h compute r technolog y
certi Ž catio n programm e at Columbi a University . Th e course s in thi s certi Ž catio n
programm e ar e designe d fo r adul t student s intereste d in changin g thei r careers . Th e
curriculu m focuse s on real-worl d topic s tha t ar e essentia l to th e effectiv e technolog y
practitione r in th e workplace . Th e instructo r fo r th e cours e require d th e submissio n
of a weekl y learnin g journa l fro m eac h studen t durin g th e 15-wee k course . Student s
wer e aske d to be re ectiv e abou t ne w caree r opportunitie s an d ho w to appl y
technolog y to th e workplace .
ISS N 1356-251 7 (print) /ISS N 1470-129 4 (online) / 02 /030337-1 5 Ó 200 2 Taylo r & Franci s Lt d
DOI : 10.1080 /1356251022014482 4 338 A. M. Langer
Fo r th e purpose s of th e study , a selec t numbe r of journal s wer e reviewe d fro m
thre e successiv e semester s of th e sam e class ; eac h ha d ove r 10 0 students . Sub -
sequen t to th e class , student s wer e interviewe d to provid e furthe r elucidatio n of th e
dat a supplie d in th e journals . Th e purpos e of th e stud y wa s to understan d th e
immediat e an d extende d impac t of journal s as a learnin g too l fo r workin g wit h adul t
students , an d fo r promotin g critica l re ection . Th e Ž nding s of thi s stud y rais e
question s abou t th e pedagogica l assumption , expresse d in th e literature , tha t jour -
nal s provid e a too l fo r learnin g (e.g . DeAcosta , 1995 ) an d tha t critica l re ectio n ca n
be assesse d in studen t journal s independentl y of non-re ectiv e consideration s or
factor s (i.e . Kembe r et al. , 1999) . An implicatio n tha t follow s fro m thi s stud y
stresse s th e nee d to chec k theoretica l frameworks , buil t aroun d suc h pedagogica l
assumptions , agains t actua l studen t responses : in thi s case , agains t th e impac t of th e
journal-writin g requirement .
Th e Concep t of Re ectio n in Learnin g
Th e us e of journal s as a learnin g too l in th e developmen t of critica l re ectio n pose s
a basi c questio n abou t th e rol e of re ectio n in learning . Re ectio n ha s receive d a
numbe r of de Ž nition s fro m differen t source s in th e literature . Dependin g on th e
emphasi s on theor y or practice , literatur e de Ž nition s var y fro m philosophica l articu -
lation , as in Joh n Dewe y an d Jurge n Habermas , to formulation s fro m practice-base d
perspectives , suc h as th e research-in-actio n construct s develope d by Sch o¨ n (1983),
or Kolb ’ s (1984 ) us e of re ectio n in th e experientia l learnin g cycle . Wit h speci Ž c
respec t to teache r training , Morriso n (1996 ) referre d to re ectio n as a ‘ conceptua l
an d methodologica l portmanteau ’ . Accordin g to Morrison , th e manne r in whic h
re ectio n is commonl y use d ha s shuttle d betwee n th e proces s of learnin g an d th e
representatio n of tha t learning .
Wit h respec t to th e proces s of learning , Moo n (2000 ) suggeste d tha t individual s
re ec t on somethin g in orde r to conside r it in mor e detail . Dewe y (1933 ) an d
Hull Ž sh & Smit h (1978 ) suggeste d tha t th e us e of re ectio n support s an implie d
purpose : individual s re ec t fo r a purpos e tha t lead s to th e processin g of a usefu l
outcome . Wit h respec t to th e rol e of re ectio n in learning , therefore , abilit y an d
proces s ar e als o individual . Whil e man y peopl e re ect , it is in bein g re ectiv e tha t
peopl e brin g abou t ‘ an orientatio n to thei r everyda y lives . Fo r other s re ectio n
come s abou t whe n condition s in th e learnin g environmen t ar e appropriate ’ (Moon ,
2000 , p. 186) . Engenderin g th e appropriat e learnin g environmen t is th e pedagogica l
task . Journa l writin g represent s a forma l too l fo r developin g re ectiv e thinking .
Holl y (1989 ) referre d to th e metacognitiv e effec t of journa l writing , an d it s abilit y to
enabl e self-enquir y an d facilitat e critica l consciousness . Indeed , th e literatur e offer s
evidenc e tha t students , regardles s of th e cours e topic , improv e thei r learnin g by
keepin g journals . Abba s & Gilme r (1997 ) explore d th e us e of learnin g journal s as an
interactio n betwee n studen t an d instructor , designe d to stimulat e activ e learning .
Thei r researc h promote d th e rol e of th e instructo r as activ e facilitato r in th e
journal-writin g process . Taggar t & Wilso n (1998 ) expande d thi s concep t by suggest -
in g strategie s to enhanc e a student ’ s re ectiv e capabilitie s whil e writin g journals . Re ectin g on Practic e 339
Verifyin g re ectiv e thinkin g in journa l writin g becam e th e subsequen t questio n to
consider , on e take n up by Kembe r et al. (1999) . Thei r stud y adapte d Mezirow ’ s
(1991 ) categorisatio n schem e fo r codifyin g evidenc e of re ectiv e thinkin g in journa l
writing . Th e curren t stud y engages , directl y an d by implication , som e of th e
above-mentione d pedagogica l practice s an d assumption s surroundin g critica l
re ectio n an d it s relatio n to th e us e of learnin g journals .
Th e Us e of Learnin g Journal s
Thi s sectio n provide s an analysi s of th e existin g literatur e on learnin g journal s in
highe r educatio n an d summarise s commo n theme s abou t thei r us e as learnin g tools .
Thi s sectio n als o focuse s on th e thre e majo r area s of researc h on learnin g journal s
tha t for m a basi s fo r th e curren t study . The y are :
· th e valu e tha t journal s brin g to th e studen t learnin g proces s an d th e concer n fo r
ho w journal s ca n be use d by instructor s to facilitat e studen t cognitiv e develop -
men t in th e Ž eld s of science , engineering , an d mathematics ;
· learnin g journal s an d th e transitio n fro m theor y to practice ;
· th e variou s type s of learnin g journal s tha t hav e bee n use d to facilitat e critica l
re ectio n in studen t learning .
Th e Valu e of Learnin g Journal s in Science , Engineerin g an d Mathematic s
A revie w of ho w learnin g journal s hav e bee n applie d in th e Ž eld s of science ,
engineering , an d mathematic s is importan t in th e contex t of th e curren t stud y in a
compute r technolog y curriculum . Thi s grou p of Ž eld s ma y not , at Ž rst , appea r to
provid e an applicabl e environmen t to suppor t journa l writin g becaus e of it s special -
ize d se t of knowledg e criteria : knowledg e base d on axiom s an d demonstrabl e proof .
