Reflecting on Reflections—the Central Role Reflection Plays in Teaching Writing in a Computer Networked Environment

By L. Lennie Irvin

San Antonio College

Lirvin@accd.edu

Abstract

Reflection has long held a valued place for teachers of writing to help students come to terms with their own learning. In a computer environment, reflection takes on added dimensions because of the ease with which students can share text and observe each other’s writings. While outlining the special features of reflection in a computer environment, this paper will focus on the practice and particular benefits of students sharing reflective pieces with each other.

Introduction

At the end of Kathleen Blake Yancey’s comprehensive book on reflection, Reflection in the Writing Classroom, she ends with a number of questions that her book left unanswered. Among these questions for further reflection she asks:

How hospitable a medium is a computer network for reflection? Are there certain conventions that will foster reflection? What is the effect of public audience on reflection? (204)

Despite the prevalence of a constructivist and “dialogic” pedagogy used by many writing teachers in a computer networked environment, little has been written explicitly on the role of reflection in the electronic writing classroom. In the preface to The Dialogic Classroom, Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe identify three things that must happen for the successful establishment of a “dialogic classroom,” the third being reflection: “all parties have to learn the importance of reflecting critically not only on their educational efforts in general but also on their uses of technology” (Galin and Latchow ix). In summarizing Donald Schon’s views on reflection in the context of the constructivist classroom, Joel English states, “But a pedagogy that fosters reflective action espouses the constructionist view of language and reality, insofar as it allows the student to think about subjects, think about how she is thinking about it, and further analyze how an entire community of learners are coming to know the subjects.” It is ironic that a field that holds constructionist pedagogy and collaborative learning in such regard, has not more directly dealt with reflection. Except for Joel English’s 1998 Kairos article “MOO-based Metacognition: Incorporating Online and Offline Reflection into the Writing Process,” nothing has been written that focuses on reflection in the computer networked writing classroom. This article will answer Yancey’s question by contending that computer networks are, indeed, hospitable mediums for reflection. It will go further to explore the unique dynamics at work within a computer networked environment that make this setting a powerful instrument for reflection.

The Importance of Reflection

The last two decades have seen substantial growth in the use of reflection, not only in writing classrooms but in elementary education and even in the training of nurses, doctors, and business administration students at the graduate level (Kember, van der Vern, Brown, Herrick, Bolton, Yagelski, Bleakley, Reid). And for good reason. Dewey is generally pointed to as the scholar who first stressed the importance of reflection for learning, but modern theorists such as Donald Schon and Kathleen Blake Yancey and her work with portfolios and reflection have given reflection credibility as a useful pedagogical tool in today’s classrooms. Reflection is seen by many as a form of meta-cognition or “thinking about thinking” (Swartzendruber-Putnam). In the writing classroom, as Marjorie Montague states, “metacognitive ability is the determining factor that enables writers to adjust accordingly to varying task demands and contexts. ... metacognition facilitates the selection and allocation of techniques and strategies for successful task completion” (qtd. in English). Although many have made statements about the value of reflection (Camp, Hughes, Herrick Swartzendruber-Putnam, English, Underwood, Bolton), Sherry Swain sums up the generally accepted benefits of reflection: “reflection enables us to evaluate experience, learn from mistakes, repeat successes, revise, and plan.” No better listing of the uses of reflection in the writing classroom can be found than the five listed by Alice Horning in her 1997 article “Reflection and Revision: Intimacy in College Writing”:

First, reflective statements shed important light on the form and content of students’ written work. Second, they help students become aware of their preferred approaches to writing, and enable them to take risks to try new and more productive strategies on a particular task. Third, when revising, students may examine their reflections on their earlier process of writing and consider alternative processes or approaches. Fourth, reflective writing produces an intimacy between students and teachers that enables teachers to respond to and encourage students’ growth in writing skill, Lastly, the reflective statements give teachers insights into students’ thinking and development not normally accessible otherwise.

