Educ Res Policy Prac (2012) 11:243–260 DOI 10.1007/s10671-011-9124-7
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour Samuel Kin Tak Cheng · Kwok Keung Ho
Received: 4 April 2011 / Accepted: 3 December 2011 / Published online: 27 December 2011 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract This study is to investigate the reflective learning in a group of secondary school students who participated in an educational tour to Liannan, which is located in a rural area in Guangdong Province, Mainland China. The specific aim is to develop a framework to describe the learning in an educational tour. For this purpose, data were collected through students’ reflective writing in daily journals and end-of-trip sharing passages, triangulated with participant observation and interviews. The data analysis involved the use of grounded theory’s constant-comparative technique—an inductive method for generating hypotheses that are grounded in data. During the analysis of the data, the types of student learning which emerged were categorized in a Reflective Learning Taxonomy for an educational tour, comprising seven levels which are developmental in nature. The interpretative framework based on such a taxonomy of reflective learning reveals the rich context of learning in an educational tour and so makes a contribution to research on learning outside the classroom. Keywords
Educational tour · Learning taxonomy and outcome · Reflective learning
1 Introduction In the past few decades, there have been major educational reforms globally which have included an emphasis on providing life-wide learning opportunities to learners. In traditional schools, learning and teaching usually take place within the classroom, but increasing attention is now being given by governments and educators to learning in different contexts, beyond the classroom setting. (Curriculum Development Council 2002, 6, p. 1). Despite the fact that educational tours are among the most expensive outdoor learning activities, each year many Hong Kong schools and institutes (from primary to tertiary level)
S. K. T. Cheng Tsung Tsin Christian Academy, Kowloon, Hong Kong K. K. Ho (B) Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, NT, Hong Kong e-mail: kwokkho@hotmail.com
123
244
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
as well as organizations (charitable and non-charitable) spend a considerable amount of money in organizing educational tours for students. For instance, with the support of the Education Bureau (formerly named Education and Manpower Bureau), the Li Ka Shing Foundation donated HK$7 million to sponsor a ‘Millennium Study Tour’ for 1,000 local students in the summer of 2000.1 Also, the Quality Education Fund sponsored ‘Exposure Learning’ in the category of ‘All Round Education’,2 with 55 and eight projects for secondary school educational tours to Mainland China and overseas respectively being supported in 1998 to 2002. In its fourth call for bids in 2000 alone, 24 educational tour projects were submitted and over HK$10 million was allocated in sponsorship. Deciding whether a tour should be regarded as ‘educational’ is not straightforward as it is to some extent a philosophical issue—like Dewey’s (1916) consideration of whether an experience is ‘educative’, ‘non-educative’, ‘un-educative’ or ‘mis-educative’. In Dewey’s definition, ‘non-educative’ refers to learning or activity that leads to little or no immediate understanding and offers little or no growth in the future; ‘un-educative’ learning or activity fails to clarify educational ends and consider appropriate means for seeking them; and ‘mis-educative’ refers to learning or activity that is based on misunderstandings, confusion or unethical behaviour and that results in future misinterpretations; and finally ‘educative’ learning experiences provide intellectual and moral growth in the present and the grounds for more growth in the future. However, in order to distinguish between an educational tour and other types of tour, an operational definition of the former is required. An educational tour, which is a kind of student activity in education, is defined for this paper as: a planned experiential programme/activity, taking place outside the school environment, for student learning and their development in the cognitive, affective and skill domains. Learning in educational tours takes place through participating, interacting with the environment and student reflection during and after the activity. Learning in an educational tour may be viewed as a form of outdoor education in which the context is very different from learning in a classroom. Kuh (1993) reported the valued outcomes of such out-of-class experiences (though in a post-secondary education context) as: cognitive complexity, knowledge acquisition and application, humanitarianism, interpersonal and intrapersonal competence and practical competence. These outcomes may attract educators to become more concerned about out-of-class education, since it can be a complement to in-class education. As indicated in Life-wide Learning Experience: a quality framework (Education and Manpower Bureau 2003), learning in tours has the quality of informal learning in that it is less systematic, more flexible, less structured and less institutionalized; is more dependent on learners’ self-motivation and self-assessment; and is ‘first-hand’ experience in real contexts, involving considerable cooperation and sharing. As Askew and Carnell (1998, pp. 7–10) emphasized, effective learning in an educational tour depends on the learner, the impact of the context on the learner and the action learning process. The above discussion raises questions for educators and educational tour organizers. For example, a learner’s learning in the present is influenced by his/her past experiences, and only the learner can identify and tell others what has been learned in the experience. 1 http://www.lksf.org/eng/media/press/20000208.shtml (Accessed 25 May 2008). 2 http://qcrc.qef.org.hk/qef/browse.phtml?nature_id=3 (Accessed 25 May 2008).
123
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour
245
Given this, how should educators describe ‘learning’ in an educational tour? Studying students’ reflections in an educational tour may provide answers to this question as such reflections can be a means of tracing their learning processes. In the following paragraphs, the literature review on learning, including experiential learning, and a discussion of learning taxonomies as a means of evaluating the outcomes of reflective learning is elaborated; followed by the design and methodology of the present study. Then a summary of the research result—A Learning Taxonomy for Educational Tour—is presented; followed by the summary of the major findings and their implications for programme evaluators and designers of educational tours. The strengths and limitations of the present research are also presented, and recommendations for future research are provided.