However , Moo n (2000 ) suggeste d tha t whil e ther e ar e relativel y fe w account s in th e
literature , ther e ar e clea r indication s of th e manne r in whic h learnin g journal s hav e
bee n use d to facilitat e learnin g in thes e disciplines . Fo r example , in th e Ž el d of
scienc e researc h it ha s bee n show n tha t learnin g journal s forc e student s to replicat e
idea s an d fact s (Powell , 1997 ; Chatel , 1997 ; Meese , 1987) . Harmelin k (1998 ) foun d
tha t scienc e student s wh o kep t journal s improve d thei r learnin g an d communicatio n
skills . Perhap s th e mos t signi Ž can t research , don e by Self e et al. (1986) , ha s bee n on
th e questio n of ho w journa l writin g assiste d mathematic s students . Thei r stud y
showe d tha t whil e learnin g journal s di d no t necessaril y assis t student s wit h earnin g
highe r grade s on tests , journal s di d assis t student s in developin g abstrac t thinkin g
tha t in tur n allowe d the m to bette r conceptualis e th e meanin g of technica l
de Ž nitions . In addition , student s appeare d to develo p bette r strategie s in proble m
solvin g throug h writin g as compare d to jus t memorisin g calculations . Thei r Ž nding s
ar e furthe r supporte d by researc h fro m BeMille r (1987) . Self e & Arbab i (1986 )
studie d response s to journa l writin g amon g physic s students , requirin g the m to writ e
at leas t on e pag e eac h wee k on thei r experiments . Althoug h mos t student s initiall y
responde d negativel y to th e exercise , 90 % of the m eventuall y admitte d tha t th e 340 A. M. Langer
journal s helpe d the m clarif y thei r idea s an d thoughts . Grumbache r (1987 ) examine d
physic s student s an d foun d tha t throug h th e us e of journal s the y wer e bette r abl e to
synthesis e thei r knowledge , an d re ec t upo n it s impac t on thei r learnin g an d
persona l experiences . Signi Ž cantly , an d corroborate d by th e curren t study , th e
researc h on learnin g journal s in thes e ‘ technical ’ discipline s appear s als o to sugges t
tha t student s do no t initiall y understan d ho w an d wh y journal s ca n hel p them . Thi s
suggestio n wa s especiall y eviden t in th e initiall y negativ e response s tha t student s
reporte d in th e Self e an d Arbab i study .
Learnin g Journal s an d th e Transitio n fro m Theor y to Practic e
Thi s sectio n focuse s on ho w learnin g journal s ca n be use d to relat e classroo m theor y
to situation s of practic e outsid e th e classroom . Th e importanc e of movin g fro m
theor y to practic e is relevan t to th e curren t stud y in tha t it s subject s ar e adul t
student s seekin g ne w careers . Indeed , th e proces s of takin g materia l learne d in th e
classroo m an d understandin g it s applicatio n in th e workplac e is signi Ž can t fo r
studen t succes s in thei r ne w careers .
Dart et al. (1998 ) conducte d a stud y on ho w graduat e teacher s in trainin g use d
journal s to relat e theor y to practice . Thes e researcher s foun d tha t student s wer e
bette r abl e to lin k theor y to practic e an d vic e vers a in th e latte r part s of th e course ,
thu s supportin g thei r clai m tha t th e us e of journal s provide d a ne w metho d of
learnin g an d re ection . In th e Ž el d of nursing , John s (1994 ) discusse s ‘ in uencin g
factors ’ in re ectiv e writin g an d ho w the y ca n guid e learnin g fro m experience . Heat h
(1998 ) use d ‘ doubl e entry ’ journals , whic h requir e secondar y (subsequent )
re ectio n on initia l entries , to provid e guidanc e fo r student s in understandin g ho w
to lin k theor y to practic e an d bac k to theory . Morriso n (1996 ) base d hi s researc h on
Scho ¨ n’ s (1983 ) concept s of ‘ re ection-in-action ’ an d ‘ re ection-on-action ’ ; lik e
Heath , he pose d question s to student s tha t require d the m to conside r relationship s
amon g personal , academic , an d professiona l activities , thu s expandin g thei r visio n
an d developin g re ectiv e activity .
Als o linke d to adul t educatio n theor y is th e challeng e tha t learner s fac e whe n
attemptin g to overcom e thei r biase s (Mezirow , 1990) ; Raine r (1978 ) use d journa l
activitie s to enhanc e a sens e of perspectiv e tha t ove r tim e affecte d studen t attitude s
an d behavior . Wit h respec t to persona l experience , a usefu l sectio n in a journa l ca n
be th e ‘ perio d log ’ , in whic h a perio d of lif e is reviewe d an d a commo n them e or
directio n is considered .
Type s of Learnin g Journal s
Journal s ca n be create d in differen t shapes , size s an d forms . However , whethe r a
journa l is recorde d in an audio , vide o or wor d processin g medium , th e signi Ž can t
organizin g concep t is in it s desig n an d structure . Liste d belo w ar e thre e type s an d
format s tha t hav e bee n used .
An unstructured journa l allow s student s to produc e thei r ow n format . Usin g thei r
ow n design , student s ten d to us e a fre e writin g format , ope n to a rang e of conten t Re ectin g on Practic e 341
an d structur e of design . Unstructure d journal s ofte n resembl e a diar y format .
Unfortunately , th e unstructure d natur e of thi s typ e of journa l make s it dif Ž cul t to
compar e wit h othe r format s use d by student s in th e sam e class , an d thu s make s it
dif Ž cul t to ascertai n ho w student s ar e re ectin g an d learnin g as a group .
A structured journa l carrie s an impose d for m of constrain t regardin g th e manne r
in whic h it is written . It s purpos e is to bene Ž t bot h instructo r an d student . Th e
instructo r obtain s valu e by receivin g informatio n in a speci Ž c forma t or rang e of
formats . Thi s allow s th e instructo r to compar e studen t response s an d re ection s an d
obtai n feedbac k on speci Ž c discussion s an d lectures . Students , fo r thei r part , ar e
abl e to follo w a template , whic h serve s to provid e guidanc e to student s on approach -
in g an d developin g journal s (Johns , 1994) .
Th e developmen t of dialogue journals , whic h ca n be use d methodologicall y to
trai n studen t expressio n an d re ection , wa s explore d by Garmo n (1998 ) an d Peyto n
(1993) . Peyton ’ s mode l resemble d a mentor / mente e relationshi p requirin g a consist -
en t one-on-on e interfac e an d a dialogu e journa l as th e vehicl e fo r communication .
