Theories on Reflective Research Methodology

This approach to learning from reflection was advanced by theorists who were
invested in ways adults and professionals learn and develop their expertise in their fields.
Scholarly works of theorists: Donald Schön (1983), David Kolb (1985), and Gibbs (1988)
have focused on exploring the ways adults learn, and especially in the different ways that
professionals learn and develop their expertise on their fields of practice. According to
Kolb’s model, the ideal learning process engages all four of these modes in cyclical
fashion: definite experience, observation and reflection, formation of abstract concepts
and generalizations, testing (application) of implications of concepts in new situations. In
order for learning to be effective, all four of these approaches must be incorporated. David
Kolb has extended his original work to explore the different ways in which individuals
learn.

Observations from experience are central to Reflective Research process and

Graham Gibbs (1988) Reflective Research ideas coincide much with that of Dewey on
“learning by doing.”

Reflective Research method as part of one’s professional practice enables a

practitioner in the field to examine his or her professional activities, approach, or
methodology for continuous improvements in the advancement of his or her professional
expertise. This approach encompasses the application of critical, reflective, and reflexive
evaluations of the values and theories that guide one’s practice of profession. Quoting,
Somekh & Zeichner (2009, p.5), Millwood (chap. 3) noted that:

Action research, as a proposition, has discursive power because it

embodies a collision of terms. In generating research
knowledge and improving social action at the same time, action research
challenges the normative values of two distinct ways of being – that of the
scholar and the activist (Somekh & Zeichner 2009, p.5)

Richard Sagor (2000) of the Institute for the Study of Inquiry in Education notes
that “action research is a disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking
the action. The primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the “actor in
improving and/or refining his or her actions” (chap. 1, p. 1). The reflective method used in
this study has a semblance to the methodological approach applied by Richard Millwood
(2014, chap. 3) for his dissertation, where he had taken into account his collections of
work in his field of educational design from where he drew a greater outcome such as his
creation a highly comprehensive Learning Theory dubbed as the “Holistic Approach to
Technology Enhanced Learning (HoTEL)” that 25 Learning Theorists mapping out their
respective world views or paradigms, along with the key concepts and under which
scientific discipline each of them are categorized.
 Millwood’s work study takes into account the past decade of action research
outcomes and scholarly endeavors as data for the reflective research process. The data
collection in this study provides visual constructs or models drawn from the yearly
summary of the analytical, critical, and reflective thinking and metacognitive (thinking
about thinking) processes that this Researcher engaged in. Another work that is so much
of an inspiration to the Reflective Research Methodology for this study is that of Stynes,
Murphy, McNamara & O’Hara (2018) who designed and employed a Reflection-On-Action
Rubric to show how the aspects of their own research may fit into a self-appraisal
framework, with its four elements roach “in a continual cyclical process that engage,
question and hopefully develop a critical response” (p. 163).
Stynes, Murphy, McNamara & O’Hara’s approach to Reflective Research
inspires a vision for creative and innovative action research approach that clearly guides
a Researcher away from swerving into the direction of self-serving bias. The authors
proposed the rubric for constant reflections during the theorizing process, or during the
research action and writing phases, or upon full completion of the research activity.
Their reflection-on-action rubric (see Figure __ , p.___) was developed from three
scholarly works:

1. Schön’s (1983) reflective research model for practitioners;

2. Moon’s (2006) model that advances the thought that is reflective, performs a role
in learning and in informing action, as well as in theory building (Moon, p. 45);
and from,
3. Wellington’s (2016) “assertions that researchers’ systematic, critical and self-
critical inquiry contributes to the advancement of knowledge” (Stynes, Murphy,
McNamara & O’Hara, 2018, p. 159).

Critical Thinking Theory

Critical Thinking Theory is a necessary component of validating Mental Models.

In their article, “A Theory of Critical Thinking,” Cognitive Technologies, Inc. (n.d.),
provided an excellent and practical definition of Critical Thinking as a skill being:

“exemplified by asking questions about alternative possibilities in

order to reliably achieve some objective. Asking and answering
questions is a skill of dialogue. Alternative possibilities are
represented by mental models. A process of questioning mental
models is (or should be) adopted because of its reliability for
achieving the purposes of the participants within the available time
(Cognitive Technologies, Inc., n.d., para. 1)

Cognitive Technologies, Inc. (para. 2) explained how Critical Thinking Theory is

multifaceted, multi-dimensional, forming a three-layers structure from: 1) inner mental
coherent rationalizations (Mental Model Theory) to 2) “intersubjective dialogue,” and, 3)
to correspondence with external reality (Reliability). Critical Thinking necessitates a
process of both Inner Dialogue with self (Reflective Thinking) and an External Dialogue
(conversations with others to gather their perspectives and validate one’s own world
views) – a principle or concept that is required in the Ladder of Inference as framework
for learning.

