The Value of Reflection to
Critical Thinking and Learning
By Dr. Lynn Grinnell
St. Petersburg College, FL
grinnell.lynn@spcollege.edu
Agenda
 Overview
 Brief structured experiential activity
1.
2.
3.
Review of transfer taxonomies
Activity: Identify likely transfer levels
Debriefing
 Discussion
Structured Experiential Activity:
Near or Far Transfer?
Review Haskell’s transfer theory
Individually :
 Fill out the Near or Far Transfer? activity using Haskell’s
levels of transfer
In pairs:
 Compare your answers and come to consensus on the
anticipated level of transfer
Transfer Theory

Research on transfer has shown that the ability to perform a procedure in
one context does not assure the ability to apply the skill in a slightly
different situation (Detterman, 1993). Normally, the brain stores
information in a highly contextual form, thus allowing transfer only in very
similar situations. Haskell (2001) identified five conditions that promote
transfer: an extensive knowledge base, a positive emotional connection
that gives meaning to the learning, a supportive culture, theoretical
knowledge, and extensive practice.

Haskell (2001) described a five-level taxonomy for transfer that identified
ever-broadening contexts for transferring learning:
1)
Application transfer: from textbook knowledge to a problem or situation
2)
Context transfer: from one situation to an identical situation
3)
Near transfer: from one situation to a similar situation
4)
Far transfer: from one situation to a different situation
5)
Creative transfer: finding similarity between one situation and a novel
situation
Directions:
- Review the five learning activities
- Put a number to represent the level of transfer is likely to result from
the activity (there is not necessarily one learning activity for each level)
- Compare your results with your neighbor
1
Application
of reading
(application
transfer)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2
Identical
situations
(context
transfer)
3
Similar
situations
(near
transfer)
4
5
Very different New
contexts
similarity
(far transfer) (creative
transfer)
Learning to use a video recorder
Baking a cake
Walking in the woods looking for analogies
Doing a needs analysis
Developing a college course
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
If one level of transfer is not used, what would be a good activity for that level?
Debriefing
 Objective review: What
happened?



Results
Differences
Similarities
 Subjective review




How did you feel as you
were doing the activity?
Which ones were difficult
to categorize?
Which ones did you
agree on with your
neighbor?
Was it difficult to come to
consensus on the others?
 Build a theory




Why were there
difficulties? (If there were)
Do you think Haskell’s
taxonomy is valid?
Does it fit with your past
experience?
How would you change
it?
 How can you use this in the
classroom?

What further
research/practice do you
need/want?
Why is reflection important?
 What did debriefing the experiential activity do
for you?
 What did you feel as you were doing the
experiential activity? As you were debriefing?
 What happens in debriefings?

What theory or theories do you know that might
explain what happens?
Background on Reflection
 Role of reflection in learning first identified by John Dewey

Learning = observing, combining with past knowledge, and
judgment on significance
 Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory


Learning from experience is increased when people
deliberately reflect on it
Four stage experiential learning cycle:





concrete experience
reflective observation
abstract conceptualization
active experimentation
Everything after concrete experience can be done with
debriefings
Background on Debriefings
 Most literature recommends 4 stages of debriefing:




Objective review
Subjective review
Connecting to prior experience/theory building
Planning their next experience
 Very little research on debriefings
 In my study, my research question was: What cognitive
and emotional process occur during debriefings?

Qualitative study
Results of Content Analysis
Content
Process
Connections
Pl
an
ni
ng
tra
ct
Ab
s
bj
ec
tiv
e
Su
O
bj
ec
t iv
e
Six variables:
Content: references to the textbook increased
Process: discussion of process low in abstract phase
Connections: depth of learning increased
Context: level of transfer increased
Affect: intensity of emotion as high in objective as
subjective phase
Relevance: importance of the material increased
Intent: desire to use the knowledge only expressed in
planning phase
Context
Affect
Relevance
Intent
Learning process map
Key:
Cognitive concepts
Personal reaction concepts
Debriefing sequence:
1. Reflective Observation
2. Abstract Conceptualization
Learning sequence:
Abstraction
Introduction
Events
Content/
Process
Content
Mental Rehearsal
Belief/
Emotion
Emotion
Connections
Connections
At least two iterations before abstraction
Abstraction
3. Active Experimentation
Priming
SelfMotivation
Transfer
Discussion
 Think back over your past experience with active
learning, either as a teacher or a learner …


How do these data relate to your past experience?

Have you used experiential activities or active learning in
your classes? What kind?

Have you used class activities without debriefings? Did
students learn all that you hoped they would learn? Would
debriefings have given them an extra opportunity to “get”
the point of the lesson?

If you have you debriefed activities in the past, how have
those debriefings gone? Have you used other forms of
debriefing?
How do debriefings fit into your theory of learning?
 Parting thoughts: What can you use from this session in
the future?
Bibliography
 Haskell, R. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition,
instruction, and reasoning. San Diego: Academic Press.
 Detterman, D. & Sternberg, R. Transfer on trial:
Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing.
 Grinnell, L. (2003). A qualitative exploration of reflective
thinking in experiential learning debriefings. Tampa:
University of South Florida.