Understanding and supporting reflective learning processes in the workplace: The CSRL Model

Birgit R. Krogstie1, Michael Prilla2, and Viktoria Pammer3

1Norwegian University of Science and Technology birgitkr@idi.ntnu.no

2Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany Prilla@iaw.ruhr-uni-bochum.de

3Know-Center, Graz, Austria vpammer@know-center.at

Abstract. Reflective learning is a mechanism to turn experience into learning. As a mechanism for self-directed learning, it has been found to be critical for success at work. This is true for individual employees, teams and whole organi-zations. However, most work on reflection can be found in educational con-texts, and there is only little work regarding the connection of reflection on in-dividual, group and organization levels. In this paper, we propose a model that can describe cases of reflective learning at work (CSRL). The model represents reflective learning processes as intertwined learning cycles. In contrast to other models of reflective learning, the CSRL model can describe both individual and collaborative learning and learning that impacts larger parts of an or-ganization. It provides terminology to describe and discuss motivations for re-flective learning, including triggers, objectives for and objects of reflective learning. The paper illustrates how the model helps to analyse and differentiate cases of reflective learning at work and to design tool support for such settings.

1 Introduction

Reflective learning is a mechanism to learn from experience. It plays a key role in informal learning in the workplace [1, 2] as it enables individuals and teams to handle changing work contexts and work-relevant knowledge in a self-directed manner. Re-flection also helps organisations to handle competition and changing external factors [3] by enabling adaptation and fuelling innovation [4]. To achieve this, however, the outcomes of reflective learning in the organization need to be properly shared, acknowledged and utilized in relevant parts of the organization.

It has been demonstrated that reflective learning can be supported by technology [5-8] e.g. by supporting retrospective analysis, by scaffolding the reflective process, or by scaffolding the documenting and sharing of decision rationale. However, when carrying out empirical studies on reflection and its support in workplaces, we found that a solid basis to analyse reflection and conceptualize its support is missing in cur-rent research: existing models and theories for workplace learning do not explicitly cover reflection but have a broader focus [2], models for reflective learning typically

focus on individual learning [9, 10], and theories describing collaborative learning mainly cover educational contexts [11]. Existing work demonstrating how reflective learning in the workplace can be analysed to inform technology design [12-15] is limited with respect to processes involving different parts of an organization.

In this paper, we contribute a model of reflective learning in workplaces, the CSRL model. It is grounded in existing theory and empirical work and supports the analysis of reflective learning at work and the design of technology to support it. The model supports unlocking the potential of reflection on multiple levels for TEL by providing a means to analyse, design and implement technology support for reflective learning.

2 Related Work: Existing models and approaches

2.1 Reflective Learning

We view reflective learning as the conscious re-evaluation of experience for the pur-pose of guiding future behaviour and use this term synonymously with “reflection”. With this we follow Boud et al.[16], who consider reflection in the context of formal learning settings and define it as “a generic term for those intellectual and affective activities in which individuals [...] explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations” (Boud et al. 1985). This perspective on reflection is in line with the conception proposed by Schön [17], who in addition differentiates between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action.

While the model presented by Boud et al. in [16] is helpful in considering how to support reflective learning, it does not explicitly link reflective learning to work [18]. To understand and support reflection in the workplace, specific characteristics of work settings need to be taken into account, most importantly the absence of teachers, the necessity for reflective learning to be highly iterative [7], its relation to other work and the various participants of reflection in practice. An important feature of the CSRL model is that it distinguishes these aspects of reflective learning.

2.2 Learning in the workplace

Work and reflection on work are intertwined [17, 19] as reflection transforms experi-ence from work into knowledge applicable to the challenges of daily work. Reflection has a strong social dimension and is often accomplished collaboratively by a team or working unit [20]. As a typical form of workplace learning it is often informal, while ranging from being very implicit in work to being deliberately planned with explicit goals [2]. A model for reflective learning at work needs to capture this diversity.