Increasingly, reflection has come to be seen, as Yancey states, “a critical component of learning and of writing specifically” (6).

Reflection as a catalyst for learning

What so many have noted about reflection is that it is a catalyst for learning—the vehicle for transforming a learner’s understanding. Gillie Bolton uses an interesting metaphor to describe this power of reflection. One metaphor for reflection is the mirror which projects back the object being looked at, as it is. She, instead, prefers the notion of the “Looking Glass” out of Alice in Wonderland:

Alice ... has just crawled through the mirror. She looks around her and, in this looking-

glass-land, even ‘the pictures on the wall next the fire seemed to be all alive.’ In my

experience, the things seen from the Reflexive Writing side of the looking glass are or are

about to become, all alive.

What Bolton is speaking about here is the transformational nature of reflection for the person doing the reflecting. Donna Qualley and Elizabeth Chiseri-Strater described this effect of reflection as a knowing “deeper than reason”: “If we are to engage in authentic dialogue with our students and with each other, it must be a reflexive dialogue, one that leads all of us to a more complicated understanding and to a way of knowing “deeper than reason.” Notice that reflection is represented as a catalyst that has the effect of a change—a change of knowledge, a change of awareness, even a change of consciousness. David Kember points out Mezirow’s extensive work on reflective thinking “as an essential component of this model of transformative learning for adults” (383). Kember goes on to quote the work of Boyd and Fayles, “Reflection in the context of learning is a generic term for those intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations” (qtd. in Kember 385). For the writing classroom, these new understandings and appreciations have to do with writing. As Joel English generalizes, “ ‘Writing about writing’ ... may well be their [the students’] key to understanding their writing process.”

Reflection in the Writing Classroom

Before exploring the characteristics of reflection in a networked computer environment, it will be useful to describe how reflection has typically worked in the non-electronic writing classroom. Dawn Swartzendruber-Putnam in her article “Written Reflection: Creating Better Thinkers, Better Writers” exemplifies good reflective practice that is obviously influenced by Yancey’s 1998 book Reflection in the Writing Classroom. With her class, she uses three types of reflection—the writer’s log, the draft letter, and the portfolio letter—which match well with Yancey’s reflection-in-action (taken from Schon), constructive reflection, and reflection-in-presentation. With the writer’s log, Swartzendruber-Putnam works to make reflection a habit of thinking: “The section of their notebook labeled ‘Writer’s Log’ is a weekly opportunity for students to step back, think, and write a paragraph about how their writing is progressing and what they are learning”(89). Yancey would describe this writer’s log as “a place where students can speak on their own behalf so that they too can begin to see how they learn. The rhetorical situation, then: please tell me as teacher what’s going on”(42). The second of Swartzendruber-Putnam’s practices, the draft letter, is another instance of what Yancey would call “reflection-in-action.” With the draft letter, students are asked to write a letter addressed to the teacher to accompany a single piece of writing turned in for evaluation. The draft letter seems to be a conflation of Yancey’s Writer’s Memo where writers describe and assess their writing process and the Companion Piece where the “student can talk about whatever they think is important for the reader to know as she or he reads the primary text” (31).

Since Swartzendruber-Putnam describes using the draft letter as coming at the end of a unit where a student selects a single piece out a number of pieces for evaluation, we might see the draft letter as having some elements of Yancey’s constructive reflection. Yancey describes constructive reflection as coming “between and among the drafts” (51). Leaning heavily on Schon’s notions of “reflective transfer” Yancey states, “through reflective transfer—or what I will call constructive reflection—we create the specific practice from which we may derive principles toward prototypical models. In composing a text, a writer invents practice that may have within it certain understandings and strategies that accommodate themselves to another rhetorical situation” (50). Constructive reflection, then, is a derivative of Schon’s “reflection-on-action,” a reflection over multiple writing events and an extended period of time. Although Swatzendruber-Putnam’s draft letter may not fit Yancey’s notion of constructive reflection because it still appears to focus on a single text, we can see a better model for constructive reflection in Peg Syverson’s version of the Learning Record in her Learning Record Online. In the Learning Record Online, students prepare a mid-term reflection and evaluation piece that covers all the work that they have done in the class up to that point and asks them to make suggestions for their further development during remainder of semester. By asking the student to look at their work over a period of time, the LRO fits well with Yancey’s proposition that constructive reflection engages student particularly in making generalizations and finding prototypical models.