2 Literature review and theoretical framework According to the Association for Experiential Education, the definition of experiential education is ‘a philosophy and methodology in which educators purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills and clarify values.’3 As noted before, unlike classroom learning, there are no textbooks and formal lessons in an educational tour. Generally speaking, learning in tours of this kind can be regarded as experiential education as learning is mainly induced through social interaction, dialogue and the experiences encountered on the tour. Dewey (1938) laid a philosophical foundation for learning through experience in his book Experience and Education, which grappled in depth with the role of experience in learning. Dewey argued that all genuine education comes about through experience—but that not all experiences are genuinely or equally educative, a point which is elaborated later in this section. His theory of experience advocated two principles for interpreting the educational functions of experience—continuity and interaction. In his view, all experiences influence one’s future for better or worse, which is continuity; that is, one’s current experience is a function of the interaction between one’s past experiences and the present situation. Interaction, which refers to the situational influence on one’s experience, is going on between an individual and objects and other people. As discussed earlier, there are rich interaction opportunities in an educational tour—with the environment, other people and oneself (reflecting on new experiences)—the impact of which can be labeled as ‘learning through experience’. Educational tours are rich in what Dewey (1929) refers to as ‘primary’ experiences, and these experiences are immediate and tangible in a moving world which presents itself to the senses and provides the raw materials from which knowledge can begin. However, Dewey claimed that primary experiences are essentially ‘non-cognitive’ and have to undergo a process of refining, which he referred to as secondary or reflective experience. Secondary experience clarifies the meaning of primary experience, organizing it so that there is a useful accumulation of knowledge. In such secondary experiences, he contended, learners can grasp experiences with understanding instead of just having sensory contact with them. According to phenomenography (Bowden 2000), experiences are not located either in the subject or in the world, being neither psychological nor physical; being neither mind nor matter, ‘experiences comprise an internal relationship between the subject (experiencer) and the world’ (Marton and Booth 1997, p. 122). Joplin (1995) suggested that not all experiences 3 http://www.aee.org/about/whatIsEE (Accessed 29 Dec 2008).
123
246
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
can be regarded as experiential learning, and not all experiential programmes involve ‘experiential education’. She claimed that experience alone is insufficient and that it is the reflection process, often referred to as an ‘action-reflection’ cycle, which turns experience into experiential education. In this regard, educational tours can justifiably be regarded as experiential education in which the students are involved in reflection on their experience throughout the trip. In describing the relationship between experience and knowledge, Kelley and Rasey (1952) argued that an individual’s experiential learning process begins with perception (or purpose), moving to experience, then to thought (or value), which results in knowledge or learning. 2.1 Models of experiential learning Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) (Kolb et al. 2001) provides a holistic model of the learning process and a multi-linear model of adult development, both of which are consistent with what is known about how people learn, grow and develop. The theory is referred to as ‘experiential learning’ to highlight the central role that experience plays in the learning process, an emphasis that distinguishes ELT from other learning theories. The term ‘experiential’ is used, therefore, to differentiate ELT from both cognitive learning theories, which tend to emphasize cognition over affect, and behavioural learning theories that deny any role for subjective experience in the learning process. Kolb et al. (2001) summarized the strengths of four learning styles: ‘concrete experience’, ‘reflective observation’, ‘abstract conceptualization’ and ‘active experimentation’. Learners who have a ‘concrete experience’ learning style are strong in learning through experiencing and relating to people, and are sensitive to people and their feelings. In ‘reflective observation’, learners are learning by reflecting and observing carefully before making judgements, viewing things from different perspectives and looking inward for meanings. Those with an ‘abstract conceptualization’ learning style are strong in the logical analysis of ideas, plan systematically, and employ deductive thinking as the basis of their understanding. Finally, ‘active experimentation’ involves learning by doing; such learners have the ability to get things done, are willing to take risks and have extraverted personalities which allow them to influence people and events. The work of Kolb provides a framework which can be used to observe students’ learning in an educational tour, an event which provides a context for students with different learning styles and strengths (Bringle 2003). Students have to experience (concrete experience), to reflect (reflective observation), to internalize (abstract conceptualization) and to act (active experimentation). As educational tours involve many concrete experiences which differ from students’ previous ones, a ‘confrontation’ of experiences is unavoidable. However, Kolb’s model is a horizontal description of different learning styles—he did not attempt to comment on the value of these styles, or which learning style will lead to a higher level of learning. A vertical description would complement Kolb’s model by clarifying the ultimate aim of this kind of learning for educators who design experiential learning. Unlike Kolb’s experiential learning model, Dennison and Kirk (1990) proposed a cycle of learning which emphasized the flow of learning. The cycle includes four steps, viz., Do, Review, Learn and Apply. In the Do stage, students are engaged in learning activities which are experiential. Then they have to reflect and evaluate the process in the Review stage. After that, they extract meaning from the review and move into the Learn stage. Finally, they plan to use what they have learned in future action in the Apply stage.
123
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour
247
Dennison and Kirk’s cycle of learning is quite similar to the learning in an educational tour, in which students are engaged in a learning context (tour site) to experience (Do) and are then required to produce a reflective journal (Review). Hopefully, they can extract meaning from what they have experienced (Learn) and finally decide on future action for themselves (Apply). 2.2 Reflection on experience for transformation While the most prevalent understanding of experiential learning is based on reflection, which casts the individual as a central actor in a drama of personal meaning-making, Duley (1981, p. 611) commented that ‘The skill of experiential learning in which people tend to be the most deficient is reflection’. In this important skill, the learner supposedly reflects on lived experience, then interprets and generalizes this experience to form mental structures; and these structures are knowledge, stored in the memory as concepts that can be represented, expressed and transferred to new situations. According to Knapp (1992, p. 17), ‘the aim of reflection is to promote meaningful experience’. The achievement of meaning involves a goal that can give significance to life which, when translated into action, results in a recognition of harmony among feelings, thoughts and actions. The purpose of reflection is to channel and focus the meanings that people inevitably try to derive from experiences; reflection mediates experience in order to help in making meaning.
