Reflection and its Application to Learning Resources

Tiffany A. Koszalka
Syracuse University – RIDLR project

Abstract
Reflection is a process of engaging intellectually and affectively in situations, activities, or
resources to develop deep understandings and appreciations of one’s experiences. It involves
considering observations during or after an experience to affect future practices. Reflection
theories suggest that learning is supported when learners explore and monitor their own
knowledge, when they think about how the meaning and application of new knowledge was
used in their recent experiences, and when they explore application of their new knowledge to
other contexts, beyond their immediate experiences. Thus, incorporating reflection principles
into learning resources should prompt learners to engage more deeply in instructional content
by supporting self-assessment, meaning-making, translating learning experiences into future
practices, and testing implications and transfer of these concepts to new situations. This paper
provides an overview of theoretical perspectives, practices, and research on reflection,
summarizing points for the design of learning resources.

Reflective Thought, Reflection, and Learning

Dewey (1910/1997) defined reflective thought as active, persistent, and careful consideration of
any belief or supposed form of knowledge. He further concluded reflection “is a conscious and voluntary
effort to establish belief upon a firm basis of reason” (p. 6). Schön (1983) extended the view of reflection
to describe it as a process of creatively responding to problems of practice in a manner that is both
experiential and social. He distinguished between two facets of reflection. The first facet is observing
thinking and action as they are occurring… calling this reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983). The second
facet is observation after an experience in order to affect changes in future practice… calling this reflection-
on-action (Schön,1983). Together, these two facets, suggest that reflection is a process (Coulson & Harvey
2013; Lucas & Fleming, 2012; Schön, 1983).
Wells (1999) went on to further explain the cognitive aspects of reflection arguing that reflection
is a form of understanding or way in (mechanism by) which humans make meaning or sense out of new
experiences. Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985) suggested this meaning-making process guides actions and
effective professional practices. They added to the definition by suggesting “reflection is the intellectual
[cognitive] and affective activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences leading to new
understandings and appreciations” (p. 19).
Further it was suggested that reflection is “controlled by the learner, is purposeful, and involves
cognition and affect in an interrelated and interactive way” (Yukawa, 2006, p. 206). Reflective thinking,
that is, mentally engaging in cognitive and affective processes to understand conflicting factors in a
situation, is a critical component in the learning process (Schön, 1991; Song, Koszalka, & Grabowski,
2005). This mental engagement results in an individual actively constructing knowledge [or cognition]
about an experience in order to develop strategies to proceed to new experiences [or actions]. Learners
reflect on their previous understanding of and feelings about an experience and their newly acquired
knowledge to form a response. In effect, learners think about the multiple facets of the experience and
reflect on how their newly gained knowledge can be used to inform ideas, behaviors, and practices applied
from that experience to future actions (Song, Koszalka, & Grabowski, 2005).
There is posited to be a relationship among reflection, self-regulation, and metacognition. These
processes together are perhaps best described as reciprocal and complementary, in that reflective capacity
supports self-regulation and that self-regulation is required to support higher levels of critical reflection.
Desautel (2009) described this relationship by suggesting that self-reflection aids self-knowledge
development through a process of “making formerly unconscious, intangible, or reflexive processes or
events explicit” (p. 2001). Thus, there is a critical relationship between reflection and higher order cognitive
processes which in turn supports learning outcomes through experience (Eisenhardt, 1989; Harvey, et al.,
2016).