Models relevant for understanding and supporting learning (individual and collabo-rative) in the workplace can be found in CSCL, e.g., in the model of knowledge build-ing proposed by Stahl [11]. It describes individual and collaborative learning process-es as intertwined cycles and is focused on knowledge building and steps to achieve it such as clarification, negotiation and formalization. The knowledge co-evolution model by Kimmerle and Cress [21] adds an organizational perspective to this by de-scribing how learning and knowledge building are an interplay of cognitive and social

systems. However, neither of these models represents reflection and experience or include concepts relating the learning process specifically to the workplace [15].

Reflective learning has been recognized as key to bottom-up organisational learn-ing, as it helps organizations question assumptions and to change accepted knowledge and best practice. Høyrup and Elkjær [22] argue for considering multiple perspectives on reflection in an organization, pointing out that the structuring needed from an or-ganizational perspective must create opportunities for reflection from individualized, group and critical perspectives. Knipfer et al. [12] focus on psychological mecha-nisms whilst pointing out that as workplaces provide individuals with a social context, individual and collaborative learning are intertwined and must be considered together.

The CSRL model bridges the gap left by existing models of (reflective) learning, as it covers the wide range of informal learning as described above. Although it does not by itself make assumptions about organizational requirements for successful reflec-tion, it provides a terminology and framework that can be used to describe reflection on individual, collaborative and organisational levels.

2.3 Models supporting Technology Design for Reflective Learning

Existing models of learning processes in organizations show that insights about these processes have implications for tool use, e.g. for knowledge sharing [23]. The cyclic model of collaborative knowledge building by Stahl [11] combines individual and collaborative learning and can be a useful starting point for considering technology support for this combination, linking support to specific steps in the cycle. The model of reflective learning proposed in [14] links categories of tools to steps in a reflective learning cycle and can be used to analyse cases of computer-supported reflective learning in the workplace [13]. Continuing this line of research, the CSRL model provides a framework for linking tool use to cycles of reflective learning and the tran-sitions between them, supporting reflective learning as an iterative process.

3 Reflection in a Hospital Setting: An Illustrative Example

To illustrate the complex nature and corresponding affordances of reflection in prac-tice, we give an example from a real case of reflective learning at work, taken from a series of studies at different work places described e.g. in [7]. It stands proxy for a multitude of similar examples and will be used to illustrate reflection in this paper. The example is taken from a German hospital specialized in neurological diseases, in which we observed and interviewed staff (nurses and physicians) and their practice of reflection in daily work (see [15]). We observed work on the ward for acute strokes, in which highly trained staff takes care of emergency patients. The case was selected because reflection is particularly important for medical staff in their demanding and emotionally stressful work. Also, collaborative reflection is part of the practice among colleagues, who help each other with difficult situations. Our example describes a critical incident in the work of a nurse responsible for the emergency room. The inci-dent resulted in several reflection steps and follow-up changes of work practice.

One day, a nurse failed to initiate the emergency procedure when a patient was brought to the emergency room and the state of the patient suddenly deteriorated severely. In cases like this, the nurse has to use the mobile telephone that he carries with her and start an internal emergency procedure that calls a special team to the emergency room. The nurse tried to initiate the procedure, but failed and had to call the team in manually. This resulted in a time lag for the treatment, and the patient’s state became critical. Alt-hough the patient recovered after this situation, the nurse felt bad about it and wanted to prevent similar situations in the future. The nurse later thought back to this situation, but did not understand what had gone wrong and why. He went to the head nurse in order to reflect with her about the procedure. The head nurse remembered similar problems in the past. Together, they found that the procedure was too complex and included too many steps to be followed in emergency situations. They came up with changes to the procedure, but were not sure whether these changes would work for others, too. The nurse and the head nurse decided to take the topic into a staff meeting to involve more people in finding a solution. In the staff meeting, some nurses reported similar problems with the existing emergency procedure. The group started to reflect on reasons for the problem and finally came up with a proposal for an adapted procedure. They decided to propose to management that the adapted procedure be used on all wards of the hospital. Also they agreed to practice emergency situations more frequently on the ward.