3 Learning taxonomy—a structural description of learning While many educators recognize the significance of experiential learning, they seldom develop evaluation measures for it. Though the context is very different, the ways in which learning is evaluated in the traditional classroom may provide guidance for the evaluation of experiential learning, which is the subject of this paper. Various taxonomies have been developed for traditional education. For example, Gibbs (1992) and Tang (2001, 2003) have reported categories for the meaning of learning; and Biggs and Collis’ (1982) SOLO taxonomy is a well-known approach for measuring learning outcomes. While referring to a very different context, these taxonomies are still worth discussing as possible models of a taxonomy for the description of learning in an educational tour. It is interesting to note that, though Gibbs’ (1992, p. 4) research was on over 2,000 students taking undergraduate degree programmes in over 40 disciplines and Tang’s (2003, p. 1422) work was concerned with students studying teacher training courses, their conceptions of learning are quite similar. Tang also claimed that these categories have a hierarchical structure, meaning that the lower-level meaning categories are embedded in the higher-level ones; and the relationship between the categories suggests that the levels of learning may not be discrete but developmental, with individuals possibly moving from a low to a high level. Common to both the above learning taxonomies is the point that low-level learning focuses on something concrete—the knowledge, examination, procedures and skills—while high-level learning relates to something abstract such as attitudes and perspectives, as well as personal development. Thus the developmental direction of learning should be from concrete to abstract, and from external (learning materials) to internal (personal development). The ‘Structure of observed learning outcomes’ (SOLO), as proposed by Biggs and Collis (1982), involved a five-stage taxonomy for learners’ output. This taxonomy is useful for judging a learner’s progress with reference to these five stages of learning. Also, it provides a clear description to distinguish between surface learning and deep learning. Moreover, the
123
248
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
taxonomy gives teachers a goal to aim for in designing learning activities which can help students attain higher stages of learning. The above taxonomies can be helpful in developing a learning taxonomy for educational tours—for describing the learning through reflection and hence providing an instrument for its evaluation—though they cannot be applied directly as they were developed basically for institutional learning, not life-wide learning. Issues related to a learning taxonomy for educational tours, such as whether the learning levels are characterized by a hierarchical structure and can be separated into surface and deep approaches, are discussed in later paragraphs.
4 Design and methodology Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology which derives its name from the practice of generating theory from research that is ‘grounded’ in data (Corbin and Strauss 2007). Many of the central components of a grounded theory approach—such as constant comparison, theoretical sampling and coding procedures—were introduced by the sociologists Glaser and Strauss (1967) in The Discovery of Grounded Theory, and were subsequently developed in later publications by these authors, in some cases in collaboration with others. Overall, this methodology emerged as an alternative strategy to more traditional approaches to scientific enquiry that relied heavily on the hypothesis testing, verification techniques and quantitative forms of analysis that were particularly popular in the social sciences at that time. The basic tenet of grounded theory methodology is that a theory must emerge from the data—that is, must be grounded in the data—and it thus purports to be an inductive rather than a deductive approach. As defined by two of its major proponents (Strauss and Corbin 1990, p. 24), ‘the grounded theory approach is a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon’. The intention is to develop an account of a phenomenon that identifies the major constructs, or categories, in grounded theory terms, as well as their relationships, and the context and process, thus providing a theory of the phenomenon that is much more than a descriptive account (Becker 1993). A grounded theory approach was chosen for the present research for two main reasons. First, the current study does not involve any pre-set hypotheses for testing; all the outcomes of the research are based on the data, which matches the canon of grounded theory methodology. In addition, educational tours as a context for learning are ill-defined in the present theories of learning. On the one hand, they involve elements of ‘traditional classroom learning’, such as well-defined learning objectives and learning through interaction with fellow students and teachers. However, such tours also represent a distinctive context which encompasses elements of learning that are missing in a conventional classroom setting, including interaction with people from a different culture and a more open learning environment which promotes exploration and provides rich stimulation. Unfortunately, no established theories of learning seem suitable for explaining fully such a learning context; and in their absence, a grounded theory approach—which argues for initial data collection and preliminary analyses to take place in advance of consulting and incorporating prior research literature— seemed an appropriate choice for the present research. This emphasis is intended to ensure that the analysis is based on the data and that pre-existing constructs do not shape the analysis and subsequent theory formation; and if any existing theoretical constructs are utilized, they must be justified through the data. Note, however, that the reading and integration of existing literature is delayed, not omitted, and is regarded as forming an important part of theory development.
123
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour
249
4.1 Data collection In this exploratory research, a purposive sample of an educational tour to Mainland China was selected for examination. The tour was organized by a Hong Kong secondary school with the help of a travel agent. Thirty students took part in the tour, accompanied by five teachers, including myself as a participant observer and an alumnus of the school as a research assistant. The data for this research were basically collected during and immediately after the trip, and were of three types: (1) daily journal writing; (2) end-of-trip ‘sharing’ passages; and (3) observation and interviewing by the researcher. The journal writing and sharing passages complemented each other: the writing of journals provided on-the-spot reflections which reduced memory loss and the mixing of responses for each day with feelings after the 6day trip; and the sharing passages offered a more holistic idea of students’ reactions, which complemented the more ‘fragmented’ ideas and feelings generated each day. Finally, my observations and interviews provided further insights into the students’ reactions to their experiences on the tour. It should be noted that, of these three sources, the primary data for analysis were the students’ daily journal entries from which categories were extracted for hypothesis formulation. The end-of-tour sharing passages were treated as ‘interweaving’ data, to be collected and examined, and my observations and interviews were treated as support and triangulation data and were not analysed separately. Participants were asked to write a journal by the end of each day. Three guiding questions were given to students to help them write their journals: (i) What were the most memorable events today? (Describe in as much detail as possible.) (ii) Have you realized anything about yourself, other people or anything else as a result of your experiences today? (iii) Did anything which happened today stimulate you to reflect on it? The first question aimed to help participants to recall what for them were key events during the day; the second question prepared them to consider the meaning of those experiences for themselves and others; and the third question prompted them to reflect on their experiences. 4.2 Data analysis According to the grounded theory approach, data analysis should begin with the first interviews. Once an interview is transcribed, the data provided are ‘fractured’ by open coding and then, by comparing the information from each interview (called ‘constant comparison’), hopefully ideas—referred to as ‘indicators’—begin to emerge (Glaser 1978). As the data are constantly compared, the researcher is able to put them into related groups from which concepts arise, and these concepts are then abstracted further to form categories. This process continues until all the available information is categorized. As the information provided from the data is abstracted further, patterns begin to be formed to explain what is happening in the substantive area under study, with a core category around which all the information is centred. With reference to the above outline, the analysis of the data in this study consisted of the following stages. First, categories were generated by examining the journals of the 30 participants in each day of the trip, in an effort to identify common themes in the data. This was the constructive phase of data analysis where the statements in journals were fragmented and initial categories created. This is the first round of data analysis.