The article, further noted that the Theory of Critical Thinking utilizes and fuses
research on at least three categories of topics, adapting knowledge drawn from various
scholars or authors and their outlined topics are presented below in Fig. 6 Table 2:
Classification of Topics of Research in Critical Thinking Theory:

Fig. 6 Table 2: Classification of Topics of Research in Critical Thinking Theory

Refractive Thinking

The power of Reflective Research Methodology can be best appreciated from an

understanding of the value of Critical Thinking that augments the process of Reflective
Thinking. Critical Thinking requires the use of cognitive skills in order to achieve well-
informed decision making about a question or problem with the end in mind of achieving
desirable outcomes. Reflective thinking involves thinking processes aimed at
developing judgments or conclusions about one’s understanding, perceptions,
perspectives, and beliefs formed from his or her experiences of the world and
examining them carefully against existing facts and knowledge (Dewey, 1933).
Refractive Thinking on another hand, encourages a bolder path for researchers and
suggests an expanded approach to Critical and Reflective Thinking. Since this study is
highly conceptual and in essence attempts to theorize and examine the link between
instruction and communication, the task requires a more analytical, critical, reflective,
and refractive thinking approach in examining personally developed Mental Models.
 Authors like Pagano and Roselle (2006, 2009) consider refraction as
transformative knowledge that confirms the use of critical thinking and problem solving.
Refractive Thinking paves the way toward taking in of knowledge and processing of
ideas, thoughts, and information beyond the traditional boundaries of critical thinking
and reflections. For Cheryl Lentz (2011), Refractive Thinking is about “moving beyond
conventional thinking and wisdom to see the world not as it is, but as the world could
be; underlying the important forces and dynamics that are needed to create and sustain
innovation and social change (Lentz, 2011, Abstract).

With Refractive Thinking, one takes a leap of courage to challenge existing and
commonly accepted thoughts, world views, approaches, and methods of doing things.
With Refractive Thinking, the knowledge developed from careful critical and reflective
analysis are meaningfully utilized, projected, and expressed to provoke new ways of
thinking, to create, innovate, in ways more visible, useful, and valuable to societal
change. Given these definitions and concepts, a dynamic trio of these three types of
thinking is illustrated below (Fig. 3 Refractive Thinking Model):

Image used with permission from Ron Bennett (2019)

This Refractive Learning Model envisages the process of knowledge made more
visible through learner’s use of Critical, Reflective, and Refractive Thinking. The
framework or Model is an extremely vital part of the study framework and truly enabled
a balanced, non-biased, non-traditional reflective methodological approach.
 An understanding of refraction may help in appreciating the value of the above
framework. It must also be first that light normally travels in a straight direction through
a single medium or object and this process is called transmission. In the transmission
process, since the light simply goes through an object, there can neither be reflection or
refraction. Refraction only occurs when light travels in a perpendicular manner.

Refraction in simpler terms is when light travels or passes through a transparent

object or substance with optical density (i.e., water, glass, crystal, diamond) in a
perpendicular manner and hits a surface of that is denser, the direction of the light
bends and the components of the light are broken down making the colors of the light
visible to the naked eye. When light is refracted, the colors are refracted at different
angle, creating a spectrum of rainbow colors: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Violet,
Indigo, and Blue (R.O.Y.G.B.I.V). White light is made up of several colors that are not
visible to the naked eye and can only be seen when refracted, in which case, two forms
of outcomes must be noted:

1. Reflection -- where the image of the object is reflected; and,

2. Refraction -- where the colors of light are projected outside of the object of
object of its occurrence.

An understanding of the principles and concepts how light travels in straight or

perpendicular direction and how each direction creates different resulting impacts on
the colors of the light will be discussed further in the summary or conclusion,
implications and recommendations in Chapter V.