This example is typical for reflection we have observed, as it includes multiple cycles (e.g., individual reflection by the nurse and reflection in the group of staff), different reasons to start each of these cycles (e.g., preventing further issues) and different constraints to each cycle (e.g., in parallel to other work or in a meeting). During the analysis of this and other examples, and in designing corresponding technology, we realized that there is a need to be able to properly describe situations of reflection. This is needed to identify requirements for the support and to design tools and fea-tures to implement the support. The CSRL model was developed to suit these needs.

4 CSRL: A model of reflective learning at work

The CSRL model has been evolved from Boud’s model of reflective learning [16], empirical work in different workplaces such as health, care, IT consulting, telecom-munications and emergency help (e.g. [15, 24]) and a modelling process [14, 25]. The main view of the model is called the CSRL reflection cycle and will be our focus in this paper. We will refer to it as “the CSRL model” for short. In this section we estab-lish a terminology for the key elements in the CSRL model. Then we describe the model by referring to the example in Section 3 for illustration. It should be noted that the model is understood as a framework to understand, analyse and support reflection rather than as a prescriptive, pre-defined process.

4.1 Terminology and Semantics

Reflection happens in a reflection session, which include a set of activities through which reflection takes place [26] and creates a reflection outcome. The outcome may

include a change in behaviour, new perspectives and commitment or readiness for action [16]. The session is guided by a more or less explicit reflection objective and has reflection participants, which may be a single person (individual reflection) or multiple persons (collaborative reflection).

A reflection trigger starts the reflection as individuals or groups perceive some dis-crepancy, e.g. contradicting information, incongruent feelings, interpersonal conflicts and other occurrences during work, leading to a state of discomfort that the individual or group wants to overcome [12]. The reflection trigger can also be an event outside the individual that leads to awareness of the discrepancy, e.g. a reminder to review the past work week. The plan for a reflection session, including objective, participants, approach and resources, is referred to as a reflection frame, which may be more or less explicit and elaborate.

Fig. 1. The CSRL model (CSRL reflection cycle)

The CSRL model is shown in Fig. 1. It contains four stages of reflection: Plan and do work (1), initiate reflection (2), conduct reflection session (3) and apply outcome (4). The result of a stage feeds (closed arrows (a,b,c,d)) into the next stage. A reflection cycle starts with “Initiate reflection”. Triggers (dashed arrows (t)) lead to this initia-tion. Each stage contains a non-exhaustive list of activities. In section 4.3 and 4.4, the numbers and letters (e.g. (1), (a)) refer to Fig. 1).

4.2 The four main stages in the model

The Plan and do work stage refers to conducting individual or group activity on the work arena, including everyday work, planning and monitoring. It also includes simu-lation of work in real or virtual environments. In the hospital example, this stage in-cludes the episode in which the nurse fails to initiate the emergency procedure. Plan and do work (1) Input (in the context of reflective learning): Change (d) resulting from reflection Output (in the context of reflective learning): Reflection trigger (t), Data (a) Plan work The particular kind of work that involves planning other work Do work Conduct work tasks, e.g. care for patients Monitor work Observe the state of the work. This includes the individual’s self-

monitoring during work and external monitoring e.g. by a tool

Table 1. Stage „Plan and do work“ of the CSRL model

The stage of initiating reflection may be more or less elaborate. In some cases it is brief and closely integrated with work other activity. It produces a more or less ex-plicit frame. In the hospital example, reflection is initiated when the nurse wants to understand what went wrong, when he involves the head nurse in collaborative reflec-tion, and when the topic is brought into the staff meeting. Including the activity of involving others, this stage also provides a link between individual and collaborative learning processes [7]. Initiate reflection (2) Input: Reflection trigger (t), Data (a) Output: Frame for the reflection session (b) Set objective Set the objective for the reflection, on the basis of the reason why

reflection was triggered, e.g. understanding what went wrong Involve others Involve others if needed (based on the reason why reflection was

triggered), e.g. asking experienced colleagues to reflect together Plan session Plan the session by determining the time, place and approach, e.g.