123
250
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
In the second round of data analysis, students’ journals were analysed again to trace the concepts of learning through reflection. The results from this round helped me to discover concepts and categories which finally led to the development of levels for describing the learning through reflection in an educational tour.
5 A reflective learning taxonomy Following the tenets of grounded theory approach, the data analysis in the present research started with fragmented journal writing, involving a comparison of the ideas expressed in students’ journals, from which indicators and categories (to use Glaser’s term) emerged. Finally, after constant comparison of fragmented and re-structured data, a reflective learning taxonomy is developed as a description of learning through reflection in the context of an educational tour. From the first round of analysis of students’ comments, the following ideas were identified: making observations; reporting experiences; doing comparisons; showing appreciation; expressing self-awareness; and even reflecting on life. Those categories were fragments and their relationships were not the emphasis in the first round of data analysis. The categories found in this round of data analysis stimulated my development of a Reflective Learning Taxonomy. As discussed above, a learning taxonomy can help conceptualize and structure the meaning of learning (Gibbs 1992; Tang 2003), or describe the learning outcomes as in the SOLO taxonomy (Biggs and Collis 1982). Moreover, a hierarchically structured learning taxonomy can help in differentiating surface learning from deep learning. In an effort to overcome the limitation raised in the first round of analysis that the categories were described as discrete elements in an educational tour without consideration of any linkages between them, and provide an additional layer of understanding of students’ learning in an educational tour, a taxonomy of reflective learning was built, which includes the following seven levels: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Description Relational description Interpretation Relational interpretation Abstraction and generalization Resolution Extended resolution.
These findings are presented as hypotheses that are grounded in data and tentative, pending additional rounds of data-gathering and analysis. Each level of reflective learning is illustrated by extracts from students’ journals—many of which have already been referred to in the previous section—and triangulated with my observations and interviews. The journal quotations provide evidence that the categories and levels of reflective learning are well grounded in the data. For reasons of confidentiality, pseudonyms are used hereafter for all members, with numbers in brackets after the names for cross-referencing. In the Reflective Learning Taxonomy, lower levels of reflective learning are embedded in the higher levels. Consequently, if a student writes a reflection which includes learning at different levels, the highest level reached was selected for analysis (Tang 2003; Marton et al. 1993). As in Tang (2003), these levels have a hierarchical structure, meaning that the lower-level categories are embedded in the higher-level ones; and the relationship between
123
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour
251
the categories suggests that the levels of learning may not be discrete but developmental. The different levels of reflective learning are now outlined and illustrated. 5.1 Level 1: description This is the lowest level of reflective learning in the journals submitted by participants on the tour. At this level, students only describe the physical environment, or simply report on incidents or events they have experienced through direct observation, though even this can be regarded as a kind of reflection, as participants have to select what to describe at the end of the day. For example, Ka Po (S01) made the following comment about the house of Tong Lung Fai, a local family: There is nothing in their house … Also, on a family visit to Chung Ming’s house, Mei Ling (S09), a Secondary 4 girl, noted: I saw many flies. Such examples are labeled as Level 1 in the Reflective Learning Taxonomy as they are simply direct descriptions of what had been observed. It should be noted that the above examples were usually combined with other descriptive/elaborative points and the chunks given here have been selected simply to illustrate this level in the Reflective Learning Taxonomy. Other examples classified as Level 1 included descriptive reports on incidents or events which took place during a day. The following quotation from Shuk Kwan (S11) is typical. This morning, after we had had our breakfast, we took many pictures. The host family took out two sets of traditional costumes for us to wear. We stole peanuts from other people’s fields. Then we walked for an hour to meet our friends. Tonight, we had a celebration party. We saw a lot of performances. Although Shuk Kwan’s comment was rather long, it was still labeled as Level 1 as it did not involve any elaboration of feeling or interpretation of the incident. 5.2 Level 2: relational description Level 2 represents reflective learning which involves not just descriptions of what has been seen and actions taken, but also relates these observations to, for example, prior information, understanding, knowledge or previous experience. Following Biggs and Collis’ (1982) SOLO taxonomy, relational description is considered to be at a higher level than pure description since it involves the linking of events observed or activities undertaken in the present—in this case on the tour—with things which had happened or been seen previously. Typical examples included making comparisons between the living environment on the tour and in Hong Kong. For instance, Wai Yan (S26) noted: Today I stayed with the host family. I thought of Hong Kong when I was helping to make a fire with wood. In this case, Wai Yan appears to be thinking about how alien to her life at home this activity is. It may be argued that she was making sense of this experience of cooking based on her previous experience. Using Piaget’s terms, Wai Yan assimilated this experience of making a fire with wood, recognized that this did not happen in Hong Kong, and then tried to accommodate to and make sense of this situation. Unfortunately, this possible underlying meaning was not reported and so this reflection can only be classified as Level 2.