Systems Theory’s Applicability to the Study of Instruction

Systems theory has been known for its holistic applicability to the studies of
intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, and human/nature interactions, especially in
perception studies. Given its interdisciplinary characteristics and its functional
applicability to the tasks of explaining or clarifying principles or concepts in all types of
systems, Systems Theory provides a good framework for the study of the dynamic
process of communication that occurs within the process of instruction.

For use within a specific area of study, systems theory as an approach carries both
ontological (relations between the concepts and categories) and epistemological (ways
of knowing; theory of knowledge) facets and is not restricted to either one. In the words
of Alexander Laszlo and Stanley Krippner (1998):

As a field inquiry concerned with the holistic and integrative exploration

of phenomena and events, systems theory pertains to both
epistemological and ontological situations. But rather than constitute
either an epistemology or an ontology, it is more reminiscent of the
 Greek notion of gnosiology concerned with the holistic and integrative
exploration of phenomena and events. There are aspects of the systems
approach that are ontological and epistemological, as well as aspects
that are at once both and should not be circumscribed to either (Laszlo
and Krippner, 1998, p. 49).

Based on both its ontological and epistemological strengths, systems theory can
be appropriately applied to instructional studies. Laszlo and Krippner (p. 49) highlight two
of the multifaceted uses of systems theory as:

1. For the “study effectiveness of the technological design of

an online classroom; and,
2. The “cybernetic feedback loop mechanism in the teaching
and learning process.”

Mental Models Theory

Mental Models Theory within Systems Thinking has fueled the pursuit of this study.
The Mental Models Theory fits well as one of major theoretical underpinning for this study
since the representative data obtained from the reflective research consists of schematic
representations (schemas) or mental models that were developed throughout the years
of reflective practice. James Clear’s (2017) succinctly defines a mental model as:

… an explanation of how something works. It is a concept, framework,

or worldview that you carry around in your mind to help you interpret
the world and understand the relationship between things. Mental
models are deeply held beliefs about how the world works. For
example, supply and demand is a mental model that helps you
understand how the economy works. Game theory is a mental model
that helps you understand how relationships and trust work.

To understand the process of instruction, and to identify the link between

instruction and communication require the presentations mental models or schemas. The
proponents of Mental Models Theory define mental models as “psychological
representations of real, hypothetical, or imaginary situations” which was first advanced by
the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce in 1986 who postulated “human
reasoning” as a process wherein:

humans examine the state of things asserted in the premises, forms a

diagram of that state of things, perceives in the parts of the diagram
relations not explicitly mentioned in the premises, satisfies itself by
mental experiments upon the diagram that these relations would always
 subsist, or at least would do so in a certain proportion of cases, and
concludes their necessary, or probable, truth (Mental Models, n.d., p. 1
with reference to Peirce)

Scottish Psychologist Kenneth Craik in 1943 advanced a comparable notion that

“the mind constructs “small-scale models” of reality that it uses to anticipate events, to
reason, and to underlie explanation” which is akin to “Wittgenstein’s (1922) “picture”
theory of the meaning of language, mental models have a structure that corresponds to
the structure of what they represent” (Mental Models and Reasoning, p. 1). Furthermore,
the proponents of Mental Models theory noted that:

Since Craik’s insight, cognitive scientists have argued that the mind
constructs mental models as a result of perception, imagination and
knowledge, and the comprehension of discourse. They study how
children develop such models, how to design artifacts and computer
systems for which it is easy to acquire a model, how a model of one
domain may serve as analogy for another domain, and how models
engender thoughts, inferences, and feelings (Mental Models and
Reasoning, p. 1)

In the edited work of Walter Schaeken, Andr´e Vandierendonck, Walter Schroyens,

and G´ery d’Ydewalle titled, “The Mental Models Theory of Reasoning: Refinements and
Extensions” it can be well understood how mental models are best used when exploring
relations among objects or concepts. A sample problem they presented was that of
determining the relation between the glass and the napkin, where the “glass is to the right
of the plate and the napkin is to the left of the plate. What is the relation between the glass
and the napkin?” (Models in the Mind, n.d., p. 1). The editors ruled out that the use of
mental models works better than the use of the mental rules theory and they noted that
the motivation behind the mental models approach was the dissatisfaction with the ability
of the former to provide “plausible explanation of systematic patterns in experimental
results” (Models in the Mind, p. 1). The mental models approach allows the subjects to
properly visualize the positions and relations of the objects in the given scenario and in
so doing, one is attempting to:

...construct a model of the situation described by the assumptions.