conducting a meeting or approaching people spontaneously

Table 2. Stage „Initiate reflection“ of the CSRL model

In the conduct reflection session stage reflection takes place based on the frame re-sulting from the reflection initiation. The session has an objective, a reflection topic, it may be facilitated and involves one or more participants. The session results in an outcome. In the hospital example there are several steps characterized as reflection sessions: The nurse reflecting on why he had failed to initiate the emergency proce-dure, the nurses reflecting together on their experiences with this type of situation and identifying a possible improvement of the procedure or staff reflecting in the meeting.

Conduct reflection session (3) Input: Reflection frame (b) Output: Reflection outcome (c); Reflection trigger (t) Make related expe-riences available

Make available and share work experiences relevant to ad-dress the reflection objective, e.g. documenting a problem.

Reconstruct or en-vision work experi-ence

Reconstruct relevant work or envision them as future experi-ence, e.g. based on various data from the work process, or notes to support participants’ memory

Understand mean-ing

Relate experience to relevant context (in light of the reflec-tion topic), e.g. to procedures relevant for the work task

Articulate meaning Formulate the meaning in a way that makes it understandable to others, e.g. talk about possible reasons for a problem

Critique experience Critically evaluate the experience by use of relevant criteria, e.g. asking whether it could have been avoided and how

Reach a resolution Agree on – or decide when there is – a satisfactory outcome of the session; formulate the outcome

Plan to apply reflec-tion outcome

Clarify whether and how the outcome can be applied in prac-tice

Table 3. Stage “Conduct reflection session” of the CSRL model

The Apply outcome results in changes on work, in input to further reflection, or both. It may include involving others (e.g. team members), switching between collab-orative and individual reflection or applying reflection results to work. In the hospital example, the two nurses created an improved procedure, but could not apply it be-cause they do not know whether other staff would consider it a good solution. The decision in the staff meeting to practice emergency situations more frequently results in changes for work practice but management needs to be included for its implemen-tation. Outcomes may be on individual, group or organisational levels, and that both individual and collaborative reflection processes may lead to them [7].

Table 4. Stage „Apply outcome“ of the CSRL model

Apply outcome (4) Input: Reflection outcome (c) Output: Change (at the work arena) (d); Reflection trigger (t) Decide on change to work (e.g. what, who)

Finding out what change on the work arena should be made, and who will be involved (e.g. what scope the change should have).

Decide how to make the change

Considerations may involve whether a change to work can immediately be made and/or whether it should be described and shared, informally or formally e.g. as a recommendation

Decide whether fur-ther reflection is needed

It may be that the participants see a need for change but can-not not identify or agree on a solution, or that there is a need for the involvement of others with more expertise or power. These may be reasons to initiate a new reflection cycle.

4.3 The transitions between the stages in the reflection cycle

To support reflection as a process and not only single instances/cycles, there is a need to analyse the transitions between the stages of a cycle. The transitions involve the use of output from one step as input to the next, as shown in Fig. 1 (a,b,c,d).

Data on work (a): Data is needed to reconstruct and make sense of work experi-ences. It may be more or less contextualized, more or less filtered, and more or less abstracted. The data may result from user-initiated or automatic data gathering. In the hospital example, this data could stem from notes the nurse made after the problem or from the internal call centre to reproduce which numbers the nurse had dialled.

Frame for reflection (b): When the initiation of a reflection session is completed, the result is a frame for the reflection session. In our example, a simple frame was made up by the idea to approach the head nurse for reflection, a more elaborate frame can be seen in the meeting held with staff, which was accompanied by an agenda.