RIDLR © 2016 Page 1 of 8

 Reflection and its Application to Learning Resources
Tiffany A. Koszalka
Syracuse University – RIDLR project
The potential outcomes of the reflection process – interaction between the individuals’ conceptual
skills and their environmental experiences – may include new perspectives on experience, changes in
practices and behavior, readiness to apply new knowledge, and commitment to action (Boud, et al., 1985;
Yukawa, 2006). Thus, goals of reflective practice are varied and contextually purposeful. Purposes for
engaging learners in reflection may include prompting meaning-making, developing goal orientation,
enhancing understanding of the importance of context, promoting attention to artifacts as the embodiment
of socially constructed knowledge, identifying relationships between individuals and artifacts, facilitating
small group-mediated learning, and engaging learners in the larger system of cognitive structures and
representations. (Boud, et al., 1985; Schön, 1991; Yukawa, 2006).
Reflection Process – Stages, Levels, Purposes
Experience is comprised of ideas, feelings, behaviors, and environmental factors that affect these
variables. Reflection is an individual critical thinking process based in experience (Yukawa, 2006). The
reflection process itself is often described as consisting of three stages: (1) returning to an experience, (2)
attending to feelings about the experience, and (3) reevaluating the experience (Boud, et al., 1985). In
returning to an experience, during the first stage of the reflection process, the reflective practitioner recalls
and deconstructs the elements of the experience. In the second stage, attending to feeling, the practitioner
recalls and thinks about (reflects on) positive and obstructing feelings sensed during the experience and
begins to identify and align previous and new feelings and knowledge while developing a better
understanding of the occurrences in the situation. The reflective practitioner then enters into the third stage,
reevaluating the experience. In this stage the practitioner engages in making new associations and meaning
from the experience, integrating thoughts and feelings, validating new perceptions, and appropriating new
behaviors, ideas and feelings into the practitioner’s belief system. See table 1.
Table 1. Stages of Reflection
Stage Defined Processes Learning
Returning to Behaviors, ideas Uses positive Validates current
experience feelings feelings level of
understanding,
Attending to Integrates thoughts Use positive Validates new
feelings and feelings into feelings, removes perceptions of
learning obstructing content
feelings
Re-evaluating Makes new validates new Appropriates new
experience associations, , , perception perceptions into
belief system
Note: Based on Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985).

Scholar disagree on the number of levels of reflection one enters in reflective thought. Reflection
models generally range from three to five levels and also define reflection through different types and
purposes (Harvey et al., 2016; Jay & Johnson 2001; Kember et al. 2000; Kreber & Castelden 2009; Larrivee
2008; Nelson Laird et al., 2014; Van Manen, 1997). However, each model does describe reflective practice
as a cognitive process ranging from a shallow to a deep level of thought. For example, Harvey et al., (2016)
suggested that reflective practice can range from surface to critical and transformative levels depending on
the level of prompting and engagement of the individual. At the deeper and critical levels of reflection
individuals are more likely to engage in thorough learning and experience better learning outcomes from
reflective activities (Nelson Laird et al., 2014). Van Manen (1997) described three levels of reflection:
technical, practical, and critical. Each level suggests a focus, process, and possible learning outcomes. See
table 2.

RIDLR © 2016 Page 2 of 8

 Reflection and its Application to Learning Resources
Tiffany A. Koszalka
Syracuse University – RIDLR project

Table 2. Levels of Reflection

Levels Defined Processes Learning
Technical Examining skills, Thinking based on Self-observation of learning
strategies, and expected learning content, single level learning-
methods used to of content based on stated objectives
research pre-
determined goals
Practical Focus on methods to Thinking based on Modifying thinking based on
reach goals and own goals and personal goals, feelings,
examining their own level of knowledge understanding of application,
learning goals of content and its expanded learning to
immediate application of content to
application immediate context
Critical Questions broader Thinking based on Expanding thinking to
moral, ethical, and impacts of content implications and application
social assumptions application in of content outside of learning
other contexts context, may change meaning
and level of understanding
Note: Based on Van Manen (1977)

Van Manen’s (1977) three levels of reflectivity are widely used to distinguish between the three
types of reflectivity. Technical reflection focuses on examining one’s skills, strategies, and methods used
to reach predetermined goals. Thinking processes are based on expected learning outcomes and aligned
with stated objectives of the experience. Practical reflection focuses on the methods to reach goals and
examine the goals themselves. At this level the individual begins to modify thinking and expand learning
to the immediate application within the current context. At the critical reflection level, the individual is
prompted to question the broader moral, ethical, and social assumptions underlying the goals, often
expanding thinking and application to other contexts. With each level, from technical to critical, the
individual develops a deeper understanding of their experiences and how new understanding can inform
future thinking and action.
Finally, reflective practices have also been described as different types of interactions or used for
different purposes (Fazey, et al., 2005; Matthew & Stemberg, 2009; Yukawa, 2006). For example, tacit
reflective practices occur when the individual engages in inquiry about experiences without directly seeking
personal feedback, rather sharing thoughts and ideas. Often through means of communicating and sharing
during tacit co-reflection, reflective practitioners develop a deeper understanding of experiences by simply
sharing and listening to others (Matthew & Stemberg, 2009; Yukawa, 2006). When managed well, this type
of reflective sharing will support practitioners by bringing to surface tacit knowledge about their practice,
thus adding to their learning experience (Smith, Kielly-Coleman, & Meijer 2010). When engaged in active
reflection – seeking feedback from others – deep learning outcomes from conversations are much enhanced
through specific co-reflections and feedback on each sharing individual’s thoughts, ideas, and actions
(Fazey et al., 2005; Yukawa, 2006). Thus, reflective practices support deeper learning with engagement at
different levels of reflection (surface/ deep/ transformative), for different purposes (technical/ practical/
critical), and with reflections from multiple perspectives (self/ peers).
Prompting Reflection
Ultimately the value of effective reflective practices is that critical, or deep, reflection often leads
to multiple types of learning (Boud et al., 1985; Desautel, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989; Harvey et al., 2016;
Wells, 1999). Prompting reflections may include helping individuals reach a level of transformative