123
252
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
Also, in reflecting after a home visit to a rural family, Wai Mei (S23) commented: The most unforgettable thing is that I can get close to rural people living in the mountain region, something which I have never experienced before. This quotation is classified at Level 2 ‘Relational description’, as Wai Mei has reflected on her lack of any similar experience in the past and has included this additional information in her description. However, as in the case of Wai Yan, Wai Mei does not mention how she made sense of her experience of ‘getting close to rural people’ and so, again, this reflection is classified as Level 2. Also, after distributing shoes and school bags to students at Nong Xiang Primary School, Sin Ying (S27), the group leader, reported: I saw the kids wearing worn-down shoes, but I … have a lot of shoes in Hong Kong. Once again, the distinction between simple and relational description is clear as Sin Ying has related her observation that the rural children’s shoes are in a poor condition (Level 1— ‘Description’) to the fact that she has many pairs of shoes in Hong Kong, a piece of additional information which shows that she was more aware of why this event was worth recording, thus going beyond Level 1 reflective thinking. Overall, this level of reflective learning is based on observation or incidents which took place on the tour but extra related information drawn from other contexts is embedded in the quotations, thus illustrating a higher level in reflective thinking in the selection of recorded events. 5.3 Level 3: interpretation In reflective learning at this level, students give an interpretation of what they have observed or experienced, or describe their feelings directly. This involves drawing on concepts derived from previous knowledge and experience, as well as putting the ‘present’ and the ‘previous’ together, and analysing their relationship. For example, expressing one’s feelings is a way of responding to the present, but is influenced by previous’ experiences of a similar kind. The daily journals of students provided illustrations of this move to a higher level of reflective learning, as well as showing the embeddings of the lower in the higher levels. For example, Ka Ling’s (S17) journal included the statement: The sponsored boy was not so poor; at least they [his family] had a television and an electric lamp. However, another family that we visited had only an electric lamp. Commenting on the existence of a television and an electric lamp in different families belongs to Level 1 of reflective learning, as it just gives a direct description of what was observed. However, this quotation was finally assigned to Level 3 because of the interpretation involved. In suggesting that the boy mentioned should not be considered ‘so poor’, Ka Ling’s relative judgment was clearly an integration of a relational description and a prior concept of what it means to be ‘poor’. And, after taking the first lesson with rural children, Yick Ling indicated her views on their ability: When I taught, I realized that the rural kids were lacking in knowledge. In this case, Level 3 seemed appropriate as Yick Ling’s comment on ‘lack of knowledge’ involved interpretation of what she had observed, and probably drew on a comparison with what she knew about youngsters in Hong Kong.
123
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour
253
In addition to interpretations drawing on concepts and ideas in students’ minds, a direct expression of feelings triggered by episodes on the tour was regarded as Level 3 reflective learning. For example, after the exercise session on the first morning, Tak Man (S22) said: I felt curious and [had] fun the first time when I did morning exercise. The feelings of ‘curiosity’ and ‘fun’ were based on the description of an experience—morning exercise (Level 1)—and though no Level 2 clues were given about how they were generated, the feelings were an expression of Tak Man’s responses to the experience. Relational description is embedded in interpretation as any interpretation requires a frame of reference, which is obviously additional to what has been observed and experienced. However, put simply, interpretation is at a higher level than relational description because it requires the student not only to put ‘present’ and ‘previous’ together but also interpret their relationship or express their feelings. Nevertheless, Level 3 reflective learning just offers a direct description of interpretation and feelings, without indicating the process involved or the relevant previous knowledge and experience. 5.4 Level 4: relational interpretation As with the characteristic distinction between Level 1 and Level 2, Level 4 differs from Level 3 by going beyond simply offering an interpretation or describing feelings. In this higher level, additional information, knowledge and experience is introduced in the interpretation, which illustrates a more complex interpretive process. Such statements often included comparisons between this rural area and Hong Kong in terms of (a) people’s general behaviour or (b) children’s behaviour in the classroom. The following quotation from Yim Chi (S13) on reflecting on her first day of teaching is typical: I felt that the curriculum these students were having was not as advanced as that in Hong Kong. Also, they seldom have English [lessons]. In this case, Yim Chi interprets the rural curriculum as being ‘not advanced’ by using the Hong Kong curriculum as a point of reference, which was additional information drawn from her experience beyond the tour. Another example can be seen in the following comment by Ping (S14) after the first day of teaching: The students continued to practice writing the alphabet and pronouncing new words during the recess. They were hard-working and eager to learn. Hong Kong students should learn from them. This is a typical example of Level 4 reflective learning as Ping’s interpretation of the rural children being ‘hard-working and eager to learn’ is based on a frame of reference that Hong Kong students could learn from them. Besides adding related information about Hong Kong, students sometimes put themselves and the rural children/adults together in the process of interpreting. For example, after visiting a rural family, Long Ho (S10) said: Our living [standard] is far better than theirs. Their lives are so simple. This interpretation, in which ‘our living’ and ‘their lives’ is contrasted, obviously again draws on a context beyond the tour and is a typical example of Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’.
