Collective Reflection & Shared Thinking Bowskill, N., Lally, V., Cutts, Q., Brindley, S. & Draper, S. University of Glasgow 8th Annual Enhancement Themes Conference: 'Fit for the Future' – Herriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 2 and 3 March

Background of Shared Thinking University of Glasgow Kelvin-Smith Scholarship Education, Psychology and Computing Science Classroom Technology and Discussion – Shifting the idea of voting technology from teaching to reflection/learning – Collective reflection

Traditional Learning Fixed Start Known Outcomes Focus on Individual Products Assessment is individual and mainly from tutor feedback Tutor’s role is to teach Broadly the same even with technology Reflective Practice is on your own

Shared Thinking Process and Product Snowball Group- Discussion Technique + Voting Technology – Individual – Small group – Whole group – Follow-Up Work What are your concerns about developing your reflective practice?

Shared Thinking Multiple Starting Points Multiple End Points Learning as a Whole-Group Enquiry (Stroup, Ares, etc.) Tutor’s role is to orchestrate and to listen Assessment includes feedback from everyone (peers and tutors) Technology to visualise a shared understanding ‘Listening Pedagogy’ (Rinaldi, 2005)

Case Studies of Shared Thinking Induction and Transition and Mentoring – New and Ancient Universities, – up to 350 students Support Staff at an Academic Conference Student-Teachers reflecting together on individual work placements Academic Staff reviewing assessment practices in a university department

Traditional Idea of Reflective Practice Kolb’s Learning Cycle Introspection Individual as boundary Vague Practice Lack of Social input or context Kolb’s Experiential Cycle

Collective Reflective Practice: Shared Thinking Bowskill’s Interactionist Model of Collective Reflection Diversity-driven (Stroup et al) Constructivist development in the social context Includes the multiple perspectives of situated others Has a clear transferable practice Provides quantitative and qualitative data for everyone involved Bowskill’s Interactionist Model of Collective Reflection: Shared Thinking

SHARED THINKING 3 Levels of Impact: 1.Individual benefits - Emotional -Cognitive 2.Pedagogical - Whole-Group Enquiry -Provides a visible shared understanding 3.Research -Investigate student experience at collective level -Everyone is a researcher