6
Reflection: Theory & Practical Application
References and Additional Resources
References
Bradley, J. (1995). A model for evaluating student learning in academically based service. In M. Troppe (Ed.), Connecting Cognition and Action: Evaluation of Student Performance in Service Learning Courses. Denver: Education Commission of the States/Campus Compact.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 77 (4), 179-85.
Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences. American Psychological Association.
Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Eyler, J, Giles, DE. (1996). Practitioner's guide to reflection in service-learning: student voices and reflections. Nashville, TN: Corporation for National Service.
Eyler, J. (2001). Creating your reflection map. New Directions for Higher Education, 114, 35-43.
Ford, J. (2008). Cycle of reflection. [Video file]. Clip retrieved from: http://www1.teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=40561&title=Cycle_of_Reflection
Gelmon, S. B., Campus Compact (Project), & Brown University. (2001). Assessing service-learning and civic engagement: Principles and techniques. Providence, RI: Campus Compact, Brown University.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Krathwohl, D. R. (November 01, 2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.
Meredith College. (2005). Service learning as part of civic engagement: Faculty guide to service learning. Unpublished manuscript, Service Learning, Meredith College, Raleigh, NC. Retrieved fromhttp://www.meredith.edu/academics/servicelearning/facguide_final_draft-1.pdf
Schoel, J. Prouty, D., & Radcliffe, P. (1988). Islands of Healing: A Guide to Adventure Based Counseling. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure.
Virginia Campus Outreach Opportunity League. (1995). Reflections - A resource book. Richmond, VA: COOL.
Welch, M. (1999). The ABCs of reflection: a template for students and instructors to implement written reflection in service learning. National Society of Experiential Education Quarterly, 25(2), 23-25.
Additional Resources
Structuring Reflection:
Boise State University
“Questions for Discussion or Writing
http://servicelearning.boisestate.edu/faculty/questionsonreflection.asp
Campus Compact
“Structuring the Reflection Process” http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/decisions.html
Campus Compact
“Structuring the Reflection Process: Designing Continuous Reflection”
http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/continuous.html
Campus Compact
“Structuring the Reflection Process: Connecting Service and Other Coursework”
http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/connect.html
Campus Compact
“Structuring the Reflection Process: Balancing Challenge and Support”
http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/challenge.html
Campus Compact
“Structuring the Reflection Process: Contextualizing Reflection”
http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/context.html
Rubrics:
Boise State University
http://servicelearning.boisestate.edu/faculty/rubrics.asp
Reflection Map Templates
/ Before service activity / During service activity / After service activity /Alone
With fellow students
With community partners
/ Before service activity / During service activity / After service activity /
Reading
Writing
Doing
Telling
Bloom-Based Rubric
Appendix A: Academic Learning Objectives
Learning Objective (LO) Level / Academic Enhancement Learning Objectives / Associated Guiding QuestionsLO 1: Identify and Describe / Identify and describe a specific academic concept that you now understand better as a result of reflection on your service-learning experience / 1.1 Identify an academic concept that relates to your service-learning experience
AND
1.2 Describe the academic concept that relates to your service-learning experience
LO 2: Apply / Apply the academic concept in the context of these experiences / 2.1 How does the academic concept apply to/emerge in your service-learning experience? (e.g., How did you or someone else use the material? When did you see it?)
LO 3: Analyze / Analyze the relationship between the academic material* (and/or your prior understanding of it) and the experience. / 3.1 Compare and contrast the academic material and your experience: In what specific ways are the academic material (and/or your prior understanding of it) and the experience the same and in what specific ways are they different?
AND
3.2 What are the possible reasons for the differences(s) between the material (and/or your prior understanding of it) and your experience? (e.g. bias/assumptions/agendas/lack of information on the part of the author/scientist or on your part.)
AND
3.3 In light of this analysis, what complexities (subtleties, nuances, new dimensions) do you see in the material that were not addressed or that you had not been aware of before?
LO 4: Evaluate / Evaluate the adequacy of the material (and/or your prior understanding of it) and develop a strategy for improved action. / Based on the analysis above:
4.1 How specifically might the material (and/or your understanding of it) need to be revised?
AND
4.2 If applicable, what additional questions need to be answered and/or evidence gathered in order for you to make a more informed judgment regarding the adequacy/accuracy/appropriateness of the material (and/or your prior understanding of it)?
AND
4.3 What should you and/or your service organization do differently in the future (or have done differently in the past) AND what are the associated benefits and risks/challenges?
*Note: “Academic material” includes the concept itself and its presentation (in class, readings).
Appendix B: Level 4 of 4-Level Holistic Critical Thinking Rubric
Level 4 does most or all of the following:
Integration: Makes clear the connection(s) between service experience and the learning being articulated
Relevance: Describes the learning that is relevant to the AL category and keeps the discussion focused on the learning being articulated
Accuracy: Makes statements that are accurate and well-supported with evidence (for academic ALs, accurately identifies, describes, and applies appropriate academic material)
Clarity: Consistently provides examples, illustrates points, defines terms, and/or expresses ideas in other ways
Makes very few or no typographical, spelling, and/or grammatical errors
Depth: Thoroughly addresses salient questions that arise from statements being made; avoids over-simplifying when making connections; considers the full complexity of the issue
Breadth: Gives meaningful consideration to alternative points of view and/or interpretations and makes good use of them in shaping the learning being articulated
Logic: Draws conclusions and/or sets meaningful goals that address the most significant issue(s) raised by the experience
Modified source: Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking. Santa Rose, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Taken from: Ash, S.L., Clayton, P. H., & Atkinson, M. P. (2005) Integrating Reflection and Assessment to Capture and Improve Student Learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Volume 11 (Number 2), pp 49-60.
Bradley-Based Rubric
Bradley’s Criteria for Assessing Levels of Reflection
*Bradley, James. (1995) “A model for evaluating student learning in academically based service.” Connecting Cognition and Action: Evaluation of Student Performance in Service Learning Courses, ed. Marie Troppe. Denver: Education Commission of the States/Campus Compact.
Level 1
1. Gives examples of observed behaviors or characteristics of the client or setting, but provides no insight into reasons behind the observation; observations tend to become un-dimensional and conventional or unassimilated repetitions of what has been heard in class or from peers.
2. Tends to focus on just one aspect of the situation.
3. Uses unsupported personal beliefs as frequently as “hard” evidence.
4. May acknowledge differences of perspective but does not discriminate effectively among them.
Level 2
1. Observations are fairly thorough and nuanced although they tend not to be placed in a broader context.
2. Provides a cogent critique from one perspective, but fails to see the broader system in which the aspect is embedded and other factors that may make change difficult.
3. Uses both unsupported personal belief and evidence, but is beginning to be able to differentiate between them.
4. Perceives legitimate differences of viewpoint.
5. Demonstrates a beginning ability to interpret evidence.
Level 3
1. Views things from multiple perspectives; able to observe multiple aspects of the situation and place them in context.
2. Perceives conflicting goals within and among the individuals involved in a situation and recognizes that the differences can be evaluated.
3. Recognizes that actions must be situationally dependent and understands many of the factors that affect their choice.
4. Makes appropriate judgments based on reasoning and evidence.
5. Has a reasonable assessment of the importance of the decisions facing clients and of his or her responsibility as a part of the clients’ lives.
Reflection: Theory & Practical Application
Works Cited and Additional Resources