123
254
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
5.5 Level 5: abstraction and generalization Level 5 of reflective learning is concerned with written responses which include abstraction and generalization of meaning through interpreting observations and experience. Reflective learning at this level shows evidence of ‘deeper’ thinking and is a more complicated process which involves interpretation of what was observed and happened, generated through a complex reaction with the ‘previous’ knowledge and experiences. Though not all the quotations showed this process of thinking clearly, it is not difficult to see the migration to this higher level of learning. The example below, in which Sheuk Man (S02) described her home visit illustrates this level: The most unforgettable scene was [my] home visitation. I went to the wrong family. However, they showed their welcome. In Hong Kong … if I knocked on the wrong door, they [the residents] would really scold me. They answered all my questions … Looking at their smiling faces, I felt what ‘sincerity’ means. Though we are born in a new era which is generally agreed to be an ‘evil’ generation, we can find ‘sincerity’ somewhere in our world. It was so exciting! Try to be more sincere instead of being secular! In Sheuk Man’s story, the moving up of her reflective learning to Level 5—‘Abstraction and generalization’—can be traced in the following way. Her story starts with a visit to the wrong family (Level 1—‘Description’), where, to her surprise, she was welcomed (Level 3—‘Interpretation’). She compares the situation with a similar one in Hong Kong to support her interpretation that she would surely be scolded in the latter case (Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’). She experienced the sincerity of the rural people (Level 3—‘Interpretation’) and interpreted this based on the ‘common understanding’ of this being an ‘evil’ new era (Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’). Finally, she concludes with a generalized statement: ‘Try to be more sincere instead of being secular!’ (Level 5—‘Abstraction and generalization’). While her concluding statement, which was based on an incident in the tour but not confined to it, illustrates the process of learning from lower levels up to Level 5, it includes no evidence that Sheuk Man has made any resolution to show more sincerity in her own daily life. An example such as Sheuk Man’s, in which she showed awareness of her own interpretation, was rarely found in the journals of the students. Many other examples at this level show only the ‘final product’—the abstraction and generalization of meaning—though it is quite difficult to trace the process. Noted below is an illustrative example from Ping (S14) after what she viewed as a happy day with rural children: This trip gave me a deep understanding that satisfaction in the heart is more important than the material life. In Ping’s statement, there is no direct clue about the process which led her to come to the above conclusion. However, elsewhere she reported the warm smiling faces of the rural children (Level 3—‘Interpretation’) which she said she seldom sees in Hong Kong (Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’), before drawing the above conclusion about the importance of ‘satisfaction in the heart’. In doing so, she has extended her interpretation of an experience on the tour and has abstracted and generalized meaning from it—a common feature of Level 5 learning.
123
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour
255
5.6 Level 6: resolution As indicated earlier, the key distinguishing feature of Level 6 reflective thinking is the element of decision-making. As in the immediately lower level, the learning is based on the observations and events which took place in the tour and there is a process of interpretation, but in this case there is a further stage of ‘resolution’. While abstraction and generalization may sometimes be simply a statement which the learners consider appropriate for public consumption, resolution has more meaning for them as it involves a personal decision: it shows a movement upwards from the general to the personal. In a sense, it can be regarded as internalization of abstraction and generalization and often includes statements such as: ‘I have to treasure …’, ‘I have to learn …’, or ‘I have to apply …’. A clear illustration of this level of learning can be found in the following quotation from Ka Ling’s (S17) reflective journal. Feeling ashamed after teaching rural children for the whole morning, she said: The kids concentrated so hard in the class. It made me feel ashamed of myself because in Hong Kong I do not even finish the work the teacher has assigned to me. However, students here took the initiative to reply to our questions. I have to treasure my learning opportunities and the chances for learning English. In this quotation, Ka Ling observed and appreciated the attitude to learning of the village children (Level 3—‘Interpretation’). She then interpreted it in the light of her own ‘previous’ experience in Hong Kong (Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’). Finally, she claimed that she needed to value more the opportunities she has been given to learn English (Level 6—‘Resolution’). Though the process of moving from Level 4 to Level 5 and then Level 6 is not evident, it is believed that such a process exists, though hidden. As Ka Ling considered that people have to treasure the chances they have for learning (Level 5—‘Abstraction and generalization’), she then turned this belief into a decision to assign greater value to her own opportunities for learning. Another aspect of life on which students typically made a decision in their journals was to cherish the food available to them in Hong Kong. In Liannan, they usually had simple and not particularly pleasant food, but they noticed that the village people treasured even such simple fare. After a meal which a rural family had gone to great pains to prepare for her, Hoi Lam (S20) commented: I have to treasure food. In Hong Kong, we often have much food left after a meal, and we throw it away. I think this is wasteful. Hoi Lam’s resolution started from observing the considerable effort the family had made to cook a meal for her (Level 1—‘Description’) and she felt the warmth of their reception (Level 3—‘Interpretation’). She then recalled the situation in Hong Kong where people frequently throw away excess food and felt this was wasteful (Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’). Finally, she made the decision to value food more in the future (Level 6—‘Resolution’). Such examples show internalization of resolution, based on observations and events which happened on the tour, interpretation (simply descriptive or relational) and abstraction and generalization. 5.7 Level 7: extended resolution In a few cases, students’ writing showed that they were not only stating a decision, but also deducing a general principle for their lives from it. An extended resolution, in which Level 6
123
256
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