Subjects first imagine the glass to the right of the plate and then add the
napkin to the left of the glass. Then they can simply “read off” the relation
between glass and napkin from this model (Models in the Mind, p. 1).

Mental Models are tools for better thinking, espouses James Clear (p. 7).
Clear (p. 7, under the section “In Pursuit of Liquid Knowledge”) knowledge noted
that in the academic arena, knowledge is being separated “into different silos—biology,
economics, history, physics, philosophy. In the real world, information is rarely divided
into neatly defined categories” and quoting Charlie Munger (1994), “All the wisdom of the
world is not to be found in one little academic department” (Clear, p. 7). Clear argues that:

World-class thinkers are often silo-free thinkers. They avoid looking at

life through the lens of one subject. Instead, they develop “liquid
knowledge” that flows easily from one topic to the next.
This is why it is important to not only learn new mental models, but to
consider how they connect with one another. Creativity and innovation
often arise at the intersection of ideas. By spotting the links between
various mental models, you can identify solutions that most people
overlook.

The correctness of Mental Models is deemed important for elaborations of one’s

conceptual ideas as gauged against existing facts. A Mental Model could either be
intricate or non-intricate theory or assumptions. Drawing on cognitive psychology for its
explanation, Mental Models are representations of thoughts, are schemas that
represent beliefs, perceptions, judgments, and actions, feelings, values, and ideas.
Therefore, Senge (1994) advocates that for change to occur the real operative models
must not remain hidden beneath the surface. Restructuring or redesigning of models is
a means to improve and allow for change to occur. Although most of Senge’s thoughts
focus on organizational change, the same principle may apply to any system such as
the classroom system.

Raines (2009) notes that Senge’s theory falls within Systems thinking as it
is a means to view the relations, links, or relationships between or among mechanisms,
objects, things, or entities. Rather than view and analyze fragments and parts of how
processes occur, systems approach allows for looking at things and processes as a
whole. Systems theory is useful in identifying the elements and connections among
major elements of a system (such as process flow, outcomes of the process, etc.).

The use of mental models allows for the determination of how an individual
makes sense of the world, and most importantly how an individual takes action (Senge,
1990) as a result of his or her own thinking. However, since mental models are derived
from one’s own reflective and reflexive thought process, it is only logical to expect that
in academic undertakings, these mental models are highly suspects of Researcher’s
bias. Those who use the Inference Ladder caution individuals of climbing the ladder too
fast without careful examination of their beliefs and assumptions. In their work,
“Dangers of Climbing the Ladder of Inference” Gelinas & James (2017) speak of the
same necessary caution to heed in decision makings and in taking actions.

Mental Models, Reasoning, and Proving Logic

Philip Johnson-laird through his study of discourse shed light regarding the
creation of mental models. Laird explained that individuals create mental models as they
go through their thought processes (i.e., hearing a word). In this study, the mental models
or schematic representations were drawn from envisioning the process of instruction, and
from understanding gained from conversations with others and from research. Mental
models can be very simple or complicated (Communication Theory, n.d.). Studies have
been conducted that led to revelations that not all logical facts can be proven
mathematically or computationally.

According to Laird (2007), some three decades ago, psychologists thought that
human reasoning depends on formal rules of inference similar to the logic in calculus.
However, evidence refutes this thinking. The theory on the rules of inference was faced
with challenges leading to an alternative stance: the view that logic is dependent on
visualizing possibilities consistent with the foundation that starts from a world view, or
insights, awareness or understanding of the world. Logical reasoning is dependent on a
set of assertions, a recall, or a mixture of them. Individuals formulate or create mental
models of any distinctive possibilities and draw inferences or conclusions from them.
Reasoning is a replication of the world Yet, our ability to use counterexamples to refute
invalid inferences provides a foundation for rationality. On this account, reasoning is a
simulation of the world magnified with one’s knowledge and not merely a formalized
reshuffling of the logical frames of sentences. Most importantly, not all mental models
have to be proven true and correct through computational means.