The third reflective practice that Swartzendruber-Putnam uses in her writing classroom is the portfolio letter which fits that standard type of reflective piece to accompany an end of semester collection of a student’s work. Her portfolio letter would be described by Yancey as a reflection-in-presentation. These reflections are, along with selecting multiple pieces of writing for review, the main tool for conducting a more holistic form of evaluation: “We understood reading as contextual. We therefore wanted students to participate in creating the context in which their texts would be read” (73). Portfolio letters also, as Swartzendruber-Putnam points out, are used as avenues for students to make judgments on their own writing and learning and as windows to demonstrate whether students understand concepts.

The important thing to note, from my perspective, on Swartzendruber-Putnam and Yancey’s description of reflection in the writing classroom is that the dialogue of reflection happens almost exclusively between the student and themselves and the student and the teacher. Yancey highlights the social and performative aspects of reflection-in-presentation, but such portfolio letters are still only between the student and the teacher/evaluator (72).

Reflection in the Electronic Writing Classroom

As we turn to examine how reflection works in a networked computer setting, you will see immediately that I expand the notion of what it means to “reflect” in the writing classroom. To illustrate the difference, we can look at Fred Kemp’s description of a writing cycle from his article “Computer-Mediated Communication: Making Nets Work for Writing Instruction” in The Dialogic Classroom. The table below charts out the sequence of activities done in class and out of class during one model writing cycle:

1	Instructor presents a prompt for discussion via synchronous chat	Invention
2	After thirty minutes of “discussion,” student write for ten minutes on a word processor summarizing the gist of the discussion	Reflection
3	Students save the ten minutes of writing and the synchronous discussion to diskette. The students are asked to read the discussion at home and delete all but three of the most interesting points from discussion
4	From these three points, the students are asked to create a thirty-line draft discussing whatever issue they took from the discussion.	Reinvention
5	Students e-mail drafts to another member of the class for peer response	Reflection
6	Based on feedback from the peer, students are to revise the draft for next class, building them to fifty lines of text	Reinvention
7	Students post drafts into a synchronous chat, creating an anthology of drafts, then spend twenty minutes reading these drafts.	Reflection
8	In class, students are asked to freewrite about what they see as the major problems or strengths in regard to the class’s writing and how their writing compares.
9	Students are asked to prepare a third draft for the next class.	Reinvention
10	In class again (now the fourth day), students post draft into small group chat sessions with four members each, read each others drafts and discuss them.	Reflection
11	Students make a copy of the small group discussion, download it to diskette, and then are asked to review the discussion before preparing their fourth draft.	Reinvention
12	On the fifth day of class, students post their drafts in the network and then do peer response (each person doing three to four responses).	Reflection
13	Students are asked to review the peer responses in preparing the final draft	Reinvention
14	Student turn in the essay

What I noticed as I examined this writing cycle--and others similar to it that I had used in my teaching in a computer classroom environment--is the level of “shared discourse.” Students were sharing their writing and reviewing each other’s writing throughout the essay cycle. In my own article “The Shared Discourse of the Networked Computer Classroom,” I proposed that the learning for the students, the social construction of knowledge, was increased through an extension of this shared discourse, and that this extension occurred through a repeated sequence of invention, reflection, and reinvention (Irvin). My origin for the use of the terms invention and reinvention was inspired by Paolo Freire’s essay “The Banking Concept of Education”: “Knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention, through the restless impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (213). Perhaps another way to express what I saw in Kemp’s writing cycle could be better described by Dewey’s learning triad, “the most effective student learning is based on a three-pronged approach: doing, observing the doing, and reflecting on the observation” (Swain). Students do, then observe and reflect upon that doing, and then redo—and then repeat the sequence (in Kemp’s example, five times!).

