Glue

I’m glad I finally read Ed White’s article on Phase 2—it gives me hope that in fifty years, I can write about Phrase 3 portfolios where we use telekinesis to grade a portfolio without even putting eyes on one actual portfolio. And God willing, if my career was successful enough, it will get published in CCC.

In response to this week’s blog prompt and White’s Phase 2, I want to focus on a question I’ve had about reflection: what is it’s scope? Dr. Yancey’s book says explicitly that reflection is both a process and a product, and throughout the semester, I’ve been interested in that idea of reflection as a product. At the conclusion of this DIS, I think reflection is necessarily an articulation: in order to explore the self, to learn about ourselves as writers, and to develop our writing, we need to be able to articulate those ideas in order to manipulate, remediate, and revise those concepts. But what form can this articulation take? What is the scope of this articulation?  To Ed White (and even to some of the others we’ve read this week such as Leaker & Ostman and Allan & Driscoll) seem to focus on assessing the written text. White, while applauding the wonders reflection has to learning writing, has a fundamental misunderstanding of where this reflection is happening: to White, the reflection is only happening in the single written text.

Now, Gallagher’s article, I believe, is the glue that has given me (at least) the connection between reflection and assessment that I was looking for.  I really like his idea of interface as a space for performing context of reception and production. His case study of Brenda’s (his student’s) e-portfolio demonstrated how the visual arrangement of content in the portfolio not only was a way to show a user how to navigate the space, but as a way for users to inhabit her articulation, to inhabit her reflection.  If we understand the e-portfolio, itself, as a reflection(-in-presentation), then Gallagher offers a pretty interesting definition of reflection (at least in terms of how it functions in assessment): the reflection is meant to perform a context for the viewer’s reception.  As Gallagher points out at the start of his piece, successful assessment is always aware of context—so the reflection offers and performs that context.  Reflection aids in assessment by providing that context (I realize this is kinda reductive, but I’m just thinking this through. I think the reflection probably has more functions for assessment than just to aid in providing context, but I’d have to think through that a bit more.)

So we have reflection in a written form, in visual arrangement or design, but we also have people like Tony Scott who shows that interviews and talking through writing demonstrate a different kind of set of values than in written text—maybe that’s also reflection if they’re talking about their attitudes toward writing. And Kevin Roozen in his document-based interviews—the object or documents as points to reflect. Or Doug Hesse, who talks about the essay as reflection, but in a way, does the sign on the bridge embody a collective reflection? Or does it just prompt it? What about the Vietnam War Memorial? Does that embody a reflection or just prompt it? I’m not sure, but that brings us back to my question about the scope of reflection. If reflection is necessarily an articulation (as I’m saying), what forms can it take? That sorta where I’m at right now.