Reflection outcome (c): A reflection session results in an outcome as described in section 4.1. The outcome may consist of several elements. It may be more or less explicit, and more or less clear with regard to implications for activity on the work arena. The outcome is the starting point for the “Apply outcome” stage. Outcomes in our example were extended internal training and a new emergency procedure.

Change on the work arena (d): The “change” arrow in the model depicts a change to be made or already made to work. The change has a scope in terms of what activity (tasks, processes) is affected and in terms of who (individuals, roles) are af-fected. A change done in the hospital example was that the nurses started to more frequently practice emergencies.

4.4 Initiating reflection sessions: Transitions between cycles

The example describing reflection on the failed emergency procedure described in section 3 contains three interconnected, sequential reflection cycles (see Fig. 2): Cycle 1: Individual reflection of the nurse: After the critical incident, the nurse thought about reasons for it to prevent similar situations in the future, but could not come up with a better understanding of the situation. Cycle 2: Reflection between nurse and head nurse: As a result, the nurse asked the head nurse to reflect on the issue together. They identified that the emergency proce-dure was too complicated, but were not sure about this. Cycle 3: Reflection in staff meeting: Again as a result, the head nurse decided to reflect the issue with the whole team in order to make them aware of the complexity in the emergency procedure and get their feedback.

In addition, but not observed in the study, the nurses later initiated a fourth reflec-tion cycle, in which they included the hospital management, to reflect on changes on the hospital emergency procedure. Fig. 2 shows these interconnected reflection cycles and depicts the importance of the “Initiate Reflection” stage of the CSRL model: Alt-hough it is not always an explicit and scheduled process – for example, the nurse decided spontaneously to ask the head nurse for support – people need to find proper partners and to transfer the data and information to them when they initiate a new

cycle. This was easy for the nurse in the example, as she knew the head nurse was very experienced and had already heard of the problem with the emergency proce-dure. In other cases, the initiation of reflection with adequate resources is more chal-lenging, as in the example when the topic needs to be communicated to all staff.

Fig. 2. Interconnected reflection cycles based on the example from the hospital

The expressiveness and added value of the CSRL model for the analysis and design of reflection at work becomes evident in Fig. 2 as it includes three explicit transitions between cycles and thereby also between levels of reflection, that is, whether an indi-vidual reflects on her own or as part of different groups [24]. Initiation from work is the most intuitive start of a reflection cycle (see (1) in Fig. 2). This is the type of initi-ation of reflection most prominent in existing literature. The CSRL model adds the possibility to start a new cycle during reflection (2) and after applying outcomes of a reflection session (3). For the former, this indicates that reflecting actors need to rec-ognize when their reflection does not lead to an applicable outcome and start a new reflection cycle. For the latter, it shows that if an outcome cannot be applied e.g. due to lacking expertise or power to do so, an additional reflection cycle, includ-ing participants with the means to apply the outcome, can lead to change as a result of reflection. (4) indicates the start of reflection by management, outside our story. As described above, triggers initiate reflection cycles. Triggering can happen during work and during reflection, resulting in the initiation of a new reflection cycle. In order to understand how people reflect in practice and how to create support for this, we need to understand why they initiate reflection cycles and switch between them, i.e. why they start new reflection cycles as described above. For this purpose, the CSRL model includes triggers as described above (section 4.1) for the transitions to new reflection cycles. In an earlier analysis of studies conducted in three different workplaces, we identified three categories of work-related reasons leading to transi-tions between cycles, which are covered in the CSRL model [27]:

1) Seeking clarification or resolution: Most often, a new reflection cycle was ini-tiated when an individual or a group needs (additional) input and support by others in order to clarify an issue or to come up with ideas for solution. In our study, this either

occurred during work, e.g. when individuals performed badly in a certain task such as in the example with the failed alarm procedure, or during reflection sessions, when the reflecting actors realized that they needed additional participants (e.g. all staff) to understand the problem better and create a solution.