Two things become clear as we look at Kemp’s example writing cycle—the central, mediating role of reflection, and the extremely social context for this reflection. We can see in Kemp’s sequence of assignments the same unique features of a computer networked environment that Joel English became excited about in his article “MOO-based Metacognition...”:

I have found that online writing conferences—which begins with an interactive dialogue-based form of writing, produces a learning text (the log of the conversation), and finally allows writers to read back through, respond to, and learn from the online activity—combines attributes of learning which, to my knowledge, have never before come together.

We see in Kemp’s example similar episodes where students take transcripts of synchronous discussions, self-reflective texts, or peer responses and then look at them again as they prepare for revising their work. What English and Kemp both stress about the computer networked environment is the mechanical advantage computers provide:

I also understand that it is possible to save face-to-face discussions in different ways: discussion can be audio and/or video recorded, and students could listen and/or watch those tapes for subsequent reflection-on-action. ... However, transcribing tapes takes at least three times as long as the discussions take themselves, which renders this method impractical (especially compared to creating MOO logs, which can be printed and handed back to students literally minutes after the online discussions are over). (English “MOO Logs”).

Computer networks, then, by the ease with which they record texts and make these texts available offer new vistas for reflection.

But, as many have noted, computer networks also enable a greater degree of “socialization.” The importance of social reflection has already become a tenet of the thinking on reflection (Hughes, Bolton, Fey, Yancey, Qualley) as Terry Underwood confirms: “Although reflection can occur in isolation, it is the act of explaining ourselves to ourselves through expressing ourselves to others that enhances learning and that clearly locates reflective analysis in the social arena.” Underwood goes on to assert: “The moral of the story for the teaching of writing is that reflection in isolation isn’t enough; reflective analysis must be done within a community of writers for a student to profit from it.” In other words, for the full benefit of reflection’s transformative power, students need to reflect with and to others. For most writing classrooms the recognition of the importance of reflecting within a social context is met through small peer groups sharing their reflections and reflecting together or through developing a dialogue between the teacher and the student. The moral to this paper is that computer networks provide a richer social environment where reflection can thrive.

As I mentioned before, I am expanding my definition of what constitutes reflection. Commonly, reflection is seen as an act of writing; however, I want to include the act of observing within the definition of reflection as well. When students observe and read the texts of their peers, they are engaging in an act of reflection. Donna Qualley provides an interesting confirmation of this idea in her statements about collaboration: “If collaboration is to provide a way for students to negotiate multiple (and often contradictory positions), it must involve two recursive moves: a dialectical encounter with an “other” (a person or idea) and a reflexive engagement with the self.” Having students share text and dialogue together by its nature is a “dialectical encounter with an ‘other.’” In a traditional writing classroom, this sharing of text and dialoguing has its limitations: it is impractical to make print copies of every text available to the class or to read them all aloud, and spoken discussion is bound by turn-taking and can’t accommodate the multi-vocal discourse of computer synchronous discussions. In my own thinking, I have called this kind of sharing of text the “at” level of shared discourse:

This type of discourse is usually accomplished by sending an e-mail message to the group (asynchronous writing), but students could send messages “at” each other by putting a document in a common class file accessible to all or within a synchronous electronic conference. Everyone reads; everyone listens (or in the case of the computer classroom, everyone writes and everyone reads). The greatest value in this discourse for the student is comparability. Students learn as they read not only through exposure to new bits of knowledge, but by comparing their message with the other messages in the group. They also learn by comparing the messages of their peers with each other. Students assemble the knowledge by their own action and at their own pace, which gives them more ownership of the knowledge. Also, they can open (read) the message as often as they wish. As a result, the socialization to knowledge and the norms of discourse happens more easily and more readily by this means than any other, I believe.