Staton et al. (1988 ) de Ž ne d dialogu e journal s as a metho d to encourag e th e
exchang e an d developmen t of idea s betwee n tw o or mor e writers . Lukinsk y (1990 )
provide d guidanc e to instructor s on th e developmen t an d us e of differen t type s of
learnin g journals , an d discusse d th e bene Ž ts of eac h typ e fo r th e distinc t purpos e of
increasin g re ectiv e capacit y in studen t writing . Thus , th e literatur e suggest s tha t
student s bene Ž t mor e fro m th e guidanc e an d forma l instructio n of a teache r in
developin g self-re ectiv e critica l thinkin g tha n withou t thi s guidance .
In summary , th e existin g literatur e on th e us e of learnin g journal s in highe r
educatio n indicate s tha t it ca n be an effectiv e learnin g instrument . Student s initiall y
ten d to Ž nd th e us e of journal s uncomfortabl e or hav e dif Ž cult y understandin g wh y
it is bein g requested . Ther e is evidenc e tha t th e us e of learnin g journal s facilitate s
critica l re ection , particularl y as it assist s student s in conceptualisin g abstrac t
meanin g an d relatin g it to practice . Researc h on th e us e of learnin g journal s in
technolog y Ž eld s in highe r educatio n amon g non-traditiona l students , however , is
lacking.
Researc h Method s
A revie w of th e literatur e on learnin g journal s fo r student s in highe r education , as
summarise d above , provide s theoretica l an d contextua l groundin g fo r th e curren t
stud y an d inform s it s tw o principl e mode s of inquiry :
· an evaluativ e revie w of th e learnin g journal s submitte d by students ; an d
· an intervie w of selecte d student s wh o complete d th e course .
Revie w of Learnin g Journal s Submitte d by Student s
Student s wer e require d to submi t learnin g journal s eac h wee k referencin g th e prio r
week ’ s lecture . Th e forma t use d varie d fro m studen t to student ; however , th e
instructo r provide d sampl e format s so tha t student s woul d receiv e guidanc e on wha t 342 A. M. Langer
a journa l coul d loo k like . Student s wer e require d to submi t tw o copie s of thei r
journals : on e cop y wa s returne d to th e studen t th e followin g wee k wit h comment s
fro m th e instructor ; th e secon d cop y wa s kep t fo r analysis . Thus , th e instructo r use d
a dialogu e journa l forma t to facilitat e critica l re ection . Learnin g journal s fro m 20
student s wer e selecte d fo r study . Ther e wer e thre e component s to th e selectio n
process:
· equa l representatio n by studen t gender ;
· 10 student s fro m eac h of th e tw o session s of th e course ;
· an equa l distributio n of student s fro m th e thre e differen t department s of stud y
(o r stud y major) .
Th e actua l selectio n wa s mad e by sequentiall y selectin g ever y tent h studen t in
alphabetica l orde r by las t name . Journal s wer e Ž le d in sequentia l orde r by las t name .
If th e gende r an d stud y majo r wer e no t equall y represented , the n th e researche r
continue d th e cycl e of selectio n by startin g wit h th e secon d Ž le Ž rs t an d reviewin g
ever y thir d folder . Thi s proces s wa s continue d unti l th e sampl e selectio n wa s
satis Ž ed . Eac h studen t se t of learnin g journal s consiste d of up to 15 journals , or
on e fo r eac h clas s session . Therefore , up to 30 0 physica l learnin g journal s wer e
read.
Thre e researcher s rea d eac h studen t se t of learnin g journal s in th e sampl e wit h
th e ai m of identifyin g informatio n abou t th e content , formattin g styl e an d subjec t
matte r the y contained . Researcher s als o rea d fo r indication s of critica l re ection .
Th e revie w focuse d on th e overal l valu e tha t th e studen t reporte d fro m th e lectures .
Note s fro m thi s revie w wer e the n summarised . Commo n theme s an d concern s wer e
extracte d so tha t question s coul d be develope d fo r an intervie w guid e (Appendi x I) ,
whic h wa s use d wit h a selec t numbe r of student s wh o ha d complete d th e course .
Interview s wit h Selecte d Student s
Tw o researcher s solicite d 10 studen t volunteer s to be interviewe d 6 month s afte r
completin g th e course . Thei r objectiv e wa s to gai n an understandin g of studen t
perception s of th e journal-writin g assignmen t an d of th e extende d effect s of learnin g
journal s on students . Thes e student s wer e approache d durin g a subsequen t cours e
in th e curriculu m in whic h th e instructo r announce d tha t volunteer s wer e bein g
sought . Th e volunteer s signe d a consen t for m agreein g tha t thei r intervie w dat a
woul d be use d fo r researc h purpose s an d reporte d in aggregat e only . Fou r of th e 10
student s wer e male .
Th e intervie w guid e (Appendi x I) wa s develope d to facilitat e organisation ,
consistenc y an d coverag e of th e question s
—
objective s discusse d in Patto n (1990) .
Thi s intervie w guid e wa s no t supplie d to interviewees ; it wa s use d by tw o researcher s
as a checklis t to ensur e tha t interview s touche d on relevan t topics . Eac h intervie w
laste d approximatel y 30 minutes . Whil e th e interviewee s di d no t receiv e a cop y of
th e questions , th e researcher s initiall y provide d the m wit h an ide a of th e topic s tha t
wer e th e focu s of th e study . Re ectin g on Practic e 343
Result s of th e Stud y
Thi s sectio n present s th e result s of th e stud y in term s of an analysis , an d tw o
summarie s of dat a collecte d fro m th e journal s an d interviews ; it compare s th e dat a
to relate d literatur e on th e us e of learnin g journal s in highe r education .
Learnin g Journa l Analysi s
Whil e student s wer e encourage d to be creativ e in formattin g journals , 90 % of th e
journal s appeare d in th e forma t provide d as a sampl e wit h th e syllabus . Thi s
outcom e suggest s tha t in spit e of th e encouragemen t towar d independen t format -
ting , student s wer e concerne d wit h usin g a forma t tha t appeare d to be preferre d by
th e teacher . Possibl e reason s fo r thi s typ e of response , accordin g to Kerk a (1996) ,
includ e th e following : ‘ lac k of pro Ž cienc y wit h re ectiv e writing , fea r resultin g fro m
open-ende d writin g requirements , privac y issues , an d unequa l balanc e of powe r
betwee n teache r an d students ’ . Fishe r (1996 ) an d Abba s & Gilme r (1997 ) als o cite d
concern s relate d to thi s typ e of studen t response . The y considere d th e student –
teache r interactio n throug h variou s interpretiv e concepts : e.g . as challenges , bond s
or ‘ non-threatening ’ mode s of learnin g encountere d an d encourage d throug h th e us e
of journals . Thi s respons e ca n als o be cite d as an instanc e in whic h th e opportunit y
fo r self-re ectiv e respons e
—
in th e matte r of formattin g
—
wa s bypasse d in favou r of
followin g a give n model .
