146

Chapter 9
Using the Four Lenses of
Critical Reflection to Promote
Collaboration and Support
Creative Adaptations of Web 2.0
Tools in an Online Environment
Katia González-Acquaro
Wagner College, USA

Stephen Preskill
Wagner College, USA

AbstrAct
This chapter offers an in-depth narrative of how one instructor in an online environment used the four
lenses of critical reflection introduced by Brookfield (1995) – (1) self, (2) student reactions, (3) colleagues’
perceptions, and (4) instructional theory – to adapt the use of Web 2.0 tools that have been found to be
effective in promoting collaboration and constructivist learning. These tools can provide educators with
the opportunity to examine collaboration and learning from multiple perspectives, while also serving as
a way to rethink preconceived notions of how power is distributed in the classroom (Brookfield, 1995).
In this chapter the authors share how the four lenses were used to design Web 2.0 activities based on
the specific grouping techniques, with the aim to construct a rich online experience.

IntroductIon practitioners are often mentioned in the literature

The use of a theoretical framework in the develop-
ment and implementation of learning activities for
adult learners in a variety of classroom settings
is not new. Concepts such as helping students
become critical thinkers, collaborators, reflective
(Brookfield, 1987; Mezirow, 1991) as essential
for instructors to consider when thinking about
instructional methods and materials that will
increase students’ opportunities to be “producers
of knowledge” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003,
p.1307) and not just passive learners.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61692-898-8.ch009

Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Using the Four Lenses of Critical Reflection to Promote Collaboration
The challenge becomes how to “get students on
that trajectory… in which knowledge is socially
constructed, and best supported through collabora-
tions designed so that participants share knowledge
and tackle projects that incorporate features of
adult teamwork, real world content, and the use
of varied information sources” (Scardamalia &
Bereiter 2003,p. 1370).
Over ten years ago, Jonassen (1996) introduced
the idea that computer applications should be seen
as powerful “Mindtools” that can help learners
become skilled at “scaffold[ing] different forms of
reasoning about content” (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh,
1998, p.24). Jonassen, et al. (1998) argued that
by reframing computer technologies as Mindtools
that represent a “constructivist view of technol-
ogy,” learners can become actively engaged in
“interpreting the external world and reflecting
on their interpretations” (p. 28). More recently,
Jonassen, Howland, Marra, and Crismond (2008)
explained that by seeing knowledge building
as a social enterprise in which learners utilize
instructional technologies as collaborative “con-
struction tools,” learners are then able to increase
shared knowledge that takes full advantage of the
multiple perspectives found in any diverse group.
Getting learners to engage in shared knowledge
in an online learning environment can often be
a challenge. Yet without such engagement the
education of learners is frequently shortchanged.
As Brookfield and Preskill (2005) have noted,
“without broad participation, students do not get
the practice in expressing their ideas cogently,
and the group lacks the diversity of opinions it
needs” (p. 234). Building on this literature, the
present chapter tells the story of one instructor’s
efforts to employ Brookfield’s 4 critical lenses to
better harness the power of Web 2.0 tools with her
students and promote the sort of rich, collabora-
tive class participation that can result in deeper,
more meaningful learning. Drawing on data culled
from instructor self-reflection, student feedback,
peer dialogue, and scholarly literature, an online
community emerged that students experienced as
not only broadly participatory, but also both intel-
lectually engaging and productively collaborative.
bAcKground
National trends indicate that distance-learning
courses in higher education are rapidly proliferat-
ing (NCES, 2008). The increasing availability of
information technology coupled with the various
needs of traditional and non-traditional students
are shaping the extent to which credit and non-
credit distance learning courses are viable options
(Lim, Kim, Chen, & Ryder, 2008). Definitions
of what constitutes distance learning have also
evolved. According to a report by NCES (2008)
distance education is “ …defined as a formal
education process in which the student and in-
structor are not in the same place. Thus, instruc-
tion may be synchronous or asynchronous, and
it may involve communication through the use
of video, audio, or computer technologies, or by
correspondence (which may include both written
correspondence and the use of technology such
as CD-ROM)” (p.1).
Faculty interested in incorporating distance
learning opportunities into their classes are often
challenged by limited knowledge of software us-
age and technical requirements, as well as lack
of opportunities to clearly establish a connec-
tion between learning goals, and technological
environments and tools utilized (Notar, Wilson,
& Montgomery, 2005). The difficulties inherent
in learning about the tools can often hinder the
inclusion of best instructional practices and limit
the development of materials that can foster criti-
cal thinking skills and classroom discourse and
collaboration.
Jonassen (2006) explained how “concepts
are the basis for meaning making and commu-
nication”…and how “communicating without
concepts is impossible” (p. 177). But he also
described how research on instructional technol-
ogy has often focused on the attainment of these
147
 16 more pages are available in the full version of this document, which may
be purchased using the "Add to Cart" button on the product's webpage:
www.igi-global.com/chapter/using-four-lenses-critical-
reflection/46911?camid=4v1

This title is available in InfoSci-Books, InfoSci-Social Technologies, Business-

Technology-Solution, Communications, Social Science, and Healthcare,
InfoSci-Select, InfoSci-Media and Communications, InfoSci-Select, InfoSci-
Education, Library Science, Information Studies, and Education, InfoSci-
Select, InfoSci-Select, InfoSci-Select. Recommend this product to your
librarian:
www.igi-global.com/e-resources/library-recommendation/?id=1

Related Content

The Effects of Social and Technical Factors on User Satisfaction, Sense of Belonging and
Knowledge Community Usage
Hui Lin, Weiguo Fan and Linda Wallace (2013). International Journal of e-Collaboration (pp. 13-30).
www.igi-global.com/article/the-effects-of-social-and-technical-factors-on-user-satisfaction-sense-
of-belonging-and-knowledge-community-usage/82066?camid=4v1a

Peer-to-Peer Corporate Resource Sharing and Distribution with Mesh

Ramesh Subramanian and Brian Goodman (2004). E-Collaborations and Virtual Organizations (pp. 98-
119).
www.igi-global.com/chapter/peer-peer-corporate-resource-sharing/8897?camid=4v1a

The Vineyard Approach: A Computational Model for Determination of Awareness Foci in E-Mail-
Based Collaboration
Adriana S. Vivacqua and Jana Moreira de Souza (2009). E-Collaboration: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools,
and Applications (pp. 1510-1529).
www.igi-global.com/chapter/vineyard-approach-computational-model-
determination/8879?camid=4v1a

Millennial Leadership: The Oppositional Relationship between Leadership Type and the Quality
of Database System's Development in Virtual Environments
C. Matt Graham, Harold Daniel and Brian Doore (2015). International Journal of e-Collaboration (pp. 29-
48).
www.igi-global.com/article/millennial-leadership/128390?camid=4v1a