‘Resolution’ and the levels below it are embedded, moves beyond the resolution per se and out of the context of the educational tour: it becomes a rule of life for the students concerned. This is considered to be the highest level of reflective learning found in students’ written work. In fact, there were only three examples of this level in the 346 units analysed in the Stage one analysis. The following quotations illustrate these examples. Wai Tak (S25) described his feeling of failure in teaching in his journal. As I observed, he was a dedicated ‘teacher’ in the classroom; and on his second day of teaching, he made a strenuous effort to teach an English song – but felt the outcome was not satisfactory, as noted below: The [students’] learning today was unsatisfactory. I used an inappropriate method. I made every effort to teach the whole song and made my students have hard feelings. I have learned to take care about different aspects in doing a task. Though some were minor aspects, we cannot ignore them. I reflected not to do things in a ‘stiff’ way, but to make a detailed plan which will result in better achievement. More diligence in work, more appreciation from other people. In Wai Tak’s reflection, he interpreted the classroom learning on that day as ‘unsatisfactory’—a typical instance of Level 3 reflective learning; then he moved on to analyse his method of teaching and generalize a way of working on-task—consider a variety of aspects in carrying out a task, and don’t ignore minor ones. Such a generalization showed that Wai Tak had attained Level 5 reflective learning. In fact, this conclusion is rather meaningful, especially from a teenager without work experience. However, he moved on to internalize the generalized meaning and resolved that he must be more flexible and develop a detailed plan in order to have a better outcome (Level 6—‘Resolution’). Finally, he extended his resolution to a relationship between diligence and appreciation from others—a more desirable learning outcome from the viewpoint of educators—and so his response was classified as Level 7 in the Reflective Learning Taxonomy. Another example came from Ka Sin (S08) who, after a day spent with a village host family, wrote: Sham Hoi Keung and his brother were diligent in their studies … I have to learn from them. Diligence and effort will pay off. Diligence leads to progress. People doing nothing and trying nothing shall regret this. Ka Sin’s first statement offered the interpretation that Sham Hoi Keung and his brother were committed to their studies (Level 3) and then she decided that she must follow their example in her own studies (Level 6—‘Resolution’). Her second comment was labeled ‘Extended resolution’ (Level 7) as she expressed a context-free principle as a rule for life which once again achieves the highest level in the taxonomy. The last example is extracted from Ping’s (S14) journal on the first day, after distributing materials to deprived students: I am very blessed, but I do not feel satisfied. I concentrate too much on material life. I have to concentrate more on satisfaction in the heart. I should become more open, confident, considerate and tolerant, so that I can learn more. As in the case of Ka Sin, Ping’s first quotation was stimulated by seeing the needs of poor children in Liannan (Level 1—‘Description’), and then she turned to a comparison with her
123
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour
257
own situation and interpreted the children’s situation as ‘unfortunate’ (Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’). This led to an element of self-understanding in which she felt she was too concerned with the material aspects of life and decided to focus more on behaving in ways which gave her ‘satisfaction in the heart’ (Level 6—‘Resolution’). Up to that level, Ping’s reflection is similar to that of many other students. What takes her comment beyond that of most students is her final statement about a wide variety of personal characteristics which she feels she must change. This clearly goes well beyond the context of the tour to become a set of general principles which should govern her life.
6 Summary and conclusions The aim of this study was to describe the learning gained in an educational tour. By using a grounded theory approach, concepts and categories of learning which emerged from the data were classified hierarchically using a taxonomy. Finally, a Reflective Learning Taxonomy was built up for use in assessing the levels of learning the participants attained. It should be noted that the taxonomy is developmental in nature, with the learning at the higher levels being assumed to have moved through the lower levels. According to grounded theory methodology, the taxonomy and other findings from this exploratory study are tentative, to be followed up with further data-gathering and analysis. One of the major outcomes of the present research was the development of a Reflective Learning Taxonomy for Educational Tours, in which the levels of reflective learning presented emerged from the data. The taxonomy includes seven developmental levels, namely: Description (Level 1), Relational description (Level 2), Interpretation (Level 3), Relational interpretation (Level 4), Abstraction and generalization (Level 5), Resolution (Level 6) and Extended resolution (Level 7). This served as a simple model for assessing the learning achieved by the participants in the tour to Liannan.
7 Implications and recommendations for educational tour organizers In recent years, educational tours have become a popular means of outdoor learning adopted by schools, youth organizations and even the Education Bureau; and in many cases, the organizations concerned require some form of programmed evaluation after a tour, especially for those programmes funded by other bodies. The hierarchical structure of the Reflective Learning Taxonomy developed in this paper provides a useful framework for educators and youth workers for setting objectives for tours and measuring the qualitative differences in reflection on experience as a means of learning of those who take part in them. Using the taxonomy, those concerned can assess the feedback from participants after each task, each day or the whole trip, and thus can outline clearly the group members’ paths to learning and the educational value of the programme. This taxonomy of reflective learning can be thought of as constituting ‘the goals of an educational tour’, in which, after its completion, the participants have acquired new experiences which trigger the abstraction of meaning and personal resolutions, some of which even involve a change in their philosophy of life. The taxonomy, therefore, not only provides a framework for evaluating tour programmes, but also offers a direction for educators when they are designing activities for pre-trip training sessions, the activities and the debriefing sessions after their completion.
123
258
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
It is important to clarify that the aim of the taxonomy is not to categorize or label individual students as surface learners and deep learners, but to classify their reflections into surface or deep reflective learning. In fact, all the participants in this study showed more or less deep reflective learning; and, as seen earlier, they may use both approaches at different times, although they may have their own preferences for one or the other. The existing learning theories relate mainly to cognitive learning. In contrast, the present Reflective Learning Taxonomy focuses primarily on changes in personal values and attitudes, and helps to fill a gap in the literature on this less developed area. Moreover, previous learning outcomes taxonomies have been constructed in relation to classroom teaching and learning, while the present Reflective Learning Taxonomy has been developed in the context of an educational tour. This taxonomy is also applicable to other educational activities which involve reflection as a learning strategy. Educational tour organizers and evaluators are in need of a practical framework to evaluate tour programmes, but little research work has been carried out in this specific area. The present study provides not only a theoretical framework to benefit the education community, but also a practical framework for frontline practitioners to use. This Reflective Learning Taxonomy can also be employed by tour sponsors who may require a form of systematic evaluation to assess the success of tours.