2) Seeking support for solution implementation: In multiple cases, we found that reflection partners were added and a new reflection cycle was started when the reflect-ing actors created an outcome, but could not implement it by themselves due to lack-ing expertise, power or some other issue. In the example, such a cycle was initiated after the nurses had come up with the idea to change the hospital’s emergency proce-dure and wanted to reflect together with the responsible manager on this.

Fig. 3. Triggering of new reflection cycles in the CSRL model

3) Creating awareness: As a third category, we found reflection cycles to be initi-ated in order to make the reflection partners aware of a problem and to support them in learning about it. Reflection was then used to contextualize a problem by asking others to share experiences on it and to discuss options from earlier reflection cycles. This kind of triggering of reflection mainly occurred during reflection sessions and after outcomes of reflection had been created. In the hospital example, it happened when the head nurse started reflection in a meeting with all the ward staff to make them aware of the problem with the emergency procedure and to test drive the solu-tion she and the other nurse had come up with.

Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. Fig. 3 shows these triggers in the context of the CSRL and illustrate that they explain how and why new reflec-tion cycles are initiated.

5 Supporting design and implementation of technology for reflection with the CSRL model

Besides the descriptive and analytical strengths of the CSRL model, its main contribu-tion to TEL is that it informs the design and implementation of technology supporting reflective learning at work. In an initial step of developing the model, its main stages and their activities were mapped against technology available to support individuals and groups in gathering data, exchanging it, communicating about and sustaining results [14, 25]. This enables designers to use the model for analyzing and describing

cases of reflection – by analyzing reflection cycles as demonstrated in this paper – and choose proper technology support for activities important in the respective case. This has already been applied to cases in which for example the tracking of people’s mood was central for the reflection of meeting facilitation [28], in which the docu-mentation of critical situations and the articulation of different perspectives in these situations was needed for reflection [24] or in which the reconstruction of work expe-rience was crucial for reflecting on it [29]. Addressing the explicit linking of the CSRL reflection cycle to the use of reflection tools can be considered a distinct view of the CSRL model and will be subject to an upcoming publication.

Besides this direct mapping between activities of reflection and meaningful tech-nology support, the connected cycles of reflection and reasons for starting cycles that we described with the CSRL model create additional information and requirements for the design of reflection tools. First of all, they show that reflection tools not only need to provide data on work to start and feed reflection, but also need to create, exchange and maintain a context of reflection throughout different cycles. This context includes outcomes of earlier cycles, which can be used as input or topics for later cycles, communication on the reflection topic that is relevant for the cycle, as well as experiences and understanding shared in previous cycles to support sense making in the next cycles. The context needs to be shared across cycles to ensure that reflection does not have to be started from scratch or with high efforts to recreate the context (e.g., if there is little time between two cycles or if there are outcomes from earlier cycles).

Looking at the transitions and triggers connecting steps and cycles in the CSRL model, it becomes clear that reflection tools also need to provide support to keep the cycle active until a resolution has been reached and applied. For the transitions de-scribed in the model (data, frame, outcome, change; see section 4.3) this means reflec-tion tools need to create an output for each phase that feeds into the next.

Data: Data such as stress level figures, work performance measures or notes on experiences form the basis of reflection by supporting human memory [30]. Data needs to be available to individuals and groups: Writing down and sharing experienc-es as in the example of the nurse enables more objective reflection on past episodes.

Frame: Tools need to support people in creating a frame for reflection, which needs to be transferred to the reflection session. This frame may differ: In our exam-ple, the nurses created an agenda for a meeting as a frame, but they could as well have written down the experience and broadcasted a questions such as “Can someone think of a solution for this” in a tool instead of starting a meeting.

Outcome: For reflection to be successful and take multiple cycles, the preservation and exchange of outcomes is critical – without tool support, outcomes are easily for-gotten or not shared with others [7]. Reflection tools should enable the documentation of outcomes, including a link to the data reflected on to contextualize the outcome (see also [24]) In the case of the nurses, the decisions to change the amount of training done and to try to change the overall emergency procedure could have been docu-mented in a tool to follow up on them later or ask others whether they agree.