The Ladder of Inference

A person’s “beliefs might be founded on faulty selection or interpretation of data”

notes Jonathan Levene (2016). Since mental models are developed through one’s own
reflexive thinking, the danger of self-bias can ever be present in the process. However,
there are specific and potent ways to treat or address the risks of bias. As it has been
well-recognized that Reflective Research brings self-improvement and professional
development, the use of the ladder of inference may prove beneficial in combatting bias-
filled inferences. Rotman School of Management (2012) recommends the Ladder of
Inference as an Integrative Thinking Tools using a pool of data (comprising of information
from research and experience). From this pool of data, select and interpret meaningful
data as basis for making a conclusion or a decision for action or recommendation. This
practical use of the Ladder of Inference is best fit to this study.

The Ladder of Inference, which is widely used within the systems thinking process,
effectively helps eliminate outcomes that are based on personal biases alone. The Ladder
of Inference was conceived by Argyris (1990) to help organizations (systems) in
overcoming their challenges and consists of the following steps from down up to the top
most level as illustrated in Fig. 4 below:
 (Fig. 4 Ladder of Inference adapted from Argyris, 1990)

The Ladder of Inference is widely used to transform minds and develop the critical
thinking and decision making skills of individuals. The use of the Ladder of Inference
starts at the bottom of ladder of thinking, where there resides one’s reality and
experiences. From this pool of data are reality and facts. The critical-reflective-refractive
thinker selects the best data, interprets, analyzes the data, apply assumptions, make
conclusions, develop a stronger belief or mental model, and then takes the top most step:
conclusion of action, as illustrated in Fig. 4 above.

The Ladder of Inference can be used in any system and learning transformation
approach, including the Reflective Research Methodology. By using the Ladder of
Inference, individuals can check and counter-check their beliefs and mental models
through a double-loop or triple loop approach (climbing up and going down the ladder of
thinking) to review carefully reality and facts and select data from them, then examine
and analyze one’s own assumptions and beliefs before making decisions to taking
actions. The Ladder of Inference is a step-by-step guide to reasoning, critical, evaluative,
and reflective thinking process that is believed to be of help in arriving at a more accurate
world view. Multiple versions of the Ladder of Inference abound proving how versatile and
applicable it is to be used for organizational and personal development studies.

Conceptual and Operational Framework

Combining the holistic power of Systems Theory, the flexibility of the Ladder of
Inference, the agility of Mental Models, and the transformative strength of Refractive
Thinking within the Reflective Research Methodology, a Dual Ladder of Inference is
created as framework for this study. In this study, the selected data comprise of Mental
Models which are the major output from the yearly Reflective Research, conducted as
part of improving one’s instructional practices. The Mental Models developed were drawn
from visualizing the concepts and knowledge from experience as well as research
(reading or review of literatures, and conversations with colleagues). Assumptions and
beliefs have been reviewed, vetted out, and counter-checked with the reality, facts,
assumptions, beliefs, and perspectives of others.

The process of inference starts from the bottom of the ladder representing the Data
Pool within the system, from where a Researcher gains a wealth of knowledge from
experience and research. From the Data Pool, data is selected. Using Reflective
Research Methodology with the integration of the Researcher’s Critical, Reflective,
Refractive (CRR) Thinking Model, a Dual Ladder of Inference is created with the
Conceptual Framework on the left hand side ladder and the Operational Framework on
the right hand side of the ladder, as illustrated in Fig. 5: Dual Ladder of Inference below:

(Fig. 5: Conceptual Framework: A Dual Ladder of Inference)

A multiple loop process in examining the Mental Models has been conveniently
used in this study with the aid of the Dual Ladder of Ladder of Inference consisting of five
major steps (from the bottom-up) as follows:
1. Accumulating a Data Pool (wealth of knowledge from experience and
research).
2. Selection of Data from the pool of data accumulated from experience and
research, which in this study, the schemas or Mental Models created in the
process of Reflective Research. Any selected data from the Reflective
Research process is subjected to critical-reflective-refractive thinking review.
3. Interpret and analyze data involved clarifying Mental Models through research
and review of existing information, principles, models, and theories, applying
critical, reflective, and refractive thinking.
4. To validate all personal assumptions, Mental Models were presented informally
or formally (i.e., peer-reviewed paper presentations)
5. Conclusions are reached and embodied in the results of this study.
 References