8 Limitations of the study As a qualitative study based on grounded theory methodology, the analysis of students’ detailed descriptions and reflections in their daily journals and end-of-trip reports, together with observation and on-the-spot interviews to serve as triangulation, provided rich information on the level of students’ learning on the tour. However, it has to be recognized that this research also has certain limitations For example, it needs to be emphasized that this study is based on a single journey on a kind of ‘help the poor’ trip, and so its findings clearly cannot be applied to the whole range of educational tours with somewhat different purposes. Also, as stressed in a grounded theory approach, such an exploratory study methodology produces results which need to be confirmed or otherwise through further research—a process for which, however, the Reflective Learning Taxonomy developed here should be helpful. In addition, the data collected in this research consisted mainly of written work, which clearly requires a certain level of ability in written expression; and this can vary considerably among the students involved, as happened in this study. Tours for primary level pupils or students with certain disabilities may therefore need other data collection methods. For example, such students may be interviewed, with their reflections tape-recorded for analysis, or primary school students can express their learning by drawing pictures and having a guided sharing session afterwards. Another limitation of the study is that it relies on students’ self-reporting of reflection, which can be affected by their moods and dispositions. After the first 2 days, I noticed that some students appeared to be getting tired of submitting daily journals, or ignored the guiding questions and just wrote a few words to fulfill the ‘assignment’ required by their teachers, a development which explains the ‘failure to submit’ and ‘unable to analyse’ data. However, this was offset to some degree by the use of triangulation. Students who may be reluctant to express themselves openly in their peer group may still carry out in-depth reflection at home.
123
A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour
259
Some further suggestions for improving the learning outcomes of the trip are: • • • •
First, the student-to-teacher (or group leader) ratio should be kept low, as closer supervision is likely to make students take the reflective learning task more seriously. Second, it is important to train students prior to the trip to set aside quiet time for writing their reflections. Third, some training in reflective writing before the tour would be beneficial. Four, for triangulation, various other kinds of data can be collected, both verbal and written, and within groups and individually, as well as further observation.
Finally, in this study, I was a participant observer. Being a teacher in the school made it convenient for me to approach and talk to student participants. However, the possible role conflict between being teacher and researcher may sometimes have confused students and affected my efforts to adopt a completely neutral position.
9 Recommendations for future research The present research on the components of a particular programme provides a useful indication of the sorts of features and participant characteristics which trigger high-level reflective learning. The findings can therefore be of practical value to designers of educational tours when arranging appropriate programmes for their clients. However, there is a need for further research which can take various forms. For instance, as has been noted several times, the categories in the Reflective Learning Taxonomy are tentative and have to be tested in other studies. Since the present study involved only one school and 30 students, a larger sample of educational tour participants should be studied in order to stabilize the categories. In the past, I have been involved in different types of educational tours—such as an exploratory nature tour in South Africa and a Christian mission tour in Cambodia—and am therefore fully aware that the intended learning in educational tours can vary considerably. It would therefore be worth investigating the extent to which the taxonomy developed in this study is applicable to tours with a variety of different objectives. Other questions relating to the taxonomy can also be explored. For example, is it applicable to educational tours involving different age groups? With appropriate modification of reflection data collection, can it describe adequately the learning of clients with a different level of ability? Examining such issues may require contributions from researchers in different education sectors. Another recommendation for future research is to trace whether individual participants actually implement the resolutions and extended resolutions they have asserted in their reflections. In fact, the impact of an educational tour on participants’ actual behaviour may last for only a short period or be lifelong, and so it would be an interesting topic to examine the kinds of experiences which tend to have a more sustained effect on their lives. Lastly, there can be further research on the features and participant qualities revealed in this study. For example, there could be more in-depth investigation of issues such as the following: Are the programme features found to trigger high-level reflective learning in this educational tour applicable to tours with different purposes? And should we design instruments for selecting suitable learners for educational tours? Drawing on the way Dewey describes the process, as seen in his collected works (Simpson et al. 2005, pp. 59–61), educators (teachers and experiential learning programme designers) should play the role of navigators in students’ voyage of experiential learning, to guide,
123
260
S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho
direct and steer the boat so that it will involve educative—not non-educative, un-educative or mis-educative—experiences.
References Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (1998). Transforming learning: Individual and global change. London: Cassell. Becker, P. H. (1993). Common pitfalls in published grounded theory research. Qualitative Health Research, 3(2), 254–260. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press. Bowden, J. A. (2000). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press. Bringle, R. G. (2003). Enhancing theory-based research on service-learning. In S. Billig & J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2007). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Basic education curriculum guide. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Dennison, B., & Kirk, R. (1990). Do, review, learn, apply: A simple guide to experiential learning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and nature. Lasalle: The Open Court Publishing Co. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Duley, J. S. (1981). Field experience education. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Education and Manpower Bureau. (2003). Life-wide Learning Experience: A quality framework, Life-wide Learning Section, EMB. http://cd1.edb.hkedcity.net/cd/lwl/QF/pdf/Quality_LWL_Experience_eng_ Aug2004.pdf. Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: TES. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publication Company. Joplin, L. (1995). On defining experiential education. In K. Warren, M. Sakofs, & J. Hunt, Jr. (Eds.), The theory of experiential education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Kelley, E. C., & Rasey, M. (1952). Education and the nature of man. New York: Harper Bros. Knapp, C. E. (1992). Lasting lessons: A teacher’s guide to reflecting on experience. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Accessed February 11, 2008 from http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/experiential-learning-theory.pdf. Kuh, G. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 277–304. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marton, F., Dall’alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277–300. Simpson, D. J., Jackson, M. J. B., & Aycock, J. C. (2005). John Dewey and the art of teaching: Toward reflective and imaginative practice. London: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Tang, K. W. T. (2001). The influence of teacher education on conceptions of teaching and learning. In J. B. Biggs & D. A. Watkins (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. Hong Kong: CERC and ACER Publication. Tang, K. W. T. (2003). The meaning of learning and the meaning of teaching. International Journal of Learning, 10, 1421–1430.
123