Secondly , wit h respec t to content , 55 % of th e student s submitte d journal s tha t
seeme d to becom e mor e self-re ectiv e in th e latte r par t of th e course . Th e criterio n
fo r self-re ectio n wa s base d on writte n indicatio n abou t ho w th e studen t assesse d
conten t fro m clas s lecture s in relatio n to thei r wor k or thei r experience s in life . Fo r
example , on e studen t concluded : ‘ I retur n to wor k th e nex t da y feelin g empowere d
an d muc h mor e knowledgeable . I thin k abou t wha t I ha d know n instinctivel y befor e
th e clas s [which ] is no w backe d up wit h concret e knowledg e an d ho w muc h mor e
I nee d to lear n if I wis h to sta y in thi s Ž eld ’ . Th e increas e in self-re ection , note d
as an increas e in th e frequenc y of suc h assessments , whil e moderate , coul d be
attribute d to tw o intervenin g factors . First , th e instructo r provide d weekl y writte n
feedbac k on th e journals , ofte n encouragin g student s to discus s ho w the y relat e th e
lecture s to othe r area s of interest . Thus , student s wer e prompte d to be mor e
re ective . Thi s interactiv e dimensio n of th e writin g proces s compare s to th e functio n
and , hence , bene Ž ts , of th e dialo g journa l describe d in Peyto n (1993) . Garmo n
(1998 ) speci Ž call y identi Ž es th e dialo g journa l as a too l tha t promote s re ection .
Th e curren t stud y add s th e dialogi c dimensio n to th e tw o genera l claim s tha t
learnin g journal s facilitat e interactio n betwee n student s an d instructo r (Abba s &
Gilmer , 1998 ) an d encourag e re ectio n (Kerka , 1996) .
A secon d facto r contributin g to th e incrementa l developmen t of critica l though t
durin g th e latte r par t of th e cours e ma y be th e natura l progressio n of cumulativ e
experienc e an d practice . Indeed , les s tha n 5% of th e student s admitte d havin g
previou s experienc e wit h learnin g journals . Th e implicatio n fro m thes e fact s sup -
port s De Acosta ’ s (1995 ) clai m tha t studen t journal s provid e opportunitie s fo r 344 A. M. Langer
student s to lear n how to re ect . Othe r researcher s hav e identi Ž ed th e us e of journal s
as a techniqu e fo r enhancing re ectiv e thinkin g an d facilitatin g self-discover y (Tag -
gar t & Wilson , 1998 ; Fisher , 1996) . Th e remainin g 45 % of student s submitte d
journal s tha t di d no t demonstrat e an incrementa l developmen t in critica l re ection .
Thi s comparativ e lac k suggest s unwillingnes s or inabilit y to explor e th e materia l in
way s extendin g outsid e it s technica l content . Th e literatur e provide s a numbe r of
reason s wh y student s migh t Ž nd journa l writin g challengin g an d dif Ž cult . Franci s
(1995 ) foun d tha t som e student s resis t becaus e the y canno t se e relevanc e in th e
exercis e of writin g journal s to thei r curren t interests . Othe r student s fee l re ectio n
is overemphasize d (Jame s & Denley , 1993) . Cannin g (1991 ) reporte d tha t som e
student s hav e stud y habit s tha t le t task s buil d up ove r tim e unti l deliver y or
examinatio n is necessary . Suc h habit s ar e at odd s wit h incrementa l progression s of
learnin g possibl e throug h weekl y journa l writing .
Twenty- Ž ve pe r cen t of th e journal s addresse d question s to th e instructor .
Thes e question s typicall y requeste d clari Ž catio n of an issu e discusse d in clas s or
covere d in assigne d readings . Th e relativ e lac k of question s coul d be attribute d to a
numbe r of factors , som e relatin g to thos e introduce d by Kerk a (1996) , cite d above .
On e facto r coul d be tha t student s fel t uncomfortabl e wit h submittin g writte n
question s to thei r instructor . Anothe r migh t be relate d to stigmatisatio n associate d
wit h submitting , in essence , writte n evidenc e of a student ’ s limite d comprehension :
a privac y issue . In othe r instances , th e proble m become s mor e signi Ž can t fo r
student s wh o com e fro m culture s tha t de Ž ne thi s interrogativ e typ e of communi -
catio n as inappropriat e or disrespectfu l to th e teacher . Furthermore , student s migh t
fee l mor e comfortabl e wit h simpl y askin g question s in class , whic h to the m migh t
resul t in a bette r an d mor e immediat e response . Finally , student s migh t fee l
incapabl e of articulatin g a technica l questio n in a forma t wit h whic h the y ar e
otherwis e comfortable ; i.e . the y ma y hav e a limite d abilit y to articulat e question s in
writing.
Summar y of th e Interview s
Researcher s followe d th e intervie w guid e in eac h of th e 10 sessions . Th e demo -
graphic s of th e 10 student s ar e show n in Tabl e 1.
Result s fro m th e intervie w allowe d researcher s to furthe r asses s th e signi Ž canc e
an d relativ e successe s of th e studen t journals . Thei r heterogeneou s response s ar e
summarise d unde r th e questio n heading s tha t follow .
1. Wha t wa s you r initia l reactio n to bein g require d to us e a learnin g journal ? Students’
initia l reaction s wer e mixed , an d sometime s prejudicia l towar d journa l writing . On e
studen t fel t ‘ insulte d at Ž rs t to be require d to us e somethin g tha t seeme d bette r
suite d fo r children ’ . Anothe r studen t wa s no t upset , bu t ha d reservation s abou t ho w
to do a journa l an d ‘ whethe r ther e wa s enoug h informatio n to Ž ll-u p th e journal ’ .