Abramenka, V. (2015). Students’ motivations and barriers to online education. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1775&context=theses
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (in press). Questions raised by a reasoned action approach:Reply to Ogden (2003).
Health Psychology.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. (1st Ed.).
Pearson. Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. and Sons, Inc.
Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing
assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387-400. DOI:
10.1080/03075079.2010.510182
A theory of critical thinking. (n.d.). Cog-tech.com. Retrieved from http://www.cog-
tech.com/projects/CriticalThinking/CriticalThinkingTheory.htm
Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written
on? Teachers' reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187-198.
DOI:10.1080/13562511003620019
Baylor, Amy L. (1998). Novice instructional design (NID) of text. eric.org.
Retrieved from http://askeric.org/Eric/
Bennett, R. (2019). Discipleship archives - The adventure of discipleship. The Adventure of Discipleship.
Retrieved from http://www.rbennett.net/category/discipleship/
Berlo, David K. (1960) The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Berge, Z. (2013). Barriers to communication in distance education. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/barriers%20to%20comm.pdf.
Boger, S. (2001). Instructional Design. Retrieved from http://askeric.org/Eric/
Bopry, J. (1999). The warrant for constructivist practice within educational technology. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 47 (4), 5-26.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton University Press,
3175 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648..
Boyd, G. & Zeman V. (1995). Multiple perspective co-channel communications as a knowledge and attitude
reform tool for a sustainable civilization. In H. Burkhardt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ryerson
Conference on Knowledge Tools for a Sustainable Civilization.
Branch, R. C. et al. (1992). Instructional Design Practices and Teacher Planning Routines.
Brinthaupt, M. (2010). Development and implementation of an online careers seminar in
psychology.Teaching of Psychology 37: 58–62 (2010). doi:10.1080/00986280903425953
Bunge, M. (1979). A systems concept of society: Beyond individualism and holism. Theory and Decision,
10, 13-22.
CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Kraemer and Frey. (2019). Crafting theory. Methods of theory building in communication. DC 2019 - Pre and
Postconferences - International Communication Association. Icahdq.org. Retrieved from
https://www.icahdq.org/page/2019PrePostconf
Cjlt.ca,. (2014). Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage
et de la technologie. Retrieved 7 December 2014, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical
development. Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 13-20.
Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of
developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3), 175-190.
Conole, G. Designing for learning in an open world.
Cunningham, D. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments. Educational Technology,
31 (4), 13-17.
Dabaj, F. (2011). Analysis of Communication Barriers to Distance Education A Review Study. Retrieved
from http://www.ojcmt.net/articles/11/111.pdf.
Definition of purposive. (2019). Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/purposive
Definition of purposeful. (2019). Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/purposive
Delante, Nimrod L. (2016) Perceived impact of online written feedback on students' writing and learning: a
reflection. In: [Presented at the 30th Annual Conference Asian Association of Open Universities].
From: AAOU 2016: 30th Annual Conference Asian Association of Open Universities, 26-29 October
2016, Manila, Philippines.
Delante, N. (2017). Perceived Impact of Online Written Feedback on Students’ Writing and Learning.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Dana, A. S. (1997). Teacher’s Perceptions of Instructional Design. Retrieved from
http://askeric,org/Eric/
Davis, D. J. and Silvernail, J. M. (1998). Levels and Types of Curriculum and Instructional
Design Skills Presently Offered in Pennsylvania Teacher Education Programs. http://askeric.org/Eric
Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on first philosophy. Paris: Michel Soly.
Dudovskiy, J. (2019). Constructivism research philosophy. Research-Methodology. Retrieved from
https://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/epistomology/constructivism/#_ftnref1
Eisenhart, M. (1998). On the subject of interpretive reviews. Review of Educational Research, 68(4), pp.391-
399.
Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. (2010). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-
practices/finalreport.pdf
Frey, L., Botan, C., & Kreps, G. (1999). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods.
(2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Gerbner, G. (n.d.). A theory of communication and its implications for teaching. Web.asc.upenn.edu.
Retrieved from http://web.asc.upenn.edu/gerbner/Asset.aspx?assetID=370
Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and
Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, volume one: Reason and the rationalization of
society. Tr. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harré, R. (1983). Personal being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymel, G. M. And Foss, (1990). Instructional Design in Pharmaceutical. Retrieved from Education.
http://askeric.org/Eric/
Helms, J. (2014). Comparing student performance in online and face-to-face delivery modalities. Journal of
asynchronous learning networks, Vol 18(1), 1-14.
Hirokawa, R. (2005). Introduction to theories of human communication Lecture 5-6: Philosophical
underpinnings of communication theories. Hawaii University. Retrieved from
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~randyh/wed93.html
Instructionaldesigncentral.com,. (2012). Instructional design history and timeline Instructional design central.
Retrieved from
http://www.instructionaldesigncentral.com/htm/IDC_instructionaltechnologytimeline.htm
Isman, A., Dabaj, F., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (2003). Effects of Instructional Design on Learning. ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED496571
Johnson, G. (2006). McGraw‐Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Engineering200693 McGraw‐Hill Concise
Encyclopedia of Engineering . New York, NY and London
Kirk, J. (2001). A virtual library for instructional systems designers. Retrieved from http://askeric.org/Eric/
Kopstein, F., & Siedel, R. (1971). Psychology and/or cybernetics as basis for instructional strategy. ERIC.
http://dx.doi.org/ED058726
Krippendorff, K. (1994). A recursive theory of communications. In D. Crowley and D. Mitchell (Eds.),
Communication theory today (pp. 78-104). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kublin, K. S., Wetherby, A. M., Crais, E. R., & Prizant, B. M. (1989). Prelinguistic dynamic assessment: A
transactional perspective. In A. M. Wetherby, S. F. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in
prelinguisticcommunication (pp. 285-312). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Lane, D. (2013). What is Instructional Communication? | Instructional Communication & Research.
Ci.uky.edu. Retrieved from https://ci.uky.edu/icrold/node/575
Lentz, C. (2011). The refractive thinker®: the Future of innovative thought. ScholarWorks. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/sm_pubs/27/
Li, Z. And Merrill, M. D. (1998). Implementation of an Expert System for Instructional
Design. http://askeric.org/Eric/