Change: Change needs to be applied on the level of work (processes). Reflection tools could support this by creating proposals for change that can be tracked. Data

stemming from this tracking can then be input for the reflection of the changed work procedures. In our example, a tool could have created the proposal to change the pro-cedure, which could be checked regularly for its implementation and effect on work.

Concerning the triggers discussed in section 4 the model emphasizes the need for supporting the phase of initiating reflection: Although this phase is often implicit when there is no dedicated planning session for a reflection cycle, there is a need for support in involving reflection partners. Moreover, the initiation of new reflection cycles from all steps of the CSRL model suggests that reflection tools should support awareness on or assessment of the state of reflection in different steps, e.g., whether an outcome was created that was agreed upon by a group or whether a solution can be applied. If this assessment has a negative result, the tool should support users to iden-tify other reflection participants accordingly.

6 Conclusion

In this paper, we have stressed the descriptive power of the CSRL model to represent aspects of reflection in the workplace that are currently not well covered by existing frameworks, and that need to be understood in order to provide appropriate technolo-gy support. The model advances the state of the art as it anchors reflection in work practice and describes it as part of such practice, in that it includes individual and collaborative reflection cycles, in that it explains transitions between cycles and reasons for these transitions, and in that it informs technology support for reflection beyond individual cycles. This gives the model various potentials in TEL:

With the CSRL model, reflective learning in the workplace can be represented as a process involving multiple, interconnected cycles. This is crucial to under-standing reflective learning because the final reflection outcome and its application as change on the work arena may depend on the opportunity to initiate additional cycles. The descriptive power to model multiple cycles allows a detailed analysis of a case which can help analysts/designers understand how multiple cycles are, or could be, involved. This can help them create a more complete model of the case.

With the CSRL model, each reflection cycle can be characterized in a way that captures important differences between cycles. This can be done by describ-ing the elements in the cycle (stages, transitions) and by identifying patterns in types of cycles or interconnected cycles (e.g. individual sense making followed by consult-ing a peer, or reflection in a team followed by involving management).

With the CSRL model, tool support can be adapted to the particular charac-teristics of the reflective learning process in question. Examples of considerations include how to support the involvement of other parts of the organization, how to bring about actual change with a particular organizational scope (e.g. one’s team, the entire organization), how to help a team come up with creative solutions in a reflec-tion session, how to help a learner become aware of the opportunity to reflect.

To fully exploit the potential of the model, further work is needed, especially in understanding and describing single reflection cycles and their relationship. Re-search building on the contribution presented here should apply the CSRL model to

different types of cases of reflective learning, to further explore its descriptive power across different domains. More detail should be provided on the dimensions along which model element can be characterized. Also the connection between reflection cycle elements and tool support should be detailed further, as a step towards making the CSRL model a design framework that connects the characteristics of reflective learning processes to recommended tools and tool features.

Acknowledgements

The MIRROR project is funded under the FP7 of the European Commission (project number 257617). We would like to thank our colleagues for their contributions and valuable input during discussions.

References

1. Boud, D. and J. Garrick, Understanding learning at work 1999: Routledge. 2. Eraut, M., Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 2004.

26(2). 3. Cressey, P., Collective reflection and learning, in Productive Reflection at Work, D. Boud,

P. Cressey, and P. Docherty, Editors. 2006, Routledge. 4. Høyrup, S., Employee-driven innovation and workplace learning: basic concepts,

approaches and themes. European Review of Labour and Research, 2010. 16(2): p. 12. 5. Krogstie, B.R. and M. Divitini. Supporting Reflection in Software Development with

Everyday Working Tools. in COOP. 2010. Aix-en-Provence, France: Springer. 6. Lin, X., et al., Designing Technology to Support Reflection. Educational Technology,

Research and Development, 1999. 47(3): p. 43-62. 7. Prilla, M., V. Pammer, and S. Balzert, The Push and Pull of Reflection in Workplace

Learning: Designing to Support Transitions Between Individual, Collaborative and Organisational learning, in EC-TEL2012, Springer: Saarbruecken, Germany.