Ye t on e studen t wa s gla d an d fel t comfortabl e writin g th e journals . Re ectin g on Practic e 345
T ABLE I. Demographic s of th e 10 student s
Gender Race Curren t professio n Columbi a Majo r
Male Caucasian Sales Informatio n system s
Male Caucasian Finance Informatio n system s
Male Africa n America n Bankin g Informatio n system s
Male Asian Manufacturing Database
Femal e Asia n (Indian ) Advertising Database
Femal e Africa n America n Clerica l Informatio n system s
Femal e Caucasia n Teacher Informatio n system s
Femal e Latin o Sales Informatio n system s
Femal e Caucasia n Graphi c artis t Informatio n system s
Femal e Caucasia n Law Informatio n system s
2. Ho w di d yo u us e th e learnin g journal s durin g th e course ? Student s use d journal s as
transcripts ; tha t is , the y use d the m to verif y thei r understandin g of materia l tha t wa s
discusse d in clas s an d in readings . Tw o student s use d th e journa l as a wa y of
studyin g fo r exam s an d by usin g the m as the y woul d sessio n handout s (whic h wer e
no t supplie d to th e clas s by th e instructor) . Fou r student s use d th e journal s as a
mean s of balancin g thei r learnin g styl e wit h th e instructor ’ s styl e of teaching . In thi s
case , th e teacher ’ s lectur e styl e wa s note d as bein g ‘ at odd s wit h th e wa y I preferre d
to learn ’ . Th e learnin g journal , therefore , allowe d thi s studen t to mediat e th e
teacher ’ s styl e int o a for m tha t facilitate d a knowledg e transfer .
3. Wha t wer e th e bene Ž ts of doin g learnin g journals ? Student s responde d tha t knowl -
edg e transfe r wa s th e mos t bene Ž cia l aspec t of thei r learnin g journals . Th e proces s
of havin g to articulat e in writin g th e meaning s of technica l term s wa s reporte d as a
particularl y effectiv e learnin g experience . Si x student s fel t tha t a ke y bene Ž t to usin g
journal s wa s tha t it force d a disciplin e on the m to revie w clas s discussion . On e
studen t stated : ‘ it force d me to do th e work , an d I di d no t hav e to red o my notes ;
it simpl y wa s a grea t stud y device ’ . Student s sa w th e bene Ž ts of th e learnin g journa l
as a vehicl e to con Ž rm thei r understandin g of th e material .
4. Wha t wer e th e downside s or disadvantage s of usin g learnin g journals ? Students
unanimousl y fel t tha t th e tim e requiremen t to do journal s wa s th e bigges t disadvan -
tag e of usin g them . Student s als o state d tha t thei r lac k of experienc e wit h usin g
learnin g journal s delaye d it s effectivenes s as a learnin g tool . In essence , th e proces s
of learnin g ho w to bes t writ e an d us e journal s wa s an initia l impedimen t tha t wa s
perceive d as waste d time . Fiv e student s foun d tha t producin g learnin g journal s on
a weekl y basi s wa s dif Ž cul t an d unnecessary . Thes e student s preferre d to summaris e
thei r learnin g accordin g to subjec t section s as oppose d to a perceive d arti Ž cia l cutof f
impose d by a clas s schedule . Finally , on e studen t state d tha t hand-writte n note s
wer e jus t as effectiv e in learnin g as submittin g a journa l in a type d an d forma l
presentation . Hand-writte n learnin g journals , accordin g to thi s student , ar e mor e
natural , challeng e student s to tak e bette r note s an d ar e muc h mor e tim e ef Ž cient . 346 A. M. Langer
5. Di d producin g learnin g journal s chang e you r learnin g process ? On e studen t fel t tha t
th e journal s helpe d hi m to perfor m bette r academically . Anothe r suggeste d tha t th e
proces s helpe d he r understan d th e ‘ real-world ’ aspect s of th e cours e material . Sh e
stated : ‘ it als o mad e me mor e critica l of th e materia l as wel l as my instructor ’ .
Anothe r studen t fel t tha t th e experienc e of usin g journal s ha d a permanen t impac t
on hi m professionally . Speci Ž cally , th e journal s hav e instille d goo d habit s in takin g
note s durin g professiona l meeting s an d conversations .
6. Hav e yo u continue d usin g learnin g journal s in othe r course s or in othe r situations ? Five
of th e 10 student s continu e to us e journal s in othe r classe s eve n thoug h the y ar e no t
require d to do so . Thre e student s state d that , whil e the y di d no t ‘ journalize ’ thei r
notes , th e experienc e of usin g learnin g journal s ha d signi Ž cantl y improve d thei r not e
takin g abilities . Non e of th e student s complaine d tha t othe r instructor s di d no t
collec t an d respon d to th e journals . Thi s continue d practic e suggest s tha t th e
journal s hav e valu e to thes e student s notwithstandin g an y collaboratio n wit h an
instructor.
7. Do yo u thin k tha t learnin g journal s ca n be use d fo r al l type s of courses ? All of the
student s fel t tha t learnin g journal s wer e no t fo r ever y course . The y speci Ž call y state d
tha t course s hel d in compute r laboratorie s woul d no t be conduciv e to journa l
writing . It appear s fro m th e response s tha t learnin g journal s ar e bette r suite d fo r
lectur e an d discussio n classe s as oppose d to hands-o n compute r applicatio n courses .
8. Di d yo u us e th e learnin g journa l as a wa y of collaboratin g wit h you r instructor ?
Student s use d thei r learnin g journal s to as k question s of th e instructo r or to sugges t
tha t th e instructo r revie w certai n topics . Th e student s di d no t us e th e journal s to
communicat e or explor e concept s wit h th e instructo r or to questio n hi s approache s
to th e clas s syllabus . Thus , collaboratio n wa s simpli Ž ed an d limite d to a forma l
questio n an d answe r format .
9. Di d th e journal s assis t in critica l re ection ? Student s wer e puzzle d by th e concep t of
critica l re ectio n an d struggle d wit h wh y it woul d be importan t in journa l writing .
Afte r th e concep t of critica l re ectio n ha d bee n explained , student s stil l fel t tha t
ther e wa s no t enoug h tim e to delv e int o a self-analysi s or re ectiv e process . Student s
showe d an interes t in th e concept , bu t no t an understandin g of ho w to approac h
doing it.
Summar y of Commo n Theme s
Severa l commo n theme s emerge d fro m a revie w of th e journa l reading s an d
intervie w responses .
· Student s ha d initia l concern s abou t thei r abilit y to handl e th e journal . Writin g
journal s cause d ove r hal f th e student s in th e sampl e to fee l anxiety , especiall y
thos e wh o wer e comin g bac k to schoo l afte r a lon g absence . Re ectin g on Practic e 347
· Som e student s initiall y fel t insulte d by th e requiremen t to produc e learnin g
journals . The y fel t tha t journal s wer e bette r suite d fo r childre n tha n fo r adults .