Luppicini, R. (2003). Towards a Cyber-Constructivist Perspective (CCP) of Educational Design. Canadian

Journal of Learning and Technology / La Revue Canadienne De L’Apprentissage Et De La
Technologie, 29(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/33/30
Manuel-Ortinero, A. (2011). Social dimensions of education. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc.
McCroskey, L. L., Teven, J. J., Minielli, M. C., & Richmond McCroskey, V. P. (2014). James C.McCroskey’s
instructional communication legacy: Collaborations, mentorships, teachers, and students.
Communication Education, 63, 283–307. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.911929
Magabo, M. (2011). Current practices, trends and experiences in Education: Exploring the use of a
theoretical foundation for an instructional design model across curriculum. 4th International
Conference of Education, Research and Innovation. ISBN: 978-84-615-3324-4 pp. 6394-6403
Magabo, M. (2016). Exploring Ways of Reducing Noise in the Classroom. Unpublished Manuscript.
Magabo, M. (2014). Instruction = Communciation. Unpublished Manuscript.
Instruction = Communication. (2012). University of Wisconsin - Online.
Managing complexity: A systems approach – introduction. (2017). OpenLearn. Retrieved from
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/computing-and-ict/systems-
computer/managing-complexity-systems-approach-introduction/content-section-15.3
Martin, Barbara L. (1998). The Ethics of Equity in Instructional Design. Retrieved from http://askeric.org/Eric/
Mazer, J., & Graham, E. (2015). Measurement in Instructional Communication Research: A Decade in
Review. Communication Education, 64(2), 208-240.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.1002509
Mental Models (n.d.) Communication Theory. communicationtheory.org. Retrieved from
https://www.communicationtheory.org/mental-model/
Merrill, M. David. (1971). Three Levels of Instruction Design. Retrieved from
Retrieved from http://askeric.org/Eric/
Myers, C. (2017). Instructional communication. Communication Oxford Bibliographies.
Oxfordbibliographies.com. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-
0177.xml
Myers, S. (2014). 3 Great classroom strategies for the online environment Center for the advancement of
teaching. teaching.temple.edu. Retrieved from https://teaching.temple.edu/edvice-
exchange/2015/09/3-great-classroom-strategies-online-environment
Morley, C. (2008). Critical reflection as a research methodology. In Knowing differently: Arts-based and
collaborative research methods (pp. 265-280). Nova Science Editors: Liamputtong and Rumbold.
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons.
MERLOT Journal Of Online Learning And Teaching, Vol. 11(2), 309-319.
Pagano, M., & Roselle, L. (2006). Think Piece Study Abroad ISL: Connecting and Experience. Paper
Prepared for the connecting knowledge and experience conference. pp: 1-5. Elon University. [14]
Pagano, M., & Roselle, L. (2009). Beyond Reflection: Refraction and International Experiential Education.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. 18, 217-229. [15]
Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, Cognition, and Learning. New York: Elsevier
Pask, Gordon. (1996). Heinz von Foerster's self-organisation, the progenitor of conversation and interaction
theories, systems research 13, 3, pp. 349–362
Pask, G. (1968, p. 15) Conversation Model.
Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational
Researcher, 24 (7), 5-12.
Piaget, J. (1952). Essai sur les transformations des opérations logiques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Prineas, A. & Cini, M. (2011). Assessing learning in online education: The role of technology in improving
student outcomes. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/onlineed.pdf
Principles of Communication. (1992) (p. Chapter I Communication and the Diffusion of Information George
A. Barnett). Buffalo, Buffalo.
Raines, L. (2009). Looking both ways through the windows of Senge’s five disciplines. Integral-focus.com.
Retrieved from http://www.integral-focus.com/pdf/Senge.pdf