RIDLR © 2016 Page 3 of 8

 Reflection and its Application to Learning Resources
Tiffany A. Koszalka
Syracuse University – RIDLR project
learning where one’s values, beliefs, and assumptions may be changed (or transformed) through higher
levels of reflection (Coulson & Harvey, 2013; Hipkins, Reid, & Bull, 2010; Nelson Laird et al., 2014).
To this end, scholars believe that reflective thinking and practice may be taught and/or prompted
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Larrivee, 2008; Moon 2004). It is key for instruction and educators to play a role in
scaffolding reflection practices through effective cues, inquiry, and strategic instructional interventions and
scaffolds (Eisenhardt, 1989). Many types of tools, strategies, and resources may be used to scaffold the
development and practice of reflection. The choice of an appropriate strategy often depends on which of
the stages students inhabit at a given time and can include approaches in establishing a shared understanding
of the role of reflection, introducing reflective tools, providing debriefing guidelines (see Coulson &
Harvey, 2013). Thus, research is important in determining appropriate strategies and conditions for
supporting reflective practices that enhance learning.
Research Studies on Reflection
Researchers suggest that various strategies, or design elements, in the learning environment can
prompt reflective thinking (Song, Grabowski, Koszalka & Harkness, 2006). For instance, learning
experiences based on ill-structured, authentic, and complex tasks are known to promote reflective thinking
when learners are prompted to reflect on specific aspects of their experiences in these situations. Such
prompts may help learners to investigate disconnects in their experiences, aspects of complex problems that
are new to them, and multiple forms of information that are not normally considered during an experience,
in order to generate new ideas, thoughts, and behaviors to use in the future (Stepien & Pyke, 1997).
However, different types of prompts for reflection influence the level of reflection differently for different
types of individuals (Matthew & Stemberg, 2009; Song, Koszalka, & Grabowski, 2005; Song et al., 2006).
Studies on patterns of effectiveness of reflection prompts. In the context of middle school learners
three factors in the learning environment were found to be predictive of reflection for younger children
(Song, Koszalka, & Grabowski, 2005). The first factor suggested that using reflective teaching methods,
e.g., teacher explanations and questions, was perceived as critical to reflective thinking. The second factor
critical to reflective thinking was using specific types of scaffolding tools, e.g., questions, reflective
writing.The third critical factor was the design of the overall learning environment, e.g., types and forms of
resources, incorporation of collaborative learning, use of concept mapping, level of learner control, and
complexity of learning activities. In this case the learning environment (factor 3) was found to be perceived
by the young learners as most important, suggesting that student-centeredness of activities were best at
prompting their reflection. However, a later study revealed different patterns of design factors that learners
perceived as most helpful in prompting their reflection. One such finding suggested that the types of
scaffolding methods and resources used in prompting reflective thinking were most important to college
and adult audiences, whereas in younger learners the overall environment was perceived as most important
(Song et al., 2006). Thus, reflection was successfully prompted using a variety of teaching methods,
learning environments, and scaffolding tools, however the audience perception of these scaffolds played a
role in their effectiveness (Song et al., 2006).
Studies on reflection practices. Some researchers have investigated the use of reflective portfolios
and other reflective learning journal activities that engage learners in writing their reflections based on
specified concepts, events, or interactions (Clarke & Adam, 2012; Larkin & Beatson, 2014; Thorpe, 2004;
Wang & Zhan, 2010). These documents were thought to prompt students in gaining insights, awareness,
and learning through reflection on their experiences (Thorpe, 2004). Students were able to create and share
stories of their experiences and then reflect on their learning journey (Wang & Zhan, 2010). Through
prompted reflective practice higher levels of engagement and motivation, critical thinking, self-expression,
and development of communication and computer skills were achieved (Clarke & Adam, 2012). Results of
Larkin & Beatson (2014), based on a staged development of the levels of reflection in student teacher
participants, further suggested that unstructured reflections in the early weeks of the semester were largely
descriptive. However, participants built greater awareness and confidence over time while providing the
teaching support team with a general sense of their experiences through their reflections. They posited that