· Student s hav e dif Ž cult y designin g thei r ow n presentatio n formats ; the y nee d
guidanc e in th e forma t of th e learnin g journal . Les s tha n 5% of th e student s ha d
prio r experienc e wit h producin g journals .
· Student s use d th e journal s mainl y to lis t an d summaris e materia l covere d in
class , rathe r tha n as vehicle s of communicatio n wit h th e instructor .
· Onl y 50 % of th e journal s wer e submitte d on a weekl y basis . Thi s statisti c
suggest s tha t it is dif Ž cul t fo r adul t student s to tak e th e tim e or disciplin e to
complet e journal s weekly .
· Th e us e of learnin g journal s ma y no t be fo r al l type s of classes , speci Ž call y thos e
tha t requir e hands-o n laborator y work .
· Student s ma y no t understan d th e concep t of critica l re ection . Instructor s nee d
to teac h ke y concept s befor e expectin g student s to understan d th e valu e of
learnin g journal s an d ho w to us e them .
Implications : factorin g studen t perception s
Th e literatur e revie w in th e precedin g sectio n reveal s th e prevailin g assumptio n tha t
studen t journal s ca n provid e an opportunit y fo r expressio n an d developmen t of
critica l re ection . (Othe r interpretiv e concept s propose d an d examine d in th e
literatur e includ e promoting , prompting , facilitatin g an d enhancin g critica l
re ection. ) Thi s terminolog y underscore s th e basi c pedagogica l assumptio n tha t
continue s to warran t th e assignmen t of learnin g journal s in adul t colleg e course s
today . Th e assumption , justi Ž abl e or not , motivate s th e administratio n of th e journa l
assignment ; tha t is to say , it fall s properl y withi n th e instructor ’ s domai n of
assumptions . It inform s th e instructor ’ s perceptio n (expectations , valu e an d utility )
of th e journa l assignment . Th e goa l of promotin g critica l re ectio n throug h th e us e
of studen t journal s is base d on th e perceptio n of wha t th e journa l assignmen t ca n
accomplish : tha t it ca n provid e th e opportunit y fo r exercisin g critica l thinking .
Unfactore d int o thi s unilaterall y motivate d assignment , however , is an awarenes s or
appreciatio n of th e student ’ s domai n of assumptions : ho w studen t goals , expecta -
tions , an d perception s of th e sam e assignmen t ca n impac t th e pedagogica l goa l of
achievin g critica l re ection .
Kember et al. (1999 ) propose d tha t th e succes s of studen t journal s in producin g
re ectiv e thinkin g is to be determine d by assessin g whethe r re ectiv e thinkin g ca n be
identi Ž ed in th e journal s themselves . Whil e thei r propose d mode l is usefu l in ver y
speci Ž c ways , it remain s a unilatera l projec t tha t is unconcerned , by schemati c
design , wit h takin g int o accoun t th e student ’ s perceptio n of th e assignmen t itself :
ho w student s respond to th e requiremen t of suc h an assignment , an d thei r sens e of
it s practica l utilit y an d educationa l worth . In fact , if thes e type s of concern s wer e to
be identi Ž ed in a studen t journal , accordin g to th e mode l of Kembe r et al. , they
woul d mos t likel y be code d as introspectiv e
—
a non-re ectiv e activity . Th e curren t
researc h investigate d severa l aspect s of thi s introspectiv e activit y to bette r under -
stan d studen t receptio n an d perceptio n of th e journa l assignmen t in term s of it s 348 A. M. Langer
practicalit y an d value . Th e result s of thi s stud y demonstrat e severa l way s in whic h
studen t reception / perceptio n of th e learnin g journa l assignmen t ca n impac t th e
practica l outcom e of an assignmen t whos e purpos e is to promot e re ectiv e thinking .
An implicatio n suggeste d by th e Ž nding s of thi s stud y poin t to an inextricabilit y
betwee n re ectiv e an d affectiv e dimension s in th e proces s of developin g critica l
re ectio n throug h th e us e of studen t journals .
The Kember et al. mode l represent s an attemp t to develo p an objectiv e metho d
fo r testin g re ectiv e thinking . Th e questio n ma y be raised , however , whethe r th e
attemp t to formalis e suc h an objectiv e metho d is appropriat e to th e testin g of a
phenomeno n tha t involve s an d derive s fro m an interactiv e relationship between the
teste r an d th e teste e
—
whethe r th e testor , a facto r by virtu e of bein g a reader ,
assigne r an d grade r in th e cours e of th e journa l writin g process , ca n be objectivel y
factore d ou t of an analysi s of wha t is essentiall y an interactiv e exchange . Th e
fundamenta l questio n tha t arise s is whethe r critica l re ectio n ca n be properl y
studie d in isolatio n of th e surrounding , contextualising , an d in uencin g factor s tha t
contribut e to it s relativ e succes s or failure .
Th e curren t stud y show s tha t feeling s of anxiet y an d insult , feeling s tha t th e
journa l requiremen t is inappropriat e to th e adul t student ’ s sens e of maturit y an d
real-lif e tim e constraints , an d feeling s of inadequat e preparatio n or knowledg e to
maste r th e journa l assignmen t hav e bee n expresse d by student s in relatio n to th e
proces s of journa l writin g an d th e objectiv e of critica l re ection . In th e Kembe r et al.
model , thes e consideration s woul d be categorise d as affectiv e responses , mor e
appropriat e to introspectio n tha n critica l re ection . Nevertheless , affectiv e factor s
asser t in uenc e on th e practic e of journa l writin g and , hence , th e demonstration s of
critica l re ectio n the y ma y or ma y no t contribut e to . If student s sho w a lac k of
re ectiv e thinkin g in journa l writing , it coul d mea n tha t the y hav e no t bee n properl y
expose d to a learnin g environmen t tha t focuse s on re ectiv e skills , or to produc e th e
writte n evidenc e of re ectiv e thinking .
Th e curren t stud y suggest s tha t th e productio n of re ectiv e thinkin g is affecte d
by studen t attitude s an d pre-conception s abou t th e vehicl e itself , th e learnin g
journal . A stud y tha t simpl y demonstrate s a lac k of re ectiv e thinkin g in studen t
journal s ca n leav e th e researche r at an empirica l dead-end . A demonstrabl e lac k of
re ectiv e thinkin g ca n sugges t no pedagogica l cours e of action . Learnin g abou t
studen t reactio n an d responses , however , ca n sugges t an d identif y arena s of concer n
traditionall y addresse d throug h pedagogica l course s of action . Furthermore , study -
in g studen t response s at th e affectiv e leve l reveal s th e in uence s an d practica l
inextricabilities , of so-calle d non-re ectiv e activity , suc h as introspection , in th e
productio n of re ectiv e thinking . It als o point s to a theoretica l idealis m in th e
distinctio n mad e betwee n thes e realm s of thinkin g
—
th e philosophica l idealis m of
freein g thought s fro m feeling s an d thei r cultura l source s
—
as wel l as revealin g th e
impuls e to impos e hierarchica l classi Ž cation s on studen t thinkin g in th e for m of
schemati c divisions .