Richey, R. C. (1996). Robert M. Gagne’s Impact on Instructional Design Theory and Practice of the Future.
http://askeric.org/Eric/
Russell, D. M. And Pirolli, P. (1992). Computer Assisted Instructional Design for
Computer-Based Instruction. Retrieved from http://askeric.org/Eric/
Senge, Peter M., et al. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning
organization. New York: Doubleday
Scott, B. (2001). Conversation Theory: a Dialogic, Constructivist Approach to Educational Technology,
Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 8, 4, pp. 25–46.
Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Instructional communication theory and research: An overview.
Communication Yearbook, 1, 495–511.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W. & Smith, D.B. (1995). The ASA Framework: An Update. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 747-779.
Schönwetter, D.J., Gareau-Wilson, N., Cunha, S., & Mello, I. (2016). Assessing the impact of voice-over
screen-captured presentations delivered online on dental students' learning. - PubMed - NCBI.
Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York:
Doubleday.
Spinoza (1677). Essay on the improvement of the understanding (J. Katz, translator). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Spiro, R., Feltovitch, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1991). Knowledge representation, content
specification, and the development of skill in situation-specific knowledge assembly: Some
constructivist issues as they relate to cognitivist issues as they relate to cognitive flexibility theory
and hypertext. Educational Technology, 31, (4), 22-25.
Staton and Spicer, A., & Wulff, D. (1984). Research in communication and instruction: Categorization and
synthesis. Communication Education, 33(4), 377-391. doi:10.1080/03634528409384767

Vlăduţescu, S. (2014). Four sources of uncertainty in communication ontology. Journal of Studies in Social
Sciences ISSN 2201-4624 Volume 7, Number 1, 2014, 19-31 © Copyright 2014
Shepherd, G. J. (1993). Building a discipline of communication. Journal of communication, 43, 83-91.
Stynes, Murphy, McNamara & O’Hara (2018). Reflection-on-action in qualitative research: A critical self-
appraisal rubric for deconstructing research. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1), 2018 pp. 163
to 167. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/stynes.pdf
Tessmer, M. and Wedman, J. (1992). The Practice of Instructional Design.
Retrieved from http://askeric.org/Eric/
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social
context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Department of Education (2010). A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Evaluation of
evidence-based practices in online learning. Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development; Policy and Program Studies ServiceRetrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Utwente.nl,. (n.d.). Elaboration likelihood model. Retrieved from
http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory
Valenzuela, J. (2002). Definitions of Sociocultural Theory. Unm.edu. Retrieved 7 December 2014, from
http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/sociocult.html
Varela, F. (1981). Autonomy and autopoiesis. In G. Roth and H. Schwegler (Eds.) Self-organizing systems
(pp. 14-23). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Visible learning. (2013). Visible learning: 800+ meta studies and 138 effects visualized - Visible learning.
Retrieved from http://visible-learning.org/2013/06/visible-learning-meta-studies-effects-visualized/
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1990). Radical Constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.
Waschull, S. B. (2005). Predicting success in online psychology courses: Self-discipline and
motivation.Teaching of Psychology 32: 189–192 (2005). Retrieved from http://top.sagepub.com/
Willging, A. & Johnson, D. (2004). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of onlinecourses.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 8(4): 105–118

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wiener, N. (1954). The Human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society, New York: Da Capo Press.

Need a college degree to get a job? These companies say skills matter more. (2019). NBC News. Retrieved
6 May 2019, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/need-college-degree-get-job-these-
companies-say-skills-matter-n1001526