RIDLR © 2016 Page 4 of 8

 Reflection and its Application to Learning Resources
Tiffany A. Koszalka
Syracuse University – RIDLR project
continued structured work in reflective practice supported student teachers in moving to richer reflections
and higher levels of reflective practice over time (Clarke & Adam, 2012). The progression of structured to
unstructured and collaborative sharing practice provided the participants with the skills and knowledge to
become more productive in their reflective practices leading to a good mix of reflection and honesty, which
enabled the students to grow into their role as reflective practitioners. Progressions in types of level of
reflection enabled participants to focus on key aspects of their internships through their digital stories and
with a deeper reflection possible they developed higher level digital skills (Clarke & Adam, 2012). Similar
findings are echoed in other studies on reflection and skill development. See Coulson & Harvey, 2013;
Fazey et al., 2005; Larkin & Beatson, 2014; Lucas & Fleming, 2012; and Passey & Hobrecht, 2001.
Studies on reflection prompts and feedback during reflection. Krause & Stark (2010) investigated
whether using reflection prompts in instruction made a difference to learner reasoning. Some students were
instructed simply to reflect on and record reasons for their decisions during instructional activities. Other
students received no reflection prompts. The group with the prompting intervention achieved higher levels
of learning and after further analyzing students' reasons it was found that prompted participants engaged in
substantial reflective processes as opposed to the other group who did not have as high achievement or
indicate any level of reflection. It was hypothesized that the act of recording reflections on rationale engaged
participants in higher levels of thinking and enhanced their depth of understanding of their own experiences.
In related studies instances of feedback during reflection were investigated.
Feedback is regarded as an effective means to promote reflective processes and enhance cognitive
learning (Quintin & Smallbone, 2010; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartely, 2006). Feedback that is explanatory or
corrective of thoughts generated and shared during reflection, provides further ideas for new reflections,
and scaffolds cognitive engagement based on problem-solving experiences, can support more effective self-
regulation and learning during reflection activities (Schraw, Crippen, & Hartely, 2006). In a study of
multiple feedback, cooperation, and reflection strategies, feedback interventions clearly enhanced learning
outcomes, whereas cooperative learning had no significant effect on learning. Perceived reflection was high
in all participant groups, differences among groups were not significant (Krause & Stark, 2010). In another
study, using a simple tool and process to engage learners in reviewing written feedback that would forward
them to a new assignment, learners developed stronger tendencies to self-reflect regularly, shed inhibitory
feelings prior to reviewing feedback (they were more open to comments), provide more evidence of their
experiences that were found to prompt deep thinking and opening themselves to learning, and demonstrate
the ability to create more comprehensive actions plans based on previous experiences (Quintine &
Smallbone, 2010). Such findings suggested that preparing one’s self for feedback on one’s own reflections
and engaging in feedback at multiple levels, e.g., independently, with peers, with instructors, can be
supportive of enhancing reflection outcomes and lead to effective new behaviors.
Studies on online collaborative critical thinking. One additional area of recent study has been co-
reflection. Co-reflection involves cognitive and affective interactions in synergy with relationship building.
These studies identified evidence of the co-reflection as a core process in learning. During co-reflection
learners are allowed to freely and easily create their own artifacts, adapt given or their own tools to
communicate reflection and learn based on their own styles or preferences. The focus on reflection thus
evolves as an individual critical thinking process, with co-reflection as a collaborative critical thinking
process, and thus provides a synergy between the two processes. (Yukawa, 2006). Results of these co-
reflective sessions suggest that participants become more fully engaged in higher levels of reflective
practice, think about others experiences related to their own situations, and develop a larger set of learned
behaviors they can use in future experiences. Such studies continue to help unpack the complexities of
reflective processes in learning experiences.
Learning Resources Informed by Reflection - Possibilities
Instruction is a compilation of informational, instructional, and learning resources (Grabowski &
Small, 1997), each providing a building block upon which to purposively support learning. Whereas
informational and instructional resources support the overall content and direction of instruction, the