Wha t doe s it mea n to separat e affectiv e fro m re ectiv e thinking ? To abstrac t
an y kin d of thinkin g fro m it s worldl y contex t of persona l an d socia l complexities ?
An d to classif y student s (vi a an interpretatio n of thei r writing ) accordin g to a schem a Re ectin g on Practic e 349
whos e classi Ž cator y criteri a ar e no t necessaril y explaine d or understoo d by th e
students ? Th e goa l of determinin g th e leve l of re ectiv e thinkin g is a projec t tha t
bypasse s th e questio n of determinin g whethe r th e assignmen t of journa l writin g doe s
or doe s no t in practic e encourag e re ectiv e thinking , an d bypasse s th e questio n of
ho w th e requiremen t of thi s assignmen t ca n impac t th e opportunitie s to thin k
re ectively .
The Kember et al. mode l ca n be use d to classif y statement s as demonstratin g
an occasio n or lac k of indicator s assume d to evinc e re ectiv e thinkin g in studen t
journals , bu t it canno t con Ž rm anythin g mor e tha n a perceive d presenc e or lac k of
sign s of re ectiv e thinkin g in studen t writing . Give n tha t writin g is no t al l ther e is to
thinking , we nee d to augmen t ou r understandin g abou t th e complexitie s of critica l
re ectio n whe n we dra w conclusion s abou t on e typ e of activit y by citin g evidenc e of
a phenomenologicall y differen t activity .
To begi n to asses s th e potentia l fo r re ectiv e thinkin g as a practic e engendere d
in th e us e of learnin g journals , on e ca n begi n by assessin g studen t perception s an d
use s of th e vehicl e itself . Wha t student s fee l abou t th e require d assignmen t ca n affec t
thei r performanc e in ful Ž llin g th e ai m of achievin g critica l re ection . Ho w the y
understan d an d perceiv e thi s ai m canno t be underestimate d as a facto r tha t affect s
th e qualitativ e productio n of re ectiv e writing . Whe n th e ai m of a writin g assign -
men t is to promot e critica l thinking , it is reasonabl e to tak e int o accoun t factor s tha t
ca n in uenc e (enhanc e or inhibit ) it s production .
Conclusions
Th e response s amon g non-traditiona l students , demonstrate d in th e Ž nding s of thi s
study , spea k to th e nee d to conside r studen t receptio n an d perception s of th e journa l
writin g assignmen t in orde r to evaluat e it s usefulnes s as a too l fo r developin g critica l
re ectio n amon g traditiona l as wel l as non-traditiona l students . Som e result s of th e
stud y suppor t th e existin g literature . Fo r instance , th e stud y wa s consisten t wit h th e
literatur e in demonstratin g tha t learnin g journal s ca n improv e knowledg e transfe r fo r
students . Thi s heuristi c effec t wa s supporte d in th e feedbac k receive d fro m th e 30 0
journal s tha t wer e read , th e feedbac k receive d fro m studen t interview s an d th e
comparativ e analysi s of thi s dat a wit h result s assesse d fro m othe r studie s concentrat -
in g on student s in science-relate d courses . On th e othe r hand , som e of th e result s of
thi s researc h ar e at varianc e wit h thos e of th e literature . In compariso n to indication s
in th e literature , a smalle r percentag e of student s demonstrate d critica l re ectio n in
thei r journa l writings , an d amon g thos e wh o did , th e increas e wa s bot h limite d an d
mitigate d by intervenin g factors . Thi s outcom e coul d be relate d to th e degre e of
instructo r interfacin g in th e journa l writin g process . A poo r showin g of critica l
re ectio n migh t indicat e tha t an instructo r di d no t provid e adequat e guidanc e or
facilitatio n to th e studen t on ho w to produc e journal s tha t ar e qualitativel y re ectiv e
an d collaborative . On th e othe r hand , th e result s of thi s researc h sugges t tha t
non-traditiona l adul t student s ca n Ž nd it dif Ž cul t to understan d wha t is mean t by
re ectio n an d ho w it applie s to thei r practica l goal s of changin g careers . Thes e
student s do no t hav e a natura l or traditiona l associatio n wit h th e journa l proces s 350 A. M. Langer
itself , as ha s bee n suggested , mor e or less , in muc h of th e literatur e on learnin g
journals . Th e curren t researc h therefor e help s to expan d th e purvie w of stud y relate d
to learnin g journal s beyon d wha t ha s bee n th e dominan t focu s aimin g at traditiona l
students ; it begin s to dra w ou t importan t variance s whe n th e focu s is shifte d to th e
stud y of non-traditiona l studen t groups . Ne w area s of study , it is hoped , wil l emerg e
wit h an expande d scop e of stud y groups .
REFERENCES
A BBAS , A. & G ILMER , P.J . (1997 ) Th e Us e of Journal s in Scienc e Teachin g an d Learnin g fo r Prospectiv e
Teachers : an activ e too l of students ’ re ection s , Conferenc e Pape r (ERI C Documen t Repro -
ductio n Servic e No . ED 40 9 182) .
B EMILLER , S. (1987 ) Th e mathematic s handbook , in : T. F ULWILER (Ed.) Th e Journa l Boo k
(Portsmouth , Heinemann) .
C ANNING , C. (1991 ) Wha t th e teacher s sa y abou t re ection , Educationa l Leadershi p , March.
C HATEL , R.G . (1997 ) Writin g to Lear n in Science : a curriculu m guid e , Classroo m Teachin g Guid e
(ERI C Documen t Reproductio n Servic e NO . ED 41 4 196) .
D ART , B., B OULTON- L EWIS , G., B ROWNLEE , J. & M CCRINDLE , A. (1998 ) Chang e in knowledg e of
learnin g an d teachin g throug h journa l writing , Researc h Paper s in Educatio n , 13(3), pp.
291– 318.
D E A COSTA , M. (1995 ) Journa l writin g in service-learning : Lesson s fro m a mentorin g project ,
Michiga n Journa l of Communit y Servic e Learnin g , 2, pp . 141 – 149 .
D EWEY , J. (1993) How We Think (Boston , D C Healt h an d Co) .