What computer networks facilitate is what I have called “multiplicity”—through the sharing of text over computer networks students are exposed to a greater multiplicity of views and ideas. Wayne Butler when he says computer networks super-charge collaboration is in part referring to computer networks’ ability to integrate more broadly the “community of knowledgeable peers.” For this reason, computers and writings scholars and practitioners have pointed to social construction and collaborative learning as preferred pedagogical practice and looked in particular to Bakhtin for inspiration, as Marion Fey illustrates:

Bakhtin points to an inner-outer tension in the development of meaning, a process that occurs in communication with others, through ‘the layering of meaning upon meaning, voice upon voice, strengthening through merging (but not identification), the combination of many voices (a corridor of voices) that augments understanding.’”

In short, multiplicity is this “combination of many voices” and leads to greater understanding. Fey goes on to say, “Collaboration through the computer enables the connections for this transaction and at the same time provides the silence and freedom to consider one’s own intentions, to develop one’s own voice, not from a sovereign self but from a self freed in the midst of supportive peers.” Through the sharing and observing of text, students gain perspective and knowledge by reading the text of their peers that may take the form of things like a greater understanding of the writing assignment, a deeper understanding of the subject matter, or something simple as the correct way to use quotes.

One powerful technique, then, that practitioners of reflection can use in the computer classroom is to have students share reflective pieces over the computer network. For years, I have used what I call “Process Journals” where students post to the network a reflective piece that calls on them to write about their writing. These Process Journals are similar to Swartzendruber-Putnam’s Writer’s Log. Each week, students respond to a prompt about their writing experience, post it to the network, and spend ten to fifteen minutes reading the reflective posts of their peers. Students not only gain the benefits of writing such a “reflection-in-action” piece in isolation, but the whole writing community is able to gain deeper understandings through the sharing of these reflective pieces. Quite simply, sharing reflective pieces puts the knowledge gained from reflection in a broader context. If, as Pat Belanoff contends, reflection “can enable the reconstituting—if only momentarily—of a unified self, which certainly enables one to act more effectively” (421), then sharing and reflecting upon these reflections may fragment that “unified self” and stir the student to reconstitute a more complex and synthetic understanding. Carol Pope uses the term “refraction” to describe this movement beyond reflection where the same activity is seen but from a different angle: “I have to do more than hold a mirror to myself and the class; I have to turn the mirror and see the class from different angles. …I call this process Refraction. Refraction, an extension of reflection, suggests an added way of seeing”(180). Reflecting upon reflections, then, is a kind of “refraction” that heightens and deepens the learning gained from reflection. Certainly, students in a traditional writing classroom can share reflections in small groups, but the computer network makes this sharing easier and more “multitudinous.”

Qualley’s notion of collaboration as both “dialectical and reflexive” as well as Bakhtin’s notion of the tension between the inner and the outer points to another unique social aspect of the networked computer writing setting that makes it a powerful setting for reflection. In my own inquiries, I have been most interested in describing “where” students are as they share text in a computer networked environment—what is their “situatedness,” their “context,” their “positionality” as they read the texts of others, respond to other’s texts, read their own text, and write pieces of writing they know will be posted to the group. The term I have come up with to describe this dialectic/reflexive and inner/outer tension and duality is what I call “the role of the spectator-participant.” James Britton, in an article called “Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing” makes this intriguing comment: “as participants we APPLY our value systems, but as spectators we GENERATE and REFINE the system itself.” When I looked at an electronic writing classroom where a lot of text sharing and student-to-student communication is going on, I saw that students were both spectators as they read the text of their peers and participants as they posted their text to the group. Although students in a traditional classroom are also spectators and participants, in the computer classroom the role has changed:

What we have in this context is a radically different “positionality” of the student compared to the traditional classroom. The student’s role as spectator has shifted from primarily spectating the instructor to viewing fellow students. Their role as performer [or participant] has shifted from performing predominantly for the teacher to performing for other students “in the audience.” (Irvin “Spectator”)

This shift in the experience for the student sitting before the computer screen cannot be underestimated. The two simultaneous roles have a synergy that strongly affects the learning experience for the student. What we can say, then, about the computer networked environment is that as spectators students are engaged in reflection, and as participants they put the knowledge gained from that “spectating/reflecting” into action—all in a social context where the influence from the “community of knowledgeable peers” can lead them to greater learning. Using computer networks as a platform for reflection, then, heighten the ability for reflection to serve as a “catalyst for individual transformation” (Qualley).

In Yancey’s concluding questions about the suitability of computer networks, she voices some uncertainty about this social context for reflection. She asks, “What is the affect of public audience on reflection?” We might restate the question as, “How does it make the student feel and react to the fact that they are posting their reflections for everyone to read?” Of special concern for Yancey here would be the effect of audience on self-revelation. Would the sharing of reflections inhibit self-revelation and stifle the reflective act? My answer to these concerns is no—not necessarily. First, if a pedagogy of sharing text frequently is used (and I use if from the first day of class), students get used to posting their writing before their peers. The dynamism of the spectator-participant role helps them feel engaged with the group and more comfortable “performing” before them. Partly they feel more comfortable because others are posting their reflections as well. In addition, most reflective prompts in a composition classroom are about students’ writing experience and don’t call on them to reveal highly personal or intimate experiences (as is evident in Bolter’s article). Finally, even if a student did feel inhibited in his or her reflection because they feared baring their soul before the group, other students might not have been so inhibited. As a spectator, the inhibited student is still able to “refract”—affirm, question, rethink—his or her own experience by reading the posts of his or her peers.

Reflection has one last, very important, place in the computer networked environment due to the nature of discourse in this setting. As Lester Faigley noticed in his book Fragments of Rationality, computer discourse tends to be more multivocal, more fragmented, and simply more—more information, commonly with elements of serious content mixed with trivial content. Often with computer discourse there can be an overwhelming quantity of information to make sense of. A common experience I have after engaging in a synchronous discussion is one of asking, “What happened?” I know there were moments of interesting insights and views expressed, but any meaning I can pull out of the discussion is fragmented like a jigsaw puzzle that has been tossed on the floor in pieces. Reflection, then, is the necessary step to help those engaged in computer-mediated communication make sense of the discourse. We need reflection to help us select, synthesize, and coalesce meaning from this scattered and undifferentiated communication. Otherwise, the discussion is an experience that happens and is gone with no lasting affect.

Works Cited

Belanoff, Pat. “Silence: Reflection, Literacy, Learning, and Teaching.” College Composition

and Communication 52:3 (February 2001): 399-423.

Bleakley, Alan. “Writing With Invisible Ink: narrative, confessionalism and reflective practice.”

Reflective Practice 1.1 2000: 11-24.

Bolton, Gillie. “Reflections through the Looking-Glass: The Story of a Course of Writing as A

Reflexive Practitioner.” Teaching in Higher Education 4.2 April 1999: 193. Academic Search Premiere Item #1922266 (13 May 2002).

Britton, James. “Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory:

A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva, Jr.. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1997.

Brown, William. “Power of Self Reflection through Epistemic Writing.” College Teaching 46.4

Fall 1998:135-8. Wilson Web (25 April 2002).

Camp, Roberta. “Portfolio Reflection: The Basis for Dialogue.” The Clearing House 72.1

Sept/Oct. 1998: 10-12. Wilson Web (25 April 2002).