RIDLR © 2016 Page 5 of 8

 Reflection and its Application to Learning Resources
Tiffany A. Koszalka
Syracuse University – RIDLR project
learning resources, whether in analogue, digital or social/human format fully engage learners in learning
processes. By integrating reflection tenets, based on research and best practices, into learning resources
students may more fully engage with content through self-assessment of understanding, application of new
content to current learning situation, and through exercises to test application of new knowledge to
experiences outside of the learning context. Embedding features like structured and unstructured portfolios
or journaling, prompts to recall and share feelings from experiences, and question prompts into learning
resources may support self-assessment and development of deeper understanding of content. Integrating
co-reflection activities around commonly experienced problems and opportunities for both tacit and active
reflection into learning resources may further support learners in determining how new knowledge can be
used and/or applied to learning activities, while integrating ways to document reflection, e.g., digital stories
may be supportive to learners extending their new knowledge to other contexts. The varied research results
suggest that additional investigations are needed to examine the characteristics of reflection in support of
informing the design and process of designing learning resources.
Synthesis
Reflection emphasizes that deep learning requires intellectual and affective participation in
summarizing and rationalizing experiences. Reflective practitioners self-assess their understanding of
experiences, think deeply about what they experienced, felt, and did during a learning or practice event,
and use their experiences to inform ideas, thoughts, and actions they will take as they move forward to new
experiences.
Instructional designers and informed educators create learning resources based on research and
understanding of how individuals learn. Reflection theories suggests that learning is informed by reflective
practice… higher levels of reflection are related to deeper learning. Learning resources that incorporate
prompts and opportunities to engage learners in thinking about new knowledge and its application in and
beyond instructional context have the potential to prompt meaning-making, application of new knowledge,
and recognized value of new knowledge beyond the learning activities. Designing learning resources with
tenets of reflection in mind suggest that such resources may engage learners in more deeply learning
instructional content.
Learners actively reflecting on content during learning activities can validate and extend their
knowledge and application of new content into meaningful and structured knowledge. Evidence suggests
there are relationships between reflection, self-regulation, and deep learning. These studies supported
reflection theories. However, reflection theory is only one dimension that may suggest features of learning
resources that can help facilitate deep learning. Other factors may include the abilities of learning resources
to engage learners in flexible thinking (Cheng & Koszalka, 2016), generative learning (Wilhelm-Chapin &
Koszalka, 2016), and at appropriate types and levels of engagement suggested by expected learning
outcomes (Yang & Koszalka, 2016). The RIDLR team is developing and researching learning resources
that incorporate multiple dimensions to support higher order thinking and the development of learning
assessments. See http://ridlr.syr.edu/.
References
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R.
Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18–40). London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Cheng, J., & Koszalka, T.A. (2016). Cognitive flexibility theory and its application to learning resources.
(concept paper) Retrieved from: http://ridlr.syr.edu/publications/
Clarke, R., & Adam, A. (2012). Digital Storytelling in Australia: Academic Perspectives and Reflections,
Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11(1–2), 157–176.
Coulson, D., & Harvey, M. (2013). Scaffolding student reflection for experience-based learning: A
framework. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(4), 401-413.