F ISHER , B.J . (1996 ) Usin g journal s in th e socia l psycholog y class : helpin g student s appl y cours e
concept s to lif e experiences , Teachin g Sociolog y , 24(2) , pp . 157 – 165 .
F RANCIS , D. (1995 ) Re ectiv e journal : a windo w to preservic e teachers ’ practica l knowledge ,
Teachin g an d Teache r Educatio n , 11(3) , pp . 229 – 241 .
G ARMON , M.A . (1998 ) Usin g dialogu e journal s to promot e studen t learnin g in a multicultura l
teache r educatio n course , Remedia l an d Specia l Educatio n , 19(1) , pp . 32 – 45 .
G RUMBACHER , J. (1987 ) Ho w writin g help s physic s student s becom e bette r proble m solvers , in :
T. F ULWILER (Ed.) Th e Journa l Boo k (Portsmouth , Heinemann) .
H ARMELINK , K. (1998 ) Learnin g th e writ e way , Scienc e Teache r , 65(1) , pp . 36 – 38 .
H EATH , H. (1998 ) Keepin g a re ectiv e practic e diary : a practica l guide , Nurs e Educatio n Toda y ,
18(18 ) pp . 592 – 598 .
H OLLY , M. (1989 ) Re ectiv e writin g an d th e spiri t of inquiry , Cambridg e Journa l of Educatio n ,
19(1) , pp . 71 – 80 .
H ULLFISH , H.G. & S MITH , P.G . (1978 ) Re ectiv e Thinking : th e metho d of educatio n (Westport,
Greenwoo d Press) .
J AMES , C. & D ENLEY , P. (1993 ) Usin g record s of experienc e in an undergraduat e certi Ž cat e in
educatio n course , Evaluatio n an d Researc h in Educatio n , pp. 23– 37.
J OHNS , C. (1994 ) Nuance s of re ection , Journa l of Clinica l Nursin g , 3, pp . 71 – 75 .
K EMBER , D., J ONES , A., L OKE , A., M CKAY , J., S INCLAIR , K., T SE , H., W EBB , C., W ONG , F., W ONG ,
M. & Y EUNG , E. (1999 ) Determinin g th e leve l of re ectiv e thinkin g fro m students ’ writte n
journal s usin g a codin g schem e base d on th e wor k of Mezirow , Internationa l Journa l of
Lifelon g Educatio n , 18(1) , pp . 18 – 30 .
K ERKA , S. (1996). Journa l Writin g an d Adul t Educatio n , Researc h Repor t (ERI C Documen t
Reproductio n Service . No . ED 39 9 413) .
K OLB , D. (1984) Experimentia l Learnin g as th e Scienc e of Learnin g an d Developmen t (Englewood
Cliffs , Prentic e Hall) .
L UKINSKY , J. (1990 ) Re ectiv e withdrawa l throug h journa l writing , in : J. M EZIROW (Ed.) Fostering
Critica l Re ectio n in Adulthood : a guid e to transformativ e an d emancipator y learnin g (San
Francisco , Jossey-Bass) . Re ectin g on Practic e 351
M EESE , G. (1987 ) Focuse d learnin g in chemistr y research : Suzanne ’ s journal , in : T. F ULWILER
(Ed.) Th e Journa l Boo k (Portsmouth , Heinemann) .
M EZIROW , J. (1990 ) Ho w critica l re ectio n trigger s transformativ e learning , in : J. M EZIROW (Ed.)
Fosterin g Critica l Re ectio n in Adulthood : a guid e to transformativ e an d emancipator y learnin g
(Sa n Francisco , Jossey-Bass) .
M EZIROW , J. (1991) Transformativ e Dimension s of Adul t Learnin g (Sa n Francisco , Jossey-Bass) .
M OON , J.A . (2000 ) Learnin g Journals : a handboo k fo r academics , student s an d professiona l developmen t
(London , Koga n Pag e Limited) .
M ORRISON , K. (1996 ) Developin g re ectiv e practic e in highe r degre e student s throug h a learnin g
journal, Studie s in Highe r Educatio n , 21(3) , pp . 317 – 332 .
P ATTON , M.Q . (1990 ) Qualitativ e Evaluatio n an d Researc h Metho d (Newbur y Park , Sage) .
P EYTON , J.K . (1993 ) Dialogu e Journals : interactiv e writin g to develo p languag e an d literac y , Research
Report (ERI C Documen t Reproductio n Servic e No . ED 35 4 789) .
P OWELL , A.B . (1997 ) Capturing , examining , an d respondin g to mathematica l thinkin g throug h
writing, Clearin g Hous e , 71(1) , pp . 21 – 25 .
R AINER , T. (1978) Th e Ne w Diary . Ho w to us e a journa l fo r self-guidanc e an d extende d creativit y (Los
Angeles , JP Tarche r Inc.) .
S CHO ¨ N , D. (1983) Th e Re ectiv e Practitioner : ho w professional s thin k in actio n (Ne w York , Basi c
Books).
S ELFE , C. & A RBABI , F. (1986 ) Writin g to lear n
—
engineerin g student s journal , in : A. Y OUNG & T.
F ULWILER (Eds) Writin g Acros s th e Discipline s (Uppe r Montclair , Boynton / Cook) .
S ELFE , C., P ETERSON , B. & N AHRGANG , C. (1986 ) Journa l writin g in mathematics , in : A. Y OUNG
& T. F ULWILER (Eds) Writin g Acros s th e Discipline s (Uppe r Montclair , Boynton /Cook) .
S TATON , J., S HUY , R., P EYTON , S. & R EED , L. (1988) Dialogu e Journa l Communicatio n (Norwood,
Ablex).
T AGGART , G.L. & W ILSON , A.P . (1988 ) Promotin g Re ectiv e Thinkin g in Teache r (Thousan d Oaks ,
Corwi n Press , Inc) .
Appendi x I: intervie w guid e
1. Wha t wa s you r initia l reactio n to bein g require d to us e a learnin g journal ?
2. Ho w di d yo u us e th e learnin g journal s durin g th e course ?
3. Wha t wer e th e bene Ž ts of doin g learnin g journals ?
4. Wha t wer e th e downside s or disadvantage s of usin g learnin g journals ?
5. Di d producin g learnin g journal s chang e you r learnin g process ?
6. Hav e yo u continue d usin g learnin g journal s in othe r course s or in othe r situations ?
7. Do yo u thin k tha t learnin g journal s ca n be use d fo r al l type s of courses ?
8. Di d yo u us e th e learnin g journa l as a wa y of collaboratin g wit h you r instructor ?
9. Di d th e journal s assis t in critica l re ection ?