English, Joel A. “MOO-based Metacognition: Incorporating Online and Offline Reflection into

the Writing Process.” Kairos 3.1 (Spring 1998).

http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/3.1/features/english/bridge.html (7 May 2002).

Fey, Marion H. . “Finding Voice through Computer Communication: A New Venue for

Collaboration.” Journal of Advanced Composition 14.1 1994. “Archives.”

http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/14.1/Articles/12.htm (3 May 2002).

Hawisher, Gail and Selfe, Cynthia. “Forward.” The Dialogic Classroom: Teachers Integrating

Computer Technology, Pedagogy, and Research. Ed. Jeffrey Galin and Joan Latchow.

Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998.

Herrick, Michael J.. “Writing Requires Reflection.” The Clearing House 65.3 Jan/Feb92: 144.

Academic Search Premier Item #9705075534. (13 May 2002).

Horning, Alice S. “Reflection and Revision: Intimacy in College Writing.” Composition

Chronicle: Newsletter for Writing Teachers 9.9 Jan. 1997: 4-7.

Hughes, Herman Woodrow and Kooy, Mary et. al. . “Dialogic Reflection and Journaling.” The

Clearing House 70.4 Mar/Apr97: 187. Academic Search Premier Item #934948. (13

May 2002).

Irvin, Lennie. “The Shared Discourse of the Networked Computer Classroom.” Trends & Issues

in Postsecondary English Studies: 2000 Edition. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of

English, 2000. 219-28.

Irvin, Lennie. “The Spectator-Participant in the Computers & Writing Learning Environment.”

Paper Presentation at Computers and Writing 2000 Conference, Ft. Worth (May 2000).

http://www.accd.edu/sac/english/lirvin/CW2K/CW2Kpaper.htm. (15 May 2002).

Kember, David and Leung Doris Y. P. et. al. “Development of a Questionaire to Measure the

Level of Reflective Thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25.4 2000: 381-395.

Kemp, Fred. “Computer-Mediated Communication: Making Nets Work for Writing

Instruction.” The Dialogic Classroom: Teachers Integrating Computer Technology,

Pedagogy, and Research. Ed. Jeffrey Galin and Joan Latchow. Urbana: National

Council of Teachers of English, 1998.

Pope, Carol. “Reflection and Refraction: A Reflexive Look at an Evolving Model for Methods

Instruction. English Education 31.3 April 1999: 177-200.

Qualley Donna J. and Chiseri-Strater, Elizabeth. “Collaboration as Reflexive Dialogue: A

Knowing “Deeper Than Reason.” Journal of Advanced Composition 14.1 1994.

“Archives.” http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/14.1/6.htm (3 May 2002).

Reid, Louann and Golub, Jeffrey. Reflective Activities: Helping Students Connect with Texts.

Classroom Practices in Teaching English Volume 30. Urbana: National Council of

Teachers of English, 1999.

Swain, Sherry Seale. “Studying Teachers’ Transformations: Reflection as Methodology.” The

Clearing House 72.1 Sept/Oct98:28. Expanded Academic ASAP #A21186903. (9 March

2002).

Swartzendruber-Putnam, Dawn. “Written Reflection: Creating Better Thinkers, Better Writers.

English Journal (September 2000): 88-93.

Syverson, Peg. “Learning Record Online.” http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~syverson/olr/olr.html

(13 May 2002).

Underwood, Terry. “Teaching Writing with Reflective Questions and Reflective Events.” The

Clearing House 72.1 Sept/Oct98:18. Expanded Academic ASAP #A21186901. (9 March

2002).

Van der Veen, Jan. “ ‘Theory Repositories’ via the Web for Problem-Based Learning.”

Interactive Learning Environments 8.3 2000: 257-277.

Yagelski, Robert P. “The Ambivalence of Reflection: Critical Pedagogies, Identity, and the

Writing Teacher. College Composition and Communication 51.1 Sept99: 32-50.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State University

Press, 1998.