8. Xiao, L., et al. Promoting Reflective Thinking in Collaborative Learning Activities. in Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). 2008. Santander, Cantrabria, Spain: IEEE.

9. Boud, D., R. Keogh, and D. Walker, Promoting Reflection in Learning: a Model, in Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, D. Boud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker, Editors. 1985, RoutledgeFalmer. p. 18-40.

10. Kolb, D.A. and R. Fry, Towards an applied theory of experiential learning, in Theories of Group Processes, C.L. Cooper, Editor 1975, John Wiley: London. p. 33-58.

11. Stahl, G., Building collaborative knowing, in What We Know About CSCL And Implementing It In Higher Education, in What we know about CSCL, J.-W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, and R.L. Martens, Editors. 2002, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston. p. 53-85.

12. Knipfer, K., et al., Reflection as catalyst for organisational learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 2012. 35: p. 19.

13. Krogstie, B. and M. Prilla, Tool support for reflection in the workplace in the context of reflective learning cycles. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2012. 931: p. 57-71.

14. Krogstie, B., et al., Computer support for reflective learning in the workplace: A model. , in International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) 2012 2012, ACM: Rome.

15. Prilla, M., et al. Individual and Collaborative Reflection at Work: Support for Workplace Learning in Healthcare. in CSCL 2013. 2013. Wisconsin, Madison, USA: ISLS.

16. Boud, D., R. Keogh, and D. Walker, Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning 1985: RoutledgeFalmer.

17. Schön, D., The Reflective Practitioner 1983: Basic Books, Inc. 18. Boud, D., P. Cressey, and P. Docherty, Productive Reflection ad Work: Learning for

Changing Organizations 2006: Routledge. 19. Lave, J., The practice of learning, in Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and

Context, S. Chaiklin and J. Lave, Editors. 1993, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. p. 20.

20. Høyrup, S., Reflection as a core process in organisational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 2004. 16(8): p. 13.

21. Cress, U. and J. Kimmerle, A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building in wikis. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2008. 3: p. 105-122.

22. Høyrup, S. and B. Elkjær, Reflection - beyond the individual, in Productive Reflection at Work, D. Boud, P. Cressey, and P. Docherty, Editors. 2006, Routledge.

23. Kimmerle, J., U. Cress, and C. Held, The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2010. 8(1): p. 12.

24. Prilla, M., M. Degeling, and T. Herrmann, Collaborative Reflection at Work: Supporting Informal Learning at a Healthcare Workplace, in GROUP 2012 2012, ACM: Sanibel Island, Florida, USA.

25. Krogstie, B.R., et al., Collaborative Modelling of Reflection to Inform the Development and Evaluation of Work-Based Learning Technologies in i-KNOW 2012, ACM ICPS: Graz, Austria.

26. Pammer, V., et al. Reflective Learning at Work - A Position and Discussion Paper. In ARNets11- Awareness and Reflection in Learning Networks. 2011. Palermo, Italy.

27. Prilla, M., V. Pammer, and B. Krogstie, Fostering Collaborative Redesign of Work Practice: Challenges for Tools Supporting Reflection at Work, in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Coopertive Work, ECSCW 2013 (in press).

28. Fessl, A., et al., Mood Tracking in Virtual Meetings, in EC-TEL 2012, 2012, Springer-Verlag: Saarbruecken.

29. Mora, S., A. Boron, and M. Divitini, CroMAR: Mobile Augmented Reality for Supporting Reflection on Crowd Management. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 2012. 4(2): p. 14.

30. Knipfer, K., et al., Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection on Captured Teamwork Data, in 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2011.