RIDLR © 2016 Page 6 of 8

 Reflection and its Application to Learning Resources
Tiffany A. Koszalka
Syracuse University – RIDLR project
Desautel, D. (2009). Becoming a thinking thinker: Metacognition, self-reflection, and classroom practice.
Teachers College Record, 111(8), 1997–2020.
Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. Mineola, New York: Dover.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532-550.
Fazey, I.R.A, Fazey, J.A., & Fazey, D.M.A. (2005). Learning more effectively from experience. Ecology
and Society, 10(2) Accessed August 2016: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art4/
Harvey, M., Coulson, D., & McMaugh, A. (2016). Toward a theory of the ecology of reflection: reflective
practice for experiential learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning
Practice, 13(2), 1-20.
Hipkins, R., Reid, A., & Bull, A. (2010). Some reflections on the philosophical and pedagogical challenges
of transforming education. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 109-118.
Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2001). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85.
Kember, D., Leung, D., Jones, A., Loke, A.Y., McKay, J., Sinclaire, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F.K.Y.,
Wong, M., & Yeung, E. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective
thinking. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381-389.
King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krause, U.M., & Stark, R. (2010). Reflection in example- and problem-based learning: effects of reflection
prompts, feedback and cooperative learning. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(4), 255-272.
Kreber, C., & Castleden, H. (2009). Reflection on teaching and epistemological structure: Reflective and
critically reflective process in “pure/soft” and “pure/hard” fields. Higher Education, 57(4), 509-
531.
Larkin, I., & Beatson, A. (2014). Blended delivery and online assessment: Scaffolding student reflections
in work-integrated learning. Marketing Education Review, 24(1), 9-14.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of reflective practice. Reflective
Practice, 9(3), 341-360.
Lucas, P., & Fleming, J. (2012). Reflection in sport and recreation cooperative education: Journals or blog.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(1), 55-64.
Matthew, C.T., & Stemberg, R.J. (2009). Developing experience-based (tacit) knowledge through
reflection. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 530-540.
Moon, J. (2004). A handbook of reflective practice and experiential learning: Theory and practice.
Routledge Falmer, London.
Nelson Laird, T.F., Seifert, T.A., Pascarella, E.T., Mayhew, M.J., & Blaich, C.F. (2014). Deeply affecting
first-year students’ thinking: Deep approaches to learning and three dimension of cognitive
development. Journal of Higher Education, 85(3), 402-432.
Passey, D., & Hobrecht, P. (2001). On-line resources and effective teaching and learning, Education, 29(1),
3-8. DOI: 10.1080/03004270185200021
Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: Using feedback to promote student reflection and
learning – a teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 125-135.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic.

RIDLR © 2016 Page 7 of 8

 Reflection and its Application to Learning Resources
Tiffany A. Koszalka
Syracuse University – RIDLR project
Schraw, G., Crippen, K., & Hartely, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education:
Metacognition as part of the broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1),
111-139. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-00503917-8.
Smith, J, Kielly-Coleman, N., & Meijer, G. (2010). Assurance of learning: The role of work integrated
learning and industry partners. In Campbell, M. (ed.), Work Integrated Learning – Responding to
Challenges: Proceedings of the 2010 ACEN National Conference, Perth, 409-419.
Song, H., Koszalka, T., & Grabowski, B. (2005). Exploring instructional design factors prompting
reflective thinking in young adolescents. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(2),
49-68.
Song, H., Grabowski, B., Koszalka, T., & Harkness, W. (2006). Patterns of instructional design factors
prompting reflective thinking in middle school and college level problem-based learning
environments. Instructional Science, 34(1), 63-87.
Stepien, W., & Pyke, S. (1997). Designing problem based learning units. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 20(4), 380-400.
Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5(3), 327–
343.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing to ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3),
205–228.
Wang, S., & Zhan, H. (2010). Enhancing teaching and learning with digital storytelling. International
Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 6(2), 76–87.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilhelm-Chapin, M.K. & Koszalka, T.A. (2016). Generative learning theory and its application to
learning resources. (concept paper) Retrieved from: http://ridlr.syr.edu/publications/
Yang, T. & Koszalka, T.A. (2016). Level of engagement and its application to learning resources. (concept
paper) Retrieved from: http://ridlr.syr.edu/publications/
Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. Computer-
Supported Collaborative learning, 1(2), 203-228. Doi:10.1007/s11412-00608994-9.

Citation and use of this concept paper: The content is owned by the RIDLR team and may not be duplicated, printed, or posted in any form, digital
or non-digital, without permission. In citing this work please use the following citation (you may modify the format based on your publication
style):
Koszalka, T. (2016). Reflection and its application to learning resources. (concept paper) Retrieved from: http://ridlr.syr.edu/publications/

RIDLR © 2016 Page 8 of 8